Citation
Response of the Perdido Key Beach nourishment project to Hurricane Erin

Material Information

Title:
Response of the Perdido Key Beach nourishment project to Hurricane Erin
Creator:
Dean, Robert
Publisher:
Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Coastal Engineering
Spatial Coverage:
North America -- United States of America -- Florida

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.

Full Text
UFL/COEL-95/026

RESPONSE OF THE PERDIDO KEY BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT TO HURRICANE ERIN
by
Robert G. Dean and
Lihwa Lin
December 28, 1995
Sponsor:
Gulf Islands National Seashore National Park Service




REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
1. Report No. 2. 3. Nacipimat' A ccessioo N0.
UFL/COED-95-026
4. Titai and Subtitle 5. Repotj Dte
Response of the Perdido Key Beach Nourishment Project December 28, 1995 to Hurricane Erin 6.
7. hAtbor(s) 8. Performing Organizatio Ieport No.
Robert G. Dean, and Lihwa Lin
9. Perorming Organization Nam and Address 10. ?rojectdTask/work unit no.
Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department University of Florida 11. Coocract or Grant No.
336 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611 1. Typ e of&
12. Sponsoring Orgnlizatio am, and Address
Gulf Islands National Seashore Final Report
National Park Service
14.
15. Supplimen ry Notes
16. Abstract
This report presents the results of a post Hurricane Erin survey of beach profile within the Gulf Islands National Seashore at Perdido Key, Florida. The survey was carried out between the 28th and 30th of September, 1995, about nine weeks after the landfall of Erin within 30 km of Perdido Key. The survey data were compared to the most recent beach profiles which were measured in November 1993 as part of the monitoring of the Perdido Key beach nourishment project.
Direct calculation of volumetric changes induced by Erin was not possible since the post Hurricane Erin survey includes only wading profiles. An upper limit of this volumetric change was estimated by assuming the profile is in equilibrium and a linear relation exists between the areal and volumetric changes. Based upon this assumption the volume reduction in the last intersurvey period from November, 1993, to September, 1995, (22 months) was estimated to be 201,700 cubic meters. This results in a total volume reduction of 1,099,700 cubic meters, or 26.8% of the 4.1 million cubic meters of sand placed in the nourished beach area. Direct calculation of volumetric changes in the first four years after completion of the nourishment has shown a continuous decrease in volume loss from the project area. During the last intersurvey period (22 months), including the influence of Erin, the estimated rate of volumetric change has continued to decrease, which is consistent with a theoretical prediction, even with the effect of Hurricane Erin.
17. Originator's Key Uords 18. Availability Statment
beach
Hurricane Erin
nourishment
volumetric change
19. U. S. Security Ciassif. of the Report 20. U. S. Security Classif. of This lat 21. No. of Pages 22. price
UnclassifiedI Unclassified 62




TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
LIST OF FIGURES iii
LIST OF TABLES iv
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 POST HURRICANE ERIN SURVEY OF BEACH PROFILES 1 3 PREVIOUS BEACH PROFILE SURVEY DATA 4
4 STORM CONDITIONS OF HURRICANE ERIN 6
5 RESULTS 10
6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 12
REFERENCES 17
APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF BEACH PROFILE MEASUREMENTS FROM SEP.90, NOV.93, AND SEP.95 SURVEYS 18 APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF CONTOUR MAPS FROM PRE- AND POST-NOURISHMENT BEACH PROFILE SURVEYS 51




LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE
1 Site location chart .......................................................................... 2
2 Components of beach nourishment monitoring project ................................... 3
3 Hurricane tracks of Eri and Opal, and location of Wave Buoy 42036 ................ 7
4 Hourly measurements of sea surface wind and air pressure by Buoy 42036........... 8
5 Hourly measurements of wave height, direction and period by Buoy 42036 ........... 9
6 Change in dry beach width since November, 1989........................................ 11
7 Rates of change of area and volume for different intersurvey periods.................. 13
8 Relation between rates of change of volume and area for different intersurvey periods .. 14 9 Proportion of sand remaining in beach nourishment area versus time.................. 15




LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 Coordinates, elevations, and profile azimuths for reference monuments .................... 5
2 Chronology of Perdido Key beach nourishment project and survey efforts ................ 6
3 Areal and volumetric changes after completion of beach nourishment .......................... 12




RESPONSE OF THE PERDIDO KEY
BEACH NOURISHMNT PROJECT TO HURRICANE ERIN
1. Introduction
This report presents the result of a post Hurricane Erin survey of beach profiles within the Gulf Islands National Seashore (GINS) at Perdido Key, Florida (Figure 1). The survey includes a total of 32 beach profiles encompassing a 14 kmn long beach segment commencing just west of Pensacola Pass. The survey was carried out between the 28th and 30th of September, 1995, about nine weeks after the landfall of Hurricane Erin (August 3) within 30 km of Perdido Key. Although no direct measurement of storm surge was made during Erin, a storm surge up to 1.5 mn was estimated based on the evidence of washover deposits along portions of Perdido Key. Offshore waves were found to be on the order of 4 mn as measured by an ocean buoy deployed in the Gulf. In addition, the post Hurricane Erin survey represents a partial update of the Perdido Key beach nourishment monitoring project carried out between November 1989 and August 1990. The survey was conducted within one week prior to Hurricane Opal, thus representing ideal initial conditions for future evaluation of beach impact due to Opal.
In this report, the post Hurricane Eri beach survey data are compared to the most recent beach profiles which were measured in November 1993 as part of the monitoring of the Perdido Key beach nourishment project. This provides a basis for quantifying changes over the most recent 22 month intersurvey period, including the effects of Hurricane Erin. Since the general wave conditions have been mild in this survey area and no other major storms except Eri have occurred close to Perdido Key between the post Erin and 1993 surveys, comparison of the two survey data sets can be used for an evaluation of beach response due to Eri. Since the post Hurricane Eri survey includes only the dry beach and wading profiles, it is only possible to calculate changes in dry beach area and not total volume changes. However, an approximate method is applied to infer approximate changes in volume.
2. Post Hurricane Erin Survey of Beach Profiles
The post Hurricane Erin survey of beach profiles within the GINS at Perdido Key includes a total of 32 beach profiles, each commencing at an onshore survey monument (a brass disk mounted in a sunken concrete post) and running approximately perpendicular to the local shoreline. Figure 2 shows the locations of these 32 survey profiles and Table 1 provides the coordinates of these survey monuments. The survey area encompasses a beach length of about 14 kin, from Monument R-25, on the west, to R-67, on the east. The GINS extends from R-32 to R-67, and the 1989-1990 nourishment extended from R-40 to R-65.




41
ass
pen a
Figure 1: Site location chart.




CD METEOROLOGICAL
STATION
C)
(' -R-50TIDE GAGE
R-30. R-45 R-50 -55
-40 R-65
. .. .. ---------- ---: .
0
I II I l I
BEACH APPROXIMATE DIRECTIONAL NOURISHMENT
S WESTERLY PARK WAVE GAGE APPROXIMATE LIMS OF
BoUNDARY APPROXIMATE LIMITs oF 2No DIRECTIONAL
J- BOUNDARY
PROFILE NOURISHMENT WAVE GAGE
NOTE:
R-40 IS FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OFNATURAL RESOURCES MONUMENTED "RANGE 40" O 0 1 2 3 4 5 km
..
0
CD
0+




Due to funding limitations and to some extent the fairly energetic wave conditions at the time of the survey, the post Hunicane Erin survey includes only dry beach and wading profiles. The wading profiles generally extended gulftvard to water depths of approximately 1 m, although swimming on some profiles extended to 2 m. The survey technique of beach and wading profiles is standard using a rod-and-level method, which measures both elevation and distance at different points where the ground slope changed along the profile. The distances along the profile were measured by using a tape or range finder. The elevations were measured by an optical level to take readings on a survey rod at points along the profile. The optical level was set up near the profile and adjusted to take readings of the rod on the same horizontal plane as the level. The absolute elevations along a profile can then be established based on the known elevation of the survey monument.
3. Previous Beach Profile Survey Data
Between November, 1989, and August, 1990, a beach nourishment project was carried out at Perdido Key. This beach nourishment project spans about 7.3 kin, from a western limit of the nourished area at R-40 to an eastern limit at R-65 (Figure 2). The sand used for this beach nourishment was dredged from the Pensacola Pass navigation channel with a volume estimated to be 4.1 million nmi. As part of the same project, an offshore underwater berm nourishment was also conducted, which involved an additional 3 million m3 of material deposited in an offshore area extending from about 500 m to 1200 m from the post-nourishment shoreline between R-50 and R-60. The underwater berm created is about 1.5 m high, 500 m wide, and 4 kmn long with pre-placement water depths ranging from
5.5 m to 6.5 m. The area of berm nourishments is shown in Figure 2.
A series of beach profile surveys was carried out to evaluate the performance of the beach nourishment project. These include a pre-nourishment survey carried out in October, 1989, and four post-nourishment surveys conducted in September, 1990, October, 1991, October, 1992, and November, 1993. Table 2 provides a chronology of the 1990 beach nourishment project and the associated beach profile surveys conducted for the monitoring study. More detailed information about the 1989/1990 beach nourishment project and the related surveys can be found in a number of earlier reports (Work et al, 1900a, 1900b, 1991a, 1991b,1991c, 1992; Otay and Dean, 1993, 1994, and Dean etal., 1995).
Since completion of the 1989/1990 beach nourishment project, Perdido Key has been impacted by Hurricane Andrew in August, 1992, which was the most significant event until the 1995 hurricane season when Hurricanes Eri and Opal caused severe local wave conditions in early August and October, respectively. The post Hurricane Emi survey was carried out in late September, 1995. Although the most recent survey before the post Hurricane Erin survey was in November, 1993, the two surveys can be compared to show the effect of Hurricane Emi to the Perdido Key beach since wave conditions have been generally mild from 1993 to Hurricane Eri. The present survey can also be useful as a basis for future evaluation of the influence of Hurricane Opal on the Perdido Key beach. Figure
3 shows the storm tracks of Eri and Opal.




Table 1: Coordinates, elevations, and profile azimuths for reference monuments. Monument Northing* J Easting* Elevation) I Azimuth"*
No. (ft) I(ft) (in, NG)J(degree)

R-25 R-27 R-3 0 R-32 R-33 R-34 R-3 5 R-3 6 R-37 R-3 8 R-3 9 R-40 R-4 1 R-42 R-43 R-44 R-45 R-46 R-48 R-5 0 R-52 R-54 R-5 6 R-5 8 R-60 R-6 1 R-62 R-63 R-64 R-65 R-66 R-67

482953.00 483193.00
483641.00 483966.82
484040.50 484575.00
484615.00 484834.28 485039.00 485332.00 485573.00
485924.05 486256.00 486537.50
486786.00 486922.77 487257.00 487350.00 487940.77 488315.00 489072.50
489246.50 489603.50
489940.50 490247.50 490350.50
490433.13 490528.25
490836.54 491114.93 492016.00 492997.99

Notes: *Monument coordinates are in conventional units of feet.
**Profile azimuths are measured clockwise from magnetic North.

1071644.00 1073517.00 1076816.00 1078812.72 1079810.50 1081013.00 1082233.50 1083221.30 1084078.00 1085078.00 1086029.50 1087119.67 1088156.50 1089122.50 1090213.00
1091143.41 1092157.00
1093014.00 1095039.73 1097097.00 1099265.00 1101191.00 1103328.00 1105353.00 1107323.00 1108298.00
1109324.13 1110297.35 1111090.50 1111728.45
1112143.00 1112292.51

