.r.
r..
p,
COG\"
MGGau\eY
S\otta
S®1\ttt
Be\\
Ft,
\
R P
®. 'l
parr
°pdgir9
Ore on
Univeersity
0re90r
and
Gharre\
Sp°,`rr9Qay
G°Os
01
feks
FINAL R PORTIESTON' OREGQN
Research Supported by
Navigation Division
Department of the Army
Portland District, Corps of Engineers
Portland, Oregon
Contract No. DACW57-73-C-0089
and
Division of Environmental Systems and Resources
Research Applications Directorate
National Science Foundation Grant GI-34346
Final Report
Effects of Hopper Dredging and In Channel Spoiling
(October 4, 1972) in Coos Bay, Oregon
by
L.S. Slotta
C.K. Sollitt
D.A. Bella
D.H. Hancock
J.E. McCauley
R. Parr
Research Supported by
Navigation Division
Department of the Army
Portland District, Corps of Engineers
Portland, Oregon
Contract No. DACW57-73-C-OO89
and
Division of Environmental Systems and Resources
Research Applications Directorate
National Science Foundation 11Grant GI-34346
Interdisciplinary
Studies of the
School of Engineering
School of Oceanography
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
July, 1973
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I
PAGE
INTRODUCTION .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
Scope and Purpose .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
Purpose of Study
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Project and Site Description
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
Physical and Chemical Measurements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
Hydraulic and Meteorlogical Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
Benthic Systems Data for Coos Bay Study.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
Biological Studies of Coos Bay Dredging.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
.
.
.
Scope of Study
Research Scope .
II
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
Integration of Efforts .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
Acknowledgments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
SEDIMENT PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Sampling Program .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
Laboratory Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
Interpretation of Results
Particle Size Distribution .
Vola,`ile Solids .
Specific Gravity .
Porosity.....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
21
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hygroscopic Moisture Content. . .
Sediment Stake and Bucket Survey.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
21
26
ESTUARINE 3ENTHIC SYSTEMS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
35
Summary
III
.
.
.
.
.
Introduction .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
35
Procedures .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
.
CHAPTER
PAGE
Interpretation of Results.
36
Evaluation Techniques.
45
Related Water Quality Measurements
46
Summary.
IV
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF DREDGE AND SPOIL SITE.
Results,
.
.
,
Dredge Site (Stations 1-6)
.
.
.
.
.
.
Spoil Site (Stations 10, 11 and 12).
Hopper Samples
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Discussion
.
Spoil Site
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
48
.
50
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Summary and Conclusions.
.
.
.
.
.
53
57
57
59
.
.
Conclusions.
.
.
.
47
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
60
61
.
61
.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
72
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER II.
.
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER III
.
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IV.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
74
124
.
.
.
.
.
131
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
PAGE
1.1
Tidelands Map of Coos Bay
1.2
Coos Bay,
1.3
1.4
1.5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
.
.
.
.
.
9
Summary of wind speed and direction, October 4, 1972
at Mile 13+40, Coos Bay, Oregon . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14.0,
August 30, 1972.
.
.
.
Oregon, Ferndale E Marshfield Ranges,
River Mile 13.0 to
Coos Bay,
.
Oregon, Ferndale E Marshfield Ranges,
River Mile 13.0 to
Coos Bay,
.
14.0,
October
1972
11,
.
.
Oregon, Ferndale & Marshfield Ranges
River Mile 13.0 to 14.0, April
1973
18,
.
.
.
Computer reduction of surface dye streak releases
recorded through aerial photometric techniques.
.
1.5
2.1
Surface Sample Uniformity and Median Grain Size
.
.
.
.
.
16
2.2
Subsurface Sample Uniformity and Median Grain Size.
.
.
.
.
17
2.3
Long-Term Return of Uniformity and Median
Size
.
.
.
.
19
2.4
Surface Sample Volatile Solids and Median Gran Size
.
.
.
.
20
2.5
Specific Gravity
2.6
Surface Sample Porosity and Median Grain Size
2.7
Surface Sample Hygroscopic Moisture and Median Grain Size .
24
2.8
Bucket and Sediment Stake Locations
.
25
3.1
Measurements within Benthic System,
and Median Grain Size
Site A, Pre-dredging
3.2
3.3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
37
.
.
.
.
.
.
38
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
.
.
.
Measurements within Benthic System,
Site B. Pre-dredging
(9/28/72) .
.
.
.
Measurements within Benthic System,
Site C. Pre-dredging
3.4
(9/28/72).
.
Grar,.
.
(9/28/72)
.
.
.
Measurements within Benthic System,
Site A, Post-dredging (10/9/62)
.
.
.
.
.
FIGURE
PAGE
Measurements within Benthic System,
Site R, Post-dredging (10/9/72)
.
3.6
3.7
4.1
.
Measurement within Benthic System,
Site C, Post-dredging (10/9/72)
.
.
.
R
.
.
41
4
Tidal Flat Areas.
.
,
,
44
,
.
Dredge Site Mean Grab Volume;
,
9
.
Spoil Site Mean Grab Volume,
Mean 0.5 mm Sieve Volume,
.
.
,
,
4.3
Dredge Site Mean Abundance of Total Organisms
.
.
4.4
Dredge Site Total Organisms/Collection.
.
.
.
,
.
.
4.6
Spoil Site Mean Abundance of Total Qrgarnisms.
.
4,7
Spoil Site Total Organisms/Collection
.
4.5
42
.
Examples of bstuarine Renthic Systems within
can o.5 mm Sieve Volume.
4.2
.
.
.
52
,
.
.
.
.
54
S
Dredge Site Percentage Change in Major Taaca
After Dredging.
.
.
.
.
.
a
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
9
.
p
.
.
,
.
58
,
.
,
.
62
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
2.1
Sediment Property Summary
4.1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
27
Sediment Data - Dredge Site
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
64
4.2
Sediment Data - Spoil Site.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
66
4.3
Dredge Hopper Samples
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
67
4.4
Differences Between Means of Total Abundance
Grab Bite Volume and 0.5 mm Sieve Volume from
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
68
4.5
Number of Taxa Before:After Dredging and Spoiling
.
.
.
.
.
.
69
4.6
Shannon-Weaver Diversity Indices (H')
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
70
4.7
Equitability Component of Calculated H' Values.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
71
Sample Description .
.
.
Dredge and Spoil Stations
11.2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
74
.
.
III.1
Hydrolab Water Quality Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
124
111.2
Bottle Sample Water Quality Data.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
128
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
131
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
132
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
IV.1
Counts of Organisms Normalized to #/1000 cc
for Dredge Stations
IV.2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Counts of Organisms Normalized to #/1000 cc
for Spoil Stations
IV.3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Organism Counts/Liter Sample from Dredge Hopper
133
LIST OP APPENDICES
PAGE
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 2
Table 11.2
Sample Description.
.
.
.
74
.
.
.
.
81
.
.
.
.
.
124
.
.
.
.
.
128
(Counts of Organisms normalized to
#/1000 cc for dredge/spoil stations').
.
.
.
.
131
(Counts of Organisms normalized to
#/1000 cc for dredge/spoil stations).
.
.
.
.
132
Organism counts/liter sample from dredge
hopper. Counts cannot be normalized due
...
to unknown dilution factors.
.
.
133
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Soils Data - Grain Size Analysis.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Table III.1
Hydrolab Water Quality Data.
.
.
.
.
Table 111.2
Bottle Sample Water Quality Data
.
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 3
.
.
.
.
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 4
Appendix IV.I
Appendix IV.2
Appendix IV.3
.
.
.
.
.
ABSTRACT
Effects of Hopper Dredging and In Channel Spoiling
(October 4, 1972) in Coos Bay, Oregon
by
L.S. Slotta, C.K. Sollitt, D.A. Bella, D.H. Hancock,
J.E. McCauley, R. Parr
An integrated study was conducted to
gain insight on actual chemical, physical and biological effects associated with the dredging and disposal
methods of a hopper dredge.
Field
investigations and subsequent laboratory analyses were organized to evaluate the nature and ,Magnitude of environmental changes ?-esulting from
dredging activities on October 4,
1972, at Coos Bay, Oregon, over miles
13+00 to 13+40.
Methods and evaluation techniques for proper assessment are discussed and post-dredging
conditions compared to a pre-dredging
baseline.
Following dredging, sediments were
found to:
(1) decrease in median
grain size at the dredge site due to
exposure of fine subsurface material;
(2) increase in median grain size and
decrease in uniformity at the spoil
site due to loss of fines; (3) decrease in porosity at the spoil site
due to the ability of the coarse sediments to resist resuspension, and (4)
decrease in volatile solids at the
spoil site due to loss of light organics (that surface spoils were high
in volatile solids .mmediately after
spoiling before the wood chips were
washed away).
Bottom sediment ins:ability was pronounced; frequent rwsuspension of the
surface sediments was in evidence as
sediment profiles revealed corase material near the surface and finer material settled at depth. Destablilizing
forces such as dredge spoiling or frequent marine traffi_- in the navigation
channels resuspend sediments allowing
fines to be washed away by currents.
Natural deposition provided more fines
in bottom deposits than dredge spoiling.
Chronic environmental impacts caused by
continuous marine traffic may be more
significant than the acute impacts
caused by singular dredging operations.
Free sulfides were not detected in
interstitial waters of the sediments
at the dredging site, nor overlying
waters.
The absence of free sulfides
may have been due to frequent overturning of the bottom materials by marine
traffic.
Before dredging, turbidity
levels exceed 80 JTU (Jackson Turbidity
Units); but rose to over 500 JTU in the
wake of the dredge during dredging and
spoiling exceeding Environmental Protection Agency recommended levels.
Debris increased in bottom sediments
as a result of spoiling.
The benthic fauna in the study area on
Coos Bay were reuaresentative of a moderately polluted environment. Significant reduction of infaunal abundance
was observed following dredging and
spoiling.
Increased diversity immediately following dredging and spoiling
may be due to increased homogenization
of patchiness.
Incomplete dredging left
submerged hummocks which might be important in subsequent re-establishment of
biota.
Biological sampling on board the
dredge was not as satisfactory as benthic
sampling.
The physical, chemical and biological sampling techniques employed were found to be
quite useful for describing acute effects
of dredge spoil distribution and estuarine
impacts, but more efficient techniques are
needed to gain spatial and temporal resolution of chronic, long-term effects.
Chapter
I.
INTRODUCTION
Many changes result from the intensification of use of the estuarine zone.
Many of man's productive activities can
result in environmental degredation.
Dredging and maintaining channels permit safer and better navigation, but
can be considered to have pollution
potential.
Materials, foreign or undesirable, which might cause serious
changes in the aquatic and benthic
habitat of the estuary, can be introduced or resuspended into the water
through dredging operations. Bottom
materials exposed by dredging, if sufficiently high in organic content, can
adversely affect oxygen resources of
the stream.
Dispo;al of dredged materials can create water quality problems
unless these materials are expressly
used for land fills.
"The disposition of dredged spoil
is currently the most highly publicized of the possible sources
of pollution from a Federal activity.
Research is underway seeking
to determine whether dredged spoil
is in actuality an active pollutant, or if it is, to what extent
its introduction into any given
body of water does in fact lower
the quality of that water. Whatever the answers are, the continuing viability of the rivers and
harbors that produces the spoil
are essential to the economies of
the regions they serve and hence to
the total national interest." 1,2
1.
Draft Plan of Study, Dredge Disposal
Study for San Francisco Bay and Estuary,
U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco Corps of Engineers, San Francicso,
California.
December, 1971.
2.
References will be listed in the bibliography section.
-1-
The assessment of impacts associated
with dredging and filling activities
and the proper management to minimize these impacts is extremely
difficult because these activities
take place in the estuary -- a
most complex biophysical environ-
SCOPE AND PURPOSE
ment.
channel of Coos Bay, Oregon, to fulfill
a contract with the Portland District,
Navigation Division, Waterways Maintenance Branch, North Pacific Division,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
Oregon State University team was to
obtain and to analyze chemical, physical
and biological data at the dredging and
disposal sites.
An interdisciplinary team covering
the academic disciplines of biological oceanography, benthic ecology,
water chemistry, estuarine hydrodynamics, systems modeling and
environmental engineering assembled
in July 1972 to engage
:^_n exploratory
studies concerning dredge spoil distribution and estuarine effects.
Their efforts gained support from
the Environmental Systems Resources
Program of the National Science
Foundation Research Applied to the
Nation's Needs program. The primary
objective of the NSF-RANN studies
was to "develop and evaluate methods
suitable for measuring and evaluating ecological changes due to
estuarine dredging operations."
An ultimate objective of the subsequent studies was to progress
with accumulated knowledge and
develop reliable assessment methods
to recommend environmental guidelines concerning dredging operations.
The Portland District, Navigation
Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
provided welcomed interchange regard-
ing the continued development of the
Subsequently during
study needs arose for
the Corps of Engineers which were of
interest, but were beyond the scope
of the scheduled dredging investigations of the Oregon State UniversNSF-RANN studies.
the 1972 summer,
ity
reserachers.
Ultimately, dis-
cussions led to a contract to examine the effects of hopper dredging
and in-channel spoil disposal in Coos
Bay, Oregon. This opportunity for
university-agency interaction would
satisfactorily meet the goals of the
NSF-RANN study effort and hopefully
would give a proper assessment of
dredging-spoiling impacts through a
coordinated interdisciplinary study.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate effects of hopper dredging and dis-
posal of polluted spoils into the inner
Project and Site Description
This study was arranged on short notice.
The actual dredging operations occurred
on October 4, 1972, and only three weeks
before this were negotiations for the
project initiated. The U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers' hopper dredge Chester
Harding removed 800C cubic yard in
approximately 1800 cubic yard loads
from Coos Bay Channel M 13+40 to 14+00
in shoal areas. The dredging was done
in Coos Bay, Oregon;; where Isthmus
Slough enters the Coos River'off the
city of Coos Bay (Figure 1.1).
Coos Bay is the largest and most industrialized bay in Oregon, excepting the
It covers nearly 10,000
Columbia River.
acres of which about half are tidelands.
The Coos River is the major fresh water
source entering the bay; however, many
minor streams also enter the system.
Waterborn commerce tonnage for 1970 was
Coos Bay had 148 vessels
3,782,000 tons.
in the 28-30 ft. draft class and 37
vessels drawing more than 30 ft. visited
during the May 1970-May 1971 year. Continued dredging is necessary to permit
medium draft (30-40 ft.) vessels to
enter Coos Bay.
Annual maintenance dredging averages
about 1,800,000 cubic yards, with approximately 501,000 cubic yards removed from
miles 12-15. Major problems in the estuary are considered to be loss of marine habitat
913
R12
000
619000
60.000
_- Ma
Ilda is
1
5000mmiM Loa*16
Soul. ron of fM ol. M.roMry
fHIJ.a a15. aM 0 6 ml5.a
RiwrIM tun lion of iM
Tgstrld
Cmrpl.d Frm. 1969 and 1972 Om.l
TIDELAND MAP
PfaNNO.pIr/. FW Aglo M..Ilfmloi 0c566 1972
Cmlyd Fray CG G S CRmf No. 5994, U 5G S GUNS,
and O96poR S505. Dept of Rew.u.0 66 Caer Mop.
00.50 5505. P1vq Com4naN. Sov.R Zar.
COOS BAY
STATE of OREGON
DIVISION of STATE LANDS
Rabyp G.d
Februory
Figure
1.1
Tidelands Map of Coos Bay
-3-
1973
caused by creation of spoil islands
through dredge spoil disposal, pollution associated with log storage,
pulp manufacturing, fish processing
and domestic wastes.
2.
Details of the specific site are included in appropriate places in this
Related information on Coos
study.
Bay, its population, economics, and
general ecology can be found in recent
Percy et. al., Description
reports:
4.
3.
S.
the collection of data on and
evaluation of the effect of dredging
on these bent:aic organisms;
the measurement of quantitative
changes in sediment composition
following dredging and spoiling;
the derivation of conclusions from
general surveys of the physical
chemical environment, and
the preliminary determination of
the effectiveness of measurement
methods.
and Information Sources for Oregon's
Estuaries, Oregon State University,
1973; Stevens, Thompson and Runyan,
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL MEASUREMENTS
Management of Dredge Spoils in Coos
Bay, 1972; and the 197:. U.S. Department of Interior Report on Natural
Resources, Ecological Aspects, Uses
and Guidelines for the Management of
Coos Bay, Oregon, and others.
Core samples were collected from ten locations throughout the dredge and spoils
areas. The cores were analyzed for par-
ticle size gradation,, porosity, hygroscopic moisture, an& volatile solids.
The samples were collected before, imme-
diately following, &.nd two months following dredging. A row of five-gallon
Scope of Study
Post-dredging conditions were to be
compared to generalized baseline
conditions established before dredging.
Such an environmental assessment would
be directed toward determining:
1.
the constitution and quality
of dredge spoil in situ
before
dredging and after
spoiling;
2.
3.
the water
quality at
area to determine th.e character of
settleable materials. These settle
able solids, which were collected
shortly after the dredging operation,
were analyzed for particle size gradation, hygroscopic moisture, and volatile
Changes in sediment type and
solids.
wood material content were recorded.
the dredge
and spoil sites;
and the benthic biology of
dredge and spoil sites before
and after spoiling.
Interelation of these factors were
to estimate the environmental
of dredging operations.
used
impact
The tasks completed by the OSU researchers in this Coos Bay study can
be summarized as:
1.
sediment buckets were submerged and
placed by scuba divers in the spoils
the collection of data on and
evaluation of the presence of
benthic organisms before dredging and spoi-7ing;
Sediment stakes were placed adjacent to
the buckets along the channel's bottom
in the spoils area and were monitored by
scuba divers before, two days and, also,
two weeks after dredging to determine the
erosion rate of settled spoil.
A Hydrolab Water Quality
monitor was used
before and after dredging to measure dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, and conductivity throughout the water column
near established stations at the dredge
and spoils area. These parameters were
measured also in the dredge wake and at
numerous other locations during the dredge
Grab water samples were
operation.
collected also at the same time near the
surface, bottom, and mid-depth of
the water colum. These were analyzed
by standard methods in the laboratory
for dissolved oxygen, pH, salinity,
and turbidity, and verified the calibration of the Hydrolab unit.
Bathymetry of the dredged area was
taken before and after dredging
(30 August, 1972; 11 October, 1972,
and 18 April, 1973, see Figures 1.2,
1.3, and 1.4).
These charts showed
clear changes in the 30-ft. contour
line following dredging operations,
especially between October, 1972, and
the following April, 1973.
The river
bottom in the study area was subjected
also to many human disturbances.
It
has been dredged six times since 1959
with more than 1,000,000 cu yds being
removed each of the last three times.
Spoils usually are contained behind
a berm because the sediments of the
area are considered polluted by
Environmental Protection Agency
guidelines.
monitored with aerial photo techniques
(Weise, 1973). The velocities were
calculated with a resection computer
routine. Some of the results for various stages of the ebb tide and one
flood tide measurement are presented
on a computer generated plot in Figure
I.S. The area shown is the confluence
of the Coos River and Isthmus Slough,
looking north. Maximum surface velocities of approximately 2.5 fps were
observed. Temporal records of wind
speed and direction on the day of the
dredging are included (see Figure 1.6).
BENTHIC SYSTEMS DATA FOR COOS BAY STUDY
Cores were taken at the dredging site
before dredging to determine the extent
of free sulfides. Detailed examinations
of three sites were concluded before and
after dredging. At each of these sites,
profiles in the deposits were measured
for the following parameters:
The area is subjected to frequent
a.
sulfate (SO4 )
disturbance from prop wash of deep
draft ships. While the number of
ships passing over miles 13-19 is
not known exactly, Coos Bay was host
b.
free sulfide
c.
total volatile solids (TVS)
d.
total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
e.
total sulfides (TS)
f.
soluble organic carbon (SOC)
g.
chlorides (Cl )
h.
physical description
to 93 ships in.1971 with a draft of
30 ft or more and 249 with a draft
of 20 to 29 ft, and many of these
probably reached the dredging/spoils
area.
Hydraulic and Meteorlogical Data
High tide occurred at 1229 on
October 4, 1972. During the pre-
BIOLOGICAL STUDIES OF COOS BAY DREDGING
ceding flood tide a few current profiles were measured with a Price
Current Meter at the dredge and spoil
sites. The maximum observed surface
exceeded 2.1 fps., and the maximum
During
the ebb tide, surface currents
To demonstrate benthic changes caused by
dredging and/or spoiling, information was
obtained on:
1.
observed velocity two feet off the
bottom exceeded 1.5 fps.
(S-)
were
-5-
the abundance of benthic infauna
before dredging and spoiling,
t
.4
'A
e/
.s er.r
.ISM/rY Mnyo fper,'O* f.6
'f
i'°
1
I.p.
a'.rw.'ra.`
ti
J
.L.Jru
u yls.sy.
7 ".J- .=S°-- 00 It i
coos "r oREOOM
On E6011
1t
COOS BAY, OREGON
Figure 1.2 Coos Bay, Oregon
Ferndale $ Marshfield Ranges,
River Mile 13,0 to 14.0, Aug.
30, .1972.
c
"I" 0K mold. smL
/
FERNDALE A MARSHFIELD, RAN GES
loin UMNEOI TT
-
oRTMIIUT101 Mm ITTU4lII1E
h..wl runny M:.,.
c
V
Enaers
I
a.drd.x.wr r..,», .
9wrn.orn
rep... JNIp
:9Yy apny ':d:'F rni'uaS9sir..ll96s
co.l9dt,x er uzlr{ vscecs and oJ/lo.
Cnd9dind/r, w .I,d a /n, l..I.r1 P.o/n/ro'. /d.'Pypn, 50.10 C
Con.. n U...Ce... [.. wa/n-/[<MO Jla /rr/ d.m.Jw, corn' A trn
11/N C..,fC d5/dr6n. J.JE/rr/o/Eay.'q J Npeirdr :.v. PaQn
30 AUGUST 1972
dd 8'N9. and J.9./.l d//M CI/C Odd U ceo, Bar. /9/1 e/-
jv.Im nlrY
4 S ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, PORTLAND
Benthic sampling
'
n.0.99 N./."d 4.0 O. rndddd"I
eo/.. YG 6W
'C:W4/Ide.P.r No.,/4,' 09,.^ md9Noe.. rn/..ddd,w../LLIF
ron uccwp+..4 Ma.e m.
re rr. a., d,d.d,,w.
re. Jo e.a 4a o/aol.91
P./....9..p of Cpet cw1 NO 9e.,
!Mx/ /'on Oderr.-eum+u.......nr. Mr,dia%ry vl R'.dY.f,{
stations indicated at A,B,C,D.
err, MYa/euw
wy 9a1ue r/nlsp d /ner /xur.
.. crr4
....+.. 4 ,rno e.l.L CB--1-80 2
cwncW..d.w.axo'.'a/,wy ln. de.-
CONDITION ,: RV
C,
0
0,
rr
A
Y
u
ON[OON >RAT< uNNmI$ITY
STUM ON Dram WO.
ONT WTION Nm ONMNI!
II fl Sn
COOS BAY, OREGON
Figure 1.3 Coos Bay, Oregon
Ferndale and Marshfield Ranges.
River mile 13.0 to 14.0, Oct.
Physical Sediment
11, 1972.
Sampling stations indicated by
double underline 1 through 1k.
FERNDALE a MARSHFIELD RANGES
Trrv Lofeu%ia+rl
f
QrM:L.n Po-++.
M
II OCTOBER 1972
r
Sr. t_f
U SSBRMy ENGINEER DISTRICT, PORTLAND
CB-1-806
f'ava .n rarM on H Aupu.r r96B
CW ari ai feJKEts
a.eOSrMJ
Larv>narn Mu aese>vn r a.,p..r P.avAVwan E,. p:p4,.. sawa.la,..
-1W C'
Dar,.anwM[u.,.[5
x.LY¢/InJ rB xur a.x. t:warmn,.,
rB ear r hue%JVeMn, JJB
-'
rr rENa.l )a x.r
we uL nrE Dec. or Cao. BVY. r4aYru-.
ro.w<
++/ron..
tolr
ma.n...nrn.f P.m taO s.ynr.x
nrJR
'.5-Me,
Arx..u.rag5[KS EMI
3/b
+
Jf
Inu
l.rMrr
..
nres
Bvnne4
--1'-,- 11,11-1 1- -,
COND
ON
:
l[GCNO
.a ..mar
Figure 1.4 Coos Bay, Oregon
Ferndale and Marshfield Ranges,
Svq /W Ml
pglbnpry--.F 1'
Ab.JS
e..Mel
x
Cqr STaII
RrRrN:
M%mM s r m
,. Ay OS.C(.a-
Ca
fl A
.j tflS
Q .. OSAOC
WnNr. urr A..rean rMfmMNrhe[L 1N prywr S..,, iAM
wNlww ,. M.n Ltir Lw Mh. /YL/ , S.1/ IN Mb. .AS tw.' mr
r'MCea.r C,rwra S,,+n.JV
IEyw.S rvcr.r M. ,N,I.
iS,,,. ne J. 90/n'., rM C.10 De 'Cs,.On,rSJaC
m
i
River Mile 13.0 to 14,0, April
18, 1973.
