Ongoing Projects:

Federal Project(s) Operating in the State:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) Region 10 office operates a project in Portland that aims to incorporate citizen science into decision making as the city develops plans for school bus routes and stops.  See Making a Visible Difference (MVD) in/NE Portland: Engaging Communities, Using Citizen Science to Assess and Address Children’s Environmental Health from Transit and Air Pollution, CitizenScience.gov, https://www.citizenscience.gov/catalog/228/# (last visited Feb. 7, 2019). The project’s goal is “to make a visible difference with citizen science such that it becomes a bridge for the community to independently uncover links and solutions to local environmental concerns.” Id.

The Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey (“COASST”) is a citizen science program established to identify the carcasses of marine birds found on beaches along the coast of the Pacific Northwest. See Coastal Observation And Seabird Survey Team (COASST), CitizenScience.gov, https://www.citizenscience.gov/catalog/36/# (last visited Feb. 7, 2019); see also COASST, https://depts.washington.edu/coasst/ (last visited Feb. 7, 2019).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in collaboration with Audubon and the Cornell Lab of Ornithology launched a citizen science survey for California brown pelicans across the Pacific coast. See California Brown Pelican Citizen Science Survey, CitizenScience.gov, https://www.citizenscience.gov/catalog/219/# (last visited Feb. 7, 2019).  The survey occurs biannually across “100 sites in Washington, Oregon, and California, and [helps] conservation professionals collect important data on the distribution and abundance of California brown pelicans.” Id.; see also Pacific Brown Pelican Survey, Audobon, http://ca.audubon.org/brownpelicansurvey (last visited Feb. 7, 2019). 

State Project(s):

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) manages a Volunteer Monitoring Program for water quality. See Volunteer Monitoring, Or. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, https://www.oregon.gov/deq/wq/Pages/WQ-Monitoring-Volunteer.aspx (last visited Feb. 7, 2019). The program’s objectives are to “[p]rovide resources to groups interested in conducting volunteer monitoring,” “[e]xpand and support the volunteer monitoring efforts across the state,” “[p]romote consistent, comparable data collection techniques,” “[i]mprove and document the quality of data collected by volunteer groups,” and “[s]upport the transformation of volunteer generated water quality data into information.” Id. DEQ uses data collected through this program for water quality and watershed assessments, as well as TMDL documentation and development. See id. Resources for volunteers are available on DEQ’s website. See Volunteer Monitoring Resources, Or. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, https://www.oregon.gov/deq/wq/Pages/WQ-Monitoring-Resources.aspx (last visited Feb. 7, 2019). 

Collection of Information:

Ag-Gag Law:

“(1) A person commits the crime of interference with livestock production when the person, with the intent to interfere with livestock production:

(a) Takes, appropriates, obtains or withholds livestock from the owner thereof, or causes the loss, death or injury of any livestock maintained at a livestock production facility;

(b) Damages, vandalizes or steals any property located on a livestock production facility; or

(c) Obtains access to a livestock production facility to perform any act contained in this subsection or any other act not authorized by the livestock production facility.

(2) The crime of interference with livestock production is:

(a) A Class C felony if damage to the livestock production facility is $2,500 or more; or

(b) A Class A misdemeanor if there is no damage to the livestock production facility or if damage to the facility is less than $2,500.”      

Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.388.

Scientific/ Educational Collection or Research Permits

The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (“OPRD”) generally requires a scientific research and collection permit for most scientific activities conducted on the Department’s lands. See Or. Admin. R. 736-045-0440; id. 736-021-0090(10); see also Scientific Research Collection Permits, Or. Parks & Recreation Dep’t, https://www.oregon.gov/oprd/NATRES/Pages/permitting.aspx (last visited Feb. 7, 2019).

Trespass Laws:

Criminal Liability for Trespass Despite Lack of Notice:

No.  Criminal liability does not attach if lack of notice would cause a reasonable person to believe that she is not required to obtain permission to enter or remain on the property.

“A person commits the crime of criminal trespass in the second degree if the person enters or remains unlawfully … in or upon premises.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.245(1). 

To “enter or remain unlawfully” means “[t]o enter or remain in or upon premises when the premises, at the time of such entry or remaining, are not open to the public and when the entrant is not otherwise licensed or privileged to do so.” Id. § 164.205(3)(a) (emphasis added). 

“Open to the public” means “premises which by their physical nature, function, custom, usage, notice or lack thereof or other circumstances at the time would cause a reasonable person to believe that no permission to enter or remain is required.” Id. § 164.205(4) (emphasis added).

Other Provisions:

See supra “Ag-Gag Law.”

Drone Laws:

Harassment Law: 

“[A] person may not operate an unmanned aircraft system over the boundaries of privately owned premises in a manner so as to intentionally, knowingly or recklessly harass or annoy the owner or occupant of the privately owned premises.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 837.370(1). A violation of this section is a Class B violation. Id. § 837.370(3)(a).

