Whatcom County task force reviews 372-response survey: residents prioritize ecosystem services, cite land conversion as top threat

Melanie (Consultant, Triangle) told the Whatcom County Forest Resilience Task Force on April 14, 2025, that the team received 372 responses to a public survey open for 32 days and will incorporate the results into the county’s Forest Resilience Plan. “We ended up with 372 responses. And like I noted, it was open for about a month, 32 days,” Melanie said.

The survey, conducted using a snowball sampling approach, skewed older and white: the presentation noted a majority of respondents were over age 55 and 78% identified as white. Respondents reported recreation as their most common way of engaging with local forests; when asked to rank values, respondents most frequently put ecosystem services — for example clean water, carbon storage and soil health — at the top and placed lumber production most often at the bottom. The task force packet says nearly half of respondents identified restoring healthy ecosystems for fish and wildlife as their highest priority for the plan.

Why it matters: the county’s code requires the plan to incorporate community values and task force members said the survey will be one input alongside previously completed assessment interviews. Melanie emphasized the survey is one piece of community input that the task force should consider when setting goals, objectives and actions in the plan.

Key findings and limitations presented - Responses: 372 total; survey open ~32 days; distribution skewed older and white (78% white); slightly more female respondents. - Most common interaction with forests: recreation. - Top-ranked values: ecosystem services (clean water, carbon storage, soil health); lowest ranked: lumber production. - Top threats named by respondents: conversion of forest land and development, climate change, and wildfires. - Top recommended priority to promote resiliency: increased investment in future acquisition of timberland; many respondents prioritized ecosystem restoration for fish and wildlife.

Task force questions and staff response Task force members pressed staff on how the survey’s findings would be used and on the level of detail in reported ecosystem services. Oliver (Task force member) asked whether water-supply and streamflow concerns should be more explicitly listed among ecosystem functions, referencing ongoing adjudication in the Nooksack Basin. Melanie replied that the presentation was a question-by-question summary and said more detailed analysis and any additional phrasing will appear in the community values section of the plan for secondary review.

Representative concerns about sample Carl (Task force member) raised concerns about sample representativeness, noting the snowball approach could bias results. “Since it wasn't a representative sample, it's kind of questionable,” Carl said, urging caution when interpreting the results. Melanie acknowledged the limitation, said the county code requires incorporation of community values and recommended the task force use the survey as context — together with assessment interviews and subcommittee input — rather than treating it as a statistically representative cross-section.

Recommendations and next steps Task force members recommended the plan append a list of the organizations and groups the team contacted to distribute the survey; Melanie agreed to include that information in the community values section or an appendix. The survey results will be republished to the task force as part of the plan’s secondary review cycle in May so members can comment in context. Task force members were asked to consider the survey findings when refining goals, objectives, threats and actions.

No formal action was taken on the survey results during the meeting; the presentation was for review and discussion.