DOCSLIB.ORG

Restoration Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of Sediment Sources in Kitsap County

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Restoration Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of Sediment Sources in Kitsap County Kitsap Regional Shoreline Restoration Feasibility and Prioritization Study Demonstration Project Restoration Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of Sediment Sources in Kitsap County (Deliverable under Contract KC‐390‐11) FINAL REPORT December 27, 2012 Qwg Applied Geology 1802 Pine Avenue NE Olympia, Washington 98506 Anchor QEA, LLC Confluence Environmental Company 720 Olive Way, Suite 1900 146 N Canal Street, Suite 111 Seattle, Washington 98101 Seattle, Washington 9810 Kitsap Regional Shoreline Restoration Feasibility and Prioritization Study Demonstration Project Restoration Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of Sediment Sources in Kitsap County (Deliverable under Contract KC‐390‐11) FINAL REPORT December 27, 2012 Wendy Gerstel Qwg Applied Geology 1802 Pine Avenue NE Olympia, Washington 98506 John Small Anchor QEA, LLC 720 Olive Way, Suite 1900 Seattle, Washington 98101 Paul Schlenger Confluence Environmental Company 146 N Canal Street, Suite 111 Seattle, Washington 9810 Table of Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Sediment Source Mapping .................................................................................................................... 3 2.1. Methods for Identifying Potential Sediment Sources ................................................................... 3 2.2. Sediment Source Categories ......................................................................................................... 4 2.3. Sediment Source Feature Classes ................................................................................................. 5 2.3.1. Predominantly Shallow Landslides ....................................................................................... 5 2.3.2. Predominantly Deep‐seated Landslides ............................................................................... 6 2.3.3. Mixed Shallow and Deep‐seated Landslides ......................................................................... 6 2.3.4. Bluffs ..................................................................................................................................... 6 2.3.5. Tributary ................................................................................................................................ 7 2.4. Sediment Source Attributes .......................................................................................................... 7 2.4.1. Attributes of Slopes ............................................................................................................... 7 2.4.2. Attributes of Tributaries ........................................................................................................ 8 2.5. Sediment Source Modifiers ........................................................................................................... 9 2.5.1. Natural Modifiers .................................................................................................................. 9 2.5.2. Manmade Modifier ............................................................................................................. 11 2.6. Summary of Sediment Source Distributions ............................................................................... 11 3. Sediment Source Rating ...................................................................................................................... 13 3.1. Sediment Source Rating Methods .............................................................................................. 13 3.2. Slopes .......................................................................................................................................... 13 3.2.1. Slope Feature Scores ........................................................................................................... 13 3.2.2. Slope Attribute Scores ........................................................................................................ 14 3.2.3. Slope Natural Modifier Scores ............................................................................................ 14 3.2.4. Slope Manmade Modifier Scores ........................................................................................ 14 3.3. Tributaries ................................................................................................................................... 15 3.3.1. Tributary Feature Scores ..................................................................................................... 15 3.3.2. Tributary Attribute Scores................................................................................................... 15 3.3.3. Tributary Natural Modifier Scores ...................................................................................... 15 3.3.4. Tributary Manmade Modifier Scores .................................................................................. 15 3.4. Calculation of Sediment Source Ratings ..................................................................................... 16 3.4.1. Potential Sediment Source Rating ...................................................................................... 16 3.4.2. Existing Sediment Source Rating ......................................................................................... 16 3.4.3. Percent Remaining Sediment Source Rating ...................................................................... 18 3.5. Sediment Source Rating Results at Multiple Spatial Scales ........................................................ 18 3.5.1. Reach Scale Results ............................................................................................................. 19 4. Shoreline Prioritization ....................................................................................................................... 20 4.1. Drift Cell Scale Prioritization ....................................................................................................... 21 4.2. Reach Scale Prioritization ............................................................................................................ 22 5. Identifying Project Sites Through Landowner Outreach and Site Analysis ......................................... 24 5.1. Landowner Outreach .................................................................................................................. 24 5.2. Site Scale Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 24 5.2.1. Tracyton Site Analysis ......................................................................................................... 26 5.2.2. Point Jefferson Site Analysis ............................................................................................... 27 6. Restoration Actions ............................................................................................................................. 28 6.1. Beach Restoration ....................................................................................................................... 30 6.1.1. Beach Slope and Sediment Grainsize .................................................................................. 32 6.1.2. Groin Removal or Modification ........................................................................................... 32 6.1.3. Fill Removal ......................................................................................................................... 32 6.2. Alternatives to Bulkheads ........................................................................................................... 33 6.3. Slope Restoration ........................................................................................................................ 33 6.4. Beach and Backshore Plantings .................................................................................................. 34 6.5. Additional Resources .................................................................................................................. 35 7. References Cited ................................................................................................................................. 36 Tables Table 1. Relative Wave Exposure Categories Assigned to Kitsap County Shorelines ................................. 10 Table 2. Summary of the Extent of Sediment Sources and Shoreline Armoring ........................................ 11 Table 3. Formulas for Sediment Source Ratings of Individual Slope Segments .......................................... 17 Table 4. Preliminary Risk Based on Average Distance from Shoreline to Roads and Structures ............... 23 Table 5. Risk‐based Approach to Determining Appropriate Stewardship Strategies ................................. 30 Table 6. Common Slope Restoration Pioneer Plant Species Native to Kitsap County ................................ 34 Table 7. Common Backshore or Salt‐tolerant Plant Species Native to Kitsap County ................................ 35 Figures Figure 1. Sediment Source Mapping Results Figure 2a. Sediment Source Rating of Slopes, Drift Cell Scale Roll Up Figure 2b. Sediment Source Rating of Tributaries, Drift Cell Scale Roll Up Figure 3. Sediment Source Scores, Reach Scale Roll Up Figure 4. Risk to Infrastructure Figure 5. Priority Drift Cells and Reaches Figure 6. Tracyton Conditions Figure 7. Point Jefferson Conditions Appendices Appendix A. Instructions
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Identifying Potential Juvenile Steelhead Predators in the Marine Waters of the Salish Sea
    Early Marine Survival Project Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Identifying Potential Juvenile Steelhead Predators In the Marine Waters of the Salish Sea Scott F. Pearson, Steven J. Jeffries, and Monique M. Lance Wildlife Science Division Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia Austen Thomas Zoology Department University of British Columbia Robin Brown Early Marine Survival Project Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Cover photo: Robin Brown, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Seals, sea lions, gulls and cormorants on the tip of the South Jetty at the mouth of the Columbia River. We selected this photograph to emphasize that bird and mammal fish predators can be found together in space and time and often forage on the same resources. Suggested citation: Pearson, S.F., S.J. Jeffries, M.M. Lance and A.C. Thomas. 2015. Identifying potential juvenile steelhead predators in the marine waters of the Salish Sea. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division, Olympia. Identifying potential steelhead predators 1 INTRODUCTION Puget Sound wild steelhead were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 2007 and their populations are now less than 10% of their historic size (Federal Register Notice: 72 FR 26722). A significant decline in abundance has occurred since the mid-1980s (Federal Register Notice: 72 FR 26722), and data suggest that juvenile steelhead mortality occurring in the Salish Sea (waters of Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the San Juan Islands as well as the water surrounding British Columbia’s Gulf Islands and the Strait of Georgia) marine environment constitutes a major, if not the predominant, factor in that decline (Melnychuk et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of Blaine-Birch Bay Area Whatcom County, WA Wings Over
    Geology of Blaine-Birch Bay Area Blaine Middle Whatcom County, WA School / PAC l, ul G ant, G rmor Wings Over Water 2020 C o n Nest s ero Birch Bay Field Trip Eagles! H March 21, 2020 Eagle "Trees" Beach Erosion Dakota Creek Eagle Nest , ics l at w G rr rfo la cial E te Ab a u ant W Eagle Nest n d California Heron Rookery Creek Wave Cut Terraces Kingfisher G Nests Roger's Slough, Log Jam Birch Bay Eagle Nest G Beach Erosion Sea Links Ponds Periglacial G Field Trip Stops G Features Birch Bay Route Birch Bay Berm Ice Thickness, 2,200 M G Surficial Geology Alluvium Beach deposits Owl Nest Glacial outwash, Fraser-age in Barn k Glaciomarine drift, Fraser-age e e Marine glacial outwash, Fraser-age r Heron Center ll C re Peat deposits G Ter Artificial fill Terrell Marsh Water T G err Trailhead ell M a r k sh Terrell Cr ee 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 ± Miles 2200 M Blaine Middle Glacial outwash, School / PAC Geology of Blaine-Birch Bay Area marine, Everson ll, G Gu Glaciomarine Interstade Whatcom County, WA morant, C or t s drift, Everson ron Nes Wings Over Water 2020 Semiahmoo He Interstade Resort G Blaine Semiahmoo Field Trip March 21, 2020 Eagle "Trees" Semiahmoo Park G Glaciomarine drift, Everson Beach Erosion Interstade Dakota Creek Eagle Nest Glac ial Abun E da rra s, Blaine nt ti c l W ow Eagle Nest a terf California Creek Heron Glacial outwash, Rookery Glaciomarine drift, G Field Trip Stops marine, Everson Everson Interstade Semiahmoo Route Interstade Ice Thickness, 2,200 M Kingfisher Surficial GNeeoslotsgy Wave Cut Alluvium Glacial Terraces Beach deposits outwash, Roger's Glacial outwash, Fraser-age Slough, SuGmlaacsio mSataridnee drift, Fraser-age Log Jam Marine glacial outwash, Fraser-age Peat deposits Beach Eagle Nest Artificial fill deposits Water Beach Erosion 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles ± Chronology of Puget Sound Glacial Events Sources: Vashon Glaciation Animation; Ralph Haugerud; Milepost Thirty-One, Washington State Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of a Hydrodynamic Model of Puget Sound and Northwest Straits
    PNNL-17161 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Development of a Hydrodynamic Model of Puget Sound and Northwest Straits Z Yang TP Khangaonkar December 2007 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor Battelle Memorial Institute, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY operated by BATTELLE for the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Printed in the United States of America Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062; ph: (865) 576-8401 fax: (865) 576-5728 email: [email protected] Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161 ph: (800) 553-6847 fax: (703) 605-6900 email: [email protected] online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm This document was printed on recycled paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality
    Section 7: Water Quality SECTION 7 How is Puget Sound’s Water Quality Changing? Puget Sound is projected to experience a continued increase in sea surface temperatures, and continued declines in pH and dissolved oxygen concentrations. These changes, which could affect marine ecosystems and the shellfish industry, will be affected by variations in coastal upwelling and circulation within Puget Sound. While it is currently not known how climate change will affect circulation and upwelling in the region, these processes will continue to fluctuate in response to natural climate variability. Impacts on marine ecosystems and shellfish farming generally point to increasing stress for fish and shellfish populations. Efforts to address Puget Sound’s water quality are increasing, particularly in the areas of ocean acidification monitoring and implementation of risk reduction practices in the shellfish industry. Climate Drivers of Change DRIVERS Wind patterns, natural climate variability, and projected changes in temperature and precipitation can all affect water quality in Puget Sound.A Observations show a clear warming trend, and all scenarios project continued warming during this century. Most scenarios project that this warming will be outside of the range of historical variations by mid-century (see Section 2).1,2 Warming. The salinity of Puget Sound’s waters is tightly linked to freshwater inflows from streams. Increasing air temperatures will result in more precipitation falling as rain instead of snow, leading to more freshwater inflows into Puget Sound during winter months, and decreased freshwater inflows during summer. In addition, increasing air temperatures are expected to drive a continued increase in water temperatures, increasing the likelihood of harmful algal blooms (see Section 3).
    [Show full text]
  • The Fate of Onsite Septic System Nitrogen Discharges in Groundwater of the Hood Canal Basin
    The Fate of Onsite Septic System Nitrogen Discharges in Groundwater of the Hood Canal Basin Julie Horowitz, Bryan Atieh, Garrett Leque, Mark Benjamin, Michael Brett Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington The Story… ¾Eutrophication and low dissolved oxygen ¾Hood Canal ¾Onsite Septic Systems (OSS) as a potential source of nitrogen loading ¾Denitrification – the key variable in determining the nitrogen load ¾Measuring denitrification in the Hood Canal basin ¾Substantial spatial and temporal variability in denitrification U.S. Coastal ‘Dead Zones’ Associated with Human Activity Date of Hypoxic event 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000 Source: America’s Oceans: Charting a Course for the Sea Change. Pew Ocean Commission report June, 2003 Hood Canal, Washington Eutrophication in Hood Canal Hood Canal is an estuary where OSS N loading may exacerbate eutrophication. HCDOP HCDOP HCDOP , pet waste, lawns Newton, UW-APL Loading from OSS to Hood Canal Denitrification rates X Census data Travel Distance Household Groundwater Trash output Traffic studies Septic inputs nitrogen velocity Seasonal Per capita Septic Nitrogen X X Population water use nitrogen - removal effluent Nitrogen load to Hood Canal Nitrogen Fate and Transport Drainfield Septic Tank + Organic N Æ NH4 2 N Drainfield and Vadose Zone + - NH4 Æ NO3 N Denitrification O - NO3 Æ N2 3 Groundwater Flow Denitrification ¾Denitrification is the primary N removal process. + - - ¾Organic N NH4 NO2 /NO3 N2 ¾Requirements: 1) Denitrifying microbial population 2) Anoxic conditions
    [Show full text]
  • Habs in UPWELLING SYSTEMS
    GEOHAB CORE RESEARCH PROJECT: HABs IN UPWELLING SYSTEMS 1 GEOHAB GLOBAL ECOLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY OF HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS GEOHAB CORE RESEARCH PROJECT: HABS IN UPWELLING SYSTEMS AN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMME SPONSORED BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON OCEANIC RESEARCH (SCOR) AND THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL OCEANOGRAPHIC COMMISSION (IOC) OF UNESCO EDITED BY: G. PITCHER, T. MOITA, V. TRAINER, R. KUDELA, P. FIGUEIRAS, T. PROBYN BASED ON CONTRIBUTIONS BY PARTICIPANTS OF THE GEOHAB OPEN SCIENCE MEETING ON HABS IN UPWELLING SYSTEMS AND THE GEOHAB SCIENTIFIC STEERING COMMITTEE February 2005 3 This report may be cited as: GEOHAB 2005. Global Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms, GEOHAB Core Research Project: HABs in Upwelling Systems. G. Pitcher, T. Moita, V. Trainer, R. Kudela, P. Figueiras, T. Probyn (Eds.) IOC and SCOR, Paris and Baltimore. 82 pp. This document is GEOHAB Report #3. Copies may be obtained from: Edward R. Urban, Jr. Henrik Enevoldsen Executive Director, SCOR Programme Co-ordinator Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences IOC Science and Communication Centre on The Johns Hopkins University Harmful Algae Baltimore, MD 21218 U.S.A. Botanical Institute, University of Copenhagen Tel: +1-410-516-4070 Øster Farimagsgade 2D Fax: +1-410-516-4019 DK-1353 Copenhagen K, Denmark E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +45 33 13 44 46 Fax: +45 33 13 44 47 E-mail: [email protected] This report is also available on the web at: http://www.jhu.edu/scor/ http://ioc.unesco.org/hab ISSN 1538-182X Cover photos courtesy of: Vera Trainer Teresa Moita Grant Pitcher Copyright © 2005 IOC and SCOR.
    [Show full text]
  • Hood Canal and Dabob Bay NOAA Chart 18476 a Reduced-Scale NOAA Nautical Chart for Small Boaters
    BookletChart™ Puget Sound – Hood Canal and Dabob Bay NOAA Chart 18476 A reduced-scale NOAA nautical chart for small boaters When possible, use the full-size NOAA chart for navigation. Included Area Published by the mooring buoys, and floats are on both sides of the canal. There are relatively few public floats or piers, and the only commercial activities National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are logging and some oystering. National Ocean Service Thorndyke Bay is a small bight on the W side of Hood Canal about 4 Office of Coast Survey miles S of Squamish Harbor. An explosives anchorage is S of the bay. (See 110.1 and 110.230, chapter 2, for limits and regulations.) www.NauticalCharts.NOAA.gov Bangor Wharf on the E side of the canal, 3.5 miles S of Thorndyke Bay, is 888-990-NOAA the property of the Bangor U.S. Naval Submarine Base. A naval restricted area surrounds the wharf and other naval docking facilities What are Nautical Charts? along the E side of Hood Canal. Keyport Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station, 0.9 mile SSW of Bangor Wharf, is also within the Nautical charts are a fundamental tool of marine navigation. They show restricted area. (See 334.1220, chapter 2, for limits and regulations.) water depths, obstructions, buoys, other aids to navigation, and much Naval security zones are adjacent to the Naval Submarine Base. (See more. The information is shown in a way that promotes safe and §165.1302 and §165.1311, chapter 2, for limits and regulations.) efficient navigation. Chart carriage is mandatory on the commercial A naval operating area is in the S part of Hood Canal.
    [Show full text]
  • Eutrophication in the US and Elsewhere: NOAA’S National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment
    Eutrophication in the US and Elsewhere: NOAA’s National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment S.B. Bricker and G. Lauenstein National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment Silver Spring, MD, USA 8th National Monitoring Conference Water: One Resource – Shared Effort – Common Future Portland, Oregon April 30-May 4, 2012 http://www.eutro.org http://www.eutro.us National and International Partners Picture yourself here?! Global Context and Guiding Legislation for Nutrient Issues US Clean Water Act of 1972, US Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 EU Water Framework Directive 2000, older generation directives: Urban WasteWater Treatment Directive and Nitrates Directive, Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008 PRC Environmental Protection Diaz, R.J. and R. Rosenberg. 2008. Spreading dead zones and Law 1989, Law on Prevention and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science 321:926-928 Control of Water Pollution 1996, Eutrophication is a significant problem Marine Environmental Protection worldwide (US, EU, China, Japan, Law of 2000 Australia and elsewhere) ASSETS Eutrophication Assessment Components 科学问题 – 评估方法和成分 SPARROW Pressure State Response SPARROW From: Bricker et al. In press. Coastal Bays in Context, in Shifting Sands http://www.eutro.us http://www.eutro.org/register What does eutrophication look like? Where is it? Caloosahatchee Bay, FL Potomac River, MD Corsica River, MD Florida Bay, FL What does eutrophication look like? Where is it? Hood Canal, WA Washington State
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Suquamish 7.5' Quadrangle and Part of the Seattle
    Geologic Map of the Suquamish 7.5’ Quadrangle and Part of the Seattle North 7.5’ x 15’ Quadrangle, Kitsap County, Washington By Ralph A. Haugerud and Kathy Goetz Troost Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3181 2011 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey This page intentionally left blank Contents Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1 Geologic framework .............................................................................................................................1 About this report ...................................................................................................................................2 Stratigraphy ....................................................................................................................................................3 Glacial and nonglacial deposits .........................................................................................................3 Deposits older than Olympia interglaciation of Armstrong and others (1965) ...................3 Deposits older than Vashon stade of Fraser glaciation of Armstrong and others (1965)..............................................................................................................................4 Vashon Drift ..................................................................................................................................4 Late-glacial deposits
    [Show full text]
  • 3.2 Ocean Deoxygenation from Eutrophication (Human Nutrient Inputs) Nancy N
    3.2 Ocean deoxygenation from eutrophication (human nutrient inputs) Nancy N. Rabalais, Ph.D. 3.2 Ocean deoxygenation from eutrophication (human nutrient inputs) Nancy N. Rabalais, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences, Shell Oil Endowed Chair in Oceanography/Wetland Sciences, Louisiana State University, Room 3161, Energy, Coast and Environment Building, Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA SECTION 3.2 SECTION Summary • Coastal deoxygenation is driven by excess human inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus that increase the production of carbon and its accumulation in the ecosystem. • Respiration of the excess carbon by bacteria results in oxygen deficient waters in stratified systems. • Deoxygenation reduces suitable habitats for many bottom-associated marine organisms and disrupts biogeochemical cycles. • Climate-driven increases in water temperature and increases in watershed precipitation will likely aggravate estuarine and coastal ocean deoxygenation. • Mitigation measures require social and political will but can be effective. Ocean deoxygenation: Everyone’s problem 117 3.2 Ocean deoxygenation from eutrophication (human nutrient inputs) Eutrophication-driven low oxygen Potential consequences Post-industrial expansion in the 1850s, • Enhanced phytoplankton production in estuaries and coastal waters and human alterations to watersheds, and accumulation of organic matter in the lower water column and sea bed. increasing use of artificial fertilizers in • Excessive algal biomass, which may be noxious or harmful the 1950s to
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Hood Canal
    An Introduction to Hood Canal Hood Canal is a fjord-like arm of western Puget Sound in Washington State. The canal is 110 km long with a large 180 degree bend, called the Great Bend, that begins about 80 km into the canal. Over most of its length, Hood Canal is between 2 and 4 km wide. Sills, which rise to within about 50 to 75 meters of the water surface, separate Hood Canal from the main basin of Puget Sound. Past the sills the depth of the canal approaches about about 175 m in depth, shallowing to about 40m in the vicinity of the Great Bend. Past the Great Bend to the end of the canal, into Lynch Cove, depths are on the order of 40 m or less. Low concentrations of dissolved oxygen in Hood Canal during late summer and early fall have been observed as far back as the 1950s. Available data suggest that even though concentrations vary from year to year, they have been trending lower over time, and the duration of low concentrations is more persistent. The low dissolved oxygen condition is worst from the Great Bend to end of the canal. The low dissolved oxygen has lead to numerous extensive fish kills. Poor deep circulation and the decomposition of large amounts of algae are primary factors that contribute to the low concentrations of dissolved oxygen in Hood Canal. The sluggish circulation and stratified water column of Hood Canal produce characteristics that are similar to classic fjords. Unlike many fjords with shallow sills, the bottom waters of Hood Canal are not as anoxic as the middle layer because cold, saline, oxygenated ocean water sinks to the bottom as it spills over the sills.
    [Show full text]
  • Frequently Asked Questions About the South Puget Sound Dissolved Oxygen Study
    Frequently Asked Questions about The South Puget Sound Dissolved Oxygen Study from Ecology’s Water Quality Program Q: What is the South Puget Sound Dissolved Oxygen Study? A: The Department of Ecology (Ecology) is starting a water quality study on low dissolved oxygen levels in South Puget Sound. Marine animals need oxygen to live. This study will help determine how human activities (along with natural factors) affect low dissolved oxygen levels in South Puget Sound. Q: What is the extent of the problem? A: In South Puget Sound, Carr, Case, and Budd Inlets are the locations of greatest concern. This graphic shows dissolved oxygen levels in 2003, with lowest levels in red. The state’s Water Case Quality Standards set Inlet the minimum Carr Tacoma Inlet dissolved oxygen criteria for protecting Shelton aquatic life. The minimum dissolved oxygen criteria in Puget Sound range from 5.0 milligrams of Budd Inlet dissolved oxygen per liter (mg/L) to 7.0 Olympia mg/L. As the graphic shows, dissolved Dissolved oxygen levels (mg/L) near the bottom of South Puget Sound oxygen levels in South in 2003. Puget Sound fall below these minimum criteria.1 In 2003, dissolved oxygen levels in Budd Inlet were as low as 3.1 mg/L. In Case Inlet, they dropped to 2.6 mg/L, and in Carr Inlet they were 4.3 mg/L. Q: What stage are we at in the study? A: We are still in the preliminary data collection and data analysis phase. Earlier work, completed in 2002, found that human activities may affect marine water quality.
    [Show full text]