the florida state university college of arts and sciences evolution of ...

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY 

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES 

EVOLUTION OF THE BEACH RIDGE STRANDPLAIN ON ST. VINCENT ISLAND, 

FLORIDA 

By 

BETH M. FORREST 

A dissertation submitted to the 

Department of Geological Sciences 

in partial fulfillment of the 

requirements for the degree of 

Doctor of Philosophy 

Degree Awarded: 

Spring Semester, 2007

The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of Beth Forrest defended on 04/02/2007 

Approved: 

_____________________________________________ 

A. Leroy Odom, Chair, Geological Sciences 

_____________________________________________ 

Joseph Travis, Dean, School of Arts and Science 

ii 

______________________________ 

Joseph F. Donoghue 

Professor Directing Dissertation 

______________________________ 

Philip N. Froelich 

Outside Committee Member 

__________________________________ 

Sherwood W. Wise 

Committee Member 

______________________________ 

Sergio Fagherazzi 


______________________________ 

Stephen A. Kish 


______________________________ 

Alan W. Niedoroda 


The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

I would like to thank the many people who contributed to this study. First, I thank my advisor 

Dr. Joseph Donoghue for his continuous support in the PhD program. He was always available 

to provide advice. Without his encouragement and guidance, I could not have finished this 

dissertation. Many thanks to the late Jim Balsillie, of the Florida Geological Survey, and Dr. 

Frank Stapor, of Tennessee Tech University, for their field assistance and for their useful input 

throughout the course of this project. Thanks to Dr. Stephen Kish for assistance with GPS work 

and data handling and to Jim Sparr from the Florida Geological Survey, for running several GPR 

surveys on the island and processing the data. I’d like to acknowledge my colleagues from the 

FDEP, Tom Watters, Bill Bordner and Guy Weeks, for taking time out of their busy work 

schedules to survey several of my sample sites. I am grateful to the Florida Geologic Survey for 

allowing me to use their vibracore equipment, core cutting facilities and GPR equipment. Matt 

Curren, from the FSU Antarctic Research Facility, allowed me to use the darkroom to prepare 

my samples and provided storage space for my numerous cores in the Antarctic Research 

Facility. Thanks also, to George and Fong Brooke, of the University of Georgia for their 

assistance with analyzing the luminescence data. I am very grateful for the cooperation and 

interest of the staff at the St. Vincent Island National Wildlife Refuge. A special thanks goes to 

Dale Shiver for assistance with the fieldwork, as well as to Monica Harris and Thom Lewis. I 

am also indebted to Aaron Lower, Jonathan Faulkner, Tami Karl, Anthony Priestas, Jennifer 

Sliko and Alan Willet for helping with fieldwork despite the long days, heat and bugs. Finally, I 

would like to thank my family and friends for listening to my complaints and frustrations and for 

supporting me. Without them, I could not have accomplished this project. 

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... vi 

List of Figures......................................................................................................................... vii 

Abstract.................................................................................................................................. xix 

1. INTRODUCTION AND GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND 

Objectives ......................................................................................................................1 

Potential Significance ....................................................................................................2 

Hypotheses.....................................................................................................................3 

Regional Geology ..........................................................................................................3 

Apalachicola River.........................................................................................................4 

Barrier Islands................................................................................................................5 

Beach Ridge Formation .................................................................................................7 

Sea Level Change ..........................................................................................................9 

Pre-Holocene Sea Level...............................................................................................10 

Holocene Sea Level .....................................................................................................12 

Gulf of Mexico Sea Level Record ...............................................................................13 

2. STUDY AREA 

3. METHODS 

St. Vincent Island.........................................................................................................23 

Barrier Island Evolution Inferred from Beach Ridge Patterns.....................................25 

Geoarchaeology ...........................................................................................................26 

Field Sampling........................................................................................................….33 

Geochronology 

Luminescence Dating…………………………………………………………34 

Advantages of Luminescence Dating for Coastal Sediment Deposits.……….36 

OSL versus Radiocarbon Dating…..………………………………………….37 

Application of OSL to Coastal Studies………………………………………..38 

iv

4. RESULTS 

Laboratory Analyses ....................................................................................................38 

Sediment Analyses.......................................................................................................41 

Topographic Surveying................................................................................................42 

Airborne Remote Sensing............................................................................................42 

Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) ................................................................................43 

Sample Sites.................................................................................................................56 

Surface and Subsurface Morphology of the Beach Ridge Plain 

Topographic Survey Results.......................................................................63 

GPR Transect Results .................................................................................64 

Granulometric Results .................................................................................................65 

Geochronologic Results...............................................................................................68 

5. DISCUSSION 

Surface and Subsurface Morphology of the Beach Ridge Plain................................116 

Granulometric Data from the Beach Ridge Samples.................................................118 

Geochronologic data from the beach ridge samples..................................................121 

6. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................125 

APPENDIX A- Granulometry Data.......................................................................................128 

REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................257 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .................................................................................................268 

v

LIST OF TABLES 

3.1 Location of benchmarks on St. Vincent Island..................................................................45 

4.1 Summary of beach ridge sediment sample data.................................................................71 

4.2 Summary of beach ridge set characteristics.......................................................................73 

4.3 Measured elevations of St. Vincent Island benchmarks ....................................................74 

4.4 Summary of granulometry data .........................................................................................75 

4.5 Application of Tanner’s (1986, 1991) method of SELF (settling- 

eolian-littoral-fluvial) determination to the St. Vincent Island samples..................................76 

4.6 OSL age calculations .........................................................................................................77 

4.7 OSL age calculations using assumed moisture contents of 20±5% and 5±2%…………..78 

4.8 Calculated progradation rates and ridge growth rates, based on 

OSL ages and distances between ridges. .................................................................................79 

4.9 Paleosealevel position estimates........................................................................................80 

vi

LIST OF FIGURES 

1.1 Location map of St. Vincent Island on the northeastern Gulf of Mexico 

coast, Florida, southeastern U.S.A. Inset map shows the chain of barrier 

islands and spits of which St. Vincent is a part........................................................................15 

1.2 Beach ridge sets on St. Vincent Island. See Figure 1.1 for location 

(Source: Stapor, 1973) .............................................................................................................16 

1.3 The Florida Platform. The edge of the platform is marked by the west 

Florida shelf and slope, which drop into the deep Gulf of Mexico. Note 

that Florida occupies approximately half of the carbonate platform. 

(Source: USGS, 2001) .............................................................................................................17 

1.4 Pleistocene glacial advances and retreats, as recorded in benthic 

oxygen isotope records. The record shows the predicted sea level (solid 

18 

line) and mean ocean O (dashed line), derived from ice volume 

histories. (Source: Raymo et al., 2006)...................................................................................18 

1.5 Composite sea level curves for the northern Gulf of Mexico. The solid 

line adapted from Balsillie and Donoghue (2004) is a comprehensive 

compilation of radiocarbon dated sea-level indicators for the northern Gulf 

of Mexico. The dashed curve is the global “eustatic” sea-level history 

from Red Sea benthic foraminifera data of Siddall et al (2003). .............................................19 

1.6 The Apalachicola River drainage basin, northwest Florida. The 

boundaries of the basin are shown by the solid black line. (Source: 

Northwest Water Management District, 1996). St. Vincent Island is 

located in the lower left center of the map...............................................................................20 

1.7 Model of beach ridge formation. (Source: Tanner, 1989) .................................................21 

1.8 Global sea-level history from 400,000 years to present, based on dated 

shoreline indicators from Barbados and New Guinea (symbols) and 

oxygen isotope data from marine sediments (solid line). (Source: Lea et al, 

2002) ........................................................................................................................................22 

2.1 Infrared orthophoto of St. Vincent Island showing the beach ridge 

plain that covers the surface of the island (USGS imagery). Location is 

shown in Figure 1.1..................................................................................................................28 

2.2 Sediment transport rates in the Apalachicola barrier island chain. The 

arrows indicate the direction of transport and the numbers represent the 

volume (in 10 3 m 3 /yr) of material deposited and eroded. (Source: Stapor, 

1973) ........................................................................................................................................29 

vii

2.3 St. Vincent Island shoreline changes based on historic charts. (Source: 

Stapor, 1973)............................................................................................................................30 

2.4 Age distribution of archaeological sites in the lower Apalachicola 

River watershed, including St. Vincent Island. Symbols indicate 

approximate known age of the oldest artifacts found at all dated sites 

within the lower watershed. Contours show the maximum age of the 

enclosed sites, indicating a close connection between delta migration and 

human settlement patterns. Contours are dashed where uncertain. 

Patterned area northwest of the modern Apalachicola delta is the “Late 

Pleistocene” delta. (Source: Donoghue and White, 1995).......................................................31 

2.5 Archaeological sites on St. Vincent Island. (Source: Braley, 1982)..................................32 

3.1 a) Collecting a vibracore. b) Collecting samples by trenching and 

hammering a short section of aluminum pipe into the vertical face . ......................................46 

3.2 Demonstration of the basis of luminescence dating. The event being 

dated is the setting to zero of the luminescence signal that was acquired at 

some point in the past. The zeroing of this signal occurs through exposure 

to sunlight during erosion, transport and deposition. Once the material is 

buried the signal begins to build again. (Source: Lepper, K., NDSU, 

http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/klepper) ..............................................................................47 

3.3 OSL processes represented by the conduction band model. The 

mineral is exposed to nuclear radiation. The binding electrons are excited 

above their ground states. As the electrons return to their ground states, 

some become trapped in defects in the crystal lattice (represented by “T”). 

When the mineral is exposed to light or heat the defects are emptied and 

light is emitted. (Source: Aitken, 1991)..................................................................................48 

3.4 Effects of natural radiation on sediment particles. Silt-sized grains are 

irradiated by alpha, beta, gamma and cosmic radiation but sand-sized 

grains are only irradiated by beta, gamma and cosmic radiation, since 

alpha particles have a short range and only penetrate the outer rind of 

sand-sized grains. Of the four radiation types that contribute to the dose 

rate, cosmic radiation has the greatest penetration. (Source: Aitken, 1998)............................49 

3.5 Sample removed from large core samples. The shaded area represents 

the 100 grams collected as a dating sample. (Source: Forrest, 2003)......................................50 

3.6 Riso TL/OSL measurement system schematic in side view. This 

system consists of a turntable in which there can be 48 sample aliquot 

positions. The table rotates and when a sample disc reaches the position 

of the lift, it is raised for measurement of luminescence. A beta source 

(i.e. Sr-90) is positioned remotely from the measurement position and 

viii

preheating is carried out on a heating element. The system is fully 

automated. (Source: Aitken, 1998) ..........................................................................................51 

3.7 Location of samples collected specifically for grain size analysis. The 

closed green circles represent samples collected in 2005 and 2006 by the 

author. The closed blue and red circles represent samples collected in 

1984 and 1985, respectively, by Tanner and colleagues. (Map Source: 

Miller et al, 1981) ....................................................................................................................52 

3.8 Method of SELF determination. (Source: Balsillie, 1995)................................................53 

3.9 Basis of airborne LIDAR surveying. (Source: USACE, 2002). ........................................54 

3.10 GPR survey techniques. a) GPR setup. b) 100 mHz antenna unit. c) 

250 mHz antenna unit. d) 50 mHz antenna unit. .....................................................................55 

4.1 Sample sites on St. Vincent Island. The blue circles represent sites 

where a vibracore was collected. The black circles represent sites where 

samples were collected from the vertical wall of a trench. The 

approximate locations of Roads 4 and 5 are shown in red. .....................................................81 

4.2 Example of a trench through a beach ridge on St. Vincent Island. The 

trench axis is perpendicular to the shoreline. Seaward direction is to the 

left. Note the seaward dipping beds at all levels in the ridge shown by the 

solid black line and the dashed lines. Vertical structures in the upper 

section are root casts. White circles indicate sediment sample locations...............................82 

4.3 Site SVI 001 (Paradise Point Site). Location of vibracore site SVI 001 

was just offshore. Site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Samples collected 

from this site are listed in Table 4.1…………………………………………………………..83 

4.4 Site SVI 002. Push cores 072304-01,02 and 03 were collected for OSL 

dating. Vibracore 072304-04 was also collected from the floor of this 

trench. Site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Samples collected from this 

site are listed in Table 4.1 . ......................................................................................................83 

4.5 Site SVI 003. Trench excavated at site SVI 003. Push cores 072304- 

05,06 and 07 were collected for OSL dating. Site location is shown in 

Figure 4.1. Samples collected from this site are listed in Table 4.1. ......................................84 

4.6 Site SVI 004. Vibracore 072304-08 was collected from this site. Site 

location is shown in Figure 4.1. Samples collected from this site are listed 

in Table 4.1. .............................................................................................................................85 

ix

4.7 Site SVI 009. a) OSL dating samples. b) Samples collected for grain 

size analysis. Site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Samples collected 

from this site are listed in Table 4.1.........................................................................................86 

4.8 Site SVI 010. Location of three samples collected for grain size 

analysis (050505-02A,B,C) and one sample collected for OSL dating 

(050505-02D). Site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Samples collected 

from this site are listed in Table 4.1. .......................................................................................87 

4.9 Site SVI 011. Location of two samples collected for grain size 

analysis (050505-03A,B) and one sample collected for OSL dating 

(050505-03C). Site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Samples collected 


4.10 Site SVI 012. a) Trench excavated. b) Location of two samples 

collected for grain size analysis (050505-04A,B) and one sample collected 

for OSL dating (050505-04C). Site location is shown in Figure 4.1. 

Samples collected from this site are listed in Table 4.1...........................................................88 

4.11 Site SVI 013. Location of two samples collected for grain size 

analysis (050505-05A,B) and one sample collected for OSL dating 

(050505-05C). Site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Samples collected 


4.12 Site SVI 014. Vibracore 050505-06 was collected from this location. 

Site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Samples collected from this site are 

listed in Table 4.1.....................................................................................................................89 







4.15 Site SVI 020. Samples 011006-01, 02 and 03 were collected for OSL 

dating. Samples 011006-04, 05 and 06 were collected for grain size 

analysis. Site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Samples collected from 

this site are listed in Table 4.1. ................................................................................................91 

4.16 Site SVI 022. Two grain size samples (011006-13,14) and two OSL 

samples were collected (011006-11,12). Site location is shown in Figure 

4.1. Samples collected from this site are listed in Table 4.1...................................................91 

x

4.17 Site SVI 023. a) Trench. b) Samples 011006-15 and 16 were 

collected for OSL dating. Samples 011006-17 and 18 were collected for 

grain size analysis. Site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Samples 

collected from this site are listed in Table 4.1. ........................................................................92 













4.21 Dutch gouge-auger core taken at Tahiti Beach in the vicinity of 

Mallard Slough in January 1979. The approximate location of the core is 

shown in Figure 4.1. Note the pre-barrier Pleistocene surface (indicated 

by the arrow) at approximately 8.7 meters depth in the core. (Source: 

Stapor, pers. comm.) ................................................................................................................96 

4.22 Boreholes drilled in the St. Vincent Island vicinity. Inset map shows 

the location of the three cores. The pre-barrier Pleistocene surface appears 

in the two St. Vincent boreholes (Holes IL and IM) at approximately 22 

feet below MSL (6.7 meters). (Source: Schnable, 1966).........................................................97 

4.23 Line A-A’ represents the location of the topographic survey transect 

across St. Vincent Island. That profile is shown in Figure 4.24. The 

profile follows island Road 4. Line A-A’ also represents the location of 

the GPR survey transect across St. Vincent Island, which is shown in 

Figures 4.27 and 4.28...............................................................................................................98 

4.24 North-south topographic profile across St. Vincent Island, along Road 

4. North is to the right. See Figure 4.23 for profile location. The blue line 

represents the transect conducted by Stapor and Tanner (1977) (referred to 

as “Stapor Survey”. The green line represents the road and the red line 

represents the survey conducted during this study (referred to as “Kish 

Survey”). Vertical exaggeration is 200 x………………..………………………………….…99 

4.25 Topographic profile across the beach ridges located at site SVI 009. 

The ridges are located on island Road 4, and are part of the topographic 

xi

and GPR transect of the island. Vertical exaggeration is 17x. North is to 

the right and south (seaward) is to the left. Site location is shown in 

Figure 4.1 ...............................................................................................................................100 

4.26 Mean ridge set height vs. distance along the topographic profile. 

Profile location shown in Figure 4.23. Mean heights taken from Figure 

4.24.........................................................................................................................................101 

4.27 GPR profile across St. Vincent Island. Gulf of Mexico (south) is to 

the left side of the figure. Vertical and horizontal scales are in meters. 

The red vertical lines delineate the low areas between individual beach 

ridges. The blue lines represent the trend of the crossbeds within each 

beach ridge.............................................................................................................................102 

4.28 Close-up of the section of the 100 MHz GPR survey that covered site 

SVI 009. Site location is shown in Figure 4.1 and 4.27. South (seaward) 

is to left. .................................................................................................................................103 

4.29 Suite mean vs. suite standard deviation .........................................................................104 

4.30 Suite mean vs. suite kurtosis..........................................................................................105 

4.31 Relative age versus suite kurtosis. Note: Relative age is unitless. 

Ridge sets were assigned numbers from 1 to 13 with the youngest 

represented by “1” and the oldest represented by “13” .........................................................106 

4.32 Suite mean vs. suite skewness .......................................................................................107 

4.33 Plot of relative age versus suite standard deviation Note: Relative age 

is unitless. Ridge sets were assigned numbers from 1 to 13 with the 

youngest represented by “1” and the oldest represented by “13”..........................................108 

4.34 Tail of fines plot. Plot derived from Tanner (1991)......................................................109 

4.35 Skewness vs. kurtosis. Plot derived from Tanner (1991) .............................................110 

4.36 Grain size characteristics of the islands that rim the Apalachicola 

River mouth. The numbers from 1 to 9 correspond to the relative 

locations plotted in Figures 4.37 to 4.39. (Source: Balsillie, 1995).......................................111 

4.37 Location relative to the Apalachicola River mouth versus mean grain 

size. Note: Numbers shown on the x-axis correspond to the numbered 

locations in Figure 4.36. (Data source: Balsillie, 1995) ........................................................112 

xii

4.38 Location relative to the Apalachicola River mouth versus standard 

deviation. Note: Numbers shown on the x-axis correspond to the 

numbered locations in Figure 4.36. (Data source: Balsillie, 1995) .......................................112 

4.39 Location relative to the Apalachicola River mouth versus skewness. 

Note: Numbers shown on the x-axis correspond to the numbered locations 

in Figure 4.36 (Data source: Balsillie, 1995).........................................................................113 

4.40 Location relative to the Apalachicola River mouth versus kurtosis. 

Note: Numbers shown on the x-axis correspond to the numbered locations 

in Figure 4.36. (Data source: Balsillie, 1995)........................................................................113 

4.41 OSL ages for samples collected from St. Vincent Island ..............................................114 

4.42 St. Vincent Island progradation rates. The red solid line adapted 

from Balsillie and Donoghue (2004) is a comprehensive compilation of 

radiocarbon dated sea-level indicators for the northern Gulf of Mexico. 

The numerical values represent the rates of progradation of the St. Vincent 

Island beach ridge plain based on the OSL dated sites on the island. The 

blue arrows represent the OSL dates obtained during the investigation. ..............................115 

A.1 Granplot analysis of sample 7.........................................................................................129 

A.2 Method of SELF determination applied to sample 7 ......................................................130 

A.3 Granplot analysis of sample 49.......................................................................................131 

A.4 Method of SELF determination applied to sample 49 ....................................................132 

A.5 Granplot analysis of sample 1.........................................................................................133 

A.6 Method of SELF determination applied to sample 1 ......................................................134 

A.7 Granplot analysis of sample 011206-06..........................................................................135 

A.8 Method of SELF determination applied to sample 011206-06.......................................136 

A.9 Granplot analysis of sample 28.......................................................................................137 

A.10 Method of SELF determination applied to sample 28 ..................................................138 

A.11Granplot analysis of sample 46......................................................................................139 


A.13 Granplot analysis of sample 38.....................................................................................141 

xiii






A.19 Granplot analysis of sample 011006-09........................................................................147 

A.20 Method of SELF determination applied to sample 011006-09.....................................148 













A.33 Granplot analysis of sample 050505-01A.....................................................................161 

A.34 Method of SELF determination applied to sample 050505-01A..................................162 

A.35 Granplot analysis of sample 050505-01B.....................................................................163 

A.36 Method of SELF determination applied to sample 050505-01B ..................................164 

xiv

A.37 Granplot analysis of sample 050505-01C.....................................................................165 

A.38 Method of SELF determination applied to sample 050505-01C ..................................166 

A.39 Granplot analysis of sample 050505-01D.....................................................................167 

A.40 Method of SELF determination applied to sample 050505-01D..................................168 

A.41 Granplot analysis of sample 050505-01E .....................................................................169 

A.42 Method of SELF determination applied to sample 050505-01E ..................................170 

A.43 Granplot analysis of sample 050505-01F .....................................................................171 

A.44 Method of SELF determination applied to sample 050505-01F...................................172 

A.45 Granplot analysis of sample 050505-01G.....................................................................173 

A.46 Method of SELF determination applied to sample 050505-01G..................................174 

A.47 Granplot analysis of sample 050505-01H.....................................................................175 

A.48 Method of SELF determination applied to sample 050505-01H..................................176 

A.49 Granplot analysis of sample 050505-01I ......................................................................177 

A.50 Method of SELF determination applied to sample 050505-01I ...................................178 










xv
















A.75 Granplot analysis of sample 050505-02C.....................................................................203 

A.76 Method of SELF determination applied to sample 050505-02C ..................................204 





A.81 Granplot analysis of sample 050505-05A....................................................................209 


xvi









A.91 Granplot analysis of sample H......................................................................................219 

A.92 Method of SELF determination applied to sample H ...................................................220 

A.93 Granplot analysis of sample I........................................................................................221 

A.94 Method of SELF determination applied to sample I.....................................................222 





A.99 Granplot analysis of sample J .......................................................................................227 

A.100 Method of SELF determination applied to sample J...................................................228 

A.101 Granplot analysis of sample K....................................................................................229 

A.102 Method of SELF determination applied to sample K .................................................230 

A.103 Granplot analysis of sample L ....................................................................................231 

A.104 Method of SELF determination applied to sample L..................................................232 

A.105 Granplot analysis of sample 12...................................................................................233 

xvii

A.106 Method of SELF determination applied to sample 12 ................................................234 

A.107 Granplot analysis of sample 050505-03A...................................................................235 

A.108 Method of SELF determination applied to sample 050505-03A................................236 

A.109 Granplot analysis of sample 050505-03B...................................................................237 

A.110 Method of SELF determination applied to sample 050505-03B ................................238 

A.111 Granplot analysis of sample D....................................................................................239 

A.112 Method of SELF determination applied to sample D .................................................240 

A.113 Granplot analysis of sample C ....................................................................................241 

A.114 Method of SELF determination applied to sample C .................................................242 

A.115 Granplot analysis of sample G....................................................................................243 

A.116 Method of SELF determination applied to sample G .................................................244 

A.117 Granplot analysis of sample 011106-09......................................................................245 

A.118 Method of SELF determination applied to sample 011106-09...................................246 

A.119 Granplot analysis of sample 011106-10......................................................................247 

A.120 Method of SELF determination applied to sample 011106-10...................................248 

A.121 Granplot analysis of sample F.....................................................................................249 

A.122 Method of SELF determination applied to sample F..................................................250 

A.123 Granplot analysis of sample B ....................................................................................251 

A.124 Method of SELF determination applied to sample B .................................................252 

A.125 Granplot analysis of sample A....................................................................................253 

A.126 Method of SELF determination applied to sample A .................................................254 

A.127 Granplot analysis of sample E ....................................................................................255 

A.128 Method of SELF determination applied to sample E..................................................256 

xviii

ABSTRACT 

The goal of this investigation was to determine whether highly accurate sampling and 

dating methods could be employed to develop a high-resolution history of barrier evolution and 

sea-level change. The focus of the study was St. Vincent Island, an undeveloped barrier island 

beach ridge plain in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. The island consists of more than 100 

beach ridges organized into a dozen groups or sets based on their topographic expression and 

geographic pattern. These ridges represent sequential paleo-shoreline positions over the 4000+ 

year history of the island. Given the long-term tectonic stability of the northern Gulf of Mexico 

throughout the Quaternary, the island holds the potential for a unique high-resolution chronology 

of mid- to late-Holocene sea-level change. 

The sampling of the beach ridges by means of trenches, rather than just cores, allowed for 

the collection of basal deposits as well as visual confirmation of the origin and structure of the 

ridges. Ground penetrating radar (GPR) profiles confirmed the origin and structure of the ridges. 

Based on these techniques it is evident that the beach ridges on the island were built by swash 

processes rather than by storms. The direct dating of quartz grains collected from the base of 

several of the islands beach ridges via optically stimulated luminescence dating (OSL) provided 

an accurate measure of the depositional ages of the ridges. The ridges on St. Vincent Island have 

ages ranging from zero to 4,100 years, with the oldest ridges on the north side of the island and 

the youngest ridges on the southeast side of the island. These ages can be correlated with the 

most recent sea level curve produced for the northern Gulf of Mexico. These ages have also 

been used in conjunction with topographic maps, leveling or topographic profile surveys and 

LIDAR data, to calculate the rates of beach ridge plain progradation and beach ridge formation 

over time. Results show that during times of sea level fall, the progradation rates on St. Vincent 

Island were relatively fast while during times of sea level rise, rates were considerably slower. 

The result of this project is a better and more detailed understanding of the influence of sea-level 

change on barrier island development. 

xix

Objectives 

CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION AND GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND 

Coastal features, such as barrier islands, marine terraces, raised beaches etc, are products 

of sea-level change. This investigation focuses on barrier islands. Beach ridges, which represent 

paleo-shoreline positions, are often preserved on the surface of these features. Beach ridges can 

provide a detailed record of the response of barrier islands to sea-level change. The purpose of 

this project was to investigate the age, origin and evolution of a well-developed and well- 

preserved barrier island beach ridge plain in the northern Gulf of Mexico. St. Vincent Island, a 

coastal barrier island located near the mouth of the Apalachicola River in northwest Florida 

(Figure 1.1), has been actively evolving and prograding over the past 4,000+ years. The 

organization of the island’s ridges into distinct sets (Figure 1.2) separated by erosional 

truncations indicates a history of episodic progradation. This episodicity is likely related to sea- 

level change. The primary objective of this investigation was to use the occurrence of multiple 

beach ridge sets on the island to investigate the relationship that ridge ages and mean ridge set 

heights have to regional sea-level history. 

The goals of this project are: 

1) To develop a better understanding of the late Quaternary history of the northern Gulf of 

Mexico coast and its response to sea-level change, including abrupt sea-level changes 

during the mid to late Holocene. 

2) To gain insight into the impact of short-term changes in sea level on coastal evolution 

and geomorphology on stable continental margins. 

3) To obtain direct evidence for mid- to late Holocene sea-level fluctuations, including 

stillstands and possible highstands in the northern Gulf of Mexico. 

1

4) To further develop Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating of quartz grains, a 

relatively new technique that has recently been used to directly date sandy coastal 

features. 

Potential Significance 

The study of relict strandplains and their stratigraphic context has the potential to provide 

high-resolution records that can be used to reconstruct the evolution of a coast (Zenkovitch, 

1967). With the exception of the recent studies by Morton et al. (2000) and Blum et al. (2002), 

this is a research area that is only recently being explored in the United States. The anticipated 

outcome of this work is a detailed history that is expected to emerge from the geochronologic 

and sedimentologic analyses of the dozen beach ridge sets on St. Vincent Island. Coastal 

geomorphologic features, especially coastal barriers, are highly sensitive to sea-level change. 

The dozen sets of beach ridges preserved on St. Vincent Island hold an unusually complete and 

well-preserved record of the island’s response to this history of sea-level change during the late 

Quaternary. The Quaternary period has been a time of major global change. Much of that 

change, particularly sea-level change, has been geologically abrupt as can be seen in the Gulf of 

Mexico sea level curve compiled by Balsillie and Donoghue (2004). An accurate determination 

of how abrupt changes in sea level over the past few millennia have affected coastal landforms 

may be critically important to our understanding of the nature and potential effects of global 

change in the near future. The anticipated outcome of this project was a better understanding of 

the response of coastal geologic environments to abrupt environmental change. Given that the 

northeastern Gulf of Mexico is a stable margin and reflects global eustatic change, this project 

will also have several broader impacts. It will answer some fundamental questions concerning 

the impact of global change, in the form of abrupt sea-level change, on coastal environments. 

An improved understanding of the history and timing of late Holocene climate-related events, 

and of the response of coastal environments to those events, is an essential component in the 

development of global change predictions over the next few centuries. 

2

Hypotheses 

Over the course of this investigation, the following hypotheses were tested: 

1) Direct luminescence dating of quartz sand grains in beach ridges can provide a high- 

resolution history of barrier beach-ridge plain evolution. 

2) Beach ridge progradation rates and beach ridge height are influenced primarily by the 

rate and direction of sea-level change. 

3) Abrupt changes in sea level can have a significant effect on the development of coastal 

landforms over a geologically brief span of time. 

4) Sea-level history in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico reflects global eustatic history. 

5) Beach ridges hold evidence of sea level high stands during the mid- to late- Holocene. 

6) Beach ridges are built primarily by swash processes, as opposed to storms. 

Regional Geology 

The Florida subsurface is a carbonate platform that is approximately 800 km long and 

400-720 km wide (Lamont et al., 1997). The State of Florida is the emergent part of the platform 

(Randazzo and Jones, 1997). Figure 1.3 shows the carbonate platform. Throughout its history, 

the platform has been alternately flooded by shallow seas or exposed as dry land (Randazzo and 

Jones, 1997). During times of submergence, 1,200 to 6,100 m of primarily carbonate marine 

sediment was deposited on the platform. Following, or concurrent with one of the later periods 

of emergence, the plateau tilted about its longitudinal axis. As a result of this, the west coast of 

the platform is partially submerged relative to the east coast. Florida’s submergence rate over 

the past 4,500 years has averaged 1.2 mm/yr (Scholl, 1969). 

The geologic history of Florida has been strongly influenced by sea-level change. The 

gentle slope and lack of surface relief on the platform means that a relatively small change in sea 

level can have dramatic impacts (Randazzo and Jones, 1997). Changes in sea level can change 

3

the rate of erosion or deposition and can change the nature of a region or environment from 

erosional to depositional. 

During the Quaternary, a series of glacial-interglacial cycles brought about drastic 

changes in sea level. Figure 1.4 is a benthic oxygen isotope curve showing sea-level fluctuations 

throughout the Quaternary. As a result of these changes, the surface of the Florida platform has 

alternated between emergent and submergent. At times during the late Cenozoic glacial stages, 

dry land on the Florida plateau was restricted to a few small islands along the central Florida 

ridge. At the maximum extent of the last glaciation, approximately 20,000 years B.P., sea level 

was near the edge of the continental shelf, approximately 130 m below its present level. Figure 

1.5 is a sea-level curve for the Gulf of Mexico that spans the past 20,000 years. During the 

Quaternary sea-level cycles, river and stream systems traversed the entire continental shelf. At 

about 6,000 years B.P. the rate of sea-level rise slowed. As sea-level rise slowed, modern barrier 

islands, like St. Vincent Island, on the northwest coast of Florida, began to form. 

Apalachicola River 

The Mississippi, Rio Grande, Brazos, Sabine and Suwannee Rivers are the only major 

rivers that carry sediment directly to the Gulf of Mexico (Davis, 1997). The other rivers, 

including the Apalachicola River, lose their sediment load in the numerous estuaries that are 

isolated from the open coast by chains of barrier islands (Davis, 1997). The Apalachicola River 

starts where the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers merge (Fernald and Purdum, 1992) (Figure 1.6). 

The geology of the Florida Panhandle coast of the northeast Gulf of Mexico has been strongly 

influenced by the Apalachicola River (Donoghue and Tanner, 1992). The Apalachicola River is 

the largest river in Florida and 21 st largest in the contiguous United States (Donoghue and 

Tanner, 1994) with a drainage basin covering an area of over 60,000 square km (McKeown et 

al., 2004) and having a mean discharge of 660 m 3 /s (Raney et al., 1985). The river drains an 

extensive area stretching from the Piedmont in Georgia to eastern Alabama and southward to the 

Gulf Coast (Stewart and Gorsline, 1962). Its drainage basin includes the southern Appalachians, 

a portion of the Piedmont and the Gulf Coastal Plain (Schnable and Goodell, 1968). Figure 1.6 

shows the extent of the Apalachicola River’s drainage basin. 

4

Throughout the Holocene, the Apalachicola River and its delta have migrated in a 

southeasterly direction (Donoghue and White, 1995). During periods of rapid sea-level rise, this 

southerly migration was punctuated by retreats. As sea level rose through the Holocene, the 

mouth of the Apalachicola River retreated northwards up the Apalachicola River Valley. This 

movement has been the driving force behind the creation of relict quaternary shoreline features. 

During the Quaternary, the Apalachicola River was the major sand source for the 

Panhandle coast (Lamont et al., 1997; Donoghue, 1993). The Apalachicola River delivered 

sediment at a rate faster than the coastal wave energy was able to dissipate it (Tanner, 1964). As 

a result, the excess sediment load accumulated in the barrier islands, spits and shoals that now 

rim the river’s mouth. From east to west the barrier islands include Dog Island, St. George 

Island, Little St. George Island and St. Vincent Island (Figure 1.6). The shoals and barrier 

islands in the region contain enough sand to account for the total sediment load of the river for 

the past 5,000 years (Tanner, 1964). The relatively recent construction of dams across the river 

has drastically reduced the amount of sediment being delivered to the coast (Tanner, 1964). The 

development of the barrier island rim around the river’s mouth has also contributed to the 

reduction in the amount of sediment by trapping much of the material before it reaches the Gulf 

coast (Donoghue and Tanner, 1994). 

Barrier Islands 

Shore-parallel sediment deposits are common features on wave-dominated shorelines. 

These deposits can occur as mainland-attached barriers, as strandplains consisting of multiple 

parallel beach ridges or as barrier islands (Reinson, 1992). 

Barrier islands are narrow, sand-dominated landforms that run parallel or semi-parallel to 

mainland shorelines (Hoyt, 1967). They are usually separated from the mainland by a lagoon, 

estuary or marsh system (Reinson, 1992). The stratigraphy and evolution of a barrier island is 

influenced by several factors including sea level, sediment supply, pre-depositional topography, 

tectonic setting and tidal range (Moslow, 1983). 

Barrier island formation is a complex and poorly understood process. However, several 

theories have been proposed in an attempt to explain their origin and formation. No single 

theory has emerged as dominant. deBeaumont (1845) suggested that barrier islands form as a 

5

esult of the buildup of offshore bars. Waves approaching the shore stir up sea floor sediment. 

When these waves break, they lose energy and the sediment accumulates forming a bar and 

subsequently an island. Gilbert (1885) suggested that the material that forms a bar is transported 

along the shore by littoral and longshore currents rather than coming from the seafloor as 

deBeaumont (1845) suggested. These sediments accumulate to form a spit. The spit is then 

breached and as a result of this breach, a barrier island is formed. Zenkovitch (1962) suggested 

that barrier islands are a product of the sinking of wave-built terraces or the submergence of 

alluvial plains. Price (1963) proposed that small barriers form as a result of storm wave activity. 

Leontyev and Nikiforov (1966) suggested that barrier islands form from offshore bars exposed 

during a lowering of sea level. Hoyt (1967) hypothesized that a barrier island is formed by the 

building of a ridge immediately landward of the shoreline from wind or water deposited 

sediments. Slow submergence floods the area landward of the ridge, forming a barrier and a 

lagoon. 

Although many models have been proposed to explain barrier island formation, three 

models are commonly encountered in the literature; 1) the upbuilding of offshore bars, 2) the 

cutting of inlets through spits and 3) the submergence of ridge like coastal features (Schwartz, 

1971). The first model is based on the aggradation and emergence of submarine bars 

(Zenkovich, 1967). This model suggests that a barrier island is formed when an offshore bar 

builds up to the water surface. This theory is generally rejected because to form barrier islands 

in this manner, the submarine bar would have to build up through the surf zone, which is 

unlikely because wave action in the surf zone would wash away the crest of the bar and prevent 

its emergence. The second model is spit progradation parallel to the coast and segmentation of 

the spit by channels (Fisher, 1968). This is similar to the theory proposed by Gilbert (1885). 

The third model is that barrier islands are formed by the isolation of beach and dune complexes 

due to coastal submergence (Hoyt, 1967). This last theory is the most feasible. However, it is 

most likely that extensive barrier island chains have had a composite mode of origin, both by spit 

progradation and by coastal submergence (Reinson, 1992). 

Barrier islands are dynamic systems that migrate landward in response to sea-level rise, 

subsidence or a reduction in sediment supply (Lamont et al., 1997). Most modern barrier islands 

have migrated landward in response to the Holocene transgression (Reinson, 1992). Barrier 

islands are abundant along the Gulf of Mexico coast. Barrier island nuclei in the Gulf were most 

6

likely initiated during times of lower sea level (Tanner, 1991). Increased wave action leads to 

the transport of both fine and coarse-grained sediment, which is then deposited as a ridge at the 

shoreline. A rise in sea level will flood the landward side of the ridge and isolate it, thus, turning 

it into a barrier island. 

There have been few studies of barrier island evolution along the Panhandle coast. Rizk 

(1991), Tanner (1987) and Forrest (2003) have studied the St. Joseph Peninsula, a barrier spit 

located on the Panhandle coast. Stapor (1973) and Tanner (1988, 1990) studied St. Vincent 

Island, a barrier island also located on the Panhandle coast. 

Beach Ridge Formation 

Many late Holocene coastal regions are progradational and are marked by beach ridge 

plains. Well-developed beach ridge plains can contain up to 200 individual beach ridges 

(Tanner, 1988). The term “beach ridge” has been defined in many different ways. Stapor 

(1975) defines beach ridges as linear sand bodies that parallel the modern coast. Otvos (2000) 

defines them as relict, semi-parallel, multiple wave- and wind-built landforms that originate in 

the intertidal and supratidal zones. Tanner (1995) identified four main categories of beach 

ridges. Swash built ridges and settling-lag ridges are long, low to almost invisible and more or 

less parallel. They usually occur in sets. The two ridge types can be distinguished from each 

other based on their internal structure. Swash built ridges display low-angle cross-bedding while 

settling-lag ridges have internal bedding that is horizontal, discontinuous and usually poorly 

defined. These two types can be distinguished by trenching or sample analysis. Storm surge 

ridges are usually single, isolated features, 5-10 m in height. They do not make up beach ridge 

sets or systems. The fourth type of ridge is the dune ridge. Dune ridges are distinguished from 

other ridge types on the basis of their internal structure, which is characterized by internal cross- 

bedding and hummocky cross-stratification. Dune ridges can be found within or adjacent to a 

system of swash or settling lag ridges. 

Beach ridge systems are made up of multiple parallel ridges and swales, but usually lack 

well-developed lagoons or marshes (Boggs, 1995). A popular idea is that beach ridges within a 

set are attached to eachother at a single point. The point of attachment facilitates a determination 

of the sand source (Tanner et al., 1989). 

7

Recent studies of barriers using Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) have revealed that 

beach ridges can be traced in the subsurface as seaward dipping reflectors with dips of 1-4 

degrees that decrease in a seaward direction (Jol et al., 1998; Bristow et al., 2000; Neal et al., 

2002; Moore et al., 2004; Bristow and Pucillo, 2006). Washover-type, landward-dipping beds 

are rare. Ridge crests have elevations that are usually above mean high water and adjacent 

swales and troughs that are typically below mean low water (Stapor, 1973). Beach ridges are 

primarily composed of quartz sand (Doeglas, 1946; Eichenholtz et al., 1989; Otvos, 2000; 

Tanner, 1993; Tanner, 1994). It is rare to find shell in older ridges because any shell that was 

originally present is usually destroyed by in-situ leaching by rainwater (Stapor, 1973). Beach 

ridges that make up beach ridge plains are usually organized into distinct patterns or groups 

based on their topographic expression and geographic pattern (Stapor, 1973). These patterns 

reflect the energy, direction of sand transport and the mechanisms by which sand was delivered 

to the beach face during ridge construction (Stapor, 1973). 

The dominant processes controlling the formation of beach ridges are poorly understood. 

Several theories have been proposed to attempt to explain the origin of beach ridges. Johnson 

(1919) suggested that beach ridges are constructed by wave action along successive shoreline 

positions. Shepard (1950) suggested that beach ridges form as a result of aggradation. Psuty 

(1966) suggested that beach ridges form during periods of increased water levels resulting from 

large, offshore storms. Curray et al. (1969) suggested that ridges form when a longshore bar is 

built upwards and emerges above sea level during low wave conditions. The bar enlarges and 

becomes a beach ridge. Dunes can then form on the top of the newly formed ridge and stabilize 

it. This model is similar to the model of barrier island formation that was proposed by de 

Beaumont (1845). Reineck and Singh (1978) proposed that beach ridges form at high tide levels 

and are related to storms or high-water stages. Other researchers (e.g., Carter, 1986; Davis et al., 

1972; Fraser and Hester, 1977) believed that the landward shifting of offshore bars forms ridges. 

Many researchers support this idea. Tanner (1995) proposed that beach ridge formation is 

influenced by small changes in sea level. They are formed by sea-level rise and fall couplets 

with magnitudes on the order of 5-30 cm and periodicities of 30-60 years. Under slightly lower 

sea level conditions waves are low and run-up doesn’t extend far up the beach profile. A swale 

will build under these conditions. When sea level rises, the sea deepens at a fixed distance from 

the shore, causing breakers to become higher. As a result, run-up extends further up the beach 

8

profile and deposits a ridge. Each ridge represents a paleo-sea-level position. The best estimate 

of paleo-sea-level position can be assumed to be somewhere between the ridge crest and the toe 

of the shoreface. The boundaries between beach ridge sets may indicate a change in sea-level 

position. Where adjacent sets have a measurable elevation difference there has been a change in 

sea level (Tanner et al., 1989). Figure 1.7 illustrates Tanner’s theory of beach ridge formation. 

As an alternative to this theory, Curray (1996) re-proposed that offshore bars are built to sea 

level when sufficient sand is supplied to the coastline. If enough sand is available, the bar 

becomes emergent during periods of low surf. With the subsequent rise and fall of tides, and if 

surf conditions remain low, the bar will grow in height. Taylor and Stone (1996) proposed that 

during storm activity, sand from existing ridges is eroded and stored in an offshore bar. During 

calm weather conditions, the sand is transported onshore and a ridge is rebuilt. 

Each beach ridge plain displays the same relative time sequence. The ridge closest to the 

mainland is oldest and the ridge immediately adjacent to the beach is youngest. All others fit in 

a sequence between the two extremes (Tanner, 1988). Since ridges form on the beach face, they 

are indicators of the orientation of the coastline and approximate the vertical position of sea level 

at the time of their deposition (Donoghue and Tanner, 1992; Fernald and Purdum, 1992; Tanner, 

1988). A beach ridge plain can be divided into sets. The different orientations of the sets 

indicate changes in oceanographic conditions (sea level rise, changes in river mouth position) or 

a change in the rate of sediment supply (Curray et al., 1969; Dominguez et al., 1992). 

Many of Florida’s barrier islands are composed of beach ridges. The organization and 

the physical character of the beach ridges that make up the Holocene beach ridge plains of the 

northwest Florida barrier islands can be employed to study the depositional history of the 

barriers. 

Sea-Level Change 

Sea level is never static, but rather has fluctuated throughout geologic time. Several 

factors can cause these fluctuations including changes in the volume of seawater (i.e. thermal 

expansion and contraction, or advance and retreat of ice sheets), rise and fall of the land or ocean 

floor (i.e. tectonics, isostatic rebound) and variations in the earth’s gravitational field (the 

gravitational forces between the sun and moon will change the distribution of the earth’s water 

9

and, therefore, sea level) (Dorsey, 1997). The earliest reported systematic sea-level 

measurements were begun in 1682 at Amsterdam (van Veen, 1954), 1732 at Venice (Ekman, 

1988) and 1774 at Stockholm (Pirazzoli, 1974; Zendrini, 1802). The construction of a sea-level 

curve is based on having paleoshoreline indicators (shell, peat etc) that are datable. Once samples 

have been dated, a curve showing the details of rise or fall of sea level in a given region can then 

be generated. Suess was the first to take up the idea of global sea-level change (Fairbridge, 

1961). Since these early sea-level studies, many global and local sea-level curves have been 

created. Comprehensive treatments include that of Bloom (1977), who published an atlas of sea- 

level curves. Pirazzoli (1991) provides a global compilation of Holocene sea-level curves. 

Pre-Holocene Sea level 

Intensive study of late Quaternary sea-level change came about in the 1950s with the 

advent of radiocarbon dating techniques (Balsillie and Donoghue, 2004). By the 1960s it was 

clear that Quaternary sea-level history could be characterized by three modes of behavior 

(oscillating, smooth and continuously rising and smooth and continuously rising followed by 

stability at or near current mean sea level). Fairbridge (1961) presented an oscillating curve. 

This curve rose rapidly from the early Holocene to about 6,000 years B.P. It then oscillated 

about current mean sea level. Shepard (1963, 1964) produced a smooth curve that rose to 

present mean sea level. The third mode of behavior was suggested by Fisk (1956), Godwin et al. 

(1958) and McFarlan (1961). They proposed a smooth, continuously rising curve from the early 

Holocene to about 5,500 years ago, followed by sea level stability at or near current mean sea 

level. The oscillating mode is the currently accepted model and the model used in this 

investigation as depicted in Figure 1.5. 

Sea-level change during the Quaternary was primarily a result of the cyclic growth and 

decay of ice sheets (Lambeck and Chappell, 2001). Glacial periods were times of sea-level 

lowstands and interglacial periods were times of sea-level highstands (Lambeck and Chappell, 

2001). A number of indicators have been used as evidence of past sea-level change. These 

include raised or submerged shorelines (i.e. beach ridges or shorelines indicated by fossil coral 

reefs above present growth positions or submerged in-situ tree stumps, erosional features like 

shore platforms and marine notches (Lambeck and Chappell, 2001). The onset of the most 

10

ecent glacial era occurred about 3 million years ago with the formation of permanent ice sheets 

at high latitudes (Lambeck et al., 2002). As the ice sheets grew and retreated, sea levels 

fluctuated in response. Major sea-level cycles have occurred at approximately 100,000 year 

intervals over the past 4 million years with amplitudes of 120-140 m (Lambeck et al., 2002). 

Superimposed on these cycles are lesser cycles of a few tens of thousands of years (Lambeck et 

al., 2002). This sea level history is reflected in the benthic oxygen isotope record in Figure 1.4. 

Directly datable records of past sea levels exist only for the last glacial cycle from about 130,000 

years to present (Lambeck et al., 2002). Any records prior to this time were either destroyed by 

sea-level rise at the onset of deglaciation or by the advance of ice sheets during the lead up to 

maximum glaciation (Lambeck and Chappell, 2001). Figure 1.8 illustrates the changes in sea 

level that have occurred over the past several glacial cycles. Sea-level fall from 130,000 to 

75,000 years (Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 5) to the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) was not 

uniform, but oscillated rapidly with amplitudes of 10-15 m approximately every 4,000 years 

(Lambeck et al., 2002). Five positive excursions of sea level have been identified within MIS 3, 

which covered a period from 60,000-25,000 years ago (32,000; 36,000; 44,000; 49,000-52,000; 

60,000 years B.P.) (Lambeck et al., 2002). The lowest sea levels during the last glacial cycle 

occurred from 30,000 to 19,000 years ago (Lambeck et al., 2002). The onset of the LGM was 

rapid, with sea level falling 30-40 m within 1,000-2,000 years (Lambeck et al., 2002). Post- 

LGM sea-level rise was not temporally uniform. 

An attempt has been made to relate sea-level fluctuations to oscillations in solar 

insolation. Subtle changes in the sun’s brightness may have triggered drastic climate change 

(Kerr, 2001). Solar activity acts on cycles of varying duration, including a 200-year cycle (Kerr, 

2001). The mechanisms that control solar activity are not well understood. Solar activity could 

be related to changes in the chronosphere that affect the UV region of the solar spectrum. This 

affects ozone production and the stratospheric temperature structure (Hodell et al., 2001). 

Another mechanism may be the effect of cosmic ray intensity on cloud formation and 

precipitation. Changes in solar output may affect global mean temperature, humidity, convection 

and intensity of Hadley circulation in the tropics (Hodell et al., 2001). Sea-level fluctuations 

during the last glacial cycle may have responded to dominant oscillations in insolation with 

periodicities of 40,000 and 20,000 years (Lambeck et al., 2002). Insolation minima at 140,000 

and 20,000 years correspond to two associated glacial maxima. 

11

Holocene Sea Level 

Over 900 Holocene sea-level curves have been published (Dorsey, 1997). The earliest 

known examples of Holocene sea-level histories were published in Great Britain using pollen 

analyses (Granlund, 1932; Liden, 1938). Approximately 20,000 years ago sea level was 130 m 

lower than at present (Stapor and Tanner, 1977). It rose rapidly until about 5,000 to 6,000 years 

ago, at which point the rate of rise slowed drastically (Stapor and Tanner, 1977). The history of 

sea-level change over the past 5,000 years is much debated. There are two main schools of 

thought. The first is that sea level rose steadily from a low position during the Wisconsinan and 

approached its present level without significant variations (Kidson, 1982). The second is that 

there have been various short-lived sea-level oscillations superimposed on the general rise. 

A cooling event between 8,250 and 8,150 years ago was a result of meltwater release into 

the North Atlantic (Rohling and Palike, 2005). This stopped North Atlantic Deep Water 

(NADW) formation and its associated northward heat transport (Rohling and Palike, 2005). 

NADW is a water mass found in the Atlantic at depths between 1,000 and 4,000 m. It can be 

traced from there into most other ocean basins. It is formed in the North Atlantic from Atlantic 

bottom water entering through the Denmark Strait and across the Scotland-Faeroe-Iceland Ridge. 

Water flows towards the Labrador Sea and joins with bottom water from the eastern North 

Atlantic. NADW supplies heat and moisture to high northern latitudes and therefore affects the 

stability of ice sheets in the northern hemisphere (Lear et al., 2003). The formation of NADW is 

one of the most important processes influencing today’s climate (Lear et al., 2003). 

The oscillating sea-level curve of Fairbridge (1961) showed a rapid rise in sea level from 

the early Holocene to about 6,000 years B.P. after which it fluctuated about current mean sea 

level. Shepard (1963, 1964) published a smooth curve that showed sea level rising continuously 

to its present level. There have been two periods of rapid and sustained sea-level rise from 

16,000-12,500 years ago and from 11,500-8000 years ago (Lambeck and Chappell, 2001). In 

general, global sea level has been rising throughout the Holocene- an event termed the 

“Holocene Marine Transgression”. 

The oscillating model is the most widely accepted model and is believed to accurately 

represent how sea level has behaved throughout the mid to late Holocene. For this reason, this 

investigation is based on the oscillating model of sea-level change. 

12

Gulf of Mexico Sea-level Record 

Several sea-level curves have been created for the Gulf of Mexico using a variety of sea- 

level indicators. These sea-level curves can be divided into two groups, those that involve dating 

shoreline indicators and those that are based on sedimentological studies. Curray (1960) created 

a curve based on samples from the Texas and Louisiana shelf. These samples were shells from 

organisms that lived near the shoreline and were radiocarbon dated to provide age control. 

Frazier (1974) created a curve for the northwest portion of the Gulf of Mexico (Texas and 

Louisiana coasts). This curve was based on radiocarbon dates from peat, molluscs and 

pelecypods. Scholl et al. (1969) provided sea-level data for south Florida based on radiocarbon- 

dated peats from the Everglades region. Stapor and Tanner (1977) presented a sea-level curve 

based on a plane table leveling or topographic profile across the beach ridge plain on St. Vincent 

Island. Tanner (1991) produced a late Holocene sea-level curve for the Gulf of Mexico based on 

grain size studies. The sea-level curve was derived from topographic profiling and 

granulometric parameters on St. Vincent Island and later confirmed at several other locations 

along the Gulf of Mexico coastline (Tanner, 1991). A sea-level history was developed for an 

island (Isla del Carmen) on the western edge of the state of Campeche in Mexico (Alvarez 1984, 

1985). Another record comes from Mesa Del Gavilan, an island west of Boca Chica, Texas 

(Tanner et al., 1989). The island is made up of 30+ beach ridges. The ridges were trenched and 

sampled and a granulometric analysis was conducted (Tanner et al., 1989). Walker et al. (1995) 

created a sea level curve for the Gulf of Mexico based on archaeological evidence from 

southwest Florida. 

Sea-level curves spanning from the Last Glacial Maximum (approximately 21,000 years 

ago) to the present are available for the Gulf of Mexico. In general the Last Glacial Maximum 

had a lowstand of about –120 m (Balsillie and Donoghue, 2004). Sea level then rose in a series 

of spurts alternating with stillstands. Between 5,000 and 7,000 years ago sea level reached close 

to modern levels and has since oscillated up and down a few meters. Walker et al. (1995) 

showed that between 3,000 and 2,000 years there were two sea level highstands between 1.5 and 

2 m above present level. Sea level is currently rising. Despite the abundance of sea-level 

curves, the history of sea-level change over the past 5,000-6,000 years is still highly debated. 

This is, in part, a result of a lack of reliable data. There are three main schools of thought. The 

13

first is that sea level rose steadily from a low position in Wisconsin time to its present level 

without variations (Tanner et al., 1989). The second is that there have been various short-lived 

cycles of sea level, including at least one position 1.0 m above present level 4,000-6,000 years 

ago (Tanner et al., 1989). The third is that the noise in the sea-level data is so great that no 

meaningful information can be obtained. 

The most recent comprehensive Gulf of Mexico sea-level history was presented by 

Balsillie and Donoghue (2004). Published and unpublished Pleistocene and Holocene sea-level 

data for the northern and eastern Gulf of Mexico coast were collected. All of the data collected 

were based on the radiocarbon dating of shoreline indicators. A total of 342 dated sea-level 

indicators were assessed, covering the past 20,000 years of geologic time. Each date was 

analyzed to determine if it represented a stable (i.e. unaffected by tectonic processes, such as 

subsidence) vertical sea-level indicator. Any questionable data were discarded. Figure 1.5 is a 

compilation of all available radiocarbon dated sea-level indicators for the northern Gulf of 

Mexico. The upper panel of Figure 1.5 reveals that several abrupt sea-level changes of 1 to 2 m 

are recorded in the Gulf of Mexico chronology. Such changes occurred at approximately 2,200 

years B.P., 4,000 years B.P., 5,400 years B.P. and 6,800 years B.P. There are few details beyond 

3,500 years B.P. along the Gulf of Mexico coast because beach ridge history extends only to 

approximately 3,500 years B.P. (Tanner, 1991a). The Balsillie and Donoghue (2004) curve is 

the most recent and well-defined sea-level curve for the northern Gulf of Mexico. 

14

Apalachicola River 

Figure 1.1. Location map of St. Vincent Island on the northeastern Gulf of Mexico 

coast, Florida, southeastern U.S.A. Inset map shows the chain of barrier islands and 

spits of which St. Vincent is a part. 

15 

Flint River

Figure 1.2. Beach ridge sets on St. Vincent Island. See Figure 1.1 for location (Source: 

Stapor, 1973). 

16

Figure 1.3. The Florida Platform. The edge of the platform is marked by the west 

Florida shelf and slope, which drop into the deep Gulf of Mexico. Note that Florida 

occupies approximately half of the carbonate platform. (Source: USGS, 2001). 

17

-100 

Figure 1.4. Pleistocene glacial advances and retreats, as recorded in benthic oxygen isotope 

records. The record shows the predicted sea level (solid line) and mean ocean 18 O (dashed line), 

derived from ice volume histories. (Source: Raymo et al., 2006). 

18

7,000 

25,000 

6,000 

5,000 

? 

4,000 

cal yr BP 

3,000 

Gulf of Mexico (Balsillie and Donoghue, 2004) 

Red Sea (Siddall et al. 2003) 

20,000 

15,000 

Cal Yr BP 

10,000 

Figure 1.5. Composite sea-level curves for the northern Gulf of Mexico. The solid line 

adapted from Balsillie and Donoghue (2004) is a comprehensive compilation of radiocarbon 

dated sea-level indicators for the northern Gulf of Mexico. The dashed curve is the global 

“eustatic” sea-level history from Red Sea benthic foraminifera data of Siddall et al. (2003). 

19 

Gulf of Mexico Younger Data Set 

2,000 

5,000 

1,000 

0 

0 

10 

0 

-10 

-20 

-30 

-40 

-50 

-60 

-70 

-80 

-90 

6 

4 

2 

0 

-2 

-4 

-6 

-8 

-100 

-110 

-120 

-130 

-10 

-12 

Meters MSL 

Sea Level (m)

Figure 1.6. The Apalachicola River drainage basin, northwest Florida. The boundaries of the 

basin are shown by the solid black line. (Source: Northwest Florida Water Management District, 

1996). St. Vincent Island is located in the lower left center of the map. 

20

Figure 1.7. Model of beach ridge formation. (Source: Tanner et al., 1989). 

21

Figure 1.8. Global sea-level history from 400,000 years to present, based on dated shoreline 

indicators from Barbados and New Guinea (symbols) and oxygen isotope data from marine 

sediments (solid line). (Source: Lea et al., 2002). 

22

St. Vincent Island 

CHAPTER 2 

STUDY AREA 

The Northwest coast of Florida is characterized by sandy beaches and extensive barrier 

islands. St. Vincent Island is a coastal barrier island located near the middle of the Florida 

panhandle coast, approximately 120 km southwest of Tallahassee, Florida (Figure 1.1). The 

island is located just west of the mouth of the Apalachicola River. The island is approximately 

0.5 km from the nearest point on the mainland. It is 6 km wide at its east end, 14 km long and 

covers an area of over 50 square km (Davis and Mokray, 2000). It is one of the largest Gulf 

coast barrier islands. 

The island has been inhabited sparsely and intermittently throughout its history. The 

oldest paleoindian pottery shards on the island date to approximately 4,000 yr B.P. (Miller et al., 

1981). In 1633, the island was named by Franciscan Friars who were visiting the local 

Apalachee tribes. Around 1750, members of the Creek and Seminole tribes entered the area and 

inhabited the island. By the 1960’s, the island was in private hands, stocked with exotic game 

and was being used as a hunting ground. The island was later acquired by the federal 

government and in 1968, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service established the St. Vincent Island 

National Wildlife Refuge (Davis and Mokray, 2000). 

Dominating the local geomorphology is a well-developed beach ridge plain that covers 

the surface of the island (Figure 2.1). More than 100 ridges have been formed over the island’s 

approximately 4,000-year history. Many of these ridges are marked by eolian decoration. 

Previous studies conducted by Stapor (1973, 1975) and Campbell (1986) have divided the beach 

ridge plain on the island into 12 ridge sets separated by erosional truncations (Figure 1.2). The 

oldest set (Set A) is on the northernmost side of the island and the youngest set (Set L) fronts a 

portion of the active modern beach on the southeast portion of the island. The ridges on St. 

Vincent Island are concave seaward. Ridges on the northern half of the island generally have 

lower elevations than those on the southern half. Ridges within sets A, B, C and D have crest 

elevations of approximately 1 m (Stapor and Tanner, 1977). Ridges within sets E, F, G, H, I, J, 

23

K and L have crest elevations of approximately 2.5 m (Stapor and Tanner, 1977). The ridge sets 

have been assigned relative ages inferred from the erosional truncations and based on field 

mapping and aerial photography. Archaeological evidence and a few scattered radiocarbon dates 

add corroborative evidence that the ridge sets developed in the order proposed by Stapor (1973) 

and shown in Figure 1.2. Few radiometric dates have been obtained prior to the current 

investigation. Those that have been obtained are based on shell deposits. To date, the geologic 

history of the island is based on relative dating and inference. The goal of this project was to 

directly date ridge depositional ages and use this information to reconstruct the island’s complex 

history. 

Stapor (1973) calculated coastal sand budgets for the past 100 to 150 years based on 

historic bathymetric chart comparisons and maintenance dredging data for coastal stretches 

between Pensacola and Dog Island. The results indicated that the northwest coast of Florida is 

characterized by many longshore drift cells and some of these cells experience little net exchange 

of sand with adjacent cells or offshore regions. The bulk of the coast is eroding, with eroded 

material being deposited at barrier island tips rather than being lost offshore. The stretch of coast 

between Dog Island and the St. Joseph Peninsula contains at least 7 distinct cells, which 

experience little net exchange of sand (Figure 2.2). Dog Island is influenced by two longshore 

drift cells. One transports sand to the northeast and one to the southwest. The ends of the island 

are growing, while the Gulf shoreline is eroding. St. George Island also has two longshore cells, 

one transports material to the northeast end of the island and the other to the southwest towards 

Cape St. George. The shoreline at the middle of the island has experienced extensive erosion as 

evidenced by the presence of exposed stumps on the island’s gulf front and the presence of 

washover deposits extending into Apalachicola Bay. The lagoonal side of the island has 

experienced accretion. The two cells are separated by a stretch of coast that has experienced no 

shoreline change between 1860 and 1943. A comparison of net erosion and deposition between 

the east and south shores of St. Vincent Island, the lunate bar across West Pass and the Sand 

Island region indicate that erosion and deposition rates are nearly equal. The same is true of the 

St. Joseph Peninsula. The coast between Cape San Blas and St. Joseph Point contains a 

southward and a northward transporting drift cell. Cape San Blas is eroding, while St. Joseph 

Point is prograding. Figure 2.3 shows the shoreline changes for the barrier island chain of which 

24

St. Vincent is a part. Based on a mass balance of sand, Stapor (1973) concluded that the barrier 

island chain, including St. Vincent Island, is in a state of sedimentologic equilibrium. 

Barrier Island Evolution Inferred from Beach Ridge Patterns 

According to Stapor (1973) the direction toward which the beach ridge sets splay 

(represented by the widest part of each set) indicates the transport direction of the longshore drift 

cell that supplied the sand to build the beach ridge plain. If deposits are symmetric with little 

splay they were likely constructed from offshore sand delivered directly to the beach without 

significant longshore transport. The beach ridge sets on St. Vincent Island are shown in Figure 

1.2. Sets A, B and C are symmetric with very little splay. This indicates that offshore sand was 

moved directly from the inner shelf onto the growing beach ridge plain and did not undergo 

significant longshore transport (Stapor, 1973). Sets D, E and F are tapered at the west end and 

splay to the east. This suggests that the source of sediment for these ridges was located to the 

east of the island and was transported to the beach ridge plain by westward longshore drift. Sets 

G and K are not splayed, suggesting that they were a product of sediment being delivered 

directly to the growing beach ridge plain. Sets H, I, J and L don’t follow any particular pattern. 

Set I is splayed to the west indicating a reversal in drift direction. Set L splays northwest, 

indicating that sediment was transported from the southeast. Sets H, I, J and L were likely 

deposited as a result of the migration of the West Pass lunate bar across the inlet. Sets A through 

D are thought to have been deposited when sea level was about 1.5 m lower than present (Stapor 

and Tanner, 1977). After the deposition of these sets, sea level is interpreted to have risen 

approximately 2 m (Campbell, 1986). 

Each younger beach ridge set truncates the older ones. This is likely a result of 

oscillating Holocene sea-level (Figure 2.3), which was responsible for fluctuations in volumes of 

offshore sand available for supply to the shoreface (Stapor, 1973). A drop in sea level would 

make additional sand available for erosion through the lowering of wave base (Stapor, 1973). A 

rise in sea level could drive new sand shoreward for shoreface deposition (Stapor, 1973). 

25

Geoarchaeology 

The earliest inhabitants of the Florida Panhandle were nomadic hunters pursuing the last 

of the Pleistocene megafauna (Braley, 1982). With the extinction of big game by about 8,000 yr 

B.P., the paleoindian diet shifted to plants, small animals and seafood (Braley, 1982). Sea-level 

changes have influenced the location of the Apalachicola River’s delta migration, and 

progradation of the delta has in turn affected human settlement patterns (Donoghue and White, 

1995). Figure 2.4 illustrates this phenomenon. The distribution of archaeological sites is 

consistent with geological studies of sea-level history (Donoghue and White, 1995). Several of 

these early sites have been drowned by sea level rise. St. Vincent Island has a long history of 

human occupation. 

There are 17 prehistoric sites on St. Vincent Island (Braley, 1982). One of these sites is 

the Paradise Point Site (Florida State site number 8FR71). This is a stratified midden located on 

the north shore of St. Vincent Island (2.4 km northwest of St. Vincent Point, which is the eastern 

tip of the island) (Braley, 1982, Walker et al., 1995). The midden indicates two periods of 

occupation. The earliest occupation has been radiocarbon dated at 240 A.D. (1,710 +/- 60 years 

B.P.), although that date may be in error (Braley, 1982). This occupation was terminated by 

rising sea level and abandoned for several hundred years. After sea level fell, the site was 

reoccupied (900-1,100 A.D.). Evidence suggests that the Paradise Point site was occupied 

during the warmer months. In addition to the Paradise Point site, archaeological evidence from 

midden sites on the north side of St. Vincent Island reveal that the earliest occupation of the 

island began during the Norwood Period, around 4,000 years B.P. Figure 2.5 shows the location 

of archaeological sites on St. Vincent Island that have been assigned archaeological ages. 

St. Vincent Island was selected as the focus of this investigation in part because it has not 

been studied in great detail in the past and, more importantly, because it contains a long term 

record of coastal evolution that is undisturbed, well-preserved and nearly continuous. The ridge 

complex on St. Vincent Island carries a record of changing sediment sources and changing 

oceanographic conditions over at least the past four millennia (Stapor 1973, 1975). Another 

important factor in the selection of this site was the physical character of the island. The narrow 

geographic limits of the island and the regional tectonic stability of northwest Florida make it 

possible to collect hundreds of data points representing past sea level stands without concern for 

26

effects like warping, tilting or compaction (Tanner et al., 1989). The island also has over 129 km 

of unpaved road, which makes sample collection a relatively simple task (Davis and Mokray, 

2000). 

27

Oyster Pond 

Figure 2.1. Infrared orthophoto image of St. Vincent Island showing the beach ridge plain that 

covers the surface of the island (USGS imagery). Location is shown in Figure 1.1. 

28 

Mallard Slough

Figure 2.2. Sediment transport rates in the Apalachicola barrier island chain. The arrows 

indicate the direction of transport and the numbers represent the volume (in 10 3 m 3 /yr) of 

material deposited and eroded. (Source: Stapor, 1973). 

29

Figure 2.3. St. Vincent Island shoreline changes based on historic charts. (Source: Stapor, 1973). 

30

Figure 2.4. Age distribution of archaeological sites in the lower Apalachicola River watershed, 

including St. Vincent Island. Symbols indicate approximate known age of the oldest artifacts 

found at all dated sites within the lower watershed. Contours show the maximum age of the 

enclosed sites, indicating a close connection between delta migration and human settlement 

patterns. Contours are dashed where uncertain. Patterned area northwest of the modern 

Apalachicola Delta is the “late Pleistocene” delta. (Source: Donoghue and White, 1995). 

31 

N

Pickalene Middens Paradise Point Site (8FR71) 

Figure 2.5. Archaeological sites on St. Vincent Island. (Source: Braley, 1982). 

32

Field Sampling 

CHAPTER 3 

METHODS 

Samples for sediment and geochronologic analyses were collected by two methods. 

Vibracores were used to collect deep sediment samples beneath the beach ridges. Additionally, 

whenever possible, trenches were excavated into selected ridges. All trenches were oriented 

perpendicular to the trend of the ridge crest. A total of 18 trenches were excavated. Samples for 

OSL dating were obtained by hammering 0.3 m sections of aluminum irrigation pipe horizontally 

into the vertical walls of the trenches or by subsampling sections of the aluminum vibracore 

tubes. 

For this investigation trenching was the preferred method of sample collection. However, 

sediment cores can also provide direct evidence of the lithologic character of the sediment. 

Vibracoring is one of many subsurface sediment acquisition techniques. Samples were collected 

by vibrating a core barrel into the sediment. By using this method it is possible to obtain cores of 

up to 6.0 m in length in unconsolidated sediments. Vibratory corers have been in use for several 

decades and techniques have improved through the years as field experience has advanced. They 

are relatively simple devices comprised of a frame, coring tube, and drive head that consists of 

either a pneumatic, hydraulic or electrical vibrator. For this study a Stow vibrator powered by an 

8 horsepower Briggs and Stratton gas motor was used. The unit spins a flexible cable at a high 

speed that causes the unevenly weighted head to vibrate. The head was mounted by U bolts to 

an adaptor that was clamped to the 8-cm diameter aluminum core barrels. Once maximum 

penetration was achieved, the top of the core barrel was filled with water and capped. This 

created suction when the core was extracted and prevented the movement of sediment in the core 

barrel. A come-along and tripod were used to extract each core out of the ground. For this 

investigation, 8-cm diameter aluminum irrigation pipe cut into 3.0 to 6.0 m lengths was used. 

Vibracores were not logged because they were opened under reduced light conditions for OSL 

sample collection. Figure 3.1 shows the sample collection methods employed in this 

investigation. 

33

At each vibracore or trench location, a benchmark (a piece of 3 cm diameter white pvc 

pipe either with or without a stamped brass marker) was set to be used when surveying sample 

locations. Each monument was set in concrete in a protected location, away from the road and 

clearly visible. Table 3.1 provides the locations of each benchmark set on the island. 

To accurately determine the elevation of each sample and beach ridge, which is a 

function of sea-level elevation, an extensive surveying study involving DGPS-based field survey 

techniques was carried out. All measurements were done relative to the benchmarks that were 

set up on the island. Survey methods will be described below. 

Geochronology 

Luminescence Dating 

Luminescence dating, in the form of optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) of quartz, 

was selected as the dating method for this investigation. OSL has only recently become 

available for determining the depositional age of coastal sediment deposits. OSL can provide 

ages for deposits that are not datable by other geochronometric methods (Berger, 1988). Figure 

3.2 outlines the basis of luminescence. At the time of sedimentation, the luminescence signal 

that was acquired in the past is set to zero. This zeroing is a response to the daylight or sunlight 

exposure that occurs during erosion and transport. Exposure to light releases electrons from 

higher energy traps and defects in the crystal structure, and returns them to the lower-energy 

valence state. The mechanics of luminescence are explained using the conduction band model 

(Figure 3.3). 

Luminescence dating is based on the accumulation of electrons in atomic lattice sites 

called defects or traps (Aitken, 1998). These sites are associated with impurities or structural 

defects in the crystal lattice that were incorporated during crystallization. In some cases, they 

are associated with radiation damage (Hutt and Raukas, 1995). Ionizing radiation is produced by 

the decay of radioactive nuclides including 40 K, the uranium-series and the thorium-series 

elements and cosmic ray muons (Aitken, 1998) (Figure 3.4). As this radiation passes through a 

mineral, it ionizes the mineral’s binding electrons and excites them above their ground states. As 

these electrons return to their ground states, some become trapped in the defects and cannot be 

34

emoved without an additional input of energy (Aitken, 1998). If the defect is large enough, 

electrons can be held for long periods of geologic time. Therefore, over time, defect sites 

accumulate electrons. The magnitude of the accumulation is therefore a function of time and the 

production rate of the trapped electrons. This then forms the basis of a geochronologic method. 

The trapped electrons are released from the defects by exposure to light or heat. Not all electron 

traps have an equal probability of being emptied (Huntley, 1985). Such differences could be a 

result of attenuation of light while passing through a mineral grain or a result of differences in 

the physical properties of the traps (Huntley, 1985). The de-trapping process produces light, or 

luminescence, representing the release of photons as the electrons return to the ground state. The 

amount of light emitted is proportional to the number of trapped electrons, and thus the radiation 

dose accumulated since the sediment was last exposed to light (Huntley and Lian, 1999). If the 

de-trapping mechanism is light energy, the method is referred to as optically stimulated 

luminescence (OSL). At the time of sedimentation, the luminescence signal that was acquired in 

the past is reset to zero. This zeroing is a response to the sunlight exposure that occurs during 

erosion and transport. After deposition, exposure to ambient radiation then repopulates the traps 

(Huntley and Lian, 1999). This repopulation continues until the sediment is heated in the lab, or 

exposed to sunlight during another sedimentation cycle. 

OSL was developed in 1985 (Huntley et al., 1985) as a method of determining when 

sediments were last exposed to sunlight. The method involves exciting the trapped electrons in 

the sediment by shining laser light on grains isolated from a sample and measuring the 

wavelength and intensity of light emitted in response. 

To calculate OSL ages, the paleodose is divided by the annual dose rate. The dose rate is 

the rate at which energy is absorbed by the mineral grain from the incoming flux of radiation 

(Aitken, 1998). Its components are environmental beta and cosmic radiation, external and 

internal beta radiation from K and Rb in the crystal lattice and internal alpha radiation from U 

and Th embedded in the grains (Mejdahl and Christiansen, 1994). This is shown schematically 

in Figure 3.4. There are also minor contributions to the dose rate from gamma radiation. The 

dose rate is determined by measuring the radioactivity of the surrounding sediment. The 

paleodose is the amount of radiation received since the traps were last emptied during a 

bleaching, or zeroing, event (Smith et al., 1986). The laboratory equivalent of the paleodose is 

the equivalent dose (DE) which is the laboratory dose of radiation that is needed to induce a 

35

luminescence signal equivalent to that acquired by the sample after the most recent bleaching 

event (Aitken, 1998). The DE is evaluated using either the additive dose method or the 

regenerative dose method. For the additive dose method, the sample aliquots being measured are 

divided into several groups. One group is used to measure the natural OSL. The remaining 

groups are given different radiation doses delivered by an artificial source before being 

measured. Dose is added with each measurement cycle to build a response curve (Folz and 

Mercier, 1999). In the regeneration method, all aliquots are bleached to near zero and then given 

a laboratory dose. The natural aliquots are not given a radiation dose. The natural OSL is then 

compared to the OSL resulting from aliquots that received a dose. 

Advantages of Luminescence Dating for Coastal Sediment Deposits 

Radiocarbon dating has typically been used to date coastal deposits in environments 

similar to that of the present study. For example, Stapor and Tanner (1977) analyzed thirteen 

sediment samples from coastal deposits from the Apalachicola region and from nearshore sands 

seaward of pre-Holocene barriers using radiocarbon dating. They obtained ages ranging between 

22,000 and 40,000 yr B.P. A study by Missimer (1973) examined dune ridges on Sanibel Island, 

a barrier island located 160 km south of Tampa, Florida. The island has seven to twelve sets of 

subparallel ridges, which have been used to estimate the growth of the island. The age 

relationships between the ridge sets were determined using radiocarbon dates obtained from 

aragonitic mollusc shells. The dates ranged between 547 and 4,310 yr B.P. All ridges were 

found to have been deposited in the past 4,300 years and Missimer (1973) estimated that it takes 

14-18 years for each ridge to fully develop. 

As an alternative to these methods, several studies have applied OSL dating to coastal 

deposits. Wintle et al. (1998) collected fifteen samples of dune sand and three samples from a 

core taken in the beach face of a sand spit that protrudes into Dingle Bay in southwest Ireland. 

Feldspar grains were dated using a single aliquot protocol for infrared stimulated luminescence. 

No ages over 600 years were obtained. The youngest age obtained was 150 years. These ages 

are consistent with the belief that the majority of dunes in Ireland formed within the last 6,000 

years (Carter, 1986). Jungner et al. (2001) collected eight sediment samples from a parabolic 

dune in Cape Kiwanda, which is part of a complex of four dunes formed by onshore winter storm 

36

winds. Seven samples were collected from exposed paleosols and one sample was collected 

from the base of the dune. Quartz within the 100-200 μm size fraction was dated using the 

single aliquot regenerative (SAR) method. The resulting dates cover a period ranging from a few 

hundred years to 7,000 years. 

Luminescence dating has several advantages over other dating methods. Luminescence 

techniques can provide ages for deposits not datable by other geochronometric methods, such as 

C-14, since it can be applied directly to sand grains (Berger, 1988). Additionally, the age range 

for OSL is approximately 50-800,000 years B.P. (Berger, 1995). For some samples, both quartz 

and feldspar have sufficient sensitivity to produce ages as young as one year, but currently there 

are no reliable techniques for doing this (Huntley and Lian, 1999). 

OSL versus Radiocarbon Dating 

Carbon-14 dating is geochronometric technique that is commonly used in coastal 

geology. It is based on the beta decay of 14 C atoms produced in the upper atmosphere (Bard, 

1998). This method has numerous disadvantages. It is not possible to measure the ratio between 

the parent isotope, 14 C and the daughter product, 14 N (Bard, 1998). To be able to calculate a true 

calendar age, the initial 14 C/ 12 C ratio of each sample must be known. A calibration is therefore 

needed, because the C-14 concentration in the atmosphere has fluctuated over time in response to 

variations in cosmic ray intensity, changes in climate, atomic bomb testing and the burning of 

fossil fuels (Bard et al., 1990; Stuiver et al., 1991; Bard, 1997). Calibration involves evaluating 

past variations of atmospheric 14 C/ 12 C. For the Holocene period (the past 10,000 years) it is 

possible to find both living and fossil pines and oaks and compare 14 C levels to tree ring counts 

(Bard, 1998). Beyond the Holocene, calibration becomes difficult because there are few living 

or fossil trees of that age. Extending the calibration curve beyond 10,000 years can be done by 

the high precision U-Th dating of corals (Bard et al., 1990; Bard et al., 1998). Using Carbon-14 

dating, it is possible to obtain maximum ages of 45,000 years B.P. However, OSL dating has a 

wider range and does not require extensive calibration. An additional advantage of OSL over 

radiocarbon is that it can be used in areas where quartz is more abundant than organic or shell 

material. This makes it an ideal method for dating deposits in coastal depositional environments. 

37

Application of OSL to Coastal Studies 

It is often difficult to obtain reliable chronologies for depositional events in coastal 

environments, particularly in the case of beach ridges that incorporate dune sand at some time 

after the creation of the beach deposit. This is because the sedimentary components dated may 

not all represent the time of deposition. The approaches most commonly taken to date such 

deposits include the radiocarbon dating of skeletal carbonate sands and the dating of whole shells 

incorporated in the beach deposit, or dating basal peat deposits when available. Murray-Wallace 

et al. (2002) used the OSL of quartz sampled from relict beach ridges to evaluate the utility of 

applying OSL to studies of dune dynamics and coastal progradation rates. It became the first 

study to examine the potential of using OSL to date Holocene beach ridges. The OSL ages 

obtained indicated a rapid period of sedimentation (1,600 linear meters within a few hundred 

years approximately 5,000 years ago) followed by a constant rate of progradation for the past 

4,000 years of 0.39 m/yr. Based on these rates and the ages of the dune ridges, it was estimated 

that the average rate of dune development for the study site was one dune every 80 years. In a 

similar study, Ballarini et al. (2003), explored using OSL dating for reconstructing coastal 

evolution on a timescale of decades to a few hundreds years. Samples were collected from an 

accretionary barrier island in the northern Netherlands. The southwest part of the island is made 

up of a series of beach ridges. The island is growing in a southwesterly direction as a result of 

shoals merging with it. The ages of the deposits are known from historical sources. OSL ages of 

younger than 10 years were obtained on the youngest samples. The study showed that the 

deposits on the island were formed over the last 300 years. This study illustrates the potential of 

using OSL dating for the high-resolution reconstruction of coastal evolution over the past several 

centuries. 

Laboratory Analyses 

Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating was applied to quartz grains, collected 

from the basal parts of the beach ridges, in order to develop a chronology for the evolution of St. 

Vincent Island and to assess its response to oceanographic and climate changes. OSL dating 

measures the time of last exposure to sunlight, i.e., the time of deposition (Aitken, 1998). The 

38

time of deposition of sandy coastal features, such as beach ridges, represents the age of the 

feature. The recent development of the single-aliquot regenerative-dose (SAR) protocol for 

quartz OSL, as used in the present study, has led to an increase in the accuracy of the dating 

method (e.g., Duller, 1991; Wintle, 1997; Murray and Roberts, 1998; Murray and Wintle, 2000; 

VanHeteren et al., 2000; Murray and Olley, 2002; Leigh et al., 2004). OSL has been found to 

be highly accurate in dating similar coastal sand features, when compared with known historical 

ages (Ballarini et al., 2003). For the present study, unexposed quartz sand samples extracted 

from the trench walls in beach ridges and from vibracores collected in beach ridges have been 

dated at the University of Georgia Luminescence Laboratory. 

Standard OSL analytical techniques were applied. Sample preparation and handling for 

the OSL dating was conducted under subdued red-light conditions. Five centimeters of sediment 

was removed from each end of the aluminum sample tubes for dose-rate estimation. 

Luminescence measurements were made on the central section of the sediment cylinder, the part 

that was least likely to have been exposed to sunlight during sampling (Figure 3.5). All samples 

were treated with 10% HCl and 30% H2O2 to remove carbonate and organic matter. Samples 

were then sieved to extract the 150-170 μm size fractions. Quartz and feldspar grains were 

separated by density, using Na-polytungstate (ρ=2.58 g/cm 3 ). The quartz fraction was then 

etched using 48% HF for 80 minutes followed by 36% HCl for 30 minutes to remove the outer 

surface, which might have been affected by alpha radiation. The quartz grains were mounted on 

stainless steel discs using Silkospray TM . Light stimulation of the quartz was achieved using a 

Risø array of blue LEDs centred at 470 nm. Detection optics comprised two Hoya 2.5 mm thick 

U340 filters and a 3 mm thick Schott GG420 filter coupled to an EMI 9635 QA photomultiplier 

tube. Luminescence Measurements were taken with a Risø TL-DA-15 reader as shown in Figure 

3.6. A 25-mCi 90 Sr/ 90 Y built in beta source was used for sample irradiation. 

The single aliquot regenerative dose (SAR) protocol (Murray and Wintle, 2000) was used 

to determine the paleodose. A five-point measurement strategy was used with three dose points 

to bracket the paleodose, a fourth zero dose and a fifth repeat-paleodose point. The repeat 

paleodose is measured to correct for changes in the sensitivity of the sample to the applied 

radiation doses and to check that the protocol is working correctly. All measurements were made 

at 125°C for 100 seconds after a pre-heat to 220°C for 60 seconds. For all aliquots, the recycling 

39

atio between the first and the fifth point fell between 0.95-1.05. All OSL data were analyzed 

using the ANALYST software package created by Duller (1999). 

Paleodose measurements were made on single aliquots of 9.6 mm diameter. In each case, 

13-20 aliquots from each sample were analyzed. The dose rate calculation relies on the thick- 

source ZnS (Ag) alpha counting technique for elemental concentration determination of uranium 

and thorium. Potassium was measured by ICP90 using the sodium peroxide fusion technique. 

The cosmic ray gamma contribution to the sands was estimated for each sample as a function of 

depth and elevation following Prescott and Hutton (1994). 

Water in the sediment absorbs part of the radiation that would otherwise reach the grains 

(Aitken, 1998). The dose rate in sediment containing moisture is less than that in the same 

sediment if it is dry. If the effect of moisture is ignored the age may be underestimated. Water 

attenuates the radiation dose, therefore, the difference between using the higher versus the lower 

paleodose value in the age calculation may affect the outcome by several hundred years. 

Although moisture content can be measured when the sediment is collected and a correction 

obtained, it is the average moisture content over the entire burial period that is relevant (Aitken, 

1998). An estimate is made by taking into account the percent moisture as sampled, and 

whatever indications are available about past variations (Aitken, 1998). The water content of the 

samples is measured in the laboratory using standard methods. As there is no way of knowing 

the average water content of the sediments since deposition, nor of knowing if the measured 

values are fully representative of present conditions, the ages of all samples are typically 

calculated using a value in the high range of water content and a value in the lower range of 

water content. In the case of the present project, given the fact that regional sea-level has been 

very close to present during the period in question, groundwater conditions have probably been 

close to present for most of the time since deposition of the sand ridges. Therefore, for the St. 

Vincent samples, the assumed mean water content estimates will likely provide the most accurate 

age estimates. The methodology described above was tested by collecting and dating a sample 

with a known age. This sample was collected from the modern beach surface and expected to 

yield an age of 0 years. 

40

Sediment Analyses 

In addition to samples collected for OSL dating, samples were collected for 

granulometric analysis. Samples were collected by pushing small, clear plastic sample vials 

horizontally into the trench face or by subsampling vibracores. Samples were brought back to 

the lab, weighed and dried to provide an estimate of modern moisture content. The samples were 

then mechanically separated on a Ro-tap using 8-inch diameter screens stacked at ¼ phi intervals 

between (and including) 4.0 phi and –1.0 phi (1/16 mm to 2 mm). Based on the procedure 

outlined in Socci and Tanner (1980), each sample was shaken for 30 minutes. Each grain size 

fraction was weighed and results were analyzed using the GRANPLOTS program (Balsillie et 

al., 2002). 

Two additional sets of data were analyzed. Tanner (1992 and unpublished data) collected 

and analyzed a series of grab samples from several transects across St. Vincent Island in 1984 

and 1985. Samples were collected from the seaward faces of successive ridges from a depth of 

30 cm. Figure 3.7 shows the locations of the samples that were collected by Tanner. 

The GRANPLOTS program provides complete granulometric analyses including data 

listing, moment measure calculations and frequency and cumulative plots. Probability plots were 

interpreted using Tanner’s (1986, 1991) SELF (Settling-Eolian-Littoral-Fluvial) method. In this 

method, basic line segment geometries are used to identify transpo-depositional signatures. The 

line geometries were determined by Tanner (1986, 1991) as a result of the analysis of over 

11,000 sediment samples from known environments. The basis of this method is shown in 

Figure 3.8. Line AEF represents the Gaussian distribution. Line segment B indicates that the 

operating transpo-depositional element is wave activity. The point relative to segment E is the 

so-called surf break. This gentle slope indicates sand deposition on a beach. The higher the 

slope, the greater the wave energy. Segment C indicates eolian processes. The point relative to 

segment B is the so-called eolian hump. Segment G represents the low energy tail termed the 

settling tail and may indicate a lowering of the depositional energy for the total distribution or for 

distribution segments containing coarser sediment. It signifies settling of sediment grains 

suspended in water. The data collected during the grain size analyses is presented in Chapter 4. 

41

Topographic Surveying 

Topographic surveying is a simple method of obtaining data that describes the nature of 

the local terrain. Leveling is the process used to determine the elevation or the difference in 

elevation of points on the ground. All elevations are determined relative to a datum. During this 

investigation all elevations were measured relative to NAVD 88 (North American Vertical 

Datum). All leveling was done using a laser scanner and rod marked with encoding bar strips. 

The ground elevation was found by reading the rod values through the telescope lens at different 

points along the line. The rod was held on the points whose elevation was being measured. The 

horizontal position of the rod was determined by GPS. These elevations were based on a single 

frequency differential GPS survey using Magellan Mark I receivers. The base station was set at 

FDEP monument B396, which was located at the intersection of Road 2 and Road B. The 

accuracy of the measurements was +/- 10 cm (2 sigma) based on a two to three hour occupation 

of each survey site. The measurements were checked by replicate occupation of one survey site 

(located at the intersection of Road 3 and Road F) and laser leveling between two of the GPS 

stations. The data obtained during the topographic survey is presented in chapter 4. 

Airborne Remote Sensing 

Many techniques can be applied to the study of shoreline change (topographic maps, 

aerial photographs, ground based surveys, Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR)). To 

complement the geochronologic, sedimentologic analyses and topographic data collected in this 

investigation, LIDAR was used to attempt to establish a correlation between sea-level history 

and mean ridge set height. 

Two main types of LIDAR are commonly used in coastal applications: 1) bathymetric 

LIDAR, which penetrates water and provides measures of water depth; and 2) topographic 

LIDAR, which measures subaerial topography (Sallenger et al., 2003). 

The LIDAR method measures the distance between airborne sensors and points on the 

ground surface. Figure 3.9 depicts the basis of LIDAR. With this technique, it is possible to 

collect elevation data with a vertical accuracy of 15 cm (USACE, 2002). LIDAR 

instrumentation transmits light from a focused infrared laser that is beamed toward the ground 

42

across the flight path by a scanning mirror (USACE, 2002). Transmitted light interacts with and 

is changed by the target. Some of the light is reflected/scattered back to the instrument where it is 

analyzed. Upon capture by a receiver unit reflectance from features are relayed to a 

discriminator and a time interval meter (measures the time elapsed between transmittal and 

received signal (USACE, 2002). Changes in properties of the light allow some property of the 

target to be determined. The first returns show the highest feature (i.e. tree canopy) and the final 

returns are from the ground surface. The time for light to travel out to the target and back is used 

to determine the range to the target. LIDAR collects measures of elevation every few square 

meters within a surveyed swath hundreds of meters wide (Sallenger et al., 2003). The system is 

capable of collecting elevation data with a vertical accuracy of 15 cm and a horizontal accuracy 

of 1/1000 th of the flight height (USACE, 2002). Raw LIDAR data is in the form of x,y,z 

coordinates (ASCII file) for each object the laser hits, measures and records distance to (USACE, 

2002). The raw data is combined with GPS positional data to georeference datasets (USACE, 

2002). The data is then edited and processed to generate surface models, elevation models and 

contours (USACE, 2002). With the data it is possible to create Digital Elevation Models (DEM) 

with vertical accuracies of 0.15-1 m (Gibeaut et al., 2003). 

In addition to using LIDAR data to study shoreline change, Synthetic Aperture Radar 

(SAR) data can also be used. This was done to a limited extent for this project. SAR uses a 

small antenna that transmits a broad radar beam. A digital system records the amplitude and 

phase history of the returns from each target as the repeated radar beams pass across a target. 

The digital record is computer processed to produce an image (Sabins, 1997). 

Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) 

Ground penetrating radar (GPR), was developed in the 1970s to map near subsurface 

geologic structures. GPR is a non-destructive geophysical method that provides a continuous 

cross sectional profile or record of subsurface features without drilling, probing or digging. The 

method is based on wave propagation and reflection of microwave range electromagnetic 

radiation (Van Dam and Schlager, 2000). It uses short pulses of high frequency (microwave 

range) electromagnetic energy (radar pulses) (Harari, 1996). These pulses are propagated into 

the ground by a transmitting antenna that is placed on the ground surface (Harari, 1996). The 

43

time elapsed between when this energy is transmitted and received back at the surface is 

measured. The delay between the transmitted pulse and the arrival of a reflection is proportional 

to the depth of the subsurface feature that generated the reflection (Harari, 1996). A receiving 

antenna detects the waves that are reflected back up to the ground surface when the transmitted 

pulse encounters a subsurface interface (Harari, 1996). All sedimentary layers and other buried 

materials have particular physical and chemical properties that affect the velocity of 

electromagnetic energy propagation. Changes in these properties can be a result of changes in 

water content, grain size, porosity or mineralogy (Davis and Annan, 1989; Van Dam and 

Schlager, 2000; Best et al., 2003). The greater the change in velocity at an interface, the higher 

the amplitude of the reflected wave. The antenna receives the reflected waves and stores them in 

a digital control unit. The reflected signal is amplified, recorded and processed (Best et al., 

2003). Once thousands of reflections have been measured and recorded, a two-dimensional 

picture is created. The depth of penetration is determined by the frequency of the antenna used. 

Low frequency antennas (25-200 MHz) obtain subsurface reflections from great depths (30-100 

ft) but have low resolution. High frequency antennas (300-1000 MHz) obtain reflections from 

shallower depths and provide a higher resolution. 

A GPR transect of the island using a MALA CU-II GPR system was conducted. A 100 

MHz unshielded antenna with a 1 m separation was used. A repeat transect with a shielded 250 

MHz antenna and with a 50 MHz unshielded antenna was later carried out over the same 

transect. Figure 3.10 illustrates how the GPR surveys were carried out. All data was analyzed 

using MALA Ground Vision Software. The data was filtered for DC removal and time varying 

gain (TVG). The time to depth conversion assumed a velocity of 60 meters/microsecond. The 

GPR profiles were not corrected for elevation. They were conducted along a road that cut 

through, rather than over the beach ridges. The road was essentially horizontal, with a slight 

southerly dip. Therefore, the profile is more or less representative of the actual depth of the 

beach ridge reflectors. All GPR data was processed and stored at the Florida Geologic Survey. 

A summary of the data is presented in chapter 4. 

44

Table 3.1. Location of benchmarks on St. Vincent Island. 

Sample Site ID # Marker UTM Coordinates 

Type Easting Northing 

SVI 001 S001 8cm diameter white PVC tube with brass plate 684196 3285439 

SVI 002 unlabelled unlabelled FDEP BM with witness post 681337 3283301 

SVI 003 unlabelled wooden stake 681246 3282625 

SVI 004 SV2 3cm white PVC tube 680714 3282056 




SVI 008 S008 8cm diameter white PVC tube with brass plate 679254 3284589 

SVI 009 SV1 8cm diameter grey PVC tube with brass plate 679129 3282465 

SVI 010 SV4 3cm white PVC tube with brass plate 678418 3281687 





SVI 015 FDEP 8cm diameter grey PVC tube with brass plate 686275 3284212 

SVI 016 SV7 3cm white PVS tube with brass plate 681373 3283440 


SVI 018 unlabelled 3cm white PVC tube 684868 3283462 

SVI 019 - no monument set 683912 3279534 


SVI 021 SV9 3cm white PVC tube 679450 3283213 

SVI 022 SV12 3 cm white PVC tube with brass plate 679195 3282556 








SVI 030 unlabelled 3 inch diameter aluminum core tube 684890 3281906 

* Note: All coordinates are reported in meters, UTM Zone 16, NAD 83. 

45

a) 

b) 

Figure 3.1. a) Collecting a vibracore. b) Collecting samples by trenching and hammering a short 

section of aluminum pipe into the vertical face. 

46

Figure 3.2. Demonstration of the basics of luminescence dating. The event being dated is the 

setting to zero of the luminescence signal that was acquired at some point in the past. The 

zeroing of this signal occurs through exposure to sunlight during erosion, transport and 

deposition. Once the material is buried, the signal begins to build again. (Source: Lepper., K. 

NDSU, http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/klepper/). 

47

Increasing energy 

T 

CONDUCTION BAND 

T 

VALENCE BAND 

Figure 3.3. OSL processes represented by the conduction band model. The mineral is exposed 

to nuclear radiation. The binding electrons are excited above their ground states. As the 

electrons return to their ground states, some become trapped in defects in the crystal lattice 

(represented by “T”). When the mineral is exposed to light or heat the defects are emptied and 

light is emitted. (Source: Aitken, 1991). 

48 

T

Figure 3.4. Effects of natural radiation on sediment particles. Silt-sized grains are 

irradiated by alpha, beta, gamma and cosmic radiation but sand-sized grains are only 

irradiated by beta, gamma and cosmic radiation, since alpha particles have a short range 

and only penetrate the outer rind of sand-sized grains. Of the four radiation types that 

contribute to the dose rate, cosmic radiation has the greatest penetration (Source: Aitken, 

1998). 

49

Figure 3.5. Sample removed from large core samples. The shaded area represents the 100 

grams collected as a dating sample. (Source: Forrest, 2003). 

50

Figure 3.6 – Riso TL/OSL measurement system schematic in side view. This system consists of 

a turntable in which there can be 48 sample aliquot positions. The table rotates and when a 

sample disc reaches the position of the lift, it is raised for measurement of luminescence. A beta 

source (i.e. Sr-90) is positioned remotely from the measurement position and preheating is 

carried out on a heating element. The system is fully automated. (Source: Aitken, 1998). 

51

Figure 3.7. Location of samples collected specifically for grain size analysis. The closed green 

circles represent samples collected in 2005 and 2006 by the author. The closed blue and red 

circles represent samples collected in 1984 and 1985, respectively, by Tanner and colleagues. 

(Map Source: Miller et al., 1981). 

52

Figure 3.8. Method of SELF determination. (Source: Balsillie, 1995). 

53

Figure 3.9. Basis of airborne LIDAR surveying. (Source: USACE, 2002). 

54

a) 

b) c) d) 

Figure 3.10. GPR survey techniques. a) GPR setup. b) 100 mHz antenna unit. c) 

250 mHz antenna unit. d) 50 mHz antenna unit. 

55 

c)

Sample Sites 

CHAPTER 4 

RESULTS 

A total of twenty-nine sites were investigated on St. Vincent Island. Of these twenty-nine 

sites, eight were dated using Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL). Figure 4.1 shows the 

location of the samples collected over the course of this investigation and indicates which were 

vibracores and which were trenches. Each sampling site is briefly described below. Note: All 

coordinates are UTM Zone 16 (NAD 83). Table 4.1 lists all sample site numbers and sample 

locations. 

Beach ridge type is related to environmental conditions. The identification of beach ridge 

type is, therefore, important. Taylor and Stone (1996) and Tanner (1995) discuss the multiple 

origins of beach ridges, noting that morphology alone does not distinguish swash-built ridges 

from aeolian or storm-deposited ridges. However, internal structure is diagnostic. Beach ridge 

internal structure is difficult to observe and measure. This problem is in large part solved by the 

excavation of trenches. In this investigation, trenches enabled direct observation of the basal 

deposits of former shoreline ridges, and, therefore, enabled sampling of only the wave-deposited 

portions of complex beach ridges that include aeolian deposition on their surface. In the ridges 

trenched, those that have visible bedding surfaces reveal a wave-built structure, with some 

aeolian decoration and no evidence of storm influence (i.e., the ridges exhibit seaward-dipping 

units throughout the ridge strata). This supports the swash-built hypothesis for beach ridge 

formation, proposed by Stapor (1973, 1975), Stapor et al. (1991) and Tanner (1995), and serves 

as good evidence that each ridge represents a former shoreline position. By collecting samples 

from the exposed walls of trenches it was also possible to avoid collecting samples from areas 

that had been affected by bioturbation. An example of a typical trench is shown in Figure 4.2. A 

total of 18 trenches were excavated. Sample sites are described below. All information relevant 

to each site is presented in Table 4.1. 

SVI 001 

This site, located within ridge set A, is referred to as the “Paradise Point Site”. It is the 

location of the complex midden site described in chapter 3. This site was first visited on July 23, 

56

2004. A small test pit adjacent to the midden site was excavated and revealed that the upper 1 m 

of the midden was comprised of oyster shell and pottery fragments. Near the base of the pit was 

a clay-rich deposit with some quartz. The site was visited a second time on January 5, 2005. 

Another test pit near the midden site was excavated. It revealed a similar internal structure. The 

material graded from oyster shell in the upper meter of the pit into clean quartz sand at the base 

of the pit. A sample site was selected on the shoreline to avoid having to core through the oyster 

shell layer of the upper midden. A vibracore was collected and 3.5 m of sediment was 

recovered. The site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Table 4.1 lists the samples collected at the 

site. Figure 4.3 shows the sample location. 

SVI002 

Site SVI002 was located within ridge set E, at the intersection of Road 5 and Road G. 

The site was visited on July 24, 2004. A 3 m deep trench was excavated perpendicular to the 

dune crest. Three push cores were collected from the trench face, for OSL dating. At each of the 

push core locations a small grab sample was collected for granulometric analysis. A vibracore 

was taken from the center of the trench floor. Only 0.6 m of sediment was recovered because the 

vibracore hit resistance during penetration. The site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Table 4.1 

lists the samples collected at the site. Figure 4.4 shows the sample location. 

SVI003 

Site SVI003 is located within ridge set E, at the intersection of Road 5 and Insulator 

Road. This site was visited on July 23, 2004. A trench was excavated. The trench faces showed 

evidence of iron staining and bioturbation. Care was taken to avoid these areas during sample 

collection. Three push cores were collected for OSL dating and three grab samples from the 

same locations were collected for granulometric analysis. The site location is shown in Figure 

4.1. Table 4.1 lists the samples collected at the site. The sample locations are shown in Figure 

4.5. 

SVI004 

This site is located 50 m north of Road E, on Road 5. This site is located within ridge set 

F. The site was visited on July 23, 2004. A small area on the crest of the ridge was cleared and a 

vibracore was collected. 1.9 m of sediment was recovered. The site location is shown in Figure 

4.1. Table 4.1 lists the samples collected at the site. Figure 4.6 shows the location of the 

vibracore collection. 

57

SVI005 

This site is located just west of Pickalene Bar, on the south side of Pickalene Road. The 

site is within ridge set C. The site was visited on January 4, 2005. A 0.4 m deep test pit was 

excavated. The pit showed gray sand with a small amount of clay. The base of the trench 

contacted the water table. A vibracore was then collected using a 20-foot section of aluminum 

irrigation pipe. 3.4 m of sediment was recovered. The site location is shown in Figure 4.1. 

Table 4.1 lists the samples collected at the site. 

SVI006 

This site is a midden site located just off of Pickalene Road within ridge C. SVI006 was 

visited on January 4, 2005. A sample trench was excavated by hand adjacent to the midden. The 

trench showed clay-rich sediment, grading into sandy clay. A push core was collected for OSL 

dating from the lower sandy clay layer. The site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Table 4.1 lists 

the samples collected at the site. 

SVI007 

This site is located at the northern end of Road 5 and represents the oldest ridge within 

ridge set D. The site was visited on January 4, 2005. A vibracore was collected from the middle 

of the road after verifying that there were few signs of disturbance. Approximately 4.7 m of 

sediment was recovered. The site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Table 4.1 lists the samples 

collected at the site. 

SVI008 

This site is located on the northern shore of Big Bayou. It is only accessible by boat. 

The site was visited on January 5, 2005 and a vibracore was collected. Approximately 1.9 m of 

sediment was recovered. The site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Table 4.1 lists the samples 

collected at the site. 

SVI009 

This site is located on the west side of Road 4, just north of the intersection of Road 4 and 

Road D. The site was visited on May 5, 2005 and a trench was excavated perpendicular to the 

ridge crest. This ridge is one of the largest in ridge set G. The site location is shown in Figure 

4.1. Two push cores for OSL dating and eight grab samples for granulometric analysis were 

collected. Four of the grab samples were collected along a bedding plane. The remainder of the 

samples were collected along a transect stretching from the top of the trench to the base of the 

58

trench. Table 4.1 lists the samples collected at the site. Figure 4.7 shows the location of all 

samples that were collected at this site. 

SVI010 

This site is located on Road 4, approximately 120 m north of the intersection of Road 4 

and Road A. The site was visited on May 5, 2005. A trench was excavated and 1 push core and 

3 granulometry samples were collected for analysis. The site location is shown in Figure 4.1. 

Table 4.1 lists the samples collected at the site. Figure 4.8 shows the location of the samples that 

were collected from this trench. 

SVI011 

This site was visited on May 5, 2005. The site is located on Road 4. A trench was 

excavated in the crest of the first ridge north of the beach. This ridge represented one of the 

youngest ridges in ridge set K. One push core for OSL dating and two grab samples for 

granulometric analysis were collected from the trench. The site location is shown in Figure 4.1. 

Table 4.1 lists the samples collected at the site. Figure 4.9 shows the samples collected from this 

site. 

SVI012 

This site is located at the intersection of Road 5 and Road B, within ridge set G. The site 

was visited on May 5, 2005. A trench was excavated and one push core for OSL dating and 2 

grab samples for granulometric analysis were collected. The trench showed landward dipping 

features that would suggest that the feature being sampled was a dune rather than a beach ridge. 

The site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Table 4.1 lists the samples collected at the site. Figure 

4.10 shows the trench excavated at this site. 

SVI013 

This site is located 143 m north of Road B on Road D within ridge set H. The site was 

visited on May 5, 2005. A trench was excavated and 1 push core for OSL dating and 2 grab 

samples for granulometric analyses were collected. The trench showed landward-dipping 

features that indicated that the feature was either dune decorated or was entirely dune. The site 

location is shown in Figure 4.1. Table 4.1 lists the samples collected at the site. Figure 4.11 

shows the trench excavated at this site. 

SVI014 

This site is located south of Insulator Road, within ridge set F. A trench was excavated 

on May 5, 2005 and the site was re-visited the following day. An overnight rainstorm had 

59

collapsed the trench. Therefore, a vibracore was collected in place of push cores or 

granulometry samples. The site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Table 4.1 lists the samples 

collected at the site. Figure 4.12 shows the sample site. 

SVI015 

This site is located within ridge set B, 28 m west of the intersection of Tahiti Beach Road 

and the last road before St. Vincent Point. The actual sample site was approximately 3 m off the 

west side of the road. A vibracore was collected on May 6, 2005 and then discarded because of a 

high abundance of shells in the bottom of the core. The absence of oysters indicated that it was a 

natural shell deposit and not a midden. A second attempt at collecting a vibracore was made. A 

small hole was dug to get below the shell layer and a vibracore was collected at the bottom of 

this hole. The site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Table 4.1 lists the samples collected at the 

site. Figure 4.13 shows the sample location. 

SVI016 

This site is located, within ridge set D, on Road 5 just south of the intersection of Road 5 

and Road H. The site was visited on May 6, 2005 and a vibracore was collected. The site 

location is shown in Figure 4.1. Table 4.1 lists the samples collected at the site. Figure 4.14 

shows the location of the vibracore. 

SVI017 

No sample was collected at this site. Once the trench had been excavated it was evident 

by the sedimentary structures that the site represented a dune and not a beach ridge. The site 

location is shown in Figure 4.1. Table 4.1 lists the samples collected at the site. 

SVI018 

This site is located 0.6 km from the intersection of Tahiti Beach Road and Road I, within 

ridge set C. The site was visited on January 6, 2006. A 60-cm deep hole was dug and a 

vibracore was collected from the base of the hole. Approximately 1.5 m of sediment was 

recovered. The site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Table 4.1 lists the samples collected at the 

site. 

SVI019 

A push core was collected from the beach surface, within set L on January 9, 2006. The 

sample represented a potential zero-age OSL sample, having been collected from the active part 

of the youngest developing ridge on the island. The site is located 100 m south of the end of 

60

West Pass Road. The site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Table 4.1 lists the samples collected at 

the site. 

SVI020 

This site is located 100 m south of the intersection of Road 4 and Road C, within ridge 

set G. The site was visited on January 10, 2006 and a trench was excavated on the east side of 

Road 4. Three push cores for OSL dating and three grab samples for granulometric analysis 

were collected from the trench face. The site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Table 4.1 lists the 

samples collected at the site. Figure 4.15 shows the site location. 

SVI021 

This site is located 50 m north of the intersection of Road 4 and Road F, within ridge set 

F. The site is on the east side of Road 4. A trench was excavated on January 10, 2006 and two 

push cores and 2 grab samples were collected for analysis. The site location is shown in Figure 

4.1. Table 4.1 lists the samples collected at the site. 

SVI022 

This site is located on Road 4, 50 m south Road D on the east side of the road, within 

ridge set G. A trench was excavated on January 10, 2006 and 2 push cores and 2 grab samples 

were collected. The site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Table 4.1 lists the samples collected at 

the site. The trench is shown in Figure 4.16. 

SVI023 

This site is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Road 4 and Road B, 

within ridge set G. A trench was excavated on the east side of the road and 2 push cores and 2 

grab samples were collected. The site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Table 4.1 lists the 

samples collected at the site. Figure 4.17 shows the trench and samples collected from the 

trench. 

SVI024 

This site is located on Road A, 300 m west of Charlie Road, on the North side of the 

road, within the oldest part of ridge set J. A trench was excavated on January 10, 2006 and 2 

push cores and 2 grab samples were collected for analysis. The site location is shown in Figure 

4.1. Table 4.1 lists the samples collected at the site. This site is shown in Figure 4.18. 

61

SVI025 

This site is located within ridge set I, on Rattlesnake Road, just south of Oyster Pond. A 

trench was excavated on January 11, 2006 and 2 push cores and 2 grab samples were collected. 

The site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Table 4.1 lists the samples collected at the site. 

SVI026 

This site is located on Rattlesnake Road, just north of Oyster Pond, within ridge set I. 

The site was visited on January 11, 2006. A trench was excavated and one push core and one 

grain size sample was collected. The site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Table 4.1 lists the 

samples collected at the site. 

SVI027 

This site is located on West Pass Road, 300 m south of the cabin on the east side of the 

road. The site was within ridge set L. A trench was excavated at this site and 2 push cores and 2 

grab samples were collected for analysis. The site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Table 4.1 

lists the samples collected at the site. The trench and sample locations are shown in Figure 4.19. 

SVI028 

This site is the second ridge south of Road A, on Road 2. The site is located 

approximately 300 m south of Road A, within ridge set G. The site was visited on January 12, 

2006 and a trench was excavated on the west side of the road. Two push cores and two grab 

samples were collected from the trench. The site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Table 4.1 lists 

the samples collected at the site. The location of these samples is shown in Figure 4.20. 

SVI029 

This site is located on Road 3, approximately 300 m south of Road G, in the low part of 

ridge set D. A trench was excavated on January 12, 2006 and one push core was collected for 

OSL dating. The site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Table 4.1 lists the samples collected at the 

site. 

In addition to the vibracores collected during this investigation, Stapor collected a Dutch 

gouge auger in 1979 at Tahiti Beach in the vicinity of Mallard Slough (the location of Mallard 

Slough is shown in Figure 2.1). Figure 4.21 is a log of the auger core. In addition to the auger 

sample, two boreholes were drilled by Schnable (1966) from the island’s northern shore (Figure 

4.22). 

62


A summary of the characteristics of each beach ridge set, including average ridge crest 

elevation, average swale elevation, ridge orientation, direction of ridge splay and width of each 

beach ridge set at its widest point, is shown in Table 4.2. 

Topographic Survey Results 

A leveling profile was conducted along a north-south transect across the island, following 

Road 4. This line crossed the trend of most of the beach ridge sets. The goal of the survey was 

to accurately measure the elevations of individual beach ridge crests and swales and the mean 

elevation of ridge sets. The location of the topographic survey line conducted across St. Vincent 

Island is shown in Figure 4.23. As discussed in Chapter 3, a benchmark was set at each sample 

location. The elevations of these benchmarks were measured as part of the topographic survey. 

Figure 4.24 shows the result of the topographic survey. Table 4.3 shows the measured elevations 

of each benchmark. The blue line represents the survey conducted by Stapor as part of his 

dissertation work in 1973. The red line represents the survey conducted Stapor and Tanner 

(1977). The red line represents the survey conducted during this investigation. The two 

independent surveys are in reasonably good agreement. The green line represents the elevation 

of the road, which was also determined as part of this investigation. Since the road cuts through 

the high ridges, it mutes the natural topography. The boundaries between the ridge sets 

intersected by this transect have been superimposed on Figure 4.24, in addition to the locations 

of all samples that were collected along Road 4. 

Several features are apparent in Figure 4.24: 

1) The profile obtained during this study closely agrees with the profile obtained by 

Stapor and Tanner (1977). However, one beach ridge within set K has been eroded in 

the time elapsed between the current study and the Stapor and Tanner (1977) study. 

2) Set K has one ridge with an elevation of 3.8 m. 

3) The average elevation of the ridges in ridge set G is 2.4 m. Within this set there are 

two high ridges (containing sample sites SVI 009 and SVI 023) with elevations of 4.4 

63

m and 3.7 m respectively. A cross section of the high ridge at SVI 009, the highest 

ridge surveyed, is shown in Figure 4.25. 

4) There are low lying areas on the island transect profile between 500 and 600 m, at 

1,600 m and at the boundary between ridge sets K and G. These low elevation areas 

correspond to low-lying, water-logged sloughs visible on the aerial photographs of 

the island (Figure 4.23). 

5) Ridges within set F have an average elevation of 3.5 m. 

6) Ridges within set E have an average elevation of 1.6 m. 

7) With some exceptions, ridge height increases from north to south on the island, as 

indicated in Figure 4.26. This implies an increase in wave energy in more recent 

years. 

8) The average elevation of the swales between the ridges ranges from 0.9 m (set K) to 

1.5 m (set F). The swales within sets E and G have average elevations of 0.95 m and 

1.0 m respectively. 

The relationship of these features to sea-level change will be discussed in chapter 5. 

GPR Transect Results 

The ground penetrating radar (GPR) transects were set up to cross the majority of the 

beach ridge sets on the central portion of the island. The location of the GPR transect, which 

was also along Road 4, is shown in Figure 4.23. Figure 4.27 shows the results of the GPR 

survey conducted using the MALA 100 MHz unshielded antenna unit with a 1 m antenna 

separation. The GPR profile was conducted along the same transect as the topographic profile. 

The left (south) side of the profile is the Gulf shoreline of St. Vincent Island while the right 

(north) side is the bay. The profile was conducted from south to north along the same line as the 

topographic profile. Cross-bedded units have been identified on the profiles and their trend has 

been demarcated by blue lines. The GPR survey enabled penetration to approximately 15 m 

subsurface, providing an image of the internal structure of the strandplain. The profile shown in 

Figure 4.27 has been divided into ridge sets. The average depth of penetration was 8 – 12 m. 

All ridges within sets E, F and G, show seaward dipping subsurface features that extend to 

approximately 4 to 5 m and then taper off at the base of the shoreface. The low angle reflectors 

at about 8 m likely represent the contact between Pleistocene sand and the overlying Holocene 

64

sands. The exception is one of the ridges within set K. The ridge at site SVI 011 shows 

landward dipping structures within the upper 4 m. Below a depth of 4 m, all structures are 

seaward dipping. This implies that the upper part of the ridge is dune decorated. Figure 4.28 is a 

close-up of the portion of the 100 MHz survey that covered site SVI 009. The profile shows two 

sets of seaward dipping reflectors. The upper set (the upper 6 m of the profile) is steeply dipping 

while the lower set (the lower 3 m of the profile) has a lower angle of dip. The low angle cross- 

beds at an 8 m depth could potentially represent the depth to the pre-barrier Pleistocene surface. 

Repeat profiles were conducted along the line shown in Figure 4.23 using a 250 MHz 

shielded unit and a 50 MHz unshielded antenna with a 2 m separation. Penetration was shallow. 

Therefore, little useful information was obtained. 

Granulometric Results 

Figure 3.7 shows the location of the samples collected during this study and those 

collected by Tanner (unpublished report, 1992). Table 4.4 provides a summary of the grain size 

statistics for all of the St. Vincent Island samples that were analyzed over the course of this 

study. The table also includes the samples that were collected by Tanner along four sample 

traverses across the island in 1984 and 1985. Between the Tanner studies and this current 

investigation, one sample from each of sets A, B, C and D, two samples from set H, three 

samples from sets I and K, five samples from sets E and F, seven samples from set K, nine 

samples from set L and twenty-six samples from set G were analyzed. This constitutes a total of 

sixty-four samples. A full sieve analysis report for each sample is provided in Appendix A. The 

Appendix is arranged in the order shown in Table 4.4. Both are arranged according to ridge set 

location (from north to south) and according to ridge position within each set (from north to 

south), in other words, chronologically from older to younger. 

Sample mean grain sizes range from 1.8 phi to 2.4 phi. Samples from set K, one of the 

youngest sets, have the highest set means, and are, therefore, the most coarse-grained, while 

samples from set B, one of the oldest sets, have the lowest means and are, therefore, the most 

fine-grained. The standard deviation of the sediment samples ranges from 0.3 phi units to 0.6 

phi units, with set D having the lowest standard deviation (best sorting) and set C having the 

highest (poorest sorting). Figure 4.29 is a scatterplot of suite mean versus suite standard 

deviation. The plot and the table reveal that the sand that has formed the beach ridges of St. 

65

Vincent Island has changed little over the long history of the island. The sand diameter has 

remained in the fine sand range and the standard deviation values have fallen in the “well-sorted” 

category, using the terminology of Friedman (1962). There is only one exception to this rule, a 

sample in set C, which falls in the “moderately well-sorted” range. Other than that single 

sample, the only real trend revealed by the scatterplot is that the sand comprising the younger 

sets is generally slightly better sorted than that found in the older sets. Like the ridge set height 

results, this finding also implies an increase in wave energy in recent years. This will be further 

discussed in Chapter 5. 

Individual sample kurtosis values range from 2.6 to 8.5. The highest values are found in 

samples from the north side of the island in the older ridge sets, while the lowest values are seen 

in samples from the south side. Figure 4.30 is a scatterplot of suite mean vs. suite kurtosis. The 

southern beach ridge sets (G, H, I, J, K, and L) have the lowest suite mean kurtosis values. The 

kurtosis values for these sets are statistically indistinguishable, with values that fall between 3.5 

and 3.9. The northern (older) beach ridge sets (A, B, C, D, E and F) show a wider spread in 

kurtosis values (4.2 to 5.6) than the southern sets. Kurtosis values exceeding 5.0 are seen in the 

ridge sets north of Big Bayou (shown in Fig. 4.23). These relationships can be seen in Figure 

4.31 Some (e.g., Tanner, 1990) believe that kurtosis is a function of the hydrodynamic regime of 

an area, with higher kurtosis values resulting from lower wave energy, and vice-versa. If this is 

the case, the trends seen on St. Vincent Island could suggest that the older ridges on the island 

were formed during a time of lower wave energy than the younger sets. The data shown in 

Figure 4.30 do not show any correlation between mean grain size and kurtosis. 

Skewness values range from –0.7 (strongly coarse skewed) to 1.3 (strongly fine skewed). 

Sets B, C, E and H are positively (coarse) skewed while the remaining sets are negatively (fine) 

skewed. Figure 4.32 is a scatterplot of suite mean versus suite skewness. There does not appear 

to be a relationship between skewness and mean grain size. 

Sorting and kurtosis values were compared to the mean ridge set heights shown in Figure 

4.26. Figure 4.31 shows the relationship between age and suite kurtosis while Figure 4.33 is a 

plot of relative age versus suite standard deviation. These figures demonstrate that kurtosis and 

sorting increase with age. It appears that ridge sets on the southern or Gulf (younger) side of the 

island (Sets G through L) have lower sorting and kurtosis values than ridges on the north or bay 

side of the island (Sets A through F). This implies that the sand making up the ridges on the 

southern portion of the island is better sorted than sand making up the ridges on the northern 

66

portion of the island, and is further evidence that wave energy has increased during the more 

recent history of the island. 

Tanner’s method of settling-eolian-littoral-fluvial (SELF) determination was applied to 

all of the St. Vincent Island samples. A summary of the results of this analysis is provided in 

Table 4.5. Ten of the St. Vincent Island samples collected in 2005 and 2006 had an eolian 

component (samples 011006-06,09,10, 011106-09, 050505-01B, 02A, 02B, 03A, 04B, 05A). 

The determination of which samples had an eolian component, was based on the application of 

Tanners method of SELF determination. A plot of phi grain size versus cumulative percent was 

produced for each sample. The plots were then compared to Figure 3.8 and each segment was 

identified and labelled. Table 4.5 provides a summary of the results of these analyses. Those 

samples with a segment “c” (as shown in Figure 3.8) were taken to represent sediments that had 

an eolian component. Of these ten samples, four were collected from the base of a trench 

(samples 011006-06, 011006-09, 050505-04B, 011006-10). The remaining six samples that 

showed an eolian signature came from the tops of the ridges from which they were collected 

(samples 050505-01B, 02A, 02B, 03A, 05A and 011106-09). 

The results of the granulometric analyses were further analyzed using two of the plots 

developed by Tanner (1991). Figure 4.34 is a “tail of fines” plot. This is a plot of suite mean vs. 

suite standard deviation. All of the St. Vincent Island samples plot just outside of the field in 

which river-deposited sediments are located. Figure 4.35 is a plot of skewness versus kurtosis. 

With the exception of sets B and C, the St. Vincent Island samples plot within the beach/river 

field. Set B plots in the eolian field. Set C plots outside the limits of the graph. Since sets B and 

C are only represented by single samples, both with high positive skewness values, the results of 

the SELF-analysis cannot be considered descriptive in the case of those ridge sets. These results 

of the SELF-analysis generally seem to corroborate the conclusion that the sediments comprising 

the beach ridge plain on St. Vincent Island have changed little over the history of the island, and 

that the original source of these sediments was the nearby Apalachicola River mouth. 

Previous studies have analyzed the grain size characteristics of various locations along 

the Panhandle coast. Balsillie (1995) provides a summary of the granulometric results of these 

studies. This data has been plotted on Figure 4.36. The data cover the Panhandle coast of 

Florida. Figure 4.37 is a plot of relative sample location versus mean grain size. The plot shows 

that grain size is largest closest to the Apalachicola River mouth and decreases with distance 

away from the river mouth. Figure 4.38 shows relative location versus standard deviation 

67

(sorting). Standard deviation decreases with distance away from the river mouth. This suggests 

that sorting improves with distance away from the Apalachicola River mouth. Figure 4.39 shows 

the relationship between skewness and river mouth location. Skewness is smallest at the river 

mouth and increases to the east and to the west of the river mouth. Figure 4.40 shows kurtosis 

versus relative location. Kurtosis appears to increase from west to east. 

The suite of samples collected from site SVI 009 were also analyzed. The results of the 

analyses are presented in Table 4.4. The samples collected along the bedding plane show 

minimal change in mean grain size, kurtosis, skewness and standard deviation. There is also 

minimal change in sediment characteristics along the transect from the top of the trench to the 

base of the trench. This suggests that the bedding planes within the beach ridges on St. Vincent 

Island are not readily identifiable based solely on granulometry. 

Geochronologic Results 

Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) ages were derived from single samples taken 

from near the bases of the beach ridges at sites SVI 002, 004, 015, 023, 024 and 025, plus three 

samples dated in a vertical profile down the ridge at site SVI 003. A sample was also collected 

from the modern (zero-age) beach surface at site SVI 019 to test the robustness of the dating 

technique used. Table 4.6 lists the OSL ages obtained in this study. The OSL depositional ages 

range from zero to approximately 4,100 years. The ridge with the oldest age is the northernmost 

site and the ridge with the youngest age is the southernmost site. The three ages from the vertical 

profile at side SVI 003 are statistically indistinguishable. An average of the three ages is used 

for the depositional age of the ridge. Figure 4.41 is a map showing the OSL ages relative to the 

beach ridge sets delineated by Stapor (1973). 

Ages were calculated using both the measured moisture content and average estimated 

moisture content. The importance of moisture content and the methods followed to measure 

moisture content are discussed in Chapter 3. Both measured and estimated moisture contents are 

shown in Table 4.6. The water content of the samples varied from 2.3 to 27.8%. However, it is 

possible that water may have been lost from some shallower samples by drying of the trench 

walls as a result of horizontal flow and also evaporation. Given that regional sea-level has been 

very close to present or slightly above it since island sediment deposition began (Figure 1.5), and 

given that 5 of the 10 samples have a water content near 20%, it is likely that water content has 

68

not varied much outside of 15-25% since ridge deposition. Therefore, all sample ages shown in 

Table 4.6 were calculated using an assumed water content of 20±5%. OSL ages were also 

calculated using an assumed moisture content of 5±2% to determine the sensitivity of the age 

calculations to water content (Table 4.7). Water content variation represents approximately 3- 

12% of the calculated sample ages. 

Mean progradation rates for the island and their associated sea level status were 

determined based on the dated sites. Table 4.8 shows the calculated rates and sea level status. 

The calculated rates were then plotted against age and superimposed on the northern Gulf of 

Mexico sea level curve of Balsillie and Donoghue (2004) (Figure 4.42). The progradation rate of 

the beach ridge plain has varied over the island’s 4000+year history. 

The distances between the dated sites were determined using one of two methods. For 

dated sites that were located along the same transect, a straight-line distance was measured. For 

those dated sites that were not on the same transect, an orthogonal distance was measured based 

on the measured straight line distance between the sites and angular difference between the 

straight line drawn between the sites and the angle of strike of the ridges at the sites. The 

distances were then used to calculate the progradation rates. Two of the sites (SVI 003 and SVI 

004) had identical ages. To determine the progradation rate between these two sites, the 

analytical error of +/-300 years between was used to represent the estimated maximum time 

interval between the two dated ridges. The error associated with each calculated rate is based on 

the OSL age errors shown in Table 4.6. The errors associated with the horizontal position of 

each site are on the order of 1-4 cm. These errors are negligible and were not taken into account 

in the progradation rate calculations. 

Mean progradation rates ranged from 0.7±0.3 to 4.3±3.0 m/yr. The distance of 2,550 m 

between sites SVI 015 and SVI002 equates to a progradation rate of 4.3±3.0 m/yr. There is a 

distance of 682 m between sites SVI 002 and SVI 003, which equates to a progradation rate of 

0.7±0.3 m/yr. The spacing between sites SVI 003 and SVI 004 is 779 m, which provides a rate 

of progradation of 2.6±0 m/yr. There is 1,350 m between SVI 004 and SVI 023, which works 

out to a rate of 1.0±0.2 m/yr. Between sites SVI 024 and SVI 025 there is a distance of 816 m, 

which equates to a progradation rate of 2.0±0.5 m/yr. There is a distance of 775 m between the 

two southernmost dated sites, which represents a progradation rate of 1.9±0.5 m/yr. The lowest 

rate of progradation was between 3,500 and 2,500 years ago and the highest rate was between 

69

4,100 and 3,500 years ago. The correlation between progradation rates and sea-level change will 

be discussed in detail in Chapter 5. 

Based on the topographic survey, GPR survey and the OSL dates, an attempt was made 

to relate the beach ridges to paleosealevel positions. Table 4.9 summarizes the results. The GPR 

profile was inspected for locations showing the base of the shoreface. For the identified sites an 

age was estimated based on their location relative to the dated ridges. For each location, the 

elevation of the ridge crest and the elevation of the road were determined from the topographic 

survey. The estimated paleosealevel positions do not agree with the with sea level positions 

shown on the Balsillie and Donoghue (2004) sea level curve. Although the directions of sea 

level change are not in agreement, the magnitudes are within 0.5 m to 1.0 m. These estimates are 

based on a limited amount of data and interpolated ages. 

70

Table 4.1. Summary of beach ridge sediment sample data 

Site Samples Beach Sample Sampling UTM 

Name Collected Ridge Type Date 

Set (mm/dd/yy) E N 

SVI-001 - A - 7/23/04 684196 3285439 

SVI-001 010505-01 A Vibracore 1/5/05 684149 3285414 

SVI-015 050605-01 B Vibracore 5/6/05 686090 3284110 

- no sample collected 5/6/05 686275 3284212 

SVI-018 010906-01 C Vibracore 01/09/2006 684868 3283462 


SVI-006 010405-02 C? Push core 1/4/05 678074 3284862 

SVI-005 010405-01 C? Vibracore 1/4/05 675248 3285006 

SVI-007 010405-03 D Vibracore 1/4/05 681439 3283681 


SV-029 011206-05 D push core 01/12/2006 677821 3284287 

SV-030 011206-06 D ziploc bag 01/12/2006 684890 3281906 

SVI-002 072304-01 E Push core 7/23/04 681337 3283301 

072304-02 Push core 


072304-04 Vibracore 

SVI-003 072304-05 E Push core 7/23/04 681246 3282625 



SVI-021 011006-07 F Push core 01/10/2006 679429 3283214 


011006-09 grain size sample 


SVI-014 050505-06 F Vibracore 5/5/05 681225 3282490 


SVI-022 011006-11 G Push core 01/10/2006 679182 3282551 




SVI-020 011006-01 G Push core 01/10/2006 678888 3282175 






71

Table 4.1 Continued 

Site Samples Beach Sample Sampling 


72 

UTM 



SVI-015 050605-01 B Vibracore 5/6/05 686090 3284110 

- no sample collected 5/6/05 686275 3284212 


SVI-017 - G no sample collected 5/6/05 680174 3281487 


SVI-019 010906-02 L Push core (vertical) 01/09/2006 683912 3279534 

SVI-020 011006-01 G Push core 01/10/2006 678888 3282175 






SVI-021 011006-07 F Push core 01/10/2006 679429 3283214 




SVI-022 011006-11 G Push core 01/10/2006 679182 3282551 




SVI-023 011006-15 G Push core 01/10/2006 678618 3281906 




SVI-024 011006-19 J Push core 01/10/2006 680954 3280002 




SVI-025 011106-01 I Push core 01/11/2006 679150 3280692 




SVI-026 011106-05 I Push core 01/11/2006 679516 3280800 

011106-06 grain size sample

Table 4.1 Continued 

Site Samples Beach Sample Sampling 


73 

UTM 


SVI-024 011006-19 J Push core 01/10/2006 680954 3280002 




SVI-011 050505-03A K 2 grain-size samples 5/5/05 678194 3281453 

050505-03B 

050505-03C Push core " " " 

SVI-027 011106-07 L Push core 01/11/2006 683777 3279928 




SVI-019 010906-02 L Push core (vertical) 01/09/2006 683912 3279534 

Table 4.2. Summary of beach ridge set characteristics 

Ridge Set Average 

Ridge Set 

Crest 

Elevation (m 

NAVD 88) 

Average Ridge 

Set Swale 

Elevation (m 

NAVD 88) 

Orientation of 

Beach Ridge 

Sets 

Width of the 

Beach Ridge 

set at its 

widest point 

(km) 

Direction of 

Splay 

A NW-SE 0.5 None 

B NW-SE 0.3 None 

C NW-SE 0.7 None 

D NW-SE 1.3 East 

E 1.6 0.95 NW-SE 1.4 East 

F 3.5 1.5 NW-SE 0.9 East 

G 2.4 1.0 NW-SE 1.5 None 

H NW-SE 0.6 None 

I NW-SE 0.9 West 

J NW-SE 0.8 West 

K 3.8 0.9 NW-SE 0.4 None 

L NE-SW 1 Northwest 

Note: Average beach ridge crest heights and swale heights for the sets were determined only for 

ridge sets crossed by the topographic survey profile.

Table 4.3. Measured elevations of St. Vincent Island benchmarks 

Sample Site ID # Monument 

Elevation (m) 

SVI 001 S001 1.057 

SVI 002 unlabelled 0.556 


SVI 004 SV2 0.782 

SVI 005 unlabelled * 



SVI 008 S008 1.355 

SVI 009 SV1 4.234 

SVI 010 SV4 0.399 

SVI 011 SV8 2.463 

SVI 012 SV11 1.187 

SVI 013 SV5 * 

SVI 014 SV6 1.540 

SVI 015 FDEP 0.641 

SVI 016 SV7 0.579 

SVI 017 SV3 * 


SVI 019 - bch. Surface 


SVI 021 SV9 0.433 

SVI 022 SV12 1.439 









*Benchmarks set as part of this project, but elevation not measured 

Note: Elevation measurements are relative to NAVD 88 datum. Elevations were measured by 

differential GPS survey relative to USGS benchmark FDEP B396. 

74

Table 4.4 – Summary of granulometry data 

Sample ID Sample Site Ridge Set Mean (phi) Standard Deviation (phi units) Skewness Kurtosis Source of Data 

7 - A 2.2058 0.4555 -0.1042 4.6490 Tanner 

49 - B 2.1024 0.3706 0.4194 5.6464 Tanner 

1 - C 2.1858 0.6022 0.9259 5.6283 Tanner 

011206-06 SVI 030 D 2.2742 0.3528 -0.5522 4.1597 Forrest 

28 - E 2.3725 0.4335 -0.6741 5.5548 Tanner 

46 - 2.2747 0.3916 -0.0555 3.5078 Tanner 

38 - 2.1112 0.4726 0.2950 5.2034 Tanner 

42 - 2.0430 0.4190 -0.1975 4.3023 Tanner 

40 - 2.1698 0.4320 0.6986 5.8567 Tanner 

SET MEAN - 2.1942 0.4297 0.0133 4.8850 

011006-09 SVI 021 F 2.2818 0.3654 -0.5602 3.8016 Forrest 

011006-10 SVI 021 2.0200 0.4910 -0.4400 3.1088 Forrest 

24 - 2.2291 0.3960 -0.3099 3.1358 Tanner 

34 - 2.1104 0.4517 1.2963 8.5148 Tanner 

32 - 2.1882 0.3504 -0.1472 4.0672 Tanner 

SET MEAN - 2.1659 0.4109 -0.0322 4.5256 

011206-03 SVI 028 G 2.3452 0.2929 -0.0817 4.2704 Forrest 

011206-04 SVI 028 2.3533 0.3366 -0.2294 3.8368 Forrest 

050505-01A SVI 009 2.2653 0.3677 -0.2822 3.5151 Forrest 

050505-01B SVI 009 2.3122 0.3865 -0.7156 6.4527 Forrest 

050505-01C SVI 009 2.3329 0.3427 -0.1406 3.8129 Forrest 

050505-01D SVI 009 2.2088 0.3431 -0.2195 3.6313 Forrest 

050505-01E SVI 009 2.2684 0.3564 -0.2606 3.5549 Forrest 

050505-01F SVI 009 2.3045 0.3315 -0.1585 3.8125 Forrest 

050505-01G SVI 009 2.2175 0.3518 -0.1023 3.8065 Forrest 

050505-01H SVI 009 2.2730 0.3254 -0.0025 3.9712 Forrest 

050505-01I SVI 009 2.1842 0.3564 -0.1274 3.3849 Forrest 

011006-13 SVI 022 2.2110 0.3650 -0.2549 3.7698 Forrest 

011006-14 SVI 022 2.3898 0.3284 -0.2814 4.2771 Forrest 

20 - 2.2508 0.3661 0.0053 3.2923 Tanner 

011006-05 SVI 020 1.7582 0.3671 0.0480 3.5309 Forrest 

011006-06 SVI 020 1.9091 0.3439 -0.2017 3.3181 Forrest 

011006-04 SVI 020 1.9532 0.3701 -0.0413 3.3393 Forrest 

16 - 2.0047 0.4206 0.0798 3.7312 Tanner 

14 - 2.2113 0.3628 0.0733 3.3964 Tanner 

011006-17 SVI 023 2.0988 0.3622 0.0011 3.7515 Forrest 

011006-18 SVI 023 2.0656 0.3912 -0.0692 3.5844 Forrest 

050505-02A SVI 010 2.2227 0.4472 -0.3477 3.0736 Forrest 

050505-02B SVI 010 2.2497 0.3941 -0.3428 3.7180 Forrest 

050505-02C SVI 010 2.1714 0.4133 -0.2591 3.0446 Forrest 

050505-04A SVI 012 2.1076 0.3480 -0.1357 3.0057 Forrest 

050505-04B SVI 012 1.8853 0.3797 0.3407 2.5948 Forrest 

SET MEAN - 2.1607 0.3676 -0.1415 3.6404 

050505-05A SVI 013 H 2.2646 0.3657 0.0419 3.3728 Forrest 

050505-05B SVI 013 2.2102 0.3577 0.0030 3.6563 Forrest 

SET MEAN - 2.2374 0.3617 0.0225 3.5146 

011106-06 SVI 026 I 2.2065 0.3668 -0.1190 2.9809 Forrest 

011106-03 SVI 025 2.1902 0.3859 -0.3417 3.5196 Forrest 

011106-04 SVI 025 2.2522 0.3569 -0.2864 3.2744 Forrest 

SET MEAN - 2.1902 0.3859 -0.3417 3.5196 

H - J 2.0969 0.3629 -0.2394 3.6943 Tanner 

I - 2.2105 0.4279 -0.1677 3.5673 Tanner 

011006-21 SVI 024 2.2172 0.3423 -0.3466 3.2828 Forrest 

011006-22 SVI 024 2.0985 0.3885 -0.3167 3.1175 Forrest 

J - 2.2480 0.4425 0.3455 5.2082 Tanner 

K - 2.1629 0.4111 -0.1736 3.7896 Tanner 

L - 2.1240 0.4538 -0.3261 3.3757 Tanner 

SET MEAN - 2.1654 0.4041 -0.1749 3.7193 

12 - K 2.2911 0.4013 -0.3534 3.9231 Tanner 

050505-03A SVI 011 2.2907 0.4119 -0.6416 3.9062 Forrest 

050505-03B SVI 011 2.3081 0.3428 -0.2263 3.5255 Forrest 

SET MEAN - 2.2966 0.3853 -0.4071 3.7849 

D - L 2.2340 0.4344 -0.0197 5.0218 Tanner 

C - 2.0337 0.4055 -0.0781 3.3175 Tanner 

G - 2.1679 0.4231 0.2212 4.6612 Tanner 

011106-10 SVI 027 2.1602 0.3464 -0.3573 3.3575 Forrest 

011106-09 SVI 027 2.3906 0.3443 -0.4242 3.7121 Forrest 

F - 2.0421 0.4563 0.0251 2.7627 Tanner 

B - 2.2516 0.4344 -0.1795 3.6611 Tanner 

A - 2.2096 0.4019 -0.1952 3.7798 Tanner 

E - 2.2689 0.3864 -0.0712 3.7990 Tanner 

SET MEAN - 2.1725 0.4203 -0.0425 3.8576 

75

Table 4.5. Application of Tanner’s (1986,1991) method of SELF (settling-eolian-littoral-fluvial) 

determination to the St. Vincent Island samples 

Note: Each “x” represents the presence of a segment 

76 

SEGMENT(S) IDENTIFIED 

Sample ID Sample Site Ridge Set Settling Lag Central Fluvial Littoral Eolian 

7 - A X X X X 

49 - B X X X 

1 - C X X X 

011206-06 SVI 030 D X X X 

28 - E X X X X 

46 - X X X 

38 - X X X 

42 - X X X X 

40 - X X 

011006-09 SVI 021 F X X X X 

011006-10 SVI 021 X X X X 

24 - X X X 

34 - X X X 

32 - X X X 

011206-03 SVI 028 G X X X X 

011206-04 SVI 028 X X X X 

050505-01A SVI 009 X X X X 

050505-01B SVI 009 X X X X 

050505-01C SVI 009 X X X X 

050505-01D SVI 009 X X X 

050505-01E SVI 009 X X X 

050505-01F SVI 009 X X X X 

050505-01G SVI 009 X X X 

050505-01H SVI 009 X X X X 

050505-01I SVI 009 X X X X 

011006-13 SVI 022 X X X X 

011006-14 SVI 022 X X X X 

20 - X X X X 

011006-05 SVI 020 X X X 

011006-06 SVI 020 X X X X 

011006-04 SVI 020 X X 

16 - X X 

14 - X X X X 

011006-17 SVI 023 X X X 

011006-18 SVI 023 X X X X 

050505-02A SVI 010 X X X X X 

050505-02B SVI 010 X X X X X 

050505-02C SVI 010 X X X 

050505-04A SVI 012 X X X X 

050505-04B SVI 012 X X X X X 

050505-05A SVI 013 H X X X 

050505-05B SVI 013 X X X 

011106-06 SVI 026 I X X X X 

011106-03 SVI 025 X X X X 

011106-04 SVI 025 X X X X 

H - J X X X 

I - X X X 

011006-21 SVI 024 X X X 

011006-22 SVI 024 X X X X 

J - X X X 

K - X X X 

L - X X X 

12 - K X X X 

050505-03A SVI 011 X X X X X 

050505-03B SVI 011 X X X X 

D - L X X X 

C - X X X 

G - X X X 

011106-10 SVI 027 X X X X 

011106-09 SVI 027 X X X X X 

F - X X 

B - X X X 

A - X X X 

E - X X X

Table 4.6 – OSL age calculations 

Sample Site Sample Subsurface No. of U Th k Cosmic Radiation Paleodose Water Content (%) Dose Rate Age 

Depth (m) Aliquots (ppm) (ppm) (%) Dose (Gy/ka) (Gy) Measured Assumed Mean (Gy/ka) (ka) 

SVI002 072304-04B 3.46 13 0.26+/-0.04 0.39+/-0.14 0.06 0.13 0.88+/-0.07 21.6 20+/-5 0.25+/-0.01 3.5+/-0.3 

SVI003 072304-05 1.93 14 0.27+/-0.03 0.30+/-0.12 0.05 0.16 0.62+/-0.06 19.9 20+/-5 0.27+/-0.01 2.3+/-0.2 

SVI003 072304-06 1.37 20 0.23+/-0.02 0.42+/-0.10 0.01 0.17 0.65+/-0.10 2.3 20+/-5 0.25+/-0.01 2.6+/-0.4 

SVI003 072304-07 0.82 15 0.61+/-0.07 0.96+/-0.27 0.02 0.19 0.95+/-0.08 5.6 20+/-5 0.37+/-0.02 2.6+/-0.3 

SVI004 072304-08 2.75 13 0.33+/-0.04 0.36+/-0.15 0.04 0.14 0.63+/-0.07 17.0 20+/-5 0.26+/-0.01 2.5+/-0.3 

SVI015 050605-01 2.04 19 0.80+/-0.04 0.39+/-0.19 0.08 0.159 1.59+/-0.09 8.05 20+/-5 0.4+/-0 4.1+/-0.3 

SVI023 011006-16 1.426 17 0.58+/-0.05 0.63+/-0.22 0.02 0.197 0.43+/-0.02 4.4 20+/-5 0.4+/-0 1.2+/-0.1 

SVI024 011006-19 1.722 18 0.34+/-0.02 0.34+/-0.11 0.04 0.1661 0.11+/-0.01 26.2 20+/-5 0.3+/-0 0.4+/-0.0 

SVI025 011106-02 1.389 18 0.33+/-0.03 0.48+/-0.13 0.05 0.1736 0.23+/-0.02 27.8 20+/-5 0.3+/-0 0.8+/-0.1 

SVI019 010906-02 beach surface 7 - - - - 0 - 20+/-5 - 0 

77 

* OSL age includes two-sigma uncertainty due to systematic errors such as inhomogeneous bleaching, disc to disc variations in 

paleodose, errors due to counting statistics in alpha counters, errors due to curve fitting and water content. 

* All OSL measurements and age calculations were done at the University of Georgia Luminescence Laboratory

Table 4.7. OSL age calculations using assumed moisture contents of 20+/-5% and 5+/-2% 

Sample Site Sample Age (ka) 

Age (ka) 

(moisture content = 20+/-5%) (moisture content = 5+/-2%) 

SVI 002 072304-04B 3.5+/-0.3 3.2+/-0.3 

SVI 003 072304-05 2.3+/-0.2 2.1+/-0.2 

SVI 003 072304-06 2.6+/-0.4 2.5+/-0.4 

SVI 003 072304-07 2.6+/-0.3 2.3+/-0.2 

SVI 004 072304-08 2.5+/-0.3 2.2+/-0.3 

78

Table 4.8. Calculated progradation rates and ridge growth rates, based on OSL ages and distances between ridges 

Sample Elapsed Progradation # Ridges Years Sea Level 

Site Distance Age 

Time Rate Between per 

No. From To (meters) (method) (ka) (yr) (m/yr) Sites Ridge 

SVI015 4.1+/-0.3 4100 

SVI002 SVI-015 SVI-002 2555 (orthogonal*) 3.5+/-0.3 3500 600+/-424 4.3+/-3.0 25 24 Falling 

SVI003 SVI-002 SVI-003 682 (map dist.) 2.5+/-0.2 2500 1000+/-360 0.7+/-0.3 19 53 Rising 

SVI004 SVI-003 SVI-004 779 (map dist.) 2.5+/-0.3 2500 0+/-361 2.6+/-0 @ 15 0 Falling 

SVI023 SVI-004 SVI-023 1350 (orthogonal**) 1.2+/-0.1 1200 1300+/-316 1.0+/-0.2 25 52 Rising/Falling/Stable 

SVI025 SVI-023 SVI-025 852 (orthogonal**) 0.8+/-0.1 800 400+/-141 - - - - 

SVI024 SVI-025 SVI-024 816 (orthogonal***) 0.4+/-0.0 400 400+/-100 2.0+/-0.5 7 57 Falling 

SVI019 SVI-024 SVI-019 775 (orthogonal****) 0 0 400+/-100 1.9+/-0.5 18 22 Stable 

* Based on an angle of 32 degrees between the ridge axis and a straight line between the two dated points 

** Based on an angle of 40 degrees between the ridge axis and a straight line between the two dated points 

*** Based on an angle of 25 degrees between the ridge axis and a straight line between the two dated points 

**** Based on an angle of 15 degrees between the ridge axis and a straight line between the two dated points 

@ Based on progradation of 780 meters within the error limits of two identical OSL ages (300 yr) 

79 

Note: Sea level was determined by plotting the ages and progradation rates on the Gulf of Mexico sea-level curve of Balsillie and 

Donoghue (2004)

Table 4.9. Paleosealevel position estimates 

Location Age (ka) 1 Sea Level 

Elevation, 

MSL 2 

Road Elevation 

above MSL 

(m) 3 

Elevation of 

ridge crest 

above MSL 

(m) 3 

Subsurface 

depth of 

shoreface 

(m) 4 

Corrected Estimated 

elevation of Paleosealevel 

base of 

shoreface, 

below MSL 

(m) 

5 

SVI009 2.0 0.26 1.9 4.4 7.0 -5.1 -0.35 

SVI010 1.0 -0.01 1.6 2.8 6.0 -4.4 -0.80 

SVI020 1.6 0.58 1.8 2.4 6.0 -4.2 -0.90 

N of SVI021 3.0 -0.69 2.7 3.6 6.0 -3.3 0.15 

80 

1 

Age estimated based on interpolation using OSL dated ridges 

2 

Sea level elevation estimated from Balsillie and Donoghue (2004) sea level curve 

3 

Road elevation and ridge crest elevations determined from the topographic survey 

4 

Subsurface depth of the base of the shoreface determined from the GPR profile 

5 

Paleosealevel taken as the midpoint between the ridge crest and base of the shoreface

SVI 005 

SVI 028 

SVI 029 

SVI 011 

SVI 006 

SVI 021 

SVI 022 

SVI 009 SVI 020 

SVI 023 

SVI 010 

SVI 026 

SVI 025 

Figure 4.1. Sample sites on St. Vincent Island. The blue circles represent sites where a 

vibracore was collected. The black circles represent sites where samples were collected from the 

vertical wall of a trench. The approximate locations of Roads 4 and 5 are shown in red. 

81 

SVI 008 

SVI 012 

SVI 007 

SVI 016 

SVI 002 

SVI 003 

SVI 014 

SVI 004 

SVI 013 

SVI 024 

SVI 001 

SVI 018 

SVI 027 

SVI 015 

Stapor’s 

dutch auger 

core

Figure 4.2. Example of a trench through a beach ridge on St. Vincent Island. The trench axis 

is perpendicular to the shoreline. Seaward direction is to the left. Note the seaward dipping 

beds at all levels in the ridge, shown by the solid black line and the dashed lines. Vertical 

structures in the upper section are root casts. White circles indicate sediment sample locations. 

82

Figure 4.3. Site SVI 001 (Paradise Point Site). Location of vibracore site SVI 001 was just 

offshore. Site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Samples collected from this site are listed in 

Table 4.1. 

Figure 4.4. Site SVI 002. Push cores 072304-01,02 and 03 were collected from this trench for 

OSL dating. Vibracore 072304-04 was also collected from the floor of this trench. Site location 

is shown in Figure 4.1. Samples collected from this site are listed in Table 4.1. 

83

Figure 4.5. Site SVI 003. Trench excavated at site SVI 003. Push cores 072304-05,06 and 07 

were collected for OSL dating. Site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Samples collected from this 

site are listed in Table 4.1. 

84

Figure 4.6. Site SVI 004. Vibracore 072304-08 was collected from this site. Site location is 

shown in Figure 4.1. Samples collected from this site are listed in Table 4.1. 

85

a) 

b) 

050505-01E 

050505-01K 

050505-01B 

050505-01C 

050505-01D 

050505-01F 

050505-01J 

050505-01G 

050505-01I 

Figure 4.7. Site SVI 009. a) OSL dating samples. b) Samples collected for grain size analysis. 

Site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Samples collected from this site are listed in Table 4.1. 

86 

050505-01A 

050505-01H

050505-02A 

050505-02B 

050505-02C 050505-02D 

Figure 4.8. Site SVI 010. Location of three samples collected for grain size analysis (050505- 

02A,B,C) and one sample collected for OSL dating (050505-02D). Site location is shown in 

Figure 4.1. Samples collected from this site are listed in Table 4.1. 

Figure 4.9. Site SVI 011. Location of two samples collected for grain size analysis (050505- 

03A,B) and one sample collected for OSL dating (050505-03C). Site location is shown in Figure 

4.1. Samples collected from this site are listed in Table 4.1. 

87 

050505-03A 

050505-03B 

050505-03C

a) 

b) 

050505-04C 

050505-04A 

Figure 4.10. Site SVI 012. a) Trench excavated. b) Location of two samples collected for grain 

size analysis (050505-04A,B) and one sample collected for OSL dating (050505-04C). Site 

location is shown in Figure 4.1. Samples collected from this site are listed in Table 4.1. 

88 

050505-04B

050505-05A 

050505-05C 

Figure 4.11. Site SVI 013. Location of two samples collected for grain size analysis (050505- 

05A,B) and one sample collected for OSL dating (050505-05C). Site location is shown in Figure 

4.1. Samples collected from this site are listed in Table 4.1. 

Figure 4.12. Site SVI 014. Vibracore 050505-06 was collected from this location. Site location 


89 

050505-05B





90

011006-03 

011006-02 

011006-06 

Figure 4.15. Site SVI 020. Samples 011006-01, 02 and 03 were collected for OSL dating. 

Samples 011006-04, 05 and 06 were collected for grain size analysis. Site location is shown in 

Figure 4.1. Samples collected from this site are listed in Table 4.1. 

011006-14 

011006-04 

011006-12 

011006-05 

011006-01 

011006-11 011006-13 

Figure 4.16. Site SVI 022. Two grain size samples (011006-13,14) and two OSL samples were 

collected (011006-11,12). Site location is shown in Figure 4.1. Samples collected from this site 

are listed in Table 4.1. 

91

a) 

b) 

011006-15 

011006-16 

Figure 4.17. Site SVI 023. a) Trench. b) Samples 011006-15 and 16 were collected for OSL 

dating. Samples 011006-17 and 18 were collected for grain size analysis. Site location is shown 

in Figure 4.1. Samples collected from this site are listed in Table 4.1. 

92 

011006-18 

011006-17

a) 

b) 

011006-22 

011006-19 




93 

011006-20 

011006-21

a) 

b) 

011106-08 

011106-07 011106-10 




94 

011106-09

a) 

b) 

011206-04 

011206-03 

011206-02 

011206-01 




95

Figure 4.21. Dutch gouge-auger core taken at Tahiti Beach in the vicinity of Mallard Slough in 

January 1979. The approximate location of the core is shown in Figure 4.1. Note the pre-barrier 

Pleistocene surface (indicated by the arrow) at approximately 8.7 meters depth in the core. 

(Source: Stapor, pers. comm.) 

96

Figure 4.22. Boreholes drilled in the St. Vincent Island vicinity. Inset map shows the location of 

the three cores. The pre-barrier Pleistocene surface appears in the two St. Vincent boreholes 

(Holes IL and IM) at approximately 22 feet below MSL (6.7 meters).(Source: Schnable, 1966). 

97

Figure 4.23. Line A-A’ represents the location of the topographic survey transect across St. 

Vincent Island. That profile is shown in Figure 4.24. The profile follows island Road 4. Line 

A-A’ also represents the location of the GPR survey transect across St. Vincent Island, which is 

shown in Figure 4.27 and 4.28. 

98

8 

K G F E 

7 

KISH SURVEY STAPOR SURVEY ROAD - KISH 

6 

SVI 009 

5 

SVI 023 

SVI 021 

4 

Elevation (m) 

99 

3 

SVI 022 

2 

SVI 011 

SVI 020 

SVI 010 

1 

0 

3,000 

2,900 

2,800 

2,700 

2,600 

2,500 

2,400 

2,300 

2,200 

2,100 

2,000 

1,900 

1,800 

1,700 

1,600 

1,500 

1,400 

1,300 

1,200 

1,100 

1,000 

900 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

-100 

-200 

Gulf of Mexico Distance (m) 

Big Bayou 

Figure 4.24. North-south topographic profile across St. Vincent Island, along Road 4. North is to the right. See Figure 4.23 for profile location. The blue 

line represents the transect conducted by Stapor and Tanner (1977) (referred to as “Stapor Survey”). The green line represents the road and the red line 

represents the survey conducted during this study (referred to as “Kish Survey”. Vertical exaggeration is 200x.

Elevation (m) NAVD 88 

5.00 

4.50 

4.00 

3.50 

3.00 

2.50 

2.00 

1.50 

1.00 

0.50 

0.00 

Cross Section of SVI 009 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 

Distance (m) 

Figure 4.25. Topographic profile across the beach ridges located at site SVI 009. The ridges 

are located on island Road 4, and are part of the topographic and GPR transect of the island. 

Vertical exaggeration is 17x. North is to the right and south (seaward) is to the left. Site 

location is shown in Figure 4.1. 

100

Mean set height (m) NAVD 88 

4.5 

4 

3.5 

3 

2.5 

2 

1.5 

1 

0.5 

0 

Set K 

Set G 

-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

Distance (m) 

Gulf of Mexico Bay 

Figure 4.26. Mean ridge set height vs distance along the profile. Profile location shown 

in Figure 4.23. Mean heights taken from Fig. 4.24. 

101 

Set F 

Set E

1200 +/- 100 yr 

102 

Figure 4.27. GPR profile across St.Vincent Island. Gulf of Mexico (south) is to the left side of the figure. Vertical and horizontal scales are in meters. The red vertical lines 

delineate the low areas between individual beach ridges. The blue lines represent the trend of the crossbeds within each beach ridge.

Gulf of 

Mexico 

High-angle, seaward 

dipping reflectors 

Pleistocene/Holocene 

Contact 

Figure 4.28. Close-up of the section of the 100 MHz GPR survey that covered site SVI 009. 

Site location is shown in Figure 4.1 and 4.27. South (seaward) is to left. 

103 

SVI 009 

St. Vincent 

Sound 

0 m 

4 m 

8 m

0.65 

Set C 

0.6 

0.55 

0.5 

Set A 

0.45 

Set E 

Set L 

104 

Set F 

0.4 

Set Standard Deviation (phi units) 

Set J 

Set K 

Set H 

Set I 

Set D 

Set G 

Set B 

0.35 

0.3 

2.05 2.10 2.15 2.20 2.25 2.30 2.35 

Set Mean Diameter (phi units) 

Figure 4.29. Suite mean versus suite standard deviation

6.3 

Set B Set C 

5.3 

Set E 

Set F 

Set D 

Set A 

4.3 

Set K 

Set L 

Set H 

Set J 

Set I 

Set G 

3.3 

Average Kurtosis 

105 

2.3 

1.3 

0.3 

2.0500 2.1000 2.1500 2.2000 2.2500 2.3000 2.3500 

Average Mean (phi) 

Figure 4.30. Suite mean versus suite kurtosis.

6 

Set B 

Set C 

Set E 

5 

Set A 

Set F 

Set D 

Set F/G 

Set K Set J 

Set L 

Set I 

4 

Set G 

Set H 

3 

y = 0.1504x + 3.2072 

R2 = 0.6013 

Suite Kurtosis 

106 

2 

1 

0 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 

Relative Age 

Figure 4.31. Relative age versus suite kurtosis. Note: Relative age is unitless. Ridge sets were assigned numbers from 1 to 13 

with the youngest represented by “1” and the oldest represented by “13”.

1 

Set C 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

Set B 

0.2 

Set E 

Set H 

Set F 

0 

Set L 

2.0500 2.1000 2.1500 2.2000 2.2500 2.3000 2.3500 

Set A 

Set J Set G 

-0.2 

Average Skewness 

107 

Set K 

Set I 

-0.4 

Set D 

-0.6 

-0.8 

Average mean (phi) 

Figure 4.32. Suite mean versus suite skewness.

0.7 

Set C 

0.6 

Set A 

0.5 

Set E 

Set F 

Set I 

Set L 

Set G 

Set J 

Set B 

Set H 

Set K 

Set F/G Set D 

0.4 

0.3 

108 

y = 0.0055x + 0.369 

R 2 = 0.1055 

Suite Std. Dev. (phi units) 

0.2 

0.1 

0 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 

Relative Age 

Figure 4.33. Plot of relative age versus suite standard deviation. Note: Relative age is unitless. Ridge sets were assigned 

numbers from 1 to 13 with the youngest represented by “1” and the oldest represented by “13”.

ENVIRONMENTS OF DEPOSITION -- St. Vincent Island Samples 

10 

Closed Basin 

1 

River 

Dune 

0.1 

Set Std. Dev. (phi-units) 

109 

0.01 

Mature 

Beach 

0.001 

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 

Set Mean (phi) 

Set A mean Set B mean Set C mean Set E mean Set F mean Set G mean Set H mean Set J mean 

Set K mean Set L mean Set D mean Set I mean 

Figure 4.34. Tail of fines plot. Plot derived from Tanner (1991).

ENVIRONMENTS OF DEPOSITION -- SKEWNESS VS. KURTOSIS 

SHOALS 

10 

EOLIAN and 

SETTLING 

BEACHES 

RIVERS 

RIVERS 

EOLIAN; 

SETTLING 

Set B 

5 

Set C 

Set D 

SHOALS 

BEACHES 

Average 

Kurtosis 

Set E 

110 

Set F 

Set G 

Set K 

Set I 

Set H 

1 

Set J 

-0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 

Average Skewness 

Figure 4.35. Skewness versus kurtosis. Plot derived from Tanner (1991).

N 

9 

1.59 

0.31 

0.06 

3.82 

1 

4 

1 

3 

2.06 

0.31 

0.02 

3.52 

2.31 

0.47 

0.01 

3.79 

2 

1.84 

0.03 

0.08 

6.11 

2.17 

0.47 

0.03 

3.59 

2.47 

0.38 

-0.13 

3.28 

8 

111 

Numbers are 

averages for suite 

statistics in the 

following order: 

1.66 

0.33 

0.03 

5.41 

2.35 

0.40 

-0.002 

3.85 

2.34 

0.56 

-0.42 

4.21 

1.8-2.4 

0.3-0.6 

-0.7-1.3 

2.6-8.5 

Mean (phi) 

Standard Dev. 

(phi) 

Skewness 

Kurtosis 

5 6 

7 

Figure 4.36. Grain size characteristics of the islands that rim the Apalachicola River mouth. The numbers from 1 to 9 

correspond to the relative locations plotted in Figures 4.37 to 4.40. (Source: Balsillie, 1995)

mean grain size (phi) 

3 

2.5 

2 

1.5 

1 

0.5 

0 

y = 0.0035x 3 - 0.0781x 2 + 0.4018x + 1.7739 

112 

R 2 = 0.7321 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

location relative to Apalachicola River 

Figure 4.37. Location relative to the Apalachicola River mouth versus mean 

grain size. Note: Numbers shown on the x-axis correspond to the numbered 

locations in Figure 4.36. (Data source: Balsillie, 1995) 

standard deviation (phi) 

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

y = 0.0041x 3 - 0.075x 2 + 0.3689x - 0.0346 

R 2 = 0.6093 

0 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


Figure 4.38. Location relative to the Apalachicola River mouth versus 

standard deviation. Note: Numbers shown on the x-axis correspond to the 

numbered locations in Figure 4.36. (Data source: Balsillie, 1995)

skewness 

0.2 

0.1 

0 

-0.1 

-0.2 

-0.3 

-0.4 

-0.5 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

y = 0.001x 6 - 0.031x 5 + 0.3704x 4 - 2.1684x 3 + 6.422x 2 - 8.9073x + 

4.3342 

113 

R 2 = 0.6864 


Figure 4.39. Location relative to the Apalachicola River mouth versus skewness. 

Note: Numbers shown on the x-axis correspond to the numbered locations in 

Figure 4.36. (Data source: Balsillie, 1995) 

kurtosis 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

y = 0.2232x + 3.0597 

R 2 = 0.4137 

0 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


Figure 4.40. Location relative to the Apalachicola River mouth versus kurtosis. 

Note: Numbers shown on the x-axis correspond to the numbered locations in 

Figure 4.36. (Data source: Balsillie, 1995)

SVI 015 

SVI 002 

SVI 003 

114 

SVI 004 

SVI 023 

SVI 025 

SVI 024 

SVI 019 

Figure 4.41. OSL ages for samples collected from St. Vincent Island.

6 

4 

2 

Sea Level (m) 

0 

-2 

-4 

-6 

1.9 

4.3 0.7 2.6 1.0 2.0 

? 

-8 

Progradation 

Rates (m/yr) 

-10 

Gulf of Mexico Younger Data Set 

115 

-12 

0 

1,000 

2,000 

3,000 

4,000 

5,000 

6,000 

7,000 

cal yr BP 

Figure 4.42. St. Vincent Island progradation rates. The red solid line adapted from Balsillie and Donoghue (2004) is a comprehensive 

compilation of radiocarbon dated sea-level indicators for the northern Gulf of Mexico. The numerical values represent the rates of 

progradation of the St. Vincent Island beach ridge plain based on the OSL dated sites on the island. The blue arrows represent the 

OSL dates obtained during the investigation.

CHAPTER 5 

DISCUSSION 

The beach ridges making up the St.Vincent Island beach ridge plain have been 

investigated using a variety of techniques. The surface and subsurface morphology of the beach 

ridge plain was studied by using GPR and high-precision topographic surveys. Borehole records 

from previous studies were accessed to gain additional subsurface information. The 

granulometric characteristics of the beach ridge plain were quantified based on the analysis of 

samples that were collected by vibracoring and trenching. The sediment analyses involved 

determining the grain size characteristics of each sample by sieving and using the GRANPLOTS 

sediment statistical program (Balsillie et al., 2002) and by employing a series of probability plots 

developed by Tanner (1986, 1991). Selected beach ridge sediment samples were dated using 

OSL techniques. These several techniques can be synthesized in order to reconstruct the 

depositional history of the island. Additionally, a comparison of the island’s growth history 

with the northern Gulf of Mexico sea-level history enables a better understanding of the 

relationship between sea-level change and barrier evolution, as will be discussed below. 


GPR has proven to be a useful tool for analyzing the internal structure of the St. Vincent 

Island strandplain. Previous studies conducted on the island have provided estimates of the 

depth of the pre-barrier surface beneath the island (Figures 4.21 and 4.22). This boundary is a 

sharp contact between brightly colored (yellow and orange mottled) Pleistocene sand and 

overlying dark gray Holocene muddy sand (Figure 4.21). Oxidation, the process that has given 

the Pleistocene sands their orange color, tends to occur above the water table where atmospheric 

oxygen is readily available (Ritter, 1986). The Pleistocene period was a time of widespread 

glaciation. With water locked up in the ice sheets, the climate was drier than present. Sea level, 

as the Wisconsinan glaciers began to retreat, was much lower than present (Figure 1.5, lower 

sea-level curve). Towards the end of the final Pleistocene ice advance, about 20,000 years ago, 

sea level began to fluctuate and rise (Figure 1.5). By the mid-Holocene, the northern hemisphere 

116

continental glaciers were virtually gone, sea level was at or near present, and coastal morphology 

began to undergo rapid change. 

The Pleistocene pre-barrier surface was estimated to be at a depth of approximately 8.7 m 

based on the Dutch gouge auger core collected by Stapor (Figure 4.21) at Tahiti Beach in the 

vicinity of Mallard Slough, on the central part of the island’s eastern shore. Schnable (1966) 

placed its depth below the northern side of St. Vincent Island at 6.7 m based on the two 

boreholes collected from the island’s northern shore (Figure 4.22). The borehole data imply that 

the Pleistocene surface dips slightly toward the southeast. The GPR profiles run during this 

investigation (Figure 4.27) do not in all cases penetrate to these depths, but low angle reflectors 

at about 8 m, are seen in places (Figure 4.28). Based on its very low angle of dip and its depth 

beneath the island, this reflector may represent the Pleistocene contact. It does closely correlate 

to the depth of 8.7 m estimated by Stapor. If this is the case, these three studies provide values 

for the depth of the pre-barrier surface contact that are in reasonably close agreement. This 

contact is significant because it represents the surface on which the island was constructed. 

In addition to providing glimpses of the depth to the pre-barrier surface, GPR also 

provided an image of the subsurface structure of the strandplain. With the exception of two 

ridges within set K, all ridges that were imaged were characterized by low-angle, seaward- 

dipping subsurface reflectors that extend to approximately 4-5 m and then taper off at the base of 

the shoreface (Figure 4.27). These seaward-dipping reflectors are consistent with beach ridge 

deposition by swash processes. Storm waves can act like regular, non-storm waves in building 

or eroding beach ridges and can have similar effects. However, large storms, with overwash of 

the ridges, cause landward dipping beds to be deposited on the top of the ridge. These should be 

visible in the GPR profiles and trenches. Since this is not the case, it can be assumed that storms 

are not a major factor in ridge formation. The two ridges that showed landward-dipping 

reflectors are consistent with dune formation or washover processes. However, the abundance 

of low-angle seaward-dipping reflectors indicates that swash processes, as opposed to storm 

events, were predominantly responsible for forming the St. Vincent beach ridges. 

GPR is also a useful tool when applied to luminescence studies. Before any sample is 

analyzed using luminescence techniques, it is important for the researcher to be certain that the 

sample has a meaningful relationship to the stratigraphy and geomorphology of the site in 

question (Aitken, 1998). Luminescence studies typically involve collecting samples from a 

117

vibracore or trench, both of which provide a limited understanding of the stratigraphy. GPR can 

serve to enhance stratigraphic information and provide confidence that the dated material is in 

fact part of the geomorphic feature whose age is sought. In this investigation, GPR was a 

valuable tool because it was used to ensure that the samples collected for OSL dating did in fact 

represent the basal ridge deposit and not the eolian or dune decorated part of the ridge in 

question. 

Granulometric Data from the Beach Ridge Samples 

The granulometric data (mean grain size, standard deviation, kurtosis, skewness) 

collected over the course of this investigation provide information about the nature and source of 

the sediment making up the beach ridges on St. Vincent Island. When used in conjunction with 

Tanner’s method of SELF (settling-eolian-littoral-fluvial) determination (Figure 3.8) it is 

possible to make some predictions as to depositional origin of the sediment making up the island. 

The mean grain sizes obtained during this study (Table 4.4) indicate that the sand 

comprising the St. Vincent Island beach ridge plain is fine-grained. However, the younger sets 

appear to be composed of slightly coarser grained sand than the older sets. Standard deviation is 

related to the mean grain size. It refers to the spread of values about the mean and is an indicator 

of sorting (Leeder, 1982). Generally, mature beaches have standard deviations that range from 

0.3 to 0.5 phi (Tanner, 1995). Sands that fall within this range are considered well-sorted (Folk, 

1974). All of the samples collected from the beach ridges on St. Vincent Island fall within this 

range (Table 4.4). 

Based on mean grain size and standard deviation, the material making up the beach 

ridges on St. Vincent Island can be classified as well-sorted, mature, fine-grained sand. This has 

held true over the course of the island’s history as shown in Table 4.4. However, the sand 

comprising the younger sets is generally slightly better sorted and slightly coarser grained than 

that found in the older sets. This implies an increase in wave energy in recent years. This 

increase in wave energy was likely a direct result of sea- level rise. Alternatively, this could be a 

result of increased storm frequency in recent times. 

Kurtosis is a measure of the sorting in the “tails” of the grain size distribution curve and 

the sorting in the central portion of the curve (Boggs, 1995). If the central portion is better sorted 

118

than the tails, the curve is excessively “peaked” (Boggs, 1995). If, on the other hand, the tails 

are better sorted than central portion, the curve is “flat-peaked” (Boggs, 1995). The geological 

significance of kurtosis is unknown and many believe it has little value in interpretive grain size 

statistics (Boggs, 1995). Others believe that kurtosis is related to hydrodynamics and is a good 

indicator of energy levels and wave height (Doeglas, 1946; Haan, 1977; Tanner, 1990). They 

believe that the factors that can alter the hydrodynamic regime of an area and, thus, kurtosis, 

include sea-level rise, seasonal changes and storm tide and wave impact events. According to 

Tanner (1990) kurtosis values close to 3.0 are indicative of high-energy environments with large 

wave heights. Tanner (1990) stated that kurtosis values of 4.0 and higher are indicative of low 

energy environments with smaller wave heights. Where wave energies are low, kurtosis may be 

a useful tool for estimating changes in ancient sea-level (Tanner, 1990). In general, the kurtosis 

values for the east coast of Florida range from 3.0 to 3.5 (Balsillie, 1995). The lower Gulf coast 

has kurtosis values on the order of 3.5 or greater (Balsillie, 1995). Kurtosis differs between these 

two regions because waves are higher along the east coast than the lower Gulf coast. 

For the panhandle coast wave heights and energy are low. Therefore, following Tanner’s 

reasoning, kurtosis values should be high. The St. Vincent Island data obtained in this 

investigation supports this assumption. Kurtosis values are high, ranging from 3 to 9 (Table 4.4). 

If kurtosis is related to wave energy, the trends seen could suggest that the most recent beach 

ridge sets (sets G, H, I, J, K and L) on St. Vincent Island, which encompass the past 2,000 years 

or so, were formed during a time of higher wave energy while the older ridges (Sets A, B, C, D, 

E and F) were formed during a time when wave energy was lower than it is today (Table 4.4). 

This trend was also seen in the mean grain size and standard deviation results. Since the 

formation of the oldest set of beach ridges approximately 4,000 years ago (Table 4.6), wave 

energy has increased to modern levels. This increase in energy could be related to sea level 

change. As a general rule, as sea level increases, wave energy should also increase. This 

follows the Bruun Rule, which states that as the nearshore water depth is increased, more wave 

energy is brought to the beach face (Douglas et al., 2001). These changes in energy, and 

potentially in sea level, can be seen in the sediment characteristics of St. Vincent Island, 

particularly in the mean grain size, standard deviation and kurtosis. These changes in energy 

could also be related to an increase in storm frequency related to a changing climate. 

119

Skewness can be used to identify the source of the material making up the beach ridges 

on the island. Positive skewness values indicate the presence of excessive fine grains, while 

negative skewness is indicative of excessive coarse grains (Leeder, 1982). Skewness is sensitive 

to depositional environment. River sands generally show a positive skewness because fine 

grains are selectively winnowed by constant wave action, leaving a tail of coarser grains. Wind 

blown sands tend to be positively skewed because of the low efficiency of wind in moving 

coarse particles, which end up being left behind as a lag deposit. The scatterplot of suite mean 

versus suite skewness for the St. Vincent Island beach ridge samples (Figure 4.32) does not show 

a correlation between mean grain size and skewness. This would suggest that skewness and 

grain size are not related for these samples. The skewness results, which range from –0.003 to 

1.3 (Table 4.4), indicate that the sand that makes up the majority of beach ridges on the island 

has a beach or riverine source. There also appears to be a relationship between mean grain size, 

skewness, standard deviation, kurtosis and location relative to the Apalachicola River mouth. 

The coarsest material is deposited near the river mouth while the finer material is deposited on 

the barrier islands to the east and west of the river (Figure 4.37). Figure 4.38 shows that the 

sediment deposited on the barriers near the river mouth is poorly sorted. Skewness is lowest in 

close proximity to the river mouth (Figure 4.39), suggesting that the islands close to the river 

mouth have an excess of coarse-grained material. Kurtosis appears to increase from east to west 

and doesn’t appear to be related to the location of the Apalachicola River (Figure 4.40). 

The samples that showed an eolian signature after being subjected to Tanner’s method of 

SELF determination (Tanner, 1986, 1991) suggest eolian decoration at the top of the beach 

ridges. The three anomalous samples that had an eolian signature deep within the ridge could be 

a result of bioturbation that mixed sediment from the top of the ridge with sediment towards the 

base of the ridge or could represent a period of eolian deposition preceding ridge formation. 

The results of the granulometric analyses were further analyzed using two of the plots 

developed by Tanner (1991). Figure 4.34 is a tail of fines plot. This plot is dependent on the 

fluid dynamics of the environments of deposition. The suite mean separates a large new 

sediment supply (river or closed basin sediments) from winnowing or sorting products (beach 

and dune sands). The suite standard deviation separates mature sediments and large mass 

density differences from settling and winnowing products. The downfall of this plot is that it 

doesn’t always provide the final agent of transport and deposition but may provide the previous 

120

transpo-depositional history of a sample. Not all sand masses are moved by a single transport 

agent. Sand deposits delivered from one agent to another, may not lose the granulometric 

fingerprint of the first until considerable time has passed (Balsillie, 1995). It is important to 

recognize that there may be two or more agents responsible for transport. Since all of the St. 

Vincent Island samples plot at the edge of the river field in Figure 4.34, at first glance this would 

suggest that the last transport and depositional agent was riverine. However, the ridges on the 

island are composed of beach sand and were not directly formed by riverine processes. The 

sediment may have had a riverine source (the nearby Apalachicola River and delta whose 

locations are shown in Figure 1.6) originally but it is likely that several other transpo- 

depositional processes were involved before the sediment was used to construct the beach ridges 

on the island, with not enough time having elapsed to erase the initial riverine signature. 

Figure 4.35 is a plot of skewness versus kurtosis. In general, beach and river sands tend 

to be skewed to the coarse side (skewness < 0.1). Settling tail or closed basin sediments are 

skewed to the fine side (skewness > 0.1). Eolian sands also tend to show a positive skewness. 

With the exception of sets B and C, the St. Vincent Island samples are beach or river sands. Set 

B plots as eolian and Set C is unknown since it plots outside of the limits of the graph. 

Based on Figures 4.34 and 4.35, it is evident that one of the previous transpo-depositional 

mechanisms for the St. Vincent Island samples has been riverine. The sediment making up the 

island was likely originally derived from the Apalachicola River mouth and underwent several 

modes of transport before being incorporated into the St. Vincent Island beach ridge sets. 

However, it is difficult to make firm conclusions about the depositional agents because the 

number of samples collected from the ridge sets is variable (Table 4.4). Sets A, B, C and D are 

represented by single samples. Sets E, F, H, I, J, K and L are represented by fewer than 10 

samples. Twenty-six samples were collected from set G. With the possible exception of set G, 

any predictions drawn about the transpo-depositional mechanisms of the beach ridge sets on St. 

Vincent Island are tentative. 

Geochronologic Data from the Beach Ridge Samples 

Prior to the present study, three dates were available for the island. One is an 

archaeological date of 3,000-3,500 years on midden ceramics from the northwest part of the 

121

island. Another is a C-14 date of 2,110±130 years from a shell (Mulinia sp.) exposed 15 cm 

above mean sea level on the surface of a beach ridge on the east side of the island on Tahiti 

Beach near Mallard Slough (Stapor, 1973). Since this date is based on a single shell that may 

have been reworked, it is suspect. The last is the historical record of the closure of Oyster Pond 

(location shown in Figure 2.1) 200 years ago for the southern coast of the island, which is based 

on historical charts (Stapor, pers. comm.). These ages provide some limited time constraint. The 

oldest ages reported on the island are archaeological ages from the oldest ridge sets, comprising 

artifacts in paleoindian middens dated at 3,000-3,500 years BP. Based on this previous work, all 

ridge ages were expected to fall between 0 and about 4,000 years. 

The OSL ages obtained during this investigation (Table 4.6) fall within the expected age 

range based on the inferred progradation history of the island (Stapor 1973, 1975). Progradation 

rates were calculated for the beach ridge plain based on the dated samples. The calculations and 

the state of sea level associated with each calculated rate are shown in Table 4.8. The calculated 

rates were then superimposed on the northern Gulf of Mexico sea level curve created by Balsillie 

and Donoghue (2004) (Figure 4.42). Between 4,100 and 3,500 years, the progradation rate for 

the St. Vincent Island beach ridge plain was 4.3±3.0 m/yr. This time period was one of sea level 

fall. Sea level fell from an elevation of 1.0 m to –0.5 m. The progradation rate between 3,500 and 

2,500 years was 0.7±0.3 m/yr. During this time interval, sea level was rising. Sea level rose 

from an elevation of –0.5 m to 0.5 m. Sea level fell at 2,500 years and the progradation rate 

increased to 2.6±0 m/yr. Between 2,500 and 1,200 years, sea level was variable, with both a rise 

(from 0.5 to 1.4 m) and a fall (1.4 to –0.3 m) and a short period of sea level stability. At this 

time, the island’s progradation rate was 1.0±0.2 m/yr. Sea level was falling between 800 and 

400 years and the progradation rate increased to 2.0±0.5 m/yr. At this time sea level fell from an 

elevation of 0 to –0.2 m). From 400 years to the present, sea level has remained relatively stable 

and the progradation rate of the island has average approximately 1.9±0.5 m/yr. Based on Figure 

4.42 and Table 4.8, these results appear to confirm that when sea level is stable or falling, 

progradation rates are high. This trend could be related to the change in the nearshore 

accommodation space available for sediment accumulation that is related to sea level change. 

This could also be a result of an increase in sediment supply. When sea level falls, wave base is 

lowered and it is possible to erode more sand from further offshore. Alternatively, when sea 

level is rising, progradation are low. These lower rates could be related to an increase of energy 

122

on the beach face as sea level rises. This increased energy could result in the erosion of ridges 

instead of deposition. The topographic survey shown in Figure 4.24 suggests that a large ridge 

was eroded between 1977 and 2006. This ridge was surveyed during the Stapor and Tanner 

(1977) survey but is not present today. Despite the increase in storm frequency that may be seen 

in the St. Vincent Island data (the removal of the ridge from set K and the increase in energy 

seen in the granulometric results), the island has not been overwashed or destroyed during any 

historical high magnitude storm. This is because the island is unique in terms of its size and its 

elevation. It is also stabilized by mature vegetation. 

Rates of beach ridge formation were estimated based on the dated sites and an estimated 

count of the number of ridges between each dated site. Color aerial photographs, LIDAR 

imagery and high-resolution SAR images were used to count the beach ridges. It was difficult to 

recognize many of the ridges, since they are low-lying. Many of the ridges are discontinuous or 

merged together, which also makes identification difficult. For this reason, the intervening 

swales were counted instead of ridges. The swales were counted because the dark vegetation 

showed up clearly on the images. In any case, the counts should be taken as a best estimate only. 

The time interval represented by the spacing between the St. Vincent Island ridges varies from 0 

to 57 years, with an average of 35 years (Table 4.8). This is similar to the estimate of 40 to 60 

years per ridge made by Tanner (1991). There is no simple explanation for the periodicity of the 

ridges. The mechanism for forming swales is not clearly understood. The processes responsible 

for terminating the building of one ridge and initiating the building of a new one are possibly 

related to storm frequency or changes in wave regime (Tanner, 1988). 

The OSL ages obtained in this study have been superimposed on a Gulf of Mexico sea 

level curve in Figure 4.42, with the data tabulated in Table 4.8. The oldest ridge dated in this 

study was at site SVI 015, which provided an OSL age of 4,100 +/- 300 years. At that time sea 

level was higher than present and following a falling trend. Sea level fell below present level 

and continued to fall until approximately 3,800 years. At this point it rose slightly and remained 

stable for approximately 250 years. At approximately 3,500 years sea level began to fall again. 

At this time, the ridges in the vicinity of site SVI 002 formed. Sea level then started to rise until 

it reached its present level at approximately 2,800 years. It rose above present level and the 

ridges at site SVI 003 and SVI 004 formed. Sea level rose until 1,800 years ago, at which point 

it began to fall. It reached its present level at 1,150 years ago and then fell slightly below present 

123

sea level. It was at this point that the ridges near site SVI 023 were formed. Sea level then 

remained fairly stable with several small-scale fluctuations about its present level. The ridges in 

the vicinity of site SVI 025 were formed when sea level was at its present level (800 +/- 100 

years). The young ridges in the vicinity of site SVI 024 formed when sea level was slightly 

lower than present (400 +/- 0 years). Since then sea level has fluctuated about present levels. 

Based on the analysis of the St. Vincent Island beach ridges, it appears that beach ridges 

and barrier strandplains, grow more rapidly when sea level is falling or stable. This trend was 

also observed by Bristow and Pucillo (2006) on the Guichen Bay strandplain complex in 

southeast South Australia. The inverse relationship between sea level rise and strandplain 

progradation rate may be related to the changes in accommodation space associated with changes 

in sea level. When sea level rises, water depth increases and accommodation space – the space 

that is available for sediment accumulation (Boggs, 2001) – also increases. Sediment will then 

accumulate offshore and is not available to the barrier island. Rising sea level may also be 

associated with erosion of the ridges. When sea level is falling, accommodation space decreases 

and sediment becomes available to be added to the barrier island. A falling sea level can also be 

associated with increased erosion of the offshore shelf as a result of lowered wave base. This 

can increase the amount of sediment supplied to the beach ridge plain. Thus, the barrier island 

grows and progrades. 

Based on the estimates of paleosealevel from the beach ridges (Table 4.9), with 

additional data it may be possible to estimate sea level positions from beach ridges. The 

assumption that paleosealevel position is represented by the elevation of the midway point 

between the ridge crest and the base of the shoreface may hold true. 

124

CHAPTER 6 

CONCLUSIONS 

This investigation has resulted in a better understanding of the late Quaternary history of 

the northern Gulf of Mexico, its response to sea-level change and the impact of small-scale 

changes in sea level on coastal evolution. This investigation sought to test the six hypotheses 

outlined in chapter 1. Each hypothesis was confirmed over the course of this study and is briefly 

summarized below. 

The first hypothesis was that the direct luminescence dating of quartz sand grains in 

beach ridges can provide a reliable history of barrier beach ridge plain evolution. This has been 

confirmed by the OSL depositional ages obtained during this investigation, which range from 

zero to approximately 4,100 years. The ridge with the oldest age is the northernmost site and the 

ridge with the youngest age is the southernmost site, as was expected. 

The second hypothesis tested during this investigation was that beach ridge progradation 

rates and beach ridge heights are influenced primarily by the rate and direction of sea level 

change. The initial source of the sediment making up the St. Vincent Island strandplain was the 

nearby Apalachicola River. The ridges that comprise the island’s strandplain were formed from 

this sediment at rates that varied over the course of the island’s 4,000+year history and appear to 

be correlated with the direction of sea-level change. At times when sea level was falling or 

stable, the island’s progradation rates were high. When sea level was rising, progradation rates 

were low. This could be related to changes in accommodation space and sediment supply 

associated with a fall in sea level or related to increased erosion as a result of sea level rise. This 

investigation has confirmed the close relationship between barrier evolution and small-scale 

changes in the rate and direction of sea-level change. 

The third hypothesis was that abrupt changes in sea level can have a significant effect on 

the development of coastal landforms over a geologically brief span of time. The fact that 

progradation rates changed over what can be considered a geologically short time span, suggests 

that even brief and relatively small (+/- 1 meter) changes in sea level can have a significant effect 

on the development of coastal landforms over a geologically brief span of time. 

125

The fourth hypothesis was that sea-level history in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico 

reflects global eustatic history. The sea level curve produced by Siddall et al. (2003) and the 

Gulf of Mexico sea level history of Balsillie and Donoghue (2004) are very similar with some 

minor deviations. This suggests that sea level history in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico is a 

good mirror of global sea level, and that barrier evolution in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico is 

typical of barriers in general. 

The fifth hypothesis was that beach ridges may hold evidence of sea-level highstands 

during the mid- to late Holocene. Of the eight beach ridges dated on the island, this investigation 

has shown that the majority formed during sea level highstands. These eight ridges represent a 

small fraction of the 100+ beach ridges covering the surface of St. Vincent Island. Of the ridges 

dated, those that formed during sea level highstands could lend support to the hypothesis that 

beach ridges may hold evidence of sea level high stands during the mid to late Holocene. 

However, this hypothesis requires further investigation. 

The sixth hypothesis was that beach ridges are built by swash processes, as opposed to 

storms or aeolian processes. Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) is a non-invasive technique that 

has proven to be a useful tool in the analysis of the internal structure of barrier island 

strandplains. It can provide a high-resolution image of the internal character of beach ridges and 

when used in conjunction with dating techniques can be applied to the study of the evolution of 

coastal geomorphic features. Based on the GPR studies of the internal structure of the beach 

ridges on St. Vincent Island, whose subsurface expression consists of a series of seaward-dipping 

cross-bedded units, the majority of ridges on the island were built by swash processes, as 

opposed to storm events. The granulometric data from this investigation also indicates that the 

bulk of the beach ridge sediments are not aeolian. These findings support the hypothesis that 

beach ridges are built primarily by swash processes rather than storms. 

Based on the granulometric data collected over the course of this investigation, some 

additional conclusions, related to the depositional origin of the sediment making up the St. 

Vincent Island beach ridge plain, can be made. The granulometric analyses indicate that the 

source of the sand that has formed the beach ridges of St. Vincent Island has changed little over 

the long history of the island. The original source of the sand is riverine and its most likely 

source is the nearby Apalachicola River mouth. The granulometric analyses of the ridges also 

provide several lines of evidence that energy levels were lower when strandplain development 

126

was initiated and have increased to present day levels. This increase in energy can potentially be 

tied to rising sea level. 

This study is one of the first of its kind to be conducted in the United States. It is also 

one of the first studies of barrier island evolution conducted along the Panhandle coast of 

Florida. 

Future work should involve the compilation of a more robust data set. Additional grain 

size samples should be collected to provide a more robust set of granulometric data. Future work 

should also include a more detailed dating program. Ideally, several OSL dates should be 

obtained from within each beach ridge set. This would refine the progradation rate calculations 

made in this investigation and provide a higher resolution record of the progradation history and 

evolution of St. Vincent Island. A full LIDAR survey would also provide the information 

required to accurately estimate the number of beach ridges within each beach ridge set. The 

estimates could then be used to provide a more accurate estimate of beach ridge formation rates. 

Additional work should also include the collection of GPR data that covers a larger portion of the 

island. This data could then be used to further refine the current estimates of the position of the 

pre-barrier Pleistocene contact. Additional work using low frequency GPR is also 

recommended. The greater penetration provided by the lower frequency units will provide a 

better understanding of subsurface stratigraphy of the island. This understanding could be 

further refined by the collection of borehole data from locations across the island. 

127

APPENDIX A 

INDIVIDUAL SIEVE ANALYSIS RESULTS 

128

Sample I.D.: 7 Sampled by: W. Wei Start Sieve Size (phi): 0.5 

Sample Date: 1/1/1984 Analyzed by: W. Wei End Sieve Size (phi): 4.25 

Fraction Processed Total Sample Pan Sieve Size (phi): 5 

Longitude: Latitude: Datum: Sieve Interval (phi): 0.25 

Surface Elev: Datum: Water Depth: Number of Splits: 0 

Sample Depth in Core: Compaction Corrected? % Compaction: Grab Sample ? 

Original Sample Dried? yes Air Dried no Oven Dried yes Original Dry Sample Mass: 49.6390 grams 

Sample Wet Sieved? no Comments: 

Mass of Sample Remaining: grams 

Dry Sieved Fines Mass: grams 

Wet Sieved Fines Mass: grams 

Wet Sieved Silt Mass: grams 

Wet Sieved Clay Mass: grams 

Final Total Sample Mass: 49.639 grams 

Sieve Sieve Weight Freq Cumulative 

Size Midpoint Weight Weight 

(phi) (phi) (grams) % % 

0.50 0.375 0.0400 0.0806 0.0806 

0.75 0.625 0.1480 0.2982 0.3787 

1.00 0.875 0.3150 0.6346 1.0133 

1.25 1.125 0.6900 1.3900 2.4034 

1.50 1.375 1.8290 3.6846 6.0880 

1.75 1.625 4.0980 8.2556 14.3436 

2.00 1.875 6.6100 13.3161 27.6597 

2.25 2.125 12.5580 25.2987 52.9584 

2.50 2.375 11.2590 22.6818 75.6401 

2.75 2.625 7.6330 15.3770 91.0171 

3.00 2.875 3.7030 7.4599 98.4770 

3.25 3.125 0.3880 0.7816 99.2586 

3.50 3.375 0.0660 0.1330 99.3916 

3.75 3.625 0.0340 0.0685 99.4601 

4.00 3.875 0.0260 0.0524 99.5125 

4.25 4.125 0.2420 0.4875 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

Figure A.1. Granplot analysis of sample 7 

Measure 

Mean: 

Standard Deviation: 

Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 

5th Moment Measure: 


Median: 

Relative Dispersion: 

129 

Statistical Results 

Original Data Transformed Original Data 

in φ Units Data in Millimeters 

2.2058 φ 0.2168 mm 0.2279 mm 

0.4555 phi-units MV 0.0780 mm 

-0.1042 NU MV 1.7244 NU 

4.6490 NU MV 8.6310 NU 

2.300 NU MV 0.07 NU 

48.689 NU MV 0.10 NU 

2.0958 φ 0.2339 mm 0.2343 mm 

MV MV 0.3421 NU 

Mean, std dev, skewness, kurtosis, 5th & 6th MM calculated using method of moments. 

MV = meaningless value; NU = no units (i.e. , dimensionless) 

Transformed data are calculated using mm = 2 - φ 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 

Arithmetic Probability Paper 

Dashed straight line is the precise 

Gaussian fit based on the sample mean 

and standard deviation. 

Central Segment 

Fluvial Segment 

1.0 2.0 3.0 

Figure A.2. Method of SELF determination applied to sample 7 

130 

i 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 

Coarser Grain Size (Phi) Finer


















0.50 0.375 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

0.75 0.625 0.0360 0.0720 0.0720 

1.00 0.875 0.0820 0.1639 0.2358 

1.25 1.125 0.3260 0.6516 0.8874 

1.50 1.375 1.6310 3.2598 4.1472 

1.75 1.625 5.7210 11.4342 15.5814 

2.00 1.875 10.2440 20.4741 36.0555 

2.25 2.125 16.3820 32.7417 68.7972 

2.50 2.375 9.9360 19.8585 88.6557 

2.75 2.625 4.1620 8.3183 96.9741 

3.00 2.875 1.1080 2.2145 99.1886 

3.25 3.125 0.1300 0.2598 99.4484 

3.50 3.375 0.0680 0.1359 99.5843 

3.75 3.625 0.0470 0.0939 99.6782 

4.00 3.875 0.0350 0.0700 99.7482 

4.25 4.125 0.1260 0.2518 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 


Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 





2.1024 φ 0.2329 mm 0.2403 mm 


0.4194 NU MV 0.9518 NU 

5.6464 NU MV 5.7425 NU 

14.187 NU MV 0.02 NU 

96.869 NU MV 0.03 NU 

1.9815 φ 0.2532 mm 0.2542 mm 

MV MV 0.2565 NU 




35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi) 

131

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 







1.0 2.0 3.0 

132 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 

Coarser Grain Size (Phi) Finer 

Figure A.4. Method of SELF determination applied to sample 49







Original Sample Dried? yes Air Dried no Oven Dried yes Original Dry Sample Mass: grams 








Sieve Sieve Weight Freq Cumulative Statistical Results 

Size 

(phi) 

0.50 

Midpoint Weight 

(phi) (grams) % 

0.375 0.0000 0.0000 

Weight 

% 

0.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 

Original Data 

in φ Units 

2.1858 φ 

Transformed 

Data 

0.2198 mm 

Original Data 

in Millimeters 

0.2373 mm 

0.75 0.625 0.3800 1.0922 1.0922 Standard Deviation: 0.6022 phi-units MV 0.0935 mm 

1.00 0.875 0.3210 0.9227 2.0149 Skewness: 0.9259 NU MV 1.3323 NU 

1.25 1.125 0.6520 1.8740 3.8889 Kurtosis: 5.6283 NU MV 6.9871 NU 

1.50 1.375 1.3020 3.7423 7.6313 5th Moment Measure: 11.512 NU MV 0.06 NU 

1.75 1.625 3.8020 10.9281 18.5594 6th Moment Measure: 48.930 NU MV 0.08 NU 

2.00 1.875 5.6450 16.2255 34.7849 Median: 2.0229 φ 0.2461 mm 0.2470 mm 

2.25 2.125 8.9480 25.7193 60.5042 Relative Dispersion: MV MV 0.3941 NU 

2.50 2.375 6.4410 18.5134 79.0176 Mean, std dev, skewness, kurtosis, 5th & 6th MM calculated using method of moments. 

2.75 2.625 3.8120 10.9569 89.9744 


3.00 2.875 1.6100 4.6276 94.6021 

Transformed data are calculated using mm = 2 

3.25 3.125 0.2530 0.7272 95.3293 

3.50 

3.75 

3.375 

3.625 

0.1310 0.3765 

0.1310 0.3765 

95.7058 

96.0823 

4.00 3.875 0.1370 0.3938 96.4761 

4.25 4.125 1.2260 3.5239 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 

5.00 

4.625 

4.625 

0.0000 100.0000 

0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 

5.00 

4.625 

4.625 

0.0000 100.0000 

0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 

5.00 

4.625 

4.625 

0.0000 100.0000 

0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

- φ 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 


0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 


133

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 







134 

i 

i 

Settling Tail 

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 



Sample I.D.: 011206-06 Sampled by: Beth Forrest Start Sieve Size (phi): 0.5 

Sample Date: 1/12/2006 Analyzed by: Beth Forrest End Sieve Size (phi): 4 








Dry Sieved Fines Mass: grams sieved 01/25/2006 








0.50 0.375 0.0278 0.0281 0.0281 

0.75 0.625 0.0371 0.0375 0.0656 

1.00 0.875 0.1150 0.1162 0.1817 

1.25 1.125 0.4666 0.4714 0.6531 

1.50 1.375 1.5721 1.5881 2.2412 

1.75 1.625 6.2496 6.3133 8.5546 

2.00 1.875 11.2831 11.3982 19.9528 

2.25 2.125 19.2103 19.4062 39.3590 

2.50 2.375 35.9498 36.3165 75.6755 

2.75 2.625 18.6068 18.7966 94.4721 

3.00 2.875 4.8893 4.9392 99.4113 

3.25 3.125 0.4446 0.4491 99.8604 

3.50 3.375 0.0784 0.0792 99.9396 

3.75 3.625 0.0286 0.0289 99.9685 

4.00 3.875 0.0078 0.0079 99.9764 

5.00 4.5 0.0234 0.0236 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 

Figure A.7. Granplot analysis of sample 011206-06 




2.2742 φ 0.2067 mm 0.2133 mm 


-0.5522 NU MV 1.7280 NU 

4.1597 NU MV 9.3031 NU 

-4.027 NU MV 0.04 NU 

47.915 NU MV 0.08 NU 

2.1983 φ 0.2179 mm 0.2186 mm 

Relative Dispersion: MV MV 0.2697 NU 




40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 


135

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 





Littoral Waves 


1.0 2.0 3.0 

Figure A.8. Method of SELF determination applied to sample 011206-06 

136 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 



















0.50 0.375 0.0500 0.1070 0.1070 

0.75 0.625 0.1990 0.4257 0.5327 

1.00 0.875 0.3060 0.6546 1.1873 

1.25 1.125 0.4430 0.9477 2.1349 

1.50 1.375 0.4970 1.0632 3.1981 

1.75 1.625 1.4220 3.0420 6.2401 

2.00 1.875 3.6460 7.7996 14.0397 

2.25 2.125 9.8210 21.0093 35.0490 

2.50 2.375 11.8710 25.3947 60.4437 

2.75 2.625 10.4650 22.3869 82.8306 

3.00 2.875 6.6600 14.2472 97.0778 

3.25 3.125 1.0060 2.1521 99.2299 

3.50 3.375 0.1700 0.3637 99.5935 

3.75 3.625 0.0320 0.0685 99.6620 

4.00 3.875 0.0030 0.0064 99.6684 

4.25 4.125 0.1550 0.3316 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 


Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 


137 




2.3725 φ 0.1931 mm 0.2026 mm 


-0.6741 NU MV 2.7738 NU 

5.5548 NU MV 15.7004 NU 

-8.701 NU MV 0.13 NU 

65.421 NU MV 0.22 NU 

2.2722 φ 0.207 mm 0.2078 mm 

MV MV 0.3606 NU 




30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 






Eolian Segment 

138 


1.0 2.0 3.0 


i 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 



















0.50 0.375 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

0.75 0.625 0.0480 0.0980 0.0980 

1.00 0.875 0.0720 0.1470 0.2450 

1.25 1.125 0.1370 0.2797 0.5247 

1.50 1.375 0.6430 1.3127 1.8373 

1.75 1.625 3.3000 6.7369 8.5742 

2.00 1.875 6.6560 13.5881 22.1623 

2.25 2.125 12.9000 26.3351 48.4975 

2.50 2.375 11.5310 23.5403 72.0378 

2.75 2.625 8.0500 16.4339 88.4717 

3.00 2.875 4.8380 9.8767 98.3484 

3.25 3.125 0.6540 1.3351 99.6836 

3.50 3.375 0.0780 0.1592 99.8428 

3.75 3.625 0.0180 0.0367 99.8796 

4.00 3.875 0.0110 0.0225 99.9020 

4.25 4.125 0.0480 0.0980 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 


Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 


139 




2.2747 φ 0.2067 mm 0.2143 mm 


-0.0555 NU MV 1.2177 NU 

3.5078 NU MV 7.0653 NU 

-0.013 NU MV 0.03 NU 

30.562 NU MV 0.04 NU 

2.1410 φ 0.2267 mm 0.2269 mm 

MV MV 0.2821 NU 




30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 







1.0 2.0 3.0 


140 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 



















0.50 0.375 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

0.75 0.625 0.1980 0.4921 0.4921 

1.00 0.875 0.4040 1.0041 1.4961 

1.25 1.125 0.7650 1.9012 3.3974 

1.50 1.375 1.6590 4.1231 7.5204 

1.75 1.625 4.7540 11.8150 19.3354 

2.00 1.875 7.6090 18.9105 38.2459 

2.25 2.125 10.1380 25.1957 63.4416 

2.50 2.375 8.0090 19.9046 83.3462 

2.75 2.625 4.0840 10.1499 93.4960 

3.00 2.875 1.9080 4.7419 98.2379 

3.25 3.125 0.2810 0.6984 98.9363 

3.50 3.375 0.0720 0.1789 99.1152 

3.75 3.625 0.0300 0.0746 99.1898 

4.00 3.875 0.0290 0.0721 99.2619 

4.25 4.125 0.2970 0.7381 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 


Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 


141 




2.1112 φ 0.2315 mm 0.2437 mm 


0.2950 NU MV 1.3966 NU 

5.2034 NU MV 6.7797 NU 

8.588 NU MV 0.05 NU 

61.076 NU MV 0.06 NU 

1.9916 φ 0.2515 mm 0.2524 mm 

MV MV 0.3375 NU 




30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 







0.0 

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 



142 

i 

Settling Tail


















0.50 0.375 0.0330 0.0633 0.0633 

0.75 0.625 0.2270 0.4357 0.4991 

1.00 0.875 0.4610 0.8849 1.3840 

1.25 1.125 1.0700 2.0539 3.4378 

1.50 1.375 2.9530 5.6683 9.1061 

1.75 1.625 6.7050 12.8702 21.9763 

2.00 1.875 9.9240 19.0491 41.0254 

2.25 2.125 15.4720 29.6984 70.7238 

2.50 2.375 9.5740 18.3773 89.1011 

2.75 2.625 4.0790 7.8296 96.9307 

3.00 2.875 1.2530 2.4051 99.3359 

3.25 3.125 0.1780 0.3417 99.6775 

3.50 3.375 0.0680 0.1305 99.8081 

3.75 3.625 0.0210 0.0403 99.8484 

4.00 3.875 0.0100 0.0192 99.8676 

4.25 4.125 0.0690 0.1324 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 


Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 


143 




2.0430 φ 0.2427 mm 0.2532 mm 


-0.1975 NU MV 1.5620 NU 

4.3023 NU MV 7.4804 NU 

0.857 NU MV 0.05 NU 

44.284 NU MV 0.07 NU 

1.9505 φ 0.2587 mm 0.2595 mm 

MV MV 0.3133 NU 




35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 








0.0 

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 



144 

Settling Tail 

i


















0.50 0.375 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

0.75 0.625 0.0330 0.0491 0.0491 

1.00 0.875 0.1480 0.2202 0.2692 

1.25 1.125 0.5480 0.8152 1.0844 

1.50 1.375 2.2730 3.3812 4.4656 

1.75 1.625 6.7020 9.9695 14.4351 

2.00 1.875 11.7330 17.4533 31.8884 

2.25 2.125 19.6780 29.2718 61.1603 

2.50 2.375 14.0500 20.9000 82.0602 

2.75 2.625 7.0690 10.5154 92.5757 

3.00 2.875 3.6310 5.4013 97.9769 

3.25 3.125 0.5460 0.8122 98.7891 

3.50 3.375 0.1470 0.2187 99.0078 

3.75 3.625 0.0660 0.0982 99.1060 

4.00 3.875 0.0650 0.0967 99.2027 

4.25 4.125 0.5360 0.7973 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 


Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 


145 




2.1698 φ 0.2222 mm 0.2317 mm 


0.6986 NU MV 0.8385 NU 

5.8567 NU MV 5.1544 NU 

15.737 NU MV 0.02 NU 

83.963 NU MV 0.02 NU 

2.0297 φ 0.2449 mm 0.2458 mm 

MV MV 0.2893 NU 




35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 






1.0 2.0 


146 

i 

Settling Tail 

3.0 4.0 5.0 



















0.50 0.375 0.0027 0.0034 0.0034 

0.75 0.625 0.0314 0.0392 0.0426 

1.00 0.875 0.1975 0.2465 0.2891 

1.25 1.125 0.5029 0.6276 0.9167 

1.50 1.375 1.2271 1.5315 2.4482 

1.75 1.625 4.7174 5.8876 8.3358 

2.00 1.875 9.5307 11.8949 20.2306 

2.25 2.125 15.1742 18.9383 39.1689 

2.50 2.375 28.2517 35.2598 74.4287 

2.75 2.625 14.5091 18.1082 92.5369 

3.00 2.875 5.1920 6.4799 99.0168 

3.25 3.125 0.7026 0.8769 99.8937 

3.50 3.375 0.0624 0.0779 99.9715 

3.75 3.625 0.0168 0.0210 99.9925 

4.00 3.875 0.0031 0.0039 99.9964 

5.00 4.5 0.0029 0.0036 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 



147 




2.2818 φ 0.2056 mm 0.2126 mm 


-0.5602 NU MV 1.6647 NU 

3.8016 NU MV 8.0736 NU 

-5.667 NU MV 0.03 NU 

30.414 NU MV 0.04 NU 

2.2018 φ 0.2174 mm 0.2180 mm 

MV MV 0.2795 NU 




40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 

Coarser 






Littoral Segment 


148 


1.0 2.0 3.0 


Figure A.20. Method of SELF determination applied to sample 011006-09 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 

Finer


Sample Date: 01/10/2006 Analyzed by: Beth Forrest 01/25/2006 End Sieve Size (phi): 4 




Sample Depth in Core: 

Compaction Corrected? % Compaction: Grab Sample ? 


Sample Wet Sieved? 

no Comments: 


Dry Sieved Fines Mass: 

grams sieved 01/25/2006 

Wet Sieved Fines Mass: 

grams 

Wet Sieved Silt Mass: 

grams 

Wet Sieved Clay Mass: 

grams 


Sieve Sieve Weight Freq 

Size Midpoint Weight 


0.25 0.125 0.0137 0.0142 0.0142 

0.50 0.375 0.1391 0.1440 0.1582 

0.75 0.625 0.8300 0.8592 1.0174 

1.00 0.875 2.1413 2.2167 3.2341 

1.25 1.125 3.4926 3.6156 6.8497 

1.50 1.375 7.3689 7.6284 14.4781 

1.75 1.625 13.3031 13.7716 28.2498 

2.00 1.875 15.4777 16.0228 44.2726 

2.25 2.125 17.9282 18.5596 62.8321 

2.50 2.375 22.2676 23.0518 85.8840 

2.75 2.625 9.7451 10.0883 95.9723 

3.00 2.875 3.2167 3.3300 99.3023 

3.25 3.125 0.5357 0.5546 99.8568 

3.50 3.375 0.0945 0.0978 99.9547 

3.75 3.625 0.0189 0.0196 99.9742 

4.00 3.875 0.0060 0.0062 99.9804 

5.00 4.5 0.0189 0.0196 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Cumulative Statistical Results 

Weight Original Data Transformed Original Data 

Measure 



Mean: 2.0200 φ 0.2466 mm 0.2619 mm 

Standard Deviation: 0.4910 phi-units MV 0.0985 mm 

Skewness: -0.4400 NU MV 1.4887 NU 

Kurtosis: 3.1088 NU MV 5.9982 NU 

5th Moment Measure: -2.844 NU MV 0.06 NU 

6th Moment Measure: 18.671 NU MV 0.08 NU 

Median: 1.9521 φ 0.2584 mm 0.2592 mm 





25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 


149

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 





Littoral - Waves 



1.0 2.0 

150 

Settling Tail 

3.0 4.0 5.0 


Figure A.22. Method of SELF determination applied to sample 011006-10


















0.50 0.375 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

0.75 0.625 0.0250 0.0350 0.0350 

1.00 0.875 0.1530 0.2144 0.2494 

1.25 1.125 0.5760 0.8070 1.0564 

1.50 1.375 2.1420 3.0011 4.0575 

1.75 1.625 5.4080 7.5770 11.6345 

2.00 1.875 9.2470 12.9557 24.5902 

2.25 2.125 19.0500 26.6904 51.2806 

2.50 2.375 17.3050 24.2455 75.5261 

2.75 2.625 11.0160 15.4342 90.9603 

3.00 2.875 5.8070 8.1360 99.0963 

3.25 3.125 0.6070 0.8504 99.9468 

3.50 3.375 0.0210 0.0294 99.9762 

3.75 3.625 0.0030 0.0042 99.9804 

4.00 3.875 0.0050 0.0070 99.9874 

4.25 4.125 0.0090 0.0126 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 


Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 


151 




2.2291 φ 0.2133 mm 0.2216 mm 


-0.3099 NU MV 1.2566 NU 

3.1358 NU MV 5.6931 NU 

-2.798 NU MV 0.02 NU 

18.031 NU MV 0.03 NU 

2.1130 φ 0.2312 mm 0.2313 mm 

MV MV 0.2926 NU 




30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 






152 


1.0 2.0 3.0 

i 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 




















0.50 0.375 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

0.75 0.625 0.0620 0.1086 0.1086 

1.00 0.875 0.1910 0.3347 0.4433 

1.25 1.125 0.6250 1.0951 1.5384 

1.50 1.375 2.4510 4.2944 5.8328 

1.75 1.625 6.7450 11.8180 17.6508 

2.00 1.875 10.6320 18.6284 36.2792 

2.25 2.125 18.6400 32.6594 68.9386 

2.50 2.375 11.1890 19.6044 88.5429 

2.75 2.625 4.1500 7.2713 95.8142 

3.00 2.875 1.1820 2.0710 97.8852 

3.25 3.125 0.1020 0.1787 98.0639 

3.50 3.375 0.0530 0.0929 98.1568 

3.75 3.625 0.0440 0.0771 98.2339 

4.00 3.875 0.0610 0.1069 98.3408 

4.25 4.125 0.9470 1.6592 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 



Measure 

Original Data 

in φ Units 

Transformed 

Data 

Original Data 


Mean: 2.1104 φ 0.2316 mm 0.2419 mm 


Skewness: 1.2963 NU MV 0.8233 NU 




Median: 1.9800 φ 0.2535 mm 0.2544 mm 





35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 


153

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 







1.0 2.0 3.0 

154 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 




















0.50 0.375 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

0.75 0.625 0.0380 0.0817 0.0817 

1.00 0.875 0.0640 0.1376 0.2193 

1.25 1.125 0.1880 0.4041 0.6234 

1.50 1.375 0.9850 2.1173 2.7406 

1.75 1.625 3.3690 7.2417 9.9824 

2.00 1.875 7.1810 15.4357 25.4181 

2.25 2.125 15.0350 32.3180 57.7361 

2.50 2.375 11.8140 25.3944 83.1306 

2.75 2.625 5.8210 12.5124 95.6429 

3.00 2.875 1.8230 3.9186 99.5615 

3.25 3.125 0.1250 0.2687 99.8302 

3.50 3.375 0.0280 0.0602 99.8904 

3.75 3.625 0.0150 0.0322 99.9226 

4.00 3.875 0.0100 0.0215 99.9441 

4.25 4.125 0.0260 0.0559 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 


Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 


155 




2.1882 φ 0.2194 mm 0.2260 mm 


-0.1472 NU MV 1.3187 NU 

4.0672 NU MV 7.3324 NU 

0.184 NU MV 0.03 NU 

43.716 NU MV 0.04 NU 

2.0652 φ 0.239 mm 0.2396 mm 

MV MV 0.2554 NU 




35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 







1.0 2.0 3.0 

156 

Settling Tail 

i 

4.0 5.0 




















0.25 0.125 0.0019 0.0020 0.0020 

0.50 0.375 0.0016 0.0017 0.0036 

0.75 0.625 0.0016 0.0017 0.0053 

1.00 0.875 0.0052 0.0054 0.0107 

1.25 1.125 0.0390 0.0405 0.0512 

1.50 1.375 0.2268 0.2357 0.2869 

1.75 1.625 2.4134 2.5076 2.7945 

2.00 1.875 8.1088 8.4254 11.2199 

2.25 2.125 19.4687 20.2288 31.4487 

2.50 2.375 41.6142 43.2390 74.6877 

2.75 2.625 17.5435 18.2285 92.9162 

3.00 2.875 5.8142 6.0412 98.9574 

3.25 3.125 0.6851 0.7118 99.6693 

3.50 3.375 0.2378 0.2471 99.9164 

3.75 3.625 0.0596 0.0619 99.9783 

4.00 3.875 0.0119 0.0124 99.9906 

5.00 4.5 0.0090 0.0094 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 



157 




2.3452 φ 0.1968 mm 0.2009 mm 


-0.0817 NU MV 1.1103 NU 

4.2704 NU MV 7.5038 NU 

1.432 NU MV 0.02 NU 

50.726 NU MV 0.05 NU 

2.2323 φ 0.2128 mm 0.2136 mm 

MV MV 0.2098 NU 




50 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 






0.03 Littoral Segment 

0.01 

158 


Settling Tail 

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 




















0.25 0.125 0.0056 0.0056 0.0056 

0.50 0.375 0.0038 0.0038 0.0094 

0.75 0.625 0.0069 0.0069 0.0162 

1.00 0.875 0.0290 0.0289 0.0451 

1.25 1.125 0.1468 0.1462 0.1913 

1.50 1.375 0.6099 0.6075 0.7988 

1.75 1.625 3.6604 3.6458 4.4446 

2.00 1.875 9.8128 9.7736 14.2182 

2.25 2.125 17.8236 17.7524 31.9707 

2.50 2.375 38.0845 37.9325 69.9031 

2.75 2.625 19.7189 19.6402 89.5433 

3.00 2.875 8.4942 8.4603 98.0036 

3.25 3.125 1.6479 1.6413 99.6449 

3.50 3.375 0.2899 0.2887 99.9337 

3.75 3.625 0.0464 0.0462 99.9799 

4.00 3.875 0.0110 0.0110 99.9908 

5.00 4.5 0.0092 0.0092 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 



159 




2.3533 φ 0.1957 mm 0.2012 mm 


-0.2294 NU MV 1.3743 NU 

3.8368 NU MV 8.9297 NU 

-2.103 NU MV 0.04 NU 

35.958 NU MV 0.09 NU 

2.2438 φ 0.2111 mm 0.2119 mm 

MV MV 0.2463 NU 




40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 





Fluvial 

Segment 

Fluvial 




1.0 2.0 

160 

Settling Tail 

3.0 4.0 5.0 



Sample I.D.: 050505-01A Sampled by: Beth Forrest Start Sieve Size (phi): 0.25 

















0.25 0.125 0.0080 0.0115 0.0115 

0.50 0.375 0.0060 0.0086 0.0202 

0.75 0.625 0.0110 0.0158 0.0360 

1.00 0.875 0.0580 0.0835 0.1195 

1.25 1.125 0.2490 0.3586 0.4782 

1.50 1.375 1.0640 1.5324 2.0106 

1.75 1.625 4.8440 6.9765 8.9871 

2.00 1.875 9.5190 13.7096 22.6967 

2.25 2.125 14.0390 20.2195 42.9162 

2.50 2.375 22.8450 32.9022 75.8184 

2.75 2.625 11.4590 16.5037 92.3221 

3.00 2.875 4.4820 6.4551 98.7772 

3.25 3.125 0.7260 1.0456 99.8229 

3.50 3.375 0.0840 0.1210 99.9438 

3.75 3.625 0.0220 0.0317 99.9755 

4.00 3.875 0.0060 0.0086 99.9842 

5.00 4.5 0.0110 0.0158 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 


Figure A.33. Granplot analysis of sample 050505-01A 

161 




2.2653 φ 0.2080 mm 0.2150 mm 


-0.2822 NU MV 1.3809 NU 

3.5151 NU MV 8.2795 NU 

-1.976 NU MV 0.04 NU 

32.140 NU MV 0.10 NU 

2.1788 φ 0.2209 mm 0.2214 mm 

MV MV 0.2712 NU 




35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 







162 


Settling Tail 

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 


Figure A.34. Method of SELF determination applied to sample 050505-01A

Sample I.D.: 050505-01B Sampled by: Beth Forrest Start Sieve Size (phi): -0.5 

















-0.50 -0.625 0.0310 0.0341 0.0341 

-0.25 -0.375 0.0110 0.0121 0.0462 

0.00 -0.125 0.0500 0.0550 0.1012 

0.25 0.125 0.0160 0.0176 0.1188 

0.50 0.375 0.0460 0.0506 0.1694 

0.75 0.625 0.1820 0.2002 0.3697 

1.00 0.875 0.0780 0.0858 0.4555 

1.25 1.125 0.2360 0.2596 0.7151 

1.50 1.375 1.1110 1.2223 1.9374 

1.75 1.625 4.7640 5.2413 7.1787 

2.00 1.875 10.3930 11.4342 18.6129 

2.25 2.125 16.7660 18.4457 37.0586 

2.50 2.375 31.3830 34.5270 71.5856 

2.75 2.625 16.3550 17.9935 89.5791 

3.00 2.875 7.4380 8.1832 97.7622 

3.25 3.125 1.6530 1.8186 99.5808 

3.50 3.375 0.2930 0.3224 99.9032 

3.75 3.625 0.0590 0.0649 99.9681 

4.00 3.875 0.0090 0.0099 99.9780 

5.00 4.5 0.0200 0.0220 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Figure A.35. Granplot analysis of sample 050505-01B 


Measure 

Original Data 

in φ Units 

Transformed 

Data 

Original Data 


Mean: 2.3122 φ 0.2014 mm 0.2093 mm 


Skewness: -0.7156 NU MV 5.4466 NU 


5th Moment Measure: -22.102 NU MV 1.58 NU 


Median: 2.2187 φ 0.2148 mm 0.2156 mm 





40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 


163

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 







Coarser 




1.0 2.0 3.0 


Figure A.36. Method of SELF determination applied to sample 050505-01B 

164 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 

Finer

Sample I.D.: 050505-01C Sampled by: Beth Forrest Start Sieve Size (phi): -0.25 

















-0.25 -0.375 0.0120 0.0123 0.0123 

0.00 -0.125 0.0000 0.0000 0.0123 

0.25 0.125 0.0000 0.0000 0.0123 

0.50 0.375 0.0030 0.0031 0.0153 

0.75 0.625 0.0030 0.0031 0.0184 

1.00 0.875 0.0220 0.0225 0.0409 

1.25 1.125 0.1280 0.1308 0.1717 

1.50 1.375 0.5140 0.5253 0.6970 

1.75 1.625 3.8740 3.9594 4.6564 

2.00 1.875 10.9770 11.2190 15.8754 

2.25 2.125 20.0880 20.5309 36.4063 

2.50 2.375 34.9220 35.6919 72.0982 

2.75 2.625 16.9660 17.3400 89.4382 

3.00 2.875 8.1430 8.3225 97.7607 

3.25 3.125 1.9090 1.9511 99.7118 

3.50 3.375 0.2360 0.2412 99.9530 

3.75 3.625 0.0350 0.0358 99.9888 

4.00 3.875 0.0070 0.0072 99.9959 

5.00 4.5 0.0040 0.0041 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 


Figure A.37. Granplot analysis of sample 050505-01C 

165 




2.3329 φ 0.1985 mm 0.2042 mm 


-0.1406 NU MV 2.1015 NU 

3.8129 NU MV 30.4757 NU 

-4.370 NU MV 0.34 NU 

52.460 NU MV 1.58 NU 

2.2202 φ 0.2146 mm 0.2154 mm 

MV MV 0.2510 NU 




40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 





0.0 1.0 

Coarser 




2.0 3.0 


Figure A.38. Method of SELF determination applied to sample 050505-01C 

166 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 

Finer

Sample I.D.: 050505-01D Sampled by: Beth Forrest Start Sieve Size (phi): 0.25 

















0.25 0.125 0.0050 0.0052 0.0052 

0.50 0.375 0.0070 0.0073 0.0125 

0.75 0.625 0.0110 0.0115 0.0239 

1.00 0.875 0.0750 0.0781 0.1020 

1.25 1.125 0.4090 0.4258 0.5278 

1.50 1.375 1.5050 1.5666 2.0944 

1.75 1.625 6.9410 7.2253 9.3197 

2.00 1.875 15.5880 16.2265 25.5462 

2.25 2.125 24.0710 25.0570 50.6032 

2.50 2.375 31.9210 33.2285 83.8318 

2.75 2.625 11.1220 11.5776 95.4094 

3.00 2.875 3.6240 3.7724 99.1818 

3.25 3.125 0.6530 0.6797 99.8616 

3.50 3.375 0.1060 0.1103 99.9719 

3.75 3.625 0.0170 0.0177 99.9896 

4.00 3.875 0.0030 0.0031 99.9927 

5.00 4.5 0.0030 0.0031 99.9958 

5.00 4.5 0.0040 0.0042 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 


Figure A.39. Granplot analysis of sample 050505-01D 

167 




2.2088 φ 0.2163 mm 0.2226 mm 


-0.2195 NU MV 1.2531 NU 

3.6313 NU MV 7.2684 NU 

-1.496 NU MV 0.03 NU 

32.089 NU MV 0.06 NU 

2.1190 φ 0.2302 mm 0.2303 mm 

MV MV 0.2502 NU 




35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 







1.0 2.0 3.0 

168 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 


Figure A.40. Method of SELF determination applied to sample 050505-01D

Sample I.D.: 050505-01E Sampled by: Beth Forrest Start Sieve Size (phi): 0.5 

















0.50 0.375 0.0040 0.0055 0.0055 

0.75 0.625 0.0120 0.0164 0.0218 

1.00 0.875 0.0600 0.0819 0.1037 

1.25 1.125 0.2790 0.3807 0.4844 

1.50 1.375 0.9990 1.3632 1.8477 

1.75 1.625 4.5250 6.1748 8.0224 

2.00 1.875 9.6020 13.1028 21.1252 

2.25 2.125 15.6390 21.3408 42.4661 

2.50 2.375 25.7510 35.1396 77.6057 

2.75 2.625 11.0080 15.0214 92.6271 

3.00 2.875 4.4230 6.0356 98.6627 

3.25 3.125 0.7820 1.0671 99.7298 

3.50 3.375 0.1600 0.2183 99.9481 

3.75 3.625 0.0290 0.0396 99.9877 

4.00 3.875 0.0060 0.0082 99.9959 

5.00 4.5 0.0030 0.0041 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 


Figure A.41. Granplot analysis of sample 050505-01E 

169 




2.2684 φ 0.2076 mm 0.2141 mm 


-0.2606 NU MV 1.2632 NU 

3.5549 NU MV 6.4084 NU 

-2.032 NU MV 0.02 NU 

25.993 NU MV 0.03 NU 

2.1786 φ 0.2209 mm 0.2214 mm 

MV MV 0.2614 NU 




40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 








1.0 2.0 3.0 

170 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 


Figure A.42. Method of SELF determination applied to sample 050505-01E

Sample I.D.: 050505-01F Sampled by: Beth Forrest Start Sieve Size (phi): 0.5 

















0.50 0.375 0.0030 0.0040 0.0040 

0.75 0.625 0.0040 0.0053 0.0093 

1.00 0.875 0.0320 0.0424 0.0516 

1.25 1.125 0.1250 0.1655 0.2172 

1.50 1.375 0.5190 0.6873 0.9044 

1.75 1.625 3.3310 4.4109 5.3154 

2.00 1.875 8.7900 11.6398 16.9551 

2.25 2.125 15.9240 21.0866 38.0418 

2.50 2.375 28.5820 37.8484 75.8902 

2.75 2.625 12.7670 16.9061 92.7963 

3.00 2.875 4.2960 5.6888 98.4851 

3.25 3.125 0.8710 1.1534 99.6385 

3.50 3.375 0.2190 0.2900 99.9285 

3.75 3.625 0.0390 0.0516 99.9801 

4.00 3.875 0.0100 0.0132 99.9934 

5.00 4.5 0.0050 0.0066 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 


Figure A.43. Granplot analysis of sample 050505-01F 

171 




2.3045 φ 0.2024 mm 0.2079 mm 


-0.1585 NU MV 1.1627 NU 

3.8125 NU MV 6.3645 NU 

-0.477 NU MV 0.02 NU 

32.834 NU MV 0.02 NU 

2.2040 φ 0.217 mm 0.2177 mm 

MV MV 0.2399 NU 




40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 





Fluvial 

Segment 



1.0 2.0 3.0 

172 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 


Figure A.44. Method of SELF determination applied to sample 050505-01F

Sample I.D.: 050505-01G Sampled by: Beth Forrest Start Sieve Size (phi): 0.5 

















0.50 0.375 0.0060 0.0078 0.0078 

0.75 0.625 0.0260 0.0337 0.0414 

1.00 0.875 0.0980 0.1269 0.1684 

1.25 1.125 0.3100 0.4015 0.5698 

1.50 1.375 1.0050 1.3015 1.8713 

1.75 1.625 5.3940 6.9852 8.8565 

2.00 1.875 12.8570 16.6498 25.5063 

2.25 2.125 19.2270 24.8990 50.4053 

2.50 2.375 24.8660 32.2015 82.6068 

2.75 2.625 9.3440 12.1005 94.7073 

3.00 2.875 3.0990 4.0132 98.7205 

3.25 3.125 0.7250 0.9389 99.6594 

3.50 3.375 0.2020 0.2616 99.9210 

3.75 3.625 0.0460 0.0596 99.9806 

4.00 3.875 0.0100 0.0130 99.9935 

5.00 4.5 0.0050 0.0065 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 


Figure A.45. Granplot analysis of sample 050505-01G 

173 




2.2175 φ 0.2150 mm 0.2215 mm 


-0.1023 NU MV 1.2159 NU 

3.8065 NU MV 6.9837 NU 

-0.344 NU MV 0.02 NU 

33.425 NU MV 0.04 NU 

2.1209 φ 0.2299 mm 0.2300 mm 

MV MV 0.2542 NU 




35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 







1.0 2.0 3.0 

174 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 


Figure A.46. Method of SELF determination applied to sample 050505-01G

Sample I.D.: 050505-01H Sampled by: Beth Forrest Start Sieve Size (phi): 0.5 

















0.50 0.375 0.0060 0.0058 0.0058 

0.75 0.625 0.0100 0.0096 0.0154 

1.00 0.875 0.0400 0.0384 0.0538 

1.25 1.125 0.1670 0.1605 0.2143 

1.50 1.375 0.6640 0.6382 0.8526 

1.75 1.625 4.7290 4.5455 5.3981 

2.00 1.875 13.5110 12.9869 18.3850 

2.25 2.125 26.3590 25.3364 43.7214 

2.50 2.375 38.3390 36.8517 80.5731 

2.75 2.625 13.4740 12.9513 93.5244 

3.00 2.875 5.1920 4.9906 98.5149 

3.25 3.125 1.1730 1.1275 99.6424 

3.50 3.375 0.3000 0.2884 99.9308 

3.75 3.625 0.0540 0.0519 99.9827 

4.00 3.875 0.0110 0.0106 99.9933 

5.00 4.5 0.0070 0.0067 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 


Figure A.47. Granplot analysis of sample 050505-01H 

175 




2.2730 φ 0.2069 mm 0.2122 mm 


-0.0025 NU MV 1.0662 NU 

3.9712 NU MV 6.6779 NU 

0.958 NU MV 0.02 NU 

37.103 NU MV 0.03 NU 

2.1676 φ 0.2226 mm 0.2230 mm 

MV MV 0.2318 NU 




40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 

Coarser 








1.0 2.0 3.0 


Figure A.48. Method of SELF determination applied to sample 050505-01H 

176 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 

Finer

Sample I.D.: 050505-01I Sampled by: Beth Forrest Start Sieve Size (phi): 0.5 

















0.50 0.375 0.0020 0.0033 0.0033 

0.75 0.625 0.0090 0.0148 0.0180 

1.00 0.875 0.0540 0.0885 0.1065 

1.25 1.125 0.2840 0.4655 0.5721 

1.50 1.375 1.1250 1.8441 2.4162 

1.75 1.625 5.6040 9.1860 11.6021 

2.00 1.875 10.7870 17.6819 29.2840 

2.25 2.125 14.8340 24.3156 53.5996 

2.50 2.375 18.6700 30.6035 84.2032 

2.75 2.625 6.9380 11.3727 95.5758 

3.00 2.875 2.2190 3.6373 99.2132 

3.25 3.125 0.3800 0.6229 99.8361 

3.50 3.375 0.0740 0.1213 99.9574 

3.75 3.625 0.0150 0.0246 99.9820 

4.00 3.875 0.0030 0.0049 99.9869 

5.00 4.5 0.0080 0.0131 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 


Figure A.49. Granplot analysis of sample 050505-01I 

177 




2.1842 φ 0.2200 mm 0.2268 mm 


-0.1274 NU MV 1.0108 NU 

3.3849 NU MV 5.1019 NU 

0.462 NU MV 0.01 NU 

29.063 NU MV 0.02 NU 

2.0880 φ 0.2352 mm 0.2357 mm 

MV MV 0.2562 NU 




35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 





0.0 1.0 

Coarser 




2.0 3.0 


Figure A.50. Method of SELF determination applied to sample 050505-01I 

178 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 

Finer


















0.25 0.125 0.0054 0.0061 0.0061 

0.50 0.375 0.0022 0.0025 0.0086 

0.75 0.625 0.0139 0.0158 0.0244 

1.00 0.875 0.1189 0.1351 0.1595 

1.25 1.125 0.5071 0.5761 0.7355 

1.50 1.375 1.8365 2.0862 2.8218 

1.75 1.625 7.2646 8.2525 11.0742 

2.00 1.875 13.7890 15.6641 26.7383 

2.25 2.125 19.5250 22.1801 48.9184 

2.50 2.375 28.3469 32.2016 81.1200 

2.75 2.625 12.1965 13.8550 94.9750 

3.00 2.875 3.8724 4.3990 99.3740 

3.25 3.125 0.4240 0.4817 99.8556 

3.50 3.375 0.0613 0.0696 99.9253 

3.75 3.625 0.0253 0.0287 99.9540 

4.00 3.875 0.0080 0.0091 99.9631 

5.00 4.5 0.0325 0.0369 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 



179 




2.2110 φ 0.2160 mm 0.2231 mm 


-0.2549 NU MV 1.2772 NU 

3.7698 NU MV 6.6220 NU 

0.635 NU MV 0.03 NU 

43.911 NU MV 0.05 NU 

2.1334 φ 0.2279 mm 0.2280 mm 

MV MV 0.2683 NU 




35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

161 170 

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 





Fluvial Segment 1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 


180 


Settling Tail 

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 




















0.50 0.375 0.0017 0.0019 0.0019 

0.75 0.625 0.0088 0.0099 0.0118 

1.00 0.875 0.0375 0.0420 0.0537 

1.25 1.125 0.0911 0.1020 0.1557 

1.50 1.375 0.4664 0.5222 0.6780 

1.75 1.625 2.6579 2.9760 3.6540 

2.00 1.875 6.9662 7.8000 11.4540 

2.25 2.125 14.2631 15.9702 27.4242 

2.50 2.375 33.2911 37.2756 64.6998 

2.75 2.625 20.9884 23.5005 88.2003 

3.00 2.875 8.9447 10.0153 98.2156 

3.25 3.125 1.3676 1.5313 99.7468 

3.50 3.375 0.1523 0.1705 99.9174 

3.75 3.625 0.0304 0.0340 99.9514 

4.00 3.875 0.0098 0.0110 99.9624 

5.00 4.5 0.0336 0.0376 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 



181 




2.3898 φ 0.1908 mm 0.1959 mm 


-0.2814 NU MV 1.3906 NU 

4.2771 NU MV 7.5498 NU 

-0.043 NU MV 0.02 NU 

54.462 NU MV 0.03 NU 

2.2764 φ 0.2064 mm 0.2072 mm 

MV MV 0.2421 NU 




40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 






182 



Settling Tail 


0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 




















0.50 0.375 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

0.75 0.625 0.0040 0.0096 0.0096 

1.00 0.875 0.0230 0.0553 0.0649 

1.25 1.125 0.1090 0.2619 0.3268 

1.50 1.375 0.6620 1.5909 1.9178 

1.75 1.625 2.5260 6.0705 7.9883 

2.00 1.875 5.7540 13.8281 21.8163 

2.25 2.125 12.3960 29.7902 51.6065 

2.50 2.375 10.3860 24.9597 76.5663 

2.75 2.625 5.9800 14.3712 90.9375 

3.00 2.875 3.2630 7.8417 98.7792 

3.25 3.125 0.4400 1.0574 99.8366 

3.50 3.375 0.0350 0.0841 99.9207 

3.75 3.625 0.0080 0.0192 99.9399 

4.00 3.875 0.0080 0.0192 99.9591 

4.25 4.125 0.0170 0.0409 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 


Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 


183 




2.2508 φ 0.2101 mm 0.2168 mm 


0.0053 NU MV 0.9060 NU 

3.2923 NU MV 4.8686 NU 

0.675 NU MV 0.01 NU 

23.850 NU MV 0.01 NU 

2.1115 φ 0.2314 mm 0.2316 mm 

MV MV 0.2593 NU 




35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 








1.0 2.0 3.0 

184 

i 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 




















0.25 0.125 0.0162 0.0161 0.0161 

0.50 0.375 0.0282 0.0280 0.0441 

0.75 0.625 0.2790 0.2771 0.3211 

1.00 0.875 1.6429 1.6314 1.9526 

1.25 1.125 5.5903 5.5513 7.5039 

1.50 1.375 14.3520 14.2518 21.7557 

1.75 1.625 29.4256 29.2202 50.9759 

2.00 1.875 24.8958 24.7220 75.6979 

2.25 2.125 14.7582 14.6552 90.3531 

2.50 2.375 8.2026 8.1453 98.4985 

2.75 2.625 1.2897 1.2807 99.7792 

3.00 2.875 0.1636 0.1625 99.9416 

3.25 3.125 0.0263 0.0261 99.9677 

3.50 3.375 0.0112 0.0111 99.9788 

3.75 3.625 0.0062 0.0062 99.9850 

4.00 3.875 0.0011 0.0011 99.9861 

5.00 4.5 0.0140 0.0139 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 



185 




1.7582 φ 0.2956 mm 0.3052 mm 


0.0480 NU MV 0.8949 NU 

3.5309 NU MV 4.9380 NU 

2.902 NU MV 0.03 NU 

42.263 NU MV 0.04 NU 

1.6167 φ 0.3261 mm 0.3263 mm 

MV MV 0.2591 NU 




35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 







186 

Settling Tail 

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 




















0.50 0.375 0.0102 0.0144 0.0144 

0.75 0.625 0.1354 0.1907 0.2051 

1.00 0.875 0.4904 0.6906 0.8957 

1.25 1.125 1.3261 1.8676 2.7633 

1.50 1.375 4.8454 6.8239 9.5871 

1.75 1.625 16.0507 22.6045 32.1916 

2.00 1.875 19.9325 28.0713 60.2629 

2.25 2.125 16.3502 23.0263 83.2892 

2.50 2.375 10.1409 14.2816 97.5708 

2.75 2.625 1.4990 2.1111 99.6819 

3.00 2.875 0.1698 0.2391 99.9210 

3.25 3.125 0.0356 0.0501 99.9711 

3.50 3.375 0.0137 0.0193 99.9904 

3.75 3.625 0.0052 0.0073 99.9977 

4.00 3.875 0.0016 0.0023 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 



187 




1.9091 φ 0.2663 mm 0.2740 mm 


-0.2017 NU MV 1.1453 NU 

3.3181 NU MV 6.0208 NU 

-2.394 NU MV 0.03 NU 

23.213 NU MV 0.04 NU 

1.7836 φ 0.2905 mm 0.2915 mm 

MV MV 0.2494 NU 




30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 







1.0 2.0 

188 

Settling Tail 


3.0 4.0 5.0 




















0.50 0.375 0.0057 0.0063 0.0063 

0.75 0.625 0.0778 0.0853 0.0916 

1.00 0.875 0.6790 0.7447 0.8362 

1.25 1.125 1.5915 1.7454 2.5816 

1.50 1.375 6.2507 6.8552 9.4368 

1.75 1.625 18.1563 19.9122 29.3490 

2.00 1.875 23.6373 25.9232 55.2722 

2.25 2.125 20.6792 22.6790 77.9512 

2.50 2.375 15.3357 16.8188 94.7700 

2.75 2.625 3.7324 4.0934 98.8634 

3.00 2.875 0.7759 0.8509 99.7143 

3.25 3.125 0.1852 0.2031 99.9174 

3.50 3.375 0.0551 0.0604 99.9778 

3.75 3.625 0.0105 0.0115 99.9894 

4.00 3.875 0.0032 0.0035 99.9929 

5.00 4.5 0.0065 0.0071 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 



189 




1.9532 φ 0.2583 mm 0.2668 mm 


-0.0413 NU MV 0.9659 NU 

3.3393 NU MV 4.9890 NU 

0.675 NU MV 0.02 NU 

27.419 NU MV 0.02 NU 

1.8242 φ 0.2824 mm 0.2831 mm 

MV MV 0.2638 NU 




30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 






1.0 2.0 

190 

Settling Tail 

3.0 4.0 5.0 




















0.50 0.375 0.0210 0.0413 0.0413 

0.75 0.625 0.1460 0.2874 0.3287 

1.00 0.875 0.3480 0.6851 1.0138 

1.25 1.125 1.0030 1.9744 2.9882 

1.50 1.375 3.5430 6.9745 9.9628 

1.75 1.625 8.4870 16.7070 26.6698 

2.00 1.875 10.8210 21.3016 47.9714 

2.25 2.125 13.8190 27.2033 75.1747 

2.50 2.375 7.2080 14.1893 89.3640 

2.75 2.625 3.3830 6.6596 96.0235 

3.00 2.875 1.5790 3.1083 99.1319 

3.25 3.125 0.3110 0.6122 99.7441 

3.50 3.375 0.0660 0.1299 99.8740 

3.75 3.625 0.0170 0.0335 99.9075 

4.00 3.875 0.0130 0.0256 99.9331 

4.25 4.125 0.0340 0.0669 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 


Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 


191 




2.0047 φ 0.2492 mm 0.2598 mm 


0.0798 NU MV 1.1249 NU 

3.7312 NU MV 5.9330 NU 

2.143 NU MV 0.04 NU 

31.714 NU MV 0.05 NU 

1.8936 φ 0.2691 mm 0.2694 mm 

MV MV 0.2992 NU 




30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 

7 






1.0 2.0 

192 

i 

Settling Tail 

3.0 4.0 5.0 




















0.50 0.375 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

0.75 0.625 0.0310 0.0650 0.0650 

1.00 0.875 0.0510 0.1069 0.1719 

1.25 1.125 0.1410 0.2956 0.4675 

1.50 1.375 0.6900 1.4465 1.9140 

1.75 1.625 2.6740 5.6056 7.5196 

2.00 1.875 9.9030 20.7601 28.2797 

2.25 2.125 13.2750 27.8290 56.1088 

2.50 2.375 11.1960 23.4707 79.5795 

2.75 2.625 6.3200 13.2489 92.8284 

3.00 2.875 2.9030 6.0857 98.9141 

3.25 3.125 0.4040 0.8469 99.7610 

3.50 3.375 0.0820 0.1719 99.9329 

3.75 3.625 0.0170 0.0356 99.9686 

4.00 3.875 0.0080 0.0168 99.9853 

4.25 4.125 0.0070 0.0147 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 


Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 

193 




2.2113 φ 0.2159 mm 0.2227 mm 


0.0733 NU MV 0.9963 NU 

3.3964 NU MV 6.4794 NU 

0.034 NU MV 0.02 NU 

25.762 NU MV 0.03 NU 

2.0701 φ 0.2381 mm 0.2388 mm 





30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 

7 







1.0 2.0 3.0 

194 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 




















0.50 0.375 0.0029 0.0033 0.0033 

0.75 0.625 0.0128 0.0146 0.0179 

1.00 0.875 0.1658 0.1888 0.2066 

1.25 1.125 0.8432 0.9600 1.1667 

1.50 1.375 2.7679 3.1514 4.3180 

1.75 1.625 10.5713 12.0358 16.3539 

2.00 1.875 19.1081 21.7553 38.1092 

2.25 2.125 22.7085 25.8545 63.9637 

2.50 2.375 23.1466 26.3533 90.3171 

2.75 2.625 6.3863 7.2711 97.5881 

3.00 2.875 1.3649 1.5540 99.1421 

3.25 3.125 0.1802 0.2052 99.3473 

3.50 3.375 0.5549 0.6318 99.9791 

3.75 3.625 0.0113 0.0129 99.9919 

4.00 3.875 0.0016 0.0018 99.9937 

5.00 4.5 0.0055 0.0063 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 



195 




2.0988 φ 0.2335 mm 0.2409 mm 


0.0011 NU MV 0.9781 NU 

3.7515 NU MV 5.0108 NU 

2.188 NU MV 0.01 NU 

32.134 NU MV 0.02 NU 

1.9900 φ 0.2517 mm 0.2527 mm 

MV MV 0.2579 NU 




30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 






Fluvial 

Segment 

1.0 2.0 

196 

3.0 4.0 5.0 




















0.25 0.125 0.0081 0.0091 0.0091 

0.50 0.375 0.0022 0.0025 0.0115 

0.75 0.625 0.0355 0.0397 0.0513 

1.00 0.875 0.4369 0.4890 0.5403 

1.25 1.125 1.5257 1.7077 2.2480 

1.50 1.375 4.0436 4.5260 6.7740 

1.75 1.625 11.8320 13.2435 20.0175 

2.00 1.875 19.5406 21.8717 41.8892 

2.25 2.125 22.2929 24.9523 66.8415 

2.50 2.375 20.7624 23.2393 90.0808 

2.75 2.625 6.0290 6.7482 96.8290 

3.00 2.875 1.8403 2.0598 98.8889 

3.25 3.125 0.7016 0.7853 99.6742 

3.50 3.375 0.2411 0.2699 99.9440 

3.75 3.625 0.0375 0.0420 99.9860 

4.00 3.875 0.0063 0.0071 99.9931 

5.00 4.5 0.0062 0.0069 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 



197 




2.0656 φ 0.2389 mm 0.2478 mm 


-0.0692 NU MV 1.1351 NU 

3.5844 NU MV 5.7888 NU 

0.510 NU MV 0.03 NU 

27.163 NU MV 0.05 NU 

1.9563 φ 0.2577 mm 0.2585 mm 

MV MV 0.2820 NU 




30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 





Fluvial 

Segment 

Fluvial 



198 

Settling Tail 

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 



Sample I.D.: 050505-02A Sampled by: Beth Forrest Start Sieve Size (phi): -0.25 

















-0.25 -0.375 0.0100 0.0122 0.0122 

0.00 -0.125 0.0070 0.0085 0.0207 

0.25 0.125 0.0140 0.0170 0.0377 

0.50 0.375 0.0110 0.0134 0.0510 

0.75 0.625 0.0310 0.0377 0.0887 

1.00 0.875 0.2470 0.3001 0.3888 

1.25 1.125 1.1060 1.3439 1.7328 

1.50 1.375 3.1980 3.8860 5.6187 

1.75 1.625 8.9470 10.8717 16.4905 

2.00 1.875 11.1720 13.5754 30.0659 

2.25 2.125 13.4300 16.3191 46.3850 

2.50 2.375 21.8300 26.5262 72.9112 

2.75 2.625 13.7290 16.6825 89.5937 

3.00 2.875 6.8550 8.3297 97.9233 

3.25 3.125 1.4820 1.8008 99.7242 

3.50 3.375 0.1810 0.2199 99.9441 

3.75 3.625 0.0290 0.0352 99.9793 

4.00 3.875 0.0070 0.0085 99.9878 

5.00 4.5 0.0100 0.0122 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 


199 




2.2227 φ 0.2142 mm 0.2251 mm 


-0.3477 NU MV 1.6796 NU 

3.0736 NU MV 11.9989 NU 

-3.261 NU MV 0.18 NU 

23.045 NU MV 0.58 NU 

2.1591 φ 0.2239 mm 0.2243 mm 





30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 





Fluvial 

Segment 

0.0 1.0 

Coarser 




2.0 3.0 


200 


Figure A.72. Method of SELF determination applied to sample 050505-02A 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 

Finer

Sample I.D.: 050505-02B Sampled by: Beth Forrest Start Sieve Size (phi): 0 

















0.00 -0.125 0.0050 0.0076 0.0076 

0.25 0.125 0.0180 0.0274 0.0350 

0.50 0.375 0.0100 0.0152 0.0502 

0.75 0.625 0.0350 0.0533 0.1035 

1.00 0.875 0.1320 0.2009 0.3044 

1.25 1.125 0.4450 0.6772 0.9816 

1.50 1.375 1.2890 1.9617 2.9433 

1.75 1.625 5.1240 7.7981 10.7415 

2.00 1.875 9.3080 14.1657 24.9072 

2.25 2.125 12.8990 19.6308 44.5380 

2.50 2.375 20.6310 31.3980 75.9360 

2.75 2.625 10.4400 15.8885 91.8244 

3.00 2.875 4.2290 6.4361 98.2605 

3.25 3.125 0.8750 1.3316 99.5921 

3.50 3.375 0.2120 0.3226 99.9148 

3.75 3.625 0.0450 0.0685 99.9833 

4.00 3.875 0.0080 0.0122 99.9954 

5.00 4.5 0.0030 0.0046 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 



201 




2.2497 φ 0.2103 mm 0.2184 mm 


-0.3428 NU MV 1.8157 NU 

3.7180 NU MV 12.5905 NU 

-4.308 NU MV 0.11 NU 

34.136 NU MV 0.29 NU 

2.1685 φ 0.2224 mm 0.2229 mm 

MV MV 0.2974 NU 




35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 





Fluvial 

Segment 

0.0 1.0 

Coarser 





2.0 3.0 


202 

Settling Tail 


Figure A.74. Method of SELF determination applied to sample 050505-02B 

4.0 5.0 

Finer

Sample I.D.: 050505-02C Sampled by: Beth Forrest Start Sieve Size (phi): 0.5 

















0.50 0.375 0.0060 0.0102 0.0102 

0.75 0.625 0.0400 0.0683 0.0785 

1.00 0.875 0.2200 0.3755 0.4541 

1.25 1.125 0.7290 1.2444 1.6984 

1.50 1.375 1.8430 3.1460 4.8444 

1.75 1.625 6.4820 11.0646 15.9091 

2.00 1.875 10.0870 17.2183 33.1274 

2.25 2.125 11.9490 20.3967 53.5241 

2.50 2.375 15.3010 26.1185 79.6426 

2.75 2.625 8.1180 13.8573 93.4998 

3.00 2.875 3.1340 5.3497 98.8495 

3.25 3.125 0.5900 1.0071 99.8566 

3.50 3.375 0.0650 0.1110 99.9676 

3.75 3.625 0.0130 0.0222 99.9898 

4.00 3.875 0.0030 0.0051 99.9949 

5.00 4.5 0.0030 0.0051 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 

Figure A.75. Granplot analysis of sample 050505-02C 

203 




2.1714 φ 0.2220 mm 0.2314 mm 


-0.2591 NU MV 1.2190 NU 

3.0446 NU MV 5.6622 NU 

-2.089 NU MV 0.03 NU 

17.993 NU MV 0.04 NU 

2.0818 φ 0.2362 mm 0.2367 mm 





30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 







1.0 2.0 3.0 

204 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 


Figure A.76. Method of SELF determination applied to sample 050505-02C


















0.25 0.125 0.0070 0.0080 0.0080 

0.50 0.375 0.0000 0.0000 0.0080 

0.75 0.625 0.0050 0.0057 0.0138 

1.00 0.875 0.0730 0.0838 0.0976 

1.25 1.125 0.5650 0.6489 0.7465 

1.50 1.375 2.2720 2.6093 3.3558 

1.75 1.625 10.8340 12.4426 15.7984 

2.00 1.875 18.9270 21.7372 37.5356 

2.25 2.125 22.0800 25.3583 62.8939 

2.50 2.375 22.8850 26.2828 89.1768 

2.75 2.625 7.3960 8.4941 97.6709 

3.00 2.875 1.7770 2.0408 99.7117 

3.25 3.125 0.2130 0.2446 99.9564 

3.50 3.375 0.0300 0.0345 99.9908 

3.75 3.625 0.0050 0.0057 99.9966 

4.00 3.875 0.0010 0.0011 99.9977 

5.00 4.5 0.0020 0.0023 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 


205 




2.1076 φ 0.2320 mm 0.2389 mm 


-0.1357 NU MV 0.9481 NU 

3.0057 NU MV 5.4333 NU 

-0.975 NU MV 0.02 NU 

20.097 NU MV 0.05 NU 

1.9979 φ 0.2504 mm 0.2513 mm 





30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 





Fluvial 

Segment 

Coarser 


1.0 


2.0 3.0 


Figure A.78. Method of SELF determination applied to sample 050505-04A 

206 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 

Finer

Sample I.D.: 050505-04B Sampled by: Beth Forrest Start Sieve Size (phi): 0.25 

















0.25 0.125 0.0070 0.0080 0.0080 

0.50 0.375 0.0000 0.0000 0.0080 

0.75 0.625 0.0020 0.0023 0.0102 

1.00 0.875 0.0710 0.0808 0.0910 

1.25 1.125 1.5620 1.7777 1.8688 

1.50 1.375 11.1000 12.6329 14.5016 

1.75 1.625 24.3400 27.7013 42.2029 

2.00 1.875 18.9530 21.5703 63.7732 

2.25 2.125 14.3570 16.3397 80.1129 

2.50 2.375 12.6700 14.4197 94.5326 

2.75 2.625 3.8710 4.4056 98.9382 

3.00 2.875 0.8250 0.9389 99.8771 

3.25 3.125 0.0940 0.1070 99.9841 

3.50 3.375 0.0090 0.0102 99.9943 

3.75 3.625 0.0020 0.0023 99.9966 

4.00 3.875 0.0000 0.0000 99.9966 

5.00 4.5 0.0030 0.0034 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 



207 




1.8853 φ 0.2707 mm 0.2798 mm 


0.3407 NU MV 0.2544 NU 

2.5948 NU MV 3.0067 NU 

2.538 NU MV 0.01 NU 

14.748 NU MV 0.02 NU 

1.7154 φ 0.3045 mm 0.3056 mm 

MV MV 0.2536 NU 




30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 





Fluvial 

Segment 




208 

Settling Tail 

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 


Figure A.80. Method of SELF determination applied to sample 050505-04B


















1.25 1.125 0.1207 0.1541 0.1541 

1.50 1.375 0.9384 1.1981 1.3522 

1.75 1.625 5.8627 7.4853 8.8375 

2.00 1.875 11.0188 14.0685 22.9060 

2.25 2.125 16.5430 21.1216 44.0276 

2.50 2.375 26.3282 33.6150 77.6426 

2.75 2.625 11.5257 14.7157 92.3583 

3.00 2.875 4.1531 5.3025 97.6608 

3.25 3.125 1.3263 1.6934 99.3542 

3.50 3.375 0.4413 0.5634 99.9176 

3.75 3.625 0.0479 0.0612 99.9788 

4.00 3.875 0.0066 0.0084 99.9872 

5.00 4.5 0.0100 0.0128 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 



209 




2.2646 φ 0.2081 mm 0.2148 mm 


0.0419 NU MV 0.7702 NU 

3.3728 NU MV 3.7259 NU 

2.301 NU MV 0.01 NU 

24.022 NU MV 0.00 NU 

2.1694 φ 0.2223 mm 0.2228 mm 

MV MV 0.2573 NU 




40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 






1.0 2.0 


210 

3.0 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 



Sample I.D.: 050505-05B Sampled by: Beth Forrest Start Sieve Size (phi): 1 

















1.00 0.875 0.1090 0.1113 0.1113 

1.25 1.125 0.3590 0.3665 0.4777 

1.50 1.375 1.5060 1.5373 2.0150 

1.75 1.625 7.5550 7.7119 9.7268 

2.00 1.875 16.9980 17.3509 27.0778 

2.25 2.125 23.6080 24.0982 51.1759 

2.50 2.375 31.0470 31.6916 82.8675 

2.75 2.625 11.3600 11.5959 94.4634 

3.00 2.875 3.9560 4.0381 98.5015 

3.25 3.125 1.0890 1.1116 99.6131 

3.50 3.375 0.3160 0.3226 99.9357 

3.75 3.625 0.0420 0.0429 99.9786 

4.00 3.875 0.0050 0.0051 99.9837 

5.00 4.5 0.0160 0.0163 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 



211 




2.2102 φ 0.2161 mm 0.2228 mm 


0.0030 NU MV 0.9470 NU 

3.6563 NU MV 4.9348 NU 

1.999 NU MV 0.01 NU 

32.610 NU MV 0.01 NU 

2.1128 φ 0.2312 mm 0.2314 mm 

MV MV 0.2541 NU 




35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 






1.0 2.0 


212 

3.0 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 




















0.50 0.375 0.0046 0.0048 0.0048 

0.75 0.625 0.0164 0.0171 0.0219 

1.00 0.875 0.0825 0.0862 0.1081 

1.25 1.125 0.3418 0.3570 0.4651 

1.50 1.375 1.7191 1.7955 2.2606 

1.75 1.625 8.3675 8.7392 10.9998 

2.00 1.875 16.7274 17.4705 28.4703 

2.25 2.125 22.6300 23.6354 52.1057 

2.50 2.375 27.1119 28.3164 80.4221 

2.75 2.625 12.6678 13.2306 93.6527 

3.00 2.875 5.1082 5.3351 98.9878 

3.25 3.125 0.8980 0.9379 99.9257 

3.50 3.375 0.0578 0.0604 99.9861 

3.75 3.625 0.0095 0.0099 99.9960 

4.00 3.875 0.0036 0.0038 99.9998 

5.00 4.5 0.0002 0.0002 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 



213 




2.2065 φ 0.2167 mm 0.2238 mm 


-0.1190 NU MV 0.9558 NU 

2.9809 NU MV 5.0045 NU 

-1.175 NU MV 0.02 NU 

16.235 NU MV 0.02 NU 

2.1027 φ 0.2328 mm 0.2331 mm 

MV MV 0.2625 NU 




30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

195 204 

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 







214 

Settling Tail 


0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 



Sample I.D.: 011106-03 Sampled by: Beth Forrest Start Sieve Size (phi): 0 

















0.00 -0.125 0.0125 0.0130 0.0130 

0.25 0.125 0.0119 0.0124 0.0253 

0.50 0.375 0.0207 0.0215 0.0468 

0.75 0.625 0.0685 0.0711 0.1179 

1.00 0.875 0.1903 0.1976 0.3155 

1.25 1.125 0.7352 0.7632 1.0787 

1.50 1.375 2.3960 2.4874 3.5661 

1.75 1.625 9.4616 9.8225 13.3886 

2.00 1.875 15.7269 16.3268 29.7154 

2.25 2.125 21.0608 21.8641 51.5795 

2.50 2.375 28.0542 29.1243 80.7037 

2.75 2.625 13.1382 13.6393 94.3431 

3.00 2.875 4.6999 4.8792 99.2222 

3.25 3.125 0.6362 0.6605 99.8827 

3.50 3.375 0.0829 0.0861 99.9688 

3.75 3.625 0.0172 0.0179 99.9866 

4.00 3.875 0.0045 0.0047 99.9913 

5.00 4.5 0.0084 0.0087 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 



215 




2.1902 φ 0.2191 mm 0.2273 mm 


-0.3417 NU MV 1.6872 NU 

3.5196 NU MV 11.7067 NU 

-3.996 NU MV 0.11 NU 

33.161 NU MV 0.29 NU 

2.1069 φ 0.2321 mm 0.2324 mm 

MV MV 0.2891 NU 




35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 




and standard deviation. Settling Tail 




216 


1.0 2.0 3.0 

4.0 5.0 




















0.25 0.125 0.0017 0.0019 0.0019 

0.50 0.375 0.0026 0.0029 0.0047 

0.75 0.625 0.0129 0.0142 0.0189 

1.00 0.875 0.0453 0.0498 0.0687 

1.25 1.125 0.2992 0.3288 0.3975 

1.50 1.375 1.4245 1.5654 1.9629 

1.75 1.625 6.5485 7.1963 9.1592 

2.00 1.875 12.5952 13.8411 23.0002 

2.25 2.125 19.6534 21.5975 44.5977 

2.50 2.375 29.9791 32.9446 77.5423 

2.75 2.625 14.3691 15.7905 93.3328 

3.00 2.875 5.3614 5.8917 99.2245 

3.25 3.125 0.6043 0.6641 99.8886 

3.50 3.375 0.0723 0.0795 99.9680 

3.75 3.625 0.0156 0.0171 99.9852 

4.00 3.875 0.0051 0.0056 99.9908 

5.00 4.5 0.0084 0.0092 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 



217 




2.2522 φ 0.2099 mm 0.2165 mm 


-0.2864 NU MV 1.1606 NU 

3.2744 NU MV 5.7362 NU 

-1.660 NU MV 0.02 NU 

24.521 NU MV 0.03 NU 

2.1660 φ 0.2228 mm 0.2233 mm 

MV MV 0.2612 NU 




35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 





Fluvial 

Segment 

Fluvial 


218 



Settling Tail 

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 



Sample I.D.: H Sampled by: Dave Clark Start Sieve Size (phi): 0 

Sample Date: January 24/25, 1985 Analyzed by: Dave Clark End Sieve Size (phi): 4.25 







Mass of Sample Remaining: grams Sample collected on January 24th or 25th of 1985 by Dave Clark 

Dry Sieved Fines Mass: grams Sample collected from a depth of 1 ft, parallel to laminae or present depositional plane 








0.00 -0.125 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

0.25 0.125 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

0.50 0.375 0.0130 0.0280 0.0280 

0.75 0.625 0.0330 0.0710 0.0989 

1.00 0.875 0.1210 0.2603 0.3592 

1.25 1.125 0.4590 0.9873 1.3465 

1.50 1.375 1.9340 4.1599 5.5063 

1.75 1.625 4.6610 10.0254 15.5317 

2.00 1.875 9.0200 19.4012 34.9329 

2.25 2.125 15.6710 33.7069 68.6398 

2.50 2.375 8.7580 18.8376 87.4774 

2.75 2.625 4.8520 10.4362 97.9136 

3.00 2.875 0.8240 1.7723 99.6860 

3.25 3.125 0.0530 0.1140 99.8000 

3.50 3.375 0.0810 0.1742 99.9742 

3.75 3.625 0.0020 0.0043 99.9785 

4.00 3.875 0.0000 0.0000 99.9785 

4.25 4.125 0.0100 0.0215 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

Figure A.91. Granplot analysis of sample H 

from seaward side of beach ridges (1/2 distance from top to bottom) 

Ridge Set J 

Measure 

219 


Original Data Transformed 

in φ Units Data 

Mean: 2.0969 φ 0.2338 mm 

Standard Deviation: 0.3629 phi-units MV 

Skewness: -0.2394 NU MV 

Kurtosis: 3.6943 NU MV 

5th Moment Measure: -1.744 NU MV 

6th Moment Measure: 30.997 NU MV 

Median: 1.9868 φ 0.2523 mm 

Relative Dispersion: MV MV 

Original Data 


0.2413 mm 

0.0644 mm 

1.3348 NU 

6.9874 NU 

0.03 NU 

0.05 NU 

0.2532 mm 

0.2667 NU 




40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

201 

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 







1.0 2.0 3.0 

220 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 


Figure A.92. Method of SELF determination applied to sample H

Sample I.D.: I Sampled by: Dave Clark Start Sieve Size (phi): 0 

















0.00 -0.125 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

0.25 0.125 0.0030 0.0068 0.0068 

0.50 0.375 0.0080 0.0180 0.0248 

0.75 0.625 0.0440 0.0990 0.1238 

1.00 0.875 0.1380 0.3106 0.4344 

1.25 1.125 0.4520 1.0174 1.4518 

1.50 1.375 1.6720 3.7634 5.2152 

1.75 1.625 3.6790 8.2808 13.4960 

2.00 1.875 6.6540 14.9770 28.4730 

2.25 2.125 11.0020 24.7637 53.2367 

2.50 2.375 9.2520 20.8247 74.0614 

2.75 2.625 7.8970 17.7748 91.8362 

3.00 2.875 2.8700 6.4599 98.2961 

3.25 3.125 0.6040 1.3595 99.6556 

3.50 3.375 0.0620 0.1396 99.7952 

3.75 3.625 0.0170 0.0383 99.8334 

4.00 3.875 0.0050 0.0113 99.8447 

4.25 4.125 0.0690 0.1553 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

Figure A.93. Granplot analysis of sample I 


Ridge Set J 

Measure 

221 




Mean: 2.2105 φ 0.2161 mm 






Median: 2.0923 φ 0.2345 mm 


Original Data 


0.2257 mm 

0.0711 mm 

1.3507 NU 

6.7991 NU 

0.04 NU 

0.07 NU 

0.2349 mm 

0.3148 NU 




30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 







1.0 2.0 

222 

Settling Tail 

3.0 4.0 5.0 


Figure A.94. Method of SELF determination applied to sample I


















0.50 0.375 0.0067 0.0102 0.0102 

0.75 0.625 0.0070 0.0107 0.0209 

1.00 0.875 0.0354 0.0541 0.0750 

1.25 1.125 0.1979 0.3023 0.3773 

1.50 1.375 1.0588 1.6173 1.9945 

1.75 1.625 5.2128 7.9623 9.9568 

2.00 1.875 10.0107 15.2908 25.2476 

2.25 2.125 14.8784 22.7259 47.9735 

2.50 2.375 22.0760 33.7199 81.6934 

2.75 2.625 9.4780 14.4771 96.1705 

3.00 2.875 2.3243 3.5502 99.7208 

3.25 3.125 0.1417 0.2164 99.9372 

3.50 3.375 0.0235 0.0359 99.9731 

3.75 3.625 0.0082 0.0125 99.9856 

4.00 3.875 0.0031 0.0047 99.9904 

5.00 4.5 0.0063 0.0096 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 



223 




2.2172 φ 0.2151 mm 0.2213 mm 


-0.3466 NU MV 1.1759 NU 

3.2828 NU MV 5.7846 NU 

-1.798 NU MV 0.02 NU 

28.189 NU MV 0.03 NU 

2.1400 φ 0.2269 mm 0.2271 mm 

MV MV 0.2515 NU 




40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 








224 


Settling Tail 

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 




















0.25 0.125 0.0034 0.0033 0.0033 

0.50 0.375 0.0134 0.0129 0.0162 

0.75 0.625 0.1114 0.1076 0.1238 

1.00 0.875 0.4134 0.3993 0.5231 

1.25 1.125 1.3897 1.3421 1.8652 

1.50 1.375 4.1483 4.0063 5.8715 

1.75 1.625 13.5828 13.1180 18.9895 

2.00 1.875 20.3888 19.6910 38.6805 

2.25 2.125 23.1198 22.3286 61.0091 

2.50 2.375 26.6754 25.7625 86.7716 

2.75 2.625 10.6911 10.3252 97.0968 

3.00 2.875 2.7268 2.6335 99.7303 

3.25 3.125 0.2389 0.2307 99.9610 

3.50 3.375 0.0261 0.0252 99.9862 

3.75 3.625 0.0068 0.0066 99.9928 

4.00 3.875 0.0020 0.0019 99.9947 

5.00 4.5 0.0055 0.0053 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 



225 




2.0985 φ 0.2335 mm 0.2423 mm 


-0.3167 NU MV 1.2654 NU 

3.1175 NU MV 6.1528 NU 

-2.696 NU MV 0.03 NU 

21.117 NU MV 0.05 NU 

2.0017 φ 0.2497 mm 0.2506 mm 

MV MV 0.2868 NU 




30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 








1.0 2.0 3.0 

226 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 



Sample I.D.: J Sampled by: Dave Clark Start Sieve Size (phi): 0 

















0.00 -0.125 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

0.25 0.125 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

0.50 0.375 0.0060 0.0176 0.0176 

0.75 0.625 0.0230 0.0676 0.0852 

1.00 0.875 0.0730 0.2144 0.2996 

1.25 1.125 0.3010 0.8841 1.1837 

1.50 1.375 1.0010 2.9401 4.1238 

1.75 1.625 2.4340 7.1492 11.2730 

2.00 1.875 4.9470 14.5303 25.8033 

2.25 2.125 8.2710 24.2936 50.0969 

2.50 2.375 7.6860 22.5753 72.6723 

2.75 2.625 6.3340 18.6042 91.2765 

3.00 2.875 2.1750 6.3884 97.6649 

3.25 3.125 0.4540 1.3335 98.9984 

3.50 3.375 0.0300 0.0881 99.0865 

3.75 3.625 0.0070 0.0206 99.1071 

4.00 3.875 0.0000 0.0000 99.1071 

4.25 4.125 0.3040 0.8929 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

Figure A.99. Granplot analysis of sample J 


Ridge Set J 

Measure 

227 




Mean: 2.2480 φ 0.2105 mm 


Skewness: 0.3455 NU MV 




Median: 2.1240 φ 0.2294 mm 


Original Data 


0.2201 mm 

0.0685 mm 

1.2048 NU 

6.3947 NU 

0.03 NU 

0.05 NU 

0.2294 mm 

0.3111 NU 




30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 







1.0 2.0 3.0 

228 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 


Figure A.100. Method of SELF determination applied to sample J

Sample I.D.: K Sampled by: Dave Clark Start Sieve Size (phi): 0 

















0.00 -0.125 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

0.25 0.125 0.0020 0.0044 0.0044 

0.50 0.375 0.0200 0.0442 0.0486 

0.75 0.625 0.0490 0.1082 0.1568 

1.00 0.875 0.1670 0.3689 0.5257 

1.25 1.125 0.4900 1.0823 1.6080 

1.50 1.375 1.7570 3.8807 5.4887 

1.75 1.625 4.1190 9.0977 14.5864 

2.00 1.875 7.7260 17.0646 31.6510 

2.25 2.125 12.1880 26.9199 58.5710 

2.50 2.375 9.4010 20.7642 79.3352 

2.75 2.625 6.8930 15.2247 94.5599 

3.00 2.875 1.9870 4.3887 98.9486 

3.25 3.125 0.3700 0.8172 99.7659 

3.50 3.375 0.0390 0.0861 99.8520 

3.75 3.625 0.0060 0.0133 99.8653 

4.00 3.875 0.0000 0.0000 99.8653 

4.25 4.125 0.0610 0.1347 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 


Ridge Set J 

Measure 

Figure A.101. Granplot analysis of sample K 

229 




Mean: 2.1629 φ 0.2233 mm 






Median: 2.0454 φ 0.2423 mm 


Original Data 


0.2326 mm 

0.0705 mm 

1.4286 NU 

7.5278 NU 

0.05 NU 

0.08 NU 

0.2431 mm 

0.3033 NU 




30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 







1.0 2.0 3.0 

230 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 


Figure A.102. Method of SELF determination applied to sample K

Sample I.D.: L Sampled by: Dave Clark Start Sieve Size (phi): 0 

















0.00 -0.125 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

0.25 0.125 0.0040 0.0094 0.0094 

0.50 0.375 0.0190 0.0446 0.0540 

0.75 0.625 0.1280 0.3003 0.3543 

1.00 0.875 0.3720 0.8728 1.2271 

1.25 1.125 0.9170 2.1516 3.3787 

1.50 1.375 2.4070 5.6476 9.0263 

1.75 1.625 4.2510 9.9742 19.0005 

2.00 1.875 7.0360 16.5087 35.5092 

2.25 2.125 10.3960 24.3923 59.9015 

2.50 2.375 8.3460 19.5824 79.4838 

2.75 2.625 6.2430 14.6481 94.1319 

3.00 2.875 2.0000 4.6926 98.8245 

3.25 3.125 0.4070 0.9550 99.7794 

3.50 3.375 0.0480 0.1126 99.8921 

3.75 3.625 0.0100 0.0235 99.9155 

4.00 3.875 0.0020 0.0047 99.9202 

4.25 4.125 0.0340 0.0798 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

Figure A.103. Granplot analysis of sample L 


Ridge Set J 

Measure 

231 




Mean: 2.1240 φ 0.2294 mm 






Median: 2.0235 φ 0.246 mm 


Original Data 


0.2412 mm 

0.0825 mm 

1.4893 NU 

6.7461 NU 

0.05 NU 

0.08 NU 

0.2469 mm 

0.3422 NU 




30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 







1.0 2.0 3.0 

232 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 


Figure A.104. Method of SELF determination applied to sample L


















0.50 0.375 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

0.75 0.625 0.0830 0.1757 0.1757 

1.00 0.875 0.1480 0.3133 0.4890 

1.25 1.125 0.3390 0.7176 1.2066 

1.50 1.375 0.7970 1.6872 2.8938 

1.75 1.625 2.5190 5.3325 8.2263 

2.00 1.875 5.3030 11.2259 19.4521 

2.25 2.125 12.1770 25.7774 45.2296 

2.50 2.375 11.8390 25.0619 70.2915 

2.75 2.625 8.3650 17.7078 87.9993 

3.00 2.875 4.8230 10.2098 98.2091 

3.25 3.125 0.7060 1.4945 99.7036 

3.50 3.375 0.0720 0.1524 99.8561 

3.75 3.625 0.0220 0.0466 99.9026 

4.00 3.875 0.0160 0.0339 99.9365 

4.25 4.125 0.0300 0.0635 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 



233 




2.2911 φ 0.2043 mm 0.2125 mm 


-0.3534 NU MV 1.7512 NU 

3.9231 NU MV 9.3227 NU 

-3.995 NU MV 0.05 NU 

34.273 NU MV 0.07 NU 

2.1726 φ 0.2218 mm 0.2223 mm 

MV MV 0.3045 NU 




30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 

7 







1.0 2.0 3.0 

234 

i 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 



Sample I.D.: 050505-03A Sampled by: Beth Forrest Start Sieve Size (phi): -0.25 

















-0.25 -0.375 0.0080 0.0124 0.0124 

0.00 -0.125 0.0120 0.0186 0.0311 

0.25 0.125 0.0230 0.0357 0.0668 

0.50 0.375 0.0080 0.0124 0.0793 

0.75 0.625 0.0160 0.0249 0.1041 

1.00 0.875 0.1160 0.1803 0.2844 

1.25 1.125 0.6020 0.9355 1.2199 

1.50 1.375 1.6460 2.5579 3.7778 

1.75 1.625 5.0090 7.7841 11.5620 

2.00 1.875 6.7700 10.5208 22.0827 

2.25 2.125 9.9930 15.5294 37.6121 

2.50 2.375 20.1180 31.2639 68.8760 

2.75 2.625 13.5560 21.0664 89.9423 

3.00 2.875 5.4020 8.3948 98.3372 

3.25 3.125 0.9560 1.4856 99.8228 

3.50 3.375 0.0870 0.1352 99.9580 

3.75 3.625 0.0150 0.0233 99.9814 

4.00 3.875 0.0040 0.0062 99.9876 

5.00 4.5 0.0080 0.0124 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 



235 




2.2907 φ 0.2044 mm 0.2133 mm 


-0.6416 NU MV 2.4715 NU 

3.9062 NU MV 20.9083 NU 

-7.801 NU MV 0.30 NU 

45.326 NU MV 1.02 NU 

2.2241 φ 0.214 mm 0.2148 mm 

MV MV 0.3271 NU 




35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 





Fluvial 

Segment 



0.03 Eolian Segment 

0.01 

236 


Settling Tail 

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 



Sample I.D.: 050505-03B Sampled by: Beth Forrest Start Sieve Size (phi): 0.25 

















0.25 0.125 0.0020 0.0031 0.0031 

0.50 0.375 0.0050 0.0077 0.0108 

0.75 0.625 0.0070 0.0108 0.0215 

1.00 0.875 0.0240 0.0369 0.0585 

1.25 1.125 0.1160 0.1785 0.2370 

1.50 1.375 0.5140 0.7909 1.0278 

1.75 1.625 3.0060 4.6252 5.6530 

2.00 1.875 8.0500 12.3861 18.0391 

2.25 2.125 13.1950 20.3025 38.3416 

2.50 2.375 22.7880 35.0628 73.4044 

2.75 2.625 11.9000 18.3099 91.7144 

3.00 2.875 4.4500 6.8470 98.5614 

3.25 3.125 0.7860 1.2094 99.7707 

3.50 3.375 0.1160 0.1785 99.9492 

3.75 3.625 0.0250 0.0385 99.9877 

4.00 3.875 0.0040 0.0062 99.9938 

5.00 4.5 0.0040 0.0062 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 



237 




2.3081 φ 0.2019 mm 0.2077 mm 


-0.2263 NU MV 1.2542 NU 

3.5255 NU MV 7.5602 NU 

-1.963 NU MV 0.03 NU 

29.470 NU MV 0.06 NU 

2.2081 φ 0.2164 mm 0.2171 mm 

MV MV 0.2499 NU 




40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 







Fluvial 

Segment 

Fluvial 

1.0 2.0 3.0 

238 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 



Sample I.D.: D Sampled by: Dave Clark Start Sieve Size (phi): 0 

















0.00 -0.125 0.0510 0.0622 0.0622 

0.25 0.125 0.0350 0.0427 0.1049 

0.50 0.375 0.0440 0.0537 0.1586 

0.75 0.625 0.0800 0.0976 0.2562 

1.00 0.875 0.2150 0.2623 0.5184 

1.25 1.125 0.6220 0.7587 1.2772 

1.50 1.375 2.4350 2.9703 4.2474 

1.75 1.625 5.8260 7.1067 11.3541 

2.00 1.875 11.7740 14.3622 25.7163 

2.25 2.125 21.7930 26.5836 52.3000 

2.50 2.375 17.9950 21.9507 74.2507 

2.75 2.625 14.3790 17.5399 91.7906 

3.00 2.875 4.3960 5.3623 97.1529 

3.25 3.125 0.9030 1.1015 98.2544 

3.50 3.375 1.1100 1.3540 99.6084 

3.75 3.625 0.0460 0.0561 99.6645 

4.00 3.875 0.0150 0.0183 99.6828 

4.25 4.125 0.2600 0.3172 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

Figure A.111 Granplot analysis of sample D 


Ridge Set L 

Measure 

239 




Mean: 2.2340 φ 0.2126 mm 






Median: 2.1034 φ 0.2327 mm 


Original Data 


0.2225 mm 

0.0731 mm 

2.5549 NU 

22.2082 NU 

0.30 NU 

0.88 NU 

0.2330 mm 

0.3288 NU 




30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 








1.0 2.0 3.0 

240 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 


Figure A.112. Method of SELF determination applied to sample D

Sample I.D.: C Sampled by: Dave Clark Start Sieve Size (phi): 0 

















0.00 -0.125 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

0.25 0.125 0.0010 0.0013 0.0013 

0.50 0.375 0.0210 0.0278 0.0291 

0.75 0.625 0.1000 0.1324 0.1615 

1.00 0.875 0.3560 0.4712 0.6327 

1.25 1.125 1.4130 1.8703 2.5030 

1.50 1.375 5.2400 6.9359 9.4389 

1.75 1.625 10.2530 13.5713 23.0102 

2.00 1.875 16.6740 22.0704 45.0807 

2.25 2.125 20.2770 26.8395 71.9202 

2.50 2.375 11.5310 15.2629 87.1832 

2.75 2.625 7.6010 10.0610 97.2442 

3.00 2.875 1.7800 2.3561 99.6003 

3.25 3.125 0.2340 0.3097 99.9100 

3.50 3.375 0.0200 0.0265 99.9365 

3.75 3.625 0.0050 0.0066 99.9431 

4.00 3.875 0.0000 0.0000 99.9431 

4.25 4.125 0.0430 0.0569 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 


Ridge Set L 

Measure 

Figure A.113. Granplot analysis of sample C 

241 




Mean: 2.0337 φ 0.2442 mm 






Median: 1.9208 φ 0.2641 mm 


Original Data 


0.2540 mm 

0.0741 mm 

1.0862 NU 

5.4243 NU 

0.03 NU 

0.04 NU 

0.2647 mm 

0.2917 NU 




30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 







1.0 2.0 

242 

Settling Tail 

3.0 4.0 5.0 


Figure A.114. Method of SELF determination applied to sample C

Sample I.D.: G Sampled by: Dave Clark Start Sieve Size (phi): 0 

















0.00 -0.125 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

0.25 0.125 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

0.50 0.375 0.0110 0.0190 0.0190 

0.75 0.625 0.0490 0.0845 0.1034 

1.00 0.875 0.1630 0.2810 0.3844 

1.25 1.125 0.6390 1.1016 1.4861 

1.50 1.375 2.2350 3.8530 5.3391 

1.75 1.625 5.1930 8.9525 14.2916 

2.00 1.875 10.2180 17.6154 31.9070 

2.25 2.125 15.9640 27.5213 59.4283 

2.50 2.375 11.8100 20.3600 79.7883 

2.75 2.625 8.2020 14.1399 93.9282 

3.00 2.875 2.4810 4.2771 98.2054 

3.25 3.125 0.6240 1.0758 99.2811 

3.50 3.375 0.1060 0.1827 99.4638 

3.75 3.625 0.0780 0.1345 99.5983 

4.00 3.875 0.0030 0.0052 99.6035 

4.25 4.125 0.2300 0.3965 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 


Ridge Set L 

Measure 

Figure A.115. Granplot analysis of sample G 

243 




Mean: 2.1679 φ 0.2225 mm 






Median: 2.0394 φ 0.2433 mm 


Original Data 


0.2320 mm 

0.0694 mm 

1.1568 NU 

6.1502 NU 

0.03 NU 

0.04 NU 

0.2441 mm 

0.2992 NU 




30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 







1.0 2.0 3.0 

244 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 


Figure A.116. Method of SELF determination applied to sample G


















0.50 0.375 0.0159 0.0215 0.0215 

0.75 0.625 0.0064 0.0087 0.0302 

1.00 0.875 0.0114 0.0154 0.0457 

1.25 1.125 0.0378 0.0512 0.0969 

1.50 1.375 0.6365 0.8623 0.9592 

1.75 1.625 2.6560 3.5983 4.5575 

2.00 1.875 6.1547 8.3382 12.8957 

2.25 2.125 11.1535 15.1105 28.0061 

2.50 2.375 25.5132 34.5646 62.5707 

2.75 2.625 17.9318 24.2935 86.8643 

3.00 2.875 8.2091 11.1215 97.9857 

3.25 3.125 1.3440 1.8208 99.8065 

3.50 3.375 0.1131 0.1532 99.9598 

3.75 3.625 0.0173 0.0234 99.9832 

4.00 3.875 0.0034 0.0046 99.9878 

5.00 4.5 0.0090 0.0122 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 



245 




2.3906 φ 0.1907 mm 0.1963 mm 


-0.4242 NU MV 1.5256 NU 

3.7121 NU MV 9.0510 NU 

-3.986 NU MV 0.04 NU 

34.764 NU MV 0.07 NU 

2.2841 φ 0.2053 mm 0.2060 mm 

MV MV 0.2575 NU 




40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 






Fluvial 

Segment 

Fluvial 


1.0 2.0 

246 


3.0 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 




















0.25 0.125 0.0049 0.0046 0.0046 

0.50 0.375 0.0040 0.0038 0.0084 

0.75 0.625 0.0416 0.0392 0.0475 

1.00 0.875 0.1546 0.1456 0.1931 

1.25 1.125 0.6128 0.5769 0.7700 

1.50 1.375 2.4050 2.2643 3.0343 

1.75 1.625 10.0632 9.4744 12.5087 

2.00 1.875 18.7783 17.6795 30.1881 

2.25 2.125 27.3197 25.7211 55.9092 

2.50 2.375 32.3728 30.4785 86.3877 

2.75 2.625 11.4755 10.8040 97.1917 

3.00 2.875 2.7267 2.5671 99.7589 

3.25 3.125 0.2005 0.1888 99.9477 

3.50 3.375 0.0471 0.0443 99.9920 

3.75 3.625 0.0015 0.0014 99.9934 

4.00 3.875 0.0032 0.0030 99.9964 

5.00 4.5 0.0038 0.0036 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.5 0.0000 100.0000 

Measure 

Mean: 


Skewness: 

Kurtosis: 



Median: 



247 




2.1602 φ 0.2237 mm 0.2304 mm 


-0.3573 NU MV 1.2982 NU 

3.3575 NU MV 6.8618 NU 

-3.192 NU MV 0.03 NU 

26.397 NU MV 0.05 NU 

2.0676 φ 0.2386 mm 0.2392 mm 

MV MV 0.2557 NU 




35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 






Fluvial 

Segment 

Fluvial 



248 

Settling Tail 

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 



Sample I.D.: F Sampled by: Dave Clark Start Sieve Size (phi): 0 

















0.00 -0.125 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

0.25 0.125 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

0.50 0.375 0.0090 0.0169 0.0169 

0.75 0.625 0.0400 0.0753 0.0922 

1.00 0.875 0.2610 0.4913 0.5836 

1.25 1.125 1.3250 2.4943 3.0778 

1.50 1.375 5.1730 9.7380 12.8158 

1.75 1.625 7.4850 14.0902 26.9060 

2.00 1.875 9.6860 18.2335 45.1395 

2.25 2.125 12.0370 22.6592 67.7987 

2.50 2.375 8.2460 15.5228 83.3214 

2.75 2.625 6.2070 11.6844 95.0058 

3.00 2.875 1.9980 3.7612 98.7670 

3.25 3.125 0.5520 1.0391 99.8061 

3.50 3.375 0.0640 0.1205 99.9266 

3.75 3.625 0.0110 0.0207 99.9473 

4.00 3.875 0.0010 0.0019 99.9492 

4.25 4.125 0.0270 0.0508 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

Figure A.121. Granplot analysis of sample E 


Ridge Set L 

Measure 

249 




Mean: 2.0421 φ 0.2428 mm 






Median: 1.9286 φ 0.2627 mm 


Original Data 


0.2550 mm 

0.0817 mm 

0.7997 NU 

3.7423 NU 

0.02 NU 

0.02 NU 

0.2633 mm 

0.3205 NU 




25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 






1.0 2.0 

250 

Settling Tail 

3.0 4.0 5.0 


Figure A.122. Method of SELF determination applied to sample E

Sample I.D.: B Sampled by: Dave Clark Start Sieve Size (phi): 0 

















0.00 -0.125 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

0.25 0.125 0.0130 0.0141 0.0141 

0.50 0.375 0.0210 0.0228 0.0370 

0.75 0.625 0.0980 0.1066 0.1436 

1.00 0.875 0.2890 0.3144 0.4580 

1.25 1.125 0.8520 0.9270 1.3850 

1.50 1.375 2.9720 3.2335 4.6185 

1.75 1.625 6.4440 7.0111 11.6296 

2.00 1.875 12.9500 14.0896 25.7192 

2.25 2.125 22.0680 24.0099 49.7291 

2.50 2.375 18.8280 20.4848 70.2139 

2.75 2.625 17.4580 18.9943 89.2082 

3.00 2.875 7.4080 8.0599 97.2680 

3.25 3.125 2.0870 2.2707 99.5387 

3.50 3.375 0.2020 0.2198 99.7585 

3.75 3.625 0.0490 0.0533 99.8118 

4.00 3.875 0.0160 0.0174 99.8292 

4.25 4.125 0.1570 0.1708 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 


Ridge Set L 

Measure 

Figure A.123. Granplot analysis of sample B 

251 




Mean: 2.2516 φ 0.2100 mm 






Median: 2.1283 φ 0.2287 mm 


Original Data 


0.2198 mm 

0.0707 mm 

1.4980 NU 

8.0937 NU 

0.06 NU 

0.10 NU 

0.2288 mm 

0.3218 NU 




30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

233 

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 





Coarser 




1.0 2.0 3.0 


Figure A.124. Method of SELF determination applied to sample B 

252 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 

Finer

Sample I.D.: A Sampled by: Dave Clark Start Sieve Size (phi): 0 

















0.00 -0.125 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

0.25 0.125 0.0310 0.0423 0.0423 

0.50 0.375 0.0410 0.0559 0.0982 

0.75 0.625 0.0700 0.0955 0.1936 

1.00 0.875 0.1360 0.1855 0.3791 

1.25 1.125 0.4280 0.5836 0.9627 

1.50 1.375 1.9860 2.7082 3.6709 

1.75 1.625 5.7860 7.8900 11.5610 

2.00 1.875 12.0140 16.3828 27.9438 

2.25 2.125 19.9570 27.2142 55.1580 

2.50 2.375 15.0490 20.5215 75.6794 

2.75 2.625 12.3040 16.7783 92.4577 

3.00 2.875 4.3870 5.9823 98.4400 

3.25 3.125 0.9890 1.3486 99.7886 

3.50 3.375 0.0860 0.1173 99.9059 

3.75 3.625 0.0170 0.0232 99.9291 

4.00 3.875 0.0050 0.0068 99.9359 

4.25 4.125 0.0470 0.0641 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 


Ridge Set L 

Measure 

Figure A.125. Granplot analysis of sample A 

253 




Mean: 2.2096 φ 0.2162 mm 






Median: 2.0776 φ 0.2369 mm 


Original Data 


0.2248 mm 

0.0672 mm 

1.7798 NU 

12.4500 NU 

0.10 NU 

0.24 NU 

0.2375 mm 

0.2989 NU 




30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 






1.0 2.0 


254 

Settling Tail 

3.0 4.0 5.0 


Figure A.126. Method of SELF determination applied to sample A

Sample I.D.: E Sampled by: Dave Clark Start Sieve Size (phi): 0 

















0.00 -0.125 0.0020 0.0030 0.0030 

0.25 0.125 0.0060 0.0090 0.0120 

0.50 0.375 0.0060 0.0090 0.0210 

0.75 0.625 0.0190 0.0285 0.0495 

1.00 0.875 0.0650 0.0976 0.1471 

1.25 1.125 0.2620 0.3934 0.5405 

1.50 1.375 1.3260 1.9909 2.5314 

1.75 1.625 3.9400 5.9156 8.4471 

2.00 1.875 8.8640 13.3087 21.7558 

2.25 2.125 17.6720 26.5333 48.2891 

2.50 2.375 16.0740 24.1340 72.4232 

2.75 2.625 12.5250 18.8055 91.2286 

3.00 2.875 4.3590 6.5448 97.7734 

3.25 3.125 1.2200 1.8317 99.6051 

3.50 3.375 0.1570 0.2357 99.8408 

3.75 3.625 0.0250 0.0375 99.8784 

4.00 3.875 0.0040 0.0060 99.8844 

4.25 4.125 0.0770 0.1156 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

5.00 4.625 0.0000 100.0000 

Figure A.127. Granplot analysis of sample E 


Ridge Set L 

Measure 

255 




Mean: 2.2689 φ 0.2075 mm 






Median: 2.1427 φ 0.2265 mm 


Original Data 


0.2150 mm 

0.0602 mm 

1.3622 NU 

9.0659 NU 

0.06 NU 

0.15 NU 

0.2267 mm 

0.2801 NU 




30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 

Grain Size (Phi)

99.99 

99.97 

99.9 

99.7 

99 

97.5 

95 

90 

84 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 

10 

5 

2.5 

1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.03 

0.01 

0.0 








1.0 2.0 3.0 

256 

Settling Tail 

4.0 5.0 


Figure A.128. Method of SELF determination applied to sample E

REFERENCES 

Aitken, M.J., 1991, Thermoluminescence dating: p.121-140 in Goksu, H.Y. et al (eds), Scientific 

Dating Methods: Dordrecht Kluwer Publ. 

Aitken, M. J., 1998, An Introduction to Optical Dating: The Dating of Quaternary Sediments by 

the use of Photon-Stimulated Luminescence: New York, Oxford University Press. 

Alvarez, L.F., 1984, Los Guarixes, Isla del Carmen, Camp., su climatologia, cambios de nivel de 

mar y patron de asenta miento: Professional thesis, School of Anthropology, University of 

Veracruz, Jalapa, Veracruz, Mexico, 83 p. 

Alvarez, L.F., 1985, El sitio arqueologico Los Guarixes. Los Talleres Tipograficos del Gobierno 

Municipal de Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche. 

Balsillie, J.H., 1995, William F. Tanner on Environmental Clastic Granulometry. Special 

Publication 40: Tallahassee, Florida Geological Survey. 145 p. 

Balsillie, J.H., Donoghue, J.F., Butler, K.M., and Koch, J.L., 2002, Plotting equation for 

Gaussian percentiles and a spreadsheet program for generating probability plots: Journal of 

Sedimentary Research, v. 72, p. 929-933. 

Balsillie, J.H. and Donoghue, J.F., 2004, High resolution sea-level history for the Gulf of Mexico 

since the last glacial maximum: Florida Geological Survey Report of Investigations #103. 

Tallahassee, FL, Florida Geological Survey, 31 p. 

Ballarini, M., Wallinga, J., Murray, A.S., Van Heteren, S., Oost, A.P., Bos, A.J.J. and van Eijk, 

C.W.E., 2003, Optical dating of young coastal dunes on a decadal time scale: Quaternary 

Science Reviews, v.22 (10-13), p.1011-1017. 

Bard, E., Hamelin, B., Fairbanks, R.G. and Zindler, A., 1990, Calibration of the 14C timescale 

over the past 30,000 years using mass spectrometric U-Th ages from Barbados corals: Nature, 

v.345, p.405-410. 

Bard, E., 1997, Nuclide production by cosmic rays during the last ice age: Science, v.277, p.532- 

533. 

Bard, E., 1998, Geochemical and geophysical implications of the radiocarbon calibration: 

Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta., v.62 (12), p.2025-2038. 

Bard, E., Arnold, M., Hamelin, B., Tisnerat-Laborak, N. and Labioch, G., 1998, Radiocarbon 

calibration by means of mass spectrometric 230 Th/ 234 U and 14 C ages of corals: an updated 

database including samples from Barbados, Mururoa and Tahiti: Radiocarbon, v.40, p.1085- 

1092. 

257

Berger, G., 1988, Dating quaternary events by luminescence: Geological Society of America 

Special Paper, v. 227, p.13-50. 

Berger, G., 1995, Progress in luminescence dating methods for quaternary sediments: In N.W. 

Ritter and N.R. Catto (eds). Dating Methods for Quaternary Deposits. Newfoundland: 

Geological Association of Canada, p. 81-104. 

Best, J.L., Ashworth, P.J., Bristow, C.S. and Roden, J., 2003, Three-dimensional sedimentary 

architecture of a large mid-channel sand braid bar, Jamuna River, Bangladesh: Journal of 

Sedimentary Research, v.73, p.516-530. 

Bloom, A.L., ed., 1977, Atlas of Sea-level curves: final report, International Geological 

Correlation Program, Project 61, 92 p. 

Blum, M. D., Carter, A. E., Zayac, T., and Goble, R. J., 2002, Middle Holocene Sea-Level and 

Evolution of the Gulf of Mexico Coast (USA): Journal of Coastal Research. Special Issue 36, p. 

65-80. 

Boggs, S., 1995, Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy, 3 rd edition, New Jersey: Prentice- 

Hall Inc. p. 343-356. 

Braley, C. O., 1982, Archaeological testing and evaluation of the Paradise Point Site (8Fr71), St. 

Vincent National Wildlife Refuge, Franklin County, Florida: Report to Interagency 

Archaeological Services Division, National Parks Service. 

Bristow, C.S., Chroston, P.N. and Bailey, S.D., 2000, The structure and development of 

foredunes on a locally prograding coast: insights from ground-penetrating radar surveys, 

Norfolk, UK: Sedimentology, v.47, p.923-944. 

Bristow, C.S. and Pucillo, K., 2006, Quantifying rates of coastal progradation from sediment 

volume using GPR and OSL: the Holocene fill of Guichen Bay, south-east South Australia: 

Sedimentology, v.53, p.769-788. 

Campbell, K. M., 1986, St. Vincent Island (St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge), Florida: in 

Neathery, T., ed., Geological Society of America Centennial Field Guide, Southeastern Section, 

DNAG, p. 351-353. 

Carter, R.W.G., 1986, The morphodynamics of beach ridge formation: Magilligan, Northern 

Ireland. Marine Geology, v.73, p.191-214. 

Curray, J.R., 1960, Sediments and history of the Holocene transgression, continental shelf, 

Northwest Gulf of Mexico: in Sherard, F.P., Phleger, F.B. and VanAndel, T.H. eds., Recent 

Sediments, Northwest Gulf of Mexico: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, 

p.221-266. 

258

Curray, J.R., Emmel, F.J. and Crampton, P.J.S., 1969, Holocene history of a strandplain lagoonal 

coast, Nayarit, Mexico: Lagunas costeras, un simposio. Mem. Simp. Intern Lagunas Costeras. 

Unam Unesco, p.63-100. 

Curray, J.R., 1996, Origin of beach ridges: comment on Tanner, W.F., 1995. Origin of beach 

ridges and swales. Mar. Geol., 129: 149-161: Marine Geology, v.136, p.121-125. 

Davis, R.A., Fox, H.T., Hayes, M.O. and Boothroyd, J.C., 1972, Comparison of ridge-and-runnel 

systems in tidal and non-tidal environments: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v.42, p.401-412. 

Davis, J.L. and Annan, A.P., 1989, Ground penetrating radar for high resolution mapping of soil 

and rock stratigraphy: Geophysical Prospecting, v.37, p.531-555. 

Davis, R.A., 1997, The Evolving Coast. New York: Scientific American Library. 

Davis, J. H., and Mokray, M. F., 2000, Assessment of the effect of road construction and other 

modifications of surface-water flow at St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge, Franklin County 

Florida: US Geological Survey Water Resource Investigations Report 00-4007. 

deBeaumont, E., 1845, Lecons de geologie pratique: P. Bertrand, Paris, p.223-252. 

Doeglas, D.J., 1946, Interpretation of the results of mechanical analyses: Journal of Sedimentary 

Petrology, v.16, p.19-40. 

Dominguez, J.M.L., Bittencourt, A.C.S.P. and Martin, L., 1992, Controls on Quaternary coastal 

evolution of the east-northeastern coast of Brazil: roles of sea-level history, trade winds and 

climate: In Quaternary Coastal Evolution, Sedimentary Geology, v.80, p.213-232. 

Donoghue, J.F. and Tanner, W.F., 1992, Quaternary terraces and shorelines of the Panhandle 

Florida region: In Quaternary Coasts of the United States: Marine and Lacustrine Systems, 

SEPM Special Pub. 48, Eds C.H. Fletcher and J.F. Wehmiller, p.233-241. 

Donoghue, J.F., 1993, Late Wisconsinian and Holocene depositional history, northeastern Gulf 

of Mexico: Marine Geology, v.112, p.185-205. 

Donoghue, J.F. and Tanner, W.F., 1994, Effects of Near-Term Sedimentologic Evolution of the 

Lifetime of Estuarine Resources. Apalachicola River and Bay National Estuarine Research 

Preserve: NOAA Technical Memorandum, NOS-SRD-27. 57 p. 

Donoghue, J. F., and White, N. M., 1995, Late Holocene sea-level change and delta migration, 

Apalachicola River region, northwest Florida, USA: Journal of Coastal Research, v. 11, no. 3, p. 

651-653. 

Dorsey, R.A., 1997, Predicted sea level changes, Florida Gulf Coast over the past 21,000 years. 

GARI Research Series #9, 31 p. 

259

Douglas, B., Kearney, M. and Leatherman, S., 2001, Sea level rise: history and consequences. 

International Geophysics Series, v.75, San Diego: Academic Press. 

Duller, G.A.T., 1991, Equivalent dose determination using single aliquots: Nuclear Tracks and 

Radiation Measurements, v.18, p.371-378. 

Duller, G.A.T., 1999, Analyst version 2.12. Luminescence Laboratory, University of Wales. 

Eichenholtz, M.E., Pirkle, E.C. and Pirkle, F.L., 1989, Sediment characteristics of selected beach 

ridges along Florida’s northeastern coast: Southeastern Geology, v.30, p.155-167. 

Ekman, M., 1988, The world’s longest continued series of sea-level observations: Pure Applied 

Geophysics, v.127, p.73-77. 

Fairbridge, R.W., 1961, Eustatic changes in sea level: In: Physics and Chemistry of the Earth. 

Eds. L.H. Ahrens, Frank Press, Kalervo Rankiama, S.K. Runcorn. v.4, p.99-185. 

Fernald, E.A. and Purdum, E.D., 1992, Atlas of Florida: Gainsville, Florida: University Press of 

Florida. 280 p. 

Fisher, J.J., 1968, Barrier island formation: discussion: Geological Society of American Bulletin, 

v.79, p.1421-1426. 

Fisk, H.N., 1956, Nearshore sediments of the continental shelf off Louisianna: Eighth Texas 

Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, p.1. 

Folk, R.L., 1974, Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks: Austin, Hemphill Publishing Company, 

182 p. 

Folz. E. and Mercier, N., 1999, A single-aliquot OSL protocol using bracketing regenerative 

doses to accurately determine equivalent doses in quartz: Radiation Measurements, v.30, p.477- 

485. 

Forrest, B., 2003, Application of luminescence techniques to coastal studies at the St. Joseph 

Peninsula, Gulf County, Florida: unpublished MSc. Thesis, McMaster University, Hamilton, 

Ontario, 217 p. 

Fraser, G.S. and Hester, N.C., 1977, Sediments and sedimentary structures of a beach-ridge 

complex, southwestern shore of Lake Michigan: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v.47, 

p.1187-1200. 

Frazier, D.E., 1974, Depositional episodes: their relationship to the Quaternary stratigraphy in 

the northwestern portion of the Gulf basin: Austin, University of Texas, Bureau of Economic 

Geology, Geological Circular 74-1, 28 p. 

260

Friedman, G.M., 1962, On sorting, sorting coefficients and the lognormality of the grain-size 

distribution of sandstones: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v.70, p.737-753. 

Gibeaut, J.C., White, W.A., Smyth, R.C., Andrews, J.R., Trembley, T.A., Gutierrez, R., Hepner, 

T.L. and Neuenschwander, A., 2003, Topographic variation of barrier island subenvironments 

and associated habitats: in Coastal Sediments 2003: Crossing Disciplinary Boundaries: 

Proceedings 5 th International Symposium on Coastal Engineering and Science of Coastal 

Sediment Processes, Clearwater Beach, Florida, May 18-23, 10 p. CD-ROM. 

Gilbert, G.K., 1885, The topographic feature of lake shores: U.S. Geological Survey 5 th Annual 

Report, p.69-123. 

Godwin, H., Suggate, R.P. and Willis, E.H., 1958, Radiocarbon dating of the eustatic rise in 

ocean-level: Nature, v.181, p.1518-1519. 

Granlund, E., 1932, De svenska hogmossarnas geologi: Sveriges Geologiska Underskning., eries 

C, v. 373, 193 p. 

Haan, C.T., 1977, Statistical methods in hydrology: Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 

378 p. 

Harari, Z., 1996, Ground-penetrating radar for imaging stratigraphic features and groundwater in 

sand dunes: Journal of Applied Geophysics, v.36, p.43-52. 

Hodell, D.A., Brenner, M, Curtis, J.H. and Guilderson, T., 2001, Solar forcing of drought 

frequency in the Maya lowlands: Science, v.292, p.1367-1370. 

Hoyt, J.H., 1967, Barrier island formation: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v.78, 

p.1125-1135. 

Huntley, D. J., 1985, On the zeroing of the thermoluminescence of sediments: Physics and 

Chemistry of Minerals, v. 12, p.122-127. 

Huntley, D.J, Godfrey-Smith, D.I. and Thewalt, M.L.W., 1985, Optical Dating of Sediments: 

Nature, v.313, p.105-107. 

Huntley, D. J., and Lian, O. B., 1999, Using optical dating to determine when a sediment was 

last exposed to sunlight: Geological Society of Canada Bulletin, v. 534, p.211-215. 

Hutt, G. I., and Raukas, A., 1995, Thermoluminescence dating of sediments: in Rutter, N. W., 

and Catto, N. R., eds., Dating Methods for Quaternary Deposits: Newfoundland, Geological 

Association of Canada. p.73-79. 

Johnson, D.W., 1919, Shore Processes and Shoreline Development: Wiley and Sons, New York. 

584 p. 

261

Jol, H.M., Peterson, C.D., Vanderburgh, S. and Phipps, J., 1998, GPR as a geomorphic tool: 

shoreline accretion/erosion along the Columbia River littoral cell: Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A., 

May 27-30, Seventh Annual Conference on Ground-Penetrating Radar, Proceedings, v.1, p.257- 

262. 

Jungner, H., Korjonen, K., Heikkinen, O. and Wiedmann, A.M., 2001, Luminescence and 

radiocarbon dating of a dune series at Cape Kiwanda, Oregon, USA: Quaternary Science 

Reviews, v.20, p.811-814. 

Kerr, R.A., 2001, A variable sun and the Maya collapse. Science, v.292, no.5520, p.1293-1296. 

Kidson, C., 1982, Sea level changes in the Holocene. Quaternary Science Reviews, v.1, p.121- 

151. 

Lambeck, K. and Chappell, J., 2001, Sea-level change through the last glacial cycle: Science, 

v.292, p.679-686. 

Lambeck, K, Esat, T.M. and Potter, E., 2002, Links between climate and sea levels for the past 

three million years: Nature, v.419, p.199-206. 

Lamont, M.M., Percival, H.F., Pearlstine, L.G., Colwell, S.V., Kitchens, W.M. and Carthy, R.R., 

1997, The Cape San Blas Ecological Study: US Geological Survey/Biological Resources 

Division, Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Technical Report No. 57. 209 p. 

Lea, D.W., Martin, P.A., Pak, D.K., and Spero, H.J., 2002, Reconstructing a 350 ky history of 

sea level using planktonic Mg/Ca and oxygen isotope records from a Cocos Ridge 

core: Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 21, p. 283-293. 

Lear, C.H., Rosenthal, Y. and Wright, J.D., 2003, The closing of a seaway: Ocean water masses 

and global climate change: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v.210, p.425-436. 

Leeder, M.R., 1982, Sedimentology Processes and Product: Chapman and Hall, London, p.35- 

43. 

Leigh, D. S., Srivastava, P. and Brook, G.A., 2004, Late Pleistocene braided rivers on the 

Southeastern Atlantic Coastal Plain, U.S.A.: Quaternary Science Reviews, v.23, p.65-84. 

Leontyev, O.K. and Nikiforov, L.G., 1966, An approach to the problem of the origin of barrier 

bars: Intern. Oceanographic Cong., 2 nd Abs. of papers, p.221-222. 

Lepper, K., 2003, How does OSL dating work? North Dakota State University, Available online: 

[www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/klepper]. 

Liden, R., 1938, Den senkvartara strandforskjutningens fotlopp och kronologi I Angermanland: 

Geologiska Foreningens Forhandlingar Stockholm, v. 60, p. 397-404. 

262

McFarlan, E. Jr., 1961, Radiocarbon dating of late quaternary deposits, south Louisianna: 

Geological Society of American Bulletin, v.72, p.129-158. 

McKeown, H.A., Bart, P.J. and Anderson, J.B., 2004, High resolution stratigraphy of a sandy 

ramp-type margin – Apalachicola, Florida: p. 25-41 in Anderson, J. and Fillon, R., eds, Late 

Quaternary Stratigraphic Evolution of the Northern Gulf of Mexico Margin: Spec. Publ. 79, 

Society for Sedimentary Geology. 

Mejdahl, V. and Christiansen, H.H., 1994, Procedures used for luminescence dating of sediment: 

Quaternary Science Reviews, v.13, p.403-406. 

Miller, J.J., Griffin, J.W., Fryman, M.L., and Stapor, F.J., 1981, Archaeological and historical 

survey of St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge, Florida: unpubl. Report by Cultural Resource 

Management, Inc. for Interagency Archaeological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 219 

p. 

Missimer, T., 1973, Growth rates of beach ridges on Sanibel Island, Florida: Transactions-Gulf 

Coast Association of Geological Societies, v.23, p.383-388. 

Moore, L.J., Jol, H.M., Krose, S., Vanderburgh, S. and Kaminsky, G.M., 2004, Annual layers 

revealed by GPR in the subsurface of a prograding coastal barrier, southwest Washington, USA: 

Journal of Sedimentary Research, v.74, p.690-696. 

Morton, R. A., Paine, J. G., and Blum, M. D., 2000, Responses of stable bay margins and barrier 

island systems to Holocene sea-level changes, western Gulf of Mexico: Journal of Sedimentary 

Research, v.70, p. 478-490. 

Moslow, T.F., 1983, Depositional Models of Shelf and Shoreline Sandstones: Continuing 

Eduction Course Note Series #27, A continuing education course presented at the 1983 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists Fall Education Conference. 102 p. 

Murray, A.S. and Roberts, R.G., 1998, Measurement of the equivalent dose in quartz using a 

regenerative-dose single-aliquot protocol: Radiation Measurements, v.29, p.503-515. 

Murray, A.S. and Wintle, A.G., 2000, Luminescence dating of quartz using an improved singlealiquot 

regenerative dose protocol: Radiation Measurements, v.32, p.57-73. 

Murray, A.S. and Olley, J.M., 2002, Precision and accuracy in the optically stimulated 

luminescence dating of sedimentary quartz: A status review: Geochronometria, v.21, p.1-16. 

Murray-Wallace, C.V., Banerjee, D., Bourman, R.P., Olley, J. and Brooke, B.P., 2002, Optically 

stimulated luminescence dating of Holocene relict foredunes, Guichen Bay, South Australia: 

Quaternary Science Reviews, v.21, p.1077-1086. 

Neal, A., Pontee, N.I., Pye, K. and Richards, J., 2002, Internal structure of mixed sand-andgravel 

beach deposits revealed using ground-penetrating radar: Sedimentology, v.49, p.789-804. 

263

Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD), 1996, Apalachicola River and Bay 

System: Northwest Florida Water Management District. Available online: 

[http://www.nwfwmd.state.fl.us/rmd/swim/swimdesc.htm#Apalachicola] 

Otvos, E.G., 2000, Beach ridges—definitions and significance: Geomorphology, v.31, p.83-108. 

Pirazzoli, P.A., 1974, Dati storici sul medio mare a Venezia: Att Accad. Sci. Inst. Bologna, v.13, 

p.125-148. 

Pirazzoli, P.A., 1991, World atlas of Holocene sea level changes: Amsterdam, Elsevier, 300 p. 

Prescott, J.R. and Hutton, J.T., 1994, Cosmic ray contributions to dose rates for luminescence 

and ESR dating: large depths and long-term time variations: Radiation Measurements, v.23, 

p.497-500. 

Price, W.A., 1963, Origin of barrier chain and beach ridge, p.219 in The Geological Society of 

America, Abstracts With Programs: Geological Society of America Special Paper, v.73, 355 p. 

Psuty, N.P., 1966, The geomorphology of beach ridges in Tabasco, Mexico. Baton Rouge, LA: 

Louisianna State University, Coastal Studies Institute, Technical Report 30, 51 p. 

Randazzo, A. F., and Jones, P. S.(eds), 1997, The Geology of Florida: Gainesville, University 

Press of Florida, 327 p. 

Raney, D., Huang, I. And Urgun, H., 1985, A hydrodynamic and salinity model for 

Apalachicola Bay, Florida: Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant College Program Report No. 339- 

183, 84 p. 

Raymo, M.E., Lisiecki, L.E. and Nisancioglu, K.H., 2006, Plio-Pleistocene ice volume, Antarctic 

climate and the global δ 18 O record: Science, v.313, p.492-495. 

Reineck, H.E. and Singh, I.B., 1978, Depositional Sedimentary Environments: Springer Verlag, 

New York, 439 p. 

Reinson, G.E., 1992, Transgressive barrier island and estuarine systems, p. 179-194 in Walker, 

R.G. and James, N.P., eds., Facies Models: St. John’s, Newfoundland, Geological Association of 

Canada. p.179-194 

Ritter, D.F., 1986, Process Geomorphology. Iowa: W.M.C. Brown Publishing. 579pp. 

Rizk, F., 1991, The Late Holocene Development of St. Joseph Spit: PhD Dissertation, Florida 

State University, Tallahassee, Florida, 379 p. 

Rohling, E.J. and Palike, H., 2005, Centennial-scale climate cooling with a sudden cold event 

around 8,200 years ago: Nature, v.434, p.975-980. 

264

Sabins, F.F., 1997, Remote Sensing Principles and Interpretation: New York, W.H. Freeman and 

Company, p.184. 

Sallenger, A.H., Krabill, W.B., Swift, R.N., Brock, J., List, J., Hansen, M., Holman, R.A., 

Manizade, S., Sontag, J., Meredith, A., Morgan, K., Yunkel, J.K., Frederick, E.B. and Stockdon, 

H., 2003, Evaluation of airborne topographic lidar for quantifying beach changes: Journal of 

Coastal Research, v.19, no.1, p.125-133. 

Schnable, J.E., 1966, The evolution and development of part of the northwest Florida coast; 

unpublished PhD dissertation. Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, 244 p. 

Schnable, J. E., and Goodell, H. G., 1968, Pleistocene-recent stratigraphy, evolution and 

development of the Apalachicola coast, Florida: Geological Society of America Special Paper 

No.112: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, p. 1-72. 

Scholl, D.W., 1969, Florida submergence curve revised: Its relation to coastal sedimentation 

rates: Science, v.163, p.62-564. 

Schwartz, M.L., 1971, The multiple causality of barrier islands: Journal of Geology, v.79, p.91- 

94. 

Shepard, F.P., 1950, Beach cycles in southern California: Technical memo. 20, Beach Erosion 

Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Shepard, F.P., 1963, Thirty-five thousand years of sea level: In: Essays in Marine Geology in 

Honor of K.O. Emery. University of Southern California Press, Los Angeles, p.1-10. 

Shepard, F.P., 1964, Sea level changes in the past 6000 years, possible archaeological 

significance: Science, v.143, p.574-576. 

Siddall, M., Rohling, E.J., Almogi-Labin, A., Hemleben, C., Meischner, D., Schmetzer, I. and 

Smeed, D.A., 2003, Sea-level fluctuations during the last glacial cycle: Nature, v.423, p.853-858. 

Smith, B.W., Aitken, M.J., Rhodes, E.J., Robinson, P.D. and Geldard, D.M., 1986, Optical 

dating: methodological aspects: Radiation Protection Dosimetry, v.17, p.229-233. 

Socci, A. and Tanner, W.F., 1980, Little known but important papers on grain-size analysis: 


Stapor, F., 1973, Coastal sand budgets and Holocene beach ridge development, northwest 

Florida: unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation. Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, 221 p. 

Stapor, F., 1975, Holocene beach ridge plain development, northwest Florida: Zeitschrift fur 

Geomorphologie, v. Supp. Bd. 22, p.116-144. 

265

Stapor, F.W. and Tanner, W.F., 1977, Late Holocene mean sea level data from St. Vincent Island 

and the shape of the late Holocene mean sea level curve, in Proceedings, Coastal Sedimentology 

Symposium, Florida State University, Department of Geology, p. 35-68. 

Stapor, F.W., Mathews, T.D. and Lindfors-Kearns, F.E., 1991, Barrier island progradation and 

Holocene sea level history in southwest Florida: Journal of Coastal Research, v.7, no.3, p.815- 

838. 

Stewart, R.A. and Gorsline, D.S., 1962, Recent sedimentary history of St. Joseph Bay, Florida: 


Stuiver, M., Braziunas, T.F., Becker, B. and Kromer, B., 1991, Climatic, solar, oceanic and 

geomagnetic influences on late-glacial and Holocene atmospheric 14 C / 12 C change: Quaternary 

Research, v.35, p.1-24. 

Tanner, W.F., 1964, Nearly ideal drift system along the Florida Panhandle coast: Zeitscrift fur 

Geomorphologie Neue Folge, v.8, p.334-342. 

Tanner, W.F., 1986, Inherited and mixed traits in the grain size distribution: in W.F. Tanner 

(ed), Modern Coastal Sediments and Processes, Proceedings of the 9 th Symposium on Coastal 

Sedimentology, Tallahassee, FL: Department of Geology, Florida State University, p.41-50. 

Tanner, W.F., 1987, The Beach: Where is the river of sand?: Journal of Coastal Research, v.3, 

p.377-386. 

Tanner, W.F., 1988, Beach ridge data and sea level history from the Americas: Journal of 

Coastal Research, v. 4, no. 1, p.81-91. 

Tanner, W. F., Demirpolat, S., Stapor, F., and Alvarez, L., 1989, The "Gulf of Mexico" late 

Holocene sea level curve: Transactions- Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, v. 39, p. 

553-562. 

Tanner, W.F., 1990, The relationship between kurtosis and wave energy, in Proceedings of the 

Ninth Symposium on Coastal Sedimentology Modern Coastal Sediments and Processes, Ed. 

W.F. Tanner, p.41-49. 

Tanner, W.F., 1991, Suite Statistics: The hydrodynamic evolution of the sediment pool: in J.P.M. 

Syvitski (ed), Principals and Application of Particle Size Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press, p.225-236. 

Tanner, W.F., 1992, Late Holocene sea level changes from grain-size data: Evidence from the 

Gulf of Mexico: Holocene, v.2, p.249-254. 

Tanner, W.F., 1993, An 8,000-year record of sea-level change from grain-size parameters: data 

from beach ridges in Denmark: The Holocene, v.3, p.220-231. 

266

Tanner, W.F., 1994, Holocene stability of the Gulf of Mexico coast from beach ridges: 

Transactions of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, v.154, 721-726. 

Tanner, W.F., 1995, Origin of beach ridges and swales: Marine Geology, v.129, p.149-161. 

Taylor, M. and Stone, G.W., 1996, Beach-ridges: a review: Journal of Coastal Research, v.12, 

p.612-621. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2002, Chapter 11-Airborne LIDAR 

topographic surveying: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Internet Publishing Group, pp.12. online: 

[http://www.usace.army.mil/usace-docs/eng-manuals/em1110-1-1000/c-11.pdf] 

USGS, 2001, A summary of the findings of the west central Florida coastal studies project: 

United States Geological Survey Open File Report 01-303. 

Van Dam, R.L. and Schlager, W., 2000, Identifying causes of ground-penetrating radar 

reflections using time domain reflectometry and sedimentologic analyses: Sedimentology, v.47, 

p.435-449. 

Van Heteren, S., Huntley, D.J., Van de Plassche, O. and Lubberts, R.K., 2000, Optical dating of 

dune sand for the study of sea-level change: Geology, v.28, p.411-414. 

Van Veen, J., 1954, Tide gauges, subsidence gauges and flood-stones in the Netherlands: Geol. 

Mijnb., v.16, p. 214-219. 

Walker, K., Stapor, F. and Marquardt, W., 1995, Archaeological evidence for a 1750-1450 BP 

higher-than-present sea level along Florida’s Gulf Coast: Journal of Coastal Research Special 

Issue No. 17, p. 205-218. 

Wintle, A.G., 1997, Luminescence dating: laboratory procedures and protocols: Radiation 

Measurements, v.27, p.769-817. 

Wintle, A.G., Clarke, M.L., Musso, F.M., Orford, J.D. and Devoy, R.J.N., 1998, Luminescence 

dating of recent dunes on Inch Spit, Dingle Bay, Southwest Ireland: The Holocene, v.8, no.3, 

p.331-339. 

Zendrini, A., 1802, Sull alzamento del levelio del mare: Giornde dell Italiana Letteratura 

(Padova), v.2, p.3-37. 

Zenkovitch, V.P., 1962, Some new expoloration results about sand shores development during 

the sea transgression: DeIngenier, no.17, Bouw. En Waterbouwkunde, v.9, p.133-121. 

Zenkovitch, V.P., 1967, Processes of Coastal Development: Oliver and Boyd. Edinburgh and 

London. Ed. J.A. Steers, 738 p. 

267

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 

Beth Margaret Forrest was born in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada in 1978. She received her 

Bachelor of Science in Geology in 2001 from McMaster University, in Hamilton, Ontario. She 

received her Masters of Science in 2003 from McMaster University, in Hamilton, Ontario. Her 

Bachelor’s research focused on the UV/VIS absorbance and transmittance of littoral zone 

sediment. The focus of her Masters research was the application of luminescence techniques to 

coastal studies at the St. Joseph Peninsula, Gulf County, Florida. 

Her current list of publications includes: 

Forrest, B., Rink, W.J., Bicho, N. and Ferring R. 2003. OSL Ages and Possible 

Bioturbation Signals at the Upper Paleolithic Site of Lagoa do Bordoal, Algarve, 

Portugal. Quaternary Science Reviews. v22: 1279-1285. 

Forrest, B., Donoghue, J.F., Stapor, F.W., Brook, G.A. and Brook, F.Z., 2005, Late 

Quaternary evolution of the Apalachicola, Florida, barrier island rim and its 

relationship to sea-level change. Geological Society of America Abstracts with 

Programs, v 37 (3): 15. 

Forrest, B. and Rink, W.J. Optical Luminescence Dating of a Late-Holocene Barrier 

Island Sand Ridge Sequence, St. Joseph Peninsula, Florida Journal of Coastal 

Research (submitted). 

Keizars, K., Rink, W.J. and Forrest, B. TL studies of littoral zone sands from the St. 

Joseph Peninsula, Gulf County, Florida, Journal of Coastal Research (submitted 

2004). 

Koch, J.K., Forrest, B.M. and Brantly, R.M. Sand Search and Fill Material QA/QC 

plans for Beach Nourishment Projects in Florida. (in press) 

Rink, W.J. and Forrest, B. 2005. Dating Evidence for the Accretion History of Beach 

Ridges on Cape Canaveral and Merritt Island, Florida, USA. Journal of Coastal 

Research.v21: 1000-1008. 

Her list of conference presentations includes: 

Rink, W.J. and Forrest, B. OSL ages of a stranded beach ridge sequence on Cape 

Canaveral, Florida, USA. Presented by W.J. Rink. 10 th International Conference on 

Luminescence and Electron Spin Resonance Dating. June 27. 2002. University of 

Nevada. Reno, Nevada. 

268

Forrest, B., Rink, W.J., Bicho, N. and Ferring R. OSL Ages and Possible 

Bioturbation Signals at the Upper Paleolithic Site of Lagoa do Bordoal, Algarve, 

Portugal. Presented by B. Forrest. 10 th International Conference on Luminescence 

and Electron Spin Resonance Dating. June 28. 2002. University of Nevada. Reno, 

Nevada. 

Forrest, B., Donoghue, J.F., Stapor, F.W., Brook, G.A. and Brook, F.Z. Late 

Quaternary Evolution of the Apalachicola, Florida, Barrier Island Rim and its 

Relationship to Sea-Level Change. Presented by B. Forrest. GSA Southeast section 

meeting. March 17, 2005. Biloxi, Mississippi. 

Koch, J.K., Forrest, B.M. and Brantly, R.M. Sand Search and Fill Material QA/QC 

plans for Beach Nourishment Projects in Florida. Presented by J. Koch. 19 th Annual 

National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology. February 1-3, 2006. 

Sarasota, Florida. 

Beth has accepted a position as a coastal geologist with a private consulting company 

(Coastal Planning and Engineering Inc.) in Boca Raton, Florida. 

269

the florida state university college of arts and sciences evolution of ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?