"given the blue line graph indicating otherwise"
Actually it doesn't appear to me that the blue line graph does indicate otherwise. At 82ka the sea level was about -45m, from 130-116ya sea level was rising rapidly and passed through the -45m level, so depending on the precise date of the deposition of the 5e, or the area analyzed, they both could have been at the -45m level. If you have the graphic skills, perhaps you could stretch out the blue line graph on the horizontal to get a more precise fix on when the 130-116ya line crossed the same level as the -82ka line.
However, the point I was trying to make was, given the information I had, the bays could not have been formed by sea level fluctations prior to the present because they would now be under water. They would have to be exceptionally old otherwise; like something approaching ~120,000 years. BUT, the information I sortof bypassed in the study I posted indicates sea levels may have been approximately the same ~80,000 years ago as they are now. If I'm missing something(entirely possible), please point it out.
That said, I haven't been able to find any corroboration of that ~80,000 year old sea level, so who's to say??? This particular study is very recent(2005?) and may in fact be on the mark. I suppose time will tell.