- Email: [email protected]
Integration of sediment cleanup, waterfront redevelopment, and habitat improvements through comprehensive port planning
~ Pergamon
Wal. Sci. Tech. Vol. 37, No. 6-7, pp. 443-4S0, 1998. C 1998 IA WQ. Published by Elsevier Science Ud Printed In Great Britain. 0273-1223/98 $19'00 + 0'00
PH: S0273-1223(98)OO229-7
INTEGRATION OF SEDIMENT CLEANUP, WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT, AND HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PORT PLANNING Teresa C. Michelsen Avocet Consulting. 15907 76th PI. NE. Kenmore. WA 98011. USA
ABSTRACT Pons and industrial waterfronts today face complex problems associated with environmental contamination and habitat loss that affect the ability of local governments to plan and carry out dredging and waterfront development projects. In the USA, separate regulatory programs exist to address source control, cleanup of contaminated sediments, navigational dredging projects, habitat restoration, and shoreline development projects, each with its own set of agencies, permits, and regulatory requirements. In some areas, these overlapping and often conflicting requirements and interests have led to extreme difficulties in completing port development and cleanup projects, even when these projects could have substantial benefits to the environment. This paper presents a shift in regulatory approach toward in-water projects currently being tested by the Department of Ecology and other federal, state, and local agencies in Washington State. Three projects are described that provide regulatory streamlining in exchange for integration of cleanup and habitat restoration needs into Port navigation and waterfront redevelopment projects. In addition to providing significant benefits to both navigation/commerce and the environment, substantial cost savings can be realized in comparison to traditional approaches to these projects. @ 1998 IAWQ. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd
KEYWORDS Contaminated sediments; dredging; habitat; navigation; port; redevelopment, INTRODUCTION Ports and industrial w!lterfronts today face complex problems associated with environmental contamination and habitat loss that affect the ability of local governments to plan and carry out dredging and waterfront development projects. In many urban areas, contaminated sediments are widespread and few cost-effective options are available for their cleanup and disposal. In many cases, dredging for navigation and development projects has been hindered due to the presence of contaminated sediments and a lack of disposal sites. In addition, the extensive physical alteration of port areas located at the mouths of large estuaries has limited critical habitat needed to support important anadromous fisheries. In spite of decades of point source reductions, sources of contaminants still exist in these areas that are difficult to control, including non-point sources, combined sewer overflows, and stormwater discharges.
443
444
T. C. MICHELSEN
In the USA, regulatory programs to address these various issues have largely evolved independent of one another, and as a result a complex pattern of regulatory jurisdictions operates along urban waterfronts. Separate regulatory programs exist to address source control, cleanup of contaminated sediments. navigational dredging projects, habitat restoration, and shoreline development projects, each with its own set of agencies, permits, timelines, and regulatory requirements. In some areas, these overlapping and often conflicting requirements and interests have led to extreme difficulties in completing port development and cleanup projects, even when these projects could have substantial benefits to the environment. Because of the complexity of adding new elements to projects, little incentive exists to develop coordinated projects that address a number of waterfront needs in an integrated manner. As a result, projects developed by different programs and proponents often conflict directly with one another, or result in unnecessary expenditures and environmental impacts that could have been avoided through a more comprehensive planning process. As agencies have become more actively involved in planning and carrying out sediment cleanup and habitat restoration projects, and as navigational dredging needs have become more critical in many areas of the country, a new approach to in-water projects is being developed. Nationally and locally, emphasis is being placed on projects that provide regulatory streamlining and process certainty in exchange for real environmental and economic benefits. State and federal agencies are beginning to work together with local jurisdictions, ports, and industry to develop long-term plans for urban estuaries and to establish priorities for habitat, source control. cleanup. dredging. and redevelopment projects. These planning processes allow individual projects to be evaluated in light of their overall benefit to the estuary and their priority for completion. Through these processes, a logical order for prioritized projects can be developed. that ensures the success of subsequent projects and provides for a more streamlined and cost-effective approach by accomplishing several high-priority needs at once. Recontamination of cleaned-up areas, cumulative habitat impacts, and unnecessary expenditures can be minimized. The following three case studies provide examples of local projects that integrate aspects of regional sediment cleanup, source control, navigational dredging, and waterfront redevelopment in a way that maximizes the benefits to the estuary in which they are located while also providing substantial cost savings to the project proponents. In each case, regulatory processes were also integrated and streamlined to ensure that the projects could proceed in a timely manner; these new approaches to permitting are also discussed. INTEGRATED PROJECf CASE STUDIES Port of Seattle Southwest Harbor Project The Southwest Harbor Project at the Port of Seattle is located at the mouth of the Duwamish River estuary on Elliott Bay. The project area originally consisted of a variety of contaminated properties, including a former shipyard (a State-listed cleanup site), a wood treating facility (a Federal-listed cleanup site). and a municipal landfill (Figure I). Sediments to the north of this area are highly contaminated with creosote and shipyard wastes, including sandblast grit. paint wastes, and petroleum. To the east is a shipping channel and to the south is an existing Port of Seattle terminal. To accommodate changes in international shipping practices, the Port required an intermodal container terminal with a larger land area and two additional berths. The project schedule required the expanded container terminal to be usable within two years. with the two additional berths to follow within the next several years. In order to meet this ambitious schedule and address issues of upland and aquatic contamination. the Port entered into a partnership with the Washington State Department of Ecology and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Port provided funding for a full-time employee at Ecology who would be responsible for overseeing the cleanups. Together, the three agencies evaluated alternatives for cleanup and redevelopment of the properties, streamlined permit review, and prepared a StatelFederal environmental impact statement (EIS) for public and agency review (USACE et al., 1994). Based on this common understanding of the cleanup and development plans. the Port was able to expeditiously move forward with purchasing the upland properties, relocating the businesses. and conducting the cleanup and redevelopment of the terminal. This
Sediment cleanup. waterfront redevelopment and habitat improvements
44S
portion of the project was completed on schedule and the container terminal is currently active. In the process, several state and federal cleanup sites were remediated and restored to productive use, and existing sources of contamination to the aquatic environment were removed.
ELLIOTT BAY Existing Piers Future Nearshore
Fill
Pacific Sound Resources Wood Treating Site
Redeveloped Container Terminal
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN METERS PI-
Om 60m 120m
240m
A'
+~.6m~
~~iPrap '
-1m
I
1
. Rock
I
Intertidal Beach Approximate 150-180m
NOT TO SCALE
i i
.~'-4.3m MLLW Rock Riprap {
Figure I. Southwest harbour project. Seattle. Washington. USA.
446
T. C. MICHELSEN
The second phase of the project involved cleanup and redevelopment of in-water areas, including dredging the new third and fourth berths as shown on Figure I. Although the sediments at the third berth were relatively clean, the area needed for the fourth berth was contaminated, and the Port needed a sediment disposal location for this dredged material. In addition, the contaminated sediments that remained north of the new terminal needed to be addressed. A working group was developed to address cleanup of in-water contamination and habitat restoration options. The working group included all state and federal agencies responsible for cleanup and aquatic resources, along with tribal groups that have fishing rights in the area. Two alternatives that met the Port's needs to dispose of 80,000 yd 3 of dredged material were considered: I) upland landfill disposal and 2) consolidation of the contaminated sediments in a small area north of the container terminal and capping with clean sediments. Neither of these alternatives addressed the larger area of sediment contamination associated with the former wood treating facility and the former shipyard. The State and Federal agencies wanted these areas cleaned up, and had in mind other regional goals for the estuary, including providing disposal capacity for other contaminated sediments and restoring intertidal habitat needed for migrating juvenile salmonids. Ecology, EPA, and the Port developed a third alternative for the area north of the container terminal, shown on Figure I (the piers would be removed). The third alternative, known as the submerged nearshore disposal facility (SNDF), meets a number of regional goals. It provides sufficient disposal capacity for contaminated sediments to accommodate the Port's dredged material and contaminated sediments from the two cleanup sites, with some left over to address other regional cleanup and dredging needs. The facility would be designed to encompass and contain an area where creosote is still present along the shoreline (this area could not be remediated during the upland cleanup due to the presence of large rip-rap and other obstacles). The containment facility would be capped with clean sediments and would be submerged, providing approximately 6.S acres of intertidal habitat north of the site that would be protected in perpetuity through deed restrictions. Habitat needs in the Duwamish estuary are critical, as 97 percent of the intertidal mudflats that were originally present have been filled or dredged and converted into subtidal areas with steep rip-rapped slopes or bulkheads. The project would increase intertidal habitat at the mouth of the estuary by 600 percent. The SNDF presents difficult jurisdictional and management issues, since it would be partially located on state-owned aquatic lands and partially on Port-owned aquatic lands. Discussions continue regarding who will manage and monitor the facility once built, and how liability would be apportioned in the event of future failure. However, when presented to the public and the agencies for comment, this alternative was strongly supported because of its regional focus, the wide variety of needs that it addresses, and its cost• effectiveness compared to other alternatives. The agencies are continuing negotiations among the landowners and natural resource agencies to develop the interagency agreements that will allow the project to move forward; meanwhile, the final design efforts are ongoing. Once completed, the project will have I) facilitated Port dredging and development needs, 2) provided a disposal area for sediments from at least two large cleanup sites, and 3) restored a large area of critical intertidal and shallow subtidal habitat. Port of Eyerett Marine Terminal Deyelopment Project The Port of Everett's Marine Terminal Development Project encompasses an area along the Everett waterfront that includes two large piers to the north and a former pulp mill to the south (Figure 2). This area receives substantial siltation from the nearby Snohomish River, and the berths alongside Piers I and 3 required deepening. A surface layer of sediments between Piers I and 3 was contaminated with petroleum, metals, and wood waste from combined stormwaterlsewer discharges and log handling activities associated with mill and port activities. Below these contaminated surface sediments was clean native sand. South of Pier I, a surface layer of woody silt was also present, with lower levels of contaminants. Due to petroleum and metals contamination of the sediments between Piers I and 3, this area had been placed on the State contaminated sediments site list for eventual cleanup.
