DOCSLIB.ORG

A Report on the Health of Surface Water in Pierce County

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Report on the Health of Surface Water in Pierce County Surface Water Health 2010 Report Card A report on the health of surface water in Pierce County CONTENTS What is the Surface Water Health Report Card? 4 How is Stream Health Monitored? 5 How are the Measurements Used? 5 What do the Grades Mean? 6 Water Year 2010 Results 6 Probable Contaminants and Sources 7 How can you help? 7 Pierce County Watersheds Map 8 - 9 Stream Report Cards by Watershed 10 - 17 Monitored Lakes Report Card 18 - 19 Appendix A- Determining Stream Grades 20 Appendix B- Methodology & Water Quality Index 21 - 22 Appendix C- Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity 23 Appendix D- Section 303 (d) list 24 Appendix E- Stream Data Summary & 25 Grade Assignment Appendix F- More Information on Lake Grades 26 - 27 Appendix G- Lake Data Summary & 28 - 29 Grade Assignment Appendix H- Lake Report Card Factors 30 - 31 Prepared by: Pierce County Public Works & Utilities Surface Water Management Division Water Quality and Watershed Section www.piercecountywa.org/wqws Surface Water Health Report Card Monitored Streams Grades Name 2009 2010 Artondale C C- i Canyon B B Canyon Falls C C+ h Clear D+ C- h Clover D D+ h Crescent C+ C i Diru C+ C+ Dutcher C B- h Fennel B- B- Goodnough D+ C- h Horn C C- i Kapowsin C+ C+ Lacamas C- C+ h Spanaway Creek Lynch C+ B h Mark Dickson C C What is the Surface Water Health Report Card? McCormick C- C- The Pierce County Surface Water Health Report Card provides a Minter C- C h system for rating and grading the health of Pierce County streams. Nelyaly C- C h Our first report card was issued in 2008, and it described the baseline Ohop C C+ h conditions for 32 streams located throughout the County. This report Purdy C C is based on sampling done in the 2010 water year. It describes 2010 Ray Nash C- C- monitoring results for 30 of those streams. Rody C C+ h Rosedale C C+ h The Surface Water Management Division uses multiple assessment Spanaway N/A C- methods to monitor surface water health over time. Monitoring Spiketon N/A C helps us gather information on the health of area waters, and helps Squally C B- h us identify where to focus resources and improvement efforts. The Swan C- D+ i report card serves to increase public understanding and involvement Tanwax C+ C i in protecting and improving water quality. Voight C B- h Wilkeson C+ C i Data and associated grades can vary significantly from year to year, so collecting data over a long period is important. As we collect data h Improved over time, we will be better able to analyze trends and measure our i Decreased progress. Same N/A Not enough data available to This year’s report card includes water quality information about six determine a grade this year freshwater lakes in the county. This information starts on page 18. For more detailed information see Appendix E Pg. 4 How is stream health monitored? Pierce County monitors stream health using a watershed approach. A watershed is the geographic region that drains water (and everything water carries) into a river, stream, lake, or Puget Sound. Watersheds are defined by natural features like mountains and valleys, and not by political boundaries. Since all land within a watershed drains to a common outlet, every activity within the watershed could be a source of pollution and could affect the overall watershed health. Water pollution that has no single, identifiable source is known as “nonpoint source pollution.” Pierce County is divided into five main watersheds (see map on pages 8-9). The largest watershed monitored in the county is the Puyallup River Watershed, which drains an area of about 1,052 square miles. The smallest watershed monitored is the Chambers-Clover Creek Watershed, which drains an urban area about 149 square miles in size. The Key Peninsula, Gig Harbor, and surrounding islands are grouped into one watershed for monitoring purposes. The Nisqually River Watershed extends from Mt. Rainier to the Nisqually River Delta on Puget Sound. Each watershed contains a number of freshwater streams, which are the focus of our current monitoring efforts. Water samples are collected monthly provided sufficient flow is present. The samples are collected from monitoring stations set up at each stream. Water samples are analyzed for nine water quality parameters. Some are measured directly in the field when the samples are collected, and others are sent to a laboratory for analysis. Samples are measured for fecal coliform bacteria, dissolved oxygen, pH, nitrogen, phosphorous, suspended solids, turbidity, conductivity, and temperature (see Appendix B for a description of these