Lake Whatcom's Downward Spiral

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

According to the latest water quality data for Lake Whatcom, our community’s drinking water source has continued to degrade to the point that it has now crossed the threshold to become officially reclassified as a lower quality, more highly productive waterbody (see map on page 4) (Matthews et al., 2007). The scientific term is “mesotrophic,” but to the lay person it means “nutrient polluted,” i.e., enriched by excessive nutrient inputs.

This is not entirely surprising given that the lake has been listed as an “impaired” waterbody under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) since 1998. What is disheartening is that over the intervening nine years since then we have continued to contribute to the problems affecting the lake, overloading it with even more nutrients and contaminants.

Annual water quality monitoring by Matthews et al. (1999; 2007) over the years has provided clear documentation of the effects of our continued actions in the watershed. The lake’s water quality has not only continued to degrade over time, but has accelerated in its decline, especially over the last five years.

Last year’s water quality data showed for the first time that the entire lake is now affected. The consequences of our actions are going to cost us dearly, if not in terms of the quality of our drinking water and the potential long-term effects on our health, then surely in our pocketbooks.

The moral and regulatory responsibility for cleaning up the lake “back to its natural state” rests solely with us, whether we continue to use the lake as our drinking water source or not. It is indeed a new frontier we are entering, not only for the lake, but for us as well.

The latest Lake Whatcom Monitoring Project 2005/2006 Final Report (Matthews et al., 2007) indicates that water quality in the lake is continuing its accelerated rate of degradation. As in recent years, near-surface total phosphorus and chlorophyll (an indicator of algae growth) levels significantly increased throughout the entire lake (see figure 1 on page 4 and figure 2 on page 5).

In fact chlorophyll levels were so high in Basin 3 (historically with the clearest, cleanest water) that the analytical settings had to be readjusted to the same scale used to measure chlorophyll in the most polluted Basins of 1 and 2 (see figure 2 on page 5).

Moreover, near-surface nitrogen (as nitrate) concentrations also continued to become depleted to very low levels during the summer in all three basins, creating a favorable environment for bluegreen algae growth throughout the lake (see figure 3 on page 5). The most significant increase in bluegreen algae was in Basin 3, which also contains almost 96 percent of the total water in the lake.

Concurrently, dissolved oxygen plummeted to new lows during the summer in all three basins in direct response to continued inputs of phosphorus (see figure 4 on page 5).

The fact that Basin 3 is now showing the same increases in phosphorus, chlorophyll and bluegreen algae (coupled with dissolved oxygen depletions in the summer) present in the other basins clearly shows that the entire lake is now in decline.

When all the water quality data for all the basins are examined together, they show that our drinking water source has transitioned (degraded) sufficiently to the point that it can no longer be classified, as it once was, as an oligotrophic (Figure 1) lake characterized by low biological productivity.

Using the same criteria used to evaluate lake nutrient concentrations in the Coast Range, Puget Lowlands and Northern Rockies Ecoregions, Lake Whatcom is now “mesotrophic” (Figure 1) (Matthews et al., 2007). This means that we have caused the lake to “age,” i.e., become more biologically productive in the last 200 years, and more specifically during the last six to 10 years, than what it would have taken the lake naturally to age over the course of several thousand years.

Lake eutrophication is a process whereby pristine lakes become nutrient enriched over time by natural, as well as human-induced, inputs of nutrients and sediments. Lakes are classified into four categories by the degree they have become enriched and the amount of biological productivity in them. This is referred to as their “trophic state” and is based on specific chemical, physical and biological criteria developed by limnologists and used by regulatory agencies to classify lakes (Table 1).

On a scale from least productive to most productive the trophic states of a lake are: 1) oligotrophic, 2) mesotrophic, 3) eutrophic, and 4) hypereutrophic. Oligotrophic lakes are relatively young lakes characterized by deep basins; sand or gravel bottoms; clear cold water low in nutrients, algae and other microscopic organisms; few aquatic plants; and coldwater fish such as trout and whitefish.

Eutrophic and hypereutrophic lakes are characterized by shallower basins; silt, clay, and high organic matter (mucky) sediments; cloudy and murky water from high suspended particles and numerous species of algae and other microscopic organisms in the water column; plentiful floating and rooted aquatic plants; and warm-water fish such as bass, sunfish, bluegill, carp, catfish and dogfish. Mesotrophic lakes are in-between the two types and share many similarities with both oligotrophic and eutrophic systems.

In comparing Lake Whatcom water quality data from approximately nine years ago to the latest data in relation to the criteria listed in Table 1, it is clear that our drinking water source has transitioned to a less desirable trophic state (Table 2).

Though some of these changes in nutrient levels and chlorophyll do not seem significant, phosphorus has the potential to generate 500 times its mass and nitrogen 17 times its mass, in biological growth (Wetzel, 1975), which is why they are so effective as fertilizers. So even though phosphorus levels in Basin 3 have only increased to oligo-mesotrophic levels, biological productivity measured in terms of chlorophyll levels show that it can now be ranked along with Basins 1 and 2 as fully mesotrophic.

If the data are not convincing, one need only drink the tap water or take a look at the lake to notice the changes. There are larger, more persistent algal blooms in the spring and fall throughout the lake that make the water greener and murkier.

Huge mats of bluegreen algae, as well as aquatic plants and seaweeds, can be seen floating on the surface of the water, as well as washing up on shore befouling beaches and swimming areas in the summer. E. coli contamination continues to close public beaches for swimming, and the unique population of kokanee that was once numerous in the lake is disappearing and being replaced by more bass and other warm-water fish.

Even treating the water before it gets to our taps has become more expensive (and challenging), as the city of Bellingham’s dated water treatment facility struggles to remove the higher densities of particles and algae coming in the raw water.

