This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
West Palm Beach, Florida
Spatial Trends in Tidal Flat Shape and Associated Environmental Parameters in South San Francisco Bay
Joshua A. Bearman†, Carl T. Friedrichs†, Bruce E. Jaffe‡, and Amy C. Foxgrover†,‡
Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gloucester Point, VA 23062, U.S.A email@example.com
‡ U.S. Geological Survey Santa Cruz, CA 95060, U.S.A
BEARMAN, J.A.; FRIEDRICHS, C.T.; JAFFE, B.E., and FOXGROVER, A.C., 2010. Spatial trends in tidal ﬂat shape and associated environmental parameters in South San Francisco Bay. Journal of Coastal Research, 26(2), 342–349. West Palm Beach (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208. Spatial trends in the shape of proﬁles of South San Francisco Bay (SSFB) tidal ﬂats are examined using bathymetric and lidar data collected in 2004 and 2005. Eigenfunction analysis reveals a dominant mode of morphologic variability related to the degree of convexity or concavity in the cross-shore proﬁle—indicative of (i) depositional, tidally dominant or (ii) erosional, wave impacted conditions. Two contrasting areas of characteristic shape—north or south of a constriction in estuary width located near the Dumbarton Bridge—are recognized. This pattern of increasing or decreasing convexity in the inner or outer estuary is correlated to spatial variability in external and internal environmental parameters, and observational results are found to be largely consistent with theoretical expectations. Tidal ﬂat convexity in SSFB is observed to increase (in decreasing order of signiﬁcance) in response to increased deposition, increased tidal range, decreased fetch length, decreased sediment grain size, and decreased tidal ﬂat width. ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: EOF, eigenfunction analysis, morphodynamics, convexity, concavity, mudﬂat.
The shapes of tidal ﬂat proﬁles have been related to such factors as the relative intensity of wave vs. tidal forcing, the supply and grain size of sediment, and local elevation of the ﬂat with respect to mean sea level. Dieckmann, Osterthun, and Partenscky (1987) and Kirby (2000) presented observational examples from the German Bight and the U.K. suggesting that proﬁles tend to become more strongly convex upward with increased tidal range. Kirby (2000) also observed a strong connection between increased tidal range and greater percentages of ﬂat area found above mean tide level. Several authors have noted that accretionary tidal ﬂats tend to be convex upward, whereas erosional ﬂats tend to be concave upward (Dyer, 1998; Kirby, 2000; Le Hir et al., 2000; Mehta, 2002; Van Rijn, 1998). Tidal ﬂat erosion, in turn, tends to be associated with wind wave activity, while deposition tends to be associated with tidal currents (e.g., Allen et al., 1998; Christie, Dyer, and Turner, 1999; Fan et al., 2006; Janssen-Stelder, 2000). Similarly, wave-dominated areas have been associated with coarser, sandier tidal ﬂats, and tidally dominated regimes with ﬁner, muddier ﬂats (e.g., Woo and Je, 2002; Yang et al., 2008). These trends are, by and large, consistent with the concept that the morphodynamics of tidal ﬂats are driven at lowest order by temporally evolving gradients in hydrodynamic energy and sediment supply. Tidal currents tend to produce greatest bed stresses over lower ﬂats and subtidal areas, driving sediment shoreward, whereas waves produce highest
DOI: 10.2112/08-1094.1 received 11 July 2008; accepted in revision 12 November 2008.
