• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Cover
 Abstract
 Table of Contents
 List of Figures
 List of Tables
 Introduction
 Post Hurricane Erin survey of beach...
 Previous beach profile survey...
 Storm conditions of Hurricane...
 Results
 Summary and conclusions
 Reference
 Appendix A. Summary of beach profile...
 Appendix B. Summary of contour...






Title: Response of the Perdido Key Beach nourishment project to Hurricane Erin
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00089591/00001
 Material Information
Title: Response of the Perdido Key Beach nourishment project to Hurricane Erin
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Dean, Robert
Publisher: Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida
Publication Date: 1995
 Subjects
Subject: 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
Bibliographic ID: UF00089591
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Cover
        Cover
    Abstract
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
    List of Figures
        Page iii
    List of Tables
        Page iv
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Post Hurricane Erin survey of beach profiles
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Previous beach profile survey data
        Page 4
        Page 5
    Storm conditions of Hurricane Erin
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
    Results
        Page 10
        Page 11
    Summary and conclusions
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Reference
        Page 17
    Appendix A. Summary of beach profile measurements from Sep. 90, Nov. 93, and Sep. 95 surveys
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
    Appendix B. Summary of contour maps from pre- and post-nourishment beach profile surveys
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
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. aport N. 3. I.cip e not's access ion go.
UFL/COED-95-026

4. Titl anod Subtitle 3. Report Date
Response of the Perdido Key Beach Nourishment Project December 28, 1995
to Hurricane Erin 6.

7. Author(s) 8. erforamin Organiationl Rport No.
Robert G. Dean, and Lihwa Lin

9. Perform ua OrsanLzation N. and address 10. ProjecrTask/Uork Unit Mo.
Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department
University of Florida 11. contract or crant No.
336 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611 13. Type of ort
12. Sponsoroin Orlgnlzation Nar and Address
Gulf Islands National Seashore Final Report
National Park Service
14.
15. Supplementary Noces



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 dords 18. Availability StatUment
beach
Hurricane Erin
nourishment
volumetric change

19. U. S. Security Classif. of the Report 20. U. 5. Security Classlf. of This Page 21. ao. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified 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 Erin 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 ofPerdido 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 NOURISHMENT 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 km 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 m was estimated based on the evidence ofwashover
deposits along portions of Perdido Key. Offshore waves were found to be on the order of
4 m 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 Erin 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 Erin 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 Erin. Since the post Hurricane Erin 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 km, 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.










RESPONSE OF THE PERDIDO KEY
BEACH NOURISHMENT 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 km 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 m was estimated based on the evidence ofwashover
deposits along portions of Perdido Key. Offshore waves were found to be on the order of
4 m 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 Erin 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 Erin 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 Erin. Since the post Hurricane Erin 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 km, 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.


































Figure 1: Site location chart.
'" :!5 S1



















Figure 1" Site location chart.























0 LU
P
U 4
5s
g3


0 -C
z5
f-J


-I
S.J


-a
0L J

Lz

w


z
0
-o


Figure 2: Components of beach nourishment monitoring project.







Due to funding limitations and to some extent the fairly energetic wave conditions
at the time of the survey, the post Hurricane Erin survey includes only dry beach and wading
profiles. The wading profiles generally extended gulfward 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 km, 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 m3. 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 km 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 Erin and Opal caused severe local wave
conditions in early August and October, respectively. The post Hurricane Erin 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 Erin to the Perdido Key beach since wave conditions have been
generally mild from 1993 to Hurricane Erin. 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 Erin and Opal.









Table 1: Coordinates, elevations, and profile azimuths for reference monuments.
Monument Northing* Easting* Elevation Azimuth**
No. (ft) (ft) (m, NGVD) (degree)


R-25
R-27
R-30
R-32
R-33
R-34
R-35
R-36
R-37
R-38
R-39
R-40
R-41
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-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: Chronology ofPerdido Key beach nourishment project 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 berm) nourishment material;
10/12-10/20/91 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 Erin 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. Erin 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 35 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 Erin. A storm
surge up to 1.5 m was estimated based on the washover deposits along portions of Perdido
Key. Hurricane waves on the order of 4 m were measured by the offshore Wave Buoy
42036 deployed in the Gulf. Figure 3 shows the location of this buoy.





















50


45


40


a 35
a)
),
30
a)
-0


80 70
Longitude (degree)


Figure 3: Hurricane tracks of Erin and Opal, and location of Wave Buoy 42036.


Erin(7/30-8/6)
^ *




















3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6


D 300

8 200-

- 100

0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6




1020 I


a) 1010-



E
--I
a. 1000 -


990
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


1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
August 1995 (UTC)

Figure 5: Hourly measurements of wave height, direction and period by Buoy 42036.


9







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 Erin 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 Erin
survey.

In this report, both shoreline location and beach profile changes will be compared
between the post Hurricane Erin survey and the previous surveys. Because only land and
wading/swimming surveys were conducted for the post Hurricane Erin survey, the
volumetric changes in the survey area can not be calculated directly for the post Hurricane
Erin survey, although an approximate procedure will be used to infer volumes.

Figure 6 displays the shoreline changes, to the mean high water (MHW), for all the
post nourishment survey data, including the post Hurricane Erin 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 m 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 m3 of which 3.2 million m3 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


whereA Vand AA 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 Vand AA between intersurveys, and their cumulative values, are


























E .- ...nov93
S150 e- sep95




S100-
C / \
3I.
-c'


50 //:
,-
*0
0 IIII










-5 5 30 35 40 45 50 55 E
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 AA E AA AV
interval (m2) (m3) (=h, +B) (m2) (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 V/A 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 VIAA
is 4.2 m which is equal to h,+B if a equilibrium status is reached. Since the profile is still
equilibrating, this value of A VIAA 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 m3. 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, et al., 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.












(D
CO

(D

W- C
0 0
0 -0.
c E

-0.


1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
Year


1995 1996 1997


fi


0)

|4
C.)


0


nI


1'90 1991 1992 1993 1994
Year


1995 1996 1997


Figure 7: Rates of change of area and volume for different intersurvey periods.


1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Year


0 I


1


2-


3

A I I III


1990


0 CO -0.1

E -0.2
E -
2 E-0.3
0 -0.4

n"


.. ..K ......... 0




.. measured
o estimated
IIII I I


m ............ 0


) measured
o estimated


e.......... 1
*

























m 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 .


-0.

O
E -0.2
C"
0


CE
o-0.3
C
0
C)
E
71-0.4
CD


-0.5


P


n


(1991-1992)


(1990-1991)













































- surveyed, entire project
... estimated, entire project
- theory, entire project


2 4 6 8 1
Year after nourishment


Figure 9: Proportion of sand remaining in beach nourishment area versus time.


0.8


'0.7


0.6


0.5


0.4


0.3


0.2


0.1


r


' -


,,....


......







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 m3. This results in a total volumetric change of
1,099,700 m3, 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 28-
November 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 22-
26, 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, RG., 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-95/011.











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.































o

z0-

I -

w
-2










0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Seaward Distance (m)



Figure Al: Profiles measured at Range R-25.
-4 \


-6 I I I\
0 50 100 50 00 20 30 35 40


- r25_9009.dat
- r25_9311.dat
..... r25_9509.dat























- r27_9311.dat
S...r27_9509.dat


* .- 7..-.'


..\ .I\


*.


-41


10 10 0


100 150 200
Seaward Distance (m)



Figure A2: Profiles measured at Range R-27.


250


300


C




















t1I I I I I I


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


i.,
I.~


IIi
\ .'


*5,,,,.


-2


100 150 200
-w


100 150 200
Seaward Distance (m)



Figure A3: Profiles measured at Range R-30.


250


300










































0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
z
i 'A



-2 --




-4




-6
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Seaward Distance (m)


Figure A4: Profiles measured at Range R-32.


- r32_9009.dat
- r32_9311.dat
..... r32 9509.dat























- r33_9311.dat
... r33_9509.dat


V.


/ \


100 150 200
Seaward Distance (m)


250


Figure A5: Profiles measured at Range R-33.





23


300


"'


K"






























> \

z 0-

.-
\


-2 X.




-4-




-6 I 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







































CF
0
C



-2
N

N

-4





-6 I I I
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Seaward Distance (m)



Figure A7: Profiles measured at Range R-35.


- r35_9009.dat
- r35_9311.dat
.... r35_9509.dat







































> ....

w
-2 -.





-4





-6I I I
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Seaward Distance (m)



Figure A8: Profiles measured at Range R-36.

































CD I.
z
I ""


0-
,g II "-
6 ..


-2 \-
5.
\


-4




-6 I I I I
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Seaward Dis -nce (m)



Figure A9: Profiles measured at Range R-37.


- r37_9009.dat
- r37_9311.dat
S r37_9509.dat





















- r38_9009.dat
- r38_9311.dat
S.....r38 9509.dat


o

z


-2-







-4-
-2
-4-V





0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Seaward Distance (m)



Figure A10: Profiles measured at Range R-38.
































o
E


z 0-

C A

W
-2-




-4-




-6 I
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Seaward Distance (m)



Figure Al 1: Profiles measured at Range R-39.


350 400


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






























E

0


C 1
0
I I I-\
a s













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 A13: Profiles measured at Range R-41.