The causes of these changes are the “business as usual” activities we continue to allow in the watershed of our drinking water source. Land clearing, development and logging, as well as more people living, fertilizing lawns (even though there is a ban on phosphorous-based fertilizers in the watershed), driving vehicles, and otherwise recreating in the watershed, are all contributing to the lake’s continued decline.

With the entire lake now affected, the message is clear that we have managed to overwhelm whatever remaining resilience and resistance the lake used to have to these impacts we have caused.

The good news is that the lake would probably be in worse condition had not stormwater treatment facilities continued to be installed by the city along the northern part of the lake where residential development is the highest. According to the latest data, the stormwater treatment facilities are doing a fairly good job of removing at least the particles from the stormwater runoff and keeping them from entering the lake.

The newly retrofitted Park Place stormwater treatment system is removing 76–88 percent, and the Alabama Hill stormwater treatment vault is removing 43–69 percent (Matthews et al, 2007). That means phosphorus and other nutrients, as well as metals and organic contaminants absorbed and adsorbed on the particles are being prevented from entering the lake.

The bad news is that these systems are very expensive and still lack the capacity to remove dissolved fractions of these pollutants from the stormwater runoff, which continue to enter the lake unchecked.

Other good news is that the Bellingham City Council approved a $5 million bond for the Lake Whatcom Land Acquisition Program in 2006, enabling it to purchase several more developable properties in the watershed. To date the program, with assistance from Whatcom County and the Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District, has removed from development a total of about 1,244 acres to prevent about 657 homes from being built in the watershed at a cost of approximately $15.5 million.

The bad news is that the $5 per month per household fee on water bills that has funded the acquisition program is no longer sufficient. Almost all of that income is now dedicated to paying annual installments on previous land purchases, debt service on loans, taxes, repayment of the city-sponsored $5 million bond and other miscellaneous expenses.

This leaves the program with virtually no money until 2010, when some of the debt service will be paid off. Moreover, coupled with the dramatic increase in real estate prices in the last few years, the buying power of what little uncommitted funds remain has been severely reduced.

The really ugly news is that ongoing development in the watershed continues to remove water-retentive forests and vegetation, increasing exposed soils and impervious surfaces that contribute ever-increasing amounts of pollutants into the lake.

There are currently 6,492 homes in the watershed and the potential for 3,122 more homes still to be built. At the current rate of 269 homes being built on average each year in the Lake Whatcom watershed, it will be completely built out within the next nine years (Rexroat, 2007).

The ramifications of having a third more development in the watershed with its effects on the already accelerating declines in water quality conditions in Lake Whatcom are overwhelming. The alternative option to purchase all the remaining developable properties as part of the Lake Whatcom Land Acquisition Program is estimated to be about $96.6 million.

Without additional federal, state and local funds in the near future, this option will quickly disappear. Compared to continuing with a “business as usual” approach, however, preventing development by purchasing the developable properties is still cheaper, as well as more protective of the lake and our drinking water quality in the long term.

The downgrading and reclassification of our drinking water source as a mesotrophic lake means that we have reached the point of causing potentially irreparable degradation of our drinking water quality. A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plan is currently being developed by the Department of Ecology that will dictate allowable pollutant loadings to the lake to bring it back to its “natural state.”

The city of Bellingham as the water purveyor (and “we”) will be held legally responsible for complying with those limits set by Ecology. If we allow more development in the Lake Whatcom watershed, we’ll also be required to remove pollutants at great expense, starting in the near future.

Tim Johnson, Cascadia Weekly editor, in one of his recent editorial columns, referred to Lake Whatcom as our community’s second waterfront (Johnson, 2007). Like its sister waterfront on Bellingham Bay, this waterfront is also an impaired waterbody, but as Johnson perceptively points out it differs significantly in that it has the potential to cause more direct and devastating impacts to our community’s health, quality of life and future existence.

Our ongoing fixation with the marine waterfront has effectively diverted us from fully addressing the daily issues affecting our precious, irreplaceable freshwater waterfront. We have already committed $200 million (with very little public input or process) toward the marine waterfront project that will take the next 15 to 20 years to resolve.

Yet the accelerating decline of our drinking water source that should be the most important issue currently being addressed by our community languishes with too few funds and even less allocated resources. The new frontier our community is entering has a limited future unless we begin to take substantial action now to protect our drinking water source. We are literally out of time. Which waterfront do you want to support? u

•Johnson, T. 2007. “The Algebra of the Two Waterfronts,” in The Gristle, Cascadia Weekly, 4/18/07:02.16, pp. 6-7.

•Matthews, R.A., M. Hilles and G.B. Matthews. 1999. Lake Whatcom Monitoring Project 1997/1998 Final Report. Western Washington University, April 12, 1999, pp. 24-28. http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~iws.

•Matthews, R.A., M. Hilles, J. Vandersypen, R.J. Mitchell and G.B. Matthews. 2007. Lake Whatcom Monitoring Project 2005/2006 Final Report. Western Washington University, April 12, 1999. 496 pp. Available online at http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~iws under Projects, Lake Whatcom Water Quality, Online Reports. Paper copies are available from the city of Bellingham Public Works Division Water Department.

•Owen, O. 1985. “Natural Resource Conservation, 4th Edition.” Macmillan Publishers, USA, 300 pp. ISBN – 13: 978-00239001003.

•Rexroat, L. 2007. 2007 Lake Whatcom Watershed Analysis. City of Bellingham Environmental Resources Department, Bellingham, WA.

•Wetzel, R.G. 1975. “Limnology.” W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, PA., pp. 196, 217, 353. ISBN 0-7216-9240-0.