FINDINGS FOR THE
       OREGON COASTAL NONPOINT PROGRAM
                       
FOREWORD

     This document contains the findings for the coastal
nonpoint pollution control program submitted by the State of
Oregon pursuant to Section 6217(a) of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA).  The findings are
based on a review of the  Pollution Prevention and Control
Program for Oregon's Coastal Waters, Final Program Submittal,
July 1995.  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
reviewed this information and evaluated the extent to which it
conforms with the requirements of CZARA.

     NOAA and EPA commend the State of Oregon on the
substantial time and effort put into developing this program and
appreciate the commitment the State has shown to complete an
ambitious task with limited resources.  NOAA and EPA will
continue to work with coastal states and territories to ensure that
these findings represent an accurate assessment of current state and
territorial abilities and efforts to address coastal nonpoint source
pollution.  NOAA and EPA recognize that further administrative
changes that will affect these findings may be made to the coastal
nonpoint program and, once such changes are finalized, will
review these findings in light of the changes and make any
necessary adjustments.  

APPROVAL DECISION

     NOAA and EPA approve the coastal nonpoint pollution
control program submitted by the State of Oregon pursuant to
Section 6217(a) of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990, subject to certain conditions.

     This document provides the specific findings used by EPA
and NOAA as the basis for the decision to approve the State's
program.  It also provides the rationale for the findings and
includes the conditions that will need to be met for Oregon to
receive final approval of its program.  We recognize that Oregon
has already proposed some changes for its program that would, if
finalized, ensure the implementation of the management measures
in conformity with the Section 6217(g) guidance.  In those cases,
the conditions are based on the State's proposed changes.  The
timeframes associated with conditions become effective upon the
date of the approval letter for these findings.

INTRODUCTION

     This document is organized by the major nonpoint source
categories and subcategories identified in the Section 6217(g)
guidance and the administrative elements identified in the program
guidance (including the boundary for the 6217 management area). 
Where appropriate, NOAA and EPA have grouped categories and
subcategories of management measures into a single finding.  The
structure of each finding follows a standard format.  Generally, the
finding is that the State program includes or does not include
management measures in conformity with the (g) guidance and
includes or does not include enforceable policies and mechanisms
to ensure implementation.  In some cases, the finding reflects that
the State has identified a back-up enforceable policy but has not
demonstrated the ability of the authority to ensure implementation. 
For further understanding of terms used in this document, the
reader is referred to the following:  

Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of
Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters (EPA, January 1993)
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program
Development and Approval Guidance (NOAA and EPA, January
1993)
Flexibility for State Coastal Nonpoint Programs (NOAA and EPA,
March 1995)

     The references in this document refer to the Pollution
Prevention and Control Program for Oregon's Coastal Waters,
Final Program Submittal, July 1995 ("program submittal"). 
NOAA and EPA have written this document as succinctly as
possible.  We have relied upon, but do not repeat here, the
extensive information that the State included in the program
submittal.  Further information and analysis is contained in the
administrative record for this approval decision and may be
reviewed by interested parties at the following locations:

EPA/Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Assessment & Watershed Protection Division
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
401 M St., SW (4503-F)
Washington, DC  20460
Contact: Kristen Martin (202/260-7108)

NOAA/Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
Coastal Programs Division
SSMC-4, N/ORM3
1305 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD  20910
Contact: Patty Dornbusch (301/713-3121, ext. 182)

U.S. EPA Region X/Office of Ecosystems and Communities
Geographical Implementation Unit
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA  98101
Contact: Teena Reichgott (206/553-1601)

I.   BOUNDARY

FINDING:  Oregon's proposed 6217 management area excludes
existing land and water uses in the Umpqua, Rogue, and Columbia
River basins that reasonably can be expected to have a significant
impact on the coastal waters of the State. 

CONDITION:  Within one year, the Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD), Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ), U.S EPA, NOAA, and other
relevant State, local, and federal agencies will participate in a
cooperative process to review relevant information and determine
an appropriate 6217 management area boundary consistent with
established national guidance for the 6217 program.

RATIONALE:  Oregon's proposed boundary is based primarily on
criteria established for the Oregon Coastal Management Program
in 1977 and the Oregon DEQ's 1988 Nonpoint Source Assessment
Report.  State, local, and federal agencies have consolidated more
recent nonpoint source information for the Umpqua and Rogue
Basins.  Analysis of that information indicates that existing
nonpoint sources landward of the State-proposed 6217
management area boundary reasonably can be expected to have
significant adverse impacts on the State's coastal waters.  Available
information for the Columbia River basin similarly indicates that
Oregon's 6217 management area excludes nonpoint sources that
reasonably can be expected to have significant adverse impacts on
the State's coastal waters.  

     Since the time of its program submittal in July 1995, the
State has engaged in meetings with the Governor's office and other
State officials, and developed a program of information
development and community outreach to local governments
affected by the boundary decision.  Information gathered during
this effort will be used in making the final boundary determination. 
 

II.  AGRICULTURE

A.   CONFINED ANIMAL FACILITIES (Large and Small
Units)

FINDING:  Oregon's program for confined animal facilities
includes management measures in conformity with the 6217(g)
guidance and enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure
implementation throughout the 6217 management area for
confined animal facilities where animals are confined for four
months or more and where waste water control facilities are
present.  The State does not have management measures for
facilities where animals are confined for less than four months and
that do not have prepared surfaces or waste water control facilities. 
For these latter facilities, the State has identified a backup
enforceable authority, but has not  demonstrated the ability of the
authority to ensure implementation throughout the 6217
management area. 

