Final Sub-Bottom Seismic Survey Report:

Offshore Sand Borrow Site Assessment

St. Johns County, Florida

Submitted to

Jeffrey R. Tabar, P.E.

PBS&J, Coastal & Waterways Division
5300 West Cypress Street, Suite 200
Tampa, Florida 33607
By

Gary A. Zarillo, Ph.D., PG and John Bishop, M.S.

Scientific Environmental Applications, Inc. (S.E.A.)
5575 Willoughby Dr.
Melbourne, Florida 32934
Ph/fax: 321.254.2708
Email seapp1@aol.com

January 22, 2009

Executive Summary
A sub-bottom seismic survey was conducted over several shoal features in shallow waters
offshore of St. Johns County to determine the potential volume of beach quality sand that may be
present. The shoals were selected using the existing data sets described in the earlier reconnaissance
report to St. Johns County. These data sets were assembled from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
the Beaches and Shore Program of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the
Florida Geological Survey. From these sources and sources published in the scientific literature, a
geologic model was developed that can be used as an exploration tool for identifying deposits of
clean sand on the inner continental shelf in the form of linear sand shoals and larger sand banks.
The model indicates that the cleanest sand free of silts and clays are most likely to be present below
the surface of the crest of the shoals and thin to a minimum thickness over the topographically
lower flanks of the shoal. On this basis, approximately 125 miles of high seismic profile data were
collected at frequencies between 500 Hz and 5 kHz. Analysis of the sub-bottom seismic profiles
consisted of digitizing the topographic surface and the base of the acoustic backscatter that indicate
sand deposits. The interpretation was aided by a series of core boring logs in draft format that were
provided by the Jacksonville District of the Corps of Engineers. The results of the interpretations
were assembled into a GIS software platform for mapping and volumetric analysis. Based on the
final analysis the beach quality sand is likely to be contained within 5 to 10 ft below the topographic
surface of the shoals. Consistent with the geologic model: the thickest deposits are below the crest
and thin to near zero at the base of the shoals at depths of about 55 feet and lower. The total volume
of sand present in 5 shoals is calculated at approximately 157 million cubic yards. It is cautioned,
however, that the actual volume of beach quality sand may be substantially lower pending further
investigation based on additional geologic and acoustic data required to develop specific borrow
sites. Recommendations are made for selection of specific areas best suited for recovering beach
quality sand.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... i

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................1
2.0 Project Area Description .......................................................................................1
3.0 Geologic Setting......................................................................................................3
4.0 Geologic Model for Exploring Borrow Areas Offshore of St. Johns County ..6
5.0 Methods ................................................................................................................ 10
6.0 Survey Results ..................................................................................................... 14
6.1 Overview...................................................................................................................... 14
6.2 Shoal 1 ......................................................................................................................... 15
6.3 Shoal 2 ......................................................................................................................... 18
6.4 Shoal 3 ......................................................................................................................... 21
6.5 Shoal 4 ......................................................................................................................... 25
6.6 Shoal 5 ......................................................................................................................... 29

7.0 Potential for Beach Compatibility of Offshore Sand Resources .................... 33

8.0 Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................. 39
9.0 References ............................................................................................................ 44

ii

1.0 Introduction
Previous work by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP), the Florida Geologic Survey (FGS), and the U.S. Minerals
Management Service (MMS) on existing data and geological features along the northeast coast
of Florida demonstrated that significant sand resources may exist in the coastal waters offshore
of St. Johns County. These resource shoreface connected ebb shoals, linear sand shoals are at or
beyond the 3nm limit of Florida State waters. To further define the potential volume of beach
quality sand resources, a sub-bottom acoustic survey was conducted consisting of 125 miles of
track lines. These data were then calibrated using core borings taken in the area by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers between 1976 and 2006. This report summarizes the results of the subbottom survey and provides an estimate of the total potential volume of beach quality sand as
well as potential sand volume contained in the individual shoals.

2.0 Project Area Description

The project area is within State and nearshore Federal waters offshore of St. Johns
County, Florida where several prominent individual sand ridges and large sand banks occur.
Figure 1 shows the sand ridges and sand banks with significant relief; those included in this
study are labeled. These sand bodies and many others along the inner shelf of east Florida were
first described by Meisberger and Field (1975) in a reconnaissance survey to identify sand and
gravel resources on the inner continental shelf. The largest individual feature in the area was
termed Shoal A6 (Meisberger and Field, 1975). Others were designated and are shown as shoals
and sand banks in Figure 1. The ebb shoal deposits related to the evolution of St. Augustine Inlet
were also noted in the 1975 analysis as a possible source of sand.
The most prominent feature in the project area is the A6 shoal situated approximately 6
miles directly offshore of the north boundary of the project limit (Figure 1). This shoal can be
considered to have three components as shown in Figure 1. The topographic base of the A6 shoal
is in about -65 feet water depth, whereas the maximum elevation at the crest of A6 is about -40
ft. MSL. The crest of the A7 shoal is within 4.5 miles of the center of the onshore project area.

An additional feature included in the survey is termed Shoal 1 and Shoal 2, which are segments
of a narrow linear shoal extending directly south of A7. The features selected for survey in this
study were included due to their proximity to the beach renourishment area and their likely
potential to yield clean sand based on previous work.

Figure 1. Locations of sand banks and sand ridges along the inner continental shelf of Northeast
Florida near the project area.

3.0 Geologic Setting

The geologic evolution and geologic setting of the project area as it relates to sand source
potential was reviewed in the reconnaissance report (Zarillo, 2008a). Briefly, the most important
aspect of the geologic setting is the genesis of layers of unconsolidated sands and silty sands
overlying formations rich in carbonate. Early investigations by the U.S. Army Coastal
Engineering Research Center (Meisberger and Field 1975, 1976) showed that sand resources on
the inner continental shelf are arranged in discrete linear sand shoals or larger sand banks. A
scattering of core borings and surficial grab samples allowed sandy textures to be classified as
fine quartz rich sands that are poorly graded (well sorted) having a low carbonate content to
medium to coarse sands of low quartz and high carbonate content consisting of a mix of shell
fragments and other carbonate content. The possible genesis of shoals in the nearshore and
littoral environments by a combination of tidal inlet migration and sea level rise during the
Holocene transgression was also reviewed in the reconnaissance report (McBride and Moslow,
1991).
Additional information on the geologic setting of the sand bodies of the Northeast Florida
inner continental shelf can be found in a series of studies sponsored by the U.S. Mineral
Management Service (MMS) and conducted by the Florida Geologic Survey (FGS) beginning in
the early 1990s (Nocita et al., 1991) and extending through 2004 (Phelps et. al.,2004).
The FDEP sponsored a regional investigation entitled the Florida Northeast Coast
Reconnaissance Offshore Sand Search (ROSS) that began in 2001(URS, 2007). The results of
the Northeast regional study were archived in the ROSS database (URS, 2007) along with much
of the historical and more recent data sets pertaining to sand resources of the inner continental
shelf of Florida. The most recent sand source study in the area, an effort by the Jacksonville
Engineering District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is summarized in a draft report yet to
be officially released. The draft report contains a summary of core borings taken in 1976, 1998,
and 2003. These data were particularly helpful in understanding and calibrating the sub-bottom
acoustic records taken for this study. Figure 2 shows the distribution of these cores relative to the
A6 and A7 Shoals and other sand bodies in the area.
3

The most recent MMS investigation in the project area was completed by Scientific
Environmental Applications, Inc. (S.E.A) and the Louis Berger Group (LBG) (Zarillo et al.,
2008). This study was focused on the potential for environmental and biological impacts that
might be associated with excavations from the vicinity of the A6 shoal. Results of this study
indicate that multiple borrow cuts across the A6 shoal are unlikely to cause impacts at the
shoreline. However, a relevant finding of the (Zarillo et al., 2008) study is that the surficial sand
layers of the A6 and

Figure 2. Location of core borings collected by the Jacksonville Army Corps Engineering District
between 1976 and 2006. Pattern areas indicate the location of major shoals in the area. Lines J-J
and H-H indicate lithologic cross sections developed by the Jacksonville District, which are
discussed later in this report.

similar shoals in the area can be reworked and transported by long period waves generated by
storms whether locally or from distal storms in the North Atlantic Ocean. For instance, Figure 3
shows the net topographic changes predicted over the crest of the A6 shoal for a 12-month period
during which several hurricanes pass over the Florida Coastal Ocean or generated long period
energetic waves in a distal fetch area which eventually dispersed to the Northeast Florida
Continental Shelf. The cumulative impact of storms over long periods is not expected to alter the
overall morphology of a shoal, the upper 2 to 3 feet of sediment is expected to be relatively
coarse and free of silt and clay

Figure 3. Predicted topographic change over the surface of the A6 shoal after 2 years of simulation
(from Zarillo et al., 2008).

4.0 Geologic Model for Exploring Borrow Areas Offshore of St. Johns County
Based on previous work on shelf sand ridge deposits and studies specific to the Northeast
Florida Shelf, an efficient search for beach quality sand can be based on a Geologic Model.
Shoals of the Northeastern Florida shelf described by Meisberger and Field (1975) and more
recent studies by MMS and the FDEP are consistent in scale and orientation to the sand ridges
discussed in notable papers by (Duane et al., 1972; Swift et al., 1972; Stubblefield et al., 1984;
McBride and Moslow, 1991; Snedden et al., 1994, 1999). Most of these investigations were
focused on the Eastern U.S. Atlantic continental shelf and emphasized barrier-island retreat and
inlet-related models for the origin of sand ridges attributed to shoreline retreat mechanisms,
including shoreface-attached ridges and ebb shoal retreat paths. The paper by McBride and
Moslow provided a conceptual model of the possible relationships among sea level rise, the
related shoreface transgressive process, and the associated evolution of tidal inlet shoals. Figure
4 from McBride and Moslow (1991) shows the possible evolutionary steps in the development of
linear sand shoal attachment to the shoreface and later isolation on the inner continental shelf. In
this conceptual model, inlets breach barrier island systems undergoing transgression with rising
sea level. As the inlets migrate alongshore, the ebb shoal systems extend both alongshore due to
inlet migration and cross-shore due to shoreface transgression.
For sand resource evaluation it is important to understand the structure and
sedimentologic indices of sand ridges. Since these features are found in both modern
environments as linear sand ridges and in ancient environments as porous sandstone petroleum
reservoir rocks, models of sand ridge deposits are used to identify the shallow marine
environment from well logs. Figure 4 shows the idealized ridge and inter-ridge sediment types
common to inner shelf environments. This idealized model of a coarsening upward sequence
rests on a pre-Holocene surface and begins with mixtures of organic-rich sediments or silts and
clays typical of the restricted back barrier environment followed by the typical inter-ridge
sediments that can be mixtures of sand and fine grain sediments. The upper two units are
characteristic of post-transgressive sands that have been re-worked from inlet shoals and
shoreface sands into discrete linear sand bodies composed of medium to coarse sand. The crossbedding and lack of biogenic structures in the top unit of the idealized model represents the
6

continued reworking of the modern sand ridges by inner-shelf physical processes including
waves and storm or tide-generated currents. This is consistent with modeling results obtained in
the MMS study by Zarillo et al. (2008).

Figure 4. Model of a coarsening upward sequence capped by clean sand deposits of a linear sand
ridge (from Tillman 1985).

Figure 5. Lithology of ICONS core CERC 176 from the crest of the A6 shoal and core CERC 174
from the crest of the A7 shoal.

The few existing published core boring data from the area near the A6 and A7 shoals are
consistent with the geologic model described above. These data were discussed in the
Reconnaissance Report (Zarillo, 2008a) and are exemplified by the core logs in Figure 5. The
sediment in core CERC 174 from the crest of the A7 shoal contains about 9 feet of clean sand
over a base of compacted gray clay. A similar sequence is present in Core 176 from the crest of
A7. Lithology found in the core borings collected by the Jacksonville Army Corps Engineering
8

District is also consistent with thee geologic model of sand ridge stratigraphy. Figure 6 from the
unpublished report by the Jacksonville District shows clean sand reaching a maximum thickness
of about 11 feet under the crest of the A6 Shoal, whereas the layer of clean sand is much thinner
in the flank area of the shoal before silts and clays are reached (cross-section J-J, Figure 2). The
relationship between shoal topography and lithology is also well illustrated in Figure 7, which
shows a series of core borings from the A6 and A7 shoals along cross-section H-H shown in
Figure 2. In both figures the sand layers are likely to yield beach quality sand.

Figure 6. Lithology found in 4 core borings distributed across the A6 shoal along line J-J shown in
Figure 2 (from U.S. Army Corps of Engineering Draft Report, 2007).

A review of existing data in Jacksonville District report (U.S. Army Corps of

Engineering Draft Report, 2007) and the Reconnaissance Report (Zarillo, 2008a) indicates that
beach quality sand is present under the crest areas of the A6 and A7 shoals. The data set included
9

the Inner Continental Shelf Sediment and Structure (ICONS) Study conducted in the 1960s and
more recent sub-bottom data collected by the FDEP ROSS database, and data collected by the
Florida Geologic Survey. Full interpretation of previously collected data was limited due to the
lack of high resolution sub-bottom acoustic reflection records that allows volumetric estimation
of beach sand and definition of specific borrow cuts areas. In the following sections the subbottom survey methods, results, and volume interpretation are presented. The final interpretation
of the potential volume of beach sand is based on a combination of the sub-bottom acoustic
records and core borings that were located on, or near the seismic track lines.

Figure 7. Lithologic profile along line H-H (Figure 2) showing variable thickness of clean sand
within the shoals in Federal waters offshore of St. Johns County, FL (from The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineering Draft report, 2007).

5.0 Methods
The sub-bottom survey using continuous seismic reflection methods was conducted over
a period of 5 days beginning on September 15, 2008. The final two days of surveying were
10

conducted on October 1st and 2nd due to weather restrictions. Figure 8 shows pattern of survey
track lines covering approximately 125 miles. The components of the A6 and A7 shoals were
numbered for convenience. Two additional linear shoals features immediately to the south of A7
designated Shoals 1 and Shoal 2 were also included since core borings collected by the Corps
indicated the presence of clean sand layers. These shoals are partially in Florida State waters
within 2 to 5 miles of the beach fill project area (Figure 8).
The east-west oriented lines were mostly spaced at a 2,000-foot interval. In Shoals 1 and
2 the lines were spaced at 1,000 feet since the total area to be covered was much more limited
compared to the other larger shoals. Due to limited time only five north-south or diagonal lines
were completed one for each shoal areas as shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Pattern of survey lines used to collect acoustic sub-bottom profiles in each shoal area.

11

The sub-bottom profiles were collected using the EdgeTech 3200-XS Sub-bottom
Acoustic Profiling System. The acoustic transducer is packaged in the EdgeTech SB-512i Tow
Vehicle. The Edge Tech SB-512i applies CHIRP (Compressed High Intensity Radar Pulse)
technology and has a total frequency range of 500 Hz-12 kHz. After test runs at the beginning of
the survey, it was determined that an optimal frequency range of 500 Hz -5 kHz provided the
best detail and penetration in the Northeast Florida Survey area. Figure 9 shows the retrieval of
the Edge Towfish at the close of the survey work day. As the survey proceeded some
adjustments were made to optimize the acoustic backscatter from the sub-bottom sediments. This
usually consisted of decreasing the upper frequency range to 2.7 kHz.

Figure 9. EdgeTech SB-0512i Tow Vehicle.

Precision navigation HYPACK software was used to acquire location coordinates from
a Trimble Differential Global Positioning System (GPS). The sub-bottom data were recorded in
the Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG-Y) format in which acoustic reflector strength,
12

coordinates, and 2-way travel time to and from the transducer are recorded. Acoustic profile lines
that resulted from the sub-bottom survey were analyzed using Chesapeake Technology, Inc.
sonar analysis software.
The survey data were filtered in order to remove some of the electronic and acoustic
noise. The filtering process was kept to a minimum to achieve the best resolution possible. The
interpretation of the sub-bottom digital records using the Chesapeake Technology, Inc. software
consisted of loading the digital profiles to see the entire array of tracklines in a GIS-like over
view. From this point in the individual profiles lines were selected for further analysis one at a
time. The strategy was to use the existing core boring provided by the Jacksonville District to
make an interpretation of acoustic backscatter that represents sands free of silt and clay. An
example is shown in Figure 10 where a survey line across the A6 shoal was compared with the
lithology of a core boring located near the line. The figure demonstrates that the sand layer
identified by the core lithology provided a stronger backscatter readily differentiated from that of
the silt and clay rich sediment below. Below the unit of sand, stronger and distinctive acoustic
backscatter was probably related to a buried rock surface and possibly occasional inclusions of
rock fragments and shell layers (Figure 10).
The upper and lower boundaries of acoustic backscatter signals most likely correspond to
the vertical extent of sand layer digitized on each profile line along with a series of horizontal
coordinates of the sand layers along each line. This provided a digital record for all seismic
profile lines consisting of x,y,z data in the form of easting and northing coordinates in the Florida
State Plane system along with the thickness (or isopach) of the sand layer.
These files were then imported into ArcGISTM for further analysis and interpolation of
the sand isopach (thickness) and potential volume of beach quality sand available within each
shoal. The resulting analysis provides a visualization of the sand isopach for each shoal
represented in both 2 and 3-dimensional formats. The spatial analysis capabilities of ArcGISTM
were also used to extract the total volume as defined by the sand isopach analysis. In the
following sections the results of the analysis are presented for each shoal feature along with
examples of the sub-bottom records and a comparison with lithologic data from the core borings.
13

Figure 10. Examples of the interpretation of sub-bottom seismic records with the aid of core
lithology. The example is from Shoal A6.

6.0 Survey Results

6.1 Overview
The results of the sub-bottom survey are presented in a series of 2- and 3-dimensional
representations of the sand isopach found within each shoal feature. The topography of each
feature is described along with the total potential volume of sand contained within. However, it
is emphasized that the recoverable beach quality sand volume for each of the shoals may be
much lower than the total volume potential. Further analysis for each area would be required to
define specific borrow cuts. Recommendations on how to proceed in developing borrow sites
with respect to the required geologic and sedimentologic data are provided in the final
conclusions of this report.

14

6.2 Shoal 1
Shoal 1 as identified in this project from existing bathymetric data and cores collected by
the Army Corps of Engineers is part of a more or less continuous, narrow shoal centered about 3
nautical miles directly offshore of St. Augustine Inlet as shown in Figure 8. Figure 11 represents
the topography of the shoal in shaded relief compared to the surrounding general bottom
topography shown in contours. At the highest point of the crest the shoal reaches an elevation of
approximately -43 feet MSL. The shoal is approximately 4-miles long and about 0.5 to 0.75
miles wide to the base of the shoal at about -55 feet MSL.

Figure 11. Topography of Shoal 1. Maximum elevation at the crest is approximately -43 feet MSL.

Figure 12 shows the sand thickness or isopach of clean sand below the surface of the
shoal. The sand isopach varies from near zero to a maximum of about 8 feet below the surface of
the shoal. Figure 13 shows the computer generated sand isopach from seismic records in a 3-D
15

perspective view from the south east. This view emphasizes the fact the sand distribution is not
uniform in thickness but is irregular having discrete peaks of sand thickness and areas where the
sand overburden is thin. This indicates planning borrow cuts in this shoal feature, and ultimately
in all of the shoals, will have to be carefully designed to eliminate silt and clay-rich sediment
below the clean sand.

Figure 12. Isopach of sand below the surface of Shoal 1 interpreted from the sub-bottom seismic
record in combination with core lithology.

Based on the seismic survey of Shoal 1 the volume of sand contained in the isopach
between the topographic surface and the sand layer as interpreted from the sub-bottom records
may yield as much as 6.1 million cubic yards. Figure 14 shows a perspective view of the
topographic surface and a surface defined by the base of the sand layer in the isopach of Shoal 1.
The sand volume is then contained between these two surfaces that are separated by a vertical
distance of between 2 and 8 feet.

16

Figure 13. Perspective view of the Shoal 1 isopach from the southwest showing irregular
distribution of sand distribution. Vertical exaggeration is 175x.

Figure 14. Perspective view of the Shoal 1 topographic surface in the shaded blue over the surface
defined by the base of the sand layer interpreted from seismic records shown in the blue-green
shades. The view is from the southwest and the vertical exaggeration is 175x.

17

6.3 Shoal 2
Shoal 2 as defined in this survey begins about 3.5 miles offshore of St. Augustine Inlet
and extends approximately 4.4 miles to the south. The length of the shoal is about 4.4 miles at
the -55 foot topographic contour (Figure 15). The minimal elevation of the shoal reaches 45 ft.
MSL.

Figure 15. Topography of Shoal 2. Minimum depth at the crest is approximately -45 feet MSL.

The isopach of clean sand below the topographic surface is shown in Figure 16. The
topography surrounding the shoal is shown for reference. Sand thickness varies between near
zero and about 10 feet. A perspective view of the isopach is shown in Figure 17, which
emphasizes the variability of sand deposits over the silt and clay-rich sediments below.

18

Figure 16. Isopach of sand below the surface of Shoal 2. Contours are in feet showing the
topographic features surrounding the shoal.

Figure 17. Perspective view from the southwest of the Shoal 2 isopach emphasizing the variability
of sand layer thickness above silts and clays.

19

Figure 18 shows the interpretation of the north-south oriented seismic line along the crest
of Shoal 2. One of the core borings collect by the Jacksonville District was located within 100
feet of the line and is shown in the figure. The core indicates about 3.5 feet of sand below the
topographic surface, whereas the sub-bottom profile indicates about 5 feet of sand in the vicinity
of the core boring. The difference can be attributed to local variability and distance of the core
boring from the seismic profile line.

Figure 18. Interpretation of north-south seismic profile line across Shoal 2. Lithology of a core
boring near the line is shown.

The total volume of sand potentially available in Shoal 2 is approximately 11.5 million
cubic yards. The perspective view of the Shoal 2 topographic surface and the base of the sand
layers are shown in Figure 19. The isopach illustrated in Figures 16 and 17 is bounded by these
two surfaces.

20

Figure 19. Perspective view of the Shoal 2 topographic surface in the shaded blue over the surface
defined as the base of the sand layer from seismic records. The view is from the southeast and the
vertical exaggeration is 175x.

6.4 Shoal 3
Shoal 3 corresponds to A7 as defined by Meisberger and Field (1975, 1976).
Topographically Shoal 3 reaches a minimum depth at the crest of about -40 MSL above the
surrounding sea floor, which is between 55 and 60 below MSL (Figure 20). This shoal along
with Shoal 4 (A6) is one of the larger shoal features on the inner continental shelf of northeast
Florida covering a total area of about 6 square miles. The isopach shown in Figure 21 is based on
sand deposits that range between near zero on the lower flanks of the feature to about 8 feet
below the higher elevations of the crest.

21

Figure 20. Topography of Shoal 3. Minimum depth at the crest is approximately -39 feet MSL.
Contours are in feet MSL.

Figure 22 shows the sand isopach of Shoal 3 in a perspective view from the southwest.
Similar to the other shoals included in this survey the thickness of sand deposits is variable and
correlated with topography. Figure 23 is an example of a sub-bottom acoustic profile from Shoal
3 and compares the lithology of one of the core borings obtained from the Jacksonville District
with the seismic interpretation. Core VBSJS06-13 shown in Figure 23 reached a depth of only
about 4 feet before terminating, possibly because a resistant clay surface prevented further
penetration. In this area of Shoal 3, the acoustic backscatter from the sand layer is strong and
easily identified as being about 5 feet thick.

22

Figure 21. Isopach of sand below the surface of Shoal 3. Contours the topographic features
surrounding the shoal are shown in feet. Maximum sand thickness below the topographic surface
according to seismic data is about 8 feet.

Figure 22. Perspective view from the southwest of the Shoal 3 isopach.

23

Figure 23. Interpretation of north-south seismic profile line across Shoal 3. Lithology of core boring
VBSJS06-13 located within 20 feet of the profile line is shown.

From the isopach calculation the total volume of sand contained in Shoal 3 could reach
approximately 31 million cubic yards. The location of the sand between the topographic surface
and bottom of the sand layer is illustrated in Figure 24. Again, it is cautioned that the recoverable
beach quality sand from Shoal 3 is likely to be much lower than the potential volume pending a
more comprehensive analysis from additional data from core borings and additional seismic data
collected at higher spatial resolution.

24

Figure 24. Perspective view of the Shoal 3 topographic surface in the shaded blue over the surface
defined as the base of the sand layer from seismic records. The view is from the southeast and the
vertical exaggeration is 175x.

6.5 Shoal 4
Shoal 4 as identified in Figure 8 is the largest shoal included in this study covering a
total area of about 20 square miles. This shoal can be best described as a sand bank, rather than a
discrete linear shoal, since is covers a broad area and includes multiple lobes each having a
distinctive crest (Figure 25). In addition, both Shoal 4 and Shoal 5 discussed in the next section
are part of the larger A6 Shoal system first described by Meisberger and Field (1975) in an early
report by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Center as part of the Inner
Continental Shelf Sediment and Structure Study (ICONS) to identify sand and gravel resources.
The isopach calculated from the sub-bottom profiles indicates clean sand deposits of sand up to 9
feet thick below the topographic surface (Figure 26). Along the flanks of the shoal at depths of
50 to 55 feet below MSL, sand deposits are likely to thin to near zero.

25

Figure 25. Topography of Shoal 4. Minimum depth at the crest is approximately -35 feet MSL.
Contours are in feet MSL.

Figure 27 shows the sand Isopach for Shoal 4 in perspective view from the southwest
illustrating the variability in sand thickness over this large shoal. Figure 28 is an example of the
interpretation of the sub-bottom acoustic data from this shoal. A good correlation was found
between the lithology found in the core boring data provided by the Jacksonville Engineering
District and the sub-bottom records. Additional seismic and sedimentologic data would be
required at greater spatial resolution to define specific borrow areas in Shoal 4. In many areas of
this shoal and the other shoals included in this study, the overburden of clean sand above silts
and clays averages between 4 and 5 feet, but can vary from the average by a foot or more over
relatively short distances. Thus, borrow excavations would have to be designed to account for
spatial variability to avoid including silts and clays.

26

Figure 26. Isopach of sand below the surface of Shoal 4 Contours showing the topographic features
surrounding the shoal are in feet. Maximum sand thickness below the topographic surface
according to seismic data is about 9 feet.

Figure 27. Perspective view from the southwest of the Shoal 4 isopach.

27

Figure 28. Interpretation of east-west seismic profile line across Shoal 4. Lithology of core boring
VBSJS06-38 located approximately 400 feet from the profile line is shown.

The volume of sand contained in Shoal 4 is approximately 96 million cubic yards

according to calculations from the isopach analysis. This is more than the combined volume of
the other four shoals included in this study. Again the recoverable volume from borrow cuts that
may be designed for this shoal will be restricted by the need to avoid the inclusion of silts and
clays and possibly by other environmental restrictions. Finally, Figure 29 illustrates the form of
a sand isopach contained between the topographic surface and base of the sand deposits in Shoal
4.

28

Figure 29. Perspective view of the Shoal 4 topographic surface in the shaded blue over the surface
defined as the base of the sand layer from seismic records. The view is from the southwest and the
vertical exaggeration is 175x.

6.6 Shoal 5
The final shoal included in this study is another component of the A6 system and is
situated just to the west of the north end of Shoal 4. Most of this shoal is contained within
Florida State waters as shown in Figure 8. Shoal 5 is approximately 3 square miles in area and
rises to a maximum elevation (minimum depth) of about -40 feet MSL (Figure 30). The analysis
of the sub-bottom records indicates that sand deposits are up to 8 feet thick (Figures 31). The
distribution of sand deposits as interpreted from the sub-bottom seismic data is more uniform in
thickness compared to the other shoals as illustrated by the perspective view of the isopach
shown in Figure 32.

29

Figure 30. Topography of Shoal 5. Minimum depth at the crest is approximately -45 feet MSL.
Contours are in feet MSL.

30

Figure 31. Isopach of sand below the surface of Shoal 5. Contours showing the topographic
features surrounding the shoal are in feet. Maximum sand thickness below the topographic surface
is about 8 feet.

Figure 32. Perspective view from the southwest of the Shoal 5 isopach.

31

Shoal 5 included only one of the core borings obtained from the Jacksonville Districts
draft report on the area offshore of St. Johns County. However, a comparison between the
Lithology of this core and the interpretation of the sub-bottom profile nearest to the core shows a
close correspondence. Figure 33 shows the Lithology of Core VBSJS06-49 with an east-west
oriented sub-bottom profile across the north end of the shoal. The acoustic signature of the sand
layer above a layer of clay is distinctive from the acoustic backscatter from the clay layer below.

Figure 33. Interpretation of east-west seismic profile line across Shoal 5. Lithology of core boring
VBSJS06-39 line is shown for comparison to the seismic interpretation.

The estimated total volume of clean sand in Shoal 5 is approximately 12.6 million cubic
yards contained between the topographic surface and the base of the sand layer defined from the
sub-bottom records (Figure 34). Figure 34 again illustrates the more limited variation in the sand
isopach compared to the other shoals considered in this survey.

32

Figure 34. Perspective view of the Shoal 5 topographic surface in the shaded blue over the surface
defined as the base of the sand layer from seismic records. The view is from the southeast and the
vertical exaggeration is 175x.

7.0 Potential for Beach Compatibility of Offshore Sand Resources

Based on the results of the seismic sub-bottom survey and the limited number of core
borings available from the Jacksonville District of the Corps of Engineers sand resources
contained in Shoal 4 are most likely to yield beach compatible sand. Figure 35 shows the
bathymetric features of Shoals 3, 4, and 5 along with the position of core borings obtained by the
Corps. The mean sediment grain size of a composite sample taken from approximately the upper
5 feet of sand within each core boring is also shown. A total of only 74 core borings are
available from potential sand source areas offshore of St. Johns County, an area of more than 50
square miles. Among these cores only sixty have detailed grain size data available from core
samples. Only sixteen cores are available from the Shoal 4 and thus trends in sediment texture
within this shoal cannot be established with certainty. Figure 35 shows that cores taken from the
higher elevations of this Shoal contained medium to fine sand having a mean grain size range of
about 0.25 to 0.70 mm.

33

Figure 35. Mean grain size in mm of the upper 5 to 7 feet of sand recovered from core borings of
Shoals 3, 4, and 5 (Sedimentologic data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineering Draft Report,
2007).

Sand found in cores taken from depths greater than 50 feet are more likely to have a
mean grain size restricted to fine sand or silty fine sand. The coarser distribution of samples
from the shoal crest areas is due to higher shell content. Figure 36 demonstrates the strong
correlation between mean grain size of samples from the core borings and visual estimates of the
shell content provided by the Jacksonville Engineering District. The concentration of coarse
carbonate material at higher elevations of the shoals is likely due to re-working by waves and
34

strong currents during storms. Evidence for this process was presented in the Reconnaissance
Report (Zarillo, 2008a).

Figure 36. Correlation between mean sediment size and carbonate shell material contained in core
borings from the Shoals 3, 4, and 5 (Sedimentologic data from The U.S. Army Corps of Engineering
Draft Report, 2007).

The geotechnical analysis of native beach samples collected in the onshore project area
(Zarillo, 2008b) also shows that textures of the beach are dependent on the content of carbonate
mostly in the form of shell fragments (Figure 37). Sediment textures on the existing beach are
characterized by somewhat coarser and broader grain size distribution and higher carbonate
content compared to sediment from the crest of Shoal 4 and the other shoals of the inner
continental shelf. This shell material is probably contributed from erosion of the carbonate rich
Anastasia Formation situated just below the modern barrier island sediments.

35

Figure 37. Correlation between mean sediment size and the percent carbonate content of beach
sands in the project area.

The role of the Anastasia in providing a portion of the modern beach and barrier was
discussed in the Reconnaissance Report (Zarillo, 2008a). Sediment distribution across the beach
includes coarser sands at higher elevations to finer textures at lower elevations of the subtidal
shoreface as shown in Figure 38, which depicts mean sediment size on the beach and shoreface
at Range 98. The coarser textures of the upper beach are due to higher concentrations of
carbonate in the form of shell fragments. Figure 39 shows the composite mean and median grain
size from a series of sand samples taken across eight beach profiles in the beach fill project area.
The sharp increase in the composite mean at the south end of the project area is most likely due
to the proximity of St. Augustine Inlet. Strong tidal currents moving through the inlet
conveyance channels may scour into the carbonate rich Anastasia Formation exporting this
material to the littoral environment where wave action transports it onto the beach adjacent to the

36

inlet. Some of this material can also be distributed to the north by wave-generated littoral
currents.

Figure 38. Range of sediment size across the beach and shoreface in the onshore beach fill project
area represented by the Range 98 profile.

37

Figure 39. Mean and median grain size of beach profile composite samples. The increase in grain
size at the south end is attributed to the proximity of St. Augustine Inlet where strong tidal current
may scour into the coarse material of the late Pleistocene Anastasia Formation.

38

The coarse nature of the existing beach sands is also a likely contributor to the relative
steep profile in some areas of the existing beach. A beach reconstruction using sand from
offshore borrow sources with less carbonate will likely lead to a wider beach having a more
gentle gradient. Coarse carbonate beach sediments consisting of shells fragments having
irregular and flatter shapes may have hydraulic equivalence to finer quartz rich sands. Further the
composite samples from the beach have a mean grain size range only slightly lower than the
range of sediment sizes found in cores on the crest of the Shoal 4 (Figure 35).

8.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

The survey of sub-bottom conditions in combination with the earlier reconnaissance
study of the inner continental shelf offshore of St. Johns County indicates that potential beach
quality sand resources are associated with several shoals situated in nearby Federal waters and in
some cases within state waters. Among the five shoals nearest to the area of the beach fill
project, all are likely to contain sand resources that may be accessible if a decision is made to
proceed with the design and permitting of specific borrow areas. Reconnaissance level core
borings and textural analysis of core samples collected and analyzed by the Jacksonville
Engineering District (2007) indicate that the textural properties of sand resources are likely to be
largely in the fine sand range with respect to mean grain size of quartz-rich sediment along with
occasional textures in the medium to coarse sand range when the carbonate content is above
20%.
When the sub-bottom isopach analysis presented in this study is compared and combined
with the lithologic data provided by the Corps of Engineers, it becomes apparent that beach
quality sand resources are most likely confined to a near surface layer averaging about 4 to 5 feet
in thickness. In some locations the thickness of clean sand can expand to 10 feet or more, but this
may occur in limited areas such as the north end of Shoal 4 where one core obtained by the
Jacksonville District contained about 11 feet of clean quartz-rich fine sand. Sub-bottom profiles
in this area indicate a sand isopach of 9 feet or more.
In order to define specific areas among the five shoals for development, the spatial
resolution of the seismic records and the stratigraphic and sedimentologic data from cores would
39

have to be increased. This is particularly true since the vertical extent of clean sand is limited to
an average of about 5 feet, but can spatially and abruptly vary even over short distances. Thus,
borrow cuts would have to be designed to account for spatial variability of clean sand layers to
avoid including silts and clays. Among the shoals that were investigated Shoal 4, the main
component of the A6 shoal system, contains about 60% of the likely sand resources in the area
having a total estimated volume of about 96 million cubic yards of sand (Table 1). Shoal 3,
containing a potential of about 31 million cubic yards, has the second largest potential for beach
quality sand. These are followed in rank by Shoals 5, 2, and 1 respectively as listed in Table 1.
Only a limited number of cores are available to establish the textural properties of sand
resources.
To emphasize the fact that the recoverable sand volume from the shoals will be less than
the potential, Table 1 lists the potential volume of sand resources from each shoal according to a
buffer of 1 foot and 2 feet above the base of the sand layers as determined from the sub-bottom
records. This is a hypothetical calculation, but is consistent with a likely permit requirement for
any borrow cut design that may establish a buffer zone above the sand resource to minimize the
risk of including sediments of high silt and clay content in beach fill material. Table 1 also lists
the ratio between the planimetric area of each of the five shoals and the volume of sand
contained in each shoal. This serves as an efficiency factor quantifying the amount of sand
contained in each shoal per unit of areal extent. As can be seen in Table 1 the ratio, having a
dimension in feet, closely approximates the average isopach for each shoal. A ratio calculated
using the surface area of the shoal rather than planimetric areas would be an exact calculation of
the average sand thickness or isopach. Each shoal can be characterized by the total potential of
sand available and the average isopach or efficiency with which clean sand is present in the
shoal.

40

Table 1. Summary of sand volume and area of each shoal

Shoal

Volume ft3

Volume yd3

Planimetric Area ft2

Ratio* Avg. Isopach ft.

Shoal 1

173,478,928

6,125,139

35,667,181

4.86

4.88

Shoal 2

311,233,902

11,527,170

58,820,704

5.29

5.39

Shoal 3

829,771,917

30,732,262

178,470,209

4.65

4.66

Shoal 4

2,596,039,276

96,149,507

584,230,300

4.44

4.49

Shoal 5

341,228,365

12,638,075

85,184,899

4.01

4.01

4,251,752,388

157,472,153

942,373,292

4.51

4.69

Total
1ft Buffer

Volume ft

Volume yd

Planimetric Area ft

Ratio

Shoal 1

137,811,747

5,104,134

35,667,181

3.86

Shoal 2

252,416,356

9,348,745

58,811,231

4.29

Shoal 3

651,327,044

24,123,200

178,371,999

3.65

Shoal 4

2,012,222,053

74,526,668

583,222,292

3.45

Shoal 5

256,070,302

9,484,076

85,094,888

3.01

Total

3,309,847,502

122,586,822

941,167,590

3.52

2ft Buffer

Volume ft3

Volume yd3

Planimetric Area ft2

Ratio

Shoal 1

102,144,566

3,783,128

35,667,181

2.86

Shoal 2

193,617,755

7,171,021

58,782,812

3.29

Shoal 3

473,136,124

17,523,543

177,959,591

2.66

Shoal 4

1,429,855,083

52,957,543

581,314,426

2.46

Shoal 5

171,124,234

6,337,928

84,648,875

2.02

2,369,877,763

87,773,163

938,372,886

2.53

Total

* ratio between sand volume and planimetric

41

It is recommended that the selection of specific borrow sites for development be based on
a combination of factors including permitting issues, dredging costs determined by distance from
the beach fill project site, quality of sand, and quantities that may be needed for the initial fill
project and estimated renourishment volumes over the life of the project. For a long term project,
the best candidates for development would be Shoal 3 and Shoal 4 due to the large volume of
sand likely to be present in each. Shoals 1 and 2 have a larger average sand isopach, but their
resources would become limited over time if a buffer above the base of the sand layer is
required. However, these shoals may be useful for small or initial beach fill projects that can be
permitted within Florida State Waters. Development of Shoals 1, 3, 4, and a portion of Shoal 5
would require a permit from the U.S. Minerals Management Service. A significant body of
physical and biologic data has already been collected by the MMS that could support
development of these shoals (Zarillo et al., 2008).
Most of the existing database of core borings and textural properties are from Shoal 4.
Thus, based on the sub-bottom survey and the available in-situ data Shoal 4 is the best candidate
to yield a large recoverable volume of beach quality sand that has similar textural properties to
the existing beach north of St. Augustine Inlet. Figure 40 shows the recommended area over the
crest of Shoal 4 to conduct a higher resolution sub-bottom survey and collect additional core
borings to design a specific borrow area.

42

Figure 40. Recommended area for additional core samples and sub-bottom profiles to define
specific areas for excavating beach quality sand.

