June 14, 2021

Lincoln County Planning Commission c/o Mr. Onno Husing, Planning and Development Director Lincoln County Department of Planning and Development Attn: 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21 Second Street Annex 210 SW Second Street Newport, OR 97365

Via Email to: [email protected], [email protected]

Re: Lincoln County Applications 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21 Applicants: WorldMark, SeaRidge Condominiums, Lincoln Avenue Homes Goal 18, Implementation Requirement 5 Exception Comments of Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition

Dear Planning Commission members:

Please accept these comments from the Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition and its members (collectively “Oregon Shores”) to be included in record for Lincoln County Land Use Applications 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21 (Public Hearing Date: June 14, 2021).1 Oregon Shores is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the natural communities, ecosystems, and landscapes of the Oregon coast while preserving the public’s access to these priceless treasures in an ecologically responsible manner. Our mission includes assisting people in land use matters and other regulatory processes affecting their coastal communities, and engaging Oregonians and visitors alike in a wide range of stewardship activities that serve to protect our state’s celebrated public coastal heritage. For half a century, we have been a key

1 Lincoln County Planning Commission, Pub. Notice, available at https://www.co.lincoln.or.us/pc/page/goal-18- exception-public-hearing Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21 public interest participant in legal and policy matters related to land use and shoreline management at the local and state level.

Oregon Shores has been an active public interest participant in legal processes and policy decisions related to coastal land use, shoreline management, and protection of coastal resources in the State of Oregon. Over the past several decades, we have offered testimony on numerous proposals involving shoreline protection structures (“SPS”)2 before the Lincoln County Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) and other county and state bodies in order to express serious concerns about the known harmful impacts these structures have on shorelines, coastal ecosystems, the public’s access to the beach, and public safety. Oregon Shores’ members and the public we serve live, visit, and enjoy recreation opportunities on the beach fronting and in the near vicinity of the proposed project area. Oregon Shores’ CoastWatch volunteers, which include members and non-members alike, monitor the miles of shorefront directly before and in the near vicinity of the proposed project area.3 Hence, Oregon Shores will be impacted by the Department’s decision in this matter.

Oregon Shores requests that the Planning Commission find that the applicants have failed to justify an exception to Goal 18 and deny these applications. Oregon Shores also requests that the record remain open for an additional seven (7) days so that additional material may be added to the record as appropriate. Please notify us of any further decisions, reports, or notices issued in relation to these concurrent applications. Oregon Shores will provide further comments as appropriate and allowed within the open record periods.

I. Background of Applications and General Analysis

The Applications fail to demonstrate compliance with applicable SPS criteria contained within Chapter 197 of the Oregon Revised Statutes (“ORS”), Chapter 660, Division 4 of the Oregon Administrative Rules (“OAR”), and the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals (“Goals”). As the Oregon Court of Appeals explained: “an exception must be just that—exceptional.”4 The Applicants’ proposal that Lincoln County set forth within the Lincoln County Comprehensive Plan (“LCCP”) and Lincoln County Zoning Ordinance (“LCZC”) (collectively, “Lincoln County Comprehensive Plan”) an amendment and justification for a Goal 18 exception at the proposed sites warrants careful consideration to assess consistency with this “exceptional” standard. Our comment supports the view that Applicants do not meet the required legal standard.

A. Project Area, Location, and Description

Lincoln-Gleneden Beach (hereinafter, “Gleneden Beach”) is located approximately five miles south of Lincoln City and is a prime example of how riprapped shores devastate the

2 Hardened shoreline protection structures (synonymous with “beachfront protective structures”) include riprap revetments, concrete seawalls, bulkheads, and the like. These structures are somewhat different, but the publicly available evidence indicates that the harmful impacts of each are substantially the same and should be considered as such for the purposes of review. 3 Tour of the Miles, Mile 235-236, link: https://oregonshores.org/mile/237 4 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 69 Or App 717, 731 (1984).

2 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21

Oregon coast. By the 1990s, large sections of Gleneden Beach were hardened due to swiftly eroding sandstone and mudstone bluffs. In the words of the County, “the proliferation of riprap at Lincoln-Gleneden Beach has had profound negative impacts on that beach”5 that continue today. Today, a majority of the beach is currently riprapped—with the exception of the Applicants’ sites. Due to extreme erosion, safety concerns, and the tremendous proliferation of riprap on the shoreline, recreational opportunities and public access to the beach are extremely limited. The beach’s conditions and continual erosion have also resulted in diminished vegetation and degraded natural resources.

The Applications request a Goal 18, Implementation Requirement 5 (“Goal 18, IR 5”) exception to allow a hardened shoreline protection for several oceanfront properties developed after January 1, 1977 in Gleneden Beach. Lincoln Avenue homes were previously denied building permits by the Planning Director, as well as emergency permits from the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD).6 In total, the Applicants propose approximately 1,280 feet (“ft.”) of shoreline for hardening.7

The three sites at issue include the WorldMark Gleneden Resort (the “Resort”), SeaRidge Condominiums (“SeaRidge”), and four adjacent single-family vacation homes8 (collectively, the “Properties”) located on Gleneden Beach. The Resort is a neighboring property of Gleneden Beach State Recreation Site (also called “Gleneden Beach Wayside”) and is located 0.5 miles away the state recreation site’s beach access point on Wesler Street.9 The Resort was constructed from 1993 to 1996 and all four residential homes were built between the early 1990s and 2002. At the time they were under construction, erosion impacts on Gleneden Beach were well documented.10 SeaRidge was constructed between 1985 and 1987. Because all sites were

5 Staff Report on 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21 (“Staff Report”) at 6. 6 See Staff Report on 01-MISC-ADM-21 at 3–4 (“Based on the preceding facts and analysis set forth in this staff report, the Lincoln County Planning Division concludes that development did not exist on the subject property on January 1, 1977, and also that the subject property is not subject to an acknowledged exception to Statewide Planning Goal 18, implementation requirement 5 . . . the requested building permit authorization is denied based on failure to comply with the applicable requirements of LCC Chapter 1.”). 7 The Resort sits on approximately 430 ft. of shoreline, the SeaRidge sits on approximately 600 ft. of shoreline, and the four properties collectively sit on approximately 250 ft. of shoreline. 8 Located at 4755, 4805, 4815, and 4825 Lincoln Avenue. 9 Gleneden Beach currently has three numbered public access points, 51, 51A (Gleneden Beach State Recreation Site) and 51B. Additionally, the Salishan Spit has three numbered beach access points, 50, 50A, and 50B. All are contained within a gated community, and thus accessible to the public only by hiking north on the beach from Gleneden Beach. 10 See Paul D. Komar & Shyuer-Ming Shih, Cliff Erosion along the Oregon Coast: A Tectonic-Sea Level Imprint Plus Local Controls by Beach Processes, 9 J. Coastal Research 747, 747 (1993) (“The erosion of sea cliffs is a significant problem along many of the world’s coastlines, including the coast of Oregon in the Pacific Northwest of the United States . . . Examples of communities where cliff erosion is an important problem include Lincoln City, Gleneden Beach, and Newport[.]”); Shyuer-Ming Shih & Paul D. Komar, Sediments, Beach Morphology and Sea- Cliff Erosion within an Oregon Coast Littoral Cell, 10 J. Coastal Research 144, 154, 156–57 (1994) (“As a result, the rip embayments are a major factor in determining the occurrence of property erosion, whether the property is on sea cliffs as at Gleneden Beach or on foredunes as along Siletz Spit” and “Erosion is certainly more active along Gleneden Beach and Siletz Spit fronted by coarse-grained reflective beaches, than along coastal properties fronted by fine-grained dissipative beaches as in north Lincoln City. This implies that there is a long-term reorientation of the bluff line along the length of this littoral cell suggesting a continued disequilibrium in its overall geometry as well as the continued presence of the longshore variations in beach sediment grain size.”). (internal citations

3 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21 developed after January 1, 1977, none are eligible for SPS under Goal 18 and its implementing statutes and regulations.11

B. Background of Shoreline Protection Structures in Oregon

Hardened SPS will have impacts on the beaches, bluffs, and dunes upon which they are built. As one authority has put it “seawalls damage virtually every beach they are built on. If they are built on eroding beaches—and they are rarely built anywhere else—they eventually destroy them.”12 Another authority has described why this is true:

“The ability of beaches to retreat landward and build seaward in response to changes in sea level, storm waves, and other natural processes is fundamental to their protective role as well as to their continued existence. Shoreline hardening to thwart nature’s ebb and flow is therefore the antithesis of beach conservation.”13

The permitting process for SPS on the coast as well as Goal 18 (protecting Beaches and Dunes) trace their origin to the Oregon legislature’s decision to adopt the “Beach Bill,” now codified in ORS Chapter 390. In 1967, the legislature proclaimed the state’s sovereignty over the ocean shore and adopted a clear policy in favor of preserving the ocean shore for future recreational uses and doing “whatever is necessary” to protect the public’s scenic and recreational use of the beach. 14 Goal 18, IR 5 is a further acknowledgment of the legislature’s declaration, and presents the threshold question of any given property’s eligibility for a SPS in Oregon.15 In recognition of the severe and often irreparable damage that even a small section of shoreline armoring will likely have on the ability of the beach to replenish itself in the long-term, and of the effects of the intrusion of SPSs upon the public’s right to safe enjoyment of and lateral recreational access to Oregon’s beaches, Goal 18, IR 5 limits the placement of “beachfront protective structures” to those areas where “development existed” prior to 1977.16 According to one authority, the purpose of the policy

[I]s to limit long term, cumulative impacts from shoreline hardening, such as scouring and lowering of the beach profile, that can over time result in the loss of the dry sand public beach. The policy is premised on a basic “grandfathering” concept, allowing development that occurred prior to the adoption of the policy to qualify for hard protection, but precluding shore hardening for new development. New development must instead account for shoreline erosion through non-structural approaches (e.g., increased omitted); see also Puggiero et al., USGS, National Assessment of Shoreline Change: Historical Shoreline Change Along the Pacific Northwest Coast at 40 (2013) (citing erosion and geological studies from 1993 and 1983 regarding erosion and its impact as a sand source to Gleneden Beach). 11 See Or. Dep’t of Land Conservation & Dev., “Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes,” OAR 660-015-0010(3) (2019) [hereinafter Goal 18] at 1, https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/OP/Documents/goal18.pdf; see also Staff Report at 4. 12 Cornelia Dean, Against the Tide: The Battle for America’s Beaches, 53 (2001). 13 Pillkey, Orrin H., quoted in Duke Research, 60 (1992). 14 See ORS 390.610(4). 15 Goal 18. 16 See Goal 18; see also OAR 736-020-0010(6): General Standards – Compliance with LCDC Goals, (OPRD rule applying Goal 18, IR 5 to ocean shore permits).

4 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21

setbacks). In the face of increased ocean erosion occurring in conjunction with climate change and sea level rise, limiting hard structures and allowing natural shoreline migration is a critical policy tool for conserving and maintaining Oregon’s ocean beaches.17

As affirmed by precedent interpreting the above provision, Goal 18, IR 5 is an acknowledgment that SPS are man-made structures that cause problems for adjacent property owners, non-adjacent owners (e.g., public), and for the state, which owns and manages the ocean shore and all lands westward of the ocean shore in trust for the public. Because the Land Conservation Development Commission (“LCDC”) knew that SPS caused problems and also recognized that some development had already occurred in reliance on the ability to build such structures prior to January 1, 1977, it adopted Goal 18, IR 5. In other words, new development after January 1, 1977 would only occur with the knowledge that SPS would not be allowed as a measure to address shoreline erosion, putting all potential developers on constructive notice. Following the adoption of Goal 18, IR, new development would not be allowed to cause problems by reliance on harmful hardened shoreline protection structures.

C. Application Summary

The Applicants seek an exception to Goal 18, IR 5 for the purposes of building beachfront protective structures at each of the three sites. At issue for the purposes of this public hearing are the following Application requests:18

1. An amendment to Lincoln County’s Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Goal 18 exception to allow for the construction of beachfront protective structures on three sites in Gleneden Beach on properties presently ineligible under Goal 18 protective structures. 2. A “Reasons Exception” to Goal 18 in order to implement permits for new beachfront protective structure(s).19

Oregon Shores provides these comments in order to underscore the apparent deficiencies in the concurrent applications’ request. Upon the current record, the Applicants have not demonstrated compliance with the applicable approval criteria set forth in the Goals, the ORS, the LCCP, the LCZO.

II. The Applications fails to meet the criteria required for an amendment of the LCCP in order to take a “reasons” exception to Goal 18.

The Application seeks to amend the LCCP in order to adopt exceptions to Statewide Planning Goal 18 (“Goal 18”), Implementation Requirement 5 (“IR 5”) allowing the construction of protective beach structures on three sites on Gleneden Beach. Goal 18 limits the placement of beachfront protective structures such as shoreline armoring to those areas where development

17 Edward J. Sullivan, Shorelands Protection in Oregon, 33 J. Envtl. Law & Litigation 129, 150 (2018) (citing Matt Spangler, Senior Coastal Policy Analyst, DLCD) [hereinafter Sullivan]. 18 Applicants’ Combined Narrative Lincoln Co. File Nos. 01-LUPC-21 et. seq. (“Combined Narrative”) at 1, 25–26. 19 See generally Staff Report.

5 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21 existed prior to 1977. Goal 18 is meant to “conserve, protect, where appropriate develop and where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of coastal beach and dune areas.” To achieve that goal with respect to long-term environmental values, Goal 18 must not allow for ineligible properties to be granted emergency permitting that increases shoreline protection structures and, in return, further degrades the Oregon coast. In order to approve shoreline hardening on these Properties, the county must approve one of three types of “exceptions” to Goal 18, including the “reasons” exception at issue.

ORS 197.732 contains Oregon’s statutory guidelines for the Goal 2 (Land Use) exception process and its criteria parallel the criteria set forth in OAR 660-004-0020. The four requirements for a goal exception under ORS 197.732 are:

(a) Reasons justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply.

(b) Areas that do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use.

(c) The long-term environmental, economic, social and energy consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designated to reduce adverse impacts are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in areas requiring a goal exception other than the proposed site.

(d) The proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or will be so rendered through measure designed to reduce adverse impacts.

OAR 660-0020 elaborates on these four standards and OAR 660-004-0022 provides a set of specific reasons (in accordance with OAR 660-004-0020(1)) to evaluate whether the first of the above standards are met—i.e., whether the “reasons” justify why state policy embodied in the applicable foals should not apply. In other words, OAR 660-004-0020 and OAR 660-004-0022 detail the criteria the Applicants must meet before the Planning Commission can recommend that the County Board of Commissioners adopt an amendment to the LCCP in order to take a reasons exception to Goal 18.

Additionally, if a use is not specifically provided for, the reasons shall justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply. Acceptable reasons include a “demonstrated need” for the proposed use or activity, based on one or more of the requirements of Goals 3 to 19. OAR 660-004-0022(1)(a). Because the proposed exception fails to demonstrate compliance with applicable provisions of OAR 660-004-0020, it cannot demonstrate compliance with ORS 197.732.

In order for a Goal exception to take effect, it must be adopted as an amendment to Lincoln County’s comprehensive plan. Under LCZC 1.1235, these types of quasi-judicial amendments are only allowed if there is a need for the change, the amendment is consistent with the County’s Plan and Code, and the amendment complies with the Goals. LCZC 1.1235.

6 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21

Oregon statute mandates that comprehensive plan amendment must be compliant with the Goals. ORS 197.175(2)(a).

In order to find that reasons justify a goal exception, there must be sufficient information provided in the record and reasoning to support each of the criteria. As the Oregon Court of Appeals explained: “an exception must be just that – exceptional.”20 The Applicants’ proposal that Lincoln County set forth within the LCCP and LCZC (collectively, “Lincoln County Comprehensive Plan”) an amendment and justification for a Goal 18 exception at the proposed sites warrants careful consideration to assess consistency with this “exceptional” standard. As shown below, the Applicants’ proposal falls short of meeting this bar.

A. Goal 18 Overview

The LCDC’s goal for beaches and dunes is “[t]o conserve, protect, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of coastal beach and dune areas.” In other words, development may not be allowed where it is inconsistent with Goal 18’s mandate to conserve and protect coastal beach and dune areas.21 If development is consistent with Goal 18’s mandate to conserve and protect (i.e., “appropriate”), LCDC’s goal is then “to reduce the hazard to human life and property from natural or man-induced actions associated with beaches and dunes.” It is important to note that Goal 18 is aimed at reducing impacts that may be caused by the proposed development, not reducing risks to life and property that are caused by natural hazards.22

Comprehensive plans, such as the acknowledged TCCP, must conduct inventories to identify beach and dune areas. Based upon this identification, comprehensive plans are required to establish policies and uses to achieve Goal 18’s mandate to conserve and protect coastal beach and dune areas.23 Uses must be based on two factors: the capabilities and limitations of beach and dune areas to sustain development, and the need to protect the natural resources found in beach and dune areas identified through the application of Oregon Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines, Goal 5 (open spaces, scenic and historic areas, and natural resources), and Goal 17 (coastal shorelands).24

As stated above, hardened SPS will adversely impact the beaches, bluffs, and dunes upon and adjacent to which they are built. Thus, to achieve that goal with respect to conserving and protecting the resources and benefits of coastal beach and dune areas, Goal 18, Implementation Requirement 5 (Goal 18, IR 5) generally restricts the placement of SPS to those areas where “development existed” as of 1977.25 Goal 18, IR 5 specifically states:

20 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 69 Or App 717, 731 (1984). 21 Waugh v. Coos Cnty., LUBA No. 93-129, 26 Or LUBA 300, 305–306 (1993). 22 Borton v. Coos County, LUBA No. 2005-153, 52 Or LUBA 46, 59 (2006). 23 Goal 18. 24 LCCP Sec. 1.0100 Beaches and Dunes Goals, LCCP Sec. 1.0105 Beaches and Dunes Policies, and LCC Sec. 1.1930 Beaches and Dunes contain implementing policies for permissible uses based on the capabilities and limitations of beach and dune areas as well as policies and prohibitions to protect areas of critical environmental concern. 25 Goal 18, Implementation Requirement 5 (“Goal 18, IR 5”).

7 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21

Permits for beachfront protective structures shall be issued only where development existed on January 1, 1977. Local comprehensive plans shall identify areas where development existed on January 1, 1977. For the purposes of this requirement and Implementation Requirement 7 "development" means houses, commercial and industrial buildings, and vacant subdivision lots which are physically improved through construction of streets and provision of utilities to the lot and includes areas where an exception to (2) above has been approved.26

Further, such structures shall be approved only if they meet certain criteria for review of all shore and beachfront protective structures. These criteria for review of all shore and beachfront protective structures shall provide that:

(a) visual impacts are minimized; (b) necessary access to the beach is maintained; (c) negative impacts on adjacent property are minimized; and (d) long-term or recurring costs to the public are avoided.27

In other words, Goal 18 precludes shore hardening for new development in areas that were undeveloped, as defined by Goal 18, IR 5, as of January 1, 1977. New development must instead account for shoreline erosion through non-structural approaches (e.g., increased setbacks, moving the upland structure itself).28 None of these properties contained qualifying residential, commercial, or industrial developments or buildings as of January 1, 1977, within the meaning of the term “development” under Goal 18, IR 5. Further, none of the Properties constitute “vacant subdivision lots which [were] physically improved through construction of streets and provision of utilities to the lot” as of January 1, 1977, and thus are not developments within the meaning of Goal 18, IR 5 for the purposes of eligibility for a SPS. Therefore, the Applicants require a Goal 18 exception for the proposed SPS development.

B. First Goal Exception Requirement: Reasons Justify Why the State Policy Embodied in the Goals Should Not Apply.

OAR 660-004-0020— Goal 2, Part II(c), Exception Requirements and OAR 660-004- 0022(1)—Reasons Necessary to Justify an Exception Under Goal 2, Part II(c).

OAR 660-004-0020(2)(a) requires the Applicants identify “reasons” as to why Goal 18 criteria regarding should not apply to the sites. OAR 660-004-0022 identifies the types of “reasons” that may be used to justify the exception.

Applicants’ various reasons for granting an exception to IR 5 do not demonstrate adequate “reasons” under OAR 660-004-0020(2)(a). The Applicants list their own various reasons for exceptions to IR 5, including “homes and other oceanfront structures on the Properties are in imminent danger and threatened by a high probability of total failure in the near

26 Goal 18, IR 5. 27 Id. See also OAR 736, Div. 20 (OPRD rules implementing these criteria, in part). 28 Edward J. Sullivan, Shorelands Protection in Oregon, 33 J. Envtl. Law & Litigation 129, 150 (2018) (citing Matt Spangler, Senior Coastal Policy Analyst, DLCD) [hereinafter Sullivan].

8 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21 future because of the rapid and unpredictable erosion of their shoreline bluffs[,]” “Gleneden Beach [being] already extensively lined with protective structures[,]” and the fact that “[t]here are very few natural resources on Gleneden Beach to ‘conserve’ because of its low-quality habitat.” While the applicants have identified specific factual circumstances they believe justify an exception, they fail to identify a demonstrated need for the proposed use or activity, based on one or more of the requirements of Goals 3 to 19.

Under OAR 660-004-0022(1)(a), if a use is not specifically provided for, the reasons shall justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply. This provision is a “catch-all” that provides standards for reasons exceptions in the absence of other, goal-specific rules. Acceptable reasons include: There is a demonstrated need for the proposed use or activity, based on one or more of the requirements of Goals 3 to 19; and either

(A) A resource upon which the proposed use or activity is dependent can be reasonably obtained only at the proposed exception site and the use or activity requires a location near the resource. An exception based on this paragraph must include an analysis of the market area to be served by the proposed use or activity. That analysis must demonstrate that the proposed exception site is the only one within that market area at which the resource depended upon can reasonably be obtained; or

(B) The proposed use or activity has special features or qualities that necessitate its location on or near the proposed exception site.

OAR 660-004-0022(1)(a) requires the Applicants to establish a “demonstrated need” for the proposed use or activity based on the requirements of one or more of Goals 3 to 19. Subsequent subsections of OAR 660-004-0022 set out a number of goal-specific rules.29 The “demonstrated need” standard requires that a county demonstrate “it is at risk of failing to satisfy one or more obligations imposed by a statewide planning goal and that the proposed exception is a necessary step toward maintaining compliance with its goal obligations.” Or. Shores Conservation Coal. v. Coos County, __Or LUBA __ (LUBA No. 2020-002 at 3 (May 3, 2021)) (citing VinCEP v. Yamhill County, 55 Or LUBA 433, 449 (2007))30. The Applicants assert the “demonstrated need” is based primarily on “several Goals, including Goal 7 (Natural Hazards), Goal 8 (Recreational Needs), Goal 9 (Economic Development), Goal 10 (Housing), and even Goal 18 itself.”31 Additionally, in their Supplemental Narrative Statement from June 3, 2021,32

29 Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians v. City of Coos Bay, __ Or LUBA __ (LUBA No. 2020-012 at 19 (May 3, 2021)). 30 Stated another way, a county is required to (1) identify one or more obligation sunder Goals 3 to 19; (2) explain why the county is at risk of failing to meet those obligations; and (3) explain why the proposed exception to the requirements of one goal—in this case, Goal 18—will help the county maintain compliance with its other goal obligations. Or. Shores Conservation Coal. v. Coos County, __Or LUBA __ (LUBA No. 2020-002 at 3 (May 3, 2021). 31 Combined Narrative at 37. 32 June 3, 2021 Supplemental Narrative Statement, Applications for Goal 18 Exception and Amendment to Comprehensive Plan (Nos. 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, and 03-LUPC-21) (“June 3, 2021 Supplemental Narrative”) at 8, 12–13.

9 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21

Applicants state that Goal 17 (Coastal Shorelands) establish a “demonstrated need.” In the present case, the Applicants fail to show there is a “demonstrated need” based upon the requirements of the highlighted goals.

First, the Applicants fail to show a demonstrated need under Goal 7. The purpose of Goal 7 is “[t]o protect people and property from natural hazards.” Under Goal 7(A)(2), “coastal erosion” is one of the hazards the County should protect against. The Applicants correctly state that Goal 7 requires local governments to evaluate the risk to people and property based on the “frequency, severity and location of the hazard” and “the effects of the hazard on existing and future development[.]” Goal 7(1)(a)–(b). However, the Applicants’ assertion that approving this application “clearly” advances this Goal because of the current and “growing” risks to the Properties is a step too far. While erosion on Gleneden Beach has accelerated, the current threats endangering the Properties are due to increased shoreline hardening. Applicants ask for a solution to the immediate threats to the properties; however, the addition of riprap to the coastline will, in the long run, only exacerbate and escalate the coastal erosion and natural hazards Gleneden Beach and the Properties face. Applicants provide no meaningful discussion of the long-term hazard impacts to the beach and public safety within the context of Goal 7 and Goal 7 does not include any specific requirements on a County to serve as a reasons exception under OAR 660-004-0022(1)(a). Absent such analysis, the Planning Commission cannot conclude that the proposed plan amendment and Goal 18 IR 5 exception is consistent with Goal 7 based on the current record.

Second, the Applicants also fail to show a demonstrated need under Goal 8. The purpose of Goal 8 is “[t]o satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors, and where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts.” The Applicants correctly state that Goal 8 mandates that local governments adopt plans, codes, and otherwise take actions to provide for the recreational needs of citizens and tourists, including the citing of “destination resorts.”33 Applicants attempt to hang their Goal 8 argument on the fact that the WorldMark Resort is a tourist destination for Lincoln County and thus, its imminent threats “clearly” warrant a Goal exception and “clearly contravene” Goal 8. However, Applicants fail to clearly explain how the WorldMark Resort provides for the recreational needs of the Oregonians and out-of-state visitors. Further, the Applicants fail to clearly show whether the WorldMark qualifies under the applicable criteria of ORS 197.445 as a “destination resort” under the law. The Resort itself is located on a beach containing hazardous, eroding bluffs and is unfit to promote any safe recreational activities. This erosion even currently impacts the Resort’s pool and walkway, which are closed due to safety concerns.34 The Resort also has no beach access in the direct vicinity due to erosion safety concerns.35 Even if Applicants are correct about the impact that the Resort has on contributing to the area’s recreational needs, it fails to demonstrate that the property is a “destination resort” within the meaning of Goal 8.

33 ORS 197.445—Destination resort criteria (listing specific destination resort qualifications and standards); see also LCZC 1.1630(2) Standards Governing Conditional Uses (stating the general conditional use standards and requirements for motels, hotels, lodges, and resorts in Lincoln County). 34 See WorldMark Gleneden, https://www.worldmarktheclub.com/resorts/ge (describing the erosion concerns and the impact to recreational pool areas and beach access). 35 Id.

10 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21

Further, the Applicants wrongfully state that the approval of the shoreline hardening permits would “protect the recreational resources of the beach below the eroding bluff.”36 As stated above, the addition of shoreline hardening to these sites—particularly the addition of riprap—would destroy any remaining recreational opportunities Gleneden Beach may offer at these points as well as greatly disturb the public’s access. Riprap not only reduces the walkability of a beach by making public walking and recreation spaces narrower and less safe but also continues beach erosion and causes beaches to disappear entirely over time.37 Even with the proposed shoreline hardening structures, the Properties will be negatively impacted through continued bluff erosion. The Applicants provide no meaningful discussion of how the purpose of Goal 8 will be fulfilled. Absent such analysis, the Planning Commission cannot on the basis of the current record conclude that the proposed plan amendment is consistent with Goal 8.

Third, the Applicants also fail to show a demonstrated need under Goal 9. The purpose of Goal 9 is “[t]o provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.” The Applicants broadly state that allowing the destruction of the Properties will cause immense economic harm to the local economy that “clearly violates” Goal 9.38 However, the Applicants confuse the actual intent of Goal 9, which is to apply this goal in urban areas, which is to apply this goal in urban areas. See OAR 660-009-000 and 660-009-0010(1) (Division 9 implements requirements of Goal 9 and applies to areas within urban growth boundaries). Applicants assert economic arguments that are not relevant within the context of Goal 9 as these properties are not within an urban growth boundary. As applied to lands outside of urban areas, Goal 9 “does not obligate the county to provide any particular quantity or quality of ‘sites of suitable sizes, types, locations, and service levels for a variety of industrial or commercial uses.’”39Additionally, a general desire—as Applicants assert here—“to diversify or boost the local economy is an insufficient basis for a [resource goal] exception under OAR 660-004-0022(1)(a).”40 The Applicants fail to assert any analysis showing their economic harms fit within the requirements and policies of Goal 9. Absent such analysis, the Planning Commission cannot on the basis of the current record conclude that the proposed plan amendment is consistent with Goal 9.

Fourth, the Applicants also fail to show a demonstrated need under Goal 10. The purpose of Goal 10 is “to provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state.” It imposes an affirmative duty on local governments to ensure opportunities for the provision of adequate numbers of needed housing units at prices and rents that are affordable to Oregonians. See OAR 660-008- 0000(1) (describing the purpose of Goal 10). Applicants argue the failure to approve these applications will result in the loss of 30 to 84 at SeaRidge and the Lincoln Avenue Homes and state, “allowing [this] unnecessary loss . . . would further constrain the already deficient supply of homes in the County.”41 However, this goal likely does not apply in this instance as many of these homes are not primary residences and therefore, do not further the policies of this goal to

36 Combined Narrative at 60. 37 The True Cost of Armoring the Beach, SURFRIDER (July 6, 2020) https://sandiego.surfrider.org/the-true-cost-of- armoring-the-beach/ (last visited June 7, 2020). 38 Combined Narrative at 60. 39 Or. Shores Conservation Coal. v. Coos County, __Or LUBA __ (LUBA No. 2020-002 at 33 (May 3, 2021)). 40 Id. 41 Combined Narrative at 38.

11 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21 provide stable, needed, affordable housing to the Oregon citizens and do not ensure local housing needs are met. Instead, these residences, often used as vacation rentals, that cater to tourism and likely are not covered by Goal 10. See Oregonians in Ation v. City of Lincoln City, 71 Or LUBA 234 (2015) (stating that where a city comprehensive plan’s Housing Element and Housing Inventory identifies single-family second homes as needed housing, but does not identify vacation rental dwellings as needed housing, the needed housing statute is not implicated by a city ordinance that amends the zoning code’s regulations governing vacation rental of dwellings). The Applicants fail to show any analysis demonstrating the applications’ consistency with Goal 10 policies. Absent such analysis, the Planning Commission cannot on the basis of the current record conclude that the proposed plan amendment is consistent with Goal 10.

Fifth, the Applicants also fail to show a demonstrated need under Goal 17. The Applicants assert that Goal 17 “requires local governments to make land use decisions related to coastal shorelands based on consideration of competing values related to water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, water dependent uses, economic resources and recreation and aesthetics.”42 The Applicants further assert that “[t]o this end, Goal 17 requires local governments to “maintain the diverse environmental, economic, and social values of coastal shorelands and water quality in coastal waters.”43 This paraphrase mischaracterizes the objectives of Goal 17.

The LCDC’s goal for coastal shorelands is “[t]o conserve, protect, where appropriate, develop and where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of all coastal shorelands, recognizing their value for protection and maintenance of water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, water-dependent uses, economic resources and recreation and aesthetics.”44 In other words, local governments must first conserve and protect “the resources and benefits of all coastal shorelands, recognizing their value for protection and maintenance of water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, water-dependent uses, economic resources and recreation and aesthetics.” If development is consistent with Goal 17’s mandate to conserve and protect (i.e., “where appropriate”), only then can it be allowed to proceed. The Goal’s objective is also “[t]o reduce the hazard to human life and property, and the adverse effects upon water quality and fish and wildlife habitat, resulting from the use and enjoyment of Oregon’s coastal shorelands.”45

The Applicants fail to offer any affirmative obligation or mandate under Goal 17 to suggest that the requested exceptions are justified under the demonstrated need standard. The Applicants appear to assert, absent any supporting evidence or textual support, that Goal 17 requires local governments “to steward their coastal shorelands by carefully considering and balancing competing interests.”46 In actuality, Goal 17 states that:

Land use plans, implementing actions and permit reviews shall include consideration of the critical relationships between coastal shorelands and resources of coastal waters, and of the geologic and hydrologic hazards associated with coastal shorelands. Local, state and federal agencies shall within the limit of their authorities maintain the diverse

42 June 3, 2021 Supplemental Narrative at 12. 43 Id. 44 Goal 17, (emphasis added). 45 Goal 17, (emphasis added). 46 June 3, 2021 Supplemental Narrative at 12.

12 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21

environmental, economic, and social values of coastal shorelands and water quality in coastal waters. Within those limits, they shall also minimize man-induced sedimentation in estuaries, near shore ocean waters, and coastal lakes.47

The issue here is not “the balancing and choice between the destruction of a large resort with 80 time-share units and many on-site amenities, 26 oceanfront condominium homes, and four oceanfront single-family residences versus imposing [Goal 18, IR 5],” as asserted by the Applicants.48 Rather, the question is whether the Applicants have established that the proposed exception to Goal 18 is necessary for the County to satisfy an express obligation or requirement under Goal 17, or any of the other Goals advanced under the Applicants’ discussion under OAR 660-004-0022(1)(a) (i.e., a demonstrated need).