3.75 3.90
4.43 5.86 6.27 3.99
1.74 2.35
2.34 4.07 2.61
4.27 3.66 2.62 2.83 2.87 2.18
4.14 4.08 4.02 2.65 3.08
2.48 2.18 2.03 2.68
2.01 2.45 1.82 2.13 2.68 3.08




Table 2: Chronolog of Perdido Key beach nourishment proect and survey efforts.
Date Task
10/28-11/3/89 Pre-nourishment survey (complete profile survey); 11/17/89 Placement of beach nourishment material begins;
8/17/90 Placement of beach nourishment material completed;
9/22-9/26/90 First post-nourishment survey (complete profile survey);
11/1/90-9/1/91 Placement of profile (underwater bermn) nourishment material; 10/12-10/20/9 1 Second post-nourishment survey (complete profile survey); 10/17-10/29/92 Third post-nourishment survey (complete profile survey); 11/13-12/10/93 Fourth post-nourishment survey (complete profile survey); 9/28-9/30/95 Post Hurricane Erin survey (wading profile survey).

4. Storm Conditions of Hurricane Erin
Hurricane Eri was the fifth of a total of 19 named storms generated in and translating across the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico during the 1995 hurricane season. Erin originated as a tropical wave across the Atlantic Ocean and became a category 1 hurricane approaching the east coast of Florida on July 30. It made initial landfall about 1:30 a.m. EDT on August 2 just south of Vero Beach, Florida. Emi was downgraded to a tropical storm as it crossed central Florida and entered the Gulf of Mexico north of Tampa around 3:00 p.m. on August 2. The storm then changed to a northwesterly direction and moved parallel to the Florida Panhandle coast. It regained hurricane status at 1:00 a.m. on August 3 and made a second landfall just east of Pensacola, Florida, at about 11: 30 a.m. During the second landfall, a wind gust of 94 mph was measured at Pensacola Naval Air Station. Hurricane force winds extended outward up to 3 5 miles from the eye; a maximum wind speed of 85 mph was reported. The storm quickly lost power and became a tropical depression as it headed inland. Figures 4 and 5 show the meteorological and storm wave information, respectively, over the Gulf as obtained from Wave Buoy 42036 (Figure 3). No nearshore wave or tidal data were collected in the area of interest during Emi. A storm surge up to 1.5 mnwas estimated based on the washover deposits along portions of Perdido Key. Hurricane waves on the order of 4 mn were measured by the offshore Wave Buoy 42036 deployed in the Gulf. Figure 3 shows the location of this buoy.




50
45
40
35
30
Buoy
10 90 80 70 60
100 90 80 70 60
Longitude (degree)
Figure 3: Hurricane tracks of Erin and Opal, and location of Wave Buoy 42036.




3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6

,) 300
2200
")
I
-o 100
0I
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
.0
E
E
(D1010U)
0-10009901
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
August 1995 (UTC) Figure 4: Hourly measurements of sea surface wind and air pressure by Buoy 42036.

1 1.5 2 2.5




1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

10
2 I I I I I
S8
0
-6
C> 41 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
August 1995 (UTO) Figure 5: Hourly measurements of wave height, direction and period by Buoy 42036.




