Journal of Coastal Research 26 2 342–349 West Palm Beach, Florida March 2010

Spatial Trends in Tidal Flat Shape and Associated

Environmental Parameters in South San Francisco Bay
Joshua A. Bearman†, Carl T. Friedrichs†, Bruce E. Jaffe‡, and Amy C. Foxgrover†,‡
†
Virginia Institute of Marine Science ‡
U.S. Geological Survey
Gloucester Point, VA 23062, U.S.A Santa Cruz, CA 95060, U.S.A
[email protected]

ABSTRACT
BEARMAN, J.A.; FRIEDRICHS, C.T.; JAFFE, B.E., and FOXGROVER, A.C., 2010. Spatial trends in tidal flat shape
and associated environmental parameters in South San Francisco Bay. Journal of Coastal Research, 26(2), 342–349.
West Palm Beach (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208.

Spatial trends in the shape of profiles of South San Francisco Bay (SSFB) tidal flats are examined using bathymetric
and lidar data collected in 2004 and 2005. Eigenfunction analysis reveals a dominant mode of morphologic variability
related to the degree of convexity or concavity in the cross-shore profile—indicative of (i) depositional, tidally dominant
or (ii) erosional, wave impacted conditions. Two contrasting areas of characteristic shape—north or south of a con-
striction in estuary width located near the Dumbarton Bridge—are recognized. This pattern of increasing or decreasing
convexity in the inner or outer estuary is correlated to spatial variability in external and internal environmental
parameters, and observational results are found to be largely consistent with theoretical expectations. Tidal flat
convexity in SSFB is observed to increase (in decreasing order of significance) in response to increased deposition,
increased tidal range, decreased fetch length, decreased sediment grain size, and decreased tidal flat width.

ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: EOF, eigenfunction analysis, morphodynamics, convexity, concavity, mudflat.

INTRODUCTION stresses in the shallowest nearshore regions, driving sedi-

ment seaward (e.g., Fan et al., 2006; Lee, 1995; Ridderinkhof,
The shapes of tidal flat profiles have been related to such
Van Der Ham, and Van Der Lee, 2000; Yang et al., 2003). It
factors as the relative intensity of wave vs. tidal forcing, the
follows that a profile with spatially uniform bottom stress
supply and grain size of sediment, and local elevation of the
will be more likely to disperse sediment equally everywhere.
flat with respect to mean sea level. Dieckmann, Osterthun,
Friedrichs and Aubrey (1996) showed that a convex profile
and Partenscky (1987) and Kirby (2000) presented observa-
favors uniform stress from tidal currents, whereas a concave
tional examples from the German Bight and the U.K. sug-
profile favors uniform stress from waves. Simple sediment
gesting that profiles tend to become more strongly convex
transport models incorporating tides and waves generally
upward with increased tidal range. Kirby (2000) also ob-
support these equilibrium trends, such that waves enhance
served a strong connection between increased tidal range and
concavity and tides enhance convexity (Lee, 1995; Lee and
greater percentages of flat area found above mean tide level.
Mehta, 1997; Pritchard and Hogg, 2003; Pritchard, Hogg, and
Several authors have noted that accretionary tidal flats tend
to be convex upward, whereas erosional flats tend to be con- Roberts, 2002; Roberts, Le Hir, and Whitehouse, 2000;
cave upward (Dyer, 1998; Kirby, 2000; Le Hir et al., 2000; Waeles, Le Hir, and Jacinto, 2004).
Mehta, 2002; Van Rijn, 1998). Tidal flat erosion, in turn, Although theoretical and conceptual arguments favor
tends to be associated with wind wave activity, while depo- quantitative relationships between tidal flat shape and the
sition tends to be associated with tidal currents (e.g., Allen et impacts of tides, waves, and recent deposition or erosion, few
al., 1998; Christie, Dyer, and Turner, 1999; Fan et al., 2006; observational studies have incorporated sufficiently large
Janssen-Stelder, 2000). Similarly, wave-dominated areas morphological data sets to adequately test predicted trends.
have been associated with coarser, sandier tidal flats, and Kirby (2000) visually compared the distribution of surface
tidally dominated regimes with finer, muddier flats (e.g., Woo area with height for seven U.K. flat systems as a function of
and Je, 2002; Yang et al., 2008). tidal range. Dyer, Christie, and Wright (2000) used cluster
These trends are, by and large, consistent with the concept analysis to analyze 20 attributes of 18 mudflats from north-
that the morphodynamics of tidal flats are driven at lowest west Europe. Although profile shape was not examined by
order by temporally evolving gradients in hydrodynamic en- Dyer, Christie, and Wright (2000), waves and tides were still
ergy and sediment supply. Tidal currents tend to produce shown to be the two most significant discriminators among
greatest bed stresses over lower flats and subtidal areas, the attributes considered. Yamada and Kobayashi (2004)
driving sediment shoreward, whereas waves produce highest used eigenfunction analysis to examine the temporal evolu-
tion of two tidal flat profiles over 2 years but found no cor-
DOI: 10.2112/08-1094.1 received 11 July 2008; accepted in revision relation between profile curvature and changes in environ-
12 November 2008. mental forcing. Considering the relatively small number of
 Spatial Trends in Tidal Flat Shape in South San Francisco Bay 343

Figure 1. South San Francisco Bay tidal flat locations. Shown here is
the area extending from mean high water to mean lower low water
(MLLW)—0.0 m—and the near subtidal area extending to ⫺0.5 m below
MLLW.

comparative empirical studies that have focused on tidal flat Figure 2. Cross-shore profiles drawn in ARCMAP. Of the more than 800
originally drawn, 766 were used for the spatial analysis.
shape, the rich data sets available for the diverse flats sur-
rounding South San Francisco Bay provide a unique oppor-
tunity to significantly increase the quantitative basis for our
understanding of the relationship and feedback between tidal Schoellhamer, 1996). Sediment exchange between the Cen-
flat morphology and the impact of tides, waves, and sediment tral Bay and Golden Gate generally results in a loss of sedi-
supply. ments to the ocean (Krone, 1979). Regardless of their ulti-
mate source, suspended sediments are primarily advected
SITE DESCRIPTION into SSFB in the deeper channels. Resuspension by tidal cur-
rents then moves the sediments up onto tidal flats and
South San Francisco Bay (SSFB) (Figure 1) is a mesotidal, marshes, where they are sometimes deposited, depending on
mixed tide system with semidiurnal tides ranging up to 2.5 tidal stage, wave conditions, and other hydrodynamic factors
m (Pestrong, 1972). Because of a contraction in estuary width (Krone, 1979; Schoellhamer et al., 2005). Significant wave
and reflection of the tidal wave at the inner end, tidal range events presumably favor sediment transport back toward the
increases with distance from the Golden Gate (⬃1.2 m) to the deeper channels.
southern head of SSFB (⬃2.5 m); tidal range on the south- Pestrong (1972) examined sedimentation on the tidal flats
western shore is slightly larger, a result of the Coriolis effect. of SSFB at Cooley Landing (2 km south of the Dumbarton
Wave activity in SSFB is characterized by short period wind Bridge) and determined that sediment is preferentially
waves, rather than ocean swells (Conomos, 1979; PWA, moved across the entire tidal flat on flood tides, with fine
2005). Strong summer winds from the northwest generate sediment sequestered on the higher flats because of settling
waves with periods on the order of 2–3 seconds and heights and scour lag. Highest transport rates occur at the marsh
up to 1 m (Conomos, 1979), which act to resuspend sediment, edge and in tidal channels, and sediments eroded from the
allowing transport to the channels by tidal currents (Cono- flat on flood tide are deposited in the adjacent marsh. Sig-
mos, 1979, Krone, 1979). nificant accretion occurs at the tidal flat–marsh interface
Foxgrover et al. (2004) showed that SSFB underwent a net when the flood tide has inundated the mudflat and as the
sediment loss from 1858 to 1983. While the loss was not a ebb tide drains the marsh.
steady process over the studied period, the system as a whole
has been predominantly erosional. This loss of sediment was METHODS
accompanied by a large loss in tidal flat area in outer SSFB
Extraction and Normalization
(Jaffe and Foxgrover, 2006a). In contrast, the innermost por-
tion of SSFB—the area southeast of the Dumbarton Bridge— Using a combination of bathymetric sounding and lidar
has seen a slight increase in sediment volume over the period data, with a vertical resolution between 15 and 25 cm, gath-
studied (Foxgrover et al., 2004; Jaffe and Foxgrover, 2006b). ered in 2004–2005 and modeled by Foxgrover et al. (2004)
Sediment in SSFB is derived from two sources: (i) the Sac- and Foxgrover and Jaffe (2005), multiple cross sections were
ramento–San Joaquin Basin (the Inland Delta) after passing drawn with an ARCMAP platform (Figure 2). Spaced at
through the northern and central Bay, and (ii) the many roughly 50-m intervals, the profiles were selected to remain
smaller tributaries that directly fringe SSFB. The Inland Del- largely normal both to shore and the predominant contours.
ta is the commonly, though not universally, accepted source Profiles range in length from 120 to 3100 m; this length is
for the majority of sediment influx into SSFB because the not necessarily indicative of the tidal flat width because lines
local tributaries are thought not to have the discharge nec- were drawn to well exceed the intertidal zone. Once all tran-
essary to contribute a substantial portion, except during very sects were drawn, horizontal and vertical information was
wet winters (Jaffe and Foxgrover, 2006b; Krone, 1979; extracted and normalized to specified upper and lower ver-
McKee, Ganju, and Schoellhamer 2006; Porterfield, 1980; tical bounds. To perform an eigenfunction analysis, each line

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2010

344 Bearman et al.

orthogonal function (EOF) analysis. Empirical orthogonal

function analysis allows for large quantities of data to be
compressed into a few dominant modes without compromis-
ing the most significant variability within the data. Because
the components of variability identified through EOF analy-
sis are orthogonal, they are uncorrelated and can be exam-
ined individually.
Of great use in spatial analysis is the pattern of scores that
pertain to the individual eigenfunctions, or modes of vari-
ability. EOF analysis has been used in the examination of
morphologic variability of beach profiles (Aubrey, Inman, and
Winant, 1980; Winant, Inman, and Nordstrom, 1975), estu-
aries (Karunarathna, Reeve, and Spivack, 2008), and mud-
flats (Yamada and Kobayashi, 2004), among other environ-
ments. When compared with variation in other physical fac-
tors, the spatial patterns of the scores can suggest connec-
tions between morphology and external forcing. In the case
of this EOF analysis, the profile set was first de-meaned so
that the dominant eigenfunction would identify variability
Figure 3. Example of the normalization process. Profiles are bound at among profiles rather than simply the shape of the mean pro-
upper and lower limits (dotted lines) and regridded onto a unitless scale
file.
of 30 points. It is necessary for EOF analysis that all profiles have an
equal number of data points. The 766 profiles were broken up into 12 distinct geographic
sections, using for region boundaries such features as tribu-
tary mouths and steep intertidal zones wherein no tidal flat
was normalized to the same number of horizontal points. The was evident (see Figure 2). To help ensure that the bound-
normalization procedure involved replotting the horizontal aries of the regions were rigorous in the face of the analysis,
extent of each profile onto a series of 30 unitless horizontal we plotted the individual regions against a running cumula-
points and then performing a spline interpolation that fit a tive sum of the eigenfunction scores. For the most part, the
piecewise polynomial function to the vertical data (Figure 3). profiles within a given geographic section showed a consis-
In evaluating the morphologic character of the profile lines, tent pattern of morphologic score, and the boundaries were
we examined four sets of vertical bounds: (i) between mean found to be justifiable. In the few cases where the pattern of
high water (MHW) and mean lower low water (MLLW); (ii) cumulative scores reversed directions midregion, the region
between MHW and 0.5 m below MLLW; (iii) between 1.7 m boundaries were redefined to produce a more morphologically
above and 0.5 m below MLLW; and (iv) between 1.7 m above distinct geographic section. As a check on the independence
and 1 m below MLLW. The first set of boundaries represents of the eigenfunction scores between regions, a lagged auto-
what is classically considered to be a tidal flat. Two sets of correlation was run on the scores of all 766 profiles, se-
boundaries below MLLW were also extracted to examine the quenced in order of position around the perimeter of SSFB.
sensitivity of including the near subtidal areas. A standard- The r2 value for an autocorrelation lagged by 64 profiles (the
ized upper limit of 1.7 m was also tested (i) to examine the average number of profiles in each region) was 0.27, indicat-
sensitivity of the choice of the upper limit, and (ii) for use in ing that profile shapes within a given region were reasonably
a larger temporal study (see Bearman, 2008) that applied ei- independent of those in neighboring regions.
genfunction analysis to SSFB bathymetric data sets collected
in the 1890s, 1930s, 1950s, and 1980s. None of the previous Physical Variables
surveys included lidar or other subaerial topographic data,
and 1.7 m above MLLW represented the mean maximum ver- Potential fetch lengths for local wave generation were ac-
tical datum surveyed by these previous studies. quired from the GIS database by drawing 100 sets of 16 lines,
For profiles within the 2004–2005 data set for which bathy- spaced evenly around the shoreline of SSFB, with each set of
metric data did not extend all the way to 1.7 m or MHW, the lines beginning at 0⬚ and progressing by 22.5⬚ intervals
profiles were extrapolated upward to the desired higher around a compass rose. Fetch lengths for each of the 16 lines
boundary. Any profile with an upper edge of original bathy- were logged for all 100 sets, and the mean fetch length for
metric data less than 1.0 m above MLLW was discarded be- each set was calculated. Tidal range data was obtained from
cause the interpolation tended to assign unrealistic upper NOAA (2008) at all available stations in SSFB and was lin-
slopes in such cases. Figure 3 shows an example of a mudflat early interpolated for profile regions that fell between the
profile in its pre- and postnormalization forms. Of the origi- locations of the NOAA stations. Surface sediment data was
nal 800⫹ profiles, 766 survived the normalization procedure. collected at various locations in SSFB in the fall of 2004 and
summer of 2005 by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) personnel
Eigenfunction Analysis using a small van Veen grab sampler. The sediments were
To identify the principal components of variation, we per- analyzed for bulk density as well as the Folk and Ward mean
formed an eigenfunction analysis, also known as empirical grain size.

