Posted by: esther wright - July 18, 2010 12:30 PM

Thank you for this beautiful representation of the choices (?) we have for this area.  I vote to keep it available to the wildlife and not pour concrete over the trees, wildflowers, and homes of many beautiful creatures.
Esther Wright
Resident
West Hayden Island Moorage

Posted by: Cheryl Lund - July 18, 2010 02:30 PM

Be advised there is no way you can have both as depicted in the photo with deer and industry.  This is an island.  There will be nowhere for the deer to move to except try and swim to the mainland which is Terminal 6 on the Oregon side jor the new Terminal just completed on the Washington side.  These are lands of concrete.  This is the heart of this issue.  There is only 826 acres on West Hayden Island.  The wildlife here now need every square inch to survive.  There will be no living in harmony with port facilities.  The only wildlife survivors will be mice, mosquitos, a few birds and rats if the port develops any amount.

Posted by: Bob Sallinger - July 18, 2010 09:30 PM

West Hayden Island should be protected in its entirety for wildlife and nature based recreation. The entire parcel is in the floodplain---the last place you would want industrial development in an age of global climate change. The island's size, location at the confluence of the Willamette and Columbia Rivers and complex mosaic of habitat types makes it an irreplaceable resource--all the more since the vast majority of the surrounding landscape including all of East Hayden Island is already developed. The Port has completely failed to explore strategies to either increase the efficiency of its existing industrial land base or to work with the Port of Vancouver to improve collaboration between the two adjacent Ports. It is time for the Port of Portland to look towards sustainable marine development strategies rather than destroying Portland's largest unprotected wildlife area.

Posted by: Jim Labbe - July 18, 2010 11:32 PM

If West Hayden island is protected, the entire island, both east and west, could someday be a spectacular integration of the built and natural landscapes. The wild west island could provide  access to nature to the more developed east and ecological gem at the gateway to the region. West Hayden Island should be protected and restored for its unique ecological and biodiversity values as well as the unique opportunity to make it a signature greenspace for the region.

Posted by: Mark Kajitani - July 19, 2010 10:52 AM

West Hayden Island is a 826-acre natural area at the confluence of the Willamette and Columbia Rivers that provides critical wildlife habitat for more than 100 species of fish and wildlife, including bald eagles, federally listed steelhead Coho, Chinook and chum salmon, western painted turtles and dozens of songbird species. The island's size, location and complex mosaic of forests, wetlands, grasslands and riparian habitat make it an irreplaceable resource.

I urge you not to allow the Port of Portland to have the City of Portland annex and rezone the island to allow it to convert hundreds of acres of wildlife habitat into marine industrial terminals for the following 5 reasons.

1.    West Hayden Island's size (826 acres,) location at the confluence of the Columbia and Willamette Rivers, and complex mosaic of habitat types make it a critically important and irreplaceable natural area.  It contains 826 acres of intact habitat, including 39 of wetlands and 4% of the remaining intact cottonwood bottomland habitat between rivermile 12 and rivermile 145. It is home to at least 81 species of birds, 9 mammal species, 4 amphibian species (including bald eagles, western painted turtles and provides critical habitat for federally listed salmon. It is designated as Class 1 riparian habitat and a "Habitat of Concern" under Metro's Title 13. Former US Fish and Wildlife Service State Supervisor Kemper McMaster has written that West Hayden Island is considered "an important conservation asset regardless of its location. its presence on an otherwise highly urbanized landscape accentuates its importance.

2.    West Hayden Island is located entirely in the floodplain. In 1996, all of West Hayden Island was underwater. This is not the place to construct industrial facilities especially in the age of climate change.

3.    The Port of Portland has not justified destroying West Hayden Island to build a marine industrial facility. It cannot say what exactly it intends to build or when it will be built, but insists that annexation and rezoning is necessary. It has also failed to address issues raised by Audubon and the Business Journal of Portland in 1999 regarding collaborating with the Port of Vancouver. There is no excused for destroying critical wildlife habitat when the two Ports are not already maximizing use of the existing industrial land base.

4.    The new bridge that would be required to support development on West Hayden Island will cost over $100 million of tax dollars.