5. Results

In order to measure beach response at Perdido Key due to Erin, a survey of beach profiles was carried out between the 28th and 30th of September, about nine weeks after Erin made landfall near Pensacola. The survey includes measurements along a total of 32 beach profiles. The survey data are also used for an evaluation of the 1989/1990 beach nourishment project completed in the surveyed area. Appendix A summarizes all the survey profiles from the post Hurricane Eri survey and from the first post nourishment survey (September 1990) and the fourth post nourishment survey (November, 1993). Appendix B presents the figures of the plan beach contours as measured from the pre-nourishment survey and from all of the post nourishment surveys, including the post Hurricane Eri survey.
In this report, both shoreline location and beach profile changes will be compared between the post Hurricane Emi survey and the previous surveys. Because only land and wading/swimming surveys were conducted for the post Hurricane Emi survey, the volumetric changes in the survey area can not be calculated directly for the post Hurricane Eri survey, although an approximate procedure will be used to infer volumes.
Figure 6 displays the shoreline changes, to the mean high water (MEHW), for all the post nourishment survey data, including the post Hurricane Emi survey, relative to the shoreline from the prenourishment survey. It is seen that the changes in water line are surprisingly small indicating that the beach area within the project area was reasonably stable for this most recent intersurvey period. The average shoreline change between the 1993 and 1995 surveys was -7.6 m within the project area from R-40 to R-65 and -2.9 mn including the total survey area from R-25 to R-67. The total area placed within the project area was 969,300 m2 of which 524,100 m2 or 54% remains in September, 1995. This is contrasted with a total volume placement of 4.1 million rn3 of which 3.2 million dn or 78% remained in November, 1993.
Although it is not possible to calculate directly the volumetric changes since the last survey, it is possible to estimate an upper limit. The volumetric changes and areal changes are known from 1989 to 1993. If a profile is in equilibrium, that is, the beach evolves without change in form, then the volumetric and areal changes are proportional,
AV=(h. +B)AA
where A V and A A are the volumetric and areal changes, respectively, and h. and B are the lower and upper limits of active profile displacement. Profile evolution, that is the transfer of sediment offshore to form a milder equilibrium profile, adds an additional change (decrease) in beach area. At the time of the last survey (November 1993), the profile had evolved approximately 50% toward its equilibrium form (Dean, et aL, 1995). To investigate this relationship, both A V and A A between intersurveys, and their cumulative values, are




E ...nov93
> 150 -e- sep95 0O
O/\
0
z
CD
100
1 / .. \ /
-I -"
I '
0V
CO
a) 50(D
C
-5 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
DNR monument number
Figure 6: Change in dry beach width since November, 1989.




Table 3: Areal and volumetric changes after completion of beach nourishment.
Time AA A V A VAA E AA EAV
interval (M2) (i3) (=h. +B) (M) (M3)
1990-1991 -239100 -521000 2.18 -239100 -521000
1991-1992 -128600 -244000 1.90 -367700 -765000
1992-1993 -31660 -133000 4.20 -399360 -898000
1993-1995 -45840 (-201700*) (4.40) -445200 (-1099700)
* Values in parentheses are estimated.
computed for the nourished area (R40 to R65) for the first four intersurvey periods since the completion of the nourishment project and the results are presented in Table 3. Figure 7 presents the rate of volume change, A VA t, the rate of areal change, AA/A t, and A V/AA versus time, where A t is the intersurvey period. It is seen that initially the areal changes were large compared to the volumetric changes. From 1992 to 1993, the ratio of A V/AA is 4.2 in which is equal to h,+B if a equilibrium status is reached. Since the profile is still equilibrating, this value of A V/AA represents a lower limit. Thus, the effect of this value alone would result in a lower limit of volumetric changes. However, since some sand is still being carried offshore due to profile equilibration, this effect would result in an overestimate in volume by use of the actual h,+B value. Also, Work and Dean (1995) have estimated independently through inspection of the beach profile changes that the value of h,+B is approximately 4.4 m. It is judged that the use of h,+B=4.4 m would result in a slight overestimate of the volume lost. Applying this value of h,+B= 4.4 m to the areal change occurring over the most recent intersurvey period of 22 months (1993-1995) including Hurricane Erin results in a volumetric change of -201,700 n3. Figure 8 presents the rates of change of volume and area for the different intersurvey periods. Figure 9 presents the proportion of sand remaining in the nourished area according to the volumetric changes shown in Table 3 (Dean, etal., 1995).
6. Summary and Conclusions
In order to evaluate the hurricane induced erosion of Perdido Key, a post Hurricane Erin beach profile survey was carried out between the 28th and 30th of September, 1995, about nine weeks after the landfall of Erin within 30 km of Perdido Key. Surveys of the same beach profiles were carried out previously to evaluate the beach nourishment project completed in August, 1990, thus providing a basis for evaluating the impact of Hurricane Erin. Post Hurricane Erin beach survey data were compared to the most recent beach profiles measured in November, 1993, in conjunction with the Perdido Key beach nourishment monitoring program. Additionally, the post Hurricane Erin beach survey data were also compared to all other previous surveys to update the performance of the 1990 beach nourishment.




0 x I I
CD A.. .. ...CI
CO CO
0.1
TE -0.3 0-.
-#-- C
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Year
U) I I I I I
0D
C -.3
' -0.2
E-0.4 measured
0
E -0.5 o estimated
CO
II I I I
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Year
S 6
S 0) .... -.... 0
2S 4
e.c
Eo
0 X . . . .
W 2- ""-- X measured
0O o estimated
SI I I I
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Year
Figure 7: Rates of change of area and volume for different intersurvey periods.




Measured o volume estimated

(1993-1995 (1992-1993)

-0.5

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1
Rate of areal change (million m**2/year)

Figure 8: Relation between rates of change of volume and area for different intersurvey periods.

-0.1
.s
C:
-0.3
C

O
-5
E o -0.4 U1) CD
-0.5

(1991-1992) (1990-199 1




1
0.9
0.8
'3'0. ..
C
E0.6 "0
C
c0.5
0
P'0.4 0L surveyed, entire project
a. 0.3 .... estimated, entire project
_theory, entire project
0.2
0.1
0 I
0 2 4 6 8 10
Year after nourishment
Figure 9: Proportion of sand remaining in beach nourishment area versus time.




Comparisons of the post Hurricane Erin beach profile survey with the November, 1993, survey, and other earlier post nourishment surveys, document the additional reduction in dry beach width over the last intersurvey period (22 months). Direct calculation of volumetric changes induced by Erin was not possible since the post Hurricane Erin beach survey includes only wading/swimming profiles. However, an upper limit of this volumetric change can be calculated indirectly by assuming the profile is in equilibrium and a linear relation exists between the areal and volumetric changes. Based upon this assumption, the volumetric change in the last intersurvey period from November, 1993, to September, 1995, (22 months) was estimated to be 201,700 n3. This results in a total volumetric change of 1,099,700 n3, or 26.8% of the 4.1 million n of sand placed in the nourished beach area. Comparisons of this volumetric change with those computed from the previous surveys, and with a theoretical prediction, show that the rate of volumetric loss decreased continuously in the first four years after the completion of the beach nourishment which is consistent with theory as the spreading out of the project causes it to evolve as a longer and longer project. During the last intersurvey period (22 months), including the influence of Hurricane Erin, the rate of volumetric change has continued to decrease consistent with theory, even with the effect of Hurricane Erin. It would appear worthwhile to conduct post Hurricane Opal surveys to document the associated impact, including overwash, on the beaches of Perdido Key.




References

1. Otay, E.N., and Dean, R.G., 1993. "Perdido Key Beach Nourishment Project: Gulf Islands National Seashore. 1992 Annual Report," Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. UFL/COEL-93/005.
2. Otay, E.N., and Dean, R.G., 1994. "Perdido Key Beach Nourishment Project: Gulf Islands National Seashore. 1993 Annual Report," Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. UFL/COEL-94/007.
3. Work, P.A., Lin, L., 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. UFL/COEL-90/006.
4. Work, P.A., Lin, L., 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. UFL/COEL-90/009.
5. Work, P.A., Lin, L., and Dean, R.G., 1991a. "Perdido Key Beach Nourishment Project: Gulf Islands National Seashore. First Post-Nourishment Survey, Conducted September 2226, 1990," Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. UFL/COEL-91/003.
6. Work, P.A, Lin, L., 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. UFL/COEL-91/004.
7. Work, P.A., Lin, L., and Dean, R.G., 1991c. "Perdido Key Beach Historical Summary and Interpretation of Monitoring Program," Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. UFL/COEL-91/009.
8. Work, P.A., Lin, L., and Dean, R.G., 1992. "Perdido Key Beach Nourishment Project: Gulf Islands National Seashore. 1991 Annual Report," Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. UFL/COEL-92/012.
9. Work, P.A. and Dean, R.G., 1995. "Assessment and Prediction of Beach Nourishment Evolution," A.S.C.E., Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 3, pp.182-189.
10. Dean, R.G., Otay, E., and Work, P.A., 1995. "Perdido Key Beach Nourishment Project: A Synthesis of Findings and Recommendations for Future Nourishments," Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. UFL/COEL-95/01 1.




Appendix A:

Summary of Beach Profile Measurements from Sep. 90, Nov. 93, and Sep. 95 Surveys.
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 (Table 1) are for observer standing on monument,
looking offshore along survey line.




5
- r25_9009.dat - r25_9311.dat
4 '...... r25_9509.dat
2
0
0
(D
W
-2
-4
-6 I I I 1111
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Seaward Distance (m)
Figure Al: Profiles measured at Range R-25.




- r27_9311.dat ..... r27_9509.dat

*.~ *.I\
* -I..'

. .

1001 15I0

100 150 200
Seaward Distance (m)
Figure A2: Profiles measured at Range R-27.

-41-

250

300




b1 __________________________________________

- r30_9311.dat ..... r30_9509.dat

I
I
~. ~:
I.

\- *%%

a] I I I I I

100 150 200
Seaward Distance (m)

Figure A3: Profiles measured at Range R-3 0.

250

300




E .
O
z 0
0
Lii
-2 *%, -.
-4
-6
.6 I I I I I I I
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Seaward Distance (m)
Figure A4: Profiles measured at Range R-32.




- r33_9311.dat ..... r33_9509.dat

- N
N /

100 150 200
Seaward Distance (m)
Figure A5: Profiles measured at Range R-33.
23

250

I...
N

300

(j I I I I I

9--k




0
0
C
W
-2
-4
-6 I I I
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Seaward Distance (m)
Figure A6: Profiles measured at Range R-34.

- r34_9009.dat
- r34_9311.dat .... r34_9509.dat




E
0
z 0
CF
o
U
W -,
-2
N
N
-4
-6 1 I I I I I I
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Seaward Distance (m)
Figure A7: Profiles measured at Range R-35.




E
z 0
0
-2
-4
-6 -I I I I
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Seaward Distance (m) Figure A8: Profiles measured at Range R-3 6.




>
0
z 0
0
z- 1 ..
co
-2
N
-4
-I I I I I L I
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Seaward Dis ,nce (m)
Figure A9: Profiles measured at Range R-37.




- r38_9009.dat
- r38_9311.dat .....r38_9509.dat

E
C.D z 0
=
C
-4
-2
-6 I I IIII
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Seaward Distance (m)
Figure A10: Profiles measured at Range R-38.




o
0
z
0 "'-. -"
a)
-2
-4
-6 i i i
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Seaward Distance (m)
Figure All: Profiles measured at Range R-39.

350 400

- r39_9009.dat
- r39_9311.dat .r39_9509.dat




0
z 0
CF
0
a)
-2-
-4
-6 I I I
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Seaward Distance (m)
Figure A12: Profiles measured at Range R-40.




150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Seaward Distance (m)
Figure Al 3: Profiles measured at Range R-4 1.
31




> '
0
z 0
-4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Seaward Distance (m)
Figure A14: Profiles measured at Range R-42.




150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Seaward Distance (m)
Figure Al 5: Profiles measured at Range R-43.
33




> z0.
0
C
01)
-2
-4
-60 100 200 300 400 500
Seaward Distance (in)
Figure A16: Profiles measured at Range R-44.




0
W -2
C\ 0\
-4
-60 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Seaward Distance (m)
Figure A17: Profiles measured at Range R-45.




E
0
z ........ ;.
0
a)
-2
-4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Seaward Distance (m)
Figure Al8: Profiles measured at Range R-46.




0
z

0
-2
-4
0J 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Seaward Distance (in)
Figure A19: Profiles measured at Range R-48.

500




0
(.
z 0
0
CO
_.w-2
-4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Seaward Distance (m)
Figure A20: Profiles measured at Range R-50.