Here, the Applicants fail to meaningfully establish the same. Goal 17 does not contain any express obligation requiring the installation of the proposed SPS as a shoreline erosion mitigation measure at any of the properties at issue, and the Applicants do not argue otherwise. To the contrary, like Goal 18, IR 5, Goal 17, IR 5 sets forth a clear preference against hardened SPS. It states, in relevant part:

Land-use management practices and non-structural solutions to problems of erosion and flooding shall be preferred to structural solutions.49

Hence, local governments must prioritize land-use management practices (such as disincentivizing maladaptive coastal development by limiting reliance on hardened SPS) and non-structural solutions (such as vegetation, moving threatened vacation homes, etc.) to address coastal erosion over the hardened structural solutions such as the one proposed in this case. Thus, far from creating an affirmative obligation that requires the proposed SPS, and thus the exception to Goal 18, Goal 17 actively discourages hardened riprap as a solution to coastal erosion.

In addition, Goal 17’s general priorities for overall use of coastal shorelands establish that promoting uses that maintain the integrity of estuaries and coastal waters have the highest priority. As noted throughout this comment, hardened SPS are the antithesis of a use that would maintain the integrity of estuaries and coastal waters, given their tendency to degrade beach ecosystems. Of lowest use priority for local governments under Goal 17 is permitting “[non- water-dependent, non-water-related uses” which cause a permanent or long-term change in the features of coastal shorelands.” The proposed SPS arguably falls within the latter category, and should be prioritized accordingly.

The Applicants assert that imposing Goal 18, IR 5 “on the Properties will also create significant hazard to human life and property,” and then claim that “[i]n such circumstances, compliance with Goal 17 requires the adoption of the proposed exceptions to Requirement 5 for the Properties.” These assertions are conclusory, and lack any meaningful support in the Application materials provided. To the contrary, the plain text of Goal 17 requires local governments “[t]o reduce the hazard to human life and property, and the adverse effects upon

47 Goal 17. 48 June 3, 2021 Supplemental Narrative at 12. 49 Goal 17, IR 5.

13 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21 water quality and fish and wildlife habitat, resulting from the use and enjoyment of Oregon’s coastal shorelands.” As discussed throughout this comment, the proposed SPS as a shoreline erosion mitigation measure will result in hazard to public safety (i.e., human life) and adjacent properties, including potential adverse impacts to the Gleneden Beach Wayside.

The Applicants fail to put forth any express criteria in Goal 17 or other obligation related to Goal 17 sufficient to establish a demonstrated need consistent with OAR 660-004-0022(1)(a) such that an exception to Goal 18, IR 5 would be justified in this case.

Finally, the Applicants also fail to show a demonstrated need under Goal 18. The purpose of Goal 18 to “conserve, protect, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of coastal beach and dune areas.” The Applicants state that the erosion threatening the properties “could be ‘reduced’—in fact, altogether avoided—by approval of a Goal exception”50 and thus meets a demonstrated need under the second policy of Goal 18 to reduce hazard and harm to human life and property. However, the Applicants’ interpretation of Goal 18 mischaracterizes how the goal balances conservation and hazard reduction. Applicants also confuse and misstate the true purpose and policy behind Goal 18. They use confusing logic to justify the proposed exception to IR 5 by implying that in order to uphold the intent of Goal 18, the County must grant an exception to Goal 18.51 They state, “[t]he overarching reason the County should grant the Applicants’ request for an exception to Implementation Requirement 5 . . . is because its imposition on the Properties clearly undermines these two main objectives of Goal 18. In such a case, the minor implementation subpart should give way to the actual text and intent of the Goal.”52 This interpretation of Goal 18 is inaccurate. Development under Goal 18 may not be allowed where it is inconsistent with the mandate to conserve and protect. Waugh v. Coos County, LUBA No. 93-129, 26 Or LUBA 300, 305–06 (1993). However, if development is consistent with the mandate to conserve and protect, LCDC’s goal is then to “reduce the hazard to human life and property from natural or man-induced actions associated with [beaches and dunes].” Goal 18. This goal is aimed at reducing the impacts caused by proposed development and not reducing risks to life and property that are caused by natural hazards. Borton v. Coos County, LUBA No. 2005-153, 52 Or LUBA 46, 59 (2006).

Applicants then state that “in these circumstances, Implementation Requirement 5 will actually undermine the text and objectives of Goal 18 . . . and in no way accomplishes a proper balancing of development with resource conservation nor a reduction in hazards as required by Goal 18.”53 As stated above in Section I(B), the purpose behind Goal 18 is to prevent the proliferation of harmful beachfront protective structures, like riprap, on the Oregon Coast. As acknowledged repeatedly in scientific literature and even in the Applicants’ own combined narrative, riprapped shorelines and the proliferation of shoreline protective structures will only continue to cause significant harm to beaches due to the structures starving the beach of sediment and increasing erosion. Increasing the amount of riprap on Gleneden Beach not only directly

50 Id. 51 Oregon Shores notes that it is unlikely that a goal exception could ever be justified by or based upon the policies contained within the same Goal itself. In any case, the Applicants fail to provide any meaningful support for their conclusion that the contrary is possible. 52 Combined Narrative at 27. 53 Id. at 31.

14 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21 impedes the purpose of Goal 18, but also increases the risks to public health and safety by encouraging more shorefront protection and development rather than incentivizing setbacks and movement away from shoreline areas and coastal hazards. Thus, Applicants cannot satisfy a reasons exception under OAR 660-004-0020(2)(a) and thus their applications should be denied.

Applicants fail to provide any analysis demonstrating consistency with Goal 18 policies.54 The purpose of Goal 18 is not to be used to fill in the gaps of riprap on Gleneden Beach in an attempt to prevent destruction. Allowing ineligible properties to harden their shoreline simply because the rest of the coastline is hardened—and now facing the consequences of that hardening—sets harmful, contradictory precedent for future Goal 18 implementation. The policies of Goal 18 are clear and the law demonstrates that shoreline hardening in this instance is not allowable. As stated above, exceptions to Goal 18, IR 5 have led developing highly hazardous coastal areas with insufficient setbacks, leading to further proliferation of these harmful structures.55

Additionally, Applicants state that OAR 660-004-0022(B) is satisfied because “[t]he Applicants seek protective structures to prevent potentially catastrophic erosion that threatens life and valuable buildings on the Properties, and to be effective, these proposed structures can only be placed on the Properties’ beachfront.”56 Following the Applicants’ line of reasoning, any protective structure on a coastline would show a “demonstrated need” under OAR 660-004- 0022(B) based on the uniqueness of a location and the threat of erosion— regardless of whether the properties qualify. Thus, the Applicants’ reasoning is overly conclusive and they do not adequately explain how this provision is satisfied. As a whole, the Applicants fail to explicitly identify policy criteria in these goals applicable to its proposed development, and fail to provide sufficient information to evaluate the proposed project’s consistency with the primary objective of each Goal. There is insufficient evidence on the basis of this record to assess the Applicants’ compliance with Goals 7, 8, 9, 10, and 18. For these reasons, the Applicants fail to establish a “demonstrated need” sufficient to justify a reasons exception to Goal 18 under OAR 660-004- 0022(1)(a).

C. Second Goal Exception Requirement: Areas that do Not Require a New Exception Cannot Reasonably Accommodate the Use.

OAR 660-002-0020(2)(b) requires a showing that areas that do not require an exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use. The “use” here includes the hotel, condos, and homes, not just SRS. Applicants have failed to demonstrate that other areas that do not require an exception could not accommodate these uses. As discussed in detail above, the Applicants have not demonstrated a need for the proposed shoreline hardening. Because the Properties are

54 Further, the Applicants overstate the power and intent of the Goal 18 focus group in their Combined Narrative at 23–24. Reports, meeting minutes, and discussions of the focus group are not DLDC policy, guidance on Goal 18, nor the law. 55 Oregon Shores strongly argues that even in areas where an exception to Goal 18, IR #5 is taken, new developments in coastal areas should be designed to be readily moveable and with sufficient setbacks to avoid the need for SPS. 56 Combined Narrative at 38.

15 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21 ineligible for shoreline hardening under Goal 18 and approval of shoreline hardening is not warranted, the Applicants cannot meet the requirements of subsection 2(b).

D. Third Goal Exception Requirement: The Long-Term Environmental, Economic, Social and Energy Consequences Resulting from the Use at the Proposed Site are Not Significantly More Adverse than Would typically Result from the Same Proposal Located in Other Areas that Would Require A Goal Exception.

OAR 660-002-0020(2)(c) requires the Applicants to demonstrate “the characteristics of each alternative area considered by the jurisdiction in which an exception might be taken, the typical advantages and disadvantages of using the area for a use not allowed by the Goal, and the typical positive and negative consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts.” Further,

The exception shall include the reasons why the consequences of the use at the chosen site are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in areas requiring a goal exception other than the proposed site. Such reasons shall include but are not limited to a description of: the facts used to determine which resource land is least productive, the ability to sustain resource uses near the proposed use, and the long-term economic impact on the general area caused by irreversible removal of the land from the resource base.

For the same reasons set forth above, the Applicants fail to demonstrate compliance with this criterion. Furthermore, absent more detailed information the Planning Commission cannot complete an analysis of the comparative adverse impacts.

E. Fourth Goal Exception Requirement: The Proposed Uses are Compatible with Other Adjacent Uses or Will Be So Rendered through Measures Designed to Reduce Adverse Impacts.

The Applicants state that the protective structures have “little to no impact” on surrounding properties and will not interfere with the use and appearance of the adjacent beach, thus meeting the requirements of OAR 660-004-0020(2)(d). Applicants’ assertion that increasing protective structures will “actually improve recreation near the sites by protecting the adjacent beach”57 is unsupported and fails to address the issue of decreased public access from increased riprap. Further, the proliferation of riprap on this portion of the coast is merely a short-term solution with long-term, hazardous impacts that Applicants fail to meaningfully address. The addition of riprap to these Properties—and the completion of Gleneden Beach’s shoreline hardening—is not a viable, long-term solution to erosion and will actually exacerbate the issue. The Applicants fail to meet this criterion and fail to discuss actual, viable solutions that prevent long-term adverse impacts on Gleneden Beach. For the reasons stated above, the Applicants fail to demonstrate that a Goal 18 exception is justified for the proposed uses and activities.

57 Combined Narrative at 36.

16 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21

III. The Applicants Fail to Meet Applicable Criteria Under the LCC, LCZC, and the Statewide Planning Goals and Therefore Fail to Justify the Proposed Goal Exception and Comprehensive Plan Amendment.

Portions of the Comprehensive Plan (or, “LCC”) and LCZC only become relevant and warrant consideration if it is established that an exception and amendment should be granted. . General comments are provided for the purposes of clarity and preservation. Should this matter become germane to the present applications, Oregon Shores will provide additional, specific comment on the Goals as appropriate and allowed

A. Zoning Code (“LCZC”) Provisions – Comprehensive Plan Amendment.

LCZC 1.1235: Quasi-Judicial Amendments

This provision provides that

A quasi-judicial amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps may be authorized provided that the proposal satisfies all applicable requirements of [the] Chapter and also provided that the applicant . . . demonstrates that the change is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies or the Statewide Planning Goals and that: (1) There has been a substantial change in the character of the area since zoning was adopted and which warrants changing the zone; (2) Zoning previously adopted for the area was in error; or (3) There is a public need for the change being sought.

Under LCZC 1.1225, a quasi-judicial amendment may be requested by a property owner (or agent of thereof).

Applicants state in their Combined Narrative that the applications satisfy the first and third condition of this provision for several reasons including “several substantial changes,” including the rate of bluff erosion, since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1988 and increasingly destructive storms.58 Applicants also reason that these conditions are satisfied because of “the proliferation of protective structures on Gleneden Beach, and their collective, impact on unprotected properties, has grown substantially since the Plan was adopted”59 and because “there is a substantial public need for the Goal exception.”60 As stated above and throughout this comment, granting this Goal exception would not serve the public because this requests almost exclusively serve private interests. Additionally, allowing the proliferation of riprap on the coast would only further impede—not improve—public’s interests in Gleneden Beach in terms of beach access and the long-term coastal health. Thus, Applicants do not meet the criterion under LCZC 1.1235(3). Additionally, as mention in Section I(A), page 3 footnote 11, rapid beach erosion was both well-known and well-documented at the time the Comprehensive Plan was developed. While erosion has increased in recent years, it is inaccurate

58 Combined Narrative at 39–40. 59 Id. at 40. 60 Id. at 41.

17 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21 to suggest, as Applicants do, that this is a substantial change that would have been unaccounted for and unknown to developers of the Properties at the time they were constructed. Thus, Applicants fail to satisfy LCZC 1.1235(3). Because Applicants fail to satisfy neither alternative grounds one or three, they fail to satisfy the necessary requirements.

In their Supplemental Narrative, Applicants assert that LCZC 1.1235(2) applies61 by making conclusory assertions that this criterion is met due to the County’s “failure to include such an exception in the comprehensive plan when it was adopted.”62 The Supplemental Narrative also states that “[w]hen adopted, the County mistakenly failed to provide for shoreline protection in the original plan. The record . . . shows that there was already intensive development along this coastline that needed protection at that time. The County’s original comprehensive plan does seem to say that the County was going to provide an exception.”63 These claims are unsupported by meaningful analysis and the Applicants do not cite to anything in their Supplemental Analysis showing that this assertion is factually correct. The current zoning in the area implements and is consistent with Lincoln County’s duly acknowledged comprehensive plan. Applicants have not established otherwise on the current record and absent such a showing, this statement should be ignored.

Further, the underlying logic of these assertions is in conflict with the governing law interpreting and the policy underlying Goal 18 and the Goal 2 exception process. First, the Applicants’ assertions fly in the face of Goal 18 because it suggests that the County—in response to overdevelopment—should have allowed an exception for the all of the shoreline properties on Gleneden Beach before a majority of the shoreline was hardened. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1988.64 At that time, the shoreline was nowhere near as hardened as it is today (over 75% riprapped).65 As stated above, exceptions to Goals “must be just that—exceptional.”66 To claim that the County should have granted an exception long before a time when it was warranted is not only contrary to governing precedent but also goes against the greater statewide goal planning scheme by undermining the exception process. Second, even assuming that the Applicants’ assertion that the County intended to grant a prior exception is true,67 this does not conclusively mean that the County must grant an exception now and the Applicants fail to provide any legal support that states otherwise. Because Applicants fail to satisfactorily show that alternative two was met, they fail to satisfy the necessary requirements under this provision.

LCZC 1.1381: Coastal Shorelands (“C-S”) Overlay Zone

The relevant portion of this provision states * * * (4) Procedure

61 Supplemental Narrative at 13–14. 62 Id. at 14. 63 Id. 64 See Combined Narrative at 39 (stating the date of the comprehensive plan adoption). 65 Combined Narrative at 59, 67. 66 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 69 Or App 717, 731 (1984). 67 Oregon Shores reemphasizes that upon its evaluation of the relevant documents the Applicants do not cite any source in their Supplemental Analysis for their assertion that the County intended to grant a prior exception for these properties in the comprehensive plan and without such evidence, this claim should not considered factually accurate.

18 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21

Applicants requesting approval for land use actions within the areas subject to the provisions of the C-S zone shall submit, along with any application, a detailed site plan and/or written statement demonstrating how the proposed activities will conform to each of the applicable standards contained in the C-S zone. Planning Division or Planning Commission review of such applications shall proceed in accordance with the applicable provisions of this chapter.

Applicants conclusively state that “it is clear that the applicable standards for shorelands stabilization within the overlay zone are satisfied.”68 Because Applicants’ Combined Narrative, as the “detailed written statement” does not demonstrate compliance and conformity with the applicable C-S standards, this provision—if applicable—is not satisfied.

LCZC 1.1381(5)(f): Shoreline Stabilization

The relevant portion of this provision, detailing necessary standards to be applied when reviewing applications for land use in the C-S zone states

(5) Standards * * * (f) Shoreline Stabilization (A) Shoreline stabilization procedures shall be confined to those areas where: (i) Active erosion is occurring which threatens existing uses or structures; or (ii) New development or redevelopment of water dependent or water related uses requires protection for maintaining the integrity of upland structures or facilities (B) The following, in order, are the preferred methods of shoreline stabilization: (i) Vegetative or other non-structural. (ii) Vegetated rip rap. (iii) Unvegetated rip rap. (iv) Bulkheads or sea walls. Structural shoreline stabilization methods shall be permitted only where a higher priority method is not feasible. (C) Materials to be used must be clean and of a non-erodible quality that will allow long-term stability and minimize maintenance. Materials which could create water quality problems or which will rapidly deteriorate are not permitted. * * * (E) Shoreline stabilization structures shall be designed and located so as to minimize impacts on aquatic life and habitat, circulation and flushing characteristics, and patterns of erosion and accretion.

Even if, as the Applicants assert, that all of the necessary criteria of LCZC 1.1381(5)(f) are met, that is not a determinative factor in approving these applications. Further, as stated above, this provision would only be relevant if the Applicants first satisfied the criteria LCZC 1.1381—

68 Combined Narrative at 42.

19 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21 which it does not. Thus, Applicants entire analysis regarding this provision should be disregarded.

B. Comprehensive Plan (“LCC”) Provisions – Comprehensive Plan Amendment.

As mentioned above, Oregon state law and the LCZC require that comprehensive plan amendments are consistent with the remaining, unamended portions of the comprehensive plan. ORS 197.175(2)(a); LCZC 1.1235. As explained in further detail below, Applicants fail to satisfy that legal standard.

LCC 1.0050 Natural Hazard Goals

The Applicants assert that their materials advance this plan provision69 because the they “identify and evaluate” the hazard of the bluffs, “which are endangering both life and property” and claim that the protective structures will eliminate this threat and create safeguards for existing land use on the Properties.70 As detailed above with regard to Goal 7, erosion and the current threats endangering the Properties are due to increased shoreline hardening. The Applicants ask for a solution to the immediate threats to the properties; however, the addition of riprap to the coastline will, in the long run, only exacerbate and escalate the coastal erosion and natural hazards Gleneden Beach and the Properties face. The structures are not, as the Applicants claim, safe for the public and the environment because they limit public access and—in the long run—cause additional erosion of the beach. Thus, the Applicants fail to advance this Plan provision.

LCC 1.0090 Coastal Shoreland Goals

The Applicants claim that this provision71 is satisfied based on balancing the economic harms of property damage with other recreational and natural considerations on Gleneden Beach.72 Even if Applicants’ do adequately demonstrate “recog[nition of] the value of coastal shore lands for protection and maintenance” with respect to balancing the economic harms and natural resources, the Applicants still overstate the potential that the proposed protective structures will have on the beach’s recreational, aesthetic, and public access opportunities. The proposed structures will interfere with both short-term and long-term beach access due to the erosive and harmful nature of riprap. Thus, the Applicants fail to meaningfully take that into consideration and thus fail to advance this provision.

LCC 1.0100 Beaches and Dunes Goals

69 LCC 1.0050 Natural Hazards Goals: "Natural hazard goals: (1) To identify and evaluate areas where natural hazards are known or suspected to exist. (2) To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards. (3) To provide appropriate safeguards for land uses in areas of natural hazards." 70 Combined Narrative at 44. 71 LCC 1.0090 Coastal Shoreland Goals: Coastal shoreland goals: (1) To identify coastal shore lands. (2) To identify appropriate uses in coastal shorelands. (3) To recognize the value of coastal shore lands for protection and maintenance of water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, water dependent uses, economic resources, and recreation and aesthetics. 72 Combined Narrative at 44–45

20 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21

The Applicants conclusively state that this provision73 is met because “[t]he proposed structures . . . are designed to conserve and protect the beaches and dunes of the County, as well as have little to no environmental impact.”74 As stated multiple times above and throughout this comment, the assertion that shoreline hardening will have “little to no” environmental impact is blatantly false and will not, in the long run “minimize adverse environmental effects” on Gleneden Beach. Thus, the Applicants fail to advance this provision.

LCC 1.0105(1)–(7), (11)–(14), (20)–(21) Beaches and Dunes Policies

The Applicants assert that several sections of the Plan’s Beaches and Dunes Policies provision are applicable and each will be discussed individually below.

LCC 1.0105(1) The Applicants claim that this provision75 is satisfied on their own analysis, expert reports, and application materials. Applicants conclusively state that “[t]he protective structures will also not have an adverse effect on the adjacent beach” and “[t]he installation of the structures will actually improve recreation near the sites by protecting the adjacent beach and persons thereon from falling materials.”76 As stated multiple times above, Applicants’ analysis is unsatisfactory and does not meaningfully discuss the total adverse impacts that increased riprap will have and the long-term hazards that shoreline hardening will have on public and private property, the natural environment, and beach access. Further, the Applicants’ assertion that these structures "will not have any negative impact on the natural environment” ignores the well documented issues with increased SRS and how these structures work to damage beaches.77 Thus, the Applicants fail to advance this provision.

LCC 1.0105(2)

As the Applicants have not yet made it past the first step of Application approval, this provision78 is not yet relevant nor satisfied. Thus, the Applicants have failed to satisfy this

73 LCC 1.0100 Beaches and Dunes Goals: "Beaches and dunes goals: (1) To protect, conserve and, where appropriate, restore, the beaches and dunes of Lincoln County. (2) To ensure that development will be designed to minimize adverse environmental effects. (3) To ensure that development will be adequately protected from any geological hazards, wind erosion, undercutting, ocean flooding and storm waves." 74 Combined Narrative at 45. 75 LCC 1.0105(1) “Lincoln County shall base land use decisions in beach and dune areas, other than older stabilized dunes, on specific findings which shall include the following: (a) The type of use proposed and the adverse effects it might have on the site and adjacent areas; (b) Temporary and permanent stabilization programs and the planned maintenance of new and existing vegetation; (c) Methods for protecting the surrounding area from any adverse effects of the development; and (d) Hazards to life, public and private property, and the natural environment which may be caused by the proposed use.” 76 Combined Narrative at 46. 77 Section I(B), supra at 4. 78 LCC 1.0105(2) “Lincoln County shall recognize the authority of the Division of State Lands and the Oregon Department of Transportation to regulate the placement of beach front protective structures, such as bulkheads, sea walls, rip-rap and similar protective structures. The above agencies' findings for such permits shall address and comply with Lincoln County Beach and Dune Policies 3 and 4 below, and shall address the following: (a) Hazards, as well as benefits, to life, public and private property, and the natural environment which may be caused by the

21 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21 provision at this moment in time and the Applicants conclusion that “each of the OPRD’s findings will be in favor of allowing the proposed protective structures”79 is overly conclusive and unsupported.

LCC 1.0105(3)

The Applicants state that this provision80 is satisfied because “the protective structures are designed to avoid adverse impacts on adjacent properties” and “the goal of the protective structures is to reduce beach and bluff erosion.”81 As mentioned in detail above, Applicants fail to provide a sufficient analysis on the complete, long-term impacts of the SRS to beach access, beach health, and recreation. The Applicants also fail to address the harmful and erosive impacts of SRS on the bluffs and fail to address how SRS could—and will—continue to erode and endanger properties situated on the beach and bluff. Thus, the Applicants fail to advance this provision.

LCC 1.0105(4)

This provision82 is not satisfied because the Applicants fail to meet the legal requirements for a Goal 18, IR 5 exception and accompanying comprehensive plan amendment. Oregon Shores also incorporates by reference the Staff Report’s analysis of this provision,83 including the claims that the Properties were not developed, according to the Goal 18 definition of “developed,” prior to January 1, 1977 and that the subject property is not located within either of the sand spit Goal 18, IR 2 exception areas, and that all Properties are not Goal 18 eligible. Thus, Applicants fail to advance this provision.

LCC 1.0105(5)

As the Applicants have not yet made it past the first step of Application approval, this provision84 is not yet satisfied.

LCC 1.0105(6)

proposed use; and (b) Temporary and permanent sand stabilization programs and the planned maintenance of new and existing vegetation; and (c) Methods and techniques designed to minimize adverse impacts on the site and surrounding area; and (d) The necessity for beach front protective structures.” 79 Combined Narrative at 47. 80 LCC 1.0105(3) “Beachfront protective structures will be designed to minimize impacts on the beach on either side of the beach zone line and on beach erosion and accretion patterns.” 81 Combined Narrative at 48. 82 LCC 1.0105(4) “Beachfront protective structures may be permitted only where development existed on January 1, 1977, unless an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 18, implementation requirement 5, has been adopted as part of the comprehensive plan.” 83 Staff Report at 3–5. 84 LCC 1.0105(5) “Lincoln County shall rely on the State Parks and Recreation Division to regulate beach sand removal.”

22 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21

This provision85 is not yet relevant to the proposed project because the Applicants state that “[n]o sand removal is proposed from the dune system for the construction of the protective structures.”86 However, the Applicants assertion that if sand removal becomes necessary “it will not adversely affect property on or off the Properties” is overly conclusive and fails to advance this provision.

LCC 1.0105(7)

This provision87 is not satisfied because, as noted above, the Applicants fail to adequately address the harms to public beach access from increased shoreline hardening and fail to analyze the long-term impacts of increased riprap on Gleneden Beach.

LCC 1.0105(11)

This provision88 is not satisfied because, as stated above, the Applicants fail to adequately address the long-term harms and stabilization issues that increased riprap will have on active dunes. Further, the Applicants fail to meaningfully analyze the long-term increased threat that the proliferation of riprap has on public and private property. Thus, this provision is not advanced.

LCC 1.0105(12)

Despite the Applicants assertion that this provision is not applicable because “no rare plants or wildlife, no estuarine resources, no nearby historic properties or cultural/archeological resources, no suitable nesting or foraging habitat for endangered or threatened wildlife, and no signs of geologic interests or fossil beds at the site[,]” the Applicants have not yet made it past the first step of Application approval, this provision89 is not yet completely satisfied.

LCC 1.0105(13)

As the Applicants have not yet made it past the first step of Application approval, this provision90 is not yet completely satisfied.

LCC 1.0105(14)

85 LCC 1.10105(6) “Lincoln County may allow sand removal from the dune system upon a finding that the resulting natural processes of the dune form will not adversely affect property on or off the site.” 86 Combined Narrative at 48. 87 LCC 1.10105(7) “Lincoln County shall cooperate with the State Parks and Recreation Division to ensure that construction of access to beach areas observes sound conservation practices and to protect existing public easements through beach and dune areas.” 88 LCC 1.0105(11) “Lincoln County shall encourage the stabilization of those active dunes that pose threat to public or private property.” 89 LCC 1.0105(12) “Lincoln County shall cooperate with the Oregon State Department of Fish and Wildlife to protect significant wildlife habitat in beach and dune areas as identified in the Lincoln County Plan Inventory and designated on Plan and Zone maps.” 90 LCC 1.0105(13) “Prior to development, Lincoln County shall require an approved revegetation and sand stabilization plan that is to be followed during and after development.”

23 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21

The Applicants correctly state that this provision91 is not applicable because beachfront protective structures are at issue.

LCC 1.0105(20)

Despite the Applicants’ assertion that subsection (a) of this provision92 is satisfied and supported by four reports with site-specific geotechnical analysis, the satisfaction of this criterion does not warrant approval of a Goal 18, IR 5 exception or comprehensive plan amendment because almost all other criteria are unsatisfied.

LCC 1.0105(21)

The Applicants do no satisfy this provision’s93 criterion because they conclusively state that the proposed hardening structures “will actually preserve existing terrace vegetation” without adequately analyzing the impacts that increased shoreline hardening will have on long- term erosion, degradation, and vegetation removal.

LCC 1.0120 Ocean Resource Goals & LCC 1.0125 Ocean Resource Policies

The Applicants conclusively state that LCC 1.012094 is satisfied because “design of protective structures at the heart of the Applications is to protect ocean resources.”95 However, as Applicants have made clear, the true heart of these applications is the protection of private property interests and thus, this criterion is not satisfied.

LCC 1.012596 has not yet been satisfied because it is not yet time to request a permit for protective structure construction from OPRD. As the Applicants have not yet made it past the

91 LCC 1.10105(14) “Except for beach front protective structures regulated by state permitting agencies, Lincoln County shall establish development standards consistent with the recommendations of the RNKI Environmental Hazard Inventory and Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Bulletin 81.” 92 LCC 1.0205(20) “Lincoln County shall review all proposed actions which may result in the alteration of any beach or any active or conditionally stable dune form in the following manner: (a) Ocean front lots: Site specific geotechnical analysis by qualified registered professional geologist or engineering geologist except when the only known or suspected hazard is coastal recession and minor slope sloughing which can be compensated for with adequate setbacks as set out in Environmental Hazard Inventory, RNKR, 1977. (b) Sand areas: Except for beach front protective structures which are regulated by state permitting agencies, a detailed geotechnical analysis shall be required for active or conditionally stable dune forms and for areas of high ground water.” 93 LCC 1.0105(21) “Construction and alteration in beach and dune areas shall be designed and located so as to minimize vegetation removal and exposure of stable and conditionally stable areas to erosion.” 94 LCC 1.0120 Ocean Resource Goals “Ocean resource goals: (1) To understand the impacts and relationships of ocean activities to ocean resources. (2) To ensure proper management and protection of ocean resources.” 95 Combined Narrative at 51. 96 LCC 1.0125 Ocean Resource Policies "(1) Lincoln County shall work with all local, state and federal agencies which have planning permit or review authority over coastal land and water. (2) Lincoln County may review proposals to determine impacts of outer continental shelf oil, gas, mineral or other fisheries development. (3) Lincoln County shall work with state and federal agencies for development of ocean resources. (4) Lincoln County shall work to minimize on-shore impacts of offshore development where possible."

24 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21 first step of Application approval, this provision is not yet relevant nor satisfied. Thus, the Applicants have failed to satisfy this provision at this moment in time.

LCC 1.0130 Economic Goals & LCC 1.0135 Economic Policies

The Applicants stated that LCC 1.013097 is met because these applications “significantly advance the economic goals of this provision” since “[t]he loss of the threatened homes and resort buildings will cause immense economic harm.” While the damages to these properties will have an economic impact, the Applicants still falsely assert that the potential environmental concerns—which should be considered under this provision—do not exist. As mentioned in great detailed above, there are several long-term environmental impacts from the proliferation of riprap on the Gleneden Beach and harmful impacts to recreation and public access. Thus, the Applicants’ assessment of this provision is incomplete.

Further, for the same reasons listed above, the requirements of relevant portions of LCC 1.013598 are not satisfied.

LCC 1.0160 Housing Goals

The Applicants do not satisfy this provision99 because, as stated above in reference to Goal 10, the homes and Properties at issue are not primary residences. They are secondary residences and tourist accommodations which do not help advance this goal to provide low- and moderate-income housing for the Lincoln County residents and do not advance the goal of making housing more efficient as they are primarily businesses. Thus, the Applicants do not satisfy this provision.

LCC 1.0170 Recreation Goals & 1.0175 Recreation Policies

Even if Applicants’ determination that contributions from the Resort will help advance LCC 1.0170,100 they fail to take into account other recreational considerations and impediments that the proliferation of riprap will cause Gleneden Beach. As stated multiple times above, shoreline hardening will in the long run limit and destroy potential recreational opportunities on

97 LCC 1.0130 Economic Goals “(1) To establish an economic planning process in the county. (2) To support and encourage the expansion of existing industrial and commercial activities in appropriate locations. (3) To support and encourage the creation of new industrial and commercial activities in appropriate locations. (4) To recognize the environmental and developmental constraints in expansion of industrial, commercial, and residential activities. (5) To improve the average wage in the county. (6) To improve the quality of employment opportunities in Lincoln County.” 98 Relevant portions of LCC 1.0135 Economic Policies state, “Economic Policies “(1) Lincoln County shall designate suitable lands for the creation and expansion of industrial and commercial activities. *** “(7) Lincoln County shall encourage labor intensive commercial and industry. *** “(10) When conflicting land uses are proposed, the alternatives shall be evaluated based upon economic, social, energy, and environmental costs and benefits.” 99 LCC 1.0160 Housing Goals “Housing goals: (1) To assist in providing housing. (2) To provide opportunities for a variety of housing choices, including low and moderate income housing to meet the needs, desires, and financial capabilities of all Lincoln County residents. (3) To make housing more efficient.” 100 LCC 1.0170 Recreation Goals Recreational goals: (1) To provide for recreation facilities for both residents and visitors in Lincoln County. (2) To maintain the region as a tourist recreation area.

25 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21

Gleneden Beach that could help “maintain the region as a tourist recreation area.” Thus, Applicants fail to satisfy this provision.

Further LCC 1.0175101 is not satisfied because, as the above analysis also states, the Applicants’ analysis of recreational opportunities overlooks the issues that proposed shoreline hardening will bring regarding beach access and public use. Thus, this provision is not satisfied.

LCC 1.1310(1)(e): Uses permitted Outright in Residential Zone R-1

The Staff Report acknowledges that this provision102 applies to the review of the Applicants’ request. Oregon Shores incorporates by reference LCDC’s analysis on this provision. Further, Oregon Shores asserts that Applicants fail to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter and fail to satisfy the stated Goals, thus this provision is not satisfied.

LCC 1.1252: Notice of Exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals

The Staff Report acknowledges that this provision103 applies to the review of the Applicants’ request. Oregon Shores incorporates by reference LCDC’s analysis on this provision.

C. Additional Statewide Planning Goals

The Applicants correctly note that the plan amendments must comply with Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals under ORS 197.175(2)(A).104 The Applicants bear the burden of proof in demonstrating that proposed Goal 18 exemption complies with all the applicable criteria and standards. The Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve the proposed plan amendment must either explain why the amendment is consistent with the Goals or adopt findings explaining why the Goal is not applicable. Most relevant here and as discussed above, the Applications do not comply with Goal 2’s exception process requirements or Goal 18’s implementation requirement 5.

101 Relevant portions of this provision are: Plan § 1.0175 Recreation Policies *** "(6) Proposed oceanfront developments shall dedicate areas for public beach accesses in low bank areas consistent with county standards. *** "(9) Lincoln County shall diversify recreation opportunities within the County and shall include opportunities and facilities for the physically handicapped where appropriate. *** "(15) Lincoln County shall encourage outdoor recreation activities which are compatible with the primary land uses." 102 LCC 1.1310 Residential Zone R-1 “In an R-1 zone, the following regulations shall apply: (1) Uses Permitted Outright: The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted subject to the applicable provisions of LCC 1.1401 to 1.1499, 1.1501 to 1.1599 and 1.1901 to 1.1999 * * * (e) Beach front protective structures.” 103 LCC 1.1252 Notice of Exception to Statewide Planning Goals “Actions involving the consideration of exceptions to the Statewide Planning Goals shall be subject to the notice and hearing requirements of LCC 1.1250 and 1.1255. In addition, the required notice of public hearing shall specifically note the exceptions to be considered and shall summarize the issues in an understandable manner.” 104 ORS 197.175 – Cities’ and counties’ planning responsibilities.

26 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21

The Applicants assert that Goals 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17, and 18 are applicable to this request and state that the Applications comply with the substance of all applicable goals. Applicants also state Goals 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 19 are not applicable in this case and Oregon Shores does not challenge this. Should this matter become germane to the present applications, Oregon Shores will provide additional, specific comment on the Goals as appropriate and allowed. General comments are provided for the purposes of clarity and preservation.

Oregon Shores previously demonstrated in Section II(a) of this comment how Applicants fail to comply with Goals 7, 8, 9, 10, 17 and 18.105 Regarding the Applicants’ brief mention and explanation of their compliance with Goals 1, 2, 6, and 13, Oregon Shores asserts that the Applicants fail to properly demonstrate compliance with the policies of these goals and thus their request should be denied.

V. General Comments

Oregon Shores provides the following general comments for the purposes of clarity and preservation.

A. The Lincoln Avenue Homes Are Not “Developed” Properties Under Goal 18, as Mentioned in the Lincoln Avenue Homes Supplemental Narrative and Any Shore Hardening Requires a Goal 18 Exception.

Despite the Applicants’ admissions106 and Planning Commission’s prior determination denying the Lincoln Avenue homes a building permit for a protective structure and the county’s well-reasoned determination107 that these Properties were not developed prior to January 1, 1977 and thus ineligible properties, Lincoln Avenue’s Supplemental Analysis asserts otherwise.108 Oregon Shores incorporates by reference the analysis of the Staff Report on 01-MISC-ADM-21 explaining why the Lincoln Avenue homes are not eligible for SPS.

B. The Applicants fail to establish that the Lincoln Avenue Homes were previously approved for fill and riprap in the proposed exception areas by either the County or OPRD.

The Applicants assert, absent meaningful support or analysis, that at various points the County and OPRD approved requests for “fill and riprap” for the Lincoln Avenue Homes. As noted above, building permits for the proposed structure, as well as OPRD emergency permits for the same, were recently denied due to the subject properties being ineligible under Goal 18, IR 5 date-certain requirement.

105 Section II(A), supra at 9–12. 106 See Combined Narrative at 25 (“County staff has communicated to the Applicants that the Properties were not developed before January 1, 1977, and thus currently appear ineligible to construct protective structures under Goal 18 and the Plan. Accordingly, the Applications seek County adoption of Goal 18 exceptions for the Properties[.]”). 107 See generally Staff Report on 01-MISC-ADM-21. 108 See Supplemental Narrative - Lincoln Avenue Homes (03-LUPC-21) at 4–11.

27 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21

C. None of the properties at issue are within an area subject to a “built” or “developed” exception to Goal 18, Implementation Requirement 2.

The Applicants assert, absent meaningful support or analysis, that the Lincoln Avenue Homes are eligible for shoreline protection under the Goal 18, IR 5 “[b]ecause they are a Built and Committed Exception Area.”109 To the contrary, the County has taken no such exception for the Lincoln Avenue Homes in either the LCCP or the LCC, and the Applicants’ do not argue otherwise. As noted by the 01-MISC-ADMIN-21 Staff Report and Staff Report for these Applications, the Lincoln Avenue Homes are not subject to an approved exception to Goal 18, implementation requirement (2).

Goal 18, implementation requirement (IR) 2 is implemented by LCC 1.1930 (3)(a). As set forth in this standard, exceptions to the development prohibitions of IR 2 are authorized only for the Alsea and Siletz sand spits. The subject property is not located within either of these sand spit exception areas and is therefore not subject to the county’s acknowledged exceptions to Goal 18, IR 2.

Finally, LCC 1.0105 (4) otherwise allows beach front protective structures “... where an exception to Goal 18, implementation requirement 5 has been adopted as part of the comprehensive plan.” As set forth in the Lincoln County Comprehensive Plan Exceptions Paper, as amended, no exceptions to Statewide Planning Goal 18, implementation requirement 5 have been adopted for any property in Lincoln County.110

None of the properties subject to these combined Applications are included in the adopted Goal 18, IR 2 exception areas on the Alsea and Siletz sand spits, let alone the Lincoln Avenue Home sites. Further, none of these properties are within an area subject to an existing Goal 18, IR 5 exception of any type, as none have been adopted in Lincoln County. The notion of an implied exception to Goal 18, as the Applicants appear suggest, is not supported by law. A goal exception is an affirmative act that is incorporated into a comprehensive plan, and is limited in applicability to specific properties or situations and “does not establish a planning or zoning policy of general applicability.”111

Per Oregon Shores’ review, neither the applicable criteria set forth in the County’s Staff Report for this matter nor the Application materials (including the Combined and Supplemental Narratives) indicate that the Applicants intend to advance a justification for either a “developed” or “committed” exception to Goal 18 to allow the proposed SPS for any of the properties at issue in this matter. Both the developed (or built) and committed avenues for a goal exception require a rigorous burden of proof and analysis pursuant to ORS 197.732(2)(a) and ORS 197.732(2)(b), respectively, and their implementing rules. A mere assertion that the subject segment of Gleneden/Lincoln Beach is “irrevocably degraded from sand generation and ecological perspectives,” fails to justify either a built or committed exception.112 Case law notes that the standard for approval of a physically developed (i.e., “built”) and a committed exception is

109 Supplemental Narrative - Lincoln Avenue Homes (03-LUPC-21) at 6–7. 110 01-MISC-ADMIN-21 Staff Report at 3; 01-LUPC-21 et. seq. Staff Report at 4. 111 ORS 197.732(1)(b)(A). 112 June 3, 2021 Supplemental Narrative at 1.

28 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21

“demanding.”113 The Application materials fail to meet the high burden of proof required by either of these criteria.

D. Even assuming that Lincoln County approves the exception, further permits will likely be required for lawful development of the proposed SPS structure.

DLCD’s comment for this matter expressed several key concerns related to additional permitting required for the proposal at issue, and recommended against the County adopting the Applicants’ assertions related to additional permitting in its finding. These include:

• While the applicants acknowledge they will need an ocean shore alteration permit from Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) for the ultimate design and construction of a beachfront protective structure, they are presumptive in asserting that OPRD will approve a permit and the design as currently presented. (p. 47 of 3/18/21 Narrative Statement) • The applicants do not need any permits from DLCD. (p. 58 of 3/18/21 Narrative Statement) • This application request is a foundation for a series of future applications from OPRD and Lincoln County for the permitting of a BPS, none of which are guaranteed at this stage of the process.114

E. The Applicants fail to provide sufficient analysis for their contention that denial of these applications and Goal 18 prohibitions would constitute a constitutional violation and a taking impacting private property rights.

As discussed above, the Applicants fail to demonstrate compliance with the applicable legal criteria for an exception. Seeming to understand that shortcoming, they include what appears to be a threat to sue the County for “takings” should their application be denied. This argument is not relevant to the question of whether the Applications meet the legal requirements for a Goal 18 exception. To the extent that the County chooses to address this argument, it should disregard the Applicants’ claim. The Applicants rely on cases where government action physically occupies a property, or government action excludes an occupier from possession and use of a space. See e.g., Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 427–29 (1982) (explaining the difference between a successful constitutional taking challenge to a permanent physical occupation of real property versus an unsuccessful constitutional taking challenge for temporary invasion of property). In this instance, the County properly interpreting state law to deny the Applicants request to build structures on public beach would not equate to the government’s physical occupation or invasion of private property, or the complete loss of use of the property.

113 Sandgren v. Clackamas County, 29 Or LUBA 454, 457 (1995). 114 DLCD comment, 5.

29 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21

The real issue is the taking and impacts to the public’s beach. As a property and public law matter, the ownership and use of beaches in Oregon is unquestioned.115 The State of Oregon owns and manages the dry sand beach in the public interest, the use of which is preserved now and forever for free and uninterrupted public use.116 Access to the public’s beach is protected under the Beach Bill, Goal 17, Goal 18, and their implementing regulations.117 County land use planning within beach and dune areas such as the one at issue must carefully consider impacts to the public’s use and access of the beach, and ensure all decision-making is consistent with the legislature’s paramount policy as set forth within the Beach Bill at ORS 390.610. This is of particular concern with the Gleneden Beach Wayside, a coastal public park that is ineligible for SPS and situated between the properties for which the goal exception is sought. This public beach area and park will likely be irreparably harmed by flank erosion as the result of the addition of the proposed SPS structures alongside the shore fronting the subject properties. The Application materials fail to address impacts to this important point of public beach access and recreation, and such information should be provided for public review prior to any final decision in this matter.

IV. Climate Change and Cumulative Impacts

Per Oregon Shores’ review, the Applications fail to provide any meaningful discussion of how the proposed project may affect, exacerbate, and perform under known and present climate change impacts. The most detrimental effect of shoreline protection structures is passive erosion. When a hard structure is built along a shoreline that is already undergoing long-term net erosion, as is natural for beaches, the shoreline will eventually and naturally migrate landward, behind the structure. The end result is that the beach in front of the SPS is gradually lost as the water deepens, and the natural shoreline migrates landward. As sea levels continue to rise, this beach loss will accelerate, and the public’s beach will drown. Similarly, the Applications offer little assessment of the long-term, cumulative impacts of additional armoring to the littoral cell, inconsistent with OAR 660-004-0020(2)(d).

Oregon’s new Climate Change Adaptation Framework (“CCAF”) and Climate Equity Blueprint (“CEB”) make it clear that local governments are responsible to address the climate crisis in a way that prioritizes climate resilience (i.e., adaptation and mitigation).118 This means the County must avoid piecemeal decision-making that exacerbates climate impacts on the public’s use and enjoyment of our ocean shores and interferes with climate adaptative planning (which would, at the minimum, require an assessment of whether impacted upland structures

115 Sullivan at 136; The wet-sand area of the beach is in public ownership, and the dry-sand area is subject to a prescriptive use by the public through the doctrine of custom. Thornton v. Hay, 254 Or 584, 595–596, 462 P2d 671 (1969); Stevens v. City of Cannon Beach, 317 Or 131, 854 P2d 449 (1993). 116 Birthright, vii. 117 See ORS 390.630; ORS 390.632. See, e.g., OAR 736-020-0001 (2017) (requiring permits for significant activity along Oregon’s ocean shores, an essential perquisite for the assertion of public ownership); OAR 660-015-0010(2) (providing increased public access). 118 DLCD, 2021 Or. CCAF and CEB, (Jan. 19, 2021), available at https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/CL/Pages/Adaptation-Framework.aspx?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery. PDF available at: https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/CL/Documents/2021_CLIMATE_CHANGE_ADAPTATION_FRAMEWORKandBlue print.pdf.

30 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21 could be moved east to protect the public’s interest in the shore). Instead of allowing the proliferation of SPS to protect short-term private interests, the County needs to get in front of the climate crisis and make decisions on the basis of present and increasing climate risks, rather than accepting maladaptive land use proposals such as the one at issue. The presumption should be against proposals for hardened SPS, which encourage maladaptive development in high-risk coastal areas and destroy the public’s long-term interest in the beach. Instead, the County must begin prioritizing climate adaptive solutions, such as relocating threatened structures, and protecting the public’s beach consistent with the policy contained within ORS 390.610 and Goal 18.

V. Conclusion

Oregon Shores believes a broader policy change is needed to adequately address coastal development issues in light of our improved understanding of the dynamic forces bearing on Oregon’s coast and the manner in which our coastal landscapes are responding to climate change. Given the increases in storm surge and wave height we are already experiencing on the Oregon coast, and given what we know of further predicted changes resulting from long-term climate change and cyclical climatic events such as El Niño, these requests for protective structures permits are likely to increase. Allowing installation of hardened structures along the shore, which can deprive the beach of a sand source that may help to mitigate the progressive loss of sand from Oregon’s bluff-backed shorelines due to increasing erosion, does not protect the public’s interest in the beach as the County is required to do. Further, allowing the installation of protective structures exacerbates the risks to public health and safety as well as to shorefront properties by encouraging investment in shorefront protection rather than incentivizing movement away from shoreline areas and coastal hazards. The result is prioritizing the protection of private property in the short-term to the detriment of the public’s long-term interest in preserving the beach, inconsistent with the Oregon Beach Bill and Goal 18. In the long run, armoring the ocean shore will prove futile against sea level rise and erosion. In the meantime, significant practical and policy questions arise in light of the effects of rising sea level on the ocean shore.

The upland structures at the properties subject to this Goal 18 exception request exemplifies the sort of maladaptive development that Oregon’s Beach Bill and Goal 18 were adopted to prevent. Natural processes of erosion occur along the full length of the Northwest coast, but they are most dramatic—and have been known to do the most damage to property—on sand spits.119 Each of the upland structures for which the exception was sought were built between the 1980s to the early 2000s, ignoring best practices on setbacks and disregarding the Gleneden Beach area’s known susceptibility to erosion and despite the stated policy underlying the Beach Bill, the Department’s SPS permitting rules, and Goal 18 disfavoring hardened structures. It is a prime example of how lax implementation of statute and policy is causing behavior inconsistent with Oregon’s legislative declaration of intent to protect the public’s interest in the beach. Oregon Shores strongly believes that the County needs to get in front of this crisis and make decisions on the basis of present and increasing risks, consistent with the principles of Goal 18 and ORS 390.610.

119 Komar, 93.

31 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21

The Applications fail to demonstrate reasons justifying an exception to Goal 18. On the basis of the present record, the Planning Commission should recommend denial of these Applications.

Sincerely,

Phillip Johnson Executive Director Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition P.O. Box 33 Seal Rock, OR 97376 (503) 754-9303 [email protected]

Encls.

32

Case File: 01-MISC-ADM-21 STAFF REPORT Date Filed: March 30, 2021 Lincoln County Planning Department Decision Date: April 15, 2021 Building Permit Review (Administrative Action) Appeal Date: May 3, 2021

APPLICANT(S): PLI Systems, Inc., for Ed and Joan Tanabe, Richard and Sally Grant, Shari Kain, and Terry DeSylvia

AGENT(S): Wendie Kellington, Kellington Law Group, PC

SUMMARY APPLICANT REQUEST: The applicants are requesting building permit authorization for the placement of a beach front protective structure.

SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE: This request is subject to review in accordance with the provisions of LCC 1.1210. The request is for a development of land, the review of which requires the exercise of discretion, specifically in the interpretation and application of the provisions of LCC 1.0105 (4). Therefore, the subject request is a permit as defined in ORS 215.402 (4), and therefore must be reviewed in accordance with the procedure set forth in LCC 1.1210 (2).

A. REPORT OF FACTS

1. Lot Size: The subject property consists of four subdivided lots totaling approximately 1.66 acres.

2. Property Location: The subject property is located at 4825, 4815, 4805, and 4755 Lincoln Avenue, and is further identified on Lincoln County Assessor's map 08-11-21-CD as tax lots 15100, 15000, 14900 and 14800.

3. Zoning Designation: R-1, Single Family Residential.

4. Plan Designation: Suburban Residential, Rural Community Center.

5. Surrounding Land Use: The surrounding land uses are primarily single-family residences. A recreational vehicle park is located on a parcel just to the north of the subject neighborhood.

6. Topography/Vegetation: The subject property is a residential lot, the developed portion of which is level and residentially landscaped. The western edge of the property is a near vertical bluff face that fronts on the ocean beach.

7. Existing Structures: Each subdivided lot is developed with a single-family dwelling as follows: Tax Lot 15100, constructed in 2002, approximately 3,216 square feet; Tax Lot 15000, constructed 1990, approximately 3,358 square feet; Tax Lot 14900, constructed 1994, approximately 4,037 square feet; and, Tax Lot 14800, constructed 1993, approximately 3,032 square feet. Case File 01-MISC-ADM-21 Tanabe, Grant, Kain, DeSylvia

8. Utilities: The following utilities are proposed to serve the subject property: a. Sewer: Sanitary sewer (KLGB Sanitary District) b. Water: Community water (KLGB Water District) c. Electricity: Central Lincoln PUD

9. Development Constraints: The property is identified as subject to shoreline recession.

B. EVALUATION OF THE REQUEST

1. Agency Comments: None solicited.

2. Applicable Criteria The following provisions of Lincoln County Code (LCC) Chapter 1 apply to the review of this request:1:

LCC 1.1310 (1)(e), Uses permitted Outright in Residential zone R-1

Beach front protective structures are listed in the R-1 zone as a use permitted outright subject to other applicable requirements of the chapter. LCC 1.1310 (1)(e).

LLC 1.0105 (4), Comprehensive Plan Policies for Beaches and Dunes: Beachfront protective structures may be permitted only where development existed on January 1, 1977, unless an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 18, implementation requirement 5, has been adopted as part of the comprehensive plan.

Analysis of compliance with this plan policy requires a determination as to whether the subject property is an area where “development” existed on January 1, 1977. For purposes of LCC 1.0105 (4), the Lincoln County Comprehensive Plan does not set forth a definition of “development”. Because LCC 1.0105 (4) implements provisions of Goal 18, the county may not interpret or apply LCC 1.0105 (4) in a manner contrary to the requirements of Goal 18. ORS 197.829 (1)(d). Therefore, to ensure conformance with Goal 18, for purposes of this decision the county employs the definition of “development” set forth in Goal 18 that was in effect on the date this application was filed:

DEVELOPMENT: Means houses, commercial and industrial buildings, and vacant subdivision lots which are physically improved through construction of streets and provision of utilities to the lot, and includes areas where an exception to [Goal 18 implementation requirement] (2) above has been approved.

Based on this definition, to for development to have existed that would permit the placement of a beach front protective structure, an affirmative determination is required that at least one of

1 LCC citations are in italic text, staff comments are in bold text, and staff citations, quotes or other references are in bolded italic text. Page - 2 Case File 01-MISC-ADM-21 Tanabe, Grant, Kain, DeSylvia

the following factual situations is true: (1) houses, commercial and industrial buildings were present on January 1, 1977; (2) the property in question was a vacant subdivision lot with streets and utilities present on January 1, 1977; or (3) the property is subject to an approved exception to Goal 18, implementation requirement (2).

No houses or buildings were present on January 1, 1977. Based on the applicant’s statements and review of aerial imagery and Lincoln County building permit records, no houses, commercial or industrial buildings existed on the subject property on January 1, 1977.

The subject property was not a vacant subdivision lot on January 1, 1977. The subject property was previously within the plat of Cummings Addition2 subdivision which was recorded on July 6, 1948. Cummings Addition plat was vacated by order of the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners on December 11, 19513. The subject property is currently described as Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 3, Pacific Panorama Subdivision. According to the records of the Lincoln County Clerk, the plat for Pacific Panorama Subdivision4 was recorded on December 11, 1978. According to the records of the Lincoln County Clerk and the Lincoln County Assessor, the subject property was not within or a part of any subdivision plat between the dates of December 11, 1951 and December 11, 1978. Therefore, on January 1, 1977 the subject property was not a vacant subdivision lot under Oregon subdivision law (ORS Chapter 92).

The subject property is not subject to an approved exception to Goal 18, implementation requirement (2). Goal 18, implementation requirement (IR) 2 is implemented by LCC 1.1930 (3)(a). As set forth in this standard, exceptions to the development prohibitions of IR 2 are authorized only for the Alsea and Siletz sand spits. The subject property is not located within either of these sand spit exception areas and is therefore not subject to the county’s acknowledged exceptions to Goal 18, IR 2.

Finally, LCC 1.0105 (4) otherwise allows beach front protective structures “… where an exception to Goal 18, implementation requirement 5 has been adopted as part of the comprehensive plan.” As set forth in the Lincoln County Comprehensive Plan Exceptions Paper, as amended, no exceptions to Statewide Planning Goal 18, implementation requirement 5 have been adopted for any property in Lincoln County.

C. CONCLUSION

Based upon the preceding facts and analysis set forth in this staff report, the Lincoln County Planning Division concludes that development did not exist on the subject property on January 1, 1977, and also that the subject property is not subject to an acknowledged exception to Statewide Planning Goal 18,

2 Exhibit A – Cummings Addition Plat 3 Exhibit B – Lincoln County Order 4 Exhibit C – Pacific Panorama Subdivision Plat Page - 3 Case File 01-MISC-ADM-21 Tanabe, Grant, Kain, DeSylvia implementation requirement 5. Therefore, the proposed beachfront protective structure may not be permitted pursuant to LCC 1.0105 (4).

Accordingly, the requested building permit authorization is denied based on failure to comply with the applicable requirements of LCC Chapter 1.

This decision becomes final on Monday, May 3, 2021. unless appealed by the applicants or other interested party.

Submitted by:

Onno Husing Lincoln County Planning Director LINCOLN COUNTY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

ATTACHED Exhibit A: Cummings Addition Subdivision Plat Exhibit B: Lincoln County Order Exhibit C: Pacific Panorama Subdivision Plat

Page - 4 Dept. of Land Conservation and Development Updated March 2, 2021

Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes Implementation Requirement #5: Decision-making summary

Property: 08-11-21-CD-15000-00

Address: 4815 Lincoln Ave, Lincoln Beach, OR

Owner: Richard Grant

Location: Lincoln Beach area, north of Searidge Condos

Determination: Ineligible for Beachfront Protective Structure (BPS)

Process of Determination: 1) Using 1977 Aerial imagery from the Army Corps of Engineers, was there qualifying development (residential, commercial, or industrial buildings) on the tax lot? No 2) Was the lot part of a statutory subdivision? Yes, Cummins Addition, approved in July 1948. However, the subdivision was then officially vacated on December 11, 1951. The vacation order, which is on file in Lincoln County, references that there were no improvements to the site at the time of vacation (e.g. no roads and no utilities). Therefore, on January 1, 1977, there was no eligible development on this site and it was not part of a statutory subdivision. The lot is now part of another subdivision, known as Pacific Panorama, which was approved in December 1978. 3) Determination = Not eligible for beachfront protection. 4) Current home was built in 1990. F! JJ n " z i> LJ

CUMMINGS ADDITION LINCOLN COUNTY I OREGON. . SEcnoN Z/1 T 8 S .,,, R.II t-v;,WM. ,:/i,I'. w 5 T /Z 64./4 ...- L:. '.'.;f, C- $0 .so .,,, 0� :-- SO .s. Se? 60' ,------;,:;;;--:;-F------,------::/:,;-;;��.:-2�,---r--:;;5,;;;o--T-:.5.�·VO V , ---- 7 /70.73 =;;o:---T-:5,:?;or-7"--:.,,;;;;or-,--:-;5.," m i ,. 6'..5'T 0 0 ·C) � � D JJ 0 m n "' DRIVE D 0 �3� PACIFIC !!1 � -I - z z 0 ✓--+ C .so .so /13.Zo ;: z _.:, � z � 20 /T1 -- CD 't;j. 4 9,4.34 l> Ii) /170 JJ n (iJ ' z ' // • 10 ' g 8 7 6 -- .5' "l". i> ::i /9 17 /6 ' /..5 ' /4 ' /.3 • ' ' ' z l\i ZI 1;I: /54. .:J/ �' "1- 50 We.sr Ir>"' � I � zz 'I' ' �- .so ....,., ..5'12. . ,,,,., .s-a .so ,_' ✓, ,,,, 0 4--"-'-'A£"'L E Y ------�, �. .:,o I I r.: ":'� ':":;-: ;--: ;;-- ; �;,P. �/,/? Tf,i't.P. /i5o.o 1 'lu, I I I / I II I I I I / I I I I I I I ' , .. I I I I I I .::; :-- /··: I I I 1 1 O£O/c,qr; ON S't/RI/EYOR S CERT/FICRTE I

( /.; W /-1. 8v.rc/4/ .be1o_y 7'/r.5/ /v,5,: s-wo.r/7_, ;:/e,oose ,:;,n,:/ say /,-,,:7/ / .,,f,,.ve correc/,::V s vrvey ,d on/ /77e?rk{!J'o/ J,V,/h 0;0;0.ro_,c7r/o/, /770/7un;,e..-?/.s /,1e /on/ .,.�,,.e .9ro.v✓7/ Ju.r/4ce · Jo,,'/ Jn✓-7'/t7/,0oi/7.T .Oe//7_9' ,::;,/:The Sov�eo..s/ corner o//4/t 6/4,j I o/ //2,,:s,o /o/ <7n/ /Ae /¼r/,1e,:7,s-/ Corner o//.,,f,,. ,.c,/4/ u/ s,,,, llreeze_,· s,v/_,Po/nT a/.:>-,:, 6e,;n g .?8/.47 7"iu/ P\k.s-/ c,n/ 0 . _ 111 ,Z/ /.9'.50"� /t:759. 5.?./4-e/ lle?/77 o Z"/rt1n,,o� e ..se/ ./4r /ae One -/4ur/h .Jecf/a/7 Corner ,6.,/wce&/7 ..9,pc/10 /7.s Z/ a-/7/ s; Ztr T, 8 S'. R. I/ W. W. M. The ro,P r/ /4,//4,//S �.FCr/;,5,,./ :r: ., _, ., ,,o tr y _,o 0 t:7$ /4//ows: 8e57//?1-V/?g o/ /h;r 1:✓?//,,,:7/,o, o✓-a� /he/?c/47/7 .f'_ :/Ae #ar/,1 hhe o// ,fe _,P/4,/ .,./.?'ea.tlreezt!" .:/-- Z"/rM,P{P½'e ;170/n/ o/ .6e9//7J7/-'7_9'. ,.,l!'______--nnc------1 5 mD . ZB 01 �§ D � APPROVED�J.���fr���/r'�������8�·-- ACkNOWL ED6EMEIVT l> OiJJ 0

9T/'9TE Or OREGON' J COL//7o?P.,Y Ckrk�e� COV/1/TY c.J,C MULTNOM"9H S'.S.

7 8e // reme/77.6erec/, //2,q/ CJ/. /.i1:S: fq �.,::;,·y of-JJ.11 e . /948 .6e/o,;,,, /77 (!'_, //2,,, vn4'rJ/.j,n,,,/ ao/4r 2rY60�- ., .Y;::JZ'> /7 Coun/y /1?.s-.s-eS'S'or ,::;,n/mr .Y;u/ J/4/4 Pn/ COV/?r y,, ,Olf'/"J0/70//y ;;r,,o,,:,tPo/'t!'d ,'9r/ Cv/l7/77//'1_y'J 017///o M. Cv/77/T,J//lf'S, ,oersoaa-/,:y ,fnown /J y nu. /o Pe /Ae /o/,,, ✓7/.,·c;:,/ _,Persons a/,,, .s c.r/�e/ In on/ //I/ho 6'Xecv/rd /-Ae .fl'O//? /hs/r.v/77en./ ;;,-17,:,/ ----m� mnf' f Co;,1?/y furveyor ockno,,.,,/,,,.4,,,.Q" /o h?,P /,6q//ney ex,cv./e/ /htP s,v'a/ ;n,r/r.vn?,,,.n/ a.s- /276'/r hee on/.Yo/v,7/or y oc/ aa/ ,:/,,,er:/ ,lo,- /,6 e V.Se.5 an/,PV '7"'0Se.S ?;7e.r,!'/a .fe/;,,tbr/4. --· :;;;, • // .,..- , ,.( .....· # ,,...... �-if /42-&/ C�/t ,,,,e.,,,:..a.::-,,.,, . /JV' W/TNE.5:9 wHr �.e:oF. / have ,7e.revn/o 5'e/ m y -?c;,,d . 7 an/ o/,t;·,<.,/m o/hc/a/ 5eo/ /,-Ge a'o onol ye r /a,-/ -- y y 0 Nohry ./:!V�hc hr_ 0/'P_y'O/J,;1 ,q// /,x,s kv, Li,�,,,_,,;/�-,,-·-�-o.!.,,_ _,__-'------o.dove wr/#,n. My COnJ/77/S'S'/on i?Jf,P/r't!'s ·t ·• I,;-:,,� . i I /Vo/cry Pu.6/;c My comm/.r.,/on

�I r.:""v "• )' . -:"?·)'.',: :· i .•, ,<.. ·_ . . '.'\·;: . ';:,Tl,1T!'ti: l;_OU}!'l':1 C'CiiHT .OF''T!o::s':'Nrin.�y- GRF."-oj-)t;i' ( 1.r:'. � •,, .•.. · , . : · . :\;·r; �j;,�- • -� ·· , -.:\•.... ,:, 'l c;�tl qi, t,rfi ·_. ,,·:· . _In 'L�ec!,!atter of the 'ta�atiori · t. t ·or,:> ·, 0 RD 13: !l CUJ!l,/.TNIJE ADDITION�

,II Ntm at thiF ti:;e the above entitled matter crune on

= or . nd � .J,&arinp:, !lpon ,Uie.. Petition o� J.rt CW!rningf' and fia \i. Cu�i;g;;,a- IT Af�A rrnr, 1'0 Tl-JS COOllT that a duly ver'ified PetiJJ;m ·-· --;--- ,I • ...... ·as.R"�fo·r the .vz:cll"tion and Pnnulment of the rluly and re[1Ularly plated

Tow-ri11it'l of (Ulll'linfs :hddi�j_on wit.hir. Linc oln County, Cre;t0n, was .filed 1 . ·with the cou-nty· rlerk o: Lincoln County, ◊re iron, dn :the 30th day of . -, Oc-toNir, ,19'1; that ther!1.. r-te� ilnd on t"ie JOV-, •"ay cf Oc�hcr, !95lr the County rou ,-� cf Lin('ol r. r:,unty, Orepon, caused notice to be riven-· of t endchc of _ ![aid l'e'titiol" a."ld' t:ie h9arinr ther!'!'liil�which �ld . � i _ �· _,notice !N'rti c.1l.,.1· l y set forl.l, t.'le time and place of hearinr; -;!_- .�• .... �:,at�-!: arpears by the Af:'5.davit of Arl r-=inrs, that

he po�tod ti:ree cop:i£s o� �-:i.id notice in the t?hre� .--cost ,ru.blic and 0 '·"t:6i'i$pfc;uo�,-pla6eD in sair' r,_,:,rnt,i;-� J.ddition, · more than thirtJ� (30)

-·•, _;,.� rt:O:�:��� ioirveninr of the '.lecer:il'er,, 19Sl, term of. the al:>ove �.:;: �:,,� _ · · · ·'···· '.. · "1!1)titl;a;,cOU1"t and the date of. this hearin?J

• TT >1_: 1~rc;-> A ,:,r,c, A"H'� m') "'"" CO'�T, That no. objection

has been�filed or ,:iacte to _+,he rr,mtinR· -:if said 1'et1-tion; and .... - IT"Fl:�'l'lft'TCA.P?"'A".INr. TO. r.r,;: ('OJRT, ThaLcumniinrs 'Addition is a' d:.1ly &r\(l. repu l�ly plated ·'fawns.He within Lin� olri County, �t.'.:;_� �- ... , . --�:- :· . -�-----:-:-.- ., .. � ...... �...... - -· .-.....-.,.:.- · •. ".lfi>••an.,m-re--not ,wi _thf'n an incorporated City or Tcr.m. That ilie plat and d·ed"i"c'at.iori· of ·.said TOl'{llsite- is on file in thi, office of t:,e county Jl.erk i �---· -.�...... _ ·-·�---··· of L:llico!ntl\lnty; O�n°.,.!irJd was filed on the 6th day of July, 1948 anrl "I'.(lceirded ·on pa�. �0-of Vo�ume 8 Rec�ros of Plats for·Lincoln County, -· --�

prior tci. the piat1.ing· of !!aid 1'-bwnsite_, the Said lruids .14. - That: ( . - . . . -.. . . _ ,.�:.� .e?ilb;�qe_i,�.��in lrel:a�j,peci'°as fol¾Qffi;1 . .. . � "�---··

·. . . . . �-- •·. I �- . ·. ·-· - ::...... � �--· ·-·-· --� . �

'. -· --�- ·,.• ...... ;._-·-· ·-:--•-· · . ·�·- �-·,· i� ..� .. ."\::... _ - .... ." J _ --·-,;...... J'. . . · .. ·. ;-.·I ·') _,. "j�. ·--• CA. f :. : .. 4-. 33.ll- 0"1 •,.: ·• • • _":'.,- \'•' '-. '� ;.· , -.; ·. ';,>, �· .. � . ', :. • e>} '::. . 1 > .� · ; -. .'.. '.:' . ',. .· .,,., ,;· : '.: -� · , . , · · . t . o � . ·• 'BegiJin¥g,.,t.'•t]i ed.n;!.t:1:al), int i>f.:,t¥ aa '• Townsite whioh. '· · · · ¥, 01'. ' , o orru!i- :_'.·•·:··.:·,· . · ·'.. is· d19scrtlied· 'a"ir be :l.hg the. ,N rt)l,arl 1o tqe ·pl.at. of . ..:·,,rt:< � :'·,·.:._·:···.···• . .· . .. . �. . • on,Jllli9. 29" of.Jo� .,...:.-. '·:,' l'leabrease' .riled .Juris J, 1946 ·an,1 •i;-eoor-dfl(i · ···,:. 8 .Reoords.;of· Plats for Lincoln .Com'Ey, Oregon and furtber. · des11rlbed•a11.b11ing )81.47 feet west and North 21• 19• JQii East'.·.1059.53 .teat from th& -Quarter section corner between .seotions·21 anq 28 in Tmmahip 8 sooth of Range 11 west of tae· Willamette·Meridian thence along the 1\'e·ster:13 right of · _._, · ., ·. �:.line of .Oregtin coast Higlnrq as relocated North 21� l,9• ,. JOit EQ't·J,4.25 feet thence Welit 1264.14 fee-t.·to high water line ot ·the:Pacific Ocean theilee along the q,j.gh water line Sruth 5• 25�· iept Jjl.48 feet to the North fine of the plat of Seabreeze; thence along the North line of tpe plat of Se.abreeze Eat ll66.6o feet to the · point of beg1rurlng.