CONDITION:  Within two years, Oregon will include in its
program management measures in conformity with the 6217 (g)
guidance for facilities where animals are confined for less than four
months and that do not have prepared surfaces or waste water
control facilities.  Also within two years, Oregon will provide a
strategy (in accordance with section XII, pages 19-20) for use of
the State's water quality law (ORS 468B) as a back-up enforceable
mechanism to ensure implementation of the management measures
for confined animal facilities as proposed on pages 48-50 of the
State's program submittal.

RATIONALE:  Existing State authorities to regulate confined
animal facilities provide for practices that implement the
management measures for most facilities.  The existing program is
enforceable through permits and other procedures, including civil
penalties for violations.

     The existing permit process, however, excludes facilities of
four months or less duration and facilities without a prepared
surface and without waste water treatment works.  The State has
proposed that its general water quality law (ORS 468B) could be
used to address these exempted facilities (ORS 468B.050(1)(a)
prohibits discharge of waste into state waters from any industrial or
commercial establishment or activity without a permit); however,
the State has not explained how it will use this general authority to
ensure implementation of the management measure for such
facilities.  In discussions with NOAA and EPA, the State has also
proposed addressing such facilities in AWQMAPs developed
under SB1010.  NOAA and EPA encourage the State to pursue this
effort.

     B.   EROSION and SEDIMENT CONTROL, NUTRIENT,
     PESTICIDE, GRAZING, and IRRIGATION WATER
     MANAGEMENT

FINDING:  The State's program for these agricultural
subcategories does not include management measures in
conformity with the 6217(g) guidance. Oregon has identified an
enforceable authority for these management measures, but has not
demonstrated the ability of the authority to ensure implementation
throughout the 6217 management area. 

CONDITIONS:  Within one year, Oregon will (1) designate
agricultural water quality management areas (AWQMAs) that
encompass agricultural lands within the 6217 management area,
and (2) complete the wording of the alternative management
measure for grazing, consistent with the 6217(g) guidance. 
Agricultural water quality management area plans (AWQMAPs)
will include management measures in conformity with the 6217(g)
guidance, including written plans and equipment calibration as
required practices for the nutrient management measure, and a
process for identifying practices that will be used to achieve the
pesticide management measure.  The State will develop a process
to incorporate the irrigation water management measure into the
overall AWQMAPs.  Within five years, AWQMAPs will be in
place.

RATIONALE:  The Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA)
has the authority, under SB 1010, enacted in 1993, to establish
boundaries of AWQMAs and develop AWQMAPs when such
plans are required by a provision of State or federal law. 
Individual landowners are required to comply with the provisions
of the AWQMAPs.  This program appears promising, and
implementation of AWQMAPs has the potential to ensure
implementation of the management measures.  The content of the
AWQMAPs, their linkage to the 6217 management measures, and
their effectiveness, are not yet known.  AWQMAPs need to be in
place by the year 2001, when the time period for conditional
approval ends, and should be fully implemented by 2004, in
accordance with the timeframe for implementation described in
Flexibility for State Coastal Nonpoint Programs (NOAA and EPA,
March 1995). 

     To achieve the goals of the nutrient management and
pesticide management measures, AWQMAP elements related to
nutrient management and pesticides must contain the components
specified in the above condition.  For the irrigation water
management measure, NOAA and EPA encourage the ODA to
pursue its plan to coordinate with the Oregon Water Resources
Department to facilitate the development of subbasin water
conservation plans, including measurements of water needed and
applied, and to incorporate the conservation plans into the overall
AWQMAP to achieve the irrigation management measure.
Conservation planning will result in important water quality
responses that should be addressed to the extent practicable
through the AWQMAPS.  Finally, the State proposed an
alternative management measure for grazing that is as effective as
the 6217(g) guidance measure, but the State has not completed the
wording of the component of this measure for upland erosion on
privately owned lands.    

III. FORESTRY

FINDING:  Oregon's program includes management measures in
conformity with the 6217(g) guidance and enforceable policies and
mechanisms to ensure implementation throughout the 6217
management area.  However, additional management measures are
necessary to attain and maintain water quality standards and fully
protect beneficial uses (see section X, pages 16-18). 

RATIONALE:  The existing State authority to regulate forestry
(the Oregon Forest Practices Act, or FPA) is a comprehensive,
enforceable program that includes management measures in
conformity with the 6217(g) guidance.  Any operator conducting a
forest operation must comply with the FPA and implementing rules
(Forest Practices Rules, or FPR). 

     Although Oregon has the basic legal and programmatic
tools to implement a forestry program in conformity with Section
6217, these tools are inadequate to ensure that water quality
standards are attained and maintained and beneficial uses
protected.  This conclusion is based on best available information,
including the most recent 303(d) listings for Oregon waters, which
indicate water quality impairments from forestry.  Related to these
water quality impairments, Oregon has a number of aquatic
species, in particular anadromous salmonids, that are endangered,
threatened, or otherwise seriously at risk, due in part to forestry
activities that impair coastal water quality and beneficial uses,
including salmon spawning, rearing, and migration  habitat.  For
further discussion, see section X, pages 16-18, below.