10
U. S. ARMY ENOMEER DISTRICT. PORTLAND
Biological sampling
e'up..r.r,AP.n.n'H' w.mMah g,m. M/wulf
.. M cOO rr see a.I NrlMtorH l/MrMl
A.Irr
lArx m.r l, a. wMe,
w w tlr. W [ I.
r.n,sNwnr;rrne..
' T ^Y^ffi!t
WN
stations indicated by single underline 1 through 12.
MID<iCn N'IM.
.+,M dfl
Wlnvu
..'rtne
JL[.I.._
aim CMYMF1
C8-1-821
qrr `f
SrNfw.t®
#H.erw Nr/i M fl.w,*rHH rMN,N ih
NN coeD,.. MfN>/.r isr rtl..
Figure 1.5 - Computer reduction
of surface dye streak releases
recorded through aerial photometric techniques.
Figure 1.6 - Summary of
wind speed and direction,
4 October 1972, at mile
13+40, Coos Bay, Oregon
mph
-00I-2 mph
® 2-3 mph
ienglh proportional to
percenloge of velocity durolion
cake
p
-9-
2.
3.
abundance of organisms following dredging and spoiling, and
changes in sediment composition
following dredging and spoiling.
The sampling program included an assessment of the physical removal of benthic
organisms by dredging. Samples were
collected with a Shipek type grab along
a cross-channel transect of six stations
of Isthmus Slough occurring at its juncture with Coos Bay. Replicate grab
samples were taken from each station
on every collection. A total of 36
grabs, taken prior to dredging, established a generalized baseline; the
results of these samples were compared
to post-dredging grabs.
Replicate
grabs were taken from each station
on the day following dredging, and
at the end of the first, second,
fourth, and eighth weeks.
Direct collection of biological sampies from the hoppers of the Chester
Hardin also was attempted, but the
a could not be correlated with
grab samples because of the unknown
dilutions.
Pre- and post-dredging
samples were collected and analyzed
from a three-station cross-channel
transect in the spoiling area with
the same sampling schedule as used
for the dredge area.
Control stations beyond the limits
of dredging or spoil operations were
established to differentiate between
non-manmade variations and dredge
induced variations in the benthic
community. However, the dredging
effects were more widespread than
expected, so these stations were of
limited use.
Discordant hypotheses can be conjectured in the description of estuarine
eco-systems. Numerous. combinations of
parameters can be used to describe the
system either from a broad perspective
or from a detailed viewpoint.
The prime effort of these studies was
to develop techniques and methods for
proper assessmen' of dredging and spoil
release.
A secondary effort was to
study the benthic biota in order to
contribute to a hierarchical approach
for describing estuarine systems.
It
was .ot expected to resolve the problems
of combining information on micro-scale
dredging impacts with the overall
(broad perspective) changes in the
entire Coos Bay Estuary. However, in
attempts to comp:.ete pictures of effects
of dredging on total estuarine systems,
one should not expect easy answers.
Impacts of dredging are complex because
dredging initiates shipping, industrialization, and urbanization whose impacts
are complex by themselves and which
have impacts much greater than dredging
impacts per se.
Improved assessment methodology can provide better descriptions of the complete
system.
Temporal and spatial scales are important
in the determination of impacts of dredging
operations.
Intense development of our
estuaries has concerned many and has pro-
moted an interest in the evaluation of
dredging and disposal practices. Past
investigations ::-gave generally not been
conducted on an interdisciplinary basis
with compatible time scales. Biological
studies have generally been conducted on
a monthly or longer basis while physicalchemical changes (dissolved oxygen, turbidity,
RESEARCH SCOPE
etc.) have been measured pri-
marily during the dredging activities.
The present study makes serious considIn a study of this nature, many
questions remain unresolved because
of the complexity of the systems.
eration of the significance of shortterm effects.
INTEGRATION OF EFFORTS
The output of a coordinated interdisciplinary study should provide
more significant output than that
reached by non-concurrent, discipline-directed investigations.
Before the Corps of Engineers'
Coos Bay study, a university study
team concerned with dredge and
spoil distribution: and estuarine
effects was brought together under
support from the National Science
Foundation's Division of Research
Applied to the Nation's Needs.
These investigators had previously
been advancing thm:ir studies on a
joint disciplinary basis and the
Coos Bay study contract on a problem of significance to numerous
agencies, strengthened this relationship to apply methods developed
previously.
The present Corps of Engineers'
study generated a mutual integration of efforts, not only among
university and concerned agencies.
The opportunity to conduct this
work was sincerely appreciated.
The Coos Bay study indeed indicated that interdisciplinary work
produces a more significant interpretation of complex phenomenon
and interactions than independent,
disciplinary studies.
As the NSFRANN OSU study team continues with
its investigations on further joint
agency studies, it is expected that
a broader or improved systems pic-
ture of dredging/spoiling impacts
on the estuarine environment can be
developed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Professor Paul Rudy of the University
of Oregon, and the staff of the Oregon
Institute of Marine Biology, Charleston,
Oregon, are thanked for sharing information on Coos Bay and for providing
accommodations during this study.
Acknowledgment is also extended to the
National Science Foundation for support, and for permission to extend our
efforts to this study.
We wish to thank the officers and personnel of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Navigation Division, Waterways Maintenance
Branch, North Pacific Division, for their
financial support and interest; especially
Colonel Paul D. Triem, Adam Heineman,
Robert Hopman, and Greg Hartman. We
also want to thank the officers and crew
of the Corps of Engineers' hopper dredge
Chester Harding for their cooperation.
Personnel of numerous federal, state and
local agencies also contributed in many
ways.
Chapter 2.
SEDIMENT PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Hopper dredge activities are expected to
hydro-mechanically redistribute bottom sediments in the vicinity of dredge and spoil
sites.
Accompanying physical changes in
sediment properties may be useful indicators for changes in water quality, benthic
chemistry and biological activity.
In
order to design experimental programs to
determine the magnitude of changes in
physical properties, it is helpful to
hypothesize possible changes and to proceed with sampling programs that test the
hypotheses.
A dominant feature of hopper dredging
activities is the resuspension of bottom
sediments. As a dredge suction head
passes through a dredge site, surface
sediments are drawn into the head and
pass to the hopper.
Some of the material
around the suction head is disturbed mechanically and thrown it!to suspension.
Heavier particles settle out after the
disturbance passes, while lighter particles remain in suspension due to ambient
turbulence and may be transported from
the original site by local currents. The
material which passes into the hopper is
initially in suspension, but the heavier
particles settle to Vie hopper bottom.
The lighter particles remain in suspension and some are returned to the estuary
water column via the hopper overflow.
At
the spoil area, the contents of the hopper
are released and settle to the bottom as
a slurry.
Surface shear during descent
and impact-induced mixing at the bottom
resuspend a portion of the material; again,
the fines may be transported from the spoil
site.
As a result of repeated resuspensioning and settling and the subsequent loss of
fines, it is hypothesized that dredge spoils
may contain smaller fractions of fines than
occur at the dredge site. Furthermore, the
organic constituents within the sediment can
be expected to wash out of the spoil material
if they have low specific gravities or small
particle sizes.
If a net loss of fines and/or organic
constituents does occur, then changes in
several physical parameters would include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
an increase in mean particle size
at the spoil site due to loss of
small particles;
a decrease in uniformity due to
selective removal of fines;
an increase in porosity and water
content due to slow consolidation
rates and decreased uniformity;
a decrease it mean specific
gravity due to loss of lighter
fractions; and
5.
a decrease in volatile solids due
to loss of organics.
SAMPLING PROGRAM
In order to investigate changes in these
parameters, bottom samples were required
from the dredge and spoil sites before
and after dredging. Post-dredging samples
are also required to determine if a tendency exists to return to initial conditions from natural erosion and sedimentation processes.
Relatively large and
undisturbed samples are required because
of the number of tests to be run on each
sample.
In addition, some profile information was,required to evaluate the depth
dependence of the properties in question.
To satisfy these requirements, the sampling
program included:
1.
gravity core sampling stations in
the dredge and spoil areas to evaluate surface and subsurface physical
properties of bottom sediments
be---'ore and after dredging;
2.
3.
a line of sampling buckets along
the longitudinal axis of the spoil
site to evaluate spoil properties
immediately after release of the
hopper, and,
sediment stakes along side the buckets
at the spoil site to investigate subsequent rate of erosion and/or depo-
sition.
The locations of the ten core sampling
stations are identified as underlined
arabic numerals on the chart in Fig.
1.3.
Seven of the stations are located
in the dredging area (River Mile 13.8
to 14.2) to provide adequate sampling
for a limited --cumber of passes by the
dredge over a relatively expansive
area.
Station: Eight was two-tenths
mile downstream from the dredge area
(River Mile 13.6), Station Nine was at
the center of spoil site (River Mile
13.1) and Station Ten was at the downstream end ct the spoil site (River
Mile 13.0).
Core samples were taken 5 days before,
2 days after, 13 days after and 70 days
after the dredge operation. Each
sample was obtained with a 300-pound
gravity corer constructed by the research
team.
Core liners (1-7/8 inch in diameter acrylic tubing) were used; core
lengths varied from 4 to 20 inches.
Twenty-five sampling buckets were
placed at 100-foot centers along the
assumed center line of the spoil area.
Five-gallon paint cans were used with
30 pounds of concrete added as ballast.
The buckets were tied to a common line
for spacing and lowered from the surface with the sediment stakes attached.
Scuba divers were used to position the
buckets and set the sediments stakes
in place.
Scuba activities were hampered severely by limited visibility
of 6 inches to a few feet. As a result
some of the buckets and stakes were not
placed properly before spoiling occurred.
The sediment stakes were fabricated
from No. 3 reinforcing steel bars, 5-feet
long.
A 6-inch bar was welded on at the
2-foot level to support a plywood plate
-co resist penetration into the bottom.
Tape rings were placed at one-tenth
foot intervals to be used as depth indicators.
LABORATORY ANALYSIS
Sediment samples were stored for a
period of two to six months before
physical analyses were completed.
Cores were kept sealed to prevent
loss of pore water anki shrinkage,
but no attempt was made to stop
chemical and biological reactions.
Samples were extruded from the cores
in four-inch segments. Consequently,
profile information is limited to
averages over four-inch intervals.
Individual samples were separated
and dry prepared according to ASTM
Designation D 421-58. Particle size
analyses included sieving, hydrometer &
hygroscopic moisture content analyses
were conducted according to ASTM Designation D422-63-except that wood chips
larger than 0.589 mm (#30 sieve) were
removed by sieving in preparation for
particle size analysis.
Percent volatile solids was measured
as the percent difference in the
weight of an oven dry sub-sample and
the weight after combustion at 600°C
for four to six hours. This time was
larger than the 15 minutes recommended
by Standard Methods due to the large
sizes of both the sample and the individual wood chips.
Specific gravity determinations were
made in accordance with the procedure recommended by Lambe(1951).
Tests were run on all surface sam-
ples at the spoil site and on random samples at the dredge site.
Porosity was calculated from the
combined measurements of sample
volume, oven dry weight and specific
gravity.
Due to uncertainities involved in sample partition and the
subsequent volume determination,
this quantity can be_ expected to
have large standard deviations.
A summary of the data is presented in
Table 2.1.
The sample identification
numbers may be interpreted as follows:
1.
2.
3.
the first number refers to the
station location (Fig. 1.3).
the letter refers to the date
the sample was taken; e.g.
A = 5 days before dredging
B = 2 days after dredging
C = 13 days after dredging
D = 70 days after dredging
the last number refers to the
depth of the sample; e.g., 08
refers to a four-inch long
sample extending from the fourinch level to a maximum depth of
eight inches.
Thus, sample number 6C04 is from Station
6, thirteen days after dredging and extends from the water-bottom interface
to a depth of four inches. Bucket samples are prefixed with a letter "B".
Finally, a 12-inch core was taken by
scuba divers at a mount near Bucket 16
seven days after dredging. The resulting
four-inch long sub-samples of that core
are designated 16-4, 16-8 and 16-12.
INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
Repetitive samples were not taken at each
station so a statistical analysis could
not be performed to evaluate confidence
intervals for the data.
In lieu of a
statistical analysis, the results are presented such that trends in the data for
composite regions of interest are isolated.
That is, data from individual stations are
combined to produce regional characteristics for the dredge site and the spoil
site.
It should be recalled that Stations
1 through 7 were approximately within the
Stations 9 and 10 and the
dredge site.
buckets were within the spoil site and
Station 8 was in between the two regions,
but closer to the dredge site.
days before and two to seven days after
dredging. Station :lumbers were printed
adjacent to the appropriate point.
Regional properties were identified by
Particle Size Distribution
Grain size analysis graphs for each
sample are presented in Appendix II.
Samples from identical stations and
depths are presented on the same
graph.
This permits an examination
of the temporal and spatial behavior
of the sediment at each location.
ifying the gross features of the material as either predominantly sand,
clay.
The second is the
effective grain size (D1p) which
designates the particle diameter
correlates well with the permeability
of the material (Lambe,1951) and
indicates the ease with which fluid
will flow through the sediment; e.g.,
large D10 values indicate less resisflow.
The third parameter
is the uniformity coefficient, deo*geneity
of the
sediment sample; values less than
2 are termed uniform.
fine sand.
This probably was due to
the fact that these locations were at
the extremes of the spoils area and
probably did not represent spoil conditions.
Changes in these parameters could
be observed by plotting each param-
eter versus station number as a
function of time.
The spoil site behaved in accordance
with the hypothesis that repeated resuspension of the sediment during dredging
caused a net loss of fines. This process resulted in are increase in the
median grain size and a more uniformly
coarse material. Whereas the dredge
material was classified as a well
graded silt, the spoiled material had
the characteristics of a well graded
fined as D6 /Diioo. which expresses
the relative hr
It is apparent from Figure 2.1 that an
average six-fold increase in the median
grain :&.ze occurred at the spoil site,
while the dredge site experienced a
decrease in median grain size by a factor of two. Associated with this change
was decrease in uniformity at the spoil
site.
below which 10 percent of the sample
is finer by weight. This parameter
tance to
dredging, surface samples (above a
depth of four inches) at both the dredge
and spoil sites grouped fairly well with
an average median g-.ain size of approximately 0.04 mm and an average uniformity
coefficient equal to 30. Two days after
dredging, however, these parameters differed between the dredge and spoil areas.
Three important parameters can be
identified from these graphs. The
first is the median grain size (D50
which is defined as the particle
diameter which divides the sample
into 50 percent portions by weight.
This parameter is useful for class-
silt, or
enclosing points with similar features.
In Figure 2.1, it is shown that before
However, a more
The dredge site behavior appeared to be
an anomoly since a decrease in median
plotting two of the parameters against grain size was experienced which was
each other and noting segregation and contrary to the anticipated effect of
change as a function of location, time combined mechanical and hydraulic agiand associated dredging activity.
tation of the surface sediment causing
This type of graph also identified
a loss of fines. The reason for this
functional relationships between
behavior was evident from an examinavariables.
tion of Figure 2.2.. In this figure,
useful representation was fArmed by
the uniformity coefficient was plotted
The technique is illustrated in
Figure 2.1, where the uniformity
coefficient was plotted versus median
grain size for surface samples five
versus median grain size for surface and
subsurface samples at the dredge site
before dredging. The graph clearly
showed that the surface sediment was
-15-
0.05
MEDIAN GRAIN SIZE,
Figure 2.1
0.1
0.2
D5o (MM)
Surface Sample Uniformity and Median Grain Size
MEDIAN GRAIN
Figure 2.2
SIZE,
Dso (MM)
Subsurface Sample Uniformity and Median Grain Size
more coarse than the subsurface sediments.
Thus, the effect of dredging
was to remove the surface sediments
and expose the finer subsurface materials.
The effect of hydromechanically
disturbing these subsurface sediments
was less significant. However, it was
apparent from a compar=ison of Figures
2.1 and 2.2 that the e.-:posed surface
sediment properties after dredging
are more variable than the pre-dredging
subsurface properties. This was an
indication of sporadic resuspension
of the subsurface materials. The
variability may be due to the fact
that the dredge activities were
limited so that uniform coverage of
the dredge area was not possible.
The pre-dredge sediment profiles provide insight into the hydraulic and
sediment transport characteristics
of the system. A layering of sediments would be anticipated. However,
one might expect also to find finer
sediments near the surface in the
summer and fall when low flow conditions permit the finer material to
settle out of suspension. The profiles revealed the opposite trend:
coarse material near ':he surface
with finer material at depth as shown
in Figure 2.2. This `behavior indicated some additional destabilizing
forces were working on the surface
sediments which caused the fines to
be washed into suspension and carried
away.
The source of these destabilizing forces can possibly be traced
to active commercial marine traffic
in the navigation channels. Large
lumber and wood chip Jhips frequent
these channels and often drag anchors
as they approach loading docks.
In
addition, prop wash from the screws
of large vessels in t±le shallow channels could be sufficient to resuspend bottom sediment on a regular
basis. Thus, any material deposited
near the surface would probably be
overturned and resuspended frequently
and the fine sediments would be washed
away by this unstable condition.
Figure 2.3 displays the tendency of the
sediment properties to return to original conditions af--er dredging activities
cease.
Comparison with Figure 2.1
revealed that within two weeks the
median grain size at the spoil site
had decreased by a factor of two which
indicated a natural deposition of
material containing more fines than
the spoils.
At the dredge site, less
variability was observed between stations.
This was further indicated by an overturning and mixing of surface sediments
by man-made or non man-made causes.
The return rate decreased sharply between
the two week and two month sample dates.
The reason for this possibly was due
to the fact that the greatest sources
of sediment occur with heavy winter and
spring runoffs.
During late fall, sediment sources are limited to resuspended
materials adjacent to the dredge site.
Thus, a complete return to original
conditions would not occur until the
annual cycle of sediment erosion and
deposition had occurred.
Volatile Solids
The change in volatile solids is demonstrated in Figure 2.4, wherein the percent volatile solids was plotted against
median grain size for surface samples
five days before and two days after
dredging.
Segregation by particle size
permitted the dredge and spoil sites
to be distinguished.
Figure 2.4 also
showed a change in mean volatile solids
from 10 percent before dredging to 8
percent after dredging. The trend was
more demonstrable if Core 16 was ignored
since it was acquired five days after
the rest of the samples.
The behavior
concurred with the hypothesis that the
organics are composed of lighter fractions which are more susceptible to
flushing via resuspension than heavier
sediment particles.
The average volatile solids level of
the natural sediment exceeds the 60
percent level established by the EPA
for identification of polluted sediments.
-18-
701
601.= 5 days before dredging
Iz
50
+= 13 days after dredging
,n--70 days after dredging
After Dredging
Spoil Site
I
0.05
MEDIAN GRAIN SIZE,
Figure 2.3
0,1
0.2
D8o (MM)
Long-Term Return of Uniformity and Median Grain Sizel
0. 5
*=before dredging
w
J
J
O
o=after dredging
MEDIAN GRAIN SIZE,
Figure 2.4
Deo (MM)
Surface Sample Volatile Solids and Median Grain Size
Specific Gravity
Specific gravity determinations were
made for all surface samples at the
spoil site and random samples throughout the dredge area.
The results are
plotted in Figure 2.5 along with median
grain size.
No measurable change in
specific gravity is apparent. This
can be explained in terms of the sample constituents. The sand, silt
and clay fractions are minerals with
a specific gravity normally ranging
from 2.6 to 2.7.
The only light constituent was the organic material
which was largely composed of wood
chip and wood fibers. The large
wood chips (greater than 0.589 mm)
were removed by sievi,ig before the
specific gravity tests were conducted.
Consequently any change in
organics (volatile solids) was masked
in the specific gravity measurements.
In addition, the 2 percent average
change observed in volatile solids
would cause a decrease in specific
gravity by less than 0.06. The
specific gravity results indicated
that the mineral constituents were
for river or marine sediments.
Porosity
Core sample porosity is plotted with
median grain size in Figure 2.6.
Data from surface samPles five days
before and two days after dredging
was presented. The results demonstrated a ten percent decrease in
porosity for the dredge spoils.
This result was not anticipated
because it was hypothesized that by
losing the fine grained material,
voids would remain unfilled between
the coarse particles. The explanation for the observed behavior
may be the same as that for the
decrease in particle size below
the surface.
Specifically, the
destabilizing erosional forces are
capable of keeping the finer sediments in a disturbed, possibly semifluid state. The coarser sediments,
on the other hand, are massive anough
to resist the erosional forces and
are able to consolidate into a more
compact configuration. As a result,
the coarse spoiled sediments could
be less porous.
Hygroscopic Moisture Content
The hygroscopic moisture content is
a measure of the moisture contained
within the pores of individual grains
of sediment. These pores are to be
distinguished from the voids between
particles; the latter are accounted
for in the porosity measurement. The
hygroscopic moisture content was calculated as the water content fraction by weight remaining in the air
dried sample at room temperature and
humidity.
This parameter is generally
low for clean sands and high for silt,
clay and organic materials. The
change in this parameter accompanying
dredging is shown in Figure 2.7,
wherein hygroscopic moisture content
was plotted versus median grain size
for surface samples five days before
and two days after dredging. Although
the results varied somewhat due to
daily changes in temperature and
humidity, the trend in Figure 2.7
was readily apparent: the hygroscopic moisture content decreased
significantly at the spoils site and
increased slightly at the dredge site.
Again, it appeared that less clean
sediments have been exposed at the
dredge site and the fine fractions
have been washed from the sediment at
the spoil site.
Sediment Stake and Bucket Survey
limited success was experienced in
determining deposition patterns with
the bucket and stake array. Many difVery
ficulties were attributable to exceptionally poor visibility in the turbid
Approximately one-half of the
buckets were either tipped over or
missing after spoiling. This was an
apparent reaction to the dredge and
waters.
other marine
traffic.
The placement of the linear bucket and
stake array is shown in Figure 2.8.
2.8
= 5 days before dredging
0= 2 days after dredging
+= 13 days after dredging
0= 70 days after dredging
2.7
2.6
if
66
2.5
0.01
0.2
,
CO2
MEDIAN GRAIN SIZE,
Figure 2.5
D5o (MM)
Specific Gravity and Median Grain Size
0.5
1.0
T
0.9
O
T
0.8
I--
0.7
75
0
Spoil
Site
10
Dredge Site
0.6
= 5 days before dredging
0.5
o = 2 days after dredging
+=13 days after dredging
04
a= 70 days after dredging
-
0.01
0.02
0.05
MEDIAN GRAIN SIZE,
Figure 2.6
0.1
0.2
Dao (MM)
Surface Sample Porosity and Median Grain Size
l
7
I
After Dredging
Dredge Site
0
6
5
.
00
After Dredging
4
Spoil
Site
3
2
= 5 days before dredging
o= 2 days after dredging
I
I-
0_
0.01
.
1
0.02
.
0.05
MEDIAN GRAIN
Figure 2.7
.
SIZE,
I
I
0.1
0.2
I
0.5
Dao (MM)
Surface Sample Hygroscopic Moisture and Median Grain Size
coos
13+10,
13+00
RIVER
CHIP PILE
COAST GUARD
POCK
POPE
DOCK
BUCKET
CORPS
DOCK
AND SEDIMENT STAKE LOCATIONS
Figure 2.8
Bucket and Sediment Stake Locations
Spoils were found in buckets ranging
from #3 to #25 with sone empty buckets
in between.
Heaviest depositions were
found in and around bucket #16 where
a 24-inch depth was recorded on the
sediment stake.
A large mound, 40 to
50 feet in diameter, surrounded the
area.
The composition of the material included approximately equal
portions of wood chips and fine sand.
This location coincided with the center of the spoils area. However, a
large chip ship was berthed at the
Pape Dock and forced the dredge to
hold the bucket array to port during
many of the downstream spoiling runs.
This probably accounted for the sporadic empty buckets found during
retrieval operations.
Summary
An analysis of the physical properties
of the bucket samples was included in
most of the foregoing figures. The
properties were very similar to those
of surface samples taken at Stations
9 and 10 two days after dredging.
A large difference occurred in the
Referring
volatile solids levels.
to Table 2.1, it is shown that the
bucket samples are uniformly high
in volatile solids which concurred
with the large percentage of wood
chips found in the buckets. This
behavior was probably a consequence
of spoils falling from the hopper
in a quasi-solid mass. The wood
chips would be trapped in the
buckets with the rest of the material and would be sheltered from local
erosional forces.