0
C3
S0
CO
a - r52_9009.dat
-2 -_ r52_9311.dat ..... r52 9509.dat
-4 --.
-6 I I I I IIII
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Seaward Distance (m)
Figure A21: Profiles measured at Range R-52.




0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Seaward Distance (m)
Figure A22: Profiles measured at Range R-54.




0A
0
z 0
0
a)
U-2
-4
-6 II I I I IIII
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Seaward Distance (m)
Figure A23: Profiles measured at Range R-56.




.v.
z 0 ~0
C
4
-61
0 100 200 300 400 500
Seaward Distance (m)
Figure A24: Profiles measured at Range R-58.




0
z 0
0
U)
-2
-4
-6 U
0 100 200 300 400 500
Seaward Distance (m)
Figure A25: Profiles measured at Range R-60.




E|
>
0
z
-2
4-
-21
-6 I I
0 100 200 300 400 500
Seaward Distance (m)
Figure A26: Profiles measured at Range R-61.




0
z 0
-4
-6L- 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Seaward Distance (m) Figure A27: Profiles measured at Range R-62.




%J 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Seaward Distance (m)
Figure A28: Profiles measured at Range R-63.




z 0
0
U
I I I I
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Seaward Distance (m)
Figure A29: Profiles measured at Range R-64.




, II I I I I I
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Seaward Distance (m)

350 400 450 500

Figure A30: Profiles measured at Range R-65.




2
z 0
0
CD
L-2
-4
Z0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Seaward Distance (in)
Figure A3 1: Profiles measured at Range R-66.




-5
/
S-10 \
-15-\"
-2 0 ------ i
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Seaward Distance (m) Figure A32: Profiles measured at Range R-67.




Appendix B:
Summary of Contour Maps from Pre- and Post-nourishment Beach Profile Surveys.




2 -3
60
-1 -.----2.7 2 // '# '
55
1. !i
S-2 4 /
S -1 --1 -2
-3 "
a) 50 145 -2 3 -4 1-5
1:1402 -" -1 1
Ei ,
C
a)
4- 0- at. .
22
35 "
30 1
'1 ',225
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Gulfward distance (m)
Figure B 1: Contour map of survey area as measured in November, 1989.
52

l I I F 1 i




50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Gulfward distance (m) Figure B2: Contour map of survey area as measured in September, 1990.
53




50
E
C
0
45
0.40

2

2

35 F

30 F

orI I l

0

1 4 3 . .-
"- -4
-5
.- .- -.. +
Ifr S 2.1
-5
\.- 1" .../
* { -3 '-4 i '
S\-1 ".
'-1. ,-3
- 1,, 'S . ., ,.
---+*. .-I, ..r I -.
5-..' .- 5'" 5-.
i ,....'II I I t.e' II

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Gulfward distance (m)

Figure B3: Contour map of survey area as measured in October, 1991.

60 F

55F

Qrl -




-o -.---4 .. --60 -
+50- 0-. -5
55 --44
.1-1 I
_ 0 -. "
E
C
a)
0)45
C13
a)
a.40 i .
35 I "
/ *
300
30 2-2 3 4
25.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Gulfward distance (m)
Figure B4: Contour map of survey area as measured in October, 1992.

A,, e-




S50
E 6
C
e 30 -1 )45 --'
. /-2 -3 -4 <-.-5
a) '4--,4 t -5
2 .
a" 40 /
2
40 --2 2 -5
\0-2
35--
-2
I2
30- 225 "
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Gulfward distance (m)
Figure B5: Contour map of survey area as measured in November, 1993.




V50 U ('K I .
,0 '- -. ,
C:45 (J",-1 2
E4 5
2
20.
.= -\q2* '* '\ -- -""
--S/._ u ... .S. .. .
") xi ., ". ",. '. "
40
-0S
35
4-3 -4
30- 2 1
25 +, -/'II ,1.i., "- '
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Gulfward distance (m)
Figure B6: Contour map of survey area as measured in September, 1995.