THE SALT MARSHES OF THE COOS BAY ESTUARY by JOHN HOFFNAGLE AND ROBERT OLSON August, 1974 "There is ooze and slime in the very clime; and filth and muck are there." The words of an anonymous poet of the late 1800s in reference to Beaver Slouth on the Coquille River. OREGON INSTITUTE OF. MARINE BIOLOGY Charleston, OR 97420 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Pa Values and Functions of Salt Marsh 1 History 7 Salt Marsh Plants of Coos Bay 12 Marsh Types of Coos Bay 17 Mapping and Total Acreage 20 Key to Maps 21 Salt Marshes of Coos Bay 22 Salt Marsh Primary Production in Coos Bay 50 Ownership and Assessed Valuation of Coos Bay Salt Marshes 58 Potential Salt Marsh Lands 81 Conclusion 82 References 84 Acknowledgements 87 Cover photo. Coalbank Slough and the city of Coos Bay INTRODUCTION A salt marsh can be defined as the vascular plant community that is found between mean lower high water and the tree or upland vegetation line. In the case of low marshes, inundation can occur with each high tide. With the higher marsh types, the surface of the marsh may be cov- ered by water only a few times during the growing season. The salt marshes of the Pacific Northwest, occurring as they do only on estuaries, are scarce compared to those on the East Coast, and very little research has been done on their relationship to the workings of the estuary. In addition, the flora of our marshes is different from those in the marshes that have been studied, and so those findings may not be strictly applicable here. Because of the shortage of good flat land and the ease with which marshes are diked and filled, 90% of the salt marshes on Coos Bay have already been utilized for industrial, res- idential or agricultural use. Before the rest are allowed to go the same way, something should be known about the salt marshesinteractions with the entire estuarine system. Coos Bay is a good place for such a study because of its large size (12,380 acres) and the diversity of habitats found here. Our project was to be a start in this direction. By mapping and classifying the existing marshes we hoped to establish a base for future studies, and by calculating a preliminary productivity estimate, to estab- lish a tentative idea of the value of the marshes to the system. Owner- ship and assessed valuation of lands including salt marsh acreage were investigated because of the possibility of land purchases for marsh pre- servation or restoration. We would like to thank the Port Commission of Coos Bay and the Oregon Institute of Marine Biology for their generous assistance with this project. VALUES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE SALT MARSH Salt marshes are foul smelling, mucky areas seemingly devoid of animal life, or at best insignificant appearing grassy meadows bordering the estuary. What makes these areas significant enough to discuss them more than cursorily? What warrants the funding of a study such as this, on such a small part of the total Coos Bay estuary? The answer lies in the fact that salt marshesvalues greatly exceed their appearances. Being important in the productivity of Coos Bay as a whole, in erosion and flood control, serving as a pollution buffer and moderating water temperatures important to the survival of varied juvenile marine species, the salt marsh takes on an air of importance not easily grasped gazing upon it casually. ?I The Coos Bay estuary functions as one total living organism. Channel waters, mudflats, salt marshes, and incoming freshwater may all be thought of as organs vital to the functioning of the total estuarine system. At the base of this ecosystem, as in all ecosystems, is the radiant energy of the sun. Absorbing this energy and transforming it into plant material, a form of energy much more readily used by a wider variety of consumers, is the photosynthetic unit of green plants, phytoplankton, and algae. One of the important values of the salt marsh is its tremendous pro- ductivity. This high productivity of salt marsh vegetation in comparison with cultivated crops and natural plant communities is due to a variety of factors. Primary among these factors is a constant flow of nutrients from external sources. As freshwater flows into the marsh, topsoil silt from upstream provides valuable nutrients which are trapped by the marsh plants, and utilized by these plants as soil, rich for growth. (Ranwell 1964) Also important in the nutrient trap is the fine composition of the substrate, usually clay material. These materials have a greati kkrptive capacity which enables them to trap nutrients. (W. E. Odum 1970). Finally, estuarine water circulation also adds to the nutrient trap effect. The ebb and flow of the water, caused by tidal action and streamflow, causes nutrients to be trapped in the estuary, being deposited on the salt marsh during higher tides. This stratified salt wedge estuary is discussed in part in Pritchard (1967). In addition to nutrients from terrestrial systems, there is a constant mixing process at higher tides between the salt marsh and the rest of the estuary. The tide moves nutrients from external sources into the salt marsh. (Aurand 1968), In addition to the constant flow of nutrients into the salt marsh, several other factors are important to the high productivity of the salt marsh. Salt marshes have a longer growing season than cultivated crops. (Keefe 1972). Salt marsh productivity is further enhanced by the vertical orientation (i.e. Carex, Distichlis) of most salt marsh plant leaves. This maximizes the leavessurface to sunlight ratio over the entire day and re- duces shading, (Jarvis 1964), as well as reduces intense heating of the leaf. (Palmer 1941). Great amounts of soil water are also very important in the high productivity of the salt marsh. This water is used both directly by plants and as a reservoir for nutrients in a dissolved state. (Keefe 1972). Another factor promoting high marsh production is the high concentration of 2 organic matter leading to the formation of colloids (large collections of suspended organic material) which absorb exchangeable ions necessary for plant growth. (Albrecht 1941) Another important factor increasing the marsh productivity is the presence of great amounts of algae and blue green algae. These algae are important producers in themselves, accounting for at least 10-20 percent of the total weight in estuarine filter feeders. (W. E. Odum 1969). Detritus consumers even though not depending greatly on this algae seem unable to grow and reproduce on a diet solely of detritus. (Odum 1970). These several advantages available to plants growing in the salt marsh make it one of the most productive areas on earth; more productive than the forest on one side or the open ocean on the other, and more productive than areas man is currently using for agricultural purposes. ANNUAL NET PRIMARY PRODUCTION ESTIMATES OF SELECTED ECOSYSTEMS PLANT COMMUNITY wheat (areas of highest yield) corn (world average) hay (areas of highest yield) forest (pine during years of most rapid growth) SPARTINA SALT MARSH (Georgia) 3300 9.0 infertile open ocean 182 .5 shallow inshore waters (Long Island) 1168 3.2 G/ m 2 / is equivalent to .00256 lbs/ (yd)2 The importance of the immense productivity of salt marshes is in their use in the estuarine food web they are associated with. In general, simple food webs may be theorized for any ecosystem. The energy of the sun is transferred,to , animals, i.e., deer, rabbits, insects). These herbivores are in turn eaten by first level carnivores (meat eating animals) who are eaten by higher level carnivores. These carnivores, in addition to animals and plants that have died throughout the chain, are decomposed by bacteria and fungi. The nutrients provided by decomposition are utilized by plants to complete the web. A cyclic flow of nutrients is established, with energy from the sun powering the system. This kind of food web is what is classically taught in biology classes and is in large part of a good representation of most terrestrial and marine ecosystems. rom (Odum 1971) NET PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY G/ m2/ yr G/ m2/ day 1250 3.43 412 1.13 940 2.58 3180 6.0 forest 1560 3.0 3 RADIANT ENERGY-SUNLIGHT DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION OF FOOD WEBS IN COOS BAY ESTUARY The salt marsh food web is an exception to this general rule. Salt marsh plants are eaten by herbivores, including fly larvae, deer, ladybugs, and mice, and the food web continues through higher level carnivores, but this food web is of minor significance in the salt marsh when compared to the detritus food web. In this food web, a certain part of the system pro- duces excess material which is not eaten by herbivores. By mechanical action and autolysis this dead material that hasn been utilized by herb- ivores is broken down by bacteria and fungi. These bacteria and fungi are utilized by filter and bottom feeders who are preyed upon by carnivores. Death and ecomposition occur, completing the cycle. This is the important food web within the salt marsh. The marsh plants are not being fed upon by herbivores directly, but instead are being shipped into the estuary as one of the estuary primary sources of energy. Initially it seems as if this process would entail a disastrous energy loss. Instead of feeding on the plant material when it is alive and healthy, the material is utilized only after it has lost a great deal of its cellular constituents. This is not the case. Odum and dela Cruz (1963), have shown in a Georgia marsh that the bacteria clinging to the detritus are removing dissolved nitrogen compounds from the water, increasing the protein content of the detritus. Other investigators (Fenchal 1970) and(Boyd 1970) come to similar conclusions. Fenchal (1969) and Newell (1965) have shown that the harder to digest cellulose of the salt marsh detritus is recycled with bacteria in the act of decomposing it being utilized by deposit feeders. In this way salt marsh detritus may be used not only once on its way to decomposition, but several times. 4 Odum and de la Cruz (1963) state properly the importance of organic detritus to the estuarine system. Organic detritus is the chief link between primary and secondary productivity, because only a small portion of the marsh grass is grazed while it is alive, the main energy flow between... levels is by way of the detritus food chain. Filter feeders; bivalves, oysters, tube worms, kelp worms, and a host of other organisms form the third step in the detritus food web. Their wide distribution in Coos Bay and in estuaries in general seems to be due to the abundant detritus present. E. P. Odum (1969) shows that between 6 and 24 percent of filter feeders ash free dry weight is due to detritus alone, disregarding clinging and planktonic forms associated with it. These filter and bottom feeders are consumed at the next energy level by carnivores such as Great Blue Herons, fish such as smelt, perch, shad, flounder, and sole which are preyed upon by top carnivores; greenling, sturgeon, bass, steelhead, and salmon (An Inter- disciplinary Study of the Coos Bay Estuary 1971). Not only the entry of this detritus into the estuary is important, so is its time of entry. As salt marsh plants die, their period of de- composition varies. Some such as Salicornia decompose rapidly while others such as Juncus and Distichlis decompose rather slowly. (Odum and de la Crua 1964) In decomposing over this long period of time, the estuary is provided with a constant source of food material, rather than the boom or bust common to phytoplankton growth. Instead of a dramatic Spring and Fall bloom, as in planktonic communities, the salt marsh detritus provides a fairly steady input into the estuary, allowing for a much more extensive web of consumers to exist in the system. Although more dead marsh grass is present in the winter months, the decomposition rate is more rapid in the summer, offsetting this factor and providing a constant supply of food materials and organic islands for the colonization of bacteria in the estuary and providing food for estuarine organisms. (Odum and Smalley 1959) DECOMPOSITION IN 100 THE MARSH* JUNCUS DISTICHLIS SPA1.TINA *taken from Odum and de la Cruz(1963) 50 5 The salt marsh provides food and shelter directly to a wide range of birds and mammals in addition to indirectly being a source of productivity to the estuary. In a waterfowl survey taken in five counties: Clatsop, Tillamook, Coos, Lincoln, and Curry, by the Fish and Wildlife Service, an average of 42,000 birds both migratory and resident were found to use these countriescoastal wetlands yearly. Of these five counties, Coos county provided food and cover for 21,000 birds, or nearly half the total. A great portion of this food and shelter was due to the presence of salt marsh in the Coos Bay estuary. Mammals associated with the salt marsh are also numerous. Beaver, muskrat, otter, raccoon, and deer, as well as field mice and other small mammals make extensive use of the marsh throughout the year. Shellfish including clams, cockles, crab, and commercial oysters also make use of the salt marsh resource. Subtle as it is, the salt marsh and bacteria and clinging forms associated with its detritus comprise a base of production for the Coos Bay estuary, providing food and habitat for commercial fish, bivalves, crab, birds and mammals, and life on Coos Bay in general. In addition to working as a magnificent production unit, the salt marsh has other important functions. Foremost of these is its ability to buffer extremes of a wide variety. When sewage and septic tank seepage into the estuary is at its height, the salt marsh absorbs the majority of the raw material from these sources and allows them to enter the estuary at a less drastic rate. While in the salt marsh, the sewage is bacterially decomposed and its nutrients utilized. In a recent study in Florida, a 1500 acre salt marsh was shown to remove all of the nitrogen and one quarter of the phosphorus from the domestic sewage of 62,000 people. (Jahn and Trefethen 1973). The presence of - sewage may be dumped into the area at an increasing rate. Each salt marsh has a certain carrying capacity for sewage that cannot be exceeded without consequences, however, salt marshes in Coos Bay are providing a necessary sewage buffer between residences and the Bay itself, making the water cleaner and more habitable by estuarine organisms. The salt marsh also