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



             IVITI



                                                            4%@ TW











                        Oil,




                                           1941*1








                                                           Recommendations
                                                                   of the Coastal
    GB                                                        Natural Hazards
    5010
    .C58                                           Policy Working Group
    1994     1 Cfant
             )4-002                                                                 1994









             Improving Natural Hazards Management
                             on the Oregon (oast

                                  Recommendations of the
                       Coastal Natural Hazards Policy Working Group
                                            1994







                                                    VTOV6xtY Of CSC Library












                                       Oregon Sea Grant
                                     Oregon State University
                                       (orvallis, Oregon
                                         ORESU-T-94-O& r Vol to 't of ftwner"
                                                 NoAh Coastal Services center Libravy
                                                 2234 South Hobson Avenue
                                                 Charleston, SC 29405-2413







                            Support
                            This book is funded in part by
                            the National Oceanic and Atmo-
                            spheric Administration, through
                   NT       Oregon Sea Grant (grant number
                            NA36RGO451) and through
              funds appropriated by the Oregon State Legis-
              lature. The views expressed herein are those of
              the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
              views of NOAA or any of its subagencies.

              Additional funding was provided by the
              Department of Land Conservation and Devel-
              opment through Section 309 of the Coastal
              Zone Management Act, administered by the
              National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
              tration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources
              Management.
              Ordering Information
                To order additional copies of this publica-
              tion, write, call, FAX, or e-mail:

                Sea Grant Communications
                Oregon State University
                Administrative Services A402
                Corvallis, OR 97331-2134
                Phone: (503) 737-2716
                FAX: (503) 737-2392
                [email protected]
                Single copies are available for $12.00, ship-
              ping and handling included.


              Cover photo courtesy of Paul Komar.








              Oregon Sea Grant
              Oregon State University
              Administrative Services A402
              Corvallis, OR 97331-2134
              @ 1994 by Oregon Sea Grant. All rights re-
              served.

              ISBN 1-881826-05-8



           wo2r_@?L@o





                                                                                      (ontents


                     Figures and Tables              .......................................................................................................................................... iv

                     Preface and Acknowledgements                          ....................................................................................................................V

                     Executive Summary                  ........................................................................................................................................ ix

                     Introduction           ......................................................................................................................................................3


                     Coastal Natural Hazards and Policies in Oregon                                   ............................................................................I ..........9

                     The Policy Working Group Process                             ........................................................................................................... 19

                     Issues and Recommendations

                         Hazard Assessment and Information Access                                 ......................................................................................... 27
                         Beach and Shore Protection Procedures                            .................................................................................................. 42
                         Land Use Planning, Governmental Coordination, and Fiscal Responsibility                                                    ................................... 59
                         Earthquake and Tsunami Disaster Preparedness and Response                                             ......................................................... 77

                     References          ..................................................................................................................................................... 103


                     Appendices
                         A PWG Members and Support Team                                ................................................................................................... 109
                         B Glossary of Terms and Acronyms                            ..................................................................................................... Ill
                         C PWG Process and Meeting Schedule                               ................................................................................................ 115
                         D Cascadia Earthquake-Tsunami Education Strategy                                        ....................................................................... 117



















                                                                                                             Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (oast ifi





                                                                                   Figures
                     1  Major plate tectonic features of the Pacific Northwest                          ........................................................................... 9
                     2  Features of the Oregon coast, including major headlands (in black) that divide the coast into
                        discrete beach segments or littoral cells                  .................................................................................................. 10
                     3  Process used by the Coastal Natural Hazards Policy Working Group                                       .............................................. 20
                     4  All-hazards / All-decisions matrix used in the policy working group process                                      ................................. 21
                     5  Design characteristics typical of riprap revetments (above) and seawalls (below) along the
                        Oregon coast         ................................................................................................................................................ 43
                     6  Geographic comparison of jurisdiction of state shore protection regulatory programs in
                        Oregon       ......................................................................................................................................................... 50
                     7  This parcel in Lincoln City (tax lot 1900), perched 75 feet above the beach on an eroding sea
                        cliff, is a good example of a marginally buildable lot. Assessed for $5,450 in 1991, it was put up
                        for sale at $77,000 following construction of a small seawall at the base of the cliff                                   ........................ 68
                     8  Areas that would be inundated by a tsunami generated by a large CSZ earthquake need to be
                        mapped all along the coast                ....................................................................................................................... 75
                     9  Construction techniqes that tie major structural components of buildings together are key
                        provisions of earthquake design for both new construction and retrofitting                                      ................................... 81

                                                                                    Tables

                     1  Governmental functions and agencies or authorities for coastal natural hazards management
                        in Oregon        ..................................................................................................................................................... 50
                     2  Coastal Natural Hazards Issues and Options Report Evaluation Workshop Schedule and
                        Results (1993)        .............................................................................................................................................. 68
                     3  Land use management and non-structural alternatives to hard shore protection structures                                              ......... 75
                     4  Jurisdictional comparison of shore protection regulatory programs in Oregon                                        ............................... 81


















                     iv Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast





                              Preface and Acknowledgments
              T
                   his report is the culmination of more than            Also deserving special mention are the three
                   two years of work by a dedicated group of          graduate research assistants from Oregon State
                   20 coastal residents and resource manag-           University who ably assisted with all aspects of
              ers that made up Oregon's Coastal Natural               this project: Andrea Ansevin, Paul Salop, and
              Hazards Policy Working Group (see Appendix              Cal Sawyer.
              A). To produce this report, these individuals              Finally, this project would not have been
              participated in 19 one- or two-day workshops            possible without the support and assistance of
              between March 1992 and May 1994. The group              the Oregon State University Extension Service,
              identified natural hazard problems and pos-             the Oregon Sea Grant Program, and the Or-
              sible solutions, took their ideas to the public in      egon Coastal Management Program. Several
              a series of workshops, sought and considered            Extension faculty involved in the Public Issues
              public opinion, and formulated the recommen-            Education Initiative provided project design
              dations in this report. Along the way, they             and facilitation assistance, notably Pat
              benefitted from the advice of many specialists          Corcoran, Flaxen Conway, Fred Smith, Greg
              and citizens who made presentations or offered          Tillson, Larry Lev, Ray William, and Fielding
              opinions on hazard issues and options.                  Cooley. Sea Grant provided communications
                The Policy Working Group arrived at the               support in the person of editor Sandy
              recommendations in this report through a                Ridlington, as well as financial support
              process of consensus building. Consequently,            through the National Oceanic and Atmo-
              the group's recornmendations do not necessar-           spheric Administration, Office of Sea Grant,
              ily represent what any one member might have            Department of Commerce grant no.
              recommended independently. Although some                NA36RGO451 (project no. A/ ESG-2) and from
              differences of opinion remain, the members of           appropriations made by the Oregon State
              the group agreed that they can "live with" the          Legislature. Coastal Management Program
              negotiated recommendations presented here.              staff assistance was provided by Emily Toby
                A special word of thanks is due to Ms. Ann            and John Marra, of the Department of Land
              Snyder, a professional facilitator and trainer          Conservation and Development. Funding was
              from McMinnville, Oregon. Ann helped orga-              also provided by the Department of Land
              nize and conduct more than a dozen of the               Conservation and Development through
              policy group's two-day workshops. Her out-              Section 309 of the Coastal Zone Management
              standing facilitation, conflict resolution, and         Act, administered by the National Oceanic and
              consensus-building skills and her good humor            Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean
              and chocolate contributed a great deal to the           and Coastal Resources Management.
              successful completion of the project. Much                                                -James W. Good
              learning also took place as those skills were                                         Project Coordinator
              passed on. Ann, on behalf of the entire group,
              thank you.













                                                                         Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast v
































 I



        Execut*lve S,ummary





                                               Executive Summary

                  n March 1992, Oregon's Coastal Natural                 referred to elsewhere in these policy recom-
                  Hazards Policy Working Group was formed.               mendations (Department of Geology and Mineral
                  Composedo.f 20 individuals representing a              Industries [DOGAMID,
               broad range of public and private interests on               Recommendation 1-2. Inventory and catalog
               the coast, the group began a two-year project to          coastal natural hazards studies, maps, digital
               identify coastal hazard issues, examine how               data (for example, bathymetry and topogra-
               these issues were being addressed today,                  phy), and other information available from city,
               formulate alternative solutions, and recom-               county@ state, federal, university, private, and
               mend improved policies and practices, based               other sources (DOGAMI, Oregon State Univer-
               on public input and their own analysis. The               sity [OSUI Hatfield Marine Science Center
               process the group used to accomplish this is              [HMSCA
               outlined in the full report.                                 Recommendation 1-3. Develop standard-
                  This summary outlines the issues and                   ized coastal hazard maps for priority areas
               recommendations presented in the full report.             along the Oregon coast at a scale of 1:4,800 (1"
               It is designed to give the reader an overview.            = 400') or larger. Maps should include both
               However, as with any summary, many details                chronic and catastrophic hazards information.
               are missing and, as they say, the devil is in the         Public funds should not be used for site-
               details. For specifics on issues of interest, the         specific coastal hazards investigations unless
               reader is urged to refer to the appropriate               the public benefits outweigh the costs
               section of the full report.                               (DOGAMI).
                  Twenty-three issues are outlined here along               Recommendation 1-4. Fund basic and
               with 79 recommendations. In italics, following            applied research on chronic. coastal natural
               each of the recommendations, the principal                hazards following specified priorities
               implementing agencies, organizations, or                  (DOGAMI and other institutions).
               institutions are listed. More detail on the                  Recommendation 1-5. Fund basic and
               issues, recommendations, and implementing                 applied research on earthquake and tsunami
               acti@ns, as well as on the findings of the policy         hazards and hazards mitigation following
               group can be found in the full report. The                specified priorities (DOGAMI and other institu-
               issues are organized in four categories: hazard           tions).
               identification, beach and shore protection, land
               use, and disaster preparedness and response.              Issue 2-Geotechnical site reports are inad-
               The pages on which each issue appears in the              equate for making decisions on land develop-
               full report are noted below.                              ment and shore protection projects (page 33).
                                                                            Recommendation 2-1. Establish improved
               Issues and Recommendations                                procedures for geotechnical site reports for
                                                                         coastal land development and shore protection
               Hazard Assessment and Information Access                  projects. Specific needs include content stan-
                                                                         dards for geotechnical site reports, a list of
               Issue I -Existing maps and information                    "triggering mechanisms" that will initiate the
               about coastal natural hazards are inadequate              process, public disclosure requirements, a 10-
               for planning and decision making (page 29).               year sunset clause, and local and state peer
                                                                         review processes (DOGAMA
                  Recommendation 1-1. Establish criteria and                Recommendation 2-2. Improve the licensing
               standards for collecting, reporting, and map-             process for geologists, engineering geologists,
               ping information about chronic and cata-                  and engineers who work in the coastal zone,
               strophic coastal natural hazards. Give special            requiring certification and continuing educa-
               attention to classifying hazard areas, particu-           tion on uniquely coastal topics (Oregon Board of
               larly to the definition of "high-hazard areas"


                                                                            Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast ix







              Geologists and Engineering Geologists Examiners           Beach and Shore Protection Procedures
              & Board of Engineering Examiners, DOGAMA
                                                                        Issue 5-Goals and policies for shore protec-
              Issue 3-Information about coastal natural                 tion are inconsistent and outdated, particu-
              hazards is not readily available, nor is it well          larly with regard to hard structures (page 44).
              understood by users and effectively applied                  Recommendation 5-      11. Establish clear,
              in decision making (page 37).                             consistent goals and policies for operating the
                 Recommendation 3-1. Establish a coastal                beach and shore protection program adminis-
              hazards information system and repository                 tered by the Oregon Parks and Recreation
              with an easily accessible database and a special          Department (OPRD) under the Beach Law
              collection of materials (OS U Hatfield Marine             (State Legislature, OPRD).
              Science Center).                                             Recommendation 5-2. Strongly discourage
                 Recommendation 3-2. Develop and imple-                 hard shore protection structures (SPSs) that fix
              ment educational programs about coastal                   the shoreline in place and interfere with the
              natural hazards to increase the knowledge,                physical processes of the natural beach and
              skills, and effective application of hazards              shoreland (State Legislature, OPRD).
              information to decisions (OSU Extension Sea                  Recommendation 5-3. Conduct a thorough
              Grant).                                                   review of studies of alternative shore protec-
                                                                        tion techniques throughout the U.S. and the
              Issue 4-Hazard disclosure during property                 world. Test and evaluate promising alterna-
              transactions is insufficient (page 40).                   tives to revetments, seawalls, and other hard
                 Recommendation 4-1. Revise the real estate             shore protection structures; some alternatives
              disclosure form in Oregon Revised Statutes                are dune construction, vegetative stabilization,
              (ORS) 696 to require that all known or potential          beach nourishment, and dynamic revetments
              natural hazards affecting a property be dis-              (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACOEL
              closed by all sellers (the owner or the owner's           OPRD, DOGAMA
              agent) to all potential buyers before a property
              transaction is finalized (State Legislature, Oregon       Issue 6-There are gaps and overlaps in
              Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission                 shore protection regulatory jurisdiction and
              [OSSPACD.                                                 in the interagency review and decision-
                 Recommendation 4-2. Establish and main-                making process'(page 49).
              tain a database that includes all known infor-               Recommendation 6-1. Regulate the installa-
              mation on natural hazards affecting real prop-            tion of all ocean shore protection structures,
              erty, and make this database available to the             other activities designed to stabilize or protect
              public so that it can be determined if a prop-            the beach or oceanfront property, and other
              erty is located in a hazardous area (OSU                  construction on or immediately adjacent to the
              HMSC).                                                    beach, including repairs of existing structures.
                 Recommendation 4-3. Prepare and make                   Precise jurisdiction should be determined
              available to prospective buyers of potentially            jointly, in advance, by OPRD, Department of
              hazardous coastal property a "buyer's guide"              Land Conservation and Development (DLCD),
              or hazards evaluation checklist. In the guide,            DOGAMI, and the affected local government
              include information on how to access addi-                (State Legislature, OPRD).
              tional information or contacts (OSU Extension                Recommendation 6-2. Place exclusively
              Sea Grant).                                               under OPRD's control both regulatory permits
                                                                        and the decision-making authority for ocean
                                                                        shore protection structures and activities.
                                                                        Minimize administrative costs by establishing
                                                                        an OPRD-coordinated permit review and
                                                                        evaluation process based on the legal authority
                                                                        and expertise of relevant state and local agen-
                                                                        cies (State Legislature, OPRD).


              x improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast







               Issue 7-The shore protection permit process            high-priority oceanfront area, and identify
               is poorly structured, has weak review stan-            other priority coastal areas for application of
               dards and limited enforcement authority, and           the refined SAMP process (Land Conservation
               the appeals process is antiquated (page 54).           and Development Commission [LCDC1, DLCD,
                 Recommendation 7-1. Establish a coordi-              OPRD, cities and counties).
               nated process for shore protection decision               Recommendation 9-2. Establish a local land
               making, including an evaluation of hazards             use notification process for oceanfront devel-
               and threats to property@ alternative mitigation        opment projects that could lead to future
               techniques and designs, impacts of alterna-            OPRD-regulated shore protection proposals
               tives, and compensation needs (State Legisla-          (LCDC, State Legislature).
               ture, OPRD, DOGAML DLCD, and local govern-             Issue 1 O-Development in hazardous areas is
               ments).                                                often subsidized by public funding (page 65).
                 Recommendation 7-2. Vest sufficient admin-
               istrative and civil enforcement authority in              Recommendation 10-1. Eliminate tax write-
               OPRD to ensure an effective beachfront and             offs for capital losses due to natural hazards for
               ocean shore regulatory program. Change the             new structures or major additions to existing
               appeals process so that any person aggrieved           structures in designated high-hazard areas
               by an OPRD permit decision under ORS                   (State Legislature).
               390.650 can petition the OPRD director for                Recommendation 10-2. Establish develop-
               reconsideration of the final decision (State           ment surcharges for building permits and land
               Legislature, OPRD).                                    use actions in high-hazard areas consistent
                                                                      with the actual costs of development (cities and
               Issue 8-Emergency shore protection policies            counties).
               and procedures are lacking (page 57).                     Recommendation 10-3. Establish a process
                 Recommendation 8-1. Establish clear,                 for evaluating coastal natural hazards in
               consistent definitions, policies, procedures, and      government development, grant, and loan
               conditions for allowing "emergency" shore              procedures (Economic Development Department
               protection. Specify what constitutes an "emer-         and other relevant agencies).
               gency," who makes decisions, what measures                Recommendation 10-4. Prohibit direct
               are permissible (excluding revetments and              public development, grants, loans, or loan
               seawalls), and standard requirements, includ-          guarantees for essential facilities, hazardous
               ing th e requirement for removal (State Legisla-       facilities, major structures, and special occu-
               ture, OPRD).                                           pancy structures in high-hazard areas. Excep-
                                                                      tions would be for situations where such
               Land Use Planning, Governmental                        hazards are fully mitigated by structural or
               (oordination, and Fiscal Responsibility                nonstructural means or when the facility
                                                                      cannot be feasibly located outside high-hazard
               Issue 9-Land use planning and site-specific            areas (for example, port facilities, marinas,
               land use decisions, as they relate to coastal          other water-dependent facilities, water and
               hazards, suffer from ineffective integration of        waste treatment facilities, and similar uses).
               existing and new hazards information, piece-           Public subsidies of other types of development
               meal decision making, and poor communica-              in high-hazard areas should generally be
               tion and coordination among administrators             discouraged (Economic Development Department
               of land use, shore protection, beach manage-           and other relevant agencies).
               ment, and hazards research programs (page                 Recommendation 10-5. Expand the federal
               61).                                                   flood insurance program to an all-hazards
                                                                      program, covering at least erosion, earth-
                 Recommendation 9-1. Adapt the special                quakes, and tsunamis for residences, busi-
               area management planning (SAMP) process to             nesses, and public buildings; couple all-haz-
               oceanfront beaches and shorelands along the            ards insurance with stringent mitigation
               Oregon coast. Undertake a pilot SAMP for a             requirements designed to minimize disaster


                                                                         Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast xi








               losses (U.S. Congress, Federal Emergency Man-                relocate, or otherwise restrict development to
               agement Agency [FEMAD.                                       minimize threats to life or property (LCDC,
               Issue 11 -There is no consistent way to                      DLCD, local governments).
               determine what properties along the Oregon                   Issue 13-Oceanfront construction setbacks,
               coast are "unbuildable" due to natural haz-                  as now implemented, have not proven to be
               ards (page 67).                                              an effective means for avoiding hazards (page
                  Recommendation 11-1. Establish and apply a                71).
               classification system and criteria for determin-               Recommendation 13-1. Develop, test, and
               ing development capacity of oceanfront lots                  refine a coastwide technical methodology for
               with respect to hazards (LCDC, DLCD).                        coastal construction setbacks, whereby each
                  Recommendation 11-2. Amend the Oregon                     property would be evaluated on its unique
               Tax Code to provide owners of hazard-prone                   characteristics using the most up-to-date
               property with an enhanced tax credit for                     information available (LCDC, DLCD,
               donating property to a public entity or a                    DOGAMI, OPRD, local government).
               private, nonprofit land trust for permanent,                   Recommendation 13-2. Using the coastal
               nondevelopment-related public use (State                     construction setback method in Recommenda-
               Legislature).                                                tion 13-1, require that setbacks be determined
                  Recommendation 11-3. Establish a public                   by a qualified professional for all shoreline
               fund to purchase fee simple or development                   development subject to coastal natural hazards
               rights to property that is deemed unbuildable                (LCDC, DLCD).
               based on the criteria in Recommendation 11-1                   Recommendation 13-3. Allow variances to
               (OPRD).                                                      required coastal construction setbacks only
                                                                            when (a) building design and proposed con-
               Issue 12-Past land use decisions and exist-                  struction techniques minimize exposure to
               ing uses unduly influence decisions on new                   natural hazards, (b) no concurrent or future
               development (page 69).                                       hard shore protection structures are permitted,
                                                                            or (c) maximum setback variances on other
                  Recommendation 12-1. Establish a sunset
               clause for new subdivisions that limits the time             parts of the property have been already been
               allowed for development to occur and pro-                    granted and incorporated into the design
               vides for the automatic vacation of the subdivi-             (LCDC, DLCM
               sion at the time of sunset; review previously                  Recommendation 13-4. Do not allow the use
               approved subdivisions as required by CIRS                    of lot coverage or building density allowances
               92.205-92.245 (Undeveloped Subdivisions),                    as the basis for a variance to required coastal
               modifying or vacating as appropriate; simplify               construction setbacks (LCDC, DLCD).
               plat vacation and reconfiguration procedures                 Issue 14-Development continues to be sited
               to expedite the process (local government,                   in earthquake and tsunami high-hazard areas
               DLCD, LCDC, State Legislature).                              (page 74).
                  Recommendation 12-2. When a public or
               private infrastructure extension is proposed to                Recommendation 14-1. Establish a system of
               service new development, evaluate the exten-                 special zones, procedures, restrictions, and
               sion for its potential to influence land develop-            conditions to limit development in earthquake
               ment in hazardous areas. When an evaluation                  and tsunami high-hazard areas (LCDC, DLCD,
               suggests increased hazard risks or impacts,                  DOGAMI, local governments).
               require that the infrastructure extension be                   Recommendation 14-2. Prohibit the con-
               modified to eliminate or minimize such ad-                   struction of or significant additions to essential
               verse impacts (LCDC, DLCD, local governments).               facilities, hazardous facilities, major structures,
                  Recommendation 12-3. Evaluate existing                    and special occupancy structures in earthquake
               public infrastructure in areas not yet built up              and tsunami high-hazard areas (LCDC, DLCD,
               for its influence on land development in                     DOGAMI, local governments).
               hazardous areas. Where reasonable, abandon,


               xii Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (bast








                   Recommendation 14-3. Limit other types of                  ground shaking, liquefaction, tsunami inunda-
                development in high-hazard areas to low-                      tion, and other hazards expected during a large
                intensity uses. In addition, establish specific               CSZ earthquake. Upgrade coastal Oregon
                conditions and building standards for develop-                building codes to conform to the results of this
                ment that will prevent collapse of structures                 study with special requirements as needed
                when they are subjected to expected earth-                    (BCD, DOGAMI, local building officials).
                quake or tsunami forces (LCDC, DLCD,
                DOGAMI, local governments).                                   Issue 16-There is limited public awareness
                   Recommendation 14-4. Develop long-range                    of what earthquake and tsunami hazards are,
                plans to phase out existing essential facilities,             what risks are involved, and how to plan for
                hazardous facilities, major structures, and                   or respond to such events (page 82).
                special occupancy structures located in earth-                   Recommendation 16-1. Assign state leader-
                quake or tsunami high-hazard areas. Similarly,                ship responsibility for earthquake and tsunami
                phase out or relocate utilities and other infra-              awareness, risk reduction, and preparedness
                structure in these high-hazard areas when                     and response education to DOGAMI, in part-
                normal replacement or major overhaul is due                   nership with the Oregon Emergency Manage-
                (local governments).                                          ment Division (OEM). These agencies should
                   Recommendation 14-5. Incorporate informa-                  integrate their efforts and make full use of
                tion on tsunami run-up associated with fore-                  other centers of scientific and technical exper-
                casted Cascadia subduction zone (CSZ) earth-                  tise, financial support, and educational services
                quakes into the national flood insurance                      (State Legislature, DOGAMI, OEM).
                program and rate maps as data becomes                            Recommendation 16-2. Assign local leader-
                available (FEMA, DOGAMI).                                     ship responsibility for earthquake and tsunami
                Earthquake and Tsunami Disaster                               awareness, risk reduction, and disaster re-
                Preparedness and Response                                     sponse and preparedness education to county
                                                                              emergency management authorities. Base such
                Issue I 5-Because they are vulnerable to                      education on a likely earthquake scenario for
                earthquakes or tsunamis, many structures and                  each area, recognizing the critical role of local
                facilities, including recently constructed ones,              chapters of the American Red Cross, fire and
                are potentially unsafe (page 79).                             police departments, medical providers, the
                                                                              Coast Guard, Extension, and other agencies,
                   Recommendation 15-1. Identify and inspect                  organizations, and auxiliaries (State Legislature,
                structures and facilities in coastal communities              local emergency managers).
                that are vulnerable to earthquake or tsunami                     Recommendation 16-3. Design and imple-
                hazards. At a minimum, make a visual inspec-                  ment broad-based, sustainable educational
                tion, examine the underlying soil, and estimate               programs focused on increasing awareness of
                the survivability of the structure in the event of            earthquake and tsunami hazards and improv-
                a major earthquake or tsunami. Communicate                    ing disaster preparedness and response. Target
                the inspection results to local governments and               audiences are coastal residents and visitors,
                the owners and operators of private structures                schools and youth, service providers, busi-
                and facilities (DOGAMI, Building Code Division                nesses and industry, developers and contrac-
                [BCD], local building officials, private sector).             tors, and financial and legal sectors (DOGAMI,
                   Recommendation 15-2. Establish procedures                  OEM, local emergency managers, and education
                for retrofitting, upgrading, or relocating struc-             organizations and institutions).
                tures and facilities identified as unsafe during                 Recommendation 16-4. Establish and par-
                inspections conducted in accordance with                      ticipate in an earthquake education network in
                Recommendation 15-1 (BCD, DOGAMI, local                       the Cascadia region (Oregon, Washington,
                building officials, private sector).                          northern California, and British Columbia) to
                   Recommendation 15-3. Conduct a study of                    coordinate education activities, and share
                seismic hazard zones 3 and 4 building code                    resources, materials, and know-how. Compose
                requirements with respect to the sustained                    the network of educators, public and private


                                                                               Improving Nafural Hazards Monagemenf on fhe Oregon (oasf xN








              educational institutions and organizations, and            annexes are kept up-to-date with the ever-
              other interested individuals (DOGAMI, OEM,                 expanding knowledge base on coastal earth-
              local governments, others).                                quake hazards and mitigation strategies (State
                 Recommendation 16-5. Identify, collect,                 Legislature, OEM).
              catalog, and store existing earthquake educa-
              tion materials at a statewide or regional clear-           Issue 18--Earthquake preparedness and
              inghouse. Disseminate this information to                  response planning for businesses, families,
              educators and others in the Cascadia region                schools, and individuals are inadequate (page
              (lead agencies and the Cascadia Earthquake-                88).
              Tsunami Education Network).                                   Recommendation 18-1. Evaluate existing
                 Recommendation 16-6. Identify outstanding               levels of disaster preparedness in homes,
              educational materials and approaches from                  schools, and work places. Develop a strategy
              other areas. Tailor the material to specific               for making structural and nonstructural in-
              audiences, learning styles, educational levels,            spections and improvements and for distribut-
              and geographic areas of Cascadia (lead agencies            ing FEMA and Red Cross guides and bro-
              and the Cascadia Earthquake-Tsunami Education              chures that explain how to prepare disaster
              Network).                                                  response plans and supply kits, eliminate
              Issue 17-state and local emergency manage-                 home hazards, and respond to an earthquake
              ment plans do not adequately address the                   (local emergency managers, DOGAMI, OEM,
              scope and scale of coastal earthquake and                  others),
              tsunami hazards and risks (page 86).                          Recommendation 18-2. Use grassroots
                                                                         organizations such as community volunteer
                 Recommendation 17-1. Require preparation                programs, neighborhood associations, and
              of an earthquake annex to Oregon's all-hazards             community planning organizations to contact
              Emergency Operations Plan, based in part on                and assist families and individuals (local
              what was learned in Quakex-94. At the state                emergency managers, local organizations).
              level, emphasize emergency relief hierarchy                   Recommendation 18-3. Require school
              and procedures; reestablishment of basic                   officials to develop and implement earthquake
              services and lifelines, including power, com-              preparedness plans consistent with FEMA
              munications, water and sewer services; and                 Bulletin 88 (Guidebookfor Development of a
              emergency repair of roads and bridges (State               School Earthquake Safety Program) and addi-
              Legislature, OEM, FEMA, others).                           tional guidelines for tsunami evacuation, if
                 Recommendation 17-2. Develop a model                    applicable (State Legislature, OSSPAC,
              earthquake annex for coastal county emer-                  DOGAMI, OEM, Department of Education).
              gency plans based on a detailed earthquake or                 Recommendation 18-4. Require that com-
              tsunami scenario developed by DOGAMI and                   mercial or industrial businesses or public
              provide technical assistance to counties and               agencies that use or store hazardous materials
              cities in adapting the model to their area (State          on-site develop earthquake preparedness and
              Legislature, OEM, local governments and emer-              response plans. Strongly encourage other
              gency managers).                                           businesses, particularly those with a large
                 Recommendation 17-3. Following the OEM                  number of employees or customers or those
              model earthquake annex (to be developed as                 located in hazardous locations, to prepare such
              per Recommendation 17-2), counties, cities,                plans (local governments).
              and other organizations, as determined by                     Recommendation 18-5. Develop emergency
              counties, should develop earthquake annexes                preparedness and response plans at Oregon
              for their all-hazard emergency plans (local                coastal ports and other marine and waterfront
              governments and emergency managers).                       businesses. These plans should emphasize
                 Recommendation 17-4. Require that state                 tsunami hazards and evacuation (OEM, port
              and local earthquake annexes to emergency                  officials, local emergency managers, Sea Grant
              plans be peer reviewed periodically by a team              programs).
              appointed by OEM; this is to ensure that the


              xiv Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast







               Issue 19-The organizational structure for                  be essential in the event of an earthquake or
               coastal emergency management is not fully                  similar disaster (local governments).
               implemented (page 91).                                     Issue 21 -Communication networks are
                  Recommendation 19-1. In the event of a                  insufficient to deal with a large earthquake
               regional disaster, automatically place under the           (page 94).
               command of county emergency management
               authorities all cities, special districts, and other         Recommendation 21-1. Establish commu-
               emergency service providers who do not have                nity low-power radio networks for the dissemi-
               an emergency plan or who do not specify                    nation of public emergency information during
               incident command relationships (OEM, local                 and after a large earthquake (local emergency
               emergency managers).                                       managers, local organizations).
                  Recommendation 19-2. Organize all local                   Recommendation 21-2. In cooperation with
               emergency responders using a command                       an officially designated radio or television
               system that follows one of several available               station, evaluate the emergency broadcasting
               models. In the system selected, clearly define             system in each coastal region; on the basis of
               hierarchical relationships between counties,               the outcome, make the system fully opera-
               cities, special districts, essential service provid-       tional. In addition, ensure (1) that emergency
               ers, private relief organizations, OEM, and                broadcast stations are well protected against
               FEMA (OEM, local emergency managers).                      physical damage caused by a potential cata-
                                                                          strophic event, (2) that station personnel are
               Issue 20-Local disaster response plans are                 well prepared and versed in proper emergency
               not well exercised (page 92).                              procedures, and (3) that other stations, if still
                  Recommendation 20-1. Require earthquake                 operational after a disaster, simultaneously
               and tsunami (if applicable) response and                   broadcast the same information as that sent by
               evacuation drills. Keep for state review records           the designated emergency broadcasting sta-
               that identify drills that had problems and                 tions (OEM, local emergency managers).
               describe how those problems were rectified.                  Recommendation 21-3. Establish uniform
               Require bimonthly drills for schools and                   and effective tsunami warning systems using
               annual drills for emergency response facilities,           siren and voice communication in coastal
               service providers, and other public buildings              communities and vulnerable rural centers that
               (OEM, Department of Education, local school                lack them. Ensure that citizens and visitors are
               districts, local emergency managers).                      aware of the system by publishing information
                  Recommendation 20-2. Require earthquake                 in phone directories and other local publica-
               orientation or tabletop exercises annually.                tions and by requiring postings at public
               Consistent with available funding, require                 places, restaurants, rental units, and motels
               functional or full-scale exercises that focus              (local emergency managers, OEM, DOGAMI,
               specifically on earthquakes and earthquake-                National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
               related effects every four years (OEM, local               tion -Pacific and Alaska Tsunami Warning Cen-
               emergency managers).                                       ters).
                  Recommendation 20-3. Establish an ex-                     Recommendation 21-4. Review the struc-
               change program for emergency managers from                 tural integrity (that is, ability of a system to
               Oregon to observe earthquake exercises occur-              withstand a catastrophic earthquake) of all
               ring in other regions of the country. Have other           parts of state and county emergency communi-
               states' emergency managers observe and                     cation systems and infrastructure, and retrofit
               critique exercises in Oregon coastal communi-              where needed (BCD, DOGAMI, local building
               ties (OEM, local emergency managers).                      officials, private sector).
                  Recommendation 20-4. Local emergency                      Recommendation 21-5. Establish communi-
               management organizations should use                        cation systems recovery teams to evaluate
               nonemergency events such as parades and                    systems and make them operational after an
               festivals to exercise and improve command,                 earthquake (local emergency managers).
               response, and coordination functions that will


                                                                           Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast xv








                   Recommendation 21-6. Establish contin-                       ties Commission, Oregon Water Resources Depart-
                gency plans to organize local postdisaster                      ment, public and private utilities).
                communication networks among HAM radio,                            Recommendation 22-3. Evaluate the vulner-
                marine radio, CB radio, and other informal                      ability of coastal ports to seismic hazards and
                communication systems (such as low-power                        tsunamis. Develop appropriate disaster pre-
                radio) as an adjunct to the formal communica-                   paredness and response plans for ports to
                tion system (local emergency managers).                         address the varying levels of a potentially
                   Recommendation 21-7. Establish emergency                     catastrophic event (OEM, ports, local emergency
                communication systems within schools, using,                    mangers, USACOE, FEMA, Pacific Coast Con-
                for example, walkie-talkies (see FEMA Bulletin                  gress of Port Managers and Harbor Masters, Sea
                88, Guidebookfor Development of a School Earth-                 Grant programs).
                quake Safety Program) (local school officials).                    Recommendation 22-4. Require continuing
                                                                                education on structural codes and design
                Issue 22-Physical infrastructure, lifelines,                    standards for seismic and tsunami-prone areas
                and utility systems will be severely disrupted                  for designers, engineers, architects, contractors,
                in the event of a large CSZ earthquake (page                    and building officials working in coastal areas
                96).                                                            (BCD, licensing boards).
                   Recommendation 22-1. Evaluate highways,                      Issue 23-Coastal communities do not have
                roads, bridges, airports, harbors, andTailroads                 postdisaster recovery and reconstruction
                for their vulnerability to earthquake or tsunami                plans in place (page 99).
                damage, using existing geologic information
                and a credible CSZ earthquake scenario.                            Recommendation 23-1. Develop
                Publish and distribute the results of the evalua-               postdisaster reconstruction plans based on
                tion, identifying transportation infrastructure                 damage projections from a CSZ earthquake
                likely to be damaged, the infrastructure that                   and tsunami. Establish a state postdisaster
                would be most easily restored, and the areas                    planning and recovery task force to plan for
                likely to be isolated after a large CSZ earth-                  reconstruction and serve as the lead state
                quake. Also provide an estimated timetable for                  coordinating body to oversee postdisaster
                re-establishment of transportation infrastruc-                  reconstruction. Membership of the task force
                ture and linkages in coastal communities based                  should include DLCD, CIDOT, DOGAMI,
                on likely scenarios (Oregon Department Of                       OSSPAC, OEM, the State Fire Marshall, and
                Transportation [ODOTI, U.S. Forest Service,                     other relevant agencies (OSSPAC, State Legisla-
                Bureau of Land Management, USACOE, and                          ture).
                railroads).                                                        Recommendation 23-2. Develop
                   Recommendatio       'n 22-2. Evaluate utilities,             postdisaster reconstruction plans for cities and
                including water (and all types of dams), sewer,                 counties based on damage projections from a
                electricity, and gas systems and pipelines for                  CSZ earthquake and tsunami. Establish city
                their vulnerability to earthquake damage,                       and county task forces to plan for reconstruc-
                using existing geologic information and a                       tion and oversee local postdisaster reconstruc-
                credible CSZ earthquake scenario. Publish and                   tion activities. Assign to each task force a
                distribute the evaluation results, identifying                  structural engineer, a sanitarian, a fire marshal,
                utilities and associated infrastructure likely to               a geologist, an engineering geologist, a civil
                be damaged during a large earthquake. Also                      engineer, an emergencymanager, and building
                provide an estimated timetable for re-establish-                officials (OSSPAC, State Legislature, local emer-
                ing utility services to coastal communities                     gency managers).
                based on likely scenarios (Oregon Public Utill-







                xvi Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (oast











             Introduct*ion





                                                         Introduction
               N
                      atural forces, some cataclysmic and some             Who is the Policy Working Group?
                      gradual and relentless, have shaped the                 Organized and facilitated by the Oregon
                      Oregon coast over millions of years. The             State University (OSU) Extension Sea Grant
               rocky shores and islands, rugged basalt cliffs              Program with support from Oregon's Coastal
               and headlands, intricately carved sandstone                 Management Program, the 20-member PWG
               bluffs, sand and cobble beaches,high dunes,                 (Appendix A) was drawn from attendees of the
               estuaries, river valleys, and mountains that                coastal hazards conference who expressed
               make up the coast owe much of their natural                 interest in serving. The group included indi-
               beauty and diversity to these forces. The                   viduals with a variety of coastal interests-
               dynamic processes responsible-crustal uplift                oceanfront property owners, realtors, environ-
               and subsidence, earthquakes and volcanic                    mentalists, a consulting geologist, local plan-
               eruptions, sea level change, storms and ocean               ners, a school teacher, a county commissioner,
               waves-are still at work today, constantly                   an emergency manager, a fire chief, and man-
               reshaping the coast.                                        agers from key state and federal agencies.
                  What is different about the coast today from
               the distant past is our ubiquitous human
               presence our cities and towns, ports and                    What was the mandate of the
               harbors, and network of highways and utili-
               ties. From nearly any coastal vantage point,                Policy Working Group?
               evidence of human presence is apparent and                     The PWG had no formal mandate and so
               growing. One of the consequences       Iof this             defined its own mission as follows: Represent-
               growing presence is that the same natural                   ing a broad range of public and private interests, the
               forces that have shaped the coast so attrac-                PWG is identifying important coastal natural
               tively in the past increasingly threaten human              hazard issues, evaluating existing management
               life and property. Severe winter storms, large              strategies, examining alternatives, and recommend-
               waves, rain, high winds, and strong tides and               ing and supporting needed policy improvements to
               nearshore currents cut into beaches and dunes;              decision makers at all levels.
               undermine sea cliffs, causing slumping and                     At the outset, the PWG's voluntary effort
               slides; and flood low-lying coastal lands. In               attracted support for its work. For example, the
               recent years, the vulnerability of the coast to             leaders of Oregon's Coastal Management
               large, locally generated earthquakes and                    Program, responding to 1990 amendments of
               tsunamis has become widely accepted, adding                 the federal Coastal Zone Management Act,
               this potential threat to the reality of the hazards         designated the PWG process as the centerpiece
               we already experience.                                      of its strategy to develop improved policies
                  In response to these threats and to expressed            and programs for coastal natural hazards
               concerns that existing efforts to cope with them            management. The Oregon Seismic Safety
               were inadequate, Oregon Sea Grant sponsored                 Policy Advisory Commission (OSSPAC),
               a conference in 1991 to present the results of              established by the state legislature to provide
               recent scientific research on coastal hazards               advice on how Oregon should address its
               and discuss its implications for the coast.                 vulnerability to earthquakes, invited the PWG
               Conference participants concluded that new                  to serve as an advisory group.
               information about natural hazards and devel-                   As the PWG process evolved, several under-
               opment practices warranted, a thorough evalu-               lying goals for dealing with coastal hazards
               ation of public policy dealing with coastal                 problems emerged that guided the work of the
               natural hazards. This led in 1992 to formation              group as they identified issues, formulated
               of the Coastal Natural Hazards Policy Working
               Group (PWG).



