• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 List of Figures
 List of Tables
 Executive summary
 Introduction
 Descriptions of environs and...
 Monitoring program
 Field study results
 Beach and offshore profile...
 Physical model study
 Interpretation
 Biological studies
 Conclusions
 Acknowledgement
 References
 Appendix I. Wave Data
 Appendix II. PEP reef unit settlement...
 Appendix II: PEP reef unit settlement...
 Appendix III. Elevation and volume...
 Appendix IV. PEP experimental reef...
 Appendix V. Ichthyofauna of a nearshore...
 Appendix VI. Invertebrate cover...






Title: Performance of the midtown Palm Beach PEP reef installation
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00089595/00001
 Material Information
Title: Performance of the midtown Palm Beach PEP reef installation
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Dean, Robert G.
Publisher: Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida
Publication Date: 1996
 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: UF00089595
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
    Title Page
        Title Page 1
        Title Page 2
    Table of Contents
        Page i
        Page ii
    List of Figures
        Page iii
        Page iv
    List of Tables
        Page v
        Page vi
    Executive summary
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Introduction
        Page 4
    Descriptions of environs and project
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Monitoring program
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
    Field study results
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
    Beach and offshore profile results
        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
    Physical model study
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
    Interpretation
        Page 42
    Biological studies
        Page 43
        Page 44
    Conclusions
        Page 45
    Acknowledgement
        Page 46
    References
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
    Appendix I. Wave Data
        Appendix I-1
        Appendix I-2
        Appendix I-3
        Appendix I-4
        Appendix I-5
        Appendix I-6
        Appendix I-7
        Appendix I-8
        Appendix I-9
        Appendix I-10
        Appendix I-11
        Appendix I-12
    Appendix II. PEP reef unit settlement results
        Appendix II-1
        Appendix II-2
        Appendix II-3
        Appendix II-4
        Appendix II-5
    Appendix II: PEP reef unit settlement results
        Appendix II-6
    Appendix III. Elevation and volume changes
        Appendix III
        Appendix III-1
        Appendix III-2
        Appendix III-3
        Appendix III-4
        Appendix III-5
        Appendix III-6
        Appendix III-7
        Appendix III-8
        Appendix III-9
        Appendix III-10
        Appendix III-11
        Appendix III-12
        Appendix III-13
    Appendix IV. PEP experimental reef sea turtle monitoring program
        Appendix IV-a
        Appendix IV-b
        Appendix IV-1
        Appendix IV-1a
        Appendix IV-2
        Appendix IV-3
        Appendix IV-4
        Appendix IV-4a
        Appendix IV-4b
        Appendix IV-4c
        Appendix IV-4d
        Appendix IV-4e
        Appendix IV-4f
        Appendix IV-5
        Appendix IV-6
        Appendix IV-7
    Appendix V. Ichthyofauna of a nearshore barrier island breakwater, Palm Beach, Florida
        Appendix V-a
        Appendix V-b
        Appendix V-1
        Appendix V-1a
        Appendix V-2
        Appendix V-3
        Appendix V-4
        Appendix V-5
        Appendix V-6
        Appendix V-7
        Appendix V-8
        Appendix V-9
        Appendix V-10
        Appendix V-11
        Appendix V-12
        Appendix V-13
        Appendix V-14
        Appendix V-15
        Appendix V-16
        Appendix V-17
        Appendix V-18
        Appendix V-19
        Appendix V-20
        Appendix V-21
        Appendix V-22
        Appendix V-23
        Appendix V-24
        Appendix V-25
        Appendix V-26
        Appendix V-27
        Appendix V-28
        Appendix V-29
        Appendix V-30
        Appendix V-31
        Appendix V-32
        Appendix V-33
        Appendix V-34
    Appendix VI. Invertebrate cover of a submerged nearshore breakwater, Palm Beach, Florida
        Appendix VI-1
        Appendix VI-2
        Appendix VI-3
        Appendix VI-4
        Appendix VI-5
        Appendix VI-6
        Appendix VI-7
        Appendix VI-8
        Appendix VI-9
        Appendix VI-10
        Appendix VI-11
        Appendix VI-12
        Appendix VI-13
        Appendix VI-14
        Appendix VI-15
        Appendix VI-16
        Appendix VI-17
        Appendix VI-18
Full Text



UFL/COEL-96/006


PERFORMANCE OF THE MIDTOWN PALM BEACH
PEP REEF INSTALLATION




FINAL REPORT
JULY 1992 TO JUNE 1995

by

Robert G. Dean
and
Renjie Chen


June 6, 1996


Sponsored by:

Department of Environmental Protection,
State of Florida
and
Town of Palm Beach, Florida









PERFORMANCE OF THE MIDTOWN PALM BEACH
PEP REEF INSTALLATION
FINAL REPORT
JULY 1992 TO JUNE 1995




June 6, 1996





Sponsored By:

Department of Environmental Protection,
State of Florida
and
Town of Palm Beach, Florida





Prepared By:

Robert G. Dean
and
Renjie Chen









University of Florida
Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering Department
Gainesville, Florida








TABLE OF CONTENTS


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................. 1

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................4

2. DESCRIPTIONS OFENVIRONS AND PROJECT ........................... 5
2.1. The Environs ................. ............................... 5
2.2. Project Description ............................................... 8

3. MONITORING PROGRAM ............................................... 9
3.1. Waves ...................................................... 9
3.2. Profile Surveys and Reef Unit Surveys ............................... 12
3.3. Scour........................................ ................. 13
3.4. Video Deployment ............................................. 13

4. FIELD STUDY RESULTS ............................................... 14
4.1. Wave Attenuation ............................................. 14
4.2. Currents .............................. ...................... 18
4.3. SettlementofUnits ................................... ......... 18
4.4. Scour Results ................................................... 19
4.5. Image Results ................ ................................. 21
4.6. Sand Samples ...................................................23

5. BEACH AND OFFSHORE PROFILE RESULTS ........................... 25
5.1. Longshore Shoreline Change Distributions ......................... 25
5.2. Longshore Volume Change Distributions ........................... 27
5.3. Elevation Changes ..............................................27
5.4. Profile Changes ................................................ 31
5.5. Definition of Study Zones ....................................... 34
5.6. Seaward Elevation Changes by Zones ...............................35
5.7. Volume Changes byZones ........................................ 35
5.8. Volumetric Changes Over Time .................................. 39

6. PHYSICAL MODEL STUDY ........................................... 39
6.1. TestProgram ...................................................39
6.2. Laboratory Results ............................................ 41

7. INTERPRETATION ................................................... 42

8. BIOLOGICAL STUDIES ................................................ 43
8.1. General ................ ...................................... 43








8.2. Turtle Monitoring ............................................. 43
8.3. Fish Studies ................................................... 44
8.4. Invertebrate Studies ............................................ 44

9. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................... 45

10. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................. 46

11. REFERENCES ...................................................... 46

APPENDIX I: WaveData ................................................. -1

APPENDIX I: PEP Reef Unit Settlement Results ............................. II-1

APPENDIX III: Elevation and Volume Changes ............................... I-1

APPENDIX IV: PEP Experimental Reef Sea Turtle Monitoring Program .......... IV-1

APPENDIX V: Ichthyofauna of a Nearshore Barrier Island Breakwater, Palm Beach,
Florida. ................................................. V-1

APPENDIX VI: Invertebrate Cover of a Submerged Nearshore Breakwater, Palm Beach,
Florida. ................................................. VI-1

























ii








LIST OF FIGURES


Figure


Location of PEP Reef Project Relative to Port of Palm Beach Entrance. .

Cumulative Volumes of Sand Added to Northern End of Palm Beach Island by


Maintenance Dredging, Beach Nourishment and Sand Bypassing.

3. Shoreline Changes on Palm Beach Island: 1883-1944 and 1883-1990.

4. Schematic Cross-section through PEP Reef Installation ..

5. Profile Monitoring Plan Relative to PEP Reef Installation. . .

6. Locations of Scour Rods Relative to PEP Reef Installation .

7. A Typical Image from Four Video Cameras . . . .

8. Wave Transmission Coefficients Based on Significant Wave Heights

January-October 1994 . . . . . . . .

9. Wave Transmission Coefficients Based on Significant Wave Heights

January -June 1995 ................

10. Histories of Settlement Results for First 57 and Later 273 Units.

11. Intersurvey Scour Results By Scour Rod Number. . . .


6

7

8
. . 7

. . 1 8
. . 10

. . 11

. . 14


. . 17



..... 17

. . 18

. . 19


12. Average Sea Floor Elevation History and Changes in Average Elevations for Scour

Rod Numbers 14 through 19. ................. .

13. A Time Averaged Image for Storm Event Dated April 11, 1995. . . .

14. Bathymetry in Camera View for June 1995 Survey . . . . .

15. A Partially Rectified Image Obtained from Figure 13. . . . . .

16. An Example of Image Intensity Analysis, April 11, 1995 . . . .

17. Longshore Distribution of Mean High Water Shoreline Changes. . . .

18. Longshore Distribution of Volumetric Changes Per Unit Beach Length for Area

Landward of PEP Reef.................... .

19. Longshore Distribution of Volumetric Changes Per Unit Beach Length for Area

Seaward of PEP Reef ................. .


page







20. Elevation Changes Between August 1993 and July 1994 Surveys. . . .. 29
21. Elevation Changes Between July 1994 and June 1995 Surveys. . . . 29
22. Elevation Changes Between July 1992 and June 1995 Surveys. . . .. 30

23. Elevation Changes Between August 1993 and June 1995 surveys. . . .. 30
24. Section A-A'. Profile 1,500 Feet North of Reef. Monument R09489D. . . 32
25. Section B-B'. Profile 1,000 Feet South of North Reef End. Monument R09689D. 32
26. Section C-C'. Profile at South End of Reef. Monument R09974B. . .. 33
27. Section D-D'. Profile 1,200 Feet South of Reef. Monument R10074B. .. 34
28. Section E-E'. Profile at Approximate Mid-Length of the Reef. Monument R97C. 34
29. Zone Locations ..................... 35
30. Cross-shore Averaged Elevation Changes for Zones Defined in Figure 29. . 36
31. Volumetric Changes by Zones for Four Periods. . . . . . ... 38
32. Histories of Cumulative Volume Changes for Three Inner Zones. . . .. 40
33. Histories of Cumulative Volume Changes for Three Outer Zones. . . .. 40
34. Schematic of Model Basin Arrangement for PEP Reef Testing (Dean et al., 1994). 41
35. Circulation Patterns Documented in Model Studies. Showing Result of Net Flow of
Water Over the Reef and Induced Longshore Currents (Dean et al., 1994) . 42







LIST OF TABLES


Table page

1. Summary of Average Shoreline Changes in Northerly 7 Mile Length .................. 7

2. Monthly Averaged Significant Wave Height Wave Data in Feet .................... 15

3. Estimated Wave Energy Dissipation in Intensity Values, April 11, 1995 .............. 23

4. Average MHW Shoreline Changes (in feet) Landward of Reef Alignment ............. 26







PERFORMANCE OF THE MIDTOWN PALM BEACH PEP REEF INSTALLATION
FINAL REPORT
Robert G. Dean and Renjie Chen
Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL32611

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Commencing in June 1992, the first 57 concrete units of an experimental proprietary submerged
breakwater, the Prefabricated Erosion Prevention (PEP) Reef, were installed off Midtown Beach in
the Town of Palm Beach. In the spring and summer of 1993, the remaining 273 units were installed
for a total of 330 units with a total length of 4176 feet. The units were six feet high and were placed
in water depths of approximately 9.5 feet. The purpose of the installation was to both reduce wave
heights and to accumulate sand in its lee. To document the performance of this installation, a
comprehensive field monitoring investigation was undertaken and is reported herein. The monitoring
program included surveys to document the changes in beach and nearshore conditions, wave and
current gages, leveling to quantify settling of the individual units, scour monitoring devices, remote
video to monitor breaking on the natural reef which is approximately 700 feet seaward of the PEP
Reef and biological components. The monitoring results extended from July 1992 to June 1995, a
total period of 35 months.


The beach and nearshore surveys were conducted quarterly and after Tropical Storm Gordon in 1994
and documented patterns of erosion and accretion. It was found that the erosion landward of the PEP
Reef was greater than that on adjacent sections of the shoreline or than was consistent with
established erosional rates in the area. Additionally, for the first two years of the Project, the net
change of the 2000 foot segments north and south of the installation was accretion while significant
losses occurred landward of the installation. These results are interpreted as due to water carried over
the Reef by the waves and since the water cannot return as readily as it would normally due to the
presence of the Reef, a portion of this water is diverted in an alongshore direction and transports sand
with it. This explanation is consistent with the early losses landward of the breakwater and the
accumulation in the adjacent sections. Although attempts were made in the field to document the
longshore currents, they were not successful. However, a laboratory study conducted for an







installation at a different location clearly documented these currents under the more controlled
laboratory setting.


The concrete units were placed directly on the sea floor without an engineered foundation. After the
first 57 were installed in July 1992, Hurricane Andrew made landfall south of Miami and undoubtedly
caused large waves in the vicinity of the PEP Reef. It was found that the average settlement of the
units was approximately 2.3 feet which caused a hiatus of approximately one year between the
installation of the first 57 units and installation of the remaining 273 units. At the end of the
monitoring period in June 1995, the first 57 units had settled an average of 2.7 feet and the remaining
had settled an average of approximately 2.0 feet.


The wave transmission coefficients were based on two wave gages located approximately 75 feet on
either side of the Reef and somewhat south of its centerline. It was found that the apparent
transmission coefficients were less (76% to 87%) than expected based on the geometry of the units
and laboratory tests. This was investigated further by placement of two wave gages to the south of
the installation in the same approximate water depths and at the same separation distances as those
on either side of the Reef. The natural reduction of wave height without the Reef effects was found
to be in the range of 5% to 15% and formed a basis for correction of the results from the gages
adjacent to the Reef. These corrected transmission coefficients ranged from 85% to 95%.


Video monitoring was conducted from an elevated position on the Breakers Hotel located north of
the PEP Reef installation. This system was in operation from April 1, 1995 through April 1, 1996.
The view from one of the four cameras included the natural reef, the PEP Reef and the shoreline.
During storm periods, these images documented substantial breaking over the natural reef and near
the shoreline, but very little in the vicinity of the PEP Reef. Previous work by other investigators had
established that the degree of "whiteness" on the images could be considered as a measure of the
wave energy dissipation. With this as a basis, the relative effectiveness of the various areas in
dissipating wave energy is illustrated by referring to a storm of April 11, 1995. For this storm,
approximately 55.6% of the wave energy was dissipated by the offshore natural reef. The percentages







for the PEP Reef and nearshore are 1.1% and 43.3%, respectively. Of the wave energy passing over
the natural reef, only 2.5% was dissipated on the PEP Reef. In interpreting these results, it is
important to note that they are based on the aforementioned "whiteness" of the records and thus
subject to some uncertainty. However, they are certainly supportive of the wave gage results of 5%
to 15% as an upper limit range for the wave height reduction.


Turtle monitoring was conducted for the 1993, 1994 and 1995 nesting seasons. Removal of the PEP
Reef was completed on August 19, 1995 prior to the end of the 1995 turtle nesting season. The study
was designed with an area to the south of the PEP Reef serving as a control for the beach immediately
landward of the Reef area. It was found that over the three-year period: (1) The number of nests on
the control beach was greater than on the PEP beach (331 vs. 72), (2) The percentage of nests to
total crawls was greater on the PEP beach than on the control beach (66% vs. 54%), and (3) There
was no statistical difference in hatching success on the control and PEP beaches. It was hypothesized
that the greater number of nests on the control beach was due to its greater width. No explanation
was found for the greater nesting success on the PEP beach. The question was raised but not
answered whether or not fish attracted by the PEP Reef resulted in greater predation of juvenile
turtles during their exodus from the beach.


Fish studies were conducted through both daytime and night dives. It was found that a total of 91
species of fish were in direct association with the Reef, with 5 of these species present only during
night. Most of the fish found in association with the Reef were juveniles, although there were notable
exceptions. Overall, the Reef served as a significant attractor of a wide variety of fish species.


Invertebrate studies also documented a large number of species (67) established on the PEP Reef.
The actual number of species is believed to be greater. The more common types of invertebrates
included: sponges, corals, starfishes, algae, sand worms, etc. It was found that in general the
percentage of cover by invertebrates on the Reef modules increased from 1994 to 1995, although
there were some modules on which the cover decreased. Overall, the Reef modules provided a good
substrate for establishment of a variety of invertebrates.







1. INTRODUCTION


In an attempt to provide a wider beach and reduce wave impact on a protective seawall, an
experimental proprietary submerged breakwater, the Prefabricated Erosion Prevention Reef (PEP
Reef), was installed as a shore protection project of 4176 feet overall length in a water depth of
approximately 9.5 feet off the Town of Palm Beach, Florida. The system consists of 330 units, 57
of which were installed in the summer of 1992 with installation of the remaining 273 units
commencing in May 1993 and being completed in August 1993. To evaluate the performance of the
Reef installation, a comprehensive field monitoring program was carried out and included: wave
measurements, beach and offshore profiles, settlement of the units, local scour data, remote video
observations and information related to the background coastal processes. Additionally, biological
studies including turtle nesting on the beaches in the vicinity and fish populations and invertebrates
on the Reef were conducted. The main body of this report describes the physical studies and the
biological study reports are included as appendices. The results of monitoring surveys, available up
to June 1995, are presented herein. The wave height reduction attributable to the Reef ranges from
5% for the lower waves and higher tides to 15% for the higher waves and lower tides. The profile
data documented overall erosion in the entire monitored area with the greatest erosion in the lee of
the Reef which is consistent with and is interpreted as due to water being transported over the Reef
as mass transport, a buildup of water due to its return flow being impeded by the presence of the Reef
which drives longshore currents and transports sand from landward of the Reef to beyond the
longshore limit of the Reef where it was deposited.
This report is organized as follows. The following two sections describe the project environs and
physical monitoring program. The next three sections present the findings from the field study, beach
and offshore profile analysis, and a physical model study of the PEP Reef conducted for a different
location. The last two sections provide the interpretations and conclusions to date. Information and
results provided in the appendices include: Appendix I-wave data; Appendix II-unit settlement results;
Appendix III-elevation and volume changes; Appendix IV-turtle nesting reports, Appendix V-fish
survey reports and Appendix VI-invertebrate survey reports. For more information about this
project, the reader is referred to the following references: Browder (1994), Dean et. al (1994),
Browder et. al (1994), Dean (1995), and Dean and Chen (1995a,b,c,d).








2. DESCRIPTIONS OF ENVIRONS AND PROJECT


2.1. The Environs
The location of the project is on the lower east
coast of the State of Florida along a portion of
the shoreline of the Town of Palm Beach
(Figure 1). The sediment transport processes
in this area have been impacted by the
construction of the Port of Palm Beach
Entrance in 1918 and the subsequent
construction of jetties which were completed
by 1925. The net longshore sediment transport
in the area is southerly at an approximate rate
of 130,000 yds3 per year. Following excavation
of the channel and construction of the jetties,
the erosional impact on the downdrift
shorelines was rapid and dramatic, causing the
immediate downdrift property owners and the
Town of Palm Beach to: (1) construct
seawalls, (2) initiate a program of beach
nourishment in 1944, and (3) install and
operate a sand bypassing plant which was
situated on the north jetty of the Entrance. The
sand transfer plant was installed in 1958 and
was damaged by storms in 1990 and has been
inoperable since. However, the plant is
presently being repaired and is scheduled to
recommence bypassing in June 1996.


Blv



Southern


Net Longshore
Wdiment Transport





Port of
Palm Beach
Entrance

Bypassing location
.7
A


4 0

.


I PEP Reeef 4176ft


Tc


Figure 1 Location of PEP Reef Project Relative to
Port of Palm Beach Entrance









vr)
CO
7, 8----------*-----------------------------------------I------------------










.......... -- -------------------
o


05
E 4






E 0
1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Year

Figure 2 Cumulative Volumes of Sand Added to Northern End of Palm Beach Island by
Maintenance Dredging, Beach Nourishment and Sand Bypassing.



Figure 2 presents the history of the total sand placement by beach nourishment, channel maintenance
dredging and sand bypassing. From 1944 to 1990, the total was 7.6 million yds3. The State of Florida
maintains a data base of shoreline positions along its approximately 650 miles of sandy shoreline.

These data generally date back for more than a century and for the Palm Beach area, the data are
available for the following dates: 1883, 1928, 1944, 1970, 1974, and 1990. These data along with
the sand volumes added provide a basis for estimating the long term net longshore sediment transport
in the area.


The basis for the determination of the longshore sediment transport calculations is the equation of
sediment conservation, expressed as



= S(X) (1)
at ax







in which, x is the longshore coordinate directed southerly,
t is time, v is the sand volume per unit beach length at a
particular shoreline location, s is the rate at which sand
volume is added to the local profile, and Q is the average
net longshore sediment transport. Eq.(1) can be integrated
from a location of known transport (the south jetty at the
Port of Palm Beach Entrance) to determine the transport,
Q, at any location. For purposes here, the data from 1944
to 1990 will be applied to the northern 7 miles of the
shoreline. These shoreline position changes for the entire
island are presented in Figure 3, and the changes in
shoreline positions for the northerly 7 miles on the Island
are given in Table 1. It is of interest that in 1944, prior to
beach nourishment and sand bypassing, the shoreline was
eroded back to the seawall at all locations along the 7 mile
shoreline of interest.


art ofPahlmBechrame


-3 -20 -10 0 100
Sadine O age rFmn 1883 Psition (ft)
Figure 3 Shore line Changes on Palm
Beach Island: 1883-1944 and 1883-1990


Table 1 Summary of Average Shoreline Changes in Northerly 7 Mile Length

Intersurvey Periods 1883-1928 1928-1944 1944-1971 1971-1974 1974-1990

Average Changes in -127.6 +12.5 +51.0 -31.7 +38.4
Shoreline Position (ft)


In 1990, as a result of the sand additions, the average shoreline was 58 feet more advanced than in
1944. In applying Eq.(1), since only shoreline positions were available, volumetric change per unit
length, v, was approximated in terms of shoreline position changes, as


Av=(h,+ B)Ay


Based on Dean and Grant (1987), a value ofh.+B = 21.6 ft was adopted. Applying Eqs. (1) and (2),








and considering zero transport at the south jetty, results in an annual net southerly longshore sediment

transport from the area of interest of approximately 130,000 yds3.

Other studies in the project area (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987) had established that the long-

term background erosion rate due primarily to the effect of the entrance was approximately 3.7

yds3/year per foot of beach length. Using the above value for h.+B, this translates to a shoreline

recession of 4.6 ft per year.


2.2. Project Description

The submerged breakwater project was located approximately 4.5 miles south (downdrift) of the Port

of Palm Beach Entrance (Figure 1). A total of 330 proprietary precast interlocking units were placed

in approximately 9.5 feet of water about 240 feet from the shoreline, resulting in an overall length
of 4,176 feet including a gap of 216 feet near the north end through which a set of fiber optics cables

transit offshore. Although almost all of the shoreline landward of the Reef is seawalled, a beach

averaging approximately 26 feet in width was present in July 1992 when the first 57 reef units were

installed. The individual units are 6 feet in height, 12 feet long and 15 feet wide and weigh 25 tons

in air (Figure 4).





Seawall
w Approximately 240 feet




.
He-

.* .* H <
v' * .. .. .s I
. .. .. '. .*. 9.
:.. .. * .*..*. ... ...* PEP Reef
SPEP Reef Seaward
............................. P.
...... .... .............. ... ..'. ..~ *...'.". ..



Figure 4 Schematic Cross-section through PEP Reef Installation

8








Project installation commenced in July 1992 and 57 units had been placed when Hurricane Andrew
occurred in August 1992. Surveys following the hurricane documented substantial settlement of the
units resulting in a hiatus in the installation. The original design called for the direct placement of the
units on the sea floor without any scour prevention. During the hiatus, various foundation designs
were considered, however due to the added costs, it was decided to continue placing the units
without scour prevention and installation of the remaining units commenced in July 1993 and was
completed in August 1993.
The stated objectives of the PEP Reef were twofold, including wave height reduction and increase
in beach width. Because the State of Florida and the Town of Palm Beach were interested in
documenting the performance of the project, an extensive monitoring program was carried out. The
monitoring program began with the installation of the first 57 units in the summer 1992 and continued
through June 1995, two months before removal of the experimental PEP Reef units.


3. MONITORING PROGRAM


The purpose of the monitoring program was to evaluate and compare the performance of the
installation with the expectations of the developers of the proprietary units. Monitoring included
physical and biological components. The physical components which are the subject of the main body
of this report, included: wave measurements, a fairly dense array of survey lines, elevations of the
individual units and scour in the vicinity of the structure. Monitoring results are available for the
period extending from July 1992 through June 1995. Figures 5 and 6 present the overall monitoring
program. Descriptions of the individual physical monitoring elements are presented below.


3.1. Waves
To monitor the reduction in wave energy, two subsurface pressure-velocity (PUV) gages were
installed approximately 75 feet on either side of the PEP Reef and 600 feet south of the Reef
centerline. The nearshore and offshore gages were installed in approximately 6 and 13 feet water
depths, respectively. The gages collected data hourly, recording average pressure and two horizontal






-,,,N 850E
- -- --


Most Northerly Lines Except
for Those at DNR Monuments


--..--- 85E NOTES:
8.5 N 80E All Profile Lines at 900 Azimuth Except, as Noted,
8-75 -- -" for 12 of the 15 Lines From DNR Monuments
S BREAKWATER Total of 75 Lines. (DEP Monuments Only Surveyed
S ...N 800E Annually, Others Quarterly).

4 150' N 800E

.75-' N75E

-i-F K. Denotes 6 Spaces at 75 It
Between Profile Lines
.-.- .10 -20' N 90E
.N 800E
8 00 --" .. Most Southerly Line Except
..----. for Those at DNR Monuments


0 5000 ft
Imm


Figure 5 Profile Monitoring Plan RelatiVe to PEP Reef Installation


a.
0
-J
- 4
0 IL

0
z

0
I-







10' 10'

26 2 28
26 27 28


CONTROL POINT 500' NORTH
OF BREAKWATER


N.T.S.


* 0
2223
NORTH END OF BREAKWATER


190 A
18 *







1011 12 13


\ I
I I


ISouI

/ SOUT

67 r 89
*5
*4


T&T SUBMERGED LAND EASEMENT
216' GAP







- -BREAKWATER CENTER LINE


H END OF BREAKWATER


3
* CONTROL POINT 500' SOUTH
OF BREAKWATER


COPPER PIPE
LoosE WASHER
(INmAL PosmION)

WASHER AFTER SCOUR
.(SCouR DEPTH



SCOUR ROD (TYPICAL)
TOTAL = 28


Figure 6 Locations of Scour Rods Relative to PEP Reef Installation


5'
5'
20 21
*







velocity components. Every sixth hour, a full 1,024 second pressure/velocity record was recorded.
These gages began operation in mid-October, 1993, and reported via a telephone modem to the
Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering Laboratory (COEL) at the University of Florida in Gainesville,
Florida. The data have been analyzed in the Florida Coastal Data Network (FCDN) format and
stored in the COEL database.
In order to quantify more completely the wave height reduction characteristics caused by the Reef,
from September 20, 1994 through October 7, 1994, two additional gages were installed adjacent to
the longer term gages which are located landward and seaward of the Reef. This served as a check
on the gage calibrations. From October 7 through October 23, 1994 the additional gages were
relocated to approximately 500 feet south of the Reef in approximately the same water depths and
the same separation distance as the longer-term wave gages. The longer-term gages were damaged
by storms in late October 1994, were refurbished in April 1995, and removed in June 1995.


3.2. Profile Surveys and Reef Unit Surveys
As shown in Figure 5, the profile survey plan includes a total of 75 profile lines originating from a
monumented baseline configured for this study. The baseline incorporates the Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) (formerly the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)) monuments
which are numbered consecutively from north to south and spaced at approximately 1000 foot
intervals. Intermediate profile locations are denoted by a letter, e.g. 95A and 95B are the first and
second profile lines south of DNR Monument 95. Most of these lines are surveyed on a quarterly
(every three months) basis by a combination of land surveying techniques, swimming surveys in which
level and rod techniques are employed and farther offshore, using standard fathometer measurements.
The swimming portion of the surveys extends at least 50 feet seaward of the reef units for greater
accuracy. The quarterly surveys extend 1200 feet seaward as compared to 5,500 feet for the annual
surveys. At stations where the DEP monuments are located, the profile lines extend 6,500 feet
seaward. In addition to surveying the profiles, elevations are taken on the north, middle and south
of the top of each Reef unit to document any settlement.
Ten profile and settlement surveys are available during the monitoring period between July 1992 and
June 1995: July 1992, April 1993, August 1993, December 1993, March 1994, July 1994, November







1994, December 1994, March 1995, June 1995. Tropical Storm Gordon affected the Palm Beach
area on November 14 and 15, 1994. The November 1994 survey was completed a few days prior
to Tropical Storm Gordon and the December 1994 survey was initiated a few days after the passage
of Gordon.


