But as one of our tour guides reminded me, “It’s what you can’t see that will hurt you.”

The Portland Harbor may be the city’s least understood environmental problem. No one sees the river sediments that are contaminated with PCBs, heavy metals and pesticides. Nor can we spot the toxic groundwater that leaches into the river, carrying pollutants like DDT and dioxin.

This week, I was part of a group that toured the Superfund area on a boat trip sponsored by the Portland Harbor Community Advisory Group. I’m just beginning to understand the issue and I’m no expert by any stretch of the imagination.

So with that in mind, here are some impressions from the trip.

The former Arkema site, described as "ground zero" of the lower Willamette River. In the 1940s and 1950s, the company manufactured pesticides. The groundwater is contaminated with DDT, hexavalent chromium and benzene. A hidden plume leaches the pollutants into the river.

This Is Taking A Long Time

The lower Willamette River was declared a Superfund site in 2000. Ten years later and we’re still waiting for the clean up to start. About $75 million has been spent just studying the problem. Judy Smith with EPA says that’s because – even by Superfund standards – this is an unusually complex mess.

First, it’s a big site, more than 11-miles long from downtown Portland to Sauvie Island.

There’s also a lot of blame to go around. The EPA has identified more than 100 parties it says are responsible for the pollution and need to pay for the clean up.  Getting them to work together isn’t simple, but Smith says the level of cooperation in Portland is pretty good.

The clean up won’t be simple either. It helps to think of this as a collection of toxic hot spots, each requiring a different kind of clean up plan. What works in one spot may not work at another. Some toxins, such as PCBs, are widespread through the lower river. Other chemicals, like DDT, are in one or two isolated locations.

Smith says a clean up plan should be completed in the next year or two. That will be followed by a period of public comment and then EPA makes a final decision. So we’re still a few years away until the work begins. But early clean up is underway at a few locations.

There’s Lots Of Room For Improvement

This trip changed my mind about what we can do to improve wildlife habitat along the lower Willamette.

Beforehand, it seemed to me this was a hopeless cause, that there was little habitat left worth trying to save or restore.

That’s still true along the river near downtown. But as you go further downstream, I saw lots of riverbank that hadn’t been developed. In some spots there was only 50 or 100 feet between docks. Elsewhere there were long stretches of empty waterfront.

Some of the bigger empty areas could be restored as marshes and wetlands – safe havens for salmon, otters, beaver, herons and other wildlife. In the smaller sections, we could replant the riverbank with native trees and bushes. Even a strip ten feet wide along the river can help. Sand and gravel can be placed along the water’s edge, providing salmon friendly habitat. That’s already happening in some places.

At the federal level, a group of agencies and tribes will lead efforts to restore the lower Willamette once the clean up work is completed. Portland has its North River Reach plan, which would require companies that develop the riverfront, to also pay for habitat restoration. But businesses are fighting it in court.

It’s naive to think that the lower Willamette River can return to the way it was 100-years ago. No one expects that. But I’m now convinced there are plenty of opportunities for improvement, and that this working section of the river can support both industry and more wildlife.

For More Information:

EPA Portland Harbor Superfund

Portland Harbor Community Advisory Group

Portland Harbor Natural Resource Damage Assessment

At a cost of about $40 million a year, the bill creates a team at the EPA office in Portland that will work with states, tribes, local governments and other federal agencies across the Columbia River Basin.

It gets a hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Wednesday morning – about 6:30am our time. Merkley is a member of the committee.

In the past year, I’ve written a number of stories about the growing awareness of pollution in the basin and its possible impacts on wildlife and human health. About a year ago, the Environmental Protection Agency released a report saying the levels of four major pollutants in the Columbia River Basin are so high, they remain a threat to the health of the people, fish and wildlife. On that list you’ll find Mercury, DDT, PCBs and PBDE flame retardants.

Some of these pollutants, such as DDT, were banned years ago. In the case of PBDE flame retardants, Oregon and Washington approved new bans that kicked in on the first of the year. All of these chemicals take years to break down in the environment and can remain a threat for decades.

In April, NOAA issued a similar report on pesticides containing carbaryl, carbofuran, and methomyl. They’re on a wide variety of crops such as fruits, vegetables, nuts and grains. NOAA says exposure to these chemicals can kill salmon, or damage their central nervous systems.

The Merkley/Blumenauer press release takes things a step further.

“The Columbia River is contaminated with dangerous pollutants, such as PCBs and other chemicals, that are detrimental to fish and wildlife, including thirteen species of salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act. Other pesticides and pollutants, such as pharmaceutical and personal care products, have been found in the river.  According to EPA and tribal surveys, contaminated fish are consumed in large quantities, threatening the people who depend on them.”

One goal of the legislation is to build upon the work that’s been done by the Lower Columbia River Partnership. This group has restored 2,600 acres of habitat along the Columbia River and opened up an additional 42 miles of habitat along streams.

But Merkley and Blumenauer say what’s needed now a bigger and more comprehensive approach with a lot more money behind it. The EPA’s role will be to coordinate regional efforts to reduce pollution in the Columbia and fund a variety of projects.

In July of 2005, Kolbeck and her husband Fred returned to their house after it had been sprayed for bugs by a pesticide company.  Thinking they had waited enough time after the spraying, the Kolbecks were coughing and on the floor within minutes.  A few hours later, Florence was dead from a heart attack.

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency announced it has settled with the company that applied the pesticides.  Swanson’s Pest Management, Inc., of Eugene has agreed to pay a $4550 fine, the maximum possible under the law.  The EPA complaint says Swanson’s made three serious mistakes, including not doing a good enough job to ventilate the home after spraying.

Kolbeck’s death is the only known “death by pesticide” case in Oregon history.  An autopsy by Lane County concluded she died from a combination of factors, including exposure to the pesticide and poor health that made her vulnerable.  The report said the levels of pesticide found in the home were not lethal and that had Kolbeck been in better health she would have survived.

A lawsuit against Swanson’s, filed by her family, was settled out of court about a year ago.