City Council - Special Meeting
City Council - Special Meeting
Wed, April 1, 2026
Agenda items
Vote records
Discussion summary
Transcript
Meeting summaryAI-generated
Lake Whatcom Management Program — Annual Joint Councils and Commissioners Meeting — April 1, 2026
This was the 18th annual joint meeting of the Bellingham City Council, Whatcom County Council, and Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District Board of Commissioners, held in a hybrid format at Bellingham City Hall. The session was chaired by Whatcom County Council Member Galloway and ran from 6:31 to 8:27 p.m. Bellingham City Council Member Lilliquist was excused; Whatcom County Council Member Ellen Boss was also excused. This was an advisory/workshop-style meeting with no binding votes taken.
Opening Remarks
County Executive Satpal Sidhu, Mayor Kim Lund, and Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District General Manager Justin Clary each gave brief opening remarks. Sidhu highlighted that 2025 was the first year of the 2025–2029 five-year work plan, with major accomplishments including stormwater facility retrofits and a new joint forest management plan — the latter driven in part by his long-standing concern about wildfire risk in the watershed. Mayor Lund emphasized that the city is currently meeting its stormwater targets in Basin 1 and called for extending that success into Basins 2 and 3, while acknowledging fiscal and capacity constraints. She stressed being "intentional and aligned around what matters most" rather than simply doing more. General Manager Clary reaffirmed the District's commitment to the 12-program-area work plan.
Staff Presentation: 2025 Progress Highlights and 2026 Priorities
City of Bellingham — Jason Porter, Surface and Stormwater Manager
Porter condensed the usual presentation to leave more time for policy discussion. Three highlights from 2025 were covered:
Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS): The city adopted a rapid response plan for invasive freshwater mussels, installed gated access at Bloedel Donovan boat launch to manage off-hours inspections, updated permit fees (generating an additional $65,000 annually, with higher fees applied to higher-risk vessels), and launched monthly environmental DNA and plankton tow monitoring as early detection tools.
Land Preservation: The city invested $11 million to purchase 16 properties totaling 1,056 acres, including the largest single purchase in program history — a 754-acre former timber tract. Cumulative acquisitions now stand at 3,872 acres, with over 100,000 plants installed as part of active restoration.
Forest Management Plan: 2025 saw completion of the first-ever joint forest management plan between the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County, covering all 13,000+ acres of publicly owned forest land in the watershed. The plan categorizes forest lands and prescribes management strategies for each category. Implementation steps begin in 2026, pending SEPA review and adoption by both councils.
Institute for Watershed Studies, WWU — Dr. Angela Streker, Director
Dr. Streker presented the annual monitoring report using four key indicators:
Dissolved oxygen: A clear long-term decline since 1988 at Site 1 (Basin 1), with late-summer levels regularly falling below 2 mg/L — the threshold below which most aquatic life cannot survive. Decline is also occurring at Site 2, though less severely.
Phosphorus: Surface-water phosphorus peaked around 2010 and has since declined to the point that no significant trend is detected. However, phosphorus concentrations at lake bottom are 2–3 times higher than at the surface due to "internal loading" — phosphorus released from sediments under low-oxygen conditions.
Algae (chlorophyll): Has stabilized and begun to decline at Site 1, now approaching levels last seen in the 1990s. Other sites show a plateau rather than a decline.
Nitrogen: Declining steadily at all sites. While lower nutrients generally seem positive, very low nitrogen can trigger a shift toward toxin-producing cyanobacteria that fix atmospheric nitrogen — a trend staff are actively monitoring via microscopy.
Stream monitoring showed that several urbanized streams — Parkplace, Silver Beach, and Millwheel — are failing to meet water quality criteria for phosphorus and/or E. coli.
Whatcom County — Gary Stoker, Natural Resources Manager
Stoker framed 2026 as the 10th year of the TMDL's 50-year compliance timeline and outlined key priorities:
A TMDL reassessment model was submitted to the Department of Ecology in 2025. Ecology has begun review; no timeline is known. No changes to the current five-year work plan are anticipated as a result — any adjustments would affect post-2030 planning.
Stormwater capital projects: The city is retrofitting five stormwater vault locations; the county is constructing a treatment system at Eagle Ridge and designing one at Austin Court. Construction cost increases are a significant budget challenge.
Development regulations: The county is working to harmonize its stormwater and land use regulations with the more stringent city standards, with a code amendment expected.
AIS program: 40+ private boat launches on the lake have been identified as a potential vulnerability; a code amendment is being drafted to create an enforcement mechanism for those launches.
Climate vulnerability assessment: The city has signed a consultant contract; the 18-month study will assess climate change impacts on the watershed and identify mitigation strategies.
Forest management plan: Currently in SEPA review; pending adoption by both councils and identification of county funding for implementation.
Wildfire response capability study: The city is surveying fire agencies in the basin to assess assets, response times, and gaps — recommendations expected by end of 2026.
Council and Commissioner Discussion
The discussion period yielded several substantive exchanges:
TMDL and goal-setting: Commissioner Citron (Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District) noted that the TMDL also covers bacteria — not just phosphorus — and that the 50-year compliance timeline was a policy choice, not a requirement. Staff confirmed the bacteria TMDL exists but said phosphorus is where most program effort is focused.
Council Member Scanland asked how monitoring data informs day-to-day decisions and whether quantitative goals could be set for program metrics. Staff acknowledged the difficulty of goal-setting given variables outside their control, but said data is actively used to assess whether BMPs are effective and to adjust phosphorus reduction estimates.
Council Member Stone channeled concerns about whether the program is actually on track to meet the 50-year TMDL targets and how policymakers should direct resources most effectively. Staff indicated it would be premature to assess progress until Ecology completes its reassessment of the TMDL model.
Private stormwater system inspections: Council Member Anderson asked about the timeline and scope for inspecting private stormwater facilities — both historically installed systems and new development. City staff said inspections are planned to begin in 2026, with full coverage expected over four years. County staff said they lack resources for a systematic program and are assessing the scope of the problem as part of broader regulatory reform.
Landscape plan and DNR timber sales: Council Member Anderson raised a significant concern about DNR's proposal to auction 128 acres of timber in the watershed this August, noting that the current 2004 landscape plan is outdated and not grounded in current climate science. She asked the joint body to commit to beginning a process of updating the landscape plan — including getting DNR to the table — so that budget requests can be made in the upcoming cycle. Council Member Galloway agreed the 20-year-old plan needs updating and noted opportunities for compliance monitoring and expanding the interjurisdictional committee's membership and transparency. No formal commitment was made, but there was broad agreement on the importance of the issue.
Recreation impacts: Council Member Renstra raised the jump in recorded recreation from 200,000 to 750,000 annual visits between 2024 and 2025. County Parks staff clarified much of the increase was due to a road maintenance project (approximately $380,000 in budget, apparently miscommunicated as visitor counts initially) and increased trail construction. No active study of recreation's water quality impacts is underway.
Development moratorium: At the close of the meeting, Council Member Scanland raised the question of whether a moratorium on new development in unincorporated Whatcom County around the lake had been studied for its potential TMDL impact. Council Member Anderson described a precedent in the city's Silver Beach area, where development was paused for approximately two years to allow proper zoning analysis. She expressed support for the concept but noted it falls within county jurisdiction. No commitment was made, but Council Member Scanland suggested it warrants formal study.
Public Comment
Eight speakers commented, raising concerns that went beyond what staff had presented:
Susan Hutton (Whatcom Million Trees Project) warned that DNR's proposed August timber auction of 128 acres in the watershed — which would leave an average of 8 trees per acre — directly contradicts the program's goals. She noted the program has invested over $50 million to improve water quality; logging that land could increase phosphorus through erosion and warming, requiring more expensive treatment. She called on the joint bodies to prevent government from working "at cross-purposes."
Laura Weiss highlighted that there is currently no program to inspect previously installed private stormwater systems, despite their critical role in keeping phosphorus out of the lake. She called for immediate establishment of such a program.
Carrie Burnside (People for Lake Whatcom) said the monitoring report and the progress report tell "two different stories." She cited the 36-year decline in deep-water dissolved oxygen, increasing cyanobacteria clogging drinking water filters (not reflected in the progress report), and a rising trend in disinfection byproducts in drinking water. She also noted that bacteria monitoring — legally required under the TMDL — was largely absent from the night's discussion. She asked whether elected officials have met directly with Ecology's TMDL lead and called for a governance structure that ties monitoring data to policy triggers.
Kaia Hayes (Resources, a Whatcom-based nonprofit) called for stronger policy and regulatory frameworks to match the evolution of the science, noting that "the big questions of our region's future all converge here at Lake Whatcom."
Dr. Susan Kane Roning (Sierra Club / People for Lake Whatcom) provided specific TMDL numbers: the total annual phosphorus reduction required is 3,147.8 pounds. The city's current reduction is approximately 200 pounds against a target of 330; the county's target is 1,200 pounds. She argued current efforts are insufficient and called for more rigorous stormwater retrofits in developed areas like Sudden Valley.
Rick Edgar (Sierra Club / Bellingham Water Resources Advisory Board) criticized the progress report's use of metrics without context — citing the 200-pound phosphorus reduction figure as meaningless without knowing total phosphorus inputs or the TMDL requirement. He asked for metrics with baselines in future reports.
Daniel Harm (forestry policy professional) called for a cohesive landscape-level strategy, warning that industrial clear-cutting by DNR — specifically "variable retention harvest" — increases erosion, mobilizes phosphorus, and undermines tens of millions of dollars of public investment. He urged the bodies to explore incentives for private landowners to adopt ecological forestry practices.
Brian Gass (online) criticized what he characterized as a gap between city staff taking credit for contracted work and the lack of quantifiable outcomes — particularly on dissolved oxygen and cumulative phosphorus reduction.
Key Takeaways
The DNR timber auction is an immediate flashpoint. A proposed August 2026 sale of 128 acres in the watershed — leaving approximately 8 trees per acre — directly contradicts the program's water quality goals. Multiple public speakers and Council Member Anderson called for urgent, coordinated action across all three jurisdictions to address it. The 2004 landscape plan governing DNR activity is widely acknowledged as outdated.
The program is showing some positive signs but is not yet on track for TMDL compliance. Deep-water dissolved oxygen continues its 36-year decline; phosphorus in surface waters has stabilized but is far from targets; the bacteria half of the TMDL received almost no attention. Staff acknowledged it is premature to assess overall TMDL trajectory until Ecology completes its reassessment review.
Private stormwater system inspections are a gap. Neither the city nor the county currently has a functioning program to verify that previously installed private stormwater facilities — which are legally required and critical to phosphorus reduction — continue to work as designed. Both are in the early stages of developing one.
A development moratorium around the lake is now on the table. Council Member Scanland formally raised the question of whether halting new development in unincorporated Whatcom County around the lake has been studied for its TMDL impact. Council Member Anderson described a successful city precedent. No action was taken, but the idea has moved from off-limits to a topic for formal consideration.
The county faces structural resource gaps. Unlike the city, which has dedicated utility revenues for watershed work, the county lacks reliable funding for land acquisition and forest management plan implementation. Conservation futures funds and a potential REET 3 measure were mentioned as options to explore.
AI-generated summary from voice-to-text transcript. Not the official record. Verify important details with the source documents linked above.
What happened at this meeting
Annual joint meeting of the Lake Whatcom Management Program councils and commissioners
# Summary: Annual Joint Meeting of the Lake Whatcom Management Program
On April 1st, 2026, the 18th annual joint meeting of the Lake Whatcom Management Program brought together the City of Bellingham, Whatcom County, and the Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District to discuss progress toward water quality improvement goals. County Executive Sat Paul highlighted 2025 accomplishments including $11 million in land acquisition (1,056 acres), stormwater facility retrofits, forest management planning for 13,000+ acres, and aquatic invasive species controls, while emphasizing that EPA-mandated phosphorus reduction on a 50-year timeline requires steady incremental progress and warning that forest fires pose a significant risk to prior investments. Staff presented 2026 priorities including stormwater capital projects, development code harmonization, a climate vulnerability assessment, and wildfire response capability study, though public commenters including Carrie Burnside from People for Lake Whatcom raised concerns about stagnant dissolved oxygen levels over 36 years, discrepancies between monitoring data and progress reports, and questioned whether the city is meeting its phosphorus removal targets of 330 pounds annually. Council Member Anderson advocated for updating DNR's outdated landscape plan to align private timber operations with the watershed's ecological management goals, while Daniel Harm and other commenters criticized industrial clear-cutting practices and questioned the effectiveness of tens of millions in spending without achieving stated water quality targets. The meeting concluded with plans for four additional public policy group meetings and discussions of potential development moratoriums as a strategic planning tool.
On April 1st, 2026, the 18th annual joint meeting of the Lake Whatcom Management Program brought together the City of Bellingham, Whatcom County, and the Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District to discuss progress toward water quality improvement goals. County Executive Sat Paul highlighted 2025 accomplishments including $11 million in land acquisition (1,056 acres), stormwater facility retrofits, forest management planning for 13,000+ acres, and aquatic invasive species controls, while emphasizing that EPA-mandated phosphorus reduction on a 50-year timeline requires steady incremental progress and warning that forest fires pose a significant risk to prior investments. Staff presented 2026 priorities including stormwater capital projects, development code harmonization, a climate vulnerability assessment, and wildfire response capability study, though public commenters including Carrie Burnside from People for Lake Whatcom raised concerns about stagnant dissolved oxygen levels over 36 years, discrepancies between monitoring data and progress reports, and questioned whether the city is meeting its phosphorus removal targets of 330 pounds annually. Council Member Anderson advocated for updating DNR's outdated landscape plan to align private timber operations with the watershed's ecological management goals, while Daniel Harm and other commenters criticized industrial clear-cutting practices and questioned the effectiveness of tens of millions in spending without achieving stated water quality targets. The meeting concluded with plans for four additional public policy group meetings and discussions of potential development moratoriums as a strategic planning tool.
Agenda items (8)
Procedural (8)
1ProceduralOnline: A sign-up form is available at prior to the meeting. The form is linked at cob.org/event/jcc-2026.
Residents can sign up online before the meeting to speak during public comment at the Lake Whatcom Management Program joint meeting by visiting the form at cob.org/event/jcc-2026.
2ProceduralIn person: Sign-up sheets are available outside the Council Chambers doors starting at 6 p.m. the evening of the meeting.
Sign-up sheets will be available outside the Council Chambers doors starting at 6 p.m. on the meeting day for residents who want to speak in person.
3ProceduralSign up, both online and in person, closes at 6:30 p.m. Once signed up, speakers may participate via the following options:
Both online and in-person speaker sign-up closes at 6:30 p.m., and once registered, speakers can participate through multiple options.
4ProceduralIn person: Meetings are held in Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall.
This meeting will be held in person at Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall.
5ProceduralOnline: Join the Zoom meeting at cob.org/lwjcc and follow staff instructions at time of the hearing or public comment period. Before or after a meeting: The City of Bellingham meets the Open Public Meetings Act by accepting written public comment in advance of City Council meetings. Send written input before or after a meeting.
Residents can join the meeting online via Zoom at cob.org/lwjcc, or submit written comments before or after the meeting to comply with open meetings requirements.
6ProceduralBy mail addressed to: City Council, 210 Lottie Street, Bellingham, WA 98225.
Written public comments can be mailed to City Council at 210 Lottie Street, Bellingham, WA 98225 before or after the meeting.
7ProceduralBy E-mail: E-mail all Council Members at ccmail@cob.org.
Residents can email written comments to all City Council members at ccmail@cob.org before or after the meeting.
24873ProceduralAnnual joint meeting of the Lake Whatcom Management Program councils and commissioners
This is the annual joint meeting bringing together the Lake Whatcom Management Program councils and commissioners to conduct business.
What happened
# Summary: Annual Joint Meeting of the Lake Whatcom Management ProgramOn April 1st, 2026, the 18th annual joint meeting of the Lake Whatcom Management Program brought together the City of Bellingham, Whatcom County, and the Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District to discuss progress toward water quality improvement goals. County Executive Sat Paul highlighted 2025 accomplishments including $11 million in land acquisition (1,056 acres), stormwater facility retrofits, forest management planning for 13,000+ acres, and aquatic invasive species controls, while emphasizing that EPA-mandated phosphorus reduction on a 50-year timeline requires steady incremental progress and warning that forest fires pose a significant risk to prior investments. Staff presented 2026 priorities including stormwater capital projects, development code harmonization, a climate vulnerability assessment, and wildfire response capability study, though public commenters including Carrie Burnside from People for Lake Whatcom raised concerns about stagnant dissolved oxygen levels over 36 years, discrepancies between monitoring data and progress reports, and questioned whether the city is meeting its phosphorus removal targets of 330 pounds annually. Council Member Anderson advocated for updating DNR's outdated landscape plan to align private timber operations with the watershed's ecological management goals, while Daniel Harm and other commenters criticized industrial clear-cutting practices and questioned the effectiveness of tens of millions in spending without achieving stated water quality targets. The meeting concluded with plans for four additional public policy group meetings and discussions of potential development moratoriums as a strategic planning tool.
Verbatim transcript available
394 transcript segments indexed
Okay, good evening everyone. I would like to call to order this Lake Watcom annual joint councils and commissioners meeting. Today is Wednesday, April 1st, 2026. It is now 6:31 p.m. Uh we are meeting in a hybrid format in person here at Bellingham City Council Chambers.
Thank you for hosting us and of course uh via Zoom as well. Just want to do a quick um few items here. We'll start with roll call. We'll have the president um or chair of each of our bodies call their own role.
So with that, I'll go ahead and start with the city of Bellingham. President Stone. Thank you very much. Good evening everyone. Um so first Hannah Stone present. We have council member Anderson >> here.
Council member Hamill here. >> Council member Cotton here. >> Council member Williams here. >> Council member Husman here. And council member Liiloquist is excused this evening. Thank you. Next, we have our Lake Wacom Water and Sewer District President um Citron.
>> Hi, can you hear me? Okay. >> Yep. Can we can hear you? >> Okay, great. Thanks. Sorry. Um thank you. Um I can't tell who's in the room, but I'll run roll call and see who's who's uh in the room or online.
Uh uh John Carter >> here. David Holland >> here. >> And Jeff Knack >> here. >> Okay. And he um has just arrived into town from New Zealand, so I'm not sure if he'll make it um on here this evening. >> I am here, Todd.
>> Oh, you are. Oh, thanks. I didn't hear you. Good. I'm glad you made it. >> Yeah. So, I I guess uh all members of your commission are present. Next for the Wakom County Council, um myself, Council Member Galloway is here.
Council member Bole >> here. Restra >> here. Stremler >> here. >> Ellen Boss is excused. Council member Buchanan >> here. >> Council member Scanland >> here. >> Okay. Let the record show uh six out of our seven council members are here.
Um [snorts] I also just want to briefly acknowledge the members of our bodies that serve as our body's representatives on the Lake Walom Policy Group. That's um myself and council member Renstra for the county um council members Williams and Anderson for the city and um Commissioner Knackle with the Lake Walom Water and Sewer District.
So, we are a collaborative body and excited to be here this evening for joint councils. I did want to kind of just review over the agenda real quick so we um know what what's available to us. Um and again, as council members and commissioners wish to speak, we've gotten some good practice, but make sure you push that mic button so we can hear you here in person as well as online.
We'll start with opening remarks. We'll have executive um Sat Paul Sidu, mayor Kim Lond, and general manager Justin Clary each give brief remarks. We'll then go into a presentation from staff Jason Porter at the city, and Gary Stoker at the county, as well as Dr.
Angela Streker, who's the director of the Institute for Watershed Studies. Um they'll be covering the progress and highlights from 2025 and looking ahead to 2026 for our priorities and challenges ahead.
>> [snorts] >> We'll ask that our members um refrain from asking questions until the end of the presentation. Um though, if we think it's a quick clarifying question, we can go ahead and do that um during the meeting.
We want to make sure everyone understands if there's any acronyms or anything that needs clarifying that we get that clarified throughout the the presentation. And [snorts] then we'll spend a significant amount of time um for open discussion among our members.
So, we'll have about 40 minutes for that. And then we'll have public comment. uh we'll have uh members speak um in person and virtually for about two minutes per person and we'll allow for up to 20 minutes total.
Um so we'll have an opportunity to hear from members of the public and then we'll close out. So with that we'll go ahead and welcome um Welcome County Executive Sat Paul City for your remarks. Thank you.
Well, good evening everybody and welcome to this Watcom County Council, Bellingham City Council and Lake Watcom Water and Sewer District Commissioners and all members of public taking time to be here today and uh talk about our largest source of drinking water and what we are doing about it and what we are going to do about it in future.
The meeting is an opportunity to share the highlights of the work that was done in the watershed last year and it give you preview of the work to be done in the next year I mean current year 2026 and there is plenty of time I remember last time there was a little bit very little time left for the public so this year we have tried that uh there's more time allowed for public to make their comments as well as their There are some Q&As's we can take care of that.
Now 2025 marked the first year of 2025 2029 5-year plan. Major accomplishments last year included rebuilding and retrofitting old storm water treatment facilities and initiation of development of sub uh watershed master plans for the West Geneva and North Lake Watcom areas.
This work demonstrates the consistent progress needed to improve water quality in Lake Watcom as approved by the Washington Department of Ecology and in accordance with our storm water permit system. While improvements in the lake water quality may not come uh quickly as we all would like to an effort like this takes time and the key to success is to keep focused and on making steady incremental progress all along.
[clears throat] One of the major accomplishments of 2025 was the preparation of the forest management plan for the city and the county owned forest lands in the watershed. And you probably have heard me for many years that uh I've been uh saying about that uh the my biggest fear is the forest fire which can negate all the efforts and the uh uh investments we have made.
I'm glad that we now do have a plan and uh now we will be working to implement it that you remember that we county was going to do it their own plan then and as we were getting ready we thought the best is to work with the city and we all combined so that we don't repeat that work again and we were able to do a joint uh uh uh report again I thank you everybody for attending this evening and hearing about the important work that is accomplished last year and some of the work that we will do next year.
Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mr. Executive. Next, we'll have the mayor of Bellingham, Kim Lund. Is this working? Oh, it's working now. Thank you all for being here and for your continued partnership in protecting Lake Watcom.
This work represents our shared responsibility across jurisdictions to a resource that is central to our drinking water, our environment, and our quality of life across the city, county, and the Lake Wacom Water and Sewer District.
We are making real investments in watershed protection, infrastructure, storm water management, land acquisition, and community engagement. This is complex technical work that often happens out of view, but it is foundational to protecting the lake.
We're also starting to see the results of that work in basin 1. Through sustained investments in storm water treatment, the city is meeting our current targets and continuing to build on that progress.
And to me, that gives us a clear opportunity to build on what is working and extend that success into basins two and three. At the same time, we are all operating in a constrained environment. Whether it's affordability for our communities or the limits of our own time, our fiscal resources or our own capacity.
That makes this even more important that we stay focused on the actions that will have the greatest impact on improving and protecting the health of the lake. It is not necessarily just about doing more.
It's about being intentional and aligned around what matters most right now. One of the opportunities in front of us is to take what we're learning in basin one and work together to extend that success out into basins two and three.
That kind of alignment around proven strategies around real outcomes and shared priorities is where we can have the greatest collective impact. This work depends on continued strong coordination and a shared commitment to outcomes for our communities.
And I appreciate the partnership and the energy in this room tonight. And I look forward to our discussion. Thank you. Thank you, mayor. Next, we have the general manager of the Lake Wacom Water and Sewer District, Justin Clary.
>> Good evening all. It's it's good to see you once again and be uh before you once again um of the the three policym bodies of the Lake Waka Management Program. Um the Lake Walom water and sewer district is certainly one of the the smaller of the three agencies, but we remain committed um through our services, water and sewer services to protecting Lake Wacom, which is truly the the resource for us um all as a as the drinking water source for the the the city and uh county residents as well as the district.
And so with that, we remain committed to continuing the progress o of the 20 25 through 29 work plan uh that we've seen in the 12 program areas of the lake walking management program and and look forward to continued partnership with the county and the city.
With that, I'll turn it back over to Chair Galloway. >> Thank you. Okay, next we will go into our presentation on the Lake Wacom Management Program progress and highlights from 2025 and looking ahead to 2026 priorities and challenges.
I see Jason Porter approaching the mic here, so I'll go ahead and kick it off to you. Thank you. >> Actually, I really like Lun's use of the microphone. I tend to be dynamic and move and swing my arms a lot, so I may at one point pick the mic up.
Um, well, hello everyone. My name is Jason Porter and I'm the surface and storm water manager uh for the city of Bellingham. I want to thank you all for joining us today. Uh this is a big commitment. There's a lot of people in this room and a lot of people with busy schedules and I really appreciate all of you coming here today.
Um as I look out, I've been doing this for a little while and as I look out, there's a lot of familiar faces. In fact, mostly familiar faces with people that have been working on Lake Wacom management for many, many years.
But I also need to acknowledge and identify out that we do have new people here. We have new council members. We have new people in the public, new community members that are also concerned and engaged with Lake Wacom.
So, I want to welcome them as well. Um, today's meeting actually is the 18th time that we've gotten together in this general format. Now, we've gotten together actually more than that, but in this general format of having the city council, the county council like walkers sewer district, county executive, and the mayor, 18 times we've gotten together in this format.
And what it usually is staff talking about all of the 20 or all of the highlights and progress that we've done in the past. This year's presentation is going to be a little bit different, and I think uh council member Galloway kind of alluded to that in the agenda.
We are going to be condensing the staff presentation. I'm going to spend less time highlighting all of the accomplishments of 2025. Dr. Strickler um from the Institute of Watershed Studies at Western Washington University is going to provide a slightly abbreviated version um of the annual Lake Watcom monitoring report.
And we're going to spend just a little bit of time thinking and talking about what we're going to do in 2026. And hopefully you're aware the reason we're making these changes is to really take advantage of having this full group of people together.
It from my experience and what I do for work, this is the only instance that we have county council, city council, lake walk and sewer district, again the county executive and the mayor all here at the same time in the same room talking about the same thing.
So again, we've kind of condensed our staff presentation, which is a little bit different than we've done in the past, and that's to allow 40 minutes at the end to have some questions of staff about the presentation and that, but to really have conversation and dialogue and policy discussions between new policy makers, between all of you.
Um that hopefully can result in some good information that staff can then move forward with. Um we'll have to determine how we'll want to interpret and bring together the conversations that were being made.
Um what we're envisioning is likely in a future lake walk policy group staff can then start engaging with uh the council members of that group to kind of enact some of the conversations that are happening here.
Um because we're also doing an abbreviated presentation and in the past we've spent more time highlighting what we accomplished in the year before. I'm only going to go over a couple of those highlights but I don't want that to create a sense that that's all we accomplished.
So I really direct everybody and I see lots of people have a copy of it. We have the 2025 Lake Watcom annual progress report. That 44page document is the comprehensive report of everything and all the work that we did and accomplished in Lake Watkcom.
Um actually with that I'm going to start the actual presentation itself. So, because there are some new members in the audience here, we always feel like we do need to provide a little bit of history and background about the Lake Waka Management Program and Lake Watkcom and kind of how we've gotten here.
We're going to try and do this quickly. So, the Lake Waka Management Program is a partnership between the city of Bellingham, Watcom County, and the Lake Wacom Water Sewer District. The way that we guide ourselves and the way that um this partnership kind of interacts is really guided by two fundamental we'll say guiding documents.
One of them is a 1992 joint resolution again between those three entities and that joint resolution did a number of things but one of the things of more importance out of that is it established our shared goals for Lakew Waka management.
And then we also have a 1998 interlocal agreement and that agreement again was between the three agencies and that document establishes how we're going to run an order ourselves and actually is the basis for this meeting the lake walcomm policy group and some of the other groups and meetings that we have throughout the year.
Now the actions and activities that we're taking and doing in Lake Watcom are driven by science and regulations. Not entirely but primarily. So, a little bit of background here. In 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency published the Lake Watkcom total maximum daily load or TMDL.
A total maximum daily load is kind of what it says. It's a maximum daily load that the affected agencies, this would be the city and the county, are allowed to discharge a pollutant to the waters of a state.
And for us, it's phosphorus because its effects of dissolved oxygen. So we have a TMDL to reduce phosphorous inputs into the lake. Now the TMDL is part of the Clean Water Act and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System or NPDS system.
All right. All right. So, the way this kind of works is the EPA published the TMDL and then in two in 2016 and then in 2018, the Washington State Department of Ecology through our NPDES phase 2 municipal stormwater permits or or our NPDS stormwater permits made that TMDL legally enforcable.
So in two since 2018, the city and county's NPDES stormwater permits have required actions within them that we are legally required to follow as well as the 50-year time frame for achieving uh the recovery of dissolved oxygen issues in Lake Watcom.
The way that we plan and coordinate the work as well as communicate what we have planned is we develop five-year work plans. And those work plans address 12 program areas. And those program areas have increased over time.
And this year, or actually 2025 represents the first year of our current 2025 to 2029 5-year work plan. Okay. So, I'm going to kind of jump a little bit back to that 1992 resolution. Like I was saying, one of the key aspects of that joint resolution is it established our shared and agreed upon management goals for Lake Watcom.
And there's four of them. It's to ensure clean, safe drinking water, protect, preserve, and enhance water quality, prioritize protection over treatment, and ensure opportunities for public comment and participation.
Right? So, we put out all sorts of different reports and we have annual progress reports, we commission studies, and we put up quite a bit of information. and we share it with the public through various venues and meetings including Lake Walom Policy Group.
That staff demonstrating and communicating how we're meeting those first three goals that are established through that joint resolution. And today's meeting as well as some of the other public meetings that we have on Lake Wacom throughout the year is how staff is meeting that fourth goal of ensuring opportunity for public comment and participation.
All right, a little repetitive here, but I do want to make sure that everybody understands. So, we have these five-year work plans that we put together and like I said, they have 12 program areas. I am going to read off the program areas.
I've had some training on presentations and there are people that have vision impairments and so when we do provide slides, I like to read or at least say what's on them. So, it is a little repetitive, but I think it's important.
So we have land preservation, storm water management, land use, monitoring and data, hazardous materials, recreation, aquatic invasive species, utilities and transportation, education, engagement administration, and then the two more recently added program areas which we added in 2020 2025 was climate action and forest management.
Now, I had previously talked about the TMDL for Lake Watkcom and then that's one of our big driving factors for the Lake Wacom management program. But I do really need to point out of these 12 program areas, not all of them are associated or directly related to phosphorus reductions and the TMDL.
Really, it's the first four that are kind of directly related, but you there are some other tangible benefits through climate action and forest management. But those first four program areas are really how we're meeting the TMDL.
These other program areas are things that have added over time because of the importance and significance of Lake Wacom to us as a community and a region. So over time we've added these additional program areas.
Got 12 now. Um I'm going to go now into the next slide and talk about some of the highlights that we achieved last year but again it's going to be much more abbreviated. So, I'm only going to go over three of these program areas.
And so, again, I really encourage everybody that 2025 progress report talks about all the accomplishments that we achieved in all of these program areas. All right, first highlight, aquatic invasive species.
It's actually a pretty big big year or say busy year uh for that program. So, in 2025, uh, the city of Bellingham through its aquatic invasive species inspection program adopted the Lake Watkcom invasive freshwater muscle rapid response plan.
The long technical name, and I have not heard anyone that actually calls it that, besides a few staff members, you're going to hear more people call it the AIS or aquatic invasive species rapid response plan.
That's going to be the more common jargon. Um what this plan does besides actually quite a few things um it establishes a chain of command in the event of the detection of a the presence of these invasive freshwater muscles.
So it creates an incident command but it also outlines and coordinates a multi-jurisdictional response for the s first six weeks of the discovery of muscles. So it's a a plan. It tells us what to do in in a rapid succession when we find these muscles in the water.
Something else that we did to help again manage and reduce the risk of an infestation of these aquatic invasive species is we've installed gates at the Blowell Donovan Park boat launch. Um and these gates are to facilitate offseason inspections.
So the way they generally work is when the BL Donovan boat launch does not have aquatic invasive species inspectors or AIS inspectors, the gates closed and a boat would not be able to launch. But if you were a vessel that wanted to launch at that time, you would pull up and at the gate there's a phone number that you can call and that phone number will connect you with one of the AIS inspectors.
inspector will talk to the the person that wants to launch their boat, essentially do an interview and determine the level of risk that that vessel poses for the introduction of an aquatic invasive species.
If the boat's determined to be a low-level risk, they may be buzzed in the gate and allowed to launch without any other interaction from city staff. But if the vessel is determined to be a high-risk vessel, and high risk can come from where they've come from, where they've been last.
If it's determined they're a high-risisk vessel, then kind of one of two things may happen. One may be one of our inspectors or one of the AIS inspectors will actually go out to the boat launch and perform an inspection.
And if they pass an inspection, just like any other boat would pass an inspection, then they're allowed to launch. But there is a possibility that we don't have an inspector available. I would think of maybe the most extreme off hours.
And there may be instances where the vessel has been determined to be a high-risisk vessel and we don't have the ability to inspect it and that boat may not be able to be launched at that time. And we do that because the whole aquatic invasive species program is risk management.
It's going to be difficult to impossible to completely eliminate the risk, but we're doing everything we can to reduce that risk as much as possible. Now, another thing we did with the aquatic invasive species program is we updated our permit fees and structure.
So, we are now with these changes that we implemented last year are generating an additional $65,000 in revenue. And that's to help maintain a financially sustainable program that's trying to have as much of its cost paid by the users.
Now as one aspect of this um increased fee structure is those increased fees were passed on or applied to our higher risk users. The simple of terms if you're a boat coming from a state that has known aquatic infestations, you may pay a little more.
Or if your boat was previously in an infested water, you may pay a little more. And the idea with this is those vessels, those higher risk vessels take more time and energy and effort um to be able to make sure that they're safe to launch into the lake.
And so this is a way of recovering some of those increased costs from those users. And the last thing I have on this aquatic invasive species uh highlight is we have now added monthly environmental DNA or Edna and plankton toes.
So we do monthly monitoring. Both of the edna and the plankton toes are early detection methods. Edna or environmental DNA, what we do in simple terms is we take water samples and we look for the presence of DNA of the these invasive freshwater muscles.
Doesn't tell us where they're at. Lets us know that they're in the lake. And then the plankton toes, what that is is as simple as dragging a fine net and capturing and looking for the juvenile life stages of these aquatic invasive species.
So in these monthly activities that we're doing, if we do detect the presence of muscles, that's when the AIS rapid response plan will kick in. So the next program area I'm going to highlight is land preservation.
Again, this was a this is a big year, the biggest year for our land um preservation, the land acquisition program. So, in 2025, the city of Bellingham invested $11 million to purchase 16 properties totaling 1,056 acres of newly protected land.
And of those 16 properties that we purchased, one of them was the largest track that we've ever purchased. And that's a 754 acre former timber tract or tree farm. Now, when we talk about the land acquisition program, a lot of times we're focusing on the properties that we're purchasing, right?
That's the highlight. These are the metrics that we're sharing. But we don't just buy these properties. The city of Bellingham actually has dedicated crews that monitor these properties for illicit activities.
And you know, it could be campfires, it could be mountain bike trails, um, ATV trails, you know, the things that are unpermitted and unallowed on these properties. But they're also out there restoring all 3,872 acres that we've purchased through this program.
And so as of the end of 2025, uh we have planted over 100,000 plants, restoring these acres that we've purchased. Okay, like I said, we're moving through this quick. This is the last highlight I'm going to have of 2025.
Um forest management plan. This is a big year um for this as well. Uh 2025 is the year that is that we created a first ever joint forest management plan between the city of Bellingham and Wakom County for the cohesive management of all 13,000 plus acres of city and county owned forest lands in the Lake Wacom wershed.
This is this is a big deal. I don't I I I don't know how to emphasize this level of coordination and the impacts on our natural environment that this is going to play. This is a very significant thing for us.
Um one of the things that this forest management plan does is it provides recommendations to enhance forest health and maturity and to reduce lake water quality impacts. simplest way of describing um what the plan does besides many other things is it kind of looked at all the forest lands in the Lake Walom wershed that are owned by the city and the county and it characterized them and it placed them in certain forest categories and then it developed specific management strategies for each of those forest categories.
So, uh, you'll be seeing some of the first actions of that forest management plan happening in 2026. And I believe Gary Gary Stoker is going to be able to provide some comment on that. And with that, I'd like to thank you for my brief time up here, and I'll transition over to Dr.
Angela Streer, um, director of Institute Watershed Studies at Western Washington University. Thanks. >> Thank you, Jason. Um, thanks for having me to be here today. I'm going to give a pretty summarized version of um some of the key results from the our monitoring program uh at the Institute for Watershed Studies at Western.