Around the bucket,
the combined effect c-f currents and
ship traffic may have resuspended
and eroded the relatively light wood
chips.
Consequently, they would be
absent in core samples taken two or
more days later. ThIs is further
evidence of unstable bottom conditions existing in this area of the
Coos River.
4.
The data presented in the preceding paragraphs substantiated the hypothesis that
hopper dredging promotes the resuspension
and loss of lighter fractions of bottom
sediment.
It was shown that after dredging
the sediments:
1.
2.
3.
5.
6.
increased in median grain size
and decreased in uniformity of
the dredge spoils due to loss
of fines;
decreased in median grain size
at the dredge site due to expossure of fine subsurface material;
decreased in porosity at the
spoil site due to the ability
of the coarse sediments to resist
resuspension;
retained a constant specific
gravity due to uniform density
among the major constituents;
decreased in volatile solids in
the dredge spoils due to loss of
light organics (with the exception that surface spoils were
high in volatile solids immediately after spoiling before the
wood chips were washed away);
decreased in hygroscopic moisture
content due to loss of porous
organics and silt-clay material.
The data further demonstrated that relatively unstable conditions existed in
this reach of the estuary causing frequent resuspension of surface sediments.
Table 2 .1
Sample
Number
-
Sediment Property Summary
Effective Uniformity
Grain Size Grain Size Coefficient
Median
D50,
D10,
B-3
0.40
0.14
B-8
0.40
.030-.080
B-I6
0.31
.080
Specific
Gravity
Porosity
Hygroscopic
Moisture
Q
D60'D10
58.5:7
53.78
2.50
7.77
37.5
2.70
5.66
24.02
.017
B-19
Volatile
Solids
2.44
.
65.70
8.20
B-24
0.088
.0029
43.33
7.47
2.10
B-25
0.08
.0019
50.0`0
11.21
3.,50
16-4
0.17
.012
12.14
34.81
16-8
0.051
.013
2.15
10.81
16-12
0.20
.015
14.12
5.06
1104
0.036
.00099
45.00
8.86
0.789
3.67
1B04
0.026
.00099
35.35
8.40
0.758
4.1
IC04
0.021
.00099
30.30
8.85
0.751
3.97
1D04-
0.021
.0014
19.33
8.66
0.748
4.22
1A0.8
0.018
.0012
24.54
8.72
0.756
3.67
1B08
0.013
.0005
22.99
10.8.0
0.806
4.10
2.63
Table 2.1 - Sediment Property Summary, Continued
Sample
Number
Median
Grain Size
D50,mm
Effective
Grain Size
D10,mm
Uniformity
Coefficient
D60/D10
Volatile
Solids
Specific
Gravity
Porosity
%
Hygroscopic
Moisture
%
1C08
0.016
.0005
23.33
10.43
0.738
3.89
1D08
0.026
.0012
29.16
9.82
0.791
4.20
1A12
0.020
.0011
30.00
9.03
1B12
0.034
.0030
14.00
9.40
0.725
4.00
1C12
0.020
.00097
30.93
9.95
0.738
3.93
1D12
0.022
.0015
20.00
8.52
0.769
4.81
1B16
0.017
.0001
34.67
1C16
0.018
.00095
26.00
10.80
0.741
2.90
1D16
0.019
.0012
26.26
10.82
0.780
4.65
2A04
0.040
.0007
47.47
10.86
0.740
3.79
2B04
0.015
.0006
40.0
9.60
0.779
4.10
2C04
0.028
.0012
26.43
9.46
0.778
3.99
2D04
0.025
.0016
21.88
9.74
0.783
4.68
2A08
0.022
.00092
30.00
8.56
0.771
3.81
2B08
0.025
.0021
16.5
10.23
0.759
4.0
3.80
0.732
2.67
Table 2.1 - Sediment Property Summary, Continued
Sample
Number
Median
Grain Size
D50,mm
Effective Uniformity
Grain Size Coefficient
Di0,mm
D60/D10
Volatile
Solids
Specific
Gravity
Porosity
Hygroscopic
Moisture
%
%
2C08
0.019
.0012
27.27
12.89
0.744
2.79
2D08
0.018
.0013
18.57
8.81
0.758
4.72
2A12
0.025
.0022
13.13
11.35
2B12
0.012
.0005
18.89
11.17
2012
0.018
.001
23.64
2D12
0.017
.001
27.00
11.09
0.788
4.55
3A04
0.036
.0029
16.43
8.52
0.765
3.98
3B04
0.034
.0029
15.71
11.14
0.790
3.90
3C04
0.031
.001
39.00
8.95
0.742
4.09
3D04
O A24
.007
9.56
0.776
4,58
3A08
0.028
.0021
18.10
9.11
0.752
3.89
3B08
0.020
.0009
28.57
9.24
0.709
3.94
3C08
0.015
.0008
22.11
8.61
0.744.
4.59
3D08
0.038
----0016
29.37
9.72
0.826
5.18
3A12
0.021
.0014
18.75
9.32
0.750`
3.79
~45.
2.96
0.754
4.03
0.740
2.61
2.61
2.62
Table 2.1 - Sediment Property Summary, Continued
Sample
Number
Median
Grain Size
D50,mm
Effective
Grain Size
D10,mm
Uniformity
Coefficient
D60/D10
Volatile
Solids
Specific
Gravity
Porosity
%
%
3B12
0.016
.0006
=22.83
10.16
3C12
0.019
.0006
=29.35
10.02
3D12
0.026
.0009
37.76
3A16
0.023
.001
30.00
306
0.022
.00065
4A04
0.035
.0034
4B04
0.034
4C04
Hygroscopic
Moisture
0.700
4.09
0.753
4.71
8.49
0.750
4.80
14.06
10.81
0.773
3.83
.0009
=44.21
11.44
0.781
4.21
0.024
.0009
=35.79
9.43
0.747
4.80
4D04
0.018
.0008
27.66
12.10
0.823
5.25
4A08
0.032
.0017
24.70
9.95
0.798
3.83
4B08
0.048
.0040
15.64
8.77
0.729
4.22
4C08
0.018
.0009
31.96
7.79
0.755
5.89
4D08
0.026
.0013
27.69
10.40
0.780
5.35
4A12
0.030
.0017
25.53
9.33
4B12
0.026
.0009
=40.21
9.65
2.61
=34.48
3.90
0.758
4.30
Table 2.1 - Sediment Property
Sample
Number
Summary,
Median
Effective Uniformity Volatile
Grain Size Grain Size Coefficient Solids
50,
mm
D10,mm
Continued
Specific
Gravity
Porosity
D60/D10
Hygroscopic
Moisture
°
4D12
0.018
.0011
22.50
11.89
0.783
4.7S
4D16
0.021
.0010
30.00
9.73
0.773
5.45
5A04
0.028
.0008
39.58
13.47
0.808
5.17
5B04
0.053
.0025
28.85
7.94
0.773
5.51
5C04
0.020
.0005
9.06
0.783
5.30
5D04
0.018
.0010
21.67
10.53
0.827
5.62
5A08
0.035
.0009
44.44
9.93
0.782
5.25
SB08
0.028
.0012
36.36
7.51
0.740
5.86
5C08
0.024
.0012
30.00
10.56
0.760
4.71
5D08
0.015
.0011
21.00
10.97
0.812
5.77
5A12
0.026
.0023
20.00
8.96
5B12
0.036
.0016
28.24
6.22
5C12
0.025,
.001
39.00
5D12
0.0,15
.0007
5B16
0.035
.001
=66.
=51.06
2.59
2.62
5.90
0.715
5.39
10.24
0.804
5.86
11.29
0.788
4.57
2.62
0.489
Table 2.1 - Sediment Property Summary, Continued
Sample
Number
N
Median
Grain Size
D50,mm
Effective
Grain Size
D10,mm
Uniformity Volatile
Coefficient Solids
D60/D10
%
Specific
Gravity
Porosity
Hygroscopic
Moisture
%
5016
0.028
.001
=39.36
5D16
0.011
.001
=18.09
10.14
0.787
5.49
6A04
0.042
.0016
33.75
9.33
0.778
5.11
6B04
0.025
.0009
36.73
11.95
0.824
5.59
6D04
0.020
.0001
9.11
0.821
6.49
6A08
0.044
.0024
24.00
12.90
0.772
5.27
6B08
0.019
.0004
=34.48
13.69
6D08
0.021
.0007
=32.97
11.99
0.811
4.80
6A12
0.054
.0012
46.15
6B12
0.017
.0009
~25.76
15.34
0.823
5.62
6D12
0.022
.0009
30.53
10.12
0.779
5.08
6D16
0.019
.0007
=34.44
16.34
0.805
5.05
7B04
0.016
.0007
=23.16
11.12
0.831
5.52
7D04
0.049
.0012
49.23
14.09
0.799
4.69
7B08
0.014
.00095
20.41
10.70
0.799
5.40
7D08
0.039
.0018
28.33
9.04
0.734
3.89
=35.
0.767
2.52
5.59
Table 2.1 - Sediment Property Summary, Continued
Sample
Number
Median
Grain Size
)50'
Effective
Grain Size
Uniformity
Coefficient
D10,mm
D60/D10
Volatile
Solids-
Specific
Gravity
Porosity
Hygroscopic
Moisture
0
7B12
0.011
.0008
17.20
10.42
0.778
5.6]
7012
0.039
.0009
54.64
8.29
0.741
4.22
7B16
0.014
.0009
=20.62
12.64
0.802
3.50
8B04
0.17
.01
17.00
8.1.7
9A04
0.063
.0036
22.97
7.53
2.61
9B04
0.19
.013
12.5
5.02
2.60
0.659
3.12
9C04
0.16
.011
1.5.45
11.66
2.62
0.745
4.08
9D04
0.14
.047
3.40
9.82
2.54
0.677
1.10
9B08
0.090
.006
18.33
10.93
2.58
9C08
0.095
.014
8.46
6.23
2.60
9D08
0.080
.0022
52.17
901.2
0.075
.0030
10B04
0.12
100104
10D04
4.50
3.60
3.35
0.661
3.11
9.19
0.683
1.6,2
30.00
7.01
0.719'
3.86
.0069
25.14
10.54
2.63
0.715
2.96
0.053
.0038
19.23
7.56
2.62
0.697
2.68:
0'.10
.0100'
13.00
7.61:
2.63<
0'.666
1.8:0`
Table 2.1 - Sediment Property Summary, Continued
Sample
Number
Median
Grain Size
D50,mm
Effective Uniformity
Grain Size Coefficient
D10,mm
D60/D10
Volatile
Solids
.0017
47.06
7.19
10008
0.040
.0012
46.67
12.01
10D08
0.041
.0017
37.33
7.54
1OC12
0.054
.0009
=71.43
CORPS
0.015
=20.00
HOP 1
8.77
11.80
HOP 2
11.20
HOP 3
10.60
HOP 4
11.1)0
HOP 5
10.00
HOP 6
EPA
0.803
2.92
2.60
0.712
1.72
2.60
0.720
4.30
0.563
1.81
9.70
2.001
10.00
7.00
Hygroscopic
Moisture
%
0.060
=0.04
Porosity
%
10B08
STR
Specific
Gravity
12.80
2.63
0.763
Chapter 3.
ESTUARINE BENTHIC SYSTEMS
INTRODUCTION
Estuarine benthic systems involve complex interactions of biological, chemical,
physical and hydraulic factors.
Though
occupying a relatively small volume
of what is defined as an estuarine system,
the upper regions of benthic deposits
and their interfacial regions are of
major ecological importance. Thus,
the impact of dredging upon estuarine
benthic systems is of major concern.
Those aspects of benthic systems which
are examined in this chapter have been
previously discussed (Bella, et.al.
1972, Bella 1972) and thus a detailed
discussion will not be provided herein.
Rather, a brief review of significant
aspects is presented.,
Below the surface region of benthic
deposits where aerobic decomposition
occurs, anaerobic decomposition involving bacterial sulfate reduction
normally occurs. As a result of sulfate reduction, sulfates, which are transported from the saline water downward
into the deposits, are utilized and
free sulfides (H2S, HS-, S°) are released. The free sulfides combine
principally with iron (II) to form
insoluble sulfides which normally give
estuarine benthic deposits their characteristic black color. As long as sufficient available iron (II) is present,
essentially all free suldies produced
through sulfate reduction are transformed
to insoluble combined sulfides (FeS )
Only after available iron is sufficiently
depleted can the free sulfide concentrations within the sediment build up to
measurable levels. The build up of
free sulfides is of concern because free
sulfides (principally hydrogen sulfide)
are toxic to a wide variety of organisms.
In addition, the release of hydrogen sulfide, H2S, into the atmosphere may result in an air pollution problem.
Dredging activities can affect this system
in a number of ways. The disruption of
-35-
benthic systems containing free
sulfides may cause their release
to the overlying waters. The construction of dikes also may promote conditions from which free
sulfides are released on a near
continuous basis.
Because of the
large pollution inputs in the Coos
Bay area, it was decided to examine
the influence of a dredging operation
on the deposits of this region
with some emphasis given to the
possibility of free sulfide re-
free sulfides, soluble organic carbon,
and sulfates were made on interstitial waters extracted in the field.
Free sulfides were determined in the
field with an Orion sulfide probe
using the subtraction method. Sulfates were determined by a colormetric
method using Barium Chloranilate
lease.
Total nitrogen was determined by the
Oregon State Univo;rsity soil testing
laboratory using a macro-kjeldahl
PROCEDURES
proce,'S9re.
Two sites within the dredged area
were selected for detailed benthic
examination (sites A B on Fig.
3.1). One site (site C) was
Cores were frozen and the remaining
measurements were measured after
thawing several months following collecVolatile solids and total sulfides
tion.
(acid soluble) were determined by a
modification of the approach reported
in Standard Methods. Chlorides were
measured on interstitial waters extracted from thawed cores by the known
addition method using the Orion selective ion meter system. Sulfates were
also determined on interstitial waters
from thawed cores using a turbidometric
procedure (Standard Methods). The
freezing and thawing of cores did have
an influence on interstitial water
concentrations which was recognized
when data was interpreted.
(Bertolocini. and :Barney, 1957).
Soluble
organic carbon was measured with a
Beckman Model IR 5.35
analyzer.
selected within the spoils region.
Cores were collected at those sites
prior to dredging (9/28/72) and
after the dredging operations
(10/9/72). Samples were collected
with a gravity multiple corer
which obtained sediment samples
approximately 25 cm -'In length.
(Three separate cores were required at any particular site to
provide adequate sample volumes
for all analyses). Although the
coring device was designed to
collect three cores at the same
time, its operation was not too
successful. That is, three
satisfactory complete cores were
never obtained in a single grab.
Several grabs had to be made and
the results for particular sites
(Figs. 3.1-3.6) were obtained from
several cores collected by several
grabs. Care was taken to collect
all cores for a given site from
as near the same location as
possible.
infra-red carbon
Results of this portion of the study are
presented in Figs;. 3.1-3.6. Several
additional measurements are provided
in Fig. 3.7 for comparison.
INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
No free sulfides were detected by measurements at any of the sites either before
In
or after the dredging activities.
addition, samples taken from nine individual cores before dredging did not
display measurable free sulfides.
Total sulfides were all below 600 mg/kg
and the majority of total sulfide
A field press was employed to
obtain interstitial waters from
the cores as soon after collection
Measurements of
as possible.
-36-
5F-
20
I
I
I
I
I
500
10)0
1500
2000
2500
200
'00
600
TOTAL SULFIDE-MG/KG OF WET WT.
3000
SULFATE- MG/L
L.
26
IS
ITI
I
I
I
I
I
30
34
38
42
46
50
CHLORIDE-G/L
0
I
I
I
I
3
,
I
5
i
I
T
i
I
9
i
I
II
Ot 1 ___ _,
5
13
VOLATILE SOLIDS-PERCENT OF DRY WT.
I
I
6
510
tIl
0
I
20
I
20
I
30
40
I
I
i
50
60 70
SOC- MG/L
Figure 3.1 Measurements
I
80
I
90
100
110
within benthic system, site A, pre-dredging
(9/28/72).
-37-
0
0
10
1
t
Is
20
I
I
2600
3000
1
1
2000
GOO
I
SULFATE- MS/L
34
42
3S
50
46
I-
1,
I
6
10
600
IS
VOLATILE so.ms-SIT of ow WT.
CHLORIDE-S/L
0
r,
200
4rK1
600
TOTAL SULFDE-Miti/KS OF WET WT.
I
I
I
I
I
El
20
-
1
10
1
20
I
30
1
40
60
I
.
1
60
TO
60
1
SO
100
SOC-M6/L
10
:
1
500
1
1000
1
1600
I
3000
I
1000
1
$000
TOTAL KB0 t. r3b130-MMII OF am it.
Figure 3.2 Measurements within benthic system, site B, pre-dredging
(9/28/72).
z0
1
0
t
20
25
I
I
500
moo
2000
1500
2500
SULFATE-MO/L
for
Is
I
I
I
22
30
I
34
36
CILORDE-0/L
I-
I
I
42
46
I
I
200
,400
600
TOTAL SULFIDE-MO/KO OF WET WT.
3000
I
5o
i
-
a
i
I
i,
i
-
boo
i
I
a
10
VOLATILE SOLES-PERCENT OF DRY WT.
I
I
5
20
26
I
10
20
30
I
i
I
i
I
40
50
60
10
60
90
00
SOC-MO/L
Figure 3.3 Measurements
t
110
i
I
I
500
1000
1600
I
2000
I
I
3000
2600
TOTAL KRLDAE. 11T1106EN-MOAS OF DRY WT
within benthic system, site C, pre-dredging
9/28/72).
-39-
t
I
I
I
500
1000
I
2500
3000
22
26
30
34
38
CHLORDE-G/L
42
48
1
200
470
BOO
TOTAL SULFIDE-M8/KG OF WET WT.
SULFATE- MG/L
I6
i
I
1
1
2000
1500
50
5
10
VOLATILE SOLIDS- I PERCENT OF DRY WT.
I
10
201-
EP 7
.
10
I
20
i
30
40
i
50
60
SOC-MG/L
Figure 3.4 Measurements
(10/9/72).
I
70
80
I
90
100
110
I
1
500
1000
I
1500
I
2000
1
2500
3E
TOTAL KM-ML MTRDQO*-MG/Iw OF OW WT.
within benthic system, site A,
post-dredging
1600
2000
WAFATE-MG/L
K'OO
2500
3000
200
ti00
600
TOTAL SULFIDE-MG/KG OF WET WT.
»
0
I
I
5
ap
15
25t---L
22
I6
.,..r
I
I
I
I
I
I
30
34
36
42
46
50
,
,
1
CHLORIDE-G/L
to
20
so
40
50
60
SOC- MG/L
10
,
,
5
I
I
,
10
15
VOLATILE SOLIDS-FERcENT OF DRY WT,
so
90
100
no
Boo
woo
TOTAL KEI
I50O
MW
3000
I4 KTIpI5N-MM OF O Y WT.
Figure 3.5 Measurements within benthic system, site B, post-dredging
(10/9/72).
-{
-1`
I
I
400
200
SULFATE-M6/L
OF WET WT.
TOTAL
10
I
Is
34
38
I
I
I
I
42
46
50
5
CHLORIDE-8/L
20
30
40
50
80
SOC-MG/L
Figure 3.6 Measurement
(10/9/72).
70
VOLATILE
80
90
100
110
1
1
_1
1
1
1
10
Is
S0UDS °PERcENT OF
500
1000
1500
2000
3000
2600
TOTAL KALOAIt. *TRO9EM-MB/K8 OF AIRY WT.
within benthic system,
site C, post-dredging
measurements within the top 10 cm
were below 200 mg/kg. At the locations
where dredging occurred (sites A E B),
total sulfides were less than 100 mg/kg
within the top 7 to 8 cm. These
levels of total sulfides are significantly less than those measured
within several tidal flat regions
(see Fig. 3.7).
While the freezing and thawing resulted in higher chloride concentrations than were likely present within
the undisturbed deposits, the results
were sufficient to demonstrate that no
significant chloride profile was
present. By comparison, sulfate profiles at all sites were described
by measurements taken both from frozen and non-frozen cores. Though
these sulfate profiles were not as
sharp as those shown in Figs. 3.7(B)
and 3.7(C), they were vlearly discernable. The decline of sulfate within
deposits results from its removal by
sulfate reduction.
Sulfate within the
regions of the deposits closest to the
surface is replaced by mass transport
(enhanced by partial scour) from the
overlying saline waters which contain
Thus, sulfate reduction resulfate.
sults in a decline of interstitial
sulfate with depth from the sediment
The absence of a chloride
surface.
profile indicated that the sulfate
profile was not due to an upward flux
of fresh water. The decline of sulfate with depth in the absence of a
similar decline of chloride was strong
evidence that active sulfate reduction was occurring within the deposits.
The moderately high volatile solids,
particularly at site A, the presence
of adequate (though not high) organic
nitrogen and the presence of sulfates
all indicate that conditions were
suitable for sulfate reduction. Moreover, the presence of measurable total
sulfides, even though they were quite
low, indicated that sulfate reduction
had likely occurred during the period
immediately prior to sample collection.
The question arises from the above
examination: if conditions were favorable for moderate sulfate reduction and
if sulfate reduction was occurring, then
why are the total sulfide concentrations relatively low? The most plausible explanation with the limited
evidence now available is that the
bottom deposits were relatively unstable.
That is, periodic physical
scour was most likely common for these
benthic systems.
Such scour is most
frequent near the sediment surface but
frequent scour to a depth of several
centimeters likely occurs. Periodic
scour and partial scour will result
in the oxidation (and partial oxidation) of ferrous sulfide. The iron
will likely remain within the benthic
system to recombine with additional
sulfide produced through sulfate reduction.
Thus, scour caused by shipping
activities and an unstable channel
may result in the recycling of iron
which prevents the release of free
In addition, such scour
sulfides.
.may result in a wider distribution
of organic material with resultant
lower concentrations of organics within
This serves to
the main channel'.
explain why no free sulfides were found
For
within these polluted sediments.
comparison, the 1971 EPA criteria
lists volatile solids above 6% and
total kjeldahl nitrogen above 0.1%
as criteria for sediments unacceptable
for open water disposal.
Other aspects of this study also
indicate that the deposits within the
study area were physically overturned
on a relatively frequent basis (see
Chapter 2 and Chapter 4). Such overturning has several implications
with regard to the environmental impact of dredging. One can anticipate that
dredging activities, unless extensive, won't
produce significant changes in those
benthic systems which experience a near
continuous physical turnover. That is,
a small or moderate amount of dredging
will not have a significantly different
Figure 3.7
Examples of estuarine benthic systems within tidal flat areas
A-Toledo, Oregon, 8/19/71; B-Sally's Bend, Yaquina Bay, Oregon,
8/25/71; C-Isthmus Slough, Coos Bay, Oregon, 8/12/71).
DEPTH FROM DEPOSIT SURFACE-CM
0
b
0
o
01
t
.
0
0
0
to
I
40
0
0
I
I
a
ji
C7
IjI
wo
Co
0mo
10
C)
-0 A.
rn
0
r-o
0
FM
m
U)N
00
0
W0
-44-
effect than the "norma".°1 turnover that
sulfide regions which, prior to dredging, were found at greater depths.
The low sulfate concentrations measured within the frozen core may have
resulted from the exposure of deeper
regions from which sulfate had been
significantly depleted by sulfate reduction.
is experienced as a result of shipping
activities, and scour due to the instability of the channel. Within
physically unstable benthic systems,
significant acute (dramatic short term)
environmental impacts due to dredging
should not be anticipated; however, the
chronic (near continucus) conditions
resulting from the activities made
possible by the dredging of the
channel may be of greater importance.
The general approach of measuring background conditions and then comparing
them to conditions during and immediately
after dredging operations becomes less
applicable when chronic conditions tend
to dominate acute impacts.
At the spoil site, the increase in
volatile solids near the surface
(Figs. 3.S and 3.6) may have been due
to the settlement of dredged spoils.
The more dense inorganics may have
settled more rapidly than the less dense
organics, thus resulting in higher
surface volatile solids which decreased
rapidly with depth below the sediment
surface.
The absence of free sulfides both within the sediments and within the overlying waters (even during dredging
operations) is a beneficial aspect of
the frequent turnover. A near continuous high turbidity and the resulting
low visibility,howeve^, might be
expected within this region, particularly within the vicinity of the
bottom. In addition, a relatively
"immature" biological community might
be anticipated (see Chapter 4).
In comparing the pre- and post-dredging
conditions, several snort term changes
which may be attributed to the dredging
operations were implied by the data.
These short term charges, however, did
not suggest any significant adverse
environmental impact and thus they
will be only briefly discussed.
In the dredged region, (sites A and
B), site A displayed no apparent change
due to the limited dredging in this
area.
At site B, the total sulfide
levels in the top 7 cm appear to be
higher after dredging [though these
levels are still lower than those
shown in Figs. 3.7 (B) and 3.7 (C)].
This increase was probably due to the
removal of the top portions of the
deposit which contained low total
sulfides and the exposure of the higher
EVALUATION OF TECHNIQUES
A major objective of this study was to
evaluate the techniques used to monitor
and examine changes in benthic systems
due to dredging.
The techniques employed
in this study were well suited to detailed examinations of the benthic
system previously described. '"Bella,
1972). Future research should, how-
ever, expand the scope of the measurements in order to better understand
the relevant system properties.
The
use of the field press was particularly
successful.
Freezing and thawing of
cores, however, should normally be
avoided for measurements within interstitial waters. Rather, the field press
should be employed to extract interstitial waters immediately after core
collection.
Where possible, samples
should then be immediately fixed and
analysis should be performed later
under laboratory conditions.
Free sulfides should be measured immediately
after extraction,
In order to better
carry out these field studies, a trailer
laboratory which can be located at future
study sites should be employed.
While the techniques employed in this
study will be extremely useful in future
-45-
The results for an eight hour period
studies, they have the major deficiency
of requiring far too great an effort to
sample a single site.
encompassing the dredging activities
A major deficiency
are tabulated in Appendix III.
The
data establish background conditions
of this study has been the limited num-
before dredging with the following
representative values:
ber of sites examined (a total of six).
As a result, interpretation of the re-
sults has been difficult and somewhat
In order to improve
speculative.
the evaluations of impacts of dredging
on estuarine benthic systems, sampling
Temperature:
Salinity:
14-15°C
8-20% depending on tide
stage
Dissolved oxygen: 6.4-7.4 mg/1
7.30-7.5
pH;
Turbidity: 4-83 Jackson Turbidity
Units (JTU)
Not
detectable
Sulfides:
must be greatly expanded in both the
As a
spatial and temporal dimensions.
practical measure, therefore, meaning-
ful sampling and measurement procedures
must be greatly simplified particularly
with regard to the field portions of
With the exception of two dissolved
studies. The development of these
simplified techniques and their use to
oxygen measurements, the turbidity
level was the only measured water
expand the temporal and spatial di-
quality parameter to change appreciably
during dredging. Turbidity rose to
over 500 JTU's in the wake of the
dredge during both the dredging and
This
spoiling phases of the operation.
exceeds the 50 JTU limit rise established by the EPA for properly conducted
dredge activities.
mensions of such studies must be a
major objective of future research.
Estuaries are characterized by wide
spatial and temporal variations and
unless such variations are better understood, the impact of dredging will be
extremely difficult if not impossible
to evaluate. Finally, the development
of more simple procedures is necessary
if they are to be practically employed
Accompanying the rise in tuurbidity in
on a widespread basis by private, state
and federal agencies.
increase
the dredge wake was a significant
in sea gull feeding activity.
The sea gulls wire feeding oninnows
which had surfaced with the turbid wat-
ers.
RELATED WATER QUALITY MEASUREMENTS
Water quality was assessed
before,
during and after dredging. Two techniques were used:
injuries being sustained
tained with ion electrodes using
a Hydrolab portable water quality
monitor. Temperature, salinity,
dissolved oxygen and pH were
determined at various depths.
A significant drop in dissolved oxygen
was observed on two occasions at the
dredge site.
In both instances, the
Hydrolab sensor was located on the bottom, downstream from the dredge, a few
minutes after spoiling had ceased.
D.O. levels below 2 mg/l were observed
2. Bottle samples were obtained at
surface,
from passing
through the dredge pumping system.
1. In situ measurements were ob-
the
One of the minnows was retrieved
from the surface and was found to be
decapitated. It was hypothesized that
the accelerated feeding was due to
the presence of injured minnows, the
mid-depth and bottom
with a four-bottle dissolved oxy-
on the Hydrolab
gen sampler. Standard laboratory analyses were conducted to
meter.
One of these
measurements was verified by bottle
The resulting D.O., using the
idiometric method, was 3.6 mg/1. The
lag between spoiling and the low D.O.
sampling.
determine dissolved oxygen, pH,
sulfides and turbidity.
-46-
levels may be the time required by biochemical processes to utilize the
organically rich sediments.
Sulfide levels were not detected in
This concurred
the water column.
with the sulfide free condition of
the natural and spoiled sediment.
SUMMARY
Free sulfides were not detected within
the interstitial waters of the sediments
at the dredging site, nor were free
sulfides measured within the overlying
waters during the dredging operations.
The absence of free sulfides may have
been due, in part, to the regular
overturning of the sediments due to
shipping activities and water currents.
If significant near-continuous overturning is present in this region as
suggested, then the chronic environmental impacts may be more significant
than the acute impacts caused by individual dredging operations.
The sampling techniques employed in
this study were found to be quite
useful for detailed sediment examination; however, the effort per site
was too great to provide the spatial
and temporal sampling breadth needed
for improved studies. The need to
develop more efficient techniques
and the need to sample more regions
over longer periods of time is recognized.
The study demonstrated that turbidity
levels during the dredging operations
exceeded the levels recommended by
the Environmental Protection Agency.
Even prior to dredging, measured
turbidity levels exceeded recommended
levels, thus emphasizing possible
chronic environmental impacts in this
area.
Chapter 4.
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF DREDGE AND SPOIL SITE
The Coos Bay study included a comparison
of the benthic infauna before and after
dredge operations at dredge and spoil
sites.
It involved:
1) an inventory
of the benthic meiofauna (organisms between 1 and 0.1 mm in size) and macro-
fauna (organisms > 1 ram) before dredge
operations, 2) an assessment of the
mechanical removal of benthic fauna by
dredging, 3) an evaluation of the
response of benthic fauna to spoiling,
and 4) an evaluation of the practicability of collecting samples from the
hoppers of the dredge. Approximately
8000 cubic yards of material were removed by the U.S. Corps of Engineer's
dredge Chester Harding on October 4,
1972, stored in the hopper, and dumped
at a site approximately 1/2 km downstream from the dredging area at a
depth of 12 meters.
Previous studies on the Umpqua River
Estuary (see NSF-RANN progress report)
have suggested that biological responses
can be localized and extremely rapid.
Therefore, our sampling program was
designed to use very small, welldefined areas that were well marked to
allow relocation.
We sampled at frequent intervals over a relatively short
time period (seven days) to ensure that
changes in faunal abundance would reflect
the mechanical effect of dredging operations rather than seasonally occurring
physical or biological variations.
A series of six stations (1-6) were
established on cross-channel transect
perpendicular to the proposed dredging
channel (Figure 4.1). Each station was
marked with a buoy, located on the chart,
and to ensure that stations could be relocated even if buoys were lost, its
relationship to permanent landmarks was
carefully established. The stations
were approximately 33 meters apart.
SIEVE VOL,
ttl BEFORE N AFTER
000N.
O W W
Q
III IIIIII
Illllliflllllllll
I
N N N N
s CC 100
I
11111111111111111111111111 I
01
1111111111111111111111111111
MEAN 0.
VOLUME;
MEAN
SI E
D
I
I
IIIIII
IN
1®
111f1111111111111111u111
D
II
IIIIIIllllll(j
1IIIIUI11111111IIlullIIIII
l111111IHIIlIM11111111111u
SEDIMENT
I
Two of the stations (2 and 3) were
dredged over to an unspecified degree
an d four remained undredged (1, 4, 5
and 6).
Three stations (10, 11 and 12) in the
spoil area were established on a cross
channel transect, and positions were
defined in a similar manner (Figure
1-3).
Two stations (10 and 11) had
spoil material dropped over them, but
the third (12) did not.
A Shipek grab sampler (1/25 m2) was
used to collect all samples.
At the
dredge site 36 samples were collected
before dredging: paired samples from
each of the six stations on three
consecutive days (September 28, 29
and 30).
After dredging, 36 additional samples were collected within
24 hours.
At the spoil site twelve
samples were collected: paired samples from each three stations on
September 30 and October 1.
Six
additional samples were collected
within 24 hours after spoiling
(see Tables 4.1 and 4.2).
Additional samples were taken at varying
intervals after dredging and spoiling
to follow repopulation patterns as a
part of the NSF-RANN study and are
not further considered in this study.
Direct sampling of the sediment slurry
entering the hoppers of the Chester
Harding was made with a bucket.
Twelve samples were taken during the
course of the dredging operation when
the dredge passed over the transect
line near Stations 2 and 3.
from the rest of the sample will be
described in our forthcoming NSF-RANN
progress report.
Briefly, the method
consisted of fluidizing and filtering
the sediment through a 0.5 mm sieve.
A 1.0 mm sieve failed to retain many
of the smaller organisms. The sieved
material consisting of organisms,
wood chips, and vegetation was preserved in 70 percent isoproply alcohol.
Rose Bengal stain was used to differentially stain the organisms, from
the wood chips and vegetative matter.
The sieved material from each Shipek
grab sample was hand-picked in glass
trays for all large organisms (greater
than 2 mm).
The sample then was
reduced in a Folsom Plankton Splitter
to workable aliquots (about 100 cc)
and all organisms were hand-picked
under a stereomicroscope. Organisms
were separated into proper taxa and
tentatively identified. Results were
normalized to a 1000 cc sample size
(AppendiceslV.l and IV.2). Volumetric
reporting in this situation was thought
to be more realistic than the usual
areal reporting (number per m2) because
of the high numerical density of meiofauna encountered in relatively small
volumes of sediment and the variability
in the volumes (and depth) of sediment
taken by the grab.
Samples from the
hopper (AppendixlV.3) were picked in
their entirety.
They also were reported
volumetrically, but were not comparable
to the grab samples because he water
content of the dredge slurry is highly
variable and unknown.
RESULTS
All samples were measured volumetrically, preserved with formalin, and
returned to the laboratory to be
processed.
Grab samples consisted of a mixture
of inorganic sands, benthic organisms,
wood chips and fibers, other vegetation, and shell fragments. A technique for separating the organisms
-50-
It was noted early in the sampling program that the volume of sediment sampled
by the Shipek grab was related to the
sediment type of the collection site.
Collections from Stations 1 and 2 with
fine silt bottoms usually resulted in a
full grab bucket, while much smaller
volumes were obtained from Stations 6
and 11 having firm, sand bottoms
Collections
(Figures 4.1 and 4.2).
from Station 6 were further complicated by the presence of relict oyster shells and occasional wood debris
which prevented uniform penetration
of the grab into the sediment and
often clogged the grab on closing.
at Station 11, and fine wood chips in
heavy concentrations at Station 12.
These wood chips were in such profusion
as to form a thick mat on the bottom at
Following spoiling, a
this station.
significant increase in the mean 0.5 mm
sieve volume was observed at Station 11
Station 10, also showed
(Table 4.4).
Incomplete
increases in this volume.
data prevented a comparison of mean 0.5
mm volumes at Station 12.
Mean sample volumes collected at
each station before and after dredging
operations were compared to determine
if sediment changes induced by dredging or spoiling affected the volume
of sediment collected. Table 4.4
gives calculated t values and significance levels of differences in
mean grab bite volumes before and
after dredge operations.
Both the dredge and spoil sites contained
a wide variety of benthic invertebrates
The most
before dredging operations.
frequently encountered organisms were
the small polychaetous annelids,
StreLlospio benedicti, Pseudopolydora
kempi, Polydora ligni, Eteone lighti,
Capitella (Capitata) ovincola, and
Free living nemoGlycinde armigera.
tode worms and two species of Oligochaetes were frequently encountered.
Mollusks were represented by Macoma
inconspicua, Clinocardium nutallii,
Cumaceans, amphipods,
and Mya arenaria.
harpactocoid copepods, and ostracods
were the most frequently encountered
Arthropods. The abundance and total
number of species represented from each
sample, both before and after dredging
are listed in Appendices IV.1 and IV.2.
At the 5 percent level no significant
difference was detected at any staIt was concluded that our
tion.
sampler took uniform volumes at each
station both before and after dredging and spoiling.
The volume of debris retained in a
0.5 mm screen varied among stations
At the dredge site
(Figure 4.1).
before dredging, the general trend
was increasing volumes outward
from Station 1, reaching a maximum
at Station 4 and declining towards
We found assorted vegStation 6.
etation and small amounts of wood
chips at Stations 1 and 2, abundant
wood chips at Station 3, large wood
chips and wood debris including
large pieces of bark, twigs, etc.,
at Stations 4 and 5, and shell and
Following
wood chips at Station 6.
dredging, changes in the mean 0.5
mm sieved volumes were significant
at Stations 5 and 6 (Table 4.4);
Station 5 showed a mean increase
in volume, while station 6, a mean
An increase in wood debris
decrease.
at Station 5 could be casually observed in the 0.5 mm volumes after
The types of taxa represented at each
of the sites appear to be similar.
Although nematodes, ostracods, and
harpacticoid copepods were frequently
encountered in our samples, they were
not quantitatively retained in the
They were not included in the
sieve.
discussion and figures. Collections
made on September 28 have not been
included in the discussion and figures.
These were made on the first day of the
study and adjustments in technique caused
us to question the validity of the results.
They were originally screened through a
0.291 mm sieve and not through the 0.50 mm
sieve that was subsequently used.
Although a later screening was made at
the 0.50 mm level, it was felt that the
double screening might have biased the
dredging.
At the spoil sites the 0.5 mm fraction was composed of wood chips and
vegetation at Station 10, wood debris
sample.
-51-
32
30
28
SPOIL SITE
MEAN GRAB VOLUME,
MEAN
0.5 MM
2
S I®EVE
BEFORE
VOLUME
AFTER
24
N 22
V
v 20
0
0 18
16
I--
z 14
w
2
0
12
cn
w
10
0
4
2
0
12
STATION
NUMBERS
FIGURE 4.2
Dredge Site (Stations 1-6)
The course of the Chester Hardin
through the dredge site resulted in
repeated dredging of Station 2.
Station 3 also was heavily dredged although
to a lesser extent. Although Station
1 was not in the direct path of the
dredge it was narrowly missed repeatedly.
Stations 4, 5 and 6 were progressively removed from the vicinity
of active dredging.
The abundance of total organisms
varied at each station. Station 6
showed the highest mean abundance of
total organisms before dredging (2043
organisms/1000 cc), while Station 1
had the lowest (560 organisms/1000 cc).
Significant decreases in mean abundance
of total organisms were seen at Sta-
tions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 following
dredging (Figure 4.3, Table 4.4). The
percent changes in mean total abundance
was greatest at Station 2 (-88.3%);
Station 3 showed -74.1%; Station 1,
-70.4%; Station 5, -65.2%, and Station
6, -45.2%. Only Station 4 failed to
show a statistically significant decline in total organisms following
dredging (Table 4.4). At the 10% significance level, however, a difference
in means after dredging was detected
at Station 4. The percent change in
total abundance is relatively low
(-34.3%). With the exception of Station 4 and a single collection from
Station 6, every grab sample taken
after dredging showed fewer organisms
(Figure 4.4). The percent change in
mean total abundance suggested that
Stations 1, 2, and 3 were most affected
by dredging.
Following dredging the
variation in total abundance among
collections was reduced at Stations
l and 2, which indicated that the
organisms remaining after dredging
were more evenly distributed over the
bottom.
Station 3 showed a large increase in variation among individual
grabs suggesting a highly uneven distribution of organisms (Figure 4.4).
Data on the number of taxa represented
before and after dredging are somewhat
variable and no clearcut increases or
decreases could be seen (Table 4.5).
These data should be viewed with the
realiziation that the number of taxa
recorded is equally affected by the
presence of one rare organism or 500
members of a dominant taxa. Hence,
small changes in taxa numbers may not
be significant.
Figure 4.5 shows the percentage change
in abundance of selected taxa before
and after dredging. Most taxa declined following dredging at all staPolychaetes and oligochaetes
tions.
showed maximum declines at Station 2.
The greatest decline in amphipods
occurred at Station 3, followed closely
by Station 2. Cumaceans declined at
Station 5 to the greatest extent followed by Stations 2 and 3 respectively.
Several taxa increased in relative
Bivalves
numbers following dredging.
increased at Station 1 and pycnogonids
increased at Stations 1 and 2. Amphipods were represented at Station 4
only after dredging.
A Shannon-Weaver diversity index
(Shannon-Weaver, 1963) was calculated
for each grab sample before and after
dredging.
Based on information theory
the index is calculated from the
following formula:
S
H' _ -E pi 1092
pa
i=l
where:
H' = diversity in bits of information/individual
S
= total number of species
pi = observed proportion of indh
victuals belonging to the i
species.
22 n
dow%
00O
" 18
z IC
DREDGE SITE
MEAN ABUNDANCE
ft.wo
TOTAL ORGANISMS
w
M 14
BEFORE
0
(
12
0
10
'0
m
E
OF
AFTER
8
6
w
4
z
2
in
0
I
2
3
4
STATION NUMBERS
FIGURE 4.3
5
6
omft
0
25
0
x
DREDGE
20
E-
z
®
w
TOTAL ORGANISMS/COLLECTION
BEFORE.9
w
SITE
0
2 AFTER
15
n
d
10
I
0
0
2
4
3
STATION
FIGURE
NUMBERS
4.4
R
0
DREDGE
SITE
PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN MAJOR
TAXA AFTER DREDGING
220
210
oa
of
ob
POLYCHAETES 1 CUMACEAN
17 0
N
OLIGOCHAETES
16
12
m
PYCNOGONIDS
PHOIDS
NOT REPRESENT-
ED BEFORE
I
BIVALVES
DREDGING
Zd
PYCNOGONIDS
40
30
20
NOT REPRE-
OAMPHIPODS
(TOTAL
ORGANISMS
SENTED
b
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-
-60
-70
-80
-90
100
1
2
3
4
STATION NUMBER
FIGURE
45
5
6
Spoil Site (Stations 10, 11 and 12)
The Coos Bay H' values must be
viewed with caution since we are
dealing with relatively instantaneous changes in the benthic
community which were occurring
rather than long-term adaptations.
Diversity indices in general "permit summarization of large amounts
of information regarding the numbers and kinds of organisms obFor our
served" (Patten, 1962).
purpose, the Shannon-Weaver index
was used to ascertain changes
in community structure following
mechanical removal of a portion
Generally, our
of the community.
H' values increased slightly except at Stations 1 and 2 where
relatively large increases were
Station 4 showed a
detected.
small decrease in value (Table
4.6).
Values for H' have been shown by
Lloyd and Ghelardi (1964) to be
sensitive to both species richness
(number of species in the sample)
and equitability (distribution of
individuals). H' for an existing
community might be increased in two
ways. One would be by the addition
of more species, which did not seem
to occur in our studies (Table 4.5);
the other would be for existing
species to become more evenly distributed. The distribution of benthic infaunal organisms depends on
the stability of the sediment habiViolent disruption of the seditat.
ment should greatly alter the observed
distributions of individuals followUsing a
ing dredging operations.
table developed by Lloyd and Ghelardi
(1964) it is possible to calculate
equitability from H'. At the dredge
site (Table 4.7), these values show
a marked increase after dredging
for Stations 1 and 2, a slight increase at Stations 3, 5 and 6, and
a slight decrease at Station 4.
-57-
Before spoiling, Station 12 had the
highest mean abundance with 1638 organisms/1000 cc. Station 10 followed
with 330 organisms/1000 cc, while Station 11 had only 37 organisms/1000 cc.
This same relationship among stations
held following spoiling (Figure 4.6).
Decreases in mean total abundance
occurred at all stations following
spoiling, but were not significant at
the 5 percent level. However, a significance level of 10 percent readily
detected changes at Stations 10 and
12 (1c..ble 4.4). The percent change at
these stations was -77.3% and -63.7%
Station 11 is somewhat
respectively.
confusing. No significant change in
mean total abundance was seen although
this station experienced extensive
Reasons for this possible
spoiling.
anomaly will be considered later.
Although there were changes in mean
abundance, it appears that spoiling
had little effect on the numbers of
taxa represented (Table 4.5).
Shannon-Weaver diversity indices H',
calculated for the spoil site showed
a slight increase at Station 10 and
12 following spoiling while Station
11 remained relatively constant
(Table 4.6).
Equitability values increased at all
stations, particularly at Station 11
(Table 4.7).
Hopper Samples
During the dredging operation the hoppers
of the dredge were sampled directly using
a bucket for collection. Twelve samples
were taken in the vicinity of Stations
Sample volumes are shown in
2 and 3.
Polychaete worms, bivalves,
Table 4.3.
harpacticoid copepods, and nematodes
were encountered (Appendix 4.3).
M
lt
-6367%
SPOIL SITE
MEAN ABUNDANCE OF
TOTAL
0
ORGANISMS
I
ti
7
J
BEFORE
AFTER
6
5
4
3
2
I
01,
10
II
STATION NUMBERS
FIGURE 4 6
12
The Chester Harding's suction heads
pick up varying amounts of sediment,
debris, and organisms as they move
along the bottom.
Large quantities
of water are also taken up at this
time resulting in random dilutions
of slurry being found in the hoppers
at any given time.
For these reasons
it is not unusual that the abundance
of organisms sampled from the hoppers
is much lower than those sampled by
grabs.
The diluted nature of the
hopper slurry also restricts the
number of species encountered. Only
the most numerically dominant species
are usually encountered and then at
much lower levels than would be
expected.
It is our conclusion that
sampled benthic infauna from the hoppers of an operating dredge may be
misleading by depicting trends which
are not representative of the bottom
community.
In an earlier study in
the Great Lakes these same conclusions were reached regarding hopper
sampling (Boyd et al., 1972).
DISCUSSION
Benthic invertebrates have been frequently used as indicators of water
quality because they are omnipresent,
have relatively long lives, and have
sedentary habits (Hynes, 1960; Reisch,
1960; Hawkes, 1962; Wass, 1967, and
McNulty, 1970).
Gaufin and Tarzwell
(1952) suggested that benthic invertebrates indicate the water quality at
the time of sampling as well as past
conditions during the life spans of
the organisms sampled.
At the stations sa:apled in this study,
the bottom fauna contains many species
which have been reported in the literature to be indicators of pollution:
Streblospio benedict, Capitella
capitata, Nereis spp., Polydora
ligni, Scoloplos armigera, and Ma
arenaria (Richardson, 1970; Richards,
1969, and Dean, 1970). Streblospio
benedicti, the most frequently encountered species in our collections
has been compared to "certain weeds
which proliferate over broad areas
of man's disclimaxes."
(Wass, 1967,
p. 275).
Further evidence that the system was
less than healthy was evident from our
measurement of volatile solids (mean
> 10%).
Pre-dredge H' values are
similar with those calculated by
Pearson et al. (1967) in polluted
areas of San Francisco Bay. Sewer
outfalls, heavy ship traffic, and log
transport and storage further suggest
a less than pristine environment for
this region of the Coos Bay.
While our studies were planned to
measure changes due to mechanical
removal by dredging our results suggest that on a short-term basis, the
effects of mechanical removal were not
localized.
Several factors must be
considered in analyzing the results
of this study.
First it must be stated that this was
a limited, one-day dredging operation,
designed to remove a small shoal (8023
yards3) in a narrow channel with a
large hopper dredge which would allow
dumping.
The region of this study has
a history of frequent dredging.
The
channel was approximately 215 m wide
at our transect and the Chester Harding
is 94 m in length with a 17 m beam and
a draft range of 4 to 6 m.
At the outset we had expected the dredged
stations (Stations 2 and 3) to show
changes which would not be seen at the
undredged stations. The data obtained
did indeed indicate a decrease in infaunal abundance at the dredged stations
(2 and 3) as expected, but such changes
were of only slightly larger magnitude
than the changes at Station 1 located
adjacent to Station 2. What was not
expected was a decline in faunal abundance after dredging at all stations.
Stations 1 and 2 showed similar
responses to dredging activity, large
decreases in faunal abundance, reduction in sample variability, and relatively large increases in H' and equitability.
The proximity of the two
stations (33m) is reflected in sediment type and water depth (7.6 m).
It appeared that the combined effects
of a fine silt bottom, shallow water
depth and the deep draft of the
Chester Harding would produce these
results.
When loaded, the screws of
the vessel are within 3 meters of the
bottom resulting in a continual stirring of the fine silt.
In addition,
the wide beam of the vessel, and the
close spacing of our buoy stations
makes it highly probable that violent "prop wash" affected Station 1.
Station 3 also exhibited a decrease
in faunal abundance, but differed
from Station 1 and 2 by showing
increased sample variability and
only slight increase in H' and
equitability. Physical differences between this station and
Stations 1 and 2 may explain these
data.
