## Meeting Overview On a warm June afternoon, elected officials from across Whatcom County gathered for the second part of the Lake Whatcom Cooperative Management Program's annual joint meeting. The hybrid session, held at the Pacific Street Operations Center, brought together five Whatcom County Council members, three City of Bellingham Council members, and two Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District commissioners for nearly two hours of detailed discussion about protecting the region's primary drinking water source. Council Member Kaylee Galloway of Whatcom County chaired the meeting, which was designed as a follow-up to an April presentation that had left many officials with unanswered questions. This time, they came prepared with submitted questions and a desire for deeper dialogue about coordination between jurisdictions, regulatory gaps, and emerging challenges like wildfire response and invasive species management. The meeting represented a unique convergence of policy makers who rarely sit together in one room, yet collectively oversee the management of Lake Whatcom's 21,600-acre watershed - the source of drinking water for more than 85,000 people in Bellingham and surrounding areas. ## Lake Whatcom Management Program Implementation Discussion Council Member Lisa Anderson of Bellingham opened the substantive discussion by acknowledging a fundamental imbalance: while the city has shouldered much of the lake protection work over the past decade, including property acquisition funded by dedicated revenue sources, the city's jurisdiction covers only a small fraction of the watershed. "One of my concerns though is that the amount of area that really is in the city's jurisdiction is a very small part overall of the lake," Anderson noted, pressing county partners about their plans for increased land acquisition or enhanced resident engagement programs. The conversation quickly turned to enforcement gaps that had emerged in recent reports. Anderson raised concerns about long-term follow-up on stormwater systems installed as part of development permits. "It seems by looking at the report that there might not necessarily be long-term follow-up where if people are now parking on those drain fields or you know perhaps moved a small shed or something that might impede the good work that's supposed to be happening with those on-site facilities," she said. Staff acknowledged that inspections occur primarily through field observations by staff already familiar with the watershed, rather than systematic follow-up. The city of Bellingham indicated plans to begin inspecting private systems as part of their upcoming work plan. Anderson also highlighted concerns about boat launch inspections, particularly at private facilities like Sudden Valley and camping areas where vessels can enter the lake without going through official inspection stations. Mike Pearlskin, representing the aquatic invasive species program, explained that while they have increased sheriff patrols around the lake, coverage of private launches remains limited. "That doesn't really cover the area that you're speaking about, which would be a boat coming from land into water on private land outside of city jurisdiction," he admitted. The discussion revealed telling disparities in program implementation between jurisdictions. When Anderson asked about the breakdown of homeowner incentive program participation, staff reported that Bellingham's program had worked with 180 property owners on 200+ projects over the last five-year period, removing over 1 million square feet of lawn and replacing it with native vegetation. Whatcom County's program had worked with 56 property owners and enhanced 195,000 square feet during the same period - a significant difference given the county's much larger share of the watershed. ## Wildfire Preparedness and Climate Resilience The most urgent discussion centered on wildfire preparedness, sparked by Anderson's pointed questions about the watershed's vulnerability to catastrophic fire. Drawing from her experience fighting fires with the Forest Service, Anderson painted a stark picture of potential consequences: "We all know this is our drinking water and it's kind of in a bowl... what happens if, you know, Eastern Washington is burning down and we don't have DNR to come and deal with it and we lose, you know, the bowl and then, you know, again, all of that runoff is going to hit the lake and everything we've done is going to be for not in the long term." Mike Buskin, the city's natural resources field manager, provided some reassurance, reporting that DNR maintains a map of sensitive watersheds where flame retardant cannot be used, and Lake Whatcom is on the "do not use retardant list." However, he acknowledged that broader wildfire response planning is still in development, with the city looking at hiring a consultant to create a rapid response plan for scenarios where DNR staff are already deployed to other fires. Ben Knox, available online, added that Whatcom County's Department of Emergency Management is developing a community wildfire protection plan, pending a grant from DNR. This sparked Anderson to advocate for cross-training between city, county, and DNR fire personnel, emphasizing the importance of relationships and pre-positioned equipment. "We would meet in some areas with jurisdiction so that there was a very familiarity... so that they weren't learning that on the spot," she explained, recommending that jurisdictions stockpile specialized