By Tom McClellan and Don Russell
The City of Lakewood’s 2023-2024 Proposed Biennial Budget* includes funding of another $250,000 to treat Waughop Lake with aluminum sulfate. The City has not otherwise made any announcement about this, but apparently the City staff and City Council are gearing up to throw away more of our money on a treatment that does not work, and that has already harmed Waughop Lake more than it has helped.
*(See https://cityoflakewood.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/TK-2023-2024PROPOSEDBUDGETDOC.pdf, page 133, item 401.0018, Waughop Lake Treatment)
For many years, Waughop Lake was plagued with toxic algae blooms, a result of the lake being used for decades as a dumping ground for the Western State Hospital’s farm operation. The State of Washington ended that farm operation in 1965, but the legacy of the State’s actions persists to this day. The farm staff would dump animal and human waste into the lake, and once even had a slaughterhouse built on brick pilings over the lake, so that the offal could be easily disposed of into the lake during the butchering process. A pigsty built on the shoreline, where the south dock is now located, made for convenient disposal of the pigs’ manure into the lake. The now-demolished Hill Ward had a sewage line running straight downhill into the lake (problem solved!)
All of those nutrients are still there, and for years they fueled those summertime algae blooms, turning the lake pea soup green, and sometimes appearing even in the cold of winter because the nutrient load was so high.
There have been several studies done on what to do about that algae problem. The first was done in 1978 for Pierce County by the environmental consulting firm Entranco. The second was done by volunteers (including the authors) in 2012, at no cost to the City. The third was completed in 2016, by the consulting firm Brown and Caldwell, at a cost of $250,000. All 3 of these studies recommended that the nutrient-rich lake bottom sediments should be removed, to restore better health to the lake.
The City ignored the results of all of these studies, and went out and spent more money to get yet another consulting firm TetraTech to give them a different answer, recommending the application of aluminum sulfate. A contractor was hired and in 2020 applied two separate treatments to Waughop Lake, at a cost of $420,000. Part of that cost was for hiring TetraTech (which had recommended the treatment) to serve as a monitor of the treatment. This was an obvious conflict of interest, as TetraTech got the chance to earn even more money by recommending this treatment option. It is no wonder TetraTech thought it was a good option.
How It Works
Aluminum sulfate (or alum) is used in lake treatments in order to bind up the phosphorous in the water and in the bottom sediments, making it “bio-unavailable” to the algae which need the phosphorous to survive and multiply. The algae also need other nutrients, but for the algae species which produce the dangerous toxins, phosphorous is considered the “limiting nutrient”.
When the aluminum sulfate chemical is applied to a lake, the aluminum ion easily separates, and can bind with the phosphorous in the water.
That leaves the sulfate ion looking for a new dance partner, and it can get into some mischief this way by turning into sulfuric acid. So a buffering agent known as sodium aluminate is applied at the same time to quickly neutralize that acid, assuming that everything happens right, and that the application gets done correctly. Things can sometimes go badly, and in 2008 an application to Lake Wapato was done poorly, resulting in a fish kill. See https://www.heraldnet.com/news/chemicals-kill-lakes-algae-and-its-fish/
Even when an application of aluminum sulfate goes as planned, the water body is still afflicted with a major side effect, which is the creation of sulfate and sulfide compounds in the lake bottom sediments. For the two 2020 applications into Waughop Lake, the City decided on a massive dose of 80 mg Al/L (in the two separate applications), an amount which had never been done in a Washington lake. Here is a listing of treatments of WA lakes prepared by Herrera, et al in 2018, showing that 15 mg Al/L is a more typical dosage rate per treatment.
How It Turned Out
The initial result of this overdose treatment was super-clear water. During monthly monitoring outings done in conjunction with the Pierce Conservation District, we could see all the way to the bottom 3.5 meters down.
The other result was that almost all aquatic plant life died because of those sulfur compounds, and it has not come back to this day. The sulfate component of the application was reduced in the bottom sediments to form toxic hydrogen sulfide, which bubbles up out of the bottom sediments even to this day. Hydrogen sulfide is what makes that rotten egg smell that you may sometimes detect in a swamp.
You may still see the enormous water lilies growing by the shoreline, a plant known as spatterdock, as well as some rushes. But those are in areas that were too shallow for the application barge to reach during the low water levels of 2020 when treatment was done. The once-prolific coontail and other aquatic plants which fed the large flocks of waterfowl died immediately, and have not come back.
