HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources November 9 19991
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
November 9, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 9:36 a.m. by Committee Chair Connie
Hoag in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Kathy Sutter None
Tom Brown
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. PRESENTATION BY DAVE SERDAR, DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM, REGARDING SAMPLING
RESULTS OF LAKE WHATCOM AND TRIBUTARIES (AB99 -433)
Dick Grout, Department of Ecology (DOE), gave information on the Whatcom
Watershed Pledge Project (handout on file). This is a large pollution prevention
effort that the DOE, the City of Bellingham, Whatcom County, RESources, Western
Washington University, and other folks undertook some time ago. The idea came
from the Lake Whatcom Management Plan. They secured Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) funding for the program. The study that will be presented is an
offshoot of that larger program. They identified holes in the data on the Lake,
Whatcom Creek, and the tributaries that drain into Lake Whatcom. The study was
to plug those holes. They weren't looking for mercury or PCBs, which were a
surprise when they were found. It is important to keep in mind that the
overwhelming evidence indicates that the big problem in the lake is stormwater
runoff. Mercury and PCB's are a matter of concern, but stormwater runoff is the big
concern. He introduced Dave Serdar, who was the principal author of this study.
Dave Serdar, Department of Ecology Environmental Assessment Program
Scientist, acknowledged the people in Bellingham who helped on the study,
including Julie Hirsch, Steve Hood, Dick Grout, Robin Matthews, Bill McCourt, and
Bruce Barber. He submitted the DOE's Lake Whatcom Watershed Cooperative
Drinking Water Protection Project; Results of 1998 Water, Sediment, and Fish
Tissue Sampling (handout on file). The study was conducted to get a snapshot of
the health of Lake Whatcom and the Whatcom Creek watersheds. He would focus
on the Lake Whatcom watershed in this presentation. This study is a screening
level, cursory examination of the watershed. The objectives were to screen for
primarily toxic chemicals that may be entering Lake Whatcom through the
drainages. This data would be used to get this snapshot of the watershed's health
and to also support other ongoing studies in Lake Whatcom and the watershed. It
is of primary importance to determine the contaminants that might be of concern
and the drainages in which they are found. The limitations of the study are that it
cannot assess drinking water, whether fish can be eaten, contaminant sources, and
whether the water quality is getting better or worse. This is one look in time. They
sampled three specific media, including water and tributaries to Lake Whatcom
during two stormwater flushes. The three tributaries examined included Austin
Creek, the Cable Street drain, and the Park Place detention drain. They were
analyzed for metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, organic compounds, pesticides, fecal
Natural Resources Committee, 11/9/99, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
coliform bacteria, and nutrients. They also looked at bottom sediments from those
three drainages, as well as bottom sediments in Lake Whatcom. They took one
sample from each of the three basins in Lake Whatcom. They correspond to
monitoring sites currently used by Western Washington University. They were
analyzed for the same things, except for bacteria. Sediments provide an idea of
the contaminant concentrations over time. One of the problems with stormwater is
that it is very variable. Concentrations can change a lot. Bottom sediments build
up over time. They smooth out the effects of that stormwater variability. They
also looked at fish in Lake Whatcom, small -mouth bass, Kokanee, and long -nose
suckers. They were analyzed for chemicals that would bio- accumulate, which one
wouldn't normally see in water or sediments. Those chemicals would be certain
metals, chlorinated pesticides, and PCB's. Fish tissue samples integrate the
concentrations of these chemicals over time. They act as integrators. The map
shows the sampling sites in Lake Whatcom.
They didn't study comparisons to data collected in other urban areas in the
Puget Sound Basin, sediments and stormwater from other urban areas, and fish
tissue concentrations from other studies. In the past few years, the U.S. Geological
Survey conducted a large -scale study of contaminants in the Puget Sound Basin.
They just recently published their results. It was nice for him to have that data
available to compare. They looked at urban areas, and they also looked at
reference areas. He put his results into the context of their results. They also
compared results to guidelines, criteria, and standards for protection of human
health and aquatic life. In the handout, there is a table that shows all the sites
examined and which chemicals can be considered a concern at each of those sites.
That information is based on the comparisons made to various criteria guidelines.
He described each site.
Austin Creek was the least contaminated site overall. It did have elevated
fecal coliform concentrations. In one stormwater sample, it had elevated mercury
concentrations. Aside from that, there were low concentrations of most chemicals
that were analyzed.
Hoag asked for clarification on the definition of elevated. Serdar stated the
concentrations were elevated compared to other sites but not exceeding standards.
In the two mercury samples from Austin Creek, one had the lowest mercury
concentrations of any site, and one had the highest. He didn't know why that was.
The mercury was not at levels exceeding any standards. It was just elevated
enough compared to other sites.
At the Cable Street drain, the most important finding was the number of
pesticides found in that drain. These were primarily Orga no- phosphorus pesticides
that are commonly used in home and garden pesticides, specifically diazanon and
others. The levels of these pesticides were above some of the proposed guidelines
and criteria for aquatic life. The concentrations at Cable Street did exceed those
guidelines. He also found elevated fecal coliform concentrations. Every stormwater
sample had elevated fecal coliform samples. They were generally above the state
water quality standards. On some of the sites, there were previous data on the
fecal coliform concentrations.
Brown asked if Cable Street was a drainage discharge or a creek. Serdar
stated it is a storm drain. It discharges into basin two of Lake Whatcom, near the
pump house for the water in -tank.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/9/99, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Hoag asked for clarification on whether the standards are open body or
drinking water standards. Serdar stated the standards are for surface water.
Serdar continued to state that the hydraulics of the Cable Street drain has
too much energy to have bottom sediment settle out. They had to use a sediment
trap in the manhole. The particulates that are suspended in the water are trapped.
They collected enough samples to analyze for the chemicals. Some metal levels
were elevated, specifically copper. Total petroleum hydrocarbons, which are
compounds coming from un- combusted petroleum sources such as gasoline and
motor oil, were found in elevated concentrations.
Hoag questioned how they show up on the chart. Serdar stated there are no
standards for total petroleum hydrocarbons. They did not show up on the chart.
Serdar continued to state that Park Place overall is the most contaminated
drainage that they examined in the Lake Whatcom watershed, primarily because of
the amount of metals, but also because of organic compounds. Primarily those
compounds are derived from the combustion of fossil fuels, coal, or wood smoke.
They can also come from plastics used as plasticizers. A number of those were
found at Park Place and in the water. There was also one pesticide, diazanon,
found above guidelines to protect aquatic life. In Lake Whatcom, they found a
general trend in contamination levels. The sediments in Lake Whatcom were fairly
clean. The contamination levels were generally low. The trend was for higher
contamination in descending order from basin one to basin three. In basin one,
they found elevated concentrations of PAH compounds, which are the compounds
that come from combustion sources. They also saw elevated concentrations of
those in Park Place samples, therefore Park Place is somewhat of a source to the
lake for those compounds.
Brown asked about the location of Park Place. Serdar stated it is at the very
north end of the lake in basin one. They sampled the storm drain just as it goes
into the stormwater detention ponds at the Park Place development. The sediment
samples came out of the first cell in the detention area.
Serdar stated they found in Lake Whatcom sediments with some enrichment
of mercury. In basins two and three, there was a slight enrichment compared to
other sites. It was much higher in basin one. They don't know the source of the
mercury in those sediments.
In fish tissue samples collected from Lake Whatcom, they looked at fillets of
Kokanees and Kokanee liver, small -mouth bass fillets, and the long -nose sucker as
a whole. These were composite samples. Each sample was comprised of a number
of fish. For the Kokanee samples, there were seven or eight fish in each sample.
For the small -mouth bass, there were eight fish in each sample. The long -nose
sucker sample had seven or eight fish. They saw in the fish samples some
chlorinated pesticides at low concentrations and PCBs at low concentrations. The
compounds are exceedingly persistent. PCBs have been banned since 1975. They
also found DDT, which has been banned for use since 1972. These are legacy
pesticides. They are still around. These compounds are distributed globally
through atmospheric dispersion and deposition. There are probably levels of PCBs
in the mountain creeks and lakes in the Cascade Mountains. Based on other
Natural Resources Committee, 11/9/99, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
studies they've done where PCB sources were found, it doesn't look like there is an
evident source of PCBs at the lake. It is background concentration.
Hoag questioned whether they've compared the data with what they've found
in the mountain lakes and streams. Serdar stated there is not a lot of data from
background lakes. They compared the PCB data with national and statewide
concentrations, and also the Spokane River, in which there is a known PCB source.
