毒性國度/塔溪礦區(qū)的未來
——美國俄克拉荷馬州渥太華縣皮歇爾與卡丁礦區(qū)的案例研究

著：（美）尼爾·柯克伍德 譯：李佳懌 校：王晞月

毒性國度/塔溪礦區(qū)的未來
——美國俄克拉荷馬州渥太華縣皮歇爾與卡丁礦區(qū)的案例研究

著：（美）尼爾·柯克伍德 譯：李佳懌 校：王晞月

從社區(qū)層面探討了40平方英里（約103km2）的塔溪礦區(qū)“超基金”污染場地（Superfund Site）的可持續(xù)規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)以及應(yīng)用策略。位于俄克拉荷馬州渥太華縣的塔溪礦區(qū)的狀況表明聯(lián)邦和州立管理機(jī)構(gòu)在應(yīng)對(duì)該地區(qū)長期以來的環(huán)境退化、有毒物質(zhì)侵害以及環(huán)境公平問題上并沒有取得明顯成效。因此，附近的社區(qū)鄰里、環(huán)境部門官員與學(xué)術(shù)團(tuán)體積極合作，針對(duì)采礦遺留的大規(guī)模土堆、污染的河道、沉降的地面和塌陷的坑井等進(jìn)行了長期的修復(fù)、再生和規(guī)劃的探索。這個(gè)案例研究將證明，這種基于地方的礦區(qū)更新模式可以作為一個(gè)框架將社區(qū)訴求、環(huán)境整治和景觀再生整合到一起。

采礦區(qū)；后工業(yè)景觀；超基金；景觀改造；廢棄地

前言

位于俄克拉荷馬州渥太華縣的塔溪礦區(qū)曾經(jīng)是個(gè)鉛礦區(qū)，也是俄克拉荷馬州、堪薩斯州和密蘇里州三州礦區(qū)的組成部分。塔溪礦區(qū)曾經(jīng)的規(guī)劃發(fā)展表明，在應(yīng)對(duì)長達(dá)數(shù)10年的環(huán)境退化、有毒物質(zhì)侵害和環(huán)境公平等一系列問題上，多級(jí)政府的管理沒有取得理想成效。因此，附近的社區(qū)、環(huán)境部門的官員開始與地方機(jī)構(gòu)和學(xué)術(shù)團(tuán)體合作，針對(duì)采礦遺留的大規(guī)模土堆、污染的河道、沉降的地面和塌陷的坑井等典型的“超基金”場地進(jìn)行了長期的修復(fù)再生和規(guī)劃探索（圖1）。

這里將塔溪礦區(qū)“超基金”場地的項(xiàng)目作為一個(gè)案例進(jìn)行研究，以呈現(xiàn)一種整合當(dāng)?shù)鼐用?、利益相關(guān)者、環(huán)境組織以及學(xué)術(shù)科研機(jī)構(gòu)的景觀規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)策略。我認(rèn)為基于地方的場地轉(zhuǎn)變方式與“自上而下”的機(jī)制相反，它作為一個(gè)綜合框架，具有整合社會(huì)訴求、應(yīng)對(duì)環(huán)境治理以及逐步實(shí)現(xiàn)污染土地景觀再生的潛力。

本文也建議采用一種全面審視礦區(qū)的方法，這種方法承認(rèn)并作用于一種需求，即在當(dāng)?shù)厣鐣?huì)、文化和生態(tài)環(huán)境中以漸進(jìn)方式應(yīng)對(duì)土地再利用及變化。它對(duì)目前那些單純依據(jù)現(xiàn)行法律處理此類場地的策略提出了挑戰(zhàn)，著重關(guān)注場地所呈現(xiàn)的諸如歷史、生態(tài)、社區(qū)和未來潛力等景觀復(fù)雜性。它描述場地內(nèi)的自然狀況、人工構(gòu)筑、物質(zhì)特性以及一些常規(guī)而簡便的減輕目前環(huán)境退化和污染的方式。到最后，我們?nèi)匀恍枰蛑T如塔溪礦區(qū)的當(dāng)?shù)鼐用駥で笠龑?dǎo)，是他們?cè)跒樽约旱娜粘：臀磥硎褂盟茉?、恢?fù)和改造著這里的景觀。

文化評(píng)論員約翰 伯杰的觀點(diǎn)如下[1]，并且可以應(yīng)用于當(dāng)代環(huán)境下的許多采礦區(qū)：

景觀是可以具有欺騙性的——有時(shí)候在居民的眼里，景觀對(duì)生活的影響遠(yuǎn)不如窗簾一樣的生活物品，盡管他們?cè)谶@里奮斗、取得成就或發(fā)生意外。

作為局外人，當(dāng)我們考量一個(gè)景觀是否已經(jīng)受到污染時(shí)應(yīng)十分慎重，應(yīng)充分了解它的區(qū)位并關(guān)注當(dāng)?shù)鼐用?。這對(duì)于那些代表聯(lián)邦、州、地方機(jī)構(gòu)和市政機(jī)構(gòu)處理嚴(yán)重環(huán)境問題的工作人員來說尤其如此。這項(xiàng)工作的重點(diǎn)是礦山廢棄地的修復(fù)。在這里，大地、水和土壤的修復(fù)對(duì)社區(qū)和利益相關(guān)者而言，成為了可持續(xù)的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施投資項(xiàng)目，對(duì)它們的修復(fù)不僅僅是選擇一種合適的環(huán)境技術(shù)那么簡單。盡管從20世紀(jì)80年代起俄克拉荷馬州東北部塔溪礦區(qū)的修復(fù)工作就受到人們關(guān)注，但其仍然處于修復(fù)與規(guī)劃的早期階段。如今這些工作成為了應(yīng)對(duì)采礦區(qū)問題的一個(gè)實(shí)用模型。

2組照片

南希 戈?duì)柕秦惛裨诙砜死神R州渥太華縣塔溪礦區(qū)長大并完成小學(xué)學(xué)業(yè)。她經(jīng)常從她的工作地芝加哥回到這里。作為一名專業(yè)的攝影師，她用照片記錄了她家鄉(xiāng)的景觀。得益于當(dāng)?shù)剌p型飛機(jī)的租賃業(yè)務(wù)，她以廣景視角記錄了塔溪廢棄礦區(qū)內(nèi)的社區(qū)、商業(yè)區(qū)、道路、房屋和她畢業(yè)的小學(xué)。這些廢棄地上散布著橙紅色的污水溝、河流和池塘，遍布著許多塌陷的坑洞（圖2）。

1 塔溪礦區(qū)的景觀與周圍廢棄土地，LEAD成員Rebecca Jim在調(diào)查廢料堆Tar Creek’s landscape and surrounding waste territories,Rebecca Jim of LEAD surveys a chat pile

2 俄克拉荷馬州渥太華縣坍塌的灰?guī)r坑Collapsed sinkholes, Ottawa County, Oklahoma

5個(gè)礦業(yè)城鎮(zhèn)與社區(qū)的房屋、學(xué)校、商店及其居民散布其中。

南希開車沿著外圍道路行駛，在綠樹成蔭的河床旁邊佇立，在改造的土堆附近散步，望著質(zhì)樸的大地上散落著孩子們玩耍的秋千和沙箱。南希用她的相機(jī)拍攝了操場、球場、停車場，以及皮歇爾、卡丁、夸堡、科默斯、北邁阿密5個(gè)礦業(yè)城鎮(zhèn)的街道照片（圖3）。

3 院子里散落的兒童秋千和沙箱Modest yards littered with children’s swings and sandboxes

項(xiàng)目通過2個(gè)不同的視角看待塔溪礦區(qū)：其一是大片后工業(yè)背景下的采礦廢棄地。結(jié)合美國地質(zhì)勘探局的地圖、衛(wèi)星影像、GPS坐標(biāo)、生產(chǎn)統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)和歷史地圖對(duì)這個(gè)區(qū)域進(jìn)行分析，識(shí)別疊加在這片區(qū)域上面的小型住宅群、道路和社區(qū)等（圖4）；近期則通過兒童和青少年的醫(yī)療數(shù)據(jù)、重金屬輻射程度和修復(fù)報(bào)告等其進(jìn)行分析。

4 社區(qū)的日常生活——學(xué)校、工作、娛樂The daily life of communities—school, work, recreation

另一個(gè)視角是在相對(duì)較小尺度上的，聚焦于社區(qū)居民的日常生活細(xì)節(jié)。正如圖4所展示的那樣——學(xué)校、工作、菜園、集會(huì)、娛樂、禮拜活動(dòng)、健康中心、棒球聯(lián)賽等是礦區(qū)中常見的日?；顒?dòng)。當(dāng)然，試圖以這個(gè)視角來描述三州礦區(qū)中這塊地區(qū)的環(huán)境問題大小是有難度的。

從這些照片中可以看到塔溪礦區(qū)的酸性水體和大量的采礦廢棄遺留物，塌方、坑洞、淹井等區(qū)域。然而，就像溫爾德 貝瑞所述，“無論是道路還是建筑，在這些圖片中都有一些很容易被辨別出來的東西，如果連這些都無法識(shí)別，那么就沒有什么可以看清的東西了。而這些容易識(shí)別的元素體現(xiàn)出了較強(qiáng)的特殊性（圖5），即它們都是人類活動(dòng)的方式、產(chǎn)品或成果”[2]。而區(qū)域的轉(zhuǎn)變和復(fù)興同樣也需要當(dāng)?shù)厝藖韽?fù)興土地、恢復(fù)社區(qū)活力。當(dāng)今，修復(fù)并再利用被污染土地的成功案例已并不少見，但鮮有項(xiàng)目能很好地詮釋這樣的修復(fù)如何為社區(qū)、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施及開放空間的建設(shè)帶來影響。振興和恢復(fù)社區(qū)的活力需要從多個(gè)視角切入，需采取多種方法來應(yīng)對(duì)當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)發(fā)展和場地設(shè)計(jì)遇到的細(xì)節(jié)問題。諸如塔溪礦區(qū)場地為人們看待景觀以及理解大規(guī)模的污染場地提供了3種可能的模型。