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2010

 Spatial Trends in Tidal Flat Shape in South San Francisco Bay 345

Figure 4. (a) Dominant mode of morphologic variability determined

through EOF analysis of all four boundary scenarios analyzed together; Figure 5. (a) Regionally averaged scores of first eigenfunction for each
(b) dominant mode of variability determined through EOF analysis of boundary scenario when all four boundary scenarios are analyzed togeth-
flats bounded by MHW on upper edge and ⫺0.5 m on lower edge. er; (b) regionally averaged scores of first eigenfunction for flats bounded
by MHW on upper edge and ⫺0.5 m on lower edge.

Although the 2004–2005 bathymetric data set is the focus

of this paper, elevations for these same profiles were also
gathered for the 1980s, 1950s, 1930s, and 1890s by applying come more negative) if the lower limit of the flat is extended,
ARCMAP to the larger Foxgrover et al. (2004) historical data while convexity increases (and the scores become more posi-
set as part of our broader analysis. By comparing profile el- tive) if area is added to the upper flat. The analysis using the
evations from the 1980s and 2004–2005, we were able to es- boundaries of MHW to MLLW shows the highest scores
timate deposition and erosion preceding the 2004–2005 sur- (greatest convexity), while the analysis of the flats bounded
vey. by 1.7 m and 1 m below MLLW is the most negative (most
concave).
RESULTS In the interest of capturing as full a picture of the profile
as possible, while simultaneously not straying too far from
Comparison of Boundaries the classic definition of an ‘‘intertidal’’ flat, the rest of this
Eigenfunction analysis was performed on four sets of nor- paper highlights results using the tidal flat extent from
malized bathymetric data, each with slightly different upper MHW to 0.5 m below MLLW water. Figures 4b and 5b display
and lower tidal flat boundaries, 2958 bathymetric profiles in the primary eigenfunction and regionally averaged mode 1
all. For all four data sets, it was found through this analysis scores when the MHW to ⫺0.5-m data set is analyzed alone
that the profiles vary most intensely in terms of their degree rather than being combined with all four sets of bathymetry.
of concavity or convexity, represented by a negative or posi- As can be seen from comparing parts a and b of Figures 4
tive first eigenfunction (Figure 4a). Figure 5a shows the pri- and 5, there is very little difference in the shape of the dom-
mary mode of variation (first eigenfunction)—referred to here inant mode or the associated scores for the MHW to ⫺0.5-m
as morphologic score—regionally averaged for each of the data whether the data set is considered alone or is considered
four boundary scenarios. While the primary pattern—that of together with the other sets of bathymetry. However, limiting
concavity or convexity in the outer or inner estuary flats— the analysis to a single set of bathymetric endpoints does
remains the same in all scenarios, the values of the scores in increase the percent of variance explained by the dominant
each situation varies. Concavity increases (and the scores be- mode of variability.

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2010

346 Bearman et al.

Figure 7. Spatial trend in the scores for the dominant eigenfunction.

Figure 6. Mean morphologies of SSFB tidal flat cross-shore profiles. Pic- Positive or negative score indicates convexity or concavity. Dotted vertical
tured here are the overall mean profile shape, mean shape of all positively lines represent region borders, profiles between the two solid vertical
weighted (convex-upward) profiles, and mean shape of all negatively lines are inner-estuary flats, southeast of the Dumbarton ‘‘pinch.’’
weighted (concave-upward) profiles.

