|
|
In Oregon, the beaches belong to the people. As part of Oregon's tradition of environmental stewardship, the Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition serves as the guardian of the public interest for our coastal region. Oregon Shores is dedicated to preserving the natural communities, ecosystems and landscapes of the Oregon coast while conserving the public's access. Oregon Shores pursues these ends through education, advocacy, and engaging citizens to keep watch over and defend the Oregon coast.
|
| | ALERTS | | | Dec 18 2008 NEW Oregon Shores Proposes Bold New "Goal 20" to Address Sea Level Rise |   RV Park at Twin Rocks, in Tillamook County. Photo by Dave Bonkowski.
Efforts regarding global warming on the part of state and municipal authorities have been aimed at decreasing emissions to moderate the effects of greenhouse gases. To date, nothing has addressed the impact that rising sea levels will have on people and property in lower-lying coastal area, to say nothing of the impact on habitats.
“The legislature told local governments to move forward on this by limiting emissions,” says Steve Schell, the Oregon Shores board member who is leading this effort. “That may slow change, but we’re not dealing with the impacts that are coming, and there’s already enough carbon in the atmosphere to be of enormous concern. We need to focus on the consequences and what to do.”
Recent conservative estimates are that sea level could rise 1.94 feet in the next 100 years. That amount of rise alone would mean that, within the next few decades, winter storms could produce a 53-foot storm surge, enough to cause serious erosion in such place as Cannon Beach, Rockaway and Seaside.
Building higher walls won’t work, because that will just redirect storm surges. Beaches would be scoured of sand, leaving nothing but rock. Rivers aren’t delivering enough silt to the coast to rebuild beaches because of dams. “We’d be left with walls and rocks and we don’t think this is what Oregonians want for their beaches,” says Schell. “We need to recognize and deal with this rising water and plan for increased storm damage if we’re going to continue to have sandy beaches.”
An Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries study warns that, without a change in the sediment supply, the public beach will erode landward between 33 and 66 feet due to sea level rise, and higher sea level rise (brought about by such things as more rapid polar ice melting than expected) would cause erosion of up to 100 feet or more of the beach.
Oregon Shores will argue before LCDC that the impetus for planning and implementation has to come from the state because “it’s hard for local governments to look this far down the road when they’re worried about such things as keeping the schools open and repairing out-of-date infrastructure,” says Schell. “But, if we don’t plan for sea level rise, our coastal towns and their people will pay a terrible price…and sooner, rather than later.”
Oregon Shores wants LCDC to add a statewide goal requiring planning for mitigation of sea level rise resulting from climate change. The aim would be to “reduce the hazard to human life and property; minimize the adverse effects upon water quality, species, and fish and wildlife habitat; and protecting and restoring the resources and benefits of Oregon’s beaches, dunes, estuaries, shore lands and coastal lowlands,” according to the draft goal submitted to LCDC.
The proposed new “Goal 20” would require LCDC to adopt rules to set standards for vulnerability and risk assessments, allowing local governments four years to adopt a plan “that will minimize risk to human life, coastal property and natural resources.”
Among other items, the proposal calls for building moratoriums in at-risk areas, moving roads (including Highway 101—a long term project) inland, financial help for properties at risk, adoption of zoning changes and a property transfer policy to allow at-risk homeowners to build elsewhere.
We’ll post more details on the LCDC meeting when plans are complete. Oregon Shores members are urged to attend the meeting and speak out for a proactive approach to sea level rise impacts.
For more information:
Oregon Shores' Petition to LCDC creating Goal 20
Oregon Shores' 1/2/2009 Press Release
Q&A on Sea Level Rise
LCDC's Public Meetings page, listing agendas, reports, and audio recordings of all LCDC meetings
 SOURCE: Steve Schell, Oregon Shores Board Member, (503) 417-2145 or EMAIL | |
| | | EVENTS | | | Tue Jan 13 9:00 AM Oregon Shores Joins In Salem Day Of Action | The Oregon Conservation Network, of which Oregon Shores is a founding member, is holding its “Day of Action” at the State Capitol on Jan. 13. The OCN now includes 50 conservation groups, which have joined together to set six priorities for the 2009 Oregon Legislature. This will be an opportunity to influence the legislators to give conservation high priority. Speakers will publicly unveil the six priorities, provide in-depth descriptions of the issues, and discuss how we can take further action to help pass bills reflecting these priorities this session.
The Environmental Day of Action will include:
* Information from experts on each of the priorities
* Clean Energy rally on the Capitol steps
* Citizen Action trainings to prepare citizen lobbyists for the upcoming session
* Information on how to get more involved in helping to pass legislation that matters
Oregon Shores members and other coastal conservationists are urged to get involved in the Day of Action and in supporting the six Priorities for a Healthy Oregon. If unable to participate throughout the day, join the event for any portion.
Details: meet at the Micah Building, 680 State Street in Salem, 9 a.m. – 3 p.m.