moderates the effects of erosion and siltation in the Coos Bay estuary, acting much in the same way beach grass stabilizes dunes areas, eroding areas near the side of the Bay may be stabilized by the presence of salt marsh. During the storm tides of winter, the salt marsh helps hold together the vulnerable shoreline, preventing erosion and heavy siltation. The damage of logging practices to the total Coos Bay estuary has been mentioned in The Environmental and Economic Impact of Alternative Method of Log Transportation...in the Coos Bay Estuary. (1974). In this report, primary damages were determined to be bark deposits and leachates from floating logs, as well as increased sedimentation due to log- ging practices that resulted in decreased biological productivity. Although data is not available, it seems probable that these effects could have been moderated effectively had salt marsh area been conserved in Isthmus Slough in the past as a buffer zone necessary for the well-being of the estuary. Salt marshes also moderate the effect of flooding during spring runoff and high winter tides by acting as a sponge between the estuary and the shore- line. Due to the diking of vast areas of salt marsh in the area a greater potential hazard exists for flooding; especially in areas constructed 6 on filled salt marsh. (Jefferson 1973) A salt marsh compact substrate also acts as a barrier between intruding brackish water and fresh ground- water below the marsh. (Jefferson 1973) Salt marshes also help in moderating water temperatures within the estuary. Sunlight warms the shallows and salt marshes of the Bay, and provides warmer water important to the juveniles of several species of bivalves, crab, and fish and is also important in the spawning of some other species. These animals would not be able to reproduce were it not for the warmer e$tuarine waters. The marsh plays a role in this warming process by increasing the surface area of the warming sunlight that may come in contact with the waters of the Bay. The salt marsh functions in a dual role as both a large production unit and a buffer to several types of environmental extremes which are common in Coos Bay. For these reasons its functional importance to the Bay should be clear. 7 HISTORY Historically, salt marshes have been a much maligned resource. In contrast to man use of other resources (i.e. timber, minerals, oil, pastureland), the salt marsh is not valued for what it contains or for its productive capabilities; rather, it is valued solely for its physical position in relation to existing industry and residents and its easy re- claimahility by either diking or filling. Land rich in timber or minerals is usually utilized for the resource itself, with the land being only secondary (at least initially). In the case of salt marshes, the easy availability of the land becomes the prime resource, with the land value as a productive part of a larger biological system being neglected completely. (The obvious exception---agriculture) This historical picture has been expecially true in the Coos Bay area. With its steep wooded slopes lead- ing down almost to the Bay itself, and with a rapidly expanding industrial and agricultural base, Coos Bay utilized a great deal of salt marsh area for early expansion which has continued to the p resent time, simply because the land was easily reclaimable and close to existing industry and residents, as well as being flat. With more industry and agriculture utilizing reclaimed marsh, more industry came to the area, leaving us with only 10% of the salt marsh present 100 years ago. (see accompanying table) The 90% that is gone has been utilized for varied purposes; agriculture, industry, residences, and recreation, to name a few. In order to gain a clear p icture of our loss, we must go back to the original settlement of Coos Bay. With a seemingly unlimited supply of forest, a good port, fertile land, and a great abundance of wildlife, it is surprising that the impetus for rapid settlement of Coos Bay was its coal resource. In the 1880s and 90s, 40,000 to 75,000 tons of coal a year were mined. (Beckham 1973) Along with this massive industry came the first destruction of salt marsh area. The soft nature of the surrounding rocks and the quality of the coal led the mines away from the east side of the Bay towards the higher quality coal resources near Coalbank Slough, which is the area that is now known as Coalbank Slough, and several hundred acres of land that now comprise downtown Coos Bay. With the mining in the Coalbank Slough area, the marshes of the slough were soon endangered. Either transformed directly by filling or indirectly by the construction of stilt dwellings which slowed down water circulation, accumulated silt and woodchip debris eventually fill- ed the land, and the salt marshes of Coalbank Slough disappeared. In their place came the heart of what is now downtown Coos Bay. (see accompanying map) Industry and business moved in, utilizing the once biologically productive marsh area. What a century ago was 600 acres of marsh is today 60 acres, and its future is uncertain. Though coal determined the initial settlements of the Bay, soon lumber came to light as the principal resource of the region. With great ex p ort- ation of both coal and lumber to California, shipbuilding became an import- ant industry. Through utilization of wood in the area, ships could be constructed of shallow draft in order to negotiate the shallows of the Upper Bay. With logging came the transport of the logs to the mills on the deeper channels of the Bay. Roads were scarce and the fingers of Coos Bay, reaching out in nearly every direction, lent themselves naturally as the transportation arteries of the Bay. Especially utilized in this respect were Catching, Isthmus, and South Sloughs, as well as Willanch and Kentuck Inlets. In the words of Orvil Dodge, a historian of the 1890s: 8 "Catching Slough, which empties into the bay nearly opposite Marshfield is a stream of considerable importance, as it connects Sumner with the bay and millions of feet of lumber have floated Down the placid stream. The Coos Bay and Roseburg wagon road passing through Sumner has made the slough a highway that has enabled the traveler to reach the bay sooner and easier than to continue staging, especially in the winter time when roads are at their worst." The direct effects of logging on salt marsh acreage in Coos Bay have been significant in the past. Poorly designed clearcuts, poor road building techniques, large scale slash burning and the burning of slash and use of splash dams in aiding the transportation of logs, all encouraged accelerated erosion conditions resulting in sedimentation within the Bay. (Natural Resources, Ecological Aspects Uses and Guidelines for the Management of Coos Bay, Oregon 1971). In addition to the act of harvesting the logs, log storage and transportation further damaged the salt marsh area. In a recent report written for the Port of Coos Bay, The Environmental and Economic Impact of Alternate Methods of Log Transportation, Storage, and Handling in the Coos Bay Estuary (1974), the effects of log storage and handling on salt marshlands are set out: MARSHLANDS AND WETLANDS accumulation of woody debris and bark increases in the concentration of toxic substances current and waterflow changes filling physical abuse It goes further to state that these effects on marshes have further effect on resident and migratory birds, resident and anadromous fish, smaller animals critical in food webs and mammals dependent on aquatic systems. These deleterious effects to the estuarine life on Coos Bay and the salt marshes of the bay have beee tip plague the logging industry. Measurements of the total loss to marshland productivity due to logging and related industry are hard to make, due to the lack of suitable measures of salt marsh productivity in altered states (sedimentation, bark debris, etc.). Indirectly, the growing logging industry forced deepening and dredging of the Bay and its tributaries in order to facilitate larger, deeper, draft vessels. With little concern for esthetics or biological needs, the early dredge spoils were placed directly upon salt marsh area both for expediency and also in order to reclaim tideland for industry and residents. According to An Inventory of Filled Lands in the Coos Bay Area, prepared by the State Land Board, the original use of almost all areas filled in the Coos Bay estuary was disposal sites. Salt marsh acreage was lost as the Pony Slough area was filled in 1939 for the present North Bend Airport, in 1946 for the reclamation of the southern end of Pony Slough for commercial use, and in reclamation of the eastern side of Pony Slough. Coalbank Slough was used as a spoils area starting in 1888 and continuing until 1926. In this way spoils dumping has accounted for the loss of 530 acres of salt marsh in Coalbank Slough and another 200 acres of salt marsh in Pony Slough. An additional several hundred acres was lost much in the same way in smaller salt marsh areas such as those at the East side marsh. 9 More directly affecting the salt marshes of the lower end of the Bay than the filling for industrial use or logging practices was diking for agricultural use. With the amount of nutrients collected in the salt marsh from tidal inundation and upland sources, marshlands when diked, became phenomenal agricultural lands. With dikes and tidegates, vast areas of agricultural land were created even prior to 1890. In the words of Orvil Dodge, Pioneer History of Coos and Curry County, (1898): "On Coos Bay there are many tributaries commonly called sloughs, though they are streams coming in from the hills which are met by the tides as they find the sea level, and the marshes are formed that in many places have been dyked and placed under cult- ivation yielding prolific crops of vegetation and hay as well as small grain in favored localities." Bearing the greatest burden of agricultural pressures is the southern end of Catching Slough. Once 1600 acres, Catching Slough proper is now less than 50 acres, located on the very sides of the channel. Due to agricultural needs of a growing region, once productive salt marsh is now productive farmland. South Slough dairy and farm lands have recently fallen into disrepair. This, 14P4APAQe_MAg4_as-pasture, is_ratlArAin g to_ its original state as sslt_marsh. Miscellaneous uses have also taken their toll of the salt marsh areas. The construction of the railroad through North Slough, although generally near the sand dunes on the western edge of the slough, has cut circulation off to some salt marsh area. The 175 acres of marsh, once Kentuck Slough, are now diked and filled and in use as a golf course. Until recently, chip and refuse filling have removed salt marsh area from the estuary at Shinglehouse Slough. Many of the salt marshes in Coos Bay are strewn with old car bodies and similar scrap metal by unconcerned residents. Logging, coal mining, agriculture, and miscellaneous uses have accounted for the diking and filling of thousands of acres of salt marsh in the Coos Bay estuary. In nearly every arm of the Bay, 90% of the salt marshes once nresent, have fallen to one of these uses. For the 10% remaining as salt marsh near the Bay edges, the future is uncertain. Industrial and residential pressure, as well as the demand of lumber companies for log storage lands, has increased the need for protection of remaining salt marsh areas. 10 illanch Slough Coal-h. n Slough Joe Ney Slough MARSH AREA REMOVED FROM SYSTEM SINCE 1892, Source SCGS June 1892 MARSH EXTENT 1890 vs 1970 11 NY SLOUCH 92 7 acres COALBANK SLOUGH 1892 597acres IND MIR ON IMON MIMI 111 INIIIIIIIIIMIIIIMI 0 11111111 ---MI =MIIN MI MIN OM IMI MI WM NM UPI= MIAMI. MI =I NM MIID MI MIMI. MIIMIIIIM IIMI Ell WNW MID =II 1 MD OM =ION IN MO =I = I ---MI MI II MO MI MI 11111111 11111 AM IMMO MP III 011111/0 MI a MO =II OM OM KENTUCK SLOUGH 1892 175.9acres WILLANCH SLOUGH,1 : 1 111 WM GM OM I MEOW MOM1111 =111111=111111=11 ON NI 1111111111111M1 SNIP MM. NMI MIISM INN MINI MINN 1111a WM/ MI, IIN MINIM IIM. 1MINIIMINIIIMM NM MIMI MI -1111111111=I ME MO MO IN 11/01=.11111 1111011111111111 I MINN MIMI MI SIM= II MOM Mt EMI MI NIP ?Mr NM 1 M 0 OM 111= MI MII MI IIIIII NM MI NM UM MB t 11111111 O RINI MN MD I NMI 1111111111 -1111111111110 NW I INN IMMO OM IBM NM =II MIMI MO MO NMI MO MI I 11111111111111111111 le OM MI MIN I 111111111111111111WOO - MI MD WM MIMI MN MIME I MOM OM WIIII OM MO OM I IMINI MIll UM a MINIIIIIII NO II IMMO 1= UM MIMI WO NM ---M MI WM MINN MIID IIIIIII MEM INI a MEP MI UMW MN MO =I= aMIIIIIIIIIIIIIMI OM =MIS 11 .--.mac IMMINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII UM MINIM I MI MIMI IN MO--- .11111111 IOW =MIMI INIIIMMI111111 MI now nnv E MINIM 63.9acces III MN-- WM MOINIMINNIMII N MN MI IP55.9acres OMNI MO OM ---MN111M11MO 1111111111 11 SWIM OM WO IND --EN I= MN IMO I Ili INIS 1111.111.ONOM MI O imugeg ullINIIIIIIIIIMENI OMOMMIMMOOMOMWM. 4111111111 MOM1111111111 EINEM., 111111111111 MD MINIM.UN MI OWNtiLMM OVII MEI Mu a= MI MO Illt an_ AL__E _ ISTHMUS SLOUGH 18(#2 334.5 acres A COMPARISON OF SALT MARSH EXTENT-1892 and 1972 onmn )Ong FIG. 1 SALT MARSH PLANTS OF COOS BAY The seed plants (nhanerogams) that are found in intertidal areas such as salt marshes present a picture of adaptation to environment that is quite different from that of intertidal animals. While most intertidal animals are so adapted as to require the special conditions of salinity and submergence found here, the plants, for the most part, have merely "learned" to tolerate them. By being able to grow in a harsh environment, the salt marsh plants have a competitive edge over other plants; they do not "need" these harsh conditions, however (Eltring- ham, 1971). Many of these plants are present in the salt marsh not because they grow better than in other environments, but because they can compete nowhere else (Chapman, 1960). In order to survive in saline conditions, the halophytes (salt-loving plants) have evolved several types of structural and physiological compensating mechanisms. One of the most important of these is the development of succulence (the pre- sence of thick water-filled tissue) which is related to the maintenance of high internal osmotic pressure to cope with the large concentrations of electrolytes (especially chloride ion) in the soil water. Other developments include salt-secreting glands (in such plants as Glaux) to maintain correct salt balance, and a glabrous (smooth) surface (as in Salicornia) (Chapman, 1960). Since the presence of specific plants as well as communities indicates something about the marsh type in an area, a list of the salt marsh plants commonly found in the Coos Bay estuary follows. 