• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Report documentation page
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Methodology
 Calibration of instrumentation
 Quality control
 Acknowledgements and reference...
 Appendix: Turbidity data time...






Group Title: UFL/COEL (University of Florida. Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Laboratory) ; 93/002
Title: Turbidity data: Hollywood Beach, Florida, January 1990 to April 1992
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00079955/00001
 Material Information
Title: Turbidity data: Hollywood Beach, Florida, January 1990 to April 1992
Series Title: UFL/COEL (University of Florida. Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Laboratory) ; 93/002
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Dompe, P.E.
Publisher: Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida
Publication Date: 1993
 Subjects
Subject: Turbidity
Hollywood (Fla.)
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00079955
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Report documentation page
        Unnumbered ( 2 )
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Page 1
    Introduction
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Methodology
        Page 4
    Calibration of instrumentation
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Quality control
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
    Acknowledgements and references
        Page 14
    Appendix: Turbidity data time series
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
Full Text




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




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs