# Marine Environmental Assessment Report

T HE 

# E FFECTS OF 

# S EAFOOD 

# W ASTE 

# D ISCHARGES

ON THE 

# B ENTHIC 

# E NVIRONMENT AT



# K ETCHIKAN 

# , A LASKA

Prepared for



# Tetra Tech, Inc.

6100 219th Street SW, Suite 550

Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043

Contract NTP No. 18-5006-14-3

Prepared by



# Germano & Associates, Inc.

12100 SE 46 th 

# Place

Bellevue, WA 98006

G&A Project No.



# R603-02

June, 2004

# June, 2004 

# ii Ketchikan Final Report 

# TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ ES-1

STUDY PARTICIPANTS ................................................................................................ 1

1.0 ....................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION

2.0 ............................................................................... 4 MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 M EASURING 

# , I NTERPRETING



# , AND 

# M APPING 

# SPI P ARAMETERS 

# .......................... 9

2.1.1 Sediment Type ............................................................................................. 9

2.1.2 Prism Penetration Depth .......................................................................... 10

2.1.3 Small-Scale Surface Boundary Roughness ............................................... 11

2.1.4 Thickness of Depositional Layers ............................................................. 11

2.1.5 Apparent Redox Potentia l Discontinuity Depth ........................................ 11

2.1.6 Sedimentary Methane ................................................................................ 13

2.1.7 Surface Bacterial Colonies ....................................................................... 13

2.1.8 Infaunal Successional Stage ..................................................................... 14

2.1.9 Organism-Sediment Index ......................................................................... 15

2.2 S TATISTICAL 

# M ETHODS 

# ..................................................................................... 16

2.3 U SING 

# SPI D ATA TO 

# A SSESS 

# B ENTHIC 

# H EALTH 

# ................................................ 17

3.0 .................................................................................................................. 20 RESULTS

3.1 S EDIMENT 

# G RAIN 

# S IZE 

# & TOC .......................................................................... 20

3.2 S URFACE 

# B OUNDARY 

# R OUGHNESS 

# .................................................................... 21

3.3 P RISM 

# P ENETRATION 

# D EPTH 

# .............................................................................. 22

3.4 A PPARENT 

# R EDOX 

# P OTENTIAL 

# D ISCONTINUITY 

# D EPTH 

# ..................................... 22

3.5 F ISH 

# W ASTE 

# D EPOSITS 

# ....................................................................................... 23

3.6 S UBSURFACE 

# M ETHANE AND 

# B ACTERIAL 

# P RESENCE 

# ......................................... 23

3.7 I NFAUNAL 

# S UCCESSIONAL 

# S TAGE 

# ...................................................................... 24

3.8 O RGANISM 

# -S EDIMENT 

# I NDEX 

# ............................................................................ 24

3.9 B ENTHIC 

# C OMMUNITY 

# A NALYSES 

# ..................................................................... 25

4.0 ............................................................................................................ 27 DISCUSSION

5.0 ............................................................................................ 34 REFERENCES CITED

FIGURES

APPENDIX A: SEDIMENT PROFILE IMAGE ANALYSIS RESULTS

APPENDIX B: SEDIMENT PHYSICAL ANALYSES

APPENDIX C: BENTHIC SORTING/IDENTIFICATION RESULTS

# June, 2004 

# iii Ketchikan Final Report 

# LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1 

# ADEC Fish Waste Sampling locations – eastern sampling area

Figure 2-2 

# ADEC Fish Waste Sampling locations – western and reference sampling

areas

Figure 3-1 

# Percentage distribution of different bottom types

Figure 3-2 

# Distribution of sediment type and m ean prism penetra tion depth (cm) –

eastern sampling area

Figure 3-3 

# Distribution of sediment type and m ean prism penetra tion depth (cm) –

western sampling area

Figure 3-4 

# Sediment profile image from Station NQO S125 showing the wide range

of sediment particle sizes found at many of the sandy stations

Figure 3-5 

# Sediment profile images from Stations T 200 (left) and TDock SW175

(right) are representative of some of the few locations where fine-grained

sediment accumulated.

Figure 3-6 

# Sediment profile images from Stations ECP250 (left) and ECP 300 (right)

showing a hard bottom consisting primarily of disarticulated mollusk

shells

Figure 3-7 

# Sediment profile image from Station ECP 400-S60 showing a rocky

cobble bottom

Figure 3-8 

# Sediment profile image from T150

Figure 3-9 

# Distribution of mean apparent RPD depth (cm) – eastern sampling area

Figure 3-10 

# Distribution of mean apparent RPD depth (cm) – western sampling area

Figure 3-11 

# Sediment profile image from Station AGSOld-SE375

Figure 3-12 

# Sediment profile image from Station AGS01 showing no detectable

apparent RPD

Figure 3-13 

# Sediment profile ima ge from Station TDock-SW125 showing no

detectable apparent RPD due to th e high sediment oxygen demand of

decomposing fish waste

# June, 2004 

# iv Ketchikan Final Report 

# Figure 3-14 

# Replicate sediment prof ile images from Station NQ0, the center of the

active Norquest Seafoods discharge pile

Figure 3-15 

# Sediment profile image from Station AGSDock SW100

Figure 3-16 

# Distribution of fish waste accumulations (cm) – eastern sampling area

Figure 3-17 

# Distribution of fish waste accumulations (cm) – western sampling area

Figure 3-18 

# Sediment profile images from the AGS p ile showing the gradation of fish

waste accumulation

Figure 3-19 

# Sediment profile image from TDock SW275 s howing a combination of

both wood waste fibers and skeletal remains

Figure 3-20 

# Distribution of subsurface methane gas presence – eastern sampling area

Figure 3-21 

# Distribution of subsurface methan e gas presence – western sampling area

Figure 3-22 

# Distribution of bacterial colonies and areas with low/no dissolved oxygen

in near-bottom waters – eastern sampling area

Figure 3-23 

# Distribution of bacterial colonies and areas with low/no dissolved oxygen

in near-bottom waters – western sampling area

Figure 3-24 

# Sediment profile image showing a chunk of fish waste on the sediment

surface covered by Beggiatoa

Figure 3-25 

# Distribution of infaunal successiona l stages – eastern survey area

Figure 3-26 

# Distribution of infaunal successiona l stages – western survey area

Figure 3-27 

# Sediment profile image from Station AGSOld-SE275 showing no

evidence of fish waste deposits

Figure 3-28 

# The starfish seen in this sedime nt profile image from Station TDockSW100 is feeding on the dense assemb lage of opportunistic polychaetes

Figure 3-29 

# Evidence of a large burrow and deep bioturbation can be seen in this

sediment profile image from the reference station

Figure 3-30 

# Distribution of Organism-Sediment In dex values – eastern survey area

Figure 3-31 

# Distribution of Organism-Sediment Index values – western survey area

# June, 2004 

# v Ketchikan Final Report 

# Figure 3-32 

# Dendrogram for cluster analysis of Br ay-Curtis distance metric on species

abundance data (4 th 

# root transformed)

Figure 3-33 

# Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) plot illustrating in 2 dimensions the

distance relationships between sample s as described by the Bray-Curtis

distance metric on the full species abundance data set (391 species).

Figure 3-34 

# Dendrogram for cluster analysis of Bray-Curtis distance metric on family

abundance data (4 th 

# root transformed)

Figure 3-35 

# Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) plot illustrating in 2 dimensions the

distance relationships between sample s as described by the Bray-Curtis

distance metric on the family abundance data set.

Figure 4-1 

# Sediment profile image from Station ECP100-80S

Figure 4-2 

# Soft-bottom benthic community res ponse to disturbance (top panel) or

organic enrichment (bottom panel) . From Rhoads and Germano, 1982.

# June, 2004 

# ES-1 Ketchikan Final Report 

# Executive Summary

Seafood processors often discharge the unused portions or “waste” from their processing

facilities to the sea floor via a pipeline. The discharge is comprised of solid particles as

well as fine suspended material and dissolved organics and nutrients. For the processors

operating along the Alaskan coast, the discharg ed solids have to be ground to 1⁄2” or less

in size under the terms of their discharge per mit. The discharged solids results in a pile

termed a “Zone of Deposit” (ZOD) that varies in size from less than an acre to several

acres in area. Annually, a pile may recei ve wastes ranging in total weight from

approximately 100,000 pounds to many millions of pounds, with resulting piles of

varying thickness. These piles have a direct impact where the material settles, and they

may have an impact to the benthos beyond the boundary of the wastes. This study looks

at the impacts to the sea floor from four se afood processors’ waste discharge along the

coast of Ketchikan, Alaska, from the ZOD outto distances of approximately 500m downcurrent and 180m perpendicular to the preva iling current from the point of discharge.

Both Sediment Profile Imagin g (SPI) technology (121 stati ons) and sediment grabs (7

stations) were used to characterize benthic conditions near two active (Norquest Seafoods

and E.C. Phillips & Son) and two inactive (Trident Seafoods and Alaska General

Seafoods) discharge facilities. The sedime nt profile images provided information on

sediment grain-size, kinetic re gime, relative organic loading, depth of the apparent redox

potential discontinuity (RPD), and infaunal successional stage, while the grab samples

were taken for ground-truth calib ration of the sediment prof ile images and analyzed for

sediment grain-size, total organic carbon (TOC), and be nthic community structure.

A wide variety of sediment types were encountered over the area sampled, from hard

rock/cobble bottoms to muddy sands; most sediments were poorly-sorted, and the

majority of stations had grain- size major modes in the fine or very fine sand size range.

Low percentages of muds were found, and no su bstantial areas of fi ne-grained sediments

existed, indicative of the high bottom currents that are found in this area. Sediment

analyses from the grab samples confirmed th e low percentage of fines (ranging from

approximately 5 – 18%), with sediment TOC concentrati ons varying between 0.9 – 3

percent. Camera prism penetration was severely hampered by the consolidated sands,

shells, gravel, and cobble throughout the area, so the apparent RPD could not be

measured at 40% of the stations surveyed; of the 71 stations where RPD measurements

could be made, about one third of them had no apparent RPD due to the high oxygen

demand resulting from the organic loading due to the fish waste deposits. Overall, the

average RPD for the stations was approximate ly 2.5 cm, with the highest RPD values

(greater than 4 cm) found at the inactive discharge facilities.

The presence of fish waste on the bottom was readily apparent in the profile images from

all four areas surveyed, and the footprint of the detectable deposit varied in size at each

facility. Not surprisingly, the largest area of bottom affected was at the active discharge

# June, 2004 

# ES-2 Ketchikan Final Report 

# facilities of Norquest Seafoods and E.C. Phillips & Son, where the waste signature from

the two facilities merged. A more realistic assessment of the area of seafloor actually

affected by the waste discharge was determin ed from looking at the extent of sulfurreducing bacterial colonies that had formed on the seafloor around these waste piles.

These colonies of Beggiatoa (indicative of low oxygen c onditions) were a good indicator

of areas experiencing stress from organic loading; the area of seafloor experiencing

adverse effects from excess organic loading around the two active facilities was almost 7

acres.

The benthic infaunal community is respondi ng to the fish waste discharge with

predictable patterns of su ccessional recovery; there have been numerous studies

documenting the response of benthic infauna to organic loading, and both the sediment

profile images as well as the results from the bottom grab analysis showed the classic

pattern of high densities of opportunistic species nearest to the source of the organic

loading. At the 7 stations where grab samples were taken for traditional benthic

community analysis, a total of 90,067 individua ls were found belonging to 391 species in

147 families and 12 phyla. Of the three majo r taxonomic groups found, polychaetes were

the most abundant group present, representin g 65 percent of the total abundance and only

13 percent of the total biomass. Molluscs re presented 10 percent of the total abundance

but 85 percent of the total biomass. The crus taceans were the smallest group, representing

less than 2 percent of the to tal abundance and less than 1 pe rcent of the total biomass.

The results from the benthic grabs provided ground-truth validati on for the successional

stage designations determined from the sediment profile images.

As one moves away from the waste piles, ev idence appears of more mature infaunal

communities with a higher frequency of deposit-feeding infauna. The one benefit from

the high densities of opportuni stic fauna surrounding the wast e discharge facilities is the

enhanced secondary production and their ready availability as prey items for higher

trophic levels such as demersal fish and ot her large epifaunal predators (e.g., crabs,

starfish).

The strong tidal currents are the dominant physical forcing function in Tongass Narrows;

the high kinetic regime prevents any significant accumulation of fine-grained deposits,

and it is precisely this high energy regime that makes this coastal area an ideal location

for fish waste discharge. There is little chance of organic material from the fish waste

discharge accumulating to the point of causing a severe sediment oxygen demand and

causing either hypoxia or anoxia in the overlying waters. While the stations right under

the active discharge points are clearly azoic, there were dense assemblages of

opportunistic fauna within 50- 100 meters of the discharge pile centers, following the

classic pattern of benthic co mmunity response to organic en richment. Given the large

numbers of indigenous salmon that spawn in the area and subsequently die off, the

ecosystem in Tongass Narrows is adapted to handling large pulses of organic matter from

decomposing fish. The combination of the strong tidal currents with a system pre-

# June, 2004 

# ES-3 Ketchikan Final Report 

# adapted to recycle the nutrients from decomposing fish tissue work together to limit the

area of bottom showing adverse effects from th e fish waste discharge. Given the rapid

recovery of the benthic community as one m oves out from the active piles, it is safe to

assume that the areas of seafloor closest to the active discharge points that are currently

showing adverse effects would readily recover if fish waste discharge was ever

discontinued in the future.

# June, 2004 

# 1 Ketchikan Final Report 

# S TUDY 

# P ARTICIPANTS



# The following personnel participated in this study:

Name Title Affiliation Address Phone/Email

Joseph D.

Germano President Germano &

Associates, Inc.

www.remots.com 12100 SE 46 th



# Place,

Bellevue, WA

98006 (425) 865-0199

joe@remots.com

David G.

Browning Senior

Scientist Germano &

Associates, Inc.

www.remots.com 5541 Keating

Road, NW

Olympia, WA

98502 (360) 866-6806

dave_browning@comcast.net

Robert

Stuart Senior

Fisheries

Biologist Tetra Tech, Inc.

www.tetratech.com 6100 219th

Street SW,

Suite 550,

Mountlake

Terrace, WA

98043 (425) 673-3670

bob.stuart@tetratech.com

Anthony

Petrillo President Bluewater

Engineering P.O. Box 232

Port

Townsend,WA

98368 (360) 385-2680

bluewater@seanet.com

Kenwyn

P. George Environmental

Engineer State of Alaska;

Dept. of

Environmental

Conservation 410

Willoughby

Ave., Suite

303, Juneau,

AK 99801 (907) 465-5313

kenwyn_george@dec.state.ak.us

Tim

Scanlon Senior Diver /

Boat Operator Alaska

Commercial

Divers 5160 Shoreline

Drive,

Ketchikan, AK

99901 (907) 247-0771

akcommercialdivers@kpunet.net

# June, 2004 

# 2 Ketchikan Final Report 

# 1.0

INTRODUCTION

As part of an environmental services support contract that Tetra Tech, Inc. has with the

State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) to study the effects

of salmon waste discharges in southeast Alaska, Germano & Associates, Inc. (G&A)

performed a Sediment Profile Imaging (SPI) survey and collected sediment samples at

selected locations in Tongass Narrows o ff the coast of Ketchikan, Alaska between

September 29 – October 2, 2003. The study was conceived by ADEC, and the

information contained herein is intended for use by ADEC personnel and others who may

find the research of interest in determinin g the effects of discharging large amounts of

organic waste to the marine environment.

Seafood processors often discharge the unused portions or “waste” from their processing

facilities to the sea floor via a pipeline. The discharge is comprised of solid particles as

well as fine suspended material and dissolved organics and nutrients. For the processors

operating along the Alaskan coast, the discharg ed solids have to be ground to 1⁄2” or less

in size under the terms of their discharge per mit. The discharged solids results in a pile

termed a “Zone of Deposit” (ZOD) that varies in size from less than an acre to several

acres in area. Annually, a pile may recei ve wastes ranging in total weight from

approximately 100,000 pounds to many millions of pounds, with resulting piles of

varying thickness. These piles have a direct impact where the material settles, and they

may have an impact to the benthos beyond the boundary of the wastes. This study looks

at the impacts to the sea floor from four se afood processors’ waste discharge along the

coast of Ketchikan, Alaska, from the ZOD outto distances of approximately 500m downcurrent and 180m perpendicular to the preva iling current from the point of discharge.

A total of four seafood waste pile areas were examined: Trident Seafoods, Alaska

General Seafoods (AGS), Nor quest Seafoods (NQ), and E.C. Phillips & Son (ECP). The

two piles surveyed to the east, those of Trident Seafoods and Alaska General Seafoods,

were not actively receiving solid wastes, nor had they been for the 2 years prior to the

study. For the prior year and in the year of this study, these solids were barged 10 miles

south of Ketchikan. When they had been discharging solids, each plant had discharged

between 7 and 11 million pounds per year. The two smaller processors to the west,

Norquest Seafoods and EC Phillips & S on, discharge approxima tely 2-3.5 million pounds

of waste each year and were actively discharging solids at the time of the study.

Currents are stronger at the eastern fac ilities with a maximum around 3-4 knots, whereas

currents are weaker at the western facilities where there is a back eddy and the currents

reach a maximum of around 2 knots.

# June, 2004 

# 3 Ketchikan Final Report 

# The purpose of the SPI survey was to determine the extent of seafood waste pile impacts

on the benthic infaunal community around sele cted waste piles that ADEC has been

monitoring. In addition, surface sediment sa mples were collected for taxonomic analysis

to provide reference data for the interp retation of the sedime nt profile images.

Field operations were carried out on board the working vessel INVADER 1 from Alaska

Commercial Divers; navigation support was provided by Bluewater Engineering of Port

Townsend, WA. Sediment grab sampling and SPI surveys were performed by Germano

& Associates, Inc. with assistance from Tetra Tech, Inc.; an ADEC representative was on

board to oversee operations and make decisions about which ZOD site s to sample. While

the original plan was to survey impacts around two seafood waste piles, a decision was

made in the field to survey additional areas given the efficiency with which sampling

operations were completed.

# June, 2004 

# 4 Ketchikan Final Report 

# 2.0

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Over the course of the four days of field operations, scientists from G&A and Tetra Tech

collected 7 sediment samples for benthic co mmunity analyses and surveyed 121 stations

with SPI technology (Figures 2-1 to 2-2) . A computerized navigation and data

acquisition system was used during all survey and sampling operations to assist with

vessel positioning and deter mine station location inform ation. The data acquisition

system utilized HYPACK ® 

# Windows PC-based hydrographic survey software (Coastal

Oceanographics, Inc.). The HYPACK ® 

# software also displayed real-time vessel position

and data collection locations over a backgr ound electronic chart of the study area.

Positional data were comprise d of horizontal positioning (x- and y-dimensional data in

Alaska State Plane coordinates) and time (t-dimensional data). Positional data were

collected using a Trimble AG 132 Differential Global Position System (DGPS) for all

sampling operations; the accuracy of the Trimble AG132 is ± 1 meter at the 95%

confidence level. All samples were taken within a target radius of 5 meters from the

intended target position. Fi nal sampling locations for bot h the SPI and grab samples

(Table 2-1) were recorded electronically on disk as well as manually in a field notebook.

Sediment samples for grain size, total or ganic carbon (TOC), and benthic community

analyses were taken with a stainless st eel 0.1 m2 vanVeen grab using Puget Sound

protocols (PSWQAT, 1997). If a retrieved grab sample was deemed acceptable

(PSWQAT, 1997), a small quan tity (approximately 4 tablespoons) was placed in a

Whirlpac® bag for grain size analysis, and an additional subsample (ca. 200 ml) was

placed in a glass jar for TOC analysis. The remaining sediment was washed through a 0.5

mm sieve for benthic community analysis and transferred to plastic 1-liter storage jars

with buffered formalin as a preservative. Gr ain-size and TOC sample s were stored on ice

in coolers; the grain-size, TOC, and benthi c samples were shipped to the appropriate

laboratories for final analysis upon completion of the field operations. Sediment grain

size and TOC analyses were performed by Analytical Resources, Inc., of Seattle, WA,

and benthic infaunal sorting and identifica tion were performed by Marine Taxonomic

Services, Ltd., of Corvallis, OR.

Sediment profile images were collected with an Ocean Imaging Model 3731 REMOTS

camera; two replicate images were taken at each station sample d. SPI was developed

almost two decades ago as a rapid reconnaissance tool for characterizing physical,

chemical, and biological seaf loor processes and has been used in numerous seafloor

surveys throughout the United States, Pacifi c Rim, and Europe (Rhoads and Germano

1982, 1986, 1990; Revelas et al. 1987; Valente et al. 1992). The sediment profile camera

works like an inverted periscope. A Ni kon D100 6-megapixel SLR camera with a 1-

gigabyte compact flash card is mounted horiz ontally inside a watertight housing on top of

a wedge-shaped prism. The prism has a Plexiglas ® 

# faceplate at the front with a mirror0meters 40 60 8020 100

AGS 00 1 AGS OLD-SE0 25 AGS OLD-SE0 50

AGS OLD-SE0 75

AGS OLD-SE1 00 AGS OLD-SE1 25

AGS OLD-SE1 50 AGS OLD-SE1 75 AGS OLD-SE2 00

AGS OLD-SE2 25 AGS OLD-SE2 50 AGS OLD-SE2 75 AGS OLD-SE3 00

AGS OLD-SE3 25 AGS OLD-SE3 50 AGS OLD-SE 375

AGSDock-SW 050 AGS OLD-SE3 75KetchikanTongass NarrowsGrab sample locationSPI camera locationSurvey conducted from D/V InvaderSeptember 29 - October 2, 2003Eastern Sampling AreaT475T250T200T150T100T100T050 T025TDOCK-SW025TDOCK-SW040TDOCK-SW055TDOCK-SW070TDOCK-SW085TDOCK-SW100TDOCK-SW125TDOCK-SW150TDOCK-SW175TDOCK-SW200TDOCK-SW225TDOCK-SW250TDOCK-SW275TDOCK-SW300T010MID 3-225MID 3-150MID 3-075AGS 000AGS 050AGS 100AGS 150AGSDock-SW100AGSDock-SW150AGSDock-SW200MID 1T000T50T175NFigure 2-1. ADEC Fish Waste Sampling locations - eastern sampling area.AnchorageALASKAYukonTerritoryRussiaBering SeaPacific OceanArcticOceanlKetchikan



# Airport RunwayReference AreaWestern AreaEastern Area



# Tongass N

arrows Tongass NarrowsKetchikanKetchikanKetchikanKetchikanInternationalAirport1800 mKetchikan SPI ReportJune, 2004Figure 2-2. ADEC Fish Waste Sampling locations - western and reference sampling areas.0meters 40 60 8020 100KetchikanTongass NarrowsGrab sample locationSPI camera locationSurvey conducted from D/V InvaderSeptember 29 - October 2, 2003Western Sampling AreaNECP 400-N40ECP 400-N20ECP 400ECP 500ECP 750ECP 950ECP 300ECP 250ECP 125ECP 150ECP 1MID 2ECP 025ECP 075ECP 050ECP 100-N40ECP 100-N20ECP 100-AECP 100-S20ECP 100-S80NQ 0-S200NQ 0-S200NQ 0-S175NQ 0-S150NQ 0-S125NQ 0-S100NQ 0-S075NQ 0-S025NQ 001NQ 0NQ 025NQ 75NQ 100NQ 125NQ 075NQ 050NQ 150NQ 150NQ 0-S050ECP 100-S60ECP 100-S40ECP 100-CECP 400-S20ECP 400-S40ECP 400-S60



# AIRPORT DO CKTongass NarrowsKetchikanKetchikanInternationalAirport



# AIRPORT RUN WAYREF 61800 mReference sampling areaKetchikan SPI ReportJune, 2004

# June, 2004 

# 5 Ketchikan Final Report 

# placed at a 45° angle at the back. The camer a lens looks down at the mirror, which is

reflecting the image from the faceplate. The pr ism has an internal strobe mounted inside

at the back of the wedge to provide illumination for the image; this chamber is filled with

distilled water, so the camera always has an optically clear path to shoot through. This

wedge assembly is mounted on a moveable carriage within a stainless steel frame. The



# Table 2-1 : Ketchikan Sampling Station C oordinates (AK State Plane)

Station Name* Average

Easting (ft) Average

Northing (ft) Average

Depth (ft) Average

Easting (m) Average

Northing (m) Average

Depth (m)



# SPI Stations

AGS 000 3109129.9 1284902.2 108.3 947664.7 391639.0 33.0

AGS 001 3109309.3 1285118.6 54.9 947719.4 391704.9 16.7

AGS 050 3109253.8 1284801.5 116.2 947702.5 391608.3 35.4

AGS 100 3109376.2 1284692.0 135.6 947739.8 391574.9 41.3

AGS 150 3109508.8 1284585.3 144.0 947780.2 391542.4 43.9

AGS 200 3109622.9 1284468.9 146.4 947814.9 391506.9 44.6

AGS OLD-SE025 3109343.9 1285009.4 77.4 947729.9 391671.7 23.6

AGS OLD-SE050 3109413.0 1284963.0 93.4 947751.0 391657.5 28.5

AGS OLD-SE075 3109470.8 1284909.1 101.9 947768.6 391641.1 31.1

AGS OLD-SE100 3109531.8 1284851.4 112.5 947787.2 391623.5 34.3

AGS OLD-SE125 3109596.4 1284811.8 112.5 947806.9 391611.4 34.3

AGS OLD-SE150 3109650.1 1284742.0 117.3 947823.2 391590.1 35.7

AGS OLD-SE175 3109719.3 1284702.6 110.9 947844.3 391578.1 33.8

AGS OLD-SE200 3109777.9 1284653.8 114.4 947862.2 391563.3 34.9

AGS OLD-SE225 3109836.6 1284602.2 113.0 947880.1 391547.5 34.4

AGS OLD-SE250 3109907.8 1284544.2 112.6 947901.8 391529.9 34.3

AGS OLD-SE275 3109977.7 1284491.7 114.4 947923.1 391513.9 34.9

AGS OLD-SE300 3110034.0 1284434.3 118.5 947940.3 391496.4 36.1

AGS OLD-SE325 3110096.4 1284379.8 122.7 947959.3 391479.8 37.4

AGS OLD-SE350 3110160.2 1284328.1 120.8 947978.7 391464.0 36.8

AGS OLD-SE375 3110216.5 1284285.4 117.4 947995.9 391451.0 35.8

AGSDock-SW050 3109279.5 1285069.8 61.4 947710.3 391690.1 18.7

AGSDock-SW100 3109166.0 1284946.7 92.7 947675.7 391652.5 28.3

AGSDock-SW150 3109068.5 1284825.7 134.0 947646.0 391615.7 40.8

AGSDock-SW200 3108959.5 1284691.5 154.3 947612.7 391574.7 47.0

ECP 025 3101871.6 1289039.5 42.9 945452.3 392900.0 13.1

ECP 050 3101792.0 1289019.7 41.0 945428.1 392894.0 12.5

ECP 075 3101716.2 1288989.3 42.3 945405.0 392884.7 12.9

ECP 100-A 3101670.3 1289072.5 38.1 945391.0 392910.1 11.6

ECP 100-C 3101676.8 1288966.2 40.9 945393.0 392877.7 12.5

ECP 100-N20 3101668.9 1289128.6 35.6 945390.6 392927.2 10.9

ECP 100-N40 3101667.2 1289182.6 31.3 945390.1 392943.6 9.5

ECP 100-S20 3101676.7 1288991.4 42.1 945393.0 392885.4 12.8

ECP 100-S40 3101670.9 1288932.7 44.2 945391.2 392867.5 13.5

# June, 2004 

# 6 Ketchikan Final Report 

# Station Name* Average

Easting (ft) Average

Northing (ft) Average

Depth (ft) Average

Easting (m) Average

Northing (m) Average

Depth (m)

ECP 100-S60 3101680.2 1288844.2 49.0 945394.0 392840.5 14.9

ECP 100-S80 3101674.2 1288776.3 51.0 945392.2 392819.8 15.5

ECP 125 3101584.0 1288931.3 39.3 945364.7 392867.0 12.0

ECP 150 3101508.4 1288904.9 36.1 945341.6 392859.0 11.0

ECP 250 3101187.1 1288998.2 17.6 945243.7 392887.4 5.4

ECP 300 3101016.9 1289007.0 21.2 945191.8 392890.1 6.5

ECP 400-N20 3100675.1 1289047.7 22.2 945087.7 392902.5 6.8

ECP 400-N40 3100659.6 1289133.5 14.4 945082.9 392928.7 4.4

ECP 400-S20 3100670.6 1288914.1 22.4 945086.3 392861.8 6.8

ECP 400-S40 3100682.8 1288852.2 23.6 945090.0 392842.9 7.2

ECP 400-S60 3100684.6 1288774.0 21.7 945090.6 392819.1 6.6

ECP 400 3100663.4 1288987.6 20.2 945084.1 392884.2 6.1

ECP 500 3100328.4 1288936.1 14.7 944982.0 392868.5 4.5

ECP 750 3099555.1 1289280.2 19.9 944746.3 392973.4 6.1

ECP 950 3098882.0 1289361.8 36.9 944541.1 392998.3 11.2

ECP1 3101989.8 1289092.5 38.7 945488.4 392916.2 11.8

MID 1 3108919.0 1285417.2 47.9 947600.4 391796.0 14.6

MID 2 3102213.4 1288934.2 42.4 945556.5 392867.9 12.9

MID 3-075 3108944.2 1285047.3 100.3 947608.1 391683.2 30.6

MID 3-150 3108758.6 1285217.9 75.9 947551.5 391735.2 23.1

MID 3-225 3108568.3 1285374.3 78.7 947493.5 391782.9 24.0

NQ 0-S025 3102358.5 1288806.3 39.7 945600.8 392829.0 12.1

NQ 0-S050 3102303.5 1288728.9 39.7 945584.0 392805.3 12.1

NQ 0-S075 3102272.0 1288654.7 25.3 945574.4 392782.7 7.7

NQ 0-S100 3102235.2 1288581.8 35.3 945563.2 392760.5 10.8

NQ 0-S125 3102195.9 1288516.7 54.8 945551.2 392740.7 16.7

NQ 0-S150 3102142.4 1288446.9 64.8 945534.9 392719.4 19.8

NQ 0-S175 3102104.1 1288372.6 81.6 945523.2 392696.8 24.9

NQ 0-S200 3102067.2 1288301.5 84.5 945512.0 392675.1 25.7

NQ 0 3102383.1 1288887.2 54.3 945608.3 392853.6 16.6

NQ 001 3102365.9 1288772.8 42.9 945603.0 392818.7 13.1

NQ 025 3102459.9 1288848.6 44.7 945631.7 392841.8 13.6

NQ 050 3102534.9 1288817.1 52.1 945654.5 392832.2 15.9

NQ 075 3102610.3 1288772.6 57.0 945677.5 392818.7 17.4

NQ 100 3102723.5 1288748.0 57.3 945712.0 392811.2 17.5

NQ 125 3102769.8 1288721.1 56.6 945726.1 392803.0 17.2

NQ 150 3102838.5 1288697.7 56.4 945747.1 392795.9 17.2

REF 6 3088335.6 1296959.9 73.8 941326.6 395314.2 22.5

T 000 3108518.7 1285619.3 63.3 947478.4 391857.6 19.3

T 010 3108494.5 1285634.4 68.5 947471.0 391862.1 20.9

T 025 3108258.2 1285589.2 80.9 947399.0 391848.4 24.6

T 050 3108192.1 1285630.3 83.4 947378.9 391860.9 25.4

T 100 3108060.6 1285712.5 83.4 947338.8 391886.0 25.4

# June, 2004 

# 7 Ketchikan Final Report 

# Station Name* Average

Easting (ft) Average

Northing (ft) Average

Depth (ft) Average

Easting (m) Average

Northing (m) Average

Depth (m)

T 150 3107917.3 1285815.4 75.1 947295.1 391917.3 22.9

T 175 3107960.4 1285873.5 62.6 947308.2 391935.0 19.1

T 200 3107756.3 1285812.0 77.5 947246.0 391916.3 23.6

T 250 3107588.9 1285816.0 71.2 947195.0 391917.5 21.7

T 475 3107021.6 1285850.9 108.4 947022.1 391928.1 33.0

TDOCK-SW025 3108538.1 1285788.9 44.5 947484.3 391909.3 13.6

TDOCK-SW040 3108499.7 1285746.8 58.2 947472.6 391896.4 17.7

TDOCK-SW055 3108474.8 1285717.5 62.9 947465.0 391887.5 19.2

TDOCK-SW070 3108441.1 1285675.3 68.1 947454.8 391874.6 20.7

TDOCK-SW085 3108406.1 1285647.6 68.3 947444.1 391866.2 20.8

TDOCK-SW100 3108374.8 1285606.3 72.4 947434.5 391853.6 22.1

TDOCK-SW125 3108329.0 1285539.6 94.6 947420.6 391833.3 28.8

TDOCK-SW150 3108279.8 1285468.3 109.6 947405.6 391811.5 33.4

TDOCK-SW175 3108222.8 1285398.1 119.7 947388.2 391790.1 36.5

TDOCK-SW200 3108188.5 1285328.4 123.1 947377.8 391768.9 37.5

TDOCK-SW225 3108136.1 1285271.1 121.6 947361.8 391751.4 37.0

TDOCK-SW250 3108082.3 1285199.5 118.7 947345.4 391729.6 36.2

TDOCK-SW275 3108029.3 1285141.9 118.1 947329.2 391712.0 36.0

TDOCK-SW300 3107978.1 1285085.0 102.4 947313.6 391694.7 31.2



# Sediment Grab Stations

AGS OLD-SE375 3110219.0 1284292.6 115.9 947996.6 391453.2 35.3

NQ 150 3102843.1 1288694.2 57.3 945748.5 392794.8 17.5

NQ 175 3102605.2 1288770.8 56.2 945675.9 392818.1 17.1

NQ0 S200 3102065.7 1288302.9 85.4 945511.5 392675.5 26.0

REF 6 3088302.6 1296963.4 68.5 941316.5 395315.2 20.9

T 50 3108198.9 1285629.2 86.4 947380.9 391860.6 26.3

T100 3108055.0 1285715.3 76.5 947337.1 391886.8 23.3



# * Naming convention for stations: Processor, distance in mete rs from pile center parallel to the shoreline, and

direction from pile or transect line. For example, ECP 400-S20 is a station located off the E.C. Phillips & Son

facility, 400 meters from the pile center and 20 meters s outh of the transect line at the position of the ECP 400

station.



