On Shaky Ground: Redeveloping Bellingham’s Waterfront

Doug Naftz is finishing up a dual degree at WWU that includes a B.S. in cellular biology and a B.A. in environmental policy. After graduating he plans to take a year off to intern at an environmental nonprofit organization. Then, he’ll enter law school and pursue a J.D., with a focus on environmental law.
Cassi Gallagher is a WWU student working toward a visual journalism degree with a minor in anthropology. Cassi has been working on her photography for a couple of years now; her hope is to work as a photojournalist at a magazine or online company, such as Getty Images.

Two miles off the Pacific Coast, a pair of massive tectonic plates are pressing against each other. Suddenly, one of the plates buckles under the immense buildup of more than 300 years of pressure. Tremendous amounts of force surge toward the earth’s surface from the offshore epicenter, causing a magnitude 9.5 earthquake. Antiquated brick buildings sway and topple like Jenga pieces, windows shatter glass into the street and buildings crash into the ocean.

No, this isn’t a scene from another Hollywood blockbuster. It is one of many possible worst-case scenarios predicted by geologists for Whatcom County. Recently discovered faults located near Bellingham, combined with predictions of “the next big one,” are raising controversy over Western Washington University’s (WWU) plans to extend its campus to Bellingham’s waterfront — a site geologists consider a much higher risk area than main campus.

The size of the project, coupled with the dangerous mixture of chemical waste and geological hazards that abound on the site, have many in the community questioning the economic and technical feasibility of such an ambitious redevelopment project.

Adjacent to downtown Bellingham, the site has a land area of about 220 acres — equivalent to 165 football fields — and is the largest contiguous swath of developable coastal property along the Pacific shoreline of the United States.

From ground level, gutted brick buildings that once housed heavy industrial machinery loom overhead, flanked by piles of twisted steel and rusted iron scattered in a sea of broken concrete. A group of harbor seals swim nearby in the shallow murky waters of the Whatcom Waterway, a reminder that this once-thriving ecosystem remains productive in spite of the historical insults of heavy industry.

Although the partially demolished site looks like the scene of a recent natural disaster, the Port of Bellingham plans to transform it into a thriving mixed-use development area slated to include a new state-of -the-art educational center for WWU’s Huxley College of the Environment, several public parks and a “clean ocean marina” intended to restore fragile salmon habitat.

Prior to being acquired by the Port of Bellingham in 2005 for $10, most of the redevelopment site was occupied by pulp and paper company Georgia-Pacific (G-P), who purchased the site from Puget Sound Pulp and Timber Company in 1963. In 1965, G-P built a chlorine generation plant to produce chlorine, a bleaching agent, from seawater.

Mercury was a toxic byproduct of this process, and until 1979 it was dumped in a shallow marine area known as the Log Pond, a nickname that harkens back to former logging storage near the site’s pulp mill.

Following the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, G-P was forced to build a treatment facility to clean up its discharge into Bellingham Bay. The Aerated Stabilization Basin, built in 1978, became a depository for mercury byproduct.

The liability associated with developing this property is immense. As a result of G-P’s pollution, the port is faced with developing cleanup alternatives for 11 sites harboring hazardous materials.

The cleanup is being funded by the port, with the assistance of tax dollars and state and federal grants.

Many are concerned about the geologic instability of the upland (buildable portion) of the site, including scientists in Western’s geology department.

A major factor in the area’s instability dates back to a time in Bellingham’s early history when fill was dumped directly into Bellingham Bay, slowly widening the shoreline. This practice was common in many coastal cities; for example, Seattle’s waterfront district, including its two major sports stadiums, Qwest Field and Safeco Field, were built on fill.

The technical problems associated with building on fill are complex and vary from site to site. Perhaps the single largest contributing factor to the safety of such a building is the potential for earthquakes. Recent predictions and discoveries by geologists in the Northwest do not bode well for those who have aspirations to develop on fill in the region.

“Any day now, we are expecting a magnitude 9, magnitude 9.5 earthquake,” said Bernard Housen, associate professor of geology at Western.

Housen’s main concern is the potential for liquefaction under the former G-P site.

Liquefaction occurs when water-saturated sediment or fill temporarily loses its shear strength, and begins to assume fluid-like properties. Most people experience this natural phenomenon at the beach when wiggling their toes in wet sand.

Many fear an earthquake could cause the new buildings to literally flow downhill into Bellingham Bay.

Based on the risks associated with liquefaction, former Bellingham mayoral candidate Dan McShane advocates a limit on construction within 300 feet of the shoreline. McShane, a geotechnical engineer, believes the geological concerns can be safely mitigated using modern engineering techniques, but warns that costs can be high.

Not everyone is as optimistic.

“The site geology is about as bad as you can get for major development,” said Housen.

The site is currently classified as an ‘E’ in an ‘A’ through ‘F’ scale of safety classes — ‘F’ being the most hazardous. Housen and the rest of the geology department strongly advocate reclassifying the property according its potential for earthquakes and liquefaction. This would result in stricter development standards and a more intensive geological study.

“In the comments to the last environmental impact statement, we [the geology department] recommended that the site be upgraded to an ‘F’ to encourage further investigation about its development potential,” said Robert Mitchell, associate professor of geology at Western. “That would then force developers to thoroughly investigate its liquefaction and seismic potential for development purposes.”

Brad Smith, dean of Huxley College of the Environment, believes the problem isn’t the soil, but gaining enough funding to construct safe buildings. A former administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, Smith has faith that the regulatory framework surrounding the project will appropriately address structural and environmental concerns raised by community members.

“A fantastic 100-year vision doesn’t come cheap, and we live in challenging times economically,” Smith said. “But I also believe that committing to do something of an average scale would make it more difficult to raise money than committing to a world-class scale. Average doesn’t sell — it’s boring.”

Rather than viewing the risks associated with bringing Western to the waterfront as barriers, Smith sees them as challenges to be solved using the best scientific and engineering standards available.

Housen is worried that risks associated with newly discovered seismic faults in Whatcom County, including the Kendall and Boulder Creek faults, may not be factored into the proposed building plans.

“By the letter of the law, we can start building the new Huxley building next year, but we know that its design will be inadequate unless these newer discoveries are factored in,” Housen said.

The changes resulting from these new earthquake hazards have not been incorporated into building codes in Bellingham, and according to reports from the USGS, they may never be, due to Bellingham’s distance from the fault lines.

Smith insists the new Huxley building will be built to the best structural engineering standards available. Yet Housen is concerned Western may decide not to invest in construction safer than what is required by the current building codes.

“They’ll question additional expenses,” said Housen.

Some also reject plans to move Huxley College to the waterfront because of the environmental controversy surrounding the area — considering the move a tragic irony that could tarnish Huxley’s image as a forward-thinking environmental college.

Housen described being approached several times by Western alumni who expressed their concern over Western’s plans to move to the waterfront. They were worried not only about geologic hazards, but about mercury contamination in the area’s marine sediments that could be stirred up during an earthquake.

“Their concern is that Huxley is selling out their legacy,” Housen said.

Gigi Berardi, professor of environmental studies and director of Huxley’s new Institute for Global and Community Resilience, insists Huxley’s core ideals will not be compromised in a move to the waterfront.

“For Huxley College, it’s not going to be an economic bottom line,” Berardi said. “Of course we’re going to hold to the tenets and ideals that Huxley has adopted. That has not really changed fundamentally in decades, and that’s what’s important.”

Berardi doesn’t see the proposed move to the waterfront in quite the same light as Housen and Smith. She views Huxley as a participant, assisting the port in the planning of the project, advocating for sound decisions and taking advantage of the educational opportunities that result.

“It doesn’t need to be necessarily the wholesale move of the college down there,” Berardi said.

Another concern related to Huxley’s institutional image is linked to one of their newest degree tracks: disaster reduction and emergency planning. Would Huxley’s move to the waterfront, a site determined by the geology department to be considerably more hazardous than their current location, be ironic?

“I hope that the first major project that the disaster planning school makes is the disaster plan for their own school,” Housen said.

According to Berardi, a Huxley building at the waterfront is not set in stone if it means accepting a high degree of risk.

“I would not want to go forward if there was risk that could not be mitigated,” Berardi said.

With many questions yet to be answered, and building plans that are still being negotiated, one thing remains clear: student and community oversight is vital. This will help ensure that safety and environmental restoration remain high priorities for the Port of Bellingham and WWU as they move forward with plans to extend campus to the waterfront.

Time will only tell if the current scene of vacancy, contamination and destruction at the waterfront will be replayed in the aftermath of a large-magnitude earthquake or tsunami due to poor planning and structural engineering.

“My question to the Huxleyites is: is it sustainable to build down there?” Housen said. “If you have a LEED-certified building inundated by a tsunami, what does that get you?” §

This article was first published in The Planet, Fall 2008; it’s reprinted here with permission from the author. The Planet is the student publication of Western Washington University’s Huxley College of the Environment.