Station 3 was located in
deeper water (9.1 m), had a bottom
heavily covered with wood chips and
experienced less dredging than StaThe deeper water, more contion 2.
solidated bottom, and fewer passes
of the dredge would reduce the effect
of prop wash.
Equitability after
dredging is not indicative of the
homogenizing effect seen at Stations
1 and 2.
Coupled with the large
increase of variability among samples it appears that dredging was
spotty at Station 3.
Removing the
effects of prop wash the pattern of
dredged and undredged sections at the
station might remain.
Station 4 was undredged, and a significant (5% level) decrease in
faunal abundance was not recorded.
Slight decreases in H' and equitability were encountered. Dredging
-60-
apparently had minimal effect in this
area possibly because of its increased
distance from the dredge channel and
its water depth (10.6 m).
Stations 5 and 6 showed decreases in
faunal abundance and small increases
The signifiin H' and equitability.
cant increase in the 0.5 mm sieve volumes following dredging suggests an
influx of large amounts of wood debris.
Material of this type was recorded
only at Station 4 prior to dredging and
it may be that changes in hydrography
resulted in altered current patterns,
resulting in transport of wood debris
Detailed hydrographic,
to Station S.
and bathymetric measurements would be
necessary to more fully explain these
results.
Spoil Site
At the spoil site fewer samples were
taken due to time constraints and increased shipping activity. Analysis
of the results is difficult.
Before spoiling, Station 12 had a much
greater mean density of benthic infauna
(1638/1000 cc) than Station 10 (330/
Both stations decrease in
1000 cc).
mean total abundance after spoiling
(10% significance level). Mean abundance at Station 10 and 12 changed
-77.3% and -63.7% respectively. Station 12 was not directly spoiled over,
and it appears that the effects of
spoiling were not confined to the spoil
station alone but perhaps dispersed
over Station 12 which was not far enough
distant to serve as a control.
The 0.5 mm sieve volume and mean grab
volume at Stations 10 and 11 increased
after spoiling, and a visual inspection
revealed an increase in wood debris and
plant material as well. Whether organisms from the dredge site were displaced
into the spoil site via the dredge is
not possible to determine for several
reasons:
1) the species composition were similar at each site
before dredging and spoiling; 2)
the two sites did not receive
similar treatment; the dredge
site experienced sediment removal
while the spoil site experienced
burial; and 3) there were differential settling and dispersal rates
of organisms and debris at the spoil
site.
The results from Station 11 are
Although within the area
of maximum dumping, a significant
decrease in mean total abundance
of fauna did not occur. This lack
of decrease in mean abundance after
spoiling at Station 11 can be attributed to a large vessel dragging
its anchors over the station on
the day prior to hopper dredge
spoiling.
Collections taken
immediately following this incident resulted in lower faunal
abundances than were found after
spoiling (Figure 4.7).
The limited scope of this dredging
operation, and the fact that biological
studies were confined to measuring the
extent of mechanical removal of benthic
infauna, prevented us from making observations on benthic recovery or delineating possible effects on other
components of the estuarine ecosystem.
Continuing studies will allow us to
analyze data taken at intervals after
dredging and should provide information
on the stability and recovery rate of
the benthic infaunal community.
unique.
While the lack of these data to
show clearcut changes in this
spoiling area may result from inadequate sampling, it may also
reflect a masking of changes by an
almost daily disturbance of the
bottom.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Our study suggested that for this
particular section of the Coos Bay
Estuary the benthic fauna are
representative of moderately polluted environments in other regions
of the nation. The study area has
been subject to many previous perturbations such as fires within the
watershed, frequent dredging,
heavy industrialization, and commercial ship traffic, which have
produced a fauna adapted to almost
daily physical and chemical disturbances.
The benthic infaunal community depicted
in our pre-dredge sampling represents
the culmination of biological adaptations to former physical and chemical
disturbances. Since dredging is
directly responsible for only a portion
of these disturbances it is clear that
cessation of dredging alone will not
return the fauna of the study area to
more desirable levels of diversity and
abundance.
Given the present set of
conditions and the daily disruption
of sediments in Coos Bay it appears
that the small scale maintenance dredging
may have only a temporary effect on the
benthic infauna.
Evidence from Stations
1-4 of this study suggests that less
frequent but more intensive dredging
(to a deeper depth) would tend to
reduce bottom stirring by ship traffic,
Research is needed to determine if
water quality would improve with less
frequent, but more intensive dredging
activity.
It should be stressed however, that the effects of dredging
operations per se cannot be compared
to the long-term effects of dredging
which open an estuary to commercial
ship traffic, industrialization and
urbanization.
CONCLUSIONS
1.
Based on these data the benthic
infauna of the Marshfield Range
region of Coos Bay is rather impoverished and similar in species
composition and diversity (H')
SPOIL SITE
0
TOTAL ORGANISMS/COLLECTION
AFTER
0
° BEFORE
I7n
F-
1su
z z1 5
w
14
0
0 13
uWi
0
12
II
10
9
0
S
7
w,
cr.
0
m
z 4
2
e
0
I
0
9
8
.
10
12
STATION NUMBERS
FIGURE 4.7
-62-
8.
values to other "moderately
polluted" areas described in
the literature by other investigators.
Diversity values (H') ranged from
.3506 to .9778 for the dredge site
and .3103 to 1.68 for the spoil
site suggesting an impoverished
community.
2.
After dredging, H'
values increased (due to increased
equitability) at shallow water
stations which had fine sediments.
This result was probably due to
prop wash of the dredge vessel
Factors which are thought to be
conducive to the polluted condition of this study area are:
sewer outfalls, heavy ship
traffic, log transport and
storage, and organic loadings.
3.
homogenizing the sediment surface.
9.
While significant decreases in
infaunal abundance were seen at
Bivalves show the least decline in
abundance as the result of dredging
operations and even increased at
both dredged and undredged stations following dredge operations,
one adjacent station after dredging.
The reasons for this singular increase are not readily apparent at
this time.
these decreases appear related to
both actual dredging and other
disturbances of the sediment
surface.
10.
4.
No significant change was determined
in grab sample volume between sam-
These data suggest that the
mechanical effects of dredging
activity depend on: a) the
size of the dredge operation,
b.) the depth of water, c) the
past dredge history and frequency of dredging, d) draft
ples taken prior to or after dredging
at any given
station.
Based on 0.5
mm sieve volume the amount of debris
in the sediment increases after
spoiling.
and size of the dredging vessel,
11.
e) sediment
type, and f) the
type. of benthic community.
The limited scope of this study reflects only gross, direct changes
and any long-term chronic changes
cannot be assessed without further
5.
Our data suggest that when
dredging is not complete,
islands of undredged material
may be left which increase sample variation and hinder inter
pretation of the results. It
is suggested that these patches
may be important in subsequent
study.
12.
the dredge contained low numbers of
the dominant benthic infauna and
were not comparable with the grab
samples.
re-establishment of the area.
6.
13.
Results of in-bay spoiling were
less defined, however a decline
in mean abundance and slightly
higher diversity H' values were
generally observed.
7.
Large vessels dragging anchors
over the bottom appeared to pro-
duce the same decline in
Samples taken from the hoppers of
abun-
dance at the spoil site as the
suction heads produced at the
dredge site.
-63-
In addition to dredging and spoiling,
other activities (prop wash, vessel
traffic) were observed to contribute
to bottom instability and tend to
mask the effects of dredging.
Table 4-1.
Sediment Data - Dredge Site.
Sample
Station
Number
Number
1-1-A
1
DATE
(1972)
28 Sept.
Sediment
Area
Volume
Sieve
Composition
Sampled
Sampled
centimeters
Volume
Centimeters
0.04
3,980
115
3,980
3,980
3,980
5,130
230
515
410
4,650
3,230
490
840
Black silt
vegetation
28 Sept.
1-1-B
1
2-1-A
2
28 Sept.
2-1-B
2
28 Sept.
3-1-A
3
28 Sept.
II
I
II
I
II
I
Black silt
100
wood chips
3-1-B
4-1-A
4
28 Sept.
28 Sept.
4-1-B
5-1-A
4
5
28 Sept.
28 Sept.
Black silt
4,010
1,170
1625
45
5-1-B
5
28 Sept.
S an d , Sh e
Wood chips
3,190
175
6-1-A
6-1-B
6
2,610
1,640
3,210
80
55
90
3,240
4,540
2,700
2,610
95
145
3
Wood debris
black silt
1-2-A
1-2-B
2-2-A
2-2-B
3-2-A
6
1
1
2
2
3
28 Sept.
28 Sept.
29 Sept.
29 Sept.
29 Sept.
29 Sept.
29 Sept.
ll
Black silt
Sand, Shell
"
Black silt
Vege t a
on
"
ti
I
It
t
II
Black
silt
260
145
wood c hi ps
woo
3-2-B
4-2-A
4
29 Sept.
29 Sept.
4-2-B
5-2-A
4
5
29 Sept.
29 Sept.
5-2-B
6-2-A
6-2-B
1-3-A
5
3
6
6
1
29
29
29
30
Sept.
Sept
Sept.
Sept.
Wood debris
I
t
Black silt
2,680
920
2,540
320
"
2,340
1,650
2,070
2,750
150
75
80
120
2,610
2,900
95
150
It
3,300
90
350
It
2,730
2,600
415
1015
It
2,590
2,640
890
il
Sand, Shell
0.04
"
Black silt
765
775
II
II
Wood Chips
Black
ac s t
2,920
2,750
"
Vegetation
1-3-B
2-3-A
2-3-B
3-3-A
1
2
2
3
30
30
30
30
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
II
II
Black
Wood
oo c
3-3-B
4-3-A
3
4-3-B
5-3-A
4
4
30 Sept.
30 Sept.
silt
ps
Wood debris
Black silt
5
30 Sept.
30 Sept.
ood chips
Black silt
Sand
,80o
II
170
Table 4-1.
Sample
Number
Cont.
Station
Number
(1972)
5-3-B
5
30 Sept.
6-3-A
6-3-B
6
30 Sept.
30 Sept.
05 Oct.
6
.1-4-A
1
1-4-B
1
2-4-A
2-4-B
2
2
3-4-A
3
3-4-B
3
4-4-A
4
4-4-B
5-4-A
5-4-B
6-4-A
6-4-B
- 5-A
4
5
5
6
6
1
1
1-5-B
1
2-5-A
2-5-B
2
-A
3
3-5-B
4-5-A
3
3-5
4-5-B
5-5-A
5-5-B
2
4
4
5
6-5-A
5
6
6-5-B
6
1
DATE
- 6-
A
1- 6 -B
2-6-A
2-6-B
3-6-A
l
05 Oct.
05 Oct.
05 Oct.
05 Oct.
05 Oct.
05 Oct.
05
05
05
05
05
05
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
05
05
05
05
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Area
Sampled
Meter2
Volume
Sampled
centimeter3
Wood chips
Black silt
Sand
Sand, Shell
0.04
2,440
170
2,160
610
3,730
115
3,170
120
90
355
"
H
11
Black silt
Vegetation
it
3,800
2,860
3,730
Black silt
Wood chips
Wood debris
Black silt
"
II
05 Oct.
05 Oct.
05 Oct.
05 Oct.
05 Oct.
05 Oct.
05 Oct.
05 Oct.
2
05 Oct.
05 Oct.
05 Oct.
3
05 Oct.
1
2
Sediment
Composition
11
Sand, Shell
Black silt
Vegetation
II
II
IF
11
Black silt
Wood chips
I
I
11
If
Wood debris
Black silt
11
If
11
It
Sand, Shell
it
if
Black silt
Vegetation
II
"
II
Black silt
2,930
3,000
3,040
2,200
3,300
1,290
1,030
2,860
Sieve
Volume
Centimeter3
55
-
150
270
770
1,390
150
750
60
45
75
2,850
2,880
3,090
3,550
195
345
3,100
2,950
1,290
760
2,850
2,358
2,500
790
80
125
2,360
625
300
50
810
2,750
40
110
2,900
3,140
205
2,710
235
3,220
170
105
Wood chips
3-6-B
4-6-A
3
4
05 Oct.
05 Oct.
II
3,030
Wood debris
190
,
3,000
1,170
2,350
2,770
2,610
1,340
1,000
1,595
565
655
70
50
Black silt
4-6-B
5-6-A
5-6-B
6-6-A
6-6-B
4
5
5
6
6
05
05
05
05
05
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
1F
II
Sand, Shell
-65-
Table 4-2.
Sediment Data - Spoil Site.
Sample
Station
Number
Number
10-1-A
10
DATE
(1972)
30 Sept.
Sediment
Area
Sampled
Volume
Sampled
Sieve
Composition
Meter2
Centimeter3
Centimeter3
0.04
2,760
375
2,840
370
85
Black silt
Volume
Wood chips
30 Sept.
30 Sept.
10-1-B
11-1-A
10
11-1-B
12-1-A
12-1-B
10-2-A
10-2-B
11-2-A
11
11-2-B
12-2-A
11
12
01 Oct.
01 Oct.
12-2-B
10-3-A
12
10
01 Oct.
05 Oct.
10-3-B
11-3-A
10
11
05 Oct.
05 Oct.
11-3-B
12-3-A
11
05 Oct.
"
12
05 Oct.
12-3-B
12
05 Oct.
11
800
Sand
Wood chips
12
12
10
10
11
30 Sept.
30 Sept.
30 Sept.
01 Oct.
01 Oct.
01 Oct.
1,090
2,910
2,700
3,020
1,230
11
Wood chips
Black silt
II
Sand
160
1,220
930
130
-
I I
790
55
I I
1,550
2,840
115
Wood chips
I I
Wood chips
II
325
Black silt
950
125
3,250
1,000
3,000
2,400
440
440
1,410
2,600
350
Wood chips
"
1,000
Wood debris
Black silt
11
Wood debris
Sand
Black silt
135
Table
Sample
Number
4-3.
Dredge Hopper Samples.
Station
Number
DATE
(1972)
1-A
2
1-B
2
2
2-B
3-A
3-B
4-A
2
2
4-B
5-A
3
4
3
4
5-B
6-A
6-B
3
3
4
3
4
2-A
2
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
4 Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
4 Oct.
Oct.
Volume
Sampled
Centimeter3
1g0
160
330
310
310
290
310
310
330
300
340
340
Table 4-4.
Differences Between Means of Total Abundance, Grab Bite Volume and 0.5 mm
Sieve Volume From Dredge and Spoil Stations.
Total Abundance
Stations
12
6
1.821
6.074
2.838
1.788
8
8
8
8
4
4
4
1
10*
1
2.5
10
30
10
2
3
calculated t value
6.577
6.483
6.3281
degrees freedom
8
8
1
1
significance level
10
5
4
1
11
2.030
.8657
(
Grab Bite Volume
Stations
calculated t value
.4036
6
10
11
.7974
1.0571
2.0965
4
2
1
.3896
1.8512
1.5408
.6538
12
.6418
degrees freedom
8
8
8
8
8
8
4
4
4
significance level
40
40
10*
10*
30
30
20
10
30
0.5 mm Sieve Volume
Stations
2
3
4
.7187
.0951
.9512
1
calculated t value
.0000
2.4930
1
degrees freedom
significance level
%
10
11
1.8356
6.7031
6
5
2.5410
12
rt
6
8
8
8
8
8
4
99
30
>40
20
2.5
2.5
10*
Lq
4
.5
=
rt
*These values. fell between a significance level of 5%
was agreed to assume the more conservative level.
to 10% and it
Significance levels determined from Table A-5 (p. 375): Remington,
Statistics with Applications to the
1970.
R.D., and M.A. Schork.
Englewood Cliffs,
Prentice-Hall.
Biological and Health Sciences.
New Jersey.
Table 4-5.
Number of Taxa Before:After Dredging and Spoiling.
Dredge Site
Stations
Sample
3
2
-*
5
4
6
2-A
16
11
13
8
11
15
2-B
12
11
12
12
11
17
3-A
13
13
14
10
14
17
3-B
15
14
10
14
13
14
Dredging
4-A
14
11
14
8
13
14
4-B
11
13
2
12
11
12
5-A
14
8
14
9
8
16
5-B
14
8
10
12
10
15
6-A
14
9
9
11
8
15
6-B
13
12
13
11
10
14
Spoil Site
Stations
10
11
12
I-A
7
6
13
1-B
7
9
14
2-A
13
8
12
2-B
15
3
12
-±
Sample -*
4
Spoiling
3-A
6
3
9
3-B
10
7
12
Table 4-6.
Shannon-Weaver Diversity Indices (H').
Dredqe Site
Stations -}
Sample
-}
l
2
3
4
5
6
2-A
.5229
.4010
.5525
.9134
.7196
.8756
2-B
.3506
.7398
.6153
.7105
.5605
.9440
3-A
.4181
.3858
.6586
.8302
.4132
.9192
3-B
.6694
.4981
.5546
.9778
.5885
.9122
Dredging
4-A
1.5877
1.8592
1.3100
.8516
.8441
1.0537
4-B
1.7011
1.3319
-L
.9669
1.1652
1.7115
5-A
1.1787
1.2581
.5925
1.0910
.3173
.6311
5-B
1.2333
1.5635
.4251
.6163
.5254
.7120
6-A
.9146
1.2984
.4612
.5447
.7798
.7369
6-B
1.2220
1.3940
.7084
.5727
.7455
1.0531
*insufficient data
Spoil Site
Stations
Sample
-}
10
-*
11
12
1-A
.6368
1.4251
.3103
1-B
.6746
1.6873
.5718
2-A
.5986
1.3975
.5864
2-B
1.0807
.5510
1.086
Spoiling
3-A
.8435
1.0361
.9289
3-B
1.1913
1.5512
.8280
Table 4-7. Equitability
Stations
Sample
Component of Calculated H' Values.
Dredge Site
-,
1
2
3
-; 2-A
.1031
.1363
.1383
.2762
.1727
.1406
2-B
.1191
.1736
.1250
.1550
.1536
.1329
3-A
.1176
.1123
.1285
.2050
.1085
.1317
3-B
.1220
.1164
.1680
.1678
.1330
.1578
5
Dredging
4-A
.2692
.4281
.2171
.2637
.1584
.1785
4-B
.3800
.2384
-'
.1965
.2481
.3500
5-A
.1964
.3625
.1242
.2666
.1750
.1106
5-B
.2035
.4687
.1530
.1466
.1650
.1220
6-A
.1592
.3322
.1744
.1518
.2450
.1273
6-B
.2192
.2716
.1430
.1554
.1910
.1771
*insufficient data
Spoil Site
Stations -*
Sample
10
11
12
.2571
.5583
.1076
1-B
.2642
.4577
.1228
2-A
.1330
.4087
.1441
2-B
.1770
.4833
.2150
-* 1-A
+
Spoiling
3-A
.3450
.8000
.2466
3-B
.2760
.5314
.1691
-71
LITERATURE CITED
ASTM Standards, Part II.
Bella, D.A.
1973 Annual Edition, pp. 203-213.
"Environmental Considerations for Estuarine Benthal
6: 1409-1418. 1972.
Systems," Water
Research,
Bella, D.A.,
Ramm, A.E., and Peterson, P.E.
"Effects of Tidal Flats on Estuarine
Water Quality," Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, Volume 44,
No. 4, April, 1972. pp. 541-556.
Bertolacini, R.J., and Barney II, J.E.
"Colorimetric Determination of Sulfate
with Barium Chloranilate," Analytical Chemistry, 29:281-283. 1957.
Dean, D. Water Quality.-Benthic Invertebrate Relationships in Estuaries.
Darling Center for Research, Teaching and Service. Walpole, Main.
Mimeo Report.
Ira C.
1972.
Gaufin, A.R., and Tarzwell, C.M.
"Aquatic Invertebrate Indicators of Stream
Pollution," Public Health Report, 67: 57-64. Washington, D.C.
1952.
Hawkes, H.A.
"Biological Aspects of River Pollution, p. 311-432.
L. Klein (ed.). River Pollution II, Causes and
London.
1962.
Cited in:
Butterworths,
456 pp.
Hynes, H.B.N. The Biology of Polluted Water.
pool.
1960.
202 pp.
Lambe, W.T.
Effects.
Soil Testing for
Liverpool University Press, Liver-
John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Engineers.
1951.
Lloyd, M., and Ghelardi, R.J.
"A Table for Calculating the Equitability Component
of Diversity," Journal of Animal Ecology. 33: 217-225. 1964.
"Natural
Resources, Ecological Aspects, Uses and Guidelines for the Management
of Coos Bay, Oregon." Special Report by the U.S. Department of the Interior.
June, 1971.
McNulty, J.D. "Effect of Abatement of Domestic Sewage Pollution on the Benthos,
Volumes of Zooplankton, and the Fouling Organisms of Biscayne Bay, Florida,"
Studies in Tropical Oceanography, No. 9.
University of Miami, 1970. 107 pp.
O'Neil, Gary.
Effects of Northwest Dredging.
Patten, B.C. "Species Diversity in Net Phytoplankton of Raritan Bay," Journal of
Marine Research, 20: 57-75. 1962.
Pearson, E.A.,
Storrs,
P.N., and
Selleck,
R.F.
"Some Physical Parameters and Their
Significance in Marine Waste Disposal." p. 297-315. In: T.A. Olson and F.J.
Burgess (eds.). Pollution and Marine Ecology. Interscience, New York. 1967.
-72-
Percy,
Klingeman, P.C., Sollitt, C.K., Kennedy, J.B.,
Description and Information Sources for Oregon Estuaries.
Water Resources Research Institute Publication, WRRI-19, Oregon State Uni-
Katherine L., Bella, D.A.,
and Slotta, L.S.
versity,
Reish,
Corvallis, Oregon 97331.
March, 1973.
D.J. "The Use of Marine Invertebrates as Indicators of Water Quality."
p. 92-103. In: E.A. Pearson (ed.). Waste Disposal in the Marine Environment.
Pergamon Press, New York.
1960.
R.D., and Schork, M.A. Statistics with Applications to the Biological
and Health Sciences. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 1970.
418 pp.
Remington,
"Physiological Ecology of Selected Polychaetous Annelids."
University of Main, 1969. In: Dean, D. Water Quality and
Benthic Invertebrate Relationships in Estuaries. Ira C. Darling Center
Richards,. T.L.
Ph.D. Thesis,
for
Research,
Walpole, Maine.
Teaching and Service.
Mimeo Report.
"Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities as Indicators of Pollution
in the Elizabeth River, Hampton Roads, Virginia." M.S. Thesis, Virginia
Richardson, M.D.
Institute of Marine
Saila,
104 pp.
Science, 1971.
Sound."
"Dredge Spoil Dispersal in Rhode Island
.Marine Technical Report, No. 2. University of Rhode Island, Provi-
dence.
1972.
S.B., Pratt, S.C., and Polgar, T.T.
Shannon, C.E., and
48 pp.
Weaver, W. The Mathmatical Theory
Urbana.
1963. 117 pp.
of Illinois Press,
of Communication.
Standards Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste
Water.
University
APHA, AWWA, WPCF,
13th Edition, 1971.
Stevens, Thompson, and Runyan, Inc.
Environmental Protection
Management of Dredge Spoils in Coos Bay.
Interim Report FY72Q3-2, January 1972.
U.S.
Agency,
"Dredging and Water Quality Problems in the Great Lakes." (in
Buffalo District. C.E. Cited in: M.B. Boyd, et.al., 1972.
"Disposal of Dredge Spoil-Problem Identification and Assessment and Research
Program Development." Technical Report H-72. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 121 pp.
U.S. Army Engineer.
12 volumes).
1969.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. "Draft Plan of Study, Dredge Disposal Study for
San Francisco Bay and Estuary," U.S. Army Corps of Engineer District, San
Francisco Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California. December, 1971.
Wass,
"Biological and Physiological Basis of Indicator Organisms and CommuniIn: T.A. Olson and
F.J. Burgess (eds.). Pollution and Marine Ecology. Interscience, New York.
M.L.
ties." Section II-Indicators of Pollution. p. 271-283.
1967.
Weise,
Harry Gordon. "Airphoto Analysis of Estuarine Circulation." M.S. Thesis,
Masters of Ocean Engineering. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
97331. May, 1973.
-73-
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 2
TABLE 11.2
Sample Description
Sample
Number
Sample Description
1B04
Black in color throughout, no odor, soil appears to have
claylike structure (i.e., sample retains its cylindrical
a
shape after being extruded), sample feels very slightly
grainy to touch and appears slightly porous, very few
wood chips are present (less than 1% by weight). Sample
length 4.0"
1B08
Sample length 4.0".
Same description as 1B04.
1B12
Sample length 4.0".
Same description as 1B04.
1B16
Sample length 1.25".
2B04
Sample length 4.0".
2B08
Sample length 4.0". Outer portion of sample is black in
color while inner portion appears to be dark gray, sample
appears to have a claylike structure and feels slightly
grainy to touch, no odor, appears to be slightly porous,
very few wood chips present.