Clean Energy Rally: Noon - 2 p.m. on the Capitol steps
Register online – https://www.thedatabank.com/dpg/232/personal2.asp?formid=calolcvef&c=5990038
Questions: melissa@olcv.org or (503) 227-8073
SOURCE: Phillip Johnson, CoastWatch Director, (503) 238-4450, or EMAIL | |
| | | NEWS | | | Nov 25 2008 Port of Newport Considering Limited Environmental Remediation |  Port of Newport dock, showing one of the old concrete hulls. 2005 photo as viewed from Hatfield Marine Science Center.
In the November 2006 election, the Port of Newport asked its voters to pass an approximately $15 million bond measure. It was for two main things: 1) environmental remediation of the existing old cargo dock, and 2) the rebuilding of the dock and associated structures. The bond measure passed.
The environmental remediation was needed because of the current situation: the existing cargo dock was built up from two WWII concrete barges (the Pasley and the Hennebique) which were sunk in 1948 to provide the basis for the dock. One of them (the Pasley) is cracked and listing towards the Bay, and already had an oil spill in 1996. Both ships are now old and fragile, with unknown contaminants still lurking inside the old hulls. During the bond measure campaign, the Port said explicitly that it was going to remove those old ships and rebuild a new dock.
However, within three months of the bond measure passing, the Port changed its proposal. It no longer proposed to remove the ships — it was going to remove the contaminants from the ships, then partially entomb them, and backfill with concrete. A Joint Permit Application to this effect was submitted by the Port to the Department of State Lands and the Corps of Engineers. None of the agencies involved in the permitting process have responded favorably to the Port's proposal, including the federal agencies Army Corps of Engineers and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
State agencies have also been skeptical, especially the Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of State Lands. DEQ has authority over contamination issues; DSL must grant the Port the required permit for removal-fill and stormwater. However, no state agency has a consistent, regulatory oversight on the Port's activities on the Terminal Project. This is a role that normally would belong to DEQ, but the arrangement, structured by various grants, is that DEQ works in an advisory capacity only with the Port; if the Port wants advice from DEQ, it must ask for it and pay for it. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is very concerned about this proposal as well, because the Port's proposal to partly entomb the ships and backfill with concrete would eliminate yet more deep-water fish habitat in Yaquina Bay. Since the Bay is the home of listed coho salmon species, this is unacceptable to the agency.
The Port made public promises in the bond measure campaign that the ships were to be removed. Later, in committee meetings, it switched to the entomb-and-backfiill alternative, and no longer seriously considers the removal alternative. Even though the Port received a $2.7 million Connect Oregon grant from the Oregon Department of Transportation to deal with the environmental remediation problem, it has not been forthcoming to the agencies about their concerns. The Port has also consistently failed to engage local citizenry about its drastic change of plans. Both Oregon Shores and local residents are very concerned about the Port's bait-and-switch tactic, and its failure to take the public into its confidence. Oregon Shores wrote to Governor Kulongoski about the Port's irresponsible activities, pointing out the need for open public involvement, and for an analysis of alternatives that includes serious consideration of ship removal.
In the thirty years since Yaquina Bay was zoned for deep-draft development, economic times have changed. Newport is not a cargo port any longer. There is no industry in the area, nor is there likely to be. The timber industry is not returning in any major way; and even if it did, raw log shipping would be unacceptable to local mill workers and and other small wood processing companies. Furthermore, Newport is nowhere near major transportation corridors. The city's economy has changed completely to activities that absolutely require a pristine and well-managed Bay: marine research, marine tourism, and fishing. Hatfield Marine Science Center, and the Oregon Aquarium are the two best-known entities. Newport has a strong sportfishing industry, and a strong commercial fleet as well.
Oregon Shores supports the upgrade of fishermen's facilities and fishermen's docks at the Port of Newport. We do, however, strongly support removal of the Pasley and the Hennebique. The people of sixty years ago made an important decision without thinking of environmental consequences at all. They bequeathed this problem to us. It would be extremely irresponsible for us to leave those ships in place, festooned with even more concrete, and give the people sixty years from now an even worse problem than the one we inherited.
Related documents:
• Oregon Shores' 11/14/2008 testimony to ACOE
• Oregon Shores' 11/14/2008 testimony to DEQ
• Oregon Shores' 11/14/2008 testimony to DLCD
• The Port's 10/6/2008 30-page letter to DSL detailing their Alternatives analysis
• Oregon Shores' 8/13/2008 letter to Governor Kulongoski about the Port's activities
• The "short version" of the Port's application to the Corps and DSL for environmental remediation of the two old ships (note that it does not propose ship removal).
• Port of Newport's 12/4/2008 Terminal Renovation Project Update with an excellent aerial photo of the site
SOURCE: Cameron La Follette, Land Use Director, (503) 391-0210, or EMAIL | |
|
|
|
|
|