Nonpoint pollution: What’s the point?

By Sandy Howard, communications manager, Water Quality Program

Its name is confusing and its definition is complicated.

But, nonpoint pollution is something you should care about.

It’s one of the leading sources of water pollution in Washington.

What we call “nonpoint pollution” is really the combined environmental effects of modern life. It’s the rubber from our car tires, bacteria from our pets and failing septic tanks, copper from our brake pads, phosphorous from our cleaning products, and muddy water from cleared land – it’s a little bit of everything that we leave behind as we go about our business.

When your home septic system fails,
remember it doesn't just fail at home. Find out more.

When it rains, the runoff picks up and carries this pollution downstream into our lakes, rivers and marine waters. It can send bacteria into our waters that closes our shellfish and swimming beaches. It can release PCBs and pesticides from the land.

When we cut down trees next to the shoreline, we lose vital shade that’s needed to keep the water cold for salmon. This, too, is a type of nonpoint pollution.

Nonpoint pollution is not just an urban phenomenon – nonpoint pollution is a problem in suburban and rural areas as well. Nonpoint pollution happens in agricultural areas, forests and in your neighborhood.

We’re finding and fixing problems

The good news is that local governments and organizations are finding and fixing nonpoint pollution problems, one step at a time.

In Washington, we have an ongoing funding source to help them tackle nonpoint pollution. It’s the Clean Water Act Section 319 Federal Grant program. This money comes to Ecology from the federal government to help pay for projects to clean up nonpoint pollution.

Here are a couple of success stories this grant program has funded to reduce nonpoint pollution:

Direct seeding reduces erosion

A $100,000 grant in eastern Washington has helped Ecology educate wheat growers about direct seeding technology. It’s a tillage practice that allows dry-land growers, primarily wheat growers, to plant seeds and fertilize a new crop on top of the previous crop, keeping topsoil in place. This seeding process decreases soil erosion and carbon emissions, and increases soil health. Direct seed growers now have a program in several eastern Washington counties to certify that they are preventing erosion and protecting vegetation along streams and rivers. Watch this short video to learn more.

Cleaning up bacteria in Hood Canal

We gave a $500,000 nonpoint grant to Jefferson County Health Department and Jefferson County Conservation District. Together, these organizations significantly knocked back a bacteria pollution problem in the Hood Canal watershed. Bacteria is a problem because it can make water unsafe for swimming, drinking or for eating shellfish.

Famous Washington state oysters.

The grant helped the local health department find and fix 36 failing residential septic systems. They held education classes for homeowners. They found and addressed vacation homes with unpermitted septic systems. They installed portable toilets and a dumpster along a popular fishing area on the Big Quilcene River to prevent bacteria and waste from recreational fishers.

And, the agencies planted 13,000 live stakes and 2,100 bare root trees and shrubs along Leland Creek to create shade that blocks the sun to keep the water cool and more fish friendly.

Problems are real, but they are fixable

These stories tell us that while nonpoint pollution problems are real, they are fixable.

And this is where you come in.

We are asking for your feedback to help us update our Nonpoint Plan, the state’s roadmap to address nonpoint pollution.

Our plan, officially called Washington’s Water Quality Management Plan to Control Nonpoint Sources of Pollution (Nonpoint Source Plan), provides the foundation of our state’s approach to address land-use caused pollution.

Our updated Nonpoint Plan will set strong goals, and clearer standards to protect public health and restore our waterways. Our plan will seek to support sustainable communities through the creation and preservation of strong local relationships. The plan will recognize the importance of public participation in understanding and addressing nonpoint pollution.

Tell us what you think

We are having public meetings across the state to ask for your input.

2- 4 p.m., May 6 at Ecology headquarters, Lacey (in-person meeting and online webinar)

6- 8 p.m., May 11 at Yakima Area Arboretum, Yakima

6- 8 p.m., May 12 at Oxford Suites Spokane Valley Washington Hotel, Spokane

6- 8 p.m., May 18 at Edmonds Conference Center, Edmonds

If you want to learn more, you can get details at our website.  

Tackling Toxics: How do we really know a chemical is safe?

By Andrew Wineke, communications, and Alex Stone, chemist, Hazardous Waste & Toxics Reduction

We all want safer products. No one ever argues in favor of putting hormone disruptors in children’s toys or substances toxic to fish in tires.

But when an inventor or manufacturer is designing a product, how do they really know what chemical ingredients are safe? Asbestos was considered a safer alternative when it was introduced. And “safe” compared to what? Pesticides are not supposed to be safe – for bugs. And how do they prove it?

Chemical hazard assessments

This is where chemical hazard assessments come in. A chemical hazard assessment is a tool to help organizations evaluate a chemical’s impact on human health and the environment. The key component of a chemical hazard assessment is that it enables the user to compare chemicals against each other on a level playing field.

The GreenScreen® for Safer Chemicals method, for instance, ranks a chemical on 18 different potential impacts on human health and the environment. Running a GreenScreen assessment will tell you things like whether a given chemical can cause cancer, or if it’s flammable, or whether it’s safe for fish.

Several major manufacturers and retailers use GreenScreen or similar systems to screen the ingredients that go into their products. These companies go to their suppliers and say, “show us that your chemical is safe.”

However, a full GreenScreen report can run more than 20 pages – just for a single chemical. Sometimes that’s too much, particularly for smaller businesses or if a company is just doing a preliminary assessment.

Quick Chemical Assessment Tool

To meet this need, we developed a simpler method, the Quick Chemical Assessment Tool, or QCAT. It’s based on GreenScreen and uses the same databases of chemical hazards, but it looks at a smaller set of potential health and environmental endpoints. A QCAT report is about five pages long.

Still too much? There are a number of chemical hazard databases, such as Pharos, that are inexpensive to use and will give a quick rundown on potential problems in just a few seconds.

Want to learn more?

We are offering a free, day-long class, “An Introduction to Chemical Hazard Assessments,” Sept. 25 in Lacey. You can register here, or download this brochure for more information. Other QCAT classes will be offered in 2015.

If you aren’t ready to take a class or need help right away, we can often conduct QCATs for Washington businesses, although some limitations apply. Contact greenchemistry@ecy.wa.gov to inquire.

Visit Ecology's website for more about assessing the safety of chemical alternatives.

Stay informed about our efforts to reduce the use of toxic chemicals by following our Tackling Toxics series right here on the ECOconnect blog.

---

Tackling Toxics: Searching for safer products?

The EPA can help

By Andrew Wineke, communications, Hazardous Waste & Toxics Reduction

One of the simplest things we can do to protect the environment, both at home and at our workplaces, is to use safer chemicals in our cleaning supplies and other household products.

But how do you know what “safer” is? Do you look for “natural” on the label? Should it say “eco” in the name? There are more than 300 different “green” certifications. Which one should you trust?

If you really want to pick the safest products possible, a great place to start is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Design for the Environment program.

Design for the Environment is a voluntary product labeling program that works with manufacturers to determine that the chemicals used in a product are the very safest available. Today, more than 2,500 products ranging from toilet bowl cleaners to bilge tank treatments have been evaluated through the Design for the Environment Safer Product Labeling Program.

The Design for the Environment label means that each ingredient has been screened for potential adverse human or environmental health effects and that the product contains ingredients that pose the least concern among chemicals in their class. You can find a list of all 2,500 products, organized by category, or you can look for the Design for the Environment logo on the products you already buy.

Want to know more?

At 10:30 a.m. Thursday, Aug. 28, our Safer Chemistry Challenge is hosting a free, one-hour webinar with the EPA’s Bridget Williams for a deeper look at the Design for the Environment program.

Williams will discuss how the EPA evaluates products, how businesses can get their products certified, how the program works with industry to identify safer chemicals, and answer your questions. Register here.

Stay informed about our efforts to reduce the use of toxic chemicals by following our Tackling Toxics series right here on the ECOconnect blog.

---

Tackling Toxics: PCB problem requires creative solutions

PCBs are in many paints!

By Erika Bronson, communications, Reducing Toxic Threats

You would think that a toxic substance we stopped using 35 years ago would no longer be a problem, right? Wrong.

Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination is widespread throughout Washington and found in almost every water body in the state.

History of PCBs

PCBs were produced for commercial uses from about 1929 to 1977. During this time, PCBs were widely used for heat transfer fluids in electrical transformers and capacitors. They were also used as plasticizers, wax and pesticide extenders, and lubricants. Many common products used to contain PCBs at high levels, such as carbonless copy paper and caulk used to seal cracks in homes and buildings.

As early as 1936, serious skin irritations and other health effects were noted in industrial workers exposed to PCBs, which led to increased protection for workers but didn’t slow their manufacture. By 1976, it was clear PCBs were also an environmental problem. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was passed to ban the majority of PCB uses and restrict remaining concentrations to low levels. This law was in effect by 1979.