                                                                              Improving Natural Hazard5 Management on the Oregon (oa5t 3








                options, and made recommendations. These                    ample, parts of Oregon's Coastal Management
                goals were                                                  Program may be revised to incorporate certain
                1) to reduce loss of human life and property                recommendations. Individuals who served on
                   due to natural or human-caused hazards                   the PWG as private citizens may ask their
                2) to protect valuable recreational and natural             representative or senator to introduce legisla-
                   resources                                                tion dealing with recommendations they
                                                                            especially want to see implemented. State
                3) to limit regulatory approaches to hazard                 agencies or representatives of local jurisdic-
                   mitigation to that needed to protect clear,              tions may translate some of the recommenda-
                   legitimate public interests as defined above             tions into administrative rules, policies, or
                                                                            ordinances. There will certainly be other
                How did the Policy Working Group                            unanticipated routes to implementation.
                address the issues?                                         What is this report and how is it
                   The PWG used an "all-hazards / all-deci-                 organized?
                sions" approach to identify issues and options
                for dealing with them. These issues and op-                    This is the final report of the PWG. It pro-
                tions were organized for public review and                  vides background on the PWG process, identi-
                evaluation and published as the Coastal Natural             fies 23 coastal natural hazard issues, summa-
                Hazards Issues and Options Report in October                rizes the findings of the PWG for each issue,
                1993. After a series of evaluation workshops                makes 79 specific recommendations for dealing
                designed to provide the PWG with the views                  with the issues, and suggests actions needed to
                of interested citizens and groups up and down               implement each recommendation.
                the coast, the PWG reconvened to develop                       The introduction to this report gives a brief
                specific recommendations. This report is the                overview of the work of the Coastal Natural
                result of that effort.                                      Hazards Policy Working Group: how it came to
                   The PWG operated by consensus. Conse-                    be, how its members were selected, what its
                quently, the recommendations presented in this              mission was, and how it developed its recom-
                report were "negotiated" and are not necessar-              mendations. The overview is followed by a
                ily what an individual PWG member might                     description of the natural hazards that affect
                have recommended independently.                             the coast and existing policies and programs
                                                                            designed to mitigate them. The process used
                                                                            by the PWG to develop its recommendations is
                How will the recommendations                                described next. This is followed by the main
                be used?                                                    body of the report: the issues and recommen-
                   A wide array of hazard-related recommen-                 dations. The issues and recommendations are
                dations affecting numerous agencies, organiza-              divided into four subsections: hazard assess-
                tions, and individuals are outlined in this                 ment, shore protection, land use, and disaster
                report. Thus, it is likely that there will be many          preparedness and response. Finally, there are
                                                                            references and several appendices: Appendix
                routes to adoption and implementation. In                   A-PWG Members and Support Team; B-
                response to options presented in its earlier                Glossary of Terms and Acronyms; C-PWG
                report, several of the PWG recommendations                  Process and Meeting Schedule; and D-Earth-
                are already being implemented or are the basis              quake Education Strategy.
                for legislative proposals. Other recommenda-
                tions may be adopted directly or adapted by
                relevant agencies or organizations. For ex-






                4 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (oust

































                                                                                                4,


                                                                                                                         @- w"K I
                                                                                                                    115,



                                                                                                                                        or
                                                                                                                           M4

                                                                                                         4,





                                                                                                                            4.


                                                                                    t

                                                                                                                                                                         INN,



                                                                                                                                                                                                 @cc




















                          The Heads at Port Orford on the southern Oregon coast (ODOT photo).






                                                                                                                                         Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 5










     (oastal Natural Hazards
              0 0
       and Policy in Oregon





A





                           (oastal Natural Hazards and Policy
                                                          in Oregon
               Natural Hazards Along the                                mouths, narrow, unstable bay-barrier sand
                                                                        spits are common, some extending north and
               Oregon (oast                                             others south to form the ocean side of estuar-
                  The tectonic setting of the Pacific Northwest         ies. Large coastal sand dunes are another
               is very important to theevolution and present            prominent feature of the northern and central
               character of Oregon@s coastal landforms, and             coast, including Clatsop Plains north of
               the geologic, oceanic, and atmospheric pro-              Tillamook Head, Sand Lake dunes just south of
               cesses that contribute to natural hazards. From          Cape Lookout, and the nearly 50-mile long
               a tectonic perspective, the Pacific Northwest is         dune sheet extending from Cape Perpetua
               a continental collision coast characterized by a         south to Coos Bay. Most of the latter dunes are
               relatively straight shoreline, raised terraces,          part of the Oregon Dunes National Recreation
               narrow continental shelf, volcanism and                  Area. Of the 362 miles of Oregon coastline, 100
               seismicity. just offshore is the 700-mile long           miles (28 percent) are rocky shore and 262
               Cascadia subduction zone (CSZ), the boundary             miles (72 percent) are sandy beach shores,
               between the westward-moving continen-
               tal North American plate and the north-
               east-moving Juan de Fuca plate (figure 1).            132      130      128       126      124      122
                  As a consequence of its tectonic setting,
               the Oregon coast is mountainous, with
               rocky headlands segmenting the shore
               into pocket beaches of varying lengths
               (figure 2). Seventeen coastal rivers drain
                                                               48                                                    _--48
               the Coast Range and Klamath Mountains,
               discharging into the sea where they form                    Juan de
               estuaries. At a finer scale, the coast is                 Fuca Ridge
               highly irregular with a variety of land-
               forms and rock types of varying ages and
                                                               46 -                                                      46
               origins (Snavely 1987). Rocky headlands                                  -40             r
                                                                                       10               Cr
               composed of Tertiary basalts are one of                                                  CL
               the most prominent coastal features, often
               several hundred feet high and jutting
               seaward more than a mile. These, and            44                                                      -44
                                                                                                        N
               other headlands composed of erosion-
                                                                                        10              0
               resistant sedimentary rocks, divide the
               Oregon coast into a series of 22 discrete
               littoral cells and subcells (Peterson et al.
               1991). Much of the coastline between                                     Gorda
                                                               42--                                                      42
               these headlands is sea cliffs, composed of
               more erodible sedimentary sandstones,                    Major
               siltstones, and mudstones of different               Plate Tectonic
               ages. These cliffs are generally fronted by             Features
               beaches of varying width and composi-                                        MENDOCINO
                                                               40                         FRACTU01E ZONE                 40
               tion. The sea cliffs alon the central
                                        9
               Oregon coast and parts of the south coast                   130        128        126        124         122
               are mostly uplifted marine terrace sands        Figure 1. -Major plate tectonic features of the Pacific Northwest
               and silts of Pleistocene origin. At the river   (source: Atlas of the Pacific Northwest, OSU Press).


                                                                          Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (oust 9










                                                             2                       3                           4

                                               Cascade
                                                     Head
                               WASH.
                                                                 450 siuslGw R.           -440                     -430
                         co/&   647              Siletz R.
                                                                                              Cope
                                                                                              81onco


                                              Cope
                                           Foulweother


                  Neconicum R.           46* Yaquino                                         Humbug Mf
                                               Head
                   7711omook                                          Umpqua   R@
                        Head                Yaquino P.





                      Cope
                      Falcon                41sea R.                                          Rogue R.

                    Neholem P.
                                                                                              Cape
                                             Cope                   Coos 80Y                Sebastian
                    rillamook
                                          Perpetua                  Cope
                         80Y                                        Arogo

                    Cope
                     Meares
                                           Heceto                                              Cope
                    Netarts                 Head
                        80Y                                      Coquille R.                  Ferrelo
                    Cope                                                                         hetco R.
                   Lookout
                                                                                                                  -420
                    Cope                          2                                          Kilometers
                    Kiwando                           OREGON                          0   5 10     20     30
                                                 3                                                       N16w
                 /Vestucco                                                            0     5    10    15   20
                                                 4                                              Miles




              Figure 2. -Features of the Oregon coast, including major headlands (in black) that divide the coast into discrete beach
              segments or littoral cells.


              including those backed by sea cliffs, dunes,             and gradual weathering of sea cliffs; and
              and spits.                                               flooding of low-lying lands during major
                    Natural hazards that affect the coast can          storms. Within some cells, excess sand buildup
              be divided into two general classes-chronic              is periodically a problem for existing and new
                                                                           2Y






















              and catastrophic. Chronic hazards are those we           development. These hazards occur with a
              can see clear evidence of along the shore-               relative degree of predictability and affect only
              beach, dune, and bluff erosion; slides, slumps,          limited areas at any given time. The damage


              10 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast








              they cause is usually gradual and cumulative.          addressing natural hazard mitigation tend to
              Chronic hazards along the coast owe their              focus on these chronic coastal hazards (except
              severity to the regional oceanic and climatic          for sea level rise), there have been significant
              environments (Komar 1992) that result in large         problems with how they have been imple-
              winter storms with waves up to 30 feet high;           mented.
              associated storm surge and wave setup along              Catastrophic hazards are those associated
              the beach and shoreland; strong nearshore              with earthquakes, three types of which may
              currents, including rips; high winds, rain,            occur in the Pacific Northwest coastal region:
              runoff, and associated lowland flooding; and           crustal, intraplate, and subduction zone
              elevated sea levels, caused by seasonal effects        (Madin 1992). Crustal earthquakes occur on
              and periodic El Ninos. Long-term sea level rise        local faults along the coast and may be as large
              associated with global warming poses no                as magnitude 6-6.5 on the Richter scale. Recent
              immediate risk along the north and south               crustal quakes in Oregon were the March 25,
              coasts of Oregon because coastal emergence             1993 Scotts Mill quake (magnitude 5.6) and the
              rates exceed long-term sea level rise. However,        September 20,1993 Klamath Falls quakes
              sea level rise is a problem along approximately        (magnitude 5.9 and 6.0). Despite their rela-
              150 miles of the central coast, where coastal          tively small size and rural epicenters, both
              uplift is minimal. Although public policies            caused significant property damage. Intraplate


                                                      M

                                                                                          H,
                                                         'i d'@o @14
                                                    j



                                                                       77               OFF


                                                               MA,







                                                                           !'5


                                                       'i@ .2,
                                                                      'T
                                                                           4                          AW
                                       1001               UF
                                                          I Hur I





                                            ,j4p@
                                             g@
                                              'V#

                                     vm    "I'AN 4@3 W."





                                                                                         i -4 'a




                                                                                   '@4
                                                                      19                                             dj
                                                        N'19 is'
              The central Oregon coast dune sheet extends nearly 50 miles and includes dunes up to 700 feet high (ODOT photo).


                                                                      Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (oast I I







              earthquakes occur along the subducting Juan              (oastal Natural Hazards
              de Fuca plate, deep below the surface under
              the Coast Range and western Willamette                   Management
              Valley. The Puget Sound area has experienced               The existing management framework for
              intraplate quakes as large as magnitude 7.1              mitigating coastal natural hazards in Oregon
              (1949) and 6.5 (1965), but no historic events            includes local, state, and federal laws and
              have been documented in Oregon. Very large               policies implemented through a variety of
              earthquakes are believed to occur along the              programs and government agencies. Histori-
              CSZ. While there have been no major historic             cally, in Oregon at least, state and local govern-
              subduction zone earthquakes along this 700-              ments have played the most significant role in
              mile long fault (there was a magnitude 7.1               hazards management, These roles, divided into
              event in April 1992 at the extreme south end of          four categories-hazard assessment, shore
              the subduction zone), there are several con-             protection, land use planning and develop-
              verging lines of evidence for powerful earth-            ment, and disaster preparedness and re-
              quakes in the magnitude 8 to 9+ range. These             sponse-are summarized in table 1, with more
              include geodetic measurements of accumulat-              detail below.
              ing uplift strain (Weldon 1991), tide gauge data
              from a variety of coastal locations (Shih 1992),         Hazard Assessment
              sequential dating of abruptly submerged peat               Hazard mapping, research, and mitigation
              deposits in salt marshes along the coast                 assistance in Oregon are the responsibility of
              (Darienzo and Peterson 19.90), records of                the Department of Geology and Mineral
              offshore turbidity current deposits (Adams               Industries (DOGAMI). In the early 1970s,
              1990), and the archeological record (Woodward            DOGAMI published environmental geology
              et al. 1990). Estimated recurrence intervals             maps and assessments for all coastal counties
              range from 340 to 590 years; the last large              that served as basic hazard inventories for
              quake was about 300 years ago, placing the               many years. Oregon's coastal management
              probability of another event in the next 50              agency, the Department of Land Conservation
              years at 10 to 20 percent (Priest pers. comm.,           and Development (DLCD), required local
              October 20, 1992).                                       governments to develop and use these and
                The scenario for a large CSZ earthquake is             other natural hazard inventories in their local
              sobering: severe ground shaking lasting up to            comprehensive planning process. However,
              four minutes; liquefaction of saturated, uncon-          much of the information used for the invento-
              solidated soils such as sand or silt; numerous           ries was general and has proven to be of
              and possibly massive landslides; land subsid-            limited use for specific sites. DOGAMI and
              ence and flooding, particularly along the                DLCD have begun more detailed hazard
              central and north coasts; and a series of large          assessment work recently, as discussed later in
              tsunami waves beginning to arrive soon after             the recommendations section of this report.
              the event. All of these hazards occurred during
              the 1960 Chilean subduction zone earth-                  Shore Protection
              quake-probably a good comparison for a CSZ                 The typical response to shoreline erosion or
              event-with heavy loss of life and property.              slumping along developed portions of the
              Tsunamis generated by distant earthquakes                Oregon coast has been to install a seawall or
              occurring along the Pacific rim are also a               riprap revetments-referred to as "hard" shore
              hazard along the Oregon coast. The 1964                  protection structures (SPSs) throughout this
              Alaska earthquake, for example, caused signifi-          report. The installation of SPSs along the
              cant damage within many of Oregon's coastal              oceanfront is regulated by two state laws: the
              estuaries.                                               Beach Law (ORS 390.605-390-770) and the
                                                                       Removal/ Fill Law (ORS 196.800-196-990).
                                                                       These laws are administered as a joint permit
                                                                       program by the Oregon Parks and Recreation
                                                                       Department (OPRD) and the Division of State



              12 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast









                       Table 1. Governmental functions and agencies or authorities for coastal natural hazards management in Oregon.

                       Governmental Function                Federal Government                             State Government                             Local Government

                       Hazard research, assessment,         0 U.S. Geological Survey: geological           E Dept. of Geology and Mineral               E Local Comprehensive Plan (LCP):
                       and mapping                          hazards                                        Industries (DOGAMI): hazards info            hazards inventory and maps
                                                            0 Federal Emergency Management                 and mapping
                                                            Agency (FEMA): flood and erosion               N Dept. of Land Conservation and
                                                            hazards                                        Development (DLCD): inventory
                                                            0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers                 standards
                                                            (USACOE): erosion hazards                      0 Universities/ Sea Grant: research


                       Shore protection                     0 USACOE Nationwide Permit No.                 E Oregon Parks and Recreation                M LCP and development ordinances
                                                            13: bank stabilization                         Department (OPRD): Beach Law                 (shore protection provisions vary)
                                                                                                           regulates shore protection structures
                                                                                                           0 Division of State Lands QSQ:
                                                                                                           Removal/ Fill Law regulates
                                                                                                           revetments and fill


                       Land use planning and                E FEMA: National Flood Insurance               E DLCD statewide planning                    0 State-approved LCP with natural
                       development                          Program (NFIP)                                 standards:                                   hazards, shorelands, beaches, and
                                                            M FEMA coastal and flood                       Goal 7: Natural Hazards                      dunes elements; local subdivision,
                                                            construction standards                         Goal 17: Coastal Shorelands                  zoning, and flood damage prevention
                                                                                                           Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes                   ordinances
                                                                                                           M Building Code Division: building           0 Local building code administration:
                                                                                                           standards                                    city and county

                       Disaster preparedness and            0 FEMA: federal response and aid               0 Oregon Emergency Management                E Emergency management: Counties
                       response                             coordinator                                    Division (OEM): disaster response            M Law enforcement, fire, medical:
                                                            N USACOE: cleanup, construction,               and planning                                 Counties / Cities
                                                            waterway assistance                            0 Oregon Seismic Safety Policy
                                                                                                           Advisory Commission (OSSPAQ:
                                                                                                           earthquake/ tsunami policy and
                                                                                                           planning








               Lands (DSL), respectively. The emphasis in                ards management. LCDC Goal 7-Natural
               both laws is on protecting public recreation              Hazards, mandates that development subject
               values and access to and along the beach. Both            to natural hazards not be located in known
               agencies regulate the riprap revetments and               areas of natural hazards without appropriate
               seawalls installed along the shore to control             safeguards. LCDC Goal 17-Coastal
               erosion and bluff slumping, though their                  Shorelands, requires that local comprehensive
               jurisdictions differ somewhat. OPRD regulates             plans consider geologic and hydrologic haz-
               all types and sizes of structures, but their              ards along shorelines, giving preference to non-
               geographic jurisdiction is limited to structures          structural mitigation techniques to solve
               that extend west of a beach zone line (BZL)               erosion and flooding problems. LCDC Goal
               that was surveyed in 1967, just after the Beach           18-Beaches and Dunes, prohibits develop-
               Law was passed. DSL, on the other hand, only              ment on hazardous dune and inte'rdune lands,
               regulates structures involving 50 cubic yards or          prohibits breaching of foredunes, and sets
               more of material, but their geographic jurisdic-          hazard mitigation conditions on development
               tion is not fixed and extends to the upland               on more stable dunelands.
               vegetation line. Statewide planning Goal 18                 Cities and counties were required to address
               (Beaches and Dunes) also plays a role in regu-            these and other policies in their local compre-
               lating shore protection. The goal prohibits               hensive plans, which were then reviewed and
               beachfront protective structures in areas that            approved by the state. All coastal jurisdictions
               were not developed or physically improved as              completed their initial round of planning in the
               of January 1, 1977. "Development" is defined              early 1980s and have state-acknowledged plans
               as houses, commercial and industrial build-               and implementing ordinances. Specific provi-
               ings, and vacant subdivision lots that are                sions in local plans for regulating development
               physically improved through construction of               in hazardous oceanfront areas vary. All coun-
               streets and provision of utilities to the lot, or         ties have required construction setbacks, either
               areas where special exceptions have been                  fixed or variable, some require geologic hazard
               approved. For SPSs, the goal also requires that           reports from a registered geologist or engineer,
               visual impacts must be minimized and neces-               and some use overlay ordinances and other
               sary access to the beach be maintained, and               provisions. However, there are few standard-
               that negative impacts on adjacent property, and           ized hazard mitigation provisions in the plans,
               long-term or recurring costs be minimized.                and some are more effective than others.
                 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers                          The federal government gets involved in
               (USACOE) regulates installation of SPSs under             land use management indirectly through
               section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of               provisions of the National Flood Insurance
               1899 and section 404 of the Clean Water Act.              Program, administered by local governments
               The Portland District USACOE issued a nation-             through the Federal Emergency Management
               wide permit for "bank stabilization" (NWP 13),            Agency (FEMA). The Upton Jones provision of
               with regional conditions for Oregon, effective            the law, passed in 1987, authorizes advance
               February 14,1992. NWP 13 effectively removes              payment for relocation or demolition of any
               the Corps from the majority of day-to-day                 structure that is covered by a current flood
               shore protection decision making. Concerns                insurance policy and that is subject to immi-
               about present shore protection regulatory                 nent collapse because of erosion. However, this
               programs are addressed in the recommenda-                 provision has not yet been applied in Oregon
               tions section of this report.                             and it is not likely to be an important manage-
                                                                         ment tool. Most of the erosion-related property
               Land Use Planning and Development                         loss is for bluff-top areas where residents do
                 Oregon's statewide land use planning                    not have federal flood insurance.
               program, overseen by the Land Conservation
               and Development Commission (LCDC),                        Disaster Preparedness and Response
               includes hazard-related planning goals used by              Numerous agencies are involved in disaster
               local governments to develop local comprehen-             preparedness and response. At the national
               sive plans. Three goals apply directly to haz-            level, the Federal Emergency Management


               14 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast
























                                                4M    ..........
                                                                  ww     '4
                                    -S@                                                        ft
                                                                                                   Y6,7
                                 45
                      4,
                             09
                                                              q
                             A
                                       if,    1,
                                                                                                      Q@o
                                                              411

                                        N M       `WM7
                      n
                                                    W,
                                                              PAT
                                                                       t@k @@XN
                                                    Z
                                                                 -2

                                                                 ",6     0*
                                              Mb. IM U I                    0"I
                                                                  ri@    a W        Id
                                                                q@@eG,   '1#11",
                                                              4R@l     ,
                                                "Ift
                                                 W,
                                                              M
                                                                                    '777.
                          'WA,      a
                                                                                    Ei@ Z@.
                                    u-
                                  xg                          q
                                                                U
                                                                    iw
                                                    '10
                                  h@J'

                                  1A
                                   Fli
                                                                 'N
                                                              .6,11A
                                      p
                                                                                 W
                                                                                            _J
                                                                      gu@                              g,
                                                                      V
                                                                                                   F
                                                                          @M,              Jai',

                                                                      MY                           A
              Planning Goals 7, 17, and 18 provide guidancefor development in hazardous areas but have serious limitations (I. Good
              photo).


              Agency (FEMA) takes the lead, with the U.S.             because of the lack of major historic coastal
              Army Corps of Engineers and many other                  earthquakes or tsunamis, it has been difficult to
              agencies in support. FEMA!s counterpart at the          plan effectively and execute a response. Many
              state level is the Oregon Emergency Manage-             agencies are just now in the process of prepar-
              ment Division (OEM), now a unit under the               ing plans that are specific to coastal earthquake
              Oregon State Police. At the local level, counties       and tsunami hazards. Effective planning will
              are in charge of emergency management and               require the active involvement of people in
              disaster preparedness, with cities and special          local government, law enforcement, fire and
              districts usually coming under their jurisdic-          medical services, transportation, health and
              tion. The American Red Cross and other                  human resources, schools, and businesses and
              private relief agencies also play important roles       local citizens. Concerns about the present
              in disaster preparedness and response. Each             preparedness and response capacity of respon-
              agency is charged with certain responsibilities         sible agencies as it relates to a CSZ earthquake
              for disaster preparedness, mitigation, response         are addressed in the recommendations section
              and recovery planning, and plan exercises.              of this report.
                Effective disaster preparedness and response
              are vital, regardless of the hazard. However,






                                                                      Improving Natural Hazards Management on ihe Oregon (oast 15

































            0
    The Policy Work'iOng Group
              Process





                           The Policy Working Group Process

              Developing a Policy Improvement                          hazards. Probably the most significant concern
                                                                       of participants was the potential for a large
              Strategy                                                 subduction zone earthquake and our lack of
                 By 1992, several indicators suggested the             preparedness. Other concerns were rapid
              need for a comprehensive review of Oregon's              growth in coastal high-hazard areas and
              coastal natural hazards management frame-                limited hazard information and education on
              work, including new research findings on                 these issues. Papers presented at the confer-
              earthquakes and other coastal hazards (Madin             ence were published by Oregon Sea Grant-
              1992; Komar 1992), accelerating coastal growth           Coastal Natural Hazards: Science, Engineering,
              (Jones 1993), and recent evaluations of hazard-          and Public Policy (Good and Ridlington 1992).
              related policies and practices (Good 1992;               In addition, the results of "focus group" dis-
              DLCD 1992). However, given the relatively low            cussions at the conclusion of the conference
              profile this set of problems presented in com-           identified a variety of problems and concerns
              parison to state budget shortfalls, funding for          that needed to be addressed. Participants
              education, health care, and salmon recovery,             expressed great interest in delving into these
              the continuing timber crisis, and other state            issues in more detail and working to find
              and national issues, the key question for                acceptable solutions. This led to formation of
              coastal managers was how to develop work-                the Coastal Natural Hazards Policy Working
              able policy improvements and, at the same                Group.
              time, get the attention of the policyrnakers who
              would be needed to initiate legislative and
              administrative changes. The resulting strategy           Selection and Support of the Policy
              involved (1) a major conference to focus atten-          Working Group
              tion on the issues, (2) the formation of an ad              Much of the credibility of the policy process
              hoc policy working group to examine issues in            came from the PWG's diverse membership.
              more detail and make recommendations for
                                                                       The 20 members of the group were selected
              improvements, and (3) a gradual effort to build          from among those who attended the coastal
              credibility and support for needed changes,              hazards conference, with representatives from
              first at the grassroots level, and later with state      a range of "stakeholders" with different per-
              agency leaders and legislators.                          spectives and interests--bceanfront property
                                                                       owners, builders, realtors, consultants, local
              The Coastal Natural Hazards                              officials and planners, state and federal regula-
                                                                       tors'and resource managers, environmentalists,
              Conference                                               educators, and others. Representatives of the
                 In October 1991, Oregon Sea Grant and a               state and federal agencies with major responsi-
              number of state agencies and local organiza-             bilities for coastal hazards management were
              tions sponsored a coastal hazards conference in          also included in the group.
              Newport, Oregon, aimed at coastal residents,                The group was supported by a team from
              public officials and resource managers,                  the OSU Extension Sea Grant Program with
              realtors, developers, and environmentalists.             funding from the National Oceanic and Atmo-
              The purpose of the conference was to present             spheric Administration, Office of Ocean and
              what scientists and engineers have learned in            Coastal Resources Management, through
              recent years about coastal natural hazards,              Oregon's Coastal Management Program
              what their findings mean for coastal residents,          (OCMP) and DLCD. A Technical Advisory
              visitors, and officials, and what kinds of public        Committee, an Education Advisory Commit-
              policies might be needed to address these                tee, and a number of other experts on hazard-
                                                                       related topics also assisted the PWG.


                                                                         Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (bast 19






              Stages and Features of the PWG                      process are particularly noteworthy: the com-
                                                                  prehensive all-hazards / all-decisions methodol-
              Process                                             ogy and the structured, consensus-based
                The PWG process had three stages: 1-issue         workshop process.
              and option generation; 11-evaluation and
              public feedback on draft policy options; and        All-Hazards/All- Decisions Approach
              111-development of recommendations to                 There are many public and private decision-
              policyrnakers. These are illustrated in figure 3    making situations in which the effects or
              and described below. Two features of the PWG        potential effects of coastal natural hazards may


              STAGE I-IDENTIFY ISSUES & GENEIXATE ALTERNATIVE SOLAMONS



                      I-Select FIRST CAtegory
                      of Hazards/Docisions                 2--Generaw List of
                      for Analysis                         Issues (probk= &
                                                           opportunities)
                                                   /,Vr    EM
                               6-Select NEW Category
                               of Hazards/Decisions
                               for Analysis
                                                                                     3-Group IsAw
                                                           All Hazud/Docision        into Common Types
                                                           C&W90rws Cvn4)lcw         and Define Relative
                                                           (GO TO STAGE U)           Importance.


                      5-Build Sets of Alternative
                      Solutions/Actions Related
                      to Groups of Issues



                                                                   4-Brainxtorm Altern-ve
                                                                   SoluLions/Acdons for
                                                                   Esch Group of Issues


              STAGE R - EVALUATE FFASMILITY[WORKABUM OF ALTERNATIVES

              I-Re.search Details and Flesh Out Alternatives
              2-Define and Justify@ternative Evaluation Critecia

              3--Conduct Public Workshop(s) and Other Opinion-Gathering

              4-Package, Orgaaize, and Decide on Sets of Alternative Solutions and Needed Actions



              STAGE III - RECOMMEND POLICIEWNEEDED ACTIONS TO POLICY-MAKERS


             Figure 3. -Process used by the Coastal Natural Hazards Policy Working Group.


             20 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast







                         be important. To provide an entry point for the                                               hazards was developed to represent this
                         complex policy development process that was                                                   approach conceptually (figure 4).
                         undertaken by the PWG, an all-hazards, all-
                         decisions approach was developed and used to                                                  Stage 1: Issue and Option Identification
                         integrate hazard-related problems with poten-                                                     Stage I of the process involved 10 two-day
                         tial solutions. A matrix of decisions versus                                                  PWG workshops and several meetings of the



                                                                                  Chronic Hazards                                               Catastrophic Hazards
                             Private/Public Decisions                Eros      Rm-ess Slide            Flood        SLR      Gr-shak        Fault       Sub/Flo       Liq/set       Slide     Tsun/Sei

                             Locating private development in
                             undeveloped areas

                             Locating public infrastructure and
                             facilities in undeveloped areas

                             Designing private development in
                             undeveloped areas

                             Designing public infrastructure and
                             facilities in undeveloped areas                                                                     Each of the PWG workshops was
                             Protecting private development in                                                                   organized around a limited set of
                             undeveloped areas
                                                                                                                                 hazards and decisions (for example,
                             Protecting public infrastructure and                                                                the area within the shaded box served
                             facilities in undeveloped areas                                                                     as the basis for a single workshop).
                             Locating private development in
                             infill areas


                             Locating public infrastructure and
                             facilities in infill areas


                             Designing private development in
                             infill areas


                             Designing public infrastructure and
                             facilities in infill areas


                             Protecting private development in
                             infill areas


                             Protecting public infrastructure and
                             facilities in infill areas


                             Locating private development in
                             developed areas

                             Locahng public infrastructure and
                             facilities in developed areas

                             Designing private development in
                             developed areas

                             Designing public infrastructure and
                             facilities in developed areas

                             Protecting private development in
                             developed areas

                             Protecting public infrastructure and
                             facilities in developed areas

                             Emergency respon se planning

                             Post-disaster reconstruction
                             planning

                         Figure 4. -All-hazardslall-decisions matrix used in the policy working group process.


                                                                                                                         Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 21








               advisory committees and each of the PWG                     tailed evaluation form that asked reviewers to
               work teams (see Appendix C for details). The                provide feedback on the issues and options.
               matrix served as a guide to focus the initial                 There were three principal purposes for the
               PWG workshops on a limited set or block of                  Issues and Options Report, the evaluation
               issues at any one time; for example, one work-              process, and the public workshops:
               shop focused on the group of cells that repre-              1) to share important hazard-related issues that
               sented "chronic hazards as they affect the                    coastal residents, visitors and managers face
               location of development in undeveloped                        today and in the future
               areas." This and other blocks of cells were                 2) to suggest that there are a variety of solu-
               used to identify issues and generate potential                tions or "options" for dealing with these
               solutions in a series of structured, brainstorm-              issues
               ing workshops. Though the brainstorming
               process was structured, all issues (an issue is             3) to ask reviewers to evaluate each of the
               defined as a problem, concern, or     ' opportunity)          options, to state their preferences, and give
               and solutions were accepted in a                              the PWG other ideas for solving identified
               nonjudgmental manner. These data were                         problems
               recorded and posted, serving as a kind of                     More than 700 copies of the issues and
               ,/group memory" After each workshop, these                  options report were distributed at workshops
               raw data were reviewed and folded into an                   and by direct mail to coastal residents, local
               ongoing "working list," using natural group-                officials, state agencies, planners, and others
               ings such as hazard assessment, shore protec-               interested in or affected by these issues, along
               tion, land use, disaster preparedness and                   with the evaluation forms. Eleven workshops
               response, education, and so on. As the working              were held with interested groups along the
               list was gradually built through the 10 Stage I             coast and more than 500 people participated
               workshops, many overlapping issues and                      (table 2). Some 65 individuals completed the
               options became apparent and were combined.                  full evaluation form, a process that required
               This working list was the raw material for                  reviewers to read the full report and then
               developing the "issues and options report" that             evaluate each of the options-about a three- to
               was published in Stage 11. By waiting until all             five-hour task. Although the data gathering
               hazards and decisions had been examined                     effort was not "scientific" in a statistical sense,
               before developing the final issues and options              it did provide the PWG with some very useful
               list, the PWG was able to formulate a more                  written comments and a general sense of what
               comprehensive set of policy options and to                  interested reviewers thought about each of the
               integrate chronic and catastrophic hazards                  options.
               with related public and private decision mak-                 The evaluation process had three parts. First,
               ing.                                                        for each of the options associated with an issue,
               Stage II: Evaluation of Issues and Options                  reviewers were asked to evaluate how well the
                                                                           option answered the following question and
                  In Stage 11 of the process, three additional             rate the option accordingly:
               two-day PWG workshops and many more                           On the whole, how would you judge this option,
               small work group meetings were held to                      considering its potential effectiveness, public cost,
               transform the working list into the Coastal                 private cost, and political feasibility?
               Natural Hazards Issues and Options Report,
               published in October 1993. In the report, the                                     Rating
               PWG identified 27 significant coastal hazard                      Poor           Neutral         Excellent
               policy issues and categorized them into four                        1       2        3       4       5
               groups: Hazard Assessment, Disaster Pre-                      Next, after evaluating each of the options,
               paredness and Response, Land Use, and Shore                 evaluators checked the box for the option(s)
               Protection. For each issue, there were a range              that they wanted to see included in the PWG's
               of options or potential solutions for dealing               final recommendations. Finally, reviewers were
               with the problem or concern each issue repre-               asked to make comments on each issue and to
               sented. Accompanying the report was a de-                   suggest new option ideas.

               22 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast








                   Table 2. Coastal Natural Hazards Issues and Options Report Evaluatio    n Workshop Schedule and. Results (1993).

                   Group                             Date-Time-Location              Notes (PWG involvement, attendance)

                   OCZMA, Inc.                       Sep 16, 1100, Florence          Peg Reagan, Jeri Allemand (50 participants, preliminary results)

                   Curry County Earthquake           Oct 16, 1100, Gold Beach        Jeri Allemand, Peg Reagan, Phyllis Cottingham, Jim Good (150
                   Workshop                                                          participants)

                   ONCR Coast/ Ocean Conf.           Oct 17,0830, Newport            Ellen Warring, Emily Toby, Jim Good (about 40 participants)

                   Oregon Seismic Safety             Nov 5,1130, Salem               Peg Reagan, Emily Toby, Jim Good (20 participants)
                   Policy Advisory Comm.