# frame is lowered to the seafloor on a winch wire, and the tension on the wire keeps the

prism in its “up” position. When the frame comes to rest on the seafloor, the winch wire

goes slack (see illustration below) and the camera prism descends into the sediment at a

slow, controlled rate by the dampening action of a hydraulic piston so as not to disturb

the sediment-water interface. On the way dow n, it trips a trigger that activates a timedelay circuit of variable length (operator-selected) to allow the camera to penetrate the

seafloor before any image is taken. The kni fe-sharp edge of the prism transects the

sediment, and the pris m penetrates the bottom. The st robe is discharged after an

appropriate time delay to obtain a cross-sectional ima ge of the upper 20 cm of the

sediment column. After the first image is obtai ned at the first location, the camera is then

# raised up about 2 to 3 me ters off the bottom to allow the strobe to re char ge. The strobe

recha r g e s within 5 secon d s, and the came r a is r e a d y to be low e red a g ain fo r another

repl i cat e i m a ge. S u rve y s can be accom p l i s hed r a pi dl y b y “po g o

- st i c ki ng” t h e cam e r a

across an are a of se afloor while reco rding position a l fix e s on the surface v e ssel. The

resulting ima g e s g i ve th e viewer the s a me pers p e c tive as looking throu g h t h e side of an

a qua r i um ha lf -f

ille d with se dime nt.

T

h e cen t r

a l

cr ad le

of t

he c a

m e a i

s hel d i n

t

h

e “ up” posi i o

n by te nsi on on t he

w

i n

ch w i e as i i

s

b e

i n

g l o

w

e

r e

d t o

th e s eafl o

or

(

l eft) ; o n

ce the fr am e b a

se hi ts

the bot tom (

c

e

n

ter

, t h

e pr i s

m

i

s

th en fr ee to pen etr a e t

he bott o

m

(

r i ght) a nd take

the ph oto g a p

h

. r t

r t

) t

r

Camera settin g s (f-stop, s hutter sp eed, I S O equivalents, dig ital file fo rmat, c o lor balance,

et c.) a r e soft w a re -cont rol l ed and sel ect abl e t h rou gh a wat e r

- t i g ht US B port on t h e cam er a

housing using Nikon Cap t ure 4.0 ® 

# sof t w a r e

. At the be g i nnin g of the su r v e y

, the time on

the Nikon D100' s inte rna l data logger was s y n c hro n iz ed with the internal clock on the

c o mpute r ize d na viga tion s y ste m to loc a l time

. Tw o r e plic a t e image s we re t a ke n a t ea c h

station; each SP I r e plicat e is identified b y th e time record ed on the di g ital image file and

written to disk b y the HY PACK software alon g wi th vessel position. Even thoug h

multiple imag e s we re tak e n at ea ch locati on, e ach imag e was assi g n ed a unique time

stamp in the dig ital file a ttributes b y th e dat a logger and c r oss-ch ecked with the time

stamp in the navig a tional s y stem ’ s computer d a ta file. The field c r ew k e pt redundant

J u ne

, 20 04 

# 8 K e tchi k an Fi n a l R e p o rt

# June, 2004 

# 9 Ketchikan Final Report 

# written sample logs. Images were dow nloaded periodically throughout the day

(sometimes after each station) to verify succ essful sample acquisiti on or to assess what

type of sediment/depositional layer was present at a particular stati on. Digital image files

were re-named with the appr opriate station name immediately after downloading on deck

as a further quality assurance step.

Test exposures of the Kodak ® 

# Color Separation Guide (Publi cation No. Q-13) were fired

on deck at the beginning and end of each surv ey to verify that all internal electronic

systems were working to design specificati ons and to provide a color standard against

which final images could be checked for prope r color balance. Charged spare batteries

were carried in the field at all times to insure uninterrupted samp le acquisition. After

deployment of the camera at each station, th e frame counter was checked to make sure

that the requisite number of replicates had been taken. In additi on, a prism penetration

depth indicator on the camera frame was checke d to verify that the optical prism had

actually penetrated the bottom to a sufficient depth to acquire a profile image. If images

were been missed (frame counter indicator or verification from digital download) or the

penetration depth was insufficient (penetrati on indicator), chassis stops were adjusted

and/or weights were added or removed, a nd additional replicate images were taken.

Changes in prism weight amounts, the presen ce or absence of mud doors, and chassis

stop positions were noted in the log for each replicate image. All images were visually

inspected at high magnification to provide the chief scientist with the rapid visual

assessment for determination of the grab sampling stations as well as to determine

whether any stations needed resampling with different stop collar or weight settings for a

more optimal sediment profile image.

Following completion of field operations, the digital images were analyzed from this

survey using Sigma Scan ® 

# software (Aspire Software International). Calibration

information was determined by measur ing 1-cm gradations from the Kodak ® 

# Color

Separation Guide. This calibration information was applied to all SPI images analyzed.

Linear and area measurements were recorded as number of pixels and converted to

scientific units using th e calibration information.

Measured parameters were recorded on a Microsoft ® 

# Excel © 

# spreadsheet. G&A’s senior

scientist (Dr. J. Germano) subsequently chec ked all these data as an independent quality

assurance/quality control review of the meas urements before final interpretation was

performed.



# 2.1 M EASURING 

# , I NTERPRETING



# , AND 

# M APPING 

# SPI P ARAMETERS



# 2.1.1 Sediment Type

The sediment grain-size major mode and range were visually estimated from the color

images by overlaying a grain-size comparator that was at the same scale. This

# June, 2004 

# 10 Ketchikan Final Report 

# comparator was prepared by photographing a series of Udden-Wentworth size classes

(equal to or less than coarse silt up to granule and larger sizes) with the SPI camera.

Sediment grain-size measurements for SPI analyses are designated by the φ (phi) scale

devised by Krumbein; phi is a unitless measure of grain size:

phi = -log 2 

# ( g / g 0)

where g is the grain size in millimeters and g 0 is defined as 1 millimeter. The phi scale

encompasses the complete size range of se diment, from very fine clay particles 0.06

microns in diameter (14 φ) all the way up to boulders that are 4 meters in diameter (-12

φ). Seven grain-size classes we re on this comparator: > 4 φ ( silt-clay), 4

- 3 φ (very fine

sand), 3-2 φ (fine sand), 2

- 1 φ (medium sand), 1-0 φ (coarse sand), 0

- (-)1 φ (very

coarse sand), < -1 φ (granule and larger). The lower limit of optical resolution of the

photographic system was about 62 microns, allo wing recognition of grain sizes equal to

or greater than coarse silt ( > 4 φ ). The accuracy of this method has been documented by

comparing SPI estimates with grain-size statistics determined from laboratory sieve

analyses.

The comparison of the SPI images with Udden-Wentworth sediment standards

photographed through the SPI optical system was also used to map near-surface

stratigraphy such as sand-over-mud and mud- over-sand. When mapped on a local scale,

this stratigraphy can provide information on relative transport ma gnitude and frequency.

2.1.2 Prism Penetration Depth

The SPI prism penetration depth was measured from the bottom of the image to the

sediment-water interface. The average pene tration depth was dete rmined by measuring

across the entire cross-sectional image. Linear maximum and minimum depths of

penetration were also measur ed. Maximum, minimum, and average penetration depths

were recorded in the data file.

Prism penetration is potentially a noteworthy parameter; if the number of weights used in

the camera is held constant throughout a su rvey, the camera functions as a static-load

penetrometer. Comparative penetration values from sites of similar grain size give an

indication of the relative water content of th e sediment. Highly bioturbated sediments

and rapidly accumulating sediments tend to have the highest water contents and greatest

prism penetration depths.

The depth of the camera's penetration into the bottom also reflects the bearing capacity

and shear strength of local sediments. Ov erconsolidated or relic sediments and shellbearing sands resist camera penetration. Hi ghly bioturbated, sulf itic, or methanogenic

muds are the least consolidated, and deep pe netration is typical. Seasonal changes in

camera prism penetration are typically observed at the same station and are related to the

# June, 2004 

# 11 Ketchikan Final Report 

# control of sediment geotechnical propertie s by bioturbation (Rhoads and Boyer 1982).

The effect of water temperature on biotur bation rates appears to be important in

controlling both biogenic surface relief and prism penetration depth (Rhoads and

Germano 1982).

2.1.3 Small-Scale Surface Boundary Roughness

Surface boundary roughness was determined by m easuring the vertical distance (parallel

to the film border) between the highest and lowest points of the sediment-water interface.

The surface boundary roughness (sediment surface relief) measured over a horizontal

distance of 15 cm typically ranges from 0.02 to 3.8 cm, and may be related to either

physical structures (ripples, rip-up structures, mud clasts) or biogenic features (burrow

openings, fecal mounds, foraging depressions). Biogenic roughness typically changes

seasonally and is related to the interac tion of bottom turbulence and bioturbational

activities.

The camera must be level in order to take accurate boundary roughness measurements.

In sandy sediments, boundary roughness can be a measure of sand wave height. On siltclay bottoms, boundary roughness values often reflect biogenic features such as fecal

mounds or surface burrows. The size and s cale of boundary roughness values can have

dramatic effects on both sediment erodibility and localized oxygen penetration into the

bottom (Huettel et al., 1996).

2.1.4 Thickness of Depositional Layers

Because of the camera's unique design, SPI ca n be used to detect the thickness of

depositional layers (such as fish waste or dredged material). SPI is effective in

measuring layers ranging in thickness from 20 cm (the height of the SPI optical window)

to 1 mm. During image analysis, the thickn ess of the newly deposited sedimentary layers

can be determined by digitizing the area between the pre- and post-disposal sedimentwater interface. Recently deposited material is usually evident because of its unique

optical reflectance and/or color relative to the underlying material representing the predisposal surface. Also, in most cases, the point of contact between the two layers is

clearly visible as a textural change in se diment composition, facilitating measurement of

the thickness of the newly deposited layer.

2.1.5 Apparent Redox Pote ntial Discontinuity Depth

Aerobic near-surface marine sediments typica lly have higher reflectance relative to

underlying hypoxic or anoxic sediments. Su rface sands washed free of mud also have

higher optical reflectance than underlying muddy sands. These differences in optical

reflectance are readily apparent in SPI images; the oxidized surface sediment contains

particles coated with ferric hydroxide (an olive or tan color when associated with

# June, 2004 

# 12 Ketchikan Final Report 

# particles), while reduc ed and muddy sediments below this oxygenated layer are darker,

generally gray to black. The boundary between the colored ferric hydroxide surface

sediment and underlying gray to black sed iment is called the apparent redox potential

discontinuity (RPD).

The depth of the apparent RPD in the sediment column is an important time-integrator of

dissolved oxygen conditions within sediment porewaters. In the absence of bioturbating

organisms, this high reflectance layer (in muds) will typically reach a thickness of 2 mm

(Rhoads 1974). This depth is related to the supply rate of molecular oxygen by diffusion

into the bottom and the consumption of that oxygen by the sediment and associated

microflora. In sediments that have very high sediment oxygen demand (SOD), the

sediment may lack a high reflectance layer even when the overlying water column is

aerobic.

In the presence of bioturbating macrofauna, the thickness of the high reflectance layer

may be several centimeters. The relationship between the thickness of this high

reflectance layer and the presence or absence of free molecular oxygen in the associated

porewaters must be considered with caution. The actual RPD is the boundary or horizon

that separates the positive Eh region of the sediment column from the underlying

negative Eh region. The exact location of this Eh = 0 boundary can be determined

accurately only with microelectrodes; hence, the relationship between the change in

optical reflectance, as imaged with the SPI camera, and the actual RPD can be

determined only by ma king the appropriate in situ Eh measurements. For this reason, the

optical reflectance boundary, as imaged, was described in this study as the “apparent”

RPD and it was mapped as a mean value. In general, the depth of the actual Eh = 0

horizon will be either equal to or slightly shallower than the depth of the optical

reflectance boundary. This is because bioturbating organisms can mix ferric hydroxidecoated particles downward into the bottom below the Eh = 0 horizon. As a result, the

apparent mean RPD depth can be used as an estimate of the depth of porewater exchange,

usually through porewater irrigation (bioturba tion). Biogenic particle mixing depths can

be estimated by measuring the maximum and minimum depths of imaged feeding voids

in the sediment column. This parameter represents the particle mixing depths of headdown feeders, mainly polychaetes.

The rate of depression of the apparent RPD within the sediment is relatively slow in

organic-rich muds, on the order of 200 to 300 micrometers per day; therefore this

parameter has a long time constant (Ger mano and Rhoads 1984). The rebound in the

apparent RPD is also slow (Germano 1983). Measurable changes in the apparent RPD

depth using the SPI optical technique can be de tected over periods of 1 or 2 months. This

parameter is used effectively to document changes (or gradients) that develop over a

seasonal or yearly cycle related to water temperature effects on bioturbation rates,

seasonal hypoxia, SOD, and infaunal recruitment. Time-series RPD measurements

# June, 2004 

# 13 Ketchikan Final Report 

# following a disturbance can be a critical diag nostic element in monitoring the degree of

recolonization in an area by the ambi ent benthos (Rhoads and Germano 1986).

The apparent mean RPD depth also can be affected by local erosion. The peaks of

disposal mounds commonly are scoured by divergent flow over the mound. This

scouring can wash away fines and shell or grav el lag deposits, and can result in very thin

apparent RPD depths. During storm peri ods, erosion may completely remove any

evidence of the apparent RPD (Fredette et al. 1988).

Another important characteristic of the apparent RPD is the contrast in reflectance at this

boundary. This contrast is re lated to the interactions among the degree of organic

loading, the bioturbation activity in the sed iment, and the concentra tions of bottom-water

dissolved oxygen in an area. High inputs of labile organic materi al increase SOD and,

subsequently, sulfate reduc tion rates and the associated abundance of sulfide end

products. This results in more highly reduc ed, lower-reflectance se diments at depth and

higher RPD contrasts. In a region of gene rally low RPD contrasts, images with high

RPD contrasts indicate localized sites of relatively high past inputs of organic-rich

material such as phytoplankton or other na turally-occurring organic detritus, dredged

material, and sewage sludge.

2.1.6 Sedimentary Methane

If organic loading is extremely high, porewat er sulfate is deplet ed and methanogenesis

occurs. The process of methanogenesis is indicated by the appearance of methane

bubbles in the sediment column, and the num ber and total area covered by all methane

pockets is measured. These gas-filled voids are readily discernable in SPI images

because of their irregular, generally circular aspect and glassy texture (due to the

reflection of the strobe off the gas bubble).

2.1.7 Surface Bacterial Colonies

A primary diagnostic feature indicating an ar ea is suffering from hypoxic conditions is

the presence of the Beggiatoa or Beggiatoa- like colonies (note: while we cannot state

with certainty that any bacterial colonies seen in profile images are indeed the genus

Beggiatoa without microscopic identification, we can state with certainty that these are

definitely in the same family of sulfur-reduc ing bacteria that only appear in hypoxic or

anoxic conditions). These colonies ha ve diagnostic morphology that has been

documented in numerous other sediment profile imaging surveys (Karakassis et al., 2002;

Nilsson & Rosenberg, 1997; Rosenberg et al., 2001). The presence of sulfur-reducing

bacterial colonies appear when boundary-layer dissolved oxygen concentrations drop into

the “hypoxic” range between 0-1 ml/L (Rosenberg and Diaz, 1993).

# June, 2004 

# 14 Ketchikan Final Report 

# 2.1.8 Infaunal Successional Stage

The mapping of infaunal successional stages is readily accomplished with SPI

technology. These stages are recognized in SPI images by the presence of dense

assemblages of near-surface polychaetes and/or the presence of subsurface feeding voids;

both may be present in the same image. Ma pping of successional stages is based on the

theory that organism-sediment interactions in fine-grained sediments follow a predictable

sequence after a major seafloor perturbation. This theory states that primary succession

results in “the predictable appearance of macrobenthic invertebrates belonging to specific

functional types following a benthic disturba nce. These invertebrates interact with

sediment in specific ways. Because functional types are the biological units of interest...,

our definition does not demand a sequential appearance of par ticular invertebrate species

or genera” (Rhoads and Boyer 1982). This theory is presented in Pearson and Rosenberg

(1978) and further developed in Rhoads and Germano (1982) and Rhoads and Boyer

(1982).

This continuum of change in animal co mmunities after a disturbance (primary

succession) has been divided subjectively into three stages: Stage I is the initial

community of tiny, densely populated polychaete assemblages; Stage II is the start of the

transition to head-down deposit feeders; a nd Stage III is the mature, equilibrium

community of deep-dwelling, head-down deposit feeders.

After an area of bottom is disturbed by natural or anthropogenic events, the first

invertebrate assemblage (Stage I) appears w ithin days after the disturbance. Stage I

consists of assemblages of tiny tube-dwelling marine polychaetes that reach population

densities of 10 4 

# to 10 6 

# individuals per m2. These animals feed at or near the sedimentwater interface and physically stabilize or bind the sediment surface by producing a

mucous “glue” that they use to build their tubes. Sometimes deposited dredged material

layers contain Stage I tubes still attached to mud clasts from their location of origin; these

transported individuals are c onsidered as part of the in situ fauna in our assignment of

successional stages.

If there are no repeated disturbances to the newly colonized area, then these initial tubedwelling suspension or surface-deposit feedin g taxa are followed by burrowing, headdown deposit-feeders that rework the sediment deeper and deeper over time and mix

oxygen from the overlying water into the sediment. The animals in these later-appearing

communities (Stage II or III) are larger, have lower overall popula tion densities (10 to

100 individuals per m2), and can rework the sedi ments to depths of 3 to 20 cm or more.

These animals “loosen” the sedimentary fabric, increase the water content in the

sediment, thereby lowering the sediment sh ear strength, and actively recycle nutrients

because of the high exchange rate with the overlying waters resulting from their

burrowing and feeding activities.

# June, 2004 

# 15 Ketchikan Final Report 

# 2.1.9 Organism-Sediment Index

The Organism-Sediment Index (OSI) is a summary mapping statistic that is calculated on

the basis of four independently measured SPI parameters: apparent mean RPD depth,

presence of methane gas, low/no dissolved ox ygen at the sediment-water interface, and

infaunal successional stage. Table 2-2 shows how these parameters are summed to derive

the OSI.

The highest possible OSI is +11, which reflect s a mature benthic community in relatively

undisturbed conditions (generally a good yard stick for high benthic habitat quality).

These conditions are characterized by deeply oxidized sediment with a low inventory of

anaerobic metabolites and low SOD, and by the presence of a climax (Stage III) benthic

community. The lowest possible OSI is -10, which indicates that the sediment has a high

inventory of anaerobic metabolites, has a high oxygen demand, and is azoic. In our

mapping experience over the past 15 years, we have found that OSI values of 6 or less

indicate that the benthic habitat has ex perienced physical di sturbance, organic

enrichment, or excessive bioavailable contamination in the recent past.

Table 2-2. Calculation of the SPI Organism-Sediment Index

P ARAMETER 

# I NDEX 

# V ALUE



# A. Mean RPD Depth (choose one )

0.00 cm 0

> 0-0.75 cm 1

0.76-1.50 cm 2

1.51-2.25 cm 3

2.26-3.00 cm 4

3.01-3.75 cm 5

> 3.75 cm 6

B. Successional Stage (choose one)

Azoic -4

Stage I 1

Stage I → II 2

Stage II 3

Stage II → III 4

Stage III 5

Stage I on III 5

Stage II on III 5

# June, 2004 

# 16 Ketchikan Final Report 

# C. Chemical Parameters (choose one or both if appropriate)

Methane Present -2

No/Low Dissolved Oxygen a 

# -4

Organism-sediment Index = Total of above subset indices (A+B+C)

Range: -10 to +11

a 

# This is not based on a Winkler or polarigraphic electrode

measurement, but on the imaged evidence of reduced, low

reflectance (i.e., high-oxygen-demand) sediment at the sedimentwater interface.



# 2.2 S TATISTICAL 

# M ETHODS



# A cluster analysis of the bent hic community data was performe d to classify stations into

groups. The objective of cluster analysis is to group stations such that stations within

groups are similar and stations in different gr oups are dissimilar. Cluster analysis is an

exploratory technique that re quires little or no assumptions about the data to provide

insight into the data structure. Once a similari ty measure has been found to be appropriate

for a particular data type, e.g., the Bray-C urtis similarity metric for benthic abundance

data, alternative cluster results based on different clustering algorithms can be reviewed

to determine which one makes the most sens e. During the exploratory stage, several

hierarchical clustering algorithms were used based on average, complete (farthest

neighbor), and single (nearest neighbor) linka ge. The cluster results reported below are

based on the average link method. Average linkage is known as an “agglomerative”

method, which starts out with each station in a separate group. At each stage the two most

similar clusters are combined to form one bi gger cluster. For the average linkage method,

the distance between two clusters is the average of the distances between the points in

one cluster and the points in the other cluster.

The cluster analysis requires a measure of distance to describe the similarity between any

two stations. The Bray-Curtis distance metric of the abundance data wa s used to describe

the similarity between stations; this metric is considered to be the most robust and

powerful metric for abundance data (Faith et al. 1987; Faith et al. 1991). The abundance

data were 4 th 

# -root transformed prior to the distance computations to remove excessive

skewness in these data.

Multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) was used to graphically display similarities between

samples in a 2-dimensional plot . An MDS plot attempts to represent in 2-dimensions the

distance relationships observed between samples in the Bray-Curtis distance matrix. In

this way, the MDS plot is simply a 2-d imensional representation of the information

provided in the one-dimensional dendrog ram from the cluster analysis.

# June, 2004 

# 17 Ketchikan Final Report 

# 2.3 U SING 

# SPI D ATA TO 

# A SSESS 

# B ENTHIC 

# H EALTH



# While various measurements of water quality such as dissolv ed oxygen, contaminants, or

nutrients are often used to assess regional ecological health, interpretation is difficult

because of the transient nature of water-column phenomena. Measurement of a particular

value of any water-column variable represen ts an instantaneous “snapshot” that can

change within minutes after the measurement is taken. By the time an adverse signal in

the water column such as a low dissolved oxygen concentration is persistent, the system

may have degraded to the point where res ource managers can do little but map the spatial

extent of the phenomenon while gaining a min imal understanding of factors contributing

to the overall degradation.

The seafloor, on the other hand, is a long-term time integrator of sediment and overlying

water quality; values for any variable measured are the result of physical, chemical, and

biological interactions on time scales much longer than those present in a rapidly moving

fluid. The seafloor is thus an excellent i ndicator of environmenta l health, both in terms

of historical impacts and of future trends for any particular variable.

Physical measurements made with the SPI system from profile images provide

background information about gradients in ph ysical disturbance (caused by dredging,

disposal, trawling, or storm resuspension and tr ansport) in the form of maps of sediment

grain size, boundary roughness, fabrics, and st ructures. The concentration of organic

matter and the SOD can be inferred from the optical reflectance of the sediment column

and the apparent RPD depth. Organic matter is an important indicator of the relative

value of the sediment as a carbon source for both bacteria and infaunal deposit feeders.

SOD is an important measure of ecological health; oxygen can be depleted quickly in

sediment by the accumulation of organic matter and by bacterial respiration, both of

which place an oxygen demand on the porewater and compete with animals for a

potentially limited oxygen resource (Kennish 1986).

The apparent RPD depth is useful in assessi ng the quality of a habitat for epifauna and

infauna from both physical and biological poi nts of view. The apparent RPD depth in

profile images has been shown to be directly correlated to the quality of the benthic

habitat in polyhaline and mesohaline estuarine zones (Rhoads and Germano 1986;

Revelas et al. 1987; Valente et al. 1992). Controlling for differences in sediment type

and physical disturbance factors, apparent RPD depths < 1 cm can indicate chronic

benthic environmental stress or recent catastrophic disturbance.

The presence of sulfur-reducing bacterial colonies such as Beggiatoa is diagnostic of an

area that has experienced prolonged periods of low dissolved oxygen in the overlying

water column. The implications for benthic community structure and ecosystem energy

cycling once an area starts to experience seasonal anoxia or hypoxia are quite dramatic

# June, 2004 

# 18 Ketchikan Final Report 

# (Diaz and Rosenberg, 1995). The suppression of macrobenthi c activity during periods

when the water is warmest and biological activity should be peaking starts a vicious

cycle: it leads to an increase in organic matter in surface sediments and an increase in the

importance of microbes in energy cyc ling and carbon remineralization. Anaerobic

metabolism (such as that utilized by Beggiatoa ) is less efficient than aerobic pathways

and does not burn off deposited organic matter as quickly. During hypoxic events, the

energy from dead macrofauna and newly deposited organic matter will be sequestered by

microfauna. This transfer of benthic energy to microbes still favors recolonization by

macrobenthos if the duration of the hypoxia is short. However, as hypoxic events become

longer and more intense, a larger proportion of the organic carbon will be remineralized

by the microbial population, and less energy will be available to support benthic

recruitment with the return of normal oxygen concentrations in the water column. Newlydeposited organic matter will continue to stay in a reduced state, depleting the water

column of dissolved oxygen for a longer period of time due to the high SOD, and the

periods of hypoxia/anoxia will increase in length, so that the “dead zone” of anoxia keeps

spreading and portions of the benthic eco system will permanently degrade beyond the

recovery point for macrofaunal recruitment.

The distribution of successional stages in the context of the mapped disturbance gradients

is one of the most sensitive indicators of the ecological health of the seafloor (Rhoads and

Germano 1986). The presence of Stage III e quilibrium taxa (mapped from subsurface

feeding voids as observed in profile images) can be a good indication of high benthic

habitat stability and relative “health.” A Stage III assemblage indicates that the sediment

surrounding these organisms has not been distur bed severely in the recent past and that

the inventory of bioavailable c ontaminants is relatively small. These inferences are based

on past work, primarily in temperate latitudes, showing that Stage III species are

relatively intolerant to sediment distur bance, organic enrichment, and sediment

contamination. Stage III species expend meta bolic energy on sediment bioturbation (both

particle advection and porewa ter irrigation) to control se diment properties, including

porewater profiles of sulfate, nitrate, and RP D depth in the sedimentary matrix near their

burrows or tubes (Aller and Stupakoff 1996; Rice and Rhoads 1989). This bioturbation

results in an enhanced rate of decom position of polymerized organic matter by

stimulating microbial decomposition (“microbial gardening”). Stage III benthic

assemblages are very stable and are also called climax or equilibrium seres.

The metabolic energy expended in bioturbation is rewarded by creating a sedimentary

environment where refractory organic matter is converted to usable food. Stage III

bioturbation has been likened to processes such as stirring and aeration used in tertiary

sewage treatment plants to accelerate orga nic decomposition. These processes can be

interpreted as a form of human bioturbation. Physical disturbance, contaminant loading,

and/or over-enrichment result in habitat destruction and in local extinction of the climax

seres. Loss of Stage III species results in the loss of sediment s tirring and aeration and

may be followed by a buildup of organic ma tter (eutrophication) of the sediment.

# June, 2004 

# 19 Ketchikan Final Report 

# Because Stage III species tend to have relatively conservative rates of recruitment,

intrinsic population increase, and ontogenetic growth, they may not reappear for several

years once they are excluded from an area.

The presence of Stage I seres (in the absence of Stage III seres) can indicate that the

bottom is an advanced state of organic enri chment or has received high contaminant

loading. Unlike Stage III communities, Stage I seres have a relatively high tolerance for

organic enrichment and contaminants. These opportunistic species have high rates of

recruitment, high ontogenetic growth rates, and live and feed near the sediment-water

interface, typically in high densities. Stage I seres often co-occur with Stage III seres in

marginally enriched areas. In this case, Stage I seres feed on labile organic detritus

settling onto the sediment surface, while the s ubsurface Stage III seres tend to specialize

on the more refractory buried organic reservoir of detritus.

Stage I and III seres have dramatically diff erent effects on the geot echnical properties of

the sediment (Rhoads and Boyer 1982). W ith their high population densities and their

feeding efforts concentrated at or near the sediment-water interface, Stage I communities

tend to bind fine-grained sediments physi cally, making them less susceptible to

resuspension and transport. Just as a thick cover of grass will prevent erosion on a

terrestrial hillside, so too will these dense assemblages of tiny polychaetes serve to

stabilize the sediment surface. Conversely, St age III taxa increase the water content of

the sediment and lower its shear strength through their deep burrowing and pumping

activities, rendering the bottom more susceptible to erosion and resuspension. In shallow

areas of fine-grained sediments that are su sceptible to storm-indu ced or wave orbital

energy, it is quite possible for Stage III taxa to be carried along in the water column in

suspension with fluid muds. When redepositi on occurs, these Stage III taxa can become

quickly re-established in an otherwise physic ally disturbed surface sedimentary fabric.

SPI has been shown to be a powerful reconnaissance tool that can efficiently map

gradients in sediment type, biological communities, or disturbances from physical forces

or organic enrichment. Aside from the quantita tive information about physical structures

such as depositional layers that can be accu rately measured, many of the conclusions

reached at the end of this report are about dynamic processes that have been deduced

from imaged structures; on one level, they s hould be considered hypotheses available for

further testing/confirmation. By employing Oc cam’s Razor, we feel reasonably assured

that the most parsimonious explanation is us ually the one borne out by subsequent data

confirmation.

# June, 2004 

# 20 Ketchikan Final Report 

# 3.0

RESULTS

A complete set of all the data measured from each sediment profile image is presented in

Appendix A; the data from the sediment ph ysical analyses are in Appendix B, and

Appendix C has the list of species identified and numbers of individuals from each grab

sample. A series of potential reference stati ons were explored along the coast west of

Ketchikan and just offshore the perimeter of Pennock Island (GRV1-3, REF 1-5; see

Appendix A) and were rejected as not repr esentative of “ambient’ conditions due to

bottom type; only REF6 (located just west of the airport dock) served as a suitable

reference area because of similarity in wa ter depth and sediment type, and it was

definitely outside the influence of the fish waste piles.



