Geography of the James (Earth Lodge)

Nothing is more natural than wilderness. It exists on the paths we walk every day, in the way plants force themselves into places bricked and paved over, and in our own minds. It’s a way of looking at the world. Imagining wilderness as the sublime, as the antithesis of human interference, serves no purpose other than to lament how the world once was. However, using wilderness as a way of thinking about the world promotes observation and reflection.  Here, wilderness has no set definition because to make it objective would be to take away its potency. Instead, wilderness is whatever makes a person feel more connected to the natural world.

When I saw elementary problems in Portland- homelessness, pollution, apathy- I felt deceived. I was expecting trees growing up through the sidewalks, dense forests juxtaposed with offices, and a palpable love for the outdoors. I wish I had read Cronon’s article before visiting Portland. If I had, I may have seen past my disgust at the Cascadian city. I may have seen wilderness in the vegetation along the Willamette, in the city’s identity as a “river city”, and in the complexity of the people of Portland. The authors of Portlandness saw the wilderness of the city when they wrote the section titled “Wildness”. This section exemplifies that perception of wilderness is as much cultural as it is genetic. The sublimity of forests probably wasn’t a consideration for the first residents of the area that is now Portland as they cut down trees to the point that the city was named “stumptown”. The need to earn a living trumped any appreciation of the wilderness, and so the area was cleared. In the past half-century, however, the culture of Portland has embraced wildness. The city has the largest urban natural forested area in the country, and apparently moss “routinely envelops entire cars”.

Carl for scale

Wilderness in the H.J. Andrews experimental Forest approaches the traditional definition. It’s easy to see the sublime wilderness in the looming Douglas firs and the dead, woody debris that supports photosynthetic life. It’s easy to see the sublime in the researchers’ goal to preserve the forest and keep it one of the last remaining old-growth stands in the country. However, the researchers, even as the live surrounded by a traditional “wilderness”, embody most of all wilderness as a frame of mind. By working to understand our species’s relationship with plants and with the wild rather than just condemning it, they embrace wilderness as a part of human experience rather than apart from human experience. For them, wilderness is about how to best preserve biodiversity and coexist with nature. Some of the most influential research during the forest wars came from the HJA and focused on the Spotted owl, a species that Cronon actually mentions in his post. He points out the paradox that defenders of biodiversity often have to use a single species, such as the spotted owl, to defend the preservation of an entire ecosystem. For participants in the writers project at the HJA, wilderness was often reflected in simple natural processes. Vicky Graham discussed change  by exploring decomposition in the forest . Jeff Fearnside saw wilderness in the contrast between the raging wildness of a flood and the frail stands of willow left after it. By exploring a physical wilderness, they found examples of the frame-of-mind wilderness in their own lives.

Belle Isle, downtown Richmond in background

The James River Park System, and Belle Isle in particular, embrace the coexistence of wilderness and cities. One of the most valuable functions of city parks is encouraging people to connect with nature in an urban setting. According to Dr. Forsyth’s research, awareness is the first step to action. When people are aware that wilderness doesn’t only exist in the absence of humans, and that it can exist in local parks as well as in grandiose mountain ranges, they are more likely to appreciate the natural world. They are also more likely to keep exploring and learning, and move from the first step of awareness to the second, appraisal. During appraisal, one can better understand wilderness by questioning it rather than just observing. Why is wilderness worth preserving? Where can wilderness be found in unexpected places? In a way, this step is the essence of wilderness as a frame of mind. When appraisal develops into the third step, action, a love for wilderness develops into environmentalism.

My claim that wilderness is a state of mind is intentionally broad. Strictly defining it would remove its meaning, because it’s supposed to be subjective. Appreciation of wilderness is supposed to draw on the context of one’s life, and on the unique way in which they see the world.  Wilderness is most valuable as a way of seeing and appreciating the world as it is, for what it is.

The morning I spent picking up trash on Belle Isle with Sanitra was one of the strangest in recent memory. The people and places we encountered throughout the three hour excursion offered sampling of the wide variety of uses people have for the James River Park System. We encountered uses both expected and unexpected, routine and thought-provoking. Most interesting was Belle Isle and therefore the James as the venue for all of these uses to interact, not only with each other but with the physical environment as well.