5.    East Hayden Island is currently one of the most park deficient areas in the City. (The Port does not allow access to West Hayden island.) Protecting West Hayden Island as a natural area would create outstanding recreational opportunities to enjoy nature in North Portland and would become one of the region's premier natural areas.

Posted by: Michael Rose - July 19, 2010 10:23 PM

quite simply, West Hayden Island should be kept and restored as wildlife habitat, for the reasons so well articulated by Mr. Sallinger and Mr. Kajitani, posted above.

Posted by: Linda Robinson - July 19, 2010 11:04 PM

Reminds me of the deer I saw on Marine Drive a few days ago -- dead as a door nail, obviously from a collision with a vehicle. Probably one of the deer that lived in the Columbia South Shore area before the city, with the help of the Port, turned the area into an "industrial sanctuary".

I agree with Bob Sallinger that "West Hayden Island should be protected in its entirety for wildlife and nature based recreation."

Posted by: Richard Gunderson - July 19, 2010 11:29 PM

Hi Amanda....This is very simple...West Hayden Island should be protected from development.  The port's proposal does not make economic sense anyway.  Another bridge to get the products off the island?  Save the wildlife.

Posted by: Tom Badrick - July 20, 2010 07:21 AM

Preserved please and thank you for asking. I can't fathom why the Port is even asking given the lack of need for additional port space and in light of our ever increasing move towards being the greenest city, would question the decision making skills of those within the Port of Portland that feel its a good idea to even bring this forward.

Posted by: Amanda Fritz - July 20, 2010 08:25 AM

Thank you all for your comments.  I read each one, and all the emails and reports of phone calls to my office, as they come in.  It will be an important and interesting hearing on July 29, and I hope many Portlanders will attend.

Posted by: Catherine Halpin - July 20, 2010 10:10 AM

I am pleased to see the overwhelming support for preservation of West Hayden Island reflected here in these comments.
I agree - this piece of land is too unique and too precious to develop. I remain unconvinced that Port needs to develop this property and am extremely uncomfortable with the notion of zoning it for industry without fully knowing the scale and impact of that development. Not to mention, building in a flood plain makes absolutely NO sense.
No part of WHI should be developed. I would love to see it protected and formally recognized as one of region's premier natural areas and as the wildlife haven it is. The habitat is too important and once it's gone - we can't get it back. Please, please protect this irreplaceable land.

Posted by: Ron Klein - July 20, 2010 04:51 PM

I worked on this project over 30 years ago when PGE owned the property.  It was a good idea in the 80s, it's a good idea now.  Focus on mitigation and habitat enhancement on the tip and south side of the island.  Then develop the north side (Columbia River side) for marine industrial uses in phases.  I wish the Port well in this effort.

Posted by: Elisabeth Neely - July 20, 2010 09:05 PM

This is a real test of Portland's commitment to the environment and to sustainability. Are we going to continue to develop what little is left of the historic floodplain along our rivers or are we going to begin the process of restoring real balance by protecting what is left and finding more efficient ways to use the already developed landscape?

I want my kids to grow-up in a city that still has bald eagles and herons and salmon.

Please protect all of West Hayden Island!

Posted by: Cheryl Lund - July 21, 2010 06:53 AM

Ron, there is only 826 acres to work with here.  It is highly inaccurate to think that leaving wildlife habitat on the "tip" and on the "south shore" will be enough for the osprey, eagle, beaver, kingfishers, deer and songbirds.  They will disappear.  Light, noise, air and water pollution knows no boundaries.  Also, development on the north shore would create an immense concrete viaduct instead of a river environment.  Do we want the Columbia to look like the Los Angeles river (basically a huge open sewer)? Critical salmon spawning areas would be decimated.  Marine industry on West Hayden Island Wildlife Refuge was a bad idea in the 80's and is a worse idea now.  It is an old idea whose time is gone.

Posted by: Mary Fulton - July 21, 2010 02:06 PM

We do not need more traffic congestion in that area.  The wild life need it more

Posted by: tammi miller - July 21, 2010 03:01 PM

Thank you for providing a forum for feedback on this important issue. West Hayden Island should be protected as critical habitat for nesting birds, mammals and amphibians. Developing within the flood plain is illogical and irresponsible. This irreplaceable riparian habitat should be managed for the common good, not for the profit of the Port of Portland and Industry.

Posted by: Deanna Mueller-Crispin - July 21, 2010 08:34 PM

West Heyden Island's location entirely in the floodplain is no place for industrial development. The entire area should be permanently protected. The "some of both" approach simply doesn't work. Industrial devepment would fragment its currently intact wildlife habitat to the degree that it would basically be useless for wildlife.  

In addition, re-zoning does not make sense economically. For example, industrial development would require a new bridge.  The public is not likely to support this when they become aware of it.  We are having enough trouble trying to figure out how to finance the re-do of the I-5 Bridge.  How would the cost of bridge-building affect the cost-effectiveness of any potential future industrial projects on West Hayden Island?

West Hayden Island is simply an invaluable resource, both as habitat for endangered species (e.g. salmonids) and open space for a very park-deficient part of the City.  Its location in an urbanized area only highlights its importance.

Posted by: Ariana Longanecker - July 21, 2010 10:25 PM

Commissioner,
On the 29th, please stop this flawed process. You've heard all the reasons why WHI should not become a parking lot. If the City must continue with this ridiculous proposal, please request a cost benefit analysis (unbelievable! that this was not part of the initial study). Also, ask for a thorough study of re-development of existing marine industrial land- not just on our banks, but Vancouver as well. We cannot continue to create dirty brownfields, abandon them because they are too difficult to redevelop, and raze the nearest pristine island.
Thanks for your attention to this issue.

Posted by: Susan Nolte - July 23, 2010 10:36 AM

My husband and I kayak the Columbia anad Willamette several times a week. Absolutely hands down leave West hayden Island alone. There are so few stretches of this kind of habitat. Virtually none of the areas of heavy industrial use support wildlife unless it is those areas that have fallen under disrepair (eg in the area downriver of the St John's Bridge I thoroughly enjoyed watching a colony of swallows swoop and dive off what looked like an abandoned facility)). Coexistence is a dream(I also watched a dock worker earlier in the season scraping swallow nests off some kind of pier..). Please just leave West Hayden island alone. We should be really focusing on restoration of our shorelines and we certainly can't afford to LOSE anymore pristine habitat.  Would you like to go kayaking? Would you like to see how really very few areas there are that are untainted? I would be happy to host you anytime my schedule permits. I am not kidding because I don't think that anyone who sees our shoreline as i have from a kayak would disagree!

Thank you so much for listening.
Susan Nolte DVM

Posted by: Kathy Lawrence - July 24, 2010 03:22 PM

I’m writing to support the preservation of West Hayden Island as a wildlife area.  This undeveloped land is a unique habitat and offers more to the city as a wild and natural place than it would as a parking lot for imported cars. In this economy I understand the urgency to create new jobs, but it is also urgent to consider the long term impact and irreversibility of developing a wildlife area.  Development merely to create jobs doesn’t make sense.  Is this the kind of development we want for Portland?  Does it fit with our values and vision? Are there other areas that are already developed that can be repurposed?  What is the loss to Portland in 5 years? In 10 years?  There is value in having wild areas close to Portland. Often we have tried to fit industry with nature, but usually nature loses.  We already have so much industry on Portland rivers West Hayden Island needs to be kept wild.

I work in Portland as a therapist, employed both in private practice and with a runaway youth agency.  I see individuals and families everyday who are affected by this economy and the lack of jobs, but many of these very people turn to wild areas to find peace, solace and enjoyment.  At the agency where I work, youth regularly are taken on field trips to Sauvie Island, Forest Park and the Audubon Center.  Often they return excited and engaged about their experience.  There is much research in my field about the importance of wild areas and engaging with nature on the human psyche, especially for children and young adults.  In my work over the years with young people, I have personally seen the impact nature and wildlife can have on their outlook, attitude and thinking.  Preserving West Hayden Island preserves the possibility of bald eagles and blue herons flying over, of watching salmon swim against the current, of people having wild encounters close to the city.  This possibility enriches Portland far beyond the proposed plans for development.  Please preserve West Hayden Island.

Posted by: Alan Locklear - July 26, 2010 02:54 PM

It's really hard to believe, after all the work and speech-making about fighting Global Climate Change and after commissioning and accepting a major report on Peak Oil, the City of Portland is still planning its industrial infrastructure as if everything is just going to go on just the way it has been for the last century or so.