That the said lsnis 1n said TOlffllli� proposed to be vacated

c:ompnaese'.oae contipp.c;us tract.

. That said• '1'QlrDS1t4 as platted·and dedicated includes three

•. •b:t,.cicks �be%'11d :t; 2 and j..rei!lpecti�. · Bloc;k l c011taining 22 lots <�redl. to 22 ��·�uaiTIIJ Block.2 containing 23 lot., l!Wlbered l. . to 23 both incluai�f .iii-Bl.Ock J containing 6 lots 11211herad i to 6 both

inclusive and at.nets and ·.;u.:,s·as t.ollan1 Lincoln ,l-qme Pi.ci!icillrm An � .allq That yoiir, piltitionars herein are the sole an:i only owners

i>!aii�o.t 1;11� io�:'i.Di p�opertr in 11aj,d .TomaiteJ that· none of the streets

hatt • • -·.11'& ·."·:·iiaid TOIIDllite� . ·-·.' be�n �Nf911, op;,n to tranl or traveled by the i.,;, . pllhiic' at CJT:"t.ime�ince the d&dioatiOil of Hid 'l'Qlmsite, in.19481 that

.....no ·o� pe!rllon. oirns or•has·&JV.'�ht, ·title- or·intere11t in ar to aey of the lsndit iii� said T�ite.

That your· petitioners desire that the s·aid Totrnsite or

cwmiings. Addition ,as, here�ilbove d·escribed be vacated .and anajl.ed for the . 1'1!ason that the. . lil,id- 1111br•�ed. therein.,is not suitable for building lands

. an:i• that tbei'e. 111 no. deman:i for ·the said land as llUbdivided into lots and · . · blocks u 1111.d i:llt. and dedicated 1,n said· Townsite1 that the •aid land due ti>;its lpc.tilal,:.terrain has DO particular "fUlle as laid . . .. •.•. . . . ciut and. dedicatedIii .'and wOllld .ltsve· 111ore value. 1.r re11to� to acreage and 1111bdivided into larger t.racts t.bat tile 11tree:9 as dedicated 1n said do not ormect nth l �Jt � o &I\Y street � aDT city or town or ther townsite; that there are no 1m..

/B PA(;,£ I

PACIFIC PANORAMA 8V/L,C> ,,,u.,,;; 'Ser;? ) .SEC,, 21 ., 7'8.5 LI/\/COLN CO., 0�£GO/V. BAc;< �.,,�,s 5 ' � T /C.,/ T /C.; v 7"/'C:. / T/c'.5 E-As�_.,6A,,lr- I e.,...,.Se ,,..,.,e.,.,, 7 JAN, /.97� ,e.l,,c./. /WV�St=:.LL, JV..eVGvaR ( PR/ VA-T6" IA.h4LK­ I� t.,v'A'.;Y \,..._/e. s -r 39o,78 u 39. /3 C;?.s �2-S- -::2.s -::2. S <::z-s- �2-'S �2-S �2--S �z-:::.- �Z-::S- I,) fl <.;- .i!!J L C \,c..l

,, I s..,✓, /4-', 9iZ.... �\�-,----,=-c,=,--/ .. ,,, I � ' )- // /0 � 5 \ /4 /3 /Z 9 7 3 I 0 � I I "' \J I \ II, V I �o ' I\J �- /4.3, 2/ I 57 �z-:s �z.::::,- 5:JC. - � .__ ) � ";°,: S • t!J7 I• ',I) � p C. F I I v � \o < !t') '">--� Ill 0------16 , .:':> 7 �2. :s- C:::::2-S-- �2-S �2-5 i.. ' , � "' "1 I � 'I l"I I � I } ',f) " < V\ (l C�.R- ·,,cse-7 I " I \9 I "1 "'\ � \\. �• N ar# G ...._ � \.5 I � ,s,A,/ � ,,,,,._,c ✓' /�9-c; C, I - "' I,\ I,\ IJ � .� &,4:s,7 � � � /0 (,) 8 /52'- 77 � '\, /.3 /2.. II ""I 9 " � 7 4 3 2.. ' I,\ ' " -.. "'t, -.. ' { I I;) � "- -.. Ra,&: ,,.,.,,,,._, '5 (J < � /-../O..-eTH I � &7" o,,,J G.-•7 I,\ /•CO I �J'{\ � e c.. r<.. L /A./C'':> < t'- 8 L �t'... I I I I � ,5C < as-zs-' ' - ½" /1 ' /•,P//6' ,:­ \- -

/ ·P /,Pc::= c;. • z:>o ..,,._;, ,v'Z/• /� �,,,,� Z" /d>'S',,53 ,,,.,,/ ¥..,., /• ?/,#.: /,A../5/Pc. //V/T/,,,,C-. 1':>T· C.�,,...,-.-.....,c:;.r ,4£),C:, 5URI/EYOR5 CERTIFICATE: APPROVALS: vves-r sll/·✓7 �,,e 2/- z.& ,Od'/C. r-, ,e IA./. ,/"1v.e .:S£LL .a.a:/...-.-t;; .S"T Fi'R Dv� V .s � .D4=Po.s.c � ...::5A V ¼ Th"A 7 .r /1/ J/c'A Cc:,RRL!'cCTL V .SC/RY-=-v�.£> Ji ✓MA.R.l 1,v/;r,,,,,- �- x..:i'o • //i?,s,,...,._/ ,,OL..;97' c:,µ.-,-� J A;&>p /?(!)0.,5 ('Exc.e,.z:,,r�..5 .5,,,_,/o...... ,...-v) /� L,4A/D..5 .5H,c:,l,,c.',;'V o,,.) TH/.5 -.,,,,,o �� 'PAC /� /.:::.. ,A/,c:;, P..4 ,e,4 _,,.., A" 7"#A 7' ,-9..,Y-.t' .> /" /A// r/-"" L P.::!>.,,,,._;-;;,- _,.,c, .,,,,....-.:$,,,,9 .S V/"i'r�,+S7 c-c,.,e. �K -� Lc:>7 / .CL-DC� .,5,Ail/.;;::, /A.//r:,-.,+L p�,-,vr .S.c=✓AJC:-. , (,, ,3,1/,-,,7.,-::-r. IA/cSr ; ..,,,_.,,Z/ •✓, •-34 �� ,, /4>-S,-:S-..sr'T , ....,cJi7 2/ ·#? ,,.=-;r. ,,;::.,,:;e.,,.., 7""/-,,,,:"" ¼ a.�....e.. ,ae:;r,...._,,e-�,,...., ..5cc:7-'"",,,.,.s ?/ ,'2� ,, --rJl's.,,e'.,.,,- 1,e.}_,J.v.n. ('5v-e,-,,cy #­ o' .8,t:.A,,,e,,,A/c; 8,A'I-Se HJ!!"AZ,e'/,r,JBe/A/C-, T#c VA C,-9 'Tc£> PLA 7 � c,,__,,.,,,,,,.,,,,,,,.;c;5 A�L>-) ;, /"= � TNc=A.J� P-./.?d>M :s,,,,. a> /.,,V/7?,.-,:}L Pc:>/AJ/ A../2/ • /'9 '..:Id --� .3,s.-,l,z..:. r-r. Al..:..:,;...v.,_ r� 1;V.::s 7'.d"..e.::....y .-e/u.-> L..,-.....,,.::s o� 7/2"c ,-;?c . .::. oc,,;, 7.d""v =.ecc.c,...... J cc-s;;, ,,,.,.,-"'Y. ,,· 7"A-/4:e-:;,...,,==­ 0 ::, ,.,,,,s,,,..,c,,,Ae.-Vt,,> a,,,C-- //AcA7cP JA/eS7 /,!ff::J.35 -=--r: ,r,1.::,-vcca .5 ✓�•o� •1..J, ,; , oo ;,:7; T#-...Vc.£ K.J..ssr c.z.-s-,,.,a-r; T_._._,.:., .A/,-�•o•·- PL.A7 .,� C£/".-,,..,,,�c..s "'9DZ> · �-•c:::a�r·; ��< �..:e;:-s..,.. 9!1c:s:i-71 ,,,.:::-r. re .,.....,,,,.:r ,,._,d"'AAJ ,,,.._,,,,,,,,.,,,,, k-1....« r� ,,.,,,,..,.�� -,,.,,,,,:- 7.....,....� .P,-,c=-,�_,,c:., tt:>Ce:A,,,._,• . ,...,.,...... ,..,..,... ..5"'.S •r.s·i.v, 2'-S,._,/.-f,=r, A}.,,__,,.-..,4 :SA/&>,,_,,_,.,.,,....._,...,.,,.....,,-�--,,..,.--· TH.£....,c,4" C:,,,,,S7 /:52.77 Pc?v,AJD. rr. · -:r;,v�,.,.,,,�c Jd'<.J7'",,,.,, ., 7�.-0 r-r ro .,.,,,,,,,.d" .A./�.,,e7,,,,,,...,,- .t:.. ,.,,,,.,e.:,,,e o/ �� �..,,,. � '".S� 4.,,ea�ze- •T, 7�.....,c:.:,:- ✓ 3' d 4 ,-,,. A,,:. :s ,:='"'T ,,,.,,J 7 . .:>o F7 � 7/1/e..NC.,£ .5"''-'7H / . .,.,,,, ,=7 7,,;· 5,,,,,.,0 ;Vd./'Z7',...,,. -,:.,,.._,,.- • 7,,.,,,LE.,._,,cc: <=A-J"T A .:.o-v,::;. ,.S,4/D /'/"'4?7/-/ ✓.I- 7::r ,=7. To. ,Ve /-"'e>/.,.JT .,.,.,:- 4.,;;;.:=..,,...... ,;,;:,,,,.._,,c:. 7#/� ,a,,9,::,,-,._,-,,_ ,..5 A- 7,evc L ;,,u£ ,,.::..-e_ ,F,,=s� c.-,,,z,,,._,,5...e__ .:,,..,..,,,-= � / Gx.Ac-r c-,,:,py d t:= 7/7"� ,s,,2,-,:0,-,..,,4,::.._ Pc.A-70 / 1111 ?��7-.p.���������'j- PA 7'� 10.e- r c!Yac.t. t019:'ZI REGISTERED � :S'H,/d.,,Z..-,.) 70 ,8,e:;c=-,:p_,'2c,._.,E .DA y L PROFESSIONAL ✓,74. ,4,LL 7,4X6'.,.5 �.&'-.5 A5:5�'S:S��,:::,v,;c,_,.c::, 8,Y o •/2, .S. !!'Z · o:,�­ V /-./AY-e B�-=...v P.-9 ,.,z:;, -A� � .:::r ...... ,e: .ao, 1979, !Nc.L.

TOR RICHARD W. MURSELL 1/lOLLEc 13f. 6 9 8

//97 DEDICATION= K'A/�i,J ALL /\--?.:'=-,,..._,,, ,13,y' "T"h"c.-.5� ,P/i?.eSer",.,/Tf �,,_,,,,,,,, 7 J.,t./� ,R c 4/2.s --r ,=-. _,.,,,,t:./Ai? .,,c:-,::, .-ez:>., ,..,-�A/A/� 7,,._,,,, L . .5, _. .-er -c:e .&> V., /?A/-="s 7 4£. L./.:SS y' f C· ,,y . .::r:."9YAG,=- Ce>. (A,,._,,_.o.e�-Go---' Ca;,e�.,e.-97,-,:,....,_,1.) D� H�-e',::;;8y ,,,_,--#,,,,..�, ..t:;--:5 7"""98L/S.,,y' ,i .D..:=C.t..A,€'.: 7'"',;-,//..5 ,,,.,.,-4,P c,� "'p,9c//:/C:::. .PAA.le>�A--A .. A:, .De.;; .,.,._; ,,,,.,,,,e- ACc=-.PA...,_,.y.,...... ,= SVRV.t=Ytt:>A?;..J Ce/ZT/.,,<:-,,- CA7.:F ;;;r.,,. -8� A 7""A'=� 1' C�.R.,,..?&<::7 ,,c,?,9P T-"-/4="/Z.::,s,-- ALL <...""7.5 .:57.:e'C:c:75 � c:A.:SeA-?e'--u7f B.o ,,.,,,,..:::...e.::= .a y z:>ez,,,- c.,...,7..,,;: T4' ;r,._.,,,,e- .:.,.,..:s4 ,s,� ;r.,,,,r�� pc.,,,a.t...,.c:::: , .,c--,.,ecv"""<'° .:5 7.A?c.::::r.s- ! c✓4 ::S-E,,._,..efAJT_5 ,SHd� e-...v S.4-'J::> ...-?..,,,P. /4 //-�����4;;.���L -� r:�.�- < ...-~ ./ .? .? �L-e

ACKNOWLEl:JCEIV/ENT5 ) "S-s.

7-H'✓..5 c�.-e 7/�-'e..5 r.,..,,A r �,t..-1 7/2/'/..5 ·· ,.,q;_.> oA y �,=- ,J� t'c �«r / .91''7 ,!j /.?.dF4? :Se;.,,._,A ;t_L y � P.P ,=.-.4/.?..:= D .Be,✓,:-� ,e,e: Mott= , A .v�7A!Ry Pu,B'L/< /A/,� 5,,9/C> .57A7� ,r C,e,,;::, ✓' ��,,,,,.,,..,,� 7,,¥" c::. • 5,.,..,,,.c-.e-.z;;,y _ IA.-'#a, 8.e",,,,._,,c;;;. r?-esr Dv..::..y sz...✓,:::,.,e.,...1,, D/J:> SA y 7h"Af7" ,...-....,.,..._-.,,e 5,-,:;;.A../-""I 7�,,ec:;.5 ,4��✓-X.6:'Z::, 7°C 7,,.,,-..::=- ,,.c:-,.,._,e,:::c::.o,,...... , C.- D.:::::::-Z>✓C:.47✓=A./ i-'Vc:4?c:: 7°H,c!:'>� �k,IA.1 FRee AC:� • z:>6�Z>. kl/ TN� 55 /VI y HAA./ _, o��/C/AL :5.,6,4L, (

,,C::-=..e ..5rA7.cr c:,,-,,=- =-e=c:; o.,.J •

-::;���y�:�1:/�:�:1{_i,€-/ ) s · -s · / . / T# /..S (.c:=,,.,z 7/ ,,:::-,,e5 'T/'-/A 7 c>A/ 7,,,.,,-.,-5 ,(,<._DA y �✓-- ::2-c/L't'.-L�·'-·�•g- /'3 7 $ ,,Oc>?.So.,,._JA '-L v ✓--1 ,P,,O,c:A/2'..:..=,D ,B,<::.,C-a,,R',=- Mt:=. , A ,,U,::>r,:J4,e Y p,:,,..,,1;rLJ<.. /A.,/ :I ,,--,,.,,z .:5A /,C> .S"TA 'Tc • C<::> ,:.,,,,1.FTy' &/ZN£57 6:- L-/S5y' 1 k,1/.,.,e> ,, .Be-_,,,,_,� r--,,-.R:,;r L>�Ly' Sk/o,e---1 ,' I?/ P :SAY 7,,Y-"'1 7 H /5 .5 C.:A,,'A/ 7,:.,,.e.:: A.,, .,c-� .x' .-:::2 b 7«> 7,,.ye=- F,::,.,e €' �c!>,-� � L= z;;,,,, C.AI4 77�.,.,.JJA../ 5 # /.5 c::> IA/A./ F"/.?c ,er Ac 7 :I D.:..S-D, l,,tJ/";T✓t./£Sf ,.,-,y- h/,.f..V4'·, .. .e>F�/C/AL.. .5�AI,:_. i I (---l··.j)!

5 TA 7c: C>� 0/Zcc:;;oAJ } s.c; Cc,u;vry c,,=-,/2/',.. _ _ £,'tN;,,l-,f

'"TH/..5 Cc=/Z 7'/�/c"""_5 Th/Ar �A,/ T✓Y'r.5 ;2/ DAY �F" ,_-•.u~·•· ·?--7':--t' /9 7� , p---e:SoA/A LL.Y APPc,.,,,A?6.D Bc=✓--.:>✓ec: c, ,..;,�/;! �f: °'��;ev ,r-,e-,,.a,,,c_ ,,..,__, �:;�2:�;t;;_�w7 :&,�;:c,:zrv , WHo , 7.3,s.-.-,veo .,c-,-_e:5--;r £.)u.,,::.y S1,,,,Jc,..e,,,..l, D/Z:, S4y "T,,._,.-4 7 7/•4S'y"' ,, ✓= C,,,..,,,_ SAvAcSc- Ca, ·, A..,I C!>Rc,:;;,,,._J Cc,.e_p-,:,Ai!.,4 7/e,,,.J ,.,f.A./D 7,iL,/,97 ,?,/E/A:':_ ,S/C.�7v.Re.5 f T,s4:5= Cc,,.R_Po,e,,,q-ra .->....4.-,?� &>_,;::::- c,,-R=c-;roA?..S l,,v A .5 7""#c"' �- ✓2.Ec A ,:; 7- ,I D-,::c.i:J c> ,c S ,4 ; -,A?_p,:,::,D C /<:. _,,,, .,,, ,:,.,.._,,, 1,,v /7✓-ve; .:,,5 /1,,fy' NA.N'o f C)�.=-/c/AL 5-=AL__ - /. 1 - )/ ,//�£ l,,c/ ci >�, /t £' &(l 1\/�:;...A,e).V Pt./8L./C F""�/2.. .S7,i/lP 7&F �,;,=- �,.e�c:; �,.J /1-,y ct:!3;,v,,.,.._.,.,..:;,5.,-o.A..) e-x,r-,.,-,e-=.-.s £- 1'-1 7,7 '

//.!17 Department of Land Conservation and Development : Goal 18: Beac... 6/2/21, 11:53 PM

oregon.gov

Department of Land Conservation and Development : Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes : Oregon Planning : State of Oregon

4-5 minutes

Beaches and dunes are the physical environments at the very edge of the sea. These are highly dynamic places; sand and gravel are moved by wind, waves, and currents. They serve as buffers between the energy of the ocean and the land. Beaches and dunes also provide the public with recreational opportunities and draw scores of visitors to Oregon each year.

Statewide Planning Goal 18 focuses on conserving and protecting Oregon's beach and dune resources, and on recognizing and reducing exposure to hazards in this dynamic, sometime quickly changing environment. Goal 18 is central to the work of coastal communities in addressing the impacts of coastal hazards and climate change in areas along the ocean shore.

Local governments are required to inventory beaches and dunes and describe the stability, movement, groundwater resources, hazards and values of the beach, dune, and interdune areas. Local governments must then apply appropriate beach and dune policies for use in these areas.

Goal 18 includes some requirements are of particular importance:

Prohibition Areas

The goal prohibits development on the most sensitive and hazardous landforms in the beach and dune about:reader?url=https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/OP/Pages/Goal-18.aspx 1 of 2 Department of Land Conservation and Development : Goal 18: Beac... 6/2/21, 11:53 PM

environment, including beaches, active foredunes and other dune areas subject to severe erosion or flooding. This requirement has been instrumental in preventing inappropriate development on these critical landforms.

Shoreline Armoring

The goal limits the placement of beachfront protective structures (i.e. shoreline armoring such as riprap and seawalls) to those areas where development existed prior to 1977. This policy effectively places a cap on the amount of ocean shore that may be hardened, and thus limits the cumulative impacts of such hardening.

Shoreline armoring can cause scouring and lowering of the beach profile, which can result over time in the loss of access to Oregon's public beaches. New development must account for shoreline erosion through non- structural approaches (e.g. increased setbacks). In the face of increased ocean erosion occurring in conjunction with climate change and sea level rise, limiting hard structures and allowing natural shoreline migration is a critical policy tool for conserving and maintaining Oregon’s ocean beaches.

Dune Grading

The goal specifies detailed requirements for foredune grading (lowering of the dunes for views). Such grading is permitted in limited circumstances in association with existing development. It must be based on a specific dune system management plan that prescribes standards for maintaining flood protection, maintaining overall system sand supply, and post-grading sand stabilization (e.g. planting of beach grass). There are currently six official dune management plans in place in Oregon.

Ocean Shore Regulation

Oregon's ocean beaches are managed by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) which has an extensive permitting program for shoreline protection under ORS 390.605 – 390.770, also known as the "Beach Bill." OPRD regulates activities affecting the ocean shorelands west of the statutory vegetation line or the line of established vegetation, whichever is most landward. This includes beachfront protective structures, stairways, walkways, or other structures than encroach on the public beach. OPRD has incorporated the Oregon Department of State Lands authority to regulate removal and fill activities along the ocean shore under its permit program. Permitted activities must be consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals (especially Goal 18), local comprehensive plans, and with the OPRD Ocean Shores Management Plan.

Original Adoption: 12/18/76; Effective: 6/7/77 Amended: 10/11/84; Effective: 10/19/84 Amended: 2/17/88; Effective: 3/31/88

Read the full text version of Goal 18

Administrative Rules that implement Goal 18:

OAR 660-034 – State and Local Parks Planning OAR 660-035 – Federal Consistency

Related:

Coastal Goals Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Oregon Department of State Lands Ocean Shores Management Plan Goal 18: Pre-1977 Development Focus Group

about:reader?url=https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/OP/Pages/Goal-18.aspx 2 of 2 The True Cost of Armoring the Beach 6/3/21, 3:17 PM

sandiego.surfrider.org

The True Cost of Armoring the Beach

8-10 minutes

When you walk along San Diego beaches, you can often see coastal armoring (seawalls and riprap) along the cliffs and in front of beachfront properties. Even though armoring is commonplace, these structures are often built to protect private homes while whittling away at the public beaches we know and love.

A stroll along Solana Beach’s armored cliffs credit: The Los Angeles Times

Seawalls and rip rap narrow the public beach

Seawalls are concrete structures that hold coastal cliffs back from natural erosion – an important source of beach sand – and riprap is made of loose rocks meant to lessen the impact of waves on coastal cliffs.

about:reader?url=https://sandiego.surfrider.org/the-true-cost-of-armo... 1 of 6 The True Cost of Armoring the Beach 6/3/21, 3:17 PM

Riprap at Torrey Pines State Beach

Unfortunately, the benefits of seawalls and riprap are privatized, and the more our coast becomes armored, the faster we lose our walkable beaches (see Figure 1 below). Here’s a run down of how seawalls and rip rap take away the beach:

Seawalls and riprap occupy beach space that would otherwise be enjoyed by the public. Their very presence reduces the width of our walkable beaches. For example, riprap can take up as much as 30 to 40 feet of beach width.1

Seawalls and riprap lock potential beach sand in place on the cliffs, removing an important source of natural sand replenishment for beaches. A natural coastline, where waves bounce off unarmored cliffs, would instead slowly contribute sand to the public beaches. With many of California’s rivers already dammed amidst the approaching threat of sea level rise, we cannot afford to cut off other sand supplies.

The most detrimental effect of seawalls is passive erosion. When a hard structure is built along a shoreline that is already undergoing long-term net erosion, the shoreline will eventually and naturally migrate landward, behind the structure (Figures 1 and 2 below). The end result is the beach in front of the seawall or hard structure is gradually lost as the water deepens, and the natural shoreline migrates landward. As sea levels continue to rise, beach loss will accelerate, and beaches and reefs will drown.

Figure 1. Landward migration of the beach with and without armoring. With armoring, the sand has nowhere to migrate to, and the beach eventually disappears due to passive erosion.2

Sand replenishment is an expensive, short-term bandaid

about:reader?url=https://sandiego.surfrider.org/the-true-cost-of-armo... 2 of 6 The True Cost of Armoring the Beach 6/3/21, 3:17 PM

Some coastal armoring advocates look to sand replenishment as a cure-all to armoring’s woes. However, pumping sand from the ocean or from other places onto the shore is difficult (the sand grain and size has to match each beach’s sand) and prohibitively expensive (replenishment costs millions, and has to be repeated over time).

With so many beaches suffering from erosion, there isn’t enough sand for all the cities that want to artificially replenish their beaches. Placing sand on beaches can offset sand impeded by dams, groins and jetties. However, placing an excess of sand on beaches – especially those with reefs and seagrass – will destroy vital coastal resources, including surf breaks.

Seawalls do NOT make beaches safer

Some proponents of coastal armoring argue that seawalls add to public safety. However, the opposite is true: seawalls cause beaches to disappear over time. The narrower a beach becomes, the less safe space there is for the public to walk, run, or otherwise enjoy the beach.4

While seawalls may temporarily prevent lower bluff collapses at sea level, they won’t necessarily prevent upper bluff collapses. For example, the upper bluffs in North County San Diego consists of largely unconsolidated sediment and is known to be particularly unstable.

If public safety is a genuine concern for unstable bluffs, one solution is to follow what ski resorts do when snow is unstable: avalanche control. Upper bluffs can be stabilized by triggering a collapse until the material is at a stable angle. This approach presents a choice between moving 1 row of houses back to accommodate stability, or destroying the beach below for visitors from 10,000 rows of houses in the name of preserving beachfront property.

Development must be slated behind an adequate setback to ensure homes are safe from landslides.

about:reader?url=https://sandiego.surfrider.org/the-true-cost-of-armo... 3 of 6 The True Cost of Armoring the Beach 6/3/21, 3:17 PM

The unstable area can be excavated to ensure the remaining cliff is stabilized. This would often require homes to move slightly farther back from the minimum setback, but would ensure bluffs are stable and preserve the public beach.

Armoring protects beachfront structures at the cost of the public beach

The known costs of seawalls and riprap, combined with the downfalls of short-term fixes like sand replenishment, pose the question: “Who are these seawalls for?”

Seawalls and riprap protect properties built at the edge of coastal cliffs or on the shoreline, but they don’t protect or preserve the public beaches. In fact, coastal armoring occupies public beach space and typically only benefits private property owners. As sea levels continue to rise, the public beach will be further destroyed through passive erosion losses.

Armoring usually privatizes the benefits for coastal homeowners, while passing on the costs to the public.

A surfer in front of a seawall in Carlsbad. photo credit: The San Diego Union Tribune

There are better ways to protect and preserve public beaches

Living shorelines can replace hard armoring with natural plants to reduce beach erosion in some areas, but they may be difficult to implement on bluff or cliff-backed beaches.

about:reader?url=https://sandiego.surfrider.org/the-true-cost-of-armo... 4 of 6 The True Cost of Armoring the Beach 6/3/21, 3:17 PM

Preserving and restoring wetlands and dunes can help preserve the existence of these fragile but important ecosystems, while also helping to reduce storm impact on coastal communities.

If needed, unstable bluffs should have buffer zones in front. If the stability is of grave concern, avalanche control can occur to make the slope stable.

Thoughtful coastal development is an important aspect of preserving the public beach for decades to come. Hard armoring would not be necessary if homes and buildings were not built so close to the cliffs and ocean, and future planning decisions will be critical in determining the fate of the beach. For example, when any development or redevelopment occurs next to the beaches, the buildings should be adequately set back far enough from the cliff edge to prevent a false need for a seawall.6

Beach erosion is an issue facing all Californians, as over 80% of the California coastline is eroding7. The narrower the beaches get, the less space we have to walk, run, surf, or enjoy this vital public resource. Beach- dwelling animals and wildlife are also impacted as their habitat disappears due to sea level rise and accelerated erosion8.

California’s beloved public beaches are protected by law, but they continue to face threats to their very existence. The next time you surf or walk the beach, try looking at coastal armoring in a new light. Is armoring worth the cost of our public beach?

The Cardiff Dunes Restoration Project is an example of a living shorelines project in Encinitas

Citations 1 Garry Griggs, California’s Retreating Coastline: Where Do We Go From Here? (2005). 2 Cal. Coastal Comm’n, Handouts for Senate Budget Subcommittee 2, Coastal Climate Adaptation, 12 (Mar. 20, 2014), available at https://www.coastal.ca.gov/climate/Handouts_SenateSubcommittee2_Mar20.2014.pdf. 3 Hapke, Cheryl & Adams, Peter & Allan, J. & Ashton, Andrew & Griggs, Gary & Hampton, M. & Kelly, J. & Young, Adam. (2014). Chapter 9 The rock coast of the USA. Geological Society, London, Memoirs. 40. 137-154. 10.1144/M40.9. 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON CITY OF SOLANA BEACH MAJOR AMENDMENT LCP-6-SOL-16-0020-1 for Commission Meeting of May 11, 2017 5 Johnsson, Mark. (2003). Establishing development setbacks from coastal bluffs – Briefing for the California Coastal Commission 6 CA Pub Res Code § 30253 (2016) 7 Living with the California Coast, (Gary B. Griggs & Lauret Savoy eds., Duke University Press, 1985); Gary B. Griggs, California’s Coastline: El Niño, Erosion and Protection, in California’s Coastal Natural Hazards: Santa

about:reader?url=https://sandiego.surfrider.org/the-true-cost-of-armo... 5 of 6 The True Cost of Armoring the Beach 6/3/21, 3:17 PM

Barbara, California, University of Southern California Sea Grant Program 36, 36-55 (L. Ewing & D. Sherman eds., 1998). 8 Hubbard, David. “Beach Inhabitants.” Explore Beaches, University of California, Santa Barbara, explorebeaches.msi.ucsb.edu/climate-change/beach-inhabitants.

about:reader?url=https://sandiego.surfrider.org/the-true-cost-of-armo... 6 of 6 Shoreline Structures - Beachapedia 6/3/21, 3:17 PM Shoreline Structures From Beachapedia Why We Should Care

Seawalls, groins, jetties and other shoreline stabilization structures have had tremendous impacts on our nation's beaches. Shoreline structures are built to alter the effects of ocean waves, currents (/File:Dana_point_photo.jpg) and sand movement. They are usually built to "protect" buildings that were built on a beach that is losing sand. Sometimes they are built to redirect rivers and streams. Other times they are constructed to shelter boats in calm water. In many cases, seawalls, jetties, breakwaters and groins have caused down-coast erosion problems with associated costs that have greatly exceeded the construction cost of the structure.

Every surfrider knows that there are groins and jetties that have incidentally improved wave riding. However, in many other areas shoreline construction has ruined wildlife habitat (http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/green/blog/bs-md-hardened-shoreline-20150916-story.html), destroyed surfing waves and caused beaches to erode. As beach lovers and environmentalists, we need to understand the consequences of shoreline structures so that we may be able to effectively influence decisions on the impacts, placement or necessity of these structures. As an environmental group committed to maintaining the natural shoreline and beach equilibrium, we are usually opposed to construction that will disrupt the balance of forces that shape our coastline.

The Basics Erosion: Where Has All The Sand Gone? Every winter, the newspapers show pictures of (/File:Lifeguard_bldg_photo.jpg) oceanfront buildings falling into giant surf. Beaches are not static piles of sand. Ocean currents cause beaches to move constantly. Beach sand is primarily a product of the weathering of the land (such as natural erosion of coastal bluffs). Sand can also come from ocean organisms such as coral. However, most of the sand along the world's beaches comes from rivers and streams. When natural processes are interfered with, the natural supply of sand is interrupted and the beach changes shape or can disappear completely. Sand production stops when coral reefs die from pollution, when coastal bluffs are "armored" by sea walls and http://www.beachapedia.org/Shoreline_Structures 1 of 14 Shoreline Structures - Beachapedia 6/3/21, 3:17 PM when rivers are dammed or channelized (lined with concrete) upstream for flood control and reservoir construction. The sand that collects behind upstream dams and reservoirs is often "mined" and sold for concrete production. It then never makes it to the beach. A public resource essential for our beaches is instead sold for private profit.