# 3.1 S EDIMENT 

# G RAIN 

# S IZE 

# & TOC

A wide variety of sediment facies were enc ountered, with the majority of the stations

surveyed (70%) having a sediment grain-size major-mode in one of the sand-sized scale

intervals (particles from 0.063 – 2.0 mm in diam eter; Figures 3-1 to 3-3). While

approximately 40% of th e stations had a sediment grain-size major mode in the fine sand

(3-2 phi) range, the sediments at the majority of stations were fairly poorly sorted, often

times with shell fragments and pebbles mixed in with the sand (Figure 3-4); the lack of

any area of substantial extent with fine-grained sediments was indicative of the relatively

high bottom currents that persist in this area.

The few stations that did have fine-grained sediment accumulation (Figures 3-2 to 3-3)

still exhibited poor sorting (Figure 3-5) with a large range of particle sizes present. The

frequent presence of rocks, shells, and other debris hampered the camera prism

penetration at many locations. Areas of hard bottom with either disarticulated shells or

cobble (where bottom currents are the strong est) were more common in the western

sampling area (Figure 3-3) than in the eastern (Figure 3-2). The areas marked as cobble

or rock bottom shown on the maps either had large shells (Figure 3-6) or rocks (Figure 3-

7) that served as very effective barriers to prism penetration; howev er, useful information

was still available from these hard bottom locations as far as hydrodynamic regime and

fish waste accumulation.

The grain-size results from the sediment grab s (Table 3-1) agreed with the sediment

classifications from the SPI analysis at 5 of the 7 stations sampled with grabs (see

Appendix B for the complete laboratory repor t on the sediment analyses). The two

stations where these two independent met hods did not agree with one another were

Stations AGS OLD-SE375 (see Figure 3-11; SPI grain-size major mode of very fine sand

# Silt-clay



# 6%

24%

24%

39% 6% 2% Very Fine Sand

Fine Sand Medium Sand Coarse Sand Rock/Cobble/

Hard Bottom

Figure 3-1. Percentage distribution of different bottom types (sediment grain-size major mode)

encountered during the Ketchikan SPI survey.

Ketchikan SPI Report June, 2004Figure 3-2. Distribution of sediment type and mean prism penetration depth (cm) - eastern sampling area. AGS 001 AGS OLD-SE0 25 AGS OLD-SE0 50 AGS OLD-SE0 75

AGS OLD-SE1 00 AGS OLD-SE1 25

AGS OLD-SE 150 AGS OLD-SE1 75 AGS OLD-SE2 00 AGS OLD-SE225 AGS OLD-SE2 50 AGS OLD-SE2 75 AGS OLD-SE3 00

AGS OLD-SE3 25 AGS OLD-SE3 50

AGSDock-SW 050

AGS OLD-SE3 75KetchikanTongass NarrowsSPI camera locationSurvey conducted from D/V InvaderSeptember 29 - October 2, 2003Eastern Sampling AreaT475T250T200T150T100T050 T025TDOCK-SW025TDOCK-SW040TDOCK-SW055TDOCK-SW070TDOCK-SW085TDOCK-SW100TDOCK-SW125TDOCK-SW150TDOCK-SW175TDOCK-SW200TDOCK-SW225TDOCK-SW250TDOCK-SW275TDOCK-SW300T010MID 3-225MID 3-150MID 3-075AGS 000AGS 050AGS 100AGS 150AGSDock-SW150AGSDock-SW200MID 1T000T175AnchorageALASKAYukonTerritoryRussiaBering SeaPacific OceanArcticOceanlKetchikan8.405.259.416.255.817.216.957.486.122.302.399.417.808.496.294.1402.692.414.5002.43002.874.914.911.263.9705.7806.314.693.031.176.79004.834.751.713.622.291.691.692.303.994.633.890meters 40 60 8020 100N0



# 1800 m 

# Airport RunwayReference AreaWestern AreaEastern Area



# Tongass N

arrows Tongass NarrowsKetchikanKetchikanKetchikanKetchikanInternationalAirportSediment grain-sizemajor mode (phi)Prism penetrationdepth (cm)00.01 - 10.00 cm>10.00 cmCobble or rock bottomSandy bottomClay or silt bottomindeterminateAGSDock-SW1006.15Ketchikan SPI ReportJune, 2004Figure 3-3. Distribution of sediment type and mean prism penetration depth (cm) - western sampling area.0meters 40 60 8020 100KetchikanTongass NarrowsSPI camera locationSurvey conducted from D/V InvaderSeptember 29 - October 2, 2003Western Sampling AreaNECP 400-N40ECP 400-N20ECP 400ECP 500ECP 750ECP 950ECP 300ECP 250ECP 125ECP 150ECP 1MID 2ECP 025ECP 075ECP 050ECP 100-N40ECP 100-N20ECP 100-AECP 100-S20ECP 100-S80NQ 0-S200NQ 0-S175NQ 0-S150NQ 0-S125NQ 0-S100NQ 0-S075NQ 0-S025NQ 001NQ 0NQ 025NQ 100NQ 125NQ 075NQ 050NQ 150NQ 0-S050ECP 100-S60ECP 100-S40ECP 100-CECP 400-S20ECP 400-S40ECP 400-S60Tongass NarrowsKetchikanKetchikanInternationalAirport



# Airpor t Runway1800 mReference sampling area6.713.644.384.452.753.562.043.483.966.112.8121.427.689.155.52.823.192.232.562.593.022.742.812.064.23.930.25003.243.560000000001.340.84Airport DockSediment grain-sizemajor mode (phi)Prism penetrationdepth (cm)00.01 - 10.00 cm>10.00 cmCobble or rock bottomSandy bottomClay or silt bottomindeterminateREF 66.17Ketchikan SPI ReportJune, 2004

# Figure 3-4. Sediment profile image from Station NQO S125 showing the wide range of

sediment particle sizes found at many of the sandy stations (Scale: width of image = 14.2 cm).

Ketchikan SPI Report June, 2004Figure 3-5. Sediment profile images from Stations T200 (left) and TDock SW175 (right) representative of some of the fewlocations where fine-grained sediment accumulated. Note the poor sediment sorting and wide range of particle sizes evident in thecross-sectional profiles; both wood fibers and fish waste can be seen in the image on the right (Scale: width of images = 14.2 cm).



# Ketchikan SPI Report June, 2004Figure 3-6. Sediment profile images from Stations ECP250 (left) and ECP 300 (right) showing a hard bottomconsisting primarily of disarticulated mollusk shells; note the sea cucumber crawling on the surface in the right image.(Scale: width of images = 14.2 cm).



# Ketchikan SPI Report June, 2004

# Figure 3-7. Sediment profile image from Station ECP 400-S60 showing a rocky

cobble bottom (Scale: width of image = 14.2 cm).

Ketchikan SPI Report June, 2004

# June, 2004 

# 21 Ketchikan Final Report 

# vs. Table 3-1 results showing gravel as the major mode) and Station T50 (SPI grain-size

major mode of medium sand vs . Table 3-1 results showing fine sand as the major mode).



# Table 3-1 Sediment Grain Size & TOC Results

(units = percent)

STATIONS

Description NQ 150 AGSOLDSE375 T50 NQ OS200 NQ75 T100 REF6

Gravel 1.3 32.5 4.8 0.3 1.0 6.1 2.5

Very Coarse Sand 1.0 6.9 5.2 1.1 1.2 7.2 4.3

Coarse Sand 3.9 7.4 8.5 2.9 2.5 9.0 7.4

Medium Sand 9.8 10.2 11.8 8.1 7.5 10.6 12.8

Fine Sand 41.3 18.1 39.5 32.4 41.8 38.0 33.6

Very Fine Sand 35.6 13.1 23.2 37.3 40.9 22.2 23.4

Coarse Silt 2.4 2.7 1.6 6.6 2.0 1.5 4.0

Medium Silt 0.8 2.2 1.4 2.6 0.5 0.9 2.6

Fine Silt 0.6 1.5 0.7 1.3 0.2 0.7 1.7

Very Fine Silt 0.5 1.1 0.4 1.1 0.3 0.7 1.7

8-9 Phi (coarse) Clay 0.5 0.8 0.1 1.3 0.2 0.7 1.6

9-10 Phi (medium) Clay 0.4 0.6 0.1 1.3 0.2 0.2 1.0

> 10 Phi (fine) Clay 1.9 2.9 2.7 3.7 1.7 2.2 3.4

Total Solids 69.7 47.7 52 56.8 64.7 58.8 60.0

Total Organic Carbon 1.1 2.2 2.3 1.4 0.93 3.0 1.3

% Fines (> 4 phi) 7.1 11.8 7.0 17.9 5.1 6.9 16.0



# Total organic carbon in the sediment at th e 7 stations sampled ranged from 0.93% to

3.0%. Average concentrations for marine sediments are between 1.5 and 2 percent

(Tyson and Pearson 1991), and any amount over 4 percent is considered enriched (Purdy

1964).



# 3.2 S URFACE 

# B OUNDARY 

# R OUGHNESS



# Surface boundary roughness ranged from 0.56 to 6.78 cm, principally due to projections

and unevenness in the sediment-water interface due to large shells and rocks either lying

on the sediment surface or partia lly buried in the sediment (Fig 3.8). The physical origin

of the majority of the boundary roughness elements were caused by the strong bottom

currents in the area, indicating that most of the area surveyed was primarily an erosional

hydrodynamic regime and not one where we would expect significant deposition and

fine-grained sediment accumulation to occur.

# Figure 3-8. Sediment profile image from T150; the large surface boundary roughness values

found during this survey were mainly due to small-scale topography caused by physical

features similar to those shown here. (Scale: width of image = 14.2 cm).

Ketchikan SPI Report June, 2004

# June, 2004 

# 22 Ketchikan Final Report 

# 3.3 P RISM 

# P ENETRATION 

# D EPTH



# With the predominance of sand, shells, gravel, and cobble throughout the surveyed area,

prism penetration was limited (not surprisingly) at many stations (Figures 3-2 to 3-3);

about 20% of the stations surveyed had an effective prism penetr ation depth of zero,

despite the camera being loaded with an a dditional 250 lbs. of lead in the weight

carriages. Prism penetra tion ranged from 0 to 21.4 cm , the maximum penetration

possible (this occurred at the st ations on the fish waste piles; see Section 3.5 below); the

average prism penetration ove r all stations surveyed was 3.97 cm, again reflecting the

relatively hard bottom found over most of the area.



# 3.4 A PPARENT 

# R EDOX 

# P OTENTIAL 

# D ISCONTINUITY 

# D EPTH



# Our ability to detect and measure the mean apparent RPD was heavily dependent on

sediment type and pr ism penetration depth; given the hard sandy/rocky bottom with

limited penetration depths, it was impossible to measure an apparent RPD at

approximately 40% of th e stations (Figures 3-9 to 3-10). At the 71 stations where the

mean apparent RPD could be measured, depths ranged from 0 to 7.2 cm, with an average

depth of 2.6 cm; a substantial number of sta tions (26) had no apparent RPD due to the

high organic loads from the fish waste deposits.

Going from east to west, a closer examinati on of the mean RPD depth distribution shows

that some of the deepest values were found in the transect of stations labeled “AGS

OLD” (Figure 3-9) off the Alaska General Seafoods facility; at this series of stations, the

negative effects from the former waste discharge point taper off, and values steadily

increase as one travels east until some of the greatest RPD depths are reached at the

transect terminus (Figure 3-11). Values to the east and south of the AGS center point

(Station AGS 000, Figure 3-9) still exceed pr ism penetration dept h (Stations AGS 050,

AGS 100, AGS 150, AGSDock-SW200), while a cluster of 3 stations immediately to the

north (Stations AGS 001, AGSDock-SW050, a nd AGS OLD-SE025) have no detectable

RPD and are still showing the impacts from excess organic loading from decomposing

fish waste that settled to the bottom (Figure 3-12).

As one moves westward to the cluster of stations off the Trident Seafoods dock, there

was no detectable RPD at 10 of 12 stations wh ere RPD values could be determined due to

the high oxygen demand from the fish waste di scharge (Figure 3-13). Further to the west

(Figure 3-10), the impacts from the Norquest Seafoods discharge are readily apparent at

the next cluster of 9 stations with mean apparent RPD values of zero. The E.C. Phillips

pile at the western-most group of stations su rveyed only had 3 stations with no detectable

RPD (Stations ECP 1, ECP 025, and ECP 050).Eastern Sampling AreaAnchorageALASKAYukonTerritoryRussiaBering SeaPacific OceanArcticOceanlKetchikanN

AGS 00 1 AGS OLD-SE0 25 AGS OLD-SE0 50

AGS OLD-SE0 75

AGS OLD-SE1 00 AGS OLD-SE1 25

AGS OLD-SE1 50 AGS OLD-SE1 75 AGS OLD-SE2 00 AGS OLD-SE225 AGS OLD-SE2 50 AGS OLD-SE2 75 AGS OLD-SE3 00

AGS OLD-SE3 25 AGS OLD-SE3 50

AGSDock-SW 050

AGS OLD-SE3 75KetchikanTongass NarrowsSPI camera locationSurvey conducted from D/V InvaderSeptember 29 - October 2, 2003T475T250T200T150T100T050 T025TDOCK-SW025TDOCK-SW040TDOCK-SW055TDOCK-SW070TDOCK-SW085TDOCK-SW100TDOCK-SW125TDOCK-SW150TDOCK-SW175TDOCK-SW200TDOCK-SW225TDOCK-SW250TDOCK-SW275TDOCK-SW300T010MID 3-225MID 3-150MID 3-075AGS 000AGS 050AGS 100AGS 150AGSDock-SW100AGSDock-SW150AGSDock-SW200MID 1T000T175Figure 3-9. Distribution of mean apparent RPD depth (cm) - eastern sampling area.



# 1800 m 

# Airport RunwayReference AreaWestern AreaEastern Area6.885.255.693.605.814.194.425.246.121.372.302.393.673.734.022.934.1400003.4700 004.693.904.83000.17000meters 40 60 8020 100



# Tongass N arrows Tongass NarrowsKetchikanKetchikanKetchikanKetchikanInternationalAirportMean apparentRPD depth (cm)0-1.00 cm1.01-3.00 cm3.01-6.00 cm>6.00 cm> Prism penetrationIndeterminateKetchikan SPI ReportJune, 2004Figure 3-10. Distribution of mean apparent RPD depth (cm) - western sampling area.0meters 40 60 8020 100KetchikanTongass NarrowsSPI camera locationSurvey conducted from D/V InvaderSeptember 29 - October 2, 2003Western Sampling AreaNECP 400-N40ECP 400-N20ECP 400ECP 500ECP 750ECP 950ECP 300ECP 250ECP 125ECP 150ECP 1MID 2ECP 025ECP 075ECP 050ECP 100-N40ECP 100-N20ECP 100-AECP 100-S20ECP 100-S80NQ 0-S125NQ 0-S100NQ 0-S075NQ 0-S025NQ 001NQ 0NQ 025NQ 100NQ 125NQ 075NQ 050NQ 150NQ 0-S050ECP 100-S60ECP 100-S40ECP 100-CECP 400-S20ECP 400-S40ECP 400-S60Tongass NarrowsKetchikanKetchikanInternationalAirport



# Airpor t RunwayREF 61800 mReference sampling area02.3900000000001.732.064.20Airport DockMean apparentRPD depth (cm)0-1.00 cm1.01-3.00 cm3.01-6.00 cm>6.00 cm> Prism penetrationIndeterminateNQ 0-S200NQ 0-S175NQ 0-S1506.173.963.486.103.19Ketchikan SPI ReportJune, 2004

# Figure 3-11. Sediment profile image from Station AGSOld-SE375; note the thick oxidized layer of

surface sediments (RPD = 6.88 cm) due to the bioturbating activities of Stage 3 infauna such as the

polychaete (arrow) seen near the bottom of the image (Scale: width of image = 14.2 cm).

Ketchikan SPI Report June, 2004

# Figure 3-12. Sediment profile image from Station AGS01 showing no detectable apparent RPD due

to the high sediment oxygen demand of decomposing fish waste (Scale: width of image = 14.2 cm).

Ketchikan SPI Report June, 2004**~** 

# ....



# -

. . :

. 

# ..



# -



# .

# Figure 3-13. Sediment profile image from Station TDock-SW125 showing no detectable apparent

RPD due to the high sediment oxygen demand of decomposing fish waste; similar redox values were

found at 9 other stations in this immediate vicinity (Scale: width of image = 14.2 cm).

Ketchikan SPI Report June, 2004

# June, 2004 

# 23 Ketchikan Final Report 

# 3.5 F ISH 

# W ASTE 

# D EPOSITS



# The presence of fish waste was readily appare nt in the sediment profile images, often

times producing rather dramatic images of the accumulation on the bottom, regardless of

whether it was from the center of the pile (Fig ure 3-14) or toward the edge of the deposit

(Figure 3-15). Detectable accumulations of fish waste could be seen at all four waste

piles surveyed (Figures 3-16 to 3-17). At th e AGS pile (Figure 3-16), measurable layers

of fish waste were spread over an area appr oximately 60 meters in diameter, with a thin

trace of fish waste detectable on the su rface sediments extending approximately 165

meters to the east and 120 meters to the south (Figure 3-18).

Moving slightly to the west, the transect of stations off the Trident Seafoods dock facility

showed a measurable layer of older fish waste over an ellipse of bottom approximately

245 meters on the long axis but did not extend that far to the east and west of this transect

(Figure 3-16). Prism penetration was limited due to the hard nature of the bottom at

many of these stations; instead of just fish waste, the presence of wood waste was also

evident at several stations (Figure 3-19). The active discharge off the Norquest Seafoods

facility also covered a large area of botto m (Figure 3-17), extending 150 meters to the

south and a minimum of 175 meters to the eas t of Station NQ 0 (Figure 3-14). To the

west, it extended at least another 200 meters and merged with the waste layers from the

E.C. Phillips & Son facility. Evidence of fish waste layers from at the ECP cluster of

stations (Figure 3-17) disappeared after the no rth-south transect of stations at 100m west

of ECP1; at all the stations west of ECP 100-S20, from ECP 125 to ECP 950, there was

no trace of any fish waste or skeletal remains on the bottom.



# 3.6 S UBSURFACE 

# M ETHANE AND 

# B ACTERIAL 

# P RESENCE



# Evidence of methane generation from anaer obic bacterial decomposition was only found

at four of the stations surrounding the Nor quest Seafoods active discharge (Figures 3-20

to 3-21). The presence of sulfur-reducing bacteria and black, reduced sediment at the

sediment-water interface, i.e., no apparent RP D layer, provide additional evidence of the

areas experiencing stress from organic loading (Figures 3-22 to 3-23). Stations at all

four of the active or former waste piles still show the effects of the excess organic loading

in the form of either anoxic sedime nts or the presence of the fibrous Beggiatoa -type

bacterial colonies (Figure 3-24).

If one approximates the area affected by excess organic loading as an ellipse, a much

larger area of seafloor in the western area of the survey is affected by organic loading

than in the eastern area. Because the ECP a nd NQ stations more or less merge into one

region of continuous impacts (Figure 3-23), the relative size of these 3 areas are:

# Figure 3-14. Replicate sediment profile images from Station NQ0, the center of the

active NorQuest discharge pile; note the numerous methane gas bubbles interspersed

throughout the fish waste chunks (Scale: width of images = 14.2 cm).

Ketchikan SPI Report June, 2004

# Figure 3-15. Sediment profile image from Station AGSDock SW100; the obvious effects

of fish waste discharge can be seen from this collection of skeletal remains known as a

thanatocoenosis (Scale: width of image = 14.2 cm).

Ketchikan SPI Report June, 2004Eastern Sampling AreaAnchorageALASKAYukonTerritoryRussiaBering SeaPacific OceanArcticOceanlKetchikanN

AGS 00 1 AGS OLD-SE0 25 AGS OLD-SE0 50

AGS OLD-SE0 75

AGS OLD-SE1 00 AGS OLD-SE1 25

AGS OLD-SE1 50 AGS OLD-SE1 75 AGS OLD-SE2 00 AGS OLD-SE225 AGS OLD-SE2 50 AGS OLD-SE2 75 AGS OLD-SE3 00 AGS OLD-SE325 AGS OLD-SE3 50

AGSDock-SW 050

AGS OLD-SE3 75KetchikanTongass NarrowsSPI camera locationSurvey conducted from D/V InvaderSeptember 29 - October 2, 2003T475T250T200T150T100T050 T025TDOCK-SW025TDOCK-SW040TDOCK-SW055TDOCK-SW070TDOCK-SW085TDOCK-SW100TDOCK-SW125TDOCK-SW150TDOCK-SW175TDOCK-SW200TDOCK-SW225TDOCK-SW250TDOCK-SW275TDOCK-SW300T010MID 3-225MID 3-150MID 3-075AGS 000AGS 050AGS 100AGS 150AGSDock-SW100AGSDock-SW150AGSDock-SW200MID 1T000T175Figure 3-16. Distribution of fish waste accumulations (cm) - eastern sampling area.



# 1800 m 

# Airport RunwayReference AreaWestern AreaEastern Area6.152.694.754.911.263.970.105.783.622.874.912.291.690meters 40 60 8020 100



# Tongass N arrows Tongass NarrowsKetchikanKetchikanKetchikanKetchikanInternationalAirportMean FishWaste Layer (cm)0 (cm)Trace (cm)Measurable interval (cm)> Prism penetration (cm)indeterminateKetchikan SPI ReportJune, 2004Figure 3-17. Distribution of fish waste accumulations (cm) - western sampling area.0meters 40 60 8020 100KetchikanTongass NarrowsSPI camera locationSurvey conducted from D/V InvaderSeptember 29 - October 2, 2003Western Sampling AreaNTongass NarrowsKetchikanKetchikanInternationalAirport



# Airpor t Runway1800 mReference sampling area3.292.753.5612.8121.427.689.155.503.93Airport DockMean FishWaste Layer (cm)0 (cm)Trace (cm)Measurable interval (cm)> Prism penetration (cm)indeterminateECP 400-N40ECP 400-N20ECP 400ECP 500ECP 750ECP 950ECP 300ECP 250ECP 125ECP 150ECP 1MID 2ECP 025ECP 075ECP 050ECP 100-N40ECP 100-N20ECP 100-AECP 100-S20ECP 100-S80NQ 0-S200NQ 0-S175NQ 0-S150NQ 0-S125NQ 0-S100NQ 0-S075NQ 0-S025NQ 001NQ 0NQ 025NQ 100NQ 125NQ 075NQ 050NQ 150NQ 0-S050ECP 100-S60ECP 100-S40ECP 100-CECP 400-S20ECP 400-S40ECP 400-S60REF 62.59Ketchikan SPI ReportJune, 2004Figure 3-18a. Sediment profile images from the AGS pile showing the gradation of fish waste accumulation(Scale: width of images = 14.2 cm).b). Station AGSDock SW100: Most of the organic matter has beenpicked clean from the remains of these skeletal fragmentsa). Station AGSDock SW 50: note the dark, reduced sediment from highorganic loading, skeletal remains, and whisps of bacterial colonies(arrow) on some of the waste fragments on the surface



# Ketchikan SPI Report June, 2004Figure 3-18b. Sediment profile images from the AGS pile showing the gradation of fish waste accumulation(Scale: width of images = 14.2 cm).c). Station AGSDock SW150: A slight trace of skeletal fragments can befound in the upper layer of sand at this locationd). Station AGSDock SW200: No trace of fish waste is evident in thissilty sand showing a diverse benthic community



# Ketchikan SPI Report June, 2004

# Figure 3-19. Sediment profile image from TDock SW275 showing a combination of both

wood waste fibers and skeletal remains from fish waste deposits on the sediment surface

(Scale: width of image = 14.2 cm).

Ketchikan SPI Report June, 2004Eastern Sampling AreaAnchorageALASKAYukonTerritoryRussiaBering SeaPacific OceanArcticOceanlKetchikanN

AGS 001 AGS OLD-SE0 25 AGS OLD-SE0 50 AGS OLD-SE0 75

AGS OLD-SE1 00 AGS OLD-SE1 25

AGS OLD-SE1 50 AGS OLD-SE1 75 AGS OLD-SE2 00 AGS OLD-SE225 AGS OLD-SE2 50 AGS OLD-SE2 75 AGS OLD-SE3 00

AGS OLD-SE3 25 AGS OLD-SE3 50

AGSDock-SW 050

AGS OLD-SE3 75KetchikanTongass NarrowsSPI camera locationSurvey conducted from D/V InvaderSeptember 29 - October 2, 2003T475T250T200T150T100T050 T025TDOCK-SW025TDOCK-SW040TDOCK-SW055TDOCK-SW070TDOCK-SW085TDOCK-SW100TDOCK-SW125TDOCK-SW150TDOCK-SW175TDOCK-SW200TDOCK-SW225TDOCK-SW250TDOCK-SW275TDOCK-SW300T010MID 3-225MID 3-150MID 3-075AGS 000AGS 050AGS 100AGS 150AGSDock-SW100AGSDock-SW150AGSDock-SW200MID 1T000T175Figure 3-20. Distribution of subsurface methane gas presence - eastern sampling area.



# 1800 m 

# Airport RunwayReference AreaWestern AreaEastern Area6.152.694.754.911.263.970.105.783.622.874.912.291.690meters 40 60 8020 100



# Tongass N arrows Tongass NarrowsKetchikanKetchikanKetchikanKetchikanInternationalAirportMethanePresenceAbsenceKetchikan SPI ReportJune, 2004Figure 3-21. Distribution of subsurface methane gas presence - western sampling area.0meters 40 60 8020 100KetchikanTongass NarrowsSPI camera locationSurvey conducted from D/V InvaderSeptember 29 - October 2, 2003Western Sampling AreaNECP 400-N40ECP 400-N20ECP 400ECP 500ECP 750ECP 950ECP 300ECP 250ECP 125ECP 150ECP 1MID 2ECP 075ECP 050ECP 100-N40ECP 100-N20ECP 100-AECP 100-S20ECP 100-S80NQ 0-S200NQ 0-S175NQ 0-S150NQ 0-S125NQ 0-S100NQ 0-S075NQ 0-S025NQ 001NQ 0NQ 100NQ 125NQ 075NQ 050NQ 150NQ 0-S050ECP 100-S60ECP 100-S40ECP 100-CECP 400-S20ECP 400-S40ECP 400-S60Tongass NarrowsKetchikanKetchikanInternationalAirport



# Airpor t RunwayREF 61800 mReference sampling areaAirport DockMethanePresenceAbsence10+1ECP 025NQ 02517Ketchikan SPI ReportJune, 2004AGS 001 AGS OLD-SE025 AGS OLD-SE 050 AGS OLD-SE0 75

AGS OLD-SE1 00 AGS OLD-SE1 25

AGS OLD-SE1 50 AGS OLD-SE1 75 AGS OLD-SE2 00 AGS OLD-SE225 AGS OLD-SE2 50 AGS OLD-SE2 75 AGS OLD-SE3 00

AGS OLD-SE3 25 AGS OLD-SE3 50

AGSDock-SW050

AGS OLD-SE3 75KetchikanTongass NarrowsSPI camera locationSurvey conducted from D/V InvaderSeptember 29 - October 2, 2003Eastern Sampling AreaT475T250T200T150T100T050 T025TDOCK-SW025TDOCK-SW040TDOCK-SW055TDOCK-SW070TDOCK-SW085TDOCK-SW100TDOCK-SW125TDOCK-SW150TDOCK-SW175TDOCK-SW200TDOCK-SW225TDOCK-SW250TDOCK-SW275TDOCK-SW300T010MID 3-225MID 3-150MID 3-075AGS 000AGS 050AGS 100AGS 150AGSDock-SW100AGSDock-SW150AGSDock-SW200MID 1T000T175Figure 3-22. Distribution of bacterial colonies and areas with low/no dissolved oxygen in near-bottom waters - eastern sampling area.AnchorageALASKAYukonTerritoryRussiaBering SeaPacific OceanArcticOceanlKetchikan



# 1800 m 

# Airport RunwayReference AreaWestern AreaEastern Area0meters 40 60 8020 100N



# Tongass N arrows Tongass NarrowsKetchikanKetchikanKetchikanKetchikanInternationalAirportYesYesNoNoBacteriapresent?Low DO?Ketchikan SPI ReportJune, 2004Figure 3-23. Distribution of bacterial colonies and areas with low/no dissolved oxygen in near-bottom waters - western sampling area.0meters 40 60 8020 100KetchikanTongass NarrowsSPI camera locationSurvey conducted from D/V InvaderSeptember 29 - October 2, 2003Western Sampling AreaNECP 400-N40ECP 400-N20ECP 400ECP 500ECP 750ECP 950ECP 300ECP 250ECP 125ECP 150ECP 1MID 2ECP 025ECP 075ECP 050ECP 100-N40ECP 100-N20ECP 100-AECP 100-S20ECP 100-S80NQ 0-S200NQ 0-S175NQ 0-S150NQ 0-S125NQ 0-S100NQ 0-S075NQ 0-S025NQ 001NQ 0NQ 025NQ 100NQ 125NQ 075NQ 050NQ 150NQ 0-S050ECP 100-S60ECP 100-S40ECP 100-CECP 400-S20ECP 400-S40ECP 400-S60Tongass NarrowsKetchikanKetchikanInternationalAirport



# Airpor t RunwayREF 61800 mReference sampling areaAirport DockYesYesNoNoBacteriapresent?Low DO?Ketchikan SPI ReportJune, 2004

# Figure 3-24. Sediment profile image showing a chunk of fish waste on the sediment surface

covered by an abundant collection of the white, string-like, sulfur-reducing bacterial colonies that

only occur in hypoxic or anoxic conditions (Scale: width of image = 14.2 cm).

Ketchikan SPI Report June, 2004

# June, 2004 

# 24 Ketchikan Final Report 

# Table 3-2 Area of seafloor showing evidence of stress from organic loading.

Waste Pile Area (m2) Acres

Alaska General Seafood 1,473 0.4

Trident Seafoods 9,424 2.3

EC Phillips & Norquest (combined) 27,979 6.9



# 3.7 I NFAUNAL 

# S UCCESSIONAL 

# S TAGE



# The mapped distribution of infaunal successional stages is shown in Figures 3-25 to 3-26.

Starting at the eastern-most area surveyed, the series of stations in the vicinity of the

Alaska General Seafoods pro cessing facility showed the greatest amount of benthic

community recovery, with many of the stati ons showing mature, infaunal deposit feeding

assemblages. Polychaetes from the family Chaetopteridae were one of the obvious

dominants at many of these stations (Figur e 3-27). Moving to the west, the type of

infaunal assemblages present at the stations just off the Trident Seafoods dock were

impossible to determine because of the minimal prism penetration or hard substratum

present; however, the retrograde effects of th e intense organic loading could be seen at

two stations in the center of the transect (Figure 3-25). The one benefit from the high

density of opportunistic taxa as the benthic community starts to recover from the organic

enrichment from the fish waste disposal is that they provide a ready food source for

higher trophic level predators (Figure 3-28).

Moving westward, once again the combined effects of the waste piles from EC Phillips

and Norquest are reflected in the group of stations that have no visible macrofauna

present (Figure 3-26); following the classic pattern of recovery with increasing distance

from the source of organic enrichment (Pearson and Rosenberg, 1978; Rhoads and

Germano, 1982, 1986), as one moves away from the cluster of azoic stations, the

appearance of Stage I followed by Stage II assemblages at slightly greater distances

occur. The deep biological reworking and mature Stage III assemblage found at the

reference station near the airport (Figure 3-29 ) is a good illustration of what the very fine

sand bottoms off these processing facilities would look like once sufficient time has

passed for complete recovery to take pla ce following cessation of organic loading.



