Accessible document
Recommendations of the Coastal Natural Hazards Policy Working Group
This report is the culmination of more than two years of work by a dedicated group of 20 coastal residents and resource managers that made up Oregon's Coastal Natural Hazards Policy Working Group (see Appendix A).
To produce this report, these individuals participated in 19 one- or two-day workshops between March 1992 and May 1994. The group identified natural hazard problems and possible solutions, took their ideas to the public in a series of workshops, sought and considered public opinion, and formulated the recommendations in this report. Along the way, they benefitted from the advice of many specialists and citizens who made presentations or offered opinions on hazard issues and options.
The Policy Working Group arrived at the recommendations in this report through a process of consensus building. Consequently, the group's recommendations do not necessarily represent what any one member might have recommended independently. Although some differences of opinion remain, the members of the group agreed that they can "live with" the negotiated recommendations presented here.
A special word of thanks is due to Ms. Ann Snyder, a professional facilitator and trainer from McMinnville, Oregon. Ann helped organize and conduct more than a dozen of the policy group's two-day workshops. Her outstanding facilitation, conflict resolution, and consensus-building skills and her good humor and chocolate contributed a great deal to the successful completion of the project. Much learning also took place as those skills were passed on. Ann, on behalf of the entire group, thank you.
Also deserving special mention are the three graduate research assistants from Oregon State University who ably assisted with all aspects of this project: Andrea Ansevin, Paul Salop, and Cal Sawyer.
Finally, this project would not have been possible without the support and assistance of the Oregon State University Extension Service, the Oregon Sea Grant Program, and the Oregon Coastal Management Program.
Several Extension faculty involved in the Public Issues Education Initiative provided project design and facilitation assistance, notably Pat Corcoran, Flaxen Conway, Fred Smith, Greg Tillson, Larry Lev, Ray William, and Fielding Cooley.
Sea Grant provided communications support in the person of editor Sandy Ridlington, as well as financial support through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Sea Grant, Department of Commerce grant no. NA36RG0451 (project no. ASGE-2) and from appropriations made by the Oregon State Legislature.
Coastal Management Program staff assistance was provided by Emily Toby and John Marra, of the Department of Land Conservation and Development. Funding was also provided by the Department of Land Conservation and Development through Section 309 of the Coastal Zone Management Act, administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management. James W. Good Project Coordinator
In March 1992, Oregon's Coastal Natural Hazards Policy Working Group was formed. Composed of 20 individuals representing a broad range of public and private interests on the coast, the group began a two-year project to identify coastal hazard issues, examine how these issues were being addressed today, formulate alternative solutions, and recommend improved policies and practices, based on public input and their own analysis.
The process the group used to accomplish this is outlined in the full report. This summary outlines the issues and recommendations presented in the full report. It is designed to give the reader an overview. However, as with any summary, many details are missing and, as they say, the devil is in the details. For specifics on issues of interest, the reader is urged to refer to the appropriate section of the full report.
Twenty-three issues are outlined here along with 79 recommendations. In italics, following each of the recommendations, the principal implementing agencies, organizations, or institutions are listed. More detail on the issues, recommendations, and implementing actions, as well as on the findings of the policy group can be found in the full report.
The issues are organized in four categories: hazard identification, beach and shore protection, land use, and disaster preparedness and response. The pages on which each issue appears in the full report are noted below.
Issue 1- Existing maps and information about coastal natural hazards are inadequate for planning and decision making (page 29).
Recommendation 1-1. Establish criteria and standards for collecting, reporting, and mapping information about chronic and catastrophic coastal natural hazards. Give special attention to classifying hazard areas, particularly to the definition of "high-hazard areas" referred to elsewhere in these policy recommendations (Department of Geology and Mineral Industries [DOGAMI]).
Recommendation 1-2. Inventory and catalog coastal natural hazards studies, maps, digital data (for example, bathymetry and topography), and other information available from city, county, state, federal, university, private, and other sources (DOGAMI, Oregon State University [OSU] Hatfield Marine Science Center [HMSC]).
Recommendation 1-3. Develop standardized coastal hazard maps for priority areas along the Oregon coast at a scale of 1:4,800 (1" = 400') or larger. Maps should include both chronic and catastrophic hazards information. Public funds should not be used for site-specific coastal hazards investigations unless the public benefits outweigh the costs (DOGAMI).
Recommendation 1-4. Fund basic and applied research on chronic coastal natural hazards following specified priorities (DOGAMI and other institutions).
Recommendation 1-5. Fund basic and applied research on earthquake and tsunami hazards and hazards mitigation following specified priorities (DOGAMI and other institutions).
Issue 2 - Geotechnical site reports are inadequate for making decisions on land development and shore protection projects (page 33).
Recommendation 2-1. Establish improved procedures for geotechnical site reports for coastal land development and shore protection projects. Specific needs include content standards for geotechnical site reports, a list of "triggering mechanisms" that will initiate the process, public disclosure requirements, a 10-year sunset clause, and local and state peer review processes (DOGAMI).
Recommendation 2-2. Improve the licensing process for geologists, engineering geologists, and engineers who work in the coastal zone, requiring certification and continuing education on uniquely coastal topics (Oregon Board of Geologists and Engineering Geologists Examiners & Board of Engineering Examiners, DOGAMI).
Issue 3 - Information about coastal natural hazards is not readily available, nor is it well understood by users and effectively applied in decision making (page 37).
Recommendation 3-1. Establish a coastal hazards information system and repository with an easily accessible database and a special collection of materials (OSU Hatfield Marine Science Center).
Recommendation 3-2. Develop and implement educational programs about coastal natural hazards to increase the knowledge, skills, and effective application of hazards information to decisions (OSU Sea Grant Extension).
Issue 4 - Hazard disclosure during property transactions is insufficient (page 40).
Recommendation 4-1. Revise the real estate disclosure form in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 696 to require that all known or potential natural hazards affecting a property be disclosed by all sellers (the owner or the owner's agent) to all potential buyers before a property transaction is finalized (State Legislature, Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission [OSSPAC]).
Recommendation 4-2. Establish and maintain a database that includes all known information on natural hazards affecting real property, and make this database available to the public so that it can be determined if a property is located in a hazardous area (OSU HMSC).
Recommendation 4-3. Prepare and make available to prospective buyers of potentially hazardous coastal property a "buyer's guide" or hazards evaluation checklist. In the guide, include information on how to access additional information or contacts (OSU Sea Grant Extension).
Issue 5 - Goals and policies for shore protection are inconsistent and outdated, particularly with regard to hard structures (page 44).
Recommendation 5-1. Establish clear, consistent goals and policies for operating the beach and shore protection program administered by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) under the Beach Law (State Legislature, OPRD).
Recommendation 5-2. Strongly discourage hard shore protection structures (SPSs) that fix the shoreline in place and interfere with the physical processes of the natural beach and shoreland (State Legislature, OPRD).
Recommendation 5-3. Conduct a thorough review of studies of alternative shore protection techniques throughout the U.S. and the world. Test and evaluate promising alternatives to revetments, seawalls, and other hard shore protection structures; some alternatives are dune construction, vegetative stabilization, beach nourishment, and dynamic revetments (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACOE], OPRD, DOGAMI).
Issue 6 - There are gaps and overlaps in shore protection regulatory jurisdiction and in the interagency review and decision-making process (page 49).
Recommendation 6-1. Regulate the installation of all ocean shore protection structures, other activities designed to stabilize or protect the beach or oceanfront property, and other construction on or immediately adjacent to the beach, including repairs of existing structures. Precise jurisdiction should be determined jointly, in advance, by OPRD, Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), DOGAMI, and the affected local government (State Legislature, OPRD).
Recommendation 6-2. Place exclusively 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 agencies (State Legislature, OPRD).
Issue 7 The shore protection permit process is poorly structured, has weak review standards and limited enforcement authority, and the appeals process is antiquated (page 54).
Recommendation 7-1. Establish a coordinated process for shore protection decision making, including an evaluation of hazards and threats to property, alternative mitigation techniques and designs, impacts of alternatives, and compensation needs (State Legislature, OPRD, DOGAMI, DLCD, and local governments).
Recommendation 7-2. Vest sufficient administrative and civil enforcement authority in OPRD to ensure an effective beachfront and ocean shore regulatory program. Change the appeals process so that any person aggrieved by an OPRD permit decision under ORS 390.650 can petition the OPRD director for reconsideration of the final decision (State Legislature, OPRD).
Issue 8 - Emergency shore protection policies and procedures are lacking (page 57).
Recommendation 8-1. Establish clear, consistent definitions, policies, procedures, and conditions for allowing "emergency" shore protection. Specify what constitutes an "emergency," who makes decisions, what measures are permissible (excluding revetments and seawalls), and standard requirements, including the requirement for removal (State Legislature, OPRD).
Issue 9 - Land use planning and site-specific land use decisions, as they relate to coastal hazards, suffer from ineffective integration of existing and new hazards information, piecemeal decision making, and poor communication and coordination among administrators of land use, shore protection, beach management, and hazards research programs (page 61).
Recommendation 9-1. Adapt the special area management planning (SAMP) process to oceanfront beaches and shorelands along the Oregon coast. Undertake a pilot SAMP for a high-priority oceanfront area, and identify other priority coastal areas for application of the refined SAMP process (Land Conservation and Development Commission [LCDC], DLCD, OPRD, cities and counties).
Recommendation 9-2. Establish a local land use notification process for oceanfront development projects that could lead to future OPRD-regulated shore protection proposals (LCDC, State Legislature).
Issue 10 - Development in hazardous areas is often subsidized by public funding (page 65).
Recommendation 10-1. Eliminate tax write-offs for capital losses due to natural hazards for new structures or major additions to existing structures in designated high-hazard areas (State Legislature).
Recommendation 10-2. Establish development surcharges for building permits and land use actions in high-hazard areas consistent with the actual costs of development (cities and counties).
Recommendation 10-3. Establish a process for evaluating coastal natural hazards in government development, grant, and loan procedures (Economic Development Department and other relevant agencies).
Recommendation 10-4. Prohibit direct public development, grants, loans, or loan guarantees for essential facilities, hazardous facilities, major structures, and special occupancy structures in high-hazard areas. Exceptions would be for situations where such hazards are fully mitigated by structural or nonstructural means or when the facility cannot be feasibly located outside high-hazard areas (for example, port facilities, marinas, other water-dependent facilities, water and waste treatment facilities, and similar uses). Public subsidies of other types of development in high-hazard areas should generally be discouraged (Economic Development Department and other relevant agencies).
Recommendation 10-5. Expand the federal flood insurance program to an all-hazards program, covering at least erosion, earthquakes, and tsunamis for residences, businesses, and public buildings; couple all-hazards insurance with stringent mitigation requirements designed to minimize disaster losses (U.S. Congress, Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]).
Issue 11 - There is no consistent way to determine what properties along the Oregon coast are "unbuildable" due to natural hazards (page 67).
Recommendation 11-1. Establish and apply a classification system and criteria for determining development capacity of oceanfront lots with respect to hazards (LCDC, DLCD).
Recommendation 11-2. Amend the Oregon Tax Code to provide owners of hazard-prone property with an enhanced tax credit for donating property to a public entity or a private, nonprofit land trust for permanent, nondevelopment-related public use (State Legislature).
Recommendation 11-3. Establish a public fund to purchase fee simple or development rights to property that is deemed unbuildable based on the criteria in Recommendation 11-1 (OPRD).
Issue 12 - Past land use decisions and existing uses unduly influence decisions on new development (page 69).
Recommendation 12-1. Establish a sunset clause for new subdivisions that limits the time allowed for development to occur and provides for the automatic vacation of the subdivision at the time of sunset; review previously approved subdivisions as required by ORS 92.205-92.245 (Undeveloped Subdivisions), modifying or vacating as appropriate; simplify plat vacation and reconfiguration procedures to expedite the process (local government, DLCD, LCDC, State Legislature).
Recommendation 12-2. When a public or private infrastructure extension is proposed to service new development, evaluate the extension for its potential to influence land development in hazardous areas. When an evaluation suggests increased hazard risks or impacts, require that the infrastructure extension be modified to eliminate or minimize such adverse impacts (LCDC, DLCD, local governments).
Recommendation 12-3. Evaluate existing public infrastructure in areas not yet built up for its influence on land development in hazardous areas. Where reasonable, abandon, relocate, or otherwise restrict development to minimize threats to life or property (LCDC, DLCD, local governments).
Issue 13 - Oceanfront construction setbacks, as now implemented, have not proven to be an effective means for avoiding hazards (page 71).
Recommendation 13-1. Develop, test, and refine a coastwide technical methodology for coastal construction setbacks, whereby each property would be evaluated on its unique characteristics using the most up-to-date information available (LCDC, DLCD, DOGAMI, OPRD, local government).
Recommendation 13-2. Using the coastal construction setback method in Recommendation 13-1, require that setbacks be determined by a qualified professional for all shoreline development subject to coastal natural hazards (LCDC, DLCD).
Recommendation 13-3. Allow variances to required coastal construction setbacks only when (a) building design and proposed construction techniques minimize exposure to natural hazards, (b) no concurrent or future hard shore protection structures are permitted, or (c) maximum setback variances on other parts of the property have been already been granted and incorporated into the design (LCDC, DLCD).
Recommendation 13-4. Do not allow the use of lot coverage or building density allowances as the basis for a variance to required coastal construction setbacks (LCDC, DLCD).
Issue 14 - Development continues to be sited in earthquake and tsunami high-hazard areas (page 74).
Recommendation 14-1. Establish a system of special zones, procedures, restrictions, and conditions to limit development in earthquake and tsunami high-hazard areas (LCDC, DLCD, DOGAMI, local governments).
Recommendation 14-2. Prohibit the construction of or significant additions to essential facilities, hazardous facilities, major structures, and special occupancy structures in earthquake and tsunami high-hazard areas (LCDC, DLCD, DOGAMI, local governments).
Recommendation 14-3. Limit other types of development in high-hazard areas to low-intensity uses. In addition, establish specific conditions and building standards for development that will prevent collapse of structures when they are subjected to expected earthquake or tsunami forces (LCDC, DLCD, DOGAMI, local governments).
Recommendation 14-4. Develop long-range plans to phase out existing essential facilities, hazardous facilities, major structures, and special occupancy structures located in earthquake or tsunami high-hazard areas. Similarly, phase out or relocate utilities and other infrastructure in these high-hazard areas when normal replacement or major overhaul is due (local governments).
Recommendation 14-5. Incorporate information on tsunami run-up associated with forecasted Cascadia subduction zone (CSZ) earthquakes into the national flood insurance program and rate maps as data becomes available (FEMA, DOGAMI).
Issue 15 - Because they are vulnerable to earthquakes or tsunamis, many structures and facilities, including recently constructed ones, are potentially unsafe (page 79).
Recommendation 15-1. Identify and inspect structures and facilities in coastal communities that are vulnerable to earthquake or tsunami hazards. At a minimum, make a visual inspection, examine the underlying soil, and estimate the survivability of the structure in the event of a major earthquake or tsunami. Communicate the inspection results to local governments and the owners and operators of private structures and facilities (DOGAMI, Building Code Division [BCD], local building officials, private sector).
Recommendation 15-2. Establish procedures for retrofitting, upgrading, or relocating structures and facilities identified as unsafe during inspections conducted in accordance with Recommendation 15-1 (BCD, DOGAMI, local building officials, private sector).
Recommendation 15-3. Conduct a study of seismic hazard zones 3 and 4 building code requirements with respect to the sustained ground shaking, liquefaction, tsunami inundation, and other hazards expected during a large CSZ earthquake. Upgrade coastal Oregon building codes to conform to the results of this study with special requirements as needed (BCD, DOGAMI, local building officials).
Issue 16- There is limited public awareness of what earthquake and tsunami hazards are, what risks are involved, and how to plan for or respond to such events (page 82).
Recommendation 16-1. Assign state leadership responsibility for earthquake and tsunami awareness, risk reduction, and preparedness and response education to DOGAMI, in partnership with the Oregon Emergency Management Division (OEM). These agencies should integrate their efforts and make full use of other centers of scientific and technical expertise, financial support, and educational services (State Legislature, DOGAMI, OEM).
Recommendation 16-2. Assign local leadership responsibility for earthquake and tsunami awareness, risk reduction, and disaster response and preparedness education to county emergency management authorities. Base such education on a likely earthquake scenario for each area, recognizing the critical role of local chapters of the American Red Cross, fire and police departments, medical providers, the Coast Guard, Extension, and other agencies, organizations, and auxiliaries (State Legislature, local emergency managers).
Recommendation 16-3. Design and implement broad-based, sustainable educational programs focused on increasing awareness of earthquake and tsunami hazards and improving disaster preparedness and response. Target audiences are coastal residents and visitors, schools and youth, service providers, businesses and industry, developers and contractors, and financial and legal sectors (DOGAMI, OEM, local emergency managers, and education organizations and institutions).
Recommendation 16-4. Establish and participate in an earthquake education network in the Cascadia region (Oregon, Washington, northern California, and British Columbia) to coordinate education activities, and share resources, materials, and know-how. Compose the network of educators, public and private educational institutions and organizations, and other interested individuals (DOGAMI, OEM, local governments, others).
Recommendation 16-5. Identify, collect, catalog, and store existing earthquake education materials at a statewide or regional clearinghouse. Disseminate this information to educators and others in the Cascadia region (lead agencies and the Cascadia Earthquake-Tsunami Education Network).
Recommendation 16-6. Identify outstanding educational materials and approaches from other areas. Tailor the material to specific audiences, learning styles, educational levels, and geographic areas of Cascadia (lead agencies and the Cascadia Earthquake-Tsunami Education Network).
Issue 17 - State and local emergency management plans do not adequately address the scope and scale of coastal earthquake and tsunami hazards and risks (page 86).
Recommendation 17-1. Require preparation of an earthquake annex to Oregon's all-hazards Emergency Operations Plan, based in part on what was learned in Quakex-94. At the state level, emphasize emergency relief hierarchy and procedures; reestablishment of basic services and lifelines, including power, communications, water and sewer services; and emergency repair of roads and bridges (State Legislature, OEM, FEMA, others).
Recommendation 17-2. Develop a model earthquake annex for coastal county emergency plans based on a detailed earthquake or tsunami scenario developed by DOGAMI and provide technical assistance to counties and cities in adapting the model to their area (State Legislature, OEM, local governments and emergency managers).
Recommendation 17-3. Following the OEM model earthquake annex (to be developed as per Recommendation 17-2), counties, cities, and other organizations, as determined by counties, should develop earthquake annexes for their all-hazard emergency plans (local governments and emergency managers).
Recommendation 17-4. Require that state and local earthquake annexes to emergency plans be peer reviewed periodically by a team appointed by OEM; this is to ensure that the annexes are kept up-to-date with the ever-expanding knowledge base on coastal earthquake hazards and mitigation strategies (State Legislature, OEM).
Issue 18 - Earthquake preparedness and response planning for businesses, families, schools, and individuals are inadequate (page 88).
Recommendation 18-1. Evaluate existing levels of disaster preparedness in homes, schools, and work places. Develop a strategy for making structural and nonstructural inspections and improvements and for distributing FEMA and Red Cross guides and brochures that explain how to prepare disaster response plans and supply kits, eliminate home hazards, and respond to an earthquake (local emergency managers, DOGAMI, OEM, others).
Recommendation 18-2. Use grassroots organizations such as community volunteer programs, neighborhood associations, and community planning organizations to contact and assist families and individuals (local emergency managers, local organizations).
Recommendation 18-3. Require school officials to develop and implement earthquake preparedness plans consistent with FEMA Bulletin 88 (Guidebook for Development of a School Earthquake Safety Program) and additional guidelines for tsunami evacuation, if applicable (State Legislature, OSSPAC, DOGAMI, OEM, Department of Education).