2B12
Sample length 4.1". Same description as 2B08, only sample
appears to be slightly more porous.
3BO4
Sample length 4.0".
3B08
Sample length 4.0". Same description as 2B08.
wood chips are present (=1% by weight).
3B12
Sample appears dark gray in color with some rust colored
spots (about 1 cm in diameter), claylike structure and slightly
grainy to touch, some plant fibers (leaf and root fragments,
etc.) are present.
No noticeable odor.
4B04
Sample length 4.00'.
4B08
Sample length 4.0".
Same description as 3B12 except no
rust colored "spots" are present.
4B12
Sample length 3.0".
5B04
Sample length 4.0". Sample is black in color, has claylike
structure and feels slightly grainy to touch.
Small wood
chips and plant fibers are present, no noticeable odor.
5B08
Sample length 4.0".
Same description as SB04.
5B12
Sample length 4.0".
Same description as 5B04.
Same description as 1B04.
Same description as 1B04.
Same description as 2B08.
Some small
Same description as 3B12.
Same description as 4BO8.
TABLE 11.2
Sample Description, Continued
Sample
Number
Sample Description
5B16
Sample length 1.25".
6B04
Sample length 4.0". Some wood chips and plant fiber present, black in color with a few rust colored spots,
slightly porous, slightly grainy to touch.
6B08
Sample length 4.0". Same description as 6B04 except no
rust colored spots present.
6B12
Sample length 4.1".
7B04
Sample length 4.0".
Black in color, appears to have a
texture resembling very wet clay, slightly grainy to the
touch, slightly porous in appearance.
7B08
Sample length 4.0".
7B12
Sample length 4.0". Same description as 7B04 except gray
in color and some wood chips and plant fibers are present.
7B16
Sample length 1.75".
8B04
Sample length 3.75" - sample is about 98% fine sand with
some wood fibers present, no odor.
9B04
Sample length 4.0".
Same description as 8B04 except top
end of sample is rust colored.
9B08
Sample length 3.0".. Same description as 8B04.
1OB04
Sample length 4.0".
Black in color, grainy to touch, appears
to be mostly fine sand, some plant fibers present.
1OB08
Sample length 1.6".
1C04
Sample length 4.0".
Very slightly grainy to touch, claylike texture and appears to be fairly solid, no odor present.
lC08
Sample length 4.0".
Same description as 1C04. Several large
fractures present but still appears to be solid.
1C16
Sample length 4.25".
2C04
Sample length 4.0".
Black in color, solid appearance although very slightly porous, slightly grainy to the touch,
wood fibers present throughout.
2C08
Sample length 4.0".
Same description as 5B04.
Same description as 6B08.
Same description as 7B04.
Same description as 7B12.
Same description as 1OB04.
Same description as lC08.
Same description as 2C04.
-75
TABLE 11.2
Sample
Number
Sample Description, Continued
Sample Description
2C12
Sample length 1.75". Same description as 2C04 except
charcoal gray in color.
3C 04
Sample length 4.0". Charcoal gray in color, slightly
grainy to touch, slightly porous, some small wood fibers
present, no odor.
3C08
Sample length 4.0".
Same description as 3C04.
3C12
Sample length 4.0".
Same description as 3C04.
3C16
Sample length 1.5".
Same description as 3C04.
4C04
Sample length 4.0". Charcoal gray in color, several (4 to
6) large wood chips up to 1.5" in length as well as some
small wood fibers present throughout sample, grainy to the
touch,
appears to be slightly porous.
4C08
Sample length 4.25". Charcoal gray to black in color, with
rust colored areas in center of core, several wood chips
up to 1.0" in length as well as some wood fibers present
throughout sample, grainy to the touch, appears to be
slightly porous.
5C04
Sample length 4.0". Charcoal gray in color, very "mushy" and
grainy to the touch, appears to be slightly porous, some
wood fibers present throughout sample.
5C08
Sample length 4.0". Black in color, feels grainy to the
touch, slightly porous appearing, some wood fibers present
throughout sample.
5C12
Sample length 4,0".
Same description as 5C08.
5C16
Sample length 1.8".
Same description as 5008.
9C04
Sample length 4.0". Definite sulfur (rotten egg) odor,
top 2.5" of sample contains many large wood chips and wood
fiber, appears to be porous, slightly grainy to touch.
Bottom 1.5" section consists of coarse sand with some small
wood fibers present.
9C08
Sample length 4.0". Sample appears to be mainly sand with
a layer of small wood chips 0.5" from top end, some wood
fibers are present throughout sample. Odor see 9C04.
Sample length 1.75". A thin layer of slightly grainy mud
is present about 0.5" from the top of the sample while the
remainder of the sample appears to be sand with a few small
wood chips and wood fibers scattered throughout.
TABLE 11.2
Sample
Number
Sample Description, Continued
Sample Description
10004
Length 4.0".
Brown in color with areas of black, sample
appears to be solid with a structure of clay and sand, not
porous, a few small wood fibers present.
10008
Length 4.0".
Brown in color with spots of black and rust
color, slightly grainy to the touch, appears to be slightly
porous, layers of small wood fibers appear--at about 0.25"
intervals and are about 0.15" in thickness - with the exception of a layer 0.75" from the top which is 0.25" in
thickness.
1OC12
Length 1.5". The top 0.25" portion of sample is black in
color with some wood fibers present, while remainder of
sample is brown in color with rust colored spots.
1D04
No description.
1D08
Length 4.0".
Claylike structure, slightly grainy.
Black
and white in color although no distinct layering is evident,
no noticeable odor, some wood fibers throughout sample.
012
Length 4.0". Same as 1DO8 although mostly black in color
with rust and brown colored areas, slightly porous.
lDl6
Length 3.5".
Charcoal gray in color, no layering evident,
slightly grainy to touch, slightly porous, some wood fibers
throughout
sample.
4.0".
Same description as 016.
2D04
Length
2D08
Length 4.0". Black layer of wood fibers 1.0" from top of
section, rest of sample is brown in color with some wood
chips scattered throughout, sample appears to be very porous.
2D12
Length 3.75". Three distinct layers of wood fibers approximately 0.25" in thickness, the first layer occurs 0.3" from
top of sample section while the second and third layers occur
1.9" and 3.50" from the top, respectively. Remainder of
sample is brown in color, slightly porous, with claylike
structure and slightly grainy to the touch.
3D 04
Length 4.0".
The top 3.0" of sample is charcoal gray in
color, is slightly grainy to the touch, slightly porous,
some wood fibers scattered throughout, bottom 1.0" of
sample is black in color, made up of wood chips and wood
fibers mixed with fine sand particles, porous.
3D08
Length 4.0". Top 0.25" of sample is black in color and
consists of wood fibers and wood chips mixed with fine
sand particles, porous. The remainder of sample is not
-77-
TABLE 11.2
Sample
Number
Sample Description, Continued
Sample Description
3D08, conti.
layered but has wood chips and wood fibers scattered throughout sample, slightly grainy to the touch, appears to be
slightly porous.
3D12
Length 3.0".
No layering evident, gray to brown in color,
appears to be only a few wood chips and wood fibers scattered throughout sample, feels grainy to the touch,
appears to be slightly porous.
4D04
Length 4.0". No layering evident, charcoal gray in color,
sample contains some wood fibers scattered throughout, no
odor, slightly porous.
4D08
Length 4.011.
4D12
Length 4.0".
Sample brown in color with no layering evident,
it appears to be porous with wood fibers scattered throughout.
016
Length 3.25".
5D04
Length 4.0".
Same description as 4D04.
5DO8
Length 4.0".
Same description as 4D12.
5D12
Length 4.0".
Same description as 012.
5D16.
Length 4.0".
Same description as 012.
6D04
Length 4.0".
Same description as 4D04.
6D08
Length 4.0".
Possible layering of wood chips near bottom of
sample (beginning at approximately 1.5" from bottom and
proceeding toward bottom) although not clearly defined, the
upper 2.5" of sample show no signs of 1,.yering although some
wood chips are scattered throughout, appears to be slightly
porous.
6D12
Length 4.0".
6D16
Length 4.75". Appears to be a black layer of wood chips and
fibers 0.75" in thickness at very bottom of sample, remainder
of sample is brown in color with wood chips and fibers scattered
throughout, appears to be porous.
Sample feels slightly grainy
appears to be porous with some wood fibers
out although there appears to be one layer
fibers approximately 0.25" in thickness at
end of sample.
to the touch, it
scattered throughof wood chips and
0.5" from bottom
Same description as 4D12.
Same description as 4D12.
_78-
TABLE 11.2
Sample
Number
Sample Description, Continued
Sample Description
7D04
Length 4.0".
No layering evident, black in color with
many wood chips and fibers throughout sample, slightly
grainy and mushy to the touch.
7D08
Length 4.0".
Sample is possibly layered although not
clearly evident, sample is brown to black in color with
wood chips and wood fibers throughout, it feels grainy
to the touch and appears to be porous.
7D12
Length 4.0".
9D04
Length 4.0". Sample is possibly layered although not clearly
defined, same as 7D08.
9D08
Length 1.7".
1OD04
Length 4.0". The sample is layered with the top 1.5"
portion consisting of sand while remainder of sample consists of a mixture of wood fibers and sand, black to
brown in color and appears to be slightly porous.
Same description as 7D08.
Same description as 7D08.
Length 4.5". Sample is brown in color with several obscure
black bands approximately 0.25" in thickness as well as
several rust colored areas located in the lower 1.25"
portion, wood fibers are found throughout sample, sample
appears to be porous and feels grainy to the touch.
16-4 through
16-12
These three sub-samples were taken by divers pushing a
core tube into the sediment by hand. This sample was
taken in a mound of sediment and wood chips surrounding
Bucket #16.
Sample date: October 11, 1972.
16-4
Length approximately 4.0".
Black in color, consisting
of many large wood chips (up to 1.5" in diameter) and
wood fibers mixed with sand. Definite sulfide (rotten
egg) odor.
16-8
Length approximately 4.0".
No sulfide odor, black in color,
sample consists of many wood fibers and wood chips as well
as several shell fragments mixed with sand.
16-12
Length approximately 4.0".
Same as 16-8.
TABLE 11.2
Sample
Number
Sample Description, Continued
Sample Description
Bucket Samples*
B-3
Approximately 99% by volume of sample consists of large (up
to 1.0" in diameter) and small wood chips and wood fibers
while remainder of sample (1%) consists of sand.
B-8
Approximately 90% to 95% by volume of sample consists of
large (up to 2" x 4" x 0.5") wood chips and wood fiber while
remainder of sample consists of sand.
B-16
Approximately 50% by volume of sample consists of large and
small wood chips and fiber, remainder of sample (50%) con-
sists of sand.
B-19
Same as B-3.
B-24
Approximately 98% by volume of sample consists of sand; remaining 2% consists of large and small wood chips.
B-25
Same as B-24.
General
(1)
The black color in many of the samples may be due mainly to the presence
of wood fibers and wood chips; the rust colored areas were not evident
in the air dried samples. Source is obscure.
(2)
The sulfide odor found in some of the samples may be due to decaying
organic material (i.e., wood fiber) over long periods of storage (several months).
(3)
Wood fibers consisted of many wood particles roughly smaller than 0.06"
in diameter while a wood chip was defined as anything larger. Most of
the "wood" found in the samples consisted of bark and small limbs.
Note:
*
All material retained in the #4, 10, and 20 sieves consisted of
the wood fiber and wood chips. None of the material retained in
these sieves consisted of sediment particles (soil).
All bucket samples had sulfide odor, perhaps due to long storage periods
and decaying organic materials.
SOILS DATA
APPENDIX II
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
TEST-FOR
,horns of Engineers
TEST BY
crane, Sollitt - OSU
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Core at Bucket
SIEVE
^-SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES
DATE
16, 0-
s.nc- es
ANALYSIS
HYDROMETER
NUM HER OF MESH PER INCH U.S . STANDARD
_g
N
MNN
V
OO
- Portland District
A
000
0
po
tD
N
0
0
'00
O$
Vi
$
Si z
GRAIN
OLD
NOQW
QN 7
fry
Q
E IN
O4 0
0000
N
O
ANALYSIS
ej
(n
OO
8®
®
O
Q
qq
Q
90
_
80
-
20
1- 70
30
60
40
-
Z 50
+
LL
1
_.._
-- -- -
LLJ
fi
30
T
!0
4
N
O
OD
1
0
v1
0
f
O
M
t
I
t
1
L
=
O Co
'b xs
N
o
c
0 of
d'
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLI ME TERS
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Coarse
GRAVEL
SAND
m
N
w
n
O
- -
O
Q
p
h
60 Z
70
-}
O
`D
O
.7
.p
O
O
O. ® 0
c7
+
F I N ES
1
++9
NN
Q
6oo
ot:
O
90
O
n
U NIFORM SOIL C LASSIFIC ATION
Fine
±
T
TT _T
N
-
COBBLES
-
{
t
t
.
LU 40
ti
so
00
Q
H a
a¢
o
11
0
0
SHEET
OF
IOC
J HOI3M A
b398VO:) 1NaJ I3d
on
O
?
- -owl
0
0
.
,00
1
!n!'. 1 nn
.
!
i
OSU-CE
0 oZ
001
09
HIIII .. li
1111111 1111
O
C"
IOa
.
.
Z0.
_1 1
i
.
iiiIpIIIIIIIIIIIi11111kliiniii'iiiii iiniiliii
;:
0
e
nIIIIIIIIiiii
llnll
IIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIHI1
11 milli
..
i
i
n
_:::in----IIS
1111111111111111111111111111
.. 1/ 11111
09
0
to
1111!Il IHHIIIIHI1IHIIilln iIll
0
10
1H913/1A Ag a3NId 1N3:) 83d
-82-
0
0
0
SOILS DATA
APPENDIX II
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
- Portland District
TEST _FOR Army Corps of Engineers
Crane, Sollitt
TEST BY
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
- OSU
SIEVE
---
;v
I
-
r
a
m
Inches
-
ANALYSIS
SIZE OF OPEtiInlG IN IiVCB-IES
ID
DATE
Core at Buc et
HYDROMETER
'
NUWSER°
OF MESH PER INCH6S STANDARD
\
®
eOV
h $
m
ANALYSIS
GRAIN SIZE iN MM.
°na®
4 4n<0,
00 10
0n
0
00 0 ° 0
004
4 $ o 00
0
4
$
N
_
10
8
20
0 F
ID
m
----*--
--t--
- -
-
-
--
-,
0
a
3
20
0
Cn
c
n
Cn
IO
i
Om
COBBLES
00 C)
0
Y
Coarse
rv
i
GRAVEL
®
21
n
'
m
IN
-
Ip
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Fine
Coarse
Medium
SAND
En
d
:
m
h;
LNIFO
b0O
If
0
0
OIL CLASSIFICATION
O
Dine
+
0
E I N ES
z
N
p
U0
Fi
W
E-
a)
Cd
U
SHEET
OF
z
z
z
Q
IC
z
w
4
z
VI
11U)
J
4
z
w
w
N
I
U
z
m
a
0
w
mz
rD
9
O
9
11
0
1
0
LO
1
in
IIINIII
1HO13M A bOS8VOD 1N3:) A3d
0
ID
1H913M A9 13NId .LN3D 83d
N
-84-
../
UI
z
N
N
b0'
Oz
i09
OSU-CE
LL
E
V
U-
A
0
U
w
J
m
m
0
U
N
w
z
0
z
4
SOILS DATA
APPENDIX II
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
TEST FOR
Army Corps of Engineers - Portland District
TEST BY
('rave, Sol 1 i t - OSuu
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Bucket #8
SIEVE
ZE_ dF UPENtN6 9N INHEa
xItz"
DATE
ANALYSIS
IKLgA I I
HYDROMETER
OF A,qE c,H PER -IN CH V S. S7l8NRA FdD
GRAIN 9rZE
ANALYSIS
mm.
-
--1-
10
20
y
7
I
I
I
ILI-
W
F
M
0
4->
0
SHEET
OF
0
J
z
>
w
z
0
0
z
zoo'
SO
40
90
LO'
002
bt
0
O
0
m
L.,., 0
0
co
0
w
pp
2
p
W)t
0
.0
p
1H713M /gi b3SdV0> .LN3D )-!3d
---
111
0o
1H913M Ag 83NId 1N3D 83d
r0
-86-
111
e
II
n
0
mi
ZOO'
£oo
Soo-
boo
900'
2
N
N
W
w
w
zo' o
Ob
o9
oc
OP
001
oooz
OSU-CE
z
w
HS
r+
II
0
p
CO
0K
In
HH
IL
d0
3 AC
4 AC
.
-
-.Dc
5 OC
7 oc
8
9
0i
2
.01
0
2;
Ic
6
4
3
2
i
,
l
1
1
4
t
+
4k
i
0
41
I
4
I
0
44
,
4
F7
I
{
I
I
-
I
I
I
!
*
f-I
I
I
J
I
s
I
T
l
l
l
I
I
l
-+
i
I
Ii
I
Hi
+
tt
t
I
I
ii
-
Ir-
I
1
I
±
44
¢
WEIGHT BY COARSER CENT PER
0
0
I
'
TII
4+4- 4
1-41
T
I
CI
II!
I
I'
i
I
}
t
t
I
ail III
I
HrF
r
TI
f
ice.
l
it
i'I
4
1
I
I
I
I
;j
-
3
2
:a
40,
60
00
as
.00
00
0
z
>n
Crv
0 0
0
0
go
- 00
-
1+
+
i
,
£_
I
ICI
4
rJ
9o-nso
m
R
SHEET
OF
z
w
z
z
z
w
a
a
z
vi
of
)o0
Z00'
rm
b0'
so
9
00
09
001
09
0
z
111
111
1N913M A9 b3S8vo:) 1N3:) M3d
111
-.H913/"
-88-
-
B
00
too
<
IL
U
boo.
soo
eoo'
II
z
w
z
J
In
bo.y
w
co <J
90`
90'
of
0*1
09
001
OSU-CE
IT
0
w
J
0
w
z
z
SOILS DATA
APPENDIX II
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
TEST-FOR Army Corps of Engineers - Portland District
Crane, Sollitt - OSU
TEST BY
DATE
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Bucket #25
.'VyLVo
HYDROMETER
I
NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH U.S.STANDARD
u
y^-°
"+
l-
-
N
a
ry
77
S
W
4?
°
ANALYSIS
GRAIN StPE IN MM
cV Q
R
O
O
c
4O4O
O
O
T
{
a
tc
i
I
HE20
rt
0
Cn
10
C
n
0
N
Q
O
y
K
f
0
iagHs
U)
C'n
d0
<
z
ID
rn
e
m
N
004
D06
008
A3
80
E
1:
I
0
O
L D01
II
.002
.003
.004
.005
006
III
11
c
x
0
0
w
m
In
IN
m
z
0
z
<
T)
i®
z
rO
z
in
0
r
05 >
.06 n
.04
.03 D
z.02
::
U
8
io A
Q
30
40
50
60
so
100
200
3D-ns0
1111
II HIIIHI 11
NH
IIIYIDY
IIIYNMII
II=I
//YIIIIYYiIi
WEIGHT BY COARSER CENT PER
u.......
ii
union
U
11/111111
WEIGHT BY FINER CENT PER
°06-
a
a
C
0
ILK
1
rt
I
(I
of
r0
O
I-' rt
10
O7
N
d
[Z7
nn
h7
CI.7
O K
`n
t79
133HS
30
rm
m
NI
2
2
z
z
I.
I
N
m
_
2 Ot
3
0(
o
of
3
6
®72
5
'2
0
6
0
0
r0
2
2
3
2J
6
c
0
I
f
I
O
-
-
I
;
I
i
O
-
-t
t
i
i
-
I
-
-
I
I
-t-
I
-t-
-E
i
it
t
t
t
4
T
I
i
WEIGHT BY COARSER CENT PER
I
I
} 't_fi
} - i _ _t .---"-t.--
0
0
0
0
0
WEIGHT BY FINER CENT PER
-16-
l
H
i
'
'
,t
i
f
II!
j
I
0
t
jI
r++
i-
I
}
O
j
I
';I
I
o
1
0
.0
i
Fi= 08
i
to
0
to
w
0 2
3J-nso
N
z
3
in
r
a)
f/3
x3
0
SHEET
OF
U,
J
z
100
COW
90a
90'
02
%k
00
01.
.
Jill
p
IN
I
r111
,IIII
o
91
go
WM
a
Q
U)
U)
W
>
I
U) U'
w
U
2
l7
Z
z
wi
ai
0
0
W
N
co
Ilo
"all
Nln
illln
11
1H913M A9 b3S2 V0) 1N3:) d3d
WIN! a
11
11
11
r-r,G
Illni
ILnhl t
11/11/11
1
Illllnn
1
In
II
Ilnl
Inl
Inll
I1111 IIN 111
11
1 11111111111 n
I I IIIII
Big
u>
III 1 1
o
1
M
111
11
900'
s
OSU-CE
1
:1iiiL!iiii1iiiiIflhiiiIiHhiiirI
1 W,
m
Jm
Q
z z
Q
o
LH913M A9 2i3N1.3 1N3:) IJ3d
N
-92-
U)
z
W
SOILS DATA
APPENDIX II
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
TEST FOR Army Corps of Engineers - Portland District
TEST BY
Crane, Sollitt - OSU
DATE
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Station #1, 12 - 16 inches
SIEVE
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES
a-
nr
a.
U
-
m`
_
--
ANALYSIS
NUMBER ®F MESH PER
I
\
q
_
ao
o_
a
v
HYDROMETER
INCH US STANOArill '
v
m
0 yD
r
av O qo
tJ
W
ap
c
ANALYSIS
viiAiN SIZE
n
Q
Q
m
6
N
O
o
O,
-
IN RAM".
1-
Ogq O
q
4
-
_-
-"
qQ
qN
--_T_
Q
__
- ------ -----
-
4
-
+
- t -f
_
-
-
- --I
+
-_
_-
-
t
r
0
o aD
O
0 '
mo
oa
a a7
.D h
m
Tl
-
ca
CO
T i(±
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS_
COBBLES
Fine
GRAVEL
-
Coar
ledwm
SAND
yr
+
m
-_
-
1
+
w
t __f
m,
UNIFORM 5011 CL A
Fire
--
-
7i
UI
SHEET
OF
7
U)
J
4
z
w
w
N
10
SOW
900,
t0o
600
- -
NINO
11.
7q
-
------
IIN
7i
LX
11
111
Fri
..
111
111 NIIINIII
111
1
111
1
70
P
__
1 eil
I!IL';ilIrIii;!!;
ill!pHImIIH--I !'1
01/11/11
9or
LO,
00z '
111 NIIINII
1
J!J'JIIiiI1IIIiiIIIII
111111
11 INI
gllll
1
IIIN
09Illilll
o£I11[ll
111
1111
1
11
111 1111
r,
ID
ws i pip
OSU-CE
WOZ
001
09
09
III
C III,L!!,
' ID ,U!!U1
II I IIII 111INN1I
91111111
8
r
rz
00
-94-
m
00*
00
E
U.
m
0
U)
0
to
z
w
U-
0
z
d
N
SOILS DATA
APPENDIX II
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
TEST FOR Army Corps of Engineers - Portland District
TEST BY
crane Snllitt - nSii
DATE
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Station #2, 4 - 8 inches
SIEVE
ANALYSIS
SIZE OF OPENING !N INCHES
mNNf
a
00
HYDROMETER
NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH U. S, STANDARD
4
a
00
M
Q0
ANALYSIS
GRAIN SIZE
No
O
4Qo
O
o
1N
0 00, Oq 00,
MM.
00
0
qq
4
Q
90
IO
---
80
20
70
30
w
>
60
-
-t-
,
z 50
Z
40
TE
40 >
--+-
Cr
- -
-
4
-
30
-
50 a
60 z
-r
f
i
-
w
a.
20
__l --
IT
10
-.
--
-1
_4
O
C®BBLES
OD
voi
m
O
_
p In
sr
m
Ca
-
p
c
Sa vt
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Coarse
GRAVEL
SAND
cry
N
Fit
OG
IT,
OO
O
UNIFORM SOIL CLASSIFICATION
O
CF
O O O
FINES
I-1
O X
Q
aw
o¢
H
Q
w
In
'Cl
0
N
4)
d)
r-1
ua
E- +
O
In
Q)
U
N
00
0
by
w
r1 C
C/)
z
O
H
0
w
N
0
U
E
x
0
H
W
F-
SHEET
OF
too
Sao
,w 0
coo' mom
0
11
US
N
J:..
iii ...i
Boy
eo o
O
g
9
.9
r/i
1H913M Ag b3StJVOD 1N39 N3d
I
'
.
OSU-CE
lIIIIHIiRi1i1I11jjiI11!!!11fl11
imr
,.
