|
UFL/COEL-93/002
TURBIDITY DATA:
HOLLYWOOD BEACH, FLORIDA, JANUARY 1990 to APRIL 1992.
by
P. E. Dompe
and
D. M. Hanes
May 1, 1993
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
1. Report No. 2. 3. Recipient's acceastoo .o.
UFL/COEL-93/002
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
Turbidity Data: Hollywood Beach, Florida, May 1, 1993
January 1990 to April 1992 6.
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organizatio Report No.
P.E. Dompe and D.M. Hanes UFL/COEL-93/002
9. Performing Organiation Iame and Address 10. Project/Task/Uork Unit Lo.
Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department
University of Florida 11. contract or crant o.
336 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611 13. Ty of Report
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
Florida Sea Grant College Program/NOAA
Coastal Sciences Program, U.S. Office of Naval Research Data Report
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract
This data report contains measurements of turbidity obtained near Hollywood,
Florida, during the period of January 1990 to April 1992. Data were obtained
within one meter of the seabed in depths of 5 m and 10 m. Turbidity was found to
vary significantly under natural conditions, with values during storms sometimes
exceeding 29 NTU. Tables and plots of turbidity data are presented.
17. Originator's Key Uords 18. Availability Statement
Beach nourishment
Hollywood, Florida
Turbidity
19. U. S. Security Classif. of the Report 20. U. S. Security Classif. of This Pale 21. No. of Pases 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 74
TURBIDITY DATA: HOLLYWOOD BEACH, FLORIDA,
JANUARY 1990 to APRIL 1992
P. E. Dompe
and
D. M. Hanes
May 1, 1993
Sponsored by:
Sea Grant College Program
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
and
Coastal Sciences Program
U.S. Office of Naval Research
Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
UFL/COEL-93/002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
I INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................2
II M ETH OD O LO GY ............................................................................................................4
III CALIBRATION OF INSTRUMENTATION......................................................................5
IV QUALITY CONTROL ........................................................ ...................................7
V DATA SUMMARY....................................................................................................10
VI ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................................................................... 14
VII REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 14
APPENDIX
TURBIDITY DATA TIME SERIES ....................................................................................................... 15
Turbidity Data: Hollywood Beach, Florida
January 1990 to April 1992
I. INTRODUCTION
The Department of Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering at the University of
Florida has collected field measurements of turbidity from January 1990 to April 1992 at
two nearshore locations off the coast of Hollywood Beach, Florida. This report contains
descriptions of the methods used to collect and analyze the data, as well as summaries of
the data collected.
Hollywood Beach is located on the southeast coast of Florida (Figure 1) within an
area restricted by the State of Florida's standards for class three waters. This area was
part of a 8.5 km beach re-nourishment project, which began in April 1991 and was
completed in August of the same year. The measurements to be presented in this report
were obtained at two sites normal to the shoreline centered within the re-nourishment
project in water depths of approximately 10 m (Site 1) and 5 m (Site 2). Site 1, located at
260 00.5' north longitude and 80 06' west latitude, is approximately 1 km due east of Site
2. Site 1 is located in a sandy region near a shore-parallel reef system. Site 2 is in a
uniformly sandy region about 370 meters from the shoreline.
I
Figure 1: Location of Hollywood
In this report we quantify turbidity in Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU).
Although the word "turbid" is a qualitative term referring to a suspension of particles in a
fluid, "turbidity" has evolved into a quantitative term which is related to the light
scattering characteristics of the suspension mixture. The units or measure of turbidity,
however, do not indicate the nature of the particles responsible for the light scattering. In
3
the data to be presented, we believe there are at least two distinct size classes of particles
causing turbidity. The very fine sediments and organic particulate which remain
suspended approximately uniformly in the water column are one source of turbidity. Sand
sized sediments which are locally resuspended by waves and currents near the seabed are
the other main source of turbidity. The turbidities due to resuspended sand are sometimes
extremely high (100 or more NTU), but the region of such high turbidity in this data set is
generally restricted to order 10 cm above the seabed.
II. METHODOLOGY
Instrumentation at each site consists of two Downing and Associates model OBS-IC's
optical backscatterance sensors (OBS) and an Onset Computer Corporation model
Tattletale 6 data logger. Also present are a Transmetrics model P21 pressure transducer,
and a Marsh McBimey model 521 dual axis electromagnetic current meter, from which the
wave climate is derived. The wave and current data are described in a separate report
(Dompe and Hanes, 1992). The instruments are mounted on a goal post type system
within the bottom 2 meters of the water column (Fig. 2). The goal post system reduces
scour in order to minimize the hydrodynamic influences upon turbidity induced by the
experimental setup. Turbidity sensors are generally mounted within one meter above the
seabed. The data logger controls the sampling strategy, converts the analog signal to
digital, and records the data. The logger can process eight analog signals through a 12 bit
analog-to-digital converter with a storage capacity of 20 megabytes. Sampling is achieved
through in-situ burst measurements at a rate that will both utilize the logger's storage
capacity over a month and record significant events. Significant events include
fluctuations in turbidity over all periods ranging from a few seconds to several days. This
is achieved by burst sampling data every 4 hours for thirty minutes at 4 hertz frequency,
producing 184 records per month per site, with 7166 measurements for each instrument
per record.
the data to be presented, we believe there are at least two distinct size classes of particles
causing turbidity. The very fine sediments and organic particulate which remain
suspended approximately uniformly in the water column are one source of turbidity. Sand
sized sediments which are locally resuspended by waves and currents near the seabed are
the other main source of turbidity. The turbidities due to resuspended sand are sometimes
extremely high (100 or more NTU), but the region of such high turbidity in this data set is
generally restricted to order 10 cm above the seabed.
II. METHODOLOGY
Instrumentation at each site consists of two Downing and Associates model OBS-IC's
optical backscatterance sensors (OBS) and an Onset Computer Corporation model
Tattletale 6 data logger. Also present are a Transmetrics model P21 pressure transducer,
and a Marsh McBimey model 521 dual axis electromagnetic current meter, from which the
wave climate is derived. The wave and current data are described in a separate report
(Dompe and Hanes, 1992). The instruments are mounted on a goal post type system
within the bottom 2 meters of the water column (Fig. 2). The goal post system reduces
scour in order to minimize the hydrodynamic influences upon turbidity induced by the
experimental setup. Turbidity sensors are generally mounted within one meter above the
seabed. The data logger controls the sampling strategy, converts the analog signal to
digital, and records the data. The logger can process eight analog signals through a 12 bit
analog-to-digital converter with a storage capacity of 20 megabytes. Sampling is achieved
through in-situ burst measurements at a rate that will both utilize the logger's storage
capacity over a month and record significant events. Significant events include
fluctuations in turbidity over all periods ranging from a few seconds to several days. This
is achieved by burst sampling data every 4 hours for thirty minutes at 4 hertz frequency,
producing 184 records per month per site, with 7166 measurements for each instrument
per record.
Figure 2: Schematic view of the instrumentation array.
