Earth… pass it on: Ecology’s joint project with the creator of The Twilight Zone

By Dan Partridge, communications manager, Water Resources Program

For many of us who sat glued to our black and white television sets for a half hour once a week in the early 1960s, the voice is immediately recognizable:

“Historians will look to the early 1970s as a turning point of concern about the world around us. This awareness centers on our environment yet today we must admit we have only begun to tackle the problem. In our nation Washington stands out as the first to address itself directly to the problems and take positive legislative action on environmental concerns. This is Rod Serling speaking for the Washington state Department of Ecology.”

How did Rod Serling get involved?

That’s how the creator of the iconic television show The Twlight Zone starts his narration of the slide show on the fledgling Department of Ecology. Gary Amos, an ecology employee at the time, created it in 1974 for school children across the state. 

Gary Amos was a 22-year-old Ecology employee in 1974. Ecology was the first government agency in the nation committed to environmental protection when it was created by the state Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Dan Evans in 1970. Ten years earlier, the original The Twilight Zone was in its second season on network television. Like many viewers, Gary was fascinated by the show’s stories of fantasy, science fiction and psychological intrigue that often ended in a macabre twist. The endings left our imaginations racing but, as a young fan, Gary could not have imagined that he would someday meet Rod Serling, the show’s creator and producer and that Serling would help him educate the public about the Department of Ecology.

Ecology employee Gary Amos and Rod Serling in California in 1974

The first Earth Day

The activism of the 1970s that resulted in the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970, spurred hundreds of school children to write Gov Evans’ office about environmental concerns and put Gary on the road speaking to classrooms and community groups about Ecology’s mission and challenges.

“The environment became a huge issue. I was really busy, got to travel all over,” Gary recalled. He was a temporary employee working for Ats Kiuchi, public affairs director for Ecology, who asked Gary to “put together a program, a slide show for the kids.”

With the help of Carolyn Empey, a photographer and Ecology intern, Gary created the slide show that he first tried to narrate himself.

“That’s when I realized I didn’t have the voice,” he said. A group of Gary’s colleagues stood around talking about what to do and half joking he asked Ats’ assistant, Linda, about getting Rod Serling to narrate the slide show. The group laughed but one thing has never changed at Ecology:  administrative assistants always accomplish the impossible.

Making connections the old fashioned way

There was no Internet at that time so Linda grabbed a copy of “Who’s Who in America," looked up Serling’s address and wrote him a letter asking him if he was willing to donate his time and talents to the project.

The answer was yes but Ecology Director John Biggs asked Gary to write Serling again to make sure he knew what was meant by “donate.” Once in agreement, Gary was on his way to California. His wife and Caroyln Empey came with him but at their own expense.

Then Gary was startled when his pager went off while waiting for his plane at Sea-Tac Airport. Serling had called the agency to cancel their meeting because of an unexpected obligation. Gary reacted quickly and was able to call Serling back and work out an alternative.

Gary, his wife and Carolyn flew to Los Angeles and met Serling at a recording studio near MGM Studios where Serling recorded his narration of the Ecology slide show.

It's no mystery. Rod Serling cared about the environment

“We didn’t get charged for the studio, the technician’s time or the editor’s time,” Gary said. “The only thing I had to pay for was the spool of tape.”

A year later, Serling would be dead of a heart attack. He was only 50 years old. “He donated his time and talents because he thought it was such an important endeavor. He was concerned about pollution and air quality,” Gary said.

It was a heady experience for Gary who left Ecology shortly after completing the slide show and actually never had an opportunity to use it in a classroom presentation. He worked several years as a public school teacher but for the past 35 years has been an investment advisor in Yakima.

"It’s probably my claim to fame,” Gary said of his encounter with the creator of the Twilight Zone, “and when it’s over I hope they mention it at my funeral.”

Earth Day 2014

For Earth Day 2014, Ecology resurrected the slide show and interjected fresh information in it on the progress our agency has made in intervening decades on cleaning up and protecting the air, water and land of Washington state. Watch it now!

---

Stories about Getting to Clean Water: Poulsbo Cleans up a Lot on Liberty Bay

Stories about Getting to Clean Water: Poulsbo Cleans up a Lot on Liberty Bay

By Diane Dent, Water Quality Stories Lead, Water Quality Program

Parking lot at Anderson Parkway near Liberty Bay after improvements.

Liberty Bay is an important waterway that supports commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting. For the city of Poulsbo, which sits at the top of Liberty Bay, it’s no wonder the people put the Anderson Parkway parking lot right next to the bay so folks can drive right up.

The Problem

The 2.1 acre Anderson Parkway is the single largest hard, non-porous surface in downtown Poulsbo. Rainwater lands on the Parkway, picks up pollution, and discharges untreated stormwater directly to Liberty Bay. The runoff from cars results in relatively high amounts of toxic contaminant loading to Liberty Bay.

Large portions of Poulsbo were developed over 100 years ago and have no stormwater treatment facilities. The city recognized that significant improvements could be achieved by retrofitting these developed areas, especially large paved areas near the water.

To find out how the city of Poulsbo dealt with the stormwater discharging into Liberty Bay, read this full story online, which was written by written by Joan Nolan, Ecology Northwest Regional Office.

Telling our success stories

Water quality success stories provide a wealth of information associated with novel project designs, funding ideas, and useful resource suggestions. Some are clear successes; others supply valuable lessons to help us grow in our understanding of water quality protection and restoration. Stories illustrate successes gained from cooperation among Washington’s citizens and organizations.

Read all of our Ecology's water quality success stories, and check out our complete catalog of stories.

Winter road treatments have environmental considerations

By Jani Gilbert and Sandy Howard

Every winter the phones at Ecology light up with questions about de-icers and anti-icers. Are they safe? Do they pollute? Is one product better than another?

Good questions, since nationwide we dump millions of tons of de-icing and traction materials onto our roadways every year.

"There is no black and white answer," said Mike Hepp of Ecology’s Spokane office. "National studies show there are advantages and disadvantages to each material used on the roads. Putting sand and chemicals on the roads is never a good thing for the environment, but it does keep cars out of creeks."

Managing public safety, costs, impacts

When the snow flies, we recognize that public safety is the priority. Department of Ecology stormwater regulations do not specify how local governments may use de-icers, however we encourage the use of less toxic formulas.

The economics of road treatment suggest that over-application is not likely. Costs for road treatment are high for staffing and overtime, operating equipment and purchasing the materials.

Given the contrary claims of product manufacturers, differences between parts of the state, and the fact that different measures should be taken for different phases of a storm, it's difficult to say definitively what's best for the environment.

Here in the Northwest, most local and state governments responsible for keeping the roads clear look at the problem on a case-by-case basis so that the right product is used in the right place.

Product application combinations are chosen after maintenance workers evaluate factors such as air temperature, pavement temperature, humidity levels, dew point temperatures, exposure to solar radiation, type and rate of precipitation, weather forecast, weather radar data, and satellite data.

What are de-icers?

Both anti-icers and de-icers are winter road treatments that work as freezing-point depressants. Some are salt products. Some are organic compounds, and many are mixtures. However, the organic compounds are agricultural byproducts known to contain soluble organic carbon as well as nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. As a result, it is possible for de-icing operations to have an adverse effect on regional waterways, by adding to nutrient and organic carbon loading.

In some areas of the state, our local governments most often use magnesium chloride, a pre-snow anti-icer. The use of anti-icers means that a significantly smaller amount of chemical needs to be used, which is good for the environment.

Anti-icers, or preventive winter road treatments, are liquid forms of salt compounds used to prevent the formation of bonded snow and ice for easy removal. They are used before the onset of a winter weather storm. They work by forming a brine that has a lower freezing point than ice and snow. They keep the ice and snow from sticking to the road so it's much easier to physically remove. They also reduce the amount of sand that is used on the roadway, thus cutting down on the air pollution that arises from dry, sandy roads in the spring and summer.

A de-icer is a product that is used after it snows and after ice forms to melt the snow and ice away. De-icers, or reactive winter road treatments, are usually salt compounds used to break the bond of already existing snow and ice. They dissolve downward and penetrate until they reach the pavement. They then fan outward to undercut and separate the snow from the pavement surface.

