By: Wendy Harris (108)

Time To Move Forward On The Lake Whatcom Forest Preserve

By
• Topics: Lake Whatcom,

Seriously, why is this even an issue? Lake Whatcom is the largest source of potable water in Whatcom County, supplying drinking water to approximately 50% of county residents. Additionally, the Lake Whatcom watershed is a Critical Area of high ecological importance and sensitivity. It contains wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, and protected fish and wildlife species and habitat. The lake is also a Shoreline of Statewide Significance under the Shoreline Management Act as well as the county and city SMP. The health of Lake Whatcom is directly tied to the economic vitality and well-being of our community.

Lake Whatcom has increasingly degraded over time, and does not meet state water quality standards for several uses, including drinking water. In 1998, the lake was listed as an impaired water body under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA.) The city and county are required to restore the lake’s water quality, a challenge that has proved both difficult and expensive.

In 2008, the Department of Ecology completed a Water Quality Study that determined phosphorus was the primary source of lake degradation. Phosphorus loading is the result of residential development. Impervious surfaces associated with development, such as roofs, driveways, and lawns, interrupt the absorption and filtration provided by forested land, instead sending phosphorus-laden stormwater run-off into the lake.

This year’s Lake Whatcom Monitoring Program annual report, released by Dr. Robin Matthews, Director of the Institute for Watershed Studies at Huxley College of the Environment, Western Washington University, reflected a dire situation. Oxygen levels are at their lowest recorded levels, and phosphorus levels are at their highest recorded levels, especially in the densely developed northern portions of the lake. According to the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE,) this new data creates increased urgency in addressing the lake’s water quality problems.

The consequences of decreased water quality were experienced in the summer of 2009. The concentration of cyanobacteria in the lake was so high that algae obstructed Bellingham’s water filtration systems. A high volume of lake water was needed to flush out the algae. As a result, water usage restrictions were imposed on city residents. In other words, water quality problems are connected to water quantity problems.

To meet water quality standards, as required under federal and state law, the city and county must modify existing and future development to function as if the watershed were still in a fully forested condition. Although a number of policies, programs, and plans have been enacted by local governments to address water quality, both jurisdictions continue to permit watershed development and/or redevelopment, and each year, less pervious surface remains. On-going and increased water quality degradation has not been halted. In light of this fact, proper management of existing watershed forested land is crucial.

Development is indisputably the primary source of water quality degradation in the Lake Whatcom watershed. However, it has recently become evident that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) forestry practices contribute to water quality degradation to a greater extent than previously expected. A large portion of Lake Whatcom is forested and governed by DNR forestry practices.

In 1999, the DNR was given ten years to study, monitor, and review forestry practice impacts on water quality to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act. DNR failed to complete one single study to verify that its forestry practices improved, or even maintained, water quality within forested watersheds. DNR failed to review the level of private compliance with required forestry practices. Construction and maintenance of logging roads were not monitored, although compacted logging roads can be a significant source of impervious surface. Not surprisingly, DNR forestry practices diminished water quality, increased landslides, sediment deposits, and phosphorus loading, and increased the risk of harm to humans, wildlife species, and forest habitat.

This is discussed in the DOE “2009 Clean Water Act Assurances Review” at
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/nonpoint/ForestPractices/CWAassurances-FinalRevPaper071509-W97.pdf. Despite these concerns, DOE is allowing DNR forestry practices to continue under new guidelines that may be excused for a variety of reasons, with the likely result that degradation of water quality will continue.

The county and city proposal to restore water quality standards does not meaningfully address DNR forestry practices. Their stated goal is to “monitor forestry activities in the watershed to ensure that any adverse water quality impacts are minimized.” While the city and county point to their Critical Area Ordinances in support of this goal, the CAO’s are not applicable within forested watershed land managed by the DNR. A further goal, to review reports of DNR activities and advocate for strict DOE enforcement of water quality, relies upon the action of state agencies. Clearly, obtaining jurisdiction over forested watershed land would be a more effective approach.

A pro-active, extremely cost effective solution for protecting Lake Whatcom exists. The county has the opportunity to acquire more than 8,000 acres of forested land, which represents over 25% of the Lake Whatcom watershed. This would occur through a reconveyance of land currently under DNR jurisdiction. Under state law, the reconveyed land must be used as a public park. The county plans to manage the land as a low-impact park, and to allow this land to eventually return to old growth forest. Old growth forest is the ultimate form of protection for water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and public safety.

While the County Council authorized a large portion of the cost for the Lake Whatcom Forest Preserve, (sometimes referred to as the “Reconveyance,”) and the City Council issued a resolution in support of the reconveyance, it remains unclear if the county will ultimately approve this action. Election results for the county executive and county council races will likely determine the fate of the Forest Preserve, along with public input.

Concerns raised regarding the cost of the Forest Preserve fail to consider the scientifically established link between water quality and fully forested land, the years we have already been struggling for solutions and our lack of meaningful progress, the vital importance of the lake for our entire community, or the significantly higher cost of any alternative action. The cost of the reconveyance, and of on-going park maintenance, must be viewed in the larger context of the city and county’s obligation to restore water quality under the federal Clean Water Act. The Forest Preserve is an incredible bargain that we can not afford to lose.

Yes, the Forest Preserve will create new trails and parking lots in the watershed, but it will result in a net reduction of impervious surface by reducing current or future logging roads. The reconveyance will reduce the risk of landslide within residential areas of the watershed, decreasing related water quality and health risks. While there have been questions regarding county management, the alternative is the known mismanagement of DNR. The small reduction in logging that will result is more than offset by the benefit of protecting potable water for half of the county’s residents.

Let us also not forget the additional benefits of the Forest Preserve. It is difficult to overemphasize the importance of reestablishing a large tract of old growth forest at a time when this habitat is rapidly disappearing. A large number of plants and wildlife species, such as the marbled murrelet and the spotted owl, depend on old growth forest for survival. Northwest old growth forests have been determined to produce a disproportionately high amount of fresh oxygen and to mitigate climate change. Old growth forest reduces the water temperature in our streams, aiding survival of fish species. The reconveyance provides wonderful recreational opportunities, particularly for those seeking a more rugged and natural experience and refuge from our increasingly crowded urban parks.

Perhaps the Forest Preserve is not a perfect solution to some, but it is surely more perfect than any other solution to date.

About Wendy Harris

Citizen Journalist • Member since Mar 31, 2008

John Servais

Jul 22, 2011

This is an issue because it will cost thousands of dollars to make that a park.  And thousands a year to maintain it.  And because the end result - protecting the watershed - can be done by leaving it as forest and under DNR management. 

The only argument I have heard against leaving it under DNR management is that DNR does a lousy job of managing sensitive lands.  Well, lets change DNR.  Lets make DNR a political issue.  Lets insist our government agencies do their jobs the way they pretend they are doing them.

The first half of this article does not even touch on the forest at the south end of the lake.  The first half is not even relevant to your issue.  The first half relates to the developed areas inside the city limits and the built up county residential areas.  Converting the south end forest to a park will not reduce any pollution from phosphorous or the leaking sewage systems in the developed area. 

The second half of the article deals with marginal benefits to making it a forest preserve or park. All these benefits can be realized by better DNR management.  And selective logging can be done over time that will reinvigorate the hill sides and provide revenue for the Mt Baker School District.  The costs of converting to a county park are not small.  They are large and yearly.  The benefit of keeping it forest are zero to the county and can continue paying funds to the Mt Baker School District. 

A semantic note.  There is no return to “old growth” on logged over hillsides.  Old growth is hundreds of years old.  And fires routinely need to burn out of control to keep any forest healthy.  Logging can substitute for fires.  Just as hunting deer and elk can substitute for a lack of wolves and cougars.  Selective logging will have no larger impact on the hill sides than park roads and park amenities.

Seriously, this is an issue because there exist more than one viable solution to the issue of lake pollution.  And the full facts have yet to come out for the public.  Our local news media are either fully lacking in information or are crusading publications that espouse an idealogical perspective.  I think the best solution is for the DNR to manage the forest as they pretend they do.  DNR needs to stop breaking the law. 

Reader help needed.  Our legislature supposedly passed a new law this spring that allows the DNR to be more responsive to local government concerns.  Can some reader help find that bill, please?  I cannot find it but did read about it a couple months ago.

Read More...

Wendy Harris

Jul 22, 2011

The first half of my article explains the urgency of taking immediate action, and hence, the importance of the Forest Preserve. Reforming the DNR, while a laudable goal, does not address this urgency.

The problems created by the developed northern portions of the watershed actually underscore the need to assume jurisdiction over the forested southern portions, and that is before considering the water quality problems attributable to DNR forest practices. 

I did not have time to go into detail about the 2009 CWA Assurances Review findings, but the level of mismanagement and dysfunction at the DNR was fairly shocking.  Employees were overworked and subject to conflicting policy directives, reflecting political schisms within different DNR departments.  DNR is going to require an extensive overhaul, additional funding and more personnel, but state budget constraints are likely to result in less resources and assistance.

Read More...

g.h.kirsch

Jul 22, 2011

I largely agree with John.  I’ve written numerous articles here in the past explaining the myriad reasons to avoid this misstep.

And if you think our state government does a poor job managing lands in the watershed, just wait till you see what Whatcom county government will do!

Read More...
To comment, Log In or Register

Time To Move Forward On The Lake Whatcom Forest Preserve

By Wendy HarrisOn Jul 22, 2011

Seriously, why is this even an issue? Lake Whatcom is the largest source of potable water in Whatcom County, supplying drinking water to approximately 50% of county residents. Additionally, the Lake [...]

3 comments, most recent 9 years ago

A Few Basic Facts about Dioxin

By Wendy HarrisOn Jul 03, 2011

In recent articles opposing the Cornwall Landfill interim action, I have raised issues concerning dioxin. However, I realize that some people may not understand why dioxins are such a significant [...]

2 comments, most recent 9 years ago

Will The Port Dump And Leave Dioxin At Future Residential Site?

By Wendy HarrisOn Jul 02, 2011

The proposed interim agreement for the Cornwall Landfill could have a harmful impact on humans and the environment. As I previously noted, the Port, the Department of Ecology (DOE,) and [...]

6 comments, most recent 9 years ago

Problems with SEPA review of Cornwall Landfill

By Wendy HarrisOn Jun 23, 2011

In connection with the Model Toxic Control Act (MTCA) Interim Agreement for the Cornwall Landfill, the Port of Bellingham conducted a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review and issued a [...]

5 comments, most recent 9 years ago

“Beneficial reuse” of dioxin at Cornwall Landfill

By Wendy HarrisOn Jun 13, 2011

The Cornwall Landfill is contaminated with hazardous waste. The Washington Model Toxic Control Act (MTCA), enacted by Initiative, requires the investigation and clean-up of contaminated sites to protect human health [...]

3 comments, most recent 9 years ago

Port and City Propose Use of Dioxin Contaminated Sediment for Cornwall Landfill Remediation

By Wendy HarrisOn Mar 07, 2011

The Port of Bellingham, in coordination with the City of Bellingham, is submitting an Interim Clean-Up Plan to the Department of Ecology (DOE) that would amend the existing Whatcom Waterway [...]

16 comments, most recent 9 years ago

City hall misleading on geese kill plans

By Wendy HarrisOn Jun 20, 2008

by Wendy Harris | Wendy is a resident of Silver Beach on the north side of Lake Whatcom. This is her second guest writer article - and follows her first on [...]

Kill Lawns, Not Geese

By Wendy HarrisOn Jun 15, 2008

By Wendy Harris Wendy is a resident of Silver Beach on the north side of Lake Whatcom. She is an active citizen. Today she is our first guest writer. This [...]

9 comments, most recent 12 years ago