3.3. Scour
Twenty-eight scour rods were installed to establish the intersurvey scour depths. Referring to Figure
6, the rods were copper tubes, 4 inches in diameter, 6 feet long, and were jetted into the bottom with
a PVC cap on top of the tube. A loosely fitting aluminum disk 12 inches in diameter was placed
around the tube on the sand surface. The elevations of the tops of the PVC caps were established
by leveling at the time of installation. During erosional events, the disk followed the sand horizon
downward and was left at the elevation of maximum erosion. At times of monitoring the scour rods,
sand was excavated down to the disk and its elevation relative to the top of the rod measured. The
disk was then retrieved, the excavation filled and the disk elevation initialized by placement on the
horizontal sand surface Alternatively, if the disk had settled to a depth making its retrieval impossible
by this method, its position was established by "sounding" with a small diameter rod and a new disk
installed on the existing sand surface.


3.4. Video Deployment
Four fixed view cameras were mounted on the southeastern corner of the roof on top of the elevator
service room of the Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach that is approximately 105 feet north and 132 feet
east of DNR monument R-95. The cameras are controlled by a multiplexer and a timer that allow
sequential images to be taken at user-specified intervals. In addition, the timer records eastern
standard time directly on the images. The multiplexer is set to sample every thirty seconds during
daylight hours, allowing for a full month between tape changes with a negligible reduction in
information conveyed by the data. The cameras focus on different areas in the vicinity of the PEP
Reef area. Figure 7 shows typical views from the four cameras. Camera one is a black and white
camera with a focal length of 12 mm and is a zoomed view of the Clark Avenue Public Beach (DNR
Monument R-96). Camera two is a color camera with a focal length of 6 mm, and provides the
























Figure 7 A Typical Image from Four Video Cameras


clearest and best over-all images. Camera three is a black and white camera with a focal length of
6 mm, and mimics the view of camera two. Camera four is a black and white camera with a focal
length of 50 mm, and is zoomed in on a seawall at the extreme southern end of the visible shoreline
(DNR Monument R-97). At this point, unfortunately, the shoreline and PEP Reef curve away toward
the west, limiting the far ranging views. This deployment system provides one year of continuous
data collection, beginning on April 1, 1995 and ending on April 1, 1996.


4. FIELD STUDY RESULTS


4.1. Wave Attenuation
In order to quantify the reduction of wave height by the PEP Reef, transmission coefficients were
defined as follows:

S Hs nearshore
K, = (3)
Hs offshore shoaled


where K, = transmission coefficient, Hs nearshore = nearshore significant wave height, and
IHs offshore shoaled = the offshore significant wave height shoaled by linear wave theory to the








location of the nearshore gage. Table 2 lists the average monthly significant wave heights and

transmission coefficients for the period December 1993 through October 1994, and January 1995

through March 1995. Figures 8 and 9 present the transmission coefficients for the available data of

1994 and 1995, respectively. The raw wave data for January through June 1995 are presented in

Appendix I.

Tahle 2 Mnnthlv Averaoed Sipnificant Wave HeiPht Wave Data in Feet


*One of the gages is believed to have lost calibration
**No data available due to inoperable wave gages
***Believed to be affected by wave reflection from seawall
Note that the reported K, values are the averages of individual transmission coefficients and may differ slightlyfrom the
values obtained by dividing the monthly averagedHs n.a,,i by Hs morSFao in the table above


Month H, nh5 HNewho H, Se K,

December 93 2.10 1.84 2.43 0.76

January 94 2.30 2.07 2.66 0.78

February 94 1.97 1.77 2.26 0.78

March 94 1.67 1.51 1.94 0.78

April 94 1.84 1.67 2.00 0.84

May 94 1.28 1.12 1.44 0.78

June 94 0.79 0.69 0.85 0.81

July 94 0.98 0.89 1.02 0.87

August 94 1.05 1.08 1.11 0.97

September 94 1.12 1.21 1.18 1.03*

October 94 1.77 1.84 1.90 0.97

November 94 N/A N/A N/A N/A**

December 94 N/A N/A N/A N/A**

January 95 1.48 0.98 1.57 0.62

February 95 1.51 1.34 1.59 0.84

March 95 1.84 2.26 1.93 1.17***

April 95 1.80 1.75 1.93 0.91

May 95 1.28 1.28 1.32 0.97

June 95 1.71 1.70 1.78 0.96







For the period December 1993 through July 1994, the monthly average Kt for each month varies over
a fairly small range, from 0.76 to 0.87. These values are smaller (show greater wave reduction) than
those predicted by theory and measured in laboratory tests. It was believed that a portion of the wave
height attenuation was due to wave energy dissipation between the gages that occurs naturally in the
absence of the Reef. As noted previously, to evaluate this possibility, two additional gages were
placed 500 feet south of the Reef in approximately the same water depth and with the same separation
distance as the Reef gages (Browder, 1994). Data from these gages indicated that there was an
energy loss between the two gages of about 5% to 15%, thus establishing that the transmission
coefficients resulting from the presence of the Reef range from 85% to 95% (Dean and Chen, 1995c),
considerably larger than those determined from analysis of the two longer term gages alone (76% to
87%, December 1993 to July 1994) as shown in Table 2. The transmission coefficients for August
1994 through June 1995 are generally significantly higher than for previous months. It is believed
that either the nearshore gage had lost calibration or the data at both gages were being affected by
the increased wave reflection from the seawall due to the significant loss of the fronting beach.


Referring to Figures 8 and 9, it seen that there is considerable scatter in the transmission coefficients.
The reasons for this scatter are at least threefold. First, greater wave height transmission over the
Reef occurs during high tides. Secondly, the effect of wave heights as noted previously is apparent
in the transmission coefficient data with the larger wave heights resulting in the smaller transmission
coefficients and vice versa. Thirdly, the effect of the loss of beach area landward of the Reef has
resulted in greater reflection coefficients from the revetment and seawall, especially during periods
of high tides. This wave reflection can be observed during energetic conditions and causes areas of
wave reinforcement and cancellation between the incident and reflected waves, the locations of which
depend on wave period and tide elevation. Thus, for some conditions, the locations of wave
reinforcement would occur at one of the gage locations and possibly cause cancellation at the other
gage and vice versa for other conditions. Reflection from the seawall contributes to the scatter in the
transmission coefficients although it is believed that it does not affect the long-term average results.
Wave reflection from the seawall and interference with incident waves was evident visually in the
field. Settlement of Reef units may have contributed to increasing transmission coefficients over time.








1.2


1.0


0.8


Z 0.6


0.4


0.2


0.0


Figure 8


0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240
Days
Wave Transmission Coefficients Based on Significant Wave Heights
January-October 1994


1.2 1, .ty : I I I: I-- -1
+ + +I



S0.H +
: ,^ -...t .... ..


0 -- .... ................ ......+ . .. .......... ........... .......... .






J january -June 1
0 ^



'anuar-ebruarqyMarch April May June July August S,
0 .0 I' I I '
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240
Days
Figure 9 Wave Transmission Coefficients Based on Significant Wave Heights
January -June 1995


270 300


270 300


I : '
: + .I+ +I--.---W i ,+ 1



4-
+ ++ +
--+ +
+ +
S: . :: .. ............... ......





-F






JanuaryFebruaryMarch April May June July August SeptemberOct.
+ : + ++ +I + t








IJanuaryjebruatyMarch April May June July 'August SeptemberOct.








4.2. Currents
The PUV gages also measured current magnitude and direction near the Reef centerline. During the
summer months, the average current was approximately 0.23 ft/s, directed north along the beach.
During periods of higher wave activity, i.e., the winter months, the currents average approximately
0.10 ft/s, and were southerly directed. The natural currents in the area may be a result, in part, of the
tidal flows in and out of the Port of Palm Beach Entrance, located approximately 4.5 miles to the
north.


4.3. Settlement of Units
Settlement of the individual units began, upon installation of the Reef units, and has been
documented since 1992. Figure 10 depicts the history of average settlement of the original 57 units
and the remaining 273 units with standard deviations (error bars). The individual survey elevations
are plotted in Appendix II for all 330 units.


4


3 2 .--- ..--- . . . ------......... --. -..............---- -- .. ...................







First 57 Units +/- a
SRemaining 273 Units +/- a
0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36
t (months after installation)
Figure 10 Histories of Settlement Results for First 57 and Later 273 Units


The first 57 units installed in Summer 1992 have settled an average of 2.74 feet in 33 months relative
to their estimated design depth with most of this settlement occurring during the first four months









after installation, a period during which Hurricane Andrew impacted this area. The total average

settlement of the remaining 273 units which were installed in Summer 1993 is 1.98 feet. During the

first nine months the settlement was 1.60 feet. Within the one month period before and after Tropical

Storm Gordon, the settlement was 0.26 feet. The few minor increases in average elevation of the

57 units and the 273 units during some periods are believed to be due to either incomplete removal

of biological growth for purposes of the surveys or to small survey errors, or a combination. As

shown in Figure 10, the first 57 units have reached a condition of equilibrium or near equilibrium

settlement and the remaining 273 units appear to be approaching an equilibrium.



4.4. Scour Results

The twenty-eight scour rods were installed in July of 1993. The individual locations are shown in

Figure 6. Rods 1, 2, and 3 provided background scour for the southern portion of the study area and

were located approximately 500 feet south of the Reef. Rods 4 through 9 monitored scour near the

south end of the Reef. Rods 10, 11, 12 and 13 were located near the centerline of the Reef away

from end effects due to the gap in the Reef or the ends of the structure. Rods 14 through 19 were

located in the vicinity of the communications cables gap. Rods 20 through 25 monitored scour in

the vicinity of the north end of the Reef. Rods 26 through 28, located some 500 feet north of the

Reef, provided background scour near the north end.

The depths of the disks were measured and reinitialized on six separate occasions. Figure 11


S5
oa 5 * * o a o o . -
0 0 07/o.t 081/32 oao
-5 ............. o .. .... .. ........ .......... v-,-.*.- -, -* ..........
-15 .. .-......... .... ............. ..... ... ..... ........... ......... ...... .......
(D-15 ------- -- ----- ----
Xv v

o V
cD -2 0 -- ^----------7 -----------------------* ---- ----*---- 0 .... ...........................
c -25 ....0**.....
S0 07/29/93 to 08/14/193(20 dayl)
0 -3 0 .--- .-- V ------- 0 / 3 0 l/'*, 3-( d y ) .- --.-.-. --- .-. -. .------- ---- .......... .............. 4- ..................- ---
r0 12/15/93 to l 71/94(77 d.yl)
S 0310 //94 to 0 03 (8 y) ...................................................................
3 5 ......---------";i- --------------------------------
I X 09121/94 to 06/24/95(277 days)
-40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Scour rod number

Figure 11 Intersurvey Scour Results By Scour Rod Number

19








illustrates the scour rod results for these six periods. The scour changes for the first 20 day period

and the fifth 110 day period were relatively small, averaging 1.6 inches, and 3.6 inches, respectively.

From August 14, 1993 to December 15, 1993, the north control rods experienced large changes

varying from 15 inches to 31 inches. Between December 15, 1993 and March 7, 1994, the scour at

the south control rods (1, 2, 3) was approximately 24.4 inches elevation. From March 7, 1994 to

June 3, 1994, the rods in the north half of the Reef experienced more change than those in the south

portion. The scour changes for the 277 day period from September 21, 1994 to June 24, 1995 were

relatively large, averaging 27 inches.

Interpretation of the scour data is complicated by the non-uniform intersurvey scour periods and also

by anticipated seasonality and spatial irregularity of this scour; however, an average representative

scour rate is 0.43 feet for the first month after installation. An analysis of the scour in the vicinity of

the communications cables gap is shown in Figure 12 for the six periods.



10
0
Period 1
S Period ..-... Scour rod settlement and rese

0 'O - Scour rod reset on sea ground
) 0 Poerlou 2r

-10
SPelIod 3
"'. :Period .4
>-20 '*. "-. Period -
S0 0 pe. Period 6


o-30


"-40
0

W-50 '..
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Days after July 29,1993
Figure 12 Average Sea Floor Elevation History and Changes in Average Elevations for Scour
Rod Numbers 14 through 19







4.5. Image Results
A digital image is a two dimensional functionf(x, y) of brightness (or gray level) values which provide
a visual representation of an object or scene in digital image processing, where x and y denote spatial
coordinates and the value off at any point (x, y) is proportional to the brightness of the image at that
point. This numerical representation of images permits the application of a wide assortment of
computer processing techniques to the data ( Schowengerdt, 1983). The word pixel (acronym for
picture elements) or intensity identifies the gray level of a single element in an image matrix. The
intensity range is from 0 (black) to 256 (white).


Figure 13 A Time Averaged Image for Storm Event Dated April 11, 1995.


Figure 13 shows an average of 1,560 images during a storm event from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., April
11, 1995 from camera two. Waves were breaking both offshore and nearshore. Figure 14 illustrates
the bathymetry in camera view for the June 1995 survey. The PEP Reef and natural reef are
approximate 250 and 1000 feet east of camera nadir location, respectively. It is noted that the crests
of the PEP Reef and natural reef are almost at the same elevation, however, the total width of the
PEP Reef is 15 feet with a crest width of 1 foot. Comparatively, the natural reefs crest width in this
area varies from 400- 600 feet, a significant difference. Figure 15 presents a rectified image obtained














4-- TSL3


'


3


o.
e









.

~I o.




oi










3

o.
in
8
'


: U
m

E
x

L
a
4
4



i..
tr.





dir.
z

















o 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 cE 0
0 0 0 a0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0




() eoueis!a eJoqs-ssojo






Figure 14 Bathymetry in Camera View for June 1995 Figure 15 A Partially Rectified Image


Survey Obtained from Figure 13.