equipment for immediate deployment. Council Member Galloway noted that Whatcom County doesn't directly provide fire services - fire districts handle that responsibility - highlighting another coordination challenge in emergency planning. ## Invasive Species Rapid Response Planning The meeting included a mind-bending preview of what an invasive mussel infestation could mean for the region. Staff described their work with consultant Peaks Environmental to develop unified command structures for responding to positive detections of zebra mussels, golden mussels, or quagga mussels in Lake Whatcom. The rapid response plan involves Whatcom County, City of Bellingham, Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife as incident commanders who would make immediate decisions about treatment options - both physical and chemical. The Monday before this meeting, they had conducted a decision-making workshop examining different detection scenarios across the lake. What emerged as particularly striking was the resource requirement. Staff explained they need to secure supplies like containment curtains and specific chemicals in advance, because "the longer we wait, the less likely it is that we'd have the ability to control an infestation of any of those three species." Some equipment is shelf-stable for years, some is not, and much of the actual treatment would be administered by Fish and Wildlife under a potential gubernatorial emergency declaration. Renee Sinclair emphasized that this is "a risk reduction program, not a risk elimination program," noting that as infestations get closer to Bellingham, more funding will be needed. There's already a New Zealand mud snail infestation near Sedro-Woolley that requires active management to protect Lake Whatcom. ## Policy Coordination and Legislative Challenges The discussion took a policy turn when Council Member Galloway raised questions about the Lake Whatcom Policy Group's role and effectiveness. What began as a procedural question became a broader examination of how the three jurisdictions could better coordinate policy development rather than simply sharing updates. "Since I've been on this council... it doesn't really feel like we're working group. Like, we're not actually pumping out policy or we're not actually reviewing documents or we're not actually contemplating budgets," Galloway observed, advocating for the policy group to become more active in developing recommendations rather than just receiving reports. This led to discussion of two immediate policy challenges. First, Council Member Anderson asked whether county partners were considering downzoning development potential in the watershed, similar to the city's recent actions to reduce multifamily density. Kathy Carver from Whatcom County Public Works explained that the county had already downzoned the watershed in 2002 to one unit per five acres (R5A), removing 1,800 potential development units, while Sudden Valley had separately removed 1,400 lots from development potential through its homeowner association's density reduction program. A newer challenge emerged around Senate Bill 5471, which addresses middle housing requirements. Unlike previous middle housing legislation that exempted impaired watersheds, this bill does not include such an exemption. Staff explained this could potentially allow up to four units per lot in areas that developed at urban densities before the Growth Management Act - a change that could significantly impact the watershed if adopted by the county. The conversation touched on comprehensive plan updates, with some interest in having the policy group review Lake Whatcom considerations in both the city's and county's planning processes scheduled for later in 2025. ## Land Use Regulations: A Tale of Two Standards The afternoon's major presentation came from Kathy Carver, who delivered a comprehensive comparison of land use regulations between the city and county within the Lake Whatcom watershed. Using slides and maps, she walked officials through the evolution of watershed protection rules and highlighted key differences that have emerged over more than two decades of policy development. The most significant difference lies in phosphorus loading limitations - the technical standard that determines how much phosphorus pollution new development can generate. The city requires development to meet a "forested condition" standard of 0.15 pounds per acre per year, while the county allows 0.1875 pounds per acre per year - 25% more phosphorus loading. Additionally, for redevelopment projects in the city, if more than 300 square feet of new surface is added, the entire parcel must be retrofitted to meet the phosphorus standard. In the county, only the new addition must meet the higher standard. This difference stems from 2013, when county staff recommended matching the city's stricter standard but the county council, after extensive public process including input from building industry representatives and engineering firms, opted for the more lenient approach. Both jurisdictions maintain seasonal restrictions on land disturbance from October 1 to May 31, though the county allows disturbance of less than 500 square feet during this period if specific erosion controls are implemented, while the city prohibits all disturbance. The jurisdictions also differ in their approach to native vegetation protection. The city requires 30% of properties to be maintained in native vegetation protection areas, while the county's "full dispersion" option