5 塔溪礦區(qū)的紅橙色酸性水體The red-orange acidic waters of Tar Creek

規(guī)劃的3個(gè)模型

第一類模型只是描述性的，將其視為曾經(jīng)開展工業(yè)活動(dòng)的遺留場地——這些工業(yè)活動(dòng)遺留的元素包括塔溪礦區(qū)的廢料堆和廢棄礦井等。

第二類模型將其視為在“場地技術(shù)環(huán)境”下工程與設(shè)計(jì)相結(jié)合的實(shí)踐。場地中退化的物質(zhì)環(huán)境被真正地“塑造”或“重建”，即土壤、水體和地貌通過科學(xué)和建筑工程的技術(shù)手段被重塑。這是區(qū)域重建的常用方法之一，構(gòu)思和建設(shè)都是有組織地進(jìn)行實(shí)施的。

第三類模型對(duì)規(guī)劃師、設(shè)計(jì)師以及社區(qū)和環(huán)境組織都是最重要的，它突破了傳統(tǒng)的場地規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)方式。在傳統(tǒng)模型下人們通過固有的自然屬性認(rèn)識(shí)“綠地”或無污染的土地，這些自然屬性包括地質(zhì)、土壤、植被、小氣候和野生動(dòng)物等信息。這些傳統(tǒng)分析模式對(duì)認(rèn)識(shí)當(dāng)代的污染場地幫助有限，尤其是在塔溪礦區(qū)這類土地面貌被徹底改變過的地區(qū)。第三類模型為污染的場地提供了一種新的思路，即無論是否已受到干預(yù)或污染，都將這些地方的真實(shí)物質(zhì)環(huán)境狀況理解為場地的初始狀態(tài)。

在接下來的幾十年，政府將繼續(xù)每年為清理塔溪礦區(qū)這樣的廢棄地提供相關(guān)資源，清理其中的危險(xiǎn)物質(zhì)和有毒材料。然而這些行動(dòng)也帶來了一些問題：

? 在超基金場地內(nèi)外，這些大尺度的場地將如何塑造國土景觀和我們未來的社區(qū)、城鎮(zhèn)和區(qū)域。

? 這些場地如何滿足我們對(duì)科學(xué)、文化和審美不斷變化的需求？

? 在21世紀(jì)，諸如廢棄礦區(qū)、荒涼平原和有毒河流等場地的這種景觀適應(yīng)性將如何影響今后公眾對(duì)自然及人造環(huán)境的互動(dòng)關(guān)系？

通過探討場地可持續(xù)的規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)方案及社區(qū)層面的發(fā)展策略，為塔溪礦區(qū)40平方英里“超基金”場地的長期修復(fù)及發(fā)展提出設(shè)想。強(qiáng)調(diào)該區(qū)域的生態(tài)問題并解釋了為什么這里被認(rèn)為是“彈性”的。雖然塔溪礦區(qū)的規(guī)劃引導(dǎo)人們探索土地未來規(guī)劃和修復(fù)的方法，但是這塊區(qū)域如今的生態(tài)狀況表明許多相關(guān)機(jī)構(gòu)在應(yīng)對(duì)長達(dá)數(shù)10年的環(huán)境惡化、土壤毒物侵害等一系列問題上沒有取得顯著成效。我不認(rèn)為造成失敗的原因是這些機(jī)構(gòu)使用了錯(cuò)誤的方法或是管理上出現(xiàn)了疏忽，相反，我認(rèn)為還存在其他能夠更好解決這類問題的模型，能以更全面的方式展現(xiàn)景觀的真實(shí)情況，包括景觀的污染情況以及當(dāng)?shù)丨h(huán)境和社區(qū)的優(yōu)勢(shì)和訴求。

當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)、環(huán)境官員機(jī)構(gòu)工作人員與調(diào)查小組聯(lián)合展開了對(duì)挖掘土堆、河道污染、地面沉降和采礦區(qū)沉陷等問題長期的修復(fù)和再利用計(jì)劃。例如，憑借參議員詹姆斯 英霍夫的資金擔(dān)保，美國陸軍工程兵部隊(duì)采取相關(guān)的措施以應(yīng)對(duì)危險(xiǎn)的開放礦井，減輕修復(fù)計(jì)劃在實(shí)施過程中對(duì)當(dāng)?shù)鼐用癞a(chǎn)生的危害；領(lǐng)導(dǎo)多個(gè)團(tuán)隊(duì)的專家來評(píng)估人口密集地區(qū)和主要交通走廊地面沉降的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。這個(gè)項(xiàng)目的合作伙伴有美國陸軍工程兵部隊(duì)、美國國家環(huán)保局、美國內(nèi)政部、俄克拉荷馬州和部落政府。2003年5月，他們?cè)谡材匪?英霍夫的組織下簽署了一份協(xié)議，提出針對(duì)人類健康和塔溪礦區(qū)環(huán)境威脅的解決方案。由此出臺(tái)了“塔溪和低春江流域管理計(jì)劃”，這是對(duì)塔溪礦區(qū)復(fù)雜環(huán)境問題的一個(gè)多學(xué)科指導(dǎo)方案。

然而我認(rèn)為，雖然“塔溪和低春江流域管理計(jì)劃”中的方法促進(jìn)了場地轉(zhuǎn)型，但是仍需要其他更加長期的策略框架以統(tǒng)一社會(huì)訴求、解決環(huán)境善后和景觀再生的問題。這種對(duì)于當(dāng)?shù)亻L期問題的訴求意味著單純土地面貌的改變或廢棄地生產(chǎn)使用價(jià)值的恢復(fù)是不夠的，而是需要社會(huì)內(nèi)部針對(duì)這片被污染的土地開展深刻的變革。

首先，應(yīng)清晰地梳理關(guān)于塔溪礦區(qū)一些基本信息、其現(xiàn)狀的和未來的可能性。

塔溪礦區(qū)“超基金”場地的環(huán)境

塔溪礦區(qū)曾是三州礦區(qū)的一部分，面積超過700平方英里（約1 813km2），包括俄克拉荷馬州東北部地區(qū)、堪薩斯州東南部地區(qū)，直到密蘇里州西南部的杰斯帕縣、牛頓縣和麥克唐納縣。占地25 400英畝40平方英里（約103km2）的塔溪研究區(qū)域位于俄克拉荷馬州東北角渥太華縣的老皮歇爾鉛鋅礦區(qū)廢棄礦山隧道以北300英里（約482.80m）。這40平方英里的區(qū)域內(nèi)有5個(gè)城鎮(zhèn)（包括皮歇爾和卡?。┖?00多個(gè)以前的采礦作業(yè)點(diǎn)和銑削工廠。

那時(shí)，乳白色的采礦廢物堆積成山，驕傲地昭示著皮歇爾是美國采礦業(yè)的中心（圖6）。“二戰(zhàn)”結(jié)束后，金屬的需求量下降，到了20世紀(jì)60年代，礦業(yè)作業(yè)逐漸放緩，最后在20世紀(jì)70年代初停止，采礦企業(yè)離開了這個(gè)區(qū)域，作業(yè)泵也停止了工作。

在采礦作業(yè)停止后，作業(yè)泵被關(guān)閉，這些礦區(qū)也逐漸被水填滿。黃鐵礦散布在礦區(qū)內(nèi)的廢棄物堆中、閘室的四壁上，與不斷上升的水體發(fā)生化學(xué)反應(yīng)，形成酸性水，以及共計(jì)100億加侖（約0.38億m3）毒性地下水，這些水逐漸涌上地表，使酸性水的排水管道也逐漸被染上了橙色。1978年，美國地質(zhì)調(diào)查局的報(bào)告稱，這些礦區(qū)包含10萬英畝尺（約12 334.82萬m3）的水。其中的33 000英畝尺（約4 070.49萬m3）的水都是酸性的，這意味著總計(jì)10 753 097 000加侖（約4 070.49萬m3）的酸性水將被排入塔溪礦區(qū)。這些水又將從塔溪礦區(qū)涌入尼歐肖河中。

6 成堆的乳白色礦業(yè)廢料Mountains of milky-white mine waste

美國國家環(huán)保局在1981年將塔溪礦區(qū)的整治加入了全國首要工作清單，耗資超過4 000萬美元來解決其中最嚴(yán)重的水體、土壤和空氣污染問題，全部清理活動(dòng)預(yù)計(jì)將花費(fèi)5億美元。粉塵大小的尾礦砂中含有重金屬，尤其是鉛和鎘，對(duì)6歲以下兒童的健康造成了嚴(yán)重的威脅。暴露于鉛和鋅之中會(huì)引起神經(jīng)系統(tǒng)疾病和腎臟的損傷，導(dǎo)致學(xué)習(xí)障礙、注意力缺乏癥或智力下降。俄克拉荷馬州衛(wèi)生部1999年的一項(xiàng)健康研究顯示，皮歇爾地區(qū)38.3%的兒童和卡丁地區(qū)62.5%的兒童的血鉛含量增加了10ug/dL，其他非礦業(yè)地區(qū)血鉛超標(biāo)的兒童比例則低于2.4%。而美國普遍的大眾期望值是4.4%。盡管70%的研究區(qū)域都是部落地區(qū)，42.5%的人口都是印第安人，但是受到風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的兒童比率與種族無關(guān)。

當(dāng)?shù)鼐用駥?duì)污染的恐懼已經(jīng)逐漸趨于平和坦然的接受。有毒廢棄物的存在為未來的規(guī)劃建設(shè)設(shè)置了目標(biāo)。在此，場地修復(fù)目的不是為了恢復(fù)到最原始的自然狀態(tài)，也不是為了消除人們對(duì)場地的負(fù)面評(píng)價(jià)，而其關(guān)鍵是恢復(fù)景觀和社區(qū)發(fā)展所依賴的生態(tài)基礎(chǔ)。巨大的政治和社會(huì)力量威脅到了塔溪礦區(qū)的一些地方，而其他地方又似乎完全沒有受到這些當(dāng)代問題的影響，過去的一些活動(dòng)被完整地續(xù)存下來。這些都應(yīng)該得到我們的關(guān)注，因?yàn)樗鼈兒统汕先f大大小小的場地一樣，對(duì)未來人類空間的多樣性、社區(qū)和自然生活的可能性至關(guān)重要。幸存下來的城鎮(zhèn)和社區(qū)被疾病問題（尤其是新生兒和兒童的疾?。⒕蜆I(yè)問題和當(dāng)?shù)鼐坝^大范圍的污染問題所困擾。然而即使面對(duì)所有這一切困難，這些地方仍然保留著深厚的文化和地域特征，在其節(jié)日、藝術(shù)和文學(xué)作品中都充分描繪了土地、居民、動(dòng)植物之間密切的精神聯(lián)系。

下一節(jié)將討論聯(lián)邦政府對(duì)住宅區(qū)和社區(qū)設(shè)施周圍的土壤問題的響應(yīng)。

美國國家環(huán)保局的響應(yīng)——土壤清理

在1979年，美國國家環(huán)保局和俄克拉荷馬州開始關(guān)注酸性水體和土壤污染，包括地表和地下水。俄克拉荷馬州州長在1980年成立了塔溪礦區(qū)專案小組，來調(diào)查礦區(qū)酸性水的排放。該場地在1981年被提議加入全國首要工作清單中，并在1983年正式加入該列表。到1984年6月，對(duì)人體健康的潛在嚴(yán)重風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)估制度被建立起來，在超基金法案的推動(dòng)下，簽訂了關(guān)于此的決議備忘錄。14年后即在1998年，美國國家環(huán)保局六區(qū)應(yīng)急小組實(shí)施了住區(qū)土壤樣本檢測項(xiàng)目。土壤檢測結(jié)果表明，65%的住宅庭院中鉛濃度＞500ppm。表1數(shù)據(jù)來自美國國家環(huán)保局，表明了2000年初“超基金”研究場地——塔溪礦區(qū)的5座城鎮(zhèn)（皮歇爾、卡丁、夸堡、北邁阿密、科默斯）的土地分類狀況（表1）。

住宅區(qū)修復(fù)行動(dòng)自1996年啟動(dòng)，首先針對(duì)那些有孩子的家庭和土壤鉛濃度超過1 500ppm的區(qū)域（表2）。地表下的土壤以6英寸（約15.24cm）為單位被一層層地逐步去除（圖7），直到移除深度達(dá)18英寸（約45.72cm）或是到鉛濃度＜500ppm的土層為止。取而代之的是干凈的土壤和灌木，灌木在更換土壤時(shí)被清理掉，在換土結(jié)束后又重新被栽植起來。新種植的草坪如圖8所示。

據(jù)2005年4月的報(bào)道，聯(lián)邦機(jī)構(gòu)這一計(jì)劃已使當(dāng)?shù)孬@益：

“從5座城市礦區(qū)的2 071個(gè)住宅庭院和使用頻率高的公共區(qū)域清理鉛含量超標(biāo)的土壤，大大減少了人群與鉛的接觸，特別是幼兒。近期研究比較了1997年和2000年人們的血鉛水平，結(jié)果顯示皮歇爾和卡丁地區(qū)1～5歲的兒童血鉛水平下降了約50%，已經(jīng)達(dá)到或低于疾控中心所設(shè)定的10ug/dL 。有害物和疾病登記機(jī)構(gòu)在2004年發(fā)布的一份報(bào)告顯示，塔溪礦區(qū)血鉛濃度超過10ug/dL的兒童比例從1996年的31.2%下降到2003年的2.8%。這一成就歸功于住宅區(qū)的土壤清理行動(dòng)和各級(jí)政府開展的教育活動(dòng)。廢棄礦井的封堵工作也降低了布恩含水層中有毒物質(zhì)轉(zhuǎn)移到飲用水中的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。[3]”

表1 城鎮(zhèn)土地性質(zhì)分類（2000年2月）Tab. 1 Property categories by town, Feb. 2000

表2 庭院補(bǔ)救行動(dòng)（2000年3月）Tab. 2 Yard remedial action status, March 2000

7 15cm(6英寸)的土壤清除層Soil removal in 15cm (6”) layers

8 以潔凈土壤和新草坪替代原有的污染土壤Clean soil is replaced along with new grass

塔溪礦區(qū)夸堡部落的前環(huán)境負(fù)責(zé)人厄爾 哈特利指出，由于堆積的廢棄礦石上方將不斷有風(fēng)吹過，因此2年之后，這里將會(huì)被再次污染，甚至比原來更嚴(yán)重。沒有進(jìn)一步的監(jiān)測可以證實(shí)或反駁這一理論，但是，這些礦石粒子在風(fēng)力作用下會(huì)繼續(xù)擴(kuò)散，很可能形成一個(gè)微粒層。此外，在某些情況下，“清潔的土壤”將意味著形成不透水的黏土，清除修復(fù)工作使新庭院中都是透水性差的黏土，雨水使房屋濕氣嚴(yán)重，霉菌以驚人的速度繁殖，致使該地區(qū)很多人得了哮喘病。

回歸文本的討論重點(diǎn)，即對(duì)比常被州和聯(lián)邦機(jī)構(gòu)用來處理如塔溪礦區(qū)這類地區(qū)污染問題的傳統(tǒng)方法（模型1和模型2）和基于地方環(huán)境條件，不論它們是否被干預(yù)和污染，而發(fā)展的另一種替代模式（模式3）。這個(gè)模式適用于大型復(fù)雜場地的長期清理和再生，需要與利益相關(guān)者和社區(qū)密切合作。這2種方法完全不同。一方面，當(dāng)前用于工程分析、評(píng)價(jià)和反饋的常規(guī)方法（模型1和模型2）只是片面地關(guān)注了場地的污染狀況?？偟膩碚f，這些場地是不斷演替和發(fā)展的，污染物在一個(gè)時(shí)間框架內(nèi)可以被測量、評(píng)估和移除，此后，這些地方又將變得干凈，沒有任何污染，擁有自然原始的風(fēng)景，大地與人們和諧相處。在另一方面，這個(gè)方案看似已經(jīng)解決了最緊迫的問題，即社區(qū)居民鉛中毒的健康問題，尤其是兒童和老年人。移除地表下18英寸（約45.72cm）的土層換上干凈的土壤直接消除鉛的來源，這一方法可立即取得成效。這個(gè)方法可以被量化、測量和成圖，因此在塔溪礦區(qū)的修復(fù)中，在經(jīng)濟(jì)和工程方面都付出了巨大的努力。雖然這種方法可以用較短的時(shí)間解決污染問題，但是它卻規(guī)避了真正的問題，簡單地說這些場地可以理解為長時(shí)間不間斷的工業(yè)進(jìn)程（采礦）的產(chǎn)物。礦業(yè)作業(yè)的殘留物和廢棄物逐漸改變了生態(tài)系統(tǒng)、水文系統(tǒng)和土壤沉積物的結(jié)構(gòu)。同時(shí)還導(dǎo)致植被、野生動(dòng)物和水生生物系統(tǒng)也發(fā)生了巨大的變化。最后這些土壤和水的改變也對(duì)人類產(chǎn)生了影響，即使住宅區(qū)采取了更換土壤的措施，這些影響仍然是持續(xù)不斷的。100年來的采礦活動(dòng)對(duì)土地的大規(guī)模影響是不可能馬上消除的，修復(fù)的進(jìn)程也不可能是一次性的活動(dòng)。它需要一個(gè)更適合的模型來迎合不斷變化的污染修復(fù)技術(shù)，應(yīng)轉(zhuǎn)向與社區(qū)和當(dāng)?shù)乩嫦嚓P(guān)者的合作中，使他們參與到土地修復(fù)中來，而不是被動(dòng)地旁觀。

這里涉及了模型1和模型2在應(yīng)對(duì)塔溪礦區(qū)更深層和更嚴(yán)重的問題時(shí)的局限性。大尺度的環(huán)境問題如廢棄物堆、水體污染、地面沉降和空氣污染等需要更長久的應(yīng)對(duì)方案。塔溪礦區(qū)的規(guī)劃和修復(fù)需要一個(gè)不同于以往的方式，一個(gè)更適宜場地實(shí)際情況的方式，這些情況既包括自然方面也包括文化方面，同時(shí)希望利益相關(guān)者和社區(qū)都參與其中。大規(guī)模、長期的修復(fù)需要對(duì)當(dāng)?shù)厍闆r的充分認(rèn)知，同時(shí)每個(gè)階段大規(guī)模的設(shè)計(jì)構(gòu)想需要通過若干個(gè)小而重要的過程來實(shí)現(xiàn)。一些大規(guī)模的修復(fù)工作帶來的挑戰(zhàn)是巨大而長期的，隨時(shí)間變化的自然景觀、原始環(huán)境和修復(fù)進(jìn)程的連續(xù)監(jiān)測、文化和環(huán)境的大量圖像是關(guān)注的重點(diǎn)，也是人們理解這塊場地的關(guān)鍵。

