## Meeting Overview On a warm Wednesday morning in August 2025, the Whatcom County Council's Climate Action and Natural Resources Committee gathered for what would prove to be a pivotal meeting in the county's conservation efforts. With Committee Chair Kaylee Galloway presiding, the 27-minute session at 10:46 AM focused on a single but significant agenda item: authorizing the county's Conservation Easement Program to move forward with acquiring easements on four substantial properties in the Mount Baker foothills. The meeting brought together committee members Galloway and Mark Stremler—with Todd Donovan absent—along with several other council members participating both in-person and online. At the center of the presentation were Alexander Harris, the county's conservation easement program outreach coordinator, and Paul Schissler, chair of the Conservation Easement Program Oversight Committee, who joined virtually to outline what represents the largest expansion in the program's 20-year history. What made this meeting particularly noteworthy was the scale of what was being proposed: four properties totaling 1,144 acres, which would increase the program's protected acreage by more than 50% in a single action. The properties, concentrated in the North Fork and Middle Fork Nooksack River areas, represented a new frontier for the program—large-scale working forest easements that would preserve commercial timber operations while permanently extinguishing development rights. ## The Conservation Easement Program's Evolution Paul Schissler opened the substantive discussion by painting a picture of a program experiencing unprecedented growth. "The county is very fortunate to have excellent staff right now," he told the committee, "and thanks to the Council for making that possible using conservation futures fund to put more money into implementing the county policies regarding conservation by using conservation easements." The numbers Schissler presented underscored the program's momentum. Since its inception over two decades ago, the Conservation Easement Program had protected 39 properties covering nearly 2,000 acres, removing 208 development rights. But now, with increased staffing and enhanced outreach capabilities, the pipeline had swollen dramatically. "Currently, we have 11" applications in the hopper, Schissler explained, "and we're expecting more. Those 11 will cover another 2,000 acres, about 90 development rights and estimated value of $9 million for those 90 development rights." The program's success in securing matching funds had become a hallmark of Whatcom County's approach. Unlike other counties that rely solely on local conservation futures funding, Whatcom had consistently pursued state and federal partnerships. "Over the last 20 years," Schissler noted, "Whatcom County has always tried to get matching funding from the state or federal government." This strategic approach was about to pay dividends in a major way. Staff had already secured $6 million in non-local matching funding for the pending applications, demonstrating the program's ability to leverage local dollars effectively. However, as Schissler acknowledged, "we still need local funding to make those 11 easements happen." ## New Funding Streams Transform Possibilities Alexander Harris took over the presentation to detail two groundbreaking funding sources that had opened new possibilities for conservation in Whatcom County. Both represented firsts for the county, expanding the toolkit available for protecting working lands. The Forest Legacy Program, administered by the state Department of Natural Resources using federal Forest Service money, had awarded the county $1 million. "To date, the county has looked at this fund for possible acquisitions," Harris explained, "but to date, there hasn't been any Whatcom County use of this program." The funding was particularly attractive because it covered 75% of easement costs rather than the typical 50-50 split, and it was specifically designed for working forest easements that would preserve commercial timber operations. "These easements do not restrict harvest," Harris emphasized. "These are productive commercial timber lands that don't make sense for residential development. So these easements are really tackling that issue, extinguishing development rights and making sure that these productive lands are harvested in perpetuity." The second new funding source came from the Department of Ecology through the Puget Sound Riparian Systems Grant—a $2 million award that required no local match. Harris described the collaborative effort that secured this funding: "There were a handful of partners that worked together on this application. The county was in the lead, so our program CEP and public works, but we had both tribes send letters of support. The Ag Water Board also sent a letter of support, Whatcom conservation district and others." This funding was specifically targeted at compensating farmers for land taken out of production for salmon recovery efforts along waterways. "The idea behind this program is to pay farmers out for any ground that they're giving up for salmon recovery along rivers and streams," Harris explained. "You basically just pay them at the agricultural value of that land... It's about making the farmers whole, so that they're not having to take any financial hit for salmon recovery efforts." ## Four Properties, Four Opportunities The heart of the presentation focused on four specific properties in the Mount Baker