1) Sedge (Carex lyngbyei Hornem.) is probably the most important plant in the system due to its wide occurrence and the ease with which it is broken down to form detritus (Carol Jefferson, pers. comm.) By forming tiny pieces of organic matter that serve as substrates for bacterial growth and food for filter feeders such as crabs and shell- fish, the sedge is cycled through the system over and over again. Sedge usually grows at medium height in the marsh, in dense stands. It can be recognized by the W-shaped cross-section of its grasslike leaves and the triangular cross-section of its base. It grows to a height of 4-5 feet, al- though it often blows or bends down lower. (Fig. I) FIG. 2 13 2) Slough Sedge (Carex obnupta Bailey) has longer seed-bearing parts than C. lyngbyei and is much less common; it is sometimes found in the upper ends of sloughs where there is more fresh water. 3) Three-Square Rush (Scirpus americanus Pers.) A colonizer of sandy substrate (Jefferson, pers. comm.), three-square rush is often found along the water-edge in low sand marshes, although it also grows in mud. It is usually 1-2 feet high, and can be recognized by its triangular cross-section and succulent, fleshy stalk. 4) Salt Marsh Bulrush (Scirpus maritimus L.) is a pioneer plant on mud, and can be seen in the mud flats between the north end of Bull Island and the shore, where new marsh is appearing. It resembles S. americanus but its flowering parts are in a ter- minal-appearing head rather than a lateral-appearing spike or spikes. 5) American Great Bulrush (Scirpus validus Vahl.) is found where there is a relatively large amount of freshwater influence; North and Davis Sloughs con- tain large stands. Growing to a height of 6 feet or more, it has a round stem and a dark-green color that can be recognized even from aerial photographs. 6) Salt Rush (Juncus lescurii Boland) is a good example of a salt-tolerant plant that also competes successfully outside the salt marsh. Growing in dense stands in immature marshes and above low sand marshes, salt rush is also found forming tight clumps in diked marshes and upper pastures. It grows to 2-3 feet, and has a sharp point and a hard, dark green stem with lateral flowering parts. (Fig. 2) 7) Little Spike Rush (Eleocharis parvula R. S. Link.) This small (to 2 inches) plant is found in low sand marsh, but is rather inconspicuous. It has the flow- ering parts in a terminal spike. 8) Pacific Silver Weed (Potentil.la pacifica How.) This plant is in the same family as the strawberry and grows in a low ground-cover form on the higher ground of many immature and mature marshes. It is also seen around the higher edges of low sandy marshes. The flowers are white and pale yellow. (Fig. 6) De5 co l > 5 cctes osc t- . _ 9) Tufted Hair Grass (Deschampsia caespitosa L.) is often found associated with Carex or Distichlis. It grows to a height of 5-6 feet, and does not droop, so that it forms an upper story on many sedge marshes. The spreading branches which bear the florets and the golden-brown shining color gives the impression of much growth, although a closer look reveals that the plants are actually comparatively sparse. Deschampsia occurs In clumps in the upper parts of low sand marshes also. (Fig. 3) . Salt Grass (Distichlis snicata (L.) Greene) Very common in low sand marshes, Distichlis often forms a dense low mat (to about 8 inches) or is mixed with Salicornia or Jaumea. It has close, alternate branching and a terminal spikelet which flowers in late July. (ng. 8) 11) Creeping Bent Grass (Agrostis alba L.) usually grows along the ground, sending up thin, delicate leaves after some distance (3-5 feet). Not extremely common, it is seen in high marshes and above low sand marshes. 12) Meadow Barley (Hordeum brachyantherum L.) occurs infrequently with Carex or Deschampsia, or above low sand marshes. It resembles "foxtails"; the cylindrical spikelets have regular rows of stiff, hair- like projections. J. jubatum foxtail barley is also present in the estuary, 13) Sea Milkwort (Glaux maritima L.) is found in low sand marshes. It stands about 6 inches high, a straight succulent plant with opposite leaves and small white flowers in the leaf axils (between leaf and stem). 14) Pickleweed (Salicornia virginica L.) is one of the most widespread of all salt marsh plants; it is found on sandy and silty substrates, from the lowest elevations to immature high marshes. It is most abundant in low sand marsh, where it often is the major plant species present (as just south of the Charleston Bridge in South Slough). In sedge and immature high marshes, it is found in patches and along drainage channels; its roots require aeration and good drainage (Jefferson, pers. comm.). For this reason one can sometime find underground, hid- den channels by looking for growth of Salicornia. The p lant color gives the impression of green glass (hence name "glasswort"); the stems are woody and decumbent while the leaves (which look similar to stems in shape) thrust upward. It is a tough, succulent plant that requires salt water for growth. (Fig. 7) 15) Dodder (Cuscuta salina Engelm. var. major Yunck.) This is a very slender, tubelike, leafless plant that grows as a parasite on Salicornia. Its bright orange color makes it quite obvious as it twines around the other plants. It has small pale yellow flowers that bloom in late July. 16) Jaumea (Jaumea carnosa (Less.) Gray.) is another succulent commonly found in low sand marshes, often with Salicornia and Distichlis. It has a bright yellow flower which blooms in late July or August, has fleshy elongate leaves, and grows in stands which reach about 8 inches in height. (Fig. 8) 17) Salt Marsh Sand Spurry (Sp ergularia marina (L.) Griselb.) is found in low sand marshes, usually in drainage channels or low sp ots. It is a small (to 8 inches). fleshy, narrowly cylindrical plant with much branching. 18) Seaside Plantain (Plantago maritima esp. juncoides Lam.) occurs in many situations, but mainly in low sand marsh and immature high marsh. It is a small upright plant with basal leaves and flowering spikes borne on central stalks. 19) Seaside Arrowgrass (Triglochin maritima L.) is a major constituent of low sand marsh; it is also seen in silt, immature, and sedge marsh in some quan- tities. Arrowgrass grows from underground rhizomes that spread out to form circular colonies in pre- viously barren flats; in higher marshes it is found in small clumps. In annearance it resembles plantain but is larger, up to 3 feet in height. The leaves are fleshy and triangular in cross-section and the central stalk is covered with small flowers for much of its length. (Fig. 4) 20) Paintbrush Orthocarpus (Orthocarpus castillejoides Bent) is found in low sand marshes growing with Distichlis or Jaumea; it is usually higher up the marsh than the Salicornia beds. It is a small (to 8 inches) plant with hairy toothed leaves and several purple and yellow flowers. It is believed to parasitize other plantsroot systems, and has very little root of its own. 21) Salt Marsh Bird Beak (Cordylanthus maritimus Nutt.) This plant, which resembles Orthocarpus in shape, is rare in Oregon; in fact, it was known to inhabit only a small area in the low sand marsh of North Slough (Jefferson, pers. comm.). We noted its presence in two locations in South Slough, which may indicate expansion of its range here. It is hairy, greenish to strongly p urple in color, and has several flowers in a tight head. It does not branch as does Ortho- carpus but has a single erect stem. "Fria 10 c.k.1 vt Mar% 4-i Ack FIG. 4 22) Saltbush (Atriplex patula L.) is a plant of high marshes. It is never found in dense stands but is scattered through immature high and high sedge, and above low sand marshes. It grows to a height of 2-3 feet and has a soft stem and thin, spade-shaped leaves. 23) Gum Plant (Grindelia integrefolia D. C.) is a woody-stemmed plant of high marshes, named for its gummy flowers, which are 2-3 inches across with bright yellow petals--in appearance like a sunflower. It grows to 2-3 feet. 24) Lileopsis (Lilaeopsis occidentalis C. R.) is found in low silty marshes and muddy channels in other marsh types. It grows to about 6 inches in height and appears to be a jointed, flattened tube-stem of light-green color. 25) Marsh Clover (Trifolium wormskjoldii Lehm.) is found on the margins of immature high marshes or on high ground in the interiors. It has pointed leaves and large flowers typical of the clover genus. 26) Brass Buttons (Cotula coronopifolia L.) is originally from South Africa but has been introduced here by lumber-carrying ships (Jefferson, pers. comm.). It is able to survive in substrates that have been impregnated with various chemicals leached from logs during storage. For this reason it has colonized many areas around the Bay. In South Slough there are two drained ponds that are being colonized almost solely by Cotula at present. In appearance the plant is about 6 inches high, with lobed leaves and bright yellow button-like flowers. 27) Dock (Rumex occidentalis Wats.) is a high marsh plant that is also found in many terrestrial habitats. It is a stout plant that grows to about 3 feet in height, and has reddish wrinkled leaves. ( Fig. 5) R. maritimus is also common in the salt marshes. 17 MARSH TYPES OF COOS BAY Marsh types in the Coos Bay estuary include the following: 1) Low sand; ?? Low silt; 3). Sedge: 4) Immature high; 5) Mature high; 6) Bulrush- sedgeUinMerflarshes of various description. These marsh "types" have been devised by Carol Jefferson at Oregon State University for the estuaries along the entire Oregon coast, and there exist some difficul- ties in fitting specific areas in Coos Bay to a general scheme such as this. The following discussion of marsh types in this system is an attempt to correlate the formal marsh "type" (as set forth in Coastal Wetlands of Oregon published by the Oregon Coastal Conservation Devel- opment Commission) with the appearance and plant community structure of specific marshes in Coos Bay. 1) LOW SAND MARSH The height of the surface of the marsh is generally less than 1-2 feet from the surrounding flats, and there is no abrupt drop-off at the edges of the marsh. The substrate is fairly sandy, although areas within the marsh may be of silt or mud. Plants commonly found in low sandy marshes include (from lowest elevation near water edge to upper edge) Salicornia virginica, Triglochin maritima, and Distichlis spicata. Scirpus americanus is sometimes found low on this type of marsh, as it is a colonizing species which grows on bare sand before most other plants. Spergularia marina, Jaumea carnosa, Eleocharis parvula, Plantago maritima, Orthocarpus castillejoides and Claux maritima are often found in this marsh ty pe also. Blue-green algae mats are generally not found in low sand marshes. Because low sand marshes are often formed along shorelines as fring- ing marshes, they usually grade into higher marsh types. Thus, on the landward side of low sandy marshes, Carex lyngbyei and Deschampsia caespitosa are often seen. These areas have, for the purposes of our study, been lumped with the others as low sandy marsh. 2) LOW SILT MARSH The substrate in this type of marsh is soft TjaA or silt; in other resp ects the phy sical structure resembles that of the,low sand marsh. Generally there are few or no channels for tidal drainage, and much of the bare surface of the marsh is covered by mats of blue-green algae, which "fix" nitrogen from the atmosphere for use by other organisms in the mud substrate. The primary colonizing plants in silty or mud sub- strate are Triglochin maritirh, and Scirpus robustus. These plants often colonize areas sep arately, however; they also are found in more mature marsh situations. Triglochin tends to grow in circular, slightly ele- vated "tufts" when in new, very low-lying positions, and may form dense stands in higher situations, growing with Carex or other plants. Low silt marshes often have Jaumea, Spergularia, Juncus lescurii 18 and Cotula coronopifolia growing together or separately. 3) SEDGE MARSH This marsh type is the one most similar in general appearance to the well-known tidal marshes of the southeastern coast of the United States, although the plants comprising the two types are not closely related. The tall, uniform growth of Carex lynghyei that constitutes a sedge marsh is an impressive sight, and this marsh type is an extremely important and abundant one in the Coos Bay estuary system. Sedge marshes are variable in height; low marshes are likely to have almost pure stands of Carex and diffuse tidal drainage, while higher marshes can have ditches or channels up to four feet high, and many other plants present. These include Triglochin, Deschampsia caespitosa (whose tall, tufted brownish flowering parts give the impression of a significant upper-story growth), and Hordeum nodosum. 4) IMMATURE HIGH MARSH The distinguishing characteristic of the next two types of marsh-- immature and mature high marsh--is the height above the adjoining flats, with its consequent sudden drop-off at the boundary. The two types of marsh are very similar and in fact are considered as parts of a continuum, so they are not easy to distinguish. Immature high marsh is usually flat, and raised 2 to 3 feet above the adjacent mudflats. It is drained by deep channels with mud bottoms, and can have a variety of associated p lant species. In Coos Bay, the immature marshes consist mainly of Carex, Deschampsia, Hordeum, Juncus lescurii, Potentilla pacifica, Distichlis, Atriplex natula, and Agrostis alba, or combinations of these. 5) MATURE HIGH MARSH The difference between immature and mature high marsh is most readily apnarent in the presence or absence of typicallyjiterrestrial p lants in among the more salt-tolerant plants of the marsh. To the plant communities of the immature high marsh may he added such plants as Rumex occidentalis, Grindelia stricta, and Trifolium wormskjoldii, Vicia gigantea, and Lathyrus japonicus as they begin to colonize the high marsh. In addition, the mature high marsh is slightly higher than immature marsh, and may have deep, underground drainage channels as well as ditches. However, in Coos Bay today there is little mature high marsh, as almost all of the marsh of this type has been diked off for use as nasture for dairy cattle. 