Whatcom Waterway: The Next Chapter

Wendy Steffensen is the North Sound Baykeeper with RE Sources. She serves as an educator and advocate, working on behalf of the marine waters of Whatcom and Skagit counties. A toxicologist by training, she has been involved with the Bellingham Bay cleanup since 2000.

Now is the time for the cleanup of the Whatcom Waterway. Now that waterfront redevelopment has momentum. Now that the Port of Bellingham is looking to redevelop the Georgia-Pacific (G-P) treatment lagoon into a marina. Now that investors are interested. Finally, we’re ready to clean up the mess. From the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), to the Port of Bellingham, to the city of Bellingham (port), to the investors, to the public—we are now ready to clean up the mess, so we can get on with the redevelopment.

Prior to beginning the much-touted redevelopment of the city of Bellingham’s waterfront, state law requires that contamination be “cleaned up” in order to protect human health and the environment. The Whatcom Waterway and the G-P site are focal points for cleanup on Bellingham’s waterfront—they are envisioned as the central hubs for redevelopment and they’re also contaminated with the well-known and dangerous toxicant, mercury (See sidebar on next page: “Contaminated Sites in Bellingham’s Waterfront”).

Contamination in the Whatcom Waterway has been studied for years, multiple cleanup plans for the waterway have been developed and recently, the port has prioritized the cleanup because of the potential for the G-P treatment lagoon or Aeration Stabilization Basin (ASB) as a marina site (See sidebar in next column: “A Brief History of Whatcom Waterway”). Decisions made in the next few months will determine the type and extent of the cleanup, as well as potential redevelopment options.

The best opportunity for public input into the cleanup decision will be in response to the release of the decision-making document called the Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study (RI/FS). For the Whatcom Waterway and ASB, this document will be released in draft form in early 2006. In the RI/FS, a variety of options, from “no action” to “full removal” will be discussed and compared. The RI/FS will also designate one option as the “preferred remedy.”

The preferred remedy option will be the result of negotiation between the Department of Ecology and the liable party, in this case, the port. The preferred remedy should meet the letter and intent of the law, and it will also take into account the desires of the port. The public will have the opportunity to review and comment on the RI/FS, and through public comment can agree, disagree and raise substantive concerns regarding the preferred remedy. The public’s concerns must be addressed by Ecology, and public concerns have the potential to alter the preferred remedy.

The port has already floated the basics of what is likely to be the preferred remedy to the public. The port’s preferred remedy consists of the following:

■ the capping of much of the Whatcom Waterway and changing the navigation depth in the inner waterway,

■ the remediation, by capping or dredging, of areas that currently or in the future could, via disturbance, show high levels of mercury or exhibit high toxicity, and

■ the dredging and upland disposal of sediments in the ASB.

Additional details of the proposal will be fleshed out in the RI/FS and, if selected as the remedy, in the subsequent “Cleanup Action Plan.” At this point, we also know that several details of the port’s plan differ greatly from the previous plans.

When reviewing the port’s preferred remedy, keep in mind that the port’s mission is to “fulfill the essential transportation and economic development of the region” (see sidebar on page 15: “Port Mission Statement”). Thus, the port’s preferred plan accounts for the relationship among economic development, future land use and the constraints that may be relieved or imposed by the chosen cleanup plan.

Early plans for the Whatcom Waterway cleanup called for the dredging and removal of contamination from the waterway. These actions would have preserved navigational use of the waterway. The port’s plan to cap much of the inner waterway and change its navigational depth (from -30 to -18 feet), will alter navigational capacity and preclude industrial use of the inner waterway. Recreational and some commercial use of the inner waterway will still be preserved, as will heavy industrial use in the outer waterway (waterward of the ASB).

From a physical habitat perspective, a deep draft navigational waterway is of minimal benefit. Fish and other creatures thrive in estuarine and subtidal habitats, where the connection between the shore and the water is gradual. Allowing the waterway to attain a more gradual profile and fill in to a certain extent, would, in most cases, be a benefit to habitat and marine life. The benefit provided by an improved physical habitat, however, will provide no advantage if that habitat is contaminated.

To address contamination in the waterway and surrounding area, the port proposes to both cap the majority of the contamination, as in the case of the inner waterway, and to dredge the outer waterway.

Capping can slow the release of contaminants from sediments to the point where release is almost non-existent. The efficacy of the cap will depend on cap design and material, potential groundwater intrusion and contaminant mobility and any cap disturbance, be it from propellers, anchors or storm events. Capping, given the right conditions, may be a viable solution given the right conditions and controls and extensive long-term monitoring.

Dredging followed by upland disposal will remove the contamination from the water, permanently. Some release of contamination does occur during the dredging process. Dredging of the outer waterway will not only remove contamination—it will also preserve navigational use. When at all possible or feasible, removal of mercury contamination from water is preferred because it has high toxicity and accumulates up the food chain.

Removal of mercury from the Whatcom Waterway site has been complicated by the fact that much of the contamination has been buried by incoming Nooksack River sediments. Through burial of the sediments, the mercury has become less available to organisms, and therefore less dangerous. (The biologically active zone, where the great majority of organisms and biological activity occurs and where surface samples are taken, is estimated to be 12 cm, approximately 5 inches).

The original sampling of 40 surface samples in 1996 and 1998 showed that roughly half of those, or 19 samples, exceeded toxicity limits for mercury or other contaminants. When these 19 surface samples were retested in 2002, only three exceeded the limits for toxicity. The mercury level at these individual spots has not changed per se, but those spots have been covered by clean sediments. This means that the surface sample of five years ago is no longer a surface sample, but a sub-surface sample that presents a lower risk to the environment. In these cases, contaminated sediments are being naturally capped.

Two questions that Ecology, the port and the public will need to answer are: 1) is capping, be it natural or not, sufficient to contain the mercury in place, and 2) are the relative protections offered by capping or dredging worth their projected costs? Dredging is not only more protective than capping, it is also more expensive, especially when it’s followed by upland disposal. The port’s preferred remedy relies on more capping and less dredging than previous alternatives, and thereby keeps costs down for cleaning up the waterway.

Money saved on dredging the waterway can be used to clean up the ASB. In previous cleanup plans, contamination in the ASB was not considered because it was either being used for wastewater treatment or it was the proposed spot for contamination placement. Given the change in the planned use of the ASB, the ASB must now be cleaned up. The port’s plan to clean up the ASB is to dredge rather than cap. In this way, the ASB can be opened up and converted into a marina.

The port’s recent acquisition of the G-P land has coincided with their plans for constructing a new marina. The port’s 2003 moorage demand analysis indicated that moorage demand for boats would outpace supply by greater than 1,700 slips by 2025, and that the demand for larger boats would be the greatest.

In a further analysis in 2004 of six potential marina sites in Bellingham, the ASB was deemed the best because it already had existing breakwaters, is large enough for 300-550 slips and is centrally located on the waterfront. Among the disadvantages were the need to dredge the contamination and revise the existing cleanup plan. These disadvantages are now being addressed through the cleanup decision-making process. If the cap and dredge scenario currently outlined by the port, is chosen as the preferred remedy, the ASB will be dredged and will undoubtedly become a marina.

Given recent sediment analysis and the port’s economic analyses, as well as the port’s mission of economic development, the port’s plan is practical. The reasoning goes something like this: If the depth of the Whatcom Waterway does not need to be maintained to allow for deep draft ships, contamination can be adequately contained by capping. Saving money on the clean up of the Waterway will more easily enable the more expensive dredge cleanup of the ASB, such that it can be used as a marina. Ecology is now (or will shortly be) in the process of reviewing the port’s plan and will be ensuring, from its perspective, that the preferred remedy protects human health and the environment.

Ecology has also stated that the plan must be at least as protective as the previously sanctioned plan, where contaminated sediments were slated to be dredged from the waterway and placed into the ASB. The argument that will be used to show equal protection of the two plans will be the demonstrated “natural recovery” of the contaminated sediments and the contention that the change in the use of the Whatcom Waterway will preclude disruption of the buried sediments.

Leaving contaminated sediments in place is a risk and the port will have to provide sufficient justification for doing so in the RI/FS. The port will have to convince Ecology and the public that capped sediments will not become available through floods and other storm events, and that controls placed on the use of the Whatcom Waterway by boaters will be sufficient to prevent disruption of sediments. (Sometimes concerns such as these are deferred to subsequent documents; it is important that they are addressed so the public can make informed decisions.)

In the RI/FS process, the public will have the chance to evaluate whether the preferred remedy will be protective of human health and the environment. Should the mercury contamination be removed or should it remain? Will an improved habitat be achievable and long lasting through capping?

The selected remedy will affect the redevelopment and character of the city’s waterfront. A fully dredged waterway will accommodate deep draft vessels further up the waterway than will a shallower waterway. A partially dredged waterway has the potential to be better habitat than a fully dredged waterway.

A marina in the ASB will offer a different flavor to the waterfront than will a landfill, park or wetland, in the same spot. Ultimately, however, cleanup should not be about getting the kind of the character we want out of our waterfront. The cleanup in Whatcom Waterway should be about the health of our waters, our sediments, our fish and our own bodies. If citizens demand the best possible cleanup, using our heads and our hearts, the character of our town will follow.

Keep informed on the cleanup process. Sign up for Baykeeper News, Events & Opportunities e-mail alerts: waters@re-sources.org. §