In the face of eroding beaches, owners of beachfront property will often try to use their political influence to demand that "something be done." The intelligent action would be to move the building away from the ocean. Unfortunately, what has often been done in the past has been to armor the coastline with rocks, concrete and steel. This does not protect or maintain the beach - it only protects the buildings, temporarily.

Millions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted subsidizing beachfront building. Federal flood insurance and expensive Army Corps of Engineer projects have done very little to make oceanfront buildings safe and have hastened beach erosion. In many cases, it would be more cost-effective for taxpayers to have the government buy the coastal property, condemn the buildings and allow the area to act as a buffer between the ocean and the remaining buildings. In urbanized areas with expensive real estate, a more cost effective and environmentally sound alternative to shoreline structures may be to periodically "nourish" the beach with sand.

The Littoral Cell On the West Coast of the U.S., beach sand moves from river mouths to the beach. It then moves along the coast in the direction of prevailing currents and eventually it moves offshore. This sand transport system is called a littoral cell.

When waves break at an angle to the shoreline, part of the wave's energy is directed along the shore. These "longshore currents" flow parallel to the shore. Surfers call this the "drift". This current will move sand along the shore and a beach will be formed. The same current that transports a surfer down the beach from the point of entry will also move beach sand down the shoreline. When this longshore current turns seaward, it is called a rip current.

http://www.beachapedia.org/Shoreline_Structures 2 of 14 Shoreline Structures - Beachapedia 6/3/21, 3:17 PM

(/File:Littoral_cell.jpg)

Some areas have underwater canyons near the beach. These submarine canyons were prehistoric river mouths. Sometimes the longshore current will be interrupted by one of these canyons. In this case, the sand is lost from the beach in water too deep to be returned to shore. The littoral cell system, from the river mouth to the underwater canyon, will always lose beach sand. If the sand supply from the river is cut off, the beach will lose sand causing the beach to become narrower.

(/File:Canyons.jpg)

On the East Coast of the U.S., the shore formed differently. Sand comes from the erosion of headlands, bluffs and cliffs. The underwater coast (continental shelf) of the east is broad and flat. East Coast beaches are generally wider. Barrier islands run along the coast. In contrast to the West Coast, submarine canyons are rarely near the beach and seldom act as conduits for sand loss. A notable exception is the Hudson Canyon at the southwest end of Long Island, New York. Sand that moves south here is lost down the canyon. On the East Coast, sand "loss" is primarily from the movement of barrier islands. Barrier islands naturally migrate landward due to sea level rise, but this migration is accelerated http://www.beachapedia.org/Shoreline_Structures 3 of 14 Shoreline Structures - Beachapedia 6/3/21, 3:17 PM during storm events. Powerful hurricanes deposit sand inland by washing it over the dunes. Sometimes these storms will create strong currents that take sand too far offshore for it to return to the beach. The depth where sand is moved so far offshore that it cannot return is known as the "closure depth". The precise depth is under scientific debate and varies with time, wave and weather conditions. When humans try to interfere with the natural migration of barrier islands, it is usually at their long-term peril.

Erosion is a process, not a problem. Beaches are dynamic and natural. Buildings, bridges and roads are static. The problem occurs when there is a static structure built on a dynamic, moving beach. If buildings and roads were not built close to the shore, we would not have to worry about shoreline structures or sand erosion, as beaches would simply migrate inland.

Responses to Erosion Seawalls See the full article: Seawalls (/Seawalls)

When coastal buildings or roads are threatened, (/File:Seawall_photo1.jpg) usually the first suggestion is to "harden" the coast with a seawall. Seawalls are structures built of concrete, wood, steel or boulders that run parallel to the beach at the land/water interface. They may also be called bulkheads or revetments. They are designed to protect structures by stopping the natural movement of sand by the waves. If the walls are maintained they may hold back the ocean temporarily. The construction of a seawall usually displaces the open beach that it is built upon. They also prevent the natural landward migration of an eroding beach.

See this gallery of photos (http://picasaweb.google.com/santaaguila/Armoring#) of seawalls, revetments and other attempts at shoreline armoring from around the world.

When waves hit a smooth, solid seawall, the wave is reflected back towards the ocean. This can make matters worse. The reflected wave (the backwash) takes beach sand with it. Both the beach and the surf may disappear.

Seawalls can cause increased erosion in adjacent areas of the beach that do not have seawalls. This so- called "flanking erosion" takes place at the ends of seawalls. Wave energy can be reflected from a seawall sideways along the shore, causing coastal bluffs without protection to erode faster. When it is necessary to build a seawall, it should have a sloped (not vertical) face. Seawalls should also have pockets and grooves in them that will use up the energy of the waves instead of reflecting it.

http://www.beachapedia.org/Shoreline_Structures 4 of 14 Shoreline Structures - Beachapedia 6/3/21, 3:17 PM Usually the most cost-effective, environmental solution is to move the building away from danger. Building seawalls will buy time against natural processes, but it will not "solve the problem" of erosion by waves.

(/File:Seawall_graphic.gif)

Groins Groins (/Groin) are another example of a hard shoreline structure designed as so-called "permanent solution" to beach erosion. A groin is a shoreline structure that is perpendicular to the beach. It is usually made of large boulders, but it can be made of concrete, steel or wood. It is designed to interrupt and trap the longshore flow of sand. Sand builds up on one side of the groin (updrift accretion) at the expense of the other side (downdrift erosion). If the current direction is constant all year long, a groin "steals" sand that would normally be deposited on the downdrift end of the beach. The amount of sand on the beach stays the same. A groin merely transfers erosion from one place to another further down the beach.

(/File:Groin.gif)

http://www.beachapedia.org/Shoreline_Structures 5 of 14 Shoreline Structures - Beachapedia 6/3/21, 3:17 PM Groins occasionally improve the shape of surfing waves by creating a rip current next to the rocks. The rip can be a hazard to swimmers. The rip can also divert beach sand onto offshore sand bars, thereby accelerating erosion. Groins can also ruin the surf. If the waves are reflected off the rocks, the waves may lose their shape and "close-out."

As soon as one groin is built, property owners downdrift of it may start clamoring for the government to build groins to save "their" beach. Eventually, the beach may become lined with groins. Since no new sand is added to the system, groins simply "steal" sand from one part of the beach so that it will build up on another part. There will always be beach erosion downdrift of the last groin.

Breakwaters A breakwater (/Breakwater) is a large pile of rocks built parallel to the shore. It is designed to block the waves and the surf. Some breakwaters are below the water's surface (a submerged breakwater). Breakwaters are usually built to provide calm waters for harbors and artificial marinas. Submerged breakwaters are built to reduce beach erosion. These may also be referred to as artificial "reefs."

A breakwater can be offshore, underwater or connected to the land. As with groins and jetties, when the longshore current is interrupted, a breakwater will dramatically change the profile of the beach. Over time, sand will accumulate towards a breakwater. Downdrift sand will erode. A breakwater can cause millions of dollars in beach erosion in the decades after it is built.

Beach Nourishment In recent years, the hard structures described above have fallen somewhat out of favor by communities due to the negative impacts we have discussed. Beach nourishment (or beach fill (/Beach_fill)) is becoming the favored "soft" alternative. Beach nourishment is simply depositing sand on the beach in order to widen it. Although paid for by all taxpayers, it is frequently undertaken to protect private oceanfront buildings. Occasionally the taxpaying public is refused access to beaches that they have paid to protect. Sand nourishment is a costly, temporary solution. The projects are not intended to have a long life span and must be renourished on a regular basis, creating a cycle that will go on until the money runs out or shorefront buildings are relocated.

There are many considerations that must addressed when designing a nourishment project. If the grains of sand are not exactly the same size as that of the natural beach, the newly nourished beach may erode faster than the natural beach was eroding. Beach nourishment can cause bottom organisms and habitats to be smothered by "turbid" water that has sand and mud suspended in it. The shoreline is moved seaward into deeper water, causing the beach to drop off quickly, posing a hazard to swimmers. This may also impact the surf for a period of time, causing the waves to break as shore break, until the beach and sandbars can reestablish a level of equilibrium. http://www.beachapedia.org/Shoreline_Structures 6 of 14 Shoreline Structures - Beachapedia 6/3/21, 3:17 PM Navigation Structures Harbors, Natural and Artificial

On the West Coast of the U.S., artificial harbors have been constructed by building a series of breakwaters (/File:Harbor_photo1.jpg) and jetties. When an artificial harbor is built in an area that is subject to high-energy wave action, it will invariably interrupt the longshore flow of sand. This will cause serious downdrift erosion. Some harbor designs force the longshore current to make a 90-degree turn towards the ocean. This causes a large rip current that may carry sand offshore that might otherwise remain in the surf zone. This will have the effect of completely changing the shape of the ocean bottom. An artificial harbor mouth can act as a trap for the longshore sand transport causing it to clog up with sand, which makes costly periodic dredging projects necessary.

(/File:Breakwaters.gif)

http://www.beachapedia.org/Shoreline_Structures 7 of 14 Shoreline Structures - Beachapedia 6/3/21, 3:17 PM Natural harbors, like San Francisco Bay, are protected from the ocean's fury but are still subject to tidal and wave energy. This causes water mixing and circulation. Stagnant artificial harbors are easily polluted by boating activities: paint, oil, grease, garbage and illegally dumped sewage. These wastes can poison the living creatures that swim in these waters. When the harbor is dredged, the sand and contaminated sediments cannot be returned to the beaches and must be disposed of in a safe place. Often, the sediments are dumped in deeper waters, poisoning the marine life food web.

Some harbors have been built by dredging wetland areas. Wetlands are habitat for birds and marine life. They can also provide water storage capacity to prevent coastal flooding during rains. Wetlands are natural water filters that purify land run-off before it enters the ocean. Dredging a wetland to build a boat harbor should never be done. We have lost over half the wetlands in the U.S. to human development. In California, we have lost over 94% of our wetlands.

Jetties Jetties (/Jetties) are large, man-made piles of boulders or concrete that are built on either side of a coastal inlet. Whereas groins are built to change the effects of beach erosion, jetties are built so that a channel to the ocean will stay open for navigation purposes. They are also built to prevent rivermouths and streams from meandering naturally.

Jetties completely interrupt or redirect the longshore current. Just as a groin accumulates sand on the updrift side, so do jetties. The major difference is that jetties are usually longer than groins and therefore create larger updrift beaches at the expense of the smaller downdrift beaches.

On East Coast barrier islands, ocean tidal inlets migrate naturally with the longshore current. A jetty system will permanently disrupt the equilibrium of the beach. This may seriously affect the tidal circulation and the health of the wetlands between the barrier islands and the mainland.

Inlets with short jetties that don't quite reach the surf will clog up with sand. The sand must be dredged on a regular basis. A "sand by-passing" system may be built to pump sand around the jetties. The sand pumping may come from within the inlet or from the updrift beach. These methods are expensive and must be maintained indefinitely.

http://www.beachapedia.org/Shoreline_Structures 8 of 14 Shoreline Structures - Beachapedia 6/3/21, 3:17 PM

(/File:Jetties.gif)

What You Can Do Environmental Impacts Before a shoreline structure is built, the local community must be informed of its environmental impacts. The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) mandates that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared to (/File:Hatteras.jpg) identify environmental impacts of the project. This document must spell out all effects that a new structure will have on the surrounding area. It is during the scoping of and subsequent public comment period of preparing an EIS that Surfrider Foundation activists can have the greatest impact on the proposed project.

The EIS process allows activists to educate the public about the project's impacts on the environment. Written comments on the draft EIS are crucial for legal purposes. Oral comments at hearings are even more important because they are picked up in the media, which allows more of the public to become informed.

Our goal is to make sure that the long-term effects and the true costs of the project are carefully spelled out for both the public and the decision-makers. If there are environmental impacts, the developer must provide ways to "mitigate" the damage. For instance, if the project will cause downcoast erosion, the developer may be required to install and maintain a sand replenishment system or promise to post a bond that will pay for periodic sand replenishment as long as the structure exists. This may be impractical. If there is wildlife habitat destroyed, the developer may be required to restore habitat on site if feasible.

The Only Permanent Solution: Retreat from the Beach http://www.beachapedia.org/Shoreline_Structures 9 of 14 Shoreline Structures - Beachapedia 6/3/21, 3:17 PM (/Managed_Retreat)! "Hard" shoreline structures have severe environmental impacts on the longshore current and the natural processes of beach sand distribution. "Soft" solutions like sand nourishment are expensive and temporary. Marinas should be built in natural harbors away from the energy of the waves. Building on our ocean's shore is not a good idea. NATURE WILL ALWAYS PREVAIL.

Shoreline construction means that taxpayers pay the bills when the ocean behaves as expected. Whether it is fire department rescues, the Public Works Department placing sand bags, the police guarding vacant buildings from looters or the Army Corps of Engineers spending millions to "correct the problem," taxpayers are the ones who pay. Shoreline protection is, often, "welfare for the rich."

Shoreline property owners frequently limit the public's access to the beach by refusing to let the public cross their property to get to the beach.

Shoreline building also means habitat destruction. Birds, plants and animals that call coastal dunes and beaches their homes are slowly becoming extinct.

As humans continue to overpopulate our coastal areas (and the planet) we will have to be more thoughtful about our relationship with the ocean. Surfrider Foundation activists will continue to educate the public about the natural processes that create and maintain our shoreline. Sometimes shoreline structures must be built, but the public must know the impacts. Society will have to continually pay to maintain the structures and correct the environmental damage caused by them. The best solution is to retreat from the beach (/Managed_Retreat) and allow nature to replenish, maintain and change the beach as she sees fit.

Surfrider Foundation Beach Preservation Policy

Surfrider's official policy (http://www.surfrider.org/pages/beach-preservation-policy) regarding beach preservation and shoreline structures.

Restore the Shore Video

Video produced by the San Diego Chapter of Surfrider Foundation discussing beach erosion, shoreline structures and ways to respond to the changing coast.

http://www.beachapedia.org/Shoreline_Structures 10 of 14 Shoreline Structures - Beachapedia 6/3/21, 3:17 PM Restore the Shore

05:34

North Carolina's Summary of the Effects of Shoreline Structures

Since 1985, North Carolina prohibited shoreline armoring. The following text, from the state's 2010 Habitat Protection Plan (http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=f43f10b1- b2bf-4895-8bab-349e09fe88cc&groupId=38337) does a good job explaining the physical and ecological effects of shoreline armoring:

http://www.beachapedia.org/Shoreline_Structures 11 of 14 Shoreline Structures - Beachapedia 6/3/21, 3:17 PM "Shoreline hardening, or hard stabilization, involves construction of hard immovable engineered structures, such as seawalls, rock revetments, jetties, and groins. Seawalls and rock revetments run parallel to the beach. Seawalls are vertical structures, constructed parallel to the ocean shoreline, and are primarily designed to prevent erosion and other damage due to wave action. Revetments are shoreline structures constructed parallel to the shoreline and generally sloped in such a way as to mimic the natural slope of the shoreline profile and dissipate wave energy as the wave is directed up the slope. Breakwaters are structures constructed waterward of, and usually parallel to, the shoreline. They attempt to break incoming waves before they reach the shoreline, or a facility (e.g., marina) being protected. Jetties and groins are manmade structures constructed perpendicular to the beach, with jetties usually being much longer, and are located adjacent to inlets with the purpose of maintaining navigation in the inlet by preventing sand from entering it. In contrast, terminal groins are structures built at the end of a littoral cell to trap and conserve sand along the end of the barrier island, stabilize inlet migration, and widen a portion of the updrift beach. Terminal groins are designed so that when the area behind the groin fills in with sand, additional sand will go around the structure and enter the inlet system.

It is well accepted that hard stabilization techniques along high energy ocean shorelines will accelerate erosion in some location along the shore as a result of the longshore sediment transport being altered (Defeo et al. 2009). The hydromodifications resulting from coastal armoring modifies sediment grain size, increases turbidity in the surf zone, narrows and steepens beaches, and results in reduced intertidal habitat and diversity and abundance of macroinvertebrates (Walton and Sensabaugh 1979; NRC 1995; Dolan et al. 2004: 2006; Pilkey et al. 1998; Peterson et al. 2000a; Miles et al. 2001; Dugan et al. 2008; Walker et al. 2008; Riggs and Ames 2009). A study looking at the effect of a short groin (95m) on the benthic community found that the groin created a depositional condition on one side of the structure and erosion on the other, and macroinvertebrate diversity and abundance was significantly reduced within 30m of the structure, as sand particle size and steepness increased (Walker et al. 2008). The change in benthic community was attributed to the change in geomorphology of the beach. Hard structures along a sandy beach can also result in establishment of invasive epibenthic organisms (Chapman and Bulleri 2003). A secondary impact of hardened structures is that the areal loss of beach resulting from hardening of shorelines is often managed by implementing nourishment projects, possibly having additional damage to subtidal bottom (Riggs et al. 2009). Anchoring inlets also prevents shoal formation and diminishes ebb tidal deltas, which are important foraging grounds for many fish species. Recognizing that hardened structures are damaging to recreational beaches and the intertidal zone, four states have prohibited shoreline armoring: Maine, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and North Carolina (effective in North Carolina since 1985).

Perhaps the greatest impact of terminal groins and jetties results in the long-term effect on barrier islands and the effect that will have on marine and estuarine ecosystems. By stabilizing the inlet, http://www.beachapedia.org/Shoreline_Structures 12 of 14 Shoreline Structures - Beachapedia 6/3/21, 3:17 PM inlet migration and overwash processes are interrupted, causing a cascade of other effects (Riggs and Ames 2009). In the case of Oregon Inlet, the terminal groin anchored the bridge to Pea Island and stopped the migration of the inlet on the south side. But the continuing migration of the north end of Bodie Island led to an increased need for inlet dredging. The combination of reduced longshore transport of sediment due to the groin and the post-storm dune construction to open and protect the highway prevented overwash processes that allow Pea Island to maintain its elevation over time. With overwash processes disrupted, the beach profile has steepened, and the island has flattened and narrowed, increasing vulnerability to storm damage (Dolan et al. 2006; Riggs and Ames 2009; Riggs et al. 2009). At Oregon Inlet and Pea Island, the accelerated need for beach replenishment is further aggravated by the need to maintain Hwy 12 on the narrowing beach. From 1983 to 2009 approximately 12.7 million cubic yards of sand have been added to the shoreline within three miles of the terminal groin (Riggs and Ames 2009). Dolan (2006) documented that the large volumes of sand replenishment in this area, required to maintain the channel, protect the road, and maintain a beach have resulted in a significant reduction in grain size and reduction in mole crab abundance. Mole crabs are considered an important indicator of beach conditions due to their importance in the food web as prey for shorebirds and surf fish. In addition to causing erosion on downdrift beaches, altering barrier island migration processes, and accelerating the need for beach nourishment projects, jetties obstruct larval fish passage through adjacent inlets (Blanton et al. 1999)."

This article is part of a series on Shoreline Structures (/Category:Shoreline_Structures) looking at types of structures commonly built along shorelines, and the policies, laws, and regulations which can affect where and under what conditions they are built. For information about laws, policies and conditions impacting shoreline structures (/State_of_the_Beach/Beach_Indicators/Shoreline_Structures) in a specific state, please visit Surfrider's State of the Beach (/State_of_the_Beach) report to find the State Report (/State_of_the_Beach/State_Reports) for that state, and click on the "Shoreline Structures" indicator link.

Retrieved from "http://www.beachapedia.org/index.php?title=Shoreline_Structures&oldid=41204 (http://www.beachapedia.org/index.php?title=Shoreline_Structures&oldid=41204)"

Categories (/Special:Categories): A-Z (/Category:A-Z) Full Articles (/Category:Full_Articles) http://www.beachapedia.org/Shoreline_Structures 13 of 14 Shoreline Structures - Beachapedia 6/3/21, 3:17 PM Beach Preservation (/Category:Beach_Preservation) Climate Change Adaptation (/Category:Climate_Change_Adaptation) Articles (/Category:Articles) Shoreline Structures (/Category:Shoreline_Structures)

http://www.beachapedia.org/Shoreline_Structures 14 of 14 6/14/2021 Goal 18 Ecepion Pblic Heaing Lincoln Con Oegon

Con Home Conac U Seac

G 18 E P H

Calenda Dae: Monda, Jne 14, 2021 - 7:00m Add hi een o o Olook calenda (iCal). Add hi een o o Google calenda

NOTCE OF QUAS-JUDCAL HEARNG The Lincoln Con Planning Commiion ill hold a lie ial (eleconic) blic heaing on Monda, Jne 14, 2021 o conide ee b SeaRidge Condominim, Clb Woldmak, Edad and Joan Tanabe, Richad and Sall Gan, Te and Janice DeSlia, and Shai Kain fo an amendmen o he Lincoln Con Comehenie Plan. The ooed amendmen old ado an eceion o Saeide Planning Goal 18, imlemenaion eiemen 5. The eec of hi eceion, if adoed, old be o emi lacemen of beachfon oecie ce on he bjec oeie, hich ae oeie hee ch ce ae oheie ohibied. The bjec oeie ae locaed a 4715 N. H 101 (SeaRidge; Lincoln Con Aeo Ma and Ta Lo: 08-11-28-BA-90000), 324 Woldmak Die (Woldmak; Lincoln Con Aeo Ma and Ta Lo: 08-11-AC-00125, 08-11-16-AC-00132, 08-11-16-DB-00101, 08-11-16-DB-102, 08-11-16-DB-00103, 08-11-16-DB-00202, and 08-11-16- DB-09000), 4825 Lincoln Ae. (Tanabe; Lincoln Con Aeo Ma and Ta Lo: 08-11-21- CD-15100), 4815 Lincoln Ae. (Gan; Lincoln Con Aeo Ma and Ta Lo: 08-11-21-CD- 15000), 4805 Lincoln Ae. (Kain; Lincoln Con Aeo Ma and Ta Lo: 08-11-21-CD- 14900), and 4755 Lincoln Ae. (DeSlia; Lincoln Con Aeo Ma and Ta Lo: 08-11-21- CD-14800).

APPLCAON MAERAL AND AFF REPOR: Coie of he a eo fo hi cae can be ieed o donloaded een (7) da io o he heaing. The alicaion, all docmen and eidence bmied o dae b o on behalf of he alican, and he alicable cieia ae aailable fo inecion belo a no co and can be chaed b calling he Lincoln Con Planning and Deelomen Deamen a 541-265-4192. Anone ho deie o hicall eie hee docmen can conac he Lincoln Con Planning and Deelomen Deamen a 541-265-4192 o chedle an aoinmen.

hp://.co.lincoln.o./pc/page/goal-18-ecepion-pblic-heaing 1/8 6/14/2021 Goal 18 Ecepion Pblic Heaing Lincoln Con Oegon HEARNG PROCEDRE AND EMON: To coml ih ORS 192.610-192.690 (Oegon Pblic Meeing La) a amended, and o afegad he blic healh again he ead of Coid-19, hi heaing ill be condced emoel ia eleconic mean. Thee ill be no in- eon aendance b an of he aie o he ineeed blic. An eon ihing o oide oal eimon m egie a h://02eb.oom./ebina/egie/WN_6OXhT8S36NhS9297Q. The Planning Commiion chai ma limi he ime alloed fo oal eimon; heefoe, aie ae ongl encoaged o bmi deailed eimon in iing o ohe ecoded fom in adance of he heaing. Wien eimon ma be en o Lincoln Con Planning and Deelomen Deamen b US oal mail o:

Lincoln Con Deamen of Planning and Deelomen An: (cae le #01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21) Second See Anne 210 SW Second See Neo, OR 97365

O, b email o: jolea@co.lincoln.o., ih (cae le #01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC- 21) ien in he bjec line of he email.Teimon hold be dieced o he alicable cieia e foh in hi noice o ohe cieia a a beliee al o he bjec ee. Faile o aie an ie in he heaing o faile o oide aemen o eidence cien o aod he Planning Commiion an ooni o eond o he ie, eclde aeal o he Land Ue Boad of Aeal on ha ie.

FNAL ACON: Aoal of hi ee, if ganed, ill be imlemened hogh he adoion of an odinance b he Lincoln Con Boad of Commiione. Thi blic heaing befoe he Planning Commiion ill conie he blic heaing eied fo he enacmen of a oning odinance an o ORS 215.223. Unle he deciion of he Planning Commiion i aealed in accodance ih LCC 1.1268, no addiional blic heaing ill be condced b he Boad of Commiione.

CONAC: Onno Hing, Planning and Deelomen Dieco 541-265-4192

ME/PLACE OF HEARNG: M, J 14, 2021 7:00 .. The heaing can be obeed ia lieeam a h://.obe.com/channel/UCN5TMHTN4iJm_efb9Q.

Fo ecial hical, langage, o ohe accommodaion a he PlanningCommiion meeing, leae conac he Lincoln Con PlanningDeamen a 541-265-4192 o dial 7-1-1 Rela Seice and inclde e-mail aoon a oible, b a lea 48 ho befoe he meeing.

H M

R (6/4/2021) A E Slemenal Naaie (6/3/2021) Signed Alicaion Fom SeaRidge Condominim (01-LUPC-21) hp://.co.lincoln.o./pc/page/goal-18-ecepion-pblic-heaing 2/8 6/14/2021 Goal 18 Ecepion Pblic Heaing Lincoln Con Oegon WoldMak (02-LUPC-21) Lincoln Ae. Home - Gan, Tanabe, Kain, DeSlia (03-LUPC-21) Naaie Saemen Combined Naaie (01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21) Slemenal Naaie - SeaRidge Condominim (01-LUPC-21) Slemenal Naaie - Lincoln Ae. Home (03-LUPC-21) Aendi A H.G. Schlicke & Aociae (01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21) Wae/Radke (01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21) Mo MacDonald - SeaRidge (01-LUPC-21) EVREN Nohe, nc. (02-LUPC-21) Mo MacDonald - WoldMak (02-LUPC-21) Mo MacDonald - Lincoln Ae. Home (03-LUPC-21) Aendi B mac of Climae Change on Coaal Eoion 2008 mac of Climae Change on Oegon' Coa and Eaie 2010 Oegon Climae Aemen Reo 2010 The Oegon Climae Change Adaaion Fameok 2010 Climae Change Vlneabili Aemen and Adaaion Oion Sd - ODOT - 2014 The Thid Oegon Climae Aemen Reo - 2017 2020 Climae Change Adaaion Fameok [REVEW DRAFT] 2020 Oegon Naal Haad Miigaion Plan - Eecie Smma - 2020 Oegon Naal Haad Miigaion Plan - Regional Rik Aemen - 2020 Aendi C Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R447116 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R449442 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R451810 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R454159 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R456530 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R458851 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R461277 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R463573 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R483140 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R483157 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R483162 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R483170 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R483185 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R483192 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R483202 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R483218 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R483225 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R483230 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R485364 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R485371 hp://.co.lincoln.o./pc/page/goal-18-ecepion-pblic-heaing 3/8 6/14/2021 Goal 18 Ecepion Pblic Heaing Lincoln Con Oegon Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R485387 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R485394 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R485402 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R485418 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R485425 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R485430 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R477169 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R512667 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R272181 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R274540 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R276891 Lincoln Con Poe Reo fo R279203 Aendi D -Sie Plan (01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21) C Agenc/NGO Commen Oegon Deamen of Land Coneaion and Deelomen - 6/7/2021 Gleneden Sania Diic - 6/9/2021 Sfide - 6/14/2021 Poonen Bancof - 5/27/2021 Dokin - 5/27/2021 Bghad - 5/28/2021 Ciman - 5/28/2021 Neille - 5/29/2021 Ske - 5/30/2021 Holden - 6/1/2021 Seaman - 6/1/2021 Wele - 6/1/2021 Finch - 6/2/2021 Mahall - 6/2/2021 Randell - 6/2/2021 Soch - 6/2/2021 Wagne - 6/2/2021 Kain - 6/3/2021 McEloge - 6/3/2021 DeSlia - 6/4/2021 nman - 6/4/2021 Hamon - 6/5/2021 Maden - 6/5/2021 Tanabe - 6/6/2021 L/Shehed - 6/7/2021 Pe (Cameon) - 6/7/2021 Pe (Ma Ka Schab) - 6/7/2021 Collin - 6/8/2021 hp://.co.lincoln.o./pc/page/goal-18-ecepion-pblic-heaing 4/8 6/14/2021 Goal 18 Ecepion Pblic Heaing Lincoln Con Oegon Pachelli - 6/8/2021 Schmache - 6/8/2021 Ben - 6/9/2021 Dmme - 6/10/2021 Roge - 6/10/2021 Bibb/Hon - 6/11/2021 Gan - 6/11/2021 Sheko - 6/11/2021 Smih - 6/11/2021 Sol - 6/11/2021 Oonen Poe - 6/14/2021

PPORNG DOCMEN

01-02-03-lc-21-aendi-a_-_hga_geoechnical_eo.df (11 MB) 01-02-lc-21-aendi-a_-_ae-adke_economic_anali.df (713 KB) 01-lc-21-aendi-a_-_momac_-_eaidge.df (828 KB) 02-lc-21-aendi-a_-_een_ciical_aea_aemen.df (17 MB) 02-lc-21-aendi-a_-_momac_-_oldmak.df (786 KB) 03-lc-21-aendi-a_-_momac_-_lincoln_ae_home.df (2 MB) 01-02-03-lc-21-aendi-b_-_2008_-_ggieo_- _imac_of_climae_change_on_coaal_eoion.df (458 KB) 01-02-03-lc-21-aendi-b_-_2010_-_ch._6_- _imac_of_climae_change_on_oegon_coa_and_eaie.df (3 MB) 01-02-03-lc-21-aendi-b_-_2010_-_oegon_climae_aemen_eo.df (29 MB) 01-02-03-lc-21-aendi-b_-_2010_-_he_oegon_climae_adaaion_fameok.df (567 KB) 01-02-03-lc-21-aendi-b_-_2014_- _odo_climae_change_lneabili_aemen_and_adaaion_oion_d.df (20 MB) 01-02-03-lc-21-aendi-b_-_2017_-_he_hid_oegon_climae_aemen_eo.df (4 MB) 01-02-03-lc-21-aendi-b_-_2020_- _daf_oegon_climae_change_adaaion_fameok.df (1 MB) 01-02-03-lc-21-aendi-b_-_2020_- _eecie_mma_of_oegon_naal_haad_miigaion_lan.df (1005 KB) 01-02-03-lc-21-aendi-b_-_2020_-_oegon_naal_haad_miigaion_lan_- _2.3_egional_ik_aemen.df (7 MB) 01-lc-21-aendi-c_-_447116.df (67 KB) 01-lc-21-aendi-c_-_449442.df (70 KB) 01-lc-21-aendi-c_-_451810.df (70 KB) 01-lc-21-aendi-c_-_454159.df (71 KB) 01-lc-21-aendi-c_-_456530.df (67 KB) 01-lc-21-aendi-c_-_458851.df (68 KB) hp://.co.lincoln.o./pc/page/goal-18-ecepion-pblic-heaing 5/8 6/14/2021 Goal 18 Ecepion Pblic Heaing Lincoln Con Oegon 01-lc-21-aendi-c_-_461277.df (67 KB) 01-lc-21-aendi-c_-_463573.df (70 KB) 01-lc-21-aendi-c_-_483140.df (71 KB) 01-lc-21-aendi-c_-_483157.df (72 KB) 01-lc-21-aendi-c_-_483162.df (71 KB) 01-lc-21-aendi-c_-_483170.df (70 KB) 01-lc-21-aendi-c_-_483185.df (68 KB) 01-lc-21-aendi-c_-_483192.df (68 KB) 01-lc-21-aendi-c_-_483202.df (70 KB) 01-lc-21-aendi-c_-_483218.df (68 KB) 01-lc-21-aendi-c_-_483225.df (68 KB) 01-lc-21-aendi-c_-_483230.df (38 KB) 01-lc-21-aendi-c_-_485364.df (71 KB) 01-lc-21-aendi-c_-_485371.df (71 KB) 01-lc-21-aendi-c_-_485387.df (67 KB) 01-lc-21-aendi-c_-_485394.df (71 KB) 01-lc-21-aendi-c_-_485402.df (68 KB) 01-lc-21-aendi-c_-_485418.df (73 KB) 01-lc-21-aendi-c_-_485425.df (70 KB) 01-lc-21-aendi-c_-_485430.df (67 KB) 02-lc-21-aendi-c_-_477169.df (32 KB) 02-lc-21-aendi-c_-_512667.df (31 KB) 03-lc-21-aendi-c_-_272181.df (82 KB) 03-lc-21-aendi-c_-_274540.df (86 KB) 03-lc-21-aendi-c_-_276891.df (86 KB) 03-lc-21-aendi-c_-_279203.df (85 KB) 01-lc-21_-_eaidge.df (1 MB) 02-lc-21_-_oldmak.df (813 KB) 03-lc-21_-_lincoln_aene_home.df (377 KB) 01-02-03-lc-21_-_combined_naaie.df (2 MB) 01-lc-21_-_lemenal_naaie-eaidge.df (143 KB) 03-lc-21_-_lemenal_naaie-lincoln_aene_home.df (2 MB) 01-02-03-lc-21-aendi-d_-_ie_lan.df (494 KB) 01-lc-21-o-bghad.df (830 KB) 01-lc-21-o-ciman.df (56 KB) 01-lc-21-o-dokin.df (141 KB) 01-lc-21-o-holden.df (118 KB) 01-lc-21-o-mceloge.df (13 KB) 01-lc-21-o-eaman.df (69 KB) 01-lc-21-o-ke.df (37 KB) 02-lc-21-o-bancof.df (39 KB) 02-lc-21-o-mahall.df (68 KB) 02-lc-21-o-andell.df (39 KB) 02-lc-21-o-och.df (46 KB) 02-lc-21-o-agne.df (45 KB) 02-lc-21-o-ele.df (23 KB) hp://.co.lincoln.o./pc/page/goal-18-ecepion-pblic-heaing 6/8 6/14/2021 Goal 18 Ecepion Pblic Heaing Lincoln Con Oegon 03-lc-21-o-nch.df (15 KB) 03-lc-21-o-kain.df (53 KB) 01-02-03-lc-21_a_eo_nal.df (1 MB) 01-02-03-lc-21-lemenal-naaie-aemen-6-3-2021.df (568 KB) 01-02-03-lc-21-agenc-commen-dlcd.df (123 KB) 01-lc-21-o-collin.df (78 KB) 01-lc-21-o-hamon.df (396 KB) 01-lc-21-o-inman.df (136 KB) 01-lc-21-o-maden.df (51 KB) 01-lc-21-o-e.df (55 KB) 03-lc-21-o-delia.df (716 KB) 03-lc-21-o-l.df (40 KB) 03-lc-21-o-achelli.df (145 KB) 03-lc-21-o-chmache.df (145 KB) 03-lc-21-o-anabe.df (665 KB) 01-lc-21-o-mk-e.df (56 KB) 01-lc-21-o-neille.df (51 KB) 01-lc-21-o-jenen-baman.df (35 KB) 01-lc-21-o-ben.df (180 KB) 01-lc-21-o-oge.df (2 MB) 01-lc-21-o-dmme.df (304 KB) 03-lc-21-o-gan.df (1 MB) 01-lc-21-o-bibb-hon.df (94 KB) 03-lc-21-o-heko.df (2 MB) 01-lc-21-o-mih.df (60 KB) 01-lc-21-o-ol.df (159 KB) 01-lc-21-o-oe.df (132 KB) 01-02-03-lc-21-f-ide.df (193 KB)

P C M & A

P & D H

A 01-MC-ADM-21

G 18 E P H

P C N M

hp://.co.lincoln.o./pc/page/goal-18-ecepion-pblic-heaing 7/8 6/14/2021 Goal 18 Ecepion Pblic Heaing Lincoln Con Oegon

Contact nformation

Deamen of Planning & Deelomen

Onno Hing Planning and Deelomen Dieco @...

