NOAA Technical Report ERL 374-MESA 6 A Test Particle Dispersion Study in Massachusetts Bay Robert H. Wing, Editor September 1 976 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Environmental Research Laboratories C63. A5 S7*r'' NOAA Technical Report ERL 374-MESA 6 ^J£fe. A Test Particle Dispersion Study in Massachusetts Bay Robert H. Wing, Editor Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory Seattle, Washington Marine Ecosystems Analysis Program Office Boulder, Colorado September 1 976 <3 □ a 0) Ll/5 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Elliot Richardson, Secretary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Robert M. White, Administrator Environmental Research Laboratories Wilmot Hess, Director ^qLUTICv, NOTICE The Environmental Research Laboratories do not approve, recommend, or endorse any proprietary product or proprietary material mentioned in this publication. No reference shall be made to the Environmental Research Laboratories or to this publication furnished by the Environmental Research Laboratories in any advertising or sales promotion which would indicate or imply that the Environmental Research Laboratories approve, recommend, or endorse any proprietary product or proprietary material mentioned herein, or which has as its purpose an intent to cause directly or in- directly the advertised product to be used or purchased because of this Environmental Research Laboratories publication. PREFACE Robert H. Wing The "Glass Bead Experiment" was planned to give Project NOMES researchers an understanding of fine particle dispersion of dredge dumped overboard from a working sand and gravel dredge into Massachusetts Bay. The purpose of this publication is to present the full details of the planning and execution of the experiment. The experi- ment was planned and carried out at the same time of year that actual dredging would take place so that seasonal water characteristics would be similar to those during proposed dredging operations (June 1974). An abbreviated account of the entire experiment was presented at the 1974 Offshore Technology Conference and published as OTC paper number 21 60. The OTC report is the backbone of this present publication. Pages 1 -1 7 give a summary of the experiment and its results, with specific details of any portion of the experiment in the appropriate appendix. The fact that this experiment was not entirely successful from the standpoint of counting particles should not detract from the usefulness of its design. Several factors worked against its success, but basically responsible were a lack of time to field test equipment and a complete lack of experience in dispersing, tracking, and sampling fluorescent particles, the use of which was the genius of the experiment. Recently the M.I.T. Ralph M. Parsons Laboratory for Water Resources and Hy- drodynamics carried out a similar diffusion study using sphalerite particles. Due in part to experience acquired during the "glass bead experiment", in which they participated (Dr. Bryan Pearce), their field operations apparently proceeded very smoothly. Similarly, others may profit from the details of this experiment. in Contents Page PREFACE — Robert H. Wing, NOAA/ERL/PMEL iii ABSTRACT 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES 2 3. OCEANOGRAPHIC and ATMOSPHERIC OBSERVATIONS 4 4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 5 5. CONCLUSIONS u 6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 15 7. REFERENCES 15 Appendix A Settling Rate & Dispersion Calculations Wilmot N. Hess, NOAA/ERL 17 Appendix B Sediment Traps Robert H. Wing, NOAA/ERL/PMEL 1 9 Appendix C Navigation Roy Newman, NOAA/ERL/PMEL 23 Appendix D Particle Introduction Leal W. Kimrey, NOAA/ERL/PMEL , 25 Appendix E Fluorescent Particle Counting Charles S. Yentsch, Bigelow Lab. for Ocean Science, W. Boothbay Harbor, Maine 27 Appendix F Laboratory Procedures for Counting Particles Loren W. Setlow, U.S. Bureau of Land Management 31 Appendix G Wind Data and Analysis for Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays During the Glass Bead Experiment W. Richard Boehmer, Dept. of Natural Resources, Commonwealth of Massachusetts 33 Appendix H Drogue Measurement Bryan M. Pearce, R.M. Parsons Laboratory, MIT 35 Appendix I Temperature Data Terry A. Nelsen, NOAA/ERL/AOML 37 Appendix J Sphalerite Particle Data Terry A. Nelsen and Pat Hatcher, NOAA/ERL/AOML 41 42-~25 N 1517822.) 42 ; 15 N (457090.) 42 ; 05'N (397500.) 70°50'W (778700.) 70 30'W (869714.) 70°10'W (960190.) Figure 1. Drogue Tracks at Proposed Dredge Site. The coordinates shown in parentheses are Massachusetts State-plane (Lambert) coordinates. A TEST PARTICLE DISPERSION STUDY IN MASSACHUSETTS BAY The goal of this study was to develop a predictive model to estimate, in advance of dredging operations, where the fines of a dredge plume would travel. On June 11, 1973, 2700 kg (3 tons) of small (0.5/x < d < 50/u) particles were released into the water column in Massachusetts Bay. Their movement was tracked for 10 days. Also, oceanographic data were collected and analyzed and a dispersion model was formul- ated. Final data show the plume movement to be westward toward Boston Harbor, east- ward toward Stellwagen Bank and southward along the coast into Cape Cod Bay where a counterclockwise gyre is suggested. 1. Introduction The New England Offshore Mining Environmental Study (NOMES) was a joint effort of NOAA and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to identify en- vironmental impacts of offshore sand and gravel dredging. This study was initiated in June 1972 and terminated short of its goal in August 1973. The importance of a NOMES-type study can be appreciated when one considers the significant problems which can be caused by the rain of silt from overboard dumping of dredge. These are: a. The effects on metabolism and survival of organisms confronted with high concentra- tions of fine particulate matter; b. The effects on the benthic habitat caused by sediment removal and redeposition; c. The chemical and physical response of resus- pended bottom deposits; and d. The types, amounts, and methods of chemical constituent transfer to the water column or sediments, and their amplification by organ- isms through the marine food web. An actual dredging operation in which 764,000 m 3 (—1 million yd 3 ) of sand and gravel were to be removed from a dredge site, 1 2.87 km (8 mi) out of Boston, was to be the focus of the study. It was esti- mated that approximately 3% of the 764,000 m 3 of dredged material would be released by the dredge and from this approximately 22,938 m 3 (30,000 yd 3 ) of silt (d <64/li) would be introduced into the water column. Development of a predictive model to esti- mate, in advance of the actual dredging, where the fines in the dredge plume would travel was deemed necessary. The actual dredging operation could be used to test and refine the predictive model. Previous investigations of diffusion in coastal and oceanic waters have utilized fluorescent dyes such as rhodamine B; the dye was introduced to the water column and the resultant plume traced con- tinuously by use of fluorometers. These dyes were deemed inadequate for the study of a dredge plume since dye does not exhibit the settling charac- teristics of natural sedimentary particles. It was therefore felt necessary to use a tracer composed of particles that exhibited settling characteristics similar to natural silt and clay-size sediments, but were easily identifiable from particles indigenous to the local water column and substrate. Sphalerite (ZnS) particles (with fluorescent in- clusions) have been utilized in past atmospheric diffusion studies, and counting of particles has been conducted with a specially designed fluorometer. It was decided that this same method could be utilized in water to provide real-time data for the plume tracking. Therefore, ZnS crystals (4.1 g/cm 3 ) were used as tracers and glass beads (2.6 g/cm 3 ) were used concurrently to duplicate natural fine particles as closely as possible. The tracer experiment was carried out during June 1 1 -22, 1 973. Approximately 900 kg (2000 lbs) of small (5/x < d < 50/m) glass beads and 450 kg (1000 lbs) of small (0.5/1 < d < 20^) sphalerite particles were introduced in the water at the pro- posed dredge site (fig. 1). Their movement was traced for 10 days by water sampling, filtering the water, and counting the particles. Simultaneously with the tracer particle dump, drogues were placed in the water and tracked for several days as a ready means of following the beads; 28 current meters were deployed among eight stations to document water mass movement. Tide gages were also deployed, water column tem- perature and salinity data collected, and meteorological data collected. 1 2. Experimental Procedures 2.1 Tracer Particles Two types of particles were used as tracers. The first were small spherical glass beads such as those used in night reflectors on highways. These were selected because the density of these parti- cles is 2.5 g cm 3 , approximately that of quartz (2.64 g cm 3 ) and of natural sediments and sands. With an average particle size of 13.8 microns (Table 1), an estimated 2.6 x 10 M glass beads (approximately 900 kg) were introduced into the water column. As a supplementary tracer, laboratory-grown fluorescent sphalerite (ZnS) crystals were also used (ZnS, Hellecon 2210, U.S. Radium Corp.; P-22 Green, GTE Sylvania Corp.). Their fluorescent property makes them easily identifiable by microscope under ultraviolet light. Approximately 450 kg (1 000 lbs.) of sphalerite crystals were used in the experiment. Since the density of sphalerite (4.1 g/cm 3 ) is greater than that of glass beads (2.5 g/cm 3 ), a finer distribution of these was chosen so that the settling characteristics of the two types of particles would be roughly equivalent. With an average particle diameter of 2.8 microns (Table 1 ), an estimated 3.8 x 1 15 particles of sphalerite were used in the experiment. 2.2 Particle Dispersion Characteristics (See Appendix A) In order to plan the experiment in time and space, a prediction of particle dispersion was made based on available data for Massachusetts Bay water mass characteristics and tracer particle charac- teristics. Using Stokes' law and predicted water mass movement, a prediction of particle dispersion was arrived at as shown in fig. 2. 2.3 Sediment Traps (See Appendix B) Sediment traps were used during the tracer ex- periment to collect samples of tracer particles which settled out of the water column. This portion of the experiment yielded very little useful data due to particle collecting and counting problems. Some sediment traps failed due to structural problems and to unexpected loss of sample, and tracer count- ing was abandoned because of the inclusion in the sample of large amounts of natural particles. 2.4 Navigation (See Appendix C) The precision navigation and positioning re- quirements of the experiment were furnished by a Hastings-Raydist Model DR-3 High Accuracy Short-to-Medium Range Radio Location System. This was coupled to a specially designed electronics subsystem which provided real-time digital and graphical readouts of position. Each of three vessels was provided with a mobile station. 2.5 Particle Introduction (See Appendix D) The glass beads were poured into a special basin where they were mixed with sphalerite parti- cles and water, producing a bead/water slurry. The slurry was introduced into the water at the pro- posed dredging site through a pipe approximately 0.5 m above the water's surface. The dumping took place on a small vessel steaming in a circle of 1 50 m diameter which served as a localized source for the plume (fig. 3). The bead introduction took place at 1 000 hrs and was completed at 1 037 hrs. 2.6 Experimental Timing In order to fully characterize the physical en- vironment in Massachusetts Bay at the time of the tracer particle introduction, certain events were begun well in advance of the day of the tracer in- troduction and others were carried out on days following the particle introduction (table 2). The day of the tracer drop, June 1 , 1973, will hereafter be termed "D-day," while days prior to the drop will be "D-1," "D-2," etc., and the days following the drop will be "D + 1," "D + 2," etc. Table 1 — Tracer Particle Size Distributions SMALL SPHALERITE LARGE SPHALERITE GLASS BEADS Mean Diameter % wt % Mean Diameter % Wt% Mean Diameter % Wt % in) M (m) 1.15 9.4 0.18 3.5 0.6 0.002 3.0 0.5 0.0 1.43 4.9 0.18 4.5 1.5 0.013 5.0 4.55 0.04 1.8 0.8 0.72 5.7 13.0 0.22 8.0 17.15 0.62 225 13.8 1.98 7.2 0.0 0.0 12.0 24.20 2.94 2.85 17.3 5.05 9.0 8.4 0.56 16.0 13.65 3.94 3.6 16.6 9.73 11.3 9.6 1.27 20.0 16.20 9.10 4.5 13.5 16.32 14.4 8.6 2.36 25.0 7.0 7.70 5.65 8.3 18.74 18.0 11.9 6.39 30.0 5.0 9.46 7.15 4.3 19.46 22.7 22.0 23.7 36.0 3.5 11.5 9.0 1.7 1650 28.7 20.4 44.4 45.0 6.5 28.2 11.35 0.5 9.01 >32.0 7.0 21.1 50.0 1.5 13.2 14 35 0.1 2.52 18.0 - 0.90 >25.0 - 0.72 figure 2. Prediction of particle movement based on Stokes' Saw settling and predicted water mass movement. £QUaaa\ figure 3. Release of tracer particles in Massachusetts Bay on D-day. Vessel is steaming a tight circle to approximate a dredging source. Table 2 — The Schedule of Events of the Dispersion Study MAY JUNE MNMIOIOfOIOMIOIOUU -»-'-'-'-'-*-*-'-'-'N»K)»»MNNMM o-'NU^uiaisaiiDO-'-'MUAuioisooioo-'iou^aiasaioo-'iouAuioisaiio BooBoooopdooo I I ■+ + + + + + + + + + ■< w TRACER INTRODUCTION DROGUE STUDY WATER SAMPLES BOTTOM SAMPLE RECOVERY CURRENT METERS _ WIND DATA Meteorological data and current and tide data were collected for a 30-day period beginning ap- proximately 2 weeks prior to D-day and ending ap- proximately 2 weeks following D-day. On D-day, the tracer particles were introduced into the water col- umn and tracking operations were begun. Tracking involved traversing the plume in a vessel and col- lecting water samples from various depths with Niskin bottles. Real-time data on the location and movement of the plume were collected aboard ship by sampling the water column, filtering a portion of the samples, and counting fluorescent particles. The remainder of the water samples collected each day were analyzed that same night so that these results could also be utilized to plan the following day's tracking effort. Drogues were tracked from D-day until D + 3 to give additional information on water mass move- ment to guide the sampling boat. While these ac- tivities were taking place, Niskin-designed sedi- ment traps were deployed sequentially beginning on D-2 until D + 1 2 to cover the bottom ahead of the advance plumes. 