Fight Sprawl, Kill Salmon

[October 31st, 2001]

It sounds like a cruel joke to play on dying fish, but it's true: The Portland region's green-minded anti-sprawl efforts may be hurting the Northwest's endangered salmon, chum and steelhead.

That is one implication of the research guiding the feds' fish-recovery efforts, and the conflict has some biologists thinking it's time to revamp Oregon's single-focus land-use laws, which lie at the heart of Portland's "smart growth" ideology.

At issue is a new rule of thumb that federal biologists employ when looking at developments in sensitive areas. To avoid hurting fish, they say, at least 65 percent of the ground should be forested, and no more than 10 percent

should be covered with pavement and buildings.

The implications are "mindblowing," says Rich Carson, former planning director for Metro, greater Portland's regional planning agency.

That's because, if strictly applied, it calls for spreading out development, says Tom Sibley of the National Marine Fisheries Service--or, as he puts it, "sprawl."

This line of thought has special significance for Portland, considered the nation's foremost urban sprawlbuster. That's because the Rose City enjoys a second distinction, having been named in 1999, along with Seattle, as one of the first two American cities to fall under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act.

Biologists stress that the bulk of the threat that Portland poses to fish is the same as any other city: population growth and urban development. They defend Oregon's land-use laws as protecting valuable habitat.

To curb sprawl, however, Oregon requires that Metro and other local jurisdictions keep new development within a growth boundary to promote dense urban areas. The goal is to protect farm and forest land outside the boundary, which is good for animals. But within the boundary, it results in a greater portion of the land being covered by roads, parking lots and roofs.

Those hard surfaces are bad for fish. Instead of slowly filtering through cleansing forestland into the ground, rain becomes runoff, mixing with fertilizer, motor oil and other nasties before rushing out stormwater drains. And the pavement means less water seeps underground for long-term storage, so creeks wind up with less water in the summer.

All this is why biologists consider runoff the prime culprit in the decline of salmon, steelhead and other threatened aquatic species. So by pursuing one environmental goal, density, are we hurting another--the fish?

"You have just jumped into one of the most complex questions facing people dealing with the issue of watershed habitat," says Jeff Weber, the salmon policy point man for the state's land-conservation office.

The questions so far are largely theoretical, although NMFS has used the "65-10" principle to raise red flags over some developments in sensitive areas of Washington. The same concept also lies at the heart of modeling that the feds will share with local governments in Oregon over the next few months, says Nancy Munn, a NMFS biologist in Portland.

Jim Middaugh, the City of Portland's salmon guru, says that the 65-10 ratios don't take into account the creative methods the city is using to control stormwater. Pointing to a recent siting of an endangered steelhead on Johnson Creek, he says that fish can survive even Portland's high densities.

"These fish are patient, resilient and tenacious," says Middaugh. "The problem is not growth, it is how you grow."

But he and other biologists say Oregon's land-use policies, born in the early '70s, do need revamping to account for the 1999 endangered species listings.

Middaugh points to Pleasant Valley, an area near Gresham that's slated for more than 5,000 homes even though local creek systems are home to endangered fish. From a fish perspective, says Middaugh, "it's the wrong place for it."

He is not alone in thinking Oregon's enviro laws need a second look. In June, the Washington, D.C., group Defenders of Wildlife devoted an entire report to the weaknesses of Oregon's land-use laws when it comes to protecting habitat in the Willamette Valley.

NMFS biologist Spencer Hovkamp stresses that Metro and Portland are doing a great job trying to save the fish. But in 1997, his agency reviewed Oregon's land-use policies to determine whether they protect salmon habitat. The conclusion, says Hovkamp, was that "in some areas there was a moderate likelihood of success, and in most areas it had little likelihood of success."

Metro exec Mike Burton says he has often told state agencies and legislators that it's time to take a second look at Oregon's land-use laws, but "the response was overwhelmingly quiet." The salmon vs. density question, he says, is "one of the fundamental hard points that we're struggling with."