Our Community at the Crossroads: Next Steps in Protecting Lake Whatcom

April Markiewicz is an environmental toxicologist and the assistant director of the Institute of Environmental Toxicology in Huxley College at Western Washington University. She’s also an advocate for the protection of Lake Whatcom and is the secretary of People for Lake Whatcom.

In order to see the figures that are included with this article, please get a paper copy - better yet, subscribe.

The North Cascades Audubon Society presented “Lake Whatcom at the Crossroads: Protecting Our Water Supply for Future Generations” at its May 2002 membership meeting. It outlined the problems identified in Lake Whatcom and provided suggestions for working towards solutions. In less than three years since that meeting, the most recent scientific data indicates that Lake Whatcom is no longer at the crossroads, but rather accelerating rapidly down a paved road to premature old age, accumulating increasing amounts of nutrients, contaminants and biological pathogens along the way.

The obvious question we ask ourselves is how did this happen. It isn’t as if the city and county have been idle during this time in implementing policies and procedures to protect Lake Whatcom. In the last five years both governments have invested millions of dollars, implemented numerous projects, provided equipment, resources and staff time, as well as their own to enhance protection of our drinking water source. Unfortunately the Lake Whatcom monitoring data collected over that same time interval have shown alarming trends—phosphorus and particle loadings to the lake have actually accelerated despite all these efforts.

The recent implementation of a temporary building moratorium (TBM) in the Lake Whatcom watershed by the County Council (the second in less than three years) is based on the results of those latest findings. This TBM provides a timeout for our community to come together, sharing our knowledge and skills to find the most efficient and cost effective way to protect, as well as clean up our drinking water reservoir. The next steps we take as a community during and after the moratorium is lifted will be crucial to this process.

Long-term water quality monitoring data clearly shows that water quality degradation has actually accelerated during the last five years (Matthews et al., 2000, Matthews et al, 2003, Matthews, 2004, Matthews, 2005). The unoxygenated dead zones are forming earlier and getting larger in Basins 1 and 2 during the summer. In Basin 3, which contains 95.9 percent of the lake’s water and was once considered to contain the cleanest water, is now showing depleted dissolved oxygen levels during the summer as well. Moreover, nutrient levels have continued to increase in the lake so that Basin 2 levels are now as high as levels in Basin 1, and levels in Basin 3 are becoming more like levels in Basin 2 (Matthews et al., 2000, Matthews et al, 2003, Matthews, 2004, Matthews, 2005).

According to Matthews’ (2005) draft “Summary of Lake Whatcom Water Quality Trends” biological productivity is increasing throughout the lake indicated by increasing algal densities (Figure 1). The increases in bluegreen algae are particularly alarming due to the taste and odor problems they can create in drinking water, as well as the toxicological effect of some species on wildlife and humans.

The increases in algal densities have (not surprisingly) been significantly correlated with increases in phosphorus concentrations in the lake (Figure 2). Phosphorus concentrations have risen sharply in Basins 2, 3 and 4 since 1999. Phosphorus enters the lake on particles of soil from land disturbances or from fertilizers used in the watershed.

Unlike some pollutants, once phosphorus enters the lake it’s recycled over and over again, adding to the new inputs of phosphorus entering the lake. There is no technology that can remove phosphorus from a lake once it gets into it except by physically removing the sediment through dredging or by capping the sediments.

As a result of increased algal densities, loading of soil particles and phosphorus to the lake, Bellingham’s public works department has had to significantly increase the amounts of chemicals used to treat Lake Whatcom water over the last several years (Figure 3). According to Bill McCourt, former superintendent of the city’s public works operations, the city’s water treatment facility is currently operating at maximum capacity to handle the large increase in particle loading in the lake water.

Consequently the city has had to relax its particle quality standard from fewer than 10 particles per milliliter to fewer than 20 allowed in our drinking water. While the standard is quite stringent, the actual particles in the finished drinking water have roughly doubled over the past three years (City of Bellingham, 2005; Matthews, 2005; Schuler, 2003).

The city of Bellingham’s (2005) draft “2004 Source Water and Treatment Trends” estimates that upgrading the current water treatment filtration system with a gravity filter to handle the extra particle loading will cost water users approximately $9 million. To add a more effective membrane filtration system will cost approximately $36 million. As chemical and mechanical treatments must be increased and upgraded to handle the increased degradation of Lake Whatcom water quality, conservative estimates place the total cost from $50–$100 million for water users (McCourt, 2005).