6) BULRUSH-SEDGE MARSH This type of marsh is nearly always found on the banks of a river 19 or slough where there is considerable freshwater )influence. (An excep- tion is the area at the north edge of Kentuck Inlet.) A relatively narrow fringe (up to 50 yards maximum) of mixed Scirpus validus and Carex lyngbyei is easy to recognize by the extreme height and olive coloring of the bulrush. Generally, the bulrush predominates as more freshwater influence occurs, upstream; near the open bay, sedge is more widespread. These marshes are usually relatively low and gently slop- ing, with no abrupt drop-off. The substrate is usually fairyy silty. 7) INTERTIDAL GRAVEL MARSH Intertidal gravel marsh does not occur in Coos Bay. This marsh is described by Carol Jefferson in Coastal Wetlands of Oregon. 8) DIKED MARSH By cutting off the supply of salt water from a marsh (either by means of a tide gate or only diking), the character of the plant commun- ities is altered, with terrestrial plants soon moving in to colonize. This creates an extremely variable category; the plant community changes are affected by use of the land, time since diking, and the type of original marsh on the site. Most diked marshes in Coos Bay are in use as pasture land, but some have been broken open to salt water influence once more or are otherwise unused. There is little difficulty in recog- nizing a diked marsh, for the dike is usually overgrown with hushes or trees in contrast to the land behind it. A "young" diked marsh will retain many of its salt marsh plants while terrestrial plants begin to colonize the area. Some plants, such as Juncus lescurii can remain indefinitely in diked marsh, but most will eventually be rep laced by freshwater plants--grasses, shrubs, buttercups, and other herbs, and eventually alders and other trees--as the salt is leached from the soil by rainfall without replenishment by tidal action Most of the diked marshes around Coos Bay were probably high or immature high marsh originally, since these are the easiest to utilize and they most resemble other types of meadow and pasture lands. 20 MAPPING AND TOTAL ACREAGES The following procedure was used in the construction of salt marsh ownership and classification maps and the computation of their acreages. 1. aerial survey (early June). 2. obtaining of aerial photos and tideland maps from Division of State Lands. 3. modification of tidelands maps (erasure of tidelands). 4. field identification of salt marshes throughout the estuary. 5. transfer of salt marshes from aerial photographs to map utilizing photoreduction machinary at the University of Oregon Geology Department. Some conditions necessitated freehand transfer. 6. aerial photography to update State Land photographs and obtain photographs of those areas not located on State Land maps. 7. further transfer of photographs. 8. calculation of salt marsh acreage using polar planimeter (South western Oregon Community College). 9. For ownership maps, transfer of County Assessor information onto State Lands maps (freehand transfer). Due to the error involved in transferring and recognizing salt marsh areas on aerial photographs and the calculations of acreage using the polar planimeter, the acreages given may be considered rough estimates only. From tests of accuracy it is our belief that the acreages and extent of salt marshes are only within 10% error. Bearing these inaccuracies in mind, the following are the total marsh acreages for the Coos Bay estuary. LOW SILTY MARSH 71.6 ACRES LOW SANDY MARSH 289.1 ACRES IMMATURE HIGH MARSH 1000.5 ACRES MATURE HIGH MARSH 87.4 ACRES SEDGE MARSH 353.5 ACRES BULLRUSH-SEDGE MARSH 149.8 ACRES SURGE PLAIN MARSH 285 ACRES (See South Slough description) DIKED MARSH 3942.9 ACRES TOTAL UNDIKED MARSH, COOS BAY ESTUARY 1951.90 ACRES 21 2.2 o 2 nno210.2 Awes/MOTO Yap Cen4481 Rom 1989 841972 0.19 Probras112. Flatl Rob 128.41983931 019224 1972 C42081 Fran C 8 0 8. Cnol No. 9984, 11 90 8 09" 88 1 0142, 41 Mao dp af Remo 8020 Good Maw. Onwo 98222 Ado Caordrar 4. Zero Warmly OM 912 KEY TO MAP 4.9800 id en.1o .22 codono. 0 . Did 14.14/, 0 1/111 o on (2) 1220.002 0990Zeno Um OREGON --- --Section Comers Located Ran Olhor Sources. ........ Section Corms Round. ....... -Rejected Corners. ..........TIOsicrid Between Elevations o Mean Low Water and Mean Mph Wetter. 112211 0 Ma 4.1 .-;121 toe d 11 rolioon o 11242.4 TIDELAND MAP COOS BAY STATE of OREGON DIVISION of STATE LANDS Fobruory 1973 22 SALT MARSHES OF COOS BAY Sections A, B, C South Slough South Slough marshes are many, small, and varied. There are no extremely large expanses of marsh, but many fringing areas combine to form a significant total acreage. The largest marshes are found at the heads of various inlets along the slough, where streams enter and flood plains are formed. No marshes are found in the tide flats out in the Slough proper, although in a couple of spots this situation may be approaching. These exceptions are low sand marshes, one just south of the Charleston bridge, and another directly south of Valino Island. The first is almost totally Salicornia, while the second marsh consists of Jaumea, Distichlis, and Salicornia. Fringing marsh in South Slough is of two main types--low sand and immature high marsh. The nature of a fringe is such that the distance from the water-side to the terrestrial habitat is very short, and the changes in plant community composition with land height are correspond- ingly rapid. This has made classification rather arbitrary in some cases, due to the very small scale involved in mapping these marshes. In the case of a thin strip of low sand marsh backed by higher immature marsh, the area was labeled immature; if the low sandy area was wider, the entire fringe was so categorized, In any case, these small fring- ing marsh areas often have individual differences and do not fit readily in any one category. Fringing marsh is found in South Slough at scattered points all along the edges, but mainly in inlets and coves, One such, on the south side of Younker Point, bears a great resemblance to the low sand marsh at the base of North Slough; in fact, here is found a plant (Cordylanthus maritimus) previously known in Oregon only in that par- ticular North Slough marsh. The vegetation here consists of a carpet of Salicornia and Distichlis, with Cordylanthus, Cuscuta, and Jaumea inter- spersed. As the ground level gradually rises, Orthocarpus, Plantago, Juncus cernuus and scattered Triglochin are found. Finally, as the marsh meets the hill behind it, Deschampsia, Potentilla, Juncus lescurii Rumex, Atriplex, Hordeum, and Agrostis appear. Salt pans throughout the middle height contain a filamentous green algae and mats of Cladophora are common on the marsh surface. Directly across the Slough from Younker Point is a long fringe of low silty/immature high marsh. The difference in substrate of the outer edge is reflected in the plants growing here: Scirpus americanus and Eleocharis in the low, muddy areas, Salicornia, Spergularia and large clumps of Triglochin on the raised, more sandy ridges. Behind and above all this is a sharply-defined platform with mixed Carex. Deschampsia, Juncus lescurii, and upland plants grading in. The several diked areas in South Slough which have been breached, or which have tidegates which no longer exclude salt water, serve as ex- amples of marshes being returned to a near natural state. These usually show either a sedge or immature high edge, while the interior is still 23 mud flat or even under water. How- ever, these are probably not quite normal situations, owing to the usually small openings in the dikes; these areas do not receive as much salt water during a high tide as would undiked marshes of the same height. Evidence for this is the presence of cattails (which are mainly a-freshwater plant) with the sedge in the large diked area halfway down the east arm of the Slough. Two large flat areas in the west arm of the Slough which were ponds until at least 1970 are now nearly covered by Cotula, a plant which thrives in places where log storage and leaching have left chemicals in the soil. The areas along the extreme southern end of the west arm of South Slough are an example of "surge-plain" marshes, which are perhaps not strictly in the same category as the other marshes we have discussed. Surge-plain marshes are the result of tidal damming of streams so that during high water (or rarely normal water level) they overflow their banks, forming marsh habitat. In mapping these areas, we have tried to limit ourselves to areas with only salt-tolerant plants, and have there- fore slighted the upper ends of these marshes. It should be remembered, however, that these areas also are contributors to the lower estuary in times of flood waters or very high tides. The marshes here resemble high marsh in vegetation but not in height above the surrounding areas. They extend from the stream bank to the edge of the hills, and are drained only be a few large streams, not by channels. We have labeled them immature high marsh as a compromise, though they contain plants usually associated with high marsh, such as Rumex, Trifolium and Vicea. Joe Ney Slough exhibits much the same pattern as lower South Slough. It is fringed with sedge, low sand, and immature high marsh, and has a large diked-and-tidegated area at its extreme tip. This areas has large stands of cattails, which indicate freshwater influence, as well as Juncus lescurii, Carex obnupta, Potentilla, and other salt marsh plants. A dense, pure stand of extremely large (4 feet) Scirpus americanus is found on a silty substrate fringing a short section of the north bank of Joe Ney Slough. This is the only place in the South Slough system where this situation occurs. A B C LOW SAND MARSH ACRES 8 35 49 SEDGE MARSH ACRES 0 41 262 IMMATURE HIGH MARSH ACRES 6.5 72 85 DIKED MARSH ACRES 225 15 LOW SILT MARSH ACRES .. - "SURGE-PLAIN" MARSH ACRES - - ti U 4.1"e rso.N4.6":1 111111111111111NO M 111111111111111 1111111 111111111111 1111111111111111111A11111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 \\\\\\.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ COOS BAY SOUTH SLOUGH KEY TO SALT MARSH TYPES 411111,MIMI MOM= 41111111111111111111AMMON 111110111111111111111111. 1111111: IlimaNIMIBI 111111141C MIIIIMIIIIIIII111111111114MIOIMIMIIIMIIMMINEMO 01111141111 M11111 41111,041111111118411111111110.11INIliftwaimilis1=111011 1.NIMII CEP. M111111401= WOMMIMI tweillit NMI= IMO 111111111111111104MI= UN Me am amnia= =I INNIMIMIGNIOM alliMMIMOMINNIIIIII NMI me snomwom-1111111111111111111111101 -.1111111111111MIN New. eirmo cotoje- r 141 1 low sand 2 low silt 3 sedge 4. 5 mature high 6 bulrush sedge 8 diked 111(11111111.1.1.1.1.11:1%.. .:...... r .S1 ONFIVA .-7-OUTH SLOJGH JOE NEY SLOUGH In the vicinity of Eastside, at the location of further spoils is a segment of diked marsh removed from the bay itself by placement of dredge spoils. Towards the Bay is a large section of mature high marsh. Islands near this mature high marsh contain immature high marsh. MATURE HIGH MARSH 44.8 ACRES IMMATURE HIGH MARSH 35.7 ACRES LOW SANDY MARSH 46.3 ACRES DIKED MARSH 114.0 ACRES FIG. 6 SECTION D THE SPOIL ISLANDS The three spoil islands east of the city of North Bend, have small amounts of low sandy marsh growing on their edges. The southernmost island contains . es of low sand marsh characterized by Salicornia as well as a great deal of Distichlis, with varying amounts of Plantago maritima -- seaside plantain. The two other islands contain lesser amounts C67 acres and -30 acres respectively) of low sandy marsh. The interiors of theseZpoil islands have been filled to a level too high to support salt marsh communities. Plans are being made to seed these spoil islands in the near future to provide waterfowl cover. 27 28 , 1). ... ) -. ..,._. ,..:;,../J47 (??:Ii.,. .. .. .. 01 .,. ?,.9jr.0.6.3...s.: ... VVVVVVVV/2 f ali p raw. Lan i / V , . .lik s till ill re mir a .. I 0 %....< ....< < ...,. % ..::..!...< ..-<.: .., .4 ,.....- WillanchInlet Spoil 111(11111111.1.1.1.1.11:1%.. .:...... r .S1 ONFIVA In the vicinity of Eastside, at the location of further spoils is a segment of diked marsh removed from the bay itself by placement of dredge spoils. Towards the Bay is a large section of mature high marsh. Islands near this mature high marsh contain immature high marsh. MATURE HIGH MARSH 44.8 ACRES IMMATURE HIGH MARSH 35.7 ACRES LOW SANDY MARSH 46.3 ACRES DIKED MARSH 114.0 ACRES FIG. 6 SECTION D THE SPOIL ISLANDS The three spoil islands east of the city of North Bend, have small amounts of low sandy marsh growing on their edges. The southernmost island contains . es of low sand marsh characterized by Salicornia as well as a great deal of Distichlis, with varying amounts of Plantago maritima -- seaside plantain. The two other islands contain lesser amounts C67 acres and -30 acres respectively) of low sandy marsh. The interiors of theseZpoil islands have been filled to a level too high to support salt marsh communities. Plans are being made to seed these spoil islands in the near future to provide waterfowl cover. 