Lake Erie Holocene Coastal Evolution Near the Portage River-Catawba

Home , Catawba (grape), Granule (geology), Portage River (Ohio)

LAKE ERIE HOLOCENE COASTAL EVOLUTION NEAR THE PORTAGE RIVER- CATAWBA ISLAND, OHIO

Andrew Clark

A Thesis

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

August 2008

Committee:

James E. Evans, Advisor

Jeff Snyder

Sheila Roberts

ABSTRACT

James E. Evans, Advisor

Previous studies on the sedimentology and coastal geomorphology of the Great Lakes have recognized individual features (spits, barrier islands, beaches, coastal wetlands, estuaries) but have compartmentalized the information rather than recognizing that these features are all components in wave-influenced deltas. Wave-influenced deltas form where discharge from a river is sufficient to impose a groin-effect on longshore drift. Such deltas tend to be asymmetric in plain view, with the updrift side of the delta characterized by accreting beach ridges (cheniers or strandplains) and the downdrift side of the delta characterized by coastal wetlands and occasional accreted bars. An asymmetry index > 200 (Bhattacharya and Giosan, 2003) defines wave- influenced deltas.

The Portage River delta (north-central Ohio coast of Lake Erie) has an asymmetry index of about 296, meaning it is a wave-influenced delta. Historical aerial photography from the

1930s-1940s, pre-land development, show a chenier plain updrift (east) of the Portage River delta, while downdrift (west) of the Portage River delta are extensive coastal wetlands and rare beach ridges in the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge. The Portage River delta, then, appears to be a wave-influenced delta. This study used 28 vibracores up to 4.5-m in length, sediment analyses, and 14C geochronology to confirm the classification of this delta and evaluate the implications for understanding the coastal features of the Great Lakes.

Sediment cores updrift of the delta consisted of sandy deposits about 4.5-m thick overlying glacial-lacustrine sediment. These sandy deposits are interpreted as a relatively continuous, overall shallowing-upward sequence (shoreface → foreshore → backbeach and iii dune); with a coarsening-upward, storm-dominated shoreface succession influenced more by wave-driven currents in the shallower upper shoreface. Sediment cores from downdrift of the

Portage River also represent an overall shallowing-upward sequence with a coarsening-upward, storm-dominated shoreface succession. However, these sandy deposits are only 1.5-m thick and overlie thick wetland (peaty) deposits. In this succession, coarser horizons in the upper shoreface are associated with sediment transport within rip channels during storm intervals. In downdrift areas, the vertical facies succession of sediment cores is very irregular suggesting more input from the fluvial system.

The 14C analysis in this study determined three 14C age dates from vibracore 07-PC-14 in a thick peat interval overlying glacial lacustrine sediment. The 14C age dates ranged in age from

1616-2025 cal BP representing a much younger age than the underlying glacial lacustrine sediment. The cal BP age determinations followed a linear trend (R2 = 0.9931) when plotted with depth, indicating a constant sedimentation rate of 0.86 mm/yr throughout the peat sequence. The

14C age dates indicate the formation of a coastal wetland from about 1700-2070 YBP. The top

39-cm of vibracore 07-PC-14 showed a sedimentation rate of 2.05 cm/yr while the siliciclastic interval just below indicated a sedimentation rate of 0.58 mm/yr. After the formation of wetlands, the multiple coarsening-upward successions are present resulting from the accretion of beach ridges along the shoreline. The deposition of the shoreface sequence begins at about 1513 cal BP and multiple shoreface sequences coarsen upward to about 19 cal BP. iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to start by acknowledging the support that my family has shown me over the past two years. The encouragement of my parents (Robert and Cheryl Clark), my sister (Krista

Clark), and my brother (Benjamin Clark) has been a constant source of motivation to finish this manuscript.

I would also like to thank the members of my thesis committee. Dr. James E. Evans, my advisor, for his guidance, assistance, and willingness to point me in the right direction and Dr. Jeff

Snyder and Dr. Sheila Roberts for offering invaluable suggestions in how to complete parts of this study.

Finally, I would like to thank all of my friends and fellow students here at BGSU. These past two years have been a stressful, but enjoyable time. I know that the great friendships that I have forged here will remain with me for the rest of my life. v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Estuaries ...... 2

Beaches ...... 3

Strandplains ...... 5

Deltas ...... 7

Fluvial-Dominated Deltas ...... 10

Tide-Dominated Deltas ...... 10

Wave-Dominated Deltas ...... 12

Wave-Influenced Deltas ...... 12

Examples of Asymmetric Deltas ...... 15

Purpose of Study ...... 18

BACKGROUND ...... 20

Bedrock Geology ...... 20

Structural Geology...... 20

Late Cenozoic and Modern History ...... 20

The Great Lakes ...... 20

Lake Erie ...... 25

Portage River ...... 26

METHODS ...... 30

Field Work ...... 30

Vibracoring ...... 30 vi

Laboratory Work ...... 33

Core Stratigraphy ...... 33

Water Content and Porosity...... 33

Grain Size Analysis ...... 34

14C Analysis ...... 35

Aerial Photographs ...... 40

RESULTS ...... 51

Lithofacies Analysis ...... 51

Facies A (Glacial lacustrine sediment) ...... 51

Interpretation ...... 51

Facies B (Planar-stratified sands) ...... 55

Interpretation ...... 55

Facies C (Low-angle cross-stratified sands)...... 56

Interpretation ...... 56

Facies D (Trough cross-stratified sands) ...... 56

Interpretation ...... 58

Facies E (Gravel sediment) ...... 58

Interpretation ...... 58

Facies F (Laminated sands) ...... 59

Interpretation ...... 59

Facies G (Organic mud-peat sediment) ...... 60

Interpretation ...... 60

Facies H (Massive to faintly laminated sands) ...... 60 vii

Interpretation ...... 60

Facies I (Laminated Muds) ...... 62

Interpretation ...... 62

Lithofacies Sequences ...... 62

Stratigraphic Correlation ...... 66

Shoreline normal transects west of the Portage River ...... 68

Shoreline parallel transect west of the Portage River ...... 73

East of the Portage River ...... 74

Sedimentation Rate ...... 76

DISCUSSION ...... 80

Classsification as a Wave-Influenced Delta ...... 80

Asymmetry Index...... 80

Sedimentation Rate ...... 82

Coastal features near the Portage River Delta ...... 83

Comparison to other Wave-Influenced Deltas ...... 86

Evaluation of possible Wave-Influenced Deltas in the Great Lakes ...... 89

Other possible examples of Wave-Influenced deltas in the Great Lakes...... 90

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 96

REFERENCES ...... 99

APPENDICIES ...... 103

APPENDIX A. PORTAGE RIVER HYDROLOGIC PARAMETERS ...... 104

APPENDIX B. STRATIGRAPHIC DIAGRAMS ...... 109

APPENDIX C. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS ...... 129 viii

APPENDIX D. WATER CONTENT AND POROSITY ...... 214 ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Generalized cross-section of the beach and nearshore zone indicating principal zones of wave activity ...... 4

2 The evolution of a beach ridge complex ...... 6

3 Late Holocene lake-level curves for Toleston Beach ...... 8

4 Tripartite classification of deltas based upon the dominant process of sediment dispersal at the delta front ...... 9

5 Delta front facies assemblages in fluvial-dominated, wave-influenced, and wave dominated deltas in the Upper Cretaceous Dunvegan Formation, Alberta ...... 11

6 The shape of symmetric to asymmetric deltas of the Cretaceous San Miguel Formation, Texas ...... 13

7 A conceptual facies model of an asymmetric wave-influenced delta ...... 16

8 Conceptual evolution of a typical asymmetric delta (Sf. Gheorghe deltaic lobe of the Danube River) ...... 17

9 Regional geologic features in Ohio and adjacent states ...... 21

10 The Great Lakes surface-water drainage basin ...... 22

11 Locations and geographic extent of the major proglacial lakes associated with the retreat of the Laurentide ice sheet ...... 24

12 The Portage River watershed showing all tributaries within the drainage basin from the years of 1929 to 2006 ...... 27

13 Mean annual discharge hydrograph for the Portage River ...... 29

14 A map of the study area at the Portage River delta ...... 31

15 A map of the study area at the Portage River delta showing locations of vibracores ...... 32

16 Sample histogram plots of frequency versus grain size (Φ) and plots of cumulative weight percent versus grain size (Φ) with calculated statistical parameters ...... 36

17 Stratigraphic diagram of vibracore 07-PC-14 showing locations of 14C ages with depth ...... 38

18 14C age determinations plotted with depth ...... 39

19 Probability distribution graph for 14C analysis...... 41

20 Calibrated age range graph for 14C analysis ...... 42

21 Cal BP age determinations plotted with depth ...... 44

22 Historical aerial photographs of a coastal marsh west of the Portage River ...... 45

23 Historical aerial photographs of the strandplain east of the Portage River ...... 46

24 A 2006 seamless image of Ottawa County on July 27, 2006 ...... 47

25 A polygon shapefile representing sand accumulations from the 1980 historical aerial photo to the 2006 CCM image...... 49

26 Photographs of vibracores representing individual lithofacies from Facies A through C ...... 53

27 Histogram plots of frequency versus grain size (Φ) and plots of cumulative weight percent versus grain size (Φ) with calculated statistical parameters for a sample from vibracore 07-PC-8 ...... 54

28 Photographs of vibracores representing individual lithofacies from Facies D through F ...... 57

29 Photographs of vibracores representing individual lithofacies from Facies G through I ...... 61

30 Stratigraphic legend used for interpretation of stratigraphic diagrams ...... 64

31 Common lithofacies sequences west of the Portage River ...... 65

32 Common lithofacies sequence within the strandplain east of the Portage River (vibracore 95-PC-5) ...... 67

33 Stratigraphic diagram of Transect #1 ...... 69

34 Stratigraphic diagram of Transect #2 ...... 70

35 Stratigraphic diagram of Transect #3 ...... 71

36 Stratigraphic diagram of Transect #4 ...... 72

37 Correlation diagram of vibracores from east of the Portage River ...... 75

38 Sedimentation rates throughout vibracore 07-PC-14...... 77

39 14C analysis from vibracore 07-PC-14 ...... 78

40 Sediment plume from the Portage River...... 85

41 Mean daily discharge hydrograph for the Portage River from July 24, 2006 to July 30, 2006 ...... 87

42 Morphology and scale of wave-influenced deltaic complexes ...... 88

43 Image of the Kalamazoo River, Michigan, USA ...... 91

44 Image of the Peshtigo River, Wisconsin, USA ...... 93

45 Image of the Platte River, Michigan, USA ...... 94

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 14C analysis of peat samples...... 37

2 Calibrated 14C results from Calib Rev5.0.2 program ...... 43

3 Description and sedimentary structures of facies within vibracores ...... 52

4 Net longshore drift values for determining the asymmetry index (A) ...... 81

INTRODUCTION

The coast of the Great Lakes have been recognized to contain a variety of features, including bays, estuaries (see below), spits, barrier islands, and strandplains (see below). One type of feature rarely discussed is deltas. The purpose of this project is to re-think the organization of Great Lakes coastal features as components of deltaic depositional systems.

Deltas are constructional shorelines features formed at a point where rivers enter the ocean or another large body of water (Bhattacharya and Walker, 1992). Deltaic environments are common in the Great Lakes region, but there has been little research on their origin and evolution. There may be three reasons for this. First, it is possible that deltaic environments in the Great Lakes have been overlooked because of their relatively smaller size when compared to extensively studied deltas elsewhere. Second, it is possible that the shapes of many deltas on the Great Lakes are not typical of better recognized deltas, because they are not fluvial-dominated. Third, possibly these deltas have not been studied because all shoreline features on the Great Lakes are reasonably young (maximum age of around 15,000 years old), in other words, it is possible that the deltas have poorly developed or immature features.

Recent studies on marine deltas have led to the recognition of a new type of deltaic system, called a “wave-influenced” delta (see later section). These types of deltas tend to be highly asymmetrical, and contain a wide variety of features, including estuaries, bayhead deltas, lagoons, spits and barrier islands, beaches, beach ridges, and strandplains (Bhattacharya and Giosan, 2003). The new facies model has been successfully applied to marine (tidal) deltas. The application of this new facies model to 2 lacustrine settings may allow for the reinterpretation of coastal environments in the Great

Lakes as possible smaller components of wave-influenced deltaic systems. Several of these components are discussed next.

Estuaries

The term “estuary” was originally defined as a semi-enclosed coastal body of water which has free access to the ocean and within which seawater is measurably diluted by freshwater runoff from the adjacent drainage basin (Pritchard, 1967). This definition implies that estuaries are marine in character and that one significant characteristic is a direct connection to the ocean leading to a continuous exchange between seawater and freshwater. In addition, the important processes in estuaries are based upon the relative importance of river versus wave and tidal processes. For example, deeper estuaries with an increasing tidal influence are more likely to be density stratified. The deposits in these estuaries are typically a mix of coastal and fluvial sediments, such as interbedded and interfingering sandstone, shale, siltstone, and coal facies, representing many overlapping depositional environments (Reinson, 1992). Obviously this makes estuarine deposits difficult to interpret, but also useful and interesting because estuarine deposits in the ancient record provide evidence of transgressions and regressions, and the relative importance of fluvial and coastal processes (Reinson, 1992).

While the traditional use of “estuary” has been restricted to marine environments, the lower courses of many tributaries to the Great Lakes, particularly the more southerly lakes, have been characterized as “drowned or estuarine-like stream mouths”

(Herdendorf, 1990) even though these obviously lack the exchange of freshwater and salt water. For example, Old Woman Creek on the southern shore of Lake Erie has been set 3 aside since 1977 as a research and education preserve known as the Old Woman Creek

National Estuarine Research Reserve (part of the network of the National Estuarine

Research Reserve System administered by NOAA). Thus, the use of this term “estuary” for some river mouths in the Great Lakes is controversial but persistent.

Beaches

The main components that make up a beach include the shoreface, foreshore (or beachface), backshore, and dune environments (Boggs, 2001). These environments can be seen in the generalized cross-sectional profile of a beach (Fig. 1). The shoreface extends to the lower limit of fair-weather wave base. Wave base is the depth at which wave orbitals diminish and is a function of wave length and wave period (Boggs, 2001).

Lower shoreface deposits form under relatively low-energy conditions. They commonly consist of fine- to very fine-grained sand interbedded with silt and mud layers. Common sedimentary structures in the lower shoreface include small-scale cross-stratification, planar lamination, and hummocky stratification caused by storm events (Boggs, 2001).

Upper shoreface deposits form in environments with strong bidirectional waves and longshore currents. Commonly the sedimentary structures in the upper shoreface consist of multidirectional trough cross-bedded, medium-grained sand and near-horizontal plane bedded, medium-grained sand (Baedke et al., 2004). The foreshore, or swash zone, is where waves break and wash up on the beach (Baedke et al., 2004). Sediments found in the foreshore are composed of fine- to medium-grained sand, but also include pebble and gravel layers, or may include thick, laminae of heavy minerals alternating with quartz sands (Boggs, 2001). The backshore is inundated only during storm events and is a zone dominated by intermittent storm-wave conditions and eolian sand transport and 4

Figure 1. Generalized cross-section of the beach and nearshore zone, indicating principal zones of wave activity (from Boggs, 2001).

5 deposition. Faint, lakeward-dipping horizontal laminae, interrupted by bioturbation, are present while small- to medium-scale eolian trough cross-bedded sand overlies the backshore deposits (Boggs, 2001). Eolian dunes are found in the most landward and highest topographic part of the profile and consist of moderately to well-sorted, medium- to fine-grained sand (Baedke et al., 2004).

Strandplains

Beach ridge sequences are frequent components of Holocene coastal plains

(Otvos, 2000). Many shorelines around the Great Lakes include numerous localities that are strandplains, in other words coastal areas consisting of multiple beach ridges

(Thompson and Baedke, 1995; Larson and Schaetzl, 2001; Baedke et al., 2004). A beach ridge is a curved to linear ridge of sand that runs parallel or sub-parallel to the modern coast (Baedke et al., 2004). If there are a series of beach ridges, it is common to find swales between beach ridges containing wetlands. Most sandy beach ridges are of the swash-built type. Swash-built ridges originated in the upper shoreface-foreshore zone and generally consist of low-angle trough cross-bedded and inclined planar-bedded sands. Strandplains commonly consist of 5-25 individual beach ridges, but as many as

250 ridges can be observed (Tanner, 1995).

Beach ridges form during positive rates of sediment supply and the final stages of a sea-level/lake-level rise (Thompson and Baedke, 1995). The evolution of a beach ridge complex can be seen in Figure 2: (1) at highest lake level, storms create one or several berms at a high level on the beach (Fig. 2A), (2) the berm or berms serve as the core of the incipient beach ridge (Fig. 2B); and (3) the growth of grasses and other plants on the berm crest helps trap eolian sand resulting in the growth of the beach ridge through time 6

Figure 2. The evolution of a beach ridge complex: (A) rising lake levels (1-3) create one or several berms on the beach, (B) the newly formed berm or berms serve as the core of the incipient beach ridge, and the formation of plants and grasses trap eolian sediment resulting in the growth of the beach ridge, (C) falling lake levels (5-7) result in the growth of a recognizable beach ridge (from Baedke et al., 2004). 7 while the shoreline retreats lakeward during the fall from high-stand (Fig. 2C). If the shoreline receives a sufficient supply of sediment, the beach ridge will be preserved and not entirely eroded during the next lake-level rise and through time a chronosequence of beach ridges will be formed and preserved, indicating high stands in lake level (Baedke et al., 2004).

Thompson (1992) used beach ridges to determine past lake-level fluctuations along the southern shore of Lake Michigan at Toleston Beach. Two relative lake-level curves were constructed for the western and central part of Toleston Beach which show the basal foreshore elevation (represents lake level elevation) throughout the late

Holocene (Fig. 3). The curves show three scales of quasi-periodic lake-level variation:

(1) over a short-term of 31 ± 8 yrs, lake-level fluctuated with a range of about 0.5 to 0.6 m; (2) over an intermediate-term of 151 ± 14 yrs, lake-level fluctuated with a range of about 0.8 to 0.9 m; and (3) over a long-term of 500 to 600 yrs, lake-level fluctuation with a range of 1.8 to 3.7 m. As seen in Thompson (1992), beach ridges are important in the understanding of the coastal evolution of the Great Lakes, because they show the positions of ancient lakeshores, rates of change of lake-levels, and climate-induced periodicities.

Deltas

Deltas can be classified in many ways and are based on their relative influence of fluvial, tidal, and wave action (Fig. 4). The traditional classification of deltas is “fluvial- dominated,” “wave-dominated,” or “tide-dominated.” This tripartite classification is based on the importance of fluvial processes versus secondary processes (waves and tides) that redistribute fluvial sediment (Bhattacharya and Walker, 1992). 8

Figure 3. Late Holocene lake-level curves for Toleston Beach. (A) Miller Woods and (B) Gary Airport, at the southwest and south-central coast of Lake Michigan. Represents least-squares lines of best fit through basal foreshore elevations and regression lines are anchored on the historical average for Lake Michigan (from Thompson, 1992).

Figure 4. Tripartite classification of deltas based upon the dominant process of sediment dispersal at the delta front (from Bhattacharya and Giosan, 2003).

Fluvial-dominated Deltas

Fluvial-dominated deltas usually are rich in fluvial sediment and are elongate or lobate in shape, depending on how much sediment is being supplied. In fluvial- dominated deltas, the prodelta facies consists of mudstones and siltstones while the delta- front facies consists of sandstones (Fig. 5: Bhattacharya and Walker, 1991). Soft- sediment deformation features are common in river-dominated deltas as a consequence of high-sedimentation rates and can occur on a large scale involving a large percentage of delta-front sediments (Coleman et al., 1983). The distributary channels contain structures such as cross-stratification, current ripples, and graded bedding indicative of dominant fluvial processes. The Mississippi River delta is a classic example of a fluvial- dominated, or birdsfoot-type, delta.

Tide-dominated Deltas

The Ganges-Brahmaputra delta is a renowned example of a tidally-dominated delta characterized by a network of tidal sand bars and channels oriented nearly parallel to the direction of the tides. Coastlines can be classified by tidal range as being microtidal (0-2 meters), mesotidal (2-4 meters), or macrotidal (> 4 meters).

Tide-dominated deltas are typically found on macrotidal coasts, independently of fluvial processes. There are characteristic sedimentary structures showing tidal influence, such as tidal bundles, herringbone stratification, and tidal rhythmites. Tidal currents can redistribute fluvial sediments producing, in the extreme case, bays filled by fluvial and tidal sediments. These distributary mouth deposits can then be reworked by tidal processes into linear ridges extending from the channel mouth to the subaqueous delta- front platform (Boggs, 2001). 11

Figure 5. (A) Delta front facies assemblages in fluvial-dominated, wave-influenced, and wave dominated deltas in the Upper Cretaceous Dunvegan Formation, Alberta. (B) Facies legend for the delta-front facies succession (from Bhattacharya, 2006).

Wave-dominated Deltas

Wave-dominated deltas form where there is a strong longshore current. These deltas exhibit smooth shoreline features, represented by a highly symmetrical shape

(Boggs, 2001). These deltas commonly consist of prograding beach ridge complexes, where the sand contributed from a nearby river is redistributed parallel to the coastline by longshore drift (Bhattacharya and Walker, 1992). Wave-dominated deltas tend to prograde forming a coarsening-upward facies succession (Fig. 5) that includes a large amount of wave-produced structures, such as wave ripples and hummocky cross- stratification, with little evidence for fresh water influence.

Wave-influenced Deltas

It is imperative to understand the differences between wave-influenced and wave- dominated deltas. As stated earlier, deltas are classified based on the influences of river, wave, and tide action. This tripartite model is still widely used but is not without debate.

Problems develop by attempting to force-fit actual deltas into an end-member classification system. One response is plotting individual deltas as single points on the diagram such as in Figure 4 (Bhattacharya and Giosan, 2003). The fact that is frustrating trying to force-fit deltas into the tripartite system led to a recent re-evaluation of deltas in general, and a proposal for wave-influenced deltas.

Wave-influenced deltas tend to show facies successions that are transitional between that of river- and wave-dominated classifications with a coarsening-upward stratigraphic sequence. These deltas generally are portrayed as arcuate to cuspate lobes with more cuspate lobes indicating greater wave influence (Coleman and Wright, 1975;

Bhattacharya and Walker, 1992; Fig. 6). Wave-influenced deltas generally show 13

Figure 6. The shape of symmetric to asymmetric deltas of the Cretaceous San Miguel Formation, Texas. The asymmetric deltas predict sand deposition updrift of the delta. This new interpretation implies original longshore drift directions may be incorrect. Strike direction is represented by the dashed line; river discharge is indicated by thick dashed arrows; small black arrows reveal original longshore drift, and small white arrows indicate the proposed longshore drift direction (from Bhattacharya and Giosan, 2003).

14 abundant graded bedding common in prodelta muds and high sedimentation rates, similar to river-dominated deltas, while delta-front sandstones reveal wave ripples and hummocky cross-stratification similar to wave- dominated deltas (Bhattacharya and

Walker, 1992; Fig. 5).

Historically, wave-influenced deltas have been depicted as consisting of a series of straight to gently curved strandplains, where sand is assumed to be supplied from a nearby river (Miall, 1979). Newly examined cases suggest that wave-influenced deltas occur in microtidal areas. They became asymmetric because riverine discharge can exert a strong groin effect in order to block longshore sediment drift, resulting in deposition on the updrift side of the delta (Bhattacharya and Giosan, 2003). In contrast, a relatively low discharge from the river will result in the mouth of the delta migrating downdrift, and when discharge can not generate a groin effect at all, the river mouth will begin to be deflected parallel to the shoreline (Dominguez, 1996).

The formation or origin of wave-influenced deltas is strongly dependent upon the relationship between river discharge and longshore drift. Dominguez (1996) suggested that the interaction might result in a continuum of deltas ranging from symmetrical to highly asymmetrical. Bhattacharya and Giosan (2003) proposed a simple asymmetry index for wave-influenced deltas to measure by what degree a delta could be influenced by longshore drift (Eqn.1).

LD A  (Eqn. 1) Q

A - asymmetry index LD - net longshore sediment transport (m3 yr-1) Q - average river water discharge (million m3 month-1)

Using Eqn. 1, the asymmetry index is calculated as the ratio between the net longshore sediment transport rate at the river mouth and the average water discharge. If the asymmetry index > 200 then the delta is classified as asymmetric.

A facies model (Fig. 7) representing an asymmetric delta was also constructed to predict the facies architecture (Bhattacharya and Giosan, 2003). This model indicates that estuaries, bayhead deltas, lagoons, beaches, beach ridges, strandplains, spits, and barrier islands form naturally in prograding asymmetric deltas (Bhattacharya and Giosan,

2003). Based on the development style of the examined deltas, a conceptual model (Fig.

7) for the facies architecture of asymmetric wave-influenced deltas can be established

(Bhattacharya and Giosan, 2003).

Examples of Asymmetric Deltas

The Sfantu Gheorghe delta is the southernmost distributary of the larger Danube

River delta. The most recent distributary channel is asymmetric in shape and interpreted as a wave-influenced delta (Bhattacharya and Giosan, 2003). The evolution of the Sf.

Gheorghe delta can be interpreted in three phases (Fig. 8): (1) a subaqueous delta phase

(Fig. 8A) characterized by deposition of sediments primarily on the subaqueous part of the delta, (2) a middle-ground bar phase (Fig. 8B), in which a middle-ground distributary bar forced the distributary to bifurcate, and (3) a barrier island phase (Fig. 8C) when the emergent linear barrier bars coalesced on the subaqueous delta to form a barrier that attached to the mainland (Bhattacharya and Giosan, 2003).

The Sao Francisco delta of Brazil has been a subject of debate in the literature because of its significant strandplain (chenier) accumulation. Dominguez (1996) suggests that the Sao Francisco is not actually a delta because approximately half of the 16

Figure 7. A conceptual facies model of an asymmetric wave-influenced delta. Prodelta mudstones are located in the downdrift portion of the delta where there are sandy barrier bars within lagoonal mudstones and bayhead delta deposits. Updrift portion consists of a beach ridge plain (from Bhattacharya and Giosan, 2003). 17

Figure 8. Conceptual evolution of a typical asymmetric delta (Sf. Gheorghe deltaic lobe of the Danube River). (A) Subaqueous delta phase where sediment is deposited on the subaqueous portion of the delta. (B) Middle-ground bar phase where a middle-ground bar forms at the mouth forcing the distributary to bifurcate. (C) Barrier island phase when the barrier bars attach to the mainland forcing a new bayhead delta. Longshore drift is represented by the white arrow and flows southward (from Bhattacharya and Giosan, 2003).

18 sand supply is due to reworking of the shelf material and the other half supplied by the river. Bhattacharya and Walker (1992) reinterpreted the Sao Francisco as a wave- influenced delta. One value of the wave-influenced delta model is that it explains the origin of strandplains (cheniers) without requiring a change in sea-level.

The development of the wave-influenced delta model is a breakthrough in the fundamental understanding of many coastal features and indicates that estuaries, bayhead deltas, lagoons, strandplains, and barrier islands form naturally in prograding asymmetric deltas at stable sea-level or lake-level, and are not necessarily associated with transgressive or regressive systems (Bhattacharya and Giosan, 2003). This marine delta facies model also explains these seemingly unrelated coastal features as part of an integrated whole in the wave-influenced delta setting and de-emphasizes the role of the transgression (Holocene sea level rise) as being responsible for the formation of the coastal features. Finally this model highlights the role of coastal sediment budgets

(longshore drift) on the formation of the coastal features. Using this wave-influenced delta model it may be possible to interpret some of the deltas on the Great Lakes as parts of wave-influenced deltas.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this project is to apply new understandings about wave-influenced deltas to deltaic environments in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Bhattacharya and Giosan

(2003) have developed a conceptual facies model that shows how fluvial discharge disrupts longshore drift transport to produce an asymmetric delta. The importance of this model is twofold: (1) that disparate coastal features including estuaries, barrier islands, and strandplains are related components of wave-influenced deltas and (2) strandplain 19 development does not require changes in lake-level position, although changes in lake level would be one of the controls over strandplain growth.

This study is proposing a reinterpretation of the Lake Erie coastal features near the mouth of the Portage River as possible components of a wave-influenced deltaic system. This study will re-evaluate the behavior of sediment transport in the vicinity of an active river channel to see how coastal processes are affected; suggesting that the river itself is strongly modifying coastal processes and nearshore sand budgets.

BACKGROUND

Bedrock Geology

The bedrock near the Portage River Delta consists of Silurian and Early Devonian sedimentary rocks (limestone, dolostone, shale, and sandstone) overlain by the Late

Devonian Ohio Shale. The Paleozoic carbonates, present in northwest Ohio, formed in peritidal (shallow subtidal to intertidal) environments while shales formed in shallower settings evidenced by tempestite deposits (Coogan, 1996). The Lake Erie islands along with Catawba Island are remnants of resistant layers of the Columbus Limestone and the

Upper Bass Island Dolomite (Devonian) that have withstood erosion from multiple glaciations and intense wave action on Lake Erie (Larson and Schaetzl, 2001).

Structural Geology

The study area is located along the Findlay Arch, which trends north-northeast from southwestern Ohio through the middle of Lake Erie (Fig. 9; Coogan, 1996). The

Findlay Arch is the local term for the northern limb of the Cincinnati Arch, which extends from the Nashville Dome in Tennessee. The Cincinnati-Findlay Arch system was produced by structural loading and Appalachian basin subsidence as a result of the terminal closing of the Iapetus Ocean in the Late Paleozoic (Root and Onasch, 1999).

Although the Findlay Arch has no present day surface expression, it was a prominent geographic feature during the Ordovician through the Devonian (Root and Onasch,

1999).

Late Cenozoic and Modern History

The Great Lakes

The North American Great Lakes watershed (Fig. 10) covers around 765,990 km2. 21

Figure 9. Regional geologic features in Ohio and adjacent states (from Coogan, 1996).

Figure 10. The Great Lakes surface-water drainage basin. The shaded areas represent the Great Lakes watershed (from Hodgkins et al., 2007).

About one-tenth of the population of the United States and one-quarter the population of

Canada lives within its watershed. The watershed covers part or all of eight U.S. states and a Canadian province, and is home to the Great Lakes, the largest expanse of freshwater on the earth (Larson and Schaetzl, 2001). The origin of the watershed is complex, related to numerous glaciations during the late Cenozoic as well as glacial isostatic processes (Larson and Schaetzl, 2001). Initially the Ontario, Erie, Huron,

Superior, and Michigan basins owe their origin to channeling of ice flow along major bedrock valley systems that existed prior to glaciations, and to increased glacial scouring and erosion in areas of relatively weak bedrock (Wold et al., 1981). The multiple glaciations and deglaciations during the late Cenozoic produced numerous ancestral lake phases in this watershed and also provided the means to deepen these basins through repeated glacial scouring and erosion. It is impossible to verify the number of glaciations that have occurred in this watershed because glacial erosion removed the evidence of earlier events. However, stratigraphic evidence from outside the watershed indicates that the glacier ice extended over all or part of the watershed at least six times since 0.78 Ma

(Larson and Schaetzl, 2001).

Glacial and postglacial lake phases in the Great Lakes region have evolved throughout the Pleistocene and Holocene, which is documented by the presence of bars, lake-floor sediments, abandoned spillways and channels, wave-formed cliffs, beach ridges, and deltas (Larson and Schaetzl, 2001). Larson and Schaetzl (2001) illustrate a complete evolution of the major proglacial lakes (Fig. 11) starting with the initial advancement of the Wisconsin ice sheet around 16 Ka years ago. These proglacial lake phases are modified by the advance and retreat of the ice sheet with varying drainage 24

Figure 11. Locations and geographic extent of the major proglacial lakes associated with the retreat of the Laurentide ice sheet (from Larson and Schaetzl, 2001). 25 outlet elevations. These outlets are of particular importance because they control the level of lakes depending on periodic ice blockage, isostatic uplift, and downcutting

(Larson and Schaetzl, 2001).

Lake Erie

Lake Erie is one of the largest freshwater lakes in the world, ranking 9th by area and 15th by volume (Herdendorf, 1990). Lake Erie is 388-km long and 92-km wide, with an average depth of 19-m and a maximum depth of 64-m (Herdendorf, 1992). Lake Erie is the southernmost and shallowest of the North American Great Lakes and is divided into three distinct basins: western, central, and eastern. The western basin lies west of a line from Pelee Point (Ontario) to Cedar Point spit (Ohio), the Central basin then extends east to a line from Long Point spit (Ontario) to Presque Isle barrier island and lagoon at

Erie (Pennsylvania), and east of that line is the Eastern basin (Herdendorf, 1992). Nearly all of the tributaries entering Lake Erie in Ohio exhibit characteristics of drowned river mouths, commonly with accompanying wetlands. These wetland type habitats have been studied intensely because of their importance as aquatic habitat for wildlife diversity and aquatic vegetation.

The origin and evolution of the Lake Erie basin is particularly complex and it has undergone numerous proglacial lake phases. Detailed histories of the proglacial lake phases in the Erie basin can be found elsewhere (Leverett and Taylor, 1915; Forsyth,

1973; and Larson and Schaetzl, 2001). The earliest proglacial lake found in the Erie

Basin, Glacial Lake Leverett, formed due to retreat of the Wisconsin ice sheet at around

16 Ka (Larson and Schaetzl, 2001). Following advance and retreat of the Wisconsin ice sheet (about 14 Ka), Glacial Lake Maumee was the next proglacial lake to occupy this 26 basin, and it is divided into several lake phases known as Maumee I, II, and III (Leverett and Taylor, 1915). The Maumee lake phases represent different lake levels and are the result of varying outlet locations in the basin. Glacial Lake Maumee was then replaced by Glacial Lake Arkona when water merged from the Huron and Erie basins due to the further retreat of the Wisconsin ice sheet at about 13.5 Ka (Larson and Schaetzl, 2001).

As Glacial Lake Arkona expanded, a lower outlet was uncovered which caused the lake to drain, leaving behind a low-lake stage known as Glacial Lake Ypsilanti. A major pulse of the Wisconsin ice sheet occurred at about 13 Ka blocking lower outlet elevations and raising lake levels in what is known as Glacial Lake Whittlesey (Forsyth, 1973).

Ensuing retreat of the Wisconsin ice sheet resulted in the formation of Glacial Lake

Warren from the coalescing of Glacial Lake Whittlesey and waters from the Huron basin.

This was followed by an intermittent low-level water stage in the Huron and Erie basins known as Glacial Lake Wayne (Larson and Schaetzl, 2001). Following the uncovering of a still lower outlet at about 12 Ka, water levels in the Erie basin dropped resulting in

Early Lake Erie drained by the Niagara River (Larson and Schaetzl, 2001).

When the present day outlet of Lake Erie at the Niagara River was finally free of ice, the outlet was about 150 feet lower than that of today (Forsyth, 1973). This is the low-level water stage in Early Lake Erie, leaving water in only the deepest part of the basin. The final departure of the Wisconsin ice sheet resulted in isostatic rebound in this region causing the Niagara outlet to rise to its present day elevation and consequently lake-level rose to its present elevation.

Portage River

The Portage River watershed (Fig. 12) is located in northwest Ohio and its 97-km 27

Figure 12. The Portage River watershed showing all tributaries within the drainage basin. The upper left insert shows the location of the Portage River watershed in Ohio.

28 long watershed is an important drainage system for the Western Basin of Lake Erie (Rife and Moody, 2003). This river is among many tributaries that flow into the southern margin of Lake Erie. The Portage River trends northwest and empties near Port Clinton and was important in the draining of the Great Black Swamp which is evident by the abundance of many streams and tributaries that supply it. Mean annual discharge, maximum stream gage height, and peak streamflow values can be found in Appendix A from the years of 1929 through 2006. The mean annual discharge of the Portage River has varied from less than 3 m3/sec to over 17 m3/sec with an average of about 10 m3/sec

(Fig. 13). The highest recorded peak streamflow for the Portage River is 850 m3/sec which occurred on March 8, 1963. Another significant flooding event occurred in 1913 with an estimated peak streamflow of greater than 481 m3/sec. This flood event was either ungaged or destroyed the existing gages and was probably much larger than the estimated value, possibly representing the 100-yr flood event. Additional years with a peak streamflow of at least 285 m3/sec include 1948, 1950, 1982, 1990, 1998, and 2005.

20.0 18.0 16.0

14.0 /sec) 3 12.0 10.0 8.0

6.0 Discharge (m Discharge 4.0 2.0 0.0 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Time (year)

Figure 13. Mean annual discharge hydrograph for the Portage River from the years of 1929 to 2006 (from USGS, 2008).

METHODS

Field Work

Field work for this study was conducted along a 10-km stretch of Lake Erie east and west of the Portage River delta (Fig. 14). The field work was completed within a two-week period in May of 2007 with the collection of 19 vibracores up to 4.5 meters in length. In addition, 9 vibracores from a previous study were re-sampled and re- examined. The core data was used to study the history and evolution of this region. The locations of the core sites were determined with a Garmin GPS.

Vibracoring

Twenty-eight vibracores were collected to determine sedimentary facies and for a more complete record of the facies sequence throughout the study area (Fig. 15). The vibracorer used in this study was provided by the Ohio Geological Survey-Lake Erie

Section. A steel tripod was set up directly over the coring location. The vibracore is powered by a 4-cycle gasoline engine and attached to the engine is a flexible cable that is attached to a vibrating head which vibrates at around 10,000 vibrations/minute. The vibrating head is then attached to a 7.5 cm diameter core tube (aluminum irrigation pipe), whose end was sharpened for easier penetration through the coastal deposits.

When the engine for the vibracorer is started, the revolutions of the cable are transformed into vibrating which vibrates the aluminum coring pipe. The sediment surrounding the coring pipe liquefies, allowing the barrel to pass readily through it.

However, thick gravel and shell layers will not allow the coring pipe to pass easily.

Organic-rich and clay-rich layers can also slow or prevent the penetration of the core tube. 31

Figure 14. A map of the study area at the Portage River delta (modified from USDA, 2008).

Figure 15. A map of the study area at the Portage River delta showing locations of vibracores. Transect 1 consists of cores 07-PC-8 through 07-PC-13. Transect 2 consists of cores 07-PC-14 through 07-PC16. Transect 3 consists of 07-PC-5 through 07-PC-6 (modified from USDA, 2008)

Prior to removing the core, the sediment level is marked on the outside of the core tube to determine the amount of compaction. After removing the vibrating head, a chain hoist is attached to the tripod, and is used to lift the core. The excess coring pipe is then cut off and an arrow is drawn on the core tube to orient the core. The top and bottom of the coring pipe are labeled and sealed to prevent the drying out of the sediment as well as sediment loss.

Laboratory Work

Core Stratigraphy

Once the vibracores were collected in the field, they were brought back to the

BGSU Sedimentary Core Laboratory. The core tubes were split in half lengthwise with a metal cutter and labeled as the working or archive half. The stratigraphy of the working half was then described by determining lithologies, contact relationships, and sedimentary structures. The colors of sediment layers were determined using the Munsell color chart while the sediments were damp. Selected intervals were sampled for water content, porosity, grain size, and 14C analysis. The archive half was left undisturbed, sealed, and stored for future analysis. The working half of each core was photographed for a more permanent record.

Stratigraphic sections were drawn using Adobe Illustrator CS2 (Appendix B).

These core diagrams were used to correlate similar facies and to identify facies relationships. Correlations were based on lithofacies, certain sedimentary structures, age relationships, and fossils.

Water Content and Porosity

Prior to grain size analysis, the individual samples were collected from cores, 34 weighed, and then placed in a drying oven for 24-hours to determine water content. After the water content was determined, porosity was calculated from the water content data using the method of Evans et al. (2002):

Ø = (MW/σW) / [(MW/σW) + (MS/σS)] (Eqn. 2)

Ø - is the porosity of the sample MW - is the mass of water in each sample MS - is the mass of solids in each sample 3 σW - is the density of water (1.00 g/cm ) 3 σS - is the density of solids (2.60 g/cm )

Grain Size Analysis

Samples from the working half of sediment cores primarily consisted of sands, with minor gravels and rare mud and clay layers. Sieve analysis was used to determine the grain size distribution of sand and gravel. The samples were shaken for a period of

15 minutes and passed through a series of sieves with openings of -4.0, -3.0, -2.0, -1.0,

0.0, +1.0, +2.0, +3.0, +4.0, and >+4 phi units. The sediment left behind in each pan was then weighed and a percent of the total weight for each pan was determined. In total, 77 samples underwent the sieve analysis.

For sediments that consisted of mostly mud and clay, the Spectrex PC-2300 Laser

Particle Analyzer (LPA) was used to determine grain size. The LPA operates on the principle that particles of a given size diffract light through a given angle, with the angle increasing with decreasing grain size (Boggs, 2001). In all, 7 samples underwent analysis with the LPA.

All grain sizes analyses were statistically characterized, including the mode, median, mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis (Appendix C). For each sample, a histogram plot and a graph of cumulative weight (%) versus grain size, in phi 35

(Φ) units, was constructed to extract the different Φ percentiles used in calculating the statistics. An example is shown in Figure 16.

14 Carbon Analysis

In this study, peat intervals ranging in thickness up 70-cm were found overlying glacial lacustrine sediment. Vibracore 07-PC-14 represented the thickest sequence of peat and was sampled at three depths for 14C analysis (Table 1). For the 14C analysis, about 100-g of sample was collected with plastic utensils and placed in sealed plastic bags to prevent contamination. The peat was sampled at the base of the peat sequence just above glacial-lacustrine sediment at a depth of 194 to 201 cm, near the middle of the peat sequence below a transition to organic mud at 158 to 165 cm, and at 130 to 137 cm, just below a sand interval at the top of the peat sequence (Fig. 17)

These samples were then sent to Geochron laboratories for conventional 14C dating which includes sample preparation and δ13C correction. The entire sample was dispersed in a large volume of water and the clays and organic matter were dispersed from sand and silt by sedimentation and decantation. The clay/organic fraction was then treated with hot dilute 1N HCl for one hour to remove any carbonates. The samples were then filtered, washed, dried, and combusted in oxygen to recover CO2 for the analysis.

The 14C age determinations in this analysis are based upon the Libby half life (5570 years).

After obtaining the 14C age determinations, these values were then plotted with depth. Interestingly, the three 14C age determinations formed a linear trend (R2 value of

0.9923; Fig. 18). The 14C age determinations were then calibrated to calendar years (cal

BP) using a Radiocarbon Calibration Program (Calib Rev5.0.2) developed by Stuvier and 36

07-PC-1 (13-19 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-1 (13-19 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -3.7 -3.2 -2.2 2.0 2.6 2.9 3.6

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3Φ 2Φ 0.57Φ 2.63Φ -0.6 0.6

Figure 16. Sample histogram plots of frequency versus grain size (Φ) and plots of cumulative weight percent versus grain size (Φ) with calculated statistical parameters for a sample from vibracore 07-PC-4. 37

Table 1. 14C Analysis of peat samples Depth (cm) Weight (g) 14C (years BP) cal BP δ13C Correction (%) 130-137 111.5 1700 ± 70 1616 ± 80 -26.7 158-165 140.5 1890 ± 120 1825 ± 128 -29.1 194-201 157.0 2070 ± 110 2025 ± 128 -28.8 38

Figure 17. Stratigraphic diagram of vibracore 07-PC-14 showing locations of cal BP age dates with depth.

Vibracore 07-PC-14 y = 5.7448x + 952.18 R2 = 0.9923

2500

2000

1500

1000

C(YBP) Age 14 500

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Depth (cm)

Figure 18. 14C age determinations plotted with depth. This graph shows a linear regression through the three plotted values with a R2 value of 0.9923.

Reimer (1993). The Calib Rev5.0.2 calibration program yielded a probability distribution graph (Fig. 19) and a calibrated age range graph (Fig. 20). The cal BP age for each sample was determined by taking the median value from within 1 sigma (68.3% of the area enclosed) in the calibrated age range graph. The variance about the cal BP age is considered to be the error range (Table 2). When plotted with depth, the cal BP age determinations follow an even better linear trend (R2 value of 0.9931, Fig. 21).

Aerial Photographs

Historical aerial photographs were obtained from the Ohio Geological Survey-

Lake Erie Section for the years of 1957 and 1980 at selected locations east and west of the Portage River delta. Flight 850 was flown on April 15, 1957 and Flight 6790 was flown on May 6, 1980. Both sets of historical aerial photographs were processed for the

Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) with an original scale of 1 inch equal to 400 feet and were scanned at 600 dpi and imported into Adobe Illustrator CS2. The locations are shown in Figures 22 and 23. A modern aerial photograph (Fig. 24) of Ottawa County was downloaded from the United States Department of Agriculture- National Resources

Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) geospatial data gateway website for a flight flown

July 27, 2006 using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates (zone number 17) with the North American Datum (NAD) 1983 datum. The 2006 image had been orthorectified to produce a seamless mosaic that is geometrically accurate. The seamless mosaic is then cut into Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangle (DOQQ) tiles to produce

Compressed County Mosaic (CCM) images. This image was then imported into

Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) ArcGIS 9.2.

To compare the historical aerial photographs with the modern, images have to be 41

Figure 19. Probability distribution graph for 14C analysis. Calib Rev5.0.2 program was used to calibrate 14C years BP to cal BP. 42

Figure 20. Calibrated age range graph for 14C analysis. Calib Rev5.0.2 program was used to calibrate 14C years BP to cal BP.

Table 2. Calibrated 14C results from Calib Rev5.0.2 program 07-PC-14 (130 -137 cm) Radiocarbon Age BP = 1700 ± 70 % Area Enclosed cal BP ranges Relative Area under probability distribution 68.3 (1 sigma) 1536 - 1696 1.00 95.4 (2 sigma) 1416 - 1474 0.07 1479 - 1741 0.89 1755 - 1783 0.03 1794 - 1811 0.01

07-PC-14 (158 - 165 cm) Radiocarbon Age BP = 1890 ± 120 % Area Enclosed cal BP ranges Relative Area under probability distribution 68.3 (1 sigma) 1697 - 1952 0.93 1958 - 1987 0.07 95.4 (2 sigma) 1546 - 2119 1.00

07-PC-14 (194 - 201 cm) Radiocarbon Age BP = 2070 ± 110 % Area Enclosed cal BP ranges Relative Area under probability distribution 68.3 (1 sigma) 1897 - 2153 0.95 2274 - 2291 0.05 95.4 (2 sigma) 1822 - 2331 1.00 44

Vibracore 07-PC-14 y = 6.3523x + 788.52 R2 = 0.9931 2500

2000

1500

1000 C Age (cal BP) C(cal Age

14 500

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Depth (cm)

Figure 21. Cal BP age determinations plotted with depth. This graph shows a linear regression through the three plotted values with a R2 value of 0.9931.

Figure 22. Historical aerial photographs of a coastal marsh west of the Portage River. (A) Historical aerial photographs from April 15, 1957. (B) Historical aerial photographs from May 6, 1980. Insert map in the upper left shows location of aerial photographs.

Figure 23. Historical aerial photographs of the strandplain west of the Portage River. (A) Historical aerial photographs from April 15, 1957. (B) Historical aerial photographs from May 6, 1980. Insert map in the upper left shows location of aerial photographs.

Figure 24. A 2006 seamless aerial image of Ottawa County on July 27, 2006 (USDA, 2006). 48 georeferenced and projected in to the UTM coordinates. Because the 2006 image had been orthorectified and projected into a DOQQ, a select 1980 historical aerial photograph was georeferenced to the 2006 image using a 1st order polynomial transformation. This was accomplished by manually selecting 3 tie-points from the historical aerial photograph and the DOQQ. The calculated error for this transformation is determined by taking the root mean square (RMS) sum of all of the residual errors. The residual errors are the difference between where from point projected as opposed to the actual location that was specified. The RMS error for this 1st order polynomial transformation was less then 0.0003 pixels.

As mentioned previously, one goal of this study is to calculate the asymmetry index (Eqn.1). Aerial photographs were used in this study to asses the net longshore drift rate (LD) in (m3/year). To determine the LD, a 1980 aerial photograph was georeferenced to the 2006 National Agricultural Imagery Program Mosaic (Ottawa

County) using Geographic Information System (GIS). The comparison between photographs indicates the accumulations of sand between 1980 and 2006. A polygon shapefile was then constructed to outline the area of the sands that represented the difference between the 1980 and 2006 image (Fig. 25). After determining the area of the sand accumulations, the volume then had to be determined. Vibracore 07-PC-18 collected in one of these sand accumulations indicates the depth of newly accumulated sand in this area is about 1.5-m. By multiplying the area by the 1.5-m depth, a volume was calculated which, when divided by 26 years, gave a minimum value for net longshore drift (m3 yr-1). To determine average water discharge (106m3/month), an average monthly discharge was averaged from a USGS gauge station on the Portage 49

07-PC-18

Figure. 25. A polygon shapefile representing sand accumulations from the 1980 historical aerial photo to the 2006 CCM image. The polygon shapefile is overlaying the 2006 CCM image showing the location of vibracore 07-PC-18.

River near Elmore (Appendix A) for the years of 1998-2006. After converting these values to m3/sec, the values then had to be converted to 106m3/month for use in Eqn. 1.

RESULTS

Lithofacies Analysis

The sedimentary succession in this study is divided into nine individual lithofacies: glacial lacustrine sediment, planar-stratified sand, low-angle cross-stratified sand, trough cross-stratified sand, massive gravel, laminated sand, organic mud-peat, massive sand, and laminated mud. A summary of these lithofacies is seen in Table 3.

Facies A (Glacial lacustrine facies)

Facies A consists of a laminated, fine- to medium-grained silt with high clay content (Fig. 26A). The elevated clay content within this facies (Fig. 27) results in highly cohesive clays resistant to erosion. The color ranges from gray (Munsell Color Index, 7.5

Y 6/0) to brown (7.5 Y 4/3), being mottled in places. Some of the silts contain gastropod fossils. Most of the sediment cores reached these cohesive sediments and recovered from

0-65 cm into them.

Interpretation: This facies is interpreted as glacial-lacustrine sediment due to its cohesive silt and clay content. The presence of lacustrine silt and clay would normally indicate deposition in a low-energy, quiet-water environment, although, in this glacial setting the vast amount of sediment coming from the glacier overwhelmed the capabilities of the lacustrine processes to move sediment around. A study by Coakley and Lewis (1985), using borehole sediments to determine lake-level variations in Lake

Erie, concluded that these cohesive silts and clays mark the presence of glacial lacustrine environments. Mottled structures are observed near the top of glacial lacustrine interval and probably represent bioturbation. The mottled structures are a result of extensive burrowing which homogenizes the sediment and destroys preexisting sedimentary 52

Table 3. Description and sedimentary structures of facies within vibracores. Facies Lithology Sedimentary Structures A Fine- to medium-grained silty clay Massive to laminated Very fine- to fine-grained, moderately-well B sorted sands Planar-stratified Medium- to coarse-grained, moderately to Low-angle cross- C poorly sorted sands stratified Fine-to medium-grained, moderately to D Trough cross-stratified moderately-well sorted sands Granule to pebble sized clasts ranging from very poorly to poorly sorted, with matrix Massive with faint E sediment consisting of fine- to medium- normal-grading grained, poorly sorted sands Medium- to coarse-grained moderately to Low-angle laminations, F moderately-well sorted sands Heavy mineral laminae Peaty deposits with intermittent organic mud G Massive intervals Fine- to medium-grained, moderately sorted Massive to faintly H sands laminated I Medium-grained, moderately sorted silts Laminated

Figure 26. Photographs of vibracores representing individual lithofacies from Facies A through C. (A) Facies A consists of massive to faintly-laminated, fine- to medium- grained silt clay. (B) Facies B consists of planar-stratified, very fine- to fine-grained, moderately-well sorted sands. (C) Facies C consists of low-angle cross-stratified, medium- to coarse-grained, moderately to poorly sorted sands. 54

07-PC-8 (120-124 cm)

Frequency 30

0 4 5 6 7 8 9 Phi Size

07-PC-8 (120-124 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 4 5 6 7 8 9 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ Size 6.5 7.2 7.4 7.7 8.2 8.5

Mode Median Mean SD S K 8.0Φ 7.7Φ 7.8Φ 0.7 0.1 1.1

Figure 27. Histogram plots of frequency versus grain size (Φ) and plots of cumulative weight percent versus grain size (Φ) with calculated statistical parameters for a sample from vibracore 07-PC-8. This particular sample is of glacial-lacustrine sediment. 55 structures (Friedman et al., 1992).

Facies B (Planar-stratified sand)

Facies B consists of planar-stratified, very fine- to medium-grained, moderately- well sorted sands with abundant bivalve and gastropod shell fragments (Fig. 26B). The sediment color ranges from very-dark gray (7.5 Y 3/0) to brown (7.5 Y 5/2). The porosity within this facies is an average of 33.3%. Normal graded intervals are found throughout this facies fining-upward from medium- to very fine-grained sands with each fining-upward sequence varying in thickness to no more than 25-cm. Overall this facies tends to represent a coarsening- and thickening-upward trend.

Interpretation: The presence of planar-stratification within sand intervals can be explained through multiple depositional processes. Tamura et al. (2003) interpreted planar to low-angle stratification as hummocky stratification with normal-graded intervals regarded as storm intervals. Planar to low-angle laminated stratification can also be explained resulting from upper-flow regime sheet flow conditions during wave swash and backwash landwards of the surf zone (Clifton et al., 1971, Olsen et al., 1999).

Because Facies B contains normal graded intervals, interpreted from the settling from suspension (Boggs, 2001), it is reasonable to interpret this facies as hummocky stratified, or dominated by storm processes, with normal grading resulting from storm intervals. In other words, the combination of normal grading and low-angle laminations is more consistent with interpretations of hummocky stratification (or storm horizons). Planar stratification from upper-flow regime sheet flow could also be found throughout the stratigraphic succession, although in this case normal grading would be absent.

Facies C (Low-angle cross-stratified sand)

Facies C is consists of low-angle cross-stratified, medium- to coarse-grained, moderately to poorly sorted sands with the presence of gastropods and zebra mussels

(Fig. 26C). The color of the sediment varies from very-dark gray (7.5 Y 3/0) to brown

(7.5 Y). The porosity within this facies is an average value of 25.9%. Gastropod and zebra mussel shell fragments are concentrated in slightly coarser-grained laminae, which are typically less than 1-cm thick. This facies also tends to produce an overall coarsening- and thickening-upward trend.

Interpretation: As in Facies B, this low-angle cross-stratification can be interpreted as hummocky stratification only in this case the storm layers are amalgamated

(Tamura et al., 2003). The interpretation of the planar -to low-angle stratification as hummocky stratification represents deposition above storm wave base. The occurrence of probable amalgamated hummocky stratification in a coarsening-upward sequence is indicative of a shoaling-upward trend typical of regressive shoreface successions (Leckie and Walker, 1982). An alternative explanation for low-angle cross-stratification is beachface deposits where the laminae are defined by textural grain size variations or concentrations of heavy mineral laminae (Olsen et al., 1999). However, this interpretation does not apply in this case because such heavy mineral laminae are not present within this facies.

Facies D (Trough cross-stratified sand)

Facies D consists of trough-cross stratified, fine-to medium-grained, moderately to moderately-well sorted sands commonly associated with layers of bivalves and zebra mussels (Fig. 28A). Individual cross-laminae are generally less than 1-cm thick, with 57

Figure 28. Photographs of vibracores representing individual lithofacies from Facies D through F. (A) Facies D consists of trough cross-stratified, fine- to medium-grained, moderately to moderately-well sorted sands. (B) Facies E consists of granule to pebble sized clasts and ranged from very poorly to poorly sorted, with matrix sediment consisting of fine- to medium-grained, poorly sorted sands. (C) Facies F consists of low- angle laminated, medium- to coarse-grained moderately to moderately-well sorted sands in the upper shoreface to be associated with sediment.

58 planar to wedge-shaped crossbed sets on the order of a few centimeters. The sediment color is gray (7.5 Y 6/0) to brown (7.5 Y 5/2) with an average porosity at 10.7%. This facies is infrequent throughout the cores generally only a few centimeters thick with crossbed sets overlying erosional surfaces at the base.

Interpretation: Trough cross stratification is often indicative of the surf and breaker zone. Olsen et al. (1999) interpret trough cross-stratification as breaker bar deposits in a shallow-water depositional setting close to the beach face, in relatively high- energy environments. Nouidar and Chellai (2002) interpret cross-bedded sandstones to form in high-energy coasts near the breaker zone where wave driven, oscillatory currents produce 2-D or 3-D dunes. Therefore the presence of trough cross-stratification is produced by the presence of wave-driven currents.

Facies E (Massive gravel facies)

Facies E consists of massive, granule to pebble sized gravel that is very poorly to poorly sorted. The matrix of the gravels consists of fine- to medium-grained, poorly sorted sands. The clasts are primarily siltstones, limestones, and dolostones while the matrix consists of quartz sands. The gravel commonly contains shell layers and fragments (Fig. 28B). The roundness of clasts varied from sub-angular to subrounded.

The color of the gravel layers range between gray (7.5 Y 6/0) to brown (7.5 Y 5/2). This facies typically shows a fining-upward sequence with a thickness of no more than 30 cm.

Interpretation: The presence of gravels in the nearshore environment does not suggest a particular depositional process. Baedke et al. (2004) interpreted coarser- grained horizons in the upper shoreface to be associated with sediment transport within rip-channels during storm-conditions. The presence of this coarser-grained horizon is 59 indicative of storm-dominated processes. Catawba Island (a bedrock feature) is found northeast of the study area and very well could represent the source for these gravel clasts, or they may source from glacial tills. Intense storm or wave processes would have deposited the gravels along the newly developing beach ridge, with coarser grain sizes being more proximal to Catawba Island.

Facies F (Laminated sands)

Facies F is composed of low-angle laminated, medium- to coarse-grained moderately to moderately-well sorted sands (Fig. 28C). Stratification within this layer is laminated with textural grain sizes variations or alternating heavy mineral laminae and quartz sands. In this facies, the sedimentary structures are wedge-to-parallel, inclined, low-angle laminae up to about 1-cm thick with common shell layers throughout. The sediment color is primarily brown (7.5 Y 5/3) with very dark brown (7.5 Y 2/0), fine- grained, moderately sorted intervals throughout the facies interval. The unit has an average porosity of 26.4%.

Interpretation: Grain size variation and alternating laminae of heavy minerals and quartz sands are indicative of beach stratification. Evenly laminated and well-sorted sands with concentrations of heavy minerals are common features in foreshore deposits

(Tamura et al., 2003). The stratification within this facies included heavy mineral laminae alternating with quartz sands as well as planar-stratification. Planar-laminated to low-angle cross-stratification are diagnostic of a foreshore environment and originate from upper-flow regime sheet flow conditions during wave swash and backswash landwards of the surf zone (Clifton et al., 1971, Olsen et al., 1999).

Facies G (Organic mud-peat sediment)

Facies G consists of organic-rich mud and peat. The sediment is black (7.5 Y 2/0) in color and commonly consists of alternating peats and organic mud intervals (Fig.

29A). Plant debris, woody debris, gastropod shells, and bivalve shells are common throughout this facies.

Interpretation: Wetland sediments commonly infill the swales between beach ridges during the formation of wetlands. In this study, these organic deposits range in thickness up to 30-cm with an average thickness of about 15-cm. The thickness of these intervals can be deceiving however, because compaction can have values of up to 60%, resulting from the vibracoring process. Wetland deposits can also be influenced by sea-

/lake-level variability. For example, vibracore 07-PC-14 has a 70-cm thick peat interval

(found directly above glacial lacustrine sediment). It is possible that this peat is much thicker than what is seen in the core, but the amount of compaction within the entire vibracore is only 15%.

Facies H (Massive to faintly laminated sand)

Facies H is composed of massive to faintly laminated, fine- to medium-grained, moderately sorted sands with rootlets (Fig. 29B). Stratification is not always present but where it is, faint landward laminations are found. The sediment color varies from light- brownish gray (10 Y 6/2) to brown (7.5 Y 5/2). The average porosity is 22.1%. The presence of rootlets within this facies suggests sporadic plant growth and the development of modern soils.

Interpretation: Tamura et al. (2003) interpreted the backbeach to represent well- sorted and evenly laminated fine sands with rootlets. Stratification within this facies is 61

Figure 29. Photographs of vibracores representing individual lithofacies from Facies G through I. (A) Facies G is made up of a peaty sediment with intermittent organic mud intervals. (B) Facies H consists of massive to faintly laminated, fine- to medium-grained, moderately sorted sands. (C) Facies I consists of laminated, moderately sorted, medium silts with thin intercalated medium sand intervals.

62 laminated to massive. This is the result of a horizontal to lakeward-sloping surfaces where windblown sediment rests during its transport from the swash-zone into the dune

(Baedke et al., 2004). This leads to the possible interpretation that this facies is indicative of dune sands because the rootlets imply early stages of modern soil development and the slightly finer grain size of these sands versus the underlying facies is thought to reflect eolian input (Tamura et al., 2003).

Facies I (Laminated muds)

Facies I consists of laminated, moderately sorted, medium silts (Fig. 29C). The color of these silts ranges from dark brown to (7.5 Y3/3) to strong brown (7.5 Y 5/6).

Plant roots as well as occasional gravels are found within these muds. Thin intervals of laminated, medium-grained sand, less than 1-cm thick, also frequent this facies.

Interpretation: Lagoons form in low-energy conditions resulting in the deposition of mostly fine-grained sediments. The thin sand intervals present within this facies is also indicative of lagoonal environments. Lagoonal bottoms commonly are covered with silty and muddy sediments that may contain thin intercalations of sand brought in by storms or blown in by wind (Boggs, 2001). The eolian and storm-influenced sand introduced to the lagoonal bottom is generally horizontally laminated, but may display ripple cross lamination. The presence of silts and muds intercalated with thin sand layers suggest this facies is indicative of lagoonal environments.

Lithofacies Sequences

The sedimentary succession in the area has been identified as a shallowing- upward sequence representing shoreface overlain by beachface overlain by backbeach dune and thin wetland deposits. Depositional interpretation can be frustrating since 63 similar facies can be produced in different environmental settings (Boggs, 2001). The term association in this context represents groups of facies that occur together and are genetically or environmentally related. A legend was then created to aid in the interpretation of the stratigraphic sections (Fig. 30).

West of the Portage River, cores had the following commonalities: (1) Most vibracores reached glacial-lacustrine sediments (Facies A), (2) Some vibracores contained peaty sediment (Facies G) overlying Facies A which represented a coastal wetland with minimal siliciclastic input, (3) The vibracores were dominated by a B-C-E

Facies Associations and interpreted as a storm-dominated, coarsening-upward, prograding shoreface (Fig. 31A), and (4) Vibracores were capped by rooted, eolian deposits (Facies H).

This shoreface association, in this area varies in thickness up to 1-m but is commonly less than 50-cm thick. Within the coarsening-upward successions infrequent fining-upward sequences, less than 15-cm thick, are found representing storm intervals.

Above the shoreface succession, the foreshore ranges in thickness up to 1-m, typically less than 70-cm, representing an irregular vertical facies foreshore succession with the association of Facies B and F. When present, the backbeach overlies the foreshore component and varies in thickness to no more than 20-cm.

Multiple coarsening-upward sequences within the shoreface association are also found in vibracores west of the Portage River (Fig. 31B). This represents the accretion of beach ridges along the shoreline. These individual coarsening-upward sequences vary in thickness from about 40-cm to 80-cm. The total thickness of the shoreface succession in these vibracores varies up to 1.5-m. Overlying the shoreface succession, the foreshore 64

Figure 30. Stratigraphic legend used for interpretation of stratigraphic diagrams.

Figure 31. Common lithofacies sequences west of the Portage River. (A) Core 07-PC-12 shows Facies A at the bottom, overlain by a Facies B-C-E Association. Above this sequence the Facies B-F Association is found. Facies H is found at the top. (B) Core 07- PC-15 shows Facies G at the base overlain by multiple Facies B-C-E Associations. Near the top of the core Facies B and Facies H are present.

66 interval is thin overlain by the backbeach component with thicknesses to no more than

40-cm.

Within the strandplain east of the Portage River, the shoreface association includes Faces B-C-D, and is interpreted as a storm-dominated shoreface with the upper shoreface being influenced more by wave-driven currents (Fig. 32). This shoreface association also indicates the coarsening-upward, shoaling-upward, prograding shoreface seen east of the Portage River. Within the strandplain, the shoreface association varies in thickness to about 3-m and is generally about 1.5-m thick. Above the shoreface succession, the foreshore association of Facies B and F ranges in thickness from 20-cm to about 1-m. Commonly overlying the foreshore component are the backbeach dune and thin wetland deposits. These deposits range in thickness up to 1-m and are commonly less than 50-cm thick.

In summary, the Facies B-C-D Association seen updrift of the Portage River represents a storm-dominated, prograding shoreface with the shallower upper shoreface more influenced by longshore currents. The shoreface association is then overlain by foreshore and backbeach sediments. This is similar to what is seen downdrift of the

Portage River in that the Facies B-C-E Association within the shoreface is storm- dominated, but coarser-grained horizons in the upper shoreface are not produced by waves but from rip-currents during storm intervals. As in the updrift areas, the foreshore and backbeach are found above the shoreface succession.

Stratigraphic Correlation

Twenty-eight stratigraphic sections were constructed from cores and are shown individually in Appendix B. Fourteen vibracores were collected from west of the Portage 67

Figure 32. Common lithofacies sequence within the strandplain east of the Portage River (vibracore 95-PC-5). This lithofacies sequence yields Facies A at the base overlain by a Facies B-C-D Association. Above this sequence a Facies B-F Association is found. Near the top of the core Facies G is found accompanied with an interbedded interval of Facies H.

River and 14 vibracores were located east of the Portage River (Fig. 15). In general, the vibracores from the west of the Portage River ranged up to about 2 meters in length and were collected in shoreline-normal transects from the shoreface-landward. However, 07-

PC-7 was the furthermost westward vibracore and was not associated with any of the transects. Two of the transects (#1and #2) were collected in the Ottawa National Wildlife

Refuge (ONWR) and this included a transect (#1) of six vibracores (07-PC-8 through 07-

PC-13; Fig. 33) and a transect (#2) of three vibracores (07-PC-14 through 07-PC-16; Fig.

34). Another transect (#3) of 2 two vibracores came from just west of downtown Port

Clinton off of State Route 163 and included cores (07-PC-5 through 07-PC-6; Fig. 35).

As well as looking at the shoreline-normal transects from the beach landward, a shoreline-parallel transect (#4) was constructed to better determine lithologic relationships spatially (Fig. 36).

Shoreline normal transects west of the Portage River

Transect #1 (Fig. 33) shows that west of the Portage River delta, about 1-m of

Holocene sediment has accumulated above Pleistocene glacial-lacustrine sediment

(Facies A). Just above Facies A, a coarsening-upward interval is apparent including

Facies B, C, and E. This coarsening-upward sequence is interpreted as the shallowing- upward, prograding shoreface. Above this sequence the cores become more variable.

Facies B and F are common, interpreted as beach stratification within the foreshore, with intermittent intervals of Facies E and rare intervals of Facies D. Unlike the other vibracores in this transect, 07-PC-9 contained a few organic intervals throughout the core while 07-PC-12 and 07-PC-13 contained a much higher sand content.

Transect #2 (Fig. 34) was interesting because of the wetland environments near 69

Figure 33. Stratigraphic diagram of Transect #1. This diagram represents a shoreline normal transect along the shoreline of Lake Erie west of the Portage River. Vibracore 07-PC-8 was collected along the shoreline while vibracores 07-PC-9 through 07-PC-13 were collected in landward increments.

Figure 34. Stratigraphic diagram of Transect #2. This diagram represents a shoreline normal transect along the shoreline of Lake Erie west of the Portage River. Vibracore 07-PC-14 was collected along the shoreline while vibracore 07-PC-15 and 07-PC-16 were collected in landward increments.

Figure 35. Stratigraphic diagram of Transect #3. This diagram represents a shoreline normal transect along the shoreline of Lake Erie west of the Portage River. Vibracore 07-PC-5 was collected along the shoreline while vibracore 07-PC-6 was collected from a wetland area. 72

Figure 36. Stratigraphic diagram of Transect #4. This diagram represents a shoreline parallel transect along the shoreline of Lake Erie west of the Portage River.

73 the base of the cores. Facies A was seen at the base of the core at the location nearest the shoreline while Facies G was found directly above it. Core 07-PC-14 contained about a

70-cm peat layer while 07-PC-15 contained about a 30-cm peat layer. The presence of this organic interval above glacial-lacustrine sediment represents the formation of a wetland environment where the present beach is now located. Just above Facies G, multiple coarsening-upward sequences are represented by Facies B, C, and E. This suggests multiple coarsening-upward sequences are present from the accretion of multiple beach ridges throughout the Holocene. Above this sequence, Facies B and F is found indicating beach stratification and Facies H is shown in the more landward cores interpreted as the backbeach (dune and soil) component.

Transect #3 (Fig. 35) consisted of a vibracore on the beach as well as one from a wetland area behind the beach. Both vibracores showed Facies G at the base. The absence of Facies A at the base could be a result of lack of penetration of the glacial- lacustrine sediment by the vibracore. The presence of Facies G again indicates the formation of wetlands. Above Facies G, a coarsening-upward sequence includes Facies

B, C, and E representing the prograding shoreface succession. Above the shoreface, an abrupt facies change was evident from primarily Facies B (foreshore) in 07-PC-5 to

Facies I (lagoonal) in 07-PC-6.

Shoreline parallel transect west of the Portage River

Transect #4 (Fig. 36) looked at the correlation of the cores parallel to the shoreline. Vibracores 07-PC-8 and 07-PC-14 showed Facies A at their base while 07-

PC-14 and 07-PC-5 yielded thick layers of Facies G. The presence of peat within two of the cores above glacial-lacustrine sediment again implies the presence of coastal wetland. 74

Above these peat layers, multiple coarsening-upward sequences, including Facies B, C, and E, are present resulting from the shallowing-upward shoreface succession. Overlying the shoreface sequence, a foreshore sequence of Facies B and F is found ranging in thickness to about 70-cm with intermittent intervals of Facies D.

East of the Portage River

Vibracores from the east of the Portage River range up to 4.5-m in length and were primarily collected within a strandplain just south of Catawba Island while vibracores 07-PC-1 and 07-PC-4 were collected along the shoreline. Using eight representative vibracores, a correlation diagram (Fig. 37) was constructed for the strandplain environment to illustrate facies relationships. This correlation diagram identifies glacial-lacustrine sediment (Facies A) at the base of the vibracores. Above

Facies A, a coarsening-upward sequence is indicated by the presence of Facies B, C, and

D with thicknesses ranging up to 2-m. Above this coarsening-upward sequence, the foreshore association of Facies B and F is present with thicknesses up to 1.5-m while intermittent intervals of Facies D, with a maximum thickness of 30-cm are found. Lying directly above this sequence, the vibracores tend to show a much more inconsistent vertical trend. Vibracores 95-PC-8, 95-PC-4, 95-PC-3A, and 95-PC-2 yield intervals of

Facies E over 1-m thick. Vibracores 95-PC-6, 95-PC-5, and 07-PC-19 show Facies H with interbedded washover lobes becoming thicker to the southwest while 07-PC-2, taken along the strandplain shoreline, indicating Facies F to up to a depth of 30-cm underlying

Facies H.

There appears to be a definite contrast in facies successions updrift and downdrift of the Portage River. Updrift of the Portage River, the vertical facies succession appears 75

Figure 37. Correlation diagram of vibracores from east of the Portage River. This diagram uses eight representative vibracores to represent stratigraphy within the strandplain environment.

76 to be a continuous, coarsening-upward sequence explained by the progradation of the shoreface and the influence of wave-driven currents. Vibracores in this area contain a much thicker sand sequence ranging in length to more than 4-m. Downdrift of the

Portage River, a much more irregular, coarsening-upward sequence is found indicated by a storm-dominated shoreface succession. Vibracores from the sand sequence in this area reach a maximum thickness of 2-m and most are only about 1-m thick. Evidently sand accumulation east of the Portage River delta was 3-4 times greater than west of the

Portage River delta.

Sedimentation Rate

The three cal BP age determinations within vibracore 07-PC-14 showed a linear trend with depth (Fig. 21) resulting in an average sedimentation rate throughout the peat interval to be 0.86 mm/yr. The presence of zebra mussels were noted in the top 39-cm of vibracore 07-PC-14. Zebra mussels have been introduced recently in the Great Lakes and

Bowers and Szalay (2004) mark the introduction in 1988. A sedimentation rate was then determined for the first 39-cm of vibracore 07-PC-14 at 2.05 cm/yr. Constraining the sedimentation rates of the first 39-cm (2.05 cm/yr) and the peat interval (0.86 mm/yr) in vibracore 07-PC-14, a sedimentation rate was then determined for the remaining siliciclastic interval at 0.58 mm/yr (Fig. 38). This permits determining the approximate age of any individual sediment horizon (Fig. 39).

Vibracore 07-PC-14 can be interpreted to show following. The contact between glacial lacustrine sediment and the peat deposits represents a disconformity explained by a hiatus in deposition or the presence of an erosional surface. The cal BP age dates indicate the formation of a wetland from about 1616-2025 cal BP. After the formation of 77

Cal BP 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 2.05 cm/yr

0.58 mm/yr 100

150 Depth (cm) Depth 0.86 mm/yr

200

250

Figure 38. Sedimentation rates throughout vibracore 07-PC-14. This graph represents sedimentation rates for the top 39-cm, the underlying siliciclastic sequence, and the basal peat interval. 78

Figure 39. 14C analysis from vibracore 07-PC-14. This stratigraphic diagram shows where the 14C dates were collected within the core and also represents the time at which beach ridges accreted to the shoreline.

79 wetlands, the multiple coarsening-upward successions are present resulting from the accretion of beach ridges along the shoreline. The deposition of the shoreface sequence begins at about 1513 cal BP and coarsens upward to about 712 cal BP. A second shoreface sequence then coarsens upward to about 551 cal BP followed by a third shoreface sequence to about 208 cal BP. A final and fourth sequence then coarsens upward to about 19 cal BP.

DISCUSSION

Classification as a Wave-Influenced Delta

Asymmetry Index

Wave-dominated deltas have received much less attention than other deltas because of the limited amount of field data at the time delta classifications were being formulated (Dominguez, 1996). Dominguez (1996) then suggested that the interaction between fluvial discharge and longshore sediment drift may result in a variety of forms from symmetric to highly asymmetric deltas. This suggestion was then expanded to propose the asymmetry index for the classification of wave-influenced deltas

(Bhattacharya and Giosan, 2003). The asymmetry index is calculated as the ratio of net longshore drift (m3/yr) at the river mouth and average river discharge (106 m3/month). If the asymmetry index is >200 then the delta is classified as asymmetric. Three locations east of the Portage River were used to determine sand accumulation (Fig. 25) as a result of net longshore drift (m3/yr). These net longshore drift (m3/yr) values, when divided by average river discharge (106 m3/month); represent an average asymmetry index of 296. which classifies the Portage River delta as asymmetric (Table 4).

A relatively weak, southeastward longshore current approaches Port Clinton from west of the Portage River. Groins built in this area generally trap beaches on their western or updrift sides because sand is still being supplied from alongshore currents

(Herdendorf, 1973). This buildup of sand on the western side of shoreline structures is seen in historical aerial photographs of an area west of the Portage River (Fig. 22).

Although, this longshore current from west of the Portage River is relatively weak, it is important to note its presence. 81

Table 4. Net Longshore Drift values for determining the Asymmetry Index (A) Location Area (m2) Volume (m3) Yearly Transport (m3) A 1 59160 88740 3413 100 2 223848 335772 12914 377 3 244149 366224 14086 411 Average 175719 263579 10138 296

Average Monthly Discharge (ft3/sec) 467 Average Monthly Discharge (m3/sec) 13 Total Monthly Water Discharge (106m3/month) 34 82

Sedimentation Rate

Three sedimentation rates were determined for separate intervals throughout vibracore 07-PC-14 (Fig. 38). The top 39-cm of the core represented a sedimentation rate of 2.05 cm/yr, the sililiclastic interval below the top 39-cm represented a sedimentation rate of 0.58 mm/yr, and the peat interval at the base of the core represented a sedimentation rate of 0.86 mm/yr. The oldest cal BP age collected was from a peat found disconformably above glacial-lacustrine sediment (Fig. 17). This cal BP age of 2025 ±

128 years is much younger than the age of the glacial lacustrine sediment below it which was deposited about 10.5 Ka, after the final departure of the ice sheet from the Great

Lakes watershed (Karrow et al., 2000).

The wave-influenced deltaic model explains the presence of coastal features such as strandplains, estuaries, bayhead deltas, and coastal wetlands as components of a prograding asymmetric deltaic system. The importance of the wave-influenced delta model is that it explains the presence of these coastal features without a change in lake- level. The 14C dated peat deposits were located downdrift of the Portage River. In this area, an accretionary beach ridge complex is present separating coastal wetlands from

Lake Erie. A conceptual evolution of typical asymmetric deltas (Fig. 8) indicates sediment is deposited on the subaqueous portion of the delta during storm events. These sandy deposits are then reworked by longshore waves parallel to the shoreline forming beach ridge complexes.

Downdrift of the Portage River, multiple coarsening-upward intervals are found within the shoreface succession. These multiple coarsening-upward intervals are present from the accretion of beach ridges along the shoreline. It was determined that this 83 accretionary bar sequence formed at a cal BP age of about 1513-19 years BP. Therefore the 14C analysis was important in constraining when this accretionary beach ridge complex formed.

Coastal Features near the Portage River Delta

Aerial photographs from the 1930s-1940s show a strandplain east of the Portage

River connecting Catawba Island to the mainland. The Portage River delta, along with many deltas in the Great Lakes, is influenced more by longshore waves then by its fluvial component. It is commonly assumed that strandplain development is a result of sediment being supplied from a nearby river. This would result in thicker, more homogenous sands in the downdrift portions of these wave-dominated deltas. In this case, however, this strandplain is located updrift of the delta, which is in accord with the asymmetric, wave-influenced delta model (Bhattacharya and Giosan, 2003). The asymmetric delta model (Fig. 7) proposed by Bhattacharya and Giosan (2003) indicates that riverine discharge impedes longshore drift allowing for deposition of reservoir quality sands updrift of the delta. Instead of supplying sediment to the strandplain, the discharge of the

Portage River acts as a groin to impede longshore drift resulting in strandplain development updrift of the delta.

Coastal marshes are common components of tributaries that flow into the Great

Lakes. The ONWR is located adjacent to the Portage River and downdrift of the river mouth. This coastal wetland environment is indicative of downdrift areas found in asymmetric deltas which commonly represent lagoonal/shallow lacustrine settings separated by accretionary beach ridge sequences. In this case, a single accretionary beach ridge complex separates the coastal wetland from Lake Erie. Vibracores collected 84 within the ONWR represent a more irregular vertical facies succession (Fig. 33-36).

Bhattacharya (2006) suggests, in downdrift areas, vertical facies successions may resemble more fluvial-dominated successions since river-borne mud will be deposited in greater proportions in the downdrift areas then in the updrift areas.

The Portage River delta also shows the presence of a bayhead delta at the river mouth. A bayhead delta is simply the head of an estuary or bay into which a river discharges. This can be related to submergence from the compaction of overlying sediments or from sea/lake-level rise drowning the river mouth. In the case of asymmetric deltas, bayhead deltas form in a sheltered lagoon or bay landward of a newly- formed barrier island (Fig. 8). The absence of these barrier islands forming across the mouth of the Portage River is intriguing since it is common feature of asymmetric delta complexes. However, an explanation for this is that the Portage River discharges silt and clay, not abundant sand. The barrier islands are a product of the reworking of sand on the subaqueous delta orienting sand bars parallel to the longshore drift direction. The paucity of supplied sand from the Portage River would inhibit the formation of these features.

The classification of the Portage River as an asymmetric, wave-influenced delta suggests that the discharge of the Portage River impedes the longshore drift component.

This interaction between fluvial discharge and longshore drift is easily seen in an aerial photograph from July 27, 2006 (Fig. 40). In this aerial photograph, the discharge of the

Portage River is definitely impeding the longshore drift component from Catawba Island.

Bhattacharya and Giosan (2003) suggest that asymmetric deltas could occur in microtidal areas if the fluvial component of the river is high enough to exert a groin effect blocking sediment drift for a significant portion of the year. The main control influencing the 85

S G

Figure 40. Sediment plume from the Portage River. This plume impedes longshore drift resulting in strandplain development updrift of the delta in this aerial photograph from July 27, 2006. The white arrow indicates the longshore drift direction, “G” represents the groin effect of the Portage River, and the “S” indicates the strandplain development updrift of the Portage River.

86 aerial photograph (Fig. 41) is the discharge of the Portage River on that particular day and if it represents a flood stage or average discharge values. The aerial photograph was acquired from a fly-over on July 27, 2006. The mean daily discharge hydrograph

(m3/sec) for the days leading to and after July 27th are found in Figure 36. The mean daily discharge for the day of July 27th is 1.2 m3/sec. This suggests the Portage River would sufficiently act as a groin for nearly the whole year since the July 27th discharge is much lower than recorded mean annual discharges for the Portage River (Appendix A).

Comparison to other Wave-Influenced Deltas

Previous studies on wave-influenced deltas have been conducted in mainly marine settings (Bhattacharya and Giosan, 2003). Marine coastlines are dominated by the presence of deltas while in contrast; coastlines of the Great Lakes represent bays, spits, barrier islands, strandplains, estuaries, and coastal wetlands. As mentioned in the introduction, deltas in the Great Lakes are commonly overlooked because of their smaller size when compared to better studied deltas. Wave-influenced deltaic complexes range in length up to about 100-km in asymmetric deltas such as the Sf. Gheorghe lobe of the

Danube river to lengths about 20–km as in the New Brazos Delta in Texas, USA (Fig.

42). The scale of the asymmetric delta complex found at the Portage River delta approaches 20-km in size which suggests that even though deltas on the Great Lakes are generally smaller than their marine counterparts, the evolution of an asymmetric delta complex on Lake Erie seems reasonable.

Wave-influenced deltaic complexes represent a variety of coastal features. The evolution of a typical asymmetric delta represents many coastal features seen in wave- influenced deltas (Fig. 8). A beach ridge plain is located updrift of the delta. Barrier bars 87

35.0

30.0

25.0

/sec) 3 20.0

15.0

10.0 Discharge (m Discharge 5.0

0.0 7/24/2006 7/25/2006 7/26/2006 7/27/2006 7/28/2006 7/29/2006 7/30/2006 Time (days)

Figure 41. Mean daily discharge hydrograph for the Portage River from July 24, 2006 to July 30, 2006 (from USGS, 2008).

Figure 42. Morphology and scale of wave-influenced deltaic complexes. The black color represents bodies of sand and the gray color shows deltaic plain features other than sandbodies. (A) The Sf. Gheorghe lobe of the Danube Delta, Romania and (B) the New Brazos delta, Texas, USA (modified from Bhattacharya and Giosan, 2003).

89 are found at the river mouth and are reworked by waves into shore parallel barrier islands in the downdrift direction. These barrier islands form a sheltered lagoon or bay which may allow for the development of a bayhead delta and eventually attach to the mainland producing beach ridges sequences separated by lagoonal muds. Coastal wetlands are common features downdrift of the delta in the swales between accretionary beach ridges.

The Portage River delta is not a perfect analog for previous studied wave- influenced deltas as it does not represent the variety of coastal features common in these deltaic depositional systems. This may be explained by a local variation of longshore currents within this deltaic complex. The prevailing wind direction in Lake Erie is oriented on a southwest to northwest strike (Carter and Guy, 1984). It is also documented in western Lake Erie that circulation is dominated by inflow of the Detroit

River in areas west of the Lake Erie islands. East of the Detroit River, the prevailing southwest winds produce a clockwise surface flow around the islands, however, strong winds or storms from any direction can drive currents over most of the western basin

(Herdendorf, 1973). Thus, the presence of the Lake Erie islands result in a longshore current from Catawba Island to Port Clinton. Approaching Port Clinton from the west, a weak eastward longshore current is also present (Herdendorf, 1973). This results in a convergence zone at Port Clinton from the merging longshore drift cells. This intricate balance of longshore drift directions in the western basin of Lake Erie may control the variety of coastal features seen in the Portage River depositional system.

Evaluation of possible Wave-Influenced Deltas in the Great Lakes

The recognition of wave-influenced deltas in the Great Lakes is an interesting explanation for the formation of coastal features such as bays, estuaries, barrier islands, 90 strandplains, and coastal wetlands. The origin of these coastal features has previously been explained resulting from lake-level variations with regard to glacial and post-glacial lake phases throughout the Pleistocene and Holocene (Larson and Schaetzl, 2001). The development of this wave-influenced delta model is significant in our understanding of many coastal features in the Great Lakes in that it indicates these coastal features form naturally in prograding asymmetric deltas at constant lake-levels, and are not coupled with transgressive or regressive systems (Bhattacharya and Giosan, 2003). This wave- influenced delta model also explains the presence of disparate coastal features as being related components of deltaic environments. The presence of wave-influenced deltas in the Great Lakes would infer that the role of lake-level rise in the Great Lakes is not as important a control as previously thought and that the longshore drift component has a significant role on the formation of these coastal features.

Deltas on the Great Lakes tend to be more wave-dominated coastal features. The fluvial component of most rivers is small and tides are all but negligible on the Great

Lakes. Thus, wave-induced currents influence the formation of coastal features found in the Great Lakes. Wave-influenced deltas represent processes transitional between that of river- and wave-dominated classifications. In the Great Lakes, deltaic environments range in shape from symmetrical to asymmetrical and are consistent with shorelines composed of abundant sand.

Other possible examples of Wave-Influenced Deltas in the Great Lakes

The Kalamazoo River, is located in Michigan, and flows into the eastern margin of Lake Michigan (Fig. 43). This river delta looks more like a wave-dominated delta with a symmetric shape both updrift and downdrift of the river mouth. This symmetric 91

Figure 43. Image of the Kalamazoo River, Michigan, USA. This river represents a possible symmetric, wave-influenced delta evidenced by the extensive buildup of sand both updrift and downdfrift of the river mouth. The white arrow indicates the longshore drift direction (modified from USDA, 2006). 92 shape is from the extensive development of sand sheets covered with dunes on both sides of the river mouth where net sediment transport is small. These accumulations of sand equally distributed on each side of the river mouth imply sediment is being supplied from the river equally across the river mouth. This delta is arcuate/cuspate in shape with gently curved shorelines. The symmetrical shape updrift and downdrift of the

Kalamazoo River is comparable to the interpretation of Bhattacharya and Giosan (2003) that this morphology implies a symmetric, wave-influenced delta.

The Peshtigo River, located in the northern Wisconsin, is a tributary of Green

Bay, in Lake Michigan (Fig. 44). This river seems to display an asymmetry on its updrift and downdrift sides, implying the presence of a wave-influenced delta. In this case, as in the Portage River, river discharge of the Peshtigo River impedes longshore drift resulting in a beach ridge sequence updrift. Sand supplied from the river is being deposited on the sub-aqueous part of the delta and reworked by waves to form a barrier bar across the river mouth. In the downdrift areas of the delta, a coastal wetland environment indicated by a shallow lake/lagoon is separated from Lake Michigan by a possible accretionary beach ridge sequence. The morphology of this area is similar to what Bhattacharya and Giosan

(2003) classify as an asymmetric, wave-influenced delta.

The Platte River is found in the northern part of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan

(Fig. 45). This river represents an asymmetry between its updrift and downdrift flanks, as seen in the Portage and Peshtigo Rivers, and represents a more prevalent beach ridge plain updrift of the river mouth. In this case, the longshore drift component appears to be appreciably more dominant than fluvial discharge. This results in the river course being deflected downdrift. Deflected asymmetric deltas are intense cases of asymmetry where 93

Figure 44. Image of the Peshtigo River, Wisconsin, USA. This river represents a possible asymmetric, wave-influenced delta shown by its dissimilar morphology updrift and downdrift of the river mouth. This image shows strandplain development updrift of the river with possible barrier bars at the river mouth. A coastal wetland environment is located downdrift of the river mouth. The white arrow identifies the prevailing longshore drift direction (modified from USDA, 2006). 94

Figure 45. Image of the Platte River, Michigan, USA. This river represents a possible deflected asymmetric delta with a distinct difference in the morphology of the updrift and downdrift flanks. The white arrow identifies the longshore drift direction. 95 the river may periodically be deflected significant distances downdrift (Bhattacharya and

Giosan, 2003).

The occurrence of these wave-influenced deltas suggests these coastal features are common components of the Great Lakes shorelines. The presence of wave-influenced deltas in the Great Lakes also implies that the marine delta facies model (Fig. 7) proposed by Bhattacharya and Giosan (2003) may apply for lacustrine settings as well. This may result in a re-interpretation of coastal features in the Great Lakes as being possible components of wave-influenced deltaic systems.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Coastal landforms along the Great Lakes include bays, estuaries, spits, barrier islands, and strandplains. One commonly overlooked feature is deltas. The Portage

River delta appears to satisfy the criteria of a new sedimentological model of asymmetric deltas where the discharge of the river interferes with the longshore drift cell (Fig. 7).

The development of this asymmetric delta model indicates that estuaries, bayhead deltas, lagoons, strandplains, and barrier islands form naturally in prograding asymmetric deltas at stable lake-level, and are not interrelated with transgressive or regressive events

(Bhattacharya and Giosan, 2003).

The analysis of 14C age dates allowed for the determination of separate sedimentation rates within vibracore 07-PC-14 (Fig. 38). Sedimentation rates allow for the determination of estimated age dates for particular sediment intervals. 14C analysis

(Table 1) indicates the presence of a coastal wetland from 1616 to 2025 cal BP representing a much younger age than the underlying glacial lacustrine sediment.

Multiple coarsening-upward sequences are shown in vibracore 07-PC-14 (Fig. 39) and represent the accretion of beach ridges along the shoreline from about 1513-19 cal BP.

To quantify if a delta is asymmetric, Bhattacharya and Giosan (2003) proposed a simple asymmetry index for wave-influenced deltas to determine how the delta can be influenced by longshore drift. In this study, three locations were determined (Fig. 25) from historical aerial photographs to represent areas influenced by longshore sediment transport (Table 4). The asymmetry index is determined to be an average of 296 which is interpreted as an asymmetric delta. 97

Asymmetric deltaic lobes illustrate a difference in facies updrift and downdrift of the delta (Bhattacharya and Giosan, 2003). Vibracores from the strandplain east of the

Portage River show a well developed, sand-dominated, coarsening-upward facies succession (Fig. 28). Also, the shoreface sediments indicate planar- to low-angle cross- stratification coarsening upward to trough cross-stratified sands near the top of the shoreface sequence. This succession results in the interpretation of a storm-dominated shoreface with increasing wave influence in the shallower upper shoreface. This is a common facies succession in wave-influenced deltas and is caused by the progradation of the shoreface while delta front sandstones are represented as wave-rippled to hummocky stratified suggesting storm and wave influence are prevalent (Bhattacharya and Walker,

1992).

Vibracores from west of the Portage River showed an accretionary beach ridge complex with a much more irregular vertical facies succession (Fig. 33-36).

Bhattacharya (2006) suggests, in downdrift areas, that vertical facies succession may resemble more fluvial-dominated successions since river-borne mud will be deposited in greater proportions in the downdrift than in updrift areas. Shoreface sediments in these vibracores also represent a coarsening-upward facies succession represented by planar- to low-angle cross-stratification with coarser-grained horizons in the upper shoreface related to storm processes.

The wave-influenced delta model (Fig. 7) predicts more texturally mature, reservoir quality sands updrift of the delta than downdrift. This is precisely what is seen in the vibracores collected for this study. Vibracores taken from the strandplain updrift of the Portage River, yield porosity values twice that of vibracores not collected within 98 the strandplain (Appendix D). This suggests the updrift sand is not supplied by the

Portage River, while downdrift the riverine sediment input is more prevalent, resulting in the more irregular vertical facies succession and lower quality sands.

This leads to the re-interpretation of the Portage River delta as a component of an asymmetric, wave-influenced delta. This delta represents a definite asymmetric morphology resulting from the riverine discharge impeding longshore drift (Fig. 40).

This is indicated by strandplain development updrift and the presence of a coastal wetland separated from Lake Erie by a single accretionary beach ridge complex downdrift. The recognition of these wave-influenced deltaic complexes suggests that coastal landforms in the Great Lakes may possibly be components of wave-influenced deltaic systems.

S G 99

REFERENCES

Baedke, S. J., Thompson, T. A., Johnston, J. W., and Wilcox, D. A., 2004, Reconstructing paleo lake levels from relict shorelines along the Upper Great Lakes: Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management, v. 7, p. 435-449.

Bhattacharya, J.P., 2006, Deltas, in Walker, R.G., and Posamentier, H., (eds.) Facies Models revisited, Society for Sedimentary Geology Special Publication, v. 84, p. 237-292.

Bhattacharya, J. P. and Giosan, L., 2003, Wave-influenced deltas: geomorphological Implications for facies reconstruction: Sedimentology, v. 50, p. 187-210.

Bhattacharya, J. P. and Walker, R. G., 1991, Facies and facies successions in river- and wave-dominated depositional systems of the Upper Cretaceous Dunvegan Formation, northwest Alberta: Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, v. 39, p. 165-191.

Bhattacharya, J. P. and Walker, R. G., 1992, Deltas, in Walker, R. G., and James, N. P., eds., Facies Models: Response to Sea Level Change: Geological Association of Canada, St. Johns, p. 157-177.

Boggs, S., 2001. Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy, Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall, 726 p.

Bowers, R. and Szalay, F., 2004, Effects of Hydrology on Unionids (Unionidae) and Zebra Mussels (Dreissenidae) in a Lake Erie Coastal Wetland: The American Midland Naturalist, v. 151, p. 286-300.

Carter C. H., and Guy D. E., 1984, Field Guidebook to the Geomorphology and Sedimentology of Late Quaternary Lake Deposits, Southwestern Lake Erie in Fourteenth Annual Field Conference of the Great Lakes Section Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralologists, 90 p.

Coakley, J. P. and Lewis, C. F.,1985, Postglacial lake levels in the Erie Basin, in Karrow, P. F. and Calkin, P. E. (eds,), Quaternary evolution of the Great Lakes: Geological Survey of Canada Special Paper 30. pp. 195-212.

Coleman, J. M., Prior, D. B., and Lindsay, J. F., 1983, Deltaic influences on shelf edge instability processes, in Stanley, D. J. and Moore, G. T., eds., The shelfbreak: critical interface on continental margins: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralologists, Special Publication 33, p. 121-137.

100

Coleman, J. M. and Wright, L. D., 1975, Modern river deltas. Variability of processes and sand bodies, in Broussard, M. L., ed., Deltas, Models for Exploration: Houston Geological Society, Houston, p. 99-149.

Clifton, H. E., Hunter, R. E., and Phillips, R. L., 1971, Depositional structures and processes in the non-barred, high-energy nearshore: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v.41, p. 651-670.

Coogan, A. H., 1996, Ohio's surface rocks and sediments, in Feldmann, R. M., and Hackathorn, Merrianne, eds., Fossils of Ohio: Ohio Division of Geological Survey Bulletin 70, p. 31-50.

Dominguez, J. M. L., 1996, The Sao Francisco strandplain: a paradigm for wave-dominated deltas?, in De Baptist, M, and Jacobs, P., Geology of Siliciclastic Shelf Seas: Geological Society of London Special Publication, v. 117, p. 217-231.

Evans, J. E., Levine, N. S., Roberts, S. J., Gottgens, J. F., and Newman D. M., 2002, Assessment Using GIS and Sediment Routing of the Proposed Removal of Ballville Dam, Sandusky River, Ohio: Journal of the American Water Resources Association, v. 38, p. 1549-1565.

Forsyth, J. L., 1973, Late-Glacial and Postglacial History of Western Lake Erie: The Compass of Sigma Gamma Epsilon, v. 51, p. 16-26.

Friedman, G. M., 1992, Principles of sedimentary: Stratigraphy and Sedimentology, New York, 717 p.

Herdendorf, C. E. 1973, Shoreline Changes of Lakes Erie and Ontario with Special References to Currents, Sediment Transport, and Shore Erosion: Center for Lake Erie Area Research, 1973 Clear Technical Report no. 11, 44 p.

Herdendorf, C. E., 1990, Great Lakes estuaries: Estuaries, v. 13, p. 493-503.

Herdendorf, C. E., 1992, Lake Erie Coastal Wetlands: An Overview: Journal of Great Lakes Research, v. 18, p. 533-551.

Hodgkins, G. A., Dudley, R. W., and Aichele, S. S., 2007, Historical Changes in Precipitation and Streamflow in the U.S. Great Lakes Basin, 1915-2004: U.S Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5118, 31 p.

Larson, G. and Schaetzl, R., 2001, Origin and Evolution of the Great Lakes: Journal of Great Lakes Research, v. 27, p. 518-546.

101

Leckie, D. A., and Walker, R.G., 1982, Storm and tide dominated shorelines in Cretaceous Moosebar-Lower Gates interval-outcrop equivalents of deep basin gas traps in Western Canada: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 18, p. 138-157.

Leverett, F., and Taylor, F. B., 1915, The Pleistocene of Indiana and Michigan: U.S. Geological Survey, v. 53, 529 p.

Karrow, P. F., Dreimanis, A., and Barnett, P. J., 2000, A proposed diachronic revision of Late Quaternary time-stratigraphic classification in the eastern and northern Great Lakes area: Quaternary Research, v. 54, p. 1-12.

Miall, A. D., 1979, Deltas, in Walker, R. G., Facies Models: Geoscience Canada Reprint Series, v.1, p. 43-46.

Munsell Color, 1975, Munsell soil color charts: Baltimore, Munsell Color, 24 p.

Nouidar M. and Chellai, E. H., 2002, Facies and sequence stratigraphy of a Late Barremian wave-dominated deltaic deposit, Agadir Basin, Morocco: Sedimentary Geology, v. 150, p. 375-384.

Otvos, E. G., 2000, Beach ridges-definitions and significance: Geomorphology, v. 32, p. 83-108.

Olsen, T. R., Mellere, D., and Oslen, T., 1999, Facies architecture and geometry of landward-stepping shoreface tongues: the Upper Cretaceous Cliff House Sandstone ( Mancos Canyon, south-west Colorado): Sedimentology, v. 46, p. 603-625.

Pritchard, D. W., 1967, What is an estuary: physical standpoint?, in Lauff, G. H., ed., Estuaries: Association for Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C., p. 3-5.

Reinson, G.E., 1992, Transgressive Barrier Island and Estuarine Systems, in Walker, R. G., and James, N. P., eds., Facies Models: Response to Sea Level Change: Geological Association of Canada, St. Johns, p. 180-183.

Rife, G. S. and Moody, D. L., 2003, Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Communities from the Portage River Watershed Headwater Streams (Wood County, Ohio): Ohio Journal of Science, v. 104, p. 29-35.

Root, S., and Onasch C.M., 1999, Structure and tectonic evolution of the transitional region between the central Appalachian foreland and interior cratonic basins: Tectonophysics, v. 305, p. 205-223.

102

Stuvier, M. and Reimer, P. J., 1993, Radiocarbon Calibration Program – Calib Rev5.0.2: Radiocarbon, v. 35, p. 215-230.

Tamura, T., Masuda. F. M., Sakai, T., and Fujiwara, O., 2003, Temporal development of Prograding beach-shoreface deposits: the Holocene of Kujukuri coastal plain, Eastern Japan: Marine Geology, v. 198, p. 191-207.

Tanner, W. F., 1995, Origin of beach ridges and swales: Marine Geology, v. 125, p. 149- 161.

Thompson, T. A, 1992, Beach-ridge development and lake-level variation in southern Lake Michigan: Sedimentary Geology, v. 80, p. 305-318.

Thompson, T. A. and Baedke S. J., 1995, Beach-ridge development in Lake Michigan: shoreline behavior in response to quasi-periodic lake-level events: Marine Geology, v. 129, p. 163-174.

United States Department of Agriculture, 2006, USDA Geospatial Gateway. Web site: http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/.

United States Department of Agriculture, 2008, National Resources Conservation Service. Web site: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/

United States Geological Survey, 2008, USGS Real-Time Water Data for Ohio. Web site: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/oh/nwis/uv.

Wold, R. J., Paul, R. A., Wolosin, C. A, and Friedel, R.J., 1981, Geology of central Lake Michigan: American Association Petroleum Geology, v. 65, p. 1621-1632.

103

APPENDICES 104

Appendix A

Portage River Hydrologic Parameters 105

Table A1. Mean Annual Discharge of the Portage River (1929-2006) near Woodville OH. Year Mean Annual Discharge (ft3/sec) Year Mean Annual Discharge (ft3/sec) 1929 360.0 1970 304.4 1930 455.2 1971 214.0 1931 81.4 1972 336.7 1932 202.0 1973 627.8 1933 432.1 1974 368.1 1934 93.0 1975 324.6 1935 98.4 1976 364.2 1940 228.3 1977 270.1 1941 110.6 1978 496.9 1942 217.4 1979 370.1 1943 480.3 1980 381.7 1944 258.3 1981 421.1 1945 237.0 1982 581.2 1946 275.8 1983 322.2 1947 381.2 1984 617.9 1948 389.7 1985 318.3 1949 330.3 1986 428.5 1950 569.4 1987 244.6 1951 624.1 1988 146.5 1952 497.8 1989 359.8 1953 143.9 1990 352.3 1954 131.0 1991 433.9 1955 330.3 1992 425.0 1956 415.3 1993 586.8 1957 308.2 1994 223.9 1958 357.1 1995 264.0 1959 404.0 1996 312.6 1960 330.8 1997 481.9 1961 258.0 1998 592.4 1962 177.3 1999 287.4 1963 146.0 2000 249.8 1964 177.0 2001 290.9 1965 234.6 2002 402.1 1966 235.5 2003 401.9 1967 458.5 2004 343.9 1968 364.9 2005 509.5 1969 305.7 2006 433.2 *From USGS Stream Gage Station near Woodville OH.

106

Table A2. Annual Maximum Gage Height for the Portage River near Woodville OH. Year Date Gage Height (ft) Year Date Gage Height (ft) 1913 Mar. 1913 17 1970 Mar. 06, 1970 9.9 1929 Feb. 27, 1929 11.8 1971 Jun. 07, 1971 8.92 1930 Jan. 15, 1930 12.96 1972 Jul. 17, 1972 11.26 1931 Apr. 04, 1931 6.61 1973 Nov. 15, 1972 10.81 1932 Jan. 18, 1932 8.82 1974 Jan. 22, 1974 10.27 1933 Mar. 15, 1933 12.52 1975 Feb. 25, 1975 10.12 1934 Apr. 17, 1934 8.71 1976 Feb. 18, 1976 11.99 1935 May 8, 1935 7.78 1977 Apr. 24, 1977 9.12 1940 Apr. 19, 1940 9.77 1978 Mar. 22, 1978 12.31 1941 Dec. 30, 1940 7.46 1979 Apr. 15, 1979 13.23 1942 Apr. 11, 1942 10.68 1980 Mar. 22, 1980 10.65 1943 May 19, 1943 12.3 1981 Jun. 10, 1981 12.04 1944 Apr. 12, 1944 13.08 1982 Mar. 14, 1982 13.97 1945 Jun. 19, 1945 9.77 1983 May 3, 1983 10.12 1946 Jun. 18, 1946 11.5 1984 Apr. 24, 1984 11.94 1947 Jun. 03, 1947 11.91 1985 Feb. 25, 1985 12.54 1948 Mar. 23, 1948 13.98 1986 Dec. 12, 1985 9.4 1949 Feb. 16, 1949 10.99 1987 Nov. 27, 1986 8.37 1950 Feb. 15, 1950 14.51 1988 Apr. 04, 1988 7.37 1951 Jan. 04, 1951 11.78 1989 Apr. 05, 1989 10.19 1952 Mar. 12, 1952 13.24 1990 Feb. 24, 1990 10.7 1953 May 24, 1953 9.06 1991 Dec. 31, 1990 13.67 1954 Mar. 26, 1954 8.65 1992 Sep. 23, 1992 9.66 1955 Mar. 05, 1955 10.78 1993 Jan. 05, 1993 11.84 1956 May 13, 1956 12.72 1994 Apr. 13, 1994 12.35 1957 Apr. 06, 1957 12.28 1995 Mar. 09, 1995 10.05 1958 Jul. 13, 1958 9.85 1996 Jan. 19, 1996 10.24 1959 Feb. 12, 1959 11.81 1997 Jun. 03, 1997 13.3 1960 Jan. 14, 1960 10.08 1998 Aug. 27, 1998 13.98 1961 Apr. 27, 1961 10.95 1999 Jan. 24, 1999 12.33 1962 Mar. 13, 1962 9.68 2000 Jun. 26, 2000 10.31 1963 Mar. 08, 1963 - 2001 Apr. 07, 2001 10.85 1964 Apr. 22, 1964 10.98 2002 Feb. 02, 2002 11.59 1965 Feb. 11, 1965 9.37 2003 May 10, 2003 10.28 1966 Apr. 29, 1966 9.2 2004 Jun. 15, 2004 9.34 1967 Dec. 10, 1966 12.3 2005 Jan. 13, 2005 14.4 1968 Jan. 31, 1968 12.28 2006 Jun. 24, 2006 11.05 1969 May 20, 1969 12.06 *From USGS Stream Gage Station near Woodville OH.

107

Table A3. Peak Streamflow for the Portage River near Woodville OH. Peak Peak Year Date Streamflow (ft3/sec) Year Date Streamflow (ft3/sec) 1913 Mar. 1913 17,0007,E 1970 Mar. 06, 1970 5,440 1929 Feb. 27, 1929 7,450E 1971 Jun. 07, 1971 4,260 1930 Jan. 15, 1930 9,150E 1972 Jul. 17, 1972 7,160 1931 Apr. 04, 1931 2,040E 1973 Nov. 15, 1972 6,530 1932 Jan. 18, 1932 4,250E 1974 Jan. 22, 1974 5,880 1933 Mar. 15, 1933 8,220E 1975 Feb. 25, 1975 5,700 1934 Apr. 17, 1934 4,000 1976 Feb. 18, 1976 8,190 1935 May 8, 1935 2,920 1977 Apr. 24, 1977 4,450 1940 Apr. 19, 1940 4,930 1978 Mar. 22, 1978 8,630 1941 Dec. 30, 1940 2,600 1979 Apr. 15, 1979 9,990 1942 Apr. 11, 1942 6,010 1980 Mar. 22, 1980 6,060 1943 May 19, 1943 8,150 1981 Jun. 10, 1981 7,910 1944 Apr. 12, 1944 9,300 1982 Mar. 14, 1982 10,900 1945 Jun. 19, 1945 4,930 1983 May 3, 1983 5,410 1946 Jun. 18, 1946 7,040 1984 Apr. 24, 1984 7,770 1947 Jun. 03, 1947 7,580 1985 Feb. 25, 1985 8,640 1948 Mar. 23, 1948 10,600 1986 Dec. 12, 1985 4,600 1949 Feb. 16, 1949 6,180 1987 Nov. 27, 1986 3,540 1950 Feb. 15, 1950 11,500 1988 Apr. 04, 1988 2,620 1951 Jan. 04, 1951 7,510 1989 Apr. 05, 1989 5,500 1952 Mar. 12, 1952 9,490 1990 Feb. 24, 1990 6,120 1953 May 24, 1953 4,140 1991 Dec. 31, 1990 10,400 1954 Mar. 26, 1954 3,610 1992 Sep. 23, 1992 4,880 1955 Mar. 05, 1955 6,150 1993 Jan. 05, 1993 7,630 1956 May 13, 1956 8,740 1994 Apr. 13, 1994 8,360 1957 Apr. 06, 1957 8,180 1995 Mar. 09, 1995 5,330 1958 Jul. 13, 1958 4,930 1996 Jan. 19, 1996 5,560 1959 Feb. 12, 1959 7,490 1997 Jun. 03, 1997 9,810 1960 Jan. 14, 1960 5,270 1998 Aug. 27, 1998 11,500 1961 Apr. 27, 1961 6,340 1999 Jan. 24, 1999 8,600 1962 Mar. 13, 1962 4,790 2000 Jun. 26, 2000 5,660 1963 Mar. 08, 1963 30,002 2001 Apr. 07, 2001 6,390 1964 Apr. 22, 1964 6,380 2002 Feb. 02, 2002 7,450 1965 Feb. 11, 1965 4,440 2003 May 10, 2003 5,630 1966 Apr. 29, 1966 4,250 2004 Jun. 15, 2004 4,530 1967 Dec. 10, 1966 8,180 2005 Jan. 13, 2005 12,300 1968 Jan. 31, 1968 8,590 2006 Jun. 24, 2006 6,670 1969 May 20, 1969 8,280 *From USGS Stream Gage Station near Woodville OH.

108

Table A4. Average monthly discharge for the Portage River near Elmore, OH Month Discharge (ft3) Month Discharge (ft3) Month Discharge (ft3) Aug-98 1,686 May-01 656.6 Feb-04 237 Sep-98 106.7 Jun-01 323.1 Mar-04 741.9 Oct-98 33.4 Jul-01 23.9 Apr-04 241.5 Nov-98 44.8 Aug-01 24 May-04 411.5 Dec-98 37.4 Sep-01 65.6 Jun-04 1,025 Jan-99 996.4 Oct-01 746.7 Jul-04 46.1 Feb-99 499.1 Nov-01 86.3 Aug-04 383.3 Mar-99 868.5 Dec-01 802.3 Sep-04 103.7 Apr-99 1,515 Jan-02 204.3 Oct-04 35.2 May-99 130.5 Feb-02 1,164 Nov-04 539.9 Jun-99 265.9 Mar-02 844.1 Dec-04 663.4 Jul-99 52.2 Apr-02 1,218 Jan-05 2,799 Aug-99 21.1 May-02 783.7 Feb-05 1,217 Sep-99 13.1 Jun-02 193.5 Mar-05 335.4 Oct-99 27.4 Jul-02 23.6 Apr-05 1,179 Nov-99 20.1 Aug-02 45.9 May-05 175.2 Dec-99 90.6 Sep-02 27.8 Jun-05 57.7 Jan-00 99.8 Oct-02 22.9 Jul-05 197.1 Feb-00 654.2 Nov-02 118.6 Aug-05 25 Mar-00 377.6 Dec-02 437.4 Sep-05 125.6 Apr-00 578.4 Jan-03 428.8 Oct-05 38.4 May-00 648.4 Feb-03 185.7 Nov-05 272.2 Jun-00 1,169 Mar-03 1,351 Dec-05 678.7 Jul-00 217 Apr-03 918.9 Jan-06 1,276 Aug-00 228.5 May-03 1,227 Feb-06 905.9 Sep-00 83.7 Jun-03 436.3 Mar-06 419.8 Oct-00 228.5 Jul-03 344.9 Apr-06 201.7 Nov-00 70.1 Aug-03 521.4 May-06 924.5 Dec-00 425.9 Sep-03 101.7 Jun-06 882.8 Jan-01 158.9 Oct-03 80 Jul-06 399.3 Feb-01 1,141 Nov-03 348.2 Aug-06 52 Mar-01 419.9 Dec-03 905.4 Sep-06 65.3 Apr-01 1,036 Jan-04 519.3 *From USGS Stream Gage Station near Elmore OH.

109

APPENDIX B

Stratigraphic Diagrams 110

Figure B1. Stratigraphic diagram of vibracore 07-PC-1. 111

Figure B2. Stratigraphic diagram of vibracore 07-PC-2. 112

Figure B3. Stratigraphic diagram of vibracore 07-PC-3. 113

Figure B4. Stratigraphic diagram of vibracore 07-PC-4. 114

Figure B5. Stratigraphic diagram of vibracore 07-PC-5. 115

Figure B6. Stratigraphic diagram of vibracore 07-PC-6. 116

Figure B7. Stratigraphic diagram of vibracore 07-PC-7. 117

Figure B8. Stratigraphic diagram of vibracore 07-PC-8. 118

Figure B9. Stratigraphic diagram of vibracore 07-PC-9.

119

Figure B10. Stratigraphic diagram of vibracore 07-PC-10. 120

Figure B11. Stratigraphic diagram of vibracore 07-PC-11. 121

Figure B12. Stratigraphic diagram of vibracore 07-PC-12. 122

Figure B13. Stratigraphic diagram of vibracore 07-PC-13. 123

Figure B14. Stratigraphic diagram of vibracore 07-PC-14. 124

Figure B13. Stratigraphic diagram of vibracore 07-PC-15. 125

Figure B16. Stratigraphic diagram of vibracore 07-PC-16. 126

Figure B17. Stratigraphic diagram of vibracore 07-PC-17. 127

Figure B18. Stratigraphic diagram of vibracore 07-PC-18. 128

Figure B19. Stratigraphic diagram of vibracore 07-PC-19. 129

APPENDIX C

Grain Size Analysis 130

07-PC-1 (2-7 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-1 (2-7 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 0.0 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.7

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3 2.5 2.63 0.86 0.0 2.2

Figure C1. Histogram plots of frequency versus grain size (Φ) and plots of cumulative weight percent versus grain size (Φ) with calculated statistical parameters for vibracore 07-PC-1. 131

07-PC-1 (13-19 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-1 (13-19 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -3.7 -3.2 -2.2 2.0 2.6 2.9 3.6

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3 2 0.57 2.63 -0.6 0.6

Figure C1. Continued.

132

07-PC-1 (36-39 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-1 (36-39 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -4.7 -4.2 -3.9 -2.1 0.5 1.8 3.0

Mode Median Mean SD S K -3.0 -2.0 -1.5 2.7 0.3 0.7

Figure C1. Continued.

133

07-PC-1 (70-75 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-1 (70-75 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -2.2 -0.5 0.5 2.2 2.9 3.4 4.0

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 2.2 1.7 1.9 -0.4 1.1

Figure C1. Continued.

134

07-PC-2 (6-10 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-2 (6-10 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 0.7 1.5 1.8 2.4 2.7 2.8 3.5

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 2.4 2.2 0.8 -0.3 1.3

Figure C2. Histogram plots of frequency versus grain size (Φ) and plots of cumulative weight percent versus grain size (Φ) with calculated statistical parameters for vibracore 07-PC-2.

135

07-PC-2 (30-35 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-2 (30-35 cm)

100

40 Frequency

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 3.4

Mode Median Mean SD S K 2.0 1.7 1.8 0.7 0.3 1.2

Figure C2. Continued.

136

07-PC-2 (50-55 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-2 (50-55 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.8 3.9 3.65 3.8

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 2.8 2.9 0.6 0.1 0.5

Figure C2. Continued.

137

07-PC-2 (70-75 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-2 (70-75 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 1.4 2 2.2 2.7 3.3 3.6 3.85

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 2.7 2.8 0.8 0.0 0.9

Figure C2. Continued.

138

07-PC-2 (103-108 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-2 (103-108 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.3 3.7 3.8 3.9

Mode Median Mean SD S K 4.0 3.3 3.2 0.6 -0.3 1.2

Figure C2. Continued.

139

07-PC-2 (135-140 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-2 (135-140 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 0.75 1.15 1.45 2.0 3.8 3.2 3.7

Mode Median Mean SD S K 4.0 2.0 2.1 1.0 0.2 0.5

Figure C2. Continued.

140

07-PC-2 (160-165 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-2 (160-165 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.45 2.85 3.2 3.75

Mode Median Mean SD S K 2.0 2.5 2.4 0.8 -0.1 1.3

Figure C2. Continued.

141

07-PC-2 (180-185 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-2 (180-185 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 1.5 2.2 2.5 3.0 3.55 3.7 4.3

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.8 -0.1 1.1

Figure C2. Continued.

142

07-PC-2 (240-245 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-2 (240-245 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 2.2 2.8 3 3.5 3.8 3.9 4.5

Mode Median Mean SD S K 4.0 3.4 3.4 0.6 -0.1 1.2

Figure C2. Continued.

143

07-PC-2 (265-270 cm)

Frequency 30

0 4 5 6 7 8 9 Phi Size

07-PC-2 (265-270 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 4 5 6 7 8 9 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 6.0 6.3 6.5 7.0 7.5 7.7 8.0

Mode Median Mean SD S K 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.7 0.0 0.8

Figure C2. Continued.

144

07-PC-2 (314-319 cm)

Frequency 30

0 4 5 6 7 8 9 Phi Size

07-PC-2 (314-319 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 4 5 6 7 8 9 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 5.3 6.0 6.1 6.4 6.7 6.9 7.0

Mode Median Mean SD S K 7.0 6.4 6.4 0.5 -0.1 1.2

Figure C2. Continued.

145

07-PC-3 (6-11 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-3 (6-11 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.2 2.6 2.7 2.8

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 2.2 2.1 0.6 -0.3 0.8

Figure C3. Histogram plots of frequency versus grain size (Φ) and plots of cumulative weight percent versus grain size (Φ) with calculated statistical parameters for vibracore 07-PC-3.

146

07-PC-3 (19-26 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-3 (19-26 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 1.0 1.3 1.6 2.1 2.5 2.7 2.8

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.00 2.1 2.0 0.6 -0.2 0.8

Figure C3. Continued.

147

07-PC-3 (56-59 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-3 (56-59 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.6 2.8

Mode Median Mean SD S K 2.0 1.9 1.9 0.6 0.1 0.8

Figure C3. Continued.

148

07-PC-3 (105-110 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-3 (105-110 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 0.0 1.2 1.5 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.9

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 2.2 2.0 0.8 -0.4 1.2

Figure C3. Continued.

149

07-PC-4 (5-11 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-4 (5-11 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 0.1 0.8 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.4 2.8

Mode Median Mean SD S K 2.0 1.5 1.6 0.8 0.0 1.2

Figure C4. Histogram plots of frequency versus grain size (Φ) and plots of cumulative weight percent versus grain size (Φ) with calculated statistical parameters for vibracore 07-PC-4. 150

07-PC-4 (19-23 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-4 (19-23 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -0.3 0.7 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.4 2.8

Mode Median Mean SD S K 2.0 1.5 1.5 0.9 -0.1 1.2

Figure C4. Continued.

151

07-PC-4 (29-33 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-4 (29-33 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -1.4 0.0 0.6 1.5 2.1 2.5 2.9

Mode Median Mean SD S K 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.3 -0.3 1.2

Figure C4. Continued.

152

07-PC-4 (38-42 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-4 (38-42 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -0.8 0.2 0.5 1.3 1.8 2.2 2.8

Mode Median Mean SD S K 2.0 1.3 1.2 1.0 -0.1 1.1

Figure C4. Continued.

153

07-PC-4 (50-54 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-4 (50-54 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -1.6 -0.6 -0.2 1.0 1.8 2.3 2.8

Mode Median Mean SD S K 2.0 1.0 0.9 1.4 -0.1 0.9

Figure C4. Continued.

154

07-PC-4 (60-64 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-4 (60-64 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 0.0 2.1 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.8

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 2.6 2.7 0.9 -0.1 1.9

Figure C4. Continued.

155

07-PC-4 (75-79 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-4 (75-79 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -2.3 -1.6 -1.2 -0.5 0.2 0.8 2.8

Mode Median Mean SD S K 0.0 -0.5 -0.4 1.3 0.2 1.5

Figure C4. Continued.

156

07-PC-4 (80-84 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-4 (80-84 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 1.3 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.2 3.7

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 2.5 2.6 0.7 0.1 1.6

Figure C4. Continued.

157

07-PC-5 (23-27 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-5 (23-37 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -3.0 -1.5 -0.5 1.2 2.0 2.4 2.9

Mode Median Mean SD S K 2.0 1.2 0.7 1.9 -0.4 1.0

Figure C5. Histogram plots of frequency versus grain size (Φ) and plots of cumulative weight percent versus grain size (Φ) with calculated statistical parameters for vibracore 07-PC-5. 158

07-PC-5 (98-103 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-5 (98-103 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -3.2 -1.8 -1.1 2.1 2.6 2.9 3.6

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 2.1 1.0 2.2 -0.6 0.7

Figure C5. Continued.

159

07-PC-5 (104-107 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-5 (104-107 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.9

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 2.6 2.7 0.7 0.2 1.2

Figure C5. Continued.

160

07-PC-5 (135-140 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-5 (135-140 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -1.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.1 2.5 2.9

Mode Median Mean SD S K 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.1 -0.2 1.5

Figure C5. Continued.

161

07-PC-6 (32-36 cm)

Frequency 30

0 4 5 6 7 8 9 Phi Size

07-PC-6 (32-36 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 4 5 6 7 8 9 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.8 6.4 6.7 7.0

Mode Median Mean SD S K -6.0 5.8 5.9 0.7 0.2 0.8

Figure C6. Histogram plots of frequency versus grain size (Φ) and plots of cumulative weight percent versus grain size (Φ) with calculated statistical parameters for vibracore 07-PC-6 162

07-PC-6 (55-58 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-6 (55-58 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -2.4 -1.5 -0.9 0.2 1.0 1.5 2.4

Mode Median Mean SD S K 1.0 0.2 0.1 1.5 -0.1 1.1

Figure C6. Continued.

163

07-PC-6 (70-73 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-6 (70-73 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 0.3 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.7

Mode Median Mean SD S K 2.0 1.5 1.5 0.6 0.0 1.5

Figure C6. Continued.

164

07-PC-7 (7-13 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-7 (7-13 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8

Mode Median Mean SD S K 2.0 1.6 1.7 0.6 0.3 1.1

Figure C7. Histogram plots of frequency versus grain size (Φ) and plots of cumulative weight percent versus grain size (Φ) with calculated statistical parameters for vibracore 07-PC-7. 165

07-PC-7 (36-41 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-7 (36-41 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -3.3 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.3 1.4

Mode Median Mean SD S K -1.0 -1.5 -1.4 1.2 0.2 1.9

Figure C7. Continued.

166

07-PC-7 (56-61 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-7 (56-61 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -3.7 -3.3 -2.5 1.4 2.0 2.4 2.8

Mode Median Mean SD S K -3.0 1.4 0.1 2.4 -0.6 0.6

Figure C7. Continued.

167

07-PC-7 (73-78 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-7 (73-78 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -3.9 -3.8 -3.5 -3.0 -1.0 0.4 1.8

Mode Median Mean SD S K -3.0 -3.0 -2.1 1.9 0.7 0.9

Figure C7. Continued.

168

07-PC-7 (84-89 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-7 (84-89 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -0.5 0.2 0.6 1.3 1.7 1.9 2.6

Mode Median Mean SD S K 2.0 1.3 1.1 0.9 -0.2 1.2

Figure C7. Continued.

169

07-PC-7 (106-110 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-7 (106-110 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -3.9 -3.8 -3.6 -3.3 -2.4 -1.0 2.7

Mode Median Mean SD S K -3.0 -3.3 -2.7 1.7 0.7 2.3

Figure C7. Continued.

170

07-PC-7 (121-126 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-7 (121-126 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -3.7 -3.2 -2.7 -1.1 1.9 2.4 3.0

Mode Median Mean SD S K -2.0 -1.1 -0.6 2.4 0.2 0.6

Figure C7. Continued.

171

07-PC-8 (90-93 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-8 (90-93 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -3.6 -2.8 -2.2 0.0 2.3 2.6 3.2

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 0.0 -0.1 2.4 0.0 0.6

Figure C8. Histogram plots of frequency versus grain size (Φ) and plots of cumulative weight percent versus grain size (Φ) with calculated statistical parameters for vibracore 07-PC-8. 172

07-PC-8 (100-104 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-8 (100-104 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -1.7 -0.8 0.0 1.5 2.5 2.8 3.7

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 1.5 1.2 1.7 -0.2 0.9

Figure C8. Continued.

173

07-PC-9 (50-54 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-9 (50-54 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -1.7 0.2 0.7 1.4 2.1 2.6 2.9

Mode Median Mean SD S K 2.0 1.4 1.4 1.3 -0.2 1.3

Figure C9. Histogram plots of frequency versus grain size (Φ) and plots of cumulative weight percent versus grain size (Φ) with calculated statistical parameters for vibracore 07-PC-9. 174

07-PC-9 (90-94 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-9 (90-94 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -1.7 0.3 0.7 2.1 2.7 2.9 3.8

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 2.1 1.8 1.5 -0.4 1.1

Figure C9. Continued.

175

07-PC-9 (100-104 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-9 (100-104 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 1.3 2.2 2.5 3.0 3.7 4.0 4.7

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 3.0 3.1 1.0 0.0 1.2

Figure C9. Continued.

176

07-PC-10 (0-6 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-10 (0-6 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 0.4 1.1 1.4 2.0 2.5 2.7 2.9

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 2.0 1.9 0.8 -0.2 0.9

Figure C10. Histogram plots of frequency versus grain size (Φ) and plots of cumulative weight percent versus grain size (Φ) with calculated statistical parameters for vibracore 07-PC-10. 177

07-PC-10 (43-46 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-10 (43-46 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -2.0 -0.7 0.1 1.1 2.0 2.5 2.9

Mode Median Mean SD S K 2.0 1.1 1.0 1.5 -0.2 1.0

Figure C10. Continued.

178

07-PC-10 (59-63 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-10 (59-63 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -2.4 -1.5 -0.9 0.5 1.5 2.0 2.9

Mode Median Mean SD S K 1.0 0.5 0.3 1.7 -0.1 0.9

Figure C10. Continued.

179

07-PC-11 (7-12 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-11 (7-12 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -0.5 0.4 0.8 1.5 2.1 2.5 2.9

Mode Median Mean SD S K 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.1 -0.1 1.0

Figure C11. Histogram plots of frequency versus grain size (Φ) and plots of cumulative weight percent versus grain size (Φ) with calculated statistical parameters for vibracore 07-PC-11. 180

07-PC-11 (38-42 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class .

07-PC-11 (38-42 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -0.6 0.3 0.7 1.5 2.0 2.4 2.9

Mode Median Mean SD S K 2.0 1.5 1.4 1.1 -0.2 1.1

Figure C11. Continued.

181

07-PC-11 (49-53 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-11 (49-53 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -1.5 -0.6 -0.2 0.6 1.6 1.9 2.9

Mode Median Mean SD S K 1.0 0.6 0.6 1.3 0.0 1.0

Figure C11. Continued.

182

07-PC-11 (67-71 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-11 (67-71 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -4.3 -3.8 -3.5 -2.6 -0.8 2.0 2.7

Mode Median Mean SD S K -3.0 -2.6 -1.5 2.5 0.6 1.1

Figure C11. Continued.

183

07-PC-12 (60-63 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-12 (60-63 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -0.9 -0.3 0.2 1.0 1.8 2.0 2.7

Mode Median Mean SD S K 2.0 1.0 0.9 1.1 -0.1 0.9

Figure C12. Histogram plots of frequency versus grain size (Φ) and plots of cumulative weight percent versus grain size (Φ) with calculated statistical parameters for vibracore 07-PC-12. 184

07-PC-12 (79-82 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-12 (79-82 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -0.5 1.4 2.0 2.4 2.7 2.8 3.0

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 2.4 2.2 0.9 -0.5 1.9

Figure C12. Continued.

185

07-PC-12 (89-92 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-12 (89-92 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -0.6 0.5 1.2 2.0 2.5 2.7 2.9

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 2.0 1.7 1.1 -0.4 1.0

Figure C12. Continued.

186

07-PC-12 (117-122 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-12 (117-122 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 1.5 2.2 2.3 2.6 2.9 3.3 3.9

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 2.6 2.7 0.6 0.2 1.5

Figure C12. Continued.

187

07-PC-13 (32-37 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-13 (32-37 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -0.5 0.3 0.8 1.7 2.4 2.7 3.0

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 1.7 1.5 1.1 -0.2 0.9

Figure C13. Histogram plots of frequency versus grain size (Φ) and plots of cumulative weight percent versus grain size (Φ) with calculated statistical parameters for vibracore 07-PC-13. 188

07-PC-13 (48-53 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-13 (48-53 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 0.2 0.8 1.2 1.7 2.3 2.5 2.9

Mode Median Mean SD S K 2.0 1.7 1.7 0.8 0.0 1.0

Figure C13. Continued.

189

07-PC-13 (58-62)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-13 (58-62 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 0.4 1.3 1.6 2.2 2.7 2.8 2.9

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 2.2 2.1 0.8 -0.4 1.0

Figure C13. Continued.

190

07-PC-13A (12-17 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-13A (12-17 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 0.0 1.1 1.3 1.9 2.5 2.7 2.9

Mode Median Mean SD S K 2.0 1.9 1.9 0.8 -0.1 1.0

Figure C13A. Histogram plots of frequency versus grain size (Φ) and plots of cumulative weight percent versus grain size (Φ) with calculated statistical parameters for vibracore 07-PC-13A. 191

07-PC-13A (31-35 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 0.3 1.1 1.4 2.0 2.5 2.7 3.0

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 2.0 1.9 0.8 -0.2 1.0

Figure C13A. Continued.

192

07-PC-13A (47-51 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-13A (47-51 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 0.0 0.5 0.9 1.5 2.1 2.4 2.8

Mode Median Mean SD S K 2.0 1.5 1.5 0.9 -0.1 1.0

Figure C13A. Continued.

193

07-PC-13A (55-59 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-13A (55-59 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 1.0 1.5 1.8 2.3 2.7 2.8 3.0

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 2.3 2.2 0.6 -0.3 0.9

Figure C13A. Continued.

194

07-PC-14 (77-81 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-14 (77-81 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -0.5 1.0 1.3 1.9 2.5 2.8 3.0

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 1.9 1.9 1.0 -0.2 1.1

Figure C14. Histogram plots of frequency versus grain size (Φ) and plots of cumulative weight percent versus grain size (Φ) with calculated statistical parameters for vibracore 07-PC-14. 195

07-PC-14 (95-100 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-14 (95-100 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -0.5 1.0 1.3 1.9 2.5 2.8 3.0

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 1.9 1.9 1.0 -0.2 1.1

Figure C14. Continued.

196

07-PC-14 (112-117 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-14 (112-117 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -2.9 -1.0 0.3 1.9 2.5 2.8 3.5

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 1.9 1.2 1.9 -0.5 1.2

Figure C14. Continued.

197

07-PC-14 (219-221 cm)

Frequency 30

0 4 5 6 7 8 9 Phi Size

07-PC-14 (219-221 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 4 5 6 7 8 9 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.9 7.2 7.8

Mode Median Mean SD S K 7.0 6.6 6.7 0.5 0.3 1.5

Figure C14. Continued.

198

07-PC-15 (61-65 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-15 (61-65 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -2.0 0.2 1.5 2.0 2.5 2.8 3.0

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 2.0 1.6 1.4 -0.5 2.0

Figure C15. Histogram plots of frequency versus grain size (Φ) and plots of cumulative weight percent versus grain size (Φ) with calculated statistical parameters for vibracore 07-PC-15. 199

07-PC-15 (137-141 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-15 (137-141 cm)

100

30 Cumualtive Weight Cumualtive (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.8 3.3 3.6 4.0

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 2.8 2.8 0.6 0.2 0.8

Figure C15. Continued.

200

07-PC-15 (163-167 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-15 (163-167 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size -2.2 -0.7 0.6 1.9 2.9 3.4 4.0

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 1.9 1.6 1.9 -0.3 1.1

Figure C15. Continued.

201

07-PC-16 (30-34 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-16 (30-34 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.9 2.5 2.7 2.9

Mode Median Mean SD S K 2.0 1.9 1.9 0.7 0.1 0.7

Figure C16. Histogram plots of frequency versus grain size (Φ) and plots of cumulative weight percent versus grain size (Φ) with calculated statistical parameters for vibracore 07-PC-16. 202

07-PC-16 (77-82 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-16 (77-82 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weigt Cumulative (%) Weigt 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 0.0 0.5 0.8 1.5 2.2 2.5 2.9

Mode Median Mean SD S K 2.0 1.5 1.5 0.9 0.0 0.8

Figure C16. Continued.

203

07-PC-16 (92-96 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-16 (92-96 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 1.0 1.3 1.6 2.3 2.7 2.8 3.0

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 2.3 2.1 0.7 -0.3 0.8

Figure C16. Continued.

204

07-PC-17 (21-25 cm)

Frequency 30

0 4 5 6 7 8 9 Phi Size

07-PC-17 (21-25 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 4 5 6 7 8 9 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.7 7.1 7.5 7.7

Mode Median Mean SD S K 7.0 6.7 6.8 0.6 0.2 1.0

Figure C17. Histogram plots of frequency versus grain size (Φ) and plots of cumulative weight percent versus grain size (Φ) with calculated statistical parameters for vibracore 07-PC-17. 205

07-PC-17 (80-84 cm)

Frequency 30

0 4 5 6 7 8 9 Phi Size

07-PC-17 (80-84 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 4 5 6 7 8 9 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.5 7.0 7.3 7.8

Mode Median Mean SD S K 7.0 6.5 6.7 0.5 0.4 1.2

Figure C17. Continued.

206

07-PC-17 (123-128 cm)

Frequency 30

0 4 5 6 7 8 9 Phi Size

07-PC-17 (123-128 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 4 5 6 7 8 9 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 6.0 6.3 6.5 7.0 7.5 7.7 7.9

Mode Median Mean SD S K 8.0 7.0 7.0 0.6 0.0 0.8

Figure C17. Continued.

207

07-PC-18 (30-34 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-18 (30-34 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.8 2.9 3.5

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 2.5 2.5 0.4 0.1 1.1

Figure C18. Histogram plots of frequency versus grain size (Φ) and plots of cumulative weight percent versus grain size (Φ) with calculated statistical parameters for vibracore 07-PC-18. 208

07-PC-18 (60-64 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-18 (60-64 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.9 3 3.65

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 2.5 2.6 0.5 0.3 1.1

Figure C18. Continued.

209

07-PC-18 (100-104 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

07-PC-18 (100-104 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Class

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 2.0 2.3 2.5 3.0 3.5 3.7 4.0

Mode Median Mean SD S K 4.0 3.0 3.0 0.7 0.0 0.8

Figure C18. Continued.

210

07-PC-19 (23-27 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-19 (23-27 cm)

100

Frequency 40

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.9 3.5 3.8 4.5

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 2.9 3.0 0.8 0.2 0.9

Figure C19. Histogram plots of frequency versus grain size (Φ) and plots of cumulative weight percent versus grain size (Φ) with calculated statistical parameters for vibracore 07-PC-18. 211

07-PC-19 (100-104 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-19 (100-104 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 2.1 2.3 2.5 3.0 3.6 3.9 4.5

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.8 0.2 0.8

Figure C19. Continued.

212

07-PC-19 (172-176 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-19 (172-176 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.8 3.3 3.6 4.0

Mode Median Mean SD S K 3.0 2.8 2.9 0.6 0.3 0.9

Figure C19. Continued.

213

07-PC-19 (266-270 cm)

Frequency 30

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

07-PC-19 (266-270 cm)

100

30 Cumulative Weight Cumulative (%)Weight 20

0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 >4.0 Phi Size

Φ (%) Φ5 Φ16 Φ25 Φ50 Φ75 Φ84 Φ95 Φ Size 2.2 2.5 2.9 3.4 3.7 3.8 4.2

Mode Median Mean SD S K 4.0 3.4 3.2 0.6 -0.2 1.1

Figure C19. Continued.

214

APPENDIX D

Water Content and Porosity 215

A B

Water Content (%) Porosity (%) 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 0.0 0.0

10.0 10.0

20.0 20.0

30.0 30.0

40.0 40.0 Depth(cm) 50.0 Depth(cm) 50.0

60.0 60.0

70.0 70.0

80.0 80.0

Figure D1. Graphs representing water content and porosity values with depth. (A) Water content values for vibracore 07-PC-1. (B) Porosity values for vibracore 07-PC-1.

A B

Water Content (%) Porosity (%) 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 0.0

50.0 50.0

100.0 100.0

150.0 150.0

Depth(cm) Depth(cm) 200.0 200.0

250.0 250.0

300.0 300.0

Figure D2. Graphs representing water content and porosity values with depth. (A) Water content values for vibracore 07-PC-2. (B) Porosity values for vibracore 07-PC-2.

216

A B

Water Content (%) Porosity (%) 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 0.0 0.0

20.0 20.0

40.0 40.0

60.0 60.0

Depth(cm) Depth(cm) 80.0 80.0

100.0 100.0

120.0 120.0

Figure D3. Graphs representing water content and porosity values with depth. (A) Water content values for vibracore 07-PC-3. (B) Porosity values for vibracore 07-PC-3.

A B

Water Content (%) Porosity (%) 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 0.0

10.0 10.0

20.0 20.0

30.0 30.0

40.0 40.0

50.0 50.0

Depth(cm) Depth(cm) 60.0 60.0

70.0 70.0

80.0 80.0

90.0 90.0

Figure D4. Graphs representing water content and porosity values with depth. (A) Water content values for vibracore 07-PC-4. (B) Porosity values for vibracore 07-PC-4.

217

A B

Water Content (%) Porosity (%) 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 0.0

20.0 20.0

40.0 40.0

60.0 60.0

80.0 80.0 Depth(cm) 100.0 Depth(cm) 100.0

120.0 120.0

140.0 140.0

160.0 160.0

Figure D5. Graphs representing water content and porosity values with depth. (A) Water content values for vibracore 07-PC-5. (B) Porosity values for vibracore 07-PC-5.

A B

Water Content (%) Porosity (%) 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 0.0 0.0

10.0 10.0

20.0 20.0

30.0 30.0

40.0 40.0 Depth(cm) 50.0 Depth(cm) 50.0

60.0 60.0

70.0 70.0

80.0 80.0

Figure D6. Graphs representing water content and porosity values with depth. (A) Water content values for vibracore 07-PC-6. (B) Porosity values for vibracore 07-PC-6.

218

A B

Water Content (%) Porosity (%) 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 0.0

20.0 20.0

40.0 40.0

60.0 60.0

80.0 80.0

Depth(cm) Depth(cm)

100.0 100.0

120.0 120.0

140.0 140.0

Figure D7. Graphs representing water content and porosity values with depth. (A) Water content values for vibracore 07-PC-7. (B) Porosity values for vibracore 07-PC-7.

A B

Water Content (%) Porosity (%) 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 20.0 20.0 30.0 30.0 40.0 40.0 50.0 50.0

60.0 60.0 Depth(cm) 70.0 Depth(cm) 70.0 80.0 80.0 90.0 90.0 100.0 100.0 110.0 110.0

Figure D8. Graphs representing water content and porosity values with depth. (A) Water content values for vibracore 07-PC-8. (B) Porosity values for vibracore 07-PC-8.

219

A B

Water Content (%) Porosity (%) 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 0.0

20.0 20.0

40.0 40.0

60.0 60.0

Depth(cm) Depth(cm) 80.0 80.0

100.0 100.0

120.0 120.0

Figure D9. Graphs representing water content and porosity values with depth. (A) Water content values for vibracore 07-PC-9. (B) Porosity values for vibracore 07-PC-9.

A B

Water Content (%) Porosity (%) 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 0.0

10.0 10.0

20.0 20.0

30.0 30.0

40.0 40.0 Depth(cm) 50.0 Depth(cm) 50.0

60.0 60.0

70.0 70.0

80.0 80.0

Figure D10. Graphs representing water content and porosity values with depth. (A) Water content values for vibracore 07-PC-10. (B) Porosity values for vibracore 07-PC- 10.

220

A B

Water Content (%) Porosity (%) 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 0.0

10.0 10.0

20.0 20.0

30.0 30.0

40.0 40.0 Depth(cm) 50.0 Depth(cm) 50.0

60.0 60.0

70.0 70.0

80.0 80.0

Figure D11. Graphs representing water content and porosity values with depth. (A) Water content values for vibracore 07-PC-11. (B) Porosity values for vibracore 07-PC- 11.

A B

Water Content (%) Porosity (%) 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 0.0

20.0 20.0

40.0 40.0

60.0 60.0

Depth(cm) Depth(cm) 80.0 80.0

100.0 100.0

120.0 120.0

Figure D12. Graphs representing water content and porosity values with depth. (A) Water content values for vibracore 07-PC-12. (B) Porosity values for vibracore 07-PC- 12.

221

A B

Water Content (%) Porosity (%) 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 0.0

10.0 10.0

20.0 20.0

30.0 30.0

40.0 40.0

Depth(cm) Depth(cm)

50.0 50.0

60.0 60.0

70.0 70.0

Figure D13. Graphs representing water content and porosity values with depth. (A) Water content values for vibracore 07-PC-13. (B) Porosity values for vibracore 07-PC- 13.

A B

Water Content (%) Porosity (%) 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 0.0

10.0 10.0

20.0 20.0

30.0 30.0

40.0 40.0

Depth(cm) Depth(cm)

50.0 50.0

60.0 60.0

70.0 70.0

Figure D13A. Graphs representing water content and porosity values with depth. (A) Water content values for vibracore 07-PC-13A. (B) Porosity values for vibracore 07-PC- 13A.

222

A B

Water Content (%) Porosity (%) 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 0.0

20.0 20.0

40.0 40.0

60.0 60.0

Depth(cm) Depth(cm) 80.0 80.0

100.0 100.0

120.0 120.0

Figure D14. Graphs representing water content and porosity values with depth. (A) Water content values for vibracore 07-PC-14. (B) Porosity values for vibracore 07-PC- 14.

A B

Water Content (%) Porosity (%) 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 0.0

20.0 20.0

40.0 40.0

60.0 60.0

80.0 80.0

100.0 100.0

Depth(cm) Depth(cm) 120.0 120.0

140.0 140.0

160.0 160.0

180.0 180.0

Figure D15. Graphs representing water content and porosity values with depth. (A) Water content values for vibracore 07-PC-15. (B) Porosity values for vibracore 07-PC- 15.

223

A B

Water Content (%) Porosity (%) 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 0.0

10.0 10.0

20.0 20.0

30.0 30.0

40.0 40.0

50.0 50.0

Depth(cm) 60.0 60.0 Depth(cm)

70.0 70.0

80.0 80.0

90.0 90.0

100.0 100.0

Figure D16. Graphs representing water content and porosity values with depth. (A) Water content values for vibracore 07-PC-16. (B) Porosity values for vibracore 07-PC- 16.

A B

Water Content (%) Porosity (%) 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 20.0 20.0 30.0 30.0 40.0 40.0 50.0 50.0 60.0 60.0

70.0 70.0

Depth(cm) Depth(cm) 80.0 80.0 90.0 90.0 100.0 100.0 110.0 110.0 120.0 120.0

Figure D17. Graphs representing water content and porosity values with depth. (A) Water content values for vibracore 07-PC-18. (B) Porosity values for vibracore 07-PC- 18.

224

A B

Water Content (%) Porosity (%) 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 0.0

40.0 40.0

80.0 80.0

120.0 120.0

160.0 160.0

Depth(cm) Depth(cm)

200.0 200.0

240.0 240.0

280.0 280.0

Figure D18. Graphs representing water content and porosity values with depth. (A) Water content values for vibracore 07-PC-19. (B) Porosity values for vibracore 07-PC- 19.