# Lead, Land, and Hard Choices: A Tale of Two Environmental Challenges The Whatcom County Council's Climate Action and Natural Resources Committee convened on the morning of April 15th, 2025, to confront two complex environmental and resource challenges that capture the difficult balance between preserving the past and planning for the future. Chair Kaylee Galloway called the meeting to order at 8:31 a.m. with committee members Todd Donovan and Mark Stremler present, joined by other council members Barry Buchanan, Tyler Byrd, Ben Elenbaas, and Jon Scanlon. What unfolded over the next hour and seventeen minutes was a sobering examination of how decades-old decisions can create multimillion-dollar obligations, and how urgent agricultural preservation needs compete with development pressures in one of Washington's most productive farming regions. ## The $13.8 Million Lead Legacy at Plantation Range The morning's first and most substantial presentation came from Parks Director Bennett Knox, who delivered news that no public official wants to share: a beloved community facility has become a costly environmental liability. The Plantation Rifle Range, which has served shooters and law enforcement since 1971, now faces a mandatory cleanup that could cost taxpayers nearly $14 million. Knox opened with context that underscored the facility's value: "It's worth noting that the length of the outdoor range, the high power range is unique and attractive features of the facility." The 300-yard range with 15 covered firing points, along with smaller indoor and outdoor ranges, has provided decades of recreational opportunities, safety training, and law enforcement practice space. But 50 years of shooting without lead reclamation has created what the Washington Department of Ecology now classifies as "dangerous waste management units." Chris Thompson, Parks Operations Manager, explained the regulatory reality: "When lead is shot and collected and recycled, it's not considered a dangerous waste. That's the case with the indoor range. But obviously, since plantation range since '71, led shot associated with both outdoor ranges was not collected and accumulated in the soil." The numbers are stark. In some areas, lead contamination reaches 192 times the threshold that defines hazardous waste. Krista Koluza from the Department of Ecology, joining virtually, put this in perspective: "You're at 92 times that in areas of this site." She emphasized this isn't unique to Whatcom County: "You're not alone. Other ranges are having the exact same issue. We're currently working with a range in Everett that is actually in more dire straits than plantation because their range completely floods every winter." The regulatory framework is unforgiving. Thompson detailed the county's legal obligations under an agreed order signed in May 2023: "The county by complying with the agreed order avoids enforcement action by ecology. Failure to comply has potentially severe consequences, including repayment of any ecology funds provided, repayment of up to three times the amount of costs incurred by the state, and civil penalties of up to $25,000 per each day of non-compliance." Council Member Tyler Byrd pressed on the financial implications: "We weren't being engaged with Council to continue invest into the facility without being told that this stuff was going on. And we're going to be asked for the $375,000 in about an hour." His frustration reflected a broader concern about communication breakdowns between departments and elected officials. Deputy Executive Aly Pennucci acknowledged these failures: "We acknowledge that there was not good information flow between the parks department and the executive's office and the executive and parks and the council. Part of what we're trying to do today is get sort of clarify the two separate issues, share everything we know today and moving forward are committed to providing more regular updates and engagement with the council." The cleanup process itself is maddeningly complex and slow. Thompson walked through the iterative steps: initial investigation, site assessment, remedial investigation, feasibility study, cleanup action plan, and finally implementation. "It's an iterative process that incorporates significant public input at key milestones," he explained. "You generally have to complete one phase before moving to the next." Currently, the county is in the remedial investigation phase, working to define the full extent of contamination. "When we did the initial assessment, all of our sampling was done within that dangerous waste management unit. When we took a preliminary look at the data, we could realize that it did not really identify the lateral extent of lead contamination of the soil," Thompson said. The worst-case cleanup scenario involves removing and properly disposing of contaminated soil—"more than 1,200 loads of soil, both leaving the site and coming back to the site"—at specialized out-of-state facilities equipped to handle such contamination levels. This drives the $13.8 million estimate, though Knox emphasized this represents complete excavation and off-site disposal. Potential funding sources offer some hope. The county is pursuing Department of Ecology grants that cover up to 50% of eligible costs, though their 2024 application was unsuccessful. "Funding was for those that were successful, really allocated to ready to proceed projects, which as you can tell from Chris's presentation, we were early in the process," Knox explained. The next application opportunity comes in January 2026. Council Member Ben Elenbaas expressed the frustration many felt: "I wonder if we could find a more expensive way to clean this up. Wow, that's all I can think." His question about whether other ranges face similar problems highlighted the systemic nature of the issue. The discussion revealed a fundamental tension about future use. Different cleanup levels apply depending on intended use—maintaining it as a rifle range requires less stringent cleanup than converting it for other recreational purposes. As Knox noted: "Future use of the property will be determined by the extent of the cleanup required and the conditions that ecology may require." Adding complexity, the county doesn't own the land. It leases from Burch Timberlands under an agreement expiring in 2030. Knox mentioned ongoing conversations about lease renewal or potential purchase, though buying would likely require additional buffer acreage. The indoor range presents a separate $375,000 funding request to complete HVAC and other improvements necessary for reopening this fall. Knox projected $250,000 in annual revenue from the facility pre-COVID, with strong law enforcement interest supporting optimistic revenue projections. Council Member Mark Stremler asked a key strategic question: "Can we continue the indoor part of it and treat them kind of separately?" Knox confirmed this possibility, offering some hope for preserving part of this community asset while navigating the outdoor range cleanup. ## Agricultural Land Under Pressure: The Fight to Preserve Farming The committee's second presentation shifted focus from cleaning up past mistakes to preventing future ones. Chantal Welch, chair of the Agricultural Advisory Committee, presented a sobering analysis of agricultural land loss and the committee's recommendations for preservation. Her opening statistics captured the scale of the challenge: "Between the years 2001 and 2016, about 2,000 acres every single day are either lost or compromised by development" nationally. In Whatcom County specifically, "we've lost between 1949 and today around 97,000 acres of ag land. So there were around 200,000 acres and now we're just over 102,000." The committee projects another 7,000 acres could be lost if current trends continue, with 1,900 development rights remaining on existing agricultural zoned land. Roger Kubalek, the committee's vice chair participating remotely, emphasized the urgency: farmers throughout the Puget Sound region identified "access to ag land, the affordability of ag land and the ability to expand existing agricultural endeavors or to get new farmers on the land" as their top concern. The committee's primary recommendation centers on hiring dedicated county staff for agricultural planning and preservation. "Having dedicated staff at the county level can be a huge bonus in better understanding the mechanisms and coordinating from a high level the different ways to protect ag land," Welch explained. This suggestion sparked intense debate. Council Member Tyler Byrd, who operates a market farm on Lummi Island, offered pointed criticism: "As a younger farmer who I feel like I've transitioned in becoming the next generation of farmer in Whatcom County, I was shocked and dismayed to see the recommendations from the ag advisory committee be what they were, because if I was planning on destroying an ag economy, a production ag economy, those would be the recommendations I would make." Byrd's concerns centered on practical impacts of preservation tools like conservation easements and transfer of development rights on working farmers. "As a farmer, your greatest asset if you're even lucky enough to have it is your land," he said. "Have any of you tried to borrow on an asset that's leveraged without development rights and with conservation easements on it? Because it's virtually impossible." This tension highlighted competing visions for agricultural preservation—between protecting land from development and maintaining farmers' financial flexibility. Welch acknowledged the complexity: "When we think about natural resources and about open space and lands and how to better streamline this work, you know our committee is dedicated, we meet regularly, we are all volunteers and we know that we are missing some opportunities to work in ways that actually combine efforts." Council Member Jon Scanlon suggested exploring partnerships with the Port of Bellingham, noting that Skagit County's port handles agricultural economic development functions. "Port of Skagit does do some of that. I know our port has been looking into some of this, potential partnerships with WSU and other entities," he said. The committee also raised water rights advocacy as a critical need. Welch, drawing from experience in Oregon where "farmers