(541) 265-4192

F C D

Upcoming Events

Goal 18 Eceion Pblic Heaing 06/14/2021 - 7:00m

Aeal fo 01-MSC-ADM-21 06/21/2021 - 7:00m

A

Home Siema Conac U Sa Login

The miion of Lincoln Con i o oide eenial blic eice, boh legall eied and locall deied, in an ecien, eecie, and eecfl manne.

Selec Lagage

hp://.co.lincoln.o./pc/page/goal-18-ecepion-pblic-heaing 8/8 6/14/2021 Mile 237 - Gleneden Beach noh, golf coe Oegon Shoe

Mile 237

GlenedenBeachnorhgolfcore LincolnCon

Net Mile South (/mile/236) Net Mile North (/mile/238)

Latitude: 44.891769876458 Longitude: -124.034634658600 Google Map: Nearb Roads, Directions to/from, Google photos, Satellite image, Terrain overla (https://.google.com/maps/place/44.891769876458,-124.034634658600) Vehicles: Motor vehicle travel is prohibited from the Tillamook Count-Lincoln Count line (45 02.6706', Mile 247), southerl to Yaquina Ba (44 37.0374', Mile 215), ecept for the folloing locations ithin the corporate limits of Lincoln Cit: (A) A distance of 150 feet on each side of the esterl etension of North 35th Court; (B) A distance of 150 feet on each side of the esterl etension of North 15th Street.

Weather: Current eather conditions at nearb stations (https://.underground.com/undermap/? lat=44.891769876458&lon=-124.034634658600&oom=10) Tides: NOAA Tide Predictions. (http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/tide_predictions.html? gid=252) Click on the station nearest to our location to see predicted tides in hp://oegonhoe.og/mile/237 1/5 6/14/2021 Mile 237 - Gleneden Beach noh, golf coe Oegon Shoe graphical and tabular formats.

Net Mile South (/mile/236) Net Mile North (/mile/238)

Mile 237 Reports (38) 2020

Nebe 27, 2020 - Walden It as a bus da ith more people on the beach during m alk than usual. It as on the cold side and et a fe people in the ater. M main concern as riprap installation here no structures have been built. The dunes in the to locations had no... read more (/mile-237-gleneden-beach-north-golf-course-november-27-2020)

Jl 26, 2020 - Walden A beautiful da ith people enjoing themselves. Warm enough for some people to go into the ater, some people earing bathing suits/bikinis. A Coast Guard helicopter seemd to be ing over the crab oats off shore, as opposed to the usual ight up and don the coast. Also noted a... read more (/mile-237-gleneden-beach-north- golf-course-jul-26-2020) hp://oegonhoe.og/mile/237 2/5 6/14/2021 Mile 237 - Gleneden Beach noh, golf coe Oegon Shoe

(h://oegonhoe.og/ie/defal/file/ie/defal/file/media-liba/img_6161.jg)

(h://oegonhoe.og/ie/defal/file/ie/defal/file/media-liba/img_6151.jg)

(h://oegonhoe.og/ie/defal/file/ie/defal/file/media-liba/img_6159.jg)

(h://oegonhoe.og/ie/defal/file/ie/defal/file/media-liba/img_6144.jg)

(h://oegonhoe.og/ie/defal/file/ie/defal/file/media-liba/img_6143.jg)

(h://oegonhoe.og/ie/defal/file/ie/defal/file/media-liba/img_6254.jg)

(h://oegonhoe.og/ie/defal/file/ie/defal/file/media-liba/img_6100.jg)

Feba 18, 2020 - bkohick1 Pleasant da, moderate numberof people. Small/moderate amount of trash predominantl of plastics, especiall bottles, also numerous small chunks of stro foam. read more (/mile-237-gleneden-beach-north-golf-course- februar-18-2020)

hp://oegonhoe.og/mile/237 3/5 6/14/2021 Mile 237 - Gleneden Beach noh, golf coe Oegon Shoe

(h://oegonhoe.og/ie/defal/file/ie/defal/file/media-liba/c003.jg)

(h://oegonhoe.og/ie/defal/file/ie/defal/file/media-liba/c002.jg)

(h://oegonhoe.og/ie/defal/file/ie/defal/file/media-liba/c001.jg)

Feba 9, 2020 - Walden I noticed that debris from the recent King Tide event as concentrated at the southern end of mile 237, ith little to none in the northern 1/3-1/2. The appearance of the high ater mark indicated that the highest tides reached the cliffs on the southern end, and not all to... read more (/mile-237-gleneden-beach-north-golf-course- februar-9-2020)

2019

2018

2017

2016

2014

2013

2012

2011

2007

hp://oegonhoe.og/mile/237 4/5 6/14/2021 Mile 237 - Gleneden Beach noh, golf coe Oegon Shoe

(/)

Programs

About

Support

Members

Coigh 2016 Oegon Shoe Coneaion Coaliion

hp://oegonhoe.og/mile/237 5/5

Cliff Erosion along the Oregon Coast: A Tectonic-Sea Level Imprint Plus Local Controls by Beach Processes Author(s): Paul D. Komar and Shyuer-Ming Shih Source: Journal of Coastal Research , Summer, 1993, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Summer, 1993), pp. 747-765 Published by: Coastal Education & Research Foundation, Inc. Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4298127

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Coastal Research

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:48:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Journal of Coastal Research 9 3 747-765 Fort Lauderdale, Florida Summer 1993

Cliff Erosion along the Oregon Coast: A Tectonic-Sea Level Imprint Plus Local Controls by Beach Processes

Paul D. Komar and Shyuer-Ming Shih

College of Oceanography Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331-5503

ABSTRACTI

KOMAR, P.D. and SHIH, S.-M., 1993. Cliff erosion along the Oregon coast: A tectonic-sea level imprint plus local controls by beach processes. Journal of Coastal Research, 9(3), 747-765. Fort Lauderdale gfiffffllfff (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208. ** ,No !!!w , Sea cliff erosion along the Oregon coast threatens communities that have been built on uplifted marine terraces. There is considerable spatial variability in the rates of cliff retreat, including a coast-wide pattern that is likely due to tectonic activity causing differential uplift rates. The highest rates of uplift are found along the southern half of the coast and near the Oregon-Washington border in the north, areas where the uplift exceeds the present rise in sea level. There is evidence for past cliff erosion in those areas, and it is hypothesized that it was initiated about 300 years ago when a subduction earthquake abruptly lowered those stretches of coast, but that subsequent uplift has halted the continued erosion. Along the north- central Oregon coast, the global rise in sea level exceeds the tectonic uplift. Cliff erosion is continuing within this stretch of coast, but the rates are highly variable due to local effects. There are differences between the littoral cells isolated between headlands, largely due to contrasting capacities of the respective beaches to act as buffers between the waves and cliffs. There also are marked differences in the nature of the erosion processes depending on the composition and stratigraphy of the bluff. In the Newport area, the cliffs consist mainly of seaward dipping Tertiary mudstones that are susceptible to landsliding, and this process dominates cliff retreat. In the Lincoln City littoral cell the cliffs are entirely Pleistocene sands that tend to erode uniformly with minimal development of landsliding. In this latter cell, there is a longshore variation in beach sediment grain sizes, ranging from a coarse-sand reflective beach to a fine- sand dissipative beach. Rip current embayments are more important to cliff erosion on the reflective portion of the beach, producing bluff retreat that has a high degree of spatial variability and is extremely episodic. Wave runup during major storms is important on the dissipative portion of the beach, but the waves generally act to remove only the accumulated talus brought down by subaerial processes. Excluding the landslide areas, cliff retreat along the Oregon coast is generally progressing at a low rate largely because of tectonic uplift, but should another subduction earthquake occur, rapid coast-wide erosion would be renewed.

ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: Coastal erosion, earthquakes, sea cliffs, sea level, Oregon.

INTRODUCTION focused on this problem, at least in comparison The erosion of sea cliffs is a significant with problem beach erosion problems and processes. Part along many of the world's coastlines, of including the reason for this is the inherent difficulty in the coast of Oregon in the Pacific Northwest accounting of for the multitude of variables that can the United States (Figure 1). Most communities be significant to cliff erosion. One of the most of the Oregon coast are built on uplifted problematic marine aspects is the cliff itself, its material terraces or on alluvial slopes emanating composition from the and structure, the latter including nearby Coast Range. These elevated bedding lands arestratification (horizontal or dipping) and subject to erosion along their ocean margins the presence with of joints and faults. These factors the formation of cliffs. Examples of communities are important in determining whether the cliff where cliff erosion is an important problemretreat takesin- the form of abrupt large-scale land- clude Lincoln City, Gleneden Beach sliding and New- or the more continuous failure of small port, while lesser impacts are found at manyportions other of the cliff face. The processes of cliff locations. State lands are also being lost attack as cliff are also complex. The retreat may be pri- erosion takes place at coastal parks marilyand under- caused by groundwater seepage and direct mines state highways. rain wash, with the ocean waves acting only to remove the accumulated talus at the base of the Considering the extent and importance of sea cliff erosion, it is surprising how few cliff.studies In other have locations, the waves play a more active role, directly attacking the cliff and cutting 92033 received 13 April 1992; accepted in revision 24 October 1992. away its base.

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:48:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 748 Komar and Shih

The severity of sea cliff erosion is highly vari- able along the length of the Oregon coast, between the several stretches of marine terrace isolated within littoral cells by resistant bounding head- Astoria os lands. This may reflect the extent of the buffering 46* - beach fronting the sea cliff, differences in the cliff materials, or it could represent contrasting tec- Cannon Beach Portland . tonic uplift rates. This variability in the magni- tudes of sea cliff erosion has made it difficult for 45' - Lincoln City o * Salem citizens and communities to react to the problem in a satisfactory manner. One objective of our Newport Bay research has been to obtain measurements of the long-term erosion rates of sea cliffs along the Or-

0 egon coast in order to assess the magnitudes of the time and spatial variations and to understand 0 the causes. This has required that we investigate the processes of cliff erosion, including the roles 43*O- of wave undercutting, rain wash and accompa- Q, Bandon 0 nying groundwater seepage, the importance of rip currents hollowing out embayments in the front- ing beach, and the role of rock structures such as bedding and joints. We have also examined the 424 420 Crescent City coast-wide patterns of tectonic uplift and com- pared those rates with the changing level of the Figure 1. The Oregon coast with city locations mentioned insea. Only through such a study of the local pro- the text and in Figure 3. cesses of cliff erosion as well as the coast-wide tectonic patterns have we begun to understand the causes of the variable cliff retreat along the A good review of the literature dealing with sea- Oregon coast. cliff erosion is provided by SUNAMURA (1982). Past TECTONIC SETTING studies range from site-specific cliff erosion prob- lems to general analyses involving laboratory ex- The tectonic setting of the Oregon coast is ex- periments of wave attack on artificial cliffs. Only tremely important to the occurrence and patterns limited study has been devoted specifically to cliff of sea cliff erosion. Significant to the Pacific erosion along the Oregon coast. The earliest work Northwest is the presence of active sea-floor examined the occurrence of major landslides and spreading beneath the ocean to the immediate documented the importance of factors such aswest. New ocean crust is formed at the Juan de rainfall intensity and rock jointing and bedding Fuca and Gorda ridges, and the movement of the (BYRNE, 1963, 1964; NORTH and BYRNE, 1965). associated oceanic plates is generally eastward to- Little information is available on the long-term ward the continent. These ocean plates collide erosion rates of sea cliffs not affected by major with the North American plate which includes the landslides. STEMBRIDGE (1975) compared two se- continental land mass. That collision zone lies quences of aerial photographs (1939 and 1971) to along the margin of the coasts of Washington, estimate erosion rates, but his analysis was lim- Oregon and northern California. There is clear ited to only a few areas along the coast and yielded evidence that the oceanic plates have been un- only rough estimates of long-term changes. In adergoing subduction beneath the continental more detailed study but one limited to Lincoln North American plate, evidence which includes County, SMITH (1978) also used aerial photo- the still active volcanoes of the Cascades, the ex- graphs to document average cliff erosion rates. istence of marine sedimentary rocks accreted to Both studies revealed a considerable degree of the continent, and the occurrence of vertical land spatial variability along even short distances of movements along the coast. the coast. They also recognized the episodic na- Most of the marine sediments deposited on the ture of the cliff erosion processes. oceanic plates are scraped off during the subduc-

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1993

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:48:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Sea Cliff Erosion 749

Figure 2. The sea cliff at Jump-Off Joe, Newport, showing the seaward dipping Tertiary mudstones in the lower half of the bluff and the light-colored Pleistocene terrace sands at the top.

tion process and sea cliffs areare capped byaccreted an upper unit of clean to the continental plate. The addition sand (Figure 2). Theseof are Pleistoceneocean marine ter-sediments to the con- tinent has led raceto deposits, the and consist long-term of uplifted beach and westward growth of the Pacific Northwest. The oldest rocks found dune sands. In some areas the Pleistocene sands in the Coast Range date back to the Paleocene form the entire sea cliff, with no outcrop of Ter- and Eocene epochs, some 40 to 60 million years tiary mudstones beneath. The flat marine terrace ago. The presence of these accreted marine sed- seen in Figure 2 is the lowermost and youngest iments in the sea cliffs is important to the erosion terrace of a series that in some places form a stair- processes, particularly the occurrence of land- way up the slope of the Coast Range. Their pres- slides. Along the northern half of the Oregon coast, ence documents that the coastal margin of the the Nye Mudstone and Astoria Formation of Mio- Northwest has been tectonically rising for hun- cene age are the principal Tertiary rocks found dreds of thousands of years, while at the same in the sea cliffs (Figure 2). The fine-grained mud- time the level of the sea has oscillated due to the dy consistency of these sedimentary rocks makes growth and retreat of glaciers. them particularly susceptible to landsliding. Fur- Data from geodetic leveling surveys collected thermore, it has been estimated that these units by the National Geodetic Survey indicate that the dip seaward along more than half of the northern Oregon coast is continuing to rise. East-west sur- Oregon coast (BYRNE, 1964; NORTH and BYRNE, vey lines from the coast inland to the Willamette 1965), a geometry which also contributes to the Valley demonstrate that the uplift of the coast development of landslides. has been part of a rotation with the pivot line In addition to the Tertiary mudstones, many located somewhere within the valley (REILINGER

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1993

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:48:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 750 Komar and Shih

200

oI-- -J 00 L 0 E 2 E- b,- 0 2oo 0 - _ojo - o) a .2 0o- U.i 00 CD Z-... 4 ""- ." :1 o . ; %" -- S-I-no o-O00A? ", ,,,:..- 00I a -o >LU o.t,.z.. -2-3e - ..I -"wJ --2 -.2 ES 4-- w --4 W -4 4 ]-4 -300 I I I I I I I I 42 43 44 45 46

LATITUDE

Figure 3. The geodetic data analyzed by VINCENT (1989), following a north-south line along the length of the Oregon coast. The scale on the left gives elevation changes in reference to Crescent City in the south (Figure 1), while the scales on the right place the changes in terms of rates, the last scale being a comparison with the eustatic rise in sea level.

and ADAMS, 1982; ADAMS, 1984). Of demonstrated particular in- by records from tide gauges (HICKS terest to the present study are the et analysesal., 1983). by The relative sea-level change mea- VINCENT (1989) and MITCHELL suredet al. by(1991) the oftide gauge at Astoria is -0.1 to -0.2 geodetic data along a north-south mm/yr,line extending while the rate at Neah Bay on the north the full length of the Oregon coast. coast Vincent of Washington com- is -1.3 mm/yr, and at Cres- pared the surveys made in 1931 and cent 1988 City to in es- northern California the rate is -0.7 tablish elevation changes; the values mm/yr are graphed (the negative signs signify that the water here in Figure 3. The movement so level determined is dropping is relative to the land). It is possible relative rather than absolute, so Vincent to use thesenormal- tide gauge data to convert the ele- ized the elevation changes to the vationbench markchanges in relative to Crescent City deter- Crescent City, just south of the bordermined inby Cali- VINCENT (1989) into rates compared fornia. Accordingly, the elevation withchange the scale global on eustatic change in sea level. This the left of the diagram in Figure is 3 simplygives 0 donefor by shifting the first scale on the Crescent City, while positive values right for ofother Figure lo- 3, that relative to the Cresent City cations represent an increase in elevation bench mark, relative by an amount of 0.7 mm/yr deter- to Crescent City and negative values mined indicate from re-the tide gauge at that location. This duced elevation relative to Crescent shift yieldsCity (but the rate scale furthest to the right in could still involve tectonic uplift). Figure The 3, overall the rate of land-level change relative to pattern seen in Figure 3 indicates thethat eustatic the small- sea level; here a positive value indi- est uplift has occurred along the cates central that thecoast level of the sea is falling with respect between Newport and Tillamook, withto the higher land (i.e.,up- the land is rising faster than sea lifts south of Coos Bay and along thelevel), very while north- a negative value corresponds to in- ern-most portion of the coast toward undation Astoria of theand land by the rising sea. This coast- the Columbia River. The first scale wide on shiftthe right of the scale by 0.7 mm/yr based on the of Figure 3 indicates the equivalent tide rates, gauge the at dis- Crescent City indicates that Astoria tance of elevation change divided atby the the far lapsed north is rising faster than the sea by an time, 1988 - 1931 = 57 years. The amount differential on the order of 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr, just as rates are significant, for example foundamounting by the to 2tide gauge at that location. Fur- to 3 mm/yr when comparing Astoria thermore, or the southa shorter term (21 years) tide-gauge coast with the Newport and Lincoln record City at areas. Newport midway along the coast also The general uplift of the Northwest agrees withcoast the is analysis results in Figure 3 (SHIH,

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1993

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:48:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Sea Cliff Erosion 751

1992). This overall Netarts Bay, Oregon,agreement it has been estimated that demonstrates the validity of the catastrophic geodetic earthquakes have occurreddata at least analyzed by VINCENT (1989) to determine six times in the past 4,000elevation years, at intervals rang- changes, and sup- ports the analyses ing from 300undertaken to 1,000 years. The last recorded here to convert that data into a rate event of took place change about 300 years ago. Therefore, compared with the in- creasing level of there is strongthe evidence sea. that major subduction According to earthquakesthe do resultsoccur along the Northwest graphed coast, in Figure 3, the southern half but with long of periods ofthe inactivity between.Oregon Of coast is presently rising faster than relevance to seathe cliff erosion eustaticis that an earthquake sea level while the northern stretch releases strain between that has been built up by subduc-Newport and Tillamook is being submerged tion. Some areas of theby coast maythe drop by 1 torising 2 sea. The latter rates are on the meters order during the release, of while other1 areasto un- 2 mm/yr, and there- fore are small dergocompared minimal subsidence (ATWATER, with 1987, 1992; submergence rates experienced on DARIENZO most and PETERSON, coastlines, 1990). The strain ac- rates of 4 to 6 mm/yr being cumulatescommon between earthquake events,along and this the east and Gulf coasts of the United produces a general uplift States of the coast as recorded (HICKS et al., 1983). The eustatic rise in sea level has been estimated by the geodetic surveys and tide gauges. by various workers to be on the order of 1 to 3 In summary, during aseismic intervals on the mm/yr, the large range being due to the difficulty Northwest coast, periods lasting for hundreds of of separating that world-wide component from years, the accumulation of strain associated with local tectonic and isostatic effects included in rec- plate subduction causes the Oregon coast to tec- ords from tide gauges. Assuming that the eustatic tonically rise but not at a uniform rate (Figure 3). rise in sea level is on the order of 2 mm/yr, the The infrequent seismic event releases the accu- results from Figure 3 indicate that the south coast mulated strain and produces an abrupt subsi- of Oregon is tectonically rising at about 2 to 3 dence of major portions of the coast. The degree mm/yr, while the north-central coast is approxi- of subsidence is likely also highly variable along mately stable. the coast. To a first order, one might expect that It is apparent that the along-coast differences the patterns of sea cliff erosion along the Oregon in tectonic uplift versus changing levels of the sea coast would reflect the tectonic effects of differ- deduced from Figure 3 will be important to spatial ential uplift interrupted by abrupt subsidence. patterns of coastal erosion. However, there also That first-order coast-wide pattern would, of appears to be a temporal change in the tectonics course, be locally affected by second-order effects that would be important to the erosion. Earth- such as the ability of the beach to act as a buffer quake activity is generally associated with sub- between the attacking waves and sea cliffs. duction zones such as that in the Northwest, seis- mic events generated as the oceanic plate slides STUDY SITES AND TECTONIC beneath the continental plate. The Northwest CONTROLS ON CLIFF EROSION coast is anomalous in that respect in that there Most of the Oregon coast is divided into a series have been no historic earthquakes which can be of littoral cells consisting of stretches of beach attributed to plate subduction. However, recent isolated between rocky headlands (Figure 4). The evidence suggests that the plates are temporarily headlands extend into deep water and confine the locked together and that the 200-year historical littoral sands to within the embayments with little record of the Northwest is too short to establish or no bypassing (CLEMENS and KOMAR, 1988). whether earthquakes do accompany subduction. There is a seasonal reversal in the directions of This evidence has come from investigations of sand transport along the beaches, but with a near- estuarine marsh sediments buried by sand layers, ly zero net littoral drift when averaged over sev- deposits which suggest that during prehistoric eral years (KOMAR et al., 1976). Sea cliffs back times portions of the coast have abruptly subsid- the beaches of most cell embayments, although ed, generating extreme tsunamis that swept over sand spits and dunes are found along some the area to deposit the sand (ATWATER, 1987, 1992; stretches of coast. From north to south, Figure 4, DARIENZO and PETERSON, 1990; ATWATER and YA- the littoral cells included in this study are: MAGUCHI, 1991). Based on the numbers of such layers found in Willapa Bay, Washington, and (1) Cannon Beach Cell: The stretch of sea cliffs

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1993

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:48:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 752 Komar and Shih

0 50 km I II

Cape Lookout SAND LAKE CELL Cape Kiwanda

NESTUCCA Columbia River CELL Cascade Head

LINCOLN CITY CELL

Tillamook Head Cape Foulweather CANNON BEACH BEVERLY BEACH CELL CELL Cape Falcon Yaquina Head

ROCKAWAY NEWPORT LITTORAL CELL CELL

Cape Meares

NETARTS CELL Cape Perpetua Cape Lookout

Figure 4. The series of littoral cells on the northern half of the Oregon coast, forming beach embayments between major rocky headlands (black areas).

backing the beach between Tillamook Head jetty construction on the inlet to Tillamook and Cape Falcon. This cell includes the com- Bay (TERICH and KOMAR, 1974). munities of Cannon Beach and Arch Cape. (3) Netarts Cell: The littoral cell between Cape Much of the cliff consists of debris from an- Meares and Cape Lookout. Most of this cell cient landslides and alluvial slopes of the ad- is occupied by Netarts Spit, but stretches of jacent Coast Range. Cliff recession is minimal, sea cliff backing beaches exist along the north occurring locally due to ground water seepage. and south portions of the cell. Cliff recession There is little evidence for direct wave attack was minimal prior to 1982, but the excep- having occurred in recent years. tional wave conditions associated with the (2) Rockaway Cell: This cell consists mainly of 1982-1983 El Nifio induced erosion of the sea Nehalem and Bayocean Spits and the dune cliffs south of the Spit as well as attacking backed shore in between. Sea cliffs are found the Spit itself (KOMAR et al., 1988). Cliff ero- only at the far north and south close to the sion has not taken place along the northern headlands. Cliff recession has been negligible, half of the cell within historic times. except to the south of Bayocean Spit where (4) Sand Lake Cell: The littoral cell between Cape it occurred early this century in response to Lookout and Cape Kiwanda. There is mini-

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1993

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:48:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Sea Cliff Erosion 753

mal development tle bluff with retreat has occurred only has been in response a few houses along the southern half to groundwater of seepage.the This contrastscell, with sea and no significant sea cliff erosion. cliffs in the Lincoln City and Beverly Beach cells (5) Nestucca Cell: The littoral cell between Cape (Figure 5B and C), where there have been fre- Kiwanda and Cascade Head. Most of the beach quent episodes of waves removing the accumu- is backed by sand dunes and Nestucca Spit. lated talus and, in some cases, directly attacking The stretches of sea cliff are heavily vegetated the cliff itself. At any given site, this may occur and fronted by dunes. only after a decade of talus accumulation, but (6) Lincoln City Cell: The littoral cell between even within that period the degree of vegetation Cascade Head and the Government Point cover is far less dense and involves different plants portion of Cape Foulweather. Development than is found on talus that has accumulated over high, including the communities of Lincoln many decades (we are attempting to develop a City, Gleneden Beach and Lincoln Beach. plant succession index and growth as a measure High cliffs of Pleistocene terrace sands back of frequency of talus and cliff erosion). the beach over much of its length. Cliff erosion We have tried to utilize sequences of aerial pho- is locally significant and represents a man- tographs to obtain quantitative measurements of agement problem due to the concentrated long-termde- cliff recession rates, but these have not velopment along the bluff edge. been particularly successful even in areas of the (7) Beverly Beach Cell: Cape Foulweather south Lincoln City and Beverly Beach cells that are to Yaquina Head. Steep cliffs are cut into known to have experienced wave attack in recent Tertiary mudstones that are susceptible years. to Our principal analyses have centered on the landsliding. Homes and the coastal highway Taft area of Lincoln City, an area that eroded are affected by the cliff recession and insta- during the winter of 1978 (discussed below). Ae- bility. rial photographic coverage is available with the (8) Newport Cell: Yaquina Head south to Cape oldest photographs dating back to 1939. However, Perpetua. Large-scale landsliding has oc- the 1939 photos are of poor quality and large scale, curred in the Tertiary mudstones of the New- and so have been difficult to use in the analyses. port area. Cliff recession is otherwise small in Extensive aerial photographic coverage is not the Newport area, and medium along the more available until the 1970's. As a result, even in the southerly portion of the cell. Taft area that was thought to represent signifi- cant cliff recession, we have been unable to sat- In addition to investigating cliff erosion within isfactorily and convincingly determine the long- these littoral cells on the northern-Oregon coast, term erosion rate using aerial photographs. The we have also examined site-specific problems along photographs do show episodes of talus removal the southern half of the coast. Most noteworthy followed by decades of accumulation, but reces- of these site-specific studies of cliff erosion and sion of the cliff edge has been too small to accu- related problems was an investigation of the ero- rately measure with the aerial photographs. sion potential at Bandon (Figure 1) (KOMAR et Ground photographs substantiate that cliff re- al., 1991). treat in the Taft area has in fact been small. Tour- The degrees of cliff erosion noted above for the ist photos (Figure 6, upper), undated but known series of littoral cells are based primarily on qual- to be from the 1920's, suggest that the top of the itative assessments. Direct evidence is provided bluff has retreated less than 1 meter, yielding a by the degree of vegetation cover, the quantity of rate less than 2 cm/yr. My own collection of pho- accumulated talus fronting the cliff, and the oc- tographs from the Lincoln City area span some currence or absence of wave attack in recent years. 20 years, and also indicates that cliff retreat has For example, the bluffs and talus in the Cannon been very slow. Thus, even in areas of the coast Beach cell are well vegetated (Figure 5A), as are perceived to be undergoing significant cliff ero- the bluffs fronting Bandon on the south coast sion, the long-term retreat rates are actually very (Figure 5D). There have been no occurrences of small. In a few locations, the retreat has been significant wave removal of the talus or any direct dramatic as rip-current embayments reached the attacks of the bluff evident either in aerial pho- base of the cliff and allowed the direct attack of tographs dating back to 1939 or in ground pho- waves, at least for a few days (discussed below). tographs taken throughout this century. What lit- That erosion is measurable on aerial photographs,

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1993

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:48:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 754 Komar and Shih

A. Arch Cape (Cannon Beach Cell)

B. Lincoln City

C. Beverly Beach Cell

D. Bandon

Figure 5. The sea cliffs within the Cannon Beach Cell (A) on the northern Oregon coast (Figures 1 and 4), within the Lincoln City (B) and Beverly Beach (C) cells on the mid coast, and at Bandon (D) on the south coast.

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1993

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:48:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Sea Cliff Erosion 755

Figure 6. (Upper) An old photo (circa 1920's) of the Taft area of Lincoln City, compared with a 1978 photograph (Lower) taken following an episode of erosion that occurred after drift logs had been removed from the fronting beach. The 1978 erosion removed that accumulated talus, but had no immediate effect on the upper part of the cliff which has changed little since the 1920's, demonstrating that bluff retreat has been minor within the past 60 to 70 years.

