Whatcom County Council Climate Action and Natural Resources Committee

The Whatcom County Climate Action and Natural Resources Committee advanced two significant environmental and agricultural protection measures while receiving a comprehensive presentation on long-awaited forest management plans. The committee unanimously recommended approval of both an invasive species response plan and a high-scoring agricultural conservation easement, while learning details of a 30-year forest management strategy that has been over a decade in development. The centerpiece presentation covered the Lake Whatcom Watershed Forest Management Plan, a year-long collaborative effort between Whatcom County and the City of Bellingham covering over 12,000 acres of county properties and 3,000 acres of city properties. Matthew Schmidt from Northwest Natural Resource Group detailed how the plan employs "ecological forest management" to transition overstocked Douglas fir plantations toward mature, diverse forest conditions that better protect water quality, enhance forest health, and provide recreational access. The plan emerged from extensive community engagement, collecting 144 public comments across two phases, with strong support for ecological health priorities. Committee members pressed on funding concerns, with Parks Director Bennett Knox acknowledging the plan "will not fully pay for itself" despite some commercial thinning opportunities that could generate offsetting revenue. The plan addresses deferred road maintenance, implements water quality protections, and establishes 30-year management timelines broken into five-year operational phases. Executive staff indicated the county is exploring new revenue options while emphasizing that plan adoption doesn't commit to every strategy within it. The committee also unanimously approved an invasive freshwater mussel rapid response plan, with Gary Stoyka explaining that Washington and Oregon remain the only lower-48 states without zebra and quagga mussel infestations. The plan positions Whatcom County in a supporting role to state and city authorities, with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife maintaining ultimate response authority. A high-scoring agricultural conservation easement also won unanimous approval, covering 89 acres of productive dairy farmland near Lynden. The Steensma family property scored the highest in the program's history due to excellent soils, water rights, riparian components, and succession planning benefits. The easement will cost an estimated $1.5-2 million, with only $525,000 coming from county Conservation Futures funds after leveraging state and federal matching grants.

**AB 2025-793 - Invasive Freshwater Mussel Response Plan:** Approved 3-0 (Donovan, Galloway, Stremler). Staff recommendation aligned with committee action. Establishes county support role for rapid response to potential zebra/quagga mussel detection in Lake Whatcom, supporting Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and City of Bellingham lead roles. **AB 2025-871 - Steensma Agricultural Conservation Easement:** Approved 3-0 (Donovan, Galloway, Stremler). Staff recommendation aligned with committee action. Authorizes acquisition of conservation easement on 89-acre dairy property, extinguishing 5 development rights, with total Conservation Futures cost of approximately $525,000 after grant matching. **AB 2025-881 - Forest Management Plan Presentation:** Information only, no vote required. Plan covers 12,200 acres across 19 properties, implements ecological forest management approach, addresses deferred road maintenance, and establishes 30-year management timeline. Plan will return for formal adoption by resolution following environmental review.

**Bennett Knox, on forest management plan funding:** "I think the short answer is, it's not going to fully pay for itself, but there are prescriptions in here that could generate revenue and be used to offset costs." **Matthew Schmidt, on ecological forest management philosophy:** "We may cut trees, but not forests. We're interested in improving forest health, but not totally manipulating the forest such that it's not meeting all of these multiple objectives." **Council Member Elenbaas, on conservation easement concerns:** "I'm not a fan of conservation easements, especially on ag land, but I've always felt like, well, we should have it as a tool in our toolbox. But the reason I'm not a fan of it is because of the unintended consequences that I've seen." **Karen Steensma, on succession planning benefits:** "This has allowed us to say, okay, we do, we don't feel so constrained here by really development pressure land prices that we have an opportunity to move forward with the next generation." **Council Member Galloway, on Lake Whatcom importance:** "We know it's our drinking water source for about 50% of the county. It's our plan A. It's our plan B. It's our plan C. It's our plan D. Everything so much relies on Lake Whatcom." **Gary Stoyka, on invasive species threat:** "Washington and Oregon are the only 2 states in the lower 48 that have do not have infestations of zebra and quagga muscles."

