4. Water Quality Evaluation
Recently the PSP listed several contaminants of concern for Puget Sound organized into four general categories including toxics, nutrients, pathogens, and other (i.e. deviations in physical/chemical state of a water body; Puget Sound Partnership 2008b). Specific issues related to these categories, including discussions on several chemicals of concern, have been detailed therein and elsewhere (Puget Sound Partnership 2009c). Nutrients and “other,” will be discussed as physical/chemical parameters; toxics as trace inorganic and organic chemicals; pathogens, under the goal Human Health.
Water circulation patterns in Puget Sound influence water quality. Freshwater inputs from rives and streams can create density stratification, which, in turn, can exacerbate conditions underlying eutrophication and hypoxia (Newton et al. 2002). Washington State Department of Ecology reports on stratification based on frequency and intensity. Stratification intensity is based on change of seawater density (reported a sigma-t; density in kg m-3 – 1000) over the pycnocline. Frequency is determined by the percent of time that the change in density across the pycnocline is greater than two. Stratification patterns vary temporally and locally within Puget Sound; stratification is generally strongest near areas of freshwater inflow while vertical mixing occurs at sills (Moore et al. 2008b). Status and trends of stratification are discussed in the sections on hypoxia and marine eutrophication in the Puget Sound Science Update.
Marine circulation may be the largest factor in the delivery of nutrients to Puget Sound (Mackas and Harrison 1997). Periodic deep water intrusions over the entrance sill at Admiralty Inlet deliver marine waters into Puget Sound (Leonov and Kawase 2009). Deep water circulation and residence times vary throughout Puget Sound, and also interannually; interannual variations appear to be associated with variations in freshwater flows, and salinity at the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Babson et al. 2006, Cokelet et al. 1991). Large scale climate variations can affect upwelling off the Strait of San Juan de Fuca (and, thus, salinity), surface winds, temperatures, and precipitation, possibly influence Puget Sound’s oceanography (Moore et al. 2008a, Li et al. 1999). Wind may be important driver on the circulation of Puget Sound. Wind has been implicated in causing outcrops of low-DO water in southern Hood Canal (Leonov and Kawase 2009).
Although marine circulation patterns are likely important, particularly in terms of nutrient supply to Puget Sound, the magnitude, timing, and influencing factors are not well understood.
Indicators of Physical/Chemical Parameters
Physical and chemical parameters can define the state and status of water with regard to the health of humans and the environment. These include temperature (T), dissolved oxygen (DO), nutrients such as nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), chlorophyll, and the Secchi depth. These fundamental measures are often combined into various indices or states, depending on management concerns.
Low DO is of particular concern in marine waters, particularly in the Hood Canal and areas of South Puget Sound (Puget Sound Partnership 2009c). A discussion of the status and trends is included in Chapter 2 of this Puget Sound Science Update. A discussion of the potential biological effects of low DO are included in a literature review performed by the Washington State Department of Ecology as part of an evaluation of DO standards for marine and freshwaters (Washington State Department of Ecology 2002, Washington State Department of Ecology 2006a, Washington State Department of Ecology 2006b). A brief discussion of the DO standards is presented in Section 6.8.3.
Temperature is a critical measure and of importance to instream biota in streams and rivers of the region. A discussion of the biological impacts of temperature is included in the literature review performed by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology 2002; see Section 6.8.3). There is currently limited evidence that temperature changes are important in the marine environment of Puget Sound.
Eutrophication, nutrients, chlorophyll, and Secchi depth are measures related to the productivity of a water body (Mackas and Harrison 1997, Bernhard and Peele 1997, Carlson 1977, Edmondson 1970, Edmondson 1994, Edmondson and Lehman 1981, Howarth and Marino 2006, Smith 2003, Cloern 2001, Kemp et al. 2005, Ryther and Dunstan 1971, Schindler 2006). Marine eutrophication is discussed in Chapter 2 of this Puget Sound Science Update. An evaluation of the water quality criteria for phosphorus and its relationship to Secchi and trophic state has been performed by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Moore and Hicks 2004).
The Washington State Department of Ecology and King County utilize a freshwater Water Quality Index (WQI) to summarize water quality information in a format that is easily understood (Hallock 2009). The WQI is based on T, DO, pH, fecal coliform bacteria (FC), TN, TP, total suspended sediment (TSS), and turbidity. Ranking factors are based on relations to state water quality standards (T, DO, pH, and FC; Washington State Department of Ecology 2006c), the limiting nutrient (TN or TP) or a calculated harmonic mean (TSS and turbidity). Evaluations of the WQI approach suggest that it be a communication tool (e.g. a reporting indicator) but not used for evaluation (e.g., an assessment indicator) since it does not reveal specific water quality traits (Hallock 2009, Cude 2002, Cude 2001, Smith et al. 2002). It has also been suggested that subjective, professional judgment be minimized in the development of WQIs by using published cause/effect relationships (Kaurish and Younos 2007).
Rivers and streams in Canada utilize a Canadian WQI (CCME WQI) that is similar to the WQI developed by Washington State Department of Ecology. However the CCME WQI reflects Canadian standards and is adjusted by the scope, frequency, and amplitude of failed test values (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment 2001).
Marine WQIs are currently not used in the Puget Sound region, though one is under development. Washington State Department of Ecology has reported on areas where water quality is a concern by summing the results of five water quality indicators (stratification, DO, nutrients, FC, and ammonium; Newton et al. 2002).
Indicators of Trace Inorganic and Organic Chemicals
The marine waters and sediments of Puget Sound have been affected by different classes of anthropogenic chemicals (e.g. toxics); some have been well studied while others less so. Several efforts have been made to identify the chemicals of concern in Puget Sound based on historic monitoring programs (EVS Environmental Consultants 2003, Hart Crowser Inc. 2007, Puget Sound Action Team 2006). These toxic chemicals included metals and metalloids (arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, and tributyl tin), organic compounds (polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, dioxins and furans, phthalate esters, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and hormone disrupting chemicals. In 2007, the Washington State Department of Ecology, as part of a Chemicals of Concern work group, modified this list resulting in the following 17 chemicals of concern for marine waters (Hart Crowser Inc. 2007).
- Arsenic
- Cadmium
- Copper
- Lead
- Mercury
- Total PCBs
- Low molecular weight PAHs
- Carcinogenic PAHs
- Other high molecular weight PAHs
- DDT and Metabolites
- Triclopyr
- Dioxins and furans
- bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Phthalate esters
- Total PBDEs
- Nonylphenol
- Oil or petroleum product
- Zinc
Subsequent evaluations added other broad categories of toxics including pharmaceuticals and personal care products (Puget Sound Partnership 2009c, Puget Sound Partnership 2008c). These are of concern because of their observed or presumed ability to cause harm to human health or the environment.
There are several state and local monitoring efforts, which address many of these chemicals of concern. Chapter 5, Section 2 of this Puget Sound Science Update reviews the status and trends of Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics (PBTs), which includes PCBs, PDBE, pesticides (i.e. DDT) and mercury, PAHs, metals, and endocrine disrupting chemicals.
The prioritization of toxics in water and sediments for monitoring, evaluation, and potential remediation is complex and difficult, particularly considering the vast array of emerging contaminants in aquatic environments (Schwarzenbach et al. 2006). In order to determine whether a compound is of concern it is necessary to understand its source, distribution, fate and transport, exposure and biotic effect. And, although a significant amount is known about certain toxics, very little is known about the majority of them (Sumpter 2009). The USGS performed a national reconnaissance, sampling in 139 streams and analyzing for 95 toxics and found a common detection of multiple contaminants in each sample (Kolpin et al. 2002). Further sampling programs have been performed for groundwater and untreated drinking water sources (Barnes et al. 2008, Focazio et al. 2008). Similar suites of chemicals were found in the groundwater and untreated drinking water sources compared to the river and streams, though at a lower detection frequency and generally lower concentrations. Similar results have been reported for European sampling surveys (Loos et al. 2009, Reemtsma et al. 2006).
King County performed a preliminary survey of sixteen known endocrine disrupting chemicals in marine waters, lakes, rivers, and small streams (Jack and Lester 2007). Overall levels were similar to those found in national surveys. Specific compounds such as 17α-ethinylestradiol (EE2) and 4-nonylphenol were detected frequently and at maximum levels greater than the effective concentrations reported in the literature.
Emerging contaminants often occur at very low concentrations and in mixtures; accurate risk assessments may depend on the use of relevant exposure scenarios to capture potential synergistic or antagonistic effects (Pomati et al. 2008). For example, individual estrogenic chemicals can act additively, causing a response even when the concentration of each individual compound is below the known effective concentration (Brian et al. 2005). In addition to endocrine disruption, environmental estrogen exposure has been reported to induce genotoxic damage, affect immune function, and alter metabolism in fathead minnows, (Filby et al. 2007). Further, responses to EE2 may be different with mixtures of endocrine disruptors compared to EE2 alone, suggesting complex interactions.
This suggests that emerging contaminants are present in Puget Sound and may be environmentally significant. As such, indicators of water quality related to these trace inorganic and organic chemicals should be evaluated and selected carefully. Sumpter and Johnson suggest two possible approaches to evaluate the potential risks and effects associated with emerging contaminants (Sumpter and Johnson 2005). One would be to use contaminant-specific information to identify possible exposure-effect relationships combined with hydrology to identify potential hotspots and focus analytical investigations. The second approach would begin with investigations of biota directed in specific locations by hydrologic modeling to determine if there are any identifiable adverse impacts. Both investigatory approaches may be useful in evaluating relative threats from emerging contaminants as the relative threats are currently not known.
The analytical-chemical approach and biota-observation approach are both used for monitoring water quality and the selection/utilization of specific indicators. One issue specifically related to the selection and evaluation of water quality indicators is whether they are better suited as indicators of water-quality or of species condition (or, perhaps, are good indicators of both). The Heinz Foundation (2008) reports contaminants in fish in shellfish as a measure of chemical contamination of the environment where as EPA’s Science Advisory Board (2002) reports contaminants in tissue as a sign of disease potentially affecting species condition (Environmental Protection Agency 2002, Heinz Center 2008). For the purpose of this report we recognize contaminants in tissue (i.e. tissue residue levels) and biomarkers of contaminant effects as measures indirect indicators of water quality and direct measures of species condition, however species will vary in the ability to reflect local, regional and coastal water quality condition.
There are several indicators of contaminants in biota, which could be either measures of Water Quality – Trace Inorganic or Organic Chemicals, or Species – Population Condition. For example, the level of contaminants and/or liver disease in English sole has been shown to be strongly correlated with the level and presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in sediments, while also being a measure of species health (Myers et al. 1998, Myers et al. 2003, Myers et al. 2008, Stehr et al. 2004, Johnson et al. 2002, Carls and Meador 2009). This suggests that liver disease in English sole can be a suitable measure of general Marine Water Quality (i.e., PAHs in sediments) or of Species Population Condition.
Vitellogenin (Vtg) production in male fish may be another useful marker of environmental exposure to xenoestrogens (Sumpter and Jobling et al. 1995), although unlike liver disease, the causative agent cannot be clearly identified. In Puget Sound, elevated levels of Vtg have been reported for English sole (Johnson et al. 2008).
Recently, several studies investigating the causative action of xenoestrogens have implicated the disruption of steroidogenic acute regulatory (StAR) protein activity, which may be key in moderating the rate limiting step in steroid homone syntheses; evaluating StAR protein activity, then, may be a valuable biomarker for xenoestrogen exposure (Kortner et al. 2009, Lyssimachou and Arukwe 2007, Arukwe 2008).
As these examples illustrate, the value of measuring biological response in biota (i.e. Vtg induction in male fish or liver disease in English sole) as an indicator or water quality is dependent largely on the strength of the knowledge of the exposure-effect relationship as well as the chemical specificity of the of the reaction. A lack of knowledge or a weak causal link would imply that the biological response were a poor indicator of water quality.
The concentration of specific contaminants in aquatic organisms may be appropriate indicators of water quality or species condition. Measurements of PAH, PCBs, PBDEs (and metals) and metabolites in fish tissues, primarily salmonids and bottom fish, and associated health effects, have been well studied in the region (Collier et al. 1998, Wang et al. 2008, Stein et al. 1995, Johnson et al. 2007, McCain et al. 1990). In some cases (i.e. PAHs, PCBs, and tributyl tin), the evaluation of tissue and sediment data have been used to establish sediments quality thresholds (Johnson et al. 2002, Meador et al. 2002a, Meador et al. 2002b). In other cases the presence of contaminants in biota may be reflective of environmental conditions, though health effects and thresholds are not well defined (Sloan et al. 2010, Johnson et al. 1998).