We used to regularly see bird species like northern shovelers, buffleheads, coots, grebes, ruddy ducks, and other species that would visit Waughop Lake to feed on those plants.
And we also used to regularly see bald eagles, which would come to hunt the smaller types of those diving birds. All of those waterfowl are now mostly gone, except for occasional wanderers who come to visit but then do not stick around. And the eagles are still in the general area, and are regularly seen on Lake Louise and Lake Steilacoom, but not at Waughop Lake.
There used to be red-eared slider turtles in Waughop Lake, but they too have moved elsewhere with their food source taken away.
Another unintended side effect of the aluminum sulfate treatment is that other species of algae have now taken over to dominate the lake biology, algae types which are not as dependent on phosphorous. The lake water which had been crystal clear right after the treatment is now back to pea soup green, and we can only see down about 1 meter.
These new algae include chlorella vulgaris and coelastrum, which are often found in sewage retention ponds because they are highly dependent on availability of nitrogen as a nutrient. The aluminum sulfate bound up a bunch of the phosphorous, but it did not do anything about all of the nitrogen compounds in the farm waste that now makes up the bottom sediments. Identification of these species of algae was done via private sampling, and microscopic analysis. While these types of algae do not produce toxins like anabaena and microcystis do, they can be dangerous in other ways.
During photosynthesis, these algae significantly raise the dissolved oxygen levels in the lake water. While the higher oxygen levels are good for the fish and other animal species in the water, it has a side effect of also raising the pH, and making the lake water much more alkaline (the opposite of acidic, like chlorine bleach).
Starting during a big algae bloom event in April 2022, the authors decided to perform a full season’s worth of more frequent monitoring of the dissolved oxygen levels, in addition to the monthly monitoring done for the Pierce Conservation District. The chart below shows that the super-high oxygen levels occurred in three separate bloom events, the first one in April 2022, then in late May with a different dominant species of algae, and the third one in August at the peak of summer heat.
When an algae bloom occurs and then crashes, it can create more problems, because all of the dead algae cells become food for bacteria, who then multiply in their own bloom. Bacteria consume the oxygen in the water, and can even kill fish by driving the oxygen level too low.
The observations in this chart were taken each morning for consistency of the timing of sampling. Oxygen levels would then spike higher in the afternoons (not shown here), as the algae had a day’s worth of sunshine to do their photosynthesis. pH readings in the afternoons were regularly recorded above 9.0, and one reading was at 9.8.
For reference, a pH of 7.0 means neutral conditions, and a properly treated swimming pool should have a pH of 8.0. Each full point increase in pH means a 10-fold increase in alkalinity. Getting the pH above 9.0 is dangerous to mammals and other animals, and can be harmful to things like humans and dogs who might come into contact with the water.
The aluminum sulfate treatments done in 2020 were intended to control the harmful algae, and restore Waughop Lake to beneficial recreational use. Those treatments succeeded in one sense, getting rid of the toxic types of algae for a while, but introducing other problems that still make the lake unsafe for humans, and unwelcoming to birds. And then in September 2022, a test of some green film lining the shoreline showed that the toxic microcystis algae are back. The aluminum sulfate treatment was supposed to last 10 years before wearing off, but toxic algae are back again after just 2 years.
Now the City of Lakewood wants to spend more money on yet another aluminum sulfate treatment in 2023, a plan that did not work before despite unprecedentedly high dosages, and that brought other problems. They are proposing to do this instead of proceeding with a plan to dredge out those nutrient-laden lake bottom sediments, as 3 separate studies have recommended.
The City has already spent $670,000 on Waughop Lake, and has not made it better. Spending even more on the same failed non-solution would be a waste of time, and would do further harm to the lake, although the contractor doing the treatment will probably be happy.
A Better Way
The Lakewood City Council should step in and change the City’s course. The Council should rein in the City staff members who keep proposing to do harmful things to Waughop Lake, and who are not getting us to the solutions that would work. The reason we have a City Council is to make sure that the City staff act in the best interests of the citizens, and serve as good stewards of the City’s assets including Waughop Lake.
It is time for the Council to do its job, and direct the staff to operate in a smarter way, both environmentally and fiscally. Waughop Lake needs a solution that works, a solution that 3 separate studies have said is what should happen. Remove the nutrient-laden sediments, instead of just dumping more toxic chemicals into them.