Firstly, the physical landscape of the island was relevant, as it set the tone for the morning. I’d been to Belle Isle before but never spent this much time exploring it. The scenery offered a strange and somewhat off putting and eery juxtaposition of the natural and man-made. Whereas the natural landscape was relatively well taken care of – the amount of trash we found was not at all competitive with that at Dutch Gap – the man-made structures stand old as old and abandoned. They’re undoubtedly cool to see and to imagine the history behind, but they’re equally undoubtedly ugly and out of place.

The first group of people we encountered seemed to be members of a church or some type of religious community. They were having a quasi-photo shot on the flat rocks, and they were all holding up cardboard signs in the photos. Being curious and nosy, I read as many signs as I could. The one I could see said something along the lines of “I used to be fat and lazy and now I’m spiritual and employed.” Other ones talked about forgiveness from God. They later laid the cardboard signs out to form a large cross and stood around it hand in hand while being videotaped by a drone. The church’s choice of Belle Isle for this type of promotional activity struck me as significant. It may have just been because it was the most scenic backdrop they could think of, but I think there’s also a connection to be drawn between water and rejuvenation, which seemed to be the theme of the morning for them. This connection is especially relevant in the Bible, strengthening the logic behind the the church’s choice of venue.

This gives new purpose to our trash clean up. In addition to the merits of preserving nature for the sake of nature, a noble cause in and of itself, we’re preserving the potential for a meaningful connection to the river, regardless of whether said connection is religious. This sentiment is a hybrid of the sublime and backyard understandings of wilderness. The sublime interpretation suggests wilderness to be the connection between the natural and supernatural, whereas the backyard perspective expands the definition of wilderness to include nature in all forms and landscapes (Cronon, 1995). Belle Isle is not the most awe-inspiring landscape I’ve encountered, but the opportunity to forge a connection with the natural world around you persists there.

In this way, I think the decaying structures left for people to explore have a purpose. They offer insight into the past and provoke contemplation and curiosity of the history of the river, providing the potential for river-goers to have a deeper understanding of and connection to it. We saw the possibility for such a connection in the first chapter of In River Time, in which the author details her obsession with the James River.

I can’t say I’ve fostered as deep a connection with the river as Woodlief has, but I do appreciate and find relevant her discussion of the different “lenses” through which she views the River. In a different form, this is what I learned on Belle Isle that day – the “lenses” were the different groups of people and the ways in which they used the space (Woodlief, 1985).

Other than the church group, there was a woman making miniature teepees out of sticks, rocks, and flowers. Close by there was a table with a poster board detailing the different insect species on Belle Isle. There was also a large number of runners participating in a 5K, and a few pairs of mountain bikers. Every group was using the space in a different way. Additionally, among hundreds of cigarette butts and other litter, Sanitra and I also found four used condoms scattered across the flat rocks. After slight deliberation we picked them up and put them into our trash bags, barely a minute before two kids ran into the area. I see this service as a concrete way of preserving the positive image of the river in those children’s eyes.

On that Saturday, Belle Isle was emblematic of the connectivity rivers have come to symbolize. However the James connects more than just the Blue Ridge mountains to the Chesapeake Bay – it connects people from all walks of life with each other and with the native and nonnative plants and terrestrial and aquatic species that share the space.

We saw this in Portland as well. During our short paddle down the river we encountered a number of its shared users – barges, homeless, and an eagle. This connectivity and plethora of shared uses offers insight into why someone such as Louise Burke would go to such lengths to creative and preserve a public space along the river (Prestidge, 2012). Furthermore, it should encourage our generation to do our part in caring for it.

On the Willamette

Sources

Prestidge, Holly, and Ellen Robertson. “Environmental activist Louise Burke dies.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, www.richmond.com/entertainment/article_3fa9ae7d-4921-5bdb-b941-fd1890ea6e65.html.

Cronon, William. “The Trouble with Wilderness.” Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, 1995, pp. 69-90.

Woodlief, Ann. In River Time. Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, 1985.

What are challenges to environmental leadership and park maintenance within JRPS as a whole?

The biggest challenge to any company or system is a lack of support from the greater community. This is especially obvious in the history of the James River Park system. Since 1972, the parks have struggled with pollutants from power plants and factories, litter from oblivious park goers, and rebuff from the city government when all but one employee was fired in the 1980s. The challenges that environmental leadership and park maintenance of the James River Park System face do not stem from those in charge, but from the shortage of people who actively support them.