# 3.8 O RGANISM 

# -S EDIMENT 

# I NDEX



# The spatial distribution of median OSI values throughout the study area can be seen in

Figures 3-30 to 3-31. An OSI of 6 or less (outlined in orange and red on the maps)

typically indicates that a benthic habitat has experien ced physical disturbances,

eutrophication, or excessive bioa vailable contamination in the recent past. Tracking the

same pattern of ecosystem recovery seen from the evidence provided by the successional

stage information, the oldest, inactive waste pile to the east (Alaska General Seafood)Eastern Sampling AreaAnchorageALASKAYukonTerritoryRussiaBering SeaPacific OceanArcticOceanlKetchikanN

AGS 001 AGS OLD-SE0 25 AGS OLD-SE0 50 AGS OLD-SE0 75

AGS OLD-SE1 00 AGS OLD-SE1 25

AGS OLD-SE1 50 AGS OLD-SE1 75 AGS OLD-SE2 00 AGS OLD-SE225 AGS OLD-SE2 50 AGS OLD-SE2 75 AGS OLD-SE3 00

AGS OLD-SE3 25 AGS OLD-SE3 50

AGSDock-SW 050

AGS OLD-SE3 75KetchikanTongass NarrowsSPI camera locationSurvey conducted from D/V InvaderSeptember 29 - October 2, 2003T475T250T200T150T100T050 T025TDOCK-SW025TDOCK-SW040TDOCK-SW055TDOCK-SW070TDOCK-SW085TDOCK-SW100TDOCK-SW125TDOCK-SW150TDOCK-SW175TDOCK-SW200TDOCK-SW225TDOCK-SW250TDOCK-SW275TDOCK-SW300T010MID 3-225MID 3-150MID 3-075AGS 000AGS 050AGS 100AGS 150AGSDock-SW100AGSDock-SW150AGSDock-SW200MID 1T000T175Figure 3-25. Distribution of infaunal successional stages - eastern survey area.



# 1800 m 

# Airport RunwayReference AreaWestern AreaEastern AreaI on IIII on IIII on IIIIII on IIII on IIIIIIIII on IIII on IIII on IIIII -> IIIIIIIIIIIIAzoicIIIIAzoicIIII on III0meters 40 60 8020 100



# Tongass N arrows Tongass NarrowsKetchikanKetchikanKetchikanKetchikanInternationalAirportInfaunalsuccessionalstagesAzoicStage I onlyStage IIStage III presentIndeterminateI on IIII on IIII on IIII on IIIKetchikan SPI ReportJune, 2004Western Sampling AreaNReference sampling areaECP 400-N40ECP 400-N20ECP 400ECP 500ECP 750ECP 950ECP 300ECP 250ECP 125ECP 150ECP 1MID 2ECP 025ECP 075ECP 100-N40ECP 100-N20ECP 100-AECP 100-S20ECP 100-S80NQ 0-S100NQ 0-S075NQ 0-S025NQ 001NQ 0NQ 025NQ 100NQ 125NQ 075NQ 050NQ 150NQ 0-S050ECP 100-S60ECP 100-S40ECP 100-CECP 400-S20ECP 400-S40ECP 400-S60REF 6Figure 3-26. Distribution of infaunal successional stages - western survey area.0meters 40 60 8020 100KetchikanTongass NarrowsSPI camera locationSurvey conducted from D/V InvaderSeptember 29 - October 2, 2003Tongass NarrowsKetchikanKetchikanInternationalAirport



# Airpor t Runway1800 mReference sampling areaIIIIIIIIIAzoicAzoicAzoicAzoicI on IIIII-> IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIAzoicAirport DockInfaunalsuccessionalstagesAzoicStage I onlyStage IIStage III presentIndeterminateNQ 0-S175NQ 0-S150NQ 0-S125IIIIKetchikan SPI ReportJune, 2004ECP 050I on IIII on IIINQ 0-S200

# Figure 3-27. Sediment profile image from Station AGSOld-SE275 showing no evidence

of fish waste deposits, a healthy oxidized surface layer, and tubes of Spiochaetopterus

projecting above the sediment-water interface (Scale: width of image = 14.2 cm).

Ketchikan SPI Report June, 2004

# Figure 3-28. The starfish seen in this sediment profile image from Station TDock-SW100

is feeding on the dense assemblage of opportunistic polychaetes feeding on the labile

organic matter from the fish waste discharge (Scale: width of image = 14.2 cm).

Ketchikan SPI Report June, 2004

# Figure 3-29. Evidence of a large burrow and deep bioturbation can be seen in this

sediment profile image from the reference station (REF6) located west of the

Ketchikan airport (Scale: width of image = 14.2 cm).

Ketchikan SPI Report June, 2004Eastern Sampling AreaAnchorageALASKAYukonTerritoryRussiaBering SeaPacific OceanArcticOceanlKetchikanN

AGS 00 1 AGS OLD-SE0 25 AGS OLD-SE0 50

AGS OLD-SE0 75

AGS OLD-SE1 00 AGS OLD-SE1 25

AGS OLD-SE1 50 AGS OLD-SE1 75 AGS OLD-SE2 00 AGS OLD-SE225 AGS OLD-SE2 50 AGS OLD-SE2 75 AGS OLD-SE3 00

AGS OLD-SE3 25 AGS OLD-SE3 50

AGSDock-SW 050

AGS OLD-SE3 75KetchikanTongass NarrowsSPI camera locationSurvey conducted from D/V InvaderSeptember 29 - October 2, 2003T475T250T200T150T100T050 T025TDOCK-SW025TDOCK-SW040TDOCK-SW055TDOCK-SW070TDOCK-SW085TDOCK-SW100TDOCK-SW125TDOCK-SW150TDOCK-SW175TDOCK-SW200TDOCK-SW225TDOCK-SW250TDOCK-SW275TDOCK-SW300T010MID 3-225MID 3-150MID 3-075AGS 000AGS 050AGS 100AGS 150AGSDock-SW100AGSDock-SW150AGSDock-SW200MID 1T000T175Figure 3-30. Distribution of Organism-Sediment Index values - eastern survey area.



# 1800 m 

# Airport RunwayReference AreaWestern AreaEastern AreaOrganism-SedimentIndex Values (OSI)<01-67-89-11indeterminate1111118111111111135710101099-3-381-8911-8-2-3-10meters 40 60 8020 100



# Tongass N arrows Tongass NarrowsKetchikanKetchikanKetchikanKetchikanInternationalAirportKetchikan SPI ReportJune, 2004Figure 3-31. Distribution of Organism-Sediment Index values - western survey area.0meters 40 60 8020 100KetchikanTongass NarrowsSPI camera locationSurvey conducted from D/V InvaderSeptember 29 - October 2, 2003Western Sampling AreaNTongass NarrowsKetchikanKetchikanInternationalAirport



# Airpor t Runway1800 mReference sampling area-37-3-3-3-318711-10-10-10-10666-8Airport Dock11Organism-SedimentIndex Values (OSI)<01-67-89-11indeterminateECP 400-N40ECP 400-N20ECP 400ECP 500ECP 750ECP 950ECP 300ECP 250ECP 125ECP 150ECP 1MID 2ECP 025ECP 075ECP 050ECP 100-N40ECP 100-N20ECP 100-AECP 100-S20ECP 100-S80NQ 0-S200NQ 0-S175NQ 0-S150NQ 0-S125NQ 0-S100NQ 0-S075NQ 0-S025NQ 001NQ 0NQ 025NQ 100NQ 125NQ 075NQ 050NQ 150NQ 0-S050ECP 100-S60ECP 100-S40ECP 100-CECP 400-S20ECP 400-S40ECP 400-S60REF 657Ketchikan SPI ReportApril, 2004

# June, 2004 

# 25 Ketchikan Final Report 

# showed the highest incidence of stations with OSI values exceeding +6 (Figure 3-30).

Three stations in the AGS group are still showi ng the effects of disturbance from the fish

waste discharge, just as a similar cluster of three stations showing the most disturbance is

found in the center of the stations off the Trident Seafoods dock to the west.

While OSI values could not be calculated at ma ny of the stations in the western half of

the survey area (Figure 3-31) because of the limited penetration and/or indeterminate

RPD or successional stage deter minations, the most dramatic effects and largest area of

bottom showing extremely low OSI values were once again found in the combined

footprint of the NQ and ECP piles. As before , the effects of recovery can be seen with

increasing distance away from the center of the waste piles.



# 3.9 B ENTHIC 

# C OMMUNITY 

# A NALYSES



# At the 7 stations where bottom grabs were collected, a total of 90,067 individuals were

found belonging to 391 species in 147 families and 12 phyla. Of the three major

taxonomic groups found, polychaetes were th e most abundant group present, representing

65 percent of the total abundance and only 13 percent of the total biomass. Molluscs

represented 10 percent of the total abundance but 85 percent of the total biomass. The

crustaceans were the smallest group, repres enting less than 2 percent of the total

abundance and less than 1 percent of the total biomass. The miscellaneous group was

dominated by nematodes which represented 22 percent of the total abundance. The full

dataset of taxa identified from each grab sample is presented in Appendix C and

summarized in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3. Summary of taxa recorded

in the 7 grab stations in Tong ass Narrows, Ketchikan, Alaska

G ROUP 

# T OTAL 

# N UMBER OF



# S PECIES 

# I DENTIFIED 

# T OTAL 

# N UMBER OF



# I NDIVIDUALS 

# R ECORDED 

# T OTAL



# B IOMASS 

# (g)

Polychaeta 186 58,453 165

Mollusca 95 9,349 1,103

Crustacea 89 1,164 9

Miscellaneous 21 21,101 13

Total 391 90,067 1,290



# The mean total abundance varies substantia lly across stations (Table 3-4), with the

reference station having the lowest mean a bundance, the median value for biomass, but

the highest number of species per grab. The stations with the lowest species richness

tended to have the highest abundance values (quite common benthic community profile

in response to organic enrichment).

# June, 2004 

# 26 Ketchikan Final Report 

# Table 3-4. Summary of benthic grab survey results by station

NQ 0-

S200

(n=5) NQ 150

(n=5) NQ 75

(n=5) AGS OLDSE375

(n=5) T100

(n=5) T50

(n=5) REF6

(n=5)

Mean total

abundance

(count/m 2 

# ± SD) 8,998

± 1,327 26,488

± 8,700 32,446

± 1,051 16,258

± 6,052 21,324

± 10,733 66,458

± 14,927 8,162

± 1,841

Mean total

biomass

(grams/m 2 

# ±

SD) 1,356

± 246 785

± 130 93.5

± 87.6 450

± 370 27.3

± 12.3 66.2

± 20.9 120

± 88.2

Mean

taxonomic

richness

(no. of species

per grab ± SD) 104 ± 10 127 ± 13 14 ± 2.4 121 ± 24 38 ± 12 38 ± 2.3 143 ± 17



# We examined the complete community compositions of the 35 grab samples from the 7

stations using cluster analysis . A cluster analysis of the Bray-Curtis distance metric of

4 th 

# -root transformed abundance data was used to examine assemblage similarities among

samples. Cluster analysis provides a visual summary of the results in a tree-like diagram

called a dendrogram. The distance relationships among sample pairs are also displayed in

a two dimensional MDS plot. The objective of cluster analysis is to create groups of

samples, and once samples have been linke d, it is only the average distance between

groups that is important, not i ndividual distances between sample pairs. In contrast, the

algorithm for the MDS analysis attempts to reproduce the distance relationships between

all sample pairs. It is important to note that the axes of the MDS plot will always

represent the maximum separation between samples, even if the actual Bray-Curtis

distance is small. Taken together, the MDS plot and the dendrogram can help identify

groups of similar samples. Once distinct groups of samples have b een identified, values

for the distinguishing variables can be summarized to help identify what is causing the

differences among, or similar ities within, station groups.

The first cluster analysis was performed ba sed on the Bray-Curtis distance metric of

species abundance data for all 391 species. The dendrogram (Figure 3-32) resulted in a

grouping of three sets of samples at a dist ance of 0.53. The distance relationships are also

displayed in the two dimensional MDS plot (Figure 3-33). Because the stations on the

furthest left (i.e., REF 6 and NQ 0-S200) have a greater average di stance from Station

T100 than Stations NQ 150 and AGS OLD-SE37 5, these two station pairs are somewhat

separated from one another in the MDS plot. This separation is indicated in the MDS

plot but not in the dendrogram. We also ex amined these data at the family level and

found virtually identical results for both the cluster analysis (Figure 3-34) and the MDS

plot (Figure 3-35).

# Figure 3-32. Dendrogram for cluster analysis of Bray-Curtis distance metric on species abundance

data (4th root transformed). Clusters were formed using average linkage. Sample-IDs shown

indicate the Station ID followed by the field replicate number after the period; AGS OLD-SE375

was abbreviated to SE375 for ease of labeling.

Ketchikan SPI Report June, 2004SE375.1SE375.2SE375.3SE375.4SE375.5NQ0S200.1NQ0S200.2NQ0S200.3NQ0S200.4NQ0S200.5NQ75.1NQ75.2NQ75.3NQ75.4NQ75.5NQ150.1NQ150.2NQ150.3NQ150.4NQ150.5REF6.1REF6.2REF6.3REF6.4REF6.5T50.1T50.2T50.3T50.4T50.5T100.1T100.2T100.3T100.4T100.5 

# 0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

# Figure 3-33. Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) plot illustrating in 2 dimensions the

distance relationships between samples as described by the Bray-Curtis distance metric

on the full species abundance data set (391 species). Sample-IDs shown indicate the

Station ID followed by the field replicate number after the period; AGS OLD-SE375

was abbreviated to SE375 for ease of labeling.

Ketchikan SPI Report June, 2004 

# MDS Axis 1MDS Axis 2



# -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2



# SE375.1 SE375.2 SE375.3

SE375.4

SE375.5

NQ0S200.1

NQ0S200.2 NQ0S200.3 NQ0S200.4 NQ0S200.5

NQ75.1 NQ75.2

NQ75.3 NQ75.4

NQ75.5 NQ150.1 NQ150.2 NQ150.3 NQ150.4 NQ150.5

REF6.1 REF6.2

REF6.3 REF6.4 REF6.5 T50.1 T50.2

T50.3 T50.4 T50.5 T100.1

T100.2 T100.3

T100.4

T100.5

# Figure 3-34. Dendrogram for cluster analysis of Bray-Curtis distance metric on family abundance

data (4th root transformed). Clusters were formed using average linkage. Sample-IDs shown

indicate the Station ID followed by the field replicate number after the period; AGS OLD-SE375

was abbreviated to SE375 for ease of labeling.

Ketchikan SPI Report June, 2004SE375.1SE375.2SE375.3SE375.4SE375.5NQ0S200.1NQ0S200.2NQ0S200.3NQ0S200.4NQ0S200.5NQ75.1NQ75.2NQ75.3NQ75.4NQ75.5NQ150.1NQ150.2NQ150.3NQ150.4NQ150.5REF6.1REF6.2REF6.3REF6.4REF6.5T50.1T50.2T50.3T50.4T50.5T100.1T100.2T100.3T100.4T100.5 

# 0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

# Figure 3-35. Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) plot illustrating in 2 dimensions the distance

relationships between samples as described by the Bray-Curtis distance metric on the family

abundance data set. Sample-IDs shown indicate the Station ID followed by the field replicate

number after the period; AGS OLD-SE375 was abbreviated to SE375 for ease of labeling.

Ketchikan SPI Report June, 2004 

# -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2



# SE375.1

SE375.2 SE375.3

SE375.4

SE375.5

NQ05200.1 NQ05200.2

NQ05200.3

NQ05200.4 NQ05200.5

NQ75.1 NQ75.2

NQ75.3 NQ75.4

NQ75.5 NQ150.1

NQ150.2

NQ150.3

NQ150.4 NQ150.5

REF6.1 REF6.2 REF6.3

REF6.4 REF6.5 T50.1 T50.2

T50.3 T50.4 T50.5 T100.1

T100.2 T100.3 T100.4

T100.5

MDS Axis 1MDS Axis 2

# June, 2004 

# 27 Ketchikan Final Report 

# 4.0

DISCUSSION

Tongass Narrows is a relatively narrow channel running between Gravina Island and

Revillagigedo Island in southeastern Alaska. The southeastern end of the narrows splits

into the East Channel and West Channe l around Pennock Island. At the south end of

Pennock Island, the narrows meets the norther n end of Nichols Passage. Both Tongass

Narrows and the landforms around Ketchikan we re shaped by glacial ice and erosion

thousands of years ago, and the evidence of this is still visible today in the rounded

slopes, U-shaped valleys, fjords, and exposed bedrock. The high rainfall and glacial till

or bedrock underneath Ketchikan’ s soils creates a constant source of freshwater input to

Tongass Narrows either through surface r unoff or submarine groundwater discharge.

Tongass Narrows is characterized by strong tidal currents and by steep bedrock or coarse

gravel/cobble/boulder shorelines (HDR, 2000). Lower intertidal and shallow subtidal

areas are often sandy or mixed gravel, sand, a nd shell, with varied amounts of silt (HDR,

2000). The waterway experiences strong tidal currents as indicated by the large tidal

range (Table 4-1).

Table 4-1

Tide Information for Tongass Narrows*

Extreme High Water (EHW) +20.0 ft

Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) +15.4 ft

Mean High Water (MHW) +14.5 ft

Mean Tide Level +8.0

Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) 0.0 ft

Extreme Low Water (MLW) –5.0 ft

*From: NOAA, cited in HDR (2000)



# There are two major sources of “disturbance” to the benthic ecosystem in the area

surveyed: the physical disturbance from the strong bottom currents, and the

anthropogenic disturbance from the fish waste discharges along the city’s shoreline. The

effects of both were readily apparent in the sediment profile images collected. A recent

marine habitat characterization in Tongass Narrows for the Gravina Access Project

(Pentec, 2000) characterized the subtidal margins in Tongass Narrows as “steeply sloping

bedrock or coarse gravel/cobble bottoms extendi ng from the lower intertidal zone to the

deeper, flatter center of the channel at depths of -80 to -150 ft MLLW. For the most part,

these subtidal slopes are swept by strong tid al currents and support a number of kelp and

other algal species down to depths of about -40 ft MLLW.” Because of the geology and

strong currents in the narrows, very few areas with silts or fine-grained muds exist; the

majority of the bottom sediments are characterized by cobble, rock, sand, or gravel.

# June, 2004 

# 28 Ketchikan Final Report 

# The results from this recent seafloor survey in Tongass Narrows confirmed these earlier

findings; the majority of stations surveyed were sandy or cobble bottom, and the lack of

fine-grained sediments combined with th e boundary roughness features in the images

were testimony to the effects of the strong bottom currents due to the large tidal

exchange. Given the poor sorting and high variability in sediment distributions, the

discrepancy in grain-size determination in the SPI analysis vs. the grab analysis at two of

the stations is not surprising. Because gr ain-size was determined from only one profile

image and one grab sample pe r station, occasional departures would be expected because

of the potential for high within-station variability.

Both the spatial extent and impacts of the fish waste deposits were easily documented by

SPI technology (Figures 3-16 to 3-17); accumulations of fish waste remains could be

seen anywhere from 100-300 meters away from the discharge points of the four piles

surveyed. While the diameter of the fi sh waste “footprint” on the bottom extended

almost as far as a half-kilometer in the western part of the survey (the combined

footprints of both the ECP and NQ piles), the ar ea of seafloor experiencing actual adverse

impacts from the waste deposit was much smaller than the detectable extent of the waste

products. This is in large part due to the na tural physical conditions that exist in Tongass

Narrows: the strong bottom currents which quickly disperse a large portion of the fish

waste throughout the channel to the point wher e it is quickly diluted and assimilated into

the background nutrient flux, and the additional “flushing” action caused by submarine

discharge of groundwater percolating up thro ugh the sediments. Evidence of groundwater

discharge was visible in many of the profile images (Figure 4-1). Both of these physical

actions prevent the accumulation and buildup of organic matter that would otherwise

cause a severe oxygen demand on the bottom wa ters and lead to widespread hypoxia or

anoxia; in this sense, the physical conditions off Ketchikan are ideal as far as minimizing

potential impacts from the fish processing waste discharge.

A much more accurate picture of the area of seafloor actually experiencing adverse

impacts from the fish waste discharge is provide d by maps showing the stations affected

by high sediment-oxygen demand (Figures 3- 22 to 3-23), which covers a much smaller

area than that affected by fish waste de posits (Figures 3-16 to 3-17). A total of

approximately 9.6 acres of bottom among the 4 areas surveyed (Table 3-2) could be

considered “stressed” and of compromised quality because of the fish waste discharge.

The relatively small area affected by high SOD at the no longer active Alaska General

Seafoods discharge site is a good indicator of how rapidly the area would recover if

discharge operations were ever terminated.

The biological communities documented follow the classic pattern of benthic community

recovery in response to organic enrichment (Pearson and Rosenberg, 1978; Figure 4-2).

While the stations right at “ground zero” we re covered with decomposing fish waste and

apparently azoic, there were opportunistic Stage 1 assemblages immediately adjacent to

these azoic stations (Figures 3-25 to 3-26) as one moved 50-100 meters away from the

# Figure 4-1. Sediment profile image from Station ECP100-80S; a plume of freshwater

emanating from beneath the sediment water interface from submarine groundwater discharge

is evident in the left half of this image; the shimmering, distorted quality of the sediment

grains toward the left edge of the picture is caused by the different index of refraction of the

freshwater mixing in with the saltwater (Scale: width of image = 14.2 cm).

Ketchikan SPI Report June, 2004Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Depth (cm) Depth (cm)01230123Figure 4-2. Soft-bottom benthic community response to disturbance (top panel) or organic enrichment (bottom panel).From Rhoads and Germano, 1982.Physical DisturbanceTimeNormalGrossly PollutedDistanceNormalAB



# Ketchikan SPI Report June, 2004

# June, 2004 

# 29 Ketchikan Final Report 

# source of organic enrichment. Even though oxyg en levels at some of these stations with

Stage I assemblages are somewhat depressed (as evidenced by the presence of reduced

sediments or Beggiatoa colonies), they still serve as important foraging areas for higher

trophic predators (crabs, demers al fish) because of the high density of readily-available

prey (Becker and Chew, 1987; Diaz and Rosenberg, 1995; EVS, 2001).

The grab data provided some quantitative results on just how dense these populations of

Stage I opportunists were in Tongass Narrows (Table 3-4); in fact, these opportunistic

species were the numerically dominant taxa in all the samples. The high biomass

numbers at all stations (with the exception of REF6; Table 3-4; see also Appendix C)

were primarily due to contributions by Molluscs (especially the opportunist, Parvilucina

tenuisculpta , a venerid bivalve that is typically an “indicator species” in many outfall

impact studies and is found commonly in areas with high organic loading or low-oxygen

basins and fjords). A closer look at the cluster analysis and MDS results (Figures 3-32 to

3-35) reveals the basis for the between station differences. The Bray-Curtis similarities

among Stations REF6, AGS OLD-SE375, NQ O-S200, and NQ150 are quite strong

(within-group distance of 0.49), so these 4 stations were treated as one group.

The MDS axes themselves simply represent distance, but the variables driving the

distance relationships illustrated in the plot (Figure 3-33) can be identified using

correlations between the MDS axes and the orig inal variables. MDS axis 1 is strongly

negatively correlated with richness, both in terms of species counts and family counts per

sample, so that richness is highest for the samples on the left and lowest for the samples

on the right. Neither MDS axis showed a monotonic relationship with abundance values

by species, family, or phylum. While MDS axis 2 is positively correlated with percent

total organic carbon (TOC), the three groups id entified by the cluster analysis mainly

represent assemblage differences along the successional continuum represented in Figure

4-2. A summary of taxonomic endpoints, and several SPI and physical characteristics for

these groups is presented in Table 4-1.

# June, 2004 

# 30 Ketchikan Final Report 

# Table 4-1. Mean values of benthic community endpoints, SPI and physical

characteristics for cluster analysis groups

Stations: REF6, AGS OLDSE375,

NQ 0-S200, NQ150 T100,

T50 NQ 75

Group: G ROUP 

# 1 G ROUP 

# 2 G ROUP 

# 3

A BUNDANCE 

# (counts/m 2 

# )

Total Polychaetes 9,117 32,321 15,798

Armandia brevis 3,584 18,314 264

Capitella capitata 60 11,897 15,180

Total Molluscs 4,504 298 88

Parvilucina tenuisculpta 2,040 85 68

Total Crustaceans 494 170 14

Total Miscellaneous 863 11,102 16,546

Nematoda sp. 454 10,983 16,510

Total Abundance 14,977 43,891 32,446

T AXON RICHNESS 

# (no. of

species per sample)

Polychaetes 68 23 7.6

Molluscs 31 7.9 2.4

Crustaceans 18 4.2 1.4

Total Richness 124 38 14

B IOMASS 

# (grams/m 2 

# )

Polychaetes 55 41 73

Molluscs 609 4.0 19

Crustaceans 7.6 0.21 0.05

Miscellaneous 5.0 1.8 1.9

Total Biomass 677 47 93

SPI AND 

# P HYSICAL 

# P ARAMETERS



# RPD 5.4 4.3 0

TOC (%) 1.5 2.7 0.93

% Fines 13.2 7.0 5.1



# The key features of the groups (Table 4-1) are as follows:

 Group 1 had the highest mean richne ss (124 species per sample) and the

lowest mean abundance. Biomass va lues were high due to a few very

large individuals. This group had the largest percent abundance of

molluscs and crustaceans, and the lowest percent abundance of the

# June, 2004 

# 31 Ketchikan Final Report 

# dominant species C. capitata and Nematoda sp. The “high richness/low

abundance” profile is typical of bent hic communities recovering toward

the right end of the continuum shown in Figure 4-2, a late Stage II or a

Stage I on III assemblage (deposit-feeding taxa present with a secondary

settlement of opportunists due to the organic loading in the region).

 Group 2 had intermediate mean richne ss (38 species per sample) and the

highest mean abundance. The dominant species C. capitata

, A. brevis , and

Nematoda sp. were abundant in these samples. This profile is typical of a

“late Stage I/early Stage II” successional assemblage (Figure 4-2).

 Group 3 had the lowest mean richness (14 species per sample) but with

very high abundance comprised nearly exclusively of the dominant

species C. capitata and Nematoda sp. This is the classic “Stage I

opportunists” assemb lage illustrated by the le ft end of the continuum

shown in Figure 4-2.

The results from the benthic community taxonomic identifications served as valid ground

truth confirmations of the SP I successional stage designati ons: Group 1 stations were all

designated as Stage II or Stage I on III; Group 2 stations were both designated as Stage II

assemblages, and Group 3 (Station NQ75) was designated as Stage I.

The field replicates from each station grouped tightly together, with only a few

exceptions. The fifth repli cate from station AGS OLD-SE375 (identified as SE375.5 in

Figure 3-32) was somewhat distinct from the other replicates from this station due to

lower abundance for Armandia brevis (a non-selective deposit f eeder)and nematodes, and

fewer numbers of species (81 compared to an average of 131 per sample in the other field

replicates from this station). Field repli cates 3 and 5 from Station T100 (identified as

T100.3 and T100.5 on the figure) were also fairly distinct from the other replicates at this

station due to lower abundance of Capitella capitata and nematodes, and assemblages

dominated by polychaetes (90% and 95% of to tal abundance, respectively). Of the field

reps at this station, field rep 3 has the high est richness with 56 species and field rep 5 has

the lowest with only 24 species and lacks any crustacean species entirely.

The ten numerically dominant species, in decreasing order of dominance, are: Armandia

brevis

, Nematoda sp. indet., Capitella capitata 'hyperspecie, Parvilucina tenuisculpta

, Acila castrensis

, Prionospio steenstrupi

, Axinopsida serricata

, Galathowenia oculata

, Lumbrineridae sp. indet./juv., Phyllodoce hartmanae ). This selection of 10 species is

arbitrary; the first three species listed above (all Stage I opportunists) each contributed

over 20% to the total abundance in all stations, P. tenuisculpta (another Stage I

opportunist) contributed just under 5%, and the remaining six dominant species each

contributed between 1.4% and 0.9%. The rema ining 381 species in the species list each

contributed less than 0.7% to the total abundance in all stations; in other words, the high

# June, 2004 

# 32 Ketchikan Final Report 

# species richness was due to a high number of “r are individuals”, i.e., taxa represented by

just one or a few individuals.

Secondary cluster analyses were performed using the family abundance data (Figures 3-

34 and 3-35) as well as the ten numerically dominant species. The dendrogram and MDS

plots for these analyses resulted in generally the same conclusions as above, illustrating

how important these dominant species are at di stinguishing among samples. The results

based on the 10 dominant species indicated less of a distinction between Groups 1 and 2,

because their separation is due to the mu ch greater richness values for the Group 1

samples. One important lesson learned from th ese additional analyses of the benthic data

at the family level is as follows: any future monitoring for examining the impacts of fish

waste discharges in Tongass Narrows th at requires traditional benthic community

sampling can be done at a significant cost savings with taxononomic identifications

carried out to family level only. Similar conclusions have been reached in numerous

environmental monitoring investigations that require traditional benthic community

analyses (e.g., Chessman, B.C. 1995; Ellis, D. 1985; Ferraro, S.P. & F.A. Cole. 1990,

1992, 1995; Kingston and Riddle 1989; Marchant et al, 1995; Olsgard et al, 1997;

Warwick, 1988a, 1988b, 1993).

While we stated earlier that the two main sour ces of disturbance in this area were the

strong physical currents and the discharge of salmon waste, one could also argue that

these are not, in fact, “disturbances,” but rath er variations on natural system inputs. The

strong tidal currents are what shape the bottom in Tongass Narrows as well as determine

what sediments can reside there. The biological communities on this rocky and sandy

bottom have adapted to living in this extreme physical regime, so to consider the strong

currents a “disturbance” is somewhat of a misnomer: they are a natural part of this

submarine fjord environment, and their presence is the main basis for the assimilative

capacity of Tongass Narrows that can handle the high levels of organic loading from the

fish waste discharge. The low TOC concentr ations found in the sediment grab samples

despite the enormous volumes of fish waste discharged in the area are testimony to the

mitigating effects of these tidal currents.

The discharge and accumulation of salmon wast e in areas off Ketchikan could also be

considered “part of the natural background” a nd a part of nutrient cycling that normally

takes place in the Tongass Narrows benthic eco system. Each year, thousands of salmon

travel up Tongass Narrows and in the associated freshwater streams and creeks for

spawning (Lewis Reef Creek, Government Creek, and Clam Clove on Gravina Island,

and Hoadley Creek, Ketchikan Creek, Carlanna Creek, and Ward Cove and Creek on

Revillagigedo Island, to name a few); the presence of decomposing salmon flesh on large

areas of the bottom are a normal part of the ecosystem landscape. The “disturbance” or

“anomalies” from the fish wast e processing discharges compared with this normal cycle

of salmon spawning and die-off are that the processing plant wastes are:

# June, 2004 

# 33 Ketchikan Final Report 

# a). focused with abnormally high load s over a relatively small area, and

b). occurring over a much longer time frame than the one-time seasonal pulse of salmon

spawning.

However, the strong tidal currents combined with a system pre-adapted to recycle the

nutrients from this decomposing organic input work together to limit the area of bottom

that is showing signs of adverse effects. This combination of factors also will enhance the

recovery process, as evidenced by the recolonization that has already occurred at the

areas off the inactive Trident Seafoods and Alaska General Seafoods facilities (compare

Figure 3-30 to Figure 3-31). If the fish pr ocessing plants ever ceased operations, we

would expect that the effects caused by the waste discharge on the benthic ecosystem

would disappear over time, and the benthic community would recover within 5-10 years

with few adverse effects remaining from th ese point sources of organic loading.

# June, 2004 

# 34 Ketchikan Final Report 

# 5.0

REFERENCES CITED

Aller, J.Y. and I. Stupakoff. 1996. The distribution and seasonal characteristics of

benthic communities on the Amazon shelf as indicators of physical processes. Cont.

Shelf Res. 16: 717-751.

Becker, D.S. and K.K. Chew. 1987. Predation on Capitella spp. by small-mouthed

pleuronectids in Puget Sound. Fisheries Bulletin 85: 471-479.

Chessman, B.C. 1995. Rapid asse ssment of rivers using macroinvertebrates: A procedure

based on habitat specif ic sampling, family le vel identification, a nd a biotic index.

Australian Journal of Ecology 20: 122-129.

Diaz, R.J. and R. Rosenberg. 1995. Marine be nthic hypoxia: A review of its ecological

effects and the behavioural responses of benthic macrofauna. Oceanography and

Marine Biology: an Annual Review 33: 245-303

Ellis, D. 1985. Taxonomic sufficiency in pollu tion assessment. Mari ne Pollution Bulletin

16: 459.

