by Anna Hall-Evans
for The Bellingham Herald
A recent Bellingham Herald editorial urged local citizens to educate themselves about the complex issues surrounding Bellingham’s waterfront redevelopment. We couldn’t agree more. In fact, our own research into these matters led us to file the Healthy Bay Initiative in the first place. In the spirit of community education, I’d like to share some of what we’ve learned.
Thorough Cleanup?
We all know that to have a bright new waterfront neighborhood the mercury and other toxins in the Georgia-Pacific mill site must be cleaned up. Unfortunately, the Port of Bellingham plans to meet environmental standards for the site with a neat bit of legal chicanery.
The Port’s consultants have outlined a two-phase cleanup (see “Environmental Protection Standards,” Retec, Sept. 2, 2004). Phase I will remediate the site “to comply with industrial cleanup levels.” Phase II would occur only “if/when” parcels are developed for non-industrial uses. During Phase I, these “additional actions will be administratively implemented as restrictive covenants.” Such covenants constitute a legal fiction that permit individual parcels to be listed for mixed-use development, even though they have been cleaned only to an industrial standard.
This hardly seems in keeping with public expectation. Rather than cleaning up the mess as promised, the Port’s strategy sets us up for an ongoing patchwork of remediation and risk. Assuming we can find developers willing to take on these restricted properties, who will want to live or work in a half-built neighborhood where nearby parcels may yet be subject to toxic cleanup?
Other documents state that “most no-industrial site uses would involve placement of a cap over the site to prevent direct contact with soils…” and mercury vapor monitors would be required in all enclosed buildings (Retec letter to Dept. of Ecology, Sept. 21, 2004). Is this really what we want? A downtown neighborhood where workers and residents live with the constant specter of mercury vapor poisoning and where we’re cautioned to avoid touching the dirt?
With regard to the Whatcom Waterway, we’re concerned about Item 11 of the Purchase and Sale Agreement between the Port and G-P, wherein both parties jointly agree NOT to “advance, promote or attempt to influence” any remediation plan other than “Alternative K.” Alternative K involves covering contaminated marine sediments with a layer of sand, making the risk of re-exposure a permanent feature of our waterway. Its adoption flies in the face of the lengthy process by which the Department of Ecology and other agencies had already approved a plan calling for removal of contamination by hydraulic dredging. We find it unconscionable that the Port has attempted to subvert this process and align itself with the interest of the liable corporation in this matter.
The Initiative
Our review of these and scores of others documents convinced us that we must do better. Our community deserves a cleanup that meets the highest environmental standards and is in place before we start building shops, offices or condominiums. This isn’t the hysterical raving of environmental wackos, nor a diabolical plot by greedy developers. It’s a call for a sensible and practical investment in our community’s future.
But we won’t get the best cleanup unless we ask for it. Without a clear directive from the public, the Department of Ecology will continue along the shortsighted tack the Port has set.
This is where the Healthy Bay Initiative comes in. Simply put, the Initiative requires our City Council to put away their rubber stamps and become active advocates on behalf of the citizens of Bellingham for a higher standard of cleanup.
Some have criticized the initiative as vague, but they’re missing the point. It is neither our business nor our intention to try to dictate the specifics of any cleanup plan, nor to influence any land use decisions. The Healthy Bay Initiative is not about telling scientists or city planners how to do their jobs. Rather, the initiative codifies a basic principle as a matter of public policy. That principle is simply that the citizens of Bellingham desire our downtown waterfront to be permanently cleaned to the highest environmental standard, and we expect our public officials to do everything possible to ensure this happens. Our community serves nothing less.
Anna-Hall Evans is the Community Relations Director of the Bellingham Bay Foundation and the Chair of People for a Healthy Bay.
Says initiative gives residents a voice
The Healthy Bay Initiative gives the citizens of Bellingham a voice in cleanup decisions. Over the next few years the Department of Ecology will be signing off on cleanup proposals put forward by the Port of Bellingham. Ecology's decisions aren't based just on science: they will listen to community input and look at community standards. There is no louder voice than citizens united in saying, "We want mercury permanently cleaned from our waterway and mill site."
The deck is stacked against a good cleanup: the port agreed in their insurance contract to only support a cleanup plan that leaves mercury behind in the Whatcom Waterway and the city signed a contract to only support what the port wants.
The Healthy Bay Initiative allows citizens to reshuffle the cards and put forward as our highest value the principle that cleanup comes first. It has the city be our advocate in pressing for a good cleanup plan that removes the contaminated sediments, including mercury, from the places where we will live, work and play.
That's not vague—that's just a good, sensible policy that should be welcomed by the city.
Lisa McShane
Bellingham
Says Bay Initiative will benefit all
As a board member of the Bellingham Bay Foundation I was dismayed by the editorial against the Healthy Bay Initiative.While we all can respect differences of opinion, key points seem to be simply wrong.
The assertion that the $10 million chemfix cleanup (removing the mercury) offers "no environmental benefit" over the $400K (cover up) is absurd. Leaving contaminants in place means land-use restrictions, toxics monitoring in perpetuity and - most importantly - health risks to our community.
It is easy to understand that the value of the property will be catastrophically impacted by leaving buried mercury there.
Thus, the difference in clean-up costs is mitigated by the clear difference in the value of tainted land vs. clean land.
The comments about "one of the key financial backers" having "recently purchased properties around the site" implies a hidden, self-serving motive behind our efforts. This is objectionable. Will a superior cleanup and redevelopment deliver economic benefit to "one of the key financial backers"? Sure.All downtown property owners benefit.
But of the myriad benefits provided by a good clean-up, the most important outcome, as we've said all along, is ensuring the health and well-being of our community. Cleanup comes first.
John D'Onofrio
Bellingham
Thinks Herald skews bay cleanup issue
I just moved to Bellingham from Tacoma, which recently celebrated the successful cleanup of Commencement Bay. I think Bellingham, which is known for being an environmentally conscious community, can learn from the years of hard negotiations that occurred there.
I am puzzled by articles in The Bellingham Herald concerning the ultimate fate of Bellingham Bay. An initiative was signed by more than 6,000 people [revised] to allow voters to request the best possible cleanup, yet the City Council will sue to stop it. Why would the council oppose maximum cleanup of dangerous toxins like mercury?
More surprising is how The Herald blurs the issue. An editorial warned that vague language "should cause voters serious concern," but the initiative was written precisely that way to meet legal requirements.
The Herald notes the sponsoring group has "direct ties, including financial support, with the Bellingham Bay Foundation." So what? It seems positive that environmentalists and business leaders agree on an issue.
We are asked to believe that initiative supporters want to "create a 37-acre toxic waste dump on the bay," but I believe that is another example of misinterpretation of the facts.
It seems that the Herald is painting a false picture in order to raise fears among voters. I hope that voters will educate themselves on this issue, and consider the long-term health of this lovely city.
Barbara Reisman
Bellingham
Urges yes vote on Healthy Bay Initiative
Some have called the Healthy Bay Initiative vague, but the wording is straightforward.
Clean up areas in waterways and on land sites before starting construction. Please vote yes on the Healthy Bay Initiative.
Richard Williams
Bellingham
Thinks bay cleanup is good investment
The Bellingham Herald criticized the Bellingham Bay Foundation for thinking that the mercury-contaminated dangerous waste dump sites should be removed from the waterfront before the buildings are built because it might cost $10 million.
But the Bay Foundation board is made up of the founders of the most successful businesses in this community: Northwest Computers, Brambleberry Soaps and Trillium Corp. They know how to make investments pay off and they know what sells.
What if they are right? In a community that cares about a clean environment, we should question the value of land with dangerous waste-dump sites vs. its value if it's cleaned up. Would that difference in value be more than $10 million over the next few decades?
Perhaps a one-time investment in cleanup will pay off both financially and environmentally. Perhaps a clean waterfront will be a better economic driver than buildings placed around dangerous waste-dump sites and a sound investment for our children.
Joe Scott
Bellingham
Initiative gives citizens a voice in G-P cleanup – Guest Column
July 11, 2006
Mitch Friedman
for The Bellingham Herald
On behalf of the board, staff and volunteers of the Bellingham Bay Foundation, I say "thanks!" to more than 4,000 Bellingham voters who signed our Healthy Bay Initiative to put it on the November ballot.
The foundation's mission for our downtown waterfront is:
• The best possible cleanup of toxins left by Georgia-Pacific West Inc.;
• Public ownership of as much of the property as we can possibly afford to keep; and
• A fantastic redevelopment to catalyze a prosperous downtown where families will want to live, work and play. This is how we fight sprawl.
Our ballot initiative advances a clean site, essential to the community and investor confidence we will need to spur redevelopment.
The ease by which I found people willing to sign tells me they were not swayed by the Port of Bellingham's statements, echoed by The Bellingham Herald, that existing cleanup plans are good enough.
Mercury is dangerous enough that we should not skimp on cleanup. The ideal plan would remove contamination altogether from the mill site, bay sediments and the wastewater lagoon, shipping it to a far away landfill and leaving the shoreline and estuary restored. But the port and its insurance company are unlikely to accept the expense of that ideal, leaving us to face choices.
The port instead proposes to leave contaminated sediments in the bay. Even capped with clean sediment, the risk is that mercury-which is inherently unstable and, well, mercurial-will find its way into the food chain. Studies show that the mercury could mobilize as sea life increases through the natural decomposition of G-P's waste. In that scenario, mercury levels in shellfish, crabs and fish would actually increase in the future.
The third option is to safely and inexpensively transfer contaminated sediment from the sea floor into the lagoon by use of vacuum dredges. This technology would minimize the spread of silt in the bay. This was the plan that G-P and government agencies proposed in 2002. But the port then decided it wanted the lagoon for a marina.
This motivation to accommodate boats drove the port to take over the site and the cleanup plans.
The Bay Foundation believes that the lagoon, filled with safely contained and capped sediments, would make a great and safe park to enhance downtown. Some criticize this idea as a dumpsite on the bay. But not only will this plan fix our present dumpsite in the bay, the park will likely be less contaminated than our cherished Boulevard Park, which also sits on a landfill.
It's worth noting that the port's plan would spend tens of millions of state toxics dollars to clean out the lagoon instead of removing contamination from the bay.
This is like sterilizing your mop and pail while leaving filth on the kitchen floor. Containing sediments in the lagoon, irrespective or whether we take the additional steps to create a park on top, will cost far less, while making the area cleaner and safer.
It is even more important to thoroughly remove toxic contamination from the upland mill site (and dispose of it in a special landfill across the state) before buildings, students, and mothers move in. The port's proposal is flawed in this respect, too.
For instance, the port would leave the tar-like goop of the Chemfix site buried under a park or parking lot right next to what could be the future Huxley College. Consider that the toxicity of that site is many times greater than that of sediments I want contained in the lagoon park. And unlike the lagoon park, a Chemfix park would be right where people will live, work, and study, vastly increasing their exposure to mercury vapor.
Even if experts assured us this was safe, I wager that enough people would resist living or sending their kids to school there that property values would suffer. But for less than $10 million (far less than what the port would spend cleaning out the lagoon for a marina) we could remove the Chemfix goop entirely so homes and offices could be built right on top. Land value would increase to cover the cost.
From the port's perspective it makes perfect sense to prioritize a marina, especially if it can push cleanup costs onto the state, push infrastructure costs onto the city, and keep revenues from land sales. But our grandkids, living in Bellingham 50 years from now, won't see it that way. They won't know or care how much the cleanup cost, but they will live with the result every day.
The sensible choice is to clean the site to the highest standards, keep it in public ownership and plan our community right. While the state Department of Ecology makes cleanup decisions it weighs the preferences of the landowner - in this case, the port.
The Healthy Bay Initiative allows us, taxpaying citizens for whom the port is supposed to manage this site, to signal our preferences. In November, make your voice count.
Mitch Friedman
Bellingham
Mitch Friedman is the Executive Director of Conservation Northwest and the President of the Bellingham Bay Foundation.
Backs Healthy Bay Initiative
I was delighted to read in a recent paper that our local officials support cleaning up the former Georgia-Pacific West Inc. mill site to a mixed-use standard (see "Some See No Point in Initiative," Friday, June 9).
If this is truly the case, perhaps Bellingham Mayor Mark Asmundson and Port of Bellingham Executive Director Jim Darling would be willing to demonstrate their commitment to a thorough cleanup by signing the Healthy Bay Initiative.
Simply put, the Healthy Bay Initiative will formalize a wise principle—that cleaning up the mercury and toxins should be our first priority in redeveloping our waterfront—as a matter of public policy. That way, the public can rest assured that our officials are indeed working on behalf of the health and safety of all their constituents as waterfront redevelopment plans proceed.
Surely we all should be able to agree that cleanup comes first.
Anna Hall-Evans
Bellingham
Says Bay cleanup is Foundation's top goal
As a member of the board of directors of the Bellingham Bay Foundation, I wish to clarify both my personal views, and the position of our board.
The first priority of the Bay Foundation is to clean up Bellingham Bay. Science, open discussion of all alternatives, genuine consideration for public health, and honest accounting of actual costs (and sources of funding) should determine the result.
If the real agenda of the Bellingham Bay Foundation was to oppose a new marina, why invite me - a boat builder and Whatcom Waterway property owner who stands to gain tremendously from the proposed marina - to join the board?
If the upcoming environmental studies recommend removing the contaminants from the Aerated Stabilization Basin (lagoon) as well as from the waterway and the upland areas of the site—and there is the political will to fund this undertaking—then we will fully support that strategy.
We urge everyone who agrees with us to sign the Healthy Bay Initiative. Let's push together to clean this place up.
George Dyson
Bellingham
Supports cleanup of Duwamish River
Hats off to Seattle Port commissioners who voted recently to clean up a heavily polluted tract along the Duwamish River at a much higher level than existing Environmental Protection Agency regulations require.
After hearing a parade of pleas from South Park residents for a higher standard of cleanup than required by law, port commissioners voted to move ahead with EPA mandated work while directing port staff to plan for an eventual cleanup at a level high enough to allow for potential future residential or recreational use of port-owned land.
Commissioner John Creighton said that, unless the port does so, “we’ll be opening ourselves to a lot of exposure” in the form of damage to the Port's reputation, potential liability and possible additional cleanup requirements in the future. “I do think we need to earn back the trust of the community,” he said to Neil Modie, a Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter.
It is refreshing to know that elected officials are eager to address the public health concerns of their constituents!
Elisabeth Britt
Bellingham
To read the entire Seattle P-I article referenced by Ms. Britt, click here.