447
Sediment cleanup. waterfront redevelopment and habitat improvements
Contaminated Sediments
t• t• W
Berth Dredging -13.7m
0: W
> W L&.
o
t•
o:
o
11.
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN METERS eM' !
Om 40m 80m
160m
Figure 2. Marine terminal development project, Everett, Washington, USA.
In addition to the dredging, the Port of Everett had identified a need for additional berthing capacity in its Comprehensive Scheme of Harbor Improvements. The Port planned to create this berthing capacity by developing several berths in the area south of Pier 1 and dredging out the adjacent sediments. A portion of
448
T. C. MICHELSEN
the plan called for a small fill along the shoreline immediately south of Pier 1 (Figure 2) to create a medium• draft berth. The Port began coordinating with the state and federal agencies several years in advance, and an opportunity for achieving multiple goals became apparent. The Department of Ecology requested that, rather than using clean fill materials, the Port dredge all the contaminated sediments between Piers 1 and 3 (not only those required to be removed for navigation) and confine them within the fill, cleaning up a large area of waterfront concurrently with redevelopment. The Port agreed to this proposal, since it would provide a relatively low-cost means of conducting a comprehensive and final cleanup of sediments in the Port area. Control of the stormwater and sewer overflows was completed by the Port and the City, minimizing the potential for recontamination. The contaminated sediments were extensively tested and contaminant migration was modeled, to ensure that unacceptable concentrations of contaminants would not occur in the water during dredging or after placement in the fill. Using the results of these tests, the federal and state agencies with regulatory jurisdiction developed and tested a new approach toward permitting, in which a "suitability determination for confined disposal" was written and signed by staff from each agency. This document streamlined the public review and permitting process by assuring the public and other resource agencies that, in their best professional judgment, the project would be safe for human health and the environment. The final project was built in several stages (Figure 2), beginning with construction of a berm for the fill. In order to accommodate all of the contaminated sediments in the fill, 75,000 yd 3 of clean sand was dredged out from behind the berm and sold as clean fill for a nearby construction project. 130,000 yd 3 of contaminated sediments were dredged out of the berthing areas and additional areas between Piers 1 and 3 and placed behind the dike. Clean dredged material from the area in front of the new berth was then used to cap the contaminated sediments and to raise the fill to its final elevation (Port of Everett, 1996). Altogether, the integrated project provided I) a redeveloped waterfront area with 8 acres of additional marshalling area and an additional medium-draft berth, 2) dredging of three existing berths and one new berth, 3) cleanup of a State-listed contaminated sediment site and cost-effective disposal of the sediments, and 4) a large amount of clean fill for a nearby construction project. All told, the entire dredging, cleanup, and development project cost approximately $8 million, including environmental testing, permitting and public review, and future monitoring of the fill. This amount is roughly equivalent to the amount that 8 acres along the waterfront would have cost to purchase (not including the additional port improvements provided by this project), had any suitable land been available. BeJ1jnl:ham Bay Demonstration Project The Bellingham Bay Demonstration Project was developed to test a new approach toward regulating urban bays and working waterfronts. It brings together federal, state, and local agencies that have in-water interests, along with waterfront industries, ports, Indian tribes, and university researchers to address the needs of a particular urban bay. Proposals for participation were solicited from among various cities in western Washington State, and Bellingham Bay was selected. Funding in the amount of $700,000 was provided by the Department of Ecology. The working group, composed of the above interest groups, has several tasks: I) gathering and graphically illustrating all available data, 2) identifying critical needs in the bay, including source control, sediment cleanup, habitat restoration, navigation, and waterfront redevelopment, 3) prioritizing these projects and identifying funding and schedules for each, 4) looking for cost-effective ways of integrating high-priority projects, 5) identifying streamlined permit processes and/or needed legislative changes to facilitate in-water projects, and 6) using