Health & environmental effects

Unfortunately, PCBs last for a very long time in the environment. This is a concern not only for plants and animals, but also for humans. PCBs have toxic effects to the immune, reproductive, nervous, and hormone-regulation systems in humans and other living things. PCBs cause cancer in animals and are considered likely to cause cancer in humans.

PCBs also build up in living things, which is amplified when predators eat prey (known as biomagnification, see illustration, courtesy of the Seattle Post Intelligencer). For example, the Washington Department of Health has set fish advisories for many bodies of water due to PCB and other contamination. When a person eats fish that’s been living in waters contaminated by PCBs, that contamination then enters her body and adds to the store she already may have from other exposures – like consumer products.

Breaking the law?

PCBs continue to show up in products today because manufacturing them at low levels was not outlawed by TSCA. They are often inadvertently produced during manufacturing processes, especially those including pigments or dyes. Concentrations in each product are low. However, the large numbers of products that contain PCBs add up to significant, problematic releases to the environment.

The results are in: PCBs in consumer products

We recently tested 68 consumer products and confirmed that PCBs are present in commonly used items. Forty-nine, or 72 percent, of the products contained at least one of four PCB types. We ran the tests to gauge PCB levels in consumer products and potential releases to Washington’s environment.

Chemist Alex Stone prepping samples for the lab.

Items tested in our study include paper products, paints and colorants, caulking, printer ink, and some product packaging. Full details – including a complete product listing – are available in a report on Ecology’s website. The study focused only on four PCB types that previous studies have linked to pigments and dyes. A future report will include results for all 209 PCB types.

We have already begun a second round of testing for PCBs in consumer products with a focus on yellow, green and blue paints and colorants, colored clothing, cosmetics, soaps, office products and products used by children, such as fingerpaints and comic books. Some of this testing will help state agencies comply with a new law requiring agencies to only buy PCB-free products.

If you have any questions about the PCB report, please contact Alex Stone at 360-407-6758.

PCBs affect water quality

Gov. Inslee’s Clean Water Initiative to update water quality standards and reduce toxic threats includes PCBs as a key chemical of concern. Contamination levels are high enough to require cleanup plans in several areas, including the Lower Duwamish Waterway, Spokane River, Wenatchee River, and Lake Washington. Ecology also found elevated PCB levels in the Puget Sound basin and estimated releases as part of the Puget Sound Toxics Assessment.

PCBs in consumer products are also making it difficult for some companies to meet their water quality discharge limits. For example, a large paper recycler in the Spokane area is having trouble meeting its water discharge limits because of PCB contamination in a lot of the products it recycles, including newspaper and consumer product packaging. If we can help get rid of PCBs in these products, it benefits not only the environment but industry as well.

Be part of the solution

We have drafted a chemical action plan identifying PCB sources in the state and recommending ways to reduce exposures. We are inviting public comments on the plan Aug. 6 to Oct. 6, 2014. If you have questions or comments, please contact Holly Davies at 360-407-7398.

These product-testing campaigns are just one piece of a much larger toxics puzzle. You can stay informed about all our work to reduce toxic threats by:

• Following our Tackling Toxics series right here on the ECOconnect blog.
• Signing up to receive email notifications about toxic chemicals in children’s products.
• Accessing manufacturer-reported CSPA data online.
• Taking action to reduce toxic threats in your everyday life.

---

Fecal Matters: Sleuthing for bacteria pollution on the Washington coast

North beaches bacteria study area. 

By Dustin Bilhimer, Water Quality Program

Where is the bacteria coming from that’s showing up at the beach north of Ocean Shores?

The Department of Ecology is partnering with the Quinault Indian Nation, the state Department of Health, and Grays Harbor County to figure this out. This matters because parts of this beach are now closed to razor clam digging during the summer months.

This is a little alarming because our coastal beaches and razor clamming are so important to many of us. It’s part of what makes Washington special.

Beach closures are expensive

When razor beaches are closed due to bacteria, the local economy suffers. An Ecology analysis estimates (based on recent WDFW surveys) that clamming brings around $13.5 million in total dollars spent by clammers and their families in the North Beach area during an average year in the past seven years. That estimate includes money spent near the beaches on hotels, camping, restaurants, groceries, gas, shopping, gambling, and other related expenses. Future razor clam beach closures due to violations of bacteria criteria could cost the local economy $4.5 to 6 million in lost revenue from clam diggers who cancel their trips to the beach.

