The Endangered Species Act has come to the urban Northwest. In the
past, protection has been granted primarily to backwoods critters, such
as bald eagles or spotted owls. Creatures that - all things being equal
- would prefer to avoid big city life. Now, new listings have been
added: runs of steelhead, Chinook and chum salmon that pass through the
middle o f metro Portland and Seattle. Urban runs of cutthroat trout are
being considered too. These listings should come as no surprise. In
recent years, it has become clear that urban areas do more damage to
fish, per unit of area, than any clearcut, or any single industrial
polluter. Where Portland now sprawls, a rich labyrinth of wetlands,
streams, sloughs, and riverine habitats once criss-crossed the
landscape. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife reports that
roughly 388 miles of streams that formerly flowed through the Portland
area are now dead, uni nhabi table to fish, due to a host o f human
impacts. In those urban streams that still house fish, it is not
uncommon to find 90% of the fish population dying annually due to human
disturbances, before they make it to the sea. The processes by which we
have converted the Pacific Northwest's productive fish streams into
biological sterile urban ditches have been unending and ubiquitous:
filling, culverts, paving, pollution. And this destruction of fish
habitat continues today. Maybe even in a neighborhood near you.
Streams and wetlands have been drained, channeled into culverts that do
not allow fish passage, and covered with fill, so that homes and
businesses and streets could be built above. It has always been more
profitable for developers to build over, rather than around,
fish-bearing streams. Those streams that do remain in urbanized areas,
straightened and channeled, have become less hospitable to fish, losing
their riffles, their deep cool pools, the places where fish hide from
predators. Paving, and the removal of streamside vegetation commonly
increases summer water temperatures to a level where fish cannot
survive. Unlike the forests and clearings that stood where cities now
sprawl, rainfall runs o ff pavement very fast; streams that once roared
year-round now become lukewarm, muddy trickles during the dry season.
Meandering, multiple-branched streams and their lush, productive banks
have been slowly converted into a geometric pattern of underground pipes
and urban ditches.
And then there is the pollution. In the Puget Sound basin, a recent
U.S. Geological Survey study o f suburban streams found a tidy
correlation between peak levels of toxins in fish-bearing streams and
peak sales periods at home and garden stores They found 23 different
toxins in most o f these waterways. All of these toxins had washed off
of well-groomed suburban yards into fish-bearing streams, all of them
combining into a toxic, fish-killing soup. Moss killer, weed killer,
insect killer, fungus killer, this-killer, that-killer. All of them
over-the-counter killers. Weed-and-seed; diazanon, mecoprop, 2,4-D;
things that good, everyday people put on their lawns and driveways to
fight back the weeds and bugs, to bring domesticated order out of
nature's chgos; things that, in large concentrations, kill fish and
birds. Things that, ir, lower doses, can damage the liver or cause birth
defects, d n many of these products, in big, cheerful letters, you will
find the words: "Toxic to Fish." And the manufacturers aren't kidding.
It is not a particularly big deal when one person dumps these substances
onto their yard; it is a very big deal indeed when half the suburbanites
in a city the size of metro Portland or Seattle dump them on their
yard. It is what some call 'non-point source pollution' - it is not
coming from a single industrial polluter. It is the most democratic
form o f pollution. It is coming from all of us.
Yet, here and there, fish have been able to hold on. Wild fish persist
in the most improbable places, such as in the trenches that line old,
suburban front yards. Or they persist in places such as east Portland's
Johnson Creek, where native steelhead and coho fingerlings are still
found, a tiny remnant of the runs of Chinook, coho, and steelhead that
filled this Creek a few generations ago. With the new Endangered
Species Act listing, there is some hope for the restoration of these
remnant runs. There is hope: that these few fish might be allowed to
thrive, to lay their eggs, and increasingly, generation after
generation, have their offspring survive into adulthood. But with this
hope comes a threat - that there will be a tremendous surge in the
regulation o f all activities that negatively impact fish. And that
means almost anything we-do in cities. Fish aren't all that picky - all
they ask is for clear cold water, places to hide, things to eat. But it
is a challenge for city dwellers to change their behavior, and to change
the landscape, to meet the needs of fish. No matter how many eggs these
fish lay, their offspring will not survive without a dramatic
improvement in the quality of their habitat. Portland and other urban
areas now attempt to bring about a 70% to 80% reduction in urban stream
pollution through public education, alone: don't dump toxic liquids down
storm drains. Don't douse your yard in pesticides and herbicides.
Basic stuff. Cities now also seek to reconstruct damaged and drained
wetland areas along urban streams, each wetland serving to house fish
and the bugs they eat, to trap and settle out toxins, to slow the rate
of stream flow and reduce stream temperatures. Many cities now ask
developers to leave streamside buffers of natural vegetation. Despite
the diverse side-benefits of buffers - habitat for birds and other
wildlife, or aesthetic and recreational values - many developers still
fight these policies looth-and-nail, lest it reduce their total
buildable acreage and cut into their profits. It is an uphill battle,
as Northwestern urban areas sprawl, each new subdivision browning the
waters with sediments during construction, each new subdivision
increasing the amount of pollution, the rate of runoff, the temperature
o f the water, soon thereafter.
All of this raises an important question: ultimately, can humans and
salmon live together?
For those of us who live on the coast, this is not an abstract,
theoretical question. It is a question that will affect how we live and
what we do in our own backyards. Coastal coho salmon also appear on the
Endangered Species list. Coastal cutthroat may be listed as well.
Ecola Creek, and its hundreds of tiny tributaries contain a small,
remnant population of these fish While their numbers were once quite
high, they have plummeted in recent years. During the most recent Oregon
Department o f Fish and Wildlife survey, not a single adult, breeding
coho salmon was found in Ecola Creek A few younger fish are present;
the population is not yet extinguished. But, for a stream that
contained a small, viable breeding population in the early 1990s, this
is a staggering decline. The causes are diverse, but those of us who
live in Cannon Beach cannot simply direct the blame eastward, toward the
'managed forests' behind town, or westward, toward the fish harvests and
capricious natural cycles o f the sea. For coho salmon, the small
streams and wetlands that enter Ecola Creek near its mouth are the most
important places for feeding and breeding. And downtown Cannon Beach
was built over some of the most rich, productive wetland areas in the
entire Ecola Creek basin; they were filled, diked, and paved. A
significant portion of the wedands used by coho salmon were turned into
parking lots and building lots. Meandering channels were forced into a
rigid underground geometry of pipes and culverts. This is a recent
development; many locals recall how the town's building were constructed
atop short pilings, and how the water would rise under the boardwalks
along Hemlock Street when the tides were high. For all practical
purposes, this habitat is gone. Only a radical reconfiguration o f the
City's structure would bring it back.
However, there are a number of other areas in town where wedand salmon
habitat persists, but where it is being immediately and direedy
impacted by human activities. Perhaps the most pressing local case is
on the north end of Cannon Beach, in the Logan Creek basin. This basin
includes a network of streams that drain the slopes below Ecola State
Park, and converge into Logan Creek, which flows into the northern shore
o f Ecola Creek. Here, vast wedand areas have been gradually reduced,
due to home and road construction. As the last large area in Cannon
Beach with a dense concentration of buildable lots, the Logan Creek
basin may soon witness this town's final, major building boom. Fish
persist in these creeks, coho and cutthroat swimming between homes and
along roadways. Still, they are present in much reduced numbers than a
few years before. Simultaneously, the City of Cannon Beach contemplates
the future of Logan Creek and its tributaries, responding to occasional
complaints, legitimate complaints, about sporadic shallow floods in the
lower reaches of Ixigan Creek. Traditionally, to control these floods, a
municipal government would have simply sought the most efficient way to
move water down the hill, from Point A to Point B. Traditionally, a City
might drain the wedands and place streams in culverts, 'piping' the
water across the landscape like leaky bathroom plumbing. This solution
would temporarily reduce flooding, but forever damage the health of
endemic fish populations. Today, however, things have changed.
The L-ogan Creek basin has been radically transformed in the last
century. Putting aside for a moment the fact that the neighborhood that
experiences these occasional floods was built smack-dab in the middle of
a wetland (where maybe - just maybe - one might expect a little
flooding) we might still say that the flooding that now plagues the area
has been intensified by human activities. The landscape has been
repeatedly devegetated, its old forests clearcut, the scrubby
second growth forest removed to make way for houses. Increasingly it
has been built upon, with clearing, fill and other changes that have
dramatically altered local hydrology. Building has served to 'harden'
surfaces, making them impermeable; when rain falls, it now rolls
directly off the pavement, gravel, and rooftops. The forest vegetation
->ushed back, lot by lot. Cumulatively, these changes cause rain to
run off much faster after storms, and this has complicated flooding
during times of peak rainfall. But also, this process has reduced the
minimum or 'base flow' of the Logan Creek system during dry months, as
much of the water is immediately "flushed" through the system; this
leaves little water remaining in the basin to gradually recharge the
streams once the rain ceases. As in any place where the land is
developed, peak flows are becoming higher, low flows are becoming
lower. And while high peak flows (i.e., floods) may be an annoyance to
humans, low base flows are a tremendous annoyance to fish. Over time,
reduced base flows reduce fish mobility and fish habitat - like urban
streams, the tributaries of Logan Creek might easily become trickling
'ditches' of lukewarm water. Traditional flood control, with its pipes
and culverts, would do nothing to improve these base flows, and would
often impede the movement of fish. The fish, traditionally, have not
been impressed.