The exact location and size of an individual borrow cut or multiple borrow excavations
will depend of the volume of material required over the life of the beach restoration project. The
sub-bottom survey lines can be placed within the existing survey pattern to provide a sub-bottom
profile spacing of 500 feet in the east-west direction and approximately 1000-foot spacing for
north-south or diagonal lines. Typically the spacing of core borings to determine the textural
properties of the borrow sands should be about 1000 feet apart. The combination of sub-bottom
seismic profiles and core borings will allow the construction of detailed lithologic cross-sections
depicting the lateral and vertical extent of potential beach sand from which a borrow excavation
can be designed.
43

9.0 References
Duane, D.B., Field, M.E., Meisberger, E.P., Swift, D.J.P., Williams, S.J., 1972. Linear shoals on
the Atlantic Inner Continental Shelf, Florida to Long Island. In: Swift, D.J.P., Duane, D.B.,
Pilkey, O.H. (Eds.), Shelf Sediment Transport: Process and Pattern. Dowden, Hutchinson and
Ross, Stroudsburg, PA.
McBride, R.A., Moslow, T.F., 1991. Origin, evolution, and distribution of shoreface sand ridges,
Atlantic inner shelf, U.S.A. Mar. Geol. 97, 57-85.
Meisberger, E.F and Michael E. Field, 1975. Geomorphology, Shallow Structure, and Sediments
of the Florida Inner Continental Shelf, Cape Canaveral to Georgia Technical Memorandum
No. 54 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Research.
Meisberger, E.P., and Field, M.E., 1976. Neogene sediments of Atlantic inner continental shelf
off northeastern Florida: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 60, No. 11,
p. 2019-2037.
Nocita, B.W., Papetti, L.W., Grosz, A.E., and Campbell, K.M., 1991, Sand, gravel and heavy mineral resource potential of Holocene sediments offshore of Florida, Cape Canaveral to the
Georgia Border: Phase I: Florida Geological Survey Open File Report 39, 29 p.
Phelps, D. C., Hoenstine, R.W., Balsillie, J.H., Ladner, L.J., Dabous A., Lachance M., Bailey K.,
and Fischler C., 2004. A geological investigation of the offshore area along Florida's
northeast, year 2 annual report to the United States Department of Interior, Minerals
Management Service: 2003-2004: Florida Geological Survey, unpublished report. DVD
Snedden, J.W., Tillman, R.D., Kreisa, R.D., Schweller, W.J., Culver, S.J., Winn, R.D., 1994.
Stratigraphy and genesis of a modern shoreface attached sand ridge, Peahala Ridge, New
Jersey. J. Sediment. Res. 64, 560-581.
44

Snedden, J.W., Kreisa, R.D., Tillman, R.W., Culver, S.J., Schweller, W.J., 1999. An expanded
model for modern shelf sand ridge genesis and evolution on the New Jersey Atlantic shelf.
In: Bergman and Snedden, J.W. (Eds.) Isolated shallow marine sand bodies: Sequence
stratigraphic analysis and sedimentologic interpretation. SEPM Spec. Publ. 64, 147- 163.
Stubblefield, W.L., McGrail, D.W., Kersey, D.G., 1984. Recognition of transgressive and posttransgressive sand ridges on the New Jersey continental shelf: reply. In: Tillman, R.W.,
Seimers, C.T. (Eds.), siliciclastic shelf sediments. SEPM Spec. Publ. No. 34.
Swift, D.J.P., Kofoed, J.W., Saulsbury, F.P., Sears, P., 1972. Holocene evolution of the shelf
surface, central and southern Atlantic shelf of North America. In: Swift, D.J.P., Duane, D.B.,
Pilkey, O.H. (Eds.), Shelf Sediment Transport: Process and Pattern. Dowden, Hutchinson and
Ross, Stroudsburg, PA.
Tillman, R.W., Martinsen, R.S., 1984. The Shannon shelf ridge sandstone complex, Salt Creek
Anticline area, Powder River Basin, Wyoming. In: Tillman, R.W., Seimers, C.T. (Eds.),
Siliciclastic shelf sediments. SEPM Spec. Publ. 34, 85-142.
U. S. Army Engineer District, 1975. Duval County Beaches, Florida general design
memorandum: Jacksonville, Department of the Army, Jacksonville District, Corps
U. S. Army Engineer District, 1998. St. Johns County, Florida shore protection project: General
reevaluation report with final environmental assessment: Jacksonville, Department of the
Army, Jacksonville District, Corps of Engineers, 81 pp.
U. S. Army Engineer District, 1990a. Duval County, Florida shore protection project
reevaluation study: Jacksonville, Department of the Army, Jacksonville District, Corps of
Engineers, 56 pp.

45

U. S. Army Engineer District, 1990b. St. Johns County, Florida beach erosion control project:
Special report, St. Augustine Beach nourishment: Jacksonville, Department of the Army,
Jacksonville District, Corps of Engineers, 58 pp.
U. S. Army Engineer District, 2007. St. Johns County, Florida Shore Protection Project
General Investigation: Geotechnical Report for Investigation Offshore Borrow Areas. 40pp.
Zarillo, G.A. 2008a. Final Reconnaissance Report: Offshore Sand Borrow Site Assessment
St. Johns County, Florida. Report to PBS&J. 17pp. + Appendix.
Zarillo, G.A. 2008b. Geotechnical Analysis of Native Beach Samples Collected from
St. Johns County, Florida. Report to PBS&J. 17pp.+ Appendix.
Zarillo, G.A., Reidenauer, J.A., Zarillo, K.A., Reyier, E.A., Shinskey, T., Barkaszi, M.J., and
J.M. Shenker, 2008. U.S. Minerals Management Service OCS Study 2008-060 Draft
Biological Characterization and Numerical Wave Model Analysis within Borrow Sites
Offshore of Floridas Northeast Coast Report-Volume I Contract No. 1435-01-05-CT-39075
+ Volume II: Appendices. 270p.

46