Detective work happening now to find bacteria sources

This spring, we began a study to find sources of bacteria responsible for the downgrades and closures of some areas to razor clam harvest. Our bacteria study covers approximately 22 miles of continuous ocean beaches from Ocean Shores north to Moclips, also called North Beach.

The study will continue for a year to figure out when and where human-caused bacteria sources are creating water quality impairments, razor clam harvest downgrades and closures, and to help prioritize areas for cleanup. We will be looking for high bacteria concentrations coming from the major streams entering the Pacific Ocean, storm water ditches, and in the marine water near razor clam harvest areas.

Pick up after your dog when you visit the beach.

How people and animals may contribute to the problem

Human-caused sources of bacteria could be coming from malfunctioning onsite septic systems, improperly disposed of dog and horse manure on the beach, and even people who don’t use the restrooms and portable toilets provided at beach access points.  Warm-blooded wildlife, like birds and deer, can also contribute bacteria to the beaches. We will work with Grays Harbor County, the Quinault Indian Nation, local communities, and beach tourists to reduce or eliminate any significant sources of bacteria we find.

Jeff Nelson, environmental health director for Grays Harbor County, said: “Tens of thousands of people visit the North Beach area each year. To ensure continued access to an abundant and safe supply of razor clams it is vital everyone does their part to properly dispose of waste so area beaches remain compliant with the strict sanitary requirements for shellfish growing areas, which includes coastal razor clam beaches.”

What you can do to help

So next time you are at the beach enjoying a beautiful day, think about the simple things you can do to help protect and conserve our Washington beaches:

• Bag and trash your dog’s pet waste. Don’t just expect the tide to wash it away.
• Use publicly available bathrooms or porta-potties whenever possible.
• Pick up your trash and don’t leave food scraps on the beach to attract shorebirds and other animals that might “do their business” on the beach.

Stay updated about water quality at your beaches by keeping up with our BEACH program on Facebook, checking beach status on Coastal Atlas, or joining our listserv. Debby Sargeant is the BEACH Program Manager and is available at debby.sargeant@ecy.wa.gov for questions.

---

Tackling Toxics: Flame Retardants

Are they worth the risks?

By Erika Bronson, communications, Reducing Toxic Threats

Flame retardants are one class of chemicals the Department of Ecology is tracking. Many of these chemicals are toxic, and some are also persistent, bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs) because they gradually increase and remain in the environment and our bodies over time.

Evidence is mounting that shows flame-retarding chemicals don’t effectively slow fires and that fire fighters can have negative health effects from inhaling their fumes while battling blazes. (See The Chicago Tribune series “Playing with Fire” for more information.)

Foam furniture and stuffed toys are often
treated with flame retardants.

PDBEs are everywhere

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are one type of chemical flame retardant that manufacturers have added to a variety of consumer products for over 30 years to slow combustion. Studies show that PBDEs, which are persistent and bioaccumulative, can impact reproductive health, the immune system, and development in mammals. They are escaping from consumer products and building up in people and the environment throughout the world. PBDEs have been found in human breast milk, blood and fat; house dust and indoor air; fish; wildlife; birds; beef; dairy products and sediments.

Three PBDE mixtures were widely used for different purposes. Penta-BDE was used in low-density polyurethane foam in products such as furniture. Octa-BDE was used in electronics, such as housings for fax and answering machines, automobile trim, telephone handsets, and kitchen-appliance casings. Deca-BDE was used primarily in electronic enclosures, particularly in computers and televisions.

Prevention is the cure

In 2007, Washington banned the use of penta- and octa-BDE in products sold in the state. The use of deca-BDE was also banned in mattresses at that time, and that ban was extended to televisions, computers, and residential upholstered furniture after Ecology found safer alternatives.

We also track the use of 66 chemicals of high concern to children (CHCC), including six flame retardants. Manufacturers report their use of CHCCs if they are present in children’s products under the Children’s Safe Product Act (CSPA).

Testing products for flame retardants

Cutting up a product for component analysis.

Over the last year, Ecology tested 125 consumer and children’s products for PBDEs to ensure manufacturers and retailers are complying with the ban and reporting under CSPA. Products tested include seat cushions, mattresses, upholstered furniture for children, electronics, clothing, and baby carriers.

Finding these chemicals is like being a detective. Unfortunately, analyzing samples to isolate specific substances is not as quick and easy as it may appear on slick crime-scene-investigation TV shows. To select products for testing, Ecology staff purchased items that were likely treated with flame retardant chemicals. Products were then scanned for indicators of flame retardants using x-ray fluorescence. If the scan results were positive, the product was then broken into separate components, such as fabric, stuffing, foam, metal and plastic, and sent to a lab for analysis.

