Mussels Reveal Impact of Puget Sound Stormwater

Bay Mussels

Native mussels (Mytilus trossulus) like these were used to evaluate the degree of contamination in Puget Sound nearshore habitats. Photo: Brewbooks

The mission of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is to preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities. An important initiative is evaluating the impacts to nearshore aquatic areas from stormwater discharges. Mussels sieve the water as they feed, and their tissues absorb and retain chemicals and pathogens, so the WDFW led a study using mussels as an indicator organism. They got help from so many organizations and volunteers, the list fills nearly an entire page. It includes the Snohomish County Marine Resources Council (Mike Ehlebracht, Hart Crowser geochemist, volunteers for the MRC), the Washington State Department of Ecology, other governmental agencies, native American tribes, and various non-governmental organizations. The work was funded under the new Stormwater Action Monitoring (SAM) program that is paid for by municipal stormwater permit holders.

How Was the Study Done?

As part of this study, the WDFW and volunteers placed “clean” caged mussels at over seventy locations across Puget Sound, including highly industrial areas (such as Smith Cove and Salmon Bay), urban areas like the Edmonds waterfront, and rural areas (such as the San Juan Islands). They left the caged mussels in the water for several months, then retrieved them, often in the dark, in cold and blustery weather. They tested them for stormwater-related contaminants including PAHs (produced by burning coal, fossil fuels, wood, and garbage), PCBs (used in electrical apparatuses, surface coatings, and paints; banned in the US in 1979), metals, PBDEs (used in flame retardants), DDTs (insecticides; banned in the US since 1972), and others.

And the Results…

The study showed that stormwater discharges continue to impact the nearshore aquatic environment, particularly in industrial and highly urbanized (paved) areas. PAHs and PCBs were the most ubiquitous, problematic chemicals detected in the mussels, with some of the highest concentrations found in Elliott Bay (particularly Smith Cove).

Puget Sound is a large, complex, and diverse estuary. This data will be critical in determining best management practices and providing recommendations for environmental remediation. The next round of sampling will occur this fall, with updated data available in another year or two.

Download a copy of the Stormwater Action Monitoring 2015/16 Mussel Monitoring Survey: Final Report.

Questions? Contact Mike Ehlebracht.

Placing caged mussels

Snohomish County Marine Resources Council volunteers and staff place caged mussels.

Recent Guidance on Vapor Intrusion – EPA, Washington State, Hawaii, and Oregon

Vapor intrusion occurs when there is a migration of vapor-forming chemicals from any subsurface source into an overlying building. The vapors can enter buildings through cracks in basements and foundations, or through conduits and other openings. Examples of vapor-forming chemicals that are hazardous to human health include methane (from landfills), tetrachloroethene (PCE) and trichloroethene (TCE) from dry cleaners, benzene (from petroleum products), and radon.

Soil Vapor Migration

Migration of Soil Vapors to Indoor Air
This figure depicts the migration of vapors in soil gas from contaminated soil and groundwater into buildings. Vapors in soil gas are shown to enter buildings through cracks in the foundation and openings for utility lines. Atmospheric conditions and building ventilation are shown to influence soil gas intrusion. (source: EPA)

 

Since 2000, research has shown that exposure to toxic vapors has much greater health risks than previously known. Long term exposure to even very low concentrations can result in cancer. In response, the federal and state governments have lowered the safe exposure limits, and regulators have recently updated guidance for assessing vapor intrusion.

EPA published new guidance for assessing vapor intrusion in June 2015. (OSWER Technical Guide for Assessing and Mitigating the Vapor Intrusion Pathway from Subsurface Vapor Sources to Indoor Air; OSWER Pub 9200.2-154). The document provides guidance on conducting investigations, including collecting samples; interpreting risk assessments; and mitigating vapor intrusion.

Washington State subsequently updated their guidance for vapor intrusion in February 2016 (Washington State Department of Ecology, Guidance for Evaluating Soil Vapor Intrusion in Washington State: Investigation and Remedial Action, Pub 09-09-047). This document describes Tier I Screening assessments and Tier II sampling assessments.

Hawaii published their VI guidance in 2014 (Technical Guidance Manual for the Implementation of the Hawai’i State Contingency Plan, Section 7: Soil Vapor and Indoor Air Sampling Guidance). This document provides good information on different types of sampling equipment, with photos.

The state of Oregon is using vapor intrusion guidance published in 2010 (Guidance for Assessing and Remediating Vapor Intrusion in Buildings).  The guidance describes how to perform risk-based evaluations, and the state periodically publishes updated risk-based concentrations for chemicals.

In the state of Minnesota, vapor intrusion concerns have significantly affected the real estate market. Starting in 2017, if a building is suspected of having contaminated soil below or around it, the state has asked the owners to test for vapors and fix vapor problems before the property can be sold. This can significantly add to the costs of property transfers and delay sales or even scare off buyers.

Here in the Pacific Northwest, the states are not requiring soil vapor testing, although near landfills methane vapor testing is often required.  Also, areas with known radon often require vapor mitigation systems. But your environmental consultant should be considering vapor intrusion risks during Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, and might recommend soil vapor tests during Phase II investigations. Vapor intrusion is complicated – vapors move more easily than soil or groundwater contamination. It takes careful evaluation and interpretation of the guidance and test results to help property owners and purchasers make knowledgeable decisions.

Questions? Contact Anne Conrad, (425) 775-4682

Preserving Eelgrass While Remediating Legacy Contamination

Eelgrass

What do you do when the State requires you to take action, yet prohibits that action? It’s a conundrum that takes imagination and determination.

The Setup

For over 100 years, several companies used the nearshore at the former Custom Plywood site for processing and manufacturing wood-related materials that would be used nationwide. They filled the tideland with wood, ash, bricks, metal, and sediment. They left a tug, boiler ash, scrap metal, barrels and drums, aluminum cans, scrap wood, paper, sawdust and creosote-treated pilings. As if that wasn’t enough, in 1992 a fire destroyed the mill, adding dioxin (a carcinogen) to the sediment.

The Conundrum

The Washington State Department of Ecology and Hart Crowser removed most of the contamination from the property and tidelands. Despite this, there are many acres of tidelands that are still peripherally contaminated with dioxins, much of which contains healthy eelgrass habitat. The eelgrass is not affected by the dioxin contamination; the problem is that it serves as a potential pathway for human exposure (i.e., shellfish consumption). By State mandate eelgrass must be protected. (See our earlier post about the importance of eelgrass). This means that the State requires that something be done about the contamination but not at the expense of the valuable eelgrass habitat. Our current options for dealing with dioxin contamination are to either dig up the contaminated material, or immobilize/cover it to prevent the exposure to the benthic community. Either action would potentially destroy the eelgrass. What to do?

The New Approach

The solution? Remediate the sediment in place by covering the eelgrass habitat, but not burying it. Eelgrass, unlike other species of seagrass, can only tolerate a very small level of burial. We needed to determine if the eelgrass at the former Custom Plywood site could withstand deposition of very fine layers of sand that would act as a barrier (cap) to the contamination in order to protect the benthic community and the habitat overall. Our team conducted a two-year pilot study to see whether the eelgrass could tolerate a four- or eight-inch layer of sand (applied two inches at a time), rather than a single layer application that would ordinarily be used for remediation. As part of this study, our team also investigated if adding a layer of carbon could increase the cap performance so that the cap could be as thin as possible.

Diver

Diver with eelgrass/sediment sample. Photo courtesy of Research Support Services.

The Result

The data clearly showed that eelgrass at the former Custom Plywood site can survive a four-inch cap if implemented in multiple thin layers. This means that the preferred alternative for cleaning up the residual contamination is potentially feasible. The next step is to design a large scale application using the information and data gathered from the pilot study. Eventually we hope to finally cleanup the former Custom Plywood site while leaving the existing eelgrass habitat in place and functioning.

 

Diving In – The Promise of Social Marketing for Storm Water Education

 

Kapalua Bay on Maui

Kapalua Bay on Maui. The West Maui Kumuwai campaign uses social marketing to protect a sensitive watershed.

Individuals have a direct influence on storm water quality in their communities, and regulators strongly emphasize public education and involvement campaigns in municipal storm water management programs. But how can leaders convince residents to pick up after pets, reduce lawn pesticide use, and wash cars without getting soapy water in storm drains? And how can they discourage commercial and industrial workers from dumping contaminated liquids down storm drains behind shops, and to use drip pans to keep oil off pavement? These behavior changes would have a direct positive effect on the coastal and inland water resources we enjoy.