~III 1*

















jiGi













a'





























*i








.1 i ii i I







from an oblique image as shown in Figure 13. Waves broke over the natural reef by plunging/spilling
as well as breaking nearshore and continued as dissipative bores up the beach. It has been
hypothesized and proved under some conditions that the intensity value above the background value
digitized from the rectified image is approximately proportional to the wave energy dissipation
(Lippman and Holman, 1989). Based on this hypothesis, three dissipation intensity profile lines are
calculated for three beach profiles as shown in Figure 16. By examining this figure, there are three
features: (1) The maximum intensity values are in the vicinity of the shoreline where wave dissipation
is completed, (2) The second highest intensity values, located over of the natural reef, depict the wave
breaking dissipation due to the presence of the natural reef, and (3) No significant wave dissipation
occurred due to the PEP Reef. Table 3 lists the estimated wave energy dissipation values due to wave
breaking over the natural reef and PEP Reef and nearshore for three profile lines for the storm event
of April 11,1995. Based on averages in Table 3, the percentage dissipation over the natural reef, the
PEP Reef and at the shoreline are, 55.6%, 1.1%, and 43.3%, respectively. Of the energy passing over
the natural reef, 2.5% was dissipated by the PEP Reef.
Table 3 Estimated Wave Energy Dissipation in Intensity Values, April 11, 1995.

Distance South Breaking near Breaking over Breaking over the
Profile Line of Camera the Shoreline the PEP Reef Natural Reef
(feet) (intensities) (intensities) (intensities)

R96G 1958 8026 91 9043
R97D 2968 10533 361 12161
R98E 3958 7311 218 12085


4.6. Sand Samples
Sand samples were collected immediately following installation of all 330 units along 19 survey lines
at 6 to 8 positions across the profile. The sand samples were analyzed to determine their mean grain
diameter and the sorting about the mean. The objective of the analysis was to quantify the native
sand sizes, therefore forming a basis for determining the possible source of any sediment accumulating
in the vicinity of the PEP Reef. The dso (median size of sand sample) values range from 0.15 mm to
0.96 mm, averaging 0.35 mm.









Profile R 9 6 G




Intensity -.


500


1000


1500


1500


SBathym etry for March 1995

50 1000


500 1000
Distance from m onum ent R96G (ft)

Profile R97D


500


1000


1500


500 1000 1500
Distance from monument R97D (ft)


Profile R 98E




Intens ity


500


1000


1500


SBathym etry for M arch 1995


0 500 1000
Distance from m onum ent R98E (ft)

Figure 16 An Example of Image Intensity Analysis, April 11, 1995.


24


200


100


200
=

. 100


0
C

20

g 10o

20

u -10

-20
0


Breaking over the natural reef


i Broaklci nearhore .


intensity

Breaking ove-r t-e PEP Re-ef
areaking over the PEP ]teef


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


Bathymetry for March: 1995
.,------------- -- ---------------------


1500








-


I







5. BEACH AND OFFSHORE PROFILE RESULTS


This section discusses shoreline changes, elevation changes, profile changes, seaward elevation
changes and zone volume changes within the study area. As mentioned before, construction of the
Reef began in July 1992 and installation of the first 57 units was completed in August 1992 when
Hurricane Andrew affected the area. Installation of the remaining 273 units was completed in August
1993. Although the data are presented in a manner allowing volume change results to be extracted
for any time period, the comparisons in this section are highlighted for four periods as follows. First
annual change: August 1993 to July 1994; second annual change: July 1994 to June 1995; net change
since installation of all 330 units: August 1993 to June 1995; and overall change since installation
of first 57 units: July 1992 to June 1995;


5.1. Longshore Shoreline Change Distributions
The changes in Mean High Water (MHW) shoreline positions are shown in Figure 17. Table 4
presents the average shoreline changes for the intersurvey periods and the cumulative shoreline
changes for the 4,000 foot landward of the Reef and for the 2,000 foot segments north and south of
the Reef. North of the Reef the shoreline changes experienced seasonal advancement and recession,
ranging between -50 and +50 feet. The shoreline directly landward of the Reef gap (Clark Avenue),
where no seawall is present, receded almost 75 feet from July 1992 to June 1995. It is important to
note that of the 4,000 feet shoreline segment immediately landward of the Reef, as of July 1994, more
than 3,200 feet had receded back to the seawall and thus could not recede farther. The overall
average change landward of the Reef from July 1992 to June 1995 is 25.8 feet shoreline recession.
The largest changes are in the south end segment of the Reef where recession has continued since
August 1993. Referring to Table 4, the average shoreline changes in the southern 2,000 foot
segment experienced 61.9 feet of advancement for the period July 1992 to March 1994, however,
from March 1994 to June 1995, this segment has receded on average back to the July 1992 position.
From July 1992 to June 1995, the net average shoreline changes in the northern 2,000 foot segment
and 4,000 foot Reef confines are -9.3 and -25.8 feet, respectively.








Average MHW Shoreline Changes (in feet) Landward of Reef Alignment


0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
North
Distance from monument 92F (ft)

Figure 17 Longshore Distribution of Mean High Water Shoreline Changes


North 2000 ft Reef 4000 ft South 2000 ft
Survey
Periods Intersurvey Cumulative Intersurvey Cumulative Intersurvey Cumulative
change change change change change I change
07/92-04/93 9 -18.91 -18.91 -9.79 -9.79 38.11 38.11

04/93-08/93 13 4.18 -14.73 8.52 -3.01 0.08 38.19
I I I
08/93-12/93 17 13.38 -1.35 -2.72 -3.99 14.82 53.01

12/93-03/94 20 -18.68 -20.03 -5.11 -9.10 8.90 61.91

03/94-07/94 24 -2.41 -22.44 -11.38 -20.48 -11.31 50.60
I I I
07/94-11/94 28 2.78 -19.66 2.09 -18.39 -14.26 36.34

11/94-12/94 29 -5.37 -25.03 -4.84 -23.23 -7.02 29.32

12/94-03/95 32 7.97 | -17.06 -1.62 -24.85 -33.31 -3.99

03/95-06/95 35 7.75 -9.31 -0.97 -25.82 4.65 0.66


Table 4







5.2. Longshore Volume Change Distributions
This section presents the distribution of volume changes per linear foot (yds3/lf) both landward and
seaward of the Reef along the 9,800 feet of monitored shoreline. These results are based on the
volume changes occurring for each of the profile lines between monitoring surveys. Appendix III-a
presents a tabulation of the volume changes on profile line for inner and outer profile sections;
Appendix I-b represents a tabulation of volume changes between profile lines for inner and outer
cells. A tabulation of the mean elevation changes between profile lines is included in Appendix m-c.
Figure 18 depicts the volumetric changes per linear foot landward of the Reef alignment for the
periods noted earlier. North of the Reef, the changes are somewhat mixed, but just inside the north
end the region begins to experience loss of material, increasing gradually to the south with a
maximum of-56 yds3/ft near the south end of the Reef. The changes in the south region are generally
consistent with the shoreline changes presented in Figure 17.
Figure 19 shows the volume changes per linear foot seaward of the Reef alignment (at the same scale
as for Figure 18) The volume changes in this region are mixed and relatively small compared to
the inner region, varying between -30 yds3lf and +15 yds3/lf The greatest change is erosional and
occurred immediately south of the Reef


5.3. Elevation Changes
The elevation change contours both landward, seaward and adjacent to the Reef will be presented
quantitatively as illustrated in Figures 20 through 23. The two dimensional contour plots represent
the changes (in feet) that occurred between monitoring surveys in which the areas of accretion (solid
lines) and erosion (dashed lines) are indicated. Contours are presented in 0.5 foot intervals.


August 1993 to July 1994 (First Annual Basis)
Figure 20 shows the distribution of the elevation changes that occurred between the surveys of
August 1993 and July 1994. In the vicinity of the north end of the Reef, the elevation changes are
predominantly negative. Changes seaward of the Reef fluctuate with a pattern of scour at some
locations and deposition at others. In the lee of the Reef, the area has experienced a general loss of
material up to 1.0 foot. The area south of the Reef, however, has gained material up to 1.5 feet.






































0 1000
North


2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000


Distance from monument 92F (ft)



Figure 18 Longshore Distribution of Volumetric Changes Per Unit Beach Length for Area

Landward of PEP Reef.


0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

North
Distance from monument 92F (ft)


9000 10000


Figure 19 Longshore Distribution of Volumetric Changes Per Unit Beach Length for Area

Seaward of PEP Reef.




28


.............. ............... ............... ............... ............... ............................... ............ ... .. -o..Q7 g4. o 5 -
S--- 07/94-06/95
07/02-06195
08/93-06195








. ............. i ............... II............... -.-------.- -:.- ........ --i- ... .............-
.. .... .......... . \ . ... . ...... '-.. ...





i~ ~ l: i I i I i i I t I


. ........ ... ...... .........- ----- - --- . . . ... . . . . . . . . - - - -I. . . - - - - - - -
.. ... 08193-07154








Ft refa a
-- - - - -- - - - - ---- . . . .A.... . ..... ....... A *

~"' E.Y------------- -

\ V:l

. .........................i...... .%......... .......


i t IA cef
...--.......;.................;........ ..... .. ............. ............... ............

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








250
200 Vl0
150 o
o i \ ft!o
100 /

-5 ,, 05
o i o .

e 0 E-


S-50 i ii
-200 1 ..
-250
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
-- North Distance from monument 92F (ft)
Figure 20 Elevation Changes Between August 1993 and July 1994 Surveys.



250


-100
0 150 0

.- 100 V
-250 I









0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
-- North Distance from monument 92F (ft)
Figure 21 Elevation Changes Between July 1994 and June 1995 Surveys








250


p200 -o / /i

2100 is ....
a 0 .1 J
o 0o .'...'. .

50 ... l






0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
North Distance from monument 92 F (ft)
Figure 22 Elevation Changes Between July 1992 and June 1995 Surveys.



A B'- E' C'1 D1
250



1 50
S100

50 j


A B C
2 -100 -



-250 '
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
A J B--aJ Et C D


North


Distance from monument 92 F (ft)


Figure 23 Elevation Changes Between August 1993 and June 1995 surveys.








July 1994 to June 1995 (Second Annual Basis)
Figure 21 shows the elevation changes that occurred between the surveys of July 1994 and June
1995. This figure indicates that a small accretion has occurred in the area near the northern end of
the Reef. Seaward of the Reef, the elevation changes fluctuate, but are negative on average.
Substantial erosion occurred in the south area losing as much as 6.0 feet elevation for the period July
1994 to June 1995, whereas from August 1993 to July 1994 this area gained material up to 1.5 feet
or more.


July 1992 to June 1995 (Net Basis for Entire Monitoring Period)
Figure 22 presents the elevation changes from July 1992 to June 1995. The elevation change is
negative overall for this thirty-five month period. In the lee of the Reef, material has been removed
up to a maximum of 5.0 feet with an average shoreline recession of approximately 26 feet. The south
end of the Reef has experienced a large loss of material up to 4.5 feet; however, farther south and
close to shore, deposition has occurred. These changes appear consistent with the pumping
mechanism, in which water is transported landward over the Reef by the waves and because the
normal return flow of this water is impeded by the presence of the Reef, the water flows alongshore
and transports sand from landward of the Reef.


August 1993 to June 1995 (Overall Basis for All Units Present Period)
Figure 23 shows the net elevation changes for the period of August 1993 through June 1995. There
are several noteworthy features. Seaward of the Reef the changes are mixed. At the 500 foot mark,
landward of the Reef this location experienced up to 3.0 feet of accretion with shoreline advancement
of approximately 5.4 feet. Both offshore and onshore, the area near the AT&T gap has lost about
2.0 feet elevation. There is substantial erosion up to 5.0 feet in the lee of the Reef. The area
immediately south of the south end of the Reef has experienced erosion with up to 3.0 feet of material
having been removed.


5.4. Profile Changes
The locations of five representative profile lines (at Monuments 94D, 96F, 99B, 100B and 97C) are










20
o -S... i Sc.tio. A -A
> 1 5 ................. .... ......... ........................ ... .............. --------- -------- ...... ........... J u ly 1 9 2
15 July 1992
0 August1993
Z ----- July 1994
1 0 .- - -.. ........ -. ....... -- ..- ............. ................... .............. .. .... ----- Ju n 1.....
June 1995
.. ............ ................... .................... ........................................ ........... .. ............................................

su
5





0


I I -

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Distance from m onum ent 94D (ft) Saw.,rd


Figure 24 Section A-A'. Profile 1,500 Feet North of Reef. Monument R09489D.


20

S15

10

S5

-" n


..... .. section B B'
.. ... u ly. .. .. ......... -............... ... .......... . ... -- -
--- August 1993
1- Ju-:ly 9 94
...... ... .. .................... ............... . ....J un e ........ 199 5

-.... -- ------------- - ------- ---- -- --- ------ - ---------- ---- '- .
"__I S :.-, i !


C -" .
Reef i
Cu -5 -
Seawall "':.
.u 1 0 . . . . .. . . .... . . .". . .. .. -.-.-. ---- . .. . . . . . ... . .. . . ..
-10 ---- ----.--I-..---.----



-20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Distance from monument 96F (ft) Seaward

Figure 25 Section B-B'. Profile 1,000 Feet South of North Reef End. Monument R09689D.

shown in Figure 23 as A-A', B-B', C-C', D-D' and E-E'. Section A-A' (Figure 24) is located

approximately 1,500 feet north of the Reef. The July 1994 surveys show that both the nearshore and

offshore regions have experienced a small loss of sand, whereas the June 1995 surveys indicate

recovery of sand with the dry beach back to the July 1992 position.

Section B-B' (Figure 25) is approximately 1000 feet south of the north end of the Reef. From July







1992 to June 1995, the inner region has continued to experience loss of material with a cumulative

erosion of 28.9 yds3/linear foot and a shoreline recession of about 41.9 feet (back to the seawall).

The outer region has experienced an erosion which is relatively small compared with the inner region.

Section C-C' (Figure 26) is located at the south end of the Reef. From August 1993 to July 1994,

the inner region experienced a slight increase of 0.3 yds3/lf, however, from July 1994 to June 1995,

this region experienced a large loss of material (42.3 yds3/lf) and the shoreline receded approximately

63.6 feet. The outer region shows a small gain of material since August 1993.

Section D-D' (Figure 27) is representative of the profile lines south of the Reef. The nearshore area

had gained approximately 26.9 yds3/lf of sand from July 1992 to July 1994, whereas from July 1994

to June 1995, this area has continued to experience erosion resulting in a loss of about 30.6 yds3/lf

of material. Overall, from July 1992 to June 1995, the net loss has been 3.7 yds/lf.

Section E-E' (Figure 28) is approximately at the mid-length of the PEP Reef. This figure depicts

the location of the PEP Reef and the natural reef. This natural reef is approximately 1000 feet

offshore with a crest elevation about 8 feet below NGVD. The surveys show erosion has continued

landward of the PEP Reef while the changes seaward of the PEP Reef and both sides of the natural

reef are relatively insignificant for the period between July 1992 and June 1995. The horizontal scale

in this plot is compressed relative to that of the other profiles presented to show the presence and

magnitude of the offshore natural reef compared to the PEP Reef.

20 I I I
i Seawall ,
15 Section C-C'
................. .................... .................... .................... ................... .. .t o n ...........


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





-2 0




Distance from monument 99B (t) Sawrd
Figure 26 Section C-C'. Profile at South End of Reef Monument R9974B.








20
--Sea all Se c tio n D D'
15 .......... ............ ............. .. ......................... .................. ... ....... ... ........
15 July 1992
> August 1993
9 10 ... ....... ............................... ................ ............ ........_ Ju _y_19-



10
2' : 'K :
10 "-- - --_-.-... ......... -




-15
_.2-10 ..----------.................... ..................................... -:-------- ................ .....-------

-20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Distance from monument 100B (ft) Seaward
Figure 27 Section D-D'. Profile 1,200 Feet South of Reef. Monument R10074B.


20

S15

10

5

o n


'. I:PEP Reef
> -5 '.7. .

U 1 -10 .. ^--^ ....... ........ ........ .- .
: Natural ef
-- -- -- -- ......-- ---------------------------------------- ----- --
-20
0 150 300 450 600 750 900 1050 1200 1350 1500
Distance from monument 97C (ft) Seaward
Figure 28 Section E-E'. Profile at Approximate Mid-Length of the Reef. Monument R97C.






5.5. Definition of Study Zones

For purposes of overall comparison of sediment volume changes, the study area is divided into six

zones as shown in Figure 29. The inner three zones and the outer three zones are landward and

seaward of the Reef, respectively. Each of the zones is approximately 240 feet in width, the mean


II I I I I I
-Seawall
---- -- ------ -- S section E-E'
.... July 1992
- ..--.-. ...........- ....... A u g u st 19 9 3 ......- ..........-... .................
July 1994
S....... June 1995........ ------- ---
----- -u n








offshore distance of the 330 Reef units from the shoreline. Zones one 94A Zone Designation
and two are between monuments 94A and 95E, zones three and four zone I zone 2 2000
95E ---4-
95E ..............................I ..-.. ...... ..... _-I
are between monuments 95E and 99B and zones five and six are I
t zone 3 zone 4 4000'
defined by monuments 99B and 101A. The northern and southern .
regions extend roughly 2000 feet north and south of the Reef and the 99B z 6 2.........
zone 5 zone 6 2000'
central region is within the approximate 4000 feet Reef confines. 01A 240'+/- -- 240'+/- -

Figure 29 Zone Locations
5.6. Seaward Elevation Changes by Zones
In order to examine the cross-shore profile changes in the six zones, the elevation changes versus
cross-shore distance were averaged over the longshore length of the zone. The average cross-shore
elevation changes for the periods discussed earlier are shown in Figure 30.
Examining Figure 30a, (August 1993 to July 1994), zone one has a small negative change whereas
zone three in the lee of the Reef has experienced erosion, and an increase in elevation has occurred
in zone five. The changes for the three outer zones are small compared to those in the three inner
zones.
Referring to Figure 30b, (July 1994 to June 1995), zone one indicates a slight increase of elevation
whereas zone five has experienced substantial erosion up to 5.1 feet, and zone three shows continued
erosion.

As plotted in Figure 30c, (July 1992 to June 1995), the greatest change is erosional and occurred in
the lee of the Reef (zone three) losing up to 3.9 feet of material. The elevation in the region south
of the Reef and seaward of its alignment has also decreased up to 2.1 feet.
As shown in Figure 30d, (August 1993 to June 1995), the most notable feature is the large loss of
elevation in zone five with a maximum scour of 3.9 feet at a location roughly 80 feet from the
shoreline. Again zone three experienced considerable erosion, while the changes for the three outer
zones are small compared to the three inner zones.


5.7. Volume Changes by Zones
As described in the First Six Month Report (Dean, et. al, 1994), the volume changes per lineal foot
are converted into volume change (yds3) by the "average end area method". Appendix III presents










Aii~rit 1001 tn Tihlv 1004


S2
) 0
I-2
S-4
i -6








o
-2
a)











g -4
-6
w -8
u-10
I 0
a2












S0
-2



0-4
(5-6

E -8
(-10
&2
& 0
. -2







-4


,w-8
--10

S 0


60 120 180 240 300
Distance from Shoreline (feet)
(b)
July 1992 to June 1995


60 120 180 240 300
Distance from Shoreline (feet)
(c)


420
Seaward -t-


480


360 420
Seaward -


360 4,awa20 480
Seaward -^


August 1993 to June 1995
......... -77 -- --- "

S< -- ........ North areas (zonel&zone2)
S Reef confines (zone3&zone4)
---- South areas (zone5&zone6)

I P Ree


60 120 180 240 300
Distance from Shoreline (feet)
(d)


360 seawrd420 480


Figure 30 Cross-shore Averaged Elevation Changes for Zones Defined in Figure 29.


July 1994 to June 1995
..'"...... .. ........ ------- -..............-

,.' ......... North areas (zonel&zone2)
*.--- .._, Reef confines (zone3&zone4)
SS-- outh areas (zone5&zone6)

_elk I I I


60 120 180 240 300
Distance from Shoreline (feet)
(a)


)


3








)


0


...... North areas (zonel&.zone2)
Reef confines (zone3&zone4)
---South areas (zone5&zone6)







the tables of the volume changes. The zone volume changes for the four periods noted earlier are
illustrated in Figure 31.


August 1993 to July 1994 (First Annual Basis)
Figure 31a shows the volume changes in the six zones for the one year period between August 1993
and July 1994. Over this period, zones two and four showed small gains. Zones one and six
experienced small losses. Zone three showed substantial erosion, amounting to -37,400 yds3, whereas
zone five experienced a considerable gain of 17,600 yds3 material, with an average shoreline
advancement of 12.4 feet.


July 1994 to June 1995 (Second Annual Basis)
Figure 31b presents the volumetric changes for the one year period between July 1994 and June
1995. The three outer zones lost a total of 8,200 yds3 of material. Zone three continued to
experience losses which amounted to 47,800 yds3 of material whereas zone one gained 7,300 yds3
for this period. The most noteworthy change is that zone five showed substantial losses of 52,900
yds3, while from August 1993 to July 1994 this area had gained 17,600 yds3.


July 1992 to June 1995 (Net Basis for Entire Monitoring Period)
Figure 31c presents the cumulative volume changes occurring during the total thirty-five month
period between preconstruction 1992 and June 1995. Five of the six regions have experienced
negative changes. The total change for the three outer zones is -26,800 yds3, and the total for the
three inner zones is -125,900 yds3. The smallest negative change occurred in zone four with erosion
of 6,600 yds3. The only positive change is in zone two and is very small (200 yds3). Most of the loss
occurred in the lee of the Reef, where the average loss of material over the 4,000 foot shoreline is
approximately 26.7 yds3/f, and the average MHW shoreline has retreated roughly 25.8 feet in this
region. Overall during this thirty-five month period, the six regions lost a total of 152,700 yds3 of
material. More than 70% of this total loss occurred in the lee of the Reef.









August 1993 to July 1994


-5,600 1,900
.................... .... e e ..........
Reef


94A


95E


o

99B


101A


17,600


- 240'


3,600


-5,700


-I- 240'
(a)


July 1994 to June 1995
94A


-T-
2000'



4000'



2000'
2000'
A-


July 1992 to June 1995


August


1993 to June 1995


200


..................... e . .......


-6,600


-20,400


-240' -- 240' -
(c)


-r
2000'



t4
4000'



2000'
*


94A


95E


0

99B


101/


1,700 800
.................... R e ..........
'Reef

-85,200 -1,800


........ .. .. .......
-35,300 -7,400

-240' 240' -
(d)


Figure 31 Volumetric Changes by Zones for Four Periods.


-37,400


94A


95E


o

99B


101A


-8,100


106,900


-10,900


-r-
2000'



4000'



2000'
A-_







August 1993 to June 1995 (Overall Basis for All Units Present Period)
Figure 31d depicts the overall volumetric changes that have taken place during the monitoring period
of the fully installed Reef from August 1993 to June 1995. The overall changes of the six zones for
this period are erosional with a total loss of 127,200 yds3. The greatest loss (- 85,200 yls )
occurred landward of the Reef. The second greatest loss (-35,300 yds3) occurred south and landward
of the Reef. The volumetric changes for the remaining four zones varied between -7,400 yds3 and
+1,700 yds3.


5.8. Volumetric Changes Over Time
Figure 32 presents the variations over time of the sediment volume changes in the various zones
landward of the Reef alignment. It is seen that the trends of volumetric loss immediately landward
of the Reef have continued with a total loss from July 1992 to June 1995 of 106,900 yds3. A change
is that the area south of the Reef which had been characterized by accretion until July 1994, has
continued to experience erosion over the last four intersurvey periods.
Figure 33 presents the variations over time of the sediment volume changes in the various zones
seaward of the Reef alignment. The relatively small losses seaward of the Reef are evident by
comparing Figures 32 and 33 which are presented with the same scales. The overall seaward
changes are less than one-third of those occurring landward of the Reef. However, all net changes
are erosional, consistent with the general erosional stress in the area.




6. PHYSICAL MODEL STUDY


6.1. Test Program
A laboratory test reported by Dean et al. (1994) and Browder (1994) has evaluated the hydrodynamic
performance of the PEP Reef in the three-dimensional wave basin at the Coastal and Oceanographic
Engineering Laboratory (COEL) of the University of Florida. This model study was carried out to
investigate the installation of the PEP Reef at Vero Beach, Florida; however, because of the general
nature of the results, they are reported only briefly here. Forty-eight individual 1:16 model scale












Landward of Reef Alignment


-150000 ."4 / i 1 .1 1-11 11- -- _ _I_


Figure 32 Histories of Cumulative Volume Changes for Three Inner Zones.






Seaward of Reef Alignm ent


150000


50000



0


-50000


-150000


Figure 33 Histories of Cumulative Volume Changes for Three Outer Zones.


150000


50000



0


-50000


*....... 2000'N and S ofReeR
--* within Reefconfines (zone 4)
S Net
---- -----. 2000'N (zon. 2)
-..... ...... 2000'S (zon. B)
















04/9T T T T T1 4 1 4 0 5
________________ 04193N lgI91___1___/ra. 03/94 07/ 4 11104 V1/04 0-3195 06195








concrete units were tested in various configurations on a fixed horizontal bed. Periodic waves were
used in the study. Figure 34 shows a schematic of the laboratory setup.
Evaluation of the Reef consisted of wave attenuation measurements as well as current measurements
via dye and drogues. Capacitance type wave gages were used to measure wave heights from which
transmission coefficients, Kt, were determined as described previously. Current measurements were
based on videotaping dye movement and drogue displacement on the floor of the fixed concrete bed.


P.E.P. Reef Model


1:B Gravel Gridded
Beach Test Area


Paddle
Wavemnaker


Figure 34 Schematic of Model Basin Arrangement for PEP Reef Testing (Dean et al., 1994).


6.2. Laboratory Results
This physical model study predicts transmission coefficients of greater than 0.95 for general Palm
Beach conditions, much greater than those obtained from field data, more consistent with the field
measurements where the previously noted non-Reef induced dissipation was taken into consideration.
Figure 35 presents bottom drogue trajectories induced by the Reef system which indicate the
existence of a pumping mechanism over the Reef system. It was found that especially for small Reef
freeboards ( still water to breakwater crest elevations), a strong current pattern generated by flow
over the structure caused a longshore current to the ends of the Reef and then offshore. These flows







would play a key role in sediment transport and the cause is interpreted as follows. The transport of
water over a submerged breakwater creates an increased water level elevation termed "ponding" in
the lee of the structure. This ponded water cannot return seaward as readily as it would without the
presence of the Reef and a portion of the water transport over the Reef is directed alongshore. These
alongshore current velocities are related to the relative height of the structure, the length of the
structure, the proximity of the structure to the beach, and wave height. It is evident that all of these
are relevant design parameters. The ponding elevations are believed to be relatively small for the
Palm Beach installation, and although neither the ponding nor associated currents were documented
directly in the field, it appears that the effects on erosion landward of the Reef were substantial.





111 1 1k"


p tI I I,
I




Figure 35 Circulation Patterns Documented in Model Studies. Showing Result of Net Flow of
Water Over the Reef and Induced Longshore Currents (Dean et al., 1994).



7. INTERPRETATION


The wave transmission coefficient values obtained from the field were found to be surprisingly low
(greater dissipation and/or reflection) compared to published results and laboratory measurements.
One possible explanation is the dissipation of energy due to wave breaking and other non-Reef
effects, such as bottom friction and possibly wave-wave interaction. Independent field measurements
south of the Reef support a wave height reduction independent of the Reef.







Generally, the patterns and magnitudes of erosion/deposition indicate that the Reef has had a
deleterious effect on the stability of the beach and nearshore profiles. Comparison of the long-term
background erosion rates with those determined in the approximate three year monitoring period
suggests that the Reef causes an additional erosion rate above the background of approximately
130%. Patterns of volumetric change throughout the monitoring period are supportive of the
ponding and pumping mechanisms described earlier. Specifically, the early monitoring periods after
installation documented substantial losses landward of the Reef and deposition south of the Reef
(Figure 32). Later surveys have documented the continuing erosion landward of the Reef and
erosion south of the Reef. This erosion south of the Reef is consistent with the background trends,
which were erosional. Due to the general sediment deficient conditions in the area (Dean, 1995),
the accretional signal to the south soon changed to erosion. The overall losses landward of the Reef
from July 1992 to June 1995 are 5.6 times greater than over the same shoreline length north and
south of the Reef. During August 1993 to June 1995, this ratio is 2.3.




8. BIOLOGICAL STUDIES


8.1. General
Three biological study components were conducted under contract as part of the overall field
monitoring program: turtle monitoring, fish studies, and invertebrate studies. The results of these
studies are summarized briefly in the following sections and the final summary reports are included
as appendices to this report.


8.2. Turtle Monitoring
Turtle monitoring was conducted under the direction of Dr. John Fletemeyer for the 1993, 1994 and
1995 nesting seasons. Removal of the PEP Reef was completed on August 19, 1995 prior to the end
of the 1995 turtle nesting season. The study was designed with an area to the south of the PEP Reef
serving as a control for the beach immediately landward of the Reef area. It was found that over the
three year period: (1) The number of nests on the control beach was greater than on the PEP beach







(331 vs 72), (2) The percentage of nests to total crawls was greater on the PEP beach than on the
control beach (66% vs 54%), and (3) There was no statistical difference in hatching success on the
control and PEP beaches. It was hypothesized that the greater number of nests on the control beach
was due to its greater width. No explanation was found for the greater nesting success on the PEP
beach. The question was raised but not answered whether or not the fish attracted by the PEP Reef
resulted in greater predation of juvenile turtles during their exodus from the beach. The final turtle
monitoring report which summarizes the results for all three years of monitoring is included as
Appendix IV.


8.3. Fish Studies
Fish and invertebrate studies were conducted under the direction of and by contract with Dr. Ken
Lindeman of the University of Miami. Dr. Lindeman conducted the fish studies and subcontracted
the invertebrate studies to Dr. Joshua Feingold of Nova Southeastern University. Fish studies were
conducted through both daytime and night dives. It was found that a total of 91 species of fish were
in direct association with the Reef with 5 of these species present only during night. Most of the fish
found in association with the Reef were juveniles, although there were notable exceptions. Overall,
the Reef served as a significant attractor of a wide variety of fish species. The final summary report
by Dr. Lindeman is included as Appendix V.


8.4. Invertebrate Studies
Invertebrate studies also documented a large number of species (67) which is believed to be an
underestimate. The more common types of invertebrates included: sponges, corals, starfish, algae,
sand worms, etc. It was found that in general the percentage of cover by invertebrates on the Reef
modules increased from 1994 to 1995, although there were some modules on which the cover
decreased. Overall, the Reef modules provided a good substrate for a variety of invertebrate
establishment. The final summary report by Dr. Feingold is included as Appendix VI.







9. CONCLUSIONS


Based on the monitoring results of the PEP Reef installation in Palm Beach and related model studies,
a detached submerged or emergent breakwater modifies both the wave and current fields landward
of the breakwater, with the modifications depending substantially on the crest elevation relative to
the still water level. For higher relative crest elevations (emergent breakwaters), wave heights and
currents in the breakwater lee are both reduced. At the Palm Beach installation, it appears that wave
height reductions were not sufficient to offset the increased sediment transporting capacity of the
currents, resulting in scour landward of the breakwater. Over the twenty-three month monitoring
period during which the full Reef was installed, the measured erosion in the lee of the Reef was more
than twice the background erosion.


This study has identified two significant mechanisms which are important in offshore breakwater
design. The first is the role of breakwater crest height. A low crest height may allow so much water
to flow over the breakwater that resulting longshore flows will outweigh the benefits of a small
reduction in wave height and cause beach erosion landward of breakwater. The second relates to the
effect of the offshore distance of the breakwater. Based on numerical model results not reported
here, the volume of water flow over the breakwater is only secondarily affected by the offshore
location of the breakwater. However, the longshore currents vary inversely with this distance.
Clearly the most appropriate design of an offshore breakwater is complicated due to the possible
range of conditions in nature, including major storms and associated storm tides. Comprehensive
designs must consider the full range of hydrodynamic and breakwater parameters, and sedimentary
effects and be based on an understanding of mechanisms that require further investigation.


The biological studies documented that the PEP Reef served as an effective attraction for fish and
substrate for invertebrates. Turtle nesting densities were considerably less on beaches landward of
the Reef than on a control beach; however, the ratios of nests to total crawls were higher.







10. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors appreciate the sponsorship of this study by the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) and the Town of Palm Beach. Sea Systems, Inc., of Pompano Beach, FL., carried
out the surveys in a responsive and professional manner. Albert Browder and Michael Dombrowski
(both formerly of the University of Florida) and Mr. Paden Woodruff of DEP contributed significantly
to various elements of this study.




11. REFERENCES


Browder, A.E., 1994. "Wave Transmission and Current Patterns Associated with Narrow-Crested
Submerged Breakwaters.", Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department, M.S.
Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 118 pp.
Browder, A.E., Dombrowski, M.R., Dean, R.G., and Chen, R., 1994. "Performance of the
P.E.P. Reef Installation, Twelve Months Results", UFL/COEL-94/017, Coastal and
Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 26
pp. plus 3 appendices.
Dean, R.G., 1995. "Historical Shoreline Changes in the Vicinity of the PEP Reef Installation and
Reef Effects, Palm Beach, Florida", UFL/COEL-95/008, Coastal and Oceanographic
Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 17 pp.
Dean, R.G., Dombrowski, M.R., and Browder, A.E., 1994. "Performance of the P.E.P. Reef
Installation, Town of Palm Beach, First Six Months Results." UFL/COEL-94/002,
Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida, 34 pp. plus 5 appendices.
Dean, R.G., Browder, A.E., Goodrich, M.S., and Donaldson, D.G.,1994. Model Tests of the
Proposed P.E.P Reef Installation at Vero Beach, Florida", UFL/COEL-94-012, Coastal
and Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida,
28 pp. plus 2 appendices.
Dean, R.G., and Chen, R., 1995a. "Performance of the P.E.P. Reef Installation, Town of Palm







10. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors appreciate the sponsorship of this study by the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) and the Town of Palm Beach. Sea Systems, Inc., of Pompano Beach, FL., carried
out the surveys in a responsive and professional manner. Albert Browder and Michael Dombrowski
(both formerly of the University of Florida) and Mr. Paden Woodruff of DEP contributed significantly
to various elements of this study.




11. REFERENCES


Browder, A.E., 1994. "Wave Transmission and Current Patterns Associated with Narrow-Crested
Submerged Breakwaters.", Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department, M.S.
Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 118 pp.
Browder, A.E., Dombrowski, M.R., Dean, R.G., and Chen, R., 1994. "Performance of the
P.E.P. Reef Installation, Twelve Months Results", UFL/COEL-94/017, Coastal and
Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 26
pp. plus 3 appendices.
Dean, R.G., 1995. "Historical Shoreline Changes in the Vicinity of the PEP Reef Installation and
Reef Effects, Palm Beach, Florida", UFL/COEL-95/008, Coastal and Oceanographic
Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 17 pp.
Dean, R.G., Dombrowski, M.R., and Browder, A.E., 1994. "Performance of the P.E.P. Reef
Installation, Town of Palm Beach, First Six Months Results." UFL/COEL-94/002,
Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida, 34 pp. plus 5 appendices.
Dean, R.G., Browder, A.E., Goodrich, M.S., and Donaldson, D.G.,1994. Model Tests of the
Proposed P.E.P Reef Installation at Vero Beach, Florida", UFL/COEL-94-012, Coastal
and Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida,
28 pp. plus 2 appendices.
Dean, R.G., and Chen, R., 1995a. "Performance of the P.E.P. Reef Installation, Town of Palm








Beach, Seventeen Months Results." UFL/COEL-95/004, Coastal and Oceanographic
Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 26 pp. plus 3
appendices.
Dean, R.G., and Chen, R., 1995b. "Performance of the P.E.P. Reef Installation, Town of Palm
Beach, Twenty Months Results." UFL/COEL-95/009, Coastal and Oceanographic
Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 10 pp.
Dean, R.G., and Chen, R., 1995c. "Performance of the P.E.P. Reef Installation, Town of Palm
Beach, Twenty-Three Months Results." UFL/COEL-95/016, Coastal and Oceanographic
Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 26 pp. plus 4
appendices.
Dean, R.G., and Chen, R., 1995d. "Shoreline Response and Sediment Transport in the Vicinity of
Lake Worth Entrance on Palm Beach Island." UFL/COEL-95/024, Coastal and
Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 6 pp.
Dean, R.G., and Grant, J., 1989. "Development of Methodology for Thirty-year Shoreline
Projections in the Vicinity of Beach Nourishment Projects", UFL/COEL-89/026, Coastal
and Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida,
65 pp. plus 9 appendices.
Lippmann, T.C., and R.A. Holman, 1989. Wave Dissipation on a Barred Beach: A Method for
Determining Sand Bar Morphology", CERC-89-1, US Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC.
Schowengerdt, R.A., 1983. "Techniques for Image Processing and Classification in Remote
Sensing", Academic Press.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (1987). "Beach Erosion Control Project, Palm Beach Country,
Florida", Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, FL, 69 pp.













APPENDIX I


PEP Reef
Offshore & Nearshore
Wave Gage Data
January October, 1994
and

January June, 1995




(Consistent with Florida Coastal Data Network, units are given in meters. 1 m = 3.28 ft)




































0 30 60 90 120 150
Date


180 210 240 270 300


Figure I-1 Offshore Gage Significant Wave Height, January October, 1994.


: + :



+ + +:+




+ - +H- + +*
I---+ *--++ +
- 1-1+ : + + +
t-++ -t- +h- + +: -H- -HF
+ -H-+ : + -- -H+-lH



"- _- -i| -:
4+
+tt+





.January February: March
I. 4h I


: I-H- : + -+

:+ + + + +
+-H- +-~- + -H- + -- -+ t+
-4..i r --: '14ff 144-f 4- I - ft -1i- +
-I-+-IH -If-HF +- -- + + + f-!t
-sH-f -:H- + -H +f -: - -H-I -H+ -- :-
+ :f-+ :-t H-it +- -itt- :t-+ --H- -t + + :
S++ + + + ++ -
+ ++
S+ + +++

+.L -J4 + + + u


April


May June
S I


SJuly
I,


+!-
-IA-



I-I-
-IF


+
+Htf- +


H-

tw

ff ]


0 30 60 90 120 150
Date


180 210 240 270 300


Figure I-2 Offshore Gage Modal Period, January October, 1994







T-2


+ : : : : +:
+ : + : :


+: :+ :
.. .... ........ .. ..........


1.5






1.0



I


0.5






0.0


15






10



E
F-


August September October.
S I: I:


1 I


I I I I



















E S .......... ................... ............... . ... ...... --------
ES-




E


January February March April May June July August Septe
I i I I'r I I :1
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240
Date
Figure I-3 Offshore Gage Modal Wave Direction, January October, 1994


0.5 : I


0.4 -
E January 'February March April May June July A

0 .3 .. - - -.. .
0
_I .. +
> + +: -+
S0.2 + ~ .. --
+ + -- + + +.

+ .... ..*+ H -


0.0 + +-
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210
Date
Figure I-4 Offshore Gage Mean Current, January October, 1994


270 300


240 270 300


1-3



















N++ + +. + #- + +
+ +
++ + ++

++ - -- --'-- +1 + +








0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240
Date

Figure 1-5 Offshore Gage Mean Current Direction, January October, 1994








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





--
++;











E 0 .... .. ...... .......... .................... -----
+ +









+ + -+ + + + ,+
N








0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240
Date

Figure I-5 Offshore Gage Mean Current Direction, January October, 1994






1.5








Lf- #-
U) + + + + +






+ + + + + + +
January bruary Marct April May ne July Agust pte
0.0 I I----- -I---I -
0.0


270 300


0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
Date

Figure I-6 Nearshore Gage Significant Wave Height, January October, 1994.


1-4


I~











: : : I .



+ i+ + f- +~-: -fH- : +
i -j + :+ + : +- t tt ++t- -HiH- : + :+ +- : + + -H---


1 -F-------------- ---------: -. :
-1 -I I -I 11111 1- +III1TH H- in-I- *H-+ + t+ H t 11 H- I -+ + H++ -r* IIII+ +WII*I* +\ t if H- H I)-IH +-
+H-+- ++ + + H : --HH--+H-i -Hi-m + + ++ +++ + -Hit--

5-
S H -H- : :+ -- tt- + ++ : -
E- + + + + +4 +

+ + -i: -*m++ ^ YH- H-




January February March April May June July August September October


0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
Date

Figure I-7 Nearshore Gage Modal Period, January October, 1994


0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210
Date


240 270 300


Figure I-8 Nearshore Gage Modal Wave Direction, January October, 1994


I-5










0.5 I:- :- --- I ---- : I:-- I:--



0.4 -
January February: March April May June July Aun

0.3
0
> +++
+ t+ + +
C 0 .2 -. .... + ... ...... . ..........
+-4-*+- + -i4* + +
._ + +.+- +: + ++ + ++ +i-









Figure 1-9 Nearshore Gage Mean Current, January October, 1994
+:+ + + +4t
+,+ .....+ ..
0.1 -+-PH 4. ., .,.



0.0 f+ 4 -
0 30 80 90 120 150 180 210
Date
Figure 1-9 Nearsbore Gage Mean Current, January October, 1994


I: :1 I 1- I



++ +
: "^++

l+ + +


+ +t i+ + +
----l- ; ---t-+t*+- '~ +-+



Jnu + N I


January February IMarch April May June July

+ +
I: I I i I' I:


240 270 300


+ +


++
* ...... ...... I








August September October

4I -6 I n..i .1: -dI t .


Iv
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 2
Date

Figure 1-10 Nearshore Gage Mean Current Direction, January October, 1994


1-6


70 300


" "' "~"'-










1.5 I : I I : I I I I I :





1.0 ............... .....i l .... .. -- --- --... ... ......
+ + + :+ +
+ i --+ + +
+ u+ + f s++ +-t +
+ +++ + ++
S- + + + + +t+
+ I +d- + t+t -H- ++ + ++ +#+
#I-+ + + + -t + K+ +4' 4 Q+ + + +
0.5 . H----- -+--- +. i +.. % 4 +







0 18 36 54 72 90 108 126 144 162 180

Date

Figure I-11 Offshore Gage Significant Wave Height, January June, 1995.