I'm [snorts] going to start by talking about our four key indicators and these are the same indicators that we talk about in the annual report. And the reason why there's more than one is because one doesn't always tell us the full story.
So we need to look at multiple different signals to tell us essentially a more holistic and more complete story. And so these four indicators are dissolved oxygen. So how much oxygen is available to aquatic life, phosphorus, which is a nutrient, a limiting nutrient that um fuels algaal growth.
We're going to look at algae as well. We measure this by measuring chlorophyll just like the chlorophyll in the plants all around us. And then I'm going to talk about nitrogen which is also a nutrient that is limiting for algae.
Okay. So first going to start with oxygen trends over time. This is a very similar plot that what I've shown in previous years. On the horizontal axis is time going back to 1988. On the vertical axis is dissolved oxygen between 0 and 10.
And and the colors are showing different months. We're focusing on the summer months because this is typically when we see oxygen depletion happening. So the black line is July, the red line is August and the green line is September.
And they all show a very kind of obvious declining trend through time. This is in U basin one at 14 m of depth. And why this is significant is that essentially everything below 2 mg per liter is really limiting for aquatic life.
very few organisms can live down there. But even the range above that from 2 to six um some species like fish are really sensitive to oxygen depletion and they can't survive in those conditions as well.
And so this oxygen decline is really has been happening in site one at all depths below um 12 meters and it's also occurring in site two but not as dramatic and so not as also not as severe. the decline is not as severe.
Okay, our next indicator is phosphorus. Again, a limiting nutrient. We focus again on the summertime and this first set of plots is showing the surface waters that in the upper right, that little cartoon is showing kind of like the zone where I'm talking about, right?
So, here we're talking about what's going on in the upper parts of the lake. And then the plot again is showing time on the horizontal and phosphorus on the vertical axis. And the red dots are showing each individual year.
And so I'm going to show several of these plots and they're all going to have the same orientation just to give you some reference point. And our dash line here is showing what our detection limit is.
And so, you know, over time this definitely um increased peaking at about 20110 and then coming down subsequently after that to the point where we no longer see any trend over time. It's essentially it's kind of evened itself out.
If we look at site two, we see a pretty similar trend increase and then coming back down and similar again in sites three and four. So, um, a little bit lower overall in sites three and four as we would expect.
Those are the the less, um, developed parts of the watershed. And so, just to sum this up, we see that in all of these sites, no significant trends over time. These plots are showing something a little bit different.
And so, these are focused on the phosphorus that we see in the bottom of the lake. And so I've talked about this a little bit in the past, but lakes in the summer tend to be layers. So they have these a top layer, a middle layer, a bottom layer.
Those layers are isolated from each other. And in the bottom, what we find is that when there's low oxygen, the phosphorus is going to be able to come back out of the sediment and will circulate around in the bottom and then will eventually get circulated through the whole lake when mixing occurs in the fall.
And so what these plots are showing is a little bit of a different picture. If we look at first at site one in the upper left, we see kind of bounces around but some high values in recent years but no trend over time.
In site two, we see a lot of variability. It goes up and down a lot. In site three and four, again, they're both pretty low because those sites don't ex experience that anoxia and so we don't tend to see a lot of phosphorus in the bottom of these sites.
So no significant trends over time except for site two. But what's important here are what the actual number values are. So these concentrations um especially in sites one or two are much higher than what's in the upper layers of the water.
And so I put these stars as kind of reference points. You would read those horizontally. And so those are the values right around five four or five um micrograms per liter in the upper waters. But as you can see in the um in these plots, we're getting two to three times higher values in the bottom.
So those concentrations in the bottom can be quite significant. And we call this internal loading. So this is when the phosphorus is being released from the sediment during these low oxygen conditions.
Our third indicator is algae which we measure as chlorophyll. I'm talking again now at um about the surface waters here. And for um these plots again we see this pretty similar trend increase until about 2010 and then in some cases we see that the the pattern goes down.
So if you look at site one those values have come down so much actually especially in recent years that that's no longer a significant trend over time. Um but in the other sites it's more of a plateau.
So we haven't seen that come down quite as much. So again, I would say a weekly increasing trend um in all sites um um especially in site one. So the concentrations in site one now are actually like fairly similar to what they were in the 1990s, which I think is um you know a a good sign.
So uh nitrogen is our last indicator. Um, dissolved inorganic nitrogen is just a fancy way of saying the nitrogen that's available for species to use essentially. And so with this plot, I'm just showing site one.
The trends are really similar across all of the sites. And we see that if regardless of if we look at the blue symbols, which is the median, or the orange symbols, which are the minimums, they're declining.
So, in the summer, there's not a lot of nitrogen that's available for species to use, for algae to use, which on its surface seems like a great thing, right? This is a a nutrient. We're trying to reduce nutrients, right?
But there are some unintended consequences that go along with this. And when there's lots of nitrogen, we tend to see species like this one in the circle up here. It's a blue green algae, but it's pretty benign.
um and it needs, you know, the nitrogen that it can obtain from the environment. But when there's not a lot of nitrogen, we can see this switch happen where species like the one on the bottom in the red circle um so that can take other forms of nitrogen like nitrogen from the atmosphere that's very abundant and convert it into a usable form inside its cells.
These are also the species that tend to be toxin producers. So these are the species that tend to produce harmful algal plumes which can have health effects. And so we do additional work um beyond looking at the nutrients.
We do a lot of microscopy. So we look at microscopes and see like do we see species that look like that red circle? And so we are monitoring to make sure that we don't see that there's a lot of these occurring in the water.
Um but it is something that we are keeping an eye on and it's an important um potential indicator of changes to come. Okay, so declining trend at all sites. Then last I wanted to talk about stream water quality and um this influences what is going on in the lake.
Right? So the streams are telling us what is coming into the lakes. And so I'm going to focus on the more urbanized streams and these are starred. So this is Parkplace, Silver Beach, Uklid, and Milwhe.
And then I'm going to focus on just a few key indicators here. phosphorus um as well as E.coli coli which is a fecal bacteria indicator and um there are tmdls for bacteria as well and I'm going to show green cells show that it meets water quality criteria whereas the red are going to indicate that it doesn't meet the criteria and so what we see is that for example Uklid is you know falling it has low levels of phosphorus as well as ecoli but all of the other streams Milwheel Parkplace silver beach are failing, you know, at least two of those different indicators.
So, they're not meeting the water quality criteria for either phosphorus and or um ecoli. So, just as a quick summary, when we look back at our indicators, we know oxygen is um still quite low at site one, which is telling us that there's still there's still um continued work to be done.
Phosphorus is declining in the upper layers, but is high in the lower layers. And so that's kind of just fueling this this positive feedback. Uh algae is is still somewhat high but has stabilized or has started to even decline.
And nitrogen is showing a steady decline over time. And with that, I'll pass it on to Gary. Thanks, Dr. Streker. That was a really concise uh comprehensive summary of what's going on in the lake. Again, I'm [clears throat] Gary Stoka.
I'm the natural resources manager with Wakom County Public Works Department, and I'm going to touch on a few of the things that we're working on in the program for 2026. Um Jason did a really good job of telling you about the Lake Wacom TMDL.
Um it's the it's the regulation that limits the amount of phosphorus entering the lake. The one thing that I would add to his um summary though is that the EPA and and ecology understand that this is a long range process to turn around a lake like this.
And so the TMDL has a 50 50-year time frame. And so 2026 marks the 10th year of that 50-year time frame, just to put things into perspective. Um, one of the things that, um, we're required to do, and by we, I mean the city and the county who are permit holders, is to periodically do a TMDL reassessment to see if there are any changes needed to our program, make sure we're looking to still meet our targets.
Um, the uh, uh, that draft report was submitted in June 2024. Um and then just last year um we completed a big component of that which was the lake wacom model. It tells us uh where phosphorus is coming from, how much of it is entering the lake and what happens to it when it does enter the lake.
Um we completed that last year and submitted that to the department of ecology for their review. We just recently um found out that um they are starting that review process. We don't know how long that review process will take.
Um it's a it's an immense amount of data compared to what we had before. Um [clears throat] but one thing we do know is that um after the process is done um ecology will then determine whether uh any changes need to be made to the program.
Basically a reassessment. Do we need to change our phosphorus targets or anything else in our program to meet the 50-year goal. Um, the one thing that we do not anticipate is because of the length of that process and because the lake takes uh this process takes so long to change the lake, we don't anticipate any changes in our current 5-year work plan.
Um, we've got uh plenty to do and and and uh in that time frame. Any changes would likely come in the out years beyond 2030. Um, take a few minutes to go through a few of our main uh priorities and next steps for 2026.
Um, we've been going through a process of making sure we're refining and and being as cost-effective as we can with our projects to make sure we're meeting the needs of the program. One of the big components of our program is of course designing, building, and maintaining storm water capital projects.
Um, that's the big things that everybody always thinks of when they think of the Lake Wacom program. Um, and we're continuing that in 2026. Um the county or excuse me the city is doing uh phase one and phase two vault um retrofits in five locations within the city of Bellingham limits in the watershed and the county anticipates constructing uh a water treatment system at the Eagle Ridge neighborhood and then also um doing design on another water treatment system um at Austin Court.
Um I will say one one thing I will note that both both entities are experiencing is that um construction costs have gone up considerably. So that's just a challenge in terms of making sure we have the the finances to meet to meet these needs.
But um so far we're able to do that but it the costs have increased quite a bit. Um another thing we're doing uh relationship to in relation to phosphorus is we're addressing uh existing development regulations.
Um uh this is mainly focused on kind of harmonizing the city and the county's development regulations. Right now the city's development regulations are a little bit more robust than the county counties.
Uh so we're looking at looking at um the county's regulations, seeing if there are any gaps or any improvements that could be made and then going ahead and addressing those gaps which would likely come from a code amendment.
Um we have docketed um these updates to the regulations. Um so that will be that's already entered into the docketing process to be addressed by the uh planning and development services. Um another item that's not phosphorus related but uh as as Jason mentioned we have a lot of things that are not phosphorus remaining uh related is addressing the aquatic invasive species program looking for vulnerabilities in that program.
And one of the things that we've identified as a potential vulnerability is um the 40 plus private boat launches in the lake. Um we we those don't normally fall under our normal program. So we're looking at ways to make sure those don't become vectors for the introduction of aquatic invasive species.
Um so we'll be looking for for any uh issues in and uh gaps with that and then looking for ways to address that which would mostly be done through a code amendment. Uh we anticipate um doing that and if we have any code amendments um that would be probably later this year that we those would be proposed.
Um a few other things um we are uh launching a climate vulnerability assessment. This is a relatively big project that's getting started looking at what climate change is throwing at us. looking at um uh what the impacts to the lake and the basin will be and hopefully identifying ways to mitigate those impacts.
Um the city of Bellingham just recently signed a contract with a consultant and so that project will be kicking off very soon and we anticipate that it'll be about 18 months to complete that and then after that we'll look at the recommendations and go from there.
Um as was mentioned earlier by a couple speakers um another big uh accomplishment last year was the completion of the forest management plan. Um and this year um we are going through the uh adoption and implementation process.
So the plan is currently going through the sea review process. Um once that is completed um then we would submit the plan to the city council and the county council for adoption and then look at implementation of the plan.
I will tell you that one uh challenge that the county in particular is uh is encountering is that we haven't identified a funding source for implementing the the plan. So that'll be one of our first steps um before we can do that implementation.
Another thing that um the city is taking the lead on is doing a wildfire response uh capability study. We'll be looking at what the capabilities between the various different fire agencies are in the basin and looking to see if there are any gaps and then how can we uh how can we fill those gaps.
Um the process will start off with a survey of firefighters in that uh do firefighting in the base wildfire firefighting in the basin and then that'll form the basis of the beginning of the study. Um, and then we anticipate that this study will be done this year and we'll have recommendations for how to fill those gaps.
Um, that's kind of all the highlights I had. Um, as uh, Council Member Galloway noted earlier. Um, for those who want more detail and want more information about what's going on in the Lake Wacom management program, I would encourage you to uh, attend a Lake Wacom policy group.
Um, uh, Council Member Galloway mentioned who's in it. two city council, two county council, a member of the Lake Wacom Water and Sewer District Board of Commissioners, and we also have a seat for the Sutton Valley Community Association.