與美國國家環(huán)保局的治理方案（于1997年3月提出的替代模型2計(jì)劃，）相反的是，哈佛團(tuán)隊(duì)隨后開展的研究項(xiàng)目的一部分驗(yàn)證了厄爾 哈特利假設(shè)中關(guān)于污染的長期性與污染程度的主要觀點(diǎn)，即以社區(qū)為基礎(chǔ)的規(guī)劃模型可以更有效地解決“超基金”場地土壤鉛濃度超標(biāo)的問題?；谶@一理論，我們正在探索結(jié)合場地情況的土地修復(fù)的長期方案。

哈佛大學(xué)基于社區(qū)保護(hù)與干預(yù)的研究項(xiàng)目

塔溪礦區(qū)調(diào)研項(xiàng)目近期正在進(jìn)行中，這個(gè)項(xiàng)目將哈佛大學(xué)醫(yī)學(xué)院、公共衛(wèi)生學(xué)院、設(shè)計(jì)學(xué)院3個(gè)研究生院的教師和研究人員的成果進(jìn)行整合。各小組委員會(huì)也由此建立了聯(lián)系，這些小組委員會(huì)成員包括醫(yī)學(xué)院的霍華德 胡博士、科學(xué)中心的盧西亞 拉溫格博士、哈佛公共衛(wèi)生學(xué)院的杰克 斯賓格勒教授、波士頓布里格姆女子醫(yī)院的羅伯特 萊特博士、設(shè)計(jì)學(xué)院的代表、L.E.A.D組織（俄克拉荷馬州的當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)團(tuán)體）的麗貝卡 吉姆。

哈佛大學(xué)基于社區(qū)的保護(hù)與干預(yù)研究項(xiàng)目有3個(gè)重要的組成部分。第一，對(duì)鉛元素進(jìn)行生物標(biāo)記的研究，它以社區(qū)為基礎(chǔ)且針對(duì)兒童。第二，從泄漏點(diǎn)到人體鉛元素位置的追蹤研究，包括對(duì)居民種植采摘以及野生動(dòng)物的研究。第三，未來該項(xiàng)目將使用創(chuàng)新性的修復(fù)手段和方法，達(dá)到使鉛元素大規(guī)模減少的目的。由此項(xiàng)目開發(fā)出一個(gè)模型，它將其他相關(guān)要素結(jié)合起來應(yīng)用在環(huán)境污染修復(fù)中，例如設(shè)立濕地處理系統(tǒng)試點(diǎn)區(qū)、濕地野生動(dòng)物保護(hù)區(qū)以解決地面沉降、洪水、礦區(qū)水排放和采礦廢棄物成堆等問題。例如，結(jié)合植物修復(fù)的新興技術(shù)嘗試使用生態(tài)種植策略來修復(fù)污染場地，可以長期地對(duì)更大范圍的土壤和水體進(jìn)行修復(fù)。因此，模型3引導(dǎo)我們轉(zhuǎn)向一種適應(yīng)性場地管理的方法，將以當(dāng)?shù)厍闆r為基礎(chǔ)的策略與長期土地修復(fù)相結(jié)合的方案來應(yīng)對(duì)塔溪礦區(qū)21世紀(jì)上半葉的長期發(fā)展。

基于社區(qū)的創(chuàng)新性修復(fù)

哈佛大學(xué)項(xiàng)目一個(gè)重要的方面是使用了本地化的修復(fù)策略——植物修復(fù)技術(shù)，與其他措施一同介入，并由當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)完成植物種植、監(jiān)測和收割的工作，這一過程需要以一種普適性的方式開展，其更類似于農(nóng)業(yè)實(shí)踐而非工程修復(fù)措施。社區(qū)和當(dāng)?shù)乩嫦嚓P(guān)者已持續(xù)開展這項(xiàng)工作，多年來植物修復(fù)系統(tǒng)的演替不僅清理了部分污染物，也建立了一個(gè)新的植物生態(tài)系統(tǒng)，植物覆蓋在廢礦堆上，以有機(jī)而整體的方式清理濕地和居民區(qū)的污染物。這一進(jìn)程時(shí)間軸顯示了30多年以來的每一項(xiàng)短期工作結(jié)果，每個(gè)階段通常為一年或三個(gè)生長季。

根據(jù)植物從土壤和地下水中吸收鉛元素能力的研究結(jié)果，植物修復(fù)（字面意思是植物清理）被看做是一種低成本的處理鉛污染的技術(shù)。這是一個(gè)使用植物進(jìn)行修復(fù)的低成本在地技術(shù)，使用的植物包括喬木、草本植物和水生植物，隔離和吸收自然環(huán)境中的有毒物質(zhì)。這一技術(shù)在處理污染場地上幾乎是通用的。

植物（超富集植物）本身具有累積大量金屬元素的能力，例如鉛，這一觀點(diǎn)在1948年被提出。歐洲早期的探索性研究主要關(guān)注的是“二戰(zhàn)”后重建工作中對(duì)礦業(yè)次品和廢料的重復(fù)利用。然而這項(xiàng)研究直到20世紀(jì)80年代中期才在美國開展，此時(shí)，植物修復(fù)技術(shù)的原理正在實(shí)驗(yàn)室進(jìn)行試驗(yàn)。依據(jù)污染物的處理方式，這些研究可以被分為3大類：累積、降解和液壓控制。優(yōu)化了植物修復(fù)技術(shù)后，在土壤污染區(qū)，植物緊密成行地垂直于地下水流向進(jìn)行種植 ，或者是成斑塊狀、團(tuán)狀種植。此技術(shù)被應(yīng)用在含鉛量過高的社區(qū)，包括運(yùn)動(dòng)場、沿河步道和公園等。這種技術(shù)聚焦于將基于社區(qū)的植物修復(fù)模型與其他社區(qū)問題進(jìn)行整合，并開展長期的工作。

一只手鐲不叮當(dāng)

麗貝卡 吉姆經(jīng)常引用一句古老的諺語“一只手鐲不叮當(dāng)”[4]。植物修復(fù)研究項(xiàng)目本身就是尋求不同學(xué)科領(lǐng)域和不同行業(yè)之間的合作。將植物修復(fù)技術(shù)與其他形式的環(huán)境規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)相結(jié)合是極具潛力的，例如結(jié)合濕地處理系統(tǒng)、綠道和太陽能技術(shù)。植物修復(fù)技術(shù)對(duì)鉛元素的處理在許多大規(guī)模的示范項(xiàng)目中，是處理危險(xiǎn)廢棄地的一套成熟的方案，可以代替一些其他處理方式，例如代替塔溪礦區(qū)的土壤移除。植物修復(fù)技術(shù)與傳統(tǒng)技術(shù)的差異在于它耗時(shí)過長，具有生物系統(tǒng)固有的局限性，因此限制其在傳統(tǒng)場地上應(yīng)用。它的成本低（比傳統(tǒng)修復(fù)技術(shù)低70～100倍），適合應(yīng)用在像塔溪礦區(qū)一樣需要長期修復(fù)的場地，且植物修復(fù)技術(shù)的應(yīng)用在此有潛力結(jié)合其他社區(qū)再開發(fā)項(xiàng)目來開展。

對(duì)植物修復(fù)技術(shù)的檢測始于1999年夏天，由研究生馬克里 博溫格執(zhí)行。成年人、大學(xué)生和高中生都參與了整個(gè)研究階段，他們對(duì)外來植被和原生植被在場地內(nèi)的增長模式進(jìn)行調(diào)查。從而未來的設(shè)計(jì)將針對(duì)不同區(qū)域的情況，結(jié)合植物修復(fù)與社區(qū)參與策略，對(duì)河流走廊、礦業(yè)廢棄物聚集點(diǎn)、住宅區(qū)和學(xué)校的空間進(jìn)行設(shè)計(jì)。只有在適宜的植物生長條件、污染物密度、土壤通氣度和時(shí)間限制下，植物修復(fù)策略才是有效的。規(guī)劃師、科學(xué)家和當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)可以通過場地設(shè)計(jì)、土地使用準(zhǔn)則對(duì)污染進(jìn)行預(yù)防，預(yù)測有毒物質(zhì)的存在并通過植物修復(fù)的方式削減其含量。在1998年哈佛大學(xué)召開的“Manufactured Sites”會(huì)議期間[5]，一位與會(huì)者說，“在一些場地上，以這種方式種植植物是可行的，在污染處理過程中使公共場地可以被再次利用。這里，植物修復(fù)和場地設(shè)計(jì)以植物系統(tǒng)為載體整合起來，在修復(fù)的同時(shí)，使用空間功能被建立了起來?！?/p>

哈佛大學(xué)聯(lián)合研究項(xiàng)目為解決這些問題所做的初步努力已促成其與當(dāng)?shù)丨h(huán)保組織的合作，雙方一同探究如何將勞動(dòng)密集型修復(fù)規(guī)劃及實(shí)施過程融入到當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)組織所表現(xiàn)出的土地倫理中 。這包括教育的和當(dāng)?shù)赜〉诎踩说囊恍┡e措，以培養(yǎng)不同的組織參與到生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的監(jiān)測和農(nóng)業(yè)實(shí)踐中，特別是當(dāng)糧食生產(chǎn)與修復(fù)方案并行的時(shí)候。在地方層面上，模型3的全面協(xié)調(diào)策略、適應(yīng)性管理策略依據(jù)聯(lián)邦和州政府以及學(xué)術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)的多層次反饋得以實(shí)施執(zhí)行。

