Puget Sound Water Properties
and Quality
• Chemical and biological characteristics,
some of which can be affected by
anthropogenic actions
• Measuring and modeling
• PRISM “salty” partners include:
Institutions: UW, WA Ecology, King Co DNR
Projects: NOPP modeling, ORCA, JEMS
Overarching Goal
Through a strongly interacting combination of direct
observations and computer models representing
physical, chemical, and biological processes in Puget
Sound, provide a record of Puget Sound water
properties, as well as model now-casts and
projections. The information will be used to develop
a mechanistic understanding of the Sound’s
dynamics, how human actions and climate influence
these (e.g., “what-if scenarios”), and how, in turn, the
water properties influence marine resources and
ecosystem health (linkage with other PRISM
elements).
Key questions
• Understanding plankton dynamics in a temperate fjord:
- What physical dynamics of water mass variation most influence stratification, and
what is the phytoplankton response?
- How important is nitrate versus ammonium in controlling phytoplankton
production?
- What controls light availability for phytoplankton in the euphotic zone?
• Assessing ecosystem integrity:
- Do salmon have food they need to survive? Is timing ok and what affects that?
- What food-web shifts (e.g., macrozoops vs. gelatinous) affect fish etc survival?
- How does an invasive species with certain growth/grazing characteristics impact
food-web?
• Understanding perturbation impacts (e.g., climate, human):
- How does productivity differ with ENSO and PDO stages?
- How does flushing differ with ENSO and PDO stages?
- Do land-use practices affect water properties and phytoplankton?
Uses and benefits
• The information will be used
– for teaching at various levels
– to promote and aid research
– to help define effective regional planning
• Public benefit includes:
– Resource and habitat protection (e.g., clean
water, fish, shellfish)
– Waste/pollution planning and allocation
– Puget Sound quality maintenance
PRISM – Puget Sound Water
Properties – prime suspects
• UW: Mark Warner, Al Devol, Steve
Emerson, Miles Logsdon, Jeff Richey,
Kate Edwards, Mitsuhiro Kawase
• WA Ecology: Jan Newton, Rick
Reynolds, Skip Albertson
• KC-DNR: Randy Shuman, Bruce Nairn
Partnerships/ Observations
Monitoring
Virtual Puget Sound
Remote Climate
sensing variation
impacts
Modeling
Partnerships/ Observations
Monitoring
Virtual Puget Sound
Remote Climate
sensing variation
impacts
Modeling
Ships &
Buoys
Partnerships/ Observations
Monitoring
Virtual Puget Sound
Remote Climate
sensing variation
impacts
Modeling
Marine Water Quality Index
DO FCB DIN NH4 Stratif Concern
49
Budd Inlet Very Low High Low High P
S. Hood Canal Very Low Low P
Penn Cove Very Low Low P
Commencement Bay Low Very High P
Elliott Bay Low Very High P
Oakland Bay Very High Moderate Moderate E
Grays Harbor Very High Moderate P-E
upper Willapa Bay Very High Low Moderate E-W
Possession Sound Low High Moderate High P
Sinclair Inlet Low High Low Moderate P
Bellingham Bay Low Moderate Low Moderate P
Drayton Harbor Moderate Low S
N. Hood Canal Low Low P
Port Orchard High Moderate S
Case Inlet Low Moderate Moderate Moderate S
Latitude (deg)
Carr Inlet Low Moderate Moderate S
Quartermaster Hbr Low Moderate S
Totten Inlet Moderate Moderate E
Saratoga Passage
Holmes Harbor
Skagit
Port Susan
West Point
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate P
P
P
P
E
48
Ships &
Dungeness Low S
Port Gamble
Sequim Bay
Discovery Bay
Willapa Bay
Dyes Inlet
Eld Inlet
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
S
S
S
E-W
S
S
Buoys
East Sound High S
Burley-Minter Moderate E
Port Townsend Low W
Strait of Georgia Low S
47
-123.5 -123.0 -122.5 -122.0
Longitude (deg)
Partnerships/ Observations
Monitoring
Virtual Puget Sound
Remote Climate
sensing variation
impacts
Modeling
Marine Water Quality Index
Ships &
Buoys
Remote
sensing
Partnerships/ Observations
Monitoring
Virtual Puget Sound
Remote Climate
sensing variation
impacts
Modeling
Remote
sensing
Marine Water Quality Index
Buoys
mg C m-2 d-1
Ships &
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Oct-97
Nov-97
Dec-97
Jan-98
Toke Pt.