In traditional environmental education campaigns, the message is often delivered through newsletters, brochures, public service announcements, and social media. Some effort may be made to reach a specific audience, but the focus is producing a good quality educational tool. The hope is that having a good message and delivering it well will make people listen, learn and act.

But experience in educational campaign history indicates otherwise. Simply handing someone a pamphlet does not mean that a person will act on that information.

Enter social marketing. Social marketing integrates marketing concepts and tools from social psychology to influence behaviors that benefit individuals and communities for the greater social good.  While social marketing campaigns sometimes employ social media, the two are not the same. Social marketing can use a variety of tools to influence behaviors. First used in the public health realm, the practice focuses on a specific community. Research and surveys identify real or perceived barriers to change, and campaigns are designed to overcome those barriers and reward desired behaviors.

A great example of social marketing in action is the West Maui Kumuwai (WMK) campaign in a sensitive watershed on Maui. WMK is a non-profit that shines a spotlight on the actions of everyday people to promote ocean health. Through community surveys, WMK identified landscaping activities as a community concern relative to storm water pollution. WMK’s Reef-Friendly Landscaper campaign invites landscapers and gardeners to “Take the Pledge” by agreeing to a set of ocean-friendly landscaping activities. WMK then promotes those companies on its website and through social media, to keep these companies engaged and committed.

If you’ve heard of other successful social marketing campaigns related to storm water education, please let us know with a comment.

For more information about storm water services for municipalities, construction, and industry, contact Janice Marsters at janice.marsters@hartcrowser.com.

Invasions Are Not Just Military

Atlantic Salmon

Atlantic Salmon. Photo: Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission

One of the most destructive forces on an ecosystem is a non-native species with no natural predators or other natural controls. These species can overtake their new home in an extraordinarily short period of time by multiplying, consuming prey, and colonizing, crowding out essential local species.

An invasive species is an organism (plant, animal, fungus, or microbe) that is not only foreign to a specific area or habitat but also has negative effects on its new environment and, eventually, on our economy, our environment, or our health. Not all introduced species are invasive; the distinction is how aggressively they interact with their new surroundings.

Why we Care

Invasive species are the second greatest threat to biodiversity (the first is habitat loss). Almost half of the species at risk of extinction in the United States are endangered directly due to the introduction of non-native species alone, or because of its impact combined with other processes. In fact, introduced species are considered a greater threat to native biodiversity than pollution, harvest, and disease combined. They threaten biodiversity by (1) causing disease, (2) acting as predators or parasites, (3) acting as competitors, (4) altering habitat, or (5) hybridizing with local species.

Invasive species are costly to both society and nature by:

  • Costing Americans more than $137 billion a year (Pimentel et al. 2000)
  • Impacting nearly half the species listed as threatened or endangered
  • Possibly devastating key industries including seafood, agriculture, timber, hydro-electricity, and recreation
  • Impeding recreation such as boating, fishing, hunting, gardening, and hiking
  • Spreading easily by wind, water, animals, people, equipment, and imported goods
  • Increasing the frequency of localized wildfires and adversely affect watering availability
  • Destabilizing soil and alter hydrology of streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands

Washington State Invasive Species Examples

There are over 50 priority invasive species of concern in Washington State. Here are a few examples that threaten Western Washington.

Atlantic Salmon

Atlantic salmon (many genetically modified) are raised along the Washington and British Columbia coasts; escapes from these aquaculture operations concern fishery biologists and others working to restore native Pacific Northwest salmon runs. As of 2006, the Aquatic Nuisance Species Project states that there have been sightings of juvenile Atlantic salmon on the West Coast. The last reported sightings were on Vancouver Island in 2000.

In recent years there has been specific concern about the potential impact on wild salmon stocks from sea lice (Lepeophtheirus sp.), originating from net pens of Atlantic salmon in British Columbia. Sea lice can kill juvenile fish, even at low infestation levels.

Spartina

Spartina

Spartina flowering in estuary
Photo: Washington State Magazine

Spartina species are aquatic grasses that grow on the mud flats and marshes of Puget Sound and our coastal estuaries. The plants tend to grow in circular clumps called ‘clones’ and are bright green. One particular species, Spartina anglica, was introduced either in shipments of oysters from the East Coast or as packing material in ships’ cargo. It creates large monocultures that outcompete native plant species for space, including rare and endangered plant species, reducing marsh biodiversity and ecological functions.

European Green Crab

European green crab

Juvenile green crab began showing up in Washington waters in 1998. Photo: Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife

The European green crab is a small shore crab that is not necessarily green like its name implies. It typically is found in high intertidal areas and marshes in coastal estuaries and wave-protected embayments, and can live on a variety of surfaces including sand, mudflats, shells, cobble, algae, and rock. It is an opportunistic feeder and aggressive invader. It is native to the eastern Atlantic from Norway to North Africa.

The European green crab is a ravenous predator that eats small crustaceans and many other plants and animals, and can have dramatic negative impacts to native shore crab, clam, and oyster populations. First introduced to the East Coast of the US, green crabs are believed to have caused the collapse of the soft-shell clam industry in New England; their digging habits also have slowed eelgrass restoration efforts. One green crab can consume 40 half-inch clams a day, as well as other crabs its own size. On the West Coast, green crabs were introduced to San Francisco Bay either via ballast water or through the lobster trade. Further invasion north is facilitated by strong advective currents that are associated with El Nino events. The 1998 event brought crabs as far north as Vancouver Island; luckily populations have not established yet. This year’s El Nino may prove strong enough to bring crab larvae into Puget Sound and British Columbia again. How severe the invasion will be, only time will tell.

Scotch Broom

Scotch Broom

A member of the pea family, Scotch Broom has pretty flowers but an aggressive demeanor. Photo: King County

Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) is an upright shrub with yellow flowers in the pea family. It grows primarily in open, dry meadows and along roads. It is an aggressive early colonizer and typically shows up in recently disturbed areas. A European native, scotch broom crowds out native species and negatively impacts wildlife habitat by creating vast monocultures. It can form dense, impenetrable stands that displace farmland and/or prevent native species from colonizing. Scotch broom also produces toxic compounds, which in large amounts can cause mild poisoning in animals such as horses.

Coming up: in Part II, we will discuss how invasions happen and what can be done to stop them.

For more information, contact Jason Stutes at jason.stutes@hartcrowser.com.

References: Pimentel, D., Lach, L., Zuniga, R., Morrison, D., 2000. Environmental and economic costs associated with non-indigenous species in the United States. BioScience 50 (1), 53–65.

Shaken and Stirred: Northwest Earthquake and Tsunami

Washington 9.0 earthquake--Are you ready? Oregon 9.0 Earthquake--Are you ready?Suddenly the Pacific Northwest is on the national stage for its earthquake and tsunami vulnerability, thanks to a New Yorker article. “The Really Big One,” by Kathryn Schulz, has triggered attention from dozens of local papers and news sites. Yet even before the New Yorker shook the Northwest (pun intended), Oregon Public Broadcasting had been featuring Hart Crowser engineer Allison Pyrch in its “Unprepared” series, to alert the region to the impending disaster in hopes that we will get prepared.

Also, Allison recently gave a presentation for the Lake Oswego Sustainability Network: “Surviving a 9.0, Lessons Learned from Japan and Beyond.” If you are involved in emergency management or just plain interested in massive disasters and their aftermaths, settle in for some powerful visuals and easy-to-follow explanations about earthquakes in Japan and Chile, how the 9.0 earthquake and tsunami will happen in the Pacific Northwest, and what you can to do to be resilient.

Watch the whole “Surviving a 9.0” video to get unusual insight into what’s ahead, or if you’re pressed for time, skip to one of these minute points:

  • 9:00 Jan Castle introduces Allison Pyrch 10:56 Allison Pyrch’s presentation begins with how the Pacific Northwest 9.0 earthquake will happen
  • 14:25 Comparing the Japan and Chile quakes “It didn’t stop shaking for a day”
  • 21:45 Fire damage/natural gas 22:30 Water, wastewater, and electrical systems; liquid fuel; natural gas
  • 24:25 Lifelines/infrastructure/airports “PDX will not be up and running”
  • 28:35 Port damage/economics
  • 31:45 How prepared is the Pacific Northwest? When will it happen? “We are 9 ½ months pregnant”
  • 35:00 What will it look like?
  • 37:32 What you can do
  • 40:30 What businesses can do
  • 42:11 Can you be sustainable without being resilient?
  • 43:33 What about a resiliency rating system similar to LEED?
  • 53:30 Will utilities, transportation, hospitals be useable after the 9.0? “We’re toast”
  • 1:01:30 End of Allison’s presentation; additional information from Jan Castle on how to prepare
  • 1:19:19 How sustainability measures in your home lead to resiliency

Applying Net Environmental Benefit Analysis to Contaminated Sites

Exxon Valdez oil spill site

Exxon Valdez oil spill site.

First, do no harm….

Or at least don’t do more harm than good.

That’s the idea behind NEBA—Net Environmental Benefit Analysis—as applied to the cleanup of contaminated sites. As defined by a vintage 1990s Department of Energy paper on the subject, net environmental benefits are:

“…the gains in environmental services or other ecological properties attained by remediation or ecological restoration, minus the environmental injuries caused by those actions.”

Spills like Exxon Valdez Spurred the NEBA
The NEBA concept originated with the cleanup of large marine oil spills. One of the first formal considerations of Net Environmental Benefits was the cleanup of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska in 1989. After the spill, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) looked at whether high-pressure, hot water washing of unconsolidated beaches might actually do more harm to the intertidal habitat—and the plants and animals that depend on it—than just simply letting the oil degrade naturally.

Since then, NEBAs have been used for a few other types of cleanups, including metals contamination in wetlands and organic contamination in sub-tidal sediment, but only infrequently and on an ad hoc basis.

No current NEBA Guidelines, However…
Formal consideration of net environmental benefits has not been more widespread in cleanup decisions, probably because federal and state cleanup frameworks, such as Washington’s Model Toxic Control Act (MTCA), do not explicitly allow consideration of the harm of the cleanup itself and don’t provide guidelines for when the process would apply and how the benefits and impacts should be evaluated.

But that might be changing. At least it is in Washington State, where the Department of Ecology thinks that the NEBA’s time has come. Ecology is working on new draft Terrestrial Ecological Evaluation (TEE) guidance that, for the first time, lays out the implementation of NEBA at cleanup sites under MTCA.

NEBA and Abandoned Underground Mines
In conjunction with Ecology, Hart Crowser has already “test driven” the NEBA concept as it applies to the cleanup of abandoned underground mines. Many of these sites pose risks to terrestrial plants and animals because of the toxic metals such as copper and zinc left behind in tailings and waste rock.

Although the risks to individual organisms living on the waste material might be high, the overall risk to plant or wildlife populations are often fairly low because the extent of the waste material is so small. Nonetheless, the remedy selection process under MTCA would typically lead to a decision to cap the contaminated material with clean soil or to dig it up and haul it away to be disposed of elsewhere.

Bringing Common Sense into Cleanup Decisions
But what if the cleanup involved building an access road? Through mature forest? Or up a steep, exposed mountain side? Or across a stream or wetland? How are those habitat or ecosystem injuries balanced against the benefits of the cleanup itself? Ecology’s upcoming NEBA guidance should go a long way to addressing these dilemmas and bringing some common sense into certain cleanup decisions.

“Especially Valuable Habitat”
The new guidance is expected to introduce the concept of “Especially Valuable Habitat” and how to use it as a threshold for judging whether or not a NEBA may be appropriate for a particular site. It’s also expected to allow some flexibility regarding how injuries and benefits are quantified and balanced.

In the meantime, check for updates on when the new guidance is expected at Ecology’s website.

eDNA: A Powerful Tool for Scientists and Managers

Sampling eDNA in a stream

Using a pump to filter stream water to get an eDNA sample to determine whether salmon are in the stream.

Detecting the presence or absence of a species of interest is a common challenge for scientists and fisheries managers. Whether you’re interested in protecting an endangered species or removing an invasive species, knowing where they are or are not is crucial. Many techniques can be time-consuming or damaging to the local environment, and they don’t always work on more cryptic species. An emerging technique has the potential to address some of these pitfalls: environmental DNA, or eDNA.

eDNA is DNA fragments found in the environment (usually in soil or water) that come from an animal. Animals shed cells from their bodies through routes such as mucous, feces, or skin flakes. Each cell contains a full set of nuclear DNA and many copies of mitochondrial DNA. As these cells break down, the DNA is released into the environment. A researcher can collect samples (such as water or soil samples) and analyze any DNA present (typically mitochondrial DNA) for a match with the target species.