the available funding to fill data gaps and begin work on one or more of the high-priority projects (Port of Bellingham, 1997). In addition to developing an integrated plan for the entire bay, the working group is developing a specific project that will serve as a test case of the new process (Figure 3). The test case was selected to encompass several of the high-priority projects and to be complex enough that it will raise most of the issues likely to cause conflict under the current system. Currently, Whatcom Waterway is heavily contaminated with mercury, wood waste, and other organic contaminants from operation of a chlor-a1kali facility and pulp mill. The waterway has silted in and needs to be dredged. The Georgia-Pacific log pond is the site of the former
Sediment cleanup, waterfront redevelopment and habitat improvements
449
chlor-alkali outfall and has the highest concentrations of mercury in the bay. To the south, the Cornwall Avenue landfill has been eroding garbage and medical waste into the bay for decades. Contaminated sediments may also exist offshore of the former wood treating facility. Finally, the Port of Bellingham has plans for redeveloping the waterfront area. but is currently hampered by the shallow depth of the waterway and a lack of usable space for development.
Port of Bellingham
Georgia-Pacific Pulp Mill & Chlor-Alkali Plant G-P Biotreatment Lagoon
Port of Bellingham
Areas to be dredged
Area of Eroded Refuse
Areas to be filled
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN METERS PY? !
Om 100m 200m
400m
Figure 3. Bellingham Bay demonstration pilot project, WAshington, USA.
450
T. C. MICHELSEN
The primary actions that will take place as part of the test case project include dredging of Whatcom Waterway down to native, uncontaminated sediments, and placement of overlying contaminated sediments as fill in two areas along the shoreline - the former log pond and an area offshore of Cornwall Landfill and the former wood treating site. Each of the filled areas will be completed to upland elevations and will be available for commercial development as part of the Port of Bellingham's planned waterfront redevelopment. This single project will have accomplished several key goals for the bay: I) cleanup of Whatcom Waterway, the log pond, and the areas offshore of Cornwall Landfill and the wood treating site, 2) improving navigation in Whatcom Waterway and providing cost-effective disposal of contaminated sediments, 3) stabilizing the banks of the eroding landfill, and 4) providing land for redevelopment. None of these priorities could be nearly as cost-effectively completed as independent projects. CONCLUSIONS The three case studies described in this paper illustrate the benefits of taking an integrated approach to waterfront cleanup, navigation, habitat restoration, and development. Although these activities are normally pursued through different processes, the economic and environmental benefits of long-term planning and integration of these pressing waterfront needs are obvious. The most difficult hurdles include the rigidity of many regulatory programs in the USA, and the lack of trust among the agencies, industries, and the public. Nevertheless, the situation is becoming so serious in many waterfront areas that creative solutions and changes to long-standing regulatory approaches are being considered. In our experience with these projects, the relationships that are built between parties that have historically been adversaries are some of the most positive aspects of the project. An added degree of trust and a willingness to consider other parties' goals dramatically improve the chances of the project being done in a sensible, cost-effective, and creative manner. One area that still requires work is methods for effectively involving the public. Existing public involvement processes are often more cumbersome than meaningful, and there are members of the public that view any increased collaboration between agencies and industry/ports with suspicion. Effective presentation of the environmental and economic benefits of these projects will be critical to their success. REFERENCES Port of Bellingham (1997). Scope of Work, Bellingham Bay Demonstration Pilot for a Cooperative Sediment Management Program. Port of Bellingham, Bellingham, WA, USA. Port of Everett (1996). Dredge and Fill Plan, Marine Terminal Improvement Projec4 Port of Everett. WA. Prepared by Hartman Associates for the Port of Everell, Everett, WA, USA. USACE, DOE, and Port of Seallle (1994). Southwest Harbor Cleanup and Redevelopment Project Joint FederaVState Final Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by Parametrix, Kirkland, WA, USA for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington State Department of Ecology, and Port of Seattle.