Environmental impacts?

Both salt-based de-icers and anti-icers are easily transported with runoff water and can contaminate surface and groundwater when excessive amounts are applied. They also inhibit the growth of roadside vegetation and harm roadside habitats.

So, anti-icers may have a slight environmental edge over de-icers simply because not as much is needed. One emerging alternative is calcium magnesium acetate, or CMA, made from limestone and acetic acid. It has a lower environmental impact because less is used. However, it costs more and still has a nutrient load if it reaches water.

Meanwhile, homeowners should avoid the use of fertilizers to de-ice. They're expensive, they perform poorly and you have to use quite a lot. Sand will work, but you need to sweep it up later. Don't use cat litter or ashes — they turn into goo.

This comes from the King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual, "Shoveling of snow is always preferred to dumping excessive amounts of de-icing materials in an effort to avoid shoveling."

Perhaps the best thing for the environment involves getting more exercise.

---

Why the state’s municipal stormwater permits matter

By Sandy Howard, communication manager, Water Quality Program

Most people get this idea: What we do on the land causes pollution problems in our lakes, rivers and Puget Sound.

Polluted runoff

Runoff from surfaces in populated areas picks up chemicals and bacteria and carries it downstream into our waters. Right now, polluted runoff is the biggest threat to urban-area lakes, rivers and Puget Sound.

Most of the time, stormwater is not treated, even when it goes into a street drain.

So right now we’ve got pollution problems caused by existing development and we’re going to have future pollution problems as we build out our land.

Getting to clean water through stormwater permits

One of the ways Washington and the nation address polluted runoff is through Clean Water Act stormwater permits. The most populated areas must come under the permits, and in our state, the Washington Department of Ecology administers them.

The stormwater permits are to be updated every five years and they are designed to gradually increase environmental protections over time with each new update.

State & local governments work together

We’ve just come out with proposed, updated stormwater permits for the state. They provide greater environmental protections while recognizing that local governments are currently strapped for resources.

We've involved local governments in developing the new proposed permits and we intend to keep them involved as we finalize them.

Read more about the proposed permits and get involved by attending a public workshop. We welcome your comments — we’re taking them until Feb. 3, 2102.

---

Stories about Getting to Clean Water: Turbid runoff and the railroad — Cooperative solutions

By Ted Hamlin, Ecology Spokane Regional Office

This dirt road was sending muddy runoff into the Spokane River.

Finding and fixing direct discharges of stormwater into the Spokane River are constant and perplexing problems. There are dirt streets, alleys, parking lots, and access roads around the cities of Spokane and the Spokane Valley that contribute muddy water during each rain event or snow melt. When this happens, it can cause a stormwater water quality violation.

Urban Waters Initiative is working

Ecology’s Urban Waters Initiative is working to eliminate pollution that is getting into the Spokane River. One of the techniques we use is to conduct neighborhood sweeps, looking for businesses or land uses that may be potential sources. Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad’s dirt access road, leading from Madelia Street up a hill to its silos, turned out to be one source of muddy runoff. When it rained or snow melted at the site, water would run down the hill, picking up dirt and delivering it to a storm drain.

So at 310 N. Madelia Street, we had to figure out who was responsible for the turbid runoff.

BNSF stepped up as a responsible party and due to the work of the Urban Waters Initiative and collaboration with BSNF Railroad and the city of Spokane, the site now has a well thought-out stormwater management system that should eliminate runoff of turbid water.

Click here to read the full story.

Telling our success stories

Water quality success stories provide a wealth of information associated with novel project designs, funding ideas, and useful resource suggestions. Some are clear successes; others supply valuable lessons to help us grow in our understanding of water quality protection and restoration. Stories illustrate successes gained from cooperation among Washington’s citizens and organizations.

Read all of our water quality success stories, and check out our catalog of stories.

---

Dog Doogity: A good return on the state’s investment

By Sandy Howard, communication manager, Water Quality Program

Polluted stormwater runoff is the leading pollution problem in our state’s most populated areas. Lots of people and lots of dogs are a big part of that pollution problem.

When it rains, pollution on the land washes downstream, moving that pollution along into our waters.