# Whatcom County Council Climate Action and Natural Resources Committee **December 9, 2025** ## Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council Climate Action and Natural Resources Committee convened on a busy Tuesday morning, December 9, 2025, at 10:25 a.m. in Council Chambers. Committee Chair Kaylee Galloway presided over what would prove to be a packed agenda covering three substantial items related to forest management, invasive species response, and agricultural conservation. The committee members present were Council Members Todd Donovan, Mark Stremler, and Chair Galloway, with the full council in attendance as observers. Also present were Council Members Barry Buchanan, Tyler Byrd, Ben Elenbaas, and Jon Scanlon. The meeting operated in hybrid format, allowing both in-person and remote participation. What made this meeting particularly notable was the breadth of environmental stewardship topics on display — from the culmination of a year-long forest management planning process to proactive measures against invasive species threats, and the continuation of the county's agricultural conservation efforts. Each item represented significant policy work with long-term implications for Whatcom County's natural resources. ## Lake Whatcom Watershed Forest Management Plan The centerpiece of the morning was a comprehensive presentation on the newly completed Lake Whatcom Watershed Forest Management Plan, a year-long effort that addresses forest management across more than 12,000 acres of publicly owned land in the watershed. Bennett Knox, Director of Parks and Recreation, introduced the presentation with evident pride in what had been accomplished. "We appreciate Council putting this forward as funding to develop this forest management plan. It was funded with Park Special Revenue," Knox said, before highlighting the crucial partnership with the City of Bellingham. "I really want to appreciate and show some appreciation to the City of Bellingham for partnering with us on this project. Not only are we considering management of roughly 12,000 acres in the watershed that the county owns, the plan addresses 3,000 acres that the city owns, but more importantly, they really brought up some capacity to the project that really enhanced our community engagement part of the process, which is not something we might have been able to do on our own." Matthew Schmidt, a forester with Northwest Natural Resource Group who led the planning effort, then delivered a detailed presentation that walked the committee through the comprehensive approach taken to develop the 30-year management plan. The scope was impressive: 9,300 acres of county properties spread across Lake Whatcom Park, Lookout Mountain Forest Preserve, and South Lake Whatcom Park, plus approximately 3,000 acres of city properties across 16 different sites. Schmidt explained that the planning process began with defining clear management objectives, informed by extensive community engagement. Five primary objectives emerged: water quality protection (the paramount concern given Lake Whatcom's role as the drinking water source for much of the region), forest health and resiliency, wildfire resistance, wildlife habitat enhancement, and recreational access where appropriate. The community engagement process was particularly robust, with Schmidt noting they collected 56 public comments in the first phase and 88 comments on the draft plan in the second phase. "Prioritizing ecological health was a primary objective. Support and opposition for recreational access was also a major component, more in support than against, but definitely a big component a lot of the public talked about," Schmidt explained. The current forest condition analysis revealed a landscape still bearing the marks of more than a century of human intervention. "Forests in the watershed were originally stewarded by native peoples with the arrival of settlers in the 1850s, the primary forest began to be harvested and this was for logging," Schmidt noted. Large logging companies operated on the lake for about 100 years, harvesting the original primary forest. After natural regeneration occurred over 80 to 100 years, secondary harvest began in the late 1980s through the 2010s, with many areas replanted as Douglas fir plantations. This history has left the watershed with almost no primary forest remaining, a majority of naturally regenerated second-growth forest, and a significant component of Douglas fir plantations established in the last 30 years. The management plan aims to transition these human-modified forests toward what Schmidt called a "resilient, diverse, and ecologically functional forest landscape that emulates what we might call old growth or later stages of development." The forest management approach outlined in the plan emphasizes ecological forestry principles. "Instead of managing for a singular objective, like maximum timber production or maximum revenue, we're managing for multiple objectives and we're guided and constrained by forest ecology," Schmidt explained. "We're trying to use management actions that mimic natural processes while maintaining a full ecosystem." Practically, this translates to two main management techniques: thinning and planting. Variable density thinning would be applied to reduce tree density in overstocked stands, allowing remaining trees to grow larger and accelerating forest development toward more mature conditions. This approach would be applied both commercially (where trees are large enough to sell) and non-commercially (where cut trees would be left to decompose on the forest floor). Importantly, about 50% of the watershed was found to be already on a good trajectory toward meeting management objectives and would require no active management. The plan focuses on the remaining 50%, particularly overstocked young conifer stands and plantations that need intervention to achieve the desired future condition. Throughout