EVS, 2001. Silver Bay Baseline Environmental Monitoring, Sitka, Alaska. Final Report:

Baseline Characterization. Report for the City and Borough of Sitka, EVS Project No.

23-1015-01. February, 2001.

Faith, D.P., P.R. Minchin, and L. Belbi n. 1987. Compositional dissimilarity as a robust

measure of ecological distance. Vegetatio 69:57-68.

Faith, D.P., C.L. Humphrey and P.L. Dostin e. 1991. Statistical power and BACI designs

in biological monitoring: comparative evaluation of measures of community

dissimilarity based on benthic macroinvertebrate communities in Rockhole Mine

Creek, Northern Territory, Australia. Austral. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 421:589-602.

Ferraro, S.P. & F.A. Cole. 1990. Taxonomic leve l and sample size sufficient for assessing

pollution impacts on the Southern Californi a Bight macrobenthos. Marine Ecology

Progress Series 67: 251-262

Ferraro, S.P. & F.A. Cole. 1992. Taxonomic le vel sufficient for assessing a moderate

impact on macrobenthic communities in Pu get Sound, Washington, USA. Canadian.

Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Science 49:1184-1188.

Ferraro, S.P. & F.A. Cole. 1995. Taxonomic level and sample size sufficient for

assessing pollution impacts on the Southern California Bight macr obenthos - revisted.

# June, 2004 

# 35 Ketchikan Final Report 

# Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 14: 1031-1040.

Fredette, T.J., W.F. Bohlen, D.C. Rhoa ds, and R.W. Morton. 1988. Erosion and

resuspension effects of Hurricane Gloria at Long Island Sound dredged material

disposal sites. In: Proceedings of the Water Quality ‘88 seminar, February Meeting,

Charleston, South Carolina. U.S. Army Co rps of Engineers, Hydraulic Engineering

Center, Davis, CA.

Germano, J.D. 1983. Infaunal succession in Long Island Sound: Animal-sediment

interactions and the effects of predation. Ph.D. disserta tion. Yale University, New

Haven, CT. 206 pp.

Germano, J.D. and D.C. Rhoads. 1984. RE MOTS sediment profiling at the Field

Verification Program (FVP) Di sposal Site. In: Dredging '84 Proceedings, ASCE,

Nov. 14-16, Clearwater, FL. pp. 536-544.

HDR, 2000. Ketchikan 2020. Existing Conditions Report. Resource Inventory per ACC

Section 85.050 of the Alaska Coastal Manage ment Program. Prepared for Ketchikan

Gateway Borough, April, 2000.

Huettel, M., W. Ziebis, and S. Forster. 1996. Flow-induced uptake of particulate matter in

permeable sediments. Limnol. Oceanogr. 41: 309-322.

Karakassis, I, M. Tsapakis, C.J. Smith, a nd H. Rumohr. 2002. Fish farming impacts in the

Mediterranean studied through sediment profiling imagery. Marine Ecology Progress

Series 227: 125-133.

Kennish, M.J. 1986. Ecology of estuaries. Vol. I: Physical and chemical aspects.

CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Kingston, P.F. and M.J. Riddle. 1989. Cost e ffectiveness of benthic faunal monitoring.

Marine Pollution Bulletin 20: 490-496.

Marchant, R., Barmuta, L.A. and B. C. Chessman. 1995. Influence of sample

quantification and taxonomic resolution on the ordination of macroinvertebrate

communities from running waters in Victoria , Australia. Marine Freshwater Research

Journal 46: 501-506.

Nilsson, H.C. and R. Rosenberg. 1997. Benthic habitat quality assessment of an oxygen

stressed fjord by surface and sediment prof ile images. Journal of Marine Systems 11:

249-264.

Olsgard, F., Somerfield, P.J. and M.R. Carr. 1997. Relationships between taxonomic

resolution and data transforma tions in analyses of a macrobenthic community along

# June, 2004 

# 36 Ketchikan Final Report 

# an established pollution gradient. Mari ne Ecology Progress Series 149: 173-181.

Pearson, T.H. and R. Rosenberg. 1978. Macrob enthic succession in relation to organic

enrichment and pollution of the marine e nvironment. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann.

Rev. 16:229-311.

Pentec, 2000. Gravina Access Project Phas e I Marine Reconnaissance Technical

Memorandum. Prepared for Alaska Depar tment of Transpor tation and Public

Facilities under contract to HDR, Juneau, AK. Agreement No. 36893013.

DOT&PF Project No. 67698. April, 2000.

Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team (PSWQAT). 1997. Recommended guidelines

for sampling marine sediment, water colum n, and tissue in Puget Sound. Prepared for

US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle WA. Available at

http://www.psat.wa.gov/Publications /protocols/protocol_pdfs/field.pdf

Purdy, M. 1964. Sediments as substrates, pp 238-271 In: J. Imbrie and N. Newell (eds).

Approaches to paleoecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. 432 pp.

Revelas, E.C., J.D. Germa no, and D.C. Rhoads. 1987. REMOTS reconnaissance of

benthic environments. pp. 2069-2083. In: Coastal Zone ‘87 Proceedings, ASCE,

WW Division, May 26-29, Seattle, WA.

Rhoads, D.C. 1974. Organism-sediment rela tions on the muddy seafloor. Oceanogr.

Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 12: 263-300.

Rhoads, D.C. and L.F. Boyer. 1982. The effects of marine benthos on physical

properties of sediments. pp. 3-52. In: Animal-Sediment Re lations. McCall, P.L. and

M.J.S. Tevesz (eds). Ple num Press, New York, NY.

Rhoads, D.C. and J.D. Germano. 1982. Char acterization of benthic processes using

sediment profile imaging: An efficient method of remote ecological monitoring of

the seafloor (REMOTS TM System). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 8:115-128.

Rhoads, D.C. and J.D. Germano. 1986. Inte rpreting long-term changes in benthic

community structure: A new pr otocol. Hydrobiologia. 142:291-308.

Rhoads, D.C. and J.D. Germano. 1990. The use of REMOTS ® 

# imaging technology for

disposal site selection and monitoring. pp. 50-64. In: Geotechnical Engineering of

Ocean Waste Disposal, K. Demars and R. Chaney (eds). ASTM Symposium

Volume, January, 1989. Orlando, FL.

# June, 2004 

# 37 Ketchikan Final Report 

# Rice, D.L. and D.C. Rhoads. 1989. Early diagenesis of organic matter and the

nutritional value of sediment. pp. 59-97. In: Ecology of Marine Deposit Feeders,

Vol. 31, Lecture notes on coastal and estuarine deposit feeders. Lopez, G., G. Tagon,

and J. Levinton, (eds.). Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.

Rosenberg, R. and R.J. Diaz. 1993. Sulphur bacteria ( Beggiatoa spp.) mats indicate

hypoxic conditions in the Inner Stockhold Archipelago. Ambio 22: 22-36.

Rosenberg, R., H.C. Nilsson, and R.J. Di az. 2001. Response of benthic fauna and

changing sediment redox profiles over a hy poxic gradient. Estuarine, Coastal and

Shelf Science 53: 343-350.

Tyson, R. V. and T. H. Pearson. 1991. Modern and ancient continental shelf anoxia: An

overview, pp 1-24 In: R.V. Tyson and T.H. Pearson (eds). Modern and ancient

continental shelf anoxia. Geological Society of London Special Publication #58. 470

pp.

Valente, R.M., D.C. Rhoads, J.D. Germano, and V.J. Cabelli. 1992. Mapping of benthic

enrichment patterns in Narragans ett Bay, RI. Estuaries 15:1-17.

Warwick, R.M. 1988a. The level of taxonomic discr imination required to detect pollution

effects on marine benthic communities. Marine Pollution Bulletin 19: 259-268.

Warwick, R.M. 1988b. Analysis of community attributes of the macrobenthos of

Frierfjord/Langesundfjord at taxonomic levels higher than species. Marine

Ecology Progress Series 46: 167-170.

Warwick, R.M. 1993. Environmental impact studi es on marine communities: pragmatical

considerations. Australian Journal of Ecology 18: 63-80.

# A PPENDIX 

# A

Sediment Profile Image Analysis ResultsStation Name DATE TIMECalibrationfactorPenetration Area(cm^2)MeanPenetration(cm)MinimumPenetration(cm)MaximumPenetration(cm)BoundaryRoughness(cm)GrnSizeMAJORMode(phi)GrainSize Max(phi)GrainSize Min(phi) RPD AreaAGS OLD SE100 B 9/30/03 16:47:35 14.19 89.18 6.29 5.36 6.64 1.28 3-2 0 >4 41.57 2.93AGS OLD SE125 A 9/30/03 16:49:14 14.19 106.11 7.48 6.22 8.77 2.55 3-2 0 >4 74.35 5.24AGS OLD SE150 B 9/30/03 17:18:15 14.19 120.48 8.49 7.03 9.55 2.53 4-3 0 >4 56.97 4.02AGS OLD SE175 A 9/30/03 17:19:39 14.19 98.66 6.95 6.05 7.55 1.50 4-3 0 >4 62.70 4.42AGS OLD SE200 A 9/30/03 17:22:14 14.19 110.61 7.80 7.19 8.25 1.06 3-2 0 >4 52.94 3.73AGS OLD SE225 A 9/30/03 17:24:44 14.19 102.26 7.21 6.25 7.80 1.55 3-2 0 >4 59.50 4.19AGS OLD SE25 A 9/30/03 16:37:12 14.19 55.17 3.89 2.64 6.25 3.61 4-3 0 >4 0.00 0.00AGS OLD SE250 A 9/30/03 17:27:26 14.19 133.56 9.41 8.33 10.02 1.69 3-2 0 >4 52.07 3.67AGS OLD SE275 A 9/30/03 17:55:56 14.19 82.49 5.81 5.11 6.44 1.33 3-2 0 >4 82.49 > 5.81AGS OLD SE300 B 9/30/03 17:59:14 14.19 88.68 6.25 4.50 8.69 4.19 4-3 0 >4 51.09 3.60AGS OLD SE325 B 9/30/03 18:01:20 14.19 133.57 9.41 9.02 9.58 0.56 3-2 0 >4 80.72 5.69AGS OLD SE350 A 9/30/03 18:03:35 14.19 74.46 5.25 4.75 5.75 1.00 4-3 0 >4 74.46 > 5.25AGS OLD SE375 A 9/30/03 18:05:57 14.19 119.12 8.40 8.08 8.77 0.69 4-3 0 >4 97.66 6.88Mean RPD(cm)Station Name DATE TIMECalibrationfactorPenetration Area(cm^2)MeanPenetration(cm)MinimumPenetration(cm)MaximumPenetration(cm)BoundaryRoughness(cm)GrnSizeMAJORMode(phi)GrainSize Max(phi)GrainSize Min(phi) RPD AreaMean RPD(cm)AGS OLD SE50 A 9/30/03 16:40:09 14.19 57.43 4.05 2.64 5.36 2.72 3-2 0 >4 0.00 0.00AGS OLD SE50 B 9/30/03 16:41:21 14.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA 3-2 0 >4 IndndeterminatAGS OLD SE75 B 9/30/03 16:44:22 14.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA 3-2 0 >4 IndndeterminatAGS 0 B 9/30/03 15:28:02 14.19 24.54 1.73 1.25 2.97 1.72 3-2 0 >4 IndIndeterminateAGS 1 A 9/30/03 15:15:14 14.19 65.75 4.63 3.19 5.44 2.25 4-3 0 >4 0.00 0.00AGS 100 B 9/30/03 15:42:05 14.19 32.63 2.30 1.36 3.08 1.72 3-2 0 >4 32.63 > 2.30AGS 150 A 9/30/03 15:43:35 14.19 33.97 2.39 1.56 3.03 1.47 3-2 0 >4 33.97 > 2.39AGS 50 B 9/30/03 15:35:37 14.19 86.85 6.12 5.25 6.58 1.33 3-2 0 >4 86.85 > 6.12AGS DOCK SW100 A9/30/03 14:58:10 14.19 87.22 6.15 5.75 7.30 1.55 Ind Ind Ind IndIndeterminateAGS DOCK SW150 B9/30/03 15:04:45 14.19 56.58 3.99 2.36 4.64 2.28 3-2 1 >4 IndIndeterminateAGS DOCK SW200 A9/30/03 15:09:53 14.19 58.77 4.14 3.75 4.64 0.89 3-2 1 >4 58.77 > 4.14AGS DOCK SW50 B9/30/03 14:53:54 14.19 38.19 2.69 2.11 2.94 0.83 4-3 0 >4 0.00 0.00ECP 1 B 9/29/03 16:36:34 14.19 108.92 7.68 6.72 8.44 1.72 >4 0 >4 0.00 0.00ECP 100 20N A 9/29/03 18:12:33 14.19 38.84 2.74 2.14 3.28 1.14 3-2 0 >4 IndIndeterminateECP 100 20S A 9/29/03 18:20:06 14.19 36.36 2.56 1.94 3.42 1.47 3-2 0 >4 IndIndeterminateStation Name DATE TIMECalibrationfactorPenetration Area(cm^2)MeanPenetration(cm)MinimumPenetration(cm)MaximumPenetration(cm)BoundaryRoughness(cm)GrnSizeMAJORMode(phi)GrainSize Max(phi)GrainSize Min(phi) RPD AreaMean RPD(cm)ECP 100 40N A 9/29/03 18:15:06 14.19 39.93 2.81 2.00 3.44 1.44 3-2 0 >4 IndIndeterminateECP 100 40S A 9/29/03 18:26:58 14.19 31.66 2.23 1.08 3.80 2.72 4-3 1 >4 IndIndeterminateECP 100 60S B 9/29/03 18:38:05 14.19 40.00 2.82 2.33 3.17 0.83 4-3 1 >4 24.59 1.73ECP 100 80S A 9/29/03 18:42:16 14.19 29.16 2.06 1.22 2.72 1.50 3-2 1 >4 29.16 > 2.06ECP 100 A 9/29/03 18:05:48 14.19 42.85 3.02 2.53 3.55 1.03 3-2 -3 >4 IndIndeterminateECP 100 C 9/30/03 11:04:27 14.19 59.53 4.20 3.42 4.80 1.39 4-3 1 >4 59.53 > 4.20ECP 125 A 9/30/03 11:09:09 14.19 45.24 3.19 2.03 4.25 2.22 3-2 -3 >4 45.24 > 3.19ECP 150 B 9/30/03 11:14:41 14.19 50.57 3.56 2.53 4.11 1.58 3-2 -3 >4 IndIndeterminateECP 25 A 9/30/03 8:33:53 14.19 129.79 9.15 8.19 9.97 1.78 Ind Ind Ind 0.00 0.00ECP 250 B 9/29/03 17:59:52 14.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA -4.00 -6 0.00 IndIndeterminateECP 300 B 9/29/03 17:54:57 14.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA Ind Ind Ind IndIndeterminateECP 400 B 9/29/03 17:16:12 14.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA -4.00 -6 >4 IndIndeterminateECP 400 N20 A 9/29/03 17:39:21 14.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA -4.00 -6 >4 IndIndeterminateECP 400 N40 B 9/29/03 17:43:41 14.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA -2.00 -6 >4 IndIndeterminateECP 400 S20 B 9/29/03 17:35:59 14.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA -4.00 -6 0.00 IndIndeterminateECP 400 S40 B 9/29/03 17:31:34 14.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA -2.00 -6 >4 IndIndeterminateStation Name DATE TIMECalibrationfactorPenetration Area(cm^2)MeanPenetration(cm)MinimumPenetration(cm)MaximumPenetration(cm)BoundaryRoughness(cm)GrnSizeMAJORMode(phi)GrainSize Max(phi)GrainSize Min(phi) RPD AreaMean RPD(cm)ECP 400 S60 C 9/29/03 17:24:33 14.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA -7.00 -7 -7.00 IndIndeterminateECP 50 A 9/30/03 8:37:32 14.19 78.07 5.50 5.11 5.86 0.75 4-3 1 >4 0.00 0.00ECP 500 A 9/29/03 17:08:06 14.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA Ind Ind Ind IndIndeterminateECP 75 A 9/30/03 8:42:15 14.19 54.90 3.87 2.80 4.64 1.83 3-2 1 >4 IndIndeterminateECP 75 B 9/30/03 8:44:17 14.19 36.73 2.59 1.39 3.83 2.44 4-3 1 >4 IndIndeterminateECP 750 B 9/29/03 17:02:15 14.19 11.87 0.84 0.42 1.42 1.00 3-2 -3 >4 IndIndeterminateECP 950 B 9/29/03 16:52:15 14.19 19.06 1.34 1.00 1.72 0.72 -2 - -3/1-0 -3 >4 IndIndeterminateGRV 1 A 10/2/03 9:45:20 14.19 46.25 3.26 2.25 4.08 1.83 3-2 0 >4 46.25 > 3.26GRV 1 B 10/2/03 9:46:48 14.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA 1-0 -1 >4 IndIndeterminateGRV 1 C 10/2/03 9:47:41 14.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA 3-2 0 >4 IndIndeterminateGRV 2 B 10/2/03 9:52:41 14.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA Ind Ind Ind IndIndeterminateGRV 2 C 10/2/03 9:53:25 14.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA Ind Ind Ind IndIndeterminateGRV 3 A 10/2/03 9:58:26 14.19 64.74 4.56 4.11 5.28 1.17 3-2 0 >4 46.21 3.26GRV 3 B 10/2/03 9:59:23 14.19 121.01 8.53 7.50 9.05 1.56 3-2 0 >4 80.20 5.65GRV 3 C 10/2/03 10:00:22 14.19 58.00 4.09 3.22 4.66 1.44 3-2 0 >4 IndIndeterminateMID 1 B 9/29/03 15:41:33 14.19 63.80 4.50 3.86 4.91 1.06 3-2 0 >4 49.18 3.47MID 2 A 9/29/03 16:40:59 14.19 55.75 3.93 2.72 4.80 2.08 Ind Ind Ind 0.00 0.00MID 3 150 A 9/30/03 16:12:06 14.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA Ind Ind Ind IndIndeterminateMID 3 225 B 9/30/03 16:25:44 14.19 34.55 2.43 1.31 3.30 2.00 2-1 0 >4 0.00 0.00MID 3 75 A 9/30/03 16:02:43 14.19 34.25 2.41 1.86 2.86 1.00 3-2 0 >4 19.40 1.37NQO B 9/30/03 9:18:59 14.19 303.77 21.41 21.33 21.33 NA Ind Ind 0.00 0.000.00NQO S100 B 9/30/03 9:51:36 14.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA Ind Ind Ind IndIndeterminateStation Name DATE TIMECalibrationfactorPenetration Area(cm^2)MeanPenetration(cm)MinimumPenetration(cm)MaximumPenetration(cm)BoundaryRoughness(cm)GrnSizeMAJORMode(phi)GrainSize Max(phi)GrainSize Min(phi) RPD AreaMean RPD(cm)NQO S125 B 9/30/03 10:17:58 14.19 45.92 3.24 2.55 3.78 1.22 3-2 0 >4 IndIndeterminateNQO S150 A 9/30/03 10:21:17 14.19 49.32 3.48 1.94 5.53 3.58 4-3 1 >4 49.32 > 3.48NQO S175 A 9/30/03 10:39:03 14.19 56.17 3.96 3.47 4.50 1.03 4-3 0 >4 56.17 > 3.96NQO S200 A 9/30/03 10:44:01 14.19 86.53 6.10 5.80 6.58 0.78 3-2 0 >4 86.53 > 6.10NQO S25 B 9/30/03 9:38:47 14.19 50.56 3.56 2.50 4.61 2.11 2-1 0 >4 0.00 0.00NQO S50 A 9/30/03 9:41:43 14.19 3.57 0.25 0.00 0.61 0.61 1-0 -4 >4 IndIndeterminateNQO S75 B 9/30/03 9:47:52 14.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA Ind Ind Ind IndIndeterminateNQ1 A 9/29/03 16:27:27 14.19 28.99 2.04 1.42 2.42 1.00 3-2 -2 >4 0.00 0.00NQ100 B 9/30/03 8:59:4314.19 62.22 4.38 2.11 5.25 3.14 4-3 0 >4 0.00 0.00NQ125 A 9/30/03 10:01:0014.19 95.14 6.71 6.16 7.41 1.25 4-3 1 >4 0.00 0.00NQ150 A 9/30/03 10:06:4514.19 51.66 3.64 3.00 4.33 1.33 4-3 0 >4 33.98 2.39NQ150 B 9/30/03 10:07:5014.19 41.45 2.92 1.89 3.83 1.94 4-3 1 >4 41.45 > 2.92NQ25 B 9/30/03 9:12:41 14.19 181.75 12.81 12.05 13.36 1.31 Ind Ind >4 0.00 0.00NQ50 B 9/30/03 9:08:44 14.19 39.01 2.75 2.25 3.47 1.22 4-3 1 >4 0.00 0.00NQ75 A 9/30/03 9:03:04 14.19 63.09 4.45 4.00 4.66 0.67 4-3 1 >4 0.00 0.00NQO A 9/30/03 9:18:03 14.19 303.96 21.42 21.35 21.35 NA Ind Ind >4 0.00 0.00REF 1 C 9/29/03 13:48:45 14.19 20.88 1.47 0.75 2.19 1.44 3-2 0 >4 20.88 > 1.47Station Name DATE TIMECalibrationfactorPenetration Area(cm^2)MeanPenetration(cm)MinimumPenetration(cm)MaximumPenetration(cm)BoundaryRoughness(cm)GrnSizeMAJORMode(phi)GrainSize Max(phi)GrainSize Min(phi) RPD AreaMean RPD(cm)REF 2 B 9/29/03 14:16:31 14.19 31.78 2.24 1.58 3.00 1.42 2-1 -1 >4 31.78 > 2.24REF 2 C 9/29/03 14:17:18 14.19 35.13 2.48 1.72 2.97 1.25 2-1 0 >4 35.13 > 2.48REF 3 A 9/29/03 14:52:23 14.19 145.32 10.24 9.89 10.77 0.89 >4 0 >4 101.68 7.17REF 3 B 9/29/03 14:53:11 14.19 108.48 7.65 6.91 8.80 1.89 >4 -2 >4 IndIndeterminateREF 3 C 9/29/03 14:53:54 14.19 143.94 10.14 8.39 10.77 2.39 >4 0 >4 IndIndeterminateREF 4 A 10/2/03 10:22:52 14.19 92.04 6.49 5.00 7.75 2.75 -3.00 -5 >4 IndIndeterminateREF 4 B 10/2/03 10:23:37 14.19 89.58 6.31 3.28 10.05 6.78 4-3 0 >4 IndIndeterminateREF 4 C 10/2/03 10:24:23 14.19 53.03 3.74 2.61 4.53 1.92 4-3 -2 >4 53.03 > 3.74REF 5 A 10/2/03 10:29:09 14.19 90.59 6.38 4.64 7.72 3.08 4-3 -2 >4 90.59 > 6.38REF 5 C 10/2/03 10:31:19 14.19 71.55 5.04 4.47 5.55 1.08 4-3 -2 >4 71.55 > 5.04REF 5 D 10/2/03 10:32:10 14.19 74.34 5.24 4.08 5.94 1.86 4-3 -2 >4 74.34 > 5.24REF 6 A 10/2/03 11:11:48 14.19 87.60 6.17 5.80 6.39 0.58 3-2 0 >4 87.60 > 6.17REF 6 B 10/2/03 11:13:49 14.19 88.00 6.20 5.08 7.05 1.97 3-2 0 >4 88.00 > 6.20REF 6 C 10/2/03 11:14:48 14.19 84.64 5.96 5.53 6.30 0.78 3-2 0 >4 84.64 > 5.96T0 B 9/29/03 15:32:56 14.19 23.16 1.63 1.06 2.03 0.97 4-3 -3 >4 0.00 0.00T10 B 9/29/03 15:54:53 14.19 24.28 1.71 1.14 2.11 0.97 4-3 -1 >4 0.00 0.00T100 A 9/30/03 13:54:34 14.19 89.466.31 5.69 7.05 1.36 3-2 0 >4 55.37 3.90Station Name DATE TIMECalibrationfactorPenetration Area(cm^2)MeanPenetration(cm)MinimumPenetration(cm)MaximumPenetration(cm)BoundaryRoughness(cm)GrnSizeMAJORMode(phi)GrainSize Max(phi)GrainSize Min(phi) RPD AreaMean RPD(cm)T150 A 9/30/03 13:58:24 14.19 16.60 1.17 0.19 2.33 2.14 3-2 0 >4 IndIndeterminateT175 A 9/29/03 16:01:35 14.19 42.96 3.03 2.75 3.33 0.58 3-2 0 >4 0.000.00T200 A 9/30/03 14:08:58 14.19 96.31 6.79 6.08 7.69 1.61 >4 1 >4 IndIndeterminateT25 B 9/30/03 13:46:10 14.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA Ind Ind Ind IndIndeterminateT250 A 9/30/03 14:15:29 14.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA -4.00 -5 >4 IndIndeterminateT475 B 9/29/03 16:12:23 14.19 68.51 4.83 4.28 5.41 1.14 3-2 -2 >4 68.51 > 4.83T50 C 9/30/03 13:51:41 14.19 66.59 4.69 3.22 5.11 1.89 2-1 0 >4 66.59 > 4.69TDOCK SW100 A9/30/03 12:39:10 14.19 40.77 2.87 2.42 3.08 0.67 2-1 0 >4 0.00 0.00TDOCK SW125 B9/30/03 12:46:06 14.19 69.69 4.91 3.92 6.11 2.19 2-1 0 >4 0.00 0.00TDOCK SW150 A9/30/03 12:51:56 14.19 67.37 4.75 4.28 5.36 1.08 Ind 0 >4 0.00 0.00TDOCK SW175 B9/30/03 13:08:04 14.19 69.63 4.91 4.33 5.47 1.14 >4 -2 >4 2.40 0.17TDOCK SW200 B9/30/03 13:17:32 14.19 17.92 1.26 0.56 1.64 1.08 Ind Ind Ind 0.00 0.00TDOCK SW225 B9/30/03 13:26:46 14.19 56.40 3.97 3.08 4.19 1.11 3-2 0 >4 IndIndeterminateTDOCK T25 A9/30/03 12:10:38 14.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA -2.00 -3 >4 IndIndeterminateTDOCK SW250 B9/30/03 13:32:47 14.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA Ind Ind Ind IndIndeterminateTDOCK SW275 A9/30/03 14:26:20 14.19 82.08 5.78 5.36 6.41 1.06 4-3 0 >4 IndIndeterminateTDOCK SW300 A9/30/03 14:30:29 14.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA Ind Ind Ind IndIndeterminateTDOCK SW40 A9/30/03 12:17:06 14.19 51.33 3.62 2.94 4.94 2.00 >4 2 >4 0.00 0.00TDOCK SW55 B9/30/03 12:23:27 14.19 32.48 2.29 1.72 2.67 0.94 3-2 -1 >4 IndIndeterminateTDOCK SW70 A9/30/03 12:27:25 14.19 24.01 1.69 0.94 2.72 1.78 3-2 -3 >4 IndIndeterminateTDOCK SW85 A9/30/03 12:33:00 14.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA 3-2 0 >4 IndIndeterminateStation NameAGS OLD SE100 BAGS OLD SE125 AAGS OLD SE150 BAGS OLD SE175 AAGS OLD SE200 AAGS OLD SE225 AAGS OLD SE25 AAGS OLD SE250 AAGS OLD SE275 AAGS OLD SE300 BAGS OLD SE325 BAGS OLD SE350 AAGS OLD SE375 AMETHANE Low DO?FishWasteLayerAreaMean FishWaste LayerFish WasteDepthMinimumFish WasteDepthMaximum0.89 4.94 None No Trace Trace 0.00 6.533.53 6.33 None No Trace Trace 5.92 8.141.53 4.42 None No Trace Trace - -3.67 5.28 None No 0.00 0.00 - -2.64 4.36 None No 0.00 0.00 - -3.05 5.44 None No 0.00 0.00 - -0.00 0.00 None Yes Trace Trace - -1.86 4.72 None No 0.00 0.00 - -> 5.11 > 6.44 None No 0.00 0.00 - -2.25 4.72 None No 0.00 0.00 - -4.33 6.41 None No 0.00 0.00 - -> 4.75 > 5.75 None No 0.00 0.00 - -6.61 7.44 None No 0.00 0.00 - -RPD Minimum(cm)RPDMaximum(cm)Station NameAGS OLD SE50 AAGS OLD SE50 BAGS OLD SE75 BAGS 0 BAGS 1 AAGS 100 BAGS 150 AAGS 50 BAGS DOCK SW100 AAGS DOCK SW150 BAGS DOCK SW200 AAGS DOCK SW50 BECP 1 BECP 100 20N AECP 100 20S AMETHANE Low DO?FishWasteLayerAreaMean FishWaste LayerFish WasteDepthMinimumFish WasteDepthMaximumRPD Minimum(cm)RPDMaximum(cm)0.00 0.00 None Yes Trace Trace - -Ind Ind None No Trace Trace - -Ind Ind None No Trace Trace - -Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -0.00 0.00 None Yes 0.00 0.00 - -> 1.36 > 3.08 None No 0.00 0.00 - -> 1.56 > 3.03 None No 0.00 0.00 - -> 5.25 > 6.58 None No 0.00 0.00 - -Ind Ind None No 87.22 > 6.15 > 5.75 > 7.30Ind Ind None No Trace Trace - -> 3.75 > 4.64 None No 0.00 0.00 - -0.00 0.00 None Yes 38.19 > 2.69 > 2.11 > 2.940.00 0.00 1 Yes 108.92 > 7.68 > 6.72 > 8.44Ind Ind None Yes Trace Trace - -Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -Station NameECP 100 40N AECP 100 40S AECP 100 60S BECP 100 80S AECP 100 AECP 100 CECP 125 AECP 150 BECP 25 AECP 250 BECP 300 BECP 400 BECP 400 N20 AECP 400 N40 BECP 400 S20 BECP 400 S40 BMETHANE Low DO?FishWasteLayerAreaMean FishWaste LayerFish WasteDepthMinimumFish WasteDepthMaximumRPD Minimum(cm)RPDMaximum(cm)Ind Ind None No Trace Trace - -Ind Ind None No Trace Trace - -0.19 2.25 None No 0.00 0.00 - -> 1.22 > 2.72 None No 0.00 0.00 - -Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -> 3.42 > 4.80 None No Trace Trace - -> 2.03 > 4.25 None No 0.00 0.00 - -Ind Ind None Yes 0.00 0.00 - -0.00 0.00 1 Yes 129.79 > 9.15 > 8.19 > 9.97Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -Station NameECP 400 S60 CECP 50 AECP 500 AECP 75 AECP 75 BECP 750 BECP 950 BGRV 1 AGRV 1 BGRV 1 CGRV 2 BGRV 2 CGRV 3 AGRV 3 BGRV 3 CMID 1 BMID 2 AMID 3 150 AMID 3 225 BMID 3 75 ANQO BNQO S100 BMETHANE Low DO?FishWasteLayerAreaMean FishWaste LayerFish WasteDepthMinimumFish WasteDepthMaximumRPD Minimum(cm)RPDMaximum(cm)Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -0.00 0.00 None No 78.07 > 5.50 > 5.11 > 5.86Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -Ind Ind None No 54.90 > 3.87 > 2.80 > 4.64Ind Ind None Yes 36.73 > 2.59 > 1.39 > 3.83Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -> 2.25 > 4.08 None No 0.00 0.00 - -Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -2.61 4.06 None No 0.00 0.00 - -1.06 7.78 None No 0.00 0.00 - -Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -2.28 3.83 None No 0.00 0.00 - -0.00 0.00 None Yes 55.75 > 3.93 > 2.72 > 4.80Ind Ind None No Ind Ind - -0.00 0.00 None Yes 0.00 0.00 - -0.53 2.17 None No 0.00 0.00 - -0.00 0.00 10 No 303.77 > 21.41 > 21.33 > 21.33Ind Ind None No Trace Trace - -Station NameNQO S125 BNQO S150 ANQO S175 ANQO S200 ANQO S25 BNQO S50 ANQO S75 BNQ1 ANQ100 BNQ125 ANQ150 ANQ150 BNQ25 BNQ50 BNQ75 ANQO AREF 1 CMETHANE Low DO?FishWasteLayerAreaMean FishWaste LayerFish WasteDepthMinimumFish WasteDepthMaximumRPD Minimum(cm)RPDMaximum(cm)Ind Ind None No Trace Trace - -> 1.94 > 5.53 None No 0.00 0.00 - -> 3.47 > 4.50 None No 0.00 0.00 - -> 5.80 > 6.58 None No 0.00 0.00 - -0.00 0.00 None Yes 50.56 > 3.56 > 2.50 > 4.61Ind Ind None No Ind Ind - -Ind Ind None No Ind Ind - -0.00 0.00 None No Trace Trace - -0.00 0.00 None Yes Trace Trace - -0.00 0.00 None Yes 46.72 3.29 2.31 3.721.00 3.24 None No Trace Trace - -> 1.89 > 3.83 None No 0.00 0.00 - -0.00 0.00 7 Yes 181.75 > 12.81 > 12.05 > 13.360.00 0.00 None Yes 39.01 > 2.75 > 2.25 > 3.470.00 0.00 None Yes Trace Trace - -0.00 0.00 10+ Yes 303.96 > 21.42 > 21.35 > 21.35> 0.75 > 2.19 None No 0.00 0.00 - -Station NameREF 2 BREF 2 CREF 3 AREF 3 BREF 3 CREF 4 AREF 4 BREF 4 CREF 5 AREF 5 CREF 5 DREF 6 AREF 6 BREF 6 CT0 BT10 BT100 AMETHANE Low DO?FishWasteLayerAreaMean FishWaste LayerFish WasteDepthMinimumFish WasteDepthMaximumRPD Minimum(cm)RPDMaximum(cm)> 1.58 > 3.00 None No 0.00 0.00 - -> 1.72 > 2.97 None No 0.00 0.00 - -4.22 8.91 None No 0.00 0.00 - -Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -> 2.61 > 4.53 None No 0.00 0.00 - -> 4.64 > 7.72 None No 0.00 0.00 - -> 4.47 > 5.55 None No 0.00 0.00 - -> 4.08 > 5.94 None No 0.00 0.00 - -> 5.80 > 6.39 None No 0.00 0.00 - -> 5.08 > 7.05 None No 0.00 0.00 - -> 5.53 > 6.30 None No 0.00 0.00 - -0.00 0.00 None Yes Trace Trace - -0.00 0.00 None Yes 0.00 0.00 - -2.78 4.69 None No 0.00 0.00 - -Station NameT150 AT175 AT200 AT25 BT250 AT475 BT50 CTDOCK SW100 ATDOCK SW125 BTDOCK SW150 ATDOCK SW175 BTDOCK SW200 BTDOCK SW225 BTDOCK T25 ATDOCK SW250 BTDOCK SW275 ATDOCK SW300 ATDOCK SW40 ATDOCK SW55 BTDOCK SW70 ATDOCK SW85 AMETHANE Low DO?FishWasteLayerAreaMean FishWaste LayerFish WasteDepthMinimumFish WasteDepthMaximumRPD Minimum(cm)RPDMaximum(cm)Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -0.00 0.00 None Yes 0.00 0.00 - -Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -Ind Ind None No 0.00 0.00 - -> 4.28 > 5.41 None No 0.00 0.00 - -> 3.22 > 5.11 None No 0.00 0.00 - -0.00 0.00 None No 40.77 > 2.87 > 2.42 > 3.080.00 0.00 None Yes 69.69 > 4.91 > 3.92 > 6.110.00 0.00 None Yes 67.37 > 4.75 > 4.28 > 5.360.00 0.23 None Yes 69.63 > 4.91 > 4.33 > 5.470.00 0.00 None Yes 17.92 > 1.26 > 0.56 > 1.64Ind Ind None No 56.40 > 3.97 > 3.08 > 4.19Ind Ind None No 0.00 > 0.00 - -Ind Ind NoneNo >p > penetration- -Ind Ind None No 82.08 > 5.78 > 5.36 > 6.41Ind Ind None No Ind Ind - -0.00 0.00 None Yes 51.33 > 3.62 > 2.94 > 4.94Ind Ind None No 32.48 > 2.29 > 1.72 > 2.67Ind Ind None No 24.01 > 1.69 > 0.94 > 2.72Ind Ind None Yes Ind Ind - -Station NameAGS OLD SE100 BAGS OLD SE125 AAGS OLD SE150 BAGS OLD SE175 AAGS OLD SE200 AAGS OLD SE225 AAGS OLD SE25 AAGS OLD SE250 AAGS OLD SE275 AAGS OLD SE300 BAGS OLD SE325 BAGS OLD SE350 AAGS OLD SE375 ACOMMENTBacteriaPresent? SUC.STAGE OSIDark, silty fine sand with abundant small shell/skeletal remains interspersed throughout sediment column.Lignitic detritus on SWI. Fish waste reduced to trace amounts of skeletal debris. Labile organics processed. NoStage I on III 9Tan silty fine sand with some subsurface organic loading at bottom of frame. Fishwaste present only asisolated skeletal (fin rays/bones) in left center subsurface.Spiochaetopterusat SWI. Abundant small shellfragments throughout sediment column. Detritus at SWI. NoStage I on III 11Tan to gray, silty fine sand. Good RPD contrast with dark gray layer underlying surface sediment. Abundantsmall shell fragments scattered throughout sediment column.Spiochaetopterusat SWI. Minor terrestriallignitic detritus at SWI. Some oxidized sediment at bottom of frame, suggesting periodic deposition andorganic loading.NoStage II -> III 10Tan to gray, silty fine sand with abundant small shell fragments throughout the sediment column. Two smallvoids at right. Subsurface sediment is a rich gray in hue. Small terrestrial lignitic fragments scattered atSWI. Similar to 150.NoStage I on III 11Tan to light gray, moderately sorted silty fine sand with evenly distributed, abundant, very small shellfragments. Epiphyte encrusted Spiochaetopterus tubes at SWI. Abundant fecal material in water columnand thin detrital veneer at SWI. Oxidized sediment at bottom of frame. Appear to be dominated by physicalprocesses.NoStage I on III 10Tan silty fine sand with scattered patches of gray organics. Subtle RPD contrast. Spiochaetopterus tubes atSWI and small shell fragments scattered throughout sediment column. Detrital dusting at SWI. Appearshealthy.NoStage I on III 11Gray to dark gray organic, firm silty sand. Epitphytes and plant debris at SWI along with incipient Beggiatoacolonies, indicative of hypoxia. Sediment reduced all the way to SWI. Piece of net twine in lower right.Organically loaded from what looks like primarily terrestrial detritus and fish waste remnants. YesStage II -1Tan silty fine sand with discontinuous band of dark gray sediment below the RPD. Terrestrial plantfragments and marine algae at SWI. Abundant small scattered shell fragments throughout sediment column.SWI appears periodically washed. Epiphyte encrusted Chaetopterid tubes in left and right background. NoStage I on III 10Tan, moderately sorted silty fine sand. RPD>P. Abundant epiphyte encrusted chaetopterid tubes at SWIalong with some terrestrial plant debris. Sediment surface appears scoured around plant debris, highenergy. Sediment column has homogeneous sedimentary fabric. Nice pic. Unusually light-hued for site. NoStage I on III 11Tan to dark gray silty fine sand. Abundant shell fragments in sediment column and patch of reduced, organicsediment at right. Algae and wood debris at SWI. Many fine tubes at SWI with reticulated network ofshallow burrowing deposit feeders. Episodically physically disturbed and some organic loading. NoStage II 8Tan to gray, organic, silty fine sand. Void/burrow in upper right center of frame. Several small epiphyteencrusted tubes in background. Scattered shell fragments in sediment column, Appears to be high flow andsome organic loading. No fish waste present. NoStage I on III 11Tan poorly sorted silty fine sand. RPD > penetration. Tubes, fecal matter and detritus at SWI and in watercolumn. Scattered small shell fragments in sediment column. No fish waste. NoStage I on III 11Tan to light gray, poorly sorted silty fine sand with abundant small shell fragments throughout sedimentcolumn. Polychaete in lower right. Deep RPD. Abundant detritus and fecal material at the SWI. Organicand well processed sand.NoStage I on III 11Station NameAGS OLD SE50 AAGS OLD SE50 BAGS OLD SE75 BAGS 0 BAGS 1 AAGS 100 BAGS 150 AAGS 50 BAGS DOCK SW100 AAGS DOCK SW150 BAGS DOCK SW200 AAGS DOCK SW50 BECP 1 BECP 100 20N AECP 100 20S ACOMMENTBacteriaPresent? SUC.STAGE OSIGray, moderately sorted organic fine sand. Some shell debris and skeletal material interspersed throughoutsediment column. Drink cans at left. Sediment is oxygen poor and the sand is also compositionallly dark.Either low DO in water or organic loading in sediment. Stressed area, but DO not low enough to causeBeggiatoa growth.NoStage I -3Gray, slightly silty fine sand. Looking downward on sediment surface. Shell and skeletal debris at SWI, aswell as small woody debris fragments. Only scattered patches of oxidized sediment and the patches appearto be diffusional. Low Do or organic loading in sediment column. Disturbed. NoStage I IndeterminateGray to tan, very hard fine sand. No penetration and looking downward on sediment surface. Scatetredshell debris. Low DO/high organic loading or little infauna as RPD appears diffusional. Surface moreoxidized than SE50. Both reps are similar. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateTan to light gray shelly, firm fine sand. Abundant shell fragments and disarticulated bivalve shells at SWI.Minor woody debris/fibers in centr foeground. Surface appears washed. Both reps similar. NoStage I IndeterminateDark gray organic detritus with scattered wood and shell debris. Appears depositonal. Distinct fish waste notpresent. No RPD and appears to be due to organics and high oxygen demand. Very dark, traces ofBeggiatoa on surface.YesIndeterminate IndeterminateTan, firm, silty fine sand with abundant small shell fragments. Epiphyte encrusted tubes at SWI, likelySpiochaetopterus. Surface appears periodically washed. High energy. NoStage I 5Tan, firm, silty fine sand with abundant small shell fragments. Epiphyte encrusted tubes at SWI, likelySpiochaetopterus. Surface appears periodically washed. High energy. Very similar to AGS 100 NoStage II 7Tan, firm, silty fine sand with abundant small shell fragments througout sediment column. Appears to beperiodically physically reworked. Planktonic and terrestrial detritus at SWI. Burrow/depression at right offrame. Some small patches of reduced sediment in sed column, but for the most part, entire sedimentcolumn has oxidized sediment. No distinct fish waste. NoStage I on III 11Entire sediment column in frame is composed of fish skeletal remains. There appears to be little adheredflesh and remains are largely vertebrae, ribs and fin rays, Excellent and unusual picture. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateGray, firm, fine sand with abundant shell and scattered skeletal fragments in sediment column. RPDindeterminate although there is some oxidized sediment within the sediment column - not enough fines.Spiochaetopterus tube in foreground. SWI shows evidence of periodic hydrodynamic washing. NoStage I on III IndeterminateTan, firm, silty fine sand with abundant small shell fragments. Sediment column oxidized to depth, unsure ifits due to bioturbation or physical/depositional processes. Numerous chaetopterid tubes at SWI. Surfaceappears appears periodically washed and production appears enhanced based on the copious amount offecal material and detritus in sediment column - given the sandy nature of the substrate. NoStage II 9Dark gray to black highly organic silt and sand with fish waste to depth. Very high sediment oxygen demand -no RPD at all. Beggiatoa. High inventory of labile organics due to freshly deposited fish waste. Nice pic. YesStage I -3Fresh fish waste admixed with dark gray, fine sandy silt. Fish waste consists of Salmon flesh, scales, skinand skeletal remains. Highly labile.YesAzoic -10Gray to olive slightly silty fine sand. Shell debris at SWI, piece of wood in foreground. Few fish scales atSWI and upper sediment coumn and vertebrae in center foreground at SWI. Appears washed at SWI;Beggiatoa presentYesStage I IndeterminateGray to olive-tan, slightly silty, very firm fine sand. Amphipod tubes in background. Broken tubes and fecalcastings at SWI. Apparent burrow/depression at right SWI. Oxidized sediment at SWI but RPD is ill definedat depth and is likely >P. Sand appears washed yet with high organic inventory. NoStage II -> III IndeterminateStation NameECP 100 40N AECP 100 40S AECP 100 60S BECP 100 80S AECP 100 AECP 100 CECP 125 AECP 150 BECP 25 AECP 250 BECP 300 BECP 400 BECP 400 N20 AECP 400 N40 BECP 400 S20 BECP 400 S40 BCOMMENTBacteriaPresent? SUC.STAGE OSIDark gray to brown, silty, very firm, fine sand. Shell fragments, woody debris and possible small skeletalfragments at SWI. Sediment column very dark and appears organically loaded, as well as periodicallyphysically disturbed. Unclear whether there is an RPD present and sands are very dark. Small Stage 1 tubeat center,network of shallow burrows below surface with small voids NoStage II IndeterminateDark gray to brown, firm, organic, silty, fine sand. High surface relief in background. Abundant small shellfragments and apparent small skeletal debris. Dark sands appear organically enhanced. RPD indeterminateas there is little oxidized sediment contrast. NoStage I IndeterminateTan to very dark gray, silty, fine sand. Tube in center of frame. RPD appears to be more from physical(hydrodynamic mixing and floc burial than due to bioturbation. Abundant tubes in A rep but no penetration.Scattered small shell fragments at SWI. Bedform in background. NoStage II 6Tan to gray, silty, fine sand. Several well-developed tubes at SWI. Abundant small shell fragments insediment column. Physically reworked and SWI appears washed. Some detritus at SWI and sand appearsto be organically enhanced. No visible fish waste. RPD >P. NoStage II 6Dark gray fine sand. Shell fragments, cobble and wood fragments at SWI. Although there is some brown,oxidized sediment in the sediment column, RPD is not measurable, Very firm. Sand is composed of darklithic grains, and also appears to have an invetory of labile organics. Several broken tubes at SWI. NoStage I IndeterminateTan to light gray, slightly silty, fine sand. Shell fragments in sediment column, small tubes and anenome(metridium? - possibly an onuphid tube also) in center backgorund. Minor detritus andsome fecal castings onSWI. RPD irregular and measured as >P although there are a few patches of visible reduced sediment;Beggiatoa on surfaceYesStage I 7Firm, organic, tan to brown, silty sand. Cobbles in background. Abundant small and medium shell fragmentsat SWI. Prostrate tube at center that is covered with white filamentous bacteria. Very organic for cobblesand sand.YesStage I 6Tan to gray, firm, very shelly, silty, fine sand. Disarticulated mussel and scallop shells on SWI along withabundant shell fragments in the sediment column. Few spiochateopterus tubes at SWI. Appears washed.Sediment also appears oxidized to deph of penetration although shell debris precludes measurement. NoStage I IndeterminateFish waste and shell debris to depth admixed with some silts and sand. Clrear radial bones, barnacle shells,fin rays, and scales. No discernible RPD. Methane pocket (gas gone) at lower left. Mixing mechanism ofsediment and fish waste unclear, but appears to be either physical or mechanical in origin. NoAzoic -10Cobble and shell debris at SWI. No penetration. Some algae in backgorund. Rep A is on large rock.Surface is washed of detritus.NoIndeterminate IndeterminateHard substrate littered with detrtus-free shell debris. Shell debris is large disarticulated bivalves andgastropod shell. Parastichopus at right. Hydrodymically washed. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateWashed cobble substrate with some uncrusting epizoan on cobble. No penetration. No detritus on cobbles. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateWashed cobble and disarticulated shell substrate with some uncrusting epizoan on cobble. No penetration.No detritus on cobbles.NoIndeterminate IndeterminateCobble and shell substrate with some fines around cobble. Rep A consisted of rock and algae. Surfaceappears washed.NoIndeterminate IndeterminateCobble and shell debris at SWI. No penetration. Some algae in backgorund. Rep A is on large rock.Surface is washed of detritus. Rep A consists of decaying algae. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateShell degris, wood fragment, cobble and sand substrate. Very dark. No penetration. Some epizoanencrustation on wood and cobble. Thin mantling of detritus. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateStation NameECP 400 S60 CECP 50 AECP 500 AECP 75 AECP 75 BECP 750 BECP 950 BGRV 1 AGRV 1 BGRV 1 CGRV 2 BGRV 2 CGRV 3 AGRV 3 BGRV 3 CMID 1 BMID 2 AMID 3 150 AMID 3 225 BMID 3 75 ANQO BNQO S100 BCOMMENTBacteriaPresent? SUC.STAGE OSIAlgae and epizoan encrusted rock which is wider than the frame. No penetration. Small crab and barnaclesalso on rock.NoIndeterminate IndeterminateLight gray, silty fine sand with numerous tubes at SWI and void at lower left. Shall fragments and fragmentedskeletal parts interspersed throughout sediment column. Very unusual. Both reps similar. NoStage I on III 5No penetraton in both reps. Disarticulated shell in far background and minor algae pieces. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateLight gray, silty fine sand with small shell and skeletal fragments interspersed throughout sediment column.Similar in general appearance to ECP 50. NoStage I IndeterminateLight gray to brown, organic silty, fine sand. Unusual filamentous aggregation of surface sediment. Skeletalpieces in sediment column. Oxidized sediment present but appears to be from physical mixing. High organicload, Beggiatoa fiber clusters on surface. YesStage I IndeterminateJumbled mixture of sand and algae with shell debris and wood fragments at SWI. Spiochaetopterus tubes atleft. Very firm, little penetration. Abundant natural organic debris. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateCobble shingled light sand. High current area. Little penetration. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateLight gray tan, very shelly, silty fine sand. Large solaster at SWI. Appears to be beach-like firm sand.Abundant detritus/fines at SWI.NoStage I 6Hard, very shelly, coarse sand. Several detritus covered, disarticualted shells at the SWI. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateLight gray to tan, shelly, silty medium sand. Disarticualted oyster and limpet shell at SWI. Kelp frond. Shelldebris disrupted penetration. Very firm. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateAlgae and epizoan covered substrate, pebbles visible under algae, but size cannot be determined.Abundant detritus suspended in water column. Unusual. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateHard sand substrate with shell debris at SWI in background. No penetration and looking sideways at surfacerelief.NoIndeterminate IndeterminateOrganic, tan to gray, shelly, silty, fine sand. Spiochaetopterus tubes, algae, shell debris. Appears to be richsand environment. Abundant detritus/fines in upper sediment column. NoStage I on III 10Organic, tan to gray, silty, fine sand. Dense Spiochaetopterids at SWI, crab, and tunicate. Rich andproductive. RPD may be overestimated due to smearing. Nice pic. Very organic sand. NoStage I on III 11Light gray, shelly, silty, fine sand. Spiojhaetopterus tubes in background. Algae and shell debris at SWI.Rich mantling of detritus/fecal material at SWI. Abundant fine shell fragments evenly distributed throughoutsediment column.NoStage I IndeterminateTan to gray, shelly, silty, fine sand. Few tubes at SWI and minor fecal castings. Incipient bedform. Sandsare both organic and composed of dark lithics. Abundant small shell fragments interspersed throughout thesediment column.NoStage II 8Gray and white fish waste to depth. Some shell debris mixed with fish waste. Also some dark silt/sanderratically interspersed with fish wast. No RPD and some bacterial strings in sediment column. Nasty. YesAzoic -8No penetration in either replicate. Hard or sloped substrate. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateIntercollated terrestrial wood debris and dark, lithic sand. Some shell fragments on SWI. RPD not apparent.Area of organic deposition and mixing with transgressive sands. Both reps similar. Wood debris is small andabraded.NoIndeterminate IndeterminateDark organic silty fine sand with thin layer of terrestrial organic/woody debris at SWI. Minor shell debris atSWI. Hard substrate. Abundant organic litter from runoff. Possible radial bone at left SWI but cannot beID'd with certainty.NoStage I 3Highly methanogenic fish waste to depth. Several types of bones present, fresh flesh, talow, and herring.Very distinctive.NoAzoic -6Hard substrate with veneer of shell/skeletal reamins at SWI. Vertebrae visible in left foreground. Both repsshow no penetration. Unusual assemblage of shell and skeletae at SWI. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateStation NameNQO S125 BNQO S150 ANQO S175 ANQO S200 ANQO S25 BNQO S50 ANQO S75 BNQ1 ANQ100 BNQ125 ANQ150 ANQ150 BNQ25 BNQ50 BNQ75 ANQO AREF 1 CCOMMENTBacteriaPresent? SUC.STAGE OSIFirm, gray to brown, very shelly, silty, fine sand. Shell and fish bone at SWI. Minor wood debris inbackground. Spiochaetopterid in left background. Thin ephemeral dusting of detritus at SWI. NoStage I IndeterminateBrown, silty, very fine sand. Firm. Shell and wood at SWI, tubes in background. Sediment appears oxidizedto depth. Very dark. No sign of fished waste. Appears hydrodynamically active. NoStage II 8Brown, firm, silty, very fine sand. Minor shell fragments at SWI and minor detritus. Appears periodicallywashed. Prostrate tube at right. Organic. NoStage I 7Tan, moderately sorted, silty fine sand. On axis of bedform. Few small tubes visible. Sediment appearsoxidized to depth via mostly physical processes. Minor small shell fragments at SWI. NoStage I on III 11Dark gray, shelly, silty fine sand with some fish waste mixed in to depth of penetration. No RPD. Fish scalesin subsurface sediment. Some shell and skeltal debris at SWI. Organically enriched and unusualsedimentary fabric as some of the sediment appears pelletized. YesStage I -3Sand and shell debris with wood fragment and malted grain beverage bottle in background. Some epixoanencrustation of bottle and wood fragment. Poosible that some of the shell fragments are in fact skeletalpieces. High current as most objects are washed free of detritus. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateLarge rock in foreground that is larger than the frame of view (minimally - 7 phi). High current (no detritus)and very hard substrate. No penetration at all in rep A. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateDark gray to black, gravelly fine sand. Abundant shell fragments and minor skeletal debris in sedimentcolumn and at SWI. No RPD. Sparse tubes in far backfround. Organically loaded. NoStage I 1Tan to light gray, firm, silty, very fine sand. Tubes at SWI and small piece of fish waste in center SWI. Minorsmall shell fragments. Beggiatoa at surface & traces of oxidation near the SWI. High current area withincipient bedform and no fine-grained detrtitus. YesStage I -3Layer of fish waste over tan to gray silty fine sand. Fish waste layer is composed of shell, bone and scales,and appears to have a high oxygen demand as sediemtn immediately below the fish waste has been turnedblack. Beggiatoa throughout fishwaste layer. Nice pic. NoStage I -3Brown to dark gray, very silty, very fine sand with abundant shell fragments and some skeletal fragments atSWI. Patches of organically enrished sediment in sediment column. Very little penetration and RPD is anestimate. Hermit crab feeding on surface at right edge. NoStage II 7Tan, moderately sorted, slightly silty, very fine sand. Bedform. Small tubes and some detritus at SWI.Sediment appears oxidized to depth. Very different from the A rep. No visible fish waste. NoStage I 5Fish waste greater than penetration. Fish waste is dominantly bone, tallow, and scales that are white in hue.Abundant small methane bubbles interspersed throughout fish waste deposit. No life or RPD present. Somefilamentous bacterial strings near SWI. YesAzoic -10Dark gray to black silty fine sand mixed with fish waste to depth. Very firm. Skeletal debris, scales, andminor shell fragments at SWI. Sediment is hishly reduced to SWI and there is no fickian diffusion oxidizedlayer at SWI. Some faint Beggiatoa at SWI. Highly organically stressed. YesStage I -3Gray, moderately sorted silty very fine sand. Some shell and decomposing fish waste at SWI. Minor fishwaste in sediment column and not evenly or continuously distributed throughout sediment column. Smalltubes in background. Minor small wood debris at SWI. No distinct oxidized sediment. NoStage I -3Fresh and older fish waste to depth. Layer of freshly depsotied salmon bits at top of frame (10 cm) underlainby older skeltal, cartilage, and decaying flesh layer. Highly methanogenic. Stunning in many ways. NoAzoic -10Light gray to tan, shelly, slightly silty, fine sand. SWI covered with disarticulated shells. Starfish and algae atSWI. Only rep at this station with penetration. Rep A has urchin, Rep B had a lot of small wood fragments. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateStation NameREF 2 BREF 2 CREF 3 AREF 3 BREF 3 CREF 4 AREF 4 BREF 4 CREF 5 AREF 5 CREF 5 DREF 6 AREF 6 BREF 6 CT0 BT10 BT100 ACOMMENTBacteriaPresent? SUC.STAGE OSILight gray fine sand and small shell fragments. Sediment column >50% shell. Chaetopterid tubes inbackground and one projecting out right at left side near faceplate. Sediment appears oxidized to depth evenwith the lack of fines in sed column. Thin coating of detritus at SWI. NoStage I 4Light gray, shelly, medium sand. High percentage of sediment column consists of small shell fragments.Some disarticulated shlls at SWI. Similar to Rep B but slightly coarser grained. Chaetopterid tubes inbackground.NoStage I 5Very organic, very fine sandy silt. Subsurface sediment at bottom of frame is black and highly reduced.Abundant terrestrial detritus in upper portions of sediment column and at SWI. Large detritus covered woodfragment in background, Many broken tube fragments at SWI. Atypical reference of area, NoStage I 7Very organic, sandy silt. SWI is disrupted by samping. Subsurface sediment is black and shows eveidenceof deposition/organic loading. Wood and metal fragments at SWI. RPD obscured by sampling-relateddisruption. Similar to Rep A in sediment-type and organic loading. Atypical. NoStage I IndeterminateHighly organic, very sandy silt. Diffusional RPD that has been disrupted by sampling. Organic litterinterspersed in upper portion of the sediment column. Highly reduced at depth and similar to Reps A and Bbut without the amount of debris/detritus at the SWI. Atypical sediment type for the area. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateSilt and sand mantled cobble. Numerous pieces of slate with surrounding matric of sand and silt with minorshell fragments. Not a suitable reference for most onsite stations. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateTan to light gray shelly, fine sandy silt. Sediment disturbed from Rep A sampling. Very different from RepA. RPD appears on the order of 3-4 cm in non-disturbed areas of the sediment column. Abundant smallshell fragments.NoStage I IndeterminateShelly, firm, fine sandy, brown to tan silt. Chaetopterid tubes at SWI and some shell and cobbles. Abundantsmall shell fragments in upper protion of the sediment colunmn. Similar to rep B but not Rep A. Appropriatereference for some of the sites.NoStage II 8Tan to gray, shelly, sandy silt with some cobble and disarticualted shell at SWI. Sediment appears oxidizedto depth. Some disruption of SWI from prism. Organic. NoStage II 9Tan to brown, shelly, sandy silt with slaty cobble, trigs and some small shell fragments at SWI. Sedimentappears oxidized to depth within the sediment column. Thick mantling of detritus (several mm). Organic.Reasonable reference and similar to rep A. NoStage I 7Tan to brown, shelly, firm, fine sandy silt. Slate fragments, minor wood debris and twigs at SWI. Tube incenter background (chaetopterid). Sediment appears oxygenated to depth. Abundant detritus. Similar toreps A and C.NoStage I 7Tan, silty, very fine sand. Firm. Bivalve hole at left. Sediment oxidized to depth. Minor small shellfragments at SWI and interspersed in sediment column. Tube in background. Nice pic and most appropriatereference.NoStage I on III 11Tan firm, silty, very fine sand. Sediment appears oxygenated to depth although there are a few clots ofreduced sediment near bottom of the frame. Minor small shell fragments. Similar to Rep A. NoStage I 7Very similar to reps A and B. Spiochaetopterus tubes in background. Ref 6 is best reference set for TN. NoStage I on III 11Firm, dark, fine sand with abundant terrestrial organics at the SWI. Fish vertebrae at SWI in background.No oxidized sediment apparent at the SWI. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateDark, hard, organic, silty fine sand. Abundant terrestrial detritus at SWI and some disarticulated shell debris.No RPD. Organically loaded + dark lithic sand. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateTan to gray, shelly, silty fine sand. Abundant small shell fragments at SWI and throughout the sedimentcolumn. Minor small pieces of terrestrial detritus. RPD well defined. Small pocket of organic sediment atlower right that is likely associated with buried wood/terrestrial organics. NoStage II 9Station NameT150 AT175 AT200 AT25 BT250 AT475 BT50 CTDOCK SW100 ATDOCK SW125 BTDOCK SW150 ATDOCK SW175 BTDOCK SW200 BTDOCK SW225 BTDOCK T25 ATDOCK SW250 BTDOCK SW275 ATDOCK SW300 ATDOCK SW40 ATDOCK SW55 BTDOCK SW70 ATDOCK SW85 ACOMMENTBacteriaPresent? SUC.STAGE OSILarge, detritus covers piece of wood and bark overlying slightly sandy black to brown silt. Organicallyloaded. Recently-settled medusa on wood. RPD and succ. Stg indeterminate. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateVery dark, gray mixed fine sand, wood fragment, and shell fragments. No RPD visible. Polychaete tubes inleft background. Abundant terrestrial organic matter at SWI. High SOD and organic load. B replicate iscomposed of a large bark/wood chip.NoStage I -3Dark, organic, sandy silt with abundant small and large wood fragments at the SWI and interspersed in thesediment column. There is oxidized sediment but it is discontinuous. Some fine detritus at the SWI. Fewsmall tubes visible. Hogh SOD and organically loaded. NoStage I IndeterminateVery hard, terrestrial detritus covered substrate. Detritus in conifer bits and minor shell fragments. Largerock (>7 cm) at right. Very dark and organically loaded. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateDetritus mantled, rounded lithic cobbe and disarticulated shells. Very hard. Cobbles are rounded. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateUnusual. Shell and organic-rich silty fine sand. Possible void in lower left . Tubes in background. Entiresediment column has oxidized sediment and may be due to physical processes. NoStage I on III 11Tan to gray, slightly silty, sorted fine sand. Bedform. Fine wood debris at SWI and layer of fine wood debris0.7 cm below SWI. Active sediment movement and sand has progressed over wood layer (flaser). Very niceexample of physical reworking and the physical entrainment of terrestrial organic material into the sedimentcolumn, Sediment appears oxidized to depth by physical processes. NoStage II 9Older fish waste overlying coarse sand and fish waste. Starfish grazing at the buffet table. Fish waste isdominantly skeletal remains.NoStage I 1Fish waste >P. Fish waste is domiantly skeletal part mixed with silt and coarse sand. No RPD. Organicallystressed. Faint Beggiatoa on some of the fish remains. Both reps similar. YesAzoic -8Fish waste >P. Dark silts and sand mixed with skeletal remains. Beggiatoa at SWI. No RPD. Organicallyloaded and stressed. Fish waste does not look "fresh". YesAzoic -8Fish waste >P. Scattered sketal remains at SWI. Dusting of oxidized sediment at SWI, RPD is diffusional.Some minor shell and wood at SWI. Surface appears aggregated and hinged at penetration point. Fishwaste looks old and washed. Dominantly in the surface veneer. NoStage I -2Fish waste skeletal remains >P. Surface appears washed. Fish waste appears old. No oxidized sedimentpresent. Hard substrate.NoIndeterminate IndeterminateFish waste >P. Older fish waste and some minor dark wood debris. Mostly skeletal remains. Oxidizedsediment present but RPD not measurable. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateNo penetration. Compact, silt gravel with minor shell debris and wood fragmants at SWI. Both reps similar.Surface washed free of detritus.NoIndeterminate IndeterminateNo penetration but Swi is covered with old skeletal fish waste. Bivalve shell at left. Minor small wood debris.Vertebrae present in rep A.NoIndeterminate IndeterminateFish waste > Penetration. Fish skeletal part are devoid of fresh flesh and are old. Fish bits layer covers darkgray sandy silt mixed with old skeletal remains. RPD is not measurable although some oxidized sediment ispresent. Large twig at left of frame.NoIndeterminate IndeterminateNo penetration in both reps. Some rocks in distant background, bryozoans in foreground. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateMixed very dark sandy silt and fish skeletal remains. Fish bits to depth. No RPD. Highly organic and highSOD. Mostly vertebrae, radial, and scapular bones. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateMix of fish skeleton remain and wood fragments over silty fine sand. Some oxidized sediment present butRPD not measurable. Fish waste appears old. Surface appears washed. NoIndeterminate IndeterminateMix of mostly wood fragments and minor fish skeleton parts over silty fine sand. Very organic and RPD notmeasurable even though some oxidized sediment is present. Rep shows no oxidized sediment. Organicallyenriched. Surface is also washed.NoIndeterminate IndeterminateDark sand and scattered fish wast at SWI. No penetration. No oxidized sediment visible in foreground.Appears organically loaded. Both reps similar. YesIndeterminate Indeterminate

# A PPENDIX 

# B

Sediment Physical Analyses:

Analytical Resources, Inc.

Laboratory Report

# S

Analytical Resources, Incorporated

AnalytIcal Chemists and Consultants



# 20. October 2003

John Virgin

Tetra Tech, Inc

.

. 6100

- 219 th 

# Street SW Suite 550

MO,untlake Terrace, WA 98043

RE: Client Project: ADEC, Ketchikan

ARI Project: FX34

.



# Dear John:

Please find enclosed the original Chain-of-Custody record (COC) and the final results for

the samples from the project referenced above. Seven grab samples were received on

October 7, 2003. The samples were received intact and there were no discrepancies in

the paperwork. The samples were analyzed for TOC and grain size as requested.

These analyses proceeded without incident of note.

A copy of these reports will be kept on file with ARI. Should you have any questions or

. problems,**pl~ase** 

# feel free to call me at any time.

Sincerely,

ANALYTICAL RESOURCES, INC

.



# .**7lo{a(3'~.**

Mark D. Harris

Project Manager

206-695-6210

<mark@arilabs.com>

Enclosures

cc: File: FX34

MDH/esj

4611 South 134th Place, Suite 100

- Tukwila WA98168

- 206-695-6200- 206-695-6201 fax :'!c.

# Chain of Custody Record & Laboratory Analysis Request 

# •

Turn Around Requested:

# ;jJ:~.~f"I~ QI' 

# d

Report 

# to:.Joi) n 

# VI Y. a ,on Proj Name: 

# ADE ( ;KddLlkt.

,..., Analyses Requested

Company:teLra.

# ~Gh. Proj Number:

# ~ Address: 

# fr. 

# liJ 0 

# -cJlq-Lh Sampler: 

# I? 

# E.:5 .N



# 56,5 WI 66e 

# 5S D ) /)

# ~aJlJ-t 

# /dke.**kr"a~e** 

# Jwll 

# v)

Phone: 

# (<;.)5) 

# 7710 -376 / Shipping Method: 

# UPS ·s \j

# ~ Fax:

# ('I:l5)~73- 

# 91/9

AirBiII:

# ~

# ~ Sample Sample Sample No Con·

Sample ID Date Time Matrix tainers



# A/f:1-J5D 

# /O/o//a.**~/ltlh** 

# / 

# X 

# X

liG-50LD -:5t??;;75**~h** (].rab 

# I 

# )( 

# X 

# '= .t:)O**~Jb//t~~** 

# 5m), ) 

# )( 

# X'

JJlXo

- 5

- cXOD 

# 'O/;!p; 'G}(}b 

# / 

# X 

# X**Alta-~5 v%/lj)~**  

# {}-N;h**~** 

# Y 

# IX /**-r~/!JD** 

# /.:J/.;Jpj 

# dlV/b 

# I 

# X' 

# X

If b 

# F 

# #fo l/obk 16Mb / 

# X 

# IX

Relinquished: 

# /)L**Receive~** ,. 

# •. 

# - y?

Special Instructions/Notes**~.** 

# ,co

(Signature) " (Signature) -,-.-

/



# Printed name: Printed name:**~** 

# (

# ·Pt~'1 

# ;::.//**i(;.·:t-~·** 0- •



# ......... f

. 1 . .



# Company: Company:



# .r**~I** 

# 1'-)

, '" t

I



# Date: Time: Date: 

# 'f"?

. _ - Time: 

# Ie /"!i- I

/(;. 

# 09</!i Analytical Resources, Incorporated

Analytical Chemists and Consultants

4611 South 134th Place, Suite 100

Tukwila WA 98168

206-695-6200 206-695-6201 (fax)

Notes/Comments



# M**~ ~,** **~**

# ~

Number of Coolers: 

# I



# 9,. 1;-



# Cooler Temp(s): 

# ;;;

cac Seals Intact?

Bottles Intact?

Limits of Liability: Analytical Resources, Inc. (ARI) will perform all requested services in accordance with appropriate methodology follow ARI Standard Operating Procedures and

Quality Assurance Program. This program meets standards for the industry. The total liability 

# of ARI, its officers, agents, employees, 

# or successors, arising out 

# of or in connection with

the requested services, shall not exceed the invoiced amount for said services. The acceptance by the client 

# of a proposal for services by ARI releases ARI from any liability in excess

thereof, not withstanding any provision 

# to the contrary in any contract, purchase order 

# or co·signed agreement between ARI and the client.



# Please sign here if you would like these samples disposed of after expiration of standard archive times (60 days for waters 90 days for soils, sediments per contr.ict). If you do not want

these samples discarded we will begin charging you for storage after the disposal date. Samples be discarded after expiration: 

# ;':



# ..

# INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS

Page 1 of 1 

# Sample ID: MB-FX34

METHOD BLANK

Lab Sample 10: MB-FX34

LIMS 10: 03-13587

Matrix: Sediment

Data Release Authorized:

# ~ Reported: 10/20/03 QC Report Ne: FX34-Tetra Tech, Inc.

Project: ADEC, Ketchikan

Date Sampled: NA

Date Received: NA



# METHOD BLANK RESULTS



# CONVENT IONALS

Analysis ANALYTICAL._=

RESOURCES

# ~} INCORPORATED



# Analyte Date Method RL 

# Units Result

.. 

# ".



# Total Solids 10/08/03 EPA 160.3 0.01 mg residue 

# < 0.01 U



# SM 2540 B



# ...

Total Organic Carbon 10/15/03 Plumb, 1981 0.020 Percent 

# < 0.020 U



# Soil Method Blank QA Report for FX34 received 10/07/03

# INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS



# Page 1 of 1 Sample ID: NQ-150

SAMPLE " 

# , 1;--



# ANALYTICAL.

RESOURCES

-

# ~"" INCORPORATED



# Lab Sample ID: FX34A

LIMS ID: 03-13587

Matrix: Sediment QC Report No: FX34-Tetra Tech, Inc.

Data Release Authorized:

# ~ Reported: 10/20/03

Analysis

Analyte Date & 

# Batch



# Total Solids 10/08/03

100803#1

Total Organic Carbon 10/15/03

101503#1

RL Analytical reporting limit Project: ADEC, Ketchikan

Date Sampled: 10/01/03

Date Received: 10/07/03

Method DF RL



# EPA 160.3 0.01

SM 2540 B

Plumb,1981 0.020

U Undetected at reported detection limit

Report for FX34 Received 10/07/03 Units Result



# Percent 66.6

Percent 1.1

# INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS



# Page 1 of 1 Sample ID: AGSOLD-SE375

SAMPLE



# Lab Sample ID: FX34B

LIMS ID: 03-13588

Matrix: Sediment

Data Release Authorized:**~** 

# Reported: 10/20/03

Analysis

Analyte Date & Batch 

# QC Report Na: FX34-Tetra Tech, Inc.

Project: ADEC, Ketchikan

Date Sampled: 10/01/03

Date Received: 10/07/03

Method DF RL 

# Units ANALYTICAL

# .~= RESOURCES**~** 

# INCORPORATED



# Result



# Total Solids 10/08/03 EPA 160.3 0.01 Percent 47.7

100803#1 SM 2540 B

Total Organic Carbon 10/15/03 Plumb, 1981 0.020 Percent 

# 2.2

101503#1

RL Analytical reporting limit

U Undetected at reported detection limit

Report for FX34 Received 10/07/03

# INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS



# Page 1 of 1 Sample ID: T-50

SAMPLE ANALYTICAL.

RESOURCES 

# g

INCORPORATED



# Lab Sample ID: FX34C

LIMS ID: 03-13589

Matrix: Sediment QC Report No: FX34-Tetra Tech, Inc.

Data Release Authorized:**~** 

# Reported: 10/20/03

Analysis

Analyte Date & 

# Batch



# Total Solids 10/08/03

100803#1

Total Organic Carbon 10/15/03

101503#1

RL Analytical reporting limit Project: ADEC, Ketchikan

Date Sampled: 10/01/03

Date Received: 10/07/03

Method 

# DF RL



# EPA 160.3 0.01

SM. 2540 B



# Plurnb,1981 0.020

U Undetected at reported detection limit

Report for FX34 Received 10/07/03 Units Result



# Percent 52.0

Percent 2.3

# INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS

Page 1 of 1 Sample ID: NQO-S-200

SAMPLE



# Lab Sample 10: FX34D

LIMS ID: 03-13590

Matrix: Sediment

Data Release Authorized:**~** 

# Reported: 10/20/03

Analysis

Analyte Date & 

# Batch QC Report NG: 

# FX34-Tetra Tech, Inc.

Project: ADEC, Ketchikan

Date Sampled: 10/01/03

Date Received: 10/07/03

Method DF RL 

# Units ANALYTICAL 

# 1&**RESOURCES~** INCORPORATED



# Result

Total Solids 10/08/03 EPA 160.3 0.01 Percent 56.8

100803#1 SM 2540 B

Total Organic Carbon 10/15/03 Plumb, 1981 0.020 Percent 1.4

101503#1

RL Analytical reporting limit

U Undetected at reported detection limit

Report for FX34 Received 10/07/03

# INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS

Page 1 of 1 Sample ID: NQ-75

SAMPLE ANALYTICAL.

RESOURCES

# ~ INCORPORATED



# Lab Sample .10: 

# FX34E

LIMS 10: 

# 03-13591

Matrix: Sediment QC Report No: FX34-Tetra Tech, Inc.

Oata Release Authorized:

Reported: 10/20/03

Analysis

Analyte Date & Batch

Total Solids 10/08/03

100803#1

Total Organic Carbon 10/15/03

101503#1

RL Analytical reporting limit Project: AOEC, Ketchikan

Date Sampled: 10/01/03

Date Received: 10/07/03

Method DF RL



# EPA 160.3 0.01

SM 2540 B

Plumb, 1981 0.020

U Undetected at reported detection limit

Report for FX34 Received 10/07/03 Units Result

Percent 64.7

Percent 0.93 

# .. !e

# INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS

Piig 

# e 1 of 1 Sample ID: T-100

SAMPLE ANALYTICAL.

RESOURCES**~** 

# INCORPORATED



# Lab Sample 10: 

# FX34F

LIMS 10: 

# 03-13592

Matrix: Sediment QC Report NQ: 

# FX34-Tetra Tech, Inc.

Data Release Authorized:**~** 

# Reported: 10/20/03

Analysis

Analyte Date & 

# Batch

Total Solids 10/08/03

100803#1

Total Organic Carbon 10/15/03

101503#1

RL Analytical reporting limit Project: ADEC, Ketchikan

Date Sampled: 10/02/03

Date Received: 10/07/03

Method DF RL



# EPA 160.3 0.01

SM 2540 B



# Plurnb,1981 0.020

U Undetected at reported detection limit

Report for FX34 Received 10/07/03 Units Result

Percent 58.8

Percent 3.0

# INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS

Page 1 of 1 

# Sample ID: REF#6

SAMPLE A. 

# NALYTICAL 

# .IWI:

RESOURCES**~** 

# INCORPORATED



# Lab Sample ID: FX34G

LIMS ID: 03-13593

Matrix: Sediment QC Report NQ: FX34-Tetra Tech, Inc.

Data Release Authorized:

Reported: 10/20/03



# Analysis

Analyte Date 

# & Batch

Total Solids 10/08/03

100803#1

Total Organic Carbon 10/15/03

101503#1

RL Analytical reporting limit Project: ADEC, Ketchikan

Date Sampled: 10/02/03

Date Received: 10/07/03



# Method DF RL



# EPA 160.3 0.01

SM 2540 B

Plumb, 1981 0.020

U Undetected at reported detection limit

Report for FX34 Received 10/07/03 

# Units Result

Percent 60.0

Percent 1.3

# INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS Sample ID: DUP-FX34

DUPLICATE Page 1 of 1

Lab Sample ID: DUP-FX34

LIMS ID: 03-13587

Matrix: Sediment

Data Release Authorized:

Reported: 10/20/03



# Analyte

ARI ID: 03-13587, FX34A

Total Solids

Total Organic Carbon QC Report NQ: FX34-Tetra Tech, Inc.

Project: ADEC, Ketchikan

Date Received: 10/07/03



# DUPLICATE RESULTS



# CONVENT IONALS

Method Units Sample Replicate

Client Sample ID: NQ-150

EPA 160.3 Percent 66.6 70.8

SM 2540 B 

# 71. 6

Plumb, 1981 Percent 1.1 1.1

1.1

Soil Replicate QA Report Page for FX34 received1D/07/03 ANALYTICAL 

# Iji\

RESOURCES

# ~ ,. INCORPORATED



# RPD/RSD

3.9%

0.0%

# INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS

Page 1 of 1 Sample ID: MS/MSD-FX34

MATRIX SPIKE

Lab Sample ID: MS-FX34

LIMS ID: 03-13587

Matrix: Sediment

Data Release Authorized:**~** 

# Reported: 10/20/03

Analyte QC Report NG: FX34-Tetra Tech, Inc.

Project: ADEC, Ketchikan

Date Received: 10/07/03

MATRIX SPIKE RESULTS



# CONVENT IONALS

Method Units Sample Spike

ARI ID: 03-13587, FX34A Client Sample ID: NQ-150

Total Organic Carbon Plumb,1981 Percent 1.12 2.65 ANALYTICAL 

# I&.

RESOURCES"'" 

# l.

. INCORPORATED



# MS/

MSD REC

3.78 100%

Water Matrix Spike QA Report Page for FX34 received-10/07/0s

# INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

Sample ID: SRM-FX34 ANALYTICAL.

# RESOURCES~ INCORPORATED



# LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS

Page 1 of 1 STANDARD REFERENCE

Lab Sample ID: SRM-FX34

LIMS ID: 03-13587

Matrix: Sediment

Data Release Authorized:**~** 

# Reported: 10/20/03 QC Report**N~** 

# FX34-Tetra Tech, Inc.

Project: ADEC, Ketchikan

Date Sampled: NA

Date Received: NA

STANDARD REFERENCE RESULTS



# CONVENT IONALS

Analysis

Analyte Date & 

# Batch Method Units SRM

NIST #8704

Total Carbon 10/15/03 Plumb,1981 Percent 2.81

101503#1

Standard Reference QA Report for FX34 received 10J07/03 

# True REC

3.35 83.9%**~~:**

# Client: Tetra Tech, Inc. ARI Project No.: FX34

Client Project No.: ADEC, Ketchikan



# Case Narrative

1. The Samples were received on October 7,2003 and were in good condition. ANALYTICAL.

# RESOURCES~ INCORPORATED



# 2. The samples were tested according to Puget Sound Estuary Protocol (PSEP)

methodology for grain size distribution.

3. A triplicate was run with this batch and is reported in the attached QA summary.

4. The after moisture content was used on samples AGSOLD-SE375 and T-50.

5. Samples T-50 and NQ-75 did not contain enough fines in the sample to reach the

5-gram limit for the pipette portion of the analysis. The balance is limited to 220

grams for the wet sediment and tare, so it was not possible to increase the

sample size enough to reach the 5-gram limit. The data looks acceptable, but

should be carefully evaluated before use.

6. There were no further anomalies to the samples or testing.

Approved**by:--.!...1l!t.~~~~~C-** 

# ___ _ 

# Title: Geotechnical Divis

# Tetra Tech, Inc.

ADEC, Ketchikan

PSEP Total Solids Analysis

Percent of Wet Weight

Sample No. Total Solids

(%)

FT75A-1 34.9

FT75A-2 35.0

FT75A-3 34.9

NQ-150 66.1

AGSOLD-SE375 54.1

T-50 50.0

NQO-S-200 56.9

NQ-75 64.8

T-100 57.3

REF#6 54.7

Triplicate Average 34.9

Standard Deviation 0.06

%RSD 0.19

FX34 ANALYTICAL.

# RESOURCES~ INCORPORATED**~.**

# PROJECT: Tetra Tech. Inc.

ARI Triplicate Sample ID: FT75A

Client Triplicate Sample ID: FT75A

Sample 1D 

# -3 

# -2 -1 0

FT75A-1 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.6

FT75A-2 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.5

FT75A-3 100.0 100.0 99.9 95.6

AVE NA 100.00 99.90 97.24

STDEV NA 0.00 0.05 2.11

%RSD NA 0.00 0.05 2.17

ARIID Client ID Date Sampled

FT75A FT75A-1 N/A

FT75A FT75A-2 N/A

FT75A FT75A-3 N/A

FX34A NQ-150 

# 10/9/03

FX34B AGSOLD-SE375 

# 10/1/03

FX34C T-50 

# 10/1103

FX34D NQO-S-200 

# 10/1/03

FX34E NQ-75 

# 10/1103

FX34F T-100 

# 10/2103

FX34G REF#6 

# 10/2103

_. 

# --

- ----



# , REGL Internal QA limits 

# = 95-105%

Notes to the Testing:

1. See narrative for discussion of testing. 

# QASUMMARY

Project No.:

Batch No.:

Page:

Relative Standard Deviation. By Phi Size

1 

# 2 3 4 

# 5

99.3 95.3 92.5 89.5 84.9

93.9 91.2 89.5 87.8 83.8

93.4 90.5 89.2 87.3 83.0

95.51 92.34 90.41 88.18 83.89

3.26 2.61 1.82 1.17 0.98

3.41 2.82 2.01 1.33 1.17

The Triplicate Applies To The Following Samples

Date Extracted



# 10/10103

10/10103

10/10103

10/9/03

10/9/03

10/9/03

10/9/03

10/9/03

10/9/03**-~---------** 

# 10/9/03

-

... 

# -_. 

# ADEC. Ketchikan

FX34 -01

1 of 1



# 6 

# 7

65.7 46.6

63.5 44.3

62.3 42.9

63.84 44.58

1.72 1.83

2.69 4.11

Date Complete



# 10/16/03

10/16/03

10/16/03

10/16/03

10/16/03

10/16/03

10/16/03

10/16/03

10/16/03

10/16/03__

_,



# .,.:

.. , 

# 8 9

33.0 23.8

31.6 22.9

30.8 21.7

31.80 22.80

1.12 1.09**3.~** L_. 

# 4

. 8O

QA'

97.5

97.1

98.4

100.4

96.8

97.8

100.4

100.5

99.9

100.8

--- 

# 10

16.2

15.1

13.8

15.06

1.23

8.20

---



# FX34 

# ANALYTICAL.

# RESOURCES~ INCORPORATED

I 

# I

I

I

I

, 

# 'I

# GRAVEL



# ...**~n.** 

# -

---



# 10000 1000

-+-FT75A-1

;".--,,' 

# PSEP Grain Size Distribution

Triplicate Sample Plot

SAND



# r--

-+--

# ~ I-f

# rt**~** SILT

# ,~

# ~**,~ ~~** 

# ~**~**

# "~

# ~**~ ~** 

-



# ,



# 100 10

Particle Diameter (microns)



# _FT75A-2 

# ""*- FT7 5A-3

.;. 

# CLAY

# ~**~** ANALYTICAL.

# RESOURCES~ INCORPORATED



# 100

90

80

70

- 

# 60

"tJ

(II



# ., n

(II 

# 50 :l



# -

."



# , s·



# 40 (II



# .,



# 30

# ~ 20

10

0**:;~ '';~'~''.~;'**  

# '.

(.

# Very

Sample No. Gravel Coarse

Sand

Phi Size -3 -2 -1 0

Sieve Size (microns) 3/8" #4 #10 #18

(2000) (1000)

FT75A-1 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.6

FT75A-2 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.5

FT75A-3 100.0 100.0 99.9 95.6

NQ-150 100.0 99.6 98.7 97.7

AGSOLD-SE375 100.0 76.3 67.5 60.6

T-50 100.0 99.7 95.2 90.0

NQO-S-200 100.0 99.9 99.7 98.6

NQ-75 100.0 99.4 99.0 97.8

T-100 100.0 99.4 93.9 86.7

REF#6 100.0 99.7 97.5 93.2

Notes to the Testing:

; 11. Apparent grain size distributions according to PSEP protocols. Tetra Tech, Inc.

ADEC, Ketchikan

Apparent Grain Size Distribution Summary

Percent Finer Than Indicated Size

Coarse Medium Very Fine Fine Sand Sand Sand Sand

1 2 3 4

#35 #60 #120 #230

(500) (250) (125) (62)

99.3 95.3 92.5 89.5

93.9 91.2 89.5 87.8

93.4 90.5 89.2 87.3

93.8 84.0 42.7 7.1

53.2 43.0 24.9 11.8

81.5 69.7 30.2 7.0

95.7 87.6 55.2 17.9

95.3 87.8 46.0 5.1

77.7 67.1 29.1 6.9

85.8 73.0 39.4 16.0 Silt

5 6 7

31.00 15.60 7.80

84.9 65.7 46.6

83.8 63.5 44.3

83.0 62.3 42.9

4.7 3.9 3.3

9.1 6.9 5.4

5.4 4.0 3.3

11.3 8.7 7.4

3.1 2.6 2.4

5.4 4.5 3.8

12.0 9.4 7.7 8

3.90

33.0

31.6

30.8

2.8

4.3

2.9

6.3

2.1

3.1

6.0**1.,··r~'** 

# ••. 

# ANALYTICAL.

RESOURCES 

# '¥

INCORPORATED

Clay

9 10

2.00 1.00

23.8 16.2

22.9 15.1

21.7 13.8

2.3 1.9

3.5 2.9

2.8 2.7

5.0 3.7

1.9 1.7

2.4 2.2

4.4 3.4

FX34

# Very Coarse Sample No. Gravel Coarse

Sand Sand

Phi Size > 

# -1 -1 to 0 

# o to 1

Sieve Size (microns) >#10 10 

# to 18 18-35

(2000) (2000-1000) (1000-500)



# FT75A-1 0.2 0.2 0.4

FT75A-2 0.0 3.4 2.6

FT75A-3 0.1 4.3 2.2

NQ-150 1.3 1.0 3.8

AGSOLD-SE375 32.5 6.9 7.4

T-50 4.8 5.2 8.5

NQO-S-200 0.3 1.1 2.9

NQ-75 1.0 1.1 2.5

T-100 6.1 7.2 8.9

REF#6 2.5 4.3 7.4**~----** 

# ------ - ------



# Notes to the Testing: Tetra Tech, Inc.

ADEC, Ketchikan

Apparent Grain Size Distribution Summary

Percent Retained in Each Size Fraction

Medium Very Fine Coarse Medium Fine Sand Sand Sand Silt Silt

1 to 2 2 to 3 3 t04 4 to 5 5 to 6

35-60 60-120 120-230 62.5-31.0 31.0-15.6 (500-250) (250-125) (125-62)



# 3.9 2.8 3.0 4.6 19.2

2.7 1.6 1.8 4.0 20.3

2.8 1.4 1.9 4.3 20.6

9.9 41.3 35.6 2.4 0.7

10.3 18.1 13.1 2.6 2.2

11.7 39.5 23.2 1.6 1.3

8.1 32.4 37.3 6.6 2.6

7.4 41.8 40.9 2.0 0.5

10.6 38.0 22.1 1.6 0.9

12.7 33.6 23.4 4.1 2.6

--



# 1. Apparent grain size distributions according to PSEP protocols.

.",\',C". "',":.



# , <..**~** 

# J 

# Very Fine Fine Silt Silt

6 to 7 7 to 8

15.6-7.8 7.8-3.9



# 19.2 13.5

19.2 12.7

19.4 12.1

0.6 0.5

1.5 1.2

0.7 0.4

1.3 1.1

0.2 0.3

0.7 0.7

1.7 1.7



# - Clay

8 to 9 9 to 10

3.9-2.0 2.0-1.0



# 9.2 7.6

8.7 7.8

9.2 7.9

0.5 0.4

0.7 0.6

0.1 0.1

1.3 1.3

0.2 0.1

0.6 0.2

1.6 1.0

" i ',:; '.,:;'; :**~** 

# , 

# ANALYTICAL.

# RESOURCES~ INCORPORATED

<10

<1.0



# 16.2

15.1

1,3.8

1.9

2.9

2.7

3.7

1.7

2.;2

3.4

FX34**'~'.** - 

# ':'\'

"

# GRAVEL



# \ 

# - r--;**~** r-

# ~t:::

\ 

# 1\

....... 1""-



# r---

'\. 

# 11·**~** 

# I'-......



# --.**~a**

........... i'- 

# r---,



# ......

_.



# 10000 1000



# -+-NQ-150 

# PSEP Grain Size Distribution

SAND

# ~

# ~ 

# '"**~\**

# ~ 

# _\**\~**



# '"**~**

# ~~ \ \

# ~'" 

# \ \ 1\



# 1\

# ~**~** 

# \

\

# ~**I",~**

# ~ i'- t'1I 

# r-**~** 

# ,

-

100

Particle Diameter (microns)



# _ AGSOLD-SE375 --,!r-- 

# T -50 SILT CLAY

-



# 10



# --*""- NQO-S-200 ANALYTICAL 

# t&**RESOURCES~** INCORPORATED



# 100

90

80

70

60

"'D

<D



# ..,

C') 

# <D 

# 50 :::s



# ....



# , "T1 

# :i"

<D 

# 40 

# ..,

30



# _._------ 20

10

0

# PSEP Grain Size Distribution

GRAVEL SAND



# -- N**~ ~** 

# ~**~r--** 

# r--. r'\. 

# "-, 1I..r-., i"'"

# ~ 

# \ r'- 

# r--

r-..... 

# t"'-..



# , h

.... 

# t\**~** 

# !\ 

# \' \\ \\\ \

\\\ \'\

\

-_.

# I'~**~r-...** 

# 1\

# ~**I\~** ......... I..r"-- 

# r't

-'"



# r--...**~** 

# r--



# 10000 1000 100

Particle Diameter (microns)



# -+-NQ-75 _T-100**-~** 

# SILT CLAY

1-.



# -- c---



# -**~**



# 10

-,!r-REF#6

;.-, ;.;.' 

# ANALYTICAL 

# t&g

RESOURCES

.... INCORPORATED



# 100

90

80

70

60

"tI

(!)



# .., (")

(!) 

# 50 ;a.

"T1



# , :i'



# 40 (!)



# ..,

30

20

- 

# 10

0

'

..**.',.,~.l.:~;:** 

# .. ,,, 

# ..**~-;,.** 

# ,

# A PPENDIX 

# C

Benthic Sorting/Identification Results:

Marine Taxonomic Services, Ltd.Table C-1. Benthic abundance data by grab sample for 2003 Tongass Narrows Benthic Study, Ketchikan, AlaskaStationGrab1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12 3 4Total Polychaeta1282 942 1524 1347 393 5257 5550 3467 5700 3142 2832 2194 820 2279 1080 405 338 469 336Ampharete acutifrons2 2122 3 5Ampharete finmarchica4 6 4 10 14 34Ampharetidae sp. indet./juv.2Anobothrus gracilis1 1Aphelochaeta monilaris1Apistobranchus tullbergiAricidea lopeziAricidea quadrilobataAricidea ramosaAricidea simplexArmandia brevis302 313 681 558 104 2503 3000 1712 2641 1726 2097 1574 577 1666 818 4 9 17 40Artacama conifera1Asabellides sibirica4 2 312Autolytus sp. indet./juv.12Barantolla nr. americana1Betapista dekkarae1Capitella capitata 'hyperspecies3 3 3 232450 2202 1563 2708 1220 546 470 68 460 210 1Capitellidae sp. indet./juv.14 11Caulleriella pacifica31 1 1 1Chaetozone nr. setosa121 1Chaetozone sp. 1 (HRJ)1Chaetozone sp. indet./juv.1 2Chone duneri1 16 1 11 1Cirratulidae sp. 1 (HRJ)1Cirratulidae sp. indet./juv.21 28 24 34 8 1 1 6 2 11 7Cirratulus spectabilis1 1Clymenura gracilis1Crucigera irregularisDecamastus gracilis45 42 23 14 2723 20 20 24Diopatra ornata1 11 1Dipolydora caulleryi3Dipolydora socialis12 11Dorvillea pseudorubrovittata1 2 2 1 2 1 10 2Dorvillea rudolphi5 9 5 2 32 29 21 45 30 30 38 40 16 4 2Dorvilleidae sp. indet./juv.5Drilonereis falcataEhlersia heterochaetaEnipo canadensis1Eranno bicirrata11 11Eranno lagunae1Eteone californica36 19 16 24 4 1 5 3 4 4 2 4 9 10 2AGS OLD-SE375 T-50 T-100 NQ 0-S200Page 1 of 20Table C-1. Benthic abundance data by grab sample for 2003 Tongass Narrows Benthic Study, Ketchikan, AlaskaStationGrab1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12 3 4AGS OLD-SE375 T-50 T-100 NQ 0-S200Eteone spilotusEuchone arenae6 1 2 61 14 11Euclymeninae sp. indet./juv.10 3 5 9 1312 4 3Eulalia bilineata31 2Eumida longicornuta12 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 2 3 2Eunoe nodosaExogone lourei1 1Exogone sp. indet./juv.1Flabelligera affinisFlabelligeridae sp. indet./juv.1 3Galathowenia oculata28 33 20 26 11149 139 145 34Gattyana cirrosa3 311 1Glycera americana1 1Glycera nana7 5 6 7136 2 2Glycera sp. indet./juv.1 2 1 13Glycinde armigera5 4 5 2 1 4 2 7 26 15 27 15 6 1Glycinde polygnatha13 1Glycinde sp. indet./juv.1 5745 3Goniada maculataHesionidae sp. indet./juv.1 31 1Heteromastus filobranchus3 421Idanthyrsus saxicavus21Lanassa nordenskioldi1Lanassa venustaLaonice cirrata1 2 3221 2 1Laonice pugettensis1 21Leitoscoloplos pugettensis25 14 7 7Lepidasthenia longocirrataLevinsenia gracilis112 9 13 12Lumbrineridae sp. indet./juv.73 46 64 45 9 1 1 16 13 29 39Lumbrineris californiensis13 1 13 1Lumbrineris cruzensis121 1Lumbrineris inflataMagelona longicornis73 38 57 46 15 2 4 8 16 8Magelona pitelkai1Maldanidae sp. indet./juv.5 7 2 4218 7 24 2Malmgreniella sp. indet./juv.20 13 6 10 3 1 2 1Manayunkia aestuarinaMediomastus californiensis38 17 11 21 21 1 1 1 1 16 8 6 8Megalomma splendida1 1Melinna elisabethae1Mesochaetopterus taylori1Microphthalmus sczelkowii1 2 29 19 7 1 6 1 1 3Page 2 of 20Table C-1. Benthic abundance data by grab sample for 2003 Tongass Narrows Benthic Study, Ketchikan, AlaskaStationGrab1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12 3 4AGS OLD-SE375 T-50 T-100 NQ 0-S200Micropodarke dubia19 7 19 20 4 32 48 18 29 27 13 6 13 9 4 1Montacellina sp. 1 (HRJ)1 1Mooresamytha bioculata11231 1Myxicola infundibulumNephtys cornuta72 23 84 64 25 1 2 1Nephtys ferruginea7 3 4 5 2 1 15 20 20 18Nephtys sp. indet./juv.11 34Nereidae sp. indet./juv.1 1Nereis procera2 1 1 11Nereis sp. indet./juv.1Nichomachinae sp. indet./juv.1 1Nicolea zostericola3 3Notomastus hemipodus123 412 2Notomastus lineatus1Odontosyllis phosphoreaOnuphis elegansOphelina acuminata2 1Ophelina breviata11Ophryotrocha sp. 1 (HRJ)67 40 32 51 27 4 3 1 11 1Orbiniidae sp. indet./juv.1 11Owenia fusiformis11 1 61 5Paleonotus bellis21 1Paradoneis lyra1Paraonidae sp. indet./juv.Paraprionospio pinnata3 1 2 1121 2Pectinaria californiensis17 5 9 11 134 7 3Pectinaria granulata13 3 15 8 1 2 1 2 2Petaloproctus borealisPettibonia sp. 1 (HRJ)112 1Pettibonia sp. 2 (HRJ)1 1 15 10 20 15 2 1 3 1Pherusa negligens112Pholoe minuta36 30 40 31 5 1 4 2 3 5 1 10 5 2 7 17Pholoe sp. indet./juv.21 1 2Pholoe sp. N-1 (NAMIT)14 1 1Pholoides aspera2 3 1 121Phyllochaetopterus prolifica81Phyllodoce groenlandica11 9 4 6 11Phyllodoce hartmanae7 2 1 2 1 103 148 73 162 50 51 55 15 73 12Phyllodoce sp. 1 (HRJ)11 11 10 4 19 12 24 13 32 4 5 8 3Phyllodoce sp. 2 (HRJ)1Phyllodoce sp. indet./juv.3 4 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 1 1Phyllodocidae sp. 1 (HRJ)1Phyllodocidae sp. 3 (HRJ)Page 3 of 20Table C-1. Benthic abundance data by grab sample for 2003 Tongass Narrows Benthic Study, Ketchikan, AlaskaStationGrab1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12 3 4AGS OLD-SE375 T-50 T-100 NQ 0-S200Phyllodocidae sp. indet./juv.1Pilargis maculata1Pionosyllis sp. indet./juv.2 5 1 1 21 1Pionosyllis sp. 1 (HRJ)Pista bansei1 1Pista percyiPista wuiPlatynereis bicanaliculata11Podarke pugettensis5 31 1 4 1 1Podarkeopsis perkinsi8 4 3 1 1 1 1 121 15Polycirrus sp. complex31 26 19 27 8 1 2 1 1 5 1 2Polydora limicolaPolynoidae sp. indet./juv.28 12 33 14 4 1 1 1 1 1 1Praxillella affinis1Praxillella gracilis1Prionospio lighti1 4 9 3 2 1 2 1 1 11 7Prionospio multibranchiata41 1 1Prionospio steenstrupi142 73 155 124 37 1 3 7 15 8 15 19Protodorvillea gracilis17 7 2 5 2 3 3 1 1 4 6 10 3 1Pseudochitinopoma occidentalisPseudopotamilla sp. 1 (HRJ)1Rhodine bitorquataRynchospio glutaeusSabellidae sp.4 (HRJ)Sabellidae sp. 6 (HRJ)1Sabellidae sp. indet./juv.3 6 1147 6 9Salmacina tribranchiataScalibregma inflatum11 1Schizobranchia insignis1Scolelepis foliosa1Scoletoma luti11 20 13 10 20 1 7 7 12 10Serpulidae sp. indet./juv.Sphaerodoropsis minutaSphaerodoropsis sphaerulifer1 111 3 9 9Sphaerodorum papilliferSphaerosyllis californiensis2112Sphaerosyllis ranunculus10 1 19 17 6 4 2 1 2 1 2 7 1Sphaerosyllis sp. 2 (HRJ)2Spio cirrifera18 15 21 17 421 5 1Spiochaetopterus costarum7 4 1 32 1 3 41Spionidae sp. indet./juv.1Spiophanes berkeleyorum1 213 3Spirorbidae sp. indet./juv.Page 4 of 20Table C-1. Benthic abundance data by grab sample for 2003 Tongass Narrows Benthic Study, Ketchikan, AlaskaStationGrab1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12 3 4AGS OLD-SE375 T-50 T-100 NQ 0-S200Sthenalais berkeleyi1Syllidae sp. indet. (stolon)3 1 2 111Syllidae sp. indet./juv.3 321Syllidae sp. 1 (HRJ)Syllis armillarisSyllis elongata18 14 14 10 9 1 1 2 1 1 1 3Syllis harti22 23 19 42 62 1Syllis sp. indet./juv.19Syllis sp. 1 (HRJ)3 2Tenonia priops4 2 1 2 1 2 1 5 13 11Terebellidae sp. indet./juv.5 3 9 421Terebellides californica32111 3 4Terebellides stroemi1Travisia brevisTravisia sp. indet./juv.1Trichobranchus glacialis441312 4 7Total Mollusca336 304 329 415 201 20 20 11 8 12 69 44 51 25 38 438 327 489 445Acila castrensis3 6 1 2 1 1 189 163 192 188Acteocina eximia6 5 5 241Adontorhina cycliaAdontorhina sphaericosaAeolidacea sp. indet.Aglaja ocelligera1 21 11 11Alvania compacta1 111 3 2Amphissa columbiana1Astarte ellipticaAstarte esquimalti1Astyris gausapata61321 9 3 18 10Axinopsida serricata50 39 59 67 32 1 1 2 11 16 5 5 51 24 56 31Bivalvia sp. juv.21Calyptraea fastigiataCardiomya pectinataChaetoderma sp. indet.Chlamys hastataChlamys rubidaClinocardium californienseClinocardium nuttalli142534 6 4Clinocardium sp. juv.Compsomyax subdiaphana2 1 1 5 1 4 8 23 10Crepipatella dorsataCryptonatica affinis11Cyclocardia ventricosa42141Page 5 of 20Table C-1. Benthic abundance data by grab sample for 2003 Tongass Narrows Benthic Study, Ketchikan, AlaskaStationGrab1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12 3 4AGS OLD-SE375 T-50 T-100 NQ 0-S200Cylichna attonsa1 2Delectopecten vancouverensisDiaphana californicaEnnucula tenuis122 1 1Epitonium indianorumEuspira pallida1Flabellina sp. indet.Gastropoda sp. juv.3 2 1 1 2 134Gastropteron pacificum2 1 1 2 5 11 3 1Hiatella arctica1Humilaria kennerleyiIschnochitona albusKurtziella plumbea1Lacuna vincta11Lottia sp. indet.4Lucinoma annulatum1 11Lyonsia californica111244Macoma carlottensis2 11 1Macoma elimata1Macoma golikovi1211 1 11Macoma moestaMacoma nasuta1 11Macoma sp. juv.3 1 1 11 1 2Macoma yoldiformisMargarites pupillusMelanochlamys diomedea10 2 4 1 3 7 1 1 4 2 4 5 1 1Modiolus modiolus1Mopalia imporcataMopalia phorminx1Musculus discors2 1Mya arenaria6 3 1 731 2Mytilidae sp. juv.11 7 5 7 10 4 2 2 3 1 1 1 1Nassarius mendicus1 1 2 4 2 8 5 6 11Neptunea tabulata1Nuculana minutaNuculana penderi11Nuculana sp. juv.Nudibranchia sp. indet.1Nutricola lordi1 1 1 1 12Odostomia sp. indet.219 11 30 13Oenopota cf. solidaOenopota sp. indet.Oenopota fidicula1 11 1 4 1Page 6 of 20Table C-1. Benthic abundance data by grab sample for 2003 Tongass Narrows Benthic Study, Ketchikan, AlaskaStationGrab1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12 3 4AGS OLD-SE375 T-50 T-100 NQ 0-S200Olivella baetica7 2 161Olivella sp. juv.12 5 44Onchidoris sp. indet.Pandora bilirata11 2Pandora filosaPandora sp. indet.1Parvilucina tenuisculpta170 175 178 276 138 1 1 1 23 19 16 11 13 113 81 112 121Parviplustrum sp. indet.11 1 1Philine sp. indet.Pododesmus macroschisma1Protothaca staminea2Pulsellum salishorum222352 1 4Puncturella cooperi1Rochefortia tumida50 41 26 21 11 1 5 5 2 2 18 6 9 2 8 12 10 5 16Saxidomus gigantea1 11Solamen columbianum3 4 1 1 1 1 22 3 3Solen sicariusTellina modesta1Tellina sp. juv.Thracia challisianaThracia trapezoidesThyasira flexuosa221263Trichotopis cancellata6 11Trophonopsis lasiusTurbonilla sp. indet.112 11Velutina plicatilisVitreolina columbianaTotal Crusctacea47 39 45 73 9 33 38 25 14 16 15 5 14 10 0 49 26 67 44Achelia enchinata1Acidostoma hancocki2Americhelidium rectipalmum4 4184 9 3Ampelisca careyiAmpelisca lobataAmpelisca pugetica2Ampelisca sp. indet.1Ampelisca unsocalaeAmphipoda sp. juv.3 7Anonyx lilljeborgi2 11 1Aoroides sp. indet.1 1Argissa hamatipes21Bopyridae sp. indet.Byblis millsi1 5 7 11 2 2 3 1 9 1Page 7 of 20Table C-1. Benthic abundance data by grab sample for 2003 Tongass Narrows Benthic Study, Ketchikan, AlaskaStationGrab1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12 3 4AGS OLD-SE375 T-50 T-100 NQ 0-S200Calanoida sp. indet.21 1Campylaspis rubromaculataCampylaspis rufaCampylaspis sp. indet.Cancer branneri344Cancer gracilis1 71 21 1 4Cancer productusCancer sp. juv.1Caprella sp. juv.Caprella striataCirripedia sp. indet.Corophiidae sp. indet.11Corophium sp. indet.2Crangon alaskensis112 1Cumella vulgaris1Cylindroleberididae sp. indet.1Decapoda megalopa1 1Diastylis bidentataDiastylis santamariensisDyopedos sp. indet.1Eobrolgus chumashi1Eualus pusiolusEudorella pacifica131 2 1Eudorellopsis integraEudorellopsis longirostris11 1Euphilomedes producta2 11Eusirus longipesFoxiphalus similis7 13 6 13 5 1 4 2 3 6Guernea reduncans1 1Halacaridae sp. indet.1Harpacticoida sp. indet.1 23 25 18 2 11 3Heterophoxus affinis3Heterophoxus conlanaeHeterophoxus ellisi1 1222Heterophoxus sp. indet.Hippolytidae sp. indet.1Kroyera carinataLamprops sp. indet.2 11Leptochelia dubia2 2 1 9 1 18 4Leucon armatusLeucon subnasica1 11 1Limnoria sp. juv.Megamoera sp. indet.11 11Page 8 of 20Table C-1. Benthic abundance data by grab sample for 2003 Tongass Narrows Benthic Study, Ketchikan, AlaskaStationGrab1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12 3 4AGS OLD-SE375 T-50 T-100 NQ 0-S200Metacrangon munitaMetopa sp. indet.1Monocorophium sp. indet.1Munna sp. indet.1 11Nebalia ?pugettensis4 1 8 12 2 2 1 3 1Neotrypaea sp. indet.Nicippe tumidaOpisa tridentata1 1Orchomene decipiens4 1 6 12Orchomene pacifica111Oregonia gracilis1Pachynus ?barnardi123 7 2Pagurus armatus11 1Pagurus setosusPagurus sp. indet.1Panoploea sp. indet.Parapleustes pugettensis5 1 2 1 6 7 5 6 3 8 257 1 2Parathemisto pacifica1 1Photis sp. indet.1 1Pinnixa sp. indet43 11 12Protomedeia sp. indet.13 1 244 3 4Pugettia ?richiiRhachotropis oculata1Rocinela bellicepsRutiderma lomaeScoloura phillipsi12 2Spirontocaris ochotensisTiron biocellataTritella pilimanaUristes sp. indet.1Westwoodilla caecula5 241Zeuxo normani1 1Total Miscellaneous229 147 185 234 48 1935 2503 1249 2023 2206 285 855 23 8 15 16 21 50 30Acidiacea sp. Indet.1Arhynchite pugettensis1Asteroidea sp. indet.Chelyosoma columbianumGolfingia pugettensisHirudinea sp. indet.11Holothuroidea sp. indet.33151 1Laqueus californianusLeptasterias hexactisPage 9 of 20Table C-1. Benthic abundance data by grab sample for 2003 Tongass Narrows Benthic Study, Ketchikan, AlaskaStationGrab1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12 3 4AGS OLD-SE375 T-50 T-100 NQ 0-S200Nematoda sp. indet.140 82 137 149 28 1924 2477 1245 2017 2200 266 839 1 1 13 10 14 33 20Nemertinea sp. indet.44 32 22 44 11 11 25 2 5 6 19 16 19 6 1 1 5 5 7Nynanthaea sp. indet.3 25Oligochaeta sp. indet./juv.29 24 17 34 7 1 1 2 4Ophiura lutkeni521 11Ophiura sp. indet.32412 11Pachycerianthus fimbriatusPhoronida sp. indet.11Platyhelminthes (Turbellaria)323 1 1Strongelocentrotus droebockiensisUnknown #11Virgularia sp. indet.1Total Abundance1894 1432 2083 2069 651 7245 8111 4752 7745 5376 3201 3098 908 2322 1133 908 712 1075 855Page 10 of 20Table C-1. Benthic abundance data by grab sample for 2003 Tongass Narrows Benthic Study, Ketchikan, AlaskaStationGrabTotal PolychaetaAmpharete acutifronsAmpharete finmarchicaAmpharetidae sp. indet./juv.Anobothrus gracilisAphelochaeta monilarisApistobranchus tullbergiAricidea lopeziAricidea quadrilobataAricidea ramosaAricidea simplexArmandia brevisArtacama coniferaAsabellides sibiricaAutolytus sp. indet./juv.Barantolla nr. americanaBetapista dekkaraeCapitella capitata 'hyperspeciesCapitellidae sp. indet./juv.Caulleriella pacificaChaetozone nr. setosaChaetozone sp. 1 (HRJ)Chaetozone sp. indet./juv.Chone duneriCirratulidae sp. 1 (HRJ)Cirratulidae sp. indet./juv.Cirratulus spectabilisClymenura gracilisCrucigera irregularisDecamastus gracilisDiopatra ornataDipolydora caulleryiDipolydora socialisDorvillea pseudorubrovittataDorvillea rudolphiDorvilleidae sp. indet./juv.Drilonereis falcataEhlersia heterochaetaEnipo canadensisEranno bicirrataEranno lagunaeEteone californica5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12 3 4 5409 926 959 2922 1939 1153 881 1295 3177 1580 1370 401 461 634 583 406621 1 2 41 2 13 211 1 24 8 6 31 112 51419 10 102 116 16 45 22 18 31 322 781 2321 997 670 12 4 15 112 1 1 23 21 4 2 4 6 222111 873 882 2837 1897 1101 9 6 37 21 29 11 2 17 2 11 31 11 2 3151253 111 13 113 4 4 7 3 41 62 47 65 551 4 6243 123 9 10 3 6 11 33 59 56 62 511 1 1 1214 1 31 1 2 11 181 2 1 3 2 7 35 8 5 3 8 7 5 31 12 5 10 11 14 2 2 3 8 1 13 2 15 1 2 2 8 6NQ-75NQ-150 REF-6Page 11 of 20Table C-1. Benthic abundance data by grab sample for 2003 Tongass Narrows Benthic Study, Ketchikan, AlaskaStationGrabEteone spilotusEuchone arenaeEuclymeninae sp. indet./juv.Eulalia bilineataEumida longicornutaEunoe nodosaExogone loureiExogone sp. indet./juv.Flabelligera affinisFlabelligeridae sp. indet./juv.Galathowenia oculataGattyana cirrosaGlycera americanaGlycera nanaGlycera sp. indet./juv.Glycinde armigeraGlycinde polygnathaGlycinde sp. indet./juv.Goniada maculataHesionidae sp. indet./juv.Heteromastus filobranchusIdanthyrsus saxicavusLanassa nordenskioldiLanassa venustaLaonice cirrataLaonice pugettensisLeitoscoloplos pugettensisLepidasthenia longocirrataLevinsenia gracilisLumbrineridae sp. indet./juv.Lumbrineris californiensisLumbrineris cruzensisLumbrineris inflataMagelona longicornisMagelona pitelkaiMaldanidae sp. indet./juv.Malmgreniella sp. indet./juv.Manayunkia aestuarinaMediomastus californiensisMegalomma splendidaMelinna elisabethaeMesochaetopterus tayloriMicrophthalmus sczelkowii5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12 3 4 5NQ-75NQ-150 REF-61634 37 23 21 1 1 2211 14 6 1 11 1411 12 1 1118 21 17 11 16 29 9 11 17 33 121 2 1 73 7 5 631 13 2 2 5 3 8 33 3 77 329 13 24 13 22 1 21 32425 121 211 111 121 1 2 1 1 1 112 1 1 42 2 21 114 1 17 21 17 12 9 6 2 2 8 611717 27 57 33 4523 77 46 24 47 72 61 47 62 38 201 4 18 5 23 30 2 1 6 1 12 26 1 2 3 4 6 126 13 10 7 1 7 24 50 23 55 261 35 8 3 1 2 11 3 4 1 2 11 11112 117 2 5 2 13 17 20 16 26 9 13 43 30 711 11Page 12 of 20Table C-1. Benthic abundance data by grab sample for 2003 Tongass Narrows Benthic Study, Ketchikan, AlaskaStationGrabMicropodarke dubiaMontacellina sp. 1 (HRJ)Mooresamytha bioculataMyxicola infundibulumNephtys cornutaNephtys ferrugineaNephtys sp. indet./juv.Nereidae sp. indet./juv.Nereis proceraNereis sp. indet./juv.Nichomachinae sp. indet./juv.Nicolea zostericolaNotomastus hemipodusNotomastus lineatusOdontosyllis phosphoreaOnuphis elegansOphelina acuminataOphelina breviataOphryotrocha sp. 1 (HRJ)Orbiniidae sp. indet./juv.Owenia fusiformisPaleonotus bellisParadoneis lyraParaonidae sp. indet./juv.Paraprionospio pinnataPectinaria californiensisPectinaria granulataPetaloproctus borealisPettibonia sp. 1 (HRJ)Pettibonia sp. 2 (HRJ)Pherusa negligensPholoe minutaPholoe sp. indet./juv.Pholoe sp. N-1 (NAMIT)Pholoides asperaPhyllochaetopterus prolificaPhyllodoce groenlandicaPhyllodoce hartmanaePhyllodoce sp. 1 (HRJ)Phyllodoce sp. 2 (HRJ)Phyllodoce sp. indet./juv.Phyllodocidae sp. 1 (HRJ)Phyllodocidae sp. 3 (HRJ)5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12 3 4 5NQ-75NQ-150 REF-61 8 22 33 6 451 31 2 1 2 3163 3 2 51 12 114 5 3 7 3 9 6 6 6 5 41 1 2 41 11 5 3 2 21411113 11 1 42 1 2155 2 4 3 7 13 3 2 323 21 112 1116 22 23 13 1134 25 54 11 15 10 415 1 1 1 1 121 1 131 21 1 3 211110 3 1 36 6 3 14 12 16 1 4 111 3 21221 2 1212 1 21 4 28 13 20 3 7 8 7 93 5 1 121 8113 3 1315 259 144 5 4 2 5 1242151 3 4 4 1723 7 62 24 58272131 1Page 13 of 20Table C-1. Benthic abundance data by grab sample for 2003 Tongass Narrows Benthic Study, Ketchikan, AlaskaStationGrabPhyllodocidae sp. indet./juv.Pilargis maculataPionosyllis sp. indet./juv.Pionosyllis sp. 1 (HRJ)Pista banseiPista percyiPista wuiPlatynereis bicanaliculataPodarke pugettensisPodarkeopsis perkinsiPolycirrus sp. complexPolydora limicolaPolynoidae sp. indet./juv.Praxillella affinisPraxillella gracilisPrionospio lightiPrionospio multibranchiataPrionospio steenstrupiProtodorvillea gracilisPseudochitinopoma occidentalisPseudopotamilla sp. 1 (HRJ)Rhodine bitorquataRynchospio glutaeusSabellidae sp.4 (HRJ)Sabellidae sp. 6 (HRJ)Sabellidae sp. indet./juv.Salmacina tribranchiataScalibregma inflatumSchizobranchia insignisScolelepis foliosaScoletoma lutiSerpulidae sp. indet./juv.Sphaerodoropsis minutaSphaerodoropsis sphaeruliferSphaerodorum papilliferSphaerosyllis californiensisSphaerosyllis ranunculusSphaerosyllis sp. 2 (HRJ)Spio cirriferaSpiochaetopterus costarumSpionidae sp. indet./juv.Spiophanes berkeleyorumSpirorbidae sp. indet./juv.5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12 3 4 5NQ-75NQ-150 REF-614 8 11 1 1 2 3 1 112 1121 11 1 11 2 11 2 15 13 21 1 13 13 25 13 6 11 3 2 11 53 12 1 2 1 4 1 6 32 4 9 42 2 5 7 4 18 4 19 6 342 1 1 18 119 159 30 53 123 6 2 7 4 1013311 11 391 1114 1 2 5 1 12 4 2 1177 4 4 65 34141 1 12 2115 22 2 3 3 5 3 1 1924 22 11 2 13 6 4 3 3 11 213 9 7 1 5 7 8 12 9 26 116 5 4 2 1 2 6 11 52 11 1 6 223 1Page 14 of 20Table C-1. Benthic abundance data by grab sample for 2003 Tongass Narrows Benthic Study, Ketchikan, AlaskaStationGrabSthenalais berkeleyiSyllidae sp. indet. (stolon)Syllidae sp. indet./juv.Syllidae sp. 1 (HRJ)Syllis armillarisSyllis elongataSyllis hartiSyllis sp. indet./juv.Syllis sp. 1 (HRJ)Tenonia priopsTerebellidae sp. indet./juv.Terebellides californicaTerebellides stroemiTravisia brevisTravisia sp. indet./juv.Trichobranchus glacialisTotal MolluscaAcila castrensisActeocina eximiaAdontorhina cycliaAdontorhina sphaericosaAeolidacea sp. indet.Aglaja ocelligeraAlvania compactaAmphissa columbianaAstarte ellipticaAstarte esquimaltiAstyris gausapataAxinopsida serricataBivalvia sp. juv.Calyptraea fastigiataCardiomya pectinataChaetoderma sp. indet.Chlamys hastataChlamys rubidaClinocardium californienseClinocardium nuttalliClinocardium sp. juv.Compsomyax subdiaphanaCrepipatella dorsataCryptonatica affinisCyclocardia ventricosa5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12 3 4 5NQ-75NQ-150 REF-6311 3 1 321 16 12 7 2 4 2 5 5 41 5 13 5 3 3 5 5 6 11 21 392474 1 12 1 3 3 3 15 6 6 9365 6 5 212 14 2 1 1 13 8 20 16 7442 3 10 11 14 6 1332 637 830 660 800 129 211 280 205 197186 1 1 1 64 30 55 49 85 212 2 2 4 1 3 3 4 312 12 10 20 1711 1 7 1 1125423 16 1 2 46 41 24 4 4 38 4 652211 12 113 15 9 15 15 10 2 267 1 221 46 51 56 81 4 18 8 7 201 211 12 24211 1111 2312 14 2 15 13 11 113 9 26 3 1 11 2 111 22 1 2 1 2 11 2Page 15 of 20Table C-1. Benthic abundance data by grab sample for 2003 Tongass Narrows Benthic Study, Ketchikan, AlaskaStationGrabCylichna attonsaDelectopecten vancouverensisDiaphana californicaEnnucula tenuisEpitonium indianorumEuspira pallidaFlabellina sp. indet.Gastropoda sp. juv.Gastropteron pacificumHiatella arcticaHumilaria kennerleyiIschnochitona albusKurtziella plumbeaLacuna vinctaLottia sp. indet.Lucinoma annulatumLyonsia californicaMacoma carlottensisMacoma elimataMacoma golikoviMacoma moestaMacoma nasutaMacoma sp. juv.Macoma yoldiformisMargarites pupillusMelanochlamys diomedeaModiolus modiolusMopalia imporcataMopalia phorminxMusculus discorsMya arenariaMytilidae sp. juv.Nassarius mendicusNeptunea tabulataNuculana minutaNuculana penderiNuculana sp. juv.Nudibranchia sp. indet.Nutricola lordiOdostomia sp. indet.Oenopota cf. solidaOenopota sp. indet.Oenopota fidicula5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12 3 4 5NQ-75NQ-150 REF-61 31 1114 1 12 2 221112111 11 11 2 1 1 11 4 2136 7 5 22 51 411 12 1 2223 1 5 10 2 9 7 61112211 112 1 3 21 3 33 111 1 3 1 923 18 6 9 10 10 2 3 4121311 1 14 2 1 2 12 3 5 22 2 3 10 13 8 4 1 7 6 41 5 16 1 1 11 11 11 1241128 12 27 20 25 5 10 14 26 1719 8 3 7 3 6 3 5 5 1 3219 8 11Page 16 of 20Table C-1. Benthic abundance data by grab sample for 2003 Tongass Narrows Benthic Study, Ketchikan, AlaskaStationGrabOlivella baeticaOlivella sp. juv.Onchidoris sp. indet.Pandora bilirataPandora filosaPandora sp. indet.Parvilucina tenuisculptaParviplustrum sp. indet.Philine sp. indet.Pododesmus macroschismaProtothaca stamineaPulsellum salishorumPuncturella cooperiRochefortia tumidaSaxidomus giganteaSolamen columbianumSolen sicariusTellina modestaTellina sp. juv.Thracia challisianaThracia trapezoidesThyasira flexuosaTrichotopis cancellataTrophonopsis lasiusTurbonilla sp. indet.Velutina plicatilisVitreolina columbianaTotal CrusctaceaAchelia enchinataAcidostoma hancockiAmerichelidium rectipalmumAmpelisca careyiAmpelisca lobataAmpelisca pugeticaAmpelisca sp. indet.Ampelisca unsocalaeAmphipoda sp. juv.Anonyx lilljeborgiAoroides sp. indet.Argissa hamatipesBopyridae sp. indet.Byblis millsi5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12 3 4 5NQ-75NQ-150 REF-62 6 19 5 417 9 1 2 6 1 2 7 532 1 1112 179 10 10 11 3 793 403 469 331 384 32 77 66 33 491 1111 1316261 1 1 7 8 13 14 712 1 18 66 59 72 56 89 5 5 4 7 595936 15 1 1 1 1 1 7 10 7 9 61 11 7 241 11214 41 5 2 6 1 2 10 8 7 9 1321 211 3 2 113 11 564 1 1 2 3 24 30 40 33 36 57 70 110 77 4715 11 9 4 6 6 2 1 5 2 222 11 13111 2 131125 1 1 16 4 4 4Page 17 of 20Table C-1. Benthic abundance data by grab sample for 2003 Tongass Narrows Benthic Study, Ketchikan, AlaskaStationGrabCalanoida sp. indet.Campylaspis rubromaculataCampylaspis rufaCampylaspis sp. indet.Cancer branneriCancer gracilisCancer productusCancer sp. juv.Caprella sp. juv.Caprella striataCirripedia sp. indet.Corophiidae sp. indet.Corophium sp. indet.Crangon alaskensisCumella vulgarisCylindroleberididae sp. indet.Decapoda megalopaDiastylis bidentataDiastylis santamariensisDyopedos sp. indet.Eobrolgus chumashiEualus pusiolusEudorella pacificaEudorellopsis integraEudorellopsis longirostrisEuphilomedes productaEusirus longipesFoxiphalus similisGuernea reduncansHalacaridae sp. indet.Harpacticoida sp. indet.Heterophoxus affinisHeterophoxus conlanaeHeterophoxus ellisiHeterophoxus sp. indet.Hippolytidae sp. indet.Kroyera carinataLamprops sp. indet.Leptochelia dubiaLeucon armatusLeucon subnasicaLimnoria sp. juv.Megamoera sp. indet.5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12 3 4 5NQ-75NQ-150 REF-64111 211 1 4 12 6 3 111 3111 1211211 1111 1111 212 2 1 3 11 91 21 1225 20 3 7 91 15 1 6 3 25 17 25 7 1221 1 3 2223 8131 1 21 3 9 1211 11 115 1 3 1 4 12 19 8 221411 12Page 18 of 20Table C-1. Benthic abundance data by grab sample for 2003 Tongass Narrows Benthic Study, Ketchikan, AlaskaStationGrabMetacrangon munitaMetopa sp. indet.Monocorophium sp. indet.Munna sp. indet.Nebalia ?pugettensisNeotrypaea sp. indet.Nicippe tumidaOpisa tridentataOrchomene decipiensOrchomene pacificaOregonia gracilisPachynus ?barnardiPagurus armatusPagurus setosusPagurus sp. indet.Panoploea sp. indet.Parapleustes pugettensisParathemisto pacificaPhotis sp. indet.Pinnixa sp. indetProtomedeia sp. indet.Pugettia ?richiiRhachotropis oculataRocinela bellicepsRutiderma lomaeScoloura phillipsiSpirontocaris ochotensisTiron biocellataTritella pilimanaUristes sp. indet.Westwoodilla caeculaZeuxo normaniTotal MiscellaneousAcidiacea sp. Indet.Arhynchite pugettensisAsteroidea sp. indet.Chelyosoma columbianumGolfingia pugettensisHirudinea sp. indet.Holothuroidea sp. indet.Laqueus californianusLeptasterias hexactis5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12 3 4 5NQ-75NQ-150 REF-6121 24 1 721 121 1 111112 215 1111 11 111 1 3 27 11 1 2 11 14 1 1 1 1 2 134211 11111 12321 1111 134 393 901 3730 1698 1551 108 75 140 87 109 37 39 58 46 333211 11 452123 4 2 3121Page 19 of 20Table C-1. Benthic abundance data by grab sample for 2003 Tongass Narrows Benthic Study, Ketchikan, AlaskaStationGrabNematoda sp. indet.Nemertinea sp. indet.Nynanthaea sp. indet.Oligochaeta sp. indet./juv.Ophiura lutkeniOphiura sp. indet.Pachycerianthus fimbriatusPhoronida sp. indet.Platyhelminthes (Turbellaria)Strongelocentrotus droebockiensisUnknown #1Virgularia sp. indet.Total Abundance5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12 3 4 5NQ-75NQ-150 REF-614 392 895 3726 1696 1546 57 24 73 28 65 6 6 12 6 315 1 5 1 2 1 44 37 48 46 27 18 24 22 17 204 1323 8 10 7 9 1 11 1 3 7 1 13 6 21 1 2 1 11 1 4 411 1 1 1 5111 11 233 1949 1323 1871 6665 3651 2713 2345 2037 4187 2360 2315 624 781 1082 911 683Page 20 of 20Table C-2. Biomass measurements in grams per sample.StationGrabPolychaetesMolluscsCrustaceaMiscellaneousCommentsAGS OLD SE-375112.40293.8990.2880.622Includes one large clam (75.556)AGS OLD SE-37526.34115.6650.3270.279AGS OLD SE-37535.94314.5770.6800.126AGS OLD SE-37546.94343.5310.6460.050Includes one large clam (28.658)AGS OLD SE-37553.83718.4990.0110.183Includes one large snail (10.894)T-5016.6710.0720.0120.195T-5026.8220.0330.0090.294T-5035.1300.0080.0130.226T-5049.0590.1760.0230.342T-5053.7360.0490.0170.228T-10013.1591.2940.0150.144T-10022.0440.8530.0040.099T-10031.3940.6750.0980.091T-10042.0890.3010.0080.128T-10050.7360.4560.0130.040NQ0 S-20012.274108.4300.6200.389NQ0 S-20022.610116.5940.1270.128NQ0 S-20034.727165.0690.1900.202NQ0 S-20044.707146.6060.3460.191NQ0 S-20053.198121.1430.2300.044NQ-7511.3040.0230.0010.048NQ-7522.0502.5290.0130.124NQ-75319.6903.5190.0040.425NQ-7548.2032.9500.0000.206NQ-7554.9810.4890.0080.166NQ-15016.45370.4280.1720.278NQ-15026.46760.8470.4160.850NQ-150313.23466.7071.6880.984NQ-15047.38452.1465.0560.860Includes one large crab (4.487)NQ-15055.02191.7170.2821.286REF-611.6953.8640.2631.328REF-621.4566.9920.0720.329REF-6310.11914.1472.0820.973REF-644.5073.9391.7300.871Includes 2 large crab legs (1.635)REF-651.5653.8730.0670.012