                   League of Oregon Cities           Nov 8,1345, Eugene              Jeri Allemand, Jim Good (Marilyn Schafer, Gold Beach Mayor
                                                                                     presided) (35 participants)

                   Tillamook Board of                Nov 9,0800, Tillamook           Patricia Williams/ Vic Affolter, Jim Good (about 45 participated)
                   Realtors


                   Coastal Planners,                 Nov 12,1300, Newport            Mike Shoberg, Vic Affolter, Emily Toby, Jim Good (22 participants)
                   Building Officials,
                   State Managers

                   Oregon Shores Conserva-           Nov 13,1130, Newport            Ellen Warring, David Minter, Paul Salop (45 participants)
                   tion Coalition


                   Coast Emergency                   Nov 16, Salem                   Jeri Allemand (informal meeting with 7 coastal county
                   Managers                                                          emergency managers)

                   South Lincoln Board of            Nov 16,1130, Newport            Teresa Atwill, Sheridan Jones, Paul Salop (60 participants)
                   Realtors


                   Ocean Policy Advisory             Dec 10, 1500, Newport           Dennis Olmstead, Pete Bond, Ellen Warring, Jim Good (25
                   Council                                                           participants)







                Stage III: Developing and Presenting                         309 coastal grants. OSU, through its Exten-
                RecommenclatioWs                                             sion Sea Grant Program, provided coordina-
                   Following the evaluation process, the PWG                 tion, support, and management assistance.
                reconvened for Stage III of the process. They             4) The assistance of experts, educators, and
                examined the results of the evaluation process               researchers. Many of the subjects addressed
                and deliberated on a package of final recom-                 by the PWG were highly technical and cut
                mendations during six additional two-day                     across many disciplines. For each topic area
                workshops, completing their work in May                      addressed by the PWG, expert panels were
                1994. Again, the policies were developed                     convened and resource material was pro-
                through a consensus-building process and do                  vided by the support team. A research
                not represent the views of any individual                    assistant researched issues in more depth
                member, but the group as a whole.                            when needed, a technical advisory commit-
                                                                             tee developed and presented the latest
                Other Features of the PWG Process                            scientific consensus on issues (for example, a
                   Several features of the PWG process that                  planning scenario for a large CSZ earth-
                were critical to the succ 'ess of the group were             quake), an education advisory committee
                derived or modified from several decades of                  developed a comprehensive strategy for
                experience in dispute resolution. They were as               earthquake and tsunami education, and a
                follows:                                                     variety of special research projects were
                1) An open process based on the interests of                 funded and conducted by DLCD and other
                   "stakeholders." The diversity of stakehold-               agencies under the auspices of the Section
                   ers on the PWG was noted above. The PWG                   309 CZM program (for example, an all-
                   agreed to recognize, respect, and value the               hazards mapping pilot project).
                   diversity of ideas and opinions held by its            5) Support building. Because the PWG effort
                   members. All meetings were open to observ-                was an ad hoc, bottom-up process with no
                   ers, who were regularly consulted, and                    formal legislative or other mandate, efforts
                   broad-based public involvement in evalua-                 were made throughout the process to build
                   tion of PWG proposals was considered                      recognition and credibility. The evaluation
                   essential.                                                process in Stage 11 was by far the most
                2) Consensus decision making. The PWG                        significant of these efforts, but other presen-
                   agreed to work by consensus. Consensus                    tations to local and state officials, legislators,
                   meant that members had an opportunity to                  and others were also important.
                   state their views, that they believed they
                   were listened to, and that they could "live
                   with" the decision, whether or not it was the
                   same decision they would have come to
                   independently. Because of this and the
                   commitment to public input, the PWG
                   strove for solutions that were effective and
                   equitable as well as acceptable to all stake-
                                                                                     "014
                   holders.
                3) Neutral facilitation and support. A neutral,
                   third-party facilitator was engaged to assist                      Z7,
                                                                                            10"_ 4.
                   the PWG with group processes and decision
                   making. Creativity and new thinking in
                   defining problems was encouraged. In part,                                      IV
                   this was stimulated by the diversity of
                   interests represented within the PWG, and in
                   part by the process itself. Funding for logis-         The Policy Working Group facilitator leading
                   tic and technical support for the group was            the group in a consensus-building session (J.
                   provided by DLCD through federal Section               Good photo).


                24 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (oust









            Issues and
        Recommendat'i9ons





                 Hazard Assessmenf and Informaflon Access
              A
                    ccurate, up-to-date maps and information         especially to large earthquakes, suggests a
                    on coastal hazards at scales useful for          need for more and better information. Some of
                    decision making are prerequisites for the        this new information can be generated at
              effective mitigation of natural hazards. Unfor-        relatively low cost, but much of it will require
              tunately, much of the available information is         that we collect new field data, acquire and
              outdated or too generalized to be useful to            interpret remotely sensed data, and present the
              decision makers.                                       information in formats that are useful to
                 Decision makers need answers to a variety           decision makers. Some hazards information
              of hazard-related questions. For example, what         will be needed for long-range planning,
              is the erosion and landslide history of this           whereas some is more appropriate to site-
              piece of property? How vulnerable is it to             specific decisions. Whatever the case, natural
              erosion? What is needed to mitigate the haz-           hazards maps and reports need to be more
              ard?                                                   consistent in content and of higher quality than
                 More recently, questions focus on hazards           they now are. Information also needs to be
              associated with large earthquakes. Decision            more accessible to decision makers. Although
              makers want to know what parts of the com-             improvements in natural hazards information
              munity are most vulnerable to tsunami inunda-          will require significant public investment, the
              tion or what areas will experience amplified           cost of inaction could be much greater.
              ground shaking, soil liquefaction, or subsid-             Four issues are addressed in this section,
              ence. Answers to these and similar questions           with specific recommendations for each:
              are urgently needed to factor the risks of             *  information and mapping needs, and stan-
              coastal hazards into daily decisions. These               dards for data collection
              decisions concern, for example, siting critical        0  content standards and quality control of site-
              facilities, preparing response plans for disas-           specific geotechnical reports
              ters, approving new homes along the ocean-
              front, planning park improvements, updating            *  information storage and improved access for
              comprehensive plans, and protecting beaches               users, including formal and informal haz-
              or upland buildings from erosion. For each                ards education for professional and general
              purpose, the information needs, such as the               audiences
              required map scale or the level of technical           * disclosure of hazards information during
              detail or emphasis, differ somewhat.                      property transactions
                 Although some of this information is avail-
              able, our increasing vulnerability to hazards,
















                                                                       Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 27





                                  Issue I                                 resulting hazard mitigation solutions may be
               Existing maps and information                              either inadequate or excessive for dealing with
                                                                          actual risks. The consequence will be either
               about coastal natural hazards are                          increased long-term cost to the public, higher
               inadequate for planning and deci-                          short-term cost to private property owners, or
               sion making.                                               both.
                                                                             Research on past occurrences of catastrophic
               Maps, supporting data, and descriptive                     earthquakes along the CSZ and the modelling
               information on coastal erosion and accre-                  of future ones are progressing rapidly. How-
               tion, landslides, and other chronic natural                ever, few maps and little supporting informa-
               hazards are outdated, inconsistent, too                    tion are available that detail specific areas that
               general, or not easily accessible to many                  would be vulnerable to amplified ground
               potential users. Similar information for                   shaking, soil liquefaction, landslides, subsid-
               earthquake and tsunami hazards is even                     ence-induced flooding, and tsunami inunda-
               more limited or simply not available. As a                 tion during the next large earthquake. Such
               result, decisions that should consider these               information is critical for developing reliable
               hazards are made without accurate infor-                   disaster preparedness and response plans, for
               mation, placing life and property at undue                 making informed decisions on land use and
               risk and limiting our capacity to respond to               the siting of critical facilities, and for revising
               disaster.                                                  structural codes and retrofitting existing
                                                                          structures. For low-lying coastal areas, the
                                                                          potential for large, locally generated tsunamis
                                                                          is the most serious threat because of the lack of
                                                                          warning time for evacuation and the resulting
               Findings                                                   potential for loss of life. Cannon Beach and
                 The most recent standardized coastwide                   Seaside are two communities where prelimi-
               mapping (1"= 1 mile) and assessment of coastal             nary tsunami run-up studies have been com-
               natural hazards was conducted in 1973 by the               pleted (based on paleotsunami data) and
               state's principal hazard research agency,                  evacuation plans developed. Rockaway Beach
               DOGAMI. Since then, other more detailed                    and Manzanita. have also established tsunami
               hazard assessments have been conducted by                  evacuation plans, but most other communities
               most counties and cites for comprehensive                  are poorly prepared.
               land use planning. There have also been other                 DOGAMI, DLCD, OSU, Portland State
               hazard studies for dune management and                     University, and the Oregon Graduate Institute,
               development site planning or shore protection,             have undertaken an "all-hazards" pilot pro-
               and FEMA has mapped flood hazards, includ-                 gram to map and describe shoreline hazards
               ing oceanfront "velocity" zones. In the last               using up-to-date methods and data. The first
               decade, however, there have been significant               part of the study, focusing on erosion, land-
               advances in understanding coastal hazards and              slides, and other chronic hazards in a 50-
               processes through research on beach erosion,               kilometer stretch of the central coast, is com-
               sea cliff recession, and the impacts of shore              pleted. The second part, dealing with seismic
               protection structures. Incorporation of these              hazards in the south Lincoln City-Siletz; Bay
               new research results into inventories and                  area, is slated for completion in late 1994.
               decision making processes has been sporadic at             Researchers in the project are emphasizing the
               best. Further, the state lags in the use of up-to-         potential for coseismic landslides, ground
               date hazard assessment and engineering                     acceleration, liquefaction, subsidence-induced
               techniques, for example, methods for assessing             flooding, and tsunami inundation. Both parts
               historic erosion rates and estimating future               of the study are funded under Section 309 of
               erosion.                                                   the federal Coastal Zone Management Act
                 Lacking accurate, up-to-date hazards infor-              (DLCD 1992). The catastrophic hazards map-
               mation, coastal residents will make decisions              ping is also supported by FEMA and Oregon
               with relatively unreliable information. The                Sea Grant. This all-hazards mapping project


                                                                            Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (oust 29













                                                                              f @K I:-


                                                                                @A
                                                                                                           C__
                                                                           4
                                                                                                                     44


                                                                                           h


                                                                                                           All
                                                                           '14
                                                                                       too
                                                                          g],
                                                                            Ot






                                                         'g
                                                                          @1,`, 5
                          "P!,
                                                      B,


                                                                                          A
                         N&

                      ew
                fll

               @,R







                          &
              Natural hazard inventories and maps of coastal areas were completed in the early 1970s by DOGAML They are too
              general and small in scale to be usefulfor site-specific work (J. Good photo).

              serves as a model for what is needed all along          Recommendations
              the coast. Development of these maps requires
              collecting all relevant information and estab-          Recommendation I -I
              lishing mapping criteria and standards. The               Establish criteria and standards for collect-
              resulting maps and data should be useful for            ing, reporting, and mapping information about
              long-range planning as well as site-specific            chronic and catastrophic coastal natural haz-
              development and shore protection decisions.             ards. Give special attention to classifying
                A number of other efforts are underway to             hazard areas, particularly to the definition of
              research and map earthquakes and tsunamis.              "high-hazard areas" referred to elsewhere in
              DOGAMI scientists are mapping and interpret-            these policy recommendations.
              ing catastrophic hazards and risks for the              a. For chronic hazards, base criteria and stan-
              Portland area, using a red-yellow-green "stop-            dards on two CZM Section 309 projects
              light" map to illustrate the combined hazards             being conducted by DOGAMI and DLCD:
              of slope, rock type amplification, and liquefac-          (1) all-hazards mapping pilot project and (2)
              tion potential (Mabey et al. 1993). Portland              standards for the content of geotechnical
              State University researchers are seeking fund-            reports.
              ing to develop tsunami inundation maps based
              on paleotsunami data (marsh sedimentary                 b. For catastrophic hazards, base criteria and
              records), and NOANs Pacific Marine Environ-               standards on the CZM Section 309 cata-
              mental Lab has an active tsunami research                 strophic hazards pilot mapping project and
              program (NOAA 1993). DOGAMI's goal is to                  on the tsunami hazard mapping projects
              complete coastal mapping by 1996, contingent              referred to above.
              on funding availability.

              30 Improving htural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast







               C. Require that these criteria and standards be              Implementing Actions for Recommendation 1-2
                  used by consultants, local governments,                   1-2 A. DOGAMI should inventory hazards infor-
                  state and federal agencies, and others con-                  mation and maps, establishing priorities in
                  ducting hazard assessments (see also Issue 3                 consultation with DLCD, OPRD, DSL, OEM,
                  concerning geotechnical reports).                            OSSPAC, and other relevant state agencies;
               Implementing Actions for Recommendation I -I                    coastal cities, counties, emergency management
               1-1 A. DOGAMI should establish criteria and                     offices, ports and other special districts; FEMA,
                  standards using a workshop process involving                 the Corps of Engineers, and other relevantfederal
                  scientists and resource managers from private                agencies, and academia.
                  consultingfirms, academia, DOGAMI, DLCD,                  1-2 B. The OSU Hatfield Marine Science Center
                  OPRD, OSSPAC, and local governments.                         (HMSC) Library, in cooperation with
               1-1 B. DOGAMI, the Board of Geologists and                      DOGAMI, should develop a special collection on
                                                                               coastal natural hazards, including an easily
                  Engineering Geologists Examiners, and the                    accessible database of available information.
                  Board of Engineering Examiners should jointly
                  adopt criteria and standards by administrative            1-2 C. DOGAMI and HMSC should seekfunding
                  rule, if such rule-making authority does not                 for the collection, inventory, and cataloging of
                  exist, it should be soughtfrom the Oregon State              natural hazard information, andfor creating a
                  Legislature.                                                 wayfor users to access that information. Possible
                                                                               funding sources are DLCD, through the Oregon
               Recommendation 1-2                                              Coastal Management Program, FEMA, and
                  Inventory and catalog coastal natural haz-                   other state orfederal agency sources.
               ards studies, maps, digital data (for example,               Recommendation 1-3
               bathymetry and topography), and other infor-
               mation available from city, county, state,                      Develop standardized coastal hazard maps
               federal, university, private, and other sources.             for priority areas along the Oregon coast at a
               a. Before investing new financial resources in               scale of 1:4,800 (1" = 400') or larger.
                  collecting and mapping chronic hazard data,               a. Chronic hazards maps should contain
                  evaluate the utility of existing information                 information on the historic and potential
                  and mapping, based on the criteria and                       wave attack, erosion, flooding, or accretion
                  standards developed in accordance with                       (potential should be based on wave run-up
                  Recommendation 1-1. Generally, the kind of                   calculations and assessment of rip current
                  detailed information required to design and                  vulnerability); mass wasting (landslides,
                  mitigate hazards or specific private projects                slumping, weathering) and slope stability
                  should not be done at public expense.                        (lithologic units frock and surface deposit
                  Publicly funded mapping should focus on                      types and composition], unit structure
                  improving long-range planning, identifying                   [jointing, bedding planes, etc.], and interrela-
                  areas at risk generally, and helping decide                  tionships [stratigraphy, nature of contacts]);
                  when more detailed reports might be needed                   and human activities (foot and vehicular
                  for specific development projects.                           traffic, cliff carving and graffiti, adjacent
               b. For catastrophic hazards information, evalu-                 development or other human alteration).
                  ate the adequacy of the existing information                 These maps should be used principally to
                  and the need to collect and map new data.                    improve planning, to identify general areas
                  Base this evaluation on the criteria and                     at risk, and to decide when to require more
                  standards being developed as part of the                     detailed reports, but not for site-specific
                  pilot mapping project.                                       decision making. They should be produced
                                                                               with available information to the extent
               c. Make the catalog of natural hazard informa-                  possible and supplemented by additional
                  tion available through the information                       field work as needed. With no regard to
                  system proposed in Recommendation 1-3.                       order listed, priority chronic hazard map-
                                                                               ping areas are



                                                                             Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (oast 31








                   1) relatively undeveloped areas under                          developed according to Recommendation 1-1
                   development pressure                                           above, DOGAMI should collect data and prepare
                   2) developed areas with a history of chronic                   improved, standards-based chronic and cata-
                   hazards and property loss                                      strophic hazards maps for priority coastal areas
                                                                                  and publish and distribute such in rmation.
                   3) developed areas where improved map-
                   ping and data would alleviate persistent                    Recommendation 1-4
                   conflicts between development and shore                        Fund basic and applied research on chronic
                   protection                                                  coastal natural hazards following these general
                b. Catastrophic hazards maps should include                    priorities:
                   the potential for amplified ground shaking,                 a. alternative shore protection methods and
                   fault rupture, landslides, or other ground                     their effectiveness
                   failure; soil liquefaction; land subsidence;                b. design, engineering, and individual and
                   and tsunami inundation and run-up. Use the                     cumulative effects of hard shore protection
                   maps for disaster response and evacuation                      structures
                   planning and for help in determining when
                   site-specific reports on vulnerability to                   c. nearshore circulation processes and sedi-
                   seismic hazards are required by Oregon                         ment budgets
                   Revised Statutes (ORS) 455. Produce cata-                   d. sea cliff erosion processes
                   strophic hazard maps with available infor-                  e. other chronic coastal hazards and processes
                   mation and, to the extent possible, supple-
                   ment them with additional field work as                     Implementing Action for Recommendation 1-4
                   needed. Priority areas for catastrophic                     1-4. With DOGAMI coordinating, state, federal,
                   hazard mapping include at least the follow-                    and local agencies, academia, and private organi-
                   ing:                                                           zations should pursue funding for and conduct
                   1) low-lying areas with significant popula-                    basic and applied research. Support should be
                   tion that may be affected by locally gener-                    provided based on the above priorities.
                   ated tsunamis, including coastal ports and
                   harbors, other river mouths, diked lands                    Recommendation 1-5
                   bordering bays and estuaries, and low dune                     Continue to fund both basic and applied
                   lands                                                       research on earthquake and tsunami hazards
                   2) other areas that are particularly vulner-                and hazards mitigation, including the follow-
                   able to the full range of earthquake hazards                ing:
                   and where large numbers of people congre-                   a. description and mapping of past earthquake
                   gate (cities, towns, resorts, schools, shopping                and tsunami events and modelling of future
                   and tourist centers, parks, etc.)                              events in priority areas (see Recommenda-
                c. Do not use public funds for site-specific                      tion 1-3b)
                   coastal hazards investigations that are highly              b. other coastal research needs as outlined in
                   sophisticated or field work intensive unless                   OSSPAC's report to the 1993 Oregon State
                   the public benefits of such investigations                     Legislature (OSSPAC 1992), including
                   clearly outweigh the costs.                                    geodetic studies, active fault mapping,
                d. Project applicants should fund site-specific                   establishing a strategic seismic network,
                   geotechnical investigations prepared in                        earthquake-induced landslide studies, and
                   support of development or shore protection                     tsunami run-up studies
                   proposals (see Issue 3 concerning                           Implementing Action for Recommendation 1-5
                   geotechnical reports).                                      1-5. With DOGAMI coordinating, state, federal,
                Implementing Action for Recommendation 1-3                        and local agencies, academia, and private organi-
                1-3. Usingfunds appropriated by the Oregon state                  zations should pursue funding for and conduct
                   legislature, andfirom federal, local, other state,             basic and applied earthquake and tsunami
                   and private sources, andfollowing criteria                     research.

                32 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast





                               Issue 2                             such re ports. These problems are equally true
                                                                   for shore protection projects handled at the
             Geotechnical site reports are inad-                   state level, although such reports are not
             equate for making decisions on                        generally required of applicants. Both geologi-
             land development and shore protec-                    cal consultants working in coastal areas and
             tion projects.                                        the coastal planners who use such reports also
                                                                   cited these problems.
             Site-specific geotechnical reports, prepared            Nevertheless, these often-deficient site
             in support of land development projects or            reports are used to make decisions about what
             shore protection proposals, are especially            is needed to mitigate hazards and protect
             weak in two areas: assessment of shoreline            resources. Consequently,, decisions often do not
             erosion hazards and evaluation of earth-              adequately address hazard avoidance (for
             quake and tsunami hazards. Because there              example, through adequate setbacks and
             are no content standards and review crite-            building design), shore protection alternatives
             ria, reports are also inconsistent in content         and structure design, protection of adjacent
             and quality and are sometimes difficult to            property, beach sand supply, public access
             interpret. These problems with                        (particularly along the beach), and long-term
             geotechnical site reports may result in               issues, such as long-term sea level rise.
             inappropriate siting decisions, overreliance            Requirements for more detailed site-specific
             on structural shore protection for erosion            geotechnical reports for construction vulner-
             mitigation, ill-conceived capital expendi-            able to seismic hazards were established in
             tures for infrastructure, indirect public             1991 and are codified in ORS Chapter 455. The
             subsidies of private development, and                 design of essential facilities, hazardous facili-
             potentially, the loss of life and property.           ties, major structures, or special occupancy
                                                                   structures must be preceded by an evaluation
                                                                   of the soil engineering properties at the build-
                                                                   ing site. Such evaluation must be conducted by
                                                                   an "especially qualified engineer or engineer-
             Findings                                              ing geologist and may require the services of
               There are no standardized requirements for          persons especially qualified in engineering
             site-specific geotechnical evaluation of struc-       seismology, earthquake geology or
             tures or facilities as they relate to chronic         geotechnical earthquake engineering." Build-
             hazards. Local governments generally require          ing code officials can apply these same require-
             site-specific geotechnical reports to support         ments and standards to other construction as
             development proposals in hazardous areas.             needed. Administrative rules for these reports
             There are a variety of problems with current          were issued by the Building Code Division
             reports and the process for using them in             (BCD), effective April 1, 1994.
             decision making. Among them are the lack of
             standardized triggering mechanisms for                Recommendations
             requiring reports; developers' "shopping
             around" for favorable reports; inconsistent
             quality of reports; use of outdated methods for       Recommendation 2-1
             determining historic erosion and for projecting         Establish improved procedures for
             erosion vulnerability; the lack of criteria and       geotechnical site reports for coastal land
             standards for what must be included in a              development and shore protection projects:
             report for different types of projects; the need      a. Develop and require the use of content
             for a more thorough review process for some             standards for geotechnical site reports that
             reports; the lack of clear interpretations of data      are designed to improve report consistency,
             and technical jargon for nongeologist decision          readability, and justification for recommen-
             makers; and inadequate qualification or profi-          dations. Such standards should also serve as
             ciency standards for the geologists, engineer-          a comprehensive guide from which appro-
             ing geologists, and engineers who prepare               priate subjects might be investigated at


                                                                    Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (oast 33








                                                                                              particular levels of detail, depending on the
                       Some Important Statue-based Definitions                                nature and location of the site and the type
                       Oregon Senate Bill 96 (1901) Section 12 amended                        and intensity of the proposed project.
                       ORS 455 to require site specific evaluation of                      b. Establish a list of "triggering mechanisms'
                       essential facilities, hazardous facilities, maj'or                     that will initiate the geotechnical site report
                       structures, and special occupancy structures for                       process, and determine the appropriate
                       vulnerability to seismic hazards. Definitions of these                 topics to be covered and level of detail for
                       terms, used throughout this report, are quoted from                    each. Possible triggering mechanisms are a
                       ORS 455.447:                                                           particular project type or land use, the dollar
                       (a) Essential facility means: (A)Hospitals and other                   value of investment required for a particular
                       medical facilities having surgery and emergency                        project, the location with respect to natural
                       treatment areas; (B) Fire and police stations; (C)                     hazard zones, or the discretion of the local
                       Tanks or other structures containing, housing or                       government.
                       supporting water or fire-suppression materials or                   c. Require that all geotechnical reports,
                       equipment required for the protection of essential or                  whether supporting or opposing a particular
                       hazardous facilities or special occupancy structures;                  project, be disclosed and made part of the
                       (D) Emergency vehicle shelters and garages; (E)                        public record at the local level, Also require
                       Structures and equipment in emergency-prepared-                        that their location and availability be made
                       ness centers; (F) Standby power generating equip-                      known to potential users.
                       ment for essential facilities and; (G) Structures and
                       equipment in government communication centers                       d. Require that geotechnical site reports, devel-
                       and other facilities required for emergency response.                  oped under approved content standard
                       (b) Hazardous facility means structures housing,                       guidelines, be valid for a maximum of 10
                       supporting, or containing sufficient quantities of                     years, after which an updated or new report
                       toxic or explosive substances to be of danger to the                   would be required.
                       safety of the public if released.                                   e. For geotechnical site reports prepared to
                       (c) Major structure means a building over six stories                  support applications for shore protection
                       with an aggregate floor area of 60,000 square feet or                  permits, require peer review by qualified
                       more, every building over 10 stories in height, and                    professionals at DOGAMI (see Recommen-
                       parking structures as determined by agency [Build-                     dation 6-2b). If a local development permit is
                       ing Code Agency] rule.                                                 required, require that the local and state peer
                                                                                              reviews be concurrent.
                       (d) Seismic hazard means a -geologic condition that                 f. For geotechnical site reports prepared to
                       is a potential danger to life and property which                       support development regulated by local
                       includes but is not limited to earthquake, landslide,                  government, require peer review by a
                       liquefaction, tsunami flooding, fault displacement,                    qualified professional, with the project
                       and subsidence.                                                        applicant bearing the cost of review. The
                       (e) Special occupancy structure means: (A) Covered                     triggering mechanism for peer review might
                       structures whose primary occupancy is public                           be a particular project type or land use, the
                       assembly with a capacity greater than 300 persons;                     dollar value of investment required for a
                       (B) Buildings for every public, private, or parochial                  particular project, the location with respect
                       school through the secondary level or day care                         to natural hazard zones, or the judgement of
                       centers with a capacity greater than 250 individuals;                  the local government. The local process for
                       (C) Buildings for colleges or adult education schools                  preparing a geotechnical report and initiat-
                       with a capacity of greater than 500 persons; (D)                       ing the peer review might be as follows:
                       Medical facilities with 50 or more resident, incapaci-                 1) Local government determines if a
                       tated patients not included in subparagraphs (A) or                    geotechnical site report is required.
                       (C) of this paragraph; (E) jails and detention facili-
                       ties; and (F) All structures and occupancies with a                    2) If a report is not required, the applicant
                       capacity greater than 5000 persons.                                    proceeds with the regular project application
                                                                                              process. If a report is required, the applicant


                   34 Improving btural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast
































                                                                   "N


















                                                                                                             7,
                   r

                                                   @oO






























                                                                         N
                                                                                      it



                This subdivision along the oceanfront at Newport received a favorable geotechnical report and was approved by the city.
                Roads and utilities were installed, but the property began sliding seaward before any houses could be constructed. The
                @k:


















































                engineering geologist involved lost his license (P. Komar photo).


                                                                                Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 35








                   hires a qualified geologist, engineer, or                      geotechnical reports prepared to support develop-
                   engineering geologist to prepare the report                    ment proposals.
                   and submits it to the local government .                    2-1 C. Adminis tra tive fees for state shore protec-
                   3) Qualified professionals at DOGAMI or the                    tion or local development permits requiring
                   Board of Examiners, or a qualified contract                    geotechnical site reports should include the cost
                   person, conducts a peer review of the                          of peer review.
                   geotechnical report.
                   4) If the report is found to be satisfactory by             Recommendation 2-2
                   the peer reviewer, the applicant continues                     Improve the licensing process for geologists,
                   with the regular project application process.               engineering geologists, and engineers who
                   If it is not satisfactory, the applicant returns            work in the coastal zone.
                   the report to the consultant for additional                 a. Require certification of geologists, engineer-
                   geotechnical evaluation or analysis, such                      ing geologists, and engineers who prepare
                   evaluation is conducted, and the report is                     geotechnical site reports and recommenda-
                   submitted once again to the local govern-                      tions for coastal areas, documenting their
                   ment.                                                          qualifications to evaluate coastal processes
                   5) Additional evaluation and analysis con-                     related to beach, dune, and sea cliff erosion,
                   tinues until a satisfactory geotechnical report                and to evaluate earthquakes, tsunamis, and
                   is completed and approved or the project is                    related hazards.
                   withdrawn.                                                  b. To maintain coastal certification, require
                                                                                  effective continued education or updates
                Implementing Actions for Recommendation 2-1                       specific to the knowledge and skills required
                2-1 A. DOGAMI, in coordination with DLCD,                         for Recommendation 2-1a.
                   BCD, OSSPAC, OPRD, appropriate professional
                   examining boards, and local governments, should             Implementing Actions for Recommendation 2-2
                   develop and implement administrative rulesfor               2-2 A. The Oregon State Board of Geology and
                   thefollowing: (1) standardsfor the contents of                 Engineering Geology Examiners and the Board
                   geotechnical site reports, (2) site report trigger-            of Engineering Examiners should develop
                   ing mechanisms, (3) public disclosure andfiling                administrative rules to improve the licensing
                   of site reports, and "sunset" periods, (4) and peer            processfor geologists, engineering geologists,
                   review processesfor site reports preparedfor state             and engineers who work in the coastal zone. If
                   shore protection permit applications. In develop-              necessary, authority should be soughtfrom the
                   ing and implementing these rules, DOGAMI                       legislature.
                   should seek authorityfrom the Oregon State                  2-2 B. DOGAMI, in collaboration with appropriate
                   Legislature if needed.                                         licensing boards and academic continuing
                2-1 B. Local governments, following state rules and               education programs, should develop and deliver
                   in collaboration with DLCD and DOGAMI,                         annual basic coastal certification and update
                   should establish local procedures for geotechnical             programs for professionals working in coastal
                   site reports, including a peer review process for              areas.













                36 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast





                                Issue 3                              individuals, or simply not available. No single
                                                                     agency is responsible for collecting and making
              Information about coastal natural                      information available or for educating poten-
              hazards is not readily available, nor                  tial users about its existence and potential
              is it well understood by users and                     utility. As a consequence, the same information
              effectively applied in decision mak-                   must be regenerated and decision-making
              ing.                                                   periods lengthened, increasing both the public
                                                                     and private cost of development and shore
              Existing information on coastal natural                protection.
              hazards, including academic research,                     Even when information on natural hazards
              government studies, reports and maps                   is available, individuals who need to apply it
              produced for local planning or site devel-             to decision making often do not have the
              opment, hazard assessments in permit                   knowledge or skill to do so. For example,
              records, aerial photographs, and other                 public and private professionals working in
              -information, is widely dispersed and                  natural hazards management often do not have
              difficult for most users to access. Further,           appropriate training and are not required to
              no means exist to catalog and store new                enroll in continuing education. As a result, they
              information. As a result, collections of               sometimes make uninformed decisions. Infor-
              natural hazards data are incomplete, much              mal education programs, such as those offered
              of the information goes unused after initial           by DOGAMI or OSU's Extension Sea Grant
              application, data collection and mapping               Program, are sporadic and reach only a fraction
              efforts are sometimes duplicated, and                  of those who need them. Information in print
              individuals who could benefit from coastal             and other media is sparse and outdated.
              hazards information do without. Further-               Individuals, companies, and organizations
                                                                     involved in land development and property
              more, many who could benefit from this                 transfer, including the buying public, are a
              information do not have the knowledge or               largely overlooked audience for hazards
              skill to apply it.                                     education. Education initiatives aimed at these
                                                                     audiences, combined with regulatory and
                                                                     nonregulatory incentives, could be particularly
                                                                     effective strategies for hazard avoidance and
              Findings                                               mitigation.
                Information on coastal hazards that is useful
              for decision making is widely dispersed and            Recommendations
              not easily accessible. Special collections that do
              exist, such as the DOGAMI library, the Univer-         Recommendation 3-1
              sity of Oregon's Ocean and Coastal Law                    Establish a coastal hazards information
              Library; and other departmental collections at         system and repository with several staged
              academic institutions, are not physically or           components:
              electronically accessible to most users. Infor-
              mation available at the local government level         a. Establish an ocean shore database in an
              or at management agencies is often outdated.              easily accessible, geographically referenced
              Geotechnical site reports prepared for projects           format, with information organized by land
              are often buried in permit files or remain in the         parcel. Applications of this database could
              possession of private landowners or consult-              include keeping records and reporting
              ants. No record is kept of their existence or             permit activity, assessing the initial impact of
              location. Other potentially useful hazards                shore protection proposals, and coordinating
              information developed by government agen-                 agency decision making. The database
              cies or academia is not widely disseminated,              should contain locational data, environmen-
              not easily accessible, not in a format or lan-            tal and hazard conditions, land use and
              guage that is understandable to nontechnical              cultural data, shore protection activity, and
                                                                        permit information. As soon as possible, this


                                                                       Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (oust 37








                   database should be made accessible to the                  techniques and media include brochures,
                   public through the Internet.                               displays, videos, workshops, field trips, short
                b. D evelop a special collection of coastal                   courses, technical guides and procedures, and
                   hazards publications, reports, maps, digital               access to electronic databases. Some desired
                   data, and other information useful for                     outcomes are better preparation and interpreta-
                   coastal hazards research, evaluation, and                  tion of geotechnical site reports; improved
                   decision making. Catalog this special collec-              personal, business, and public agency deci-
                   tion and make it available to the public                   sions related to hazards; and effective prepara-
                   through the Internet using Mosaic or a                     tion for and response to earthquakes and
                   similar easy-access interface. Geotechnical                tsunamis (see Issue 16 and Appendix D for
                   reports prepared to support coastal develop-               details on earthquake- and tsunami-related
                   ment or other projects might also be filed                 education needs). Following are the audiences
                   and cataloged as part of this collection (see              for education about chronic hazards and the
                   Recommendation 2-1c).                                      specific needs of each audience.
                                                                              a. The general public: natural hazards and
                Implementing Actions for Recommendation 3-1                      their -effects on beaches, dunes, and other
                3-1 A. OPRD, in consultation with DLCD,                          shorelands; natural hazard planning and
                   DOGAMI, and local governments, should                         mitigation strategies and programs
                   establish and maintain the ocean. shore database,          b. Oceanfront property owners and prospec-
                   making it available to all users through the                  tive owners and their agents (real estate
                   Internet.                                                     personnel, consultants, architects, contrac-
                3-1 B. DOGAMI should inventory and collect                       tors, lenders, insurers, etc.): natural hazards
                   hazards information and maps it does not already              affecting beaches and oceanfront properties;
                   have. Before doing so, it should establish priori-            land use and shore protection program goals
                   ties in consultation with DLCD, OPRD, DSL,                    and general and site-specific requirements;
                   OEM, OSSPAC, and other relevant state agen-                   appropriate hazard mitigation techniques
                   cies; coastal cities, counties, emergency manage-             for different situations; decision-making
                   ment offices, ports and other special districts;              considerations and standards; available
                   FEMA, the Corps of Engineers, and other                       technical assistance
                   relevantfederal agencies; and academia.                    c. Hazard mitigation consultants: land use and
                3 -1 C. The library a t the OS U HMS C shou ld                   shore protection program goals and general
                   develop a special collection on coastal natural               and site-specific requirements; content
                   hazards, make it physically available to coastal              standards for geotechnical reports and
                   users, and make it and other information (for                 appropriate methods for assessing oceano-
                   example, thatfrom DOGAMI and the Ocean and                    graphic and geologic hazards for oceanfront
                   Coastal Law Center) available throu h an easily               properties, and appropriate hazard mitiga-
                                                         9
                   accessible electronic database, including the                 tion techniques, consistent with require-
                   information developed in the DOGAMI inven-                    ments of the Statewide Planning Goals and
                   tory above.                                                   the OPRD regulatory program
                3-1 D. Possiblefunding mechanismsfor collection,              d. Local planners and state agency permit
                   inventory, cataloging, and creating user access of            administrators, reviewers, and evaluators:
                   natural hazards information are DLCD, through                 natural hazards affecting beaches and
                   the Oregon Coastal Management Program, and                    oceanfront properties; land use and shore
                   other state agency sources.                                   protection program goals and general and
                                                                                 site-specific requirements; ways to review
                Recommendation 3-2                                               and evaluate geotechnical reports that assess
                   Develop and implement educational pro-                        oceanographic and geologic hazards for
                grams about coastal natural hazards to increase                  oceanfront properties, and ways to deter-
                the knowledge, skills, and effective application                 mine appropriate hazard mitigation tech-
                of hazards information to decisions. Applicable                  niques, consistent with requirements of the


                38 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast








              Statewide Planning Goals and the OPRD              community colleges, and outreach programs,
              regulatory program                                 such as OSU Extension Sea Grant) should
            Implementing Action for Recommendation 3-2           collaborate in the development and delivery of
                                                                 education programs about chronic natural
            3-2. Agencies involved in hazard management          hazards. They should use existing public and
              (FEMA, the U.S. Geological Survey, NOAA,           privatefundsfor such programs, supplemented
              DOGAMI, DLCD, OPRD, local governments,             by additional initiatives as necessary.
              etc.) and state and local educators (universities,















































                                                                Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 39






                                    Issue 4                                 option to disclaim all knowledge of hazards or
                Hazard disclosure during property                           other potential defects.
                transactions is insufficient.                               Recommendations
                Oregon has only minimal requirements for
                disclosing information on natural hazards                   Recommendation 4-1
                that affect a property at the time of sale or                  Revise the real estate disclosure form in ORS
                transfer. Consequently, individuals in-                     696 to require that all known or potential
                volved in or affected by property transac-                  natural hazards affecting a property be dis-
                tions are not well informed about the                       closed by all sellers (the owner or the owner's
                nature and extent of these natural hazards                  agent) to all potential buyers before a property
                or about the resulting constraints on devel-                transaction is finalized. This proposal would
                opment.                                                     remove exemptions from the disclosure re-
                                                                            quirement but would not eliminate the option
                                                                            for sellers to file a disclaimer in lieu of filling
                                                                            out the disclosure form. Specifically, natural
                Findings                                                    hazards issues now covered in disclosure form
                   Over the years most of the easily developed              section 8 (General) should be deleted and a
                lots on the Oregon coast have been developed.               new category called "Geotechnical" estab-
                As a consequence, sites that were once passed               lished. Questions under this new category
                over because of their susceptibility to natural             should include the following:
                hazards are now being
                developed. Unfortunately,
                people who want to own
                and develop coastal prop-
                erty are often unaware of
                possible coastal natural
                hazards affecting some
                coastal sites. Similarly,
                individuals selling or
                brokering coastal property
                are unaware of natural
                hazards that might de-
                crease the value of their
                property.
                   The recent passage of
                Oregon Senate Bill 1095
                (1993) was a first step in
                requiring some form of
                disclosure in real estate          t
                transactions. However, this
                law has so many excep-
                tions that it will likely
                                                                           @-V
                                                                      z@
                apply only to a small
                                            ns-             fly "I
                fraction of property tra
                                                                            -44 P,
                actions. Furthermore,                                 V            t,
                                                        Wl,
                natural hazards disclosure
                requirements in the new
                                                       Al,
                law are incomplete because          - I- I
                property owners have the         Information on natural hazards affecting a property is not readily available to
                                                 prospective buyers (J. Good photo).


