PLEASE RETURN TO;
35
.76-3
of
MAR1EYN PONS GUIN LIBRARY
HATFIELD MARINE SCIENCE CENTER
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
NEWPORT, OREGON 97365
-/,j
OREGON ESTUARINE RESEARCH COUNC
'(,'
School of Oce n raphy
Oregon State University
GotvaLLs, Ckegon 8T3331
)CEANOG RAPHY
%U
FINAL REPORT
Analysis of Benthic Infauna
Communities and Sedimentation
Patterns of a Proposed Fill Site and
Nearby Regions in the
Columbia River Estuary
by
Duane L. Higley, Robert L. Holton
and
Paul D. Komar
Submitted to:
Port of Astoria
N STATE UNIVERSITY
Astoria, Oregon
I
Contract Period:
November 1975 through 29 February 1976
HelerenCa 1145
MOrCO IYIC
H
PLEASE RETURAI TO:
OREGON ESTUARINE RESEARCH
Sohoo!. of Oteanorrsphy
Oregon Sa:Ze Univemity
Co[vsilis, Oregon 87,'_.37
ANALYSIS OF BENTHIC INFAUNA COMMUNITIES AND SEDIMENTATION PATTERNS
OF A PROPOSED FILL SITE AND NEARBY REGIONS
IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY
FINAL REPORT
1
November 1975 through 29 February 1976
Submitted to
Port of Astoria
Astoria, Oregon
By
Duane L.
Higley, Robert L. Holton
and
Paul D. Komar
Edited by
Karla J. McMechan
LSchool of Oceanography
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon
(Referenc76-3
March 1976
John V. Byrne
Dean
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The
Port of Astoria has proposed to fill a 32.4 hectare inter- and
subtidal area at the mouth of Youngs Bay, Columbia
River, Oregon.
The
possible effects of this fill on the biota and sedimentation patterns
of this area were studied from 31 August 1975 to 29 February 1976.
Part
I, the biological studies, analyzed the quantity of benthic life at the
fill site in comparison to that in the lower 28 miles of the Columbia
River estuary. The sediment textures of benthos samples were analyzed
to determine sediment-fauna relations; salinity-temperature measurements
were made at selected sites. Fish life at the fill site was also sampled
to determine species composition and the relation of fish stomach contents to benthic life. Studies on sedimentation patterns (based on
dredging records, photographs, and sediment samples taken in Slip 2 of
the port docks) aimed at identifying undesirable sediment deposits
which might occur because of the fill.
The dominant benthic taxa at most stations were amphipods and polychaetes, although oligochaetes were abundant at some muddy stations.
Amphipod densities in the lower river varied from about 200/m2 in deep
areas to between 5,000 and 50,000/m2 in shallow, fine sediment areas
such as Youngs Bay and extensive shoaling areas. These areas of high
density, which include the fill site, were dominated by the tube-building
Twenty-five species of fish have been captured in
this and previous work in Youngs Bay. Food habit studies have shown
Corophium to be eaten in large quantities by many of these species.
amphipod Corophium.
Using density estimates and river bathymetry as guides, it was very
roughly estimated that 0.8 percent of the amphipod standing crop in
the study area (CRM 0-28) occurred at the fill site, which represents
0.09 percent of this area.
Net sediment transport seems to be from the Columbia River into
Youngs Bay, but transport out of Youngs Bay does occur and may contribute
greatly to sediment deposition in Slips 1 and 2. Sediment samples
from Slip 2 were mud, but this changed abruptly to coarse sand at the
slip mouth. This shows that slip sediments arise from suspended fine
mud and not from coarser-grained bed-load sediments. There is little
that can be done to prevent such deposition. The proposed extension
would probably not affect this problem, but might alter the flow
water around the port.
of
More extensive investigations of circulation
and suspended sediment content should be made.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Port of
Astoria,
Oregon, supported this work.
The United States
Energy Research and Development Administration originally funded construction
of the
vessel, R/V SACAJAWEA,
Study Program
Michael
(CWSP)
Kravitz,
identification.
used in this research.
The
College Work
supported work by part-time student employees.
Howard Jones, and William Colgate aided in specimen
The manuscript was typed by
Mrs.
Gerri
A.
Riley.
NOTICE
The conclusions presented in this report are tentative and are subject
to change based on a more complete study of the data.
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Robert
L.
Holton
Paul D. Komar
Julie Ambler
A. Diane Ford
Duane L. Higley
Research Associate
Co-Investigator
Associate Professor
Participating Staff
Research
Research
Research
Research
Karla McMechan
Assistant
Assistant
Assistant
Assistant
Graduate Students
John S. Davis
Graduate Res. Assistant
Part-time Employees
Therese Armetta
Kevin Glick
Donald Gorman
Daniel Stantus
Gregg Takashima
CWSP
CWSP
CWSP
CWSP
CWSP
R/V SACAJAWEA Boat Operators
Norman Kujala
Guy Yancy
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.......................
LIST OF TABLES ...........................
INTRODUCTION ............................
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
PART I:
vii
1
BIOLOGICAL STUDIES
Introduction
Methods
Results
.
.
.
.
Discussion
PART II:
FIGURES
TABLES
vi
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
SEDIMENTATION STUDIES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
REFERENCES CITED
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
.
7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
.
.
.
31
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
77
.
.
.
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
PLATES
1
2
3
PAGE
Amphipod densities in the Columbia River estuary.
(Same as Figure 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. In Pocket
Polychaete densities in the Columbia River estuary.
(Same as Figure 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. In Pocket
Amphipod habitats in the Columbia River estuary.
(Same as Figure 17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. In Pocket
.
FIGURES
1
Columbia River estuary, showing location of proposed fill
off Pier 3, Port of Astoria, Oregon . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
32
2
Benthos stations in the Columbia River estuary, 31 August 1975
to 22 January 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3
Stations in the region of the proposed fill, 18 and 19
October
1975 .
.
. .
.
.
.
. .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
.
. 34
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
35
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
37
4
Temperature-salinity stations, Youngs Bay, 1974
5
Benthos grab and core stations, Youngs Bay, 1974.
6
Intertidal transect, and trawl and sieve stations, Youngs
Bay, 1974
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Seasonal changes in temperature and salinity at two
stations, Youngs Bay, 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
. 38
8
Amphipod densities in the Columbia River estuary.
.
.
.
.
.
39
9
Polychaete densities in the Columbia River estuary.
.
.
.
.
.
40
Dry weight and numerical densities of benthic taxa collected
at Station WRT-6C:3, 28 May 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
Densities of benthic amphipods at selected stations in Youngs
Bay and vicinity, 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
7
10
11
12
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
Densities of polychaetes at selected stations in Youngs Bay
and vicinity, 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
FIGURES (cont.)
13
Densities of benthic taxa and sediment textures at 10
stations located along an intertidal mudflat, Youngs
Bay, 18 September 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
Amphipod densities in the region of the proposed fill,
18 and 19 October 1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45
Polychaete densities in the region of the proposed fill,
18 and 19 October 1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45
Relative abundances of fish species captured by 4.9 m
trawl at Station PW in Youngs Bay, 1974
.
46
Estimated distribution of benthic amphipod habitats and
associated amphipod densities in the Columbia River estuary
47
18
Aerial photograph of Port of Astoria, 9 December 1963
.
.
.
48
19
Tidal current circulation patterns, Youngs Bay, Oregon.
.
.
49
20
Mud/sand ratios of sediments in a transect along Slip 2 and
into the Columbia River, 13 February 1976 .. . . . . . . . .
50
14
15
16
.
.
17
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
LIST OF TABLES
NUMBER
1
PAGE
Temperature and salinity profiles at selected stations
in the Columbia River estuary
.
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
Temperature and salinity profiles at the entrance to Youngs
Bay and at two stations in the region of the proposed fill,
18 October 1975
53
Checklist of benthic invertebrate taxa captured in the
Columbia River estuary, 1974-1976.
54
Densities of benthic taxa, and sediment textures for bottom
samples taken in the Columbia River estuary, 1975. .
.
.
.
.
Approximate densities of benthic taxa for bottom samples
taken in the Columbia River estuary, 21 and 22 January 1976.
57
63
Densities of benthic fauna at selected stations in Youngs
Bay, 1974 .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Densities of benthic taxa, and sediment textures for bottom
samples taken in the region of the propcsed fill, 18 and 19
October 1975
.
64
67
List of Tables
8
(cont.)
PAGE
Checklist of fish species captured in the Youngs Bay
area, 1974-1975 . .
. . . .
.
. .
. .
. . .
Summary of fish species captured by Durkin
100-m beach
seine near seine site
C, 1973.
. . . . . . . .
using a
(1974)
.
.
.
. . 69
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
70
Catch by 52-m beach seine at Station P3 in Youngs Bay, 1974... 71
Catch by 52-m beach seine at four stations located in the
region of the proposed fill, 18 October 1975 . . . . . . .
. . 72
Mean contributions of various food types to stomach contents
of fish captured at Stations PW and NMFS 1974.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
73
Contents of stomachs taken from fish captured by beach seine at
four stations in the region of the proposed fill
14
.
.
.
.
.
.
Area, density of amphipods, and standing crops of amph.ipods
in habitats shown in Figure 17 (or Plate 3). . . . . . . . .
.
74
. 75
INTRODUCTION
The Port of
Astoria, Oregon, has proposed to expand its docking
facilities by filling the 32.4 hectare (80 acre) intertidal and sub-
tidal region adjacent to and west of its Pier 3 in Youngs Bay, Oregon
(Figure
1).
The source of the
fill
material would be sediments dredged
from Slips 1 and 2 of the Port docks and from adjacent
areas.
Placement
of these sediments in the fill site would affect the biological proper-
ties of the site and might affect the sedimentation patterns in the
adjacent area.
This report describes the results of studies conducted
between 31 August 1975 and 29 February 1976 to assess the importance of
these effects.
The fill site is located in an area which supports high densities
of benthic invertebrates (Higley and Holton,
1975),
and is a likely
feeding zone for both transient and resident fish populations.
cally,
Specifi-
salmon smolts (Chcorhynchus sp.) appear to use the site as a feed-
ing area and could conceivably use its calm brackish water in effecting
their transition
ations,
between fresh and salt water.
Based on these consider-
benthic and fish studies were conducted at the fill site, while
a survey of benthic faunas and habitats was made in the lower 28 miles
of the estuary to give perspective to data developed for the fill
site.
Part I of this report presents the results of these biological
studies.
In Part II, sedimentation processes in the fill zone and in the
boat slips are discussed, with the intention of providing insight into
undesirable sediment depositions which might accrue as a result of
changes in current patterns associated with the fill.
PART I
BIOLOGICAL STUDIES
By
Duane L. Higley
and Robert L. Holton
INTRODUCTION
The objective of this part of the study was to assess the relative
importance of the proposed fill site as a source of benthic foods in
comparison with other areas in the estuary.
Specifically, the study
aimed at 1) identifying faunal assemblages and estimating densities
in detail at the fill site and more generally throughout the estuary,
2) measuring sediment properties at the sample sites and determining
sediment-fauna relationships, and 3) identifying fish species using the
fill area and the kinds of foods eaten by these fish.
The intention was
to use these benthos data in estimating the standing crops of benthic
invertebrates over the entire estuary and at the fill site.
These esti-
mates would provide a more meaningful basis for determining the importance
of the fill site than would areal size alone.
The part of the estuary
studied lies between Columbia River mile (CRM) 0 and CRM 28.
Figure 1
illustrates this area, as well as the size and location of the fill site.
This study, as brief as it is, represents the most extensive benthic
survey thus far conducted in the Columbia River estuary.
Previous
studies have concentrated on physical and chemical conditions or, if
biologically oriented, have ignored the broad distributional patterns
and densities of benthic fauna over the estuary.
The fish and zoo-
plankton populations of the estuary have been described by Haertel and
Osterberg (1967), who also list important benthic species.
Misitano
(1974) also provides considerable data on the zooplankton.
Several un-
published reports by U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
5
personnel provide information on the fish and benthos of the lower
Columbia River.
Of these, Sanborn (1973) briefly describes the benthic
taxa found at five stations in the Columbia and Willamette
Tongue Point and Portland.
These data are
Rivers between
Sanborn
semi-quantitative.
(1975) also studied the benthic fauna of five stations located at
dredging and dredged material disposal sites in the lower estuary and
outside the river mouth.
Numerical and wet- and
are provided for these stations.
by the Army Corps
of Engineers
dry-weight
Other dredging-related studies funded
in progress or near
(COE) are currently
completion and will provide further information on
fauna.
densities
the estuarine benthic
Aquatic conditions at the river mouth are being researched by
the School of Oceanography, Oregon State University, in conjunction with
NMFS and the University of Washington (see unpublished interim report
by Richardson, Colgate and Carey).
Final reports to COE are currently
in preparation by NMFS and by the OSU School of Oceanography on
biologi-
cal, chemical, and physical conditions of aquatic habitats at Miller
Sands Island, which is located at CRM 25.
The studies most directly applicable to the present work are those
by Higley and Holton (1975) and by Durkin (unpublished report).
former provides biological
baseline
here, as are
Bay, and includes
data for Youngs
Some of these data
faunal lists and densities of benthos in the bay.
are presented
The
the data of Durkin who lists fish
species
and numbers captured by beach seine at the fill site.
A thorough description of the Columbia River benthos is impossible
to obtain in a short study owing to the size of the study area (about
34,000 hectares
or 130 square
miles), and the large
annual, seasonal and
occur.
tidal fluctuations which
Estuarine substrates
changes caused by dredging operations, ship
such as tidal and river
flows.
are subject to
traffic, and natural forces
The effects of these activities are
seen as erosion, sand waves, shoaling, and other types of sediment
transport.
Together with life history events and changes in animal
distribution caused by salinity and temperature changes, this sediment
activity produces fluctuations in the distribution and densities of
benthic faunas.
These facts should be considered in reviewing the
data from the short-term study presented here.
METHODS
Samples were collected in the river (CR samples) and at the fill
site (FS samples) according to the following schedule:
DATE
SAMPLES/MEASUREMENTS
31 August-2 September 1975
18-19 October 1975
CR benthos samples 1-42;
All FS benthos and fish samples;
salinity-temperature measurements
at Mouth of Youngs Bay and in FS.
29 November 1975
CR benthos samples 100-110;
salinity-temperature measurements
100-108.
CR benthos samples 150-155.
21-22 January 1976
Figures 2 through 4 show sample site locations.
Two samples were col-
lected at each station, except on 29 November 1975 when single samples
were collected at CR stations 108-110.
Selection of CR stations (51 in all; Figure 2) at sequential up-
stream locations aimed at sampling three basic
main river; shoal
channel
areas.
areas,
which are mostly
habitats:
upstream;
bays off the
and the deeper
Approximate station sites were selected according to
bathymetric and shoreline features illustrated in National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration C & GS charts 6151 and
6152.
However,
weather and water conditions precluded occupation of certain stations
and forced changes in other station
positions.
The most serious result
of these problems is that considerably fewer stations were sampled
upstream of Youngs Bay than was planned.
November 1975
A storm occurring on 30
prevented sampling in this area and subsequent efforts
made on 21-22 January 1976 were limited by other work requirements.
Within the fill site four locations in each of four transects were
established as benthos
stations,
and four other locations spaced along
the shoreline were sampled for fish by beach seine (Figure 3).
Station positions were located by range-marking and by triangulation
with a sextant using buoys and land features
as reference
FS
points.
station positions may be in error by about 25 m, and CR stations by 100
m or more, due to inaccuracies in this system combined with boat drift.
In most cases it was not advisable to hold station by anchor;
boat drift between replicates was inevitable.
therefore,
Differences between
measurements (e.g. station depth, faunal densities) made in replicate
sampling at a single station reflect vessel movement and local habitat
differences.
Water depth at the stations was measured with the ship's
fathometer.
Depths at FS stations were corrected to chart datum (mean
lower low water) using tidal gauge readings for Astoria.
Figures 4 through 6 show station locations for Higley and Holton's
(1975) data included in this report.
Salinity-Temperature Measurements
Salinity and temperature measurements were usually made in situ with
a portable salinometer (Industrial Instruments Co. Model RSF-3).
When
the salinometer malfunctioned, water samples were collected with a
Kemmerer water bottle, measured for temperature with
a pocket thermometer,
and taken to Corvallis for salinity analysis by a salinity-conductivity
meter (Yellow Springs Instrument Corp. Model 33).
Benthos
A Smith-McIntyre grab sampler
all benthos
samples,
(mouth area 0.107 m2) was used to take
except at Station 4 on FS transects I and II.
Here
9
each sample included five cores taken with
in exposed substrate.
The depth
a 9.8-cm diameter
of each grab sample was measured at
The sample was washed through
its deepest point (center of grab buckets).
a
0.425 mm* screen and the
clam gun
residue was concentrated for preservation
in 5 percent formalin buffered with sodium borate (as borax).
The
0.425 mm screen retains most amphipods, molluscs, and poly-
chaetes and other worms.
However, some nematodes, oligochaetes, juvenile
amphipods, and other small crustacea such as copepods may pass through
the screen.
After a few days of storage in formalin, the benthos sampled were
rinsed and transferred to 40 percent isopropanol.
Many samples were
split before counting because of the large quantity of materials and
animals retained during sieving.
plankton splitter.
However,
Most samples were split with a Folsom
when very large amounts of organic debris
prevented this, the sample was drained, stirred, and split volumetrically
using a graduated cylinder.
Coarse sand samples taken from channel
areas were first elutriated, and the overflow material was split if
necessary; the residue was examined in most
cases for
large hard-bodied
animals.
Rose bengal stain was added to most samples before analysis to facilitate sorting.
Each sample was sorted in a white enamel pan under
a 3-diopter illuminated magnifier.
Some samples contained large
numbers
of easily identified organisms, such as corophiid amphipods; these
animals were counted in the pans.
identified using stereomicroscopes.
Otherwise,
animals were removed and
Very small
animals such as harpacticoid
*As listed by manufacturer; measured dimensions are 0.408 mm x 0.457 mm.
copepods were not counted, although they may be very abundant, because
special sampling and analytical
techniques are required
in the
study
of these animals.
Calanoid
copepods and cladocerans were not counted
due to their small
size and
their basically planktonic life history.
Due to time constraints, identification was limited to broad taxonomic units (phylum to order).
However, more specific work has been done
on polychaete and amphipod identification, and this will be discussed
briefly.
Samples
Time limitations prevented counting all samples collected.
collected on 21 and 22 January 1976 were surveyed instead of counted.
The survey involved counting a small portion of the sample in the pan
and examining the rest of the pan contents for rare specimens.
This
method allowed us to assign approximate values to animal densities.
Sediment Texture
A sediment subsample was taken from each grab sample with
a 3.5-cm
diameter plastic tube, which was pushed about 8 cm into the sediment
surface.
Sediment texture analyses were made according to methods
presented in Royse (1970).
Screens used were 1.0 mm, 0.500 mm, 0.250
mm, 0.125 mm, and 0.063 mm in mesh size.
These sizes correspond to
even phi (f) units and facilitate statistical treatment of the data.
The
silt and clay fraction (<0.063 mm) was determined by volumetric difference
before and after wet-sieving with the 0.063 mm screen.
A centrifuge was
used to concentrate the sediment (about 40 grams initially) and volumes
were read off graduated centrifuge tubes.
The sand fraction (>0.063 mm)
was then dried and placed on a set of tared three-inch geologic screens,
and processed by mechanical shaker for 10 minutes.
The sieves were
11
weighed to
tional
the nearest 0.01 gram on a Mettler model K7 balance.
silt and
percentage basis
clay produced by the
to that
Addi-
dry-sieve analysis was added on a
found in the wet-sieve analysis.
Fish
Fish were collected with a 52-m beach seine having a body of
7/8 inch (22 mm, stretched mesh
knotless nylon
bag.
measure)
nylon and a 1/2 inch (13 mm)
One set was made at each station (Figure 3).
fish were identified and
counted,
All
and a sample was preserved in 10
percent buffered formalin for stomach content studies.
These fish were
later transferred to 40 percent isopropanol.
Stomachs of selected fish were excised and the contents were examined
in a dish after a visual estimate of
"fullness" had been made.
were separated into suitable
and a visual estimate was made of
groups,
percent by volume contributed by each group.
Contents
RESULTS
Salinity-Temperature Measurements
The Columbia River estuary
flow and salt content.
experiences great differences in river
Usually the lower estuary is partly mined, but
it approaches a well-mixed state at high tides during the low flow periods
of late summer.
A two-layered (vertically stratified) condition occurs
during the spring freshet when freshwater sweeps over the denser salt
water.
Salinity is usually greater in the north channel than in the
south.
Salinity intrusion probably reaches to about Harrington Point,
near CRM 23 (Haertel
et al.,
1969).
salinity and temperature can be
An example of upstream changes in
seen in
Table 1, which-provides data for
six benthos stations sampled on 29 November 1975.
The fill site, located at CRM 13, lies midway in this region of
highly variable salinity.
Figure 7 illustrates seasonal changes in
salinity and temperature which occurred during 1974 at two stations near
the fill site.
Table 2.
Measurements taken at the fill site are presented in
The area is brackish, experiencing salinities from 0qo, to
about 209'
Benthos
A list of benthic taxa found in the present study and in the Youngs
Bay study is presented in Table 3.
The list is based primarily on the
large taxonomic units used in counting.
More detailed lists of fauna
found near the river mouth may be found in Sanborn (1975) and Richardson,
Colgate, and Carey (1975).
Columbia River.
Amphipods, polychaetes, nematodes, and bivalves
were the most numerous taxa in the CR samples (Tables 4 and
5).
Amphi-
pods represented a large percentage of the total density at many stations,
while polychaetes were also frequently abundant.
Because these two
taxa contribute much to the foods eaten by estuarine fish, their distribution and abundance will be treated in more detail than other taxa.
The distribution of amphipod densities at CR stations is shown in
Figure 8 (Plate 1*).
The highest densities occurred in the upstream shoal
areas, in certain protected shoreline areas, and in embayments such as
Youngs Bay.
Densities in Baker Bay were notably low, however, possibly
due to the higher salinity regime downstream.
Several stations in the
shoal areas upstream from Youngs Bay had amphipod densities exceeding
5,000/m2.
The highest density recorded in the study was 76,168/m2,
found just north of Tongue Point.
cate sampling.
This value is not supported by repli-
Other stations near islands off Cathlamet Bay showed
high amphipod densities, but the extent of such high densities is difficult to assess, given the limited sampling in this region.
It must be
considered also that much aquatic invertebrate life may exist in the
extensive island areas which support subaqueous and emergent aquatic
vegetation.
These habitats could not be sampled in this study, but are
believed to contain populations of gammaridean amphipods, molluscs, and
insects.
The most common amphipod found in the region of brackish waters
was the gammaridean amphipod Corophium, three species of which were found
in the area between Baker Bay and Harrington Point.
*Plate 1 is a larger version of Figure 8.
Also found in this
14
zone were a gammarid (Anisogammarus), haustoriids (Eohaustorius), and
phoxacephalids (Paraphoxus).
Members of the families Oedicerotidae and
Lysianassidae were found at the river mouth (See Table 3 for a summary
of amphipod taxonomy).
Polychaete
densities were low upstream of Tongue
the open river area below Youngs
Point, higher in
and highest in brackish protected
Bay,
areas such as Youngs Bay and smaller embayments (Figure 9 or Plate 2*).
The trend to lower densities upstream reflects the basically marine
tendencies
group.
of this
One species,
the nereid Neanthes limnicola,
is characteristic of brackish to freshwater estuarine areas, but even
this species was not abundant upstream of Tongue Point.
A preliminary
breakdown of the polychaetes by family shows that nereids were found
over the broadest
occurring from Baker Bay to Harrington Point.
range,
Most families were restricted to the region below Youngs Bay, although
an occasional
phyllodocid
The brackish water fauna of Youngs Bay has been des-
Youngs Bay.
cribed by Higley
and orbiniid was found above this area.
and Holton
Using the same sampling gear and
(1975).
screening methods used in the present
amphipod
study, they
found the tube-dwelling
Corophium to be the dominant taxon, both numerically and by dry
weight (Figure 10).
usually found
Oligochaetes,
in lower
densities.
nematodes, and nereid polychaetes were
In studies
of smaller organisms (using at 0.063 mm
usually dominated
within a few
at densities
centimeters
of the
up to
of the depth distribution
screen),
harpacticoid copepods
200,000/m2; most taxa were found
surface.
15
Amphipod
densities in Youngs Bay commonly exceed 15,000/m2 and
occasionally 35,000/m2 (Figure 11 and Table 6).
reported maximum densities above
50,000/m2,
Higley and Holton (1975)
with the highest densities
in the areas of fine sand and the lowest in areas of coarse sand.
found that
They
polychaete densities follow a similar pattern, although at
much lower values (Figure 12 and Table 6); the maximum polychaete density was 2,214/m2.