31





























.O

0
z 0-









-4- \
-. \





-0
-2 "\









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 A15: Profiles measured at Range R-43.




33
































> "1
z
-o
0 .*

"V.

-2




-4-




-6
0 100 200 300 400 500
Seaward Distance (m)



Figure A16: Profiles measured at Range R-44.






























z 0-
I .t"" \


-2-



-4



-6 5 0
S0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Seaward Distance (m)





Figure A17: Profiles measured at Range R-45.



























O

0 ........" ..
0



-2 -



-4 -



-6
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Seaward Distance (m)




Figure A18: Profiles measured at Range R-46.































0-1







-4o

I oIII

-4
-6 \\
-V-




0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Seaward Distance (m)





Figure A19: Profiles measured at Range R-48.


500































> r.


C\ .
z 0-




S-2




-4




-6 I I I I I I -
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Seaward Distance (m)





Figure A20: Profiles measured at Range R-50.































o





- r52_9009.dat
-2 - r52_9311.dat
..... r52_9509.dat


-4-
.\


I-I I III
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.


































z 0-

-4 -
S)

6-2




-4




-6 I I I I I I
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Seaward Distance (m)





Figure A23: Profiles measured at Range R-56.
































E V
z 0-


cic

-2-




-4-




-6
0 100 200 300 400 500
Seaward Distance (m)



Figure A24: Profiles measured at Range R-58.

































Z
0



"I\
U \
-2




-4\




-6 I I I I
0 100 200 300 400 500
Seaward Distance (m)



Figure A25: Profiles measured at Range R-60.
































>
0
z 0-



-- 7'

-2 -. .




-4




-6 I I
0 100 200 300 400 500
Seaward Distance (m)



Figure A26: Profiles measured at Range R-61.





























E


z 0 ...




Wu-2




-4-



-6
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Seaward Distance (m)





Figure A27: Profiles measured at Range R-62.












































0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Seaward Distance (m)




Figure A28: Profiles measured at Range R-63.

































a
z




LU -2




-4-





0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Seaward Distance (m)






Figure A29: Profiles measured at Range R-64.





























I E
0
z 0-


W-2C
o4


.-2




-4




-6
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Seaward Distance (m)





Figure A30: Profiles measured at Range R-65.


































z0 \

O "


W -2-




-4-




-6
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Seaward Distance (m)






Figure A31: Profiles measured at Range R-66.































0 -5- \

z
O O \





S//
>I











-20
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.















bo I I . -.
26 -..3 .........-.....3

60
-- I." '/ / / / *'"
S -'" + 2 /*

55 I
'-4
S- 1 '-2i /-5
S50 1-
E "\ \

45 \ \ -2 3 -4 -5
O 2 k : 7 .

0 2" -
. 40 '-. ..

-- '-
35 '- -2 -3


30 /--
..... .., -,1 ,&

25 -- r -i-
25 1
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.















































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


































-2

-2
-I


2
LZ-'


W*^ I


50 100 150 200 250 3
Gulfward distance (m)


00 350 400 450


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


60


55 -


S50
.o
E

a)
C45



-40


35 -


30-


0


/' -4 .

-.-

I +,'

3 --4 -5
-' .




\ \. -
-1\\ 56
.l .,', ..
















II .
-1 I .-
%.r -



'.-3 '-4
\\t L \
0.i .1 I*


..... "-.-4
I .; I .- I--
i. .-:^ .- 5- .


0 II I 1




















I
'-- o -,


rrr


50 100 150 200 250 3
Gulfward distance (m)


Figure B4: Contour map of survey area as measured in October, 1992.


60F-


55 F


. 50
e-
E











35
0
C)45
(U


' 40



35


30-


25'
0


300 350 400 450


i


-2 -


-.-4 .-+ -4

S -5











i*1 *6
i



/ i




+ *
\ \





. \ .\ \ \ .* ,
\ ,.,, I / /"









-1' /i "
\ \ +
*.u- 4 P



... .. % .._-
.- .- S.


!2


























50- .
I "'\ ". " "6
0 +\-1
)45- o
0 2 -3 -4 < -5
oo .. "
,. 40 2 T -5


S-2 /
35 40 *
2/ -2
3./0 -
-2

30 2 -2 1 -

II -t
25
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.




















+


-2
/


*/ 1 .j ,., ,..,. .
2 I .
00
2 5
U U -rI"





2
\ 0./. + < 3.5


2 0 \
,.. ,, . -''-.-. I

'- '. ;>" -._ '/ ,



i -3 -4
2


____I_____ II
.- e I .4

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


Figure B6: Contour map of survey area as measured in September, 1995.


S50
E

)45
(D

0a40




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