foothills, each representing a different aspect of the county's conservation strategy. Three were large-scale forest properties that would become the biggest easements in the program's history, while the fourth was a smaller mixed-use property along the Middle Fork Nooksack River. ### The Janicki Properties: Scale and Impact The largest property, owned by San Fee Acres LLC (the Janicki family), encompassed 610 acres off Mosquito Lake Road. Harris provided context that underscored its significance: "Just for context, this program's biggest property to date is 150 acres. So this is many times larger than the biggest one we've ever done." The property's 30 development rights illustrated the conservation challenge at stake. "It's real forestry zoning, right? So that's one residence per 20 acres," Harris explained. "So if you were to subdivide this, you could potentially have 30 separate parcels that all have their own house and ADU and driveways and whatever you can imagine, how that fragmentation can really affect the working forest land base and make it harder for this area to produce forest products in the future." The site's productivity made it particularly valuable for both conservation and commercial forestry. "It's site class two ground, which for foresters, they really like this ground because it's productive Doug fir grows really, really well on this ground," Harris noted. The estimated easement cost of $1.8 million would be covered through a combination of Recreation and Conservation Office funding, NRCS support, and local conservation futures. A second Janicki property, 280 acres just north of Maple Falls, would extinguish 14 development rights at an estimated cost of $840,000. This property represented an ideal scenario for leveraging the new funding streams—it would be entirely covered by state and federal money through the Recreation and Conservation Office and the Forest Legacy Program, with no local conservation futures required. ### The Coblets Property: Mountain Timber Conservation The third large property, owned by the Coblets family and known as the Red Mountain property, encompassed 240 acres near Maple Falls. With 12 development rights to be extinguished, this working forest easement would cost an estimated $768,000, with the Forest Legacy Program covering 75% and conservation futures providing the remaining 25%. The property's terrain presented both opportunities and challenges. "The ground on this one is a little steeper, so there's some site class two, but there's also a less productive area that's site class three, still very much productive ground, but not as productive as that site class two," Harris explained. ### The Taylor Property: Riparian Conservation The smallest property, a 14-acre parcel owned by Taylor along Mosquito Lake Road and the Middle Fork Nooksack River, represented a different conservation model. "This is a beautiful property with some mature forest, so it definitely has a lot of ecological value," Harris noted, "and the eastern portions of the property do have some potential to be farmed." The easement design reflected this mixed-use potential: "We're designing this easement to kind of protect the ecological corridor on the western side along the river, but then allow farming on that eastern side." At an estimated cost of $100,000 for one development right, the project would be split evenly between NRCS funding and conservation futures. Notably, this was the only property slated for closure in 2025, with the three larger forest properties planned for 2026. ## Financial Leverage and Strategic Investment The financial structure of these four easements represented a masterclass in leveraging local investment. Harris presented a compelling summary: the total cost of $3.538 million would be covered 81% by state and federal funding, with conservation futures contributing only $650,000—approximately 18.5% of the total. "I want to draw your attention to these two numbers," Harris emphasized. "Conservation futures would be expected to cover $650,000 of this roughly, that is an 81% match. We're getting over three quarters of this total cost covered by state and federal programs, and our local dollars are only going towards that remaining 18 and a half percent." This leverage ratio demonstrated how the county's strategic approach to conservation funding could maximize impact while minimizing local fiscal burden. The 1,144 acres to be protected represented more than a 50% increase in the program's total protected acreage, while the 57 development rights to be extinguished would significantly impact future development pressure in the foothills. ## Questions and Strategic Considerations Council Member Stremler opened the questioning by praising the presentation's clarity before diving into the technical details of valuation. "How do you come to a number of the value of each of these properties, easements?" he asked. Harris's response highlighted both the complexity and uncertainty inherent in easement valuation. "Unfortunately, it's impossible to ever estimate very accurately with easements. You need an appraisal to actually arrive at that number," he explained. "So the numbers I just shared with you are our estimates, and those can be higher or lower, and we try to just be as conservative as possible with those estimates." The appraisal process would follow industry standards: "The appraiser will look at the value of the property as it is today. They'll look at the value of the property if there were to be an