-96-
E
Lf)
w
J
lT1
0
U
U)
w
z
U-
}
SOILS DATA
APPENDIX II
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
TEST FOR Army Corps of Engineers - Portland District
Crane, Sollitt - OSU
TEST BY
DATE
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Station #3, 0 - 4 inches
1N
ID
50
2)6
10
Q
4
O
9
8
-
-s
-
-----------
t-
H
L)
71
t__.Y.
20
8
_}
_-
d
O
COBBLES
®D
Y'
Coar
O
rn
-.-
1-
N
O Kf
'0 Y)
Q
,'n
N
-O
S7
vt
:
1
c*
i
N
v O
GO
p ON
O
UNIFORM SOIL CLASSIFICATION!
-.
aJ
.?
m
n,,
0
0O
d
OQ
FINS
I®
r-1
SHEET
W
F
OF
z
IS
boa
so
900
Loo.
Lori
i
I
i
J HO13M A
I II
UU
e
bl3$ VOD LNK) 113d
0
.
0
0
oon
o. 4
900'
900'
111IuIII,4i,IIIuI ¢°°
%
N PA dr iri UNUn MIUR
i
-
......
1
11
11
u
m
y
W
C
LL
U.
0
U
Q
J
w
U)
U
Z
:80' N
E
of
9
i;9
11111
01
1111111OE
.I09
00
,
oz
OSU-CE
8p
J
90' d
so <
111, .: llfnil1 1 8111 l
;i
'
I
11 1 11 81 =
1!.
', :` ._s____
111...
1118111181181111811
Ua
1
111
11
11111
111
18181111811181 r
11/11/11 1111 1
1
11181
11/11/11
11/11/11 1 1
11/11/11
0
11111111111 11/11/1811
11111111111111111
181
1
;11
11188
0
2d3NI. 1N3) !!3d
1, iiW
I
11
0
10
1HO13M A
1 11/18/1111
1118
;111111 11 E os
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiiii
11 18
11811
11/11/11
111
1
111
81 1
to
Z
1
1
PIP
Lung L
001.`
E
Z
Z
11
b
e/E
B
91
OE I
Ql
OS
09
00Z _i
b
ea
ZO'
10'
900
N 600'
R)
z
rc
LL
0
E
w
z
N
U)
a:
J mw
zz
Q
LL)
w
w
U) N
I
U
z
z
0
z
wl
a
0
n
0
w
U,
w
0
-98-
U)
z
w
L
J
W
4
ff
0
SOILS DATA
APPENDIX II
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
TEST-FOR Army Corps of Engineers - Portland District
Crane, Sollitt - OSU
TEST BY
DATE
12 inches
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Station 3, 8
-
SIEVE
ANALYSIS
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES
0
100
aN m\
HYDROMETER
NUMBER OF MESH PER INCR U.S.STAND4RD
°t
90
Q'
CO
-
O
O
-O
OO
O
vs
m
'0
ANALYSIS
GRAIN SIZE IN MM.
O
vO Q
KQ
7
nD
o
,
N
o
000 O O
oogo $ o
O
O
Q
c1l
O
O
c}
o
--
10
80
r
70
20
--
---
30
60
Z 50
-
ar
-
L
77- 7=
z
w 40
4
Z
T-7-
30
cc
i
-
20
+
N
om °®0
°
0
o CO
0nV
m
N
-
-
q;
'®
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
OSBLIrS
Coarse
I
GRAVEL
amine
Coarse
-
}
T
---
10
- r-t-
r rt -
..gyp
- ,p
c+r
cu
o
UNIFORM SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Pieu+ium
- ANt
r:rTn
--®,,
m
i
ma=
7o
i
ES
IOC
n
ti
SHEET
OF
a
w
Z
V)
J
w
>
w
N
w
a
0
1N913M Ag l13S8V00 1N30 213d
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111
.
a
,i
11
11
NIIIIINI8111
1
1
111
11111
INil
::!.....id.i..
11 III= S I...."
iAil
ilillillllll111111!!;
.
p
p
1
0
0
0
i;901
I-
zo z
LL
eo 2
4o.y
So J
_J
90. V
2
o
90' o
z
001
OSU-CE
0
09
1111111 1i
O
a
C7
' BII
i'in' llliNlllliiilill elOI1111
oh:lliiIIo:
,.
iiissiilisiieiI!UII
i i ias II!II
N.1'Aa -
IOC
,
08
001
..
11
aseamoll oe n
N
11/11/1111 i llliniiunn
pp
,
11/11/1111 11/11/1111
11/11/1111 N
ap
m
4IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIINI 11/1N/11 11 to
.iIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II11 1 11 N11 11
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIII II 111 NII MINI:
IIIIIIIIIIIIII 111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIINI:
I1IIIIIIIIIIIuIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIiI
ii
z
Z
ill
Of
1H913M .l9 83NId J N30 83d
-100-
V)
J
0
w
z
0
Z
(]
r+
0-+
0
Fi
m
I
rF
H.
CAI
C7
r
011
C7
P`1
Cn
o z
®
rt
0!
off
0
0
an
CC1
o K
L17
--3 con
C17
C C
[77
q
,L33-HS
d0
oo
.901
DO,
03
04
0.5
of
®0
c
SC
-.
3C
a
re
I
q 117
I
1
!
II
+
i
-
-,
l
I-
-t-
-4
I-
-H
I
I
jj
-
t
T
t
1
1
1
44-
Il
L
1
I
i
'
''
1
4
41
i
i
-
I
I
r
+
4
1- -f'
-4J
t
1__
+
i
1
I,i
1
i}
N
+
,I
ga
r
1
+- -1
t i
I
Ilk
O
I
t
4-
11
l
4-4
I
r
!
j 4
I
I-
-
I
0
®
G
0
U
U
T
WEIGHT BY FINER CENT PER
"LUL
I
t
I
G?I
00
bGo
5 00
3
2
e
X74
2
3
00
80
60
50
40
30
n-I
-1
I-'
H
1
I
`
I
t f- tFLE.
I
y
Hill
I
E
14
tr
-T-
i
i,4
b
o
I
)
w
p
w
a
o
11
-1
P°
0
w
HH
SHEET
00
I
^
C13
4-J
z
a
w
a
OF
z
w
f
z
o
11 11
1 =1111
1
Iil
i
',.
Ill
1 11
11/11/1111 11111
III 111
11/11/1111
1
c
1
q_
I
!
:NrI
"
11
,
1
A
I.
_1
r
11
X11111
11
O
900.
100
10
soo
1 iIHhlH!!lihliL
Mu=1
Mai
`
1.1. 11
Il on
111
I
11
i
'
°
0
po'
Z
E.
A9
°I
-9
I
1
111 Illnnl 111
11111
n
_111IIL
N
o0Z
-08
ool
i_ Illnli 1 IIIIIInC1111N
11/11/11 111111118111u
1111 Illlli
1
111
111111
IIIIIHhh
®11
11111
M
fL'tfl
0
0
O
h
1H913/'A A9 h13NId -LN3J 83d
°
OSU-CE
'
z
Z
W
J
W
o
11-0° a
11
11
1000
, ,,,
1logo
=N
_!_//=I
'
a
'
C
1111
_LHO13M AS !l3513v'O 1N30 'dad
=fi
1I
n
=
=
n
li
1
n
?
I/
IIIIIII Hhi Ifllil
ii .
I ti
CR
°..11
qo
eooo
gar
10'
600'
z
h
O
F
cr
to,
e
B,E
X
b
z
s
1111
''
go
In
r 'lllllll
1
1 lull
111
CC
nCL7
,
. !i!
111111
1 it
111 1
ullllnnl_.
111 .11 11
0&Ir
Ill 11/11/11 iSo
1 111111 1n111n11
Io
VIII 11/11/1111 III 1 IulII
91
(11
9,11
S'
}
zQ
N
W
J to
Q9
ZZ
w
N
_
?
a
o
N
q
o
-102-
4)
LL
m
b
U
u
U)
w
z
c
Q
LL
J
m
V
C+
-F c
f,.
rF
to
rh
to
F1
o
O
-n
i
O
00
r'
/
Q
r+ r+
cn
J2JHS
30
>
m
0
!
Z
a
z
nc
y
K
C
0r
z
m
m
z
Z
Z
a
4
i
T
01
.002
403
.004
.005
.006
.007
08
009
.0I
02
.03
t
Aq
.06
r4
200
100
gp
50
40
30
3i&
Y2
2,
q
O
I
I
N-
I
}I
!
0
ID
q
I
I
0
on
-
-
-t-
I
I
t
rl
4111
}
+
I
I
il
I
I
i
I
f
T
-
+
-
0a
-
$
i
-
1
I
I
1
!
I
0
nc
J
I
P
N
1
r
+
j
_
I
4
III
4,
-
9
-
T
j
I
r
.
1
r
-
.
-{-
4,
171
I
I I
t'
-
*
7-
7
°
-
IGHT WE BY R SE COAR T CEN ER P
WO
I
!
-
O
+-
!
q
EIGHT W BY R E FIN ENT C ER P
-cOT-
d
4-
t
I--P-
I
+
-i
f
" -.
I
t
4
f
r
j
I
4
-
I
G
I
°
fl
-
:.
,
I
E
1
I
r
I
-
1
fir
+
I
III
'-T-
l
l
}
I
°a
q
-
I
--
`,
-
f `aCF
705
006
of
SOB
02
.
03
04
06
I
A
m
.p3 a
§
@
N
r)
"
96
x
_
r
`
T.
.
r.
I
LO
r
`
-gy
p±1 L:
-
t2
2
6
10
0
03
0° 20
100
50
60
^40
-.I--
t
t --
+
+
f i
111111
!
+r
-t--.1
t
+
4i- 4
N
HO-nso
Q
I
O
I
ao
W
4-4
o1
C)
Q
$a 0
z
0
lu
F-
U)
SHEET
OF
}
Q
z
w
W
w
a
1°b
Z
E
s°
gar
ZOO'
eo(y
6000
zo
ea
.
,
I
11
III
of
1..
o9
m,
C°-
Sot
I y;
a
a:
0z1
N
z
l
}y
Jm
Qj
zz
W
=
i
a
0
kL
O
'
1
I
C7
"
i
,;4
l
1 11
I
COI]
°°
.oo
)00
0,
°
o.
90'
Z
D
a
0
W
W
,E J-
of
OSU-CE
°OZ
ool
09
0*
o
09
'E
1111111 °
nC
°°'
- 100
ttsnuI
1 'n Inll
111
'1
'
I
11
ir
so a
'r
n;
i
/
1
=r n=s=
o
1.H9I3M AS b13S8VOJ 1N.3 213d
It
V
I
i
11IiIIuH
Iii UIIHIIIIII11
111
,1 1111
innl II
1100011
Ynnl
I 1]IIIII :'s
Illn 111
Inllin
IHI IUI IIIIIIIIIIHI .
I IIIIIIIIIIIAI 81111
J
' Ill.r
n
11
11
I Illlnl
111
1 ii
N
h
1t-1913M AS il3Nld 1N3:) 83d
10
1 Il
00
-104-
C4,
E
o
y
log
W
N
Q
z
to
m
m
O
V
SOILS DATA
APPENDIX II
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
TEST FOR Army Corps of Engineers - Portland District
Crane, Sollitt - OSU
TEST BY
DATE
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Station #5, 0 - 4 inches
SIEVE
ANALYSIS
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES
1
I00
HYDROMETER
NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH U.S. STANDARD
y
,r.
S
°
O
iC
`P
ANALYSIS
GRAIN SIZE IN MM.
°
®r"
in
R
o ®p .e
N
m
O
Q
0
0
OO
an
O OQ Q
m
0
Q
N
Q
`(
0O
90
to
80
-
-
-
-
T-
-
T-
20
}-
--
I
g
30
(D
I
2
U.)
40 m
Cr
z 50
-
t
z
uj 40
w
{
3C
O
Z
-
-
_4 -t
+
-
}
50
-
-
cc
4 -4
1
+
70
20
T
T-
-j -
80
A
10
o
00
COBBLES
W
0
O
,
m
*h
®
O
p arf
P
m
N
GRAIN SIZE iN ne; t. t_l n re
Coarse
Fire
GRAVEL
Coarse
- W
v/
d
m
'
rRS
N
m
p
° no p.t
ci
en
O
N
O
b
UNIFORM SOIL. CLASSIFICATION
Medium
SAND
m
'®
o
F;r,E
e
1
° °
c
-lj S
o
o
o
cv
l aa0
SHEET
OF
111111 III
0
11/18/1N / 1
1!1
111111 ,:
II
11/11/1111 1 11/11/11
11/11/11
.
B00
1111 1 1
111/11/1111
./
II
1
11
SIR
0
0
11
'
I
11/11/11
11
1
I lilli
1
I
.
100
OSU-CE
.
;
11 .,
'I
111111
111
---- ---- ------
1 I
II 11/11/11
_3Jlad
r/;1
11111
=q Na'ni. i lllllll!
U
!!!!!N!!!!!!!!!!!n
/i s;e
IIIII IIIIIIleiiIII!!i i
1111111I1111 11
;111111111
loss
I....0 iisii
U
11 N11111111
III IHIII 1IIHII
111H11111
rAn ..
:: I/1IIIIIII11111111111111111
J1111II111111I III111111II
A111111111111I111111111111111
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111111111111 N111ii111i1_
r1111111111111111111111111111111111111N111I
pl
1N3:) 83d
LN I
Nle a 11/11/11
NINE
1
IIIIIIIIOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIuIOhIIIIINIIIIIOIIII
doll
13 01011 o
111
11/11/11
111111111111 11/11/11
i__
,11111111111 1
1111_111111111_ 1111111___1__1.11__
11.
-106-
0
z
SOILS DATA
APPENDIX II
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
- Portland District
TEST .FOR
Arm; Corns of Engineers
TEST BY
Crane, Sollitt - OSU
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Station #5, 8 - 12 inches
SIEVE
DATE
ANALYSIS
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES
HYDROMETER
NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH, U.S. STANDARD
GRAIN SIZE
0
0
--
-
co
vs
Pn
=
--
N°R
_m
0
0®
0
ANALYSIS
MIA.
IN
oo
q
-
-
0
Fi
0
---
r-
r
-
.
I
E5
71
41-
f
6?
'D
Q
O
Q
HS
h
.
q'
Pat
P:
GRAIN SIZE fN MILLI METE
COSBI
._
E
Coarse
I
na
Coals.
1I
f
c
S
0
0
0
0
?
c
n o
0
z
.7+
SHEET
H
z
OF
U
4
q
Jm
<z
w
w
W
z
a
o
LL
'`iiiiiiiiiii
In-
glo
1111
so
0 MEN
Ifs,..
lll
,=i
J H913M l.9 b3SMVO:) 1N33 Mad
1P
G
l ili11 .1111
11
1i 1
! no
1
NI
111I1H
1111..
= 1
!
111111111111 1I
1 e1 e
fl.111111111111111h 11/11/11
i!!4Solomon
eNONE
UII,I!! ll
,d
%pS
N
.._...:
s..ii
,p,l
,el f
.11111111 Iii !iiiiIIIIIu!ori111111II1
08
ooI
.
i lllllliiiuilliiooiiuuigll
11111111111111111111111111111
ap
mom
Nil
11
O
10
O
soon
Nil
IN
--
MINI
0
111111
N
200'
0'
500'
900'
eoo'
o*
09
0S
oe
-OOZ
0SU-CE
lill I
111111111111111 1111111111'11' 111 111111111H1
I11111111111111 """':""' 11 ""'II"IH'
.
11 I11111i11uli
111111111111N1e
1s 1
1111111
...
B/E
;1
lei
ME
m
1H013/1A A9 l13NId
1N33 83d
to
r
-108-
o
z
a
Z
SOILS DATA
APPENDIX II
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
TEST FOR Army Corps of Engineers - Portland District
Crane, Sollitt - OSU
TEST BY
DATE
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Station 6, 0-4 inc es
ANALYSIS
SIEVE.
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES
nNN
.
100
_
met
S,
HYDROMETER
NUMBER OF MESH PER INC H V. S.STAN DARO
m®
\d
Y
as
p
n
0
0
®®
Rt
crgi
ANALYSIS
GRAIN SIZE IN
'v o 4 q p
O
®
VIM.
rr °° °q
®
qq
4
Q
90
-
a
80
to
20
70
30
ILI
60
40
>
i
IT
Z 50
cr
-t
t
w 40
-
-
u
30
--L
-4
50 0
Y
T
-
h
0
70
20
Y
_L
10
O
L
0O
o
10 B B L E S
LC-
°
R vi 0
°
O
cv
O0
vs
== 4
v
m
N
-
4a
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
ne
oars
R42dium
Coarse
GFtVEL
SAN
'p
vn
.r
en
^v
-
....
®O.
c h
chi
o
UNIFORM St`7u CL!aSSIFICATIOI+.I
e
`
as
QO
ur
,
F
E
1
0
W 1
Cd
' -I U)
O H 4-)
4-1
VA .--I
0
SHEET
OF
U)
U)
J
z
Q
Q
w
>
N
--r
0
Ir
I0C
!
9O0
C00'
09
oc
0tv
DE
ss
11
1
m
son
111
O
!!
w
1 1 11
nllllll
1111
0
zoo
E00
400
900
0'
,
140. y
Inl
I In11
09
OSll-CE
0oz
IINNIInlaoo
N
O' - O O
to
11 1111
Ifrl
ualllii
III
1 _ In 111 ulllnllinl:
Iln IL
1
o=sl iiALi lull.
111 111
1HO13M lg ll3SdVOD INK) b3d
-use---
11
11
11
1111111
ni
0
0
`0
1H913/V% Ag U3Nld 1N3:) 83d
r-
I
11/11/11 IILJII
- iss
r
irll
OZ
91
9
of
0
Ch
-110-
E
CE
C
U-
w
J
In
fil
0
U
U)
w
z
SOILS DATA
APPENDIX II
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Army Corps of Engineers - Portland District
TEST FOR
Crane, Sollitt - OSU
TEST BY
DATE
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Station #6, 8 - 12 inches
ANA!.YSIS
SIEVE
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES
V
m N ry
,Q
HYDROMETER
NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH U.S.STANDARO
0
ANALYSIS
GRAIN SIZE IN MM.
M
ID
-000 0 O 0
O
N
0
20
m
Ji
-4 4}
o
0
Go,
0 on 0t
\D
C
arse
= L LL
m
I
GRAV L
RAIN SIZE IN ILLI METERS
-,ne
Coarse
4e2,um
I
SAND
17 7
c to c 0
UNIFORM SOIL. CLASS
re
I
0
Q
CATI ON
0
10 O
0 0
1n
f-1
C)
C)
W
O
tH
H
i
0
H
4j
cd
4j 4j
SHEET
OF
z
Q
W
2
z
MEMOS
SENSE
!h
Illl..il
.iii11
oil
1111.
L13d
m
1
o u1
11/11/11
I
N
0
!
too.
,
S0 0.
O
20,
to
nut
0 oz
001
00
09
Of
9
uI iIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiII IIIN11 IIIIINI
WIN
INN
0
h
OSU-CE
Q
11/11/1111 RIII 11 £0' u
I
!-
. :.n .1=n1
111..
lIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIiIIIiIIIIIIIinIIIuIIH
iiiiiIiiiOhiIuuIfuum0mI1iiiiiI!iiiiIIIiiI
11/11/1111 111
I
1HO13M Ag l13S8VO 1 N9:)
..
;...
.11111111111111111
.
I.i
ml
111
JIIIIIIIIIIP!ItIIIIlIIHhIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIItIHIiIII 90
91
BCE
a
0
1HO13M Ag 83N:d 1N3) i3d
-112-
W
J.
m
0
SOILS DATA
APPENDIX II
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
TEST FOR Army Corps of Engineers - Portland District
Crane, Sollitt - OSU
TEST BY
DATE
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Station
inc es
SIEVE
ANALYSIS
-SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES
0
t MNv
100
HYGROMETER
ANALYSIS
°-- GRAIN SIZE
'
IN MM.
NVPABER OF MESH PER tNCFd V. S. STANp6 D
\
:v m
naa 4
o° a
n
m
e
m
®<t
0*
00
ogo
oo
<y
0
0
-
80
(n
ej
4
10
{
20
70
30
60
-+-
w
K7
rt-
F
OC
-
50
Lu 4o
UJI
-
f
t
-tom ±
1
.
U1
50 0:
Q
p
60 Z
t
30
_
a.
--
20
80
10
®
O
o 0
0a
O
.9
Vs
dj-
a
m
h
-
4 CO
D MD
T
N
'V n
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES
Coarse
iTe
GP VF-L
Coarse
.p
m,
- 4O 0 0n p
N
D
U
O
0
UNIFORM SOIL CLASSfr$CATtCSi
Medium
SAN'+.
FtY
F
.p
Q
®®
q
O C
c1
G Oi,
aES
m
G
RV
Q
OE
F-
Q
SHEET
OF
in
Q
z
Q
E00lll
boo
5oo]
900'
[00
eoo
600
10'
s
9or
lor
o
"'
E
11
_
m
111
1
, ,,,
ISO
-
90'
90
bo U)
O'
0* 2
oa
too
.-,-Z loo
I
0O
go 0
11
ID 1
11
1
O
s
OSU-CE
oz
.1001
Inl?
09
09
°01
111 11 i
N
11/11/11
11 i 1111
o
Q
N
in° W
IT
111111Iini:s
UII hiIii iinii®
11
1
i
I
1H913M A9 M3StVOD 1N30 ?!3d
_
. 0ii
1
1111111
ti
0
to
II1111111
ME
1
!ITrniTmII,
i
II111n
so
ii I
ID
O
11111
1111 N
!1111
1'
_...111111
MEMO
iii
081
ob e
91
iI
z
nl
O
1H913M A9 83Nid 1N3:) dad
-114-
E
v
m
v
U-
U,
0
U)
z
w
J
4
J
LL
w
J
0
V
SOILS DATA
APPENDIX II
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Army Corps of Engineers - Portland District
TEST-FOR
Crane, Sollitt - OSU
TEST BY
DATE
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Station #7, 8 - 12 inches
-
NCHES
ANALYSIS
--
HYDROMETER
NUMBER OF MESH PER I NC1i. US. STANDARD
A) N N
10
10
SIEVE
SIZE OF OP
OM1
P
0®
o
®O
Q
9o
8
t
T
30
{ - --
20
IC
0
OO
OOO
N
COBBLES
O
O
O Rp
p YT
m
tv
-
a'1
D
....
O
Coarse
-L
GRAVEL
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMEa ERS
Fine
Coi.rss
ridiursc
ANALYSIS
GRAIN SILE N MM.
S.0N a
4-
O rO
6
Q
Q
UNIFORM SOIL. CLASSiFICATiON
Q
O
Km
SHEET
r-1
OF
Z
Er
W
w
loa
..
1HO13M A9 l13SHVOD 1N30 213d
II
2
iiiiiiiiiiiuiliiiiiiliiiliuiiliiiliai
__!,.1f 1
NI'
11/11/1111 llloirlllllilli I
lilllllhIuullllililllililit
nees'!u'lu!!ui
looll
OSU-CE
Illlullllul
!I lllllllllllllllllllllllllllu
ul Ilullul,
Iilllilllillllllllllllllilllll 111
11111 ulllul:
,Illlllilllllullllllllllllllll 111 ull ulllul
mi:
.
83d
I11111111111111111111111111111111
son
-116-
too'
SOO'
ME
Zo.
4o vi
f0 u
1
w
z
0
z
J
W
>
cc
SOILS DATA
APPENDIX II
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Army Corps of Engineers - Portland District
TEST FOR
Crane, Sollitt - OSU
TEST BY
DATE
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Station #8, 0 - 4 inches
ANALYSIS
SIEVE
'IN INCHES
SIZE OP OPENING
t
100
fi
m c cv
_
cad
NUMBER OF MESH PER fNC 1-4 U. S. STANDA
\°
+
\r
0
ei
9
cQi
0
t
OO
m
HYDROMETER
RD
ANALYSIS
GRAIN SIZE IN MM.
°u o 4 Q® 0
®
0
*
00
44
ell
0
4
90
10
-
80
-
i
}
20
70
- -t-
t
60
30
--
-1
-
-r-
m
Z 50
3
ao>-
--
-
w
+
50 a:
LL
4,0
60
30
1
-
-
N
Om
'D m
Nab
O
W)
m
It
m
-®
ht
GRAIN SIZE IN MiLLI METERS
®1L
70
t
j
20
O8rS6
F t9 C
C o8 r 5 t
M d i U fPl
+t of
t
ma
-®
fV
C?
.a
00
sn
cn
80
ra
O
OO
UN! "ORM SOi&.