tended to be concave upward; in accretionary regions, profiles

Eigenfunction and Regression Results
tended to be convex upward. There was also a strongly pos-
The eigenfunction analysis showed there to be a clearly itive relationship (r2 ⫽ 0.71) between tide height (MHW) and
dominant, primary mode of variability (i.e., first eigenfunc- morphologic mode value; areas with higher tidal range are
tion). When considering the MHW to ⫺0.5-m data set alone, characterized by convex-upward profiles. A negative relation-
the first mode explained 90% of the entire variability and is ship (r2 ⫽ 0.60) was found to exist between mean wave fetch
indicative of a switch between convex and concave upward length (used as a proxy for local wave energy) and morpho-
morphology. Figure 6 shows the response of the mean tidal logic mode score; areas with greater fetch are characterized
flat shape to positive and negative forcing of the primary by concave-upward profiles.
mode of variability. As is clearly shown by Figure 6, the pos- Less strong were the negative relationships between mor-
itive response is a strongly convex-upward profile, while the
negative response is a strongly concave-upward profile.
All the first-mode scores for the 766 individual profiles (for
the MHW to ⫺0.5-m case) are shown in Figure 7, with the
profiles increasing in number counterclockwise from the
northwestern to northeastern shore of SSFB. There is a trend
of negative scores—concave-upward morphology—in both the
northwestern and northeastern portions of SSFB, while the
profiles toward the southeastern end of the bay exhibit
strongly positive—convex-upward—scores. Referring back to
the location maps (Figures 1 and 2), it is evident that the
switch from negative to positive and then back again is lo-
cated near the ‘‘pinch’’ that occurs at the Dumbarton Bridge
in the inner SSFB.
To examine the relation between physical factors and pat-
terns of morphologic variation, we averaged the scores across
the regions displayed in Figure 2, as were the fetch, sediment
size, elevation change, and tide height data. A comparison of
each physical factor and average first-mode eigenfunction
scores can be seen in Figures 8a–8e and Table 1. Figure 8. Comparison of regionally averaged first eigenfunction scores
The strongest relationship between the spatial trend in the [signifying convexity or concavity (circles)] to physical forcings (stars). (a)
first-mode score and the potential forcing variables (r2 ⫽ Elevation change between 1983 and 2004/5, (b) elevation of mean high
0.85) was found for changes in elevation preceding the 2005 water, (c) average fetch length, (d) flat profile width, (e) mean sediment
grain size, (f) multiple regression using elevation change, high water, and
bathymetric survey (i.e., erosion or deposition). In regions fetch (observed ⫽ circles, modeled ⫽ stars).
where erosion and elevation loss was documented, profiles

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2010

 Spatial Trends in Tidal Flat Shape in South San Francisco Bay 347

Table 1. Results of individual and multiple regression analyses.

r2 from t Value from p Value from t Value from p Value from

Forcing Response Single Regression Singular Regression Single Regression Multiple Regression Multiple Regression

Recent deposition Convex 0.85 7.67 ⬍0.0001 3.68 0.0062

Increased high tide height Convex 0.71 5.79 ⬍0.0001 ⫺1.99 0.0818
Increased mean fetch length Concave 0.6 ⫺4.75 0.0007 ⫺2.12 0.0668
Increased profile width Concave 0.33 ⫺2.18 0.0542 N/A* N/A
Increased sediment diameter Concave 0.39 ⫺2.28 0.0521 N/A N/A
* N/A ⫽ not applicable.

phologic mode score and flat width (r2 ⫽ 0.33) and between for a systematic morphologic assessment of SSFB tidal flats
score and mean sediment size (r2 ⫽ 0.39). Sediment grain size that was rigorous and thorough. Eigenfunction analysis re-
data was unavailable for the two innermost regions of SSFB vealed a dominant mode of morphologic variability related to
(regions 7 and 8); because the grain sizes are unknown for the degree of convexity or concavity in the cross-shore profile.
these regions, the relationship between this forcing and mor- For tidal flats extending from high water to 0.5 m below low
phology is not represented here for the entire South Bay, the water, over 90% of bathymetric variability was explained by
r2 value of 0.39 representing only the regions with known the first eigenfunction. Tidal flat convexity within the 2004–
grain size information. 2005 SSFB data set was observed to increase (in decreasing
After the individual regressions were run on each of the order of significance) with increased deposition, increased tid-
five physical factors separately, a multiple linear regression al range, decreased fetch length, decreased sediment grain
was performed including all of the factors at once (except for size, and decreased tidal flat width (Figure 9).
sediment size, which was not available for all twelve regions). The strong consistency between morphologic scores and re-
Any components with best-fit slope magnitudes less than cent elevation change seen in SSFB is supported by frequent
their associated standard errors (i.e., absolute t-values less mentions in the literature of the connection between erosion
than 1) were removed one at a time, with the least significant or deposition and concave- or convex-upward flat profiles, re-
slope removed first. In the end, three components remained spectively (e.g., Dyer, 1998; Kirby, 2000; Le Hir et al., 2000).
in the multiple regression as follows, in order of decreasing Similarly, the relationships seen here between greater tidal
significance: recent deposition or erosion, high tide height, height and wave fetch, and convexity and concavity generally
and fetch length. The results of the final multiple regression fall within the present theoretical (Friedrichs and Aubrey,
are presented in Table 1 and Figure 8f. A net r2 value of 0.89 1996; Waeles, Le Hir, and Jacinto, 2004) and observational
was obtained from this multiple regression, and the modeled (Allen et al., 1998; Fan et al., 2006) understanding of tidal flat
scores are qualitatively similar to the observed results. morphodynamics.
Analysis of the various tidal flat boundary scenarios con-
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS sidered here also provided physically sensible results. As
more of the upper or lower flat was added to the analysis,
The use of EOF analysis allows for objective investigation
the resultant morphology showed greater convexity or con-
into the major modes of variability found within large bathy-
cavity, respectively, because the gradients of the flat extrem-
metric data sets. In the case of the bathymetric information
ities are less than that of the middle flat. These findings are
presented here, the large and well-organized data set allowed
consistent with Kirby (2000), who also found convexity to in-
crease with the amount of flat present above the mean tidal
level (MTL). While the traditional definition of a tidal flat
extends from low to high water (or less, depending on ele-
vation of neighboring marsh), we believe the morphodynamic
activity of the uppermost subtidal zone to be an important
component of the SSFB tidal flat system. Extending the lower
flat boundary slightly allowed for a greater range of morpho-
logic information to be gleaned from the digitized bathymetry
and presents a more complete picture of the morphologic be-
havior present therein.
Although limited by an incomplete set of sediment data,
the positive relationship found in SSFB between mean grain
size and profile convexity was also consistent with expecta-
tions. It is widely recognized that in mixed-grain size envi-
ronments, sediment remaining on eroding shorelines tends to
be coarser than that found on accreting shorelines. Available
results from the literature for tidal flats likewise support this
Figure 9. Conceptual diagram summarizing response of tidal flat profile
shape in SSFB to a variety of forcings.
trend (Woo and Je, 2002; Yang et al., 2008). In the long-term,
sediment grain size on tidal flats is primarily a function of