There may yet be solutions that allow us to address the flooding issue,
allow home construction, and preserve - or even enhance - existing fish
and wildlife habitat on the Logan Creek basin. With local fish
populations plummeting, it would be a shame not to. Such an approach
might involve preserving and enhancing existing wetland areas. With
very slight changes, these wetlands might be enhanced to provide better
habitat, and more effectively slow the flow of water out of the basin
-thereby reducing floods while increasing the Creek's base flow. This
low-tech' solution might prove both effective and inexpensive, in
contrast with a more traditional approach that would improve drainage at
the cost o f fish habitat. It would kill two birds - the flooding issue
and the habitat issue - with the same low-tech stone. Any proposal that
advocates more culverts and more drainage ditches would arguably
represent a big step in the wrong direction. If a fish-friendly
solution is to be approved, however, it is tremendously important that
the citizens of Cannon Beach actively participate in the planning
process. In the months ahead, look for references to Logan Creek and
the basin's "SHED" project [Salmon Habitat Ecology Drainage] in the
local papers. Let the City know how you feel about the future o f fish
in our town. Show up when the City asks for public comment on their
plans for the Logan Creek basin. Do not hesitate to share your ideas
and opinions on the issue. Right now, right here, in our own backyard,
we could do a lot of harm or we could do a lot of good. Let the City
hear your voice. We have nothing to lose but our habitat. We have
nothing to lose but our last wild salmon.
Pacific Greens
by Margi Shindler
Q: What do you get when put three progressives in
a convention hall?
A; Two parties and a faction.
At least that has traditionally been the case. But on
Saturday, May 15th, the Pacific Greens and the
Socialist Party of Oregon reversed that unfortunate
historical trend by merging to form the largest
progressive political party in the Northwest. The
Pacific Greens bring to the table statewide ballot
status, a record of robust grassroots activism, and the
rising tide o f the international Green Party
movement. The Socialists offer tremendous
organizing skills, a sitting Salem City Councilman,
and their historic leadership in the struggle for social
and economic justice. Together they have created a
well-rounded, dynamic, and energized political force,
a new home for the increasing numbers of Oregon
voters disgusted with both the Democrats and
Republicans. The Pacific Greens provide an
alternative party dedicated to wrestling political
power away special monied interests and returning it
to the people. Saturday's convention also approved
by consensus a working draft of a Pacific Green
platform. When merger talks began, there was some
concern that the more libertarian Greens and the
Socialists would differ on the role of government.
But as they cut through the rhetoric and their
preconceived notions of each other to develop a
concrete political program, they found they shared a
common vision of progressive government. Some
key points in the platfonn draft adopted at the
convention:
* Decentralize political and economic power
* Free the political process from the dominance of
big money and the two decrepit parties that monied
interests have bought and paid for.
* Protect and restore the environment.
* Build an ecologically sustainable and socially just
economy.
* Provide for every citizen's basic human needs such
as food, shelter, and health care.
* Protect everyone's human and civil rights.
* Keep government - and corporations - out of
people's private lives.
The Pacific Greens are now ready to move foreward
and become a powerful force in Oregon politics.
If you have any questions, please contact:
Xander Patterson
503/235-9230
Q^trrcbMt'&ia^
<
TRILLIUM >
NATURALIWS >
<
The day when nobody comes back from a war it will
be because the war has at last been properly
organized.
Boris Vain
OREGON COAST
SUPPORT GROUP
•
r.o. box t o
CANNON BIACH
O R I6 O N
• 7110
SOS 4 3 6 0 3 2 7
303 368 4 8 3 8
FAX 3 0 3 3 6 8 7 3 1 8
Portland (503)239-4605
Cannon Beach (503)436-1572
Mitigation A c t Unilateral Legislative Theft of 1868
Fort Laramie Treaty Land
The so-called "Mitigation Act," passed in October 1998 as Title V I of the
1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act, is known by the long title of "Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and state of South Dakota
Terrestrial W ildlife Restoration A c t" The Act would transfer between
100,000 - 200,000 acres of land along the Missouri River to the stole of
South Dakota, land to which tribes signatory to the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty
retain unextinguished title. The Act was passed as a rider to the 14,000
page Omnibus Appropriations Act. It is clear that most members of congress
did not understand what was involved in Title V I, as the five tribes opposed
to (he act were not given the opportunity to voice their concerns through a
congressional hearing. The five tribes, (Yankton Sioux Tribe, Oglala Sioux
Tribe, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, and Crow Creek Sioux
Tribe) and the Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council are calling for
congressional oversight hearings to repeal the Act and for a comprehensive
EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) before any move is made to transfer the
land to South Dakota.
For further information contact
Emily Iron Cloud-Koenen 60 5/4 5 5 2 1 9 3 , Eileen Iron Cloud, 6054 55 -2 99 9 or
Joanne Tall 605/867-2673,
tWER. LEFT Eb<iE 3UME -VIM
y
J