Lake Whatcom Water Quality Continues To Decline

April Markiewicz is the associate director and toxicologist in the Institute of Environmental Toxicology at Huxley College of the Environment at Western Washington University, as well as a member of the city’s Lake Whatcom Watershed Advisory Board and president of the People for Lake Whatcom Coalition.

County Drinking Water Source Needs Attention Now

Editor’s Note: Since 2004, April Markiewicz of the Institute of Environmental Toxicology at Western Washington University has been presenting annual reports about Lake Whatcom for Whatcom Watch. Go to Whatcom Watch online archives to read her previous updates: www.whatcomwatch.org, click on “Advanced Search,” type “Markiewicz” then click “Author” instead of “Keyword” on the dropdown tab.

Thirteen years ago, the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) listed Lake Whatcom, our community’s drinking water source, as an “impaired water body” for phosphorus and dissolved oxygen under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. That listing automatically triggered state and federal regulatory actions requiring that the “person or persons responsible” clean up the lake to meet mandated state water quality standards.

As the “responsible party” that allowed the lake to become polluted in the first place, we have been struggling since then to fix the damage and restore the lake’s water quality to acceptable levels. Those efforts have most likely slowed down the decline, but as indicated by the most recent Lake Whatcom Monitoring Report by Matthews et al. (see reference list), the lake’s water quality continues to deteriorate.

After the listing of the lake in 1998, Matthews et al. (2000) conducted a review of long-term trends in Lake Whatcom water quality dating from 1988 through 1999. Consistent with Ecology’s results, they found an increasing loss of dissolved oxygen in the deeper waters of shallower northern basins (Basins 1 and 2) during the summer months. The cause, they concluded, was due to increased internal and external loading of phosphorus into the lake.

Three years later, the authors conducted a second review of the data and the results of that analysis were more alarming. Water quality degradation had not only increased in Basins 1 and 2, but had done so at an accelerated rate. For the first time, residential development around the lake was specifically identified as the contributing factor.

By 2006, the data were showing not only accelerated rates of degradation, but also that the deterioration had spread and the entire lake was affected. Basin 3, the largest and deepest basin at the south end of the lake that had historically been the cleanest water, was now showing signs of deterioration.

The next few years brought some relief from the “freefall” of degrading water quality. Unusually cold temperatures in May and October of 2007 and the even colder temperatures that occurred throughout all of 2008 helped to slow the rate of decline. However, in 2009, temperatures returned to normal and though there were some slight increases, overall many of the water quality parameters indicated that the degradation was either unchanged or decreased slightly.

“Cautiously optimistic” was the phrase used by Dr. Robin Matthews, Director of the Institute for Watershed Studies at Western Washington University’s Huxley College of the Environment to describe the 2008-2009 Lake Whatcom monitoring data last year. That optimism evaporated earlier this year as Dr. Matthews began compiling the 2009/10 water quality data.

Despite the cool spring and late onset of thermal stratification in the lake, dissolved oxygen levels dropped rapidly once it did stratify and the rate of oxygen loss from the bottom waters of Basins 1, 2 and 3 is still increasing (see Figure 1).

Phosphorus levels continue to increase throughout all three basins of the lake (see Figure 2).

Median near-surface summer chlorophyll concentrations have increased dramatically in the last year to levels higher than ever before (see Figure 3). Chlorophyll, the green pigment in plants, is a direct measure of algal mass, indicating that algal mass has also increased.

Algal blooms during the 2010 summer months clogged the city’s water treatment filters for a second year in a row causing poor water filtration rates at the water treatment facility. Only the early implementation of voluntary water restrictions prevented mandatory restrictions from being imposed later in the summer.

Maximum pH has increased significantly throughout the lake, indicating increased photosynthesis from higher densities of algae.

Trihalomethanes, which are known carcinogens caused during the disinfection process while treating the water, continue to increase in our tap water (see Figure 4).

High concentrations of residential stormwater pollutants, including nutrients, are present in urbanized creeks flowing into the lake.