A study of intertidal
mud fauna has been conducted in
as part of another project (Figure
13).
Youngs
Bay
Samples taken along a transect
perpendicular to shore revealed high densities of corophiid amphipods
and oligochaetes,
and lesser numbers of other
taxa.
The densities
correlate well with the sediment texture results (Figure 13).
The tran-
sect results illustrate the changes in faunal composition which occur
between mudflats and vegetated shoreline areas. Corophium salmonis is
found in the mudflats where it builds tubes in the mud, whereas C.
spinicorne
tation,
is found in shoreline areas and builds its tubes on vege-
pilings,
rocks,
and other
surfaces.
The vegetated areas also
harbor greater densities of the isopod Gnorimosphaeroma oregonensis, the
ampharetid polychaete Amphicteis floridus, and the gammarid amphipod
A nisogammarus confervicolus.
Youngs River, Lewis and Clark River, and the Skipanon Waterway, in
which fine sediments also predominate, contain similar faunal groups,
although the densities vary (Higley and Holton, 1975).
In coarser sand areas of Youngs Bay, such as the ship channel at
the mouth
(e.g. Station FWGS
1,
Table 6), faunal densities are lower
than in fine sediment areas in the Bay's interior.
They include more
of the haustorid amphipod Eohaustorius, the phoxocephalid amphipod
Paraphoxus, and the isopod Mesidotea entomon.
Fill
Site.
-
Overall benthos densities at the fill site were among
the highest found in Youngs Bay (Tables 6 and
were also among the highest (Figure
14),
7).
Amphipod densities
and contributed from 82 to 96
percent of total animal densities in the area (Table
with the
mudflat areas upstream of the Highway 101
7).
This contrasts
causeway,
where oli-
gochaete densities were similar to amphipod densities (Figure 13), and
in Youngs River and the Skipanon
Waterway,
where oligochaete densities
comprised as much as 80 to 90 percent of the total density (Table 6).
Higher densities of oligochaetes apparently correlate with higher con-
centrations of silt and clay.
Polychaete densities at the
fill
site were generally higher than in
other areas of Youngs Bay (Figures 12 and
15),
but contributed only
about 5 to 15 percent of the total densities (Tables 6 and 7).
Sediment Texture
Analyses of particle size distribution were made on most of the
sediment subsamples taken at benthos
in Tables 4 and
7.
stations.
These data are summarized
The following particle size names are used in this
report, based on Royse
(1970);
> 1.000 mm
very coarse
sand,
gravel,
and larger particles
0.500 mm-1.000 mm
0.250 mm-0.500 mm
0.125 mm-0.250 mm
0.063 mm-0.125 mm
< 0.063 mm
coarse sand
medium sand
fine sand
very fine sand
silt and clay
The discussion which follows is preliminary and tentative in nature.
17
Fine and medium sands were the dominant size categories found in
unprotected areas.
Medium sand was most common in channels; mixtures
of fine and medium sands were most common in shoal areas.
Sediment textures in embayments varied
greatly,
depending upon
whether samples were taken where local currents prevail or in quiet
areas.
The former contain fine and some medium sands, whereas the quiet
areas are characterized by high concentrations of silt and clay, and
sometimes accumulations of vegetative debris.
brackish to marine
iron
sulfides,
subsurface muds have been blackened by
localities,
which reflects
In Baker Bay and other
reduced,
anaerobic conditions.
Texture studies performed by Higley and Holton
Bay sediments*
(1975)
on
Youngs
indicated that sediments downstream of the Highway 101
causeway contain mostly very fine and fine
sands,
while those upstream
contain this fraction plus greater amounts of silt and
clay.
In the very
quiet area between the railroad tressel and causeway (STATION CWRR,
shown in Figure 5), silt and clay was 70 percent or more of sample com-
position and the sediment was black with iron sulfides below about five
cm depth.
Johnson and Cutshall
and clay fraction in Youngs Bay.
(1975)
provide contours for the silt
The >70 percent contour encloses the
area along the southwest shore beginning about 3,000 feet downstream of
the causeway and extending to the mouth of the Youngs River.
Sediments at the fill site contained mostly fine and medium sands
(Table 7).
Eddies and currents associated with the nearby ship channel,
together with wind-wave
action,
have probably prevented finer sediments
from accumulating in large amounts.
*Sediment texture was analyzed using wet sieving techniques and volumetric
measurements.
is
Fish
Fish species captured in Youngs Bay by Higley and Holton (1975),
Durkin (unpublished
Table 8.
report),
and in the present study are listed in
The results of these studies should be interpreted in light
of the methods of capture (trawl, beach seine and small-mesh gill net),
which could tend to catch smaller fishes, slow-moving benthic fishes,
and those aggregating near shore.
The species captured are mostly freshwater and brackish water forms.
Haertel and Osterberg (1967), in their faunal studies of the Columbia
River estuary, captured the greatest variety of fishes in water having
salinities of 0.5 to 18 °/O0, salinities which commonly occur near
the fill site (Figure 7; Table 2).
The species most frequently captured
by trawl in the Youngs Bay study was young starry flounder (Platichthys
stellatus),
although
shiner perch (Cymatogastor aggregata) are seasonally
abundant (Figure 16).
Durkin (unpublished
1974, capturing 13
report)
species,
seined at the fill site during spring
including large numbers of juvenile chinook
salmon (0. tshawytscha) which undertake spring seaward migrations (Table 9)
Higley and Holton
fall of
1974,
(1975)
also seined this area during the summer and
using a smaller seine; they captured fewer numbers of about
the same species (Table 10).
In this present study four stations at the
fill site were seined on 18 October 1975 (Table 11).
The most abundant
species taken were the threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)
and the shiner perch.
19
Fish Food Habits
The food habits of fish captured by trawl at two stations in Youngs
Bay were studied by Higley and Holton (1975).
species,
foods
Summarized over all fish
these data show that of the variety of benthic and planktonic
eaten,
the amphipod Corophium contributed the most to stomach con-
tents, although less so at the station (PW) nearest to the fill site
(Table 12).
Nineteen fish belonging to nine species were examined in the present
study (Table
13).
Of the 18 stomachs having food contents, 12 contained
Corophium, which contributed an average of 40 percent to the contents.
Three juvenile chinook salmon were
trial insects and
spiders,
examined.
One fish had eaten terres-
while the other two had consumed only the
amphipods Corophium and Eohaustorius.
Higley and Holton
(1975)
reported
that the 28 juvenile chinook salmon they examined had eaten corophiid
amphipods almost exclusively.
DISCUSSION
The areal distribution of the density of benthic fauna appears to
be related to salinity and to sediment character. Low densities were
common at stations with the coarsest
sediments,
these being located in
current-swept river channels and other similarly deep, high energy, areas
of the lower estuary. High densities were found in fine-sediment areas
of brackish water which are protected from these strong currents.
in Baker Bay densities were
low,
However,
possibly due to anaerobic and toxic
conditions which may arise when highly organic sediments occur in a
saline
environment.
In the upper part of the Columbia River estuary
densities were sometimes high but extremely variable, apparently reflecting
the irregular and changeable features of shoals in this area.
High
densities were found in Youngs Bay, including the fill site.
Amphipods and polychaetes were the most abundant and widely distributed members of the benthic fauna which are commonly consumed by fish.
Amphipods were found in abundance further upstream than the polychaetes,
most of which require a higher salinity. The most important amphipod
in terms of density and extent of distribution was the genus Corophium,
which was a dominant member of brackish and freshwater stations charac-
terized by fine sands and generally high benthic densities.
A distinct deficiency of this study is the lack of thorough sampling
in the
shoaling area and in the minor island channels found in the upper
estuary.
this
area,
Occasional high amphipod (Corophium) densities were found in
suggesting that extensive amphipod populations could exist
21
in this area, providing local concentrations of food resources comparable
to those of Youngs Bay.
The analysis of estuary-wide faunal distribu-
tion which follows is qualified by this possibility.
A major objective of this study was to assess the relative importance
of the fill site as a source of benthic foods in comparison to the rest
of the estuary.
To accomplish this, the estuary was divided into
regions having similar densities; this division was made according to
habitat character and the benthic densities typical of those habitats.
The purpose of this division was to arrive at standing crop estimates
It should be realized
for these regions and for the estuary as a whole.
that this
analysis is based on a small number of samples covering a
very large area, and that the results could vary considerably according
to season and year of sampling, type of gear used, and--not incidentally-the perspective of the worker assembling the data.
The taxon chosen for this analysis was Amphipoda.
the present study and the Youngs Bay
widely
distributed,
study,
According to
this taxon appears to be
exists in great abundance in certain areas, and is
an important fish food.
Three sources of information were used in making the divisions:
(1) the areal distribution of amphipod densities shown in Figures 8, 11,
and 13 and provided by Higley and Holton
(1975);
(2) sediment-faunal
relationships indicated by this study and by the work of Higley and Hol-
ton; and (3) bathymetric and shoreline features illustrated in U.S. C &
G S charts 6151 and 6152.
river
this
areas,
shoaling
analysis.
The three habitats described earlier--deep
areas,
and embayments--held up fairly well for
The exceptions were Baker Bay, where densities were
into
unexpectedly low, and Youngs Bay where densities appeared to fall
the two categories of high and moderately
high.
These divisions in
Youngs Bay were based partly on the >70% silt and clay contour provided
in Johnson and Cutshall (1975) and partly on the areal distribution of
amphipod densities at stations sampled by Higley and Holton.
Figure
17 (or Plate 3*) displays the habitats and the amphipod densities
assigned to each habitat.
In determining the density value applicable to each habitat, all
density values for stations located within that habitat were arithmetically
averaged, and the standard deviation of the values was computed.
This
mean value and the mean ± 1 SD, rounded to one or two significant
figures, are shown in the legend of Figure 17 (or Plate 3).
For Youngs
Bay, the density values from Higley and Holton (1975) were combined with
those from the present study for this computation.
Because some stations
in Youngs Bay were sampled on several different dates, the mean value
for all'stations was computed in two ways.
over time were computed at each
averaged.
station,
In the first method averages
and these averages were in turn
The result was not appreciably different from the simple
average computed over all stations and dates, and this latter is the
value presented in Figure 17 (Plate 3).
The area and standing crop of amphipods of each habitat were com-
puted using Figure 17 (Plate 3).
These results are summarized in Table
14, which shows that the shoaling area (Habitat B) held the
largest
standing crops by virtue of the moderate densities and large area involved.
Youngs Bay also harbored a large standing crop, reflecting
*Plate 3 is a larger version of Figure 17.
23
the high densities found in Habitats C
and D.
The 32.4 hectare
fill site lies in the highest density region (Habitat D); at 30,000
amphipods/m2, the standing crop there
was estimated as 0.97 x 1010,
or about 0.8 percent of the total estuary standing crop (121.19 x 1010).
We are not able to place error terms on this estimate at the present
time, and we realize that the standard deviation for each habitat density
given in Figure 17 and Table 13 is only one component of the error associated with our estimate of the portion contributed by the fill site to
the total estuary standing crop.
PART II
SEDIMENTATION STUDIES
By
Paul D. Komar
Sedimentation processes in the vicinity of the Port of Astoria
docks were investigated by examining past dredging records, by the
study of-old photographs of the
area,
and bathymetric information in the
and by obtaining sediment samples
area.
were relied upon for information on water
Previously published reports
currents.
The limited time
available for this investigation did not permit a complete study of the
processes of
sedimentation.
Nor could seasonal changes in river dis-
charge and sediment movements be dealt with
satisfactorily.
Therefore,
some of the conclusions presented here are not adequately supported by
field
data,
and rely heavily on the author's past experience in working
with sediment transport and deposition processes.
Sedimentation is currently taking place in Slips 1 and 2. Old
photographs,
ground and aerial, available from the Port of Astoria were
examined for information on the possible causes of this sedimentation.
A set of aerial photographs dated 9 December 1963 showed sedimentary
bed-forms in the tidal flats west of Pier 3, part of the proposed fill
site. On one of these photographs (Figure 18) the sedimentary structures
are visible on the beach which has formed adjacent to the pier.
The
orientation and curvature of these bars suggest that a current flows
across this
Youngs Bay.
area,
transporting sediment from the Columbia River into
Figure 19 contains a summary of the tidal currents in the
Youngs Bay area, taken from OSU, Ocean Engineering Program (1975).