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2010

348 Bearman et al.

hydrodynamic energy and sediment supply (Amos, 1995), Developments in Sedimentology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 273–
306.
with lower overall energy and greater supply favoring finer
Aubrey, D.G.; Inman, D.L., and Winant, C.D., 1980. The statistical
sediment. prediction of beach changes in southern California. Journal of Geo-
In contrast, the fundamental controls on tidal flat width physical Research, 85, 3264–3276.
are still relatively unclear. Idealized modeling by Friedrichs Bearman, J.A., 2008. Factors Controlling Tidal Flat Morphology in
and Aubrey (1996) and by Roberts, Le Hir, and Whitehouse South San Francisco Bay from the 1890’s to the Present. Glouces-
ter Point, Virginia: School of Marine Science, College of William
(2000) both suggest that adding waves to tidally dominated and Mary, Master’s thesis, 101p.
flats reduces their width while increasing concavity at equi- Christie, M.C.; Dyer, K.R., and Turner, P., 1999. Sediment flux and
librium. However, observations of Masselink and Short bed level measurements from a macro tidal mudflat. Estuarine,
(1993) and Pethick (1996) suggest the opposite—that larger Coastal and Shelf Science, 49, 667–688.
Conomos, T.J., 1979. Properties and circulation of San Francisco Bay
waves require a wider flat at equilibrium over which to dis-
waters. In: Conomos, T.J. (ed.), San Francisco Bay: The Urbanized
sipate their energy. Pethick (1996) further noted that narrow Estuary. San Francisco: Pacific Division of the American Associa-
flats sheltered from waves tend to occur at higher elevation tion for the Advancement of Science, pp. 47–84.
with respect to MTL. The negative correlation found here be- Dieckmann, R.; Osterthun, M., and Partenscky, H.W., 1987. Influ-
tween tidal flat width and EOF score appears to support the ence of water-level elevation and tidal range on the sedimentation
in a German tidal flat area. Progress in Oceanography, 18, 151–
conclusions of Pethick (1996) in particular. In the case of 166.
SSFB, however, tidal flat width is also limited by geographic Dyer, K.R., 1998. The typology of intertidal mudflats. Geological So-
conditions—the narrowing of the entire estuary toward the ciety London Special Publications, 139, 11.
far southeast end simply does not allow for extremely wide Dyer, K.R.; Christie, M.C., and Wright, E.W., 2000. The classifica-
tion of intertidal mudflats. Continental Shelf Research, 20, 1039–
tidal flats.
1060.
Despite the ease with which EOFs and multiple regres- Fan, D.; Guo, Y.; Wang, P., and Shi, J.Z., 2006. Cross-shore varia-
sions can be implemented, the ultimate effects of individual tions in morphodynamic processes of an open-coast mudflat in the
external and internal variables (deposition and erosion, tides, Changjiang Delta, China: with an emphasis on storm impacts.
waves, grain size) on the shape of tidal flat profiles in SSFB Continental Shelf Research, 26, 517–538.
Foxgrover, A.C.; Higgins, S.A.; Ingraca, M.K.; Jaffe, B.E., and Smith,
cannot be definitively separated. The area of SSFB with the R.E., 2004. Deposition, Erosion, and Bathymetric Change in South
most convex profiles—the region southeast of the Dumbarton San Francisco Bay: 1858–1983, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
bridge pinch—is subject to a notable confluence of multiple Report 1192, 25p.
positive forcings. Sediment motion in SSFB is southward Foxgrover, A.C. and Jaffe, B.E., 2005. South San Francisco Bay 2004
Topographic Lidar Survey: Data Overview and Preliminary Qual-
overall, eventually converging in this region; additionally, the
ity Assessment, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 1284,
innermost areas are the most protected from wind waves due 57p.
to the limited fetch, and they are also subject to the largest Friedrichs, C.T. and Aubrey, D.G., 1996. Uniform bottom shear
tide range due to funneling and reflection of tidal energy. stress and equilibrium hypsometry of intertidal flats. In: Pattiar-
Conversely, the concave flats northeast of the Dumbarton atchi, C. (ed.), Mixing Processes in Estuaries and Coastal Seas.
Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union, pp. 405–429.
Bridge are simultaneously bypassed by sediment, exposed to Jaffe, B.E., and Foxgrover, A.C., 2006a. A History of Intertidal Flat
larger waves, and subjected to smaller tides. Statistics sug- Area in South San Francisco Bay, California: 1858 to 2005, U.S.
gest that sediment supply is the most significant distinguish- Geological Survey Open-File Report 1262, 24p.
ing factor, followed by tidal range and wave fetch. However, Jaffe, B.E., and Foxgrover, A.C., 2006b. Sediment Deposition and
Erosion in South San Francisco Bay, California from 1956 to 2005,
it is probably more prudent to conclude that the convergence
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, 1287 32p.
of all three factors acting together is most likely responsible. Janssen-Stelder, B., 2000. The effect of different hydrodynamic con-
ditions on the morphodynamics of a tidal mudflat in the Dutch
Wadden Sea. Continental Shelf Research, 20(12), 1461–1478.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Karunarathna, H.; Reeve, D., and Spivack, M., 2007. Long-term mor-
phodynamic evolution of estuaries: an inverse problem. Estuarine
We would like to thank Dr. David Evans (VIMS) for his Coastal Shelf Science, 77, 385–395.
assistance with EOF analysis. Support for this work was pro- Kirby, R., 2000. Practical implications of tidal flat shape. Continental
vided by Contract Number 06WRSA0285 from the U.S. Geo- Shelf Research, 20, 1061–1077.
logical Survey. Funding for this project at the USGS origi- Krone, R.B., 1979. Sedimentation in the San Francisco Bay system.
In: Conomos, T.J. (ed.), San Francisco Bay: The Urbanized Estu-
nated primarily from the California State Coastal Conser- ary. San Francisco: Pacific Division of the American Association
vancy, with additional support from the USGS Priority Eco- for the Advancement of Science, pp. 85–96.
system Science Program. This is contribution no. 2979 from Lee, S.C., 1995. Response of Mud Shore Profiles to Waves. UFL/
the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. COEL-TR/106. Gainesville, Florida: Coastal and Oceanographic
Engineering Department, University of Florida, unpublished Doc-
toral thesis, 214p.
LITERATURE CITED Lee, S.C., and Mehta, A.J., 1997. Problems in characterizing dynam-
ics of mud shore profiles. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 123(4),
Allen, J.R.L.; Edwards, J.B.; Currie, K.L.; Whalen, J.B.; Davis, W.J.; 351–361.
Longstaffe, F.J.; Cousens, B.L., and Duffy, M.J., 1998. Medium- Le Hir, P.; Roberts, W.; Cazaillet, O.; Christie, M.; Bassoullet, P.,
term sedimentation on high intertidal mudflats and salt marshes and Bacher, C., 2000. Characterization of intertidal flat hydrody-
in the Severn Estuary, SW Britain: the role of wind and tide. Ma- namics. Continental Shelf Research, 20, 1433–1459.
rine Geology, 150, 1–27. Masselink, G. and Short, A., 1993. The effect of tide range on beach
Amos, C.L., 1995. Siliclastic tidal flats. In: Perillo, G.M.E. (ed.), Geo- morphodynamics and morphology: a conceptual beach model.
morphology and Sedimentology of Estuaries: Amsterdam, Elsevier Journal of Coastal Research, 9, 785–800.