2.7 Particle Collection and Analysis (See Appendixes E and J) In order to track the plume it was necessary to have real-time information about the concentration of fluorescent tracer particles in the water column. Two fluorometers were used for this purpose, an experimental MEE Industries unit and a Turner fluorometer. The usefulness of the experimental unit was extremely limited, so the Turner fluorometer was used almost exclusively. As a backup, water samples were collected in 5- liter Niskin bottles, 100 ml aliquots of the samples filtered through 1^ filter paper, and total fluores- cence counted using the Turner fluorometer. This activity was performed on board the tracking vessel to provide the real-time tracking data necessary to follow the plume from hour to hour. Additional water samples were collected and returned to a shore laboratory where they were processed each night as described in section 2.8. The general sampling area is shown on fig. 1. No sampling took place on D + 6 because a storm on that day forced cancellation of all activities. 2.8 Laboratory Procedure (See Appendix F) The shore-based laboratory was set up to facili- tate analysis of the 5-fiter water samples at the end of each day. The 5-liter water sample was filtered through 142 mm Millipore filter paper which re- tained all particles larger than 8fi. After the sample was filtered, 5 liters of fresh seawater were flushed through the filtering system. The particles on the filter were examined with a binocular microscope using an ultraviolet substage to identify the sphalerite particles. After counting was complete, the filters were treated with formaldehyde and stored in sealed petri dishes for later counting of glass beads. Approximately 2% of the filter area was counted. 3. Oceanographic and Atmospheric Observations 3.1 Wind Data and Analysis (See Appendix G) Wind data was collected at seven Coast Guard Stations and Logan International Airport for a period overlapping the actual experiment and all events pertaining to it. The resultant average wind over Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay was from a SSW direction with a speed of almost 2 knots. 3.2 Current Meters (See Technical Report ERL 328-AOML-17) Twenty-eight current meters were deployed at eight stations on May 24 and 25, 1 973, for the dura- tion of one month. Of the 28 current meters, 1 were Aanderaa and 1 8 were photogeodynes deployed by EG&G. Current meter stations are shown in fig. 1. No data were recorded from station 3. (Current meter data is referenced in Sec. 4.1). 3.3 Drogues (See Appendix H) Drogues consisted of two 91 .44 cm x 1 21 .9 cm (3' x 4') aluminum plates connected by a variable length string to a 4.1 2 cm (1 W) diameter aluminum pipe, the length of which was 4.87 m (16'). Above the center of the pipe a numbered float was at- tached. A flag and a radar reflector were placed on the top of the pipe, while a radio transmitter was secured inside the upper part of the pipe. For each drogue, the signal transmitted was of a different fre- quency, so by means of a receiver not only the direction but also the identification of the drogue was known. Commencing on D-day until D + 2, a continuous 3-day drogue study was carried out by the M.I.T. Parsons Laboratory. One drogue each was deployed at 7, 12, and 22 m on D-day. On D + 2 a fourth drogue was added at 17 m. During the first 24-hr period the drogues followed a general north- east path, with considerable oscillation about the mean direction and much scatter among the three depths. The track of general drogue movement is shown in fig. 1 . In the evening of D + 3, a deep 32-m drogue was deployed and was followed for 3 days. The obser- vations were infrequent but nevertheless its direc- tion was clearly the same as that of the previous drogues — that is, southeast. This study made it clear that the resultant water mass movement was in a direction between north- east and southeast. 3.4 Temperature (Data in Appendix I) As a basis for a better understanding of the ther- mal structure of Massachusetts Bay in both horizon- tal and vertical dimensions, temperature data were taken at all particle sampling stations and at each sample depth. Since reversing thermometers were not available for the water sampling bottles used in this experiment, a laboratory thermometer was im- mersed in each sample immediately upon arrival on deck. Temperatures were read to the nearest 0.1 °C. (Reference to temperature data has been deferred until Section 4.4.) 3.5 Salinity Salinity data were collected by Manohar- Maharaj and Beardsley of M.I.T. in 1973 on days D + 2 and D+3 in the same area that water samples were collected for bead counts (fig. 4). The relatively fresh water plume shown in the figure resulted from runoff of the Merrimack River and ac- counted for 90% of the spring fresh water runoff reaching Massachusetts Bay. This low salinity tongue was observed spreading to Stellwagen Bank on the east, and the Boston Lightship on the west. Surface 29.2 -42 C 25'N -42 : 15'N 70 C 45'W Figure 4. Salinity data (°/oo ) taken on days D+2 and D+3 in Massachusetts Bay (Manohar-Maharaj and Beardsley, 1973}. The proposed dredging site is shown by the stippled square and the 40m isobeth of Stellwagen Bank is shown by the dashed line. 4. Experimental Results 4.1 Drogue and Current Meter Data Drogue tracks (dotted lines) for 7 and 1 2 m for the first 25 hrs of the experiment are illustrated in fig. 5. The heavier dots on the track line indicate the number of observations and the progressive posi- tions of observations during the respective time in- tervals. Only the 7- and 12-m drogues are shown, but their motions are indicative of the general trends of all drogues released in this area, as il- lustrated in fig. 1. It should be noted that the drogue paths for both levels are similar. The initial motion on D-day is northward with an east-northeast component throughout the next two time intervals. During the last time interval, a southerly component is strongly indicated in the 7-m drogue and suggested in the 1 2-m drogue. Roughly, from this point on, all drogue paths are either starting to head in a southerly direction or moving rapidly south-southeast. Of the eight current meter stations shown pre- viously in fig. 1 , six stations are shown in fig. 5 for the 7-m datum plane and five stations for the 1 2-m datum plane. Each vector represents smoothed hourly readings within that time interval and con- tains both high frequency (inertial and tidal) as well as low frequency (synoptic meteorological events) components. Stations with fewer individual vectors than the maximum number in that time interval result from superimposed vectors illustrated as a single discrete vector. Starting at the left-hand panel (fig. 5), the time in- tervals were chosen such that successive low and high tides fell approximately at midpoints within each time interval. The first interval contains the lat- ter half of an ebb tide, the low tide, and the first half of the flood tide. The second interval contains the latter half of the previous flood tide, the high tide, and so on throughout the 4-frame sequence. At the 7-m level, stations A, B, and 2 have vec- tors which are confined to the two quadrants be- tween 270° through 0° to 90° during all time inter- vals, with velocities from about 7 cm/sec to about 16 cm/sec (approximately 0.14 to 0.3 knot). The other three stations (4, 5, and 6) are confined to the two quadrants between 90° through 180° to 270° during these same time intervals, with velocities from about 8 cm/sec to about 2.9 cm/sec (approx- imately 0.16 to 0.6 knot). Station 5 shows less variability than the other stations with a strong southerly flow of about 25-30 cm/sec (approx- imately 0.5 knot). At the 12-m level, stations A, B, and 2 maintain the same sense of flow as they did at 7 m, almost without exception. Station 5 has the same consis- tently strong southerly flow at as 7 m, but station 4 reacts quite differently during the two central time intervals Examination of progressive vector diagrams for these times and locations suggests that tidally dominated flow components account for much of the variation in flow direction at these sta- tions. Another relationship, partially obscured by time composition of vectors at each station in fig. 5, is the correlation between current movement at sta- tion A and the mean track of the drogues. This rela- tionship is most readily observed by the second time interval at 1 2 m. By the last time interval, the path of the 7-m drogue conforms to the intense southerly flow observed at station 5. Generalizations to be drawn from fig. 5 are: 1 . A fairly sharp north-south shear zone exists between the westerly group of stations (A, B, 2) whose predominant flow is northward and the easterly group of stations (4, 5, 6) whose predominant flow is southward; 2. Initial drogue motion was tidally dominated with a net eastward displacement across the shear zone, after which strong southward flow predominates; 3. Relatively nearshore current meter stations 4 and 6 have both onshore and southward com- ponents at 7 m. At 1 2 m, station 4 has intermit- tent onshore and southward flow. 4.2 Glass Beads The filter pads from the shore-based laboratory were delivered to an independent commercial laboratory equipped with computer counting equip- ment utilizing image analysis. For reasons not clearly understood, the final data delivered by that lab were entirely inaccurate and could not be used. Therefore the glass bead data are nonexistent. The final analysis is based on data from the sphalerite counts made in the shore laboratory, and aboard the tracking vessel. 4.3 Daily Sphalerite Counts (Data in Appendix J) The daily sphalerite counts are plotted for a se- quence of successive days and depths (figs. 6-8). On D-day all samples were obtained by pumping from the various depths. Later, it was discovered 4225'N - 42 15N - 42 25 N- 42'15'N- 7 m 2 6 A ■D" Day ff 1100-1800 "72 B 12m B^ 4. ■JfC ' 7m • — B A r* 'D" Day « 1800-2400 12m H 4 D Day Q 1100-1800 "D" Day $ 1800-2400 D + 1 Day >» 0000-0600 D + 1 Day 1 7m -* Y " 2 B A % 6 D + 1 Day Qf 0000-0600 12m 70-40'W 70-40'W I 70 40'W 7m ./> D + l Day 5 S 0600-1200 -42 : 15'N -x Vi« 12m 25 cm /sec 0600-1200 -42°25'N -42 C 25'N -42 D 15'N 70'40'W Figure 5. Drogue and Current Meter Data that sphalerite particles adhered to the pump hose walls and therefore no sphalerite data were plotted for D-day. The sphalerite dispersion on day D + 1 is dis- played in fig. 6. The 5-m plot shows little dispersion northward, but high concentrations moving east- ward from the dumpsite. The 10-m cloud seems to be broken into two major sections, one with a high of 1 1 640 particles/liter and the other with a high of 21175 particles/liter. It is interesting to note that the former high has drifted northward in a direction compatible with the 7-m current vectors of station A and the major high of 21175 particles/liter is roughly in the same position as the 7-m drogue at that time (fig. 5). The 1 5- and 20-m isopleths exhibit partitioning of the plume into northwest and southeast portions. Settling is apparently taking place as indicated by an increase, with depth, of concentration. The general eastward motion of the higher concentrations seems to agree with the pre- viously discussed displacement of the drogues under tidally dominated eastward flow. 7050'W 70 C 45'W 70'40'W 70°50'W 70°45'W 70°40'W 42°20'N- 42 C 25'N- 42°20'N- 42°20'N -42°25'N -42°20'N 70°50'W 70°45'W 70°40'W 70°50'W 70°45'W 70 : 40'W Figure 6. Sphalerite isopleth data (particles/liter) for day D+t. Some isopleths in high concentration areas have been deleted for simplicity. The particle dumpsite is shown as a stippled square. D-^2 data (fig. 7) sustain the previous day's ob- servation that the bead cloud has been partitioned into at least two segments. Relatively high counts increase in magnitude toward the Boston Harbor mouth at depths of 1 5 and 20 m. The count maximum at each datum plane is at least an order of mag- nitude smaller than on the previous day. Fig. 8 illustrates the plots for day D + 3. On that day there were inadequate data for a plot of the 1 0- m level The 5-m plot shows concentrations in- creasing rapidly to the south and landward, a dis- tribution in harmony with the general flow of current meter stations 4 and 6 at 7 m (fig. 5). A similar trend is observed at 15 m in addition to a hint of plume partitioning similar to the data at 1 5 m for the pre- vious day. Plots at 20 and 30 m also show partition- ing with a concentration increase to the south. On D + 4 partitioning was still evident at 5 and 1 m with relatively high values found near the dumpsite. These may be particles which started north or into Massachusetts Bay early in the experi- ment and then returned by currents not monitored during the experiment. 7045W 70 C 30'W 4225'N 42 : 15 N _ • 1450 v. * c$ i 530 % • \ • / • *o \ . /. 1170 | 5m 42 25'N — 42'15'N — 70 45'W 70°30'W 42°25'N 42°15'N ; 42'25'N 916 ■!>* C ■ 500 £# 380 * • 20M 42 C 15'N 70 45'W 70 30'W 70"45'W 70°30'W Fig urt 7. Sphalerite isopleth data for Day + 2. Tha particla dumpaita is shown as the stip- plad square Only a partial day's work was done on D + 5 due to bad weather and the number of samples col- lected did not allow for a meaningful plot of the data. D+6 had continued bad weather and no sam- ples were collected. Sampling continued on D + 7 from both the sur- face vessel and a helicopter. The results of the helicopter coverage showed no sphalerite parti- cles north of the sample-introduction site. The con- centration highs were in three widely spaced groups south of the sample-introduction site (fig. 9). By D + 7 and after, the concentrations of sphalerite particles in the water were so low that, by microscopic examination the contamination "noise" and the count "signal" were roughly of the same magnitude. Therefore, any plots of sphalerite data would be questionable at best. However, it 4225'N 42 c 15'Nl 42°25'N 42°15'N 70 40'W 15M 4225'N 70'40'W _L 308 30 M 42'15'N 42 25 'N 42 15'N 70 40 'W Figure 8. Sphalerite isopleth data for Day D+3. The particle dumpsite is shown as the stip- pled square and 40m isopleth of Stellwagen Bank is shown as the dashed line. Some isoplaths (15 and 20m) have been omitted for simplicity. 42 c 20 N - 42 00 N ~ 41 40N- - 42'20'N — 42'00'N — 41 40'N 70 30'W Figura 9. Sphalarita Data (Particlas/litar) — Day D+7. Halicoptar Surf act Samplas. 70 00'W 10 was possible to make Turner fluorometer measure- ments on days D + 7 and D+8. Fig. 10 is a com- posite of Turner fluorometer data at 20 m for D + 7 and D+8. Data from 42°05' N and to the south is for D+7 and to the north of 42°05'N for D + 8. Two noteworthy features are present in this figure. D + 7 data to the south suggest a counterclockwise mo- tion of the particles in central and southern Cape Cod Bay. D+8 data to the north show relatively high values in apparent motion to the southeast. The isopleths over Stellwagen Bank are more closely spaced suggesting a retarding influence on the seaward movement of water and particles. 70°30'W 42°20'N - 42°10'N- 42°00'N- 41°50'N - 42°20'N -42°10'N -42°00'N -41°50'N 70°30'W Figaro 10. Composite of Tumor fluoromotor date for Days D+7 and D+8. 11 4.4 Temperature Data (Data Listed in Appendix I) Temperature data were collected at most parti- cle sampling stations during the experiment. Fig. 1 1 is a plot of the horizontal temperature distributions at four levels on D + 3. In this figure, three things are apparent: first, there is a strong thermal gradient at all levels; second, the relatively colder water is northernmost; and third, the geometry of the isotherms has a lobed nature. Although the geome- try of the low-salinity plume (fig. 4) and the D + 3 isotherms are not identical, a reasonable correla- tion exists. This suggests that the inflowing low- salinity plume can be distinguished by its tem- perature (fig. 1 1 ). Although a mean southerly flow is generally ob- served in Massachusetts Bay west of Stellwagen Bank, the southward flowing plume of low-salinity water may account for the consistent southward flowing current recorded at station 5 as well as for the southern trending flows at stations 4 and 6 (fig. 5). If the data shown exhibit an intruding water mass of relatively fresh, cool water, then the integrity of such a water mass may be adequate to impede sig- nificant diffusion across its interface with the am- bient bay water. Comparison of the isotherms of fig. 1 1 with the isopleths of fig. 8 suggests this. At the 5-m level, the lowest concentration isopleth (500 particles/liter) occupies the same position as the coolest lobe of the isotherm plot and has a similar geometry. To the southwest, both temperature and concentration values increase. At the 15-m level, the relatively cool lobes occupying the central area of the isotherm plot correspond to the lowest con- centrations in the isopleth map. As in the 5-m data, the temperature and concentrations increase to the southwest. Although it is less obvious, this relation- ship appears to hold true for the 20-m level as well. On D + 5 a storm moved into the area and con- tinued into D+6. Figures 1 2a-d show water sample stations taken before and after the storm. The sta- tions within each frame of fig. 1 2 are in nearly iden- tical locations, but sampling occurred at different times. The dashed lines represent data collected 7040 'W 7030 'W 42 : 25'N 4215'N 70°40'W 70°30'W I . 11° '^ J "^ «• * ^Nk* ^ N """» o 12 ^ • \ • • ^^ • # | 10M 42°25'N - 421 5' N 42'25'N _ 1 10° i • • \ V» \ • ^•10 c 11 •L 421 5'N • /'■i? - • 15M 70 40 'W 7030'W 42°25'N — 421 5'N 70'40'W 70'30'W Figure 1 I. Temperature deta (°C) for Day D+3. The particle dumps, ite is shown as a stip- pled square end the 40m isobath of Stellwagen Bank is shown by the dashed line. 12 before the storm and the solid lines represent data taken after the storm. The numbers next to the tem- perature-depth profiles are values of the sphalerite concentrations at that level. Several points are worth noting in figures 1 2a-d. Those stations which represent pre-storm conditions all have pro- nounced seasonal thermociines. On D+3, at station 6 (fig. 1 2c), a double thermocline exists. Post-storm conditions show either the destruction of the seasonal thermocline, (figs. 1 2b-c) or the lowering and modification of its profile (figs. 1 2a and 1 2d). In both cases, it should be noted that the storm's energy was effectively down to at least 30 m (figs. 12a, 12c, 12d). At the pre-storm stations, the sphalerite concentration maxima appear at or above the base of the seasonal thermocline and in the case of the profile with the double thermocline (fig. 1 2c), a relatively high value occurs at or above Q. CD Q 5 - 10 - 15 - 20 25 - 30 35 I I \ \ 24 V 144 - / - 18j ^323 - - r i y 1 - 518/ / 8 D5-7- -*i / ~ ■ D7-6 - I 'I 200 I ©" 1 10 15 Degree (C) 20 10 Degree (C) 5 - 10 =5 I 15! - CL cu Q 20 25 - 30 35 I I / ' ' D8-15 — J D3-6<-+-i - ' ^467.*- 27,^ to - i 93 - 21 6/7 _ \ n 29" 98 ■ ® 10 Degree (C) 15 20 5i- 10 - I 1 c Q. 25 - 30 35 1 1 ' / / - 0* y/l08 - / / ^290 — n i — 123 / J10 1 / _ 108// /A* D8-2 - D4-9— 1 "if '0 10 Degree (C) 15 20 Figure 12a-d. Temperature-depth profiles for pre-storm (dashed fines) and post-storm (solid lines) stations. Profiles within each illustration (such as D5-7 and D7-6 in a) are from nearly identical station locations. Sphalerite concentrations (particles/liter) are shown at various levels next to each profile. 13 each thermocline. The pre-storm conditions of this stratified two-layer system strongly suggest parti- cles "hanging up" on or about the thermocline. This phenomenon has been observed in the oceans near zones of rapidly increasing density (pycnoclines) and is well documented (Jerlov, 1958; Costin, 1970). Because a pre-storm thermocline existed throughout the study area, the conditions for parti- cle concentration at the thermocline were not limited to the example areas. 4.5 Mathematical Modeling A series of mathematical studies were con- ducted at M.I.T. under the NOMES project and re- lated projects for the purpose of developing pre- dictive capabilities for the dispersion of solid parti- cles in coastal waters. Both a two-dimensional finite element circulation model (Conner and Wang, 1973) and a compatible finite element dispersion model (Christodoulou and Pearce, 1975; Leimkuhler, 1974) were developed. The dispersion model was applied specifically to this experiment and the comparison of results (Christodoulou and Pearce, 1975) was favorable (fig. 13). By comparing several values of dispersion coefficients, 30 m 2 /s was taken to be closest to reality, yielding better agreement than the other values (50m 2 /s and 100 m 2 /s). 5. CONCLUSIONS Current meter and drogue data (fig. 5) indicate that east-west water motion was dominated by tidal action until a current shear zone east of the pro- posed dredging site was reached. Eastward of this shear zone a strong south-flowing current predomi- nated and was responsible for the southward dis- placement of the drogues and portions of the parti- cle plume. A relatively fresh water intrusion (fig. 4), moving down from the north through central Massachusetts Bay, may have been the cause for the consistent southward current flow at the easternmost current meter stations (fig. 5) as well as the "lobed" nature of some high gradient isotherms (fig. 11). Work by Karpen (1973) showed that fresh water runoff emerging from Boston Harbor entered Massachusetts Bay as "blobs" of fresh water. He concluded that partitioning of this runoff was con- trolled by tidal action with one blob being issued by each ebb tide. Partitioning of the bead cloud was observed soon after the dump (figs. 6-7). This frag- menting may also have been the result of oscillating tidal forces. Although sphalerite isopleth maps indicate progressive settling with time, particle settling was apparently impeded by the presence of a strong vertical gradient of temperature and salinity (pyc- nocline) which existed before the storm. This pyc- nocline may have caused greater lateral dispersion in the upper water layer than might otherwise have been the case. Although the experimental particles may not have behaved exactly as a real dredge plume, they were a more reasonable indicator of dredge plume dispersal and behavior than dis- solved dye traces that do not exhibit the sedimen- tary characteristics of particles. Rgura 13. Prtdicted dapth-avaragad concentrations in particles/liter at D+2, D + 4, D+ 7. 14 Caution should be used in the interpretation of the dispersal data, and conclusions should not be extended to other times of the year. From evidence presented above, it is reasonable to conclude that the dispersion of the particle plume was contingent upon the tidal cycle at introduction, the seasonal structure of the water column, and the effect of the storm which mixed the water column down to at least 30 m in some places (fig. 1 2). The observed dispersion of the particle plume was toward Boston Harbor (fig. 7), eastward toward Stellwagen Bank (figs. 6-7), and then southward along the coast into Cape Cod Bay (fig. 8) where a counterclockwise gyre was suggested (fig. 10). 6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Each of the appendixes was authored by the in- dividual responsible for the successful conclusion of that aspect of the experiment. One individual who deserves particular mention is Pat Hatcher from NOAA's Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorology Laboratory who acted as a coordinator and director of most of the field experiments. Special thanks should also go to the U.S. Coast Guard for a good deal of shiptime in placing and recovering current meters and tracking drogues, and to the Department of Natural Resources of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for use of their helicopter in water sampling. 7. REFERENCES Christodoulou, G., Leimkuhler, W., and Ippen, A. (1 974), Mathematical Models of the Massachusetts Bay. Part III: A mathematical model for the dispersion of suspended sediments in coastal waters, M.I.T. Technical Report 1 79, R. M. Parsons Laboratory for Water Resources and Hydrodynamics, Janu- ary. Christodoulou, G., and Pearce, Bryan R. (1975), Mathematical Modeling Relevant to the Glass Bead Study, M.I.T. R. M. Parsons Laboratory for Water Resources and Hydrodynamics, Special Report, January. Connor, J., and Wang, J. (1973), Mathematical Models of the Massachusetts Bay. Part I: Finite element modeling of two-dimensional hydrodynamic circulation, M.I.T. Technical Report 172, R. M. Par- sons Laboratory for Water Resources and Hydrodynamics, M.I.T., October. Costin, J. M. (1970), Visual Observations of Suspended-Particle Distributions at Three Sites in the Caribbean Sea, J. Geophys. Res. 75, No. 21, 4144-4150. Hess, W. N., Nelsen, T. A., A Test Particle Dispersion Study in Massachusetts Bay, 1 975 Offshore Tech- nology Conference, OTC 2160. Jerlov, N. G. (1958), Maxima in the Vertical Distribution of Particles in the Sea, Deep-Sea Res. 5, 173-184. Karpen, Joseph (1973), Dissolved Nutrient-Sea Water Density Correlations and the Circulation in Boston Harbor and Vicinity, M.I.T. Report No. MITSG-74-9, Part II, 2-108. Leimkuhler, W. (1 974), A Two-Dimensional Finite Element Dispersion Model, Thesis submitted to M.I.T. in partial fulfillment of requirements for degree of Civil Engineer, August. Manohar-Maharaj, V., and Beardsley, R. C. (1973), Spring Runoff into Massachusetts Bay, M.I.T. Report No. MITSG-74-9, Part I, 2-103. Mayer, Dennis A. (1975), Examination of Water Movement in Massachusetts Bay, NOAA Technical Report ERL 328-AOML 1 7, 49 pp., January. 15 APPENDIX A Settling Rate and Dispersion Calculations Wilmot N. Hess Environmental Research Laboratories, NOAA In order to plan the experiment in time and space, a prediction (based on existing data) of the move- ment and settling characteristics of the trace parti- cles was necessary. It was assumed that these small particles tend to settle slowly to the bottom under Stokes' Law and be advected with the motion of the water column. The settling velocity of small particles by Stokes' Law is given by 1 where W = P = m = g = D = 18 p -^-gD 2 particle density coefficient of molecular viscosity acceleration of gravity particle diameter If p, the particle density, is 2.5 and the water tem- perature is 20°C, the settling velocity of small glass spheres is W = 90 D 2 cm/sec (D in mm) For example, for particles of 10/j. diameter the set- tling velocity is W = 9 x 10 3 cm/sec, and therefore the time (T) necessary to settle in water 30 m deep is T = 3.3 /3 10 5 sec (~4 days). Settling velocities for various size particles of both glass and ZnS are given in Table A1. It should be added that the effects of flocculation have been ignored; this problem will recur later. Settling times to the bottom of Massachusetts Bay are given in Table A2. Fig. 2 shows the bull's-eye patterns of diffusion of a point source of material advecting southeast at 5 cm/s. The first sediment traps were deployed ac- cording to this pattern. In order to estimate where to place sediment traps on the bottom and what region of the Massachusetts Bay to prepare to cover with water samples, a rough map was produced to show where the beads would settle to the bottom. This map is given in fig. 2. The assumptions were that there was a constant advection velocity of 5 cm/sec to the southeast, that there was no vertical diffusion, but that there was horizontal diffusion characterized by a horizontal diffusion coefficient of D = 3 x 10 5 cm 2 /sec. Five different mass groups were allowed to settle to the bottom, assumed to be 30 m deep uniformly. The resultant pattern in fig. 2 shows a typical bottom distribution of particles. However, the currents could be quite different from the assumed southeast currents. This pattern is only one possible deposition pattern and its details are not significant. However, it does show a general scale in both the space and the time covered by the experiment. Based on fig. 2, it was decided to place a number of sediment traps on the bottom near the bead dump site before starting the experiment and then make the decision of how to place the rest of the bottom sediment traps after some identification had been made as to the direction in which the beads were being advected. Table A1. Settling Velocities of Small Particles DIAM. = 100^ DIAM. = 10m DIAM. = 1m Glass Beads T = 4°C T = 20"C 0.5 cm/sec 0.9 cm/sec 0.005 cm/sec 0.009 cm/sec 5x1 0" 5 cm/sec 9x 10" 5 cm/sec ZnS Particles T = 4°C T = 20° 1 .05 cm/sec 1 .9 cm/sec .01 05 cm/sec .01 9 cm/sec 1. 