It's currently vacant, but there is a seat for them. Um, this group um gets a little bit more in depth. um provides guidance uh and support for um developing the five-year work plans and um provides uh policy input and then is a conduit for getting that that information to the decision-making bodies which are the councils and the commissions.
Um we meet the group meets about every other month. Um you can see there that there's four more meetings left this year. Um and the topics uh that we have on tap are providing uh input on that climate vulnerability assessment.
Um another thing that's come up that the the policy group has mentioned is that they want to look at forest practice regulations and determine if they are being protective of lake water quality and if they are not what changes uh could be proposed to to make it so.
Um that's an item we're going to be looking at this year. We're of course going to be looking for input from the group on any changes that are proposed to the aquatic invasive species regulations. And we're going to try our first ever policy group field tour which we hope will be on the August 5th um meeting where we'll take the policy group around and visit some of the facilities and sites around the basin.
Um and then we'll close out the year with an endofear reflection. So, anybody who's interested in those meetings, I would encourage you to visit the Lake Wacom water or uh Lake Wacom Management Program website.
Um that'll tell you um when those when and where those those policy group meetings are. And with that, I would like to uh this concludes the the presentation portion of this evening. I would like to invite questions for any of the presenters and then um as we answer those questions, we would like to transition to more of a a discussion amongst the the councils and commission on whatever it is that you might want to discuss, policy issues, policy input, and Justin Clary will help facilitate that portion.
But um any questions? >> Thank you team. I'm very impressed to the minute you are right on time. So well practiced. Um so what we'll do here is we sort of enter into our um questions and discussion. Maybe we can start with questions.
What I'll do is I see hands go up. I'll take note on a speaker list and we'll just do it in order. If you're online, which I'm already see Commissioner Catron, you've beat us to it. Maybe I'll give you the first opportunity to speak because you're the first hand I'm seeing.
>> Oh, great. Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Great. Thanks, Miss Galloway. Um just a couple points of clarification. um uh both Jason and Gary I I I think um in describing the TMDL um left off that it it is also a TMDL for bacteria.
Um unless that has changed without me knowing it. Um that seems to have um not been included in sort of the general description. Um Dr. Streker did did sort of mention it um as part of the the monitoring program.
Just wanted to clarify that because that is an important piece. Um and then la and then secondly lastly uh for point of clarification it was brought up a couple times um that the the period in which um the goal setting is is is set at 50 years.
I just wanted to for the kind of the historical record point out that that was a a choice. Um there was a choice made to to to utilize the most um extensive the the the longest period that the EPA would allow.
there was a choice made. It could have been set lower than that. Um, a couple of us in that period, I know Michael Lilliquist and and I and maybe others questioned that and pushed to have it be shorter, but knowing that that would uh have large implications on on budgets and politics, um, 50 years was chosen.
But um just to just to be clear, that was a choice um to extend that and and have future generations take this on rather than tighten it up and and have it be a tighter schedule. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Did anybody on staff want to speak to that? >> Um he is correct that that there is the TMDL also has a fecal colifform for for streams that Dr. Streker touched on. I was just focusing on on the on the phosphorus one which is the one where we're spending most of our efforts in addressing.
So um and yeah I don't >> yeah thank you council member Hamill and then council member Anderson. >> I think Anderson was first. >> Oh council member Anderson then Hamill. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um a question for staff.
Um the report says that we'll begin reporting the number of private storm water facility inspections um to completed um inspections completed per year in 2029. Can we get a little more information on that?
Um what does that look like? Um who all is involved a little more as a kind of brief statement in there. Jason Porter, city of Bellingham storm manager. um for the city of Bellingham, what that is is so our development regulations in the Lake Wacom wershed require you in most instances to install some sort of a water quality filtering type system.
And so what we included in the 5-year work plan is we are going to provide inspections of those. This year is our coordinating that's actually within my work group. I have a private stormwater inspector in my work group.
We've already met and coordinated and we intend to start those inspections next year. Um we do have other inspection programs that we're responsible for. So, we're looking at incorporating Lake Watcom inspections in with the other regular inspections.
We are It'll probably take us the full four years to do the inspections, not because of the volume of facilities to inspect, but because of the other work that also has to get done in conjunction with that.
>> Is there anything from the county on that? >> Hi, Kathy Craver, Wom County Public Works. Um we've kind of discussed before that the county regulations do require for uh new development to have declaration of covenants grant of easements and so we do have the ability to do inspections on private stormwater facilities.
Mainly these are ones that are in ground and not the typical ponds and and whatnot. So we're talking about single family residences. There is a large number of those. the inspection follow-up inspection program.
Um, we have not had the capacity, the resources to do an annual inspection for all of those, but we're kind of looking into with the realm of the new development regulations, kind of assessing what that looks like, the number and what that kind of resource would take.
Um, and also just sort of determining um, uh, I guess the the time frame in which that would be um, we would be doing that if it's annual or or else like a different time frame. Um, a lot of the times we tend to get um, uh, complaints and or uh, questions from property owners when they see things that are happening and that's usually the sign that oh something's failing.
If if you're not seeing things coming out of the ground, it's typically doing pretty okay. So, um, our inspectors are kind of aware of that and are offering technical support as needed. So, we don't have a time frame for when that's going to happen.
>> Can I clarify? >> Yes, please do. >> Thank you. Just a clarifying question. Um, when you say new development, that to me when I hear that I think of going forward, new permits. Is there anything looking back at people who historically had to have storm water put in, but they're not necessarily considered a new development?
Will your work scope that entire or is it just going to be going forward? >> That'll be part of the assessment as part of the larger group. It's going to be probably a multi-depart coordinate coordinated effort between public works and planning to kind of assess what that workload is.
>> Thank you. >> Okay, council member Hamill. >> Thank you, Chair. Thanks to the presenters this evening. Definitely appre appreciate the um on time uh presentation this evening. My my qu question is pursuant to the uh county's commitment to the aquatic invasive species uh prevention.
Broadly speaking, um I guess the the questions are are users compelled to go through the city's inspection process. There was uh 40 private uh launches that were mentioned here this evening and then separately from that there was a a mention of a code amendment for 2026.
I'm just trying to understand that a little bit better. Mike Pearlskin, city of Bellingham, public works superintendent. Um, and I run the aquatic invasive species program. Um, that code amendment specifically will be it'll be a we're looking to basically create a enforcement mechanism um across all private boat launches um for a certain class of boats.
Um, so that'll be enforceable. Um, and then yeah, and what was the other part of the question? >> There there was uh 40 private launches that were identified throughout the uh the lake and I just want to understand how are users that have a private launch compelled to go to Blow Delonovan and have their their um boat inspected.
>> Yeah. So, we would provide outreach to um homeowners around the lake uh that have private boat launches. Um so, we would make contact with them. um and basically get their involvement in the program.
Um what we're trying to do is just create a nexus with um private homeowners who may use their boat in a in a different lake, come back and know that um you know they have a permit and with that permit comes the obligation to check in with our program um to make sure that their boat is safe to bring back to Lake Wacom.
Um so mostly through education. >> Thank you. Council member Scanland. >> Uh, thanks everyone for the report ahead of the meeting here and I'm glad to see the data and the metrics in here which I know come from the most recent 5-year plan.
Um, I'm wondering how is that data used in kind of day-to-day decisions. Um, and then I'm wondering um, what would it take to set goals? So, it's interesting now to see the data, but to me, some of it isn't as valuable comparing 24 to 25 without knowing what the goal is.
So, what would it take to get to goals? as you've gone through and probably have looked at a lot of those metrics, goal setting is challenging as staff because it is a way for us to push ourselves but then also to demonstrate that we're meeting making achievements.
So, we like goals too. Um, but a lot of these metrics are going to be very difficult for us to set and establish goals because there's so many variables outside of our control that could lead to the success or failure of meeting a particular goal.
Um, some of those we would say we have goals for overall phosphorus reduction year-to-year, but we wouldn't have a goal to say we want to reduce 20 pounds of phosphorus this year. So, we have looked at it.
We do like and try to set goals because it benefits us. It's just really challenging with a lot of these metrics and we could go through them um more finely and look to see if we could develop more tangible goals for some.
>> And then the other part about how the data is used dayto-day. >> Yeah. So the data, a lot of the data we use is for decision- making. It's to help us identify are the actions and activities that we're taking and doing making a difference.
And this isn't just the data that's collected by Dr. Streker through the Institute of Wershed Studies. We actually collect a lot of our own data. Um we do monitoring at least the city does monitoring of the performance of our BMPs that helps us readjust our phosphorous reduction estimates based on real real world.
So in almost all instances of us collecting data besides just what we would consider routine monitoring, all that data has been collected for a specific purpose and that aids us in the decision- making.
>> Thanks. And then can I have one different topic? Um Gary, I was wondering about the the wildfire management plan that you were talking about. I'm wondering how does some of the gaps in fire districts come into play?
Right. We've been dealing with the gaps and fire districts when it comes to um helping people who break their arm in Galbreth mountain biking. We've come up with some agreements on that one. How does it come into play with wildfire management because all around the lake there are gaps in fire districts.
>> Yeah. Um I'm going to let Mike Pearl because the city is actually uh initiating that process. So I'll let him answer. >> Yeah. Uh Mike again, Mike Pearlskin, public works, city of Bellingham. um we are basically just looking to assess the existing infrastructure that supports wildfire response um in the wershed.
So yeah, there's local fire, there's county, and then there's of course the DNR, Washington State DNR. Um, and we're kind of looking to ask them questions about response times, um, capabilities, you know, what assets they have, and identify like what could be, you know, where the potential lies for something like a standard placing fire.
Um, so we'll identify that through, as Gary mentioned, we're sort of surveying and asking them lots of questions, um, to try to paint a picture of what exists. And then it's more of like a assessment of what's out there and then we'll strategize from there to try to move forward with you know more protection.
But yeah there is possibility to create contracts with different fire authorities um to increase like a service level. >> Did you have more to add on that? >> Uh no cherry Gway. I was just going to um offer so we do have about 30 minutes left.
I know last year there was quite a bit of frustration voice about not having a chance to really dive into the policy level topics that people wanted to raise amongst all three agencies. And so I wanted to offer this is a really good conversation.
If you guys want to continue with answering specific questions on on any specific elements of the program areas, that's that's fine. But I did want to offer that you've got about 30 minutes until we start going to public comment where we uh you know want to honor the the time we've allotted for public comment.
And so just wanted to offer if there if the the three agencies want to start talking about policy discussions and where each of us should be working together on um now might be a good time. >> Yeah. Awesome.
Thank you. I do see a hand online from Council Member Stumbler. >> Yeah. Thank you, Chair, and uh thanks to all the presenters. So, uh two quick questions. wondering how many boats a year are maybe turned away at uh the boat launch because of uh something detected on that vessel?
And then my second question is, are there uh like natural forms of phosphorus that just come from the environment and and enter the lake um in in in any way? or is it all just kind of like coming from um man's um dayby-day living?
Um yeah, I'll take that first one. Uh Mike Palskin, City of Bingham Public Works. Uh we don't necessarily turn away any boats actually. Um we delay them. Uh we have a decontamination unit that we can tow up to or out to any of the boat launches and um we have staff that are certified to decontaminate boats from you know any sort of infested water to make them safe to enter the lake and um yeah we don't permit a launch until we're we're confident about that.
>> Can can I ask how many of those have you done? How many how many boats a year or trailers that do you decontaminate? Yeah, I would say it averages about six to 10 boats a year that are really from high enough risk water bodies that they need to be decontaminated.
>> Okay, thanks. >> I'll try to address the phosphorus question. So, this is Angela Trucker with Watershed Studies. So, phosphorus occurs naturally in the environment. It's all around us. It's all in our bodies.
It's everywhere. Um and in u watersheds for example there's phosphorus that is bound up in the soils and um and some of that gets moved or mobilized by rain events or by any kind of disturbance that's going to move that around.
Phosphorus also can um kind of move outside of its natural cycle through the application of fertilizer. And so that's a really common source of utrification in a lot of other places. That's not well I'm not going to speculate.
I don't that's probably not the biggest issue for Lake Wacom, but certainly with a phosphorus and fertilizer band that's trying to address um the inputs of phosphorus that would come by kind of moving outside of the natural cycle of phosphorus.
Does that help? Well, it it helps, but is is there any way of knowing like how much of it is just coming from the natural environment and how much might be coming from maybe a more unnatural environment?