                40 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast







               a. is the property or any portion of it within a         Implementing Action for Recommendation 4-1
                  designated hazard area or zone, including             4-1. OSSPAC should propose state legislation that
                  floodway, floodplain, land slide or slump                amends ORS 696 to require complete hazard
                  area, groundwater or drainage hazard area,               disclosure according to Recommendation 4-1.
                  erosion or accretion hazard area, dune
                  hazard area, or earthquake-related hazard             Recommendation 4-2
                  area (amplified ground shaking, soil lique-              Establish and maintain a database that
                  faction, fault zone, landslide potential,             includes all known information on natural
                  tsunami inundation)?                                  hazards affecting real property, and make this
               b. Is the property or a portion of it subject to         database available to the public so that it can
                  special zoning or other land use require-             be determined if a property is located in a
                  ments for development that are related to             hazardous area (see Recommendation 3-1 for
                  the above hazards (for example, hazard                implementation).
                  overlay ordinance or geotechnical report
                  requirements prior to site development)?              Recommendation 4-3
               c. Are all structures on the property built to              Prepare and make available to prospective
                  current earthquake building code standards            buyers of potentially hazardous coastal prop-
                  (zone 3)? If not, to what seismic zone stan-          erty a "buyer's guide" or hazards evaluation
                  dard are they constructed and in what year            checklist. In the guide, include information on
                  did the construction occur?                           how to access additional information or con-
                                                                        tacts (for example, through the database in
               d. To your knowledge, has there ever been a              Recommendation 4-2).
                  geotechnical report prepared for this prop-           Implementing Action for Recommendation 4-3
                  erty to address the hazards listed in 4-1a            4-3. The OSU Extension Sea Grant Program, in
                  above?                                                   collaboration with the Oregon Board of Realtors,
               e. To your knowledge, is there a record of any              lenders and insurers, DLCD, DOGAML local
                  past hazard-related damage to the land or                governments, and other relevant agencies, should
                  improvements caused by the hazards in 4-1a               prepare such a publication as part of its natural
                  above or by wind or rain?                                hazards education program.




















                                                                         Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (oast 41





                     Beach and Shore Protection Procedures
              0
                    ver the last few decades, population               Continued development pressure along the
                    growth and accompanying development              coast and the proliferation of SPSs have raised
                    have increased dramatically along the            questions about the effectiveness of OregoWs
              Oregon coast. Much of this growth has oc-              shoreline development and shore protection
              curred in hazardous, low-lying beachfront              policies and decision-making procedures. Four
              areas and along erodible sea cliffs. New               such issues are addressed in this section, with
              houses, motels, and condominiums and earlier           recommendations for each:
              development are increasingly threatened by             0 lack of clear, consistent state policies for
              gradual erosion, bluff slumping, and other               shore protection generally, and hard SPSs in
              hazards. The response to these hazards has               particular
              generally been to construct SPSs-riprap                - gaps and overlaps in regulatory jurisdiction
              revetments, seawalls, bulkheads-that are                 and interagency review and coordination
              designed to fend off waves, stabilize cliffs, and
              retain the shoreland (figure 5). Permits for           * inadequate procedures and standards for
              these structures, required by several agencies,          permit application review and decision
              are generally approved because of pressure               making
              from concerned property owners and because             * the ad hoc, inconsistent process for emer-
              few alternatives seem to be available. As more           gency shore protection.
              development occurs adjacent to the beach,
              normal episodes of erosion create a demand for
              more and more SPSs.


                           77
                          7,

                      V,
                                   A.























                                                                                       77






              A new timber-pile retaining wall (left) and old concrete-reinforced seawall (right) at Arch Cape
              on the northern Oregon coast (J. Good photo).





              42 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast
















                              SAND COVER PLANTED            CLIFF BANK
                               WITH BEACH GRASS

                                                      0,

                         ARMOR STONE

                                                        FABRIC OR GRADED
                  SUMMER          I                     ROCK FILTER LAYER
                  BEACH LEVEL


                                      0   0

                                  000 6,
                  WINTER           '-TOE TRENCH
                  BEACH LEVEL






                                     FILL
                                                                FILL



                                                                       BANK
                    STEEL-             BANK
                    REINFORCED                    WOOD
                    CONCRETE                      PILING

                                    WEEP HOLES                     TIE BACK

                                                            _'*"'@WOOD
                                                                TIMBERS

                                              SCOUR
                                              PROTECTION






                 Figure 5. -Design characteristics typical of riprap revetments (above) and seawalls (below)
                 along the Oregon coast.
                                       BANK
                    E @E
                        L_
                      INFORC D
                      NCRETE@








                                                 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 43





                                  Issue 5                               However, there may be other impacts as well,
                                                                        including blockage of public access to the
               Goals and policies for shore protec-                     beach or of escape access from the beach
               tion are inconsistent and outdated,                      during high tides or waves and loss of biologi-
               particularly with regard to hard                         cal habitat or resources, including threatened
               structures.                                              or endangered species (for example, snowy
                                                                        plover). Hard structures also detract from the
               State goals and policies for shore protec-               natural beauty of the shoreline and the beach
               tion, spread among a variety of statutes                 recreational experience.
               and administrative rules, are inconsistent,                Kraus (1988) reviewed about 100 technical
               incomplete, and sometimes outdated. One                  papers on the effects of seawalls on beaches,
               result is an overdependence on hard SPSs                 concluding that beach change near seawalls,
               to solve problems of erosion and mass                    both in magnitude and variation, is similar to
               wasting to the exclusion of less-damaging                that on beaches without seawalls, if a sediment
               methods. These hard structures may have                  supply exists. However, on beaches with
               significant, adverse, short-term impacts                 seawalls, the form of erosional response is
               and long-term cumulative effects on                      different, with toe scour and flanking effects
               beaches and adjacent shorelands.                         common. Laboratory studies conducted by
                                                                        Komar and McDougal (1988) quantified this
                                                                        effect, but their field studies along the Oregon
                                                                        coast have been inconclusive because few
               Findings                                                 storms have affected monitored structures
                                                                        during the study period.
                  Oregon's shore protection program consists              Other field studies by Griggs and Tait (1988)
               of a variety of state and local policies and             along the central California coast found that
               regulatory programs designed principally to              seawalls and revetments cause excess winter
               protect the recreational values and uses of the          scour in front of and at the ends of the struc-
               beach and the integrity of adjacent shoreland            tures. The researchers believed this resulted
               property. These programs, described earlier in           from a combination of wave reflection and
               this report (table 1), were created at different         sand impoundment upcoast. Pilkey and Wright
               times and for somewhat different, but interre-           (1988) compared the dry beach width of a
               lated purposes. Consequently, many of the                number of protected and unprotected beaches
               policies are outdated or incomplete with                 on the east coast. They found that dry sand
               respect to beach processes, coastal hazards, and         widths in front of seawalls is consistently and
               hazard mitigation strategies. They are also              significantly narrower than beach width along
               inconsistent, often suggesting opposite courses          unprotected shores. They point out that beach
               of action for the same project. Overarching              destruction may take place over several de-
               goals and policies guiding shore protection are          cades and that the study of single events or
               needed, particularly with respect to hard shore          short-term changes may be of limited value in
               protection structures that fix the shoreline in          understanding the effects of seawalls. Another
               place. The proliferation of these hard shore             aspect of the debate over the effects of hard
               protection structures along some parts of the            SPSs has to do with cause and effect relation-
               coast has raised concerns about their adverse            ships (Weggel 1988; Kraus 1988). Do SPSs
               short-term and cumulative effects on beaches             exacerbate erosion, or is it simply that beaches
               and adjacent shorelands.                                 with chronic erosion problems attract 5PSs?
                  Much of the scientific and engineering                Terich and Schwartz (1990), in their literature
               research on the effects of hard structures,              review of the subject, conclude that while more
               including seawalls, revetments, groins, and              SPSs may be installed on chronically eroding
               jetties, has focused on physical impacts, such           beaches, the preponderance of evidence sug-
               as acceleration of erosion in front of and adja-         gests that seawalls do accelerate erosion of
               cent to the structure, loss of sand supply, and          nearby beaches and adjacent properties.
               gradual loss of beach sand volume and width.


               44 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast
































                                                                                                    'J,
                                                                                                        "j, I'J,


                                                                                                                ?g,









                                                                A





                                                            :7'e




             Riprap revetments often extend out onto the public beach, as illustrated here at Gleneden Beach (J. Good photo).


                There has been no systematic examination of            alternatives that avoid hazards or use
             the effectiVen6ss of hard structures along the            nonstructural techniques (see table 3 fur
             Oregon coast. At the same time, nonstructural             examples)
             shore protection options often seem limited             c. conserve, protect, and where appropriate,
             because there is little information available             develop or restore oceanfront shorelands
             about alternative protection methods and their            consistent with 5-1a and 5-1b above.
             feasibility along the Oregon coast.
                                                                     Implementing Action for Recomendation 5-1
             Recommendations                                         5-1. The Oregon State Legislature should amend the
                                                                       Beach Law (ORS 390.605-390.770, Ocean
             Recommendation 5-1                                        Shores; State Recreation Areas) to establish
                Establish clear, consistent goals and policies         specific goals and policies for regulating
             for operating the beach and shore protection              beachfront and ocean shore alterations, consistent
                                                                       with Recommendation 5-1.
             program administered by OPRD under the
             Beach Law (ORS 390.605-390.770, Ocean                   Recommendation 5-2
             Shores; State Recreation Areas). Recommended              Strongly discourage hard SPSs that fix the
             goals for the program are to                            shoreline in place and interfere with the physi-
             a. protect, and where appropriate, restore the          cal processes of the natural beach and
                beach and its natural resources for public           shoreland. As a first-level guide, classify
                use and enjoyment in perpetuity                      oceanfront shorelands as follows for making
             b. protect human life and property from natu-           decisions about shore protection:
                ral hazards, giving priority to mitigation


                                                                      Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 45








                a. For "undeveloped" oceanfront property, do                  hard shore protection structures consistent with
                   not allow hard SPSs in any case. Undevel-                  Recommendation 5-2. OPRD should develop
                   oped shorelines are defined in Statewide                   appropriate administrative rules to implement
                   Planning Goal 18, Beaches and Dunes                        these provisions.
                   (LCDC 1990), as vacant parcels of oceanfront
                   shorelands that lacked physical improve-                Recommendation 5-3
                   ments, such as streets and utilities, as of                Conduct a thorough review of studies of
                   January 1, 1977.                                        alternative shore protection techniques
                b. For "infill" oceanfront property@ do not allow          throughout the U.S. and the world. Test and
                   hard SPSs unless applicants can provide                 evaluate promising alternatives to revetments,
                   clear and compelling evidence that hazard               seawalls, and other hard shore protection
                   avoidance and other less damaging                       structures; some alternatives are dune con-
                   nonstructural shore protection methods are              struction, vegetative stabilization, and beach
                   not feasible. Infill properties are vacant              nourishment (table 3). The feasibility of dy-
                   parcels-usually small to moderate sized-that            namic revetments, which are composed of
                   are committed to development because of                 movable gravel- and cobble-sized materials
                   existing roads, utilities, and other improve-           placed on the backshore, should also be inves-
                   ments.                                                  tigated (Ahrens and Heimbaugh 1989; Lorang
                c. For "developed" oceanfront property, allow              1991).
                   hard SPSs, but only if applicants can demon-            Implementing Action for Recommendation 5-3
                   strate that hazard avoidance and other less             5-3. OPRD, DOGAMI, and DLCD, in cooperation
                   damaging nonstructural shore protection                    with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                   methods are not feasible. Developed parcels                (USACOE) and coastal local governments,
                   are those that contain a permanent structure               should establish a program to systematically
                   or building and are serviced by streets,                   evaluate alternatives to hard shore protection
                   utilities, and other improvements.                         structures, using state orfederal property or
                Implementing Action for Recommendation 5-2                    voluntary, privately owned property as test sites.
                                                                              Test results should be incorporated into the
                5-2. The Oregon State Legislature should amend the            evaluation of shore protection permit applica-
                   Beach Law (ORS 390.605-390.770, Ocean                      tions.
                   Shores; State Recreation Areas) to limit use of





















                46 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast









                        Table 3. Land use management and non-structural alternatives to hard shore protection structures.

                        Alternative or Method                   Description                                        Applicability                                     Information Sources

                        Construction setback                    Horizontal setback from shoreline                  Feasible for new or relocated                     Godschalk et al. 191989
                                                                based on beach type, upland landform               construction where lot is sufficiently            Houlahan 1989
                                                                and erosion resistance, elevation. long-           deep and topography relatively flat               Keillor and Miller 1987
                                                                term erosion or recession rate,                                                                      National Research Council 1990
                                                                susceptibility to episodic erosion,
                                                                relative sea level rise, relocation factor,
                                                                etc.


                        Building design                         Proper foundation, infiltration &                  Feasible for all new and remodelled               Collier Undated
                                                                drainage controls, roof design, building           construction; varies based on hazards             Godschalk et al. 1989
                                                                materials, utility location, etc. with             and landform                                      Pilkey et al. 1983
                                                                respect to wind force, maximum storm
                                                                surge and wave setup & run-up,
                                                                flooding, landslide potential,
                                                                earthquake shaking, liquefaction, and
                                                                subsidence

                        Relocation                              Moving existing upland buildings                   Feasible on level, deep Jots or where             National Research Council 1990
                                                                landward, on-site or off-site                      another site available; applicable to             USACOE 1981
                                                                                                                   existing development or remodels                  Griggs 1986

                        Infiltration/ drainage controls         Prevention of water from entering                  Feasible for new and existing sites a    *nd      Herdendorf 1984
                                                                ground or removal of existing water                buildings; applicable principally on              Keillor 1986
                                                                from ground to improve slope stability;            high and/or stratified bluffs                     Tainter 1982
                                                                uses collectors, drains, wells,                                                                      USACOE 1981
                                                                dewatering pumps, outlets.

                        Dune creation & restoration             Placement of mound or sand seaward                 Useful as buffer against upland                   Broome et al. 1982
                                                                of existing shorelands fronted by                  erosion; most effective in episodic (not          Jacobsen 1988
                                                                beaches; stabilized by sand fences and             chronic) erosion situation; not very              Mauriello 1989
                                                                vegetation                                         resistant to direct wave attack; more             McLaughlin and Brown 1942
                                                                                                                   effective in combination with "soft"              Ternyik 1979
                                                                                                                   structure core and vegetative                     USACOE 1984
                                                                                                                   stabilization                                     Carlson et al. 1991



                                                                                                                                                                     Continued on next page











                      Table 3-Continued


                      Alternative or Method                 Description                                     Applicability                                  Information Sources

                      Vegetative stabilization              Use of native and exotic vegetation to          Feasible on bluff slopes >1:1.25 where         Herdendorf 1984
                                                            stabilize soil or sand along the                there is some soil development and             Jacobsen 1988
                                                            shorefront or on dunes                          where roots can penetrate; and on              McLaughlin and Brown 1942
                                                                                                            dunes or bare sand; not effective in           Tainter 1982
                                                                                                            stabilizing toe of bluff or dune               Ternyik 1979
                                                                                                            susceptible to direct wave or wave             USACOE 1981
                                                                                                            swash attack                                   USACOE 1984
                                                                                                                                                           Carlson et al. 1991

                      Bank/bluff sloping                    Creation of a stable slope angle by             Feasible for some over-steepened bluff         Herdendorf 1984
                                                            placement of material at the toe (e.g.,         slopes, especially in combination with         Keillor 1986
                                                            dune creation), and/or regrading the            infiltration and drainage control,             Tainter 1982
                                                            slope                                           vegetative plantings, and dune creation        USACOE 1981
                                                                                                            at base (or other toe protection)

                      Beach fill/ nourishment               Placement of substantial quantities of          Applicable to important recreational           Chisholm 1990
                                                            beach-compatible sand to advance the            beaches where there is ready                   Clayton 1989
                                                            shoreline seaward                               compatible sand source and reasonable          Dean 1983
                                                                                                            expectation of nourished beach                 Dixon and Pilkey 1989
                                                                                                            stability; expensive alternative; not          Domurat 1987
                                                                                                            used in Oregon                                 National Research Council 1987
                                                                                                                                                           USACOE 1981
                                                                                                                                                           USACOE 1984





                                  Issue 6                                   These gaps in jurisdiction mean that signifi-
                                                                         cant numbers of SPSs may be built in the future
              There are gaps and overlaps in                             without state oversight. In such cases, there
              shore protection regulatory jurisdic-                      will be no evaluation to ensure that (1) there is
              tion and in the interagency review                         a clear need for the project; (2) less damaging
              and decision-making process.                               alternatives have been evaluated and judged
                                                                         not to be feasible; (3) the design of the structure
              There are geographic gaps in regulatory                    is appropriate to the hazard; and (4) site-
              jurisdiction over SPS installation that result             specific and cumulative impacts are evaluated
              in SPSs being built in some areas without                  and avoided or minimized.
              public oversight, evaluation, or permits.                     Overlapping permit authority and jurisdic-
              There are also jurisdictional overlaps of                  tion is also a problem. At present, property
              regulatory authority, resulting in duplica-                owners may be required to get permits from
              tion- of efforts, public frustration, and                  four separate agencies to obtain permission to
              added public and private costs. The                        build a beachfront SPS in Oregon (table 4): city
              present interagency review process for                     or county government, two state agencies-
              permits is also inconsistent and does not                  OPRD and DSL-and the U.S. Army Corps of
              involve all agencies with relevant responsi-               Engineers. City and county requirements are
              bilities or expertise.                                     highly variable; some jurisdictions require
                                                                         separate SPS permits that operate indepen-
                                                                         dently of the state process and duplicate it,
                                                                         while others defer to the state. However, all
              Findings                                                   have local comprehensive plan policies that
                                                                         must be complied with. At the state level,
                 OPRD and DSL, the two state agencies that               OPRD and DSL jurisdictions overlap in the
              regulate SPSs, differ in what they regulate and            majority of cases. A recent study of the Siletz
              where they have jurisdiction (figure 6 and table           littoral cell, a 16-mile stretch of coastline that
              4). Specifically, OPRD regulates only beach                includes Roads End, Lincoln City, Salishan,
              alterations (any type of structure or material)            and Gleneden and Lincoln Beaches, revealed
              that extend west of a fixed line called the beach          that 63 percent of the SPS permits processed
              zone line. The beach zone line, established by             since 1977 were processed by both agencies. At
              survey in 1967, approximated the vegetation                the federal level, the U.S. Army Corps of
              line or the 16-foot elevation (referenced to               Engineers has regulatory authority for SPSs
              National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 or                along Oregon's beachfront. In most cases,
              mean sea level) (table 4 and figure 6). DSL, on            however,   shore protection proposals are auto-
              the other hand, regulates all structures that              matically approved because they fall under the
              involve 50 cubic yards or more of material and             Corps' nationwide authorization for bank
              that are installed seaward of the highest mea-             stabilization projects (Nationwide Permit 13) or
              sured tide (about 8.5 feet referenced to mean              under their more specific regional permit for
              sea level [DSL 19731) or the line of established           ocean erosion control. The net effect of this is to
              upland vegetation, whichever is further inland             delegate Corps authority to OPRD / DSL and
              (figure 6 and table 4). The consequence of such            the state process.
              gaps was illustrated in a recent study of the                Proposed ocean shore protection projects,
              Siletz littoral cell (encompassing Lincoln City,           whether structural or nonstructural, involve a'
              Gleneden Beach, etc.), where 31 percent of                 number of interrelated decisions, for example,
              oceanfront SPSs built from 1967 to 1991 did not            determining the hazard, selecting the appropri-
              come under the regulatory jurisdiction of the              ate hazard mitigation techniques, and design-
              programs; that is, no permit was required by               ing the project. Such projects also require an
              the state (Good 1992). Some of these gaps were             assessment of possible adverse impacts, in-
              closed when DSL assumed joint jurisdiction in              cluding cumulative impacts, for example, to
              1977, but some remain.                                     the beach, to adjacent property, and to scenic
                                                                         and recreational resources. No single public


                                                                          Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 49








                 agency has all the expertise needed to make all         geologic hazards associated with ocean shore
                 of these decisions or evaluate all of these             protection are not reviewed by agencies with
                 impacts. At the same time, no single agency             experience in that area. The designs of struc-
                 has all the responsibility. Therefore, while it is      tures are not reviewed according to engineer-
                 important that one agency have ultimate                 ing criteria, and they are not thoroughly
                 decision-making authority, the review and               evaluated for possible adverse impacts. An-
                 evaluation process needs to involve those               other part of the problem is that neither state
                 persons or agencies that have appropriate               agency nor local government staff involved in
                 experience and responsibility. The existing             the decision-making process have sufficient
                 process covers some but not all needed areas of         training to make well-informed decisions on
                 expertise. For example, the oceanographic and           shore protection.




                 -DSL PERMIT




                 -SPRD PERMIT4                                   SEA CLIFF






                                                       BEACH -CLIFF JUNCTION
                           @'R@F A C H    ZONE
                    BEACH              LINE







                 -DSL PERMIT




                 -SPRD PERMIT

                                                            DUNE




                                   BEACH ZONE
                                        LINE
                    BEACH


                 Figure 6. -Geographic comparison of jurisdiction of state regulatory programs for shore protection in
                 Oregon.
                                    E @AC H @ZO N




                 50 Improv'ing Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (oast









                      Table 4. jurisdictional comparison of shore protection regulatory programs in Oregon.

                      Governmental                 Type of Permit               Types of SPSs                       Area of Regulatory                Threshold of
                      Level / Agency                                            Regulated                           jurisdiction                      Jurisdiction

                      Federal-Corps of             NWP 13 w /regional           Riprap revetments; others if        Below ordinary high water         <500 ft in length and <1    2
                      Engineers (COE)              conditions                   notification procedures             (OHW)-rivers; or high tide        cu yd of riprap below OHW
                                                   (new / repair)               followed and impact                 line (HTL)-tidal areas            or HTL
                                                                                minimal


                                                   Regular (new/ repair)        Vertical concrete and other         Same as above                     >500 ft in length and
                                                                                retaining walls, all                                                  >1 /2 cu yd of riprap below
                                                                                structures not covered by                                             OHW or HTL
                                                                                NWP 13


                      State-Parks and              Regular (new only)           All structure types,                West of the 1967 surveyed         None-all improvements
                      Recreation Depart-                                        including sand or other fill        beach zone line (BZL)             covered, but no permit
                      ment (OPRD)                                                                                                                     required for repair to
                                                                                                                                                      original condition

                                                   Emergency (new               All structure types (usually        Same as above                     Same as above
                                                   only)                        riprap revetments)

                      State-Division of            Regular (new/repair)         All structure types,                Line of established upland        >50 cu yd of riprap or other
                      State Lands (DSL)                                         including sand or other fill        vegetation or highest             fill (sand, concrete, etc.)
                                                                                                                    measured tide, whichever is
                                                                                highest

                                                   Emergency                    All structural types (usually       Same as above                     Same as above
                                                   (new / repair)               riprap revetments)

                      Local-city or county         Regular (may defer to        All types, but varies with          Varies, but may include           Varies
                                                   OPRD / DSL process)          city/county                         areas landward of state
                                                                                                                    jurisdiction







                  Recommendations                                                  6-1 B. Following legislative changes, the OPRD, in
                                                                                      cooperation with DLCD, DOGAMI, and affected
                  Recommendation 6-1                                                  local governments, should implement a program
                    Regulate the installation of all ocean shore                      to determine precise regulatory jurisdiction,
                  protection structures, other activities designed                    based on the criteria in Recommendation 6-1,
                  to stabilize or protect the beach or oceanfront                  Recommendation 6-2
                  property; and other construction on or immedi-                      Place exclusively under OPRD's control both
                  ately adjacent to the beach, including repairs of                regulatory permit administration and decision-
                  existing structures. Examples of regulated                       making authority for ocean shore protection
                  structures and activities are riprap and other                   structures and activities     .2 No other state agency
                  revetments, seawalls, and other hard structures                  or local government should be allowed to
                  that fix the shoreline in place; dynamic struc-                  require a separate permit for SPSs and activi-
                  tures; beach fill or sand removal, beach nour-                   ties. Minimize administrative costs by estab-
                  ishment, dune construction, or other sand                        lishing an OPRD-coordinated permit review
                  alteration; sloping, lowering, fencing, or other                 and evaluation process. Base the review and
                  alteration of oceanfront banks, bluffs, or dunes;                evaluation responsibilities of state agencies and
                  vegetative stabilization of oceanfront dunes,                    local governments on the legal authority and
                  cliffs, banks, or bluffs; and other beach con-                   expertise of each agency. These responsibilities
                  struction for any purpose.                                       include the following:
                    Precise jurisdiction should be determined
                  jointly, in advance,' by OPRD, DLCD,                             a. OPRD: serve as lead shore protection agency
                  DOGAMI, and the affected local government,                          and final decision-making authority; evalu-
                  and include the following:                                          ate shore protection proposals for their
                  a. all oceanfront beaches along the Oregon                          potential effects on beach recreation, scenic
                    coast, including stream and river outlet                          and aesthetic issues, public access to and
                    beaches strongly affected by ocean processes                      along the beach, public safety, and cultural
                                                                                      resources
                  b. all sand dunes adjacent to beaches (as                        b. DOGAML assess the factors affecting shore-
                    defined above) that are subject to wave                           line stability and proposed mitigation
                    undercutting or overtopping during high                           strategies, including design and engineering;
                    tides and severe storms
                                                                                      review and evaluate permit documentation
                  c. all sea cliffs, bluffs, and banks adjacent to                    or conduct peer review of consultant reports
                    beaches (as defined above)                                        that include similar information (see Recom-
                  d. other oceanfront areas potentially subject to                    mendation 2-1e)
                    severe erosion, accretion, or other chronic                    c. DLCD: evaluate shore protection proposals
                    hazards                                                           for consistency with state land use goals and
                  Implementing Actions for Recommendation 6-1                         policies and the state permit consistency
                  6-1 A. The Oregon State Legislature should amend                    rules
                    the Beach Law (ORS 390.605-390.770, Ocean                      d. DSL: evaluate proposals for conflicts with
                    Shores; State Recreation Areas) to establish new                  state proprietary interests in tidelands, and
                    policies and proceduresfor regulating beachfront                  public trust interests in navigation, com-
                    and ocean shore alterations, consistent with                      merce, fishing, and recreation
                    Recommendation 6-1.




                   The shore protection regulatory boundary should be              and updated, as appropriate, every five years.
                  established in advance to make it clear to the regulated         2 As an interim measure, OPRD and DSL have executed a
                  public; however, until such boundary is mapped, it               Memorandum of Understanding implementing, to the
                  should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Shore              degree possible under current law, consolidation of
                  protection jurisdictional boundaries should be reviewed          permit responsibilities with OPRD.


                  52 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (oast








              e. ODFW: evaluate shore protection proposals              Ocean Shores, State Recreation Areas) and the
                for impacts on fisheries and wildlife                   RemovallFill Law (ORS 196.800-196.990),
              f. DEQ: evaluate proposals for water quality              vesting sole regulatory authorityfor beachfront
                effects and provide certification if applicable         and ocean shore alterations with OPRD, elimi-
                                                                        nating DSL's separate regulatory authorityfor
              g. Cities and counties: evaluate shore protec-            such decisions, and establishing review and
                tion proposals for compatibility with the               advisory roles for DOGAMI, DLCD, DSL,
                local comprehensive plan and state permit               ODFW, DEQ, and cities and counties consistent
                consistency, retaining veto power for incon-            with Recommendation 6-2.
                sistent projects. Such review shall not be           6-2 B. The Oregon State Legislature should autho
                considered a land use decision and is not
                subject to separate local appeals or hearings           rize and the OPRD should establish an equitable
                (all such appeals and hearings shall instead            administrative fee that covers the cost of adminis-
                be part of the state permit decision-making             tering the shore protection regulatory program,
                process).                                               including costs of the principal review agencies,
                                                                        particularly DOGAML
              Implementing Actions for Recommendation 6-2
              6-2 A. The Oregon State Legislature should amend
                both the Beach Law (ORS 390.605-390.770,




































                                                                       Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 53






                                   Issue 7                                   Another process-related issue is that the
                                                                           circuit court appeal procedure is antiquated,
                The shore protection permit process                        costly, and inefficient. Currently, all other state
                is poorly structured, and has weak                         natural resource agencies with permit jurisdic-
                review standards and limited en-                           tion operate using the contested case hearing
                forcement authority, and the ap-                           process. This process was established in 1973 in
                peals process is antiquated.                               the Administrative Practices Act, eight years
                                                                           after the Beach Bill was passed. It is costly for
                The process for receipt, review, and techni-               an applicant to hire an attorney and pay court
                cal evaluation of shore protection applica-                costs when appealing to circuit court. It is also
                tions lacks sufficient structure and review                costly to the state to provide legal representa-
                standards, resulting in inconsistent deci-                 tion and costs. Finally, circuit court workloads
                sions. OPRD lacks enforcement authority,                   can unnecessarily delay a decision for up to
                and the appeals process is out-of-date and                 several years, causing frustration for all parties
                overly expensive and time consuming.                       involved.
                                                                           Recommendations
                Findings                                                   Recommendation 7-1
                  State and local shore protection policies in               Establish a coordinated process for making
                the Statewide Planning Goals, local compre-                decisions on shore protection proposals. The
                hensive plans, the Beach Law, the Removal/                 process should include an evaluation of haz-
                Fill Law, and OPRD and DSL administrative                  ards and threats to property, alternative mitiga-
                rules imply a step-by-step decision-making                 tion techniques and designs, impacts of alter-
                process and various review criteria and stan-              natives, and compensation needs. To determine
                dards. However, this process and these criteria            the least damaging, effective shore protection
                and standards have not been fully and con-                 method, include the following sequence of
                sciously implemented. The implied process                  steps in the evaluation process:
                includes the following general steps: (1) assess-          Step 1. Assess hazards affecting the property,
                ing the hazard and determining the threat or                 including the following:
                need; (2) evaluating alternative hazard mitiga-              a. wave attack, erosion, flooding, or accre-
                tion measures while giving preference to                     tion history; wave attack, erosion, flooding,
                nonstructural and land use management                        or accretion potential, based on wave run-up
                methods over structural methods; (3) evaluat-                calculations and assessment of rip current
                ing potential adverse impacts associated with                potential
                each feasible technique; (4) designing shore
                protection solutions that minimize individual                b. mass wasting (landslides, slumping,
                project and long-term cumulative impacts,                    weathering) and slope stability (lithologic
                including compensatory mitigation. These                     units [rock and surface deposit types and
                steps suggest the need for decision-making                   composition], unit structure [jointing, bed-
                support tools and information. They include a                ding planes, etc.], and interrelationships
                hazard assessment model; criteria to decide                  [stratigraphy, nature of contacts])
                what hazard poses sufficient threat or need; a               c. human activities (foot and vehicular
                set of alternative nonstructural and structural              traffic, cliff carving and graffiti, adjacent
                techniques that may work in given situations; a              development, or other human alteration)
                checklist for impact assessment and more                   Step 2. Determine what property is threatened
                detailed guidelines where needed; and engi-                  and the need for shore protection, based on
                neering and design guidelines. Finally, once a
                decision is made, weak enforcement proce-                    the following:
                dures and penalties provide little incentive for
                compliance.


                54 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast








                a. determine permissible shore protection             c. Dynamic revetments, if feasible, are pre-
                techniques for the particular class or type of          ferred over engineered revetments or sea-
                property, that is, whether it is developed,             walls.
                infill, or "undeveloped as of January 1, 1977"        Step 4. For each feasible hazard mitigation
                (see Recommendation 5-2a)                               technique, estimate individual and cumula-
                b. an evaluation of the actual hazards as they          tive impacts on public access and recreation,
                relate to the physical safeness of a building           visual and scenic resources, the beach and
                or infrastructure for its present uses                  adjacent land erosion and sediment supply,
              Step 3. Evaluate alternative hazard mitigation            public safety, and cultural and natural
                measures (table 3). In solving problems of              resource values.
                ocean flooding or erosion, give preference to         Step 5. From among feasible techniques, select
                hazard avoidance and nonstructural meth-                the shore protection solution, including its
                ods over structural methods.                            design and engineering specifications, that
                a. Hazard avoidance techniques include                  balances the need for effective hazard miti-
                building construction and infrastructure                gation with the need to minimize adverse
                setbacks, relocation of existing buildings and          impacts.
                infrastructure, and abandonment of threat-            Step 6. Require compensation for unavoidable,
                ened buildings.                                         short- or long-term adverse impacts on sand
                b. Nonstructural shore protection includes              supply, public access and safety@ recreational
                vegetative stabilization, preferably with               beach use, scenery, wildlife, etc. Examples
                native species, dune construction and other             are contribution to a "sand bank" for beach
                sand alterations, and bank sloping and                  nourishment, replacement of public access,
                revegetation.                                           or funding for such access. Compensation





                                 S




                                                 RWR











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





                                                                                                        :4
                                                             A
             Relocation of existing buildings threatened,by erosion is a viable mitigation strategy in many cases, but is
             rarely used. This house at Cove Beach in southern Clatsop County is an exception (J. Good photo).


                                                                       Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (oust 55








                   should be directly related to the adverse                effective beachfront and ocean shore regulatory
                   impact caused by the project.                            program. Model such authority after DSI!s
                Implementing Action for Recommendation 7-1                  enforcement powers under the Removal/ Fill
                                                                            Law (ORS 196.860-990). Change the appeals
                7-1. Oregon State Legislative amendments to the             process so that any person aggrieved by an
                   Beach Law (ORS 390.605-390.770, Ocean                    OPRD permit decision under ORS 390.650 can
                   Shores; State Recreation Areas) should include           petition the OPRD director for reconsideration
                   the general permit application review and                of the final decision. The aggrieved person
                   decision-making framework outlined in Recom-             may also petition the CIPRD for a formal
                   mendation 7-1. OPRD, in cooperation with                 contested case hearing, as prescribed in ORS
                   review agencies, should adopt administrative             183.310. The outcome of the hearing should be
                   rules outlining specific procedures for permit           final.
                   application review and evaluation. OPRD should           Implementing Action for Recommendation 7-2
                   also develop an improved application form for
                   shore protection permits that includes the               7-2. The Oregon State Legislature should amend the
                   information needed to implement the process.                Beach Law (ORS 390.605-390.770, Ocean
                                                                               Shores; State Recreation Areas) to vest enforce-
                Recommendation 7-2                                             ment authority in OPRD and revise the appeals
                   Vest sufficient administrative and civil                    process, consistent with Recommendation 7-2.
                enforcement authority in OPRD to ensure an































                56 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast





                                 Issue 8                                 1) dumping riprap or other erosion-resistant
                                                                         material, the size of which is the minimum
               Emergency shore protection poli-                          needed to halt the erosion
               cies and procedures are lacking.                          2) grading or placing beach sand
               Because emergency shore protection proce-                 3) placing sand bags or tubes
               dures are essentially ad hoc, they result in              4) moving or placing driftwood
               inconsistent, uncoordinated decisions and
               violate both the letter and the spirit of              d. Construction of revetments or seawalls or
               other shore protection policies. There are                other devices or alterations that provide
               also no guidelines for actions following the              more than immediate protection from active
               emergency, such as site restoration.                      erosion are inappropriate for emergency
                                                                         shore protection.
                                                                      e. Require the following standard conditions
                                                                         for emergency shore protection authoriza-
               Findings                                                  tions:
                 There are no criteria for what constitutes an           1) Placement or movement of rock, sand, or
               "emergency" with respect to hazards and                   driftwood shall be limited to the area imme-
               threat or need. This situation presents special           diately seaward of the threatened oceanfront
               problems for property that was undeveloped                property and be carried out in a manner that
               as of January 1, 1977 because of the prohibition          does not deflect erosive forces toward
               on hard SPSs on such property. Alternative                adjacent properties or the beaches that front
               permissible methods of emergency shore                    them.
               protection have not been outlined, sometimes              2) Within one year of their emergency
               resulting in poorly placed or built structures.           authorization, recipients shall remove all
               There is also no policy on what to do with                rock or other permanent, erosion-resistant
               emergency structures once the emergency has               materials used for emergency shore protec-
               passed; at present, they become permanent                 tion and restore any damage to the recre-
               structures.                                               ational or scenic values of a beach that are
                                                                         attributed to the emergency measures that
               Recommendations                                           were taken. Restoration may include
                 Recommendation 8-1. Establish clear,                    smoothing excavated areas and restoring
               consistent definitions, policies, procedures, and         dunes or beach access points damaged
               conditions for allowing "emergency" shore                 during emergency shore protection activi-
               protection, beginning with the following:                 ties.
               a. A shore protection "emergency" is a severe,            3) Emergency authorizations for shore
                 short-term episode of erosion or related                protection may not be converted to regular
                 hazard that threatens to damage or destroy              shore 'protection permits. The regular pro-
                 an upland building, road, street, highway,              cess for obtaining a shore protection permit
                 sewer or water line, or other infrastructure            is a separate procedure requiring indepen-
                 or improvement.                                         dent evaluation of long-term solutions to
               b. OPRD, as lead shore protection agency,                 erosion or related natural hazard problems.
                 should make emergency determinations,                   4) For properties that were undeveloped as
                 consulting with DOGAMI, if needed.                      of January 1, 1977," only nonstructural
                                                                         hazard mitigation techniques may be used
               c. Design emergency shore protection actions              as long-term solutions to erosion.
                 to provide immediate and temporary protec-
                 tion from an active ocean erosion event or           Implementing Action for Recommendation 8-1
                 other natural hazard. Such measures may              8-1. The Oregon State Legislature should amend the
                 include the following:                                  Beach Law (ORS 390.605-390.770, Ocean



                                                                        Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 57








                  Shores; State Recreation Areas) to establish                implement this emergency process through
                  emergency shore protection policies consistent              administrative rules.
                  with Recommendation 8-1. OPRD should





















                                                                                              wv























                                 mod&



                                                                                 Vt

















              Some erosion events clearly create shore protection emergencies, such as this one on Siletz spit (P. Komar photo).


              58 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast





                             Land Use Planning, Governmental
                        Coordination, and Fiscal Responsibility
              T
                   he vulnerability of development to natural            much of their revenue from property taxes,
                   hazards is an increasingly important                  they often support such development, regard-
                   concern along the Oregon coast. Part of               less of potential hazards. For example, required
              this concern stems from the acceleration of                oceanfront construction setbacks are routinely
              building construction in recent years, much of             avoided through variances, which then lead to
              it in areas subject to erosion, landslides, and            requests for seawalls or revetments. Another
              other chronic hazards. But probably a more                 problem is that many of these sites were
              significant factor is the growing awareness that           committed to future development earlier in the
              very large earthquakes have occurred in the                century; in many cases these commitments
              past just offshore along the CSZ and that                  were included in state-approved local compre-
              another quake could occur at any time. The                 hensive plans. Further, many property owners
              likelihood of such an event in the future,                 believe that they should have the right to do
              despite uncertainty as to its timing, places new           with their land as they please, regardless of the
              and existing development at risk, particularly             hazards present. For the government to require
              development on steep slopes, unconsolidated                otherwise would raise the specter of a "taking"
              and fill soils, and low-lying ocean and estuary            of private property without just compensation.
              shorelands.                                                  Other development in hazardous areas
                 Oregon's land use policies and local compre-            occurs because technical information about
              hensive plans prohibit development in hazard-              hazards is of poor quality or simply not avail-
              ous areas without appropriate safeguards, but              able. If it is available, it may not be accessible
              implementation of these policies along the                 to those who need it or applied properly to the
              coast has not been uniformly effective. As                 situation. For example, people who purchase
              might be expected, given the relatively recent             property for development are often unaware of
              revelations about past coastal earthquakes and             hazards.
              tsunamis, few if any local governments have                  Often, when owners do learn of the hazards,
              factored the threat of such events into their              they believe they can be adequately mitigated
              land use plans or decisions. But more surpris-             through engineering or other approaches.
              ing is that development continues to be sited in           While this is true in some cases, there are often
              areas vulnerable to chronic hazards, particu-              hidden public and private costs involved.
              larly along the oceanfront. Some problems can              Failure to account for the public costs may, in
              be attributed to a lack of state policy guidance           effect, result in a public subsidy of private
              on hazards concerns, while others stem from                development. Such hidden costs are rarely
              weak local plans or ordinances or poor com-                accounted for or factored into decision making.
              munication and coordination among agencies                 Examples are the installation and repair of
              with hazard management responsibilities.                   public infrastructure (sewer, water supply,
                Escalating property values are one of the                streets); grants, loans, and loan guarantees; and
              principal forces driving development of many               subsidized insurance.
              areas subject to natural hazards. Many hazard-               In this section, we address the following six
              ous sites, particularly along the oceanfront or            issues, making recommendations for each:
              bayfront, and on steep hillsides, that would be            e lack of integration and coordination of
              considered unbuildable under normal circum-                  hazards planning in land use, shore protec-
              stances, are simply deemed too valuable not to               tion, and beach management
              develop. Recent dramatic increases in assessed             9 public subsidies for development in hazard-
              values and real property prices support this                 ous areas
              assertion. Because local governments derive



                                                                          Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 59








                lack of guidelines for determining whether       e ineffective oceanfront construction setbacks
                an oceanfront lot is buildable                   9 siting of development in earthquake and
                effects of past decisions and existing uses on     tsunami hazard areas
                future development in hazardous areas



                                                          @7
                                                                            ftvw







                                              01




                                                         "V

                                                                                    41
                                                                              Erg
                                                                                 nk@k














               _'A











             Undeveloped, erosion-prone dunes and shorelands along the southern Oregon coast. Will they be developed in thefuture
             and, if so, how will hazards be avoided (ODOT photo)?















             60 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast






                                 Issue 9                                the regulatory agencies themselves. This
                                                                        situation has led to a high level of frustration
              Land use planning and site-specific                       for the general public when faced with the
              land use decisions, as they relate to                     prospect of involvement by more than one
              coastal hazards, suffer from ineffec-                     agency, each with its own set of standards and
              tive integration of existing and new                      criteria for approval. It has also led to conflicts
              hazards information, piecemeal                            between the various governmental agencies
                                                                        involved as to who is responsible for what and
              decision making, and poor commu-                          when. Gaps and overlaps in jurisdiction result
              nication and coordination among                           in inadequate oversight of some projects,
              administrators of land use, shore                         duplication of effort in others, and public
              protection, beach management, and                         complaints about the loss of two very impor-
              hazards research programs.                                tant resources-time and money. Unclear
                                                                        division of responsibility has also raised
              Although there is broad recognition of the                concerns over the lack of accountability and
              need to thoroughly integrate natural haz-                 the enforcement of existing regulations.
              ards concerns into land use planning, and                    For example, there is a recurring coordina-
              to coordinate this planning with shore                    tion problem between local governments that
              protection, beach management, and haz-                    issue oceanfront development permits and the
              ards information development, the princi-                 state agencies that regulate shore protection.
              pal mechanism for accomplishing this -.the                Local governments are not required to notify
              local comprehensive plan-has not been                     shore protection regulators (OPRD and DSL)
              particularly effective. Comprehensive plan                when they issue local development permits. If
              policies are vague and inconsistently                     building construction setbacks and other
              applied by planners with little of the                    hazard mitigation are insufficient, as they often
              needed expertise. Further, there is little                are, subsequent erosion or bank slumping can
              impetus for -improving plans, policies, or                generate requests for hard shore protection
              their implementation. As a consequence,                   structures. The need for these hard structures
              hazard-related decision making is usually                 could be avoided if the state agencies respon-
                                                                        sible for beach management were adequately
              limited to simplistic site-specific or single-            informed and could recommend more appro-
              jurisdiction concerns. More complex site.                 priate setbacks. In the absence of improved
              development issues and offsite effects of                 local-state coordination, hard SPSs are likely to
              projects are not generally identified or                  proliferate along developing shorelines.
              considered. Similarly, the strong influences                Except for several efforts at regional, ad-
              and controls on hazards exerted by larger-                vanced planning for foredune areas, oceanfront
              scale geologic, hydrologic, and oceano-                   development and shore protection decisions
              graphic processes or conditions are not                   are made case-by-case, are based on weak local
              considered.                                               comprehensive plan policies or general
                                                                        coastwide policies, and rarely take into account
                                                                        the highly variable physical character and
                                                                        patterns of human development found along
              Findings                                                  the coast. For example, the subdivision of the
                 The principal authorities and responsibilities         coast by rocky headlands into discrete littoral
              for beach and upland management are divided               cells and subcells is given little consideration in
              among CIPRD, DSL, DOGAMI, DLCD, FEMA,                     planning and management. These cells form
              the Corps of Engineers, and local governments,            natural planning units for natural hazards
              although other agencies may be involved in                management, varying in a number of impor-
              some cases. But the specific roles and responsi-          tant ways: tectonic uplift rates and relative sea
              bilities in any given project are often unclear,          level rise; supply of sand from rivers and sea
              not just to the affected public, but sometimes to         cliffs and distribution along the shore; beach
                                                                        and land erodibility and stability related to


                                                                         Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 61








                geologic and oceanographic factors; suscepti-
                bility to ocean flooding and tsunami inunda-               The Special Area Management Planning (SAMP)
                tion; and potential for amplified ground shak-             Process
                ing and liquefaction caused by major earth-                General features of the SAMP process
                quakes. Also contributing to this variability are          include
                institutional and cultural factors such as juris-          (1) intergovernmental collaboration
                diction and management authorities, owner-                    among local, state, and federal agen-
                ship patterns, land use and development                       cies, along with other stakeholders (for
                pressure, and attitudes toward development                    example, property owners and beach
                and private property rights. These physical                   user groups);
                and cultural differences among and within                  (2) agreement by consensus;
                cells suggest that no one set of planning or
                management solutions to natural hazards                    (3) integration of federal, state and local
                problems will work for every area along the                   legal requirements;
                coast. They also suggest that natural hazard               (4) meaningful public involvement;
                management cannot work well without some
                more effective means of coordination, because              (5) specified mechanisms for implementa-
                decisions or actions in one community some-                   tion that are "owned" by those who
                times have adverse effects on the beach or                    must use them; and
                upland properties in adjacent jurisdictions.               (6) decision making processes that are
                  A planning process that promises improved                   stratified and well-coordinated.
                coordination and more rational planning
                boundaries is "special area management
                planning" (SAMP). Variations of the SAMP
                process have been developed and applied to              Recommendations
                many geographic areas and situations through-              Recommendation 9-1. Adapt the SAMP
                out coastal United States and the world, in-            process to oceanfront beaches and shorelands
                cluding harbors, revitalization of waterfronts          along the Oregon coast. Undertake a pilot
                for mixed use, groundwater quality protection,          SAMP for a high-priority oceanfront area to
                and ocean shore and beach areas. The federal            test, evaluate, and refine the planning guide-
                Coastal Zone Management Act encourages                  lines outlined below. Identify other priority
                states and local jurisdictions to use the SAMP          coastal areas for application of the refined
                process. Oregon's Estuarine Resources Goal 16           SAMP process.
                and the local estuary plans that resulted were             The overall goal would be to improve
                based on a SAMP-like framework and process;             coordination among local and state regulatory
                they are considered one of the most effective           programs by establishing consistent policies
                problem-solving parts of Oregon's Coastal               and procedures in advance of specific applica-
                Management Program.                                     tions for upland development, dune grading,
                  Such a planning process, adapted to                   shore protection, or other beach or shoreland
                Oregon's beachfront areas, could address the            activity related to natural hazards.
                variety of issues discussed above, as well as              Following is a preliminary framework for
                other issues dealt with later in this report, such      SAMP along the Oregon coast:
                as unbuildable lots (Issue 11), the differences         a. Establish potential SAMP areas based on
                between developed and undeveloped areas                    these criteria:
                (Issue 12), building construction setbacks                 1) cultural and physical interconnections,
                (Issue 13), new information on earthquake and              both alongshore (for example, jurisdictional
                tsunami hazards (Issue 14), and shore protec-              boundaries, littoral cells or subcells) and
                tion procedures (Issues 5 through 8).                      cross-shore (for example, inland streets and
                                                                           highways, land use, shorelands with un-
                                                                           stable cliffs and bluffs, areas subject to wave
                                                                           undercutting and overtopping, earthquake-


                62 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (oast








                 related hazards, including tsunami inunda-               considered might be regional and local
                 tion areas, soil liquefaction, and landslides)           geologic and oceanographic features, exist-
                 2) the mix of public and private shoreland               ing land ownership and the location and
                 ownership, giving priority to areas that are             intensity of development, the vulnerability
                 predominantly private                                    of existing and potential development to
                                                                          chronic and potentially catastrophic natural
                 3) an inventory of developed and undevel-                hazards, the existing and potential need for
                 oped lands, and a forecast of development                hard shore protection structures, existing
                 pressures on these lands                                 beach, dune, and other recreational re-
                 4) the nature and severity of coastal natural            sources, scenic and aesthetic values, aquatic
                 hazards                                                  and upland wildlife resources, and conflicts.
                 5) existing or potential land use or beach-           c. To begin the individual SAMP process,
                 related conflicts, and similar criteria                  develop an inventory that identifies, de-
              b. For the entire coastline, classify hazard-               scribes, and maps chronic and catastrophic
                 influenced ocean coastlines where SAMP                   hazards as they affect beaches and ocean-
                 might be appropriate, identifying the high-              front and estuary shorelands and relevant
                 est intensity of development that will be                cultural, recreational, economic, and other
                 permitted to occur in each area. Factors to be





























              Special area management planning (SAMP)for stretches of coastline that are physically
              interconnected would solve some of the problems nowfaced by property owners and governmental
              agencies charged with beach and land use management (J. Good photo,ftom Cascade Head looking
              south toward Lincoln City and Gleneden Beach).


                                                                         Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 63








                    resources and values. Include the following                     front SAMPframework and process as Statewide
                    specific inventory requirements:                                Planning Goal amendments to Goal 7 (Natural
                    1) Chronic hazards-identify beach and                           Hazards), Goal 17 (Coastal Shorelands), and
                    upland areas made unstable by erosion or                        Goal 18 (Beaches and Dunes).
                    flooding caused by ocean waves, or mass                      9-1 B. LCDC should establish a Coastline Classifi-
                    wasting caused by geologic instability,                         cation Task Force to establish and apply classifi-
                    stream or groundwater hydrology, physical                       cation criteria, the results of the classification
                    or chemical weathering, or human alter-                         process should be adopted by administrative rule.
                    ations.                                                      9-1 C. DLCD, in consultation with local govern-
                    2) Catastrophic hazards-using a credible                        ments, OPRD, DOGAMI, and other relevant
                    CSZ earthquake and tsunami scenario, map                        agencies and interest groups, should select a pilot
                    the areas and expected degree of amplified                      SAMP area, giving priority to areas within the
                    ground shaking, coseismic subsidence, soil                      pilot mapping project area (see Issue 1); the pilot
                    liquefaction or settling, induced landslides,                   SAMP should befunded with federal coastal
                    tsunami inundation, and seiches.                                zone management grants.
                    3) Cultural characteristics-determine land                   9-1 D. Cities, counties, special districts, DLCD,
                    ownership and values; existing patterns,                        OPRD, DOGAMI, DSL, other relevant state
                    types, intensities, and location of develop-                    afidJederal agencies, interest groups, and affected
                    ment with respect to natural hazards (for                       and interested citizens should develop SAMPs
                    example, building setbacks) and how these                       for appropriate oceanfront areas. Funding
                    might influence future development; beach                       assistance should be provided throughfederal
                    and other recreational resources; scenic and                    coastal zone management grants.
                    aesthetic values; and aquatic and wildlife
                    resources; land use and related conflicts.                   Recommendation 9-2
                 d. Consistent with the overall area classifica-                    Establish a local land use notification pro-
                    tion, establish beach and shoreland manage-                  cess for oceanfront development projects that
                    ment units within SAMP areas; each man-                      could lead to future OPRD-regulated shore
                    agement unit should provide for appropriate                  protection proposals. Because most such
                    types and intensities of development and                     projects are single-family dwellings, keep the
                    require the use of particular strategies and                 process as simple as possible. Notifications
                    techniques for hazard avoidance and mitiga-                  could be triggered by an existing process (for
                    tion. As needed, also provide for especially                 example, individual building permits, subdivi-
                    tailored management units within SAMP                        sions, or other discretionary land use actions),
                    areas.                                                       requirements for geotechnical site reports, the
                                                                                 availability of improved hazard maps and
                 e. Implement oceanfront SAMPs using a model                     information, or other criteria, at the discretion
                    ordinance that covers both local land use                    of local governments. Send notifications to
                    decision making and at the state level issu-                 OPRD, who will notify other agencies, such as
                    ing shore protection permits (for example, a                 DOGAMI and DLCD, as needed. For areas
                    multipurpose coastal hazard overlay),                        with an approved oceanfront SAMP, such a
                    modified as needed to suit local conditions.                 process could be eliminated.
                    The ordinance should require the incorpora-
                    tion of new information as it becomes                        Implementing Action for Recommendation 9-2
                    available. Include appropriate management                    9-2. If it has sufficient authority under ORS 197,
                    techniques detailed elsewhere in this report,                   ORS 215, or ORS 227, LCDC should amend
                    including setbacks, coordination require-                       Goal 17 (Coastal Shorelands) and 18 (Beaches
                    ments, and enforcement procedures.                              and Dunes) to require a local land use notifica-
                                                                                    tion process for natural hazards, according to
                 Implementing Actions for Recommendation 9-1                        Recommendation 9-2. Alternatively, if it does not
                 9-1 A. The Land Conservation and Development                       have authority, LCDC should seek such authority
                    Commission (LCDC) should establish an ocean-                    or propose appropriate legislative action to
                                                                                    implement this recommendation.

                 64 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast






                                Issue 10                                 measures against flood hazards (Kunreuther
                                                                         1993). The result is huge disaster relief bills. No
              Development in hazardous areas is                          data is available for Oregon, but significant
              often subsidized by public funding.                        natural hazard damage risks exist, particularly
              Land development in hazardous areas is                     for large CSZ earthquakes. Given this reality,
              often subsidized by public investments in                  there is increasing interest in expanding feder-
              community and transportation infrastruc-                   ally subsidized insurance programs to cover
                                                                         other hazards. For example, for several years,
              ture, through grant and loan programs,                     the U.S. Congress has been debating legislation
              insurance programs, and federal or state                   to expand the program to cover erosion haz-
              disaster response and postdisaster bailouts.               ards (the program would require substantial
                                                                         coastal construction setbacks as mitigation).
                                                                         The insurance industry has encouraged the
                                                                         government to enter the earthquake insurance
              Findings                                                   arena. This is supported by a recent govern-
                 Coastal land development in areas subject to            ment study that cites the lack of private cover-
              natural hazards is often promoted or subsi-                age in earthquake-prone areas as a serious
              dized through local, state, and federal pro-               threat to the federal treasury due to potential
              grams or incentives. The full cost of these                disaster relief costs.
              programs, particularly the costs of mainte-
              nance and repairs, and disaster relief and                 Recommendations
              reconstruction, is rarely considered in decision
              making. Examples of subsidies in hazardous                 Recommendation 10-1
              areas are (1) the extension of public services at             Eliminate tax write-offs for capital losses for
              public cost (water, sewer, streets, etc.); (2) the         new structures or ma or additions to existing
              increased local cost of regulation, technical                                      i
              assistance, and inspection of such develop-                structures, built after January 1, 1996 (or some
              ment; (3) the provision of subsidized hazard               other date), when that loss is caused by ero-
              insurance (for example, for flooding), govern-             sion, landslides, or other chronic hazards, or by
              ment grants, low-interest loans, and loan                  earthquake or tsunami hazards in designated
              guarantees; (4) tax deferments, write-offs, or             high-hazard areas. High-hazard areas are those
              other tax relief; and (5) disaster relief. Disaster        designated'on maps developed in response to
              relief is often paid out in greater sums than              Recommendation 1-3. Until such maps are
              would be required if individuals, businesses,              available, determine high-hazard areas by
              and the public sector had taken voluntary                  evaluating site-specific geotechnical informa-
              hazard mitigation measures ahead of time.                  tion provided for land use decisions or build-
              Perhaps most troublesome is the additive                   ing permits.
              nature of some of these subsidies; public tax              Implementing Action for Recommendation 10- 1
              monies are used to encourage unwise develop-               10-1. The Oregon State Legislature should amend
              ment that later must again be publicly subsi-                 the tax code to eliminate hazard-related tax
              dized with disaster relief monies.                            write-offs according to Recommendation 10-1.
                The National Flood Insurance Program is
              one of the major programs cited as examples of             Recommendation 10-2
              subsidies that promote unwise development.                    Establish development surcharges for build-
              On the other hand, the National Flood Insur-               ing permits and land use actions in high-
              ance Program requires that developers take                 hazard areas consistent with the actual costs of
              certain measures to mitigate the effects of                development. The charges should include the
              hazards, and its proponents argue that these               full cost of project review, evaluation, and
              measures limit potential losses. Whatever the              decision making. If feasible and defensible,
              case, a number of studies have shown that                  include the estimated future costs of mainte-
              individuals, businesses, and even public                   nance, repair, or removal of associated infra-
              entities do not voluntarily adopt protective


                                                                           Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 65








                   structure, basing these costs on well-defined                         areas. Public subsidiesfor other types of develop-
                   criteria.                                                             ment in high-hazard areas should be discouraged.
                   Implementing Action for Recommendation 10-2                           Programs of the Economic Development Depart-
                   10-2. Cities and counties should establish appropri-                  ment should be given particular scrutiny, but all
                      ate development surcharges for hazardous areas.                    federal, state, and local agencies should carefully
                                                                                         evaluate their programs for possible direct or
                   Recommendation 10-3                                                   indirect subsidies to development in high-hazard
                                                                                         areas. The A-95 process used to review federal
                      Establish a process for evaluating coastal                         grants and programs should incorporate an
                   natural hazards in government development,                            evaluation of high-hazard areas.
                   grant, and loan procedures. Hazard evaluation
                   should, at a minimum, include an assessment                        Recommendation 10-5
                   of erosion landsliding, and earthquake and                            Expand the National Flood Insurance Pro-
                   tsunami hazards.                                                   gram to an all-hazards program, covering at
                   Implementing Action for Recommendation 10-3                        least erosion, earthquakes, and tsunamis for
                   10-3. Eachfederal, state, and local development,                   residences, businesses, and public buildings.
                      grant, or loan agencies should establish, by                    Specific provisions for such a program are as
                      administrative rule or policy, a meansfor evalu-                follows:
                      ating natural hazards as part of its decision-                  a. Couple all-hazards insurance with stringent
                      making process.                                                    mitigation requirements designed to mini-
                                                                                         mize disaster losses (for example, coastal
                   Recommendation 10-4                                                   construction setbacks [see Recommenda-
                      Prohibit direct public development, grants,                        tions 13-1 to 13-41 and building standards
                   loans, or loan guarantees for essential facilities,                   appropriate for high-hazard areas [see
                   hazardous facilities, major structures, and                           Recommendation 15-3]; and others).
                   special occupancy structures (as defined by                        b. For earthquake and tsunami hazards, ensure
                   ORS 455.477; see Issue 3) in high-hazard areas.                       consistency with other recommendations in
                   Exceptions would be situations where such                             this report, particularly Recommendations
                   hazards are fully mitigated by structural or                          14-1 to 14-5 concerning the siting of develop-
                   nonstructural means or when the facility                              ment in earthquake and tsunami areas.
                   cannot be feasibly located outside high-hazard
                   areas (for example, port facilities, marinas,                      c. Require that such insurance be a condition
                   other water-dependent facilities, water and                           for receiving and maintaining mortgage
                   waste treatment facilities, and similar uses).                        loans in these hazard areas.
                   Public subsidies of other types of development                     Implementing Action for Recommendation 10-5
                   in high-hazard areas should generally be                           10-5. FEMA should support and the U.S. Congress
                   discouraged.                                                          should enact an all-hazards insurance program
                   Implementing Action for Recommendation 10-4                           that combines substantive mitigation require-
                   10-4. Federal, state, and local agency policies                       ments for reducing actual damages with financial
                      governing approval of government development,                      protection in the event of losses. Provisions for
                      grants, loans, or other assistance should be                       tailoring thefederal program to West Coast
                      amended to prohibit public subsidy of essential                    conditions should also be included in such
                      facilities, hazardous facilities, major structures,                legislation and any implementing regulations.
                      and special occupancy structures in high-hazard









                   66 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast






                                Issue I I                             assessed value of a site as determined by local
                                                                      tax assessors. For example, if a shallow ocean-
               There is no consistent way to deter-                   front lot is assessed at $3,000 while the adjacent
               mine what properties along the                         deep lot is assessed at $60,000, it might be
               Oregon coast are "unbuildable" due                     assumed that the assessor felt the former
               to natural hazards.                                    property was unbuildable (figure 7). However,
                                                                      such determinations have little meaning in the
               There are no clear or consistent guidelines            land use decision-making process.
               for determining whether a property is                     Not having explicit policies to determine
               buildable or unbuildable with respect to               whether or not a site is buildable or
               natural hazards. Definitions of buildable              unbuildable results in a number of problems:
               and unbuildable, responsibility for making             protracted deliberation, debate, or litigation
               such determinations, and decision-making               over specific proposals at either public or
               procedures are lacking. It is also unclear             private expense; inappropriate development
               what the legal and political consequences              with adverse scenic, visual, and physical
               of such determinations would be, particu-              impacts on the beach or upland; and dimin-
               larly with respect to infill development,              ished beach recreational values.
               public liability, and the "takings" issue.
               Finally, current policy does not address               Recommendations
               how properties change over time from
               being buildable to unbuildable or vice                 Re commendation I I -I
               versa based on new information, new                       Establish a classification system and criteria
               technology, the effect of actions on neigh-            for determining development capacity of
               boring properties, and natural hazard                  oceanfront lots with respect to hazards. Apply
               events.                                                the system on a jurisdiction-wide basis or
                                                                      through an established SAMP process (see
                                                                      Issue 9). A prototype classification system,
                                                                      based on the vulnerability to natural hazards
               Findings                                               and the possible need for property-owner
                 Natural hazards effectively render some              compensation or hazard mitigation, is outlined
               coastal properties unbuildable, although               below:
               engineering technology makes development of            a. buildable with no special hazard mitigation
               many hazard-prone sites possible if the prop-             requirements other than hazard avoidance
               erty owner or developer is willing to invest the          (for example, adequate building setback or
               needed dollars. However, there is a difference            design features)
               between what is physically possible at a spe-          b. buildable with appropriate hazard mitiga-
               cific site at a given time and what may be                tion (mitigation must be privately financed)
               consistent with the public interest. Unfortu-
               nately, there is no policy or mechanism for            c. unbuildable, based on an evaluation of
               local governments to factor in the public                 property rights, physical constraints, and
               interest when making a decision as to whether             public interest factors such as the following:
               or not a lot in a hazard-prone area is buildable.         1) Public ownership or public easements
               Instead, the site development process focuses             exist (for example, the lot or the major
               on whether or not hazards on the site can be              portion thereof is on the beach or in the
               sufficiently reduced to allow development to              water).
               go forward.                                               2) Physical constraints exist which preclude
                 Rarely have decisions about whether a site is           development without extraordinary struc-
               buildable or unbuildable been made in ad-                 tural mitigation measures (for example, the
               vance (that is, during local comprehensive                lot is very narrow or is located in an active
               planning). However, one clue to this question             landslide or active foredune area).
               as it relates to individual properties is the


                                                                       Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 67








                   3) Construction would constitute a public                   have substantial public value, and be pre-
                   nuisance under common law principies.                       served in perpetuity as undeveloped open
                   4) Construction would alienate public rights                space.
                   protected by ORS 390 (Oregon Beach Law),                    Implementing Action for Recommendation 11-3
                   including public access to and along the                    11 -3. OPRD should consider and evaluate alterna-
                   beach, public safety; and scenic and recre-                    tives for developing, administering, and manag-
                   ational values.                                                ing afund to implement this recommendation. A
                Implementing Action for Recommendation I I -I                    funding mechanism for such a program is
                11-1. By rule or other enforceable policy, LCDC and               needed.
                   DLCD shou ld prepare and adop t ru les for
                   determining whether a lot is
                   buildable or unbuildable. Local
                   governments should incorpo-
                   rate the procedures into the
                   SAMP process (see Recommen-                                  S.W Anchor Ave.
                   dation 9-1).
                                                                                            TAX LOT 1900
                Recommendation 11 -2
                   Amend the Oregon Tax                                                    proposed house
                Code to provide owners of
                hazard-prone property with an
                enhanced tax credit (for ex-                        OP Of Cliff
                ample, 150 percent of assessed
                value) for donating property to
                a public entity or a private,
                nonprofit land trust for perma-                                        bare
                nent, nondevelopment-related                                           face
                public use (for example, to
                                                                                                 vegetated        I
                OPRD, local park authorities,
                federal park or conservation
                                                                           -r 17
                authority, or private land
                conservancy).                                         <1
                Implementing Action for                               -            A.- -A-
                Recommendation 11-2                                     S u r f i C i a 1-1
                11-2. The Oregon State Legisla-                            slide         :71
                                                        A
                   ture should amend the tax code
                   to providefor an enhanced tax
                   credit according to Recommen-                                                         0     10   20    30
                   dation 11-2.                         rock                                                     feet
                                                        outcropping
                Recommendation 11 -3                                                                /S r/,Vc
                   Establish a public fund to                                                          ?'IAIC S 4
                purchase fee simple or devel-                   PROPOSED SEAWALL
                opment rights to property that                       BA- 317- 89
                is deemed unbuildable based                                                        beach
                on the criteria in Recommen-
                dation 11-1. The deed for such
                property should be held by            Figure 7. -This parcel in Lincoln City (tax lot 1900), perched 75 feet above the
                                                      beach on an eroding sea cliff, is a good example of a marginally buildable lot.
                OPRD or similar authority,            Assessedfor $5,450 in 1991, it was put upfor sale at $77,000 following
                                                      construction of a small seawall at the base of the cliff.


                68 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast





                                    Issue 12                                  a. Establish a sunset clause for new subdivi-
                 Past land use de         .cisions and existing                  sions that limits the time allowed for devel-
                                                                                 opment to occur and provides for automatic
                 uses unduly influence decisions on                              vacation of the subdivision at the time of
                 new development.                                                sunset.
                 Past decisions about private and public                      b. Review previously approved subdivisions as
                 development that did not fully consider                         required by ORS 92.205-92.245 (Undevel-
                 coastal natural hazards often influence or                      oped Subdivisions), modifying or vacating
                 prejudice today's land use decisions. Be-                       as appropriate. Base the decision to modify
                 cause of previous commitments to devel-                         or vacate, in part, on an evaluation of natu-
                 opment, critical facilities, industrial, com-                   ral hazards affecting the property (for ex-
                 mercial, and residential buildings, streets,                    ample, erosion rates on the potential for
                 highways, infrastructure, etc., are some-                       oceanfront lot setback requirements, the
                 times sited in areas now known to be                            potential for tsunami inundation).
                 hazardous or even life threatening. Ex-                      c. Simplify plat vacation and reconfiguration
                 amples include extension of sewer and                           procedures to expedite the process.
                 water lines into undeveloped areas and                       Implementing Action for Recommendation 12-1
                 subdivisions laid out without due consid-                    12-1. If sufficient authority exists, local govern-
                 eration of natural hazards.                                     ments should implement these recommendations
                                                                                 during periodic review of local comprehensive
                                                                                 plans, development of oceanfront SAMPs, or
                                                                                 independently, If such authority does not exist,
                 Findings                                                        DLCD should propose legislative action to
                   Many coastal properties are committed to                      authorize these subdivision procedures.
                 development at some level. Examples are
                 existing subdivisions, installed infrastructure,             Recommendation 12-2
                 and infill development of vacant lots in areas                  New Infrastructure. When a public or pri-
                 previously approved for development. Haz-                    vate infrastructure extension is proposed to
                 ardous areas that were undeveloped earlier are               service new development, evaluate the exten-
                 now being developed or filled in. This contin-               sion for its potential to influence land develop-
                 ues to occur despite improved hazard informa-                ment in hazardous areas. When an evaluation
                 tion that suggests that either no development                suggests increased hazard risks or impacts,
                 should take place or that changes in site plans              require that the infrastructure extension be
                 are needed to avoid or mitigate natural haz-                 modified to eliminate or minimize such ad-
                 ards. The unlimited time frame for subdivision               verse impacts.
                 development, particularly in rural lands,                    Implementing Action for Recommendation 12-2
                 creates the potential for similar problems. In               12-2. LCDC should amend the Public Facilities
                 the same manner, installing infrastructure                      Goal 11 to require a hazards assessment Of new
                 without full consideration of its impacts also                  infrastructure development. Local governments
                 encourages development of hazardous prop-                       should update local coordination agreetnents and
                 erty.                                                           ordinances at periodic plan review or during
                 Recommendations                                                 development of SAMPs.
                                                                              Recommendation 12-3
                 Recommendation 12-1                                             Existing Infrastructure. Evaluate existing
                  Subdivisions. Improve subdivision proce-                    public infrastructure in areas not yet built up
                 dures with respect to natural hazards as fol-                for its influence on land development in
                 lows:                                                        hazardous areas. Where reasonable, abandon,




                                                                               Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 69








              relocate, or otherwise restrict development to            existing infrastructure development. Local
              minimize threats to life or property.                     governments should update local coordination
              Implementing Action for Recommendation 12-3               agreements and ordinances at periodic plan
              12-3. LCDC should amend the Public Facilities             review or during development of SAMPs.
                 Goal 11 to require a hazards assessment Of






                                                                     A











































                                         00


                                                                             fte
                                                                                     J,


              Development continues tofill in on previously subdivided property in Pacific City without
              regard to obvious erosion hazards; unless the unbuilt lots are abandoned, the only available
              hazard mitigation is shoreline armoring with riprap (ODOT photo).






              70 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast





                                Issue 13                                effective than others. Setbacks that are too
                                                                        small may quickly place upland buildings at
              Oceanfront construction setbacks,                         risk and create demand for seawalls or riprap
              as now implemented, have not                              revetments. These SPSs, in turn, may adversely
              proven to be an effective means for                       affect neighboring properties, the public beach,
              avoiding hazards.                                         and scenic and recreational qualities protected
                                                                        under the 1967 Beach Law.
              Construction setback procedures for build-                   Other kinds of problems arise in partially
              ings along the oceanfront vary among                      built-up areas (infill development) or where
              coastal jurisdictions and differ in their                 required setbacks are large enough to render
              effectiveness. Variances to required set-                 property unbuildable. In these cases, setback
              backs are common, leading to development                  waivers are often granted. Resulting setbacks
              of marginally buildable properties, placing               may be based on existing setbacks for neigh-
              upland improvements at risk, and creating                 boring properties (in the case of infill) or on
              demand for otherwise unnecessary shore                    site-specific analysis and recommendations.
              protection structures. Overly permissive                  These recommendations often call for installa-
              allowances for density and lot coverage are               tion of a SPS in lieu of an appropriate setback.
              sometimes the basis of setback variances.                 There is concern that new subdivisions con-
              In areas where buildable portions of ocean-               tinue to be approved with oceanfront lots that
              front lots are shallow, required setbacks                 may be too shallow for adequate construction
              may effectively render lots unbuildable.                  setbacks.
                                                                           Another problem on lots where only a
                                                                        portion of the lot is deemed buildable (for
                                                                        example, where part of the lot is upland and
              Findings                                                  part is on the beach) is that some local govern-
                                                                        ments use the entire lot, rather than just the
                The use of mandatory coastal construction               buildable portion, to determine lot coverage
              setbacks as a means of avoiding hazards and               and density allowances. As a result, develop-
              preventing loss of property is a well-accepted            ments cannot proceed without setback vari-
              coastal management tool throughout the                    ances that unnecessarily place development at
              United States and other parts of the world. In            risk or lead to proposals for seawalls or revet-
              Oregon, several state-level general planning              ments.
              policies relate directly or indirectly to setbacks.
              Statewide Planning Goal 7 states "develop-
              ment shall not be ... located in areas subject to         Recommendations
              hazards without appropriate safeguards."
              Goal 17 requires that "land use management                Recommendation 13-1
              practices and non-structural solutions to                    Develop, test, and refine a coastwide techni-
              problems of erosion and flooding shall be                 cal methodology for coastal construction
              preferred ...... And Goal 18 prohibits most               setbacks, whereby each property would be
              development "on beaches, on active foredunes,             evaluated on its unique characteristics using
              and on other foredunes which are condition-               the most up-to-date information available.
              ally stable and are subject to ocean undercut-            Factors to consider for this formula-based
              ting or wave overtopping, and on interdune                approach are as follows:
              areas (deflation plains) subject to ocean flood-          a. wave run-up and surge potential for a 100-
              ing./I                                                       year storm (assuming spring tides)
                Although these policies provide some                    b. local beach and dune erosion or accretion
              guidance to local governments, the state has no              rates
              specific technical guidelines for determining
              setbacks. Each local jurisdiction thus uses its           c. landform and geology
              own procedures and criteria; some are more                d. historic rate of sea cliff recession



                                                                         Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (oast 71








                 e. the type, intensity, and expected life span of              included in the content standardsfor
                    the proposed development                                    geotechnical reports (see Issue 2).
                 f. tsunami inundation limit and run-up height               Recommendation 13-3
                 g. whether the property was "undeveloped"                      Allow variances to required coastal con-
                    on January 1, 1977, in which case setbacks               struction setbacks only when all of the follow-
                    should be greater because hard shore protec-             ing conditions are met:
                    tion structures are not permitted under                  a. It is demonstrated that building design
                    Statewide Planning Goal 18                                  (footprint and overhangs) and proposed
                 Implementing Action for Recommendation 13-1                    construction techniques minimize exposure
                 13-1. LCDC should amend the Coastal Shorelands                 to natural hazards.
                    Goal 17, requiring that DLCD, in cooperation             b. It is agreed upon and established by vari-
                    with DOGAMI, OPRD, and coastal local                        ance condition that no concurrent or future
                    governments, develop a consistent coastal                   hard shore protection structures will be
                    construction setback methodology. Once a                    permitted on the property.
                    reliable method is in place, it should be adopted        c. Maximum setback variances on other parts
                    by administrative rule and included in the                  of the property (sides and street or back)
                    content standards for geotechnical reports (see             have already been granted and incorporated
                    Issue 2). Funding should be provided through the            into the design.
                    Coastal Hazards component of the Coastal Zone
                    Management Act Section 309 program for                   Implementing Action for Recommendation 13-3
                    Oregon.                                                  13-3. Through administrative rules or through
                                                                                amendment of the Coastal Shorelands Goal 17,
                 Recommendation 13-2                                            LCDC should set limits on variances to coastal
                    Require use of the coastal construction                     construction setbacks.
                 setback method (Recommendation 13-1) for all
                 shoreline development subject to coastal                    Recommendation 13-4
                 natural hazards. Have coastal construction                     Do not allow the use of lot coverage or
                 setbacks for upland buildings and infrastruc-               building density allowances as the basis for a
                 ture determined by a qualified professional                 variance to required coastal construction
                 and include these setbacks in site-specific                 setbacks.
                 geotechnical reports or other project proposals.            Implementing Action for Recommendation 13-4
                 Implementing Action for Recommendation 13-2                 13-4. Through administrative rules or through
                 13-2. LCDC should require use of the approved                  amendment of the Coastal Shorelands Goal 17
                    coastal construction setback methodology; it                LCDC should set limits on variances to coastal
                    should be adopted by administrative rule and                construction setbacks.















                 72 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast




















                                                                                4PIV
                                                                                                        QU-














                                                                                                        7
                                                                   W













                                                                         A



                                                       J








                                         N"@









                                                             L:'A
                                                                                 Amo- "-wkwk.





                                                                     J,
                                                                                     ISO
                                                                       'A
                 LIZ



























                Construction setback regulations differ markedlyftom jurisdiction to jurisdiction, resulting in
                distinctly different land-use patterns and scenic character (top, city of Gearhart; bottom,
                Coronado Shores, Lincoln County) (ODOT photos).


                                                                                  Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 73





                                   Issue 14                                      TO prohibit all new construction in earth-
                                                                              quake and tsunami high-hazard areas and to
                Development continues to be sited                             relocate existing development away from these
                in earthquake and tsunami high-                               areas would severely curtail economic devel-
                hazard areas.                                                 opment in coastal communities and ports. Such
                                                                              a move is not practical or justifiable. However,
                Decisions on land use planning, siting, or                    strictly limiting some kinds of new develop-
                capital expenditure for public or private                     ment and gradual replacement of some older
                infrastructure, critical and lifeline facilities,             facilities located in these areas make good
                and residential, commercial, industrial, and                  economic sense and at the same time promote
                other development do not explicitly factor                    public safety.
                in potential earthquake-related hazards,
                including amplified ground shaking, soil
                liquefaction, ground subsidence or uplift,                    Recommendations
                fault rupture zone location, landslide
                potential, or tsunami or seiche inundation                    Recommendation 14-1
                and run-up.                                                      Establish a system of special zones, proce-
                                                                              dures, restrictions, and conditions to limit
                                                                              development in earthquake and tsunami high-
                                                                              hazard areas (figure 8). Such a system would
                Findings                                                      include the means to determine the appropri-
                                                                              ate level of allowable activities, depending on
                   In the last few years, Oregonians have                     the hazard. It would need to be based on
                become aware of their vulnerability to extreme                relatively sophisticated information and map-
                earthquake hazards, particularly on the coast.                ping that would include a determination of the
                just 20 to 40 miles offshore lies the longest and             hazard area, an evaluation of the hazard, an
                potentially most dangerous fault zone in North                evaluation of the severity, and the level of
                America (the 700-mile long CSZ-see figure 1).                 allowable risk (see Recommendation 1-3).
                There is a 10 to 20 percent probability of a                  Implementing Action for Recommendation 14-1
                major quake (magnitude 8-9+) along the CSZ
                in the next 50 years. Hundreds of other crustal               14-1. LCDC, in cooperation with DOGAMI, cities,
                faults that crisscross the shoreline could be                    counties, and emergency managers, should
                activated by a major quake. While adequale                       amend Goal 7, giving special attention to earth-
                disaster preparedness is essential for saving                    quake and tsunami hazards. On the basis of those
                lives, it is also critical that the state integrate              amendments, they should develop administrative
                earthquake-related considerations into its land                  rules that incorporate detailed guidelines for land
                use planning and development process, espe-                      use related to these hazards, including the special
                cially given the recent acceleration of coastal                  zones, procedures, restrictions, and conditions
                development. If appropriate land use measures                    (for example, see Recommendation 14-2).
                are implemented now, it will save lives, reduce
                property losses, and facilitate effective disaster            Recommendation 14-2
                response when the inevitable CSZ quake does                      Prohibit the construction of or significant
                strike.                                                       additions to essential facilities, hazardous
                  Of special concern with respect to hazards is               facilities, major structures, and special occu-
                the siting of lifelines and critical facilities               pancy structures in earthquake and tsunami
                (highways, water lines, fire and police facili-               high-hazard areas.
                ties, hospitals, etc.) and other development that             Implementing Action for Recommendation 14-2
                attracts large groups of people or people with                14-2. Rules established under Recommendation 14-
                limited mobility (schools, nursing care, shop-                   1 should include the prohibition recommended in
                ping centers, etc.). Of particular concern for the               Recommendation 14-2. Cities and counties
                latter groups are evacuation times and routes.                   should evaluate high-hazard areas under their
                                                                                 jurisdiction and rezone them accordingly.


                74 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast







                                      Max water level                                         Max intrusion point


                                                        H = Height of wave
                                          Max                 at shoreline                                 T
                                       Sea Level                                                            R = Runup height
                                          MSL                                                                    above MSL
                                                                                IL
                                                                      Inundation Limit






               Figure 8. -Areas that would be inundated by a tsunami generated by a large CSZ earthquake need to be mapped all
               along the coast.


               Recommendation 14-3                                           these high-hazard areas when normal replace-
                  Limit other types of development in high-                  ment or major overhaul is due.
               hazard areas to low-intensity uses. In addition,              Implementing Action for Recommendation 14-4
               establish specific conditions and building                    14-4. City and county planning and development
               standards, for development that will prevent                     authorities, in cooperation with emergency
               collapse of structures when they are subjected                   management officials, utilities, and other private
               to expected earthquake or tsunami forces.                        parties, should develop and implement a long-
               Implementing Action for Recommendation 14-3                      range planfor phasing out these structures,
               14-3. Following rules established under Recommen-                facilities, and infrastructures.
                  dations 14-1 and 14-2, cities and counties should
                  evaluate high-hazard areas under their jurisdic-           Recommendation 14-5
                  tion and rezone them or establish appropriate                 Incorporate information on tsunami run-up
                  permitted uses or development conditions and               associated with forecasted CSZ earthquakes
                  standards for them.                                        into the National Flood Insurance Program and
                                                                             rate maps as data becomes available.
               Recommendation 14-4                                           Implementing Action for Recommen  .dation 14-5
                  Develop long-range plans to phase out                      14-5. In coordination with DOGAMI, FEMA
               existing essential facilities, hazardous facilities,             should revise its flood insurance rate maps to
               major structures, and special occupancy                          incorporate locally generated CSZ tsunami
               structures located in earthquake or tsunami                      hazards.
               high-hazard areas. Similarly, phase out or
               relocate utilities and other infrastructure in










                                                                                Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 75













                                                                                                                        1W
                                                         -AP














                                                                                 W
                                                                                     ma
                                                                                  V4

                                                                                                                        t-A
                                                                                                                      J;


                                                                                                         ZT





                                                      J"


                                                                                         J


                                                                          fir_





                                                      Iiv
                                                      VT &
















                                                                        A&





                What, where, and how to develop in areas subject to tsunami hazards poses a conundrum for Oregon communities and
                ports (ODOT photo at Brookings).



                76 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast





                             Earthquake and Tsunami Disaster
                                   Preparedness and Response
              T
                  here is a growing awareness in the Pacific           (figure 8). And there needs to be a comprehen-
                   Northwest that the region is more                   sive program to educate residents, visitors, and
                   seismically active than previously thought,         critical service providers about earthquakes
              that the risks of earthquakes to life and prop-          and tsunamis, the risks they pose, and how to
              erty are great, and that the region is largely           respond effectively should one or both strike.
              unprepared. Three types of earthquakes pose                We address nine issues in this section,
              threats: (1) shallow crustal quakes along active         providing specific recommendations for each:
              faults up to magnitude 6.5, (2) intraplate               e seismic safety of structures and facilities
              quakes up to magnitude 7.4 that occur deep               * limited public awareness of earthquake and
              within the oceanic Juan de Fuca plate as it                tsunami hazards and the need to plan for a
              bends under the North American plate, and (3)              disaster
              very large CSZ quakes of magnitude 8-9+ that
              occur offshore at the boundary where the Juan            9 inadequate state and local emergency man-
              de Fuca and North American plates are locked               agement plans with respect to large earth-
              together (for a more detailed discussion, see              quakes
              earlier section on Natural Hazards Along the             * inadequate earthquake and tsunami pre-
              Oregon Coast).                                             paredness in our schools, businesses, and
                Oregonians are not well prepared for the                 homes
              least of these quakes, let alone a potentially
              catastrophic CSZ event that would be accom-              e incomplete organizational structure for
              panied by severe ground shaking, local subsid-             emergency management
              ence or uplift, soil liquefaction, landslides, and       * insufficient exercise of earthquake and
              large tsunamis. More and better information is             tsunami response plans
              needed about potential earthquake events and             0 communication networks that are insuffi-
              the risks they pose to life and property. Re-              cient to deal effectively with large earth-
              sponse plans need to be updated and exer-                  quake disasters
              cised, and organizational relationships and
              responsibilities clarified. Structural mitigation        * the severe disruption of physical infrastruc-
              opportunities in the coastal zone need to be               ture, lifelines, and utilities that will accom-
              identified for new and old buildings, public               pany a large earthquake
              and private infrastructure, and critical facilities      9 need for postdisaster reconstruction plan-
                                                                         ning















                                                                        Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 77















                          77-
                                                                                             7W,






                                                                                  -W             _,T

                                                                         ."7, it                                               7-.





















                                                                                                                               7


























                 The City of Seaside and similar communities constructed on low-lying sandy shores are particularly vulnerable to
                 earthquake and tsunami hazards (ODOT photo).



                 78 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast





                                   Issue 15                                  severe ground shaking. Further, local building
                                                                             elevation requirements and other standards
                Because they are vulnerable to                               designed to mitigate ocean flooding hazards
                earthquakes or tsunamis, many                                under the National Flood Insurance Program
                structures and facilities, including                         may make some structures more vulnerable to
                recently constructed ones, are po-                           ground-shaking hazards.
                tentially unsafe.                                            Recommendaf ions
                A large earthquake with strong, sustained
                ground shaking would likely destroy many                     Recommendation 15-1
                buildings in coastal communities, particu-                      Identify and inspect structures and facilities
                larly unreinforced masonry structures,                       in coastal communities that are vulnerable to
                nonductile concrete structures, and tilt-up                  earthquake or tsunami hazards. At a mini-
                buildings. In low-lying areas, many other                    mum, make a visual inspection, examine the
                types of buildings would also be destroyed                   underlying soil, and estimate the survivability
                by tsunami wave and current forces and by                    of the structure in the, event of a major earth-
                loose debris carried by waters. At present,                  quake or tsunami. Communicate the inspection
                many essential facilities, hazardous facili-                 results to local governments and the owners
                ties, major structures, and special occu-                    and operators of private structures and facili-
                pancy structures (as defined by ORS                          ties (see also Recommendation 21-4). Give
                455.477; see Issue 2) may be at risk. Their                  inspection priority to
                vulnerability places a significant number of                 a. essential facilities, hazardous facilities, major
                lives and property at risk in coastal com-                      structures, and special occupancy structures
                munities.                                                       (as defined by ORS 455.477)
                                                                             b. unreinforced masonry structures, nonductile
                                                                                concrete buildings, tilt-up structures, and
                Findings                                                        other potentially unsafe structures
                   Many old and even newer buildings on the                  Implementing Actions for Recommendation 15-1
                coast are vulnerable to intense, sustained                   15-1 A. DOGAMI, in cooperation with BCD, local
                ground shaking that would likely accompany a                    building officials and emergency managers, and
                major earthquake and the inundation by                          the private sector, has initiated a reconnaissance-
                tsunamis that likely will follow such an event.                 level evaluation of essential facilities, hazardous
                Currently, it is unclear what structures would                  facilities, major structures, and special occu-
                be at risk, but they may include essential                      pancy structures. A preliminary report is due in
                facilities, hazardous facilities, major structures,             December 1994.
                special occupancy structures, and a variety of               15-1 B. DOGAMI should initiate follow-up studies
                other key public and private buildings. With-                   as warranted, such as the inspections identified
                out better information on the vulnerability of                  in Recommendation 15-1b. Funding should be
                such structures and facilities, it is difficult to              soughtfrom the Oregon State Legislature as
                develop priorities for retrofitting existing                    needed.
                structures and facilities.
                  With respect to structural codes, western                  15-1 C. Cities and counties should be encouraged by
                Oregon, including the coast, recently changed                   DOGAMI to identify and examine vulnerable
                from earthquake zone 2B to zone 3. However,                     structures in their communities to eliminate any
                some earthquake experts believe the coast                       possible gaps in information.
                should be upgraded to zone 4 or greater
                because of the threat of a large CSZ earth-                  Recommendation 15-2
                quake. Without such an upgrade, some argue,                     Establish procedures for retrofitting, upgrad-
                even new structures may be vulnerable to                     ing, or relocating structures and facilities
                                                                             identified as unsafe during inspections con-


                                                                               Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (oast 79








               ducted in accordance with Recommendation                      administrative rule. Local building officials
               15-1 (see also Recommendation 21-4).                          should notify the structure orfacility owners of
               a. For essential facilities, hazardous facilities,            the required retrofitting or other action and
                  major structures, and special occupancy                    enforce it.
                  structures (Recommendation 15-1a), require
                  appropriate retrofitting or other action                Recommendation 15-3
                  within the next 20 years.                                  Conduct a study of seismic hazard zones 3
               b. For unreinforced masonry structures,                    and 4 building code requirements with respect
                  nonductile concrete buildings, tilt-up struc-           to the sustained ground shaking, liquefaction,
                  tures, and other potentially unsafe structures          tsunami inundation, and other hazards ex-
                  (Recommendation 15-1b), recommend                       pected during a large CSZ earthquake. Up-
                  appropriate retrofitting or other action as             grade coastal Oregon building codes to con-
                  needed.                                                 form with the results of this study with special
                                                                          requirements as needed.
               Implementing Action for Recommendation 15-2                Implementing Action for Recommendation 15-3
               15-2. BCD, in cooperation with DOGAMI, OEM,                15-3. BCD and DOGAMI, in cooperation with
                  local building officials and emergency managers,           local building officials, should evaluate seismic
                  and structural engineers from the private sector,          hazard zones 3 and 4 with respect to a CSZ
                  should develop retrofitting guidelines consistent          earthquake and implement needed changesfor the
                  with this recommendation and adopt them by                 Oregon coast.


























               80 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast








                                                                                      Sill

               Expansion bolt





                                                                             40


                       (aulk                       6

                                                                              Foundation
                                0
                                                  10






                                              00 !,












              Figure 9. -Construction techniques that tie major structural components of buildings together are
              key provisions of earthquake design for both new construction and retrofitting.


                                                                                 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 81






                                 Issue 16                                With respect to disaster preparedness,
                                                                      detailed information is available, mostly from
                There is limited public awareness                     federal agencies and the American Red Cross,
                of what earthquake and tsunami                        covering such topics as preparation of emer-
                hazards are, what risks are in-                       gency provisions, removing potential house-
                volved, and how to plan for or re-                    hold hazards, and accessing emergency com-
                spond to such events.                                 munication systems. What is lacking, however,
                                                                      is more regional information covering such
                Most coastal residents and visitors and               topics as tsunami evacuation routes, areas
                many government workers and other                     deemed "safe" from catastrophic hazards,
                critical service providers have a limited             availability of local emergency services, and
                understanding and appreciation of what is             location of food and water. Whereas most
                known about earthquake and tsunami                    general information deals with preparing for a
                hazards and risks in the coastal zone,                catastrophic event, regional information is vital
                particularly those associated with a large            for the time during and immediately after just
                CSZ event. In addition, there is only lim-            such an event.
                ited understanding of how to prepare for
                and respond to a large earthquake. Al-                Recommendations
                though a great deal of general information               Recommendation 16-1. Assign state leader-
                is available about disaster preparedness              ship responsibility for earthquake and tsunami
                and response from sources like the Ameri-             awareness, risk reduction, and preparedness
                can Red Cross and FEMA, little of this                and response education to DOGAMI, in part-
                information is tailored to specific areas of          nership with the OEM. These agencies should
                the Oregon coast. Such area-specific infor-           integrate their efforts and make full use of
                mation is needed to plan a detailed re-               other centers of scientific and technical exper-
                sponse to a disaster.                                 tise, financial support, and educational ser-
                                                                      vices. Among these centers are FEMA, U.S.
                                                                      Geological Survey, OSSPAC, the American Red
                                                                      Cross, local emergency management organiza-
                Findings                                              tions, the State Fire Marshall, the Oregon State
                  Although there has been some improvement            Police and local law enforcement agencies, the
                in the availability of information about earth-       Department of Education and local school
                quake and tsunami hazards and risks in the            districts, higher education institutions, the
                past few years, many coastal residents, visitors      OSU Extension Service, and the community
                and even providers of emergency services are          college system.
                ill-informed about them. Not all understand           Implementing Action for Recommendation 16-1
                what earthquakes are and what causes them.            16-1. The Oregon State Legislature should desig-
                Many are not aware of the kinds of earth-                nate DOGAMI as the lead state agencyfor
                quakes that occur in the region or know the              earthquake and tsunami education, in partner-
                significance of the CSZ. Few know what to                ship with OEM and other listed agencies,
                expect during and after each type of earth-              commissions, institutions, and organizations.
                quake. And some who are aware of earthquake
                hazards may not understand that although              Recommendation 16-2
                they are likely to survive even a major earth-           Assign local leadership responsibility for
                quake, the community might be severely                earthquake and tsunami awareness, risk
                affected (for example, there will be many             reduction, and disaster response and prepared-
                injuries, isolation in small groups, and damage       ness education to county emergency manage-
                to buildings, roads, bridges, dams, and utili-        ment authorities. Base such education on a
                ties).                                                likely earthquake and tsunami scenario for
                                                                      each area, recognizing the critical role of local


                82 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (oast







                                                                                                                      Jet









                           AL





               The tsunamis that hit Crescent City, California, following the March 28, 1964 Alaskan earthquake claimed 11 lives
               and caused more than $7 million in damage (G. Griffin, Crescent City photo).


               chapters of the American Red Cross, fire and                    and in Appendix D, "Cascadia Earthquake -
               police departments, medical providers, the                      Tsunami Education Strategy. " DOGAMI and
               Coast Guard, local OSU Extension offices, and                   OEM should take the lead in implementing this
               other agencies, organizations, and auxiliaries.                 effort, in partnership with other agencies.
               Implementing Action for Recommendation 16-2                  16-3 B. The Oregon Legislature should support the
               16-2. The Oregon State Legislature should desig-                DOGAMI 1995 legislative initiativefor tsunami
                  nate county emergency management authorities                 hazard education in schools, but broaden both the
                  as lead agencies for local earthquake and tsunami            audience coverage and topics to include other
                  education, in partnership with DOGAMI, the                   earthquake hazards along the coast, such as
                  American Red Cross, and other agencies.                      structural hazards caused by ground shaking,
                                                                               landslides, and liquefaction of soils. Other
               Recommendation 16-3                                             educational systems in the state -the Depart-
                  Design and implement broad-based, su stain-                  ment of Education, the community college
               able educational programs focused on increas-                   system, and the OSU Extension Service, includ-
               ing awareness of earthquake and tsunami                         ing Sea Grant-should seek state andjederal
               hazards and improving disaster preparedness                     support to expand their education programs in
               and response. Target audiences are coastal                      this area.
               residents and visitors, schools and youth,                   Recommendation 16-4
               service providers, businesses and industry,
               developers and contractors, and financial and                   Establish and participate in a Cascadia
               legal sectors.                                               Earthquake-Tsunami Education Network in
               Implementing Actions for Recommendation 16-3                 the region (Oregon, Washington, northern
                                                                            California, and British Columbia) to coordinate
               16-3 A. A preliminary framework for education                education activities, and share resources,
                  programs is outlined in Recommendation 16-6               materials, and know-how. Include educators,


                                                                             Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (oast 83





                    TSUNWI HAZARD ZONE.





                       IN (ASE OF EARTHQUAKE, GO
                       TO HIGH GROUND OR INLAND





                    TSUNAMI




                                                                                        Tsunami warning zone and evacuation route
                                      ROUTE                                             signs like these have been approvedfor use in
                                                                                        coastal communities by DOGAMI and
                                                                                        ODOT The signs will serve both as an
                                                                                        educational device and as a real-time response
                                                                                        aide in the event of an earthquake or tsunami.


                84 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast








               public and private educational institutions and            from the California Office of Emergency Ser-
               organizations, and other interested individuals            vices). Tailor the material to specific audiences,
               in the network.                                            learning styles, educational levels, and geo-
               Implementing Action for Recommendation 16-4                graphic areas of the Cascadia region. The
               16-4. DOGAMI, OEM, and county emergency                    following are examples:
                  managers should organize the Oregon component           a. a model educational package with videos,
                  of the proposed Earthquake-Tsunami Education               slide sets with text, fact sheets, a simulated
                  Network and develop ties with appropriate                  earthquake experience, and preparedness-
                  agencies in Washington and California to                   response demonstrations that could be
                  develop components of the network in those                 tailored to specific audiences or areas
                  states.                                                 b. a Cascadia "speakers bureau" with regional
                                                                             experts on earthquake and tsunami hazards,
               Recommendation 16-5                                           techniques for reducing hazards in the home
                  Identify, collect, catalog, and store existing             or office, preparing emergency kits, respond-
               earthquake and tsunami education materials at                 ing to disasters, and communicating after a
               a statewide or regional clearinghouse. Dissemi-               disaster
               nate this information to educators and others              c. earthquake media packets with response
               in the Cascadia region.                                       and survival information, specialist contacts,
               Implementing Action for Recommendation 16-5                   etc., that radio, television, print, and other
               16-5. Lead agencies should implement this recom-              media could use when an earthquake occurs
                  mendation through the proposed Cascadia                 Implementing Action for Recommendation 16-6
                  Earthquake-Tsunami Education Network.                   16-6. DOGAMI, OEM, and county emergency
               Recommendation 16-6                                           managers should implement this recommenda-
                  Identify outstanding educational materials                 tion through the proposed Cascadia Earthquake-
               and approaches from other areas (for example,                 Tsunami Education Network.



















                                                                           Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (bast 85





                                Issue 17                               Recommendations
               State and local emergency manage-                       Recommendation 17-1
               ment plans do not adequately ad-                           Require preparation of an earthquake annex
               dress the scope and scale of coastal                    to Oregon's all-hazards Emergency Operations
               earthquake and tsunami hazards                          Plan, based in part on what was learned in
               and risks.                                              Quakex-94. At the state level, emphasize
               Emergency management plans for most                     emergency relief hierarchy and procedures;
                                                                       reestablishment of basic services and lifelines,
               coastal counties and communities do not                 including power, communications, water and
               adequately address earthquake, tsunami,                 sewer services; and emergency repair of roads
               and related natural hazards. The realiza-               and bridges.
               tion that the Oregon coast is susceptible to            Implementing Action for Recommendation 17-1
               these types of hazards has been fully ac-
               cepted only in the past decade. Most of the             17-1. The Oregon State Legislature should amend
               scientific data concerning the effects of                  ORS 401 to require that OEM prepare a state
               such catastrophic events has been docu-                    earthquake annex, in collaboration with FEMA
               mented within the past few years and has                   and other relevant federal, state, and local
               not yet been fully accounted for in emer-                  agencies. Appropriatefunding should be pro-
                                                                          vided as well.
               gency management plans.
                                                                       Recommendation 17-2
                                                                          Develop a model earthquake annex for
                                                                       coastal county emergency plans based on a
               Findings                                                detailed earthquake or tsunami scenario
                 Disaster response efforts at the local level are      developed by DOGAMI. Provide technical
               coordinated by county emergency manage-                 assistance to counties and cities in adapting the
               ment staff and volunteers. Few county disaster          model to their area. The model local earth-
               response plans fully account for the range,             quake annex should focus principally on
               severity, and distribution of destruction that          caring for people but should assume that
               would likely accompany a large CSZ earth-               coastal jurisdictions will be isolated for a
               quake and associated tsunamis. Neither do               relatively long time following a large earth-
               they deal adequately with the expected degree           quake because they will be low on the priority
               or length of isolation that may be experienced.         list for receiving post-disaster aid from outside
               This is in part due to the lack of area-specific        sources. A model earthquake annex should
               information on what can be expected during a            contain the following
               large earthquake. Getting the financial re-             a. an inventory of locally available equipment
               sources and political support to prepare such              and supplies (including those in adjacent
               plans has also been a problem in some areas, in            counties) that could be used during an
               part because local officials do not want to                earthquake disaster and a plan for mobiliz-
               overreact to the earthquake threat. Most com-              ing in event of an earthquake
               munities are trying to prepare without unduly           b. an inventory of hazardous materials along
               frightening residents and visitors. Quakex-94, a           with plans for making the sites earthquake-
               full-scale, state-wide exercise with a magnitude           ready, if they are not already so
               8.5 CSZ earthquake and locally generated
               tsunamis, has provided state and local emer-            c. an inventory of critical facilities and service
               gency managers additional information with                 providers (for example, hospitals, schools,
               which to upgrade their plans and develop                   water treatment plants) and their suscepti-
               earthquake annexes (an annex is an appendix                bility to earthquake damage
               of special procedures).




               86 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast







              d. an inventory of residents or groups who                 Implementing Action for Recommendation 17-3
                 may need special help during or after an                17-3. Responsibility for development of local
                 earthquake                                                 earthquake annexes should be vested in local
              e. evacuation plans based on infrastructure                   emergency management organizations, with
                 that is expected to remain usable after an                 technical assistancefrom FEMA, OEM, and
                 earthquake or a tsunami                                    other emergency preparedness agencies.
              Implementing Action for Recommendation 17-2                Recommendation 17-4
              17-2. The Oregon State Legislature should amend               Require that state and local earthquake
                 ORS 401 to require that OEM prepare a model             annexes to emergency plans be peer reviewed
                 local earthquake annex, in collaboration with           periodically by a team appointed by OEM to
                 FEMA, DOGAMI, and other relevant federal,               ensure that they are kept up-to-date with the
                 state, and local agencies. Appropriate funding          ever-expanding knowledge base on coastal
                 should be provided as well.                             earthquake hazards and mitigation strategies.
              Recommendation 17-3                                        Implementing Action for Recommendation 17-4
                 Following the OEM model earthquake                      17-4. The Oregon State Legislature should amend
              annex (developed as per Recommendation 17-                    ORS 401 to require periodic peer review and
              2), counties, cities, and other organizations, as             update of state and local emergency operation
              determined by counties, should develop                        plans. OEM should implement this provision,
              earthquake annexes for their all-hazard emer-                 seeking assistancefrom the Oregon Emergency
              gency plans.                                                  Managers Association.

























                                                                          Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (oust 87






                                  Issue 18                               Implementing Action for Recommendation 18-1
                Earthquake preparedness and re-                          18-1. Local emergency managers should implement
                                                                            this recommendation, with assistancefrom
                sponse planning for businesses,                             DOGAMI, OEM, local Red Cross offices, and
                families, schools, and individuals                          other emergency management personnel in
                are inadequate.                                             communities.
                Most businesses, schools, homes, and                     Recommendation 18-2
                individuals are not well prepared for an                    Use grassroots organizations such as com-
                earthquake or tsunami disaster. Few have                 munity volunteer programs, neighborhood
                instituted the full array of precautionary               associations, and community planning organi-
                mitigation measures, have adequate emer-                 zations to contact and assist families and
                gency supplies stockpiled, and have writ-                individuals.
                ten response plans that are regularly exer-              Implementing Action for Recommendation 18-2
                cised.
                                                                         18-2. Local emergency managers should implement
                                                                            this recommendation, with the assistance of
                                                                            leaders in grassroots organizations.
                Findings                                                 Recommendation 18-3
                  Few homes and families have the plan of                   Require school officials to develop and
                action needed to reduce the initial shock of an          implement earthquake preparedness plans
                earthquake and to promote family self-suffi-             consistent with FEMA Bulletin 88 (Guidebook
                ciency for at least 72 hours afterwards (or              for Development of a School Earthquake Safety
                longer in the event of a large earthquake).              Program) and additional guidelines for tsunami
                Similarly, few workplaces have preparedness              evacuation, if applicable. The consequences of
                and response plans in place. Schools may have            this planning are as follows:
                such plans, but few incorporate needed provi-            a. students will have their own earthquake
                sions, most are not adequately exercised, and               preparedness "ready kit" at school
                few make needed links with family plans. In
                addition, most homes, schools, and workplaces            b. students will know what their role is in both
                have not conducted assessments of the struc-                their family plan and the school plan and
                tural integrity of their buildings and imple-               feel confident about their own safety and
                mented needed retrofitting (see Issue 15); nor              that of family members
                have they taken nonstructural mitigation                 c. school administrators will have a plan for
                precautions, such as measures to secure book-               what to do with school children after the
                shelves, water heaters, hazardous materials, or             earthquake
                other equipment or supplies.                             d. staff will have their own family emergency
                                                                            plans in place so they can concentrate on
                Recommendations                                             emergency duties at school
                Recommendation 18-1                                      e. school safety personnel will
                  Evaluate existing levels of disaster prepared-            1) identify and mitigate structural and
                ness in homes, schools, and work places.                    nonstructural hazards in their school
                Develop a strategy for making structural and                2) determine if their school is in a potential
                nonstructural inspections and improvements                  tsunami inundation area, and if so, have
                and for distributing FEMA and Red Cross                     appropriate evacuation procedures in place
                guides and brochures that explain how to                 Implementing Action for Recommendation 18-3
                prepare disaster response plans and supply               18-3. The Department of Education, DOGAMI,
                kits, eliminate home hazards, and respond to
                an earthquake.                                              OEM, and local school districts, with the support


                88 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast













                                 111:11MAI-MA - FLASH FLOOD - FIFE - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPHLL - EARTHOUAKE - TORNADO                                                              FiOOO - HAZARDOU    S MATERIALS SPILL - FARTHOUAKE - TORNADO - WINTER STORE? - JINJ
                                    Your                                                                                                                         Your
                                    Familyffisaster Plan                                                                                                         FamillyDisaster Supplies R AA

                                                                                                                                                                        Isasters happen                After a disaster, local officials and refidworkers w beonthe@
                                           hem will your                Disaster can strike quickly and     without warning. It can force                               anytime and anv-               but They cannot reach everyone inamodiately. YOU d=d get help in
                                    LZ family be when                   you to evacuate your neighborhood or confine YOU to Your                                        where, Arid when               hours, or it my take days. Would Your farnily be prepared to cope with
                                    disaster s1rillem? They             home. What would you do if basic services-water, gas,                                           ter strikes, you               the emergency Data help arrives?
                                    could be anywhere-                  electricity or telepbones-weTe cut ofP L-ocal officials and                              may not have much time
                                                                        relief workers will be on the scene after a disaster, but they                           to respond.
                                                                        cannot reach everyone right away.

                                                                        Families can-and do-cope with disaster by preparing in
                                                                        advance and working together as a team. Follow the steps
                                                                        listed in this brochure to create your family's disaster plan.                                                                 Your fornily will cupe best by preparing for disaster Wore it strikes.
                                                                        Knowing what to do is your best protection and your                                         Vii                                Om way to preptire is by as-bling a Disaster Supplies Kit. Once
                                              at work                   responsibility.                                                                          A highway spill of li@                disaster hits, you won't have time to shop or search For supplies. Butif
                                                                                                                                                                 ardous material could                 you've gathered supplies in advance, your family m endun, an ev-
                                                                                                                                                                 mean instant evacuation.              tion or how confirement.




                                             atschool


                                                                                                                                                                 Av                       j1d          To prepare your kit
                                                                                                                                                                 confine your family at
                                                                                                                                                                                                         Review the checklist in this bro@htue.
                                                                                                                                                                 home. An earthquake,
                                                                                                                                                                 flood, tornado or any                 0 Gathet,; ties that are li-d. You may need them ifyour
                                           or in the car,                                                                                                        other disaster could cut                farraly      @cd  at h..e.
                                                                                                                                                                 offtsk=,Zg                            a Place the supplies you'd most likely need for an evacuation in
                                    Now will you find                                                                                                            water, of                 Z.,           an easy-to-cany rUntainer. These supplies are listed with an
                                    each other? Will you                                                                                                         telephones-4or days.                    asterisk
                                    know if your children
                                    are safe?                                                                    +                                                                                                                                      +

                                 Disaster response planning aides are availablefrom the American Red Cross and FEMA.


                                       of OSSPAC, should initiate needed legislative                                                                                mechanism), providing new businesses and
                                       changes and implement them at the local school                                                                               renewals with an "earthquake preparedness tool
                                       district level, in cooperation with county emer-                                                                             kit. "
                                       gency management authorities.                                                                                          Recommendation 18-5
                                 Recommendation 18-4                                                                                                                Develop emergency preparedness and
                                       Require that commercial or industrial busi-                                                                            response plans at Oregon coastal ports and
                                 nesses or public agencies that use or store                                                                                  other marine and waterfront businesses. These
                                 hazardous materials on-site develop earth-                                                                                   plans should emphasize tsunami hazards and
                                 quake preparedness and response plans.                                                                                       evacuation (see also Recommendation 22-3).
                                 Strongly encourage other businesses, particu-                                                                                Implementing Action for Recommendation 18-5
                                 larly those with a large number of employees
                                 or customers (for example, motels and shop-                                                                                  18-5. OEM, in collaboration with local emergency
                                 ping centers) or those located in hazardous                                                                                        managers, ports, the Pacific Coast Congress of
                                 locations (for example, tsunami inundation                                                                                         Port Managers and Harbor Masters, and Or-
                                 zones), to prepare such plans.                                                                                                     egon, Washington, and California Sea Grant
                                                                                                                                                                    programs, should develop a model disaster
                                 Implementing Action for Recommendation 18-4                                                                                        preparedness and response plan for ports and
                                 18-4. Local governments should implement this                                                                                      waterfronts and conduct workshops on adaption
                                       recommendation through an existing local                                                                                     of the model to local ports.
                                       business licensing process (or similar existing




                                                                                                                                                                 Improving Naturai Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 69





















                                                                                         4
                                                                                Fr



                                                         1-  --777-1.1
                                                                                                        A@t#

                 ...........


















                                                                              -Q%
                                                              Tii
                                                                             2






                                                                                        V



                Portfacilities and users along the coast are particularly vulnerable to tsunami hazards (T. Gentle photo).



























                90 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast





                                 Issue 19                                Recommendations
              The organizational structure for                           Recommendation 19-1
              coastal emergency management is                               In the event of a regional disaster, such as an
              not fully implemented.                                     earthquake, automatically place under the
              Although counties have overall coordina-                   command of county emergency management
              tion responsibilities for emergency man-                   authorities all cities, special districts, and other
              agement, relationships to state and federal                emergency service providers who do not have
              emergency management authorities is                        an emergency plan or who do not specify
              unclear in some cases, and participation in                incident command relationships.
              the emergency management system by                         Implementing Action for Recommendation 19-1
              cities, rural centers, special districts, and              19-1. OEM should develop and implement and
              essential service providers is inconsistent.                  enforce rules that place cities, special districts,
                                                                            and other local emergency responders under the
                                                                            command of county-level emergency managers.
              Findings                                                   Recommendation 19-2
                 Although there is a hierarchical structure in              Organize all local emergency responders
              county emergency management, no real com-                  using a command system that follows one of
              mand and control system is in place that could             several available models (for example, Incident
              deal effectively with a major disaster like a CSZ          Command System [ICS] or the National Inci-
              earthquake. Some emergency managers are                    dent Management System [NIMS]). In the
              interested in-dealing with the large earthquake            system selected, clearly define hierarchical
              scenario; others are not and are instead waiting           relationships between counties, cities, special
              for the state to enforce the mandate that was
              established by the 1993 state legislature (House           districts, essential service providers, private
              Bill 3567). There is a limited leadership at the           relief organizations, OEM, and FEMA.
              state level and in some counties; there is little          Implementing Action for Recommendation 19-2
              interest or participation by some cities and               19-2. OEM should develop and implement rules
              other key entities; and there are few resources               that require county-level emergency managers to
              available to address the situation adequately.                establish an effective and consistent command
                                                                            system, consistent with House Bill 3567 (ORS
                                                                            401 amendments). Tofacilitate this improved
                                                                            emergency response organization, OEM should
                                                                            provide technical assistance to counties and other
                                                                            local emergency responders.
