Protecting our waters

Regulations alone cannot keep Washington’s waters, including Puget Sound, pollution-free. We have learned that people will generally do their part to change their behaviors and prevent pollution if they have an awareness of the problem, and if they know what to do.

Building that awareness is not free. But we believe spending money to inform people is a cost-effective way of address pollution problems in Puget Sound.

Since 2005, our state has invested more than $100 million to help local governments build locally designed stormwater programs. Washington made these investments through grants to local governments and intergovernmental partnerships, with funding from dedicated environmental accounts intended to prevent pollution. Our state made these investments to help us clean up our waters and restore Puget Sound and other waters of the state

If we do it right, our lakes, streams and Puget Sound receive huge benefits.

We all can help

By far, the least expensive way to fight pollution is to prevent it in the first place. Cleaning our waters is much more costly. Pollution problems in the Spokane River, and in many parts of Puget Sound, are good examples of how expensive cleanup can be.

A small example of how this investment is beginning to show up is the recent “Dog Doogity” video, produced by a consortium of counties that border Puget Sound, calling themselves STORM.


The state helped provide funding for this video project through funding it has passed along to local governments to help them develop local stormwater programs that meet local needs.

STORM launched its Puget Sound Starts Here education effort — a broadly based, Sound-wide approach to give Puget Sound residents the information they need to make their own decisions about protecting the Sound.

The Dog Doogity video is one small effort by the STORM communities. It’s specifically aimed at dog owners in Puget Sound communities.

Low cost, high value

A video like this is cost-effective because it is meant to spread rapidly like a virus — to become “viral.” People share it with their friends — it passes from one dog owner to another, and on and on.

Update for July 11, 2014
New numbers about the video:

· We are currently at 205,200 views.
· 95 percent of the viewers who vote like us.
· The video has been covered more than 80 times by media outlets locally and nationally – approximately 94 percent of the coverage has been positive.

Dog Doogity is doing exactly what we hoped: drawing attention to the issue of pet waste and its impact on Puget Sound. It’s working!

Read more here: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/washington_waters/dogdoogity.html

When Washingtonians get involved in preventing pollution, everyone gets our money’s worth.

For more information about the video, see The Scoop on “Dog Doogity” and dog waste in our waters

---

How Do YOU Protect Washington Waters?

By Brook Beeler, Watershed Education Coordinator

I think by now many people know that stormwater and polluted run-off is the number one pollution problem for Washington’s waters. Pollution from stormwater not only affects our rivers, lakes and streams but can also cause significant problems with drinking water and human health.

Although more than 60 percent of water pollution comes from things like cars leaking oil, fertilizers and pesticides from farms and gardens, failing septic tanks, pet waste, and fuel spills from recreational boaters, we want you to know there is good news. YOU can help make a difference. Each of us can do small things to help clean up our waters.

There are many actions you can take to keep our waters clean, at home, at play, even at work. You may already do some of these things.

You may have already taken our Protect Our Waters Pledge. You can also have some fun testing your knowledge with our stormwater quiz or discovering your Pollution Prevention Personality Profile.

Please share your clean water stories with us!

• Create a response to our YouTube video.



• Join our clean water photo group on Flickr.



• Share what you are doing with others.

Click on the Post a Comment link below and tell us: “How do you Protect Washington Waters?”

---

New Washington Stormwater Center leads research to manage rainwater runoff

By Sandy Howard, Department of Ecology communications

If anybody’s going to figure out how to solve pollution problems caused by rainwater runoff, it’s going to be Washington, right?

It’s true: Our state is at the front of the pack in researching new tools and methods to protect our lakes, rivers and marine waters and aquatic life from polluted stormwater runoff.

Officials gathered May 20 to recognize the fact and dedicate the new Washington Stormwater Center. The Center is at WSU Puyallup Research and Extension Center. It's a great, new idea that’s just getting legs.

If you got too close during part of the event, you might have gotten wet! Watch this 49-second video and see thirsty pavement gulp down a bucket of water. It’s a new type of parking lot pavement the Center’s low impact development (LID) program is testing.

Two Department of Ecology grants helped start the Washington Stormwater Center and its work. Ecology provided $1 million to the universities and their partner, the City of Puyallup, for the Center and its stormwater technology review work. In an earlier grant, Ecology provided $1 million for the LID research facility at WSU’s Puyallup campus.

The Washington Stormwater Center is shaping up to be everything the Legislature envisioned and more. Josh Baldi, Ecology’s special assistant for water quality and Puget Sound, who spoke at the event, said the Center’s role is pivotal in transitioning stormwater management from ‘words on paper’ in permits, to actions on the ground that helps keep polluted runoff from harming our waters.

Other dignitaries in attendance included U.S. Congressman Norm Dicks (by phone), Washington State University President Elson S. Floyd, EPA Region 10 Administrator, Dennis McClerran, Puyallup Tribe of Indians Tribal Council Chairman Herman Dillon Sr., Puyallup Mayor Kathy Turner, Puget Sound Partnership Executive Director Gerry O’Keefe, Tacoma-Pierce County Economic Development President Bruce Kendall and Pierce County Public Works Director Brian Ziegler.

For more information, see the story in The News Tribune and Washington State University’s news release. Pierce County News also covered the event.

---

Here comes the rain again

By Sandy Howard

Now that Annie Lennox is singing that song in your head, here’s my point.

The first fall rains have arrived in Washington. If the puddles are getting deep in your neighborhood, you could be thinking there’s not much you can do about it. Well, my blog is to tell you what people are doing about it and maybe I can get you thinking about actions you can take, too.

After all, polluted runoff is the number one threat to our waters and to Puget Sound.

Some of you are becoming detectives and learning the locations of your neighborhood stormwater drains. You can help flooding problems in your neighborhood by raking the leaves away. The city of Olympia offers this "Rake a Drain" advice.

Of course rainwater runoff picks up and carries a lot of pollution, too. Some folks are making use of a rainy day to go online to get their kids educated about why it’s important to keep only rain going down the drain. Check out how they can become Drain Rangers, thanks to the Puget Sound Partnership!

Are you a small business owner? Here is some advice to protect your storm drain from pollution – one easy step is to close the lid on your dumpster! That’s it, Only Rain Down the Drain!

People are becoming inspired by a neighborhood that’s taking control of the situation by installing rain gardens in their yards to cut down on flooding and pollution problems. We like the idea of a neighborhood getting off the stormwater grid. What a great way to think about this. And we applaud their volunteer spirit! Watch KING-TV news “Rain Gardens Take Neighborhood by Storm.”

Pierce County is doing some work to allow rainwater runoff to soak directly into parts of its large parking lot at Sprinker Recreation Center. Construction of the Sprinker low impact development project is now 100 percent complete, and the only remaining task is to install the signs. Ecology funded this work under the Stormwater Management Implementation Grant Program in fiscal year 2008. See this video clip from PCTV news about the project.

If you know of any interesting news or happenings about rainwater runoff, or how people, local organizations and governments are dealing with it – especially video and web content, let us know. We’d like to blog about it. Email me at sandy.howard@ecy.wa.gov

---

What we know about toxic chemicals reaching Puget Sound from rivers and stormwater

By Mindy Roberts, Environmental Engineer, Environmental Assessment Program

A lot of attention has focused on the amount of toxic chemicals reaching Puget Sound from surface runoff from stormwater and rivers that drain to the Sound.

So how much goes in?

Simple question, but not a simple answer

It’s a simple question with a surprisingly complex answer because the information available evolves over time.

Crime data analogy

Think of it like this: “How much crime is there in Washington?” A simple question – but how readily available is that information, and how will the answer be used?

• The first step is to find all available information on crime statistics at the state level to look at overall patterns and figure out what’s missing. You learn things from this initial pass. The information may answer some questions while raising even more. Inevitably, some parts of the state or particular crimes are underrepresented or not specific enough.
  
• The next step is to seek out the missing information by compiling new information from additional sources. You wouldn’t know what those gaps are until you finish the first phase. You focus your effort on the biggest gaps and the biggest areas of uncertainty. This leads to better information, but now you find out that some counties track crimes differently or more thoroughly than others.