So what did we find?

An unfortunate side effect: Regrettable substitutions

The good news is we didn’t find PBDE violations in any of products we tested.

The bad news is some of the replacement flame retardants we detected are still toxic but not yet regulated. And just as concerning are the indications that substituted chemicals may be toxic, but due to the proprietary nature of the chemical formula, we can’t identify or quantify them. This is why we cannot stop at banning toxics but must also find ways to assure that manufacturers move toward safer alternatives.

The lab could not identify the brominated compounds in 54 samples that screened positive for bromine using x-ray fluorescence. This suggests more brominated compounds than what we tested for are in use, which is a problem because we may not have information about health effects.

Ecology also found that eight samples from children’s products contained flame retardants above the CSPA reporting limit. We have notified manufacturers and are working to ensure compliance.

Future work on flame retardants

These results show progress and a willingness among the manufacturing community to follow laws. However, the use of regrettable substitutions shows we still have work to do.

Fortunately, the Washington State Legislature agrees and has provided further funding for Ecology’s work on flame retardants and safer alternatives. They’ve requested a report by December 2014 recommending whether other flame retardants should be banned in children’s products and furniture.

Manufacturers and others interested in learning more about alternatives assessments for finding safer chemicals are invited to register for a workshop on July 9.

Stay safe & get involved

The Washington State Department of Health has additional information about how we are exposed to PBDEs and how to reduce exposure. In addition, the Northwest Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit at the University of Washington has produced a factsheet on PBDEs for pediatric health professionals.

These product-testing campaigns are just one piece of a much larger toxics puzzle. You can stay informed about all our work to reduce toxic threats by:

• Following our Tackling Toxics series right here on the ECOconnect blog.
• Signing up to receive email notifications about toxic chemicals in children’s products.
• Accessing manufacturer-reported CSPA data online.
• Taking action to reduce toxic threats in your everyday life.

If you have questions or would like more information, please contact Andrew Wineke at (360) 407-6149.

---

Earth ... pass it on: Tackling Toxics

Children First

By Erika Bronson, communications manager, Reducing Toxic Threats

Toxic chemicals, especially long-lasting ones that build up over time, can be found everywhere – our air, land, water … and our bodies. Some pose an immediate health threat, especially to children exposed during critical periods in their development. Others, called persistent, bioaccumulative toxics, gradually increase in the environment and in our bodies, causing disease long after we are first exposed.

Preventing exposures to toxics is the smartest, cheapest and healthiest way to protect people and the environment, which guides the Department of Ecology’s approach to reducing toxic threats in Washington.


Children are more sensitive to toxic chemicals than the general population. The presence of a chemical in a product does not necessarily mean it’s unsafe. However, knowing which chemicals of high concern to children manufacturers use in products provides essential clues to understand when safer alternatives are needed.

Groundbreaking laws help move toward safer products for children and general consumers

Many laws aimed at reducing the impacts of toxic chemicals ban or limit one chemical or product at a time. Washington is taking a broader approach by creating laws addressing one of the biggest challenges in developing more effective toxic chemical policies – the lack of data.

In 1991, Washington was one of the first states to pass legislation limiting four toxic metals (mercury, lead, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium) in all packaging. The toxics in packaging law takes a broad view of packaging by including its components and covering a wide range of materials used as packaging.

In 2008, Washington passed the Children’s Safe Product Act (CSPA). The law has two parts. The first part limited the amounts of lead, cadmium and six phthalates allowed in children’s products sold in Washington after July 1, 2009. Ecology and the Department of Health enacted the second part of the law by developing a list of chemicals of high concern to children and rules requiring manufacturers to report their use of these chemicals in children’s products.

Taking action: Moving from the law books to the laboratory

During 2012 and 2013, Ecology tested children’s and consumer products to verify that manufacturers are complying with CSPA and toxics in packaging requirements. Making sure manufacturers report the required information and discontinue using restricted metals involves enforcement. So we applied for grant funding from the Washington Attorney General’s Office to purchase and test products for several classes of chemicals:

• Metals, including lead, mercury, cadmium, antimony, arsenic, molybdenum, chromium, cobalt, zinc and copper.
• Phthalates, which are used to make plastic softer.
• Parabens, which are used as preservatives in personal care products and cosmetics.
• Formaldehyde and other volatile organic chemicals.