     Section 6217 recognizes that implementation of the (g)
measures alone may not always be adequate to protect coastal
waters from nonpoint sources of pollution.  In these cases, Section
6217 requires the identification and implementation of additional
management measures.  Thus, Oregon will need to adopt additional
management measures for forestry in areas adjacent to coastal
waters not attaining or maintaining applicable water quality
standards or protecting beneficial uses, or that are threatened by
reasonably foreseeable increases in pollutant loadings from new or
expanding forestry operations (see section X, pages 16-18, below). 

     The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), in
reviewing the Oregon FPA and implementing rules and the Oregon
6217 program submittal as part of the State's Coastal Salmon
Recovery Initiative (CSRI), raised a number of issues related to
Oregon's existing forestry program.  The State has entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with NMFS regarding
implementation of the CSRI.  That MOA includes a process for
NMFS and ODF to develop adjustments to Oregon forest practices
to provide a high probability of protecting and restoring aquatic
habitat (including water quality) on Oregon forestlands that are
important for Oregon coastal coho.  Riparian buffers on medium,
small, and non-fish bearing streams; risks to aquatic functions from
activities in landslide prone areas; and management of cumulative
effects were specifically identified in the MOA as among those
issues to be addressed.  NOAA and EPA share these concerns with
regard to the ability of the FPA and FPR to attain water quality
standards and fully support beneficial uses, and have asked the
state to review these as priority issues in developing additional
management measures.  See the additional discussion at section X,
"Critical Coastal Areas, Additional Management Measures, and
Technical Assistance," pages 16-18, below. 

     The State has the authority, under OAR 629-635-120, to
develop and adopt watershed specific rules for forestry in
watersheds that have been designated as water quality limited or
for watersheds containing threatened or endangered aquatic
species. This authority would be useful in developing appropriate
additional management measures for forestry; however, the State
has not indicated whether or how it intends to implement this
process.

IV.  URBAN

     A.   NEW DEVELOPMENT, SITE DEVELOPMENT,
     CONSTRUCTION SITE EROSION AND SEDIMENT,
     and CHEMICAL CONTROL

FINDING:  Oregon's program does not include management
measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance or enforceable
policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation throughout the
6217 management area. 
CONDITION:  Within two years, Oregon will include in its
program management measures in conformity with the 6217(g)
guidance and enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure
implementation throughout the 6217 management area. 

RATIONALE:  Oregon proposes to develop recommendations for
local governments on the practices necessary to meet these
measures and then to bring about amendment of local plans to
conform with those recommendations.  The State proposes to use
authorities under the statewide land use planning program and/or
regulations developed by the Environmental Quality Commission
(EQC).  The options the State is considering have the potential to
meet these measures.  The State, however, has not demonstrated
that its existing authorities can be used to require suitable changes
to local comprehensive plans, nor has it adequately described the
process it will use to effect those changes, the guidance it will
provide to local governments, and how it will require updating of
local plans.  Where the State plans to use the statewide planning
goals or some other mechanism to provide requirements and
guidance for local implementation of the measures, the State will
need to clarify what authority it will use to require amendment and
oversight of local plans to implement the management measures. 

     The State proposes to modify the applicability of these
management measures.  It proposes to apply the new development
management measure inside urban growth boundaries (UGBs the
areas where municipal sewage treatment systems and development
at urban densities is allowed under Oregon's statewide land use
planning program) and their equivalent; to development outside
UGBs where a subdivision or partition will result in a density of
one dwelling or more per acre on any portion of the site; to all
commercial and industrial development outside UGBs; and to
improvements in platted but undeveloped subdivisions. 
Application of the measure to these areas will fulfill the intent of
the measure.  The site development measure, however, should be
applied throughout the entire 6217 management area, as proposed
on page 119 of the program submittal.  The State proposes
applying the construction activities management measures to all
activities that require a building permit or an equivalent permit for
land grading, land clearing, or road building.  Application of the
measures to those activities will cover the activities addressed
under the applicability statement in the 6217(g) guidance. 

B.   WATERSHED PROTECTION and EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT

FINDING:  Oregon's program does not include management
measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance but includes
enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation
throughout the 6217 management area.

CONDITION:  Within three years, Oregon will further develop its
program to implement the management measures for watershed
protection and existing development in conformity with the
6217(g) guidance throughout the 6217 management area. 

RATIONALE: The State intends to implement the watershed
protection measure primarily through local comprehensive plans
developed pursuant to the statewide planning goals.  Some aspects
of the measure are also implemented through the removal-fill law. 
The State Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for urban management
measures suggested that Oregon develop methods to integrate a
watershed perspective in the development and implementation of
local comprehensive plans and development ordinances.  Although
the State has not fully developed a plan to implement this
management measure, the TAG suggestions appear promising for
ensuring a comprehensive watershed perspective in
implementation of the statewide land use planning program within
the 6217 management area. 