Regardless of what the Port of Portland claims to believe, there is not now nor will there ever be any need for another large terminal for ocean-going freighters in the Portland metro area, especially not one that's mainly dedicated to unloading and trans-shipping more automobiles.  The age of the private automobile as America's main mode of transportation is a dinosaur staggering around destroying the environment, soaking up massive amounts of scarce capital, and killing tens of thousands of people every year, but it will not look anything like it looks today in 20 years.  There's plenty of evidence that it won't even last another 10 years.

Within 20 years, the increasing shortage of petroleum and the necessity of slamming the brakes on carbon burning is certainly going to greatly reduce the amount of international trade.  We may very well have seen the high-water mark of global trade.  The prices of products from Asia will continue to increase as the energy inputs for their manufacture rise dramatically at the same time that the costs of transoceanic shipping will also be skyrocketing.  At the same time, Americans' disposable income will continue to decline as the prices of virtually everything, including transportation, food, utilities, clothing and manufactured goods climbs as the cost of their energy inputs vastly increases.

Paving over 300 acres of an ecological jewel like West Hayden Island for what's likely to be less than a decade or two of automobile imports, is nothing short of madness.  And it's a slap in the face of every Portlander who values our environment and has been making sacrifices to live here and protect that environment.

Please, forget about this stupid project.  It will never bring as many jobs as the proponents claim (these projects never do), it will wind up sitting empty very soon while its hugely expensive capital equipment rusts, and with the coming sea level rise, it will either flood or have to be raised and rebuilt at enormous cost.

The value of the West Hayden Island as an ecological preserve far outweighs any temporary economic boost a terminal might bring.

Posted by: Dane Johnson - July 26, 2010 11:10 PM

I join what appears to be an overwhelming majority in urging complete protection for West Hayden Island. The alleged economic gain from development should not be permitted to trump the irreplaceable loss that destruction of this critical habitat would mean.

West Hayden Island should be left entirely alone. If it must generate economic value to survive, however, it could be preserved as a refuge. Several U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service studies have shown that refuges can be very popular sites for public visitation, helping to underpin local economies as well as promoting ecotourism. But if 300 acres or even some lesser amount is given over to marine terminals or other industrialization, any economic potential that might exist in a West Hayden Island refuge will be gone—along with an invaluable ecosystem.

Portland should not even be considering any such choice seriously. Please give total and permanent protection to West Hayden Island.

Posted by: Travis Williams - July 27, 2010 09:39 AM

Commissioner Fritz -

The Port is chasing something here, but they have not clearly defined what. They have not provided a solid economic foundation for any development on West Hayden Island.

So often in our history we have seen development at all costs, and always with the same mantra, "growth is good, and any development is good." Basically, that is what the Port of Portland is telling us here. Is it a Grain Terminal or cars from Asia? They don't even seem to know.

This is a rather  unique floodplain island. There are only a few floodplain natural areas of this size along the entire Willamette River - from Eugene to Portland. This should make us understand that West Hayden Island is unique, and that chipping away at the 800 acres, even with a 300 acre development, is just too much given the think milk of reasons provided to develop the island. Because the island is at a major river confluence is another reason it has a special status in terms of habitat value. Confluence areas are simply richer with aquatic species, and very meaningful to a range of wildlife.

Let's not repeat past mistakes. Instead, let's say to all Portland residents, "We are going to preserve 800 acres of natural area, restore habitat on the island, and work with the Port of Portland to find other options in Portland Harbor to meet their needs."

Posted by: Jimme Peters - July 27, 2010 04:24 PM

West Hayden Island's highest value is to remain a greenspace for the public and animals.  Any other uses are not able to be justified.    The last 18 months of study have been nonsensical at best, but the end result was that the vote from the Community Working Group cannot recommend building nor a mixed use. We have now spent endless hours and tons of money to come to the same conclusion as in 1999.  Let's preserve this acreage and close the book for god on the potential development.  The City Council needs to really think this through carefully and listen to the citizens and experts before making a fatal error with this piece of property.  Thank you.

Posted by: Marianne Lavine - July 27, 2010 06:07 PM

I don't know much about it, but doesn't Portland have already paved places that are not being used like in Montgomery Park? Can that be renovated? I don't understand why you'd want to build on a flood plain. Can we build more vertical than horizontal?
Sounds like a bad idea to me. I'll be there Thursday.