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1993

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:48:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 756 Komar and Shih but it is local andmity extremely without appreciableepisodic, and degradation in the by subaeri- long term still representsal processes a smallsuggests rate that of recession. the cliff has experienced This opens to question wave erosion the rates in the determined not-too-distant for past (Figure Lincoln County 5A). by SMITHThis condition (1978) based is still on moreaerial evident at Ban- photographs. She don placed on the the south county-wide coast (Figure average 5D), where, in at 20 ft (6 m) ofaddition erosion to between the steep 1939 cliff and backing 1973, the beach, a an average rate numberof of18 sea stacks cm/yr exist in the immediate (thisoff- high rate is skewed somewhat by her shore, many inclusion having flat tops which continue of the toe erosion of land- slides). Although level of theit marine is terrace clear (KOMAR et al., 1991).from the cliff mor- phology and periodic Our interpretation of bothremoval the Cannon Beach cell of talus by waves that sea cliff erosion and the Bandon area is that is cliff erosionoccurring occurred in the Lincoln City cell, the rates following the lastof major recessionsubduction earthquake are certainly much smaller than reported 300 years ago, an event that by likely resulted Smith. in the Another factor abrupt thatsubsidence of thosemakes areas. However, theit difficult to use aerial photographs subsequent aseismicto upliftmeasure has progressively di- cliff recession along the Oregon coast minished the cliffis erosion, the to the pointmass where it movement of the cliff itself. In has essentiallythe ceased Beverly in the Cannon Beach cell Beach and Newport littoral cells, the and at Bandon. sea The othercliffs littoral cells likely consist also mainly of Ter- tiary mudstones. experienced In subsidence some followed by uplift,areas but large blocks, sev- eral acres in extent, their rates of subsequent are uplift haveslowly been insuf- moving intact to- ward the sea, being ficient relative to displacedrising sea level to completely by only 10 to 20 cm per year. As a block halt the continued slowlycliff erosion. slides toward the ocean, wave erosion cuts back its seaward edge at just LOCAL CONTROLS ON about the same rate. Although bluff erosion is SEA CLIFF EROSION occurring locally in these slide areas and homes slowly shift toward Although there theis a first-order cliff pattern ofedge, cliff the cliff line itself remains recessionapproximately variability along the length of thestationary Or- in posi- tion as viewed egonin coast an that parallelsaerial the tectonic photograph. uplift versus Although our assessmentssea-level rise, there is a great dealof of morethe local degrees of cliff erosion are qualitative, variability (spatial and it temporal) is thatstill must bereadily apparent that there are explaineddifferent by other factors. degreesThese factors include of retreat in the eight littoral cells the overall involvedability of the fronting beachin tothis act as study, from a maximum in the a buffer Lincolnbetween the waves and City cliffs, beach andpro- Beverly Beach cells to essentially cesses such noneas runup and erosionin thewithin rip-cur- Cannon Beach cell. It appears that rentthis embayments, along-coast and the composition and struc-spatial variability is in part associated ture of the cliff material. with These local factorsthe can large scale patterns of coastal uplift be viewed versus as second-order controls global that are su- rise in sea level an- alyzed in Figure perimposed 3. onThe the first-order portion variability deter- of coast containing the Lincoln City mined by tectonicsand and sea Beverly level. In some cases, Beach cells is ex- periencing a small these second-order degree controls are most of important relative sea-level rise, while, of the eight in governing thecells amount of cliff involved erosion at a spe- in our study, the Cannon Beach cell cific site. at the far north is experiencing the greatest uplift The importance relative of cliff composition to to the ero-the rising sea. There- fore, there is a sion roughis evident when one first-ordercompares the Newport parallelism be- tween the extent and Beverly of Beach littoralcliff cells with thoseerosion further and relative sea- level change. Of to the particular north. The sea cliffs in the Newport interest and is the minimal erosion during Beverlyhistoric Beach cells consist mainlytimes of Tertiary of sea cliffs within the Cannon Beach mudstones (Figurecell, 2). These depositsthe locally northern-most dip cell. What little cliff seaward atretreat 30 degrees in the Nye Beach exists area of is associated with groundwater seepage, Newport, producing the directmajor Jump-Off Joe wave attack of cliffs backing the beach landslide (SAYRE having and KOMAR, 1988). The been first almost nonexis- tent and accounting movement on that for slide occurred very in 1942 and in- little erosion. Yet the steepness of the volved 15cliff acres and destroyed and 15 homes. itsOther along-shore unifor-

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1993

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:48:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Sea Cliff Erosion 757

Figure 7. The slow mass movement of cliff material immediately north of Yaquina Head within the Beverly Beach cell, destroying roads and sewers of a new development. nearby slides were Landsliding has prehistoric also been important in the in their initiation, but continue to Cannon Beachmove cell where the cliffand material con- expand so they have progressively affectedsists of muddy alluvium andmore ancient debris flows.property. Cliff reces- sion in the Newport Major efforts have areabeen made to mainlycontrol these occurs at the toes of the active landslides. Bluff retreat in non-land- slides (drainage, etc.) since they affect the main slide areas is otherwise small, evident in compar- coastal highway. These efforts have reduced the isons between the modern cliff and that seen in impacts in recent years. Landslides have not been old ground photographs taken as much as a cen- a significant problem in the other littoral cells. tury ago. Landsliding is also important in the Bev- The cliff in the Lincoln City cell is composed en- erly Beach cell, but is less catastrophic and rapid tirely of Pleistocene terrace sands, and these fail compared with that in the Newport cell. This dif- by small-scale vertical fall rather than developing ference probably results because the seaward dips large-scale slides typical of the Tertiary mud- of the Tertiary mudstones are at lower angles stones. in the Beverly Beach cell. Landsliding at the south- Of the series of littoral cells, cliff erosion is most ern end of the Beverly Beach cell, just north ofactive in the Beverly Beach cell (Figure 5C). Some Yaquina Head, involves a slow mass movement of this erosion is occurring along intact masses of and disruption of a large area. Although the an- land slowly moving en masse toward the sea as nual movement is small, a recent attempt to de- described earlier. However, another important velop the site led to the wholesale destruction of factor is that the beach within this cell offers in- roads and sewers (Figure 7). sufficient buffering protection. PETERSON et al.

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1993

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:48:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 758 Komar and Shih

(1991) have established wave attack. that the The beach comparable sand vol- sand accumulation ume within this at cell the is north relatively end of small the Newportdue to a littoral cell, im- lack of sediment mediately sources. Its south buffering of Yaquina capacity Head, is is seen in Fig- more directly evident ure 8 (lower). in measurements This was the of pattern wave in most of the runup (SHIH, 1992). littoral The cells objective during ofthe our 1982-1983 mea- El Nifio, and surements of wave persisted runup isfor to severaldocument years the thereafter fre- until sand quency with which was able to driftwaves back to the south reach under the the talus and base of the sea cliff, normal and wave regime. the intensity of the swash runup when it does Most of our researchso. concerned The with seavideo-analysis cliff tech- niques developed erosion hasby centered HOLMAN on the Lincoln City cell (Fig- and SALLENGER (1985) are being ure employed. 9). This cell is of particular interest Although due to continuing, the measurements the extensive to development date along thishave stretch of established that swash runup frequently coast and the associated management reaches problems. the cliff base in the Beverly Beach In addition, cell, one unusual featurebut of thisrarely cell en- in the other cells. Beach surveys hances its scientific show interest-there that is a marked this is due to the low elevations of longshore the variation beach in the coarseness profile of the beach with respect to mean sea level and sand, and thishigh-tide produces longshore changes elevations. in the An interesting beachpattern morphology, in the ofnearshore spatial processes, and variability in beach and cliff erosionin the resulting factors developed important to cliff erosion. during the 1982- 1983 El Nifio and We persistedhave completed a detailed studyfor of the severalchang- years there- after. That El Nifioing grain-size distributions year from beachwas sand sam- characterized by unusually severe ples collectedstorms along the full lengthand of the cellenhanced (SHIH, water lev- els due to a coastally 1992). Our analyses show trapped that the longshore vari- sea-level "wave" (KOMAR, 1986; ationsKOMAR in grain sizes are producedet al.,by the relative 1988; KOMAR and GOOD, 1989). Also proportions important of discrete grain-size modes withinwas that the storm centers crossed the overall sand-sizecoast distributions. far We have suc-to the south in Cal- ifornia, and this ceeded resulted in tracing these individual in modes aback strongto northward transport of sand specific areaswithin of the eroding sea thecliff. Of interest littoral cells. There is generally a long-term to us are the longshore movements equilibrium and mixing of between the north and south these sand grain-size modes,movements and why the mixing pro- within the pock- et beaches of the cesses cells, of the nearshore yieldinghave not succeeded in ho- an effectively zero net littoral drift mogenizing (KOMAR the beach sands to eliminateet al., long- 1976). This equi- librium was upset shore variations. during However, the overallthe effect of1982-1983 El Nifio when strong waves this longshore approached sorting is that the beaches toward the Oregon coast from a more southwesterly the central to south part of the cell are coarsest;direction and pro- duced an enhanced this includes northward the beaches fronting Siletz Spit sandand transport. The resulting effect the wascommunity ofone Gleneden ofBeach (Figuresand 9). erosion at the south end of each Sand sizeslittoral decrease somewhat towardcell, the south, and beach accretion at the north end. but particularly This toward thecan north wherebe the sandviewed as the re- orientation of the is finest inpocket the Roads End area ofbeach Lincoln City. within the cell to face the waves arriving The effects on the beach frommorphology are signifi-the southwest, or as any one headland cant, with actingthe coarse-grained beach like at Gleneden a jetty so that it blocks sand on its being a steepsouth reflective beach forand most of thecauses year erosion to its immediate north. while the This beach at Roads pattern End has a low slope and is illustrated in Figure 8 for the is highly beaches dissipative with a wide north surf zone. and south of Ya- quina Head, respectively Beach profiles have been obtained in at eleven the Beverly Beach and Newport littoral stations spaced at roughly cells. even intervals Within along the Beverly Beach cell, the beach the length of the wasLincoln City denuded cell in order to of sand at its south end (Figure document 8, the beach upper) morphologies and howand they cliff erosion en- sued due to the changelack with sediment of sizes any (SHIH, 1992). Twobuffer, sets while at the same time sand of profilesaccumulated have been obtained, one during the and widened the beach at the north summer and theend second in theof winter theso that gross Beverly Beach cell to provide a strong seasonal changes buffer can also be examined. Inand addi- protection from

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1993

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:48:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Sea Cliff Erosion 759

Figure 8. Erosion and accretion respectively to the north and south sides of Yaquina Head during the 1982-1983 El Nifio due to an abnormally extreme annual littoral drift to the north.

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1993

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:48:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 760 Komar and Shih

LINCOLN CITY CELL Cascade Head

Salmon

...... nd...... Lincoln City

...... Devil's Lake O

Taft

S .i. .Ik...... m. . e i

SiSiletz letz

River

Gleneden Beach

(160) ,Fishing Rock -Fogarty Creek 0.25 0.30 Q35 040 045 0.50 Government MEDIAN DIAM. (mm) Point

Figure 9. The Lincoln City cell where the beach sand is coarsest in the vicinity of Gleneden Beach and becomes progressively finer toward the north and somewhat to the south. The bounding headlands are shown in black.

tion, high-density profiling hasmoved been under aundertaken given storm are larger on the steep at approximately monthly intervals reflective forbeach. overThis makes a yearthe reflective beach at Gleneden Beach State Park (reflective beach) a weaker buffer from wave attack, and cliff erosion and at the 21st Street beach access at the north is therefore more active than in the area where end of Lincoln City (dissipative beach). This high- the cliff is fronted by a fine-grained dissipative density profiling permits the generation of de- beach. In addition, we have found that the de- tailed topographic maps of the beach and more velopment of rip current embayments is extreme- accurate analyses of seasonal changes. Of partic- ly important on the reflective beach and largely ular interest in this series of profiles is the contrast controls the locations of maximum episodic cliff in the response of the reflective and dissipative erosion (Figure 10). The process is similar to that beaches to winter storms and to a determination described by KOMAR and REA (1976) and KOMAR of whether they offer contrasting degrees of buf- (1983) for the erosion of Siletz Spit immediately fering protection for the sea cliffs. The results north of Gleneden Beach, which is also fronted document that profile changes and accompanying by the reflective beach. Ground observations and quantities of cross-shore sediment transport are aerial photographs show that rip currents on steep much greater on the coarse-grained reflective reflective beaches tend to cut narrow embay- beach (Gleneden Beach) than on the dissipative ments, so they exert a significant role in control- beach at the north end of the littoral cell. The ling the erosion impact along the sand spit and rates of change as well as total quantities of sand also in the sea cliff areas. In contrast, rip current

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1993

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:48:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Sea Cliff Erosion 761

Figure 10. Beach and sea cliff erosion at Gleneden Beach due to the development of a rip-current embayment which allowed storm- wave swash to reach the cliff base.

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1993

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:48:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 762 Komar and Shih embayments on permitted theremoval of a significantdissipative portion of the beaches of north Lincoln City are logs from thatbroader beach. During the winter inof 1977- their longshore ex- tents, but do not1978, the first cut episode of cliffas erosion deeply in many through the beach berm. This is also the case in the other littoral years took place at Taft, erosion which removed cells on the north Oregon coast (Figure 4) since the accumulated talus but had little direct affect they are fronted by dissipative beaches. on the cliff itself (Figure 6, lower). Since that ero- Bluff retreat in north Lincoln City, where the sion, logs have returned to this beach and there dissipative beach is present, depends mainly on has been no subsequent erosion. However, this subaerial processes of rainfall against the cliff face evidence for the inducement of erosion by log re- and groundwater seepage. The loosened material moval is circumstantial and questionable in view accumulates as talus at the base of the cliff. That of the fact that erosion also took place during that accumulation may continue for several years to 1978 storm at other locations where logs had not decades, at which time it is removed by wave ac- been removed from the beach (KOMAR, 1978). tion during an unusually severe storm accompa- More definite is the role of natural cobble ram- nied by high-tide levels. There is little direct wave parts backing an otherwise sandy beach in offer- attack of the cliff and no evidence for undercut- ing local protection to the sea cliff. Examples are ting. However, once the talus has been removed shown in Figure 11 from the Manzanita area at by the waves, sloughing of the cliff surface accel- the north end of the Rockaway cell and from erates so that a new mass of talus quickly forms. Oceanside within the Netarts Cell. The cobbles Our program of obtaining video measurements are derived from nearby headlands, so the ram- of wave runup has focused primarily on the beach- parts are most effective in offering protection to es at Gleneden Beach and at 21st Street in north the cliffs in close proximity to the headlands. It Lincoln City (SHIH, 1992). The data are being is apparent in Figure 11 that the cobbles are pro- used to examine the model of THORNTON et al. tecting the sea cliffs from direct wave attack, the (1987) which accounts for water levels in the near- natural configurations of these deposits being more shore by evaluating tidal elevations together with effective than artificial placement of riprap. The the superimposed wave setup and runup, and sea cliffs in both locations are densely vegetated, hence the frequency and intensity of wave attack and the top of the cobble rampart at Manzanita on the cliff. We have found that infragravity mo- is partly vegetated and covered with rotting drift tions, those having periods longer than the inci- logs-it is unlikely that wave action has reached dent waves (i.e., greater than 20 sec), are extreme- the cliff in more than a century. ly important in the runup on the dissipative beach CONCLUSIONS of north Lincoln City, but less so on the reflective beach at Gleneden Beach. This also accounts for There is a high degree of spatial and temporal differences in cliff erosion processes and intensi- variability in cliff erosion intensity along the Or- ties at these two locations within the Lincoln City egon coast which has made it difficult for citizens cell. The low-intensity infragravity dominated and communities to react to the problem in a swash in north Lincoln City acts only to remove satisfactory manner. There is a systematic first- the talus, whereas the swash at Gleneden Beach order spatial variation along the full length of the has a strong incident-wave component which can coast that reflects the north-to-south pattern of rapidly remove the talus and directly attack the tectonic uplift versus eustatic sea-level rise, that cliff base. documented in Figure 3. Uplift exceeds the sea- There are other complicating factors that may level rise along the southern half of the coast, and control the erosion of sea cliffs along the Oregon in the very northern portion near the border with coast. One is the presence of drift log accumula- Washington; sea cliff erosion is small to negligible tions on the beach berm which might enhance the in those areas, and what little exists is due largely protection from wave attack. Our examination of to groundwater seepage and other subaerial pro- the potential role of drift logs has centered mainly cesses rather than resulting from wave attack. The on the Taft area of Lincoln City, the stretch of global rise in sea level exceeds the tectonic uplift beach immediately north of the inlet to Siletz Bay in the north-central portion of the coast, and cliff (Figure 9). Taft beach tends to accumulate large erosion there is more significant and represents a quantities of logs, so much so that its recreational management problem. In this stretch of coast there uses are affected. For this reason, in 1976 the state is a considerable smaller-scale spatial and tem-

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1993

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:48:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Sea Cliff Erosion 763

A. Manzanita (Rockaway Cell)

B. Oceanside (Netarts Cell)

Figure 11. The heavily vegetated sea cliffs at Manzanita at the north end of the Rockaway cell and at Oceanside within the Netarts cell, each protected by a cobble rampart. Low-sloping dissipative beaches front the cobble ramparts, the one at Manzanita being submerged during high tides.

poral variability, of reflective a versus second-order dissipative beaches. The re- level of varia- tions in cliff recession. We have identified a num- flective beach is much more dynamic in profile ber of factors that account for this variability. changesOf under varying wave conditions, and rip particular importance is the overall buffering abil- current embayments are extremely important in ity of the beach to protect the sea cliff from direct cutting back the beach berm so that waves can wave attack. Analyses of wave runup and profile- directly attack the sea cliff. This is significantly elevation changes have demonstrated different different from the response of the dissipative beach buffering capacities of the beaches in the series where the runup is dominated by infragravity (pe- of littoral cells along the Oregon coast. In partic- riod > 20 sec) wave motions that act at most to ular, the overall cliff erosion is maximum within wash away talus that has accumulated at the cliff the Beverly Beach cell due to low elevations of base due to subaerial processes. Other factors im- the beach profiles relative to wave runup heights. portant to variations in cliff erosion include long- This can also vary spatially and temporally within shore movements of sand within the embayments a specific littoral cell. This is especially the case of the littoral cells as waves approach the coast in the Lincoln City cell due to longshore variations from different directions (important during the in beach sediment grain sizes that result in areas 1982-1983 El Nifio), the development of cobble

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1993

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:48:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 764 Komar and Shih

ramparts fronting rang for histhe assistance cliff, in undertaking and the field numerous small- scale factors such program asof this streams, study. groundwater con- centrations and man-induced conditions (cul- verts, etc.) that have LITERATURE not CITED been addressed in this paper. ADAMS, J., 1984. Active deformation of the Pacific Based on the findings of our study, it is appro- Northwest continental margin. Tectonics, 3, 449-472. ATWATER, B.F., 1987. Evidence for great Holocene priate to offer suggestions with respect to man- earthquakes along the outer coast of Washington state. agement decisions regarding problems with Science,sea 236, 942-944. cliff erosion on the Oregon coast. Our initial ATWATER, ob- B.F., 1992. Geologic evidence for earthquakes jective was to undertake standard aerial-photo during the past 2000 years along the Copalis River, analyses to determine long-term recession rates southern coastal Washington. Journal of Geophysical Research, 97(B2), 1901-1919. so that set-back distances could be established. ATWATER, B.F. and YAMAGUCHI, D.K., 1991. Sudden, However, that approach proved to be largely fruit- probably coseismic submergence of Holocene trees less even in areas thought to be eroding at sub- and grass in coastal Washington state. Geology, 19, stantial rates. The long-term retreat turns out to 706-709. BYRNE, J.V., 1963. Coastal erosion, northern Oregon. In: be much less than initially thought. This was con- CLEMENTS, T. (ed.), Essays in Marine Geology in firmed by comparisons between the modern cliff Honor of K.O. Emery. Los Angeles, California: Uni- and old photographs taken by tourists early this versity of Southern California Press, p. 11-33. century. The establishment of set-back lines is BYRNE, J.V., 1964. An erosional classification for the still a valid management approach, but should be northern Oregon coast. Association of American Ge- ographers Annals, 54, 329-335. based on a general assessment of the factors dis- CLEMENS, K.E. and KOMAR, P.D., 1988. Oregon beach- cussed in this paper-the capacity of the beach sand compositions produced by the mixing of sedi- to locally serve as a buffer and the susceptibility ments under a transgressing sea. Journal of Sedi- of the cliff material to landsliding. These factors mentary Petrology, 58, 519-529. and thus the recommended set-back distances dif- DARIENZO, M.E. and PETERSON, C.D., 1990. Episodic tectonic subsidence of late Holocene salt marshes, fer from one cell to another, and secondarily with- northern Oregon central Cascadia margin. Tectonics, in the littoral cell itself. 9, 1-22. Management decisions should also reflect the HICKS, S.D.; DEBAUGH, H.A., and HICKMAN, L.E. 1983. potential for the occurrence of another subduc- Sea Level Variations for the United States, 1855- 1980. Rockville, Maryland: U.S. Department of Com- tion earthquake, which among its destructive ef- merce, NOAA, National Ocean Service, 170p. fects would be increased beach and cliff erosion HOLMAN, R.A. and SALLENGER, A.H., 1985. Set-up and along the coast. The present patterns of cliff ero- swash on a natural beach. Journal of Geophysical sion reflect the along-coast interseismic uplift that Research, 90(C1), 945-953. KoMAR, P.D., 1978. Wave conditions on the Oregon coast has presumably continued for 300 years since the during the winter of 1977-1978 and the resulting ero- last major earthquake. Many sea cliffs show evi- sion of Nestucca Spit. Shore & Beach, 46, 3-8. dence for significant erosional retreat in the dis- KOMAR, P.D., 1983. The erosion of Siletz Spit, Oregon. tant past, but are now heavily vegetated and have In: KOMAR, P. (ed.), Handbook of Coastal Processes not retreated due to wave attack within historic and Erosion. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, pp. 65-76. times. Our interpretation is that the erosion oc- KOMAR, P.D., 1986. The 1982-83 El Nifio and erosion curred following the last subduction earthquake on the coast of Oregon. Shore & Beach, 54, 3-12. and accompanying subsidence, but that the sub- KOMAR, P.D. and GOOD, J.W., 1989. Long-term erosion sequent aseismic uplift has halted continued ero- impacts of the 1982-83 El Nifio on the Oregon coast. Coastal Zone '89 (ASCE), pp. 3785-3794. sion. Another subduction earthquake, which has KOMAR, P.D. and REA, C.C., 1976. Erosion of Siletz Spit, a high probability of occurrence within the next Oregon. Shore & Beach, 44, 9-15. 100 years, can be expected to result in rejuvenated KOMAR, P.D.; LIZARRAGA-ARCINIEGA, J.R., and TERICH, sea cliff erosion, and therefore should be included T.A., 1976. Oregon coat shoreline changes due to jet- in management considerations. ties. Journal of Waterways, Harbors and Coastal En- gineering (ASCE), 102(WW1), 13-30. KOMAR, P.D.; GOOD, J.W., and SHIH, S.-M., 1988. Ero- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS sion of Netarts Spit, Oregon: Continued impacts of This work is a result of research supported the 1982-83by El Nifio. Shore & Beach, 57, 11-19. KOMAR, P.D.; TORESTENSON, R.W., and SHIH, S.-M., the NOAA Office of Sea Grant, Department of 1991. Bandon, Oregon: Coastal development and the Commerce, under grant NA81AA-D000086, potential Proj- for extreme ocean hazards. Shore & Beach, ect R/CP-24. We would like to thank Mark 59, Lo- 14-22.

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1993

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:48:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Sea Cliff Erosion 765

MITCHELL, C.E.; WELDON, Thesis, Corvallis: Oregon R.J.; State University VINCENT, College of P., and PITTOCK, H.L., 1991. Oceanography, Active 135p. uplift of the Pacific Northwest margin SMITH, (abstract). E.C., 1978. Determination ofEOS, Coastal Changes the American Geophysical Union. in 72,Lincoln County, 314. Oregon, Using Aerial Photograph- NORTH, W.B. and BYRNE, ic Interpretation. J.V.,Research Paper, 1965. Corvallis: Oregon Coastal landslides in northern Oregon. State TheUniversity, OreDepartment Bin.of Geography, Portland, 29p. Oregon: Department of Geology STEMBRIDGE, J.E., and 1975. Shoreline Mineral Changes and Phys- Industries, 27, 217-241. iographic Hazards on the Oregon Coast. Ph.D. Dis- PETERSON, C.D.; PETTIT, D.J.; DARIENZO, M.E.; JACKSON, sertation, Eugene: University of Oregon, Department P.L.; ROSENFELD, C.L., and KIMERLING, A.J., 1991. of Geography, 202p. Regional beach sand volumes of the Pacific North- SUNAMURA, T., 1992. Geomorphology Rock Coasts. west, USA. Coastal Sediments '91 (ASCE), pp. 1503- New York: Wiley, 302p. 1517. TERICH, T.A. and KOMAR, P.D., 1974. Bayocean Spit, REILINGER, R. and ADAMS, J., 1982. Geodetic evidence Oregon: History of development and erosional de- for active landward tilting of the Oregon and Wash- struction. Shore & Beach, 42, 3-10. ington Coastal Ranges. Geophysical Research Let- THORNTON, E.B.; MCGEE, T.; TUCKER, S.P., and BURYCH, ters, 9, 401-403. D.M., 1987. Predicted erosion on the recessive Mon- SAYRE, W.O. and KOMAR, P.D., 1988. The Jump-Off Joe terey Bay shoreline. Coastal Sediments '87 (ASCE), landslide at Newport, Oregon: History of erosion, de- pp. 1809-1824. velopment and destruction. Shore & Beach, 56, 15- VINCENT, P., 1989. Geodetic Deformation of the Oregon 22. Cascadia Margin. M.S. Dissertation, Eugene: Univer- SHIH, S.-M., 1992. Processes of Sea Cliff Erosion on the sity of Oregon, 86p. Oregon Coast: Neotectonics to Wave Run-up. Ph.D.

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1993

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:48:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Sediments, Beach Morphology and Sea Cliff Erosion within an Oregon Coast Littoral Cell Author(s): Shyuer-Ming Shih and Paul D. Komar Source: Journal of Coastal Research , Winter, 1994, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Winter, 1994), pp. 144-157 Published by: Coastal Education & Research Foundation, Inc. Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4298199

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Coastal Research

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:49:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Journal of Coastal Research 1 10 1 1 1 144-157 1 Fort Lauderdale, Florida Winter 1994

Sediments, Beach Morphology and Sea Cliff Erosion within an Oregon Coast Littoral Cell Shyuer-Ming Shih and Paul D. Komar

College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331, U.S.A.

ABSTRACTI

SHIH, S.-M and KOMAR, P.D., 1994. Sediments, beach morphology and sea cliff erosion within an Oregon coastal littoral cell. Journal of Coastal Research, 10(1), 144-157. Fort Lauderdale (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208.

4411 k-R The 24-km long beach of the Lincoln City littoral cell on the central Oregon coast is bound by pronounced headlands that prevent bypassing of beach sands, in effect making this a large pocket beach. There is a seasonal reversal in the sand transport along this embayed shoreline, but the net littoral drift is zero. The wave energy is extreme, with storms generating 7-meter significant wave breaker heights. This wave energy is essentially uniform along the Lincoln City littoral cell; in spite of this uniformity, there is a marked longshore variation in grain sizes of the beach sediments and an accompanying change in beach morphology from dissipative to reflective beaches. These variations in the beach sediment grain sizes parallel those found in the sea cliffs which consist of Pleistocene beach and dune deposits apparently formed in environments similar to those found today. Gravel and coarse-sand layers are exposed in the sea cliff along the south-central portion of the littoral cell, and these constitute the major source of coarser sizes in the modern beach. By dissecting the multimodal grain-size distributions of beach sediments into individual modes having log-normal distributions, we have been able to trace the coarse modes back to their sea cliff sources. The proportions of these modes within the beach rapidly decrease away from their sources indicating a relatively small degree of longshore dispersal in spite of the high-energy wave en- vironment. The persistence of the dispersal pattern suggests a period of time that has been insufficient to produce the longshore homogenization of the sediments. It is suggested that the sea cliff erosion which introduces the coarse modes into the beach sediments did not begin or was insignificant until about 300 years ago, at which time a major subduction earthquake caused subsidence of this portion of the coast and rapid cliff recession. The longshore variations in beach sand grain sizes and accompanying beach morphology are playing an important role in the continuing sea cliff erosion with cliffs backing the coarse- grained reflective beaches eroding more rapidly than the cliffs buffered by the fine-grained dissipative beaches.

ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: Beach sediments, beach morphology, erosion, sea cliffs, Oregon.

INTRODUCTION coastal tectonic uplift versus the global rise in The erosion of sea cliffs is highly complexsea level in(KOMAR and SHIH, 1993). On the south- that it involves processes of wave attack, ern bufferedhalf of the coast, the tectonic uplift presently to varying degrees by the fronting beach, exceeds affected the global rise in sea level, and cliff ero- by rainfall and groundwater seepage, sion and thereis con- has been minimal within historic times, trolled in large part by the cliff materials although and there is evidence for substantial bluff structures such as bedding (SUNAMURA, retreat 1992). in the The not too-distant past. Along the processes and factors can differ from north-central one site to coast, global sea level rise exceeds another resulting in a considerable thespatial tectonic and uplift (KOMAR and SHIH, 1993); sea temporal variability in sea cliff erosion cliff rates. erosion This in that area has been more signifi- is the situation along the Oregon coast cant. where On the the whole, the bluff erosion has been large range in experienced bluff retreat relatively has slow,re- but there has been considerable sulted in management problems. This spatial induced and temporalus variability apparently due to undertake a comprehensive investigation to local beachof sea processes and site-specific cliff cliff erosion along the length of the Oregon conditions. coast, one of our chief objectives being to understand The purpose of this paper is to report on an the factors causing the observed variability. investigation On aof the beach factors important to coast-wide scale, much of the difference the local in seathe cliff erosion within the Lincoln City degree of bluff erosion reflects the patternlittoral cell. of Although the main objectives of our research have been concerned with the processes 93048 received and accepted in revision 30 April 1993. of cliff erosion, in this particular littoral cell there

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:49:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Sea Cliff Erosion 145

LINCOLN CITY CELL Cascade Head

...... *...... Ii Salm Ii iSalmon on River Roads

Lincoln City

...... 9 ...... 0 R10 Devi End I's Lake

Taft ...... 6 6 km

Siletz 5 Spit 4 Siletz River

2 Gleneden Beach

(1.60) .,Fishing Rock ZFogarty Creek 0.25 30 Q35 040 0.45 0.50 Government MEDIAN DIAM. (mm) Point

Figure 1. The Lincoln City littoral cell consisting of the stretch of beach between Cascade Head on the north and the Government Point portion of Cape Foulweather on the south. The stretches of rocky shoreline are shown in black, and the sites where beach- sand samples and profiles were obtained are numbered. The median diameters of the summer sand samples are shown in the graph, documenting the pronounced longshore variation in sand coarseness.

are interesting longshore variations and ultimately in beach ofsed- the tectonic history of this por- iment grain sizes, which in turn tion of affectthe coast. the mor- phology of the beach, and ultimately govern the STUDY SITE frequency and intensity of wave attack of the sea cliffs. As reported here, our study The Lincoln in the City Lincoln littoral cell, Figure 1, consists City littoral cell actually deals of morea 24-km with long stretchques- of beach bounded by pro- tions regarding the origin of nouncedthe longshore headlands-Cascade vari- Head on the north ations in the grain sizes on the and beachthe Government than with Point portion of Cape Foul- its effects on the sea cliff erosion. weather toOur the south.analyses There is a secondary rock have documented the longshore promontory movement called Fishing and Rock just to the north mixing of several grain-size of modes Government within Point (Figurethe 1) separating the overall distribution of sediment Fogarty sizes Creek on pocket the beach beach, from the general and how the patterns of this stretch mixing of beach determine occupying this littoral cell. Sim- the local beach morphology. Theilarly, atpresence the north end, of there dis- is a stretch of rocky tinct modes as opposed to a shore,homogenization a small sandy spit at the of mouth of the the sands along the length of Salmon the River, beach and thenwithin the main edifice of Cas- this littoral cell has implications cade Head. regarding the history of beach development Theand major cliff headlands erosion, along the Oregon coast

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1994

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:49:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 146 Shih and Komar extend into deep Astoria in thewater far north. KOMAR andand SHIH (1993) confine the beach sands to within the have littoral-cell shown that this north-south pattern of embaymentscoast- with little or no bypassing al uplift and(CLEMENS relative sea-level rise parallels a gen-and KOMAR, 1988). This has been established eral trend in the degree of bysea cliff erosion.documenting Cliff beach sand compositions recession and within littoral grain cells is minor or absentrounding differences on opposite sides along of the south headlands. coast and in the far north near This, in effect, makes the Lincoln City Astoria, but is morelittoral active on the north-central cell an extended pocket beach and implies coast where the eustatic that rise exceeds the thetectonic long-term net littoral drift must be close to zero. There is a seasonal uplift. This pattern is further confirmed by the reversal in the directions of sand transport along tide gauge in Yaquina Bay some 35 km south of the beach, predominantly south during the sum- the Lincoln City cell with a measured rate of 1.3 mer months and to the north during the winter, ? 0.9 mm/yr determined from a record length of but with a zero net littoral drift when averaged 21 years (SHIH, 1992). This general uplift of the over several years. Direct evidence for this zero coast is associated with the accumulation of strain net littoral drift has come from analyses of sandproduced by the aseismic subduction of the oce- accumulation patterns adjacent to jetties that haveanic Juan de Fuca plate beneath the continental been constructed on Oregon coast inlets with Northsand American plate. No subduction earth- depositing to both the immediate north and south quakes have occurred in the Northwest during of the jetties (KOMAR et al., 1976). historic times, but investigations of marsh de- The Oregon coast is characterized by high wave posits and other lines of evidence demonstrate energies. A microseismometer wave measurement that every few hundred years there is a major system at the Oregon State University Marine subduction earthquake (ATWATER, 1987; ATWA- Science Center in Newport on the central coast TER and YAMAGUCHI, 1991; DARIENZO and PETER- has obtained daily measurements of significant SON, 1990). The release of accumulated strain by wave heights and periods over the past 20 years. an earthquake results in an abrupt drop by up to Compilations of the measurements show that 1the to 2 meters of much of the Northwest coast. breakers are on average about 2 meters high dur-This would account for areas of the coast where ing the summer months, nearly doubling to about highly vegetated sea cliffs are found, indicating 4 meters on average in the winter (KOMAR et. that al., there has been significant cliff recession in 1976). Individual winter storms generate breakers the past, probably following the last subduction having significant wave heights of 6 to 7 meters. earthquake and subsidence that took place about There is a complex pattern of relative sea-level 300 years ago, but that subsequent aseismic uplift change on the Oregon coast due to its tectonic has resulted in a progressive decrease in the cliff setting on a convergent margin which produces erosion, and in places where the uplift is high a aseismic uplift. Tide gauges are present at Astoria total cessation of wave-induced recession (KOMAR on the Columbia River, the northern border et of al., 1991; KOMAR and SHIH, 1993). This is prob- Oregon with Washington, and at Crescent City ably in the pattern in the Lincoln City littoral cell, California just south of Oregon. Both gauges showexcept that the uplift since the last earthquake small negative relative sea-level trends, -0.15 mm/has not been sufficient to completely halt the wave yr at Astoria and -0.7 mm/yr at Crescent City attack and cliff recession. (HICKS et al., 1983). demonstrating that the tec- Sea cliffs back the beach over most of the length tonic rise of the land is presently exceeding ofthe the Lincoln City cell. These cliffs are composed global eustatic rise in sea level. However, this entirelypat- of Pleistocene marine terrace sands, in- tern does not hold for the entire length of cludingthe ancient beach and dune sands. The sed- Oregon coast and specifically not in the area imentary of units within the cliff have a component the Lincoln City littoral cell where the relative of dip toward the north, so there are systematic sea-level rise is on the order of 1 to 2 mm/yr; changesthat in the cliff stratigraphy north-south along is, the eustatic rise exceeds the tectonic uplift. the length of the cell. In the far north, the cliff is This is shown by the analysis of VINCENT (1989) composed entirely of ancient dune sands, a well of geodetic bench-mark leveling along the Oregon sorted medium to fine quartz-rich sand. These coast, the results establishing that the north-cen- dune sands dominate the sea cliff from Roads End tral coast is not rising as rapidly as the south coast, in the north to Taft, just north of the inlet to including Crescent City, or to the same degree Siletz as Bay, midway along the cell (Figure 1). In

