Citation
Turbidity data: Hollywood Beach, Florida, January 1990 to April 1992

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
Creator:
Dompe, P.E.
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, FL
Publisher:
Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Turbidity
Hollywood (Fla.)

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


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 Accession no.
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) a. performing Organization Report No. P.E. Dompe and D.M. Hanes UFL/COEL-93/002
9. perfiming Organization Dame and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department
University of Florida 11. contract or crant Do. 336 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611 13. Type of Report 12. Sponsoring Orgmnization Kam 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 Iases 22. ic.
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 IN TRODU CTION ........................................................................................................ 2
II M ETH OD OLO GY ........................................................................................................ 4
III CALIBRATION OF INSTRUMENTATION..................................................................5
IV QUALITY CON TROL ................................................................................................... 7
V D ATA SUM M ARY ...................................................................................................... 10
VI A CKN OW LED GM EN TS............................................................................................ 14
VII REFEREN CES................................................................................................................. 14
APPENDIX
TURBIDITY D ATA TIM E 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 800 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.

2




91mO
0
pH

O04s:AN

Ollywood Be

ach

Figure 1: Location of Hollywood and Hallandale.
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

Ar*w




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 McBirney 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.
4




EM
Pressure 1.5M
Package
Upper OBS 0.5m
Lower OBS 0.15M
0.15M
Jetted 1.5m Jetted 1.5m Jetted 1.5M lI II I
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.

5




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.

6




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.

7




irosurs. m. Mean 6.134 Std Dev -0.267 7.047
-Val. ma Mean -0.03085. Std Dev 0.2068 1.000 R1~~~~ PO jr t O
Vl, St D 0.1274 0.6448
1 5 10 15 20 25 1-0.245 Time in minutes
Tyrbidity 0 0.65 meters abov the a ed
rbdlt 0.16 maters above the sa b d
nyU(llty j 0 Man 3af.87 Std Dn b6. 437.7
Time in minute.
H182. Run No. 53. Date 12/20/91. Start Time 4:3. jd 353.2
Figure 4: Thirty minute time series from deployment 16 site 2 illustrating "good" data.
a urn. M. Moon 6.137 Std Dov -0.0301 8.237
-Val. M/0 Mean -0.01737. Std Dev -.023 0.09821
S-0.1342
Val. M/0 Mean 0.1544 Std ov -0.02416 0.2432
Turbidity~ .8mtr ~oeteae 0.07767.0
t 10 15 25 1
Time in minutes
Turbidity 0 0.85 motors bov1he ogf dbe. e 154
3 5 101 20 25 Time In minutes
H162. Run No. 107. Date 12/29/91. Start Time 4:3. jd 362.2
Figure 5: Thirty minute time series from deployment 16 site 2 illustrating
"bad" data for the upper OBS.

8




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.

9

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
20 Burst Means
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 =9.03a

Turbidity 0 0.16 ntu

meters above the sea bed
Mean = 0.693
-, 1. 1.j

10.... 1.5 .
Time in minutes

I' 1 1 1

I I *- I I I I K I -*| r-*|

Std Dev = 1.91
11. ii. LLa

20

25

L.

356.7 0.9999
62.46
- 1.173

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 0.45 meters above the sea bed
intu M an = 6.408 Std Dev = 1.044 14.24
5 ..10 15 20 2 .4.004 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

10

b L. L Al1

)

5

,a 4 -- -, FEMP-- WW W P I - W 0,52WHOMM --




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 catagories 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 -- - 0
SITE I UPPER
ELEVATION
SITE I LOWER
ELEVATION
J F M A M J J A S O N D J FMAM J J A SONDJ FM A 1990 1991 1992 Figure 9: Data availability.

11




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 SM MAX MN #.f MEAN sE MAX MiN #.f REC REC
90 JAN 1.5 0.4 2.0 1.0 5 N/A N/A N/A 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 Nt EAN SID MAX MIN #w( MEAN SID MAX MIN #.
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 20 1.3 3 5.2 7.7 40.0 08 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.

12




YR MO SIGNIFICANT WAVE PEAK WAVE PERIOD PEAK WAVE DIRECTION # of HEIGHT (meters) (seconds) (th eta) PTS hils ) mMx mmt MEAN Eli mAx ML MEAN KI MAX hM
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 0.41 231 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 32 118 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 MNTH SIGNIFICANT WAVE PEAK WAVE PERIOD PEAK WAVE DIRECTION # of HEIGHT (meters) (seconds) (th et) PTS mEA sI MAX KM MEA El M. E ME "D MAX MX
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 5 123 92 MAR 0.90 0.35 1.99 0.47 2.9 1.1 9.5 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A 81 92 APR 0.90 0.51 1.63 0.23 46 3.5 13.4 24 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

13

1




PARAMETER MEAN MEDIAN MODE STANDARD MAXIMUM MINIMUM # OF (NTU) (NTU) (NTU) DEVIATION (NTU) (NTU) PTS (NTUI)
TUR EIITTIEON 4.7 2.4 0.9 7.2 85.5 0.0 1345 UPREIDIT IE 3.7 2.4 1.0 4.0 32.4 0.0 782 LOWR ELEVATIOE2 16.0 7.0 2.0 25.7 259.4 0.0 1896 UER AIEON 10.5 6.6 1.4 11.0 97.8 0.0 1065
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, 3 84-399.

14




APPENDIX
TURBIDITY DATA TIME SERIES

OBS SENSOR
DEPLOYMENT DATE ELEVATION COMMENTS (METERS)
H011 1/31/90 0.1 Most ofthe 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 ofthe 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.

15




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 inthe 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 HIOl 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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.

16




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 ofthe 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 as the 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 ofthe 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
1 4/10/92 1 few observations are tagged as "bad" data.
3/12/92 Quality of the data is good until biofouling begins to interfere with the signal 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

17




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

35

40

45

50

55

Julian Day
Standard Deviation

35

45

50

55

Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
- -Q
- -

35

40

45

50

55

Julian Day
18

40 30
20 10

z

A

60

65

20 10-

H-

01

9 R 20

400 300
200 100

60

HD

65

A

-30

60

65

I I I I

alL

30




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

40

45

50

55

Julian Day

Standard Deviation
- -

40

45 5
Julian Day

0

55

maximum (_), minimum (---)

40

45

50

55

Julian Day
19

50

z

A

35

60

65

30
20 10

z

A

35

600
400 200

60

H

I I I-

6

A

35

5
5

60

6

30

30

30




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
- -

70

75

80

85

Julian Day

Standard Deviation
- -

Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
I- -

80

Julian Day
20

100

H

50

A

65

100

90

95

H

50

A

65

70

z

600
400 200

A

60

95

65

70

85

90

95

60

60

75

80

90

85

75




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
-. ." 0 M- L i

70

75

80

85

Julian Day

Standard Deviation

75

80

Julian Day
maximum (), minimum (---)

75

Julian Day
21

60
40 20

z

A

65

90

95

50

z

A

60

65

70

85

600
400 200

90

z

95

0

60

65

70

85

90

95

60




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
- -

70

75

80

85

Julian Day

Standard Deviation
-
- -

70

75

80

85

Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
-- - - - - - - - - - - -

70

75

80

85

Julian Day
22

150
100 50

z

A

60

65

90

95

150
100 50

z

A

65

600
400 200

90

z

95

A

65

90

95

60

60




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
- -

70

75

80

85

90

Julian Day

Standard Deviation

70

75

80

85

90

Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
-'----- -- --- -

70

75

80

85

90

Julian Day
23

100

z

50

0~

60

65

95

80 60
40 20

z

(~1

60

65

600
400 200

z

95

A

65

95

1

60




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 15
10
z 5
?36 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 Julian Day
Standard Deviation
5
z
?36 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 Julian Day maximum (), minimum (---) 80
60
H 40
z
20
--------------- ----------------------------------------------- -------- ------?36 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 Julian Day 24




TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H032
Sensor Elevation = 0.1im 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

145

150

155

160

Julian Day

Standard Deviation
- -

145

1U50

160

Julian Day
maximum (), minimum (---)
----- ~- ----- - - ---- --- -

145

150

155

160

Julian Day
25

150
100 50

z

A

135

140

165

170

80 60
40 20

H
z

35

140

600
400 200

16-5

H

1/0

0

20 A

140

165

170

9

15 5

- 35




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
-. . . . . . .

145

150 1
Julian Day

5

160

165

Standard Deviation
- - -

145

145

150 155
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)

150

155

160

160

165

165

Julian Day
26

60
40 20

z

135

140

170

15
10
5

z

140

60
40 20

- i i
- --------i

z

170

A

Y35

140

170




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

Standard Deviation
- -

170

175

180

185

190

195

Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
- ------ ------------ -------------- -

170

175

180

185

190

195

Julian Day
27

80 60
40 20

z

A

Y65

200

20 15
10

z

5

Y65

z

100 50
0
-5y

200

200

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

170

175

180

185

190

Julian Day

Standard Deviation

180

185

190

Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)

180

185

190

Julian Day
28

60 4020-

z

5

195

200

40 30
20 10

z

170

A

Y65

40(

175

-

195

HD
z

20(

200

C

165

170

175

195

200

y 6




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

185

190

Julian Day

Standard Deviation

180

185

190

Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)

180

185

190

Julian Day
29

80 60
40 20

z

195

200

50

H
z

(1

500

z

Y65

170

175

195

200

Y65

- -~--,'-

170

175

195

200




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

175

180

185

190

195

Julian Day
Standard Deviation

175

180

185

190

195

Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)

-- -- -- --- -- - --- -- - --

175

180

185

190

195

Julian Day
30

10

z

5

170

200

15
10

z

100

170

z

50 F

200

5

170

-Q

200

5

Y6




TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H051
Sensor Elevation = 0.1m
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

240

250
Julian Day

260

270

Standard Deviation

250

260

270

Julian Day
maximum (), minimum (---)

240

250
Julian Day
31

260

270

'~ A

230

280

HD

z

z

3u
2010
0

220

30
20 10

A

20

100 50
0
-5

230

280

230

280

-

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

Julian Day

Standard Deviation
- -2

230

240

250

260

Julian Day
maximum (), minimum (---)
*-

230

240

250

260

Julian Day
32

400

200 F

HD

0-

-2021
220

270

280

80 60
40 20

z

A

20

270

400 200
0
In

z

280

270

280

- h




TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H052
Sensor Elevation = 0.1m
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
- -

225 230 235 240 245 250 255 260 265 270 Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)

225 230 235 240 245 250 255 260 265 270 Julian Day 33

300

200 100

z

220

150
100 50

z

A

120

500

H
z

AI

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
E I

225 230 235 240 245 250 255 260 265 270 Julian Day

Standard Deviation
- -I

225 230 235 240 245 250 255 260 265 270 Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)

225 230 235 240 245 250 255 260 265 270 Julian Day 34

100 50

z

0

-50

-109

40 30
20 10

H

A

20

200 100
0

z

- - - - I

20

20




TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H062
Sensor Elevation = 0.1m
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

285

290

295

300

Julian Day

Standard Deviation
-

285

290

295

300

Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)

290

295

300

Julian Day
35

300
200 100

z

275

280

305

310

150
100 50

z

A

275

280

600

400 200 -

305

z

310

0 -

-20c

280

------------

'iI

285

305

310

01) 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

285

290 295
Julian Day

300

305

Standard Deviation

285

285

290 295
Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)

290

295

300

300

305

305

Julian Day
36

150
100 50

z

A

280

275
201

310

15
10

H
z

75

280

150
100 50

z

31

0
0

A

275

1280

31

-
**
- -

5 -


-




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

325 330 335 340 345 350 355 360 365 370

Julian Day Standard Deviation
- -I

325 330 335 340 345 350 355 360 365 370 Julian Day
maximum (), minimum (---)
K --

325 330 335 340 345 350 355 360 365 370 Julian Day 37

80 60
40 20

z

320

100

z

50

A

20

400

z

300
200 100-

20

I




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
Burst Means

325 330 335 340 345 350 355 360 365 370 Julian Day
Standard Deviation

325 330 335 340 345 350 355 360 365 370

Julian Day maximum (), minimum (---) 50
-5920 325 330 335 340 345 350 355 360 365 370 Julian Day 38

50

z

920

15

10

z

A'

20

z

-




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

335

340
Julian Day

345

350

Standard Deviation

335

340
Julian Day

345

350

maximum (_), minimum (---)

335

340
Julian Day
39

345

350

80 60
40 20

z

A

25

330

35

5
5
5

50

z

A

325

330

0UU

z

0

35

325

330

35




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

335

340

345

Julian Day

Standard Deviation

335

340

345

Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (--)

340
Julian Day
40

345

50

z

A

25

330

350

355

z

6
4
2-

25

330

50

350

z

0OF

355

*~V

330

335

350

355

-51
925




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

25

30

35

Julian Day

Standard Deviation

25

30

35

Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)

25

30

35

Julian Day
41

150

z

10050
015

20

40

45

80 60
40 20

z

(0

20

800 600
400 200

40

H
z

45

(-I

20

40

45

15

15




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

25

30
Julian Day

35

40

Standard Deviation

25

30

35

40

Julian Day
maximum (), minimum (---)

30
Julian Day
42

60

z

40 20

01
15
5 -

20

45

H
z

5 15

20

60

z

40 20 -

45

20

25

35

40

45

0 '

0 15




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

90

95

100

105

Julian Day

Standard Deviation

90

95

100

105

Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)

100

105

Julian Day
43

200

z

50 -

08

110

1,

5

80 60
40 20

z

A

800

110

z

600
400 200 -

115

85

90

95

110

115

- - - ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- ---

I 1 1

150
100

85




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

95

100
Julian Day

105

110

Standard Deviation

95

100
Julian Day

105

110

maximum (_), minimum (---)

U 1

95

100

105

110

Julian Day
44

60
40 20

z

A

85

90

11

8
6
4
2

H

A

85

5
5

90

z

60 V 4020 -

11

90

IK 40 I

115


-

0 1
85




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

120

125

130

135

Julian Day

Standard Deviation

125

130

Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)

125

130

Julian Day
45

20 15
10

H

5

Y15

10

140

z

5

A

Y15

80

120

135

H

60
4020 -

140

120

--------e,---............

135

140




TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H102
Sensor Elevation = 0.1m
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

125

130

135

140

Julian Day

Standard Deviation
-2

130

135

140

Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)

130

135

140

Julian Day
46

300
200 100

z

A

Y15

120

100

145

150

H
z

50

A

Y15

120

125

800 600
400 200

145

z

150

A

115

120

125

145

150




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

155

160

165

170

175

Julian Day

Standard Deviation

155

155

160

165

Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
------------ --- -- ---- -- -------------- ----------

160

165

175

170

175

Julian Day
47

100

H

50

A

Y45

150

180

30
20 10

z

A

Y45

150

200 150
100

HD
z

180

50

A

Y45

150

180




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
- -

150

155

160

165

170

Julian Day

Standard Deviation

150

155

160

165

170

Julian Day
maximum (), minimum (---)
------"----

150

155

160

165

170

Julian Day
48

80 60
40 20

H

(1

145

175

180

15
10
5

z

A

Y45

80 60
40 20

175

z

180

Y45

175

180




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

185

190

195

200

Julian Day

Standard Deviation

185

190

195

200

Julian Day
maximum (), minimum (---)
- -~*

190
Julian Day
49

400 300
200 100

HD

A

Y75

180

205

150
100 50

z

A

Y75

180

400

z

200

205

75

180

2ull

2u5

y

185

195




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

185

185

190
Julian Day

Standard Deviation

190
Julian Day

195

195

200

200

maximum (_), minimum (---)

190
Julian Day
50

40

z

30 h 20101-

180

20

5
5 05

H

30
20 10
A

- -

Y75

180

1UU

z

50
0

180

185

195

-

200

-

975

2(

2(




TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H122
Sensor Elevation = 0.1m 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

180

Julian Day

Standard Deviation
- -

185

Julian Day
maximum (), minimum (---)
-
0N

185

190

195

Julian Day
51

500

z

A

60
40 20

z

n

180

600
400 200

z

A

Y75

180

200

205

Y75

185

195

200

205

190

Y75

200

190

195

205




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

185

190
Julian Day

195

200

Standard Deviation

190
Julian Day

195

2u00

maximum (_), minimum (---)

185

190
Julian Day
52

195

200

400 200
0
2n

z

- Y75

180

20

150
100 50

z

180

400 200
0
In A

z

- Y75

180

2(

-

-. . . ..-.

20

5 05
5

75

y

185




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

210

215

220
Julian Day

225

Standard Deviation

215

220

225

Julian Day
maximum (), minimum (---)
- -A

215

220

225

Julian Day
53

20 15
10 -

H
z

5 F

5

230

235

2015
10-

z

5 F

AI

05

210

600
400 200

230

z

235

A

05

210

230

235

A/\--O

20




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

215

220

Julian Day

Standard Deviation
- -

215

220

225

Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)

220

225

Julian Day
54

50

H

05

210

2zju

30
20 10

H
z

205

210

230

300

H
z

91

235

-

210

215

230

235

9

225

235 -

200 100




TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H132
Sensor Elevation = 0.1m 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

Julian Day

Standard Deviation
-

215

220

225

230

Julian Day maximum (_, minimum (---)
14,
-I*
-- -~ - ---

215

220

225

230

Julian Day
55

300

200100-

0D
H
z

210

235

240

150
100 50

z

A

05

210

300
200 100

0

235

240

210

235

240

905




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

Julian Day

Standard Deviation

215

220

225

230

Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)

220

225

230

Julian Day
56

100 50
0

z

210

235

240

30
20 10

z

A

05

210

100

z

235

240

210

215

235

240

- 05

50

-5 905

-----------------------




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

245

250

255

Julian Day
Standard Deviation

245

250

255

Julian Day
maximum (), minimum (---)
s -

245

250

260

260

255

Julian Day
57

60
40 20

z

(1

235

240

1

260

1~~

265

z

5

IL

35

240

60
40 20

H
z

265

0

240

265

I 1 11 I

I

-)
- 35

2




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

245

250
Julian Day

255

260

Standard Deviation

245

250
Julian Day

255

260

maximum (), minimum (---)
* -

245

250
Julian Day
58

255

260

150
10050-

240

z

z

265

20 15
10

5

A

240

35
300
200100 -

z

265

5

240

265

-

235

93




TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H142
Sensor Elevation = 0.1m
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
-%A

245

250
Julian Day

255

260

Standard Deviation

245

250

255

260

Julian Day
maximum (), minimum (---)
- -i

250
Julian Day
59

60
40 20

z

0

235

240

10

265

z

5

A

35

240

60
40 20

z

265

A

235

240

245

255

260

265




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

240

245

250

Julian Day

Standard Deviation
- -A

245

250

255

Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)

245

250

255

Julian Day
60

300
200 100

HD

100

z6u

z

50

240

300

z

260

265

** I

931

240

260

265

35

9

25.5

20.5

200 100 -




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

Julian Day

Standard Deviation
- L

310

315

320

325

330

Julian Day maximum (_), minimum (---)
-L-

310

315

320

325

330

Julian Day
61

40

30
2010-

z

335

340

20 15
10

z

5

300
200 100

335

z

340

335

340




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

315

320 325
Julian Day

330

335

Standard Deviation

315

320 3
Julian Day

25

330

335

maximum (_), minimum (---)

315

320

325

330

335

Julian Day
62

H

4U
30
2010-

05

310

I'

340

1

z

U 5-

05

310

Lu I

H

30h
2010k

340

310

* 9
I'
Al'
~-'~ I

340




TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H152
Sensor Elevation = 0.1m
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

315

320

325

330

335

Julian Day

Standard Deviation

320

325

330

Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)

325
Julian Day
63

150

100k

z

50F

310

340

345

50

z

310

315

600

z

400 200

345

310

315

320

330

335

340

345

- ---- - ---- ---- ---

335

340




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

320

325
Julian Day

330

335

340

Standard Deviation

320

325
Julian Day

330

335

340

maximum (_), minimum (---)

320

325
Julian Day
64

330

335

340

80 60
40 20 9(
10

5

310

315

H

z

34

310

315

100 50
0
-5 9

5
5
5

- - -

z

34

310

315

34

- -

)5




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

350

355 360
Julian Day

365

Standard Deviation

355 3
Julian Day

maximum (_), minimum (---)

355

360

Julian Day
65

150

100F

z

50

AI

40

345

370

375

200 150
100

z

50

A

40

345

350

60

365

I I I I I

5JU

z

A

40

37

345

350

365

370

37j

5
5




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

Julian Day

Standard Deviation
-A

355

360

Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)

355

360

365

Julian Day
66

60

H
z

4020940

370

375

40 30
20 10

HD
z

345

A

340

150

350

370

HD E-

100 50-

375

IL

40

345

350

370

375

- --------------- -




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

350

355

360

365

Julian Day

Standard Deviation
- A.VA A

350

355

360

365

Julian Day
maximum (), minimum (---)
-Q
A-

350

355

360

365

Julian Day
67

?(II

z

60
4020-

345

370

375

80 60
40 20

z

A

40

345

800 600
400 200

370

z

375

(1

40

345

370

375

I I I I I

940




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

350

355

360

365

370

Julian Day
Standard Deviation

350

355

360

365

370

Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)

355

360

365

Julian Day
68

80 60
40 20

z

A

40

345

15

375

10 F

H
z

5 F

IL

40

345

100

50k

z

375

0Ok

345

350

370

375

---------------- -- w
eo A




TURBIDITY FOR DEPLOYMENT H182
Sensor Elevation = 0.1m
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

40

45

50

Julian Day

Standard Deviation

45

50

55

Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)
- -- - - -

45

50

55

Julian Day
69

60

z

40 20 -

01
35

55

60

50

z

(~I

40

35

400 300
200 100

H
z

A

40

60

60

35

I 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

40

45

50

55

Julian Day

Standard Deviation

40

45

50

55

Julian Day
maximum (_), minimum (---)

45

50

Julian Day
70

80 60
40 20

z

A

35

60

15
10
5

z

A

80

HD
z

60
4020-

60

35

40

--------* --

55

60

35




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
4 + + + +++ ++ S 4+ ++ + + + ++ +4 + ++ ++

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
- + +
-
-++ 0 + + +

72

74 76 78 80 Julian Day 71

82 84 86 88 90

30
20 10

z

-+
-
0 +0 + + + + ++ + + ++ !I-'-0i- ++++t +--++ + ~ +I +" I ++ 4+

30
20 10

400 300
200 100

z

z




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
+++ ++ + +t +
+ ++ + ++* +

80 60
40 20
30
20 10

82 84 86 88 90
ion
+
82 84 86 88 90 um
+ + + ++ 848+
82 84 86 88 90

0 72 74 76 78 80 Julian Day
Standard Deviat
-+ +
0 72 74 76 78 80 Julian Day maximun, minum
4444+4+ + ++++ +44+4
- + +
+
0 72 74 76 78 80 Julian Day 72

80 60
40 20

z

z

z




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

80

85
Julian Day

90

95

Standard Deviation

80

85
Julian Day

90

95

maximum (_), minimum (---)

80

85
Julian Day
73

90

95

100 50-

z

0

75

10

50

z

75

400 200
0

0
0
0

z

10

0

75

- : I

10


-




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

80

85
Julian Day

90

Standard Deviation

80

85

90

95

Julian Day
maximum (),minimum (---)
--- -

85
Julian Day
74

150
100 50

z

75

95

100

40 30
20 10

H

75

150
100 50

H

100

75

80

90

95

100

1 -



-