Feb-98
Mar-98
Apr-98
May-98
Jun-98
Jul-98
Bay Center
Aug-98
Sep-98
Oct-98
Nov-98
Dec-98
Oysterville
Jan-99
Feb-99
Mar-99
La Niña
Apr-99
May-99
Naselle
Willapa Integrated Primary Production
Jun-99
El Niño vs
Jul-99
Aug-99
Sep-99
G-33
Oct-99
Nov-99
Dec-99
Partnerships/ Observations
Monitoring
Virtual Puget Sound
Remote Climate
sensing variation
impacts
Modeling
Marine Water Quality Index
Ships &
Buoys
El Niño vs
La Niña
Remote
sensing
Aquatic biogeochemical cycling model
Marine Water Quality Index
DO FCB DIN NH4 Stratif Concern
49
Budd Inlet Very Low High Low High P
S. Hood Canal Very Low Low P
Penn Cove Very Low Low P
Commencement Bay Low Very High P
Elliott Bay Low Very High P
Oakland Bay Very High Moderate Moderate E
Grays Harbor Very High Moderate P-E
upper Willapa Bay Very High Low Moderate E-W
Possession Sound Low High Moderate High P
Sinclair Inlet Low High Low Moderate P
Bellingham Bay Low Moderate Low Moderate P
Drayton Harbor Moderate Low S
N. Hood Canal Low Low P
Port Orchard High Moderate S
Case Inlet Low Moderate Moderate Moderate S
Latitude (deg)
Carr Inlet Low Moderate Moderate S
Quartermaster Hbr Low Moderate S
Totten Inlet Moderate Moderate E
Saratoga Passage
Holmes Harbor
Skagit
Port Susan
West Point
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate P
P
P
P
E
48
Ships &
Dungeness Low S
Port Gamble
Sequim Bay
Discovery Bay
Willapa Bay
Dyes Inlet
Eld Inlet
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
S
S
S
E-W
S
S
Buoys
East Sound High S
Burley-Minter Moderate E
Port Townsend Low W
Strait of Georgia Low S
47
-123.5 -123.0 -122.5 -122.0
Longitude (deg)
El Niño vs
La Niña
Willapa Integrated Primary Production
Toke Pt. Bay Center Oysterville Naselle G-33
6000
Remote
5000
4000
mg C m-2 d-1
sensing 3000
2000
1000
0
Mar-98
May-98
Jul-98
Aug-98
Mar-99
May-99
Apr-98
Apr-99
Jul-99
Aug-99
Nov-97
Dec-97
Jan-98
Feb-98
Jun-98
Sep-98
Nov-98
Dec-98
Jan-99
Feb-99
Jun-99
Sep-99
Nov-99
Oct-97
Oct-98
Oct-99
Dec-99
Aquatic biogeochemical cycling model
Partnerships/ Observations
Monitoring
Virtual Puget Sound
Remote Climate
sensing variation
impacts
Modeling
1. How are we measuring
Puget Sound Water Properties
and Quality?
• PRISM-sponsored cruises
• Partnership with WA Ecology and King
Co monitoring (PSAMP)
• JEMS: Joint Effort to Monitor the Strait,
co-sponsored by MEHP, et al.
• ORCA: Ocean Remote Chemical-optical
Analyzer, initial sponsorship
EPA/NASA, also WA SG, KC-DNR
PRISM cruises
• Annual June and Dec.
cruises; 10 so far
• Greater Puget Sound
including Straits
• Synoptic hydrographic,
chemical, and
biological data
• Input for models,
student theses,
regional assessments
Value of a PRISM cruise?
• Student training and involvement
– UG and G; majors and non-majors
• Data collection on synoptic basis
– verification for models
– time-series at solstices
• Involvement of larger community
– media, K-12, other marine programs,
local governments
PRISM cruise participation:
• UW Undergraduates - 34 persons, 60 trips (41%)
– Oceanography - 30
– Other Majors - 4 [UW Tacoma , Biochemistry, Computer Sci, Fisheries]
• UW Grad Students- 21 persons, 23 trips (16%)
– Oceanography - 11
– Other Majors - 10 [Chem, Geol, Appl Math, Biol, Genetics, Sci Ed, Foriegn]
• WA State Dept. Ecology - 8 persons, 20 trips
• UW Faculty - 4 persons, 13 trips
• King County DNR - 4 persons, 5 trips
• US Coast Guard Techs - 6 persons
• Congressional Staff - 6 persons Data after 7 cruises:
• Media - 4 persons Totals : 94 persons, 146 trips
• UW Staff - 3 persons 57% student labor
• CORE - 2 persons
• NOAA/PMEL - 1 person
• Ocean Inquiry Project - 1 person
• High School Teacher - 1 person
PRISM Observations:
Hood Canal Oxygen and Ammonium
Marine Water Quality Status and Susceptibility
Partnership: Ecology
PSAMP monitoring
• Analysis of monitoring data
identified South Puget Sound
as an area susceptible to
eutrophication
• Led to focused study on
South Sound nutrient
sensitivity (SPASM)
• Coordination of SPASM
Areas of known low DO (yellow = biological stress; and PRISM modeling/observ.
red = hypoxia), and areas with susceptibility to
eutrophication (pink) on physical/chemical characteristics. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/
Partnership: KC-
DNR’s WWTP siting
• Region’s growth is
requiring greater capacity
to treat wastewater. New
WWTP proposed.
• KC MOSS study to site
marine outfall and assess
potential impacts
• Coordinated modeling/
Marine outfall zones
observ. effort with PRISM
with depth contours
http://www.metrokc.gov/
JEMS need to know ocean boundary
Compare Sept 2000 with Sept 2001:
Temperature Station 0 Temperature (o C)
0
8
.5
9
10 .
11
9.5
8
9.5
8.5
9.5
10
5
9.5
11
10
7.5
9
50 10 9.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
Depth (m)
9
8
9
8
9
100
9
8.5
8
8.5
8
150
8
8
Why is S O N D J F M A M J
2000
J A S O N D J F M A M J
2001
J A S O N D J F M A
2002
Salinity
there 0
0
Station Temperature (o C)
Station 1 0 Salinity (PSU)
31
8
10
11
30
8.5
9.5
9.5
831
30
10 1 31
30 .5
10
0 .5
9.5
30 .5
9
9
warmer
9.5
8.5
5
50 30 .
31
50
31
31
30 .5
9
8.5
.5 9
31 .5
Depth (m)
8.5
fresher
Depth (m)
9
7.5
.5
.5
31 .5
31
31
8
31
32
8.5
32
8.5
31
8
31
100
100
31 .5
8.5
8
32
.5
32
water in
32
32 8 32 .5 32 .5 8
32
8
8
150
31
32
150
2001 ?? S O N D J F M A M J
S O N D J F M A M J
2000
2000
J
J A S O N D J F M A M J
A S O N D J F M A M J
2001
2001
J A S O N D J F M A
J A S O N D J F M A
2002
2002
Station Temperature (o C)
Station 2 1 Salinity (PSU)
0 31 30
0 8 31 9 11 5 8
8
.5
30
10
9.5
9.5
.5
0.
9.5
8
10
.5
30
1
3
9/2/99 10/15/99 11/23/99 12/20/99
20 20 20 20
Cross-Channel 40 40 40 40
Depth (m)
60 60 60 60
80 80 80 80
100 100 100 100
Density Gradient 120
140
0 1 2
120
140
0 1 2
120
140
0 1 2
120
140
0 1 2
1/27/00 2/12/00 3/5/00 3/29/00
20 20 20 20
40 40 40 40
Depth (m)
60 60 60 60
80 80 80 80
100 100 100 100
120 120 120 120
140 140 140 140
0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2
5/2/00 7/5/00 8/31/00 11/14/00
Warmer fresher
20 20 20 20
40 40 40 40
Depth (m)
60 60 60 60
80 80 80 80
water drives
100 100 100 100
120 120 120 120
140 140 140 140
stronger density
0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2
1/15/01 3/23/01 6/25/01 7/29/01
20 20 20 20
gradient during
Depth (m) 40 40 40 40
60 60 60 60
80 80 80 80
100 100 100 100
Sep 2001 than 120
140
0 1 2
120
140
0 1 2
120
140
0 1 2
120
140
0 1 2
in Sep 2000
9/13/01 1/30/02 3/25/02 Density (sigma-t)
22
20 20 20
40 40 40
Depth (m)
60 60 60
80 80 80
100 100 100
120 120 120
140 140 140
26
0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 Colorbar
Station Station Station
North South
High River Flow
Geostrophic Velocity
Geostrophic Velocity (cm/s)
0
-5 00
Large Cross-
-3 0
-2 0
-4
-2 0
-20
-3 0
-10
-2 0
-4 0
-2 0
-6 0
-2 0
-2 0
Channel 20
-5 0
-2 0
-1 0
-2 0
-1 0
-1 0
-1 0
Gradient 40 -1 0
-3 0
-4 0
Depth (m)
-3 0
-2 0
-1 0
60
0
-2 0
0
Increased -1
0
-1 0
0
-1 0
-1 0
Geostrophic 80
0
0
0
Out Flow
0
100
0
0
0
0 0
S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A
2000 2001 2002
Decreased
Residence
2000 drought had consequences…
Time
1. Re: Puget Sound measurements
• Good start and better coordination now
• But, need more comprehensive views in
time and space
• Develop moorings, gliders, satellite and
aircraft remote sensing
• IOOS may help, but may not extend to
estuaries
How are we modeling Puget
Sound Water Properties and
Quality?