27 T 31 SECTION F-G NORTH SLOUGH The marshes in North Slough are some of the finest in the Coos Bay system, in terms of both extent and condition. The slough is hounded on the east by Highway 101 and on the west by a raised set of railroad tracks. Neither of these appears to have seriously affected the marshes, although the railroad bed has cut off two small areas from salt water influence; these now contain cattails and other freshwater plants. The base of the slough, north of Jordon Cove, is bordered by low sand marsh on the west side. This marsh contains a wide variety of plants characteristic of this category , silty areas. The major plant species present are Scirpus americanus, Eleochris parvula, Juncus ]esieurii, Orthocarpus, Jaumea, Glaux, Salicornia Distichlis, Triglochin, Spergularia marina, Plantago, Lolium, Fucus, and Ruppia maritima. In the higher spots was seen Atrinlex, Grindelia, Hordeum and Trifolium wormskoldjii. The upper part of the marsh has an im- mature high marsh plant community, but it is only a thin fringe below the railroad bed. Cordylanthas maritima, a small plant in the same family as Orthocarpus, is found in one area along this marsh, and has been known no where else in Oregon (Carol Jefferson personal communication). As the slough narrows to the north, the character of the marsh changes to bullrush-sedge on the west, and sedge marsh on the east side of the channel. About halfway up the length of the channel, an old dike system is present on both sides, but since tidal access is unimpeded at the lower end, there is no exclusion effect. The west side of the slough contains large stands of bullrush (Scirpus validus) along the landward edge, with sedge nearer the water. The east side of the channel is almost wholly Carex 1., with Deschampsia, Hordeum, Salicornia, and Triglochin present in relatively small amounts. Both sides of the channel have several areas of driftwood-choked marsh near the upper end of the slough. These packs of stranded logs allow very little plant growth and are not included in the marsh extent calculations and maps. The land surface slowly rises until before the crossing of the slough under highway 101, upland plants are found adjacent to the channel. The agricultural lands on the east side of the highway have tidegates and dikes, but presumably are high enough not to be affected appreciably by salt water. it is possible that these were once flood plain marshes, how- ever. SECTION HIGH IMMATURE MARSH ACRES 7.0 DIKED MARSH ACRES - SEDGE MARSH ACRES 8.5 BULLRUSH SEDGE MARSH ACRES 2.0 LOW SAND MARSH ACRES 23.0 F 87.8 130. 16.0 6 moo l00 0 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \- \\\\\\ \\ \ \ \.. ... . . ow ameram ta.. ...maiw 001 I /MMUS MII I I MII I IWO Noo NIU.N.Mr 411/entiyanaliah ilialliel l .1"8 .,.. .."---....- -.----v- var------z,---o mirliKow-- Nr"r,-+: ----- -----------....-41,4 =z --- 4 4"." .... ; = ,, ok =------- Al,, =zirmilirailiar.:,_430" . _ ..... ......,_ - t43 11111:11: \\\.. s s \\\.\\\N , ODN 00 O. w 34 SECTION H HAYNE INLET Hayne Inlet is another area extensively used by man. On its southern edge several hundred acres have been diked and used for agri- cultural purposes. Approximately 150 acres remain as salt marsh. Largest of these areas is a sixty acre section -f 4m-sture high marsh on the eastern edge of the Inlet near its northern tip. Plants here include Triochin Carex, and Deschampsia on the interior and Salicornia and Juncus on the higher spots and edges. Further north another 40 acres is present of which 35 acres is immature high marsh, the remainder being sedge. On the western side of the Inlet a 16 acre low silty marsh with Deschampsia Distichlis, Trifolium, Cotula, Carex, and Pacific Silverweek present. Two other smaller areas of marsh are located on the southern part of the Inlet as it indents the upland areas and is fed by streams. DIKED MARSH ACRES 1000? IMMATURE HIGH MARSH ACRES 54.4 SEDGE MARSH ACRES 6. LOW SILTY MARSH ACRES 3. Salkr N.1.1=1L . CALScuk 5a, ct \\WW\WWW\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\ \\\\\\\\\\ \\\.\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\. \\WWW\\\"\\\"\\ ,\\\\\\\\\\\ \A$\\.\\\\\\\\\\\\.% \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\.\\\\\\\S \\\"\\\\\\N \ \ 0 1000 ;000 36 SECTION I WILLANCH AND KENTUCK INLETS Once important salt marsh systems within the Bay, Willanch and Kentuck Inlets (formerly Willanch and Kentuck sloughs) have lost much of their salt marsh area through diking. Kentuck Inlet has been the object of a rapid marsh formation in the past. Once shallow water extended approximately one quarter mile further back into the slough being changed into marshland, before its recent diking. Johannessen (1961) believes that this expansion of marsh, nearly twofold between 1939 and 1961 was brought about by extensive diking and changing of current patterns. Now a golf course covers most of the 175 acres of salt marsh in the Kentuck system. Of that Hart remaining salt marsh, approximately half is in the middle and south sections of the bay as high immature marsh. Dominant plants include sedge Deschampsia, Triglochin, Dock and Juncus 1. Bordering the north side of the bay is a fringe of bullrush sedge marsh with silty substrate and diffuse drainage. Scirpus and Triglochin are also p resent. A section of low sandy marsh borders its eastern edge. A smaller section of marsh totalling about 10 acres is currently an immature high marsh due to the disrepair of a tidegate near the mouth of the slough. Willanch slough is even more extensively diked. 110 acres in 1892, it now totals a mere 6 acres divided into immature high marsh on its outer edges and low silty marsh towards the southern edge near the dikes. The 100 acres of diked marsh is currently used for agricultural purposes. A small sedge marsh occurs on the bay side of the road. DIKED MARSH ACRES 441.6 BULLRUSH SEDGE ACRES 4.6 IMMATURE HIGH ACRES 25.8 LOW SILTY ACRES 3.8 Tau. rn ea. CATAOSCt \ \\\\\\ \\\\\\\\.\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ I\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\<\\4\\\\\\\\\\:\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\s\\\\ \\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\)\\\\, ,. \ ,, \\\\"\\"\\\\\"\ \T\0141".\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\,\\ ,. ,.............\\\,..................\\? ....... \ \\ ,,. \\A.m... ..\\.\\\\\\ ............\\\\... .., v... \\\\\\\ "\\\ \ \A \ \ .\\ \\\N\\ \\\ IiiM \\ \,, N\ \\ V \\\\ \\ 38 SECTION J BULL ISLAND At the point where the Coos River and Catching Slough empty into Coos Bay lies Bull Island, a beautiful example of immature high marsh. Virtually untouched by man because of its inaccessibility, the only evidence of dis- turbance on the entire island are log piles on its eastern edge. Bull Island is mostly tideland, with a few trees and bushes on higher ground in the southeast corner. The rest of the island is covered by marsh of varying de- scription, drained by a network of deep channels. The vegetation cover is continuous but patches of distinct vegetation types occur, varying with small differences in elevation. On the higher areas is found Juncus lescurii, Rumex, Hordeum and Potentilla. These are mostly in the interior and near the south end. Near the edges, which con- sist of an abrupt drop of 4-5 feet on the west side and a gradual slope on the east is Carex, Deschampsia, Triglochin and Salicornia along the drain- age channels. Smaller amounts of Jaumea, Distichlis and Cotula are also present here. Along the east side runs a fringing strip of sedge marsh about 100 feet wide, for most of the length of the islands. Across the east channel of the Bay from Bull Island is another large expanse (127 acres) of immature high marsh, with the same type of plant community structure. The bank is steep and 4-5 feet high and tidal drain- age channels are common. To the south an extensive area of marsh has been diked and has been in use as agricultural land since at least 1892, accord- ing to the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey. According to our best estimates from map USCGS-1892, the area of Bull Island has increased by from one quarter to one third since that time. Along the northern edge of Bull Island is found a growing area of coloni- zation by Scirpus robustus. The mud substrate here is supporting a sig- nificant amount (1-2 acres) of vegetation that was not visible in 1970 aerial photographs, but is visible in photos taken in 1974. This is one of the few examples of expansion of marsh we have been able to verify con- clusively. DIKED MARSH ACRES 313.1 IMMATURE HIGH MARSH ACRES 354.9 SEDGE MARSH ACRES 17.5 40 SECTION K-L CATCHING SLOUGH Catching Slough is a salt marsh system extensively altered by agriculture. From just South of Bull Island to where freshwater influences dominate, diked marsh in agricultural use prodominates. Just south of Graveyard Point a massive 1092 acres of diked marsh is present on which residences as well as farms are built. Adjacent to this area on the west hank of the channel is another 510 acre marsh that has been diked. On this West bank there are very thin patches (5 yards wide at their widest extent) of bulrush and sedge, but these diked areas are largely unex- ploited by salt marsh vegetation due to the steepness of the dikes present. As one travels further south (map L), more diked marshes are present. At the north end of the map a fairly large (10 yards wide) fringe marsh of bulrush is present. Diked marshes totalling 1075 acres border both sides of the channel, again demonstrating the intense agricultural use of the salt marshes in this slough. Fringe marshes of sedge and bulrush again are present, especially on the West bank, as it is free from the highway steep rock foundation, as it follows the slough. South of Master Landing on the east side of the channel, a fringe marsh of bulrush and sedge with Pacific Silverweed and Dock at its perimeter may be seen. Being the largest marsh in the system, it is unfortunate that it is less than ten acres in extent. With the extent of diking and agricultural use of this marsh area, it can only be stated that a great deal of modification of the entire southern part of the Coos Bay estuary has occured in terms of organic matter, siltation, wildlife populations etc. SECTION K L DIKED MARSH ACRES 690.8 1029.8 ACRES BULRUSH SEDGE MARSH ACRES 28.1 13.7 ACRES O -r 43 SECTION M COALBANK SLOUGH Coalbank slough is divided into two remnants, twenty five and thirty five acres, of a once much larger marsh. Located south of Coos Bay city center, the twenty five acre marsh is bounded on three sides by quickly rising land and spruce and fir vegetation. The marsh itself has been classified a sedge marsh, although Deschampsia, Salicornia, Triglochin, and Pumex are also present in fair quantities. Making a decision between a sedge marsh and a high immature marsh was in this case further complicated by the remains of a coal mine, present some hundred years ago, which provides some land high enough to contain terrestrial vegetation types. This is especially noticeable near the road at the rear of the marsh. Recently this area has been of interest due to the county diking at the mouth of the slough, cutting off saltwater input, and making organic circulation into the estuary impossible. The thirty five acre parcel located west and south of Coos Bay downtown is bordered on almost half its perimeter by the channel of the slough which was at one time diked. This diking makes natural circulation impossible, but since the dike has been broken, the marsh is doing quite well. Deep channels flow through the area p roviding water curculation for the entire marsh. Again this section was classified a sedge marsh, due to the dominance of Carex lyngbei, although several other species do exist including Deschampsia, Salicornia as well as Hordeum, Potentilla, and others. The importance of these marshes cannot be overemphasized, as they are the marshes most intimately connected with the industry of Coos Bay, their beneficial effects being enhanced by their proximity. South of Eastside on Isthmus slough are two marshes of moderate extent. The diked marsh on the west bank of the slough contains 80 acres of diked marshland and is currently being used for log storage and related industry. Further south on Isthmus slough is a low silt marsh of 85 acres that had once been diked, and is now returning to a natural state. The ground of this marsh is silty and flat, with few channels interrupting it. Pre- dominant vegetation consists of Triglochin maritima. Again the importance of this marsh is in its proximity to Coos Bay industrial sector along with its distinction of being the largest low silty marsh in the entire Bay. The marsh itself is not visible from the river as log storage and dikes on the channel side of the marsh obscure its view from passing boats. DIKED MARSH 41.8 ACRES SEDGE MARSH 10.1 ACRES LOW SILTY MARSH 64.6 ACRES COOS BAY 45 SECTION N ISTHMUS SLOUGH The area on Isthmus Slough from Millington south to the Coos City Bridge, contains large expanses of both sedge and immature high marsh, although both have been encroached upon; about half of the original marsh acreage in this section has been diked for use as agricultural land and for log storage. Shinglehouse Slough is an older sedge marsh, as evidenced by its deep drainage channels and height above the flats. The vegetation con- sists mainly of Carex lyngbyei, with some Deschampsia and Triglochin scattered throughout the marsh. The total area is about 80 acres. Shinglehouse Slough is bordered by the Coos Bay Sanitary Landfill, and by an old auto graveyard on the north side. Closer to the slough outlet on the same side is a private landfill that has already elimin- ated a small portion of the marsh. A boat landing and parking lot lo- cated on the south side adjacent to Highway 101 has also been built on former marshland. Across Isthmus channel from Shinglehouse Slough is a large (108 acres) immature high marsh, with deep drainage channels, abrupt drops, and small raised hummocks. The plant community composition is mixed, with Carex, Deschampsia, Triglochin, Agrostis, Salicornia, Glaux, Rumex, and Atriplex all growing together. Farther south on Isthmus Slough is more immature high marsh and large areas of diked marsh which are being heavily used. PIKED MARSH 206.0 ACRES IMMATURE HIGH MARSH 76.0 ACRES SEDGE MARSH 51.7 ACRES Millington 3 Slough co \\X-VN\\\\\\ \\\\\ \\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\ \\\ \\\\\\\ \\\\ Hayden \\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\ \\ 8 A \\\\\\ \\\\\. \\ \\\ \ V 47 SECTION 0 ISTHMUS SLOUGH The south end of Isthmus Slough and most of Davis Slough contain large areas of bulrush-sedge marsh. These are confined to strips along the river, while the immature high marsh in the northern section of the map covers a wider range. At the end of Davis Slough there are two areas of marsh that have been diked at one time or are now. An immature marsh to the north of the channel is adjoined by a pure sedge marsh on its northern edge; a logging road and tide-gate sep arate the two. This new situation (age unknown to us) appears not to have affected the sedge marsh yet, however. To the west of the immature high marsh is another road and tidegate, this one stopping tidal flow to a mud- and bramble-covered field. There are some remnants of salt marsh vegetation left, such as Scirpus americanus and Potentilla, so this probably was a marsh at one time. It would be a good case to investigate as to the possibility of reopening the tide gate; the land seems very unproductive as it is now. There are several