Wal. Sci. Tech. Vol. 37, No. 6-7, pp. 443-4S0, 1998. C 1998 IA WQ. Published by Elsevier Science Ud Printed In Great Britain. 0273-1223/98 $19'00 + 0'00
PH: S0273-1223(98)OO229-7
INTEGRATION OF SEDIMENT CLEANUP, WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT, AND HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PORT PLANNING Teresa C. Michelsen Avocet Consulting. 15907 76th PI. NE. Kenmore. WA 98011. USA
ABSTRACT Pons and industrial waterfronts today face complex problems associated with environmental contamination and habitat loss that affect the ability of local governments to plan and carry out dredging and waterfront development projects. In the USA, separate regulatory programs exist to address source control, cleanup of contaminated sediments, navigational dredging projects, habitat restoration, and shoreline development projects, each with its own set of agencies, permits, and regulatory requirements. In some areas, these overlapping and often conflicting requirements and interests have led to extreme difficulties in completing port development and cleanup projects, even when these projects could have substantial benefits to the environment. This paper presents a shift in regulatory approach toward in-water projects currently being tested by the Department of Ecology and other federal, state, and local agencies in Washington State. Three projects are described that provide regulatory streamlining in exchange for integration of cleanup and habitat restoration needs into Port navigation and waterfront redevelopment projects. In addition to providing significant benefits to both navigation/commerce and the environment, substantial cost savings can be realized in comparison to traditional approaches to these projects. @ 1998 IAWQ. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd
KEYWORDS Contaminated sediments; dredging; habitat; navigation; port; redevelopment, INTRODUCTION Ports and industrial w!lterfronts today face complex problems associated with environmental contamination and habitat loss that affect the ability of local governments to plan and carry out dredging and waterfront development projects. In many urban areas, contaminated sediments are widespread and few cost-effective options are available for their cleanup and disposal. In many cases, dredging for navigation and development projects has been hindered due to the presence of contaminated sediments and a lack of disposal sites. In addition, the extensive physical alteration of port areas located at the mouths of large estuaries has limited critical habitat needed to support important anadromous fisheries. In spite of decades of point source reductions, sources of contaminants still exist in these areas that are difficult to control, including non-point sources, combined sewer overflows, and stormwater discharges.
443
444
T. C. MICHELSEN
In the USA, regulatory programs to address these various issues have largely evolved independent of one another, and as a result a complex pattern of regulatory jurisdictions operates along urban waterfronts. Separate regulatory programs exist to address source control, cleanup of contaminated sediments. navigational dredging projects, habitat restoration, and shoreline development projects, each with its own set of agencies, permits, timelines, and regulatory requirements. In some areas, these overlapping and often conflicting requirements and interests have led to extreme difficulties in completing port development and cleanup projects, even when these projects could have substantial benefits to the environment. Because of the complexity of adding new elements to projects, little incentive exists to develop coordinated projects that address a number of waterfront needs in an integrated manner. As a result, projects developed by different programs and proponents often conflict directly with one another, or result in unnecessary expenditures and environmental impacts that could have been avoided through a more comprehensive planning process. As agencies have become more actively involved in planning and carrying out sediment cleanup and habitat restoration projects, and as navigational dredging needs have become more critical in many areas of the country, a new approach to in-water projects is being developed. Nationally and locally, emphasis is being placed on projects that provide regulatory streamlining and process certainty in exchange for real environmental and economic benefits. State and federal agencies are beginning to work together with local jurisdictions, ports, and industry to develop long-term plans for urban estuaries and to establish priorities for habitat, source control. cleanup. dredging. and redevelopment projects. These planning processes allow individual projects to be evaluated in light of their overall benefit to the estuary and their priority for completion. Through these processes, a logical order for prioritized projects can be developed. that ensures the success of subsequent projects and provides for a more streamlined and cost-effective approach by accomplishing several high-priority needs at once. Recontamination of cleaned-up areas, cumulative habitat impacts, and unnecessary expenditures can be minimized. The following three case studies provide examples of local projects that integrate aspects of regional sediment cleanup, source control, navigational dredging, and waterfront redevelopment in a way that maximizes the benefits to the estuary in which they are located while also providing substantial cost savings to the project proponents. In each case, regulatory processes were also integrated and streamlined to ensure that the projects could proceed in a timely manner; these new approaches to permitting are also discussed. INTEGRATED PROJECf CASE STUDIES Port of Seattle Southwest Harbor Project The Southwest Harbor Project at the Port of Seattle is located at the mouth of the Duwamish River estuary on Elliott Bay. The project area originally consisted of a variety of contaminated properties, including a former shipyard (a State-listed cleanup site), a wood treating facility (a Federal-listed cleanup site). and a municipal landfill (Figure I). Sediments to the north of this area are highly contaminated with creosote and shipyard wastes, including sandblast grit. paint wastes, and petroleum. To the east is a shipping channel and to the south is an existing Port of Seattle terminal. To accommodate changes in international shipping practices, the Port required an intermodal