stresses in the shallowest nearshore regions, driving sediment seaward (e.g., Fan et al., 2006; Lee, 1995; Ridderinkhof, Van Der Ham, and Van Der Lee, 2000; Yang et al., 2003). It follows that a proﬁle with spatially uniform bottom stress will be more likely to disperse sediment equally everywhere. Friedrichs and Aubrey (1996) showed that a convex proﬁle favors uniform stress from tidal currents, whereas a concave proﬁle favors uniform stress from waves. Simple sediment transport models incorporating tides and waves generally support these equilibrium trends, such that waves enhance concavity and tides enhance convexity (Lee, 1995; Lee and Mehta, 1997; Pritchard and Hogg, 2003; Pritchard, Hogg, and Roberts, 2002; Roberts, Le Hir, and Whitehouse, 2000; Waeles, Le Hir, and Jacinto, 2004). Although theoretical and conceptual arguments favor quantitative relationships between tidal ﬂat shape and the impacts of tides, waves, and recent deposition or erosion, few observational studies have incorporated sufﬁciently large morphological data sets to adequately test predicted trends. Kirby (2000) visually compared the distribution of surface area with height for seven U.K. ﬂat systems as a function of tidal range. Dyer, Christie, and Wright (2000) used cluster analysis to analyze 20 attributes of 18 mudﬂats from northwest Europe. Although proﬁle shape was not examined by Dyer, Christie, and Wright (2000), waves and tides were still shown to be the two most signiﬁcant discriminators among the attributes considered. Yamada and Kobayashi (2004) used eigenfunction analysis to examine the temporal evolution of two tidal ﬂat proﬁles over 2 years but found no correlation between proﬁle curvature and changes in environmental forcing. Considering the relatively small number of
The Inland Delta is the commonly.5 m). 1996). 1979. 1979. Of the more than 800 originally drawn. Once all transects were drawn. suspended sediments are primarily advected into SSFB in the deeper channels. multiple cross sections were drawn with an ARCMAP platform (Figure 2). 1979). gathered in 2004–2005 and modeled by Foxgrover et al. 766 were used for the spatial analysis. the system as a whole has been predominantly erosional. PWA.. Krone. a result of the Coriolis effect. 1979. and Schoellhamer 2006. with a vertical resolution between 15 and 25 cm. tidal range on the southwestern shore is slightly larger. waves. To perform an eigenfunction analysis. Krone. except during very wet winters (Jaffe and Foxgrover. comparative empirical studies that have focused on tidal ﬂat shape.Spatial Trends in Tidal Flat Shape in South San Francisco Bay 343 Figure 1. This loss of sediment was accompanied by a large loss in tidal ﬂat area in outer SSFB (Jaffe and Foxgrover. Sediment in SSFB is derived from two sources: (i) the Sacramento–San Joaquin Basin (the Inland Delta) after passing through the northern and central Bay. Strong summer winds from the northwest generate waves with periods on the order of 2–3 seconds and heights up to 1 m (Conomos. Wave activity in SSFB is characterized by short period wind waves. this length is not necessarily indicative of the tidal ﬂat width because lines were drawn to well exceed the intertidal zone. 1980. 2. South San Francisco Bay tidal ﬂat locations. Foxgrover et al. Proﬁles range in length from 120 to 3100 m. Regardless of their ultimate source. Cross-shore proﬁles drawn in ARCMAP. In contrast. While the loss was not a steady process over the studied period. each line Journal of Coastal Research. and sediment supply. Jaffe and Foxgrover. accepted source for the majority of sediment inﬂux into SSFB because the local tributaries are thought not to have the discharge necessary to contribute a substantial portion.5 m (Pestrong. 1979. 1979). 26. rather than ocean swells (Conomos. with ﬁne sediment sequestered on the higher ﬂats because of settling and scour lag. McKee.5 m below MLLW. Sediment exchange between the Central Bay and Golden Gate generally results in a loss of sediments to the ocean (Krone. wave conditions. tidal range increases with distance from the Golden Gate ( 1.2 m) to the southern head of SSFB ( 2. 2010 . Resuspension by tidal currents then moves the sediments up onto tidal ﬂats and marshes. though not universally. the innermost portion of SSFB—the area southeast of the Dumbarton Bridge— has seen a slight increase in sediment volume over the period studied (Foxgrover et al.. Ganju. 2005). METHODS Extraction and Normalization Using a combination of bathymetric sounding and lidar data. (2004) showed that SSFB underwent a net sediment loss from 1858 to 1983. the proﬁles were selected to remain largely normal both to shore and the predominant contours. and (ii) the many smaller tributaries that directly fringe SSFB. depending on tidal stage. Signiﬁcant accretion occurs at the tidal ﬂat–marsh interface when the ﬂood tide has inundated the mudﬂat and as the ebb tide drains the marsh. Schoellhamer et al. (2004) and Foxgrover and Jaffe (2005). allowing transport to the channels by tidal currents (Conomos. SITE DESCRIPTION South San Francisco Bay (SSFB) (Figure 1) is a mesotidal. Pestrong (1972) examined sedimentation on the tidal ﬂats of SSFB at Cooley Landing (2 km south of the Dumbarton Bridge) and determined that sediment is preferentially moved across the entire tidal ﬂat on ﬂood tides. Highest transport rates occur at the marsh edge and in tidal channels. Figure 2. and sediments eroded from the ﬂat on ﬂood tide are deposited in the adjacent marsh. Signiﬁcant wave events presumably favor sediment transport back toward the deeper channels. Schoellhamer. horizontal and vertical information was extracted and normalized to speciﬁed upper and lower vertical bounds. Porterﬁeld. 2006b. 2006b).0 m—and the near subtidal area extending to 0. and other hydrodynamic factors (Krone. Vol. Spaced at roughly 50-m intervals. mixed tide system with semidiurnal tides ranging up to 2. 2004. where they are sometimes deposited. which act to resuspend sediment. 1972). Shown here is the area extending from mean high water to mean lower low water (MLLW)—0. the rich data sets available for the diverse ﬂats surrounding South San Francisco Bay provide a unique opportunity to signiﬁcantly increase the quantitative basis for our understanding of the relationship and feedback between tidal ﬂat morphology and the impact of tides. 2006a). 2005). No. Because of a contraction in estuary width and reﬂection of the tidal wave at the inner end. 1979).
we performed an eigenfunction analysis.0 m above MLLW was discarded because the interpolation tended to assign unrealistic upper slopes in such cases. and mudﬂats (Yamada and Kobayashi.S. Figure 3 shows an example of a mudﬂat proﬁle in its pre. None of the previous surveys included lidar or other subaerial topographic data. Tidal range data was obtained from NOAA (2008) at all available stations in SSFB and was linearly interpolated for proﬁle regions that fell between the locations of the NOAA stations. No. 26. The r2 value for an autocorrelation lagged by 64 proﬁles (the average number of proﬁles in each region) was 0. the spatial patterns of the scores can suggest connections between morphology and external forcing. and (ii) for use in a larger temporal study (see Bearman.7 m above MLLW represented the mean maximum vertical datum surveyed by these previous studies. Of the original 800 proﬁles. and (iv) between 1. indicating that proﬁle shapes within a given region were reasonably independent of those in neighboring regions. 766 survived the normalization procedure. Physical Variables Potential fetch lengths for local wave generation were acquired from the GIS database by drawing 100 sets of 16 lines.344 Bearman et al. Proﬁles are bound at upper and lower limits (dotted lines) and regridded onto a unitless scale of 30 points. For proﬁles within the 2004–2005 data set for which bathymetric data did not extend all the way to 1. Any proﬁle with an upper edge of original bathymetric data less than 1. and the mean fetch length for each set was calculated. When compared with variation in other physical factors. A standardized upper limit of 1. Figure 3. 2010 . The ﬁrst set of boundaries represents what is classically considered to be a tidal ﬂat.5 m below MLLW.7 m was also tested (i) to examine the sensitivity of the choice of the upper limit. The normalization procedure involved replotting the horizontal extent of each proﬁle onto a series of 30 unitless horizontal points and then performing a spline interpolation that ﬁt a piecewise polynomial function to the vertical data (Figure 3). or modes of variability. For the most part. 2004). In the few cases where the pattern of cumulative scores reversed directions midregion. and Spivack. we examined four sets of vertical bounds: (i) between mean high water (MHW) and mean lower low water (MLLW). spaced evenly around the shoreline of SSFB. In the case of this EOF analysis. Geological Survey (USGS) personnel using a small van Veen grab sampler. In evaluating the morphologic character of the proﬁle lines. Inman.7 m above and 0. To help ensure that the boundaries of the regions were rigorous in the face of the analysis. 2008). Empirical orthogonal function analysis allows for large quantities of data to be compressed into a few dominant modes without compromising the most signiﬁcant variability within the data. also known as empirical Journal of Coastal Research. 1930s.27. 2. EOF analysis has been used in the examination of morphologic variability of beach proﬁles (Aubrey. and the boundaries were found to be justiﬁable. the region boundaries were redeﬁned to produce a more morphologically distinct geographic section.5 intervals around a compass rose. they are uncorrelated and can be examined individually. The sediments were analyzed for bulk density as well as the Folk and Ward mean grain size. Reeve. a lagged autocorrelation was run on the scores of all 766 proﬁles. the proﬁles within a given geographic section showed a consistent pattern of morphologic score.and postnormalization forms. 2008) that applied eigenfunction analysis to SSFB bathymetric data sets collected in the 1890s. Surface sediment data was collected at various locations in SSFB in the fall of 2004 and summer of 2005 by U. using for region boundaries such features as tributary mouths and steep intertidal zones wherein no tidal ﬂat was evident (see Figure 2). Because the components of variability identiﬁed through EOF analysis are orthogonal. was normalized to the same number of horizontal points. Vol. sequenced in order of position around the perimeter of SSFB. and Winant. orthogonal function (EOF) analysis. estuaries (Karunarathna. The 766 proﬁles were broken up into 12 distinct geographic sections. 1975). (ii) between MHW and 0.5 m below MLLW. with each set of lines beginning at 0 and progressing by 22. It is necessary for EOF analysis that all proﬁles have an equal number of data points.7 m or MHW. and 1. Example of the normalization process. Inman. 1950s. As a check on the independence of the eigenfunction scores between regions.7 m above and 1 m below MLLW. Fetch lengths for each of the 16 lines were logged for all 100 sets. and Nordstrom. Of great use in spatial analysis is the pattern of scores that pertain to the individual eigenfunctions. among other environments. Eigenfunction Analysis To identify the principal components of variation. the proﬁle set was ﬁrst de-meaned so that the dominant eigenfunction would identify variability among proﬁles rather than simply the shape of the mean proﬁle. the proﬁles were extrapolated upward to the desired higher boundary. (iii) between 1. we plotted the individual regions against a running cumulative sum of the eigenfunction scores. and 1980s. Two sets of boundaries below MLLW were also extracted to examine the sensitivity of including the near subtidal areas. 1980. Winant.
26. each with slightly different upper and lower tidal ﬂat boundaries. In the interest of capturing as full a picture of the proﬁle as possible. Journal of Coastal Research. (b) regionally averaged scores of ﬁrst eigenfunction for ﬂats bounded by MHW on upper edge and 0. (a) Dominant mode of morphologic variability determined through EOF analysis of all four boundary scenarios analyzed together.5 m on lower edge. Figure 5.5-m data whether the data set is considered alone or is considered together with the other sets of bathymetry.Spatial Trends in Tidal Flat Shape in South San Francisco Bay 345 Figure 4. As can be seen from comparing parts a and b of Figures 4 and 5.5 m on lower edge. while convexity increases (and the scores become more positive) if area is added to the upper ﬂat. the rest of this paper highlights results using the tidal ﬂat extent from MHW to 0.7 m and 1 m below MLLW is the most negative (most concave). By comparing proﬁle elevations from the 1980s and 2004–2005. 2010 . limiting the analysis to a single set of bathymetric endpoints does increase the percent of variance explained by the dominant mode of variability. 2958 bathymetric proﬁles in all. elevations for these same proﬁles were also gathered for the 1980s. Vol. it was found through this analysis that the proﬁles vary most intensely in terms of their degree of concavity or convexity. (2004) historical data set as part of our broader analysis. we were able to estimate deposition and erosion preceding the 2004–2005 survey. While the primary pattern—that of concavity or convexity in the outer or inner estuary ﬂats— remains the same in all scenarios. The analysis using the boundaries of MHW to MLLW shows the highest scores (greatest convexity). Figures 4b and 5b display the primary eigenfunction and regionally averaged mode 1 scores when the MHW to 0. (a) Regionally averaged scores of ﬁrst eigenfunction for each boundary scenario when all four boundary scenarios are analyzed together. Although the 2004–2005 bathymetric data set is the focus of this paper. while the analysis of the ﬂats bounded by 1. However.5-m data set is analyzed alone rather than being combined with all four sets of bathymetry. Concavity increases (and the scores be- come more negative) if the lower limit of the ﬂat is extended. the values of the scores in each situation varies. No. 2. represented by a negative or positive ﬁrst eigenfunction (Figure 4a). there is very little difference in the shape of the dominant mode or the associated scores for the MHW to 0.5 m below MLLW water. 1930s. while simultaneously not straying too far from the classic deﬁnition of an ‘‘intertidal’’ ﬂat. Figure 5a shows the primary mode of variation (ﬁrst eigenfunction)—referred to here as morphologic score—regionally averaged for each of the four boundary scenarios. RESULTS Comparison of Boundaries Eigenfunction analysis was performed on four sets of normalized bathymetric data. For all four data sets. and 1890s by applying ARCMAP to the larger Foxgrover et al. (b) dominant mode of variability determined through EOF analysis of ﬂats bounded by MHW on upper edge and 0. 1950s.
Vol. as were the fetch. There was also a strongly positive relationship (r2 0. Spatial trend in the scores for the dominant eigenfunction. the positive response is a strongly convex-upward proﬁle. primary mode of variability (i. and tide height data. erosion or deposition). To examine the relation between physical factors and patterns of morphologic variation. high water. in accretionary regions.60) was found to exist between mean wave fetch length (used as a proxy for local wave energy) and morphologic mode score. while the negative response is a strongly concave-upward proﬁle. it is evident that the switch from negative to positive and then back again is located near the ‘‘pinch’’ that occurs at the Dumbarton Bridge in the inner SSFB. proﬁles tended to be convex upward. A comparison of each physical factor and average ﬁrst-mode eigenfunction scores can be seen in Figures 8a–8e and Table 1. Mean morphologies of SSFB tidal ﬂat cross-shore proﬁles. No. (a) Elevation change between 1983 and 2004/5. 2. mean shape of all positively weighted (convex-upward) proﬁles.346 Bearman et al. and mean shape of all negatively weighted (concave-upward) proﬁles. modeled Journal of Coastal Research..e. elevation change. fetch (observed circles.e. Figure 7. ﬁrst eigenfunction). Figure 6.5-m case) are shown in Figure 7. areas with greater fetch are characterized by concave-upward proﬁles.. (d) ﬂat proﬁle width. areas with higher tidal range are characterized by convex-upward proﬁles. proﬁles between the two solid vertical lines are inner-estuary ﬂats. 26. A negative relationship (r2 0. and stars). (b) elevation of mean high water. we averaged the scores across the regions displayed in Figure 2. Referring back to the location maps (Figures 1 and 2). (f) multiple regression using elevation change. All the ﬁrst-mode scores for the 766 individual proﬁles (for the MHW to 0. In regions where erosion and elevation loss was documented. There is a trend of negative scores—concave-upward morphology—in both the northwestern and northeastern portions of SSFB. Figure 6 shows the response of the mean tidal ﬂat shape to positive and negative forcing of the primary mode of variability. Comparison of regionally averaged ﬁrst eigenfunction scores [signifying convexity or concavity (circles)] to physical forcings (stars). Less strong were the negative relationships between mor- Figure 8.71) between tide height (MHW) and morphologic mode value.’’ Eigenfunction and Regression Results The eigenfunction analysis showed there to be a clearly dominant.85) was found for changes in elevation preceding the 2005 bathymetric survey (i. 2010 . (e) mean sediment grain size. Dotted vertical lines represent region borders. the ﬁrst mode explained 90% of the entire variability and is indicative of a switch between convex and concave upward morphology. As is clearly shown by Figure 6. proﬁles tended to be concave upward. (c) average fetch length. The strongest relationship between the spatial trend in the ﬁrst-mode score and the potential forcing variables (r2 0.5-m data set alone. Positive or negative score indicates convexity or concavity. sediment size. while the proﬁles toward the southeastern end of the bay exhibit strongly positive—convex-upward—scores. with the proﬁles increasing in number counterclockwise from the northwestern to northeastern shore of SSFB. southeast of the Dumbarton ‘‘pinch. Pictured here are the overall mean proﬁle shape. When considering the MHW to 0.
high tide height. While the traditional deﬁnition of a tidal ﬂat extends from low to high water (or less. 2.85 0. 1998. respectively (e. the resultant morphology showed greater convexity or concavity. Similarly. 2000). 2002. Extending the lower ﬂat boundary slightly allowed for a greater range of morphologic information to be gleaned from the digitized bathymetry and presents a more complete picture of the morphologic behavior present therein. 26. decreased sediment grain size. A net r2 value of 0. As more of the upper or lower ﬂat was added to the analysis. increased tidal range.0542 0. In the case of the bathymetric information presented here. which was not available for all twelve regions). respectively.33 0. over 90% of bathymetric variability was explained by the ﬁrst eigenfunction. The results of the ﬁnal multiple regression are presented in Table 1 and Figure 8f. absolute t-values less than 1) were removed one at a time.0521 3. sediment grain size on tidal ﬂats is primarily a function of Journal of Coastal Research. the relationships seen here between greater tidal height and wave fetch. The strong consistency between morphologic scores and recent elevation change seen in SSFB is supported by frequent mentions in the literature of the connection between erosion or deposition and concave.12 N/A* N/A 0. Any components with best-ﬁt slope magnitudes less than their associated standard errors (i. Although limited by an incomplete set of sediment data. in order of decreasing signiﬁcance: recent deposition or erosion. a multiple linear regression was performed including all of the factors at once (except for sediment size. depending on elevation of neighboring marsh). Analysis of the various tidal ﬂat boundary scenarios considered here also provided physically sensible results..28 0. After the individual regressions were run on each of the ﬁve physical factors separately.39). No. 2010 .g. because the grain sizes are unknown for these regions. with the least signiﬁcant slope removed ﬁrst. Kirby.or convex-upward ﬂat proﬁles. the large and well-organized data set allowed Figure 9.71 0. Convex Convex Concave Concave Concave 0. In the end. and decreased tidal ﬂat width (Figure 9). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The use of EOF analysis allows for objective investigation into the major modes of variability found within large bathymetric data sets.0818 0. Eigenfunction analysis revealed a dominant mode of morphologic variability related to the degree of convexity or concavity in the cross-shore proﬁle. and fetch length.75 2.. who also found convexity to increase with the amount of ﬂat present above the mean tidal level (MTL). because the gradients of the ﬂat extremities are less than that of the middle ﬂat. and convexity and concavity generally fall within the present theoretical (Friedrichs and Aubrey. for a systematic morphologic assessment of SSFB tidal ﬂats that was rigorous and thorough. the relationship between this forcing and morphology is not represented here for the entire South Bay. three components remained in the multiple regression as follows. Dyer.18 2. Available results from the literature for tidal ﬂats likewise support this trend (Woo and Je..0001 0.. These ﬁndings are consistent with Kirby (2000).89 was obtained from this multiple regression.0062 0. Waeles.e. 2006) understanding of tidal ﬂat morphodynamics. Fan et al. For tidal ﬂats extending from high water to 0. Results of individual and multiple regression analyses. Le Hir et al. Sediment grain size data was unavailable for the two innermost regions of SSFB (regions 7 and 8). Vol.67 5.79 4.0007 0. sediment remaining on eroding shorelines tends to be coarser than that found on accreting shorelines.6 0.Spatial Trends in Tidal Flat Shape in South San Francisco Bay 347 Table 1. Tidal ﬂat convexity within the 2004– 2005 SSFB data set was observed to increase (in decreasing order of signiﬁcance) with increased deposition. we believe the morphodynamic activity of the uppermost subtidal zone to be an important component of the SSFB tidal ﬂat system. 2008). Le Hir.99 2. and Jacinto.. 1998. In the long-term. and the modeled scores are qualitatively similar to the observed results. t Value from r2 from Single Regression Singular Regression p Value from Single Regression t Value from Multiple Regression p Value from Multiple Regression Forcing Response Recent deposition Increased high tide height Increased mean fetch length Increased proﬁle width Increased sediment diameter * N/A not applicable.39 7. the positive relationship found in SSFB between mean grain size and proﬁle convexity was also consistent with expectations. decreased fetch length. Yang et al. Conceptual diagram summarizing response of tidal ﬂat proﬁle shape in SSFB to a variety of forcings.5 m below low water. 2000. 1996. the r2 value of 0.0001 0.39 representing only the regions with known grain size information.33) and between score and mean sediment size (r2 0. It is widely recognized that in mixed-grain size environments.0668 N/A N/A phologic mode score and ﬂat width (r2 0.68 1.. 2004) and observational (Allen et al.
In: Conomos.J.J.R.L. additionally. M.T. K. Inman. 150. Long-term morphodynamic evolution of estuaries: an inverse problem. T. and Whitehouse (2000) both suggest that adding waves to tidally dominated ﬂats reduces their width while increasing concavity at equilibrium. Geological Survey Open-File Report 1192. 1287 32p. Vol. Le Hir. J. Florida: Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department.C. 2006..L.E. Master’s thesis. 49. 20. Siliclastic tidal ﬂats. D. A. K. San Francisco Bay: The Urbanized Estuary. 139. Geological Survey. Sediment ﬂux and bed level measurements from a macro tidal mudﬂat. Continental Shelf Research. The effect of different hydrodynamic conditions on the morphodynamics of a tidal mudﬂat in the Dutch Wadden Sea. pp. California: 1858 to 2005. Dyer.. J. Continental Shelf Research.L.. Aubrey. 667–688. exposed to larger waves. The negative correlation found here between tidal ﬂat width and EOF score appears to support the conclusions of Pethick (1996) in particular. Gloucester Point. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank Dr. and Wright. B. Guo. Washington. S. 2000.. 2005. Lee.C. Geological Survey Open-File Report. Sedimentation in the San Francisco Bay system. A.. R. Edwards. The statistical prediction of beach changes in southern California.348 Bearman et al. D.E. Osterthun. 1998. 11. 123(4). Jaffe. Currie.B. (ed. U. Factors Controlling Tidal Flat Morphology in South San Francisco Bay from the 1890’s to the Present.. Problems in characterizing dynamics of mud shore proﬁles.. 20.. The effect of tide range on beach morphodynamics and morphology: a conceptual beach model. 1039– 1060. and Bacher. In the case of SSFB. it is probably more prudent to conclude that the convergence of all three factors acting together is most likely responsible. J. This is contribution no.. T. O. followed by tidal range and wave fetch. B. 25p. 2006a. and Mehta. S. 2004. waves. Wang. 2000. Fan. 1996. 20(12). tides. 85. D. Dyer.. Journal of Coastal Research. Kirby. Le Hir. the fundamental controls on tidal ﬂat width are still relatively unclear. and Foxgrover. 2000.). Geomorphology and Sedimentology of Estuaries: Amsterdam. Cross-shore variations in morphodynamic processes of an open-coast mudﬂat in the Changjiang Delta. Conomos. A. observations of Masselink and Short (1993) and Pethick (1996) suggest the opposite—that larger waves require a wider ﬂat at equilibrium over which to dissipate their energy. U. W. and Aubrey. 3264–3276. C. Characterization of intertidal ﬂat hydrodynamics. the concave ﬂats northeast of the Dumbarton Bridge are simultaneously bypassed by sediment. Coastal and Shelf Science. 2979 from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. R. Dieckmann. and Shi. 1999. 1061–1077. P. M. 2010 .C. Statistics suggest that sediment supply is the most signiﬁcant distinguishing factor. 1998. M. Longstaffe. 1979. 351–361.. Support for this work was provided by Contract Number 06WRSA0285 from the U. and Duffy. 9.. Y. 785–800.J.C. 85–96.E. In contrast. M. J. the innermost areas are the most protected from wind waves due to the limited fetch. C..R. 26. In: Pattiaratchi. The classiﬁcation of intertidal mudﬂats. Geological Survey Open-File Report 1262.). Properties and circulation of San Francisco Bay waters. Bassoullet. and subjected to smaller tides. SW Britain: the role of wind and tide. pp. R.J. R. Whalen.. (ed. K. Geological Society London Special Publications. San Francisco: Paciﬁc Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. 405–429. however. G. Bearman.C. M. S. Sediment Deposition and Erosion in South San Francisco Bay. Amos. Continental Shelf Research. Continental Shelf Research.. Karunarathna. 1993.J.B. 57p. Cazaillet.S.C.S. 2. C. LITERATURE CITED Allen. 2006b. Gainesville.. and Foxgrover.. unpublished Doctoral thesis. Christie. In: Perillo. Funding for this project at the USGS originated primarily from the California State Coastal Conservancy. The area of SSFB with the most convex proﬁles—the region southeast of the Dumbarton bridge pinch—is subject to a notable conﬂuence of multiple positive forcings. B. H. and Partenscky. E.. D. D.C. However. D.J.C. China: with an emphasis on storm impacts.. San Francisco: Paciﬁc Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. David Evans (VIMS) for his assistance with EOF analysis.. M.... M. the ultimate effects of individual external and internal variables (deposition and erosion. 47–84.C.R.. 517–538. UFL/ COEL-TR/106. 273– 306. Roberts. 151– 166. Foxgrover. tidal ﬂat width is also limited by geographic conditions—the narrowing of the entire estuary toward the far southeast end simply does not allow for extremely wide tidal ﬂats. Uniform bottom shear stress and equilibrium hypsometry of intertidal ﬂats. and Short.. California from 1956 to 2005. Masselink. Janssen-Stelder.). Ingraca.).. Estuarine. College of William and Mary. Marine Geology.. Friedrichs. Deposition.J. T.S. grain size) on the shape of tidal ﬂat proﬁles in SSFB cannot be deﬁnitively separated.L.. Reeve.W. 1995). Jaffe. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering.. 26.. A. 2007. 24p.. pp. B. Mediumterm sedimentation on high intertidal mudﬂats and salt marshes in the Severn Estuary. P. 385–395... H. A. 1995.G. Elsevier Developments in Sedimentology. J. No. Erosion. and they are also subject to the largest tide range due to funneling and reﬂection of tidal energy.A..E.G. A History of Intertidal Flat Area in South San Francisco Bay. Continental Shelf Research. Practical implications of tidal ﬂat shape. 1987. Christie. 2000. Idealized modeling by Friedrichs and Aubrey (1996) and by Roberts. Dyer. U. 2008. Jaffe.R. 18.: American Geophysical Union.K. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Krone. In: Conomos. South San Francisco Bay 2004 Topographic Lidar Survey: Data Overview and Preliminary Quality Assessment. Conversely.M. F. 1995.W.A. San Francisco Bay: The Urbanized Estuary. and Jaffe.B. 1461–1478. Christie. (ed.L... Davis..E. 1980. B.E. 77.S. pp. Progress in Oceanography.Z.. However. Sediment motion in SSFB is southward overall. Lee. B. and Smith. G.. and Winant..D. 1979. P. Mixing Processes in Estuaries and Coastal Seas. University of Florida. Cousens. 1433–1459. Foxgrover. Inﬂuence of water-level elevation and tidal range on the sedimentation in a German tidal ﬂat area. and Bathymetric Change in South San Francisco Bay: 1858–1983. Pethick (1996) further noted that narrow ﬂats sheltered from waves tend to occur at higher elevation with respect to MTL. and Spivack.. hydrodynamic energy and sediment supply (Amos. Geological Survey Open-File Report 1284. C... Virginia: School of Marine Science. Journal of Geophysical Research... (ed. C. with lower overall energy and greater supply favoring ﬁner sediment.. 101p. Despite the ease with which EOFs and multiple regressions can be implemented. with additional support from the USGS Priority Ecosystem Science Program.. eventually converging in this region. Higgins. Journal of Coastal Research. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Science..S. W... Response of Mud Shore Proﬁles to Waves. 20.. P.. and Turner. 1997. 214p. K.. U. A. The typology of intertidal mudﬂats.. 1–27..
R. Wright. 2003. M. Spatial and temporal variations in sediment grain size in tidal wetlands. and van der Lee. Ltd. 657–671... Vol.L.J. W.. http://tidesandcurrents.. 3313–3328. and Ding. Bouma.. Winant. and Healy. 2002. 2000. A.. L. 185– 211.A. and Suisun Bays. Investigation using simple mathematical models of the effect of tidal currents and waves on the proﬁle shape of intertidal mudﬂats. Lionberger. P. R. California. L. 88p. Li. 1079–1097. D. and Zhao..H. C.X. Morphological modeling of intertidal mudﬂats: the role of cross-shore tidal currents. and Kobayashi.T.. Yang. and Roberts. U.X. W. 1479–1493.. Jaffe. Li. Journal of Waterway. 108. 1980.. No. Ocean and Polar Research. pp. 12. P. 2008. Roberts. 101. 336. 26. M. Hogg. 331–343.. Shi. 1979–1986. San Pablo. Schoellhamer..K.E. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. N. and Ocean Engineering. 22.J. Inman. 19–60. ﬂats and channels of the outer Yangtze River mouth to a major storm. and Hogg. D. Ysebaert. Van Rijn. J. F.G. Li..G. Morphological response of tidal marshes.J. Wang.K. T.. S.H. Journal of Geophysical Research. 58–63. Factors affecting suspended-solids concentrations in south San Francisco Bay. C. Description of seasonal beach changes using empirical eigenfunctions. N. and Roman. K.. C. pp. Zhu. and Shellenbarger.. and Nordstrom. San Francisco Bay. Muddy Coasts of the World: Processes. Journal of Hydrology. South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project: Hydrodynamics and Sediment Dynamics Existing Conditions. CA.J.S. A.. 77. 335–352.087–12. Journal of Geophysical Research. H. 323.. Mehta. Continental Shelf Research. 91. Sedimentary Geology. Ridderinkhof. Porterﬁeld. Waeles.. 119. In: Healy.095. 2006. Z.Spatial Trends in Tidal Flat Shape in South San Francisco Bay 349 McKee. H. UK: John Wiley. pp. R... P. Phil Williams and Associates (PWA). Pritchard. Sediment transport of streams tributary to San Francisco. R...J.. 1909–1966. and Je. J.)... 64–80.A. Port. Tidal-ﬂat sedimentation at Cooley Landing. and Schoellhamer. D. Ding. Ganju. Y. 20. Journal of Coastal Research. 1416–1425. 26... 1996. Pethick. G. Cross-shore sediment transport and the equilibrium morphology of mudﬂats under tidal currents.. 1998..gov/ (accessed February 2008).). 251–288.. Schoellhamer... C. B.Y. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations. In: Nordstrom. Oceans. A. 2008. 1025–1033. Woo.. southwest San Francisco Bay.. Continental Shelf Research. Journal of Geophysical Research. Pestrong. S. N. van der Ham.. Coastal. T. Chichester.. Continental Shelf Research. H. Environment and Human Health. 130.. California. Le Hir.L. Annual variations of tide level and mudﬂat proﬁle. 24. 2002. Yang. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA).F. D. Yamada.Y. and Whitehouse. 2005. C. Yangtze Delta: on the role of physical and biotic controls. 2. 2002. 2004. P. NOAA Tides and Currents.J.. Friedrichs. Estimates of suspended sediment entering San Francisco Bay from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta. Ganju. 8. 2004. Bay Sediment Budgets: Sediment Accounting 101. Coastal and Shelf Science.S.. P. Wang.L. (eds. and Silva Jacinto.. 80. W. 2010 . 2003. Amsterdam: Aqua Publications.X.S. Le Hir.. Oakland. 715p. Estuarine. (eds.. Comptes Rendus Geosciences. Temporal variations in concentration and transport of suspended sediments in a channel–ﬂat system in the Ems-Dollard estuary. Cross-shore morphodynamical modeling of an intertidal mudﬂat. California: San Francisco Estuary Institute. G.. 1972. D. 2005. 2000. (1975). Principles of Coastal Morphology. Pritchard. Y. T.J.T. Deposits and Function. Mudshore dynamics and controls...C. J. B..D.noaa.H. Changes of sedimentary environments in the southern tidal ﬂat of Kanghwa Island. W.. Zhang.A. The geomorphology of mudﬂats. Q. Estuarine Shores: Evolution. The Pulse of the Estuary.E. J. 1996. Estuaries. S.. D. 20. 1887–1895.
download. However. users may print. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. .Copyright of Journal of Coastal Research is the property of Allen Press Publishing Services Inc. or email articles for individual use.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.