Hoag stated Mr. Serdar was presuming it is a background source. She asked
if he compared it with areas that would only have air deposition. Serdar stated
they haven't. Until recently, they haven't had the analytical ability to detect PCBs
at this low level. The lab conducted a study to decrease detection limits to lower
than what they had been. If this study had been done a year ago, the results for
PCBs would have been undetected. They haven't looked at many lakes around the
state since they had the detection capability. They have looked at the Elwa River,
which has similar concentrations and patterns of PCBs. There is another small lake
in Thurston County that has no evident sources of PCBs, yet there are similar
concentrations and patterns of PCBs. As they look more and more with the low
detection capabilities, they will find more of this type of data.
Dawson asked about the source of the PCBs in Spokane. Serdar stated it is
probably from the Kaiser Aluminum Mill and maybe from the Spokane Industrial
Park.
Serdar continued to state that they found mercury in all fish tissue samples
in moderate concentrations. In one sample of small -mouth bass, they found
mercury in concentrations of Yz part per million (ppm). Those fish were caught in
basin three. Those were provided by the Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW). The level of .5 ppm is not alarmingly high, but it is high enough
to be of concern. Some further investigation is warranted. Because it is a single
sample, it is not enough to warrant a health advisory. They don't know what the
other fish in the lake look like.
Hoag questioned the difference between the Park Place and the Fever Creek
contamination. Serdar stated Fever Creek is in the Whatcom Creek watershed
below Lake Whatcom. They looked at the Whatcom Creek watershed and the Lake
Whatcom watershed. It is not a drainage tributary to Lake Whatcom. It is a
tributary to Whatcom Creek. It is worse at Park Place, but it is not in the Lake
Whatcom watershed. He is focusing only on the Lake Whatcom watershed for this
presentation.
Sutter asked about Cemetery Creek and Lincoln Creek. Serdar stated they
are also in the Whatcom Creek watershed.
Hoag asked about the mercury levels. She questioned at what level mercury
is determined to be hazardous to someone's health. Serdar stated there isn't a
Washington State standard for mercury levels in fish for human consumption. In
the report, he compared the mercury concentrations in the fish with levels in which
other states or agencies have issued advisories. In order to assess whether a
concentration of a chemical in a fish is a concern to the human health, they have to
determine what populations are at risk. The FDA allows up to 1 ppm in fish tissue
to be sold in the marketplace.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/9/99, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Sutter stated it appears that all samples were taken near shore, except one,
regarding the sediment samples in the Lake. Serdar stated all three correspond to
currently used monitoring sites by Western Washington University (WWU). The
thinking was to sample at sites with an existing body of data.
Sutter asked if there was a difference between the sample in the middle of
the lake and the samples taken at the edge of the lake. It seems that if they have
a good turnover in the lake, it might have an effect on the samples taken from the
middle. There should be a significant difference between the two. Serdar stated
the basin two and three samples are sinks in the lake. Those sediments are stable
in the lake. He wasn't sure about basin one. That was chosen to be consistent with
WWU. Especially for basin one where there is more activity, the concentrations in
sediments may be more variable.
Hoag asked about the mercury sample results in all the small -mouth bass
tests. One sample was at .5 ppm. Serdar stated they were at .15 ppm or less.
The other bass sample was at .15 ppm. The Kokanee samples were around .1
ppm. He didn't have the data in front of him to reference. They were in the range
of .1 ppm to .15 ppm.
Hoag stated she was asking specifically about the small -mouth bass. It was
a composite sample. She questioned whether the average of the composite fish
was .15 ppm. Serdar stated the eight fish were filleted and homogenized to form
one sample. That was the analysis from one sample. It is one single data point.
The reason they do that when they do screening level surveys is to reduce costs
and still get an idea of the average concentrations.
Brown asked if the larger bass sample was the source of the .5 ppm mercury.
Serdar stated it was.
Hoag questioned what made it a large sample. Serdar stated the fish were
larger, averaging over two pounds each. The other sample was closer to a pound.
That would be the average size or weight of the fish used in that single composite
sample.
Hoag stated these are bio- cumulative chemicals, so the longer a fish lives,
the more it would build up if it is out there to be had. Serdar stated that was
correct. With mercury, it tends to be in higher concentrations in bigger and older
fish, specifically in predators, since it bio- magnifies through the food chain. Small -
mouth bass are a predatory fish.
Chuck Benjamin, Health and Human Services Director, thanked the Council
for inviting the State Department of Health (DOH). He didn't believe other states
would issue a fish advisory based on the results of one sample only. They would do
a series of samples and average the results. He invited Dave McBride to explain
what criteria would be used to issue a fish advisory.
Dave McBride, state Department of Health toxicologist, stated they look at
certain aspects when doing a fish advisory in the state. The data in Lake Whatcom
raised a red flag. They need to have adequate fish tissue to make a determination.
They look at individual fish to determine averages. They decided to look at a
sample size of 100 fish, which would provide adequate data. They also need to do
a fish consumption survey. They want to know if people are eating the fish to an
Natural Resources Committee, 11/9/99, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
extent that it would be a problem. If people aren't eating the fish, then there is no
reason to issue an advisory. They need good fish tissue data, adequate sampling
size, and then a good consumption survey.
Hoag stated she didn't like the idea that they wouldn't say something if no
one was eating the fish.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Hoag questioned the timeframe to get adequate fish tissue, to do the fish
consumption survey, and if they would start the process. McBride stated they have
met with the local Health Department and Mr. Serdar. They can do fish sampling
with Jim Johnson from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW). The DOE can analyze the samples for mercury. At the same time, they
can begin a fish consumption survey. It may take 12 months to come up with a
result.
Hoag questioned how long it takes to do the samples. McBride stated he
didn't have that information.
Serdar stated they estimated it would take six months from the time they
catch the fish and do testing, analyze results, to review the data.
Hoag questioned the difference between looking for a composite of fish and
looking at individual fish. McBride stated they would like to see individual fish to
get an idea of the range, maximum, and medium concentrations. Sometimes all
they have is composite data, which is acceptable, if they have enough composite
samples. One composite sample would not be enough. That purpose is for
screening.
Hoag asked if they are looking for highs and lows. McBride stated they are
looking at the mean.
Hoag questioned why they use a composite. Serdar stated that with limited
funding, they need an average concentration. Composite sampling is a way to do
that. With composite samples, they lose the other statistics of the fish, such as the
high and low concentrations.
Sutter asked if they are evaluated based on where they are caught. McBride
stated they could be. Jim Johnston knows the area well. The bass in the lake tend
to travel in the different basins.
Hoag questioned whether they are going to begin this. Benjamin stated the
DOE, DOH, and H &HS has a meeting to discuss what may happen. The reality is
that the County doesn't have the resources to do a study.
Hoag questioned whether they would proceed with the tissue sampling, even
if there is not enough money for the consumption survey. Benjamin stated that he
agreed with Mr. Serdar and Mr. McBride that the DOE report raises a red flag and
that they need to look at it. More testing is very appropriate. They would pursue
that.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/9/99, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Sutter asked for clarification of sampling times in the spring and fall, and if
there was a difference. Serdar stated there wasn't a difference.
Sutter stated the lawn chemicals might be higher in the spring. Serdar
stated they saw higher concentrations of lawn fertilizers in the fall.
Drew Saunders, citizen, stated he has a book written after the third federal
mandated study on dioxin. The book is called Dying from Dioxin: A Citizen's Guide
to Reclaiming Our Health and Rebuilding Democracy, by Lois Marie Gibb. She was
a woman who was relocated from Love Canal. He read from sections of the book.
They shouldn't be using animals to study the dioxins. There is something missing
from the Bellingham Bay and Lake Whatcom studies. There is not one word about
dioxin. The EPA concluded that dioxin causes cancer. The EPA estimated that, at
current exposure levels, the dioxin - related cancer risk is between one in 1,000 and
one in 10,000. This risk level is 100 to 1,000 times higher than the generally
accepted risk of one in a million. Dioxin attacks the endocrine
hormone /reproductive systems of the animals and humans. There have been
studies in Florida on alligators. Scientists undisputedly concluded that pulp and
paper produce dioxins. Incineration is the number one cause. He asked why the
DOE doesn't have any information about dioxin. He asked for a serious
investigation about this. He has studied this. He wants to know if they have found
dioxin and at what levels. They are still spraying pesticides with known dioxins.