[laughter] >> Well, the mo the effectively the Lakew Wacom model is trying to get at that. It's trying to get at the phosphorus that is coming from kind of forested natural landscapes versus the phosphorus that's coming from the more developed parts of the watershed, right?
And so it's trying to kind of see what the difference is between those and make the developed parts of the wershed more like the forested parts of the wershed. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Awesome. Council member >> Marinstra.
>> Thank you, Chair, and thank you for all of this work. Um the presentations were wonderful. Um I especially appreciated all of the data, Dr. Striker. That was um uh really really interesting. Um when looking at the recreation um in 2024, I'm seeing we have like 200,000 per year of people using the parks and trails and then jumping up to 750,000 per year in 2025, which seemed like a notable increase.
Um and just kind of a couple questions around that. Maybe if there's any um known explanation or um factors that caused that and then if there's particular measures we're taking to calculate what those impacts might have um on the on the lake as well.
>> So we have Chris Thompson with um the Wakom County uh parks department that might be able to answer that question as to the reason for the potential increase. Chris Thompson, assistant director, Welcome County Parks.
A majority of the increase in 25 was uh actually due to road maintenance project that we had. Um it was around $380,000 of that,000. >> Oh, I apologize. I thought you were talking about budget. Um we actually during COVID saw a significant significant increase in visitation.
Um that's continued since then and um you know we are doing things like building new trail in the wershed that draws more people. Um I can't say there's a specific activity that we've undertaken beyond the trail construction that has brought in more people.
Um trail systems very popular which our activities in the wershed are trailbased predominantly. Thank you. And and is there anything that we're doing to kind of calculate what that impact has that um increased impact of recreation?
>> Um the parks department is not actively doing any studies on um impacts related to recreation. >> Thank you, Council Member Bole. >> I have another data question. Sorry. Before we get to policy, [laughter] first of all, thank you so much.
It's so wonderful to learn so much about this beautiful lake of ours. Um, in the very beginning of the report, it talks about the phosphorus reduction of 200 pounds and that was both in 21 and [clears throat] 25.
And I was curious, that's an annual reduction and what's our cumulative? I just love to better understand those numbers. >> So, that came up and what the statement I believe is is it is treating it's a estimate.
So, it's over over 200 pounds. And so in 2021 we were over 200 lb and in 2025 we're over 200 lb. So we do have specific metrics but that's all that statement was saying. >> We're talking about annual for each of those.
It's not a cumulative. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Yes. Yep. And so we are I make up a number because I don't have the exact numbers. You know in 2021 we may have been at 201 pounds of phosphorus per year and we may be at 250 now.
So what the statement was is that we're achieving over 200 pounds per acre per year of reduction of phosphorus. >> So does that feel like we're well on our >> well when you look at it and we more recently shifted this back and it gets confusing here.
You know we were talking the TMDL is actually established in effective develop acres and then we converted that over to pounds of phosphorus for communication purposes and then we recently went back to effective develop acres.
I could tell you what our the what the city of Bellingham's reduction in effective develop acres is. I don't have my phosphorous reduction number right now. I could do the Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Gary, did you have more to add on that? >> Yeah. Well, not on that one. I wanted to add just a little bit on the on the recreation question. Um it's true that the parks department isn't looking particularly at the impacts from recreation, but some of the things that they are doing when they do trail building is they're uh they're decommissioning um illegally built trails which tend to have a lot more runoff than ones that they build which are built to uh current standards for trail building.
And so they're doing some things like that. I know that they're looking at um for the parking area at Lake Wacom. You guys will be upgrading that at some point to provide some sort of filtration. So there are some components that they're putting into their improvements that does improve water quality.
>> All right, we got about 20 minutes. So I'm going to >> pop back up. Well, maybe um so here is some of the policy topics that you guys as policy group members. So, as a reminder, it's two council members from the county, two council members from the city, one from the district, and then there's also a Sun Valley Community Association uh board member that is also a policy group member.
So, this is what we're tackling this year from a policy perspective. Um, just as a reference. Now, I'm going to jump all the way back to our program area so you can see all 12 of them. So that then that might hopefully foster a little bit of conversation amongst the three bodies as to where policy might want to go and where we might be able to collaborate on on things that will continue to enhance the lake.
Let me scroll way back. You >> Yeah, I am I am so picky with my time as my council members know. So I'm well aware we're halfway through this section. And I was just going to myself transition our conversation into some higher level policy.
But I think as council members and commissioners think of other questions we should ask because I think that does inform our policy discussions. Um because sometimes we're doing something we don't know about yet and if we did know about it we we would be able to understand the policy.
So maybe we can just start with a guiding question. Um, I might think uh have us think about, you know, what are we hearing from our constituents um on sort of these various program areas and, you know, what are some of the policy opportunities that each of our jurisdictions might see in some of this.
Um, so I I could probably talk about this for a long time, so I won't monopolize our last 20 minutes unless you want me to. Um, otherwise, I'll take a pause and see if there's any other council members or commissioners who kind of wanted to take a first stab at this discussion.
Council member Anderson, go for it. >> Thank you. Um, so a few weeks ago, Council Member Williams, myself, and some staff met with uh DNR representatives because, um, I had a lot of questions regarding the landscape plan.
Um, and I kind of basically got the information that I thought I would get, although um, it was a little bit validating to hear that yes, the landscape plan is old and that, um, it is not really based on current science when it comes to some of the climate impacts and climate change that we're facing.
So it falls within the um aspect of uh forest management. And so when we're looking at things like there's um parasol, there's like three areas that they're looking at logging and putting up to bed. And one of them is Parasol which is going to expand um two and a half miles of roads and also it's about a half mile off the shore also adjacent to another area that's been clearcut.
And I know that, you know, the DNR has a mandate on um a certain amount of logging within quadrants. And then we have the goal of trying to maintain the health and uh quality of our lake along with the county and along with I assume our other partners because we're all drawing out of that lake.
So, when I had brought up uh during the um advisory meeting about wanting to bring back um and start working on updating the landscape plan, it was kind of deferred that there's other things that we're working on.
But the reality is, as our my colleagues know, nothing happens quickly. And so, I know we have other irons in the fire, but if we as a policy or group say that yes, the landscape plan is important. so that we get all of the stakeholders in the room and come to an agreement of what um logging would look like in the watershed.
Um that's not going to happen overnight. [clears throat] It's a matter of the city and the county and you know our partners saying yes, we want to do that and then working with DNR to say yes, we want to do that and then we have to go to staff and say how much time is going to be resources needed.
They identify that. Then we go back and look at our budgets and decide how are we going to fund that. We will have a budget cycle coming up. If we miss doing that for the fall to put money aside for next year, we're off a year.
So, I'm hoping we can maybe have that conversation. Is it a priority amongst this body that we look in the next year to look at what the landscape plan would look like? um resources needed and that way we can kind of uh look at our budgets and then from there next year maybe start some of the beginning steps and by that time some of the work the irons in the fire that hopefully we'll get the reports in 18 months those will be coming out about the time we're ready to move forward if we can get DNR at the table because again they need to do all these steps that I just put out.
So that's my ask of the body here. Is there interest in looking at in the next couple of years redoing the landscape plan starting that process and if so if there is a agreement then the first steps is really kind of looking at what kind of staffing resources do our wonderful departments foresee and who would those players be and then eventually getting budget numbers to us so we would know what to plan for.
Yeah, thank you, Council Member Anderson. This has been, I think, a topic of discussion for as long as I've been on council. Um, it's a 2004, right? So, it's over 20 year document. And I think it's a DNR document, right?
So, I think part of this could be working with DNR to understand if we need to be asking for a budget proviso and upcoming bienial budget process or what sort of internal capacity they may have. um in some of my conversations with DNR staff, it's it's almost suggesting that um maybe some of our modern best available science and some of our new newer regulations around forest management are actually more stringent than the landscape plan now.
So I think um you know forest practices in general has come a long way in 20 years. So updating that is absolute. Um you've hit a topic that I'm very passionate about. So I'll take a little bit more time here and then I'll see if there's any other hands.
But I think two other elements of the landscape plan that we really ought to consider are one the role of compliance monitoring. So posth harvest going back in some form and making sure that the management practices were followed through on and that there's sort of no post-h harvest impact.
Um so that's something I think we could improve upon. And then the other um is the um JC the interjurisdictional committee um which uh until recently has had the same five members since its inception.
And thank you to those individuals who have served for more than two decades. Um, and I think there's really an important opportunity for us to think about are there um, additional scientific disciplines or tribes or other jurisdictions that should also have a seat at that table and what um, process that committee follows in sort of a more public facing way because I think there's a lot of transparency and accountability opportunities um, for that group as well so that we can fully understand what the methodology is that's being considered as they're contemplating some of these potential DNR timber sales.
Um and then you know the other element of the forest management is the private land ownership. And it's still a little unclear to me um what if any improvement we'll see with the the new type um NP rule making um that just happened on the west counties um at DNR if that will help improve expand buffers in some of our um privately owned forest parcels in the lake um and what other activities we we can promote um responsible stewardship of our forest lands private ownership.
So yeah, lots there. Like I said, I could talk like that for just about every one of these buckets. So, I'll pipe down for just a second to see if there's any other hands. Council member Stone, go for it.
Thanks. So, I guess my and it may be a, you know, question as well somewhat for staff, but I feel like I'm channeling a little bit of Todd Donovan. I think about when when we would have these meetings, right?
And the question he was always asking, you know, um Dr. Tucker's like, "Okay, but how are we doing? and are we, you know, are we doing what we're supposed to be doing and are we on track? And part of what I'm left wondering, right, when we're thinking about budget, as council member Anderson mentioned, and how we're spending money, if a lot of what we're focused on are those TMDL targets, which we are, right, that's something that's enforceable that we're committed to.
And when we're looking at that 50-year time frame, and right now we're 10 years in, and right, where are we at? were saying we set that 50-year goal, but are we accomplishing that or not and thinking about potential changes when you know hearing um Stoka mention about the Department of Ecology review and the data and potential changes needed I'm left wondering like well what and if those changes aren't going to be implemented for five years that's another five years gone and what are those changes and are those changes something right related to these program areas is I mean to me these program areas feel good.
These are things that yes, we want to improve. But when I'm thinking about those mandates and how we're spending that money most um you know in the best way to have the broadest impact um I'm just wondering you know what feedback we can receive as bodies to really help direct direct those resources most effectively.
So those are just >> real quick. Um so Jason Porter very succinctly identified the top four the first four um as ones that are specific to the TMDL and as they said that currently ecology is reviewing the reassessment and so channeling former council member Donovan and current council member Liiloquist as well.
Um you know we in the past we've shown a that graph that 50-year graph that shows where we're at and where we're going. Um we can't really show that right now. wouldn't be prudent to because that reassessment is is underway.
And until that reassessment is conducted, it's really it's going to be hard to say we're doing great or what. But I mean, again, as Dr. Strucker has shown, there are positive trends that, you know, it takes a a lot to to to move an ocean liner, one to turn an ocean liner.
And so that's what Lake Wacom is, a 250 billion gallon lake. And it's going to take time. Um, we're seeing positive indications. Um, and hopefully ecology will be prompt in their in their review of the reassessment.
So then we can maybe be looking again at at where we're at from a a TMDL perspective, but it just didn't seem like right now is the time to be able to to really look at where we're at because we're waiting for that that reassessment to be completed.
So, but yes, certainly the you know, focusing on the TMDL and that's definitely much more in the county and the city with your NPDS permit uh compliance that that the top four or the first four I shouldn't say top four, but the first four program areas are the ones that you know as policy makers you'd want to focus on to make sure that you're you're making progress towards that and continued progress.
And I guess just a thought that one of the four goals, you know, relating back to sort of the be um start of this work it was saying prioritize protection over treatment. And so think of that as you know prevention over having to respond to those negative impacts.
I think the the work that council member Anderson and others are highlighting is important, right? How do we Yeah. How do we move that that work forward? >> That's a good question. And I know there's some tables going around that show I think the city's done a really excellent job towards meeting at least approaching some of the the long-term goals around that.
I know the county has maybe further distance to travel. Um I guess I can speak a little bit to what the county's been talking about. This came up a couple times. I think you know obviously we're looking at the built environment a lot of of this reduction.
So, um, as mentioned, we docketed at the end of last year, um, a measure that would hopefully strengthen our phosphorous neutral development code and bring in some alignment with the cities. Um, and then also looking at the concept of doing this private storm storm water system inspection.