allows properties with 65% native vegetation to use natural systems for stormwater treatment instead of engineered systems. Carver noted that follow-up inspections in both jurisdictions occur primarily through staff observations and complaints rather than systematic monitoring, pointing to an enforcement gap that Council Member Anderson had raised earlier. ## Commercial Forestry: A Regulatory Gap One of the meeting's most concerning revelations involved the regulation of commercial forestry within the watershed. Carver's presentation showed a recent clear-cut photographed from Anderson Mountain, which prompted deep concern from several council members about the apparent double standard between residential development standards and forestry practices. Council Member Scanland expressed frustration after learning that county land use regulations don't apply to commercial forestry operations, which are subject only to statewide Forest Practice Rules. "I've lived out in Geneva for 40 years and there's consistent little pockets of clear cuts throughout the watershed that happen fairly regularly. And it's like I keep wondering who's regulating this. And it sounds like the regulations are much looser than they would be for any other use," he said. The discussion revealed that while DNR lands in the watershed are subject to a landscape plan with additional protections, privately-owned commercial forest lands face no special watershed-related restrictions beyond standard statewide rules. Staff noted they review forest practice applications and make recommendations, but have no enforcement authority. Council Member Anderson, pointing to the disparity between residential and forestry standards, asked whether the jurisdictions had used their lobbying resources to seek legislative changes. The conversation touched on a previous successful effort to prevent a DNR timber sale near Anderson Creek, where county council had signed a letter requesting the state commissioner of public lands remove it from auction. This highlighted questions about the DNR landscape plan, which hasn't been updated in about 20 years despite significant climate changes. Anderson advocated for updating the plan to reflect current science about atmospheric river impacts and drainage setbacks. ## Budget Realities and Future Resources The meeting concluded with frank discussions about funding challenges. Council Member Galloway asked staff what they needed to better implement the work plan, particularly given budget shortfalls across all jurisdictions. The response emphasized that each organization's support for the 2025-2029 work plan through adequate resource allocation would be critical. County Council Member Scanland raised the possibility of a conservation real estate excise tax, noting that only San Juan County has implemented such a measure, which could potentially fund Lake Whatcom work as well as other conservation priorities like salmon habitat restoration. The discussion revealed that most Lake Whatcom work is funded through dedicated funds rather than general funds, which provides some budget protection but also limits growth potential since these funds have relatively fixed revenue sources. Looking ahead, rising land acquisition costs and the need for enhanced aquatic invasive species monitoring will require additional funding. The invasive species work, jointly funded by the city, county, and Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District, may need significant expansion as the risk of infestation increases. ## Future Policy Coordination The meeting concluded with recognition that several major policy discussions need to occur in coming months. Deputy Executive Ali Penucci indicated that Whatcom County is developing cost estimates for a comprehensive code analysis to potentially align county regulations more closely with city standards, with the possibility of bringing recommendations forward during the mid-year budget review. Council Member Scanland suggested packaging any stricter watershed regulations with efforts to make development easier in other parts of the county, arguing this could help sell the concept politically while achieving both environmental and housing goals. The comprehensive plan updates scheduled for both jurisdictions in late 2025 present opportunities for coordinated Lake Whatcom considerations, though staff indicated that planning departments haven't yet scheduled specific watershed discussions as part of their review processes. ## Closing and Transition The meeting ended on a personal note with the announcement of Renee Sinclair's retirement after years of coordinating the Lake Whatcom Management Program. Sinclair expressed confidence in the team she's leaving behind, with Jason Porter taking over as the main point of contact, supported by Mike Pearlskin and Morgan Ruff, with Annie Burns joining as interim assistant public works director for financial resources. Council Member Galloway concluded the meeting precisely at 5:00 PM after nearly two hours of detailed discussion, noting that the conversation would continue in future policy group meetings and through ongoing staff coordination between the jurisdictions. The meeting demonstrated both the complexity of interjurisdictional watershed management and the genuine commitment of officials across all three jurisdictions to protecting this critical water resource, even as they grapple with competing priorities and limited resources in an era of climate change and regional growth pressure.

### Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council held a special meeting on Wednesday, June 4, 2025, as part of the Lake Whatcom Cooperative Management Program's joint councils and commissioners meeting. The meeting brought together representatives from Whatcom County, City of Bellingham, and Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District to discuss the five-year Lake Whatcom Management Plan and coordinate land use regulations across jurisdictions to protect the region's drinking water supply. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Lake Whatcom Management Program:** A cooperative effort between Whatcom County, City of Bellingham, and Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District to protect water quality in Lake Whatcom, which serves as the primary drinking water source for the region. **TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load):** An EPA-required calculation of the maximum amount of pollutants, particularly phosphorus, that Lake Whatcom can receive while maintaining water quality standards. **Phosphorus Loading Limitations:** Development regulations that limit how much phosphorus runoff can come from new development, with the city requiring 0.15 pounds per acre per year (forested condition) and the county allowing 0.1875 pounds per acre per year. **Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS):** Non-native species like zebra mussels and quagga mussels that could devastate Lake Whatcom's ecosystem and clog water intake pipes, requiring inspection programs for boats entering the lake. **R5A Zoning:** Rural zoning that allows one dwelling unit per five acres, implemented by Whatcom County in 2002 as a downzoning effort to reduce development density in the Lake Whatcom watershed. **Homeowner Incentive Program (HIP):** Voluntary programs that provide funding to property owners to remove lawns and replace them with native vegetation and stormwater management systems. **Forest Practice Applications:** State-regulated logging permits that apply to commercial forestry in the watershed, with limited local government oversight despite potential water quality impacts. **Seasonal Clearing Restrictions:** Prohibition on land disturbance from October 1 to May 31 to protect water quality during the rainy season. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Kaylee Galloway | Whatcom County Council Member, Meeting Chair | | Lisa Anderson | Bellingham City Council Member | | Todd Donovan | Whatcom County Council Member | | Tyler Scanland | Whatcom County Council Member | | Kathy Kraver | Whatcom County Public Works, Lead Presenter | | Mike Perkins | City of Bellingham Natural Resources Field Manager | | Morgan Ruff | City of Bellingham Special Projects Manager | | Ben Knox | Available online | | Gary Smith | Whatcom County Planning Development Services | ### Background Context Lake Whatcom serves as the primary drinking water source for over 85,000 residents in Whatcom County. The lake faces ongoing challenges from phosphorus pollution, which can cause harmful algae blooms and degrade water quality. Since the early 2000s, local governments have implemented increasingly strict development regulations, downzoned rural areas, and created voluntary incentive programs to protect the watershed. However, jurisdictional differences in regulations, gaps in oversight of commercial forestry, and emerging threats like invasive species continue to challenge collaborative management efforts. Climate change adds urgency with increased wildfire risks and more intense storm events that could dramatically impact the watershed. ### What Happened — The Short Version Council members from multiple jurisdictions discussed challenges and successes in implementing the 2025-2029 Lake Whatcom Management Plan. Key topics included differences between city and county development regulations (particularly phosphorus loading limits), concerns about inadequate oversight of commercial logging in the watershed, and the need for better coordination on wildfire preparedness. Staff presented updates on rapid response planning for invasive species detection and forest management planning across 13,000 acres of publicly owned land. The group debated whether their policy group should take a more active role in developing coordinated policies rather than just receiving updates. ### What to Watch Next - Whatcom County's mid-biennium budget review will include resource allocation for analyzing and potentially aligning land use codes with city standards - The comprehensive plan update process for both jurisdictions in Q3-Q4 2025, which may include Lake Whatcom considerations - Development of the rapid response plan for invasive species detection, which will require significant resource commitments from all three jurisdictions ---