parameters). Water quality data are analyzed based on the water year, which is not the same as the calendar year. A water year is the 12-month period from October 1st through September 30th. The water year is a useful way to look at water data, because it starts at the beginning of the “wet season” and extends to the end of the “dry season.” The water year is designated by the year in which it ends. This report card for the 2010 water year includes water data from October 1, 2009 – September 30, 2010. In addition to analyzing water samples, Pierce County monitors stream health by looking at the organisms that live in the water. The method we use involves collecting and counting the number and kinds of bugs (“benthic macro invertebrates”) living along the bottom of the stream. Samples are collected from each stream at least once every five years. The types of bugs present, and their relative numbers, can tell a lot about the general health of the stream. How are the measurements used? Water measurements are modeled using a Water Quality Index (WQI) method developed by the U.S. EPA and the Washington Department of Ecology. The WQI is a single unit less number that expresses overall water quality at a certain location and time based on the monitored water quality parameters. In general, stations scoring 80 and above met expectations for water quality and are of “lowest concern,” scores 40 to 80 indicate “marginal concern,” and water quality at stations with scores below 40 did not meet expectations and are of “highest concern.” Pg. 5 The WQI is a useful way to turn complex water quality data into an easily understood form. The WQI helps us prioritize which streams need action. More information on this method can be found in Appendix B. The benthic macroinvertebrate samples are sent to a laboratory that analyzes the samples for ten “metrics,” including the number of species present and the ratio of pollution-tolerant and pollution-intolerant species. Like the WQI, the measurements are aggregated into an index. The index we use is the Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (BIBI). The BIBI index ranges from 10 (poor) to 50 (excellent). More information on this method can be found in Appendix C. What do the grades mean? Water Year 2010 Results The report card grades range from “A,” the The average grade for Pierce County streams in Water highest grade possible (excellent health) to “F,” Year 2010 was “C.” Water quality and aquatic habitat the lowest grade (very poor health). conditions can be considered “fair.” The data indicates a mix of good and poor levels of water quality and An initial grade is calculated by averaging the biological indicators. The average grade for 2009 was WQI and the BIBI grades. Some streams are also a “C.” Although County average stream health has listed on the Washington State Department of not improved, it has not worsened. Ecology’s List of Polluted Waters, or “303(d) list.” This list is based on Section 303(d) of the There are no “A’s” in this 2010 report card. The health of federal Clean Water Act, which requires states the sampled streams varied from good (B) to poor (D+). to identify and list water bodies that do not Of the 30 streams monitored, Clover, Nelyaly, and Swan meet state water quality standards, and to creeks received the lowest score and Canyon and Lynch create plans for cleaning them up. Streams on creeks received the highest score. the 303(d) list are reduced another 1/3 grade for each listed water quality problem such as Data were compared to 2009 results. Grades improved temperature, low dissolved oxygen, or fecal in twelve streams, declined for nine, and stayed the coliform bacteria. same for seven. A table showing the grade ranges is included At the watershed level, the average grades changed only in Appendix A. An “A” grade indicates that slightly between 2009 and 2010. The KGI watershed all water quality and biological indicators improved from C- to C, the Puyallup and Nisqually meet expectations. Water quality and aquatic watersheds remained at C+ and C, respectively, and the habitat conditions tend to be excellent. An “F” Chambers-Clover Watershed remained at D+. grade indicates that water quality and habitat conditions tend to be poor. An “N/A” means Of the 30 streams monitored, six are listed on the 303(d) that not enough BIBI data was available to list of polluted waters maintained by the Washington generate a grade for that water year. Department of Ecology. No streams in Pierce County have been removed or added to the 303(d) list since the A list of 303(d) water bodies in Pierce County 2008 Water Quality report card was published. can be found in Appendix D. Pg.6 Probable contaminants and sources Approximately 800,000 people live in Pierce County.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chambers Creek
    Section 3 - Physical and Environmental Inventory 3.1 Chambers Creek – Clover Creek Drainage Basin 3.2 Puyallup River Drainage Basin 3.3 Sewer Service Basins in the Puyallup and White River Drainage Basins 3.4 Nisqually River Drainage Basin 3.5 Kitsap Drainage Basin 3.6 City of Tacoma - North End WWTP 3.7 Joint Base Lewis Mcchord Sewer System – Tatsolo Point WWTP Pierce County Public Works and Utilities – Sewer Utility Unified Sewer Plan Update Section 3 Section 3 – Physical and Environmental Inventory Section 3 documents the land-use and environmental tenants of the four major basins in Pierce County and are organized around those basins. Chambers Creek – Clover Creek Drainage Basin - Section 3.1 Puyallup River Drainage Basin – Section 3.2 Nisqually River Drainage Basin – Section 3.4 Kitsap Drainage Basin – Section 3.5 3.1 Chambers Creek – Clover Creek Drainage Basin The Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Drainage Basin (Basin) is located in central Pierce County, between Puget Sound on the west and the ridge above the Puyallup River Valley on the east. Point Defiance and the southwest shore of Commencement Bay serve as the basin’s northern boundary, and the City of DuPont lies on the southern boundary. The basin encompasses approximately 104,258 acres (117 square miles) of land including the Cities of DuPont, including Northwest Landing, University Place, Lakewood, and Northwest Tacoma, Fircrest, the Towns of Ruston, and Steilacoom, as well as portions of Fort Lewis and McChord Military Reservations, and the unincorporated communities of South Hill, Frederickson, Mid County, Graham, Parkland, and Spanaway. 3.1.1 Topography Lowland topography is generally flat to gently rolling.
    [Show full text]
  • Sequalitchew Creek Restoration Plan
    RESTORATION PLAN Sequalitchew Creek Watershed Prepared for: Environmental Caucus and CalPortland Project No. 040001 March 8, 2018 RESTORATION PLAN Sequalitchew Creek Watershed Prepared for: Environmental Caucus and CalPortland Project No. 040001 March 8, 2018 Contents Introduction .........................................................................................................1 Goals and Objectives ..........................................................................................3 Restoration Plan Elements .................................................................................6 1. Regulatory Actions ......................................................................................... 8 2. Flow Restoration ............................................................................................ 8 3. Flow Maintenance and Enhancement ......................................................... 10 4. Habitat Restoration ...................................................................................... 11 Governance ........................................................................................................ 13 Committee ........................................................................................................ 13 Meetings ........................................................................................................... 13 Scope of Authority ........................................................................................... 13 Information Sharing ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 13 -- Puget Sound, Washington
    514 Puget Sound, Washington Volume 7 WK50/2011 123° 122°30' 18428 SKAGIT BAY STRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCA S A R A T O 18423 G A D A M DUNGENESS BAY I P 18464 R A A L S T S Y A G Port Townsend I E N L E T 18443 SEQUIM BAY 18473 DISCOVERY BAY 48° 48° 18471 D Everett N U O S 18444 N O I S S E S S O P 18458 18446 Y 18477 A 18447 B B L O A B K A Seattle W E D W A S H I N ELLIOTT BAY G 18445 T O L Bremerton Port Orchard N A N 18450 A 18452 C 47° 47° 30' 18449 30' D O O E A H S 18476 T P 18474 A S S A G E T E L N 18453 I E S C COMMENCEMENT BAY A A C R R I N L E Shelton T Tacoma 18457 Puyallup BUDD INLET Olympia 47° 18456 47° General Index of Chart Coverage in Chapter 13 (see catalog for complete coverage) 123° 122°30' WK50/2011 Chapter 13 Puget Sound, Washington 515 Puget Sound, Washington (1) This chapter describes Puget Sound and its nu- (6) Other services offered by the Marine Exchange in- merous inlets, bays, and passages, and the waters of clude a daily newsletter about future marine traffic in Hood Canal, Lake Union, and Lake Washington. Also the Puget Sound area, communication services, and a discussed are the ports of Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, and variety of coordinative and statistical information.
    [Show full text]
  • Dupont Heritage Plan
    1 DuPont Heritage Plan Presented to the City of DuPont By the DuPont Historical Society 2014 “In a nutshell, planning is the process of figuring out where you want to go, evaluating where you are now, and identifying how you can reach your destination……. Susan L. Henry Renaud, Preservation Planning, National Park Service 2 Introduction Historic places are important to every community. In an age of change, they help provide a sense of needed continuity. Indeed, they greatly contribute to a sense of place which can unite residents. Also historic places, when properly presented, can attract tourists to a town. This would naturally benefit the local economy. The City of DuPont is blessed with many significant historic places. They include both buildings and sites. Together these places tell the amazing story of the DuPont area. This story began with the Nisqually Indian occupation of the land. It continued with the Euro-American explorers of the late 18th and early 19th Centuries. Then the British owned Hudson’s Bay Company in the 19th Century established a sequential series of trading posts called Fort Nisqually that changed life forever in the Southern Puget Sound region. Encounters with Native Americans, Missionaries, and American Settlers brought cooperation and conflict. The Medicine Creek Treaty and Puget Sound Indian War shifted the power to the Americans and their homesteads. Change came again in the early 20th Century when the DuPont Company bought land and set up an explosives factory. The Company employees and their families were first housed in temporary tar paper shacks, but soon the historic village of DuPont took shape.
    [Show full text]
  • Findings and Conclusions Comprehensive Update to the Pierce County Shoreline Master Program
    ATTACHMENT A: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE PIERCE COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM SMP Submittal accepted December 18, 2015 - Ordinance No. 2013-45s4 Prepared by Kim Van Zwalenburg on May 7, 2018 INTRODUCTION Ecology’s Findings and Conclusions (Attachment A), including reference to Attachment B (Required Changes) and Attachment C (Recommended Changes), provide the factual basis for the Department of Ecology’s (Ecology) decision on the Pierce County (County) comprehensively updated Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The document is divided into three sections providing an Introduction; Findings of Fact regarding the submittal, amendment history, and local and state review; and Conclusions. Description of Proposed Amendment Pierce County has submitted a comprehensive update to their Shoreline Master Program (SMP) for review and approval by Ecology. The updated master program will regulate approximately 225 miles of marine shoreline and 880 miles of freshwater shoreline throughout the unincorporated areas of the County. It contains locally tailored shoreline management policies, regulations, environment designations, a designation map folio and administrative provisions, as well as Title 18E Pierce County Code (PCC) Development Regulations - Critical Areas adopted by reference as part of the SMP. Additional reports and supporting information and analyses were included in the County’s submittal and, as noted below, have been considered by Ecology during its review. In addition, because of the lengthy process at both the local and state levels to conclude the comprehensive update, the statutory periodic review deadline is nearing. Pierce County is required on or before June 30, 2019, and every eight years thereafter, to review and, if necessary, revise their master program.
    [Show full text]
  • Gold and Fish Pamphlet: Rules for Mineral Prospecting and Placer Mining
    WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Gold and Fish Rules for Mineral Prospecting and Placer Mining May 2021 WDFW | 2020 GOLD and FISH - 2nd Edition Table of Contents Mineral Prospecting and Placer Mining Rules 1 Agencies with an Interest in Mineral Prospecting 1 Definitions of Terms 8 Mineral Prospecting in Freshwater Without Timing Restrictions 12 Mineral Prospecting in Freshwaters With Timing Restrictions 14 Mineral Prospecting on Ocean Beaches 16 Authorized Work Times 17 Penalties 42 List of Figures Figure 1. High-banker 9 Figure 2. Mini high-banker 9 Figure 3. Mini rocker box (top view and bottom view) 9 Figure 4. Pan 10 Figure 5. Power sluice/suction dredge combination 10 Figure 6. Cross section of a typical redd 10 Fig u re 7. Rocker box (top view and bottom view) 10 Figure 8. Sluice 11 Figure 9. Spiral wheel 11 Figure 10. Suction dredge . 11 Figure 11. Cross section of a typical body of water, showing areas where excavation is not permitted under rules for mineral prospecting without timing restrictions Dashed lines indicate areas where excavation is not permitted 12 Figure 12. Permitted and prohibited excavation sites in a typical body of water under rules for mineral prospecting without timing restrictions Dashed lines indicate areas where excavation is not permitted 12 Figure 13. Limits on excavating, collecting, and removing aggregate on stream banks 14 Figure 14. Excavating, collecting, and removing aggregate within the wetted perimeter is not permitted 1 4 Figure 15. Cross section of a typical body of water showing unstable slopes, stable areas, and permissible or prohibited excavation sites under rules for mineral prospecting with timing restrictions Dashed lines indicates areas where excavation is not permitted 15 Figure 16.
    [Show full text]
  • Administrator's Letter
    Administrator’s Letter April 1, 2011 Dawn Masko, City Administrator 1. April Fool’s Day Rumor Contrary to a local website blog, the City of DuPont is NOT being annexed into Joint Base Lewis- McChord to make room for additional growth. The City was in no way affiliated with this erroneous posting and apologizes for any confusion this may have caused our citizens and local businesses. 2. Business License Program The City of DuPont’s partnership with the State of Washington Master License Service continues to show positive results for our businesses with the streamlined process for issuing licenses. Vendors conducting business within the City must possess a valid DuPont business license. Following is a reminder to businesses of the various types of licenses and methods to procure the licenses: General business licenses cost $50 and is a one-stop process through the State Department of Licensing that can be done online at www.dol.wa.gov, by phone at (360) 664-1400, or in person at the State office located in Olympia at 405 Black Lake Blvd SW. Approval of online applications usually occurs within 48 hours. Businesses located in a home require a home occupation permit prior to being approved for a business license. Home occupation permits are handled by the City for a cost of $100. The business license is issued by the State after the home occupation permit is approved by the City’s Planning department. Solicitor’s permits are also still handled by the City for a cost of $15 per person. The applicant is required to provide a copy of their valid driver’s license and it is scanned onto the permit for identification purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Evaluation & EFH Assessment
    Biological Evaluation & EFH Assessment April 2013 PERMIT #WAS-026638 Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment for Issuance of NPDES Permit #WAS-026638 For Discharges from the Joint Base Lewis-McChord Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) April 2013 Prepared by: US EPA Region 10 Office of Water and Watersheds 1 Biological Evaluation & EFH Assessment April 2013 PERMIT #WAS-026638 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 5 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AREA AND THE ACTION .................................................................................... 9 2.1 Action Area ................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Purpose and Objectives................................................................................................................................ 9 2.2.1 Statutory Background of the NPDES Stormwater Permit Program ......................................................... 9 2.3 Description of the MS4 Owned and Operated By JBLM ............................................................................ 12 2.3.1 MS4 Characteristics and Associated Receiving Waters ......................................................................... 12 2.3.2 Description of the Permit’s Narrative Effluent Limitations ..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pierce County Shoreline Master Program Update
    Key Peninsula-FrontalKey Peninsula-Frontal Case Inlet Case Inlet Key Peninsula-Frontal Carr Inlet PIERCE COUNTY Key Peninsula-Frontal Carr Inlet PIERCE COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE Curley Creek-Frontal Colvos Passage SHOR LINE MA PR AM U DATE Curley Creek-Frontal Colvos Passage Burley Creek-Frontal Carr Inlet CUMULATIVERESTORATION IMPACTS PLAN ANALYSIS Burley Creek-Frontal Carr Inlet WRIAWRIA MillerMiller Creek-Frontal Creek-Frontal East PassageEast Passage WRIASWRIASWRIAS A ANDND B BASINS BASINSASINS 1515 - -Kitsap Kitsap City ofCity Tacoma-Frontal of Tacoma-Frontal Commencement Commencement Bay Bay White R FOX Whit FOX HylebosHylebos Creek-Frontal Creek-Frontal Commencement Commencement Bay Bay ISLANDISLAND eR iv i ver e Lake MC NEILMC NEIL r Lake TappsTapps ISLANDISLAND Chambers Creek - Leach Creek Chambers Creek - Leach Creek WhiteWhite River River D D N N SwanSwan Clear Clear Creeks Creeks U U O O S S PuyallupPuyallup Shaw Shaw Road Road Upper Upper AndersonAnderson Island Island ClarksClarks Creek Creek ANDERSONANDERSON e RRi hhi it t e ivveerr ISLANDISLAND WW CloverClover Creek Creek - Lower - LowerClover Creek - North Fork ?¨ Clover Creek - North Fork?Ã FennelFennel Creek-Puyallup Creek-Puyallup River River ?¨ T T ?Ã E E G rGer e e e G G WRIA ri rei eCCr n n WRIA r i eeeek U American a i k w w U American r a CC a a Spa S r l P P Lake Lake na pana P P l ee t t w w Twin Creek-White River e e a a o v e v e t h h aa Twin Creek-White River y C l l or r t r r r C y C Boise Creek-White River River r C C u u ww r C r e e o South
    [Show full text]
  • Chambers Creek and Sequalitchew Creek Area, Evaluation of Shellfish and Sediment, Health Consultation