About the authors: Tom McClellan and Don Russell have served as volunteer water quality monitors for 23 years, gathering data for the City of Lakewood for the Pierce Conservation District’s “Stream Team” on Lake Louise and American Lake. Don added monitoring of Waughop Lake Starting in 2014, and Tom took over that task from Don in 2018. Along the way, they have learned a lot about lake health, and what helps it as well as what does not.
I haven’t followed this topic closely but I do understand the points being made by the authors. Presumably the City has done its own analysis of the dredging alternative, a budget comparison and pros and cons, even if “on the back of an envelope.” It would be progress and a nice gesture for the City to share that analysis with the public. I didn’t exhaustively search the City’s website, but couldn’t find anything on how staff has considered and dismissed the dredging option. Thank you.
I’m in the construction industry. Dredging would cost more than $10 million in this inflated economy. The authors, teachers who lack any experience on that side, seem to question this number and think that the material can be sold to willing individuals who would want to buy this sludge. Bottom line, it’s going to cost a whole lot more to get rid of the material than the authors understand. Whether the city has the money to do this is another matter. There’s probably not a lot of grant money out there for this type of project. It’s a lake that more than 98% of resident taxpayers aren’t visiting every year. I think you can see where this ends.
It is true that it will cost a lot. And it will cost more now, after the aluminum sulfate treatment. I had a buyer for the dredging spoils, a fertilizer company who wanted them and would have paid TAGRO pricing, since the nutrient content is equivalent to TAGRO.
That is very likely off the table now, because of the addition of all the sulfate and sulfide compounds in the sediments which resulted from the aluminum sulfate treatment. Those compounds are retarding aquatic plant growth, as noted in the article, and that kinda goes against the whole point of what one wants fertilizer for.
That still leaves us with a lake with conditions which State law mandates “shall be remediated”, and which aluminum sulfate does not accomplish. So we have to turn to the course(s) of action which would work. Throwing more money into dumping more toxic chemicals into the lake is just a waste of time, and harmful to the environment. How could any competent City staffer ever advocate for that?
You had a buyer? That’s laughable. The lake is 33 acres and for every foot dredged that’s 50,000 cubic yards. This isn’t Tagro or Soundgro. They have to take all the material in one shot. Nobody with a fill permit is going to pay for this material. It’s going to cost a lot to haul and dispose of 50,000 yards of crap (assuming they only go down a foot, it’s probably more than that) regardless of the aluminum sulfate. And no, public agencies can’t dispose of material at a non permitted fill site. Your story is starting to smell fouler than the material on the bottom of the lake. You’d sound legitimate if you came forward and said “I found a dump site with ecology permitting to take more than several hundred thousand cubic yards that’s willing to take the material for less than a couple million dollars and is located within 25 miles of the site.”
It is actually about 150,000 cu. yards, to remove the top meter of lake sediments down to 1 meter, which is where the highest phosphorous levels are found in the coring samples.
But these spoils are 90% water, and so that 150k will reduce down to 15k cu. yds. after drying. That is still a lot, and obviously it would take a lot of trucks to haul off (i.e. about 1500 loads in a 10-yard dump truck). The dredging would happen over time, and so would the drying, and thus so would the hauling off.
Given that you were not in the meeting I had with the fertilizer vendor, you should not comment about what he would or would not accept. And the coring studies mentioned above did show nutrient levels of N-P-K similar to TAGRO. At TAGRO pricing of $10/yard a few years ago, the spoils would net about $150k, which would not have covered the whole cost of dredging, but would have provided some revenue, and would have defrayed the hauling costs since the customer hauls it off.
Now, of course, it will cost the City and State more to dispose of the spoils, since they are full of sulfate and sulfide compounds that ruin the value of the spoils as fertilizer. So we would have to pay both hauling and disposal fees, because of the bad decisions that the City leaders made.
So perhaps don’t spout off about things you don’t know about. Questions are great, and they can move us forward. What you might have done is evaluate the amount of thoughtfulness Don and I put into this article, and contemplated that maybe we would have devoted a similar degree of thoughtfulness to addressing the problems you believe we did not contemplate. That would have been more helpful for everyone concerned, and would have saved you the time of writing down your invalid assumptions here.
Wow. “These soils are 90% water.” Please tell us all more inaccuracies in an effort to explain that you truly are in over your head.
Here’s a hint Tommy boy, you’re off by a factor of 6-7 on the porosity of the lake bed. You might have seen higher levels when you did your cores because you were mixing water, but if they truly are removing 3.28’ of lake bed, you are looking at well over 160,000 cubic yards of wet material. I looked up the report that the City had done by their consultant and they said 120,000 of dry material which jives with those numbers of 30-40% porosity). All of that would be needed to be removed and disposed of/reutilized on site. That amount of organic sediment isn’t going to a fertilizer plant.
The truth of the matter, is that public bidding laws wouldn’t allow for someone to “sell” material from a public land. RCWs require public bidding and the contractor awarded the project to dispose of the material at a permitted disposal site/reutilize onsite. Stop worrying about the sulfate. Disposal sites don’t care about that.
You need to educate yourself on how this works before you hop in and start with your partially correct narrative.
As to the thoughts that two retired dolts put into something, it’s worth what they want to put into it. It appears that neither you, nor Don care about the process that will eventually happen when this gets dredged. Take it from an old construction guy, you need to learn about the entire process before forming some mob against your only ally. No dredging company is going to sit on a 33 acre lake for months to do this job. It’ll be done in a matter of weeks. The spoil pile will get big quickly and removed quickly once the material becomes unsaturated.
Scott, I too have experience with dredging projects and am not in my mind underestimating the costs and other challenges involved. I was merely trying to prompt the City to respond with their own facts and data so all can learn the basis of its decision. Hearing one side repeatedly has become tiresome and counterproductive.
Will, suggest that you access and read Brown & Caldwell’s Waughop Lake Management Plan document. It can be accessed at:
https://cityoflakewood.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/waughop_lake_management_plan.pdf
Neither one of us are teachers. I am out of the construction industry. Apparently Scott believes that teachers are bereft of any understanding of what constitutes irresponsible governance and addressing serious environmental issues.
Tom you did a nice job of explaining the issue. We citizens enjoy water front access which is not possible at most of Lakewood’s lakes. Having a beautiful lake that is safe for both plants, fish and animals is very desirable for most of us who live in Lakewood. The city has an expensive problem to resolve and I hope they get it done. Using chemicals seems like a veneer fix and repeating something that is not a final solution is insanity.
Reading the comments it appears we need to have more discussion so we can find a final solution that works for the common good. If the city council was only presented one option I think they should go back and see all solutions that will address the points made by Tom. If this is done then we as a community can support our city and solve the root problem and not just put a bandaid on it.
Why isnt the State responsible for fixing this toxic mess?!?!
The State very much is responsible for it. The doctrine is known as “polluter pays”. Getting that to happen is another story.
When the State still owned it, the City should have pressed for the State to clean it up, but they would not. I asked repeatedly, and even mounted a lawsuit to compel the State to have to pay for it. That lawsuit had to be withdrawn because of an overreaching decision by the WA State Supreme Court, finding that if there is a public nuisance (like Waughop Lake) and if a municipality makes some effort to address it, then that is good enough. This decision is in conflict with RCW 7.48.010, and with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, but this is where we are.
The City’s hand is weaker now, however, because in the City’s eagerness to obtain ownership of Fort Steilacoom Park from the State (a transfer which I celebrate), the City failed to ensure that safeguards were put in place as part of that transfer for cleanup of past problems. So to compel the State to pay for the cleanup would be an uphill legal fight, and the City is left to beg the State to please provide the money to do that.
But the City won’t even do that because, as City Manager John Caulfield once explained to me, the City leadership have other priorities that they would like to see the State fund for us, and asking for the State to fund the cleanup of the State’s mess would endanger getting those other goodies.
So yes, while it is definitely the State’s moral and legal obligation to clean up the State’s mess, our current leadership in the City of Lakewood has not seen it as a priority to make that happen. Our City leaders instead think that dumping more toxic chemicals into the lake is the best idea. This is what needs to change, especially now that we have seen how the first two rounds have gone.
So very disappointing! Thx for the info.
This is what we get when we waste time and treasure on ridiculous made-up social, race, and gender based fantasy –
A toxic swamp worthy of the other Washington.
Why don’t we have the money to do the hard right thing?
Because it’s gone, spent, squandered on things that have no possibility to return on investment.
You hear that sucking sound?
For those of us who pay them, that’s our confiscated earnings going down the drain.