were losing water every year because they weren't able to allocate out as water resources dwindle," wanted to ensure farmers have representation in ongoing water rights adjudication. Council Member Berg, recognizing the county already employs advocacy consultants, suggested incorporating agricultural water concerns into existing legislative priorities: "We already have an advocacy group that we've hired as a consultant to go down to the state and advocate on our behalf, so if there's some advocacy items that you all would like help with, I don't see why we couldn't include those." Data questions emerged throughout the discussion. The committee cited a $500 million agricultural economy based on USDA census data, though Berg noted a 2017 study by the Whatcom Business Alliance put the total agricultural industry impact at $1.4 billion when including services, suppliers, and wages. Council Member Stremler sought clarification on fundamental definitions: "Are you using the terms agricultural land and farmland—are those two different types of scenarios or just two different terms that mean the same to you?" The discussion revealed complexities in categorizing land use and potential, particularly distinguishing between productive farming and hobby farming on smaller parcels. ## The Broader Context: Environmental Stewardship and Economic Reality Both presentations underscored the challenging balance between environmental protection, economic development, and community values. The rifle range cleanup represents the cost of past decisions where environmental considerations took a backseat to recreational and public safety needs. The agricultural preservation discussion highlights the urgency of making different choices before valuable farmland becomes irretrievably lost to development. These issues reflect broader tensions in Whatcom County's growth management. As Chair Galloway noted in scheduling constraints, these complex topics compete for attention with routine government business and emerging challenges. The rifle range cleanup process, while expensive and time-consuming, includes significant public participation opportunities. Thompson emphasized: "Through this process, there's going to be several points where public review comments are built in. We've already held three community engagement events." Similarly, agricultural planning involves balancing competing interests. The advisory committee's work highlights how growth pressures, water scarcity, and economic changes create challenges for farming communities that simple zoning cannot address. ## Financial Implications and Next Steps The financial dimensions of both issues loom large. The rifle range cleanup represents a potentially $13.8 million obligation with limited funding options beyond county resources and competitive state grants. Twenty-year financing would cost approximately $1.1 million annually at 6% interest. Agricultural preservation faces different financial challenges. Conservation easement programs require flexible funding to move quickly when landowners are ready to sell development rights. Current federal funding sources involve lengthy processes that may not match market timelines. Council members appeared supportive of continued agricultural advocacy and exploring partnerships with the port. The rifle range situation requires more immediate decisions about funding the ongoing investigation and considering future use options. ## Looking Forward: Difficult Decisions Ahead Both presentations concluded with acknowledgments that major decisions await. For the rifle range, the feasibility study will define cleanup alternatives and costs, informing discussions about future use. Public comment opportunities will allow community input on whether to pursue minimal cleanup for continued range operations or more extensive remediation enabling other uses. Agricultural preservation needs continued coordination between the advisory committee, county staff, and elected officials. Council members requested follow-up information on specific advocacy needs, potential partnerships, and economic impact data. As the meeting adjourned at 9:48 a.m., the committee faced two defining environmental challenges: cleaning up the legacy of past decisions while making better choices for the future. The rifle range cleanup cannot be avoided, but its scope and the facility's future use remain open questions. Agricultural land loss can still be addressed, but only through coordinated action informed by community values and practical constraints. Both issues will require sustained attention, significant resources, and difficult trade-offs between competing priorities. The morning's discussions suggested council members understand these challenges and are prepared to engage seriously with the complex technical, financial, and policy questions ahead. The juxtaposition of these topics—one requiring expensive remediation of past environmental damage, the other seeking to prevent future resource loss—captures the fundamental challenge of environmental stewardship in a growing region. How Whatcom County responds will shape both its environmental legacy and its agricultural future.