easement on the property, and then the difference between the two is the value of the easement. So it's kind of a before and after appraisal process, and that's what we use for all of our easements." Council Member Scanlon, joining virtually, raised questions about scoring criteria and geographical focus. When asked about minimum scores for conservation easements, Harris acknowledged the difference between easement and open space programs: "The scoring is less of a variable with the CEP than it is for open space. Open Space is like a very rigid criteria that we follow... they're pretty different processes." Regarding the concentration of properties in the North and Middle Fork areas, Harris provided historical context: "Historically, this program was focused on farmland preservation, but in 2018 Council updated the program guidelines to include working forest lands." The current applications represented "the first major large scale commercial forestry, working forest easements," which naturally clustered in the foothills where commercial timber operations were concentrated. The shift toward larger properties reflected both strategic thinking and practical considerations. Harris explained: "Each easement acquisition takes about the same amount of time. So if it's 10 acres, or if it's 100 acres, it's almost the same amount of work. There's more work for the bigger property, but it's not proportional, right? So it's more strategic for us to go after these bigger properties." ## Riparian Easements and Agricultural Balance Council Member Galloway sought clarification on the innovative riparian easement component, particularly how farming could continue alongside stream protection. Harris painted a picture of balanced conservation: "Imagine a 100 acre property that's commercially farmed, but there's a salmon bearing river on one side of the property. This would be a way of extinguishing development rights on the farm acreage, and that would stay in farming for the long run, but then the ribbon, kind of along the stream, that area would be locked into conservation." The approach addressed longstanding challenges with temporary conservation programs like CREP (Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program). "There's been CREP and other programs to kind of pay on a yearly basis, but there's all sorts of problems with that," Harris noted. "CREP is a pretty problematic program. A lot of landowners have been disenrolled... this is a way of just making it permanent, paying them for the full value of that land." ## Committee Recommendation and Future Steps Despite the scope and complexity of the proposals, the committee discussion proceeded smoothly. Harris had emphasized that the day's vote was about authorization to proceed, not final budget approval: "Today is just the kind of approval for staff to move forward with the acquisition, but this isn't an actual budget request today... You will still need to come back for a supplemental budget request." Chair Galloway moved to recommend the resolution authorizing the Conservation Easement Program staff and County Executive to proceed with acquisition of conservation easements on the four properties. The motion carried unanimously with Stremler voting in favor and Donovan absent from the meeting. ## Looking Ahead As the meeting drew to a close at 11:14 AM, the implications of the committee's action began to crystallize. The unanimous recommendation would advance to the full County Council, where final approval could unlock the largest expansion in the Conservation Easement Program's history. The success also pointed toward future opportunities and challenges. With 11 applications in the pipeline and growing interest from landowners, the program appeared poised for sustained growth. The new funding streams from Forest Legacy and the Puget Sound Riparian Systems Grant had proven their value, potentially serving as models for future conservation initiatives. Harris and Schissler had also hinted at upcoming discussions about program financing and long-term sustainability, scheduled for the committee's September meeting. These conversations would likely address how the county could maintain its conservation momentum while managing the fiscal impacts of an expanding program. The concentration of properties in the Mount Baker foothills also suggested an emerging conservation corridor that could provide significant ecological and economic benefits. By preserving large blocks of working forest land, the county was investing in both environmental protection and the long-term viability of the local timber industry. As committee members filed out of the chamber, they carried with them the knowledge that they had just endorsed what could be remembered as a watershed moment in Whatcom County's conservation history. The four properties represented more than acreage and development rights—they embodied a vision of balanced land use that honored both economic productivity and environmental stewardship in one of the Pacific Northwest's most pristine regions. The meeting's brevity belied its significance. In less than half an hour, the Climate Action and Natural Resources Committee had charted a course toward protecting over 1,100 acres of critical habitat and working lands, demonstrating how strategic partnerships and innovative funding could amplify conservation impact while respecting the economic realities faced by local landowners. The full Council would soon have the opportunity to make this vision a reality.

### Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council Climate Action and Natural Resources Committee met on Wednesday, August 6, 2025, to consider authorization for the Conservation Easement Program to proceed with acquiring easements on four properties. The committee unanimously recommended approval of the resolution, which would protect over 1,100 acres and extinguish 57 development rights. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Conservation Easement:** A legal agreement where landowners voluntarily give up certain development rights while retaining ownership, permanently protecting land for agricultural or forest use. **Development Rights:** The legal ability to subdivide and develop property; in rural forestry zones, this typically means one residence per 20 acres. **Working Forest Easement:** A type of conservation easement that prohibits residential development but allows continued commercial timber harvesting. **Forest Legacy Program:** A new federal funding source administered by the Department of Natural Resources that provides 75% matching funds for working forest easements. **Conservation Futures Fund:** Local property tax revenue dedicated to land conservation and open space acquisition. **Rural Forestry Zoning (RF):** A zoning designation that allows one residence per 20 acres, designed to protect commercial timber operations. **Site Class:** A forestry term measuring soil productivity; Site Class 2 is highly productive ground where Douglas fir grows very well. **Conservation Easement Program Oversight Committee (CEPOC):** A nine-member committee that reviews and recommends easement applications to the County Council. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Kaylee Galloway | Committee Chair, Council Member District 2 | | Mark Stremler | Committee Member, Council Member District 3 | | Todd Donovan | Committee Member (absent), Council Member District 1 | | Alexander Harris | Conservation Easement Program Outreach Coordinator, PDS | | Paul Schissler | Conservation Easement Program Oversight Committee Chair | | Jon Scanlon | Council Member participating remotely | ### Background Context Whatcom County's Conservation Easement Program has protected nearly 2,000 acres over 20 years, but recent staff additions have dramatically increased landowner interest. The program now has 11 applications pending that would protect another 2,000 acres and 90 development rights, with an estimated value of $9 million. This surge in interest reflects growing pressure on forestland and farmland from residential development, particularly in the Mount Baker foothills where commercial timber operations are concentrated. The program has evolved from focusing primarily on farmland preservation to include working forest easements since 2018. These forest easements are strategically important because they maintain large contiguous areas for commercial forestry while preventing the fragmentation that occurs when properties are subdivided for residential development. ### What Happened — The Short Version Staff presented four conservation easement applications totaling 1,144 acres in the Mount Baker foothills area. Three are large working forest properties (280-610 acres each) owned by families involved in commercial forestry. One is a smaller 14-acre property along the Middle Fork Nooksack River that combines ecological protection with farming potential. The total cost is $3.53 million, with 81% covered by state and federal matching funds, requiring only $650,000 in local conservation futures funding. The committee unanimously voted to recommend council approval for staff to proceed with the easement acquisition process. ### What to Watch Next - Supplemental budget request for the Taylor property (14 acres) later in 2025 - Supplemental budget requests for the three larger forest properties in 2026 - September committee discussion about conservation futures financing options - Monthly Conservation Easement Program Oversight Committee meetings open to public attendance ---

**Q:** What is the total acreage protected by these four proposed conservation easements? **A:** 1,144 acres, which would increase the program's total protected acreage by over 50%. **Q:** How many development rights would be extinguished across all four properties? **A:** 57 development rights, preventing potential residential subdivision of these properties. **Q:** What percentage of the $3.53 million total cost would come from local conservation futures funding? **A:** Only 18.5% ($650,000), with 81% covered by state and federal matching grants. **Q:** Who owns the two largest properties in this easement package? **A:** San Fee Acres LLC, which is the Janicki family. **Q:** What is the largest property in this proposal, and how does it compare to previous easements? **A:** 610 acres off Mosquito Lake Road, many times larger than the program's previous largest easement of 150 acres. **Q:** What type of easements are three of the four properties? **A:** Working forest easements that prohibit development but allow continued commercial timber harvesting. **Q:** What is the Forest Legacy Program and why is it significant? **A:** A federal funding source new to Whatcom County that provides 75% matching funds for working forest easements, reducing local funding requirements. **Q:** When will the county need to return for actual budget approval? **A:** Later in 2025 for the Taylor property and in 2026 for the three larger forest properties. **Q:** What zoning designation allows one residence per 20 acres? **A:** Rural Forestry (RF) zoning, designed to protect commercial timber operations. **Q:** How does the Conservation Easement Program Oversight Committee make recommendations? **A:** The nine-member committee meets monthly and approved all four properties before recommending council approval. **Q:** What is Site Class 2 ground and why do foresters value it? **A:** Highly productive forestland where Douglas fir grows very well, making it valuable for commercial timber operations. **Q:** What makes the 14-acre Taylor property different from the other three? **A:** It's along the Middle Fork Nooksack River and combines ecological protection with farming potential on the eastern portion. **Q:** What committee members were present for the vote? **A:** Chair Kaylee Galloway and Mark Stremler; Todd Donovan was absent. **Q:** What was the vote result on the recommendation? **A:** 2-0 unanimous approval to recommend the resolution to full council. **Q:** When will the committee discuss conservation futures financing options? **A:** In September, as mentioned during the meeting discussion. **Q:** How long has the Conservation Easement Program been operating? **A:** Over 20 years, protecting 39 properties and nearly 2,000 acres to date. **Q:** What new Department of Ecology funding was secured? **A:** $2 million from the Puget Sound Riparian Systems Grant with no local match required for stream buffer conservation. **Q:** How many easement applications are currently pending? **A:** 11 applications that would protect another 2,000 acres and 90 development rights. ---