The County Council keeps saying it is being investigated. King County has a tier list
of pesticides that are being phased out because they cause a clear and present
danger to the health and safety of the general population. They need action and
fish alerts, not more studies The Clean Water and Air Act was passed in the 1970's
and reaffirmed in 1991. Georgia- Pacific (GP) is putting out five times as much
pollution as it was ten years ago. There is something very criminal going on in the
highest levels. By not paying what every other business is paying, GP could be
paying the city money to clean it up.
Hoag stated she shared his concerns with dioxins and is glad they are no
longer running the incinerator.
Hoag questioned why dioxins were not analyzed. Serdar stated they were
not analyzed because they were not considered to be a major or likely contaminant.
They were looking for common urban contaminants. Dioxin analysis is extremely
expensive. To an adequate analysis of dioxin in fish in Lake Whatcom, they would
not have been able to collect any other data.
Hoag asked for information on dioxin. Serdar stated it is a family of
compounds that like to stick to sediments and accumulate in fatty tissues of fish. It
is ubiquitous. It can be found globally at very low concentrations. Generally,
concentrations are below what can be measured, unless there is a known source
nearby.
Hoag asked if the co- generation plant and Georgia- Pacific (GP) are upwind
from Lake Whatcom. She also questioned what it would take to test for dioxin in
Lake Whatcom. Serdar stated it would cost $1,000 to $1,500 per sample to test for
dioxin.
Hoag questioned whether the DOE plans to test for dioxins. Serdar stated
they are not planning to in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/9/99, Page 7
1
2 Sutter questioned the number of samples taken at each site. Serdar stated
3 that there was a spring and fall sample taken for each water sample site. Between
4 the two water samples, there was a sediment sample.
5
6 Brown questioned whether Mr. Serdar was familiar with any of the
7 Bellingham Bay dioxin samples. Serdar stated he wasn't familiar with Bellingham
8 Bay dioxin data.
9
10 2. PRESENTATION BY BLAIR HENRY REGARDING GLOBAL WARMING
11 (AB99 -434)
12
13 Blair Henry, President of Northwest Council on Climate Change, stated his
14 agency brings scientists and policy- makers together to discuss climate change.
15 They received a small grant from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to talk
16 with jurisdictions. The EPA doesn't vouch for the content of his presentation. He is
17 in partnership with the state Department of Community, Trade, and Economic
18 Development (CTED) with others.
19
20 The purpose of the presentation is twofold. One is to give a heads up as to
21 what is going on. His background is as a business attorney in Seattle. He is not an
22 environmental attorney. He got involved because it was important to him. The
23 White House asked him to co- organize a conference on climate change. He is part
24 of the U.S. National Assessment on Climate Change. His main role is to translate
25 the scientific terms into layman's terms.
26
27 Hoag asked about his organization. Henry stated Climate Solutions is a
28 nonprofit organization. The Northwest Council on Climate Change is a nonprofit
29 organization. The other partners include CTED and the Washington State University
30 Energy Program. His organization has existed for three years. They have 68
31 members in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. One -third of those members are
32 scientists. Another one -third are government representatives. The last one -third
33 are community and policy- makers. The purpose of his organization is to bring key
34 people together and create a comprehensive regional response to climate change.
35 They started the organization because this is a topic to talk about and worry about,
36 but not many people are doing anything about it. They bring the people together
37 to start doing something about the issue.
38
39 Global warming is not a new issue. A Nobel Prize winner discussed it in
40 1896. People want to know if it is real and whether they should be concerned. The
41 scientific community has consensus that this is a serious problem. There are
42 questions in the policy- making world. Many in the business industries are recognize
43 that there is a serious problem. There is a large increase in property insurance
44 losses worldwide due to storm events that have happened since 1980. There is a
45 policy debate about global warming because it is actively funded. The biggest
46 source of global warming is the burning of fossil fuels. Coal is the worst offender,
47 oil is the second worst, and natural gas is the best source of fossil fuel. The
48 industry doesn't want to go out of business, which is what it would take to solve
49 global warming. The most powerful lobby east of the Mississippi is from coal. Sixty
Natural Resources Committee, 11/9/99, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
percent of the electricity comes from coal. All the industry in the United States
doesn't want their electricity tampered with, which means they've aligned with the
fossil industry to say this is not happening. There is a climate change due to
burning fossil fuels which creates carbon dioxide, which heats the atmosphere,
which heats the ocean, which creates weird weather. As they heat up the planet
overall, the weather systems become skewed. They can go on a vacation
anywhere, and anyone will say they are experiencing weird weather. The gasses
around the planet are an insulator for the sun's heating of the planet. The carbon
dioxide and other gasses are the insulation of the atmosphere. Adding more CO2
increases the heat and becomes an extra insulation layer. To stabilize the planet,
they need to replace the fossil fuels. If a lot of carbon dioxide is generated into the
air, it is very potent.