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2010

 Spatial Trends in Tidal Flat Shape in South San Francisco Bay 349

McKee, L.J.; Ganju, N.K., and Schoellhamer, D.H., 2006. Estimates Roberts, W.; Le Hir, P., and Whitehouse, R.J.S., 2000. Investigation
of suspended sediment entering San Francisco Bay from the Sac- using simple mathematical models of the effect of tidal currents
ramento and San Joaquin Delta, San Francisco Bay, CA. Journal and waves on the profile shape of intertidal mudflats. Continental
of Hydrology, 323, 335–352. Shelf Research, 20, 1079–1097.
Mehta, A.J., 2002. Mudshore dynamics and controls. In: Healy, T., Schoellhamer, D.H., 1996. Factors affecting suspended-solids con-
Wang, Y., and Healy, J.A. (eds.), Muddy Coasts of the World: Pro- centrations in south San Francisco Bay, California. Journal of Geo-
cesses, Deposits and Function. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, pp. physical Research. C. Oceans, 101, 12,087–12,095.
19–60. Schoellhamer, D.H.; Lionberger, M.A.; Jaffe, B.E.; Ganju, N.K;
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), 2008. Wright, S.A., and Shellenbarger, G.G., 2005. Bay Sediment Bud-
NOAA Tides and Currents, http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/ (ac- gets: Sediment Accounting 101. The Pulse of the Estuary. Oakland,
cessed February 2008). California: San Francisco Estuary Institute, pp. 58–63.
Pestrong, R., 1972. Tidal-flat sedimentation at Cooley Landing, Van Rijn, L.C., 1998. Principles of Coastal Morphology. Amsterdam:
southwest San Francisco Bay. Sedimentary Geology, 8, 251–288. Aqua Publications, 715p.
Pethick, J.S., 1996. The geomorphology of mudflats. In: Nordstrom, Waeles, B.; Le Hir, P., and Silva Jacinto, R., 2004, Cross-shore mor-
K.F. and Roman, C.T. (eds.), Estuarine Shores: Evolution, Envi- phodynamical modeling of an intertidal mudflat. Comptes Rendus
ronment and Human Health. Chichester, UK: John Wiley, pp. 185– Geosciences, 336, 1025–1033.
211, Winant, C.D.; Inman, D.L., and Nordstrom, C.E., (1975). Description
Phil Williams and Associates (PWA), Ltd., 2005. South Bay Salt of seasonal beach changes using empirical eigenfunctions. Journal
Pond Restoration Project: Hydrodynamics and Sediment Dynam- of Geophysical Research, 80, 1979–1986.
ics Existing Conditions, 88p. Woo, H.J. and Je, J.G., 2002. Changes of sedimentary environments
in the southern tidal flat of Kanghwa Island. Ocean and Polar
Porterfield, G., 1980. Sediment transport of streams tributary to San
Research, 24, 331–343.
Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun Bays, California, 1909–1966.
Yamada, F. and Kobayashi, N. 2004. Annual variations of tide level
U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations, 91, 64–80.
and mudflat profile, Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean
Pritchard, D. and Hogg, A.J., 2003. Cross-shore sediment transport Engineering, 130, 119.
and the equilibrium morphology of mudflats under tidal currents. Yang, S.L.; Friedrichs, C.T.; Shi, Z.; Ding, P.X.; Zhu, J., and Zhao,
Journal of Geophysical Research, 108, 3313–3328. Q.Y., 2003. Morphological response of tidal marshes, flats and
Pritchard, D.; Hogg, A.J., and Roberts, W., 2002. Morphological mod- channels of the outer Yangtze River mouth to a major storm. Es-
eling of intertidal mudflats: the role of cross-shore tidal currents. tuaries, 26, 1416–1425.
Continental Shelf Research, 22, 1887–1895. Yang, S.L.; Li, H.; Ysebaert, T.; Bouma, T.J.; Zhang, W.X.; Wang,
Ridderinkhof, H.; van der Ham, R., and van der Lee, W., 2000. Tem- Y.Y.; Li, P.; Li, M., and Ding, P.X., 2008. Spatial and temporal
poral variations in concentration and transport of suspended sed- variations in sediment grain size in tidal wetlands, Yangtze Delta:
iments in a channel–flat system in the Ems-Dollard estuary. Con- on the role of physical and biotic controls. Estuarine, Coastal and
tinental Shelf Research, 20, 1479–1493. Shelf Science, 77, 657–671.

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2010

Copyright of Journal of Coastal Research is the property of Allen Press Publishing Services Inc. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.