So, I think both of those things are are going to be super important. Um, I know uh the city has done such an excellent job in the land preservation. I I know the county has struggled to keep pace with this because we just don't have a funding like we don't have util the utility revenues like the city does.
Um so I know there's been some conversations at the county level around potentially looking at conservation um futures funds or exploring like a REIT 3 that would perhaps allow for some broader conservation conversations around some land preservation work.
And then you know the storm water management stuff that's super important. And I think I'm hoping um I'm hoping our August field trip will include the Geneva bio retention facility because that made Seattle Times News is one of the sort of four leading um technologies in the state.
I think is at King County and somebody else somewhere else is is keeping an eye because I think we are exploring these sort of cutting edge technologies. Um, but again, I think the elephant in the room is like, oo, we have a long way to go and yeah, 40 years feels like a long time, but it's still definitely in our lifetimes.
Um, and so thinking about how how we can kind of continue to maintain that. Um, I think the other big elephant in the room to me is like how we're managing recreation and the watershed and on the water.
And I know recreation came up in the form of a question, but I think it's something I'm hoping communitydriven conversation we can have here in the upcoming years um is around the impacts of recreation and our wershed.
Um I had this moment and Holly, you were probably in that meeting with me where we were talking about the bass tournament in the tourism board meeting and I went [laughter] like a bass tournament on the lake like that sounds like a terrible idea.
Um but it's it happens, right? and we're bringing boats in from all over um to recreate on our lake and that just strains it even more. Um so anyways, again I think uh thank you for bringing that up. I know the county is trying to keep pace a little bit and we appreciate the city's partnership in that work.
Okay, I'm pausing again since we have five more minutes. Anybody else? Council member Scanland, go for it. >> Thanks. Um so the the county council, we're not done yet with our comprehensive plan update.
Cities, you all did all your work. Um so we're still working on it. So, I'm wondering if folks have ideas. It doesn't have to be now, but we're meeting basically every Tuesday to finish up the comp plan.
Our goal is to finish it by the end of June. So, if there are ideas that folks have or you see gaps in the comp plan where we should be putting things in there to then lead to future work, let us know and we can put that in.
Um, Council Member Galloway is the one who's the leader on amendments on the on the resource lands chapter yesterday. I think there were 88 amendments, all yours, but a lot of them were were in this place around forest management.
Um, so thank you, Council Member Galloway. There's a lot of good stuff in there, but if folks see gaps, both folks here in the room online, let us know. Um, and we can put that into the comp plan here in the next two months.
>> Yeah, good point, Council Member Scallan. I know we're we're working on recreation right now. We've got environment chapter coming up. So, yeah, lots of lots of relevant conversations. Okay. Oh, yes, Commissioner.
Go for it. >> Uh, yes. I um when my con constituents ask me about the watershed management, they're often surprised to hear that there's 800 sepic tanks in the wershed. And uh I was disappointed to see that it looks like from the wording in here that we have a 69% compliance now with the uh inspection evaluation process.
And to be honest, uh, I've been sitting at this table long enough to know that it's been number of years, that number hasn't really climbed much. And I'm wondering as a policy issue if there's something that needs to be changed or addressed to try to get those inspections and evaluations up more significantly.
And given the fact that over 20% of those inspections result in some level of maintenance or failure of those septic systems. >> This that's a good question. staff have some insight you can share on >> you know septic systems >> I don't know that we have any move from uh health and community services that so county's health and community services regulates uh septics throughout systems throughout the county and and frankly throughout the county there are thousands of septic systems and so it's a very you know within the lakewalk and wershed I can't remember what the number is but um >> 791 thank you commissioner Carter um so yes so there is a number and that's it's a large workload um we have we've um the county health department staff has come presented at the policy group uh in the past to to talk about uh enhancements that they've made to the inspection program.
Um again, it's it's a a resourcebased effort though. There's, you know, only a limited number of resources that the county has to try to, you know, conduct inspections and and enforcement on on septic systems.
But we have been seeing some improvement, but it looks like Gary might have some additions. I was >> Gary Stoka, Wacom County. I was just going to add that that that is a target Lake Wacom certainly is a target area for the health department, one of several target areas in the county.
So, it gets more attention than many other areas. And um that is actually in the septic world a reasonably high compliance rate compared to other areas. So, >> yeah. Yes. >> Okay, we have two minutes.
So, I'm going to give somebody the last word. Who wants it? Council member Anderson, I'm seeing your side eye. Do you want the last word? [laughter] >> Oh, well, thank you. [laughter] I don't think it was a side eye.
I was like mascara sticking eyelashes, but I'll take it. Um, I do appreciate all the work and it's it's difficult because, you know, we meet once a year and it it kind of feels like drinking from a fire hose trying to think of like I I literally had like 10 questions and I was trying to be very nice not to ask them all.
Um, but I keep thinking of time you say, you know, we have 40 years and you know, we'll still be here. some of us may not and um and some of us won't be in the seats that long and I I just feel that even though we're doing good effort when I look at those graphs and I know you say it's like turning around a big boat but we're not turning it around fast enough.
So I'm going to put my little twist on right now because last time it's like I feel like maybe we're starting to kind of just break even a little bit. But breaking even is not winning the game because we are so far behind.
And so I think of yes, we have our our work plan for the next five years, but one of the reasons why I'm on the the advisory the committee is because I think we need to juice up that five years and we need to put it on steroids.
Whatever is legal at this point that is not going to pull the lake. Um and part of that is Sudden Valley. Um, I think of how much development is happening and where is it happening and where is, you know, when you think of hilly terrain and the the climate change that's happening and are we building um our vaults big enough, our storm water retention big enough, those things are really going to have to have some serious conversations and the city is doing what we can and I think we're doing a really good job.
But I think whether it's through city resources of advisory um or working with the county or working, you know, we have great specialists, but I really need everybody at the table. And this is what I hear from my constituents is like we need to really start getting some serious work done where this development is happening.
And you know we're not doing a moratorum on no more development but we need to start pulling those resources the brain power the knowledge to start working with our partners who really are having the development happening in the field to ensure the best practices are happening so that we can actually turn this boat around a little faster because I kind of feel like the engines are a little bit dead.
We're not losing terrain as fast as we were but we're not gaining the momentum we need. So, um, it's hard when we're just here once a year to say that. I appreciate all the work. We have such amazing talent in our staff areas and a lot of passion with council, but there's a lot of work to happen and um, I look forward, at least in my role, hopefully for a couple more years of uh, lighting some little firecrackers under toes to see what we can get hopping a little faster.
So, sorry you guys get to put up with me for a while. >> I love it. It sounds like a challenge accepted moment. Thank you for leading uh I guess ending our discussion on on that note. Well said. >> I was just going to say you guys have Kaylee in you guys have [laughter] trouble.
>> I'm excited. Okay, we're going to go ahead and move ourselves into public comment. Like I said, we've allotted up to 20 minutes here and we'll go have go ahead and have Jackie Weller help us sort of facilitate our in-person um and alternating online registrance.
Thank you. >> Yes, thanks. Um so we have a total of eight folks signed up on today. Um we're going to start with Susan Hutton, Laura Weiss, and Carrie Burnside. And if you can just when you hear your name line up at the podium um over here and I'll Yeah, I'll be calling three names at a time.
Oh, and if you aren't able to see the timer here, you can look on the larger screen there. Um, good evening, council members, mayor, county executive. My name is Susan Hutton, and I'm the executive director of the Watcom Million Trees Project.
Uh, it's very inspiring to hear the good work in this report. Um, improving Lake Watcom, the primary drinking water source for more than 100,000 people, is an enormous undertaking. Elevated phosphorus levels in drinking water is a naughty, intractable problem.
And it's reassuring to see that the city and the county governments have come together here tonight working to solve it. And that the more than 50,000 $50 million you've invested in solutions are already yielding success.
But this progress report has overlooked DNR's proposal to auction 128 acres of timber in the Lake Watcom watershed in August, just four months from now. Their proposed logging method would leave an average of eight trees per acre.
Uh this logging method would dramatically elevate the lakes's phosphorus through several converging pathways, including erosion, warmer water, and sediment. Making it safe to drink will require an even more intensive treatment process and at a greater expense.
Clearing 128 acres of timber from the Lake Watkcom whed that will further contaminate our drinking water in order to raise somewhere between$1 million and $3 million when we have invested more than $50.6 million to clean our drinking water does not make sense.
>> [snorts] >> It is counter to what you are all doing here tonight. The situation needs your leadership. Government cannot be allowed to work at cross purposes and at such great expense. I hope you will work together to solve this and that you will also recognize how many of us are here tonight offering our help.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Good evening. My name is Laura Weiss. I live in Bellingham and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this evening. Um, as you know, as we've heard, this is the 10th year since the Department of Ecology finalized the TMDL for Lake Wacom.
So, I'd like to start by reading you four sentences from the Department of Ecologies website regarding the lake. Quote, "Storm water is the chief source for phosphorus and bacteria. Roofs, roads, driveways, and lawns speed the flow of storm water to the lake without the benefit of filtering out the phosphorus and bacteria.
In undeveloped areas, storm water can slowly sleep seep into the ground where it is filtered naturally before it reaches the lake. Computer predictions show the lake would meet state standards for dissolved oxygen if there was an 86 86% less development than existed in 2003.
Since then, zoning laws have allowed more development in the watershed. End quote. For these reasons, both the city and the county already have rules that require every new development in the wershed to install some type of storm water facility to reduce runoff from the site.
After installation, staff inspect before giving a permit. However, we have nothing in place, as you've heard yet, to ensure that these systems, which are critical for keeping phosphorus out of the lake, continue to work as designed over the years.
Therefore, I believe it is critical that we establish a storm water inspection program for private properties. The city and the county already have the authority to do those inspections. If we're not ensuring these systems are working as designed, then our efforts to protect protect Lake Wacom are seriously compromised.
So, I strongly encourage you all to ensure that rules regarding land use, development, and storm water management are up to the most rigorous standards and are we ensure they're working as designed. Thank you for your time and commitment to Lake Wacom.
>> Thank you. And after Carrie, we'll go to Kaia Hayes and then Susan Kaine Roning online and then Rick Edgar. >> Good evening. I'm Carrie Burnside and I'm a member of People for Lake Wacon. I want to acknowledge the tremendous amount of work that goes into monitoring, reporting, and managing Lake Watcom, our only source of drinking water.
We have a shared responsibility for protecting it. Tonight, I'd like to name something essential. The monitoring report and progress report tell two different stories about the health of the lake. And this gap matters for public trust and effective policy.
Some examples, deep water dissolved oxygen has been declining for 36 years with late summer levels regularly below 2 milligrams per liter, critical threshold for lake health. Algae and cyan cyanoba bacteria have increased significantly since the '9s.
and cyano cyano bacteria have been clogging drinking water filters yet this only chlorophyll is measured. Drinking water treatment is under increasing pressure. The monitoring report shows a significant upward trend in disinfectaction byproducts but this is also not mentioned in the progress report.
These are not minor discrepancies. They point to a deeper issue. Our governance structure is not aligned with the complexity of the challenge. The TMDL itself requires reduction in both phosphorus and bacteria.
Yet bacteria mo monitoring and discussions have been omitted. We literally are leaving out half of what we're legally required to reduce. [snorts] People for Lake Watcom consults with the department of ecology lead to understand the data and their regulatory requirements.
To our knowledge, most elected officials have not had these conversations. So respectfully, I ask, have you met with ecologies TMDL lead to understand these long-term leads? U how these trends relate to our legal cleanup obligations, and if not, are you willing to do so?
We have the science. We have dedicated staff. What we need now is a governance system capable of delivering the outcomes the community needs. One that ties monitoring data to policy triggers, aligns land use with water quality, and reports transparently along trends, not just annual activities.
Lake Wacom remains within regulatory limits today, but the long-term trends are moving in the wrong direction. The science is clear. Treasure, the trends are measurable. The question is whether our policies catch up in time.
Thank you. Good evening. Can you hear me? Good evening, council members, commissioners, and staff. Uh my name is Kaia Hayes. I'm the land and water policy manager with resources, a Wacombased nonprofit focused on building resilient communities and landscapes.
We see watershed health throughout the Noosack Basin and critical areas like Lake Wacom as the foundation of climate resilient Northwest Washington. In many ways, Lake Wacom represents a microcosm of our broader region.
a critical watershed area asked to supply us with drinking water, homes, recreation opportunities, natural resources, all while facing the compounding challenges of legacy land use impacts and climate change.
