{"Bibliographic":{"Title":"State of Oregon coastal management program : final environmental impact statement","Authors":"","Publication date":"1977","Publisher":""},"Administrative":{"Date created":"08-16-2023","Language":"English","Rights":"CC 0","Size":"0000353715"},"Pages":["NW 285\nHT\ntate of Oregon\nOF\n393\n.07\nS7\noastal Management\n977\n*\nrogram\nSTATES\nOF\nEnvironmental Impact Statement\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\nH:4:17\nOffice of Coastal Zone Management\nCLATSOP COLUMBIA\nWASHINGTON\nTILLAMOOK\nYAMHILL\nMARION\nPOLK\nPACIFIC\nOCEAN\nLINCOLN\nBENTON\nLINN\nLANE\nDOUGLAS\nKLAMATH\n4 APR 1977\nCURRY\nJACKSON\nJOSEPHINE\nCOUNTY LINE\nWATERSHED\nBASIN LINES\nCenter\nData\nOceanographic\nOregon Coastal Zone\nNational\n20235\nC.\nD.\nWashington,","PLEASE NOTE: THE ORIGINAL 14 STATEWIDE\nGOALS AND GUIDELINES ARE NOT IN THE FEIS.\nTHEY ARE IN APPENDIX 4 OF THE OREGON\nPROGRAM DOCUMENT. THE PROGRAM CANNOT BE\nEVALUATED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THESE\nGOALS AND GUIDELINES WHICH ARE AN\nESSENTIAL PART OF THE PROGRAM.","T\n93\n7\n7\n977\nUNITED STATES\nDEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\n3\n0 1990\nFINAL\nENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT\nSTATEMENT\nSTATE OF OREGON\nCOASTAL MANAGEMENT\nPROGRAM\nPrepared by:\nOffice of Coastal Zone\nManagement\nNational Oceanic and\nAtmospheric Administration\n3300 Whitehaven St., , N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20235","TABLE OF CONTENTS\nPage\nSUMMARY\niii\nI. INTRODUCTION\n1\nII.\nDESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION\n2\nA. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Program\nB. The Oregon Coastal Management Program\nIII. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AFFECTED\n15\nA. Climatic and Geologic Characteristics\nB. Natural and Biological Systems\nC. Social and Economic Setting\nD. Problems and Issues\nIV.\nRELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TO LAND USE PLANS,\nPOLICIES, AND CONTROLS FOR THE AREA\n34\nV.\nPROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMENT\n35\nA. Impacts Directly Resulting from Federal Approval\nB. Impacts Resulting from State and Local Government Actions\nVI. ALTERNATIVES\n53\nA. Federal Alternatives to Approval of Oregon Coastal\nManagement Program\nB.\nAlternatives for the Oregon Coastal Management\nProgram\nVII.\nPROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED\n60\nVIII.\nRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND\nTHE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY\n60\nIX.\nIRREVERSIBLE OF IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES THAT WOULD\nBE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED\n60\nX.\nCONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS\n61\nXI.\nPUBLIC HEARING\n61\nATTACHMENT 1 (not included in document)\n1. Written Statements from Parties Who Commented on the Oregon Coastal Management Program\nand the Draft Environmental Impact Statement\nFIGURES\n1. Oregon's Coastal Zone Including Geographic Areas of Particular Concern (not included\nin document)\n2. Federal Land Holdings (not included in document)\n3. Coastal Province/Klamath Province\n4. Components of Estuarine System\n5. General Profile of an Oregon Estuary\n6. Major Oregon Estuaries\nAPPENDICES (not included in document)\n1. Final Guidelines, Coastal Zone Management Program Administrative\nGrants (Section 306)\n2. Oregon Land-Use Planning Act (SB 100)\n3.\nAdopted Statewide Goals and Guidelines including Newly Adopted\nGoals and Guidelines for Coastal Resources (part of Appendix 3 included in document)\n4.\nStatus of Federal Lands in Oregon's Coast\n5. Summary of Inventories","TABLES\nI.\nControlling Authorities\nII.\nIdentification of Uses To Be Managed\nIII.\nPriorities of Uses\nIV.\nConsideration of the National Interest in Oregon's Coastal Management Program\nV.\nComparison of Estuarine Habitat Types and Acreages by Bay\nVI.\nSummary of Habitat Characteristics\nVII. Wildlife Species and Their Abundance vs. Habitat Types in the Coastal Zone\nVIII. Employment by Major Economic Sector, Coast, 1958-1973\nIX.\nMid-Range Estimates for the Coast Economy\nX.\nChange in Coastal Land Use: Estimated Number of Parcels in Class 1967-1973\nXI.\nSummary of Significant Impacts from the Oregon Coastal Management Program\nNOTICE TO REVIEWER\nAttachment 1 has been printed as a separate volume and distributed with the final EIS to all the\nparties who submitted written statements and to Federal agencies. This separate volume is avail-\nable upon request from the Office of Coastal Zone Management, 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20235, 202/634-4241.\nReferred to in this document are Figures 1 and 2, part of the Oregon Coastal Management Program.\nDue to a limited supply of these maps, and the great overlap in circulation of the Program and\nthis final environmental impact statement (EIS), these maps have not been included in the final\nEIS. Please refer to the Program for these maps. Likewise, the appendices, except part of\nAppendix 3, have been deleted because all recipients of the final EIS should have received or\nhave access to the Program or draft EIS which contains the referenced appendices. If you no\nlonger have a copy nor access to the Program or the draft EIS and need a copy of these figures\nor appendices, copies are available upon request from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation\nand Development, 1175 Court Street, N.E., Salem, Oregon, 97310, phone 503/378-4926.","Summary\n( ) Draft Environmental Impact Statement\n(X) Final Environmental Impact Statement\nDepartment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone\nManagement. For additional information about this proposed action or this statement\nplease contact:\nGrant Dehart\nOffice of Coastal Zone Management\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\nWashington, D. C. 20235\nPhone: 202/634-4235\n1.\nProposed Federal approval of the Oregon Coastal Management Program\n(X) Administrative Action\n) Legislative Action\n2.\nIt is proposed that the Secretary of Commerce approve the coastal management program application\nof the State of Oregon pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended.\nApproval would permit implementation of the proposed program, allowing program\nadministrative grants to be awarded to the State, and require that Federal actions be consistent\nwith the Program.\n3.\nApproval and implementation of the Program will restrict or prohibit land and water uses in\ncertain parts of the Oregon coast, while promoting and encouraging development and use activities\nin other parts. This may affect property values, property tax revenues, and resource extraction\nor exploration. The Program will provide an improved decision-making process for determining\ncoastal land and water uses and siting of facilities of national interest, and will lead to\nincreased long-term protection of and benefit from the State's coastal resources.\n4.\nAlternatives considered:\nA.\nFederal Alternatives to Approval of Oregon Coastal Management Program\n1)\nDelay or deny approval until all city and county comprehensive plans are completed.\n2)\nGrant approval for \"initial implementation\" under Section 305(a)(2).\nB.\nAlternatives for the Oregon Coastal Management Program\n1)\nAuthorities or agencies to fund, implement, and administer the Program.\n2)\nAlternative boundaries.\n3)\nAlternative definition of excluded Federal lands.\n4\nAlternative coastal Goals.\n5)\nAlternatives to geographic areas of particular concern.\n6)\nAlternative Federal consistency procedures.\n5.\nList of all Federal, State, and local agencies and other parties from which comments have been\nrequested. (An asterisk (*) indicates a party from which a written comment on the draft envi-\nronmental impact statement was received.)\nFederal Agencies\nDepartment of Agriculture\nDepartment of Defense\nAgricultural Stabilization and\nDeputy Assistant Secretary\nConservation Service\n*Environment and Safety\n*Installations and Housing\nForest Service\n*Soil Conservation Service\nArmy Corps of Engineers\nRural Electrification Service\nNavy\nAgriculture Research Service\nAir Force\nDepartment of Commerce\nDepartment of the Interior\n*Economic Development Administration\nBureau of Land Management (public lands)\n*Maritime Administration\nOffice of Oil and Gas\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric\nBureau of Outdoor Recreation\nAdministration\nFish and Wildlife Service\n*National Oceanographic Services Office\nGeological Survey\n*National Ocean Survey\nNational Park Service\n*National Marine Fisheries Service\nBureau of Reclamation\n*Associate Administrator for Marine\nBureau of Mines\nResources\nBonneville Power Administration","*Department of Housing and Urban Development\nDepartment of Transportation\n*Regional Representative of the Secretary\n*Nuclear Regulatory Commission\n*Coast Guard\n*Department of Justice\nTransport and Pipeline Safety\n*Energy Research and Development Administration\n*Federal Aviation Administration\n*Federal Energy Administration\nFederal Railroad Administration\nFederal Power Commission\n*Federal Highway Administration, Region X\nGeneral Services Administration\n*Department of the Treasury\n*National Aeronautics and Space Administration\nEnvironmental Protection Agency\nAdvisory Council on Historic Preservation\n*Regional Adminstrator, Region X\nU.S. Water Resources Council\nDepartment of Health, Education and Welfare\nPublic Health Service\nFederal/State\nPacific Northwest River Basins Commission\nPacific Northwest Regional Council, Region X\nState\nOregon\nDepartment of Transportation\nGovernor\nParks and Recreation\n*Intergovernmental Relations Division\nDepartment of Water Resources\nDepartment of Agriculture\nDivision of State Lands\nDepartment of Commerce\nLand Conservation and Development\nDepartment of Economic Development\nCommission\nDepartment of Education\nOregon Joint Legislative Committee\nDepartment of Energy\non Land Use\nDepartment of Environmental Quality\nOregon State University\n*Department of Fish and Wildlife\nPublic Utilities Commission\nDepartment of Forestry\nSoil and Water Conservation Commission\n*Department of Geology and\nState Marine Board\nMineral Industries\nUniversity of Oregon\nDepartment of Human Resources\nHealth Division\nLocal Governments\nClatsop-Tillamook Intergovernmental Council\nMayors of:\nAstoria\nCloos-Curry Council of Government\nBandon\nLane Council of Government\nBay City\nOregon District 4 Council of Governments\nBrookings\nUmpqua Regional Council of Governments\nCannon Beach\nCoos Bay\nBoard of County Commissioners for:\nCoquille\n*Clatsop\nDepoe Bay\n*Coos\nEastside\nCurry\n*Florence\nDouglas\nGaribaldi\nLane\nGearhart\n*incoln\nGold Beach\n*Tillamook\nHammond\nLakeside\nCounty Planning Departments in:\n*Lincoln City\nClatsop\nManzanita\nCoos\nMyrtle Point\nCurry\nNehalem\nDouglas\nNewport\nLane\nNorth Bend\nLincoln\nPort Orford\nTillamook\nPowers\n*Reedsport\nCity Planning Departments for:\nRockaway\nAstoria\nSeaside\nCannon Beach\nSiletz\nCoos Bay\nTillamook\nCoquille\nToledo\nLincoln City\nWalport\nManzanita\nWarrenton\nPort Orford\nWheeler\nSeaside\nYachats\nSiletz\nWarrenton\niv","Other Governmental\nPorts of\nAlsea\nAstoria\nBandon\nBay City\nBrookings\n*Coos Bay\nCoquille River\nGold Beach\nNehalem\n*Newport\nPortland\nPort Orford\nSiletz\nSiuslaw\nTillamook\nToledo\n*Umpqua\nOther Parties\nFremont McComb\nHonorable Les AuCoin\nMichigan State University\nHonrable Mark Hatfield\nTom McCall\nHonorable Bob Packwood\nNALCO Environmental Sciences\nHonorable James Weaver\nNational Audubon Society\nSenator Jason Boe\nNational Wildlife Federation\nSenator Charles J. Hanlon\n*Natural Resources Defense Council\nSenator Paul A. Hanneman\nNatural Resources Law Institute\n*Senator W. \"Stan\" Ouderkirk\nNorthern Natural Gas Company\nSenator Jack D. Ripper\nNorthwestern University\nRepresentative William N. Grannel\n*1000 Friends of Oregon\nRepresentative Max Rijken\nOregon Association of Soil and Water\nRepresentative Ed Stevenson\nConservation Districts\nRepresentative William Wyatt\n*Oregon Coastal Conservation and Develop-\nAlgonquin Gas Transmission Company\nment Assn. (changed to Oregon\nAmerican Institute of Planners\nCoastal Zone Management Assn.)\nAssociation of Oregon Counties\nOregon Environmental Council\nAssociation of Oregon Industries\nOregon Home Builders\nAtlantic Richfield Company\nOregon Institute of Marine Biology\nBartley, Long, Mirenda and Reynolds\n*Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition\nBlack and Veatch\n*Oregon Student Public Interest Research\nCalifornia - State Lands Commission\nGroup (OSPIRG)\nColumbia River Estuary Study\nParsons, Brickerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc.\nTask Force\nShell Oil Company\nConservation Foundation, The\nSierra Club\nDelaware State Planning Office\nSouthwest Research Institute\nE. D. Appolonia Consulting\nStandard Oil Company of California\nEngineers, Inc.\nStanford Research Institute\nThomas W. Ellis\nHarold Stanley\nEnvironmental Defense Fund\nVirginia Beach, Va. - Dept. of Planning\nFlorida Audubon Society\n*Western Environmental Trade Association\nWilliam Gallagher\nWeyerhaeuser Company\nLiz Greenhagen\nWilliam Q. Wick\nGulf Power Company\nWoods Hole Oceanographic Institution\nIzaak Walton League\n*Western Oil and Gas Association\nJack McCormick and Associates\n*Wallace S. Baldinger\nJennings, LA - Park and Recreation\n*Davidson Industries Inc.\nDepartment\n*Maradale K. Gale\nPeter V. Lacourture\n*League of Oregon Cities\nLeague of Women Voters\n6. The final EIS was prepared based on written comments received and oral/written statements made\nat the public hearings held on 15 and 16 September 1976. A total of 47 interested parties sub-\nmitted written comments by the end of the 45-day comment period on the draft EIS, or shortly\nthereafter, as follows:\nFederal Agencies\n21\nFederal/State\n0\nState\n3\nLocal Governments.\n7\nOther Governmental,\n3\nOther Parties\n13\nV","Summarized below is a discussion of written comments received on the Oregon Coastal Management Program\nand the draft EIS and the Office of Coastal Zone Management's (OCZM) responses. All oral comments\nmade at the public hearings for which written statements were not submitted, OCZM believes are discussed\nwithin the context of the written comments received by OCZM, and, therefore, oral statements have not\nbeen specifically addressed. The written comments received are included in Attachment 1 in order in\nwhich they are summarized. Additional comments for which no response was deemed necessary are at the\nend of Attachment 1. (Note: Attachment 1 has been printed as a separate volume and was distributed\nto all parties who submitted written statements and to Federal agencies. This separate volume is\navailable upon request from the Office of Coastal Zone Management.)\nResponse\nComment\nU. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil\n1.\nConservation Service\n(5-17-76, Davis)\nFederally owned lands have been excluded.\nCannot accept excluded lands policy.\n-\n-\nRegulations have been added to the Program\nForest Practices Act regulations are not\n-\n-\ndocument.\nincluded in the Program.\nGoals have been made more specific, and\nProgram is not sufficiently specific to con-\n-\n-\nstatewide Goals and Guidelines also apply.\ntrol land use inland of beaches and dunes.\nThe Federal consistency process has been\nFederal agency should not have to appeal\n-\n-\nrevised. The process will be further\nstaff decisions to LCDC.\ndeveloped during the Program implementation\nin consultation with Federal agencies.\nCannot accept the unreasonably large area\n-\nThe State's approach to defining \"shorelands\nincluded in the coastal zone.\nthe use of which have a direct and signifi-\ncant impact on coastal waters,\" is consistent\nwith the CZMA and regulations. The Program\nand final EIS describe this process\nsufficiently.\nUnder revised draft regulations of OCZM,\nAppeals to the Secretary of Commerce is the\n-\nmediation will be available and optional\nState's responsibility not the Federal agencies.\nto both the State and the Federal agency.\n2.\nDepartment of Commerce, Economic Development\nAdministration (EDA)\n(4-15-76, Hamrick)\nEconomic development organizations should be\nThey are and will continue to be involved\n-\n-\nnotified and kept informed on comprehensive\nduring development of comprehensive\nplans.\nplans.\nEDA sponsored organizations should be coordi-\nEDA representative in Coos Bay has par-\n-\nnated within development of the Program.\nticipated on OCCDC Board, in OCZMA, and\non advisory board of economic impact\nstudy. Others have been participating.\n3.\nDepartment of Commerce, Maritime Adminis-\ntration\n(6-15-76, Armstrong)\nColumbia River Estuary should be designated\nMapping error in draft Program has been\n-\nas an area of particular concern (APC).\ncorrected. Columbia River Estuary is\ndesignated as APC, as are all estuaries\non Oregon's coast.\nvi","Comment\nResponse\n(3. continued)\nDraft EIS discussion of boundary alter-\nRecommended extension of boundary to\n-\n-\nnatives to include Portland will be expanded,\ninclude Port of Portland.\nbut under the State's tests for direct\nand significant impact, it does not appear\nnecessary to include Portland at this\ntime. Because of population and develop-\nment activity, inclusion of Portland causes\nan imbalance in the Program toward Portland\nneeds.\nPortland is not considered a coastal port\nPortland was not included in the \"Oregon\n-\n-\nby the State of Oregon.\nCoastal Port Development Plan.\"\nThe Columbia River Estuary is subject to\nThe Columbia River Estuary uses should be\n-\n-\nthe same comprehensive management system\nsubject to comprehensive planning and regula-\nthat applies to Oregon's coast, i.e.,\ntion within the framework of the Oregon\nthe Goals and Guidelines of LCDC and\nCoastal Management Program.\nCoordinated Comprehensive Plan Requirements.\nOregon's approach to consistency determina-\nFederal consistency could create additional\n-\n-\ntions is based on existing State and local\ndelay in permit procedures. The impact of\npermit activities. No new permits are\nconsistency on permit delay should be\ncontemplated, and delays should be no more\nassessed.\nthan existing delays. Once plans are\nadopted, permit delays should be reduced.\nThey are included in revised shorelands\nShorelands of the Columbia River Estuary\n-\n-\nGoal.\nshould be included in shorelands Goal.\nThe State's policies for port planning\nProgram should discuss its policies regarding\n-\n-\n(ORS 777.810, 777.990) and oil spillage\nvessel navigation, port, and terminal\nregulation (ORS 468.780 to 468.995)\noperations.\nhave been included in the Program,\nand their relationships to permissible\nuses are discussed in estuarine and ocean\nresource Goals.\nSummary of inventories are provided in\nInventory of Oregon coast should be documented\nAppendix 5. Description in the Program\nin the Program.\nwould be unworkable.\nDepartment of Commerce, National Oceanic\n4.\nand Atmospheric Administration\nOceanographic Services Office\n(4-3-76, Pugh)\nSuch provisions have been provided in\nProvisions should be included for monitoring\n-\n-\nrevised Goals on ocean resources.\nmarine environmental quality.\nDepartment of Commerce, National Oceanic\n5.\nand Atmospheric Administration\nNational Marine Fisheries Service\n(9-16-76, Walters)\nThe revised Program clarifies these pro-\nThe mechanism for determining the consistency\ncedures, and the final EIS discusses al-\nof Federal projects, permits, and programs\nternative procedures proposed by two State\nwithin the Oregon Coastal Management Program\nagencies. The Program will seek to avoid\nis unclear. Slight modification of existing\nestablishing new permits or procedures.\nprograms would be easier than additional\nprograms.\nBoundary has been retained.\nSupport the Oregon Coastal Management\n-\n-\nProgram boundary.\nGoals have been adopted and include\nConcerned with Goals that have not been\n-\n-\nadopted and lack of compliance standards.\ncompliance standards.\nvi","Response\nComment\n(5. continued)\nConcerned with lack of priorities for use.\nRevised Goals establish use priorities.\n-\n-\nQuestions the adequacy of the shorelands Goal\nShorelands Goal has been revised to include\n-\n-\nwith respect to farm use zones and forest\nsuch areas.\nareas.\nSupports proposed action. Alternatives would\nOregon continues to support proposed action.\n-\n-\nnot ensure the intent of the Oregon Coastal\nManagment Program or CZMA.\nGoals have been finalized. Final EIS\nGoals should be finalized and evaluated prior\n-\n-\nand final Program review provide period\nto approval of the Oregon Coastal Management\nfor evaluation prior to approval.\nProgram.\nCompliance standards of revised Goals\nCompliance standards would allow more adequate\n-\nhave been discussed in revised impacts\nprediction of future impacts.\nsection.\nDepartment of Commerce, National Oceanic and\n6.\nAtmospheric Administration\nAssociate Adminstrator for Marine Resources\n(10-4-76, Wallace)\n(MR)\nThe draft EIS was prepared in anticipation\nOregon draft EIS was developed and distributed\n-\nthat final Goals would be similar in sub-\nfor review prematurely, because goals had not\nstance to draft Goals. Impacts were to be\nbeen finalized.\nassessed as if draft Goals were effective.\nInclusion of draft Goals in the draft EIS\n(as proposed action ) provided opportunity\nfor substantive input to final form of\ncoastal Goals, consistent with National\nEnvironmental Policy Act. Comment on final\nGoals could have no effect. OCZM recognized\nthat approval could not be granted on basis\nof draft Goals.\nRevised Goals do not exclude those lands;\nGoal #3 excludes shorelands managed under\n-\n-\nshoreland Goal recognizes existing State\nforest and farm use regulations.\nagency programs and directs State agencies\nto review and revise their regulations to\nachieve objectives of the Program.\nRevised Goals are more explicit regarding\nAdequacy of coastal zone management and pro-\n-\n-\nthese provisions. Final EIS review provides\nvision for fisheries and habitat protection,\nopportunity to review prior to the Program\nrecreation, aesthetics is unknown under (new)\napproval.\nprovisions.\nMore specific standards for compliance of\nCompliance standards should be adopted for\n-\nlocal plans are provided in revised Goals.\nState review of local government plans; it\nIn addition, standards for review of com-\nshould reflect intent of CZMA and Oregon\npliance are provided in the Program\nGoals to manage resources.\ngram; and a summary of standards\nin statewide planning Goals and State stat-\nutes are identified in Appendix 3.\nInventory requirements alone (which MR has\nExcessive length of compliance schedule for\n-\n-\nexpressed need for) will take 1-3 years.\nlocal plans.\nDepartment of Defense (DOD)\n7.\n(6-16-76, Marienthal)\nFederal owned lands have been excluded.\nObjects to excluded lands position.\n-\n-\nProgram has been corrected to reflect this\nFinal determination of consistency of Federal\n-\n-\nprojects with spillover impacts rests with\ninterpretation.\nFederal government.\nviii","Comment\nResponse\n(7. continued)\nClarify permit certification procedures to\nProgram has been corrected accordingly.\n-\n-\nreflect certification by applicant not the\nState.\nDraft EIS should not include alternative that\nAlternative of \"conditional approval\" has\n-\n-\nSecretary could grant conditional approval.\nbeen omitted from final EIS. Section\n305(a) (2) \"initial implementation\" approval\nis discussed in its place.\nBasic to DOD approval of the Program, including\n-\nSection 307(b) requires the Secretary to\n-\nthe draft EIS, is a direct clarification\nadequately consider the views of Federal\nthat all DOD lands regardless of ownership or\nagencies principally affected. \"Approval\"\njurisdictional status are excluded from\nis not required. The State has excluded\nthe coastal zone.\nlands owned by the U.S. in accordance\nwith Attorney General's opinion.\nDepartment of Defense\n7a.\n(8-10-76, Fliakas)\nFinal Program approval should be withheld until\nThe Oregon Coastal Management Program has\n-\n-\nall local government plans are completed.\nsufficient interim authority and specific\npolicy to implement the Program prior to\ncompletion of local plans.\nNational interest: the Program should be changed -\nThe Oregon Coastal Management Program\n-\nto include declaration of priority of national\nprovides for Federal, State, and local\ndefense to accommodate future DOD installations.\nconsideration in the development of local\nplans, and a declaration of national\ninterest for defense facilities, consistent\nwith the planning process.\nA.\nDepartment of Transportation\n(6-23-76, Samuelson)\n\"Serious disagreement\"\nLands used exclusively by U.S. irrespective\n-\nProgram excludes lands owned by U.S. from\n-\nof ownership or jurisdiction to be excluded.\nboundary, in accord with Attorney General\nopinion.\nFederal agency should be making determinations\nAmended Program allows for determination by\n-\n-\nof consistency not the State of Oregon (also\nFederal agency and concurrence by State.\nletter of 9-14-76).\nWhy should State evaluate performance of\nState has obligation to review performance\n-\n-\nFederal agencies in implementing comprehen-\nof the Program and all participants in its\nsive plans?\nimplementation process, in response to OCZM\nperformance evaluation under Sec. 312 of\nCZMA.\nObject to Federal use of Goals and Guidelines\nProgram was changed to say, \"Coals are to be\n-\n-\nin preparing plans.\nused by Federal agencies to the 'maximum\nextent practicable'.'\nMethod to be used to determine Federal con-\n-\nSpecific process for determination of consis-\n-\nsistency is theprerogative of the Federal\ntency will be worked out by State in coopera-\nagency DOT will rely entirely on A-95 process.\ntion with Federal agencies during the Program\nimplementation. The State feels that the\nA-95 process is too late to determine con-\nsistency early in planning stage. Further-\nmore, A-95 is a process for gathering com-\nments only; it is not a determinant.\nix","Comment\nResponse\n(8. continued)\nConflict resolution process described con-\nIt was not the State's intent to develop such\n-\n-\nstitutes State veto over Federal projects.\na system; Program has been revised to clari-\nfy this.\nState land use planning Goal should state that\nThis is explicit in the CZMA and understood\n-\n-\nFederal agencies should be consistent to the\nin the approval of the Program.\n\"maximum extent practicable.\"\nFAA operating certificates are not permits to\nFAA certificates omitted.\n-\n-\nbe certified. Coast Guard limits certifica-\nCoast Guard list accepted.\ntion to cited permits.\nNavigation aids should be included in per-\nPermissible use tables omitted from the\n-\n-\nProgram.\nmissible use tables.\nFederal lands list is incomplete.\nFAA and Coast Guard lands added to list.\n-\n-\nDepartment of Transportation\n8a.\n(9-14-76, Samuelson)\nPermissible use table has been omitted from the\nAirports and seaplane bases should be allow-\n-\n-\nProgram. Estuarine Goals allow certain\nable in estuarine permissible use table.\nuses which do not require fill, i.e., sea\nplanes.\nCZMA (307 (3) (A) says that \"any applicant for\nState does not have authority to designate\n-\n-\na required Federal license or permit to con-\npermits subject to certification by State.\nduct an activity affecting land and water\nuses in the coastal zone\nshall provide\nin the application a certification that\nthe proposed activity complies\n11 This\nimplies that all Federal licenses and permits\nare subject to such certification. OCZM and\nthe State of Oregon agree that the State has\nthis authority as reflected in draft regula-\ntions on Section 307. The State has selec-\nted major permits and licenses published by\nthe Office of Management and Budget.\nThe A-95 process is unnecessary for certifi-\nOCZM and the State concur that A-95 is not\n-\ncation of the Coast Guard permits because\nthe only mechanism available for certifica-\nthe Federal Water Pollution Control Act permits\ntion. This comment appears inconsistent with\nearlier comment (6/23/76) that DOT will rely\nare obtained.\n\"entirely\" on A-95. The Coast Guard is re-\nferring to a Federal consistency procedure\nproposed by a State agency other than the\nlead agency.\nProposals for direct Federal development should\nFederal development projects are treated\n-\nbe treated in a separate process.\nthe same as \"activities\" in the revised\nProgram, consistent with OCZM draft\nregulations.\n8b. Department of Transportation\n(10-28-76, Samuelson to Brauner)\nOn 12/16/76, LCDC indicated that county coordi-\nImpractical for DOT to deal directly with local\n-\n-\nnators would perform role of working with\nunits of government in review of local compre-\nDOT; LCDC staff will also assist.\nhensive plans.\nSite specific concerns should be conveyed\ndirectly to local government.\nIt is the intent of Congress that all Feder-\nDOT obligation to \"follow\" comprehensive plans\n-\nal actions directly affecting the coastal\nfor all actions \"negates\" National Environ-\nzone be consistent with State coastal zone\nmental Policy Act threshold determination on\nmanagement programs \"to the maximum extent\nmajor actions.\"\npracticable,\" not only major actions subject\nto the National Environmental Policy Act EIS\nrequirements.\nX","Response\nComment\n(8b. continued)\nSec. 307 (c) (1) and (2) of CZMA provides that\nLocal comprehensive plans will be used by DOT\n-\n-\n\"Federal agencies conducting or supporting\nonly as an advisory document in consistency\nactivities directly affecting the coastal\nreview.\nzone,\" and \"undertaking any development pro-\njects in the coastal zone\" shall conduct or\nsupport those activities, and undertake such\nprojects consistent with approved programs,\nto the maximum extent practicable. Con-\nsideration of such programs as \"advisory\" is\nnot sufficient. Approved local comprehensive\nplans are to be considered as a part of the\nState's management program when brought into\ncompliance with State programs.\n9. Environmental Protection Agency\n(9-21-76, Dubois on DEIS)\nA management program does not allow the same\nDifficult to predict impacts in specific terms;\n-\n-\ndegree of specific description of impacts as\nsuggests complete description of mechanisms to\nwould a development project. The revised\ninsure consistency of State program with Sec.\ncoastal Goals and the summary of other State\n307(f) environmental programs.\nstandards should provide the requisite degree\nof specificity to assess impacts. A descrip-\ntion of the impacts has been revised. State\nhas provided letter from Oregon Department of\nEnvironmental Quality indicating relationship\nbetween these programs.\nEnvironmental Protection Agency\n9a.\n(9-21-76, Dubois on the Program)\nConflicts will be resolved on a case-by-case\nGuidance to Federal agencies needed on how to\n-\n-\nbasis, based on the data and circumstances\nmake trade-offs between conflicting Goals.\nthe process must be clear in the Program re-\nview of each case.\nThe revised estuarine Goal recognizes such\nConflicts among water dependent uses should\n-\n-\nconflicts and provides a standard for reso-\nbe recognized.\nlution.\nCertain natural and restoration uses are\nQuestion whether any use at all should be\n-\n-\nrecognized as valid uses of sensitive en-\nallowed in particular sensitive environments.\nvironmental areas.\nState agency actions are subject to Goals\nNo apparent LCDC review of State counterpart\n-\nand Guidelines and State permits are to be\n-\npermits for consistency of Federal permits.\nreviewed in revised Program by DLCD. County\ncoordinators will play a major role in local\nand State agency consistency review.\n10. Department of Justice\n(9-13-76, Rashkow)\nDescription revised to state: \"as recognized\nExtent of Oregon's seaward jurisdiction in-\n-\n-\nin Federal law!.\nadequately defined; conflicts with U.S.\nEnergy Research and Development Administration\n11.\n(ERDA)\n(6-21-76, Swinebroad)\nERDA has been added to Table IV.\nERDA should be added to the national interest\n-\n-\ntable.\nRevised guidelines are being considered.\nThe Land Use Handbook could be improved.\n-\n-\nxi","Comment\nResponse\n12.\nFederal Energy Administration\n(4-23-76, Feldman)\nRequest further evidence of coordination with\nThe Oregon Department of Energy was a\n-\n-\nthe Oregon Department of Energy\nmember of the State agency task force\nthroughout the development of the Program.\nImplementation of the Program will provide\nfunds for hiring a full-time staff member\nof this agency to develop a detailed study\nof coastal energy plans and needs. The\nGovernor has also designated an OCS\ntask force co-chaired by LCDC and the\nDepartment of Energy.\nRelationship between coastal Goals and State\nThe revised Program does describe\n-\nenergy Goals should be analysed and coordinated.\nthe relationship between the Goals and\nGuidelines and other State programs and\nthe method for resolving conflicts among\nState programs.\nNeed clear guidelines in the Program for\nProgram has been revised to describe\n-\n-\nlocal governments to consider matters of more\npriorities of use, national interest\nthan local significance and oversight by\nconcerns, and uses of regional benefit in\nState.\nmore detail.\n\"Areas of Particular Concern\" and \"Areas\nThese sections of the final Program clarify\n-\n-\nof Statewide Significance\" sections should\nthe classes of areas considered, which in-\ninclude clear definitions of classes, pro-\nclude those sites designated as suitable or\nvision for Federal input and review, and\nunsuitable by the Energy Facility Siting\nclarification of how areas designated as\nCouncil. Opportunity for Federal input\nsuitable sites for energy facilities are\nand review is provided for the Program as\nconsidered.\na whole, as described in the Program.\n13.\nOregon Intergovernmental Relations Division\n(9-24-76, Young)\nConcerned with establishing separate review\nLCDC plans to utilize existing procedures\n-\n-\nprocedures for Federal consistency other\nwherever possible for review and determina-\nthan A-95. The mechanics of consistency\ntion of consistency. The details of this\ndetermination are not well described.\nreview process will be worked out with the\nIntergovernmental Relations Division and\nLCDC during the Program implementation.\nRoles of LCDC and other participants in\nFinal Program defines the process in more\n-\n-\nconsistency determinations are not identified.\ndetail, but the final guidelines for\nconsistency will be developed during the\nProgram implementation.\nThe suggested review process for permits\nThe process will be developed during the\n-\n-\n(under Sec. 307) duplicates A-95 and is\nProgram implementation.\ninadequate.\nThe list of \"significant\" permits should be\nThe final list was a product of review\n-\n-\nnegotiated between the State and individual\nand comment by Federal agencies. The list\nFederal agencies.\ncan be revised from time to time as the\nState wants to add permits for review.\n14. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife\n(9-16-76, Anonymous)\nApproval should be based on adoption of\nGoals and Guidelines have been adopted\n-\n-\nadequate Goals and Guidelines with compliance\nwith compliance standards.\nstandards.\nFederal land management responsibilities\nThe Program discusses Federal consistency\n-\n-\nshould be clearly spelled out due to the\nand the excluded lands position in more\nexcluded lands opinion.\ndetail. Federal consistency guidelines\nwill be developed during the Program Imple-\nmentation.\nxii","Comment\nResponse\n15. Oregon Intergovernmental Relations Division\n(9-16-76, Anonymous)\n- Goal and Guidelines have been adopted with\nApproval should be based on adoption of\n-\nadequate Goals and Guidelines with compli-\ncompliance standards.\nance standards.\nThe Program discusses Federal consistency and\nFederal land management responsibilities\n-\n-\nthe excluded lands position in more detail.\nshould be clearly spelled out due to the\nFederal consistency guidelines will be de-\nexcluded lands opinion.\nveloped during the Program implementation.\nState Senator W. Stan Ouderkirk\n16.\n(9-16-76)\nIt is inconsistent for Federal lands to be\nThese differences result from different\n-\n-\nexcluded if Federal agencies issuing\nsections of the CZMA, but because of\nlicenses and permits must be consistent\nFederal consistency provisions, OCZM has de-\nwith the State.\ntermined the excluded lands opinion will\nnot have a major negative impact on the\nmanagement of Oregon's coast.\nMore effective planning could be provided by\nThe Program is based on SB 100 in which the\n-\na coastal agency with statutory authority\nLegislature gave this authority to LCDC.\nwhich would represent local communities.\nOCZM considers this organization consistent with\nthe CZMA requirements.SB 100 also provides\nauthority for local governments to organize\nregional agencies for planning purposes.\nThe Program poses a problem of compensation\nThe Oregon Constitution requires compensation\n-\nfor those planned out of the value of their\nfor those deprived of the use of their\nlands.\nproperty.\nLeague of Oregon Cities\n17.\n(10-1-76, Executive Director)\nQuestions LCDC authority to adopt regional\nLCDC does not consider these as regional\n-\n-\nGoals.\nGoals; they apply to all estuaries, beaches\nand dunes, coastal shorelands, and ocean\nresources of the State.\nDraft EIS does not adequately address future\nCoastal Goals have been adopted. If approved\n-\n-\nprogram; its coastal Goals are not adopted.\nGoals and uses substantively differed from\nor had not been approved, OCZM would have\npublished a supplemental draft EIS.\nNo process for evaluation of Federal agency\nProgram expands the discussion of Federal\n-\n-\nplans by LCDC.\nconsistency procedures. Federal lands\nhave been excluded from Oregon's coastal\nzone for purposes of Federal approval.\nDraft EIS conflicts with Attorney General's\nFinal EIS has been revised to discuss\n-\n-\nopinion on excluded lands; impacts of\nthis opinion and its impacts.\nopinion should be discussed.\nNo specific consistency certification procedures\nThe general approach to certification is\n-\n-\nare adopted by LCDC.\ndiscussed in revised Program; the specific\nprocedures will be developed during the\nProgram implementation.\nPotential adverse impacts of consistency pro-\nUtilizing existing permit procedures,\n-\n-\nvisions are not addressed, especially delay\ndelay should be minimized.\nof certification.\nDraft EIS should discuss the parameters of\nProgram has been revised to discuss these\n-\n-\nSecretary of Commerce authority over State\nparameters. If State relies exclusively\nand local decisions on matters of national\non Federal consistency, in lieu of State\nsecurity or national interest.\ncontrol, to carry out policies of the\nProgram, Secretary of Commerce override\ncould enable Federal agency to issue a\ncontested permit.\nxiii","Comment\nResponse\n(17. continued)\nProgram revisions discuss State authority\nDrait EIS does not address whether LCDC has\n-\n-\nover local government plans and decisions.\nthe authority to override local decisions.\nProgram revision discusses this limit of\nLCDC does not have authority to overrule local\n-\nauthority and cites the remedies\ndecisions that are in compliance with the\nlocal comprehensive plan that has been adopted;\navailable to carry out the Program. The\nis this adequate authority to meet the pur-\nCZMA does not require State overrule of\nlocal land and water use decisions.\npose of the CZMA?\nDraft EIS should be updated to discuss exist-\nFinal EIS recognizes existence of these\n-\n-\nence of other State laws in existence prior\nlaws which are discussed in greater\ndetail in the Program.\nto SB 100 Goals and Guidelines.\nContinental shelf Goal discussion should\nFinal EIS recognizes this limitation. The\n-\n-\nFederal consistency provisions could affect\nrecognize limit of effect of Goal on fisheries\nfishery management outside of 3 mile limit.\ndue to 3 mile limit.\nComments on long-term impacts gloss over ef-\nFinal EIS discusses these impacts. Basic\n-\npurpose of Federal program is to provide\nfects of policies on cities, especially\nfinancial assistance to State and local\nfinancial impacts.\ngovernments.\n18.\nFremont McComb\n(9-15-76)\nRequests that the boundaries of the coastal\n-\nThe Program and final EIS adequately\n-\nzone be revised.\nsupport the proposed coastal zone boundaries.\nHundreds of landowners in the coastal zone\nThe Program allows for this local control\n-\n-\nwant local controls, not State or Federal.\nand implementation in conformance with\nstatewide Goals for resources and activities\nof State concern.\nShorelands Goal could cover loss of land\nShorelands Goal has been revised to provide\n-\n-\nvalue.\nmore specific standards. The economic\nimpacts are discussed further in the final\nEIS.\nForesters and those who grow timber want no\nForest lands were included within the\n-\n-\npart of shorelands boundaries.\ncoverage of the shorelands Goal in response\nto several comments on the draft Goal which\nexcluded them.\nSuggest removal of all lands above the head\nThis would not meet the intent and purpose\n-\n-\nof tide.\nof the Program or CZMA.\nThe ballot measure to repeal SB 100\nHow can OCZM consider financing LCDC with\n-\n-\nwas defeated by the voters in the November,\nthe threat of repeal of SB 100 and LCDC?\n1976, election.\n19. Natural Resources Defense Council\n(9-27-76, Beers)\nThe primary vehicle for implementing the\n-\nGoals and Guidelines and the Program can\n-\nOregon Coastal Management Program (local\nbe implemented by LCDC prior to completion\ncomprehensive plans) has yet to be\nof local comprehensive plans through State\ndeveloped.\nagency actions and the petition process.\nLocal plans do not require completion\nfor the Program approval.\nThere are insufficient standards for making\n-\nThe Goals have been revised to provide more\n-\ndecisions in the interim.\nspecific standards. Appendix 6 in the Program\nprovides a summary of standards in statewide\nplanning Goals and State statutes.\nProgram does not demonstrate that authorities\n-\nThe revised coastal Goals provide guidance to\n-\nof existing agencies are adequate to deal\nother agencies administering these statutes\nwith defined problems.\nto assure they will be directed toward carrying\nout the Program goals. Appendix 6 in the Pro-\ngram demonstrates how the standards in these\nstatutes relate to coastal concerns.\nxiv","Comment\nResponse\n(19. continued)\nStatewide Goals and Goals for coastal\nProgram lacks sufficient immediate authority\n-\n-\nresources are in force immediately. State\nover coastal development.\nagencies must comply with Goals and Guide-\nlines from time of adoption. The petition\nprocess ensures that LCDC has authority\nto implement Goals prior to completion of\nlocal comprehensive plans.\nThis is not correct. Goals are in force at\nBefore completion of the local comprehensive\n-\n-\nplans and their approval by LCDC coastal Goals\ntime of approval.\nwill be advisory only.\nRevised Goals establish priorities of\nThe Program fails to set standards for\n-\n-\nuse as described in Appendix 3.\npriority of uses.\nThe Program defines \"permissible uses\" as\nThe Program fails to provide a definition\n-\n-\n\"Uses to be managed\" by the Program. These\nof \"Permissible Uses.\"\nuses are defined in the Program and Table 1\nshows how such uses are controlled\nThe Oregon approach to identifying geographic\nThe Program fails to establish areas of\n-\nareas of concern as either national resource\nparticular concern.\nareas or specific facility sites meets the\nintent of the CZMA and NOAA regulations.\n20. 