the presentation, Schmidt emphasized the paramount importance of water quality protection. "A primary goal was protecting water quality and particularly sediment delivery, which is a source of phosphorus into Lake Whatcom," he said. The plan addresses various sources of potential sediment delivery, including mass wasting events, road maintenance issues, and ground-disturbing activities. The road system assessment was particularly thorough, examining all road systems throughout the watershed to determine which were necessary and which could be abandoned, while identifying deferred maintenance needs. "Fortunately, for county roads, most of these roads were delivered from the DNR during the process of reconveyance on these county lands. The previous process 20 years ago assessed the roads and upgraded a lot of the roads prior to reconveyance," Schmidt noted, though he added that maintenance had been deferred on active road segments since then. When the presentation moved to questions, the financial implications became a central focus. Council Member Elenbaas asked directly: "Do we think that the plan will pay for itself?" Knox provided a straightforward answer: "I think the short answer is, it's not going to fully pay for itself, but there are prescriptions in here that could generate revenue and be used to offset costs." The discussion revealed that there would be both costs for road improvements and silviculture recommendations, with some opportunities for commercial thinning that could generate offsetting revenue. Knox emphasized that the next step would be to work with the executive's office to develop implementation priorities that balance financial feasibility with the plan's objectives. Council Member Stremler inquired about the Parks Department's capacity to handle the additional workload. Knox responded that they had been preparing for this responsibility: "We have fortunately been able to add staff capacity. Under Chris Thompson, operations manager, we now have a land management supervisor who is going to be tasked with overseeing the contracts that are associated with this." The funding question prompted further discussion about the need for clearer fiscal analysis. Council Member Stremler requested that fiscal notes be attached before the plan goes into place so the council would understand "the trajectory of where this is going." Aly Pennucci from the Executive's Office acknowledged that they don't yet have a full financial analysis of the plan at this high level, noting that "adopting the plan doesn't mean you are adopting or saying yes to every priority or every strategy." She explained that adoption would provide direction to continue the work of looking at implementation costs and developing more refined proposals. Pennucci also mentioned ongoing work to develop new revenue options for the Parks Department and indicated that ultimately there would need to be discussions with the council about priorities if new revenue sources aren't identified. "If there is not a new source of revenue, it will be a decision of, is this a higher priority than other things that the general fund supports in the parks departments or other funds," she said. Knox concluded by emphasizing the community support for the work and noting that they had been working toward this plan for over 10 years. When Chair Galloway asked if there would be additional analysis when moving to actual prescriptions, Knox confirmed: "When we look to the next step, in terms of an actual prescription, we will have additional analysis. There will be a further inventory of the stand conditions and we'd be able to give more information on the total costs associated with that action." The plan represents the culmination of a comprehensive year-long process that successfully balanced multiple competing objectives while addressing the complex history and current condition of the watershed's forests. The next steps involve adoption by council resolution, completion of environmental review, and development of operational work plans to begin implementation of the 30-year vision. ## Lake Whatcom Invasive Freshwater Mussel Response Plan The second major item was a resolution to adopt the Lake Whatcom Invasive Freshwater Mussel Rapid and Extended Response Plan, presented by Gary Stoyka, natural resources manager with the Public Works Department. While less complex than the forest management plan, this item addressed an equally critical threat to Lake Whatcom's ecological integrity. Stoyka provided context for the growing urgency around invasive mussel threats. "The Lake Whatcom partners, which is Whatcom County, city of Bellingham, the Lake Whatcom water and sewer district have been coordinating on the operation of the aquatic invasive species program since 2012," he explained, noting that the program began operations in 2013 with the city of Bellingham as the primary contractor. The original impetus for the program was the threat of zebra and quagga mussels discovered on the West Coast. The threat level escalated significantly in recent years: "Recently in 2023, zebra and quagga mussels were discovered in the snake river in Idaho, which is now getting close to very close to us. The snake river, of course, drains to the Columbia and into Washington." The discovery in Idaho was particularly concerning because, as Stoyka noted, "Washington and Oregon are the only 2 states in the lower 48 that do not have infestations of zebra and quagga mussels." Adding to the concern was the 2024 detection of a new invasive species, the golden mussel, in the San Francisco Bay area. The rapid response plan was developed to complement existing state-level response capabilities. "The Washington Department of fish and wildlife has the ultimate authority for addressing infestations of aquatic invasive species in Washington state and they have their own response plan. Our plan was developed to be supportive of that plan," Stoyka