City Fails To Mitigate Impacts From Cornwall Landfill Overwater Bridge

The City has done a poor job of highlighting the numerous impacts, temporary and permanent, from the proposed overwater bridge that require mitigation to achieve no net loss in shoreline functions, particularly with regard to fish and wildlife. The construction period for this project is a lengthy 42-46 weeks. No compensatory mitigation or restoration has been proposed to off-set habitat impacts.

Specific concerns or issues that should be addressed as part of the mitigation for this project are set out below:




Bird Species
With the exception of the marbled murrelet, the City fails to mention, analyze or address any impacts to bird species and habitat. Birds are an important part of the shoreline ecological function regardless of whether they are listed as federal or state priority species. The project proposal fails to provide compensatory mitigation for impacts to bird habitat due to a lengthy construction period and the permanent impacts of increased human activities. The proposed project is being constructed close to the 2nd largest Caspian tern colony on the Pacific Coast, located on the BP site adjacent to the Cornwall Landfill. The Terns were seen and documented throughout the summer fishing in the waters of the project area. The area within Boulevard Park is associated with nearby pigeon guillemot nests. The 2009 shoreline reach inventory, Exhibit D of the CUP Staff Report, notes that the project area is of significant importance and vulnerability for water birds, and that it is of high functional value for offshore winter bird habitat. The New Whatcom Redevelopment Project DEIS also notes that this is high quality aquatic habitat.

Chinook Salmon
Chinook Salmon are an ESA fish. 2 species of Chinook Salmon use Bellingham Bay and are particularly reliant on estuary habitat for refuge. The Biological Assessment indicates that the noise level during the construction period for this project is likely to adversely disrupt normal juvenile Chinook Salmon behavioral patterns. (Page 52.) There are also likely to be impacts to Chinook Salmon habitat during the construction period, although this is discounted as insignificant since it is temporary. (Page 55). However, the WDOT application discloses that this project has the potential to directly or indirectly impact designated critical habitat for salmonids. (Page 7 of 8, Part 5.)

Boccacio, Yelloweye Rockfish, and Canary Rockfish
These additional ESA listed species are located in the project area and have been determined to be adversely effected by the overwater bridge. No compensatory mitigation or restoration is proposed to achieve NNL.

Chum Salmon, Coho Salmon, Cutthroat Trout, Pink Salmon, Sockeye Salmon, Habor Seals, Pacific herring, Dungeness Crab, Pandalid Shrimp,
The JARPA application filed by the City Parks Department on June, 11, 2010 indicates that these are additional state priority species that might be affected by the overwater bridge. Again, there has been little provided to offset habitat impacts.

Increased Human Impacts: noise, lighting, pets, increased human presence.
The information submitted by the City fails to discuss or analyze the environmental impacts resulting from human impacts, which are some of the most harmful and most difficult to mitigate. As a result of the overwater bridge, there will be an increased human presence, and it will be further out in Bellingham Bay, closer to wildlife. The bridge will bring small children, joggers, bikers, skaters and pets to an area over Bellingham Bay where currently there are kayakers and small boats. Alcoves with bench seating are being placed every 200 foot along the bridge, which is intended to increase human presence over Bellingham Bay. There will be increased noise as a result of this activity, which will frighten away fish and wildlife.

37,500 Square Feet of New Impervious Surface
The proposed project is being built over an impaired waterbody that designated as a natural recovery area of the Whatcom Waterway site, subject to clean-up and long term monitoring consistent with the Whatcom Waterway Consent Decree. Thus, the project is being constructed over water particularly sensitive to environmental impacts. Despite this fact, the City is proceeding with a proposal that will result in an additional 37,500 sf of impervious surface. Yes! This is in addition to the existing 5,000 sf within the project area. (WDOT application submitted by City Consultant on 6/8/10, page 5 of 8.) The City states that, “the project will introduce new impervious surface area resulting from construction of the overwater walkway and associated improvements. However, the impervious surfaces associated with the project will not generate storm water pollutants.” It is inconceivable that 37,500 sf of new impervious surface over an impaired waterbody will have no water quality impacts. Shoes, bikes, skates, stollers, etc., track and deposit pollutants onto the overwater walkway, which will be deposited into the water when it rains. People eat, drink, and smoke, and pets and small children urinate and defecate. These substances can be left as trash on the walkway, or in some cases, simply thrown directly into the water below. It is irresponsible for the City to fail to acknowledge and mitigate for these water quality impacts, no matter how small. Moreover, the cumulative water quality impacts must be considered in conjunction with the Taylor Street Dock and the number of additional projects that will be constructed as part of the waterfront redevelopment.

Removal of Old Structures Is Not Mitigation
One of most touted forms of mitigation cited by the City is the removal of the existing wharf, pier and piles at the Boulevard Park and Cornwall Landfill site. First, the removal of these structures is necessary in order to build the proposed new overwater bridge. It is somewhat misleading to cite a construction requirement as an important form of project mitigation, particularly where, even without mitigation, removal of these structures would be required as part of the MTCA site remediation. But most importantly, it is misleading the public to assert that removal of 3,300 sf of impervious surface will increase water quality impacts, without disclosing that these structures will be replaced with approximately 37,500 sf of new impervious surface. Although the old structures being removed are made of creosote wood, much of the creosote has already leached from the wharf and piles, and the act of removing these structures will actually stir up contaminated soil and create at least temporary impacts to water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat.

Deck Lighting Impacts
There has been no attempt to mitigate for the increased ambient light that will exist in the nighttime as a result of deck lighting being installed on the overwater bridge. 188 directional light-emitting diode light fixtures will be installed. The determination in the Biological Assessment that “the area of new overwater coverage increase in night lighting in the nearshore of the project is small relative to the available habitat in the action area” does not reflect proper use of mitigation sequencing. It is these kinds of small incremental impacts that have caused such significant damage to Puget Sound waters. These impacts could have been addressed if the City had chosen to conduct a cumulative impact analysis. The Consultant further concluded that use of LED lighting will minimize impacts to light conditions so that there will be no significant behavioral changes in fish migrating or feeding. (Page 50). This is an unsubstantiated opinion and a not a conclusion that that is supported by data or current science. No studies establish the type or minimum amount of light necessary to pevent impacts. Furthermore, the Biological Assessment fails to consider light impacts to bird and marine animals.

Construction Noise
The overwater bridge requires the use of barge driven heavy industrial equipment (which has already resulted in 2 industrial accidents in the Lake Whatcom watershed in the last year.) Vibratory pile driving is expected to have the greatest in-water noise. It is concluded that in-water nose could result in behavioral effects to fish that are within 4.5 miles of the pile driving activity. (Biological Assessment, pages 45-46.) The Mitigation Report also indicates turbidity and sound pressure from construction “may be harmful to plants/animals.” (Mitigation Report, Page 20. Note that a revised mitigation report was issued, but only pages 14-19 were released to the public.) This impact, which results in increased fish mortality rates, particularly for salmon species, has not been mitigated.

Installation of 96 New Piles
The Mitigation Report (page 21) indicates that as a permanent impact from placement of 96 new piles, there will be “harm to organisms” and displaced seafloor substrate. (Page 21.) The removal of existing piles has little mitigation value as discussed herein. Morever, the Whitepaper on Overwater Structures in Marine Waters, cited herein, discusses at length the impact created by new piles. Of particular concern is the large number of piles, 96, and the unusually large circumference of the piles, 24 inches.

Reduced Light In and Around Bridge
One of the largest problems with the project is the reduced light within the nearshore and further out in Bellingham Bay. Only a small portion of the ½ mile walkway will be grated, the rest being concrete slabs, although as noted in the Permit Agency Kick-Off Meeting Notes from the Consultant, for a meeting held with various state agencies on April 16, 2010, DNR typically requires grating throughout an overwater structure to minimize shading effects on fish and eelgrass. There has been no study conducted to determine how much light will be available for this particular project, and therefore, no basis for determining that the 5 grated panels in the nearshore area are adequate mitigation. The amount of light passage allowed can be quantified. Additionally, in consideration of the substantial impacts on fish mortality associated with reduced lighting, the City needs to determine what impacts will be created from the remainder of the ½ concrete pedestrian bridge, since obviously, not all fish migration occurs in the nearshore, particularly when there will now be increased human presence in the nearshore. The cited whitepaper on overwater structure impacts on marine waters discusses at length a large volume of studies that clearly connect reduced light from overwater structures with increased fish mortality rates, particularly for salmonid species.

Eelgrass
The City has made the most effort in attempting to mitigate eelgrass, although this was not so much voluntary as imposed by WDFW. However, the success of the City’s eelgrass plan should be questioned based on the fact that the eelgrass beds are fairly consistent in width throughout the project area, except for a narrower band that occurs around the area of existing wharf and pilings at Boulevard Park. And these stuctures are not a connected slab of concrete.

Limited Scope of Mitigation Does Not Comply with Law
The Revised Mitigation Report issued on November 12, 2010 reflects only three mitigation goals: 1) minimize permanent overwater structure shading the intertidal zone. 2) compensate for permanent overwater structure shading in the intertidal zone and 3) provide protection and enhancement of sensitive eelgrass within the project area. (Revised Mitigation Report, Page 22.) The extremely limited scope of these mitigation goals are not in keeping with the 2003 SMP Guideline requirements for saltwater habitat, or the City’s critical area ordinance requirements for geologically hazardous areas and habitat restoration areas. Therefore, there is no basis for the City to conclude that it has complied with SMA mitigation sequencing requirements.

Public Navigation
This proposal interferes with the right of navigation on public waters. The construction of the overwater bridge will reduce the ability of vessels to navigate and moor in the project area. The City asserts only derelict vessels are in the project area, but this statement is factually untrue. Perhaps the real truth is that the City is concerned that vessels are mooring in violation of law, and illegally dumping waste into Bellingham Bay. This is an important matter that should be addressed through enforcement of existing laws, not through construction of a large, expensive and environmentally damaging barrier.

Mitigation sequencing
Mitigation sequencing has not been followed in this case. The first requirement, to avoid harm, has been ignored. As the City and Port plan to develop the Cornwall Landfill into a public park with a shoreline trail, which, as noted on Port materials, could eventually be connected to the S. Bay trail and Boulevard Park, an overwater bridge is duplicative of existing and future trails. While it may be true that Bellingham needs more pedestrian and bike trails, this should not be solved by turning to our precious shorelines and waters. The Cornwall shoreline trail could easily be made ADA accessible and an ADA elevator or other overpass structure could be used to connect to the S. Bay trail. The City is using the ADA as an excuse for the overwater trail by stating that not every single part of the S. Bay trail is ADA accessible. Many municipal trails are ADA accessible in part. It is true that the connection from above and below the S. Bay trail is steep, but the trail itself is flat and can be safely accessed at either end.

Additional sequencing requirements to reduce impacts have been ignored based on the enormous footprint of this pedestrian bridge. Although often incorrectly cited as 7-12 feet in width, the project will actually be 14 feet in width, except for alcove every 200 feet, which will have a width of 18 feet. This is an unjustified width for an overwater bridge.