U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 

A Preliminary Report to the U.S. Coast Guard 

Characterization of Sediments from the Gulf of Mexico and 

Atlantic Shorelines, Texas to Florida 

By John T. Lisle and Norris N. Comer 

Open-File Report 2011–1199 

1 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Marcia K. McNutt, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2011

For product and ordering information: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, 

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

Suggested citation: 

Lisle, J.T., and Comer, N.N., 2011, Characterization of sediments from the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic 

shorelines, Texas to Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2011-1199, xxp. 

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. 

2 
Contents 

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................ 4 

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4 

Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 6 

Sampling ............................................................................................................................................... 6 

Sample processing and storage ........................................................................................................... 7 

Sediment porosity ................................................................................................................................. 7 

Sediment Hydraulic Conductivity .......................................................................................................... 8 

Grain-Size Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 9 

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................10

References Cited ..................................................................................................................................11

Appendix ...............................................................................................................................................21

Figures 

Figure 1. Sample sites, Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic shorelines. A, Texas to Louisiana; B, Louisiana to 

Alabama; C, Florida ..............................................................................................................................13-16

Tables 

Table 1. Sample sites, Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic shorelines............................................................. 17

Table 2. Sample sites, Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic shorelines. Hydraulic conductivity and porosity 

data ......................................................................................................................................................19 

3
Characterization of Sediments from the Gulf of Mexico and 

Atlantic Shorelines, Texas to Florida 

By John T. Lisle and Norris N. Comer 

Abstract 

In response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, sediment samples that were projected to have a 

high probability of being impacted by the oil were collected from shoreline zones of Texas, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. Sixty-one sites were sampled and analyzed for hydraulic 

conductivity, porosity, and grain-size distribution. The objective of this effort was to provide a set of 

baseline data on sediment characteristics known to directly influence (1) the penetration of oil into 

coastal sediments and (2) the efficacy of chemical and (or) bioremediation. 

Introduction 

From April 20 to July 15, 2010, approximately 4.4 million barrels of crude oil from the 

Deepwater Horizon oil rig discharged into the Gulf of Mexico (Crone and Tolstoy, 2010). The oil, 

classified as Macondo-1, was estimated to cover 68,000 square miles as a surface-water layer (Amos, 

2010). In response to this spill and before oil associated with the spill made landfall, the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) collected surficial beach and coastal sediments at 61 sites along the coasts of Texas, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida for standard sedimentological characterization. Sites were 

selected to include various shoreline types―for example, sandy beaches, wetlands, marshes, and barrier 

islands. The purpose of this project was to establish baseline characterization data. 

4 
Data presented in this report include porosity, hydraulic conductivity, and particle-size 

distribution for 61 samples. Collectively, these data can provide insight into how deep oil will penetrate 

into the sediments and the proficiency of bioremediation by naturally occurring microbial populations. 

For example, sandy shorelines that are characterized as having low organic content, moderately low total 

porosities, and high hydraulic conductivities have been shown to rapidly and efficiently degrade low to 

moderate concentrations of crude oils without nutrient and (or) oxygen augmentation (Kvenvolden and 

Cooper, 2003). These elevated degradation rates are due to the water containing adequate concentrations 

of oxygen and nutrients to facilitate microbial degradation of the crude oil. The water is driven into and 

flushed out of the pore spaces of the sediments by wave action. 

On the contrary, in salt marshes and coastal areas where wave action is low and the organic 

content of the respective sediment systems is high, the microbial communities are larger and oxygen 

concentrations are low to anaerobic. These types of sediment systems are generally characterized as 

having moderately high total porosities and low hydraulic conductivities due to the presence of smaller 

organic and inorganic particles that occlude the interconnected (effective) pore spaces. Accordingly, the 

water that interacts with these sediment systems cannot supply enough nutrients or oxygen to facilitate 

rapid or efficient oil degradation by the natural microbial communities. Oil remediation efforts for 

sediment systems like those in salt marshes and those with low to no oxygen may require the addition of 

nutrient solutions and (or) aeration to increase the oxygen concentrations. 

The data in this report can be used as a guideline for the design of remediation plans for coastal 

areas that have been impacted by crude oil. The data can also be used by regulatory agencies for 

monitoring the progress of oil remediation, if required. 

5 
Methods 

Sampling

Shoreline sediments were collected from 61 sites (table 1 and fig. 1) that had been identified as 

locations with a high probability of being impacted by oil released from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill 

in the Gulf of Mexico. These sites had not been contaminated with Macondo-1 oil at the time of their 

sampling. Samples were collected from May 7 to June 16, 2010, along the Gulf of Mexico shorelines in 

Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama and the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic shorelines of Florida. 

Replicate samples were collected from the following sites: TX-51 (3 replicates), LA-23 (3 replicates), 

LA-25 (2 replicates), LA-26 (2 replicates), LA-31 (3 replicates), MS-45 (3 replicates), AL-2 (3 

replicates), FL-7 (2 replicates), FL-11 (3 replicates), FL-16 (3 replicates), FL-18 (2 replicates), and FL21 (3 replicates). The fine sediment particles in the samples from Lake Felicity (LA-24), Point 

Chevreuil (LA-28), and the Mississippi River at Main Pass (LA-32) prevented accurate readings for 

porosity and hydraulic conductivity. Data from these sites are excluded from this report. 

All samples were collected, processed, and shipped as described in the USGS National Field 

Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data (NFM) (http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A/) and 

Sampling Protocol for Post-Landfall Deepwater Horizon Oil Release, Gulf of Mexico, 2010 

(http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1191/) (Wilde and others, 2010). This set of manuals includes all of the 

protocols and methods that ensured sample integrity, consistency, and data reliability for the entire 

project. 

6 
Sample Processing and Storage 

Samples were stored at -80°C until ready for processing. Each sample was subsampled by 

breaking off a portion of the frozen sample into a dish and heating at 40°C until dry. The dried samples 

were used for all analyses described in this report. 

Sediment Porosity 

Sediment porosity is the quantification of the open or pore space in sediment (table 2). The larger 

the porosity value, the greater the quantity of water the sediment can retain (total porosity) or potentially 

transmit (effective porosity). A sediment-column device was designed to retain a sediment sample 

without losing material while allowing water to be injected via a syringe portal in the base of the 

column. The design allows the up-flow introduction of water into the sediment and gravity to drain the 

injected water. The percent total porosity of each sample was calculated using the following equation: 

( Vi / Vs ) × 100 (1) 

where Vi is the volume of water injected into the sediment column (milliliters, mL) and Vs is the 

volume of the sediment sample (mL). 

A second type of porosity, effective porosity, was quantified for each sample using the same 

column device (table 2). Effective porosity represents the interconnectred pore spaces in a sediment or 

rock matrix. Hydrophobic and (or) electrostatic-interaction forces retain water in the smaller-size pores 

between sediment particles. 

After the volume of injected water was recorded for the porosity determination, the water in the 

sediment column was allowed to drain. The discharged water was collected and the volume measured. 

The syringe was reattached to the base of the sediment column and used to forcibly draw air through the 

7 
column, thereby extracting residual water from the sediment. The percent effective porosity of each 

sample was calculated using the following equation: 

[(Vi – Vg – Ve) / Vs] × 100 (2) 

where Vi is the volume of water injected into the sediment column (mL), Vg is the volume of 

water drained from the column by gravity (mL), Ve is the volume of water extracted from the column by 

the syringe, and Vs is the volume of the sediment sample (mL). 

Sediment Hydraulic Conductivity 

Hydraulic conductivity (K) is the rate at which water moves through the pore spaces in rocks or 

sediments. The hydraulic conductivity of each sediment sample (table 2) was quantified using a 

constant-head permeameter. This type of permeameter is preferred for the determination of porosity in 

noncohesive sediments, such as sands and friable rocks. Constant-head permeameters provide a constant 

hydraulic head while maintaining a steady-state flow rate through the sediment sample (Fetter, 1988). 

The hydraulic conductivity was calculated using the following equation that describes Darcy’s Law: 

K = (Q × L) / (A × t × h) (3) 

where 

Q is the volume of water discharging from the sediment column in the permeameter (cubic 

3 centimeters, cm ), 

L is the length of the sample in the permeameter (centimeters, cm), 

2 A is the cross-sectional area of the sample in the permeameter (squared centimeters, cm ), 

t is the time interval used to collect water discharging from the permeameter (seconds, s), 

h is the hydraulic head above the sediment column (cm), and 

K is the hydraulic conductivity (centimeters per second, cm/s). 

8 
The volume of water (Q) discharging from the permeameter during a 60- s (t) period was 

collected and weighed in a preweighed glass flask (Ft). The flask was weighed a second time (Fw) for a 

total weight (grams, g). The mass of the collected water was converted to volume using the following 

equation: 

3 Q = (Fw – Ft) × (cm / 1 g) (4) 

The cross-sectional areas (A) of the sediment samples in the permeameter were constant at 33.16 

2

cm . Three hydraulic-head (h) values were used for each sample: 95 cm, 115 cm, and 135 cm. The 

hydraulic-conductivity values listed in table 2 are averages of the three assessments. 

Grain-Size Analysis 

Sediment samples from the hydraulic-conductivity assessments were retained and used to 

determine grain-size distributions. Each sample was prepared by first passing it through a 1-millimeter 

(mm) screen sieve. The sediment material that passed through the sieve was processed for analyses 

using a Beckman Coulter LSTM 200 laser-diffraction particle-size analyzer equipped with a variablespeed fluid module. The analyzer was operated and sample manipulations performed as recommended 

by the manufacturer. 

The raw data for the particle-size distributions were exported from the analyzer and used to 

calculate the grain-size distributions using the GRADISTAT program (Blott and Pye, 2001). 

GRADISTAT uses the data from the particle analyses to calculate a series of statistical metrics. 

Sediment grain-size distributions are generally categorized into four groups, based on measurements of 

(1) mean particle size, (2) distribution of particle sizes around the mean, (3) skewness of the distribution 

relative to the mean, and (4) kurtosis of the distribution relative to the mean. GRADISTAT uses two 

methods to generate data needed for determining these measurements. The first one is the “method of 

9 
moments” (Krumbein and Pettijohn, 1938; Friedman and Johnson, 1982), which is relatively accurate 

but can be negatively influenced by sediment particle sizes that lie in the tails of the distributions. The 

other method is that of Folk and Ward (1957), which is insensitive to sediment particle sizes that would 

be considered outliers and therefore fall in the tails of the distributions. The pertinent statistics calculated 

include the means, mode(s), standard deviations (sorting), skewness, kurtosis, and a range of cumulative 

sediment particle grain-size rankings based on percentile values. GRADISTAT uses the “method of 

moments” approach to calculate these statistics arithmetically, geometrically, and logarithmically, as 

described by Krumbein and Pettijohn (1938). The logarithmic approach produces summary data in the 

more familiar units of phi (Φ), which is preferred by sedimentologists. The data from the arithmetic and 

geometric calculations are in micrometers (μm), a unit commonly used by nonsedimentologists. Specific 

data from the “method of moments” analyses are used in the method of Folk and Ward (1957) to 

calculate the same summary statistics geometrically (μm) and logarithmically (Φ). These statistical 

metrics are also related to a descriptive interpretation of the sediment particle-size distributions using a 

modified Udden-Wentworth grade scale (Udden, 1914; Wentworth, 1922). All of these statistics are 

presented in an output that also includes a histogram of sediment particle-size distributions based on 

both measures of particle diameter (Φ and μm). The statistics and histogram for each sediment sample 

are included in the appendix. 

Acknowledgments 

The USGS funded this pre-impact sampling and analytical study. Additional funding was 

provided by the U.S. Coast Guard. We thank Chris Reich, Jim Flocks and John Watson for thoughtful 

reviews of the manuscript, as they improved the report. We thank also Barbara Lidz and Heather 

Schreppel for editorial and technical support and Matthew Streubert for generating the map resources. 

10 
References Cited 

Amos, J., 2010, BP spill was greater disaster than public knew: SkyTruth news release, 

http://mcbi.org/news/PR-Norse-Amos-2010.pdf. 

Blott, S.J., and Pye, K., 2001, GRADISTAT: A grain size distribution and statistics package for the 

analysis of unconsolidated sediments: Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 26, p. 1237-1248. 

Crone, T.J., and Tolstoy, M., 2010, Magnitude of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil leak: Science, v. 330, p. 

634. 

nd Fetter, C.W., 1988, Applied Hydrogeology (2 ed.): New York, Macmillan Publishing Company, 592 p. 

Folk, R.L., and Ward, W.C., 1957, Brazos River bar: A study in the significance of grain size 

parameters: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 62, p. 3-26. 

Friedman, G.M., and Johnson, K.G., 1982, Exercises in sedimentology: New York, John Wiley & Sons, 

Inc., 208 p. 

Krumbein, W.C., and Pettijohn, F.J., 1938, Manual of sedimentary petrography: New York, D. 

Appleton-Century Co., Inc., 549 p. 

Kvenvolden, K.A., and Cooper, C.K., 2003, Natural seepage of crude oil into the marine environment: 

GeoMarine Letters, v. 23, p. 140-146. 

Rosenbauer, R.J., Campbell, P.L., Lam, Angela, Lorenson, T.D., Hostettler, F.D., Thomas, Burt, and 

Wong, F.L., 2011, Petroleum hydrocarbons in sediment from the northern Gulf of Mexico shoreline, 

Texas to Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011-1014, 22 p., available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1014/. 

Udden, J.A., 1914, Mechanical composition of clastic sediments: Bulletin of the Geological Society of 

America, v. 25, p. 655-744. 

11 
Wentworth, C.K., 1922, A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments: Journal of Geology, v. 

30, p. 377-392. 

Wilde, F.D., Skrobialowski, S.C., and Hart, J.S., 2010, Sampling protocol for post-landfall Deepwater 

Horizon oil release, Gulf of Mexico, 2010: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1191, 155 p., 

available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1191. 

12
Figure 1. Sample sites, Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic shorelines. 

13
 
Figure 1A. Sample sites, Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic shorelines, Texas to Louisiana. 

14
 
Figure 1B. Sample sites, Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic shorelines, Louisiana to Alabama. 

15
 
Figure 1C. Sample sites, Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic shorelines, Florida. 

16
 
Table 1. Sediment samples, Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic shorelines. 

Map 

Site Sample Site Name Latitude Longitude Sample Date 

Label 

(decimal degrees) 

TX-47 Texas Point 29.682500 -93.956389 5/10/10 

TX-48 Sabine Lake 29.928333 -93.871389 5/10/10 

TX-49 High Island 29.556667 -94.368333 5/10/10 

TX-50 East Bay near Anahuac 29.574722 -94.555833 5/10/10 

TX-51 Galveston Island 29.304167 -94.769444 5/10/10 

TX-52 Trinity Bay near Beach City 29.735556 -94.836389 5/11/10 

TX-53 Bolivar Peninsula 29.388333 -94.719167 5/11/10 

TX-54 Galveston Bay near Eagle Point 29.493611 -94.911111 5/11/10 

TX-55 West Bay, Galveston Island State Park 29.214167 -94.953889 5/11/10 

TX-56 San Luis Pass 29.086667 -95.108611 5/11/10 

LA-22 Jean Lafitte National Park 29.742222 -90.141944 5/14/10 

LA-23 Cypremort Point 29.735000 -91.853611 5/13/10 

LA-24 Lake Felicity 29.346111 -90.429167 5/18/10 

LA-25 Rockefeller Refuge Beach 29.635556 -92.767222 5/13/10 

LA-26 Sister Lake 29.251944 -90.921667 5/17/10 

LA-28 Point Chevreuil 29.573333 -91.537778 5/13/10 

LA-29 Crooked Bayou 29.723333 -89.723611 5/18/10 

LA-30 Mississippi River Gulf Outlet 29.685556 -89.395833 5/7/10 

LA-31 Grand Isle Beach State Park 29.260278 -89.950278 5/10/10 

LA-32 Mississippi River at Main Pass 29.320556 -89.181944 5/7/10 

LA-33 Breton Sound 29.588333 -89.611944 5/7/10 

LA-34 Mississippi Sound at Grand Pass 30.151944 -89.245833 5/7/10 

LA-35 Mississippi River at South Pass 28.997500 -89.148889 5/7/10 

LA-36 Mississippi River at Southwest Pass 28.937500 -89.398889 5/7/10 

LA-46 East Sabine 29.748889 -93.663333 5/10/10 

MS-37 South Cat Island Beach 30.219167 -89.079722 5/7/10 

MS-38 West Ship Island Beach 30.207500 -88.972222 5/7/10 

MS-39 East Ship Island Beach 30.232778 -88.892500 5/7/10 

MS-40 West Horn Island Beach 30.240278 -88.735000 5/8/10 

MS-41 East Horn Island Beach 30.222500 -88.592500 5/8/10 

MS-42 Petit Bois Island Beach 30.202222 -88.426667 5/8/10 

MS-43 Pass Christian Beach 30.316111 -89.236111 5/8/10 

MS-44 Biloxi Beach 30.393333 -88.899444 5/8/10 

MS-45 Pascagoula Beach 30.342778 -88.547778 5/8/10 

AL-1 West Dauphin Island 30.227425 -88.326300 5/8/10 

AL-2 Dauphin Island 30.248815 -88.184168 5/9/10 

AL-3 Dauphin Island 30.246870 -88.077777 5/9/10 

AL-4 Fort Morgan 30.224926 -88.008330 5/8/10 

AL-5 Fort Morgan 30.230481 -87.904438 5/8/10 

AL-6 Gulf Shores 30.241314 -87.730265 5/8/10 

AL-7 Orange Beach 30.269091 -87.581649 5/8/10 

17 
AL-8 BLM Tract 1 at Fort Morgan 30.231593 -87.937772 5/24/10 

AL-9 BLM Tract 2 at Fort Morgan 30.228815 -87.867214 5/24/10 

AL-10 BLM Tract 3 at Fort Morgan 30.228259 -87.831102 5/24/10 

FL-7 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge near St. Marks 30.074194 -84.180444 5/18/10 

FL-8 Piney Point Beach at Cedar Key 29.127750 -83.053361 5/18/10 

FL-9 Fort Island Gulf Beach near Chassahowitzka 28.907194 -82.690778 5/19/10 

FL-10 Fort DeSoto Park near St. Petersburg 27.624444 -82.738333 5/17/10 

FL-11 Captiva Island Beach near Captiva Island 26.525639 -82.194222 5/20/10 

FL-12 Tiger Tail Beach at Marco Island 25.936139 -81.734583 5/21/10 

FL-15 Bill Baggs Cape, near Key Biscayne 25.667417 -80.155528 6/1/10 

FL-16 Lloyd Beach at Ft. Lauderdale 26.081694 -80.109444 5/26/10 

FL-17 MacArthur Beach at West Palm Beach 26.822583 -80.038056 5/27/10 

FL-18 Coco Plum Beach near Marathon 24.729250 -81.169972 5/24/10 

FL-19 BLM Tract 1 near Jupiter Inlet 26.956111 -80.081667 6/16/10 

FL-20 BLM Tract 2 near Jupiter Inlet 26.956111 -80.081944 6/16/10 

FL-21 BLM Tract 1 near Park Key 24.650556 -81.557500 6/9/10 

FL-22 BLM Tract 2 near Sugarloaf Key 24.617500 -81.543611 6/9/10 

FL-23 BLM Tract 3 near Sugarloaf Key 24.616667 -81.539722 6/9/10 

FL-24 BLM Tract 4 at Egmont Key 27.601389 -82.763611 6/14/10 

FL-25 BLM Lathrop Bayou near Panama City 30.038944 -85.435472 6/10/10 

18 
Map 

Site Sample Site Name Replicate 

Samples 

Hydraulic 

Conductivity 

(+/- SD) 

(centimeters/second) 

Total 

Porosity 

(percent) 

Effective 

Porosity 

(percent) 

TX-47 Texas Point 1 0.010300 ± 0.0002 42.4 11.6
 

TX-48 Sabine Lake 1 0.011673 ± 0.0006 40.0 12.0
 

TX-49 High Island 1 0.019474 ± 0.0006 32.4 11.6
 

TX-50 East Bay near Anahuac 1 0.000884 ± 0.0001 44.4 16.4
 

TX-51 Galveston Island 3 0.008900 ± 0.0017 45.6 22.0
 

TX-52 Trinity Bay near Beach City 1 0.016767 ± 0.0013 34.0 11.6
 

TX-53 Bolivar Peninsula 1 0.014417 ± 0.0013 42.4 21.6
 

TX-54 Galveston Bay near Eagle Point 1 0.006923 ± 0.0001 46.4 18.8
 

TX-55 West Bay, Galveston Island State Park 1 0.011588 ± 0.0008 41.6 20.4
 

TX-56 San Luis Pass 1 0.009506 ± 0.0004 37.6 18.0
 

LA-22 Jean Lafitte National Park 1 0.001049 ± 0.0000 56.0 13.2
 

LA-23 Cypremort Point 3 0.019400 ± 0.0027 39.2 21.3
 

LA-24 Lake Felicity 1 * * 61.8 16.4
 

LA-25 Rockefeller Refuge Beach 2 0.024200 ± 0.0020 64.3 43.7
 

LA-26 Sister Lake 2 0.014200 ± 0.0047 46.0 20.0
 

LA-28 Point Chevreuil 1 * * 0.0 0.0
 

LA-29 Crooked Bayou 1 0.011665 ± 0.0012 40.0 15.3
 

LA-30 Mississippi River Gulf Outlet 1 0.013446 ± 0.0009 37.4 11.7
 

LA-31 Grand Isle Beach at State Park 3 0.007400 ± 0.0007 40.0 17.3
 

LA-32 Mississippi River at Main Pass 1 * * 38.2 20.0
 

LA-33 Breton Sound 1 0.004784 ± 0.0001 78.0 12.0
 

LA-34 Mississippi Sound at Grand Pass 1 0.001926 ± 0.0003 44.0 5.0
 

LA-35 Mississippi River at South Pass 1 0.006422 ± 0.0004 43.0 19.0
 

LA-36 Mississippi River at Southwest Pass 1 0.006068 ± 0.0006 50.0 25.0
 

LA-46 East Sabine 1 0.015624 ± 0.0014 43.2 19.6
 

MS-37 South Cat Island Beach 1 0.017651 ± 0.0012 48.0 27.2
 

MS-38 West Ship Island Beach 1 0.016185 ± 0.0010 44.4 20.4
 

MS-39 East Ship Island Beach 1 0.016044 ± 0.0016 43.2 22.8
 

MS-40 West Horn Island Beach 1 0.015219 ± 0.0013 47.1 24.3
 

MS-41 East Horn Island Beach 1 0.020312 ± 0.0019 46.8 27.2
 

MS-42 Petit Bois Island Beach 1 0.018024 ± 0.0014 44.0 23.2
 

MS-43 Pass Christian Beach 1 0.015788 ± 0.0014 51.2 24.4
 

MS-44 Biloxi Beach 1 0.014756 ± 0.0008 43.6 21.6
 

MS-45 Pascagoula Beach 3 0.016560 ± 0.0018 39.3 19.0
 

AL-1 West Dauphin Island 1 0.018490 ± 0.0015 46.8 26.8
 

AL-2 Dauphin Island 3 0.012110 ± 0.0016 47.1 25.7
 

Table 2. Hydraulic conductivity and porosity data for sediment samples, Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic shorelines. 

19 
AL-3 Dauphin Island 1 0.011746 ± 0.0011 45.0 23.5 

AL-4 Fort Morgan 1 0.015191 ± 0.0012 48.9 24.9 

AL-5 Fort Morgan 1 0.013256 ± 0.0014 47.6 28.4 

AL-6 Gulf Shores 1 0.015145 ± 0.0013 29.4 18.6 

AL-7 Orange Beach 1 0.017777 ± 0.0011 46.8 27.6 

AL-8 BLM Tract 1 at Fort Morgan 1 0.004252 ± 0.0005 58.0 28.0 

AL-9 BLM Tract 2 at Fort Morgan 1 0.004530 ± 0.0005 50.0 34.0 

AL-10 BLM Tract 3 at Fort Morgan 1 0.004587 ± 0.0004 58.0 34.0 

FL-7 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge near St. 

Marks 2 0.014000 ± 0.0034 42.3 16.3 

FL-8 Piney Point Beach at Cedar Key 1 0.013521 ± 0.0005 39.2 17.2 

FL-9 Fort Island Gulf Beach near Chassahowitzka 1 0.009205 ± 0.0006 45.2 20.8 

FL-10 Fort DeSoto Park near St. Petersburg 1 0.006520 ± 0.0001 40.0 19.0 

FL-11 Captiva Island Beach near Captiva 3 0.016200 ± 0.0025 40.0 15.1 

FL-12 Tiger Tail Beach at Marco Island 1 0.010374 ± 0.0008 44.4 22.4 

FL-15 Bill Baggs Cape, near Key Biscayne 1 0.005444 ± 0.0005 41.4 32.9 

FL-16 Lloyd Beach at Ft. Lauderdale 3 0.018200 ± 0.0019 48.0 17.2 

FL-17 MacArthur Beach at West Palm Beach 1 0.021982 ± 0.0020 39.3 20.3 

FL-18 Coco Plum Beach near Marathon 2 0.011500 ± 0.0040 41.4 7.1 

FL-19 BLM Tract 1 near Jupiter Inlet 1 0.013089 ± 0.0014 39.2 19.2 

FL-20 BLM Tract 2 near Jupiter Inlet 1 0.014421 ± 0.0012 38.2 20.0 

FL-21 BLM Tract 1 near Park Key 3 0.002560 ± 0.0007 52.5 19.2 

FL-22 BLM Tract 2 near Sugarloaf Key 1 0.004081 ± 0.0002 38.0 11.0 

FL-23 BLM Tract 3 near Sugarloaf Key 1 0.004845 ± 0.0009 68.0 22.0 

FL-24 BLM Tract 4 at Egmont Key 1 0.008716 ± 0.0010 46.0 28.0 

FL-25 BLM Lathrop Bayou near Panama City 1 0.016923 ± 0.0016 52.0 30.4 

* Sediment sample too silty and clogged the permeameter. 

20 
21

Appendix. Sample statistics and grainsize distributions for samples collected from the 

shorelines of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, May 7 to June 16, 

2010.
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31
 
32
 
33
 
34
 
35
 
36
 
37
 
38
 
39
 
40
 
41
 
42
 
43
 
44
 
45
 
46
 
47
 
48
 
49
 
50
 
51
 
52
 
53
 
54
 
55
 
56
 
57
 
58
 
59
 
60
 
61
 
62
 
63
 
64
 
65
 
66
 
67
 
68
 
69
 
70
 
71
 
72
 
73
 
74
 
75
 
76
 
77
 
78
 
79
 
80
 
81
 
82