-H-i-H- :

+ -- + +H


-- :+H +

-++-fH -+ -


++- -++ :-- : + +
+-- + S:++-+ + + ++ + : + + +
+t-
-..-.- -. i+&R-F -+f ---- + -- :-F --- --4 : + + : -.... ........ + -
-*HIIIIIH--.t H+H- -+ +i- -+7- *F + + + ++- -- +- -+ ++ + + -H- + + .
+ +++-H--Ht- +H-t -H+H-+ : -H- + +-+t -H- -I-: + -H- : + + -H -H-
S + : ++-t ++ -H- H +- --+ +-
+++ + + + H H-+

+* .+ .- +. -+ +
+ E-It +- + + +- +
H-4 +-H- +- + + + -


January


February


March


April


May
I


4V++.


June
I


0 I
0 18 36 54 72 90 108 126 144 162 180
Date

Figure 1-12 Offshore Gage Modal Period, January June, 1995.


I-7


H-


I I 1 I _


P++ ^:#7 T o +_A_


F ++
































0 18 36 54 72 90 108 126 144
Date
Figure 1-13 Offshore Gage Modal Wave Direction, January June, 1995.




0.5 I : I


0.4 ................................... .......-- .-- --- ------- --...........................
0.4
January February March April May
E
.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .. . . . . . . . ..-- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
o.3
No data available during January through March


+ +
S:+ + + +
()+4 + -44-
0.2 4- -. 1. -
0.1 -- T_- + -- -



o.0 I----- l -I--- i i i


0 18 36 54 72 90 108 126
Date
Figure 1-14 Offshore Gage Mean Current, January June, 1995.


144 162 180


I-8


I : I I I : I I





++ + ++




No data available:during January through March






January February i arch April May June


162




















+
....... --- -------- : --------------
i+ +


E -
: +


: + +

SJanuary f ebruary, : -arch
N
0 18 36 54 72 90 108 126 144 162 180
Date
Figure 1-15 Offshore Gage Mean Current Direction, January June, 1995.






1.5 I : I :

+

S4+ ++ +
++
1.0 + +


S i + + + ++ .+

+ -,4 +. + ++ + + + + ++
0.5 .... I. ..... "+ + ..


0.5 ------ ------ i-+4-- >----------------------



0 18 36 54 72 90 108 126 144 162 180
Date
Figure 1-16 Nearshore Gage Significant Wave Height, January June, 1995.
Figure 1-16 Nearshore Gage Significant Wave Height, January June, 1995.


1-9












H-:

H-t

H- :+


I
-tH--H-

+ H-+


+-


I I


I -.: I
Hi- -H-H H-


: -

: +


15







10



E
I-


5







0


0 18 36 54 72 90 108 126 144 162 180

Date

Figure 1-17 Nearshore Gage Modal Period, January June, 1995.


I ** I


No data available during January through March


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


N
0 18 36 54 72 90 108 126 144 162 180
Date

Figure 1-18 Nearshore Gage Modal Wave Direction, January June, 1995.


I-10


+ : +-H + + + -
-....... "4F-4: :. : ._- ... 4 - -........ 4+ ..... 1. -: ....... f: -4:+-' "-W ............. 4 ...... ....
++H+-Ht++ -m+H-+ -+H- + -i+- ++ -+ + I+ +- *Hi-- + +++ -+ : -H-+f +H +.
+ -H--Ht -H-+-H- -Hi-+ :-- -- -- :-H- -+ li- -H+ -H-+ +-H- I -H-+ +H -H-
+ ++ I I + :+ -- -H + -H- :-H- +-+- K- + -H- t H-- + -
-H-t + + .+ + ++ +-ff- -H-F ++ + +
+ ++ + :+ + +-+4 + +-
+ -4+ +Ht +A H + + t-
+
++ +. + +
-----4- -- .. .. .. : --.. ... -
+t---------- ------ t -
+- ++ + +




January February March April May June
I IL I I I I I 6


' '


-





I -


I ;


I


March


May


,April


January February


,June










0.5 I I I I



0.4 -
January February March April M

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

"a No data available during January through March +

0.2 ------
+- +

S0. ................. .................................... .. . .....

+0.0l $
+0.0 : + +j
0 .1 . . . . . . .i



0 18 36 54 72 90 108 126
Date
Figure 1-19 Nearshore Gage Mean Current, January June, 1995.


144 162 180


IN
0 18 36 54 72 90 108 126 144
Date

Figure 1-20 Nearshore Gage Mean Current Direction, January June, 1995.






I-11


-4-


+




+ + +
+ +

-+
+ _ ++!
No data available! during January through March : +




-41 +

January February March ^ ^ ^+^^a+yl^cue


162 180


1 I


__ _I II I II I 1


i I i i I I i ]











APPENDIX I


PEP Reef Unit Settlement Results


II-1














I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I


++4+
.. + .-............ ................ . +F 4.. ......................
-H-++ ++
- -+- + + +
+I+ + + + +- +
+ + + + +


+ +


+i-H


+ +
-H-+4


0


0
0 0


00
0000
- ..... ... O 0-
O
i


. . . . . . .
+ Design
O 09/02
O 08/03
V 12/93
A 03/94
0 06/94
X 11/94
o 12/94
+ o3/95
0 oe/s5
I I I I i I


0 0
0 0 0
0 000
00 000








Nt
v ^^Al

b^Ula,

^*%B


Unit Number

Figure II-1 Top of Structure Elevations Original 57 Units.


1-2


i l I i i














0
> 4 - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - -. .. . .. . . ... -. . . .. 3. ... . ...

z

--------------------- 0
C







-N 6/3941
>* 6 - -- - - - - - -- . - -^ m . -o * *- - --- *-












S-3
0

:Ve 7 PaK8 ^ V 12/93
+ 6/94
X 11/94
12/94
"N 03/ 95
.8 . I -. . I I* I I I . I I I o
C 06/ 95
-8
50 60 70 80 90 100
unit #

Figure H-2 Top of Structure Elevations Units 50-100.








-3 I I I


o
> -4 ----- --- ------

Z Cm M cmm o M

-5. -........ .. ... .. C... -
0 v 0 00
._I ooo W ooo :00 c, o^ooO
> 6 vv .-C>.



as- u9u il
0 8/93 D ~f 9 C) CDtD'
> 12/93
-- 6/94
X 111/94
T 12/94
-- N -. 03/95
a 06/95
-8 I I
10 0 110 120 13 0 14 0 150
unit #

Figure H-3 Top of Structure Elevations Units 100-150.


1-3

































16 0


18 0
unit #


190 200


Figure H-4 Top of Structure Elevations Units 150-200.


-3



>-4
(D
z

-5
0
O
'-6
LU
w

-7


-8 '
200


210 220 230 240
un it #


Figure H-5 Top of Structure Elevations Units 200-250.


11-4


250


150



























-7 Imm7------------- --- . ......

N
8 .- I . .. .. I . . I .. ...I
250 260 270 280 290
unit #

Figure H-6 Top of Structure Elevations Units 250-300.


300


3 10


320


330
un it #


340


Figure H-7 Top of Structure Elevations Units 300-330.






1-5


300


350


ED

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .
ID








El- as-built
........ ... ............ .-- ---. ---.. .. -------.---.---.. - -





<> 3/94
- - - - - - - - - - r . . . -- - - - --- - _+ 6 / 9




SX 11/94 -
S 12/ 94
: W 03/95
N N 06/95
z = I 1 I r I I











APPENDIX m


Elevation and Volume Changes


a). Tabulation of Volumetric Changes on Survey Profiles
b). Tabulation of Volume Changes Between Survey Profiles
c). Tabulation of Elevation Changes Between Survey Profiles


III-1






Table Ill-la


P.E.P. Reef Monitoring -Volumetric changes on survey line dated August 1993 and July 1994.

Profile Dist to Length o Volume Chane (cu. yards/linear foot) Inner Outer
Line Reef (ft Cells (ft) Celll Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8 Subtoubtotabtotal Total

92F 60 -0.35 0.82 0.15 -0.03 0.35 1.99 3.36 5.30 0.60 11.00 11.60
93B 60 1.55 4.07 2.23 2.06 1.27 1.18 1.51 0.84 9.91 4.81 14.72
93C 60 1.02 8.08 0.85 -0.66 -2.57 -1.76 0.11 1.38 9.29 -2.84 6.45
93D 60 0.21 3.51 -2.77 -0.91 0.33 -0.82 1.56 0.51 0.04 1.59 1.62
93E 60 1.13 -0.58 1.98 0.76 1.14 1.97 1.13 1.56 3.30 5.79 9.09
94A 60 0.80 1.18 -2.80 -1.51 0.41 -1.30 -0.06 0.24 -2.33 -0.71 -3.04
94B 60 0.12 2.26 -1.08 -1.38 0.61 2.30 2.66 3.23 -0.09 8.80 8.71
94C 60 -1.78 2.13 0.91 2.56 2.47 0.82 0.25 1.02 3.82 4.56 8.38
94D 60 -3.03 -2.19 -0.90 -0.67 -0.48 1.60 1.67 1.40 -6.79 4.19 -2.59
94F 60 -3.69 -2.49 -3.16 -1.39 -2.10 -0.59 -0.31 0.30 -10.74 -2.70 -13.44
94G 60 -0.43 0.96 -3.27 -1.55 -0.05 0.00 0.97 1.28 -4.29 2.19 -2.09
94H 60 0.45 -1.00 1.26 0.12 -2.40 -1.77 -1.29 -0.13 0.83 -5.59 -4.75
94J 60 1.65 2.48 -1.69 -2.13 -2.58 -0.53 -0.43 -0.21 0.30 -3.74 -3.44
95A 60 2.49 0.09 -0.03 -1.97 -0.84 -0.32 0.56 2.67 0.59 2.07 2.65
95B 60 -2.69 -3.06 -0.23 0.23 -0.08 -0.15 -0.03 0.65 -5.76 0.40 -5.36
95C 60 -4.14 -1.90 -0.14 0.10 1.43 0.79 0.42 1.38 -6.07 4.02 -2.06
95D 60 -2.25 -1.15 1.16 0.16 -0.86 -2.56 -2.33 -1.70 -2.08 -7.46 -9.54
95E 320 80 -0.23 1.02 -0.95 -3.38 2.03 1.10 0.17 0.08 -3.54 3.38 -0.15
95E1 300 70 -0.13 0.79 -5.09 -2.58 0.58 0.01 -0.31 -0.06 -7.00 0.23 -6.78
95F 320 70 -0.14 0.98 -4.10 -2.22 1.43 0.08 -0.40 0.97 -5.49 2.09 -3.40
95F1 300 75 -2.15 0.40 -3.82 -4.10 1.53 -0.94 -1.71 -0.92 -9.68 -2.04 -11.72
96A 60 3.20 -0.67 0.83 -2.18 -2.50 -0.56 -0.42 0.42 1.18 -3.06 -1.88
96A1 60 1.19 -1.79 -0.52 -3.19 -3.27 -1.22 1.41 0.96 -4.32 -2.12 -6.44
96B 60 3.15 -2.77 -0.08 -1.55 -1.24 -2.60 -0.15 0.55 -1.25 -3.44 -4.69
96B1 280 70 2.01 -2.73 -1.33 -2.91 -2.04 0.86 2.35 2.97 -4.96 4.13 -0.83
96C 140 35 0.04 -0.90 -1.35 -1.07 0.75 1.32 1.74 1.74 -3.28 5.56 2.28
96C1 160 42 -0.36 -0.54 -0.85 -1.16 -0.08 0.45 0.86 1.34 -2.91 2.57 -0.35
96D 208 50 0.18 -0.78 -0.06 -0.11 -0.34 -1.04 -1.38 -1.89 -0.78 -4.65 -5.42
96E 240 60 -4.14 -2.56 -3.19 -4.53 1.61 0.69 -0.13 0.48 -14.41 2.65 -11.76
96F 200 57 -4.87 -1.22 -1.91 -1.94 -0.82 0.14 0.45 -1.31 -9.94 -1.54 -11.49
96G 212 54 -5.47 -1.74 -3.43 -1.46 0.09 -0.94 1.03 -0.49 -12.10 -0.31 -12.41
97A 224 58 -2.42 0.21 -2.52 -2.93 -0.15 2.70 2.75 3.80 -7.65 9.10 1.46
97B 212 53 -2.91 -1.04 -3.49 -1.47 1.41 -0.09 -0.83 -1.16 -8.91 -0.67 -9.58
97C 212 53 -2.06 -1.37 -4.03 -2.91 -0.52 0.04 0.47 0.60 -10.37 0.59 -9.79
97D 208 52 -1.15 -1.11 -3.57 -4.28 -1.60 -2.60 -0.57 0.97 -10.11 -3.80 -13.91
97E 184 47 -1.36 -0.71 -3.38 -2.56 0.67 1.15 -0.64 -0.20 -8.01 0.98 -7.04
97F 184 47 -2.07 -0.44 -2.90 -2.05 -0.10 0.28 1.10 0.76 -7.45 2.04 -5.42
98A 200 52 -1.02 -0.86 -3.27 -2.25 -0.88 0.13 0.47 0.20 -7.39 -0.08 -7.47
98B 212 52 -2.78 -2.07 -3.53 -3.46 -1.17 0.35 1.57 0.59 -11.84 1.34 -10.50
98C 216 55 -1.49 -1.95 -4.77 -2.56 -1.28 -0.19 1.00 2.41 -10.77 1.95 -8.82
98E 228 54 -5.01 -1.18 -4.18 -5.26 -1.03 1.03 2.50 3.49 -15.64 5.98 -9.66
98G 228 57 -5.45 -1.28 -3.52 -4.59 -4.13 -2.44 -1.98 -2.09 -14.84 -10.63 -25.47
98H 240 60 -4.27 -0.85 -3.14 -4.83 -3.02 -0.30 0.58 0.76 -13.09 -1.98 -15.07
981 260 65 -2.33 -1.90 -3.98 -3.95 -3.58 -0.18 3.91 2.12 -12.15 2.27 -9.88
98J 276 68 -0.55 -1.32 -3.62 -4.93 -2.15 0.13 1.19 2.62 -10.42 1.80 -8.62
99A 288 71 1.07 -2.24 -3.60 -2.99 -0.08 0.72 0.20 0.85 -7.75 1.68 -6.07
99B 306 77 3.06 0.71 -2.67 -1.35 3.14 -0.49 1.25 -0.46 -0.25 3.44 3.19
99C 60 1.57 3.07 2.76 -0.83 -3.61 -6.05 0.73 2.58 6.58 -6.36 0.22
99D 60 1.53 2.71 4.44 0.96 -1.41 -2.61 -2.57 -1.67 9.63 -8.26 1.37
99E 60 1.45 2.45 2.15 -2.32 -3.10 -4.62 -4.94 -1.84 3.72 -14.50 -10.78
99F 60 1.86 1.08 2.29 1.65 -1.57 -1.98 -0.83 1.62 6.88 -2.77 4.11
100A 60 2.54 3.70 4.29 -0.09 -4.35 -2.93 1.61 2.67 10.45 -3.00 7.45
100B 60 0.81 3.78 5.42 2.97 1.20 1.05 1.66 0.42 12.99 4.33 17.31
100C 60 1.33 2.17 4.45 1.85 -2.36 -0.44 1.86 1.88 9.80 0.93 10.74
100D 60 1.92 3.13 3.00 0.61 -1.62 -1.13 0.70 0.68 8.66 -1.37 7.28
100E 60 2.18 2.58 4.09 3.41 1.08 -0.30 -2.47 0.13 12.25 -1.56 10.70
100F 60 2.01 0.68 2.24 0.76 0.18 -1.16 -1.78 1.09 5.68 -1.66 4.02
101A 60 1.35 1.34 2.31 1.44 0.70 2.09 1.42 -0.55 6.43 3.66 10.09
101B 60 0.95 1.70 2.58 -1.31 -0.85 0.39 0.09 0.97 3.92 0.60 4.52
101C 60 0.76 -0.09 1.87 2.25 -0.77 -3.29 -3.86 -0.98 4.79 -8.90 -4.10

Total -27.1 11.6 -47.7 -79.6 -37.2 -22.5 17.9 46.8 -142.8 5.0 -137.8

Vertical double lines indicate location of reef structure at time of monitoring survey.