27
This figure indicates that currents run both into and out of Youngs
Bay, depending on the tidal stage.
However, the sedimentary features
of Figure 18 may suggest that net sediment transport is directed toward
the bay.
It is, of course, questionable as to how representative one
set of photos taken in 1963 can be for the long-term sediment transport
paths or for sediment transport at other times of the year.
The old photographs were more illustrative of the role of
eroding the old fill area.
waves in
After this area was originally filled, it
was inadequately protected by wooden pilings.
Winds from the
northwest
blow along the length of the river and generate substantial waves.
are directed at the west end of the Port of Astoria.
eroded away the filled
in Figure 18.
These
The waves soon
area, creating the beach adjacent to Pier 3, shown
The fill has subsequently been restored and semi-protected
with riprap (artificial).
Some erosion has again occurred, forming a
typical wave-cut cliff behind the riprap.
This problem with appreciable
waves at the west end of the Port of Astoria will have to be considered
in any design of new port facilities in that area.
Sediment samples were obtained with a Smith-McIntyre grab sampler
(mouth area:
0.107 m2) from the OSU School of Oceanography vessel SACAJAWEA.
On 22 January one sample was collected from the middle of Slip 2.
sample consisted entirely of mud.
On 13 February 1976 a series
This
of samples
was obtained along a transect the length of Slip 2 and extending out
into the shipping channel of the Columbia River.
This transect is shown
in Figure 20 together with the results of an analysis of the mud/sand
ratios of the sediments.
fractions,
i.e. sediment
Here mud
is defined as the silt plus clay
material finer than 0.0625 mm.
The transect
of Figure 20 shows a sharp change in bottom sediments from sand to
right at the mouth of the slip.
mud
The change is particularly noteworthy
in that the sand of the Columbia channel is medium to coarse-grained,
so that the change is from a coarse sand to mud with little or no fine
sand within the gradation.
This demonstrates that it is the very fine
mud carried in suspension within the river that is responsible for the
sedimentation in the slips, not coarser grained sediment that might be
carried as bed-load by the river.
The samples obtained for this study within the slip differ considerably from the sample obtained by R. Krone (1971).
His sample from the
very middle of Slip 2 contained 30% fine sand and considerable silt,
whereas the mud we found is almost entirely of clay
silt.
finer than
His sample was obtained on 25 February 1971, soon after dredging
of the slip.
silt.
size,
This may account for the much higher content of sand and
In connection with their study Johnson and Cutshall (1975) obtained
one sample from Slip 2 which was found to consist of mud, most of which
was clay rather than silt.
Sedimentation due to mud deposition is also more reasonable and
understandable than deposition of sand and silt when one considers the
processes involved.
In an estuary the waters can be found to contain
an appreciable quantity of clay in suspension.
This clay remains in
suspension so long as the water continues to flow, providing turbulence
and mixing near the bottom.
But when the water flows into a quiet area,
the clay soon settles to the bottom.
This happens in any quiet area of
the estuary, including the slips of the Port of Astoria.
There are only
very feeble currents within the slips, so the water carried in by the
29
tides is able to deposit some of its sediment.
This occurs not only
in the slips, but also in the quiet waters of the small-boat basin
immediately to the east of the slips.
deposition of mud at
It is also illustrated by the
the west end of Youngs Bay where the construction
of the bridge created a quiet zone which permitted fine-grained sediment
accumulation.
There is actually very little that can be done to prevent such
sedimentation in quiet areas within the estuary.
If quiet areas are
developed for shipping, the natural processes of the estuary act to
fill them with mud.
However, as discussed in the Krone (1971) report,
some factors are important in causing individual particles of clay to
join together into flocs of hundreds of individual particles, and thus
act to increase sediment deposition.
The heavier flocs settle out much
more rapidly than do the individual particles, so flocculation is to be
avoided.
As discussed by Krone, pilings and any other obstacles around
which the water must flow promote the growth of flocs and would thus
cause increased mud deposition in the slips.
Elimination of as many of
these obstacles as possible would help decrease the rate of sedimentation.
An actual evaluation of this effect is not possible.
It would certainly
not stop the sedimentation completely, only perhaps decrease the rate
somewhat.
Although not entirely relevant to this discussion, there is one
possible source of the mud being deposited in the slips which bears consideration.
As noted above, estuarine waters contain a natural quantity
of mud in suspension, mud which probably has many sources.
In this case
it is possible that plumes of water containing still higher concentrations
of mud flow from Youngs Bay out into the Columbia River fronting the
slips of the
port.
Figure 19 shows that at one-half hour before high
tide there is a circulation cell within Youngs Bay that does cause a
flow across the openings to the slips. Only at that stage of the tide
does such a flow
other
stages.
occur,
being either down-river or into Youngs Bay at
Now if this reverse flow from Youngs Bay past the slips
is high in concentration of suspended mud due to having just flowed
through the bay, then it may be the principal source of mud deposition
in the
slips.
This
possibility could neither be confirmed nor dismissed
within this limited study. An extended program of sampling would be
required to determine quantities of mud in suspension at all phases of
the tide, and preferably at different river discharge
stages.
Additional
field studies would be warranted.
It is not expected that the addition of more docking facilities to
the west of Pier 3 would have an effect on the sedimentation rates of
Slips 1 and 2.
The quiet zones of these slips would remain as before,
and would continue to trap estuarine muds.
However,
the additional
facilities might alter the flow of water around the Port of Astoria,
shown in Figure 19.
My estimate is that if mud-laden water is brought
from Youngs Bay by the flow illustrated in the lower-left frame of Figure
19, the new facilities would not markedly alter the flow and so would
not change present sedimentation
patterns.
More extensive investigations
should be made of this, including model studies in addition to the
collection of field data on the existing circulation and suspended sediment content.
FIGURES
46°20
24°00
2 3° 45
1BAKER
GRAYS
BAY P
HARRINGTON
PT
PT
ELLICE
TONGUE
PT
AS TORIA
46° 0
MET
BAY
YOUNGS
COLUMBIA
RIVER
ESTUARY
BAY
24°00
23°45
Figure 1. Columbia River estuary, showing location of proposed fill (arrow) off Pier 3, Port of
Astoria, Oregon. Chart was redrawn from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration C & G S charts
6151 (1974) and 6152 (1972). Dashed lines indicate 18-foot (5.5-m) contour.
46°20
23°45
124°00
BAKER BAY
GRAYS
HARRINGTON
PT
ASTORIA
46°10
CATHLAAMET
B
COL
124°00
Figure 2.
ARY
2 3° 45'
Benthos stations in the Columbia River estuary, 31 August 1975 to 22 January 1976.
34
VICINITY MAP
4
0
3
2
IV
3
I
*
2
4
III
3
S
t
2
3
.
METERS
O
I00
II
200
Stations in the region of the proposed fill, 18 and 19
Figure 3.
October, 1975. Symbols indicate beach seine stations (A), benthos
salinity-temperature stations (*). Chart is based
stations
on aerial photos taken 16 September 1974 (COE Condition Survey CL-9-136).
Vicinity map is from Figure 1.
(), and
123°50
COLUMBIA
123°48'
RIVER
ASTORIA.
CAUSEWAY
46°10'
WARRENTON
MOUTH
OF
LEWIS AND CLARK;
RIVER
YOUNGS BAY AND VICINITY
46°08'
2000
4000
23°52'
Figure 4. Temperature-salinity stations, Youngs Bay, 1974.
1-1 of Higley and Holton (1975).
Reproduction of Figure
23°48
23°50'
COLUMBIA
63
4
3
RIVER
2
ASTORIA
SKIP
YR MOUTH
CH 12'
cw
TROUGH
WARRENTON
SKIP
TB
SKIP 7
(0
Y
CL U
CL
N Y LL
SKIP 3
YOUNGS BAY AND VICINITY
46°08'
LC
23°54
23°52'
2000
123°50
Figure 5. Benthos grab and core stations, Youngs Bay, 1974.
Figure 1-3 of Higley and Holton (1975).
Reproduction of
123°50,
123052'
123°48'
ASTORIA
NMFS
_'!---!
46°10
4RREN70N
I
TRANSECT'
YOUNGS BAY AND VICINITY
46°08'
123°52'
123°54'
Figure 6.
Intertidal
transect,
Seine station is indicated by a
and Holton (1975).
star.
23050'
23°48'
and trawl and sieve stations, Youngs Bay, 1974.
Modified from Figures 1-5 and 1-6 of Higley
20,
10
II
SURFACE
a 4meters
e gmelers
-.
i
I
-I
20r
lo,
a A'M'J
[
20
' J
' A ' S ' 0' N '-0
(a)
eFE
a4reers
. -elOmeters
b
10
20r
10
0
M
J' J
A
5
0
N
0
Figure 7.
Seasonal changes in temperature and salinity at two
stations, Youngs Bay, 1974. Measurements were made at approximately
high tide at the mouth of Youngs Bay (a) and near the Highway 101
causeway (b). Modified from Figures 1 and 2 of Higley and Holton
(1975).
See Figure 4 for station location.
HARRINGTON
PT
05
0 449
93
280
36
19
168
224
A
50
19
112
A 150
168
243
13
243
2S037
29 794
57.682
38.850
7.900
12.000
124° 00'
12 3° 45'
Figure 8. Amphipod densities (number/m2) in the Columbia River estuary.
Two samples were taken at most stations. Symbols indicate station location and sample date: 31 August-2'September 1975 (0); 29 November 1975
(A); and 21-22 January 1976 (0). The January densities are based on
sample counts. See Tables 4 and 5 for complete sample records.
cursory
Figure 2 shows station names.
I
GRAYS
BAY
HARRINGTON
PT
PT
935
ELLICE
5 925
188
224 A
523
804
280
A 93
TONGUE
PT
A9
785
374
500
AS TORIA
CATHLAMET
SAY
COLUMBIA
24°00
RIVER
ESTUARY
2 3° 45
Fig ure 9. Polychaete den sities (number/m2) in the Columbia River
estuary. Two samples were taken at most stations. Symbols indicate
station location and sample date: 31 August-2 September 1975 (); 29 November 1 975 (A); and 21-22 Jan uary 1976 (). The January densities are based
on curso ry sample counts. See Tables 4 and 5 for complete sample records.
Figure 2 shows station names.
5
4.825
4
V
E
3
0
2
0161
0
0 027
0 012
40
31,953
30
N
E
0
0
Q 20O
8.047
10
1,d5+7
I
Corophium
Oligochoeta
Nemotoda
76
Nereidoe
Figure 10. Dry weight and numerical densities of benthic taxa collected at station WRT-6C:3, 28 May 1974. Reproduced from Figure 3 of
Higley and Holton (1975). See Figure 5 for station location.
123°54'
123°50'
123°48'
8,323
COLUMBIA
RIVER
46°10'
29,040
2,637
099
YOUNGS BAY AND VICINITY
46008'
,20,559
123°52.
123°50'
Figure 11. Densities (number/m2) of benthic amphipods at selected stations in
Youngs Bay and vicinity, 1974. Data were taken from Table 5-1 of Higley and Holton
(1975). See Table 5 for complete sample records. Figure 5 shows station names.
123°50'
123°54'
61
COLUMBIA
123°48'
T
R/VER
none
none
ASTORIA
860
449
WARRENTON
1,120.
522(4`
LLUSYi
W
J
123°54'
Figure 12.
123°52'
123°50'
123°48'
Densities (number/m2) of polychaetes at selected stations in Youngs
Data were taken from Table 5-1 of Higley and Holton (1975).
sample records. Figure 5 shows station names.
Bay and vicinity, 1974.
See Table 5 for complete
50,000
ca)
N
E
E
Corophium sa/mon/s
25,000
0
z
50 , 000
F--
25,000
I
I
I
z
w
O
0
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
< 0.063 mm
0
0----o 0063 -0.246mm
(d)
80
i7'-
-040
0L
0
a...... A >0.99/
\b.-Q.
1%
*%
o ,....o.....,..:...,....a..........!.
100
200
e
...................
300
400
DISTANCE FROM SHORELINE DIKE (m)
Figure
13.
Densities of dominant benthic taxa (a-c), and sediment
textures (d) at 10 stations located along an intertidal mudflat, Youngs
Bay, 18 September 1974.
6 for transect location.
Unpublished data of
J.S.
Davis.