     As described in the State's program submittal on page 136,
components 3 and 4 of the existing development management
measures can be implemented through the removal-fill law and
local ordinances established in accordance with the statewide
planning goals.  The State should explore how components 1 and 2
of the existing development management measure may be
implemented through revised DEQ or DLCD rules or guidance, as
well as through integration of the measure with the Governor's
Watershed Enhancement Board (GWEB) and promotion
throughout the 6217 management area of watershed health
programs that identify and implement urban best management
practices and retrofit opportunities.

     The State proposes implementing the existing development
management measure inside a jurisdiction's UGB, and outside
UGBs to the extent that the jurisdiction finds that development
outside the UGB will affect pollutant loads or peak runoff rates
inside the UGB.  This degree of coverage is acceptable as long as a
process exists by which a jurisdiction can ascertain whether
existing development outside a UGB is contributing to pollutant
loads or peak runoff rates inside the UGB or is resulting in
significant impacts to coastal waters.

C.   NEW and OPERATING ONSITE DISPOSAL
SYSTEMS

FINDING:  Oregon's program includes management measures in
conformity with the 6217(g) guidance and enforceable policies and
mechanisms to ensure implementation throughout the 6217
management area, except that it lacks a program to inspect
operating onsite disposal systems (OSDS). 

CONDITION:  Within two years, Oregon will finalize its
proposal to inspect operating OSDS, as proposed on page 143 of
its program submittal.

RATIONALE:  Oregon has a comprehensive regulatory program
for OSDS, administered by DEQ, that is generally consistent with
the OSDS management measures.  The State, however, lacks
requirements for the periodic inspection of operating OSDS,
although it does have a program for inspection of alternative
systems.  The State has proposed an inspection program to require
OSDS inspections at the time of property transfer.  This program
would fulfill the requirements for inspection of operating OSDS. 
The State is also encouraged to develop, as proposed, an outreach
and education program to increase awareness of proper use and
operation of OSDS.

D.   POLLUTION PREVENTION 

FINDING:  Oregon has outlined activities and programs, on pages
143 through 145 of its program submittal, that constitute an
acceptable proposal for education and outreach on nonpoint source
pollution throughout the 6217 management area.  

RATIONALE:  The State's program submittal describes a
strategy that includes the Oregon DEQ developing programs,
projects, information, and technical assistance for local officials to
use and distribute (one such product, a "Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control Guidebook for Local Government," was produced in June
1994), and a public education program that links all possible
outlets for information.  

     E.   ROADS, HIGHWAYS, AND BRIDGES

FINDING:  For State and federal roads, Oregon's program
includes management measures in conformity with the 6217(g)
guidance, except the program does not include management
measures in conformity with the construction site chemical control
measure, and it does not include enforceable policies and
mechanisms.  For local roads, highways, and bridges, Oregon's
program does not include management measures in conformity
with the 6217(g) guidance or enforceable policies and mechanisms
to ensure implementation throughout the 6217 management area. 
The State has identified a backup enforceable authority for the
operation and maintenance and runoff management measures but
has not demonstrated the ability of the authority to ensure
implementation throughout the 6217 management area.

CONDITION:  Within two years, Oregon will (1) develop
management measures in conformity with the 6217 (g) guidance
for construction site chemical control; (2) develop enforceable
policies and mechanisms to implement the roads, highways and
bridges measures on all federal and State highways throughout the
6217 management area; (3) develop management measures in
conformity with the 6217 (g) guidance and enforceable policies
and mechanisms for local roads, highways, and bridges throughout
the 6217 management area; and (4) provide a strategy (in
accordance with section XII, pages 19-20) for use of the State's
water quality law (ORS 468B) as a back-up enforceable
mechanism to ensure implementation of the management measures
for operation and maintenance and for runoff systems, as proposed
on pages 155 and 157 of the State's program submittal.  

RATIONALE: Oregon's strategy for implementing the
management measures for planning, siting, developing, and for
construction projects on, State and federal roads, highways, and
bridges is to adopt as policy the requirements of NPDES permit
1200-CA.  The provisions of permit 1200-CA are consistent with
the management measures, except that the NPDES practices for
construction site chemical control do not include practices for
controlling hazardous substances such as solvents, grease, oil, and
gasoline.  The State has proposed the use of ORS 468B as a back-
up authority for the operations and maintenance and runoff systems
measures, but it has not adequately explained how it will use ORS
468B to ensure implementation of  these measures.

     To implement the management measures at the local level,
the State has proposed an inventory and assessment of existing
local practices and recommendations for adoption of new measures
where needed.  This strategy, as described on page 147 of the
State's program submittal, appears promising, but the State has not
adequately identified management measures in conformity with the
6217(g) guidance, nor has it demonstrated enforceable policies and
mechanisms to ensure implementation of the measures. 

V.   MARINAS AND RECREATIONAL BOATING

     A.   MARINA FLUSHING, WATER QUALITY, and
     HABITAT ASSESSMENT

FINDING:  Oregon's program includes management measures in
conformity with the 6217(g) guidance for marina flushing, water
quality, and habitat assessment, but it does not include enforceable
policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation of the marina
flushing and habitat assessment management measures. 

CONDITION:  Within three years, Oregon will include in its
program enforceable policies and mechanisms to implement the
marina flushing and habitat assessment management measures
throughout the 6217 management area.