州長弗蘭克 基廷的塔溪礦區(qū)超基金工作小組

與美國國家環(huán)保局和哈佛大學(xué)協(xié)作小組開展工作的同時(shí)，塔溪礦區(qū)的首要工作報(bào)告在2000年10月發(fā)布。俄克拉荷馬州環(huán)境部長辦公室受州長委托，對(duì)未來塔溪礦區(qū)的遺留問題處理提出了一個(gè)更長遠(yuǎn)的策略與發(fā)展動(dòng)力。這個(gè)場地的未來愿景是：

“在塔溪礦區(qū)超基金場地內(nèi)建立一個(gè)世界級(jí)的濕地區(qū)和野生動(dòng)物保護(hù)區(qū)，作為一個(gè)解決最緊迫的健康、安全、環(huán)境和美學(xué)問題的生態(tài)手段。[6]”

這項(xiàng)研究除了哈佛大學(xué)提出的原則外，喚起了人們運(yùn)用長期、可持續(xù)的方法解決塔溪礦區(qū)及其社區(qū)問題的意識(shí)。

最終報(bào)告中構(gòu)建的臨時(shí)措施包含以下幾項(xiàng)，用于“超基金”場地的修復(fù)調(diào)查與可行性研究：

? 對(duì)礦業(yè)廢水進(jìn)行全面研究，確定修復(fù)濕地的類型和規(guī)模；

? 啟動(dòng)濕地試點(diǎn)來確定區(qū)域內(nèi)最有效和可行的修復(fù)體系；

? 通過開發(fā)和測試，探索廢棄物適宜的使用功能，為它們的出口建立市場；

? 識(shí)別需要封堵的礦井，試驗(yàn)各種可能的處理方法；

? 調(diào)查那些因野生牧草飼料消費(fèi)所產(chǎn)生的重金屬的生物吸收率。

此外，還需要開展以下行動(dòng)：

? 建立當(dāng)?shù)毓I(yè)的權(quán)威部門，以建設(shè)完善必要的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，對(duì)大范圍的營銷和出口進(jìn)行適當(dāng)監(jiān)管；

? 組織當(dāng)?shù)氐闹笇?dǎo)委員會(huì)調(diào)研皮歇爾、卡丁地區(qū)城鎮(zhèn)搬遷的可能性與可行性；

? 創(chuàng)建地理信息系統(tǒng)臨時(shí)委員會(huì)，編錄“超基金”場地上所有可得到的數(shù)據(jù)，對(duì)未來修復(fù)工作的方方面面做出合理的判斷；

? 促進(jìn)美國國家環(huán)保局、工業(yè)部、當(dāng)?shù)夭柯浜椭菡g更好地合作，以加速成本回收以及自然資源損害評(píng)估的資金償還。

20年間，為解決該區(qū)域最為嚴(yán)重的水質(zhì)、土壤和空氣污染問題已經(jīng)花費(fèi)了2 220萬美元的資金。目前根據(jù)州長的報(bào)告，修復(fù)工作的預(yù)算為4 000萬美元，即使修復(fù)范圍有限，一些人仍愿意為此出資。同時(shí)，哈佛大學(xué)的研究正在計(jì)劃將更貼近當(dāng)?shù)厍闆r的活態(tài)濕地生態(tài)系統(tǒng)整合到項(xiàng)目中。

尾聲

以塔溪礦區(qū)修復(fù)項(xiàng)目為參考，首先我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，將一個(gè)污染場地放到更廣闊的文化和生態(tài)背景中對(duì)于某些區(qū)域的再利用提供了選擇的可能，以此可以指導(dǎo)未來進(jìn)一步的整治措施。第二，目前社區(qū)越來越多地參與到了采礦廢棄物和遺留物的處理進(jìn)程中，作為一種改造土地和跨越歷史的方式，將整治工程視為一個(gè)透明且條理清晰的任務(wù)，社區(qū)的所有成員均能夠參與其中。最后，從長遠(yuǎn)的角度來看，自下而上的工作方式對(duì)于項(xiàng)目的實(shí)施起到了至關(guān)重要的作用。成功與否應(yīng)該由項(xiàng)目小規(guī)模實(shí)施取得的成就來判定，而不是依據(jù)常規(guī)的再利用評(píng)價(jià)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)去評(píng)判。

通過對(duì)自然世界和人工世界的敏銳觀察，我們可以在兩者之間尋找交匯點(diǎn)。這說明在面對(duì)當(dāng)代“超基金”場地中復(fù)雜的有機(jī)和人工系統(tǒng)結(jié)合的條件下，我們應(yīng)該以一種具有挑戰(zhàn)性的新模式開展相關(guān)的修復(fù)活動(dòng)。不過，適應(yīng)性管理方法應(yīng)用于經(jīng)歷過極端退化的環(huán)境僅僅處于起步階段。要想挑戰(zhàn)現(xiàn)在州和聯(lián)邦政府大規(guī)模使用的傳統(tǒng)常規(guī)方法，我們需要像塔溪礦區(qū)項(xiàng)目中的麗貝卡 吉姆這樣有能力的人慢慢而持續(xù)地重塑當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)環(huán)境，隨著時(shí)間的推移，這些方法將在不同的社區(qū)、場地、州、超基金土地之間被互相借鑒，廣泛傳播。

注(Note)：

版權(quán)：尼爾 柯克伍德，2017年Copyright: Niall G. Kirkwood, 2017

注釋(Notes)：

①圖1、3～ 5、7、8由Niall G. Kirkwood拍攝；圖2由Nancy Goldenberg拍攝；圖6由Rebecca Jim拍攝。Figure1, 3 ～ 5, 7, 8 : Photograph by Niall G. Kirkwood;Figure2: Photograph courtesy of Nancy Goldenberg;Figure6: Photograph courtesy of Rebecca Jim.

②表1、表2數(shù)據(jù)來源：美國國家環(huán)保局。Source of Table 1 and Table 2: USEPA.

[1]Berger, John and Jean Mohr. A Fortunate Man, London:Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative, 1981.

[2]Berry, Wendell. Preface, Waste Land, Meditations on a Ravaged Landscape, (ed) David T. Hanson. New York:Aperture, 1997.

[3]Information from USEPA Report, EPA Region 6,Congressional District 02, Tar Creek (Ottawa County).Publication Date, October 4, 2005.

[4]Overheard by the author at a Conference in Miami High on the Tar Creek Superfund, 2002.

[5]Manufactured Sites: An International Landscape Conference and Exhibition on Site Technologies for Contemporary Practice organized by Professor Niall Kirkwood was held at the Harvard Design School,Cambridge, MA in April 1998. Two days of papers and panel discussions were held with international engineers,scientists, designers and EPA regulators on the issues,opportunities and constraints of post-industrial landscapes.

[6]Executive Summary, Final Report of Governor Frank Keating’s Tar Creek Superfund Task Force, 1 October, 2000.

Introduction

Tar Creek in Ottawa County, Oklahoma,a former lead mining area and part of the Tri-State Mining Area of Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri, represents the failure at multiple levels of administration and overview to address decades of environmental degradation, toxic land conditions and environmental injustice. Communities and environmental of fi cers, in collaboration with local agencies and academic research groups, have started to address the long-term remediation, planning and regeneration of vast mining soil heaps, polluted waterways and rivers, and land subsidence and mineshaft sinkholes that characterize the Superfund site’s landscape and surrounding waste territories(Figure 1).

The story of the long-term reclamation of the forty square mile Tar Creek Superfund Site is presented here as a case study of future landscape planning and design strategies that utilize the resources of local residents, stakeholders, and environmental organizations with the assistance of academic research institutions. I will argue that local-based transformations of the site, as opposed to ‘top-down’ actions, have the potential to act as a framework to unite community desires, address environmental cleanup, and regenerate sequentially over time the entire landscape of a polluted area.

This essay also argues for a holistic way of viewing mining sites that acknowledges and then acts on the need for an incremental approach to land reuse and change within existing local social,cultural and ecological environments. It challenges the strategies that are currently brought to bear on these sites through the existing laws and focuses on the complexity of these landscapes as places with attendant histories, ecologies, communities, and potential futures. It describes the nature, built fabric and materiality of these places and the normative and often simplistic means that have been used to alleviate their current conditions of degradation and contamination. In the end, it is to the people,and the physical landscapes that they shape, restore,or reclaim for their daily uses and future utility, who are the inhabitants of sites such as Tar Creek, and that we turn to for guidance.

As cultural critic John Berger has written[1]and as could be applied to many of the mining sites in our contemporary environment:

Landscapes can be deceptive —

Sometimes a landscape seems to be less a

setting for the life of its inhabitants than

a curtain behind which their struggles,

achievements and accidents take place.

As outsiders, we have to be careful when thinking about a landscape, whether polluted or not, that we know a place and its people. This is especially true for those who have the responsibility to address the serious environmental concerns at mining sites on behalf of Federal, State and Local Agencies or other interested municipal institutions.The focus of this work is broadly concerned with the reclamation of derelict mine land, where the cleaning of land, water and soils becomes a sustainable infrastructural investment for the communities and stakeholders rather than just a selected environmental technique to be applied to a polluted site. The former mining works at the Tar Creek site in North East Oklahoma – a Superfund Site that although it has been under scrutiny since the early 1980’s is still in its very early days of recovery and planning – serves as a useful model for this approach.

Two Sets of Photographs

Nancy Goldenberg grew up and went to grade school within the Tar Creek Superfund Site in Ottawa County, Oklahoma. She has continuously returned from Chicago where she now works as a professional photographer to document the landscapes of Tar Creek, her home landscape.From the vantage point of a light aircraft rented by the hour, she has photographed the local communities, businesses, roadways, homes and her former grade school within an expansive landscape of mining waste (or chat), threaded by orange-red contaminated creeks, rivers and ponds, and littered with collapsed sinkholes as shown in Figure 2.