The highest water inputs into the lake are from surface and subsurface runoff (73.5 percent), followed by direct precipitation (23.7 percent) and water diverted from the Nooksack River (2.8 percent). All the more reason why preventing and/or removing impervious surfaces in the watershed are so important in keeping pollutants out of the lake.

Highest outputs from the lake are via Whatcom Creek (75.4 percent), city of Bellingham (11.9 percent), evaporation (8.8 percent), Whatcom Falls Hatchery (3.0 percent), Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District (0.8 percent) and Puget Sound Energy Co-Generation (0.2 percent).

Since 1998 when Lake Whatcom was listed as an impaired water body, the city of Bellingham, Whatcom County and Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District have worked together to begin controlling and mitigating impacts to the lake from the activities occurring in the watershed. They have dedicated millions of dollars, resources and personnel to these efforts. They created a Lake Whatcom watershed land acquisition program in 2001, implemented more restrictive land clearing and development standards (Silver Beach Ordinance) since then, provided incentives to reduce density, made zoning changes, banned the use of fertilizers, banned the operation of two-cycle engine watercraft on the lake, and retrofitted stormwater treatment systems using the best available technology. Today those systems are now able to remove 50 to 75 percent of phosphorus.

In 2005, Ecology began conducting a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study of the lake to determine how much phosphorus loading the lake can process from developed acres in the watershed to meet federal and state water quality guidelines (see Pickett and Hood, 2008). Ecology determined that loadings needed to be reduced by 18 to 40 percent based on 2002 water quality data. That equates to having only 524 to 563 acres of developed land in the watershed. In 2008, when the draft TMDL was completed, there were 3,600 acres of developed land in the watershed.

In 2010, the city of Bellingham Public Works department obtained grant funds to start a Homeowner Incentive Program (HIP) in the watershed. As of now, the city has provided 255 onsite one-on-one consultations with property owners to help them reduce stormwater runoff by enhancing infiltration on their property. It has also enrolled 60 homes in the HIP and 15 of the projects have been approved for funding. It has also installed 300 cisterns funded through another grant (RSRP) that has diverted 3.2 million gallons of rain water per year from flowing directly into the lake.

Next month, the Whatcom County Council will be deciding on the reconveyence of approximately 8,000 acres of Forest Board lands, managed (and logged) by the Washington Department of Natural Resources, back to the county for it to manage as low impact parklands. If approved, 27 percent of the watershed would be protected from logging and any future development and provide (low impact) public access for generations to come.

There is no doubt that our efforts have probably slowed the rapid deterioration of water quality that was so obvious in the mid-2000s, but have we done all we can do? Our community is now faced with having to spend approximately $50 million to upgrade our water treatment facility because it can no longer handle the particle loading due to so much algae growth in the lake. The algae are fed by continued inputs of phosphorus that come from lawns, roofs, patios, driveways, and roads in the developed sections of the watershed.

That begs the question: have we really kept the cleanup and restoration of our drinking water source as our community’s first priority? Looking at the most current data for the watershed, there are now 4,580 acres that are developed. Three years ago there were 3,600 acres that were developed. What is alarming is that there are still 2,400 acres that can be developed in the watershed, according to the latest assessment by the city (see Rexroat, 2011).

Why is it that when we are charged by Ecology to reduce development in the watershed by 85.5 percent, we as a community have allowed more than 1,000 more acres to be developed in just the last three years? At current development levels, we now have to remove 88.6 percent of developed acres in the watershed to meet permissible phosphorus loading limits. Ecology has estimated that getting to 74 percent fewer developed acres and impervious surfaces in the watershed will take about 60 years if all development had been stopped in 2003. Even addressing runoff from all the roads in the watershed they estimate it to take more than 20 years. Obviously, any contributions of phosphorus, no matter how small, will mean that much longer to clean up the lake at an even higher cost to our community.

If our highest priority as a community is to protect the lake by preventing development in the watershed, why have we not increased the $5 water fee paid each month on water bills to fund the Lake Whatcom Land Acquisition Program?

There are numerous property owners in the watershed that are willing to sell their undeveloped property for fair market value to the city. Yet, there are insufficient funds to meet that demand and have been since its inception 10 years ago. The city has had to supplement the fund with bonds over the years. As a result, approximately 85 percent of the $2.2 million collected each year from the fee now goes towards paying operating costs including the city tax (11.5 percent) and the B & O tax (5.029 percent), loan repayment charges and bond and debt service payments (68 percent). That leaves only 14 percent (approximately $300,000) per year for land acquisition.

Why are we ready to spend $8.83 million of Greenways money to purchase 100 acres of land at the south end of town (i.e., the Chuckanut Ridge) in the next few months, but only fund the Lake Whatcom Land Acquisition program with $200,000 - $300,000 per year for the next five years? Is creating yet another park for the relative few more important to our community than protecting the health of the 96,000 residents in Bellingham and half of Whatcom County that use Lake Whatcom as their drinking water source?

On the subject of parks, why is there resistance to transferring (reconveying) the 8,000-plus acres of county-owned forested lands in the watershed from state back to the county for use as low-impact parklands? Here is an opportunity to protect 27 percent of the watershed and provide (low impact) public access parklands. The cost to the county is estimated to be approximately $185,000 per year to manage the parklands. The benefits are that mature forests filter and slow stormwater runoff, keeping phosphorus and other pollutants from reaching the lake which also reduces water treatment costs. According to the Trust for Public Lands, every 10 percent increase in forest cover causes a 20 percent decrease in the cost of drinking water treatment.

Why did we recently prioritize creating a transportation district to subsidize the Whatcom Transit Authority to restore Sunday buses, as well as repave roads and create bike lanes, yet requests over the last 10 years to create a watershed protection district to generate funds for restoring water quality in the lake has resulted in no action? Granted, supporting and promoting alternative transportation is an important priority for any community to have, but given the status of our drinking water source is this best investment of our resources? Is it going to ensure clean, healthy drinking water on which our health and continuation as a community depends for generations to come?

Do we really care so little about this invaluable resource in the heart of our community? Are we going to continue short-changing the clean-up and restoration of our drinking water source while funneling millions of dollars to satisfy short-term needs or the interests of vocal self-interested groups? Are we going to re-elect leaders who espouse their support for cleaning up the lake while they are campaigning, but soon fall silent once elected? How about candidates that tell us more studies need to be done or worse yet advocate removing funding from programs already in place while they investigate other options, not yet defined? The studies have been done and we know what we need to do. We just need the political will and community support to implement those actions.

Our drinking water source is continuing to deteriorate in water quality and we are the cause. We have a legal responsibility to clean up and restore Lake Whatcom whether we use it as a drinking water source or not. We also have a moral obligation to ensure that all of us have a safe, clean drinking water source now and for future generations. We are the solution and the first step to hastening the cleanup and restoration of Lake Whatcom is by making this our community’s number one priority. That means allocating the necessary resources and providing adequate funding levels now that are so desperately needed to clean up, restore and protect and preserve our only drinking water source. §

• 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.

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

• Matthews, R.A., M. Hilles, J. Vandersypen, R.J. Mitchell and G.B. Matthews. 2010. Lake Whatcom Monitoring Program Annual Report Water Year 2008/09. Institute for Watershed Studies, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, 351p. Go to http://www.wwu.edu/iws see Lake Studies — Lake Whatcom, Online Reports.

• Matthews, R.A., M. Hilles, J. Vandersypen, R.J. Mitchell and G.B. Matthews. 2011. Lake Whatcom Monitoring Program Annual Report Water Year 2009/10. Institute for Watershed Studies, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, 347p. Go to http://www.wwu.edu/iws see Lake Studies — Lake Whatcom, Online Reports.

• Pickett, P. and S. Hood. 2008. Lake Whatcom Watershed Total Phosphorus and Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Loads Volume 1: Water Quality Study Findings. Publication No 08-03-024, November 2008. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Go to: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0803024.html.

• Rexroat, L. 2011. Area Totals in the Lake Whatcom Watershed. Handout provided to the members of the Lake Whatcom Watershed Advisory Board. Compiled 5-20-10 rev city info 9-30.