RATIONALE:  Marina siting issues relating to habitat protection
and the proper use of coastal resources in Oregon are reviewed by
the following agencies: the Division of State Lands (DSL), which
leases State lands and administers the removal-fill permit program;
DLCD and local governments, which implement the statewide
planning process including goals and procedures to protect
estuaries; and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW), the lead State agency for protecting fish and wildlife and
their habitat.  DEQ, pursuant to a memorandum of agreement with
DSL, determines if a proposed marina will cause a violation of 
water quality standards.  ODFW also reviews marina permit
applications under the removal-fill law, and for such reviews uses
informal Waterway Habitat Alteration Policies for Structures.  The
State needs to include in its program enforceable policies and
mechanisms to implement the marina flushing and habitat
assessment management measures throughout the 6217
management area.

     B.   SHORELINE STABILIZATION, STORMWATER
     RUNOFF, FUELING STATION DESIGN, SOLID
     WASTE MANAGEMENT, LIQUID MATERIAL
     MANAGEMENT, and PETROLEUM CONTROL

FINDING:  Oregon's program does not include management
measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance or enforceable
policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation. 

CONDITION: Within three years, Oregon will develop
management measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance
and enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation
of these management measures throughout the 6217 management
area.

RATIONALE:  The State has not identified enforceable policies
and mechanisms to implement these management measures.  The
State has identified management practices which could be used to
address some of the management measures, but has not identified
management practices for the shoreline stabilization, stormwater
runoff, or fueling station design management measures.  In
finalizing its plans for implementing these measures, the State
intends to focus on revisions to DSL permits for shoreline
stabilization; possible expansion of existing NPDES permits to
address stormwater runoff; Marine Board efforts to develop
standard plans for marine fueling stations; and amendments to
ORS 480.340 to require automatic shut-off nozzles on all fuel
pumps. 

C.   SEWAGE FACILITY MANAGEMENT and
MAINTENANCE

FINDING:  Oregon's program includes management measures in
conformity with the 6217(g) guidance but does not include
enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation
throughout the 6217 management area.

CONDITION:  Within three years, Oregon will include in its
program enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure
implementation of these management measures throughout the
6217 management area.

RATIONALE:  The Oregon Marine Board Facilities Grant
Program is a voluntary program that funds construction and
maintenance of marina pumpouts and dump stations.  However, the
State has not identified an enforceable policy and mechanism to
ensure implementation of these measures in cases where marina
operators choose not to participate in the program.  The DEQ may
be able to ensure the installation or maintenance of sewage
facilities in cases where water quality standards are being violated,
but the State has not described how such a process would function. 

D.   FISH WASTE and BOAT CLEANING

FINDING:  The State proposes to issue an NPDES general permit
for fish waste management.  When this permit is issued, this
activity will be excluded from the State's coastal nonpoint
program.  Oregon has also provided adequate information to
demonstrate that existing NPDES general permits address the boat
cleaning management measure; these activities are therefore not
subject to the State's coastal nonpoint program. 

CONDITION:  Within three years, Oregon will issue an NPDES
general permit for fish waste management, which will apply to all
facilities identified in the 6217(g) guidance.

RATIONALE:    DEQ is developing an NPDES general permit
for fish waste management that will apply to all facilities and
activities covered by the fish waste management measure.  Existing
NPDES general permit 1700-J, Washwater Discharge Permit,
applies to all facilities and activities covered by the boat cleaning
management measure, and the Oregon 6217 nonpoint source
program does not need to duplicate this coverage. 

E.   BOAT OPERATION

FINDING:  Oregon's program does not include in its program
management measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance
but does include enforceable policies and mechanisms that can be
used to ensure implementation.

CONDITION:  Within three years, Oregon will include
management measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance.

RATIONALE:  Although the Marine Board does not currently
implement this measure, the board is authorized to adopt
regulations for the operation of boats in any waters of the State. 
These regulations may be directed toward a variety of purposes and
include speed limits, no-wake zones, motor restrictions, and water
skiing limits.  Regulations have been enacted to protect the
Columbia Slough and the Three Arches areas of the State.  The
State's program submittal describes plans to inventory eel grass
beds and other important estuarine habitats and to assess potential
for damage to these areas from boating activities.  NOAA and EPA
encourage the State to proceed with this plan to determine where
boat operation is causing nonpoint source problems, and to enact
appropriate restrictions if required.

F.   PUBLIC EDUCATION

FINDING:  Oregon's program submittal, at pages 181 through
183, contains a comprehensive set of public education management
measures in conformity with the 6217 (g) guidance.

VI.  HYDROMODIFICATION                  

FINDING:  Oregon's program includes management measures in
conformity with the 6217(g) guidance and enforceable policies and
mechanisms to ensure implementation of the first two elements of
both the channelization/channel modification management
measures, the second and third elements of the eroding
streambanks and shorelines management measures, and the dams
management measure for erosion and sediment control.  The
program does not include (1) a process to improve surface water
quality and restore instream and riparian habitat through the
operation and maintenance of existing modified channels; (2) a
process to address existing nonpoint source pollution problems
caused by eroding streambanks and shorelines; and (3) the dams
management measures for chemical and pollutant control and
protection of surface water quality and instream and riparian
habitat.  In addition, exemptions in Oregon's removal-fill program
may preclude the State from fully implementing the channelization,
channel modification, and dams management measures.  