The city has also measured significantly higher levels of trihalomethanes (THMs) in our tap water in recent years even though the amount of chlorine used to disinfect the water has not been increased over the last five years (Figure 4). THMs are created when organic matter and other particles combine with chlorine during the water disinfection process to create harmful byproducts like formaldehyde, chloroform and bromoforms (Johnson and Jolley, 1990; NRC, 1987).

These compounds are known to cause bladder and stomach cancers, as well as cause stillbirths, low birth weights in newborn infants, pre-term deliveries and spontaneous abortions in pregnant women (Gallagher et al., 1998; Simmon and Tardiff, 1977; Waller et al., 1998). Federal drinking water standards therefore limit THMs to no more than 80 ppb (parts per billion). From 1992 to 2000 the average concentration of THMS in our drinking water has been about 20 ppb; however, by fall of 2001 average concentration levels increased to 30 ppb with spikes as high as 65 ppb measured on September 2004 at Pacific Highway, across from the airport near Thomas Road.

These increases are a direct result of physical, chemical and biological changes in Lake Whatcom water over the last five years. At the current rate the concentration of THMs in our drinking water will exceed the federal THM limit in just a few years.

Numerous scientific studies have been conducted linking particle and nutrient loadings to lakes from urban development. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2005) reports that the amount of impervious surfaces (rooftops, driveways and roads) in a typical city block generates nine times more stormwater runoff than a woodland area the same size. Moreover, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (1997) estimates that “an average acre under construction delivers 60,000 pounds of sediment per year to downstream waterways, which is much more than any other land use.”

Sources of particle and nutrient loadings into Lake Whatcom have been specifically linked to residential construction and development around the lake and in the surrounding watershed (Matthews et al., 2003; Matthews, 2004; Matthews, 2005; Reilly, 2004). In 1993 the city of Bellingham calculated pollutant and nutrient loadings to the lake from stormwater runoff as part of its Watershed Master Plan (Table 1) (Reilly, 2004). Based on that data, the city then extrapolated what pollutant loadings would be in the future given the same loading rates, but at full build out of the watershed (Table 2) (Reilly, 2004).

These estimations were originally based on a total build out of more than 12,000 parcels; however, they do provide a rough estimate of the thousands of pounds of pollutants that could potentially enter Lake Whatcom at full build out. Taking into consideration the recent downzones and land acquisitions in the Lake Whatcom watershed the Bellingham and Whatcom County planning departments calculate that there are currently 7,809 single-family residences within the Lake Whatcom watershed. An additional 3,119 single-family residences can still be built under current zoning, predominantly in the county and urban growth areas (Watershed Advisory Board, 2004).

Matthews (2005) sums up the situation based on the latest 2004/2005 Lake Whatcom monitoring results: “Increasing residential development in the Lake Whatcom watershed can be expected to cause additional phosphorus loading, which will cause the lake to continue increasing its trophic state. Although other factors such as changes in water withdrawal and diversion from the Nooksack River may be accelerating the rate of eutrophication in Lake Whatcom, they are not likely the main cause of the trophic change. The main cause is most likely phosphorus loading from residential development and from the low oxygen conditions in basins 1 and 2.”

As part of its Lake Whatcom Management Program 2000-2004 Work Plan (http://www.lakewhatcom.wsu.edu) the city, county and the Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District (formerly Water District 10) should be commended for their efforts to reduce impacts from existing, as well as future building and development in the Lake Whatcom watershed.

The city has installed stormwater retrofits in the Silver Beach area and at Bloedel-Donovan, installed rain gardens at Bloedel-Donovan, adopted stricter development regulations to limit impervious surfaces, retain native vegetation, and establish seasonal clearing restrictions in new and redeveloped areas in the watershed, identified projects to reduce vehicle traffic in the watershed, provided conservation easements, covenants, and implemented a land acquisition program resulting in the removal of 1085.44 acres from development at a cost of $11.4 million, enhanced its public education and outreach efforts, and purchased more than 500 transfer of development rights (TDRs) to remove future development from the watershed.

The County Council has been equally active and has without doubt done more to protect Lake Whatcom than any previous County Council. They have updated county development standards in the watershed to be much more restrictive, requiring phased clearing, increased tree retention on properties to 65 percent, and reduced amounts of impervious surfaces on remodels and new development.

Through zoning changes, density reduction incentives and TDRs, approximately 3,300 building lots have been removed from the watershed. A TDR receiving area has been created in the county and has already had TDRs transferred to that area. They have also assisted the Sudden Valley Community Association to reduce their density by purchasing development rights for those lots that have come up as tax foreclosure sales (approximately 300 lots). They have joined with the city in its land acquisition program, contributing almost $2.4 million to purchase the Anderson and Denke properties, which removed almost 200 acres from development. More recently the council adopted the ordinance to phase out the use of polluting two-stroke motorized watercraft from the lake.