See Figure
53,234
022 0
466
56;411
25,860
40,047
20,318
22,804
2361
24,374
20,673
51,644
1383
45,9060
1737
26,860
28,636
1009
16,834
692
It
40,935
31,626
ib1 o 200~3;00
636
13,805
I
METERS
1923
1832
N
36,971
29. 9060
316
609
1436
2850
3 6,785
440090
40,991
36,841
Figure 14. Amphipod densities (number/m2) in
the region of the proposed fill, 18 and 19 October
Two samples were taken at each station. See
1975.
Table 6 for complete sample records. Figure 2 shows
station names.
1607
METERS
10- 0
200 1300
Polychaete densities (number/m2)
Figure 15.
in the region of the proposed fill, 18 and 19
Two samples were taken at each
October 1975.
See Table 6 for complete sample records.
station.
Figure 2 shows station names.
N-58
4 HOURS PAST HIGH TIDE
N269
/ HOW BEFORE HIGH TIDE
ff
rL
0 o _
N202
05 HOUR BEFORE HIGH TIDE
N226
3 HOURS BEFORE HIGH TIDE
PO
a
N465
N 199
10
2 HOURS BEFORE H/GH TIDE
2 NOURS BEFORE HIGH TIDE
2 HOURS BEFORE HIGH TIDE
HOURS BEFORE NIGH TIDE
,FIB
/ HOUR BEFORE HIGH TIDE
N171
Figure
16.
03 HOUR BEFORE AND 05 HOUR PAST NIGH TIDE
Relative abundances of fish species captured by 4.9-m
(headrope length) trawl at Station PW in Youngs Bay, 1974. The
each histogram is aligned with date of trawl. Total numbers of
captured are shown, along with reference to time of high tide.
of 3 and 4 December were combined to form a total catch of 171.
duction of Figure 11 of Higley and Holton (1975).
See Figure 6
station location.
base of
fish
Catches
Reprofor
46°20
2 3° 45
BAKER BAY
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
GRAYS
BAYC
MVP
.
...........
HARRINGTON
PT
PT
ELLICE
11
N
Ia
IhI-JDIIIII
AS TORIA
46° 0
CATHLAAMET
B
YOUNGS
COL U MBIA
RIVER
BAY
124°00'
Figure 17. Estimated distribution of benthic amphipod habitats and
associated amp hipod densi ties in the Columbia River estuary. The habitats
have been labe lied A-D for ease of reference. Hab itat divisions and densities are ver y approximate; they reflect bathymet ric features shown in
C & G S charts 6151 and 6 152, as well as sediment textures and benthic
densities pres ented in Jo,hnson and Cutshall (1975, Higley and Holton (1 975),
and this repor t.
ARY
i
E
Of
-1k
°ff fl
+
-W 4,w
I'M
(111
co
Figure 18.
Aerial photograph of Port of Astoria, 9 December 1963.
Pier 3 and part of the proposed fill site are shown in the foreground.
(From Port of Astoria Collection).
49
CIRCULATION PATTERNS, YOUNGS BAY, OREGON
FLOOD TIDE
FLOOD TIDE
(I TO 2 HOURS AFTER LOW TIDE)
(3 HOURS AFTER LOW TIDE)
R
kR
KR
., r !bbin.5 furface
(A .
r
.
rr, ents
e
ti ti._'
r
>
(low currents)
ASTORIA
ASTORIA
L
stagnatlan ones
circulation call
...
BAY
strong flood
currents
(2 fps)
\
EBB TIDE
1/2 HOUR BEFORE HIGH TIDE
Weak currents (< 0.5 fps)
COLUMBIA RIVER
strong ebb carronis
urrent3
r tail
+t(0.5fps) X,,1
-r
;TORIA
,
og
YOUNG'S
Figure 19. Tidal Current Patterns, Youngs Bay, Oregon.
State University, Ocean Engineering Program, 1975).
(From Oregon
Pier 2
samples
2
345
6
7
I
/00% mud
0.8
E
0.2
0
0
coarse
sand
2
345
6
7
Sample Number
Figure 20. Mud/sand ratios of sediments in a transect along Slip 2
and into the Columbia River, 13 February 1976.
TABLES
Temperature and salinity profiles at selected stations in the Columbia River
High tide at Tongue Point occurred at 0953 hrs (PST).
1975.
Station
Table 1.
estuary, 29 November
locations
are shown in Figure 2.
100
STATION
TIME (PST) 0930 h
D EPTH
(m)
0
Temp Salinity
(°/°O)
(°C)
102
103
105
107
108
1005 h
1045 h
1200 h
1325 h
1415 h
Temp Salinity
Temp Salinity Temp Salinity Temp Salinity
(°C)
(°C)
(°/O0)
8.0
4.2
(°/oo)
7.9
16.9
8.6
19.5
8.0
17.2
9.7
24.3
8.8
19.0
10.4
29.4
(°C)
(°/oo)
8.0
0.9
8.0
3.2
(°C)
7.5
(°/oo)
1.2
Temp Salinity
(°C)
(°/O0)
8.0
0.3
7.5
0.1
1
2
3
4
6
10.1
30.1
7
10.3
30.2
8.4
17.4
8.6
21.3
12
9.6
27.0
13
10.1
31.2
9
10
8.0
15.6
8.5
5
8
8.5
11
12.5
1.0
Table 2.
Temperature and salinity profiles at the entrance to Young's Bay and at two stations in
the region of the proposed fill, 18 October 1975. High tide occured at 1252 hrs (PDT) in Youngs Bay.
See Figures 3 and 4 for station locations.
STATION
Entrance to
Young's Bay
Transect IV
25 m offshore
Transect II
50 m Offshore
1152 h
1216 h
1227 h
TIME (PDT)
DEPTH
(m)
T emp
Temp
Salinity
Temp
( °C)°/oo)
Salinity
(°C)
(°/°O)
(°C)
(°/°°)
0
14.5
5.4
S'tT
1
14.5
5.6
7'VT
2
14.5
Z'6T
8'L
L'9
6't,
3
14.5
4
14.0
5.5
6.2
9.0
5
13.9
10.4
6
13.4
15.7
7
13.5
16.1
8
13.3
16.3
9
13.5
17.0
10
13.4
17.2
11
13.2
17.5
12
13.4
17.7
14.4
Z'S
14.2
6'S
Salinit y
Table 3. Checklist of benthic invertebrate taxes captured in the
Columbia River estuary, 1974-1976. Taxa listed in Table 1-1 of Higley
and Holton (1975) are presented along with taxa found in the present
study.
This list is subject to revision based on further taxonomic
study.
Classification is based on Barnes (1968).
Phylum Nemertinea
Phylum Nematoda
Phylum Annelida
Class Polychaeta
Subclass Errantia
Family Nereidae
Neanthes limnicola
Family Phyllodocidae
Eteone
sp.
Family Syllidae
Family Nephtyidae
Family Goniadidae
Subclass Sedentaria
Family Ampharetidae
Amphicteis floridus
Family Orbiniidae
Family Spionidae
Polydora
sp.
Family Capitellidae
Mediomastus
Capitella
sp.
sp.
Class Oligochaeta
Class Hirudinea
Phylum Mollusca
Class Gastropoda
Class Bivalvia
Family Cyrenidae
Corbicula fluminea
Family Tellenidae
Ma coma inconspicua
Macoma sp.
Phylum Arthropoda
Subphylum Chelicerata
Class Arachnida
Order Acarina
Suborder Hydracarina
Subphylum Mandibulata
Class Crustacea
Subclass Ostracoda
Subclass Copepoda
Order Harpacticoida
Family Canuellidae
Canuella canadensis
Family Ectinosomidae
Ectinosoma sp.
Family Cletodidae
Huntemannia jadensi
Subclass Cirrepedia
Subclass Malacostraca
Superorder Peracarida
Order Mysidacea
Family Mysidae
Order CumaceaNeomysis mercedis
Order Isopoda
Suborder Flabellifera
Family Sphaeromatidae
Gnorimosphaeroma oregonensis
Suborder Valvifera
Family Idoteidae
Mesidotea (Saduria) entomon
Order Amphipoda
Suborder Gammaridea
Family Corophiidae
Corophium salmonis
Corophium spinicorne
Corophium brevis
Family Gammaridae
Anisogammarus confervicolus
Family Haustoriidae
Eohaustorius estuarius?
Eohaustorius washingtonianus
Eohaustorius sawyeri
Family Phoxocephalidae
Paraphoxus milleri?
Paraphoxus sp. 1
Paraphoxus sp. 2
Family Oedicerotidae
Monoculodes sp.
Family Lysianassidae
Hippomedon denticulatus
Superorder Eucarida
Order Decapoda
Suborder Natantia
Crangon franciscorum
Suborder Reptantia
Section Macrura
Pacifasticus sp.
Table 3 (continued)
Class Insecta
Order Odonata
Order Diptera
Phylum Sipunculida
Family Chironomidae
Densities (number/m2) of benthic taxa, and sediment textures for bottom samples taken in
Table 4.
Two samples were taken at most stations (designated by a and b).
the Columbia River estuary, 1975.
Samples numbered 1-42 were taken between 31 August and 2 S eptembe r. ;those numbered 100-110 were taken on 29
Samples were obtained with a Smith-McIntyre
November 1975. Data for some samples are not available.
See Figure 2 for station locations.
grab sampler.
STATION
UNCORRECTED STATION DEPTH (m)
1A
lB
2A
2B
11.3
11.6
6.1
6.7
3A
3B
12.8
11.9
4A
4B
5A
5B
6A
6B
7A
7B
4.3
4.6
1.5
1.5
3.0
3.4
4.0
1.4
0.3
1.0
53.8
42.8
23.2
71.8
65.7
25.4
2.6
6.3
0.7
0.7
45.2
46.5
19.0
12.5
8.0
50
7.0
50
BA
88
4.0
10.7
11.9
1.8
0.7
8.9
30.4
14.7
43.5
0.6
10.5
60.5
7.6
20.8
0.6
0.3
6.7
46.5
8.8
37.1
14.0
12.5
18.0
50
SUBSTRATE TEXTURE (t)
0.3
> 1.000 mm
0.500 mm-1.000 mm
0.250 mm-0.500 mm
0.125 mm-0.250 mm
0.063 mm-0.125 mm
0.063 mm
SAMPLE DEPTH (cm)
FRACTION OF SAMPLE COUNTED
24.9
61.2
12.2
1.7
(t)
10.0
15.7
58.3
8.0
18.0
7.0
8.5
0.2
0.1
78.5
0.2
1.1
1.7
58.9
37.0
1.9
2.2
10.0
12.0
11.0
19.0
50
50
25
3.4
100
100
50
50
47.9
46.0
4.2
1.6
0.2
43.7
52.5
18.4
1.0
5.2
39.1
54.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
3.5
3.3
0.1
1.4
2.0
3.3
2.6
9.3
26.3
61.3
9.7
9.7
77.6
7.0
19.0
15.0
25
25
TAXON
19
Nemertinea
19
2B
75
37
299
3,439
Nematoda
Annelida
ncy caeaa
Oligxhaeta
Mollusc.
Gastropod.
93
93
37
754
93
56
224
46,804
374
17,495
3,140
523
280
280
75
56
19
75,514
224
Bivalvia
19
1,869
710
299
1,421
93
972
19
6,355
1,439
93
598
1,720
206
Arthropoda
Crust a cea
Oat racoda
cirripedia
374
Mycidacea
Cunacea
Isepoda
Anphipoda
19
37
37
729
19
467
Decapoda
299
19
37
252
19
93
19
1,065
280
37
1,159
75
449
75
75
3,439
11,665
37
Insecta
Odor
Diptera
Sipunculida
617
504
49,981
18,691
1,794
1,664
79,776
1,887
18.5
95
EEG
1108
TET
LE
Zit
61
61
E6
891
EVE
OPI'T
SLIT
968'9
STZ'T
6TO'9ZT 9E9'VZ
810'ZI
L06'E
L8111
98L
b601
LPL'Z
SLE
LOT
Sic
SOL
Sipuncul Lda
19
61
Diptera
In Beeta
Odonata
6
9
ZIT
SL
SL
11ZZ
891
94E'1
61Z'T
OST
SL
SL
95
A.-.Vhipoda
Decapoda
Isopod.
