[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; � understand what earthquakes are and what 0 know where emergency and operation causes them; centers in the community will be located; � 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 � know how to file plans with appropriate 9. Develop master earthquake advisor pro- agencies. gram similar to master gardener program � 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 � 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. � identify the magnitude of the problem 3. Low power radio will broadcast earth- � personal experiences with earthquakes quake education information. � how to do a "plan" /system (steps, re- sources, follow-up) � 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