# Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole — Forest Plans, Algae Issues, and Health Board Reform On a warm Tuesday afternoon in July, the Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole convened for an ambitious agenda that would span environmental stewardship, water quality challenges, and potential governance restructuring. Chair Kaylee Galloway called the hybrid meeting to order at 1:34 p.m., with all seven council members present for what would become an intensive 82-minute session covering three substantial topics that reveal the complex challenges facing local government in the Pacific Northwest. ## Meeting Overview The July 22, 2025 committee meeting brought together county officials, consultants, and task force members to address pressing environmental and governance issues. With perfect attendance from council members Barry Buchanan, Tyler Byrd, Todd Donovan, Ben Elenbaas, Kaylee Galloway, Jon Scanlon, and Mark Stremler, the session showcased the intersection of science, policy, and community engagement that defines modern county governance. The agenda tackled three major items: a comprehensive forest resilience plan two years in the making, a scientific study of toxic algae blooms in Wiser Lake, and a potential restructuring of the county's public health governance. Each topic represented months or years of preparation, community engagement, and technical analysis. ## Forest Resilience Plan Nears Completion The meeting opened with an update from Melanie del Rosario of Triangle Associates, the consulting firm facilitating the Forest Resilience Task Force. Joined by task force members Steve Harrell, Ellen Murphy, and Brandy Reed from the Whatcom Conservation District, the presentation revealed a massive collaborative effort spanning 13 months, 17 task force members, and six specialized subcommittees. "We have 17 task force members currently serving on the task force. We've had 13 meetings since July of 2024," del Rosario reported, emphasizing that the group remains on track to deliver the plan to council by September 30. The forest plan represents an ambitious attempt to address climate change impacts, wildfire risks, and sustainable forest management across Whatcom County's diverse landscape. What makes this particularly complex is the patchwork of ownership and jurisdiction: National Park Service lands, U.S. Forest Service territory, Department of Natural Resources holdings, county property, city of Bellingham forests, tribal lands, large industrial timber companies like Hampton and Sierra Pacific, and countless private small owners. Steve Harrell, speaking from the podium to avoid audio feedback, provided crucial context about how the plan would work across these different ownerships. "For the forest that the county owns, then the plan can be pretty much prescriptive, in other words, directions for the county to manage the forest that It owns," he explained. "For the DNR and the commercial foresters, it's more an idea that there are practices that are changing because of climate change, because of changing economics, because of different pressures." The plan has condensed its recommendations into four overarching goals, with numerous objectives and actions nested underneath. A consolidation committee has worked to eliminate redundancies and focus the content, while a review committee has provided quality control. Council Member Mark Stremler posed a fundamental question about scope: "Is the goal for this plan to address like county owned or county managed forests only? Or is it county wide?" Harrell's response illuminated the nuanced approach: the plan would be most prescriptive for county-owned lands, advisory for state and federal agencies, and educational for small private forest owners who "often don't have access to resources, either information resources or monetary resources, to be able to either know how to manage their forests." The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) is currently reviewing the draft plan, with discussion scheduled for August 5. Some tension emerged around FAC involvement, as two FAC members who had originally served on the task force were no longer able to participate, leading to broader engagement with the full committee only recently. Council Member Todd Donovan confirmed that the task force has a sunset provision at the end of the year, keeping the project on a clear timeline. The comprehensive plan update also came up, with Council Member Jon Scanlon asking whether forest resilience elements would inform that parallel process. Deputy Executive Aly Pennucci suggested they could investigate referencing the forest plan in the comprehensive plan update, even if timing doesn't allow full integration. Chair Galloway concluded the forest resilience discussion with gratitude for "the sheer work volume that the task force has put in to make this plan possible," expressing excitement about seeing the final product "in the next couple months." ## Wiser Lake's Toxic Algae Crisis The second major presentation shifted focus from forests to water quality, as Anna Mostovetsky and Josh Leinbach from Health and Community Services presented a comprehensive study of harmful algae blooms at Wiser Lake. What emerged was a sobering picture of a small lake overwhelmed by nutrient pollution and facing chronic toxic algae problems. Mostovetsky explained that harmful algae blooms, also called cyanobacteria or blue-green algae, "love warm water and stagnant flow, which is why we see them commonly in lakes." The toxins they produce—particularly microcystin and anatoxin—can cause gastrointestinal symptoms, neurological damage, and even death in animals. Wiser Lake, located three miles south of Lynden, has become a poster child for this problem. "This is a lake that has seen chronic elevated toxin levels over the years," Mostovetsky reported. Data going back to 2014 shows "high toxin levels almost on a yearly basis." The lake's characteristics make it particularly vulnerable: maximum depth of only 10 feet, making it "especially susceptible to high temperature conditions," and a watershed that's 70% agricultural, 20% residential, with numerous on-site septic systems. Using grants from the Department of Ecology's freshwater algae control program, the county conducted an intensive year-long study starting in May 2023. The research included stream monitoring, water quality sampling, weekly waterfowl surveys, sediment core analysis, and phytoplankton studies. The results revealed a complex nutrient loading problem. For phosphorus—the primary driver of algae blooms—about 25% comes from internal loading (phosphorus stored in lake sediment), about 33% from Cougar Creek, another third from overland flow, and 13% from septic systems. Nitrogen sources were dominated by Cougar Creek inputs, especially during high winter flows. "No surprise that wiser Lake has very high phosphorus and nitrogen levels, primarily because of the high agricultural use in the watershed," Mostovetsky summarized. ## The Waterfowl Controversy The presentation took an unexpected turn when Council Member Ben Elenbaas, whose family farm is located near Wiser Lake, challenged the study's findings with detailed knowledge of the area's waterfowl population. "Aside from Wiser Lake, our farms probably the biggest roosting and feeding area for ducks in the wintertime, so thick that you could probably walk across their backs. And wiser lakes even worse than our farm," Elenbaas observed. He noted that duck manure is "incredibly high four and a half to five and a half percent" nitrogen and "more nutrient dense than even chicken manure." Elenbaas expressed frustration that the study's presentation focused on agriculture and septic systems while barely mentioning waterfowl: "I question the plan because of the inability to present data to us that's factual...not a mention of the I won't even say 1000s of ducks, I would say hundreds of 1000s of ducks that are there every day." Mostovetsky acknowledged the criticism: "Waterfowl counts were a major piece of of our data collection process...we did hire a waterfowl biologist who was out there on a weekly basis doing bird counts for us." However, she explained that consultant methodology challenges prevented reliable nutrient input estimates from waterfowl data. "The two methodologies gave very different numbers. One was, you know, an over estimate, and one was an underestimate. And because of the varying differences they didn't want to lean on this data that was maybe not a very reliable source," she said. This admission seemed to vindicate Elenbaas's concerns about potentially targeting agriculture as "the easy target for what the problem is" while overlooking a major natural source of nutrients. The exchange revealed broader frustrations with environmental studies that may underweight natural versus human factors. Elenbaas suggested that "this lake, in the absence of humans, would still be high in nitrogen and phosphorus" due to the massive waterfowl population. ## Treatment Options and Next Steps Despite the debate over nutrient sources, the study outlined both short-term and long-term approaches to address the problem. Short-term options include chemical treatments with alum or lanthanum to bind phosphorus, with costs ranging from $14,000 for small basin treatment to over $100,000 for large basin applications. Long-term solutions focus on working with the Whatcom Conservation District on agricultural practices, implementing phosphorus-free fertilizer programs, shoreline restoration, and continuing septic system inspections and upgrades. The key challenge now is community organization. Either residents could form a volunteer lake association, or the county could help establish a lake management district with more robust funding capabilities. As Mostovetsky explained, "It means that the community has to be involved and mobilize in order to formulate a group of some sort." Council Member Tyler Byrd questioned why this was a health department rather than public works issue, learning that "Public Works doesn't do very much lake monitoring in Whatcom County" while health departments traditionally handle harmful algae bloom monitoring and response. Cost estimates for comprehensive treatment proved daunting. One alum treatment for one basin costs about $18,000, but would likely need annual reapplication for decades. Combined with long-term watershed improvements, total costs could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars. ## Health Board Governance Reform With time running short, Council Member Jon Scanlon quickly introduced the final agenda item: potential restructuring of the county's Board of Health. This represented months of work by a subcommittee examining whether to change from the current system where all seven council members serve as the health board. The impetus for change comes from several directions: statewide trends toward more inclusive health boards, recommendations from a