Recommendation 18-4. Require that commercial or industrial businesses or public agencies that use or store hazardous materials on-site develop earthquake preparedness and response plans. Strongly encourage other businesses, particularly those with a large number of employees or customers or those located in hazardous locations, to prepare such plans (local governments).
Recommendation 18-5. Develop emergency preparedness and response plans at Oregon coastal ports and other marine and waterfront businesses. These plans should emphasize tsunami hazards and evacuation (OEM, port officials, local emergency managers, Sea Grant programs).
Issue 19 - The organizational structure for coastal emergency management is not fully implemented (page 91).
Recommendation 19-1. In the event of a regional disaster, automatically place under the command of county emergency management authorities all cities, special districts, and other emergency service providers who do not have an emergency plan or who do not specify incident command relationships (OEM, local emergency managers).
Recommendation 19-2. Organize all local emergency responders using a command system that follows one of several available models. In the system selected, clearly define hierarchical relationships between counties, cities, special districts, essential service providers, private relief organizations, OEM, and FEMA (OEM, local emergency managers).
Issue 20 - Local disaster response plans are not well exercised (page 92).
Recommendation 20-1. Require earthquake and tsunami (if applicable) response and evacuation drills. Keep for state review records that identify drills that had problems and describe how those problems were rectified. Require bimonthly drills for schools and annual drills for emergency response facilities, service providers, and other public buildings (OEM, Department of Education, local school districts, local emergency managers).
Recommendation 20-2. Require earthquake orientation or tabletop exercises annually. Consistent with available funding, require functional or full-scale exercises that focus specifically on earthquakes and earthquake-related effects every four years (OEM, local emergency managers).
Recommendation 20-3. Establish an exchange program for emergency managers from Oregon to observe earthquake exercises occurring in other regions of the country. Have other states' emergency managers observe and critique exercises in Oregon coastal communities (OEM, local emergency managers).
Recommendation 20-4. Local emergency management organizations should use nonemergency events such as parades and festivals to exercise and improve command, response, and coordination functions that will be essential in the event of an earthquake or similar disaster (local governments).
Issue 21 - Communication networks are insufficient to deal with a large earthquake (page 94).
Recommendation 21-1. Establish community low-power radio networks for the dissemination of public emergency information during and after a large earthquake (local emergency managers, local organizations).
Recommendation 21-2. In cooperation with an officially designated radio or television station, evaluate the emergency 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 protected against physical damage caused by a potential catastrophic event, (2) that station personnel are well prepared and versed in proper emergency procedures, and (3) that other stations, if still operational after a disaster, simultaneously broadcast the same information as that sent by the designated emergency broadcasting stations (OEM, local emergency managers).
Recommendation 21-3. Establish uniform and effective tsunami warning systems using siren and voice communication in coastal communities and vulnerable rural centers that lack them. Ensure that citizens and visitors are aware of the system by publishing information in phone directories and other local publications and by requiring postings at public places, restaurants, rental units, and motels (local emergency managers, OEM, DOGAMI, National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationPacific and Alaska Tsunami Warning Centers).
Recommendation 21-4. Review the structural integrity (that is, ability of a system to withstand a catastrophic earthquake) of all parts of state and county emergency communication systems and infrastructure, and retrofit where needed (BCD, DOGAMI, local building officials, private sector).
Recommendation 21-5. Establish communication systems recovery teams to evaluate systems and make them operational after an earthquake (local emergency managers).
Recommendation 21-6. Establish contingency plans to organize local postdisaster communication networks among HAM radio, marine radio, CB radio, and other informal communication systems (such as low-power radio) as an adjunct to the formal communication system (local emergency managers).
Recommendation 21-7. Establish emergency communication systems within schools, using, for example, walkie-talkies (see FEMA Bulletin 88, Guidebook for Development of a School Earthquake Safety Program) (local school officials).
Issue 22 - Physical infrastructure, lifelines, and utility systems will be severely disrupted in the event of a large CSZ earthquake (page 96).
Recommendation 22-1. Evaluate highways, roads, bridges, airports, harbors, and railroads for their vulnerability to earthquake or tsunami damage, using existing geologic information and a credible CSZ earthquake scenario. Publish and distribute the results of the evaluation, identifying transportation infrastructure likely to be damaged, the infrastructure that would be most easily restored, and the areas likely to be isolated after a large CSZ earthquake. Also provide an estimated timetable for re-establishment of transportation infrastructure and linkages in coastal communities based on likely scenarios (Oregon Department of Transportation [ODOT], U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, USACOE, and railroads).
Recommendation 22-2. Evaluate utilities, including water (and all types of dams), sewer, electricity, and gas systems and pipelines for their vulnerability to earthquake damage, using existing geologic information and a credible CSZ earthquake scenario. Publish and distribute the evaluation results, identifying utilities and associated infrastructure likely to be damaged during a large earthquake. Also provide an estimated timetable for re-establishing utility services to coastal communities based on likely scenarios (Oregon Public Utilities Commission, Oregon Water Resources Department, public and private utilities).
Recommendation 22-3. Evaluate the vulnerability of coastal ports to seismic hazards and tsunamis. Develop appropriate disaster preparedness and response plans for ports to address the varying levels of a potentially catastrophic event (OEM, ports, local emergency mangers, USACOE, FEMA, Pacific Coast Congress of Port Managers and Harbor Masters, Sea Grant programs).
Recommendation 22-4. Require continuing education on structural codes and design standards for seismic and tsunami-prone areas for designers, engineers, architects, contractors, and building officials working in coastal areas (BCD, licensing boards).
Issue 23 - Coastal communities do not have postdisaster recovery and reconstruction plans in place (page 99).
Recommendation 23-1. Develop postdisaster reconstruction plans based on damage projections from a CSZ earthquake and tsunami. Establish a state postdisaster planning and recovery task force to plan for reconstruction and serve as the lead state coordinating body to oversee postdisaster reconstruction. Membership of the task force should include DLCD, ODOT, DOGAMI, OSSPAC, OEM, the State Fire Marshall, and other relevant agencies (OSSPAC, State Legislature).
Recommendation 23-2. Develop postdisaster reconstruction plans for cities and counties based on damage projections from a CSZ earthquake and tsunami. Establish city and county task forces to plan for reconstruction and oversee local postdisaster reconstruction activities. Assign to each task force a structural engineer, a sanitarian, a fire marshal, a geologist, an engineering geologist, a civil engineer, an emergency manager, and building officials (OSSPAC, State Legislature, local emergency managers).
Natural forces, some cataclysmic and some gradual and relentless, have shaped the Oregon coast over millions of years. The rocky shores and islands, rugged basalt cliffs and headlands, intricately carved sandstone bluffs, sand and cobble beaches, high dunes, estuaries, river valleys, and mountains that make up the coast owe much of their natural beauty and diversity to these forces. The dynamic processes responsiblecrustal uplift and subsidence, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, sea level change, storms and ocean wavesare still at work today, constantly reshaping the coast.
What is different about the coast today from the distant past is our ubiquitous human presenceour cities and towns, ports and harbors, and network of highways and utilities. From nearly any coastal vantage point, evidence of human presence is apparent and growing. One of the consequences of this growing presence is that the same natural forces that have shaped the coast so attractively in the past increasingly threaten human life and property. Severe winter storms, large waves, rain, high winds, and strong tides and nearshore currents cut into beaches and dunes; undermine sea cliffs, causing slumping and slides; and flood low-lying coastal lands. In recent years, the vulnerability of the coast to large, locally generated earthquakes and tsunamis has become widely accepted, adding this potential threat to the reality of the hazards we already experience.
In response to these threats and to expressed concerns that existing efforts to cope with them were inadequate, Oregon Sea Grant sponsored a conference in 1991 to present the results of recent scientific research on coastal hazards and discuss its implications for the coast. Conference participants concluded that new information about natural hazards and development practices warranted a thorough evaluation of public policy dealing with coastal natural hazards. This led in 1992 to formation of the Coastal Natural Hazards Policy Working Group (PWG).
Organized and facilitated by the Oregon State University (OSU) Sea Grant Extension Program with support from Oregon's Coastal Management Program, the 20-member PWG (Appendix A) was drawn from attendees of the coastal hazards conference who expressed interest in serving. The group included individuals with a variety of coastal interestsoceanfront property owners, realtors, environmentalists, a consulting geologist, local planners, a school teacher, a county commissioner, an emergency manager, a fire chief, and managers from key state and federal agencies.
The PWG had no formal mandate and so defined its own mission as follows: Representing a broad range of public and private interests, the PWG is identifying important coastal natural hazard issues, evaluating existing management strategies, examining alternatives, and recommending and supporting needed policy improvements to decision makers at all levels.
At the outset, the PWG's voluntary effort attracted support for its work. For example, the leaders of Oregon's Coastal Management Program, responding to 1990 amendments of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, designated the PWG process as the centerpiece of its strategy to develop improved policies and programs for coastal natural hazards management. The Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission (OSSPAC), established by the state legislature to provide advice on how Oregon should address its vulnerability to earthquakes, invited the PWG to serve as an advisory group.
As the PWG process evolved, several underlying goals for dealing with coastal hazards problems emerged that guided the work of the group as they identified issues, formulated
options, and made recommendations. These goals were
1) to reduce loss of human life and property due to natural or human-caused hazards
2) to protect valuable recreational and natural resources
3) to limit regulatory approaches to hazard mitigation to that needed to protect clear, legitimate public interests as defined above How did the Policy Working Group address the issues?
The PWG used an "all-hazardsall-decisions" approach to identify issues and options for dealing with them. These issues and options were organized for public review and evaluation and published as the Coastal Natural Hazards Issues and Options Report in October 1993. After a series of evaluation workshops designed to provide the PWG with the views of interested citizens and groups up and down the coast, the PWG reconvened to develop specific recommendations. This report is the result of that effort.