1000 Friends of Oregon\n(10-8-76, Benner)\nCoastal Goals are too vague and general and\nCoastal Goals have been revised to pro-\n-\n-\ndo not provide enforceable standards.\nvide standards and priorities. The\nProgram and appendices cite standards in\nstatewide Goals and other State laws.\nProgram fails to define permissible uses\nRevised Goals and the Program establish\n-\n-\n\"uses to be managed\" separately from\nseparately from boundaries.\nboundary discussions.\nThe inventory and analyses were addressed\nThe Program must inventory coastal\n-\n-\nresources and analyze suitability for uses.\nduring the development of coastal resource\nGoals and the Program. With the new Goal,\ninventory requirements should establish\nsuitability prior to specific use designa-\ntion at local level during implementation.\nThe Program fails to set guidelines on\nRevised Goals and the Program establish\n-\n-\npriority of uses.\npriority of uses.\nGoals have been revised to include priorities\nORS 197.300 limits LCDC review of actions\n-\n-\nupon appeal to \"goals\" not \"guidelines.\"\nand permissible uses in the Goal.\nPriorities and permissible uses are estab-\nlished only in guidelines.\nProgram fails to designate areas of\nThe Oregon approach to APC's through\n-\n-\nparticular concern (APC).\nresource categories and Goals is acceptable.\nProgram fails to designate areas for\nThe CZMA only requires the State to have\n-\n-\na \"process\" for such designation, which\npreservation and restoration.\nthe Program has.\nSB 100 and the revised Program\nProgram does not provide an organizational\n-\n-\nprovide the organizational structure;\nstructure to implement the Program. LCDC\nLCDC has not taken this position. 1000\nhas taken the position that State agencies\nFriends was using an unofficial document.\nneed not apply Goals to their activities.\nThe Attorney General of Oregon and SB 100\nhave required State agency consistency\nwith Goals.\nXV","Comment\nResponse\n21. Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association\n(OCZMA)\n(10-6-76, Zedwick)\nRevised Program discusses these elements\nDraft EIS fails to discuss laws of the\n-\nof SB 100 and how other laws assist in\nProgram in terms of utilization, coordination,\nimplementing these standards. Appendices\nuses, and conflict resolution.\ninclude laws for greater detail.\nWith ORS 197.180 and 197.250 the State\nMemoranda of Understanding (MOU) with other\n-\n-\ndoes not think MOU's will be necessary.\nState agencies should be required to avoid\nLCDC has the authority to resolve conflicts\njurisdictional conflicts.\nupon petition.\nInventories are judged adequate for estab-\nInventories are inadequate for coastal Goals.\n-\nlishing general Goals and Guidelines\nand for development of the Oregon Coastal\nManagement Program. As discussed in the\nProgram, the specific inventory require-\nments are included in the Goals for develop-\nment of local plans.\nFinal Goals address these concerns and\nLCDC failed to focus on permissible uses, areas\n-\nare acceptable in terms of CZMA and\nof particular concern (APC's), and priority\nregulations.\nof uses.\nAPC in revised Program are important for\nEconomic concerns should be considered as\n-\n-\ndevelopment as well as preservation.\npart of APC's.\nEconomic needs as well as preservation\nneeds are considered.\n\"Critical area\" process of SB 100 has not\nAPC's should have legislative review and\n-\n-\nbeen used for APC's. Coastal Goal approach\nconcurrence.\ndoes not require legislative concurrence.\nOCZMA alternative was submitted after\nAlternatives discussion did not include\n-\n-\ndraft EIS publication and was considered\ncoastal Goals submitted by OCZMA, 3/2/76\nin development of final coastal Goals.\nat public hearing.\nThese concerns were fundamental to the\nGoals do not address special coastal concerns\ndevelopment of the resource Goals and the\nof Oregon, i.e., tourism, fisheries, ports.\nOregon Coastal Management Program. They\nare specifically addressed in the Goals\nthrough navigation (Ocean Resources)\nhabitat, fishery resources (Ocean Resources),\nsocial, recreational needs, transportation.\nDraft EIS failed to address compensation,\nFinal EIS discusses these issues as suggested.\n-\n-\nloss of tax base, trespass.\nDraft EIS failed to address powers of LCDC to\nCZMA does not require these powers to reside\n-\nacquire land when necessary to carry out\nin lead coastal zone management agency.\nthe Program and the impact of condemnation.\nFinal EIS and revised Program address\nthis requirement and its impacts.\nOCZMA\n21a.\n(1-10-77, Zedwick)\nCoastal Goals were revised in direct response\nLCDC adopted revised version of coastal Goals\n-\n-\nwithout paying heed to local officials.\nto local officials and other comments.\nLCDC can document specific changes result-\ning from concerns of local officials.\nFinal Goals were developed during public\nNo public hearings were conducted on the\n-\nworkshops after 34 public hearings, based\nfinalized Goals.\non the comments received. LCDC exceeded\nhearing requirements in law.\nxvi","Comment\nResponse\n(21a. continued)\nLCDC public participation and involvement\nLCDC must work with local officials in develop-\n-\nprocess fully meets legal requirements.\nment and implementation; little accountability\nAppendices 8,9, & 10 of the Oregon Coastal\nbetween elected officials or coastal resi-\nManagement Program document this process.\ndents exists.\nThe final EIS discusses the economic im-\nLCDC must adequately assess the potential\n-\n-\npacts of each Goal, and a special study\neconomic impacts of the proposed coastal\nof economic impacts has been conducted.\nGoals.\nThere are several proposals for review\nSB 100 is due to be amended. Legislative\n-\n-\nand amendments to SB 100 and the Goals.\nscrutiny of the coastal Goals is necessary.\nIn the event of major changes, OCZM and\nthe State will review and revise the\nProgram as needed.\nLCDC members and staff have met with\nLCDC has ignored and circumvented the efforts\nOCZMA on several occasions. LCDC contracted\n-\nof OCZMA. LCDC must cooperate with local\nwith OCZMA for part of OCZMA staff salary\ngovernment officials and their organizations.\nwhich OCZMA cancelled. LCDC feels it is\nup to local governments to define OCZMA\nrole in the coastal zone, not LCDC.\nLCDC has funded a slide program, 134 coastal\nAlthough LCDC received $72,000 to conduct an\n-\nmeetings with more than 3000 coastal resi-\n-\neducational program, only a fraction has\ndents, and is publishing tabloid reports\nbeen expended.\non Goals and responses to public comments.\nLCDC has expended and will expend coastal\nHow can LCDC use Sec. 305 funds for imple-\nzone management funds \"only\" within the\nmentation of statewide planning goals?\ncoastal jurisdictions and in developing\nthe Program. Coastal Goals, although\nstatewide are focussed on resources\nthat exist mainly in the coast. Sec. 305\nfunds have been provided in response to\nlocal needs.\nInventory requirements have been recently\nSec. 305 funds have been needed to conduct\n-\nestablished in final Goals. Planning\ninventories but have been spent on imple-\nassistance will be provided for inventories\nmenting statewide goals.\nduring the Program implementation. LCDC has\nresponded to every local need identified\nduring last Sec. 305 grant. All needs\nwere funded as requested by local government.\nAt least 30 days notice was given for\n30 days notice was not given for hearings\nthese hearings in The Oregonian, the news-\n-\nconducted on Oregon's Coastal Management\npaper with largest circulation on the\nProgram, Nov. 22, 23, 29, 30, and Dec. 1\ncoast. Other newspapers on the coast\nand 2, 1976.\nmight have received less than 30 days notice.\nLegal notice was provided for all informational\nhearings. SB 100 requirements for 30 days\nnotice have been met.\nPublic hearing was advertised in The\nLCDC did not give adequate notice of the\nOregonian on Nov. 18, 1976. In addition,\nDecember 18,1976, hearing on the Program.\npress releases were distributed to 230\nnews media on December 13, 1976.\n22. Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition\n(9-15-76, Diel)\nShorelands Goal is inadequate to provide level\nShorelands Goal has been revised to\n-\nof protection, especially in forest areas.\nprovide greater standards for forest\nmanagement.\nLack of consistency between beach permits\nGreater direction to Parks Department is\n-\n-\n(Parks Department) and coastal Goals.\nprovided in beaches and dunes Goal.\nxvii","Comment\nResponse\n(22. continued)\nNeeds greater consistency between established\nRevised Program addresses the roles of\n-\n-\nwetlands studies and U. S. Corps of\nFederal studies in greater detail. This\nEngineers.\nis an implementation requirement.\nEconomic impacts section of draft EIS should\nFinal EIS expands discussion of economic\n-\n-\nexpand discussion of benefits of environ-\nbenefits of the Program.\nmental areas, especially estuaries.\nPropose an \"estuary bank\" to monitor incre-\nMitigation requirements and preservation\n-\n-\nmental changes\nrequirements in certain estuarine areas\naddress these concerns. The idea will\nbe further explored during the Program\nimplementation.\nOther alternatives should be considered in-\nThese alternatives are not realistic\n-\ncluding use of existing State statutes,\nalternatives due to the adoption of final\napproval not being granted, and amendments\ncoastal Goals. OCZM would have issued\nto the coastal Goals so they have no effect.\na revised draft EIS if any major changes\nhad been made to the coastal Goals.\n23.\nOregon Student Public Interest Research\nGroup\n(11-24-76, Giese)\nExclusion of timber and exclusive farm use\nEstuarine resources and shorelands Goals\n-\n-\nfrom shorelands Goal will not allow adequate\nhave been revised to include these areas.\nprotection of estuary resource.\nExisting State laws fail to address coastal\nRevised Goals are directing agencies to\n-\n-\nconcerns--cumulative effects from use of lands.\nreview existing laws and revise in accord-\nance with performance standards of Goal.\nForest Practices Act has inadequate standards.\nDirection in revised Goals to Department of\n-\n-\nForestry provides clear standards for\nrevision of Forest Practice Regulations\nand authority to require changes.\nShoreland Goal fails to define permissible\nRevised shorelands Goal defines uses and\n-\n-\nuses and priorities.\npriorities.\n24.\nWestern Environmental Trade Association\n(9-15-76, Tegart/Engdah1)\nPublic hearings are premature. Goals and\n-\nDraft Goals allowed for public comment\n-\nGuidelines are not complete.\non proposed action.\nThere is an overlap and duplication between\n-\nRevised Goals eliminated duplication where\n-\nstatewide and coastal Goals.\npossible. Several Goals may cover the\nsame geographic area but address different\nconcerns. Relationship between potentially\nconflicting Goals will be identified during\nthe planning process.\nNo substantial economic analysis done in\n-\nFinal EIS discusses economic concerns in\nprocess of developing Goals and Guidelines.\nmore detail. OCCDC had an economist on\nstaff; LCDC has staff economist; WETA\nparticipated in OCCDC policy development\nprocess. Technical Advisory Committee\nrepresenting industry and economists were\ninvolved in Goals. Special economic impact\nstudies have been conducted on the coastal\nGoals.\nQuestions whether Federal agencies will\nFederal consistency provisions are untried\nadhere to State decisions to the extent\nand untested, but OCZM and the State expect\nEIS predicts.\nthat Federal agencies will comply with the\nProgram to the maximum extent practicable.\nxviii","Response\nComment\n(24. continued)\nThese sections are expanded in the final\nEIS is poorly prepared in terms of short-\n-\n-\nlong-term impacts, economic and environ-\nEIS.\nmental impacts\n25. Western Oil and Gas\n(9-16-76, Wright)\nNational interest statement has been revised\nProgram does not provide adequate considera-\n-\n-\nto show how such facilities are considered\ntion of national interest in siting of\nin the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Program.\nfacilities.\nUses of regional benefit discussion has been\nDoes not provide a method of assuring that\n-\n-\nlocal land and water use decisions will not\nadded to the Program.\nunreasonably restrict or exclude uses of\nregional benefit.\nCertain uses can reasonably be excluded from\nNo economic use is permitted in \"preservation\"\nsensitive resource areas. The Program can-\n-\nor \"natural areas,\" but no compensation is\nnot deny all reasonably uses of these areas\nprovided.\nwithout just compensation in accordance with\nthe State and U.S. Constitution.\nThe State disagrees. OCZM has no authority\nIncorrect conclusion in the Program that\n-\n-\nover this level of State policy.\nrenewable resources provide greater long-term\nbenefits than non-renewable resources.\nRevised ocean resources Goals clarify\nContinental shelf Goal could be interpreted to\n-\n-\nthis issue.\nrequire State to embark on exploratory\ndrilling program.\nGoals have been revised to clarify this.\nAssignment of authority to cities and\n-\n-\nLocal governments do have some authority\ncounties for navigation issues is improper.\nover ports and maintenance of navigation\nchannels, dredge, and disposal.\nThe State disagrees. Same guidelines\nGuidelines should be revised to specify\n-\n-\nwill establish minimum standards for use.\nperformance rather than methods and equip-\nment to be used.\nState disagrees that this is improper.\nGuidelines improperly result in charge to\n-\n-\nState policy will be to internalize these\ndeveloper for cost of monitoring and\ncosts to development.\ninspection of operations.\nThis standard provision will not be af-\nDevelopers should not be responsible for\n-\n-\nfected by State guidelines.\n\"Acts of God.\"\nGuideline has been changed to add this.\nVested rights should be recognized in\n-\n-\nrevoking a permit.\nState hopes that operators will have con-\nOperators should be required to establish\n-\n-\ntingency plans, but State and Federal\ncontingency plans and emergency procedures,\nagencies required to react to spills\nnot State or Federal agency.\nshould also have contingency plans.\nWallace S. Baldinger\n26.\n(9-15-76)\nThe effect and impact of the excluded lands\n-\nSupports reversing the opinion of the\n-\nopinion is discussed in the alternatives\nAssistant Attorney General to exclude\nsection of the final EIS. Exclusion of\nFederally owned lands.\nFederal lands pursuant to the CZMA does not\ndiminish State and local authority over\nlands in which the State shares jurisdiction.\nFinal Goals incorporated these concerns\nDraft Goals fail to take forests into\n-\n-\nand provide standards for forest areas.\nconsideration.\nxix","Comment\nResponse\n(26. continued)\nState and Federal agencies should be com-\nSB 100 provisions require consistency of\n-\npelled to act consistently in accordance\nState actions with Goals and Guidelines.\nwith measures planned for public welfare\nFederal consistency provisions require\non the coast.\nconsistency of Federal actions to the\nmaximum extent practicable.\n27.\nDavidson Industries Inc.\n(9-10-76, Davidson)\nA State planning agency (cannot) manage\n-\nLCDC will not directly manage forest lands --\n-\npublic and private forest lands.\nonly set standards for managing resources\naffected by forest management. Guidance\nis provided to the Department of Forestry\nand local government.\nObjects to creation of another set of\n-\nGoals and Guidelines should supplement\nplanning principles that duplicate efforts\nother standards rather than duplicate them.\nof Forest Service and Bureau of Land\nGoals provide for consistency of State\nManagement.\nstandards and recognize Forest Practices\nAct.\nBoundaries must be changed to eliminate\n-\nUses on these lands have some of the\npublic and private commercial forest lands.\nmost significant impacts on coastal waters.\nLCDC has adequately described the reasons\nfor the coastal zone boundary.\n28.\nMaradale Gale\n(3-16-76)\nProgram lacks a comprehensive plan for\nCZMA allows for a variety of techniques\nOregon's coast.\nfor controls including State establishment\nof criteria and standards for local imple-\nmentation. Special studies to be conducted\nduring the Program implementation will\naddress certain coast-wide issues.\nThe Program does not have authority\nLCDC has the authority to adopt Goals and\nto preserve special areas except through\nGuidelines for special resources. The\naction of the Legislature.\nCZMA and NOAA regulations allow States to\ndesignate resource categories as APO's.\nSection 306(c)(9) requires \"the management\nprogram makes provision for procedures\nwhereby specific areas may be designated\nfor the purpose of preserving or restoring\nthem for their conservation, recreational,\necological, or esthetic values\" (emphasis\nadded). SP 100 and the Program make such\nprovisions.\n7. The draft environmental impact statement was transmitted to the Council on Environmental Quality\non February 27, 1976, and the notice of availability to the public was published in the Federal\nRegister on March 5, 1976. A public hearing was held on September 15, 1976, at 7:30 p.m.\nin the Marine Science Center Auditorium, Newport, Oregon, and September 16, 1976, at 7:30 p.m.\nat the Multnomah County Courthouse, Portland, Oregon.\nThis final environmental impact statement was filed with the Council on Environmental Quality on\nMAR 25 1977\nXX","I. INTRODUCTION\nIn response to the intense pressures upon, conflicts within, and the importance of the coastal zone\nof the United States, the Congress in 1972 passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (P. L. 92-583).\nSigned into law on October 27, 1972, the Act authorized a new Federal program to be administered by\nthe Secretary of Commerce, who in turn delegated this responsibility to the National Oceanic and\nAtmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Act was substantially amended by the 94th Congress, and the\namendments were signed into law on July 26, 1976 (P. L. 94-370). The composite of the two Acts will\nbe referred to herein as the CZMA.\nThe CZMA affirms a national interest in the effective management, beneficial use, protection, and\ndevelopment of the coastal zone, and provides assistance and encouragement to the coastal States to\ndevelop and implement rational programs for managing their coastal zones. Several financial assis-\ntance grant and loan programs are authorized by the CZMA. Section 305 authorizes annual grants to\nassist any United States coastal State or territory in the development of a management program for\nthe land and water resources of its coastal zone (program development grants) Under Section 306,\nafter developing a management program, the State may submit it to the Secretary of Commerce for\napproval; if approved, the State is then eligible for annual grants to administer its management\nprogram (program administration grants). A third section (Section 315) provides grants for an estu-\narine sanctuary program, to preserve a representative series of undisturbed estuarine areas for long-\nterm scientific and educational purposes.\nAmendments to the CZMA in 1976 added a Coastal Energy Impact Fund and formula grants (Section 308) for\npublic facilities and services, repayment assistance, environmental/recreational amelioration and\nplanning; related to impacts from OCS development and energy facilities. Other amendments include\ngrants for new requirements under Section 305, interstate coordination, research and training, and\nshoreline access.\nAs an additional incentive for State participation, CZMA requires that Federal activities includ-\ning development projects directly affecting the coastal zone shall be, to the maximum extent practi-\ncable, consistent with approved State management programs (the \"Federal consistency\" requirement, Sec-\ntion 307(c) (1) and (2)). Also, all applications for Federal licenses or permits affecting land or\nwater uses within the coast must be certified to be consistent with the approved management program,\nand the State must concur with this certification before permits can be issued. In addition, all\napplications for State and local government Federal assistance affecting the coastal zone must be\nfound by the State to be consistent with the management program before the Federal government can grant\nsuch assistance.\nGuidelines defining the procedures by which States can qualify to receive development grants under\nSection 305 of the CZMA, and the policies for development of a State management program, were pub-\nlished on November 29, 1973 (15 CFR Part 920, Federal Register 38 (229) 33044-33051). By the end\nof fiscal year 1976, 33 out of 34 coastal States and territories had received program development\ngrants.\nOn January 9, 1975, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Caostal Zone\nManagement (OCZM) published criteria to be used for approving State coastal zone management pro-\ngrams and guidelines for program administrative grants (15 CFR Part 923, Federal Register 40(6) :\n1683-1695; see Appendix 1). These proposed criteria and guidelines set forth (a) the standards to be\nutilized by the Secretary of Commerce in reviewing and approving coastal zone management programs\ndeveloped and submitted by coastal States for approval, (b) procedures by which coastal States may\nqualify to receive program administrative grants, and (c) policies for the administration by coastal\nStates of approved coastal zone management programs.\nPursuant to the Section 306 guidelines, OCZM has now received for review and Secretarial approval, a\nproposed coastal zone management program from the State of Oregon. Oregon's Coastal Management\nProgram is one of the earliest programs to be received by OCZM; the State submitted a preliminary draft\nprogram for review in January 1975, and has spent the intervening year in further developing and re-\nvising that draft. After several hearings and public awareness meetings and subsequent revision to the\ndraft program, the final Oregon Coastal Management Program was adopted by the Land Conservation and\nDevelopment Commission in January, 1977. The OCZM has determined that approval of a State's coastal\nmanagement program, with resultant impacts on potential funding, consistency of Federal actions\nand permits, and ultimately land use in toto, has the potential for causing a significant impact\non the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement (EIS) should be prepared pur-\nsuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. This EIS is intended to present for review by\ninterested parties the State of Oregon's Coastal Management Program and its application for approval\nunder Section 306 of the CZMA. Because of the nature of the Oregon program submission, which consists\nlargely of guidelines, regulations, and coordinative mechanisms for implementation, as well as the\nnature of the Federal program approval itself, which focuses more upon the procedure which the State\nhas used to develop its program (ensuring for example that a variety of factors have been adequately\nconsidered and that the decisions are based on sound information) rather than its substance, this\nEIS is necessarily different from and more general than the more usual project-oriented EIS. This\n1","EIS is based upon an Environmental Impact Assessment prepared by the State of Oregon which accompanied\nthe submission of its draft and comments received from public hearings.\nII. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION\nA. The Federal Costal Zone Management Program\nThe enactment of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (CZMA) culminated a lengthy\nhistory of Federal interest in and concern for the coastal zone and its resources. Significant national,\ninterest can be traced from the Committee on Oceanography of the National Academy of Sciences' (NASCO)\n12-volume report \"Oceanography 1960-1970,\" (1959) to the Report of Commission on Marine Sceince,\nEngineering, and Resources (1969), which proposed that a Coastal Management Act be enacted that would\n\"provide policy objectives for the coastal zone and authorize Federal grants-in-aid to facilitate the\nestablishment of State Coastal Zone Authorities empowered to manage the coastal waters and adjacent\nland.\" The National Estuarine Pollution Study (1970), authorized by the Clean Water Restoration Act of\n1966, and the National Estuary Study (1970), authorized by the Estuarine Areas Study Act of 1968, fur-\nther documented the importance of and the conflicting demands upon our Nation's coasts. Together these\nreports stressed the need to protect and wisely use these important national resources, and concurred\nthat a specific program designed to promote the thoughtful protection and management of our coastal zone\nwas necessary.\nThis concern culminated in the passage of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act in 1972, and later\nits amendments. The CZMA opens by stating \"there is a national interest in the effective management,\nbeneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone\" (Section 301(a)). The statement of\nCongressional findings describes how competition for the utilization of coastal resources, brought on by\nthe increased demands of population growth and economic expansion, has led to the degradation of the\ncoastal environment, citing the \"loss of living marine resources, wildlife, nutrient-rich areas, perma-\nnent and adverse changes to ecological systems, decreasing open space for public use, and shoreline\nerosion.\" The CZMA states the \"key to more effective protection and use of the land and water resources\nof the coastal zone is to encourage the states to exercise their full authority over the lands and\nfor\ndeveloping land and water use programs\nin\nwaters in the coastal zone by assisting the states\ndealing with [coastal land and water use decisions of more than local significance\" (Section 302(h)).\nWhile local governments and Federal agencies are required to cooperate, coordinate, and participate in\nthe development of the management programs, the State level of government is clearly given the central\nrole and responsibility for this process. The CZMA provides a number of incentives and means of\nachieving these objectives and policies. Under Section 305 it enables the 30 coastal States (Great Lakes\nStates are included) and four coastal territories to receive grants from the National Oceanic and\nAtmospheric Administration to cover up to 80 percent of the cost of developing coastal management programs.\nBroad guidelines and minimum requirements in the CZMA provide the necessary direction for developing\nthese programs. For example, during the program development, each State must address specific issues\nsuch as the boundaries of its coastal zone; geographic areas of particular concern; permissible and\npriority land and water uses, including specifically those uses that are undesirable or of lowest\npriority; and areas for preservation or restoration. During the planning process, the State is directed\nto consult with local, regional, and relevant Federal agencies and governments, and general public in-\nterests. These annual grants can be renewed. so Federal support can be provided to States for up\nto four years for this program development phase.\nUpon completion and adoption of the management program by the State, and after approval by the Secre-\ntary of Commerce, States and territories are eligible under Section 306 to receive administrative grants\n(presumably in greater amounts than for program development) to cover up to 80 percent of the costs of im-\nplementing these programs. The criteria for approval of State coastal management programs and guide-\nlines for applying will be reviewed annually by the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) and, as\nlong as they are administered consistent with the approved management program, the States will remain\neligible for annual administrative grants.\nThe Department of Commerce involves several separate components in its review of proposed State pro-\ngrams for 306 approval. This includes a \"threshold\" determination of acceptability by OCZM indicating\nthe program appears to include the required elements. Following the Department review, OCZM prepares\nan environmental impact statement (EIS), based in part on information provided by the State. Con-\ncomitantly with the circulation of the EIS, the Department circulates the State program to affected\nFederal agencies for their review and comment. During these reviews, OCZM begins its detailed re-\nview of the program.\nBased on these reviews and the comments received, Oregon has revised the Program. The Oregon Land\nConservation and Development Commission (LCDC) has adopted the program after notice and a public hear-\ning, and the Governor has submitted the Program for final review by OCZM. These revisions to the pro-\ngram did not significantly alter the substance or intent of LCDC for carrying out the policies of the\nLegislature enacted in Senate Bill 100.\n2","The final management program, involving the final Goals and Guidelines for coastal resources,\nspecifies in greater detail the standards for implementing the program. These revisions are responsive to\nthe comments received during the many hearings on drafts of Goals and Guidelines and on the draft EIS. If the\nrevisions were to have resulted in major substantive changes, OCZM would have issued an amended draft\nEIS and provided additional review to Federal, State, and local agencies and the public.\nUpon receipt of the final Oregon Coastal Management Program OCZM reviewed the document based on\nthe changes and the comments received. This involved a second \"threshold\" determination of approva-\nbility, subject to final review and comment. The final Program and final EIS has been circulated as a\nresult of this positive \"threshold\" determination, prior to final Federal approval.\nEvaluation of the statutory requirements established in the CZMA and guidelines will concentrate pri-\nmarily upon the adequacy of State processes in dealing with key coastal problems and issues. It will\nnot, in general, deal with the wisdom of specific land and water use decisions, but rather with a\ndetermination that in addressing those problems and issues the State is aware of the full range, of\npresent and potential needs and uses of the coastal zone, and has developed procedures, based upon\nscientific knowledge, public participation and unified governmental policies, for making reasoned\nchoices and decisions.\nManagement programs will be evaluated in light of the Congressional findings and policies as con-\ntained in Section 302 and 303 of the CZMA. These sections make it clear that Congress in enacting the\nlegislation was concerned about the environmental degradation, damage to natural and scenic areas, loss\nof living marine resources and wildlife, decreasing open space for public use and shoreline erosion\nbeing brought about by population growth and economic development. The CZMA thus has a strong environ-\nmental thrust, stressing the \"urgent need to protect and to give high priority to natural systems\nin the coastal zone.\" A close working relationship between the agency responsible for environmental\nprotection is vital in carrying out this legislative intent. States are encouraged by the CZMA to take\ninto account ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values as well as the need for economic\ndevelopment in preparing and implementing management programs through which the States, with the parti-\ncipation of all affected interests and levels of government, exercise their full authority over coastal\nlands and waters.\nB. The Oregon Coastal Management Program\nOregon's Coastal Management Program is part of a broader land and water use management effort in\nOregon. It is based on the 1973 Oregon Land Use Act (ORS 197), commonly referred to as SB 100\n(Appendix 2). The Program also relies on the authorities of other special State statutes and on the\nachievements of the former Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission (OCCDC) to supple-\nment the authorities and responsibilities established in SB 100. Senate Bill 100 created the\nLand Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) and its administrative arm, the Department of Land\nConservation and Development (DLCD), which implements the Commission's policies. The Act authorized\nLCDC to develop and adopt Goals and Guidelines which set forth State policy for land and water resource\nmanagement, local comprehensive plans, and related actions of all levels of government. The DLCD is\nthe designated State agency for administration of the Oregon Coastal Management Program.\nOregon has traditionally shown a high degree of concern for protecting the quality of life in the State\nand for insuring the wise management of the State's extensive natural resources and beauty. A variety\nof different legislative acts during recent years have demonstrated the State's concern over proper\nmanagement of the land and the resources within its boundaries. These include the:\nOregon \"Beach Bill\" (ORS 390.600),\nDredge and Fill Law (ORS 541.600),\nMandatory Zoning Requirements (ORS 215),\nScenic Waterways (ORS 390.800),\nNatural Area Preserves (ORS 273.562), and\nForest Practices Act (ORS 527.600).\nIn 1971, the Oregon Legislature created the Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission\n(OCCDC) (ORS 191) which was charged with preparing a management program for coastal resource con-\nservation and development. From 1971 to 1975, when it ceased to exist, OCCDC worked to: 1) develop\ncoastal land and water resource policies; 2) inventory and evaluate coastal resoruces, hazards, and\nneeds; and 3) develop methods of implementing a comprehensive coastal management program. In April,\n1975, OCCDC had completed its charge, and the responsibility for developing and implementing the\ncoastal management program was assumed by LCDC as part of its statewide land use planning efforts.\n(1) Elements of the Program\nSenate Bill 100 requires LCDC to develop statewide land and water planning Goals and Guidelines: these\nestablish State policy for resource management and form the basis for Oregon's Coastal Management Pro-\ngram. The Act requires each city and county develop a coordinated comprehensive plan, zoning, and\nsubdivision ordinances which are in conformance with the adopted Goals and Guidelines.\n3","State agency and special district plans and actions must also conform with the Goals and local com-\nprehensive plans.\nOther functions of LCDC as set forth under SB 100 are to:\nreview plans for conformance with statewide Goals;\nhear and resolve appeals regarding possible conflicts of\nplans or actions with statewide Goals;\nissue permits for activities of statewide signigicance;\nrecommend to the legislature areas to be designated as areas\nof critical concern and plans for the management of these areas:\ncoordinate planning efforts of State agencies to assure conformance\nwith statewide Goals and local comprehensive plans; and,\ninsure citizen involvement in all phases of the process.\nThe Oregon Coastal Management Program is not a \"plan\" which designates geographically specific land use\npatterns. Rather, it is a program which requires certain elements and establishes specific policies\nand processes for land and water use decisions in the coastal zone. These policies are expressed in\nthe Goals and Guidelines, which require that plans and programs of local government and State agencies\naddress specific land and water resources: they further designate State standards for adequate resource\nmanagement. Finally, the Goals also designate information and data requirements and procedures\nnecessary.\nAs indicated above, the Goals and Guidelines set the basis for Oregon's Coastal Management Program.\nThe 1973 Act directed LCDC to adopt planning Goals and Guidelines. These planning Goals are\nregulations, intended to carry the full force of authority of the State to achieve the purposes of the\nAct. Guidelines are suggested directions that would aid in achieving the mandated Goals. They are in-\ntended to be instructive, directional, and positive; but they do not limit governments to a single\ncourse of action when some other course would achieve the same result. The Goals and Guidelines are to\nbe used by State and Federal agencies, cities, counties, and special districts in preparing, adopting,\nrevising, and implementing comprehensive plans.\nIn December 1974, LCDC adopted 14 planning Goals and supporting Guidelines which apply to the entire\nState. The first two Goals speak to citizen involvement and the process of developing coordinated com-\nprehensive land use plans. The remaining Goals address specific resource elements or uses: agri-\ncultural lands; forest lands: open spaces, scenic and historic areas, and natural resources; air, water,\nand land resources quality; areas subject to natural disasters and hazards: recreational needs; econo-\nmy of the State; housing; public facilities and services; transportation; energy conservation: and\nurbanization (Appendix 3). These Goals apply to all areas of the State, including the coast.\nIn addition to these Goals, the Commission, recently developed specific Goals for coastal resources.\nThese Goals supplement the initial Goals by addressing, with greater specificity, the particular needs\nand problems of Oregon's coast. The coastal Goals and Guidelines, which are based on the previous work\nof the Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission (OCCDC), address estuarine resources;\nbeaches and dunes; coastal shorelands; and ocean resources (Appendix 3). These new Goals were adopted\non December 18, 1976, after almost 2 years of public review and revision.\nIn addition to the policies established in the Goals, LCDC will utilize its authority to coordinate\nlocal government and State agency plans and activities to achieve coordinated, comprehensive manage-\nment of coastal resources. Several State agencies have resource management authorities which will be\ncentral to the administration of the coastal management program. Some of the most important among these\ninclude:\nDivision of State Lands: Has ownership and management responsibilities for\nsubmerged and submersible lands. Reviews permit applications and issues\npermits for fill and removal of 50 cubic yards or more of material in water-\nways up to the line of non-aquatic vegetation. The Division administers the\nSouth Slough National Estuarine Sanctuary.\nDepartment of Transportation, Highway Division: Manages the ocean shores and\nbeaches for public use and recreational access. Issues permits for improve-\nment on the ocean shore and/or for the removal of driftwood material. Addi-\ntionally, manages the vast network of state parks, waysides, access points,\nbotanical gardens, that provide areas for recreation, research, preservation\nof historic sites, and unique natural areas. The Scenic Waterways Act also\nis generally administered by the State Highway Division, although other\nagencies have complementary roles. In the coastal zone, this Act protects\nscenic and environmental aspects of portions of the Rogue River and a small\nportion of the Illinois River.\nWater Resources Department: Promulgates policies and programs for the use\n4","and conservation of surface and ground water resources. Issues permits for\nappropriation of water and for dams.\nDepartment of Forestry: Administers the Forest Practices Act, which esta-\nblishes policies and standards for forest management and harvest practices\non forest lands in the State. Manages State owned forest lands.\nDepartment of Environmental Quality: Administers air, water, land and noise\npollution control programs, regulates sewage treatment and disposal systems\nand solid waste disposal sites, and manages solid waste control programs,\nincluding control of environmentally hazardous wastes. Administers non-point\npollution control programs under Section 208 of Federal Water Pollution Con-\ntrol Act of 1972.\nDepartment of Energy, Energy Facility Siting Council: Provides general guid-\nance on suitability and unsuitability of locations for thermal and nuclear\npower plants in Oregon, establishes general areas of exclusion, and issues\nsite certificates.\nDepartment of Human Resources, Health Division: Regulates domestic water\nsupply sources and systems.\nDepartment of Geology and Mineral Industries: Regulates oil, gas, and\ngeothermal activities, including issuing drilling permits. Also regu-\nlates surface mining activities.\nDepartment of Fish and Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife Commission: Regu-\nlates harvest of fish, shellfish, wildlife, and marine invertebrates\nin coastal zone. The agency conducts research, manages refuges,\npropagates fish and reviews land and water use activities to assure\nprotection of fish and wildlife habitat.\nPublic Utility Commission: Reviews plans for transportation of haz-\nardous wastes. Issues certificates for all overhead transmission\nlines.\nmore complete description of the complementary State programs and acts, as well as the pertinent\nA\nparts of the actual State statutes, are provided in the Oregon Coastal Management Program and are\nlisted as a part of the Program in Table I.\n(2) Objectives of the Program\nThe objectives of the Program, which were first defined by OCCDC, can be summarized as to:\n1. Create and maintain a balance between conservation and\ndevelopment, and between conflicting public and pri-\nvate interests, that will assure the greatest benefits\nto this and succeeding generations of Oregonians;\nGuide public and private uses of natural resources of\n2.\nthe coastal zone to avoid irreversible damage;\nProtect the unique character of life on the coast: and\n3.\n4. Manage the natural resources and uses of the coast on\nan evolving and flexible basis so that as experience\nwith and knowledge of the coastal zone increases, the\nprogram can be revised accordingly.\nSeveral actions involving State and local governments and policies\nwere identified as prerequisites to achieving the Program objective.\nThese requirements include:\n1. Establish a working partnership between local, state and\nfederal governments which ensures coordination of coastal\nmanagement planning and administration through clearly\nestablished authorities and responsibilities.\n2. Encourage research on coastal resources to provide a\nsound data and information base for planning and\nmanagement decisions.\nStrengthen the planning and decision making responsibi-\n3.\nlities and capabilities of cities and counties by pro-\nviding financial and technical assistance.\n4. Ensure through substantive citizen participation\n5","TABLE I\nCONTROLLING AUTHORITIES\nUses to be Managed\nApplicable Controlling Authorities\nLCDC Goal\nOther State Statutes\n1. Navigation and Transportation\nTransportation\nPorts Division, Department of\nEstuaries\nEconomic Development (ORS\nShorelands\n777.835)\nOcean Resources\nSignificant Activity Permits,\nLCDC (ORS 197.400)\nDivision of State Lands (ORS\n541.605 541.630)\n2. Urban/Industrial\nLand Use Planning\nCity and County Planning and\nIncluding Energy\nEnergy Conservation\nZoning (ORS 215 and ORS 227)\nProduction\nEstuaries\nDepartment of Energy (ORS\nShorelands\n469.300 - 469.570)\nDivision of State Lands\n(ORS 541.605 - 541.665)\nDepartment of Environmental\nQuality (OPS 454.605 - 454.755)\n(ORS 459.410 - 459.510)\n(ORS 468.006 - 468.345,\n468.700 - 468.995)\n3. Agriculture and Forestry\nAgricultural\nExclusive Farm Use Zoning\nLands\n(ORS 215)\nForest Lands\nDepartment of Forestry\nShorelands\n(ORS 527.610 - 527.730 and\nEstuaries\n527.990)\n4. Recreation\nRecreational\nDivision of State Lands\nNeeds, Open Space\n(ORS 273.551 and 273.775 -\nScenic & Historic\n273.780)\nAreas & Natural\nDepartment of Transportation\nResources,\n(OPS 377.505, 377.510, 377.