post-pandemic review (the "Burke report"), and new state law allowing—and in some cases requiring—broader representation including tribal members, city officials, and community health experts. "One is that this is something that the country has been moving in this direction, to bring in cities, to partner with counties on boards of health, bring in tribes where there are tribes in the county," Scanlon explained. State law now requires that if counties restructure their health boards, elected officials cannot comprise a majority, all federally recognized tribes with reservation or trust lands in the county must be included (Lummi Nation and Nooksack Tribe for Whatcom County), and community representatives must be selected from three specific categories. The categories include health care professionals and experts, "consumers of public health" (a broad category including program participants), and "other community stakeholders" such as business representatives, veterans, or those involved in environmentally regulated industries. Scanlon presented four potential models: **10-member board:** Three council members, two city representatives (one from Bellingham, one from smaller cities), two tribal representatives, and three community members (one from each required category). **14-member board:** Five council members with the same other composition but adding more community representatives. **18-member board:** All seven council members, requiring nine non-elected members to maintain balance. **Status quo:** Keep the current seven-member council structure but maintain the unwieldy 20+ member Public Health Advisory Board. The advantages of change include bringing tribal voices into decision-making, ensuring public health expertise on the board, sharing responsibility with cities affected by health policies, and potentially allowing restructuring of the oversized advisory board. However, Council Member Barry Buchanan raised practical concerns about coordination: "How do these other counties coordinate legislative instruments such as ordinance that involve funding that council would have some interest?" Scanlon assured that other counties clearly delineate which code items fall under health board versus council jurisdiction, with councils maintaining budget authority and director appointment powers. ## Tribal Consultation Questions Council Member Mark Stremler asked a pointed question: "Have did the group reach out to the two tribes and ask them if they are actually interested in being a part of this?" Council Member Ben Elenbaas noted the complexity of getting official tribal positions, comparing it to needing a formal council vote rather than individual member opinions. Council Member Todd Donovan added that tribes had been "very active in lobbying in this session to change the state law to have each tribe in each county included, rather than the previous law that just said only one tribe," suggesting general tribal interest in health board participation. The American Indian Health Commission of Washington would facilitate tribal representative selection, with counties receiving designated representatives rather than directly appointing tribal members. One crucial limitation emerged: if the county changes its health board structure, state law prohibits reverting to the council-only model. This makes the decision effectively permanent. ## Time Pressure and Next Steps As the clock approached 2:55 p.m., Chair Galloway had to cut off discussion to prepare for a joint meeting with the Planning Commission. "I'm sorry we ran this a little bit tight on the schedule, and I'm sure there were lots more questions," she apologized. The health board discussion will continue at the following week's health board meeting, where council may decide on a direction. Scanlon indicated that if council wants to proceed, staff would prepare concrete code language for the preferred option. The meeting adjourned at 2:56 p.m., leaving three significant issues in various stages of advancement: a forest resilience plan heading toward September completion, a lake restoration challenge awaiting community mobilization, and a governance restructuring decision with permanent implications. ## Closing Reflections This Committee of the Whole meeting exemplified the complex challenges facing county government in an era of environmental change and evolving governance expectations. The forest resilience plan represents ambitious regional collaboration across jurisdictional boundaries. The Wiser Lake study reveals the scientific and political complexities of environmental restoration when natural and human factors intersect. The health board discussion reflects broader questions about democratic representation, expertise, and institutional adaptation. Each issue requires balancing competing interests: property rights versus environmental protection, scientific uncertainty versus policy action, traditional governance versus inclusive representation. The meeting's rushed conclusion highlighted the perpetual challenge of thorough deliberation within the constraints of public meeting schedules and competing priorities. As Whatcom County moves toward decisions on each front—adopting the forest plan, supporting lake restoration efforts, and potentially restructuring health governance—the July 22 committee meeting provided essential groundwork for informed decision-making while revealing the ongoing tensions between expertise, democracy, and effective problem-solving in local government.

### Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole met on July 22, 2025, for three agenda items: a presentation from the Forest Resilience Task Force on their upcoming plan, a report on harmful algae bloom management for Wiser Lake, and a discussion on potentially restructuring the county's Board of Health. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Forest Resilience Task Force:** A temporary county body with 17 members working since 2024 to develop a comprehensive plan for managing forest lands county-wide. The task force is scheduled to sunset at the end of 2025. **Lake Cyanobacteria Management Plan (LCMP):** A detailed scientific study of Wiser Lake's harmful algae bloom problem, including nutrient sources and treatment recommendations, funded through state grants. **Harmful Algae Blooms (HABs):** Naturally occurring blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) that can produce toxins harmful to humans and animals. They thrive in warm, stagnant water with excess nutrients. **Board of Health Structure:** Under state law, counties can either keep their current council-as-health-board structure or create expanded boards that include tribal representatives, city officials, and community members with health expertise. **Lake Management District:** A special governmental entity that can be formed by community petition to fund and coordinate lake restoration efforts, with county involvement and taxing authority. **Internal Loading:** Phosphorus stored in lake sediment that continues to feed algae blooms even when external nutrient sources are controlled. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Kaylee Galloway | Council Chair, presiding | | Melanie del Rosario | Triangle Associates, Forest Task Force facilitator | | Brandy Reed | Whatcom Conservation District, Task Force member | | Anna Mostovetsky | Environmental Health Specialist, Health Department | | Josh Leinbach | Environmental Health Supervisor, Health Department | | Jon Scanlon | Council Member, Health Board workgroup co-chair | | Todd Donovan | Council Member, Health Board workgroup co-chair | | Ben Elenbaas | Council Member, representing agricultural perspective | ### Background Context The Forest Resilience Task Force represents a major county effort to address climate change impacts on local forests through coordinated management across different ownership types—from county lands to private timber companies to small landowners. Their plan, due September 30, could influence county policy for years to come while serving as a template for other jurisdictions. Wiser Lake's chronic algae problems highlight broader environmental challenges in agricultural watersheds. The lake has exceeded state toxin thresholds almost annually since 2014, prompting this comprehensive two-year study. The debate over nutrient sources—agricultural runoff versus waterfowl waste—reflects tensions over environmental regulation in farming communities. The Health Board restructuring discussion stems from pandemic-era recommendations and growing state pressure for more inclusive governance. This change would be irreversible under state law and could significantly alter how public health decisions are made in Whatcom County. ### What Happened — The Short Version The Forest Task Force reported being on track to deliver their plan by September 30, with most sections completed and final reviews underway. Task Force members emphasized the plan addresses different forest owners differently—being potentially prescriptive for county lands while advisory for other jurisdictions. The Health Department presented two years of research on Wiser Lake's algae problem, identifying agricultural runoff, septic systems, and internal nutrient loading as primary sources. However, Council Member Ben Elenbaas challenged the findings for not adequately accounting for waterfowl waste, noting the lake hosts "hundreds of thousands of ducks" each winter. The department acknowledged waterfowl data was inconclusive due to methodology limitations. Council members reviewed four options for Health Board restructuring, from a 10-member board including tribal and city representatives to keeping the current seven-member council structure. The discussion revealed both support for more inclusive governance and concerns about maintaining county authority over budget and personnel decisions. ### What to Watch Next - September 30: Forest Resilience Plan delivery to council - August 5: Forest Advisory Committee review of draft plan - Next week: Health Board meeting to potentially make recommendation on board structure - Community action on Wiser Lake: Residents must organize lake association or petition for management district to pursue remediation ---

**Q:** When is the Forest Resilience Task Force scheduled to deliver their plan to council? **A:** September 30, 2025. **Q:** How many members are currently serving on the Forest Resilience Task Force? **A:** 17 members. **Q:** What happens to the Forest Resilience Task Force at the end of 2025? **A:** It has a sunset provision and will be dissolved. **Q:** Which lake has seen elevated toxin levels almost annually since 2014? **A:** Wiser Lake. **Q:** What are the two most common toxins found in harmful algae blooms? **A:** Microcystin (liver toxin) and anatoxin-a (nerve toxin). **Q:** How deep is Wiser Lake at its maximum depth? **A:** About 10 feet. **Q:** What percentage of the Wiser Lake watershed is used for agriculture? **A:** About 70%. **Q:** Which two grants funded the Wiser Lake study? **A:** Freshwater algae control grants from the Washington Department of Ecology. **Q:** What is the estimated cost for one alum treatment of one basin of Wiser Lake? **A:** About $18,000. **Q:** How many tribes must be included if the county restructures its Board of Health? **A:** Two tribes: the Lummi Nation and Nooksack Tribe. **Q:** Can the county change back to a seven-member council Board of Health after restructuring? **A:** No, the change would be irreversible under state law. **Q:** Which council member challenged the Wiser Lake findings regarding waterfowl impact? **A:** Ben Elenbaas. **Q:** What are the three required categories for public members on a restructured Health Board? **A:** Health professionals, consumers of public health, and other community stakeholders. **Q:** When did the state law change regarding tribal representation on health boards? **A:** This past legislative session (2025). **Q:** What role does Melanie del Rosario play in the Forest Task Force? **A:** She's a consultant with Triangle Associates facilitating the task force. **Q:** Which creek serves as both inlet and outlet for Wiser Lake? **A:** Cougar Creek. **Q:** What must happen for Wiser Lake remediation to proceed? **A:** The community must form a lake association or petition for a lake management district. **Q:** How many subcommittees does the Forest Task Force now have? **A:** Six subcommittees. **Q:** What organization does Brandy Reed represent on the Forest Task Force? **A:** Whatcom Conservation District. **Q:** Which council members co-chair the Health Board restructuring workgroup? **A:** Jon Scanlon and Todd Donovan. ---