Posted by: Jeff Klatke - July 27, 2010 07:08 PM

Dear Councilor Fritz and friends,
As a member of the Union Labor community, I must express my embarrassment at the traditional Labor position of “jobs and development at all costs”.  This position does not ultimately serve our community if that development is not responsible or far-sighted.  The WHI debate is similar to that of the Columbia River Crossing project which I feel exaggerated the Labor versus Environmentalists debate.  There is a growing Environmental Caucus within Labor that recognizes the long term consequences that can accompany irresponsible and reckless development, and quite frankly, has already occurred in our city’s and country’s march toward “progress”.  The right projects for the whole community, not just the most projects or the biggest project, must be our common goal.
That said, some resources are irreplaceable, and WHI is one of them.  Many good ecological reasons for rejecting the development of WHI have been articulated in previous posts, but I would like to add another reason to the list: economic.
Another ocean vessel shipping terminal creates another opportunity to import goods into Portland, which I am confident some believe would be a good thing, but I personally believe represents the continuation of an economic policy trend with has done more to hurt working class families than any other single policy.  International “Free Trade” has done more worldwide damage to economies and cultures than most people recognize.  We should be investing in manufacturing jobs in our communities, not facilitating the off-shoring of manufacturing jobs.  Ultimately, domestic manufacturing jobs would create far more economic benefits, including direct and indirect job growth, than building another ocean vessel terminal would.
Thank you, Councilor Fritz for your efforts on this important matter.  I trust that you will be a voice of reason on this issue as you have been on previous issues.

Posted by: James Barta - July 28, 2010 09:41 PM

Commissioner Fritz-

I want to add my name to those above who oppose the proposed development by the Port of Portland on West Hayden Island. It makes no sense to permanently destroy 300 acres of unique wetlands, and negatively impact remaining natural area around it, in order to try and create another major import terminal on the West Coast of the U.S. Maybe it will be successful, maybe not, but the natural areas and the wildlife it supports will be lost forever; guaranteed. Please oppose this development.

Posted by: Gary Banker - July 29, 2010 01:16 PM

I am writing to urge you to vote “no” on the proposal to develop a plan for annexation of West Hayden Island to the City that opens the way for development of a Port facility there.  Others, like Bob Sallinger and Travis Williams in their Oregonian piece, have detailed the arguments for opposing this proposal.  To me, the Community Working Group’s Report tells the whole story.  While the members of the citizen’s advisory group from business and labor, who represent interests that will directly benefit from a new port facility, assure us that the port’s plans are compatible with maintaining habitat, all members of the Working Group with expertise in environmental matters oppose the plan.  

From our present vantage point in 2010, we can look back to decisions taken by earlier Council’s decisions, such as the creation of Forest Park, and admire those Council members for their foresight and courage.  Their commitment to preserving our unique natural environment helped make Portland the city it is today.  This is a chance for the present Council to affirm that commitment and help preserve those unique resources that we Portlanders care about so deeply.

Posted by: Jerry Fernee - July 29, 2010 02:25 PM

Can we really do the development so that it has minimal affect on the wildlife?  Our track record on this has not been that good.

If it can be done, AND there are real incentives/consequences to keep the Port honest, AND make sure that the enhancement actually happens, then I would support some sort of lease that gives the Port a chance to make it work, but allows for a re-evaluation at some reasonable future time .

Posted by: Melissa Moorleghen - July 29, 2010 03:23 PM

I encourage city council to make the ethical and logical choice to permanently protect this important natural area. Developing West Hayden Island is destructive and unnecessary. A more effective solution would be to redevelop existing port facilities and restore this critical habitat for wildlife and future generations of Oregonians.

Posted by: Melissa Moorleghen - July 29, 2010 03:23 PM

I encourage city council to make the ethical and logical choice to permanently protect this important natural area. Developing West Hayden Island is destructive and unnecessary. A more effective solution would be to redevelop existing port facilities and restore this critical habitat for wildlife and future generations of Oregonians.

Posted by: Amanda Fritz - July 30, 2010 08:25 PM

Thank you for all these comments, for the hundreds of emails sent to Council before the hearing, and for the many people who came to the hearing.  Your input informed and changed the outcome.