\nEstuaries, Shore-\n530, 390.010, 390.110, 390.\nlands, Beaches &\n605 - 390.760, 390.805 - 390.\nDunes, Ocean\n865)\nResources\n5. Fish and Wildlife\nOpen Spaces\nLCDC, Siginificant Activities\nProduction and Utilization\nScenic & Historic\n(ORS 197.400)\nAreas & Natural\nDepartment of Fish and Wild-\nResources, Fish\nlife (ORS 496.012 - 496.162\nand Wildlife\n(policy and powers) 501.005\nResources,\n-501.045 (Refuges & Closures)\nEstuaries, Shore-\n506 (Food Fish Management)\nlands, Ocean\n509.505 - 509.510 (Shellfish)\nResources\n509.600 - 509.640 (Fishways)\n506.750 - 506.755 (Fisheries)\n(Conservation Zone)\n6. Public Facilities\nAir, Water and\nDepartment of Environmental\nLand Resources\nQuality (ORS 454.605 - 454.\nQuality\n755, 459.410 - 459.510, 468.\n005 - 468.345, 468.700 -\n468.995)\n7. Mineral Extraction\nOpen Spaces\nDepartment of Geology and\nScenic & Historic\nMineral Industries (ORS 516.\nAreas & Natural\n030, 517.750 - 517.790,\nResources\n520.005 - 520.095)\nDivision of State Lands\n(ORS 273.551 - 273.592,\n273.702 - 273.711, 273.\n775 - 273.780, 274.005 -\n274.940)\nDepartment of Environmental\nQuality (ORS 468.780 -\n468.815)\n6","incorporation of the public interest during the development of\ncomprehensive plans.\nEvaluate the performance and progress of local, State and\n5.\nFederal governments in developing and implementing coordi-\nnated comprehensive plans.\nAfter identifying the needs and objectives for its coastal management program, OCCDC conducted a\nseries of inventories to provide a data base for decision making. These inventories covered a variety\nof resources, hazards, and socio/economic factors in the coastal zone, including: beaches and dunes,\ncoastal wetlands, estuarine resources, freshwater resources, fish and wildlife resources, historical\nand archaelogical resources, geologic hazards, visual resources, and development pressures. Each in-\nventory identified the location and extent of the resource: its natural functions and values; the\nmain uses and activities associated with the resource; and, the impacts of these uses and activities on\nthe resource. Also, an economic survey and analysis of the coastal zone was developed to provide addi-\ntional data for evaluation of the economic impact of the policies. After extensive review and revision,\nthe OCCDC policies and recommendations were given to LCDC when OCCD's appointment ended.\nIn March of 1975, LCDC reviewed the OCCDC adopted policies in light of the existing Goals and Guidelines\nfor the State, and developed from them the draft coastal Goals. In addition, major private organiza-\ntions such as environmental groups; public interest groups; industry representatives; forest and fish-\ning, tourism, and real estate representatives have been active throughout the process. Also, there\nhave been public hearings, input from Technical Advisory Committees (TAC's), a Citizen Involvement Ad-\nvisory Committee (CIAC), Local Officials Advisory Committee (LOAC), and both State and Federal agency\nadvisory committees. A summary of public, State, and Federal input is provided in the Program\napplication.\n(3) Boundaries\nOregon's coastal zone extends from the Washington border in the north to California in the south, sea-\nward to the extent of State jurisdiction as recognized in Federal law, and inland to the crest of the\ncoastal mountain range. Three exceptions exist to the eastern boundary. They are:\n1. The Umpaua River Basin, where the coastal zone extends to Scottsburg;\n2. The Rogue Piver Basin, where the coastal zone extends to Agness; and\n3. The Columbia River, where the coastal zone extends to the downstream end\nof Puget Island.\nThe State's coastal zone ranges in width, excluding the territorial sea, from 8 to 45 miles and in-\ncludes about 7,811 square miles of land area (Figure 1). The boundary approximates a natural bio-\nphysical unit, the coastal watershed. The three exceptions to the coastal boundary are all major river\nsystems which penetrate the coastal mountains and originate in the Cascades or interior lands.\nIn accordance with an opinion from the U. S. Attorney General interpreting the CZMA, Oregon has pro-\nvisionally agreed to exclude all Federally owned lands for the purpose of meeting the requirements of\nSection 304(a).\n(4) Permissible Uses\nThe extensive inventories undertaken as part of the OCCDC policy formation process identified the uses\nand activities in the coastal zone which affect coastal waters. To determine if these uses were sub-\nject to the Program, the State determined whether the uses resulted in a direct and significant impact\non an element of the coastal waters, such as the quality, quantity, living resources, and aesthetics,\nor human or natural uses thereof.\nAs a result of the inventories and input from resource specialists, a list of uses having a direct and\nsignificant impact on the coastal waters was developed. These uses consittute the permissible uses for\nOregon's Coastal Management Program, and represent the uses that will be controlled, guided, restricted,\nencouraged, or otherwise managed as appropriate. Table I, as described earlier, identifies the author-\nities the State will use to manage permissable uses, and Table II identifies these permissable uses.\n(5) Geographic Areas Of Particular Concern\nGeographic areas of particular State concern are addressed through a combination of existing and newly\nadopted State Goals, and existing special purpose State statutes. During the initial stages of the\nOCCDC planning effort, the public, government officials, and resource specialists identified several\ngeographic areas of special concern.\nThe threats to and need for special State management regulations for these areas were discussed ex-\ntensively by concerned public, planners, representatives of local, State, and Federal agencies and\ngovernments, and natural resource specialists at a variety of OCCDC and LCDC meetings and workshops.\nThese meetings refined the problems pertaining to the coastal zone.\n7","TABLE II\nIDENTIFICATION OF USES TO BE MANAGED*\nImpacts on\nUse\nWater Characteristics\n1.\nNavigation and\nTransportation\nX\nX\nX\nResidential/Urban/\n2.\nIndustrial, Including\nEnergy Production\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\n3.\nAgriculture and\nForestry\nX\nX\nX\nX\n4.\nRecreation\nX\nX\nX\nFish and Wildlife\n5.\nProduction and\nUtilization\nX\nX\nX\nPublic Facilities\n6.\nX\nX\nX\nX\nMining and Mineral\n7.\nX\nX\nX\n8. Restoration\nX\nX\nX\n\"X\" Denotes a direct and significant impact on the water characteristics.\nFor the purposes of Oregon's Coastal Management Program, uses to\n*\nbe managed are equivalent to \"permissable uses\" as noted in the\nCZMA, Section 305(b) (2) .\n8","The series of detailed resource and use inventories developed by OCCDC addressed these specific needs\nand problems. Policy statements, setting standards for use of these areas, were established.\nAs a result of this process, LCDC developed Goals addressing beaches and dunes, estuaries and associated\nwetlands, and agricultural lands, which are more specific and detailed than for the more general Goal\nsubjects. It is primarily through these specialized Goals that Oregon has expressed the increased State\nmanagement interests in these geographic areas of particular concern. These Goals provide for both the\nprotection and the development of these resources. Thus, the estuarine resources Goal, for example,\naddresses the need to preserve certain estuarine areas, while utilizing other areas for development and\nindustrial processes.\nIn addition to these special Goals, other areas of particular concern have been defined by the Legis-\nlature, and are covered by special-purpose State statutes, which will be coordinated and enforced as\na part of the Oregon Coastal Management Program. These areas include:\nOcean shores, as identified in the Oregon Ocean Shores Act (ORS 390.600),\nproviding for public access to and recreational use of beaches;\nKelp beds, as protected by the Oregon Kelp Fields (ORS 274.885 et seq.),\nregulating harvest of kelp beds; and\nEnergy facility sites, as identified and governed by the Department of\nEnergy and the Energy Facility Siting Council (ORS 469), which has ex-\namined and set suitability standards and classifications for power plant\nsiting.\nThe locations of four types of geographic areas of particular concern (beaches and dunes, estuaries,\ncoastal agricultural lands, and kelp beds) are shown in Figure 2.\nThe Oregon coastal headlands, a unique geologic and aesthetic resource, were identified as another area\nof potential particular concern. Nearly all headlands already are in State or Federal ownership. The\ncoastal shorelands Goal requires that headlands, which were identified and mapped in the OCCDC Visual\nResource Analysis in the Oregon Coastal Zone, be protected.\nThis general process for the identification, designation, and management of areas of particular concern\nis an ongoing one, responsive to the public and private resource needs of the State. A variety of tools\nis available: additional statewide Goals and Guidelines; special State statutes; critical area desig-\nnation; and public acquisition.\nAreas for Preservation or Restoration\nAreas for preservation or restoration have been distinguished as one special category of areas of parti-\ncular concern. Nominations for these areas will occur through the comprehensive plan development pro-\ncess. In addition, the inventories and data developed by OCCDC suggest certain areas which should be\npreserved or restored. An area would be considered for preservation if the benefits it offers are of\nexceptional environmental, aesthetic, economic, or cultural values, and if these benefits or values\nare actually or potentially threatened by other uses or activities. Under these criteria, areas might\nbe preserved, for example, to provide or maintain recreation and aesthetic benefits; ecological values\nof fish and wildlife refuges; or educational or research natural areas.\nSeveral of the Goals (especially No. 3, Agricultural Lands and No. 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic\nAreas, and Natural Resources) require that certain kinds of areas be considered for preservation or\nprotection. These areas will be identified in the inventories required during plan development. The\nEstuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, and Ocean Resources Goals also designate specific areas or re-\nsources that must be preserved. For example, within the general requirement of the Estuarine Resources\nGoal (to protect the estuarine ecosystem, including natural biological productivity, habitat, diversity,\nunique features, and water quality), specific requirements include the protection of major tracts of\nsalt marsh, tideflats and seagrass and algae beds.\nThe actual means of preservation will depend on a site by site analysis of resources, potential uses,\nthreats, ownership, and other factors. Several basic tools are available for the preservation of special\nareas. If the land is already in public ownership the land can be designated for preservation or nat-\nural area purposes. State-owned lands can be placed in the Oregon Natural Area Program. Federally\nowned lands can be placed in the Federal Ecological Reserves Program.\nOther methods of preservation include acquisition or the development of special agreements. Acquisition\nis a tool that can be used by both State and Federal agencies and local governments. Several areas\nhave been acquired for specific uses. These include coastal State parks for recreational uses and\nscenic values, and the recently designated South Slough National Estuarine Sanctuary for scientific and\neducational uses. A level of preservation also may be achieved by designation of an area of critical State\nconcern or by the use of favorable property tax incentives or special assessment policies.\nFrequently, preservation of a particular parcel can be assured without acquisition. Various tools are\n9","available to State agencies, and especially to local governments, for this purpose. These include:\ndedication of easements or areas for preservation during develop-\nment of subdivisions;\ntransferable \"development rights;\"\nconservation easements;\nprovision of area for mitigation for intertidal dredge\nand fill projects; and\ncritical areas designation under ORS 197.405(2).\nIdentification of areas for restoration will depend heavily upon comment, advice, and analysis by the\ntechnical resource specialists associated with the coastal zone. Studies and evaluations by other\nState agencies will be a major source for indicating areas for restoration.\nSome studies already have highlighted areas needing restoration. These include efforts by the Oregon\nDepartment of Environmental Quality to develop water quality management plans for the coastal basins of\nOregon which identify areas where water quality needs to be restored to meet the conditions of the\nFederal Water Pollution Control Act. The Oregon Soil and Water Conservation Commission has evaluated\nstreambank erosion in Oregon, and has recommended areas for soil stabilization. Other areas identified\nfor possible restoration include the Tillamook Bay/Basin area and salmon spawning sites throughout the\ncoast. These and other areas are identified and further elaborated in the Pacific Northwest River\nBasins Commission draft \"Oregon Coast Level B Study of the Water and Related Land Resources\" (1976).\nAreas such as these will continue to be identified by agency studies and from the inventories developed\nby local governments as they adopt their coordinated comprehensive plans. In many cases, such as the\nTillamook restoration plan, the authorities, responsibilities and funding of a variety of local, State,\nFederal, and private agencies may be required to achieve restoration. The Oregon Coastal Management\nProgram, in addition to providing an impetus for identifying areas for restoration, can provide this\ncoordination.\n(6) Priorities of Use\nWhile each of the Goals is considered of equal importance, the Goals establish priorities for use with-\nin particular resource categories. The contents of the Goals and Guidelines address both the permissi-\nble uses in the coastal zone and the major resources of regional, State, and national interest. Again,\nState special purpose legislation serves to complement the Goals in establishing priorities of use.\nGeneral priorities for the use of estuarine resources, coastal shorelands, and ocean resources are\ndesignated in each of the respective Goals. These general priorities identify protection of coastal\nresources and water-dependent uses as highest priority; water-related uses of lower priority; and non-\nrelated, non-dependent uses as lowest priority (Table III).\nWithin estuaries and coastal shorelands, the Goals require that certain areas be managed for preserva-\ntion or protection purposes, others for conservation, and others for development consistent with the\nresource capabilities and overall Goal priorities. Specific uses are identified as high priority or\nlow priority in certain areas. The Beaches and Dunes Goals also establishes priorities of use for cer-\ntain kinds of sand formations. Similarly, the Ocean Resources Goal places a high priority on long-term\nvalues from renewable resources. These specific priorities are listed in the Goals on Estuarine Re-\nsources (Comprehensive Plan Requirements, Management Units) Coastal Shorelands (Comprehensive Plan\nRequirements, Coastal Shoreland Uses); Beaches and Dunes (Implementation Requirements) and Ocean Re-\nsources (Implementation Requirements) (Appendix 3).\nState law and the Agricultural Lands Goal also establish clear priorities in agriculture lands. These\nlaws and the Goal express concern about the continued loss of agricultural lands and move to protect\nthem for agricultural purposes through tax credits and planning regulations. For this reason, agri-\ncultural lands are considered as geographic areas of particular concern.\nA local government can only alter these priorities and plan for uses of lower priority in particular\nareas by application of the exception clause in the Land Use Planning Goal (Goal No. 2) The local govern-\nment must document on an individual basis the social, environmental, and economic consequences of its\nproposed action when requesting an exception. Such decisions will be reviewed by the public, interest State and has\nFederal agencies, and LCDC. In establishing these priorities, consideration of the national\nbeen assured by open and repeated exchange with Federal agencies with an interest in the coastal zone.\nThis exchange began in the early stages of program development by OCCDC, and continued through the time\nof program submission to OCZM. Further, continued participation by these Federal agencies will be\nnecessary for the adequate development and administration of specific local coordinated comprehensive\nplans. Table indicates how Oregon's program addresses the national interest.\n(7) Organizational Structure\nAs indicted earlier, LCDC has the ultimate responsibility for the administration and implementation of\n10","growth boundary to uses not\nConditional non-farm uses\nConversion of agricultural\nallowed in the EFU zone.\nUrban uses within urban\nlands beyond the urban\nidentified in ORS 215.\ngrowth boundaries.\nAgricultural Uses.\nAgricultural Lands\nProhibited:\n1.\n2.\n3.\nProtection and use of renewable\nDevelopment and use of non-\nresources and activities.\nrenewable resources.\nOcean Resources\n(From highest to lowest)\nPRIORITIES OF USES\nTABLE III\n1.\n2.\nin urban areas compatible with\nuses that cause a permanent or\nUses that maintain the integri-\nonly upon a demonstration of\nfuture use and do not prema-\nDevelopment, including non-\nuses that retain flexibility of\nturely or inalterably commit\nshorelands to more intensive\ndependent, non-related uses,\nNon-dependent, non-related\nNon-dependent, non-related\nlong-term change in the fea-\nexisting or committed uses.\ntures of coastal shorelands,\nty of estuaries and coastal\nWater-dependent uses.\nWater-related uses.\nCoastal Shorelands\npublic need.\nwaters.\nuses.\n1.\n2.\n3.\n4.\n5.\n6.\nUses that maintain the integri-\nty of the Estuarine ecosystem.\nestuarine resources and values.\nWater-related uses that do not\nreduce or degrade the natural\nuses that do not alter, reduce\nNon-dependent non-related\nor degrade the estuarine re-\nNon water-dependent uses\nWater- dependent uses.\n(including tidal marshes)\nsources and values.\nthat require fill.\nEstuarine Areas\nProhibited:\n11\n1.\n2.\n3.\n4.","toric and Natural Resources; Estuaries; Coastal\nRecreational Needs; Open Spaces Scenic His-\nAgricultural Lands; Forest Lands, Open Space\nNatural Hazards; Coastal Shorelands: Beaches\nTransportation, Estuaries; Ocean Resources\nOpen Space, Scenic, Historical and Natural\nOpen Space, Scenic, Historical and Natural\nTransportation, Energy Conservation, and\nResources; Estuaries; Coastal Shorelands\nScenic and Natural Resources; Estuaries;\nRelies on input from Defense Agencies\nShorclands; Beaches and Dunes\nin these Goals for Comprehen\nResources; Ocean Resources\nNational Interest Considered\nplan review and approval.\nCoastal Shorelands\nOcean Resources.\nsive Planning\nand Dunes\nCONSIDERATION OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST IN OREGON'S COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM\nNational Park Service, Forest Service, Bureau of\nCorps of Engineers, Federal Insurance Adminis-\nFederal Energy Administration, Federal Power\nOutdoor Recreation, Fish and Wildlife Service.\nCommission, Department of Interior, Nuclear\ntration, Department of Transportation, Corps\nDepartment of Agriculture, Fish and Wildlife\nDepartment of Transportation, Corps of En-\nRegulatory Commission, Maritime Adminis-\nof Engineers, Coast Guard, Energy Research\ngineers, Maritime Administration, Interstate\nService, Fish and Wildlife Service, National\nService, National Marine Fisheries Service.\ntration, NOAA, Soil Conservation Service,\nRegister of Historic Places, National Park\nBureau of Mines, Geological Survey.\nand Development Administration.\nDepartment of Defense, NASA.\nMarine Fisheries Service, HUD.\nModified From List Provided\nCognizant Federal Agencies\nby OCZM (15 CFR 923.15)\nCommerce Commission.\nASCS, HUD.\nTABLE IV\nNational seashores, parks, forests; large and out-\nHistoric sites, natural areas; areas of unique cul-\nOil and gas wells; storage and distribution facili-\nMineral extraction facilities needed to directly\nstanding beaches and recreational waterfronts;\nFlood and storm protection facilities; disaster\nMilitary installations defense manufacturing\nhydroelectric power plants; deepwater ports.\nPrime agricultural land and facilities; forests;\nInterstate highways, airports, aids to naviga-\nfacilities; aerospace launching and tracking\ntural significance; wildlife refuges; areas of\nwiidlife reserves; wilderness and recreation\nties; refineries; nuclear, conventional, and\ntion; ports and harbors, railroads.\nspecies and habitat preservation.\nmariculture facilities; fisheries.\nAssociated Facilities\nwarning facilities.\nsupport activity.\nfacilities.\nareas.\nHistoric, cultural aesthetic and conser-\nEnergy production and transmission.\nRecreation (of an inter-state nature).\nPreservation of life and property.\nNational defense and aerospace.\nProduction of food and fiber.\nInterstate Transportation.\nMineral resources.\nvation values.\nSiting Facilities for:\nNational Interest in\n7.\n8.\n4.\n5.\n6.\n1.\n2.\n3.","the Oregon Coastal Management Program. This will be facilitated through the initial and newly adopted\nstatewide Goals and Guidelines, the local comprehensive plans which incorporate the Goals in their\nsubstance and the responsibility for providing effective coordination with and participation of all\naffected and interested parties. The existing body of State statutes supplement and strengthen this\norganizational base and the administration of the program. Local, State, and Federal agencies and the\ngeneral public will be asked to review and comment on the development, adoption, and administration of\nthe local comprehensive plans.\nThe administration of the Oregon Coastal Management Program will depend upon the coordinated responsi-\nbilities of all interested parties. These include:\nResponsibilities of the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission:\nA) Develop Goals and Guidelines.\nB) Provide financial and technical assistance to local governments\nfor development and enforcement of local plans.\nC) Review and approve local comprehensive plans.\nD) Review permits, licenses, grants, and activities for consistency\nwith the Goals and the Oregon Coastal Management Program.\nE) Assist local, State, and Federal agencies in cooperation and\ncoordination efforts.\nF) Recommend policies for and manage activities of statewide\nsignificance and areas of critical concern.\nResponsibilities of Local Government:\nA) Develop coordinated, comprehensive plans and implementing\nordinances.\nB) Provide opportunities for substantive input by the public and\nState and Federal agencies.\nC) Enforce local ordinances to achieve compliance with approved\nplans and Goals.\nD) Respond to unanticipated needs and requests for amendments to\ncomprehensive plans.\nE) Review State and Federal agency programs and activities for\nconsistency with State Goals and local comprehensive plans.\nF) County government bodies: coordinate and provide initial re-\nview of the plans and policies of all local governments and\nspecial districts in their county boundaries.\nG) County governments: serve as focus for coordination and input\nfrom State and Federal agencies.\nResponsibilities of State and Federal Agencies:\nA) Coordinate plans and policies with local governments and LCDC.\nB) Assist with appropriate technical information and expertise.\nC) Review local plans and individual activities for compliance\nwith Goals and the Oregon Coastal Management Program.\nD) Implement permit, license, and development activities and\nprojects and assistance in a fashion consistent with the Goals and Guidelines\nand the approved local comprehensive plans.\n(8) Coordination and Public Participation\nOregon's Coastal Management Program has been founded on a solid base of public participation and\ncoordination with other agencies. Major opportunities for public involvement in developing the initial\nGoals for the entire State included two series of 28 workshops; 17 public hearings; 17 Technical Ad-\nvisory Committees (TACs) a Citizens Involvement Advisory Committee (CIAC) ; Local Officials Advisory\nCommittee (LOAC); State Agency Advisory Committee: and Federal Agency Advisory Committee. Similar pub-\nlic review and participation was provided during the development and adoption of the Goals on coastal\nresources. These included 34 public hearings, 3 public work sessions, and a 2 day public mark-up\nsession prior to adoption. In addition, over 80 small scale meetings were held to discuss with any\ninterested parties the proposed Goals on coastal resources, and the Oregon Coastal Management Program.\nAs with the initial Goals, five broadly based Technical Advisory Committees participated in the review\nand development of the Goals on coastal resources.\nOpportunities for public involvement during the OCCDC policy development process included 21 public\nworkshops; development and review of resource inventories; and extensive public and agency review of\nthe draft and revised policies.\nIn addition to this participation in development of Goals, the public was also involved in development\n13","of the Oregon Coastal Management PRogram through continuing review of successive drafts by the State\nand Federal Agency Task Force, OCCDA, CIAC, and LOAC; individual cities; counties and areawide agencies;\nprivate organizations; and the general public in the coastal zone; as well as through public hearings.\nIn SB 100, the Oregon Legislature set forth specific requirements for both LCDC and local governments\nto assure widespread citizen involvement in all phases of the planning process. It provided that LCDC\nestablish a Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee (CIAC). Under direction of the Commission, CIAC\ndeveloped a general Goal and Guideline on development and use of local citizen involvement programs,\nwhich provides that each city adopt a public involvement program which meets certain basic requirements.\nOregon's draft program included Goals and Guidelines for coastal resources, which were a major part of\nthe Program but had not been adopted in final form. Broad public and agency review provided the oppor-\ntunity for comment on the \"proposed\" Federal action, and materially affected the final form of the\nOregon Coastal Management Program prior to approval and submission by LCDC. Although the final Goals\nand Guidelines are more specific, providing explicit standards for land and water use decisions, their\nsubstance and intent did not change significantly, except in direct response to comments received.\nFor these reasons, OCZM has published à final EIS on the final Goals and revised Oregon's Coastal\nManagement Program rather than issue a revised draft EIS.\n(9) National Interest Considerations:\nThe Goals and Guidelines play a central role in Oregon's Coastal Management Program. These Goals pro-\nvide the principal mechanism for recognizing the national interest (See Table IV). They exhibit a\ncomplementary concern for resources, areas, and functions expressed in the Constitution (such as navi-\ngation) or by Congress (such as water quality control, fish and wildlife protection, and forest manage-\nent). The Goals and Guidelines reflect a synthesis of local, State, and national concern for these\nresources and activities. Federal agencies have been involved in the entire Goal development process\nIn addition to the Goals and Guidelines, special purpose legislation exists for considering the siting\nof energy facilities. Under this legislation (ORS 469.470) the Energy Facility Siting Council has des-\nignated appropriate areas within Oregon's coastal zone as potentially suitable, less suitable, and\nunsuitable for siting fossil, nuclear fueled power plants, and geothermal facilities.\nMost of Oregon's coast has been classified as generally suitable for these facilities, with the excep-\ntion of certain areas along the lower Columbia River, northern Clatsop County, and the dunes between\nFlorence and Coos Bay, where environmental factors limit the suitability for such sites.\nThe Governor has recently formed a task force to address OCS oil and gas development concerns. Water\ndependent uses, including those needed for oil, gas, and other mineral resource development, are add-\nressed by the estuaries and ocean resources goals. Local plans cannot preclude water dependent uses,\nincluding those related to energy development, by unreasonably pre-empting suitable uses with non-\nwater-dependent uses.\nThe Program gives high priority to national recreational needs and historic resources, the preservation\nof agricultural and forest lands and fisheries resources, and the protection of life and property from\nflood and storm damage. Specific State Goals and Guidelines require these national interest concerns\nto be considered in the development of local comprehensive plans and in State agency implementing actions.\nNational defense facilities are given high priority in the Program. Existing facilities on Federal\nlands have been excluded from the coastal zone. The Department of Defense agencies regularly reviewed\nportions of the Program during its development, and will be involved in the review of local comprehen-\nsive plans.\nNational transportation interests have been considered and can be accomodated in the Program. There are\nno interstate highways or nationally significant airports in the Oregon coastal zone, but a process\nexists to assure that these concerns will be considered should such facilities be required in the future.\nPorts are considered extremely important to Oregon's coast. The estuarine classification and priority\nuses recognize the need for ports. The ocean resource Goal specifically requires that navigation needs\nfor the coast be determined and navigation lanes and facilities be maintained from interference by\nother uses.\n14","(10) Uses of Regional Benefit\nThe policies and standards the Goals Establish require that regional and statewide interests be addressed\nduring the development and implementation of local coordinated comprehensive plans. The review of plans\nby all interests, and their approval by LCDC, as well as the opportunity for concerned agencies and\ngovernment bodies to petition for the review of either plans or individual siting actions (both affirma-\ntive and negative), will ensure that regional interests will continue to be addressed as the Program is\nimplemented. Finally, the requirement that plans be regularly reviewed and revised will provide oppor-\ntunity to identify and accommodate regional needs unforeseen during initial plan development. In addition,\nthe county coordination process (ORS 197,190) also will have a role in assuring that uses of regional\nbenefit are considered.\nSB 100 provides the method for assuring that both uses of regional benefit and national interest\nfacilities will be adequately considered in local comprehensive plans. LCDC cannot approve these\nlocal plans until the needs of all levels of government, semi-public and private agencies, and the\ncitizenry of Oregon have been considered and accommodated as much as possible (ORS 197,015). In the\nevent of conflicts which communities cannot resolve, LCDC has the authority to resolve the conflicts\nprior to approving the plans.\n15","III.\nDESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AFFECTED\nAn extensive amount of information about Oregon's coastal zone has been compiled in the eleven coastal\ninventories prepared by OCCDC. These are briefly described in Appendix 5. The following discussion is\nlargely based on these inventory data.\nA. Climatic and Geologic Characteristics\nAs defined in Oregon's Coastal Management Program, the boundary of the Oregon coastal zone closely\napproximates a natural physiographic unit. The boundary extends from the Columbia River to the\nCalifornia border and from the seaward limit of State jurisdiction inland to the crest of the coastal\nmountain range. All shorelands and drainage basins which have a significant and direct effect on\ncoastal waters are included. With the exception of the Columbia, Umpqua, and Rogue River basins, where\nthe boundary of the coastal zone marks the limit of significant tidal influence, all coastal river\nbasins are contained within the coastal zone. In total, the Oregon coastal zone includes a coast line\n352 miles in length and an area of approximately five million acres (7,800 square miles).\nThroughout the area, a multitude of physical features exists, including dunes, estuarine areas, timber\nand agricultural lands, lakes, and spectacular coastal headlands and meadows. These features may be\nfound the length of the coast to different degrees, but geologic, physiographic, and soil characteristics\nsplit the area into two recognizable regions: The Coast Range Province and the Klamath Mountain Province\n(1:318).\nThe Coast Range Province lies north of the Coquille River, and encompasses approximately two-thirds of\nthe coast's length. Rock formations are of the Tertiary age with scattered igneous intrusions and areas\nof volcanic rock. Past changes in sea level, plus rapid erosion of sedimentary formations, helped\ncreate the gentler slopes and lower elevations (ranging only to 2,500 feet) than those that exist in the\nsouth. The Coast Range Province has broad coastal terraces with timber and agricultural lands. Various\ntypes of dunes occupy most of the immediate shoreline, especially in the vicinity of Coos Bay (the Coos\nBay Dune Sheet) and Astoria (the Clatsop Plains). Occasionally timbered and meadowed headlands are\npresent, fading into more gently rolling uplands towards the east.\nThe Klamath Mountain Province south of the Coquille River is characterized more by pre-Tertiary\nformations, containing a narrower band of terrace, steeper slopes and higher elevations (2,400 feet\npeaks are common with some rising to 7,000 feet). Dunes are still present but are narrower and are\nreplaced by timbered and meadowed headlands towards the California border. Timbered uplands are closer\nto the immediate coast with fewer meadowed areas. Figure 3 compares a typical profile from the two\nprovinces.\nThe physical processes which have helped to shape the coastal zone in the past continue to do so today.\nTides, currents, and climate constantly alter the face of the coast. Prevailing winds change 180\ndegrees during the year, coming from the south and southwest during the winter and gradually reversing\nto the north and northwest during the summer. This shift causes the offshore north flowing Davidson\nCurrent to be overcome by the summer upwelling action, which leaves only the more seaward south flowing\nCalifornia Current. More sand is deposited on the beaches and estuaries during the summer. In the\nwinter, sand is carried away which allows wave erosion to continually modify the coastal scarpe.\nLittoral deposition and erosion are controlled by waves.\nThe coastal climate is set off from the more eastern valleys of the State by the Coast Mountain Range.\nThe coastal climate is mild with mean temperatures for July ranging from 57° to 61° F., and for January\nranging from 41° to 47° F. Extreme variations are rare; only occasionally do winter storms bring\nfreezing temperatures and high winds, while fog up to about the 500 foot elevation mediates the summer\ntemperatures. Of great significance is the annual rainfall, which ranges from 50 to 60 inches along\nthe immediate coastline upwards to 200 inches along the eastern boundary of the zone as storm clouds\nback up along the mountains. This is compared to 35 to 43 inches in the Willamette Valley east of the\nCoast Range Mountains. The run-off from this precipitation swells the streams and rivers feeding into\nthe wetlands, constantly altering the shape and extent of these bodies. Because of the high rainfall,\nthe coastal profile is steeper and has a greater potential for erosion.\nThe ongoing climatic and geologic processes have yielded a highly complex series of aesthetic and\nnatural resources which enhance the coast, including a wide variety of topographic and vegetative\nsystems. Views from some headlands can extend over 30 miles seaward and along the length of the coast.\nIsolated offshore rocks and islands found scattered the length of the coastal zone highlight these\nviews. Different dune formations -- active, controlled, deflation plain, etc. -- run 62 percent of the\nlength of the coast (1:319), among the most spectacular being the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area.\n*References refer to OCCDC specific inventories and pages. These are identified at the end of this Chapter.\n16","(a)\n(b)\nFigure 3\non (a) the Typical view of the forested shorelands of the Coastal\nnorth coast as contrasted below (b) by the rugged and Province more\nopen character of the Klamath Province in the south.\n17","However, the various dune types, beaches, and meadowed and timbered headlands comprise only about 8\npercent of the area of the coastal zone. Estuarine areas -- including the tideflats, marshes, and\nsloughs -- along with different coastal terraces comprise about 20 percent of the area. Pasture lands\nand tree covered dunes comprise 11 percent, while the timbered and meadowed uplands and related rolling\nhills equal approximately 61 percent (3:58-59).\nB. Natural and Biological Systems\n(1)\nOffshore\nThe offshore part of Oregon's defined coastal zone is mostly well within the 100-fathom line. The\nimportance of the coastal zone emanates from the natural and biological systems which inhabit these\nwaters and areas, but which may also be dependent on other habitats -- wetlands, estuaries, or the open\nsea -- for part of their life cycle.\nThe Pelagic or most seaward offshore habitat is home to seals, sea lions, numerous sea birds, and is a\nmigratory channel for the Gray and Sei whales. It serves as a rich feeding ground for salmon and tuna\nand other commercially valuable fish. The 1974 harvest of these species equaled over 95 million pounds,\nworth over 34 million dollars. The pelagic section is the most valuable sub-area of the offshore region,\ncommercially and recreationally, because of the salmon and also because of the presence of herring,\nanchovy, and shad. Many of the species found in these waters migrate along the coast, and are subject\nto impacts extending beyond the coastal zone. Thus, over-fishing by foreign commercial interests or\nneighboring States, as well as offshore pollutants such as oil and sewage from ship traffic, can have\nsevere effects.\nThe Benthic area, or sea floor, ranges from rock to sand to mud. The rocky section produces varieties\nof rockfish and cod, while different types of sole, shrimp, and dungeness crab principally inhabit the\nmud and sand portions. The commercial value of all these was 7-10 million dollars annually from 1965 to\n1972. There are 172 different coastal islands and reefs which provide habitat for scallops, perch, and\nsimilar species. The additional benefit of the reefs and islands lies in the breeding grounds they\nprovide on those sections not submerged; for here, gulls, cormorants, puffins, and murres find nesting\nand roosting spots. Here too, seals and sea lions breed. Most of these areas have been declared\nnational wildlife refuges and have escaped adverse human impact.\nThe Rocky Intertidal area encompases 36 percent of the coastline and is home to hundreds of species of\nanimal life, including mussels, starfish, littleneck clams, and different shore birds. The commercial\nvalue of these animal forms is not large, but they add greatly to the recreational value of the coastal\nzone and represent a large variety of diverse life. The ecological balance of these areas is particularly\nsusceptible to pollution from sewers and commercial activities.\nKelp Beds are one of the major resources found along the offshore islands and the rocky intertidal areas.\nOver one hundred varities of kelp exist along the coast, forming an incredibly rich and diverse habitat\nwhich is critical for the survival of some animal species such as abalone, which eats the algae found\nin the beds. Seals, sea lions, and otters commonly feed in these areas, smaller fish use them to hide\nfrom predators, and certain birds feed there and rest. In addition these beds are economically viable\nfor man's use, 2,000 of the 3,700 acres are considered dense enough to harvest on a regular basis\n(6:36).\nBeaches line about 64 percent of Oregon's open coast, and provide home for numerous smaller animals such\nas burrowing worms, sand crabs, and beach hoppers. Snowy plover, gulls, and other shore birds also feed\nhere. Although some species such as razor clams are harvested, the main value of the beaches and\nrelated dunes is the recreational resource they provide to thousands of Oregon residents and out-of-state\nvisitors each year.\n(2)\nEstuaries and Wetlands\nFrom the seaward edge of the coastal zone inland to the flooded upland valleys of the Coast Range,\nnumerous different types of wetland areas exist. These include estuarine waters, tidelands, marshes,\neelgrass beds, and coastal lakes. A variety of physical and environmental components affect all of\nthese bodies, and each undergoes continual change due to sedimentation, tidal action, dune advancement,\nand fresh water inflow. Each type in turn, supports different plant and animal species (Figures 4\n5).\nOregon has 17 separate estuarine areas, including the Columbia River, which total about 12 percent of\nthe entire Oregon coastal zone (TableV and Figure 6). Of these, submerged lands account for about\n94,000 acres. These waters are the spots to which aquatic animal life retreats during low tides.\nTidelands themselves are exposed during ebb, and provide rich oyster and clam beds, and feeding grounds\nfor various waterfowl. Eelgrass beds (Zostera maritima), which are especially prevalent in Coos and\nTillamook counties, comprise only about 5,000 acres of the tidelands. Eelgrass is the dominant plant\nof the tideland areas, representing a transition zone between submerged lands and salt marshes. The\neelgrass sections provide important fishing sources for the blue heron and other wading birds, are\nabundant in clams, and are spawning grounds for some smaller fish.\n13","UPLANDS\nRIVER\nCHANNEL\nTIDELANDS\nSALT\nMARSH\nDUNES/\nESTUARY\nSANDSPIT\nESTUARY COMPONENTS\nFigure 4. Components of Estuarine System\n(Source: 5)\n19","sitka spruce\n12\npickle weed\n10\nlynbyel's silver weed\nsedge\n8\narrow grass\nhigh tide\nwood debris\n6\nbull rush\n4\nalgae\nsilt and sand\ntide flats\n2\nlow tide\nclams\n0\neel grass\n-2\nsand\noysters\n-4\nsubmerged land\ntideland\nupland\nwet land or salt marsh\nGENERAL ESTUARY PROFILE\nFigure 5.\nGeneral Profile of an Oregon Estuary\n(Source: :\n6)\n20","TABLE V\nCOMPARISON OF ESTUARINE HABITAT TYPES AND ACREAGES BY BAY\nEstuaries\nAcres of\nAcres of\nAcres of\nTotal Acres\nin Order\nSubmerged\nTideland\nSaltmarsh\nof Estuarine\nof Size\nLand\nHabitat\nColumbia R.\n69,275\n24,507\n8,660\n102,442\nCoos Bay\n6,180\n6,200\n2,738\n15,118\nTillamook\n4,126\n4,163\n1,070\n9,359\nUmpqua\n5,298\n1,531\n344\n7,173\nYaquina\n2,557\n1,353\n819\n4,729\nNetarts\n2,489\n812\n1,513\n164\nNehalem\n1,231\n1,078\n330\n2,639\nSiuslaw\n1,489\n756\n1,458\n3,703\nAlsea\n1,168\n979\n640\n2,787\nSiletz\n412\n775\n322\n1,509\nNestucca\n422\n578\n222\n1,222\nCoquille\n470\n301\n373\n1,144\nRogue\n478\n149\n0\n627\nSand Lake\n131\n397\n702\n1,230\n308\nNecanicum\n129\n149\n30\nSalmon River\n78\n126\n552\n756\nChetco\n90\n12\n0\n102\n1\n94,346\n44,567\n18,424\n157,337\nTOTAL:\n1\nDoes not include estuaries such as Beaver Creek.