**Q:** What is the difference between Bellingham's and Whatcom County's phosphorus loading limits? **A:** Bellingham requires 0.15 pounds per acre per year (forested condition), while Whatcom County allows 0.1875 pounds per acre per year—25% more phosphorus runoff. **Q:** When was Whatcom County's major watershed downzoning implemented? **A:** 2002, when the county implemented R5A zoning (one unit per five acres) and removed 1,800 potential development units from the watershed. **Q:** What are the seasonal clearing restrictions for the Lake Whatcom watershed? **A:** No land disturbance is allowed from October 1 to May 31, with limited county exceptions for projects under 500 square feet. **Q:** Which jurisdiction covers the majority of the Lake Whatcom watershed? **A:** Whatcom County jurisdiction covers the majority of the watershed area, while Bellingham's jurisdiction is a very small part overall. **Q:** What is the Homeowner Incentive Program (HIP)? **A:** A voluntary program that has worked with 180+ property owners to remove over 1 million square feet of lawn and replace it with native vegetation and stormwater management. **Q:** Who chairs the Lake Whatcom Policy Group? **A:** The policy group rotates leadership, with five regular members from the various jurisdictions who meet to coordinate watershed management policies. **Q:** What major invasive species threat requires rapid response planning? **A:** Zebra mussels, quagga mussels, and New Zealand mud snails, which could clog water intake pipes and require expensive treatment upgrades. **Q:** How many acres are covered by the joint forest management planning effort? **A:** 13,000 acres of city and county-owned land within the Lake Whatcom watershed. **Q:** What federal law drives phosphorus reduction requirements? **A:** The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements under the Clean Water Act, which calculate maximum pollutant loads the lake can handle. **Q:** Which jurisdiction provides fire services in Whatcom County's portion of the watershed? **A:** Fire districts provide fire services, not Whatcom County directly, requiring coordination through the county's Department of Emergency Management. **Q:** What Senate bill could potentially increase housing density in the watershed? **A:** Senate Bill 5471, which allows middle housing (up to four units per lot) in areas that developed at urban densities before the Growth Management Act. **Q:** Does DNR use fire retardant in the Lake Whatcom watershed? **A:** No, Lake Whatcom is specifically on DNR's "do not use retardant" list for sensitive watersheds. **Q:** What is "full dispersion" stormwater treatment? **A:** A method where properties with 65% native vegetation can use natural infiltration and treatment rather than engineered stormwater systems. **Q:** When do follow-up inspections of stormwater systems occur? **A:** They are complaint-driven or based on staff observations, not on a regular scheduled basis after the initial monitoring period. **Q:** What percentage breakdown shows city vs. county homeowner incentive participation? **A:** The city worked with 180 property owners on 200+ projects, while the county worked with 56 property owners during the last five-year period. **Q:** What special arrangement exists for Sudden Valley residents? **A:** A supplemental phosphorus mitigation plan with three or four simplified options, formalized through a 2016 memorandum of understanding. **Q:** How much land acquisition funding does the city have compared to the county? **A:** The city has dedicated revenue for property acquisition, while the county primarily relies on conservation futures funding for similar purposes. **Q:** When is the next Lake Whatcom Policy Group meeting scheduled? **A:** December 2025, though there was discussion about potentially adding comprehensive plan discussions before then. **Q:** What is the primary gap in commercial forestry oversight? **A:** Private commercial forestry is subject only to statewide forest practice regulations, not the enhanced protections that apply to DNR lands in the watershed. **Q:** What will trigger the need for increased aquatic invasive species funding? **A:** As infestations get closer to Bellingham and the rapid response plan is implemented, all three jurisdictions will need additional funding for monitoring and treatment. ---