III. CALIBRATION of INSTRUMENTATION
The OBS sensors measure turbidity by detecting infrared radiation (IR) scattered
by particles suspended in the water column. Since 98% of the solar infrared radiation
passing through 20 centimeters of clear water is attenuated, the OBS sensors can operate
at depths greater than 20 centimeters without significant degradation of the signal to noise
ratio from ambient sun light. These instruments are linear from 0 to 1,500 NTU with a
threshold of 1 NTU. The OBS has an adjustable gain and offset. The gain of each sensor
is adjusted to match the range of turbidity expected in the field and the input span of the
data logger. Generally the sensor is initially set with a small positive offset. With these
settings, the lower and upper sensors typically saturate at approximately 400 NTU and 75
NTU respectively.
Calibration of the OBS is accomplished in the laboratory using Formazin standard
as the turbidity agent, a Hach portable turbidimeter as the reference, and a 5 gallon black
bucket filled with tap water at room temperature. The procedure progresses as follows:
First, the OBS are mounted vertically in the bucket so the beam radiates across the
diameter at least 5 centimeters from both the surface and the bottom. Next, turbidity is
recorded in NTU using the portable turbidimeter, and the output of the OBS is recorded in
volts by the data logger. This last step is repeated over a range of turbidity similar to that
expected during deployment. The results are analyzed using regression analysis resulting
in calibration curves with regression coefficients near unity (Figure 3). This process
provides calibration constants (gain and offset) for each sensor which allow for the
conversion of volts into NTU's.
35
30- OBS#1 OBS#2
25
20 -
15- OBS #1;
Y = 21.7X 10.8, r = 0.995
10 -
OBS #2;
5-
Y = 108.3X 54.5, r = 0.995
0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Volts
Figure 3: OBS calibration curve.
Application of the calibration constants to convert field measurements into NTU's
is straight forward with the exception of an occasional discrepancy in the offset.
Occasionally the OBS offset in the field (verified using a portable turbidimeter) differs
from the laboratory offset. In these cases the field offsets are adopted for calibration.
Field offsets are measured three times: during installation, at cleaning (approximately in
the middle of a deployment), and during recovery. The result is two calibration curves
applied to the raw data (varying only by the offset), first from the deployment to the
cleaning, and second from the cleaning to the recovery of the instruments. Typically
variations in the offset are less than 5 NTU.
IV. QUALITY CONTROL
Turbidity data collected using the OBS can contain erroneous data such as that
produced by biofouling or instrument failure. Biofouling consists of the growth of algae
and barnacles on the sensor as well as fish swimming within the sensor's sample volume.
Instrument failures include battery interruptions, improper adjustment of the offset, and
complete failure of the instrument. Quality control analysis is an effort to tag observations
which have been biased and rate the investigator's confidence in each observation. This is
accomplished through examination of the calibrated time series and monthly summaries.
Quality of each observation is rated as either "good", "reduced accuracy," or "bad." For
example, Figure 4 shows the time series of a run categorized as data of "good" data.
Figure 5, in contrast shows "bad" data for the turbidity signal at the 0.85 meter elevation.
In this case the biofouling has elevated the signal to the point of saturation. The effect of
biofouling on the signal can also be observed on the monthly summary plots as illustrated
in Figure 6 where the signal after Julian day 220 increases in an exponential manner until
the instrument is cleaned on Julian day 224. Typically data is considered "bad" when
biofouling is obvious as in the case above or for instances of instrument failure.
-Val, m/a Mean -0.03085. Std Dov 0.29066 1.009
-V-ol. m/ Moon D .0.1937 Std DQv 0.1274 +0.6448
3 5 10 15 20 25 -0.245
Time In minutes
Turbldity 0 0.85 meters above the ae bd
ntu Mean -o 17.~ TO Std D.v 2.042 38.57
-12.44
urbTdlty 0 0.16 motars above the sea bed
n by 0Mean 38.87d Std D v 6.3 437.7
213.98
Time In minutes
H1B2. Run No. 53. Dote 12/20/91. Start Time 4:3. Jd 353.2
Figure 4: Thirty minute time series from deployment 16 site 2 illustrating "good" data.
I urn.mM.Moon .137 Std Dev -0.030 6.237
5 .010
U-vel. m/ Mean -0.01737. Std Dev -0.02354 0.0821
I.rRf II -0.1342
-V-al, m/m Mean 0.1544 Std ov -0.02418 0.2432
Time In minutes
Figure 5: Thirty minute time series from deployment 16 site 2 illustrating
"bad" data for the upper OBS.
Time In minutes
H162. Run No. 107. Date 12/29/91. Start Time 4:3. Jd 362.2
Figure 6: Summary plot of deployment 13 site 1 illustrating the long term effect of
biofouling beginning on Julian day 220 and increasing until the instrument
was cleaned on Julian day 224.
Quality of the data is considered to be of "reduced accuracy" if the signal exhibits
small abnormalities or in cases of partial data loss. For example, in Figure 7 the signal is
partially missing due to a shift in the offset below the threshold input of the data logger.
Figure 8 shows an example of an abnormality, which although small, reduces the
investigator's confidence in the observation to that of "reduced accuracy."
Figure 9 is a listing of each instruments operational status over the monitoring
period. Operational status is based on the deployment schedule and the quality rating of
the data from the instrument. Although "bad" quality of the turbidity data is usually due to
biofouling, there were also instances of instrument failure. Fifty-one percent of the data
recorded by the OBS sensors was labeled as "good" or "reduced accuracy" data.
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H131
Sensor Elevation = 0.8&6m
From: July 26, 1991, Julian Day 206.5
To: August 21, 1991. Julian Day 232.3
: good data
o :data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
20 Burst Means
S 10
205 210 215 220 225 230 235
Julian Day
Turbidity 0 0.85 meters above the sea bed
tntu Mean = 1.951 Std Dev =9.038
b 1. .1
Turbidity 0 0.16
ntu
.. ... .... .. L J ., .|L.
,' i. I
I I. . I I -I I I I I I I -* r*-
meters above the sea bed
Mean = 0.693
j.- i1i-i^J 1 .
Std Dev = 1.91
) .... 5 '- 1 I5" 20 =2" Z5
Time in minutes
H011, Run No. 93, Date 2/15/90, Start Time 0:3, jd 45
Figure 7: Thirty minute time series from deployment 13 site 1 illustrating, for the
lower turbidity sensor, an observation categorized as data with "reduced
accuracy."
Turbidity @ 0.45 meters above the sea bed14
"ntu M an = 6.408 Std Dev = 1.044 14.24
4.004
..5 10 115 20 ...254.00
Time in minutes
H111, Run No. 49, Date 6/7/91, Start Time 12:3, jd 157.5
Figure 8: Thirty minute time series from deployment 11 site 1 illustrating an
observation categorized as data with "reduced accuracy".
V. DATA SUMMARY
The overall data set can be summarized by considering the statistics of the mean of
each turbidity record. In other words the 7166 values in each 30 minute record can be
averaged to yield one turbidity value. Then the statistics of these mean values can be
356.7
0.9999
62.46
-1.173
. .
examined. Excluding observations composed of "bad" data, this process results in
summaries for each month in Table 1 and Table 2, or for the entire deployment in Table 3.
In Tables 1 through 4 the data is divided into two categories according to the elevation of
the OBS sensor. The lower elevation includes all observations between 0 and 0.5 meters
above the sea bed, and the upper elevation includes observations between 0.5 and 0.85
meters above the sea bed.
Time series of burst averaged turbidity data are also presented in the Appendix.
These plots are labeled with the actual elevation of the sensor during the respective
deployment. Also included in the Appendix are reference tables describing the
investigator's opinion of the data, noted events, and descriptions of any abnormal signals
for each deployment summary plot. Labeling of the figures in the Appendix is determined
using the following convention; Habc signifies deployment number ab at site c. Each
point on a plot represents the thirty minute burst mean of the data. A line represents high
quality data, circles represent data with reduced accuracy, and stars represent bad data.
Fluctuations in turbidity are sometimes correlated with wave height. For
comparison purposes, the wave measurements from Hollywood which are described in
Dompe and Hanes, 1992, are summarized in Tables 4 and 5.
SITE 2 UPPER
ELEVATION
SITE 2 LOWER
ELEVATION i m- m i
SITE 1 UPPER i i
ELEVATION
SITE 1 LOWER
ELEVATION
SFMAMJ JASON D JFMAM J A SONDJFMA
1990 1991 1992
Figure 9: Data availability.
YR Month TURBIDITY: 0.0 to 0.5 METERS ABOVE THE SEA TURBIDITY: 0.5 to 0.85 METERS ABOVE THE SEA
BED (NTU) BED (NTU)
.MEAN S MAX MIN #.f MEAN sm MAX MIN #of
REC REC
90 JAN 1.5 0.4 2.0 1.0 5 N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A
90 FEB 4.7 8.0 46.7 0.0 293 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
90 MAR 8.0 12.0 85.5 0.0 164 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
90 APR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
90 MAY 4.6 1.8 13.8 2.5 52 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
90 JUN 1.9 0.8 4.8 0.0 93 2.4 1.0 5.0 0.6 36
90 JUL 2.3 2.0 10.7 0.6 48 2.5 2.1 9.6 0.6 87
90 AUG 2.6 0.8 3.9 0.6 44 8.7 5.9 19.0 0.2 44
90 SEP 1.4 0.8 3.4 0.3 81 1.9 1.3 4.6 0.0 25
90 OCT N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
90 NOV 5.1 4.2 20.1 0.3 41 4.0 2.4 12.6 0.9 31
90 DEC 12.0 11.1 78.5 3.7 99 8.6 3.2 16.7 4.7 42
91 JAN N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
91 FEB N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
91 MAR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
91 APR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
91 MAY N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
91 JUN N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.5 2.2 10.4 1.2 16
91 JUL 1.8 1.2 4.7 0.0 40 2.3 3.7 32.4 0.0 148
91 AUG 2.9 2.3 16.3 0.6 143 3.3 3.4 24.5 0.4 100
91 SEP 7.0 3.8 22.2 1.8 45 6.4 3.7 12.8 2.2 16
91 OCT N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
91 NOV 3.0 4.8 22.6 0.0 93 3.0 3.8 18.2 0.2 107
91 DEC 4.1 3.7 20.4 1.0 95 4.2 4.9 21.4 0.9 77
92 JAN 3.0 1.9 4.4 0.1 7 3.4 1.2 5.7 0.2 20
92 FEB N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
92 MAR 9.7 0.2 9.8 9.5 2 4.5 5.0 25.9 2.1 21
92 APR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Table 1: Monthly turbidity measurements, site 1
YR Month TURBIDITY: 0.0 to 0.5 METERS ABOVE THE SEA TURBIDITY: 0.5 to 0.85 METERS ABOVE THE SEA
BED (Ntu) BED (N)
MEAN SD MAX MN #we MEAN SID MAX MN #of
REC REC
90 JAN N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
90 FEB N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
90 MAR 14.3 17.7 114.7 2.3 250 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
90 APR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
90 MAY 15.9 18.1 127.5 2.7 131 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
90 JUN 4.1 4.2 34.0 0.0 267 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
90 JUL 1.9 2.0 13.7 0.0 180 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
90 AUG 5.5 2.4 9.4 1.0 26 3.0 2.3 12.1 0.0 39
90 SEP 6.9 9.2 49.8 0.8 25 2.4 3.0 22.9 0.7 59
90 OCT 30.3 45.9 222.4 0.2 52 25.2 29.3 97.8 0.8 23
90 NOV 34.2 27.2 102.9 4.0 13 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
90 DEC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
91 JAN 9.0 7.3 43.4 0.7 63 9.4 7.3 36.9 0.7 68
91 FEB 45.5 15.4 95.4 31.3 18 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
91 MAR 19.3 14.2 50.3 8.5 25 10.1 5.8 23.0 2.2 24
91 APR 25.2 26.4 165.8 0.8 96 24.5 12.6 55.9 8.7 40
91 MAY 43.2 58.5 259.4 0.6 116 2.6 0.6 3.3 1.4 11
91 JUN 5.0 2.5 9.7 1.0 16 13.8 8.8 52.6 0.0 127
91 JUL 30.1 30.2 213.4 0.5 134 3.6 2.7 17.0 0.0 66
91 AUG 11.3 13.4 89.1 0.6 48 6.6 7.8 53.6 0.3 118
91 SEP N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9.7 3.8 25.7 5.1 39
91 OCT N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
91 NOV 21.8 20.0 106.6 0.0 160 13.8 10.0 53.1 0.0 169
91 DEC 16.3 19.8 82.2 0.0 183 15.3 11.9 42.5 0.0 164
92 JAN 7.8 3.8 19.2 0.0 24 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
92 FEB 3.1 2.7 16.2 0.8 66 1.8 1.8 9.5 0.2 47
92 MAR 1.8 0.4 2.0 1.3 3 5.2 7.7 40.0 0.8 71
92 APR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
92 MAY N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Table 2: Monthly turbidity measurements, site 2.
YR MO SIGNIFICANT WAVE PEAK WAVE PERIOD PEAK WAVE DIRECTION # of
HEIGHT (meters) (seconds) (th eta) PTS
MEAN sm MAX. MmN. MEAN sm MAX. WlN. MEAN sD MAX. MN.
90 JAN 0.38 0.20 0.61 0.26 3.6 0.5 4.2 3.2 106 33 131 68 3
90 FEB 0.74 0.42 1.80 0.11 5.0 1.6 10.2 3.2 95 38 167 6 168
90 MAR 0.76 0.41 2.31 0.16 5.4 1.7 11.1 3.2 89 33 161 11 157
90 APR 0.23 0.06 0.37 0.13 5.3 2.2 8.8 3.2 49 0 49 49 26
90 MAY 0.42 0.34 1.55 0.11 4.0 0.8 6.6 3.1 123 22.2 152 68 51
90 JUN 0.26 0.14 0.71 0.12 3.9 1.5 13.4 3.2 118 40 146 49 93
90 JUL 0.34 0.21 0.83 0.12 3.8 0.8 8.8 3.2 105 32 161 38 87
90 AUG 0.26 0.18 0.75 0.10 3.6 0.6 5.4 3.2 138 19 161 114 96
90 SEP 0.27 0.12 0.74 0.11 3.4 0.7 11.1 3.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4
90 OCT 1.2 0.56 3.01 0.55 3.3 0.0 3.4 3.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 27
90 NOV 0.65 0.41 1.76 0.15 5.6 2.5 12.2 3.2 72 31 131 8 47
90 DEC 0.64 0.38 1.43 0.13 5.1 2.1 11.1 3.2 70 31 133 6 124
91 JAN 0.63 0.14 0.83 0.38 4.2 0.6 5.0 3.2 94 36 135 49 12
91 FEB N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
91 MAR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
91 APR 0.44 0.20 0.97 0.18 3.9 0.5 5.0 3.2 115 27 148 62 28
91 MAY 0.48 0.27 1.11 0.11 4.1 0.7 5.9 3.2 96 27 133 41 122
91 JUN 0.27 0.19 1.06 0.11 4.6 2.6 13.4 3.2 58 24 156 36 173
91 JUL 0.24 0.13 0.72 0.10 3.7 0.9 8.2 3.2 134 36 176 81 175
91 AUG 0.24 0.14 0.85 0.09 4.3 1.7 10.2 3.2 80 47 161 8 143
91 SEP 0.29 0.17 0.87 0.10 5.4 2.6 12.2 3.2 59 33 176 28 126
91 OCT N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
91 NOV 0.71 0.40 1.76 0.12 6.0 2.7 13.4 3.2 73 30 148 13 147
91 DEC 0.60 0.49 2.21 0.10 5.1 1.8 9.5 3.2 70 31 133 6 134
92 JAN 0.51 0.29 1.40 0.12 6.6 2.6 12.2 3.2 68 33 139 30 132
92 FEB 0.71 0.21 1.15 0.36 7.2 2.6 10.2 3.2 70 45 150 30 27
92 MAR 0.41 0.31 1.69 0.10 5.7 2.2 10.2 3.2 72 42 144 28 55
92 APR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
92 MAY 0.50 0.27 0.82 0.11 5.1 2.0 10.2 3.2 54 29 133 26 21
Table 3: Monthly wave measurements, site 1
YR MONTH SIGNIFICANT WAVE PEAK WAVE PERIOD PEAK WAVE DIRECTION # of
SHEIGHT (meters) (seconds) (theto) PTS
MEAN sm MAX. N MEAN SEm MAX. M. MEAN sI MAX MIN.
90 JAN N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
90 FEB N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
90 MAR 0.67 0.31 1.79 0.21 5.0 1.7 11.1 2.3 82 34 174 4 159
90 APR 0.27 0.05 0.38 0.18 3.1 1.5 7.3 2.3 114 78 178 2 24
90 MAY 0.44 0.30 1.30 0.10 3.9 1.1 6.6 2.3 120 15 148 84 87
90 JUN 0.32 0.16 0.79 0.09 3.9 2.0 12.2 2.3 96 32 139 36 179
90 JUL 0.36 0.20 0.78 0.11 3.7 1.0 8.2 2.4 105 29 170 38 90
90 AUG 0.25 0.14 0.69 0.10 3.1 0.8 5.4 2.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 74
90 SEP 0.30 0.12 0.69 0.11 3.7 2.0 12.2 2.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 106
90 OCT 0.63 0.40 1.86 0.10 5.2 2.4 15.0 2.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A 108
90 NOV 0.73 0.44 1.46 0.20 5.5 1.3 7.3 2.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A 28
90 DEC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
91 JAN N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
91 FEB N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
91 MAR 0.74 0.30 1.34 0.17 4.2 0.9 5.9 2.5 124 16 150 79 33
91 APR 0.64 0.37 1.64 0.12 4.4 1.3 8.2 2.4 98 30 159 15 174
91 MAY 0.58 0.35 1.80 0.13 4.1 1.1 7.3 2.3 98 24 140 32 161
91 JUN 0.34 0.22 1.08 0.11 3.8 2.1 15.0 2.5 80 36 167 30 162
91 JUL 0.28 0.13 0.70 0.12 3.3 1.1 8.8 2.3 97 26 141 45 174
91 AUG 0.27 0.12 0.73 0.13 3.6 1.6 9.5 2.3 87 38 141 32 171
91 SEP 0.30 0.14 0.73 0.13 4.8 2.7 11.1 2.4 57 36 161 11 126
91 OCT N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
91 NOV 0.68 0.32 1.56 0.13 6.0 2.7 17.0 2.4 66 30 144 13 146
91 DEC 0.56 0.34 1.79 0.13 4.9 1.9 12.2 2.4 73 35 148 6 167
92 JAN 0.38 0.17 0.80 0.18 8.2 3.5 13.4 2.4 37 25 103 0 38
92 FEB 0.38 0.17 0.90 0.12 5.6 3.2 13.4 2.0 83 44 154 15 123
92 MAR 0.90 0.35 1.99 0.47 2.9 1.1 9.5 2.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A 81
92 APR 0.90 0.51 1.63 0.23 4.6 3.5 13.4 2.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 20
92 MAY 0.40 0.21 0.85 0.13 4.6 2.5 12.2 2.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 125
Table 4: Monthly wave measurements, site 2
PARAMETER MEAN MEDIAN MODE STANDARD MAXIMUM MINIMUM #OF
(NTU) (NTU) (NTU) DEVIATION (NTU) (NTU) PTS
(NTU)
TURBIDITY, SIE 4.7 2.4 0.9 7.2 85.5 0.0 1345
LOWER ELEVATION ____
TURRBI, SITE 1 3.7 2.4 1.0 4.0 32.4 0.0 782
UPPER ELEVATION ___ ____ ________
TURBIDIT, SITE 16.0 7.0 2.0 25.7 259.4 0.0 1896
LOWER ELEVATION 1. 3__ 6
TURBID IY, SE 2 10.5 6.6 1.4 11.0 97.8 0.0 1065
UPPER ELEVATION _____ 0.0 ____ _________
Table 5: Overall statistics
VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was developed under the auspices of the Florida Sea Grant College
Program with support from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office
of Sea Grant, U. S. Department of Commerce, Grant No. R/C-S-30. Partial funding of
this project was also provided by the Coastal Sciences Program, U.S. Office of Naval
Research. We also wish to thank Broward County Office of Natural Resources Protection
for their assistance and support in kind and the Coastal and Oceanographic laboratory staff
at the University of Florida for their assistance.
VII. REFERENCES
Dompe, P. E., and D. M. Hanes, 1992, "Wave Data Summary: Hollywood Beach,
Florida, January 1990 To May 1992", Technical Report UFL/COEL-92/016, Coastal and
Oceanographic Engineering Dept. University of Florida, 65pp.
Dompe, P. E., 1993, "Natural Fluctuations in Nearshore Turbidity and the Relative
Influences of Beach Renourishment" ME thesis, University of Florida, 88pp.
Dompe, P. E., D. M. Hanes, T. Khangaonkar, and J. Anton, 1991, "Fluctuations in
Turbidity and Waves at Hollywood, Florida", in Preserving and Enhancing Our Beach
Environment, Proceedings of the 1991 National Conference on Beach Preservation
Technology, Published by FSBPA, Tallahassee, FL, 384-399.
APPENDIX
TURBIDITY DATA TIME SERIES
OBS SENSOR
DEPLOYMENT DATE ELEVATION COMMENTS
(METERS)
H011 1/31/90 0.1 Most of the data is considered to be of "reduced accuracy" as a result of a
to partial data loss. A shift in the offset during the deployment below the input
3/2/90 threshold of the data logger resulted in partial loss of the signal. There are
several turbidity events that corresponding to storm wave events over the
deployment
H011 1/31/90 0.3 The quality is generally "good" with the exception of some suspected fouling
to near the end. There are several turbidity events that corresponding to storm
3/2/90 wave events over the deployment
H021 3/6/90 0.2 Quality is initially "good". However the signal begins to degrade at
to approximately Julian day 67 due to biofouling. The event at the beginning of
4/5/90 the deployment is highly correlated to storm waves.
H021 3/6/90 0.4 A shift in the offset occurred after Julian day 67 below the input threshold of the
to data logger resulting in partial loss of the signal and hence the "reduced
4/5/90 accuracy" quality rating. Eventually biofouling reduces the signal to a quality
rating of"bad data". Again like the lower sensor the event at the beginning of
the deployment is highly correlated to storm waves.
H022 3/5/90 0.2 Quality of the data is good until biofouling begins to interfere with the signal
to near Julian Day 85. There are several turbidity events that corresponding to
5/5/90 storm wave events over the deployment
H022 3/5/90 0.3 Same as the lower sensor.
to
5/5/90
H031 5/17/90 0.3 Quality is good until the instruments abruptly failed after Julian day 145.
to
5/26/90
H032 5/17/90 0.1 Quality of the data is good throughout the deployment with the exception of a
to few points with reduced accuracy.
6/15/90
H032 5/17/90 0.2 The signal is similar to that of the lower sensor with good quality until the
to instrument was incapacitated on Julian day 144.
6/15/90
H041 6/15/90 0.3 Quality of the data is good until biofouling begins to interfere with the signal
to near Julian Day 189.
7/15/90
H041 6/15/90 0.6 Quality of the data is good until biofouling begins to interfere with the signal
to near Julian Day 171 to Julian day 182 at which point the sensors were cleaned.
7/15/90
H042 6/15/90 0.2 Generally good data, except for a small disturbance near Julian day 172 at
to which point the signal appeared to have some biological interference.
7/16/90
H042 6/15/90 0.5 Quality of the data is good throughout the deployment with the exception of a
to few points of reduced accuracy.
7/16/90
H051 8/13/90 0.1 There are 3 specific sections labeled as "bad" data. First, a power interruption
to from Julian day 229 to 236 rendered much of the turbidity data over this time
9/28/90 period "bad". Also growth fouled the signal just prior to the cleaning on Julian
day 254, and again just prior to the recovery.
H051 8/13/90 0.8 Same as the lower sensor.
to
9/28/90
H052 8/13/90 0.1 Biofouling and power failures resulted in only a small amount of good data for
to this deployment
9/28/90
H052 8/13/90 0.8 Biofouling and power failures resulted in only a small amount of good data for
to this deployment
9/28/90
H062 10/5/90 0.1 Quality of the data is good until biofouling begins to interfere with the signal
to near Julian Day 287 and again just prior to recovery. The turbidity event that
11/8/90 from Julian day 280 to 285 corresponds to storm wave events.
H062 10/5/90 0.8 Although the data is initially of good quality, the instrument failed at the peak
to of the turbidity event
11/8/90
H071 11/19/90 0.3 This data set contains some small abnormalities in the signal as well as growth
to near the end resulting in reduced accuracy.
1/8/91
11/19/90 This data set also contains some small abnormalities in the signal mostly due to
H071 to 0.85 saturation of the signal particularly near the end as biofouling increased.
1/8/91
11/19/90 Although there is a good correlation between wave height and turbidity, the
H072 to 0.1 signal contained abnormalities, therefore data is tagged as reduced accuracy.
12/18/90
11/19/90 Same as the above sensor.
H072 to 0.8
12/18/90
1/17/91 This set is comprised of some good data. However a large portion of the data
H082 to 0.1 has been effected by biofouling.
2/18/91
1/17/91 This data set appears to have been effected immediately by growth, and
H082 to 0.8 therefore is basically "bad" data.
2/18/91
3/26/91 Quality of the data is good until biofouling begins to interfere with the signal
H092 to 0.1 near Julian Day 100. There are several turbidity events that corresponding to
4/25/91 storm wave events over the deployment
3/26/91 Similar to the lower sensor except the interference due to the biofouling
H092 to 0.75 eventually saturates this sensor.
4/25/91
4/26/91 Generally good data, except for a small disturbance near Julian day 132 at
H101 to 0.6 which point the signal appeared to have some biological interference.
5/19/91
4/26/91 Quality of the data is good until biofouling begins to interfere with the signal
H102 to 0.1 near Julian Day 132 to Julian day 135 at which point the sensors were cleaned.
5/26/91 There are several turbidity events that corresponding to storm wave events over
the deployment
5/30/91 Quality of the data is good until biofouling begins to interfere with the signal
Hill to 0.5 near Julian Day 170 to the recovery.
6/27/91
5/30/91 Quality of the data is good until biofouling begins to interfere with the signal
H112 to 0.8 near Julian Day 170 to the recovery.
6/25/91
6/28/91 Growth during this deployment reduced the data set to only a limited number of
H121 to 0.5 points immediately following the cleaning on Julian day 192.5.
7/24/91
6/28/91 Quality of the data is good until biofouling begins to interfere with the signal
H121 to 0.85 near Julian Day 190 to Julian day 192 at which point the sensors were cleaned,
7/24/91 and then again after Julian day 200 to the recovery.
6/28/91 This data set contains some small abnormalities in the signal as well as growth
H122 to 0.1 near the end resulting in reduced accuracy.
7/24/91
6/28/91 Due to the biofouling which occurred almost immediately and until the cleaning
H122 to 0.7 at Julian day 192 the first part of the deployment is reduced accuracy. Also the
7/24/91 data quality at the end is bad due to biofouling.
7/26/91 Quality of the data is good throughout the deployment with the exception of a
H131 to 0.5 few points of reduced accuracy.
8/21/91
7/26/91 Quality of the data is good until biofouling begins to interfere with the signal
H131 to 0.85 near Julian Day 220 to Julian day 224 at which point the sensors were cleaned.
8/21/91
7/26/91 Quality ofthe data is good until biofouling begins to interfere with the signal
H132 to 0.13 near Julian Day 212 to Julian day 224 at which point the sensors were cleaned,
8/26/91 and then again after Julian day 227 to the recovery.
Quality ofthe data is good until biofouling begins to interfere with the signal
7/26/91 near Julian Day 216 to Julian day 224 at which point the sensors were cleaned.
H132 to 0.8 The offset drops below zero 227 for an unknown reason. From this point on the
8/26/91 data is considered to have "reduced accuracy", which reduces to "bad" quality
as biofouling eventually interferes with the signal.
8/28/91 Due to the high rate of biofouling only the first observation and a few runs after
H141 to 0.85 the cleaning are considered good.
9/22/91
8/28/91 Quality of the data is good until biofouling begins to interfere with the signal
H141 to 0.5 near Julian Day 247 to Julian day 252 at which point the sensors were cleaned,
9/22/91 and then again after Julian day 255 to the recovery.
8/28/91 0.1 Growth during this deployment reduced the good data set to only a limited
H142 to number of points at the beginning of the deployment
9/22/91
8/28/91 0.8 Quality of the data is good until biofouling begins to interfere with the signal
H142 to near Julian Day 325 to the recovery.
9/22/91
11/6/91 Quality of the data is good until biofouling begins to interfere with the signal
H151 to 0.5 near Julian Day 325 to the recovery. There are several turbidity events that
12/2/91 corresponding to storm wave events over the deployment
Quality of the data is good until biofouling begins to interfere with the signal
11/6/91 near Julian Day 325 to 328 at which point the interference appears to have been
H151 to 0.85 removed (It's possible some debris got caught on the sensor and fell off caused
12/2/91 the interference) therefore from this point to the recovery the quality ranges
from "reduced accuracy" to "bad". There are several turbidity events that
corresponding to storm wave events over the deployment
11/6/91 Quality of the data is good throughout the deployment with the exception of a
H152 to 0.1 few points of reduced accuracy. There are several turbidity events that
12/7/91 corresponding to storm wave events over the deployment
11/6/91 Same as the above sensor.
H152 to 0.8
12/7/91
H161 12/11/91 Quality of the data is good until biofouling begins to interfere with the signal
to 0.5 near Julian Day 360 to the recovery. There was no cleaning for this
1/6/92 deployment Turbidity events demonstrate a correlation to storm wave events
over the deployment
H161 12/11/91 Same asthe above sensor.
to 0.85
1/6/92
H162 12/11/91 Quality of the data is good with the exception of some biofouling near the end
to 0.2 of the deployment Turbidity events demonstrate a correlation to storm wave
1/7/92 events over the deployment
H162 12/11/91 Quality of the data is good until biofouling begins to interfere with the signal
to 0.85 near Julian Day 355 to the recovery. There was no cleaning for this
1/7/92 deployment Turbidity events demonstrate a correlation to storm wave events
over the deployment.
1/9/92 There is no Turbidity data for this deployment
H17? to N/A
2/6/92
H182 2/7/92 Quality of the data is good until biofouling begins to interfere with the signal
to 0.1 near Julian Day 47 to the recovery. There was no cleaning for this deployment
2/27/92 Turbidity events demonstrate a correlation to storm wave events over the
deployment.
H182 2/7/92 Similar to the above sensor.
to 0.8
2/27/92
H191 3/12/92 Only a few good points at the beginning of the deployment. Intermittent failure
to 0.5 of the data loggers hard drive resulted in several lost observations.
4/10/92
H191 3/12/92 Similar to the above sensor.
to 0.8
4/10/92
3/12/92 Although there is a good correlation between wave height and turbidity,
H192 to 0.15 the signal contained abnormalities perceived as bad, therefore all but the first
S4/10/92_ few observations are tagged as "bad" data.
H192 to 0.84 near Julian Day 85 to the recovery. There was no cleaning for this deployment
4/10/92 Turbidity events demonstrate a correlation to storm wave events over the
deployment.
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H011
Sensor Elevation = 0.1m
From: January 31,1990, Julian Day 30.66
To: March 2, 1990, Julian Day 60.16
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
Pi .
20
10
400
300
200
100
)35 40 45 50 55 60
Julian Day
maximum (_ ), minimum (---)
Julian Day
III i I
43~43~
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H011
Sensor Elevation = 0.3m
From: January 31,1990, Julian Day 30.66
To: March 2, 1990, Julian Day 60.16
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
35 40 45 50 55 60
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
45 5
Julian Day
19
600
400
200
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H021
Sensor Elevation = 0.2m
From: March 6, 1990, Julian Day 64.67
To: April 5, 1990, Julian Day 94.16
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
65 70 75 80 85 90
Julian Day
65 70 75 80 85 90
Julian Day
maximum ( ), minimum (---)
Julian Day
20
100
100
600
400
200
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H021
Sensor Elevation = 0.4m
From: March 6, 1990, Julian Day 64.67
To: April 5, 1990, Julian Day 94.16
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
Sawn
Julian Day
21
600
400
200
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H022
Sensor Elevation = 0.2m
From: March 5, 1990, Julian Day 63.67
To: April 5, 1990, Julian Day 94.16
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
65 70 75 80 85 90
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
65 70 75 80 85 90 95
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
75 8
Julian Day
22
600
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H022
Sensor Elevation = 0.3m
From: March 5, 1990, Julian Day 63.67
To: April 5, 1990, Julian Day 94.16
-: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
65 70 75 80 85 90
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
Julian Day
23
100
600
400
200
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H031
Sensor Elevation = 0.3m
From: May 17, 1990, Julian Day 136.5
To: May 26, 1990, Julian Day 145.0
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
140 141
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
145
Julian Day
24
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H032
Sensor Elevation = 0.1m
From: May 17, 1990, Julian Day 136.5
To: June 15, 1990, Julian Day 165.5
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
140 145 150 155 160 165
Julian Day
170
150
135
600
400-
200-
Y35
-20
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H032
Sensor Elevation = 0.2m
From: May 17, 1990, Julian Day 136.5
To: June 15, 1990, Julian Day 165.5
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
.....--.-.-.-.i-..i -.....-.
140 145 150 155 160 165
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
35 140 145 150 155 160 165 1'
Julian Day
maximum ( ), minimum (---)
---- -
35 140 145 150 155 160 165 1I
Julian Day
26
135
0
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H041
Sensor Elevation = 0.3m
From: June 15, 1990, Julian Day 165.5
To: July 15, 1990, Julian Day 195.6
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
170 175 180 185 190 195
Julian Day
170 175 180 185 190 195
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
180 11
Julian Day
165
200
165
- --- ------ ------------ -- -- -- -
I I W l I
-50
2(
2C
)0
)0
65
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H041
Sensor Elevation = 0.6m
From: June 15, 1990, Julian Day 165.5
To: July 15, 1990, Julian Day 195.6
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
200
Y I _-~--'- i -r V y ^ --no --1--^ -w __
65 170 175 180 185 190 195
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
) II
170
180 11
Julian Day
28
190
195
200
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H042
Sensor Elevation = 0.2m
From: June 15, 1990, Julian Day 165.5
To: July 16, 1990, Julian Day 196.6
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
170 175 180
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
195
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
Julian Day
60-
40
20 -
200
Y65
(
500
~nii~Scz~
2C
)0
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H042
Sensor Elevation = 0.5m
From: June 15, 1990, Julian Day 165.5
To: July 16, 1990, Julian Day 196.6
-: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
170 175 180 185 190 195
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
Julian Day
30
200
100
50-
Y65
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H051
Sensor Elevation = 0.lm
From: August 13, 1990, Julian Day 224.75
To: September 28, 1990, Julian Day 270.5
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
240
250
Julian Day
260
270
280
280
100
-50
2i
230
- -i -----------
28
10
20
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H051
Sensor Elevation = 0.8m
From: August 13, 1990, Julian Day 224.75
To: September 28, 1990, Julian Day 270.5
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
230 240 250 260 270 280
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
280
230 240 250 260 270
Julian Day
32
400
200
-2020
220
400
-202-
220
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H052
Sensor Elevation = 0.lm
From: August 13, 1990, Julian Day 224.75
To: September 28, 1990, Julian Day 270.5
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
225 230 235 240 245 250 255 260 265 270
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
20 225 230 235 240 245 250 255 260 265 270
Julian Day
225 230 235 240 245 250 255 260 265 270
Julian Day
300
200
100
220
500
220
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H052
Sensor Elevation = 0.77m
From: August 13, 1990, Julian Day 224.75
To: September 28, 1990, Julian Day 270.5
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
245
Julian Day
5 240 245 250
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
225 230 235 240 245
Julian Day
34
250 255 260 265 270
270
270
200
------------
I I I, I
i i i i i
220
20
-100
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H062
Sensor Elevation = 0.lm
From: October 5, 1990, Julian Day 277.5
To: November 8, 1990, Julian Day 311.0
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
310
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
310
280 285 290 295 300 305
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
280 285 290 295 300 305 310
Julian Day
200
100
400
200
-"2n
~I I I I I I I
I
-275
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H062
Sensor Elevation = 0.8m
From: October 5, 1990, Julian Day 277.5
To: November 8, 1990, Julian Day 311.0
-: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
280 285 290 295 300 305
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
Julian Day
!280 285 290 295 300 305
Julian Day
36
150
275
310
150
275
310
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H071
Sensor Elevation = 0.3m
From: November 19, 1990, Julian Day 322.5
To: January 8, 1991, Julian Day 3.25
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
370
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
Ii i^ iI^ i ii
325 330 335 340 345 350 355 360 365 370
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
370
Julian Day
100
n
320
400
300
200
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H071
Sensor Elevation = 0.85m
From: November 19, 1990, Julian Day 322.5
To: January 8, 1991, Julian Day 3.25
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
50 Burst Means
920 325 330 335 340 345 350 355 360 365 370
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
15 ......