    Health Consultation Evaluation of Shellfish and Sediment from Chambers Creek - Sequalitchew Creek Study Area Pierce County, Washington September 26, 2012 Prepared by The Washington State Department of Health Under a Cooperative Agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry DOH 334-315 September 2012 Foreword The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) has prepared this health consultation with funds from a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). ATSDR is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and is the principal federal public health agency responsible for health issues related to hazardous substances. ATSDR’s mission is to serve the public by using the best science, taking responsive public health actions, and providing trusted health information to prevent harmful exposures and diseases related to toxic substances. The purpose of a health consultation is to assess the health threat posed by hazardous substances in the environment and if needed, recommend steps or actions to protect public health. Health consultations are initiated in response to health concerns raised by residents or agencies about exposure to hazardous substances. This health consultation was prepared in accordance with ATSDR methodologies and guidelines. However, the report has not been reviewed and cleared by ATSDR. The findings in this report are relevant to conditions at the site during the time of this health consultation, and should not be relied upon if site conditions or land use changes in the future. For additional information, please visit our website or call us toll free at 1-877-485-7316: http://www.doh.wa.gov/consults For people with disabilities, this document is available on request in other formats.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Puget Sound Low Flow Survey
    CENTRAL PUGET SOUND LOW FLOW SURVEY Prepared for The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife By John Lombard Steward and Associates and Dave Somers Dave Somers Consulting FINAL REPORT November 30, 2004 Steward and Associates 120 Avenue A, Suite D Snohomish, Washington 98290 Tel (360) 862-1255 Fax (360) 563-0393 www.stewardandassociates.com Table of Contents Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1 Definition of Low Flow Problem ........................................................................................... 2 Adopted Regulatory Instream Flows .................................................................................... 6 Climate Change....................................................................................................................... 7 Quantification of Instream Flow Needs ................................................................................ 7 Recommendations.................................................................................................................10 Summary Reports by WRIA................................................................................................ 12 STILLAGUAMISH (WRIA 5)........................................................................................... 12 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................... 12 Draft Stillaguamish – WRIA 5 Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan
    [Show full text]
  • P:\0E01401 Nisqually\Document\Revised
    Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Chapter 3. Affected Environment This chapter describes the environment that may be affected by land acquisition and management activities of Nisqually NWR. The affected environment includes important portions of the Nisqually delta and lower reaches of the Nisqually River watershed. For this document, the affected environment includes the CCP Study Area, which includes the lands within the currently approved Refuge boundary (3,936 acres) and the potential Refuge expansion areas (5,390 acres). The study area (Figure 1.1-2) includes four distinct areas: McAllister Springs and Creek area, Nisqually River corridor, Nisqually agricultural lands and floodplain, and East Bluff. The McAllister Springs and Creek area, Nisqually River corridor, and Nisqually agricultural lands and floodplain are located south of the current Refuge and are bordered on the north by I-5, on the east and west by bluffs, and on the south by a combination of railroad tracks, bluffs, and property boundaries of residential housing developments. The East Bluff area is east of the Refuge and is bordered on the north by Sequalitchew Creek, on the west by Puget Sound, on the south by I-5, and the eastern boundary follows property lines, including most of the forested habitat west of Fort Lewis. 3.1 Physical Environment Elements of the physical environment considered include climate, hydrology, geology, soils, and contaminants. 3.1.1 Climate Maritime air masses have a moderating effect in south Puget Sound year round, creating a modified Mediterranean climate. Air quality is generally high due to climate, location, and few industries that produce particulates.
    [Show full text]