\nSOURCE: Oregon Estuaries, Division of State Lands.\n21","Columbia River\nAstoria\nNecanicum River\nside\nATSOP\nCOLUMBIA\nNehalem River\nTillamook Bay\nWASHINGTON\nNetarts Bay\namook\nLLAMOOK\nSand Lake\nYAMHILL\nNestucca Bay\nSalmon River\nPOLK\nSiletz Bay\n8in City\nport\nYaquina Bay\nINCOLN 1. BENTON\nAlsea Bay\nWalaport\nLANE\nInformace\nSiuslaw River\nUmpqua River\nFreedsport\nDOUGLAS\nCoos Bay\nhealth\nBend\nCOOS\nCoquille River\nRogue River\nBeach\nCURRY\nJOSEPHINE\nChetco River\nMajor Oregon Estuaries\nFigure 6.\n(Source: 6)\n22","Tidal marshes (seaside arrow grass, Pacific silverweed, bullrush, salt grass, glasswort, sedge, tufted\nhair grass) are wintering areas for migratory birds, and, more importantly, yield the primary nutrients\nfor the food cycle in the estuary. They total approximately 188,000 acres of Oregon's coastal zone.\nEstuarine life is balanced on the fine line between a marine habitat and freshwater existence. The\nestuaries are an immensely important part of the coastal life food chain and are easily destroyed, which\ncan impact on other coastal species. Herring, for example, are spawned in estuaries, and are a major\npart of the salmon's diet at certain times of the year. The relative abundance of the herring may have\na significant effect on the movement of the salmon up and down the coast.\n(3)\nFreshwater Resources\nThe freshwater resources which flow into the estuarine areas and otherwise find their way to the coast\nare no less important. There are 2200 streams emptying into the Oregon coast, 30 of which are considered\nmajor suppliers of freshwater. Beside bringing necessary nutrients to the estuaries, these coastal\nfreshwater tributaries are also the spawning ground for salmon and home to steelhead and cutthroat\ntrout and bass. Additionally, they are the source of water for urban areas along the coast for irri-\ngation, municipal, recreational, domestic, and industrial uses. There exists what should be sufficient\nfreshwater flow for current use along the entire coast. However, lack of storage capacity, sporadic\nheavy rains, and poor ground absorption of the run-off burdens the ability of some coastal urban areas\nto accommodate present uses.\n(4)\nUplands\nThe remainder of the Oregon coastal zone, other than offshore areas and estuarine wetlands, is\nconsidered uplands. It includes the headlands, terraces, meadows, and agricultural and timberlands\nand extends to the crest of the Coast Mountain Range.\nOver 38 percent of the uplands area is timberland, the majority of which has been logged or burned\nduring the last 150 years. Therefore, little old growth remains. Some of the timber is considered best\nleft untouched because of unique recreational appeal or watershed requirements. Vegetation type varies\naccording to the section of the coast and the effects of rainfall and temperatures. Sitka spruce runs\nthe entire length of the immediate coast, and up into the river valleys, where Western red cedar, and\nWestern hemlock also may be found. Moving south, the zone narrows, and coast redwood, myrtle, and Port\nOrford cedar become apparent. On dune ridges and similar lands, Western hemlock, Douglas fir, and the\nred alder prevail. The heavily forested areas of these trees give way in the extreme south to herb and\nshrub vegetation along the immediate coast. In the mountains, Douglas fir and tan oak dominate. Other\nconifers such as sugar pine, ponderosa pine, incense cedar, white pine, and evergreen hardwoods are\nalso found in quantity.\nAgricultural use of the uplands has been somewhat limited by soil composition and physical limitations\nof size and shape of the land parcels. Forage food production (hay and grass) and pasture land for\nlivestock have been the principal uses. Economic trends also have affected the agricultural use. As in\nthe rest of the State, coastal farms have been decreasing in number and increasing in size. Along the\ncoast, they have been converting from dairy cattle to beef production or are being lost to industry or\nresidential development.\nOver 2.25 million acres of land in the uplands is publicly owned and available for recreational use;\n53.5 percent of this is in the Siuslaw and Siskiyou National Forests. State forests comprise 25.5\npercent and Bureau of Land Management lands 20.6 percent of this total (2:65).\nReflecting the nationwide surge in recreation in Oregon, overnight visits to State parks increased\ngreater than 410 percent between 1958 and 1973 (4:F-18 and Table F-16). These opportunities for public\nenjoyment of the uplands, coupled with the Oregon Beach Law ensuring public access to all beaches\nfacilities like the Oregon Dunes National Recreational Area, and a wide variety of commercial recreational\nfacilities on the coast, make recreation one of the true natural resources of Oregon's coastal zone.\n(5)\nStressed Resources\nThe Oregon coastal zone provides a complex wealth of resources and experiences, but it also tends to be\nvery vulnerable to outside forces. Impacts upon one habitat have the potential for upsetting the\nsymbiotic relationship with others dependent upon it. Table VI indicates those habitats within each\ncoastal section that are identified as important or critical. Table VII relates wildlife species to\nhabitat type. Kelp beds are included, for example, because they provide the brown algae abalone eat and\nprovide shelter for numerous sea life forms. Coincidently, they are susceptible to overharvesting for\nhuman purposes and to the effects of industrial and sewage pollution.\nThe estuarine systems, specifically the salt marshes, are irreplaceable as a nutrient source for estuary\nlife. Over 12 percent of Oregon's coastal zone is estuary, but in comparison to other States, this\ntotal is small. All of Oregon's estuaries for example, would fit into the Willapa Bay estuary of the State\nMuch of Oregon's marine fisheries and recreational fisheries are dependent on the\nof Washington.\n23","*\n*\nECOLOGICAL BALANCE DENUDING EASY ACCESS SEWAGE & INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE\nOIL SPILLS, MINERAL EXTRACTION, NAVIGATION AND CURRENT CONTROL STRUCTURES.\n1133 S W Pare Avenue\nCLEAR CUTS (EXT.) ROADS, 80% OF COASTAL ZONE HABITAT, OLD GROWTH CRITICAL\nSUBSTRATA, OVER HARVEST CRITICAL SEA OTTER AND ABALONE HABITAT, SCARCE\nECO-LINK,FOOD PRODUCTION,WINTERING COVER, GRAZING FENCING HERBICIDES.\nSystems Building\n(503) 222 1917\nNON-GAME DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE IN PATH OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT\nArchitecture\nPOLLUTANTS OVER FISHING. PLUS DREDGE SPOILS SEWAGE DISCHARGE AND\nECO-LINK,SPECIES DIVERSE.WATER FOWL, MOST DIVERSE IN UPLAND COASTAL\nECO-LINK WATER TABLE,COVER IMPORTANT BIG GAME WATERING AREA, ROAD\nECO-LINK,BUFFER,EROSION CONTROL, TRANSITIONAL AREA IMPORTANT COVER\nDREDGING POLLUTANTS, OUT FALLS STRUCTURES IMPACT VARIES WITH BAY\nWATER QUALITY, FILLING, SHORELINE AND AQUATIC VEGETATION LAKES WITH\nPlanning\nPLANT LIFE, ECO-LINK, DIKES/DRAIN CRITICAL TO FOOD CHAIN, HIGH ABUSE\nPOLLUTANTS OVER FISHING HIGH VALUE HABITAT UNEVENLY DISTRIBUTED\nFISH PASSAGE SILTATION, ECO-LINK FLOW DEPLETIONS DESTRUCTION OF\nSUBSTRATA,ECO-LINK,HERRING SPAWN, PRIMARY FOOD FOR BLACK BRANT\nFOOD PRODUCTION,WINTERING, COVER, GRAZING FENCING HERBICIDES.\nCLEAR CUTS (EXT.) ROADS WINTER RANGE LIVESTOCK OVERGRAZING.\nCLEAR CUTS (EXT.), ROADS WINTER RANGE, LIVESTOCK OVERGRAZING\nLOG STORAGE,FILLING MOST ABUSED HIGH DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE.\nWINTER FORAGE LIVESTOCK OVERGRAZING ROAD CONSTRUCTION.\nHARASSMENT LING COD SPAWN, ESTHETIC AND REFUGE VALVES.\nPOLLUTANTS OVER FISHING POSSIBLE MINERAL EXPLORATION\nPartnership PC\nSPECIAL CONCERNS\nCLEAR CUTS (EXT.), ROADS WINTER RANGE, MYRTLE WOOD.\nCLEAR CUTS (EXT.). ROADS, ELEVATION,CLIMAX FORESTS\nHIGH VALUE HABITAT, POTENTIAL ECONOMIC PRESSURE\nOPEN SPACE,COVER CREATION OF NEW HABITAT.\nCLEAR CUTS (EXT.) ROADS WINTER RANGE\nMIGRATORYAND WARM WATER SAME FISH\nSPAWN AREA, CHANNEL ALTERATIONS\nHIGHLY SIGNIFICANT FACTOR\nAREAS LING COD SPAWNING\nPOLLUTANTS OVER FISHING\nPOLLUTANTS OVER FISHING\nTO ADJACENT OPEN LANDS.\nLOCALIZED DESTRUCTION\nREGION. PRODUCTIVITY\nSPOTTED OWL HABITAT.\nLING COD SPAWNING\nCRITICAL FACTOR\nCONSTRUCTION.\nAND SEASON.\nPOTENTIAL.\n.\n.\n.\n*\n.\n.\n*\n.\n*\n.\n.\n.\n.\n.\n.\nVARIES HIGH\nEXT. HIGH TO\nHIGH,VARIES\nDENSITY OF\nMODERATE\nMODERATE\nMODERATE\nMODERATE\nMODERATE\nVERY HIGH\nMODERATE\nEXT. HIGH\nEXT. HIGH\nEXT. HIGH\nEXT. HIGH\nSPECIES\nTO NONE\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nLOW\nLOW\nADAPTABILITY TO\n*\n.\n.\n.\n.\n*\n.\n.\nHABITAT TYPES\nFAIR TO POOR\n(SOURCE: 6)\nVERY POOR\nEXCELLENT\nOTHER\n(SHRIMP)\nVARIABLE\nSPECIFIC)\n(HABITAT\nVARIES\nPOOR\nVARIES\nPOOR\nPOOR\nPOOR\nPOOR\nPOOR\nPOOR\nPOOR\nPOOR\nGOOD\nGOOD\nGOOD\nGOOD\nGOOD\nGOOD\nGOOD\nFAIR\nFAIR\nFAIR\nFAIR\nFAIR\nANIMAL RELATED\nVARIABLE\nRESIL-\nIENCY\nGOOD\nGOOD\nGOOD\nGOOD\nGOOD\nGOOD\nPOOR\nGOOD\nPOOR\nGOOD\nPOOR\nGOOD\nGOOD\nGOOD\nGOOD\nGOOD\nGOOD\nGOOD\nGOOD\nGOOD\nGOOD\nFAIR\nHIGH\nGOOD\nHIGH\nMOD.\nGOOD\nGOOD\nSUMMARY OF HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS\n@\nEXT.HIGH\n.\n.\n*\nEXT.HIGH\n*\nEXT.HIGH\n*\n.\n*\nEXT.HIGH\n.\nEXT.HIGH\n.\n.\n.\nEXT.HIGH\nVULNER.\nABILITY\nVARIES\nMOD.\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nMOD.\nMOD.\nMOD.\nMOD.\nMOD.\nHIGH\nMOO.\nHIGH\nLOW\n*\n*\n*\n.\n*\n*\n*\n.\nRECREAT.\nEXT. HIGH\nEXT. HIGH\nEXT. HIGH\nEXT. HIGH\nEXT. HIGH\nEXT. HIGH\nEXT. HIGH\nSOCIAL IMPORTANCE\nMOD.\nMOD.\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nMOD.\nHIGH\nMOD.\nMOD.\nHIGH\nMOD.\nMOD.\nMOD.\nMOD.\nMOD.\nLOW\nLOW\nLOW\nLOW\nLOW\n*\n.\nEXT. HIGH\nEXT.HIGH\nCOMM.\nMOD.\nMOD.\nHIGH\nMOD.\nHIGH\nLOW\nLOW\nLOW\nLOW\nLOW\nLOW\nLOW\nLOW\nDIVERSITY\nEXT.HIGH\n*\nEXT.HIGH\n.\n*\nEXT.HIGH\nEXT.HIGH\n.\n.\n.\n*\nHIGH\nHIGH\nMOD.\nHIGH\nMOD.\nMOD.\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nMOD.\nMOD.\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nMOD.\nMOD.\nMOD.\nLOW\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nLOW\nLOW\nLOW\nVARIABLE\nVARIABLE\n.\n.\n.\nRESIL-\nIENCY\nGOOD\nPOOR\nGOOD\nPOOR\nPOOR\nGOOD\nGOOD\nPOOR\nGOOD\nPOOR\nPOOR\nPOOR\nPOOR\nGOOD\nGOOD\nGOOD\nGOOD\nGOOD\nGOOD\nGOOD\nGOOD\nFAIR\nFAIR\nFAIR\n*\n*\n*\nVULNER\nABILITY\nMOD.\nVERY\nVERY\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nMOD.\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nHIGH\nVERY\nHIGH\nHIGH\nMOD.\nMOD.\nMOD.\nMOD.\nHIGH\nHIGH\nLOW\nLOW\nEXT.\nEXT.\nHIGH\nLOW\nLOW\nEXT.\nHIGH\nEXT.\nEXT.\nHIGH\nHIGH\nLOW\nEXT.\nEXT.\nLOW\nLOW\n*\n*\nNON-RENEWABLE\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\nRENEWABLE OR\nHABITAT RELATED\nR\nNR\nNR\nR\nR\nR\nNR\nR\nR\nNR\nNR\nR\nNR\nNR\nNR\nNR\nNR\nR\nR\nR\nR\nR\nR\nR\nR\nR\nR\nA\nTABLE VI\nDISTRIBUTION\nW/ONE LARGE\n.\n* SCATTERED .\nCONCENTRAT.\nLARGE AREAS\nNORTH COAST\nSOUTH COAST\nCONCENTRAT.\nLARGE AREAS\nLARGE AREAS\nSHORE-DENSE\nCONCENT. IN\nSOUTH COAST\nCONCENTRAT.\nEXTREMELY+\nCONCENTRAT\nGEOGRAPHIC\nCONTINUOUS\nSCATTERED\nSCATTERED\nSCATTERED\nSCATTERED\nSCATTERED\nSCATTERED\nEXTENSIVE\nSCATTERED\nSCATTERED\nSCATTERED\nEXTENSIVE\nSCATTERED\nEXTREMELY\nLATERALLY\nLATERALLY\nEXTREMEL\nEXTENSIVE\nSCATTERED\nEXTREMELY\nLATERALLY\nCONCENT.\nSEVERAL\nCENTRAL\nCONCENT\nSEVERAL\nSEVERAL\nEVENLY\nSPARSE\nEVENLY\nSCARCE\nSCARCE\nSCARCE\nSCARCE\nSCARCE\nSCARCE\nLINEAR\nCOAST\nAREA\nEVEN\nEVEN\nEVEN\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n.\nTO MOST\n.\n.\nRANK-\nLEAST\nAREA\n13\n11\n14\n9\n5\n7\n8\n6\n4\n2\n3\n6\n16\n10\n12\n15\n9\n8\n7\n7\n7\n1\n2\n3\n4\n7\n6\n5\n1\n*\n*\n.\n*\nRELATIVE AREA\nVERY SMALL\nVERY SMALL\nVERY SMALL\nVERY SMALL\nVERY SMALL\nVERY SMALL\nEXTREMELY\nEXTREMELY\nEXTREMELY\nEXTREMELY\nMODERATE\nMODERATE\nMODERATE\nMODERATE\nMODERATE\nSMALL\nSMALL\nSMALL\nSMALL\nSMALL\nLARGE\nSMALL\nSMALL\nSMALL\nSMALL\nSMALL\nSMALL\nSMALL\nSMALL\nSMALL\nSMALL\nVAST\nVAST\nCOASTAL SHORE PINE-SPRUCE\nNON-IRRIGATED AGRICULTURAL\nCOASTAL ISLANDS AND REEFS\nIRRIGATED AGRICULTURAL\nLAKES AND RESERVOIRS\nEVERGREEN HARD WOOD\nHABITAT TYPES\nDECIDUOUS HARD WOOD\nDOUGLAS FIR-PINE-OAK\nDOUGLAS FIR-TRAILING\nRIPARIAN VEGETATION\nBENTHIC MUDDY SAND\nCOASTAL SALT MARSH\nANNUAL & PERENNIAL\nCOASTAL TIDE LAND\nRIVER AND STREAM\nURBAN INDUSTRIAL\nROCKY INTERTIDAL\nSUBMERGED LAND\nBLACKBERRY\nMIXED CONIFERS\nINLAND MARSH\nWET MEADOWS\nBENTHIC ROCK\nBENTHIC SAND\nKELP BEDS\nSANDY BEACH\nEEL GRASS\nBENTHIC MUD\nGRASSLAND\nTRUE FIR\nPELAGIC","SPECIES AND THEIR ABUNDANCE VS. HABITAT TYPES IN THE COASTAL ZONE1\nFFC FFFCCFCCF\nFFCFCCCFCFFF\nCACCFAFCFCFAA\nFCCCFACCAACAR\nC AA\nFCCCCACCACA F\nFF FCCCCFF F\nFF FF\nCFFFCFCCFFFF\nFF\nCCFFC CFCFFF\nFFF CCFCCCFFF\nC F FAAC\nThe limited geographical ranges of several species are not reflected in this table.\nCCCC\nFF\nTABLE VII\nFF\nCC\nF\nF\nC\nRing-Necked Pheasant\nWestern Grey Squirrel\nBand-Tailed Pigeon\nBlack-Tailed Deer\nWhite-Tailed Deer\nCalifornia Quail\nMountain Quail\nMourning Dove\nRoosevelt Elk\nMountain Lion\nRuffed Grouse\nBlue Grouse\nGame Animals\nBlack Bear\nWILDLIFE\nGame Birds\nA Abundant\nC Common\nF Few\n1","F F\nCC\nCC\nCC\nCC\nCF\nF\nF\nF\nF\nFCF C F\nCCCFCCAFC\nFFFFFFC C\nACCCFCCFR\nFFFFFFCFF\nCCC CFF F\nFF CFF F\nFFFFFFFF\nAAACCCCF\nCC FFCF\nFF FF\nFFF FF\nCCCFCCC\nCCCFFFC\nF\nAACAFCA\nC FC\nA AA\nFFF\nWildlife Species and Their Abundance vs.\nHabitat Types in the Coastal Zone\nTABLE VII (Continued)\nCommon Merganser\nGreen-Winged Teal\nAmerican Widgeon\nHooded Merganser\nWhistling Swan\nCommon Snipe\nCinnamon Teal\nCanada Goose\nSnow Goose\nBlack Brant\nCanvasback\nRuddy Duck\nWood Duck\nWhitefront\nShoveler\nRedhead\nMallard\nPintail\nWaterfowl\nA Abundant\nC Common\nCoot\nF Few","C cccccCFCFCCCCCCF\nCCAAAACACAAAAAAF\nCF\nFF\nFFF CCFCA FCF F FF\nF\nF\nF FF F\nFFF\nFF CCCCC FFF\nCCCCCFCFCFCF\nFFFF\nFFFF FFFF\nFFF CCC C\nFCC CCC F\nC F\nFF\nF\nF\nWildlife Species and Their Abundance vs.\nHabitat Types in the Coastal Zone\nTABLE VII (Continued)\nGreat Blue Heron\nWaterfowl, cont'd.\nCommon Egret\nBrown Pelican\nOther Mammals\nRingtail Cat\nNight Heron\nRiver Otter\nSea Otter\nMuskrat\nFurbearers\nBeaver\nMartin\nA Abundant\nC Common\nMink\nHawks\nF Few","AAAAA CCFCFFFAFF\nF FCCACFCFCCCCACF\nC CFCCCCFCFCCCCCCI\nAAACCCACACAACAAAACC\nF\nF\nC\nAAAF\nFAF\nAF AAAC\nAAF\nFC\nAA\nCA\nF\nA\nA\nA\nA\nWildlife Species and Their Abundance vs.\nHabitat Types in the Coastal Zone\nTABLE VII (Continued)\nWarmwater Game Fish\nChinook Salmon\nNon-Game Fish\nCutthroat Trout\nRainbow Trout\nCoho Salmon\nSteelhead\nAmphibians\nOther Birds\nA Abundant\nC Common\nReptiles\nOwls\nF Few\nFish","production of the salt marshes. Chinook and Coho salmon, steelhead and cutthroat trout, flounder,\ngreen sturgeon, herring, shrimp, and crabs are dependent on the estuaries for food, nursery grounds,\nor passage to freshwater spawning grounds. Other species, such as oysters, thrive in the dilute\nsalinity of the area. However, estuaries are also the catch basin of human activity. By 1969, over\n3.5 percent of Oregon's estuaries had been lost to diking, filling, or dredging (5:15). Other areas\nare lost from production, by industrial discharge from pulp mills, siltation from logging activities,\nor use as timber and log storage.\nOther resources are being stressed and are in jeopardy. Increased logging and construction along\nriver banks has increased the siltation flowing into streams, lakes, and estuaries. Road construction\nand coastal land reclamation have also altered them. These upstream activities have reduced the\neffectiveness of the watershed area, causing higher run-off, and decreased water quality in some\nareas. There is little retention of ground water, so some coastal communities are having their freshwater\nsupply affected. The topography provides little opportunity for building storage dams along any\nof the major rivers and streams in the coastal zone. Thus hydroelectric power and year round fresh-\nwater sources, already stressed in some communities, will become more so with added urban develop-\nment. In those areas where activities (sewer effluent, gravel extraction, and industrial waste)\nhave been allowed tangential to the rivers, there are indications that the salmon population has\nbeen greatly affected. Today, a majority of the yearly salmon take is hatchery originated, and\nboth pollution in and dams along the waterways have reduced the survival rate. Similarly, effluent\ndischarged by ships trafficking the Oregon coast affect numerous other species of sea life. Thus,\neven though significant human activity has occurred along the Oregon coast only during the last half\ncentury, the impacts threaten the survival of many of the features and resources which give the coast\nits unique quality.\nSocial and Economic Setting\nC.\n(1) Historical\nThe earliest recorded settlements in coastal Oregon were Indian encampments dating from the 1500's.\nContact with the outside was limited to Spanish fur traders until the late 1700's. The success of\nthe Lewis and Clark expedition, however, brought increased immigration and the establishment of towns\nlike Astoria in the early 1800's. The Oregon Trail and Oregon Donation Land-Act brought more people\nwith promises of free land and instant wealth in the 1850's in Coos Bay, and the fishing and cannery\ninfrastructure began in the 1870's. With development pressures from the Willamette Valley, a railroad\nwas put through to Yaquina City in 1870, but real expansion of the coastal communities did not occur\nuntil the input of Federal highway monies during the 1930's. Even with improved transportation,\nmost employment along the coast remained tied to the natural resources, only partially offset by\ntourism.\n(2) Population and Employment\nPopulation in the Oregon coastal zone changed only marginally from 1958 to 1973, compared to both\nnational and State increases, and now stands at just above 160,000. This represents less than\n8 percent of the total State population. There was an actual dip in coastal population during the\nearly and mid 1960's, reflecting in large part a decline in employment in the forest industry.\nEmployment in the coast is largely dependent upon the natural resource base. Traditionally the three\nlargest employers (exclusive of local government) have been agriculture and food processing, fishing\nand fish processing, and forest products. Together these represent about 30 percent of the total\ncoastal employment (about 40 percent excluding government). In addition, the tourism/travel/recreation\nindustry, which is also heavily dependent on the coastal natural resources is the fastest growing\nsegment of the employment market in the Oregon coastal zone. Tables VIII and IX summarize recent\nemployment by economic sector and project future patterns. As these tables indicate, employment has\ntended to become more diversified with time. The major employment markets are discussed below.\nA full three-fourths of the coastal agricultural production takes place in Coos and Tillamook counties,\nwith anywhere from 64 percent to 98 percent of the investment being in livestock production depending\nupon the county. This compares with 43 percent in livestock statewide (4:C-15). Employment in\nagriculture, as well as the number of farms, has been declining for 15 years but is expected to\nstabilize at current levels. Even so, gross farm sales have been increasing at 1.3 percent annually,\nwith the 1973 value of farm products for the coast estimated at better than 40 million dollars (4:B-9).\nAnalysis of the fishing industry is hampered by questionable estimates as to the number of commercial\nand/or sport fishermen. Too, the annual catch is volatile with wide variation in the relative values\nof the different types of catch. Commercial landings by weight in 1968 for example exceeded 89 million\npounds. However, the 1973 landings of 83 million pounds had a higher value of over 27 million dollars\n(4:B-9). The relative proportion of species caught has also changed in recent years, with groundfish\nbecoming a smaller percentage and shrimp increasing. Accurate estimates of the fisheries biomass\nare not yet available. It is generally felt that some species are not yet caught at a sustained\n29","SOURCE: Economic Survey and Analysis of the Oregon Coastal Zone; Data from Oregon State Employment Division.\nRET = Number of Re-\ntired Persons\nPOP = Population\n140,043\n140,335\n140,081\n136,940\n130,065\n128,244\n130,259\n132,438\n132,332\n134,689\n140,241\n141,981\n141,772\n142,643\n144,463\n145,400\nPOP\nRET\n9,572\n10,331\n10,936\n11,817\n12,807\n13,478\n13,889\n14,226\n15,015\n15,871\n16,583\n17,294\n18,171\n19,240\n20,096\n21,390\nGOV = Federal and State Government\n5 Coastal Counties only; excludes Western portions of Lane and Douglas Counties\nEMPLOYMENT BY MAJOR ECONOMIC SECTOR, COAST*, 1958-1973.\nTEM\n45,670\n46,647\n46.913\n44,797\n44,139\n44,235\n46,252\n48,552\n50,199\n50,676\n51,340\n51,268\n51,607\n52,521\n59,070\n56,290\nONB = Other Non-Basic Sectors\nTDS = Trade and Services\nLGV = Local Government\nTEM = Total Employment\nONB\n3,744\n3,985\n3,947\n3,728\n3,556\n3,913\n3,904\n4,925\n5,397\n4,885\n4,410\n4,238\n4,285\n4,560\n4,706\n4,897\nTDS\n15,016\n15,400\n15,809\n15,523\n15,569\n15,658\n16,629\n16,943\n17,616\n17,578\n17,872\n18,109\n18,370\n19,134\n19,551\n20,370\nTABLE VIII\nLGV\n4,349\n4,433\n4,585\n4,567\n4,343\n4,059\n4,396\n4,577\n4,902\n5,396\n6,202\n6,282\n6,508\n6,898\n7,044\n7,298\n1 Fishing was estimated relative to catch weight.\nGOV\n1,097\n978\n884\n857\n847\n979\n952\n1,522\n1,855\n1,795\n1,725\n1,780\n1,956\n2,080\n2,232\n2,387\nWTR\n909\n923\n959\n926\n940\n1,132\n1,102\n963\n874\n803\n904\n874\n841\n676\n890\n972\nAGR = Agriculture and Food Processing\n1\nFSP = Fishing and Fish Processing\nTRL\n794\n846\n1,075\n1,116\n1,188\n1,230\n1,316\n1,552\n1,727\n1,865\n2,118\n2,037\n2,196\n2,330\n2,428\n2,675\n13,453\n14,087\n13,800\n12,597\n12,476\n12,057\n12,792\n12,792\n12,506\nWTR = Water Transportation\n12,488\n12,443\n12,169\n11,437\n11,373\n11,383\n11,769\nFOR\nFOR = Forest Products\n1,744\n1,613\n1,573\n1,566\n1,687\n1,886\n1,913\n1,933\n2,199\n2,761\n2,645\n2,700\n2,876\n2,430\n2,808\n2,932\nFSP\nTRL = Travel\nAGR\n4,568\n4,384\n4,281\n3,921\n3,535\n3,324\n3,252\n3,150\n3,125\n3,104\n3,010\n2,984\n3,139\n3,074\n3,033\n2,990\nYEAR\n1958\n1959\n1960\n1961\n1962\n1963\n1964\n1965\n1966\n1967\n1968\n1969\n1970\n1971\n1972\n1973\n*","RET = Number of Retired Persons\n145,800\n146,160\n146,675\n147,230\n147,830\n148,485\n149,120\n149,800\n150,480\n151,185\n151,930\nPOP\n(Source: Economic Survey and Analysis of the Oregon Coastal Zone; computed by the Economic Study Team.)\n25,843\n26,588\n27,333\n28,078\n28,823\n29,567\n22,120\n22,865\n23,610\n24,355\n25,100\nRET\nPOP = Population\n57,718\n60,821\n61,647\n62,484\n63,321\n64,163\n65,010\n57,036\n58,465\n59,232\n60,019\nTEM\n*Five coastal counties only; excludes western portions of Lane and Douglas Counties.\n4,784\n4,844\n4,940\n5,047\n5,157\n5,269\n5,383\n5,498\n5,613\n5,728\n5,843\nONB\nMID-RANGE ESTIMATES FOR THE COAST* ECONOMY\nGOV = Federal and State Government\n22,571\n22,902\n23,235\n23,570\n23,906\n24,244\n20,961\n21,277\n21,598\n21,920\n22,245\nONB = Other Non-Basic Sectors\nTDS\nTDS = Trade and Services\nLGV = Local Government\n8,058\n8,323\n8,601\n9,184\n9,484\n9,789\n10,096\n10,405\n10,715\n7,816\n3,889\nLGV\nTABLE IX\n3,182\n3,300\n3,419\n3,538\n3,657\n3,778\n2,586\n2,705\n2,824\n2,943\n3,062\nGOV\nWTR\n900\n900\n900\n900\n900\n900\n900\n900\n900\n900\n900\n3,582\n3,708\n3,830\n3,954\n4,079\n2,836\n2,960\n3,084\n3,208\n3,332\n3,458\nAGR = Agriculture and Food Processing\nTRL\nFSP = Fishing and Fish Processing\n10,824\n10,606\n10,388\n10,170\n9,952\n9,739\n9,540\n9,341\n9,142\n9,943\n8,746\nFOR\nWTR = Water Transportation\nFOR = Forest Products\n2,280\n2,318\n2,358\n2,394\n2,432\n2.468\n2,506\n2,544\n2,582\n2,520\n2,655\nFSP\nTRL = Travel\n3,050\n3,050\n3,050\n3,050\n3,050\n3,050\n3,050\n3,050\n3,050\n3,050\n3,050\nAGR\nYEAR\n1975\n1976\n1977\n1978\n1979\n1980\n1981\n1982\n1983\n1984\n1985","yield level, while others such as the salmon, might soon reach a critical stage. Foreign offshore\nfishing has increased in recent years too, with an as yet unmeasurable total impact on the coastal\neconomy. Certain changes have been noted, however, in abundance of some species since 1967 when foreign\nfishing first became large scale. Pacific ocean perch and rockfish landings are singificantly down\nwhile shrimp catch has more than doubled. This latter phenomenon may be due to the foreign catch\nof hake, a natural predator of shrimp.\nForest products are still the most important sector of economic activity, even though employment has\nbeen decreasing. The decrease has been in the lumber and wood products sector, while an over 300\npercent increase in employment has occurred since 1958 in the paper and pulp products base. Annual\npayrolls in both sectors however, were well above their 1958 levels. Astoria and Coos Bay are the\nmajor exporting ports of the State for lumber and logs. Over 54 percent of the forest products em-\nployment is derived from Coos County.\nThe tourist and travel industry is one section that is broadening the economic base of the coast.\nOvernight visits have grown markedly in recent years. The State parks have been among the principal\nrecipients of increased use, and most of that increase has come from out-of-state visitors, especially\nCalifornia. Motel and hotel facilities growth has been limited to the northern coast (4:F-6).\nStill, the length of the tourist season is expanding, bringing in more revenue for the communities\nand helping to lessen the congestion of peak periods of July and August. The industry is likely to\nsucceed as the second largest of the basic industries in the near future (4:B-12).\nSixteen port districts stretch along the Oregon coast from Brookings to Astoria and on the Columbia\ndeep-draft channel. Of the coastal harbors, Astoria, Newport, and Coos Bay have regular shipments of\ncommodities to and from foreign countries. Coos Bay, because of the proximity of forest and timber\nprocessing plants, now ranks as the leading lumber export harbor of the United States. The other\nports are largely concerned with commercial or sports fishing, or with the movement of lumber products\non barges. St. Helens and Astoria, on the Columbia River below Portland, find their trade to be\nprincipally lumber or paper products from mills which lie nearby.\nCoos Bay accommodates 64 percent of the Oregon coastal zone port shipping, while Astoria handles 14\npercent (4:G-5) Astoria ships the majority of logs, while Coos Bay ships mostly wood chips, the\nlargest coastal export commodity. Recreational boating as well as commercial fishing activity con-\ntinue to increase in every coastal port, but the future commercial shipping demand is questionable\ngiven discussion of banning export of logs. This could have significant effects on employment in\nCoos Bay and Astoria.\nLand use patterns and ownership have also shifted markedly in the last decade. In general, there\nhas been a strong decline in agricultural and forest lands, and a lesser decline in lands used for\npublic service activities. Patterns differ locally, but Table X summarizes the change in coastal\nland use patterns for two Oregon coastal counties.\nReflecting an increase in recreational (second-home) use in the coastal zone, there has been a sig-\nnificant decline over the last eight years in the number of parcels owned by residents in the coastal\nzone. An increasing number of parcels are owned by persons residing in the Willamette Valley and\neven outside of the State. The mean size of parcels in all land use categories is also decreasing.\nFinally, the assessed property values are increasing at a rate exceeded in Oregon only by the heavily\nurbanized Portland metropolitan area (7). These changing patterns reflect the problems which face\nOregon's coast: maintaining the natural resource base necessary to support a diverse and healthy\neconomy and environment. The proliferation of individual land parcels and owners, many of whom place\na seasonal stress on local facilities while contributing only marginally to the economy, is one prob-\nlem the Oregon Coastal Management Program is intended to address.\nD.\nProblems and Issues\nIdentifiable problems of Oregon's coastal zone may be grouped under economic, public services, environ-\nmental, and institutional management. The economy is generally overspecialized with too heavy a\nreliance on the four basic industries identified earlier. As a result of employment patterns in these\nindustries, both seasonal and chronically high unemployment exists, and the median family income is\nlower than both State and national averages. Additionally, the tax base is narrowly defined due to\nthe large percentage of publically owned land. This places continued pressure on existing low intensity\nuse private lands, such as farms, to develop.\nPublic services in the past have frequently been provided through uncoordinated efforts. Sewers, water,\nand waste facilities have been provided on an as needed basis. This has led to conflicts in planning,\nsiting, housing, transportation, and environmental protection. With only one major transportation\nartery, the north-south U. S. Highway 101, development has generally occurred in a narrow elongated\nstrip. Careful planning must occur to properly accommodate commercial and private development along\nthe corridor in efficient growth patterns without damaging the aesthetic and environmental benefits\nof the coast.\n32","TABLE X\nCHANGE IN COASTAL LAND USE: ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PARCELS AND\nPERCENT OF PARCELS IN CLASS* 1967-1973\nAbsolute Change\nLand Use Class\n(no. of parcels)\nPercent Change\nCo\nCo\n31.90\n27.34\n39.41\nA. Single family residential\n616\n525\n1146\nB. Multifamily residential\n2100.00\n**\n248.15**\n25\n42\n67\n100.00**\nC. Commercial\n87\n85\n172\n71.31\n188.89\n102.38\n26.39\nD. Industrial\n19\n0\n19\n27.14\n0.00\n-18.03\n-7.05\nE. Idle or vacant\n65\n-599\n-534\n1.54\n-11.25\n-35.63\nF. Agriculture with residence\n-50\n-9\n-62\n-58.82\n-82.59\nG. Agriculture without residence\n-770\n-24\n-797\n-91.56\n-21.24\n1.01\n-8.98\nH. Forest land\n-17\n1\n-15\n-29.82\n50.00\nI. Recreational\n23\n2\n25\n85.19\n9.01\nJ. Public service facilities\n2\n-23\n-21\n9.52\n-48.94\n-30.43\n*Weighted data\n**Exceptionally high value due to weighting of data.\nTotals may not agree due to weighting and rounding. Separate runs were made of three\nsets of data and each produced values that were rounded and weighted leading to minor\ndiscrepancies.\n33","Inappropriate use and development in sensitive beach and dunes and estuarine areas has led to conflicts\nin activities, public and private property damage, and adverse environmental impacts. Some man-made\nstructures such as jetties and breakwaters have caused erosion, flooding, and degraded water quality.\nIn estuaries and wetlands diking, dredging, filling, effluent discharge, log storage, and mineral\nextraction have adversely affected water quality, the plant and animal life, and ultimately the\neconomy of the coastal zone. Competing priorities and increasing demand for the coastal zone's\nlimited freshwater supply pose questions concerning the coast's ability to accommodate future growth.\nCompeting and conflicting land uses can have vast repercussions on the coastal economy. Additionally,\nthe repercussions on the economy from increased foreign commercial fishing may as yet not be felt.\nREFERENCES\nOregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission. 1975. Final Report.\n1.\nFlorence, Oregon. 438 pp.\n2.\nMoreland/Unruh/Smith. 1975. Resource Analysis of Oregon's Coastal Uplands.\nOregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission. Florence, Oregon.\n204\npp.\n3. Walker, Havens, and Erickson. 1974. Visual Resource Analysis of the Oregon\nCoastal Zone. Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission.\nFlorence, Oregon. 135 pp.\n4. Kuhn, G. A. , Lehr, R. D., Brickley, J. A., Zelenka, J. E. , Sullivan, A. M. York, M. K. ,\nand D. R. Ogborn. 1974. Economic Analysis and Profile of the Oregon\nCoastal Zone. Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission.\nFlorence, Oregon. 433 pp.\n5.\nWilsey and Ham, Inc. 1974. Estuarine Resources of the Oregon Coast. Oregon\nCoastal Conservation and Development Commission. Florence, Oregon. 233 pp.\n6.\nThompson, Ken and Dale Snow. 1974. Fish and Wildlife Resources, Oregon\nCoastal Zone. Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission. 114 pp+.\n7. Northam, R. M., Maresh, T. J., and M. L. Nolan. 1975. Oregon Coastal Zone\nLand: use, ownership, and value change. Oregon State University,\nSea Grant College Program, publication no. ORESU-T-75-006. 56 pp.\n34","RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TO LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES,\nIV.\nAND CONTROLS FOR THE AREA\nIn the introduction to the CZMA, the Congress found \"present state and local institutional arrangements\nfor\nplanning and regulating land and water uses are inadequate,\" and \"the key to more effective pro-\ntection and use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone is for the states to develop land\nand water use programs for the coastal zone, including unified policies, criteria, standards, methods and\nprocesses for dealing with land and water use decisions of more than local significance\" (Section 302(g)\nand (h)). During the development of Oregon's Coastal Management Program, these same and similar problems\nwere recognized. The State found, for example, that \"inadequate or ineffective governmental and institu-\ntional arrangements\" has hampered the solution of coastal economic and environmental problems. The \"great\nnumber of [these coastal] governmental jurisdictions and agencies have variable interests and responsi-\nbilities for coastal resource management and they \"lack unified or even common goals, criteria,\nstandards, methods and processes To solve these problems, Oregon proposed a working partnership\nbetween local, State, and Federal governments which would insure coordination of coastal management plan-\nning and administration through clearly established authorities and responsibilities.\nOregon's Coastal Management Program is thus explicitly designed to provide a more unified approach\ntoward managing coastal resources. Through the establishment of statewide Goals and policies and the\ndevelopment of coordination mechanisms, LCDC will directly affect land use plans and policies.\nAs has been indicated earlier, Oregon's Coastal Management Program is an integral part of a broader,\nstatewide land use planning effort. It relies basically on the same authorities, although it is sup-\nplemented by special, additional information and requirements which relate to the unique problems and\nbenefits associated with the coast. This Program, along with prominent recent court decisions which\nunderscore the importance of local comprehensive plans and consideration of public (as compared to\njust private) benefits, establishes standards and policies for local government, State and Federal\nplans, activities, and projects. The Program requires the development of coordinated comprehensive\nplans by local government and State agencies. It will, in turn, depend on the coordinated develop-\nment of those plans, especially local comprehensive plans, for implementation. The Program will\nprovide the coordination and cooperation necessary to provide comprehensive management toward explicit\ncommon objectives.\nThe Oregon Coastal Management Program, which itself has included extensive local input from the public\nand local, State, and Federal governments, prescribes standards for public and governmental parti-\ncipation in the development of the local comprehensive plans. It also establishes requirements for\ndata and inventories before planning decisions can be made and effectively broadens the basis for\ndecision-making about coastal resources and activities.\nDuring the development of the Program, Oregon requested from all Federal agencies with an identifiable\ninterest in the coastal zone an identification of existing or proposed plans or policies that might\nbe affected by or in conflict with the Program. While no agencies identified conflicts between the\nProgram and actual or proposed plans, policies, projects, or controls, some general conflicts concern-\ning substantive matters of the Program were identified by a few agencies. These included: the\nselection of boundaries; the question of excluded Federal lands; and the process for judging consis-\ntency of Federal activities and development projects.\nSeveral Federal agencies commented on the choice of the boundaries for Oregon's coastal zone. Some\nexpressed concern that the boundaries included an area that was too large, while another agency\nstrongly supported the selection of boundaries on the basis they were necessary to adequately manage\nthe uses having a direct and significant impact on coastal waters.\nSeveral Federal agencies expressed concern about Oregon's policy on excluded Federal lands. In response\nto these concerns and the opinion of the U. S. Attorney General, Oregon has altered the Program to\nexclude all Federally owned lands for the purposes of meeting the requirements of Section 304(a)\nof the CZMA.\nFinally, a few agencies expressed concern about the manner of judging consistency of Federal activities\nand development projects. This process has been substantially revised in accordance with the comments\nreceived, and these concerns will continue to be taken into account in the further development of\nOregon's Federal consistency procedures.\nThe LCDC has also coordinated the Program with State agencies. The Program will be used to provide\npolicy guidance to those State agencies and to coordinate their activities into a comprehensive\nmanagement program. The Program is specifically coordinated with the implementation and requirements\nof the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Clean Air Act. By integrating air and water\npollution control concerns with those of coastal zone management, the Program will provide a land use\nbasis for controlling pollution.\n35","V. PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMENT\nAs indicated in the description of the Federal coastal zone management program (Chapter II), it is\nclearly the intention of the CZMA to produce a net environmental gain or benefit in the Nation's coasts.\nThe CZMA encourages States to achieve this goal through better coordination, explicit recognition of\nlong-term objectives, and the development of a more rational decision-making process in context with\nthe overall policy guidance. It might be expected this process, which could affect much of the acti-\nvity along the coasts, would have a substantial environmental impact.\nHowever, as the Oregon Coastal Management Program is not a geographically specific plan or project, but\na program which establishes processes and standards for coastal resource management, specific impacts\nare difficult to assess. The Program does provide a basis for assessing impacts on general resource\ncategories and for generalized economic impacts. Both beneficial and adverse effects will derive from\nFederal approval and State implementation of the Oregon Coastal Management Program.\nA. Impacts Directly Resulting from Federal Approval\nTwo major types of impacts resulting from Federal approval of Oregon's Coastal Management Program may\nbe identified: those resulting from the transfer of funds to the State and local governments, and those\nresulting from the implementation of the Program.\nFederal approval will permit the Office of Coastal Zone Management to award program administration\ngrants to Oregon. The majority of the initial program implementation funds will be passed on to local\ngovernments to be used for the development and enforcement of the local comprehensive plans. This will\naugment the professional basis for development of the plans and for proper resource management by en-\nabling local government to greater utilize specialists such as planners, scientists, and permit re-\nview officials. It will also provide funding for some of the inventory work which will form a basis\nfor the comprehensive plans. Better base information will add to the quality of the decision-making.\nFinally, it will permit a more rapid completion of the local comprehensive plans.\nGrant funds will also be used by State agencies to carry out responsibilities imposed by the Program.\nThese will include enforcement and appeal activities by LCDC, inventory and coordination required by\nall State agencies, and the determination of consistency applications for Federal licenses and permits.\nFederal approval and State implementation of the Program will also have implications for\nFederal agency actions and on the national interest in the siting of facilities of more than local con-\ncern. The Federal consistency requirements of the CZMA (Sections 307(c) and (d)) require direct Fed-\neral activities or development projects must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with\napproved State programs. Also, Federal agencies issuing licenses or permits for any activity affecting\nthe coastal zone are generally constrained from doing so until the applicant certifies and the State\nconcurs, that the proposed activity is in fact consistent with the Program. In addition,\nFederal agencies are in most cases restricted from approving proposed projects affecting the coastal\nzone which require Federal assistance, unless they are consistent with the coastal management program\nAlthough States have previously had the opportunity to comment upon Federal actions, licenses, or per-\nmits, in the past this comment has not generally been required or mandatory. This new responsibility\nwill provide for more coordinated and comprehensive management of coastal resources and uses, and has\nthe potential for reducing the fragmented, single-purpose, and frequently conflicting nature of activi-\nties affecting the coastal zone.\nThe Oregon Coastal Management Program has identified the following Federal permits and licenses as sub-\nject to review and certification for compliance if they are for projects in, or which might affect, the\nOregon coastal zone.\n\"Environmental Protection Agency:\nA)\nPermits and licenses required under Sections 402 and 405 of\nthe Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 and amend-\nments.\nB) Permits and applications for reclassification of land areas\nunder regulations for the prevention of significant deteri-\noration (PS)) of air quality.\nDepartment of Defense - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:\nA) Permits and licenses required under Sections 10 and 11 of the\nRiver and Harbor Act of 1899.\nB) Permits and licenses required under Section 103 of the\n36","Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (Ocean\nDumping).\n\"Nuclear Regulatory Commission:\nPermits and licenses required for siting and operation of nuclear\npower plants.\n\"Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management:\nA) Permits and licenses required for off-shore drilling and mining\non public lands.\nB) Plans for the exploration, development, and production from\nareas leased under OCS Lands Act (43 USC 1331 et seq.).\n\"Department of Transportation - U.S. Coast Guard:\nA) Permits for construction of bridges under 33 USC 401,4591-507,\nand 525-534.\nB) Permits for deep-water ports (33 CFR 158 et seq.).\n\"Federal Power Commission:\nA) Permits and licenses required for power plant siting and\ntransmission lines.\nB) Permits and licenses required for interstate pipelines.\nC) Licenses for construction and operation of hydroelectric plants.\nD) Permits for construction and operation of facilities needed to\nimport or export natural gas.\nThis listing has been intentionally limited to those permits where the Federal license or permit may\nsignificantly affect coastal land and water uses. This is desirable to minimize the administrative\nburdens on the governmental entities as well as the applicant. If it is found that the issuance of\nother Federal permits and licenses causes significant effects on coastal land and water uses, the con-\nsistency requirements will be applied to those permits or licenses through administrative addition to\nthe list above.\nAlthough the specific procedure for certifying consistency has not been fully developed, the review will\nprovide public notice, opportunity for public and local, State, and Federal agency comment, and, as\nappropriate, public hearings.\nIn cases where projects are judged inconsistent with the Program and the State has not concurred with\ncertification, Federal agencies will have to deny permit applications unless the appeal procedures\nestablished by the CZMA are applied. In cases where the State has not concurred with a certification\nbecause the project has been judged to be inconsistent with the management program, Federal agencies\nmust deny permit applications unless the Secretary determines on appeal that overriding considerations\njustify approval of the project.\nIt is important to note that the Secretarial override does not detract from the central authority of\nthe State under the CZMA. It is intended to protect against abuse of this authority as it relates to\nnational security and the objectives of the CZMA. In any event, the impact of a Secretarial override,\nif exercised, would only apply to the issue of the State's determination of consistency for the purposes\nof the Federal license or permit. It can not force the Federal agency to issue the permit. Nor does\nit influence the issuance or denial of any State agency license or permit. In other words, while the\nSecretary's override may affect a State's consistency response to a Federal license or permit, it does\nnot force any course of action upon the State or the responsible Federal agency.\nThe overall thrust of Federal consistency will be to provide closer cooperation and coordination bet-\nween Federal, State, and local government agencies involved in coastal zone related activities and\nmanagement. This will be considered to be a desirable impact and, indeed, is one of the objectives of\nthe CZMA as discussed earlier.\nFederal approval of a State's program would also signify the State has an acceptable procedure and\nadministrative mechanism to insure the adequate consideration of the national interest involved in the\nsiting of facilities necessary to meet requirements which are other than local in nature. Such facil-\nities might include: energy production and transmission; recreation; interstate transportation; pro-\nduction of food and fiber; preservation of life and property; national defense and aerospace; historic,\ncultural, aesthetic, and conservation values; and mineral resources, to the extent they are dependent\non or relate to the coastal zone.\nThis policy requirement is intended to assure that national concerns over facility siting are expressed\n37","and dealt with in the development and implementation of State coastal management programs. The\nrequirement will not compel the States to propose a program which accomodates certain types of facil-\nities but will assure that such national concerns are included at an early stage in the State's plan-\nning activities and that such facilities not be arbitrarily excluded or unreasonably restricted in the\nmanagement program.\nThis provision will have two impacts. First, it will prohibit a State from arbitrarily or categorically\nprohibiting or excluding any use or activity dependent on the coastal zone. Whereas in the lack of a\ncomprehensive planning program such consideration might simply be ignored by oversight or default, this\nrequirement will insure they are specifically included. On the other hand, the existence and approval\nof an explicit procedure will protect the State from the capricious imposition of actions or projects\nby Federal agencies in the name of the national interest. In either event, the procedure should lead\nto the more deliberate and thoughtful and less fragmented and wasteful siting of such facilities in\nthe Nation as a whole.\nB.\nImpacts Resulting from State and Local Government Actions\nOregon's Coastal Management Program is an extension of its existing statewide land use program. The\ncoastal management efforts began prior to the passage of the CZMA and will continue even if Federal\napproval is not received. Likewise, the Oregon land use program provided by Senate Bill 100 is also\nan existing program that will remain effective even if the Oregon Coastal Management Program is not\napproved. Thus, the effects of the Program do not result directly from the Federal coastal zone\nmanagement program. However, Federal funding support and the Federal consistency provisions of the CZMA\nwill materially aid the implementation and administration of the Program.\nAt several stages during the development of its coastal management program, Oregon examined\nthe impacts of its proposed program. OCCDC provided lengthy assessments of both environmental and\neconomic impacts in its Final Report (1975); these were also summarized in the Summary, Final Report.\nAfter LCDC assumed active responsibility for developing the Oregon Coastal Management Program from\nOCCDC, it created a series of Technical Advisory Committees (TAC) to review and develop the special\ncoastal Goals. A special interdisciplinary TAC, representative of a variety of professions and in-\nterests, was established to examine the environmental and economic impacts and consequences of the\nproposed Goals. As the Goals were further revised, the LCDC staff economist and natural resource sci-\nentists again assessed these impacts. Finally, the LCDC provided funding for an evaluation of the plan-\nning Goals and Guidelines on the coastal economy.\nIn general, the effect of the Goals (see Appendix 3) combine to cause several environmental effects.\nPrimary among these will be the increased protection of the coast's natural resources. This will re-\nsult in part from the requirements establishing priorities of uses in different resource categories\nand also from the requirements to preserve, protect, or maintain certain resources. The Program\nclearly recognizes the importance of these natural resources and is designed to guide development to-\nward tolerant land and water areas and away from areas which are intolerant of or unable to absorb\ndevelopment. While directing utilization of the natural resources, the Goals also require that prior-\nity be placed on management of renewable resources, providing for use of all coastal resources by fu-\nture generations. Consumptive use of non-renewable resources will only be permitted so long as it does\nnot detract from the long-term management of the renewable resources.\nThe coastal Goals also require that local government comprehensive plans make provision for appropriate\nwater dependent uses, including navigation and transportation, recreation and aesthetic use, and siting\nfor water dependent industrial and commerical facilities. The Program recognizes the necessary role\nthat a coastal location plays in such activities and uses and requires that appropriate areas be desi-\ngnated for these activities consistent with natural resource constraints and protected from incompati-\nble uses. Non-dependent or non-related water uses and activities will only be permitted after natural\nresource and water dependent activity needs are satisfied.\nThe Goals also expand the basis for decision-making by requiring that specific factors, resources,\nhazards, and uses be addressed in the planning process and in allocating land and water resources. The\nmajor impacts of the Goals are summarized in Table XI.\nThe Oregon Coastal Management Program should also reduce long-term public and private costs. The Goals\nemphasize land use management solutions rather than structural solutions to coastal problems and haz-\nards. They also tend to internalize many of the costs usually treated as externalities and which are\nborne by the general public. The policies enunciated in the Goals may cause temporary dislocations and\nadjustments, which will create short-term public and private costs. However, by the utilization of\nmanagement solutions coupled with the protection of the natural resource base, future and long-term\ncosts will be reduced, while the economic base in the coastal zone will be more stable. Moreover, the\nvery development of comprehensive plans and policies will result in reducing delays and costs associ-\nated with permit review and issuance and in stable conditions which will favor long-term capital in-\nvestment.\nThe Program will also result in increased protection of historic and archaeological sites. A\n38","Ensures all exceptions will be based on consideration of alternatives.\nAllows avoidance of significant negative impacts unforeseen in Goal\nRequires findings of long-term environmental, economic, social, and\nHalt or reduce continuing loss of important agricultural lands in\nIncrease costs of planning (borne primarily by State and Federal\nProvides basis for ensuring effective consideration of long-term\nenvironmental and economic impacts as result of a deliberate and\nEnsures citizens can have input without need to resort to costly\nReduce piece-meal consideration of projects based on short-term\nReduce costly delays in permit reviews and project development\nAdd cost of planning process to decision-making (to be borne\nEnsure effective consideration of concerns raised by public.\nReduces fiscal impacts of extension of public facilities\nMaintain healthy and viable agricultural industry.\nReduce residential sprawl onto agricultural lands.\nIncrease citizen participation in land planning.\nonce plan and policies have been established.\nProvide broader basis for decision-making.\nProvide sound basis for decision-making.\nReduce tax burden on agricultural lands.\nenergy consequences of alternatives.\nresulting from leapfrog development.\nIMPACT\nExpand basis for decision-making.\nprimarily by state).\nexplicit process.\nSUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS FROM THE OREGON COASTAL\nlegal processes.\nimpacts only.\ndevelopment.\nagencies).\nState.\nMANAGEMENT PROGRAM\nTABLE XI\nEstablishes process and criteria for\neconomic, energy, and environmental\nall decisions and actions affecting\nidentification of issues, problems,\nRequires preservation of important\nand inventory information, and be\nbased on consideration of social,\nand policy process as basis for\nEstablishes land use planning\nRequires plans be related to\nRequires effective citizen\ninvolvement in all phases\nexceptions to Goals.\nof planning process.\nagricultural lands.\n1. Citizen Involvement\n3. Agricultural Lands\n2. Land Use Planning\nland use.\nGOAL/REQUIREMENT\nneeds.","Provide increased environmental protection and benefits from forests.\nopen spaces; watershed; fish and wildlife habitat; soil stabili-\nLong term capital investment in timber industry can be made with\nExpand definition of forest uses to include timber production;\nEnsures pollution and waste standards will be addressed during\nProvide basis for sound long-term management of forest lands.\nEnsures development of sound information on important natural\nReduce loss of life and property resulting from inappropriate\nReduce tax-borne externalized costs associated with disaster\nzation; maintenance of clean air and water; recreation; and\nExpand basis for decision-making to ensure consideration of\nIncrease internalized costs associated with timber harvest.\nReduce impacts of disturbing or altering natural resources.\nDecrease externalized costs resulting from timber harvest.\nReduce externalized costs resulting from waste discharge.\nMaintains basis for tourism and recreational industries.\nReduce conversion of forest lands to non-forest uses.\nIncrease protection of certain natural resources.\nIncrease costs of development in hazard areas.\nIncrease opportunities for recreation.\nBroadens basis for decision-making.\nMaintain healthy timber industry.\nIMPACT\nrelief and prevention projects.\ndevelopment in hazard areas.\nnatural resources.\nplan development.\nconfidence.\nresources.\ngrazing.\nnatural disaster areas unless safeguarded.\nRequires planning for recreational needs.\nRequires protection of these resources,\nRequires conservation of forest lands.\nRequires inventory and identification\n5. Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas,\nquires consideration of consequences\nor if a potential use conflict, re-\nProhibits development in hazard or\nRequires forest lands be retained\nRequires present and future waste\ndischarges not exceed State or\nof certain natural resources.\n7. Areas Subject to Natural Hazards\nand Natural Resources\n6. Air, Water, and Land Quality\nand mitigating factors.\nFederal standards.\nfor forest uses.\n8. Recreational Needs\nGOAL/REQUIREMENT\n4. Forest Lands","Reduces sprawl into rural and undeveloped areas (\"buildable lands\"\nReduce environmental and energy impacts of providing facilities.\nPromotes economic growth in accordance with local need, desire,\nReduce adverse economic impact of public facilities on private\nExpands availability of housing of all prices and rents to all\nReduce sprawl and incentives for disorderly growth by limiting\nPromotes mass transit and alternative forms of transportation.\nReduces social, economic, environmental, and energy costs and\nReduces long-term economic costs to society, both public and\nReduces environmental impacts associated with production and\nconsidered in land use, public facility, transportation, and\nEnsures that factors required for economic activity will be\nEnsure adequate provision of public facilities in planning.\nPromotes more efficient mix of transportation modes.\nReduce costs associated with developing facilities.\nReduce adverse impact of recreation on resources.\nProvides basis for stable and healthy economy.\nProvides basis for directing future growth.\nare those in urban or urbanizable areas)\nMaintains adequate supply of housing.\nRelates transportation plans to need.\nIMPACT\nrecreational facilities.\nand resource capability.\nsegments of society.\nresource planning.\nuse of energy.\nReduce sprawl.\nfacilities.\nimpacts.\nprivate.\nwith financial capability of Oregon household.\nEncourages adequate housing commensurate\nRequires buildable lands be inventoried.\nand location consistent with resources.\nwhich addresses certain considerations.\nRequires coordinated economic planning\nLimit recreation to quantity, quality,\nplan addressing nine different needs.\nRequires a coordinated transportation\nRequires land and uses to be managed\nRequires that public facilities and\nservices shall be appropriate for\nand limited to development needs.\nto maximize energy conservation.\n11. Public Facilities and Services\n9. Economy of the State\n13. Energy Conservation\n12. Transportation\nGOAL/REQUIREMENT\n10. Housing","Maintain commercial and recreational fishing industries and benefits.\nInternalizes economic and environmental costs of activities causing\nReduce externalized economic and environmental costs of development\nReduce costs and need for dredging and channel maintenance activi-\nEnsure identification and protection of areas for water-dependent\nEnsure preservation of significant fish and wildlife habitat, of\nIncrease costs associated with some upland, especially riparian\nestuarine productivity and of scientific and educational needs.\nIncrease costs to developer of development affecting estuaries.\nReduce environmental and energy impacts associated with growth.\nEnsure conservation and long-term use of renewable resources.\nProvide effective coordination with Section 208 water quality\nIncrease cost to developer by internalizing costs, especially\nMaintain benefits resulting from natural values of estuaries.\nIncrease economic costs for some non-dependent developments.\nReduce economic cost associated with growth and development.\nReduce fiscal impacts associated with providing facilities\nDecrease loss of estuarine areas for non-dependent uses.\nProvide economic benefits to water-dependent uses.\nProtect fish and wildlife and necessary habitat.\nReduce further loss of estuarine ecosystem.\nof projects which are not water dependent.\nIMPACT\nMaintain healthy fishing industries.\nRetain rural lands in rural nature.\nReduce undirected urban sprawl.\nand services to urban areas.\nProtect fishery resources.\nestuarine sedimentation.\naffecting estuaries.\nuses and activities.\nProtect habitat.\nactivities.\nplanning.\nties.\nRequires urban growth boundaries based\nRequires action to reduce man-induced\nthough recreation, agricultural,\nRequires integrity of estuarine\nand economic benefits would ex-\nsedimentation into estuaries.\n(Not applied in coastal zone,\nLimit dredge, fill, or other\nreduction or degradation of\ntend to coastal residents.)\necosystems be maintained.\nRequire designation of\non several criteria.\nestuarine values.\nmanagement units.\n15. Willamette Greenway\n16. Estuarine Resources\n14. Urbanization\nGOAL/REQUIREMENT","Long-term investments dependent on maintenance of dredged channels\nEnsures protection of major marshes, significant wildlife habitat,\nReduce public costs resulting from disaster relief and prevention\ncoastal headlands, exceptional aesthetic resources, and historic\nProvides priority in urban shorelands for water-dependent recre-\nRetains rural character, and economic and environmental benefits\nInternalize costs, traditionally borne by society, to developer.\nReduce sedimentation into estuaries and costs of dredging and\nProvide opportunity to restore lost environmental and economic\nReduce adverse impact of dredged material disposal in fishery\nMaintain recreational and commercial benefits resulting from\nReduce private and public costs associated with losses from\nIncrease costs to developer associated with some shoreland\nProvide opportunity for increased productive or beneficial\nProtect shoreline areas from erosion and retard flooding.\nReduce private costs associated with disaster losses and\ndevelopment by limiting density or type of development.\nReduce loss of fish, wildlife, and recreational values,\nPromote agricultural uses in productive floodplains.\nRecognize special and unique values of shorelands.\nProtect significant fish and wildlife habitat.\nProtect recreational and aesthetic benefits.\nIncrease costs of some riparian activities.\national, commercial , and industrial uses.\nReduce delay and costs for permit review.\nor dependent upon estuarine location.\ncan be made with increased certainty.\nProtect fish and wildlife resources.\nresources and on fishing industries.\nReduce sedimentation into estuaries.\nBroadens basis for decision-making.\nMaintain healthy fishing industry.\nReduce loss of life and property.\nutilization of dredged material.\nconstruction of control devices.\nIMPACT\nnatural hazards and disaster.\nand archaeological sites.\nMaintain water quality.\nbenefits in shorelands.\nof rural shorelands.\nchannel maintenance.\nprojects.\nbenefits.\neconomic, and social values of coastal\nRequires maintenance of environmental,\nRequires long-term plans for disposal\nRequires development in shoreland;\nRequires mitigation for dredge or\nfill in intertidal or tidal marsh\nsolutions to problems of erosion\navoid hazard areas or address\nPromotes land use management\npractices and non-structural\nspecial hazard needs.\nof dredged materials.\n17. Coastal Shorelands\nand flooding.\nshorelands.\nGOAL/REQUIREMENT\nareas.","Increase governmental cost of reviewing permits for development in\nPromote use of areas for recreation and protect interdune habitat.\nIncrease costs resulting from waste disposal on territorial sea.\nProtect and maintain the variety of values and benefits provided\nReduce potential for affecting erosion or accretion patterns on\nReduce opportunity for blowout and therefore potential loss of\nReduce environmental and economic loss associated with inappro-\nReduce long-term costs to public caused by alteration of beach\nMinimize adverse impacts on recreational and aesthetic use of\nInternalizes costs of breaching, when necessary, by requiring\nEnsures long-term benefits derived from fishing, navigation,\nReduce governmental costs of disaster relief and prevention.\nMaintains healthy and viable fishing, tourism, and shipping\nReduce impacts resulting from erosion caused by these uses.\nProtects certain resources, including important biological\nReduce public and private losses through erosion and storm\nEnsure uses consistent with limitation of area to sustain\nIncrease cost for development of mineral resources from\nReduces public costs of maintaining water quality.\nIncrease costs to developers in some dune areas.\nIMPACT\nadjacent land or other properties.\nExpands basis for decision-making.\nExpands basis for decision-making.\nReduce loss of life and property.\nthat the breach be restored.\npriate use and development.\nhabitat and feeding areas.\nby beach and dunes areas.\nproposed development.\nbeach and dune areas.\nlife and property.\nterritorial sea.\nReduce erosion.\nand recreation.\nReduce erosion.\nindustries.\nprocesses.\nflooding.\nbeaches.\non active foredunes, conditionally stable\nor wave overtopping, and interdune areas\nforedunes subject to ocean undercutting\nRequires ocean resources of territorial\nconstruction of beach front protective\nterm benefits they provide and places\npriority on proper management and pro-\nProhibits residential development and\nEstablishes additional conditions for\nsea be managed to maintain the long-\nRequires diverse and appropriate use\nof beaches and dunes consistent with\ncommercial and industrial buildings\nRequires specific finding prior to\nland use actions in most beach or\nRestricts breaching of foredunes.\ntheir values and limitations for\ntection of renewable resources.\nsubject to ocean flooding.\n18. Beaches and Dunes\ndevelopment.\nOcean Resources\nstructures.\ndune areas.\nGOAL/REQUIREMENT","complete inventory of all historic and archaeological sites has been completed by OCCDC. To pro-\ntect these areas, detail on specific sites has not been widely disseminated. However, all information\nis on file with the State historian. The inventories have also been provided to county planners who\nwill have access to the information as needed. The statewide Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic\nAreas, and Natural Resources, establishes requirements for the consideration of historic areas. The\nimpacts associated with the individual Goals on coastal resources are described in more detail as\nfollows:\n(1) Estuarine Areas\nConsequences of Current Activity\nSome of the most significant changes in estuarine areas have been the result of rapid man-caused sedi-\nmentation, diking of tidal marshes, degradation of water quality, and the alteration of the circulation\npattern and surface area at particular locations. Both economic and environmental systems of estuaries\nare affected by such changes. The major economic and environmental consequence of sedimentation and\ndegradation of water quality is the loss of biological productivity. Such activities as commercial and\nrecreational fishing, fish processing, and aquaculture are dependent on the maintenance of estuarine\nbiological productivity. Continued sedimentation also increases expenditure on estuarine dredging,\nparticularly channel maintenance. In addition to decreasing this productivity, fill or diking of wet-\nlands which normally moderate excessive water flow can cause flooding in the estuarine area.\nSeveral existing State statutes, including the Fill and Removal Law, Water Quality Regulations, and the\nForest Practices Act, have been enacted to address some of these concerns and problems. While partially\neffective, comprehensive management of the resources and problems has been hampered because the in-\ndividual statutes largely rely on permit functions, lack a long-term or comprehensive planning per-\nspective, and are not able to anticipate cumulative impacts or consequences. Many of these impacts can\nbe lessened, or prevented, through comprehensive planning and management of the estuarine resources.\nThe consequesces of implementing the proposed estuary Goal in such a planning and management program\nare discussed below. While most consequences are dependent on how local jurisdictions interpret and\nimplement the Goal according to their specific needs and desires, the following are possible types and\ndirections of short-term and long-term Goal consequences.\nShort-Term Consequences of Goal\nOver the short run, designation of use classifications will cause changes (either increase or decrease,\ndepending on specific circumstances) in property values and possibly income if the price an individual\npaid for a parcel reflects a higher or lower use than allowed under the assigned class.\nLong-Term Consequences of Goal\nOver the long run, there will be increased demand for estuaries as long-term values and diversity are\nprotected, maintained, or restored. Most likely, increased demand for estuarine natural, aesthetic,\nrecreational, and development resources will be reflected in increased prices (market and non-market)\nof each estuary resource.\nReducing the conflicts among present and future estuary uses by considering the long-term economic,\nnatural, and recreational opportunities of the resource will reduce future costs associated with short\nrun inefficient estuary use decisions. For example, allowing non-water related use of estuaries to-\nday at the expense of future beneficial water-dependent uses results in higher future costs.\nOne of the major economic and environmental benefits of a classification scheme is the decision to con-\nserve or develop is made on a comprehensive basis considering explicitly the value of all estuarine\nresources. Since the economic and ecological values of estuarine resources partially depend on the re-\nmaining amount of each resource existing throughout the estuary system, resource use decisions are best\nmade on a comprehensive basis. Fach future amendment to the classification system should consider the\nconsequent changes in the value of each resource use; e.g., an incremental decision to fill a wetland\nincreases the value of remaining wetlands in future decisions.\nThe majority of economic and environmental consequences of the classification system depend on the\nlocal jurisdiction's identification of resources and the amount of area assigned to each classification.\nTo the extent a classification restricts the spatial area for water-dependent uses, values of remain-\ning available parcels for such use will increase, causing over time, increases in capital/land and\nlabor/land ratios. The impact of such changes on local employment and income will vary with each\naffected economic sector depending on the response of goods and services demand to price changes.\nOver the long run, protecting the estuarine system, including the natural biological productivity, di-\nversity, and water quality, represents an internalization of costs associated with the loss of these\nresources, e.g., loss of commercial and recreational values associated with decreases in salmon, steel-\nhead, oysters, crabs, clams, and shrimp caused by development in or affecting the estuary.\n45","Classification of estuaries on a resource basis, however, will also assure appropriate areas will be\nmaintained for water-dependent uses and will reduce the costs of providing public services to these\nareas. To the extent classification promotes the evolution of \"development centers\" on the coast,\ndistribution over time of future and some existing economic activity from low to more intensive estua-\nries may result. While this may cause disparities among areas surrounding estuaries, activities in\nmore intensively developed estuaries will realize scale and agglomeration economies.\nThe critical variables of the classification system creating distribution effects are: (1) main-\ntenance dredging of existing navigation channels, basins, and log-handling areas; (2) actual siting\nof urban/industrial water dependent activity; and (3) expansion or improvement of existing breakwaters,\ngroins, and jetties.\n(2) Coastal Shorelands\nConsequences of Current Activity\nSome of the major consequences of existing uses on shorelands in the coastal zone center around the\nmodification of shorelands' vegetative cover, neglect of special geologic hazards, development which\nmodifies runoff patterns, increased pollution and sedimentation in coastal waters, and competing and\nconflicting uses. Both the economic and environmental systems of the coast are affected by these\nchanges.\nClearing of vegetative cover decreases the ability of the shoreland to retain and decrease storm water\nas well as removing the cover for game and non-game species. Substantial loss of property and possi-\nbly life can result from the erosion of stream, estuary, and ocean shorelands.\nThe impacts of implementing the coastal shoreland Goal are discussed below. While most of the conse-\nquences are dependent on local jurisdictions interpretations and implementation of the Goal, the\nfollowing are possible types and directions of short-term and long-term goal consequences.\nAs with estuaries many existing statutes address some of the problems with shoreland:development and\nuse. The Forest Practices Act and the Flood Assurance Program address some concerns and hazards. How-\never, the sedimentation from a variety of shoreland sources and the protection of ripairian vegetation\nare not yet effectively addressed. While zoning is capable of allocating competing uses in the limited\nshoreland, it has not been effective in preventing the leapfrog development along coastal shorelands.\nShort-Term Consequences of Goal\nOver the short run, the designation of uses in coastal shorelands will cause changes in the value of\nproperty to the extent permissible uses differ from the range of uses allowed by current zoning or\nother regulations. If the price paid for a parcel reflected a future use above (or below) a designated\nclassification use, the property owner could experience a loss (or gain) in wealth and possible income.\nThere may also be changes in wealth and income of parcels adjacent to shoreland classification areas,\ni.e., a residential parcel adjacent to a low intensity use area.\nLong-Term Consequences of Goal\nOver the long run positive or negative effects depend on policies for local and coastal uses in shore-\nlands established by jurisdictions. These can stimulate economic activity in suitable areas and in-\nhibit such activity in unsuitable areas.\nIf local jurisdictions do not adequately consider current and future economic factors of shoreland\nareas, negative impacts on employment, income, and tax base could result. Insufficient consideration\nof essential wildlife habitat, vegetative cover, aesthetic, and recreational resources of shoreland\nwill result in increased costs associated with pollutants, erosion, sedimentation, ddecreased water\nquality, and loss of fish and wildlife. The success of the planning effort will depend partially on the\nstability which is achieved in balancing current and future demands for shoreland resources.\nSince single family dwelling units, particularly recreational units, tend to consume large shoreland\nareas and are not water dependent housing could be the primary existing activity restricted by the\nGoal. The coastal shoreland Goal does not prohibit residential development in shoreland areas but does\nrestrict subdivision development in rural shorelands. The net effect of this restriction is dependent\non the local jurisdiction providing non shoreland area for such use. As the spatial area for recrea-\ntional housing is limited, one can expect increased housing densities in response to increased values\nof available parcels.\nEnvironmental damage costs (e.g., loss of property or salmon spawning areas) and abatement costs (e.g.,\nchannel maintenance) will be reduced by minimizing man-induced erosion and sedimentation. To the ex-\ntent current local plan regulations are less than those specified in the Goal, one can also ex-\npect a decrease in the loss of life and property. Both of these considerations could involve addi-\ntional application, site preparation, and construction costs associated with development.\n46","Consideration of water currents, erosion, and accretion patterns associated with shorelands can lower\nfuture public costs of groins, seawalls, and bulkheads for the protection of ill-advised development\nor alterations.\nEncouraging the siting of non-water-dependent facilities, uses, and activities on uplands other than\nshorelands encourages a more efficient allocation of the limited shoreland resource and will lead to\nlong-term benefits.\nProviding for appropriate public access to and recreational use of coastal waterways will increase the\ncost of the Highway Department's access program and other State and local efforts. However, these\ncosts should be offset by the benefits derived from increased use and enjoyment of public land and\nwater resources.\nProtecting archaeological and historic sites, depending on local jurisdiction implementation, could in-\ncrease regulatory, project, application, and compliance costs. The major benefit will be the retention\nof the cultural and aesthetic quality of historic resources.\n(3) Beaches and Dunes\nConsequences of Current Activity\nThe major consequences of past uses of beaches and dunes relate to development on active and condi-\ntionally stable foredunes, foredunes subject to ocean undercutting, excessive drawdown of groundwater,\nconflicting uses and the neglect of the recreational and open space values of beaches and dunes.\nDevelopments such as housing on active foredunes can result in wind erosion of the dune, damage to the\ndevelopment, and hazards to human life. Rapid movement of sand by the wind and water not only damages\nthe development itself but causes damages and maintenance costs to adjacent property owners. On condi-\ntionally stable foredunes where wind erosion may not be a major problem there is still the threat of\nocean undercutting and seismic sea waves (tsunamis). The undercutting of wind stable foredunes and\nactive foredunes in Salishan Spit, Lincoln County from 1930 to 1952 are prime examples of ocean under-\ncutting.\nThe consequences of implementing the proposed beaches and dunes Goal are discussed below. While most\nof the consequences are dependent on local jurisdiction's interpretation and implementation of the\nGoal, the following are possible types and directions of Goal consequences.\nShort-Term Consequences of Goal\nOver the short run, the identification of sand areas and the designation of uses consistent with these\nareas will create added fiscal expense to local jurisdictions. In the short run there will be changes\nin\nproperty values (negative and positive). If a property owner paid a price for his parcel which re-\nflected an intended use below (or above) the designated use, that property owner will experience a gain\n(or loss) of wealth and possibly income. Owners of neighboring parcels will benefit both from the con-\ntrol of flowing sand and an increase in property values associated with adjacent vacant lots or open\nspace.\nThe costs of preparing findings on proposed development in dune areas may be borne by the local govern-\nment issuing building permits or by the developer. This will vary depending on the project and site.\nA site investigation for a 5 million dollar condominium project covering four to five acres has been\nestimated to cost from 2,000 dollars to 3,000 dollars or .0005 percent of the project cost.\nLong-Term Consequences of Goal\nMany of the economic and environmental consequences of the Goal depend on the uses designated as appro-\npriate for each area by the local jurisdiction.\nOver the long run, implementation of this Goal should reduce the public and private damage costs of\nwind erosion, oceanic undercutting, and sand migration associated with inappropriate use of beaches and\ndunes. There should also be less public and private expenditures on riprap, jetties, groins, etc.,\nfor the protection of property and structures résulting from unforeseen impacts of sand area altera-\ntions. The additional costs of modifying a project to alleviate excessive damage to vegetation, signi-\nficant exposure of stable areas to erosion, or slope instability are project specific.\nSince the most use restrictive sand classification, active foredune, comprises only approximately 10\npercent of all beach and dune areas, one would not expect a large reduction of economic activity for the\ncoast as a whole as a result of the reduced development activity on these areas. However, there will\nbe differences in the degree of impact between the urban growth boundaries within the coastal area de-\npending on each jurisdiction's supply of substitutable land for given restricted use. The most likely\nactivity to be restricted by implementing this Goal is residential single family dwelling units or rec-\nreational secondary housing.\n47","To the extent that limiting development on active foredunes and conditionally stable foredunes act-\nually restricts the supply of view property for development, the demand will increase for the re-\nmaining available land suitable for development. One would expect the price of the remaining land\nview property to increase causing higher capital/land ratios or more capital intensive development,\ni.e., a change from single family dwelling units to condominiums and larger lodging facilities. Local\njurisdictions can modify this impact by making available alternative areas for recreational housing.\nThe consequent increase in capital intensive development could mean more income leaving the region income to\ninvestors of large condominiums and lodging facilities or, conversely, additional community deter- from\nadditional service employment. The actual impact on community employment and income cannot be\nmined at this level of analysis. However, a change in the type of recreational housing from single\nfamily to condominiums and larger lodging facilities would cause a change in the type of construction\nand service employment. An income redistribution could result from increasing the cost of secondary\nhomes and making more open space available, effectively lowering the price of recreational activity.\nWhile a determination of the net fiscal impact of such a change in housing type cannot be determined,\none might expect changes in property values within and between tax assessment districts. If there is\nadequate substitute view property within the taxing jurisdiction there will be a shifting of property\nvalues within that jurisdiction with no negative jurisdictional redistribution effects. If not, there like-\nwill be a shifting of property values outside the taxing jurisdictions. Inability to predict the\nlihood that a restricted activity will relocate within a coastal jurisdiction and the related use\nchanges in the restricted area prohibit more rigorous analysis. It should be reemphasized, however, life as\nwith shorelands, by internalizing the costs created by development and by reducing the damages to\nand property associated with inappropriate development, the tax burden should decline as well as the\ntax base.\nProvision in comprehensive plans for access to public lands and waters could add new costs of acquiring\npublic access or increased pressure for private easements to public areas by State and local govern-\nments. If the previous ownership of the access property was private, there would be a negative impact\non the tax assessment district. There is a possibility that values of property immediately adjacent\nto the public access would be negatively affected. One would expect the value of parcels which did\nnot previously have access to the beach, shoreland, or dunes to increase. Increased benefits of the\nuse of public land and water would result.\n(4) Ocean Resources\nConsequences of Current Activity\nOregon's continental shelf fisheries are endangered from over-fishing and inappropriate fishing prac-\ntices which, over time, may reduce the current level of activity and restrict the development potential\nof the commercial and recreational fishing and fish processing industries. The fishing industry may\nalready be approaching the point of resource depletion in that the level of fishing efficiency appears\nto be dropping. Such resource depletion is also caused by the loss of important feeding and spawning\nareas, nurseries, migration routes, and other biologically important areas.\nThe pressure for developing mineral resources of the Oregon continental shelf is increasing because of\nthe energy shortage and Federal outer continental shelf leasing programs. Oregon has not established\nspecific policy or regulations to control development of the continental shelf. There is potential\nfor future conflicts of territorial sea and continental shelf development with current fishing, navi-\ngation, recreation, and aesthetic values.\nThe short-term and long-term consequences of implementing the proposed continental shelf Goal are dis-\ncussed below.\nShort-Term Consequences of Goal\nOver the short run there will be additional inventory costs to the Oregon Coastal Management Program\nand State and Federal agencies for identifying hydrographic conditions and processes, geology, bio-\nlogical features, mineral deposits, and present and future uses and values. There will also be in-\ncreased regulatory costs as fishing regulations are developed and enforced.\nLong-Term Consequences of Goal\nIdentifying and maintaining the maximum sustained yield of fisheries over the long run will assure a\ncontinued source of fisheries supply, employment, and income benefits. The ability of coastal commun-\nities to increase the current level of fishery activity depends on increased demand for fishery pro-\nducts, incentives to harvest, and local provision of required infrastructure in commercial fishing\nports. The latter would include adequate bar and channel depths, boat moorages, sufficient water supply,\nadequate labor, and capital for fish processing.\nIf additional development of the fisheries industry takes place, one could expect increased employment\nand income from new economic activity linked to commercial fisheries such as boat repair and maintenance\n48","shops and processing fishmeal from fishery wastes. One could also expect increased potential for em-\nployment and income related to recreational fishing.\nConsideration of biological habitats of the continental shelf can assure continuance of those species\ndependent on such habitats, i.e., the importance of kelp beds to sealions, seals, and sea otters or\nbenthic habitats to dungeness crab, English sole, and sand sole. Kelp beds are adversely affected by\npollutants, industrial wastes, and localized discharge. Benthic sand habitats are adversely affected\nby localized pulp mill and sewage plant discharges and disposition of dredge tailings offshore.\nThe Coal requires comprehensive planning on a statewide basis for port and navigation needs and will\nprovide for a more efficient use of port resources. It anticipates that activities for port develop-\nment and enlargement, especially to deep water status, will be focused on a few selected port areas.\nThe aesthetic and recreational use of Oregon's coastline are the fastest growing sectors of the coastal\neconomy. Inclusion of the needs of these two activities into planning considerations for the conti-\nnental shelf will protect the economic and cultural benefits they provide.