container terminal with a larger land area and two additional berths. The project schedule required the expanded container terminal to be usable within two years. with the two additional berths to follow within the next several years. In order to meet this ambitious schedule and address issues of upland and aquatic contamination. the Port entered into a partnership with the Washington State Department of Ecology and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Port provided funding for a full-time employee at Ecology who would be responsible for overseeing the cleanups. Together, the three agencies evaluated alternatives for cleanup and redevelopment of the properties, streamlined permit review, and prepared a StatelFederal environmental impact statement (EIS) for public and agency review (USACE et al., 1994). Based on this common understanding of the cleanup and development plans. the Port was able to expeditiously move forward with purchasing the upland properties, relocating the businesses. and conducting the cleanup and redevelopment of the terminal. This
Sediment cleanup. waterfront redevelopment and habitat improvements
44S
portion of the project was completed on schedule and the container terminal is currently active. In the process, several state and federal cleanup sites were remediated and restored to productive use, and existing sources of contamination to the aquatic environment were removed.
ELLIOTT BAY Existing Piers Future Nearshore
Fill
Pacific Sound Resources Wood Treating Site
Redeveloped Container Terminal
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN METERS PI-
Om 60m 120m
240m
A'
+~.6m~
~~iPrap '
-1m
I
1
. Rock
I
Intertidal Beach Approximate 150-180m
NOT TO SCALE
i i
.~'-4.3m MLLW Rock Riprap {
Figure I. Southwest harbour project. Seattle. Washington. USA.
446
T. C. MICHELSEN
The second phase of the project involved cleanup and redevelopment of in-water areas, including dredging the new third and fourth berths as shown on Figure I. Although the sediments at the third berth were relatively clean, the area needed for the fourth berth was contaminated, and the Port needed a sediment disposal location for this dredged material. In addition, the contaminated sediments that remained north of the new terminal needed to be addressed. A working group was developed to address cleanup of in-water contamination and habitat restoration options. The working group included all state and federal agencies responsible for cleanup and aquatic resources, along with tribal groups that have fishing rights in the area. Two alternatives that met the Port's needs to dispose of 80,000 yd 3 of dredged material were considered: I) upland landfill disposal and 2) consolidation of the contaminated sediments in a small area north of the container terminal and capping with clean sediments. Neither of these alternatives addressed the larger area of sediment contamination associated with the former wood treating facility and the former shipyard. The State and Federal agencies wanted these areas cleaned up, and had in mind other regional goals for the estuary, including providing disposal capacity for other contaminated sediments and restoring intertidal habitat needed for migrating juvenile salmonids. Ecology, EPA, and the Port developed a third alternative for the area north of the container terminal, shown on Figure I (the piers would be removed). The third alternative, known as the submerged nearshore disposal facility (SNDF), meets a number of regional goals. It provides sufficient disposal capacity for contaminated sediments to accommodate the Port's dredged material and contaminated sediments from the two cleanup sites, with some left over to address other regional cleanup and dredging needs. The facility would be designed to encompass and contain an area where creosote is still present along the shoreline (this area could not be remediated during the upland cleanup due to the presence of large rip-rap and other obstacles). The containment facility would be capped with clean sediments and would be submerged, providing approximately 6.S acres of intertidal habitat north of the site that would be protected in perpetuity through deed restrictions. Habitat needs in the Duwamish estuary are critical, as 97 percent of the intertidal mudflats that were originally present have been filled or dredged and converted into subtidal areas with steep rip-rapped slopes or bulkheads. The project would increase intertidal habitat at the mouth of the estuary by 600 percent. The SNDF presents difficult jurisdictional and management issues, since it would be partially located on state-owned aquatic lands and partially on Port-owned aquatic lands. Discussions continue regarding who will manage and monitor the facility once built, and how liability would be apportioned in the event of future failure. However, when presented to the public and the agencies for comment, this alternative was strongly supported because of its regional focus, the wide variety of needs that it addresses, and its cost• effectiveness compared to other alternatives. The agencies are continuing negotiations among the landowners and natural resource agencies to develop the interagency agreements that will allow the project to move forward; meanwhile, the final design efforts are ongoing. Once completed, the project will have I) facilitated Port dredging and development needs, 2) provided a disposal area for sediments from at least two large cleanup sites, and 3) restored a large area of critical intertidal and shallow subtidal habitat. Port of Eyerett Marine Terminal Deyelopment Project The Port of Everett's Marine Terminal Development Project encompasses an area along the Everett waterfront that includes two large piers to the north and a former pulp mill to the south (Figure 2). This area receives substantial siltation from the nearby Snohomish River, and the berths alongside Piers I and 3 required deepening. A surface layer of sediments between Piers I and 3 was contaminated with petroleum, metals, and wood waste from combined stormwaterlsewer discharges and log handling activities associated with mill and port activities. Below these contaminated surface sediments was clean native sand. South of Pier I, a surface layer of woody silt was also present, with lower levels of contaminants. Due to petroleum and metals contamination of the sediments between Piers I and 3, this area had been placed on the State contaminated sediments site list for eventual cleanup.
