A Reconstruction of Past Intense Hurricane Landfalls in Estero Bay Utilizing Back-Barrier Lagoonal Sediments

A Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences

Florida Gulf Coast University

In Partial Fulfillment of

The Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science

Nicholas Taylor Culligan

2018

Florida Gulf Coast University Thesis

APPROVAL SHEET

This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

Nicholas Culligan

Approved: July 27, 2018

Joanne Muller, Advisor

Michael Parsons, Committee Member

Michael Savarese, Committee Member

The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above-mentioned discipline.

Acknowledgements

As I sit here writing my acknowledgements, I am thinking about the past few years and how much I have learned and changed for the better through that time. Not only have I been able to work with an amazing group of people at a fantastic university, but I have also had an unforgettable experience along the way. At times finding the balance between my thesis work, school work, and work work was immensely difficult, but with the support of so many people I was able to persevere and earn my Master of Science degree.

I would first like to thank Dr. Joanne Muller, my advisor from down under who introduced me to the field of paleotempestology, further increased my passion for research, and helped me hone my scientific writing skills. From learning the skills of geological work in the field and the lab to seeing her fly past me on the triathlon course, I am so happy to have had her as a mentor and colleague throughout the last three years.

I would also like to thank my other committee members, Dr. Michael Parsons and Dr.

Michael Savarese for their help in interpreting my data and bettering my writing. I truly could not have asked for a better committee and I am looking forward to continuing to work with them in the future.

Funding is a huge part of being able to attend graduate school, so I would like to thank the National Science Foundation, Florida Sea Grant, and the Blair Foundation for helping me achieve my goals. I would also like to thank the Marine and Ecological Sciences department and the Coastal Watershed Institute at Florida Gulf Coast University for providing the funding for me to work at the Vester Marine Science Field Station. I would also like to thank Dr. Gregg Brooks and Bekka Larson at Eckerd College for helping me undergoing and understanding 210Pb dating.

iii

Katie Ribble has been one of the most important people who helped me through this entire graduate school experience. Not only was she a great partner in the field and in the lab (it was great to know that if I needed to run out onto the water last minute to pick up samples she would be right there by my side lending a helping hand), but she is also the most kind and loving person to be around. I want to thank her so much for her help and for putting up with me and my nonsense each and every day. Without her love and support this project would have been a whole lot tougher.

I would also like to thank my parents, John and Terri Culligan, and the rest of my family for their help and support. They were great sounding boards for ideas I had, excellent proof- readers, and it was always fun to talk about sports, vacations, and (of course) my cat Gandalf.

They raised me to be the man I am today, and I can’t thank them enough for the tireless work they have done to make sure that I am able to pursue my dreams.

All of my friends have helped me so much in the field and their support and friendship throughout my time in Fort Myers means so much to me. Anne Smiley, Adam Catasus, Andrea

James, Jeff Zingre, Allie Bury, Paige Vogt, Jesse Elmore, Meghan Hian, Gretchen Saunders,

Collin Feinberg, thank you all for being so welcoming to me and such fun people and I look forward to continuing our friendship. A final, fun thank you goes out to the cats (Gandalf, Sassy, and Ollie) and dogs (Captain, Tucker, Wren, and Maggie) who always helped me destress after a long day.

It may have been a crazy few years, but the memories I made and the skills I learned will continue to remind me why it was such a good idea to attend graduate school. Thank you again to everyone who was involved in making my project and my experience in graduate school a success!

Abstract Hurricanes are one of nature’s most destructive forces and therefore understanding patterns in intense hurricane landfall recurrence intervals is crucial. Unfortunately, the modern instrumental record extends only as far back as 1860, which does not allow for an understanding in long-term hurricane trends. Paleotempestology is the study of ancient hurricanes by means of sediment proxies, allowing scientists to extend the hurricane record beyond the modern record.

Utilizing sediment cores that contain hurricane overwash layers (tempestites), the occurrence of hurricanes can be confirmed using sediment proxies such as moisture content, inorganic content, grain size analysis, and radiometric dating.

Estero Bay is in a hurricane prone and densely populated area. Therefore, it is important to determine past intense hurricane recurrence intervals and past storm surge extents. This study utilizes paleotempestology to extend the hurricane record of Estero Bay and subsequently create a timeline of intense hurricane landfalls. Additionally, it includes a comprehensive guide of

Southwest Florida’s tempestite types from Estero Bay and includes Hurricane Irma research, allowing for the study of tempestite deposition from a hurricane with known parameters.

Four confirmed tempestites from two sites ranging in age from 60-2000 years before present (YBP) were identified and classified. Additionally, characteristics and long-term trends of Estero Bay back-barrier lagoons were determined. This study is the first paleotempestology study undertaken in Estero Bay, Florida and the second study undertaken in Southwest Florida.

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...... iii

Abstract ...... v

Table of Contents ...... vi

List of Figures ...... ix

List of Tables ...... xii

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Importance ...... 1

1.2 Hurricane Formation and Climatic Drivers ...... 3

1.3 Saffir Simpson Intensity Scale ...... 10

1.4 Storm Surge Intensity Scale ...... 13

1.5 Paleotempestology ...... 16

1.6 Study’s Purpose and Objectives ...... 18

1.7 Known Hurricane History ...... 21

Chapter 2: Methods ...... 24

2.1 Estero Bay and Field Sites ...... 24

2.2 Field Methods……………………………………………………………………………...26

2.3 Laboratory Methods ...... 27

2.3.1 Core Observations ...... 27

2.3.2 Moisture Content and Inorganic Content ...... 28

2.3.3 Grain Size ...... 29

2.3.4 Radiometric Dating...... 29

Chapter 3: Southwest Florida Tempestite Guide ...... 34

3.1. Sandy Tempestites...... 37

3.2 Shell Bed Tempestites ...... 42

3.3 Mixed Sand and Shell Tempestites ...... 45

3.4 Tempestites Not Seen in Estero Bay ...... 48

3.4.1 Rip-up Clasts ...... 48

3.4.2 Coarse Over Fine Grained Tempestites ...... 49

3.4.3 Carbonate Sand Tempestites ...... 51

3.5 Summary ...... 52

Chapter 4: Past Environmental Change and Storm Activity in Estero Bay ...... 53

4.1 Spring Creek ...... 53

4.1.1 Core 1703-13 Stingray Shuffle ...... 55

4.1.2 Core 1704-16 L.S...... 58

4.1.3 Core 1705-17 Drab Little Crab ...... 61

4.1.4 Spring Creek Radiometric Dating ...... 64

4.1.5 Long Term Trends ...... 66

4.1.6 Short Term Trends ...... 69

4.2 Stingaree Key Lagoon ...... 70

4.2.1 Core 1707-20 A Whole New Core ...... 72

4.2.2 Core 1708-23 What’s Brown and Sticky? ...... 75

4.2.3 Core 1708-24 Organicier ...... 78

4.2.4 Radiometric Dates ...... 81

vii

4.2.5 Long Term Trends ...... 83

4.2.6 Short Term Trends ...... 84

4.3 Hurricane History in Estero Bay ...... 85

4.4 In Search of Hurricane Irma ...... 95

References Cited ...... 98

Appendix A: Core Log...... 111

Appendix B: Pertinent Data ...... 140

Appendix C: Expanded Tempestites ...... 173

viii

List of Figures Figure 1.1: Return Period for direct hurricane strikes in the U.S…………………………………2

Figure 1.2 Tropical cyclone formation and banding………………………………………………4

Figure 1.3: Sea Surface Temperature (SST) vs Power Dissipation Index (PDI)………………….6

Figure 1.4: Position and effect of Bermuda-Azores High Pressure System………………………9

Figure 1.5: Saffir-Simpson scale and damage diagram………………………………………….11

Figure 1.6: Storm surge regimes and parameters……………………………………………….14

Figure 1.7: Keewaydin Island map and previous Southwest Florida coring locations………….19

Figure 1.8: Map and location of Estero Bay in Florida………………………………………….20

Figure 1.9: Map of hurricanes that struck the Fort Myers area from 1944-2004………………..21

Figure 1.10: Map of all known major hurricanes passing within 50 miles of Estero Bay since 1860…………………………………………………………………………………………...... 23

Figure 2.1: Step-by-step of field coring methods………………………………………………..26

Figure 2.2: Sediment samples before and after ashing…………………………………………..28

Figure 2.3: Diagram of the mass spectrometer used to radiocarbon date sediment samples ...... 33

Figure 3.1: Geological processes that determine dune morphology ...... 35

Figure 3.2: Hypothetical overwash patterns in a back-barrier lagoon…………………………...36

Figure 3.3: Locations of cores exemplifying sandy tempestites ...... 40

Figure 3.4: Examples of sandy tempestites...... 41

Figure 3.5: Location of cores with shell hash tempestites……………………………………….43

Figure 3.6: Examples of shell hash tempestites ...... 45

Figure 3.7: Location and example of mixed sand and shell tempestite in EsteroBay…………...46

Figure 3.8: Location and example of mixed sand and shell tempestite in Puerto Rico………….47

Figure 3.9: Example and process by which rip-up clasts occur ...... 48

Figure 3.10: Example of a graded bed couplet-coarse over fine tempestite……………………..50

Figure 3.11: Example of a carbonate sand tempestite…………………………………………...51

Figure 4.1: Location of Spring Creek in Estero Bay…………………………………………….53

Figure 4.2: Location of utilized cores in Spring Creek ...... 54

Figure 4.3: Location of core 1703-13 in Spring Creek ...... 55

Figure 4.4: Core 1703-13 Moisture Content, Inorganic Content, photograph, stratigraphic log, and Percent Grain Size analysis ...... 57

Figure 4.5: Location of core 1704-16 in Spring Creek ...... 58

Figure 4.6: Core 1704-16 Moisture Content, Inorganic Content, photograph, stratigraphic log, and Percent Grain Size analysis ...... 60

Figure 4.7: Location of core 1705-17 in Spring Creek……………………………..……………61

Figure 4.8: Core 1705-17 Moisture Content, Inorganic Content, photograph, stratigraphic log, and Percent Grain Size analysis ...... 63

Figure 4.9: Core 1708-22 excess 210Pb vs age ...... 65

Figure 4.10: Sea level changes in the Gulf of Mexico over the past 5000 years ...... 68

Figure 4.11: Sedimentation rate for all Spring Creek cores...... 69

Figure 4.12: Percent Grain Size vs age for each Spring Creek core compared ...... 70

Figure 4.13: Location of the Stingaree Key inlet in Estero Bay ...... 71

Figure 4.14: Location of utilized cores in Stingaree Key ...... 72

Figure 4.15: Location of core 1707-20 in Stingaree Key ...... 73

Figure 4.16: Core 1707-20 Moisture Content, Inorganic Content, photograph, stratigraphic log, and Percent Grain Size analysis…………………………...……………………………………..74 Figure 4.17: Location of core 1708-23 in Stingaree Key ...... 75

Figure 4.18: Core 1708-23 Moisture Content, Inorganic Content, photograph, stratigraphic log, and Percent Grain Size Analysis…………………………………………………………………77

Figure 4.19: Location of core 1708-24 in Stingaree Key ...... 78

Figure 4.20: Core 1708-24 Moisture Content, Inorganic Content, photograph, stratigraphic log, and Percent Grain Size analysis ...... 80

Figure 4.21: Core 1708-25 excess 210Pb vs age ...... 82

Figure 4.22: Sedimentation rate for all Stingaree Key cores ...... 84

Figure 4.23: Percent Grain Size vs age for each Stingaree Key core compared………………...85

Figure 4.24: Percent Grain Size vs age and stratigraphic logs for each Spring Creek core ...... 87

Figure 4.25: Percent Grain Size vs age and stratigraphic logs for each Stingaree Key core…….87

Figure 4.26: Track of Hurricane Irma ...... 89

Figure 4.27: Track of the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 and Hurricane Charley ...... 90

Figure 4.28: Track of Hurricane Donna’s eye and 100 mph wind speeds……………………….91

Figure 4.29: Water level data for Naples Bay during Hurricane Irma…………………………...95

Figure 4.30: Cores sampled post-Irma and location of one with Irma tempestite……………….96

List of Tables

Table 4.1: Abbreviated CRS-3 model results for 210Pb dating for core 1708-22 ...... 64

Table 4.2: Radiocarbon dates from Spring Creek ...... 66

Table 4.3: Abbreviated CRS-4 model results for 210Pb dating for core 1708-25 ...... 81

Table 4.4: Radiocarbon date from Stingaree Key ...... 83

Table 4.5: Age ranges of tempestites found at each coring location-Spring Creek and Stingaree Key ...... 90

xii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Importance

Hurricanes account for more property damage and loss of life than any other natural disaster in the United States (U.S.) (Diaz & Pulwarty, 1997; Smith & Matthews, 2016). Annual hurricane damages in the U.S. average around $9 billion with an average individual event cost of

$15.6 billion, and an average annual death toll of 200 people (although an individual hurricane can cause thousands of deaths) (Nordhaus, 2010; Jung et al., 2014; Smith & Matthews, 2016).

While official damage estimates for the 2017 hurricane season have not yet been made, the costs from hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria are expected to be as high (or higher) than previous major hurricanes. Some of these extremely damaging previous hurricanes were Andrew (1992-

$48.1 billion and 61 deaths), Sandy (2012-$70.2 billion and 159 deaths), and Katrina (2005-

$161.3 billion and 1,833 deaths) (National Centers for Environmental Information-NCEI, 2017).

Better warning systems are dramatically decreasing hurricane related loss of life, although damage will likely increase as the population increases in vulnerable, low lying coastal areas

(Sorensen, 2000). This is particularly problematic for the entire state of Florida, as it has a higher hurricane strike rate than any other state in the country, with 61 of its 67 counties being coastal

(Barnes, 2012; NOAA, 2017). Locally, the possibility of a hurricane brushing the greater Fort

Myers region in Southwest Florida is about once every 3 years, and the possibility of a direct strike is about once every 9 years, as it is in the middle of a common hurricane track (Figure 1.1)

(Hurricane City, 2016; National Hurricane Center, 2017).

Florida is the third most populous state in the U.S., with an estimated population of

20,612,439 in July of 2016 (USCB Fort Myers, Florida, United States Quick Facts, 2017). Not only is it already extremely populous, the population continues to grow. Between July of 2010

1 and July of 2016, there was an estimated growth rate of 9.6% across the state (USCB Fort

Myers, Florida, United States Quick Facts, 2017). More specifically the population of the Fort

Myers region has increased since 2010 along with the rest of the state as well as having one of the highest percent changes of all cities in Florida at 24.0% (EDR, 2016; USCB Fort Myers,

Florida, United States Quick Facts, 2017). Because the population of this hurricane prone area is continuing to grow rapidly, it is important to understand past hurricane history, how climate change will affect future hurricanes, and how hurricanes will impact this area in the future.

Figure 1.1: Colored dots along the coast indicate the return period for direct hurricane strikes. Fort Myers is located between the 8 and 10 year dots in Southwest Florida. Image courtesy of the National Hurricane Center.

Figure 1.0.1: Global sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are rising and research demonstrates that this increase will likely lower the frequency of tropical cyclones, but increase the intensity of individual storms (Emanuel, 1986; Landsea, 1993; Holland, 1997; Rayner et al., 2003; Emanuel et al., 2008). Anthropogenically caused climate change (rather than natural climate variability) is the likely culprit behind rising SSTs as well as the increase in the percentage of high-intensity

2 hurricanes that have been observed in the North Atlantic basin (Webster et al., 2005; Elsner et al., 2008).

1.2 Hurricane Formation and Climatic Drivers

Tropical cyclones (TCs) form in all oceanic basins between the Tropic of Cancer

(23°26’N) and the Tropic of Capricorn (23°26’S). TCs are confined to these latitudes due to their need for warm surface waters above 27°C, which increases evaporation rates. However, TC formation is excluded from 5°N to 5°S, because the Coriolis Effect is required to prevent the central area of low pressure from collapsing and to create the spinning motion characteristic of

TCs (Aguado & Burt, 2013). The Main Development Region (MDR) in all oceanic basins between 10° and 20° provides the most conducive environment for TC development

(Goldenberg et al., 2001).

The requirements for TC formation are the same in every oceanic basin although different terms are utilized to describe them. TCs in the Southwest Pacific and Indian basins are referred to as cyclones, in the Northwest Pacific basin as Typhoons, and in the Northeast Pacific and North Atlantic basins as hurricanes. As the North Atlantic Basin is the focus for this study, tropical cyclones will consequently be referenced to as hurricanes.

Within the North Atlantic basin, there are two major areas of formation for hurricanes.

Hurricanes that form off the western coast of Africa, near the Cape Verde Islands, are usually generated earlier in the season, around August and September, and are termed Cape Verde hurricanes (Landsea, 2014). Later in the season (October and November), the oceanic waters off the east coast of Mexico, in both the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico, are more conducive to storm development, although Cape Verde storms can still form (Aguado & Burt, 2013). The increase in Caribbean forming storms is due to weak low-pressure fronts moving south, which

3 provide the circulation over extremely warm waters that act as an abundant energy source for hurricane development (Maloney & Hartmann, 2000). Overall, however, approximately 60% of minor hurricanes and tropical storms and 85% of major hurricanes are formed off the coast of

Africa (Landsea, 1993; Pasch & Avila, 1994; Goldenberg et al., 2001).

Cape Verde hurricanes often begin their life as a tropical disturbance (a weak gathering of thundershowers) in the eastern Atlantic. Most disturbances are formed in easterly waves, where trade wind ripples occur, and individual small thunderstorms converge and lower the pressure (Aguado & Burt, 2013). Easterly waves are due to instability in the African easterly jet stream as well as the temperature differential between the Saharan desert that receives intense solar radiation and the cooler Gulf of Guinea water (Burpee, 1972). Favorable conditions for tropical wave formation and strengthening not only include warm ocean temperatures, but also low vertical wind shear and sufficient moisture through the troposphere (Emanuel, 1988; Richey et al., 2007; Mann et al., 2009).

0.2

Figure 1.2: Tropical cyclone formation showing banding. Image Courtesy of NOAA, 2017.

Figure 0

Although most tropical disturbances (>90%) never organize into anything more powerful, some undergo a further lowering of pressure and begin spinning in a counter-clockwise direction.

When one closed isobar can be applied to the disturbance (this denotes consistent atmospheric pressure within that closed area), the pressure is low enough and the storm is spinning quickly enough that a tropical disturbance is upgraded to a tropical depression (Aguado & Burt, 2013). In a process called upper level wind divergence, bands will form due to different airflow speeds at low levels versus high levels (Figure 1.2) (Pielke & Pielke, 1997). Here the stratosphere blocks rising moisture and heat at the tropopause, causing rising air to change directions and move horizontally at a height of about 11-12 miles above sea level (Koteswaram, 1967; Pielke &

Pielke, 1997; University of Rhode Island, 2015). The storm is enhanced by the continued surface convergence of additional moisture-rich thunderstorms in the vicinity of the growing hurricane, in addition to latent heat energy provided by the ocean (Miller, 1958; Riehl, 1979; Pielke &

Pielke, 1997). Once wind speeds reach 39 mph (60 km/hr), the tropical depression is upgraded to a tropical storm and given a name. As wind speeds continue to increase, the storm will become a hurricane (albeit a weak one) at 74 mph (120 km/hr) (Aguado & Burt, 2013). The Saffir-

Simpson Intensity Scale further categorizes hurricanes based on wind speeds and will be discussed in greater detail later in section 1.3.

To better understand decadal and long-term trends in hurricane dynamics, comparing entire hurricane seasons and the external forces that influence these seasons is essential (Villarini &

Vecchi, 2012). Overall strength of each season is calculated using the Power Dissipation Index

(PDI) for every hurricane. The PDI is the sum of the maximum one-minute sustained wind speed cubed every six-hour interval while the storm is at least tropical storm strength. The formula is

휏 푃퐷퐼 = 푉3 푑푡, where V is the maximum sustained wind speed at the standard 10 m above ∫0 푚푎푥 max

5 sea level and τ is the lifetime of the storm (Emanuel, 2005). The sum of all hurricane PDIs in a season is then calculated to give the relative strength for the entire season, so that comparisons to other years and long-term trends can be assessed (Villarini & Vecchi, 2012).

The average PDI from 1975-2005 has more than doubled, which is likely due to increased SSTs (Figure 1.3) (Emanuel, 2005). Future seasonal trends were modeled by Emanuel and colleagues (Emanuel 2005; Emanuel et al. 2008), in which SSTs were increased in the

Figure 1.3: Comparison of North Atlantic PDI and SST shows a close correlation and an overall doubling in both from 1975- 2005. Figure from Emanuel (2005). models based on trends observed from historical data (gathered between 1980 and 2006), which increased the overall modeled future PDI. Since PDI is a function of the maximum hurricane wind speed, these models showed an overall higher percentage of intense hurricanes in the future, as well as an increase in the upper level intensity boundaries that a hurricane can reach

(Merrill, 1987; Shapiro & Goldenberg, 1998; Emanuel et al., 2008). However, the models also showed that higher SSTs decreased the quantity of low pressure “seeds” (smaller low-pressure areas that hurricanes can form from) that encourage tropical storm formation (Emanuel et al.,

2008; Knutson et al., 2010). This result is due mainly to two factors: an increase in low mid- tropospheric humidity and excessive wind shear (Emanuel et al., 2008).

Figure 0.3

In addition to SSTs, research has shown that hurricanes are highly influenced by climate drivers such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation

(AMO), and the Bermuda High (Goldenberg et al., 2001; Zhang & Delworth, 2006; Donnelly &

Woodruff, 2007). Because the number of easterly waves produced in the Atlantic is fairly consistent every year, but the number of hurricanes varies considerably, these climate drivers are likely influences on the fluctuations in total hurricane numbers (Goldenberg et al., 2001).

The El Niño-Southern Oscillation is a cycle between El Niño, La Niña, and neutral conditions and has a significant influence on hurricane formation (Pielke & Landsea, 1999). El

Niño disrupts the general circulation of the atmosphere, due to a warming of sea surface waters in the eastern Pacific equatorial region, which can have worldwide impacts, including reducing the strength of trade winds globally (Rasmusson & Wallace, 1983; Ropelewski & Halpert, 1987;

McPhaden, 1993). An increase in westerly winds and vertical wind shear is also common during

El Niño years; this makes the environment less favorable for hurricane development and suppresses the entire season, with fewer hurricanes on average than neutral years (Gray, 1984;

Goldenberg & Shapiro, 1996). Historically, there is a 0% chance that more than two hurricanes will strike the United States in one El Niño year, and there is a 17-24% chance that zero hurricanes will strike the U.S. (Bove et al., 1998). There is only a 23% chance that a major hurricane will strike the U.S. during an El Niño year (Bove et al., 1998). These probabilities, however, do not mean that there cannot be damaging hurricanes during El Niño years, just that there is less likelihood of one making landfall in the U.S. (Pielke & Landsea, 1999).

Alternatively, during the cold La Niña phase (where cooler waters are present in the equatorial eastern Pacific), opposite conditions are seen: hurricane activity in the Atlantic is usually higher than normal (Pielke & Landsea, 1999; Glantz, 2001). La Niña years have more storms with a higher chance of making U.S. landfall. While there is only a 7-18% chance of no hurricane landfalls in the U.S., there is a 51-76% chance of two or more hurricane landfalls within a La Niña year (Bove et al., 1998). The chances for at least one intense (category 3 or higher) hurricane striking the U.S. in a La Niña year is 63% (Bove et al., 1998). Therefore, La

Niña years translate into greater frequency of damaging storms and more damage caused by each storm (Pielke & Landsea, 1999).

Research has also found a link between the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and

Atlantic hurricanes (Goldenberg et al., 2001; Zhang & Delworth, 2006). The AMO is a 25-40- year oscillation in North Atlantic water temperatures, with both warm and cool periods (Aguado

& Burt, 2013). Although the exact mechanism for the AMO is still unknown, we do know that it is associated with Atlantic thermohaline circulation variations and ocean heat transport fluctuations (Folland et al., 1986; Gray et al., 1997; Delworth & Mann, 2000; Knight et al., 2005;

Zhang & Delworth, 2006). Cool periods in the AMO coincide with cooler SSTs, decreasing deep convection and increasing vertical wind shear, contributing to a reduction in hurricanes and tropical storms (Graham & Barnett, 1987; Zhang & Delworth, 2006; Aguado & Burt, 2013).

The final hurricane climate driver of importance is the Bermuda-Azores High (commonly referred to as the Bermuda High). Hurricanes will follow a general westerly track into the western Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean following the trade winds that move below and around the Bermuda High (Neumann et al., 1996; University of Rhode Island & The

National Science Foundation, 2015). The Bermuda High is “a semi-permanent, subtropical area

8 of high pressure in the North Atlantic Ocean off the east coast of North America that migrates east and west with varying central pressure” (NOAA, weather.gov, 2017). This area of high pressure has a major steering influence on the path of a hurricane, because low pressure systems

(such as hurricanes) move away from areas with high pressure. When the Bermuda High is in a southwesterly position, hurricanes are directed further south and west, leading to an increase in landfalls along the Gulf of Mexico. When the Bermuda High is in a northeasterly position (near

Bermuda), hurricanes tend to recurve and make landfall along the U.S. Eastern seaboard

(Knowles & Leitner, 2007) (Figure 1.4).

Figure 1.4: Displays likely hurricane tracks (gray arrows) when Bermuda High is in northeast position (top) and southwest position (bottom). Photo courtesy of Knowles & Leitner, 2007.

0.4

While the Bermuda High is a major factor in determining the path of hurricanes, the tracks are influenced by a multitude of other factors including pressure differentials around the storm, sea surface temperatures, and upper level wind patterns. The path of least resistance for the storm will most often follow one of three routes: over the Lesser Antilles (relatively small islands in the southeast Caribbean), the Straits of Yucatan (between the large landmasses of

Mexico and Cuba), or north of the Bahamas (where there are no landmasses to weaken the storm) (Neumann et al., 1996). These common paths are shown in Figure 1.4, along with less common tracks, including those over larger Caribbean islands. Regardless of the exact path of hurricanes, there is nearly always a threat to land and the people who live in coastal areas, so a warning system was developed to inform residents of the intensity of hurricanes.

1.3 Saffir Simpson Intensity Scale The National Hurricane Center (a subset of the National Weather Service and the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) uses the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale to define the intensity of hurricanes. In the Saffir-Simpson Scale there are 5 categories, with category 1 being the weakest, and category 5 the strongest (Figure 1.5). Any hurricanes category 3 or higher are considered major hurricanes, and likely cause the greatest damage. The main factor taken into consideration in this scale is wind speed, which leaves out several important factors that can determine destructiveness. Rainfall (both rate and volume), storm surge, and storm size are also important factors that contribute to hurricane destructiveness (The Washington Post-Samenow,

2012). These factors are often related to hurricane wind speed, but they may not always be proportional to it. For example, Hurricane Sandy became the largest storm on record in the

Atlantic Basin and had a recorded storm surge of nearly 10 feet and reported flooding of at least

14 feet in New York but was only a category 2 storm (NWS, 2012; Powell et al., 2012). While

10 determining and disseminating information about storm surge may be just as important, intensity

(and category) is generally only measured using wind speed for the sake of consistency.

Figure 1.5: This figure demonstrates damage to houses in each category. The speckled area is dry land and the solid white is storm surge. Photo courtesy of Rob Segers (2013). 0.5 Category 1 storms are the weakest of hurricanes, where most anthropogenic objects are unaffected. Piers directly in the path of the hurricane may experience some damage, some minor road flooding may occur in low lying areas, mobile homes may experience some damage, and unprotected boats may break free from anchors. The damage caused in category 1 storms is mostly observed on natural objects like trees and bushes, with leaf loss and minor uprooting

(Rowlett, 2000).

Category 2 hurricanes increase the damage dealt to vegetation, with some trees being blown down. Mobile homes not properly tied down, or located in exposed areas, may experience major damage. Actual buildings will likely not experience structural damage, but there may be

11 some roof damage and shingle loss. Some flooding of low-lying roads is to be expected, and exposed piers and boats will be damaged (Rowlett, 2000).

Category 3 storms are considered major storms. Many trees will be blown down, and branches torn off. Mobile homes will likely blow away and be destroyed, and there will be minor structural damage to small, exposed buildings. There will most likely be considerable flooding in low-lying areas, and evacuation may be considered (Rowlett, 2000).

Category 4 storms are major storms, with many downed trees and extensive damage to roofs, windows, and doors. Mobile homes will be destroyed, and lower levels of buildings may flood, as well as surrounding low-lying areas. There will be major erosion to beaches and evacuations may be mandatory for citizens living in low-lying coastal areas (Rowlett, 2000).

Category 5 storms are the most intense storms with no upper limit to wind speed and size and no lower limit to atmospheric pressure. Many trees will be blown down and there will be severe damage to roofs, windows, and doors. Many roofs will be completely destroyed and small buildings may also be destroyed or blown away. Major flooding will most likely occur in low- lying areas, and lower floors in many buildings will flood. Evacuation will likely be mandatory for areas in the path of the storm, and major destruction should be expected (Rowlett, 2000).

Because there is currently no upper limit for category 5 storms, some have suggested that a

6th category should be implemented. The absolute maximum wind speed limit for storms was modeled in 1998 to be around 190 mph, however wind speeds have been determined to increase by approximately 5 percent for every 1° C increase in SST, so warming SSTs would lead to maximum wind speeds over the modeled limit (Bister & Emanuel, 1998). For example, in 2015

Hurricane Patricia made landfall in Mexico with maximum sustained winds of 210 mph, a full 54 mph over the weakest category 5 storm, and 20 mph over the theoretical absolute maximum

12 wind speed. Considering the categories in the Saffir-Simpson Scale increase about 20 mph each increment, a category 6 storm should have at least 175 mph winds (both Hurricane Patricia in

2015 and Hurricane Wilma in 2005 had maximum wind speeds at or above 175 mph)

(Blakemore, 2006; Live Science, 2012). Some scientists have argued that it is important to show the true strength of hurricanes with wind speeds above 175 mph, thereby highlighting the danger and enhancing preparedness (Than, 2005). Once again, however, wind speed is only one potential destructive factor in hurricanes.

1.4 Storm Surge Intensity Scale In addition to wind speed, storm surge is extremely important to recognize as a destructive factor associated with hurricanes. Four distinct storm surge regimes can be reached when storms strike barrier islands, each based on the strength of the storm, the geometry of the barrier island, and the distance from the center of the hurricane (Figure 1.6) (Sallenger, 2000).

While the regimes may all be reached in succession during the same storm, the peak regime reached is an indicator of how powerful a hurricane is.