diked areas in the region of Delmar, and as one proceeds south, the bulrush-sedge vegetation gives way to cattails under increasing freshwater influence; the head of the tide is just south of Delmar. DIKED MARSH 62.4 ACRES IMMATURE HIGH MARSH 143.0 ACRES BULRUSH SEDGE MARSH 85.4 ACRES SEDGE MARSH 1 49 UNMAPPED -- Empire Just south of Empire on the east side of the main channel of Coos Bay is a low sand marsh-- the only marsh of any consequence in this outer part of the hay. The marsh extends for about 200 yards along the shore just north of the sewage treatment p lant, and covers the landward shore of a low island at the south end. The substrate is sandy and gently sloping, with no drainage channels or dropoffs. The vegetation on the island consists mainly of Salicornia, Cuscuta and Jaumea quickly grading into Scotch Broom, Trifolium, and native dune grass. In the low channel be- tween the island and the shore there is Salicornia, Triglochin and Scirpus americanus; on the shore itself Carex is abundant on the higher edge, with Triglochin and Eleocharis below. Pis-1. , 4 spica-4 50 SALT MARSH PRIMARY PRODUCTION IN COOS BAY Primary production refers to the trapping of energy by plants from the primary source of energy, the sun. Light energy is utilized in photo- synthesis by plants to assimilate carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into carbohydrates, which then are utilized by herbivores and so travel along the food chain. The energy which went into assembling the small units of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen into large molecules of "food" is released whenever the molecules are broken down in the process of respiration, whether this takes place in the plant, a herbivorous mammal such as a cow, or by bacteria during decay. Since we are here interested in the energy that is transferred by the salt marsh plants to the rest of the system (the estuary), we would like to ignore the part of the trapped energy used by the plant as it respires; we are speaking of net primary produc- tion. There are several methods for estimating net productivity, including the use of radioisotopes, the monitoring of CO /0 2 balance, and the measurement of actual plant mass change over time. The first method in- volves enclosing the plant in an airtight, transparent chamber and feed- ing in radioactive carbon dioxide (14 CO2 ). After a period of time, the plant is removed and the amount of 14 C in thetissues is measured. This gives a direct rate of CO 2, assimilation; however, there are many technical diffi- culties involved in its use and equipment is expensive. The second meth- od, that of gaseous exchange, utilizes an infra-red gas analyzer to meas- ure changes in CO2 and 02 concentrations, which are related to photosyn- thesis and respiration rates. Once again, the equipment needed is very expensive. The third method, and that which has been most widely used, is the harvest method. Simply stated, it consists of clipping a specified size plot of herbage, drying, and weighing it; the process is repeated on a plot similar to the first after a period of time, and the difference in mass between the two represents the amount of growth during the time period. Primary production of marshes (considered as grasslands) consists of two factors: root production and aerial production. In a harvest method these are usually estimated separately and added, since they involve diff- erent problems. Both factors are complicated by the fact that some of the plant material dies and is removed by decay or other action (tidal, for example) during the period of the study. For roots this effect is usually ignored, since the mortality of roots is very hard to determine. For aerial growth, however, an attempt can be made to correct for mortality losses by estimating its rate and adding this to the production total. In our attempt to estimate the productivity of Coos Bay marshes, we chose the harvest method, using a modification of that used by Wiegert and Evans (1964). As suggested by Lomnicki (1968), in short term experiments, the amount of live shoot material that dies and is removed by decay is negligibly small. However, this would not necessarily be true of a situa- 51 tion of removal of material by tides; for this reason we chose a study site in a recently diked and tidegated marsh (along Coalbank Slough). The area had marsh plants still and the appearance of a sedge marsh, but was not sub- ject to flooding by tides any longer. A second area, in normal sedge marsh (also on Coalbank Slough), was tested for comparison. The areas sampled were in the south end of the diked marsh, and the eastern end of the undiked marsh. Two adjacent plots (each 0.5 m X 0.5 m) were chosen at random by tossing the measuring quadrat into the sedge and cutting wherever it landed. One sample plot was clipped and the green material separated, dried at 100C for 24 hours (or until constant weight was attained), and weighed to the nearest 0.1 gram. The standing crop of dead shoot material of the adjacent plot was removed (without unduly disturb- ing the growing plants). This dead material was also dried and weighed. The second plot was allowed a period of time (from 3 weeks to a month) and then was clipped; the "new" dead material was separated, dried and weighed. The equations for the modified method are as follows (from Lomnicki, et. al. 1968): b o = weight of live shoot material from plot 11 1 bl = weight of live shoot material from plot 1/ 2 d = dead shoot material produced during interval Then, Net Primary Production = - 1)0 ) + d + change in root biomass. Production is expressed in grams carbon fixed/meter2 Root production as such was not measured due to difficulties with sampling. Instead a single set of samples was taken and biomass was measured.. The results of this productivity experiment are not listed because they indicated a negative production rate. This was probably a result of the fact that the growing season had already passed its peak, and the plants were no longer actively growing. While recognizing the need for further and more well-timed work in this area, we also wanted to get some idea of the value of the salt marshes to the Coos Bay estuary, and so turned to a different method of data analysis: biomass measurement. BIOMASS MEASUREMENTS The term "biomass" refers to the weight of all the animals and plants in a sample area. Its measurement is considerably easier than the estimation of a production rate but does not give as accurate a picture of the biologi- cal value of the system, since no definite conception of the time taken to produce the measured amount of material is formed. In our case, we have had to resort to biomass measurements because of the situation described above. Since the marsh plants had already reached their maximum growth apparently, mortality and respiration must have been more than keeping pace with pro- duction, causing the negative apparent production figure. For this reason 52 also, the biomass figures are not representative of the maximum standing crop but are low by an undetermined amount. Also, the handling necessary to remove the dead standing crop from the quadrat left standing (in the first Coalbank Slough samples) may have caused enough damage to the plants to have affected their growth. From brief preliminary surveys of the Coos Bay marshes and from talk- ing to people in the area, we found that, until about February, the marshes were essentially "dead" and had relatively little standing crop. There- fore, the biomass figures can be considered this year growth, and an idea of production can be tentatively reached. This figure will be high owing to an undetermined amount of last year dead standing crop (although in most cases this is not large), as well as rootstocks and plant parts that survived the winter. In the case of plants such as Triglochin and Carex, these are a very considerable amount, as the plants spread by means of underground rhizomes, as well as storing food in the roots. Aerial Biomass A quadrat 0.5m X 0.25m (encompassing 0.125m2 ) was constructed with an open end to facilitate placing it in dense herbage (Thilenius, 1966). This was used to obtain uniform size samples; randomness within a sampling area was obtained by throwing the quadrat out into the area and clipping the plot where it fell. Clipping was done as close to ground level as possible (to within 1 inch) with a pair of garden hedge clippers. Clipped herbage and dead material on the ground was placed in a plastic bag and tied shut. Later (within 12 hours) the samples were either weighed wet and replaced in bags for future drying, or placed directly in the oven for drying at 100C (24 hours or until constant weight), and subsequent weighing. Sam- ples that could not be dried immediately were stored in a freezer. The results of the aerial biomass measurements are shown in Table 2. Root Biomass Soil cores of known area and uniform depth were taken in sampling areas. These were taken with either a sharpened galvanized pipe (4.0 cm inside diameter) or a clam gun (12.3 cm inside diameter) depending on the substrate. The pipe could be turned with a handle at the upper end to facilitate penetrating hard ground and root masses. After the pipe was in the ground to the desired depth, the top was sealed (by closing with a wadded plastic bag) to help keep the soil core inside when the pipe was withdrawn. The soil core was pushed out of the pipe by a close-fitting rod into a plastic bag, to be washed later. The washing was done by hand over a wire screen with 60 meshes/inch, under a stream of water from a garden hose. The washed roots were caught on the screen and dried for 24 hours in an oven at 100C. They were weighed to the nearest 0.01 gram. The results are shown in Table 3. The depth to which cores were taken was either 40 or 50cm. In some types of substrates it was impossible to penetrate 50 cm so the lesser depth was used. An experiment was done to determine the difference in 53 root dry weight between 40- and 50-cm cores; the results indicated that, in sedge marsh vegetation, there was no significant difference between the two depths (P less than .05, one-tailed t test; t=.303 with 8 degrees of freedom). The 40-cm average dry weight was 4.60 g (std. dev.=2.02 g) while the 50-cm average dry weight was 5.00 g (std. dev.=2.15 g). This shows that the major portion of the roots at least is in the top 40 cm of soil. Results. In order to compare biomass figures of the Coos Bay salt marshes to those of other areas, work from the east coast of the United States must be used, as very little has been done on West Coast marshes. Some biomass figures from eastern marshes (which have a different flora than Coos Bay) are given in Table 1 (from Nixon, 1973). The Coos Bay biomass figures, when considered with latitude, length of growing season and climate, are well TABLE 1. Biomass of Spartina alterniflora (aboveground portions only) at marsh ecosystems Biomass (g dry weight/m2) the end of the growing season in some salt Marsh location Georgia 1,290 North Carolina 1,100 Virginia 1,332 Maryland 1,207 Delaware 560 New Jersey 1.600 Long Island, N.Y. 827 Rhode Island 840 Petpsewick Inlet, Nova Scotia 580 The large standard deviations seen in most of the marsh data reflect the variability of vegetation cover present, as well as sampling error. This variability is evident not only in the density of plant cover but in the types of plants in any one area. Many of the marsh plants grow in standse.R. Carex, Juncus, Distichlis) or tufts (Deschampsia, Triglochin) that differ in dry weight and productivity from each other. When a marsh is sampled for biomass measurement, several -quite. distinct stands may be chosen, with resulting variation. within the range of established values for salt marshes, at about 800 g/m 2 . The of water sampling ratio of wet/dry weight was not consistent, showing a wide range content values. This situation occurred within as well as between areas. The different types of marsh within the Coos Bay system are surprising- ly close in terms of biomass present; general appearances are here deceiving. The lower marshes, with their woody and stout vegetation, are if anything 54 more productive than their grassy, verdant counterparts in the sedge and immature high marshes. This may. not be the case with their value as detritus sources, however; more work needs to be done in this area. TABLE 2. Aerial biomass in Coos Bay salt marshes. Date Sample Wet weight + std. ev. Dry weight + std. dev. Collected area # samples (02), (9/m) (g/m2) (g/m4) 6/5/74 Coalbank 8 835 + 206 (diked) 6/5/74 Coalbank 4 855 + 85 (undiked) 6/20/74 South Slough 6 3264 + 2218 981 272 (Salicornia) 6/28/74 Coalbank 7 660 106 (diked) 6/28/74 Coalbank 3 670 44 (undiked) 7/3/74 North Slough 6 797 268 7/7/74 Pony Slough 12 3188 t 1357 954 182 7/11/74 Shinglehouse 17 3229 724 714 259 7/12/74 Pony Slough 12 1750 1132 909 t 102 7/15/74 South Slough 9 789 288 (South) 8/5/74 Coalbank 9 2538 388 1114 153 (diked) 8/5/74 Coalbank 9 2195 317 834 130 (undiked) The biomass measurements taken in Coalbank Slough at the begin- ning and end of the summer serve to illustrate one of the consequences of diking marshland. In early June the two sample areas, one diked and one undiked, were similar in appearance and there was no significant difference (P less than .05, t = .21, 10 df) in biomass between them. When another 55 set of samples was clipped in early August, it was noted that the diked area had much dead and decaying herbage present, while the undiked marsh was composed almost wholly of living plants. The results of a comparison of the sample means from the two marshes now showed a significant differ- ence (P less than .05, one-tailed t test: t = 4.19, 16df) in biomass. If we assume the growth rates of the ego marshes to be equal, the larger biomass figure for the diked marsh can be explained by the absence of tidal removal of dead plant material. This implies that the dead material from the undiked marsh had been added to the estuarine food chain as detri- tus. If other factors are equal, the estuary can be considered to have lost an amount of detritus equivalent to the difference between the two sample area biomass figures--roughly 280 g/m2 , kg)- from the diking of this 25 acre marsh. No significant difference was found between the means of root biomass samples taken in the undiked and diked sedge marsh in early August (P less than .05, t = 1.65, 18df). The