Stop Armoring at Lincoln Beach

The SeaRidge Condominiums proposed to install a massive 600 ft long riprap structure along the shoreline in Depoe Bay.  In a unique situation, this property, along with several others, were originally ineligible for armoring through land use Goal 18, but went through an exception process and were granted one in 2021.  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, a Goal 18 exception requires thorough review and comprehensive consideration of alternatives to shoreline armoring. 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. The project would additionally further undermine neighboring properties that lack shoreline armoring, eroding the beach and foredune and increasing hazard risks to these owners. 

A hearing for this application was set for August 14, 2024 through a Director’s Initiative.  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.  We heard from community members, beach lovers, and next door neighbors, worried about how the riprap would increase erosion on their properties, potentially leaving them with no choice but to pursue harmful armoring themselves.  We heard impassioned voices urging for the embrace of alternatives that would nourish the beach and create a more resilient coastline, and citing the science that shows us this.  We heard from many folks that felt the application quickly dismissed alternatives without adequate analysis.  Additionally, many voiced their concern for the ancient forest remnants on the beach, and how they would be impacted by construction.

On September 30, 2024, 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 found that 

“Given this lack of supporting evidence and investigation by the applicant, the department is not persuaded to make the same conclusions as the applicant.  Without conducting a thorough hazard avoidance analysis prior to submitting the application and investigating the feasibility of relocating the structures away from the ongoing bluff erosion: which would better protect and minimize the affects to the ocean shore and avoid long-term cost to the public; … the application does not adequately demonstrate compliance with this standard.  Conclusory comments from the engineering geologist do not establish that there are not alterations or project modifications that would better the public rights, reduce or eliminate the detrimental affects on the ocean shore, or avoid long-term cost to the public”

This finding is 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.