explained. The county's role in any response would be relatively limited and supportive. "The county role would be supporting Bellingham supporting WDFW," Stoyka said, outlining the county's main responsibilities as participating as part of the response team, supporting distribution of information and communication, potentially participating in specific response actions, and possibly assisting with enforcement on recreational uses of the lake. Stoyka emphasized that the county's burden would be minimal: "In most cases, minimal cost." He noted that both the City of Bellingham and the Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District had already adopted the plan in October. Chair Galloway expressed strong support for the initiative, connecting it to the broader importance of Lake Whatcom protection. "I know this is a topic that comes up somewhat regularly in the lake welcome policy group, especially in the context of the aquatic invasive species program," she said, referencing the detailed inspection work required for watercraft entering the lake. "If you've seen some of the pictures of what an invasive species could look like on a massive water craft, it's quite amazing the attention to detail that our inspectors have to have because just like a little grain of salt sized thing could mean something catastrophic for the watershed," Galloway noted. She emphasized the critical importance of continued vigilance: "Like Whatcom, right? We know it's our drinking water source for about 50% of the county. It's our plan. It's our plan B. It's our plan C. It's our plan D. Everything so much relies on Lake Whatcom. So every little bit we can do is super important." The resolution received unanimous committee support, with Council Members Donovan, Stremler, and Galloway all voting in favor of the recommendation to full council. The straightforward nature of the county's supportive role and the clear regional benefit made this an easy decision for the committee. ## Agricultural Conservation Easement The final item of the morning was a resolution authorizing the acquisition of an agricultural conservation easement on an 89-acre dairy property near Lynden. Alex Harris from Planning and Development Services presented this item, accompanied by Paul Schissler, chair of the Conservation Easement Program Oversight Committee. Schissler began by providing context about the oversight committee's work and current challenges. As someone serving his final term due to term limits, he spoke with the perspective of someone who had seen the program evolve: "The committee is a well-rounded group. The county code calls for that. Part of our responsibility is to continue to try to improve the program. So we're doing that every year, and I think we've made good progress in the last several." He highlighted current efforts to gather feedback from existing conservation easement holders and noted several upcoming vacancies on the oversight committee, including positions for farmer or forester representation, real estate representation, and farm supporting business representation. Importantly, Schissler addressed the ongoing funding challenges: "There's still a shortage of local funding. So, the committee offered and the county executive's office asked us to do a report, which we hope to have ready in January on other funding sources that could be used both local and non-local." Harris then provided an overview of the program's current activity level, which was impressive in scope. "There are 5 easements that we're currently working on that our oversight committee has already approved and council has already approved. We're hoping to close on all 5 of these in 2026," he said, noting this would represent 1,200 acres and approximately $3.8 million in total easement costs. Significantly, the program had been successful in securing grant funding to leverage local conservation futures dollars. "We've secured grant fund matches that will allow us to only be paying, I think, the total conservation futures cost is $842,000 for those 5 easements. So, 78% of the total cost will be covered by non-local funds," Harris explained. The specific easement under consideration was particularly compelling from a farmland succession perspective. Located on productive agricultural land northwest of Lynden, the 89-acre property would extinguish five development rights while keeping the land in active dairy farming. "This conservation easement will actually be a tool that's being used to help with the farmland succession," Harris explained. "The next generation of this family is interested in continuing the dairy operation, adapting it, growing it. And so the family is able to buy this ground and by extinguishing the development potential, they'll be able to keep it in agriculture and make it more affordable for them to own and manage that land." The property scored exceptionally well in the program's evaluation criteria. When Council Member Donovan asked about the high score, Harris responded: "It got full points for the soils. It's a great place to farm. The water rights were strong. That gave it extra points." He noted that the scoring reflects multiple positive factors: size, five development rights, riparian components, excellent soils, strong water rights, and location contiguous with other farmland away from suburban development pressures. The funding structure for this easement demonstrated the sophisticated approach the program had developed to maximize conservation impact. Three funding sources would be used: Conservation Futures funds, a Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) farmland preservation grant, and a new Department of Ecology Puget Sound Riparian Systems grant. The ecology grant was particularly innovative, designed to protect intact forested areas that farmers have already taken out of production and planted along streams. "The idea here is to pay them out for the land value of that