Almost 76 percent of water inputs into Lake Whatcom come from runoff, which emphasizes the importance of stormwater treatment Best Management Practices and facilities to protect the lake’s water quality. Unfortunately, the last five years of data indicate that our current systems have been ineffective in slowing down the continuing degradation of Lake Whatcom water quality (Matthews et al., 2003; Matthews, 2004; Matthews, 2005; Stormwater Team, 2005).

Moreover, a recent study conducted by RE Sources (Stormwater Team, 2005) of construction sites around Lake Whatcom found dirty water running off site from 15 percent of the sites and Best Management Practices designed to keep soils contained on site were not adequately implemented for at least 50 percent of the sites.

Stormwater retrofitting by the city has also proven to be only partially effective at best (Matthews et al., 2001; Matthews, 2005; Reilly, 2004). Since 2000, the city has been installing primarily cartridge filtration systems that consist of vaults fitted with cartridges that cost $1,188 each and about $50 each per year to maintain (Reilly, 2004). Five sites in the Silver Beach neighborhood and at Bloedel-Donovan totaling about 52 acres have been retrofitted to date at a cost of $570,000. These expenses are minor compared to projected costs of $3 million for the county to retrofit the Cable Street drain, a recognized source of contaminants into the lake near the city’s water intake. The city estimates that to install vaults along all the developed areas of shoreline (within city limits) would cost $26 million and require $1 to $2 million per year for maintenance.

These cartridge filtration systems are considered the best available technology to date and at optimal performance can be expected to remove 90 percent of the particles, but not more than 50 percent of the phosphorus from stormwater runoff (Reilly, 2004). The city acknowledges that stormwater Best Management Practices and retrofits are the last resort in protecting Lake Whatcom and that pollution prevention is the key (Reilly, 2004). The most recent data collected from the Lake Whatcom watershed confirms that assessment. Matthews (2005) concludes “there is no indication that the existing stormwater treatment systems (including wet ponds and vaults) will reduce phosphorus to levels that will prevent further eutrophication in the lake.”

The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) began conducting a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study of Lake Whatcom in 2002 to determine the amount of nutrients and other contaminants that can be allowed to enter the lake on a daily basis and still have it remain a quality drinking water source. The results of the TMDL study will be based on 2002 levels of phosphorus and dissolved oxygen in the lake.

Given the continued degradation of the lake since 2002, we will be automatically required to clean up the lake to 2002 levels, if not more strict standards. Ecology is hoping to provide a draft copy of the Lake Whatcom TMDL study to the County Council in April of this year, conduct public hearings and finalize the document by December 2005 (Hood, 2005). Ecology has emphasized to the County Council that it doesn’t matter whether Lake Whatcom continues to be used as our drinking water source or not, it must be cleaned up to meet TMDL standards close to natural (undeveloped) conditions (Hood, 2005).

Looming over our community is the fact that once the TBM is lifted, more than 650 new homes could potentially be built in the watershed this year. There could also be a second wave of property owners and developers rushing to get their building permits vested as well. The potential impacts to our drinking water supply and water treatment facilities could be disastrous.

The wisdom in lifting the moratorium after only being in place for approximately ten weeks is already being hotly debated. Meanwhile the County Council is already considering what steps to take in the next several weeks. Those steps include banning all land clearing in the watershed from September to May, imposing stricter building codes, increasing enforcement to ensure compliance, developing a comprehensive stormwater treatment plan for the watershed, banning phosphorus fertilizers, and reevaluating current zoning in the Geneva and Hillsdale urban growth areas. These steps will take time to implement and require substantial public support and encouragement.

The most important steps we can take as a community are to be involved and participate in this process so that together we decide what needs to be prioritized, funded and enforced. Our top priority should be to preserve the undeveloped land in the watershed through land acquisitions, the use of TDRs and providing greater incentives for conservation easements. As so aptly stated by City Council member Barbara Ryan “Acquisition is the best solution to prevent pollution.” We need to encourage the city and county to purchase properties now through bonds, loans, federal and state grants and Congressional pass-through funding. It is imperative that we purchase the remaining buildable properties now because the longer we wait the more expensive will be the costs.

As a community we also need to be involved in reviewing the TMDL study when the draft is released in April, providing feedback to Ecology and County Council members. The final responsibility for implementing, enforcing and paying for the cleanup and restoration of Lake Whatcom to meet the TMDL standards will be ours. It’s vital for the health and economic well being of our community that we are involved from the start. Our community and elected officials will be making some difficult decisions in the next several weeks about the future of our drinking water supply. Please get involved and make your wishes heard. Our choices are becoming more limited with each passing month, while the costs of taking action multiply exponentially. u

See http://www.northcascadesaudubon.org/php/index.php?chapter,conservation,lake whatcom.