difference between the means of root samples in the diked marsh in June and in August was significant, however, with the root biomass decreasing with time (P less than .05, t = 3.78, 16 df). The reason for this situation is unknown, and the need for further work is indicated. The results of the root biomass study are shown in Table 3. It is obvious that the major portion of the biomass of the marsh is located underground; some marshes showed aerial/root ratios of 1:2 or even more. In addition, this estimate is probably in error on the low side, as some roots certainly penetrate farther than 40 cm below the surface of the ground. However, since the contribution of roots to the functioning of the estuary is difficult to determine (except as purely physical soil- holding properties) these findings are of largely academic interest here. TABLE 3. Rodt biomass in Coos Bay Salt Marshes. Date Collected Sample location # Samples Dry Weight std. dev. (g/m2) 6/5/74 Coalbank (diked) 8 1528 340 6/20/74 South Slough (Salicornia) 6 1212 370 7/3/74 North Slough 3 1934 230 7/7/74 Pony Slough 11 1962 672 7/10/74 Shinglehouse Slough 8 2026 950 7/12/74 Bull Island 11 1654 1142 7/15/74 South Slough (south) 9 1346 220 8/5/74 Coalbank (diked) 10 1198 226 8/5/74 Coalbank (undiked) 10 960 396 56 Ash-Free Dry Weights. Selected subsamples of the dried vegetation samples were oxidized in a muffle furnace at 600C for 24 hours. By burning all of the organic material away and reweighing the residue, the ash-free or organic weight can be obtained by difference. This is useful in determining the amount of carbon actually assimilated by the plants, since approximately 45% of ash-free dry weight of organic materials is carbon (Keefe, 1972). These results are shown in Table 4. TABLE 4. Ash-Free Dry Weights of Vegetation Samples Date Collected Sample area Herbage type Ash-Free Dry Weight (g/m2 ) % of Dry Weight 6/27/74 Coalbank (diked) Carex (Root) 1277 83.6 7/7/74 Pony Slough Distichlis (Root) 1439 74.7 7/7/74 Pony Slough Distichlis (Root) 1450 75.3 8/5/74 Coalbank (diked) Carex (Root) 1029 85.9 8/5/74 Coalbank (diked) Carex (Root) 857 71.5 8/5/74 Coalbank (undiked) Carex (Root) 767 79.9 6/28/74 Coalbank (undiked) Carex (Aerial) 578 86.5 6/28/74 Coalbank (undiked) Carex (Aerial) 589 87.9 7/15/74 South Slough (south) Deschampsia, 629 79.8 Carex (Aerial) 8/5/74 Coalbank (diked) Carex (Aerial) 787 70.7 8/5/74 Coalbank (diked) Carex (Aerial) 827 74.3 8/5/74 Coalbank (undiked) Carex (aerial) 527 63.2 8/5/74 Coalbank (undiked) Carex (Aerial) 556 66.7 We found that the ash-free dry weight is very dependent on the amount of silt deposited on the plants by the falling tide (which is easily visible in sedge and immature high marsh after a high tide). Since this is vari- able and cannot be easily corrected for, the ash-free dry weights are not a good representation of the percentage of organic material in the plants. The dry weights, which are not affected as much by the small amount of ex- ternal mud, were therefore used for comparison purposes. + MAW 7141 NAM I IA r- 2 """v- BULL ISLAND y.) OREGON (undiked) --e N COALBANK SLOUGH SOUTH SLOUGH (Salicornia) 1)( 10111 tSection Cons. Located Ron Oiher Scum. ........ -Section Comers Found. 4--e--Proiected Gamin. MI irkeldjeneeen Eteeoteons of Mean UmMean High Winer. SOUTH SLOUGH (South) S Dy Third lad Awe 1969 all 911 NedPotceely, Ma Rohl ken /Imam Ocbobo 19/2, Cabo, Poe LAGS. Choi Ns 0934, 111 0 9 Cue%ad brew eta Deet el Nueva Feral Cade Mu Crew Pea Fen Caordedes Kea bra Ilwereer 11 r .Nell V IMO SHINGLEHOUSE SLOUGH 57 1114 58 SALT MARSH OWNERSHIP The ownership and land value of the salt marsh areas within Coos Bay play a large part in the wise management of this resource. Through con- versations with the Coos County Assessor, Roger Duncan, and information provided in Coastal Wetlands of Oregon, the following facts were obtained. The present marsh acreage in Coos Bay is assessed at a value of from 10- 50 dollars an acre, due both to its inability to function as prime pas- tureland and to agricultural subsidy. This value does not, however, re- flect the true market value of the salt marsh involved, but according to the county assessor, the purchase price of the land probably would not exceed 100 dollars an acre. Access to sewage and water systems as well as roads and the potential for future development may raise these values significantly. Since the potential for future diking and filling of marshlands does exist and the price of a bayside lot may often exceed $10,000, it may be assumed that many of the owners of salt marsh in Coos Bay are holding their land for speculative purposes, as an assessed value of $50 an acre is no great tax burden. With a lack of market activity and tighter development restrictions regarding septic tanks and water supply, the value of the marshlands has remained stable over the past few years. In general, salt marsh acreage in Coos Bay is in the hands of private owners. Much of this acreage is as a part of large farms that have been in the hands of these owners for some time. Large exceptions to this generality occur in certain areas, most notably in North Slough, Davis Slough, Bull Island and surrounding, and South Slough. These large tracts of salt marsh land are in the hands of large lumber companies and are presumably being held for their potential as log storage areas. The County and State own surprisingly little salt marsh acreage in Coos Bay. The object of determining ownership of salt marsh lands in this report was in order to facilitate further research, preservation, and conservation of marshlands. As the potential for the State purchasing of salt marsh lands below high water as well as the possibility of trades of marshlands for lands presently diked exists, it seemed appropriate at this time toetermine the ownership of the Bay salt marshes. The inadequacies of our methods are obvious. Without much further labor, the amount of salt marsh versus agricultural or residential land could not be determined from County records. This problem presents difficulties in determining a true assessed value for salt marshlands, as some of the areas mentioned contain 150 acres of pasture and 10 acres of salt marsh while some contain only salt marsh acreage. This makes some assessed values presented seem absurd. It is recognized that the assessed value information presented will be of little use, the value of this section being in its determination of ownership, acreages, and taxlot numbers of salt marsh and adjacent lands. This information alone will save great amounts of time to future researchers. In some cases the question of who owns a certain salt marsh is unresolved even at the State level. The Division of State Lands claims ownership as well as the person living near the land. The most current information concerning ownership of tidelands is presented in Tidelands Ownership Map of Coos Bay printed by the Division of State Lands, although discrepencies still do exist. Following is the ownership and assessed value of the salt marshes in the Coos Bay area. COOS BAY SOUTH SLOUGH Cn 0 61 OWNERSHIP: TAX LOT NUMBER, TOTAL ACREAGE, AND ASSESSED VALUE $OUTH SLOUGH Tax Lot No (A) Owner Area (acres) Assessed Value ($) 5831 Georgia Pacific 9.7 $ 2,480 5832 Moore Oregon Log Co 145.04 5,040 5831 X Georgia Pacific 9.7 2,430 5834 Moore Oregon Log Co. 40 1,480 5834-1 Moore Oregon Log Co. 98.90 2,770 5836 Coos Head Timber 79.56 2,550 5838 John Anderson 51.26 2,220 5840 Coos Head Timber 56.24 2,590 5848 Georgia Pacific 30.51 1,400 5849 Eleanor Jacobson 60 12,330 5851 Georgia Pacific 8.67 1,730 5894 Marion Tracy 22.6 4,810 5897 Elanor Jacobson 60.55 10,100 5904 Ken Fredrickson 85.89 6,520 5904-1 Coos Head Timber 27.92 1,020 5909 Ken Morris 9.06 2,870 SOUTH SLOUGH Tax Lot No. (B) Owner Area (acres) Assessed Value ($) 5743 Everett Oxford 22.17 $ 13,170 5745 Phillip Cope 27.48 9,190 5747 It It 11 II 5747-1 II II 11 5742-2 Georgia Pacific 115.10 4,260 5749 W. Justrom 4.70 5,950 5749-4 Walter Meek 6.15 8,680 5750 Ben Ash 19.49 4,570 5750-1 II II 1/ II 5752 II It II 5753 Lura Schultz 11.0 6,350 5758 Tom Yonker 5.73 16,740 5766 Qualman 20 3,000 5771 J. D. Bergen 23.25 860 5819 Bohemia Inc. 42.14 19,180 5820 Pete Wilson Realty 147.11 4,120 5822 Georgia Pacific 116.46 3,950 5825 Pete Wilson Realty 63.0 12,870 5828 Georgia Pacific 245.77 5828-1 Georgia Pacific 9.70 2,430 5828-2 Georgia Pacific 73.69 5829 Bohemia Inc. 37.20 13,020 SCUT1-1 SLCjGH AlldilMINIM/1 a Vira. 11111M11.111111111111 aW1101111M=MIMrMINNOW 1111111 =MIr INMEINNIII IMIMIIIINI aNallar INIIMINIIMMI 111S. =1/MOII111M10 UMt 11111101111,1111: IIIIIIIIMPIIINI INIIIIIII 111116111111111. rilei 65 SOUTH SLOUGH Tax Lot No, (C) Owner Area (acres) Assessed Value ($) 5087 Coos Head Lumber 354.50 $ 13,1201 5089 11 II II II 11 5091 Menasha 677.55 76,500 5094-2 II 11 11 5093 Georgia Pacific 29.71 1,100 5634 Jay Tower 23.40 11,990 5658 William Arbus 14.90 23,400 5658-1 Marcella Trebaol 25.84 12,900 5659 11 II II 11 5725 Indian Point Inc. 46.49 36,800 5729 Melvin Wick 26.28 24,700 730 Henry Metcalf 30.86 12,480 5731 George Barton 73.46 4,370 5732-1 William Hindman 40.0 13,520 5734 Indian Point Inc. 59.93 24,000 5734-1 Marcella Trebail 50.36 25,200 5735 Indian Point Inc. 91.67 84,200 5735-1 Opperman 18.70 28,000 5739 Indian Point Inc. 40.31 34,300 5742-2 DeLoris Kiester 18.66 23,150 5751 Jean Grider 8.73 14,860 5752-1 J Woone 3.43 8,890 5760 Joseph Yonker 1 150 5761 Joseph Yonker 5.84 4,200 5762 George Barton 47.60 1,760 5763 William Hindman 49.55 11,250 idelands deeded to University of Oregon (A (D) laLot No. Owner Area (acres) Assessed Value ($) X929 Sam Choate 1.21 60 1617 Port of Coos Bay 1617-1 George Gebhardt 26 . 5,200 1618 Port of Coos Bay 1618-1 Port of Coos Bay 61.9 Port of Coos Bay 23 Port of Coos Bay 1623-1 City of Eastside U3-2 Sam Choate 28.4 4,780 MY SLOUGH (E) V Lot No. Owner Area (acres) Assessed Value ($) 1101 Roseburg Lumber 119 802,500 6105 Menasha Corp 844.8 397.690 11107 11 66 KM SLOUGH (E) Tax Lot No. (CONT.) Owner Area (acres) Assessed VAlue ($) 2115 X City of North Bend $ 3121 City of North Bend 3121-1 TCK Corp 2.02 400 3122 Coos County 3124-1 Al Pierce 42.28 13,740 3138 Eulalie Merrill 11.0 3,300 3140 State of Oregon 3141 City of North Bend 3142 City of North Bend NORTH SLOUGH (F) Tax Lot No. Owner Area (acres) Assessed Value ($) ;1836-2 Clarence Jenson 14.64 12,700 11836-3 Boyd Arnot 7.5 9,000 11840 Al Pierce 51.0 5,100 11837 Clarence Jenson 50.33 3,030 1852 USA 11856 Georgia Pacific 75.64 17,720 1863 State of Oregon NORTH SLOUGH (G) Tax Lot No. Owner Area (acres) Assessed Value ($) 1724 Edward Bolt 8.4 840 1726 Dan Wright 2.65 210 1726-1 Bob Berry 9.21 920 1727 Harold Maurer 5.78 2,240 1721-1 Russell Fox 4.66 2,950 1729 Coos Head Timber 1482 22,250 1763 Reedsport Mortgage 3.11 310 1764 Milt Woodworth 3.39 340 1765 Edward Bolt 13.75 2,890 1766-1 Eleanor Forrest 75.4 12,100 1778 Eleanor Forrest 32.5 9,350 1779 Al Pierce 79.3 4,350 1780 Al Pierce 1840 Al Pierce 51.0 5,100 HAYNES INLET (H) Tax Lot No. 1790 1808-2 1808-4 1808-5 Owner Area (acres) Assessed Value ($) Leroy Hanson 58.02 35.720 John Hanstruk 4.74 12,100 George Rempelos 43.9 20,640 Paul Wegfahrt 11.71 10,500 68 t4 o80 1 14,80-3 I ,80-i 6 il 2000 -- 1778 lift1 ft! 1779 0 A7 a.4 I I igy ,c"\ \\\\\\\\\ \ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\ \\\\\\\\ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\\\ \\\\\\\\ 70 MYNES INLET (H) (CONT.) Tax Lot No. Owner Area (acres) Assessed Value ($) 1809 1809-2 1810 Robert Frank Robert Bernhardt Robert Bernhardt 1.21 2.82 4.85 $ 700 3,930 570 1814 Coos County 1821 George Rue 88.96 17,300 1823 Coos County 1836-1 Al Pierce 3.69 170 1836-2 Central Lincoln P.U.D. .27 1836-3 Boyd Arnot 7.5 9,000 1861 Coos County 1861-1 Wilbur Humbert 4.17 400 263 State of Oregon 1863-1 Wilbur Humbert 2.99 5,750 1872 Sigurd Sandquist 4.15 8,350 1900 Coos County 1900-1 Coos County WILLANCH AND KENTUCK INLETS (I) fax Lot No. Owner Area (acres) Assessed Value ($) 587-4 Wallace Wickett 132.65 166,740 1207-1 Ellsworth Leegard 4.57 10,020 1207-2 Lorell Smith 6.23 3,540 3208 Guy Lortie 1.61 5,670 3208-1 Charles Swift 9.89 10,450 1212 T. De LaRue 29.83 2,300 1221 T. De LaRue 3.66 460 1223 Weyerhaeuser 22.5 1,800 1228 Millard Miller 27.0 16,990 952 Ruhal McCartey 99.89 28,950 3955 Ruhal McCartey 22.9 6,600 981-2 Fred Brunnell 86.85 17,800 982 Myrtle Noah 2.38 3,850 982-1 Brunnell Bros. Const. 5.5 1,380 986 Fred Brunnell 9.73 2,390 3ULL ISLAND (3) tax Lot No. 3782-2 1765 917 915 918 919 923 924 925 922 931 932 1933 Owner Area (acres) Assessed Value Weyerhaeuser 31.0 5,970 Menasha 26.19 3,930 Herman U. Lilienthal 37.75 4,090 Herman U. Lilienthal 36.82 11,660 Herman U. Lilienthal 13.89 1,270 Joseph Kronsteiner 7.64 10,500 Weyerhaeuser 68.08 37,500 Weyerhaeuser 68.08 37,500 Weyerhaeuser 68.08 37,500 Joseph Kronsteiner 3.0 2,100 Weyerhaeuser 87.79 33,400 Menasha 6.7 250 Georgia Pacific 3,56 140 \\\ \ \\., .\\\\\\\\\\\\0.N\ \\\\\ \\\\ \\ \\ \\\\\\ \\\ il I 0 \\\ \\\ \\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\A \ \\\\\\1\\A\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\ \\L\\\\\\\\\:\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\.\\\\\.\\ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\ \\\ \\\ \\\\ \H.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\ ,....\\".. ...,...\\,...,,...,...\\,...\\\\.\\\ I6 " \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ .\\ \\\ \ .\\ \\\ ,,,w \\.\\..\\.\\ II \\\ 73 BULL ISLAND Tax Lot No. (J) (CONT.) Owner Area (acres) Assessed Value 2927 Menasha 20.24 1,520 12928 Raymond Beaudry 96.0 3,650 2758 Weyerhaeuser 98.19 7,390 3615 Luella De La Rhue 7.54 150 3614 Menasha 143.5 2,870 3612 Luella De La Rhue 68.2 1,360 3616 Menasha 21.62 3,240 GRAVEYARD POINT Tax Lot No. (K) Owner Area (acres) Assessed Value 2946 Richard McCarthy 86.9 26,460 2952 Richard Mc Carthy 99.89 28,950 2954 H. A. Crabtree 5.23 6,200 2955 Richard McCarthy 22.9 6,600 2981-2 Fred Brunnell 9.73 2,390 2982 Myrtle Noah 2.38 3,850 2982-1 Brunnell Bros. Const. 5.5 1,380 2986 Fred Brunnell 9.73 2,390 2987 Richard McCarthy 40.0 4.930 2989-3 Georgia Pacific 60.0 13,480 4647 John Gunnell 60.8 12,440 4649 George Messerle 33.19 24,100 4651 H. Meyer 3.45 6,330 4653 Delbert Atkins 19.35 5,350 4654 Clardy Perkins 39.69 18,790 4656 Roy Place 16.5 15,070 4657 Coos County 4662 Donald Stacey 51.54 10,640 4663 Selmer Swanson 50.78 8,080 4664 Lorraine Jenkens 8.25 620 In addition many small lots on the Northeastern side of the dike MASTERS LANDING Tax Lot No. (L) Owner Area (acres) Assessed Value($) 4673 Fred Messerle Sons 32.54 24,720 4674 Fred Messerle Sons 32.54 24,720 4675 Fred Messerle Sons 32.54 24,720 4689 Iril Olson 21.15 5,820 4690 John Noah 7.31 6,620 4691 John Noah 7.31 6,620 4692 John Noah II II 4747 Messerle Sons 26.14 17,140 4744-1 Don Baylor 9.03 16,940 4749 Lottie Irvine 5.0 4,560 4752 William Cole 40.29 29,600 4753 William Cole It II 4754 William Cole 9.22 8,910 4755 Niel Carlson 5.51 2,400 4755-1 Niel Carlson 1.00 1,730 4756-4 Dell Brunnell 6.70 1,070 4759-1 Russell McGriff 5.0 4,460 4761 Fred Messerle 11.11 360 011/1 1 111111111111 714 19 75 76 MASTERS LANDING Tax Lot No. (L) Owner Area (acres) Assessed Value ($) 4760 Messerle and Sons 26.14 $ 17,140 4762k6 Russell McGriff 5.0 2,510 4776-1 Eldon Yarbrough 5.0 3,250 4776-1-1-1 Duane Stevens 5.0 4,810 4777 Clifford Brunell 6.7 1,070 4781-4 Frank Ellner 31.10 7,810 4783 John Edmund 5.0 2,190 4783-1 Madge Waggoner 5.0 4,200 4785 Menasha Corp. 104.6 6,690 4960-1 Jimmie Ketchum 20.0 5,720 COALBANK SLOUGH (M) Tax Lot No. Owner Area (acres) Assessed Value ($) 3933 Rueben Humbert 16.0 9,490 3976-1 Osro Edwards 3.55 1,870 3977 Rueben Humbert 7.90 6,300 3977-1 Fred Stanley 6.5 12,000 4004 Georgia Pacific 40.54 52,500 4007 Coos Head Timber 12.0 27,840 5012 Georgia Pacific 112.55 19,260 5015 W. Kennedy 126.19 34,930 5033 Additional Rueben Humbert acres in Boise subdivision 76.20 38,100 MILLINGTON (N) Tax Lot No. Owner Area (acres) Assessed Value ($) 5170 Georgia Pacific .75 700 5171 Georgia Pacific 64.86 94,600 5220 State Highway Comm. 5220-2 Robert Mathews 4.0 11,000 5222 Coos Head Timber 18.5 1,850 5229 Gordon Watrous 4.0 5,000 5230 Gordon Watrous .61 450 5231 Gordon Watrous 7.86 6,650 5259 Jane Lyons 35.5 4,850 5284 Martha Miller 9.7 26,950 5330 Jane Lyons 148 24,180 DAVIS (0) Tax Lot No. Owner Area (acres) Assessed Value ($) 5385 Al Pierce 49.00 7,320 5386 Georgia Pacific 21.43 13,650 5387 Menasha 204.42 13,440 5389 Menasha 36.04 1,660 5390-4 Ken Nissen 8.16 11,400 5391 Menasha 42.10 32,920 5392 Menasha 26 6,170 5393 Menasha 110.99 4,880 5395 Menasha 113.86 7,800 77 DAVIS (0) Tax Lot No. Owner Area (acres) Assessed Value ($) 5396 Menasha 6 $ 1,520 5397 Menasha 181.74 37,250 5399 I, I, 11 5503-1 George Fujii 25.21 10,890 5502-1 Menasha 190.27 10,520 5507 Billie Worten 47.92 1,400 5508 Richard Cavanaugh 4.26 5,270 5512 Moores Oregon Lumber 4.4 4,690 6904 Michael Siglin 124.22 12,800 6948 Menasha 49.6 2,880 6954 Melvin Spaght 48.61 56,800 6955 Moore Oregon Lumber 8.3 2,390 6957-1 Raymond Dean 68.9 8,140 6958 J. A. Annis 22.5 11,830 6959 John Taylor 7.5 2,740 6960 Howard Kubli 5.0 5,290 6961 John Gilfillan 5.0 1,280 6963 Frank Putnam 40.0 7,520 6964-1 Jean Crider 79 . 75 14,000 6970 Michael Siglin 2.34 1,350 6971 Coos County 6972 Georgia Pacific 10.6 2,280 6972-1 L. R. Siglin .25 250 \\\\r I \\\\\\\\ 4 4 ^ v . \ \\ CC ) \\.\\\\ \ \\\\ \\ V6 \ . \ -c..\\.\\\\\ .\\...\\\\\....\\\\\....\\\.\\\\\.\\ .\\.\\.\\.\\\.\\\\...\\.\\..\\\....\\ \\\\\\\.\\ \l, \\\\\\\\\\\\\..\\.\\ . \\\\\\\\ 4. \\\\ , \\\ \\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ .\\\\\.\\..\\\\.\\\..\\\..\\....\\ tiz \\\\\\\ s\\\\\\ P,CE-vC 1/.6 ocgS z uapAoH 6L ---""4111 81 POTENTIAL SALT MARSH LANDS It was foreseen at the beginning of this study that further salt marsh areas might be taken from the estuary through diking, dredging, or filling. In order to make this situation more tolerable to the total estuary, areas that have the potential of being undiked in trade for areas filled were discussed. It is our belief that this type of trading, although certainly in many cases completely equitable to the estuary and all involved, must be entered into with a great deal of caution. In trading, location of the marshes to be traded and those to be filled must be such that the estuary is not receiving a disproportionate amount of marshland in any one area. Also to be considered is a marsh productivity, as this may not be measured by acreage alone. For these reasons we are presenting a list of potential lands that may be utilized as salt marsh area, with the specifics of the trade left to be discussed when the situation arises. 1) Davis Slough. The head of Davis Slough, which is diked and tidegated, and is now covered with a thin layer of mud. It appears to have been covered with water in the recent past. Map 0 2) Davis Slough. The small sedge marsh at the tip of Davis Slough. The surrounding hillsides have just been logged, and a logging road and tide- gate now cut it off from the Slough proper. Map 0 3) South Slough. The diked inlet about halfway down the eastern arm of South Slough. It has a tidegate which is not functioning well, but needs to be further opened to allow more salt water to enter. Map B 4) North Slough. The small freshwater marsh on the west side of the rail- road tracks in North Slough could be exposed again to salt water influence by placing culverts under the tracks. Map G 5) Bull Island. The diked marsh east of Bull Island, although in use as dairy pasture, could be easily broken open section by section to restore marshland. Map J 6) Catching Slough. The area between one or more of the meanders of Catching Slough just ab ove Master Landing could be easily opened. 7) Kentuck Inlet. Across the road on the south side is a small area that has a malfunctioning tidegate but not enough salt water flooding to con- stitute a healthy salt marsh. Map L 8) Joe Ney Slough. The dike and tidegate at the head of the slough could be breached and the large freshwater marshy area behind restored to salt marsh. Map C 9) Isthmus Slough. The low silty marsh could be opened up more to allow better circulation. Map N 82 CONCLUSION At this time we have removed 85-90% of the salt marshes originally feeding the estuary and providing estuarine organisms with many of their nutrients. With only one tenth of its primary sources of productivity, the esturary is still functioning, still producing clams and crabs and fish. The ten percent remaining are still working as flood control and pollution buffers and as organic filters. What does the remaining ten percent of the marsh area mean to the people of Coos Bay? Surely in a century of devastation of these areas, their importance has been noticed, adequate planning measures have been taken. This has not been the case. Recent developments point to a future for the salt marsh as grim as the past has been. Although 60 acres remain of the once gigantic Coalbank Slough, last year Coos County diked off 25 of the remaining 60 acres at the owner request to provide more land for residences. Plans for other salt marshes point to the same future. A more crowded community depleted of its salt marsh resource awaits. In November 1966, a publication A Comparison of Sites for Industrial Develop- ment of the Coos Bai Area appeared. Prime sites were chosen for industrial development in Coos Bay. Criteria for industrial development were based on the following considerations: 1. location near bay-ocean shipment facilities 2. closeness to railroads and highways 3. levelness, stability of foundation 4. power, water and sewage availability 5. sufficient area to encourage grouping of industry No mention was given to criteria at least equal in importance to the total best use of the Bay. 1. loss of production to the estuary 2. effect of construction on land utilized 3. effect of removal of land from the estuary Of the fourteen sites chosen for study, all contained portions of salt marsh or productive agricultural land that was once salt marsh. Eight of the sites considered contained salt marsh important to the estuarylhile_ three sites were primarily agricultural. The final recommendation of the report pointed to North Slough, Pony Slough (east side) and Henderson Marsh as the most likely sites for future development. North Slough, Pony Slough and Henderson Marsh comprise a large part of the remaining 10% of the marshes in the system, an important 10% indeed as they too face destruction at the hands of an expanding community. 83 The salt marshes of Coos Bay are important in the Bay overall function and productivity. With the 10% remaining in near natural con- dition we must be more careful than ever that these marshes do not become the construction sites of the future at the expense of the estuarine sys- tem. Suitable planning for the future dictates that these marshes be preserved as necessary components in the ecosystem that is the Coos Bay estuary. 7 REFERENCES Abrams, L., Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States, Vol. I. Stanford University Press, 1940. Akins, G., Coastal Wetlands of Oregon. Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission, 1973. Albrecht, W. A., 1941. Soil organic matter and ion availability for plants. Soil Science 51: 487-494 Aurand, D. 1968. The seasonal and spatial distribution of nitrate and nitrite in the surface waters of two Delaware estuaries. M. S. Thesis, Univ. of Delaware. Beckham, S. D., Coos Bay: The Pioneer Period. Coos Bay: Arago Books, 1973. Boyd, C. E. 1970. Losses of mineral nutrients during decomposition of Typha latifolia. Arch. Hydrobil. 66: 511-517 Chapman, V. J., Salt Marshes and Salt Deserts of the World. New York: Interscience Publ., Inc., 1960. Cornell, Howland, Hayes, and Merryfield, A Comparison of Sites for Indus- trial Development in the Coos Bay Estuary. Nov. 1966. Dodge, Orvil, A Pioneer History of Coos and Curry County. Salem: Salem Printing Co., 1898. Eltringham, S. Press Ltd K., Life in Mud and Sand. London: The English Universities ., 1971. Fenchal, T. 1969. Studies on the decomposition of organic detritus derived from turtle grass, Thalassia testudium. Limn. Ocean. 15(1): 14-20. Gilkey, H., and Dennis, L., Handbook of Northwestern Plants. Corvallis: Oregon State University Bookstores, Inc., 1969. Greenacres Consulting Firm, The Environmental and Economic Impact of Alternate Methods of LorTransportation, Storage, and Handling in the Coos Bay Estuary. Phase I. U. S. Dept. of Commerce, 1974. Hitchcock, A., Manual of the Grasses of the United States. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1935. Jahn, L. R., and Trefethen, J. B. 1973. The watershed as an ecosystem. National Watershed Conference, June 30, 1973, Wichita, Kansas. Jefferson, C. 1973. Coastal Wetlands of Oregon. Oregon Coastal Conservation Development Commission. Jervis, R. A. 1964. Primary production in a freshwater marsh ecosystem. Ph. D. Thesis, Rutgers University. 85 REFERENCES (CONT.) Jefferson, C., Botany Dept., Oregon State University: personal communication, 1974 Johannessen, C. in Disken, S. N. Some Recent Physical Changes of the Oregon Coast. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Dept. of Commerce, 1961. Keefe, C. W. 1972. Marsh production: a summary of the literature. Contr. Mar. Sci. 1972, Vol. 16: 163-180. Lomnicki, A., Bandola, E., and Jankowska, K. 1968. Modifications of the Wiegert-Evans method for estimations of net primary production. Ecology 49: 147-149. Milner, C., and Hughes, E., Methods for the Measurement of Primary Produc- tion in Grassland. Oxford: Blackwell Science Publ., 1968. Munz, P., Shore Wildflowers of California, Oregon and Washington. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1964. Nixon, S. W., and Oviatt, C. A. 1973. Ecology of a New England salt marsh. Ecological Monographs 43: 471. Odum, E. P., Fundamentals of Ecology. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1959. Odum E. P., and Smalley. 1959. A comparison of population energy flow of a herbivorous and deposit-feeding invertebrate in a salt marsh ecosystem. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S. 45: 617-622. /44) Odum, E. P., and de la Cruz, A. A., 1967. Particulate organic detritus in a Georgia salt marsh marine-estuarine ecosystem. In Estuaries, ed. G. Lauff, Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Odum, W. E. 1969. The structure of detritus food chains in a south Florida mangrove system. Institute of Marine Sci., Univ. Miami, unpublished. Odum, W. E. 1970. Insidious alteration of the estuarine environment. Trans. Amer. Fish Soc. 1970 #4. Oregon Division of State Lands, An Inventory of Filled Lands in the Coos River. Jan. 1973. Oregon Institute of Marine Biology 1970. An Interdisciplinary Study of the Coos Bay Estuary. Nat. Sci. Foundation. Peck, M., A Manual of the Higher Plants of Oregon. Portland: Metropolitan Press, 1941. Pritchard, A. E. 1967. Observations of circulation in coastal plain estuaries. In Estuaries, ed. G. Lauff, Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci. 86 REFERENCES (CONT.) Pederson, E., and Powers, A., A Century of Coos and Curry: A History of Southwest Oregon. Portland, Ore.: Benford Mort, 1952 Ranwell, D.S. 1964. Spartina salt marshes in South England II. Rate and seasonal patterns of sediment accretion. J. Ecol. 52: 79-94 Steward, A., Dennis, L., and Gilkey, H., Aquatic Plants of the Pacific Northwest. Corvallis: Oregon State College, 1960 Thilenius, J.F. 1966. An improved vegetation sampling quadrat. Jrnl. Range Management 19: 1: 40 U.S. Coast Geodetic Survey. Map, Coos Bay, 1892. M.L. Mendenhall, supr. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Natural Resources, Ecological Aspects, Uses and Guidelines for the Management of Coos Bay, Oregon. 1971, USDI. Wiedemann, A., Dennis, L., and Smith, F., Plants of the Oregon Coastal Dunes. Corvallis: Oregon State University Bookstores, Inc., 1969. Wiegert, R.G., and Evans, F.C. 1964. Primary production and the disappear- ance of dead vegetation on an old field in southeastern Michigan. Ecology 45: 42-63. 1970. The ecology of marine microbenthos. IV. Structure and function of the benthic ecosystem, its chemical and physical factors and the microfauna communities with special reference to ciliated protozoans. Ophelia 6: 1-182 87 We gratefully acknowledge the help of the following, without whom this report could not have been completed: Dr. Paul Rudy - direction Dr. Carol Jefferson - salt marsh ecology and plant identification Kathy Tosney - plant illustrations Dr. Charles Hunter - logistical support Mark Harbert, Division of State Lands - Aerial photos and tidelands maps Bill Lemoine - polar planimetry University of Oregon Geology Department - map reduction Peck Herbarium, Willamette University - plant identification Sanford Spitzer - photographic assistance Norman Rischard - aerial reconnaissance Matthew Leddy - mapping Coos County Assessor Office - ownership Shirley Leegard- typing Norma Smith