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1994

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:49:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Sea Cliff Erosion 147 the Gleneden Beach area in the southern half of beach morphology investigations. Areas were the cell, the cliff sediments become much coarser, avoided where structures such as seawalls or re- coarse sands through gravels, representing vetmentsan- are present, or where streams cross the cient beach and shallow marine sediments. In the beach. The sites are numbered 0 through 11 from Fogarty Creek subcell at the far south end (Figure south to north (Figure 1), with site #0 being with- 1), the Pleistocene terrace sediments are domi- in the Fogarty Creek subcell south of Fisherman's nantly gravels. Here the terrace sediments form Rock and site #11 being on the small sand spit only the upper half of the sea cliff, the lower half near the Salmon River. being Tertiary marine mudstones, rocks that are Beach sand samples were collected from sites exposed in most of the sea cliffs along the Oregon #0 through 10 during July 1987 and January 1988, coast (KOMAR and SHIH, 1993). months that respectively represent summer and Due to the high-relief sea cliffs composed of winter beach conditions. A summer sample from Pleistocene sands through gravels, cliff recession site #11 near the Salmon River was later obtained represents a particularly significant source of sand during June 1991. In all cases, the samples rep- to the beach of the Lincoln City littoral cell, more resent composites of sub-samples collected along so than in other littoral cells along the Oregon the beach-profile length during low tide; compos- coast (CLEMENS and KOMAR, 1988). It is uncertain ite samples were used in order to eliminate the how much sand is being contributed to the beach effects of local cross-shore sorting and to obtain by the Siletz River. Studies of other rivers on the a sample that is representative of the beach as a Oregon coast that have large estuaries indicate whole. Composite samples were also obtained of that most of the riverine sands end up in the sea cliff sediments, combining sub-samples from estuaries, and that the estuaries are actually sinks individual depositional units observed in the cliff. of marine sands carried by tidal currents through All of the samples were washed and dried, and inlets (KULM and BYRNE, 1966; PETERSON et al., then sieved using standard 20-cm diameter sieves 1984). This is also likely the case for the Siletz having 14 - intervals. The samples were sieved River, suggested by the contrasting heavy mineral for 15 minutes on a Ro-Tap shaker. Due to the assemblages found in the river versus the beach presence of coarse grains (> 1 cm) in many sam- (CLEMENS and KOMAR, 1988). It is more probable ples, large samples were employed following the that the Salmon River at the north end of the cell Coates curve presented in LEWIS (1984). Repeated contributes sand to the beach in that the Salmon sieving of one sample with different weights of has only a small estuary which is less likely to sand yielded essentially the same size distribu- trap the riverine sand. However, the potential tion, demonstrating that the large sample sizes sediment contribution would be minor for this did not adversely affect the results. small stream. Budgets of littoral sediments for In addition to the computation of the standard the Lincoln City cell have been developed by statistics (median, standard deviation, etc.) of the KOMAR (1983) and SHIH (1992). The estimates are grain-size distributions, each total distribution was very approximate due to uncertainties of river dissected into a series of modes with each mode contributions and also because of uncertainties assumed to be log-normally distributed. A nu- regarding cliff recession rates. SHIH (1992) merical has computer program was employed that in- shown that likely cliff recession rates would volves sup- entering an initial guess for the propor- ply just about the right amount of sand and gravel,tions, means and standard deviations of N which if distributed over the length and width component of distributions; iteration by the pro- the littoral zone, would result in an average gram ver- adjusts the parameters until the difference tical accretion of the beach that is on the order between the observed total distribution and the of 1 to 2 mm/yr. Therefore, the estimated vertical computed summation of the modes is minimized. accretion of the beach would just about balance An example analysis of one of the beach sediment the local relative rise in sea level in the area of samples is shown in Figure 2, where the observed the Lincoln City littoral cell. grain-size distribution is accounted for by the summation of five modes. METHODS Beach profiles at the sites were obtained with The twelve beach sites identified ina laser-beam Figure 1, total station OMNI. Surveys were spaced at roughly equal intervals along typically the undertaken cell during low tides and ex- length, were chosen for sediment sampling tended as far and offshore as possible by wading. Each

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1994

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:49:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 148 Shih and Komar

iment, as reflected in the medians, is found at the

120 south end of Siletz Spit. From that maximum, the medians of the grain-size distributions system- Siletz South (5) 90 summer atically decrease both to the north and south. There is an abrupt discontinuity in the medians 60 on opposite sides of Fishing Rock, with medium sand to the north within the main stretch of beach 30 5 of the littoral cell, and coarse sand and gravel in IL the subcell pocket beach at Fogarty Creek. This 0 difference reflects the input of coarse sediments 120 from sea cliff erosion within the Fogarty Creek subcell, and also demonstrates that there must be 90 ...... observed fitted little if any exchange of sand between that subcell and the main cell to the north. This is surprising 60 in that Fishing Rock is a rather minor headland,

30 but it is clear that this obstacle plus its under- water rock platform are able to prevent significant

0 longshore exchanges of beach sands. On the other -2 -1 0 1 2 3 hand, the median size of the sand on the small ,1 spit adjacent to the Salmon River at the north Figure 2. The division of a frequency curve for a grain-size continues the trend established by the medians distribution into five log-normally distributed modes, which when of samples collected within the main part of the summed, closely correspond to the observed distribution. cell. This suggests that the fine sand on that stretch of shoreline is able to bypass the area of rocky coast south of the river, but the evidence is not site was marked by a wooden stake located at the absolutely clear since the beach sediments on both base of the cliff, the top of which served as a local sides could be derived from basically the same bench mark. These local references were tied in source without there being an exchange. to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) The frequency curves of the individual grain- so that the profile elevations could be compared size distributions are plotted in the left-hand with mean sea level. All sites were surveyed on a column of Figure 3. These are derived from the semi-annual basis to document the profile differ- sieving analyses of the summer samples with the ences between summer and winter. In addition, histograms first summed to form cumulative Gleneden Beach (site #3) and 21st Street (#9) in curves, the derivative of which yields the smooth Lincoln City were surveyed monthly for two years frequency curves (SHIH, 1992). There is a dom- in order to contrast the beach morphologies re- inate peak centered at about 1.5 0 (0.35 mm), a spectively of a coarse-grained reflective beach and mode that is found in every sample along the a fine-grained dissipative beach. In the first year, length of the littoral cell (the sample from the only one cross-shore profile was obtained at each Fogarty Creek subcell is not included in these of these two beaches; in the second year, six pro- analyses). In addition to that dominant mode, files spaced at 30-meter longshore intervals were there are subsidiary grain-size modes that yield surveyed so that 3-dimensional changes could be a multimodal distribution with the modes rep- compared. resented in different proportions within the se-

RESULTS ries of samples. There is a minor fine-grained mode centered at about 2.4 0 (0.2 mm), one which Sediments is rich in heavy minerals; its maximum devel- The medians of the beach sediment grain-size opment is at the north end of the cell (samples distributions are graphed in Figure 1, demon- #9 and #10) and progressively decreases in sig- strating the pronounced longshore variations nificance toward the south to sample #5 (north within the Lincoln City littoral cell. These results Siletz Spit), and then reappears at the far south are for the samples collected during the summer; in sample #1. More important are the series of the winter samples show similar trends, but with coarse modes, which strongly affect samples #2 more scatter (SHIH, 1992). The coarsest beach sed- through #6 and have a minor presence in samples

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1994

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:49:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Sea Cliff Erosion 149

180 10S Roads End (10) 120

60

0 21st St. (9) 9 I

D-river (8) 8s

35th St. (7) I7 s

Taft Beach (6) 6s

Siletz N. (5) 5

Siletz S. (4) 4

Gleneden Beach (3) 3s

Sea and Sand (2)

100 Willow St. (1) 1s

0 1 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 1

MODE

Figure 3. (Left) The frequency curves for the beach-sand samples collected at the eleven sites in Figure 1 along the length of the Lincoln City littoral cell. (Right) Histograms of the proportions of the five modes found within the corresponding series of frequency curves.

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1994

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:49:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 150 Shih and Komar

(mm) site 2 1 0.5 0.25 0.125 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

* mode 1 30 - 20 mode 2 sum of mode 4 & 5 A mode 3 20 - x mode 4 * mode 5 10 )-- -4-4 4-U---- 9 -15 0 E 4-- 8

30 - coarsest cliff sand -- mode 4 (0.8 mm) 20 - -o- mode 5 (1.3 mm) -

S I------1-- 0 5 Spit 10o-0

0 4) III I I 0 5 10 15 20 25 5 H 3 Distance Along Shoreline (km)

Figure 5. The percentages of the two coarse modes 4 and 5 ? 2 along the shoreline of the Lincoln City littoral cell, indicating a pattern of longshore advection and diffusion as these modes S I I I I are dispersed after introduction onto the beach by sea cliff ero- -1 0 1 2 sion in the area of Gleneden Beach (site #3).

Figure 4. The medians and standard deviations of the modes found within of the beach sediments along thethe south-central frequency curves of Figure 3 for the series of sand samples north-south along the Lincoln City littoral cell. stretch of shoreline (Figure 1). The medians and standard deviations of the modes in the series of samples are graphed in Figure 4. From this, it is #7 and #8. From this it is apparent that the seen that there is some variation from one sample overall coarseness of the beach sands in the south- to the next, but on the whole the medians and central part of the cell, as reflected by the me- standard deviations of the individual modes are dians plotted in Figure 1, result from the addi- consistent along the north-south length of the lit- tion of these coarse modes to the 1.5 0 mode that toral cell. Mode 5 has its median centered at ap- is otherwise dominant along the full length of proximately -0.5 ? (1.3 mm); mode 4 is centered the cell. at 0.4 0 (0.8 mm). As described in the preceding section and il- Of particular interest are the longshore distri- lustrated in Figure 2, these individual grain-size butions of the coarse modes 4 and 5, shown in distributions have been dissected into series of Figure 5. Taken together, these modes form a discrete modes that are individually log-normally maximum in sample #4 at the south end of Siletz distributed but have different medians and stan- Spit. It is apparent that these modes are not de- dard deviations (sorting). In total, five modes could rived from erosion of the spit, but instead enter be identified in the series of samples, modes that the beach system from sea cliff erosion to the varied little over the length of the cell in terms south along Gleneden Beach. Grain-size analyses of their medians and standard deviations. The of samples of cliff sediments from Gleneden Beach right-hand column in Figure 3 shows histograms show that the sizes represented by these modes for the proportions of the modes in the series are of abundant in the cliffs centered at approxi- samples with the modes numbered in sequence mately site #3, Gleneden Beach State Park (SHIH, from the finest to the coarsest. Mode 2 is the 1992). However, the median grain size of the beach dominant 1.5-0 size found in all of the samples. sand as a whole is a maximum at site #4 on Siletz Modes 3, 4 and 5 are the coarse fractions that Spit (Figure 1) caused by the maximum percent- when taken together account for the coarseness age of modes 4 and 5 (Figure 5). It would appear

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1994

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:49:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Sea Cliff Erosion 151 from this that these coarse modes entered the beach sediments to the north; it they were, the beach system at about site #3, but have had anet net transport would at any rate be extremely low. advection toward the north such that the maxi- As discussed earlier, the evidence suggests that mum percentage is presently found at site #4 aboutthe Lincoln City littoral cell and others on the 3 km north of the sea cliff source. From this, Oregon it is coast are in effect pocket beaches, con- apparent that the longshore percentage distri- tained and isolated between the large rocky head- bution of modes 4 plus 5 shown in Figure 5 lands.rep- The apparent northward advection of the resents a pattern of longshore advection and coarsedif- modes likely results from the asymmetry fusion of those modes following their input intoof the wave energies arriving from the northwest the beach with the net advection being to versusthe the southwest. The highest waves arrive north and diffusion accounting for the progressive from the southwest during winter storms with widening and flattening of the observed percent- more moderate waves but of longer duration ar- age distribution. The set of beach-sand samples riving from the northwest during the summer. It has captured the existing longshore pattern isof probable that this asymmetry in wave inten- advection and diffusion that must be evolving withsities accounts for the slow net movement of the time. This interpretation is further supported coarse by fractions to the north, while at the same the lower graph in Figure 5 where the longshore time producing an overall net zero longshore sed- percentages of modes 4 and 5 are graphed sepa- iment transport which includes the finer-grained rately. Both show patterns reflecting advection sands as well as these coarse modes. and diffusion with mode 4 having advected Thea advection/diffusion distributions of modes greater longshore distance from the sea cliff source 4 and 5, Figure 5, have further implications re- than the still coarser mode 5. garding cliff erosion rates and sediment inputs to These documented patterns of longshore dis- the beach. If cliff erosion has continued since the persal of modes 4 and 5 and the overall patterns last subduction earthquake with little or no de- of variable grain sizes within this littoral cell creaseare in time, then the input of the coarse modes rather enigmatic. The immediate question is why should also have been approximately constant for the extreme wave-energy conditions of the Oregon 300 years. Such a continuous input from year to coast have not been able to homogenize the beach year would result in a mode dispersal pattern hav- sediments, dispersing the coarse modes originally ing its maximum at the source position, shown introduced at Gleneden Beach so that they are schematically in Figure 6A. The decrease in the found along the full length of the pocket beach. mode percentage from that source position re- With high wave energy and sufficient time, these flects the processes of diffusion, which could differ modes should be present all the way north to Roads between the north and south directions due to the End (sample #10), not just to sample #7 at Taft. asymmetry of the wave energies as discussed above. The logical answer is that there has not been suf- However, the observed distribution is more akin ficient time, that is, these coarse modes have been to that shown schematically in Figure 6B gener- introduced into the beach sediments only within ated by a single injection of the mode into the the past hundreds of years. Our tentative inter- beach sediments followed by its advection and pretation is that this introduction began or diffusion at alongshore. In reality, the observed dis- least became significant at the time of the most tributions of Figure 5 are somewhere between recent subduction earthquake about 300 years ago.these two extremes, but closer to the single in- This would fit in with evidence discussed earlier jection than to the continuous injection. The im- that a subduction earthquake resulted in the plication is that there was a massive injection at abrupt subsidence of much of the coast which, in the time of the last subduction earthquake, but turn, resulted in large-scale sea cliff erosion. that cliff erosion and sediment input have pro- It has been seen in Figure 5 that modes 4 and gressively declined during the past 300 years. This 5 have advected roughly 5 km and 2.5 km, re- decrease could have resulted from the cliff having spectively, alongshore from their cliff sources in been cut back by the waves and the progressive Gleneden Beach. If we accept 300 years as the growth of the fronting beach that buffers the cliff time period, the corresponding advection rates are from wave attack. Aseismic uplift which would respectively 1.7 and 0.83 meters per year. These have reduced the relative sea-level rise could also rates cannot be viewed as necessarily associated be an important factor in diminishing the coarse- with a net longshore movement or transport of mode input from cliff erosion.

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1994

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:49:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 152 Shih and Komar

1972; KOMAR, 1976; SUNAMURA, 1984). The other pattern apparent in the series of profiles in Figure A. Continuous 7 is that the differences between theInjection summer and winter profiles are much greater on the coarse- grained beaches (excepting Fogarty Creek beach, which is partially protected by offshore rocks). The vertical changes in the beach elevations at S N Siletz Spit and Gleneden Beach amount to as much as 3 to 4 meters between summer and winter, whereas the seasonal elevations of the fine-grained I Source beaches differ by less than 1 meter. During the summer time, the coarse-grained beaches have a wide berm and steep beach face, but during the B. Single Injection winter the profiles are smoother and concave with the steepest slopes immediately fronting the sea advection cliffs. The profiles of the fine-grained beaches dif- fer little in overall form between summer and win- ter, being nearly uniform in slope with only a small degree of concavity (accentuated by the ver- tical exaggeration of the profiles plotted in Figure 7). The summer versus winter profiles of Figure 7 have been used to calculate volume changes per unit shoreline length, normalized to the lengths f Source of the profiles (expressed as m"/m2 of volume Figure 6. A schematic illustration of longshore sediment dis- change per unit area). The results are shown in persal patterns on the beach resulting respectively from a con- tinuous injection from the source (i.e., sea cliff erosion) (A) Figure 8A for the winter minus the summer pro- versus a single injection (B). The measured dispersal patterns files, so that "erosion" of the berm has occurred of the coarse modes in Figure 5 are intermediate between these at all sites except Fogarty Creek where there has two cases, implying a progressive decrease in new material being been little change. The overall pattern seen in injected into the beach sediments. Figure 8A is a maximum volume change having occurred at sites #3 and #4, Gleneden Beach and south Siletz Spit, with progressively declining The above interpretations of the observed long- changes both north and south from that maxi- shore variations of grain sizes and dispersal pat- mum. This pattern follows the longshore varia- terns of individual modes within the Lincoln City tions in beach sediment grain sizes. This corre- littoral cell are speculative. However, there ap- lation is further established in Figure 8B where pears to be no other reasonable explanation. the volume changes between winter and summer profiles are graphed against the median grain sizes MORPHOLOGY at the beach sites. An important conclusion is that The longshore variations in sediment the grain coarser sizesthe grain size, the larger the seasonal within the Lincoln City littoral cell have changes a in sig- beach elevations, important in that nificant effect on the beach morphology. this is one This factor iswhich affects the ability of the seen in Figure 7 which shows the summer beach to act and as a buffer between the ocean waves winter profiles obtained at the series and ofsea cliffs.beach Due to the large changes in eleva- sites. Two patterns emerge. One is that tions the of coars- the coarse-grained beaches, they become er-grained beaches toward the center susceptibleof the cell to erosion during the winter, but have are steeper in overall slope compared a wide with berm the during the summer that prevents finer-grained beaches both to the north wave and attack south. of the sea cliffs. There is relatively Fogarty Creek beach is the steepest of little all. change This in the elevations of the fine-grained of course is the general pattern one findsbeaches onbetween all summer and winter and little coasts, with the slope of the beach face difference increasing in the ability of the beach profile to act with the sediment grain size (BASCOM, 1951;as a buffer. KING,

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1994

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:49:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Sea Cliff Erosion 153

200 140 120 2

4

Taft t-

Gleneden Beach

E(M)

T o 10

- summer . . winter Fogarty Creek

Figure 7. The summer and winter beach profiles obtained at the eleven sites identified in Figure 1, demonstrating that the profiles are steepest in the central part of the cell where the beach sand is coarsest, and undergo greater vertical changes between summer and winter.

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1994

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:49:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 154 Shih and Komar

dimensionality of that coarse-grained beach. This 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1.5 three dimensionality generally takes the form of large cusps on the beach face and still larger em- 10 1.0 bayments cut into the berm by rip currents which E can also leave cusps between adjacent embay- ments. These embayments and cusps are partic- o 0.5 Erosion - S00 ------ularly significant on the coarse-grained beaches E Accretion as found at Gleneden Beach, significant in the

O -0.5 I 1 I I degree to which the rip-current embayments cut 0 5 10 15 20 horizontally through the berm and reduce its el- Longshore Distance (km) evation. As a result, the rip embayments are a major factor in determining the occurrence of 2.0 property erosion, whether the property is on sea cliffs as at Gleneden Beach or on foredunes as V = -1.96 + 6.92 D r = 0.75 c 1.5 E along Siletz Spit. The studies by KOMAR and REA E (1976) and KOMAR (1983) have particularly doc- 4 1.0 umented the importance of rip embayments in governing erosion on Siletz Spit; we have similarly O 0.5 noted examples of localized cliff-erosion episodes E in Gleneden Beach controlled by rip embayments > 0.0 that cut away the protective beach berm (KOMAR and SHIH, 1993). The finer-grained beaches as at 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 21st Street can also be three dimensional with the Median Grain Size (mm) development of rip-current embayments. How- Figure 8. (Top) Longshore variations in volumetric changes of ever, the embayments tend to be broader and do sand within the berm of the profile series given in Figure 7, illustrating that there not cut is back athrough systematic the berm to the same north-south extent variation in berm erosion from assummer on the coarse-grained to beaches winter and, accordingly, along the length of the littoral-cell shoreline. have not(Lower) been as significant The a factor relationship in determin- of the volume change to the median ing propertygrain erosion. size of the beach sand, demonstrat- ing that the coarser sand beaches undergo larger volume changes between summer and winter. The fine- and coarse-grained beaches within the Lincoln City littoral cell can be placed in the clas- sification scheme developed by WRIGHT and SHORT The contrast in beach profile changes noted (1983, 1984), wherein beaches range from dissi- above between coarse- and fine-sand beaches is pative to reflective. The fine-grained beaches like reaffirmed by the approximate monthly profiles those at Roads End and 21st Street in the north- obtained at Gleneden Beach (site #3) and at 21st ern part of the cell are purely dissipative. Due to Street Beach (site #9) in Lincoln City, selected their low slopes, these beaches cause the ocean to represent the two contrasting beach types. Block waves to break far offshore and dissipate most of diagrams obtained by multiple profiles spaced 30their energy as they cross the wide surf zone. When meters apart are shown in Figure 9; example re- a storm occurs producing increased breaker sults for the winter and summer have been chosen heights, the waves break further offshore in deep- from the complete series contained in SHIH (1992). er water and have a still wider surf zone to cross As noted above, little seasonal change is seen in before reaching the shoreline. Measurements of the fine-grained beach at 21st Street, the beach wave run-up on dissipative beaches show essen- being smooth and slightly concave (again accen- tially no increase in incident wave energy within tuated by the vertical exaggeration). In contrast, the swash during storms, but there is an increase marked changes are seen in the seasonal profiles in the energy of infragravity motions, that is, in from Gleneden Beach. As discussed above, the swash having periods greater than 20 seconds summer beach has a wide berm and steep beach (GUZA and THORNTON, 1982; HOLMAN and SAL- face, while the winter beach has a lower elevation LENGER, 1985). In contrast, coarser-grained and slopes more uniformly toward the sea. Also beaches tend to be reflective, their steeper slopes shown in the block profile diagrams from Glen- allowing the incident waves to break closer to shore eden Beach is the strong tendency toward three so that the run-up on the beach face is dominated

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1994

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:49:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Sea Cliff Erosion 155

21st Street, Lincoln City (Site #9)

Nov. 25, 1988 May 7, 1988

Gleneden Beach (site #3) Nov. 25, 1988 May 7, 1989

0

-6

O 1 50

100 meters

O

Figure 9. Examples of black-diagram beach profiles at sites #9 and #3, identified in Figure 1, respectively representing a fine-grain dissipative beach in the north and a steep, coarse-grained reflective beach in the area of Gleneden Beach. by the incident waves and does respond to storms nitely intermediate. However, even then the surf that increase the incident wave energy. This is the zone is relatively narrow and incident waves dom- situation at the coarse-grained beaches within the inate the swash along Gleneden Beach and Siletz Lincoln City cell, that is, at Gleneden Beach and Spit, in contrast to the extremely wide surf zones along Siletz Spit. During the summer when those along the fine-grained beaches to the north and beaches are steepest (Figure 7), they are close to the marked dissipation of incident waves as they being purely reflective within the classification of approach the shoreline. WRIGHT and SHORT (1983, 1984), although some surf zone exists that makes them intermediate SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION between reflective and dissipative. During the winter, the slopes decrease, and this results in The most distinctive feature of the Lincoln City more of a surf zone so that the beaches are defi- littoral cell on the central Oregon coast is its

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1994

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:49:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 156 Shih and Komar marked longshore longshore dispersal of the coarse-sandvariation modes. Re- in beach sediment grain sizes. This search underway variation involves the computer simula- is systematic with the coarsest median tion of sediment dispersalgrain patterns and thesize com- being found at the south-central bined advection part and diffusion ofof certain modalthe beach and decreasing progressively sizes. bothThe complicating factorto of suchthe simulations north and south (Figure 1). This variation is our poor understanding cannot of the selective belong- accounted for by par- allel changes shorein transport the of different wave grain-size fractionsenergy which is generally uniform along within thethe beach, and lengththe fact that the diffusion of this 24-km long beach bounded by processheadlands. in part involves waves approaching Detailed the analyses of the grain-size distributions beach from different directions. We expect to ap-(Figures 2 and 3) have shown that they ply the models consistto examine the observed ofdispersal mixtures of five modes in varying proportions. patterns in the Lincoln City littoral cell,The and also coarseness of the cen- tral stretch toof apply thembeach to examples where is the dispersal accounted for by the ad- dition of three coarse modes to an otherwise me- involves compositional variations, including heavy dium-grained mode that dominates the beach mineral percentages, rather than the movement sediments the full length of the cell. These coarse of grain-size modes. modes have been traced back to a source that is The longshore variations in sediment grain sizes associated with sea cliff erosion in the Gleneden result in parallel variations in the beach mor- Beach area south of Siletz Spit. phology. The coarse-grained beaches along Glen- The longshore distributions of the percentages eden Beach and Siletz Spit have steep slopes and of the coarse modes (Figure 5) have been inter- are reflective to intermediate in the classification preted as reflecting a pattern of advection and scheme of WRIGHT and SHORT (1983, 1984), while diffusion of the coarse modes within the otherwise the fine-sand beaches within the cell are purely medium-sand beach. It was concluded that the dissipative due to their very low slopes. These two net longshore advection toward the north has beach re- types react very differently to the ocean sulted from the asymmetry of the wave energies waves, and in particular to extreme storms. The from the southwest storm waves versus the north- fine-grained dissipative beaches effectively re- west summer waves, while at the same time main- duce the energy of the incident waves before they taining a zero net drift of the complete beach sand reach the sea cliffs; the swash is dominated by within this pocket-beach littoral cell. Of special long-period infragravity motions that act mainly interest is the fact that these coarse-sand modes to remove the accumulated talus at the base of have not spread along the entire length of the the cliffs rather than directly attacking the cliff littoral cell, surprising in light of the extreme wave itself. In contrast, the coarse-grained more reflec- energy that should yield high rates of mode dis- tive beaches are dominated by strong swash of the persal. It was concluded that the time interval hasincident waves that can attack and undermine the been too short to permit complete dispersal, sea a cliffs and also the foredunes along Siletz Spit. conclusion which led to the interpretation that Important to the resulting erosion is the presence the coarse modes were first introduced into the of rip currents, which cut deep embayments into beach following a subduction earthquake that oc- these more reflective beaches and largely control curred about 300 years ago, an event that likely the localized areas where the incident waves can resulted in land subsidence and the initiation of reach the coastal properties. massive cliff erosion. The longshore dispersal pat- From this it is apparent that the longshore vari- terns of the coarse modes further led to the in- ations in beach sediment grain sizes within the terpretation that the input of those modes from Lincoln City littoral cell determine the longshore cliff erosion was initially large, but has diminished patterns of beach morphology and the nature of with time probably due to the cliff being cut back the processes responsible for property erosion. and a wider beach buffer being established, and Erosion is certainly more active along Gleneden possibly also due to some aseismic uplift. The Beach and Siletz Spit fronted by coarse-grained inference is that the beach along the length of thereflective beaches, than along coastal properties Lincoln City littoral cell is out of equilibrium with fronted by fine-grained dissipative beaches as in respect to its sediment distributions due to that north Lincoln City. This implies that there is a extreme event some 300 years ago, and that the long-term reorientation of the bluff line along the system is continuing to evolve with the further length of this littoral cell suggesting a continued

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1994

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:49:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Sea Cliff Erosion 157 disequilibrium KOMAR, P.D.,in 1983. Theits erosion of Siletz overall Spit, Oregon. geometry as well as the continued In: Handbookpresence of Coastal Processes and Erosion. Bocaof the longshore varia- Raton, Florida: CRC Press, pp. 65-76. tions in beach sediment grain sizes. KOMAR, P.D. and REA, C.C., 1976. Erosion of Siletz Spit, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Oregon. Shore and Beach, 44, 9-15. KOMAR, P.D.; LIZARRAGA-ARCINIEGA, J.R., and TERICH, This work is a result of research supported T.A., 1976. Oregonby coast shoreline changes due to the NOAA Office of Sea Grant, Department jetties. Journal of of Waterways, Harbors and Coastal Engineering, ASCE, 102, WW1, 13-30. Commerce, under grant NA81AA-D000086, KOMAR, P.D.; Pro- QUINN, W.; CREECH, C.; REA, C.C., and ject R/CP-24. We would like to thank James LIZARRAGA-ARCINEIGA, Tait, J.R., 1976. Wave conditions Michael Zhenlin Li, and Mark Lorang for and beach their erosion on the Oregon coast. The Ore Bin, assistance in undertaking the field program 38, 103-112. of this KOMAR, P.D. and SHIH, S.-M., 1993. Cliff erosion along study. the Oregon coast: A tectonic-sea level imprint plus LITERATURE CITED local controls by beach processes. Journal of Coastal Research, 9, 747-765. ATWATER, B.F., 1987. Evidence for great Holocene KOMAR, P.D.; TORSTENSON, R.W., and SHIH, S.-M., 1991. earthquakes along the outer coast of Washington state. Bandon, Oregon: Coastal development and the po- Science, 236, 942-944. tential for extreme ocean hazards. Shore and Beach, ATWATER, B.F. and YAMAGUCHI, D.K., 1991. Sudden, 59, 14-22. probably coseismic submergence of Holocene trees KULM, L.D. and BYRNE, J.B., 1966. Sedimentary re- and grass in coastal Washington state. Geology, 19, sponse to hydrography in an Oregon estuary. Marine 706-709. Geology, 4, 85-118. BASCOM, W.H., 1951. The relationship between sand LEWIs, size D.W., 1984. Practical Sedimentology. Strouds- and beach face slope, Transactions of the American burg, Pennsylvania: Hutchinson Ross, 229p. Geophysical Union, 32, 866-874. PETERSON, C.D.; SCHEIDEGGER, K.F., and KOMAR, P.D., CLEMENS, K.E. and KOMAR, P.D., 1988. Oregon beach- 1984. Sediment composition and hydrography in six sand compositions produced by the mixing of sedi- high-gradient estuaries of the northwestern United ments under a transgressing sea. Journal of Sedi- States. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 54, 86-97. mentary Petrology, 58, 519-529. SHIH, S.-M., 1992. Processes of Sea Cliff Erosion on the DARIENZO, M.E. and PETERSON, C.D., 1990. Episodic Oregon Coast: Neotectonics to Wave Run-Up. Ph.D. tectonic subsidence of late Holocene salt marshes, Thesis, Oregon State University: College of Ocean- northern Oregon central Cascadia margin. Tectonics, ography, 135p. 9, 1-22. SUNAMURA, T., 1984. Quantitative predictions of beach- GUZA, R.T. and THORNTON, E.B., 1982. Swash oscilla- face slopes. Geological Society of America Bulletin, tions on a natural beach. Journal of Geophysical Re- 95, 242-245. search, 87(C1), 483-491. SUNAMURA, T., 1992. Geomorphology of Rocky Coasts. HICKS, S.D.; DEBAUGH, H.A., and HICKMAN, L.E., 1983. New York: Wiley, 302p. Sea Level Variations for the United States, 1855- VINCENT, P., 1989. Geodetic Deformation of the Oregon 1980. Rockville, Maryland: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Cascadia Margin. M.S. Dissertation, Eugene: Univer- NOAA, National Ocean Service, 170p. sity of Oregon, 86p. HOLMAN, R.A. and SALLENGER, A.H., 1985. Set-up and WRIGHT, L.D. and SHORT, A.D., 1983. Morphodynamics swash on a natural beach. Journal of Geophysical of beaches and surf zones in Australia. In: KOMAR, Research, 90(C1), 945-953. P.D. (ed.), CRC Handbook of Coastal Processes and KING, C.A.M., 1972. Beaches and Coasts. New York: St. Erosion. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, pp. 35-64. Martin's, 570p. WRIGHT, L.D. and SHORT, A.D., 1984. Morphodynamic KOMAR, P.D., 1976. Beach Processes and Sedimenta- variability of surf zones and beaches: A synthesis. tion. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Marine Geology, 56, 93-118. 429p.

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1994

This content downloaded from 52.34.167.83 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:49:51 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms