<%BANNER%>
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 List of Figures
 List of Tables
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 Acknowledgments
 References
 Appendix I


FGS



Sand, gravel and heavy-mineral resource potential of holocene sediments offshore of Florida, Cape Canaveral to the Georg...
CITATION SEARCH THUMBNAILS PDF VIEWER PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001038/00001
 Material Information
Title: Sand, gravel and heavy-mineral resource potential of holocene sediments offshore of Florida, Cape Canaveral to the Georgia border ( FGS: Open file report 39 ) phase I ( FGS: Open file report 39 )
Series Title: ( FGS: Open file report 39 )
Physical Description: iii, 108 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Nocita, Bruce W ( Bruce William ), 1952-
Florida Geological Survey
Publisher: Florida Geological Survey
Place of Publication: Tallahassee
Publication Date: 1991
 Subjects
Subjects / Keywords: Marine sediments -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Sediments (Geology) -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 37-38)
General Note: Cover title.
Funding: Digitized as a collaborative project with the Florida Geological Survey, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Digitized as a collaborative project with the Florida Geological Survey, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Digitized as a collaborative project with the Florida Geological Survey, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Digitized as a collaborative project with the Florida Geological Survey, Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Statement of Responsibility: Bruce W. Nocita ... et al..
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management:
The author dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law and all related or neighboring legal rights he or she had in the work, to the extent allowable by law.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 001751884
oclc - 25641908
notis - AJG4823
System ID: UF00001038:00001

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 2 MBs ) ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page 1
        Title Page 2
    Table of Contents
        Page i
    List of Figures
        Page ii
    List of Tables
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Abstract
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Introduction
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
    Methods
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 9
    Results
        Page 12
        Page 11
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        28a
    Discussion
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
    Conclusions
        Page 35
    Acknowledgments
        Page 36
    References
        Page 37
        Page 38
    Appendix I
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Copyright
            Main
Full Text









State of Florida
Department of Natural Resources
Tom Gardner, Executive Director



Division of Resource Management
Jeremy Craft, Director



Florida Geological Survey
Walt Schmidt, State Geologist and Chief









Open File Report 39





Sand, Gravel and Heavy-Mineral Resource
Potential of Holocene Sediments Offshore
of Florida, Cape Canaveral to the Georgia Border: Phase I

By

Bruce W. Nocita, Larry W. Papetti,
Andrew E. Grosz and Kenneth M. Campbell


Florida Geological Survey
Tallahassee, Florida
1991


itmtlrrp]TY PF FLORIA LIBRA- RIES















































SC I ENCE
LIbRARY








TABLE OF CONTENTS


INTRODUCTION

STUDY AREA

PREVIOUS WORK

METHODS

Textural Analysis

Heavy Minerals

RESULTS

Sand, Gravel and Mud

Map Area 1

Map Area 2

Map Area 3

Heavy Minerals

DISCUSSION

Sand and Gravel

Heavy Minerals

CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

REFERENCES

APPENDIX 1 Cumulative Frequency curves for vibracore samples








Figures


Fig. 1. Location map of study area. The entire study area has
been subdivided into three map areas. These are labeled
Map 1, 2 and 3 in text.

Fig. 2. Vibracore sample locations for Map 1. Top of map is just
north of the Florida-Georgia border.

Fig. 3. Vibracore sample locations for Map 2.

Fig. 4. Vibracore sample locations for Map 3.

Fig. 5. Distribution of shell-gravel, given in weight percent,
for upper/lower core sections in Map 1.

Fig. 6. Distribution of sand, given in weight percent, for upper/
lower core sections in Map 1.


Fig.


Fig.


Fig.


Fig.


Fig.


7.


8.


9.


10.


11.


Fig. 12.


Fig. 13.


Fig. 14.


Fig. 15.


Fig. 16.


Distribution of mud, given in weight percent, for upper/
lower core sections in Map 1.

Distribution of shell-gravel, given in weight percent,
for upper/lower core sections in Map 2.

Distribution of sand, given in weight percent, for upper/
lower core sections in Map 2.

Distribution of mud, given in weight percent, for upper/
lower core sections in Map 2.

Distribution of shell-gravel, given in weight percent,
for upper/lower core sections in Map 3.

Distribution of sand, given in weight percent, for upper/
lower core sections in Map 3.

Distribution of mud, given in weight percent, for upper/
lower core sections in Map 3.

Distribution of heavy minerals given as THM, for upper/
lower core sections in Map area 1.

Distribution of heavy minerals given as THM, for upper/
lower core sections in Map area 2.

Distribution of heavy minerals given as THM, for upper/
lower core sections in Map area 3.









Table 1.


Table 2.


Table 3.



Table 4.


Tables

Sand, shell-gravel and mud weight percent for vibracore
samples.

Granulometric data (RSA) for vibracore samples (carbonate
included).

Heavy mineral (>2.96 specific gravity) content of 70
samples from offshore Florida, Cape Canaveral to the
Georgia border.

Data for total heavy minerals (THM) and recovered heavy
minerals (RHM) tabulated for all vibracore samples, in
the upper 1.5 m sections and in the lower 1.5 m sections.


iii










ABSTRACT

Sand, gravel, and heavy-mineral types and abundances in

sediments of the Atlantic inner continental shelf offshore of

Florida were determined to assess their resource potential. A

total of 70 sediment samples, averaging about. 7 kg each, derived

from 49 vibracores collected from the region between Cape Canaveral

and the Florida-Georgia state line were analyzed. The data show

high variability both laterally and vertically (as probable

functions of sample density and large-scale sediment facies

changes) and preclude definitive statements about resources.

Deposits of sand and gravel with mud content under 2 weight

percent are located offshore of St. Augustine and Fernandina Beach

and, if laterally and vertically persistent, they may be locally

suitable for beach replenishment projects. Other areas within the

region of study have higher mud percentages.

The heavy-mineral assemblage (Specific gravity >2.96) in the

study region is comprised (in decreasing order of abundance) of

epidote, ilmenite (including altered ilmenite), aluminosilicates

(sillimanite, kyanite, and andalusite), zircon, staurolite, rutile,

garnet, pyroboles (undifferentiated pyroxenes and amphiboles),

tourmaline, and monazite, and others (phosphorite, sulfides,

unidentified opaques/nonopaques, quartz, spinel, etc). The average

total heavy mineral value is .49 weight %. The economic heavy

mineral suite consisting of ilmenite, rutile, zircon, monazite, and

aluminosilicates comprises about 50 percent of the heavy-mineral

assemblage; on a bulk sample basis the average is about 0.2 percent

by weight. Although there is a general regional trend of

1







increasing heavy-mineral content to the north, high variability is

characteristic of the study area. The concentrations of economic

heavy minerals are, on the average, an order of magnitude lower

than those found in commercial deposits onshore in Florida, and

thus the potential for offshore placer resources appears to be

limited.

INTRODUCTION

Beach erosion is a chronic problem in Florida and ongoing

programs of beach replenishment require abundant sources of

suitable sediment. Offshore sediment bodies are becoming

increasingly common sources of sediment for such programs (Clark,

1989; Tait, 1990). With continued coastal development in Florida

there will be an increasing demand for beach replenishment sand.

Onshore heavy-mineral deposits are commercially mined in Florida,

there is a likelihood that commercially significant concentra-

tions of heavy minerals may occur in the offshore area as well.

The objectives of this study are to provide information that will

enable an assessment of potential offshore sediment borrow sites

and to provide reconnaissance information on heavy mineral types

and abundances. This study area is an extention of the geo-

graphic coverage of mineral resource assessments conducted in the

vicinity of Cape Canaveral (Grosz et al., 1989; Nocita et al.,

1989, 1990), thus providing baseline information on the hard

mineral resource potential of Atlantic shelf sediments offshore

of Florida.







increasing heavy-mineral content to the north, high variability is

characteristic of the study area. The concentrations of economic

heavy minerals are, on the average, an order of magnitude lower

than those found in commercial deposits onshore in Florida, and

thus the potential for offshore placer resources appears to be

limited.

INTRODUCTION

Beach erosion is a chronic problem in Florida and ongoing

programs of beach replenishment require abundant sources of

suitable sediment. Offshore sediment bodies are becoming

increasingly common sources of sediment for such programs (Clark,

1989; Tait, 1990). With continued coastal development in Florida

there will be an increasing demand for beach replenishment sand.

Onshore heavy-mineral deposits are commercially mined in Florida,

there is a likelihood that commercially significant concentra-

tions of heavy minerals may occur in the offshore area as well.

The objectives of this study are to provide information that will

enable an assessment of potential offshore sediment borrow sites

and to provide reconnaissance information on heavy mineral types

and abundances. This study area is an extention of the geo-

graphic coverage of mineral resource assessments conducted in the

vicinity of Cape Canaveral (Grosz et al., 1989; Nocita et al.,

1989, 1990), thus providing baseline information on the hard

mineral resource potential of Atlantic shelf sediments offshore

of Florida.








STUDY AREA

The area covered in this investigation is the Atlantic inner

continental shelf offshore of northeastern Florida extending from

the vicinity of Cape Canaveral to the Florida-Georgia state line

and east to a maximum of about 22 kilometers (km) offshore

(Figure 1). Water depths of the core locations range from 4.5

to 22 meters (m); the sea floor in the study area is generally

smooth with a gentle seaward gradient. Well-developed linear

shoals such as those near Cape Canaveral and Ft. Pierce are not

present in this study area. The northern portion of the study

area has poorly developed shoals which have subtle bathymetric

expression.

For ease of presentation and discussion the study area is

divided into three smaller regions (Map Areas 1, 2 and 3, Figure

1) whose boundaries are approximately coincident with those of

NOAA navigation charts. Figures 2, 3 and 4 represent the areas

of NOAA charts 11488, 11486 and 11484 respectively, although

Figure 2 also contains the southernmost portion of chart 11502.

PREVIOUS WORK

Studies of the inner continental shelf region offshore of

Florida's east coast have been based primarily on data derived

from surface samples collected on small-scale grids (on the order

of 20 km between sample points). Milliman (1972), in a study of

the Atlantic Continental Shelf (ACS) and slope from northern New

Jersey to southern Florida, reported general sediment texture

information for the entire Atlantic continental shelf of Florida;

however, only about 20 of his samples fall into the area of this

3








GEORGIA


I\ STUDY
2 AREA


3

A ZVANVTIC

OCA-N-



SCALE
3" to o Ktgwwm














Fig. 1. Location map of study area. The entire study area
has been subdivided into three map areas. These
are labeled Map 1, 2 and 3 in text.
























































Fig. 2. Vibracore sample locations for Map 1. Top of map is
just north of the Florida-Georgia border.











\I
810 00


958
(91)
959
I (131)


Matanzas
Inlet A
954
(135)



\ 966
(142)


949
S 946 ,140)
030' 1 44



EXPLANATION

0 Core location with \ 6
sample number. (146)
CERC sample number in
parentheses.

SCALE

0 4 8 Nautical miles

3 5 10 Kilometers

974
90 10' (171)



Ponce de
Leon Inlet A


80050'



MAP

2





A 7ZAN/VT/C

OCEAN









0968
(148)



















979
(167)


Fig. 3. Vibracore sample locations for Map 2.


-3


--


- 1


!











Ponce de Leon
Inlet *109)
A 5)
New Smyrna 103
Beach 0(160)


101
S(152)

-N-







EXPLANATION
96
0 Core location with (15
sample number. *
CERC sample number
in parentheses,






- 280 30'

CAPE
CANAVERAL
SCALE
0 4 8 Nautical miles

0 5 10 Kilometers


800 30'


MAP
5


6-LA/V-/C
OCEAIV


7)


Fig. 4. Vibracore sample locations for Map 3.







study. Milliman's study shows small-scale generalized

information for nearshore (within approximately 15 km of the

shoreline) shelf sediments such as modal size classes (at 1.5 phi

intervals for sand) and distribution of sand-sized calcium

carbonate.

Duane and others (1972) discussed linear shoals on the

Atlantic inner continental shelf, including those offshore of

Florida, and hypothesized on the genesis of different types of

shoals. They define three different shoal types: 1) linear, 2)

inlet-associated, and 3) cape-associated. Extensive, but poorly

developed shoals are found only in the area of Figure 2 and are

of the linear type which they interpret as relict interfluves of

a late Wisconsin sea-level lowstand. Geomorphology and sediment

characteristics in the area were examined by Meisburger and Field

(1975). Their study was part of the Inner Continental shelf

Sediment and Structure Program (ICONS) of the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC), which was a

reconnaissance program to find sand deposits suitable for beach

restoration. The ICONS project collected vibracore samples

after high resolution seismic profiling suggested potential

sediment bodies. Such an approach provides better information

for sediment resource assessments than studies using surface grab

samples. Because of the reconnaissance nature of the ICONS

studies, vibracores were only cursorily sampled and examined:

textural analyses, were performed on small plug samples taken at

approximately 1 foot intervals through the core tube. Heavy-

minerals were not examined. The sample numbering scheme used in








the present report is keyed in to their numbering scheme in

Figures 2-4 and the analytical tables given later to provide the

reader with an opportunity to cross-reference the two studies.

METHODS

The samples utilized for this project consist of vibracores

collected by CERC and reported on by Meisburger and Field (1975),

and now archived at the Florida Institute of Technology in

Melbourne, Florida. Seventy samples derived from 49 vibracores

were used for this study (Figures 2, 3 & 4).

The methods and rationale used for sample preparation and

analysis are the same as those used in studies of the Cape

Canaveral region and elsewhere on the ACS (Grosz and others,

1990). Data were generated for grain-size, composition, heavy-

mineral abundance, and mineralogy of the heavy-mineral

assemblage. A brief description of methods is given here for

completeness. Cores were split lengthwise, described,

photographed, and divided into approximately 1.5 m sections on

the basis of lithology and/or section length if the lithology was

consistent throughout. This division produced "upper" and "lower"

core sections, each being approximately 1.5 m in length.

Repository samples of approximately 300-500 grams were also

collected from each section. Samples were weighed on a dry-

weight basis and ranged from about 2 to 15 kilograms (kg),

averaging approximately 7 kg.

Textural Analyses

The gravel-sized fraction was removed from each of the 70

bulk samples by wet sieving thru a 10 mesh (2.00mm) U.S. Standard

9







stainless steel sieve. Gravel portions were dried, weighed and

described. Textural analysis of the sand fraction (with

carbonate) was done by use of a Rapid Sediment Analyzer (RSA or

settling tube) at the University of South Florida. A computer

program interfaced with the settling tube computed the first four

moment measures (mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis)

for each sample. Raw data were processed by another program

which produced cumulative grain-size curves (Appendix I). Mud

percentages were derived by wet-sieving from a split of the

repository samples.

Heavy Minerals

Two different processes were used to produce heavy-mineral

concentrates for mineralogic analyses. Initially, the bulk sand

samples were processed through a Humphrey's three-turn spiral to

produce a 500 to 1,000 g heavy-mineral concentrate. The second

step utilized high-density liquids to remove any remaining light

minerals from the heavy-mineral concentrate. Because spiral

concentration does not completely recover heavy minerals from

bulk samples an aliquot of the material rejected by the spiral

was collected and also processed in heavy liquid in order to

estimate the total heavy-mineral (THM) content of the sediments.

The recovered heavy-mineral (RHM) content of the sediments is

based upon the heavy-minerals recovered by the spiral.

Subsequent magnetic fractionation by use of a Frantz Magnetic

Barrier Mineral Separator produced subsamples that were examined

with binocular and petrographic microscopes to estimate mineral

abundances. Comparison charts for visual estimation of








percentage composition (Terry and Chillingar, 1955) were used for

this purpose along with point-counting. The identification of

zircon and monazite was aided by the use of long- and short-wave

(respectively) ultraviolet illumination.

RESULTS

Sand, Gravel and Mud

Because of the relatively low density of samples (an average

distance between samples of 9 to 15 km), it is not reasonable to

produce contour maps of sediment distribution. Data are

presented, therefore, as weight percent values next to the sample

site. Weight percentages of shell-gravel, sand and mud are

plotted in order to show the distribution of sediment (in both

upper and lower sections) which might be useful for beach

renourishment. Shell-gravel, sand & mud and grain size analysis

data are presented in Tables 1 and 2.

Each map area will be discussed in terms of sediment

distribution. It was found that, for the most part, there was

little difference in sediment characteristics between the upper

and lower 1.5 m core sections. It should also be noted that not

all sample sites had both an upper and lower core section. There

were 49 upper and 21 lower sections.



Map Area 1

The distribution of shell-gravel for both upper and lower

core sections is shown in Figure 5. Most of the values are less

than 5 weight percent, with only 3 samples having values greater

than 15 percent. Overall, the shell content of samples in Map








the present report is keyed in to their numbering scheme in

Figures 2-4 and the analytical tables given later to provide the

reader with an opportunity to cross-reference the two studies.

METHODS

The samples utilized for this project consist of vibracores

collected by CERC and reported on by Meisburger and Field (1975),

and now archived at the Florida Institute of Technology in

Melbourne, Florida. Seventy samples derived from 49 vibracores

were used for this study (Figures 2, 3 & 4).

The methods and rationale used for sample preparation and

analysis are the same as those used in studies of the Cape

Canaveral region and elsewhere on the ACS (Grosz and others,

1990). Data were generated for grain-size, composition, heavy-

mineral abundance, and mineralogy of the heavy-mineral

assemblage. A brief description of methods is given here for

completeness. Cores were split lengthwise, described,

photographed, and divided into approximately 1.5 m sections on

the basis of lithology and/or section length if the lithology was

consistent throughout. This division produced "upper" and "lower"

core sections, each being approximately 1.5 m in length.

Repository samples of approximately 300-500 grams were also

collected from each section. Samples were weighed on a dry-

weight basis and ranged from about 2 to 15 kilograms (kg),

averaging approximately 7 kg.

Textural Analyses

The gravel-sized fraction was removed from each of the 70

bulk samples by wet sieving thru a 10 mesh (2.00mm) U.S. Standard

9







Table 1. Sand, shell-gravel and mud weight percent for vibracore samples


Sample No.

96-1
96-2
101
103
109
811-1
811-2
813
815
817-1
817-2
819
821-1
821-2
823
824
827
830-1
830-2
833
834-1
834-2
835-1
838
838A
843-1
843-2
847
847A-1
847A-2
848-1
848-2
850-1
850-2
868
869
878
884
903
916
920-1
920-2
925
928
929A-1
929A-2
929-1
931
932-1


CERC
Sample No.

157
157
152
160
165
24
24
4
3
15
15
8
9
9
2
17
105
127
127
99A
128
128
98
88
88A
95
95
121
121A
121A
85
85
107
107
81
185
67
64
181
35
194
194
72
10
12A
12A
12
13
18
12


Shell-
gravel

5.1
24.4
1.8
5.2
10.7
2.0
0.8
0.2
2.3
6.9
4.5
0.9
8.5
2.2
0.00
14.2
5.5
1.6
0.6
4.9
15.4
2.8
9.0
35.4
20.9
8.7
27.0
0.8
0.2
0.4
1.0
0.8
1.2
4.7
0.00
1.6
1.9
0.4
2.9
1.2
6.5
1.7
5.1
8.5
2.3
8.3
0.2
3.6
3.1


Sand

55.9
72.3
98.2
91.3
64.6
96.1
79.2
97.9
85.4
58.7
91.8
91.8
87.0
87.5
99.3
79.4
92.3
96.8
99.3
92.2
67.4
77.6
61.4
54.8
65.2
81.1
58.8
97.0
98.1
97.3
92.2
98.6
98.0
91.6
99.4
97.7
97.3
92.7
75.2
91.9
93.2
95.5
40.3
56.2
62.3
39.7
63.4
26.5
93.5


Mud

38.9
3.3
0.00
3.5
24.7
1.9
20.0
1.9
12.3
7.4
3.7
7.3
4.5
10.3
.7
6.4
2.2
1.6
.1
2.9
17.2
19.6
29.6
9.8
13.9
10.2
14.2
2.2
1.7
2.3
6.8
0.6
0.8
3.7
0.6
0.7
0.8
6.9
21.9
6.9
0.3
2.8
54.6
35.2
35.4
52.0
36.4
69.9
3.4








percentage composition (Terry and Chillingar, 1955) were used for

this purpose along with point-counting. The identification of

zircon and monazite was aided by the use of long- and short-wave

(respectively) ultraviolet illumination.

RESULTS

Sand, Gravel and Mud

Because of the relatively low density of samples (an average

distance between samples of 9 to 15 km), it is not reasonable to

produce contour maps of sediment distribution. Data are

presented, therefore, as weight percent values next to the sample

site. Weight percentages of shell-gravel, sand and mud are

plotted in order to show the distribution of sediment (in both

upper and lower sections) which might be useful for beach

renourishment. Shell-gravel, sand & mud and grain size analysis

data are presented in Tables 1 and 2.

Each map area will be discussed in terms of sediment

distribution. It was found that, for the most part, there was

little difference in sediment characteristics between the upper

and lower 1.5 m core sections. It should also be noted that not

all sample sites had both an upper and lower core section. There

were 49 upper and 21 lower sections.



Map Area 1

The distribution of shell-gravel for both upper and lower

core sections is shown in Figure 5. Most of the values are less

than 5 weight percent, with only 3 samples having values greater

than 15 percent. Overall, the shell content of samples in Map









Sample No.

932-2
939
943
946-1
946-2
946-3
949-1
949-2
954-1
954-2
958
959-1
959-2
966-1
966-2
968-1
968-2
969-1
969-2
974
979


CERC
Sample No.

18
195
31
144
144
144
140
140
135
135
91
131
131
142
142
148
148
146
146
171
151


* gravel portion of this sample is mostly quartz pebbles


Shell-
gravel

3.1
0.3
*13.7
1.9
23.7
5.5
2.0
3.9
7.9
10.1
26.6
6.9
30.4
17.5
9.1
24.8
12.3
19.0
14.9
5.0
27.7


Sand

77.2
65.2
85.7
88.1
67.9
91.3
97.5
95.7
54.0
63.7
53.9
85.7
46.4
63.3
74.8
73.0
77.8
70.9
72.9
53.1
65.2


Mud

19.7
34.5
0.6
10.0
8.4
3.2
0.5
0.4
38.1
26.2
19.5
7.4
23.2
19.2
16.1
2.2
9.9
10.1
13.2
41.9
7.1







Table 2. Granulometric data. (RSA) for
Vibracore samples (carbonate included).


96-1
96-2
101
103
109
811-1
811-2
813
815
817-1
817-2
819
821-1
821-2
823
824
827
830-1
830-2
833
834-1
834-2
835-1
838
838A
843-1
843-2
847
847A-1
847A-2
848-1
848-2
850-1
850-2
868
869
878
884
903
916
920-1
920-2
925
928
929A-1
929A-2
929-1
931


CERC
Sample No.

157
157
152
160
165
24
24
4
3
15
15
8
9
9
2
17
105
127
127
99A
128
128
98
88
88A
95
95
121
121A
121A
85
85
107
107
81
185
67
64
181
35
194
194
72
10
12A
12A
12
13


Mean grain
size (phi)

2.48
2.36
2.02
2.05
2.56
2.73
2.96
2.81
2.51
2.00
2.25
2.53
2.47
3.32
2.46
2.20
2.31
2.60
2.14
2.54
2.55
2.47
2.73
2.13
2.34
2.60
2.29
2.82
2.86
2.88
2.92
2.75
2.21
2.28
2.38
1.98
2.14
2.75
2.66
2.60
2.03
2.43
2.86
2.73
2.65
3.29
3.23
3.13


Standard
deviation

1.21
0.84
0.62
0.78
1.07
0.44
0.69
0.41
0.98
0.94
0.70
0.75
0.81
0.52
0.43
0.95
0.73
0.66
0.57
0.63
0.89
1.05
1.10
1.05
1.03
0.78
1.04
0.47
0.63
0.50
0.55
0.47
0.48
0.61
0.49
0.69
0.66
0.82
1.14
0.70
0.65
0.71.
1.21
1.18
1.19
0.87
0.67
1.05


Skewness

0.44
-0.68
-0.14
0.10
0.12
-0.53
0.49
-0.31
-0.24
0.45
0.54
-0.05
-0.26
-1.59
-1.28
0.14
-0.64
-0.31
-0.38
-0.87
0.53
0.29
-0.15
0.21
0.22
0.25
0.4
-1.26
-2.46
-2.09
-0.37
-2.61
-0.12
0.75
-0.21
-0.29
-0.17
-0.86
-0.15
-0.19
-1.33
-0.32
-0.28
-0.35
-0.20
-0.60
.0.55
-0.32


Kurtosis

1.81
3.87
2.83
4.62
2.36
10.84
3.31
12.11
3.03
3.27
3.73
4.70
3.21
11.33
14.95
2.87
4.69
3.36
3.94
7.52
2.88
2.46
2.29
2.71
2.67
3.54
2.44
12.33
13.02
16.47
8.18
16.71
6.54
5.82
4.75
3.65
3.32
4.35
1.91
4.89
5.78
3.88
2.22
2.37
2.42
2.93
1.87
1.97









Sample No.

932-1
932-2
939
943
946-1
946-2
946-3
949-1
949-2
954-1
954-2
958
959-1
959-2
966-1
966-2
968-1
968-2
969-1
969-2
974
979


CERC
Sample No.

18
18
195
31
144
144
144
140
140
135
135
91
131
131
142
142
148
148
146
146
171
151


Mean grain
size (phi)

2.64
2.91
2.90
1.34
2.60
2.35
2.27
1.90
2.08
2.59
2.13
2.03
2.68
2.63
2.37
2.44
1.72
2.18
3.03
2.71
2.98
2.62


Standard
deviation

0.64
0.94
0.89
0.70
0.75
0.95
0.70
0.57
0.59
1.27
1.35
1.21
0.65
1.00
1.02
1.02
0.82
0.92
0.68
0.17
0.99
0.77


Skewness Kurtosis


-0.08
-0.50
0.41
1.17
0.23
-0.06
0.01
-0.68
0.25
-0.01
0.44
0.62
0.43
0.20
0.54
0.32
0.45
0.88
-0.80
0.02
-0.12
-0.16


3.67
2.98
2.21
5.99
4.58
2.97
4.56
4.72
4.57
1.77
1.85
2.44
4.18
2.41
2.71
2.72
4.06
3.65
4.96
4.17
2.32
3.49







Area 1 generally is low and relatively homogeneous between upper

and lower core sections.

Sand content in the northern part of Map Area 1 with one

exception, ranges from 56 to 99 weight percent, with one sample

having a very low sand value of about 26 percent (Figure 6).

Overall, the lower core sections have a higher average sand

content. The St. Augustine area has the highest percentage of

both upper and lower core sections with greater than 90% sand.

Many of the samples, both upper and lower core sections, in

Map Area 1 have mud contents greater than 5 percent; five samples

are over 20% mud; and one sample is almost 70% mud (Figure 7).

The only samples close together that have mud values less than 1%

are in the center of Figure 7.



Map Area 2

Shell-gravel is variable in this area, with values ranging

from 2 to 30 weight percent (Figure 8). There do not seem to be

any trends, either along shore or inshore-offshore. Differences

between upper and lower core sections are not systematic.

As with the shell-gravel percentages, there are no apparent

trends in the distribution of sand. Overall values are low, with

only 2 samples having greater than 90% sand, and only 5 of 17

samples having greater than 80% sand (Figure 9). As in the case

of gravel, sand content variability is high between the upper and

lower core sections.














'Keor
0'c'


Fernandina A
Beach


30030'


2.3 0.2


MAP


1r .' 6.9/4.5
. 0: 2.90.'
3.6 0 2.0/0.8


0.3 13.7
3.1/3.1 T
6.5/1.7


A TZA/V/C


OCE4/V


EXPLANATION
0 Core location with
weight % shell-gravel
for upper/lower core
sections.


2.9 0.4 1.9 1.6
0* *
0.0


SCALE


0 4 8 Noutical miles

0 5 10 Kilometers
0 5 10 Kilometers


300 00'


1.2/4.7

8.7/27.0
*


St. Augustine


1.6/0.6 5
35.4 0 55
* *4.9


Fig. 5. Distribution of shell-gravel, given in weight percent,
for upper/lower core sections in Map 1.














'1 0
C'oec


Fernandina A
Beach


MAP


87.0/87.5 58.7/91.8
'9 *" 96.1'/79.2
0/-26.5 91.9
58.2 63.4
65.2 85.7
0* 93.2/95.5
93.5/77.2


A 7ZANCVTC


OCEAN/


EXPLANATION
0 Core location with
weight % sand for
upper/lower core
sections.


75.2 92.7 97.3 99.4
97.7


SCALE


S 4 8 Nautical miles

0 5 10 Kilometers


30 00'


98.0/91.6
0
81.1/58.8
*


St. Augustine


Fig. 6. Distribution of sand, given in weight percent, for
upper/lower core sections in Map 1.


30 30'














or,0 r


Fernandina A
Beach


69.9
S036.4
.2 *
3.4/19.7


1.9/0.0 6.9
0*


34.5 0.3
*0./2.
0.6/2.8


A 7ZA/V7C


OCEA/V


EXPLANATION
0 Core location with
weight % mud for
upper/lower core
sections.


21.9 6.5 0.8 0.7
0.6


SCALE


0 4 8 Nautical miles

0 5 10 Kilometers


0.8/3.7
0


30000'


St. Augustine A


10.2/14.2

./2.3 1.6/0.1
S9.8 "
S* o2.9


Fig. 7. Distribution of mud, given in weight percent, for
upper/lower core sections in Map 1.


810 10'


MAP


30030'










\I
81000

26.6

6.9A 0.4



Matanzas
Inlet A 7.9/10.1



S17.5/9.1

2.0/3.9
1.9/23.7

230'



EXPLANATION
19.0/4.0
Core location with *
weight % shell-gravel
for upper/lower core
sections.

SCALE
0 4 8 Nautical miles

0 5 10 Kilometers
5.0

0:0,



Ponce de
Leon Inlet A


I--


80050'



MAP

2


A LZANT/C

OCA/VN







24.8/12.3



















27.7
0


Fig. 8. Distribution of shell-gravel,
for upper/lower core sections


given in weight percent,
in Map 2.


0


- 29


-- 2?o





















































Fig. 9. Distribution of sand, given in weight percent, for
upper/lower core sections in Map 2.





21







Only one sample site (949) has a mud value under 1% for both

upper and lower core sections (Figure 10). All other samples,

either upper or lower, have mud values of at least 2 %.



Map Area 3

This area is represented by only 4 sites (4 upper and 1

lower core section). All samples are relatively far offshore,

between about 9 and 18.5 km. The upper sections have shell-

gravel values less than 11 weight percent while the lower core

section contains about 25% shell-gravel (Figure 11). The

northernmost and southernmost samples in Map Area 3 have low sand

contents, 65 and 56/72 (upper/lower) percent respectively (Figure

12). The two samples in between have over 90% sand. Low mud

values are found in the two samples that have the highest sand

values and also in the lower section of the southernmost core

(Figure 13).

Heavy Minerals

The suite of heavy minerals found in Holocene sediments of

the study area is identical in composition to that of the Cape

Canaveral region (Grosz et al., 1989; Nocita et al., 1989, 1990).

Minerals present include ilmenite, rutile, tourmaline, zircon,

garnet, epidote, staurolite, aluminosilicates (sillimanite/

kyanite/andalusite), pyroboles, pryoxenes and amphiboles,

phosphate and trace amounts of monazite. The results of the

heavy-mineral analysis are given in Table 3.











I1
81000'

19.5

7.4/23.2



Matanzoas
Inlet A 38.1/26.2



19.2/16.1
-N-
S0.5/0.4
10.0/8.4 *

30'



EXPLANATION
10.1/8.8
Core location with
weight % mud for
upper/lower core
sections.

SCALE

0. 4 8 Nautical miles

0 5 10 Kilometers
41.9
\ *
10'



Ponce de
Leon Inlet A


80050'



MAP

2





A 7- A/V7/C

OC654/V







2.2/2.2
0


















7.1
0


Fig. 10. Distribution of mud, given in weight percent, for
upper/lower core sections in Map 2.


- 290


- 290


O















































Fig. 11. Distribution of shell-gravel, given in weight percent,
for upper/lower core sections in Map 3.








24


















































Fig. 12. Distribution of sand, given in weight percent, for
upper/lower core sections in Map 3.









25


















































Fig. 13. Distribution of mud, given in weight percent, for
upper/lower core sections in Map 3.








26











Table 3. Heavy Mineral (>2.96 specific gravity)
content of core samples from offshore of Florida,
Cape Canaveral to the Georgia border (P, present
but less than .01% of heavy mineral concentrate).

Footnotes:

1. Sample numbers with postscript: 1/indicates upper
portion of core, 2/indicates lower portion of core.

2. Undifferentiated sillimanite, kyanite and andalucite.

3. Undifferentiated pyroxenes and amphiboles.

4. May include sulfides, unidentified opaques/non opaques,
quartz and coated grains.
5. Economic heavy minerals expressed as a percentage of the
heavy mineral concentrate.

6. Economic heavy minerals expressed as a percentage of the
bulk sample.



























m.uni[No-2
SRMPLE CERC LArITUOE LtOHITIEZ LENGTH ULK UM NRX MTX ILEHITE RUTILE ZICOM lOHRZITE SILICATES EPIO
NUMBER NO CCO) ) GR RCg THM HY TM Mm 1 TH ONn TH RHN rHT TH TH RHn
=-~1~-~~~I~~~lil@~"--l- -m~-- -------==


96-1
96-2
101
103
109
011-1
811-2
813
815
917-1
817-2
81@
019
921-1
821-2
823
824
827
$30-1
830-2
833
834-1
834-2
835-1
838
838A
843-1
043-2
847
84711-1
8478-2
841-1
840-2
850-1
850-2
8608
969
878
884
903
916
920-1
920-2
925
928
9290-1
9298-2
929-1
931
932-1
932-2
939
943
946-1
946-2
946-3
949-1
949-2
954-1
954-2
959
959-1
939-2
966-1
966-2
968-1
968-2
969-1
969-2
974
979


157 28.69900 80.53910
153 28.69900 80.53910
152 20.94795 80.59970
160 29.02218 90.66O70
165 29.07549 80.71190
24 30.67107 81.30900
24 30.67107 81.30900
4 30.73629 81.28160
3 30.72353 81.33950
15 30.67940 81.34270
15 30.67940 81.34270
8 30.68202 81.37580
9 30.68128 81.41060
9 30.68120 81.41060
2 30.72183 81.37650
17 30.73960 81.41560
105 29.92160 81.11920
127 29.92744 81.16730
127 29.92744 81.16730
990 29.91349 81.18900
128 29.8828 81.21750
128 29.88528 81.21750
58 29.90838 91.21600
88 29.91414 81.21680
88R 29.91414 81.21680
95 29.96872 01.23410
95 29.96872 81.23410
121 29.91534 81.26410
121R 29.91534 81.26610
1218 29.91534 01.26610
85 29.91432 81.26050
85 29.91432 81.26050
107 30.00966 81.24190
107 30.00966 01.24110
81 30.36219 81.20560
185 30.36141 81.22200
67 30.36196 81.27230
64 30.36147 81.32230
181 30.36141 81.35620
35 30.66231 81.22530
194 30.60514 81.24440
194 30.60514 81.24411
72 30.50714 81.36600
10 30.62070 81.40990
12t 30.62250 81.39370
12R 30.62250 81.39370
12 30.62250 81.39370
13 30.65120 81.38900
18 30.60768 81.37330
18 30.60768 81.37330
195 30.60686 81.31050
31 30.60571 81.26890
144 29.54143 81.10550
144 29.54143 91.10550
144 29.54143 81.10550
140 29.56917 80.95880
140 29.56917 80.95880
135 29.69561 81.14860
135 29.69561 81.14860
91 29.82624 81.16380
131 29.80924 81.20930
131 29.80924 81.20930
142 29.61004 81.13450
142 29.61004 81.13450
148 29.45753 80.89080
148 29.45753 80.89080
146 29.40394 81.05090
146 29.40391 81.05090
171 29.20466 80.96220
151 29.08967 80.81920

COUNT
MINInMU
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
STD. DEV.


145
190
174
162
172
90
137
90
78
120
94
93
170
178
161
245
ISO
150
175
178
89
202
191
137
234
231
165
Iss
155
141
1410
145
155
91
170
14"
113
155
156
103
252
136
168
172
841
139
147
152
149
221
147
1417
154
105
127
122
169
145
153
190
218
112
135
125
130
185
136
160
166
178
233
210


29551 2.4 0.19 0.19 33.9 33.7
4086 27.4 0.10 0.14 30.2 24.2
13009 2.2 0.22 0.26 21.6 19.4
10519 5.4 0.25 0.27 28.7 26.7
8756 6.5 0.23 0.36 31.1 19.8
3065 1.9 0.82 1.09 36.3 24.8
4540 0.9 0.19 0.20 32.1 31.4
5081 1.0 0.63 0.89 34.1 23.1
3568 4.7 0.42 0.45 31.3 29.0
3973 7.0 0.01 0.01 33.6 22.7
3519 8.8 0.02 0.03 28.2 26.1
2951 1.8 0.61 0.64 28.3 29.2
5675 12.5 0.60 0.79 35.2 27.8
3973 1.7 0.50 0.80 31.1 17.1
10469 .0 0.37 0.10 29.0 26.3
13877 17.3 0.24 0.30 31.3 2q4.4
10134 2.3 0.24 0.32 26.8 22.0
7311 1;3 0.34 0.12 28.4 21.9
6381 1.0 0.29 0.32 26.6 21.6
1991 3.4 0.65 0.65 32.3 29.6
4631. 15.7 0.38 0.43 29.0 27.9
4767 6.0 0.08 0.10 21.9 16.3
3405 12.1 0.31 0.01 29.7 29.8
13724 35.9 0.05 0.10 31.0 22.1
14802 20.9 0.17 0.18 30.1 27.2
3859 10.2 0.67 0.92 28.8 30.5
4313 25.3 0.16 0.20 25.0 25.2
9466 0.4 1.05 1.32 33.? 25.9
9151 0.7 0.95 1.11 35.6 29.8
10419 0.3 0.52 0.70 33.1 23.2
9171 1.5 0.94 1.02 33.14 29.9
6011 1.2 1.06 1.29 41.2 31.7
3496 1.2 0.66 0.77 26.0 25.5
6129 2.8 0.53 0.69 33.4 25.1
7621 0.1 0.55 0.59 23.9 21.9
11129 2.9 0.17 0.19 24.1 21.6
10879 1.0 0.37 0.48 30.2 25.7
5786 1.8 0.69 0.84 26.6 20.9
12664 3.8 0.09 0.23 26.0 12.3
4313 3.5 0.56 0.59 21.1 22.9
9393 5.2 0.13 0.52 24.5 21.4
10419 3.6 0.67 0.83 31.0 24.1
1816 3.q 0.10 0.11 28.3 28.6
3632 7.8 0.65 0.67 21.0 21.0
2270 4.9 0.35 0.36 27.6 27.6
4200 5.4 0.51 0.51 30.4 30.2
1702 0.2 0.58 0.58 27.7 27.7
3405 6.9 0.09 0.09 29.3 28.0
9759 2.2 0.55 1.03 33.3 16.5
7761 3.9 0.47 0.52 34.0 29.5
8171 0.8 0.37 0.144 29.7 24.4
5046 13.7 0.68 0.85 69.9 59.4
6671 3.3 0.14 0.41 33.3 29.3
6601 23.7 0.38 0.40 32.7 30.8
10209 6.7 0.31 0.38 26.9 20.8
7396 2.6 0.44 0.46 18.6 18.1
5646 4.1 0.35 0.37 21.4 20.6
9954 12.4 0.37 0.48 31.1 23.9
9799 9.0 0.07 0.65 27.3 7.2
5701 26.6 0.17 0.19 31.3 20.0
3723 1.5 0.47 0.54 26.5 25.5
3746 39.5 0.30 0.38 30.3 28.1
3973 17.2 0.50 0.51 22.8 22.3
3519 13.8 0.14 0.16 23.7 20.3
6696 29.2 0.23 0.24 25.9 24.41
74191 11.0 0.28 0.31 23.8 21.0
4994 17.1 0.31 0.45 35.5 27.2
5902 15.5 0.49 0.52 27.0 26.2
12414 3.6 0.35 0.13 33.6 26.3
6213 21.7 0.39 0.42 27.5 24.6

70 70 70 70 70 70
1702 .0 0.01 0.01 18.6 7.2
6774 8.3 0.40 0.49 29.8 25.2
14802 39.5 1.06 1.32 69.49 59.41
3255 9.1 0.24 0.30 6-4 6.2


70 70 70
0.5 1.2 0.0
6.5 6.3 .0
13.4 11.9 0-2
2.9 2.3 .0I


9.0
10.1
6.14
4.0
5.3
10.2
10.2
1.9
3.7
11.7
11.7
8.0
7.5
13.4
3.4
3.1
10.0
4.1
3.6
3.5
3.6
7.5
9.6
4.3
3.8
4.7
12.0
10.1
3.7
3.8
2.9
3.1
0.5
10.6
59.
3.7
4.7
3.0
1.6
8.9
6.3
9.7
4.5
7.4
9.9
6.8
7.6
5.5
9.8
4.9
2.0
3.8
3.5
U68
5.5
6.6
4.8
3.5
5.0
4.0
5.8
6.2
7.6
9.9
8.2
7.7
6.5
8.9
8.8
7.4
7.9


8.9
8.6
6.2
3.8
5.2
7.0
9.8
1.2
3.4
7.9
10.3
8.0
5.6
7.4
3.0
8.6
4.9
4.5
3.7
3.0
8.4
7.1
4.3
S7.3
5.1
9.7
10.1
3.8
4.9
4.8
3.4
2.2
11.9
9.0
3.6
1.2
4.2
1.9
9.0
6.0
8.5
4.4
6.9
9.6
6.6
7.6
5.5
9.3
7.6
2.7
3.9
3.6
7.0
5.6
6.9
4.6
3.41
5.0
9.4
5.8
6.0
7.5
8.7
7.7
7.5
6.14
6.5
0.3
6.8
7.4


0.0 11.7 12.0 30.
0.0 7.7 9.9 36.
0.0 13.0 .12.4 36.
P 19.0 19.4 31.
0.0 17.4 18.4 20.
0.0 8.2 12.0 25.
0.0 10.3 11.4 34.
0.0 16.0 15.7 31-
P 17.2 17.0 31.
P 7.5 7.6 27.
0.0 6.2 10.2 32.
0.0 11.5 11.2 29.
0.0 10.5 13.3 30.
0.0 8.0 7.6 31.
0.0 15.0 15.2 32.
P 4.4 7.0 30.
P 18.4 17.4 32.
0.0 19.3 17.5 33.
0.0 15.4 15.3 36.
0.0 18.7 18.8 30.
0.0 12.4 11.4 33.
0.0 6.7 5.2 32.
0.0 17.4 17.6 33.
P 13.7 9.9 31.
0.0 11.5 11.3 30.
0.0 9.1 8.7 32-
0.0 8.8 8.6 21.
0.0 19.2 18.1 28.
0.0 15.1 1.5.1 32.
0.0 19.0 19.3 33.
0.0 17.9 17.0 31.
P 5.4 7.6 38-
0.0 9.1 9.3 24.
0.0 11.9 14.2 29.
P 17.9 17.6 29.
0.0 14.3 11.1 31.
P 16.1 16.0 33.
0.0 19.4 19.5 33.
P 10.0 13.6 33.
0.0 9.9 11.0 32.
P 9.8 13.0 35.
0.0 10.0 18.4 34
0.0 11.1 14.3 31.
0.0 7.7 8.4 28.
0.0 11.6 11.5 31.
0.0 10.0 10.0 33.
P .* 13.7 13.9 31.
0.0 10.2 12.7 32.
0.0 18.7 14.1 28.
0.0 16.7 17.1 33.
0.0 11.6 15.8 33.
P 9.0 8.5 1.
0.0 16.2 16.0 25.
0.0 15.3 15.3 31.
0.0 12.3 11.8 34
P 15.9 15.7 35
0.0 16.8 16.9 35
P 9.4 9.5 31
P 15.3 10.5 33
P 15.5 15.4 27
0.0 13.6 11.9 32
P 13.2 17.5 35
0.0 10.4 10.5 28
0.0 7.6 9.2 32
P 16.6 16.5 29
0.0 19.1 19.2 25
0.0 10.5 10.1 29
0.0 9.8 10.7 35
P 20.0 18.8 25
0.0 11.3 13.6 32

70 70 70
0.0 4.4 5.2 1
0.0 13-1 13.6 31
0.0 20-0 19.5 39
0.0 4.1 3.7 1



















LUMIHO-2 4
E SILICATES EPIDOTE G0RNET PROBOLES3 TOURRALINE STRUROLITE PHOSPHArE OTHERS EHM/C ElH/r6
n RHN rIH RM THm RHH THH RHrH THM R TH RHN THM RHH rHM RHM TrH RHH rTH


.0 11.? 12.0 30.8 30.0
.0 7.7 9.9 36.2 35.9
.0 13.0 12.4 36.4 33.7
19.0 19.4 31.1 31.3
.0 17.4 18.4 28.4 31.0
.0 0.2 12.0 25.5 30.1
.0 10.3 11.4 34.2 34.4
.0 16.0 15.7 34.0 32.6
17.2 17.0 31.5 33.1
7.5 7.6 27.8 19.6
.0 6.2 10.2 32.8 32.8
.0 11.5 11.2 29.3 29.3
.0 10.5 13.3 30.0 34.4
'.0 0.0 7.6 31. 44.5
.0 15.0 15.2 32.6 34.3
4.4 7.0 30.9 31.9
18.4 17.4 32.5 33.2
.0 18.3 17.5 33.8 35.4
.0 15.4 15.3 35.2 36.1
.0 18.7 18.0 30.2 31.0
.0 12.4 11.4 33.6 31.1
.0 6.7 5.2 32.1 23.9
.0 17.4 17.6 33.6 33.5
13.7 9.9 31.0 19.3
.0 11.5 11.3 30.1 28.2
.0 9.1 0.? 32.7 31.0
.0 8.8 8.6 24.9 25.3
.0 19.2 18.1 28.0 34.1
.0 15.1 15.1 32.5 34.7
.0 19.0 19.3 33.1 36.0
.0 17.9 17.0. 31.7 32.5
5.4 7.6 38.7 39.0
.0 9.1 9.3 24.3 24.8
.0 11.9 14.2 29.5 31.0
17.9 17.6 29.0 29.6
.0 14.3 14.4 34.5 32.6
16.4 16.0 33.2 32.2
.0 19.4 19.5 33.0 33.4
10.8 13.6 33.9 31.3
.0 9.9 11.0 32.9 32.6
9.8 13.0 35.9 33.5
.0 10.0 10.4 34.3 33.3
.0 11.4 14.3 34.6 33.9
.0 7.7 8.4 28.3 27.9
.0 11.6 11.5 31.1 31.5
.0 10.0 10.0 33.0 33.6
13.7 13.9 31.3 31.1
.0 10.2 12.7 32.1 30.7
.0 18.7 14.1 28.4 34.6
.0 16.7 17.1 33.4 33.0
.0 14.6 15.0 33.4 32.7
9.0 8.5 1.8 7.0
.0 16.2 16.0 25.9 27.6
.0 15.3 15.3 31.6 31.2
.0 12.3 11.0 34.0 32.0
15.9 15.7 35.6 3.6.
.0 16.0 16.9 35.7 35.6
9.4 9.5 34.0 34.3
15.3 10.5 33.2 43.8
15.5 15.4 27.9 29.2
.0 13.6 14.9 32.4 33.6
1.2 17.5 35.5 35.4
.0 10.4 10.5 28.5 29.0
.0 7.1 9.2 32.3 31.1
16.1 16.5 29.9 29.0
.0 19.1 19.2 25.5 25.4
.0 10.5 18.1 29.6 29.7
.0 9.8 10.7 35.1 33.9
20.0 18.8 25.1 28.5
.0 11.3 13.6 32.0 31.0
'0 70 70 70 70
.0 4.4 5.2 1.8 7.8
.0 13.1 13.6 31.3 31.6
.0 20.0 19.5 30.7 44.S
.0 4.1 3.7 4.7 S.0


2.2 2.2
1.1 0.8
2.0 1.?
2.5 2.3
2.7 1.6
2.0 1.4
0.? 0.7
2.3 1.5
1.9 1.8
2.1 1.4
2.0 2.2
2.4 2.2
2.1 1.5
5.5 3.0
2.5 2.3
8.1 7.3
2.4 2.0
2.5 1.8
3.4 3.2
2.1 1.9
1.8 1.6
3.9 2.9
3.3 3.3
4.9 3.'$
4.6 4.6
4.4 3.0
11.7 10,4
2.0 2.1
3.8 3.1
2.5 1.0
3.7 3.3
2.1 2.1
2.3 1.9
2.2 1.6
2.1 1.9
3.5 3.1
3.3 2.4
2.5 2.4
3.9 2.0
4.4 4.0
2.1 1.6
2.0 1.6
1.3 1.3
7.9 7.7
2.3 2.3
2.0 2.9
3.8 3.0
3.4 3.2
3.0 1.4
2.3 2.1
2.7 2.1
5.9 5.2
1.7 1.5
1.9 1.8
2.4 2.3
1.6 1.7
2.3 2.2
3.2 2.5
3.3 1.2
4.4 4.4
4.7 4.0
1.5 1.2
4.1 4.0
4.3 3.6
3.8 3.7
2.1 1.8
3.2 2.1
3.8 3.6
3.1 2.4
6.2 5.6


1.7
2.6
1.7
2.2
1.9
9.8
4.4
3.0
1.7
1.6
2.0
6.3
3.2
3.7
3.4
1.9
2.1
2.9
1.6
2.3
2.0
1.2
P
2.1
2.6
4.8
5.6
2.2
2.5
2.1
2.5
3.5
4.0
2.3
3.4
2.7
2.0
9.2
3.0
13.
3.0
2.0
3.1
9.2
11.6
5.0
9.2
2.0
2.0
2.9
.3.4
1.4
3.6
1.9
2.9
2.8
2.9
1.7
3.2
2.1
6.0
0.8
4.0
2.0
2.1
2.6
4.4
5.5
2.1
5.0


1.7
3.9
2.2
3.2
5.1
16.2
4.5
14.8
2.4
1.1
1.7?
6.1
5.2
0.8
4.0
3.9
4.3
6.0
3.0
3.4
2.0
0.9
0.1
6.5
3.5
9.7
5.5
4.1
3.0
4.5
4.9
5.1
3.9
3.6
5.3
3.6
1.4
11.6
7.6
14.6
5.6
6.0
2.7
6.9
11.4
5.0
9.2
2.7
14.7
5.9
7.0
1.8
5.0
2.7
5.6
3.3
3.4
4.2
5.7
3.5
6.3
1.2
5.1
4.0
2.6
3.5
9.2
6.0
3.9
5.2


70 70 70 70
0.7 0.7 P. 0.1
3.2 2.7 3.6 5.3
11. 10.4 13.3 16.2
1.7 1.6 2.5 3.3


1.6 1.6 5.6
3.0 5.1 3.5
5.4 6.2 5.5
2.5 2.8 3.2
2.9 5.7 2.9
0.4 0.3 3.8
1.0 1.0 4.2
0.5 2.5 2.0
4.0 4.2 2.9
2.2 1.5 6.9
3.4 4.5 5.7
4.3 4.1 6.2
2.7 2.5 5.2
1.3 1.2 2.2
2.9 3.3 4.1
2.5 3.6 1.6
3.5 5.4 3.4
2.3 3.0 3.1
3.4 3.0 2.9
2.1 2.6 1.0
2.0 1.8 3.5
10.4 8.2 6.2
3.3 3.3 3.3
1.9 6.4 3.4
2.6 2.9 3.0
0.7 0.5 3.6
3.4 3.5 6.2
1.9 2.7 1.7
1.1 1.0 1.2
1.1 2.9 1.4
1.3 1.7 1.6
2.3 2.9 2.1
7.7 8.5 7.9
1.7 2.6 4.5
0.4 6.5 6.6
4.1 4.0 3.9
2.3 4.6 2.6
1.4 3.3 1.2
2.9 4.3 2.9
1.8 1.6 3.9
5.0 6.0 3.6
1.6 2.9 1.6
3.1 2.7 5.2
4.7 4.9 6.2
2.4 2.3 3.3
1.3 1.4 4.9
1.8 1.A 3.7
1.1 1.0 4.0
1.1 3.2 1.4
1.4 1.9 0.8
2.4 3.4 3.4
1.3 3.6 2.1
2.3 2.7 2.6
3.9 4.0 1.5
3.5 3.0 4.4
6.0 6.1 5.0
5.3 5.3 3.5
3.0 4.2 2.0
2.4 6.5 3.7
1.7 2.3 2.8
1.8 1.5 5.9
3.2 2.5 3.0
5.4 5.4 9.3
1.1 9.2 7.8
1.8 2.0 2.6
8.1 5.7 5.9
1.3 0.8 2.1
1.7 2.2 2.9
1.7 2.4 2.4
1.8 1.8 3.0

7 7070 70
0.4 0.3 0.8
2.8 3.5 3.7
10.4 9.2 9.3
1.8 1.9 1.8


=====annus::ssa=manaman m


70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70
1.2 0.0 0.0 P P 40.6 27.4 0.01 P
3.7 1.2 1.0 1.6 3.9 52.7 48.2 0.22 0.24
9.4 5.5 4.9 9.0 29.3 94.9 73.7 0.65 0.69
1.? 1.2 1.1 1.4 5.1 6.3 6.6 0.14 0.15


28 B


massanasasm =


5.5 0.0
S.4 1.2
5.0 1.8
3.4 2.4
3.8 1.1
3.9 0.0
4.2 0.0
2.3 r
2.7 0.2
4.6 P
5.6 P
6.4 0.7
6.6 1.2
1.? 0.2
4.2 2.3
2.4 2.3
3.0 0.5
3.1 1.0
3.1 2.1
2.3 0.5
3.1 1.4
4.6 5.5
3.3 .0
3.2 0.1
3.5 1.8
3.4 0.9
6.6 2.4V
2.5 P
1i. P
1.9 0.0
2.0 0.2
2.8 0.2
B.3 2.8
5.2 1.2
6.4 2.5
3.0 2.9
3.3 0.1
1.4 P
1.7 2.3
4.0 1.5
3.5 2.3
1.2 0.6
4.9 P
6.2 0.0
3.3 P
5.0 1.9
3.7 0.0
3.9 .0
2.2 1.6
1.3 1.3
2.7 1.2
3.4 P
2.5 1.6
1.4 0.7
4.1 2.7
4.9 4.0
3.4 3.7
2.6 0.7
1.3 2.?
3.1 0.0
5.7 P
3.4 0.2
9.4 .5S
6.2 1.8
2.7 3.9
5.3 2.0
2.4 1.0
2.8 2.0
2.5 0.1
3.0 1.3


P P 5s.1 50.1 0.11 0.11
0.6 2.8 51.8 45.3 0.05 0.06
1.5 0.5 45.7 40.9 0.10 0.11
1.? 2.4 54.4 52.3 0.14 0.14
2.2 6.2 57.9 45.9 0.13 0.16
P 0.3 56.6 47.9 0.48 0.52
0.1 0.1 55.4 55.2 0.11 0.11
1.? 2.9 55.6 43.4 0.35 0.38
1.7 2.4 56.2 53.2 0.23 0.24
0.7 29.3 58.7 42.3 0.01 0.01
2.8 2.3 50.7 50.5 0.01 0.01
P P 50.9 51.3 0.31 0.33
0.9 0.7 54.7 48.4 0.33 0.36
0.5 0.7 54.8 40.0 0.27 0.32
1.7 2.4 50.5 47.5 0.18 0.19
2.4 4.3 50.4 43.9 0.12 0.13
2.3 4.5 53.3 47.2 0.13 0.15
1.8 4.4 52.7 45.7 0.10 0.19
2.0 2.1 46.4 46.3 0.14 0.15
1.9 2.2 59.1 56.3 0.36 0.39
2.7 7.9 52.1 50.5 0.20 0.22
0.1 24.2 40.6 30.4 0.03 0.03
2.6 2.5 53.0 53.9 0.17 .00
2.1 14.9 54.5 44.7 0.03 0.04
5.0 5.6 51.2 48.0 0.00 0.09
0.2 0.1 O2.6 50.8 0.35 0.47
0.4 1.0 45.5 45.4 0.00 0.09
1.3 2.2 61.4 2.2 0.65 0.69
1.1 2.1 5.0 52.7 0.55 0.50
1.9 2.2 50.0 50.0 0.30 0.35
1.0 2.4 57.2 53.1 0.54 0.54
2.2 2.0 4.3 44.1 0.31 0.5?
P P 50.1 50.3 0.33 0.39
P P S8.7 55.1 0.31 0.30
1.9 2.1 48.1 45.7 0.26 0.27
2.2 6.4 46.2 42.9 0.00 0.00
1.8 2.7 53.1 47.9 0.19 0.23
2.3 2.9 50.4 44.9 0.35 0.36
2.0 16.4 49.1 35.9 0.05 0.08
0.4 0.4 41.9 41.4 0.23 0.25
I.2 2.6 47.1 45.3 0.20 0.23
1.6 2.9 55.5 50.9 0.37 0.42
2.4 2.0 50.3 2.4 0.05 0.06
0.1 0.2 43.0 43.3 0.28 0.29
1.1 1.3 40.3 47.0 0.17 0.17
0.5 0.6 49.9 49.6 0.25 0.25
1.0 1.0 49.2 49.4 0.29 0.29
3.8 3.9 53.1 54.3 0.05 0.05
2.4 2.7 59.5 39.4 0.33 0.41
3.5 3.7 $4.4 5.0. 0.25 0.26
1.7 2.0 51.7 40.4 0.19 0.21
2.7 4.6 04.9 73.7 0.58 0.63
2.1 3.6 60.3 55.7 0.2? 0.27
1.5 3.3 57.1 55.1 0.22 0.22
1.6 8.0 40.5 41.7 0.15 0.16
2.1 2.7 42.7 41.7 0.19 0.19
1.7 2.4 44.9 44.0 0.16 .12
9.0 8.5 48.4 40.5 0.18 0.20
2.2 13.7 49.3 27.4 0.04 0.1
2.3 3.0 57.9 53.6 0.10 0.10
SP 49.1 40.6 0.23 0.27
P P 55.0 56.1 0.17 0.21
0.3 .3 47.2 46.4 0.24 0.24
0.3 1.1 44.6 41.4 0.06 0.07
1.9 4.3 54.0 52.0 0.12 0.12
2.0 5.0 53.9 50.7 0.15 0.16
0.4 1.3 58.0 53.0 0.10 0.24
0.6 1.7 48.4 47.9 0.24 0.25
1.1 3.2 64.5 57.0 0.23 0.24
1.4 1.1 48.7 50.9 0.19 0.22







DISCUSSION


Sand and Gravel

Usefulness of offshore sediment for beach nourishment

purposes depends on several criteria. Desirable textural

characteristics include very low mud contents (rarely higher than

1 or 2 weight percent) and an overall textural and mineralogic

similarity to the "native" beach sediment. The latter

characteristic makes each project site specific. In addition,

the type and amount of gravel are considered. In Florida,

virtually all gravel-sized sediment is shell material. Natural

beach sediment may contain from 0 to virtually 100 percent shell.

The west-central Florida (Pinellas County) coastline averages

around 25 percent shell but in some cases is being nourished with

sediment containing up to 50 percent shell (R. Hogue, Univ. S.

Florida, pars. comm., 1991). Thus, shell-gravel content can vary

considerably depending on what is available and what the nature

of the "native" beach material.

Map Area 1 has several concentrated sites with low mud

percentages that may be good potential borrow sites. Map Area 2,

on the other hand, has relatively high mud values except for far

offshore. Two of the four sites in Map Area 3 have very low mud

percentages. These observations are based solely on a

combination of low mud and high sand percentages. Replenishment

is site-specific and would require integration of beach sediment

characteristics before an assessment could be made.







Heavy Minerals

The average THM content of the 70 samples in the study area

is 0.49 weight percent (with a standard deviation, STD, of 0.30);

the RHM content averages 0.40 weight percent (STD of 0.24) (Table

3). Table 4 summarizes values for THM and RHM for all samples

and also according to depth interval (upper and lower core
sections designated as -1 and -2 respectively).


Table 4. Data for total heavy minerals (THM) and
recovered heavy minerals (RHM) tabulated for all
samples, in the upper 1.5m sections
and the lower 1.5m sections.

All Samples Upper 1.5m Samples Lower 1.5m Samples
(n-70) (n-70) (n-21)
Variable in Ma Ya S l Min Ma Sd in Max Std

Wt 1 RHM 0.01 1.06 0.40 0.24 0.01 1.05 0.43 0.24 0.02 1.06 0.35 0.24

Wt A THM 0.01 1.32 0.49 0.30 0.01 1.32 0.50 0.30 0.03 1.28 0.45 0.29

The heavy-mineral species present in these samples, in

decreasing order of abundance are epidote, ilmenite, alumino-

silicates, zircon, staurolite, rutile, garnet, pyroboles,

tourmaline, monazite and others (including phosphorite, sulfides,

unidentified opaques, quartz, and coated grains).

The economic heavy minerals (EHM) in the study area consist
of ilmenite (including altered ilmenite), rutile, zircon,

monazite, and aluminosilicates. Monazite, however, is present in

very small quantities and does not substantially affect EHM

values. Ilmenite is the most abundant economic heavy mineral

present comprising about 29 percent (STD of about 6) of the heavy

minerals. Zircon comprises about 6 percent (STD of about 2.5),

rutile about 3 percent (STD of about 1) and aluminosilicates
30







about 13 percent (STD of about 4) of the'heavy minerals (Table

3). In this study, 52.7 percent of the heavy-mineral assemblage

in the concentrate consists of EHM (EHM/C, Table 3); on a bulk

sample basis, however, the sediments contain only about 0.2

percent (STD of about 0.12) EHM (EHM/T, Table 3).

The distribution of THM values for upper and lower core

sections is shown in Figures 14-16. Map 1 has three main areas

of sample concentration (Figure 14). The northernmost region

near Fernandina Beach has a total of 22 samples with an average

of 0.55 weight percent heavy THM. The linear array of samples in

the middle of the map averages 0.47 weight percent THM for 5.

samples. The cluster of 15 samples offshore of St. Augustine at

the south end of the map has the highest THM values in the entire

study area, 0.61 weight percent.

Map 2 has a total of 17 samples with an average of 0.37

weight percent THM (Figure 15). The 5 samples on Map 3 continue

the regional trend of southerly decreasing THM values, averaging

0.24 weight percent (Figure 16).

While the overall heavy-mineral suite is the same here as in

the Cape Canaveral area, there are a number of differences. Both

RHM and THM values are higher. The RHM and THM values offshore

of Cape Canaveral average 0.18 and 0.27 weight percent

respectively (Grosz et al., 1989; Nocita et al., 1990), while in

the area of this study RHM and THM values average 0.40 and 0.49

percent. Epidote, ilmenite, and aluminosilicates are less

abundant in the Cape Canaveral region than on the shelf to the

north. Zircon, pyroboles, staurolite, tourmaline, rutile and












%Cfor
A_ <9/0
,01. 0
Alp '0'0


Fernondina A
Beach


.09


.44 .85
S 52/.83
1.03/.52


A 7ZANA//C


OCEAN


.23 .84 48 .19
* .59


EXPLANATION
0 Core location with
eight % THM for
upper/lower core
sections.


SCALE


3 4 8 Nautical miles
5 0 Kilometers
3 5 10 Kilometers


30 00'


.77/69

.92/20
*


St. Augustine


.42/.32
.32


Fig. 14. Distribution of heavy minerals given as THM, for
upper/lower core sections in Map area 1.


810 10'


MAP


30 30'











I
81 00'

.19
.54/.38 *
*




Matanzas
Inlet A .37/.07
0



.51/.16


.46/.37
-N-
S\.49/.34

30 '



EXPLANATION
45/.52
Core location with *
weight % THM for
upper/lower core
sections.

SCALE

0 4 8 Nautical miles

0 5 10 Kilometers
.43

10'



Ponce de
Leon Inlet A


I
80050'



MAP

2





A 7ZLA4/1/C

OC-EAN







.24/.31
0


















.42
O


Fig. 15. Distribution of heavy minerals given as THM, for
upper/lower core sections in Map area 2.


- 2903


0


- 290
















































Fig. 16. Distribution of heavy minerals given as THM, for
upper/lower core sections in Map area 3.








34







garnet are more abundant in the.Cape area. The combined effects

of sediment supply and reworking are complex and the widely

spaced samples in this study preclude definitive explanations of

these trends.

'CONCLUSIONS

Sand and shell-gravel deposits may locally be suitable for

beach nourishment where they have low mud contents. The best

sites for borrow material are offshore of St. Augustine and

Fernandina Beach. Additional studies are needed to quantify

their thickness and lateral extent.

The heavy-mineral assemblage in sediments of the study area

consists dominantly of epidote, ilmenite, aluminosilicates,

pyroboles and zircon. The assemblage is similar to suites found

offshore of Cape Canaveral (Grosz and others, 1989; Nocita and
others, 1989, 1990) and offshore of Jacksonville, Florida and

South Carolina, as deduced from grab sample analyses (Grosz and

Escowitz, 1983).

As was found offshore of Cape Canaveral, absolute abundances

of heavy minerals in sediments offshore of Florida's east coast

are almost an order of magnitude lower, on the average, than in

onshore economic deposits such as Trail Ridge and Green Cove

Springs. The reconnaissance results show a very low potential

for detrital heavy-mineral resources in sediments offshore

Florida's east coast even though the trend suggests increasing

abundances to the north of Cape Canaveral.







garnet are more abundant in the.Cape area. The combined effects

of sediment supply and reworking are complex and the widely

spaced samples in this study preclude definitive explanations of

these trends.

'CONCLUSIONS

Sand and shell-gravel deposits may locally be suitable for

beach nourishment where they have low mud contents. The best

sites for borrow material are offshore of St. Augustine and

Fernandina Beach. Additional studies are needed to quantify

their thickness and lateral extent.

The heavy-mineral assemblage in sediments of the study area

consists dominantly of epidote, ilmenite, aluminosilicates,

pyroboles and zircon. The assemblage is similar to suites found

offshore of Cape Canaveral (Grosz and others, 1989; Nocita and
others, 1989, 1990) and offshore of Jacksonville, Florida and

South Carolina, as deduced from grab sample analyses (Grosz and

Escowitz, 1983).

As was found offshore of Cape Canaveral, absolute abundances

of heavy minerals in sediments offshore of Florida's east coast

are almost an order of magnitude lower, on the average, than in

onshore economic deposits such as Trail Ridge and Green Cove

Springs. The reconnaissance results show a very low potential

for detrital heavy-mineral resources in sediments offshore

Florida's east coast even though the trend suggests increasing

abundances to the north of Cape Canaveral.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A number of people helped in various phases of this project.

Core logging and all aspects of heavy-mineral separation for

approximately half the samples was done by Terry Griffin, Bob

Hogue, Lee Clark, Mary Olivier, Lucy Lagasse and Pramuan Kohpina

at the University of South Florida. The other half of the

samples were opened, logged and spiraled by Nancy LaPlace and Ted

Maul at the Florida Institute of Technology. Russel Watrous

helped with heavy-mineral separation during the final stages of

data acquisition. Bob Hogue continued to help improve the

computer analysis of grain size data. Jon Arthur, Joel Duncan

and Tom Scott of the Florida Geological Survey critically

reviewed the text, while Milena Macesich generated the final

AutoCad figures. This study was funded, in part, by Cooperative

Agreement 14-12-0001-30432 between the Florida Geological Survey

and the U.S. Minerals Management Service administered by the

University of Texas at Austin, and by the E.I. DuPont de Nemours

& Company, Inc.







REFERENCES


Clark, R. R., 1989, Beach Conditions in Florida: A statewide
inventory and identification of the beach erosion problem
areas in Florida: Beaches and Shores Technical and Design
Memorandum 89-1, Florida Dept. of Nat. Resources, 167 p.

Clifton, H. E., Hubert, A. and Phillips, R. L., 1967, Sediment
sample preparation for analysis for low-concentrations of
detrital gold: U.S. Geological Circular 545, 11 p.

Duane, D. B., Field, M. E., Meisburger, E. P., Swift, D.J.P. and
Williams, S. J., 1972, Linear shoals on the Atlantic Inner
Continental Shelf, Florida to Long Island, in Swift, D.J.P.,
Duane, D. B. and Pilkey, O. H. (eds.), Shelf Sediment
Transport: Process and Pattern. Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross,
p. 447-498.

Grosz, A. E. and Escowitz, E. C., 1983, Economic heavy minerals
of the U.S. Atlantic continental Shelf, in Tanner, W.F.
(ed.), Proceedings of the sixth symposium on coastal
sedimentology: Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL,
p. 231-242.

Grosz, A. E., Nocita, B. W., Kohpina, P. Olivier, M. M. and
Scott, T.M., 1989, Preliminary grain-size and mineralogic
analyses of vib.racore samples from the Inner Continental
Shelf offshore of Cape Canaveral, Florida: U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 89-0018, 22 p.

Grosz, A. E., Berquist, C. R., Jr., and Fischler, C. T., 1990, A
procedure for assessing heavy-mineral resources potential of
continental shelf sediments, in Berquist, C.R., Jr., (ed.),
Heavy Mineral Studies Virginia Inner Continental Shelf:
Virginia Division of Mineral Resources Publication 103, p.
13-30.

Meisburger, E.'P. and Field, M. E., 1975, Geomorphology, shallow
structure, and sediments of the Florida inner continental
shelf, Cape Canaveral to Georgia: U.S. Army, Corps of
Engineers Technical Memorandum No. 54, 119 p.

Milliman, J. D., 1972, Atlantic continental shelf and slope of
the United States Petrology of the sand fraction of
sediments, Northern New Jersey to Southern Florida: U.S.
Geological Prof. Paper, 529-J, 40 p.

Nocita, B. W., Kohpina, P., Olivier, M. M., Campbell, K. M.,
Green, R. C. and Scott, T. M., 1989, Results of a
preliminary reconnaissance study of the sand, gravel and
heavy-mineral resources potential of sediments offshore of
Cape Canaveral, Florida Phase I, and Interim Report:
Cooperative Agreement 14-12-0001-30316, Florida Geological
Survey, 42 p.







Nocita, B. W., Kohpina, P., Papetti, L. W., Olivier, M. M.,
Grosz, A. E., Snyder, S., Campbell, K. M., Green, R.. C. and
Scott, T. M., 1990, Sand, gravel and heavy-mineral resources
potential of surficial sediments offshore of Cape Canaveral,
Florida Phase II and Final Report: Cooperative Agreement
14-12-0001-30387, Florida Geological Survey, Open File Rept.
35, 55 p.

Tait, L. S. (compiler), 1990, Beaches: Lessons of Hurricane Hugo:
Proceedings 1990 Nat. Conf. on Beach Preservation
Technology, Florida Shore & Beach Preservation Association,
393 p.

Terry, R. D. and Chillingar, G. V., 1955, Summary of "Concerning
some additional aids in studying sedimentary formations":
by M.S. Shvetsov, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 25,
p. 229-234.























APPENDIX I







Grain
Sample


Size


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


U.S.C


Analysis
I.S. 96-1


-0.500.00 0.5 1. 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.0
-0.500.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00


Phi Size







Size
U.S.c


Grain {
Sample


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


Analysis
1.S. 96-2


-0.500.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00


Phi Size







Grain


Size


Sample


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20 /


Analysis


U.S.G.S.


101


0
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00


Phi Size







Grain


Size


Sample


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


U.S.


Analysis
G.S. 103


-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00


Phi Size








Sample


Size


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20-


U.S.


Analysis
G.S. 109


Phi Size


Grain


-0.600.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.00
-0.600.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 ,3.00 3.50 4.00 >,4.00







Grain
Sample


Size


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


Analysis


U.S.G.S.


-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.00
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00


Phi Size


811-1







Grain
Sample


3ize


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


Analysis


U.S.G.S.


Phi Size


811-2


0 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.00







Size


Sample


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


U.S.


Analysis
G.S. 813


-0.500.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00


Phi Size


Grain







Grain


Size


Sample


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20-


Analysis


U.S.G.S.


815


Phi Size


-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00







Grain
Sample


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


U.S.G.S.


817-1


0 -- I I I I I
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00


Phi Size


Size


Analysis







Grain
Sample


Size


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


Analysis


U.S.G.S.


Phi Size


817-2


-0.500.00 0.0 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.004.00
-0.500.00 0.60 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00







Grain


Size


Sample


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


Analysis


U.S.G.S.


819


Phi Size


-0.500.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.00







Grain
Sample


3ize


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


Analysis


U.S.G.S.


Phi Size


821-1


0-' -- L
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00







Grain
Sample


Size


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


U.S.G.S.


821-2


-0.500.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00


Phi Size


Analysis







Grain E
Sample


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


ize


Analysis


U.S.G.S.


823


Phi Size


0 000000 0 00 0 00 0 00
-0.500.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00







)ize
U.S.(


Grain S
Sample


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20
20 //


Analysis
G.S. 824


-0.500.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00


Phi Size







Grain S
Sample


Size


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20--


Analysis


U.S.G.S.


827


Phi Size


0 -
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.60 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00







Size


Grain
Sample


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


U.S.G.S.


830-1


-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00


Phi Size


Analysis







Grain
Sample


Size


Analysis


U.S.G.S.


830-2


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


Phi Size


0 -- 1
-0.500.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00







>ize
U.S.(


Grain S
Sample


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


Analysis
3.S. 833


Phi Size


-0.50.0 0 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3I 4 4.00
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00)4.00







Grain


Sample


Size


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


Analysis


U.S.G.S. 834-1


0 --.-- -- -- --'
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00


Phi Size







Grain
Sample


Size


Analysis


U.S.G.S.


834-2


Cumulative Percentage


100


80


60


40


20


-0.500.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00


SPhi Size







Size


Grain I
Sample


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


Analysis


835-1


Phi Size


-0.500.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.00


U.S.G.S.







Grain S
Sample


>ize
U.S.(


Analysis
3.S. 838


100


80


60


40


20


Cumulative Percentage


0 ---1
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00


1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00


Phi Size







Grain
Sample


Size
U.S.G


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


Analysis
.S. 838A


Phi Size


0 0.
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00







Grain
Sample


Size


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


Analysis


U.S.G.S.


Phi Size


843-1


-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00







Grain
Sample


Cumulative Percentage
100


80-


60 --


40-


201


Size Analysis
U.S.G.S. 843-2


Phi Size


0 --I
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00








)ize
U.S.(


Grain S
Sample


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


Analysis
G.S. 847


Phi Size


-0.0 0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 >.
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.00







Grain
Sample


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40-


20


Size Analysis
U.S.G.S. 847A-1


-0.50 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00)4.00


Phi Size







Grain
Sample


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


Size Analysis
U.S.G.S. 847A-2


-0.500.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00


Phi Size







Grain
Sample


Size


Analysis


U.S.G.S.


848-1


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


Phi Size


-0.500.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.0 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.00
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00







Size


Grain
Sample


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


U.S.G.S.


848-2


S1 1 I I
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00
Phi Size


Analysis







Grain
Sample


Size
U.S.G


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


Analysis
i.S. 850-1


Phi Size


-0500.00 0.50 1.00 1.0 2.00 2.0 3.00 3.50 4.004.00
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00







Size
U.S.G


Grain
Sample


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


Analysis
.S. 850-2


o-
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00
Phi Size







Grain E
Sample


>ize


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


U.S.


Analysis
3.8. 868


Phi Size


-0.500.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00







Grain S
Sample


)ize
U.S.(


Analysis
3.S. 869


Cumulative Percentage
100 ---


80


60


40


20 --


-0.0.00 0.0 1.00 1.0 2.00 2.0 3.00 3.0 4004.00
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00


Phi Size







Grain S
Sample


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


ize
U.S.s


Analysis
3.S. 878


Phi Size


0- I I
-0.500.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00







)ize
U.S.(


Grain E
Sample


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


Analysis
3.S. 884


-0.500.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00


Phi Size







Grain S
Sample


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


ize


Analysis


U.S.G.S.


Phi Size


903


00 1. I I 3 I 0
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00







Grain


Size


Sample


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


Analysis


U.S.G.S.


916


-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00


Phi Size







Grain
Sample


Size


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60'


40


20


Analysis


U.S.G.S.


Phi Size


920-2


0 -1 .--- I
-0.500.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00








Grain E
Sample


;ize


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


Analysis


U.S.G.S.


925


0 _____ I I I I I 1 I
-0.500.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00
Phi Size







Grain E
Sample


Size


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


0 --- 11
-0.500.00 0.50 1.00


Analysis


U.S.G.S.


928


1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00


Phi Size







Grain
Sample


Size


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


Analysis


U.S.G.S.


Phi Size


929-1


0 -- -
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00







Grain
Sample


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


Size Analysis
U.S.G.S. 929A-1


Phi Size


0 1 1.
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00







Size


Sample U.S.G.S.


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


Analysis


929A-2


-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00


Phi Size


Grain







Grain


Size


Sample


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


Analysis


U.S.G.S.


931


Phi Size


000.00 0.50 10 0 2.00 2.50 3.0 30 40
-0.60 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.60 2.00 2.60 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00







Grain
Sample


Size


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


Analysis


U.S.G.S.


Phi Size


932-1


-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00







Grain
Sample


Size
U.S.G


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


Analysis
.S. 932-2


Phi Size


-0.500.00 0.60 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00







Grain S
Sample


Cumulative Percentage
100


80


60


40


20


ize
U.S.(


Analysis
3.S. 939


-0.500.00 0,50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 >4.00


Phi Size