The use of toxics in biota as indicators of water quality in Puget Sound is discussed below.
The NOAA National Status and Trends Mussel Watch Program has monitored contaminant concentrations in the coastal United States, including at least thirteen sites in Puget Sound, by sampling mussels, oysters, and sediments (O’Connor and Lauenstein 2006, O’Connor 2002). Mussels have been shown to take up and accumulate the bioavaible fraction of hydrophobic contaminants from the water column (Baumard et al. 1998). Tissue concentrations of PAHs, total PCBs, and total DDTs were higher in mussels from the urban-associated sites compared to those from less urban areas; adverse health effects were observed (Krishnakumar et al. 1994, Krishnakumar et al. 1999). In Puget Sound, results indicated no significant trends at most sites, though several had decreasing trends and a few (Se) had increasing trends with time (O’Connor and Lauenstein 2006). These results are discussed in Chapter 5, Section 2 of this report. Toxics contaminants in mussels may be an appropriate indicator of water quality.
Tissue sampling of resident Pacific herring populations may allow for general indications of water quality. However, because herring populations range widely and feed on planktonic organisms (e.g., krill), their contaminant levels reflect conditions in the pelagic food web on a large, regional scale. West et al. (2008) was able to discriminate differences in contaminant levels between herring populations sampled from inner and outer Puget Sound (i.e. north and south of Admiralty Inlet) but not among inner Puget Sound populations.
Due to the lifecycle and migration traits, measures of toxics in adult salmonids may not be suitable as indicators of local or regional water quality (O’Neill and West 2009). It has been shown that over 98% of adult body mass of six Pacific salmon species and steelhead is acquired while feeding in marine waters (Quinn 2005) but populations of Pacific salmon among and within species vary considerably in their marine range and distribution. Adult Chinook salmon may accumulate over 95% of their persistent organic contaminant burden during their time at sea, with their final tissue contaminant concentrations reflecting the range of exposure throughout their marine water feeding areas (O’Neill and West 2009, Cullon et al. 2009). In contrast, recent work has suggested PCB concentration in tissues of localized outmigrating juvenile populations may be correlated with local sediment concentrations (Meador et al. 2010).
Tissue analysis of harbor seals in Puget Sound and Strait of Georgia found relatively high levels of PCBs, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), and that location partially explained the relative concentrations and the mixture profiles (Ross et al. 2004). Weight of evidence suggests that harbor species are exposed to levels of contaminants that have the potential to cause adverse health effects (Cullon et al. 2009). Although the range of harbor seals is relatively small they consume a wide-variety of fish, both local and ranging, suggesting that harbor seal contamination may be somewhat disconnected from that of their local habitats. As such, they may not be useful as indicators of localized sediments or water column contamination. However, a food basket analysis indicated that variances of contaminant concentrations in harbor seal population could serve as indicators of food web contamination, and environmental contamination on a regional scale (Meador et al. 2010).
Tissue samples from free-ranging killer whales found very high levels of PCBs and also of PCDDs and PCDFs (Cullon et al. 2009). The increasing presence of PDBEs in the killer whale food chain may also be of increasing import (Ross 2006). The range of the killer whales, and the range of their diets, suggests that tissue contaminant levels may not correlate well with local or regional contaminant conditions (West et al. 2008). These reports suggest that there are measures of toxics in biota may be suitable measures of water quality at local (e.g., bivalves) and regional (e.g., herring, juvenile salmonids, or Harbor seals) though appropriate selection is necessary depending on the management concern. Toxics in biota can also be utilized as measures of species condition, though the health effect thresholds are not always clear for all species of concern.
Evaluation of Water Quality Indicators
Fifty-seven water quality indicators were selected for evaluation, and thirteen were evaluated. In general the indicators that were evaluated performed well against the Primary Considerations. However, there were often gaps in data, either spatially or temporally.
Marine Water Quality
A summary of the evaluation of indicators of Marine Water Quality is shown in Table 24. The indicators of marine water quality generally performed well against the criteria suggesting that there are many acceptable indicators, which can be selected depending on the issue of management concern. Generally, the indicators evaluated under Physical/Chemical parameters performed well under the Primary Considerations, and the Data Consideration. However, there were often limitations in the spatial and historical extent of the data.
Table 24. Summary of Marine Water Quality indicator evaluations. The numerical value under each consideration represents the number of evaluation criteria supported by peer-reviewed literature. For example, the indicator Toxics in Mussels has peer-reviewed literature supporting 4 out of 5 Primary Considerations criteria. Details can be found in the accompanying spreadsheets.
Indicator |
Primary Considerations (5) |
Data Considerations (8) |
Other Considerations (5) |
Summary |
Marine Water Quality |
||||
Hydrodynamics |
|
|
|
|
Seawater stratification |
|
|
|
|
Upwelling zones |
|
|
|
|
Flushing rates |
|
|
|
|
Marine Water Quality |
||||
Physical/Chemical Parameters |
||||
Benthic infaunal community structure (sediment quality) |
|
|
|
|
Marine water quality index |
|
|
|
|
Nutrients in marine waters |
5 |
4 |
3 |
Very important in specific nutrient limited locations (e.g. Hood Canal, Budd Inlet) though less so in main body of sound as it is generally not nutrient limited. High nutrients can lead to eutrophication and associated effects = high management concern. Management actions can affect some sources of anthropogenic nutrients. Reference points and targets are site specific and depend on historical state of water body. Certain areas of concern such as Hood Canal and Budd Inlet have good and sufficient coverage, though coverage in other areas is limited. |
Sensitivity to eutrophication |
0 |
|
|
Eutrophication is not a good indicator in itself. Eutrophication is characterized by a suite of measures such as DO, HABs, nutrients which are other specific indicators. Phytoplankton biomass is measured elsewhere. “Sensitivity” is not readily measured. Eutrophication is not directly measured nor is sensitivity to eutrophication. Makes this unsuitable for an indicator. |
DO marine |
5 |
4 |
4 |
DO levels affect marine species. Selected areas of low DO in Puget Sound are of great management concern. Management actions may have some impact on anthropogenic nutrient inputs to PS. Generally clear reference points and targets though may vary depending on historic conditions. Some areas of localized coverage, though not good historical record. |
Marine water quality parameters |
|
|
|
|
WWTP nutrient hot spots |
|
|
|
|
Ratio of point to non-point nutrient loads |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marine Water Quality |
||||
Trace Inorganic and Organic Chemicals |
||||
Toxics in English sole |
5 |
5 |
4 |
Contaminant levels in English sole (including PAH metabolites in bile) increase with concentrations in the environment. Some metals (e.g. Hg) are more sensitive to increase in fish age. Some metals (e.g. Cu) are regulated by fish and therefore tissue residues of Cu are not very sensitive measures of water quality. For example, tissue residues of Cu in Puget Sound marine fish do not vary among species or among locations within a species. Defined thresholds exist for some chemicals. Measurement and evaluation requires specialized techniques and instrumentation. Historic coverage of over 50 sites but spatial coverage was reduced in 2001 to 8 sites, representing urban, near-urban and non-urban sites. Need to account for variation in age and lipid content of fish. |
Liver disease in English sole |
|
|
|
Prevalence of liver disease (i.e. toxicopathic hepaocellar lesion) is elevated in PAH contaminated environments. Changes in prevalence of liver disease are used to document reductions PAH environmental contamination associated with management strategies to reduce source control and remediate sediments. Thresholds for PAH levels in sediment associated with increased prevalence have been defined. Data collection requires technical expertise. Historic coverage of over 50 sites but currently limited to 8 sites representing urban, near-urban and non-urban sites. Need 60 fish per samples location and % prevalence must be statistically corrected to account for age in the fish. |
Toxics in clams |
|
|
|
DOH and King County completed studies in the mid-90s but discontinued sampling in part because of low number of detects for organic compounds and variability of metals data, possibly associated with inconsistent species being sampled. |
Fecal pollution index for commercial shellfish beds |
|
|
|
|
Chemical contamination in Puget Sound sediments |
|
|
|
|
Abiotic/pollution exposure condition |
|
|
|
|
Toxics in crabs and shrimp |
|
|
|
|
Toxics in adult Chinook and Coho salmon |
4 |
6 |
4 |
Toxics in biota generally reflect contaminants in their environment. High variability of toxic conc, especially for Chinook salmon associated with fish’s residency in Puget Sound; tissue residue will vary substantially with changes in residency which may mask changes in local water quality. Elevated toxics in salmon are pertinent to PSP goals for water quality, human health, and species and food webs. Reflects toxics in marine waters throughout salmon’s marine distribution. Data coverage includes populations returning to Nooksack, Skagit, Duwamish, Nisqually, and Deschutes rivers. Sampling from 1991; Chinook salmon discontinued in 2006. There is a low signal-to-noise ratio as residency of fish is often unknown. |
Toxics in harbor seals |
3 |
6 |
3 |
Some variability in tissue concentrations associated with variation in diet among seals from different sampling sites; reflects regional water quality (i.e. Georgia Bas vs. Puget Sound). Effects thresholds are based on captivity studies. Limited number of sample locations published to date. Archived samples for PCB and PBDE temporal trends at one locations. |
Toxics in Pacific herring |
5 |
8 |
4 |
Reflects toxics in marine waters throughout herring’s distribution. Elevated toxics in Pacific herring are pertinent to PSP goals for water quality, human health and species and food webs. Concentration differences between northern Puget Sound and central Puget Sound are detectable. Specific thresholds for herring exist of PAHs but not other chemicals. Coverage for major Puget Sound basins from 1999; no temporal trends observed. |
Toxics in mussels |
4 |
5 |
4 |
Data for toxics in mussels in Puget Sound are collected as part of NOAA’s national Mussel Watch program. Number of sites is limited especially in southern Puget Sound. Currently a non-random sampling design is used. Thresholds specific to the health of mussels are not known. |
Fecal bacteria in offshore Puget Sound |
|
|
|
|
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index |
|
|
|
Whole body samples of fish analyzed for contaminants, therefore not suitable for human health. Some problems interpreting data as species, sizes, and ages vary among locations. Possibly combine these data with other Puget Sound datasets (e.g. ENVEST and WDFW). |
Toxics in Osprey eggs |
|
|
|
Only 2 stations are sampled in Puget Sound |
Oil Spills |
|
|
|
|
PCBs in Cormorant eggs |
|
|
|
Data exist for the St. Georgia but limited data is available for Puget Sound |
Star protein/DNA damage |
|
|
|
Moved to species condition |
Vtg induction in male fish |
3 |
3 |
4 |
Elevated levels Vtg indicate exposure to xenoestrogens, including some trace organics. Various biological effects have been correlated with magnitude of Vtg induction in male fish but threshold will vary by species. Broad spatial coverage for English sole in Puget Sound. Limited time series data (e.g. 2-3 yrs) at some sites. Very sensitive to changes in xenoestrogen. |
There are several indicators concerning measures of contaminants in ecological receptors, which could be either measures of Water Quality – Trace Inorganic or Organic Chemicals, or Species – Population Condition (see section 5.4.3). The initial indicator organization placed these indicator based on trophic level and management concern. Low-trophic-level species were considered to be more directly exposed to environmental contaminants and thus more representative than were higher-trophic-level species. Toxics in species with high management concern were placed under population condition. The detailed evaluation process allowed for reorganization, as appropriate.
Interface Water Quality
A summary of the evaluation of indicators of Marine Water Quality is shown in Table 25. To date, only one indicator has been evaluated against the criteria.
Table 25. Summary of Interface Water Quality indicator evaluations. The numerical value under each consideration represents the number of evaluation criteria supported by peer-reviewed literature. For example, the indicator Toxics in Juvenile Salmon has peer-reviewed literature supporting 5 out of 5 Primary Considerations criteria. Details can be found in the accompanying spreadsheets.
Indicator |
Primary Considerations (5) |
Data Considerations (8) |
Other Considerations (5) |
Summary |
Interface Water Quality Hydrodynamics |
||||
Aggregation/deposition zones |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interface Water Quality Physical/Chemical Parameters |
||||
Sediment Quality Triad Index |
|
|
|
|
Wetland Water Quality Index |
|
|
|
|
Nearshore water quality |
|
|
|
|
Wetland water quality |
|
|
|
|
Interface Water Quality Trace Inorganic and Organic Chemicals |
||||
Pesticide poisonings in raptors |
|
|
|
Limited data is available for Puget Sound; consistently measurable, responsive to change. Limited study was not maintained. |
Toxics in heron eggs |
|
|
|
|
Toxics in juvenile salmon |
5 |
5 |
4 |
A consistent monitoring program for toxics in juvenile salmon does not exist for Puget Sound, however, multiple studies complete data, meet most of the criteria used to screen indicators. |
Freshwater Quality
A summary of the evaluation of indicators of Freshwater Quality in shown in Table 26. There are several indicators of Freshwater Quality that meet the evaluation criteria. These include measures of contamination, nutrients, and general water condition. Generally, the indicators evaluated under Physical/Chemical parameters performed well under the Primary Considerations, and the Data Consideration with the exception that they were often limited in the spatial and historical extent of the data. No indicators have yet been evaluated under Toxic Organic and Inorganic Chemicals.
Table 26. Summary of Freshwater Quality indicator evaluations. The numerical value under each consideration represents the number of evaluation criteria supported by peer-reviewed literature. For example, the indicator Nutrient Loadings from Rivers to Puget Sound has peer-reviewed literature supporting 2 out of 5 Primary Considerations criteria. Details can be found in the accompanying spreadsheets.
Indicator |
Primary Considerations (5) |
Data Considerations (8) |
Other Considerations (5) |
Summary |
Freshwater Quality Hydrodynamics |
||||
See Water Quantity |
|
|
|
|
Freshwater Quality Physical/Chemical Parameters |
||||
Sediment loadings rate |
|
|
|
|
Water Quality Index |
|
|
|
|
Nutrient loadings in rivers to Puget Sound |
2 |
6 |
3 |
Nutrient loading to marine photic zone may be significant though possibly less important to overall N when compared to marine sources. Nutrient concentrations in streams is affected by land-use changes, though relationship is complex. Management actions are limited against non-point sources. Effects of nutrient loading sometimes complex. Depending on receiving water, change in nutrient loading can affect eutrophication in a predictable manner. |
Trophic State Index – total phosphorus in lakes |
|
|
|
|
Dissolved Oxygen |
4 |
5 |
5 |
DO levels have clear effects on biota in rivers and streams. DO effected by nutrients. Management actions are limited against non-point nutrient sources. |
Water Temperature |
4 |
5 |
5 |
Elevated temperatures have clear effects on biota in rivers and streams. Temperature may be controlled by riparian vegetation and/or stream flows. Management options may be complex. |
Stream water quality parameters |
|
|
|
|
Spawning habitat water quality |
|
|
|
|
Lake water quality parameters – P, N, TSS, chl a |
|
|
|
|
Stream C and N flow |
|
|
|
|
Watershed nutrient hot spots |
|
|
|
|
Freshwater Quality Trace Inorganic and Organic Chemicals |
||||
Toxics in freshwater fish (multiple sources) |
|
|
|
|
Prespawn Mortality in Coho Salmon |
|
|
|
|
Toxics in water |
|
|
|
|
Toxics in freshwater fish (air deposition source) |
|
|
|
|
Fecal bacteria (streams |
|
|
|
|
Indicator |
Primary Considerations (5) |
Data Considerations (8) |
Other Considerations (5) |
Summary |
Biological Water Quality Index |
|
|
|
|
Indicators for freshwater hydrodynamics were evaluated under Freshwater Quantity – Surface Water Hydrologic Regime.
Next Step: Time constraints prevented a full evaluation of all water quality indicators in marine, freshwater and interface environments. An important next step is to complete the evaluation of water quality indicators. |
About the Science Review
Puget Sound Science Review
- Ecosystem-Based Management: Understanding Future and Desired System States
- Section 1. Introduction
- Section 2. The Future of Puget Sound: Where are We Going?
- Section 3. An Approach to Selecting Ecosystem Indicators for Puget Sound
- Section 4. Evaluation of Potential Indicators for Puget Sound
- Section 5. Results of the Indicator Evaluations
- Section 6. Defining Ecosystem Reference Levels: A Case in Puget Sound
- Section 7. Glossary
- Ecosystem-Based Management: Incorporating Human Well-being
- Ecosystem-Based Management: Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Strategies
- The Biophysical Condition of Puget Sound: Biology
- The Biophysical Condition of Puget Sound: Chemistry
- The Biophysical Condition of Puget Sound: Physical Environment
- Threats: Impacts of Natural Events and Human Activities on the Ecosystem