Interspersed among these formations are the communities of five former mining towns, their streets, homes, schools, stores and people.

Nancy has also driven along the outlying roads, stood beside tree-lined stream beds, walked up the shifting mounds of chat, looked into the modest yards littered with children’s swings and sandboxes, and focused her camera on the playgrounds, ball- fi elds, parking lots and streets of the five former mining towns of Picher, Cardin,Quapaw, Commerce and North Miami as shown in Figure 3.

These are two differing sets of views of the Tar Creek site. One presents a broad and expansive lens (so to speak) toward the mining lands shaped by large tracts of post-industrial waste sites,understood through USGS maps, satellite images,GPS coordinates, production statistics, and historic maps, overlain throughout with small clusters of dwellings, roads and named communities, and more recently described through medical data of children and teenagers, exposure levels and remediation reporting.

The other sees, at a detailed scale, the speci fi cs of the daily life of communities – as shown in Figure 4 – school, work, vegetable gardens, tribal meetings, recreation, church socials, health centers,and baseball leagues, all set within the ravaged environment of Tar Creek. Attempting to describe the magnitude of the environmental problems in this part of the Tri-state Mining Area is dif fi cult.

They include the acidic water in the Tar Creek and the piles of mining waste, the caveins, sinkholes, and fl ooded shafts where men were lowered into the ground to retrieve ore. Yet as Wendell Berry has stated about images such as these, “anybody who troubles to identify in the pictures the things that are readily identifiable,whether roads or buildings, will see nothing in them that is abstract. The power of these places is in their terrifying particularity (as shown in Figure 5). They are the ways, the products and results of human work.[2]” The evolution and reclamation of these places will also be the product of local human work redirected to revitalizing land and restoring the community. The subject of reclaiming and recycling contaminated land has grown in importance to exert a fascination today that is not fully explained by the influence it has had on the planning and rebuilding of regions, communities, infrastructure and open space. Revitalizing land and restoring communities requires multiple views and ways of addressing the issues of remediation, reclamation and recovery– from the broad perspective of planning to the detailed issues of local community development and site design. Mining sites such as Tar Creek offer three possible models for looking at the landscape and understanding these vast areas of modern destruction.

Three Models for Planning

The fi rst model is simply descriptive and sees a site as only defined and created by the residue of its previous industrial activities – these include elements such as the waste piles and abandoned mine shafts that are found at Tar Creek.

The second identifies a combination of engineering and design practices in the “technological circumstances of sites,” where the actual degraded physical conditions are literally “constructed” or“reconstructed.” Here, soil, water-bodies, and landforms are remade and formed through the integration of applied science, engineering and construction. This is one of the normative ways in which the reclamation of sites such as Tar Creek are conceived and actions are organized and carried out.

The third model, most significantly for planners and designers as well as local community and environmental groups, challenges the traditional models of site planning and design, where‘greenfield’ or non-polluted sites are understood through consideration of their inherent natural properties, including information regarding geology,soils, vegetation, microclimate and wildlife. These models are of little use within the contemporary polluted site, particularly in places such as Tar Creek that have been altered far beyond their initial state. The third model offers a new approach for contaminated sites, where the actual physical conditions, whether disturbed or contaminated, are identified and addressed as central to the genesis and understanding of the place.

Over the next several decades, federal, state,and local governments will continue to commit resources annually to clean up lands such as Tar Creek that are contaminated with hazardous waste and toxic materials. A number of questions arise from these actions:

? How will large-scale sites shape the national landscape and our future communities, towns and regions, both within the Superfund sites and outside?

? How do these sites structure the changing needs of scientific, cultural and aesthetic knowledge?

? How does the adaptation of such elements of the landscape as abandoned mining areas,derelict chat fi elds, and toxic river corridors affect how the public will perceive and interact with the natural and manmade world during the rest of the 21st century?

This essay explores proposals for the longterm reclamation of the forty square mile Tar Creek Superfund Site through sustainable planning and design activities and strategies generated at the community level. It addresses the ecologies of the area and why they may be considered “resilient”.It suggests that while the vastness of the land area of Tar Creek under discussion (four miles by ten miles) calls for a broad regional approach to future planning and reclamation efforts, the area’s ecologies have to date represented a failure of the many agencies involved to address decades of environmental degradation, toxic land conditions and environmental justice issues. I do not suggest that these efforts are in themselves wrong or represent an inappropriate application of agency resources or managerial direction and oversight.Rather, I propose that other models exist for addressing these classes of sites that engage in a more holistic way the true conditions of the landscape in its polluted form with the aspirations and strengths of the local environment and communities.

Local communities and environmental officers in collaboration with research groups have begun to address the long-term remediation,planning and regeneration of vast mining soil heaps, polluted waterways and rivers and land subsidence and mineshaft sinkholes. For example,with funding secured by Senator James Inhofe(OK), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is closing dangerous open mineshafts, mitigating hazards to local residents with land remediation projects, and leading a multi-agency team of experts to assess the potential for subsidence in higher population areas and along major traffic corridors. The partnership includes the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Interior,the State of Oklahoma, and tribal governments,all of whom were encouraged by Senator Inhofe to sign a Memorandum of Understanding in May 2003 to develop solutions to the human health and environmental threats posed by the Tar Creek site.This led to the Tar Creek and Lower Spring River Watershed Management Plan, a guide for a multidisciplinary solution for all agencies working to solve the complex environmental problems at Tar Creek.

I will argue, however, that while approaches such as the Tar Creek and Lower Spring River Watershed Management Plan act to initiate transformations of the site, other long-term frameworks and approaches are required to unite community desires, environmental cleanup, and landscape regeneration. This need for a locally based long-range framework indicates not just a change to the physical appearance of land or a simple return to productive use of exhausted and currently undervalued vast areas of ground – a tidying up of the past industrial environment – it signals a profound shift in the way communities must lay claim to this, their own, but very polluted land.

First, however, some basic facts are in order about Tar Creek, the conditions that now exist, and how they came to be.

Context of the Tar Creek Superfund Site

The Tar Creek Site is a part of the former Tri-State Mining Area that extended over 700 square miles and included northeastern Oklahoma,southeastern Kansas and reached all the way into the counties of Jasper, Newton and McDonald in southwestern Missouri. The Tar Creek study area of 25,400 acres over 40 square miles is located above 300 miles of abandoned mining tunnels in Ottawa County in the Northeast corner of Oklahoma known as the Old Picher Field lead and zinc mining area. This four by ten square mile area encompasses fi ve towns including Picher and Cardin, as well as the site of over 200 former lead mining operations and milling factories.

At one time, the mountains of milkywhite mine waste as shown in Figure 6 proudly proclaimed Picher as the lead mining capital of the United States. After the war, metals demand declined, and by the 1960s mining operations slowed and fi nally ceased in the early 1970’s when companies left the area and the pumps finally ceased to operate in the mines.

After mining operations stopped, the pumps were turned off and the mines slowly filled with water. Iron pyrite left in waste piles in the mines as well as on the chamber walls and ceilings reacted chemically with the rising water to produce a more potent cistern of acidic water and eventually a 10-billion-gallon vat of subterranean poison, that found its way to the surface as the now familiar acid mine drainage colored a vivid red-orange. In 1978, the U.S. Geological Survey reported that the mines contained 100,000 acre-feet of water.Of that total, the Geological Survey said, 33,000 acre-feet was acidic, which totaled 10,753,097,000 gallons of acid mine drainage water that would eventually discharge into Tar Creek. From there,the acid water spilled into the Neosho River.

The Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) added Tar Creek to the National Priority List in 1981 and has spent more than $40 Million dollars to address some of the most disturbing and confounding water, soil, and airborne contamination problems in the country. It now believes the entire cleanup will cost $500 million dollars, a sum few people are prepared to spend on this site. The silt–sized mining tailings or chat as they are known locally, contain heavy metals,particularly lead and cadmium, and pose serious health risks to children 6 years old and younger.Exposure to lead and zinc found in the chat can cause nervous system and kidney damage,learning disabilities, attention de fi cit disorder, and lower intelligence. A health study in 1999 by the Oklahoma State Department of Health revealed that 38.3% of the children tested in Picher and 62.5 %of the children tested in Cardin had elevated blood lead levels over 10 ug/dL, compared with less than 2.4% for the rest of the state. The expected value for the United States at-large is 4.4%. Although 70% of the study area is tribal land, and 42.5% of the population is Native American, the percentage of children considered at risk is not associated with ethnicity.

The fear of contamination has given way to a calm acceptance of the site by the inhabitants.Toxic waste has set the parameters for future action. Here, it is not a matter of demanding a return to pristine nature on the site. Nor is the central issue the use of reclamation as a point of departure for criticism of the site’s current state.The fundamental ecological base of the landscape and communities has to be restored.

Large political and social forces threaten some parts of the Tar Creek area, while others seem to have been bypassed by contemporary concerns entirely. Many aspects of the site’s past activities remain remarkably intact. All deserve our care and attention, since they, together with thousands of sites large and small, hold the key to the future diversity of human space and what are allowable forms of community and natural life. The surviving towns and communities are devastated by ill-health (particularly in infants and children),lack of employment, and the widespread nature of contamination in their local landscape. Yet through all of this, they retain a pattern of strong cultural and regional identity and a spiritual connection to the land and its inhabitants, creatures and plants expressed through festivals, art and writing.

In the following section, an aspect of the Federal Response concerning the soils surrounding residential yards and community facilities is discussed.