CONDITION:  Within two years, Oregon will develop processes
to identify and implement opportunities to (1) improve the physical
and chemical characteristics of surface waters and instream and
riparian habitat in existing modified channels and (2) stabilize
eroding streambanks or shorelines causing nonpoint problems that
are not reviewed under existing authorities.  Also within two years,
Oregon will include in its program the dam management measures
for chemical and pollutant control and protection of surface water
quality and instream and riparian habitat in conformity with the (g)
guidance.  Within three years, Oregon will also either modify the
exemptions to the removal-fill program or demonstrate that the
exemptions do not preclude the State from fully implementing the
management measures.

RATIONALE:   The Oregon removal-fill law and statewide
planning goal 17, and attendant administrative rules, along with
several other State programs, implement most aspects of the
channelization and channel modification management measures. 
Oregon requires permits for both new channelization and
modification of existing channels, and the State has adopted
specific practices benefitting water quality and habitat.  Existing
programs, however, do not include identification and
implementation of opportunities to improve the physical and
chemical characteristics of surface waters and restoration of
instream and riparian habitat.

     The Oregon removal-fill law and statewide planning goal
17, and their attendant administrative rules, address the second and
third elements of the eroding streambanks and shorelines
management measure.  Projects to stabilize eroding streambanks
and shorelines must give preference to nonstructural methods, and
riparian vegetation must be maintained or restored.  Local plans
address the use and management of coastal shorelands and must
inventory sedimentation sources and riparian vegetation resources
that protect water quality.  The State, however, does not have a
process to address existing nonpoint source problems caused by
streambank and shoreline erosion that do not arise for review under
existing permit authorities. 

     The Oregon Water Resources Department partially
implements the management measures for protecting water quality
and habitat from the adverse effect of dams through the review and
approval of applications to store and appropriate water.  Current
Oregon programs do not, however, address erosion and sediment
control, chemical and pollutant control, and the effects of dam
operation on surface water quality.  

     In addition, certain exemptions in the removal-fill program
may preclude the State from fully implementing the
hydromodification management measures.  The State has recently
amended the removal-fill program to revise exemptions for fills of
50 cubic yards or less.  Although the new rules eliminate the 50
cubic yard exemption for "essential" salmonid habitat (defined as
"habitat necessary to prevent the depletion of indigenous
anadromous salmonid species during their life history stages of
spawning and rearing" OAR-141-102-000, but limited to no more
than 20 percent of the linear stream miles within a basin), they still
exempt maintenance of existing agricultural activities and do not
address the impact of fills in "non-essential" habitat areas.  Other
exemptions of concern include diversions permitted under other
Oregon statutes; maintenance or reconstruction of dikes, dams,
levees, tidegates, and drainage and irrigation ditches; and
reservoirs and appropriations of water for dams less than ten feet in
height.

     Oregon needs to examine the effects of these exemptions
on surface water quality and the ability of coastal waters to support
beneficial uses.  Particular attention should be given to agricultural
drainage activities.  The State is encouraged to examine how such
activities could be addressed under AWQMAPs developed under
SB1010, discussed above in the section II, Agriculture pages 4-5.  

     VII. WETLANDS,  RIPARIAN AREAS, AND
     VEGETATED TREATMENT SYSTEMS 
FINDING:  Oregon's program includes management measures in
conformity with the 6217(g) guidance and enforceable policies and
mechanisms to ensure implementation, except Oregon's program
does not include management measures to provide for the
protection of riparian areas or a means of promoting the restoration
of riparian areas that provide nonpoint source abatement functions.

CONDITION:  Within two years, Oregon will include in its
program management measures in conformity with the 6217 (g)
guidance to assure the protection of riparian areas.  The State will
also develop a process to promote the restoration of riparian areas
in conformity with the 6217 (g) guidance.

RATIONALE:  Oregon has several programs that provide for the
protection and restoration of  wetland areas.  These include the
Oregon removal-fill law and administrative rules; the 1989
Wetland Conservation Planning Law, which provides for a
statewide wetlands inventory;  ORS 196.678, which  authorizes
local jurisdictions to develop Wetland Conservation Plans (WCPs)
(although few WCPs have been undertaken in coastal
jurisdictions); statewide planning goal 16; and the development of
narrative water quality standards for wetlands.  These programs,
however, are limited in the extent to which they address the
protection and restoration of riparian areas.  Vegetative treatment
systems are considered by DEQ as an option for projects that
require pretreatment.

     The State's submittal describes other programs that have
potential to address the protection and restoration of  riparian areas. 
Oregon's Wetlands Conservation Strategy, currently under
development, has potential to further strengthen Oregon restoration
efforts by adopting procedural mitigation standards, and identifying
wetland and riparian area restoration and creation opportunities.  

     Revisions to statewide planning goal 5 and the
development of AWQMAPs under SB1010 also provide
opportunities to address the protection and restoration of riparian
areas; however, gaps exist in the potential coverage of these
programs.  Goal 5 contains a number of exemptions and limitations
of concern (e.g., removal of riparian vegetation in areas zoned for
farm or forest uses is not restricted under goal 5; roads are allowed
in riparian areas under certain circumstances; non-fish bearing
lakes and streams are not protected under the safe harbor
provisions; and local jurisdictions not following the safe harbor
provisions appear to have considerable leeway in determining
"significant" resource areas and allowable conflicting uses);
further, the State has not clearly outlined how SB1010 will address
protection of riparian areas.  Furthermore, riparian areas of forest
lands being converted to other uses are not protected under existing
programs.  The State should address these issues as goal 5 and
SB1010 are implemented.

          VIII.     ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION

FINDING: Oregon's program does not include mechanisms to
improve coordination among State agencies and State and local
officials in implementing the coastal nonpoint program.

CONDITION: Within one year, Oregon will establish a process
for ensuring coordination among State and local agencies with a
role in the implementation of the coastal nonpoint program.

RATIONALE:   Section IV.J of the program submittal describes
several existing mechanisms that could be used to coordinate State
and local efforts to address nonpoint pollution of coastal waters. 
However, the submittal does not describe how these mechanisms
will be used to coordinate efforts specifically to address the impact
of nonpoint sources on coastal waters.  In addition, the submittal
indicates gaps in the program structure that will need to be
addressed to better coordinate program implementation.  For
example, the State will need to clearly identify the lead agency for
implementation of each management measures and establish
procedures for coordination among State and local agencies having
joint responsibility for a management measure (e.g., urban
management measures for site development and road
management).  In addition, although not specifically identified in
the State's program submission, GWEB is placing a high priority
on the coordination of watershed based programs and may be an
effective hub for coordinating certain interagency elements of
Oregon's coastal nonpoint program.

     IX.  PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

FINDING: Oregon's program provides opportunities for public
participation in the development and implementation of the coastal
nonpoint program.

RATIONALE: Section IV.I of the State's program submittal
describes activities that provide opportunities for public
participation in the coastal nonpoint program.  The State
established three technical advisory groups to assist in the
development of the agriculture, urban, and marina portions of the
program.  The State has also held public workshops and
information meetings to describe the requirements of Section 6217
and to solicit public input regarding the program.  The State
intends to continue these activities as part of its efforts to modify or
expand programs to address fully Section 6217 program
requirements.

     X.   CRITICAL COASTAL AREAS,  ADDITIONAL
     MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND TECHNICAL
     ASSISTANCE

FINDING: Oregon's program does not include processes for the
identification of critical coastal areas or for the development and
continuing revision of management measures applicable to critical
coastal areas and cases where the 6217 (g) measures are fully
implemented but water quality threats or impairments persist.  The
program does not describe efforts to provide technical assistance to
local governments and the public for implementing additional
management measures.

CONDITION: Within two years, Oregon will identify and begin
applying additional management measures where water quality
impairments and degradation of beneficial uses attributable to
forestry exist despite implementation of the (g) measures.  Within
two years, Oregon will develop a process for the identification of
critical coastal areas and a process for developing and revising
management measures to be applied in critical coastal areas and in
areas where necessary to attain and maintain water quality
standards.  Also within two years, the State will develop a program
to provide technical assistance in the implementation of additional
management measures.

RATIONALE: The State had not begun development of these
three programmatic elements at the time of program submission. 
The program submittal stated that Oregon intended to review the
designation of special coastal areas under other programs and
initiatives to assess whether such designations are also appropriate
for the purposes of Section 6217.  In addition, the State intends to
develop a list of impaired waters potentially subject to additional
management measures.  The State submittal indicates that a
program to provide technical assistance will be developed after the
additional management measures have been identified.  Technical
assistance may be provided through the ongoing efforts under the
319 program.  NOAA and EPA encourage the State to pursue these
efforts.

     The State recently engaged with NMFS in developing the
Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative (CSRI) to stabilize and
restore native coastal salmon populations and prevent the need for
a listing of coho salmon as threatened or endangered under the
federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).  NMFS worked closely
with State agencies throughout this process, and has identified a
number of concerns with existing state programs that relate to the
ability of those programs to protect and maintain essential features
of habitat for proposed or listed anadromous salmonids.  In
developing a process for the identification of critical coastal areas
and for developing and revising additional management measures
to be applied in critical coastal areas and in areas where necessary
to attain and maintain water quality standards, the State needs to
consider the issues raised by NMFS and how the additional
management measures and critical coastal areas provisions of the
coastal nonpoint program can interface with and enhance the CSRI. 


     As NMFS has described to the State in other documents,
such areas might include (1)  key spawning, rearing, and migratory
habitats of listed anadromous salmonids; (2) existing highly
productive, or potentially highly productive, subareas within
watersheds; and (3) basins, subbasins, or watersheds that support
multiple anadromous salmonid species or Evolutionarily
Significant Units, and where restoration actions have a high
potential to substantially improve productivity.  Core areas for
salmonid protection designated under the CSRI, important shellfish
harvesting areas, or Natural and Conservation units of estuaries as
designated under the Oregon Estuary Plan are examples of areas
that might be considered critical coastal areas.  

     Within two years, Oregon will identify and begin applying
additional management measures for forestry.  As discussed in
section III, above, Oregon's program includes management
measures for forestry in conformity with the (g) guidance.  Best
available information, however, indicates existing water quality
impairments attributable to forestry in certain areas, and that the
existing FPRs are inadequate to restore water quality and fully
support designated beneficial uses.  The State has the authority,
under OAR 629-635-120, to develop and adopt watershed specific
rules for forestry in watersheds that have been designated as water
quality limited or for watersheds containing threatened or
endangered aquatic species.  This authority would be useful in
developing appropriate additional management measures for
forestry; however, the State has not indicated whether or how it
intends to implement this process.