10-
z 5- Lo
920 325 330 335 340 345 350 355 360 365 370
Julian Day
maximum ( ), minimum (---)
50
H 0-
z
-520 325 330 335 340 345 350 35 30 35 5 370
Julian Day
38
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H072
Sensor Elevation = 0.1m
From: November 19, 1990, Julian Day 322.5
To: December 18, 1990, Julian Day 351.0
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
330 335 340 345 350 355
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
330 335 340 345 350 355
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
340
Julian Day
39
500
500 F-
25-
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H072
Sensor Elevation = 0.8m
From: November 19, 1990, Julian Day 322.5
To: December 18, 1990, Julian Day 351.0
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
Julian Day
355
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
355
330 335 340 345 350
Julian Day
-59
325
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H082
Sensor Elevation = 0.1m
From: January 17, 1991, Julian Day 16.0
To: February 18, 1991, Julian Day 43.0
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
20 25 30 35 40
Julian Day
41
150
100
50
800
600
400
200
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H082
Sensor Elevation = 0.8m
From: January 17, 1991, Julian Day 16.0
To: February 18, 1991, Julian Day 43.0
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
20 25 30 35 40
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
20 25 30 35 40
Julian Day
maximum ( ), minimum (---)
Julian Day
42
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H092
Sensor Elevation = 0.1m
From: March 26, 1991, Julian Day 84.16
To: April 25, 1991, Julian Day 114.5
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
90 95 100 105 110 115
Julian Day
200
150
100
20
8
800
600
400
200
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H092
Sensor Elevation = 0.75m
From: March 26, 1991, Julian Day 84.16
To: April 25, 1991, Julian Day 114.5
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
90 95 100 105 110
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
5 90 95 100 105 110 11
Julian Day
maximum ( ), minimum (---)
I f*1jVj^^^^^ ^^ ^
15 90 95 100 105 110 11
Julian Day
44
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H101
Sensor Elevation = 0.6m
From: April 26, 1991, Julian Day 115.5
To: May 19, 1991, Julian Day 138.7
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
------i-----------i----------
120 125 130 135
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
120 125 130 135
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
Julian Day
45
A
Y15
140
0
115
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H102
Sensor Elevation = 0.lm
From: April 26, 1991, Julian Day 115.5
To: May 26, 1991, Julian Day 145.5
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
-i
, ^^A^^
125
130 135
Julian Day
140
145
Standard Deviation
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
Julian Day
46
300
200
100
n
Y15
120
100
800
600
400
200
115
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H111
Sensor Elevation = 0.5m
From: May 30, 1991, Julian Day 149.5
To: June 27, 1991, Julian Day 177.3
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
150 155 160 165 170 175
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
150 155 160 165 170 175
Julian Day
47
100
200
150
100
45
?45
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H112
Sensor Elevation = 0.8m
From: May 30, 1991, Julian Day 149.5
To: June 25, 1991, Julian Day 175.5
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
160 1(
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
Julian Day
maximum ( ), minimum (---)
150 155 160 165 170 175
Julian Day
48
45
145
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H121
Sensor Elevation = 0.5m
From: June 28, 1991, Julian Day 178.5
To: July 24, 1991, Julian Day 204.5
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
205
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
190
Julian Day
49
400
300
200
100
150
400
200
175
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H121
Sensor Elevation = 0.85m
From: June 28, 1991, Julian Day 178.5
To: July 24, 1991, Julian Day 204.5
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
30 F
180
185
190
Julian Day
195
200
Standard Deviation
180 185 190 195 200
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
190
Julian Day
50
200
205
1UU
S----------- --------- ------------
_Il'_'lv__~/_~;9I~FRUVV_1V _*
_________________1__________________________________1__________________________________!________________
75
175
2C
2(
)5
)5
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H122
Sensor Elevation = O.lm
From: June 28, 1991, Julian Day 178.5
To: July 24, 1991, Julian Day 204.3
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
190
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
Julian Day
190
Julian Day
51
500
600
400
200
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H122
Sensor Elevation = 0.7m
From: June 28, 1991, Julian Day 178.5
To: July 24, 1991, Julian Day 204.3
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
------------------------~i-------------
1 i i A
200
190
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
185 190 195
Julian Day
maximum ( ), minimum (---)
180 185 190 195 200
Julian Day
52
400
0nn
'"Y75
180
205
400 [
200
205
-20 75
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H131
Sensor Elevation = 0.5m
From: July 26, 1991, Julian Day 206.5
To: August 21, 1991, Julian Day 232.3
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
215
220
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
225
230
210 215 220 225 230
Julian Day
maximum ( ), minimum (---)
210 215 220 225 230
Julian Day
5
210
235
600
400
200
235
235
_ _1
9 III
0
905
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H131
Sensor Elevation = 0.85m
From: July 26, 1991, Julian Day 206.5
To: August 21, 1991, Julian Day 232.3
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
^ ~ i
ZZU
Z3j
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
Julian Day
210
ZZ2
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H132
Sensor Elevation = 0.lm
From: July 26, 1991, Julian Day 206.5
To: August 26, 1991, Julian Day 237.0
-: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
210 215 220 225 230 235
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
215
220
225
230
235
Julian Day
210 215 220 225 230 235
Julian Day
300
200
100
240
I II II
n
205
210
300
200
100
0
240
905
24
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H132
Sensor Elevation = 0.8m
From: July 26, 1991, Julian Day 206.5
To: August 26, 1991, Julian Day 237.0
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
215
220
225
230
235
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
240
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
210 215 220 225 230 235
Julian Day
100
-" 5
- 05
210
240
105
100,
240
5n
-50
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H141
Sensor Elevation = 0.85m
From: August 28, 1991, Julian Day 239.5
To: September 22, 1991, Julian Day 264.0
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
Julian Day
Julian Day