EPA Response—Soil Removal

In 1979, the EPA and the State of Oklahoma became concerned about the acid water and contamination of soils as well as surface and groundwater. The Oklahoma Governor established the Tar Creek Task Force in 1980 to investigate the acid mine drainage. The site was proposed to the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1981 and added in 1983. By June 1984, evaluations had established such a potentially serious risk to human health that a Record of Decision was signed under the Superfund Law. Fourteen years later, in 1998,an EPA Region 6 Emergency Response Team launched a residential soil-sampling program. Soil test results showed that 65% of the homes had yard concentrations greater than 500 ppm. The figures below from EPA documents illustrate property categories within the five towns in the Tar Creek Superfund Study Site – Picher, Cardin,Quapaw, Miami and Commerce – at the beginning of 2000 (Table 1).

Residential remediation activities have been underway since 1996, targeting first those homes with young children and soil lead concentrations above 1,500 ppm (Table 2). Soil is removed in 6 inch layers as shown in Figure 7 until 18 inch depths are reached or the concentrations of lead are below 500ppm. Clean soil is replaced along with shrubs originally removed at the beginning of the excavation, and new grass as shown in Figure 8.

The benefits of federal agency actions as reported in April 2005 are as follows:

“The cleanup of lead-contaminated soils from 2,071 residential yards and high access public areas located within the five-city mining area has significantly reduced the exposure of the population, especially young children. Recent independent studies comparing blood level lead data collected in 1997 to data from 2000 show an approximately 50% decrease in the number of children living in Picher and Cardin between the ages of one and five years old with blood lead levels to or greater than the 10 μg/dL standards set by the CDC. A report in 2004 by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)shows that children living at the Tar Creek site who had blood lead levels in excess of the 10 μg/dL level decreased from 31.2% in 1996 To 2.8%in 2003. This reduction in the number of children with elevated blood levels is attributed to the residential yard cleanups and extensive educational efforts by federal, state, county and tribal entities.Abandoned well plugging has also reduced the potential for contaminants in the shallow Boone Aquifer to migrate to the Roubideax drinking water aquifer[3]”.

As Earl Hatley, former environmental director for the Quapaw Tribe of the Tar Creek region notes, the winds will continue to blow across the chat piles, and two years after remediation the yards will be re-contaminated to the same levels or higher. No further testing has been carried out to confirm or disprove his theory. However,it is likely that the windborne chat will continue to be distributed from the piles across the Tar Creek study site in a microscopic granular layer.In addition, in some cases, “clean soil” has meant water-impermeable clay. The remedial work that removed contamination left the new yards full of clay, homes are retaining moisture from rains, and mold has developed at an alarming rate. This is particularly distressing given the already substantial incidence of asthma in the area.

I want to return to the central argument of this paper regarding the contrast between the conventional approaches (Models 1 and 2) used by the State and Federal agencies to address polluted sites such as Tar Creek and the local knowledge and understanding of the actual physical conditions,whether disturbed or contaminated that can lead to an alternative (Model 3). This model is more sustainable for the long-term approach to cleaning up and regenerating large and complex land areas over time and including the close involvement of all stakeholders including community partners and participants. The difference between the two sets of approaches is striking. On the one hand the normative methods (Models 1 and 2) used under the current modes of engineering analysis,evaluation and response focus on a narrow way of looking at contamination insitu. In short the site is in an arrested state of succession or development where the levels of contamination can be measured, evaluated and removed within a single time frame. The site is then returned to a clean state, a tabla rasa that is devoid of any pollutants, a natural benign landscape where the land, dwellings and people are in harmony. On the other hand,the solution appears to have solved the most pressing need- that of immediately addressing the health problems of lead poisoning to the town’sresidential communities particularly the young and the elderly. By removing the immediate source of lead in the top eighteen inches of residential yard soil and replacing it with clean soil an immediate result is gained. It can be quantified, measured and mapped and to date has resulted in the most serious efforts in economic and engineering terms to remediate the Tar Creek area. While this approach looks to a short-term response to ‘solve’the problem of contamination it avoids what turns out to be the ‘real problems’ associated with sites such as Tar Creek- simply that they are the product of a relentless industrial process (mining)that occurred over a long period of time. In doing so the mining activities and its residues and wastes acted gradually on the environment to alter ecosystems, adjusting the nature of hydrologic systems and the structure of soils and sediments.In doing so vegetation, wildlife and aquatic life were also severely altered. Finally the interaction of these patterns of contamination and alterations to the soils and water on the human population has occurred and will continue to occur over signi fi cant period of times even though the soil removal exercise from residential yards has taken place. It is not possible to undo over a hundred years of mineral extraction and its large-scale effect on the land in an instant, nor is it possible to continue to view the process of cleaning as a simplistic linear activity. Rather it requires an adaptive model that accepts the changing circumstances of pollution and remediation techniques over time in concert with a profound shift towards communities and local stakeholders being involved as active participants rather than passive onlookers.

Tab.1 Property categories by town, Feb. 2000.

Tab.2 Yard remedial action status, March 2000.

This speaks to the inability of Models 1 and 2 to answer the deeper and more significant problems associated with the Tar Creek site. The environmental disturbance is vast and widespread and it will require long-term remediation efforts to address the chat piles, the condition of the water bodies, the subsidence of the ground and the airborne contamination. It also speaks of the need to move towards a different way of addressing the planning of the reclamation of the Tar Creek site area, one that is more receptive to the actual conditions of the site, both physical and cultural as well as to involve all stakeholders and communities in the process. Large-scale long-term remediation requires local knowledge and a large-scale design vision to be attained in small stages over signi fi cant periods of time. Some of the challenges posed by these large-scale remediation efforts are immense,concerned with incremental changes over time to the very nature of the landscape, continuous monitoring of both the original conditions and the remediation in progress, and adequate mapping of the cultural as well as environmental fabric that is to be identi fi ed and addressed as central to the genesis and understanding of the place.

In direct contrast to the EPA’s selected remedy(Alternative 2 in the March 1997 Proposed Plan),one part of the study project carried out by the Harvard Team that follows tests a hypothesis that addresses the key points expressed by Earl Hatley on the long-term nature and extent of contamination and to show that community-based planning models can more effectively curtail high soil lead concentrations in targeted study areas within the Superfund Site. Efforts are underway through this proposal to integrate a locally-based site strategy with a long-term land renewal effort.

The Harvard Community-Based Prevention and Intervention Research Project

The Tar Creek research project currently underway combines the efforts of faculty and researchers across three graduate schools at Harvard University – the Medical School, School of Public Health and Graduate School of Design.Founded through contacts that arose out of various subcommittees it involves Dr. Howard Hu of the Harvard Medical School, Dr. Lucia Lovinger of the Harvard Science Center, Professor Jack Spengler of the Harvard School of Public Health,Dr Robert Wright of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and the author representing the Graduate School of Design, as well as Rebecca Jim of L.E.A.D, the local community group on site in Oklahoma.

The Harvard Community-Based Prevention and Intervention Research Project has three main components. First, the project includes a community based study of lead exposure biomarkers focusing on children in the study area. Second, there is a study of lead-exposure pathways tracking the movement of lead from mine spoil to various populations that includes studies on cultivated and foraged foods consumed by residents and wildlife. Third, in the future the project will examine remediation design tools and approaches to reduce lead at the larger site scale through innovative remediation and design techniques. It proposes to develop a model that will join other efforts at environmental remediation of contaminated areas such as a pilot passive wetland treatment system and a wetlands and wildlife refuge while addressing land subsidence, flooding, mine drainage discharges and chat pile distribution. For example in its most vivid approach to communitybased remediation, it will attempt to join efforts at environmental remediation of contaminated sites using living planted systems, an emerging technology called phytoremediation with long-term environmental restoration and reclamation of the broader land and water bodies. Thus, it promises to integrate a locally-based site strategy with a longterm land renewal effort and supports the necessity of moving to an adaptive management approach(Model 3) to address the long-term future of Tar Creek in the fi rst half of the Twenty First century.

Innovative Community-based Remediation

One important aspect of the Harvard Collaborative approach is the use of a localized remediation strategy- phytoremediation, to engage at the same time, the local community in planting,monitoring and harvesting as necessary that works the land in a respectful way that is closer to agricultural practices rather than engineering remediation. The continuation of the community and local stakeholders investment in this activity carries over time as the long-term evolution of the phytoremediation system works over the years to both clean up pollutants as well as establish a new plant ecosystem that will vegetate the chat piles, clean up wetlands, clean residential yards in an organic and holistic way. The long timeline associated with this process is usually seen over thirty years with short term results in one year or three growing seasons.

Drawing on basic research about the natural abilities of plants to accumulate lead from soils and groundwater, phytoremediation (literally meaning plant-cleanup) is viewed as a low-cost alternative natural treatment technology for lead contaminants.It is a low-cost in situ technology that employs the use of plants, including trees, grasses and aquatic vegetation to remove, sequester and uptake hazardous substances from the environment. It offers promise as a versatile strategy suitable for use on contaminated sites with a range of pollutants.

Living plants naturally capable of accumulating large amounts of metals such as lead (hyperaccumulators) were first described in 1948. Early exploratory studies were carried out primarily in Europe mainly related to the reuse of mining spoil and waste sites in the rebuilding efforts following World War II. Research however, did not start in earnest until the middle 1980’s in the United States,when the original mechanisms of phytoremediation were described in laboratory experiments. These can be grouped into three broad categories,based on the fate of the contaminant in question:accumulation, degredation and hydraulic control.Optimizing the effects of phytoremediation,the plants are generally densely planted in either rows perpendicular to the flow of a subsurface groundwater plume or in clumps or patches known as hotspots where the contamination occurs in concentrated soil areas. These have the ability to be applied in areas of high lead within communities including playing fields, river walkways and parks. The question posed by such a technology concerns the increased net environmental benefit of integrating a community-based model phytoremediation plan to reduce lead levels with other community concerns, and carrying out such efforts over the long-term.