• “ABC” model: Aquatic Biogeochemical
Cycling
• NOPP partnership:
– UW, WA Ecology, KC-DNR, OIP, Navy
– Hub for models, data output, forum
– Includes funds for sediment module, data
management/assimilation, outreach/educ.
What is an Aquatic
Biogeochemical Cycling Model
and why develop one for PRISM?
• Describes the dynamics of nutrients, plankton, and
organic material in a water column; this has defining
importance for water quality, food for higher trophic
levels, and change impact projections.
• Models commonly in use (e.g., EPA) take more of a
curve-fitting approach, are composed of antiquated
coding, and do not support teaching as well.
• The model is an essential tool for exploring the
fundamentals of biogeochemical cycling in Puget
Sound, for use in planning or ”what-if” scenarios,
and for use in teaching and communication.
Aquatic Biogeochemical
Cycling Model: Features
• Under active development (UW, WDOE, KCDNR)
• Simulates three-dimensional concentrations of
chemical and biological entities:
• Dissolved oxygen and nutrients (NO3, PO4, NH4)
• Phytoplankton biomass (three types)
• Zooplankton biomass (three types)
• Particulate and dissolved organic matter (C, N, P)
• Externally forced by hydrodynamics and sunlight
• Designed to interface with a variety of circulation models
including POM, linkage to MM-5 and SWIM
• Spatially explicit model based on published
equations for biological and chemical reactions
Biogeochemical Systems Model
rPOC rPON rPOP
lPOC lPON lPOP
DOC DON DOP
O2
NO3 PO4
NH4
Z1ic Z2mac Z3gel
P1flag P2dia P3nan
Aquatic Biogeochemical Cycling
Model: Applications
• Primary applications are to assess:
– dynamics of phytoplankton blooms (eutrophic’n, HABs)
– dynamics of dissolved oxygen and water quality
– sensitivity to changes, both human (e.g., WWTP, climate
change) and natural (e.g., ENSO, regime shift)
• Suitable for both marine and freshwater systems
• Supports linkages; will provide output to
– nearshore sediment-biological model
– higher trophic level models (e.g., salmon!)
• Same tool can be used for teaching, basic research,
applied research, and planning decisions.
Aquatic Biogeochemical Cycling
Model: Status
• Coded in C++ by Computer Science Honors UG
• User-friendly web interface (GUI) allows easy model
runs, storing coefficients
• 1-cell model and web interface used and tested in
graduate-level class Spring, 2000
• Coupled ABC to POM; testing coupled model in Budd
Inlet against other model output and field data
• Soon to be able to run coupled model from web
• Working on visualization schemes for sections, time-
series, and animations
1-cell ABC model output, constant light, no mixing
10
9
8
7
6
NO3
5 Diatoms
Copepods
4
3
2
1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
time (days)
10
9
8
7
6
NO3
Diatoms
5 Copepods
Jellyfish
DON
4
3
2
1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
time (days)
Plan view of phytoplankton conc. in Budd Inlet
10 mmoles phyto C /m3
Northing (km)
1
1 3
Easting (km)
Longitudinal section of temperature in Budd Inlet
Northing (km) degrees C
1 9
0
Depth (m)
14
“A Partnership for Modeling the Marine
Environment of Puget Sound, Washington”
NOPP / PRISM
• Develop, maintain and operate a system of
simulation models of Puget Sound’s circulation and
ecosystem, a data management system for
oceanographic data and model results, and an
effective delivery interface for the model results and
observational data for research, education and policy
formulation.
• Develop fundamental understanding of the Sound’s
working, and address questions raised by the
regional community concerning management of the
Sound and its resources.
2. Re: Puget Sound modeling
• Good start and better coordination now
• But, need completion of model
integration (with POM et al.) and
verification (with observational data and
other models)
• NOPP Modeling grant will help with
model development, outreach, context
Our GOALS for 2002-3:
• Continue time-series of observations
– JEMS
– PRISM cruises
– ORCA
– PSAMP
• Extract more science from data collected so far
• Database development and documentation
• Further develop ABC Model
– Improve operational status
– Sophisticate ABC model integration with POM model
• Use observational data for model verification
– Continue work on Budd Inlet sub-model
– Conduct coordinated observation/modeling project: MIXED
• Outreach to schools, science community, and public
Goals for achieving VPS
• Internal to ABC:
– Sediment module
• ABC needs directly:
– POM (hydrodynamics)
• DSHVM (river input)
• MM-5 (weather forcings)
• ABC can support:
– Sediment/toxics transport and fate
– Nearshore processes (NearPRISM)
– Upper trophic levels (e.g., fish management)
– HABs