Even dredging, the most effective tool we have for cleaning the Willamette is far from flawless. BJ Cummings brought up the role that policies initially required to have the contractor with the lowest bid do the dredging, with abysmal results. Boeing on the other hand, she said did an exemplary job of cleaning up their portion of the river. This was in part as a result of the company not being beholden to the same regulations. The technologies available are not perfect, but they can be quite effective.Though of course the technologies come at a price and the regulations in place must allow them to be used. Thinking on a larger scale, it is difficult to see the point in debating the effectiveness of cleanup techniques. As Melanie described in her presentation, the EPA and other entities are doing very little in the way of preventing both old and new chemicals from entering waterways. Without policy and regulations focused on stemming the flow of hazardous material into the river, the overall effectiveness of the cleanup will be limited, regardless of the combination of technology used. There are many contaminants present in the Willamette River and the effects of these contaminants on fish and vary. According to Forest et al. the reproductive system is primarily affected adding more stress on species that are already struggling to survive, such as salmon. Preserving the diversity of species in the Willamette and its tributaries is a worthy goal by itself, but reducing the contaminants present in fish matters because humans eat the fish. To ensure the cleanliness of the river for both fish and people it will be necessary to utilize the best technologies at the appropriate time and place while also having the public policy and regulations in place to make this possible. Kirk Forest, E., Curtis, L.R., & Gundersen, D.(2014). Toxic contaminants in the urban aquatic environment. In J.A. Yeakly et al. (Eds.), Wild salmonids in the urbanizing Pacific Northwest (123-139).New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.
0 Comments
The similarities between the Lower Duwamish River in Seattle, Washington and the Lower Willamette River in Portland, Oregon are truly fascinating. The two rivers have a braided history of being labeled “industrial/ economic engines”. Both rivers have been rerouted and deviated from their natural course, deep channeled for shipping, and heavily contaminated with persistent organic pesticides, The current conditions of Lower Duwamish and the Willamette rivers contribute to negative impacts on the health and lives of tribes, immigrant, and poor who live adjacent to its shores. The neighborhood of South Park, in South Seattle, has very similar economic, cultural, and social makeup as St. Johns, in North Portland. Each neighborhood is impacted with heavy transportation, industry, and high amounts of cultural diversity.
|
Paulina and her group of community advocates creatively covered up gang tags along the “scary trail,” a trail they have cleaned up and maintain.The trail is an example of action and inaction where city, state, private, and public property collide, making it difficult to create lasting change. Murals around the city pay homage to the founders of this community. | Hanging metal signs on street lights with different silhouettes of ships seem to celebrate the industrial heart of Southpark and Seattle. |
"White settlers came to the Seattle area in 1851, establishing a townsite they first called New York, and then, adding a word from the Chinook jargon meaning "by-and-by," New York-Alki.” -Seattle Municipal Archives
Discovering Seattle's deep history of industry, economic and community development put into perspective the complex issues revolving around development in both long and short term thinking. This past weekend I could see clearly how the past is still very present in today's world. The Duwamish River was a great example of this continued impact, for example the profound injustices demonstrated by the commandeering of the Duwamish tribe's land, to the negative effect the Superfund site has had on the health and safety of South Park's citizens.
Although people have tried to control, utilize or tame the waters of the Duwamish, the problems morphed into systemic problems that possibly stemmed from the rivers complex history.
-Katie
Brief History of Seattle. Retrieved from http://www.seattle.gov/cityarchives/seattle-facts/brief-history-of-seattle
Discovering Seattle's deep history of industry, economic and community development put into perspective the complex issues revolving around development in both long and short term thinking. This past weekend I could see clearly how the past is still very present in today's world. The Duwamish River was a great example of this continued impact, for example the profound injustices demonstrated by the commandeering of the Duwamish tribe's land, to the negative effect the Superfund site has had on the health and safety of South Park's citizens.
Although people have tried to control, utilize or tame the waters of the Duwamish, the problems morphed into systemic problems that possibly stemmed from the rivers complex history.
-Katie
Brief History of Seattle. Retrieved from http://www.seattle.gov/cityarchives/seattle-facts/brief-history-of-seattle
Of all of the interesting perspectives that were voiced and all that I saw and learned, one part of our trip to Seattle stood out to me: just how industrial the Duwamish River is. Compared to the Willamette River in Portland, the Duwamish seemed much more like an “economic engine.” The amount of industry on the Duwamish and its importance to the city, makes the conversation about the Superfund site different than the one being had in Portland. In Seattle all parties accept that the river will continue to be primarily for industrial use, and that all other uses will be secondary. B.J. Cummings and the representative from the Duwamish Tribe both acknowledged this on our trip.
In class we discussed the role of nature in our largely urban society. In Seattle the citizen’s access to the Duwamish as a natural feature is not as much of a possibility as it is on the Willamette. In Portland it is less clear what the primary functions of the river will be into the future. With the Superfund cleanup in Portland we have the option of increasing the relatively small amount of industry on the river. We also have the opportunity to possibly make it a natural retreat in the heart of our city. A place to be in “nature” and to benefit from it as a food source as well. From all of the readings on the cleanup that we have explored thus far in the course it appears likely that the end result of the cleanup will be a mix of these. The Duwamish cleanup in Seattle holds many lessons for us here in Portland, but it is remarkably different in this way. It will be fascinating to see how industry and nature are balanced in the final plan of the cleanup and how it is brought into reality.
Kirk
In class we discussed the role of nature in our largely urban society. In Seattle the citizen’s access to the Duwamish as a natural feature is not as much of a possibility as it is on the Willamette. In Portland it is less clear what the primary functions of the river will be into the future. With the Superfund cleanup in Portland we have the option of increasing the relatively small amount of industry on the river. We also have the opportunity to possibly make it a natural retreat in the heart of our city. A place to be in “nature” and to benefit from it as a food source as well. From all of the readings on the cleanup that we have explored thus far in the course it appears likely that the end result of the cleanup will be a mix of these. The Duwamish cleanup in Seattle holds many lessons for us here in Portland, but it is remarkably different in this way. It will be fascinating to see how industry and nature are balanced in the final plan of the cleanup and how it is brought into reality.
Kirk
The excursion to the Port of Portland was insightful but not surprising. The hosts of the tour were friendly and informative. There were a few things of interest that was new, but much of it turned out to be a power-point review. The facilitator of the tour answered most of my questions through answering questions from my classmates. One question that was raised by a classmate had to do with the capping strategy for the Willamette River Superfund Site clean up, and if the capping would be compromised by dredging of the river for large vessels to navigate. The facilitator told us that there was “little too none” persistent organic pesticides in the deep channeled part of the river. I however asked three questions: 1. Where there treaty obligation that the Port of Portland had to honor? 2. Was there a role that the Port of Portland was participating in to encourage public comment by Portland citizen during the sixty-day comment period? 3. What where the circumstances that led to the Willamette River to be listed as a Superfund? The answer to the first question was yes. The agreements are negotiated and settled by the Federal Government and Tribal Nations concerning tribal waters and fishing rights. The tribes are an integral part of the process of deciding procedure for the Willamette River clean up. The second question was answered by what the EPA was doing by having community meeting and placing advertisements into the local papers. There was not an answer given about what the Port of Portland was doing to inform citizens. The last and third question about who instigated the listing of the Willamette River as a Superfund Site was explained as a bureaucratic endeavor by the state to clean up Oregon Rivers. However, it was my understanding that it was a group of Tribal leaders that went to Washington D.C. to lobby the government about the deleterious state of the Willamette River.
The Retrospective view of equity planning Cleveland, by Norman Krumholz conveyed a brave approach to delivering the advocacy and equity planning to the citizens of Cleveland. The outreach strategy that the Port of Portland has exhibited, in regards to the Willamette River Superfund Site, shows a willingness to keep citizens in the “sandbox” and placing them on “Indian reservations” (Krumholz, 1982). A bold and brave move for an agency who’s soul purpose is to bring business to the state of Oregon, would be to put democracy and the resources for the public good front and center, An activist approach to having a clean an viable river open to everyone will produce development, business, and revenue that the state desires. How much revenue has been lost to the risk of persistent organic pesticide contamination? How much development has been lost that could have promoted that cities ethics of a green corridor? When it comes to the Willamette Superfund, and participation outcomes, and the EPA, I have heard many Portlanders confess that they have succumbed to “meetingitis” (Arnstein, 1969) because of the length of time that this tragedy has been going on. To have citizens to stay continually abreast, neighborhoods need there own technician (possibly hired) to keep them informed and engaged. The city of Portland provides this to a degree with it’s community engagement systems but when large cleanups like Superfund impact our communities, the federal government should be providing educators and organizers to make sure that the community stay informed, engaged, and active in the decision making processes.
By Michael Pouncil
Arnstein, S. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 35:4, 216-224.
Krumholz, N. (1982). A Retrospective View of Equity Planning Cleveland 1969-1979, Journal of the American Planning Association, 48:2, 163-174.
The Retrospective view of equity planning Cleveland, by Norman Krumholz conveyed a brave approach to delivering the advocacy and equity planning to the citizens of Cleveland. The outreach strategy that the Port of Portland has exhibited, in regards to the Willamette River Superfund Site, shows a willingness to keep citizens in the “sandbox” and placing them on “Indian reservations” (Krumholz, 1982). A bold and brave move for an agency who’s soul purpose is to bring business to the state of Oregon, would be to put democracy and the resources for the public good front and center, An activist approach to having a clean an viable river open to everyone will produce development, business, and revenue that the state desires. How much revenue has been lost to the risk of persistent organic pesticide contamination? How much development has been lost that could have promoted that cities ethics of a green corridor? When it comes to the Willamette Superfund, and participation outcomes, and the EPA, I have heard many Portlanders confess that they have succumbed to “meetingitis” (Arnstein, 1969) because of the length of time that this tragedy has been going on. To have citizens to stay continually abreast, neighborhoods need there own technician (possibly hired) to keep them informed and engaged. The city of Portland provides this to a degree with it’s community engagement systems but when large cleanups like Superfund impact our communities, the federal government should be providing educators and organizers to make sure that the community stay informed, engaged, and active in the decision making processes.
By Michael Pouncil
Arnstein, S. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 35:4, 216-224.
Krumholz, N. (1982). A Retrospective View of Equity Planning Cleveland 1969-1979, Journal of the American Planning Association, 48:2, 163-174.
Last Monday, our class had the chance to visit Port of Portland Terminal 4. We learned from Port of Portland staff about the Portland Harbor Superfund site from their perspective. It was very interesting to learn about how the Port has been proactive in the cleanup process. To them, they view the superfund site as an embarrassment that has been put off for far too long. They became involved with other polluters to create the Lower Willamette Group in order to begin the process of determining a Superfund ruling. The Port has also been active in early restoration, and they showed us some of the work they had completed on Wheeler Bay by dredging contaminated sludge and stabilizing the bank. Pictures from the bay can be seen below:
We had a short discussion about public engagement with Port of Portland staff. Not much has been done to engage the public so far, but they hope to hit the ground running once the proposal is released. After that, the public has 60 days to comment before the final decision is made. I believe Port of Portland will want community participation since they are a public entity, and part of the cost of cleanup will have to come from the public. As the Port of Portland develops public participation strategies, I hope they keep in mind the following: higher levels of participation empower the public, planners should stay engaged with the community for a long period of time in order to see effective change, and that information on the superfund process should be easily accessible and paired with community information so that those affected have the information they need to participate in the decision-making process.
Level of Public Participation
Public participation in a decision-making process can range from non-participation methods such as manipulation and therapy, to higher degrees of citizen power such as partnership, delegated power, and citizen control (Arnstein, 1969). I hope that public participation on the Portland Harbor Superfund site is in the higher degrees of citizen power range. In order for this to be accomplished, citizens should be able to negotiate with the main decision-makers, and they should include a large part of the vote on the decision (Arnstein, 1969).
It Takes Time…
When Norman Krumholz reflected on his work as a planner in Cleveland, Ohio in the 70s, he concluded that certain skills and ideas were necessary for planners to use to create effective, equitable change (Krumholz, 1982). One of Krumholz’s conclusionary remarks was that in order to be an effective part of the decision making process, planners must participate in an issue for a relatively long period of time (Krumholz, 1982). Many of his cases evolved over a period of five to ten years (Krumholz, 1982). I became involved with Portland Harbor Community Coalition and my spokesperson there shared the same remarks on decision-making processes: it takes time. It takes time for planners and community groups to build the relationships needed to create consensus-based change in which all parties are in favor of the decision. It takes time to ensure that those involved have the resources they need--policy documents on how to clean up a superfund site are not easy reads. It also takes time within the EPA’s framework to go from listing a site as a Superfund site to the actual cleanup process. During that time, it is common to see community groups become exhausted of their time and members--they are often being involved on their own time while staffed positions are getting paid to be involved. I hope the Port of Portland recognizes that this time is a huge commitment for the public, and helps out by providing resources for technical information as well as reimbursement for those missing work or needing childcare to be involved.
Street Knowledge
Referring back to technical documents, it is important for the Port to be aware that the process of getting involved through the EPA’s framework isn’t a friendly process. This is often one of the tensions between communities and professionals. On the highest rungs of the public involvement ladder, the public is equipped with the resources they need to hire their own technical support in translating these documents to a more public-friendly format (Arnstein, 1969). One method of sharing information used by community groups is popular education--in which community members tap their own experiences and expertise to inform each other (Corburn, 2005). Another method to bridge the power gap between professionals and community members is street science, in which the technical science is paired with the community’s own knowledge and investigations (Corburn, 2005).
I hope to see some of these considerations in practice once the superfund report is released.
-Kristen
Sources:
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of planners, 35(4), 216-224.
Krumholz, N. (1982). A retrospective view of equity planning Cleveland 1969–1979. Journal of the American Planning Association, 48(2), 163-174.
Corburn, J. (2005). Street Science, Local Knowledge in Environmental Health Policy
Level of Public Participation
Public participation in a decision-making process can range from non-participation methods such as manipulation and therapy, to higher degrees of citizen power such as partnership, delegated power, and citizen control (Arnstein, 1969). I hope that public participation on the Portland Harbor Superfund site is in the higher degrees of citizen power range. In order for this to be accomplished, citizens should be able to negotiate with the main decision-makers, and they should include a large part of the vote on the decision (Arnstein, 1969).
It Takes Time…
When Norman Krumholz reflected on his work as a planner in Cleveland, Ohio in the 70s, he concluded that certain skills and ideas were necessary for planners to use to create effective, equitable change (Krumholz, 1982). One of Krumholz’s conclusionary remarks was that in order to be an effective part of the decision making process, planners must participate in an issue for a relatively long period of time (Krumholz, 1982). Many of his cases evolved over a period of five to ten years (Krumholz, 1982). I became involved with Portland Harbor Community Coalition and my spokesperson there shared the same remarks on decision-making processes: it takes time. It takes time for planners and community groups to build the relationships needed to create consensus-based change in which all parties are in favor of the decision. It takes time to ensure that those involved have the resources they need--policy documents on how to clean up a superfund site are not easy reads. It also takes time within the EPA’s framework to go from listing a site as a Superfund site to the actual cleanup process. During that time, it is common to see community groups become exhausted of their time and members--they are often being involved on their own time while staffed positions are getting paid to be involved. I hope the Port of Portland recognizes that this time is a huge commitment for the public, and helps out by providing resources for technical information as well as reimbursement for those missing work or needing childcare to be involved.
Street Knowledge
Referring back to technical documents, it is important for the Port to be aware that the process of getting involved through the EPA’s framework isn’t a friendly process. This is often one of the tensions between communities and professionals. On the highest rungs of the public involvement ladder, the public is equipped with the resources they need to hire their own technical support in translating these documents to a more public-friendly format (Arnstein, 1969). One method of sharing information used by community groups is popular education--in which community members tap their own experiences and expertise to inform each other (Corburn, 2005). Another method to bridge the power gap between professionals and community members is street science, in which the technical science is paired with the community’s own knowledge and investigations (Corburn, 2005).
I hope to see some of these considerations in practice once the superfund report is released.
-Kristen
Sources:
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of planners, 35(4), 216-224.
Krumholz, N. (1982). A retrospective view of equity planning Cleveland 1969–1979. Journal of the American Planning Association, 48(2), 163-174.
Corburn, J. (2005). Street Science, Local Knowledge in Environmental Health Policy
There is no doubt that public participation is extremely important when making decisions large or small that will affect a community. I have spent a lot of my college career learning about why it is important and ways in which to properly involve citizens in projects. What I appreciated about the article "Local Knowledge in Environmental Health Policy" is that it brought up the very tough truth that sometimes it can be extremely challenging and possibly detrimental to try to include a large number of citizen voices on projects. This does not mean that it shouldn't still be done- it just means that it needs to be done correctly and carefully. The article talked about holding a "public hearing that might merely act as a forum to placate the demands of competing public interest groups" or the alternative which is facilitating a productive conversation for citizens to be properly included in the decision-making process, which officials may not have the skills to carry out. It can be difficult to reach out to citizens and ask for their opinions without falling somewhere in the middle of Arnsteins ladder. Even if you allow citizens to vote or have their voices heard in other ways, the feedback loop needs to be in place so that they know that their opinion is making it to the people in power. The idea of public participation definitely relates to Portlands current situation with the Willamette being named a Superfund Site. After visiting the Port of Portland however, I am not convinced that it is their job to get the public involved in the process, I believe that is the job of the City of Portland. Visiting the Port of Portland was a really educational experience, it was nice to see some of the things we have been talking about in class in person and to talk to some of the key decision makers in the process. The most interesting thing that I learned was that the incentive to join the Lower Willamette Group is that the money that the businesses invest now for the research of the superfund site will then be deducted from the amount that they will owe when the time comes to pay for the clean up. All-in-all, I feel like more could be done to involve citizens in the process, but that it seems like the Port of Portland is already taking some important first steps in the cleanup process which is essential. Hopefully this blog will act as a resource for providing useful information to people who care deeply about our river.
-Chelsea Whipple
I was very surprised at the breadth of responsibility the Port of Portland has, especially because it is not on many citizens radar as to what and how they operate and how much of an economic asset they are to Portland as well as the state, it really is our connection to the rest of the world. Visiting the Terminal 4 helped put into perspective the complexity of issues,especially seeing all of the properties they own just within that 10 mile designated Superfund site, then viewing the early action cleanup site put the size of the cleanup into perspective. My questions were about what they were doing in order to get the vastness of the situation out to the public in a comprehensive way. I was pleased and very excited that before I could even ask my question we learned about the podcast that the Port of Portland did called, One River Many Voices.(https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/one-river-many-voices/id977691247?mt=2) I thought this was a well executed framework for community engagement, educating citizens in order to get the facts of the complexity of the situation out there in a non-biased way.
It didn't seem as like there has been much public participation outreach besides that podcast , the occasional Willamette Weekly article, the Port of Portland and EPA websites, and the upcoming record of decision. I imagine many citizens may feel already a sense of powerlessness in the decision, simply because of more recently being informed and told that their opinion matters.
Another aspect that makes it difficult to understand is providing a comprehensive explanation of the facts surrounding the issues for example, “the quantitative risk frame in environmental health puts lay publics at a disadvantage from the outset and limits their ability to participate in and influence decisions when compared to scientists and other professionals.” (Corburn 2005:27)
I think keeping the viewpoints open in seeking understanding that “each group encompasses a host of divergent points of view, significant cleavages, competing vested interests, and splintered subgroups,” (Arnstein 1969:217) is important for both businesses and citizens to have an honest open talk in order to reach a decision with a clear goal in which many can agree upon.
-Katie
Arnstein S.
1969 A Ladder Of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35:4, 216-224, DOI: 10.1080/01944366908977225
Corburn J.
2005 Street Science, Local Knowledge in Environmental Health Policy
It didn't seem as like there has been much public participation outreach besides that podcast , the occasional Willamette Weekly article, the Port of Portland and EPA websites, and the upcoming record of decision. I imagine many citizens may feel already a sense of powerlessness in the decision, simply because of more recently being informed and told that their opinion matters.
Another aspect that makes it difficult to understand is providing a comprehensive explanation of the facts surrounding the issues for example, “the quantitative risk frame in environmental health puts lay publics at a disadvantage from the outset and limits their ability to participate in and influence decisions when compared to scientists and other professionals.” (Corburn 2005:27)
I think keeping the viewpoints open in seeking understanding that “each group encompasses a host of divergent points of view, significant cleavages, competing vested interests, and splintered subgroups,” (Arnstein 1969:217) is important for both businesses and citizens to have an honest open talk in order to reach a decision with a clear goal in which many can agree upon.
-Katie
Arnstein S.
1969 A Ladder Of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35:4, 216-224, DOI: 10.1080/01944366908977225
Corburn J.
2005 Street Science, Local Knowledge in Environmental Health Policy
Authors
We are Portland State students who care about the urban rivers of the Pacific Northwest.
Archives
May 2018
June 2017
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
Categories
All
Community Engagement
Contaminants
Duwamish River
Environmental Justice
Environmental Policy
Equity Planning
Portland Harbor
Public Health
River Clean Up
River Histories
Superfund