A Single Bracelet does not Jingle

Rebecca Jim has often stated in presentations an old proverb that says “a single bracelet does not jingle”[4]. Phytoremediation research projects by their very nature foster collaboration between different fields of science and between different professions and communities. The potential also exists to integrate phytoremediation with other forms of environmental planning and design enterprises; for example, pump and treatment wetland systems, greenways, and solar technologies.The cleanup of lead by phytoremediation has been shown at a number of full-scale demonstration projects as an alternative to more established treatment methods used at hazardous waste sites,such as soil removal and replacement as has been carried out to date at Tar Creek. Limitations to its application at more conventional sites include the extended time-scale of phytoremediation activities in comparison to competing remedial technologies,and the inherent limitations of biological systems.Its low cost (approximately 70-100 times cheaper than conventional remediation techniques) makes it appropriate for sites such as Tar Creek, where a longer time-scale is necessary and the site holds the potential to integrate this approach with other community-based land redevelopment projects.

Initial testing of a phytoremediation approach using vegetation in the field was carried out over the summer of 1999 by graduate student Markley Bavinger. Through all phases of the research,adults and college and high school students living in the community were involved in the survey of opportunistic and/or native vegetation and their patterns of growth in targeted site areas.Design projects will later address specific test areas where phytoremediation installations will be integrated with community proposals for the river corridor, the containment of the mining waste sites, and residential areas and school yards.Phytoremediation is effective only in certain conditions. A phytoremediation scheme will make sense only if there are appropriate growing conditions, contaminant densities, soil aeration conditions, and time constraints on remediation.Planners, scientists and communities can play a role in the prevention of polluted landscapes by designing site and land-use codes that anticipate the presence of toxins and mitigate that presence with hyperaccumulators. During the “Manufactured Sites” Conference at Harvard Design School in 1998[5], one participant explained, “On some sites it is possible to place planting in such a way as to allow partial reuse of the site for public access or ongoing development while the cleanup is in process. Here, phyto-remediation and creative site design are united by the use of planted systems that both remediate and at the same time establish spatial and functional patterns of use.”

Some of the preliminary efforts to address these issues within the Harvard Collaborative study have resulted in an examination with the local environmental groups of how the labor intensive remediation planning and installation process could be integrated into the land ethic projected by the various local community organizations.This involves educational and Native American initiatives to foster various groups in the area to become engaged in the monitoring of ecosystems as well as review agricultural practices in the area,particularly where food production is coupled with remediation practices. The issues of overall coordination and management of Model 3, the Adaptive Management Approach are enacted at the local level with various feedback loops to the Federal and State agencies and academic institutions.

Governor Frank Keating’s Tar Creek Superfund Task Force

Parallel to the work by the EPA and the Harvard Collaborative Group, the report on a major initiative on Tar Creek was issued in October 2000. Prepared by the Oklahoma State Of fi ce of the Secretary of Environment, it was commissioned by the Governor to give further impetus to the resolution of problems that remained at the Tar Creek site. The vision for the site was:

“To establish a world-class wetlands area and wildlife refuge within the boundaries of the Tar Creek Superfund Site that will serve as an ecological solution to the majority of the most pressing health, safety, environmental and aesthetic concerns.[6]”

This study, in addition to the principles underlying the Harvard project, suggests an awakening of interest in using a sustainable longterm approach to the problems of Tar Creek and its communities.

The Interim Measures established by the Final Report included the following, to be carried out as a Superfund Remedial Investigation/Feasability Study (RI/FS):

? Undertake a comprehensive study of minewaste drainage to determine amount and types of treatment wetlands;

? Initiate a pilot wetland treatment system to determine the most effective and feasible systems for the area;

? Develop and test appropriate uses of large volumes of chat to establish markets for its export;

? Identify mine shafts that need plugging and test various closure methods; and

? Investigate the bio-availability of heavy metals resulting from the consumption of wild forage foods.

In addition, the following issues are to be carried out:

? Establish a local industrial authority to develop the necessary infrastructure and appropriate regulatory climate for large-scale aggressive chat marketing and export;

? Assemble a local steering committee to explore options for, and feasibility of, the relocation of the towns of Picher/Cardin;

? Create a Geographic Information System(GIS) ad hoc committee to compile all available data and information on the Superfund area, to allow for better decisions to be made about all aspects of the future remediation effort; and

? Develop a better EPA, DOI, Tribal, and State partnership to hasten cost recovery /NRDA reimbursement.

$22.2 million has been spent over almost 20 years to address some of the most confounding water, soil, and airborne contamination problems in the country. The remediation and recovery as currently defined by the Governor’s Report should cost $40 million dollars, a sum few people are prepared to spend on this site although the scope of remediation is still limited. However, the integration of a larger living ecological systemthe wetland with more locally based initiatives as outlined in the Harvard study suggests.

Endings

How can stakeholders in the Superfund process whether planners, lawyers, designers, or community leaders re-interpret the chronology of a site, be it natural, industrial or cultural in its disposition, in a speci fi c geographic location? And how can reclamation and reuse activities shape a Superfund site into a community environment within the cultural artifice of a post-industrial landscape? The Harvard Collaborative study is focused on carrying out a large-scale plan that accommodates the community in a long-term remediation of the land and waterways while acknowledging the specifics of the ecology and physical nature of the local environment. In it,plants native to the area assist in the absorption of pollutants guided by communities of the site and cultural practices of the place.

First, we have found that with reference to the Tar Creek Project, putting the site within a larger cultural and ecological context has considerable implications for reuse options used in selected parts of the area and how further remediation selection has to proceed in the future. Second, to date, the community has engaged incrementally with the residue of mining activities and historic traces as a way of reclaiming their own territory and past, looking at the remediation as a transparent and legible process involving all members of the community. Finally, viewing the site over the longterm as an effort from the bottom-up is essential to successful project implementation. Success should be measured by small-scale achievements instead of normal benchmarks for reuse.

By looking observantly upon the natural world as well as the disposable world, we may build at the great overlap between the two. This suggests a challenging new model for how we ought to work within the contemporary Superfund environment with a new quality of attention to the intricate organic and artificial systems of reality. The application of Adaptive Management methods to landscapes that have undergone drastic environmental degradation is only in its infancy.In being able to overcome the normative methods currently understood by the vast majority of the employed by Federal and State authorities it will require the ability of individuals like Rebecca Jim on Tar Creek to slowly and sustain ably build her community and in time these actions will pass from community to community, site to site, state to state,superfund land to superfund land.

Toxic Kingdom / Tar Creek Futures—The Case of Picher & Cardin Mining Areas, Ottawa County, Oklahoma, USA

Author: (USA) Niall G. Kirkwood Translator: LI Jia-yi Proofreader: WANG Xi-yue

A case study of long-term planning and reclamation of the forty square mile Tar Creek Superfund Site is presented through sustainable planning and design activities and strategies at the community level. Tar Creek in Ottawa County, Oklahoma, a former lead mining area and part of the Tri-State Mining Area represents the failure of federal and state agencies to address decades of environmental degradation, toxic land conditions and environmental justice issues. Local communities and neighborhoods and environmental officers in collaboration with academic research groups have addressed the long-term remediation, planning and regeneration of vast mining soil heaps, polluted waterways and rivers and land subsidence and mineshaft sinkholes. The case study will argue that the localbased transformations of the site act as a framework to unite community desires, environmental cleanup, and landscape regeneration.

mining sites; post-industrial landscape; superfund; landscape reclamation; waste land

進(jìn)程中的利益相關(guān)者，無論是規(guī)劃師、律師、設(shè)計(jì)師或社區(qū)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)，應(yīng)該如何重新詮釋場地的發(fā)展歷程，是采取自然的、工業(yè)的或文化的處理策略，或是依托于特定的地理環(huán)境？整治修復(fù)和再利用工程應(yīng)如何在“超基金”場地中塑造后工業(yè)文化景觀背景下適宜的社區(qū)環(huán)境？哈佛大學(xué)合作研究重點(diǎn)是開展一項(xiàng)大規(guī)模整治計(jì)劃，使社區(qū)在生態(tài)和環(huán)境上適應(yīng)土地和河道的長期修復(fù)過程。在研究中，可吸收污染物的鄉(xiāng)土植物規(guī)劃是以當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)和栽培實(shí)踐技術(shù)為指導(dǎo)的。

TU 986

A

1673-1530(2017)08-0014-16

10.14085/j.fjyl.2017.08.0014.16

2017-05-25

修回日期：2017-06-15

（美）尼爾 柯克伍德/ 美國風(fēng)景園林師協(xié)會(huì)理事/ 哈佛大學(xué)風(fēng)景園林與技術(shù)教授，風(fēng)景園林系前主任/技術(shù)與環(huán)境中心創(chuàng)始人與主任

(USA) Niall G. Kirkwood, Doctor of Science, FASLA, is a professor of Landscape Architecture and Technology,Department of Landscape Architecture and founder and current director of Center for Technology and Environment at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

譯者簡介：李佳懌/1993年生/女/吉林人/北京林業(yè)大學(xué)園林學(xué)院在讀碩士研究生/研究方向?yàn)轱L(fēng)景園林規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)與理論（北京100083）

LI Jia-yi, who was born in 1993 in Jilin, is a master student in the School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University. Her research focuses on landscape planning and design (Beijing 100083) .

校者簡介：王晞月/1992年生/女/北京人/北京林業(yè)大學(xué)園林學(xué)院在讀博士研究生/研究方向?yàn)轱L(fēng)景園林規(guī)劃與設(shè)計(jì)（北京100083）

WANG Xi-yue, who was born in 1992 in Beijing, is a Ph.D.student in the School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University. Her research focuses on landscape planning and design (Beijing 100083).

（編輯 / 任京燕）