05x1 0~ 4 cm/sec 1. 9x1 0" 4 cm/sec Settling Times of Small Particles to a Depth of 30 Meters DIAM. = 100/x DIAM. = 10m DIAM. = 1m Glass Beads T = 4°C T = 20"C 1 .65 hours 0.91 hours 6.8 days 3.7 days 680 days 370 days ZnS Particles T = 4'C T = 20° 0.80 hours 0.45 hours 3.3 days 1 .8 days 330 days 1 80 days Table A2. The Times of Settling to the Bottom of Massachusetts Bay as a Function of Particle Size. BOTTOM GROUP # SETTLING TIME GLASS BEADS ZnS DIAM. (DAYS) (m) (m) 1 0.25 40 28 2 0.65 25 18 3 1.5 15 11 4 4.3 10 7 5 8.5 7 5 17 APPENDIX B Sediment Traps Robert H. Wing Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, ERL, NOAA The NOMES Tracer Experiment was designed so that, once the particles were released, one vessel (R/V PHIPPS) continuously monitored the position of the plume by counting the fluorescent sphalerite particles, using a fluorometer to provide real-time estimates of the particle track in the water column. Based on the information gained from the water col- umn sampling, bottom placed sediment traps were positioned in the path of the advancing plume in order to maximize the efficiency of recovery of par- ticles as they settled to the bottom. These bottom samplers consisted of bottom-mounted PVC buckets (Niskin traps) and 8" x 12" plates coated with grease (greased plates) and were deployed by a second vessel (R/V BIGELOW). Both Niskin traps and greased plates are described below. The bottom sediment samples were deployed in six groups. Group 1 was deployed on day D-2. Group 2 was deployed on D-1 , and group 3 on D day. The bottom positions of these samplers were determined from the expected settling charac- teristics of the test particles. Positioning of bottom samplers in groups 4, 5, and 6 was made, based on the observed plume direction integrated over the first 3 days after the release of the particles. Since only 80 Niskin traps were purchased and 1 20 sam- ple positions were required, many of the samplers were reused after recovery to make up the difference. The schedule for the deployment, recovery, and analysis of bottom samplers was developed prior to the start of the experiment and is outlined in table B1. Final positions of sediment traps are shown in figs. B1 and B2. On most of the shallow stations (less than 1 20 ft) divers emplaced grease plates and were able to check the Niskin sediment traps. Description of Niskin Sediment Traps Sediment traps were constructed entirely of PVC and consisted of a cylindrical tank 12 inches in diameter by 10 inches high with one end sealed (see fig. B3). The cylindrical trap was secured to a large steel tubular base, ~ 3 ft by 1 ft high, by means of nylon tie straps. The top (open) end was covered with a plastic cloth fastened around the outside edge of the sediment trap by successive wraps of nylon cord. The other end of the plastic cloth could be drawn tight by means of a drawstring to close the top of the sediment trap when desired. At time of deployment, the plastic cloth closure was folded against the outside of the cylinder and secured there by successive wraps of buoy line. A submerged buoy was secured to the sediment trap by means of nylon line, the end of which was tied to the drawstring so that when the trap was hauled onto a recovery vessel, the drawstring was pulled tight and the trap thus secured. As mentioned above, buoys were submerged 8-1 m below water level as protection from fisher- men, lobstermen, and shipping. Corroding mag- nesium-zinc links coupled the extra buoy line stored on the sediment trap, and when the link broke the buoy surfaced for pickup. The extra line is the line mentioned above which secured the nylon cloth closure to the outside of the sediment trap until recovery. Table B1 . Sediment Trap Deployment Schedule D-2 day, June 9, 1 973 a) Deploy first 20 Niskin traps (Group 1 ) b) Deploy first 8 greased plates D- 1 day, June 10,1973 a) Deploy second 20 Niskin traps (Group 2) b) Deploy second 8 greased plates Dday, June 11, 1973 a) Deploy third 20 Niskin traps (Group 3) b) Deploy third 8 greased plates D+1 day, June 1 2, 1 973 a) Collect Group 1 Niskin traps and greased plates b) Filter water in Niskin traps collected D+2 day, June 1 3, 1 973 a) Collect Group 2 Niskin traps and greased plates b) Filter water in Niskin traps collected c) Reconstitute recovered traps for redeployment D+3 day, June 1 4, 1 973 a) Deploy fourth 20 Niskin traps (Group 4) b) Reconstitute recovered traps for redeployment D+4 day, June 1 5, 1 973 a) Collect Group 3 Niskin traps b) Filter water in Niskin traps collected c) Reconstitute recovered traps for redeployment D+5 day, June 1 6, 1 973 Deploy fifth 20 Niskin traps (Group 5) D+6 day, June 1 7, 1 973 Deploy sixth 20 Niskin traps (Group 6) D+7 day, June 18, 1973 a) Collect Group 4 Niskin traps b) Filter water from the recovered samples D+8 day, June 1 9, 1 973 Idle D+9 day, June 20, 1 973 Idle D+1 day, June 21, 1973 a) Collect Group 5 Niskin traps b) Filter water from the recovered traps D+11 day, June 22, 1973 a) Collect Group 6 Niskin traps b) Filter water from the recovered traps 19 70'50 N 7030N 70"10 ! S^-J ' ' 1 I I Trap Number • 100 (Group 1) Boston / ■ **-. * 200 (Group 2) ■ 300 (Group 3) 42 25 N 1 ■ ~« -^ - * 400 (Group 4) O ^-^ * \V ■ ■ ■ * * + * V 600 (Group 6) V > % \ 1 , f « N ; % \ i % \ 42 15 N — V^ + o o ' * i — / / < i \ ,' ,40m--.--' o o \ e * 42 05 N _L 1 1 ( o o 1 Cape Cod (jt ^__ 500.000' - 450,000' 750,000 800.000' 850,000' Figure Bf. Niskin sediment traps in Massachusetts Bay. 840.000'E 880.000'E 920,000'E 900,000' 960.000'E 950,000'E 400.000'N 100,000'E 42'00'N 41'50'N - — 400.000'N 360, 000 'N - 320,000'N 280,000'N 70'30'W 70'00'W Figure B2. Niskin sediment traps in Cape Cod Bay. 20 Shipboard Deployment and Recovery The unit was designed to be deployed and recovered from shipboard. After the magnesium link was fixed in place, the entire sediment trap and base plate could be lowered over the side and released, with the buoy last. The small amount of flotation offered by the buoy tied to the top of the trap ensured that the trap would land upright on the bottom. Recovery of the Niskin sediment traps proved to be more difficult than planned. First, in several cases buoys were not surfacing because the buoy line wrapped around the trap snagged on the trap it- self, after the magnesium link released the buoy, thus preventing it from surfacing. This was later corrected by more care in wrapping the line. Se- condly, several traps were lost while being pulled aboard the recovery vessel because the weight of the trap and stand was too great to secure the nylon closure to the cylindrical trap. It had originally been secured only with several wraps of nylon cord in a circumferential groove around the trap. This was modified by drilling holes above and below the groove in several places and securing the closure material and nylon cord to the sediment trap body with nylon tie straps. The final failure of the Niskin traps was due to unforeseen circumstances that could not be rec- tified and doomed this portion of the experiment. As the traps were closed by the closure material and drawstring, a certain amount of water was trapped inside the cylindrical element and closure material. When traps were lifted from the bay floor to the sur- face vessel some portion of the sediments and glass beads trapped within were invariably resus- pended in the trapped water; as the sediment trap was lifted onto the recovery vessel, all of the water held by the closure material drained out due to the loose seal around the trap. Obviously this loss of water meant loss of some portion of the sample and consequent invalidation of sample reliability. Sediment Trap — Greased Plate Another method of trapping the settling glass beads for later count was attempted as a backup to the Niskin sediment traps. This consisted of a flat plate mounted rigidly 10 inches above the bottom and evenly spread with a soft grease to which set- tling particles would adhere. The grease selected was a lithium-based white household grease which retained its consistency at the 4°C ambient water temperature. Drawstring Plastic Cloth Closure -Nonwatertight Seal ■PVC Bucket Drawstring Magnesium Link Prevents Closure During Deployment Plastic Cloth Closure Folded Down Figure B3. Niskin sediment traps. The actual construction of the grease plate con- sisted of a steel stand with an auger that a diver could emplace and a grease plate that was a Tup- perware rectangular "cake taker." The "cake taker" was ideal because it afforded the diver the opportunity to seal the sample in situ with the Tup- perware cake taker magic seal lid, and remove it from the steel stand for laboratory analysis. In operation this device was workable, although, because of time limitations, it was not shown to what degree glass particles adhered to the grease or were swept off by ambient bottom water move- ment. Table B2 is a list of results of final recovery of all sediment traps and greased plates deployed. 21 Table B2. Sediment Trap Deployment Schedule mss sun coow MUSS. STUTE COOHD. KSXl SUTW TTH MM I E recover* Derm (m) VESSEL S muni TYPE D«I« N E RECOVERY OtrTH (m) Group 1 Deployed 6/9 Group 3A Deployed 6/1 2 101 NT 4 GP 486905 792130 6 i 4 NT ok GP ok 107 BIGELOW 3A-1 NT 510833 829828 6 18 No Buoy 252 102 NT 4 GP 486989 7971 74 6 15 NT 4 GP ok 101 BIGELOW 3A-2 NT 506060 836493 6 1 8 No Buoy 262 103 NT 4 GP 491805 796692 i ■ . No Buoy 93 BIGELOW 3A-3 NT 49431 5 833335 6 18 NT ok 228 104 NT 4 GP 491003 792344 6 ■ : NT ok GP ok 83 BIGELOW 3A-4 NT 492934 82441 1 6 1 8 NT ok 204 • NT 4 GP 493643 789272 6 1 2 NT Lost GP ok 90 BIGELOW 3A-5 NT 501365 823493 6 1 8 No Buoy 222 ■ ■ NT 488544 788853 6 1 2 NT ok 1 1 1 107 106 109 NT & GP NT 4 GP NT 4 GP 483993 484235 464997 789523 794340 798603 6 1 5 No Buoy 6 14 NT ok 6 1 4 No Buoy 62 1 13 96 Group 4 Deployed 6/11 BiGELOW BIGELOW 401 NT 459615 839416 6 23 NT ok 134 no NT 489580 798490 6 12 NT ok 91 BIGELOW 402 NT 455091 850810 6'23 No recovery 126 BIGELOW 1 1 1 NT 494540 798460 6 1 2 No Buoy 91 BIGELOW 403 NT 4661 1 1 830719 6'23 NT ok 132 BiGELOW 112 NT 493922 793923 6 12 NT Lost 82 BIGELOW 404 NT 465276 841 701 6/23 NT ok _ BIGELOW NT 4 GP 496914 795684 6 12 NT Losl GP ok 75 BIGELOW 405 NT 464581 851888 6-'23 No Buoy 198 BiGELOW 1 NT 496160 790922 6 12 Log Not 74 BIGELOW 406 NT 470233 860469 6/23 No Buoy 228 Complete BIGELOW 407 NT 480294 840337 6/23 NT ok 210 BIGELOW - NT 490871 786350 6 1 2 NT ok 1 1 1 BIGELOW 408 NT 4801 56 850507 6/23 NT ok 1 20 BiGELOW NT 486059 786888 6 . 1 4 NT Lost 75 BIGELOW 409 NT 490926 840669 6/23 NT ok 234 NT 481792 792364 6 1 4 NT ok 78 BIGELOW 410 NT 490769 850237 6/23 NT ok 228 BiGELOW - 119 NT NT 482263 487562 79735 801396 t i 4 No Buoy 6 1 4 NT ok 1 10 100 BiGELOW BIGELOW 120 NT 4 GP 492343 801 122 6 14 NT 4 GP ok 1 12 Group 5 Deployed 6/17 PHIPPS PHIPPS PHIPPS 604 505 506 NT NT NT 368000 348000 331000 873000 878000 887000 6'27 NT ok 6/27 No Buoy 6 27 NT ok . - Group 2 Deployed 6/10 BiGELOW 2d NT 4 GP 482441 783863 6 I 4 NT 8 GP ok 1 1 4 PHIPPS 507 NT 31 1000 896000 6/27 NT ok _ BiGELOW 202 NT 4 GP 485071 783843 6 1 5 No Buoy 54 PHIPPS 508 NT 292000 898000 6*27 No Buoy _ BiGELOW 203 NT 4 GP 479644 785713 6 15 NT & GP ok 52 PHIPPS 509 NT 292000 937000 6/27 No Buoy _ BiGELOW 204 NT 475064 792223 6 1 5 No Buoy 54 PHIPPS 510 NT 318000 946000 6/27 NT ok — BiGELOW 205 NT 4 GP 477580 792337 6 1 8 No Buoy 54 PHIPPS 51 1 NT 345000 938000 No recovery — BiGELOW 206 NT 475271 793756 6 16 NT ok 54 PHIPPS 51 5 NT 385000 929000 No recovery _ BIGELOW 207 NT 477859 79641 1 6 1 6 NT ok 56 PHIPPS 51 7 NT 518000 944000 No recovery — - 208 209 210 NT 4 GP NT NT 479946 480354 475692 794612 798779 794700 6 16 NT & GP ok 6 16 NT ok 6 l 6 No Buoy 54 1 10 54 BIGELOW BIGELOW Group 6 Deployed 6/20 BIGELOW 21 1 NT 480506 803913 6 16 NT ok 124 PHIPPS 601 NT 410494 889828 6/26 No Buoy 200 BiGELOW 212 NT 482480 800950 6 15 NT ok 102 PHIPPS 602 NT 410323 860255 6/26 NT ok 1 1 5 BIGELOW 213 NT 485400 803757 6 1 5 NT ok 110 PHIPPS 603 NT 419350 869907 6/26 NT ok 165 BiGELOW 214 NT 488099 806907 6 1 5 NT ok 120 No Sample BIGELOW 215 NT 485823 808199 6 1 5 NT ok 1 20 PHIPPS 604 NT 419854 900068 6/26 No Buoy 200 BiGELOW 216 NT 490621 607896 6 1 5 NT ok 1 16 PHIPPS 605 NT 4101 30 889860 6/26 NT ok 195 BiGELOW 217 NT 4 GP 490194 803474 6 1 5 NT 4 GP ok 96 PHIPPS 606 NT 400027 850016 6/26 NT ok 75 BIGELOW 218 NT 492872 805755 6 1 8 NT ok 1 24 PHIPPS 607 NT 4001 40 879B35 6/26 NT ok 1 75 BiGELOW • NT 4 GP 495708 808309 6 1 8 No Buoy 1 1 4 PHIPPS 608 NT 399800 910009 6/26 NT ok 195 BIGELOW 220 NT 49951 4 803051 6 20 NT ok 122 PHIPPS 609 NT 390018 869942 6/26 NT ok 1 53 BIGELOW 221 NT 4 GP 500156 79771 1 6/20 NT 4 GP ok 1 1 4 PHIPPS 610 NT 389824 900092 6 26 NT ok 1 86 BIGELOW 222 NT 4^49* 789153 6 16 No Buoy 90 PHIPPS 61 t NT 380210 859220 6/26 NT ok 75 PHIPPS 612 NT 379815 869723 6/26 NT ok 147 PHIPPS 61 3 NT 439927 830638 6/26 NT ok 75 Group 3 Deployed 6/1 1 PHIPPS 61 4 NT 4401 42 859159 6/26 NT ok 1 40 BIGELOW 302 NT 464628 795508 6 1 8 No Buoy 64 PHIPPS 61 5 NT 439760 889944 6/26 NT ok 210 BIGELOW 301 NT 470960 794906 6'18 NT ok 70 PHIPPS 616 NT 42061 2 839895 6/26 NT ok 75 BIGELOW 303 NT 466321 800155 6 1 8 No Buoy 78 PHIPPS 61 7 NT 390322 849785 6/26 NT ok 75 BIGELOW 304 NT 471435 8041 49 6-22 Recovery ok 84 PHIPPS 618 NT 429430 850095 6/26 NT ok 125 NT Sample Losl PHIPPS 619 NT 430180 879961 6/26 NT ok 195 BIGELOW 305 306 NT NT 476385 481505 808250 812727 6/22 No Buoy 6 20 No Buoy 180 135 BiGELOW BiGELOW 307 NT 486038 817423 6 20 NT ok 144 NT = Nisk n Trap 308 NT 490889 812596 6 20 No good 126 GP = Grease Plate 309 NT 491785 821603 6 20 No good 176 NT 487412 827312 6 20 NT ok 184 BiGELOW NT 479234 820908 No recovery 144 BiGELOW 312 NT 471640 813559 6 22 No Buoy 104 BIGELOW •■• 482341 - , '. f .' 6 20 ok 1 74 22 APPENDIX C Navigation Roy Newman Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, ERL, NOAA The precision navigation and positioning re- quirements for the experiment were furnished by a Hastings-Raydist Model DR-3 High Accuracy Short-to-Medium Range Radio Location System. This system was capable of handling up to four mobile stations simultaneously from one set of two shore stations and provided position and tracking accuracy of ± 10 ft. This accuracy was confirmed by daily repeatability checks of the calibration value — a geodetic control point located in Boston Harbor. Three mobile stations were employed in the experiment. Two of the mobile stations had addi- tional electronics subsystems 1 which provided real-time digital and graphical conversions of the lane identification coordinates to Lambert (Massachusetts State-plane) coordinates. The third mobile station was the standard Raydist mobile transmitter-navigation system which provided readout in the form of lane count only. A Hewlett- Packard Model 9800 programmable calculator was used in conjunction with this system aboard ship to facilitate rapid conversion of the lane count to the Massachusetts State grid coordinates used as the basis for track and position control in the experi- ment. The two shore stations were located to provide a suitable baseline for control in the NOMES area, one north of Boston at Nahant and the other south of Boston at Weymouth. However, because of the ground mass attenuation effect, problems were en- countered with the "green" station while operating in the southern NOMES area. A 100-ft antenna that had been installed at the "green" station in anti- cipation of this problem did not prove adequate. Subsequently, an attempt was made to install an auxiliary "green" station in the Scituate area, but it was not brought into successful operation due to the short time before termination of the experiment. Most malfunctions were attributed to the short time (1 day) allowed for installations of the shipboard systems, precluding adequate checkout of the equipment. Despite the problems encountered, the system contributed a great deal to the success of the ex- periment. The extremely accurate real-time posi- tioning and tracking capability allowed precise in- stallation and rapid recovery of the current meter arrays and Niskin sediment traps as well as making possible a minimum transit time between water sampling stations by the ability of tracking directly to a preplotted sampling point. Without this capability a much smaller quantity of sample data would have been acquired and some of the equip- ment for which marker buoys were destroyed would never have been recovered. However, no equip- ment was lost due to inability to recover the station. 'A Subsystem for Electronic Positioning and Navigation at Sea, Barnes, Burton B. and Roy Newman, 1971 IEEE Conference on Engineering in the Ocean Environment. 23 APPENDIX D Particle Introduction Leal W. Kimrey Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, ERL, NO A A Experiments conducted by AOML personnel showed that successful introduction of the glass beads and zinc sulfide crystals required the parti- cles to be wetted prior to dispersal. When in- troduced dry, the particles had a tendency to float on the surface and thereby invalidate settling calculations and sampling schemes. A second con- sideration was that the area of introduction needed to be kept relatively small and the time required to introduce the material as short as possible in order to provide an accurate instantaneous release from which subsequent time and distance measurements could be taken. The device shown in figure D1, although simple and relatively crude, proved ade- quate to meet the requirements. The device consisted of a funnel-shaped hopper attached to a venturi. A tangential jet attached to the funnel section provided makeup water as well as additional agitation of the slurry. A 100-GPM centrifugal pump and the tangential jet supplied the necessary water flow for the venturi. A 1 /2-in mesh wire basket (not shown) was suspended in the hop- per to break up the mass of material as it was dumped from the paper bag containers and also to prevent fragments of the bags from plugging the venturi. In operation, the tangential jet and hopper outlet valves were adjusted to proved maximum discharge while wtill maintaining a constant slurry level. With a 5-man team maintaining a steady input of material, the discharge rate was approximately 100 lbs (dry weight) of material per minute. On the scheduled day of discharge the vessel carrying the device, the CAPE COD, arrived on sta- tion at 1000 hrs and began discharging the material in a circle approximately 150 m in diameter. The discharge was in the form of a high velocity coarse spray from approximately 0.5 m above the water. The introduction of the 300 lbs of material was completed at 1037 hrs. The zinc sulfide crystals produced a distinct, highly visible, yellowish-green coloration in the water. No floating material was detected, and aerial observation showed an apparent uniform dispersion within the discharge area. A photograph of this operation is shown in fig. 3. To Pump Tangential Jet Discharge Venturi Detail No. 1 Figure 01. Particle introduction device for mixing small particles with water prior to release. 25 APPENDIX E Fluorescent Particle Counting Charles S. Yentsch Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences The tracing of movement of ocean waters by the use of fluorescent substances is not new, and the instrumentation and general field procedures are well-known. However, the above statement refers to tracing fluorescent substances in the dissolved state, added as a dye substance. The methodology for counting of fluorescent particles — in suspen- sion — is notably void and the experimental pro- cedure is at best in the developmental stage. An appropriate question is, "Why would one wish to measure the concentrations of fluorescent parti- cles in suspension?" Surprisingly, the answer, at least for the present moment, spans two extreme realms of oceanography: the physical and the biochemical. Physical Oceanography The first geologists to become interested in tracing fluorescent particle motion were interested in the movement of beach sands. Both general seasonal movement of large beach areas and total volume transport have been measured in this man- ner. The experimental procedures have been reasonably simple and inexpensive. In most cases sand particles have been dyed and then movement traced by spatial sampling and microscopic obser- vation. Marine geologists are interested in the rates at which particles (both mineral and organic) are placed in suspension and settle out of suspension. Generally speaking, estimates of these rates, which can be used to describe the pattern of particle dis- tribution, depend upon combining empirical rela- tionships of settling velocity and advective forces in the water medium. In the former case, relation- ships are usually generated in the laboratory and in the latter, they are obtained from direct measure- ments of water motions in the area of interest. Although there are academic arguments against using laboratory results for estimating velocities in the field, the major source of error is in attempting to relate a particle distribution in a water medium to motions that are poorly known and somewhat difficult to measure. The placing of a particle of known size and den- sity offers the geologist the basis of an experimen- tal design whereby many of the previously stated complaints are bypassed. Moreover, theories can be tested using this technique and/or particle dis- tribution assessed with reference to principal forc- ing motions in the environment. Obviously these techniques have had great practical impact on problems of beach erosion. It is equally obvious that if techniques for the measure- ment of fine particles and their pattern or distribu- tion in open coastal water were developed, there would be considerable effect on environmental decisions and regulations. Finally, even the most casual oceanographer would recognize the value of a tool allowing the measurement of particle dis- tribution in a water mass as a function of time. Data of this type are fundamental to the understanding of many geological and biological processes as well as to the description of the physics inherent in water and mass interaction. The remainder of this report should be con- sidered in that context. In essence this is a progress report on the development of fluorescent particle counting techniques used in conjunction with an experiment where fluorescent particles were placed into coastal waters in Boston Harbor. The fact that little data were obtained should not detract from the genius of the experimental design, that is, of the electronic or any other supporting gear. The major error arose due to the lack of a full understanding of fluorescent particles in seawater. Instrumentation Because of the high rate of dilution it was antici- pated that the sensing instrument must "see" a large volume of water in a relatively short time frame. Moreover, it was anticipated that coinci- dence would be a problem, at least initially when particles were numerous, in contrast to later periods in the experiment. Furthermore, it was anti- cipated that background signals from other fluorophores and bioluminescence could be a problem. With these anticipations in mind, it was felt that the instrumentation design must be a con- tinuous-flow device, capable of sensing all depths in the water column. Two instruments were contemporarily available (with some modifications) — the airborne particle counter built by MEE industries and the Turner fluorometer used extensively in current dye studies. The MEE instrument was developed for counting airborne fluorescent particles. The design used the unique feature of delayed fluorescence, which enabled the photodetector to sense in a completely dark background; the spread of particles in the passage through the unit minimized coincidence and eliminated complicated slit optical problems. 27 / r r I Slit Short X Power Supply Counting Electronics 1 - a Lamps -^ y i r 1 1 it; i \ L \ L \ / *- Li PM c H/ — +- A Exciter B Sensor Outer Waterproof Shell ' / Figure El. The MEE Instrument. Figure E1 shows the basic components of the MEE unit. The fluorescent particles entering pass into the excitation chamber (A) which is lined with a number of fluorescent lamps. The particles next pass by the detection area (B) of the instrument and then exit. The delayed fluorescence from the parti- cle is monitored by the photodetector and recorded as a unit count. To obtain maximum counting effi- ciency the time of passage of a particle through the unit is critical. In the airborne units an air pump pro- vided constant flow. For the water unit this had to be modified (see fig. E2). A water pumping system with hose was used to sample the water column. It con- sisted of a 1 72" I.D. steam hose coupled to a 5-hp Jabsco pump. Although the volume of water sup- plied was sufficient, the flow rate was too slow. Hence a gear pump was added to force the water through the unit at increased velocity. This setup was found quite satisfactory by a series of bench tests indicating that the unit could be used opera- tionally. The Turner fluorometer is a very different device. The signal it senses is the directly excited fluorescence — not the delayed — and it has little or no capacity for direct particle counting. These Centrifugal Pump Gear Pump H> 7 V Figure E2. Shipboard arrangement for the MEE instrument. fluorometers are equipped with continuous flow cells (fig. E3). The wavelength characteristics of the excitation light are decided by the selection of a fluorescent source and colored glass filters. The wavelength characteristics seen by the photo- detector are determined by the choice of this detector and an optical colored glass or inter- ference filter. Output from these fluorometers can be monitored as millivolts or amps by a graphic recorder. Data on particle count versus fluores- cence must be computed from a calibration relating numbers of particles to fluorescence. Fluorescent Light Source /*° ut Out Put a Photodetector Slit t r^ Emission Filter Flow/Thru Cuvette Excitation Filter Figure E3. The Turner Fluorometer. Although it was initially specified that the sens- ing units should be of the continuous mode, the fluorometer was later modified to sense particle fluorescence in a different fashion. The Turner unit offered the possibility of measuring light emission from the front surface of a membrane filter (fig. E4). In essence, particles retained by the filter were placed in front of the excitation light and emission 26 from the particles was monitored at an angle by the photodetector. In this case, fluorescence was measured as total light; particle count was deter- mined by calibration. Out- Put Fii,er ^^ ^>4— x Fii ter Sample Filter Reference Filter Carrousel Filter Holder (s) Light Source (5) Photo Detector Figure E4. Technique used in the Turner fluorometer for measurement of particle fluorescence on glass fiber filters. Field Tests MEE and Turner units were mounted in line in the shipboard laboratory. Pumps were situated aft of the laboratory and the hose was laid fore and aft along the deck. The hose was marked in 5-m inter- vals and the outlet weighted. In practice, depths were to be sampled in the seeded area by lowering the hose by hand. Once on station, the deck crew started both pumps and positioned the outlet at the desired depths. The object was to record the fluorescence as a function of depth for each station. The major problem not anticipated was fouling of the fluorescent particles throughout the pumping system. This became evident when large counts of fluoresence were achieved when the pumps were started. Further it was demonstrated that when the hose was moved, large counts of fluorescence oc- curred. This was accentuated by stamping on the hose or kicking the pump. Fouling by these parti- cles was not only confined to the hose and pump; the hull of the research vessel also became fouled. This was demonstrated by abruptly turning the vessel and observing a large count. Because of this problem, the continuous-flow mode was aban- doned; the substitute method involved taking 4- to 5- liter water samples at discrete depths and filter- ing the contents through a glass-fiber filter. The fluorescence was measured in the manner pre- viously described under instrumentation. These two techniques provided the bulk of the information on particle distribution. Recommendations Either the MEE or the Turner setups would have worked satisfactorily provided the fluorescent par- ticles had not fouled the pumping systems. Later tests in the laboratory showed that the particles ab- sorbed readily on one another and only slightly on glass. No other characteristics of absorption were noted. Obviously a continuous-mode device would be more satisfactory if it were an in situ device rather than one that depended upon pump and hose. There are at least two units on the market now that would suffice. There is no reason a priori that the MEE system should be employed unless the fluorescence emis- sion from single particles is highly variable. The affinity of the ZnS particles for each other makes this substance of doubtful usefulness in water experiments. It would be beneficial in future experiments to find a fluorescent particle of uniform density, size, emission, ^and inertness to seawater. 29 APPENDIX F Laboratory Procedures for Counting Particles Loren W. Setlow U.S. Bureau of Land Management A temporary laboratory was established at the University of Massachusetts Marine Station at Gloucester to determine concentrations of the released tracer particles as they dispersed and settled in Massachusetts coastal waters. Water samples were delivered to the station the same day that they were collected, and each cubitainer was labeled by day of the experiment, collection site, and depth of the sample. As a general procedure every laboratory techni- cian had set up a Masterflex tubing pump with a variable speed drive. The pump was attached to a PVC filter holder which contained a 142-mm diameter Millipore filter paper (the paper had an im- printed 2-mm square grid pattern and retained all particles larger than 8/i.m). The technician first shook the cubitainer and then inserted the filtering system's intake hose. All of the sea water sample was then filtered (the cubitainer being occasionally agitated during the process) and the volume deter- mined by collecting the filtered water in a gradu- ated cylinder. When the sample bottle was empty, the volume, as well as the sample number, was recorded on an empty 1 5 mm x 1 50 mm petri dish and the filtered water discarded. A 5-liter bucket of fresh sea water was next pumped through the filter system in order to collect any particles that might have been trapped in either the tubing hoses or pump. When this operation was completed, the head of the PVC filter unit was removed and the filter paper lifted up with forceps to be placed in the labeled petri dish. The technician used fresh water to rinse the head of the PVC unit, the metal plate on which the filter paper rested, and the area beneath the metal plate. A clean filter paper was next in- serted and the entire operation repeated on a new sample. The petri dish with enclosed Millipore filter was delivered to a microscopist who had a binocular in- strument equipped with a UV light substage to make the sphalerite particles fluoresce. The micro- scopist placed the dish on the microscope stage and counted every sphalerite crystal in a 2 mm square, the count being recorded by an assistant. The number of squares counted did vary during the experiment as described below, but the number of particles, the area of the paper scanned, and the water column of the sample yielded a rough esti- mate of the particles per liter of sea water at the collecting site and depth. When the counts of each filter were completed, a 10% solution of for- maldehyde was lightly sprayed in the dish to retard bacterial growth, then the dish was sealed with tape and set aside for later study. On the first day of the experiment an attempt was made to count glass beads on the filter papers using oblique white light illumination. However, the heat of the lamp caused evaporation in the petri dish which, in turn, resulted in salt crystallization; similarity in index of refraction of these crystals and the glass beads as well as their general sizes made the determination nearly impossible. Reintroduction of fresh water in the dish to dissolve the salt caused flotation of debris over the glass beads and pro- duced light reflections, which made detection difficult. As a result of these problems, efforts to count the glass beads were temporarily abandoned. Sphalerite crystals proved to be the easiest tracer particles to count, although occasional in- fluxes of fluorescing plankton of similar size and color characteristics sometimes complicated the task. Because the initial concentrations of particles were so high on the first day of the experiment only 10 squares were counted on each filter; 5 on one line near the center of the paper and 5 on the next line below. On the day after the glass bead drop, 1 squares were counted in a straight line at the center of the paper. On day D +2 until the end of the ex- periment 20 squares were counted on each paper, 10 in one line and 10 below. Selected samples were also processed on ship- board to guide the collection program. The 47-mm filters were sent to the laboratory where the total number of sphalerite crystals on each paper was counted and recorded. Occasional samples of fresh water from the laboratory were run through the pumping and filtering system each day to obtain controls on the number of particles trapped within the system. The filters were examined as previously described. This provided a background for evaluat- ing contamination or effectiveness of cleaning the system. The Niskin traps were treated in a slightly different manner from the water samples: (1) since no water volume recording was needed, the filtered water was simply disposed of; (2) the filtering system was run until the paper became clogged, at which point it was replaced by a new one; (3) the number of the "run" for each replacement filter of a 31 single Niskin trap was written on the petri dish; (4) before the next morning's sailing, at which time the fresh sea water was added to the trap if sediment raw data (sample number, sphalerite counts, num- still remained after the original water in the trap was ber of squares counted, and water volume) was depleted: (5) each Millipore filter was treated with phoned or sent by courier to assist in guiding the in- formaldehyde as described previously; and (6) the flight sampling. For each day's samples, laboratory dishes were stored for later examination. processing was continued to completion that night The laboratory was run at night until either all the or the following day so results could be used to samples had been processed or just a few hours monitor the experimental process. 32 APPENDIX G Wind Data and Analysis For Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays During The Glass Bead Experiment W. Richard Boehmer Department of Natural Resources Commonwealth of Massachusetts This report presents the wind data as recorded by eight locations in and around Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays as shown in figure G1. The data were taken from May 20 until June 27, 1973, thus overlapping all the other measurements and events pertaining to the Glass Bead Experiment (fig. G2). At one location, the Logan Airport weather sta- tion, the wind was measured by instruments and recorded at least every hour on the hour. The seven other locations were U.S. Coast Guard stations which are generally not instrumented to measure the wind. The sampling frequency was every 4 hours at Scituate and Plymouth and every 3 hours at the other stations. Although the wind was infre- quently sampled and generally measured without instruments at the Coast Guard stations, the I ^ I I ^7$ jb East Point 42°30' Jdjf\ ^ • Boston L/V Logan £ < ^Brewsters (•Scituate "r Race Point •T~> 42° 00' <~ '•-• Plymouth u ^--^Sandwich , rM w I i^t^ / 41° 30' — fir ^ 71° 30' 71° 00' 70° 30' 70° 00' Figura St. Wind data stations in and around Massachusetts and Capa Cod Bays. 33 N ii Race Point \M , r vv L s / East Boston / Pt - L/V Sandwich / Scituate // / Ply / Brewsters yr yS Logan Airport 500 1 , . , i 1 nautical miles Figure 62. Resultant vectors of the wind velocities recorded at eight stations in and around Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. analysis shows a remarkable correlation of the data from all stations to each other and to Logan's data. Rather than to present these data in the usual format of wind roses, it was elected to inspect the data as progressive vectors with 1 80° added to the direction. In this way the general wind pattern was apparent and could be directly compared to progressive vectors of current meter data, to drogue tracks, and to the dispersion of the glass beads. In conclusion, during the Experiment, the resul- tant average wind over Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays was from a SSW direction with a speed of almost 2 knots. Furthermore, the wind as recorded at Logan Airport is representative of the wind at any other location in or around the Bays. 34 APPENDIX H Drogue Measurements Bryan M. Pearce R. M. Parsons Laboratory for Water Resources and Hydrodynamics Massachusetts Institute of Technology In order to predict the movement of fine sedi- ments, it is necessary that the hydrodynamic prop- erties of the involved area be known. Basically this means that current magnitudes and directions be obtained. The studies of the NOMES Project were mainly undertaken by the M.I.T. Ralph M. Parsons Laboratory for Water Resources and Hy- drodynamics. Due to the complicated geometry of the Massachusetts Bay and the wide variety of metorological conditions, circulation is very difficult to predict. Extensive measurements must be made under all weather conditions and tidal times to provide the following basic information: 1. Tidal magnitudes and directions 2. Net drift or circulation patterns 3. Vertical velocity profiles 4. Wind effects on the above parameters 5. Estimates of dispersion magnitudes Basically, there are two techniques for measur- ing currents, current meters and drogues, each possessing certain advantages. Current meters give the magnitude and direction of the current at a stationary point. This technique is directly related to an Eulerian description of the flow field. The method is good if one is interested in obtaining the flow history at such a point, as for ex- ample, the entrance to a harbor or particular sta- tions in a larger body of water. A current meter can be placed at any depth and is usually used for measurements of several weeks duration. Drogues give the particular path lines of a water body. This technique is related to a Lagrangian representation of the flow field. Basically, a drogue is a fin or vane of high fluid resistance suspended at a certain depth in the water from a flotation device at the surface. Theoretically, the drogue follows the path that a single "particle" of water should follow. It has the measuring flexibility of the current meter in that it operates at different depths, except that the bottom must not be reached at any position along the drogue path. For this reason, drogues cannot be used to measure flows very close to the bottom. Also, they cannot be used to measure verti- cal currents, measurement of which is only possible with current meters. Because of the nature of the drogue method, long-term records are not feasible. The drogue must be attended continuously, which means that it must be followed by a vessel that records the time and position for various instances. Also, there is no way of keeping the drogue in the area of interest. In spite of these difficulties, drogue measurements give a very valuable picture of net flows and circulations in large bodies of water. Par- ticularly, with respect to the NOMES project, the drogue simulates the flow path of a sediment parti- cle in its lateral directions. That is, the drogues could be deployed in the NOMES dredging site in the bay and observed as if they were suspended sediment particles. The spreading of a set of drogues can also be used to obtain dispersion esti- mates, which is another parameter important to the NOMES study. The drogues used for the Tracer Experiment consisted of two 3' x 4' aluminum plates tied by a variable length string to a 1 5 /s" diameter aluminum pipe, the length of which is 1 6 ft (fig. H1 ). Above the center of the pipe a float with a number was at- tached. On the top of the pipe a flag and a radar reflector were placed, while inside the upper part of the pipe a radio transmitter was secured. For each drogue, the signal transmitted was of a different fre- quency; therefore, by means of a receiver, not only the direction but also the identification of the drogue was determined. Flag Transmitter Body Float Transmitter Antenna Radar Reflector Aluminum Pipe J>0<1 Aluminum Plates (3'X4'| Figaro HI. Drogue Configuration 35 Dropiw Stiirfv During the first 3 days of the NOMES tracer ex- periment, a continuous 3-day drogue study was carried out. In this study the M.I.T. drogues were used as shown in fig. H1 . Three drogues were deployed at 7. 1 2. and 22 m on D-day. On D + 2 day a fourth drogue was added at 17 m. It was hoped that this long study would confirm one of the two most frequent drift directions (NE and SE). In fact, it confirmed both (fig. H2). During the first 24-hr 70 c 45 70° 40 \ 1 2 \ \ i i i Nautical Miles 1 — N 4t_VA Dredge \^ Area 3 N\ ^ _> o 1,2,3 ■v CM C^ CM » 1 V 4 \ T -, < \ V \ 2 1 \ -. \ s \ ---,\60 ft ■> 120 ft I ^^ " "X N 'v-~~ \ l_ r,_f\ \ \ *" \ / "■ Fig tin H2. Drogut Paths for days D, D+1, and D+2. period the drogues followed a general northeast path, with considerable oscillations about the mean direction and much scatter among the three depths. Early in the second day the shallow drogue changed course to southeast followed by the 12-m one, while the 22-m drogue maintained an east to northeast path. In the evening of the second day a storm occurred which caused all the drogues to move quickly to the east, resulting in major difficulties in the interpretation of the data. In the last period of observations, all four drogues went to the southeast at approximately the same direction, 1 35° from the north, until finally they went out of the area of Raydist control, at which time they were collected. In the evening of D+3, a deep 32-m drogue was deployed and was followed for three more days. The observations were infrequent, but neverthe- less, its direction was clearly the same as the pre- vious drogues, that is, southeast (fig. H3). 70 c 45' 70 c 40' \ s \3a 1 2 i i i Nautical Miles <3" \ ( " \ ^~ V ' \ \ s ^J \ \ ^-^ s i \ \ "--% N. .s \ x k r i\ \ \ \ ~ \~~ N 60 ft i \ \120 ft \ \ \ ^ \ ~^\ LT> E, ft \ \ CN & \ \ rN \ t \ \ Figure H3. Drogue path for 33m drogua for days D+3 through D+6. The wind during the first 3 days was generally light and from the southwest. During the storm the winds were as high as 60 knots from the west to southwest, explaining the drogues' movement east- ward. Other than this, the wind did not seem to have a significant effect. Despite all uncertainties involved, this study made the following clear: 1 . No countercurrents seem to exist near the bottom in the degree of stratification existing in June. 2. Fortunately for a dredging operation, the net movement offshore is in a direction between NE — SE. 36 APPENDIX I Temperature Data Terry A. Nelsen Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratories, NOAA Note: Stations were numbered consecutively each day. Station numbering corresponds to sphalerite data given in Appendix J. 37 Appendix I. Temperature Data STATION (DAY-STATION- DEPTH QO) TEMPERATURE C"0 Day - 1 (D1 -) D1-1-0 19 D1-2-0 18 D1-2-5 16 D1-2-10 13 D1-2-15 9 D1-2-20 9 D1-3-0 18.2 D1-3-5 15 D1-3-10 12 D1-3-15 9.5 D1-3-20 9.5 D1-4-0 18 D1-4-5 14.5 D1-4-10 11 D1-4-15 11 D1-4-20 9.5 D1-10-0 19.5 D1-10-5 16 D1-10-10 14 D1-10-15 11.8 D1-10-20 9.8 D1-11-0 19.5 D1-11-5 14.5 D1-11-10 16.5 D1-11-15 9.5 D1- 11-20 9 D1-13-0 17 D1-13-5 15 D1-13-10 12 D1-13-15 9.5 D1-13-20 9.5 D1-19-0 195 D1-19-5 16 D1-19-10 14 D1-19-15 11 D1-19-20 9.5 D1-20-0 19 D1-20-5 15.8 D1-20-10 13.5 D1-20-15 10.9 D1-20-20 10 D1-31-0 19 D1-31-5 17 D1-31-10 15 D1-31-15 12 D1-31-20 9 D1-31-25 9 D1-32-0 20 D1-32-5 16 D1-32-10 13 01-32-15 11 D1-32-20 10.5 D1-33-0 19.8 D1-33-5 15.5 D1-33-10 13.4 D1-33-15 10.8 01-33-20 9 01 -34-0 18.6 STATION (DAY-STATION- DEPTH (M)) D1-34-5 D1-34-10 D1-34-15 D1-34-20 D1-35-0 D1-35-5 01-35-10 D1-35-15 D1-35-20 D1-36-0 D1-36-5 D1-36-10 D1-36-15 D1-36-20 D1-37-0 D1-37-5 D1-37-10 D1-37-15 D1-37-20 D1-38-0 D1-38-5 D1-38-10 D1-38-15 D1-38-20 D1-39-0 D1-39-5 D1-39-10 D1-39-15 D1-39-20 D1-40-0 D1-40-5 D1-40-10 D1-40-15 D1-40-20 D1-41-0 D1-41-5 D1-41-10 D1-41-15 D1-41-20 D1-42-0 D1-42-5 D1-42-10 D1-42-15 D1-42-20 D1-43-0 D1-43-5 D1-43-10 D1-43-15 D1 - 43- 20 D1-44-0 D1-44-5 D1-44-10 D1-44-15 D1-44-20 D1-45-0 D1-45-5 D1-45-10 D1-45-15 D1-45-20 TEMPERATURE (X) 15 13.1 9.8 9.8 19 15 13 10 9.2 19.5 15.5 12.5 10 9.5 19.2 15.2 12.8 10.2 9.5 19.8 15.0 12.9 10.9 9.0 20.8 15.5 13.0 9.5 10 18.2 14.5 12 10.3 9.5 19.8 15 11.8 9.5 9.0 19.5 14.5 10.2 9.7 9.0 19 11 10 9.5 9 19.2 15 1 1 9 9 18.4 15.2 11 10 9.5 STATION (DAY-STATION- DEPTH (M)) TEMPERATURE (°C) STATION (DAY-STATION- DEPTH (M)) TEMPERATURE CO Day + 2(D2) D2-46-5 17 D2-46-10 10 D2-46-15 9 D2-46-20 8.2 D2-48-0 18 D2-48-5 17 D2-48-10 14.5 D2-48-15 12 D2-48-20 10 D2-49-0 18 D2-49-5 16 D2-49-10 13 D2-49-15 11.5 D2-49-20 13 D2-50-5 16 D2-50-10 13 D2-50-15 10 D2-50-20 9 D2-51-0 17.5 D2-51-5 16 D2-51-10 13 D2-51-15 9 D2-51-20 9 D2-52-0 18 D2-52-5 14 D2-52-10 12 D2-52-15 9 D2-52-20 8.8 D2-53-0 17 D2-53-5 17 D2-53-10 12 D2-53-15 8.8 D2-53-20 9 D2-54-0 18 D2-54-5 16 D2-54-10 12 D2-54-15 9.3 D2-54-20 9 D2-55-0 18.5 D2-55-5 17 D2-55-10 11 D2-55-15 9.5 D2-55-20 8 D2-56-0 17.8 D2-56-5 16 D2-56-10 12.5 D2-56-15 10.2 D2-56-20 9 D2-56-30 7.5 D2-57-0 18 D2-57-5 16 D2-57-10 13 D2-57-15 10 D2-57-20 9 D2-57-30 8 D2-58-0 18 D2-58-5 16 D2-58-10 11.5 D2- 58- 1 5 9 D2- 58- 20 9 D2-58-30 8.2 D2-59-0 18 D2-59-5 15 D2-59-10 10 D2-59-15 9.3 D2-59-20 9 D2-59-30 92 D2-60-0 17.5 D2-60-5 16.5 D2-60-10 11 D2-60-15 9 D2-60-20 8.5 D2-60-30 10.2 STATION TEMPERATURE (DAY-STATION- (°C) DEPTH (M)) D3-9-30 7.5 D3-10-0 18 D3-10-5 17 D3-10-10 12 D3-10-15 11 D3-10-20 9.5 D3-10-30 9 D3-11-0 19 D3-11-5 18.5 D3-11-10 12 D3- 1 1 - 1 5 10 D3-11-20 8.5 D3-11-30 10 D3-12-0 18.5 D3-12-5 16.5 D3-12-10 10.5 D3- 12-15 9.5 D3-12-20 8.5 D3-12-30 8.5 D3-13-0 18 D3-13-5 12 D3-13-10 11 D3- 13-15 10.5 D3-13-20 8 D3- 13-30 8.5 D3-14-0 18.5 D3-14-5 12 1 1 Day + 3 (D3 ) D3- 12-15 9.5 D3-1-0 18 D3-12-20 8.5 D3- 1 - 5 17 D3-12-30 8.5 D3-1-10 13 D3-13-0 18 D3- 1 - 1 5 13 D3-13-5 12 D3- 1 - 20 13 D3-13-10 11 D3-2-0 18.8 D3- 13-15 10.5 D3-2-30 9.6 D3-13-20 8 D3-3-0 19 D3- 13-30 8.5 D3-3-30 9.8 D3-14-0 18.5 D3- 4- 5 17 D3-14-5 12 D3-4-10 12 D3-14-10 11 D3-4-15 11 D3- 14-15 9.5 D3- 4- 20 10 D3-14-20 8.5 D3-4-30 9.5 D3-14-30 8 D3- 5-0 19 D3-5-5 16 Day + 4 (D4 ) D3-5-10 13 D4-1-0 16 D3-5-15 10.5 D4-1-5 14.8 D3-5-20 9.5 D4-1-10 9.5 D3-5-30 9.6 D4- 1 - 20 9.5 D3-6-0 18 D4- 1 - 25 8.2 D3-6-5 17.5 D4-1-30 8.0 D3-6-10 11 D4-2-0 15 D3-6-15 11 D4-2-5 13 D3-6-20 8.5 D4-2-10 11.5 D3-6-30 7.0 D4- 2- 1 5 12 D3- 7-0 20.5 D4- 2-20 12 D3-7-5 15 D4-2-25 9.5 D3-7-10 12 D4-2-30 8.5 D3-7-15 11 D4-2-40 8.5 D3-7-20 9 D4-3-0 16 D3-7-30 8.5 D4-3-5 15 D3-8-0 20 D4-3-10 15 D3-8-5 17 D4-3-20 8.5 D3-8-10 11.5 D4-3-25 8 D3-8-15 10 D4-3-30 8.5 D3- 8- 20 9 D4-3-40 9 D3-8-30 12 D4-4-0 16 D3-9-0 20 D4-4-5 15.9 D3-9-5 17 D4-4-10 12 D3-9-10 12.5 D4-4-15 9.7 D3-9-15 11.5 D4-4-20 10 D3-9-20 9 D4-4-25 7.5 38 Appendix I. Temperature Data STATION TEMPERATURE (DAY STATION- (°C) DEPTH (M)) D4-4-30 6.9 D4-4-40 6.9 D4-5-0 15.2 D4-5-5 15.6 D4-5-10 11 D4-5-15 10.5 D4-5-20 11 D4-5-25 8.2 D4-5-30 7 D4-5-40 6.5 D4-6-0 17 D4-6-5 16.5 D4-6-10 14 D4-6-15 9.2 D4-6-20 10 D4-6-25 8.8 D4-6-30 8 D4-6-40 7 D4-7-0 17.5 D4-7-5 16.5 D4-7-10 10.5 D4-7-15 10 D4-7-20 10 D4-7-25 8.5 D4-7-30 8.5 D4-7-40 8.5 D4-8-0 17 D4-8-5 15 D4-8-10 14 D4-8-15 9.5 D4-8-20 9.8 D4-8-25 8.3 D4-8-30 8 D4-8-40 7 D4-9-0 17 D4-9-5 16.2 D4-9-10 — D4-9-15 10.6 D4-9-20 — D4-9-25 9 D4-9-30 8 D4-9-40 D4-10-0 17 D4-10-5 16 D4-10-10 14 D4-10-15 10 D4-10-20 9.5 D4-10-25 8.5 D4-10-30 7.5 D4-10-40 — D4-11-0 18 D4-11-5 16.5 D4-11-10 16 D4- 1 1 - 1 5 13 D4- 11-20 10.5 D4-12-0 17.5 D4-12-5 16 D4-12-10 16.5 D4- 12-15 11.2 D4-13-0 17.8 STATION TEMPERATURE (DAY-STATION- CO DEPTH (M)) D4-13-5 16.2 D4-13-10 10.5 D4-13-15 10.5 D4- 1 3- 20 9 D4-14-0 17 D4- 1 4- 5 17 D4-14-10 16 D4- 1 4- 1 5 10 D4-14-20 9.5 Day + 5 (D5-) D5-2-0 16.3 D5- 2-5 11 D5-2-10 11 D5-2-15 10 D5- 2- 20 8.7 D5-3-0 16.4 D5- 3- 5 16 D5-3-10 16.1 D5-3-15 15 D5- 3- 20 10.5 D5-4-0 16.5 D5-4-5 16 D5-4-10 16 D5-4-15 13 D5- 4- 20 9.2 D5-5-0 16 D5- 5- 5 16 D5-5-10 15.3 D5-5-15 10.5 D5- 5- 20 9.7 D5- 5- 30 1 2.3 D5- 6- 15.6 D5- 6- 5 1 5.6 D5-6-10 16.0 D5-6-15 10.0 D5- 6- 20 9.8 D5- 6- 30 8.4 D5-7-0 16.5 D5-7-5 17 D5-7-10 16.2 D5-7-15 11 D5- 7- 20 9.5 D5- 7- 30 8.7 D5-8-0 16.9 D5- 8-5 17 D5-8-10 17 D5-8-15 13.1 D5- 8- 25 9.4 D5- 9-0 17 D5- 9-5 17 D5-9-10 16.9 D5- 9-15 1 2.3 D5- 9- 20 9.8 D5-10-0 17 D5-10-5 17 D5-10-10 17 D5-10-15 13 D5-11-0 17 STATION TEMPERATURE (DAY-STATION- CO DEPTH (M)) D5- 1 1 - 5 17 D5- 11- 10 17 D5- 1 1 - 20 9.7 D5-11-25 9.2 Day + 7 (D7 -) D7- 1 - 15.5 D7-1-5 15.5 D7- 1- 10 14.3 D7- 1 - 1 5 11.0 D7- 2- 14.9 D7- 2- 5 15.0 D7-2-10 14.3 D7-2-15 13.4 D7- 2- 20 — D7- 3- 14.6 D7- 3- 5 14.5 D7-3- 10 14.2 D7- 3- 20 11.1 D7- 3- 30 8.1 D7- 4- 15.0 D7- 4- 5 16.2 „ D7-4-10 15.0 D7- 4- 20 10.0 D7- 4- 30 8.0 D7- 5- 14.8 D7- 5- 5 15.0 D7-5- 10 14.7 D7- 5- 20 13.5 D7- 5- 30 10.0 D7- 6- 15.0 D7- 6- 5 15.2 D7-6- 10 15.0 D7- 6- 20 14.0 D7- 6- 30 8.0 D7- 7- 14.9 D7- 7- 5 14.9 D7-7-10 14.8 D7- 7- 20 14.0 D7- 8- 15.0 D7- 8- 5 14.9 D7-8-10 14.8 D7- 8- 20 13.0 D7- 9- 16.8 D7- 9- 5 16.8 D7-9- 10 16.8 D7-9-15 10.7 D7-10-0 15.7 D7-10-5 15.6 D7- 10-10 15.8 D7-10-20 13.9 D7- 1 1 - 14.5 D7-11-5 14.5 D7- 11-10 14.0 D7-11-20 13.6 D7- 1 1 - 30 12.7 D7- 1 2- 16.0 D7- 1 2- 5 16.0 D7- 12- 10 16.0 D7- 1 2- 20 16.0 STATION TEMPERATURE (DAY-STATION- (°C) DEPTH (M)) D7-13-0 15.8 D7-13-5 15.9 D7-13-10 15.9 D7-13-15 15.7 D7-13-20 16.0 D7-14-0 15.2 D7-14-10 15.3 D7-14-20 15.1 D7-14-30 10.0 D7-14-40 8.0 D7-15-0 15.0 D7-15-10 14.9 D7-15-20 12.9 D7-15-30 7.7 D7-15-40 6.8 D7-16-0 15.8 D7-16-10 15.2 D7-16-20 13.2 D7-16-30 7.1 D7-16-40 6.2 D7-17-0 15.8 D7-17-10 13.6 D7-17-20 9.8 D7- 1 7- 30 8.0 D7-17-40 7.6 D7-18-0 15.8 D7-18-10 15.0 D7-18-20 9.4 D7-18-30 9.0 D7-18-40 7.2 D7-19-0 13.8 D7-19-10 13.1 D7- 1 9- 20 8.3 D7-19-30 7.1 D7-19-40 7.0 D7- 20- 1 4.0 D7-20-10 13.0 D7- 20- 20 10.2 D7- 20- 30 7.5 D7- 20- 40 6.1 D7-21-0 14.0 D7-21-5 13.7 D7-21-20 10.2 D7- 21 - 30 8.0 D7-21-35 7.2 Day + 8 (D8-) D8- 1 - 1 5.0 D8- 1 - 1 1 3.0 D8-1-15 10.4 D8- 1 - 20 9.0 D8-2-0 12.2 D8-2-5 12.2 D8-2-10 12.2 D8- 2-20 11 .7 D8- 2- 30 8.0 D8- 3- 1 2.7 D8-3-10 12.1 D8- 3- 20 9.8 D8- 3- 30 8.7 STATION TEMPERATURE (DAY-STATION- CO DEPTH (M)) D8-7-10 12.3 D8- 7- 20 12.0 D8- 7- 30 9.0 D8- 8- 13.9 D8-8-10 11.1 D8- 8- 20 8.0 D8- 8- 30 7.3 D8- 9- 13.8 D8-9-10 11.0 D8- 9- 20 7.0 D8- 9- 30 6.5 D8- 9- 40 6.0 D8- 10-0 13.4 D8- 10-10 11.9 D8- 1 0- 20 9.0 D8- 1 0- 30 7.0 D8- 1 0- 50 6.0 D8- 1 1 - 12.3 D8- 1 1 - 1 8.5 D8- 1 1 - 20 6.0 D8- 1 1 - 30 6.0 D8- 1 1 - 40 5.8 D8- 1 2- 12.7 D8- 1 2- 5 12.7 D8- 12-10 11.7 D8- 1 2- 20 8.0 D8- 1 2- 30 6.0 D8- 1 3- 13.1 D8- 13-10 11.4 D8- 13-20 8.0 D8- 1 3- 30 7.0 D8- 13-50 6.0 D8- 14-0 12.9 D8- 14-10 11.5 D8- 1 4- 20 9.0 D8- 1 4- 30 7.0 D8- 14-70 5.0 39 Appendix I. Temperature Data STATION TEMPERATURE (DAY STATION- (°C) DEPTH (M)) D8- 1 5- 13.9 D8- 15-10 11.7 D8- 1 5- 20 9.1 D8- 15-30 6.5 D8- 1 5- 60 5.0 Day - 9 (D9 ) D9- 1 - 14.6 D9- 1- 10 12.0 D9- 1 - 20 9.0 D9- 1 - 30 6.5 D9- 1 - 60 5.2 D9- 2- 16.5 D9- 2- 10 12.2 D9- 2- 20 9.0 D9- 2- 30 8.0 D9- 3- 14.0 D9-3- 10 11.8 D9- 3- 20 9.8 D9- 3- 30 7.0 D9- 3- 40 7.0 D9- 4- 14.4 D9- 4- 10 11.0 D9- 4- 20 9.2 D9- 4- 30 6.5 D9- 4- 60 5.0 D9- 5- 14.4 D9- 5- 10 12.0 D9- 5- 20 8.2 D9- 5- 30 6.5 D9- 5- 40 5.2 D9- 6- 16.5 D9- 6- 10 14.0 D9- 6- 20 10.0 D9- 7- 16.5 D9- 7- 10 13.0 D9- 7- 20 9.5 D9- 7- 30 8.0 D9- 7-50 6.0 D9- 8- 17.0 D9- 8- 1 13.8 D9- 8- 20 8.0 D9- 8- 30 7.0 D9- 8- 50 6.0 D9- 9- 15.0 D9- 9- 10 13.2 D9- 9- 20 10.2 D9- 9- 30 7.5 D9- 9- 40 6.9 D9- 10-0 17.0 D9- 10- 10 14.0 D9- 10- 20 9.0 D9- 10- 30 7 2 D9- 10- 50 6.0 D9- 1 1 - 16.5 D9- 11- 10 15.8 D9- 1 1 - 20 11.5 D9- 1 2- 16.2 D9- 12-10 15.0 D9- 1 2- 20 10.2 STATION n :mperati (DAY-STATION- (°« DEPTH (M)) D9- 12-30 7.4 D9- 1 2- 40 6.4 D9- 1 3- 15.0 D9- 13-10 12.0 D9- 13- 20 9.0 D9- 14-0 13.1 D9- 14-10 12.0 D9- 14- 20 11.0 D9- 14- 30 9.0 D9- 14- 40 6.5 D9- 15-0 14.0 D9- 15-10 11.0 D9- 1 5- 20 8.0 D9- 1 5- 30 6.4 D9- 1 5- 60 5.0 D9- 16-0 16.5 D9- 16-10 13.0 D9- 16- 20 11.0 D9- 17-0 16.0 D9- 17-10 15.0 D9- 17- 20 10.0 D9- 1 8- 14.7 D9- 18-10 13.0 D9- 18- 20 10.2 D9- 18-30 7.2 D9- 19-0 14.0 D9- 19-10 12.0 D9- 19- 20 10.0 D9- 1 9- 30 7.0 D9- 1 9- 50 5.4 Day * 10 (D10 ) D10- 1-0 17.0 D10- 1- 5 14.5 D10- 1- 10 11.5 D10- 1- 15 9.0 D10- 2-0 — D10- 2- 10 14.0 D10- 2- 20 10.5 D10- 2- 30 8.0 D1 0-3-0 15.4 D10-3- 10 14.0 D10-3- 20 11.0 D10- 3-30 8.0 D10- 3- 50 6.0 D10-4- 15.4 D10- 4- 10 12.9 D10- 4-30 7.6 D10- 4- 60 6.1 D10- 5- 15.7 D10- 5- 10 13.0 D10- 5- 20 10.9 D1 0-5-30 7.8 D10- 5- 70 5.2 D1 0-6-0 17.0 D10- 6- 7 15.1 D10- 6- 17 11.8 D10- 6- 27 9.7 D10-6- 72 5.8 D10- 7-0 15.8 STATION TEMPERATURE (DAY-STATION- (°C) DEPTH (M)) D10-7- 10 13.5 D10-7- 20 11.0 D10-7-30 8.6 D10-7-60 5.5 D1 0-8-0 16.2 D10-8- 10 13.2 D1 0- 8- 20 9.8 D10-8-30 8.0 D10-8-60 5.8 D1 0-9-0 16.2 D10-9- 10 10.3 D10-9-20 8.7 D10-9-30 7.4 D10-9-60 5.0 D10- 10-0 16.7 D10- 10-5 14.4 D10- 10- 15 10.3 D10- 10-65 5.1 D10- 11-0 16.0 D10- 11- 5 14.0 D10- 11- 10 12.0 D10- 11-20 8.2 D10- 11-30 6.8 D10- 12-0 14.9 D10- 12- 5 14.7 D10- 12- 10 13.0 D10- 12- 20 9.7 D10- 12-30 6.8 D1 0-1 3-0 13.5 D10- 13- 10 12.0 D10- 13-20 8.1 D10- 13-30 6.2 D10- 13-80 4.7 D10- 14-0 13.5 D10- 14- 10 10.9 D10- 14- 20 8.2 D10- 14-30 6.0 D10- 14-90 4.6 D10- 15-0 15.3 D10- 15- 10 11.9 D10- 15-20 8.8 D10- 15-30 6.0 D10- 15-50 5.0 D10- 16-0 15.9 D10- 16- 10 11.9 D10- 16- 20 8.9 D10- 16-30 6.2 D10- 16-50 5.8 40 APPENDIX J Sphalerite Particle Data Terry A. Nelsen and Pat Hatcher AOML/NOAA Station coordinates shown herein are Massachusetts State-plane (Lambert) coordinates. Refer to fig. 1 for geographic location. Table J1. Sphalerite Particles Per Liter (Using 10-liter and 5-liter samples) STATION TIME (EOT) MASS. STATE COORDINATES N. E. s 10 DEPTHS ( M ) 15 20 25 30 >30 day (June 1 1 1973) 10-Liter Samples 1 1307 487032 79201 1 2M-183 129 97 86 2 1400 486803 797001 2M-43 75 43 11 3 1423 491 485 797001 2M-21 (dn)183 (up) 11 54 76 43 6 1336 484427 786781 2M-258 324 97 10 1458 492360 801 884 2M-1381 5M-54 42 32 21 1555 496378 802275 2M-65 5M-54 22 75 32 43 22 1637 493371 802683 1 M-3496 2M-1132 5M-22 32 23 1714 492661 798079 32 65 86 24 1731 495739 798072 162 43 22 25 1747 49581 7 794630 97 (7m)22 97 (1 2.5m) 248 54 108 27 1855 490998 795018 432 2126 231 28 1915 488603 795384 442 65 140 108 54 D+1 (June 12, 1973) 10-Liter Samples 1 0913 486773 791941 272 43 162 16 92 2 0931 4871 24 796127 92 124 75 3 0952. 491664 795859 32 57 21 27 4 1013 491 747 790988 140 22 49 10 1112 49241 7 800509 162 75 22 21 11 1056 496539 795894 172 21 108 43 13 1039 499046 788795 5 70 43 14 1135 487856 804880 159 32 20 1309 499872 802502 11 11 16 16 31 1157 484484 811919 16 27 32 21 323 32 1218 490241 809442 27 27 16 33 1235 495084 805892 32 Lost 32 65 34 1328 503796 798924 43 70 11 108 35 1345 505387 805681 124 43 21 54 36 1403 500765 810163 5 38 32 41 Table J1. Sphalerite Particles Per Liter (continued) RIM TME (EDT) MASS. STATE COOfttMMTES N. E. S 10 DEPTHS (M) IS 20 25 30 >30 37 1505 490491 822013 1098 291 496 48 38 1520 48991 5 816008 118 43 11 43 39 1538 495624 812913 — 70 32 43 40 1555 497205 818858 824 16 75 242 41 1616 503827 816208 11 21 65 32 42 1631 507443 812480 43 113 65 205 43 1646 509956 81 7034 291 96 43 21 44 1704 503337 821804 97 118 97 85 45 1723 497482 824164 119 146 59 140 D + 2 (June 13,1 973) 5-Liter Bottle Samples 46 0900 492000 777000 130 120 85 43 47 1000 490000 798000 48 1110 490016 8201 28 210 140 400 605 136 49 1143 490079 830139 370 50 1211 489986 840200 93 51 1234 490068 850177 25 52 1259 479800 850302 140 53 1320 479915 840096 125 54 1340 470005 840155 22 215 55 1414 460137 840284 53 64 56 1436 460806 830873 400 57 1458 470269 831029 490 58 1619 500141 810162 470 200 59 1641 500000 820000 89 87 430 60 1700 510000 830000 205 310 D+3 (June 1 4, 1 973) 5-Liter Bottle Samples 1 1048 440070 830018 792 600 2 1124 439831 850037 1240 308 3 1150 450125 849738 48 320 4 1220 459958 860055 5 1337 459944 840083 162 108 212 6 1405 4701 55 850198 216 98 7 1440 470239 830028 166 140 120 8 1505 480095 840093 130 372 98 9 1531 480165 855037 49 157 10 1557 480162 86991 2 144 108 11 1629 495265 855062 59 33 130 12 1655 510000 850000 120 180 22 13 1725 510000 830000 118 120 185 14 1750 495000 828000 125 103 102 D + 5 (June 16.1973) 5-Liter Bottle Samples 1 0709 430000 830000 970 737 2 0725 414000 842000 108 431 42 Table J1. Sphalerite Particles Per Liter (continued) STATION TIME (EOT) MASS. STATE COORDINATES N. E. 10 DEPTHS ( M ) 15 20 25 30 > 30 3 0803 396000 847000 54 983 4 0837 380000 860000 3836 72 5 1025 364000 874000 108 31 6 1100 354000 882500 108 7 1138 332000 893000 144 8 1213 310000 899000 151 151 9 1351 291000 907000 794 113 10 1330 293000 933000 30 11 1408 318000 936000 27 216 D + 7 (June 18.1 973) 5-Liter Samples 1 0637 430000 830000 30 22 2 0726 410000 850000 5 10 3 0800 390000 860000 28 28 30 22 4 0830 367000 873000 19 70 36 5 0900 347000 876000 6 0936 326000 887000 24 18 8 7 1024 307000 895000 46 11 40m-0 8 1055 287000 896000 53 9 1129 287000 935000 19 32 10 1217 315000 945000 29 14 11 1326 341000 937000 72 18 49 12 1340 337000 970000 10 31 20 13 1400 358000 966000 34 59 69 27 14 1439 373000 949000 17 9 40m-19 15 1520 386370 929622 18 40m-49 16 1550 410702 930350 15 19 40m-0 17 1620 420297 940935 17 18 1650 422000 930000 20 11 39 19 1735 428000 903000 28 29 40m-29 20 1802 21 1850 436000 857000 40m-45 D+8 (June 1 9, 1 973) 5-Liter Samples 1 0659 440000 822000 19 9 2 0734 441 745 856636 10 3 0817 4601 79 879955 19 9 40m-0 50m-9 60m- 10 70m-0 4 0918 470010 905216 9 20 5 1014 470291 94001 7 6 1115 451 255 904817 26 9 17 50m-1 5 60m-0 7 1207 470283 923339 20 10 8 1233 485583 929952 10 39 9 1302 500722 940176 11 37 40m-1 1 43 Table J1. Sphalerite Particles Per Liter (continued) STAT10* THE (EOT) MASS. STATE COOttM HATES N. E. 5 10 DEPTHS (M) 15 20 25 30 > 30 10 1338 520990 950185 19 43 50m-0 11 1423 519775 920154 10 40m-0 12 1456 510296 900420 11 13 1521 500052 890080 10 9 50m-36 14 1601 479947 869890 28 10 70m-0 15 1630 469700 850109 29 80m-0 D + 9 (June 20. 1 973) 5-Liter Samples 1 1058 420494 889828 20 60m-30 2 1521 410323 860256 10 10 19 40m- 10 3 0851 419350 869907 54 4 4 1029 419854 900068 9 5 5 60m-0 5 1121 410130 889860 15 12 69 50m-19 6 1458 400027 850016 10 10 7 1259 400140 879835 10 8 5 60m- 15 8 1157 399800 910009 15 15 50m-21 9 1325 390018 869942 5 9 40m-5 10 1223 389824 900092 5 50m-0 11 1404 380210 859220 20 10 12 1347 379815 869723 15 27 40m-0 13 0718 439927 830638 10 14 0815 4401 42 859959 10 40m-.5 15 0952 439760 889944 5 60m-0 16 1556 420612 839859 17 1426 390322 849785 8 244 18 0749 429430 850095 10 10 19 0918 430180 879961 25 50m-0 D + 10(June21 1 973) 5-Liter Samples 1 0841 439976 830736 22 12 19 2 0909 4601 1 6 830359 5 27 19 3 0940 480503 829424 6 11 50m-6 4 1018 499976 829845 5 60m-6 5 1055 520204 829890 5 11 70m-22 6 1130 539878 830114 (17m)0 (22m)12 7 1210 539897 850068 60m-5 8 1253 539515 870110 10 5 60m-13 9 1328 539836 890114 5 11 60m-34 10 1351 52981 2 890462 18 8 7 13 65m-48 11 1420 519283 890015 20 27 97 12 1442 509785 890124 30 36 10 5 13 1503 499742 890250 15 13 80m-27 14 1528 489934 890020 5 5 90m-24 15 1817 470036 870017 32 8 32 16 1655 459857 850080 20 12 50m- 12 STATION THE (EOT) Table J2. Sphalerite Particles Per Liter (Using 2-liter samples) MASS. STATE COMMUTES N. E. 10 IS DEPTHS (M) 20 25 30 40 D+1 (June 12, 1973) 1 0913 486773 791941 10842 2750 299 404 2 0931 4871 24 796127 934 1420 431 1699 3 0952 491664 795859 681 1940 1458 4 1013 491 747 790968 4290 4649 4250 15580 10 1113 49241 7 800509 5030 5800 6440 3203 11 1056 496539 795894 3169 2760 20863 6759 13 1039 499046 788795 3288 11640 2727 9540 19 1135 487856 804880 12990 9486 11272 11000 20 1309 499872 802502 2865 647 14760 9929 31 1157 484484 811919 14861 1295 10554 3234 32 1218 490241 809442 7092 9520 4420 42440 33 1235 495084 805892 1606 1816 466 1079 34 1328 503796 798924 970 8025 4589 35 1345 505387 805681 3064 2911 4490 3537 36 1403 500765 810163 862 1816 1617 4312 37 1505 490491 822013 9120 21175 2460 3380 38 1520 489915 816008 3075 1465 1401 1940 39 1538 495624 812193 527 809 1712 84 40 1555 497205 818658 3607 508 897 485 41 1616 503827 816208 719 1401 485 270 42 1631 507443 812480 377 863 1672 5244 43 1646 509956 81 7084 1509 700 464 1078 44 1704 503337 821804 2240 862 1023 1457 45 1723 497482 824164 500 270 1055 2524 D+2 (June 13, 1973) 46 0900 492000 777000 539 325 2416 2212 47 1000 490000 798000 530 325 1400 380 48 1110 490016 8201 28 210 1990 120 790 49 1143 490079 830139 650 270 377 790 50 1211 489986 840200 200 410 914 51 1234 490068 8501 77 110 1024 325 52 1259 479800 850302 120 400 370 62 53 1320 47991 5 840096 120 550 120 270 54 1340 470005 8401 55 1170 54 160 62 55 1414 460137 840284 300 592 125 325 56 1436 460806 830873 920 525 120 53 57 1458 470269 831029 275 110 58 1619 500141 810162 325 54 62 490 59 1641 500000 820000 350 233 270 420 60 1700 510000 830000 1450 290 53 916 D +3 (June 14,1973) 1 1048 440070 830018 4959 175 3200 1020 2 1124 439831 850037 1230 324 1350 3 1150 450125 849738 296 350 4 1220 459958 860055 135 324 40 675 162 5 1337 459944 840083 216 162 508 54 6 1405 4701 55 850198 467 27 93 7 1440 470239 830028 1680 54 8 1505 480095 840093 458 108 9 1531 480165 855037 92 674 108 10 1557 480162 86991 2 895 324 11 1629 495265 855062 539 108 12 1655 510000 850000 634 108 13 1725 510000 830000 185 14 1750 495000 828000 185 162 27 45 Table J 2. Sphalerite Particles Per Liter (continued) MASS. STATE DEPTHS (M) TIME COMMA STATION (EOT) N. E. 5 10 15 20 25 30 40 D + 4 (June 15. 1973) 1 0952 490000 790000 323 1270 216 1600 54 2 1048 490000 810000 1170 31 380 700 159 445 3 1133 500000 830000 379 792 246 767 127 288 4 1224 495000 855000 162 60 398 95 5 1259 480000 870000 159 43 278 93 31 6 1346 471000 847000 173 27 27 330 150 32 7 1435 450000 838000 350 86 222 216 675 8 1525 445000 864000 189 3500 123 216 457 9 1608 439000 856000 108 290 2970 108 10 1640 402500 869000 135 927 450 704 350 11 1700 400500 854000 62 130 1420 162 12 1740 416000 840000 350 330 247 13 1800 430000 830000 162 400? 14 1815 439000 819000 216 350 3400? D + 5 (June 16. 1973) 1 0709 430000 830000 337 2 0725 414000 842000 605 708 390 154 3 0803 396000 847000 185 72 595 4 0837 380000 860000 162 216 92 5 1025 364000 874000 144 431 647 6 1100 354000 882500 252 127 127 7 1138 332000 893000 323 518 196 8 1213 310000 899000 620 9 1351 291000 907000 270 10 1330 293000 933000 33 67 11 1408 318000 936000 251 185 62 46 Table J3. Turner Fluorometer Relative Intensity. TIME £££m KP ™ S(M) STATION (EOT) N. E. 5 10 15 20 25 30 >30 D + 7 (June 18, 1973) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 D+8 (June 19, 1973) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 D +9 (June 20, 1973) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 D + 10 (June 21, 1973) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0637 0726 0800 0830 0900 0936 1024 1055 1129 1217 1326 1340 1400 1439 1520 1550 1620 1650 1735 1802 1850 0659 0734 0817 0918 1014 1115 1207 1233 1302 1338 1423 1456 1521 1601 1630 1058 1521 0851 1029 1121 1458 1259 1137 1325 1223 1404 1347 0718 0815 0952 1556 1426 0749 0918 0841 0909 0940 1018 1055 1130 1210 1258 1328 1351 1420 1442 1503 1528 1617 1655 430000 410000 390000 367000 347000 326000 307000 287000 287000 31 5000 341000 337000 358000 373000 386370 410702 420297 422000 428000 436000 440000 441745 4601 79 470010 470291 451255 470283 485583 500722 520990 519775 510296 500052 479947 469700 420494 410323 419350 419854 410130 400027 4001 40 399800 390018 389824 380210 37981 5 439927 4401 42 439760 420612 390322 429430 4301 80 439976 4601 1 6 480503 499976 520204 539878 539897 53951 5 539836 529812 51 9283 509785 499742 489934 470036 459857 830000 850000 860000 873000 876000 887000 895000 896000 935000 945000 937000 970000 966000 949000 929622 930350 940935 930000 903000 857000 822000 856636 879955 905216 94001 7 90481 7 923339 929952 9401 76 950185 9201 54 900420 890080 869890 850109 889828 860256 869907 900068 889860 85001 6 879835 910009 869942 900092 859220 869723 830638 859959 889944 839895 849785 850095 879961 830736 830359 829424 829845 829890 8301 1 4 850068 870110 8901 1 4 890462 89001 5 8901 24 890250 890020 87001 7 850080 26 47 18 44 41 26 70 56 36 87 21 14 55 40 29 20 24 14 35 29 53 39 37 95 2 94 43 58 64 47 57 41 55 64 35 32 8 24 35 4 2 23 8 39 18 30 11 39 16 60 21 17 29 13 2 25 33 23 17 9 83 90 6 70 100 40 23 59 17 49 59 10 40 9 18 22 33 32 22 29 21 21 24 9 50 5 32 5 41 50 69 20 50m-0 19 99 18 21 68 22 50m-0 99 28 60 50 19 58 55 85 50m-0 56 39 48 40 40m -37 42 8 40m-100 28 6 60m-0 10 12 3 35 22 4 41 14 50m -0 60m-0 70m -0 60m-0 60m-0 60m-0 60m -0 65m-26 7 80m-0 6 90m-0 4 50m -9 15 50m-9 47 Table J4. Sphalerite Particles Per Liter D + 1 (June 18, 1973) MASS. STATE DEPTHS (M) TIE C00HMMTES JTATK* (EOT) ft E. 5 10 IS 20 25 30 40 1 2 567000 865000 3 547000 865000 4 529000 865000 5 510000 873000 6 493000 875000 7 473000 875000 63 8 153000 879000 9 434000 865000 10 410000 863000 190 11 385000 856000 32 12 350000 875000 13 335000 887000 32 14 324000 895000 15 301000 910000 31 16 313000 946000 32 17 363000 917000 63 18 391000 902000 19 409000 887000 31 20 430000 863000 21 153000 854000 31 22 478000 850000 23 497000 850000 24 515000 867000 48 ~tl U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1977-777-048/1221 REGION NO 8 widtomeifel wawk -\ L ABO RAT O I The mission of the Environmental Research Laboratories (ERL) is to conduct an integrated program ot fundamental research, related technology development, and services to improve understanding and prediction of the geophysical environment comprising the oceans and inland waters, the lower and upper atmosphere, the space environment, and the Earth. The following participate in the ERL missions: MESA Marine EcoSystems Analysis Program. Plans, directs, and coordinates the regional projects of NOAA and other federal agencies to assess the effect of ocean dumping, municipal and industrial waste discharge, deep ocean mining, and similar activities on marine ecosystems. OCSEA Outer Continental Shell Environmental Assessment Program. Plans, directs, and coordinates research of federal, state, and private institutions to assess the primary environmental impact of developing petroleum and other energy resources along the outer continental shelf of the United States. WM Weather Modification Program Office. Plans, directs, and coordinates research within ERL relating to precipitation enhancement and mitigation of severe storms. Its National Hurricane and Experimental Meteorology Laboratory (NHEML) studies hurricane and tropical cumulus systems to experiment with methods for their beneficial modification and to develop techniques for better forecasting of tropical weather. The Research Facilities Center (RFC) maintains and operates aircraft and aircraft instrumentation for research programs of ERL and other govern- ment agencies. AOFV L Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratories. Studies the physical, chemical, and geological characteristics and processes of the ocean waters, the sea floor, and the atmosphere above the ocean. PMEL Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. Monitors and predicts the physical and biological effects of man's activities on Pacific Coast estuarine, coastal, deep-ocean, and near-shore marine environments. GLERL Great Lakes Environmental Research Labora- tory. Studies hydrology, waves, currents, lake levels, biological and chemical processes, and lake-air interaction in the Great Lakes and their watersheds; forecasts lake ice conditions. GFDL Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. Studies the dynamics of geophysical fluid systems (the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, and the cryosphere) through theoretical analysis and numerical simulation using power- ful, high-speed digital computers. APCL Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry Labora- tory. Studies cloud and precipitation physics, chemical and particulate composition of the atmosphere, atmospheric electricity, and atmospheric heat transfer, with focus on developing methods of beneficial weather modification. NSSL National Severe Storms Laboratory. Studies severe-storm circulation and dynamics, and develops techniques to detect and predict tornadoes, thunderstorms, and squall lines, WPL Wave Propagation Laboratory. Studies the propagation of sound waves and electro- magnetic waves at millimeter, infrared, and optical frequencies to develop new methods for remote measuring of the geophysical environment, ARL Air Resources Laboratories. Studies the diffusion, transport, and dissipation of atmos- pheric pollutants; develops methods of predicting and controlling atmospheric pollu- tion; monitors the global physical environment to detect climatic change AL Aeronomy Laboratory. Studies the physical and chemical processes of the stratosphere, ionosphere, and exosphere of the Earth and other planets, and their effect on high-altitude meteorological phenomena. SEL Space Environment Laboratory. Studies solar-terrestrial physics (interplanetary, mag- netospheric, and ionospheric); develops tech- niques for forecasting solar disturbances, provides real-time monitoring and forecasting of the space environment. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration BOULDER, COLORADO 80302 PENN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES A0DD07ED21217