6T
Cumecea
61
61
SL
61
95
Mycidacea
Cirripedl
Ost racoda
Arthropoda
Crustaeea
61
8LT
66Z
sit
BIE
ZIT
OWE
SE6'9
6ST'IZ
O8Z
Bit
LSL'E
VO8'Z
TZ4'8Z
OST
LOT
EEG
Gastropoda
6L8'ZS
Elva ivia
roil ucw
LE
SZ6'S
E6
S£6
659
195
985'b
ZZ
SL
9EE
89T
95
LE
LOT
SPEC
659
6T
61
9L8
E6
6T
LE
Ell
61
LE
LE
Ell
986
Polycha eta
LE
Ol lgae6 ue to
..lid.
N. re toda
6T
Nemert inea
LOT
1ET
TAXON
E'0
Z'0
8'E
L'BS
0'LE
E'95
E'0
S'0
O'Z1
6'01
S'Z
5'04
L'Z8
Z'TT
E'4
0'61
0'61
0'L1
SZ
S'ZT
0'6
OS
05
OOT
Z'S
Z'S
OS
0'8
0'L
WE
S'Z
T'9
4'Z
E'O
81 ZL
0'EL
Z'9
L'OZ
E't
LIT
E'ZT
Z't
WE
810
L'6E
6'Z4
b'S
9'TE
11 'PS
5'E1
6'T
4'Z4
L'SS
0'8
0'8
E'0
6'6
0'89
8'9Z
0'6
810
Z'9Z
1'69
E'Z
0'T
6'6Z
8'99
Vol
0'81
6'9
E'0
E'9T
b'SC
09
OS
OS
0'E1
0'11
6'9
9'0
11'Z
E'0
1'0Z
Z'LL
Z'Z
910
GOT
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
S'6L
L'Z
0'E
9'11
9'0
OS
918
5'TT
6'S
Z'T
VIE
8TZ
9'11
WE
0'6
0'E
6'0
9'8L
LPL
0.125 mn-0.250 an
9191
6'6T
11'0
6'0
(al
UZZ
SAMPLE DEPTH (cm)
Fw TION Or SAMPLE COUNTED It
0.063 mm-O.125 mm
0.063 mm
> 1.000 mm
0.500 mn-1-0OD nm
0.250 mn-0.500 mm
'E
4'E
89t
S'Z
V91
TIE
Z'S
T'9
L'OZ
1'9
0'61
801
VII
911
VET
BET
VST
95i
SUBSTRATE TEXTURE
UNCORP.ECTED STATION DEPTH (m)
Vol
Table 4 (continued
6EV'L
L68'8
VZZ'OI
VTS'TT
OTL'ZT
SE6'ZT
6ZL'OT
5OS'OI
ZVZ'8
E6E'0!
9E9'B
86Z'V
9Z6'61
LOE'IZ
VIS'LZ
Z56'81
TWEE
C89'TZ
Sipuncul ides
19
Ztt
Diptera
Odonata
Insect,
Z9Z
Z9Z
TET'Z
E£S'S
Z04'L
b6L'6
LT9'9
BOE'E
6T
OVT'6T
TZT'TZ
Z9Z'9T
600'6
986'8
60819
LE
SL
Cirripedi
Mycidacea
Ct a Cea
Isopoda
Amphlpoda
Deca pods
0
YZZ
0.Ira coda
Crustacea
Arthropoda
SSE
EZS
SSE'!
0001Z
SOL
8Z0'S
06Z'L
LE
LE
OSt'V
892'9
S6V'L
III
LE
9Z9
86S
EL9
ZL6'V
6
L911
SSE
LE
9S
6T
VZZ
89T
LE
EZS
61
TET
6ZL
Ott
ZVS
SE6
61
SL
Lt
600
ZTT
LOT
EVZ'01
OIL
VE6'8
5E6
099
9VE'1
6t0'OT
ZSL'E
809'S!
68S'L
262
6T
my
SL
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Diva Luis
Polychaeta
Oligochacta
Annelida
6T
61
66Z
Nematodes
Nemertinea
LE
TAXON
T'Z
S'L
9'EB
L'9
E'O
E'LL
S'ET
O'ET
OS
OS
L'9
I'8
L'9
8'O
E'0
SZ
O'Et
V'!T
9'TS
019E
9'0
Vol
Z'ZE
1'1
9'IL
S'B
V'IT
E'SS
O'£!
O'El
St
OS
V'0
8'B
9'0
E'0
OS
OS
OS
9'Z
V'Z
0'T
O'Z
S'S
Z'SV
0164
E'0
0'1
I'TI
6'9E
Z'OS
S'O
E'O
Z'0
Z'Z
S'0
S'ES
S'Z
8'0
E'S
Z'Z
E'L
V'91
91VT
E'VS
SZ
0111
OS
0'6
0'9
OS
8'E
L'S
8'BZ
8'95
6'V
S'V
S'6E
6'1
6'E
S'LE
S'6
S'EI
O'ET
0'81,
8'11
L'Z
8'!
O'IT
0'9Z
9'8V
O'Z
S'O
O'Z
9'OV
Z'O
Z10
O'ET
O'E!
SZ
SZ
SZ
O'El
Z°Z
0'8
8'81,
SZ
0'6
8'TL
9'61
9'E
E'T
E'!
SZ
(t)
0'OI
S'TL
8'OZ
8'T
8't
L'Z
8'1
6'0
8'T
UT
I'E!
L'9Z
S'VS
I'Z
S'O
6'Z
Z'E
mm-0.500 mn,
> 1.000 nun
5'T
SAMPLE DEPTH (cm)
FRACTION OF SAMPLE COUNTED
< 0.063 r
0.125 mm-0.250 mm
0.063 mm-0.125 mm
0.250
0.500 mm-1.000 mm
SUBSTRATE TEXTURE (lI
8'T
BIE
I'Z
5'i
VIE
HOE
S'I
S'T
YOE
V6Z
06Z
HOT
YOZ
8LZ
8'T
VLZ
892
Y9Z
HST
YSZ
SET
(UI)
LINCORkEZT_D STATION DEPTH
YET
Table 4 (continued
6T
EL9'0
ZZB
SOL
LE
Z89'LS
05818E
Z96'E9
ZZ'6E
TET
Z9Z
58L
LE
00019t
OSt
COT
OST
9EE
ZZ
916
099
L4
6T
LE
Ztt
ZTt
8511
LSL'1
SL
6
L
COT
t6Z
E96'it
906't
OST
Oct
EZ
SL
SL
SL
68S'E
L9L'Ot
tLZ'9T
TS5'TT
508'OZ
95
ZTT
LE
L8t
Oct
BOE'6
St6'6t
6EL't
E6E'0T
9E9'01
L6S
Sipuncullda
61
Odonata
Diptera
Insects
8'8
t66'Z
OE'8
L0'T
OSB'L
9E9
T86'6
OZ
66Z
Amph ipoda
Deeapoda
Isopoda
Cumacea
SL
LE
Hycldacea
2
Cirripedi
Arthropoda
Crustacea
Ostracoda
OSt
SL
Biva lvia
LC
Gast ropoda
Ptllcsca
8t'8
ZTt'r
99't
OTC
SSE
E99'1
E6
EZS
BL
SOS'81
Z89'Z1
SL
ESE
L8t
6T
TEt't
6
6
OE
0
NN
L9'T
L
Ollgochaeta
Annelida
Polychaeta
Nematode
6T
Nmert lnea
TAXON
L'9
i'9
E'T
T'f
t'Z
119Z
T'ZS
S'91
OOT
0'S i
0'fT
0'112
SZ
SZ
OOT
0 1 ST
Z'6
Z'6
5 '0
8 ' EZ
T ' 9S
5 ' 01
0 6
0'11
6'£9
T'0
Z'O
'8Z
co '
S ' 6t
Z' LS
TT
L
'
'
SE
L'9T
Z'6
SZ
0 1 ST
0 ' 01t
L
L 't
' 6Z
6 ' OS
Z ' LS
E
'
TE
SZ
0'T
6'6
Z'9Z
9'SS
05
01ST
E'9
L'Z
9'L9
0'T
Z't
Z'T
L'Z
L't
E'0
Z'0
Z'O
E '0
6'0
O
11 '
0
11 '
8'L
't
to
05
01ST
T't
8'5T
0'8S
E'OZ
to
os
'8Z
£'E
8'Z
S'ST
E'ES
£'L
L'Z
'ZZ
Z'9t
8'9S
L'ZZ
9'9
T'E
SZ
01ST
0't
'EZ
E'0
E'0
S'SS
8'ET
6'0
6'0
SL
0'111
OS
01ST
810
Ell
T'T
'8L
'Z9
WE
6'E
S19t
OOT
0'Et
OS
0'91
81ST
L'0
L'0
00
01T
Z'L
11'0
Z'E
Z'Z
SAISLE DEPTH (cm)
'Z
FRACTION OF SAf1.E COUNTED (a)
< 0.063 mm
619
Z'OL
Z'O1
0'S
> 1.000 nm
0.500 mm-1.000 nm
0.250 mn-0.500 mm
0.125 mm-0.250 mm
0.063 ern-0.125 nm
SUBSTRATE TEXTURE (I)
8'T
YO
HB£
V8E
9LE
YLE
99E
Y9E
8'T
SESE
8'T
V5E
T'Z
86E
T'Z
VVE
Ell
SEE
Z't
t19
VEE
11'9
8Zf
DEPTH (ml
HO
UNCORRECTED STATION
VZE
Table 4 (continued
Table a (continued) .
9.2
8.2
7.3
102A
1028
103A
103B
104A
1048
105A
6.7
6.7
7.6
7.6
5.2
4.6
5.5
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.1
4.5
0. 9
4 .1
3. 8
78.6
12.9
40 . 0
4.5
54.5
3.8
1.6
80.1
4.0
77.0
14.0
10.6
71.2
11.7
0.3
1.7
0.2
001
S19
8.8
101B
E'E
1.2
101A
9'Z
1.2
100B
5.0
6.5
13.5
1058
.
5.5
\)
25
50
5.5
7.0
100
DOT
f')
15.0
0'8
14.0
7.0
3.4
100
001
14.0
10.8
S'9
SAMPLE DEPTH (cm)
FRACTION OF SAMPLE COUNTED
4.6
8.3
14.3
78.1
5.9
1.7
DOT
44.8
19.8
30.3
18.2
71.5
9'8
19.9
23.0
44.4
23.3
61.4
Z'8
0.125 mn-0.250 mm
0.063 mm-0.125 mm
< 0.063 on
0.2
42.5
45.5
3.4
E'£
0.8
0.9
3.4
01Z
4.9
P 01
5.7
2.0
non
8'T
mm
0.250 mm-0.500
L'L6
8'0D
0.500 mm-1.000
T'ZL
41ST
> 1.000 .
3.7
100A
911
L'Tt
(
3.7
42B
8 105
SUBSTRATE TEXTURE
m)
42A
B'Z9
UNCORRECTED STATION DEPTH
41B
E'1E
41A
50
50
100
17.7
76.8
3.6
1.9
10.0
100
5. 6
10 . 0
3.1
10 . 5
100
13 . 5
150
93
SO
TAXON
1.906
4,860
2,916
7.252
8Z
4 , 374
oz
8 , 299
6
19
19
6
Nerertinea
56
93
37
56
28
290
AnnelLda
168
187
224
187
280
131
ISO
19
LE
28
051
327
TZ/
150
E8t
Polychaeta
Cl igochaeta
93
9
19
140
molluscs
Gastropods
8Z
Bivalvia
19
103
19
Arthropods
Cruatacoa
Ostracod a
Cirriped is
Mycida ce a
8Z
C wne cea
37
S69
169
>S6
405
6
61
6
6
6T
6
TLZ
OST
61
365
ZSZ
206
8Z
44,336
ZIT
43,140
OST
56
TET
6
29,794
ttz
28,037
Decapoda
06T
Isnpoda
Amph ipod 0
738
168
insecta
Odonata
Diptera
Slpunculida
4SE
98P
665
(continued
BLOT
£'V
1'9
WE
8'1
0'VT
T'T
9'91
0'58
9'V
S'0
019
£'0
0109
L'ST
E'LV
Z'OV
8'0
L'9
PLOT
E'V
V90T.
