The Pennsylvania State University College of Earth and Mineral Sciences Department of Geosciences

Comparison of Modern Anthropogenic and Natural Beach Scallops in Ocean City, Maryland A Senior Thesis in Earth Sciences by Timothy J. Didlake

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Earth Sciences Bachelor of Science December, 2006 We approve this thesis:

________________________________________ Laura A. Guertin, Assistant Professor of Earth Science Penn State Delaware County Campus

________________________________________ David M. Bice, Professor of Geosciences Associate Head of the Undergraduate Program

_______________ Date

_______________ Date

Comparison of Modern Anthropogenic and Natural Beach Scallops in Ocean City, Maryland Timothy J. Didlake ABSTRACT: Scalloped beaches can result from natural coastal variation as well as from anthropogenic construction. This study examines grain-size distributions and beach elevation profiles for two morphologically similar beach sites in Ocean City, Maryland: the northern site at 9th Street, where a visible, anthropogenic groin has created a scalloped beach, and the southern site near 1st Street, where a groin is not visible yet a scalloped beach occurs. For both sites, beach elevation profiles were recorded at distances of ten, twenty-five and fifty feet from both the north and south sides of the groin/scallop headlands. Sediment samples were collected along the 10and 50-foot profiles from above the high-tide mark, at the high-tide/intertidal boundary, along the intertidal zone and at the intertidal/low-tide boundary.

By

comparing trends in grain-size distribution and beach elevation between these two sites, this research compares beach scallops resulting from artificial construction and from natural variation. Because not all groins have been marked on maps or are currently exposed, the possibility that the 1st Street scallops result from a buried groin instead of natural variation must also be considered. Findings have identified similarities and differences between these two scalloped beaches. Profile data indicated that the 9th Street beach has a slightly greater slope than 1st Street. Additionally, the profiles corresponding to similar locations between both sites appeared of the same general shape: concave-up ten feet

south, concave-down ten feet north and roughly linear farther north and south from the groin/scallop headlands. Regarding grain-size distribution, nearly all samples from 1st Street were finer than their 9th Street counterparts.

At both locations,

samples recovered at the high-tide/intertidal boundary were finer than samples taken closer to the ocean, and nearly all samples from above the high-tide mark had similar grain-size distribution curves, regardless of the location recovered.

Although

analyses have uncovered indicators suggesting that a buried groin is responsible for the scallop at 1st Street, further research is needed to confirm or refute its presence.

Table of Contents Abstract............................................................................................................................... i Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. iii Introduction........................................................................................................................1 Background ........................................................................................................................3 Ocean City, Maryland Natural Scalloped Beaches Anthropogenic Scalloped Beaches from Groins Methods.............................................................................................................................13 Beach Elevation Profiles Grain-Size Distributions Results ...............................................................................................................................16 Beach Elevation Profiles Grain-Size Distributions Discussion..........................................................................................................................19 Beach Elevation Profiles Grain-Size Distributions Summary of Findings Conclusions.......................................................................................................................30 Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................32 References.........................................................................................................................33 Appendix A .......................................................................................................................35 Appendix B .......................................................................................................................68

1

INTRODUCTION: Beach scallops, also known as beach cusps, refer to the geomorphologic pattern along depositional coastal shorelines where the beach-face curves outward towards the ocean and then cuts back toward the land. When viewed from above, a scalloped beach appears sinusoidal in shape with headlands sticking out into the ocean and embayments allowing the ocean to creep closer to the backshore (Fig. 1). Scalloped beaches result from a variety of both natural and anthropogenic forces. Although much debate remains as to their exact origins, minor variations in wave refraction from differences in coastal morphology, unique sediment transportation patterns and human constructions are a few examples of forces known to create scalloped beaches (Ciriano et al., 2005; Uchiyama, K., 2003; Komar, 1998, pp. 530532). In Ocean City, Maryland, beach scallops are visible along much of the coastline. In some cases, these scallops are obviously produced by the anthropogenic construction of groins, designed to stabilize the beach. In other cases, the causes for these scallops are less obvious. This study examines grain-size distributions and beach elevation profiles for two morphologically similar beach sites in Ocean City, Maryland: the northern site at 9th Street, where a visible, anthropogenic groin has created a scalloped beach, and the southern site near 1st Street, where a groin is not visible yet a scalloped beach occurs. Ideally, any differences found in grain-size distributions and beach elevation profiles between these two locations will differentiate the morphological differences between a natural and a groin-produced beach scallop. However, one must note that not all groins are currently exposed or have been indicated on maps. Proof of this can be

2

Shoreline

~50-100 meters

Ocean

Land

Embayment

H

Embayment

Figure 1: Diagram of a general beach scallop.

3

found with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map for Ocean City, Maryland (Fig. 2).

Several groins which are not visible today have been

indicated on the map, and a few known groins—including the one at 9th Street—are absent from the map. So, the possibility that the 1st Street scallops result from a buried groin instead of natural variation must also be considered. BACKGROUND: Ocean City, Maryland: Ocean City, Maryland is a beach community located on Fenwick Island along the Atlantic Coast of North America. From the Delaware Stateline to the Ocean City Inlet, the town of Ocean City extends for about eleven miles along the Atlantic Coast. Ocean City, Maryland is a popular tourist destination during the summer season; the town’s population blossoms from around 8,000 residents in winter to nearly 300,000 people on peak weekends of summer (Town of Ocean City Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 1). Fenwick Island and the next island to the south, Assateague Island, were once part of the same barrier island. However, in 1933, a powerful storm washed-over the island and literally cut it into two pieces. Because long-shore transportation—which moves net sediment from the north to the south in this area—would have eventually resealed the breach, a decision was made to build jetties along the edges of the rupture. By reducing the energy of incoming waves, the jetties dammed sediment, which was being transported by long-shore currents, ahead of the breach. Along with periodic dredging, this has successfully created a shipping inlet which allows ships to

4

Ocean City, Maryland

(Map courtesy of www.50states.com/maps/maryland.gif)

Groins

9th Street Groin

1st Street Scallop

Figure 2: Part of the United States Geologic Survey topographic map from 1998 for the Ocean City Quadrangle. Both areas of study are indicated.

5

avoid a lengthy trip around the island (Town of Ocean City Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 7). However, the reduction in wave energy and the interruption of long-shore transport caused massive sediment deposition north of the jetty which, in turn, caused the southern tip of Ocean City to accrete towards the ocean. By contrast, the lack of sediment arriving to Assateague Island caused its northern tip to recede towards the mainland. In fact, it is estimated that the northern end of Assateague Island has retreated nearly half a kilometer toward the mainland, while the shoreline north of the inlet has advanced 240 meters seaward (Ritter et al., 2002, p. 488). The USGS topographic map for this area (Fig. 2) and a photograph of Ocean City Maryland (Fig. 3), from Komar (1998, p. 382), illustrate this observation. Over the last several decades, Ocean City has installed a series of groins along the shoreline to combat beach erosion. (The properties of groins will be discussed in forthcoming sections.) Although the exact length of these groins is not available, personal observations and estimates from the groins seen in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 suggest that they are likely less than fifty meters in length. Considering that 240 meters of sediment has been deposited at the southern tip of Fenwick Island from the Ocean City Jetty, it stands to reason that some of these groins could have become buried from view. Assuming that buried groins are capable of producing beach scallops too, the possibility that apparently natural beach scallops—such as at 1st Street—result from buried groins must also be considered.

6

Assateague Island

Inlet

Fenwick Island; Ocean City, MD

Figure 3: Photograph of the Ocean City, Maryland region, looking south from Ocean City. The photograph illustrates the shoreline changes caused by the Ocean City Jetty. The white line estimates the pre-inlet shoreline. Two groins are also visible near the lower-left corner of the picture. (Photograph from Komar, 1998, p. 382)

7

Natural Scalloped Beaches: Naturally scalloped beaches refer to coastlines that when viewed from above appear sinusoidal in shape; extensions of sediment stick-out into the ocean at consistent intervals along the shoreline (Fig. 1). There are many different terms used to describe this feature; the more common ones include beach cusps, sand waves, shoreline rhythms and, as used in this report, beach scallops (Komar, 1998, pp. 456460). Morphologically, natural beach scallops are generally symmetrical with respect to the scallop headlands. The headlands of natural beach scallops are often referred to as ridges as they extend upward and have steep slopes in every direction except toward land. Away from the headlands, natural beach scallops have gentler slopes which taper-off near the embayments (Komar, 1998, pp. 458-460). Most studies have found that the exact morphologies of natural beach scallops are a function of beach slope, tidal range and sediment size (Komar, 1998, p. 460). In addition, the wavelength, amplitude and height of natural beach scallops affect the grain-size distributions and beach elevation profiles (Nolan, 1999). According to Komar (1998), natural beach scallops also sort sediment by moving the larger grainsizes to the ridges of the scallop headlands and by moving the finer sediment to the embayments.

However, Nolan (1999) found that on sandy beaches, no sorting

differences are evident between headlands and embayments. The processes responsible for the formation of natural beach scallops remain the subject of considerable debate. In fact, many of the observations and ideas about the origins of natural beach scallops directly contradict the observations and ideas

8

proposed by others (Komar, 1998, p. 458). One possible process results from wave energy being reflected off of the shoreline, and then modifying the energy levels of subsequent incoming waves. This reflection of wave energy creates edge-waves in which certain areas of the next incoming wave get enhanced with additional energy, while other locations get dampened and lose wave energy. The places along the shoreline which are impacted by the enhanced wave energy are subjected to erosion, and locations which are hit with less wave energy are subjected to deposition (Ciriano et al., 2005; Short, 1999, pp. 138-144). This theory requires beaches to be reflective and have slopes greater than six degrees (Ritter et al., 2002, p. 457) Another possible cause for natural beach scallops comes from the selforganization hypothesis. This hypothesis suggests that wave energy is modified by preexisting beach morphologies. These land-induced modifications to wave energy then create positive feedback loops which enhance the preexisting beach morphologies to create larger and more pronounced beach scallops. In turn, the larger beach scallops create larger wave energy modifications, which help to further alter the beach morphology.

Eventually, equilibrium is established between the

incoming wave energy and the beach shape which limits scallops to a maximum size (Short, 1999, pp. 138-144; Coco, 2001). An example of this can be seen when small preexisting scallop headlands funnel wave energy along the coast and into the embayments. From here, the wave energy is reflected back toward the ocean, where it creates rip-currents which moves sediment into the deep ocean. With time, this process will strengthen to make the small preexisting beach scallops larger and more pronounced (Komar, 1998, pp. 456-470).

9

Lastly, a more recent hypothesis suggests that highly oblique wave impacts onto the shoreline can alter sediment transportation patterns resulting in the formation of natural beach scallops (Ashton et al., 2001). Although this theory contradicts what has traditionally been assumed to be true—that beach scallops only form when waves strike the shoreline perpendicularly—Ashton demonstrates how the understanding of natural beach scallop formation is far from certain. Despite key differences between these theories, all agree that places with decreased wave energy experience sediment deposition, while places with increased wave energy experience beach erosion. The lack of known geomorphologic patterns found at natural beach scallops is certainly a weakness to the overall understanding of coastal geomorphology. By comparing the morphologies from natural and artificial beach scallops, this study attempts to obtain a better understanding of the geomorphic patterns associated with natural beach scallops. However, before conducting this comparison, research into the affects of artificially produced scallops from groin construction must be considered. Anthropogenic Scalloped Beaches from Groins: As noted earlier, a type of beach scallop can also form from human beach modifications. One of the most common anthropogenic forces capable of creating these beach scallops are groins.

Groins are built from many different types of

materials including wood, riprap, rubber and sand-filled bags (Poff et al., 2004; Komar, 1998, pp. 530-532; Aminti et al., 2004). There are many different types of groins including those that are permeable, linear, T-shaped, and submerged (Poff et al., 2004; Komar, 1998, pp. 530-532; Hanson et al., 2004; Sultan, N, 2002). A typical

10

groin is similar to those found in Ocean City, Maryland. These groins are composed of large boulders which extend perpendicularly to the coastline. They are anchored to the beach and extend anywhere from ten to two-hundred meters into the ocean (Komar, 1998, pp. 530-532).

As mentioned earlier, the groins in Ocean City,

Maryland are estimated to be less than fifty meters in length. The function of groins is to trap sediment to stabilize the beach from erosion. Much like miniature jetties, groins interfere with long-shore transport and cause sediment to be deposited on the up-current side. Down-current from a groin, longshore transportation erodes the beach because there is insufficient sediment coming from ahead of the groin (Komar, 1998, pp. 530-532). Indeed, beach scallops from groins are not symmetric with respect to the scallop headlands. The sediment collected up-current from a groin creates a steep intertidal zone. Above the intertidal zone, the beach slope reduces to that of the backshore (Komar, 1998, pp. 530-532). Interestingly, the maximum extension of the sediment deposited from a groin usually does not occur directly on the up-current side of the groin. Instead, the maximum extension of sediment occurs a few meters ahead of the groin (Fig. 4). A likely cause for this effect results from wave energy that impacts the groin being redirected back toward the ocean. This causes a rip-current to form directly adjacent to the up-current side of the groin and prevents sediment from being deposited here (Ping W. and Kraus N. C., 1999). With time, long-shore transport will eventually fill a groin by moving the coastline ahead of a groin toward the ocean; this process stops when sediment reaches the groin’s tip (Fig. 5). If the groin is constructed below the height that sediment will

11

Shoreline

Net Direction of Longshore Transport

Groin

Embayment

Land

Embayment

Groin

Figure 4: Beach morphologies commonly observed with groins.

Ocean

Groin

12

Shoreline

Net Direction of Longshore Transport

Groin

Groin

Ocean

Land

Embayment

Embayment

Groin

Figure 5: Beach morphologies commonly observed with groins which have become filled with sediment. The groins become buried and are no longer visible.

13

fill, the groin will be slowly buried and will disappear from view (Komar, 1998, pp. 530-532). METHODS: To compare a groin-produced and natural beach scallop, two locations with similar morphologies were selected for study. The beach at 9th Street, where a visible anthropogenic groin has created a scalloped beach, was selected to demonstrate the affects of a groin on the beach. The beach at Dorchester Street—which is located just south of 1st Street—was also selected because a scallop occurs here, yet a groin is not visible. To ensure a better geographical understanding of Ocean City Maryland, this study will refer to the Dorchester Street site simply as 1st Street. Two forms of analysis were used to compare these two locations: beach elevation profiles and sediment grain-size distributions. Beach Elevation Profiles: The beach elevation profiles were conducted at distances of ten, twenty-five and fifty feet from both the north and south sides of the groin/scallop headlands. Fig. 6 demonstrates these locations and the nomenclature patterns. Each beach elevation profile began at the intertidal/high-tide boundary and extended perpendicularly to the shoreline to a point slightly below the intertidal/low-tide boundary. To measure the beach elevation profiles, two people holding measuring sticks perpendicular to the surface of the beach stood facing one another. The measurement sticks used were roughly two meters in length with unit markings for inches increasing from zero in both directions from the center of each stick. Next, a string of exactly three feet in length with a line-level attached to the center was strung between

14

Figure 6: Map indicating the locations and nomenclatures for the beach elevation profiles and the sand-grain samples.

15

the two sticks. The person closer to the high-tide line held their end of the string at the zero marking on their measuring stick, and the person closer to the ocean adjusted the height of their end of the string so that the line-level would indicate that the string was straight. The distance that the string had to be moved in order for the line to be level was then recorded. This procedure was repeated for the next three foot section of the profile. In all, twelve elevation profiles were collected. Grain-Size Distributions: To conduct the grain-size distribution analysis, a series of samples were recovered from different locations on the beach. Samples were collected along the ten- and fifty-foot profiles from above the high-tide mark, at the high-tide/intertidal boundary, along the intertidal zone and at the intertidal/low-tide boundary. Fig. 6 demonstrates these locations and the naming patterns. All of the samples collected came from depths of about five to ten centimeters below the beach surface. After the samples were taken to the lab, they were dried, weighed, examined under a microscope and sorted into the different phi class sizes. Using a RO-Tap sieve machine, all thirty-two samples were sorted into seven phi classes ranging from ≤-1 to >4. After sorting the samples, each phi class for all of the samples was weighed and the grain-size distribution data were tabulated. To best understand the data collected, a series of calculations and graphs were generated. The calculations computed the percent loss, mean size, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis of the sediment samples. The graphs compared the beach elevation profiles and grain-size distributions between the different locations. All of these data have been compiled in Appendix A and Appendix B.

16

RESULTS: Beach Elevation Profiles: Analysis of the beach elevation profile data unearthed a noticeable pattern: the shape of the beach elevation profiles were similar at corresponding distances from the groin/scallop headlands. For example, profiles ten feet to the north of both the groin and scallop headlands were shaped concave-down. Conversely, profiles ten feet to the south of the groin and scallop headlands were shaped concave-up. And, profiles farther away—twenty-five feet and fifty feet—from both the groin and scallop headlands were roughly linear in shape (Fig. 7 and Fig. 8). Another noticeable pattern discovered with the beach elevation profiles regarded the steepness of the intertidal zones. Nearly all of the profiles from 9th Street indicated that the intertidal zone was steeper here than at 1st Street. In addition, the intertidal zone at 1st Street appeared slightly wider than at 9th Street (Fig. 7 and Fig 8). Grain-Size Distributions: There were three general patterns observed in the grain-size distribution data. First, nearly all of the samples recovered from within the intertidal zone at 1st Street were finer than the samples recovered from corresponding locations at 9th Street. Second, virtually all samples taken from higher on the beach—near the hightide/intertidal boundary—were finer than those samples taken from lower on the beach. Indeed, the samples from the low-tide/intertidal boundary recovered from both 1st Street and 9th Street were generally the coarsest. Finally, nearly all samples

17

80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

50

40

30

20

10

Height above Ocean (in)

Comparison of Beach Profiles from 25 feet South of Groin or Suspected Groin

70

0

60

50

Distance from Ocean (ft) A Profile

40

30

B Profile

G Profile

H Profile

Comparison of Beach Profiles from 50 feet South of Groin or Suspected Groin 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 60

20

Distance from Ocean (ft)

50

40

30

20

Distance from Ocean (ft) C Profile

I Profile

10

0

Height above Ocean (in)

60

Comparison of Beach Profiles from 10 feet South of Groin or Suspected Groin

10

0

Height above Ocean (in)

Figure 7: Comparison of beach elevation profile data from south of the groin/scallop headlands. The 9th Street profiles are steeper than the 1st Street profiles. Beach profiles closer to the groin/scallop headland are more-or-less shaped concave-up. With increasing distance from the groin/scallop headlands, the beaches are more linearly shaped.

18

Comparison of Beach Profiles from 25 feet North of Groin or Suspected Groin

70.0

70.0

60.0 50.0

60.0 50.0

40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 70

60

50

40

30

20

10

40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 60

0

50

30

20

Distance from Ocean (ft)

Distance from Ocean (ft) D Profile

40

E Profile

J Profile

K Profile

Comparison of Beach Profiles from 50 feet North of Groin or Suspected Groin 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 60

50

40

30

20

Distance from Ocean (ft)

F Profile

L Profile

10

0

Height above Ocean (in)

80

Height above Ocean (in)

Comparison of Beach Profiles from 10 feet North of Groin or Suspected Groin

10

0

Height above Ocean (in)

Figure 8: Comparison of beach elevation profile data from north of the groin/scallop headlands. The 9th Street profiles are steeper than the 1st Street profiles. Beach profiles closer to the groin/scallop headland are more-or-less shaped concave-down. With increasing distance from the groin/scallop headlands, the profiles are more linearly shaped.

19

from above the intertidal zone had similar grain-size distribution curves regardless of where they were found (Fig. 9, Fig. 10, Fig. 11 and Fig. 12). DISCUSSION: Beach Elevation Profiles: The beach elevation patterns found at 9th Street are consistent with known beach morphologies from groins.

As noted in the Background section, the

interruption of long-shore transport causes sediment to be deposited up-current from a groin. This explains why the beach elevation profile from ten feet up-current of the groin was shaped concave-down (Fig. 8); sediment was being deposited here. Downcurrent from the groin, a lack of sediment arriving from up-current was causing longshore transport to erode the beach. As a result, the beach appeared to be shaped concave-up (Fig. 7). Lastly, as the distance, both up- and down-current, from the groin increased, the beach developed a more linear shape (Fig. 7 and Fig. 8). This likely resulted from the depositional and erosional affects of the groin becoming less consequential as distance from the groin increased. The beach elevation profiles from 1st Street generally mimicked those patterns from 9th Street. Up-current from the scallop, the beach face shape was concave-down (Fig. 8); down-current from the scallop, the beach face appeared concave-up (Fig. 7); and, farther from the scallop, the beach face appeared roughly linear (Fig. 7 and Fig. 8). As stated in the Background section, this pattern does not resemble a typical shoreline resulting from natural beach scallops. The elevation profiles from opposite sides of the scallop headlands lacked the typical symmetry found with natural beach scallops. Because this pattern looks so similar to patterns found at beach scallops

20

Figure 9: Comparison of sand grain distribution along the A and G profiles--10 feet south of the groin or scallop headlands. X axes indicate phi class; y axes indicate the percent recovered. Most samples from 1st Street recovered at the high-tide/intertidal line, midway along the intertidal zone and near the intertidal/low-tide line were finer than their corresponding counterparts from 9th Street. Nearly all samples from both locations taken above the hightide line had similar grain-size distributions. Samples from the intertidal/low-tide line were coarser than anywhere else along most respective profiles.

Midway Along Intertidal Zone

High-Tide/Intertidal Line 80%

80%

A1 G1

60%

60%

40%

40%

20%

20%

0%

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Pan

Intertidal/Low-Tide Line

80%

0%

40%

20%

20% -1

0

1

2

3

4

0

1

2

3

4

Pan

0%

Pan

Above High-Tide Line A4 G4

60%

40%

0%

-1

80%

A3 G3

60%

A2 G2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Pan

21

Figure 10: Comparison of sand grain distribution along the C and I profiles--50 feet south of the groin or scallop headlands. X axes indicate phi class; y axes indicate the percent recovered. Most samples from 1st Street recovered at the high-tide/intertidal line, midway along the intertidal zone and near the intertidal/low-tide line were finer than their corresponding counterparts from 9th Street. Nearly all samples from both locations taken above the high-tide line had similar grain-size distributions. Samples from the intertidal/low-tide line were coarser than anywhere else along most respective profiles.

Midway Along Intertidal Zone

High-Tide/Intertidal Line 80%

80%

C1 I1

60%

60%

40%

40%

20%

20%

0%

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Pan

Intertidal/Low-Tide Line

80%

0%

40%

20%

20% -1

0

1

2

3

4

0

1

2

3

4

Pan

0%

Pan

Above High-Tide Line C4 I4

60%

40%

0%

-1

80%

C3 I3

60%

C2 I2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Pan

22

Figure 11: Comparison of sand grain distribution along the D and J profiles--10 feet north of the groin or scallop headlands. X axes indicate phi class; y axes indicate the percent recovered. Most samples from 1st Street recovered at the high-tide/intertidal line, midway along the intertidal zone and near the intertidal/low-tide line were finer than their corresponding counterparts from 9th Street. Nearly all samples from both locations taken above the high-tide line had similar grain-size distributions. Samples from the intertidal/low-tide line were coarser than anywhere else along most respective profiles.

Midway Along Intertidal Zone

High-Tide/Intertidal Line 80%

80%

D1 J1

60%

60%

40%

40%

20%

20%

0%

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Pan

Intertidal/Low-Tide Line

80%

0%

40%

20%

20% -1

0

1

2

3

4

0

1

2

3

4

Pan

0%

Pan

Above High-Tide Line D4 J4

60%

40%

0%

-1

80%

D3 J3

60%

D2 J2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Pan

23

Figure 12: Comparison of sand grain distribution along the F and L profiles--50 feet north of the groin or scallop headlands. X axes indicate phi class; y axes indicate the percent recovered. Most samples from 1st Street recovered at the high-tide/intertidal line, midway along the intertidal zone and near the intertidal/low-tide line were finer than their corresponding counterparts from 9th Street. Nearly all samples from both locations taken above the high-tide line had similar grain-size distributions. Samples from the intertidal/low-tide line were coarser than anywhere else along most respective profiles.

Midway Along Intertidal Zone

High-Tide/Intertidal Line 80%

80%

F1 L1

60%

60%

40%

40%

20%

20%

0%

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Pan

Intertidal/Low-Tide Line

80%

0%

40%

20%

20% -1

0

1

2

3

4

0

1

2

3

4

Pan

0%

Pan

Above High-Tide Line F4 L4

60%

40%

0%

-1

80%

F3 L3

60%

F2 L2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Pan

24

formed from groins, it can be argued that the scallop at 1st Street results from a groin buried from view and is not the result of natural beach scallop formation processes. Lastly, the beach elevation profiles illustrated that the intertidal zone of 9th Street had a steeper slope than that of 1st Street (Fig. 7 and Fig. 8). This observation likely results from the geomorphologic principle that beach-face slope is directly proportional to sediment size. More specifically, this means that beach-faces with coarser grained sediment usually have steeper slopes than beach-faces with finer grained sediment and vice versa (Ritter et al., 2002, p. 453).

The grain-size

distribution analysis found that 9th Street did indeed have coarser grained sediment than 1st Street (Fig. 9 and Fig 10). So, according to this principle, the intertidal zone at 9th Street should have been steeper than that at 1st Street. Grain-Size Distributions: Why does the 9th Street beach-face have coarser sediment than the 1st Street beach-face (Fig. 9 and Fig. 10)? Two possible explanations exist for this pattern: 1.) different processes operating between the groin-produced and natural beach scallop are causing a local grain-size variation, or 2.) these two locations differ because there is an outside force affecting grain-size distributions along the entire southern end of Fenwick Island.

A lack of scholarship into sediment sorting and grain-size

distribution patterns from both groins and beach scallops hampers the testing of the former hypothesis. The Ocean City Jetty might be a strong enough outside force to create the observed grain-size variation. El-Asmar and White (2002) noted that finer sediment appeared up-current from the jetties, built in Egypt on the Mediterranean Sea.

25

Likewise, French and Livesey (2002) observed a similar pattern up-current from a jetty near Morecambe, England. French and Livesey attributed the aforementioned pattern to a reduction in incoming wave energy caused by the jetty refracting and prematurely breaking incoming waves. As a result of the reduced wave energy, coarser sediment could not be entrained by the incoming waves, so only finer sediment was deposited immediately up-current from the jetty. In Ocean City, Maryland, a similar phenomenon is likely causing the sediment at 1st Street to be finer than the sediment at 9th Street. Because 1st Street is nearer to the Ocean City Jetty, it can be assumed that waves impacting the beach-face here have less energy than waves impacting the beach-face farther from the jetty (Fig. 2). This causes the sediment at 1st Street to be finer than the sediment at 9th Street. Farther up-current from the jetty, 9th Street likely does not receive the weaker waves, so sediment is not finer here. Wave energy differences can also explain why at both 1st Street and at 9th Street the coarsest sediment was found nearer to the ocean, while the finest sediment was located higher on the beach (Fig. 9 and Fig. 10). As discussed above, more energetic ocean waves are required to move coarser sediment. Along a shoreline not affected by any outside forces, the location with the most intense wave energy is where waves break, near the low-tide line. So, one would expect that the coarsest sediment would be found near the low-tide line. Komar (1998, p. 56) notes that sediment grain-size gradually decreases both up the beach and toward the deeper ocean from the low-tide line because incoming wave energy decreases in these two

26

directions. This explains why finer sediment was found higher on the beach at both 1st Street and at 9th Street. Lastly, the grain-size distribution analysis revealed that most samples recovered from above the intertidal zone had similar grain-size distributions regardless of which site they were recovered from (Fig. 9 and Fig. 10).

This

observation is likely attributed to processes other than coastal wave action because the ocean obviously does not extend past the high-tide line, at least during non-storm events. Instead, the uniform sediment distribution patterns can likely be attributed to two human processes: beach plowing and artificial beach nourishment. The town of Ocean City uses trucks and all-terrain vehicles to occasionally plow the beach above the intertidal zone. This process removes human footprints, loosens compacted sand and gives the beach a more “natural” appearance. Fig. 13 shows the tire tracks left from one of the trucks witnessed plowing the beach near 1st Street. The process of beach plowing likely reworks the sediment and erases any natural sorting patterns formed by coastal and eolian processes. Another human force to affect the beach of Ocean City, Maryland above the intertidal zone is artificial beach nourishment.

Ocean City’s beach nourishment

projects involve collecting sand from off-shore bars and strategically depositing it in dunes and berms. This process helps to protect the community from storm surge during bad weather events (Maryland Geological Survey). However, because the sediment used in beach nourishment projects did not arrive to the beach naturally, few inferences can be drawn about coastal wave sorting processes from grain-sizes above the intertidal zone.

27

Figure 13: Photograph of tire tracks left in the sand from beach plowing. This photograph was taken from above the intertidal zone at 1st Street and looks toward the south. The Municipal Pier is the large object visible in the background. (Photograph taken by T. Didlake on June 8, 2006)

28

Summary of Findings: This research has found that the general beach morphologies of both 9th Street and 1st Street are similar; however, several key variations in grain-size distributions and beach elevation profiles show that they are not identical (Fig. 14). Both locations are similar in that beach elevation profiles from corresponding distances from the groin/scallop headlands have similar shapes: concave-up just south, concave-down just north and roughly linear farther from the groin/scallop headlands.

This

observation is consistent with known beach morphological patterns resulting from groin-produced beach scallops and suggests that the 1st Street scallops may be caused by a buried groin instead of natural processes. Regarding grain-size distributions, both locations are similar in that the finest sediment was generally found higher on the beach, while the coarsest sediment was found near the low-tide line. This pattern can be attributed to waves having their maximum energy at the low-tide line, so they are able to carry the largest sediment here. Lastly, the sediment samples taken from above the high-tide line all had similar grain-size distribution curves regardless of the location found. This observation likely results from human processes, such as beach plowing and beach nourishment, reworking the sediment above the intertidal zone. Because of this, all data from above the high-tide/intertidal boundary does not reflect natural processes. 1st Street and 9th Street differed from each other in two ways. First, the beach elevation profiles found that the intertidal zone at 9th Street had a slightly steeper slope than at 1st Street. In addition, nearly all of the sediment samples recovered from 1st Street were finer than the corresponding samples from 9th Street. These two

29

Differences found between 1st and 9th Street

Similarities found between 1st and 9th Street

Observation

Similar grain-size distribution curves above the intertidal zone

Is this observation related to similarities/differences between natural and artificial beach scallops? Probably Not

At both sites, coarser sediment was found nearer to the ocean, while finer sediment was found higher on the beach

Probably Not

Similar beach elevation profiles found at corresponding distances from the groin/scallop headland

Likely Yes

The 9th Street beach elevation profile was steeper than that from 1st Street

Probably Not

Most 1st Street sediment samples were finer than those from 9th Street

Probably Not

Reason

Beach plowing and artificial beach nourishment alter natural beach sediment patterns. Wave energy decreases up the beach-face from the low-tide line. Wave energy and sediment size are proportional. Only groin produced beach scallops have been documented creating the observed patterns. Beach-face slope is proportional to sediment size. Incoming wave energy is decreased at 1st Street from the Ocean City Jetty.

Figure 14: Summary of observations and their causes found during this research.

30

closely related observations can likely be attributed to the Ocean City Jetty affecting incoming wave energies, and not to possible local differences between groinproduced and natural beach scallops. The proximity of this jetty to the studied locations may overwhelm many possible significant differences found between the two beach scallops. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the information collected, the beach scallop examined at 1st Street likely results from a buried groin and not from natural forces. The primary evidence supporting this claim is the asymmetrical shape of the 1st Street scallop, found when comparing the beach elevation profiles on either side of the headlands.

Unlike

scallops caused by groins, natural beach scallops typically appear symmetrical with respect to the scallop headlands. Considering that the shape of the beach elevation profiles from 1st Street was similar to those from the groin produced scallop at 9th Street, it is likely that the scallop at 1st Street is the result of a buried groin. However, only limited results have been found to support this assertion. Many of the similarities and differences between the two locations revealed through this study can be attributed to outside forces such as the Ocean City Jetty, natural wave sorting processes and anthropogenic beach modifications.

As a result,

uncertainty remains as to the presence of a buried groin at 1st Street. Attempts have been made to locate historical aerial photography and satellite imagery to learn if a groin was once visible near 1st Street. However, none of the images located so far indicate that a groin was once visible here. This lack of imagery does not necessarily prove that a groin was never constructed at 1st Street.

31

Instead, a groin may once have been visible, but imagery documenting its presence has yet to be uncovered.

It is likely that the only tool capable of definitively

determining if a groin is buried near 1st Street is ground penetrating radar. Current scholarship regarding the formation and usual geomorphologies of beach scallops remains a rather hazy aspect of coastal geomorphology. This research has attempted to isolate a few characteristics of a natural and an artificial beach scallop in Ocean City, Maryland. Although outside forces including beach nourishment projects, beach plowing, the Ocean City Jetty and the possibility of a groin being buried near the 1st Street site have presented serious challenges, this research has successfully uncovered similarities and differences existing between these two locations, and it has concluded that the 1st Street scallop likely results from a buried groin instead of from natural forces. It is with great hope that these findings will one day be used to develop a clearer understanding of both natural and humanproduced beach scallops.

32

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Many thanks go to Dr. Laura Guertin from Penn State Delaware County for helping me to plan, execute and complete this project. Without her assistance, this project could never have been possible. Most notably, Dr. Guertin pushed me to submit an abstract of this research to the Sigma Gamma Epsilon student research poster session at the Geological Society of America annual conference in Philadelphia. Without her encouragement, I doubt I would have even considered doing this. Thanks also need to be extended to the Penn State Delaware County campus for providing the monetary funding and the laboratory equipment needed to conduct this project. I am also indebted to the Department of Geosciences at Penn State University Park for providing me with support for this research. Lastly, I must thank Dr. David Bice for reading and editing the various drafts of this paper.

33

REFERENCES: Aminti, P., C. Cammelli, L. Cappietti, N. Jackson, K. Nordstrom, E. Pranzini, 2004. Evaluation of beach response to submerged groin construction at Marina di Ronchi, Italy, using field data and numerical simulation model. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 33, pp. 99-120. Ashton, A. A. B. Murray, O. Arnault, 2004. Formation of coastline features by large-scale instabilities induced by high-angle waves. Nature, Vol. 414, Is. 6861, 15 November 2001, pp. 296-300. Ciriano, Y., G. Coco, K. R. Bryan, S. Elgar, 2005. Field observations of swash zone infragravity motions and beach cusp evolution. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol.110, No. C2, 08 Feb 2005, p. 10. Coco G., D. A. Huntley, T. J. O’Hare, 2001. Regularity and randomness in the formation of beach cusps. Marine Geology, Vol.178, No.1-4, 15 Aug 2001, pp. 1-9. El-Asmar, H. M. and K. White, 2002. Changes in coastal sediment transport processes due to construction of New Damietta Harbour, Nile Delta, Egypt. Coastal Engineering. Vol. 46, Iss. 2, July 2002, pp. 127-138. French, P. W. and J. S. Livesey, 2000. The impacts of fish-tail groynes on sediment deposition at Morecambe, north-west England. Journal of Coastal Research, Vol.16, No.3, pp.724-734. Hanson, H., 2004. Advancements in one-line modeling of T-head groins: (Genesis-T). Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 33, pp. 315-323. Komar, P. D., 1998. Beach Processes and Sedimentation: Second Edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., pp. 56, 379-382, 456-470 and 530-532. Maryland Geological Survey. Coastal & Estuarine Geology: The Need for Sand in Ocean City, MD (Page 3 and Page 4). Accessed on 30 May 2006, from . Nolan, T. J, R. M. Kirk, J. Shulmeister, 1999. Beach cusp morphology on sand and mixed sand and gravel beaches, South Island, New Zealand. Marine Geology. Vol. 157, Is. 3-4, May 1999, pp. 185-198.

34

Ping W. and N. C. Kraus, 1999. Longshore sediment transport rate measured by short-term impoundment. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering. Vol. 125, Is. 3, pp. 118-126. Poff M. T., M. F. Steven, R. G. Dean, S. Mulcahy, 2004. Permeable wood groins: Case study on their impact on the coastal system. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 33, pp. 131-144. Ritter, D. F., R. C. Kochel, J. R. Miller, 2002. Process Geomorphology. Fourth Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, pp. 453 and 457. Short, A. D., 1999. Handbook of Beach and Shoreface Morphodynamics. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Inc, pp. 138-144. Sultan, N., 2002. Monitoring results for a shoreline stabilization project Willapa Bay, Washington. Solutions to Coastal Disasters ’02. Conference Proceedings. Feb. 24-27, 2002, pp. 708-719. Town of Ocean City - Comprehensive Plan. Accessed on 7 June 2006, from . Chapter 1 and 7. Uchiyama, K., 2003. The grain size composition of the beach sediment in Jogehama, Ogata coast; the correlation between the beach cusp characteristics and the grain size composition. Disaster Prevention Research Institute Annuals, Vol. 46, B, pp. 637-649. United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1998. Ocean City Maryland QuadrangleWorcester County. 7.5 minute series topographic map.

35

APPENDIX A: Statistical grain-size distribution data for each sediment sample.

36

Grain-Size Distributions: Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected:

A1 10 feet South of 9th Street Groin in Ocean City, Maryland At Berm Crest Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 10:45am Weight of Beaker (g) 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 31.4 31.4

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 33.70 47.20 425.50 569.50 50.90 31.40 31.40

Weight of Sand (g) 0.20 13.70 392.00 536.00 17.40 0.00 0.00

Cumulative Weight (g) 0.20 13.90 405.90 941.90 959.30 959.30 959.30

Weight Percent 0.021% 1.428% 40.863% 55.874% 1.814% 0.000% 0.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.021% 1.449% 42.312% 98.186% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

Totals

XXX

XXX

959.30

959.30

100.000%

100.000%

Beaker Weight (g):

33.5

Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

1009.4

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

975.9

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

16.6 1.701% 2.080 0.56 -0.27 2.46

37

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals Beaker Weight (g):

A2 10 feet South of 9th Street Groin in Ocean City, Maryland Midway Along Profile Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 10:45am Weight of Beaker (g) 0.0 31.4 33.5 33.5 31.4 31.4 31.4 XXX 33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

1042.3

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

1008.8

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss:

1.4 0.139%

Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

2.147 0.54 -0.03 2.85

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 0.00 33.70 411.30 635.30 56.40 31.40 31.90 XXX

Weight of Sand (g) 0.00 2.30 377.80 601.80 25.00 0.00 0.50 1007.40

Cumulative Weight (g) 0.00 2.30 380.10 981.90 1006.90 1006.90 1007.40 1007.40

Weight Percent 0.000% 0.228% 37.502% 59.738% 2.482% 0.000% 0.050% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.000% 0.228% 37.731% 97.469% 99.950% 99.950% 100.000% 100.000%

38

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals Beaker Weight (g):

A3 10 feet South of 9th Street Groin in Ocean City, Maryland In Ocean at Low Tide Line Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 10:45am Weight of Beaker (g) 31.4 31.4 33.5 33.5 31.4 31.4 0.0 XXX 33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

1125.5

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

1092.0

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss:

3.9 0.357%

Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

1.736 0.54 0.63 4.16

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 33.00 70.20 798.70 299.60 47.80 31.40 0.00 XXX

Weight of Sand (g) 1.60 38.80 765.20 266.10 16.40 0.00 0.00 1088.10

Cumulative Weight (g) 1.60 40.40 805.60 1071.70 1088.10 1088.10 1088.10 1088.10

Weight Percent 0.147% 3.566% 70.324% 24.455% 1.507% 0.000% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.147% 3.713% 74.037% 98.493% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

39

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals Beaker Weight (g):

A4 10 feet South of 9th Street Groin in Ocean City, Maryland Above Intertidal Zone Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 10:45am Weight of Beaker (g) 31.4 31.4 33.5 33.5 31.4 31.4 31.4 XXX 33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

1011.4

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

977.9

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

3.2 0.327% 2.076 0.56 -0.15 2.50

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 31.50 44.60 441.90 565.30 52.30 31.70 31.40 XXX

Weight of Sand (g) 0.10 13.20 408.40 531.80 20.90 0.30 0.00 974.70

Cumulative Weight (g) 0.10 13.30 421.70 953.50 974.40 974.70 974.70 974.70

Weight Percent 0.010% 1.354% 41.900% 54.560% 2.144% 0.031% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.010% 1.365% 43.265% 97.825% 99.969% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

40

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals Beaker Weight (g):

C1 50 feet South of 9th Street Groin in Ocean City, Maryland At Berm Crest Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 10:45am Weight of Beaker (g) 31.4 31.4 33.5 33.5 33.5 31.4 31.4 XXX 33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

1275.0

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

1241.5

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 31.50 42.85 460.00 838.10 60.45 31.40 31.40 XXX

-28.1 -2.263% 2.167 0.53 -0.46 2.68

(Gain)

Weight of Sand (g) 0.10 11.45 426.50 804.60 26.95 0.00 0.00 1269.60

Cumulative Weight (g) 0.10 11.55 438.05 1242.65 1269.60 1269.60 1269.60 1269.60

Weight Percent 0.008% 0.902% 33.593% 63.374% 2.123% 0.000% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.008% 0.910% 34.503% 97.877% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

41

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals

C2 50 feet South of 9th Street Groin in Ocean City, Maryland Midway Along Profile Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 10:45am Weight of Beaker (g) 0.0 31.4 33.5 33.5 31.4 31.4 31.4 XXX

Beaker Weight (g):

33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

836.1

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

802.6

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

0.8 0.100% 1.994 0.63 0.06 2.84

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 0.00 60.10 411.50 399.20 60.60 31.50 31.50 XXX

Weight of Sand (g) 0.00 28.70 378.00 365.70 29.20 0.10 0.10 801.80

Cumulative Weight (g) 0.00 28.70 406.70 772.40 801.60 801.70 801.80 801.80

Weight Percent 0.000% 3.579% 47.144% 45.610% 3.642% 0.012% 0.012% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.000% 3.579% 50.723% 96.333% 99.975% 99.988% 100.000% 100.000%

42

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals

C3 50 feet South of 9th Street Groin in Ocean City, Maryland In Ocean at Low Tide Line Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 10:45am Weight of Beaker (g) 31.4 31.4 33.5 33.5 31.4 31.4 31.4 XXX

Beaker Weight (g):

33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

683.0

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

649.5

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

2.1 0.323% 2.052 0.69 -0.04 3.23

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 33.85 53.30 315.80 331.00 74.40 31.65 31.40 XXX

Weight of Sand (g) 2.45 21.90 282.30 297.50 43.00 0.25 0.00 647.40

Cumulative Weight (g) 2.45 24.35 306.65 604.15 647.15 647.40 647.40 647.40

Weight Percent 0.378% 3.383% 43.605% 45.953% 6.642% 0.039% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.378% 3.761% 47.366% 93.319% 99.961% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

43

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals

C4 50 feet South of 9th Street Groin in Ocean City, Maryland Above Intertidal Zone Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 10:45am Weight of Beaker (g) 31.4 31.4 33.5 33.5 31.4 31.4 31.4 XXX

Beaker Weight (g):

33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

877.6

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

844.1

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

3.0 0.361% 1.972 0.56 -0.07 2.36

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 31.75 48.30 452.40 428.80 41.00 31.40 31.40 XXX

Weight of Sand (g) 0.35 16.90 418.90 395.30 9.60 0.00 0.00 841.05

Cumulative Weight (g) 0.35 17.25 436.15 831.45 841.05 841.05 841.05 841.05

Weight Percent 0.042% 2.009% 49.807% 47.001% 1.141% 0.000% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.042% 2.051% 51.858% 98.859% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

44

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals Beaker Weight (g):

D1 10 feet North of 9th Street Groin in Ocean City, Maryland At Berm Crest Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 11:45am Weight of Beaker (g) 31.4 31.4 33.5 33.5 31.4 31.4 31.4 XXX 33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

1036.5

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

1003.0

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss:

1.6 0.155%

Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

1.868 0.49 0.49 1.55

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 31.40 34.80 660.65 403.25 32.55 31.40 31.40 XXX

Weight of Sand (g) 0.00 3.40 627.15 369.75 1.15 0.00 0.00 1001.45

Cumulative Weight (g) 0.00 3.40 630.55 1000.30 1001.45 1001.45 1001.45 1001.45

Weight Percent 0.000% 0.340% 62.624% 36.921% 0.115% 0.000% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.000% 0.340% 62.964% 99.885% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

45

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals

D2 10 feet North of 9th Street Groin in Ocean City, Maryland Midway Along Profile Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 11:15am Weight of Beaker (g) 31.4 31.4 33.5 33.5 31.4 31.4 31.4 XXX

Beaker Weight (g):

33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

917.5

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

884.0

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

2.3 0.260% 1.671 0.53 0.21 3.54

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 32.20 88.90 649.10 238.90 33.80 31.40 31.40 XXX

Weight of Sand (g) 0.80 57.50 615.60 205.40 2.40 0.00 0.00 881.70

Cumulative Weight (g) 0.80 58.30 673.90 879.30 881.70 881.70 881.70 881.70

Weight Percent 0.091% 6.521% 69.820% 23.296% 0.272% 0.000% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.091% 6.612% 76.432% 99.728% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

46

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals

D3 10 feet North of 9th Street Groin in Ocean City, Maryland In Ocean at Low Tide Line Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 11:15am Weight of Beaker (g) 31.4 31.4 33.5 33.5 31.4 31.4 31.4 XXX

Beaker Weight (g):

33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

914.7

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

881.2

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

1.9 0.210% 1.602 0.56 0.08 3.85

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 33.600 118.000 646.500 207.500 34.950 31.400 31.400 XXX

Weight of Sand (g) 2.20 86.60 613.00 174.00 3.55 0.00 0.00 879.35

Cumulative Weight (g) 2.20 88.80 701.80 875.80 879.35 879.35 879.35 879.35

Weight Percent 0.250% 9.848% 69.711% 19.787% 0.404% 0.000% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.250% 10.098% 79.809% 99.596% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

47

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals Beaker Weight (g):

D4 10 feet North of 9th Street Groin in Ocean City, Maryland Above Intertidal Zone Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 11:15am Weight of Beaker (g) 31.4 31.4 33.5 33.5 31.4 31.4 31.4 XXX 33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

1183.3

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

1149.8

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss:

3.1 0.270%

Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

2.234 0.53 -0.34 3.55

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 31.60 38.60 363.90 804.20 67.40 33.60 31.40 XXX

Weight of Sand (g) 0.20 7.20 330.40 770.70 36.00 2.20 0.00 1146.70

Cumulative Weight (g) 0.20 7.40 337.80 1108.50 1144.50 1146.70 1146.70 1146.70

Weight Percent 0.017% 0.628% 28.813% 67.210% 3.139% 0.192% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.017% 0.645% 29.458% 96.669% 99.808% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

48

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals

F1 50 feet North of 9th Street Groin in Ocean City, Maryland At Berm Crest Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 11:45am Weight of Beaker (g) 31.4 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 XXX

Beaker Weight (g):

33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

871.1

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

837.6

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

0.9 0.113% 2.015 0.55 -0.20 2.70

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 33.00 41.45 427.00 458.60 41.80 33.70 33.50 XXX

Weight of Sand (g) 1.60 7.95 393.50 425.10 8.30 0.20 0.00 836.65

Cumulative Weight (g) 1.60 9.55 403.05 828.15 836.45 836.65 836.65 836.65

Weight Percent 0.191% 0.950% 47.033% 50.810% 0.992% 0.024% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.191% 1.141% 48.174% 98.984% 99.976% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

49

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals Beaker Weight (g):

F2 50 feet North of 9th Street Groin in Ocean City, Maryland Midway Along Profile Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 11:45am Weight of Beaker (g) 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 XXX 33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

1289.4

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

1255.9

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 33.55 48.95 981.20 354.50 37.30 33.50 33.50 XXX

-32.1 -2.556% 1.743 0.46 0.91 3.10

(Gain)

Weight of Sand (g) 0.05 15.45 947.70 321.00 3.80 0.00 0.00 1288.00

Cumulative Weight (g) 0.05 15.50 963.20 1284.20 1288.00 1288.00 1288.00 1288.00

Weight Percent 0.004% 1.200% 73.579% 24.922% 0.295% 0.000% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.004% 1.203% 74.783% 99.705% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

50

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals

F3 50 feet North of 9th Street Groin in Ocean City, Maryland In Ocean at Low Tide Line Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 11:45am Weight of Beaker (g) 31.4 31.4 33.5 33.5 31.4 31.4 0.0 XXX

Beaker Weight (g):

33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

873.6

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

840.1

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

-0.3 -0.030% 1.371 0.54 -0.13 6.28

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 39.65 185.90 652.10 90.70 31.40 33.20 0.00 XXX

(Gain)

Weight of Sand (g) 8.25 154.50 618.60 57.20 0.00 1.80 0.00 840.35

Cumulative Weight (g) 8.25 162.75 781.35 838.55 838.55 840.35 840.35 840.35

Weight Percent 0.982% 18.385% 73.612% 6.807% 0.000% 0.214% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.982% 19.367% 92.979% 99.786% 99.786% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

51

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals Beaker Weight (g):

F4 50 feet North of 9th Street Groin in Ocean City, Maryland Above Intertidal Zone Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 11:45am Weight of Beaker (g) 31.4 31.4 33.5 33.5 31.4 31.4 33.5 XXX 33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

1039.8

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

1006.3

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss:

1.1 0.104%

Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

2.321 0.52 -0.18 4.19

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 31.40 34.35 263.50 753.10 80.70 34.80 33.50 XXX

Weight of Sand (g) 0.00 2.95 230.00 719.60 49.30 3.40 0.00 1005.25

Cumulative Weight (g) 0.00 2.95 232.95 952.55 1001.85 1005.25 1005.25 1005.25

Weight Percent 0.000% 0.293% 22.880% 71.584% 4.904% 0.338% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.000% 0.293% 23.173% 94.758% 99.662% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

52

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals

G1 10 feet South of 1st Street Area Scallop in Ocean City, Maryland At Berm Crest Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 1:30pm Weight of Beaker (g) 0.0 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.2 XXX

Beaker Weight (g):

33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

956.6

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

923.1

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

1.1 0.119% 2.490 0.39 -0.06 7.31

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 0.00 34.20 106.40 817.30 97.20 34.40 33.20 XXX

Weight of Sand (g) 0.00 0.70 72.90 783.80 63.70 0.90 0.00 922.00

Cumulative Weight (g) 0.00 0.70 73.60 857.40 921.10 922.00 922.00 922.00

Weight Percent 0.000% 0.076% 7.907% 85.011% 6.909% 0.098% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.000% 0.076% 7.983% 92.993% 99.902% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

53

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals

G2 10 feet South of 1st Street Area Scallop in Ocean City, Maryland Midway Along Profile Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 1:30pm Weight of Beaker (g) 0.0 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 31.4 33.5 XXX

Beaker Weight (g):

33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

892.9

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

859.4

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

0.4 0.047% 2.157 0.59 0.18 2.79

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 0.00 37.20 365.80 512.90 75.50 33.00 33.50 XXX

Weight of Sand (g) 0.00 3.70 332.30 479.40 42.00 1.60 0.00 859.00

Cumulative Weight (g) 0.00 3.70 336.00 815.40 857.40 859.00 859.00 859.00

Weight Percent 0.000% 0.431% 38.685% 55.809% 4.889% 0.186% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weigh Percent 0.000% 0.431% 39.115% 94.924% 99.814% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

54

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals

G3 10 feet South of 1st Street Area Scallop in Ocean City, Maryland In Ocean at Low Tide Line Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 1:30pm Weight of Beaker (g) 33.2 33.2 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.2 XXX

Beaker Weight (g):

33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

919.0

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

885.5

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

1.5 0.169% 1.978 0.75 -0.41 3.48

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 42.95 92.50 395.50 438.45 81.40 33.60 33.20 XXX

Weight of Sand (g) 9.75 59.30 362.00 404.95 47.90 0.10 0.00 884.00

Cumulative Weight (g) 9.75 69.05 431.05 836.00 883.90 884.00 884.00 884.00

Weight Percent 1.103% 6.708% 40.950% 45.809% 5.419% 0.011% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 1.103% 7.811% 48.761% 94.570% 99.989% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

55

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals

G4 10 feet South of 1st Street Area Scallop in Ocean City, Maryland Above Intertidal Zone Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 1:30pm Weight of Beaker (g) 33.2 33.2 33.5 33.5 33.2 33.2 33.2 XXX

Beaker Weight (g):

33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

880.4

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

846.9

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

1.3 0.154% 2.204 0.53 -0.27 2.64

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 33.20 35.65 305.30 579.00 58.80 33.45 33.20 XXX

Weight of Sand (g) 0.00 2.45 271.80 545.50 25.60 0.25 0.00 845.60

Cumulative Weight (g) 0.00 2.45 274.25 819.75 845.35 845.60 845.60 845.60

Weight Percent 0.000% 0.290% 32.143% 64.510% 3.027% 0.030% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.000% 0.290% 32.433% 96.943% 99.970% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

56

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals

I1 50 feet South of 1st Street Area Scallop in Ocean City, Maryland At Berm Crest Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 2:00pm Weight of Beaker (g) 0.0 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 XXX

Beaker Weight (g):

33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

816.6

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

783.1

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

1.4 0.172% 2.467 0.40 -0.18 6.97

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 0.00 33.90 108.10 691.85 80.80 34.60 33.50 XXX

Weight of Sand (g) 0.00 0.40 74.60 658.35 47.30 1.10 0.00 781.75

Cumulative Weight (g) 0.00 0.40 75.00 733.35 780.65 781.75 781.75 781.8

Weight Percent 0.000% 0.051% 9.543% 84.215% 6.051% 0.141% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.000% 0.051% 9.594% 93.809% 99.859% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

57

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals

I2 50 feet South of 1st Street Area Scallop in Ocean City, Maryland Midway Along Profile Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 2:00pm Weight of Beaker (g) 0.0 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 XXX

Beaker Weight (g):

33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

840.7

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

807.2

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

3.5 0.427% 2.415 0.45 -0.37 4.73

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 0.00 33.60 151.20 670.30 82.55 33.60 33.50 XXX

Weight of Sand (g) 0.00 0.10 117.70 636.80 49.05 0.10 0.00 803.75

Cumulative Weight (g) 0.00 0.10 117.80 754.60 803.65 803.75 803.75 803.75

Weight Percent 0.000% 0.012% 14.644% 79.229% 6.103% 0.012% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.000% 0.012% 14.656% 93.885% 99.988% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

58

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals

I3 50 feet South of 1st Street Area Scallop in Ocean City, Maryland In Ocean at Low Tide Line Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 2:00pm Weight of Beaker (g) 33.5 33.5 33.0 33.5 33.5 33.5 0.0 XXX

Beaker Weight (g):

33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

755.7

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

722.2

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

0.5 0.062% 1.799 0.62 0.20 3.52

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 35.80 72.30 470.70 260.05 49.90 33.50 0.00 XXX

Weight of Sand (g) 2.30 38.80 437.70 226.55 16.40 0.00 0.00 721.75

Cumulative Weight (g) 2.30 41.10 478.80 705.35 721.75 721.75 721.75 721.75

Weight Percent 0.319% 5.376% 60.644% 31.389% 2.272% 0.000% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.319% 5.694% 66.339% 97.728% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