The first and weakest regime is the “Swash Regime.” This is the period of the storm where the waves and the storm surge are confined to the area of the beach that is seaward of the dunes, and the Rhigh/Dhigh ratio is less than the critical threshold of Rhigh/Dhigh = Dlow/Dhigh (the critical threshold is represented by the dashed line in Figure 1.6(b)) (Sallenger, 2000). Swash is the water that flows on the beach after a wave has broken and is formed by infragravity waves

(waves generated primarily by gravity; they build on wind generated waves and have much longer periods), which are dominant within these storm conditions (Raubenheimer & Guza,

1996; Whittow, 2000; Sheremet et al., 2002). During this period, the storm surge does not make contact with the dunes, and the sand that is removed from the foreshore of the beach is transported and deposited seaward, where it will eventually wash back onto the beach after the

13 storm ends. Storms that only reach the swash regime will have little lasting impact on the development and structure of the barrier island and will likely not transport sediments into the back-bay complex (Sallenger, 2000). a. b.

Figure 1.6: The parameters used to determine storm surge regime are defined in (a). Rlow and Rhigh are the lowest and highest

point that waves reach respectively, and Dlow and Dhigh are the lowest and highest dune heights respectively. The chart in (b) shows the ratio between wave and dune height at which each regime is present. Figures adapted from Sallenger (2000). 0.6 The second weakest regime is known as the “Collision Regime” wherein the waves and the storm surge are strong enough to make contact with the sand dunes and the critical threshold is exceeded. This regime includes not only weak storms making landfall near a given location, but also powerful storms that made landfall far enough away that the storm surge is not enough to overtop the dune system. The storm surge is powerful enough that the sand that is removed from the dune and foreshore is transported far enough offshore that it will not return to the beach after the storm ends. These storms will likely have some lasting impact on the barrier island, such as removal of structure forming sediment, reducing the width and height of the dune system on the island, scarping of dunes, and impacting sea life that nests on the beach and dunes. The

Rhigh/Dhigh ratio, however, is still below 1, and the waves are not large enough to overtop the dune system (Figure 1.6(b)). Similar to the Swash Regime, storms that are only strong enough to

14 reach the Collision Regime will likely not leave enough offshore sediment behind to register as sediment deposits in the back-bay complex (Sallenger, 2000).

The third regime is the “Overwash Regime,” which is the second strongest. The storm surge and waves in this regime overtop the dunes and begin the process of overwash, making the

Rhigh/Dhigh value greater than 1 (Figure 1.6(b)). During this overwash regime, sand from both the beach and the dunes is eroded and redeposited landward (on the bayside of the barrier island) where it remains (Sallenger, 2000). This is seen in both hurricanes and large nor’easters, wherein large amounts of sediment can be removed and placed in an overwash fan (Wang & Horwitz,

2007; Leatherman et al., 1977). Because the sediment remains behind the island, this can lead to a migration of the barrier island landward over time (Sallenger, 2000). Low frequency waves dominate the overtopping of dunes, because high frequency waves do not have enough height to reach the top of the dune (Rlow

The fourth and most powerful regime is called the “Inundation Regime.” This regime is the period during a powerful storm where the storm surge completely submerges the island, and the dunes are exposed to surf-zone processes (Rlow>Dhigh) (Figure 1.6(b)). Waves will remove sediment from the island, and beach sand is deposited landward, up to 1 kilometer inland

(Sallenger, 2000). A major event in the inundation regime is the formation of a breach in the dune causing a new channel to cut through the island, providing a faster way for sediment to be removed and transported to the back-barrier lagoon (Roelvink et al., 2009; Visser, 1998).

Depending on the height of the barrier island and the size of the breach, the breach may eventually be resealed by wave motion carrying sediment to the dune, separating the lagoon from the ocean (Gordon, 1991).

Although the two weakest regimes do not overtop the dunes, this fact does not reduce erosion (Roelvink et al., 2009). The sediment that is removed by both waves and rollers

(particularly sand from dunes that slump or avalanche into the swash during the collision regime) moves offshore through rip-current/return flow. The slumping of dunes is caused by a run up of the swash onto the dry dune sand, removing the base of the dune, and the remaining dry sand falling due to a lack of support (Roelvink et al., 2009). While this sediment will likely be redeposited, it will not be in the same location, and certainly will not reform the dunes. Dunes will remain eroded until sand is eventually blown back into place (Parteli et al., 2009).

This regime scale has categorized storm surge and can be used to forecast future potential storm impacts (Sallenger, 2000). Using the storm surge regime scale in conjunction with the

Saffir-Simpson Scale will more accurately portray the danger and strength of a hurricane and forecasts for low-lying areas that will be impacted by storm surge will be improved. Much of the area impacted by hurricanes is at or near sea level, so storm surge is as much of a threat as high winds during hurricanes.

1.5 Paleotempestology As discussed above, the long and high-quality North Atlantic basin hurricane record has demonstrated that both hurricane frequency and intensity (wind and storm surge) are closely correlated with SSTs where the storms develop (Emanuel, 2005; Elsner & Jagger, 2006;

Emanuel, 2007; Holland & Webster, 2006; Saunders & Lea, 2008). However, even though the

North Atlantic Basin has the longest record of hurricanes, it is still relatively short. The official instrumental record began in 1851 (a little over 160 years ago), so long-term trends in hurricane dynamics are largely unknown. The field of paleotempestology, in which overwash layers from

16 storm surges are characterized and examined from the historical sediment record, can be used to extend this record (Landsea et al., 2004).

Examination of the 160 year old North Atlantic Basin tropical storm record reveals significant interannual and interdecadal variability in tropical cyclone activity, which can be related to regional and global scale climatic phenomena such as Sub-Saharan drought, El Niño–

Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events, and changes in sea surface temperatures in the Main

Development Region (MDR) (Gray, 1990; Landsea et al., 1996; Elsner & Kara, 1999; Landsea et al., 2012). Due to the geologic brevity of this historical record, however, it is impossible to assess whether such variability occurs at longer centennial to millennial timescales using conventional methods (i.e. utilizing current storm data). This shortcoming can be addressed by means of paleotempestology, a relatively new research field (beginning in the early 1990s) that utilizes geological, biological, and written historical records to study past tropical cyclone activity (e.g., Liu & Fearn, 1993; Donnelly et al., 2001; Hippensteel, 2011; among others).

Paleotempestology (Paleo meaning ancient, Tempest meaning storm, Ology meaning the study of) is the study of past hurricane events using both geological and archival techniques (Liu,

2010). Although our observational record spans only the last 160 years, archival records (i.e. ship logs, colonial records, etc.) extend further back and may provide a subjective view of hurricanes.

Additionally, geological records extend the historical and instrumental tropical cyclone records and can theoretically reach back in time indefinitely (Landsea & Franklin, 2013). There are usually factors, however, that limit the depth and the number of ancient storms that can be discovered, such as organic disruption (bioturbation), lagoon depth, and rock layers.

Paleotempestological records can be detected by utilizing a variety of proxies including foraminifera (Collins et al., 1999; Hippensteel & Martin, 1999), tree rings (Doyle & Gorham,

1994), coral reefs (Scoffin, 1993; Kilbourne et al., 2011), marine sediments and beach ridges

(Liu, 2010), and stalagmites and stalactites (Malmquist, 1997). However, the most common and most productive of all procedures for procuring these data is using sediment cores taken from nearshore lakes, marshes, and back barrier lagoons (Liu & Fearn, 1993, 2000; Donnelly et al.,

2001, 2004(a), 2004(b); Donnelly, 2005).

The field of paleotempestology relies on overwash layers (often referred to as tempestites) evident in sediment core samples as sandy or shelly layers in between fine grained, organic-rich layers (generally silt or peat) (Seilacher, 1982). Sediments common in the back-bay area where studies are undertaken are usually silt-sized, so the sandy/shelly layers contrast with the background sediment and are obvious as a disturbance event.

The relatively large grained sand and shell material that compose tempestites is only moved under high-energy conditions (Milligan & Loring, 1997). These high-energy conditions include high wind and storm surge, the latter of which can breach or wash over dunes and barrier islands to deposit marine sediment (sand and marine gastropod shells) in the back-bay (see section 1.3 for more detailed information on overwash). Marine sediments can differ from back- bay sediments in several ways and can serve as proxies for overwash layers. These differences include: grain size (Donnelly et al., 2001), percent organic (Liu and Fearn, 2000), percent CaCO3

(calcium carbonate) (Leorri et al., 2010), and diatom and foraminifera composition (Parsons,

1998; Hippensteel & Martin, 1999). Therefore, by studying the tempestites (radiometrically dating the tempestites and other points through a core), a “long term perspective” on the hurricane history can be made (Liu, 2007).

1.6 Study’s Purpose and Objectives Although numerous paleotempestological studies are available for the hurricane prone eastern seaboard (i.e., from New England to South Carolina), as well as along the northern coast

18 of the Gulf of Mexico (Liu & Fearn, 1993, 2000; Hippensteel & Martin, 1999; Donnelly et al,

2001, 2004(a), 2004(b); Scott et al., 2003; Lane et al 2011), only one study to date exists for

Southwest Florida (Ercolani et al., 2015), and that study was undertaken behind Keewaydin

Island, Naples (Figure 1.7). Reliable data on hurricanes before 1851 (the beginning of official hurricane record keeping) are almost entirely absent in Southwest Florida. Estero Bay and Fort

Myers are located within a common Southwest Florida hurricane track, and the lack of hurricane studies that have been completed in this area should be addressed and remedied. This study obtained, and conducted experiments on, sediment cores in order to generate a paleotempestology record of hurricane landfalls in Estero Bay, FL (Figure 1.8) (Chapter 2 has further information on Estero Bay).

0.7

Figure 1.7: Previous coring sites in Keewaydin Island, Florida (Ercolani et al., 2015)

0.8 a.

Figure 1.8: Location of Fort Myers and Estero Bay in Florida (a) and a chart of Estero Bay (b). Image courtesy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration This project had two main objectives: first, a comprehensive study of the different types of tempestites in Southwest Florida was conducted. Information such as location, sedimentology, and possible storm conditions that lead to deposition were assessed. Southwest Florida tempestite data was compared to data gathered in other paleotempestological studies, and a comprehensive guide of tempestites was constructed. The second objective was to create a timeline for when historic and pre-historic hurricanes struck Estero Bay, Florida. By obtaining and conducting experiments on sediment cores, a history of hurricane landfalls in Estero Bay was reconstructed. By analyzing both modern and ancient storms, the instrumental record was extended beyond the current 160-year-old interval.

This study added to the North Atlantic basin paleotempestology database in order to generate a more representative understanding of Atlantic Basin hurricane history. These data are of value to both paleoclimatological and meteorological studies and, for example, may be used to better understand the types of storms that leave overwash deposits, and to generate more representative hurricane return periods for the Southwest Florida coastline.

1.7 Known Hurricane History Estero Bay and Fort Myers are located in a common hurricane track (National Hurricane

Center, 2017). After Hurricane Charley struck the area in 2004, the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) prepared a mitigation assessment team report which included information on several hurricanes which were considered significant storms that passed near the

Fort Myers area since 1944 (Figure 1.9). These data do not include any hurricanes that made landfall on the east coast of Florida and crossed the state to Estero Bay, nor do they include the

2017 Hurricane Irma that devastated areas of southwest Florida.

Figure 0.9

Figure 1.9: Known hurricane tracks that struck the Fort Myers area 1944-2004 (FEMA, 2005).

To account for inflation, population, and wealth normalization, some of the following descriptions of monetary damage have been adjusted (normalized) for how much damage the storm would have caused in 2010. The 1944 unnamed hurricane was a category 3 storm that directly struck Sarasota. It caused around $40 billion in damages (normalized), caused 30 deaths,

21 and is considered the 7th costliest recorded Atlantic hurricane (FEMA, 2005; Blake et al., 2007).

Hurricane Donna struck in 1960 as the fifth strongest hurricane to strike the United States. Storm surges in Fort Myers Beach and throughout Southwest Florida were consistently around 11 feet

(FEMA, 2005). Additionally, the cost of Hurricane Donna was at least $28 billion (normalized), causing it to be the 10th costliest hurricane in the U.S. (Blake et al., 2007). In 1994, Gordon was of hurricane force before and after striking Florida but was considered a tropical storm when making landfall in Florida. Most of the damage caused by Gordon was in Caribbean countries, but it still caused ten deaths, 43 injuries, and massive flooding inland in Southwest Florida

(Pasch, 1994; FEMA, 2005). Tropical Storm Gabrielle struck Southwest Florida in 2001 and caused heavy flooding and numerous tornadoes. The damage was around $17 million in 2001

(not normalized) and around 300,000 homes lost power (FEMA, 2005). Although this list is not exhaustive and does not include all major hurricanes that made landfall around Estero Bay, those on the list exemplify a typical land falling storm in Southwest Florida.

According to NOAA, there have been 12 recorded major hurricanes (at least category 3) passing through or making land fall within 50 miles of Estero Bay (NOAA, 2017). These include some hurricanes mentioned in the FEMA report (Donna, Charley, and the unnamed 1944 hurricane) and 9 others that were not included in that list. Two storms struck after the FEMA report came out: Hurricane Wilma in 2005 (a category 3 when it made landfall) and Hurricane

Irma in 2017 (a category 4 at landfall 40 miles from Estero Bay) (NOAA, 2017). The rest of the major hurricanes that hit within 50 miles of Estero Bay were unnamed, as they struck in 1873,

1910, 1926, 1935, 1945, 1947, and 1948, before the practice of officially naming hurricanes was instituted in 1953 (NHC, 2017; NOAA, 2017). Figure 1.10 shows the tracks for each of these hurricanes. While these were the 12 major hurricanes to hit the Estero Bay area, there were 49

22 more recorded minor hurricanes, tropical storms, and tropical depressions that hit this area, which exemplifies the need to further understand patterns and causes of the hurricanes (NOAA,

2017).

Figure 0.10

Figure 1.10: Major hurricane strikes near Estero Bay. The gray circle denotes a 50-mile radius from Estero Bay. Line colors indicate storm strength at each location: purple lines indicate category 5 hurricanes, pink indicate category 4, red category 3, orange category 2, and yellow category 1. Photo courtesy of NOAA.

Chapter 2: Methods 2.1 Estero Bay and Field Sites Satellite images were used to identify ideal sediment coring locations in back-barrier lagoons in Estero Bay, FL (Figure 2.1). Estero Bay is located 20 miles south of Fort Myers and is

12 miles long and 3 miles wide at its widest point, having a total area of 30 square miles (Byrne

& Gabaldon, 2008). It is bordered to the west by barrier islands (common features located along

13% of the world’s coasts) and to the east by the mainland, forming what is known as the coastal bay complex (CBC) (Tedesco et al., 2002; Wohlpart, 2007; Smith et al., 2010). The bay is a brackish environment, with saltwater entering through four passes between islands: Big Carlos,

Matanzas, New Pass, and Big Hickory (Byrne & Gabaldon, 2008). Fresh water enters through several drainage basins (from largest to smallest): Imperial River, Mullock Creek, Estero River,

Hendry Creek, Cow Creek, and Spring Creek (Byrne & Gabaldon, 2008). The bordering barrier islands act as a protective cushion against open ocean activity and major storm events. The islands are situated in a north-south orientation (due to longshore currents) with a quartz sand face on the gulf side and a mangrove forest face on the bay side (Wohlpart, 2007). Barrier islands are present because the southwest Florida coast is generally wave-dominated and has an abundant sediment supply and a relatively low gradient shelf offshore (Smith et al., 2010). The passes between islands are considered ephemeral, as they have opened and closed through geological time (Byrne & Gabaldon, 2008). However, in modern times, they have been kept open due to dredging, which allows boat traffic to pass between islands.

Former studies have shown that barrier islands in Estero Bay are relatively new in geological time (formed about 4800 years ago) and that there has been an increasingly protected environment in the bay. Sediment cores collected in the middle of the bay (not close to protective islands) show a fining upward sequence as well as poorer sorting closer to the surface. These

24 exemplify a change from an open, high energy marine environment to a lower energy, estuarine environment (Wohlpart, 2007). The sediment at the bottom of these cores is considered supratidal and subaerial, indicating it was once dry land, but further up the core, the sediment becomes more consistent with mangrove and bay environments (Obley et al., 2001).

Within the bay there are a series of inshore mangrove forests and islands that further reduce the effects of storms and cause washover fans (and subsequently tempestites) (Tedesco et al., 2002; Wohlpart, 2007). Overwash layers are most evident in the protected areas behind the small mangrove islands and forests, as these areas are influenced the least by marine sediments.

Additionally, overwash is easily seen within cores, as the coarse sand and shells contrast greatly with the peat and organic mud which generally compose the background sediment in back- barrier lagoons. During storm events, high velocity storm surge can deposit marine sediments throughout Estero Bay (average water depth of 3 feet) by either traveling through passes or overtopping barrier islands (Sallenger, 2000; Byrne & Gabaldon, 2008).

Over 30 cores were taken throughout the bay, with protected lagoons with the following characteristics being targeted: low energy; location on the landward side of Estero Bay; and narrow river entrances away from Gulf of Mexico Tidal Inlets. Under normal conditions substrates at these sites are composed of fine grained sand, mud, and organics (<250 m).

Deposition of coarser grained sediments at these protected sites likely indicates the influence of high-energy storm events (Boggs Jr, 1995). Most of our cores were generally composed of fine background sediments, with the occasional coarse-grained shell hash and/or sandy storm overwash layer. We have interpreted the shell hash and sandy layers as major storm layers, referred herein as tempestites after Liu and Fearn (2000) and Seilacher (1982). More detail on tempestite sediments will be given in chapter 3.

2.2 Field Methods a. b.

c. d.

Figure 2.1: The coring process. The pipe is inserted into the ground (a) and pushed down (b); extra weight is sometimes needed to push the core pipe further into the sediment. The top of the pipe is capped, and it is removed from the sediment (c). The bottom is capped while still in the water (d). A hand coring technique based on Ginsburg and Lloyd (1956) was used to obtain the sediment cores (Figure 2.2). Aluminum core pipes, 7.5 cm in diameter and outfitted with adjustable handles, were driven into the sediment using an up and down motion. The handles were removed and readjusted until the pipe was at the desired depth in the sediment.

The desired depth was generally as far as the core pipe would penetrate the sediment before it made contact with a thick layer of oyster shells or the lagoon bottom (typically a sandy substrate). The empty space at the top of the pipe was measured and filled with water. The top of the pipe was capped using a rubber cap and electrical tape to create a vacuum and then carefully removed from the sediment. A bottom cap was applied as soon as the pipe was extracted from the sediment.

Core notes including total core length, the height of the outside of the pipe, and the height of sediment on the inside of the pipe were recorded in the field. Details concerning the surface sediment composition, water movement, vegetation, water depth, and GPS coordinates were recorded at each locality. Compaction of the sediment was calculated by subtracting the inside from the outside pipe sediment heights. The top of the pipe was cut and removed to remove the water on top, leaving only sediment in the pipe. After recapping the top, the pipe was labelled and readied for transport.

2.3 Laboratory Methods 2.3.1 Core Observations Cores were split with a circular saw, and photographs were taken. Sediments were characterized, and special note was taken of visual tempestites that contrasted with the background sediment (sandy/shell contrasting background sediment). Sediment size, composition, and facies changes were noted. Cores that showed clear evidence of multiple tempestites, low bioturbation, no sediment deformation from coring, and distinct facies changes were denoted as cores of interest and a stratigraphic column was created for each. These cores were analyzed for moisture content, inorganic content, and grain size. Remaining cores were stored in the core laboratory at FGCU. Information on each core can be found in Appendix A.

2.3.2 Moisture Content and Inorganic Content Cores were sampled at 1 cm resolution and samples were placed in labelled, pre-weighed

aluminum cups (based on the methods used in Donnelly & Woodruff (2007)). Samples were

weighed immediately while wet, then dried for 24 hours at 40° C in a drying oven and weighed

again to determine moisture content. The formula used to calculate moisture content was

100*[(wet sediment weight - dry sediment weight)/wet sediment weight] (Ercolani, 2014).

Samples were then placed in a muffle furnace at 550° C for 5 hours (Dean, 1974; Heiri et

al., 2001). This process removed organic material and allowed for the determination of inorganic

content (Figure 2.3) (Heiri et al., 2001). Inorganic content can be a useful indicator of overwash

layers because the background sediment often has high organic content, and the overwash

sediment is largely inorganic in nature. Each ashed sample was weighed again to determine

inorganic content. The formula used to calculate percent inorganic is 100*(ashed weight/dry

weight) (Ercolani, 2014). a. b.

Figure 2.2: Samples in the muffle furnace prior to ashing (a) and samples after ashing (b)

Figure 0.1

2.3.3 Grain Size Samples that were previously ashed during the inorganic content proxy analysis were then sieved. All tempestites in this study were composed of broken shells/shell hash, therefore a 2- mm sieve was used. This allowed for background sediment that included everything up to fine sands to move through the sieve while retaining the coarse sand and shelly tempestite. The sieved sediment was dried and returned to the tin cup and weighed. This weight was compared to the ashed sample weight to calculate percent grain size for this fraction. The formula used was

100*(coarse grained sample weight/total ashed sample weight) (Ercolani, 2014).

Grain size data were then transferred into the statistical program SPSS. A simple boxplot containing all grain size data was made, and all values shown to be higher than the 4th quartile were excluded from the data set to remove outliers. Using the new data set, a mean and standard deviation were calculated to determine the average grain size of the background sediment.

Individual samples were then compared to this value and any grainsize value that was beyond two standard deviations above the mean determined grainsize was considered a tempestite

(Ercolani et al., 2015; Barnett & Lewis, 1994).

2.3.4 Radiometric Dating Samples were prepared and sent to outside laboratories for radiometric analysis.

Uppermost sediments were dated using 210Pb and lower sediments were dated using 14C.

Separate short cores for 210Pb dating samples were taken in the same locations as the cores that were sampled for grain size.

Testing for 210Pb can reliably determine sedimentation rates and therefore accurately date tempestites due to the constant accumulation of 210Pb in marine sediments (Appleby & Oldfield,

1978; Roman et al., 1997). 210Pb is mainly found in mud, peat, and organic-rich sediments, and it decays with a half-life of 22.26 years (Eby, 2004; Ercolani, 2014; United States Geological

Survey, 2013). Radon decays into 210Pb in the atmosphere, and then is deposited in the soil or water column in only a few days (Eby, 2004). Since this deposition rate has been constant over the past 100 years it allowed for accurate sample dating of geologically recent sediments

(Appleby & Oldfield, 1978).

To determine the background sedimentation rate in a core, the aim was to take samples downcore at 0.5 cm resolution until a point was reached in the decay curve where the remaining

210Pb was zero (Ercolani, 2014). The samples were prepared according to the standards set by the

Galbraith Marine Science Laboratory (GMSL) at Eckerd College, which included sterilizing instruments between each sample and preventing external contamination. The entire width of the core was sampled at 0.5 cm resolution to provide a consistent volume for the samples (22.09 cm3 per ½ cm sample). The samples were weighed while wet and placed in a drying oven at 50° C for

24 hours. Samples were then weighed again and homogenized. Special attention was paid to samples above and below tempestites, as these gave an age window for the deposition of the tempestite.

At Eckerd College, the samples were placed in germanium detectors. These are liquid nitrogen cooled semiconductor diodes that detect photons given off by 210Pb. In the middle of the detector is an energy field extending across “the depleted region,” within which photons given off by 210Pb interact with germanium crystals, releasing electrons which were moved into detectors by the energy field. The detector measured the charge (number of electrons removed by the photon; this charge is proportional to the energy deposited by the photon) by converting it

“into a voltage pulse by an integral charge sensitive preamplifier” (Mirion Technologies, 2017).

This voltage pulse energy determined the age of the sample. The type of germanium detector that was utilized in this study was a Low Energy Germanium Detector (LEGe). While conventional

30 germanium detectors have a higher energy field, the LEGe uses less energy and thus offers less noise when the sample energy levels are low.

When sampling of tempestites was complete, care was taken in interpreting the results from tempestite samples due to the fact that they are likely deposited in a short time frame (less than 24 hours) and that shell and sand are poor vectors for 210Pb (dates from tempestitic sediment were excluded from the results to prevent statistical inaccuracies). Utilizing the constant rate of supply (CRS) model, a 210Pb decay curve was created and used to calculate a sedimentation rate as well as sediment ages for the upper ~50 cm of the core (Hood, 2012; de Souza et al., 2012).

14C is a longer-lived isotope, with a mean half-life of 5,730 years (Godwin, 1962).

Therefore, 14C is an ideal isotope for dating sediments below the lower effective limit of 210Pb, where too little 210Pb remains to accurately and effectively date the sediment. 14C is concentrated in living things because it is necessary for both plants and animals to survive. Carbon is taken up and utilized by organisms and begins decaying on its death. It decays according to its half-life

(for carbon, half of the amount that was originally present will have decayed after 5,730 years)

(Godwin, 1962). Once the organism holding the carbon is buried in sediment, there is no new source of 14C from the atmosphere, so the existing 14C can be used to calculate the age

(Engelkemeir et al., 1949).

Because the shells present in tempestites were likely reworked (shelled organisms that died long ago and are not representative of the age of the sediment), they were not used for radiocarbon dating. Instead, bulk samples were taken in peat layers deep in the core and were prepared for 14C testing in order to determine the sedimentation rate in prehistory. The samples were taken at 1 cm resolution. In order to avoid contamination, only the interior sediment was extracted from the core -- sediment located near the edge of the core barrel may have been

31 contaminated during the coring process. Extreme care was taken during this process to not contaminate the sample with sediment from elsewhere in the core. All instruments were sterilized with isopropyl alcohol and were wiped clean between each sample. Gloves were worn to protect against contamination from skin oils per instructions provided by National Ocean

Sciences Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (NOSAMS) at the Woods Hole Oceanographic

Institution (WHOI) (WHOI, 2012). The samples were placed in a drying oven at 50° C for at least 24 hours and were then weighed again. Following this drying process, samples were homogenized using sterilized mortar and pestle. The samples were placed under a dissecting microscope and any potential contaminants (shells, mangrove roots, etc.) were removed with forceps. They were finally placed in sterile, marked containers and were shipped to NOSAMS at

WHOI.

At WHOI the samples were tested for 14C by utilizing accelerator mass spectrometry

(AMS). The carbon in the samples was super-heated and accelerated through an AMS system

(Figure 2.4). This process stripped the electrons away, making the resulting carbon ions easier to separate and count. The amount of carbon was detected in either a gas ionization detector

(USAMS) or a solid-state detector (CFAMS). The amount of carbon that was detected was compared to the universal standard for the current ratio of carbon (Olsson, 1970). This difference between the sample amount of carbon and that of the standard is called the fraction modern (Fm)

(WHOI, 2012). The “modern” amount was defined as 95% of the radiocarbon concentration found in the Oxalic Acid standard in the year 1950 (Godwin, 1962; Olsson, 1970). This allowed all samples to have a common baseline amount from which to determine age.

Figure 0.2

Figure 2.3: Diagram of the 9-meter long accelerated mass spectrometer system at Woods Hole.

The calibrated age that was reported by WHOI follow rules outlined by Stuiver and

Polach (1977) and Stuiver (1980) in order to report the age before present, rather than before the standard year of 1950. In addition, the Libby half-life of carbon (5,568 years) was used to calculate the age rather than the Cambridge half-life (5,730 years) (Engelkemeir et al., 1949;

Godwin, 1962; WHOI, 2016). To obtain the Cambridge age rather than the Libby age, the WHOI results were simply multiplied by 1.03 (and were reported as such), as the Libby half-life is around 3% less than the Cambridge half-life.

Chapter 3: Southwest Florida Tempestite Guide Tempestites (hurricane overwash layers) are layers of sediment that are deposited in the sediments behind barrier islands and other low energy environments by high velocity storm surge (Donnelly et al., 2004b). Storm surge can remobilize and deposit a diverse range of materials such as siliceous or carbonate sands, gravels, shells, tests, bone debris, phosphates, and glauconite from foredune, beach, and near shore areas into the calm and relatively undisturbed back barrier system (Chamley, 1990; Donnelly et al., 2004b; Wallace et al., 2015). The rapid nature of tempestite depositional events, usually within a few days, enables background sediment to settle out of the water column and cover the tempestite, preserving it in the geologic record

(Donnelly et al., 2004b). The strength of individual hurricanes and the type of sediment found in hurricane-prone areas varies greatly, forming several different kinds of tempestite deposits.

These tempestites range from the most common “sand” and “shell” tempestites to less common tempestites such as the “coarse sand on top of fine sand” and “rip-up clast” tempestites.

During a hurricane, several factors determine what kind of tempestites will occur and how large the tempestites will be. Even within one overwash location (e.g., a lagoon, tidal river bend, etc.) tempestites can vary in composition and thickness (Liu & Fearn, 2000). The most significant factors influencing tempestite deposition are the strength and size of a hurricane.

Typically, a larger storm surge, often but not always associated with a stronger storm, causes a thicker tempestite layer close to the coast (see sections 1.3 and 1.4 for more information pertaining to hurricane and storm surge intensity). Generally, there are fewer, and thinner, tempestites the further from the shore or inlet from where the core was taken (Figure 3.2). This difference results from the higher energy requirement needed to move sediment farther from shore; often only the very powerful hurricanes can provide enough energy to move sediment a great distance landward into the back-barrier setting (Liu & Fearn, 2000).

The second factor influencing tempestite form is the geomorphology of the barrier. If the tempestite is located in a lagoon behind a narrow low-lying structure, less land will impede the incoming storm surge, thereby depositing a potentially thicker tempestite that is comprised of coarser grained sediment. Dune morphology and makeup are volatile and change quickly, and this change is often due to hurricanes themselves. Wind and surf serve as transport vectors for the sand that composes the foredune, and both of these drivers are omnipresent during hurricanes

(Figure 3.1) (Lancaster, 1994). Additionally, the type of sediment available in the nearshore environment is essential in determining the makeup of sand dunes.

Figure 3.1: Erosion and deposition patterns of sand are determined in part by air flow. Both geological processes determine dune morphology. Figure from Lancaster (1994).

Figure 0.1 The third factor determining tempestite formation is the nearshore environment sedimentology. The presence or absence of certain sediments in the nearshore environment may allow or disallow types of tempestite. For example, a carbonate-dominated foreshore and offshore sedimentology will likely result in a carbonate sand tempestite, whereas a siliceous dominated foreshore and offshore sedimentology will likely result in a sandy quartz-rich tempestite. A more diverse sedimentary setting can result in the deposition of tempestites of different compositions. In addition, as discussed above, if the nearshore sedimentology and topography was different than present day, then prehistoric tempestites may be composed of

35 different sediment types than those observed in the modern day. Figure 3.2 displays the potential overwash of hurricanes in which all three factors noted previously play a part.

Figure 3.2: (a) A series of cores taken in a lagoon whose numbers correlate with the positions indicated in (b). Figure (b) shows a series of hypothetical hurricanes (thicker arrows indicate stronger storms, Saffir-Simpson categories are shown in the circles underneath) and the overwash patterns related to them (the parabolas with letters that match the arrows indicate the overwash fan associated with each hurricane). The sand layers in (a) are indicated by the cross-hatch pattern and are the overwash layers deposited with each storm. They thin and/or disappear as the coring location gets further from the beach front. Figure from Liu & Fearn (2000).

Lastly, to reconstruct hurricane strength back through time, it is essential to identify the local sediment type (in the tempestite, in the background sediment, and that of the nearshore environment) and the topography of the area. In many cases, this task will be difficult as one

36 moves back through the stratigraphic record and care should be taken when doing such reconstructions.

The primary focus of this chapter is to methodically describe the different types of tempestites that have been characterized in bays, lagoons, and marshes along the Southwest

Florida coastline to date. This task has not previously been undertaken. By identifying and characterizing the various types of tempestites and comparing them to known hurricanes, paleotempestologists will be able to more accurately determine the characteristics of past hurricanes that deposited the tempestites. Additionally, this chapter introduces other types of tempestites that are not present in Southwest Florida but occur elsewhere in the U.S. and the

Caribbean. Listed below are examples of tempestite types (sand, shell hash, mixed, coarse over fine, and rip-up clast), with their sedimentology and possible depositional characteristics that cause them to be deposited in certain locations. Specific examples of these tempestites are then discussed from the sediment cores examined in this study.

3.1. Sandy Tempestites The most common hurricane overwash signature is the sandy tempestite. A typical sandy tempestite is comprised mainly of sand with graded bedding, laminations, or ripples found within

(Chamley, 1990). They are generally made up of well-rounded, well-sorted quartz grains (0.1-0.5 mm in diameter-medium to fine grained sands) with some heavier minerals present (Scileppi &

Donnelly, 2007). Sand tempestites are thicker than other types of tempestites, as both the density and grain size of sand are so low and thus require less energy to move. They can be up to 2 m thick, with a sharp basal contact (the background sediment/sand interface) and commonly have a graded upward thinning of sediment (Morton et al., 2007; Scileppi & Donnelly, 2007).

Hurricanes that make direct landfall have significantly thicker sand deposits than near-miss

37 hurricanes and nor’easters (Scileppi & Donnelly, 2007). In addition to the directness of the strike, there are several factors that determine the thickness of the sand overwash layer: duration of storm surge, the transport distance, and concentrations of sediment (Morton et al., 2007). Sand tempestites, regardless of their thickness, will likely be the only distinctive layers against the background sediment, as the background will otherwise only be disturbed by bioturbation

(Seilacher, 1982).

Sand tempestites are the most common tempestites in back-barrier lagoons and can be found in most back-barrier systems where the offshore sediment source is sand-grade sediment.

Additionally, they are most evident in lagoons or salt marshes located immediately behind dunes

(Liu & Fearn, 1993; 2000; Donnelly et al., 2001; 2004a; 2004b; Donnelly, 2005). Dunes are principally made of well-sorted and rounded quartz sand grains (although shell and carbonate sands can be present as well), causing tempestites located behind them to generally contain pure sand (Galloway & Starratt, 1998). Areas that receive less water movement (such as the middle of small lagoons and lagoons that are protected from tidal currents) are more favorable for sandy tempestites, as sediment that is larger grained will settle out before it reaches these areas. When complete shells are present above the sand tempestite, it is extremely unlikely that they were deposited by the storm surge. Rather, the shelled organisms likely colonized the area after the hurricane passed, leaving their intact shells behind after death (Kreisa, 1981). The sandy tempestites located in Southwest Florida tend to be non-graded siliceous sandy layers. Cores

1605-02, 1606-05, and 1803-34 were taken in Estero Bay (26°22’22.35” N, 81°51’28.63” W;

26°22’22.35” N 81°51’28.63” W; and 26°22’15.74” N 81°51’48.90” W respectively), and Core

1205-22 was taken in Island Bay by Ercolani (2015) (26°4’46.07” N 81°47’38.05” W) (Figures

3.3 & 3.4). These four tempestite examples are composed of fine- to coarse-grained sand, while

38 the super- and sub-adjacent sediment is comprised of organic-rich mud. This is to be expected, as all four of these cores were taken in areas behind sand dominated barrier islands with very little water movement (1606-05, 1205-22, and 1803-34 were taken immediately behind the beach and

1605-02 was in a small creek).

Core 1605-02 (Figure 3.3a, 3.4a) was taken in a small creek on the east side of Estero

Bay. Immediately to the west (seaward) of the core location there is a large, shallow sandbar that slows all incoming tidal surge. Offshore sediment that is transported into this area of the bay by normal processes is deposited here and not moved into the creek. Additionally, two large mangrove islands (including Mound Key) stand directly between the core and the nearest inlet,

Big Hickory Pass. When hurricanes of sufficient strength arrive, the offshore quartz sand is transported past the islands, beyond the sandbar, and deposited in the creek.

Core 1606-05 (Figure 3.3b, 3.4b) was taken behind a barrier island halfway between the two neighboring passes (Big Hickory Pass and New Pass). The dunes between the Gulf of

Mexico and the coring location averaged 1-1.2 meters above sea level. A small lagoon and mangrove forest lie behind the dunes as well. These all likely prevent the movement of offshore sediment into the back-barrier setting location under normal conditions.

Core 1205-22 (Figure 3.3c, 3.4c) was taken immediately behind the dune system on the north end of Keewaydin Island. The dunes range in height from 2-3 meters and lie about 100 m west of the core location (Ercolani, 2014). The closest pass is 1.5 km directly north, but all tidal influx must pass through shallow bays and around numerous mangrove islands to reach the coring location.

a) 1605-02 b) 1606-05

Estero Bay

Estero Bay Gulf of Mexico

Estero Bay

Gulf of Mexico

c) 1205-22 d) 1803-34 Figure 3.3: Yellow stars mark the locations of cores exemplifying sandy tempestites. Cores (a), (b), and (d) are in Estero Bay while core (c) is on Keewaydin Island.

Figure 0.2 Core 1803-34 (Figure 3.3d, 3.4d) was taken immediately behind the dune system in a small lagoon that is surrounded (mangroves on three sides and dunes/quartz sand beach on the fourth) on Big Hickory Island. This site is similar in distance from the Gulf of Mexico as core

1205-22, while also having near identical geomorphology.

a) 1605-02 b) 1605-05

c) 1205-22 d) 1803-34 Figure 3.4: Sandy Southwest Florida tempestites. (a) Core 1605-02 shows a sandy tempestite from 5-16 cm, (b) core 1606-05 shows a sandy tempestite from 101-112 cm, (c) core 1205-22 shows a sandy tempestite from 17-21 cm, and (d) core 1803-34 exemplifies the sandy tempestite deposited by Hurricane Irma in 2017(0-3.5 cm).

Figure 0.3 While these four core locations are in separate areas, they share similar geomorphological and sedimentological characteristics that serve to form and preserve sandy tempestites. The excess sand present in the foredunes near cores 1606-05, 1205-22, and 1803-34 is present within these cores as tempestites from hurricanes Donna (1205-22), Irma (1803-34), and an unknown hurricane (1606-05). To the contrary, the sand from the tempestite in core 1605-02 was likely brought through Big Carlos Pass rather than over the barrier island due to its distance from the closest barrier island. This results in a slight difference in the tempestite sediment source between these different locations, but overwash fans and tempestite makeup in these locations will still be very similar.

3.2 Shell Bed Tempestites Another common type of tempestite is the Shell Bed (or Shell Hash) Tempestite. This form consists mostly of shell hash that may be small to large in grain size and can be divided into four categories: shell poor, slightly shelly, shell rich, or comprised of shell gravel (Davies et al.,

1989). The shells are typically molluscan in origin and are often mixed with benthic foraminifera and broken coral (Brooks et al., 2003; Donnelly, 2010). The origin of the shell hash is important to determine, for if the shells are marine in origin, then the shell hash can be confirmed as a tempestite. Conversely, if it is composed of shells that are estuarine in origin, it could be indicative of an oyster bed or estuarine reef instead. The shells are usually fragmented and randomly oriented within the tempestite, with an apparent fining upward sequence due to larger and heavier shells/fragments sinking and settling more quickly than smaller shells/fragments

(Brooks et al., 2003; Kreisa, 1981). Finer sediment (i.e., the mud that makes up the background sediment) can permeate the shell layer as the hurricane wanes, water velocity decreases, smaller particles settle out of the water column, and conditions return to normal (Kreisa, 1981). This infiltration of smaller particles is extremely common, as the rigidity and size of the shell hash allows for greater porosity and permeability within the tempestite. There typically is a well- defined sediment/shell interface (the facies contact) at both the bottom and top of the tempestite, although there may be whole shell remnants (rather than shell hash) immediately above the tempestite that settled after the hurricane. This sequence is seen in core 1607-08 where an intact oyster shell sits above the tempestite between 45 and 48 cm (core 1605-05 in section 3.1 exemplifies this scenario with a sandy tempestite; Figure 3.4b).

The main factors causing variations in a shell bed tempestite’s characteristics (such as thickness and abundance of shells) are the supply of shells on the ocean side, the tidal position when the hurricane struck, and wave energy (Donnelly et al., 2004). The presence of shells in

42 tempestites, rather than sand, indicates a heavy marine (rather than estuarine) influence and deposition likely due to a major hurricane. A category 4 or 5 hurricane is thought to be required to either move large shells over a dune or to create a channel to move them through to the back- barrier region (Liu & Fearn, 2000; Donnelly, 2010).

a) 1607-08

Estero Bay

Gulf of Mexico

b) 1607-07 c) 1205-22

Estero Bay

Gulf of Mexico

Figure 3.5: The yellow stars show the coring locations. Cores 1607-08 (a) and 1607-07 (b) are in Estero Bay and core 1205- 22 (c) was taken on Keewaydin Island.

Core 1607-07 and core 1607-08 were collected in Estero Bay (26°25.417’ N, 81°25.417

W and 26°25.331’ N, 81°52.522’ W) in well protected areas that were approximately 75% surrounded by mangroves. Core 1607-08 had two evident shell tempestites, one (1607-08(a)) located between 35-39 cm and the other (1607-08(b)) between 45-62 cm. Core 1205-22

(26°4’46.07” N 81°47’38.05” W; core collected in Ercolani (2015)) and 1607-07 are examples of the small sized shell hash (2-3 mm), the upper tempestite in 1607-08 is a combination of small

43 shell hash and large shells (3-5 mm), and the lower tempestite of 1607-08 exhibits broken larger shells (Figure 3.6).

Core 1607-08 was taken behind an isthmus on an island directly north of a channel in the

Big Carlos Pass flood tidal delta (Figure 3.5a). Interestingly, the two tempestites in core 1607-08 are two different types of shell tempestite. Considering they are from the same core sample and are only 10-20 cm apart, theoretically they should have the same size of shell fragments. One explanation could be that when the first hurricane made landfall (1607-08(b)) there was a gap between the two islands that closed before the next hurricane (1607-08(a)). This would block the larger shell fragments from entering the coring location while still allowing for smaller fragments to travel over or around the island. Alternatively, the deposition of different sized shells could be related to the storm strength, as stronger hurricanes would have enough surge velocity to overtop the isthmus and deposit larger shells while a weaker hurricane would only be able to deposit small shells in this location. Determining the strength of the hurricanes that caused these tempestites is difficult, particularly due to the location of the core in relation to the flood tidal delta. However, as they were able to transport shell hash into the bay, the hurricanes must have been major, as discussed previously.

Core 1607-07 was taken in the entrance to Mound Key in an elbow-shaped inlet. It was taken at about the same distance from the major channel as core 1607-08, with some similarity in the geomorphology between the core site and the channel. Core 1607-08 was behind an isthmus and core 1607-07 was behind a peninsula, and the shell hash size in tempestites 1607-08(a) and

1606-07 was extremely similar. This similarity is in contrast with the larger size of the shells in tempestite 1607-08(b). This difference reinforces the interpretation that the isthmus near core

1607-08 was formed in the time between tempestites 1607-08(b) and 1607-08 (a).

Figure 0.4

a) 1607-08 b) 1607-08

c) 1607-07 d) 1205-22 Figure 3.6: Shell bed Southwest Florida tempestites. Core 1607-08 exhibits two shell tempestites, the first (a) from 35-39 cm and (b) 45-62 cm; (c) core 1607-07 from 46-52 cm; and (d) core 1205-22 from 10-14 cm.

Core 1205-22 was taken in Rookery Bay directly behind Keewaydin Island’s dune system. This core had a shell hash tempestite several centimeters above a sandy tempestite. This is likely due to a more powerful hurricane bringing in the shell hash tempestite and a weaker hurricane bringing in the sand tempestite and not necessarily due to a major geomorphological shift near the core site.

3.3 Mixed Sand and Shell Tempestites Sand and shell sometimes mix during storm events. Washover fans deposited by hurricanes in a lagoon-bay complex can be composed of sand and shell eroded from the ocean side (Hayes & Scott, 1964). Liu and Fearn (2000) state that when shell fragments and coarse

45 sand are seen together in tempestites, the storm was likely a category 4 or 5 hurricane. They noticed that weaker hurricanes recorded as sand layers and only major storms were recorded as mixed layers. Because substrate on the ocean floor is generally located in large discrete facies, where each facies is made up of similar sediments, weaker hurricanes may not be powerful enough to churn up these facies and evenly mix them, which leads to uniform tempestite sediment (Hume et al., 2000). With larger and more powerful hurricanes, individual facies will be disrupted to create a tempestite with sand and shells mixing together. These large hurricanes will also have thicker tempestites, but there will be a landward thinning of the deposit coupled with an upward fining of the associated sediments (Kreisa, 1981; Morton et al., 2007).

a) 1606-05 b)

Estero Bay

Gulf of Mexico

Figure 3.7: a) Mixed sand and shell tempestite from core 1606-05 from Southwest Florida. b) Location of core 1606-05 in Estero Bay.

Core 1606-05 (31-43 cm) exemplifies these features with large broken shells located directly beneath small broken shells and the uppermost sand layer (Figure 3.7(a)). Since this is the only mixed tempestite from more than thirty cores taken around the bay, it is clear that the combination of required storm and sedimentological conditions is rare around Estero Bay. This core also contained a sandy tempestite (as discussed in section 3.1) deeper in the core (about 60-

70 cm deeper than the shell and sand tempestite). As hurricanes that produce this type of tempestite are considered catastrophic and the other tempestite in this core was purely sand, this

46 hurricane was likely extremely powerful. Considering this information as well as the location within the core, it is likely that this tempestite was deposited by hurricane Donna in 1960.

Outside of Southwest Florida, core BC1 from Donnelly (2005) was taken in the Big

Culebrita Salt Pond on Isla de Culebrita in Puerto Rico (Figure 3.7(c) and Figure 3.7(d)) and contains mixed tempestites. Out of the two confirmed tempestites in this core, the more recent tempestite (from 25-43 cm) exhibits a clear fining upward sequence (the mean grain size was about 800 microns at the base of the tempestite and only a mean of 470 microns at the top of the tempestite). Conversely, the older tempestite does not exhibit any clear fining upward as some shells sank to the bottom of the tempestite (to the 75th cm) and others settled in about 1 cm of sediment around the 67th cm. The rest of this tempestite averaged a smaller grain size throughout.

a) b)

Figure 3.8: a) Location of core BC1 on Isla de Culebrita, Puerto Rico. b) Mixed sand and shell tempestite grain size by volume from core BC1. Areas with yellow and blue are examples of mixed sand and shell tempestites. Figure 3.7(d) from Donnelly (2005).

47 gure 0.5 3.4 Tempestites Not Seen in Estero Bay 3.4.1 Rip-up Clasts Rip-up clasts, derived from erosion of underlying mud-rich sediment beds, are common components of many tempestites (Ager, 1974). They are indicative of very high energy events that rework background sediments into tempestites (Donnelly, 2005). Thin tempestites (generally caused by weaker hurricanes) usually do not have rip-up clasts present, as there is not enough energy to erode the lithified background sediment to leave a signature, however these features are much more common in thicker tempestites (caused by stronger hurricanes with more powerful storm surge) (Donnelly, 2005). Figure 3.8, an example from Puerto Rico (3.8(a)), demonstrates the process that occurs in order for rip-up clasts to be deposited (3.8(b)).

Figure 0.6 a)

Figure 3.9: (a) An example from Isla de Culebrita, Puerto Rico in which the tempestites between 20-35 cm in Cores BC2 and BC3 show a rip-up clast at the bottom. This particular clast was made of mangrove roots/peat, as this was the background sediment at the time of the hurricane. (b) Example of the turbulent vortices that occur in powerful hurricanes that cause rip-up clast tempestites. Figure 3.8(a) adapted from Donnelly (2005), and Figure 3.8(b) from Badenas et al. (2012).

Rip-up clasts are not seen in Estero Bay, likely due to the geomorphology of the area surrounding the bay. As the quartz dominant sand that makes up the majority of the sediment in the Gulf of Mexico is not as predisposed to lithification as carbonate sands, there are no gravel sized sandstone to rip-up and redeposit. Additionally, the speed of storm surge when it approaches shallow water and land. From the location of the core from the Donnelly (2005) study, it is about 12-15 miles from shore to waters that are 1000 feet deep and only about 20 miles to waters that are 10,000 feet deep. Conversely, from Estero Bay, it is almost 175 miles to waters that are 1000 feet deep. It is possible that a storm surge theoretically powerful enough to deposit rip-up clasts in Estero Bay is rather likely slowed down by the (relatively shallow) coastal shelf off Estero Bay well before reaching land. Conversely, storm surge reaching Isla de

Culebrita has no such shelf to slow it down. Therefore, unless there is an extremely catastrophic hurricane or a major change in the shelf (sediment composition leans more towards carbonate sand or geomorphology) off Estero Bay, rip-up clasts will not be seen here.

3.4.2 Coarse Over Fine Grained Tempestites Coarse over fine grained tempestites are another rare type of tempestite in Southwest

Florida (and not seen in Estero Bay). Although it occurs during one hurricane, the sediment originates from two locations, causing two discrete beds of sediment forming a graded bed couplet. A graded bed couplet consists of two discrete beds of sediment rather than one layer of sediment that gradually increases in size in the uppermost sediments. For fine sediment to settle out first, an event must occur removing fine sediment from land and depositing it in a storm surge prone area before the storm surge begins depositing coarser grained sediment. The most likely scenario for this type of tempestite to occur is from an immense amount of rainfall immediately preceding a deposit of hurricane overwash (Fan & Liu, 2008). This type of tempestite is also seen after tsunamis, as the tsunami can trigger an earthquake or mudslide

49 depositing a high amount of fine sediment into the lagoon (Moore et al., 2007). When the wave from the tsunami subsequently strikes, coarser sediment settles on top of the thick layer of fine sediment deposited from the earthquake or mudslide. Additionally, this formation can be seen during extreme tidal fluctuations wherein an extreme spring tide deposits fine sediment (as it is strong enough to move some small sediments) prior to a landfalling hurricane which deposits the coarse offshore sediment above the fine sediment (Fan & Liu, 2008)

While no cores in Estero Bay displayed this type of tempestite, one was present in a core collected at a nearby site on Sanibel Island (Figure 3.9(a)). The finer sediment found between

50-52 cm was likely deposited by freshwater flooding (either from the Caloosahatchee River or local creeks) or from extreme precipitation that removed topsoil from the island and deposited it in the marsh. This event would then have been followed by the storm surge, which brought the coarse sand into the lake from the marine environment. In the relatively larger Estero Bay on the other hand, there would not be enough freshwater-borne sediment in relation to basin size to leave a recognizable signature against the background sediment, which is why it is not seen in

a) b)

Figure 3.10: (a) An example of a coarse over fine tempestite (from core 1611-G2). The dark gray area between 50-52 cm is fine muddy sediment (eroded and deposited before the sand deposition) located underneath the coarse sand from 44-50 cm. (b) Diagram displaying the inverse grading in sediment cores. Figure 3.9(a) from Ercolani (2014) and figure 3.9(b) adapted from the Harvard University Sedimentary Processes webpage (2004) and Einsele & Hinderer (1998).

Estero Bay. Contrarily, an extremely small body of water (such as the Sanibel Island marsh or a small tidal lagoon with ample loose terrain surrounding it) would be the ideal location for this type of tempestite to appear. No such areas, however, that were sampled in Estero Bay exhibited this type of tempestite. Therefore, while it is possible for this type of tempestite to be present in

Estero Bay, the geomorphology does not make it likely.

3.4.3 Carbonate Sand Tempestites Carbonate sand and ooze tempestites are found beyond Southwest Florida in areas where reefs and carbonate sands are more common offshore

(such as the Bahamas and the Florida Keys). Closest to

Estero Bay, the Florida Keys exhibit tempestites composed of calcareous sands formed by staghorn coral breakup and erosion during hurricanes (Shinn et al., 2003). In Florida the transition between carbonate Figure 3.11: An example of carbonate sands found in a core (a) from the British West Indies after Hurricane Kate in 1985. Fining upwards is exhibited by the small carbonate grains in (b) and siliceous sands occurs located above the coarser grains in (c). Figure adapted from Wanless et al., 1988. around Cape Romano, wherein tempestites that are purely siliceous, purely carbonate, or siliclastic-carbonate can be found. Additionally, the British

West Indies expressed a carbonate tempestite after Hurricane Kate struck in 1985, sourced from

51 the calcareous algae and coral reefs surrounding the core location (Wanless et al., 1988). These tempestites are not seen in Estero Bay or elsewhere in Southwest Florida solely based on the lack of coral reefs offshore, and the general lack of carbonate sands in the area.

3.5 Summary While the various types of tempestites require different formation parameters (such as hurricane strength, storm surge size, coastal geomorphology, and sediment makeup), all are indicative of past hurricane activity. The characteristics of each tempestite can be used to better determine the characteristics of the hurricane that deposited them, as well as reflect the geomorphology and sedimentology of the surrounding area. Estero Bay does not have the characteristics required for rip-up clasts, coarse over fine, and carbonate sand tempestites to occur, although they are common elsewhere. Three types of tempestite (sand, shell hash, and mixed) have been documented in Estero Bay cores and will be discussed further in Chapter 4, as well as being used to determine relative possible hurricane strength of the paleohurricanes that made landfall near Estero Bay in the prehistoric past.

Chapter 4: Past Environmental Change and Storm Activity in Estero Bay

The first two sections of this chapter include the analysis of cores taken at the Spring

Creek site Stingaree Key Site. Each subsection discusses site characteristics, a visual core description, and moisture content and inorganic content analysis of the three investigated cores from each site. Each section also discusses dates of sediment layers (analyzed from 14C and

210Pb) and both long and short-term trends present. The hurricane history and the effects of storm surge in Estero Bay are discussed in Section 4.3, and the effects of Hurricane Irma are discussed in Section 4.4.

4.1 Spring Creek Spring Creek is a small freshwater creek on the southeastern most edge of Estero Bay

(Figure 4.1). It has a narrow river mouth, at 100 feet wide, and is approximately 0.3-1.2 meters deep throughout. Because the river is tidally influenced, a weir is located approximately 6 km upstream to prevent saltwater encroachment into the upstream freshwater lakes near the CREW conservation area (Byrne & Gabaldon, 2008). All cores were taken downstream from the weir and thus are influenced by an estuarine environment (including tides and storm surge).

Figure 4.1: The blue star marks the location of the mouth of Spring Creek within Estero Bay

1 Six cores were taken at the Spring Creek site (Cores 1703-12, 1703-13, 1704-15, 1704-

16, 1705-17, and 1708-22) (Figure 4.1 and 4.2) in an elbow shaped offshoot. The offshoot has numerous sandbars, oyster bars, shallow bays, and bends between it and the river’s mouth. This site was surrounded on three sides by mangroves and was chosen for this paleotempestology study due to it’s protected, low energy environment (Figure 4.2). Cores 1703-12 and 1704-15 were only photographed and described as they were not useful for this study (Appendix A).

Cores 1703-13, 1704-16, and 1705-17 displayed clear visible tempestites and showed very little signs of bioturbation. They were photographed and described (Appendix A), and analyzed for grain size, inorganic content, and moisture content. Core 1708-22 was taken for the explicit purpose of dating for 210Pb and is not described below. 1703-13 and 1704-16 were 14C dated in addition to the sediment proxy tests. Results from the utilized cores are described below.

Figure 4.2: Position of processed cores in Spring Creek. Yellow stars mark the core locations and the blue star marks the river mouth.

Figure 0.2

4.1.1 Core 1703-13 Stingray Shuffle Core 1703-13 (26°22.607’ N, 81° 49.971’ W) (Figure 4.3) was taken at a 72-cm water depth. The location was surrounded on 3 sides by mangroves, the closest of which was approximately 24 meters away, the furthest was approximately 43 meters away. The surface sediments were organic rich silt.

Figure 4.3: Core location of Core 1703-13. The blue star marks the mouth of Spring Creek and the yellow star marks the core location.

Figure 0.3 Core 1703-13 had several likely tempestites that were identified visually by the presence of shell hash (fragmented shells seen in the stratigraphy log (Figure 4.4)). At the base of the core, a layer of dark organic peat was between 183-191 cm. Immediately above was a sand layer from

170-183 cm, with another peat layer above between 157-170 cm. Striations (fine grained sands against a silt matrix) between 110-157 cm were above the peat layer and may have represented tidalites (further information on tidalites is in section 4.1.5) (Coughenour et al., 2009; Kvale et

55 al., 1995). Tempestite four (T4) consisted of medium grained sand and shell hash between 99-

110 cm, with a silt layer between 92-99 cm, with tempestite three (T3) made of shell hash located immediately above (at 87-92 cm). A layer of peat from 85-87 cm separated T3 from tempestite two (T2), which consisted of shell hash with a few large broken shells between 67-85 cm. Peat from 47-67 cm and sand and silt from 40-47 were below the first visible tempestite (T1) between

30-40 cm which consisted of shell hash. Sandy silt from 20-30 cm was below the uppermost silt layer from 0-20 cm.

The moisture content in this core was relatively consistent throughout the entire core length. However, at 159 cm it increases by 50%, returning to normal levels at 172 cm, then increasing again to 50% from 185 cm throughout the remainder of the core (Figure 4.4). The areas with higher moisture content were two obvious organic rich peat layers (discussed above).

The inorganic content mirrors the moisture content in this core (Figure 4.4). When moisture content increases, the inorganic content decreases. This is especially evident deep in the core, around 160 cm, where the moisture content increases to approximately 50% and the inorganic content decreases to approximately 35% at its lowest concentration.

In core 1703-13 the background sediment size was calculated to be .93% coarse fraction.

As discussed in the methods (Chapter 2.3.3) samples exceeding two standard deviations (1.63 for this core) from the background are considered outliers, and therefore likely tempestites. In core

1703-13, all samples exceeding 4.18% coarse weight (>2mm) are interpreted as tempestites. This confirms four depths at which tempestites are present: 32-44, 66-76, 82-92, and 98-109 cm.

These grainsize results closely correlate with the visual tempestite description in the stratigraphy log (Figure 4.4).

Moisture Content and Percent Inorganic for Core 1703-13 1703-13 Grain Size vs Depth

Percent Grain Size >2 mm Percent Moisture Content 0 50 100 0 0 10 15 20 3030 0 Silt

20 Sand

T1 Shell Hash 40 Sandy Silt

Peat 60

80 T3 Shell Hash

Peat T3 Shell Hash 100 Silt T4 Shell Hash

Depth (cm)

120 Interbedded sand/silt organics 140

Peat 160

Sand

Peat 180

200 100 50 0 Percent Inorganic

Figure 4.4: Percent moisture content, percent inorganic, and percent grain size for Core 1705-17. Values above green line indicate depths in which tempestites are present. Stratigraphic log can be utilized to visualize sediment facies.

Figure 0.4

4.1.2 Core 1704-16 L.S. Core 1704-16 was taken slightly northeast of where core 1703-13 was collected. The coordinates were 26°22.609’ N, 81° 49.962’ W. The water depth when taking the core was 89 cm. The location was surrounded on 3 sides by mangroves, the closest of which was approximately 12 meters away, the furthest was approximately 47 meters away (Figure 4.5). The surface sediment was organic rich silt.

Figure 4.5: Core location of Core 1704-16. The blue star is the mouth of Spring Creek and the yellow star is the location of Core 1704-16

Figure 0.5 Core 1704-16 had 4 areas in which tempestites were present, 3 of which were composed exclusively of shell hash, and one which was composed of shell hash and sand (exemplified in the stratigraphy log (Figure 4.6)). The base of the core was made of striations (likely tidalites) from 178-185 cm. From 154-178 cm, there was a gradual change from organic peat to sand.

Striations were again located from 115-154 cm (in about the same relative quantity as core 1703-

13). Organic peat is again present from 107-115 cm, with a layer of silt and shell hash from 81-

107 cm. T4 was made of shell hash from 75-81 cm. A thin strip of mud and sand from 73-75 cm separated T4 from tempestite three (T3) which was made of large shells and shell hash from 50-

73 cm. Silt was above 39-50 cm with tempestite two (T2) being located between 33-39 cm and made of shell hash. Silt was above from 26-33 cm. T1 was from 10-26 cm and exemplified a sand on top of shell hash tempestite (with sand from 10-18 cm and shell from 18-26 cm). Mixed silt and sand was from 3-10 cm and organic silt was from 0-3 cm.

The moisture content in this core was relatively consistent around 15%, with a few areas touching 20% where peat was the only sediment present (primarily around 30 cm and 110 cm).

The area between 145-165 cm reaches approximately 30% and was made primarily of mangrove peat (Figure 4.6). This section was very similar in composition and moisture content to the same section in core 1703-13.

The inorganic content was consistent with the moisture content in this core, as it decreased at the same point the moisture content increased. The inorganic content does not decrease quite as low in this core as it does in core 1703-13, but it still decreases below 50% around 155 cm, within the thick layer of peat near the base of the core (Figure 4.6).

In core 1704-16 the background sediment size was calculated to be 1.99% coarse fraction. Samples exceeding two standard deviations (3.07 for this core) from this background are considered outliers, and therefore likely tempestites. In core 1703-16, all samples exceeding

8.14% coarse weight (>2mm) are interpreted as tempestites. This confirms three tempestites

(Figure 4.6). More information on core 1704-16 is in Section 4.2.6 and Section 4.3.

Moisture Content and Percent 1704-16 Grain Size vs Depth Inorganic for Core 1704-16 Percent Grain Size >2 mm Percent Moisture Content 0 50 100 0 10 20 30 0 Silt 0 15 30

20 Sand T1 Shell Hash Silt

T2 Shell Hash 40 Silt

T3 Shell Hash 60

Silt T4 Shell Hash 80 Silt and Shell Hash

100

Depth (cm) Interbedded sand/silt organics 120

140

Peat

Sand 160 Interbedded sand/silt organics 180

100 50 0 Percent Inorganic Content

Figure 4.6: Percent moisture content, percent inorganic, and percent grain size for Core 1704-16. Values above green line

indicate depths in which tempestites are present. Stratigraphic log can be utilized to visualize sediment facies.

Figure 0.6

4.1.3 Core 1705-17 Drab Little Crab Core 1705-17 (26°22.611’ N, 81° 49.962’ W) was taken in a water depth of 86.5 cm

(Figure 4.7). The surface sediment was organic rich silt.

Figure 0.7

Figure 4.7: Core location of 1705-17. The blue star is the mouth of Spring Creek and the yellow star is the core location. Core 1705-17 had 3 distinct tempestites identified in the stratigraphy log (Figure 4.8) and in the grain size analysis. The base of the core from 98-176 cm was composed of striations

(likely tidalites) with T3 made of fine shell hash and one large shell from 84-98 cm. Silt from 78-

84 separated T3 from T2 which was made up of shell hash from 69-78 cm. Peat was above T2 from 44-69 cm, with T1 between 31-44 cm. Sand was above from 24-31 cm and was likely a part of T1. The uppermost sediment was organic silt from 0-24 cm.

The moisture content for core 1705-17 was relatively high, with most of the samples between 25-35% moisture. There were two locations where the moisture decreased to approximately 10-15%, which correlates with the locations of the tempestites. The highest

61 moisture content correlates with the silt present at the top of the core and the peat present between the tempestites. The samples deeper than 100 cm average around 30% moisture and reflect the mixture of sediment types in the sand/silt striations as they do not stray to an extremely high, nor an extremely low, moisture content (Figure 4.8).

The inorganic content was similar to the moisture content around the tempestites in that it rose to above 95% in the tempestite sections. The inorganic content decreases between T2 and T3

(around the 78th cm) as a thin layer of silt separates the two. The inorganic content also slightly fluctuates between 85-95% in the area of the core where the tidalites were present. This exemplifies the difference in the amount of sand vs. silt in each of the samples deeper in the core

(Figure 4.8).

In core 1705-17 the background sediment size was calculated to be 1.37% coarse fraction. Samples exceeding two standard deviations (1.99 for this core) from this background are considered outliers, and therefore likely tempestites. In core 1705-17, all samples exceeding

5.34% coarse weight (>2mm) are interpreted as tempestites. This analysis confirmed all three visible tempestites (Figure 4.8).

Moisture Content and Percent Inorganic for Core 1705-17 1705-17 Grain Size vs Depth

Percent Moisture Content Percent Grain Size >2 mm 0 50 100 0 20 40 0

Silt

Sand

40 T1 Shell Hash

60 Peat

T3 Shell Hash 80 Silt

T4 Shell Hash Depth (cm) 100

120 Interbedded sand/silt organics

140

160

180 100 50 0 Percent Inorganic Content

Figure 4.8: Percent moisture content, percent inorganic, and percent grain size for Core 1705-17. Values above green line indicate depths in which tempestites are present. Stratigraphic log can be utilized to visualize sediment facies.

Figure 0.8

4.1.4 Spring Creek Radiometric Dating

As discussed in Chapter 2, radiometric dating was completed utilizing two different methods, 210Pb and 14C. Core 1708-22 was collected specifically for use in 210Pb dating and was sampled every half centimeter to the from 0-59 cm (112 samples). This was undertaken to determine the background concentration of 210Pb and thus provide a complete age model. The results were interpreted using a CRS model for this site (Table 4.1 and Figure 4.9).

Table 4.1: Abbreviated CRS-3 model results for core 1708-22. Samples were tested downcore until 210Pb reached zero.

Bottom Depth (cm) Excess Pb- Top Year Year (CRS- Avg. Year Year error Average Age Average of 210 CRS-3 (CRS-3) 3) (CRS-3) (CRS-3) (YBP) Interval 1.86 2017.60 2016.07 2016.83 6.86 0.17 0.25 1.39 2011.71 2010.88 2011.29 7.25 5.71 2.25 1.10 2004.74 2003.61 2004.17 7.80 12.83 5.25 0.58 2000.60 1999.52 2000.06 8.11 16.94 7.25 0.83 1993.25 1991.68 1992.46 8.76 24.54 10.25 0.69 1987.01 1984.79 1985.90 9.53 31.10 12.25 0.30 1977.61 1976.51 1977.06 10.52 39.94 15.25 0.12 1972.65 1972.25 1972.45 10.26 44.55 18.25 0.50 1968.84 1967.12 1967.98 10.39 49.02 20.25 0.53 1961.29 1958.85 1960.07 11.45 56.93 22.25 0.35 1944.31 1941.23 1942.77 14.22 74.23 25.25 0.18 1898.15 1889.60 1893.88 28.91 123.12 30.25 0.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 35.25 Table 1

1708-22 Excess 210Pb vs CRS-3 Year

Activity (dpm/g) 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2020

2000

1980

1960 1708-22 Excess Pb-210

CRS-3 Year 1940 Log. (1708-22 Excess Pb-210 CRS-3)

1920

1900

1880 Figure 4.9: The solid line is the amount of excess 210Pb in core 1708-22. Dips below the average correspond to an increase in sand or shell, which are poor vectors for 210Pb and therefore the 210Pb aids in identifying tempestites. The dotted line is the general trend line for excess 210Pb present in the samples.

Figure 0.9 Based on the information provided by this model, the sedimentation rate for every core from Spring Creek was approximated by interpolating between age points (dividing the centimeters spanned by the years spanned between samples) (Section 4.1.5 has more information regarding sedimentation rates).

A possible flaw of this 210Pb model is that tempestites were included in the CRS model, even though tempestite deposits are geologically instantaneous (Donnelly et al., 2004b). The

CRS model assumes that all sediment downcore must be older than the sediment above it, which is problematic when looking at individual dates. However, this can be remedied by looking at the

65 age range between samples, which will provide a more accurate timeline of events (Table 4.2).

These age ranges are useful in determining that a storm happened within a certain range of years for all cores that were taken at the same site.

14C was used to date sediments located deeper in the core beyond the 210Pb effective depth. For this site, four samples were 14C dated. Three were from core 1703-13: sample 1 was a single articulated bivalve shell from the 53rd cm, sample 2 was peat from the 95th cm, and sample

3 was peat from the 111th cm. From core 1707-16, sample 4 was peat taken from the 95th cm

(Table 4.2).

Table 2

Table 4.2: Radiocarbon dates from Spring Creek samples. Reported ages were received from National Ocean Sciences Accelerator Mass Spectrometry at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute and were uncalibrated. They were run through the CALIB program to get the median corrected age (MCA) which was used to determine sedimentation rate and tempestite age. Reported Core Radiocarbon Age Median Corrected Radiocarbon Sample Number Depth (cm) (Uncalibrated-YBP) Error (+/-) Age (Calibrated-YBP) 1 1703-13 53 2350 15 1967 2 1703-13 95 2770 20 2863 3 1703-13 111 2980 15 3158 4 1704-16 95 2820 25 2920

4.1.5 Long Term Trends Cores from Spring Creek revealed interesting information about the lagoon in which they were collected. Each core had many interlaminated facies (striations between peat and sand) towards the base, which pointed towards a more open system at the time of deposition (2200-

2600 YBP). The most likely scenario for the cause of these interlaminated facies is tidalites.

Tidalites (also known as tidal rhythmites) are small-scale tidal bundles of sediment that are deposited after particularly strong spring tides (Coughenour et al., 2009; Kvale et al., 1995).

Sand would be deposited as the velocity of a strong spring flood tide decreased below a threshold value. At slack tide, the fine-grained silt that was suspended in the water column would settle

66 out, preserving the sand tidalite (Coughenour et al., 2009). Although there are numerous tidalites in the Spring Creek cores, there are not enough of them to account for each and every spring tide that occurred in the ~400 years in which they were deposited. This indicates that the lagoon likely was somewhat more accessible to tidal currents thousands of years ago than it is now (as tidalites are not seen higher than the 95th cm), but it still required a faster than average current to deposit sediment there.

Another, similar scenario for the cause of these interlaminated facies would be that the site had less mangrove cover and more salt marsh cover. Marsh grasses such as Spartina alterniflora and Juncus effusus deposit detritus onto the surface of the sediment, while tides bring in fine sands and deposit them above the detritus (Teal, 1962). The source of the sandy sediments is not different from the regular tidalites, but the source of the detritus is different, in that it is not river silt or mangrove detritus that is deposited, but rather marsh grass detritus. An alternative source for the sandy sediment is river sand that is transported and deposited in the river offshoots. Although this would change the source of the sediment, the sedimentation rate as a whole would likely not change excessively. Further inquiry into the source of the sediment could be undertaken in the future to determine additional information about the history of Spring

Creek and Stingaree Key.

Two of the three cores exhibited a transition from peat to sand to peat. Core 1703-13 in particular had a thick layer of peat at the base of the core (~10 cm thick), a 15-cm thick layer of sand/peat tidalites above it, another 10-cm thick layer of peat above that, and a 30-cm layer of sand dominated tidalites above that. This is likely due to an opening and closing of the lagoon to the Gulf of Mexico. The first peat layer was very organic rich with mangrove fibers found throughout. This suggests that at one point the site was completely surrounded by mangroves,

67 which prevented coarse sand from being deposited in the lagoon (for ~100 years from the base of the core). The section of tidalites above this suggest an opening in the mangroves through which sand could be deposited into the lagoon. This lasted for approximately 250 years. Sea level rise during this time period has been noted and may have stimulated these changes (Figure 4.10)

(Tanner, 1989). This would either allow for sand to move over the peat built up in the mangrove roots or create a path through the mangroves through which sand could move. Mangroves likely grew back and closed the lagoon to major saltwater input again, as peat again became the majority sediment. This lasted for approximately 200 years, until the sandy tidalites became common again around 2600 YBP. As these sandy tidalites are not seen in the present day, it can be assumed that the lagoon was more open to the bay during this time period than it currently is, and the river has likely not changed excessively throughout the past 2000 years.

Figure 4.10: Sea level changes in the Gulf of Mexico for the past 5000 years. The period between 1800-2800 YBP exhibited signs of a higher than average sea level. This is the time period of the sand layer located between mangrove peat layers in the Spring Creek cores. Figure adapted from Tanner (1989).

Figure 0.10 The moisture content tends to decrease slightly at suspected tempestite layers and therefore can be used to help verify the existence of tempestites throughout each core, although the data are not conclusive enough to identify tempestites solely on moisture content. The same is true of the inorganic content, although it may be slightly less reliable for tempestite identification, as sandy layers could lead to false positives. Interestingly, both moisture content

68 and inorganic content are variable around tidalites. Although the highest and lowest values are generally within 20% of each other, there is no discernible trend between individual samples.

The sedimentation rate (the rate at which sediment settles out of the water column) tends to increase in more recent years. Even though the major increases in sedimentation rate in the most recent 100 years are likely due to tempestites being sampled, there is still a general increase in the rate as seen from the trend line in Figure 4.11.

Figure 0.11

Sedimentation Rate 1.60

1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

Sedimentation Sedimentation Rate (cm/yr) 0.20

0.00 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Age (YBP)

1703-13 1704-16 1705-17

Figure 4.11: Sedimentation rates over time. The dotted line is the trend line displaying a general increase in sedimentation rate over time. These long-term trends show the geologic history of this lagoon. While the causes of specific non-hurricane events are difficult to determine, it is likely that changes in sea-level had a significant role.

4.1.6 Short Term Trends The short-term trends for the Spring Creek cores include three likely tempestites distributed throughout the core (Figure 4.12). The first is made of coarse sand above shell hash

69 and appears around 60 YBP (1960 C.E.) in all cores and is marked on the figures by blue arrows.

The second tempestite is rather large and varies slightly in starting depth, but the tempestite overlaps in all three cores. This tempestite was made of shell hash and was likely deposited around 1000 YBP (1017 C.E.). The final tempestite is seen deep in all three cores, around 2000

YBP (0-17 C.E.). In core 1703-13, it appears as two peaks, rather than one. Although this might appear as one tempestite on its own, the two other cores verify that this is likely one event. More information on these tempestites and the storms that produced them is discussed in Section 4.3.

Figure 0.12

Figure 4.12: Percent Grain Size >2 mm versus age for all Spring Creek cores. Three tempestites are visible, marked by the blue, red, and teal arrows respectively. 4.2 Stingaree Key Lagoon The Stingaree Key Lagoon is located near Stingaree Key on the east side of the Estero

Bay Aquatic Preserve behind a large mangrove island (Figure 4.13 and Figure 4.14). This site is surrounded by mangroves. The site is a U-shaped inlet and is separated from Estero Bay by two narrow passages (17 and 3.92 meters wide). The site is extremely protected as it is almost

70 halfway between its two entrances (1,160 and 958 meters away). Through geologic time, this inlet may have undergone some geomorphologic changes, and it is possible that this was once an outlet for a river. However, there is currently no direct freshwater input into this area. During present day conditions, coarse grained sediment is not deposited in this lagoon without a high velocity event to transport it there. Six cores were taken in Stingaree Key Lagoon: 1707-19,

1707-20, 1707-21, 1708-23, 1708-24, and 1708-25. Cores 1707-19 and 1707-21 were not useful for this study and were only photographed and described (Appendix A). Three cores were processed for moisture content, inorganic content, and grain size analysis: 1707-20 (also sampled for 14C), 1708-23, 1708-24. 1708-25 was a short core taken explicitly to be processed for Pb210 dating and is not described below. Core 1707-20 was sampled for 14C dating in addition to the sediment proxy tests. Results from the utilized cores are described below.

Figure 4.13: Location of the Stingaree Key cores in Estero Bay. Yellow star shows the location of the cores and the blue stars show the entrances into the inlet

Figure 0.13

Figure 4.14: Location of cores behind Stingaree Key. Yellow stars mark the location of the cores and the blue stars mark the entrances to the inlet.

Figure 0.14 4.2.1 Core 1707-20 A Whole New Core Core 1707-20 (26°24’59.90” N, 81°50’34.73” W) was taken approximately halfway between the nearest mangroves which were between 6 and 6.5 meters away, the water level was

85 cm and the surface sediment was organic rich silt (Figure 4.15).

Three tempestites were visually identified in this core, all of which were in the upper half of the core (Figure 4.16). Sand composed the base of the core from 177-193 cm, with peat/sand striations above from 129-177 cm. Mangrove rootlets and organic peat was from 74-129 cm. T3 was located between 50-74 cm and comprised of shell hash. Silt was above this tempestite from

39-50 cm. T2 (also made of shell hash), was located between 36-39 cm. Sandy silt was above this tempestite from 30-36, with T1 comprising of shell hash between 18-30 cm. The surface sediment was organic rich silt from 0-18 cm.

Figure 0.15

Figure 4.15 Core 1707-20 location. Blue stars mark the entrances of the inlet and the yellow star marks the core location. The average moisture content for core 1707-20 is low, with the highest values occurring within the first ten centimeters of the core (0-10 cm) and between 78 and 106 cm, which corresponded with the organic-rich surface sediments and sediments consisting of many mangrove rootlets. Throughout the remainder of the core, high moisture values correspond with high organic background sediment, and low values correspond with tempestites and sandy sections (Figure 4.16).

Similarly, high inorganic values are present within the tempestite sections of the core

(from ~10 cm to ~75 cm) and in the areas that have tidalites and significant sand (from ~80 cm to ~193 cm). The lowest values of inorganic sediment (and thus the highest values of organic sediment) occur in the same sections as the highest values of moisture content: from 0-10 cm and from 78-106 cm. The organic-rich surface sediments and mangrove rootlets in the middle of the core lead to the observed low inorganic values (Figure 4.16).

Moisture Content and Percent Inorganic for Core 1707-20 1707-20 Grain Size vs Depth Percent Grain Size >2 mm Percent Moisture Content 0 50 100 0 10 20 0

Silt

T1 Shell Hash

Silt 40 T2 Shell Hash

Silt

60 T3 Shell Hash

100 Silt and Mangrove Rootlets

Depth (cm)

120

140

Interbedded sand/silt organics

160

180

Sand

200 100 50 0 Percent Inorganic

Figure 4.16: Percent moisture content, percent inorganic, and percent grain size for Core 1707-20. Values above green line indicate depths in which tempestites are present. The 104th cm is likely an anomaly and not a tempestite. Stratigraphic log can be utilized to visualize sediment facies.

Figure 0.16

In core 1707-20 the background sediment size was calculated to be 0.36% coarse fraction

(Chapter 2.3.3). Samples exceeding two standard deviations (0.48 for this core) from this background are considered outliers, and therefore likely tempestites. In core 1703-13, all samples exceeding 1.32% coarse weight (>2mm) are interpreted as tempestites. This confirms three tempestites at depths between 20-34, 36-44, and 52-74 cm (Figure 4.16). These grainsize results closely correlate with the visual tempestite description in the stratigraphy log (Figure 4.16).

4.2.2 Core 1708-23 What’s Brown and Sticky? The coordinates of core 1708-23 were 26°24.987’N 81°50.591’W. This site was slightly south of where core 1707-20 was collected. The surface sediment was composed of silt, sticks, and leaves. The mangroves closest to the core site were 4.81 m and 6.58 m away (Figure 4.17).

The water level at the time the core was taken was 96 cm.

Figure 4.17: Core 1708-23 location. Blue stars mark the entrances of the inlet and the yellow star marks the core location.

Figure 0.17 Three tempestites were identified visually in core 1708-23 (Figure 4.18). Peat/sand striations made up the base of the core from 70-128 cm, with mangrove peat above from 56-70

75 cm. Silt and scattered shells were above that, from 48-56 cm. Tempestite 3 (T3) was composed of shell hash between 35-48 cm with a small layer of silt and a few scattered shells above from 31-

35 cm. T2, which was composed of sand and shells between 26-31 cm, was immediately below a thin layer of silt from 24-26 cm. T1 was composed of shell hash and was located between 19-24 cm. Peat composed the surface from 0-19 cm.

The moisture content (Figure 4.18) of core 1708-23 correlated with the visual description.

Moisture content is high (above 60%) in the upper sediments, but quickly decreases to ~20% in tempestites sediments. Moisture content decreases to 30% in sediments comprised of scattered shells mixed with the silt, but then increases to ~50% in peat sediments below 50 cm. Further below, the moisture content decreased as sand became more present in the tidalites.

The inorganic content (Figure 4.18) was highest (~95-99%) in each of the tempestite layers and within the tidalites (70-128 cm). It was at its lowest (78%) in the surface silt (0-19 cm) and decreased to 90% in the peat layer following the tempestite layers (56-70 cm). The transition from peat to tidalites is seen in the increase of the inorganic content from 90-97% between 70-90 cm. The layer of sandy silt that lay between T1 and T2 also displays a lower inorganic content than the areas around it, as it decreases to ~90%.

In core 1708-23 the background sediment size was calculated to be 1.23% coarse fraction. Samples exceeding two standard deviations (2.42 for this core) from this background are considered outliers, and therefore likely tempestites. In core 1708-23, all samples exceeding

6.06% coarse weight (>2mm) are interpreted as tempestites. This confirms three tempestites at depths between 19-24, 26-31, and 35-48 cm (Figure 4.18). These grainsize results closely correlate with the visual tempestite description in the stratigraphy log.

Figure 0.18

Moisture Content and Percent Inorganic for Core 1708-23 1708-23 Grain Size vs Depth

Percent Grain Size >2 mm Percent Moisture Content 0 50 100 0 10 20 0

Silt

20 T1 Shell Hash Silt T2 Shell Hash

Silt and Shell Hash 40 T3 Shell Hash

Silt and Shell Hash

60 Silt and Mangrove Rootlets

Depth (cm)

Interbedded sand/silt organics

100

120

100 50 0 Percent Inorganic

Figure 4.18: Percent moisture content, percent inorganic, and percent grain size for Core 1708-23. Values above green line indicate depths in which tempestites are present. Stratigraphic log can be utilized to visualize sediment facies.

4.2.3 Core 1708-24 Organicier Core 1708-24 was taken at coordinates 26°24.987’N 81°50.591’W. The closest mangroves were slightly over 5.5 m away, and the farthest were around 29 m away (Figure

4.19). The water depth at the time of collection was 96 cm. The surface sediment was organic mud with mangrove litter.

Figure 4.19: Location of core 1708-24. Blue stars indicate the mouth of the inlet and the yellow star marks the core location.

Figure 0.19

Core 1708-24 had three depths in which tempestites were present, all in the upper half of the core (Figure 4.20). At the base of the core, the sediment was composed of peat/sand striations from 69-120 cm, with peat directly above from 41-69 cm. T3 was composed of shell hash from

35-44 cm, a layer of silt and shell hash was from 33-35 cm, and T2 (a layer of almost pure shell

78 hash) from 28-33 cm. Silt was present from 27-28 cm and T1 was made of sand and shell hash and was from 20-27 cm. Peat was from 7-20 cm, with the surface sediment being silt from 0-7 cm.

The moisture content of core 1708-24 (Figure 4.20) correlates closely with both the tempestites and the peat/sand striations. The moisture content decreased to approximately 20 percent within the first tempestite and remained below 30 percent within the second tempestite before returning to above 50 percent within the mud and peat layers in the middle of the core. It decreased to approximately 20 percent as sand became the dominant sediment deeper in the core.

The inorganic content (Figure 4.20) correlated closely with the moisture content. When the moisture content was low, inorganic content was high. This was seen in both the tempestite areas in the top of the core as well as the tidalites in the bottom half of the core. The silt at the surface (0-7 cm) and the two peat sections (7-20 cm and 41-69 cm) displayed the lowest inorganic content in the core, ~70-80%.

In core 1708-24 the background sediment size was calculated to be 0.1195% coarse fraction. Samples exceeding two standard deviations (0.23 for this core) from this background are considered outliers, and therefore likely tempestites. In core 1708-24, all samples exceeding

0.58% coarse weight (>2 mm) are interpreted as tempestites. This confirms three tempestites at depths between 20-27 cm, 28-33 cm, and 35-44 cm (Figure 4.20). These grain size results closely correlate with the visual tempestite description in the stratigraphy log (Figure 4.20).

Moisture Content and Inorganic 1708-24 Grain Size vs Depth Content for Core 1708-24

Moisture Content Percent Grain Size >2 mm 0 50 100 0 10 20 0

Silt

Peat

20 T1 Shell Hash

Silt T2 Shell Hash

Silt and Shell 40 Hash T3 Shell Hash

Silt and Mangrove Rootlets

Depth (cm)

Interbedded sand/silt organics

100

120 100 50 0 Inorganic Content

Figure 4.20: Percent moisture content, percent inorganic, and percent grain size for Core 1708-24. Values above green line indicate depths in which tempestites are present. Stratigraphic log can be utilized to visualize sediment facies.

Figure 0.20

4.2.4 Radiometric Dates As discussed in Chapter 2, radiometric dating was completed utilizing two different methods, 210Pb and 14C. Core 1708-25 was collected specifically for use of 210Pb dating and was sampled every half centimeter to the 40th cm (80 samples). This was undertaken to determine the background concentration of 210Pb and thus provide a complete age model. The results were interpreted using a CRS model for this site (Table 4.3 and Figure 4.21).

Following the techniques discussed in chapter 2 and section 4.1.4, age ranges for tempestites and sedimentation rates in all Stingaree Key cores were determined. The same limitations for individual dates as discussed above in Spring Creek apply to cores from Stingaree

Key, but accurate age ranges are able to be determined.

Table 3

Table 4.3: Abbreviated CRS-4 model results for core 1708-25. Samples were tested until the background 210Pb reached 0.

Depth (cm) 1708-25 1708-25 Top 1708-25 1708-25 Avg. 1708-25 Average of Excess Pb- Year (CRS- Bottom Year Year (CRS- Year error Average Age Interval 210 CRS-4 4) (CRS-4) 4) (CRS-4) (YBP) 0.25 1.39 2017.60 2016.31 2016.95 7.23 0.05 2.25 1.34 2009.28 2007.12 2008.20 7.83 8.81 5.25 0.96 1994.11 1991.00 1992.56 9.37 24.44 7.25 0.60 1980.62 1976.86 1978.74 11.30 38.26 10.25 0.06 1961.65 1960.86 1961.25 12.72 55.75 13.25 0.42 1947.05 1938.09 1942.57 13.36 74.43 15.25 0.24 1905.20 1888.43 1896.81 27.13 120.19 17.25 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Figure 0.21

1708-25 Excess Pb-210 vs CRS-4 Year Activity (dpm/g) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2020

2000

1980

1960 1708-25 Excess

Year Pb-210 CRS-4 1940

Log. (1708-25 1920 Excess Pb-210 CRS-4) 1900

1880 Figure 4.21: The solid line is the amount of excess 210Pb in core 1708-25. The dotted line is the general trend line for excess 210 210 Pb. The dip below this trend line around 1960 corresponds with an increase in Pb deficient sediment, paralleling the T1 present at that depth. Only one sample (sample 5) was analyzed for 14C dating at Stingaree Key. This sample consisted of peat taken from core 1707-20 at 43-44 cm (Table 4.4). We had difficulties identifying material for radiocarbon analyses in the cores from this site. Unfortunately, most shells appeared re-worked and high organic peats were not as available in these cores.

Additionally, although there were large amounts of peat present in each of these cores (as discussed previously), the intrusion of mangrove rootlets might have provided inaccurate dating results and thus prevented these peat deposits from being used. In future work we intend to take additional cores in order to collect samples for further radiocarbon analyses.

Table 4

Table 4.4: Radiocarbon date from Stingaree Key. The reported age was corrected using CALIB to obtain the median corrected age. This was used to determine sedimentation rate and tempestite age. Core Reported Age Sample Number Depth (cm) (YBP) Error (+/-) Median Corrected Age (YBP) 5 1707-20 44 1960 25 1910

Based on the information provided by this model, the sedimentation rate for every core from Stingaree Key was approximated by interpolating between age points (dividing the centimeters spanned by the years spanned between samples) (Section 4.2.5 has more information regarding sedimentation rates).

4.2.5 Long Term Trends The Stingaree Key site shared a few long-term traits with the Spring Creek site, the most obvious was the presence of interlaminated facies (likely tidalites-Section 4.1.5 discusses these laminations further) at the bottom of each core. These tidalites appear around 55 cm in both

1708-23 and 1708-24 and at ~75 in core 1707-20. Similar to Spring Creek cores, this indicates a more open system at the time of tidalite deposition. The likely scenario is that the mangroves that currently surround Stingaree Key were not present, or were less dense, and therefore there was little protection of the site from Estero Bay. This likely allowed high energy spring tides to deposit coarser sediment in the lagoon, as discussed above in section 4.1.5 (Coughenour et al.,

2009; Kvale et al., 1995).

Just above the tidalites in each core is a layer of thick, mangrove peat. The peat, in particular in core 1707-20, has an abundance of mangrove rootlets. This is indicative of denser mangrove cover at for at least a few hundred years. However, the layers deposited more recently than T3 do not exhibit as much peat. This may be indicative that this storm destroyed the

83 mangrove cover in this part of Estero Bay and reshaped the ecosystem. This tempestite is discussed further in section 4.2.6 and 4.3.

The sedimentation rate for each of the cores at the Stingaree Key site increases in more recent years as seen by the trend line (Figure 4.22). Similar to the Spring Creek cores, the major increases in the sedimentation rate are likely due to tempestite deposition and not background sedimentation.

Sedimentation Rate 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Sedimentation Sedimentation Rate (cm/yr) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Age (YBP)

1707-20 1708-23 1708-24

Figure 4.22: Sedimentation rates for each of the three cores at the Stingaree Key site.

Figure 0.22

A final long-term trend present in the Stingaree Key cores (that was also observed in the

Spring Creek cores) is that there has been general silt deposition above tempestite 1, which occurred around 1960. This indicates that none of the 18 hurricanes or tropical storms that made landfall near Estero Bay since 1960 were powerful enough to deposit overwash in this back- barrier lagoon (NOAA, 2018). More discussion on T1 is in section 4.2.6 and 4.3.

4.2.6 Short Term Trends The short-term trends in the Stingaree Key cores include three likely tempestites distributed throughout the core. All three tempestites appear around the same time period in all

Figure 4.23: Percent Grain Size >2 mm versus age for all Stingaree Key cores. Three tempestites are visible, marked by the blue, orange, and red arrows respectively. three cores and share sedimentological similarities with each other and those in the Spring Creek cores (section 4.3 discusses these similarities further) (Figure 4.23). Tempestite 1 (T1) is found at

~60 YBP (1960 C.E.), and is composed of sand and shell hash, and was likely deposited by

Hurricane Donna. Tempestite 2 (T2) was deposited ~400-800 YBP and is slightly smaller than T1 but is also made of small shell hash and some sandy sediment. The hurricane that deposited

Tempestite 3 (T3) made landfall ~800-1000 YBP and was the same that deposited T2 in the

Spring Creek cores.

4.3 Hurricane History in Estero Bay Each study site contains three tempestites preserved within the sedimentary column. The sites share two tempestites that were deposited from the same hurricanes (T1 and T3) but each site also has a tempestite that was not seen in the other (T2 in the Stingaree Key cores and T4 in the Spring Creek cores) (Figure 4.24 and Figure 4.25).

Silt Silt Silt Sand Sand T1 Shell Hash Silt Sand T1 Shell Hash T2 Shell Hash Sandy Silt T1 Shell Hash Silt Peat T3 Shell Hash Peat

T3 Shell Hash Silt T3 Shell Hash Peat T4 Shell Hash T3 Shell Hash Silt Silt Silt and Shell T4 Shell Hash Hash T4 Shell Hash

Interbedded sand/silt Interbedded organics sand/silt organics

Interbedded sand/silt organics

Peat Peat

Sand Sand

Peat Interbedded sand/silt organics

Figure 4.24: a) Grain size vs age models for all three Spring Creek cores. The dark blue arrow is T1, the red arrow is T3,

and the teal arrow is T4. T1 and T3 are also seen in the Stingaree Key cores. b) Fence diagrams for Spring Creek cores. Colored arrows correlate with their counterparts in Figure 4.25 and 4.24(a).

Figure 0.23 b.

Silt Silt Silt

T1 Shell Hash Peat T1 Shell Hash T1 Shell Hash Silt Silt Silt T2 Shell Hash T2 Shell Hash T2 Shell Hash Silt and Shell Hash Silt Silt and Shell Hash T3 Shell Hash T3 Shell Hash Silt and Shell Hash Silt and Mangrove Silt and Mangrove Rootlets T3 Shell Hash Rootlets

Silt and Mangrove Interbedded Rootlets Interbedded sand/silt sand/silt organics organics

Interbedded sand/silt organics

Sand

Figure 4.25: a) Grain size vs age models for all three Stingaree Key cores. The dark blue arrow is T1, the orange arrow is T2,

and the red arrow is T3. T1 and T3 are also seen in the Spring Creek cores. b) Fence diagrams for Spring Creek cores. Colored arrows correlate with their counterparts in Figure 4.24 and 4.25(a).

An important finding from this research is that not every hurricane is recorded at our two sites. At both Spring Creek and Stingaree Key Lagoon multiple hurricanes recorded in the instrumental record are missing in the sediment record. Since 1873, 12 major hurricanes have passed within 50 miles of Estero Bay, and only one of them deposited a tempestite (T1) at these locations-Category 3 Donna (1 of the 3 strongest to strike Estero Bay since 1873) (NOAA,

2018). Hurricane Irma, Hurricane Charley, and the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 were all intense hurricanes. However, factors such as weaker storm surge and unfavorable track contributed to these hurricanes not leaving tempestites.

Most recently, Hurricane Irma made landfall in Naples, FL in 2017 during the study period. Hurricane Irma was a high category 2 hurricane as it passed through Estero Bay, with an estimated storm surge in Fort Myers of 3.88 feet and sustained wind speed of 60 kts (69 mph), and gusts of around 97 kts (111 mph) (Cangialosi et al., 2018). Even though the storm itself was devastating to Southwest Florida, the actual storm surge was well below the forecasted 12-16- foot storm surge that was expected (had the hurricane deviated slightly west of its actual track)

(Figure 4.26) (Cangialosi et al., 2018). In the months following Hurricane Irma, several cores were taken in areas previously sampled to check for recent tempestites. Tempestites from

Hurricane Irma were not found in either Spring Creek or Stingaree Key, although they were found in one back barrier lagoon on Big Hickory Island (more information in section 4.4). This is not surprising considering Hurricane Irma’s storm surge was only 3.88 feet and our site locations are east of the Estero Bay inner bay margin.

Figure 4.26: Track of Hurricane Irma.

Figure 0.24 The storm surge of the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 was estimated to be 18-20 feet above sea level in Islamorada, and the storm decreased in strength only slightly (downgraded to a category 4) between its first landfall in Islamorada and its second in Cedar Key (Kaye, 2015).

Estero Bay was spared the worst of the storm surge due to the position and direction of the eye, as the eyewall (and fastest wind speeds) was located to the west and traveled to the northwest.

This was not conducive to depositing a tempestite in Estero Bay, as the winds would be pushing water and sediment offshore, rather than onshore (Figure 4.27(a)) (NOAA, 2018). In addition, the eye was ~8 miles across (small for a hurricane), leading to less of a storm surge impact in

Estero Bay than from Hurricane Donna (McDonald, 1935). Hurricane Charley (2004) was a category 4 storm that made landfall north of Estero Bay, with a pressure of 941 mb and a wind speed of 130 kt (150 mph) (Figure 4.27(b)) (Pasch et al., 2005). A tidal gauge in Estero Bay near the horseshoe keys (less than 2 miles from the sample sites) measured a storm surge of 4.2 feet

(Pasch et al., 2005). Again, this major hurricane did not leave a tempestite at any of the study sites, likely because the storm surge was not strong enough to move tempestite sediments into back barrier lagoons in Estero Bay.

89 a. b.

Figure 4.27: (a) Track of the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935. (b) Track of Hurricane Charley. Neither of these major hurricanes left tempestites in Estero Bay.

Figure 0.25 Only one hurricane deposited a tempestite within the recorded hurricane history, and the other three were all deposited well before the written record and were previously undocumented and unknown hurricanes (Table 4.5).

Table 5

Table 4.5: Age ranges of tempestites found in both Spring Creek and Stingaree Key in Years Before Present (2017). Tempestites are arranged from most recent to least recent. T1 and T3 were seen at both sites while T2 and T4 were only seen at one site each. Spring Creek Tempestite Ages (YBP) Stingaree Key Tempestite Ages (YBP)

Core Core Core Core Core Core 1703-13 1704-16 1705-17 1707-20 1708-23 1708-24

T1 60-90 28-70 53-100 68-312 73-287 74-474

T2 Not Present 380-656 350-537 474-849

T3 717-1237 928-1038 1117-1657 957-1764 786-1410 849-1223

T4 1528-2221 2010-2093 2000-2243 Not Present

The uppermost tempestite (T1) in both Spring Creek and in Stingaree Key has been identified as Hurricane Donna (1960) (Table 4.5). Hurricane Donna was a category 3 hurricane when it made landfall in Estero Bay, with maximum 1-minute sustained winds of around 92 mph in Fort Myers, with gusts up to 121 mph (NWS, 2018). The storm surge associated with

Hurricane Donna was at least 7 feet above normal high tide (with a 10.4-foot storm surge reported at Sanibel Island and an 11-foot storm surge in Naples) (Figure 4.28) (NWS, 2018;

Pfost, 2010). This high storm surge is likely the main reason the tempestite is found in both locations rather than only at one. Rainfall during the storm was high, and while the rain gauge in

Fort Myers failed, up to 7 inches was reported just north of Fort Myers. Because the highest rainfall was in the southern section of this area, it can be assumed that the rainfall in Estero Bay was as high or higher due to the track of the hurricane. Additionally, the three weeks before this hurricane had higher than average rainfall, totaling up to 10 inches. This raised the water table and lake levels, swelled rivers, and increased flooding from the storm (Pfost, 2010). The storm surge, rainfall, and higher water table can all serve to inundate Estero Bay. This not only allows

Figure 4.28: Track of Hurricane Donna over south Florida. The hatched corridor shows the track and diameter of the eye and the dotted line shows the area within which wind speeds were above 100 mph. Photo courtesy of NWS, 2018.

91 offshore sediment carried by the hurricane’s storm surge to be deposited further into the bay and increase the radius of the overwash fan, but also allows finer sediment that remains suspended in the water column to be deposited well after the storm surge has waned, creating a thicker tempestite (Kreisa, 1981). Hurricane Donna exhibited all these factors, producing a thick tempestite in Spring Creek and Stingaree Key even though their entrances are far from the Gulf of Mexico.

Interestingly, T1 (Hurricane Donna) in Spring Creek had a thick layer of sand on top of a mixed sand/shell hash deposit. However, in the Stingaree Key cores, T1 (Hurricane Donna) had no sand layer on top of the mixed sand/shell hash deposit. We know that hurricane Donna was an extremely powerful hurricane, so it is understandable that the sand and shells were mixed within the tempestite (as discussed in Chapter 3.3), but the sand on top of the mixed shell hash in Spring

Creek is unique to that site and is indicative of some unknown sedimentological process.

Using the record of known hurricanes (Hurricanes Irma, Charley, Donna, and the Labor

Day Hurricane of 1935) as known reference points, the approximate strength of the three unknown hurricanes (T2, T3, and T4) can be extrapolated. While it is impossible to deduct specific storm parameters associated with tempestites, it may be possible to make some general assumptions about the storm surge, track and intensity.

T2 was only seen in the Stingaree Key cores and was likely deposited around 400-600

YBP (Figure 4.25). The tempestite was present as a thin layer of shell hash mixed with sand.

While the hurricane that deposited this tempestite must have been powerful enough to mix sand and shell hash, it probably wasn’t as powerful as Hurricane Donna. Not only is the tempestite thinner than the one left by Donna, but it also was not present in Spring Creek. This suggests that the storm surge was not powerful enough to move shell hash into the Spring Creek site, which

92 may have been a more protected site at that time. However, this hurricane still had a strong enough storm surge to leave a tempestite in Stingaree Key, while Hurricane Irma and other major hurricanes did not. As the storm surge of Hurricane Irma was around four feet and Hurricane

Donna’s was around ten feet in Estero Bay, the surge from this hurricane would likely have been somewhere between the two. This would provide enough energy to deposit moderate amounts of tempestite sediments into the Stingaree Key inlet, while not being able to reach the Spring Creek site.

T3 is similar in shape, size, and composition as T1 (deposited by Hurricane Donna). T3 was evident in both sites (just like T1) around 800-1000 YBP. The age range for T3 varies in each core, although this likely does not mean that different events deposited this tempestite. The more likely scenario is that the dating model for each core varies slightly due to the paucity of radiometric dates available, which could be remedied by adding more radiocarbon dates

(particularly for the Stingaree Key site, as discussed is Section 4.2.4). This would more accurately portray the age range (and confirm the current age models) as well as confirm more accurately when this hurricane made landfall in Estero Bay. The hurricane that deposited this tempestite likely had a significant storm surge similar to Hurricane Donna. In addition, because it deposited a mixed tempestite, it is likely that the storm was category 4 or 5 in strength. While the track of this hurricane is unknown, the eye and major storm surge has been interpreted to have passed through Estero Bay in order to deposit a mixed sand/shell tempestite in both sites. We might expect to find this tempestite in other tidal creek offshoots and back-barrier lagoons in

Estero Bay.

The oldest tempestite (T4) is observed only in the Spring Creek site. The date of this tempestite ranged from approximately 2000-2100 (83 B.C.E.- 17 C.E.). The tempestite was of

93 similar composition and size in each Spring Creek core, with a distinct shell hash mixed with sandy peat. While there is no coarse sand layer on top of the shell hash, the shell hash is almost as thick as Hurricane Donna’s. This would suggest that this hurricane was as powerful as Donna, except for the fact that it’s tempestite is not seen in the Stingaree Key cores. Stingaree Key is closely surrounded by mangroves, and mangrove rootlets were found in abundance in core 1707-

20 during the time period of this final hurricane (rootlets were also found in cores 1708-13 and

1708-24, but not as high density). Therefore, it is possible that the mangrove cover that was present during the hurricane extended far enough away from the coring location that it stopped all incoming sediment and prevented any offshore sediment from being deposited in the coring location. Since evidence of this mangrove cover was not present in the Spring Creek the hurricane was able to deposit a tempestite there. This is indicative that this ancient hurricane was a major storm with fairly significant storm surge. Locations near Stingaree Key but closer to the bay would likely show tempestites from this hurricane.

All four tempestites (T1-T4) serve to reconstruct the hurricane history of Estero Bay. T1 was useful in providing an example of a tempestite of a known hurricane with recorded parameters. It also provided valuable information on what conditions are necessary to deposit tempestites in these back-barrier locations. The three other tempestites were all previously unknown hurricanes as their age extends well beyond historical or anecdotal knowledge. Estero

Bay is a relatively young geologic feature, so there is a limited data pool from which to draw conclusions about recurrence. However, because the core records extended to over 3000 YBP, enough information exists to conclude that hurricanes with catastrophic storm surge and flooding are a 1 in 500-year event in this area. Although not every major hurricane that makes landfall over or passes near Estero Bay leaves a tempestite, at least four hurricanes in the last ~2000

94 years deposited tempestites in these extremely well protected areas. As the possibility of one of these catastrophic hurricanes is non-zero and the population of the area surrounding Estero Bay continues to grow, it is important to recognize this possibility and plan accordingly.

4.4 In Search of Hurricane Irma Hurricane Irma was a category 2 hurricane when it passed over Estero Bay, with a maximum recorded storm surge of 3.88 feet, well below the expected 12-foot minimum storm surge (Cangialosi et al., 2018). As discussed above, this weak storm-surge was unable to move overwash deposits into sites further away from the coastline (such as both of our sites).

Although the storm surge was not as high as expected, Estero Bay almost entirely emptied prior to the arrival of Hurricane Irma’s storm surge. The same phenomenon was seen in nearby Naples Bay where the emptied bay refilled with water extremely quickly, with the tide rising

~5.5 feet in one hour (Figure 4.29)

(Cappucci, 2017). This tidal change occurred up the entire west coast of

Florida, including in Estero Bay.

Additionally, the track of the storm Figure 4.29: Preliminary water level data for Naples Bay during Hurricane Irma. The tide fell nearly 4 feet below normal before the (landfall was initially made on Marco storm surge quickly returned, lifting the water higher than the normal expected tide height (Cappucci, 2017). Island and the eye tracked slightly inland-Figure 4.37 above) also limited the size, amount, and distance of sediment carried by the storm surge. Winds on the north side of every hurricane in the northern atmosphere are

a. b.

c. d.

Figure 4.30: (a) One of three cores (1710-26) taken post-Irma in the Spring Creek area, immediately adjacent to the utilized Spring Creek cores. (b) One of three cores (1801-29) taken post-Irma at the Stingaree Key site, immediately adjacent to the utilized Stingaree Key cores. (c) Location of core 1803-34 (Pants are Optional) on Big Hickory Island marked by the yellow star. (d) One of three cores (1803-34) taken post-Irma in the Big Hickory Island Lagoon site. The layer of light colored sand at the top of the core was not present before Hurricane Irma and was confirmed using grain size analysis as being a tempestite. easterly winds, which in the case of Hurricane Irma meant the winds were blowing offshore

(Aguado & Burt, 2013). By the time the westerly winds on the south side of the hurricane

entered Estero Bay, the hurricane had weakened. This, in addition to a few other factors, serve

to reduce the overall storm surge.

Sediment cores were taken post-Irma in multiple locations that were previously sampled to compare surface sediment layers. Three cores were taken in both Spring Creek (Figure

4.30(a)) and Stingaree Key (Figure 4.30(b)). As discussed above neither of the two sites utilized in this study displayed any signs of Hurricane Irma.

Cores were taken in a back-barrier lagoon on Big Hickory Island (Big Hickory Lagoon)

(Figure 4.30(c)). This site is much closer to the Gulf of Mexico than the other two study sites.

Coring prior to Hurricane Irma in 2015 showed no signs of tempestites. However, post Irma coring revealed a sandy tempestite at the very top of cores taken (Figure 4.30(d)).

All three of the cores taken in the Big Hickory Lagoon site post-Irma had core top sand layers (0-2 cm, 0-5 cm, and 0-6cm), with thicknesses of the tempestites varying between 2-6 cm

(Figure 4.30(d)). The composition of each of these tempestites was fine grained quartz sand with few to no shells present. As stated in section 3.1, sandy tempestites are generally only caused by weaker storm surges, so this is to be expected. Dune height was measured at this site at approximately 2.9 feet (0.88 m) NAVD (North American Vertical Datum) and therefore we were able to infer that the storm surge only just reached the “overtop” regime. If Hurricane Irma’s storm surge was able to move only relatively fine-grained sediment (such as fine sand into the

Big Hickory Island site) then Irma tempestites of any kind are unlikely in our inner bay margin sites (Spring Creek and Stingaree Key).

References Cited

Ager, D. V. (1974). Storm deposits in the Jurassic of the Moroccan High Atlas. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 15(2), 83–93.

Aguado, E., & Burt, J. (2010). Understanding weather and climate.

Appleby, P. G., & Oldfield, F. (1978). The calculation of lead-210 dates assuming a constant rate of supply of unsupported 210 Pb to the sediment. Catena, 5(1), 1–8.

Bádenas, B., Pomar, L., Aurell, M., & Morsilli, M. (2012). A facies model for internalites (internal wave deposits) on a gently sloping carbonate ramp (Upper Jurassic, Ricla, NE Spain). Sedimentary Geology, 271, 44–57.

Barnes, J. (2012). Florida’s hurricane history. UNC Press Books.

Barnett, V., & Lewis, T. (1994). Outliers in statistical data (Vol. 3). Wiley New York.

Bister, M., & Emanuel, K. A. (1998). Dissipative heating and hurricane intensity. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 65(3–4), 233–240.

Blakemore, B. (2006). Category 6 Hurricanes? They’ve Happened. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Science/story?id=1986862&page=1

Boggs Jr., S. (1995). Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Bove, M. C., O’Brien, J. J., Eisner, J. B., Landsea, C. W., & Niu, X. (1998). Effect of El Niño on US landfalling hurricanes, revisited. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 79(11), 2477–2482.

Brooks, G. R., Doyle, L. J., Davis, R. A., DeWitt, N. T., & Suthard, B. C. (2003). Patterns and controls of surface sediment distribution: west-central Florida inner shelf. Marine Geology, 200(1), 307–324.

Bureau, U. S. C. (2017). Fort Myers; Florida; United States Quick Facts. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/fortmyerscityflorida,FL,US/PST120216#viewt op

Burpee, R. W. (1972). The origin and structure of easterly waves in the lower troposphere of North Africa. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 29(1), 77–90.

Byrne, M. J., & Gabaldon, J. N. (2008). Hydrodynamic Characteristics and Salinity Patterns in Estero Bay, Lee County, Florida.

Cangialosi, J., Latto, A., & Berg, R. (2018). National Hurricane Center Tropical Cyclone Report Hurricane Irma (Vol. AL112017). National Hurricane Center. Retrieved from https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL112017_Irma.pdf

Cappucci, M. (2017, November). Hurricane Irma Drained the Water from Florida’s Biggest Bays-But It Wasn’t Gone for Long. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/09/11/hurricane- irma-drained-the-water-from-floridas-largest-bays-but-it-wasnt-gone-for- long/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e88c56a0e4d6

Center, N. H. (2017). Tropical Cyclone Climatology. Retrieved from http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/

Center, N. H. (2017). Tropical Cyclone Naming History and Retired Names. Retrieved from http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutnames_history.shtml

Chamley, H. (1990). Sedimentology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

City, H. (2016). Hurricane Tracker. Retrieved from http://www.hurricanecity.com/

Collins, E. S., Scott, D. B., & Gayes, P. T. (1999). Hurricane records on the South Carolina coast: can they be detected in the sediment record? Quaternary International, 56(1), 15–26.

Coughenour, C. L., Archer, A. W., & Lacovara, K. J. (2009). Tides, tidalites, and secular changes in the Earth–Moon system. Earth-Science Reviews, 97(1–4), 59–79.

Davies, D. J., Powell, E. N., & Stanton, R. J. (1989). Taphonomic signature as a function of environmental process: shells and shell beds in a hurricane-influenced inlet on the Texas coast. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 72, 317–356. de Souza, V. L. B., Rodrigues, K. R. G., Pedroza, E. H., Melo, R. T. de, Lima, V. L. de, Hazin, C. A., … Nascimento, R. K. do. (2012). Sedimentation Rate and 210Pb Sediment Dating at Apipucos Reservoir, Recife, Brazil. Sustainability, 4(10), 2419–2429.

Dean Jr, W. E. (1974). Determination of carbonate and organic matter in calcareous sediments and sedimentary rocks by loss on ignition: comparison with other methods. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 44(1).

Delworth, T. L., & Mann, M. E. (2000). Observed and simulated multidecadal variability in the Northern Hemisphere. Climate Dynamics, 16(9), 661–676.

Diaz, H. F., & Pulwarty, R. S. (1997). Decadal climate variability, Atlantic hurricanes, and societal impacts: an overview. In Hurricanes (pp. 3–14). Springer.

Donnelly, J. P. (2005). Evidence of past intense tropical cyclones from backbarrier salt pond sediments: a case study from Isla de Culebrita, Puerto Rico, USA. Journal of Coastal Research, 201–210.

Donnelly, J. P., & Woodruff, J. D. (2007). Intense hurricane activity over the past 5,000 years controlled by El Niño and the West African monsoon. Nature, 447(7143), 465.

Donnelly, J. P., Butler, J., Roll, S., Wengren, M., & Webb, T. (2004). A backbarrier overwash record of intense storms from Brigantine, New Jersey. Marine Geology, 210(1), 107–121.

Donnelly, J. P., Roll, S., Wengren, M., Butler, J., Lederer, R., & Webb, T. (2001). Sedimentary evidence of intense hurricane strikes from New Jersey. Geology, 29(7), 615–618.

Donnelly, J. P., Webb III, T., Murnane, R., & Liu, K. (2004). Backbarrier sedimentary records of intense hurricane landfalls in the northeastern United States. Hurricanes and Typhoons: Past, Present, and Future, 55, 58–95.

Doyle, T., & Gorham, L. (1994). Detecting hurricane impact and recovery from tree rings. U.S. Department of the Interior Research Information Bulletin, (48). Retrieved from https://mrs- oneill.wikispaces.com/file/view/Tree+rings+and+hurricanes.pdf

Eby, G. N. (2004). 210Pb Dating. In K. Dodson (Ed.), Principles of Environmental Geochemistry (pp. 177–180). Pacific Grove, California: Thomson-Brooks/Cole.

Einsele, G., & Hinderer, M. (1998). Quantifying denudation and sediment–accumulation systems (open and closed lakes): basic concepts and first results. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 140(1–4), 7–21.

Elsner, J. B., & Jagger, T. H. (2006). Prediction models for annual US hurricane counts. Journal of Climate, 19(12), 2935–2952.

Elsner, J. B., & Kara, A. B. (1999). Hurricanes of the North Atlantic: Climate and society. Oxford University Press.

Elsner, J. B., Kossin, J. P., & Jagger, T. H. (2008). The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones. Nature, 455(7209), 92–95.

Emanuel, K. (2005). Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature, 436(7051), 686–688.

Emanuel, K. (2007). Environmental factors affecting tropical cyclone power dissipation. Journal of Climate, 20(22), 5497–5509.

Emanuel, K. A. (1986). An air-sea interaction theory for tropical cyclones. Part I: Steady-state maintenance. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 43(6), 585–605.

100

Emanuel, K. A. (1988). The maximum intensity of hurricanes. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 45(7), 1143–1155.

Emanuel, K., Sundararajan, R., & Williams, J. (2008). Hurricanes and global warming: Results from downscaling IPCC AR4 simulations. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(3), 347–367.

Engelkemeir, A. G., Hamill, W. H., Inghram, M. G., & Libby, W. F. (1949). The half-life of radiocarbon (C 14). Physical Review, 75(12), 1825.

Ercolani, C. (2014). Reconstructing the Prehistoric Record of Intense Hurricane Landfalls from Southwest Florida Back-Barrier Sediments. Florida Gulf Coast University. Retrieved from https://fgcu.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fgcu%3A27278

Ercolani, C., Muller, J., Collins, J., Savarese, M., & Squiccimara, L. (2015). Intense Southwest Florida hurricane landfalls over the past 1000 years. Quaternary Science Reviews, 126, 17– 25.

Fan, D., & Liu, K. (2008). Perspectives on the linkage between typhoon activity and global warming from recent research advances in paleotempestology. Chinese Science Bulletin, 53(19), 2907–2922.

Folland, C. K., Palmer, T. N., & Parker, D. E. (1986). Sahel rainfall and worldwide sea temperatures, 1901–85. Nature, 320(6063), 602–607.

Fronczkowski, N. A. (2013). The interactions of vermetid gastropod reef development and sea- level fluctuations on late Holocene coastal geomorphology and environmental evolution of the Ten Thousand Islands, Florida.

Galloway, J. P., & Starratt, S. W. (1998). Sand dunes; computer animations and paper models.

Ginsburg, R. N., & Lloyd, R. M. (1956). A Manual Piston Coring Device for Use in Shallow Water: NOTES. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 26(1).

Glantz, M. H. (2001). Currents of change: impacts of El Niño and La Niña on climate and society. Cambridge University Press.

Godwin, H. (1962). Half-life of radiocarbon. Nature, 195(4845), 984.

Goldenberg, S. B., & Shapiro, L. J. (1996). Physical mechanisms for the association of El Nino and West African rainfall with Atlantic major hurricane activity. Journal of Climate, 9(6), 1169–1187.

Goldenberg, S. B., Landsea, C. W., Mestas-Nunez, A. M., & Gray, W. M. (2001). The recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity: causes and implications. Science (New York, N.Y.), 293(5529), 474–479. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1060040 [doi]

101

Gordon, A. D. (1991). Coastal lagoon entrance dynamics. In Coastal Engineering 1990 (pp. 2880–2893).

Graham, N. E., & Barnett, T. P. (1987). Sea surface temperature, surface wind divergence, and convection over tropical oceans. Science, 238(4827), 657–659.

Gray, W. M. (1984). Atlantic seasonal hurricane frequency. Part I: El Niño and 30 mb quasi- biennial oscillation influences. Monthly Weather Review, 112(9), 1649–1668.

Gray, W. M. (1990). Strong association between west African rainfall and U.S. Landfall of intense hurricanes. Science (New York, N.Y.), 249(4974), 1251–1256. http://doi.org/249/4974/1251 [pii]

Gray, W. M., Sheaffer, J. D., & Landsea, C. W. (1997). Climate trends associated with multidecadal variability of Atlantic hurricane activity. In Hurricanes (pp. 15–53). Springer.

Hayes, M. O., & Scott, A. J. (1964). Environmental complexes South Texas coast.

Heiri, O., Lotter, A. F., & Lemcke, G. (2001). Loss on ignition as a method for estimating organic and carbonate content in sediments: reproducibility and comparability of results. Journal of Paleolimnology, 25(1), 101–110.

Hippensteel, S. P. (2011). Spatio-lateral continuity of hurricane deposits in back-barrier marshes. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 123(11–12), 2277–2294.

Hippensteel, S. P., & Martin, R. E. (1999). Foraminifera as an indicator of overwash deposits, barrier island sediment supply, and barrier island evolution: Folly Island, South Carolina. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 149(1), 115–125.

Holland, G. J. (1997). The maximum potential intensity of tropical cyclones. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 54(21), 2519–2541.

Holland, G. J., & Webster, P. J. (2006). Heightened Tropical Cyclone Activity in the North Atlantic: Natural Variability or Climate Trend? In AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts.

Hood, D. (2012). Lead-210, Cesium-137 data, Core 1410-51B. (J. Muller, Ed.). MicroAnalytica.

Hume, T. M., Oldman, J. W., & Black, K. P. (2000). Sediment facies and pathways of sand transport about a large deep-water headland, Cape Rodney, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 34(4), 695–717.

Ingargiola, J., Oliver, C., Gilpin, J., & Saifee, S. (2005). Hurricane Charley in Florida-Appendix E: The History of Hurricanes in Southwest Florida: Frequency of Hurricanes and Tropical Storms in Southwest Florida (Vol. FEMA 488). FEMA. Retrieved from http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1445-20490-6387/fema488.pdf

102

Institute, N. O. S. A. M. S. at W. H. O. (2012). General Sampling Guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.whoi.edu/nosams/page.do?pid=40144&tid=3622&cid=89411

Island, U. of R. (2015). Atmosphere. Retrieved from http://www.hurricanescience.org/science/basic/atmosphere/

Jung, K., Shavitt, S., Viswanathan, M., & Hilbe, J. M. (2014). Female hurricanes are deadlier than male hurricanes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(24), 8782–8787. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1402786111 [doi]

Kang, W.-J., & Trefry, J. H. (2003). Retrospective analysis of the impacts of major hurricanes on sediments in the lower Everglades and Florida Bay. Environmental Geology, 44(7), 771– 780.

Kaye, K. (2015). Nation’s Meanest Hurricane Devastated the Keys 80 Years Ago. Sun Sentinel. Retrieved from http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-labor-day-hurricane- anniversary-20150827-story.html

Kilbourne, K. H., Moyer, R. P., Quinn, T. M., & Grottoli, A. G. (2011). Testing coral-based tropical cyclone reconstructions: An example from Puerto Rico. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 307(1), 90–97.

Knight, J. R., Allan, R. J., Folland, C. K., Vellinga, M., & Mann, M. E. (2005). A signature of persistent natural thermohaline circulation cycles in observed climate. Geophysical Research Letters, 32(20).

Knowles, J. T., & Leitner, M. (2007). Visual representations of the spatial relationship between Bermuda High strengths and hurricane tracks. Cartographic Perspectives, (56), 37–51.

Knutson, T. R., McBride, J. L., Chan, J., Emanuel, K., Holland, G., Landsea, C., … Sugi, M. (2010). Tropical cyclones and climate change. Nature Geoscience, 3(3), 157.

Koteswaram, P. (1967). On the structure of hurricanes in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. Mo. Weather Rev, 95(8), 541–564.

Kreisa, R. D. (1981). Storm-generated sedimentary structures in subtidal marine facies with examples from the Middle and Upper Ordovician of southwestern Virginia. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 51(3).

Kvale, E. P., Cutright, J., Bilodeau, D., Archer, A., Johnson, H. R., & Pickett, B. (1995). Analysis of modern tides and implications for ancient tidalites. Continental Shelf Research, 15(15), 1921–1943.

Lancaster, N. (1994). Dune morphology and dynamics. In Geomorphology of desert environments (pp. 474–505). Springer.

103

Landsea, C. (2014). What is a “Cape Verde” hurricane? Retrieved from http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/A2.html

Landsea, C. W. (1993). A climatology of intense (or major) Atlantic hurricanes. Monthly Weather Review, 121(6), 1703–1713.

Landsea, C. W., & Franklin, J. L. (2013). Atlantic hurricane database uncertainty and presentation of a new database format. Monthly Weather Review, 141(10), 3576–3592.

Landsea, C. W., Feuer, S., Hagen, A., Glenn, D. A., Sims, J., Perez, R., … Anderson, N. (2012). A reanalysis of the 1921–30 Atlantic hurricane database. Journal of Climate, 25(3), 865– 885.

Landsea, C. W., Franklin, J. L., McAdie, C. J., Beven, J. L., Gross, J. M., Jarvinen, B. R., … Dodge, P. P. (2004). A reanalysis of Hurricane Andrew’s intensity. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 85(11), 1699–1712.

Landsea, C. W., Nicholls, N., Gray, W. M., & Avila, L. A. (1996). Downward trends in the frequency of intense at Atlantic hurricanes during the past five decades. Geophysical Research Letters, 23(13), 1697–1700.

Lane, P., Donnelly, J. P., Woodruff, J. D., & Hawkes, A. D. (2011). A decadally-resolved paleohurricane record archived in the late Holocene sediments of a Florida sinkhole. Marine Geology, 287(1), 14–30.

Leatherman, S. P., Williams, A. T., & Fisher, J. S. (1977). Overwash sedimentation associated with a large-scale northeaster. Marine Geology, 24(2), 109–121.

Leorri, E., Gehrels, W. R., Horton, B. P., Fatela, F., & Cearreta, A. (2010). Distribution of foraminifera in salt marshes along the Atlantic coast of SW Europe: Tools to reconstruct past sea-level variations. Quaternary International, 221(1), 104–115.

Liu, K. (2007). Paleotempestology. Encyclopedia of Quaternary Science. Elsevier, Oxford, 1978–1986.

Liu, K. (2010). Paleotempestology: The Science of Reconstructing Paleohurricane Activity. Retrieved from http://cabernet.atmosfcu.unam.mx/IAI- CRN/files/03_Kam_Biu_Liu_Paleotempestology.pdf

Liu, K., & Fearn, M. L. (1993). Lake-sediment record of late Holocene hurricane activities from coastal Alabama. Geology, 21(9), 793–796.

Liu, K., & Fearn, M. L. (2000). Reconstruction of prehistoric landfall frequencies of catastrophic hurricanes in northwestern Florida from lake sediment records. Quaternary Research, 54(2), 238–245.

104

Livingston, R. J. (1990). Inshore marine habitats. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, Florida, 549–573.

Malmquist, D. (1997). Oxygen isotopes in cave stalagmites as a proxy record of past tropical cyclone activity. In 22nd Conference on Hurricanes (p. 393). Retrieved from ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/Paleo/Malmquist_1997.pdf

Maloney, E. D., & Hartmann, D. L. (2000). Modulation of hurricane activity in the Gulf of Mexico by the Madden-Julian oscillation. Science (New York, N.Y.), 287(5460), 2002–2004. http://doi.org/8334 [pii]

Mann, M. E., Zhang, Z., Rutherford, S., Bradley, R. S., Hughes, M. K., Shindell, D., … Ni, F. (2009). Global signatures and dynamical origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly. Science (New York, N.Y.), 326(5957), 1256–1260. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1177303 [doi]

McDonald, W. F. (1935). The hurricane of August 31 to September 6, 1935. Mon.Wea. Rev, 63, 269–271.

McPhaden, M. J. (1993). Toga-tao and the 1991-93 El Nino-Southern Oscillation event. Oceanography, 6(2), 36–44.

Merrill, R. T. (1987). Environmental Influences on Hurricane Intensification (Tropical Cyclones, Upper Troposphere, Atlantic Ocean, Ocean Temperature.).

Miller, B. I. (1958). On the maximum intensity of hurricanes. Journal of Meteorology, 15(2), 184–195.

Milligan, T. G., & Loring, D. H. (1997). The effect of flocculation on the size distributions of bottom sediment in coastal inlets: Implications for contaminant transport. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 99(1–4), 33–42.

Moore, A. L., McAdoo, B. G., & Ruffman, A. (2007). Landward fining from multiple sources in a sand sheet deposited by the 1929 Grand Banks tsunami, Newfoundland. Sedimentary Geology, 200(3–4), 336–346.

Morton, R. A., Gelfenbaum, G., & Jaffe, B. E. (2007). Physical criteria for distinguishing sandy tsunami and storm deposits using modern examples. Sedimentary Geology, 200(3), 184– 207.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2017). How Does A Hurricane Form? Retrieved from https://scijinks.gov/hurricane/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2017). NOAA’s List of Coastal Counties for the Bureau of the Census Statistical Abstract Series. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/geo/landview/lv6help/coastal_cty.pdf

105

NCEI (2017). U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters. Retrieved from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/

Neumann, C. J., Changnon, D., Noel, J. J., & Maze, L. H. (1996). Comments on "determining cyclone frequencies using equal-area circles"/Reply. Monthly Weather Review, 124(5), 1044.

NOAA. (2017). Chart 11427. Retrieved from http://www.charts.noaa.gov/OnLineViewer/11427.shtml

NOAA. (n.d.). Bermuda High. Retrieved from https://forecast.weather.gov/glossary.php?word=Bermuda high

NOAA. (n.d.). Historical Hurricane Tracks. NOAA. Retrieved from https://coast.noaa.gov/hurricanes/

Nordhaus, W. D. (2010). The economics of hurricanes and implications of global warming. Climate Change Economics, 1(01), 1–20.

Obley, S. P., Savarese, M., & Tedesco, L. P. (2001). The influence of sea level rise on the history of estuarine environments in Southwest Florida. In 16th Biennial Conference of the Estuarine Research Federation. Abstract volume (p. 102).

Olsson, I. U. (1970). Radiocarbon variations and absolute chronology.

Parkinson, R. W. (1989). Decelerating Holocene sea-level rise and its influence on southwest Florida coastal evolution: a transgressive/regressive stratigraphy. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 59(6).

Parsons, M. L. (1998). Salt marsh sedimentary record of the landfall of Hurricane Andrew on the Louisiana coast: diatoms and other paleoindicators. Journal of Coastal Research, 939–950.

Parteli, E. J., Duran, O., Tsoar, H., Schwammle, V., & Herrmann, H. J. (2009). Dune formation under bimodal winds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(52), 22085–22089. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808646106 [doi]

Pasch, R. (1994). Hurricane Gordon Preliminary Report. National Hurricane Center. Retrieved from http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/prelim/Gordon94_prelim.html

Pasch, R. J., & Avila, L. A. (1994). Atlantic tropical systems of 1992. Monthly Weather Review, 122(3), 539–548.

Pasch, R. J., Brown, D. P., & Blake, E. S. (2005). Tropical Cyclone Report Hurricane Charley. National Hurricane Center, Miami, FL. (Last Accessed 09.02.09) In: Http://Www.Nhc.Noaa.Gov/2004charley.Shtml.

106

Pfost, R. (2010). Hurricane Donna. Miami. Retrieved from https://www.weather.gov/media/mfl/news/Donna.pdf

Pielke Jr, R. A., & Landsea, C. N. (1999). La Nina, El Nino and Atlantic hurricane damages in the united states. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 80(10), 2027.

Pielke Jr, R., & Pielke Sr, R. (1997). Hurricanes: their Nature and Impact on Society. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Retrieved from https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/b-11.pdf

Powell, T., Hanfling, D., & Gostin, L. O. (2012). Emergency preparedness and public health: the lessons of Hurricane Sandy. JAMA, 308(24), 2569–2570.

Rappaport, E. (1993). Preliminary Report (updated 2 March 1993) Hurricane Andrew, 16-28 August 1992. National Hurricane Center.

Rasmusson, E. M., & Wallace, J. M. (1983). Meteorological aspects of the El Nino/southern oscillation. Science (New York, N.Y.), 222(4629), 1195–1202. http://doi.org/222/4629/1195 [pii]

Raubenheimer, B., & Guza, R. T. (1996). Observations and predictions of run‐up. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 101(C11), 25575–25587.

Rayner, N. A., Parker, D. E., Horton, E. B., Folland, C. K., Alexander, L. V, Rowell, D. P., … Kaplan, A. (2003). Global analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice, and night marine air temperature since the late nineteenth century. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 108(D14).

Research, F. O. of E. and D. (2016). Population and Population Change for Metropolitan Statistical Areas in Florida. Retrieved from http://edr.state.fl.us/Content/population- demographics/data/MSA-2015.pdf

Richey, J. N., Poore, R. Z., Flower, B. P., & Quinn, T. M. (2007). 1400 yr multiproxy record of climate variability from the northern Gulf of Mexico. Geology, 35(5), 423–426.

Riehl, H. (1979). Climate and Weather in the Tropics. Academic Press.

Roelvink, D., Reniers, A., Van Dongeren, A. P., de Vries, J. van T., McCall, R., & Lescinski, J. (2009). Modelling storm impacts on beaches, dunes and barrier islands. Coastal Engineering, 56(11), 1133–1152.

Ropelewski, C. F., & Halpert, M. S. (1987). Global and regional scale precipitation patterns associated with the El Niño/Southern Oscillation. Monthly Weather Review, 115(8), 1606– 1626.

107

Rowlett, R. (2000). Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Intensity Scale. Retrieved from https://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/scales/saffir.html

Sallenger Jr, A. H. (2000). Storm impact scale for barrier islands. Journal of Coastal Research, 890–895.

Samenow, J. (2012, December). Moving beyond the limitations of hurricane categories and the Saffir-Simpson scale. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/moving-beyond-the- limitations-of-hurricane-categories-and-the-saffir-simpson-scale/2012/09/07/ecaf504a-f90f- 11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_blog.html

Saunders, M. A., & Lea, A. S. (2008). Large contribution of sea surface warming to recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity. Nature, 451(7178), 557–560.

Science, L. (2012). How Strong Can a Hurricane Get? Retrieved from http://www.livescience.com/32179-how-strong-can-a-hurricane-get.html

Scileppi, E., & Donnelly, J. P. (2007). Sedimentary evidence of hurricane strikes in western Long Island, New York. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 8(6).

Scoffin, T. P. (1993). The geological effects of hurricanes on coral reefs and the interpretation of storm deposits. Coral Reefs, 12(3), 203–221.

Scott, D. B., Collins, E. S., Gayes, P. T., & Wright, E. (2003). Records of prehistoric hurricanes on the South Carolina coast based on micropaleontological and sedimentological evidence, with comparison to other Atlantic Coast records. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 115(9), 1027–1039.

Segers, R. (2013). Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale. Retrieved from http://expeditieaarde.blogspot.com/2013/03/saffirsimpson-hurricane-wind-scale.html

Seilacher, A. (1982). Distinctive features of sandy tempestites. In Cyclic and event stratification (pp. 333–349). Springer.

Service, N. W. (2012). Hurricane Sandy-October 29, 2012. New York. Retrieved from http://www.weather.gov/okx/HurricaneSandy

Service, N. W. (2018). Hurricane Donna. Retrieved from https://www.weather.gov/mfl/donna

Shapiro, L. J., & Goldenberg, S. B. (1998). Atlantic sea surface temperatures and tropical cyclone formation. Journal of Climate, 11(4), 578–590.

Sheremet, A., Guza, R. T., Elgar, S., & Herbers, T. H. C. (2002). Observations of nearshore infragravity waves: Seaward and shoreward propagating components. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 107(C8).

108

Shinn, E. A., Reich, C. D., Hickey, T. D., & Lidz, B. H. (2003). Staghorn tempestites in the Florida Keys. Coral Reefs, 22(2), 91–97.

Smith III, T. J., Anderson, G. H., & Tiling, G. (2005). A tale of two storms: surges and sediment deposition from Hurricanes Andrew and Wilma in Florida’s southwest coast mangrove forests. Science and Storms: The USGS Response to the Hurricanes Of, 1, 169–174.

Smith, A. B., & Matthews, J. L. (2015). Quantifying uncertainty and variable sensitivity within the US billion-dollar weather and climate disaster cost estimates. Natural Hazards, 77(3), 1829–1851.

Smith, Q. H. T., Heap*, A. D., & Nichol, S. L. (2010). Origin and formation of an estuarine barrier island, Tapora Island, New Zealand. Journal of Coastal Research, 292–300.

Sorensen, J. H. (2000). Hazard warning systems: Review of 20 years of progress. Natural Hazards Review, 1(2), 119–125.

Spalding, M., McIvor, A., Tonneijck, F., Tol, S., & Eijk, P. van. (2014). Mangroves for coastal defence.

Stuiver, M. (1980). Workshop on 14C data reporting. Radiocarbon, 22(3), 964–966.

Stuiver, M., & Polach, H. A. (1977). Discussion reporting of 14 C data. Radiocarbon, 19(3), 355–363.

Survey, U. S. G. (2013). Lead 210 Dating. Retrieved from http://gec.cr.usgs.gov/archive/lacs/lead.htm

Survey, U. S. G. (n.d.). Pb-210 Technique. Retrieved from https://geology.cr.usgs.gov/capabilities/gronemtrac/geochron/pb210/tech.html

Tanner, W. F., Demirpolat, S., Stapor, F. W., & Alvarez, L. (1989). The Gulf of Mexico late Holocene sea level curve. Transactions of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, 39, 553–562.

Teal, J. M. (1962). Energy flow in the salt marsh ecosystem of Georgia. Ecology, 43(4), 614– 624.

Technologies, M. (2017). Low Energy Germanium Detectors (LEGe). Retrieved from http://www.canberra.com/products/detectors/germanium-detectors.asp

Tedesco, L., Savarese, M., Koy, K., & Derickson, D. (2002). Late Holocene vermetiform gastropod and oyster reef development and their relation to coastal evolution in Southwest Florida. In 2002 Denver Annual Meeting.

109

Than, K. (2005). Wilma’s Rage suggests New Hurricane Categories Needed. Live Science. Retrieved from http://www.livescience.com/426-wilma-rage-suggests-hurricane-categories- needed.html

University of Rhode Island, N. S. F. (2015). Hurricane Movement. Retrieved from http://www.hurricanescience.org/science/science/hurricanemovement/#

University, H. (2004). Sedimentary Processes. Retrieved from http://www.mcz.harvard.edu/Departments/InvertPaleo/Trenton/Intro/GeologyPage/Sedimen tary Geology/sedprocessesstructures.htm

Villarini, G., & Vecchi, G. A. (2012). North Atlantic Power Dissipation Index (PDI) and Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE): Statistical modeling and sensitivity to sea surface temperature changes. Journal of Climate, 25(2), 625–637.

Visser, P. J. (1998). Breach growth in sand-dikes. Delf University of Technology.

Wallace, D. J., Woodruff, J. D., Anderson, J. B., & Donnelly, J. P. (2014). Palaeohurricane reconstructions from sedimentary archives along the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea and western North Atlantic Ocean margins. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 388(1), 481–501.

Wang, P., & Horwitz, M. H. (2007). Erosional and depositional characteristics of regional overwash deposits caused by multiple hurricanes. Sedimentology, 54(3), 545–564.

Wanless, H. R., Tedesco, L. P., & Tyrrell, K. M. (1988). Production of subtidal tubular and surficial tempestites by hurricane Kate, Caicos Platform, British West Indies. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 58(4).

Webster, P. J., Holland, G. J., Curry, J. A., & Chang, H. R. (2005). Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment. Science (New York, N.Y.), 309(5742), 1844–1846. http://doi.org/309/5742/1844 [pii]

Whittow, J. (2000). The Penguin dictionary of physical geography. Penguin books.

Wohlpart, S. L. (2007). The development of estuarine systems in Southwest Florida: a perspective from the Late Holocene history of oyster reef development.

Wohlpart, S. L. (2007). The development of estuarine systems in Southwest Florida: a perspective from the Late Holocene history of oyster reef development. Unpublished MS Thesis. Florida Gulf Coast University.

Zhang, R., & Delworth, T. L. (2006). Impact of Atlantic multidecadal oscillations on India/Sahel rainfall and Atlantic hurricanes. Geophysical Research Letters, 33(17).

110

Appendix A: Core Log

Core Number: 1605-01 Title/Location Description: Oyster Nightmare (Site 1) Date and Time: 5/12/2016 GPS Location: 26°26.983’ N 81°51.447’ W Water Depth: 78 cm Inside Core Height: 122 cm Outside Core Height: 114.5 cm Core Length: 90 cm Compaction: 7.5 cm Uncompacted Length: 97.5 cm Site Comments: Lots of oyster shell, sandy ring around the mangroves Core Description: Gray sand from 0-20 cm Black/brown organics (wood/roots): 20-47 cm Dark black soil: 47-59 cm Sand/organic mix: 59-68 cm Light brown/orange sand: 68-90 cm Mangrove root at 9 cm Small shelly layer at 15 cm Lots of woody organics in middle of the core Small amount of wood in bottom of core

111

Core Number: 1605-02 Title/Location Description: Cold as a Witches Tit Date and Time:5/12/2016 GPS Location: 26°25.644’ N 81°51.075’ W Water Depth: 77 cm Inside Core Height: 95 cm Outside Core Height: 57 cm Core Length: 120 cm Compaction: 38 cm Uncompacted Length: 158 cm Site Comments: Cold water, some shells, mouth of a small inlet leading into the mangroves Core Description: Sand/mud mix (like Oreo ice cream) 0-38 cm Dark mud/sand mix 38-49 cm Dark sand/scattered small shells 49-89 cm Dark sand/oyster shells 89-101 cm White sand 101-111 cm Dark mud 111-120 cm

112

Core Number: 1605-03 Title/Location Description: Fish Trap Elbow (Site 3) Date and Time: 6/12/2016 GPS Location: 26°20.429’ N 81°50.400’ W Water Depth: 96 cm Inside Core Height: 125 cm Outside Core Height: 91 cm Core Length: 113 cm Compaction: 34 cm Uncompacted Length: 147 cm Site Comments: Thick mud, very well protected off the channel Core Description: Top 4-5 cm lost off top of core Dark, wet sediment, scattered shells 0-15 cm Dark, shiny mud 15-23 cm Small shells 23-34 cm (possible tempestites) Dark, shiny mud 34-47 cm Mud with slight brown coloration (root?) 47-57 cm Dark, shiny mud 57-79 cm Lighter mud/sand with scattered shells 79-106.5 cm Dark mud 106.5-113 cm

113

Core Number: 1606-04 Title/Location Description: Fishtrap Quicksand (Site 1) Date and Time: 6/29/2016 GPS Location: 26°20’33.71” N 81°50’54.73” W Water Depth: 67.4 cm Inside Core Height: 146.9 cm Outside Core Height: 79 cm Core Length: 107 cm Compaction: 67.9 cm Uncompacted Length: 174.9 cm Site Comments: Very muddy, very salty and brown water Core Description: Black watery mud 0-39.5 cm Brown mud 39.5-57 cm Black mud 57-68 cm Light mud 68-84 cm Small shell layer 84-87.5 cm (possible tempestite) Sand 87.5-105 cm Dark Sand 105-107 cm

114

Core Number: 1606-06 Title/Location Description: Lover’s Key Boat Ramp (Site 3) Date and Time: 6/29/2016 GPS Location: 26°23’29.97” N 81°51’55.62” W Water Depth: 62 cm Inside Core Height: 132 cm Outside Core Height: 81 cm Core Length: 75 cm Compaction: 51 cm Uncompacted Length: 126 cm Site Comments: Shallow, slightly sandy Clear water, small amount of water movement Core Description: Darker peat 0-20 cm Darker sand 20-75 cm

115

Core Number: 1606-07 Title/Location Description: Mound Key Entrance (Site 1) Date and Time: 7/8/2016 GPS Location: 26°25.417’ N 81°52.003’ W Water Depth: 67.8 cm Inside Core Height: 69 cm Outside Core Height: 22.1 cm Core Length: 125.5 cm Compaction: 46.9 cm Uncompacted Length: 172.4 cm Site Comments: Shallow, murky, calm water, shelly substrate Core Description: Brown mud 0-46 cm Shell layer 46-51.5 cm (possible tempestite) Gray mud 51.5-110 cm Oyster shells and mud 110-125.5 cm

116

Core Number: 1607-08 Title/Location Description: Hot Water! Date and Time: 7/8/2016 GPS Location: 26°25.331’ N 81°52.522’ W Water Depth: 74.4 cm Inside Core Height: 110.2 cm Outside Core Height: 33 cm Core Length: 88 cm Compaction: 77.2 cm Uncompacted Length: 165.2 cm Site Comments: Hot, murky, muddy, and calm Core Description: Mud 0-35 cm Small shell layer 35-38 cm (possible tempestite) Gray mud 38-47 cm Shell and mud layer 47-61 cm Gray mud 61-88 cm

117

Core Number: 1607-09 Title/Location Description: Big Fish (Site 3) Date: 7/8/16 GPS Location: 26°24.875’ N 81°52.240’ W Water Depth: 59.8 cm Inside Core Height: 127.4 cm Outside Core Height: 44.1 cm Core Length: 231 cm Compaction: 83.3 cm Uncompacted Length: 314.3 cm Site Comments: Shallow, muddy Core Description: Watery mud 0-17 cm Few large shells, few small broken shells 17-22.5 cm Mud 22.5-28 cm Mud/small broken shells 28-31 cm Mud 31-39 cm Muddy sand/small broken shells 39-46 cm Mud/sand striations/mangrove roots 46-82 cm Small broken shells 82-90 cm Mud/scattered small shells 90-113 cm Broken shells 113-118 cm Gray mud/scattered small shells 118-130 cm Broken shells 130-140 cm Gray mud/scattered shells 140-200 cm Gray mud 200-231 cm

118

Core Number: 1701-11 Title/Location Description: Boaty McBoatFace Maiden Voyage Date and Time: 1/11/2017 GPS Location: 26°19’52.01” N 81°50’15.62” W Water Depth: N/A Inside Core Height: N/A Outside Core Height: N/A Core Length: 98 cm Compaction: N/A Uncompacted Length: N/A Site Comments: Sandy at the surface, may be dredged Core Description: Gray sand 0-9 cm Shell layer 9-17.5 cm Dark (almost black) layer 17.5-19 cm Muddy sand 19-27 cm Shelly sand 27-42 cm Sand/small shells 42-60 cm Oysters/mud 60-82 cm Oysters/small shells/sand 82-98 cm

119

Core Number: 1703-12 Title/Location Description: Tiny Ctenophore Date: 3/9/17 GPS Location: 26°22.710’ N 81°50.71’ W Water Depth: 84 cm Inside Core Height: 107 cm Outside Core Height: 83.5 cm Core Length: 76 cm Compaction: 23.5 cm Uncompacted Length: 99.5 cm Site Comments: Small bay off very well protected larger bay and protected river Core Description: Organic mud: 0-9 cm Broken shell layer 9-13 cm Mud/mangrove roots 13-37 cm Dark sand/plant material 37-59 cm Dark sand 59-76 cm

120

Core Number: 1703-13 Title/Location Description: Stingray Shuffle Date and Time: 3/9/17 GPS Location: 26°22.607’ N 81°49.971’ W Water Depth: 72 cm Inside Core Height: 116 cm Outside Core Height: 39.5 cm Core Length: 115 cm Compaction: 76.5 cm Uncompacted Length: 191.5 cm Site Comments: Core top was silty Core Description: Silt 0-12 cm Sand 12-18 cm Shells 18-24 cm Muddy sand 24-28 cm Mud 28-42 cm Small shell hash 42-45 cm Large shells 45-48 cm Silt/shell hash 48-53 cm Small shell hash 53-54.5 cm Muddy sand 54.5-62 cm Shell hash 62-66 cm Muddy sand 66-81 cm Sand 81-94 cm Organic mud 94-102 cm Sand 102-110 cm Organic silt 110-115 cm

121

Core Number: 1703-14 Title/Location Description: Rusty Fish Hook (Site 3) Date: 3/9/17 GPS Location: 26°20’50.87” N 81°50’33.10” W Water Depth: 110.5 cm Inside Core Height: 107.3 cm Outside Core Height: 67.2 cm Core Length: 148 cm Compaction: 40.1 cm Uncompacted Length: 188.1 cm Site Comments: Patchy oysters Core Description: Watery mud 1-5 cm Large shell/watery mud 5-11 cm Small broken shells 11-18 cm Mud 18-22 cm Small broken shells 22-29 cm Small broken shells/mud 29-34 cm Mud 34-43 cm (sand stripe at 38 cm) Small broken shells/gray sand 43-57 cm Mud/broken shells 57-148 cm

122

Core Number: 1704-15 Title/Site: Stingray Shuffle Part Deux: Electric Boogaloo (Site 1) Date: 4/28/17 GPS Location: 26°22.588’ N 81°49.958’ W Water Depth: 85 cm Inside Core Height: 147 cm Outside Core Height: 102 cm Core Length: 116 cm Compaction: 45 cm Uncompacted Length: 161 cm Site Comments: Same as 1703-13 Core Description: Organics 0-5 cm Sandy mud/small shells 5-10 cm Organic mud 10-14 cm Sand/large shell 14-18 cm Organic mud/large shell 18-23 cm Small broken shells 23-26 cm Mud 26-32 cm Small broken shells 32-34 cm Mangrove root 34-37 cm Mud 37-40 cm Small broken shells 40-41 cm Mud 41-51 cm Small white broken shells 51-52 cm Mud/sand 52-64 cm Sandy mud 64-75 cm Organic mud 75-82.5 cm Sand 82-100 cm Mangrove root 100-101 cm Muddy sand 101-106 cm Sand 106-116 cm

123

Core Number: 1704-16 Title/Location Description: Long Shaft (Site 2) Date: 4/28/17 GPS Location: 26°22.609’ N 81°49.962’ W Water Depth: 89 cm Inside Core Height: 154 cm Outside Core Height: 83 cm Core Length: 115 cm Compaction: 71 cm Uncompacted Length: 186 cm Site Comments: Same as 1703-13 Core Description: Organic mud 0-2 cm Mud/sand 2-6 cm Sand 6-11 cm Broken shells 11-16 cm Mud 16-20 cm Small broken shells 20-24.5 cm Shells/mud 24.5-31 cm Mud/broken shells 31-45 cm Broken shells 45-50 cm Mud/broken shells 50-66 cm Organic peat 66-71 cm Mud/sand striations 71-96 cm Organic mud 96-100 cm Mud dominated sand 100-105 cm Sand dominated mud 105-110 cm Mud/sand striations 110-115 cm

124

Core Number: 1705-17 Title/Location Description: Drab Little Crab (Site 1) Date: 5/26/17 GPS Location: 26°22.611’ N 81°49.962’ W Water Depth: 86.5 cm Inside Core Height: 99 cm Outside Core Height: 36 cm Core Length: 114 cm Compaction: 63 cm Uncompacted Length: 177 cm Site Comments: Same as 1703-13 Core Description: Mud 0-15 cm Sand 15-19.5 cm Broken shells 19.5-30 cm Mud 30-45 cm Small broken shells 45-50 cm Mud/small broken shells 50-54 Small broken shells/large shell 54-59 Striated mud 59-114 cm

125

Core Number: 1707-19 Title/Location Description: Reading Rainbow (Site 1) Date: 7/6/17 GPS Location: 26°25’1.05”N 81°50’35.04”W Water Depth: 85 cm Inside Core Height: 106 cm Outside Core Height: 68 cm Core Length: 91 cm Compaction: 38 cm Uncompacted Length: 129 cm Site Comments: Offshoot of a U-shaped inlet, surrounded by mangroves Core Description: Organic mud 0-7 cm Sand 7-12 cm Shells/sand 12-21 cm Mud/shells 21-24 cm Mud 24-40 cm Sand/mud/water 40-91 cm

126

Core Number: 1707-20 Title/Location Description: A Whole New Core (Site 2) Date: 7/6/17 GPS Location: 36°24’59.90”N 81°50’34.73”W Water Depth: 85 cm Inside Core Height: 169 cm Outside Core Height: 85 cm Core Length: 110 cm Compaction: 84 cm Uncompacted Length: 194 cm Site Comments: Offshoot from a U-shaped inlet Core Description: Organic mud 0-10 cm Broken shells 10-17 cm Sandy mud 17-20 cm Broken shells 20-22 cm Sandy mud 22-28 cm Broken shells 28-30 cm Sandy mud 30-31 cm Broken shells 31-42 cm Mud/mangrove roots 42-60 cm Mud/mangrove roots/sand 60-73 cm Mud/sand striations 73-100 cm Sand 100-110 cm

127

Core Number: 1707-21 Title/Location Description: Manatee Love Shack (Site 3) Date: 7/6/16 GPS Location: 26°24.922’ N 81°50.613’ W Water Depth: 113 cm Inside Core Height: 138 cm Outside Core Height: 113 cm Core Length: 96.5 cm Compaction: 25 cm Uncompacted Length: 121.5 cm Site Comments: Small open bay off a U-shaped inlet Core Description: Organic mud/mangrove roots 0-6 cm Sand 6-9 cm Shells 9-20 cm Mud 20-40 cm Mud/sand striations 40-89 cm Sand 89-96 cm

128

Core Number: 1708-22 Title/Location Description: There’s Probably a Redfish in Here (Site 1) Date: 8/2/17 GPS Location: 26°22.612’ N 81°49.974’ W Water Depth: 116 cm Inside Core Height: 47 cm Outside Core Height: 16 cm Core Length: 60 cm Compaction: 31 cm Uncompacted Length: 91 cm Site Comments: Soft, crunchy, soft. Short core for Pb210 dating Core Description: Organic mud 0-7 cm Sand 7-16 cm Broken shells 16-20 cm Mud/sand/mangrove root 20-35 cm Broken shells 35-43 cm Mud 43-47 cm Broken shell 47-51 cm Mud 51-54 cm Broken shell 54-60 cm

129

Core Number: 1708-23 Title/Location Description: What’s Brown and Sticky? (Site 2) Date: 8/2/17 GPS Location: 26°24.987’ N 81°50.591’ W Water Depth: 96 cm Inside Core Height: 88 cm Outside Core Height: 54 cm Core Length: 94 cm Compaction: 34 cm Uncompacted Length: 128 cm Site Comments: N/A Core Description: Dark organic mud 0-4 cm Mud 4-11 cm Broken shells 11-25 cm Mud/sand layer 25-27 cm Broken shells 27-31 cm Mud/scattered shells 31-41 cm Peat 41-51.5 cm Peat/sand striations 51.5-65 cm Mud/sand striations 65-95.5 cm

130

Core Number: 1708-24 Title/Location Description: Organicier (Site 3) Date: 8/2/17 GPS Location: 26°24.987’ N 81°50.591’ W Water Depth: 96 cm Inside Core Height: 141 cm Outside Core Height: 115 cm Core Length: 94 cm Compaction: 26 cm Uncompacted Length: 120 cm Site Comments: N/A Core Description: Watery organic silt 0-5 cm Mud 5-16 cm Sand/broken shells 16-21 cm Broken shells 21-24 cm Mud 24-25 cm Mud/scattered shells 25-32 cm Peat 32-54 cm Peat/sand striations 54-77 cm Sand with mud striations 77-90 cm

Mud/sand striations 90-94 cm

131

Core Number: 1708-25 Title/Location Description: Red Leaf (That Floated Away) (Site 4) Date: 8/2/17 GPS Location: 26°24.987’ N 81°50.591’ W Water Depth: 96 cm Inside Core Height: 56 cm Outside Core Height: 35 cm Core Length: 81 cm Compaction: 21 cm Uncompacted Length: 102 cm Site Comments: Lost about 2 cm off top. Short core for Pb210 dating. Core Description: Mud 0-7 cm Broken shells 7-13 cm Mud 13-19 cm Broken shells 19-23 cm Mud/sand striations 23-33 cm Peat 33-50 cm Mud/sand striations 50-81 cm

132

Core Number: 1710-26 Title/Location Description: These Houses Got Smacked (by Irma) Date: 10/6/17 GPS Location: 26°22.607’ N 81°49.971’ W Water Depth: 100 cm Inside Core Height: 61 cm Outside Core Height: 52 cm Core Length: 42 cm Compaction: 9 cm Uncompacted Length: 51 cm Site Comments: Squishy surface, crunchy below surface Core Description: Mud 0-2 cm Sand 2-10 cm Broken Shells 10-14 cm Mud 14-20 cm Broken Shells 20-24 cm Sand 24-32 cm Mud/Large Shell 32-37 cm Broken Shells 37-42 cm

133

Core Number: 1801-29 Title/Location Description: Doorbells Date: 1/18/18 GPS Location: 26°25.01’ N 81°50.58’ W Water Depth: 55 cm Inside Core Height: 44 cm Outside Core Height: 27 cm Core Length: 67 cm Compaction: 17 cm Uncompacted Length: 84 cm Site Comments: N/A Core Description: Mud 0-10 cm Sand/Scattered Broken Shells 10-17.5 cm Mud 17.5-20 cm Mud/Sand Striations 29-67 cm

134

Core Number: 1801-30 Title/Location Description: Headlights Date: 1/18/18 GPS Location: 26°25.02’ N 81°50.58’ W Water Depth: 55 cm Inside Core Height: 43 cm Outside Core Height: 27 cm Core Length: 76 cm Compaction: 16 cm Uncompacted Length: 92 cm Site Comments: Core Description: Mud 0-2 cm Sandy Mud 2-7 cm Sand/Broken Shells 7-11 cm Mud/Few Shells 11-19 cm Broken Shells 19-25 cm Mud/Scattered Shells 25-29 cm Peat 29-31 cm Sand/Mud Striations 31-76 cm

135

Core Number: 1801-31 Title/Location Description: Shrinkage Date: 1/18/18 GPS Location: 26°24.99’ N 81°50.58’ W Water Depth: 56 cm Inside Core Height: 50 cm Outside Core Height: 98 cm Core Length: 78 cm Compaction: 48 cm Uncompacted Length: 126 cm Site Comments: N/A Core Description: Mud 0-8 cm Mud/Sand 8-11 cm Sand/Broken Shells 11-20.5 cm Mud/Scattered Shells 20.5-32 cm Mud/Sand Striations 32-78 cm

136

Core Number: 1803-32 Title/Location Description: Bolbi Date: 3/21/18 GPS Location: 26°24.6’ N 81°51.00’ W Water Depth: 102 cm Inside Core Height: 90 cm Outside Core Height: 71 cm Core Length: 56 cm Compaction: 19 cm Uncompacted Length: 75 cm Site Comments: N/A Core Description: Mud 0-10 cm Mud/Shell Hash 10-17 cm Mud/Scattered Shells 17-55 cm

137

Core Number: 1803-33 Title/Location Description: Banana Bay Tar Company Date: 3/21/18 GPS Location: 26°25.42’ N 81°52.00’ W Water Depth: 100 cm Inside Core Height: 90 cm Outside Core Height: 82 cm Core Length: 100 cm Compaction: 8 cm Uncompacted Length: 108 cm Site Comments: Top is very watery, shelly substrate is true surface Core Description: Mud/Mangrove Roots 0-30 cm Mud/Scattered shells 30-100 cm

138

Core Number: 1803-34 Title/Location Description: Pants are Optional Date: 3/21/18 GPS Location: 26°21.90’ N 81°51.75’ W Water Depth: 77 cm Inside Core Height: 69 cm Outside Core Height: 55 cm Core Length: 78 cm Compaction: 14 cm Uncompacted Length: 92 cm Site Comments: Taken Immediately behind dunes in lagoon Core Description: Sand (IRMA) 0-3.5 cm Mud 3.5-42 cm Mud/Sand Striations 42-73 cm Shells 73-75 cm Mud/Sand Striations 75-78 cm

139

Appendix B: Pertinent Data Table B.1: Pertinent data for core 1703-13 Depth Uncompacted Depth Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size Sedimentation Sample (cm) (cm) Age (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) >2 mm Rate (cm/yr) 1 0.5 0.83 0.17 27.85 93.19 0.17 N/A 2 1.5 2.50 3.20 28.20 92.46 0.03 0.55 3 2.5 4.16 5.71 25.51 94.65 0.03 0.66 4 3.5 5.83 8.00 23.44 95.60 0.01 0.73 5 4.5 7.49 10.43 22.20 95.47 0.03 0.69 6 5.5 9.16 12.83 25.18 94.82 0.02 0.70 7 6.5 10.82 15.15 24.86 94.93 0.62 0.72 8 7.5 12.49 16.94 21.66 96.40 0.02 0.93 9 8.5 14.15 19.11 22.45 96.33 0.07 0.77 10 9.5 15.82 21.53 23.60 95.79 0.05 0.69 11 10.5 17.48 24.54 23.88 95.52 0.02 0.55 12 11.5 19.15 27.59 24.51 95.07 0.04 0.55 13 12.5 20.82 31.10 25.04 94.99 0.03 0.48 14 13.5 22.48 34.61 20.05 96.82 0.07 0.47 15 14.5 24.15 37.59 22.01 96.33 0.12 0.56 16 15.5 25.81 39.94 24.97 95.15 0.00 0.71 17 16.5 27.48 41.93 21.10 97.53 0.01 0.84 18 17.5 29.14 43.45 18.65 98.21 0.02 1.10 19 18.5 30.81 44.55 18.26 97.99 0.67 1.51 20 19.5 32.47 46.16 17.31 97.77 11.72 1.03 21 20.5 34.14 49.02 15.60 98.03 23.47 0.58 22 21.5 35.80 52.82 16.89 97.24 21.69 0.44 23 22.5 37.47 56.93 15.86 97.43 24.27 0.41 24 23.5 39.13 61.57 18.98 97.09 14.80 0.36 25 24.5 40.80 68.66 22.67 96.14 4.85 0.23

140

26 25.5 42.46 74.23 20.27 96.87 10.57 0.30 Depth Uncompacted Depth Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size Sedimentation Sample (cm) (cm) Age (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) >2 mm Rate (cm/yr) 27 26.5 44.13 81.83 20.69 97.50 0.88 0.22 28 27.5 45.79 89.17 20.09 98.20 1.09 0.23 29 28.5 47.46 98.10 20.46 97.90 0.01 0.19 30 29.5 49.12 108.62 21.74 97.58 0.01 0.16 31 30.5 50.79 123.12 22.14 97.43 0.04 0.11 32 31.5 52.45 137.29 23.83 96.56 0.03 0.12 33 32.5 54.12 155.43 21.45 96.40 3.02 0.09 34 33.5 55.78 184.33 21.88 95.85 0.04 0.06 35 34.5 57.45 233.39 22.64 94.87 0.03 0.03 36 35.5 59.12 324.63 22.52 89.61 0.04 0.02 37 36.5 60.78 415.87 22.45 96.08 0.30 0.02 38 37.5 62.45 507.12 23.40 95.37 0.41 0.02 39 38.5 64.11 598.36 19.85 96.85 5.06 0.02 40 39.5 65.78 689.60 19.74 96.77 1.22 0.02 41 40.5 67.44 780.85 16.83 96.23 20.94 0.02 42 41.5 69.11 872.09 19.49 96.54 4.91 0.02 43 42.5 70.77 963.33 20.08 97.09 10.98 0.02 44 43.5 72.44 1054.57 19.95 96.56 9.78 0.02 45 44.5 74.10 1145.82 18.43 97.51 6.74 0.02 46 45.5 75.77 1237.06 20.78 96.62 4.28 0.02 47 46.5 77.43 1328.30 21.03 96.99 3.73 0.02 48 47.5 79.10 1419.54 21.05 96.75 2.75 0.02 49 48.5 80.76 1510.79 20.16 97.41 2.63 0.02 50 49.5 82.43 1602.03 21.72 96.89 12.53 0.02 51 50.5 84.09 1693.27 21.17 95.92 6.08 0.02 52 51.5 85.76 1784.51 20.52 96.21 7.07 0.02 53 52.5 87.42 1875.76 20.57 95.92 9.39 0.02

141

Depth Uncompacted Depth Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size Sedimentation Sample (cm) (cm) Age (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) >2 mm Rate (cm/yr) 54 53.5 89.09 1967.00 21.73 93.89 13.81 0.02 55 54.5 90.75 1988.33 24.04 94.54 4.37 0.08 56 55.5 92.42 2009.67 23.27 93.77 1.61 0.08 57 56.5 94.08 2031.00 21.62 96.35 0.69 0.08 58 57.5 95.75 2052.33 21.36 94.91 2.59 0.08 59 58.5 97.42 2073.67 21.22 94.62 4.12 0.08 60 59.5 99.08 2095.00 18.56 96.33 11.22 0.08 61 60.5 100.75 2116.33 18.21 97.40 14.07 0.08 62 61.5 102.41 2137.67 18.58 97.49 8.12 0.08 63 62.5 104.08 2159.00 17.68 97.36 18.19 0.08 64 63.5 105.74 2180.33 17.92 98.26 11.46 0.08 65 64.5 107.41 2201.67 19.57 98.24 7.62 0.08 66 65.5 109.07 2223.00 18.21 98.64 2.52 0.08 67 66.5 110.74 2244.33 19.39 98.48 1.30 0.08 68 67.5 112.40 2265.67 18.72 98.28 0.80 0.08 69 68.5 114.07 2287.00 21.55 97.64 1.50 0.08 70 69.5 115.73 2308.33 20.20 98.24 0.26 0.08 71 70.5 117.40 2329.67 19.41 98.31 1.25 0.08 72 71.5 119.06 2351.00 20.89 97.83 2.01 0.08 73 72.5 120.73 2372.33 19.11 98.47 1.85 0.08 74 73.5 122.39 2393.67 20.57 97.96 0.28 0.08 75 74.5 124.06 2415.00 23.44 97.29 0.23 0.08 76 75.5 125.72 2436.33 23.45 97.32 0.01 0.08 77 76.5 127.39 2457.67 19.85 98.15 0.05 0.08 78 77.5 129.05 2479.00 20.47 98.30 0.01 0.08 79 78.5 130.72 2500.33 24.39 97.07 1.95 0.08 80 79.5 132.38 2521.67 23.01 97.31 0.31 0.08

142

Depth Uncompacted Depth Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size Sedimentation Sample (cm) (cm) Age (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) >2 mm Rate (cm/yr) 81 80.5 134.05 2543.00 21.02 98.07 0.53 0.08 82 81.5 135.72 2564.33 20.67 98.15 0.04 0.08 83 82.5 137.38 2585.67 19.98 98.37 0.15 0.08 84 83.5 139.05 2607.00 20.48 98.32 0.16 0.08 85 84.5 140.71 2628.33 18.05 98.72 0.48 0.08 86 85.5 142.38 2649.67 24.49 96.71 0.48 0.08 87 86.5 144.04 2671.00 28.47 95.28 0.09 0.08 88 87.5 145.71 2692.33 18.15 98.17 0.04 0.08 89 88.5 147.37 2713.67 20.11 97.68 0.00 0.08 90 89.5 149.04 2735.00 21.22 97.47 0.00 0.08 91 90.5 150.70 2756.33 20.88 97.88 0.02 0.08 92 91.5 152.37 2777.67 19.98 97.89 0.07 0.08 93 92.5 154.03 2799.00 17.77 98.19 0.00 0.08 94 93.5 155.70 2820.33 18.97 98.05 0.04 0.08 95 94.5 157.36 2841.67 21.33 97.37 0.03 0.08 96 95.5 159.03 2863.00 47.94 80.53 0.10 0.08 97 96.5 160.69 2881.44 64.56 55.45 0.02 0.09 98 97.5 162.36 2899.88 49.46 82.39 0.17 0.09 99 98.5 164.02 2918.31 43.16 87.77 0.04 0.09 100 99.5 165.69 2936.75 42.06 88.22 0.40 0.09 101 100.5 167.35 2955.19 53.79 79.72 0.36 0.09 102 101.5 169.02 2973.63 46.13 85.77 0.03 0.09 103 102.5 170.68 2992.06 33.74 92.28 0.34 0.09 104 103.5 172.35 3010.50 25.33 96.05 0.55 0.09 105 104.5 174.02 3028.94 24.01 96.89 0.06 0.09 106 105.5 175.68 3047.38 22.18 97.37 0.11 0.09 107 106.5 177.35 3065.81 21.39 97.61 0.00 0.09

143

Depth Uncompacted Depth Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size Sedimentation Sample (cm) (cm) Age (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) >2 mm Rate (cm/yr) 108 107.5 179.01 3084.25 22.33 97.53 0.02 0.09 109 108.5 180.68 3102.69 22.38 97.47 0.00 0.09 110 109.5 182.34 3121.13 21.56 97.80 0.07 0.09 111 110.5 184.01 3139.56 27.39 94.57 0.01 0.09 112 111.5 185.67 3158.00 51.95 72.63 0.02 0.09 113 112.5 187.34 3176.44 56.82 73.48 0.05 0.09 114 113.5 189.00 3194.88 57.06 72.35 0.04 0.09 115 114.5 190.67 3213.31 55.80 74.98 0.51 0.09

144

Table B.2: Pertinent data for core 1704-16 Depth Uncompacted Age Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size Sedimentation Rate Sample (cm) Depth (cm) (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) >2 mm (cm/yr) 1 0.5 0.81 0.17 14.16 93.07 0.24 N/A 2 1.5 2.43 3.20 13.46 93.72 0.03 0.53 3 2.5 4.04 5.71 11.95 91.12 0.17 0.64 4 3.5 5.66 8.00 12.24 92.53 0.02 0.70 5 4.5 7.28 10.43 13.29 93.14 0.33 0.67 6 5.5 8.90 12.83 11.77 93.76 0.03 0.68 7 6.5 10.51 15.15 11.52 96.54 0.11 0.70 8 7.5 12.13 16.94 11.56 95.99 0.04 0.90 9 8.5 13.75 19.11 11.32 96.19 0.59 0.74 10 9.5 15.37 21.53 9.84 96.83 9.69 0.67 11 10.5 16.98 24.54 11.35 95.49 18.60 0.54 12 11.5 18.60 27.59 11.96 95.51 16.63 0.53 13 12.5 20.22 31.10 10.61 92.41 24.62 0.46 14 13.5 21.83 34.61 13.37 94.98 29.69 0.46 15 14.5 23.45 37.59 12.95 95.16 23.05 0.54 16 15.5 25.07 39.94 14.79 93.97 4.46 0.69 17 16.5 26.69 41.93 18.12 87.78 0.21 0.81 18 17.5 28.30 43.45 14.44 85.00 1.78 1.06 19 18.5 29.92 44.55 17.04 92.06 2.88 1.46 20 19.5 31.54 46.16 15.82 93.19 14.13 1.00 21 20.5 33.16 49.02 16.01 94.64 15.37 0.57 22 21.5 34.77 52.82 15.04 95.08 26.36 0.43 23 22.5 36.39 56.93 16.49 93.66 14.94 0.39 24 23.5 38.01 61.57 15.64 90.88 10.69 0.35 25 24.5 39.63 68.66 17.68 91.36 3.98 0.23 26 25.5 41.24 74.23 18.44 93.59 0.24 0.29 27 26.5 42.86 81.83 17.35 90.96 3.20 0.21 28 27.5 44.48 89.17 17.01 92.94 11.20 0.22

145

Depth Uncompacted Age Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size Sedimentation Rate Sample (cm) Depth (cm) (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) >2 mm (cm/yr) 29 28.5 46.10 98.10 17.05 88.96 4.34 0.18 30 29.5 47.71 108.62 16.44 90.21 4.91 0.15 31 30.5 49.33 123.12 17.09 93.39 1.30 0.11 32 31.5 50.95 137.29 16.25 90.23 0.37 0.11 33 32.5 52.57 155.43 17.81 92.12 3.96 0.09 34 33.5 54.18 184.33 17.32 91.45 0.16 0.06 35 34.5 55.80 233.39 17.97 93.69 5.55 0.03 36 35.5 57.42 324.63 15.66 95.03 8.02 0.02 37 36.5 59.03 415.87 17.13 93.20 6.57 0.02 38 37.5 60.65 507.12 17.62 91.90 4.63 0.02 39 38.5 62.27 598.36 17.66 92.90 1.70 0.02 40 39.5 63.89 689.60 17.01 93.32 7.14 0.02 41 40.5 65.50 780.85 14.16 88.97 1.77 0.02 42 41.5 67.12 872.09 14.82 88.52 4.44 0.02 43 42.5 68.74 963.33 15.40 90.90 11.60 0.02 44 43.5 70.36 1054.57 14.09 90.55 7.19 0.02 45 44.5 71.97 1145.82 14.99 90.12 6.15 0.02 46 45.5 73.59 1237.06 14.22 87.42 2.71 0.02 47 46.5 75.21 1328.30 15.91 89.97 7.95 0.02 48 47.5 76.83 1419.54 17.67 84.02 5.08 0.02 49 48.5 78.44 1510.79 15.78 74.11 1.73 0.02 50 49.5 80.06 1602.03 16.80 87.84 3.55 0.02 51 50.5 81.68 1693.27 15.32 87.99 0.71 0.02 52 51.5 83.30 1784.51 15.08 87.33 1.81 0.02 53 52.5 84.91 1875.76 13.22 88.35 0.49 0.02 54 53.5 86.53 1967.00 13.35 88.43 1.69 0.02 55 54.5 88.15 1989.69 13.89 89.30 5.07 0.07 56 55.5 89.77 2012.38 13.12 90.00 11.84 0.07 57 56.5 91.38 2035.07 14.63 87.69 16.82 0.07

146

Depth Uncompacted Age Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size Sedimentation Rate Sample (cm) Depth (cm) (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) >2 mm (cm/yr) 58 57.5 93.00 2057.76 14.74 88.56 13.81 0.07 59 58.5 94.62 2080.45 15.58 86.61 9.76 0.07 60 59.5 96.23 2103.14 14.05 89.88 5.01 0.07 61 60.5 97.85 2125.83 12.15 87.99 3.32 0.07 62 61.5 99.47 2148.52 12.47 88.41 6.02 0.07 63 62.5 101.09 2171.21 12.95 88.21 1.40 0.07 64 63.5 102.70 2193.90 14.79 88.24 0.72 0.07 65 64.5 104.32 2216.60 14.70 86.51 3.83 0.07 66 65.5 105.94 2239.29 17.52 77.93 0.02 0.07 67 66.5 107.56 2261.98 20.48 62.68 0.08 0.07 68 67.5 109.17 2284.67 19.95 63.46 0.88 0.07 69 68.5 110.79 2307.36 16.68 85.95 0.08 0.07 70 69.5 112.41 2330.05 12.74 87.86 0.03 0.07 71 70.5 114.03 2352.74 17.87 95.23 0.03 0.07 72 71.5 115.64 2375.43 19.06 94.61 0.03 0.07 73 72.5 117.26 2398.12 19.08 94.97 0.05 0.07 74 73.5 118.88 2420.81 17.49 95.04 0.02 0.07 75 74.5 120.50 2443.50 17.21 95.54 0.02 0.07 76 75.5 122.11 2466.19 18.63 94.85 0.02 0.07 77 76.5 123.73 2488.88 17.43 95.44 0.04 0.07 78 77.5 125.35 2511.57 18.74 94.95 0.08 0.07 79 78.5 126.97 2534.26 17.89 95.19 0.08 0.07 80 79.5 128.58 2556.95 16.99 95.74 0.03 0.07 81 80.5 130.20 2579.64 18.34 95.03 0.02 0.07 82 81.5 131.82 2602.33 20.02 94.35 0.01 0.07 83 82.5 133.43 2625.02 18.01 95.07 0.01 0.07 84 83.5 135.05 2647.71 18.37 95.04 0.01 0.07 85 84.5 136.67 2670.40 18.59 95.06 0.03 0.07 86 85.5 138.29 2693.10 18.72 94.71 0.04 0.07

147

Depth Uncompacted Age Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size Sedimentation Rate Sample (cm) Depth (cm) (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) >2 mm (cm/yr) 87 86.5 139.90 2715.79 16.79 94.01 0.03 0.07 88 87.5 141.52 2738.48 17.63 95.59 0.02 0.07 89 88.5 143.14 2761.17 12.71 91.00 0.02 0.07 90 89.5 144.76 2783.86 21.60 93.06 0.03 0.07 91 90.5 146.37 2806.55 16.86 95.70 0.01 0.07 92 91.5 147.99 2829.24 21.29 93.61 0.01 0.07 93 92.5 149.61 2851.93 20.86 87.61 0.04 0.07 94 93.5 151.23 2874.62 22.57 92.82 0.05 0.07 95 94.5 152.84 2897.31 28.71 57.02 0.10 0.07 96 95.5 154.46 2920.00 19.69 52.02 0.06 0.07 97 96.5 156.08 2934.88 30.74 85.01 0.03 0.11 98 97.5 157.70 2949.75 18.81 85.53 0.83 0.11 99 98.5 159.31 2964.63 23.11 93.33 0.06 0.11 100 99.5 160.93 2979.50 25.03 91.89 0.81 0.11 101 100.5 162.55 2994.38 20.16 94.38 0.04 0.11 102 101.5 164.17 3009.25 10.99 88.65 0.02 0.11 103 102.5 165.78 3024.13 11.35 88.06 0.02 0.11 104 103.5 167.40 3039.00 15.99 96.60 0.02 0.11 105 104.5 169.02 3053.88 13.01 93.03 0.02 0.11 106 105.5 170.63 3068.75 16.14 96.84 0.02 0.11 107 106.5 172.25 3083.63 17.13 96.50 0.02 0.11 108 107.5 173.87 3098.50 18.52 95.86 0.02 0.11 109 108.5 175.49 3113.38 20.67 94.53 0.05 0.11 110 109.5 177.10 3128.25 19.30 95.18 0.02 0.11 111 110.5 178.72 3143.13 19.23 95.41 0.20 0.11 112 111.5 180.34 3158.00 16.69 96.51 0.07 0.11 113 112.5 181.96 3172.88 17.66 96.14 0.45 0.11 114 113.5 183.57 3187.75 17.33 96.35 0.01 0.11 115 114.5 185.19 3202.63 16.04 96.29 0.02 0.11

148

Table B.3: Pertinent data for core 1705-17 Depth Uncompacted Age Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size Sedimentation Rate Sample (cm) Depth (cm) (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) >2 mm (cm/yr) 1 0.5 0.78 0.17 37.66 89.01 1.38 N/A 2 1.5 2.33 3.20 38.24 84.64 0.04 0.51 3 2.5 3.88 5.71 36.33 80.50 0.04 0.62 4 3.5 5.43 8.00 36.04 85.41 0.04 0.68 5 4.5 6.99 10.43 29.18 91.76 0.07 0.64 6 5.5 8.54 12.83 28.37 92.27 0.02 0.65 7 6.5 10.09 15.15 28.08 93.00 0.03 0.67 8 7.5 11.64 16.94 27.08 94.47 0.39 0.87 9 8.5 13.20 19.11 27.23 92.37 0.04 0.71 10 9.5 14.75 21.53 25.16 90.65 0.03 0.64 11 10.5 16.30 24.54 25.54 92.35 0.08 0.52 12 11.5 17.86 27.59 20.85 87.87 0.23 0.51 13 12.5 19.41 31.10 18.54 80.41 0.04 0.44 14 13.5 20.96 34.61 26.27 89.92 0.06 0.44 15 14.5 22.51 37.59 24.03 95.08 0.02 0.52 16 15.5 24.07 39.94 19.06 96.92 0.04 0.66 17 16.5 25.62 41.93 17.07 95.62 0.01 0.78 18 17.5 27.17 43.45 17.57 97.68 0.03 1.02 19 18.5 28.72 44.55 16.29 96.41 0.02 1.40 20 19.5 30.28 46.16 16.03 98.11 4.27 0.96 21 20.5 31.83 49.02 10.13 91.88 7.05 0.54 22 21.5 33.38 52.82 15.12 99.02 14.45 0.41 23 22.5 34.93 56.93 16.15 98.18 12.12 0.38 24 23.5 36.49 61.57 18.22 97.52 16.06 0.34 25 24.5 38.04 68.66 19.65 95.36 17.95 0.22 26 25.5 39.59 74.23 23.00 95.49 1.65 0.28 27 26.5 41.14 81.83 23.21 95.11 19.26 0.20 28 27.5 42.70 89.17 20.24 93.53 5.02 0.21

149

Depth Uncompacted Age Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size Sedimentation Rate Sample (cm) Depth (cm) (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) >2 mm (cm/yr) 29 28.5 44.25 98.10 26.86 95.92 0.92 0.17 30 29.5 45.80 108.62 40.45 83.87 3.25 0.15 31 30.5 47.36 123.12 45.15 80.23 0.20 0.11 32 31.5 48.91 137.29 30.31 92.96 0.19 0.11 33 32.5 50.46 155.43 27.43 94.81 0.07 0.09 34 33.5 52.01 184.33 28.78 93.61 0.01 0.05 35 34.5 53.57 233.39 29.91 94.43 0.02 0.03 36 35.5 55.12 324.63 29.49 94.52 0.03 0.02 37 36.5 56.67 415.87 26.49 95.80 0.02 0.02 38 37.5 58.22 507.12 26.40 95.93 0.01 0.02 39 38.5 59.78 598.36 23.40 96.41 0.50 0.02 40 39.5 61.33 689.60 24.76 97.14 0.23 0.02 41 40.5 62.88 780.85 27.14 96.45 0.02 0.02 42 41.5 64.43 872.09 26.61 96.96 1.22 0.02 43 42.5 65.99 963.33 25.60 96.71 0.07 0.02 44 43.5 67.54 1054.57 23.61 97.25 2.21 0.02 45 44.5 69.09 1145.82 21.95 97.56 7.76 0.02 46 45.5 70.64 1237.06 21.62 97.24 17.99 0.02 47 46.5 72.20 1328.30 17.93 94.97 24.40 0.02 48 47.5 73.75 1419.54 18.68 95.02 24.10 0.02 49 48.5 75.30 1510.79 23.20 91.72 21.16 0.02 50 49.5 76.86 1602.03 23.45 94.23 7.63 0.02 51 50.5 78.41 1693.27 23.01 94.26 3.54 0.02 52 51.5 79.96 1784.51 22.01 94.88 2.48 0.02 53 52.5 81.51 1875.76 21.68 94.97 2.32 0.02 54 53.5 83.07 1967.00 20.53 95.27 3.92 0.02 55 54.5 84.62 1988.33 19.43 95.49 10.46 0.07 56 55.5 86.17 2009.67 17.46 96.71 25.70 0.07 57 56.5 87.72 2031.00 14.90 96.55 38.83 0.07

150

Depth Uncompacted Age Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size Sedimentation Rate Sample (cm) Depth (cm) (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) >2 mm (cm/yr) 58 57.5 89.28 2052.33 15.01 96.25 34.22 0.07 59 58.5 90.83 2073.67 12.24 96.42 44.15 0.07 60 59.5 92.38 2095.00 18.45 95.68 5.25 0.07 61 60.5 93.93 2116.33 19.70 95.65 10.21 0.07 62 61.5 95.49 2137.67 20.48 95.34 5.79 0.07 63 62.5 97.04 2159.00 21.36 95.18 5.42 0.07 64 63.5 98.59 2180.33 21.01 95.53 3.32 0.07 65 64.5 100.14 2201.67 21.23 94.74 8.57 0.07 66 65.5 101.70 2223.00 22.24 94.67 4.02 0.07 67 66.5 103.25 2244.33 21.62 94.83 5.31 0.07 68 67.5 104.80 2265.67 24.38 93.60 2.01 0.07 69 68.5 106.36 2287.00 23.55 94.28 1.80 0.07 70 69.5 107.91 2308.33 23.94 93.37 0.26 0.07 71 70.5 109.46 2329.67 26.21 92.31 0.11 0.07 72 71.5 111.01 2351.00 27.37 91.35 0.18 0.07 73 72.5 112.57 2372.33 28.89 89.66 0.10 0.07 74 73.5 114.12 2393.67 26.76 89.23 0.06 0.07 75 74.5 115.67 2415.00 22.80 86.78 0.39 0.07 76 75.5 117.22 2436.33 28.27 90.78 0.02 0.07 77 76.5 118.78 2457.67 26.89 91.87 0.03 0.07 78 77.5 120.33 2479.00 25.75 92.07 3.15 0.07 79 78.5 121.88 2500.33 26.48 92.89 0.55 0.07 80 79.5 123.43 2521.67 30.06 94.06 0.09 0.07 81 80.5 124.99 2543.00 27.45 93.26 0.04 0.07 82 81.5 126.54 2564.33 26.13 92.55 0.06 0.07 83 82.5 128.09 2585.67 25.56 94.17 1.30 0.07 84 83.5 129.64 2607.00 27.31 93.74 1.79 0.07 85 84.5 131.20 2628.33 27.70 93.87 4.11 0.07 86 85.5 132.75 2649.67 30.80 90.71 2.09 0.07

151

Depth Uncompacted Age Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size Sedimentation Rate Sample (cm) Depth (cm) (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) >2 mm (cm/yr) 87 86.5 134.30 2671.00 30.26 91.01 2.70 0.07 88 87.5 135.86 2692.33 28.46 93.15 1.64 0.07 89 88.5 137.41 2713.67 25.13 94.42 1.19 0.07 90 89.5 138.96 2735.00 25.10 94.62 1.29 0.07 91 90.5 140.51 2756.33 26.39 93.12 1.97 0.07 92 91.5 142.07 2777.67 25.18 92.32 0.92 0.07 93 92.5 143.62 2799.00 25.40 93.11 0.88 0.07 94 93.5 145.17 2820.33 23.36 94.45 1.08 0.07 95 94.5 146.72 2841.67 21.38 95.15 0.49 0.07 96 95.5 148.28 2863.00 24.58 94.05 0.90 0.07 97 96.5 149.83 2881.44 25.18 93.76 1.55 0.08 98 97.5 151.38 2899.88 24.70 94.21 0.95 0.08 99 98.5 152.93 2918.31 25.64 93.29 0.19 0.08 100 99.5 154.49 2936.75 25.50 93.32 0.14 0.08 101 100.5 156.04 2955.19 23.48 93.78 0.55 0.08 102 101.5 157.59 2973.63 22.79 92.58 0.07 0.08 103 102.5 159.14 2992.06 21.94 94.92 0.05 0.08 104 103.5 160.70 3010.50 22.20 94.83 0.28 0.08 105 104.5 162.25 3028.94 23.21 93.84 0.11 0.08 106 105.5 163.80 3047.38 25.19 93.33 0.23 0.08 107 106.5 165.36 3065.81 24.03 93.33 0.42 0.08 108 107.5 166.91 3084.25 24.62 93.82 0.39 0.08 109 108.5 168.46 3102.69 27.74 92.05 0.26 0.08 110 109.5 170.01 3121.13 28.22 89.87 0.03 0.08 111 110.5 171.57 3139.56 26.37 91.32 0.28 0.08 112 111.5 173.12 3158.00 29.12 88.49 0.27 0.08 113 112.5 174.67 3176.44 26.69 90.20 3.08 0.08 114 113.5 176.22 3194.88 27.97 87.87 0.41 0.08

152

Table B.4: Pertinent data for core 1708-22. Some data is missing as samples were sent to Eckerd College for 210Pb dating Depth Uncompacted Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size Sedimentation Rate Sample (cm) Depth (cm) Age (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) >2 mm (cm/yr) 1 0.25 0.38 0.17 30.22 94.15 0.02 0.50 2 0.75 1.14 1.74 29.38 0.47 3 1.25 1.9 3.20 25.05 0.58 4 1.75 2.66 4.58 22.84 0.53 5 2.25 3.42 5.71 20.92 95.59 0.03 0.92 6 2.75 4.18 6.72 21.41 0.63 7 3.25 4.94 8.00 23.11 0.56 8 3.75 5.7 9.27 23.94 0.65 9 4.25 6.46 10.43 23.74 0.66 10 4.75 7.22 11.64 24.15 0.61 11 5.25 7.98 12.83 22.42 96.16 0.11 0.67 12 5.75 8.74 14.00 22.80 0.63 13 6.25 9.5 15.15 22.52 0.71 14 6.75 10.26 16.04 19.50 1.06 15 7.25 11.02 16.94 18.97 97.42 0.04 0.71 16 7.75 11.78 18.02 19.64 0.70 17 8.25 12.54 19.11 20.46 0.69 18 8.75 13.3 20.31 19.75 0.59 19 9.25 14.06 21.53 18.61 0.65 20 9.75 14.82 22.93 19.64 0.46 21 10.25 15.58 24.54 20.54 97.63 0.03 0.48 22 10.75 16.34 26.06 20.36 0.52 23 11.25 17.1 27.59 20.22 0.47 24 11.75 17.86 29.19 19.41 0.48 25 12.25 18.62 31.10 20.07 97.60 0.21 0.34 26 12.75 19.38 33.03 20.58 0.46 27 13.25 20.14 34.61 22.72 0.50 28 13.75 20.9 36.19 21.81 0.46

153

Depth Uncompacted Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size Sedimentation Rate Sample (cm) Depth (cm) Age (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) >2 mm (cm/yr) 29 14.25 21.66 37.59 20.35 0.66 30 14.75 22.42 38.78 19.34 0.62 31 15.25 23.18 39.94 19.55 98.38 0.74 0.69 32 15.75 23.94 41.00 19.77 0.75 33 16.25 24.7 41.93 17.66 0.91 34 16.75 25.46 42.78 8.28 0.88 35 17.25 26.22 43.45 12.54 1.62 36 17.75 26.98 44.02 12.88 1.13 37 18.25 27.74 44.55 14.35 96.86 7.08 1.92 38 18.75 28.5 45.23 17.82 0.80 39 19.25 29.26 46.16 16.41 0.83 40 19.75 30.02 47.39 17.95 0.49 41 20.25 30.78 49.02 18.45 96.55 5.19 0.44 42 20.75 31.54 50.93 21.38 0.36 43 21.25 32.3 52.82 18.39 0.46 44 21.75 33.06 54.68 20.12 0.37 45 22.25 33.82 56.93 19.09 95.84 2.23 0.31 46 22.75 34.58 58.99 18.97 0.45 47 23.25 35.34 61.57 20.17 0.22 48 23.75 36.1 65.22 19.08 0.20 49 24.25 36.86 68.66 18.71 0.25 50 24.75 37.62 71.43 20.12 0.30 51 25.25 38.38 74.23 20.17 97.08 0.03 0.25 52 25.75 39.14 77.88 19.81 0.18 53 26.25 39.9 81.83 20.32 0.21 54 26.75 40.66 85.31 20.09 0.23 55 27.25 41.42 89.17 21.25 0.17 56 27.75 42.18 93.48 20.87 0.18 57 28.25 42.94 98.10 19.87 0.15

154

Depth Uncompacted Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size Sedimentation Rate Sample (cm) Depth (cm) Age (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) >2 mm (cm/yr) 58 28.75 43.7 103.05 19.98 0.16 59 29.25 44.46 108.62 19.78 0.12 60 29.75 45.22 115.30 20.16 0.11 61 30.25 45.98 123.12 18.42 97.15 1.33 0.09 62 30.75 46.74 130.08 19.91 0.14 63 31.25 47.5 137.29 19.29 0.08 64 31.75 48.26 145.24 20.09 0.11 65 32.25 49.02 155.43 20.02 0.06 66 32.75 49.78 168.45 18.98 0.06 67 33.25 50.54 184.33 21.60 0.04 68 33.75 51.3 202.72 22.95 0.04 69 34.25 52.06 233.39 24.86 0.02 70 34.75 52.82 22.97 71 35.25 53.58 21.46 96.98 5.13 72 35.75 54.34 21.66 73 36.25 55.1 21.94 74 36.75 55.86 21.73 75 37.25 56.62 19.40 76 37.75 57.38 17.20 77 38.25 58.14 19.26 78 38.75 58.9 21.20 79 39.25 59.66 23.56 80 39.75 60.42 23.20 81 40.25 61.18 23.19 97.15 4.73 82 40.75 61.94 23.83 83 41.25 62.7 24.56 84 41.75 63.46 23.65 85 42.25 64.22 24.01 86 42.75 64.98 24.73

155

Depth Uncompacted Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size Sedimentation Rate Sample (cm) Depth (cm) Age (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) >2 mm (cm/yr) 87 43.25 65.74 22.89 88 43.75 66.5 23.51 89 44.25 67.26 22.55 90 44.75 68.02 21.41 91 45.25 68.78 20.05 96.94 0.05 92 45.75 69.54 20.31 93 46.25 70.3 19.86 94 46.75 71.06 20.44 95 47.25 71.82 22.23 96 47.75 72.58 21.39 97 48.25 73.34 22.93 98 48.75 74.1 23.18 99 49.25 74.86 24.34 100 49.75 75.62 25.98 101 50.25 76.38 23.47 96.62 3.88 102 50.75 77.14 23.60 103 51.25 77.9 22.77 104 51.75 78.66 23.24 105 52.25 79.42 23.18 106 52.75 80.18 22.62 107 53.25 80.94 23.02 108 53.75 81.7 23.00 109 54.25 82.46 22.66 110 54.75 83.22 22.61 111 55.25 83.98 21.58 96.99 7.66 112 55.75 84.74 21.31 113 56.25 85.5 22.11 114 56.75 86.26 21.90 115 57.25 87.02 21.88

156

Depth Uncompacted Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size Sedimentation Rate Sample (cm) Depth (cm) Age (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) >2 mm (cm/yr) 116 57.75 87.78 22.13 117 58.25 88.54 21.09 118 58.75 89.3 18.26 97.46 10.39

157

Table B.5: Pertinent data for core 1707-20 Depth Uncompacted Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size >2 Sedimentation Sample (cm) Depth (cm) Age (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) mm Rate (cm/yr) 1 0.5 0.88 0.05 18.25 61.76 0.03 N/A 2 1.5 2.65 3.73 21.13 68.76 0.01 0.48 3 2.5 4.41 8.80 16.33 65.02 0.02 0.35 4 3.5 6.17 13.03 13.77 64.07 0.27 0.42 5 4.5 7.94 17.86 13.58 65.49 0.07 0.36 6 5.5 9.70 24.44 13.52 67.96 0.28 0.27 7 6.5 11.46 30.89 11.20 72.61 0.05 0.27 8 7.5 13.23 38.26 12.07 80.44 0.27 0.24 9 8.5 14.99 45.98 12.77 83.65 0.88 0.23 10 9.5 16.75 52.50 10.85 80.83 0.40 0.27 11 10.5 18.52 55.75 12.63 85.43 0.18 0.54 12 11.5 20.28 58.36 10.44 84.94 3.09 0.68 13 12.5 22.05 63.64 9.33 82.09 18.96 0.33 14 13.5 23.81 74.43 9.70 84.70 5.99 0.16 15 14.5 25.57 92.64 9.66 83.78 5.66 0.10 16 15.5 27.34 120.19 9.88 82.01 8.19 0.06 17 16.5 29.10 162.83 10.91 82.39 4.37 0.04 18 17.5 30.86 225.23 13.27 87.70 1.56 0.03 19 18.5 32.63 287.63 11.22 81.24 1.73 0.03 20 19.5 34.39 350.03 11.39 81.63 0.82 0.03 21 20.5 36.15 412.43 9.10 81.35 2.50 0.03 22 21.5 37.92 474.83 8.90 81.92 11.14 0.03 23 22.5 39.68 537.23 10.68 87.53 2.36 0.03 24 23.5 41.45 599.63 11.47 85.91 7.86 0.03 25 24.5 43.21 662.02 8.56 84.49 0.24 0.03 26 25.5 44.97 724.42 11.05 90.66 0.04 0.03 27 26.5 46.74 786.82 11.66 91.25 0.08 0.03 28 27.5 48.50 849.22 10.56 91.00 0.21 0.03

158

Depth Uncompacted Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size >2 Sedimentation Sample (cm) Depth (cm) Age (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) mm Rate (cm/yr) 29 28.5 50.26 911.62 9.70 89.62 0.75 0.03 30 29.5 52.03 974.02 11.69 90.85 1.67 0.03 31 30.5 53.79 1036.42 9.12 89.79 4.60 0.03 32 31.5 55.55 1098.82 8.92 87.78 4.61 0.03 33 32.5 57.32 1161.21 6.78 85.34 9.28 0.03 34 33.5 59.08 1223.61 11.77 91.16 6.58 0.03 35 34.5 60.85 1286.01 7.41 86.48 4.52 0.03 36 35.5 62.61 1348.41 6.95 83.45 4.22 0.03 37 36.5 64.37 1410.81 7.67 82.45 4.17 0.03 38 37.5 66.14 1473.21 6.89 78.92 6.21 0.03 39 38.5 67.90 1535.61 8.22 83.31 3.24 0.03 40 39.5 69.66 1598.01 8.72 84.76 3.00 0.03 41 40.5 71.43 1660.40 7.28 77.94 2.02 0.03 42 41.5 73.19 1722.80 8.34 82.92 2.20 0.03 43 42.5 74.95 1785.20 8.86 83.00 0.94 0.03 44 43.5 76.72 1847.60 8.72 78.61 1.40 0.03 45 44.5 78.48 1910.00 13.79 63.82 0.18 0.03 46 45.5 80.25 1972.40 9.80 57.98 0.07 0.03 47 46.5 82.01 2034.80 10.44 43.50 0.16 0.03 48 47.5 83.77 12.45 45.62 0.05 49 48.5 85.54 10.89 55.64 0.54 50 49.5 87.30 9.43 57.65 0.28 51 50.5 89.06 11.61 59.78 0.19 52 51.5 90.83 10.40 56.04 0.10 53 52.5 92.59 8.90 53.04 0.34 54 53.5 94.35 12.30 51.53 0.11 55 54.5 96.12 11.35 58.43 0.57 56 55.5 97.88 8.81 54.24 0.18 57 56.5 99.65 10.59 62.56 0.19

159

Depth Uncompacted Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size >2 Sedimentation Sample (cm) Depth (cm) Age (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) mm Rate (cm/yr) 58 57.5 101.41 9.27 62.70 0.33 59 58.5 103.17 11.09 64.29 2.46 60 59.5 104.94 7.64 59.53 0.49 61 60.5 106.70 8.80 59.33 0.74 62 61.5 108.46 10.29 60.69 0.30 63 62.5 110.23 10.23 52.75 0.32 64 63.5 111.99 9.39 60.12 0.37 65 64.5 113.75 8.50 72.74 0.09 66 65.5 115.52 8.71 73.51 0.15 67 66.5 117.28 8.32 69.12 0.30 68 67.5 119.05 7.65 66.03 0.09 69 68.5 120.81 8.34 68.47 0.09 70 69.5 122.57 8.42 70.44 0.10 71 70.5 124.34 9.26 73.72 0.19 72 71.5 126.10 8.30 80.52 0.18 73 72.5 127.86 7.58 78.56 0.23 74 73.5 129.63 7.83 80.06 0.12 75 74.5 131.39 7.43 77.36 0.08 76 75.5 133.15 8.60 82.04 0.54 77 76.5 134.92 8.17 81.86 0.18 78 77.5 136.68 7.54 77.81 0.19 79 78.5 138.45 7.20 81.83 0.06 80 79.5 140.21 9.16 79.30 0.04 81 80.5 141.97 7.33 79.28 0.13 82 81.5 143.74 7.56 82.63 0.15 83 82.5 145.50 8.07 81.88 0.15 84 83.5 147.26 7.51 82.02 0.23 85 84.5 149.03 9.01 72.14 0.30 86 85.5 150.79 8.53 71.10 0.67

160

Depth Uncompacted Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size >2 Sedimentation Sample (cm) Depth (cm) Age (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) mm Rate (cm/yr) 87 86.5 152.55 8.28 80.28 0.02 88 87.5 154.32 8.26 74.62 0.03 89 88.5 156.08 10.37 74.69 0.10 90 89.5 157.85 10.01 79.31 0.05 91 90.5 159.61 8.50 78.66 0.31 92 91.5 161.37 9.34 79.93 0.54 93 92.5 163.14 9.32 76.32 0.28 94 93.5 164.90 8.03 76.05 0.12 95 94.5 166.66 9.85 74.29 0.22 96 95.5 168.43 9.76 71.81 0.12 97 96.5 170.19 8.25 81.90 0.15 98 97.5 171.95 8.32 80.04 0.31 99 98.5 173.72 8.49 79.38 0.21 100 99.5 175.48 8.85 71.72 0.07 101 100.5 177.25 9.43 82.16 0.37 102 101.5 179.01 10.12 83.06 0.27 103 102.5 180.77 8.69 81.77 0.29 104 103.5 182.54 8.26 85.32 0.25 105 104.5 184.30 7.24 84.63 0.57 106 105.5 186.06 8.81 87.48 0.42 107 106.5 187.83 7.20 87.27 0.32 108 107.5 189.59 7.19 86.28 0.15 109 108.5 191.35 10.33 90.81 0.16 110 109.5 193.12 8.49 86.73 0.08

161

Table B.6: Pertinent data for core 1708-23 Depth Uncompacted Age Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size >2 Sedimentation Sample (cm) Depth (cm) (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) mm Rate (cm/yr) 1 0.5 0.68 0.05 63.15 78.31 0.14 N/A 2 1.5 2.04 3.73 58.87 83.65 3.13 0.37 3 2.5 3.40 8.80 41.39 91.61 12.61 0.27 4 3.5 4.77 13.03 34.97 93.82 0.02 0.32 5 4.5 6.13 17.86 29.43 96.04 0.04 0.28 6 5.5 7.49 24.44 31.21 95.35 0.01 0.21 7 6.5 8.85 30.89 29.34 96.17 0.02 0.21 8 7.5 10.21 38.26 28.33 96.33 0.01 0.18 9 8.5 11.57 45.98 25.05 97.29 0.01 0.18 10 9.5 12.94 52.50 23.65 97.57 0.06 0.21 11 10.5 14.30 55.75 21.78 98.05 0.02 0.42 12 11.5 15.66 58.36 20.64 98.49 3.38 0.52 13 12.5 17.02 63.64 21.29 97.98 4.03 0.26 14 13.5 18.38 74.43 21.27 97.79 5.92 0.13 15 14.5 19.74 92.64 18.82 98.32 11.17 0.07 16 15.5 21.11 120.19 20.53 97.16 13.52 0.05 17 16.5 22.47 162.83 20.51 97.93 22.59 0.03 18 17.5 23.83 225.23 23.50 97.43 12.25 0.02 19 18.5 25.19 287.63 22.91 97.66 5.69 0.02 20 19.5 26.55 350.03 22.44 97.92 7.31 0.02 21 20.5 27.91 412.43 20.89 98.53 8.60 0.02 22 21.5 29.28 474.83 21.29 98.46 9.00 0.02 23 22.5 30.64 537.23 20.70 98.67 8.44 0.02 24 23.5 32.00 599.63 21.18 90.36 5.26 0.02 25 24.5 33.36 662.02 22.85 98.84 3.49 0.02 26 25.5 34.72 724.42 21.97 98.93 1.67 0.02 27 26.5 36.09 786.82 22.58 98.80 6.76 0.02 28 27.5 37.45 849.22 21.89 98.82 14.99 0.02

162

Depth Uncompacted Age Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size >2 Sedimentation Sample (cm) Depth (cm) (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) mm Rate (cm/yr) 29 28.5 38.81 911.62 22.30 97.44 19.19 0.02 30 29.5 40.17 974.02 24.97 96.73 13.60 0.02 31 30.5 41.53 1036.42 28.34 95.93 14.62 0.02 32 31.5 42.89 1098.82 30.98 95.18 4.77 0.02 33 32.5 44.26 1161.21 29.24 95.56 9.69 0.02 34 33.5 45.62 1223.61 29.50 95.22 7.38 0.02 35 34.5 46.98 1286.01 30.41 95.16 1.31 0.02 36 35.5 48.34 1348.41 27.06 96.90 11.20 0.02 37 36.5 49.70 1410.81 26.10 97.74 5.77 0.02 38 37.5 51.06 1473.21 28.76 96.87 1.55 0.02 39 38.5 52.43 1535.61 27.63 97.20 2.51 0.02 40 39.5 53.79 1598.01 28.97 96.98 4.09 0.02 41 40.5 55.15 1660.40 28.82 97.91 0.45 0.02 42 41.5 56.51 1722.80 29.61 97.76 0.03 0.02 43 42.5 57.87 1785.20 37.05 95.83 0.03 0.02 44 43.5 59.23 1847.60 33.99 96.57 0.37 0.02 45 44.5 60.60 1910.00 36.93 96.86 0.61 0.02 46 45.5 61.96 1972.40 43.14 94.36 0.03 0.02 47 46.5 63.32 2034.80 47.58 92.95 0.16 0.02 48 47.5 64.68 36.16 96.06 0.01 49 48.5 66.04 43.64 94.67 0.00 50 49.5 67.40 56.38 90.89 0.02 51 50.5 68.77 58.48 89.90 0.06 52 51.5 70.13 52.59 92.89 0.02 53 52.5 71.49 51.80 94.23 0.00 54 53.5 72.85 43.40 95.71 0.01 55 54.5 74.21 40.62 96.13 0.01 56 55.5 75.57 42.98 96.17 0.01 57 56.5 76.94 44.29 93.17 0.01

163

Depth Uncompacted Age Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size >2 Sedimentation Sample (cm) Depth (cm) (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) mm Rate (cm/yr) 58 57.5 78.30 37.22 95.45 0.07 59 58.5 79.66 33.67 96.30 0.02 60 59.5 81.02 38.53 94.69 0.01 61 60.5 82.38 31.36 96.90 0.02 62 61.5 83.74 37.27 95.74 0.02 63 62.5 85.11 44.19 93.57 0.05 64 63.5 86.47 38.61 95.27 0.01 65 64.5 87.83 33.20 96.28 0.04 66 65.5 89.19 32.80 96.53 0.02 67 66.5 90.55 28.92 97.83 0.42 68 67.5 91.91 25.02 98.12 0.01 69 68.5 93.28 28.46 97.18 0.01 70 69.5 94.64 28.52 97.05 0.00 71 70.5 96.00 26.47 97.71 0.01 72 71.5 97.36 27.53 97.54 0.03 73 72.5 98.72 31.73 96.52 0.00 74 73.5 100.09 27.87 97.44 0.00 75 74.5 101.45 29.16 97.38 0.00 76 75.5 102.81 27.88 97.64 0.01 77 76.5 104.17 31.63 96.43 0.01 78 77.5 105.53 30.50 97.04 0.10 79 78.5 106.89 26.62 97.67 0.01 80 79.5 108.26 28.44 97.39 0.02 81 80.5 109.62 26.75 97.59 0.01 82 81.5 110.98 27.15 97.33 0.01 83 82.5 112.34 27.32 97.22 0.01 84 83.5 113.70 26.15 97.55 0.02 85 84.5 115.06 27.69 97.19 0.02 86 85.5 116.43 27.00 97.47 0.01

164

Depth Uncompacted Age Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size >2 Sedimentation Sample (cm) Depth (cm) (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) mm Rate (cm/yr) 87 86.5 117.79 24.59 98.05 0.02 88 87.5 119.15 23.02 98.22 0.02 89 88.5 120.51 24.22 98.02 0.00 90 89.5 121.87 22.78 98.26 0.01 91 90.5 123.23 26.40 97.29 0.00 92 91.5 124.60 24.61 97.85 0.00 93 92.5 125.96 23.80 98.22 0.00 94 93.5 127.32 26.17 97.68 0.00 95 94.5 128.68 25.36 97.71 0.02

165

Table B.7: Pertinent data for core 1708-24 Depth Uncompacted Age Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size >2 Sedimentation Sample (cm) Depth (cm) (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) mm Rate (cm/yr) 1 0.5 0.64 0.05 46.29 87.07 0.29 N/A 2 1.5 1.91 3.73 50.91 81.29 0.17 0.35 3 2.5 3.19 8.80 48.47 85.30 0.04 0.25 4 3.5 4.47 13.03 54.42 82.82 0.02 0.30 5 4.5 5.74 17.86 49.23 85.02 0.52 0.26 6 5.5 7.02 24.44 41.95 90.49 0.04 0.19 7 6.5 8.30 30.89 39.06 91.47 0.04 0.20 8 7.5 9.57 38.26 38.07 92.13 0.02 0.17 9 8.5 10.85 45.98 34.00 93.69 0.62 0.17 10 9.5 12.13 52.50 32.48 94.31 0.04 0.20 11 10.5 13.40 55.75 27.20 85.23 0.09 0.39 12 11.5 14.68 58.36 27.73 95.61 0.02 0.49 13 12.5 15.96 63.64 33.45 93.53 0.16 0.24 14 13.5 17.23 74.43 32.87 94.51 2.46 0.12 15 14.5 18.51 92.64 28.84 95.45 0.05 0.07 16 15.5 19.79 120.19 25.81 95.85 2.43 0.05 17 16.5 21.06 162.83 20.66 97.92 11.94 0.03 18 17.5 22.34 225.23 19.75 97.82 19.62 0.02 19 18.5 23.62 287.63 19.35 98.28 10.85 0.02 20 19.5 24.89 350.03 20.86 97.58 8.45 0.02 21 20.5 26.17 412.43 26.55 95.92 5.47 0.02 22 21.5 27.45 474.83 28.80 95.55 0.99 0.02 23 22.5 28.72 537.23 27.03 95.89 9.47 0.02 24 23.5 30.00 599.63 26.94 95.90 11.65 0.02 25 24.5 31.28 662.02 24.54 96.95 16.11 0.02 26 25.5 32.55 724.42 24.72 96.80 9.36 0.02 27 26.5 33.83 786.82 25.86 96.53 3.47 0.02 28 27.5 35.11 849.22 24.48 97.50 2.03 0.02

166

Depth Uncompacted Age Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size >2 Sedimentation Sample (cm) Depth (cm) (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) mm Rate (cm/yr) 29 28.5 36.38 911.62 24.68 97.41 4.81 0.02 30 29.5 37.66 974.02 24.10 97.44 3.85 0.02 31 30.5 38.94 1036.42 26.03 96.93 0.41 0.02 32 31.5 40.21 1098.82 26.74 96.86 1.72 0.02 33 32.5 41.49 1161.21 32.70 95.77 1.58 0.02 34 33.5 42.77 1223.61 37.41 94.99 0.87 0.02 35 34.5 44.04 1286.01 43.18 92.76 0.12 0.02 36 35.5 45.32 1348.41 49.25 89.76 0.05 0.02 37 36.5 46.60 1410.81 53.70 87.64 0.23 0.02 38 37.5 47.87 1473.21 48.33 90.45 0.64 0.02 39 38.5 49.15 1535.61 52.01 88.51 0.05 0.02 40 39.5 50.43 1598.01 52.58 88.45 0.08 0.02 41 40.5 51.70 1660.40 47.94 76.07 0.21 0.02 42 41.5 52.98 1722.80 45.00 94.06 1.02 0.02 43 42.5 54.26 1785.20 44.79 95.14 0.12 0.02 44 43.5 55.53 1847.60 46.02 71.98 0.79 0.02 45 44.5 56.81 1910.00 47.56 89.94 0.04 0.02 46 45.5 58.09 1972.40 51.32 87.28 0.09 0.02 47 46.5 59.36 2034.80 48.19 90.97 0.04 0.02 48 47.5 60.64 49.99 89.91 0.07 49 48.5 61.91 49.13 89.70 0.04 50 49.5 63.19 49.68 89.08 0.05 51 50.5 64.47 46.42 90.66 0.04 52 51.5 65.74 43.12 92.70 0.04 53 52.5 67.02 44.57 92.14 0.03 54 53.5 68.30 41.67 93.19 0.01 55 54.5 69.57 39.76 93.76 0.01 56 55.5 70.85 34.77 95.38 0.03 57 56.5 72.13 40.55 93.73 0.03

167

Depth Uncompacted Age Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size >2 Sedimentation Sample (cm) Depth (cm) (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) mm Rate (cm/yr) 58 57.5 73.40 36.80 94.65 0.03 59 58.5 74.68 35.94 95.15 0.03 60 59.5 75.96 36.10 94.96 0.01 61 60.5 77.23 34.23 95.46 0.04 62 61.5 78.51 28.92 96.95 0.05 63 62.5 79.79 36.62 94.96 0.03 64 63.5 81.06 30.33 96.69 0.02 65 64.5 82.34 24.48 96.86 0.04 66 65.5 83.62 30.98 96.42 0.03 67 66.5 84.89 31.09 96.17 0.01 68 67.5 86.17 30.81 96.31 0.02 69 68.5 87.45 29.51 96.66 0.09 70 69.5 88.72 26.63 97.22 0.10 71 70.5 90.00 24.38 97.72 0.01 72 71.5 91.28 24.19 97.76 0.00 73 72.5 92.55 27.23 96.66 0.00 74 73.5 93.83 23.72 97.30 0.00 75 74.5 95.11 25.93 97.09 0.02 76 75.5 96.38 24.00 97.67 0.02 77 76.5 97.66 20.98 98.44 0.01 78 77.5 98.94 20.19 98.71 0.02 79 78.5 100.21 23.94 97.89 1.83 80 79.5 101.49 26.23 97.11 0.03 81 80.5 102.77 27.99 96.81 0.03 82 81.5 104.04 24.42 97.62 0.02 83 82.5 105.32 23.19 97.97 0.06 84 83.5 106.60 25.93 96.97 0.01 85 84.5 107.87 25.37 97.12 0.02 86 85.5 109.15 22.19 98.23 0.01

168

Depth Uncompacted Age Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size >2 Sedimentation Sample (cm) Depth (cm) (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) mm Rate (cm/yr) 87 86.5 110.43 20.85 98.49 0.03 88 87.5 111.70 20.26 98.55 0.02 89 88.5 112.98 19.78 98.39 0.01 90 89.5 114.26 20.15 98.15 0.02 91 90.5 115.53 20.59 98.22 0.00 92 91.5 116.81 20.19 98.34 0.01 93 92.5 118.09 19.61 98.46 0.02 94 93.5 119.36 19.17 98.59 0.02

169

Table B.8: Pertinent data for core 1708-25 Depth Uncompacted Age Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size Sedimentation Rate Sample (cm) Depth (cm) (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) >2 mm (cm/yr) 1 0.25 0.31 0.00 33.76 91.63 0.12 N/A 2 0.75 0.94 1.00 33.70 0.63 3 1.25 1.57 2.00 33.16 0.63 4 1.75 2.20 3.00 33.03 0.63 5 2.25 2.83 4.00 33.77 91.23 0.33 0.63 6 2.75 3.46 5.17 32.32 0.54 7 3.25 4.09 6.33 31.46 0.54 8 3.75 4.72 7.50 30.88 0.54 9 4.25 5.35 8.67 30.29 0.54 10 4.75 5.98 9.83 30.52 0.54 11 5.25 6.61 11.00 30.94 94.20 0.37 0.54 12 5.75 7.24 12.00 30.44 0.63 13 6.25 7.87 13.00 26.68 0.63 14 6.75 8.50 14.00 26.32 0.63 15 7.25 9.13 15.00 23.84 95.74 4.49 0.63 16 7.75 9.76 15.50 23.70 1.26 17 8.25 10.39 16.00 20.70 1.26 18 8.75 11.02 16.50 20.01 1.26 19 9.25 11.65 17.00 18.20 1.26 20 9.75 12.28 17.50 18.43 1.26 21 10.25 12.91 18.00 20.21 97.83 16.11 1.26 22 10.75 13.54 18.33 19.68 1.89 23 11.25 14.17 18.67 17.74 1.89 24 11.75 14.80 19.00 18.22 1.89 25 12.25 15.43 19.33 18.54 1.89 26 12.75 16.06 19.67 19.22 1.89 27 13.25 16.69 20.00 21.02 97.31 5.98 1.89 28 13.75 17.31 20.75 21.87 0.84

170

Depth Uncompacted Age Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size Sedimentation Rate Sample (cm) Depth (cm) (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) >2 mm (cm/yr) 29 14.25 17.94 21.50 23.22 0.84 30 14.75 18.57 22.25 24.72 0.84 31 15.25 19.20 23.00 22.23 96.48 8.04 0.84 32 15.75 19.83 23.50 19.09 1.26 33 16.25 20.46 24.00 21.22 1.26 34 16.75 21.09 24.50 22.32 1.26 35 17.25 21.72 25.00 22.49 96.75 4.42 1.26 36 17.75 22.35 26.50 23.45 0.42 37 18.25 22.98 28.00 23.21 0.42 38 18.75 23.61 29.50 23.07 0.42 39 19.25 24.24 31.00 24.27 0.42 40 19.75 24.87 32.50 24.92 0.42 41 20.25 25.50 34.00 25.08 96.36 12.43 0.42 42 20.75 26.13 34.90 22.67 0.70 43 21.25 26.76 35.80 23.13 0.70 44 21.75 27.39 36.70 24.63 0.70 45 22.25 28.02 37.60 24.49 0.70 46 22.75 28.65 38.50 24.45 0.70 47 23.25 29.28 39.40 25.94 0.70 48 23.75 29.91 40.30 25.03 0.70 49 24.25 30.54 41.20 24.63 0.70 50 24.75 31.17 42.10 25.64 0.70 51 25.25 31.80 43.00 25.93 96.20 0.51 0.70 52 25.75 32.43 48.30 27.08 0.12 53 26.25 33.06 53.60 26.46 0.12 54 26.75 33.69 58.90 28.17 0.12 55 27.25 34.31 64.20 27.77 0.12 56 27.75 34.94 69.50 28.10 0.12 57 28.25 35.57 74.80 31.77 0.12

171

Depth Uncompacted Age Moisture Inorganic Percent Grain Size Sedimentation Rate Sample (cm) Depth (cm) (YBP) Content (%) Content (%) >2 mm (cm/yr) 58 28.75 36.20 80.10 25.75 0.12 59 29.25 36.83 85.40 26.36 0.12 60 29.75 37.46 90.70 25.17 0.12 61 30.25 38.09 96.00 22.85 96.93 0.17 0.12 62 30.75 38.72 101.30 23.07 0.12 63 31.25 39.35 106.60 23.86 0.12 64 31.75 39.98 111.90 27.07 0.12 65 32.25 40.61 117.20 30.51 0.12 66 32.75 41.24 122.50 26.85 0.12 67 33.25 41.87 127.80 29.15 0.12 68 33.75 42.50 133.10 36.06 0.12 69 34.25 43.13 138.40 35.42 0.12 70 34.75 43.76 143.70 33.81 0.12 71 35.25 44.39 149.00 34.69 94.78 0.02 0.12 72 35.75 45.02 154.30 36.41 0.12 73 36.25 45.65 159.60 39.38 0.12 74 36.75 46.28 164.90 33.46 0.12 75 37.25 46.91 170.20 34.06 0.12 76 37.75 47.54 175.50 33.46 0.12 77 38.25 48.17 180.80 33.85 0.12 78 38.75 48.80 186.10 34.64 0.12 79 39.25 49.43 191.40 33.73 0.12 80 39.75 50.06 196.70 33.48 93.76 0.05 0.12

172

Appendix C: Expanded Tempestites

Figure C.1: Tempestites from 1703-13 expanded

173

Figure C.2: Tempestites from 1704-16 expanded

174

Figure C.3: Tempestites from 1705-17 expanded

175

Figure C.4: Tempestites from 1707-20 expanded

176

Figure C.5: Tempestites from 1708-23 expanded

177

Figure C.6: Tempestites from 1708-24 expanded

178