447
Sediment cleanup. waterfront redevelopment and habitat improvements
Contaminated Sediments
t• t• W
Berth Dredging -13.7m
0: W
> W L&.
o
t•
o:
o
11.
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN METERS eM' !
Om 40m 80m
160m
Figure 2. Marine terminal development project, Everett, Washington, USA.
In addition to the dredging, the Port of Everett had identified a need for additional berthing capacity in its Comprehensive Scheme of Harbor Improvements. The Port planned to create this berthing capacity by developing several berths in the area south of Pier 1 and dredging out the adjacent sediments. A portion of
448
T. C. MICHELSEN
the plan called for a small fill along the shoreline immediately south of Pier 1 (Figure 2) to create a medium• draft berth. The Port began coordinating with the state and federal agencies several years in advance, and an opportunity for achieving multiple goals became apparent. The Department of Ecology requested that, rather than using clean fill materials, the Port dredge all the contaminated sediments between Piers 1 and 3 (not only those required to be removed for navigation) and confine them within the fill, cleaning up a large area of waterfront concurrently with redevelopment. The Port agreed to this proposal, since it would provide a relatively low-cost means of conducting a comprehensive and final cleanup of sediments in the Port area. Control of the stormwater and sewer overflows was completed by the Port and the City, minimizing the potential for recontamination. The contaminated sediments were extensively tested and contaminant migration was modeled, to ensure that unacceptable concentrations of contaminants would not occur in the water during dredging or after placement in the fill. Using the results of these tests, the federal and state agencies with regulatory jurisdiction developed and tested a new approach toward permitting, in which a "suitability determination for confined disposal" was written and signed by staff from each agency. This document streamlined the public review and permitting process by assuring the public and other resource agencies that, in their best professional judgment, the project would be safe for human health and the environment. The final project was built in several stages (Figure 2), beginning with construction of a berm for the fill. In order to accommodate all of the contaminated sediments in the fill, 75,000 yd 3 of clean sand was dredged out from behind the berm and sold as clean fill for a nearby construction project. 130,000 yd 3 of contaminated sediments were dredged out of the berthing areas and additional areas between Piers 1 and 3 and placed behind the dike. Clean dredged material from the area in front of the new berth was then used to cap the contaminated sediments and to raise the fill to its final elevation (Port of Everett, 1996). Altogether, the integrated project provided I) a redeveloped waterfront area with 8 acres of additional marshalling area and an additional medium-draft berth, 2) dredging of three existing berths and one new berth, 3) cleanup of a State-listed contaminated sediment site and cost-effective disposal of the sediments, and 4) a large amount of clean fill for a nearby construction project. All told, the entire dredging, cleanup, and development project cost approximately $8 million, including environmental testing, permitting and public review, and future monitoring of the fill. This amount is roughly equivalent to the amount that 8 acres along the waterfront would have cost to purchase (not including the additional port improvements provided by this project), had any suitable land been available. BeJ1jnl:ham Bay Demonstration Project The Bellingham Bay Demonstration Project was developed to test a new approach toward regulating urban bays and working waterfronts. It brings together federal, state, and local agencies that have in-water interests, along with waterfront industries, ports, Indian tribes, and university researchers to address the needs of a particular urban bay. Proposals for participation were solicited from among various cities in western Washington State, and Bellingham Bay was selected. Funding in the amount of $700,000 was provided by the Department of Ecology. The working group, composed of the above interest groups, has several tasks: I) gathering and graphically illustrating all available data, 2) identifying critical needs in the bay, including source control, sediment cleanup, habitat restoration, navigation, and waterfront redevelopment, 3) prioritizing these projects and identifying funding and schedules for each, 4) looking for cost-effective ways of integrating high-priority projects, 5) identifying streamlined permit processes and/or needed legislative changes to facilitate in-water projects, and 6) using the available funding to fill data gaps and begin work on one or more of the high-priority projects (Port of Bellingham, 1997). In addition to developing an integrated plan for the entire bay, the working group is developing a specific project that will serve as a test case of the new process (Figure 3). The test case was selected to encompass several of the high-priority projects and to be complex enough that it will raise most of the issues likely to cause conflict under the current system. Currently, Whatcom Waterway is heavily contaminated with mercury, wood waste, and other organic contaminants from operation of a chlor-a1kali facility and pulp mill. The waterway has silted in and needs to be dredged. The Georgia-Pacific log pond is the site of the former
Sediment cleanup, waterfront redevelopment and habitat improvements
449
chlor-alkali outfall and has the highest concentrations of mercury in the bay. To the south, the Cornwall Avenue landfill has been eroding garbage and medical waste into the bay for decades. Contaminated sediments may also exist offshore of the former wood treating facility. Finally, the Port of Bellingham has plans for redeveloping the waterfront area. but is currently hampered by the shallow depth of the waterway and a lack of usable space for development.
Port of Bellingham
Georgia-Pacific Pulp Mill & Chlor-Alkali Plant G-P Biotreatment Lagoon
Port of Bellingham
Areas to be dredged
Area of Eroded Refuse
Areas to be filled
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN METERS PY? !
Om 100m 200m
400m
Figure 3. Bellingham Bay demonstration pilot project, WAshington, USA.
450
T. C. MICHELSEN
The primary actions that will take place as part of the test case project include dredging of Whatcom Waterway down to native, uncontaminated sediments, and placement of overlying contaminated sediments as fill in two areas along the shoreline - the former log pond and an area offshore of Cornwall Landfill and the former wood treating site. Each of the filled areas will be completed to upland elevations and will be available for commercial development as part of the Port of Bellingham's planned waterfront redevelopment. This single project will have accomplished several key goals for the bay: I) cleanup of Whatcom Waterway, the log pond, and the areas offshore of Cornwall Landfill and the wood treating site, 2) improving navigation in Whatcom Waterway and providing cost-effective disposal of contaminated sediments, 3) stabilizing the banks of the eroding landfill, and 4) providing land for redevelopment. None of these priorities could be nearly as cost-effectively completed as independent projects. CONCLUSIONS The three case studies described in this paper illustrate the benefits of taking an integrated approach to waterfront cleanup, navigation, habitat restoration, and development. Although these activities are normally pursued through different processes, the economic and environmental benefits of long-term planning and integration of these pressing waterfront needs are obvious. The most difficult hurdles include the rigidity of many regulatory programs in the USA, and the lack of trust among the agencies, industries, and the public. Nevertheless, the situation is becoming so serious in many waterfront areas that creative solutions and changes to long-standing regulatory approaches are being considered. In our experience with these projects, the relationships that are built between parties that have historically been adversaries are some of the most positive aspects of the project. An added degree of trust and a willingness to consider other parties' goals dramatically improve the chances of the project being done in a sensible, cost-effective, and creative manner. One area that still requires work is methods for effectively involving the public. Existing public involvement processes are often more cumbersome than meaningful, and there are members of the public that view any increased collaboration between agencies and industry/ports with suspicion. Effective presentation of the environmental and economic benefits of these projects will be critical to their success. REFERENCES Port of Bellingham (1997). Scope of Work, Bellingham Bay Demonstration Pilot for a Cooperative Sediment Management Program. Port of Bellingham, Bellingham, WA, USA. Port of Everett (1996). Dredge and Fill Plan, Marine Terminal Improvement Projec4 Port of Everett. WA. Prepared by Hartman Associates for the Port of Everell, Everett, WA, USA. USACE, DOE, and Port of Seallle (1994). Southwest Harbor Cleanup and Redevelopment Project Joint FederaVState Final Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by Parametrix, Kirkland, WA, USA for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington State Department of Ecology, and Port of Seattle.