forested area and protect it with a permanent easement," Harris explained. This would protect existing voluntary plantings and mature cedar and Douglas fir stands, with only about half an acre of additional riparian planting required. However, the presentation also revealed ongoing tensions around conservation easements' impact on farming operations. Council Member Elenbaas, while supporting having conservation easements as a tool, expressed concerns about unintended consequences he had observed. "It's no secret that I'm not a fan of conservation easements, especially on ag land, but I've always felt like, well, we should have it as a tool in our toolbox. But the reason I'm not a fan of it is because of the unintended consequences that I've seen. In my opinion, harming the ability to farm," Elenbaas said. His concerns were specific and reflected deep knowledge of farming operations. He worried about conservation easement setbacks that might "chew up some more of the farmland" beyond required regulatory buffers, and about restrictions that might not account for changing agricultural practices. With dairy farms facing economic pressures and potentially needing to adapt or change operations, he wanted assurance that easement language would preserve farming flexibility. "I just want to make sure these easements take into account that it changes," Elenbaas said, referencing recent challenges facing dairy operations including price pressures from processors. Harris acknowledged these concerns and emphasized that easement design was still in early stages. "We really try to leave a lot of elbow room for agriculture as much as possible," he said, noting that the most restrictive requirements typically come from state funding sources rather than local policy choices. He invited Elenbaas to review actual easement language to identify problematic provisions. The discussion was enriched by the participation of Karen Steensma, the property owner, who joined virtually to speak about the family's perspective. "Yes, this has just been a fantastic opportunity. Contiguous land in this part of the county is really rare for farmers. It tends to stay in families for generations," she said. Steensma explained the broader context of land availability in their farming area: "We have two remaining dairies on our road who have no intention of going out of business and are both tied to long generational history." The property in question had been owned by the DeValois family with water rights dating to 1904, and its availability represented a rare opportunity for farm expansion. "This has allowed us to say, okay, we don't feel so constrained here by really development pressure land prices that we have an opportunity to move forward with the next generation," Steensma said, explaining how the conservation easement made the land acquisition financially feasible for the next generation of farmers. Council Member Stremler, who had spoken with the family about the project, expressed strong support: "The whole family is just very excited about this and their dairy. And we talked about some of the concerns that maybe some of us have about the whole program. And it seems like those are all addressed and they're comfortable and very positive about this. So, I see this as a good move." The conservation easement represented a total Conservation Futures investment of approximately $525,000 after all grant reimbursements, with the total easement cost estimated between $1.5 and $2 million. This leveraging of local funds with state and federal grants demonstrated the sophisticated approach the program had developed to maximize conservation impact while minimizing local fiscal burden. The resolution received unanimous committee support, with all three members voting to recommend approval to the full council. ## Closing & What's Ahead The meeting concluded efficiently at 11:21 a.m., slightly ahead of the scheduled 11:25 adjournment time. Chair Galloway noted that they had finished early enough to potentially start the subsequent Public Works Committee meeting a few minutes ahead of schedule. The morning had demonstrated the breadth and complexity of natural resource stewardship in Whatcom County. From the comprehensive forest management plan addressing decades of industrial forestry impacts, to proactive measures against emerging invasive species threats, to creative use of conservation easements to support farmland succession — each agenda item reflected sophisticated, long-term thinking about environmental protection and resource management. The forest management plan, in particular, represented a significant milestone after more than a decade of planning and preparation. Its adoption would provide the framework for managing thousands of acres of watershed lands for the next 30 years, with implications for water quality, forest health, recreation, and climate resilience. The invasive species response plan addressed a growing threat that could fundamentally alter Lake Whatcom's ecosystem if not managed effectively. The county's supportive role in a state-led response framework demonstrated effective intergovernmental coordination on environmental threats. The conservation easement highlighted both the opportunities and tensions inherent in agricultural land protection. While providing tools for farmland succession and permanent agricultural protection, the discussion revealed ongoing concerns about balancing conservation goals with farming flexibility and economic viability. All three items now move forward to the full council with unanimous committee recommendations, reflecting broad consensus on the importance of proactive natural resource stewardship even as questions remain about funding and implementation details. The meeting exemplified local government's critical role in long-term environmental planning and protection, addressing challenges that span decades and require sustained commitment and resources.