No Riprap on Tillicum Beach

The owners of a beachfront mansion on a five acre lot proposed to install a 150 ft long riprap structure along the shore of Tillicum Beach.  Surfrider and partner group Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition found the application incomplete, with little consideration of solutions that would better protect the ocean shore, recreation, scenic, and natural resources, including relocation of the house to elsewhere on the large property. 

Following an outpouring of requests from volunteers, a public hearing for this application was triggered and set for January 16, 2025, providing the public the opportunity to weigh in on why this harmful riprap structure should be denied.  Surfrider submitted joint comments with Oregon Shores, and the Newport Chapter rallied the community to testify in opposition based on their concerns as local beach users.  The glaring issue with this application, as is commonly seen, is that it fails to adequately analyze alternatives to shoreline armoring, such as beach-friendly, nature-based erosion control measures, or relocation of the home to elsewhere on the 5 acre lot.  Interestingly, there is a cabin on the property, built in the 1960s, which makes it eligible for shoreline armoring through land use Goal 18.  Goal 18 is the statewide land use planning goal that protects beaches and dunes from development and prohibits shoreline armoring in post-1977 development.  However, this cabin was built well back from the shoreline out of danger from the eroding bluff and mighty Pacific.  The new home, built in 2001, was built far too close to the shoreline, despite their own application stating that erosion of approximately a half foot per year since 1997 has been observed in this area.  Proper siting of new development could have mitigated this issue, and should not be the grounds for a harmful riprap structure that destroys the public beach.

On February 28, 2025, OPRD announced their denial of the application.  Read their full findings and staff report here.  In determining whether there are “no reasonable alternatives to the proposed activity or project modifications that would better protect the public rights, reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects on the ocean shore, or avoid long-term cost to the public” OPRD cites our comment, in which we discuss the applicant’s dismissal of relocation.  OPRD agrees that this requirement has not been met, stating:

“The department concurs that pursuant to OAR 736-020-0003(2)(b) an application for an oceanfront protective structure must include an analysis of hazard avoidance alternatives, such as relocating existing buildings or increasing setbacks for new buildings and this analysis must explain…why hazard avoidance alternatives are not feasible…If the cost of moving a building or infrastructure is listed as a factor which makes hazard avoidance unfeasible, then the application shall include cost estimate(s) from licensed contractors specializing in building relocation.

Absent such cost estimates, the department finds that the application does not establish that this standard is met”

Additionally, OPRD cites the project’s impact to the public beach:

“Given the project's robust design—extending beyond the statutory vegetation line for its entire length and utilizing riprap and pit-run fill to protect the bluff fronting the on-shore property—the department has concluded that the proposed project and its associated construction impacts could significantly and adversely affect long term public recreational access along the ocean shore and the Oregon Coast Trail.

Due to the project's proposed alignment and size—entirely west of the line of established upland shore vegetation and covering 5,700 square feet—along with the anticipated short-term impacts from hauling and staging at the Colorado Beach access, the department has determined that the applicants have not satisfactorily considered alternatives to avoid obstructing public access routes within the ocean shore area and the Oregon Coast Trail. Therefore, the department finds the impact on recreational access to be unreasonable, particularly as the project currently appears unjustified, at this time.”

These findings are significant in that it requires this and future applicants to better and more fully evaluate alternatives to classic shoreline armoring, and to further consider the future impacts of armoring to natural coastal resources and our public beaches.  Strengthening this requirement is one of the key areas that we are seeking to improve in shoreline management as part of our Oregon Beaches Forever campaign.  While the applicant may still reapply, we see this as a positive step in the right direction and applaud OPRD for rightly denying this application.