Citation
Perdido Key beach nourishment project: Gulf Islands National Seashore 1991 annual report

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
Creator:
Work, Paul A.
Dean, Robert G.
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, FL
Publisher:
Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
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

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-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. Report no. 2. 3. It"ipient A Accession no.
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. Pertorming Organizatio Leport No.
Paul A. Work
Robert G. Dean
9. Performing Organizatio Name and Address 10. ProjectiTask/lork Onit No.
Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department
University of Florida 11. Contract or crant no.
336 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611 N62467-89-C-0500
13. Type of Report
12. Sponsoring Organization aname and Address
Department of the Navy Annual Report
Southern Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Charleston, SC 29411-0068 14.
15. Supplementary 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 influencing 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. Originator's Key Words 18. Availability Statement
Beach nourishment
Sediment transport
Shoreline response
19. U. S. Security Ciassif. of the Report 20. U. S. Security Clasaif. 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 Il-i
APPENDIX III: METEOROLOGICAL DATA December, 1990 February, 1992 Ill-i
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-I1
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, 1R-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.




0 5 km

Figure 1: Site location chart.




METEROLOGICAL STATION ...

APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF, PROFILE NOURISHMENT

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

0 5 km

Figure 2: Components of beach nourishment monitoring project.




Table 1: Chronology of Perdido Key Data Collection Efforts

Date

10/28-11/l/ 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

= 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! H --- H -- H--i I -I I -i H I II g
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
!, I F i I-- -I FO, 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 I--Weathe8/3 5/6 9/18
Tide 1/4 6/14
(-t P e I IF-(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-andlevel 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, bathymetric 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 explanations 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
RI-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-62b 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 considering relative changes between surveys. With these modifications, the estimated beach nourishment quantity is now reduced slightly to 4.1 million inm
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 in (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 1 9/90, 10/91 1Latitude Longitude
No. I Depth (in) JDepth (in) I Depth In I Depth (in) I (Deg., Min.) (Deg., Min.)

11-30

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 crossshore 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...............

...........A I ...... ................................
..................1 1......... .. ..... A ..... ...... ........

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

............................................... --... .......... .... I--.-.-.-........... ....... .. ..... ............. ..................... .........

........... .. ......... t.... I ....... i" .............. ...........................

1/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




8 m Sand Samples
Percentage Passing #160 Sieve

9.................................. ............................................................

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

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

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




0 8 --- ..........................
0 8 ................................... lc ..................
.......... 0 .3 ... ........................
0 .3 ..... ........................ - - -K ...
Et
E04*
<0.28
D~neMidBch e~rn Bciac -1' -2m Featre/Cntou
Fi3ure6:..rss..h.e.d.sri.ut.n.of.5...ran4si..




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, HI,, 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 shoreconnected. 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 appears 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 current 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 anemometer 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 appears 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 /
3 2 6 315---------180
0
w) I "1 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 document 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 availability 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 seawaxd 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 axe 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




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
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.




"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 adjacent 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)
8..

4
2
1.................. ..........
4 .......................................................................................................................................
2 ............................................ ..........................................................................................
1 ................................................................ .....................................................................................

0
-150

-100

-50 0 50 1006o
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.

n. I%

U.I

0.

0.08 0.06
0.04 0.02

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

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

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

01"l

!




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

0.1

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

300

Figure 13: Cross-shore sediment transport west of nourishment area, based on average profiles shown in Figure 11. Results based on profile deformations occurring between September, 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 longshore 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 eventually 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 28November 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 Department, 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 91009.




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.




Z z
o
H 1
| ..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

q00.

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
I

2.
1.
0.
-1.
-2.

-3.
-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.
LI
3.
> 2.
Z
0.
-4 0
Ud
tQ)
- 2.
-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.
t 0.
-1.
-2.

-3.
-4.
-5.
-6.
-200.

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




Perdido Key: Range 34

-- ,J .. ..-.. .. .. .."-"

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.




Z
0
H o
I-

-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.

-5.
-6.
-7.
-400.




Perdido Key: Range 36

0
0
Q1)
I
DQ

1.
0.
-1.
-2.
-3.

-5.
-6.
-7.

L
-- -

500.

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

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

------
11I11I11111

600.

700. 800.
Distance from monument, m

900.

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

>1.
C
Z
0.
0 O.
> -2.
o
- 3.=,

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

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.

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

-4.

-7.
-200.

-100.

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

400.

500.




Perdido Key: Range 43
Il I I I Il

I I i I

600.

700.

I I

800.

900.

Distance from monument, m

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

500.

i1000.
1000.

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

1100.
11I00.

1200.

I I

II

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




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
IijI ji I I
-----------

SI i I i I

700. 800. 900.
Distance from monument, m

SIt

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.
-'.

-5.
-6.
-7.
-8.
-300.

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




Perdido Key: Range 45
I I II

I I I

I I 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

I100.

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 -I -
- 1- 1 1 1- 1 1 I

700. 800. 900.
Distance from monument, m

1000.

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

.i
Z
0.
0
4-2.
Q)-3.

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

Z
0.
0.
O
-2.
4 -3.

-4.
-5.
-6.
-7.
-300.

-200.

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




Perdido Key: Range 48

I i I

7
L
1 I ,I I t I"[" .. ....1 .. .... ...----

600.

700. 800. 900.
Distance from monument, m

1000.

1100.

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

I II

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 tI i 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

I .
0.
-i.
-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 II I I 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

100.

200.

300.

400.

Distance from monument, m

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

I I .

I I I I i

-5.
-6.
-27.
-200.

-100.

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

500.

II




Perdido Key: Range

54

I I I I I l I l I

S1.
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

-5.
-6.
-7.
-200.

-100.

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

500.




Perdido Key: Range 56

I I

- - - - -
II i I i I i I a 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.

II

I I

I I

II




Perdido Key: Range 58

0. 100. 200.

300.

400.

Distance from monument, m

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

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

7 --.

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. -

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

-5.

-6. -

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

I

- - - - - - - -




-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 II I I I

0.
Z
0 -2.
-3.
-q

p..,

I 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 l I lI I I
3.
2.
Z 0.
-1..
0
H 0
c -2.
-4
C -3.
-6.
-5. -- *
-6 I I I I I 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




100. 200. 300.
Distance from monument, m

00.

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- I --I I

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.
-4.100.
-100.

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

500.




Perdido Key: Range

63

I I I I I I i I

-
I 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

I100.




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

I ---------

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.
-2.
-3.
-5.
-6.
-7.
-8.
-9.
-10.
-ii.
-12.
-13.
-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.
-15.
-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.




LI 3.
2.
1.
0.
-1.
-2.
-3.
Z-.
-5.
- -7.
CO c -0-8.
)-9.
w -10.
-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
1111I 1 11

4.
3.
2.
1.
0.
-1.
-2.
~-3.
z -4.
-5.
S-6.
.2-7.
c-8.
Q)-9.
-10.
-11.
-12.
-13.
-14.
-15.
-16.

7

600.

700.

800.

900.

Distance from monument, m

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

...-.-----'7"f Zo--

500.

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

1000.

1100.

I I I

I

I

I




3.
2.
0.
-O.
-2.
-3.
> -4.
S-5.
-6.
-7.
-8.
I O -9.
> -11.
- -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 I I I
3.
2.
* .
0.
-2.
-3.
> -4. i.......
-5. ./
Z
-6. /
-7.
-18.
o -9.
Ln
-13.
S----------------14. --.............-------1.5. "
-17.
-18.
-19.
-20. I I I
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

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

Notes: 1)
2) 3)
4)




PERDIDO KEY

15 -

Tm 10 (SEC)

0
4
3
Hs 2
(M)
0

H
120
90 S 60
30 0

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 I I I I
S 5 10 15 20 25 30

5 10 15 20 25 30
+++ + + + +++
4 ,+ #+4-14
+ 4-+

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 S 5 10 15 20 25 30
e S:+ S2:e
- e e 4
45
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 1-

Uc 0. 6 (M/S)

0. 2 1-

n Nl I

ec (DEG)

1 5 10 15 20, 25 30
-+ + + +
+ ++ +++ ++ + +++ + + +
+ + + + + +- + 4- +
S4-+ +
- + + 4
+ +
+
+
I I I 1+ 1 I 1 41 I 1I I I1I 1 11tI 1 1 i 1 5 10 15 20 25 30
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lI l' II 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

+ +4 ++ + ++ +
I I I 1 1 o

V 0 V




PERDIDO KEY

5 10 15 20 25 30
--b" + + +
+ + +
+
+
'+ + 4#' + +W
+
5 10 15 20 25 30
S1:+ S2:+
=0 +
e + *
+oo 0+
0 A
WW> + +

JAN. .1991
Figure II-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 II I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1




PEROIDO KEY
II

I 5 10 15 20 25 30

S5 10 15 20 25 30

JAN.,1991

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

1.0
0.8

Uc 0.6

(HM/S)
0.4
0.2 0.0
N

ec
(DEG)

-4
++ + ++ 0 +++0. + +-Ft +
I.-'1 rl I I I I g I I II I I I I

+ + 4-04--' +++4+ +
+ # ++'. + + + + 1+ + sti + + ++ +r l +
-+ + ++ + + + 4+**4 +++^ +#'
+
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 I I I I




PERDIDO KEY

20 15 Tm 10 (SEC)
5

0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 5 10 15 20 25 28
4A
3
2
0 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
+
- +
N + 4-+ ++
+
+
E + +
S++ + -0- + +
+
+
H I I I ll I+ I i I +1 +1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1I 1 1
1 5 10 15 20 25 28
20
S:+ S2:0 90

S 60
30 0


S5 10 15 20 25 28
1 5 10 15 20 25 28

FEB. ,1991
Figure II-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 N
Gc E
(DEG)
S
N
TIDE
(M)
0 -1
-2

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

I "IIII I I I I I I+1- lI II II II Ill I i
5 10 15 20 25 28
+ +
I I I I I I I III I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
5 10 15 20 25 28




PERDIDO KEY

20 15
T" 10 (SEC)
5 0
4 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 I I 1 5 10 15 20 25 30

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

I II I II I III I III I I I I I I I II I II I II

S,:+ S2: 4'
| | | | | | | | | | | | | 1.'




PERDIDO KEY

0. 8 -

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 -1 -,lf I i "4 "1 I
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 I I I I I I I I3 0
5 10 15 20 25 30

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

II-9

Uc 0.6 (HIS)
0.11

0. 2 1-

A Al i

+ ++
t4..+ + +

8c
(DEG)

Jo V




PERDIDO KEY

20 15 Tm 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.
HI-10

+ ++
+
+
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 I I




PERDIDO KEY

Uc 0.6 (M/S)
0.U,

0.2

Bc (DEG)

S++++
I4- 4-t+ h-I+ "+ 4 .J d '&+5 10 15 20 25 30
+7 1+. 1 II
+ + + ++ + + + 4 +
++ ++ +
+ + ++ +
+ + +! ++ + + + 4+ + ++
+ + +
+ +
+ +
+
+
+ + +
l +.I
ii 9-i. :.i I 1+ I + + ,-i + +

APR. ,1991

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

II-11




PERDIDO KEY

Tm 10 (SEC)

90 60 30

5 10 15 20 25 30
4+- + ++
+ + ++ ++ +
+ 4- + +4
+ + +
++ + 44- +
+ +I- + r+ + 4+ ++ ++ ++ +
+ 4
+ 4+ +
+ +
+ -I I I .. I i I I I + I I + .Ij I
5 10 15 20 25 30
,0

25

30

SEP. ,1991
Figure II-11: Representative Wave Period, Significant Wave Height, Central Direction and Spreading Parameters, September, 1991.
11-12

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -

S1:+ S2:* I I I I I I I I




PERDIDO KEY

1.0
0.8
Uc 0.6 (N/SI
0.4 0.2 0.0
H
N
8c E
(DEG)
S H

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

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 I I
1 5 10 15 20 25 3C
SEP. .1991

Figure 11-12: Magnitude and Direction of Mean Current and Tidal Stage, September, 1991.
11-13

1 5 10 15 20 25 30

2
TiDE
(1H)
0
-2
-2

l l l l llll,,, I!IIIII 11111111 I I 111 1 1 1 i v




PERDIDO KEY

20
15
1" 10 (SEC)
5 0
4 3

9
6
3

1 5 10 15 20 25 30

1 5 10 15 20 25 30
+ + + '+++ 1 + ++ +
++ + +++ + + +
+++
+
- ++ 4+ + +.
+ + +
++ + + + +
1 + +0+ *+ 20+ 3
+
+ ++ .
I 1 1+ I+ I I I 1 O- T l i i I I I I I I I I I I I I 1'4U 1 1- 1
5 10 15 20 25 30

OCT. ,1991
Figure II-13: Representative Wave Period, Significant Wave Height, Central Direction and Spreading Parameters, October, 1991.
II-14

v
S:+ S2:e
0
0
0 0*
0A
O ~ ~~~ ~ .. . . . . . ..... ... .... . , I I I I I I . . . . . . . .

I I