•City of Bellingham. 2005. Draft 2004 Source Water and Treatment Trends. City of Bellingham, Washington. 11 pages. Available online at: http://www.cob.org/documents/pw/utilities/COB-Source-Water-Treatment-Trends.pdf.

•Gallagher, M.D., J.R. Nuckols, L. Stallones, and D.A. Savitz. 1998. Exposure to trihalomethanes and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Epidemiology 10:484-489.

•Hood, S. 2005. Testimony given to the County Council on February 8 and February 22, 2005. Whatcom County Courthouse. Bellingham, WA.

•Johnson, J.D. and R.L. Jolley. 1990. Water chlorination: The challenge. Water Chlorination: Environmental Impacts and Health Effects Volume 2. R.L. Jolley, H. Gorchev, and D.H. Hamilton, Jr., Ed. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 21-27.

•Matthews, R.A., M. Hilles, J. Vandersypen, R.J. Mitchell, and G.B. Matthews. 2000. Lake Whatcom Monitoring Project 1998/1999 Final Report. Prepared for the city of Bellingham, Bellingham, WA. March 15, 2000. 243 pages.

•Matthews, R.A., M. Saunders, M. Hilles, and J. Vandersypen. 2001. Park Place Wet Pond Monitoring Project 1994-2000 Summary Report. Prepared for the city of Bellingham, Bellingham, WA. February 2, 2001. 100 pages.

•Matthews, R.A., M. Hilles, J. Vandersypen, R.J. Mitchell, and G.B. Matthews. 2003. Lake Whatcom Monitoring Project 2002/2003 Final Report. Prepared for the city of Bellingham, Bellingham, WA. April 5, 2004. 291 pages.

•Matthews, R. A. 2004. “Lake Whatcom: A Lake In Transition.” PowerPoint presentation to Bellingham City Council and Watershed Advisory Board on March 30, 2004.

•Matthews, R.A. 2005. Draft Summary of Lake Whatcom Water Quality Trends. Summary of Draft 2004/2005 Lake Whatcom Monitoring Report prepared for the city of Bellingham, February 7, 2005.

•McCourt, Bill. 2005. Personal Communication.

•National Research Council (NRC). 1987. Drinking Water and Health Disinfectants and Disinfectant By-Products Volume 7. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

•Reilly, B. 2004. Lake Whatcom Stormwater. Presentation given at the County and City Council Work Session on March 30, 2004, Bellingham, WA. 14 pages. (Bill Reilly is the manager of the city of Bellingham’s Storm and Surface Water Utility.)

•Schuler, A.L. 2003. Disinfection byproducts in the Bellingham, WA drinking water system: using aldehydes and water quality parameters to predict total trihalomethanes. Master of Science Thesis, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA. 109 pp.

•Simmon, V.F. and R.G. Tardiff. 1977. The mutagenic activity of halogenated compounds found in chlorinated drinking water. Water Chlorination: Environmental Impacts and Health Effects Volume 2. R.L. Jolley, H. Gorchev, and D.H. Hamilton, Jr., Ed. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 29-48.

•Stormwater Team. 2005. Draft Stormwater Team Results: Sediment Runoff Remains a Problem at Construction Sites Around the County and Lake Whatcom. Prepared by Nellie Nutt as part of her Huxley College Senior Project internship with RE Sources under supervision of Wendy Steffenson, North Sound Baykeeper. The Stormwater Team is a joint program of RE Sources, North Sound Baykeeper and People for Lake Whatcom. February 7, 2005. 17 pages.

•USEPA. 2005. Managing Urban Runoff. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Polluted runoff (Nonpoint Source Pollution). http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/facts/point7.htm. 3 pages.

•Waller, K., S.H. Swan, G. DeLorenze, and B. Hopkins. 1998. Trihalomethanes in drinking water and spontaneous abortion. Epidemiology 9:134-140.

•Washington State Department of Ecology. 2004 “Washington State’s Water Quality Assessment [303(d)].” Updated Feb. 2004. Accessed 16 January 2004, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2002/2002-index.html.

•Watershed Advisory Board. 2004. Management Recommendations for Watershed Protection Properties. City of Bellingham, Washington, 23 pp.

•Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Polluted Urban Runoff; A Source of Concern. University of Wisconsin-Extension in cooperation with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Extension Publications, Madison, WI. 4 pages. I-02-97-5M-20S, DNR:WT-483-97.