8901
Z'S
Z'8
0'T
T'0
9'11V
0'65
6'V
0'T
6'ZV
T'LV
(m)
Y80T
UNCORRECTED STATION DEPTH
Y60T
STATION
VOTT
Table 4
SUBSTRATE TEXTURE It)
9'E
S'V
0'ZT
0'11T
5'OT
L'8
9'V
S'T1
001
001
SZ
T'OL
O'ZT
L'Z
6'Z
9'0
0'S
001
0'ST
0'LT
SZ
OOT
OS
SAMPLE DEPTH (cm)
FRACTION OF SAMPLE. COUNTED (%)
0'T
6'8
0.250 mn-0.500 on
0.125 mm-C.250 mm
0.063 mn-0.125 mm
C 0.063 at
6'T
6'L
0'68
Z'9
T'0
> 1.000 nm
0.500 mm-1.000 on
TAXON
5L
LE
90Z
61
LOT
VB
ZTT
Neracods
6
Nemertinea
6
Mnelida
6
95
OST
80E
VZZ
LOT
5L
S9
6T
OST
COT
E6
Oligochauta
ZTT
PolyCHaete'
:cl1uscc
82
6
Wt toped.
Bivalvia
Ar thropoda
Crustacea
Os t r.coda
Clrrir'ed_
SEE
SOL
LVO'T
088
STZ
19S
60Z'T
EES'T
96T'T
Z9Z
EES'9L
6T
Isopoda
6T
ZSZ
AI%hipoda
61
hcea
891'9L
Mycidacea
De Capeda
Insecta
Odonata
Diptera
Sipun culida
001
Table 5.
Approximate densities (number/m2) of benthic taxa for bottom samples taken in the
Columbia River estuary, 21 and 22 January 1976. Two samples were taken at each station (designated
A and B).
Densities are based on cursory sample counts, as explained in the text.
Samples were
obtained with a Smith-McIntyre grab sampler. Station depth is uncorrected for tidal stage. See
Figure 2 for station locations.
STATION
151A
151B
152A
152B
153A
UNCORRECTED
STATION DEPTH (m)
3.2
3.2
5.2
5.2
2.1
2.1
1.8
(cm)
15.0
13.0
15.0
11.5
12.0
12.5
13.5
SAMPLE DEPTH
153B
154A 154B
155A
155B
2.6
2.1
2.1
12.0 15.8 16.5
11.4
11.4
1.8
2.6
TAXON
Nematoda
50
30
100
800
400
1,600
Annelida
Polychaeta
Oligochaeta
50
10
2,700
2,600
50
50
18,000
21,000
50
50
200
200
1,400
6,300
20
30
20
100
100
100
300
20
20
200
100
7,100
100
100
500
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Bivalvia
Anthropoda
Crustacea
Ostracoda
Amphipoda
Insecta
Diptera
10
50
30
7,900
100
12,000
12,000
Table 6. Densities (number/m2) of benthic fauna at selected stations
in Youngs Bay, 1974. A dash indicates taxon may have been present, but
was not counted. See Figure 5 for station locations. Summarized from
Table 5-1 of Higley and Holton (1975).
STATION AND DATE
FWGS
TAXON
FWGS
P3-FLG
PW
PW
1
3
10 July
10 July
7 March
12 Oct
12 Oct
8,323.2
50.5
191.9
65.4
224.3
766.4
30,523.4
280.4
3C
2
5
Amphipoda
Anisogammarus
Corophiwn
Eohaustorius
40.4
1,859.6
Paraphoxus
Isopoda
Mesidotea
10.1
Gnorimosphaeroma
Insecta
Chironomidae
10.1
10.1
Polychaeta
Ampharetidae
Nereidae
60.6
01igochaeta
10.1
40.4
it
859.8
448.6
40.4
551.4
112.1
10.1
46.7
252.3
Hirudinea
Nematoda
30.3
Nemertinea
Mollusca
Macoma
20.2
850.5
Corbicula
Hydracarina
Ostracoda
Decapoda
Pacifasticus
10.1
Crangon
Mysidacea
Neomysis
TOTAL
lb./
2U.2
.970
8 444
323
3 383
31 617
Table 6 (Continued)
STATION AND DATE
YR
3
YR
MOUTH
LC
6
LC
WH
26 Aug
29 May
9 Nov
9 Nov
2,637.4
71.4
18,857.1
20,558.6
29,040.0
142.9
949.7
80.0
71.4
TAXON
Amphipoda
Anisogammarus
Corophium
Eohaustorius
Paraphoxus
Isopoda
Mesidotea
Gnorimosphaeroma
Insecta
Chironomidae
Polychaeta
Ampharetidae
Nereidae
Oligochaeta
54.9
467.0
2,142.9
502.8
279.3
160.0
960.0
26,620.9
11,071.4
15,754.2
33,440.0
82.4
1,785.7
335.2
320.0
Hirudinea
Nematoda
Nemertinea
-
240.0
Mollusca
Macoma
167.6
Corbicula
160.0
55.9
Hydracarina
Ostracoda
Decapoda
Pacifasticus
Crangon
Mysidacea
Neomysis
TOTAL
29,863
34,143
38,603
64,400
66
Table 6 (Continued)
STATION AND DATE
CWRR
WRT-6C
3
WRT-6C
7
SKIP
3
SKIP
TB
9 July
12 Oct
12 Oct
24 Oct
10 Nov
12,255.1
22,235.8
81.3
28,435.1
1,098.9
9.3
140.2
TAXON
Amphipoda
Anisogammarus
Corophiwn
Eohaustorius
Paraphoxus
Isopoda
Mesidotea
Gnorimosphaeroma
Insecta
1,098.9
Chironomidae
Polychaeta
Ampharetidae
Nereidae
Oligochaeta
9.3
9.3
51.2
542.9
609.8
782.4
50,295.9
11,138.2
26,450.4
11,318.7
2,183.7
1,219.5
267.2
439.6
84.1
Hirudinea
Nematoda
Nemertinea
Mollusca
Macoma
10.2
CorbicuZa
Hydracarina
384.6
Ostracoda
109.9
Decapoda
Pacifasticus
Crangon
Mysidacea
Neomysis
TOTAL
71.4
65,520
35,285
55,935
14,450
252
Table 7.
Densities (number/m2) of benthic taxa, and sediment textures for bottom samples taken in
the region of the proposed fill, 18 and 19 October 1975. Estimated station depth at mean lower low water
(MLLW) is shown.
Two samples were taken at each station (designated by a and b).
Samples were obtained
with a Smith-McIntyre grab sampler, except at the number 4 station on Transects I and II, where five clam
gun cores of exposed substrate comprised each sample. Faunal counts were not made on some samples. See
Figure 3 for station locations.
TRANSECT I
3A
3B
Z'O
E'0
6'0
O'0
CZ
L'0
0'1
O'0
Z'0
4A
40
Z'0
Z'0
Z'0
Z'0
S'0
Z'O
Z'O
Z'E
S'ST
6'0E
L'TE
E1119
I'9S
I'OE
E'OS
8'O
9'E
E'65
T'85
T'85
S'9S
Z'S
9'LE
Z'OZ
O'6Z
£'Z
0'8
E'L
019
T'O
0'TT
0'0T
0'6
L'6
L'6
Z'9
8'Z
SZ
8'0
0'0
810
T'E
T'Z
T'T
E'0
E'0
Z'0
9'EZ
I'EZ
L'9Z
E'0
T'0
6'EE
T'ZS
0'05
0'0S
1'9Z
O'ZS
O'ZS
T'TE
LEE
S'T9
5'IT
L'LI
E'8
Z'9
8'6
6'TT
E'OZ
9'L
6'S
Z'9
0'OT
5'TT
5'E1
OZ
SZ
OS
4B
E'0
'AR
8'0
910
410
6'E
L16
5'S
I'S
S'6
L'6
05
S'E
0'6
OS
OS
0'0T
8'9
S'6
Z'O
E'O
5'ST
C'95
Z16S
0'L
9'6
S'L
SZ
OS
T'T
0'1
Z'O
9'0
T'85
Z'SZ
6'ZT
TIE
S'OT
O'ZT
OS
SE
SZ
(s) 0
DEPTH
(cm)
FRACTION OF SAMPLE OOUN3E
3B
I'0
SA MPLE
1'0-
Ann
6'0
mm
c 0.063 an
8'T
mm
2B
5'0
0.125 mm-0.250
0.063 mn-0.125
mm
JP
Z'0
> 1.000 nn
0.500 nn-1.000
D.l sa nn-0.500
Is
3A
Z'O
STATION DEPtil at ML W(m)
TRANSECT TI
1A
2B
2A
1B
E'0
1A
STATION
TAXON
LE
O8Z
T95
LEO'Z
66L'T
OS8'Z
L09'T
600'T
TZ6
468
902
666
9E9
E6
Z9Z
61
SE6'OO
9IZ
65
ZEL'T
OLS'T
8L9'I
VOL
082
ES6
86S
SE6
Z69
PLE
ITO
8TE
85'T
OS9
L68
ITO
906'2
ITS,
90E 'Z
LOT
58L
8ZO'T
Annellda
Polychaeta
OligochaeLn
SEC
Nematoda
61
Nemertinea
Molluscs
Gas tropoda
ZTT
SL
LE
Arthropoda
Crustacea
Ostracoda
SL
Bivalve
0
Cirr ipedia
Mycidacea
CumaCea
9Z9'TC
TL6'9E
906'62
ES6'OE
T9Z'0
S8L'ZE
Z5'8Z ZO'LT 600'I0 58L'9E TY8'9
S08'ST
OEB'91
TO'EV
EZE'6I
OLZ'6T
Isopoda
T66'06
Amphipoda
Decapoda
Insects
Odonata
Diptera
Sipuncul ida
OT8'OO
Z89'TE
Z69'81
891'8E
88S'ZO
8ZO'EO
able
7 (continued
TRANSECT III
TRANSECT IV
STATION
1A
1B
2A
28
3A
3B
4A
4B
IA
1B
2A
2B
3A
3B
4A
48
STATION DEPTH at MLLW (m)
1.8
1.7
0.8
2.4
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.1
1.6
1.6
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.5
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.4
5.9
72.4
0.3
0.3
5.0
0.3
0.6
2.9
1.6
7.0
0.3
0.6
53.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.8
0.4
1.1
1.1
0.7
1.9
0.8
0.6
2.0
0.3
0.3
6.8
4.7
31.8
38.6
8.6
38.1
47.8
4.3
9.5
0.7
0.0
7.5
70.8
0.6
0.6
37.6
3.6
37.0
51.1
0.4
0.4
1.6
0.3
0.3
26.1
40.3
22.0
0.5
1.0
61.0
29.2
2.3
6.0
42.8
21.7
42.8
15.2
57.3
31.9
6.7
2.9
32.0
40.5
10.9
15.9
11.0
10.0
8.0
10.0
10.0
8.0
12.0
11.0
10.5
25
25
25
SUBSTRATE TEXTURE (1)
> 1.000 mm
0.500 Don-1.000 em
0.250 mm-0.500 non
0.125 mm-0.250 mo
0.063 mnr0.125 mni
< 0.063 enn
SAMPLE DEPTH (cm)
PRACTIaI OF SAMPLE COUNTE D (%
10.2
10.7
67.6
14.0
12.8
13.5
11.5
50
25
54.3
33.0
3.3
4.6
8.0
50
50
60.4
26.3
10.9
12.9
8.1
12.0
10.5
25
25
20.6
2.4
50.1
35.1
11.9
9.0
12.0
42.0
35.0.
25
25
25
TAXON
Ne
rtNea
Nematoda
Annelida
Polychaeta
Oligochacta
112
75
56
75
160
1,682
3,439
3,514
1,925
75
1,832
2,318
318
318
168
374
37
150
75
299
187
299
224
37
187
636
748
1,981
3,636
1,832
2,392
1,159
505
262
1.383
1,757
187
37
2,364
6,392
2,131
8,037
1,794
19,411
2,056
10,336
822
449
486
598
112
710
262
1,664
673
1,000
626
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Divalvia
37
Arthropoda
Crustacea
Ostracoda
Cirripedia
Mycidacea
Cumacea
37
Isopoda
Arphipoda
Decapoda
2 6,860
28,636
51,644
45,906
24,374
20,673
20,318
22,804
25,860
40,047
53,234
56,411
29,308
34,917
55,812
50,374
26,841
23,515
31,561
35,925
51,888
55,233
57,121
58,728
Insects
Odonata
Diptera
Sipunculida
69
Table S. Checklist of fish species captured in the Youngs Bay area, 1974-1975. List is based on
Table 1-2 of Higley and Holton (1975), and includes species taken at proposed fill site by Durkin (1974),
indicated by (t), as well as those captured in the present study, indicated by (*). Nomenclature is
based on American Fisheries Society (1970).
COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
FAMILY
American shad
Alosa sapidissima (Wilson)
Clupeidae
Carp t
Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus
Cyprinidae
Chinook salmon * t
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum)
Salmonidae
Chum salmon t
Oncorhynchus keta (Walbaum)
Salmonidae
Coho salmon t
Oncorhynchus kisutch (Walbaum)
Salmonidae
English sole
Parophrys vetulus Girard
Pleuronectidae
Largescale sucker * t
Catostomus macrocheilus Girard
Catostomidae
Longfin smelt t
Spirinchus
Osmeridae
Northern anchovy
Engraulis mordax Girard
Engraulidae
Pacific lamprey
Entosphenus tridentatus (Gairdner)
Petromyzontidae
Pacific herring *
Clupea harengus pallasi Valenciennes
Clupeidae
Pacific staghorn sculpin * t
Leptocottus armatus Girard
Cottidae
Pacific tomcod
Microgadus proximus
Gadidae
Peamouth * t
Mylocheilus
Prickly sculpin t
Cottus asper Richardson
Cottidae
Ringtail snailfish
Liparis
Cyclopteridae
Sand sole
Psettichthys
Shiner perch * t
Cymategaster aggregate
Snake prickleback
Lumpenus sagitta Wilimovsky
Stichaeidae
Speckled sanddab
Citharichthys stigmaeus
Bothidae
Starry flounder * t
Platichthys
Steelhead trout
Salmo
Surf smelt * t
Hypomesus
Threespine stickleback * t
Gasterosteus aculeatus Linnaeus
Gasterosteidae
White sturgeon
Acipenser transmontanus
Acipenseridae
thaleichthys (Ayres)
(Girard)
caurinus (Richardson)
rutteri
(Gilbert and Snyder)
melanostictus
Girard
Gibbons
Jordan and Gilbert
stellatus (Pallas)
gairdneri
Richardson
pretiosus
(Girard)
Richardson
Cyprinidae
Pleuronectidae
Erbiotocidae
Pleuronectidae
Salmonidae
Osmeridae
Table 9.
Summary of fish species captured by Durkin (1974) using a 100-m beach seine near seine
site C (Figure 3 ), 1974. Three seine hauls were made on 23 April, two on 15 May, and three on 7 June,
1974.
Common Name
Scientific Name
Starry floun der
Platichthys
Threespine s tickleback
Gasterosteus aculeatu s
Chinook salmon
Oncorhynchus tshawyts cha
Pacific staghorn sculpin
stellatus
April
Number
May
Size Range (mm)
June
April
May
June
230
50
55
59-241
72-213
31-103
206
6
22
39- 72
53- 68
51- 65
26
2408
1027
49- 90
58-132
55-100
Leptocottus armatus
9
14
15
49- 92
58-122
63-149
Carp
Cyprinus carpio
5
0
23
439-559
Pea mouth
Mylocheilus caurinus
3
1
68
71-348
Coho salmon
Oncorhynchus kisutch
2
160
3
Largescale s ucker
Catostomus macrocheil us
2
1
1
Chum salmon
Oncorhynchus keta
1
1
0
65
68
Longfin smel t
Spirinchus
1
1
0
131
98
Shiner perch
Cyma togas ter
0
6
164
Surf smelt
Hypomesus pretiosus
0
0
23
Prickly soul pin
Cottus asper
0
1
dilatus*
aggregat a
*Synonomous with S. thaleichthys (American Fisheries Society, 1970)
410-570
48
85-221
116-126
112-159
108-145
463-529
450
480
112-129
81-132
54- 81
128
Table 10.
Catch by 52-m beach seine at Station P3 in Youngs Bay, 1974.
of Higley and Holton (1975). See Figure 6 for station location.
Taken from Table 12
xU
cd
a)
Cd
Ud
H Cd
Date
Time
Reference to
high tide
=
a) v
xo of
O -4
f4
p Cd
r+ v)
Cd
U
p+
a)
xNU
z
,4HUto4CdU
w
$4
N
U
w
CU)
to
to
Cd
a
STATION:
27 Aug
1510
5.5 hrs past
12 Oct
1530
4 hrs past
16
11 Nov
0945
1 hr before
35
r+
4
a)
ice-'
p
0
E
Cd
a
a
Fi U
a)
p
gyp.
a)
cn
1
19
6
$4
>,
SA O
Fr -4
cd 4a
G7
+j
a)
4a E
t-+
CA
a.x
yU
G) r4
0 4-j
Fl N
on
TOTAL
P3
4
1
H
Ha
-4
12
2
27
15
28
79
118
168
Catch by 52-m beach seine at four stations
Table 11.
fill, 18 October 1975. See Figure 3 for station locations.
located in the region of the proposed
FISH SPECIES
TOTAL
CAPTURE
SITE
Chinook
Salmon
A
Sucker
Pacific
Pacific Staghorn
Herring
Peamouth
Sculpin
15
H
B
Largescale
Shiner
Starry
Surf
Perch
Flounder
Smelt
Stickleback
4
3
6
9
41
122
1
2
46
172
1
57
94
35
C
3
D
178
29
51
178
141
358
m
16
1
Threespine
73
Table 12. Mean contributions of various food types to stomach contents
of fish captured at Stations PW and NMFS 1. The values represent the
approximate seasonal importance of each food type to the mixed species
population of fish sampled by 4.9 m (headrope length) trawl. Reproduction
of Table 13 of Higley and Holton (1975). See Figure 6 for station locations.
Food
Station
Mean fraction of stomach contents (o)
Jan-May
June-Sept
Oct-Dec
Amphipoda
Corophium
PW
NMFS 1
Anisogamnnarus
PW
NMFS 1
Copepoda
Harpacticoida
Calanoida E
Cyclopoida
PW
NMFS
PW
NMFS
1
1
62.9
52.5
1.4
7.6
19.1
18.8
2.8
32.8
74.3
2.3
+
5.7
0.8
5.5
18.0
74.2
5.9
0.7
6.8
1.9
0.7
6.2
0
3.1
PW
NMFS 1
0.7
4.8
1.0
4.2
Ileomysis
PW
NMFS 1
6.4
9.7
17.5
18.4
12.2
10.0
Polychaeta
PW
NMFS 1
1.2
10.0
13.6
0.6
10.5
1.2
3.6
10.3
4.1
0.1
37.3
Decapoda
Crangon
0
2.1
Mysidacea
Mollusca
Bivalvia
PW
NMFS 1
Fish
Mean fullness
0
PW
0
4.3
0
NMFS 1
0
0
0
PW
NMFS 1
20.0
33.5
39.4
51.8
17.6
37.8
+ indicates trace amount
I
Table 13. Contents
for station locations.
of stonachs taken from fish captured by beach seine at four stations in the region of the proposed
fill.
J
See Figure 3
FOOD TYPE (% by volume)
FIST
Chinook
Salmon
STOMACH
SIZE CAPTURE FULLNESS
14
70
Perrestrnal
Aquatic
Calanoida
ironoAdult
Adult Arancae AniaoBivalve
and
midae
Coleoptera Diptera
gcrosnarua Siphons Cyclopoida Larvae
Cladocera Coro- Eohaua- Cnorioophi= toriua
12
A
A
C
45
A
45
B
40
60
7
A
80
15
10
D
80
65
70a
D
22
A
30
40
12
B
40
9
C
50
8
D
60
14
B
D
60
15
12
B
15
60
10
14
B
90
75
40
97
80
trace
7
C
5
D
12
15
65
100
60
Polycheeta Uniden-
aphaeroma
tified
25
2
58b
100
trace
40
Largescale
Sucker
20
70
Pacific
Herring
trace
trace
80
30
100
Pacific
Stag horn
Sculpin
Peamouth
tracec
30
100
10
50
Shiner
Perch
100
80
60
Starry
Flounder
Surf Smelt
90
0
C
20
40
trace
10
3
20
Threespine
Stickleback
5
20
50
-----------------------------Cean contributiond (5) d
Frequency of Occurrence
a Identified as
(I)
A. confervicolus
bIdentified as C.
Identified as C.
salmonis
spinicorne
5Excludinq fish with empty stomach
50
40
0.8
5.6
3.3
16.7
1.4
5.6
60
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6.1
1.1
21.5
2.2
2.2
40.1 2.2
1.7
2.2
15.0
11.1
5.6
27.8
5.6
11.1
66.7 11.1
5.6
16.7
38.9
Table 14. Area, density of amphipods, and standing crops of amphipods in habitats shown in Figure 17 (or Plate 3). Amphipod statistics
are based on density estimates shown in Figure 8 (or Plate 1) and in
Higley and Holton (1975).
AREA
(Hectares)
A
16,267
180
B
16,933
5,000
C
409
15,000
D
915
30,000
-0
STANDING CROP (± 1 SD)
(1010 individuals)
0
- 6.51)
(000'6 -000'T
L9'178
16.93-152.41)
(000'ZZ-000'L
£T'9
2.86- 8.99)
(000'Z'-000'LT)
34,354
(00i
TOTAL
DENSITY (± 1 SD)
(Number/m2)
£6'Z
HABITAT
27.46
15.56- 38.44)
121.19
35.35-206.35)
77
REFERENCES CITED
American Fisheries Society. Committee on Names of Fishes. 1970. A List
of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States and
Canada. by R.M. Bailey, Chairman, et al. 3d edition.
Amer. Fish.
Soc. Special Publication No. 6. Washington, D.C. 150 pp.
Barnes, Robert D.
Co.
1968.
Philadelphia.
Davis, J.S. Unpublished
versity, Corvallis.
Durkin, Joseph T.
Invertebrate Zoology.
2nd Ed. W.B. Saunders
743 pp.
data.
School of
Oceanography,
Oregon State Uni-
A Survey Report of Fish Species Found
Unpublished.
in a Proposed Fill Area West of the Port of Astoria
June 1974. U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service,
5 pp.
Docks,
April-
Hammond, Oregon.
Haertel, Lois, and Charles Osterberg. 1967. Ecology of zooplankton,
benthos and fishes in the Columbia River estuary. Ecology 48(3):
459-472.
Haertel,
Lois, Charles Osterberg,
1969.
Nutrient and plankton
Ecology
50(6):962-978.
Herbert
Curl,
Jr., and P. Kilho Park.
ecology of the Columbia River estuary.
Higley, Duane L., and Robert L. Holton. 1975. Biological Baseline Data:
Youngs Bay, Oregon, 1974; Final Report to Alumax Pacific Aluminum
Corporation, 1 November 1973 through 30 April 1975. Oceanography
Reference 75-6.
Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
Johnson, Vernon G., and Norman H. Cutshall.
Data, Youngs Bay, Oregon,
1974.
1975.
91 pp.
Geochemical Baseline
Final Report to ALUMAX Pacific
Aluminum Corporation, 1 November 1973 through 30 April 1975. Reference
75-7, School of Oceanography, Oregon State University, Corvallis,
Oregon.
66 pp.
Krone, R.B.
1971. Investigation of causes of shoaling in slips one
and two, Port of Astoria: Consultation report to the Port of Astoria.
9 pp.
Misitano,
David A.
1974.
Zooplankton, Water
Temperature,
and Salinities
in the Columbia River Estuary, December 1971 through December 1972.
Data Report 92. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle WA. 31 pp.
Oregon State University.
Ocean Engineering Programs.
1975.
Characteristics of the Youngs Bay Estuarine Environs.
Physical
Final Report
to ALUMAX Pacific Aluminum Corporation, November 1973 through April
1975.
School of Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 310 pp.
78
Richardson, Michael D., William A. Colgate, and Andrew G. Carey, Jr.
Unpublished. A Study of Benthic Baseline Assemblages in the MCR
Disposal Site Area: Annual Interim Report, 1 October 1974-31
August 1975. School of Oceanography, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, Oregon. Various pagings.
Chester F., Jr. 1970. An Introduction to Sediment Analysis.
Published by the author, Arizona State University. 179 pp.
Royse,
Herbert R. 1973. A list of benthic animals in the lower
Willamette and Columbia Rivers August to October 1973. Northwest
Fisheries Center, U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, Washington 98112. Mimeographed.
Sanborn,
5 numbered leaves.
Herbert R. 1975. An Investigation of the Benthic Infauna at
Two Dredge and Four Disposal Sites Adjacent to the Mouth of the
Columbia River. Completion report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and Columbia River Programs Office. Northwest Fisheries Center,
U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2725 Montlake Boulevard
East, Seattle, Washington 98112. Mimeographed.
19 numbered leaves.
Sanborn,
PLEASE RETURN TO:
OREGON ESTi UARiNE RESEARCH COUNCIL
PI F. ?8f F-'s'TTIPW
TO.