The PWG operated by consensus. Consequently, the recommendations presented in this report were "negotiated" and are not necessarily what an individual PWG member might have recommended independently.
A wide array of hazard-related recommendations affecting numerous agencies, organizations, and individuals are outlined in this report. Thus, it is likely that there will be many routes to adoption and implementation. In response to options presented in its earlier report, several of the PWG recommendations are already being implemented or are the basis for legislative proposals. Other recommendations may be adopted directly or adapted by relevant agencies or organizations. For example, parts of Oregon's Coastal Management Program may be revised to incorporate certain recommendations. Individuals who served on the PWG as private citizens may ask their representative or senator to introduce legislation dealing with recommendations they especially want to see implemented. State agencies or representatives of local jurisdictions may translate some of the recommendations into administrative rules, policies, or ordinances. There will certainly be other unanticipated routes to implementation.
What is this report and how is it organized?
This is the final report of the PWG. It provides background on the PWG process, identifies 23 coastal natural hazard issues, summarizes the findings of the PWG for each issue, makes 79 specific recommendations for dealing with the issues, and suggests actions needed to implement each recommendation.
The introduction to this report gives a brief overview of the work of the Coastal Natural Hazards Policy Working Group: how it came to be, how its members were selected, what its mission was, and how it developed its recommendations. The overview is followed by a description of the natural hazards that affect the coast and existing policies and programs designed to mitigate them. The process used by the PWG to develop its recommendations is described next. This is followed by the main body of the report: the issues and recommendations. The issues and recommendations are divided into four subsections: hazard assessment, shore protection, land use, and disaster preparedness and response.
Finally, there are references and several appendices: Appendix A-PWG Members and Support Team; BGlossary of Terms and Acronyms; CPWG Process and Meeting Schedule; and D-Earthquake Education Strategy.
[Photo: The Heads at Port Orford on the southern Oregon coast (ODOT photo).]
The tectonic setting of the Pacific Northwest is very important to the evolution and present character of Oregon's coastal landforms, and the geologic, oceanic, and atmospheric processes that contribute to natural hazards. From a tectonic perspective, the Pacific Northwest is a continental collision coast characterized by a relatively straight shoreline, raised terraces, narrow continental shelf, volcanism and seismicity. Just offshore is the 700-mile long Cascadia subduction zone (CSZ), the boundary between the westward-moving continental North American plate and the northeast-moving Juan de Fuca plate (figure 1).
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 the Coast Range and Klamath Mountains, discharging into the sea where they form estuaries. At a finer scale, the coast is highly irregular with a variety of landforms and rock types of varying ages and origins (Snavely 1987). Rocky headlands composed of Tertiary basalts are one of the most prominent coastal features, often several hundred feet high and jutting seaward more than a mile. These, and other headlands composed of erosion-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 these headlands is sea cliffs, composed of more erodible sedimentary sandstones, siltstones, and mudstones of different ages. These cliffs are generally fronted by beaches of varying width and composition. The sea cliffs along the central Oregon coast and parts of the south coast are mostly uplifted marine terrace sands and silts of Pleistocene origin. At the river mouths, narrow, unstable bay-barrier sand spits are common, some extending north and others south to form the ocean side of estuaries.
Large coastal sand dunes are another prominent feature of the northern and central coast, including Clatsop Plains north of Tillamook Head, Sand Lake dunes just south of Cape Lookout, and the nearly 50-mile long dune sheet extending from Cape Perpetua south to Coos Bay. Most of the latter dunes are part of the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area. Of the 362 miles of Oregon coastline, 100 miles (28 percent) are rocky shore and 262 miles (72 percent) are sandy beach shores, including those backed by sea cliffs, dunes, and spits.
Natural hazards that affect the coast can be divided into two general classeschronic and catastrophic. Chronic hazards are those we can see clear evidence of along the shorebeach, dune, and bluff erosion; slides, slumps, and gradual weathering of sea cliffs; and flooding of low-lying lands during major storms. Within some cells, excess sand buildup is periodically a problem for existing and new development. These hazards occur with a relative degree of predictability and affect only limited areas at any given time. The damage they cause is usually gradual and cumulative. Chronic hazards along the coast owe their severity to the regional oceanic and climatic environments (Komar 1992) that result in large winter storms with waves up to 30 feet high; associated storm surge and wave setup along the beach and shoreland; strong nearshore currents, including rips; high winds, rain, runoff, and associated lowland flooding; and elevated sea levels, caused by seasonal effects and periodic El Ninos. Long-term sea level rise associated with global warming poses no immediate risk along the north and south coasts of Oregon because coastal emergence rates exceed long-term sea level rise. However, sea level rise is a problem along approximately 150 miles of the central coast, where coastal uplift is minimal.
Although public policies addressing natural hazard mitigation tend to focus on these chronic coastal hazards (except for sea level rise), there have been significant problems with how they have been implemented.
Catastrophic hazards are those associated with earthquakes, three types of which may occur in the Pacific Northwest coastal region: crustal, intraplate, and subduction zone (Madin 1992). Crustal earthquakes occur on local faults along the coast and may be as large as magnitude 6-6.5 on the Richter scale. Recent crustal quakes in Oregon were the March 25, 1993 Scotts Mill quake (magnitude 5.6) and the September 20, 1993 Klamath Falls quakes (magnitude 5.9 and 6.0). Despite their relatively small size and rural epicenters, both caused significant property damage. Intraplate earthquakes occur along the subducting Juan de Fuca plate, deep below the surface under the Coast Range and western Willamette Valley. The Puget Sound area has experienced intraplate quakes as large as magnitude 7.1 (1949) and 6.5 (1965), but no historic events have been documented in Oregon. Very large earthquakes are believed to occur along the CSZ. While there have been no major historic subduction zone earthquakes along this 700-mile long fault (there was a magnitude 7.1 event in April 1992 at the extreme south end of the subduction zone), there are several converging lines of evidence for powerful earthquakes in the magnitude 8 to 9+ range. These include geodetic measurements of accumulating uplift strain (Weldon 1991), tide gauge data from a variety of coastal locations (Shih 1992), sequential dating of abruptly submerged peat deposits in salt marshes along the coast (Darienzo and Peterson 1990), records of offshore turbidity current deposits (Adams 1990), and the archeological record (Woodward et al. 1990). Estimated recurrence intervals range from 340 to 590 years; the last large quake was about 300 years ago, placing the probability of another event in the next 50 years at 10 to 20 percent (Priest pers. comm., October 20, 1992).
The scenario for a large CSZ earthquake is sobering: severe ground shaking lasting up to four minutes; liquefaction of saturated, unconsolidated soils such as sand or silt; numerous and possibly massive landslides; land subsidence and flooding, particularly along the central and north coasts; and a series of large tsunami waves beginning to arrive soon after the event. All of these hazards occurred during the 1960 Chilean subduction zone earthquakeprobably a good comparison for a CSZ eventwith heavy loss of life and property. Tsunamis generated by distant earthquakes occurring along the Pacific rim are also a hazard along the Oregon coast. The 1964 Alaska earthquake, for example, caused significant damage within many of Oregon's coastal estuaries.
The existing management framework for mitigating coastal natural hazards in Oregon includes local, state, and federal laws and policies implemented through a variety of programs and government agencies. Historically, in Oregon at least, state and local governments have played the most significant role in hazards management. These roles, divided into four categorieshazard assessment, shore protection, land use planning and development, and disaster preparedness and response are summarized in table 1, with more detail below.
Hazard mapping, research, and mitigation assistance in Oregon are the responsibility of the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI). In the early 1970s, DOGAMI published environmental geology maps and assessments for all coastal counties that served as basic hazard inventories for many years. Oregon's coastal management agency, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), required local governments to develop and use these and other natural hazard inventories in their local comprehensive planning process. However, much of the information used for the inventories was general and has proven to be of limited use for specific sites. DOGAMI and DLCD have begun more detailed hazard assessment work recently, as discussed later in the recommendations section of this report.
The typical response to shoreline erosion or slumping along developed portions of the Oregon coast has been to install a seawall or riprap revetmentsreferred to as "hard" shore protection structures (SPSs) throughout this report. The installation of SPSs along the oceanfront is regulated by two state laws: the 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 Lands (DSL), respectively. The emphasis in both laws is on protecting public recreation values and access to and along the beach. Both agencies regulate the riprap revetments and seawalls installed along the shore to control erosion and bluff slumping, though their jurisdictions differ somewhat. OPRD regulates all types and sizes of structures, but their geographic jurisdiction is limited to structures that extend west of a beach zone line (BZL) that was surveyed in 1967, just after the Beach Law was passed. DSL, on the other hand, only regulates structures involving 50 cubic yards or more of material, but their geographic jurisdiction is not fixed and extends to the upland vegetation line.
Statewide planning Goal 18 (Beaches and Dunes) also plays a role in regulating shore protection. The goal prohibits beachfront protective structures in areas that were not developed or physically improved as of January 1, 1977. "Development" is defined as houses, commercial and industrial buildings, and vacant subdivision lots that are physically improved through construction of streets and provision of utilities to the lot, or areas where special exceptions have been approved. For SPSs, the goal also requires that visual impacts must be minimized and necessary access to the beach be maintained, and that negative impacts on adjacent property, and long-term or recurring costs be minimized.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) regulates installation of SPSs under section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Portland District USACOE issued a nationwide permit for "bank stabilization" (NWP 13), with regional conditions for Oregon, effective February 14, 1992. NWP 13 effectively removes the Corps from the majority of day-to-day shore protection decision making.
Concerns about present shore protection regulatory programs are addressed in the recommendations section of this report.
Oregon's statewide land use planning program, overseen by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), includes hazard-related planning goals used by local governments to develop local comprehensive plans. Three goals apply directly to hazards management. LCDC Goal 7 - Natural Hazards, mandates that development subject to natural hazards not be located in known areas of natural hazards without appropriate safeguards. LCDC Goal 17Coastal Shorelands, requires that local comprehensive plans consider geologic and hydrologic hazards along shorelines, giving preference to non-structural mitigation techniques to solve erosion and flooding problems. LCDC Goal 18Beaches and Dunes, prohibits development on hazardous dune and interdune lands, prohibits breaching of foredunes, and sets hazard mitigation conditions on development on more stable dunelands.
Cities and counties were required to address these and other policies in their local comprehensive plans, which were then reviewed and approved by the state. All coastal jurisdictions completed their initial round of planning in the early 1980s and have state-acknowledged plans and implementing ordinances. Specific provisions in local plans for regulating development in hazardous oceanfront areas vary. All counties have required construction setbacks, either fixed or variable, some require geologic hazard reports from a registered geologist or engineer, and some use overlay ordinances and other provisions. However, there are few standardized hazard mitigation provisions in the plans, and some are more effective than others.
The federal government gets involved in land use management indirectly through provisions of the National Flood Insurance Program, administered by local governments through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Upton Jones provision of the law, passed in 1987, authorizes advance payment for relocation or demolition of any structure that is covered by a current flood insurance policy and that is subject to imminent collapse because of erosion. However, this provision has not yet been applied in Oregon and it is not likely to be an important management tool. Most of the erosion-related property loss is for bluff-top areas where residents do not have federal flood insurance.
Numerous agencies are involved in disaster preparedness and response. At the national level, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) takes the lead, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and many other agencies in support. FEMA's counterpart at the state level is the Oregon Emergency Management Division (OEM), now a unit under the Oregon State Police. At the local level, counties are in charge of emergency management and disaster preparedness, with cities and special districts usually coming under their jurisdiction. The American Red Cross and other private relief agencies also play important roles in disaster preparedness and response. Each agency is charged with certain responsibilities for disaster preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery planning, and plan exercises.
Effective disaster preparedness and response are vital, regardless of the hazard. However, because of the lack of major historic coastal earthquakes or tsunamis, it has been difficult to plan effectively and execute a response. Many agencies are just now in the process of preparing plans that are specific to coastal earthquake and tsunami hazards. Effective planning will require the active involvement of people in local government, law enforcement, fire and medical services, transportation, health and human resources, schools, and businesses and local citizens. Concerns about the present preparedness and response capacity of responsible agencies as it relates to a CSZ earthquake are addressed in the recommendations section of this report.
By 1992, several indicators suggested the need for a comprehensive review of Oregon's coastal natural hazards management framework, including new research findings on earthquakes and other coastal hazards (Madin 1992; Komar 1992), accelerating coastal growth (Jones 1993), and recent evaluations of hazard-related policies and practices (Good 1992; DLCD 1992). However, given the relatively low profile this set of problems presented in comparison to state budget shortfalls, funding for education, health care, and salmon recovery, the continuing timber crisis, and other state and national issues, the key question for coastal managers was how to develop workable policy improvements and, at the same time, get the attention of the policymakers who would be needed to initiate legislative and administrative changes. The resulting strategy involved (1) a major conference to focus attention on the issues, (2) the formation of an ad hoc policy working group to examine issues in more detail and make recommendations for improvements, and (3) a gradual effort to build credibility and support for needed changes, first at the grassroots level, and later with state agency leaders and legislators.
In October 1991, Oregon Sea Grant and a number of state agencies and local organizations sponsored a coastal hazards conference in Newport, Oregon, aimed at coastal residents, public officials and resource managers, realtors, developers, and environmentalists. The purpose of the conference was to present what scientists and engineers have learned in recent years about coastal natural hazards, what their findings mean for coastal residents, visitors, and officials, and what kinds of public policies might be needed to address these hazards. Probably the most significant concern of participants was the potential for a large subduction zone earthquake and our lack of preparedness. Other concerns were rapid growth in coastal high-hazard areas and limited hazard information and education on these issues. Papers presented at the conference were published by Oregon Sea GrantCoastal Natural Hazards: Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (Good and Ridlington 1992). In addition, the results of "focus group" discussions at the conclusion of the conference identified a variety of problems and concerns that needed to be addressed. Participants expressed great interest in delving into these issues in more detail and working to find acceptable solutions. This led to formation of the Coastal Natural Hazards Policy Working Group.
Much of the credibility of the policy process came from the PWG's diverse membership. The 20 members of the group were selected from among those who attended the coastal hazards conference, with representatives from a range of "stakeholders" with different perspectives and interests - oceanfront property owners, builders, realtors, consultants, local officials and planners, state and federal regulators and resource managers, environmentalists, educators, and others. Representatives of the state and federal agencies with major responsibilities for coastal hazards management were also included in the group. The group was supported by a team from the OSU Sea Grant Extension Program with funding from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management, through Oregon's Coastal Management Program (OCMP) and DLCD. A Technical Advisory Committee, an Education Advisory Committee, and a number of other experts on hazard-related topics also assisted the PWG.
The PWG process had three stages: I issue and option generation; II evaluation and public feedback on draft policy options; and III development of recommendations to policymakers. These are illustrated in figure 3 and described below. Two features of the PWG process are particularly noteworthy: the comprehensive all-hazardsall-decisions methodology and the structured, consensus-based workshop process.
There are many public and private decision-making situations in which the effects or potential effects of coastal natural hazards may be important. To provide an entry point for the complex policy development process that was undertaken by the PWG, an all-hazards, all-decisions approach was developed and used to integrate hazard-related problems with potential solutions. A matrix of decisions versus hazards was developed to represent this approach conceptually.
Stage I of the process involved 10 two-day PWG workshops and several meetings of the advisory committees and each of the PWG work teams (see Appendix C for details). The matrix served as a guide to focus the initial PWG workshops on a limited set or block of issues at any one time; for example, one workshop focused on the group of cells that represented "chronic hazards as they affect the location of development in undeveloped areas." This and other blocks of cells were used to identify issues and generate potential solutions in a series of structured, brainstorming workshops. Though the brainstorming process was structured, all issues (an issue is defined as a problem, concern, or opportunity) and solutions were accepted in a nonjudgmental manner. These data were recorded and posted, serving as a kind of "group memory." After each workshop, these raw data were reviewed and folded into an ongoing "working list," using natural groupings such as hazard assessment, shore protection, land use, disaster preparedness and response, education, and so on. As the working list was gradually built through the 10 Stage I workshops, many overlapping issues and options became apparent and were combined. This working list was the raw material for developing the "issues and options report" that was published in Stage II. By waiting until all hazards and decisions had been examined before developing the final issues and options list, the PWG was able to formulate a more comprehensive set of policy options and to integrate chronic and catastrophic hazards with related public and private decision making.
In Stage II of the process, three additional two-day PWG workshops and many more small work group meetings were held to transform the working list into the Coastal Natural Hazards Issues and Options Report, published in October 1993. In the report, the PWG identified 27 significant coastal hazard policy issues and categorized them into four groups: Hazard Assessment, Disaster Preparedness and Response, Land Use, and Shore Protection. For each issue, there were a range of options or potential solutions for dealing with the problem or concern each issue represented. Accompanying the report was a detailed evaluation form that asked reviewers to provide feedback on the issues and options.
There were three principal purposes for the Issues and Options Report, the evaluation process, and the public workshops:
More than 700 copies of the issues and options report were distributed at workshops and by direct mail to coastal residents, local officials, state agencies, planners, and others interested in or affected by these issues, along with the evaluation forms. Eleven workshops were held with interested groups along the coast and more than 500 people participated (table 2). Some 65 individuals completed the full evaluation form, a process that required reviewers to read the full report and then evaluate each of the optionsabout a three- to five-hour task. Although the data gathering effort was not "scientific" in a statistical sense, it did provide the PWG with some very useful written comments and a general sense of what interested reviewers thought about each of the options.
The evaluation process had three parts. First, for each of the options associated with an issue, reviewers were asked to evaluate how well the option answered the following question and rate the option accordingly:
On the whole, how would you judge this option, considering its potential effectiveness, public cost, private cost, and political feasibility?
Next, after evaluating each of the options, evaluators checked the box for the option(s) that they wanted to see included in the PWG's final recommendations. Finally, reviewers were asked to make comments on each issue and to suggest new option ideas.
Following the evaluation process, the PWG reconvened for Stage III of the process. They examined the results of the evaluation process and deliberated on a package of final recommendations during six additional two-day workshops, completing their work in May 1994. Again, the policies were developed through a consensus-building process and do not represent the views of any individual member, but the group as a whole.
Several features of the PWG process that were critical to the success of the group were derived or modified from several decades of experience in dispute resolution. They were as follows:
Accurate, up-to-date maps and information on coastal hazards at scales useful for decision making are prerequisites for the effective mitigation of natural hazards. Unfortunately, much of the available information is outdated or too generalized to be useful to decision makers.
Decision makers need answers to a variety of hazard-related questions. For example, what is the erosion and landslide history of this piece of property? How vulnerable is it to erosion? What is needed to mitigate the hazard?
More recently, questions focus on hazards associated with large earthquakes. Decision makers want to know what parts of the community are most vulnerable to tsunami inundation or what areas will experience amplified ground shaking, soil liquefaction, or subsidence. Answers to these and similar questions are urgently needed to factor the risks of coastal hazards into daily decisions. These decisions concern, for example, siting critical facilities, preparing response plans for disasters, approving new homes along the oceanfront, planning park improvements, updating comprehensive plans, and protecting beaches or upland buildings from erosion. For each purpose, the information needs, such as the required map scale or the level of technical detail or emphasis, differ somewhat.
Although some of this information is available, our increasing vulnerability to hazards, especially to large earthquakes, suggests a need for more and better information. Some of this new information can be generated at relatively low cost, but much of it will require that we collect new field data, acquire and interpret remotely sensed data, and present the information in formats that are useful to decision makers. Some hazards information will be needed for long-range planning, whereas some is more appropriate to site-specific decisions. Whatever the case, natural hazards maps and reports need to be more consistent in content and of higher quality than they now are. Information also needs to be more accessible to decision makers. Although improvements in natural hazards information will require significant public investment, the cost of inaction could be much greater.
Four issues are addressed in this section, with specific recommendations for each:
Existing maps and information about coastal natural hazards are inadequate for planning and decision making.
Maps, supporting data, and descriptive information on coastal erosion and accretion, landslides, and other chronic natural hazards are outdated, inconsistent, too general, or not easily accessible to many potential users. Similar information for earthquake and tsunami hazards is even more limited or simply not available. As a result, decisions that should consider these hazards are made without accurate information, placing life and property at undue risk and limiting our capacity to respond to disaster.
The most recent standardized coastwide mapping (1"= 1 mile) and assessment of coastal natural hazards was conducted in 1973 by the state’s principal hazard research agency, DOGAMI. Since then, other more detailed hazard assessments have been conducted by most counties and cites for comprehensive land use planning. There have also been other hazard studies for dune management and development site planning or shore protection, and FEMA has mapped flood hazards, including oceanfront “velocity” zones. In the last decade, however, there have been significant advances in understanding coastal hazards andprocesses through research on beach erosion, sea cliff recession, and the impacts of shore protection structures. Incorporation of these new research results into inventories and decision making processes has been sporadic at best. Further, the state lags in the use of up-todate hazard assessment and engineering techniques, for example, methods for assessing historic erosion rates and estimating future erosion.
Lacking accurate, up-to-date hazards information, coastal residents will make decisions with relatively unreliable information. The resulting hazard mitigation solutions may be either inadequate or excessive for dealing with actual risks. The consequence will be either increased long-term cost to the public, higher short-term cost to private property owners, or both.
Research on past occurrences of catastrophic earthquakes along the CSZ and the modelling of future ones are progressing rapidly. However, few maps and little supporting information are available that detail specific areas that would be vulnerable to amplified ground shaking, soil liquefaction, landslides, subsidence-induced flooding, and tsunami inundation during the next large earthquake. Such information is critical for developing reliable disaster preparedness and response plans, for making informed decisions on land use and the siting of critical facilities, and for revising 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 potential for loss of life. Cannon Beach and Seaside are two communities where preliminary tsunami run-up studies have been completed (based on paleotsunami data) and evacuation plans developed. Rockaway Beach and Manzanita have also established tsunami evacuation plans, but most other communities are poorly prepared.
DOGAMI, DLCD, OSU, Portland State University, and the Oregon Graduate Institute, have undertaken an "all-hazards" pilot program to map and describe shoreline hazards using up-to-date methods and data. The first part of the study, focusing on erosion, landslides, and other chronic hazards in a 50-kilometer stretch of the central coast, is completed. The second part, dealing with seismic hazards in the south Lincoln City-Siletz Bay area, is slated for completion in late 1994. Researchers in the project are emphasizing the potential for coseismic landslides, ground acceleration, liquefaction, subsidence-induced flooding, and tsunami inundation. Both parts of the study are funded under Section 309 of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (DLCD 1992). The catastrophic hazards mapping is also supported by FEMA and Oregon Sea Grant. This all-hazards mapping project Existing maps and information about coastal natural hazards are inadequate for planning and decision making.
Maps, supporting data, and descriptive information on coastal erosion and accretion, landslides, and other chronic natural hazards are outdated, inconsistent, too general, or not easily accessible to many potential users. Similar information for earthquake and tsunami hazards is even more limited or simply not available. As a result, decisions that should consider these hazards are made without accurate information, placing life and property at undue risk and limiting our capacity to respond to disaster.
Recommendation 1-1
Establish criteria and standards for collecting, reporting, and mapping information about chronic and catastrophic coastal natural hazards. Give special attention to classifying hazard areas, particularly to the definition of "high-hazard areas" referred to elsewhere in these policy recommendations.
a. For chronic hazards, base criteria and standards on two CZM Section 309 projects being conducted by DOGAMI and DLCD: (1) all-hazards mapping pilot project and (2) standards for the content of geotechnical reports.
b. For catastrophic hazards, base criteria and standards on the CZM Section 309 catastrophic hazards pilot mapping project and on the tsunami hazard mapping projects referred to above.
c. Require that these criteria and standards be used by consultants, local governments, state and federal agencies, and others conducting hazard assessments (see also Issue 3 concerning geotechnical reports).
1-1 A. DOGAMI should establish criteria and standards using a workshop process involving scientists and resource managers from private consulting firms, academia, DOGAMI, DLCD, OPRD, OSSPAC, and local governments.
1-1 B. DOGAMI, the Board of Geologists and Engineering Geologists Examiners, and the Board of Engineering Examiners should jointly adopt criteria and standards by administrative rule; if such rule-making authority does not exist, it should be sought from the Oregon State Legislature.
Inventory and catalog coastal natural hazards studies, maps, digital data (for example, bathymetry and topography), and other information available from city, county, state, federal, university, private, and other sources.
a. Before investing new financial resources in collecting and mapping chronic hazard data, evaluate the utility of existing information and mapping, based on the criteria and standards developed in accordance with Recommendation 1-1. Generally, the kind of detailed information required to design and mitigate hazards or specific private projects should not be done at public expense. Publicly funded mapping should focus on improving long-range planning, identifying areas at risk generally, and helping decide when more detailed reports might be needed for specific development projects.
b. For catastrophic hazards information, evaluate the adequacy of the existing information and the need to collect and map new data. Base this evaluation on the criteria and standards being developed as part of the pilot mapping project.
c. Make the catalog of natural hazard information available through the information system proposed in Recommendation 1-3.
1-2 A. DOGAMI should inventory hazards information and maps, establishing priorities in consultation with DLCD, OPRD, DSL, OEM, OSSPAC, and other relevant state agencies; coastal cities, counties, emergency management offices, ports and other special districts; FEMA, the Corps of Engineers, and other relevant federal agencies; and academia.
1-2 B. The OSU Hatfield Marine Science Center (HMSC) Library, in cooperation with DOGAMI, should develop a special collection on coastal natural hazards, including an easily accessible database of available information.
1-2 C. DOGAMI and HMSC should seek funding for the collection, inventory, and cataloging of natural hazard information, and for creating a way for users to access that information. Possible funding sources are DLCD, through the Oregon Coastal Management Program, FEMA, and other state or federal agency sources.
Develop standardized coastal hazard maps for priority areas along the Oregon coast at a scale of 1:4,800 (1" = 400') or larger.
a. Chronic hazards maps should contain information on the historic and potential wave attack, erosion, flooding, or accretion (potential should be based on wave run-up calculations and assessment of rip current vulnerability); mass wasting (landslides, slumping, weathering) and slope stability (lithologic units [rock and surface deposit types and composition], unit structure [jointing, bedding planes, etc.], and interrelationships [stratigraphy, nature of contacts]); and human activities (foot and vehicular traffic, cliff carving and graffiti, adjacent development or other human alteration). These maps should be used principally to improve planning, to identify general areas at risk, and to decide when to require more detailed reports, but not for site-specific decision making. They should be produced with available information to the extent possible and supplemented by additional field work as needed. With no regard to order listed, priority chronic hazard mapping areas are
b. Catastrophic hazards maps should include the potential for amplified ground shaking, fault rupture, landslides, or other ground failure; soil liquefaction; land subsidence; and tsunami inundation and run-up. Use the maps for disaster response and evacuation planning and for help in determining when site-specific reports on vulnerability to seismic hazards are required by Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 455. Produce catastrophic hazard maps with available information and, to the extent possible, supplement them with additional field work as needed. Priority areas for catastrophic hazard mapping include at least the following:
c. Do not use public funds for site-specific coastal hazards investigations that are highly sophisticated or field work intensive unless the public benefits of such investigations clearly outweigh the costs.
d. Project applicants should fund site-specific geotechnical investigations prepared in support of development or shore protection proposals (see Issue 3 concerning geotechnical reports).
1-3. Using funds appropriated by the Oregon state legislature, and from federal, local, other state, and private sources, and following criteria developed according to Recommendation 1-1 above, DOGAMI should collect data and prepare improved, standards-based chronic and catastrophic hazards maps for priority coastal areas and publish and distribute such information.
Fund basic and applied research on chronic coastal natural hazards following these general priorities:
a. alternative shore protection methods and their effectiveness
b. design, engineering, and individual and cumulative effects of hard shore protection structures
c. nearshore circulation processes and sediment budgets
d. sea cliff erosion processes
e. other chronic coastal hazards and processes
1-4. With DOGAMI coordinating, state, federal, and local agencies, academia, and private organizations should pursue funding for and conduct basic and applied research. Support should be provided based on the above priorities.
Continue to fund both basic and applied research on earthquake and tsunami hazards and hazards mitigation, including the following:
a. description and mapping of past earthquake and tsunami events and modelling of future events in priority areas (see Recommendation 1-3b)
b. other coastal research needs as outlined in OSSPAC's report to the 1993 Oregon State Legislature (OSSPAC 1992), including geodetic studies, active fault mapping, establishing a strategic seismic network, earthquake-induced landslide studies, and tsunami run-up studies
1-5. With DOGAMI coordinating, state, federal, and local agencies, academia, and private organizations should pursue funding for and conduct basic and applied earthquake and tsunami research.
Geotechnical site reports are inadequate for making decisions on land development and shore protection projects.
Site-specific geotechnical reports, prepared in support of land development projects or shore protection proposals, are especially weak in two areas: assessment of shoreline erosion hazards and evaluation of earthquake and tsunami hazards. Because there are no content standards and review criteria, reports are also inconsistent in content and quality and are sometimes difficult to interpret. These problems with geotechnical site reports may result in inappropriate siting decisions, overreliance on structural shore protection for erosion mitigation, ill-conceived capital expenditures for infrastructure, indirect public subsidies of private development, and potentially, the loss of life and property.
There are no standardized requirements for site-specific geotechnical evaluation of structures or facilities as they relate to chronic hazards. Local governments generally require site-specific geotechnical reports to support development proposals in hazardous areas. There are a variety of problems with current reports and the process for using them in decision making. Among them are the lack of standardized triggering mechanisms for requiring reports; developers’ “shopping around” for favorable reports; inconsistent quality of reports; use of outdated methods for determining historic erosion and for projecting erosion vulnerability; the lack of criteria and standards for what must be included in a report for different types of projects; the need for a more thorough review process for some reports; the lack of clear interpretations of data and technical jargon for nongeologist decision makers; and inadequate qualification or proficiency standards for the geologists, engineering geologists, and engineers who prepare such reports. These problems are equally true for shore protection projects handled at the state level, although such reports are not generally required of applicants. Both geological consultants working in coastal areas and the coastal planners who use such reports also cited these problems.
Nevertheless, these often-deficient site reports are used to make decisions about what is needed to mitigate hazards and protect resources. Consequently, decisions often do not adequately address hazard avoidance (for example, through adequate setbacks and building design), shore protection alternatives and structure design, protection of adjacent property, beach sand supply, public access (particularly along the beach), and long-term issues, such as long-term sea level rise. Requirements for more detailed site-specific geotechnical reports for construction vulnerable to seismic hazards were established in 1991 and are codified in ORS Chapter 455. The design of essential facilities, hazardous facilities, major structures, or special occupancy structures must be preceded by an evaluation of the soil engineering properties at the building site. Such evaluation must be conducted by an "especially qualified engineer or engineering geologist and may require the services of persons especially qualified in engineering seismology, earthquake geology or geotechnical earthquake engineering." Building code officials can apply these same requirements and standards to other construction as needed. Administrative rules for these reports were issued by the Building Code Division (BCD), effective April 1, 1994.
--
|
Some Important Statue-based Definitions Oregon Senate Bill 96 (1991) Section 12 amended ORS 455 to require site specific evaluation of essential facilities, hazardous facilities, major structures, and special occupancy structures for vulnerability to seismic hazards. Definitions of these terms, used throughout this report, are quoted from ORS 455.447: (a) Essential facility means: (A)Hospitals and other medical facilities having surgery and emergency treatment areas; (B) Fire and police stations; (C) Tanks or other structures containing, housing or supporting water or fire-suppression materials or equipment required for the protection of essential or hazardous facilities or special occupancy structures; (D) Emergency vehicle shelters and garages; (E) Structures and equipment in emergency-preparedness centers; (F) Standby power generating equipment for essential facilities and; (G) Structures and equipment in government communication centers and other facilities required for emergency response. (b) Hazardous facility means structures housing, supporting, or containing sufficient quantities of toxic or explosive substances to be of danger to the safety of the public if released. (c) Major structure means a building over six stories with an aggregate floor area of 60,000 square feet or more, every building over 10 stories in height, and parking structures as determined by agency [Building Code Agency] rule. (d) Seismic hazard means a geologic condition that is a potential danger to life and property which includes but is not limited to earthquake, landslide, liquefaction, tsunami flooding, fault displacement, and subsidence. (e) Special occupancy structure means: (A) Covered structures whose primary occupancy is public assembly with a capacity greater than 300 persons; (B) Buildings for every public, private, or parochial school through the secondary level or day care centers with a capacity greater than 250 individuals; (C) Buildings for colleges or adult education schools with a capacity of greater than 500 persons; (D) Medical facilities with 50 or more resident, incapacitated patients not included in subparagraphs (A) or (C) of this paragraph; (E) Jails and detention facilities; and (F) All structures and occupancies with a capacity greater than 5000 persons. |
Establish improved procedures for geotechnical site reports for coastal land development and shore protection projects:
a. Develop and require the use of content standards forgeotechnical site reports that are designed to improve reportconsistency, readability, and justification for recommendations.Such standards should also serve as a comprehensive guide from which appropriate subjects might be investigated at particular levels of detail, depending on the nature and location of the site and the type and intensity of the proposed project.
b. Establish a list of "triggering mechanisms" that will initiate the geotechnical site report process, and determine the appropriate topics to be covered and level of detail for each. Possible triggering mechanisms are a particular project type or land use, the dollar value of investment required for a particular project, the location with respect to natural hazard zones, or the discretion of the local government.
c. Require that all geotechnical reports, whether supporting or opposing a particular project, be disclosed and made part of the public record at the local level. Also require that their location and availability be made known to potential users.
d. Require that geotechnical site reports, developed under approved content standard guidelines, be valid for a maximum of 10 years, after which an updated or new report would be required.
e. For geotechnical site reports prepared to support applications for shore protection permits, require peer review by qualified professionals at DOGAMI (see Recommendation 6-2b). If a local development permit is required, require that the local and state peer reviews be concurrent.
f. For geotechnical site reports prepared to support development regulated by local government, require peer review by a qualified professional, with the project applicant bearing the cost of review. The triggering mechanism for peer review might be a particular project type or land use, the dollar value of investment required for a particular project, the location with respect to natural hazard zones, or the judgement of the local government. The local process for preparing a geotechnical report and initiating the peer review might be as follows:
2-1 A. DOGAMI, in coordination with DLCD, BCD, OSSPAC, OPRD, appropriate professional examining boards, and local governments, should develop and implement administrative rules for the following: (1) standards for the contents of geotechnical site reports, (2) site report triggering mechanisms, (3) public disclosure and filing of site reports, and "sunset" periods, (4) and peer review processes for site reports prepared for state shore protection permit applications. In developing and implementing these rules, DOGAMI should seek authority from the Oregon State Legislature if needed.
2-1 B. Local governments, following state rules and in collaboration with DLCD and DOGAMI, should establish local procedures for geotechnical site reports, including a peer review process for geotechnical reports prepared to support development proposals.
2-1 C. Administrative fees for state shore protection or local development permits requiring geotechnical site reports should include the cost of peer review.
Improve the licensing process for geologists, engineering geologists, and engineers who work in the coastal zone.
a. Require certification of geologists, engineering geologists, and engineers who prepare geotechnical site reports and recommendations for coastal areas, documenting their qualifications to evaluate coastal processes related to beach, dune, and sea cliff erosion, and to evaluate earthquakes, tsunamis, and related hazards.
b. To maintain coastal certification, require effective continued education or updates specific to the knowledge and skills required for Recommendation 2-1a.
2-2 A. The Oregon State Board of Geology and Engineering Geology Examiners and the Board of Engineering Examiners should develop administrative rules to improve the licensing process for geologists, engineering geologists, and engineers who work in the coastal zone. If necessary, authority should be sought from the legislature.
2-2 B. DOGAMI, in collaboration with appropriate licensing boards and academic continuing education programs, should develop and deliver annual basic coastal certification and update programs for professionals working in coastal areas.
Information about coastal natural hazards is not readily available, nor is it well understood by users and effectively applied in decision making.
Existing information on coastal natural hazards, including academic research, government studies, reports and maps produced for local planning or site development, hazard assessments in permit records, aerial photographs, and other information, is widely dispersed and difficult for most users to access. Further, no means exist to catalog and store new information. As a result, collections of natural hazards data are incomplete, much of the information goes unused after initial application, data collection and mapping efforts are sometimes duplicated, and individuals who could benefit from coastal hazards information do without. Furthermore, many who could benefit from this information do not have the knowledge or skill to apply it.
Information on coastal hazards that is useful for decision making is widely dispersed and not easily accessible. Special collections that do exist, such as the DOGAMI library, the University of Oregon's Ocean and Coastal Law Library, and other departmental collections at academic institutions, are not physically or electronically accessible to most users. Information available at the local government level or at management agencies is often outdated. Geotechnical site reports prepared for projects are often buried in permit files or remain in the possession of private landowners or consultants. No record is kept of their existence or location. Other potentially useful hazards information developed by government agencies or academia is not widely disseminated, not easily accessible, not in a format or language that is understandable to nontechnical individuals, or simply not available. No single agency is responsible for collecting and making information available or for educating potential users about its existence and potential utility. As a consequence, the same information must be regenerated and decision-making periods lengthened, increasing both the public and private cost of development and shore protection.
Even when information on natural hazards is available, individuals who need to apply it to decision making often do not have the knowledge or skill to do so. For example, public and private professionals working in natural hazards management often do not have appropriate training and are not required to enroll in continuing education. As a result, they sometimes make uninformed decisions. Informal education programs, such as those offered by DOGAMI or OSU's Sea Grant Extension Program, are sporadic and reach only a fraction of those who need them. Information in print and other media is sparse and outdated. Individuals, companies, and organizations involved in land development and property transfer, including the buying public, are a largely overlooked audience for hazards education. Education initiatives aimed at these audiences, combined with regulatory and nonregulatory incentives, could be particularly effective strategies for hazard avoidance and mitigation.
Establish a coastal hazards information system and repository with several staged components:
a. Establish an ocean shore database in an easily accessible, geographically referenced format, with information organized by land parcel. Applications of this database could include keeping records and reporting permit activity, assessing the initial impact of shore protection proposals, and coordinating agency decision making. The database should contain locational data, environmental and hazard conditions, land use and cultural data, shore protection activity, and permit information. As soon as possible, this database should be made accessible to the public through the Internet.
b. D evelop a special collection of coastal hazards publications, reports, maps, digital data, and other information useful for coastal hazards research, evaluation, and decision making. Catalog this special collection and make it available to the public through the Internet using Mosaic or a similar easy-access interface. Geotechnical reports prepared to support coastal development or other projects might also be filed and cataloged as part of this collection (see Recommendation 2-1c).
3-1 A. OPRD, in consultation with DLCD, DOGAMI, and local governments, should establish and maintain the ocean shore database, making it available to all users through the Internet.
3-1 B. DOGAMI should inventory and collect hazards information and maps it does not already have. Before doing so, it should establish priorities in consultation with DLCD, OPRD, DSL, OEM, OSSPAC, and other relevant state agencies; coastal cities, counties, emergency management offices, ports and other special districts; FEMA, the Corps of Engineers, and other relevant federal agencies; and academia.
3-1 C. The library at the OSU HMSC should develop a special collection on coastal natural hazards, make it physically available to coastal users, and make it and other information (for example, that from DOGAMI and the Ocean and Coastal Law Center) available through an easily accessible electronic database, including the information developed in the DOGAMI inventory above.
3-1 D. Possible funding mechanisms for collection, inventory, cataloging, and creating user access of natural hazards information are DLCD, through the Oregon Coastal Management Program, and other state agency sources.
Develop and implement educational programs about coastal natural hazards to increase the knowledge, skills, and effective application of hazards information to decisions. Applicable techniques and media include brochures, displays, videos, workshops, field trips, short courses, technical guides and procedures, and access to electronic databases. Some desired outcomes are better preparation and interpretation of geotechnical site reports; improved personal, business, and public agency decisions related to hazards; and effective preparation for and response to earthquakes and tsunamis (see Issue 16 and Appendix D for details on earthquake- and tsunami-related education needs). Following are the audiences for education about chronic hazards and the specific needs of each audience.
a. The general public: natural hazards and their effects on beaches, dunes, and other shorelands; natural hazard planning and mitigation strategies and programs
b. Oceanfront property owners and prospective owners and their agents (real estate personnel, consultants, architects, contractors, lenders, insurers, etc.): natural hazards affecting beaches and oceanfront properties; land use and shore protection program goals and general and site-specific requirements; appropriate hazard mitigation techniques for different situations; decision-making considerations and standards; available technical assistance
c. Hazard mitigation consultants: land use and shore protection program goals and general and site-specific requirements; content standards for geotechnical reports and appropriate methods for assessing oceanographic and geologic hazards for oceanfront properties, and appropriate hazard mitigation techniques, consistent with requirements of the Statewide Planning Goals and the OPRD regulatory program
d. Local planners and state agency permit administrators, reviewers, and evaluators: natural hazards affecting beaches and oceanfront properties; land use and shore protection program goals and general and site-specific requirements; ways to review and evaluate geotechnical reports that assess oceanographic and geologic hazards for oceanfront properties, and ways to determine appropriate hazard mitigation techniques, consistent with requirements of the community colleges, and outreach programs, such as OSU Sea Grant Extension) should collaborate in the development and delivery of education programs about chronic natural hazards. They should use existing public and private funds for such programs, supplemented by additional initiatives as necessary.
3-2. Agencies involved in hazard management (FEMA, the U.S. Geological Survey, NOAA, DOGAMI, DLCD, OPRD, local governments, etc.) and state and local educators (universities, community colleges, and outreach programs, such as OSU Sea Grant Extension) should collaborate in the development and delivery of education programs about chronic natural hazards. They should use existing public and private funds for such programs, supplemented by additional initiatives as necessary.
Hazard disclosure during property transactions is insufficient.
Oregon has only minimal requirements for disclosing information on natural hazards that affect a property at the time of sale or transfer. Consequently, individuals involved in or affected by property transactions are not well informed about the nature and extent of these natural hazards or about the resulting constraints on development.
Over the years most of the easily developed lots on the Oregon coast have been developed. As a consequence, sites that were once passed over because of their susceptibility to natural hazards are now being developed. Unfortunately, people who want to own and develop coastal property 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 decrease 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 transactions. However, this law has so many exceptions that it will likely apply only to a small fraction of property transactions. Furthermore, natural hazards disclosure requirements in the new law are incomplete because property owners have the option to disclaim all knowledge of hazards or other potential defects.
Revise the real estate disclosure form in ORS 696 to require that all known or potential natural hazards affecting a property be disclosed by all sellers (the owner or the owner's agent) to all potential buyers before a property transaction is finalized. This proposal would remove exemptions from the disclosure requirement but would not eliminate the option for sellers to file a disclaimer in lieu of filling out the disclosure form. Specifically, natural hazards issues now covered in disclosure form section 8 (General) should be deleted and a new category called "Geotechnical" established. Questions under this new category should include the following:
a. Is the property or any portion of it within a designated hazard area or zone, including floodway, floodplain, land slide or slump area, groundwater or drainage hazard area, erosion or accretion hazard area, dune hazard area, or earthquake-related hazard area (amplified ground shaking, soil liquefaction, fault zone, landslide potential, tsunami inundation)?
b. Is the property or a portion of it subject to special zoning or other land use requirements for development that are related to the above hazards (for example, hazard overlay ordinance or geotechnical report requirements prior to site development)?
c. Are all structures on the property built to current earthquake building code standards (zone 3)? If not, to what seismic zone standard are they constructed and in what year did the construction occur?
d. To your knowledge, has there ever been a geotechnical report prepared for this property to address the hazards listed in 4-1a above?
e. To your knowledge, is there a record of any past hazard-related damage to the land or improvements caused by the hazards in 4-1a above or by wind or rain?
4-1. OSSPAC should propose state legislation that amends ORS 696 to require complete hazard disclosure according to Recommendation 4-1.
Establish and maintain a database that includes all known information on natural hazards affecting real property, and make this database available to the public so that it can be determined if a property is located in a hazardous area (see Recommendation 3-1 for implementation).
Prepare and make available to prospective buyers of potentially hazardous coastal property a "buyer's guide" or hazards evaluation checklist. In the guide, include information on how to access additional information or contacts (for example, through the database in Recommendation 4-2).
4-3. The OSU Sea Grant Extension Program, in collaboration with the Oregon Board of Realtors, lenders and insurers, DLCD, DOGAMI, local governments, and other relevant agencies, should prepare such a publication as part of its natural hazards education program.
Over the last few decades, population growth and accompanying development have increased dramatically along the Oregon coast. Much of this growth has occurred in hazardous, low-lying beachfront areas and along erodible sea cliffs. New houses, motels, and condominiums and earlier development are increasingly threatened by gradual erosion, bluff slumping, and other hazards. The response to these hazards has generally been to onstruct SPSsriprap revetments, seawalls, bulkheadsthat are designed to fend off waves, stabilize cliffs, and retain the shoreland (figure 5). Permits for these structures, required by several agencies, are generally approved because of pressure from concerned property owners and because few alternatives seem to be available. As more development occurs adjacent to the beach, normal episodes of erosion create a demand for more and more SPSs.
Continued development pressure along the coast and the proliferation of SPSs have raised questions about the effectiveness of Oregon's shoreline development and shore protection policies and decision-making procedures. Four such issues are addressed in this section, with recommendations for each:
Lack of clear, consistent state policies for shore protection generally, and hard SPSs in particular
Gaps and overlaps in regulatory jurisdiction and interagency review and coordination
Inadequate procedures and standards for permit application review and decision making
The ad hoc, inconsistent process for emergency shore protection.
Goals and policies for shore protection are inconsistent and outdated, particularly with regard to hard structures.
State goals and policies for shore protection, spread among a variety of statutes and administrative rules, are inconsistent, incomplete, and sometimes outdated. One result is an overdependence on hard SPSs to solve problems of erosion and mass wasting to the exclusion of less-damaging methods. These hard structures may have significant, adverse, short-term impacts and long-term cumulative effects on beaches and adjacent shorelands.
Oregon's shore protection program consists of a variety of state and local policies and regulatory programs designed principally to protect the recreational values and uses of the beach and the integrity of adjacent shoreland property. These programs, described earlier in this report (table 1), were created at different times and for somewhat different, but interrelated purposes. Consequently, many of the policies are outdated or incomplete with respect to beach processes, coastal hazards, and hazard mitigation strategies. They are also inconsistent, often suggesting opposite courses of action for the same project. Overarching goals and policies guiding shore protection are needed, particularly with respect to hard shore protection structures that fix the shoreline in place. The proliferation of these hard shore protection structures along some parts of the coast has raised concerns about their adverse short-term and cumulative effects on beaches and adjacent shorelands.
Much of the scientific and engineering research on the effects of hard structures, including seawalls, revetments, groins, and jetties, has focused on physical impacts, such as acceleration of erosion in front of and adjacent to the structure, loss of sand supply, and gradual loss of beach sand volume and width.
However, there may be other impacts as well, including blockage of public access to the beach or of escape access from the beach during high tides or waves and loss of biological habitat or resources, including threatened or endangered species (for example, snowy plover). Hard structures also detract from the natural beauty of the shoreline and the beach recreational experience.
Kraus (1988) reviewed about 100 technical papers on the effects of seawalls on beaches, concluding that beach change near seawalls, both in magnitude and variation, is similar to that on beaches without seawalls, if a sediment supply exists. However, on beaches with seawalls, the form of erosional response is different, with toe scour and flanking effects 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 storms have affected monitored structures during the study period.
Other field studies by Griggs and Tait (1988) along the central California coast found that seawalls and revetments cause excess winter scour in front of and at the ends of the structures. The researchers believed this resulted from a combination of wave reflection and sand impoundment upcoast. Pilkey and Wright (1988) compared the dry beach width of a number of protected and unprotected beaches on the east coast. They found that dry sand widths in front of seawalls is consistently and significantly narrower than beach width along unprotected shores. They point out that beach destruction may take place over several decades and that the study of single events or short-term changes may be of limited value in understanding the effects of seawalls. Another aspect of the debate over the effects of hard SPSs has to do with cause and effect relationships (Weggel 1988; Kraus 1988). Do SPSs exacerbate erosion, or is it simply that beaches with chronic erosion problems attract SPSs? Terich and Schwartz (1990), in their literature review of the subject, conclude that while more SPSs may be installed on chronically eroding beaches, the preponderance of evidence suggests that seawalls do accelerate erosion of nearby beaches and adjacent properties. [Photo: 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 the effectiveness of hard structures along the Oregon coast. At the same time, nonstructural shore protection options often seem limited because there is little information available about alternative protection methods and their feasibility along the Oregon coast.
Establish clear, consistent goals and policies for operating the beach and shore protection program administered by OPRD under the Beach Law (ORS 390.605-390.770, Ocean Shores; State Recreation Areas). Recommended goals for the program are to
a. protect, and where appropriate, restore the beach and its natural resources for public use and enjoyment in perpetuity
b. protect human life and property from