Sutter stated there are a lot of volcanoes in Hawaii and questioned whether
that has an effect on the carbon dioxide. Henry stated it could. His data takes
global averages into account. COZ from volcanoes is taken into account in the
model. It is not as significant as they would think. They put out billions of tons of
carbon dioxide per year. Volcanoes are a small portion of that amount. The carbon
dioxide goes up and down from season to season. However, the trend is rising.
The temperature has gone up one and a half degrees since 1860. That
doesn't sound like much, but it is a big deal on a planetary scale. The average
temperature of the planet was 56 degrees Fahrenheit. The temperature has risen
dramatically in the last 20 to 30 years.
Sutter questioned the reason for the drop in temperature between the years
1000 and 1800. Henry stated he didn't know, but he could find out. When a
volcano blows, it puts out carbon dioxide and a lot of particulates, which acts as an
umbrella in the atmosphere. The sun hits that umbrella and bounces back out.
Many of the skeptics argue it isn't happening because the East Coast is not getting
as hot as everywhere else. However, that is because of the volume of sulfates that
are put in the air that act like an umbrella. It is because of the pollution. The
overall average of the temperature is going up everywhere. As predicted, they
would expect weird weather. Weird weather is happening worldwide. Going back
150,000 years, there is a pattern of the temperature going up and down. The
pattern repeats itself.
Hoag questioned where Mr. Henry got his dating samples. Henry stated it
comes from ice core samples from Antarctica.
Hoag questioned whether they are carbon dating the ice core samples.
Henry stated they don't do carbon dating. They pull out the ice and melt it into
water. There are gas bubbles trapped in the water that tells what the composition
of the atmosphere was.
Hoag stated that isn't what she asked. She asked how they determine how
long ago the ice core sample was deposited and whether the ice core samples were
carbon - dated. Henry stated the scientists might be using a carbon system.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/9/99, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Hoag stated the carbon dating was not very scientific. Henry stated that
there was no carbon dating done in this process.
Hoag stated he is claiming that something occurred 150,000 years ago. She
wanted to know how it was 150,000 years ago. They have to have someway of
dating the data they are collecting. The only method she was familiar with in the
scientific community was carbon dating. There is a wide dispute on carbon dating.
Any information beyond the last 10,000 years can't be accurate.
Sutter questioned how this cycle they are experiencing is now different from
other cycles that have occurred through time. Henry stated the pattern over the
past million years has been stable. Two hundred years ago, they would have
expected the temperature to go back down. In 1800, when they started to burn
fossil fuels, it did not come down. Instead the temperature shot up. It was the
highest raise in 150,000 years.
Brown stated that at the beginning of the graph, there is a vertical rise
straight up.
Hoag stated some scientists say that was when the flood occurred.
Everything was compressed. It throws off all the carbon data.
Brown stated the beginning of the graph has a vertical climb in a short period
of time. Henry stated there was a quick heating in 20,000 years, followed by a
cooling period of 100,000 years. That pattern goes back about one million years.
This time, they would have expected the earth to begin its cooling, but it hasn't
happened. They have had a 30 percent increase in carbon dioxide in 200 years.
Human beings have created as much change in the atmosphere in 200 years as
what normally occurs in 150,000 years. That is where they are today.
Since no one has proposed turning off all the gasoline engines and coal
power plants, the emissions are rising. In 50 years, the level of emissions will be
doubled. The rate of growth is accelerating. The University of Washington has the
top regional impact people in the world. In the Northwest in the next 50 years,
there is a 70 percent certainty that the average temperature is going to increase
4.5 degrees Fahrenheit. They have already come up 1.5 degrees. That makes a
total of six degrees Fahrenheit. If they were to get six degrees colder, they would
be under 3,000 feet of ice right now. They are going to get a lot more precipitation
in the wintertime in the form of more rain instead of snow. There will be less snow
in the mountains and more flooding in the autumn and spring.