     EPA and NOAA have identified areas where existing
practices under the FPA and FPR should be strengthened to attain
water quality standards and fully support beneficial uses.  These
areas include protection of medium, small, and non-fish bearing
streams, including intermittent streams; protection of areas at high
risk for landslides; the ability of forest practices to address
cumulative impacts of forestry activities; road density and
maintenance, particularly on so-called "legacy" roads; and the
adequacy of stream buffers for application of certain chemicals. 

     Under existing State forest practices, medium, small, and
non-fish bearing streams may be subject to loss of sediment
retention capacity, increases in delivery of fine sediments, and
increases in temperature due to loss of riparian vegetation. 
Another concern is provision of adequate long-term supplies of
large woody debris in medium, small, and non-fish bearing
streams, a shortage of which can result in decreased sediment
storage in upstream tributaries, increased transport and deposition
downstream, and overall adverse impacts to beneficial uses. 

     "Legacy forest roads" (that is, roads constructed and used
prior to adoption of the FPA and not used and maintained since
then) were not required to be treated and stabilized before closure. 
In some locations, this has resulted in significantly altered surface
drainage, diversion of water from natural channels, and serious
erosion or landslides.  The ODF has proposed an expedited
voluntary program to inventory and prioritize the upgrading of
roads built prior to 1974 on industrial forest lands.

     Regarding concerns with harvest activities in high risk
landslide areas, evidence indicates that timber harvests on unstable,
steep terrain can result in increases in landslide rates of
approximately 200 to 400 percent.  There are also indications that a
relatively small proportion of potentially unstable ground in the
Oregon Coast Range is responsible for the majority of landslides in
Oregon.

     Forest practice rules in effect at the time the Oregon 6217
program was submitted for approval did not require buffers for
aerial application of herbicides or fertilizers for type N (non-
fishbearing) streams.  Such streams comprise significant portions
of total stream length in the coastal zone.  In January 1997, the
ODF revised its rules governing application of chemicals.  The
new rules require a 60 foot buffer on type N streams for direct
aerial application of fungicides and nonbiological insecticides
except as approved by the State forester.  The rules do not contain
restrictions for aerial application of herbicides, which would
appear to leave type N streams still at risk.  

     Cumulative effects of increased water temperature,
sediment transport, road density, hydrological modification, and
other factors can manifest themselves at a larger system scale and
have adverse effects over an entire watershed or basin, rather than
at a particular site or stream reach.  The scope and pattern of these
types of effects have recently become much more apparent through
the use of watershed and landscape analysis.  Cumulative effects
are a concern not only within the forestry sector but across all land
use or management measure categories within a watershed.
                    
XI.  MONITORING

FINDING:  Oregon's program does not include a plan to assess
over time the success of the management measures in reducing
pollution loads and improving water quality as specified in Section
6217(g)(2)(F).

CONDITION:  Within one year, Oregon will include in its
program a plan that enables the State to assess over time the extent
to which implementation of management measures is reducing
pollution loads and improving water quality.  

RATIONALE:  In the program submittal, Oregon states that both
implementation and effectiveness monitoring are needed.  The
State has also written that it will build on existing water quality
monitoring efforts for Section 6217.  Further, Oregon has stated
that monitoring programs for tracking management measure
implementation will be designed as implementation plans are
developed by the various agencies.  Oregon has not, however,
indicated how it will use these programs to assess over time
whether the management measures are reducing pollutant loads
and improving water quality.  Oregon is encouraged to coordinate
appropriate aspects of its 6217 monitoring program with the State
CSRI.

     Oregon should include in its monitoring plan information
regarding the number and location of monitoring stations, the types
and frequency of water quality data being collected, and the
analytic approaches that will be employed in conjunction with
existing monitoring efforts to assess the success of management
measures in achieving water quality objectives.  The State should
include some inexpensive tracking of management measure
implementation in conjunction with water quality monitoring, as
such information is needed to assess the success of management
measures in achieving water quality objectives.

XII.  STRATEGY AND EVALUATION FOR BACKUP
AUTHORITIES

     Within two years, Oregon will develop a strategy to
implement the management measures for confined animal facilities
exempt for the State definition of CAFOs throughout the 6217
management area.  Within one year, the State will develop a
strategy to implement the roads, highways, and bridges
management measures throughout the 6217 management area. 
These strategies will include a description and schedule for the
specific steps the State will take to ensure implementation of the
management measures; describe how existing or new authorities
can be used to ensure implementation where voluntary efforts are
unsuccessful; and identify measurable results which, if achieved,
will demonstrate the State's ability to achieve implementation of
the management measures using the described approach.

     Oregon will also develop and apply credible survey tools to
demonstrate the ability of the State's approach to achieve
implementation for these management measures.  The use of
credible assessment techniques is necessary in order for NOAA
and EPA to evaluate, at the end of the three year period described
in the March 16, 1995 guidance issued by NOAA and EPA entitled
Flexibility for State Coastal Nonpoint Programs, whether the
State's approach has been successful or whether new, more
specific authorities will be needed.