59

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals

I4 50 feet South of 1st Street Area Scallop in Ocean City, Maryland Above Intertidal Zone Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 2:00pm Weight of Beaker (g) 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 XXX

Beaker Weight (g):

33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

675.6

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

642.1

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

0.7 0.109% 2.235 0.52 -0.42 3.03

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 33.60 36.10 219.30 465.20 54.60 33.60 33.50 XXX

Weight of Sand (g) 0.10 2.60 185.80 431.70 21.10 0.10 0.00 641.40

Cumulative Weight (g) 0.10 2.70 188.50 620.20 641.30 641.40 641.40 641.40

Weight Percent 0.016% 0.405% 28.968% 67.306% 3.290% 0.016% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.016% 0.421% 29.389% 96.695% 99.984% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

60

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals

J1 10 feet North of 1st Street Area Scallop in Ocean City, Maryland At Berm Crest Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 2:00pm Weight of Beaker (g) 0.0 33.2 33.5 33.5 33.2 33.2 33.2 XXX

Beaker Weight (g):

33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

563.2

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

529.7

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

-0.3 -0.057% 2.672 0.46 1.02 4.95

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 0.00 33.30 47.50 447.90 131.10 36.80 33.20 XXX

(Gain)

Weight of Sand (g) 0.00 0.10 14.00 414.40 97.90 3.60 0.00 530.00

Cumulative Weight (g) 0.00 0.10 14.10 428.50 526.40 530.00 530.00 530.00

Weight Percent 0.000% 0.019% 2.642% 78.189% 18.472% 0.679% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.000% 0.019% 2.660% 80.849% 99.321% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

61

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals

J2 10 feet North of 1st Street Area Scallop in Ocean City, Maryland Midway Along Profile Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 2:00pm Weight of Beaker (g) 0.0 33.2 33.2 33.5 33.5 33.2 33.2 XXX

Beaker Weight (g):

33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

503.1

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

469.6

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

0.5 0.096% 2.449 0.43 -0.28 5.41

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 0.00 33.40 89.20 414.00 65.80 33.35 33.20 XXX

Weight of Sand (g) 0.00 0.20 56.00 380.50 32.30 0.15 0.00 469.15

Cumulative Weight (g) 0.00 0.20 56.20 436.70 469.00 469.15 469.15 469.15

Weight Percent 0.000% 0.043% 11.936% 81.104% 6.885% 0.032% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.000% 0.043% 11.979% 93.083% 99.968% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

62

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals

J3 10 feet North of 1st Street Area Scallop in Ocean City, Maryland In Ocean at Low Tide Line Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 2:00pm Weight of Beaker (g) 33.2 33.2 33.5 33.5 33.2 33.2 33.2 XXX

Beaker Weight (g):

33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

783.5

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

750.0

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

0.1 0.013% 2.003 0.67 -0.20 3.90

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 39.75 50.45 386.90 371.60 67.50 33.50 33.20 XXX

Weight of Sand (g) 6.55 17.25 353.40 338.10 34.30 0.30 0.00 749.90

Cumulative Weight (g) 6.55 23.80 377.20 715.30 749.60 749.90 749.90 749.90

Weight Percent 0.873% 2.300% 47.126% 45.086% 4.574% 0.040% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.873% 3.174% 50.300% 95.386% 99.960% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

63

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals

J4 10 feet North of 1st Street Area Scallop in Ocean City, Maryland Above Intertidal Zone Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 2:00pm Weight of Beaker (g) 33.2 33.2 33.2 33.2 33.5 33.5 33.2 XXX

Beaker Weight (g):

33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

662.0

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

628.5

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

0.5 0.080% 2.230 0.52 -0.33 2.87

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 33.20 34.90 219.80 452.70 53.40 33.80 33.20 XXX

Weight of Sand (g) 0.00 1.70 186.60 419.50 19.90 0.30 0.00 628.00

Cumulative Weight (g) 0.00 1.70 188.30 607.80 627.70 628.00 628.00 628.00

Weight Percent 0.000% 0.271% 29.713% 66.799% 3.169% 0.048% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.000% 0.271% 29.984% 96.783% 99.952% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

64

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals

L1 50 feet North of 1st Street Area Scallop in Ocean City, Maryland At Berm Crest Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 2:30pm Weight of Beaker (g) 0.0 33.2 33.5 33.5 33.2 33.2 33.2 XXX

Beaker Weight (g):

33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

614.5

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

581.0

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

0.8 0.129% 2.534 0.40 0.39 7.12

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 0.00 33.50 68.80 523.30 87.00 34.25 33.20 XXX

Weight of Sand (g) 0.00 0.30 35.30 489.80 53.80 1.05 0.00 580.25

Cumulative Weight (g) 0.00 0.30 35.60 525.40 579.20 580.25 580.25 580.25

Weight Percent 0.000% 0.052% 6.084% 84.412% 9.272% 0.181% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.000% 0.052% 6.135% 90.547% 99.819% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

65

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals

L2 50 feet North of 1st Street Area Scallop in Ocean City, Maryland Midway Along Profile Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 2:30pm Weight of Beaker (g) 0.0 33.2 33.2 33.5 33.2 33.2 33.2 XXX

Beaker Weight (g):

33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

591.5

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

558.0

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

-0.3 -0.054% 2.530 0.38 0.28 6.84

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 0.00 33.30 65.70 509.80 82.60 33.20 33.20 XXX

(Gain)

Weight of Sand (g) 0.00 0.10 32.50 476.30 49.40 0.00 0.00 558.30

Cumulative Weight (g) 0.00 0.10 32.60 508.90 558.30 558.30 558.30 558.30

Weight Percent 0.000% 0.018% 5.821% 85.313% 8.848% 0.000% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.000% 0.018% 5.839% 91.152% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

66

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals

L3 50 feet North of 1st Street Area Scallop in Ocean City, Maryland In Ocean at Low Tide Line Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 2:30pm Weight of Beaker (g) 33.2 33.2 33.5 33.5 33.2 33.2 33.2 XXX

Beaker Weight (g):

33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

672.1

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

638.6

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

0.6 0.094% 1.781 0.63 0.43 3.84

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 34.60 70.20 433.70 213.60 52.30 33.30 33.30 XXX

Weight of Sand (g) 1.40 37.00 400.20 180.10 19.10 0.10 0.10 638.00

Cumulative Weight (g) 1.40 38.40 438.60 618.70 637.80 637.90 638.00 638.00

Weight Percent 0.219% 5.799% 62.727% 28.229% 2.994% 0.016% 0.016% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.219% 6.019% 68.746% 96.975% 99.969% 99.984% 100.000% 100.000%

67

Sample Name: Profile Location: Sample Location Along Profile: Date Collected: Screen Opening Size (phi) -1 0 1 2 3 4 Pan Totals

L4 50 feet North of 1st Street Area Scallop in Ocean City, Maryland Above Intertidal Zone Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 2:30pm Weight of Beaker (g) 0.0 33.2 33.5 33.5 33.2 33.2 33.2 XXX

Beaker Weight (g):

33.5

Total Weight of Sand and Beaker Before Sieving (g):

475.9

Total Weight of Sand Before Sieving (g):

442.4

Sand Lost (g): Percent Loss: Mean: Standard Deviation: Skewness: Kurtosis:

1.8 0.407% 2.190 0.53 -0.34 2.62

Weight of Beaker and Sand (g) 0.00 35.20 177.70 316.30 44.70 33.30 33.20 XXX

Weight of Sand (g) 0.00 2.00 144.20 282.80 11.50 0.10 0.00 440.60

Cumulative Weight (g) 0.00 2.00 146.20 429.00 440.50 440.60 440.60 440.60

Weight Percent 0.000% 0.454% 32.728% 64.185% 2.610% 0.023% 0.000% 100.000%

Cumulative Weight Percent 0.000% 0.454% 33.182% 97.367% 99.977% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

68

APPENDIX B: Statistical elevation data for each beach elevation profile.

69

Beach Elevation Profiles: A Profile Profile

Number

Distance from Ocean (ft) (Run)

Elevation Change (in)

Cumulative Height from Ocean (in) (Rise)

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Ocean

51 48 45 42 39 36 33 30 27 24 21 18 15 12 9 6 3 0

NA 9.4 6.1 6.5 5.0 6.6 6.0 4.6 3.5 4.2 3.2 3.9 3.0 3.0 2.4 2.6 2.0 0

NA 72.0 62.6 56.5 50.0 45.0 38.4 32.4 27.8 24.3 20.1 16.9 13.0 10.0 7.0 4.6 2.0 0.0

51 11.76%

Profile Length (ft): Average Slope: Profile Location: Date Collected:

10 feet South of 9th Street Groin in Ocean City, Maryland Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 10:45am

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 60

50

40

30 Distance from Ocean (ft)

20

10

0

Heig h t ab o ve O cean (in )

Beach Profile A

70

B Profile Profile

Number

Distance from Ocean (ft) Run

Elevation Change (in)

Cumulative Height From Ocean (in) Rise

B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Ocean

54 51 48 45 42 39 36 33 30 27 24 21 18 15 12 9 6 3 0

8.0 5.5 5.1 5.6 5.3 4.9 6.3 4.6 4.7 4.9 4.0 3.3 2.9 2.4 3.0 2.1 2.2 1.7

76.5 68.5 63.0 57.9 52.3 47.0 42.1 35.8 31.2 26.5 21.6 17.6 14.3 11.4 9.0 6.0 3.9 1.7 0

54 11.81%

Profile Length (ft): Average Slope: Profile Location: Date Collected:

25 feet South of 9th Street Groin in Ocean City, Maryland Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 10:45am

90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 60

50

40

30

20

Distance from Ocean (ft)

10

0

Height above Ocean (in)

Beach Profile B

71

C Profile Profile

Number

Distance from Ocean (ft) Run

Elevation Change (in)

Cumulative Height From Ocean (in) Rise

C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Ocean

54 51 48 45 42 39 36 33 30 27 24 21 18 15 12 9 6 3 0

9.5 5.6 5.0 3.7 5.9 4.2 5.6 4.5 5.3 4.1 4.4 3.2 4.0 2.3 5.2 2.0 1.4 2.0

77.9 68.4 62.8 57.8 54.1 48.2 44.0 38.4 33.9 28.6 24.5 20.1 16.9 12.9 10.6 5.4 3.4 2.0 0.0

54 12.02%

Profile Length (ft): Average Slope: Profile Location: Date Collected:

50 feet South of 9th Street Groin in Ocean City, Maryland Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 10:45am

90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 60

50

40

30

20

Distance from Ocean (ft)

10

0

Height Above Ocean (in)

Beach Profile C

72

D Profile Profile

Number

Distance from Ocean (ft) Run

Elevation Change (in)

Cumulative Height From Ocean (in) Rise

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ocean

69 66 63 60 57 54 51 48 45 42 39 36 33 30 27 24 21 18 15 12 9 6 3 0

4.5 1.0 0.8 -0.2 -0.6 -0.4 0.5 0.8 1.1 -0.5 1.2 0.6 1.8 3.0 7.5 4.6 7.2 5.4 5.2 4.2 4.6 4.4 6.1

62.8 58.3 57.3 56.5 56.7 57.3 57.7 57.2 56.4 55.3 55.8 54.6 54.0 52.2 49.2 41.7 37.1 29.9 24.5 19.3 15.1 10.5 6.1 0.0

69 7.58%

Profile Length (ft): Average Slope:

10 feet North of 9th Street Groin in Ocean City, Maryland Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 11:45am

Profile Location: Date Collected:

Beach Profile D

60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 80

70

60

50

40

30

Distance from Ocean (ft)

20

10

0

Height Above Ocean (in)

70.0

73

E Profile Profile

Number

Distance from Ocean (ft) Run

Elevation Change (in)

Cumulative Height From Ocean (in) Rise

E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Ocean

54 51 48 45 42 39 36 33 30 27 24 21 18 15 12 9 6 3 0

3.6 -0.5 2.2 3.2 0.1 4.0 4.0 3.4 3.4 3.6 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.5 4.4 4.8 4.0 4.4

61.0 57.4 57.9 55.7 52.5 52.4 48.4 44.4 41.0 37.6 34.0 30.0 26.0 22.1 17.6 13.2 8.4 4.4 0.0

54 9.41%

Profile Length (ft): Average Slope:

25 feet North of 9th Street Groin in Ocean City, Maryland Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 11:45am

Profile Location: Date Collected:

Beach Profile E

60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 60

50

40

30

20

Distance from Ocean (ft)

10

0

Height above Ocean (in)

70.0

74

F Profile Profile

Number

Distance from Ocean (ft) Run

Elevation Change (in)

Cumulative Height From Ocean (in) Rise

F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Ocean

54 51 48 45 42 39 36 33 30 27 24 21 18 15 12 9 6 3 0

5.0 3.5 5.5 3.0 4.5 3.6 4.5 4.3 5.2 4.8 4.1 4.3 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.5 5.7 5.0

82.0 77.0 73.5 68.0 65.0 60.5 56.9 52.4 48.1 42.9 38.1 34.0 29.7 24.9 20.1 15.2 10.7 5.0 0.0

54 12.65%

Profile Length (ft): Average Slope: Profile Location: Date Collected:

50 feet North of 9th Street Groin in Ocean City, Maryland Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 11:45am

90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 60

50

40

30

20

Distance from Ocean (ft)

10

0

Height above Ocean (in)

Beach Profile F

75

G Profile Profile

Number

Distance from Ocean (ft) Run

Elevation Change (in)

Cumulative Height From Ocean (in) Rise

G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Ocean

57 54 51 48 45 42 39 36 33 30 27 24 21 18 15 12 9 6 3 0

6.1 4.4 5.0 4.6 3.7 3.1 2.9 2.5 2.5 1.6 3.0 3.0 2.1 3.0 2.2 3.1 1.8 2.5 1.4

58.5 52.4 48.0 43.0 38.4 34.7 31.6 28.7 26.2 23.7 22.1 19.1 16.1 14.0 11.0 8.8 5.7 3.9 1.4 0.0

57 8.55%

Profile Length (ft): Average Slope: Profile Location: Date Collected:

10 feet South of 1st Street Area Scallop in Ocean City, Maryland Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 1:30pm

Beach Profile G

60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 60

50

40

30

20

Distance from Ocean (ft)

10

0

Height above Ocean (in)

70.0

76

H Profile Profile

Number

Distance from Ocean (ft) Run

Elevation Change (in)

Cumulative Height From Ocean (in) Rise

H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Ocean

60 57 54 51 48 45 42 39 36 33 30 27 24 21 18 15 12 9 6 3 0

5.2 6.0 4.0 3.9 5.6 2.1 4.4 3.1 2.8 2.0 2.7 2.0 2.9 1.8 2.7 2.0 2.8 1.7 3.0 2.5

63.2 58.0 52.0 48.0 44.1 38.5 36.4 32.0 28.9 26.1 24.1 21.4 19.4 16.5 14.7 12.0 10.0 7.2 5.5 2.5 0.0

60 8.78%

Profile Length (ft): Average Slope:

25 feet South of 1st Street Area Scallop in Ocean City, Maryland Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 1:30pm

Profile Location: Date Collected:

Beach Profile H

60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 70

60

50

40

30

Distance from Ocean (ft)

20

10

0

Height above Ocean (in)

70.0

77

I Profile Profile

Number

Distance from Ocean (ft) Run

Elevation Change (in)

Cumulative Height From Ocean (in) Rise

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Ocean

45 42 39 36 33 30 27 24 21 18 15 12 9 6 3 0

8.6 5.7 5.0 5.2 2.8 4.8 4.2 4.0 2.9 2.6 3.4 2.6 2.4 2.1 2.0

58.3 49.7 44.0 39.0 33.8 31.0 26.2 22.0 18.0 15.1 12.5 9.1 6.5 4.1 2.0 0.0

45 10.80%

Profile Length (ft): Average Slope:

50 feet South of 1st Street Area Scallop in Ocean City, Maryland Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 2:00pm

Profile Location: Date Collected:

Beach Profile I

60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 50

40

30

20

Distance from Ocean (ft)

10

0

Height above Ocean (in)

70.0

78

J Profile Profile

Number

Distance from Ocean (ft) Run

Elevation Change (in)

Cumulative Height From Ocean (in) Rise

J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Ocean

54 51 48 45 42 39 36 33 30 27 24 21 18 15 12 9 6 3 0

4.5 4.4 5.7 2.6 5.6 0.4 2.4 2.8 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.1 3.0 2.4 2.1 2.9 3.0 2.6

56.3 51.8 47.4 41.7 39.1 33.5 33.1 30.7 27.9 25.0 22.0 19.1 16.0 13.0 10.6 8.5 5.6 2.6 0.0

54 8.69%

Profile Length (ft): Average Slope: Profile Location: Date Collected:

10 feet North of 1st Street Area Scallop in Ocean City, Maryland Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 2:00pm

Beach Profile J

50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 60

50

40

30

20

Distance from Ocean (ft)

10

0

Height above Ocean (in)

60.0

79

K Profile Profile

Number

Distance from Ocean (ft) Run

Elevation Change (in)

Cumulative Height From Ocean (in) Rise

K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Ocean

54 51 48 45 42 39 36 33 30 27 24 21 18 15 12 9 6 3 0

2.5 3.5 3.2 4.0 4.8 3.1 3.6 2.2 2.2 3.6 3.0 2.0 2.2 2.7 2.4 2.8 3.5 3.0

54.3 51.8 48.3 45.1 41.1 36.3 33.2 29.6 27.4 25.2 21.6 18.6 16.6 14.4 11.7 9.3 6.5 3.0 0.0

54 8.38%

Profile Length (ft): Average Slope: Profile Location: Date Collected:

25 feet North of 1st Street Area Scallop in Ocean City, Maryland Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 2:00pm

Beach Profile K

50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 60

50

40

30

20

Distance from Ocean (ft)

10

0

Height above Ocean (in)

60.0

80

L Profile Profile

Number

Distance from Ocean (ft) Run

Elevation Change (in)

Cumulative Height From Ocean (in) Rise

L L L L L L L L L L L L

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ocean

36 33 30 27 24 21 18 15 12 9 6 3 0

3.8 3.6 3.5 4.0 2.5 0.5 2.4 2.1 2.8 2.7 3.5 3.2

34.6 30.8 27.2 23.7 19.7 17.2 16.7 14.3 12.2 9.4 6.7 3.2 0.0

36 8.01%

Profile Length (ft): Average Slope: Profile Location: Date Collected:

50 feet North of 1st Street Area Scallop in Ocean City, Maryland Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 2:30pm

Beach Profile L

35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 40

35

30

25

20

15

Distance from Ocean (ft)

10

5

0

Height above Ocean (in)

40.0