Ct_ASSESICATiON
'°'.,e.®.....=.ve,...®....®,.,i..,,,s,..,..._
'r
z
y
O
°
a.
-m
35
O
iY
<
Q (1
C7
,...<....m..r.....,.®.,a.,,
SHEET
OF
U)
Z
a
Ui
w
N
11
gar
too'
goor
6 10'
9ar
,_,_
,,
,
LO' -
001
09
09
I
If
m
- -
11
I
=
111
1
1
111
i
11
u
111
it
N
I
coa
a00
90
BO 0
°I
U-
E
m
IJ
0
V
0
m
co
J
W
U
o2
U,
N
.
s
MS
I N. 9oo
C
.
LU
W
J
to
W
9
I; s
L
S
09
o,
1
II00?
1u,
1
11
0
100
ZOO
00
fM
0.
111
ull 1 N 111
111
ICI
[ll lu 1
1111
1
m
Cluul 'IGII
11 IIC7111u
1111 1
11'1 iii
111
1F1013N\ A9 b3SLLVO:) IN3D N3d
- - - - - - - - - - -LL
'
111
111
1111
11
1H913M Ag il3Nld LN3J 2d 3d
1
u11171111L 111
1,
' g
1
11
III i uul
loin lui °Z
1111 11 1 1111
I"u ' "
t
4;IrnTTr
1
II:
...
I
9
o
b
Z
rE
1
4
b
3
O
z
U)
W
LL
J
W
Q
0
SOILS DATA
APPENDIX II
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
TEST-FOR
Army Cores of Engineers - Portland
TEST BY
Crane, Sollitt - OSU
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Station #9, 4 - 8 inches
M
--
DATE
ANALYSIS
SIEVE
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES
10
District
N
NN
_
`
-_
--
HYDROMETER
Nt1MBER OF McSH PER INCH V S.STANDARD
-
- -_
m
-__ ----__ --
h
GRAIN
-
O
mO
fV
OQ Q
ANALYSIS
SIZE IN MM.
00 ° u) It
__
9
10
8
20
W
-t
w
i44-7--
Nil
3
r
20
---
-
-
to
0
N
2
Q
2Q 2
O
Q
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIM
COBBLES
Coarse
Fine
GRAVEL
Cod 'se
d.
ENS
UNIFORM SO
Medium
SAND
0 .- -6Q
Q
oOo
C LASSI Fi CATS ON
Fine
p
iNES
0
121
1
U,
I-4
00
U)rn
0
WI 0
Cd
r-1 4J
O r-i
44 4
U)IU)
0
0
U
0
SHEET
OF
N
10
socr
0
III LIIIF
1
I
N
,
-LH913M Ag b3SdVOD INK) Mad
1
11
1111
INI 11
1 NI i
1
1
0
11
0
J
w
1-1
w
O
ZOO'
0
A
I -
1.
Of
1g
1 Dilo9
E
7-
l 1.1
11/11/11 I
11
111
I
111
11
X111
OSU-CE
0002
;°E
i°
INIIINIIINII
IIN1 Nu 0Z
IIIN N 1
111
Nf 1
1
N S-f ,N
I
9
±JLEEEJJIIiF
111111 i
II HII 11 I
Ills
111111=i11=11111
i
son
900', N
.
soon
11
LI
1
11
1
1
1111
1
1
11/11/11 I I
I
1
111111
11111[ 111
11111
1[Clil
111111111 111111111111111111
'11111NIIN1
__
IIIIIIIIiiiiiiiiii!iI1rIi
oor
600
10,
001
OIR
11
111111111
09IIIIi!
osr'
Ob,
Of,
02.i
91
1111
,1
94
E
Z
JIlliLi llil IN
z tt
n
w
Nil 1111
II
11-1913M A13 83NIJ 1N3) 83d
-120-
c
LL
E
u
v
A
0
V
w
J
co
m
0
U
U)
w
z
LL
SOILS DATA
APPENDIX II
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Army Corps of Engineers - Portland District
TEST-FOR
Crane, Sollitt - OSU
TEST BY
DATE
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Station #10,
- 4 inches
SIEVE
ANALYSIS
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES
0
00
HYDROMETER
NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH U. S. STANDARD
aN m\
\d
ro
p
ry
Q
Q
v9 D
ANALYSIS
GRAIN SIZE IN MM.
N O OqQO`
Y
O
O
000 40 0 0o°
R O6 O
O
-
90
O
q
O
Q
O
t -
0
80
-p - r-
20
1
JO
;
60
40 }
Lij
z
50 It
z
Ul 40
-
30
-- -
--
-
--
20
$
- -- t
#
-
60 W
-art
--
_.-
-t -
r
w
}
70
r
-
_. _._
60
{
®
N
C{ILE
O
O
O
0
.o O
n e
O
rea
O
cv
Coarse
GRAVEL
G^
O
,o K-
P
m
Pas
s
M
RaiN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
FG
:,oarse
Medium
_n
u
ID
VS
J,,
r.)
.,.,...
N
LI
-.
K to
cv
r.
v o o a u
Jet` 3 rr sor. CLASSIFICATION
o ec3
e
..
o
c °c,
c,
e.
... ..
cc
,`
r°a
c4
-----
iU
`
.R..m,- ,tee., ao
0
SHEET
OF
>
z
z
0
0
0
1001
111111111 pjl
1H913M AS b13SeVOD J N39 a3d
IYIIII11Iil
IInuI
on
III
11111
l 1e
101
1111
111
III
p
m
111
1H913M Ag 83Nid 1N3) d3d
111
p
0
11
.
N
W
o...
z0'
b0
CO
go-
rm
0SU-CE
OZ
001
09
OE
gu
i
i
son Has
0 SEEN
Ell ..
rR=c'
.
r,
mommos moons mrII
ME
son
::1111111111 111111111111
n
so
ammumm
SEE
11101111111111
,,s
ME
Loa
SOMEME
..womanmamnmm
woman=
.1111111111111111111111111 !
IIIIIIIIIIIHIIIII
1111111 1111 d
n n
rlllllllllllllllllllllln
IN
1111 nllllllllnli
nllllllllnls
111
111
0
111
111
111
m
0
olllllllllllllllllllllllllnll 1 Illllllinnlnl'
IIIIIIIIIIIIn111111I1111111111111
811i°illllllnlllllilllllIIIHI
o
-122-
0
u
w
J
F-61
0
W
0
>
SOILS DATA
APPENDIX II
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Arm Corps of Engineers - Portland District
TEST FOR
DATE
Crane, Sollitt - OSU
TEST BY
12 inches
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Station #10, 8
100
t>
7
iv
?
10.
aN
m\°
....
\
-
GRAIN SIZE IN Mm.
NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH U.S. STANDARD
`
ANALYSIS
HYDROMETER
ANALYSIS
SIEVE
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES
::a'.
o
tD
o
o°O
-
i'
90
°oI`
cv
m
N
m,0 p.
-0
o o .0
o
In 0
d
g 0
q
1
o
=.
0
..
.
to
1
20
11 Now
80
T
a
70
.,.. .1..1 _1
1
ILI
60
3
3
40 >-
M=
Z
I-
.
i
Q
.
CL
ILI
(L
70
3C
0
1II1 °I_1
0
o
COBBLES
aD
1
m
N
11 II _u11
o
m
1D
-
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Medium
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
GRAVEL
SAND
. N_
.1.. _ p - !OC
m
I
°OO°
C!
O
O,
o 0 0
UNIFORM SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Fine
FINES
o
O
R
III
(L
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 3
TABLE III.1
Time
0950
1010
Station Description
Hydrolab Water Quality Data
Remarks About Dredge
Activities
Depth
Lower end Sause Bros.
dock 100' from west
shore
37'
15'
1/3 channel from west
shore of Isthmus Slough
between International
Harvester Warehouse $
Ferndale upper range
26'
15'
1'
1'
D.O.
pH
11.9
10.8
8.20
8.60
8.28
7.75
6.6
6.6
6.55
15.0
15.4
15.5
14.4
14.4
14.4
7.73
7.64
7.74
6.90
6.85
6.85
15.0
15.0
15.2
15.4
15.9
8.55
8.46
16.08.01
7.0
6.95
6.9
14.9
14.9
14.9
19.08.52
19.08.27
19.08.35
7.0
7.0
7.0
14.85
14.9
14.9
19.9
7.1
7.1
7.5
15.0
14.95
15.0
20.9
20.9
°C
%
Temp.
Sal.
15
15.3
15.5
(front)
1015
?
1110
1125
Near upper end of ocean
dock warehouse approximately 100' below convergence of Coos River &
Isthmus Slough - 1/3
channel from west shore
39'
20'
South end of spoils site,
100' east of chip pile
blower (near Corps dock)
40'
20'
North end of spoils site
at "mile 13" (near Coast
Guard dock)
46'
20'
1'
if
It
300' behind Harding
200 yards behind
Harding
2'
1'
if
8.22
20.17.92
20.17.88
7.43
7.50
18.08.46
6.95
6.2/6.0
6.6
TABLE III.1
Time
Station Description
Hydrolab Water Quality
Remarks About Dredge
Activities
1140
Spoils site 200 ft. above
mile 13
1145
?
Coast Guard dock
Mile 13
Sample taken in wake
Data, Continued
Depth
°C
%
Temp.
Sal.
5'
If
14.8
14.8
10.39.17
6.6
10.0
7.1
Harding just released
spoils
5'
If
14.2
14.0
20.08.72
20.08.72
7.1
45'
20'
10'
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
20.38.89
9.09
9.07
9.07
7.1
7.1
7.0
7.1
14.2
14.5
14.5
14.6
20.17.68
20.07.28
20.17.76
20.07.95
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.1
13.8
14.0
14.0
14.0
13.8
19.28.35
17.09.27
14.09.33
9.5
8.1
9.59
9.93
7.0
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.1
14.3
19.5
7.17
7.1
14.5
14.5
14.8
15.0
19.5
19.5
8.19
8.27
7.15
7.1
7.15
7.15
Note:
Many dead minnows
It
18.4
15.9
15.5
many seagulls
150 yards astern of
dredge Harding at the
center of the dredge
40'
10'
5'
1'
site
1246
Mile 13 in mid channel
Large amount of up-
welling mud after
spoiling
38'
20'
10'
5'
If
1430
Coast Guard dock colin-
ear with spoil line
Just prior to the release of spoils by the
Harding
40'?
Bottom
30'
15'
5'
1'
1445
Lower end of Pape Cat
-Dock in-spoils-area
drifting toward Coast
Guard dock in plume
pH
of Harding
(probably herring) began
appearing on the water
surface which attracted
1205
D.O.
Harding releasing
spoils
If
40'
30'
15'
5'
1'
9.3
20.08.47
19.5
8.58
7.1
15.0
14.7
20.08.38
7.1
20.2
6.8
14.8
14.8
14.7
14.7
20.08.38
20.08.33
7.0
7.1
19.5
19.5
7.1
5.19/
6.95
8.45
8.54
7.05
TABLE ILI.1
Time
Station Description
Hydrolab Water Quality Data, Continued
Remarks About Dredge
Depth
Activities
1455
1525
Drifting with plume in
front of Kiekhaefer Mercury Marina (approximately
50 yards down stream from
Coast Guard dock)
* Probe is one foot off
bottom at Union 76 tank
farm 30' off pier.
Probe on bottom
Between International Har- Dredge 300 yards upvester Warehouse & Ferndale stream on ebbing
upper range (front).
tide.
Approximately 50' from
west shore.
°C
%
Temp.
Sal.
6.75
14.7
14.7
15.3
15.5
20.07.94
7.05
7.05
6.95
7.0
15.3
15.0
15.5
15.0
15.0
20.07.60
20.06.44
20.07.60
15.3
14.5
20.08.38
15.0
15.5
19.5
19.5
15.0
15.0
15.3
15.3
15.3
19.06.66
14.3
15.0
40*
14.5
28'
20'
1'
pH
20.08.23
20.07.85
20.06.70
45'
301
5'
D.O.
19.5
7.79
19.08.08
18.08.39
7.1
6.8
N
T
1530
Same position except
50' astern of Harding.
1'
30'
10'
5'
1'
1545
100' from west shore.
1'
401-45'
20'
1'
In plume astern of
Harding & drifting with
plume.
7.97
8.54
Prior to release of
spoils.
1555
19.5
18.5
6.9
6.55
6.95
6.45
6.9
Dredge Harding releasing
spoils.
351
40'
15'
5'
1'
40'
25'
1'
15.0
15.0
15.0
20.2
18.8
7.97/
7.83
8.05
8.14
3.11
19.08.35
19.08.52
19.5
8.54
18.5
1.78
19.07.02
19.08.08
7.3
8,6
8.6
7.5
7.40
6.95
7.80
7.85
7.70
6.9
7.4
7.2
TABLE III.1
Time
Station Description
Hydrolab Water Quality
Remarks About Dredge
Activities
1700
Data, Continued
Depth
Between International
Harvester Warehouse E
.
°C
%
Temp.
Sal.
15.5
16.8
D.O.
pH
7.75
7.3
Ferndale upper range.
Approximately 50' from
west shore.
100' down stream of pre-
1710
South end of dredge site
near Sause Bros. dock.
1730
Mile 13 100' from west
shore.
1735
Lower end of Pape Cat.
dock.
1'
15.3
15.5
16.37.02
16.38.19
6.85
6.85
40'
1'
15.7
15.5
16.8
16.8
6.85
7.03
7.5
7.2
40'
20'
1'
15.5
15.5
15.5
16.08.05
16.38.01
9.1
8.93
7.4
7.4
7.5
351
15.8
14.8
15.6
15.5
15.5
15.8
2.18
15.8
15.8
5.08
5.45
7.0
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.0
15.5
15.5
15.01.36
15.05.90
15.05.45
15.02.36
15.06.45
15.08.17
15.07.99
15.04.54
8.0
8.4
8.2
7.5
8.5
8.6
8.5
7.7
33'
vious position - 40'
off shore.
Just prior to release
of dredge spoil.
Dredge releasing
spoils.
5'
1'
30'
35'
1755
200' from west shore midway between Coast Guard
dock and Kiekhaefer Mercury Marina.
Few minutes after re-
lease of spoils.
35'
30'
32'
35'
20'
1'
10'
35'
15.5.
15.3
15.6
15.8
15.5
15.5
15.38.24
15.08.11
TABLE 111.2
Time
0930
1020
1048
1118
Station Description
Bottle Sample Water Quality Data
Remarks About Dredge
Activities
Depth
35'
17'
Surface
Lower end Sause Bros.
dock mid-channel dredge site
39'
18'
Upper end of oceandock warehouse 100'
below convergence of
Coos River and Isthmus
Slough 1/3 channel west
shore
Surface
°C
%
mg/l
pH
JTU
Temp.
Sal.
D.O.
15.0
15.3
15.5
12.0
10.8
8.2
6.5
6.4
6.5
7.35
7.35
7.30
10
15.0
15.0
15.2
15.5
15.9
16.0
6.7
6.6
6.6
7.45
7.45
7.35
12
Turb.
6
4
5
4
Center of Pape Cat.
Dock 1/3 channel upper
end of spoils area
38'
19'
Surface
6.9
7.2
7.4
7.50
7.50
7.50
13
Down stream end of
spoils area near center of Coast Guard
dock 1/3 channel from
west shore
40'
20'
Surface
7.1
7.2
7.55
7.50
7.55
12
12
Harding Dredging
35'
Surface
6.3
6.7
7.45
7.45
47
83
Harding has re-
42'
Surface
7.20
7.55
520
7.3
1135
1/3 channel from east
side of Isthmus
Slough between International Harvester
Warehouse $ Ferndale
upper range (front)
1145
Center
of dredge
spoils site near cen- leased spoils.
ter of Pape Cat.
D.O. sample botDock-Mid channel
tle contained
large amount of
sediment
14.0
20
9
10
8
22
TABLE 111.2
Time
Station Description
Bottle Sample Water Quality Data, Continued
Remarks About Dredge
Depth
Activities
1210
1220
Lower end of Sause
Bros.' dock mid-chan-
This sample was taken
nel-dredge site
dredge Harding
Mid channel of Isthmus Slough between
International Har-
vester Warehouse E
Ferndale upper range
°C
Temp.
in the wake of the
38'
Surface
This sample was taken
in the wake of the
%
Sal.
mg/1
D.O.
pH
JTU
Turb.
6.2
6.6
7.45
7.35
32
12
6.8
7.40
7
dredge Harding
(front)
1230
Coast Guard dock
Sample taken direct-
ly behind dredge
while dumping spoils
material
1238
Down stream end of
Surface
Surface
spoils area near
7.2
7.4
7.55
500
23
Coast Guard dock
1441
Center of Pape dock
1/3 channel from
west side of river
Dredge Harding
leasing
re-
spoils
40'
400
while traveling
from north to
south. D.O.
sample bottle contained large amounts
of sediment.
1600
Center of Pape dock
1/3 channel from
west side of river
Dredge Harding re-
leasing spoils
while traveling
from north to
south.
D.O.
sample bottle contained large amounts
of sediment.
Surface
Surface
Surface
6.8
6.7
6.7
72
11
TABLE 111.2
Time
1700
1715
1740
Station Description
Bottle Sample Water Quality Data, Continued
Remarks About Dredge
Activities
Depth
Down stream end of
dredge area
Harding removing
spoils from dredge
area
=35'
Center of Pape Cat.
dock mid channelspoils site
Dredge Harding releasing spoils
=38'
Sample taken off
Port of Coos Bay
dock
°C
Temp.
%
Sal.
mg/l
pH
JTU
D.O.
Turb.
6.6
6.5
11
Surface
6.7
5.6
76
74
35'
3.6
86
Surface
17
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 4
{rJoi
scan i°(1 'U
7.' :);{
.i
w,.r ..C C.
C.
) .D .) r.)
+r
.) ..J .)
Y.
r4, r .,i)
C
.t M ti 1) u) y
N.O Ca t)u
C .D <
S(1, :? J.D. w
u, .f r to
)NaTt
.
r
..
r, 1
NV
.a
> . _ n.`> V r J r.
.1
)o.
N
)
.1
M <., .r ti
.,
.,
w
). )
) r)
in-7CC
n
J r! r, r,
...
.>
.
C- U
r,
1
...S
s
r.
n c> n Ca <, r .
r a a .-y
M
u u) .1 .7
l.f b "4 N
,.., ,_, .)u, ..uv<>rJ <,
:N
o N c. C> r, .) C.)) f.) N r) , C
<> c) N o :S n . ,
) u c> rJ <+ <) o C, r > C>
H.i n
INO
.i
.,
r,
ru n JC,>MNNr)r.)a>
N
c) <. .i r> C) <
n..._,
.r.<M.n 7_C).a 1.
i M l V.
C) .-! C) C)
'> 4-) c)
o.IN r. Cfl.. CC C> r.)
u
<
c>.a o..au uMr)u<, coo.>rwc-,r>< a .rv ,, .,o
>
r> i .1 r SD c, >
._.
ry c. n .-) M
r_ n a CI M.) 6 p CD 1)
o M C .ro t n r
NMCCN'.'1Cc)r_C,r.C>Hr-r)Lroyt_o.:))')::.:>
b m 3 in s 4C .n C .J Yo C, 1`. o ,-> r_
,ubr)ouVOC.9c>ofiov
r. c) V u .1 b N 1 O .. n u o <> > ) r` r
001u<) o v. o:o.) rv C.
.
.U C M n M <) rJ u r
N
) MMObMNtn.;C>C),C>r>n
.n c) .1 o n r) r) r) CC C, ._
0
)O
r) L
.>a
<> c. C) r.) .n cr
,
Vr)H.., c>.J r>M
..> r) in
H J G !n c .1 S J i r) T r
)
.I.c<
r, <) n to
v..r n M
^
r)
.D o.DOrOIJ.n M n JI C>o <>0'r Nc>u <).)
a.)
.,.,or,., .., o.., ,.. ,, ., , .>oMt., r., <.ru
.
v C) t+ ) r, r) .) C) c) C) r, .> a C) i.
) r` .i N v, C> O u .
a) V <> r) G M
.1
YN
.)
N
V .Ipu .)Ci Mr.
c .> N <> N . .. a .) S c. rt
rr n)
(:' t.. <) M <.
.,>
....!)[.O.,<>)70.1.))..3a>r>Hr,)Cfl),.
..)
.a
<) M ti u n V a) ,a M .) b <) U c, n O C) u u r) a) >
1 S .U , Cr _. <) C. c r > .D ca . b ..1 1')
C)
.
c).i Ya -I cl N 9 t)
) ca .}
.L.
.1 <)
.) i r
.1 J ..r
n) <) r, -r C)
r.
_>C;^:na)
CU C,M C) o oo.o.
a) <) C1 0 o o <) 0 <> a <> a 0 o o .) c C) <, n r) O o c) ..> V u c, .) <> <>
1.,
,r;r u<><-rno,)r
.:.
.>a. u_.M..r `>ra
'+
., o a o v o .., .) .)
,
.<<,r,.-C,o.l.ar> omo.>o1)mu+ uor, M,.t..
._) r>
<, ., .)r+.oor, i .i.
,
>`1,n
a-r o+n on).nnu.>oNr)
<.,..,a><..,..)>.><,nnoo ,r><J<,a.,.aa<nr>r,a>r.,oomn<)a. >:
a, n .
r-C
,1
.0.D
Iq 14:01 r__)CIN
Y.
JJ7'iCd.CC{
r))
5 {) { L I O J O U J /, d
j)i
IV:i
C':.
, `h,) u;I
5
S/1'ri UJO)CliD
-, .!I x£17
sjr:o?
I1C)J
!lq>;1 auoo;.3
() VII
11;;11
InCo'i
0)N
-131-
_
J (
Ut
z
0
I..
In
Pf
r0
n
r
),
(7
0
C)
I--
0
N
spcclrs. T-,tat
Total
Arthropods
ru.t .,mra r, (n..>
OUn U
W O
mrn,n,
).4 v
.o
ouo
r
0OYno 1 c. o u o Cl o
o o o o Pnavl ooo onno000
00 0 0 0 w e n o a o 00 (4 V 0)) n
oo OPOr n>waUVOUO ooa
vc.oooo..nwoouc,o
u,vvo .op ,n, r xo r rvcc>r ruuv-
1)1341 uw,w1rv i.,.w.14400wu>o
N
C a) N a,.4)Y 001 V Yw 00PO
bl'alvcs Total 00 N
C
Y
PYaw7onids
Corophlum
Cunacean
Harpactocold
Ostracoda
sp. lotus Yad
a a y -!{
[
m
.O
m w W
wN>
N
!Y
mrY
V t0'
YNN ` N
n r', >+ 0 n N
.p0 c-.r r
w wr-.0
olr.o<
Y-
<,,
NNNr.o
`n44r401nr
.n
v
rY
r ON r aw,N V YN
NON Jl.-JUN
-`,n )a ra
; rm.o
rw Vt CPN
Gww N
nx l Cl Onroysoo OY NUnoY NPYm
r na e t
um di r a
ai
COnH Ha
Inconspicua
-
iutalPnnellds
N
VI
C LI C`N<:>
G
WN
mrV NOO
n
o 0 0 0 o 0 r> 0 o P G
0oooo0POmrwo 4 rorami
Polychactes u.- c
Total YNn`(V
011o`OOchae;e
m
P
oo ro -o muousvmvn
uc>wrno oo oor:c,o
ruc
00(400000 [,O 000or,<, OW
t) 0',40000 oo(-c>(4-Nnooo
---
oow0o0Y n<+a
ooonnc. oo ooPOOnoc, oo
1-4! wC 00 n0 .l
N>rr.,1wur:t
logochaete OI Y
ffd9rtcntS
tcnuls
Notc:vstus
Giyrinde POO ouowm
I;19era ar
Baj1thys
Californicus
(C)
119ht1. ttcone
lncola nv
(c) la tel Cap;
Ii3ni
Ptydora
ti
re
Y
w
n
a)
C `4
.1
Y>
O0 r
ioroY
n a
0rrc,NUa
.-44
ow0'NwLV,kapI
YN w s c
s
r+r
P..udupolydora t. ro)
LcncdIctI
to CtrrSlosp
411
,
o
n
nww inn
0000'-u.p_44(4
rY
V,
L,,des ti,`,,, N
.
z
-Z£T-
a
0
o'
O
O
0
0
o'
Appendix IV.3
Organism counts/liter sample from dredge hopper. Counts
cannot be normalized due to unknown dilution factors.
Streblospio
benedicti
Pseudopolydora
kempi
lA
17
0
1B
22
4
0
0
0
0
2A
2B
3A
3B
4A
4B
5A
5B
6A
6B
5
2
1
1
2
4
10
11
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Mya
arenaria
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Macoma
Harpactocoid
inconspicua
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
9
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nematodes
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
13
0
8
11
16
6
11
7
7
6