                                                                          Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 97





                               Issue 20                             Mill earthquake provided just such an ex-
                                                                    ample: in Clatsop County; where emergency
                                                                    managers have provided significant leadership
               Local disaster response plans are                    for others along the Oregon coast, several
               not well exercised.                                  residents of Cannon Beach wandered down to
               Communities with disaster response plans             the beach approximately 30 minutes after the
               that deal with earthquakes have too few              initial tsunami warning sirens had gone off. If
               drills and exercises to test the plans for           this had been a CSZ earthquake, this is ap-
               workability and needed improvements.                 proximately when the first tsunami wave
                                                                    would have reached the shore.
                                                                       Although drills and exercises cannot guaran-
                                                                    tee that all residents will follow emergency
                                                                    plans, holding such drills or exercises and
               Findings                                             emphasizing their importance can make
                 Although all counties and many cities,             residents and emergency service providers
               schools, and other groups have general emer-         more aware of the hazards and the appropriate
               gency response plans in place, that fact does        responses to them. In addition to simple drills,
               not ensure that residents, emergency respond-        there are four types of exercises, listed in order
               ers, children, or employees will follow them or      of scale: orientation, tabletop, functional, and
               are even aware of them. The March 1993 Scotts        full scale (see glossary for definitions).







                                                                                                          Alt,
                                                                                                              A@





                                                                                          -tt




               ISE
                   Jim
                                                                                   Miq








               Schools, especially those vulnerable to tsunamis, should conduct regular earthquake and tsunami response drills (J.
               Good photo).




               92 improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast







               Recommendations                                               Implementing Action for Recommendation 20-2
                                                                             20-2. Local emergency management organizations,
               Recommendation 20-1                                              under the leadership of counties, should conduct
                  Require earthquake and tsunami (if appli-                     such exercises, reporting results to OEM.
               cable) response and evacuation drills. Keep for
               state review records that identify drills that                Recommendation 20-3
               had problems and describe how those prob-                        Establish an exchange program for emer-
               lems were rectified. Require drills on the                    gency managers from Oregon to observe
               following schedule:                                           earthquake exercises occurring in other regions
               a. drills every two months for schools                        of the country. Have other states' emergency
                                                                             managers observe and critique exercises in
               b. annual drills for emergency response facili-               Oregon coastal communities.
                  ties, service providers, and other public                  Implementing Action for Recommendation 20-3
                  buildings                                                  20-3. OEM should implement an exchange program
               Implementing Action for Recommendation 20-1                      (in accordance with Recommendation 20-3), with
               20-1. OEM should require such drills and record                  the assistance of the Oregon Emergency Manag-
                  keeping and periodically review records. County               ers Association.
                  emergency managers should ensure that such
                  drills are conducted and that identified problems          Recommendation 20-4
                  are rectified. For schools, county emergency                  Local emergency management organizations
                  managers should cooperate with school adminis-             should use nonemergency events such as
                  trators and local school site councils (established        parades and festivals to exercise and improve
                  under recent educational reforms) and observe              command, response, and coordination func-
                  such drills at least annually.                             tions that will be essential in the event of an
               Recommendation 20-2                                           earthquake or similar disaster.
                  Require earthquake orientation or tabletop                 Implementing Action for Recommendation 20-4
               exercises annually. Consistent with available                 20-4. Local emergency facilities and service provid-
               funding, require functional or full-scale exer-                  ers, under the leadership of counties, should use
               cises that focus specifically on earthquakes and                 such nonemergency situations for emergency
               tsunamis and their effects every four years.                     response preparedness as such situations arise.
                                                                                They should coordinate improvements with
                                                                                county emergency managers.




















                                                                              Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 93






                                    Issue 21                                 Implementing Action for Recommendation 21-1
                 Communication networks are in-                              21-1. County emergency mangers should help
                                                                                implement low-power radio networks for commu-
                 sufficient to deal with a large earth-                         nities within their jurisdiction, in cooperation
                 quake.                                                         with nonemergency users, such as Chambers of
                 Traditional public communication net-                          Commerce (for tourist information), local Exten-
                 works will be incapacitated at the time of a                   sion Service offices, etc.
                 large CSZ earthquake and for a long time                    Recommendation 21-2
                 thereafter. Sufficient emergency communi-                      In cooperation with an officially designated
                 cation networks are not in place to fill the                radio or television station, evaluate the emer-
                 void.                                                       gency broadcasting system in each coastal
                                                                             region; on the basis of the outcome, make the
                                                                             system fully operational. In addition, ensure
                                                                             (1) that emergency broadcast stations are well
                 Findings                                                    protected against physical damage caused by a
                   All communication networks will be affected               potential catastrophic event, (2) that station
                 by a large earthquake. Telephone lines will                 personnel are well prepared and versed in
                 likely be out for a long period. Television                 proper emergency procedures, and (3) that
                 statioris will likely be out unless adequate                other stations, if still operational after a disas-
                 backup power is available; generally, it is not.            ter, simultaneously broadcast the same infor-
                 Radio stations will be off the air unless they              mation as that sent by the designated emer-
                 have backup emergency power generators that                 gency broadcasting stations.
                 work. This is also true of stations that are part           Implementing Action for Recommendation 21-2
                 of the nationwide emergency broadcasting                    21-2. OEM, as operator of the state emergency
                 system. HAM radio operators will enable                        broadcasting system, should conduct the recom-
                 critical service providers (fire, police, medical,             mended evaluation of the system, in cooperation
                 etc.) to keep in touch with the incident com-                  with county emergency management organiza-
                 mand headquarters, but they will not provide                   tions.
                 the broad  communication link that is needed to
                 warn people of hazards and prevent chaos in                 Recommendation 21-3
                 the community. Improved cellular phone                         Establish uniform and effective tsunami
                 technology is coming slowly to Oregon coastal               warning systems using siren and voice com-
                 regions.                                                    munication in coastal communities and vulner-
                   Structures and equipment in government                    able rural centers that lack them. Ensure that
                 communication centers and other facilities                  citizens and visitors are aware of the system by
                 required for emergency response, such as the                publishing information in phone directories
                 emergency broadcasting system, are "essential               and other local publications and by requiring
                 facilities" as defined by ORS 455.447. See                  postings at public places, restaurants, rental
                 Recommendations 15-1 and 15-2 for additional                units, and motels.
                 policy initiatives regarding these facilities.
                                                                             Implementing Action for Recommendation 21-3
                 Recommendations                                             21-3. Local emergency management organizations,
                                                                                with assistancefrom county, state, andfederal
                 Recommendation 21 -1                                           emergency managers, andfrom the National
                   Establish community low-power radio                          Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -
                                                                                Pacific and Alaska Tsunami Warning Centers,
                 networks for the dissemination of public                       shouldfund and implement tsunami warning
                 emergency information during and after a                       systems and notifications. Local ordinances
                 large earthquake.                                              should be used to enforce such notification
                                                                                procedures.


                 94 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast








               Recommendation 21-4                                         Recommendation 21-6
                  Review the structural integrity (that is, the              Establish contingency plans to organize local
               ability of a system to withstand a catastrophic             postdisaster communication networks among
               earthquake) of all parts of state and county                HAM radio, marine radio, CB radio, and other
               emergency communication systems and infra-                  informal communication systems (such as low-
               structure, and retrofit where needed (see also              power radio) as an adjunct to the formal
               Recommendations 15-1 and 15-2).                             communication system.
               Implementing Action for Recommendation 21-4                 Implementing Action for Recommendation 21-6
               21-4. See Implementing Actions 15-1 and 15-2.               21-6. County emergency managers should identiy@
                                                                             local postdisaster communication networks,
               Recommendation 21-5                                           include this information in their emergency
                  Establish recovery teams to evaluate com-                  operations plans, and providefor network
               munication systems after an earthquake and to                 training and exercising.
               make them fully operational.                                Recommendation 21-7
               Implementing Action for Recommendation 21-5                   Establish emergency communication sys-
               21-5. County emergency managers should identify             tems within schools, using, for example,
                  local communication systems recovery teams,              walkie-talkies (see FEMA Bulletin 88, Guidebook
                  include this information in their emergency              for Development of a School Earthquake Safety
                  operations plans, and providefor their training          Program).
                  and exercising.                                          Implementing Action for Recommenduion 21-7
                                                                           21-7. Schools, with assistancefrom local emergency
                                                                             managers and school site councils, should
                                                                             implement such a system.


























                                                                            Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 95





                                Issue 22                                with a large CSZ earthquake will likely affect
                                                                        the entire coastal zone. The physical infrastruc-
                                                                        ture that connects affected areas to their sup-
               Physical infrastructure, lifelines,                      plies of basic necessities will be greatly dis-
               and utility systems will be severely                     rupted by a disaster. Transportation by land
               disrupted in the event of a large                        will obviously be hindered. North-south and
               CSZ earthquake.                                          east-west highways will be severed by slides.
                                                                        Many bridges will be destroyed or become
               Transportation systems-highways,                         impassable. Rail lines will also be cut, remov-
               bridges, railroads, ports, waterways, and                ing a major route for disaster aid.
               airports-are likely to be severely damaged                  Other modes of transport will also be af-
               by a CSZ earthquake and the tsunamis that                fected. Harbors and waterways will be filled
               follow. Utilities, including water, sewer,               with debris and disabled vessels, making them
               and gas lines, and other lifeline and com-               unusable. Most airport runways will become
               munication systems will be similarly dis-                unsafe for air transport.
               rupted.                                                     Utility and communication systems will also
                                                                        be destroyed or disrupted. Water supplies may
                                                                        be cut off or be made unpotable, and water
                                                                        storage facilities, including dams, may fail.
               Findings                                                 Electricity and gas will be cut off, creating fire
                                                                        and explosion hazards as well. As a result of
                 The severe ground shaking, liquefaction,               these disruptions, coastal residents and visitors
               landslides, flooding, and tsunamis associated            could be isolated in small clusters up and

















                                                                   -7



               Many older bridges along the coast, such as this one at Florence, would likely be severely damaged by a large CSZ
               earthquake (J. Good photo).


               96 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast







               down the coast and will need to survive with-                     USACOE, counties, cities, and railroad compa-
               out outside aid for 3 to 10 days and possibly                     nies, should undertake the transportation infra-
               longer.                                                           structure evaluation described in Recommenda-
                                                                                 tion 22-1.
               Recommendations                                                Recommendation 22-2
               Recommendation 22-1                                               Evaluate utilities, including water (and all
                                                                              types of dams), sewer, electricity, and gas
                  Evaluate highways, roads, bridges, airports,                systems and pipelines for their vulnerability to
               harbors, and railroads for their vulnerability to              earthquake damage, using existing geologic
               earthquake or tsunami damage, using existing                   information and a credible CSZ earthquake
               geologic information and a credible CSZ                        scenario. Publish and distribute the evaluation
               earthquake scenario. Publish and distribute the                results, identifying utilities and associated
               results of the evaluation, identifying transpor-               infrastructure likely to be damaged during a
               tation infrastructure likely to be damaged, the                large earthquake. Also provide an estimated
               infrastructure that would be most easily re-                   timetable for re-establishing utility services to
               stored, and the areas likely to be isolated after a            coastal communities based on likely scenarios.
               large CSZ earthquake. Also provide an esti-
               mated timetable for re-establishment of trans-                 Implementing Actions for Recommendation 22-2
               portation infrastructure in coastal communities                22-2 A. The Oregon Public Utility Commission, in
               based on likely scenarios.                                        cooperation with public and private utilities, the
               Implementing Action for Recommendation 22-1                       Oregon Water Resources Department, county
                                                                                 emergency management authorities, cities, and
               22-1. The Oregon Department of Transportation                     special utility districts, should undertake the
                  (ODOT), in cooperation with the U.S. Forest                    utility infrastructure evaluation described in
                  Service, the Bureau of Land Management,                        Recommendation 22-2.













                                                                                               T
                                                                                                    Aj
                                                                                                     %1







               Electrical power substations are one of the most vulnerable components of @he power generation and delivery system
               (J. Good photo).


                                                                               Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 97








                 22-2 B. For dams, the Oregon Water Resources                 Harbor Masters, and    Oregon, Washington, and
                   Department should evaluate and update its                  California Sea Grant Programs, should develop a
                   inventory of dams, map all coastal dam sites with          model disaster preparedness and response plan
                   vulnerability ratings, and develop quick dam-              for ports and waterfronts and conduct workshops
                   failure inundation maps and downstream notifi-             on adapting the model to local ports and associ-
                   cation procedures.                                         ated waterfront businesses.
                 Recommendation 22-3                                        Recommendation 22-4
                   Evaluate the vulnerability of coastal ports to             Require continuing education on structural
                 seismic hazards and tsunamis. Develop appro-               codes and design standards for seismic and
                 priate disaster preparedness and response                  tsunami-prone areas for designers, engineers,
                 plans for ports to address the varying levels of           architects, contractors, and building officials
                 a potentially catastrophic event (see also                 working in coastal areas.
                 Recommendation 18-5).                                      Implementing Action for Recommendotion 22-4
                 Implementing Action for Recommendotion 22-3                22-4. Appropriate licensing boards should add such
                 22-3. OEM, in collaboration with ports, local                requirements to their qualifications and licensing
                   emergency managers, USACOE, FEMA, the                      and license renewal processes.
                   Pacific Coast Congress of Port Managers and



































                 98 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast





                                  Issue 23                                state coordinating body to oversee postdisaster
                                                                          reconstruction. Membership of the task force
               Coastal communities do not have                            should include DLCD, ODOT, DOGAMI,
               postdisaster recovery and recon-                           OSSPAC, OEM, the State Fire Marshall, and
               struction plans in place.                                  other relevant agencies. The task force would
               Long-term recovery from a major CSZ                        have the following responsibilities:
               earthquake will require the rebuilding of                  a. develop a state-wide damage classification
               cities and towns and the infrastructure that                  scheme to delineate potential damage zones
               supports them. At present, state agencies                     and determine the potential magnitude,
               responsible for infrastructure, principally                   types, and causes of damage based on
               the Department of Transportation, do not                      DOGAMI hazard maps
               have postdisaster reconstruction plans.                    b. review assessments of damage to transporta-
               Neither do cities and counties, who have                      tion and utilities and determine priorities
               responsibility for regulating development                     and a schedule for reconstruction, using as a
               and reconstruction at the local level.                        guide:
                                                                             1) Priority 1: essential transportation facili-
                                                                             ties; other essential facilities, hazardous
                                                                             facilities, major structures, and special
               Findings                                                      occupancy structures (in accordance with
                  A large CSZ earthquake may destroy a                       ORS 455.447)
               significant percentage of the buildings in                    2) Priority 11: other structures and facilities
               coastal communities, as well as much of the                   requiring minor repairs
               public and private infrastructure that ties them              3) Priority III: other structures and facilities
               together and connects them with other com-                    requiring major repairs
               munities. Reconstruction of buildings and                     4) Priority IV: new construction
               associated infrastructure will be a massive,
               long-term undertaking requiring a great deal               c. help local jurisdictions develop a plan for
               of financial aid, planning, technical assistance,             building, demolition, salvage, and debris
               and cooperation among agencies and the                        removal and develop other features of local
               public. Although tragic, such a disaster will                 plans as needed
               also present communities with an opportunity               Implementing Action for Recommendation 23-1
               to physically redesign and reshape themselves,
               creating safer places for people to live and               23-1. OSSPAC should conduct a more thorough
               work. However, no attention has been given to                 study of this issue, considering this recommenda-
               planning for reconstruction after a disaster. In              tion as a beginning point. After the study,
               the absence of a viable decision-making frame-                OSSPAC should make appropriate recommenda-
               work for such reconstruction, restoration could               tions to the Oregon State Legislature, including
               be delayed or carried out in a haphazard                      a mandate for the necessary level of planning for
               manner and would be more costly in both the                   postdisaster reconstruction.
               short and long term.                                       Recommendation 23-2
                                                                             Develop postdisaster reconstruction plans
               Recommendations                                            for cities and counties based on damage projec-
                                                                          tions from a CSZ earthquake and tsunami.
               Recommendation 23-1                                        Establish city and county task forces to plan for
                 Develop postdisaster reconstruction plans                reconstruction and oversee local postdisaster
               based on damage projections from a CSZ                     reconstruction activities. Assign to each task
               earthquake and tsunami. Establish a state                  force a structural engineer, a sanitarian, a fire
               postdisaster planning and recovery task force              marshal, a geologist, an engineering geologist,
               to plan for reconstruction and serve as the lead           a civil engineer, an emergency manager, and


                                                                           Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 99








               building officials. The task force should have                3) Priority III: other structures and facilities
               the following responsibilities:                               requiring major repairs
               a. establish local teams and direct them to                   4) Priority IV: new construction
                  assess damage from the disaster, using the             c.  establish limitations, standards, and ap-
                  state-prepared damage classification                       proval procedures for reconstruction and
                  scheme, and to evaluate postdisaster hazard                implement postdisaster construction mora-
                  zones
                                                                             toria as needed
               b. review local damage assessments and                    d. develop a plan for construction, demolition,
                  determine priorities and schedule for recon-               salvage, and removal of debris
                  struction, using the following as a guide:
                  1) Priority 1: essential facilities, hazardous         Implementing Action for Recommendation 23-2
                  facilities, major structures, and special              23-2. As with Recommendation 23-1, OSSPAC
                  occupancy structures (in accordance with                   shouldfurther evaluate needs in this area,
                  ORS 455.447)                                               including the necessary local government
                  2) Priority IL other structures and facilities             actions.
                  requiring minor repairs




                                                                        oq"@



                                         Z















                                                                             7",









                                                             7



                                                                64



                                        7M






               Where and how redevelopment would occur was a hot topic in Crescent City; California, following the tsunami
               generated by the March 28, 1964 Alaskan earthquake (G. Griffin, Crescent City photo).



               100 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast











           References





                                                         References

              Adams, f. 1990. Paleoseismicity of the cascadia            Coastal Natural Hazards Policy Working
                  subduction zone: evidence from turbidites                  Group (CNHPWG). 1993. Coastal Natural
                  off the Oregon-Washington margin. Tecton-                  Hazards: Issues and Options Report. Corvallis:
                  ics 9:569-583.                                             Oregon Sea Grant.
              Ahrens, J.P. and M.S. Heimbaugh. 1989. Dy-                 Collier, C.A. Undated. Building construction on
                  namic stability of dumped riprap. In                       shoreline property: checklist. Gainesville:
                  Coastal Zone '89, Proceedings of the Sixth                 Marine Advisory Program, Florida Coop-
                  Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Manage-                     erative Extension Service.
                  ment, edited by O.T. Magoon, H. Converse,              Dean, R.G. 1983. Principles of beach nourish-
                  D. Miner, L.T. Tobin, D. Clark, and G.                     ment. In CRC Handbook of Coastal Processes
                  Doumarat, 3377-3389. New York: American                    and Erosion, edited by P.D. Komar. Boca
                  Society of Civil Engineers.                                Rotan: CRC Press.
              Ansevin, A. and J.W. Good. 1993. A strategy for            Department of Land Conservation and Devel-
                  improving coastal natural hazards manage-                  opment (DLCD). 1992. Oregon Coastal and
                  ment: Oregon's policy working group                        Ocean Resources Planning: Strategiesfor
                  approach. In Coastal Zone '93, Proceedings of              Program Enhancement. Salem: Oregon
                  the Eighth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean                  Department of Land Conservatioh and
                  Management, O.T. Magoon, W. S. Wilson, H.                  Development.
                  Converse, and L.T. Tobin (eds.), 2929-2841.
                  New York: American Society of Civil                    Dixon, K. and O.H. Pilkey. 1989. Beach Replen-
                  Engineers.                                                 ishment along the U.S. coast of the Gulf of
              Broome, S.W., E.D. Senaca, and W.W.                            Mexico. In Coastal Zone '89, Proceedings of
                  Woodhouse. 1982. Building and stabilizing                  the Sixth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean
                  coastal dunes with vegetation. UNC-SG-82-05.               Management, edited by O.T. Magoon, H.
                  Raleigh: University of North Carolina Sea                  Converse, D. Miner, L.1 Tobin, D. Clark,
                  Grant Program.                                             and G. Dournarat, 2007-2020. New York:
                                                                             American Society of Civil Engineers.
              Carlson, J., E Reckendorf, and W. Terniyk.                 Division of State Lands (DSL). 1973. Oregon
                  1991. Stabilizing coastal sand dunes in the                Estuaries. Salem: Oregon Division of State
                  Pacific Northwest. Agriculture Handbook                    Lands.
                  687. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Depart-
                  ment of Agriculture.                                   Domurat, G.W. 1987. Beach nourishment-a
              Chisholm, T.A. 1990. Hopper dredge direct                      working solution. Shore and Beach 55:92-95.
                  pumpout for beach placement. Dredging                  Godschalk, D.R., D.J. Brower, T. Beatley. 1989.
                  Research Information Exchange Bulletin, DRP-               Catastrophic coastal storms: hazard mitigation
                  90-2. Vicksburg: Waterways Experiment                      and development management. Durham: Duke
                  Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.                     University Press.
              Clayton, T.D. 1989. Artificial beach replenish-            Good, J-W. 1992. Ocean shore protection policy
                  ment on the U.S. Pacific shore: a brief                    and practices in Oregon: an evaluation of
                  overview. In Coastal Zone '89, Proceedings                 implementation success. Ph.D. diss., Depart-
                  of the Sixth Symposium on Coastal and                      ment of Geosciences, Oregon State Univer-
                  Ocean Management, edited by O.T.                           sity, Corvallis.
                  Magoon, H. Converse, D. Miner, L.T. Tobin,             Good, J.W. and S.S. Ridlington. 1992. Coastal
                  D. Clark, and G. Dournarat, 2033-2045.                     Natural Hazards: Science, Engineering, and
                  New York: American Society of Civil                        Public Policy. Corvallis: Oregon Sea Grant.
                  Engineers.



                                                                         Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 103








                 Griggs, G.B. 1986. Relocation or reconstruction:               Komar, P.D. 1976. Erosion of Siletz Spit, Or-
                     viable approaches for structures in areas of                    egon. Shore and Beach 44:9-15.
                     high coastal erosion. Shore and Beach                               . 1983. The erosion of Siletz Spit, Or-
                     54(l):8-16.                                                     egon. In Handbook of Coastal Processes and
                 Griggs, G.B. 1992. Responding to Oregon's                           Erosion. Boca Rotan: CRC Press.
                     shoreline erosion hazards: Some lessons                              1992. Ocean processes and hazards
                     learned from California. In Coastal Natural
                     Hazards: Science, Engineering, and Public                       along the Oregon coast. In Coastal Natural
                     Policy, edited by J.W. Good and S.S.                            Hazards: Science, Engineering, and Public
                     Ridlington, 104-116. Corvallis: Oregon Sea                      Policy, edited by J.W. Good and S.S.
                     Grant.                                                          Ridlington, 38-73. Corvallis: Oregon Sea
                                                                                     Grant.
                 Griggs, G.B. and K. Fulton-Bennett. 1987.                      _. 1993. Contents of Geotechnical Reports
                     Coastal protection structures and their effec-                  Related to the Impacts of Coastal erosion and
                     tiveness. University of California Santa Cruz                   Related Hazards. Report to the Oregon
                     and State of California Department of                           Department of Land Conservation and
                     Boating and Waterways.                                          Development. Corvallis: College of Oceanic
                 Griggs, G.B. and K. Fulton-Bennett. 1988. Rip                       and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State
                     rap revetments and seawalls and their                           University.
                     effectiveness along the central California                 Komar, P.D. and W.G. McDougal. 1988. Coastal
                     coast. Shore and Beach, 56(2):3-11.                             erosion and engineering structures: the
                 Griggs, G.B. and J.E Tait. 1988. The effects of                     Oregon experience. Journal Coastal Research
                     coastal protection structures on beaches                        4:77-92.
                     along the Northern Monterey Bay, Califor-                  Komar, P.D. and C.C.Rea. 1975. The causes of
                     nia. Journal of Coastal Research 4:93-111.                      erosion of Siletz Spit, Oregon. Publication no.
                 Herdendorf, C.E. (ed.). 1984. Guide to Lake Erie                    ORESU-75-001. Oregon State University
                     bluff stabilization. OHSU-GS-7. Columbus:                       Sea Grant College Program.
                     The Ohio State University.                                 Komar, P.D. and S.M. Shih. 1991. Sea cliff
                 Houlahan, f.M. 1989. Comparison of state                            erosion along the Oregon coast. In Coastal
                     construction setbacks to manage develop-                        Sediments '91, 1558-1570. Washington, DC:
                     ment in coastal hazard areas. Coastal Man-                      American Society of Civil Engineers.
                     agement 17:219-228.                                        Kraus, N.C. 1988. The effects of seawalls on the
                 Jacobsen, S. 1988. Use of European beach grass                      beach: An extended literature review.
                     (Ammophila arenaria). Letter to Robert                          Journal of Coastal Research 4:1-28.
                     Cortright, Department of Land Conserva-                    Kraus, N.C. and W.G. McDougal. 1992. Shore
                     tion and Development, April 13, 1988.                           protection and engineering with special
                 Jones, E. 1993. Managing growth on the Oregon                       reference to the Oregon coast. In Coastal
                     coast. Portland: 1000 Friends of Oregon.                        Natural Hazards: Science, Engineering, and
                 Keillor, J.P. 1986. How to use fill material in                     Public Policy, edited by J.W. Good and S.S.
                     stabilizing shoreline bluffis or banks. WIS-SG-                 Ridlington. Oregon Sea Grant, Corvallis,
                     86-428-5. Madison: University of Wisconsin                      Oregon.
                     Sea Grant Advisory Services.                               Kunreuther, H. 1993. Combining insurance
                 Keillor, J.P. and A.H. Miller. 1987. Coastal                        with hazard mitigation to reduce disaster
                     processes workbook: evaluating the risks of                     losses. Natural Hazards Observer 17(4):1-3.
                     flooding and erosion for Great Lakes coastal               Land Conservation and Development Com-
                     property. WIS-SG-87-431. Madison: Univer-                       mission (LCDC). 1990. Oregon's Statewide
                     sity of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute.                          Planning Goals. Salem: Oregon Land Con-
                                                                                     servation and Development Commission.



                 104 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (oust








               Lorang, M.S. 1991. An artificial perched-gravel            Peterson, C.D., M.E. Darienzo, D. Hamilton
                   beach as a shore protection structure. In                   D.J. Pettit, R. Yeager, P.L. Jackson, and
                   Coastal Sediments '91, Proceedings of a                     C.L.Rosenfeld, and T.A. Terich. 1993.
                   Specialty Conference/ Water Resources                       Cascadia beach-shoreline database, Pacific
                   Division, 1916-1925. New York: American                     Northwest region, USA. Open File Report 0-
                   Society of Civil Engineers.                                 93, Portland: Oregon Department of Geol-
               Mabey, M,A., I.P. Madin, D.E. Drescher, O.G.                    ogy and Mineral Industries.
                   Uba, and M. Bosworth. 1993. Relative                   Peterson, C.D., M.E. Darienzo, D.J. Pettit, P.L.
                   Earthquake Hazard Map:Portland, Oregon 7--                  Jackson, and C.L.Rosenfeld. 1991. Littoral
                   Minute Quadrangle. Portland: Oregon                         cell development in the convergent
                   Department of Geology and Mineral                           Cascadia margin of the Pacific Northwest,
                   Industries.                                                 USA. In From Shoreline to Abyss, edited by
               Madin, 1. 1992. Seismic hazards on the Oregon                   R. Osbourne. SEPM Special Publication No.
                   coast. In Coastal Natural Hazards: Science,                 46, Shepard Commemorative Volume,
                   Engineering, and Public Policy, edited by J.W               SEPM.
                   Good and S.S. Ridlington, 3-27. Corvallis:             Pilkey, O.H., W.D. Pilkey, O.H. Pilkey, Jr., W.J.
                   Oregon Sea Grant.                                           Neal. 1983. Coastal design: a guidefor build-
               Mauriello, M.N. 1989. Dune maintenance and                      ers, planners, and home owners. New York:
                   enhancement: a New Jersey example. In                       Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
                   Coastal Zone '89, Proceedings of the Sixth             Pilkey, O.H. and H.L. Wright 111. 1988. Seawalls
                   Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Manage-                      versus beaches. Journal of Coastal Research
                   ment, edited by O.T. Magoon, H. Converse,                   4:41-64.
                   D. Miner, L.T. Tobin, D. Clark, and G.                 Priest, G.R., 1. Saul, and J. Diebenow. 1993. Pilot
                   Dournarat, 1023-1037. New York: American                    erosion rate study of the central Oregon coast,
                   Society of Civil Engineers.                                 Lincoln County. Open-File Report 0-93-10,
               McLaughlin, W.T. and R.L. Brown. 1942.                          Portland: Oregon Department of Geology
                   Controlling coastal sand dunes in the Pacific               and Mineral Industries.
                   Northwest. Circular No. 660. Washington:               Shih, S.M. 1992. Sea cliff erosion on the Oregon
                   U.S. Department of Agriculture.                             coast:from neotectonics to wave run-up. Ph.D.
               National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-                       diss., College of Oceanography, Oregon
                   tration (NOAA). 1993. Program Development                   State University, Corvallis.
                   Plan for Protection the People: A Tsunami              Snavely, P.D. Jr. 1987. Tertiary geologic frame-
                   Hazard Reduction Program for the United                     work, neotectonics, and petroleum poten-
                   States. Pacific Marine Environmental                        tial of the Oregon-Washington continental
                   Laboratory, Office of Oceanic and Atmo-                     margin. In Geology Resource Potential of the
                   spheric Research, and the National Weather                  Continental Margin of Western North America
                   Service, NOAA, U.S. Department of Com-                      and Adjacent Ocean Basins, edited by D.W.
                   merce.                                                      Scholl, A. Granz, and J.G. Vedder, V. 6,
               National Research Council (NRC). 1990. Man-                     Earth Science Series, 305-335. Houston:
                   aging coastal erosion. Committee on Coastal                 Circum-Pacific Council for Energy and
                   Erosion Zone Management. Washington:                        Mineral Resources.
                   National Academy Press.                                Straton, K.A. 1977. Oregon's beaches: a birthright
               Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Com-                      preserved. Salem: Oregon State Parks and
                   mission (OSSPAC). 1992. Actions to Address                  Recreation Branch.
                   Earthquake Risk in Oregon, December 1,                 Tainter, S.P. 1982. Bluff slumping and stability: a
                   1992, Salem.                                                consumer's guide. MICHU-SG-82-902. Ann
                                                                               Arbor: Michigan Sea Grant.




                                                                           Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 105








               Terich, IA. and M.L. Schwartz. 1990. The effect             Weggel, J. R. 1988. Seawalls: the need for
                   of seawalls and other hard erosion protection               research, dimensional considerations, and
                   structures upon beaches: an annotated bibliog-              a suggested classification. Journal of
                   raphy and summary. Western Washington                       Coastal Research 4:29-39.
                   University for Shorelands and Coastal                   Weldon, R. J. 1991. Active tectonic studies in
                   Zone Management Program, Washington                         the United States, 1987-90. In Reviews of
                   Department of Ecology, Olympia.                             Geophysics, Supplement, 890-906, U.S.
               Ternyik, WE. 1979. Dune stabilization and                       National Report to the lUGG 1987-1990,
                   restoration. Newport: Oregon Coastal Zone                   American Geophysical Union.
                   Management Association.                                 Woodward, J., J. White, and R. Cummings.
               U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE).                          1990. Paleoseismicity and the archeologi-
                   1981. Low cost shore protection ... a guide for             cal record: areas of investigation on the
                   engineers and contractors.                                  northern Oregon coast. Oregon Geology
               _. 1984. Shore Protection Manual, Vol-                          52(3):57-65.
                   umes I and II. Vicksburg: Coastal Engineer-
                   ing Research Center, Waterways Experi-
                   ment Station.






































               106 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast









             Append'i*ces





                                                       Appendix A
                            (oastal Natural Hazards Policy Working Group Members
                                                     and Coordination Team

              Members                                                    Christianna Paapanen
              Teresa Atwill                                                 affiliation: coastal planner, Lane County
                  affiliation: coastal property owner, school            Paul See
                  teacher and geologist, Lincoln County                     affiliation: coastal property owner, consult-
              Patricia Williams                                             ing geologist, Clatsop County
                  affiliation: coastal property owner, real              Vic Affolter
                  estate broker, fire chief, Manzanita                      affiliation: coastal property owner, plan-
              David Minter                                                  ning director, Tillamook County
                  affiliation: biologist and environmentalist,           Kevin Coulton
                  University of Oregon                                      affiliation: consulting engineer, Beaverton
              Sheridan Jones                                             Lee Lyon
                  affiliation: Roads End Improvement Asso-                  affiliation: realtor, developer, oceanfront
                  ciation, coastal property owner                           property owner, Seal Rock
              Phyllis Cottingham                                         Emily Toby
                  affiliation: coastal issues chair, Oregon                 affiliation: policy specialist, Department of
                  League of Women Voters, Curry County                      Land Conservation and Development
                  resident                                               Pete Bond/ Curtis Smith
              Steve Chesser                                                 affiliation: beach program, Oregon Parks
                  affiliation: oceanographer, U.S. Army Corps               and Recreation Department
                  of Engineers                                           Carl Cook/ Chris jonientz-Trisler
              Peg Reagan                                                    affiliation: natural hazards mitigation,
                  affiliation: coastal property owner, commis-              Federal Emergency Management Agency
                  sioner, Curry County                                   (oordination Team
              Dennis Olmstead
                  affiliation: geologist, Department of Geol-            James Good
                  ogy & Mineral Industries                                  affiliation: extension specialist, OSU Exten-
              Michael Shoberg                                               sion Sea Grant
                  affiliation: coastal property owner, plan-             Andrea Ansevin / Paul Salop / Cal Sawyer
                  ning director, City of Newport                            affiliation: extension research assistants,
              Jeri Allemand                                                 OSU
                  affiliation: emergency manager, Curry                  Ann Snyder
                  County, oceanfront property owner                         affiliation: facilitator and trainer,
              Dana Siegfried / Bill Fuji / Ken Bierly / John Lilly          McMinnville
                  affiliation: Division of State Lands                   John Marra
              Ellen Warring                                                 affiliation: consulting geologist, Newport
                  affiliation: coastal property owner,
                  Kalmiopsis Audubon, Curry County





                                                                         Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 109





                                                          Appendix B
                                                Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

                Terms                                                      fee simple-a kind of property ownership that
                amplification-a numerical factor that de-                       is virtually absolute and includes the entire
                    scribes the intensification of ground accel-                bundle of rights normally associated with
                    eration or shaking in an earthquake; for                    private property, subject to governmental
                    example, certain unstable soils will amplify                restrictions
                    groundshaking                                          footprint-with respect to buildings and
                annex-a special addition or addendum to a                       building plans, the outline of the founda-
                    document, such as an earthquake annex to                    tion of the structure on the ground
                    an all-hazards emergency operations plan               full-scale exercise-an emergency response
                bathymetric--of or pertaining to the measure-                   activity intended to evaluate the opera-
                    ment of depths in oceans, seas, estuaries, or               tional capability of emergency manage-
                    other large bodies of water; also the bottom                ment systems in an interactive manner over
                    contour of such waters                                      a significant time period
                beach zone line-a surveyed line along Or-                  functional exercise-an emergency response
                    egon beaches that approximated the, veg-                    activity designed to test or evaluate the
                    etation line in 1967; the survey was com-                   capability of an individual to function, or a
                    missioned by the legislature in the 1967                    complex activity within a function
                    Beach Law and corresponds to the upland                geodetic-pertaining to the science that deals
                    limit of State Parks and Recreation Depart-                 with the shape, area, and curvature of the
                    ment regulatory jurisdiction for beach                      earth, with precise mapping of land eleva-
                    improvements, shore protection structures,                  tions and locations
                    etc.                                                   hazard mitigation-any action designed to
                bulkhead-a type of seawall, usually con-                        lessen the threat natural hazards pose to
                    structed of wood, that protects the shore                   human life or property; examples are
                    from waves and provides for upland slope                    limitations or restrictions on development,
                    stability                                                   building construction setbacks, relocation
                Cascadia the coastal and inland region                          of buildings, dune building and vegetative
                    adjacent to the Cascadia subduction zone,                   stabilization, and seawalls and revetments
                    generally extending from Cape Mendicino,               Incident Command System-also known as
                    California, to the northern extent of                       ICS, this is a "first-in-response" system that
                    Vancouver Island, British Columbia                          activates all other response groups in the
                emergency operations plan-a formal, govern-                     event of an emergency; the lead agency
                    ment-adopted emergency plan that details                    then continues as the command and coordi-
                    the operation of an all-hazards approach to                 nation center throughout an emergency.
                    disaster response, including fire, earth-                   For example, in the event of a disaster such
                    quake, tsunami, windstorm, hazardous                        as an earthquake, the county emergency
                    material spill, flood, radiological release,                operations center would take control
                    etc. It is an approach that addresses emer-            jetty-massive, constructed rock structures
                    gency communication, evacuation, alert                      built to stabilize and protect harbor en-
                    and warning, shelter and feeding, health                    trances, usually built perpendicular to the
                    and sanitation, medical response, transpor-                 shore to stabilize a river mouth
                    tation, and public information




                                                                            Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast III








                liquefaction-the transformation of unconsoli-                   rock bedding or fabric filter layer, overlain
                    dated sediment (e.g., sand, silt, mud) from                 by armor stones; a toe trench dug down to
                    its solid state into a liquified state as a                 bedrock or the water table to prevent
                    result of seismic waves passing through                     undermining when the beach is lowered by
                    and destabilizing the sediments                             erosion; and often, a covering layer of sand
                littoral-of or pertaining to the shore, espe-                   planted with beach grass.
                    cially the ocean shore                                 wave run-up-the swash of ocean waves as
                littoral cell-a shoreline segment or reach that                 they impinge on the beach. Run-up has
                    is bounded in a longshore direction by                      three principal components: (a) wave set-
                    physical features such as a headland or                     up, which is the super-elevation of mean
                    jetty that limits or blocks longshore sand                  water level above the still-water level of the
                    transport. A littoral cell extends seaward to               sea; (b) fluctuations of the swash of indi-
                    a depth where beach-nearshore sediment                      vidual waves about that mean; and (c)
                    exchange ceases (about the 60 ft depth                      other swash oscillations of longer period
                    contour along the Oregon coast) and inland                  than normal ocean waves.
                    to the point where there is no beach-                  seawall-a vertical or near vertical structure,
                    shoreland sediment interaction. The sedi-                   or a stepped series of such structures, made
                    ment budget within each of Oregon's 22                      of concrete, wood, steel or some combina-
                    distinct littoral cells encompasses a com-                  tion thereof, designed to prevent
                    plete cycle of supply, storage and transport,               landsliding or control wave-induced
                    and ultimate loss of sediment from the                      erosion (includes bulkheads and retaining
                    coastal environment.                                        walls)
                National Incident Management System-also                   seiche the nontidal, oscillatory rise and fall of
                    known as NIMS, this is a "first-in-re-                      water in enclosed or partially enclosed
                    sponse" system that activates all other                     lagoons or bays that may be generated by
                    response groups in the event of an emer-                    earthquakes
                    gency; it is similar to ICS.                           setback-in building construction, the hori-
                ocean shore-in Oregon, the land lying be-                       zontal distance measured from a hazardous
                    tween extreme low tide of the Pacific Ocean                 zone (e.g., receding bluff face) to the first
                    and the line of vegetation as established                   physical structure on the land; generally
                    and described by ORS 390.770                                based on recession rate or other factors
                orientation seminar-an emergency response                  subduction-the process of one crustal block
                    activity that is an orientation to a local or               descending beneath another, by folding or
                    state plan, procedure, organization, or                     faulting or both
                    response strategy, bringing together those             subduction zone-an extended region of
                    with particular roles                                       subduction, as along the Cascadia subduc-
                overhang-with respect to buildings and                          tion zone, where the Juan de Fuca oceanic
                    building plans, the parts of a structure that               plate subducts under the North American
                    extend beyond the building foundation                       plate
                    footprint.                                             subsidence-sinking or downward settling of
                riprap revetment-sloping structures (typi-                      the earth's surface; along the coast during
                    cally IV.-l.5H or greater) built to protect                 an earthquake, subsidence may be rapid
                    existing land or newly created embank-                      and occur over a large area, resulting in
                    ments against erosion by wave action,                       permanent flooding of low-lying areas.
                    nearshore currents, or weather. Riprap                 sunset clause-a provision in a law or policy
                    refers to the large, erosion-resistant quarry               that limits the time period that an action,
                    rock commonly used to construct these                       report, or policy is in effect and valid.
                    structures, though other materials may be
                    used. Typical revetments include a graded


                112 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast







              tabletop exercise-an activity in which elected            Acronyms
                  and appointed officials and key agency                      BCD    Building Code Division, Oregon
                  staff are presented with simulated emer-                           Department of Consumer and
                  gency situations without time constraints                          Business Services
                  for action
              tilt-up structures-buildings constructed of                     CSZ    Cascadia subduction zone
                  prefabricated slabs, usually concrete, that              DLCD      Department of Land Conservation
                  are tilted up to fit in place to form the sides                    and Development
                  or roofs of structures; unless very well tied         DOGAMI       Department of Geology and
                  together and reinforced, such structures                           Mineral Industries
                  may collapse during severe ground-shak-                     DSL    Division of State Lands
                  ing associated with earthquakes.
              tsunami-a series of travelling waves of                      FEMA      Federal Emergency Management
                  extremely long length and period, gener-                           Agency
                  ated by disturbances associated with                         ICS   Incident Command System
                  earthquakes below or near the ocean floor,               LCDC      Land Conservation and Develop-
                  submarine landslides, or volcanic eruptions                        ment Commission
                  (also called seismic sea waves and, popu-                NIMS      National Incident Management
                  larly, tidal waves). Tsunamis may reach
                  enormous dimensions, steepening and                                System
                  increasing in height as they approach                    ODOT      Oregon Department of Transporta-
                  shallow water, inundating low-lying areas,                         tion
                  and where submarine topography is steep,                   OEM     Oregon Emergency Management
                  breaking and causing great damage.                                 Division
              turbidity current-a type of bottom current on                OPRD      Oregon Parks and Recreation
                  continental slopes and rises caused when a                         Department
                  sediment-covered submarine slope be-
                  comes unstable and begins to collapse                       ORS    Oregon Revised Statutes
                  under its own weight or stirred into sus-              OSSPAC      Oregon Seismic Safety Policy
                  pension in the overlying water. The sedi-                          Advisory Commission
                  ment creates a water mass of higher density                PWG     Policy Working Group (for coastal
                  which flows downslope, gaining speed and                           natural hazards)
                  flushing out submarine canyons and filling
                  up the abyssal plains.                                   SAMP      special area management plan
              unreinforced masonry structure-also known                        SPS   shore protection structure
                  as URMs, these are buildings constructed              USACOE       U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                  of bricks, concrete, or other masonry
                  products that are not tied together with
                  reinforcing steel attachments; such struc-
                  tures may collapse during severe ground-
                  shaking associated with earthquakes.











                                                                        Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 113





                                                      Appendix
                                  (oastal Natural Hazards Policy Working Group

              Process and Meeting Schedule                               Jun 17-18    Chronic Hazards: Locating
                 The long-term goal of the Coastal Natural                            Private Development in Unde-
              Hazards Policy Working Group (PWG) was to                               veloped Areas & Protecting
              develop a specific set of recommendations to                            Private Development in Unde-
              improve the management of natural hazards                               veloped Areas
              along the Oregon coast. The focus of the                                Technical Advisory Committee
              group's work was on measures that will reduce                           Meeting: All-hazards mapping
              the potential for loss of life and property and            Aug 19-20    Chronic Hazards: Protecting
              protect valuable recreational and natural                               Private Development in Unde-
              resources. Implementation of recommended                                veloped Areas & Locating
              measures are likely to include major roles for                          Private Development in Infill
              both the public and private sectors.                                    Developed Areas
                 Keyed to the PWG process, below is a list of
              actual PWG meetings and related workshops,                 Sep 23-24    Chronic Hazards: Locating
              along with the topics covered.                                          Private Development in Infill
              1992                                                                    Developed Areas & Locating
                                                                                      Public Infrastructure/ Facilities
              Stage I-Idenfifying Issues and Alternative                              in Undeveloped, Infill, and
              Solutions (Options)                                                     Developed Areas
                Using the "all-hazards / all-decisions matrix"                        Technical Advisory Committee
              as the basis for its process, the PWG identified                        Meeting: Catastrophic hazards
              problems and opportunities associated with                              scenario
              each set of hazards/ decisions, and then gener-            Oct 21-22    Catastrophic Hazards: Locating
              ated ideas for dealing with them. Hazards                               Private and Public Development
              examined included chronic hazards, such as                              and Infrastructure in Coastal
              erosion, flooding, and potentially catastrophic                         Areas
              hazards, such as earthquakes and tsunamis.                              Technical Advisory Committee
              Examples of decisions examined included                                 Meeting: All-hazards mapping
              locating private development and public
              infrastructure, designing buildings, protecting            Nov 18-19    Catastrophic Hazards: Locating
              oceanfront development, and providing emer-                             and Designing Private and
              gency services. As each set of hazards-deci-                            Public Development and Infra-
              sions was discussed, a "working list" of issues                         structure
              and potential solutions identified by the PWG              Dec 16-17    Catastrophic Hazards: Design-
              was grouped into categories. The product of                             ing Private and Public Develop-
              Stage I of the process was a working list of                            ment /Infrastructure & Emer-
              issues and options for coastal natural hazards                          gency Management/ Post-
              management.                                                             disaster Reconstruction
                   Mar 20     Introductory Workshop: Pro-
                              cess, schedule, expectations,           1993
                              concerns                                   Jan 20-21    Catastrophic hazards: Emer-
                   May 14     Chronic Hazards: Locating                               gency Management and Post-
                              Private Development in Unde-                            disaster Reconstruction Plan-
                              veloped Areas                                           ning



                                                                      Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 115







               Stage II-Evaluate Feasibility/Workability of             Stage III-Recommend Policies/Needed
               Alternatives (Options)                                   Actions
                  Through public meetings/ workshops,                        Dec 1-2    PWG meeting: Review public
               facilitated decision-making sessions, and the                            input and begin decision-
               support of a. writing team, the PWG produced                             making on final recommenda-
               1) an Issues and Options Report, and 2) a final                          tions
               recommendations report.                                     Dec 15-16    PWG meeting: Continue work
                  Feb 17-18    PWG Issues and Options Report                            on final recommendations
                               Small Group Selection/ Work:
                               Hazard Assessment; Disaster              1994
                               Preparedness and Response;                      Jan 19   PWG meeting: Continue work
                               Land Use; Shore Protection                               on final recommendations
                               PWG /Education Advisory                        Feb 16    PWG meeting: Continue work
                               Committee Joint Workshop                                 on final recommendations
               Mar (various) Meetings of small works groups                   Mar 17    PWG meeting: Continue work
                  Apr 21-22 PWG Issues and Options Report                               on final recommendations
                               Small Group Work                                   Apr   Writing Team: Prepare first draft
                                                                                        of final recommendations report
               May (various) Meetings of small works groups               May 19-20     PWG meeting: Review, critique,
                  Jun 16-17    PWG Issues and Options Report                            approve first draft of final
                               Small Group Selection/ Work                              recommendations report
                               Options Evaluation Guidelines                 Jun-Sep    Writing Team: Complete final
                               Development                                              recommendations report, send
               Jul (various)   Meetings of small works groups                           to PWG for final review, and
                                                                                        prepare for publication
                               Writing Team: Prepare Issues                  Oct-Dec    Present recommendations to
                               and Options Report and review                            state legislators, local govern-
                               process/ evaluation framework                            ments, boards and commissions,
               Aug (various) Meetings of small works groups                             state agencies, and private
                               (same tasks as July)                                     groups as appropriate. Work
                               Writing Team: Prepare Issues                             toward implementation of
                               and Options Report and review                            recommendations.
                               process/ evaluation framework
                  Sep 22-23    1) Review/ approve Issues and
                               Options Report
                               2) Review/ approve review
                               process
                               3) Select groups for presenta-
                               tions and workshops
                               4) Review public meeting
                               materials and workshop format
                         Oct   Public Review Meetings
                        Nov    Public Review Meetings





               116 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (oust





                                                        Appendix D
                           (ascadia Earthquake-Tsunami Education Strategy (DRAFT)

               Introduction                                              series of tsunami waves beginning to arrive
                 There is a growing awareness in the Pacific             soon after the event.
               Northwest that the region is more seismically               We are not well-prepared for the least of
               active than previously thought, that the risks            these quakes, let alone a potentially cata-
               from earthquakes to life and property are great,          strophic CSZ event. Much can and likely will
               and that we as a region are largely unprepared.           be done to increase earthquake resistance of
               Three types of earthquakes pose the greatest              new structures, to retrofit old buildings, and to
               threats:                                                  institute new land use mitigation for the siting
               1) shallow crustal quakes along active faults             and relocation of certain critical structures and
                  up to magnitude 6.5                                    facilities. However, probably the most signifi-
                                                                         cant strategy to reduce injuries and loss of
               2) intraplate quakes up to magnitude 7.4 that             human life is the implementation of a compre-
                  occur deep within the oceanic Juan de Fuca             hensive, coordinated public education pro-
                  plate as it bends under the North American             gram. A good deal of education on these and
                  plate                                                  related issues is already being conducted and/
               3) very large Cascadia subduction zone (CSZ)              or supported by the Red Cross, the Federal
                  quakes of magnitude 8-9+ that occur at the             Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and
                  plate boundary offshore where the two                  their state counterparts, the U.S. Geological
                  plates are locked together                             Survey, public schools, and other state and
                 Oregon has recently been hit by two crustal             local agencies and organizations. More needs
               quakes, the Scotts Mill quake (magnitude 5.6)             to be done to integrate these efforts, share
               that occurred March 25, 1993 and the Klamath              resources, develop new educational materials,
               Falls quake (magnitude 5.9) that occurred                 or adapt existing media from elsewhere to the
               September 20, 1993. Despite their relatively              situation in the Pacific Northwest. Increased
               small size and rural epicenters, both caused              awareness is especially needed of the seismic
               significant property damage. Several intraplate           risk and how to respond to the large tsunamis
               events have occurred this century, including a            (seismic sea waves) that would likely be associ-
               M 7.1 event in the Puget Sound region, and the            ated with a CSZ earthquake. Tsunami waves
               M 6.3 Port Orford earthquake in 1963. While               would probably be the source of the greatest
               there have been no historic CSZ earthquakes,              number of casualties from a large CSZ earth-
               there are several converging lines of evidence            quake.
               that suggest such an event may occur in the                 The Cascadia Region Earthquake Education
               not-too-distant future. These include geodetic            Strategy outlined below is a first attempt at
               measurements of accumulating strain corre-                developing region-specific objectives and
               lated with tide gauge data from a variety of              strategies for earthquake hazard awareness, and
               coastal locations; sequential dating of abruptly          for preparation and response. The approach taken
               submerged peat deposits in salt marshes all               to develop the strategy was a simple one. First,
               along the coast; records of offshore turbidity            key individuals in education, government, and
               current deposits; and the archeological record.           the private sec-tor were invited to participate in
               The evidence suggests the last large quake was            a planning process. The process included the
               about 300 years ago. The scenario for a CSZ               following steps:
               event includes severe groundshaking that                  Step 1-Identify key audiences
               could last from one to four minutes; liquefac-            Step 2-Determine desired "learner outcomes"
               tion of saturated, unconsolidated soils; numer-              for everyone
               ous and possibly massive landslides; and a                Step 3-Determine additional "learner out-
                                                                            comes" for each separate audience


                                                                         Improving NaturaiHazards Management on the Oregon (oust 117







              Step 4-To achieve each "learner outcome-                Audience 2. Schools and Youth
                  (all-audience and specific audience):               Preschool and K-12 school children, teachers,
                  -Select strategies and tactics                          administrators, staff, board members, and
                  -Identify materials available or needed                 parents, including building site councils;
                  -Identify leadership roles, and human and               home schoolers and their parents; students,
                  financial resources available and/or                    faculty, and staff at community and other
                  needed                                                  colleges and universities; child care provid-
                  -Develop an evaluation program to                       ers (baby sitters); participants in after-
                  measure changes in knowledge, attitudes,                school programs such as sports, Little
                  skills, and behavior                                    League, Scouts, YMCA, 4-H, church
              Step 5-Integrate strategies as a working draft              groups, specialty youth programs, hang-
                  for review                                              outs, community pools, recreation centers,
              Step 6-Seek active support and initiate imple-              gangs.
                  mentation                                           Audience 3. Government and Critical Service Providers
                The basic elements suggested by the above             Local, state, and federal goverrunent elected
              process are outlined below. The plan is "audi-              and appointed officials and professionals
              ence-based," in part because educational                    who make and implement policy; emer-
              leadership and in some cases, educational                   gency service managers and providers,
              materials, are likely to be audience-specific.              including fire, police, medical emergency
              However, many of the techniques, methods,                   and hospital, Red Cross, transportation and
              and materials used to educate one audience                  public works, TV, media, Coast Guard,
              will be directly applicable to other audiences.             National Guard and other military; trans-
              Because of this, a key implementation recom-                portation facilities and workers (airports,
              mendation for the overall strategy is the estab-            ports, rail, highway, street); communica-
              lishment of the Cascadia Earthquake-Tsunami                 tors, including the Emergency Broadcast
              Education Network. This network will help                   System, television, paper media; public and
              ensure maximum sharing of educational                       private utilities, including gas, electric,
              resources and information.                                  water, sewer; home health deliverers;
                                                                          Salvation Army/ churches; social services,
              Audiences for Earthquake Education                          including psychologists, counselors, etc.;
                Six key audiences for earthquake education                food and drink outlets, including grocery
              were identified, recognizing that individuals               stores and supermarkets; scientific and
              will tend to fall into more than one category:              emergency response experts that can
              Audience 1: Residential, Workplace, and Gathering Place     interpret events.
              Residential: parents, children, seniors, the            Audience 4: Visitors and Tourists
                  physically-challenged, and other individu-          Visitors at hotels and motels, campgrounds, RV
                  als who live in private homes, apartment                parks, and other temporary residential
                  buildings, group homes, and other places                accommodations; second home owners;
                  of residence.                                           day visitors at parks and other public areas,
              Workplace: owners and employees of small                    including lakes, beaches, and rivers; bicy-
                  and large service and information or                    clists; business conference and pleasure
                  technology-based businesses; workers and                tour groups; transporters (bus companies),
                  managers of factories and other light and               foreign visitors with language barriers;
                  heavy industrial facilities; individuals                travel agents, short course teachers and
                  involved in farming, logging, fishing and               students; seasonal workers; vacationing
                  other resource industries; etc.                         youth or school groups; sponsors of attrac-
              Gathering Places: people involved in churches,              tions.
                  community centers, senior centers, etc.




              118 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast







                 Audience 5: Developers, Contractors, Designers, Hazard             0   know what to expect during and after each
                 Consultants                                                            type of earthquake;
                 Property developers, architects, design and                        0   know what tsunamis and seiches are;
                     structural engineers, builders, and other                      0   understand and respect earthquake hazards,
                     construction contractors; geologists and                           risks, and vulnerability; e.g., strong ground
                     engineering geologists; surveyors; land use                        motion, liquefaction, landslides, slumping,
                     planners and consultants.                                          lateral spreading, surface ruptures, subsid-
                 Audience 6: Financial and Legal Sector                                 ence, etc.;
                 Real estate brokers, associates, appraisers; title                     understand that they are likely to survive,
                     insurance companies; attorneys; insurance                          but that the community might be severely
                     agents and companies; bankers and other                            affected, e.g., some loss of life, many inju-
                     lenders; private home and building inspec-                         ries, isolation in small groups / areas, and
                     tors; asset and property managers.                                 damage to buildings, roads, bridges, dams,
                 Education Strategy Applicable to all Audiences                         utilities, etc.;
                                                                                    Hazard means the probability of a given area
                 Learner Outcomes and Education Strategies and tactics                  being affected by potential disaster phe-
                   Learner outcomes are the desired changes in                          nomenon within a given time frame;
                 knowledge, attitudes, skills, and behavior of                      Vulnerability means a measure of proportion of
                 the target audience of an educational program.                         value likely to be lost (lives, property, etc.,
                 They are usually expressed in terms that are                           e.g., 10%);
                 specific, measurable, and subject to evaluation.
                 What became clear in developing the overall                        Risk means the possibility of a loss within area
                 strategy was that two learner objectives apply                         subject to the hazard (Risk = value x vul-
                 to nearly all audiences.                                               nerability x hazard);
                   First, everyone needs to be aware of the                         Learner Outcome 2. Preparation and Response
                 frequency, type, magnitude, and destructive-                         All agencies, organizations, institutions, and
                 ness of potential earthquakes in Oregon-                           individuals will prepare in advance for an
                 earthquake awareness.                                              earthquake; they will have a written emer-
                   Second, everyone should prepare for earth-                       gency plan of action for what they will do when
                 quakes including; knowing what to do when                          an earthquake strikes. They will:
                 an earthquake strikes and developing a plan                        0   know the appropriate action to take during
                 ahead of time, for survival after the quake-                           and after an earthquake;
                 preparedness and response.
                   The specifics that apply to all audiences are                    0   examine their home, workplace, other
                 detailed below. In subsequent discussions of                           gathering places, etc., for structural and
                 education plans for each specific audience,                            non-structural hazards and will eliminate
                 other details applicable to that audience, as                          or minimize them,
                 well as additional learner outcomes are found.                     0   have earthquake emergency kits at home,
                 Learner Outcome 1: Earthquake Awareness                                the workplace, and automobile that will get
                   Everyone will be aware of and understand                             them through at least 72 hours;
                 earthquake potential, risks, and vulnerability                     9   know the community, business, family
                 in the Cascadia region.                                                plans, the chain-of command in the com-
                   They will:                                                           munity, and their own role;
                 ï¿½   understand what earthquakes are and what                       0   know where emergency and operation
                     causes them;                                                       centers in the community will be located;
                 ï¿½   be aware of the kinds of earthquakes that                      0   know the value of emergency planning for
                     could occur in the region, especially of the                       saving lives and in enabling people/
                     presence and significance of the CSZ;                              businesses / schools / etc. to return to normal
                                                                                        more quickly after a disaster;


                                                                                    Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 119








                ï¿½   know how to file plans with appropriate               9. Develop master earthquake advisor pro-
                    agencies.                                                 gram similar to master gardener program
                ï¿½   determine if they live or work in a tsunami           10. Develop clear, simple educational materials
                    inundation zone and, if so, develop an                    on earthquake hazards that can be deliv-
                    evacuation plan.                                          ered through print media, radio, and
                ï¿½   know to what extent they are legally liable               television. Include examples of what might
                    for preparing for earthquakes and for                     happen to roads, sewers, facilities, etc. that
                    mitigating earthquake hazards in their                    aren't adequately protected.
                    school, business, hospital, etc.                      Educational Materials and Resources
                Strategies/Tacfics                                           Principal resources include publications and
                1.  Establish a Cascadia Earthquake-Tsunami               materials from:
                    Education Network of educators, public                0   Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
                    and private educational institutions and              0   FEMA
                    organizations, and other interested indi-             0   U.S. Geological Survey
                    viduals; establish a coordinating office;             0   American Red Cross
                    seek grant funding to support this network.
                    Such a network would be something like                *   California Seismic Safety Commission
                    BAREPP (Bay Area Regional Earthquake                  0   Bay Area Regional Earthquake Prepared-
                    Preparedness Project).                                    ness Project (BAREPP)
                2.  Identify, collect, catalog, disseminate,
                    critique, and adapt existing earthquake               Additional needs include:
                    education materials to Cascadia region; put           0 detailed information on the tsunami threat
                    a catalog together. Establish a single library.           from a large earthquake
                3.  Tailor materials to specific audiences,               0   videos or other materials that simply
                    learning styles, educational levels, and                  explain the threat of earthquakes in Oregon
                    geographic areas of Cascadia.                         Leadership/Human Resources
                4.  Develop a Cascadia-wide speakers bureau
                    on earthquake hazards; a who's who of                 Technical: U.S. Geological Survey, FEMA,
                    earthquake and preparedness experts.                      NOAA, CSZ Working Group, University
                5.  Develop a model educational package w                     faculty, state, provincial, and local emer-
                    video, slide set w /text, fact sheets, etc. that          gency management, fire marshals and
                    could be adapted; plus a model workshop                   departments, police.
                    w/ expert panel on earthquakes, experien-             Education Design/ Development: Cascadia
                    tial earthquake, preparedness/ response                   Earthquake-Tsunami Education Network,
                    needs                                                     U.S. Geological Survey, FEMA, state and
                7.  Develop media packets that could be used                  provincial departments of geology and
                    when a earthquake happens. Include the                    education, educational service districts
                    following: general earthquake information,                curriculum development, offices of emer-
                    specialist contacts, tsunami warnings, etc.               gency management, police, and fire safety
                    (check BAREPP for ideas) (see recent EERI                 (state, provincial, county, city), Red Cross,
                    article on what media needs to know)                      universities, schools (K-12), extension
                8.  Develop an earthquake awareness, pre-                     services, community colleges.
                    paredness, and response education fair                Delivery: Cascadia Earthquake-Tsunami
                    (e.g., in Pioneer Square, Marine Science                  Education Network and associated local
                    Center (South Beach Marina); also in                      network, U.S. Geological Survey, FEMA,
                    association with other events                             state and provincial departments of geol-
                                                                              ogy and education, offices of emergency



                120 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (oust







                     management, police, and fire safety (state,                  StrategieslTactics
                     provincial, county, city), Red Cross, schools                1.  Families/ Residences: Disseminate informa-
                     (K-12), universities, extension services,                        tion through children (school), church,
                     community colleges, public radio/ TV,                            employment, media, utility bills, phone
                     libraries, insurance companies, other                            book, local awareness campaigns, neigh-
                     disaster relief organizations.                                   borhood meetings, civic organizations,
                                                                                      homeowner association meetings, celebrity
                 Funding Resources                                                    endorsements, mobile demonstration van,
                    FEMA, U.S. Geological Survey, National                            etc.
                 Science Foundation, Land and Sea Grant                           2.  Workplace: Stress the importance of a plan
                 institutions, professional societies, private                        for returning to business after an earth-
                 foundations, federal and state departments of                        quake, including how to determine a
                 education, offices of emergency management                           building is safe to reenter. Require an
                 and seismic safety, other federal, state, and                        earthquake plan as a condition for obtain-
                 local public and private sources.                                    ing a business permit or other licenses, for
                 Educational Strategies for Residential,                              essential facilities and businesses with
                 Workplace, and Gathering Place Audiences                             hazardous materials; have the Chamber of
                                                                                      Commerce design and distribute planning
                 Learner Outcome 1: Earthquake Awareness (see overall                 guidelines, organize talks at business
                 learner outcomes for general strategies)                             association meetings, etc.
                 Learner Outcome 2: Preparation and Response (see                 3,  Gathering Places: Require an earthquake
                 overall learner outcomes for general strategies)                     plan as part of building and fire safety
                 Strategies1lactics                                                   inspections; disseminate information
                                                                                      through churches, councils, and other
                 1.  Identify and distribute earthquake aware-                        organizations.
                     ness information through non-traditional                     4.  Outline and distribute a checklist to help
                     sources (malls, department stores, etc.);                        develop a plan and stock the 72 hour kit.
                     have earthquake prep "scavenger hunt" in
                     stores with your kids.                                       5.  Tailor kits to number of persons in the
                 2.  Make members of communities aware of                             living or work unit. Include information
                     the need to protect critical services (specific                  sources and a list of available materials.
                     to government/ critical service providers).                  6.  Identify and distribute information through
                 3.  Have information included with power or                          non-traditional sources (malls, department
                     other bills.                                                     stores, etc.) on awareness, kits; have kits
                                                                                      available; have earthquake prep "scavenger
                 Other Learner Outcomes                                               hunt" in stores with your children.
                 1.  Critical suppliers of food, fuel, etc, will                  7.  Work with professional organizations and
                     understand the importance of having                              publications on how to prepare for events;
                     coordinated community and neighborhood                           civic organizations; chambers of commerce.
                     plans to provide such materials and pre-                     8.  Include earthquake preparedness as an
                     vent looting.                                                    element of performance appraisals for
                 2.  Boat owners will have a specific plan for                        personnel with responsibilities for groups
                     dealing with earthquake and tsunami                              of people (schools, pre-schools, group
                     hazards.                                                         homes).
                 3.  Factory owners and others dealing with                       9.  Develop/ adapt/ disseminate info on model
                     hazardous materials will have materials                          earthquake preparedness plans, and disas-
                     stored in a way to prevent fires or explo-                       ter kit.
                     sions during a quake.                                        10. Financial Incentives including: insurance
                                                                                      rate discounts, tax incentives, available



                                                                                  Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (oust 121








                     low-cost items needed for kit (through                       9.  Prepare a basic set of lessons that are the
                     retail store).                                                   basic information students need to know in
                                                                                      order to survive an earthquake, and then
                 Education Strategies for Schools and Youth                           have additional supplementary lessons
                 Audiences                                                            available for teachers interested in teaching
                 Learner Outcome 1: Earthquake Awareness (see overall                 more about earthquakes.
                 learner outcomes for general strategies)                         10. Develop a CD-Rom that includes all the
                 Learner Outcome 2. Preparation and Response (see                     earthquake curriculum available.
                 overall learner outcomes for general strategies)                 11. Workshops for teachers-free, sponsored
                 Other Learner Outcomes                                               by GSA.
                 1.  Child care providers and school adminis-                     12. Course ware for teachers to help meet
                     trators will know how to make an earth-                          learning outcome.
                     quake preparedness plan, which will                          13. Lists of outside resource experts who can
                     include (at a minimum or in accordance                           come into the schools.
                     with FEMA bulletin 88, see appendix):                        14. Require all schools to file earthquake drill
                 2.  Schools will send earthquake information                         information with fire departments as they
                     to home schoolers.                                               presently do with fire drills.
                 3.  All educational agencies will have earth-                    Education Strategies for Government and
                     quake preparedness and survival curricu-                     (ritical Service Providers
                     lum in place.
                 4.  Staff and students will know whether they                    Learner Outcome 1: Earthquake Awareness (see overall
                     are in an area susceptible to tsunami inun-                  learner outcomes for general strategies)
                     dation and know how to lead students to                      Learner Outcome 2: Preparation and Response (see
                     safety in the event of an earthquake.                        overall learner outcomes for general strategies)
                 5.  Schools will send information to radio                       Other Learner Outcomes
                     stations about how parents can retrieve                      1.  Government officials will understand the
                     their children after an earthquake.                              magnitude of impact a large earthquake
                 StrategieslTactics                                                   will have on their community.
                 1.  Prepare earthquake curriculum specific to                    2.  All legislators will know/ learn the impor-
                     the Northwest.                                                   tance of continued support of earthquake
                 2.  Should involve common curriculum goals                           education.
                     (integrated curriculum with science, math,                   3.  State and local government will know to
                     social science) that can be cross referenced.                    evaluate vulnerability, hazard potential,
                 3.  Have an outside person/ agency come into                         and response capability.
                     school to talk (fire, police).                               4.  Critical services will recognize that they
                 4.  Tie into an "Earthquake Safety Week."                            may not be able to respond as well as
                 5.  Use FEMA earthquake curriculum and                               planned.
                     make it simple for teachers to instruct.                     5.  Priority: Critical service providers will have
                                                                                      personal/ family plans in place that they
                 6.  Media blitz to announce materials (as done                       have confidence in so they can concentrate
                     by U.S. Geological Survey in CA).                                on their job-they will know that the
                 7.  Require earthquake drills for all students                       community emergency management
                     (pre-schoolers to college), not ending at                        system is in place and working.
                     eighth grade                                                 6.  Critical emergency workers (including
                 8.  Distribute with fire safety skills curriculum.                   utilities) will have confidence in their own



                 122 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast







                     family plan so they can do their expected                    5.  Require county, city; or community audit of
                     'duties.                                                         emergency preparedness.
                7.   Government will have a plan for helping                      6.  The governor's office will establish policies
                     people with post-disaster response.                              for agencies to prepare, coordinate, and
                8.   Lifelines staff will review interdependent                       respond to earthquakes.
                     relationships among lifelines (e.g. same                     7.  Require all government and service agen-
                     conduit or tower).                                               cies (including National Guard and Coast
                9.   Local emergency managers and the Red                             Guard) to have an earthquake prepared-
                     Cross will include likely scenarios for                          ness component in their planning process.
                     isolation due to bridge collapse etc. into                   8.  Enforcement and emergency services will
                     their planning process.                                          have an earthquake information and/or
                10.  Emergency workers will know how to deal                          training program for employers of local
                     with looting and panic.                                          businesses.
                11.  Maintenance supervisors will know how to                     Resources
                     identify earthquake hazards at their work                    0 CSZ technical group looking for a mission
                     sites.                                                       0 planning experts
                12. Government will have a plan in place to
                     record the information on structural and                     Leaders
                     other damage information after the quake.                        FEMA (sell as "model program"), OEM,
                13. All critical service provider groups will                         OSU, CSZ group
                     know how they will communicate with                          Education Strategies for Visitor and Tourist
                     each other after an earthquake.                              Audiences
                14. Governments will know the importance of
                     post-disaster reconstruction planning, and                   Learner Outcome 1: Earthquake Awareness (see overall
                     will incorporate this into their earthquake                  learner outcomes for general strategies)
                     planning process.                                            Learner Outcome 2. Preparation and Response (see
                StrategieslTactics                                                overall learner outcomes for general strategies)
                1.   Ensure that critical individuals know who                    Other Learner Outcomes
                     they are.                                                    1. Tourists will look or ask for information.
                2.   Put together a good information package                      Education StrategieslTactics
                     for decision-makers to educate them on the                   1.  Motels / Hotels / Parks / Campgrounds will
                     need for a community emergency manage-                           provide information in every room and to
                     ment plan, so resources and support are                          every visitor about earthquake/ tsunami
                     available.                                                       hazards, and will include an evacuation
                I    Organize a "getting started" workshop                            plan.
                     series for all coastal jurisdictions with local              2.  Tourism sponsors will educate visitors to
                     and other experts.                                               coastal hazards using their particular
                4.   Education program content:                                       venue/ contact link.
                ï¿½    identify the magnitude of the problem                        3.  Low power radio will broadcast earth-
                ï¿½    personal experiences with earthquakes                            quake education information.
                ï¿½    how to do a "plan" /system (steps, re-
                     sources, follow-up)
                ï¿½    have a local earthquake/ tsunami scenario




                                                                                  Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (oast 123







                 Education Stretegies for Developers,                             3.   Publish manuals, write articles in profes-
                 Contractors, and Consultants Audience                                 sional journal, create videos, etc, with
                                                                                       information on earthquakes specific to each
                 Learner Outcome 1: Earthquake Awareness (see overall                  specialty.
                 learner outcomes for general strategies)                         4.   Teach special short courses at professional
                 Learner Outcome 2: Preparation and Response (see                      meetings.
                 overall learner outcomes for general strategies)                 5.   Require earthquake certification for com-
                 Other Learner Outcomes                                                pleting certain type of jobs.
                 I .  Developers and contractors will know the
                      hazard potential and the structural require-                Education Strategies for Legal and Real
                      ments needed to mitigate the earthquake                     Estate Audiences
                      hazard.                                                     Learner Outcome 1: Earthquake Awareness (see overall
                 2.   Geotechnical specialists will know how to                   learner outcomes for general strategies)
                      identify and assess earthquake and tsu-
                      nami hazards.                                               Learner Outcome 2: Preparation and Response (see
                 3.   Contractors, architects, engineers, etc. need               overall learner outcomes for general strategies)
                      to know how to build to code and be able                    Other Learner Outcomes
                      to deal with specific site or use needs                     1.   Bankers will know that they must have an
                      (continuing education).                                          earthquake plan that includes providing
                 4.   Contractors, architects, engineers, etc. will                    money (services) and keeping records in an
                      continue to educate themselves about                             alternate location that would not be af-
                      earthquake construction techniques for                           fected by a large CSZ earthquake.
                      new structures and retrofitting (continuing                 2.   Insurers will be aware of the structural and
                      education).                                                      site hazards before insuring property for
                 5.   Engineers need to understand seismic                             earthquakes.
                      hazards, design, construction, inspection.                  3.   Lending institutions will reassess their
                 6.   Contractors, architects, engineers, etc. will                    lending practices and standards in light of
                      understand how to rebuild after an earth-                        our new knowledge of seismic risk.
                      quake; assess the damage, recycle building                  4.   Lenders, title companies, etc. will inquire
                      materials, etc.                                                  about the hazard status of each property in
                 Strategies1lactics                                                    question.
                 1.   Require as part of licensing procedure                      5.   Buyers will have seismic hazards disclosed
                      additional training in dealing with earth-                       to them.
                      quake hazards.                                              6.   Realtors/ sellers will be required to disclose
                 2.   Offer courses that result in special certifica-                  coastal hazards information.
                      tion. (i.e., contractors with special certifica-            Strategies1lactics
                      tion in earthquake retrofitting or geologists               1. Special classes for lenders/ insurers
                      with certification to identify earthquake
                      problems).                                                  2.   Video, articles, etc. that are aimed at lend-
                                                                                       ers / insurers










                 124 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast

































































































                                                                                                                           I






                                                                                    Improving Platural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast 125
























































                  126 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast


























































                                                                                    Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon (bast 127






































                                                                                                          DAM DUE
                                                                                   ?-xs @q -















                                                                                        GAYLORDINo. 2333                               PRINTEDINU.S.A.











                           128 Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast










































































                                             3 6668 14100 0861