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H141
Sensor Elevation = 0.5m
From: August 28, 1991, Julian Day 239.5
To: September 22, 1991, Julian Day 264.0
-: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
265
240 245 250 255 260
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
240 245 250 255 260 265
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
250
Julian Day
58
265
150
300
200
100
935
935
235
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H142
Sensor Elevation = 0.lm
From: August 28, 1991, Julian Day 239.5
To: September 22, 1991, Julian Day 264.0
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
250
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
240 245 250 255 260
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
Julian Day
59
265
635
60 r-
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H142
Sensor Elevation = 0.8m
From: August 28, 1991, Julian Day 239.5
To: September 22, 1991, Julian Day 264.0
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
250
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
240 245 250 255 260 265
Julian Day
60
300
200
100
100
300
200
100
935
35
~35
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H151
Sensor Elevation = 0.5m
From: November 6, 1991, Julian Day 309.7
To: December 2, 1991, Julian Day 335.8
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
310 315 320 325 330 335 340
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
Julian Day
300
200
100
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H151
Sensor Elevation = 0.85m
From: November 6, 1991, Julian Day 309.7
To: December 2, 1991, Julian Day 335.8
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
320 3:
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
5
C)----------------------i ---
315
320 3:
Julian Day
25
330
335
340
340
maximum (_), minimum (---)
340
Julian Day
62
310
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H152
Sensor Elevation = 0.lm
From: November 6, 1991, Julian Day 309.7
To: December 7, 1991, Julian Day 340.3
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
310 315 320 325 330 335 340
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
310 315 320 325 330 335 340
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
Julian Day
600
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H152
Sensor Elevation = 0.8m
From: November 6, 1991, Julian Day 309.7
To: December 7, 1991, Julian Day 340.3
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
_ I
310 315 320 325 330 335
Julian Day
340
Standard Deviation
310 315 320 325 330 335 340
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
310 315 320
325
Julian Day
64
330
34
- V
I_ _I I__ t__ ___ I ------------1-------
5
[5
34
05
-50
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H161
Sensor Elevation = 0.5m
From: December 11, 1991, Julian Day 344.5
To: January 6, 1992, Julian Day 5.3
-: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
345 350 355 360 365 370 375
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
345
350
355 3
Julian Day
60
365
375
maximum (_), minimum (---)
345 350 355 360 365 370 375
Julian Day
65
150
100
50
200
150
100
A
340
500 r
31
340
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H161
Sensor Elevation = 0.85m
From: December 11, 1991, Julian Day 344.5
To: January 6, 1992, Julian Day 5.3
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
345 350 355 360 365 370 375
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
^A ^
350
355 360
Julian Day
370
375
345 350 355 360 365 370 375
Julian Day
66
n
340
345
150
100
50
940
940
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H162
Sensor Elevation = 0.2m
From: December 11, 1991, Julian Day 344.5
To: January 7, 1992, Julian Day 6.3
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
345 350 355 360 365 370
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
350
355 3'
Julian Day
60
365
370
maximum ( ), minimum (---)
345 350 355 360 365 370 375
Julian Day
67
?(II
40
20-
375
A
340
345
800
600
400
200
'5
40
A A
nn
940
37
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H162
Sensor Elevation = 0.85m
From: December 11, 1991, Julian Day 344.5
To: January 7, 1992, Julian Day 6.3
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
tI /- A^ i
350
355
360
370
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
345 350 355 360 365 370 375
Julian Day
maximum ( ), minimum (---)
_4 ------- --------
350
355
360
365
Julian Day
n
340
345
100
345
370
375
340
40
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H182
Sensor Elevation = 0.lm
From: February 7, 1992, Julian Day 37.0
To: February 27, 1992, Julian Day 57.5
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
40 45 50 55
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
05... _---- _-'- __-_. UL^. .\--.a. _** ,N**41*****' *****^**
35 40 45 50 55
Julian Day
69
01L
35
50 r
400
300
200
I
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H182
Sensor Elevation = 0.8m
From: February 7, 1992, Julian Day 37.0
To: February 27, 1992, Julian Day 57.5
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
5 40 45 50 55 61
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
Julian Day
maximum ( ), minimum (---)
40 45 50 55
Julian Day
70
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H191
Sensor Elevation = 0.48m
From: March 12,1992 Julian Day 70.5
To: April 10,1992 Julian Day 99.0
+ : good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
+ ++
4t ++ + +++ ++
+ + ++ ++
+ ++- ++ ++ +
+
+tI B 1 I,+ I+ 35$ I IH I
72 74 76 78 80
Julian Day
Standard Deviati
72 74 76 78 80
Julian Day
82 84 86 88 90
on
82 84 86 88 90
maximun, minumum
+ +
-
+ +
+
+ ++
+ + +
.
+t1+4+444 3t4* .4 4~ 3+~~~444
72
1
74 76 78 80
Julian Day
71
82 84 86 88 90
+
+ +
0 0 + + + +
+ + + +
.+ |, ... .-+- + ++ ++ + +W+ *
+3 +, 3 ,, ,.a + ,+ .4,- ,.. ,I-.
400
300
200
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H191
Sensor Elevation = 0.8m
From: March 12,1992 Julian Day 70.5
To: April 10,1992 Julian Day 99.0
+ : good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
+- ++
+ + +
+ + +
+ + 4. .++ 4
444.4 .4 4 ... ..4
cP-+ Wk 4 r i r i +
72 74 76 78 80
Julian Day
Standard Deviat
72 74 76 78 80
Julian Day
82 84 86 88 90
82 84 86 88 90
maximun, minumum
4++4..+ +4 +++ + 44 + 4+ +++++ 4 + + + +
S+ + +
+ ++ + + + ++
+ + + ++
o+ +++ +
+ 4+ H* + 4 + +++++ 4
~33 .44 .4. 444 1444..44.... ..
72 74 76 78 80
Julian Day
72
82 84 86 88 90
3 3
+ +
44 .4 .4 33 ,
4..4..4. ++. + 4 ++44+ +4
-4-H~ .4 ..4.
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H192
Sensor Elevation = 0.15m
From: March 12,1992 Julian Day 70.5
To: April 10,1992 Julian Day 99.0
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
75 80 85 90 95
Julian Day
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
75 80 85 90 95
Julian Day
73
100
50
100
400
200
0
I I I I
-0",-
-20 0
TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H192
Sensor Elevation = 0.84m
From: March 12,1992 Julian Day 70.5
To: April 10,1992 Julian Day 99.0
: good data
o : data with reduced accuracy
: bad data
Burst Means
100 I
50
75 80 85 90 95
Julian Day
Standard Deviation
Julian Day
maximum ( ), minimum (---)
Julian Day
74
j
|
RSS
HIDE