Low-Flying Law (Civil):

“[A] person who owns or lawfully occupies real property in this state may bring an action against any person or public body that operates an unmanned aircraft system that is flown over the property if:

(a) The operator of the unmanned aircraft system has flown the unmanned aircraft system over the property on at least one previous occasion; and

(b) The person notified the owner or operator of the unmanned aircraft system that the person did not want the unmanned aircraft system flown over the property.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 837.380(1).

Exceptions:

“A person may not bring an action under this section if:

(a) The unmanned aircraft system is lawfully in the flight path for landing at an airport, airfield or runway; and

(b) The unmanned aircraft system is in the process of taking off or landing.” Id. § 837.380.

Preemption:

“Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft systems is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly. Except as expressly authorized by state statute, a local government, as defined ORS 174.116, may not enact an ordinance or resolution that regulates the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft systems or otherwise engage in the regulation of the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft systems.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 837.385. 

Department of Fish & Wildlife Lands:

“Drones/UAV’s may not be flown within the boundary of any [Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (“ODFW”)] owned, managed, or controlled area except for administrative use or by permit issued by ODFW.” Or. Admin. R. 635-008-0050(10).

State Parks:

Please call 1-800-551-6949 for park specific rules.

Other Provisions:

See infra “Critical Infrastructure Laws.”

Critical Infrastructure Laws:

Drone Law:

“[A] person commits a Class A violation if the person intentionally or knowingly:

(a) Operates an unmanned aircraft system over a critical infrastructure facility at an altitude not higher than 400 feet above ground level; or

(b) Allows an unmanned aircraft system to make contact with a critical infrastructure facility, including any person or object on the premises of or within the facility.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 837.372(2). 

“As used in this section, ‘critical infrastructure facility’ means any of the following facilities, if completely enclosed by a fence or other physical barrier that is obviously designed to exclude intruders, or if marked with a sign conspicuously posted on the property that indicates that entry is forbidden: (a) A petroleum or alumina refinery; (b) An electrical power generating facility, substation, switching station or electrical control center; (c) A chemical, polymer or rubber manufacturing facility; (d) A water intake structure, water treatment facility, wastewater treatment plant or pump station; (e) A natural gas compressor station; (f) A liquid natural gas terminal or storage facility; … (i) A gas processing plant, including a plant used in the processing, treatment or fractionation of natural gas; … (k) A steelmaking facility that uses an electric arc furnace to make steel; (L) A dam that is classified as a high hazard by the Water Resources Department; [or] (m) Any portion of an aboveground oil, gas or chemical pipeline that is enclosed by a fence or other physical barrier that is obviously designed to exclude intruders.”  Id. § 837.372(1).

Exception:

The above law does not apply if the individual driving the drone has “the prior written consent of the owner or operator of the critical infrastructure facility,” “the prior written consent of the owner or occupant of the property on which the critical infrastructure facility is located,” or is operating the drone for “commercial purposes in compliance with authorization granted by the Federal Aviation Administration.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 837.372(3)(f), (h) & (i).

Stalking Laws:

Criminal Law:

“A person commits the crime of stalking if:

(a) The person knowingly alarms or coerces another person or a member of that person’s immediate family or household by engaging in repeated and unwanted contact with the other person;

(b) It is objectively reasonable for a person in the victim’s situation to have been alarmed or coerced by the contact; and

(c) The repeated and unwanted contact causes the victim reasonable apprehension regarding the personal safety of the victim or a member of the victim’s immediate family or household.”  Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.732(1).

Civil Law:

“A person may bring a civil action in a circuit court for a court’s stalking protective order or for damages, or both, against a person if:

(a)  The person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly engages in repeated and unwanted contact with the other person or a member of that person’s immediate family or household thereby alarming or coercing the other person;                  

(b)  It is objectively reasonable for a person in the victim’s situation to have been alarmed or coerced by the contact; and

 (c) The repeated and unwanted contact causes the victim reasonable apprehension regarding the personal safety of the victim or a member of the victim’s immediate family or household.”  Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.866(1).

Use of Information:

Although our research is incomplete, this provision could be construed to allow the use of information collected by citizens.

Explicitly Allows:

“[A]ny credible evidence may be used for the purpose of establishing whether a person has violated or is in violation of” stationary source reporting requirements under the state’s air pollution control law.  Or. Admin. R. 340-214-0120.  “Credible evidence” is not defined.

Evidentiary Standards:

Pleading a Claim:

Requires certification that the claims “are supported by evidence.”  Or. R. Civ. P. 17(C)(4).

Authentication or Chain of Custody:

“The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”  Or. Rev. Stat. § 40.505(1).

Expert Testimony:

Brown-Daubert standard.  See State v. O’Key, 899 P.2d 663, 675-80 (Or. 1995).