Ecology targeted products sold by local retailers and internet sellers that we thought were likely to contain these chemicals. We carefully prepared samples from each product and sent them to a lab to be analyzed for the chemicals of concern.

What we found

After comparing our test results with manufacturer-reported data, Ecology found that most are reporting as required and that most packaging in Washington is in compliance. Due to the phased reporting schedule in CSPA, some products that we identified as non-compliant were manufactured by companies with annual sales low enough that they did not yet have to report any chemicals of high concern to children in their products.

The most common chemicals in the enforcement letters that Ecology sent to manufacturers were chemicals like antimony, cobalt, phthalates, and parabens. We found 15 potential violations of limits on phthalates and seven potential violations of limits on lead or cadmium in the children’s products tested. We also found two violations on toxic metals in packaging that came with children’s products.

Here is a video clip explaining one example:



We did find, however, that chemicals of concern to children are being used in packaging, but packaging is currently exempt from CSPA and most chemicals of concern to children are not included in the toxics in packaging legislation. Packaging was tested for CSPA metals and for phthalates. Several packaging components were found to contain phthalates, including DEHP, one of the phthalates of highest concern as a reproductive toxic chemical. Similar results were found for some of the metals of concern.

Next steps

Ecology notified manufacturers of potential violations and is working with state and federal partners to ensure compliance. We are using information reported under CSPA to help us identify opportunities to replace toxic chemicals of concern with safer alternatives. But it’s also important to realize that the products we tested were purchased some time ago and may not be on the shelves anymore.

Recently, Washington’s legislature designated $611,000 to enhance Ecology’s work on testing consumer products for toxic chemicals and assessing alternatives to these chemicals. With this funding, we will coordinate with other states to ensure effective testing of products and packaging. As part of this funding package, the legislature also authorized Ecology to review the uses and alternatives to various flame retardants.

Putting together the toxics puzzle provides the big picture

These product-testing campaigns are just one piece of a much larger toxics puzzle. Thousands of toxic chemicals are used in our economy today, and we have limited data on how these chemicals impact people and the environment.

To effectively reduce toxic threats, we need new tools to help manufacturers make more informed choices about chemicals in their products. The smartest, cheapest and healthiest way to protect people and the environment is to find safer alternatives for chemicals of concern.

Ecology is working to reduce toxic threats through a series of projects and initiatives that we will cover in the Tackling Toxics ECOconnect blog series, including:

• Enforcing the Better Brakes Law to reduce the use of toxics, such as copper, asbestos, and certain heavy metals, in automotive brake pads and shoes.
• Developing chemical action plans for some of the worst chemicals. Currently we are working on a plan to identify and reduce sources of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
• Adopting a standard, statewide process for manufacturers to find safer alternatives to toxic chemicals.

Get involved

You can stay informed on these issues by:

• Following our Tackling Toxics series right here on the ECOconnect blog.
• Signing up to receive email notifications about toxic chemicals in children’s products.
• Accessing manufacturer-reported CSPA data online.
• Taking action to reduce toxic threats in your everyday life.

Stories about Getting to Clean Water: Repairing Wave-Damaged Shoreline

Homeowner effort to save Newman Lake property has water quality and wildlife benefits

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

Introduction

Boat wakes may seem harmless to the boater and fun for the water skier. But they can be a nightmare for shoreline homeowners watching their property fall away into the water. A shoreline stabilization project on Newman Lake used natural materials to stabilize 120 feet of a homeowner’s property that was particularly affected by wake erosion. This project illustrates the importance of having committed lake homeowners working together to protect their shorelines, and also serves as a great demonstration of how property can be protected while enhancing the wildlife and water quality functions of shorelines.

Problem

Wake boat.

Like many lakes in eastern Washington, Newman Lake is experiencing an increased number of people living year-round along the shore, and in the summer increased boating traffic with corresponding waves. Many shorelines are being lost at an alarming rate due to increased boat traffic and the increased use of “wake boats.” In addition to property loss, unnatural rates of shoreline erosion have both wildlife and water quality impacts.

This project’s property has been owned by the same family for over 80 years and is located in the narrowest section of Newman Lake, making it particularly vulnerable to wake erosion.

Project goals

The project attempted to address both the cause and symptoms of increased shoreline erosion. Implementation took place in late summer of 2012 and to keep costs reasonable for the homeowners, the project used volunteer labor.


Story written by Dave Moore, Ecology Eastern 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.

---