The support of and work done on the James River Park System results from its history. One can see the progress that has been made based on the people who swim in the river today with abandonment, whereas in the 1950’s and 60’s, large efforts made to keep people out of the river due to the dangerous contaminants. This started to change in 1972 with the opening of the park system. However, the city had little interest in helping the river, which was made apparent in the 1980’s when all of the park employees were fired except for Ralph White. In their opinion, there was no benefit in investing money and time into employing people to work for the park system. Despite this major set back, White was able to pull volunteers to help keep the river clean. For the past few decades, the Mayor and city council have taken an increased interest in the river, but not all for the right reasons. The city funds part of the park system because there are financial and political advantages for them to gain from it. Although there is support today from the greater community and local government, it is not necessarily stable nor guaranteed in the distant future. If the river stops benefitting the city, the James River Park System cannot count on its active support.

Before environmental leadership and park maintenance can think about the future of the James River Park System, they have to backtrack and correct past mistakes that have been made, specifically pollutants that still create problems today. When the Clean Water Act of 1972 was passed, the water was dangerous to swim in or to use at all, and great strides have been made in improving water quality. However, there are still issues that do not comply with the Act, and park maintenance and environmental advocates have to handle this with little help from the government. For example, our paddle trip to Dutch Gap in part revolved around the Dominion coal plant, which “looms ominously on the horizon” (Dutch Gap Notes). The coal plant releases steam and toxic coal ash, both of which keep the river warm year round and make the plant a danger for the environment around it. Higher temperatures mean the water can dissolve more minerals from rock and have a higher electrical conductivity, and it holds less dissolved oxygen than cold water. Additionally, some compounds, including arsenic, mercury, lead which come from coal ash, can be more toxic to animals at higher temperatures. The amount of these pollutants that are released do not meet EPA standards, but the plant is still allowed to operate because it is making strides to meet its goals. Improving or not, the toxic pollutants are a big issue and make it difficult to keep the water clean. The environmental leadership and park maintenance are challenged by plants and factories who do not comply with safe water practices and the government agencies that allow them to stay open.

An apathetic community is another obstacle that park leaders face. Park management cannot effectively keep the James River Park System clean when people come every week and leave behind beer bottles, plastic bags, and other trash that contaminates the river. An apathetic populace lacks the sense of community that is built on awareness, appraisal, and action. Many of the people who use the James River Park System go to college in the area or are visiting from out of town, or even live in Richmond and are just uninformed about the environmental issues of the James. When they are unaware of how their actions of littering, using too much water in their homes, overfishing, etc. affect the river, they do not give a second thought to their unsustainable practices. More people need to be aware of the issues of The James because taking care of it is hierarchical in nature. People who visit the River are important because they can help reduce pollution by picking up after themselves. Less litter helps those who are dedicated to service that helps the environmental leaders and park maintenance, and those who are dedicated to the river may eventually become leaders of the Park System. If no one at the bottom of this hierarchy cares, the leadership struggles, and we could revert back to the times of the 50’s where it was necessary to keep people out of the River.
One person cannot build an empire, or protect a River System, on his own. He needs sustained support from the community and government to ensure that the health of James River Park System is at least maintained, if not improved. In the past, local government agencies have made decisions with detrimental impacts on the park system, such as firing all but one employee of the Park System. As if that were not enough, James River Park employees, volunteers, and advocates have also fought pollution ranging from big coal plants to litter, all of which reverses some of the progress made on the river. Environmental leadership and park maintenance require support from the community to effectively do their job, and the lack of this support is the biggest challenge that they face as a whole.

When our SSIR class went to Eugene, Oregon and saw the McKenzie River for the first time, we were all pretty amazed at how crystal, clear, and serene the water was. The river was alive, flowed in such an elegant manner, and had such a pure spirit. It truly was distinguished from the familiar James River we all knew back home. Deep down, I know most of us -including myself- wished the James River back in Richmond could compare to the majestic nature of the McKenzie. Alas, the James is how Cronan would define as tamed and affected by Virginia’s urban centers. As a result, its waters are much denser, darker, and polluted compared to the McKenzie. Before my time at the McKenzie, I remembered I used to frequent the Belle Isle often after work and wondered why the river was so brown, which I now know is due to the heavy sediment erosion from shorelines. Thus, I now have a new question I want to explore; why is there such a difference between the water quality of the McKenzie and the James River. What specific factors play into this drastic distinction between  both rivers, is it simply the nature of it or is it the situation its inhabitants were presented into?

According to In River Time, the James River was first inhabited by the Powhatan and Monacan Native Americans. However, it was really the arrival of English settlers that changed the quality of the river. The first English colony of Jamestown in 1607 had very limited knowledge of how they should treat the river and would often use it as a dumping ground for their waste, similar to that of the Thames River back in England. The treatment of the river only worsened as the colonies began to industrialize. With the drastically growing population of Richmond, the strain on the James River increased as well. Hydroelectric generators and processing plants not only removed the riparian buffer zone that prevents runoff into the rivers and erosion, but also drastically changed the temperature and clarity of the river. Much waste from these industries and the combined sewage systems would be released into the river especially during days of heavy downpour. Many residents simply neglected treatment of the river all together mostly due to a lack of exposure and awareness for their actions. During the twentieth century, there was less emphasis on the river as a life source and more as a mere dumping ground.

Thames is gradually improving but still remains London’s worst river in terms of sanitation.

On the other hand, the McKenzie river has a much less eventful history of human intervention. Its first experience with English settlers was much later than that of the James River: fur company traders had established a post along the mouth in 1811. However, most of the McKenzie still remained unvisited by white settlers and explorers until the mid-1800’s from the Oregon trail. Unlike Richmond, Eugene’s extremely heavy snow conditions prevented much activity during the winters, limiting movement along the river to primarily summers. It wasn’t until the 1960’s that year round travel along the road was possible. Thus, this delayed access to the river has preserved the pristine and water quality of the McKenzie. Much of the McKenzie was used for recreational activities and residential estates unlike for the James where many industries and processing factories plagued the river for an extensive period of time. The combination of late and limited access to the river has maintained the natural state of the river.

Furthermore, another important factor to consider is the shift in mentality of public lands in the early 1900’s. President Theodore Roosevelt had established the National Parks system which preserved America’s greatest natural treasure and public lands. As Cronan mentions in his article, it was a handful of iconic figureheads such as David Thoreau and Jon Muir that sparked this romantic appreciation for these lands. Roosevelt’s policy targeted the west with Yosemite at the heart of American’s nationalist parks movement. Thus, the people of Oregon simply continued to maintain the pristine of the McKenzie river, whereas the people of Richmond only felt the need to clean the James when the river degradation reached its peak in the 1950’s.

McKenzie River’s famous “Blue Pool”.

The physical geographical factor of the McKenzie river differs from that of the James. The James River runs through many of the urban centers of Virginia such as Norfolk, Lynchburg, and Richmond. There is not as much of a buffer zone due to Virginia’s relatively flat lands and industrial centers. Thus, it is much more likely for run off and sediments to be deposited in the water. However, the McKenzie runs through many more rural and occasional suburban areas during its course. It also has more natural buffer zones such as the Willamette National Forest and the Cascades surrounding it. Structures such as the McKenzie pass, a mountain pass in the Cascades, act as a natural filter for sediments and other run-off in the water. The McKenzie eventually feeds into the Willamette River which runs through more of the urban centers of Oregon such as Portland. Although Lehrer article mentions that urban centers are actually more beneficial to the environment in reality, I must disagree as our trip to Portland has shown me firsthand how detrimental a close urban center can be to our rivers such as the Willamette.

Willamette River in Portland is a major port and source of trade.

However, perhaps the tables may eventually turn as the James river continues to drastically improve in water conditions. With many agencies and entities that monitor the James such as the James River Association, we may soon reach the pristine quality of the McKenzie. At the same time, the west has steadily increased in population and in drought. Michael’s recent post mentions that aquatic animals and riparian species are now declining due to competing water sources into urban centers rather than public lands. More human activity may hurt the conditions of the McKenzie river. I even distinctly remember hearing that the McKenzie water levels were lower than average when we were white water rafting just this summer.

The James river water quality has greatly improved from the past and recreational activities have returned. 

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/national-parks/early-history/

https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/mckenzie_river/#.WAUYCuArI2w