Nearly every month for four years, RE Sources’ North Sound Waterkeeper and our team of trained volunteers have studied pollution in Bellingham Bay using its major stormwater outfalls — the spots where roadside storm drains release water from miles of paved areas, along with any pollutants left on the roads.
Unlike wastewater from homes and businesses, stormwater flows directly into Bellingham Bay without any treatment. Stormwater is the Salish Sea’s single largest source of pollutants. Our region’s ample rainfall washes leaked motor oil, unscooped dog poop, trash, and more into the Bay via these outfalls. Impervious human-made surfaces (like pavement or rooftops) accelerate the flow of polluted water into storm drains, preventing natural filtration that happens when vegetated land slows down the water and removes chemicals. A staggering 75% of toxic chemicals entering Puget Sound comes from stormwater.
Our work monitoring pollution is part of the Salish Sea Stormwater Monitoring Program led by Friends of the Salish Sea. This network of volunteers in 8 Puget Sound cities gathers data to tackle one of the biggest threats to our waters (Bellingham, Anacortes, Oak Harbor, Everett, Mukilteo, Edmonds, Shoreline, and Poulsbo).
Key findings: More samples exceeded safe pollutant limits, all stormwater outfalls rated as “Threat”
The fourth year results show that the water being discharged into Bellingham Bay consistently exceeds water quality standards set by Washington State.
There were 294 exceedances across all samples for the entire year. This is considerably more than the 167 exceedances detected in 2023. Most of the additional exceedances, however, occur in the observational data: color, odor, and visual. Upon bringing in volunteers to conduct the monitoring, clearer directions were given to assess these criteria, resulting in more water quality issues being reported. In our four years of sampling, it does not appear that stormwater quality is improving.
When it comes to bacterial pollution, there should be a close relationship to high bacteria counts and rainfall if the bacteria was only coming from rain runoff — but that’s not always the case. It is likely that some sites have elevated bacteria levels due to cracks or failures in the sewer system, bacteria growing in the pipes themselves, or other sources yet to be determined.
All 6 of the outfalls and 3 of the 4 creeks are rated as being a “threat”. This means that the water coming from these outfalls and creeks is likely contributing to an already contaminated Bellingham Bay. While progress is being made to address legacy contamination from decades of industrial activity in Bellingham Bay, the results from this monitoring work indicate that stormwater pollution is likely another key pollution source.
Testing for “Forever Chemicals”: PFAS pollution in Bellingham Bay and beyond
We completed our second year of testing for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a toxic suite of chemicals used in thousands of household and industrial products. Evidence about the human and wildlife health effects of PFAS grows every year. Even in extremely low concentrations, they can harm to the immune system, liver, hormonal regulation, and more.
Our results were interesting and a bit concerning. The majority of the samples taken contained less than 50 parts per trillion (ppt) of PFAS, which is typical for creeks and streams in Washington. But 4 sites in Squalicum Creek had measurements larger than 50 ppt, with a high of 393.3 ppt just downstream of Hannegan Road.
This suggests that there may be a one or more “point sources” releasing PFAS into the creek, rather than PFAS coming from disparate places across the watershed. A conversation with Department of Ecology staff revealed 2 potential sources: A fire fighting training facility submitted a report that it may have discharged PFAS containing fire fighting foam (AFFF) into the creek; or a truck wash station that discharged wastewater into the creek on multiple occasions — detergents and waxes can be sources of PFAS. Further PFAS testing needs to be done to find and isolate the source. In the meantime, we recommend that people and pets do not recreate in Squalicum Creek.
What’s next?
In addition to collecting more data, our efforts in our fourth year of monitoring also included working with regulatory agencies and community groups to better understand how to fix the pollution problems this monitoring program has found.
RE Sources is working in partnership with Cascade STEAM, a group of local engineers, data analysts, and IT professionals to better house, analyze and present our data so that data entry and visualization is more streamlined and accessible to the public.
This program has drummed up a lot of attention and concern from the public, news outlets, and local agencies. We hope this momentum and interest will lead to our community working together to identify and fix the most troubling findings. It’s within our power! Sign up to get updates about this work.
Full reports 2021-2024
For more data, methods, and findings, see our previous reports:
2023 Summary Report: Year 3
2022 Summary Report: Year 2
2021 Summary Report: Year 1
This work was funded in part by a grant from Washington Sea Grant, University of Washington, pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. NA22OAR4170103. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its sub-agencies.