• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Report documentation page
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 List of Figures
 List of Tables
 Introduction
 Data collection
 Data collection
 Data collection
 Data collection
 Discussion
 References
 Appendix I: Beach profiles
 Appendix II: Wave, current, and...
 Appendix III: Meteorological data...
 Appendix IV: Additional tide...
 Appendix V: Grain size distributions...
 Appendix VI: Grain size statistics...
 Appendix VII: Grain size statistics...






Group Title: UFL/COEL (University of Florida. Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Laboratory) ; 92/012
Title: Perdido Key beach nourishment project: Gulf Islands National Seashore 1991 annual report
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080466/00001
 Material Information
Title: Perdido Key beach nourishment project: Gulf Islands National Seashore 1991 annual report
Series Title: UFL/COEL (University of Florida. Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Laboratory) ; 92/012
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Work, Paul A.
Dean, Robert G.
Publisher: Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida
Publication Date: 1992
 Subjects
Subject: Beach nourishment
Perdido Key (Fla.)
Gulf Islands National Seashore
Spatial Coverage: Perdido Key
 Notes
Funding: This publication is being made available as part of the report series written by the faculty, staff, and students of the Coastal and Oceanographic Program of the Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00080466
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.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

UF00080466 ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Report documentation page
        Unnumbered ( 2 )
    Title Page
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
        Page iii
    List of Figures
        Page iv
    List of Tables
        Page v
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Data collection
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Data collection
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
    Data collection
        Page 15
    Data collection
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
    Discussion
        Page 19
        Page 18
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
    References
        Page 28
        Page 27
    Appendix I: Beach profiles
        Appendix I - 1
        Appendix I - 2
        Appendix I - 3
        Appendix I - 4
        Appendix I - 5
        Appendix I - 6
        Appendix I - 7
        Appendix I - 8
        Appendix I - 9
        Appendix I - 10
        Appendix I - 11
        Appendix I - 12
        Appendix I - 13
        Appendix I - 14
        Appendix I - 15
        Appendix I - 16
        Appendix I - 17
        Appendix I - 18
        Appendix I - 19
        Appendix I - 20
        Appendix I - 21
        Appendix I - 22
        Appendix I - 23
        Appendix I - 24
        Appendix I - 25
        Appendix I - 26
        Appendix I - 27
        Appendix I - 28
        Appendix I - 29
        Appendix I - 30
        Appendix I - 31
        Appendix I - 32
        Appendix I - 33
        Appendix I - 34
        Appendix I - 35
        Appendix I - 36
        Appendix I - 37
        Appendix I - 38
        Appendix I - 39
        Appendix I - 40
        Appendix I - 41
        Appendix I - 42
        Appendix I - 43
        Appendix I - 44
        Appendix I - 45
        Appendix I - 46
        Appendix I - 47
        Appendix I - 48
        Appendix I - 49
        Appendix I - 50
        Appendix I - 51
    Appendix II: Wave, current, and tide data Dec. 1990 to Feb. 1992
        Appendix II - 1
        Appendix II - 2
        Appendix II - 3
        Appendix II - 4
        Appendix II - 5
        Appendix II - 6
        Appendix II - 7
        Appendix II - 8
        Appendix II - 9
        Appendix II - 10
        Appendix II - 11
        Appendix II - 12
        Appendix II - 13
        Appendix II - 14
        Appendix II - 15
        Appendix II - 16
        Appendix II - 17
        Appendix II - 18
        Appendix II - 19
        Appendix II - 20
        Appendix II - 21
        Appendix II - 22
        Appendix II - 23
    Appendix III: Meteorological data Dec. 1990 to Feb. 1992
        Appendix III - 1
        Appendix III - 2
        Appendix III - 3
        Appendix III - 4
        Appendix III - 5
        Appendix III - 6
        Appendix III - 7
        Appendix III - 8
        Appendix III - 9
        Appendix III - 10
        Appendix III - 11
        Appendix III - 12
        Appendix III - 13
        Appendix III - 14
        Appendix III - 15
        Appendix III - 16
        Appendix III - 17
        Appendix III - 18
        Appendix III - 19
        Appendix III - 20
        Appendix III - 21
        Appendix III - 22
        Appendix III - 23
        Appendix III - 24
        Appendix III - 25
        Appendix III - 26
        Appendix III - 27
        Appendix III - 28
        Appendix III - 29
        Appendix III - 30
        Appendix III - 31
        Appendix III - 32
        Appendix III - 33
        Appendix III - 34
        Appendix III - 35
        Appendix III - 36
        Appendix III - 37
        Appendix III - 38
        Appendix III - 39
        Appendix III - 40
        Appendix III - 41
        Appendix III - 42
        Appendix III - 43
        Appendix III - 44
        Appendix III - 45
        Appendix III - 46
        Appendix III - 47
        Appendix III - 48
        Appendix III - 49
        Appendix III - 50
        Appendix III - 51
        Appendix III - 52
        Appendix III - 53
        Appendix III - 54
        Appendix III - 55
        Appendix III - 56
        Appendix III - 57
        Appendix III - 58
        Appendix III - 59
        Appendix III - 60
        Appendix III - 61
    Appendix IV: Additional tide data
        Appendix IV - 1
        Appendix IV - 2
        Appendix IV - 3
        Appendix IV - 4
        Appendix IV - 5
    Appendix V: Grain size distributions and statistics
        Appendix V - 1
        Appendix V - 2
        Appendix V - 3
        Appendix V - 4
        Appendix V - 5
        Appendix V - 6
        Appendix V - 7
        Appendix V - 8
        Appendix V - 9
        Appendix V - 10
        Appendix V - 11
        Appendix V - 12
        Appendix V - 13
        Appendix V - 14
        Appendix V - 15
        Appendix V - 16
        Appendix V - 17
        Appendix V - 18
        Appendix V - 19
        Appendix V - 20
        Appendix V - 21
        Appendix V - 22
        Appendix V - 23
        Appendix V - 24
        Appendix V - 25
        Appendix V - 26
        Appendix V - 27
        Appendix V - 28
        Appendix V - 29
        Appendix V - 30
        Appendix V - 31
        Appendix V - 32
        Appendix V - 33
        Appendix V - 34
        Appendix V - 35
        Appendix V - 36
        Appendix V - 37
        Appendix V - 38
        Appendix V - 39
        Appendix V - 40
        Appendix V - 41
        Appendix V - 42
        Appendix V - 43
        Appendix V - 44
        Appendix V - 45
        Appendix V - 46
        Appendix V - 47
        Appendix V - 48
        Appendix V - 49
        Appendix V - 50
        Appendix V - 51
        Appendix V - 52
        Appendix V - 53
        Appendix V - 54
        Appendix V - 55
        Appendix V - 56
        Appendix V - 57
        Appendix V - 58
        Appendix V - 59
        Appendix V - 60
        Appendix V - 61
        Appendix V - 62
        Appendix V - 63
        Appendix V - 64
        Appendix V - 65
        Appendix V - 66
        Appendix V - 67
        Appendix V - 68
        Appendix V - 69
        Appendix V - 70
        Appendix V - 71
        Appendix V - 72
        Appendix V - 73
        Appendix V - 74
        Appendix V - 75
        Appendix V - 76
        Appendix V - 77
        Appendix V - 78
        Appendix V - 79
        Appendix V - 80
        Appendix V - 81
        Appendix V - 82
        Appendix V - 83
        Appendix V - 84
        Appendix V - 85
        Appendix V - 86
        Appendix V - 87
        Appendix V - 88
        Appendix V - 89
        Appendix V - 90
        Appendix V - 91
        Appendix V - 92
        Appendix V - 93
        Appendix V - 94
        Appendix V - 95
        Appendix V - 96
        Appendix V - 97
        Appendix V - 98
        Appendix V - 99
        Appendix V - 100
        Appendix V - 101
        Appendix V - 102
        Appendix V - 103
        Appendix V - 104
        Appendix V - 105
        Appendix V - 106
        Appendix V - 107
        Appendix V - 108
        Appendix V - 109
        Appendix V - 110
        Appendix V - 111
        Appendix V - 112
        Appendix V - 113
        Appendix V - 114
        Appendix V - 115
        Appendix V - 116
        Appendix V - 117
        Appendix V - 118
        Appendix V - 119
        Appendix V - 120
        Appendix V - 121
        Appendix V - 122
        Appendix V - 124
        Appendix V - 125
        Appendix V - 126
        Appendix V - 127
        Appendix V - 128
        Appendix V - 129
        Appendix V - 130
    Appendix VI: Grain size statistics for 9/90
        Appendix VI - 1
        Appendix VI - 2
        Appendix VI - 3
        Appendix VI - 4
        Appendix VI - 5
    Appendix VII: Grain size statistics for 11/89
        Appendix VI - 1
        Appendix VI - 2
        Appendix VI - 3
        Appendix VI - 4
Full Text



UFL/COEL-92/012


PERDIDO KEY BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT:
GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE
1991 Annual Report





by


Paul A. Work
Robert G. Dean


July, 1992




Submitted to:

Department of the Navy
Southern Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Charleston, SC 29411-0068




REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
1. eLport No. 2. 3. Lecipint' Acceas ioo o.


4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
PERDIDO KEY BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT: GULF ISLANDS _August 1992
NATIONAL SEASHORE 6.
1991 Annual Report
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Oranizatioa Report No.
Paul A. Work
Robert G. Dean
9. Performing Organizatio Nae and Address 10. Project/Task/lUork Unit No.
Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department
University of Florida 11. concrct or cr.at no.
336 Well Hall
N62467-89-C-0500
Gainesville, FL 32611 N62467-89-C-0500
13. Type of Report
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
Department of the Navy Annual Report
Southern Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Charleston, SC 29411-0068 14.
15. Suppleentary Notes



16. Abstract



This report is the second annual report in a continuing series documenting a field
project within the Gulf Islands National Seashore at Perdido Key, Florida. The field project
includes the monitoring of a number of physical parameters related to the evolution of the
Perdido Key beach nourishment project. Approximately 4.1 million m3 of dredge spoil
from Pensacola Pass were placed upon approximately 7 km of the Gulf of Mexico beaches
of Perdido Key between November, 1989, and September, 1990.
Beach profile data describing the evolution of the nourished beach are included, as
well as wave, current, tide, wind, temperature, and rainfall data to describe the forces in-
fluencing the evolution. Data describing the sediment sizes throughout the project area
are also included. A brief discussion of the data is included; a more detailed analysis and
interpretation will be presented in the lead author's Ph.D. dissertation.








17. Oritinator's Key Uords 18. Availability Statment
Beach nourishment
Sediment transport
Shoreline response


19. U. S. Security Classif. of the Report 20. U. S. Security Classai. of This Page 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 304
--- ___________ -- ^_____________ ----- --- ---








UFL/COEL-92-012


PERDIDO KEY BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT:

GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE

1991 Annual Report




Submitted to:

Department of the Navy

Southern Division

Naval Facilities Engineering Command

Charleston, SC 29411-0068




Prepared by:

Paul A. Work

Robert G. Dean

Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department

University of Florida

Gainesville, FL 32611


July, 1992








TABLE OF CONTENTS


LIST OF FIGURES iv


LIST OF TABLES v


1 INTRODUCTION 1


2 DATA COLLECTION 1

2.1 Hydrographic and Topographic Surveys ................. ...... 7

2.2 Sand Samples ..................... .............. 9

2.3 Wave/Current/Tide Data .................... ........ 15

2.4 Meteorological Data .................... ........... 16

2.5 Additional Tide Data .................... .......... 16

2.6 Photographic Documentation ................... ...... 18


4 DISCUSSION 18


4 REFERENCES 27


APPENDIX I: BEACH PROFILES I-1


APPENDIX II: WAVE, CURRENT, and TIDE DATA

December, 1990 February, 1992 II-1


APPENDIX III: METEOROLOGICAL DATA

December, 1990 February, 1992 III-1


APPENDIX IV: ADDITIONAL TIDE DATA IV-1


APPENDIX V: GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS AND STATISTICS V-1








APPENDIX VI:


APPENDIX VII:


GRAIN SIZE STATISTICS FOR 9/90


GRAIN SIZE STATISTICS FOR 11/89


VI-1


VII-1








LIST OF FIGURES


FIGURE PAGE

1 Site Location Chart. .................... ............ 2

2 Components of Beach Nourishment Monitoring Project. . . 3

3 History of data collection. ................... ......... 6

4 Percentage of fines for 5 m samples, September, 1990, and October, 1991,

surveys. ....................................... 12

5 Percentage of fines for 8 m samples, September, 1990, and October, 1991,

surveys. ....................................... 13

6 Cross-shore distribution of D50 grain size. . . . . ... 14

7 Calibration curve for faulty anemometer. . . . ..... 17

8 Evolution of dry beach width since completion of beach nourishment.. 19

9 Movement of -4 m contour since completion of beach nourishment. . 20

10 Average profiles within nourished area. Averages based on profiles at R-45,

R-46, R-48, R-50, R-52, R-56 and R-58. . . . ..... 21

11 Average profiles west of nourishment area. Averages based on profiles at

R-30, R-32, R-34, R-36 and R-38. . . . ..... . 22

12 Cross-shore sediment transport within nourished area, based on average

profiles shown in Figure 10. ............................ 24

13 Cross-shore sediment transport west of nourishment area, based on average

profiles shown in Figure 11 .................... ..... ... 25

14 Longshore gradient of longshore sediment transport for entire study area. 26








LIST OF TABLES


TABLE PAGE

1 Chronology of Perdido Key Data Collection Efforts ........... .. .4

1 Chronology of Perdido Key Data Collection Efforts, cont'd ......... 5

2 Coordinates, Elevations and Azimuths for DNR Monuments . . 8

3 Locations and Depths of Offshore Sand Samples . . ..... 10













PERDIDO KEY BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT:
GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE
1991 Annual Report


1 INTRODUCTION

This report is one of a continuing series documenting a field project within the Gulf

Islands National Seashore at Perdido Key, Florida (Figure 1). Approximately 4.1 million

m3 of dredge spoil from Pensacola Pass were placed along the eastern 7 km of the Gulf

of Mexico shoreline of Perdido Key for beach nourishment during the period November,

1989, through September, 1990. An ongoing study of the area includes the monitoring of

biological, sedimentological, and physical conditions at the site.

Earlier reports (Work et al., 1990a, 1990b, 1991a, 1991b, 1991c) discussed the site and

physical data collection methods in detail. The focus of this report will be the field work

and physical data collected since the previous annual report. The data describe waves,

currents, tides, winds, temperatures, rainfall, and sediment sizes, as well as topographic

and bathymetric features.


2 DATA COLLECTION

Figure 2 provides a detail of the study area and indicates the locations of the surveyed

beach profiles, the wave gage, the weather station, and the tide gage on Santa Rosa Island.

Table 1 provides a history of all the field work done to date; Figure 3 indicates the time

periods covered by each data set. A discussion of the data collection and analysis methods

may be found in previous reports; only a brief summary will be included here.













PERDIDO KEY BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT:
GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE
1991 Annual Report


1 INTRODUCTION

This report is one of a continuing series documenting a field project within the Gulf

Islands National Seashore at Perdido Key, Florida (Figure 1). Approximately 4.1 million

m3 of dredge spoil from Pensacola Pass were placed along the eastern 7 km of the Gulf

of Mexico shoreline of Perdido Key for beach nourishment during the period November,

1989, through September, 1990. An ongoing study of the area includes the monitoring of

biological, sedimentological, and physical conditions at the site.

Earlier reports (Work et al., 1990a, 1990b, 1991a, 1991b, 1991c) discussed the site and

physical data collection methods in detail. The focus of this report will be the field work

and physical data collected since the previous annual report. The data describe waves,

currents, tides, winds, temperatures, rainfall, and sediment sizes, as well as topographic

and bathymetric features.


2 DATA COLLECTION

Figure 2 provides a detail of the study area and indicates the locations of the surveyed

beach profiles, the wave gage, the weather station, and the tide gage on Santa Rosa Island.

Table 1 provides a history of all the field work done to date; Figure 3 indicates the time

periods covered by each data set. A discussion of the data collection and analysis methods

may be found in previous reports; only a brief summary will be included here.





































0 5 km
I .... I


Figure 1: Site location chart.











METEOROLOGICAL
STATION -


APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF,
PROFILE NOURISHMENT


NOTE:
R-40 is FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES MONUMENTED "RANGE 40"


0 1 2 3 4 5 km


Figure 2: Components of beach nourishment monitoring project.


i














Table 1: Chronology of Perdido Key Data Collection Efforts


Date


10/28-11/1/89




11/17/89

1/18/90



1/29/90

1/30/90

3/7-3/9/90


5/2/90


6/24/90

8/8/90


8/17/90

9/22-9/26/90




12/6/90



1/29-2/3/91


3/19-3/21/91


Task


Pre-nourishment survey:
Wading/swimming profiles (Gulf and Bay)
Offshore bathymetry
Sand samples, photos

Placement of nourishment material begins

Wave gage tripod and standalone gage installed
Tide gage with small stilling well installed
at Ft. Pickens Pier, Santa Rosa Island

Mechanical (analog) weather station installed

Large stilling well installed for Ft. Pickens tide gage

56 sand samples collected, to replace those destroyed or
not collected during pre-nourishment survey

Standalone wave data collection package retrieved;
fresh standalone package installed

Digital weather station installed

Standalone wave data collection package retrieved;
fresh standalone package installed

Placement of nourishment material completed

First post-nourishment survey:
Wading/swimming profiles (Gulf side)
Offshore bathymetry
Sand samples, photos

Standalone wave data collection package retrieved;
fresh standalone package installed
Ft. Pickens pier tide gage re-surveyed

Wading/swimming profile survey (Gulf side)
Sand samples

Standalone wave gage retrieved; tripod moved
Lightweight data/power transmission cable installed
Shore-connected wave gage installed


_










Table 1: Chronology of Perdido Key Data Collection Efforts (cont'd.)
Date Task
4/9-4/10/91 Wave gage cable re-buried

5/15-5/16/91 Wave gage cable re-buried

5/28-6/1/91 Wading/swimming profile survey (Gulf side)
Sand samples

6/18-6/19/91 Shore-connected wave gage removed; cable cut
Standalone wave gage installed

7/29-7/30/91 Wind vane and anemometer replaced

9/10/91 Standalone wave gage removed
Fresh standalone wave gage installed

9/28-10/2/91 Wading/swimming profile survey (Gulf side)
Sand samples, photos
Re-attached Ft. Pickens pier tide gage

10/12-10/20/91 Yearly survey:
Wading/swimming profiles (Gulf side)
Offshore bathymetry
Installed heavyweight data/power cable for wave gage
Standalone wave gage removed
Shore-connected wave gage installed
Fresh standalone wave gage installed

10/23-10/24/91 Shore-connected wave gage replaced

1/16-1/22/92 Wading/swimming profile survey (Gulf side)
Replaced wind vane/anemometer
Replaced shore-connected wave gage
Replaced standalone wave gage









Key for Wave/Current Data:


-- I = Stand-Alone Wave/Current Package


B = Bathymetric Survey


I= Shore-Connected Wave/Current Package W = Wading Profile Survey


11/89 1/90


1/91


1/92


5/2 8/1 12/6 2/2 9/10 10/16 1/21
Hs, T -- -- H---I ---- I- ---- I I I --i I-Ig------
1/18 4/15 8/8 10/21 3/20 4/12 10/23 1/17

5/2 8/1 12/6 2/18 1/21
S-I- F I-- I---- -- I-I ----
0, U 1/18 4/15 8/8 10/21 3/20 4/23


Analog 4/2 6/28
Weather 1/29 2/27


Digital 6/28 7/31
Weather 8/3 5/6 9/18

Tide 1/4 6/14
Tide II I F
(Ft. Pickens) 2/16 6/8 8/29 10/4 7/6 7/31


Survey B B W W W B W
11/89 9/90 1/91 5/91 9/90 10/91 1/92


Figure 3: History of data collection.









2.1 Hydrographic and Topographic Surveys


The survey equipment and methodology used were unchanged from previous surveys.

The beach profiles were surveyed out to approximately -5 m employing standard rod-and-

level techniques. The offshore profile was surveyed by a boat equipped with a fathometer

to measure depths and a microwave rangefinder system to measure distances. The profile

lines during previous surveys were repeated by following the lines defined by benchmarks

and targets placed along the profiles. Missing targets were replaced after determining the

proper profile azimuth with a theodolite.

Twenty-five profiles were surveyed by boat, and an additional eight have been surveyed

since September, 1990, to wading/swimming depth (generally 4-5 m) only, in order to

provide better spatial resolution of the evolution of the nourished area. Table 2 presents

coordinates and benchmark elevations for each of the monuments within the survey area.

Note that the benchmark elevation previously reported for R-31 was wrong; the correct

value was determined by levelling from R-32 and is reported here. A total of seven surveys

have been conducted to date: the annual bathymetric surveys of 11/89, 9/90, and 10/91,

and the additional wading profile surveys of 1/91, 5/91, 9/91, and 1/92. Data from the

three annual bathymetric surveys are shown in Appendix I.

A note regarding several of the profiles surveyed during the September, 1990, bathy-

metric survey is warranted. A few profiles appear to have large, unexpected "lumps" of

sediment offshore of the toe of the beachfill (see, for example, R-42); two possible explana-

tions for this would be: 1) the presence of a large lens of fine sediment, leading to turbid

water off which the fathometer signal was reflected, or 2) extremely high gain set on the

fathometer. When first analyzed in 1990, the data were assumed to be fully representative

of the actual profile, and the vertical origin of the post- nourishment profile was adjusted

so that the average error between the offshore portions of the pre- and post-nourishment

profiles was minimized. The noise in the September, 1990, profiles thus biased the results.

After the October, 1991, data became available, the September, 1990, data were inspected

again. It was concluded that the earlier problems were due to a combination of excessive

gain and turbid water. The profiles were then re-analyzed and the bias removed. There is












Table 2: Coordinates, Elevations and Azimuths for DNR Monuments
Monument Northingi Easting Elevation Range Azimuth2
No. (ft) (ft) (m, NGVD) (Degrees)
R-25w 482953.000 1071644.000 3.75 170
R-26 482963.500 1072537.500 3.78 170
R-27w 483193.000 1073517.000 3.90 170
R-28 483323.000 1074635.500 4.48 170
R-29 483468.000 1075679.500 5.77 170
R-30b 483641.000 1076816.000 4.43 170
R-31w 483786.140 1077860.920 4.77 170
R-32b 483966.820 1078812.720 5.86 170
R-33w 484040.500 1079810.500 6.27 170
R-34b 484575.000 1081013.000 3.99 165
R-35w 484615.000 1082233.500 1.74 165
R-36b 484834.280 1083221.300 2.35 165
R-37w 485039.000 1084078.000 2.34 160
R-38b 485332.000 1085078.000 4.07 160
R-39w 485573.000 1086029.500 2.61 160
R-40b 485924.050 1087119.670 4.27 160
R-41W 486256.000 1088156.500 3.66 160
R-42b 486537.500 1089122.500 2.62 160
R-43b 486786.000 1090213.000 2.83 160
R-44b 486922.770 1091143.410 2.87 160
R-45b 487257.000 1092157.000 2.18 160
R-46b 487350.000 1093014.000 4.14 165
R-47 487640.000 1094115.500 3.49 165
R-48b 487940.770 1095039.730 4.08 165
R-49 488114.500 1096047.000 4.15 165
R-50b 488315.000 1097097.000 4.02 165
R-51 488632.090 1098182.820 4.17 165
R-52b 489072.500 1099265.000 2.65 165
R-53 488890.500 1100172.000 3.77 165
R-54b 489246.500 1101191.000 3.08 165
R-55 489649.180 1102290.990 2.03 165
R-56b 489603.500 1103328.000 2.48 165
R-57 489785.670 1104344.820 2.27 165
R-58b 489940.500 1105353.000 2.18 165
R-59 490080.500 1106356.500 1.91 165
R-60b 490247.500 1107323.000 2.03 165
R-61b 490350.500 1108298.000 2.68 165
R-626 490433.130 1109324.130 2.01 165
R-63b 490528.250 1110297.350 2.45 165
R-64b 490836.540 1111090.500 1.82 170
R-65b 491114.930 1111728.450 2.13 105
R-66Ab 492016.000 1112143.000 2.68 105
R-67b 492997.990 1112292.510 3.08 90
Notes: 1) Monument coordinates are in units of feet for consistency with
common information sources.
2) Azimuths are measured clockwise from magnetic North and
correspond to the line-of-sight of an observer at the monument
looking offshore along the survey line.
3) Profiles surveyed by boat are marked by a superscript b;
those surveyed only to wading depth are marked by superscript w.








no completely satisfactory way to correct those portions of the record which were extremely

noisy, but such sections are plainly evident, and, with the bias removed, the remainder

of the profile is correct. An attempt has also been made to remove systematic errors in

the hydrographic survey data by adjusting profile data collected by boat to match in the

offshore regions. This is thought to improve the accuracy of the data, especially when con-

sidering relative changes between surveys. With these modifications, the estimated beach

nourishment quantity is now reduced slightly to 4.1 million m3.

The large mounds of sediment found in the offshore regions of the eastern profiles (e.g.

R-60) are due to a later phase of the nourishment project, completed between September,

1990, and October, 1991. It is planned to include this later phase of the nourishment project

in future bathymetric surveys.



2.2 Sand Samples

Onshore sand samples were again collected at the dune, berm, and beachface along

each survey line. "Mid-beach" samples have also been taken, from points roughly halfway

between the seaward limit of the dunes and the waterline. Offshore samples were collected

at the -1 m and -2 m depths by a swimmer. Additional offshore samples were collected

during the 10/91 survey by boat, using a bucket sampler, at the locations sampled during

the 11/89 and 9/90 surveys (Table 3).

Grain size distributions have been determined by sieve analysis of each sample, using a

series of twelve sieves. The details of the analysis procedure are discussed in Work et al.

(1991a). Samples that appeared to contain a significant fraction of fines were re-analyzed

by first wet-sieving the sample to remove the fraction finer than a number 200 sieve. The

remainder of the sample was then dried and sieved in the conventional manner. Five samples

from the October, 1991, survey were analyzed by this method, ten from the September, 1990,

survey, and three from the November, 1989, survey.

Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the locations of the fine samples. They are all found within

the nourished region (i.e. between R-42 and R-60), and all but one are from the 5 m

(nominal) sampling depth. Fewer fine samples were found during the 1991 survey. The












Table 3: Locations and Depths of Offshore Sand Samples
Range Nominal 11/89 9/90 10/91 Latitude Longitude
No. Depth (m) Depth (m) Depth (m) Depth (m) (Deg., Min.) (Deg., Min.)


R-30


R-32

R-34

R-36

R-38

R-40

R-42

R-43

R-44

R-45

R-46

R-48

R-50

R-52

R-54

R-56

R-58

R-60

R-61

R-62

R-63

R-64

R-65

R-66A

R-67


5
8
5
8
5
8
5
8
5
8
5
8
5
8
5
8
5
8
5
8
5
8
5
8
5
8
5
8
5
8
5
8
5
8
5
8
5
8
5
8
5
8
5
8
5
8
5
8
5
8


-


Notes: 1) All coordinates obtained during pre-nourishment survey
of October 28-November 3, 1990, except those for Ranges
66 and 67, which were taken during September, 1990 survey.
2) Measured depths are not corrected for tide, but merely indicate
the depth beneath the boat at the time of sampling.


30 17.49
30 17.26
30 17.59
30 17.30
30 17.68
30 17.45
30 17.76
30 17.48
30 17.85
30 17.61
30 17.95
30 17.73
30 18.07
30 17.82
30 18.14
30 17.87
30 18.18
30 17.90
30 18.19
30 17.93
30 18.23
30 17.94
30 18.32
30 18.06
30 18.38
30 18.13
30 18.49
30 18.24
30 18.55
30 18.30
30 18.60
30 18.38
30 18.69
30 18.45
30 18.73
30 18.51
30 18.75
30 18.53
30 18.78
30 18.55
30 18.84
30 18.58
30 18.83
30 18.67
30 19.03
30 19.00
30 19.21
30 19.20
30 19.40
30 19.30


87 25.52
87 25.48
87 25.14
87 25.10
87 24.71
87 24.66
87 24.30
87 24.50
87 23.91
87 23.81
87 23.53
87 23.43
87 23.16
87 23.08
87 22.93
87 22.84
87 22.79
87 22.67
87 22.57
87 22.47
87 22.43
87 22.36
87 22.05
87 21.98
87 21.65
87 21.54
87 21.24
87 21.17
87 20.88
87 20.79
87 20.47
87 20.39
87 20.09
87 20.02
87 19.71
87 19.66
87 19.53
87 19.47
87 19.34
87 19.27
87 19.14
87 19.05
87 19.02
87 18.99
87 18.70
87 18.61
87 18.72
87 18.66
87 18.70
87 18.69








horizontal locations of the sampling stations are not precise, but are believed accurate to

approximately 50 m. The large temporal. changes evident in Figures 4 and 5 would thus

suggest that there are localized regions of fine sediments. The apparent changes are then

the result of sampling a slightly different point, or possibly of migration of the fine material.

The computed grain size distributions are shown in Appendix V, as well as statistics

of the distributions (D50, sorting index, skewness, etc.). Figure 6 illustrates the cross-

shore variation in D50 sediment size. The values plotted in this figure were obtained by

averaging together all samples from equivalent depths; i.e. each point represents an average

of approximately 33 samples. There is a weak trend toward decreasing grain size progressing

offshore to the -2 m contour. The net overall reduction in D50 seen over time is not

statistically significant.














5 m Sand Samples
Percentage Passing #160 Sieve


100
90
80
70


-A


... AI........................ ............ .
..................1 1......... .. ..... A ..... ...... ........


30 .
20-
10
0-
30


.............................................. .. ........ ..... .......... .. .......... .....................


............. ........... ... ....... ... .......... ................


J1/h I


I 'VI


5 m, 9/90

5 m, 10/91


Range Number





Figure 4: Percentage of fines for 5 m samples, September, 1990, and October, 1991, surveys.


\i,


--------- -


-


........ ....------ .--- .--- --.---.- .


I


Y















8 m Sand Samples
Percentage Passing #160 Sieve


. .9.:^ 4 :: .............


45 50 55
Range Number


60


8 m, 9/90

8 m, 10/91


Figure 5: Percentage of fines for 8 m samples, September, 1990, and October, 1991, surveys.


100
90
80
70


30.....
20-
10.
0-
30


--I--
: :. . . . .



























0 .3 ----- .........................................

E


LO
- 0.3 4/
0 0 .3 4 ........... ............................................................................ -1 .......... ..... ......... ....... .....

0I ,

S0 .3 2 ....... ........ ....... ............................................................................................................. .........
S 0.32-
















Figure 6: Cross-shore distribution of D50 grain size.
S J

I -
0.28- ,-,-,-,,
Dune Mid-Bch Berm Bchface -1 m -2 m -5
Feature/Contour





Figure 6: Cross-shore distribution of Dso grain size.








2.3 Wave/Current/Tide Data


A directional wave gage was installed offshore the Gulf Islands National Seashore ranger

station on Perdido Key in approximately 7 m of water on January 18, 1990. The gage is

bolted inside a steel, tetrahedron-shaped frame which rests on the seafloor and is held in

place by jetted piles. The gage measures the time- varying pressure and horizontal velocity

components, storing the data on a magnetic tape, a hard drive, or in random access memory

(RAM). This allows computation of significant wave height, Hs, representative wave period,

Tm, wave direction, magnitude and direction of any mean current, and tidal stage. The gage
does not record continuously, but collects 17-minute bursts of data at a sampling rate of 1

Hz every six hours. The data analysis procedures are described in Work et al. (1990b).

Two types of wave data collection packages have been used: stand-alone and shore-

connected. The shore-connected gage has several advantages: operational status can be

polled remotely, data can be "downloaded", and sampling parameters can be changed at

any time, and internal batteries are charged by shore power. The stand-alone gages must be

retrieved approximately every three months to replace batteries and clear the data storage

space. Failure of this type of unit is not evident until the data are downloaded subsequent

to retrieval. This can lead to gaps in the wave data (see Figure 3).

In March, 1991, a lightweight data and power transmission cable was installed running

from the Perdido Key Ranger Station to the wave gage tripod. This cable transmitted data
successfully, but was found to be too light to bury itself. It was cut and the wave gage

replaced with a stand-alone unit in May, 1991. This stand- alone unit used RAM for data

storage, and was faulty, resulting in a long gap in the data set including the entire summer

of 1991. Since that time, a second wave gage has been added to the tripod so that two

gages are collecting data at the same location at the same time. Even this redundancy has

not resulted in 100% coverage.

A heavier data/power transmission cable was installed in October, 1991. This cable ap-

pears to have successfully buried itself and is currently transmitting data. A stand-alone

gage resides beside it; trips are planned at three-month intervals to service both units.

Appendix II presents all data collected since December, 1990. Note that some of the data








points shown in Appendix II are known to be in error; e.g. the uniform currents for the

period 9/10/91-1/17/92. Errors in the pressure sensor usually show up as major changes

in the mean water level, from which the tidal stage is computed. Malfunctioning of the cur-

rent meter is generally indicated by a quasi-steady reported current; this prevents accurate

computation of wave and current directions. Bad data points are usually reasonably evident.



2.4 Meteorological Data

Wind speed and direction, air temperature, and rainfall data are all collected by a weather

station at the Ranger Station on Perdido Key. Wetness data are no longer recorded as of

September, 1991. The anemometer and wind vane required replacement in July, 1991. The

reason is clear upon inspection of the Spring '91 weather data: there was a strong tendency,

due to corrosion, to overpredict the ocurrence of one wind direction, approximately 7.

Computer problems resulted in the loss of data for the period May 7 September 18,

1991. The resulting gap in the data set has been filled in with data from the Pensacola

National Weather Service station; a comparison found in Work et al. (1991b) indicated that

these data sets were at least qualitatively well-correlated. Calibration of the new anemome-

ter in the field revealed non- linear behavior in the wind vane, as shown in Figure 2.4.

Lacking a good way to remove the error in the reported wind directions, data are simply

plotted in Appendix III as they were recorded. Note that reported wind directions from

zero through 3150 appear to be accurate; only the last 450 band appears to be incorrect.

Measurement of the wind speed is independent of the wind direction measurement and ap-

pears to be reasonable. The faulty anemometer was replaced in January, 1992. Appendix

III presents data for the period December, 1990 February, 1992.



2.5 Additional Tide Data

The mechanical tide gage installed at Ft. Pickens fishing pier on Santa Rosa Island has

been recording since January 30, 1990. Data for the period January, 1991-April, 1991

are presented in Appendix III. Sedimentation around the stilling well for the tide gage has























360 /
326 -------
?5 315 ------------ I
0 i


z I
180 I
180






- I I I
m 0 180 315 360
(North) (South) (North)
"TRUE" DIRECTION, degrees (magnetic)









Figure 7: Calibration curve for faulty anemometer.








caused partial blocking of the hole through which water is exchanged; for this reason data
subsequent to April, 1991, are not shown.



2.6 Photographic Documentation

Oblique, color, ground photography has been used throughout the study to visually doc-

ument changes as the nourished beach evolves. Photographs have been taken to coincide

with each yearly bathymetric survey. Four photos are generally taken along each profile,

viewing north, south, east, and west. The reader may contact the authors regarding avail-

ability of the photographs.



3 DISCUSSION

Several features of the evolution of the nourished beach have become evident since its

placement. In its original configuration, the added sand represented a long, rectangular

block of sediment, with a very steep, nearly linear, slope from the berm down to the toe of

the fill. It was anticipated that the earliest stage of its evolution would be a retreat of the

mean water line, as wave- enhanced slumping reduced the steep seaward slope of the fill.

This can be seen in Figure 8, where the change in the distance from each monument to the

waterline, relative to the pre- -nourishment case, is plotted.

Figure 9 presents a similar analysis of changes in the position of the -4 m contour. Here

the trend is reversed, i.e. the contour is moving seaward with time, reflecting the gradual

reduction in the seaward slope of the new sand. Obviously the "pivot point", above which

erosion is occurring and below which sand is being deposited, lies above the -4 m contour.

Figure 10 supports this conclusion by presenting the "average" profile within the nourished

area for several time periods. The average profile is determined by superimposing several

profiles of interest and "pinning" them at the waterline, so that they are all referred to a

common horizontal coordinate. For each distance of interest, the depth is determined by

averaging corresponding data from each profile included in the averaging process. Figure 11

shows similar results for profiles lying west of the nourished area. The difference is marked;















Perdido Key Beach Nourishment
Evolution of Planform


Figure 8: Evolution of dry beach width since completion of beach nourishment.


9/90

2/91

5/91

9/91

10/91

1/92


30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Range Number








caused partial blocking of the hole through which water is exchanged; for this reason data
subsequent to April, 1991, are not shown.



2.6 Photographic Documentation

Oblique, color, ground photography has been used throughout the study to visually doc-

ument changes as the nourished beach evolves. Photographs have been taken to coincide

with each yearly bathymetric survey. Four photos are generally taken along each profile,

viewing north, south, east, and west. The reader may contact the authors regarding avail-

ability of the photographs.



3 DISCUSSION

Several features of the evolution of the nourished beach have become evident since its

placement. In its original configuration, the added sand represented a long, rectangular

block of sediment, with a very steep, nearly linear, slope from the berm down to the toe of

the fill. It was anticipated that the earliest stage of its evolution would be a retreat of the

mean water line, as wave- enhanced slumping reduced the steep seaward slope of the fill.

This can be seen in Figure 8, where the change in the distance from each monument to the

waterline, relative to the pre- -nourishment case, is plotted.

Figure 9 presents a similar analysis of changes in the position of the -4 m contour. Here

the trend is reversed, i.e. the contour is moving seaward with time, reflecting the gradual

reduction in the seaward slope of the new sand. Obviously the "pivot point", above which

erosion is occurring and below which sand is being deposited, lies above the -4 m contour.

Figure 10 supports this conclusion by presenting the "average" profile within the nourished

area for several time periods. The average profile is determined by superimposing several

profiles of interest and "pinning" them at the waterline, so that they are all referred to a

common horizontal coordinate. For each distance of interest, the depth is determined by

averaging corresponding data from each profile included in the averaging process. Figure 11

shows similar results for profiles lying west of the nourished area. The difference is marked;















Perdido Key Beach Nourishment
Movement of -4 m Contour


5 50 5
Range Number


Figure 9: Movement of -4 m contour since completion of beach nourishment.


9/90

2/91

5/91

9/91

10/91

1/92
















"Average" Profiles
(Within Nourishment Area)


11/89

9/90

10/91


-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50
Distance from 9/90 waterline, m


100 150 200


Figure 10: Average profiles within nourished area. Averages based on profiles at R-45,
R-46, R-48, R-50, R-52, R-56 and R-58.


j















"Average" Profiles
(Outside Nourishment Area)


11/89

9/90

10/91


-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance from 9/90 waterline, m


300 350 400


Figure 11: Average profiles west of nourishment area. Averages based on profiles at R-30,
R-32, R-34, R-36 and R-38.








changes in the nourished area are much more distinctive and represent more than the

primarily seasonal changes evident outside the nourished area. The profiles lying outside

the nourished area should eventually start benefitting from the nourishment, as sediment

diffuses out of the nourished area. This is becoming evident at R-41, but the process

is slower than the cross-shore equilibration. Evolution of the eastern end of the fill is

significantly more complex due to the presence of Pensacola Pass and Caucus Shoal.

Figure 12 illustrates the cross-shore redistribution of sediment within the nourished area.

There is a net loss indicated, in part due to the movement of sediment in the longshore

direction away from the nourished region, and possibly in part due to compaction of the fill

material and wind blown transport into the dunes. Figure 13 presents a similar result for

the profiles west of the nourished area. The cross-shore signal in this region is roughly half

as strong as within the nourished area, but the net loss is much greater. A net gain should

become evident when the new sand reaches these western profiles.

Figure 14 provides some additional insight into the sediment transport processes at

the site. To generate this figure, each profile was integrated from the dry beach out to

a reasonable depth of closure, beyond which changes were neglible. Any change in the

resulting areas is indicative of erosion or accretion. In Figure 14, positive values of dQx/dx

indicate erosion, while negative values denote accretion. The large, positive spikes shown

near R-42 and R-63 are thus losses of sediment from each end of the beachfill, and the

corresponding negative peaks adjacent to the fill are areas of accretion. The accretion at

the eastern end of the beachfill is the smaller of these two zones; the proximity of Caucus

Shoal and Pensacola Pass to this feature complicates interpretation. It is likely that some

of the material lost off the eastern end of the beachfill is entering the inlet and therefore

not contributing to accretion of the local profiles.

Two other erosional zones are indicated in Figure 14: one within the nourished beach

at R-54, and the other downdrift of the beachfill. Erosion of one area relative to an adja-

cent area generally is caused by a longshore gradient in either the wave/current field, the

bathymetry, or in the "erodibility" of the material (this statement assumes the absence of

barriers to littoral transport). No structures are found in the vicinity (excepting a small

jetty in Pensacola Pass), and the sand has been shown to be quite uniform, with the excep-

















qy(y) Based on Average Profiles
(Within Nourished Area)
-----


6-

4-

2-

1
1 ................................................................ .....................................................................................


0+-
-150


-100


-50 0 50 100
Distance from 9/90 waterline (m)


200


Figure 12: Cross-shore sediment transport within nourished area, based on average profiles
shown in Figure 10. Results based on profile deformations occurring between September,
1990, and October, 1991.


W. I %

a\ -4 c


U.I


0.


0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02


.......................................................................

................................................................ ......

.......................................................................

...................................................... ..............


............................................. ..........................................................................................

.................................................. .....................................................................................

......................................................... .............................................................................
'*"** .................... ............... *"** .... .................. ** ..... .
.........................................................................................................................................


. ........

. .....- ..

. .......-

. ........


n -i


!















qy(y) Based on Average Profiles
(West of Nourished Area)


0.1


-50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance from 9/90 waterline (m)


300


Figure 13: Cross-shore sediment transport west of nourishment area, based on average pro-
files shown in Figure 11. Results based on profile deformations occurring between Septem-
ber, 1990, and October, 1991.















Longshore Gradient of Qlong (dQx/dx)


11/89-9/90

9/90-10/91


Range Number


Figure 14: Longshore gradient of longshore sediment transport for entire study area.








tion of some pockets of very fine material offshore of the beachfill. Therefore the erodibility

of the material may be considered uniform. The bathymetric contours along Perdido Key,

prior to nourishment, were generally shore-parallel, which would tend to minimize long-

shore gradients in the nearshore wave and current fields. The predominant northwesterly

waves and currents and the sheltering caused by Caucus Shoal could be responsible for the

erosion centered at R-54. This argument would require that R-54 lie outside the wave

shadow created by the shoal and the profiles updrift (east) of R-54 lie inside the shadow.

A numerical model for wave refraction over the surveyed bathymetry and measurements of

the wave climate near Caucus Shoal would allow further investigation of this hypothesis.

The erosion downdrift of the beachfill for the first year following the nourishment project

is relatively minor and may be considered "background" erosion. This region should even-

tually benefit from the nourishment project as sediment is transported westward from the

nourished zone.

Interpretation of the data collected in the field is an ongoing process; the lead author

is currently writing a Ph.D. dissertation that will include a more detailed summary and

analysis of the results of the physical monitoring study.



4 REFERENCES

Work, P.A., Lin, L.-H., and Dean, R.G., 1990a. "Perdido Key Beach Nourishment Project:

Gulf Islands National Seashore. Pre- Nourishment Survey, Conducted October 28-

November 3, 1989." Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department, University

of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. April 30, 1990. COEL 90-006.

Work, P.A., Lin, L.-H., and Dean, R.G., 1990b. "Perdido Key Beach Nourishment Project:

Gulf Islands National Seashore. First Progress Report." Coastal and Oceanographic

Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. August 27, 1990.

COEL 90-009.

Work, P.A., Lin, L.-H., and Dean, R.G., 1991a. "Perdido Key Beach Nourishment

Project: Gulf Islands National Seashore. First Post-Nourishment Survey Con-








ducted September 22-26, 1990." Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Depart-

ment, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. January, 1991. COEL 91-003.

Work, P.A., Lin, L.-H., and Dean, R.G., 1991b. "Perdido Key Beach Nourishment Project:

Gulf Islands National Seashore. 1990 Annual Report." Coastal and Oceanographic

Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. January, 1991.

COEL 91-004.

Work, P.A., Charles, L., and Dean, R.G., 1991c. "Perdido Key Historical Summary and

Interpretation of Monitoring Programs." Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering

Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. January, 1991. COEL 91-

009.








tion of some pockets of very fine material offshore of the beachfill. Therefore the erodibility

of the material may be considered uniform. The bathymetric contours along Perdido Key,

prior to nourishment, were generally shore-parallel, which would tend to minimize long-

shore gradients in the nearshore wave and current fields. The predominant northwesterly

waves and currents and the sheltering caused by Caucus Shoal could be responsible for the

erosion centered at R-54. This argument would require that R-54 lie outside the wave

shadow created by the shoal and the profiles updrift (east) of R-54 lie inside the shadow.

A numerical model for wave refraction over the surveyed bathymetry and measurements of

the wave climate near Caucus Shoal would allow further investigation of this hypothesis.

The erosion downdrift of the beachfill for the first year following the nourishment project

is relatively minor and may be considered "background" erosion. This region should even-

tually benefit from the nourishment project as sediment is transported westward from the

nourished zone.

Interpretation of the data collected in the field is an ongoing process; the lead author

is currently writing a Ph.D. dissertation that will include a more detailed summary and

analysis of the results of the physical monitoring study.



4 REFERENCES

Work, P.A., Lin, L.-H., and Dean, R.G., 1990a. "Perdido Key Beach Nourishment Project:

Gulf Islands National Seashore. Pre- Nourishment Survey, Conducted October 28-

November 3, 1989." Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department, University

of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. April 30, 1990. COEL 90-006.

Work, P.A., Lin, L.-H., and Dean, R.G., 1990b. "Perdido Key Beach Nourishment Project:

Gulf Islands National Seashore. First Progress Report." Coastal and Oceanographic

Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. August 27, 1990.

COEL 90-009.

Work, P.A., Lin, L.-H., and Dean, R.G., 1991a. "Perdido Key Beach Nourishment

Project: Gulf Islands National Seashore. First Post-Nourishment Survey Con-




























APPENDIX I


BEACH PROFILES


Notes: 1) All elevations are in meters, relative to NGVD.
2) Horizontal origin is the survey monument, with distances toward
the Gulf of Mexico defined as positive.
3) Reported bearings are for observer standing on monument, looking
offshore along survey line.




















>
C
z



n 0
cS

d
H Q

>
3
a)


5.

4.

3.

2.

1 .

0.

-1.

-2.

-3.

-4.

-5.

-6.

-7.


100.


200.
Distance from


300.
monument, m


NOVEMBER, 1989
-------------. SEPTEMBER, 1990
---- OCTOBER, 1991


Escambia County Range 30
B.M. Elevation 4.43 m
Azimuth 170 Degrees


400.


500.








Perdido Key: Range 30


i I i I i I i I -


600.


700. 800.
Distance from monument, m


900.


Escambia County Range 30
B.M. Elevation 4.43 m
Azimuth 170 Degrees


500.


NOVEMBER, 1989
----- SEPTEMBER, 1990
---- OCTOBER, 1991


1000.



















>
0
z


S

C
H

rcz


2.

1.

0.

-1.

-2.


-3.

-4.

-5.

-6. -
-200.


-100.


0. 100. 200. 300.
Distance from monument, m


NOVEMBER, 1989
----------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
-----OCTOBER, 1991


400.


Escambia County Range 32
B.M. Elevation 5.86 m
Azimuth 170 Degrees


500.








Perdido Key: Range 32
6.

5.

4.I


3.

> 2. -

Z
0.


0.




S 2.

-3.

-4. -

-5.

-6.
500. 600. 700. 800. 900. 1000.
Distance from monument, m

NOVEMBER, 1989 Escambia County Range 32
.-------------- SEPTEMBER, 1990 B.M. Elevation 5.86 m
----- OCTOBER, 1991 Azimuth 170 Degrees









Perdido Key: Range 34


-100. 0. 100. 200. 300.
Distance from monument, m


400.


500.


Escambia County Range 34
B.M. Elevation 3.99 m
Azimuth 165 Degrees


2.

i.

0.

-1.

-2.


-3.

-4.


-5.

-6. -
-200.


NOVEMBER, 1989
----------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
--.--. OCTOBER, 1991








Perdido Key: Range 34


--,- -
I I I I I ~`'--------I.--- 1


600.


700. 800.
Distance from monument, m


900.


Escambia County Range 34
B.M. Elevation 3.99 m
Azimuth 165 Degrees


500.


NOVEMBER, 1989
----------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
-- OCTOBER, 1991


1000.


















QZ
0




H 0
> ,


-300. -200. -100. 0. 100. 200. 300. 400.' 500.
Distance from monument, m


NOVEMBER, 1989
--------------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
------ OCTOBER, 1991


1


Escambia County Range 36
B.M. Elevation 2.35 m
Azimuth 165 Degrees


1 .

0.

-1.

-2.

-3.


-4.

-5.

-6.

-7.
-400.























Z






Q)

I
(D
FSz


1.


0.


-1.


-2.


-3.


Perdido Key: Range 36


-
-


600.


700.


800.


Distance from monument, m


NOVEMBER, 1989
------ SEPTEMBER, 1990
---- OCTOBER, 1991


Escambia County Range 36
B.M. Elevation 2.35 m
Azimuth 165 Degrees


-5.


-6.


-7.


500.


900.











































-300. -200. -100.


0. 100. 200. 300.


400.


Distance from monument, m


Escambia County Range 38
B.M. Elevation 4.07 m
Azimuth 160 Degrees


-4.


-5.

-6.

-7.
-400.


NOVEMBER, 1989
----- SEPTEMBER, 1990
------ OCTOBER, 1991


500.








Perdido Key: Range 38


----------

11I11I11I 11


600.


700. 800.
Distance from monument, m


900.


Escambia County Range 38
B.M. Elevation 4.07 m
Azimuth 160 Degrees


>1.
Z
0.



O
> -2.
co

-3.
H


500.


NOVEMBER, 1989
----------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
-----. OCTOBER, 1991


1000.











































0. 0. 100. 200. 30(
Distance from monument, m


0.


400.


Escambia County Range 40
B.M. Elevation 4.27 m
Azimuth 160 Degrees


-3.


-4.


-5.


-6.
-300.


-200.


NOVEMBER, 1989
----- SEPTEMBER, 1990
- -- OCTOBER, 1991


500.


-10








Perdido Key: Range 40


I I -- I I I 1 --------I
SI I I I *l*


600.


700. 800.
Distance from monument, m


900.


1000.


Escambia County Range 40
B.M. Elevation 4.27 m
Azimuth 160 Degrees


500.


NOVEMBER, 1989
------------ SEPTEMBER, 1990
---- OCTOBER, 1991











































0. 100.
Distance from


200. 300.


400.


monument, m

Escambia County Range 42
B.M. Elevation 2.62 m
Azimuth 160 Degrees


1.


0.


-1.


-2.


-3.


-5. -


-6.


-7.
-200.


-100.


NOVEMBER, 1989
----------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
------ OCTOBER, 1991


500.









Perdido Key: Range 42


I I I


' I I I


----------
I'. ,' ..~~"' ". -



I I I I I I I I I I


600.


700.


800.


900.


1000.


I 11
1100.


1200.


Distance from monument, m


Escambia County Range 42
B.M. Elevation 2.62 m
Azimuth 160 Degrees


500.


NOVEMBER, 1989
----------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
---- OCTOBER, 1991


I I












































0. 100.
Distance from


200. 300.
monument, m


Escambia County Range 43
B.M. Elevation 2.83 m
Azimuth 160 Degrees


1.


0.


-1.


-2.


-3.


-5.


-6. -


-7.
-200.


-100.


NOVEMBER, 1989
.--...---- --- SEPTEMBER, 1990
-.--- OCTOBER, 1991


400.


500.








Perdido Key: Range 43
I I I I I


I I i I


600.


700.


I I I


800.


900.


Distance from monument, m


Escambia County Range 43
B.M. Elevation 2.83 m
Azimuth 160 Degrees


500.


i .I
1000.


NOVEMBER, 1989
----------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
---- OCTOBER, 1991


1100.
1100.


1200.


I I


I I


------- --------- % -- --- --- ---
,- ,, .,'-....... '--'
_ ../':. ..,., J .. .. .. .,.. ._ .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .








Perdido Key: Range 44


-300. -200. -100. 0. 100. 200. 300.
Distance from monument, m


400.


500.


Escambia County Range 44
B.M. Elevation 2.87 m
Azimuth 160 Degrees


-5.

-6.

-7.

-8.
-400.


NOVEMBER, 1989
----- SEPTEMBER, 1990
OCTOBER, 1991









Perdido Key: Range 44
SI I I I I I























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


I i I i I


700. 800. 900.
Distance from monument, m


S I


1000.


1100.


Escambia County Range 44
B.M. Elevation 2.87 m
Azimuth 160 Degrees


500.


600.


NOVEMBER, 1989
----------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
OCTOBER, 1991









Perdido Key: Range 45


-200. -100. 0. 100. 200. 300.
Distance from monument, m


400.


500.


Escambia County Range 45
B.M. Elevation 2.18 m
Azimuth 160 Degrees


-1.


-2.


-3.


-4.


-5.


-6.


-7.


-8.
-300.


NOVEMBER, 1989
-------------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
-----OCTOBER, 1991








Perdido Key: Range 45
















;-----~.=


I I I


I 1 I I


700. 800. 900.
Distance from monument, m


1000.


Escambia County Range 45
B.M. Elevation 2.18 m
Azimuth 160 Degrees


500.


600.


NOVEMBER, 1989
----- SEPTEMBER, 1990
-----. OCTOBER, 1991


1100.


I I












































-100. 0. 100. 200. 300.
Distance from monument, m


400.


500.


Escambia County Range 46
B.M. Elevation 4.14 m
Azimuth 165 Degrees


-5.

-6.

-7.

-8.
-300.


-200.


NOVEMBER, 1989
------ SEPTEMBER, 1990
-----. OCTOBER, 1991








Perdido Key: Range 46
I I I I 1 1 -


























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


700. 800. 900.
Distance from monument, m


1000.


Escambia County Range 46
B.M. Elevation 4.14 m
Azimuth 165 Degrees


1.C

Z
0. O
0-1.

4 -2.

Q) -3.
W


500.


600.


NOVEMBER, 1989
----------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
---- OCTOBER, 1991


1100.











































500.


-100. 0. 100. 200. 300. 400.
Distance from monument, m


Escambia County Range 48
B.M. Elevation 4.08 m
Azimuth 165 Degrees


> 1.
0
-0.



O
-2.

4 -3.
w


-4.

-5.


-6.


-7.
-300.


-200.


NOVEMBER, 1989
------------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
-- OCTOBER, 1991









Perdido Key: Range 48


I i I I I I


- -- I-I "".
----- I ___ I __ I __ I __ I __ I i ^ -`-~----------.--.


600.


700. 800. 900.
Distance from monument, m


1000.


1100.


Escambia County Range 48
B.M. Elevation 4.08 m
Azimuth 165 Degrees


I I


500.


NOVEMBER, 1989
----------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
- ---- OCTOBER, 1991











































-100. 0. 100. 200. 300.
Distance from monument, m


400.


500.


Escambia County Range 50
B.M. Elevation 4.02 m
Azimuth 165 Degrees


1.

0.

-1.

-2.

-3.


-200.


NOVEMBER, 1989
.--..------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
-----OCTOBER, 1991









Perdido Key: Range 50
I I I I r I I -





























--------------------------------------
I I II I I I _


600.


700. 800. 900.
Distance from monument, m


1000.


1100.


Escambia County Range 50
B.M. Elevation 4.02 m
Azimuth 165 Degrees


1.

0.


-1.

-2.

-3.


500.


NOVEMBER, 1989
----- SEPTEMBER, 1990
--.-.. OCTOBER, 1991











































-200. -100. 0. 100. 200. 300.
Distance from monument, m


400.


500.


Escambia County Range 52
B.M. Elevation 2.65 m
Azimuth 165 Degrees


-4.


-5.

-6.

-7.
-300.


NOVEMBER, 1989
----------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
-----OCTOBER, 1991









Perdido Key: Range 52
I Ia I I I













-7-












......----------,---- --------


------- ---- ---- ---------------
I I i I s i I i I i 7I i I


700. 800. 900. 1000.
Distance from monument, m


1100.


Escambia County Range 52
B.M. Elevation 2.65 m
Azimuth 165 Degrees


500.


600.


NOVEMBER, 1989
----------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
---- OCTOBER, 1991


1200.









Perdido Key: Range 54


I I 'I I


I I i I I


0. 100. 200. 300.
Distance from monument, m


Escambia County Range 54
B.M. Elevation 3.08 m
Azimuth 165 Degrees


S I I


-5.


-6.


-7.
-200.


-100.
-100.


I I


NOVEMBER, 1989
----------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
--- OCTOBER, 1991


400.


500.


I I









Perdido Key: Range


54


I I I II I II I I I


1.


0.


-1.


-2.


-3.


-4.


-5.


-6.


-7.


700. 800. 900.
Distance from monument, m


Escambia County Range 54
B.M. Elevation 3.08 m
Azimuth 165 Degrees


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


500.


600.


NOVEMBER, 1989
----------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
---- OCTOBER, 1991


1000.


1100.











































0. 100. 200. 300.
Distance from monument, m


400.


Escambia County Range 56
B.M. Elevation 2.48 m
Azimuth 165 Degrees


-4.


-5.


-6.


-7.
-200.


-100.


NOVEMBER, 1989
--.--------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
--.--. OCTOBER, 1991


500.









Perdido Key: Range 56


I I


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


600.


700. 800. 900.
Distance from monument, m


1000.


Escambia County Range 56
B.M. Elevation 2.48 m
Azimuth 165 Degrees


-4.


-5.


-6.


-7.


500.


NOVEMBER, 1989
----------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
---- OCTOBER, 1991


1100.


I I


' I


' I


I I









Perdido Key: Range 58


0. 100. 200. 300.
Distance from monument, m


400.


Escambia County Range 58
B.M. Elevation 2.18 m
Azimuth 165 Degrees


-5.


-6. -


-7.
-200.


-100.


NOVEMBER, 1989
----------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
- .-- OCTOBER, 1991


500.










I I I I


Perdido Key: Range 58
I I I I I I I I 1 1


7--.


I I __ I I I I I I i I I I I I
500. 600. 700. 800. 900. 1000. 1100. 1200. 1300. 1400. 1500.
Distance from monument, m


Escambia County Range 58
B.M. Elevation 2.18 m
Azimuth 165 Degrees


2. h


0.

0


S
-2.
0
.1-1
( -3.


W -4.


-5.


-6. -


NOVEMBER, 1989
------ SEPTEMBER, 1990
------ OCTOBER, 1991


/


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








































-300. -200.


-100.


100.


200.


300.


400.


Distance from monument, m


Escambia County Range 60
B.M. Elevation 2.03 m
Azimuth 165 Degrees


NOVEMBER, 1989
--..-------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
- .--. OCTOBER, 1991


500.









Perdido Key: Range 60


I I I I I I I I '


0.
Z

s -i.


0 -2.
4-j

S-3.


-4.


p..,


S I I I I I I i I I I I I I


600. 700. 800. 900. 1000. 1100. 1200. 1300. 1400. 1500.
Distance from monument, m


Escambia County Range 60
B.M. Elevation 2.03 m
Azimuth 165 Degrees


I I I I I


3.


2.


-- "-- _-.- / --- .---


-5.


-6. -


500.


NOVEMBER, 1989
....----- ----. SEPTEMBER, 1990
--- OCTOBER, 1991








Perdido Key: Range 61


-200. -100. 0. 100. 200.


Distance from monument, m


Escambia County Range 61
B.M. Elevation 2.68 m
Azimuth 165 Degrees


-300.


300.


NOVEMBER, 1989
----------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
OCTOBER, 1991


400.


500.









Perdido Key: Range 61
4 I Iii I


3.


2.



2. -
0





-4
H O

co -2.

-4
H -3.


-4.


-5.


-6. I I I
500. 600. 700. 800. 900. 1000. 1100. 1200. 1300.
Distance from monument, m


NOVEMBER, 1989 Escambia County Range 61
.-------------- SEPTEMBER, 1990 B.M. Elevation 2.68 m
----OCTOBER, 1991 Azimuth 165 Degrees





_1









































100. 200. 300.
Distance from monument, m


400.


Escambia County Range 62
B.M. Elevation 2.01 m
Azimuth 165 Degrees


-5. -
-100.


NOVEMBER, 1989
------------ SEPTEMBER, 1990
--.--. OCTOBER, 1991


500.








Perdido Key: Range 62


I--1--1----- ---III------ -----


700.


800.


900.


1000.


Distance from monument, m


Escambia County Range 62
B.M. Elevation 2.01 m
Azimuth 165 Degrees


500.


600.


NOVEMBER, 1989
-------------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
---- OCTOBER, 1991


1100.










































100. 200. 300.
Distance from monument, m


400.


Escambia County Range 63
B.M. Elevation 2.45 m
Azimuth 165 Degrees


-2.



-3.



-4.10
-100.


NOVEMBER, 1989
------------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
-.-.-- OCTOBER, 1991


500.








Perdido Key: Range


63


I I I I I I I I I I I


SI I I I


600.


700.


800.


900.


1000.


Distance from monument, m


Escambia County Range 63
B.M. Elevation 2.45 m
Azimuth 165 Degrees


500.


NOVEMBER, 1989
----- SEPTEMBER, 1990
- -OCTOBER, 1991


1100.








Perdido Key: Range 64


100.


200.


300.


400.


Distance from monument, m


Escambia County Range 64
B.M. Elevation 1.82 m
Azimuth 170 Degrees


-200.


-100.


NOVEMBER, 1989
----------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
------ OCTOBER, 1991


500.








Perdido Key: Range 64


- --------


600.


700. 800.
Distance from monument, m


900.


1000.


Escambia County Range 64
B.M. Elevation 1.82 m
Azimuth 170 Degrees


500.


NOVEMBER, 1989
------------ SEPTEMBER, 1990
-----OCTOBER, 1991



















0.

-1. -

-2.

-3.

-4.

-5.

-6.

-7.

-8.

-9.

-10.



-12.

-13.

-14.

-15.-
-200.


-100. 0. 100. 200. 300. 400.
Distance from monument, m


Escambia County Range 65
B.M. Elevation 2.13 m
Azimuth 105 Degrees


500.


NOVEMBER, 1989
------------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
-..--. OCTOBER, 1991



















-1.

-2.

-3.

-4.

-5.

-6.

-7.

-8.

-9.

-10.

-11. -

-12.

-13.

-14. -

-15.
500.


1000.


Escambia County Range 65
B.M. Elevation 2.13 m
Azimuth 105 Degrees


700. 800. 900.
Distance from monument, m


600.


NOVEMBER, 1989
----------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
- .----- OCTOBER, 1991


1100.









4.
3.
2.
i.
0.
-. -
S-2.
-3.
Z -4.

S-5.


S .2-7.
Co co -8.
) -9.
S-10.

-11.
-12.
-13.
-14.
-15.
-16.
-100.


100. 200. 300.
Distance from monument, m


NOVEMBER, 1989
----------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
------ OCTOBER, 1991


400.


Escambia County Range 66
B.M. Elevation 2.68 m
Azimuth 105 Degrees


500.









Perdido Key: Range 66
I1 I I I


4.
3.

2.
1 .

0.
-1.

S-2.
0-3.
z -4.


-6.

. -7.
c -8.
aQ -9.

S-10.
-11.
-12.

-13.
-14.
-15.

-16.


71I


600.


700.


800.


900.


Distance from monument, m


Escambia County Range 66
B.M. Elevation 2.68 m
Azimuth 105 Degrees


"-----7"


500.


NOVEMBER, 1989
-----......... SEPTEMBER, 1990
---- OCTOBER, 1991


1000.


1100.


I I I


I


I


I












3.
2.


0.
-1.
-2.
-3.
> -4. -

-5.
-6.
S-7.
S-8. _
I O -9.

co

-12.
-13.
-14.
-15.
-16.
-17.
-18.
-19.
-20.
-100.


100. 200. 300.
Distance from monument, m


NOVEMBER, 1989
----------- SEPTEMBER, 1990
- -- -- OCTOBER, 1991


400.


Escambia County Range 67
B.M. Elevation 3.08 m
Azimuth 90 Degrees


500.









Perdido Key: Range 67
4. i I I I I I
3.
2.
S1.
0.

-2.
-3.

> -4.~ i .
-5. .

-6. /



o -9.
-- -0 --

r-16. "




-15.
-?7.

-18. /
-19.

-20.
~~~~~- ---------------^-------




500. 600. 700. 800. 900. 1000. 1100.
Distance from monument, m


NOVEMBER, 1989
------------ SEPTEMBER, 1990
---- OCTOBER, 1991


Escambia County Range 67
B.M. Elevation 3.08 m
Azimuth 90 Degrees


























APPENDIX II


WAVE, CURRENT, AND TIDE DATA

From Offshore Gage

Representative Wave Period, Significant Wave Height, Central Direction, and Spreading

Parameters

Magnitude and Direction of Mean Current, Tidal Stage

December, 1990 February, 1992


Notes: 1)
2)
3)
4)


Mean wave direction, 0, is the direction that the wave is heading.
Mean current direction, Oc, is the direction toward which the current is heading.
Horizontal axis denotes day of month.
Tidal datum is mean sea level.












PERDIDO KEY


15 -


Tn 10
(SEC)


0


4

3

Hs 2
(M)
1

0


H


120

90


S 60


30

0


S I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I3 0
5 10 15 20 25 30


1 5 10 15 20 25 30



++ + ++
++I;tf~;F9~~+*~~x


I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 5 10 15 20 25 30


e Si:+ S2:o


4>






1 5 10 15 20 25 30


DEC. ,1990
Figure II-1: Representative Wave Period, Significant Wave Height, Central Direction and
Spreading Parameters, December, 1990.













PERDIDO KEY


0.8 -


Uc 0. 6
(M/S)
0.q


0. 2


n n I


ec
(DEG)


1 5 10 15 20, 25 30


+ + +++* i F+ +
+ ++4- +++ + + + + + +
+ + + + + +4 + + +
S+ 4- +
S+ ++
+ +



+
+
S I I I 1 I I I11 I I I 1- I I I I I I I I 11 1
15 10 15 20 25 30












1 5 10 i I I 20 25 30II I I I
5 10 15 20 25 30


DEC.. 1990











Figure 11-2: Magnitude and Direction of Mean Current and Tidal Stage, December, 1990.


II-3


+ + ++ +- -I + -+ +
I I I +1 I* 4-r" 1 1 1 1 1 I -PT I T I"


V 0 V













PERDIDO KEY


1 5 10 15 20 25 30




+ +- +
+

+
+



S 5 10 15 20 25 30



SS1:+ S2:o
+ e
00 + 0

+ + 0
+oo> o o.
0 A 0 0 +0 0 0 .


JRN. .1991
Figure 11-3: Representative Wave Period, Significant Wave Height, Central Direction and
Spreading Parameters, January, 1991.


20


15


Tt 10
(SEC)

5


90


S 60


30

0


I I I I I I I I I I












PERDIDO KEY
II


1 5 10 15 20. 25 30


1 5 10 15 20 25 30


JAN. ,1991


Figure 11-4: Magnitude and Direction of Mean Current and Tidal Stage, January, 1991.


1.0


0.8


Uc 0.6
(M/S)
0.4 -


0.2


0.0





N


ec
(DEG)


+
+-~ +4+, + -


S+ r + +* ++

+

4-9


1111111111111111111 111111111111













PERDIDO KEY


20


15

Tn 10
(SEC)

5


0 1 II I I I I 1 11 1 1 1 1 i i i 1 I
1 5 10 15 20 25 28




3


2


1-

0 II I I I I I I I I. I I I I I I I I I I I
1 5 10 15 20 25 28



+ +
N + +4 ++
+

E +


S ++ -+ + +
++
+

1 5 10 15 20 25 28

20
Sl:+ S2:0
90


S 60


30

0


>



1 5 10 15 20 25 28


FEB. 1991
Figure 11-5: Representative Wave Period, Significant Wave Height, Central Direction and
Spreading Parameters, February, 1991.













PERDIDO KEY


1.0


0.8


Uc 0.6
(M/S)
0.4


0.2

0.0





N

9c E
(DEG)

S





2


1
TIDE
(M)
0


-1

-2


I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 5 10 15 20 25 28


4 +- +
-/








1 5 10 15 20 25 28


1 5 10 15 20 25 28

FEB..1991


Figure II-6: Magnitude and Direction of Mean Current and Tidal Stage, February, 1991.

II-7












PERDIDO KEY


20


15

Tn 10
(SEC)
5

0


3

3


90

60

30


1 5 10 15 20 25 30












I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I3 0
1 5 10 15 20 25 30


MAR. 1991
Figure 11-7: Representative Wave Period, Significant Wave Height, Central Direction and
Spreading Parameters, March, 1991.
II-8


I1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II I I II I I II II I I I II


S,:+ S2:0


-




| || e













PERDIDO KEY


0.8 -


1 5 10 15 20 25 30

++
4+ -+
++ +

+ + + + +4. +
+ .t ++ +
+


+ +
+ +
I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -1 -. I i 4 "1t I
1 5 10 15 20 25 30













1 5 10 15 20 25 30


MRR. 1991












Figure 11-8: Magnitude and Direction of Mean Current and Tidal Stage, March, 1991.


II-9


Uc 0.6
(M/S)
0.4i


0. 2


nA An i


+ ++ 4

+4 t. + .


8c
(DEG)


J V












PERDIDO KEY


20

15

Tn 10
(SEC)
5

0


1 5 10 15 20 25 30


1 5 10 15 20 25 30


20 25 30


1 5 10 15 20 25 30

RPR. .1991
Figure II-9: Representative Wave Period, Significant Wave Height, Central Direction and
Spreading Parameters, April, 1991.
II-10


+
+












PERDIDO KEY


Uc 0.6
(M/S)
O.U


0.2


8c
(DEG)


++



+ + ++ + + +


+ ++ ++ +
+ + +
++ + ++ -
+ + + + +
+
++
+ +
++ +
+

+ + +
+I..+ III I


APR. ,1991


Figure II-10: Magnitude and Direction of Mean Current and Tidal Stage, April, 1991.


II-11




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