\nInstitutionally, the Oregon Coastal Management Program establishes a mechanism for coordinating the\nconcerns and responsibilities of a wide variety of interests: local government, State and Federal\nagencies, private interest groups, and the general public. This coordination may result in increased\ncosts and time associated with plan development, or it may reduce these costs if the benefits deriving\nfrom the increased efficiency of the system exceed the expanded scope proposed. Such coordination will\nresult in less conflict between the various interests, an earlier identification of serious contro-\nversy among the interests, and more effective management of coastal resources.\nThe State is attempting to avoid duplication of existing State procedures in such matters as certifying\napplications for Federal licenses and permits for compliance with the coastal management program.\nAlthough this may cause some administrative adjustments in the agencies involved, it would avoid the\nincreased costs and time delay associated with creating a new permit review system. Given the licenses\nand permits which Oregon has chosen to certify, the State anticipates reviewing for certification about\n275 to 350 permits and licenses a year.\nThe overall impact of the Oregon Coastal Management Program will be to provide more effective use of\ncoastal land and water resources. Section 302(h) of the CZMA declares that the key to effective man-\nagement of coastal resources is for the States to exercise their full authority and to develop unified\npolicies, criteria, standards, methods, and processes to deal with land and water uses of greater than\nlocal significance. Oregon has done this with the establishment of LCDC and designation of the re-\nsponsibility for coastal management to that agency. While LCDC does not directly engage in planning\nactivities (except where local governments may fail to develop a plan), the agency has established\nstatewide standards for land and water use planning. It has proposed additional standards for the\ncoastal zone. After the development of local comprehensive plans, LCDC will also review those plans\nfor compliance with the Goals before approval.\nBy this means and with full participation of the public and Federal, State, and local agencies and\ngovernments, the objectives stipulated in Section 303 of the CZMA-- preserve, protect, develop, re-\nstore and enhance the resources of the Nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations\" will\nbe achieved.\nThe Goals for coastal resources have been subjected to economic evaluation throughout their development\nfrom Draft #1 through the newly adopted Goals. Draft #1, the OCCDC policies, for which the LCDC held\nhearings in March and April of 1975, were evaluated policy by policy during their development under the\nOCCDC. During the summer of 1975, four Technical Advisory Committees (TAC) developed goal recommenda-\ntions for the LCDC. These recommendations were evaluated for their potential impact on the coastal\neconomy by a team of six economists. During the fall of 1975, the DLCD prepared goal recommendations\nwhich were also evaluated for economic impacts. On December 20, 1975, the LCDC reviewed both the TAC\nand DLCD goal recommendations and the respective economic evaluations of both alternatives. The Com-\nmission substantially revised Draft #1 on the basis of this input and prepared Draft #2 for public\nhearing.\nTo evaluate the economic impact of Draft #3, the LCDC provided staff support and 12,500 dollars to hire an\neconomic consultant. Unlike past impact evaluations which addressed both the positive and negative\nimpacts of the draft Goals, the consultant was directed to examine concerns of coastal residents and\neconomic interests about possible economic impacts and determine which of those concerns might be\nvalid under a moderate or intensive (worst case) interpretation of the Goals.\nThe consultant presented a report to the LCDC at their December 7, 1975, coastal Goal policy and issue\nsession. During the mark-up sessions on 17 and 18 December, 1975, substantial changes were made to\nDraft #3 in response to the consultant's report and hearing testimony.\nSeveral important points were raised during the report on economic impact: (1) The report was a gen-\neral overview which identifies implications of Goal implementation, not a study of impacts;\n4.9","(2) the study was not a prediction of what would happen under Goal implementation; rather,\nidenti-\nan\nfication of possible implications of regulation in general; and (3) the implications identified do\nnot warrent amending the Goal adoption schedule.\nconsultant's report identified three considerations for Commission redrafting the coastal Goals;\nThe\nareas of ambiguity causing variation in interpretation, alleviating uncertainity, and\naccounting\nfor\ndifferences. The following is a point by point review of considerations raised in the report and\narea\nthe Commission's response. (The consultant's comments are the numbered items and the\nCommission's\nre-\nsponse follow each comment.)\nI. Areas of Ambiguity Causing Variation in Interpretation\nA. Estuarine Resources Goal\n1. Limitation of future development which would require\ndredging or filling.\nRequirement that dredging or filling activities only be\npermitted when it will \"provide a significant public gain\nwhich cannot feasibly be provided in any other manner.\"\nRESPONSE: Ambiguity found in Draft #3 has been substantially re-\nmoved clarifying the intent of the Goal. One of the purposes of\nthis Goal is to maintain estuarine resources necessary for the\nsurvival of the commercial and recreational fishing, fish pro-\ncessing, and port industries on the coast. Filling estuarines\nwould reduce these uses.\n2. Added project development costs related to replacing or\nrestoring areas of similar biological potential to those\ndredged or filled.\nRESPONSE: The Commission retained the concept of mitigation but\nclassified it by limiting it to dredge or fill in intertidal or\ntidal marsh areas, and provided additional guidelines on mitigation\ntechniques. Mitigation is an explicit attempt to internalize the\ncosts caused by estuarine alteration which have traditionally been\nborne by society.\n3. Interpretation of ''water-dependent commercial enterprises\nand activities\" as applied to future development.\nRESPONSE: The Commission retained the definition of water-de-\npendent and water-related uses explicitly but under what con-\nditions clarified \"non-dependent, non-related uses are appro-\npriate.\" The purpose of designating uses in estuarine areas\nis to reduce conflicts between present and future estuary uses\nby considering the long-term economic, natural, and recreational\nopportunities of estuarine resources. Such consideration can re-\nduce the future loss of benefits resulting from short run, inef-\nficient estuary decisions e.g., allowing non-water related use of\nestuaries today at the expense of future beneficial water-\ndependent uses.\n4. Provision for land storage of logs as an alternative\nto water storage \"whenever feasible.\"\nRESPONSE: The Commission removed this clause and made explicit\nprovision for, 'Water storage areas where needed for products\nused in/or resulting from industry, commerce and recreation.\"\nB. Coastal Shorelands Goals\n1. Designation of temporary and permanent boundaries based\non the limited criteria provided.\nRESPONSE: The Commission deleted the concept of a temporary\nboundary. It defined a planning area for inventory and study\npurposes. Development or use is not prohibited in this area.\n2. Provision that local government will rule on proposed\n50","activities in the interim period while temporary\nboundaries are in effect, on the basis of local\ninterpretation of the Goal.\nRESPONSE: The Commission removed the ambiguity of this concept by\nsetting a minimum boundary of 200 feet from the shoreline where local\njurisdictions would rule on proposed activities according to the Goal.\nThis greatly reduced the area of concern from the Draft #3 shorelands\nGoal.\n3. Limitation of activities which would adversely impact\nrelated resources through ''man-induced erosion and\nsedimentation .\"\nRESPONSE: The Commission deleted this requirement and added a re-\nquirement in the estuarine resources Goal to reduce man-induced sed-\nimentation into the estuaries.\n4. Prohibition on most development within the 100-year\nflood plain that would cause an increase in \"flood\ndamage potential.\"\nRESPONSE: The Commission deleted the prohibition and established\npriority uses for flood hazard and flood plain areas. The Commission\nmoved the references to public project expenditures to the guidelines.\n5. Limitation of structural solutions to problems of\nerosion and flooding.\nRESPONSE: The Commission clarified this concept on the advice of the\nSoil Conservation Service to read \"Land-use management practices and\nnon-structural solutions to problems of erosion and flooding shall be\nencouraged'' (emphasis added).\n6. Limitation of activities which would subtract\nfrom the \"vegetative fringe adjacent to coastal\nwaters\".\nRESPONSE: The Commission clarified this concept but retained a\nstrong requirement because the benefits the vegetative fringe\nprovides. The requirement distinguishes needs for water-de-\npendent uses.\nC. Beaches and Dunes\n1. Prohibition on activities which would increase\nerosion.\nRESPONSE: The Commission removed the prohibition, amending it\nto read that activities should be regulated to minimize erosion.\n2. Requirement for a site investigation report for all\ndevelopment valued over 2,000 dollars.\nRESPONSE: The Commission dropped the requirement replacing it with\na requirement for specific finding of facts for decisions on plans,\nordinance, and land use actions in beach and dune areas other than\nolder stabilized dunes.\n3. Prohibition of beach front protective structures in un-\ndeveloped property and developed property outside desig-\nnated urban growth boundaries.\nRESPONSE: The Commission limited this prohibition to only those\nbeaches controlled by the Oregon Department of Transportation under\nOregon Beach Law (ORS 390.605).\nD. Ocean Resources\n1. Creation and enforcement of fishing regulations\n51","which would maintain an optimum sustainable yield.\nRESPONSE: The Commission retained this concept since it is\nalready State and Federal policy.\n2. Limitation of mineral extraction and industrial\nwaste discharge.\nRESPONSE: The Commission retained this concept since the Goal\ndoes not limit mineral extraction and waste discharge as much\nas direct it away from other activities. During public hearings,\nrepresentatives from the petroleum industry did not indicate con-\ncern over these directions.\n3. Environmental impact review for extraction or\nstorage of mineral resources.\nRESPONSE: The Commission retained this requirement since\nenvironmental impact reviews are currently required for ex-\ntraction activities but not necessarily for storage of mineral\nresources. The Commission believes these reviews are justified\nin light of the potential economic and ecologic consequence of\nsuch activity on the long terms viability of the coast.\nThe format of the new Goals was changed by the Commission in an effort to remove confusion caused\nby\nthe\nDraft #3 Goal categories of Comprehensive Plan and Considerations and Requirements. Under the new\nformat,\nrequirements are either Comprehensive Plan Requirements or Implementation Requirements.\nII. Alleviating Uncertainty\n1. The consultant's report recommends referencing\nmore clearly the existing statutory authority relating\nto an agency's role in implementing a particular Goal\ntopic.\nRESPONSE: The Commission referenced extensively existing State and\nFederal statutory authority as they applied to topics within each of\nthe four Goals. Such authorities include the National Flood Insurance\nProgram and Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973; Department of En-\nvironmental Quality under Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control\nAct; the Fill and Removal Permit Program administered by the Divi-\nsion of State Lands; the Oregon Forest Practices Act; programs of the\nSoil and Water Conservation Commission; and agricultural land use legi-\nslation in ORS 215.\nIII. Accounting for Area Difference\n1. The consultant's report stated that simple overlays\nof Goals and Guidelines on all estuaries do not\naccount for real differences between estuaries such\nas Astoria and Alsea. The Consultant recommended a\ncombination of (1) refining the Goals to account for\narea differences and (2) restating the Goals to grant\nimmunity to establish critical centers of economic\nactivity.\nRESPONSE: Estuary planning will proceed under a general designation\nwhich specifies the most intensive level of development or altera-\ntion which may occur within each estuary. This will set an initial\ndistinction which accounts for some area differences. Once estuary\ninventories and initial planning efforts are completed, these desig-\nnations will be reviewed. By making this initial designation, the\nindividual characteristics of each estuary are taken into account\nfrom the beginning of the planning process.\n52","During the review of the draft Program and draft EIS, comments were also received indicating concern\nabout trespassing, taking, loss of tax base, condemnation, and financial impacts on local government.\nThe Program will not increase or result in trespassing or taking, both of which are subject to a\nvariety of laws and constitutional restrictions. While the Goals promote recreational use of some\nresources, and require that needs for access to coastal resources be examined and provided, these\nwould only be allowed within the limits of the law. Private lands would only be used if suitable\ncompensation or other agreements are provided to the landowner. By providing for sufficient public\nor private recreational areas and opportunities, and by identifying and providing access to important\nresources the Program should result in focusing access, relieving pressures on private lands,\nresulting in reduced trespass on private property.\nNeither the Goals nor the Program authorize nor anticipate the \"taking\" of private land. Where use\nis so restricted as to provide no economic return, the State constitution requires the owner be\ncompensated. It is anticipated that such cases will be very few. Acquisition or other means of\ncompensation will be required for such cases.\nWhile there are no specific plans or requirements for condemnation of lands in the Oregon Coastal\nManagement Program, and while it is not projected that condemnation will play a significant role in\nthe Program, it may be a necessary tool to fully implement all parts of comprehensive plans. For\nexample, condemnation may be necessary to acquire areas for port expansion, waterfront areas for other\nwater-dependent uses, and lands for roads and other public services and facilities. Condemnation may\nalso be necessary to acquire areas for recreational use or for the protection of significant fish and\nwildlife habitat, although these can usually be acquired or protected in other ways, such as a\nrequirement to dedicate lands during subdivision approval.\nWhere necessary, condemnation will in most cases be exercised by local governments or special districts.\nOccasionally State agencies may also find it necessary to condemn lands. In all cases, however,\ncondemnation procedures will follow existing State, and where applicable, Federal laws, including\ncertified appraisals, relocation costs, and the opportunity for the landowner to challenge in court\nunjust offerings. Despite this compensation, condemnation, especially that involving the relocation\nof an established residence, may cause inconvenience and even personal trauma. Because condemnation\nproceedings may be lengthy and costly (to both the government body and the landowner) they will\ngenerally be avoided where possible.\nWhile there will be changes in property values (decreases and increases) within taxing jurisdictions,\none cannot determine the net fiscal impact of the Program before its implementation. Limiting\nmore intensive use on certain parcels may increase the value of those surrounding or contiguous parcels\nwhere intensive use is allowed. This will result in a shifting of values with no effect on the\naggregate tax base of the jurisdictions. In cases where prime developable lots are restricted in their\ndevelopment, local jurisdictions must zone substitute parcels for that development, if not, there\ncould be a shifting of tax base between taxing jurisdictions. Inability to predict the likelihood\nthat a restricted activity will relocate within a coastal jurisdiction and the related use changes\nwithin the restricted area prohibit further analysis.\nCommunities implementing the Program will experience increased administrative costs for servicing\ncitizen involvement programs, coordination, and planning. Portions of these costs will be absorbed\nby State and Federal agencies participating in the Program. The costs to the local jurisdiction will\nbe absorbed 80 percent by coastal zone managmment funding and 20 percent by local match. Local\njurisdictions seldom have problems raising in kind match if citizen participation in the planning\nprogram is utilized for match.\nIn the long-term communities implementing the Program will receive fiscal benefits from the savings\nin costs for construction, maintenance, and operation of facilities in newly developed areas. Under\nthe public facilities, urbanization and coastal Goals, future development will be more compact and\nmore economically serviceable.\n53","VI.\nALTERNATIVES\nThroughout the development of Oregon's Coastal Management Program a variety of alternatives to\nspecific elements of the Program were considered. Many of these derived from comments by the involved\nlocal, State, Federal, and public entities and interests.\nAs required by the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines (40 CFR 1500.8 (4)) the following\ndiscussion considers the more significant alternatives even though they may not be within the exist-\ning authority of OCZM to control.\nA.\nFederal Alternatives to Approval of Oregon Coastal Management Program\n1.\nThe Secretary could delay or deny approval of Oregon's Coastal\nManagement Program until all coastal city and county compre-\nhensive plans are completed and approved by the Oregon Land\nConservation and Development Commission.\nThe local city, county, and special district comprehensive plans required under the Oregon Land Use\nAct will be the basic implementing mechanism for the Oregon Coastal Management Program. Delay of\nProgram approval until their completion might allow better determination to be made of the ability\nof the State and its local governments to meet the intention of the CZMA and especially to comply\nwith the national interest provision. Performance could be more thoroughly analyzed, leading to a\nbetter evaluation of specific items.\nThe CZMA requires adequate and careful consideration of a number of factors, some of which are subject\nto wide interpretation. For a variety of reasons, including failure to meet these requirements, the\nSecretary could refuse to approve Program. This would save Federal 306 funds, and would\nprevent the implementation of Federal consistency.\nReview of local comprehensive plans was not initiated until January 1, 1976, and appeals and revisions\nmay take several months. Although individual actions will be required to conform to the Goals, the\ncompliance of local government plans with the coastal Goals will not be required until one year after\nadoption (i.e., December, 1977). In all probability, because of extensive work required, most local\ngovernment units will request an extension for compliance. Coordinated comprehensive plans will prob-\nably not be achieved in many cases until four or five years after funding becomes available. The\nintent of the review for compliance with State and regional Goals is to facilitate cohesive regional\nplanning for the Oregon coast, and to insure an effective ongoing coastal management program. The\nultimate use of Section 306 funds will be to aid the local governments in meeting those Goals, and\nto aid them in refining the Program. The existing body of State legislation, standards, and other\nprogram elements appear to meet the spirit and letter of the CZMA which requires, as one acceptable\ncourse, the State establish criteria and standards for local implementation (306(e) (1) (A)).\nIn Oregon, the adopted State planning Goals form the basis for an effective management program, with\nlocal comprehensive plans acting as the vehicle for compliance with those Goals. Compliance of actions\nand activities with the Goals is required, even if individual plans have not been revised to incorporate\nthe Goals. With this authority and the petition provisions of ORS 97.300, the Goals and Guidelines of\nthe Program can be implemented during the interim period when local comprehensive plans are being pre-\npared.\nIn all probability the objectives of the CZMA would be accomplished as a part of Oregon's land use\nefforts even without Secretarial approval of the Program. However, denial of approval would result\nin the loss of two important benefits which will assist the State to achieve those objectives:\nFederal funding and Federal consistency. Delay in approval for Section 306 funding until all compre-\nhensive plans are complete would impede implementation and refinement of the Program, and could seri-\nously jeopardize the momentum for effective coastal management which Oregon has initiated.\nFurthermore, if approval is not given for the Oregon Coastal Management Program, then the Federal\nconsistency section (Section. 307) of the CZMA cannot be applied within the State.\nThe consequence of delayed approval is that Federal decisions and actions will continue to be un-\ncoordinated and perhaps conflicting. Such inconsistent Federal actions in the coastal zone may dis-\nrupt existing State standards and local comprehensive plans.\n54","2.\nThe Secretary could grant approval of the Oregon Coastal Management\nProgram for \"initial implementation, under Section 305(a)( (2) of the\nCZMA, before the State qualifies for administrative grants under\nSection 306 of the CZMA.\nIn July, 1976, the CZMA was amended to allow program grants for \"initial implementation\" if a State\nmeets all of the eligibility requirements of Section 305 but has not yet been approved by the Secre-\ntary under Section 306. This section was added to the CZMA, in part, to assist those States that have\nmet all of the basic planning requirements for Section 306 approval, but have not been able to establish\nthe requisite elements called for in Section 306 of the CZMA, such as the authorities called for under\nSections 306(d) and (e), which typically require legislative action. In Oregon these elements have\nbeen established and OCZM feels the Program qualifies for consideration for final approval.\nIn order to approve the Program under Section 305 rather than under Section 306, the State\nwould have to do the following, in accordance with Section 306 (d) (2)\nspecifically identify any deficiencies in the Program which make it ineligible for\n-\napproval under Section 306, and establish a reasonable schedule during which it can\nremedy such deficiencies;\n- specify the purposes for which any grant will be used; and\n- take (or is taking) adequate steps to meet any requirement under Section 306\nor 307 which involves any Federal official or agency.\nOregon has not addressed these requirements, because it does not believe any deficiencies remain\nin the Program to make it ineligible for Section 306 approval. If OCZM were to delay or\ndeny approval of the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Program, (see alternative A.1) this new section\nof the CZMA could be used to provide funds for \"initial implementation.\"\nThe impacts of \"initial implementation\" approval in lieu of Section 306 approval would be a substan-\ntial reduction in the amount of Federal funds that would be available to State and local government\nagencies to implement tasks. Funds allocated for implementation of this section of the CZMA are\navailable only from the appropriated funds for program development (Section 305), which are generally\none-third of those appropriated for Section 306. Federal consistency provisions do not apply to\nprograms approved under Section 305(a)(2), therefore the benefits to the State as previously\ndescribed for Section 307 implementation would not apply. Furthermore, due to the delay in full\nap-\nproval of the Program, the protection of coastal resources, and the economic gains from better\nplanned development might be of a smaller magnitude, although the extent of those substantive impacts\ncannot be precisely determined.\nIn addition, delay in full approval of the Program might remove or reduce the impetus for swift and\nsatisfactory resolution of the conflicts. As such, Oregon's ability to effectively manage its coast-\nline could be diminished rather than enhanced.\nB.\nAlternatives for the Oregon Coastal Management Program\n1. Authorities or agencies to fund, implement, and administer the Program.\nAlthough the Oregon Coastal Management Program has been broadly coordinated to include the authorities\nand responsibilities of many other local, State, and Federal agencies, some interests have suggested\nit might be preferable to designate or create other agencies to be responsible for coastal zone\nmanagement. Specific possibilites have included the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality\n(DEQ), a new agency created specifically for coastal management, or an association of coastal local\ngovernments. These options have all been examined on the basis of potential efficiency, effectiveness,\nlong-term benefit, balance of program, and the requirements of the CZMA.\nPlacement of the coastal management authorities under the DEQ might result in greater emphasis on\nenvironmental protection in the Program. However, because DEQ lacks the broad coordinating\nroles of LCDC, this alternative would not be as effective in establishing the necessary local government\nand State agency cooperation. No other State agency has the broad concerns provided to LCDC; most\nhave a narrower charge and are more mission-oriented. Designation of a separate agency to administer\nthe Program would also create the additional burden of coordination and integration with the general\nstatewide land use planning efforts by LCDC.\nThis last concern--coordination with statewide land use efforts- would also apply to the recommendations\nof creating a new State agency or administering the Program through an amalgam of local\ngovernments. During the last year of its existence, OCCDC examined both of these possibilities\nand hired an independent consultant to also review the major alternatives for, the Program implementation.\n55","The consultant concluded LCDC was the appropriate agency for administration of the Oregon Coastal\nManagement Program. Some concern was expressed during the review that the wide scope of LCDC's\nresponsibilities and the land use planning needs of the rest of the State might reduce the attention\nto or momentum for implementing the Oregon Coastal Management Program; indeed, some delay in the final\ndevelopment of the Program has occurred since active responsibility for the Program was transferred\nfrom OCCDC to LCDC. However, the greater effectiveness and potential efficiency generated by integra-\ntion of the Program into the statewide land use effort will exceed any effects caused by this delay.\nFinally, some interests have expressed support for the concept of placing the sole responsibility\nfor the Oregon Coastal Management Program with the local governments. Such action would, it is felt,\nplace the decision-making closer to local needs.\nThe land use program, including the Oregon Coastal Management Program, administered by LCDC provides\nfor specific decision-making at the local level, in compliance with overall standards established by\nthe State. This allows for local plans to reflect local needs. Moreover, State administration of\nthe Oregon Coastal Management Program provides many benefits not available at the local level. For\nexample, it requires and provides a mechanism for regional coordination and for the consideration\nof uses of greater than local benefit and of the national interest, which would be absent in local\nplans.\nLocation of the Oregon Coastal Management Program at the local government level would also require\namendments to both the CZMA and the Oregon Land Use Planning Act. Not only does the CZMA\nrequire, for example, that the State develop and administer a management program for its coastal\nzone, but its central philosophy is \"The key to more effective protection and use of the land and\nwater resources of the coastal zone is to encourage the states to exercise their full authority over\nand waters in the coastal zone (Section 302(h)). Oregon has interpreted this as\nthe\nthe\nlands\ndevelopment of State planning standards (Goals and Guidelines) with administrative review for compli-\nance and enforcement.\nIt is improbable that location of the responsibilities for the Oregon Coastal Management Program with\nlocal government would result in greater environmental benefits. It is also unclear how this alter-\nnative would result in conditions different from those which now exist in the coastal zone, or how it\nwould address the \"increasing and competing demands\" upon and the \"urgent need to protect natural\nsystems\" in the coastal zone (Section 302).\n2.\nAlternative boundaries.\nSome reviewers have suggested that Oregon adopt a more restricted boundary for its coastal zone than\nthe one currently proposed. Under this concept, Oregon's coastal zone might be defined as a narrower\nwidth of land (such as California selected), or be restricted to a band similar to the shorelands\nconcept provided in the draft shorelands Goal. The impacts of this alternative are varied. Such a\nrestricted definition might allow a more stringent degree of management by the State over the coastal\nzone; some have suggested the State might directly develop the land use plans for this narrow strip.\nEssentially, the State would be trading stronger control over a smaller area for less intense control\nover a larger area.\nSince the State already has a statewide land use planning program, this restriction would not leave\nother areas without plans. It would however, restrict the application of the special coastal Goals,\nwhich would permit adverse environmental impacts to occur affecting the coastal waters. It would also\npreclude the expenditure of Section 306 grant monies to develop, administer, or enforce the plans,\nincluding the data and inventory requirements for the interior lands excluded from a restricted boundary.\nA reduced boundary would reduce the administrative burdens of coordination and cooperation on property\nowners, including Federal agencies, whose lands would be excluded from the coastal zone. The require-\nments for Federal consistency for licenses and permits, as established in CZMA, also would not apply\nto those lands which were omitted.\nThe biggest impact of reducing the boundary, however, would be to detract significantly from the\neffectiveness of the overall Oregon Coastal Management Program. The coastal inventories, studies and\ndata which Oregon developed demonstrated the use of the upiands to the limit of the coast ridge has a\ndirect and significant impact on coastal waters. The California example is not appropriate to the\nOregon coast because of significant differences in natural features and processes, such as topography\nand rainfall. Forest practices on the coastal slopes of Oregon, for example, can cause siltation,\nchanges in water temperature, flow rates, and aesthetics in coastal waters. Removal of these lands\nfrom the coastal boundary, and the loss of funds to administer, study, and enforce the Program in these\nlands, would result in continued adverse and significant impact on the coastal waters and resources.\nVirtually every State agency conducting business utilizes the same boundary (the coastal range water-\nshed) for its planning, management, and regulating authorities. Some of these, for example, the Oregon\nWater Resources Department, have substantial import. Reduction of the Oregon coastal boundary would\ndivide this natural physiographic unit artificially and impose special and inconsistent administrative\nburdens on both LCDC and other such State agencies.\n56","This would detract from the overall comprehensiveness and coordination of the Program. This issue\nwas reexamined because of comments received during the draft EIS review, and the decision to omit\nPortland was reaffirmed for the same reason. However, the issue will continue to be examined during\nthe\nProgram implementation.\nAlternative definition of excluded Federal lands.\n3.\nFor the purpose of the coastal management program the State of Oregon, in its staff management program,\ndefined excluded Federal lands, pursuant to Section 304(1) of the CZMA, as: \"Lands the use of which\nis\nby law subject solely to the discretion of or which is held in trust by the Federal Government, its\nofficers or agents,\" and interpreted this to mean only those lands owned by the United States and over\nwhich it has exclusive jurisdiction. In Oregon this was limited to a few military facilities. The\nbulk of the Federal lands would have been included within the State's coastal zone, comprising approxi-\nmately 36 percent of the land area.\nA number of Federal agencies disagreed with the State's interpretation of the excluded lands position\nand with the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) support for this position at the time.\nIn response to the disagreement which arose, NOAA's General Counsel made a formal request to the U. S.\nDepartment of Justice for clarification of the legal question concerning the status of Federal Lands\nin the coastal zone.\nOn August 10, 1976, while the draft EIS was being reviewed, the Assistant Attorney General, Department of\nJustice, issued an opinion concluding that, \"the exclusionary clause excludes all lands owned by the\nUnited States from the definition of the coastal zone.\"\nThe State of Oregon has agreed to abide by this opinion and to exclude all Federally owned land for the\npurpose of meeting the requirements of Section 304(a) until such time as the issue of the Federal\nexclusion is further clarified by Congress or the courts.\nAs an alternative to the policy adopted in the final Oregon Coastal Management Program to exclude all\nFederally owned lands, the State could maintain the policy of the draft coastal management program, which\nwas described in the draft EIS, and seek approval of a limited Federal lands exclusion. Since NOAA has\naccepted the opinion of the Department of Justice on this matter, and because, under Section 307(b),\nthe Secretary cannot approve a management program unless the views of Federal agencies principally\naffected by the program have been adequately considered, the State of Oregon could obtain approval of\nthis policy only through formal mediation proceedings or through judicial action which would uphold\nthe State's earlier position. In either approach, considerable time would be lost, with a resulting\nloss in Federal funds for implementation to the State and local governments. It is also doubtful that\nsuch an approach would be successful, given the language of the CZMA, its legislative history, and the\nAttorney General's opinion.\nBecause of the combination of : 1) The national mandate for Federal agencies to coordinate and imple-\nment their actions consistent with an approved State program; 2) the complex and interdependent nature\nof activities and land ownership in the Oregon coastal zone and, 3) the national interest in the pro-\ntection, development, and use of coastal resources; the exclusion of Federal lands from the boundaries\nand conditions of Oregon's Coastal Management Program is a significant issue.\nHowever, in close examination of the effects of the excluded lands opinion it appears that the draft EIS\ndescription of the impacts of excluding all Federally owned lands may have been overstated.\nThe exclusion of Federally owned lands does not exempt Federal agencies from the consistency require-\nments of the CZMA or reduce the administrative responsibility of these agencies to coordinate with the\nState. This is clear from the Congressional Conference Report on the original CZMA which stated,\n\"Federal lands are not included within a State's coastal zone. As to the use of such lands which would\naffect a State's coastal zone, the provisions of Section 307(c) would apply\" (emphasis added).\nSection 307(c) of the CZMA addresses Federal activities, development projects, and licenses and permits.\nAccordingly, regardless of the fact that lands owned by the Federal government are not to be included\nwithin the boundaries of a State's coastal zone, authority under the Federal consistency provisions of\nthe CZMA is still sufficient to require Federal land-holding agencies to conduct actions on such lands\nin conformance with approved State programs when the proposed actions would have spill-over impacts in\nthe coastal zone.\nFurthermore, and very important to States such as Oregon with large land areas in Federal ownership\nparticipation in the Federal coastal zone management program does not diminish state jurisdiction\nrespecting Federal lands. The CZMA simply removes Federal lands from the \"coastal zone\" and thus from\ndirect State control pursuant to a Federally approved coastal management program. States are still\nfree to exercise police power authority on Federal lands excluded from the coastal zone when such State\naction is legally permissil.le by virtue of some authority other than the CZMA\n57","Federal lands from the \"coastal zone\" and thus from direct State control pursuant to a Federally appro-\nved coastal management program. States are still free to exercise police power authority on Federal\nlands excluded from the coastal zone when such State action is legally permissible by virtue of some\nauthority other than the CZMA.\nDue to the extent of the Federal consistency of the CZMA and existing State authority over Federal\nlands, which remains diminished, the impact of the Federal lands exclusion may be more perceptive\nthan substantive. Comments received from the draft EIS review and public hearings on the Program\nindicated that several parties perceive Federal agencies as receiving special exemption from the\nProgram. The excluded lands opinion, from this view, detracts from the ability of the State and local\ngovernments to develop truly comprehensive plans, and from the concepts of application of the \"full\nauthority\" of the State and cooperation between all levels of government, which are central to the\nphilosophy of the CZMA.\nThe excluded lands opinion has created some uncertainity in the management and planning for Federally\nowned lands. Some Federally owned lands in Oregon's coastal area are managed by the State or by pri-\nvate contractors. For example, Fort Stevens State Park in Clatsop county is owned by the U.S. Army\nCorps of Engineers but is managed by the Oregon State Parks Division. The daily operation of this park\nhas significant impacts on rural Clatsop county, particularly during the summer tourist season. Also\nin Clatsop county, the Corps of Engineers own a large marina which is operated as a private enterprise\nby a private contractor. With the excluded lands opinion, the planning and management responsibilities\nfor such areas, pursuant to the Oregon Coastal Management Program and the CZMA is confusing and as yet\nnot completely resolved.\nAlternative coastal goals.\n4.\nDuring the development of the Oregon Coastal Management Program several possible coastal Coals,\ncreating standards for land and water use planning activities, were discussed. After identifying\nover 300 separate issues OCCDC established 42 policies, each designating necessary and recommended\nplanning actions. After the OCCDC responsibilities were assumed by LCDC in April, 1975, these poli-\ncies were examined in light of existing statewide Goals. Eight special coastal Goals were drafted to\naddress specific resource needs unique to the coastal zone. These were presented at a public hearing\nDecember, 1975, at which time three--Estuaries, Beaches and Dunes, and Shorelands--were selected for\nfinal review, and a new one--Continental Shelf--was added. This last Goal was later changed to\n\"Ocean Resources.\" The others, addressing freshwater resources: geologic hazards; visual values\nscientific and natural areas; historical and archaeological resources; and fish and wildlife resources\nwere either felt to be adequately covered in existing statewide Goals, or were incorporated into other\ndraft coastal Goals. These four draft coastal Goals were reviewed at a series of 34 public hearings\nand 94 community meetings before their adoption December 18, 1976 (Appendix 3).\nSome reviewers of the revised draft Goals indicated concern about the adequacy of coverage for fresh-\nwater fish resources and for the consumptive use of potable freshwater resources. These issues are\naddressed in other Goals and existing State authorities. These comments were considered during the\ncoastal Goal review and revision process.\n5.\nAlternatives to geographic areas of particular concern.\nUsing criteria described in Oregon's Coastal Management Program, several geographic areas of particu-\nlar concern have been identified, as required in Section 305(b) (3) of the CZMA. These areas are\ngenerally based on certain classes of resources within the coastal zone of particular value, benefit,\nor importance. They are addressed through a combination of the coastal and statewide Goals and ex-\nisting special purpose State acts.\nDuring the identification of these areas, which are all identifiable features, other methods for\ndetermining or controlling such areas were considered. Most significant were the designation of areas\nof critical State concern by LCDC, or the selection of separate, geographically specific sites rather\nthan general resource features. Such processes would allow the more specific recognition of\nual areas, and after legislative review and approval, might permit more specific State regulatory\nauthorities. However, such processes would also require additional time, and for designation of areas\nof critical State concern, legislative review. These delays would reduce the effectiveness of dealing\nwith these areas. Moreover, both procedures will be used as the Program is administered and refined\nas tools to express the specific particular concerns about the protection or use of these special\nresources. By themselves, however, they are not sufficient to address all geographic areas of parti-\ncular concern.\n58","Also, during the review of the Oregon Coastal Management Program, it was suggested that shorelands\nmight be added to the list of areas of particular concern. The specific State interest is expressed in\nthe draft coastal shorelands Goal. Indeed, it might be argued, the development of a special Goal for\nthe shorelands area itself is an explicit expression of particular concern. While this proposal is\nbeing considered by the State for future action, under the requirements imposed by the CZMA, all shorelands\ncannot now be designated as areas of particular State concern because they have not yet been defined and\nidentified; this will depend on the Program implementation. In the interim, however, coastal headlands\ndefined in the shorelands Goal are included within the Oregon Coastal Management Program as areas of\nparticular concern, because these have been identified and mapped in the OCCDC 'Visual Resource Anal-\nysis in the Oregon Coastal Zone.