Step by step, patterns do emerge

Where do you focus your resources? Each stage shapes your understanding of a complex topic like crime patterns based on the best available information. The first phase might indicate whether overall crime in the state is up or down, but those patterns don’t hold for all crimes or for all areas of the state.

A single value like “up 10 percent” may be accurate but doesn’t help if your job is to reduce violent crime in one county or report on car thefts in a particular city. We need information at all of these levels to decide where to put our collective resources to reduce the biggest risks.

Understanding toxic pollutants to Puget Sound crucial

We need to know the levels of toxic chemicals entering Puget Sound for many reasons. For instance:

• Are the levels a problem for humans or for fish?
  
• If so, what are the major sources to target with finite resources?
  
• What regions?
  
• What land uses?
  
• How much to reduce?

The first step is determining how much reaches Puget Sound or streams or lakes, but an even larger question we still must ask involves risk. What are the most important pollutants or crimes to control first and where should we focus our efforts? We could just reduce crime as a general statistic, but we need to prioritize -- what crime causes the most harm? First we need to know how much and what type of crimes are occurring.

Stepping stones for identifying toxic risks to Puget Sound

When Ecology, the Puget Sound Partnership, and others began asking the initial question “how much” several years ago, we did not have a readily available answer. In 2006, we began a project that includes not just toxic pollutants in surface runoff but also in fish and sediment, as well as human health concerns. The region could not wait five years for a final assessment, so we approached the toxics project in phases:

Phase 1: Initial estimates

Phase 1 provided us with initial toxics load estimates. We learned that when we add up the contributions from all chemicals and across all sources to Puget Sound, surface runoff (both river inputs and stormwater) is the dominant overall toxics source compared with other pathways (like wastewater and atmospheric deposition) and contributes millions of pounds per year. These other pathways may still be important for particular chemicals or areas. Phase 1 also identified areas where we needed more information.

Phase 2: Digging deeper into land-use contributions

Once we knew the importance of surface runoff, Phase 2 delved deeper and focused on what different land uses contribute. We learned that while surface runoff from forested lands represents the bulk of water reaching Puget Sound, residential land contributes disproportionately higher levels of pollutants including:

• Heavy metals like copper, lead and zinc
  
• Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
  
• Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAHs)
  
• Plasticizers
  
• Herbicides
  
• Oil and grease

That’s a significant finding because it helps us focus our management resources on residential land-use activities. Surface runoff from commercial-industrial and agricultural lands also carries disproportionately high levels of some toxic chemicals. While the specific numbers evolved, Phase 2 still found that millions of pounds of toxic chemicals reach Puget Sound each year.

Phase 3: Finding out what’s in that surface water runoff

We designed Phase 3 to collect new water samples from surface runoff from these land use types to improve the data available. We selected representative areas of the Puyallup and Snohomish River basins and will finish monitoring in summer 2010. The findings will be released this fall – don’t be surprised when the load numbers change.

Dynamic studies equal changing numbers

So why do these numbers change? It’s because the information that becomes available improves over time. We don’t know what gaps to fill until we compile the known information. And sometimes the underlying patterns change as well. Will the information ever be perfect? No.

Take crime reporting. It, too, changes over time – as do underlying crime patterns. Crime-fighting tools are evolving right now to capture new patterns like the rise in identity theft and cyber crime so they can be managed effectively. It doesn’t mean that other crime-fighting tactics should cease.

Ecology and its partners develop tools to understand overall toxics patterns as the initial step in determining whether the levels of toxic chemicals are problematic. “The answer” could vary by chemical and by area within the Puget Sound region. And “the answer” will depend if you are a spawning salmon, a subsistence fisherman, or any of the millions of residents, human or other, in the Puget Sound region. The best available information evolves over time. It’s a necessary part of the transparent scientific process.

The numbers lead us toward a better strategy

Gathering good information on the amount of toxics pollutants entering our Puget Sound waterways is a great step in finding new and better ways to reduce toxics. We are taking the next steps right now to identify the biggest sources of these toxics and what harm they are doing to the things we care about. For some toxics, we already had enough information to take action, such as mercury and some flame retardants that build up in our bodies and environment, or copper from brake pads that harm salmon. With this additional information, we can continue to focus our efforts on controlling the sources of those toxics that contribute the most harm.

---