The addition of the climate action and forest management elements to the most recent work plan along with some of the excellent strides highlighted by staff in these areas reflect the continued evolution of this work that in turn reflects our increasingly complex understanding of what it will take to secure a thriving future for Lake Watcom.
But this work can only take us as far as the policy and regulatory frameworks allow. And as several of your colleagues have highlighted well tonight, there are a number of opportunities to bring key policy and code back into alignment with the broader values that are guiding our work now here in 2026.
The big questions of our region's future all converge here at Lake Wacom. We need your strong leadership as policy makers now more than ever to navigate the intersection of these broad trajectory defining conversations.
Lake Wacom will only continue to become more relevant to regionwide discussions and it should be a priority topic across the board for councils and commissions. I'm very encouraged by the intentional focus tonight on creating more space for robust policy conversations and we look forward to supporting more in the coming months.
Thank you for your commitment to Lake Welcome. >> Hi everyone. Thanks for being here tonight. I'm Dr. Susan Kane Roning. I have been a lake a Lake Watcom advist and protection person since 1994. I'm also a member of the leadership team of Lucier Mount Baker Group and a member of People for Lake Watcom.
While some progress has been made such as storm water retrofit and land acquisition, overall rest restoration remains too slow and inadequate. The current TMDL is based on 2003 climatic conditions and a new TMDL is now being developed.
That updated standard must be adopted and used to guide planning and decision-making. Department of Energy or sorry, ecology computer predictions show the lake would meet state standards for dissolved oxygen if there was 86% less development than existed in 2003.
Since then, zoning laws have allowed more development in the watershed. The total phosphorus to be removed annually per the TMDL is 3,147.8 pounds to meet the natural forested conditions from 2003. The 3,147.8 pounds of annual phosphorus removal is shared between the city, county, and timber interests.
We are far from that goal. The city says they removed 200 annually. Their required TMDL goal is 330 pounds. The counties is 1,200 countywide in the wershed. There's runoff from multif family developments like Oldmill Village and known problems go unressed.
Fecals, aging docks releasing pyro pi polystyrene into microlastics, boat activity stirring up phosphorus rich sediments and weak education and enforcement of fertilizer rodenticide and herbicide restrictions.
Climate change is making all of this worse. Warmer water, more algel blooms, expanding oxygen depleted zones that threaten the fish like cocon and water quality. Meanwhile, existing development areas like Sudden Valley, waterfront homes in the city and county and non-mitigated county developments still lack comprehensive storm water retrofit plans.
Retrofitting alone cannot replace the value of undeveloped land. Natural areas filter phosphorus before it reaches the lake. Something built something built infrastructures cannot fully replicate. If we are serious about protecting Lake Quaccom as a drinking water source and ecosystem, we must reduce further impacts and strengthen regulations and restrictions.
Thank you. >> Thank you. >> After Rick, we will have Daniel Herm and then we'll move online to Brian Gas. Members of the joint council, commissioners, and staff, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 2025 Lake Watcom progress report.
My name is Rick Edgar. I'm the conservation chair for the Mount Baker Group of Sierra Club. I'm also on the board of WEC, the Watcom Environmental Council and I'm the chair of Bellingham's Water Resources Advisory Board.
All of these organizations pay close attention to the lake. Please accept my sincere and deep appreciation for the progress report and all the impressive work being done by Bellingham, the county, and the district.
At the same time, the progress report, while good, should be better in serving those relying on Lake Watkcom, particularly particularly in its use of metrics. Here are a few examples. The report cites many statistics, but the vast majority are without context, rendering them of little use.
For instance, page two cites, quote, "An annual reduction of over 200 pounds of phosphorus entering Lake Watcom annually," unquote. What does that mean? Without knowing how much phosphorus enters the lake annually, or what the TMDL says the number should be, there is no baseline to establish context, nor is there more context later in the report.
Page three mentions 1,56 acres purchased through the city's land acquisition program last year and 3,872 acres purchased overall. But how many properties became available that weren't purchased? How many acres of lakeside property are there?
Without such context, one cannot tell if those numbers are impressive or not. Similarly, the 246 acres of forest land harvested in the watershed cited on pages 29 and 30 don't mean much without knowing where those acres are, how many acres were potentially harvestable, or whether any challenges, successful or not, were made by joint council members to potential harvests.
And how does that number compare to previous years? There are many, many more examples, but you likely get the picture. Please use metrics with context in the next report. Thank you. >> Good evening. My name is Daniel Harm.
I work in forestry policy and watershed restoration. The forest surrounding Lake Wacom are part of the city's most important public infrastructure. Right now, the Lake Wacom wershed is managed by many different players across many ownerships using very different forestry practices, but the wershed itself still functions as one connected system.
That's why we need a co a cohesive landscape level strategy. Industrial clear cutting within a wershed that supplies the city's drinking water raises serious concerns. DNR's variable retention harvest, which is a euphemism for clear cutting, especially in the context of water hydrarology, increases erosion, mobilizes phosphorus, and alters hydrarology in ways that directly affect lake health.
This environmental issue quickly becomes a fiscal one, uh, as the city and county recognize having invested tens of millions of dollars and put in a lot of awesome effort that I'm seeing here tonight.
um as well as implementing an ecological forest management management plan across roughly 12 12,000 acres of public land to reduce phosphorus and improve watershed resilience which is an awesome plan.
Go Northwest Natural Resource Group. Sorry, cutting into my time here. If if neighboring lands in the wershed continue to be managed with short-term short rotation clearcuts, those practices can undermine the investments that the city, county, and community has already made.
Another challenge is monitoring. Without consistent monitoring of forest practices across the wershed, we do not have a clear picture of the cumulative impacts on the lake, which you mentioned early, Kaylee.
Thank you. Um, if ecological forest management is the model we are investing in, we should explore incentives that help other land owners adopt similar practices. Aligning management across the wershed would strengthen water quality protection and build long-term resilience for the entire community.
To close, uh, the science is clear regarding watershed health. Intact forested ecosystems, especially older natural forest, are the best infrastructure we have. They are irreplaceable within our lifetime.
And the full balance sheet of clear cutting these forests, especially adjacent to a critical drinking water supply, is a financial loss for taxpayers and as stewards of the forest. Thank you so much for your time and I really appreciate seeing all this effort and all the powerful minds behind it.
Thank you. >> Thank you. Um Brian, you should be able to unmute and turn on your camera if you'd like. >> I got a face made for radio, so I will uh keep it that way. I got a question for you. Uh, you know, one of the things that I wanted to bring up is as listening to this is, um, it's interesting that the city of Bellingham, uh, Mr.
Porter, you know, can they like to take the credit of saying, "Oh, hey, we, um, we, as in we, uh, planted 100,000 trees and we are monitoring, uh, 3,800 feet, you know, square acres or whatever it is." But in reality, um, those 17 FTEEs or whatever that's part of the natural resources group, they're they're not doing any of that work.
They're just farming it out to the tune of what, 2.4 million bucks to Americanore or some of these lowpaying uh, workers when they're collecting, you know, 100 grand a year jobs to monitor it. And one of the things that's interesting is you take the credit for all of that, but then this meeting's been around, I think it's once a year, and yet I am shocked at the number of people who went to these podiums who are supposedly in charge of giving information to this group coming out empty-handed.
I would be really uh uh concerned about this going forward when you're looking at they weren't able to do the phosphorus reductions. I can't believe they couldn't even really tell you that dissolved oxygen improvement from the I think that Dr.
Striker said that hasn't improved at all. The cost a pound, you know, we were talking about this, the cost per pound. Cumulative phosphorus reduction isn't happening. The storm water isn't happening. You you got three or four areas that aren't getting dealt with.
And you're talking about tens of millions of dollars being spent already. And I'd like to see it be spent a little bit better. And I don't blame the county for not having a slush fund where they automatically gouge people from their utility bills to spend money as the city deems uh you know uh uh what do you call it uh as they see fit which is what this is becoming when you're not even getting we're not even getting the results that we were hoping to get after what a year of this.
So, I would appreciate the next time they would bring some actual numbers and some quantifiable results other than just spending people's money on buying property in the watershed, which hasn't really had an effect on anything.
Thank you. >> That concludes our signup list. >> Okay, awesome. Again, right on time. Well done, everyone. [snorts] Um, we've just got the next nine minutes or or less if we want to adjourn a little early um to talk about closing and next steps.
So, I may just look to staff to see if there were any final announcements anyone wanted to make in these final few minutes. They're like, "No, please let us go home." [laughter] Um, I guess from my vantage point, just as we continue to move forward here, as mentioned, we've got four more Lake Wacom policy group meetings.
Um, those are open to the public, so hopefully folks attending tonight will join us. And I think if our other council members and commissioners are interested in joining, that's always um an option as well.
Uh we've got a lot of exciting work around the climate vulnerability assessment, uh discussions around forest management practices in the lake, strengthening our aquatic invasive species program, doing a field tour, which will be the first time I've gotten to do that as a part of this group, and then of course reflecting on our continued progress towards achieving our goals and in the implementation of our 5-year Lake Wacom management program.
So with that, unless there's any final thoughts, we'll go ahead and end our meeting today. It's 8. Oh, council, whoever, council member scan, I'm seeing figures. Is that you? >> Yeah. Okay. >> So, council member Anderson Anderson made a comment previously that I don't want to leave unsaid.
And I feel like sometimes we we meet in these meetings and there's probably something we might be willing to say over a beer afterwards and maybe not here. And council Anderson, it was when you said we're not considering moratoriums on development.
And I think for us in county council, I I saw your face, council member Galloway. No, but I wonder what I think I would be interested in is what would the impact be? Now, I don't know if that's been studied, for example, for the county.
What would the impact be of having a moratorium on development in unincorporated Wakom County? Do we know what that impact would be on TMDL and on all the other things that we're tracking? Because that's something we could consider.
You know, we one of the things we did in the um comp plan was we reduce the um number for growth for unincorporated county. So we could say for example if there was an impact that was significant for having a moratorium on new development in unincorporated county around the lake we can push that growth elsewhere that's going to cause Matt Ammit and Mark Personius more work to do to reallocate that development but we could do that so what I one of the things that I always try to say to people is it's our job to make tough decisions staff may not be interested in what would be the impact.
>> Council member Anderson, go for it. I can't speak to necessarily the impact countywide, but we did have kind of a mo moratorum of um in our silver beach area because it wasn't really zoned um that would meet um a lot of our goals for the lake.
Um the level of density was potentially going to be pretty high. And so we just basically put the brakes on until we had an opportunity to go through and consider what is the appropriate zoning so that you know housing could be continued but um putting in uh I don't want to say restrictions but more stringent guidelines on storm water and the level of development that would be allowed.
So we put the brakes on it for a period of time. I think it lasted over a year until the city could do the work. Oh, I'm getting the rabbit ears. So, it was two years. So, you know, that's one of the things that maybe the county would look at.
you you do have the comp plan coming through, but if you were going to look at specifically what would be the appropriate level of um storm water, taking in the the climate information, taking a look at what should the zoning be, where should housing be able to go in, what is the smart areas?
If you don't have answers to that and you're not prepared for it, then you could look at a moratorum with the direction of looking very strategically what is the appropriate development around the lake.
Um and then once those answers are vetted out um staff and scientifically and you know whatever metrics you decide to throw in then you can go in and do um development that might be a little bit more gentler.
um we are spending tens of millions of dollars to to try to fix what's happening with the lake and it's going to be more expensive over time. So yeah, I it's not politically um in my ball field because in the sense I would love to have a moratorum until some of those answers could be provided but it's not in my jurisdiction to make it.
So that's the tough questions for you guys to look at. We do need housing, but is there better places that could be considered for that housing versus the lake, which isn't just the 120,000 um residents eventually because of the things with water adjudication.
There's going to be more pressure, I predict, on the lake needing to give water um beyond Bellingham over time. And how expensive is that going to be? Um, and you know, for the community, um, there's a lot of considerations there.
We need to be making those decisions looking at a lens of four generations and sometimes we're not doing that. >> Okay, sounds like we've got some next steps. There you go. I'll let you guys take the lead on that.
Um, again, I just want to thank staff. Thank you all for our presenters, but also I'm looking out into our audience and seeing a handful of other staff we didn't even get to hear at the mic this evening.