\"\n6.\nAlternative Federal consistency procedures.\nDuring the review of the Oregon Coastal Management Program and draft EIS, and in public hearings on the Pro-\ngram, several individuals expressed concern about the process proposed for determination and certifi-\ncation of Federal consistency, especially with regard to licenses and permits issued by Federal\nagencies. The major concerns expressed were:\na)\nduplication of existing State permit or A-95 review procedures,\nb)\nthe method for notification for consistency review and for\nsoliciting comments from reviewers,\nc)\nthe roles of State agencies, councils of governments, and local\nunits of government in the review and consistency determination\nprocess,\nd)\nthe potential for delay in permit review and approval as a\nresult of the new consistency procedures, and the impacts of\nany delay, and\nc)\na general uncertainity as to how the process was to work.\nSome of the concerns expressed during the review of the State's draft consistency policies in the\nOregon Coastal Management Program were due to a separate and competitive consistency proposal de-\nveloped by a State agency other than the lead agency, LCDC. The proposal developed by the Inter-\ngovernmental Relations Division (IRD) utilized the A-95 clearinghouses entirely for all consistency\nreview and determination. The LCDC proposal suggested the use of existing State agency permit pro-\ncedures, approved local comprehensive plans, and the use of A-95 procedures for review of activities\nand development projects. The essential differences between the two proposals centers on the mech-\nanism to be used to certify Federal licenses or permits. The basic features of the two proposals are\nsummarized as:\nLCDC Staff Proposal\nIRD Alternative\nHow would consistency be\nA de facto determination\nLCDC would make the\ndetermined?\nwould be made when the\ndetermination after re-\nState agency issued a cor-\nceiving comments solicited\nresponding State agency\nas a result of an expanded\npermit. As required in\nA-95 review.\nSB 100, the State agency\ndetermination must be con-\nsistent with local com-\nprehensive plan and State\ngoals.\nMay a State permit be\nNo\nTreated as separate\nissued if the proposal\nprocesses.\nis inconsistent with a\nlocal comprehensive plan?\nWho is responsible for\nThe affected unit (s) of\nCouncil of Governments (COG)\ndetermination of consistency\nlocal government.\ncollect comments, identifies\nwith local government com-\nconflicts, and attempts to\nprehensive plan?\nresolve. In event of conflicts,\nCOG makes decision.\nHow could notice of\nBy distribution of the\nBy expanding the A-95\nconsistency review be\nState agency permit notices,\nreview to include public,\ndistributed?\ndirectly from State agencies\nFederal agencies, and by\nto affected parties.\nrequiring that Federal licenses\nand permits be submitted to an\nA-95 review. Local COG's\nwould distribute information\nto all affected parties.\n59","LCDC Staff Proposal\nIPD Alternative\nWho will coordinate regional\nThe County Coordinator,\nCOG's.\ncomments and provide a regional\nwith COG's used if de-\nsired by local govern-\noverview?\nment.\nWho will be responsible\nCounty Coordinator.\nCOG's.\nfor resolving conflicting\ncomments by local govern-\nments?\nWho will negotiate conflicts\nAt the State level, the\nIRD at State level, and COG\nbetween applicant and re-\nState agency with re-\nat local level.\nviewers?\nsource and technical ex-\npertise. At the local\nlevel (during determination\nof consistency with local plan),\nlocal government and County Coordi-\nnator will negotiate conflicts.\nThe Federal consistency provisions described in the Oregon Coastal Management Program have been de-\nscribed in general so as to allow LCDC to study the issues and problems of the two approaches prior to\nadopting a final mechanism for review of Federal licenses and permits. Neither the CZMA or the NOAA\nregulations require the detailed procedures for consistency review to be in place at the time of\napproval.\nOregon is developing a method for determining consistency which will be reviewed and revised as neces-\nsary on a regular basis during the annual review of the Oregon Coastal Management Program. The Program\nalso may be revised at other times as necessary. In the first year of implementation of the Oregon\nCoastal Management Program the State will consult with Federal and State agencies, councils of govern-\nment and local governments to work out a final procedure. A task force will be formed by LCDC to in-\nclude representatives of various levels of government to review the concerns listed above and make\nrecommendations.\n60","VII.\nPROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED\nWhile an overall assessment of the probable effects would indicate the Oregon Coastal Management\nProgram is environmentally beneficial, a few potential adverse impacts can be identified. As has\nbeen discussed, because the Program does not designate site specific land use decisions, but planning\nstandards and criteria, impacts can only be generalized.\nThe Program will clearly preserve and protect some areas and resources, while requiring others (not\nyet identified) to be developed or reserved for development. While the latter may be considered to\nbe an adverse environmental effect in that some resources will be damaged, it is clearly an improve-\nment over the existing process of land use allocation. Such development activities and the concomitant\nloss of resources already occur, and the Oregon Coastal Management Program will guide future develop-\nment so it more clearly reflects resource constraints. The Program will assure selected appropriate\nareas will be developed more fully and more swiftly than if development were to proceed in a fragmented,\nless controlled fashion.\nThe same program, regulations, and plans will reduce or restrict the usability of some lands; this may\nresult in diminished value for some coastal property, with a loss to the property owner and a\ndecrease in property taxes. The Program will cause the value of other areas to be increased.\nNon-renewable resource extraction or exploitation, which does not now have a prominent role in the\ncoastal Oregon economy, may be restricted or prohibited in some coastal lands.\nFinally, population and industrial growth will be limited to specific areas, with the result that\nboth may ultimately become more densely concentrated. Development pressures may be redirected from\ncoastal shorelands to more interior lands. While this will provide further protection for the fragile\nand valuable coastal resources, it will place greater stress on the interior resources. The existing\nstatewide land use efforts will help mitigate this impact. Local government can also mitigate many\nimpacts while developing their local comprehensive plans by providing alternative upland sites and\nfacilities for activity restricted on shorelands, estuaries, or beaches and dunes.\nVIII.\nRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE\nAND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY\nWhile approval of the proposed State coastal management program will restrict local, short-term uses\nof the environment, it will also provide a long-term assurance that the natural resources and bene-\nfits provided by the Oregon coast will be available for future use and enjoyment. This theme is\ncentral to the State and Federal coastal management programs.\nWithout the implementation of rationally based land and water use management programs intense short-\nterm uses and gains, such as provided by residential or industrial development, might be realized.\nThese gains would generally accrue to the private sector. However, such uses would most likely result\nin long-term restrictions on coastal resource use and benefit because of degradation of the environment\nand loss of basic resources. These losses, representing externalities, accrue to both the public and\nprivate sectors. Without proper management the traditional conflicts between coastal resource users\nresidential, commercial, industrial, timber, recreational, and wildlife - - could be expected to occur.\nBy providing a sound basis for decision-making, and by protecting the important segments of the\nnatural system, the Program will directly contribute to the long-term maintenance of the environment.\nIt will internalize many previous external costs, with the result they will be borne directly to the\nsource causing them. It also establishes a basis for restoring resources which have already been\ndegraded.\nIX.\nIRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED\nIN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED\nThe approval of the Oregon Coastal Management Program will not in itself lead to the loss of resources\nthat a site specific project would. Implementation of the Program, through the local comprehensive\nplans and coordination of local, State, and Federal activities, however, will lead certain areas of\nthe Oregon coastline to be intensely, and for all practical purposes, irreversibly developed. This\nwill cause the loss of some environmental resources. Development would occur in the absence of\nProgram approval, but the Oregon Coastal Management Program will channel such activity toward appro-\npriate but discreet sites based on specific land and water resource considerations.\n61","CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS\nX.\nThe Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) and its predecessor OCCDC in developing\nthe Program, have solicited extensive participation by a variety of State and Federal agencies, local\ngovernments, special interest groups, and the public at large during the preparation of the Program and\nits components. A complete discussion of this input as presented in the Oregon Coastal Management Pro-\ngram. The major types and opportunities for review and participation are summarized below.\nMajor opportunities for public involvement in developing the general Goals for the entire State included\ntwo series of 28 workshops; 17 public hearings; 17 Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) a Citizens\nInvolvement Advisory Committee (CIAC); Local Officials Advisory Committee (LOAC); State Agency Advisory\nCommittee; and Federal Agency Advisory Committee.\nSimilar opportunities for public involvement during the OCCDC policy development process included 21\npublic workshops, development and review of resource inventories; and extensive public and agency\nreview of the draft and revised policies. These were followed by 34 public hearings; three public\nwork sessions; and a two day public mark-up session prior to the adoption of the Goals on coastal\nresources.\nMajor types of opportunities for participation have included public workshops; TACs or resource spec-\nialist teams; local government, State and Federal agency and citizen advisory committees; Commission\nmeetings and work sessions; and public hearings.\nAt least 35 Federal departments and agencies and 25 State agencies were invited to participate on the\nFederal and State agency task forces for the development of the coastal Goals and the force coastal management\nprogram; 25 Federal and 16 State agencies actually attended one or more of the task meetings.\nWhere problems were identified, the LCDC held several individual meetings with concerned agencies.\nIn addition to this participation in development of the Goals, the public was also involved in develop-\nment of the coastal management program through continuing review of successive drafts by the State\nand Federal agency task forces, OCCDA, CIAC, LOAC, and individual cities, counties and areawide\nagencies, and private organizations, and the general public in the coastal zone, as well as through\npublic hearings.\nThe Impacts and Consequences Technical Advisory Committee, established to review the environmental\nand economic impacts of the coastal Goals, included representatives of Oregon universities, the\nFederal government, public interest groups, environmental organizations, and industry.\nCoordination with all these interests remains a key component of Oregon's Coastal Management Program.\nTheir review and input will remain necessary during the development, review, approval, and administration\nof the final coastal Goals and the local comprehensive plans.\nXI. PUBLIC HEARING\nAs a part of the review and comment process pursuant to this proposal, a public hearing was conducted\nby the Office of Coastal Zone Management for the purpose of receiving information and comments from\nconcerned public and private organizations and citizens:\nSeptember 16, 1976\nSeptember 15, 1976\nMultnomah County Courthouse\nMarine Science Center\nPortland, Oregon\nNewport, Oregon\nCopies of the complete State application, with supporting documents, will be available for public\ninspection at the following locations:\nChetco Community Library\nOregon Land Conservation and Development\nBrookings, Oregon\nCommission\nCoos Bay Public Library\n1175 Court Street, N. E.\nCoos Bay, Oregon\nSalem, Oregon\nCoquille Public Library\nAstoria Public Library\nCoquille, Oregon\nAstoria, Oregon\nGaribaldi Public Library\nBandon Public Library\nGilchrist, Oregon\nBandon, Oregon\nGold Beach Library\nBay City Library\nGold Beach, Oregon\nBay City, Oregon\n62","Langlois Library\nSiletz Public Library\nLanglois, Oregon\nSiletz, Oregon\nLincoln City Library\nTillamook County Library\nLincoln City, Oregon\nTillamook, Oregon\nManzanita Library\nToledo Public Library\nManzanita, Oregon\nToledo, Oregon\nMyrtle Point Library\nWaldport Public Library\nMyrtle Point, Oregon\nWaldport, Oregon\nNewport Public Library\nYachats Public Library\nNewport, Oregon\nYachats, Oregon\nNorth Bend Public Library\nClatsop County Courthouse, Library\nNorth Bend, Oregon\nAstoria, Oregon\nPacific City Library\nOregon State University, Library\nPacific City, Oregon\nCorvallis, Oregon\nPort Orford Public Library\nSouthwestern Oregon Community College,\nPort Orford, Oregon\nLibrary\nPowers Public Library\nCoos Bay, Oregon\nPowers, Oregon\nUmpqua Community College, Library\nReedsport Public Library\nRoseburg, Oregon\nReedsport, Oregon\nUniversity of Oregon, Library\nSeaside Public Library\nEugene, Oregon\nSeaside, Oregon\nAnd at the following locations in the vicinity of Washington, D.C.:\nOffice of Coastal Zone Management\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\n3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W., , Room 301\nWashington, D.C. 20235\nU.S. Department of Commerce\nMain Commerce Building\n14th and Constitution, N.W. Room 7046\nWashington, D.C. 20230\n63","","APPENDIX 3\nNote: This is only the \"Newly Adopted Goals and Guidelines\nfor Coastal Resources\" section of Appendix 3\ntaken from the Oregon Coastal Management Program.","","Page 177\nSTATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES 16, 17, 18, & 19\nfor COASTAL RESOURCES\nEffective: 1 January 1977\nLand Conservation and Development Commission - 1175 Court Street N.E. - Salem, Oregon 97310\n4.47","Page 178\n4.48","Tage 179\nCONTENTS\nOrder Adopting State-wide Planning\nGoals 16, 17, 18, & 19 and\nassociated definitions\ni\nEstuarine Resources Goal (No. 16)\n1\nCoastal Shorelands Goal\n(No. 17)\n11\nBeaches and Dunes Goal\n(No. 18)\n19\nOcean Resources Goal\n(No. 19)\n23\nThe preparation of this publication of state-wide\nplanning goals was financed in part through a Pro-\ngram Development Grant under the Coastal Zone\nManagement of the National Oceanic and Atmos-\npheric Administration.\n4.49","Page 180\n4.50","Page 181\nBEFORE THE LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION\nOF THE\nSTATE OF OREGON\nIn The Matter of the Adoption\n)\nof Additional State-wide\n)\nORDER\nPlanning Goals\n)\nI.\nAdoption of Coastal State-wide Planning Goals\nThe Land Conservation and Development Commission pursuant to ORS 197.245,\n197.235 and 197.240, and as the agency designated by the Governor to administer\nOregon's Coastal Management Program, has conducted hearings and heard evidence on\nadditional State-wide Planning Goals. These goals expand upon the group of initial\nState-wide Planning Goals adopted by the Commission on December 27, 1974 and\nDecember 6, 1975.\nBased on such hearings and evidence the Commission adopts:\nThe Estuarine Resources Goal\n(Appendix A hereto)\nThe Coastal Shorelands Goal\n(Appendix B hereto)\nThe Beaches and Dunes Goal\n(Appendix C hereto)\nThe Ocean Resources Goal\n(Appendix D hereto)\nThe definitions associated\nwith these goals\n(Appendix E hereto)\nThese goals shall take effect on January 1, 1977.\nII.\nInclusion of Temporary Provision in Coastal Shorelands Goal\nThe Coastal Shorelands Goal, one of the four state-wide planning goals adopted above,\nestablishes a \"coastal shorelands planning area.\" The purpose of the planning area is to\nprovide an area within which inventories are conducted in order for cities and counties\nto identify coastal shorelands and accomplish initial planning for development and use\nconsistent with the Coastal Shorelands Goal. In physical terms the area is quite broad\nand some of it may ultimately be determined by the city or county governing body not\nto constitute shorelands.\nThe goal will take effect on January 1, 1977. However, the process of identifying\ncoastal shorelands within the jurisdiction of a city or county may not be completed\nuntil a year after that date or even longer. In the meantime it would be unfair and not\nthe Commission's intent that the entire coastal shorelands planning area be subject to\nthe restrictive provisions of the goal pending identification and adoption of coastal\nshorelands by a city or county governing body. The Coastal Shorelands Goal, however,\nmay be subject to this interpretation.\ni\n4.51","Page 182\n4.52","183\nPage 2\nFor these reasons the Commission finds it necessary to limit the area subject to the\nrestrictive provisions of the goal and adopts the following temporary provision for in-\nclusion in the Coastal Shorelands Goal:\n\"During the interim period prior to the final identification\nby a city or county governing body of the coastal shore-\nlands within its jurisdiction, only land within 200 feet\nmeasured horizontally from the shoreline or, where there\nare tidal marshes, then 200 feet from the inland extent of\ntidal marshes, shall be presumed to constitute shorelands\nsubject to the provisions of the Coastal Shorelands Goal.\"\nThis provision shall be deemed to be a part of the Coastal Shorelands Goal and to\napply to all planning activities affecting land uses within a city or county until such\ntime as the city or county governing body has identified and approved the areas con-\nstituting coastal shorelands within its jurisdiction.\nDated this 18th day of December, 1976.\nFOR THE COMMISSION:\ntoh C. Moser\nJohn D. Mosser, Chairman\nLand Conservation and\nDevelopment Commission\n4.53","Page 184\n4.54","Page 185\n16. ESTUARINE RESOURCES\nGOAL\nOVERALL STATEMENT\nTo recognize and protect the unique environmental, economic and social values\nof each estuary and associated wetlands; and\nTo protect, maintain, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate\nrestore the long-term environmental, economic, and social values, diversity and\nbenefits of Oregon's estuaries.\nComprehensive management programs to achieve these objectives shall be\ndeveloped by appropriate local, state, and federal agencies for all estuaries.\nTo assure diversity among the estuaries of the State, by June 15, 1977, LCDC\nwith the cooperation and participation of local governments, special districts, and\nstate and federal agencies shall classify the Oregon estuaries to specify the most in-\ntensive level of development or alteration which may be allowed to occur within\neach estuary. After completion for all estuaries of the inventories and initial plan-\nning efforts, including identification of needs and potential conflicts among needs\nand goals and upon request of any coastal jurisdiction, the Commission will review\nthe overall Oregon Estuary Classification.\nComprehensive plans and activities for each estuary shall provide for appro-\npriate uses (including preservation) with as much diversity as is consistent with the\noverall Oregon Estuary Classification, as well as with the biological, economic, re-\ncreational, and aesthetic benefits of the estuary. Estuary plans and activities shall\nprotect the estuarine ecosystem, including its natural biological productivity,\nhabitat, diversity, unique features and water quality. Dredge, fill, or other reduction\nor degradation of these natural values by man shall be allowed only:\n(1) if required for navigation or other water-dependent uses that\nrequire an estuarine location; and\n(2) if a public need is demonstrated; and\n(3) if no alternative upland locations exist; and\n(4) if adverse impacts are minimized as much as feasible.\nINVENTORY REQUIREMENTS\nInventories shall be conducted to provide information necessary for designa-\nting estuary uses and policies. These inventories shall provide information on the\nnature, location, and extent of physical, biological, social and economic resources in\nsufficient detail to establish a sound basis for estuarine management and to enable\nthe identification of areas for preservation and areas of exceptional potential for\ndevelopment.\nState and federal agencies shall assist in the inventories of estuarine resources.\nThe Department of Land Conservation and Development, with assistance from local\ngovernment, state and federal agencies, shall establish common inventory standards\nand techniques, SO that inventory data collected by different agencies or units of\ngovernment, or data between estuaries, will be comparable.\nCOMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUIREMENTS\nBased upon inventories, the limits imposed by the overall Oregon Estuary\nClassification, and needs identified in the planning process, comprehensive plans for\ncoastal areas shall:\n1\n4.55","Page 186\n(1) identify each estuarine area;\n(2) describe and maintain the diversity of important and unique\nenvironmental, economic and social features within the estuary;\n(3) classify the estuary into management units; and\n(4) establish policies and use priorities for each management unit\nusing the standards and procedures set forth below.\nManagement Units\nDiverse resources, values, and benefits shall be maintained by classifying the\nestuary into distinct water use management units. When classifying estuarine areas\ninto management units, the following shall be considered in addition to the inven-\ntories:\n(1) Adjacent upland characteristics and existing land uses;\n(2) Compatibility with adjacent uses;\n(3) Energy costs and benefits; and\n(4) The extent to which the limited water surface area of the\nestuary shall be committed to different surface uses.\nAs a minimum, the following kinds of management units shall be established:\n(1) Natural - In all estuaries, areas shall be designated to assure the protec-\ntion of significant fish and wildlife habitats, of continued biological pro-\nductivity within the estuary, and of scientific, research, and educational\nneeds. These shall be managed to preserve the natural resources in recog-\nnition of dynamic, natural, geological and evolutionary processes. Such\nareas shall include, at a minimum, all major tracts of salt marsh, tideflats,\nand seagrass and algae beds.\nPermissible uses in natural areas shall be undeveloped low-intensity\nwater-dependent recreation; research and educational observation; naviga-\ntional aides, such as beacons and buoys; protection of habitat, nutrient,\nfish, wildlife and aesthetic resources; passive restoration measures; and\nwhere consistent with the resource capabilities of the area and the pur-\nposes of this management unit, aquaculture; communication facilities; and\nactive restoration measures.\n(2) Conservation - In all estuaries, except those in the overall Oregon Estuary\nClassification which are classed for preservation, areas shall be designated\nfor long-term uses of renewable resources that do not require major altera-\ntion of the estuary, except for the purpose of restoration. These areas\nshall be managed to conserve the natural resources and benefits. These\nshall include areas needed for maintenance and enhancement of biological\nproductivity, recreational and aesthetic uses, and aquaculture. They shall\ninclude tracts of significant habitat smaller or of less biological importance\nthan those in (1) above, and oyster and clam beds. Partially altered areas\nor estuarine areas adjacent to existing development of moderate intensity\nshall also be included in this classification unless otherwise needed for pre-\nservation or development consistent with the overall Oregon Estuary\nClassification.\n2\n4.56","Page 18\nPermissible uses in conservation areas shall be those allowed in (1)\nabove; active restoration measures; aquaculture; and communication facili-\nties. Where consistent with resource capabilities of the area and the pur-\nposes of this management unit, high-intensity water-dependent recreation;\nmaintenance dredging of existing facilities; minor navigational improve-\nments; mining and mineral extraction; water dependent uses requiring\noccupation of water surface area by means other than fill; and bridge\ncrossings, shall also be appropriate.\n(3) Development - In estuaries classified in the overall Oregon Estuary Classi-\nfication for more intense development or alteration, areas shall be desig-\nnated to provide for navigation and other identified needs for public,\ncommercial, and industrial water-dependent uses, consistent with the level\nof development or alteration allowed by the overall Oregon Estuary Classi-\nfication. Such areas shall include deep-water areas adjacent or in proxi-\nmity to the shoreline, navigation channels, subtidal areas for in-water\ndisposal of dredged material and areas of minimal biological significance\nneeded for uses requiring alteration of the estuary.\nPermissible uses in areas managed for water-dependent activities shall\nbe navigation and water-dependent commercial and industrial uses. Where\nconsistent with the resource capabilities and the purposes of this manage-\nment unit, water-related and non-dependent, non-related uses not requir-\ning fill; mining and mineral extraction; and activities identified in (1) and\n(2) above, shall also be appropriate.\nAs appropriate, needs for the following uses shall be included:\n(a) Dredge or fill, as allowed elsewhere in the goal;\n(b) Navigation and water-dependent commercial enterprises\nand activities;\n(c) Water transport channels where dredging may be\nnecessary;\n(d) Disposal of dredged material;\n(e) Water storage areas where needed for products used in\nor resulting from industry, commerce, and recreation;\n(f) Marinas;\n(g) Aquaculture;\n(h) Extraction of aggregate resources;\n(i) Restoration.\nThe cumulative effect of all such uses, activities and alterations shall\nbe considered and described during plan development and adoption.\nIn designating areas for these uses, local governments shall consider\nthe potential for using upland sites to reduce or limit the commit-\nment of the estuarine surface area for surface uses.\n3\n4.57","Page 188\nPriority\nPriorities for use of each of the management units shall be designated which\nmaintain, promote, encourage, or enhance uses and activities compatible with the\nrequirements of this Goal, the capability of the resources, and the objectives of the\nclassification.\nWhile the priorities may vary between individual management units consistent\nwith these requirements, the general priorities (from highest to lowest) for use of\nestuarine resources and for designating different estuarine management units shall\nbe:\n(1) Uses which maintain the integrity of the estuarine ecosystem;\n(2) Water-dependent uses requiring estuarine location. as consistent with the\noverall Oregon Estuarine Classification;\n(3) Water-related uses which do not degrade or reduce the natural estuarine\nresources and values; and\n(4) Non-dependent, non-related uses which do not alter, reduce or degrade\nthe estuarine resources and values.\nIMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS\n(1) Unless fully addressed during the development and adoption of compre-\nhensive plans, actions which would potentially alter the integrity of the\nestuarine ecosystem shall be preceded by a clear presentation of the im-\npacts of the proposed alteration, and a demonstration of the public's need\nand gain which warrant such modification or loss.\n(2) State and federal agencies shall review, revise and implement their plans,\nactions and management authorities to maintain water quality and mini-\nmize man-induced sedimentation in estuaries. Local government shall\nrecognize these authorities in managing lands rather than developing new\nor duplicatory management techniques or controls.\nExisting programs which shall be utilized include:\n(a) The Oregon Forest Practices Act and Administrative Rules, for\nforest lands as defined in ORS 527.610 - 527.730 and 527.990\nand the Forest Lands Goal;\n(b) The programs of the Soil and Water Conservation Commission\nand local districts and the Soil Conservation Service, for Agri-\ncultural Lands Goal;\n(c) The non-point source discharge water quality program adminis-\ntered by the Department of Environmental Quality under Sec-\ntion 208 of the Federal Water Quality Act as amended in 1972\n(PL 92-500); and\n(d) The Fill and Removal Permit Program administered by the\nDivision of State Lands under ORS 541.605 - 541.665.\n4\n4.58","Page 189\n(3) The State Water Policy Review Board, assisted by the staff of the Oregon\nDepartment of Water Resources, and the Oregon Department of Fish and\nWildlife, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, the Division of\nState Lands, and the U.S. Geological Survey, shall consider establishing\nminimum fresh-water flow rates and standards so that resources and uses of\nthe estuary, including navigation, fish and wildlife characteristics, and\nrecreation, will be maintained.\n(4) When dredge or fill activities are permitted in inter-tidal or tidal marsh\nareas, their effects shall be mitigated by creation or restoration of another\narea of similar biological potential to ensure that the integrity of the es-\ntuarine ecosystem is maintained.\n(5) Local government and state and federal agencies shall develop comprehen-\nsive programs, including specific sites and procedures for disposal and\nstockpiling of dredged materials. These programs shall encourage the dis-\nposal of dredged material in uplands or ocean waters, and shall permit\ndisposal in estuary waters only where such disposal will clearly be consis-\ntent with the objectives of this goal and state and federal law. Dredged\nmaterial shall not be disposed in inter-tidal or tidal marsh estuarine areas\nunless part of an approved fill project.\n(6) Local government and state and federal agencies shall act to restrict the\nproliferation of individual single-purpose docks and piers by encouraging\ncommunity facilities common to several uses and interests. The size and\nshape of a dock or pier shall be limited to that required for the intended\nuse. Alternatives to docks and piers, such as mooring buoys, dryland stor-\nage, and launching ramps shall be investigated and considered.\n(7) State and federal agencies shall assist local government in identifying areas\nfor restoration. Restoration is appropriate in areas where activities have ad-\nversely affected some aspect of the estuarine system, and where it would\ncontribute to a greater achievement of the objective of this goal. Appro-\npriate sites include areas of heavy erosion or sedimentation, degraded fish\nand wildlife habitat, anadromous fish spawning areas, abandoned diked\nestuarine marsh areas, and areas where water quality restricts the use of\nestuarine waters for fish and shellfish harvest and production, or for human\nrecreation.\n(8) State agencies with planning, permit, or review authorities affected by this\ngoal shall review their procedures and standards to assure that the objec-\ntives and requirements of the goal are fully addressed. In estuarine areas the\nfollowing authorities are of special concern:\n5\n4.59","Page 190\nORS 541.605\nFill and Removal\nDivision of State\n-- 541.665\nLaw\nLands\nOR S 273.551;\nMineral Resources\nORS 273.775\n-- 273.780\nORS 274.005\nSubmersible and\nSubmerged Lands\n274.940\nORS 777.835\nDepartment of Economic Ports Planning\nDevelopment\nORS 537.010\nWater Resources Depart- Appropriation of\n-- 537.990\nWater\nment\nORS 543.010\n--543.620\nORS 520.005\nMineral Extraction\nDepartment of Geology\nOil and Gas Drilling\n520.095\nand Mineral Industries\nORS 527.610\nForest Practices Act\nDepartment of Forestry\n-- 527.730\nORS 469.300\nRegulation of thermal\nDepartment of Energy\n469.570\npower and nuclear\ninstallation\nORS 468.700\nWater Quality\nDepartment of Environ-\n468.775\nmental Quality\nORS 454.010\nSewage Treatment\n454.755\n& Disposal Systems\n6\n4.60","Page 191\nGUIDELINES\nThe requirements of the Estuarine Resources Goal should be addressed with\nthe same consideration applied to previously adopted goals and guidelines. The plan-\nning process described in the Land Use Planning Goal (Goal 2), including the excep-\ntions provisions described in Goal 2, applies to estuarine areas and implementation\nof the Estuarine Resources Goal.\nBecause of the strong relationship between estuaries and adjacent coastal shore-\nlands, the inventories and planning requirements for these resources should be\nclosely coordinated. These inventories and plans should also be fully coordinated\nwith the requirements in other state planning goals, especially the Goals for Open\nSpaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources; Air, Water and Land Re-\nsources Quality; Recreational Needs; Transportation; and Economy of the State.\nA. Inventories\nIn detail appropriate to the level of development or alteration proposed, the\ninventories for estuarine features should include:\n1. Physical characteristics\nSize, shape, surface area, and contour, including water\na.\ndepths;\nb.\nWater characteristics including, but not limited to, salinity,\ntemperature, and dissolved oxygen. Data should reflect\naverage and extreme values for the months of March, June,\nSeptember, and December as a minimum; and\nSubstrate mapping showing location and extent of rock,\nC.\ngravel, sand, and mud.\n2.\nBiological characteristics\nLocation, Description, and Extent of:\nThe common species of benthic (living in or on bottom)\na.\nflora and fauna;\nb.\nThe fish and wildlife species, including part-time residents;\nThe important resting, feeding, and nesting areas for migrating\nC.\nand resident shorebirds, wading birds and wildfowl;\nd.\nThe areas important for recreational fishing and hunting,\nincluding areas used for clam digging and crabbing;\nEstuarine wetlands;\ne.\nf.\nFish and shellfish spawning areas;\nSignificant natural areas; and\ng.\nh.\nAreas presently in commercial aquaculture.\n3.\nSocial and economic characteristics\nLocation, Description, and Extent of:\nThe importance of the estuary to the economy of the area;\na.\nb.\nExisting land uses surrounding the estuary;\nMan-made alterations of the natural estuarine system;\nC.\n7\n4.61","Page 192\nWater dependent industrial and/or commercial enterprises;\nd.\nPublic access;\ne.\nHistorical or archaeological sites associated with the estuary; and\nf.\nExisting transportation systems.\ng.\nHistoric, Unique and Scenic Waterfront Communities\nB.\nLocal government comprehensive plans should encourage the maintenance and\nenhancement of historic, unique, and scenic waterfront communities, allowing for\nnon-water dependent uses as appropriate in keeping with such communities.\nC. Transportation\nLocal governments and state and federal agencies should closely coordinate and\nintegrate navigation and port needs with shoreland and upland transportation faci-\nlities and the requirements of the Transportation Goal. The cumulative effects of\nsuch plans and facilities on the estuarine resources and values should be considered.\nD. Mitigation\nIn identifying and assessing sites to mitigate the effects of dredging or filling,\nthe following factors should be considered:\nIn selecting sites of similar biological potential, areas should preferably be\n1.\nchosen with similar ecological characteristics. The intention of the require-\nment is to provide an area that, with time, will develop a qualitatively and\nquantitatively similar fauna and flora. The emphasis is on similar poten-\ntial, not substitute productivity. The area provided does not have to be\nfully developed biologically; the opportunity, at least, should exist for it\nto develop once the area is returned to the estuarine system. However, the\nsurface area of the estuary should not be diminished.\nThe most appropriate sites would be those in the general proximity of the\n2.\nproposed dredge or fill action. These would probably contain the most\nsimilar ecological characteristics. If similar areas are not available nearby,\nthen areas in other parts of the estuary may be selected according to the\nsimilarity of the following characteristics (in order of importance, most\nimportant first):\nsalinity regime\na.\nb.\ntidal exposure and elevation\nsubstrate type\nC.\nd.\ncurrent velocity and patterns\norientation to solar radiation\ne.\nf. slope\nIf similar areas, or those with a similar potential, cannot be found or pro-\n3.\nvided, then mitigation efforts should seek to restore areas or resources\nwhich are in the greatest scarcity compared to their past abundance and\ndistribution. That is, those resources which have been most severely im-\npacted by man's activities, measured by a ratio of present to past abun-\ndance, should be restored through mitigation.\n8\n4.62","Page 193\nAppropriate locations for mitigation activities include:\n4.\nDredged material islands, which could be lowered (by removal\na.\nof spoil) to the intertidal level, thus adding the surface area back\nto the estuarine system;\nDiked marsh areas which have been abandoned or are in disrepair;\nb.\nand\nEstuarine areas removed from effective circulation by causeways\nc.\nor other fills, where circulation can be restored or improved through\nreplacement of the causeway with pilings or culverts.\nThe transfer of ownership of estuarine lands, including wetlands and sub-\n5.\nmersible lands, to public ownership; the dedication of estuarine lands for\ncertain natural uses; and the provision of funds for research or land acqui-\nsition do not constitute mitigation as required by this Goal.\nE.\nImpact Assessment\nThe impact assessment required in the Goal should be applied at the time of\nplan development, for alterations projected or identified in the plan, or at the time\nof permit review and approval for actions not identified in the plan.\nThe impact assessment should not be lengthy or complex, but it should enable\nreviewers to gain a clear understanding of the impacts to be expected. It should\ninclude information on:\nThe type and extent of alterations expected;\n1.\nThe type of resources (s) affected;\n2.\nThe expected extent of impacts of the proposed alteration\n3.\non water quality and other physical characteristics of the\nestuary, living resources, recreation and aesthetic use,\nnavigation and other existing and potential uses of the estuary; and\nThe methods which could be employed to avoid or minimize\n4.\nadverse impacts.\n9\n4.63","Page 194\n10\n4.64","Page 195\nGOAL\n17. COASTAL SHORELANDS\nOVERALL STATEMENT\nTo conserve, protect, where appropriate develop and where appropriate restore\nthe resources and benefits of all coastal shorelands, recognizing their value for pro-\ntection and maintenance of water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, water-dependent\nuses, economic resources and recreation and aesthetics. The management of these\nshoreland areas shall be compatible with the characteristics of the adjacent coastal\nwaters; and\nTo reduce the hazard to human life and property, and the adverse effects upon\nwater quality and fish and wildlife habitat, resulting from the use and enjoyment of\nOregon's coastal shorelands.\nPrograms to achieve these objectives shall be developed by local, state, and\nfederal agencies having jurisdiction over coastal shorelands.\nLand use plans, implementing actions and permit reviews shall include con-\nsideration of the critical relationships between coastal shorelands and resources of\ncoastal waters, and of the geologic and hydrologic hazards associated with coastal\nshorelands. Local, state and federal agencies shall within the limit of their authorities\nmaintain the diverse environmental, economic, and social values of coastal shore-\nlands and water quality in coastal waters. Within those limits, they shall also mini-\nmize man-induced sedimentation in estuaries, nearshore ocean waters, and coastal\nlakes.\nINVENTORY REQUIREMENTS\nInventories shall be conducted to provide information necessary for identifying\ncoastal shorelands and designating uses and policies. These inventories shall provide\ninformation on the nature, location, and extent of geologic and hydrologic hazards\nand shoreland values, including fish and wildlife habitat, water dependent uses, eco-\nnomic resources, recreational uses, and aesthetics in sufficient detail to establish a\nsound basis for land and water use management.\nThe inventory requirements shall be applied within an area known as a coastal\nshorelands planning area. This planning area is not an area within which develop-\nment or use is prohibited. It is an area for inventory, study, and initial planning for\ndevelopment and use to meet the Coastal Shorelands Goal.\nThe planning area shall be defined by the following:\n(1) All lands west of the Oregon Coast Highway as described in ORS 366.235,\nexcept that:\n(a) In Tillamook County, only the lands west of a line formed by\nconnecting the western boundaries of the following described\nroadways: Brooten Road (County Road 887) northerly from\nits junction with the Oregon Coast Highway to Pacific City\n11\n4.65","Page 196\nMcPhillips Drive (County Road 915) northerly from Pacific\nCity to its junction with Sandlake Road (County Road 871),\nSandlake-Cape Lookout Road, (County Road 871) northerly\nto its junction with Cape Lookout Park, Netarts Bay Drive\n(County Road 665) northerly from its junction with the Sand-\nlake-Cape Lookout Road (County Road 871) to its junction at\nNetarts with State Highway 131, and northerly along State\nHighway 131 to its junction with the Oregon Coast Highway\nnear Tillamook.\n(b) In Coos County, only the lands west of a line formed by con-\nnecting the western boundaries of the following described road-\nways: Oregon State 240, Cape Arago Secondary (FAS 263)\nsoutherly from its junction with the Oregon Coast Highway to\nCharleston; Seven Devils Road (County Road 33) southerly\nfrom its junction with Oregon State 240 (FAS 263) to its junc-\ntion with the Oregon Coast Highway, near Bandon;\nand\n(2) All lands within an area defined by a line measured horizontally\n(a) 1000 feet from the shoreline of estuaries; and\n(b) 500 feet from the shoreline of coastal lakes.\nCOMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUIREMENTS\nBased upon inventories, comprehensive plans for coastal areas adjacent to the\nocean, estuaries, or coastal lakes shall:\n(1) identify coastal shorelands;\n(2) establish policies and uses of coastal shorelands in accordance\nwith standards set forth below:\nIdentification\nLands contiguous with the ocean, estuaries, and coastal lakes shall be identified\nas coastal shorelands. The extent of shorelands shall include at least:\n(1) Lands which limit, control, or are directly affected by the hydraulic\naction of the coastal water body, including floodways;\n(2) Adjacent areas of geologic instability;\n(3) Natural or man-made riparian resources, especially vegetation necessary to\nstabilize the shoreline and to maintain water quality and temperature\nnecessary for the maintenance of fish habitat and spawning areas;\n(4) Areas of significant shoreland and wetland biological habitats;\n(5) Areas necessary for water-dependent and water-related uses, including\nareas of recreational importance which utilize coastal water or riparian\nresources, areas appropriate for navigation and port facilities, and areas\nhaving characteristics suitable for aquaculture;\n12\n4.66","Page 197\n(6) Areas of exceptional aesthetic or scenic quality, where the quality is pri-\nmarily derived from or related to the association with coastal water areas;\nand\n(7) Coastal headlands.\nCoastal Shoreland Uses\n(1) Major marshes, significant wildlife habitat, coastal headlands, exceptional\naesthetic resources, and historic and archaeological sites shall be protected.\nUses in these areas shall be consistent with protection of natural values.\nSuch uses may include propagation and selective harvesting of forest pro-\nducts consistent with the Oregon Forest Practices Act, grazing, harvesting\nwild crops, and low intensity water-dependent recreation.\n(2) Shorelands in urban and urbanizable areas especially suited for water-\ndependent uses shall be protected for water-dependent recreational, com-\nmercial and industrial uses. Some factors which contribute to this special\nsuitability are:\n(a) deep water close to shore with supporting land transport\nfacilities suitable for ship and barge facilities;\n(b) potential for aquaculture;\n(c) protected areas subject to scour which would require little\ndredging for use as marinas; and\n(d) potential for recreational utilization of coastal water or\nriparian resources.\n(3) Shorelands in rural areas other than those designated in (1) above shall be\nused as appropriate for:\n(a) farm uses as provided in ORS Chapter 215;\n(b) propagation and harvesting of forest products consistent\nwith the Oregon Forest Practices Act;\n(c) private and public water-dependent recreation developments;\n(d) aquaculture;\n(e) water-dependent commercial and industrial uses\nand water-related uses only upon a finding by the\ngoverning body of the county that such uses\nsatisfy a need which cannot be accommodated\non shorelands in urban and urbanizable areas;\n(f) subdivisions, major and minor partitions and\nother uses only upon a finding by the governing\nbody of the county that such uses satisfy a need\nwhich cannot be accommodated at other upland\nlocations or in urban or urbanizable areas and are\ncompatible with the objectives of this goal to\nprotect riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat;\nand\n(g) a single family residence on existing lots, parcels or\nunits of land when compatible with the objectives\nand implementation standards of this goal.\n13\n4.67","Page 198\nPriority\nGeneral priorities for the overall use of coastal shorelands (from highest to\nlowest) shall be to:\n(1) Promote uses which maintain the integrity of estuaries and\ncoastal waters;\n(2) Provide for water-dependent uses;\n(3) Provide for water-related uses;\n(4) Provide for non-dependent, non-related uses which\nretain flexibility of future use and do not prematurely or\ninalterably commit shorelands to more intensive uses;\n(5) Provide for development, including non-dependent,\nnon-related uses, in urban areas compatible with\nexisting or committed uses;\n(6) Permit non-dependent, non-related uses which cause\na permanent or long-term change in the features of\ncoastal shorelands only upon a demonstration of\npublic need.\nIMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS\n(1) The Oregon Department of Forestry shall recognize the unique and\nspecial values provided by coastal shorelands when developing standards\nand policies to regulate uses of forest lands within coastal\nshorelands. With other state and federal agencies, the Department of\nForestry shall develop forest management practices and policies which\nprotect and maintain the special shoreland values and forest uses.\n(2) The land use planning and regulatory authorites of local government and\nstate and federal agencies shall manage floodplain areas in coastal shore-\nlands to promote use and development consistent with the hazards to life\nand property. Priority uses for flood hazard and floodplain areas shall\ninclude agriculture, forestry, recreation and open space, and uses which\nare water-dependent.\n(3) Local government, with assistance from state and federal agencies, shall\nidentify coastal shoreland areas which may be used to fulfill the mitiga-\ntion requirement of the Estuarine Resources Goal. These areas shall be\nprotected from new uses and activities which would prevent their ultimate\nrestoration or addition to the estuarine ecosystems.\n(4) Coastal shorelands identified under the Estuarine Resources Goal for\ndredged material disposal shall be protected from new uses and activities\nwhich would prevent their ultimate use for dredged material disposal.\n14\n4.68","Page 199\n(5) Because of the importance of the vegetative fringe adjacent to coastal\nwaters to water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, recreational use and\naesthetic resources, riparian vegetation shall be maintained; and where\nappropriate restored and enhanced, consistent with water-dependent uses.\n(6) Land-use management practices and non-structural solutions to problems\nof erosion and flooding shall be preferred to structural solutions. Where\nshown to be necessary, water and erosion control structures, such as\njetties, bulkheads, seawalls, and similar protective structures; and fill,\nwhether located in the waterways or on shorelands above ordinary high\nwater mark, shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts on water\ncurrents, erosion and accretion patterns.\n15\n4.69","Page 200\n16\n4.70","Page 201\nGUIDELINES\nThe requirements of the Coastal Shorelands Goal should be addressed with the\nsame consideration as applied to previously adopted goals and guidelines. The plan-\nning process described in the Land Use Planning Goal (Goal 2), including the\nexceptions provisions described in Goal 2, applies to coastal shoreland areas and\nimplementation of the Coastal Shorelands Goal.\nBecause of the strong relation of estuarine shorelands to adjacent estuaries, the\ninventory and planning requirements for estuaries and estuarine shorelands should\nbe fully coordinated. Coastal shoreland inventories and planning should also be fully\ncoordinated with those required in other statewide planning goals, supplementing\nthem where necessary. Of special importance are the plan requirements of the Goals\nfor Agricultural Lands; Forest Lands; Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and\nNatural Resources; Air, Water and Land Resources Quality; Areas Subject to Natural\nDisasters and Hazards; Recreational Needs; and Economy of the State.\nA. Inventories\nIn coastal shoreland areas the following inventory needs should be reviewed.\nThe level of detail of information needed will differ depending on the development\nor alteration proposed and the degree of conflict over the potential designation.\n1.\nHazard areas, including at least:\nAreas the use of which may result in significant\na.\nhydraulic alteration of other lands or water bodies;\nb.\nAreas of geological instability in, or adjacent to\nshorelines; and\nThe 100 Year Floodplain.\nC.\n2.\nExisting land uses and ownership patterns, economic resources, develop-\nment needs, public facilities, topography, hydrography, and similar infor-\nmation affecting shorelands;\n3.\nAreas of aesthetic and scenic importance;\n4.\nCoastal shoreland and wetland biological habitats which are dependent\nupon the adjacent water body, plus other coastal shoreland and adjacent\naquatic areas of biological importance (feeding grounds, nesting sites,\nareas of high productivity, etc.) natural areas and fish and wildlife\nhabitats;\n5.\nAreas of recreational importance;\n6.\nAreas of vegetative cover which are riparian in nature or which\nfunction to maintain water quality and to stabilize the shore-\nline;\n17\n4.71","Page 202\n7.\nSedimentation sources;\n8.\nAreas of present public access and recreational use;\n9.\nThe location of archaeological and historical sites; and\n10.\nCoastal headlands.\nB.\nFloodplain\nIn the development of comprehensive plans, the management of uses and\ndevelopment in floodplain areas should be expanded beyond the minimal considera-\ntions necessary to comply with the HUD National Flood Insurance Program and the\nrequirements of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. Communities may wish\nto distinguish between the floodway and floodfringe in developing coastal shoreland\nplans; development in the floodway should be more strictly controlled.\nGovernment projects in coastal shorelands should be examined for their impact\non flooding, potential flood damage, and effect on growth patterns in the flood-\nplain. Non-water dependent emergency service structures (such as hospitals, police\nand fire stations) should not be constructed in the floodplain. Although they may be\nflood-proofed, access and egress may be prevented during a flood emergency.\nC.\nOpen Space, Natural Areas and Aesthetic Resources, and Recreation\nCoastal Shorelands provide many areas of unique or exceptional value and\nbenefit for open space, natural areas, and aesthetic and recreational use. The re-\nquirements of the Goals for Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural\nResources (Goal No. 5) and Recreational Needs (Goal No. 8) should be carefully\ncoordinated with the coastal shoreland planning effort.\nThe plan should provide for appropriate public access to and recreational use of\ncoastal waters. Public access through and the use of private property shall require\nthe consent of the owner and is a trespass unless appropriate easements and access\nhave been acquired in accordance with law.\nD.\nDevelopment Needs\nIn coordination with planning for the Estuarine Resources Goal, coastal shore-\nland plans should designate appropriate sites for water-dependent activities, and for\ndredged material disposal.\nHistoric, unique, and scenic waterfront communities should be maintained and\nenhanced, allowing for non water-dependent uses as appropriate in keeping with\nsuch communities.\nE. Transportation\nThe requirements of the Transportation Goal should be closely coordinated\nwith the Coastal Shorelands Goal. Coastal transportation systems frequently utilize\nshoreland areas and may significantly affect the resources and values of coastal\nshorelands and adjacent waters; they should allow appropriate access to coastal\nshorelands and adjacent waters, and be planned in full recognition of the protec-\ntion needs for the special resources and benefits which shorelands provide.\n18\n4.72","Page 203\nGOAL\n18. BEACHES AND DUNES\nOVERALL STATEMENT\nTo conserve, protect, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate restore\nthe resources and benefits of coastal beach and dune areas; and\nTo reduce the hazard to human life and property from natural or man-induced\nactions associated with these areas.\nCoastal comprehensive plans and implementing actions shall provide for diverse\nand appropriate use of beach and dune areas consistent with their ecological, recrea-\ntional, aesthetic, water resource, and economic values, and consistent with the\nnatural limitations of beaches, dunes and dune vegetation for development.\nINVENTORY REQUIREMENTS\nInventories shall be conducted to provide information necessary for identifying\nand designating beach and dune uses and policies. Inventories shall describe the sta-\nbility, movement, groundwater resource, hazards and values of the beach and dune\nareas in sufficient detail to establish a sound basis for planning and management. For\nbeach and dune areas adjacent to coastal waters, inventories shall also address the\ninventory requirements of the Coastal Shorelands Goal.\nCOMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUIREMENTS\nBased upon the inventory, comprehensive plans for coastal areas shall:\n(1) identify beach and dune areas; and\n(2) establish policies and uses for these areas consistent with\nthe provisions of this goal.\nIdentification\nCoastal areas subject to this goal shall include beaches, active dune forms, re-\ncently stabilized dune forms, older stabilized dune forms and interdune forms.\nUses\nUses shall be based on the capabilities and limitations of beach and dune areas\nto sustain different levels of use or development, and the need to protect areas of\ncritical environmental concern, areas having scenic, scientific, or biological impor-\ntance, and significant wildlife habitat.\nIMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS\n(1) Local governments and state and federal agencies shall base decisions on\nplans, ordinances and land use actions in beach and dune areas, other than\nolder stabilized dunes, on specific findings that shall include at least:\n(a) the type of use proposed and the adverse effects it\nmight have on the site and adjacent areas;\n19\n4.73","Page 204\n(b) temporary and permanent stabilization programs\nand the planned maintenance of new and existing\nvegetation;\n(c) methods for protecting the surrounding area from\nany adverse effects of the development; and\n(d) hazards to life, public and private property, and\nthe natural environment which may be caused by\nthe proposed use.\n(2) Local governments and state and federal agencies shall prohibit residential\ndevelopments and commerical and industrial buildings on active foredunes,\non other foredunes which are conditionally stable and that are subject to\nocean undercutting or wave overtopping, and on interdune areas (defla-\ntion plains) that are subject to ocean flooding. Other development in these\nareas shall be permitted only if the findings required in (1) above are pre-\nsented and it is demonstrated that the proposed development:\n(a) is adequately protected from any geologic hazards,\nwind erosion, undercutting, ocean flooding and storm\nwaves; or is of minimal value; and\n(b) is designed to minimize adverse environmental effects.\n(3) Local governments and state and federal agencies shall regulate actions in\nbeach and dune areas to minimize the resulting erosion. Such actions in-\nclude, but are not limited to the destruction of desirable vegetation\n(including inadvertent destruction by moisture loss or root damage), the\nexposure of stable and conditionally stable areas to erosion, and construc-\ntion of shore structures which modify current or wave patterns leading to\nbeach erosion.\n(4) Local, state and federal plans, implementing actions and permit reviews\nshall protect the groundwater from drawdown which would lead to loss of\nstabilizing vegetation, loss of water quality, or intrusion of salt water into\nwater supplies.\n(5) Permits for beach front protective structures shall be issued under ORS\n390.605 - 390.770, only where development existed on January 1, 1977.\nThe Oregon Department of Transportation, cooperating with local, state\nand federal agencies shall develop criteria to supplement the Oregon Beach\nLaw (ORS 390.605 - 390.770) for issuing permits for construction of\nbeach front protective structures. The criteria shall provide that:\n(a) visual impacts are minimized;\n(b) necessary access to the beach is maintained;\n(c) negative impacts on adjacent property are minimized; and\n(d) long-term or recurring costs to the public are avoided.\n(6) Foredunes shall be breached only to replenish sand supply in interdune\nareas, or on a temporary basis in an emergency (e.g., fire control, cleaning\nup oil spills, draining farm lands, and alleviating flood hazards), and only\nif the breaching and restoration after breaching is consistent with sound\nprinciples of conservation.\n20\n4.74","Page 205\nGUIDELINES\nThe requirements of the Beaches and Dunes Goal should be addressed with the\nsame consideration as applied to previously adopted goals and guidelines. The plan-\nning process described in the Land Use Planning Goal (Goal 2), including the ex-\nceptions provisions described in Goal 2, applies to beaches and dune areas and imple-\nmentation of the Beaches and Dunes Goal.\nBeaches and dunes, especially interdune areas (deflation plains) provide many\nunique or exceptional resources which should be addressed in the inventories and\nplanning requirements of other goals, especially the Goals for Open Spaces, Scenic\nand Historic Areas and Natural Resources; and Recreational Needs. Habitat provided\nby these areas for coastal and migratory species is of special importance.\nA. Inventories\nLocal government should begin the beach and dune inventory with a review of\nBeaches and Dunes of the Oregon Coast, USDA Soil Conservation Service and\nOCCDC, March, 1975, and determine what additional information is necessary to\nidentify and describe:\nThe geologic nature and stability of the beach and dune landforms;\n1.\n2. patterns of erosion, accretion, and migration;\nstorm and ocean flood hazards;\n3.\n4. existing and projected use, development and economic activity\non the beach and dune landforms; and\nareas of significant biological importance.\n5.\nExamples of Minimal Development\nB.\nExamples of development activity which are of minimal value and suitable for\ndevelopment in conditionally stable dunes and deflation plains include beach and\ndune boardwalks, fences which do not affect sand erosion or migration, and tempo-\nrary open-sided shelters.\nEvaluating Beach and Dune Plans and Actions\nC.\nLocal government should adopt strict controls for carrying out the Implemen-\ntation Requirements of this goal. The controls could include:\nrequirement of a site investigation report financed by the developer;\n1.\nposting of performance bonds to assure that adverse effects can be\n2.\ncorrected; and\nrequirement of re-establishing vegetation within a specified time.\n3.\nD.\nSand By-Pass\nIn developing structures that might excessively reduce the sand supply or in-\nterrupt the longshore transport or littoral drift, the developer should investigate, and\nwhere possible, provide methods of sand by-pass.\n21\n4.75","Page 206\nE.\nPublic Access\nWhere appropriate, local government should require new developments to dedi-\ncate easements for public access to public beaches, dunes and associated waters.\nAccess into or through dune areas, particularly conditionally stable dunes and dune\ncomplexes, should be controlled or designed to maintain the stability of the area,\nprotect scenic values and avoid fire hazards.\nF.\nDune Stabilization\nDune stabilization programs should be allowed only when in conformance with\nthe comprehensive plan, and only after assessment of their potential impact.\nG.\nOff Road Vehicles\nAppropriate levels of government should designate specific areas for the recrea-\ntional use of off road vehicles (ORV's). This use should be restricted to limit damage\nto natural resources and avoid conflict with other activities, including other recrea-\ntional use.\n22\n4.76","Page 207\nGOAL\n19. OCEAN RESOURCES\nOVERALL STATEMENT\nTo conserve the long-term values, benefits and natural resources of the\nnearshore ocean and the continental shelf.\nAll local, state, and federal plans, policies, projects, and activities which\naffect the territorial sea shall be developed, managed and conducted to main-\ntain, and where appropriate, enhance and restore, the long-term benefits de-\nrived from the nearshore oceanic resources of Oregon. Since renewable ocean\nresources and uses, such as food production, water quality, navigation, recrea-\ntion, and aesthetic enjoyment, will provide greater long-term benefits than will\nnon-renewable resources, such plans and activities shall give clear priority to the\nproper management and protection of renewable resources.\nINVENTORY REQUIREMENTS\nAs local governments and state and federal agencies implement plans or\ncarry out actions, projects, or activities related to or affecting ocean resources,\nthey shall develop inventory information necessary to understand the impacts\nand relationship of the proposed activity to continental shelf and nearshore\nocean resources. As specific actions are proposed, inventory information shall\nbe gathered by the unit of government considering the action with assistance\nfrom those agencies and governments which use or manage the resources. The\ninventory shall be sufficient to describe the long-term impacts of the proposed\naction on resources and uses of the continental shelf and nearshore ocean.\nIMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS\nState and federal agencies with planning, permit, or review autho-\n(1)\nrities affected by the Ocean Resources Goal shall review their\nprocedures and standards to assure that the objectives and re-\nquirements of the goal are fully addressed. The following authori-\nties are of special concern:\nORS 541.605\nDivision of State Lands\nFill and Removal Law\n-541.665\nMineral resources\nORS 273.775\n--273.780\nORS 274.005\nSubmersible and sub-\n-274.940\nmerged Lands\nORS 274.885\nKelp Law\n-274.895\nORS 777.835\nDepartment of Economic\nPorts Planning\nDevelopment\nORS 520.005\nDepartment of Geology\nMineral Extraction\nand Mineral Industries\nOil and Gas Drilling\n-520.095\n23\n4.77","Page 208\nDepartment of Energy\nRegulation of thermal\nORS 469.300\npower and nuclear\n-469.570\ninstallation\nDepartment of Environ-\nWater Quality Permits\nORS 468.700\nmental Quality\n468.775\nOil spillage regula-\nORS 468.780\ntion\n--468.815\nDepartment of Fish and\nFisheries regulation\nORS Chapter\nWildlife\n--506\n(2)\nEach state and federal agency, special district, city and county\nwithin the limits of its jurisdiction and as necessary to:\n(i.)\ndetermine the impact of proposed projects or\nactions; and\n(ii.)\nfor the sound conservation of ocean resources;\nshall:\n(a)\nFishery Resources\n(i.)\nDevelop scientific information on the stocks and\nlife histories of commercially, recreationally,\nand ecologically important species of fish, shell-\nfish, marine mammals and other marine fauna.\n(ii.)\nDesignate and enforce fishing regulations to\nmaintain the optimum sustainable yield (OSY)\nwhile protecting the natural marine ecosystem.\n(iii.)\nDevelop and encourage improved fishing prac-\ntices and equipment to achieve the OSY while\nprotecting the natural marine ecosystem.\n(iv.)\nDevelop scientific understanding of the effects\nof man's activities, including navigation, mineral\nextraction, recreation, and waste discharge, on\nthe marine ecosystem.\n(b)\nBiological Habitat\n(i.)\nIdentify and protect areas of important biolo-\ngical habitat, including kelp and other algae\nbeds, seagrass beds, rock reef areas and areas of\nimportant fish, shellfish and invertebrate con-\ncentration.\n(ii.)\nIdentify and protect important feeding areas;\nspawning areas; nurseries; migration routes; and\nother biologically important areas or marine\nmammals, marine birds, and commercially and\nrecreationally important fish and shellfish.\n(iii.)\nDetermine and protect the integrity of the ma--\nrine ecosystem, including its natural biological\nproductivity and diversity.\n24\n4.78","Page 209\n(c)\nNavigation and Ports\n(i.)\nDetermine for the state as a whole, the navi-\ngation needs for the coast of Oregon. Such needs\nwill reflect, in part, the capability of each port\nto handle differing types of ship traffic, consis-\ntent with other statewide planning goals.\n(ii.)\nMaintain appropriate navigation lanes and faci-\nlities free from interference by other uses to pro-\nvide safe transportation along and to the Oregon\nCoast.\n(d)\nAesthetic Use\nMaintain the aesthetic enjoyment and experiences provi-\nded by ocean resources.\n(e)\nRecreation\nIdentify, maintain and enhance the diversity, quality, and\nquantity of recreational opportunities on and over the\nOregon continental shelf, as consistent with the Beaches\nand Dunes Goal and Estuarine Resources Goal.\n(f)\nWaste Discharge and Mineral Extraction\nProvide that extraction of materials from or discharge of\nwaste products into or affecting the Oregon territorial sea\ndo not substantially interfere with or detract from the use\nof the continental shelf for fishing, navigation, recreation,\nor aesthetic purposes, or from the long-term protection of\nrenewable resources.\nDredged Material Disposal\n(g)\nProvide for suitable sites and practices for the open sea\ndischarge of dredged materials, which do not substantially\ninterfere with or detract from the use of the continental\nshelf for fishing, navigation, or recreation, or from the\nlong-term protection of renewable resources.\n(h)\nArchaeological Sites\nIdentify and protect, whenever possible, significant under-\nwater archaeological sites of the continental shelf.\n25\n4.79","Page 210\n(3)\nContingency Plans\nBefore issuing permits for development on the Oregon continental\nshelf, state and federal agencies, in coordination with the permit-\nee, shall establish contingency plans and emergency procedures to\nbe followed in the event that the operation results in conditions\nwhich threaten to damage the environment.\n26\n4.80","Page 211\nGUIDELINES\nA. Implementation\nThe Ocean Resources Goal does not include any specific plan requirements. It\nprimarily sets implementation requirements, giving priority to certain uses and re-\nquiring that actions affecting Ocean Resources must be preceded by an inventory\nand based on sound information.\nThese requirements address all units of government. Examples of plans, actions\nor programs of local government which might affect the identified ocean resources\ninclude construction and expansion of port and navigation facilities, recreation use,\nand disposal of chemical, thermal, sewage or dredged material wastes. Other kinds of\nactions in ocean resource and continental shelf areas are primarily under the regula-\ntory authority of state and federal agencies; these activites must be closely coordi-\nnated with local government to avoid or minimize impact on adjacent and affected\nupland areas.\nB. Inventory\nThe goal does not intend that local government and state and federal agencies\ndevelop complete inventories of ocean resources. Rather, it requires that actions\naffecting the nearshore ocean and continental shelf areas be based upon a sound\nunderstanding of the resources and potential impacts. Therefore, the inventory\nshould identify the affected ocean area and describe the extent and significance of:\n1.\nHydrographic conditions and processes, including characteristics of\nocean waves, current, tidal, water quality, and bottom;\n2.\nGeology,\n3.\nBiological features, including fish and shellfish stocks; other biologi-\ncally important species; important habitat areas including sea grass and\nalgae beds; and other elements important to maintaining the biological\nresource such as plankton and benthos;\n4.\nMineral deposits, including sand and gravel and hydrocarbon resources;\nand\nPresent and projected uses, use patterns, and values associated with the\n5.\nocean resource, including commercial fishing, port and navigation uses,\nrecreational activities, and waste discharges.\nC. Research\nResource agencies and research organizations should continue to develop com-\nplete and comprehensive information on ocean resources to promote their proper\nmanagement and protection.\nD. Fish Harvest\nState and federal agencies should encourage, where appropriate and in keeping\nwith sound practices for conservation of ocean resources, the exploitation of un-\nutilized and underutilized fish species.\n27\n4.81","Page 212\nE. Permits\nPermits for development on the Oregon continental shelf should:\nDesignate areas within the proposed development where activities such\n1.\nas exploration and extraction, will be prohibited;\nSpecify methods and equipment to be used and standards to be met;\n2.\nRequire the developer to finance monitoring and inspection of the\n3.\ndevelopment by the appropriate state agency;\nRequire that pollution abatement utilize the best available technology\n4.\nwhen needed to protect coastal resources;\nRequire the developer to be liable for individual or public damage\n5.\ncaused by the development and to post adequate bonding or other evi-\ndence of financial responsibility to cover damages;\nSpecify the extent of restoration that must be accomplished, where\n6.\nappropriate, when the development is finished;\nSpecify that the state or federal government may revoke or modify a\n7.\npermit to prevent or halt damage to the environment and that such\nrevocation or modification will recognize vested rights of the developer;\nRequire the developer to describe the extent and magnitude of onshore\n8.\nsupport and operation facilities and their social, economic and environ-\nmental impacts on the Oregon coast; and\nBe available for public review and comment before issuance.\n9.\n28\n4.82","NOTE: Definitions on 4.03 & 4.04 which apply to all 19 Statewide Planning Goals\nPage 213\nand Guidelines adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission.\nDEFINITIONS\nA\nACCRETION: The build-up of land along a\nRogue River basin, where the coastal zone\nbeach or shore by the deposition of water-\nshall extend to Agness; (c) The Columbia\nborne or airborne sand, sediment, or other\nRiver basin, where the coastal zone shall ex-\ntend to the downstream end of Puget Island.\nmaterial.\nANADROMOUS: Referring to fish, such as\n(ORS 191.110)\nsalmon, which hatch in fresh water, migrate\nCONTINENTAL SHELF: The area seaward\nfrom the ocean shore to the distance when\nto ocean waters to grow and mature, and re-\nthe ocean depth is 200 meters, or where the\nturn to fresh waters to spawn.\nARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Those\nocean floor slopes more steeply to the deep\nocean floor. The area beyond the state's juris-\ndistricts, sites, buildings, structures, and arti-\ndiction is the OUTER Continental Shelf.\nfacts which possess material evidence of\nhuman life and culture of the prehistoric and\nhistoric past. (See Historical Resources defini-\nD\ntion.)\nAVULSION: A tearing away or separation by\nDEFLATION PLAIN: The broad interdune\narea which is wind scoured to the level of the\nthe force of water. Land which is separated\nfrom uplands or adjacent properties by the\nsummer water table.\naction of a stream or river cutting through\nDIVERSITY: The variety of natural, environ-\nmental, economic, and social resources, values,\nthe land to form a new stream bed.\nbenefits, and activities.\nDUNE: A hill or ridge of sand built up by the\nB\nBEACH: Gently sloping areas of loose material\nwind along sandy coasts.\nDUNE, ACTIVE: A dune that migrates,\n(e.g., sand, gravel, and cobbles) that extend\ngrows and diminishes from the face of wind\nlandward from the low-water line to a point\nand supply of sand. Active dunes include\nwhere there is a definite change in the material\nall open sand dunes, active hummocks,\ntype or landform, or to the line of vegetation.\nBENTHIC: Living on or within the bottom\nand active foredunes.\nDUNE, CONDITIONALLY STABLE: A\nsediments in water bodies.\ndune presently in a stable condition, but\nvulnerable to becoming active due to fra-\nC\nCOASTAL LAKES: Lakes in the coastal zone\ngile vegetative cover.\nDUNE, OLDER STABILIZED: A dune\nthat are created by a dune formation or that\nthat is stable from wind erosion, and that\nhave a hydrologic surface or subsurface con-\nhas significant soil development and that\nnection with salt water.\nmay include diverse forest cover. They in-\nCOASTAL SHORELANDS: Those areas im-\nmediately adjacent to the ocean, all estuaries\nclude older foredunes.\nDUNE, OPEN SAND: A collective term for\nand associated wetlands, and all coastal lakes.\nactive, unvegetative dune landforms.\nCOASTAL STREAM: Any stream within the\nDUNE, RECENTLY STABILIZED: A\ncoastal zone as defined in ORS 191.110.\ndune with sufficient vegetation to be stabi-\nCOASTAL WATERS: Territorial ocean wat-\nlized from wind erosion, but with little, if\ners of the continental shelf; estuaries; and\nany, development of soil or cohesion of the\ncoastal lakes.\nsand under the vegetation. Recently stabi-\nCOASTAL ZONE: The area lying between\nlized dunes include conditionally stable\nthe Washington border on the north to the\nforedunes, conditionally stable dunes, dune\nCalifornia border on the south, bounded on\ncomplexes, and younger stabilized dunes.\nthe west by the extent of the state's jurisdic-\nDUNES, YOUNGER STABILIZED: A\ntion, and in the east by the crest of the coastal\nwind stable dune with weakly developed\nmountain range, with the exception of: (a)\nThe Umpqua River basin, where the coastal\nsoils and vegetation.\nDUNE COMPLEX: Various patterns of small\nzone shall extend to Scottsburg; (b) The\n29\n4.83","Page 214\ndunes with partially stabilized intervening\nsubject to wind erosion, water erosion, and\ngrowth from new sand deposits. Active\nareas.\nforedunes may include areas with beach grass,\nE\nand occur in sand spits and at river mouths as\nECOSYSTEM The living and non-living com-\nwell as elsewhere.\nponents of the environment which interact or\nFOREDUNE ( ONDITIONALLY STABLE:\nfunction together, including plant and animal\nAn active foredune that has ceased growing\norganisms, the physical environment, and the\nin height and that has become conditionally\nenergy systems in which they exist. All the\nstable with regard to wind erosion.\ncomponents of an ecosystem are inter-related.\nFOREDUNE, OLDER: A conditionally stable\nESTUARY: A body of water semi-enclosed\nforedune that has become wind stabilized by\nby land, connected with the open ocean, and\ndiverse vegetation and soil development.\nwithin which salt water is usually diluted by\nFOREST LANDS: See definition of commer-\nfreshwater derived from the land. The estuary\ncial forest lands and uses in the Oregon Forest\nincludes: (a) Estuarine water: (b) Tidelands;\nPractices Act and the Forest Lands Goal.\n(c) Tidal marshes; and (d) Submerged lands.\nEstuaries extend upstream to the head of tide-\nG\nwater, except for the Columbia River Estuary,\nGEOLOGIC: Relating to the occurrence and\nwhich by definition is considered to extend to\nproperties of earth. Geologic hazards include\nthe western edge of Puget Island.\nfaults, land and mudslides, and earthquakes.\nF\nH\nFILL: The placement by man of sand, sedi-\nHEADLANDS: Bluffs, promontories or points\nment, or other material, usually in submerged\nof high shore land jutting out into the ocean,\nlands or wetlands, to create new uplands or\ngenerally sloping abruptly into the water.\nraise the elevation of land.\nOregon headlands are generally identified in\nFLOODPLAIN: The area adjoining a stream,\nthe report on Visual Resource Analysis of the\ntidal estuary or coast that is subject to regional\nOregon Coastal Zone, OCCDC, 1974.\nflooding.\nHISTORICAL RESOURCES: Those districts,\nA REGIONAL (100-YEAR) FLOOD is a\nsites, buildings, structures, and artifacts which\nstandard statistical calculation used by\nhave a relationship to events or conditions of\nengineers to determine the probability of\nthe human past. (See Archaeological Resour-\nsevere flooding. It represents the largest\nces definition.)\nflood which has a one-percent chance of\nHUMMOCK, ACTIVE: Partially vegetated\noccurring in any one year in an area as a\n(usually with beach grass), circular, and ele-\nresult of periods of higher than normal\nvated mounds of sand which are actively\nrainfall or streamflows, extremely high\ngrowing in size.\ntides, high winds, rapid snowmelt, natural\nHYDRAULIC: Related to the movement or\nstream blockages, tsunamis, or combinations\npressure of water. Hydraulic hazards are those\nthereof.\nassociated with erosion or sedimentation\nFLOODWAY: The normal stream channel\ncaused by the action of water flowing in a\nand that adjoining area of the natural flood-\nriver or streambed, or oceanic currents and\nplain needed to convey the waters of a\nwaves.\nregional flood while causing less than one\nHYDRAULIC PROCESSES: Actions resulting\nfoot increase in upstream flood elevations.\nfrom the effect of moving water or water\nFLOODFRINGE: The area of the flood-\npressure on the bed, banks, and shorelands of\nplain lying outside of the floodway, but\nwater bodies (ocean, estuarine, streams, lakes,\nsubject to periodic inundation from flood-\nand rivers).\ning.\nHYDROGRAPHY: The study, description\nFOREDUNE, ACTIVE: An unstable barrier\nand mapping of oceans, estuaries, rivers and\nridge of sand paralleling the beach and\nlakes.\n30\n4.84","Page 215\nHYDROLOGIC: Relating to the occurrence\nnot necessarily completely natural or undis-\nand properties of water. Hydrologic hazards\nturbed, but can be significant for the study of\nincluding flooding (the rise of water) as well\nnatural, historical, scientific, or paleontologi-\nas hydraulic hazards associated with the\ncal features, or for the appreciation of natural\nmovement of water.\nfeatures.\nI\no\nIMPACT: The consequences of a course of\nOCCDC: Oregon Coastal Conservation and\naction; the effect of a goal, guideline, plan, or\nDevelopment Commission, created by ORS\ndecision.\n191; existed from 1971 to 1975. Its work is\nINTEGRITY: The quality or state of being\ncontinued by LCDC.\ncomplete and functionally unimpaired; the\nOCEAN FLOODING: The flooding of low-\nwholeness or entirety of a body or system, in-\nland areas by salt water owing to tidal action,\ncluding its parts, materials, and processes. The\nstorm surge, or tsunamis (seismic sea waves).\nintegrity of an ecosystem emphasizes the inter-\nLand forms subject to Ocean Flooding include\nrelatedness of all parts and the unity of its\nbeaches, marshes, coastal lowlands, and low-\nwhole.\nlying interdune areas. The highest predicted\nINTERDUNE AREA: Low-lying areas be-\ntide is approximately six (6) feet above Mean\ntween higher sand landforms which are\nSea Level (MSL). The highest probable storm\ngenerally under water during part of the year.\nsurge is four to seven (4 7) feet above pre-\n(See also Deflation Plain)\nvailing tidal elevation. The highest probable\nINTERTIDAL: Between the levels of mean\ntsunami is approximately 14 feet above pre-\nlower low tide (MLLT) and mean higher high\nvailing tidal elevation in mouths of estuaries\ntide (MHHT).\nand slightly higher on beaches. Because tidal\nflooding occurs twice daily, the effect of high\nL\ntide is superposed on that of storm surges or\nLCDC: Land Conservation and Development\ntsunamis in determining the impact of these\nCommission of the State of Oregon. Seven lay-\nphenomena.\ncitizens, non-salaried, appointed by the\nGovernor, confirmed by the Oregon Senate;\nP\nat least one commissioner from each Congres-\nPUBLIC GAIN: The net gain from combined\nsional District; no more than two from Mult-\neconomic, social, and environmental effects\nnomah County.\nwhich accrue to the public because of a use or\nLITTORAL DRIFT: The material moved,\nactivity and its subsequent resulting effects.\nsuch as sand or gravel, in the littoral (shallow\nwater nearshore) zone under the influence of\nR\nRECREATION: Any experience voluntarily\nwaves and currents.\nengaged in largely during leisure (discretion-\nM\nary time) from which the individual derives\nMANAGEMENT UNIT: A discrete geographic\nsatisfaction.\narea, defined by biophysical characteristics\nCOASTAL RECREATION occurs in off-\nand features, within which particular uses and\nshore ocean waters, estuaries, and streams,\nactivities are promoted, encouraged, pro-\nalong beaches and bluffs, and in adjacent\ntected, or enhanced, and others are discour-\nshorelands. It includes a variety of activities,\naged, restricted, or prohibited.\nfrom swimming, scuba diving, boating, fish-\ning, hunting, and use of dune buggies, shell\nN\ncollecting, painting, wildlife observation,\nNATURAL AREAS: Includes land and water\nand sightseeing, to coastal resorts and water-\nthat has substantially retained its natural\noriented restaurants.\ncharacter, which is an important habitat for\nLOW INTENSITY RECREATION does not\nplant, animal, or marine life. Such areas are\nrequire developed facilities and can be\n31\n4.85","Page 216\naccommodated without change to the area\nSUBSTRATE: The medium upon which an\nor resource. E.g., boating, hunting, hiking,\norganism lives and grows. The surface of the\nwildlife photography, and beach or shore\nland or bottom of a water body.\nactivities can be low intensity recreation.\nSUBTIDAL: Below the level of mean lower\nHIGH INTENSITY RECREATION uses\nlow tide (MLLT).\nspecially built facilities, or occurs in such\ndensity or form that it requires or results in\nT\na modification of the area or resource.\nTERRITORIAL SEA: The ocean and seafloor\nCampgrounds, golf courses, public beaches,\narea from mean low water seaward three nau-\nand marinas are examples of high intensity\ntical miles.\nrecreation.\nTIDAL MARSH: Wetlands from lower high\nRESTORE: Revitalizing, returning, or replac-\nwater (LHW) inland to the line of non-aquatic\ning original attributes and amenities, such as\nvegetation.\nnatural biological productivity, aesthetic and\ncultural resources, which have been diminish-\nW\ned or lost by past alterations, activities, or\nWATER-DEPENDENT: A use or activity\ncatastrophic events.\nwhich can be carried out only on, in, or ad-\nACTIVE RESTORATION involves the use\njacent to water areas because the use requires\nof specific positive remedial actions. such\naccess to the water body for water-borne\nas removing fills, installing water treatment\ntransportation, recreation, energy production,\nfacilities, or rebuilding deteriorated urban\nor source of water.\nwaterfront areas.\nWATER-RELATED: Uses which are not\nPASSIVE RESTORATION is the use of\ndirectly dependent upon access to a water\nnatural processes, sequences, and timing or\nbody, but which provide goods or services\nwhich occurs after the removal or reduc-\nthat are directly associated with water-\ntion of adverse stresses without other speci-\ndependent land or waterway use, and which,\nfic positive remedial action.\nif not located adjacent to water, would result\nRIPARIAN: Of, pertaining to, or situated on\nin a public loss of quality in the goods or ser-\nthe edge of the bank of a river or other body\nvices offered. Except as necessary for water-\nof water.\ndependent or water-related uses or facilities,\nRIPRAP: A layer, facing, or protective\nresidences, parking lots, spoil and dump sites,\nmound of stones randomly placed to prevent\nroads and highways, restaurants, businesses,\nerosion, scour or sloughing of a structure or\nfactories; and trailer parks are not generally\nembankment; also, the stone SO used. In local\nconsidered dependent on or related to water\nusage, the similar use of other hard material,\nlocation needs.\nsuch as concrete rubble, is also frequently in-\nWETLANDS: Land areas where excess water\ncluded as riprap.\nis the dominant factor determining the nature\nof soil development and the types of plant\nS\nand animal communities living at the soil\nSEDENTARY: Attached firmly to the bot-\nsurface. Wetland soils retain sufficient\ntom, generally incapable of movement.\nmoisture to support aquatic or semi-aquatic\nSHORELINE: The boundary line between a\nplant life. In marine and estuarine areas,\nbody of water and the land, measured on tidal\nwetlands are bounded at the lower extreme\nwaters at mean higher high water, and on non-\nby extreme low water; in freshwater areas, by\ntidal waterways at the ordinary high water\na depth of six feet. The area below wetlands\nmark.\nare submerged lands.\nSIGNIFICANT HABITAT AREAS: A land or\nwater area where sustaining the natural re-\nsource characteristics is important or essential\nto the production and maintenance of aquatic\nlife or wildlife populations.\n32\nU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1977-240-848/61\n.86"]}