The public health people are concerned about the mental health issue.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8)
Henry continued to state that in the summertime, they project droughts.
They project a 20 to 30 percent decrease in the Columbia River flow, which is fed
Natural Resources Committee, 11/9/99, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
by mountain snow pack. The electrical, irrigation, and river traffic would be
impacted. One of the Canadian projections is that there will be no more snow in
the Cascade Mountains by the year 2070 - 2080, forever.
Every living creature on the planet is where it is, based on the climate and
moisture in the region. There would be many changes biologically. It won't get
cold enough for the Douglas Fir in the winter. East of the mountains, there is a
likelihood that there will not be any forests east of Snoqualmie Pass within 50
years. It takes a reduction of .25 inches to .5 inches of rain to eliminate the
forests. The forestry people guess that the trees will become unhealthy. The bugs
will get into the trees, and they will die. The fires will get the trees. Sagebrush
and grasslands will replace the forests. The weather is moving 10 to 20 times
faster than the trees can migrate. The species won't be able to take care of
themselves. The trees can move during a 20,000 -year temperature shift. The
trees can't do 20,000 years worth of changes in 200 years.
On the agriculture side, people aren't so concerned about crops, because
they are resilient. They are more concerned about new invasive weeds and bugs.
The air pollution will be worse. There will be a northerly migration of diseases,
insects, and people. All the diseases will be moving in this direction.
When they heat the atmosphere, the sea level will rise and flood lower
elevations around the Puget Sound. The northern part of the state used to be
under a glacier. The ground in this area is still decompressing and rising as a result
of the ice coming off of it. The areas in the northern part of the state are rising
faster than the sea level is anticipated to rise. In the southern part of the Puget
Sound, they predict a 21 -inch sea level rise. The new University of Washington
study will indicate that the temperature will go up more than 4.5 degrees
Fahrenheit, maybe up to 5.5 degrees Fahrenheit.
Nelson questioned when the temperatures will be taken, in the day or night.
Scientific American had an article on global temperature variations. There was a
significant difference between day and night temperature changes. Henry stated
they are using global average temperatures. The difference between the day and
night temperatures are being taken into account.
Nelson stated that if there is global warming, there are nighttime impacts.
Dawson questioned whether they would be consistently taken during either
the day or the night. Henry stated at any one time, half the planet is in sunshine
and half the planet is in darkness. The average global temperature is the same. In
a 24 -hour period, it moves back and forth, but the average temperature stays the
same.
Hoag stated part of the reason for the skepticism by the Council is because
Mr. Henry began by saying there is not a lot of doubt in the scientific world, so he
didn't bring scientific information. He brought business quotes instead. The
Council wants to know if the concern is real and if people should be concerned.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/9/99, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
They are looking for scientific data. Henry stated he would provide the sources for
all the scientific information they are looking for.
Brown stated there are just as many arguments against this as there are for
this. Henry stated over 2,500 of the top international scientists in the world, who
wrote the Inter - Governmental Panel on Climate Change Report, are for this. There
are seven scientists hired by the industry to say it isn't happening. He could track
any scientist opposed to this to the fossil fuel industry. The media will give an
equal amount of time to those seven scientists as they would to the 2,500
scientists. If 2,500 doctors told them that smoking will kill a person, and six
doctors hired by the tobacco industry said that smoking wouldn't kill a person, he
would bet on the 2,500 doctors.
Nelson stated he wouldn't argue that it isn't happening. He wanted to know
the cause and the impacts of those causes. He questioned whether the impacts are
real or perceived. Science can interpret that in many fashions. He would say that
it is occurring as a part of the natural process. He didn't see that the world has
changed its natural process. Henry stated he wanted to know the source of his
information.
Hoag asked about the damage losses from extreme storm events. She
questioned whether inflation could account for those increased numbers. Henry
stated they've taken inflation into account and also the additional building right on
the water in Florida. It was such a small amount that it was inconsequential.
Brown stated that over the last 50 years they've seen a cyclic nature where
there is a tremendous amount of damage. Damage is increasing now because of
the increase in the number of people. It is a cyclic process. That graph was over a
very short period of time. There is generally a 20 -year cycle. Henry stated that 35
of the largest insurance companies in Europe stated that this is a major issue.
Hoag stated she would rather have scientific data. She would agree that
they are concerned.
Brown stated that more people are insuring now than 50 years ago.
Hoag stated she was looking forward to seeing real, hard data. She isn't
seeing much hard data. Regarding the coal industry, people are also trying to
remove dams. She questioned where they are going to get the power if they can't
have coal or dams. Henry stated that wood and hydro are not the sources because
there isn't enough. The nuclear people are standing in line. The clean renewable
fuels people are the ones working on this. The clean renewable fuels are the wind,
solar, bio -mass fuels, and fuel cells.
Hoag questioned whether Mr. Henry's group has taken a stand on the
removal of dams. Henry stated they have not.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/9/99, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Dawson questioned what fuel cells are. Henry stated they are a new
technology being pioneered out of Ballard Systems of Vancouver, British Columbia.
Other power companies are bringing them in. They run on hydrogen instead of a
hydrocarbon from a fossil fuel. They create electricity from hydrogen, and the by-
product is water vapor. These are still expensive. They are run on buses in
Toronto, and are in some power plants. Daimler -Benz connected with Ballard.
Their projection is that they will have the motor vehicle fleet fossil -free within 15 to
20 years. They can also replace coal in the large -scale power plants. Most of the
new -scale emissions of carbon are coming from the third world, India, and China.
It is in the United States' self- interest to get these technologies over there. He is
encouraging policymakers to recognize that there are three states, Oregon,
Washington, and California, which don't carry the political baggage of the fossil
fuels. They are promoting that they take the lead. The federal government has
stopped action on this. This region could begin developing its own schemes for
reductions, and get involved in the international trading schemes. There is a lot of
money to be made on this.
Hoag stated that here they are putting up Natural gas plants all over the
place. Henry stated others have that concern. Natural gas turbine plants are far
better than any coal. They call natural gas the fossil fuel transition fuel of choice.
They've worked with the gas industry. They know they are going to have to power
a lot of things using natural gas. If they get them off of gasoline, they save a ton
in terms of carbon and will get more mileage. It is a fuel they will probably use for
15 to 20 years before phasing out. Natural gas will be used as a replacement for
coal. They don't want to use it in lieu of hydro, because hydro is clean.
Hoag stated this region has its power from hydro, and now they are putting
in natural gas plants. That power is being shipped elsewhere. Henry stated it is
going to be a tough political issue for local policymakers. At some point, everyone
is going to cut back. Turbines are a relatively inexpensive power plant to shut
down.
Sutter asked about natural processes. She questioned whether the
cumulative effects of the natural processes were taken into account. Henry stated
they were. The planet puts out 100 units of carbon dioxide per year, and absorbs
100 units per year. It is balanced. There are now seven more units being put into
the system per the year. Of those extra seven units, the planet is picking up four
of the units, but they don't know how long the planet will continue to pick up those
extra four units. At some point, it will max out. The other three units are staying
in the atmosphere and are heating the planet.
Nelson stated that nature tries to achieve a balance. He questioned what it
means when there are a certain number of units being expelled and received by the
planet. Henry stated it tells one that the planet is working very hard to adapt. It is
adapting to some degree.
Nelson questioned whether Mr. Henry is saying that nature is not going to be
able to absorb the seven more units that the humans produce. Henry stated that
Natural Resources Committee, 11/9/99, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
nature is picking up four of the units. It is not picking up the other three. They
just don't know if it will adapt. If houseplants receive extra fertilizer, they are
going to sprout quickly for a while. Some of them will continue to sprout and some
of them will die after a short growth spurt. They have an entire global biological
system on which they are trying that experiment.
Nelson stated there is a lot of information they just don't know. Henry stated
they are trying the experiment on a global scale. It is a dangerous experiment.
Regarding the heating, there is a 100 to 150 year time lag. What is put out today
will continue to heat the planet for the next 100 to 150 years. Everything they are
seeing today came from a long time ago.
Nelson stated he didn't disagree.
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember Brown left the meeting at 11:30 a.m.)
Henry stated there are a lot of places to get involved. They are going to
bring together policymakers and scientists in March. They are going to look at
mitigation strategies and at weaning people off the fossil fuels. That leadership
council conference would be in March.
Dawson asked how to find out more about the fuel cells. Henry stated they
could contact Ballard Systems in Vancouver, British Columbia. The largest
manufacturer is located in Washington State.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:35 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Connie Hoag, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 11/9/99, Page 14