A useful application of this technology is to learn when and where endangered/threatened salmonids are present. Knowing which drainage systems these fish spawn and rear in is essential to managing and restoring their populations. Scientists can take water samples along river and creek systems where they suspect salmon will be. They then analyze the water samples for salmon DNA, and generate maps of fish distribution. If sampling is repeated over time, temporal trends along with spatial trends in salmon populations can be mapped, providing powerful information to managers and policy-makers.

In the future, eDNA may also help determine how many of each species of interest are in a given area. Research into the relationship between quantity of eDNA obtained and population numbers is ongoing.

For more information on eDNA methodologies, see this USGS factsheet.

Emerging Contaminants – Perfluorinated Compounds

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)

The EPA identified Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)—used in stain repellants—as an emerging contaminant.

You could say that perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) are the Superheros of chemicals. They resist heat and other chemicals, have dielectric properties, make things slippery, and repel grease and water. That’s why they’re used in fire-fighting foams, semiconductor manufacturing, medical implant devices, pharmaceutical tubing, non-stick cookware, and coatings for carpet, clothing, and food packaging. In fact, they are so useful, in 2013 the global market value reached $19.7 billion, and global manufacturing of products that either contained PFCs or used them in processing reached more than $1.2 trillion (FluoroCouncil, preliminary estimate, January 2014).

Because of so much use, PFCs are now found everywhere throughout the world—in soil, groundwater, lakes, rivers, etc.—and also in human beings (detected in blood and breast milk). They also have a tendency to stick around in the environment, so there is concern about bioaccumulation/biomagnification in people and in animals and the potential for long term health effects.

Although there are hundreds of different PFCs, none are identified as a pollutant or contaminant under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), or the Clean water Act (CWA); nor are any identified as a hazardous or toxic constituent or substance under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), or the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

However, the EPA has identified two of the most commonly found PFCs as “emerging contaminants” and in 2009 established “provisional short term health advisory levels” for drinking water at 400 parts per trillion for Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and 200 parts per trillion for perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). These concentrations are equivalent to adding less than a quarter teaspoon into an Olympic-size swimming pool.

Given the widespread occurrence of PFCs in the environment and the extremely low concentrations of concern being considered by EPA, this group of chemicals will likely have significant future impacts on industries involved with water treatment, wastewater treatment, and contaminated site remediation.

Top Ten Reasons to Take a Tablet

Remote-Jobsite2

There aren’t many photocopiers at some of our jobsites. This is just one of the reasons to carry a tablet into the field.

Paper? Don’t talk about paper. Are you kidding me? Paper?

Many engineering firms document field work using paper. However, using computer tablets improves communication and quality, and cuts cost. As with everything on the Internet, this requires a top 10 list.  Here are our top 10 reasons to take a tablet into the field.

 1. Fewer Hours Charged to the Client

When an employee saves time by using a tablet, that time can be allocated to other tasks or eliminated altogether.

2. Better Integration of GIS Capabilities

Taking a GPS point, geotagging a photo, and describing field conditions with a single device is more efficient than using several devices.

3. Consistent Data Entry

When staff handwrite field notes on standard forms, headings and other information must be rewritten on each page. Not so with electronic forms, which can be easily copied forward.

4. Richer, More Informative Field Reports

With a tablet, we can add geodata, attach photos, and include other information with ease.

5. Ability to Stream Site Video

Using video capabilities, a field representative with a question can show the site to project engineers no matter where the engineer is. This is more informative than a phone call. Plus, work can progress with minimal delay.

6. Quality Assurance

We can require fields in electronic forms to be filled in and time stamps automatically applied. Drop-down lists can limit potential input errors.

7. Access to Information in the Field

Tablets allow a new plan set to be sent to the field rep in real time–at a size that can be reasonably viewed.

8. Real Time Data Delivery

Our projects are often under a tight schedule. Getting data from the field as it’s collected allows us to better direct the field representatives, and begin making our designs and recommendations sooner.

9. Fewer Trips Back to the Office

Returning to the office at rush hour to get that piece of paper back to the office can add cost to the project. Plus, after a long day of work in the field, it’s nice that an employee can go directly home.

10. Automatic Backups

Automatic backups make sure that information isn’t lost if a tablet is damaged. However, we don’t expect much damage, because our tablets are dressed in invisible rain gear and they wear nearly as much armor as this guy.