Development Plans Unaffected by a Decline in Bellingham Bay Sediment Quality

Wendy Harris is a retiree who comments on development, mitigation and environmental impacts.

I attended a May 7 meeting sponsored by Resources on a recent Bellingham Bay sediment quality study by the Department of Ecology (DOE). A good size crowd turned out to hear the presentation. The study reviewed soil contaminants (“the chemistry index”), the amount of harm the contaminants caused (“the toxicity index”) and the health of the invertebrate organisms that live in the sediment (“the benthos index”). These three measurements created the “Triad Index” used to rate sediment quality.

Surface sediments were analyzed at 30 randomly selected sites in the Bay. Not one single site was found to be free from adverse impact. According to the data, Bellingham Bay is significantly more impaired than the Straight of Georgia and the Puget Sound. This reflects a relatively recent change that has occurred in the last 10 to 20 years. Review of the results from each of the 30 testing sites indicates that the greatest impacts were along the developed areas of the shorelines, and the least amount of impact was found in the middle of the Bay.

Why do we measure sediment quality? It reflects the ecological health of the marine ecosystem. It can tell us whether new pollutants are being deposited into a water body, and whether previously deposited toxins are continuing to have harmful impacts. It can provide information regarding erosion and rates of siltation and the relationship between freshwater upland and the marine waters. And it can provide important information regarding biodiversity.

The decline in Bellingham Bay’s sediment quality was primarily driven by adverse impacts to invertebrate species that live in the mud (“benthos”). This is important because the benthos form the basis of the food chain. Every sediment sample reflected a low abundance and diversity of organisms. These impacts will be felt throughout the entire marine ecosystem. Varying degrees of toxicity were the secondary contributor to the decline in sediment quality.

How was this information determined? There were prior studies creating a 1997-2003 Puget Sound baseline standard of sediment quality, and a 2006 Straight of Georgia Regional baseline standard. In 2010, DOE conducted an intensive survey of Bellingham Bay and developed the Bay’s baseline standard. These baseline standards were compared to each other.

Because the measurements used to establish sediment quality were limited in scope, not enough is known about why Bellingham Bay’s sediment quality has declined so quickly. There may be a multitude of causes. However, the DOE study identified at least two factors that were statistically correlated with the decline in sediment quality: increases in population and increases in toxicity. This confirms what we already know … shoreline development is particularly harmful for marine ecosystems.

With regard to remedies, DOE recommends increased monitoring and research efforts, adding additional environmental variables to the studies (i.e., increasing the number of things being measured and correlated), and better collaboration and data sharing among all who are engaged in monitoring and research efforts.

While this scientific data is extremely important, it is flawed in one crucial way. It is not being paired with corresponding land use regulations, revised to protect the ecological function of the bay. And isn’t that really the point of this kind of scientific review? We develop updated science so that we can better prevent and reverse ecological degradation. This study suggests that a temporary moratorium on waterfront development would be appropriate.

We know from the Waterfront District Sub-Area Plan, recently rushed to enactment, that intense levels of urban development are planned for Bellingham Bay shorelines, along with increased intensity of use impacts. Yet it is exactly this type of development that increases the population and toxicity correlated with a decrease in sediment quality. Despite this knowledge, DOE is doing nothing to restrict waterfront redevelopment, and clearly, the city and port are incapable of policing themselves.

The public was told that waterfront redevelop would result in ecological restoration and improved habitat value. None of this was true. Instead, important environmental concerns were ignored in drafting the Waterfront District Sub Area Plan. Chief amongst these was the port’s failure to review plant and animal impacts as part of its updated Waterfront District EIS (“Environmental Impact Statement”) Addendum, which constitutes the “final” version of the SEPA (“State Environmental Policy Act”) analysis. Only an EIS analysis addresses the specific impacts of proposed development and determines appropriate mitigation, ensuring that the developer pays for its impacts.

The city and port were adamant in their refusal to conduct a comprehensive wildlife and habitat analysis for the Waterfront District. They came up with a series of implausible justifications for why a wildlife analysis was not needed.When the city council required a waterfront habitat assessment as a condition for enacting the waterfront plan, the staff drafted language for a nearshore restoration project instead. In the confusion and rush of enacting the waterfront plan, this trickery went unnoticed, and now the city council refuses to hold the staff to the requirements of its own resolution.

This is significant because a nearshore restoration plan only addresses damage from the past, within a limited range of the waterfront, at public expense. First, staff is providing us with a nearshore restoration plan, which addresses past damage in a limited area, and is a public expense. It is not assessing terrestrial species and birds or habitat connectivity, or protecting the Bay from the substantial new shoreline development planned.

In contrast, a comprehensive wildlife and habitat review addresses all local species from the Bay, the nearshore and the uplands. It protects habitat connectivity and addresses the impacts from new development, placing the financial burden on the developer through a mitigation plan.

And a wildlife and habitat plan provides information to create a baseline standard of ecological function. As reflected in the DOE study for sediment quality, establishing a baseline standard is fundamental in measuring and monitoring changes in ecological function, and meeting legal “no net loss” standards.

If the city and port had a baseline standard for wildlife and habitat which was monitored, we might have been able to track the decline in ecological function far in advance of the sediment quality study. At a minimum, we would have wildlife data that could be used to correlate to the changes in the Bay’s toxicity and benthos biodiversity, aiding our understanding of the cause of this decline. The end result is that we would have been able to better protect Bellingham Bay biodiversity.

Given what we have learned about the decline in sediment quality in Bellingham Bay, it is important to avoid additional stressors to our benthos community. Increasing shoreline development and building an ecologically harmful overwater bridge is the opposite of what is needed. The port, the city and DOE are turning a blind eye to the situation. Our government, at the local and state level, talks about protecting Puget Sound waters. But now it is clear that this is all they do … talk.

The burden is upon the public to stand up and demand that the public interest be placed before short term profits and the interests of developers.