Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · ofr20191098

Analysis of groundwater response to tidal fluctuations, Operable Unit 1, Naval Base Kitsap, Keyport, Washington

Abstract

Chlorinated volatile organic compounds have affected groundwater beneath a former 9-acre landfill at Operable Unit 1 (OU 1) of Naval Base Kitsap (NBK) Keyport, in Keyport, Washington. The landfill was the primary disposal area for domestic and industrial waste generated by NBK Keyport from the 1930s through 1973. Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest, in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and the Suquamish Tribe, is charged with collecting necessary data to monitor the contamination left in place and to ensure that the site does not pose a risk to human health or the environment. To support these efforts, refined information was collected on how groundwater levels throughout OU 1 respond to tidal fluctuations at this nearshore site adjacent to Liberty Bay, an inlet of Puget Sound. The information was analyzed to determine the optimal times during the semidiurnal and the neap-spring tidal cycles to sample groundwater for contaminants associated with fresh groundwater originating from OU 1. The optimal times for sampling are presumed to be when fresh groundwater flowing seaward is least impeded by elevated tides, and those times are related to predicted tide levels by tidal lags, the durations between low tides, and corresponding low groundwater levels. Discrete groundwater-specific conductance data also were collected to determine if a seawater/freshwater interface was present at any of the monitoring wells, and to inform decisions on the depth at which groundwater should be sampled in existing wells. Groundwater and surface-water levels were monitored at 19 monitoring wells and five adjacent surface-water sites. Specific conductance was monitored in each surface-water site. All time-series data parameters were collected every 15 minutes during a 4-week duration to measure how nearshore groundwater responds to tidal forcing. Time-series data were collected from July 12, 2018, to August 8, 2018, a period that included neap and spring tides. Vertical water-quality profiles were measured once in the screened interval of nine selected monitoring wells. The profiles included measurements at the top, middle, and bottom of each saturated screen interval. Tidal lag times were determined relative to tidal levels in Liberty Bay (rather than in the more nearby Tide Flats) because the predicted tides for the Poulsbo, Washington Station (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] Station 9445719) that are used to schedule groundwater sampling represent open-water conditions in the area; a sill that separates Dogfish Bay from the Tide Flats clearly affects the timing and magnitude of low-low tides in the Tide Flats. Calculated tidal lag times were divided into three general groups: (1) wells where groundwater responded to tidal level changes immediately, (2) wells where groundwater responded to tidal level changes within about 2–5 hours, and (3) wells where groundwater had minimal response to tidal level changes. Groundwater levels in the middle group of wells primarily responded in concert with tidal level changes in the Tide Flats rather than tidal level changes in Liberty Bay. An intended sampling depth refinement based on an assessment of transient seawater intrusion was not completed because of a failure to collect specific-conductance time-series data in select wells. Instead, discrete specific-conductance data from this and prior studies were evaluated to determine that the midpoint of well screens in OU 1 wells can be assumed to be a reasonably representative of undiluted groundwater. When sampling during spring (rather than neap) tides (as has generally been the standard practice at OU 1), the optimal time to sample the monitoring wells influenced by tides would be to add the tidal lags presented in this report to the time of the predicted low-low tide for Liberty Bay as measured at NOAA Station 9445719 at Poulsbo, Washington. Sampling schedules for the six wells where groundwater levels were only minimally influenced by tide changes should not be constrained by tidal conditions.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 47.694699930336995° to 47.69943693711954° latitude; -122.62941598892212° to -122.62280702590942° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Chad C. Opatz, Richard S. Dinicola. 2019-09-05. Analysis of groundwater response to tidal fluctuations, Operable Unit 1, Naval Base Kitsap, Keyport, Washington. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20191098

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona