by
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
GEOLOGY
This page is the index to the HTML copy of the thesis. The thesis is also available in the following formats:
Adobe PDF (3.x viewer needed) |
PostScript (1200 dpi images) |
||||||
|
|
 | APPENDIX A – RADIOOCARBON DATES IN COLUMBIA RIVER LITTORAL CELL | ||||||||
| APPENDIX B – CORE SITE TABLE | ||||||||
| APPENDIX C - CORE SITE STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMNS
| ||||||||
| APPENDIX D – STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL
SUB-CELL ACCRETION RATE LINEARITY
| ||||||||
| APPENDIX E – STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF COLUMBIA RIVER LITTORAL CELL ACCRETION RATES | ||||||||
| APPENDIX F – STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF ‘BIG
DUNE’ ELEVATION MEASUREMENTS
|
| Table 1. Lower Columbia River and Continental shelf sediment concentration in percentage of total sediment (modified from Whetten, 1969 and White, 1970). |
| Table 2. Antennae frequency versus theoretical resolution (velocity of 0.1 m/ns) (l = v/f; where: l = wavelength, v = velocity, f = frequency) (Jol, 1993). |
| Table 3. Ground penetrating radar transects from the Ocean Shores sub-cell. HAR scarps are interpreted as high-amplitude reflector scarps. LAR scarps are identified as low-amplitude reflector scarps. |
| Table 4. Ground penetrating radar transects from the Grayland Plains sub-cell. HAR scarps are interpreted as high-amplitude reflector scarps. LAR scarps are identified as low-amplitude reflector scarps. |
| Table 5. Ground penetrating radar transects from the Long Beach Peninsula sub-cell. HAR scarps are interpreted as high-amplitude reflector scarps. LAR scarps are identified as low-amplitude reflector scarps. |
| Table 6. Ground penetrating radar transects from the Clatsop Plains sub-cell. HAR scarps are interpreted as high-amplitude reflector scarps. LAR scarps are identified as low-amplitude reflector scarps. |
| Table 7. Core sites from the Ocean Shores sub-cell with mean grain size and standard deviation for varying depths. Line in the sample depth and mean grain size columns indicate possible beach-dune contact. Bold numbers show high heavy mineral contents (placer) consistent with a decrease in grain size. |
| Table 8. Core sites from the Grayland Plains sub-cell with mean grain size and standard deviation for varying depths. Line in the sample depth and mean grain size columns indicate possible beach-dune contact. Bold numbers show high heavy mineral contents (placer) consistent with a decrease in grain size. |
| Table 9. Core sites from the Long Beach Peninsula sub-cell with mean grain size and standard deviation for varying depths. Line in the sample depth and mean grain size columns indicate possible beach-dune contact. Bold numbers show high heavy mineral contents (placer) consistent with a decrease in grain size. |
| Table 10. Core sites from the Clatsop Plains sub-cell with mean grain size and standard deviation for varying depths. |
| Table 11. Heavy mineral concentration of core sites within the Columbia River littoral cell. Highlighted depth is placer deposit; other concentrations for comparison. |
| Table 12. Distance between the ‘Big Dune’ ridge and westernmost erosion scarp throughout the Ocean Shores Sub-Cell. |
| Table 13. Distance between the ‘Big Dune’ ridge and westernmost erosion scarp throughout the Grayland Plains Sub-Cell. |
| Table 14. Distance between the ‘Big Dune’ ridge and westernmost erosion scarp throughout the Long Beach Peninsula Sub-Cell. |
| Table 15. Distance between the ‘Big Dune’ ridge and westernmost erosion scarp throughout the Clatsop Plains Sub-Cell. |
| Table 16. Conventional 14C dates for 1997 core sites within the Columbia River littoral cell. All samples were processed and dated at Beta Analytic, Inc. |
| Table 17. Lab results for some of the late Holocene soil profiles, indicating Rubification and Buntley-Westin soil development values and hydrogen ion activity (pH) ranges. Core sites in bold type are on or near the westernmost scarp and/or ‘Big Dune’ ridge. |
| Table 18. Highest error associated with physical map measurements for prehistoric shoreline maps of Ocean Shores, Grayland Plains, and Long Beach Peninsula sub-cells (scale 1:12000). |
| Table 19. Highest error associated with physical map measurements for prehistoric and historic shoreline maps of the Clatsop Plains, Oregon sub-cell (scale 1:6000). |
| Table 20. Distance (map) measurements and beach accretion rates for the Ocean Shores, Washington sub-cell. Maximum associated error is included as ± m yr-1. |
| Table 21. Distance (map) measurements and beach accretion rates for the Grayland Plains, Washington sub-cell. Maximum associated error is included as ± m yr-1. |
| Table 22. Distance (map) measurements and beach accretion rates for the Long Beach Peninsula, Washington sub-cell. Maximum associated error is included as ± m yr-1. |
| Table 23. Distance (map) measurements and beach accretion rates for the Clatsop Plains, Oregon sub-cell. Maximum associated error is included as ± m yr-1. |
| Table 24. Statistical t-test results for linear accretion rate correlation inside individual sub-cells from the back edge to AD 1700 scarp and the scarp to historic shoreline (equations 2.23 and 2.35 from Davis, 1986). |
| Table 25. Statistical t-test results for comparisons of accretion rates from the three time intervals inside Columbia River littoral sub-cells (equation 2.33 and 2.34 from Davis, 1986). |
| Table 26. Ocean Shores sub-cell ‘Big Dune’ ridge crest elevations from north (Copalis) to south (near Grays Harbor north jetty) |
| Table 27. Grayland Plains sub-cell ‘Big Dune’ ridge crest elevations from north (Westport) to south (Wash-a-way Beach). |
| Table 28. Long Beach Peninsula sub-cell ‘Big Dune’ ridge crest elevations from north (Leadbetter Point) to south (Seaview). |
| Table 29. Clatsop Plains sub-cell ‘Big Dune’ ridge crest elevations from north (Peter Iredale) to south (north Seaside). |
| Table 30. Results of linearity statistical analysis of ‘Big Dune’ elevation measurements for individual sub-cells (equations 2.23 and 2.35 from Davis, 1986) |
| Table 31. Maximum heavy mineral concentration of selected late Holocene (» 1000 years) and back edge placer deposits. |
| Table 32. Surface depth of buried paleosols for the Clatsop Plains sub-cell. Paleosol depth subtracted from the Clatsop Plains ‘Big Dune’ elevations creates comparable heights to ‘Big Dune’ on Long Beach Peninsula. |
| Table 33. Average accretion rates (m yr-1) for the 4 Columbia River littoral sub-cells split into 4 individual time intervals. |
| Table 34. Statistical analysis results for between sub-cell accretion rate comparisons of three individual time intervals (back edge to AD 1700 scarp, AD 1700 scarp to earliest historic, and total historic). |
| Table 35. Statistical analysis results for total accretion rate comparisons of three time intervals (back edge to AD 1700 scarp, AD 1700 scarp to earliest historic, and total historic). |
| Table 36. Statistical analysis results for total sub-cell accretion rate comparisons. |
| Figure 1. Columbia River littoral cell, the study area extends from Pt. Grenville, Washington to Tillamook Head, Oregon. |
| Figure 2. Southern tip of Ocean shores, building is approximately 5 to 10 m from edge of the eroding dune. Arrows point to wave bumpers installed on beach to slow local erosion rates. |
| Figure 3. Wash-a-way Beach, Highway 105 is threatened by erosion from Willapa Bay’s northward shifting channel. Arrows point to the highway at risk of erosion. |
| Figure 4. Map of the Columbia River littoral cell. Bold line indicates ocean shoreline and light lines are included to depict 10 and 20 m offshore contours. Solid circles identify coastal communities and arrows point to major coastal geographic features. |
| Figure 5. Northern littoral cell boundary of Pt. Grenville, WA. Narrow beaches are evidence of the lack of sand. Photograph view is to the north. |
| Figure 6. Southern littoral cell boundary of Tillamook Head, south of Seaside, OR. Photograph view is to the south. |
| Figure 7. Map of Erosion "Hotspots" indicated in solid circles for Oregon and Washington. Pacific, Grays Harbor, and Clatsop counties are identified by black lines (WDOE, 1997). |
| Figure 8. Dredge disposal sites (A, B, E, and F) at the mouth of the Columbia River (modified from Mortiz, 1997). |
| Figure 9. Map of Grays Harbor with core sites (numbered solid circles) from work of Peterson & Phipps (1992). Arrow is pointing at core site # 4 along the back edge of Ocean Shores. |
| Figure 10. Long Beach Peninsula location map of Cranberry and Pioneer roads, insert shows location of 14C dated, buried scarps and dune ridges (# 1-8) (modified from Meyers et al., 1996). |
| Figure 11. Map of Columbia River littoral cell depicting inlet rivers of Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor (modified from Peterson & Phipps, 1992). |
| Figure 12. Sample calibrated 14C age (with ± 1 standard deviation error) versus depth below modern sea-level in the basin fill of Grays Harbor. Average sample depth for a given age range represents the approximate deposit surface depth (dashed line) during deposition (modified from Peterson & Phipps, 1992). |
| Figure 13. Ground Penetrating Radar in field operation. Foreground shows laptop computer and console. Dr. H. Jol (in the background) is shown operating the transmitter and receiver. |
| Figure 14. GPR example profile with scarp (arrows are below the "boomer", a steep dipping erosion scarp) and dipping shore-face reflectors from Westport, WA. |
| Figure 15. Australian sand auger used to core GPR detected "boomers" for verification. |
| Figure 16. Vibracore setup at Ocean Shores, WA. The pipe in the ground is 6.3 m long and the winch, used to extract pipe, is hanging from the tripod. |
| Figure 17. The Ocean Shores sub-cell shoreline showing ground penetrating radar transects and names identifying transect groups. |
| Figure 18. The Grayland Plains sub-cell shoreline showing ground penetrating radar transects and names identifying transect groups. |
| Figure 19. The Long Beach Peninsula sub-cell shoreline showing ground penetrating radar transects and names identifying transect groups. |
| Figure 20. The Clatsop Plains sub-cell shoreline showing ground penetrating radar transects and names identifying transect groups. |
| Figure 21. Ground penetrating radar transects and core sites (solid circles) from the Ocean Shores Sub-cell. Core site numbers correspond with Appendix B. |
| Figure 22. Ground penetrating radar transects and core sites (solid circles) from the Grayland Plains Sub-cell. Core site numbers correspond with Appendix B. |
| Figure 23. Ground penetrating radar transects and core sites (solid circles) from the Long Beach Sub-cell. Core site numbers correspond with Appendix B. |
| Figure 24. Ground penetrating radar transects and core sites (solid circles) from the Clatsop Plains Sub-cell. Core site numbers correspond with Appendix B. |
| Figure 25. Ocean Shores stratigraphic columns of core sites # 1 (COPA1), 2 on top of 3 (RVDU1), 10 (RAIN1), 15 (LAME1), and 19 (LAME2A) containing heavy mineral placer deposits. Legend for the stratigraphic columns located in Appendix C. |
| Figure 26. Grayland Plains stratigraphic columns of core sites # 28 (WEST1), 30 (TWIN1), 35 (MARI2), 41 (WARR1), 42 (WARR2), and 45 on top of 46 (WASH9) containing heavy mineral placer deposits. Legend for the stratigraphic columns located in Appendix C. |
| Figure 27. Long Beach Peninsula stratigraphic columns of core sites # 63 (OYCR1), 67 (JOEJ7), and 81 (BREA3), 85 (SEVE1), 86 (SEAV1), and 87 (SEAV3) containing heavy mineral placer deposits. Legend for the stratigraphic columns located in Appendix C. |
| Figure 28. Stratigraphic columns of core sites # 15 (LAME1) on top of 16 (LAME0A), 45 on top of 46 (WASH9), and 87 (SEAV3) showing a buried paleosol (indicated by a ‘P’ on the right side). Legend for the stratigraphic columns located in Appendix C. |
| Figure 29. Stratigraphic columns of core sites # 100 (SECO1), 101 (SECO2), and 102 (CAMP1), showing a buried paleosol (indicated by a ‘P’ on the right side). Legend for the stratigraphic columns located in Appendix C. |
| Figure 30. Stratigraphic columns of core sites # 112 (PAUL1), 115 (WELL1), 118 (GOLF1), and 128 (ESTR4), showing a buried paleosol (indicated by a ‘P’ on the right side). Legend for the stratigraphic columns located in Appendix C. |
| Figure 31. Southern Clatsop Plains, dotted lines indicate buried cobble ridges. Palm Rose site cobble ridge is 14C dated at 3650 RCYBP (modified from Connolly, 1992). |
| Figure 32. Graph of historic and prehistoric accretion rates for the Ocean Shores, Washington sub-cell. Brackets of maximum associated error are included for individual accretion rate measurements. |
| Figure 33. Graph of historic and prehistoric accretion rates for the Grayland Plains, Washington sub-cell. Brackets of maximum associated error are included for individual accretion rate measurements. |
| Figure 34. Graph of historic and prehistoric accretion rates for the Long Beach Peninsula, Washington sub-cell. Brackets of maximum associated error are included for individual accretion rate measurements. |
| Figure 35. Graph of historic and prehistoric accretion rates for the Clatsop Plains, Oregon sub-cell. Brackets of maximum associated error are included for individual accretion rate measurements. |
| Figure 36. Graphs of ‘Big Dune’ elevations from all four sub-cells. Distances and locations along graphs are in reference to Table 26, Table 27, Table 28, and Table 29. |
| Figure 37. Graphs of Buntley-Westin values versus easting UTM coordinate for all four sub-cells, from top to bottom, Ocean Shores, Grayland Plains, Long Beach Peninsula, and Clatsop Plains. Graphs show that in general, from west to east, Buntley-Westin values increase indicating developed soil and older dune ridges to the east. Numbers next to the graph points are core site numbers in reference to Appendix. |
| Figure 38. Generalized drawing of ‘Big Dune’ ridge with paleosol and the AD 1700 earthquake scarp (modified from Vanderburgh et al., 1998; Phipps et al., 1997). |
| Figure 39. Columbia River littoral cell prehistoric (back edge date to AD 1700 and AD 1700 to early historic) and historic (1870 or 1885 for Clatsop Plains – 1995) accretion rates. |
| Figure 40. Depiction of alongshore sediment restriction in the Ocean Shores sub-cell. The northwest trending shoreline hampers northern transport of sediment. Inset A is a replica of the prehistoric Ocean Shores sub-cell attacked by southwest oblique waves. Northern alongshore transport is minimized by the shore perpendicular sediment movement. Inset B is a sketch of a north trending shoreline sustaining a liberal net northern sediment transport. |