111-1






Table Ill-lb


P.E.P. Reef Monitoring VOLUME changes between survey lines dated August 1993 and July 1994.


Profile Dist. b/ Dist to Area of ce Volume Change (cubic yards) Inner Outer Inner Cu Outer Cud
Lines lines(ft) Reef (ft) ( .yards) I Cell ll Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell ll Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8 Ch(cyd Ch(cyd Chg(cyds Chgs(yad


92F-93B 400
93B-93C 200
93C-93D 200
93D-93E 200
93E-94A 200
94A-94B 200
94B-94C 200
94C-94D 200
94D-94F 300
94F-94G 150
94G-94H 150
94H-94J 200
94J-95A 200
95A-95B 100
95B-95C 100
95C-95D 100
95D-95E 100
95E-95E1 75
95E1-95F 75
95F-95F1 75
95F1-96A 75
96A-96A1 75
96A1-96B 75
96B-96B1 75
96B1-96C 75
96C-96C1 100
96C1-96D 100
96D-96E 200
96E-96F 200
96F-96G 200
96G-97A 200
97A-97B 200
97B-97C 200
97C-97D 200
97D-97E 200
97E-97F 150
97F-98A 150
98A-98B 150
98B-98C 150
98C-98E 200
98E-98G 200
98G-98H 100
98H-981 100
981-98J 100
98J-98A 100
99A-99AB 75
99B-99C 75
99C-99D 75
99D-99E 150
99E-99F 200
99F-100A 200
100A-100B 200
100B-100C 200
100C-100D 200
100D-100E 200
100E-100F 200
100F-101A 200
101A-101B 200
101B-101C 200


241 979 477 406 325 635 973 1228
257 1215 308 139 -129 -58 162 223
123 1158 -192 -157 -223 -258 168 189
134 293 -79 -14 147 115 269 207
193 60 -82 -75 154 67 107 180
92 344 -388 -289 102 100 260 348
-167 438 -17 118 308 312 291 425
-481 -6 2 189 199 242 192 242
-1009 -702 -608 -309 -387 151 204 256
-310 -115 -482 -221 -161 -44 49 119
1 -3 -150 -107 -183 -133 -24 86
210 148 -43 -201 -498 -230 -172 -34
414 257 -172 -410 -342 -85 13 246
-10 -149 -13 -87 -46 -23 26 166
-342 -248 -19 17 67 32 19 102
-320 -152 51 13 28 -89 -96 -16
-124 -6 10 -161 58 -73 -108 -81
-13 68 -226 -223 98 42 -5 1
-10 66 -344 -180 76 4 -26 34
-86 52 -297 -237 111 -32 -79 2
39 -10 -112 -236 -36 -56 -80 -19
165 -92 11 -202 -217 -67 37 52
163 -171 -23 -178 -169 -143 47 57
193 -206 -53 -167 -123 -65 83 132
77 -136 -100 -149 -48 82 153 177
-16 -72 -110 -112 34 89 130 154
-9 -66 -46 -64 -21 -29 -26 -27
-396 -335 -325 -464 127 -35 -151 -140
-901 -379 -510 -646 79 82 32 -83
-1034 -296 -535 -340 -73 -80 148 -180
-1578 -305 -1190 -876 -11 352 757 661
-533 -83 -601 -440 127 260 192 264
-497 -241 -752 -439 89 -6 -36 -56
-321 -248 -760 -719 -212 -257 -10 157
-251 -182 -695 -684 -93 -146 -120 77
-257 -86 -471 -346 43 107 35 42
-231 -97 -463 -322 -73 31 117 72
-285 -220 -510 -428 -154 37 153 59
-321 -301 -623 -451 -184 13 193 225
-651 -313 -896 -782 -231 84 350 590
-1047 -246 -770 -985 -516 -141 52 139
-486 -106 -333 -471 -357 -137 -70 -67
-330 -137 -356 -439 -330 -24 224 144
-144 -161 -380 -444 -286 -2 255 237
26 -178 -361 -396 -112 43 69 174
310 -114 -470 -325 229 17 108 29
348 284 7 -163 -35 -491 148 159
233 434 540 10 -376 -650 -138 68
224 387 494 -103 -338 -543 -563 -263
331 353 443 -67 -467 -661 -577 -23
440 479 658 156 -592 -491 78 428
336 749 971 288 -315 -188 326 309
214 595 987 482 -116 61 352 230
325 529 746 246 -398 -157 255 256
410 571 709 402 -54 -144 -177 82
419 325 632 417 126 -146 -425 123
336 202 454 219 88 93 -35 54
230 304 488 13 -15 248 151 41
171 161 444 94 -162 -290 -377 -1


2102 3162
1920 197
932 -125
333 738
96 509
-242 809
373 1336
-296 875
-2628 224
-1127 -38
-259 -255
114 -933
89 -168
-259 123
-592 221
-408 -172
-281 -204
-395 135
-468 87
-569 2
-319 -191
-118 -194
-209 -208
-233 26
-309 363
-310 406
-184 -104
-1519 -199
-2436 111
-2204 -185
-3949 1759
-1656 844
-1929 -8
-2048 -321
-1812 -282
-1160 226
-1113 147
-1442 95
-1696 247
-2642 793
-3048 -465
-1396 -631
-1262 14
-1128 203
-908 174
-600 384
475 -219
1216 -1096
1002 -1707
1060 -1727
1733 -577
2344 132
2279 526
1846 -44
2091 -293
1794 -322
1212 200
1035 425
871 -830


2102 3162
4022 3359
4954 3234
5287 3972
5384 4481
5142 5290
5515 6626
5218 7501
2590 7725
1464 7687
1204 7433
1318 6499
1407 6332
1148 6455
557 6676
149 6504
-132 6300
-527 6436
-996 6522
-1564 6524
-1883 6333
-2001 6138
-2210 5930
-2443 5956
-2752 6320
-3061 6726
-3246 6622
-4765 6422
-7200 6533
-9405 6348
-13354 8107
-15010 8950
-16938 8942
-18987 8621
-20799 8339
-21959 8565
-23072 8712
-24515 8807
-26211 9054
-28852 9847
-31900 9382
-33296 8751
-34558 8765
-35687 8968
-36595 9142
-37195 9526
-36720 9307
-35504 8211
-34502 6504
-33442 4776
-31708 4199
-29364 4332
-27086 4858
-25240 4814
-23149 4521
-21355 4200
-20143 4399
-19107 4825
-18236 3995


Vertical double lines indicate location of reef structure at time of monitoring survey.


61027 -5505 4289 -6125 -10900 -5468 -2675 3883 8256 -18237 3995






Table II1-1c


P.E.P. Reef Monitoring Elevation changes between survey lines dated August 1993 and July 1994.

Profile Dist b/ Dist. to Area of cel Elevation Change (feet) Inner Outer Total
Une lines(ft)Reef (ft(sq.yards) Celll Cell2 Cell31 Cell 4 Cell Cell61 Cell71 Cell 8 Chg(ft Chg(ft) Chg(t)

92F-93B 400 2667 0.27 1.1 0.54 0.46 0.37 0.71 1.09 1.38 2.37 3.56 5.92
93B-93C 200 1333 0.58 2.73 0.69 0.31 -0.29 -0.13 0.36 0.5 4.32 0.44 4.76
93C-93D 200 1333 0.28 2.61 -0.43 -0.35 -0.5 -0.58 0.38 0.43 2.1 -0.28 1.82
93D-93E 200 1333 0.3 0.66 -0.18 -0.03 0.33 0.26 0.61 0.47 0.75 1.66 2.41
93E-94A 200 1333 0.43 0.14 -0.19 -0.17 0.35 0.15 0.24 0.4 0.22 1.14 1.36
94A-94B 200 1333 0.21 0.77 -0.87 -0.65 0.23 0.22 0.59 0.78 -0.54 1.82 1.28
94B-94C 200 1333 -0.38 0.99 -0.04 0.27 0.69 0.7 0.65 0.96 0.84 3.01 3.85
94C-94D 200 1333 -1.08 -0.01 0 0.43 0.45 0.54 0.43 0.54 -0.67 1.97 1.3
94D-94F 300 2000 -1.51 -1.05 -0.91 -0.46 -0.58 0.23 0.31 0.38 -3.94 0.34 -3.61
94F-94G 150 1000 -0.93 -0.34 -1.45 -0.66 -0.48 -0.13 0.15 0.36 -3.38 -0.11 -3.49
94G-94H 150 1000 0 -0.01 -0.45 -0.32 -0.55 -0.4 -0.07 0.26 -0.78 -0.76 -1.54
94H-94J 200 1333 0.47 0.33 -0.1 -0.45 -1.12 -0.52 -0.39 -0.08 0.26 -2.1 -1.84
94J-95A 200 1333 0.93 0.58 -0.39 -0.92 -0.77 -0.19 0.03 0.55 0.2 -0.38 -0.18
95A-95B 100 667 -0.05 -0.67 -0.06 -0.39 -0.21 -0.11 0.12 0.75 -1.16 0.55 -0.61
95B-95C 100 667 -1.54 -1.12 -0.08 0.08 0.3 0.14 0.09 0.46 -2.66 0.99 -1.67
95C-95D 100 667 -1.44 -0.68 0.23 0.06 0.13 -0.4 -0.43 -0.07 -1.83 -0.77 -2.61
95D-95E 100 778 -0.48 -0.02 0.04 -0.62 0.23 -0.28 -0.42 -0.31 -1.08 -0.79 -1.87
95E-95E1 75 320 667 -0.06 0.31 -1.02 -1 0.44 0.19 -0.02 0 -1.78 0.61 -1.17
95E1-95F 75 300 667 -0.05 0.3 -1.55 -0.811 0.34 0.02 -0.12 0.15 -2.11 0.39 -1.72
95F-95F1 75 320 667 -0.39 0.23 -1.34 -1.07 0.5 -0.14 -0.36 0.01 -2.56 0.01 -2.55
95F1-96A 75 300 583 0.2 -0.05 -0.58 -1.21 -0.19 -0.29 -0.41 -0.1 -1.64 -0.98 -2.62
96A-96A1 75 500 0.99 -0.55 0.07 -1.21 -1.3 -0.4 0.22 0.31 -0.71 -1.17 -1.87
96A1-96B 75 500 0.98 -1.02 -0.14 -1.07 -1.01 -0.86 0.28 0.34 -1.25 -1.25 -2.5
96B-96B1 75 500 1.16 -1.24 -0.32 -1 -0.74 -0.39 0.5 0.79 -1.4 0.16 -1.24
96B1-96C 75 280 396 0.58 -1.03 -0.76 -1.13 -0.37 0.62 1.16 1.34 -2.34 2.75 0.41
96C-96C1 100 140 389 -0.13 -0.56 -0.85 -0.86 0.26 0.68 1 1.19 -2.39 3.13 0.75
96C1-96D 100 160 483 -0.06 -0.41 -0.28 -0.4 -0.13 -0.18 -0.16 -0.17 -1.14 -0.65 -1.79
96D-96E 200 208 1244 -0.95 -0.81 -0.78 -1.12 0.31 -0.08 -0.36 -0.34 -3.66 -0.48 -4.14
96E-96F 200 240 1222 -2.21 -0.93 -1.25 -1.59 0.2 0.2 0.08 -0.2 -5.98 0.27 -5.71
96F-96G 200 200 1144 -2.71 -0.78 -1.4 -0.89 -0.19 -0.21 0.39 -0.47 -5.78 -0.49 -6.26
96G-97A 400 212 2422 -1.95 -0.38 -1.47 -1.09 -0.01 0.44 0.94 0.82 -4.89 2.18 -2.71
97A-97B 200 224 1211 -1.32 -0.2 -1.49 -1.09 0.31 0.65 0.48 0.65 -4.1 2.09 -2.01
97B-97C 200 212 1178 -1.27 -0.61 -1.91 -1.12 0.23 -0.01 -0.09 -0.14 -4.91 -0.02 -4.93
97C-97D 200 212 1167 -0.83 -0.64 -1.95 -1.85 -0.54 -0.66 -0.03 0.4 -5.27 -0.83 -6.09
97D-97E 200 208 1089 -0.69 -0.5 -1.92 -1.88 -0.26 -0.4 -0.33 0.21 -4.99 -0.78 -5.77
97E-97F 150 184 767 -1.01 -0.34 -1.84 -1.35 0.17 0.42 0.14 0.16 -4.54 0.88 -3.65
97F-98A 150 184 800 -0.87 -0.37 -1.74 -1.21 -0.28 0.12 0.44 0.27 -4.18 0.55 -3.62
98A-98B 150 200 858 -1 -0.77 -1.78 -1.5 -0.54 0.13 0.53 0.21 -5.04 0.33 -4.71
98B-98C 150 212 892 -1.08 -1.01 -2.1 -1.52 -0.62 0.04 0.65 0.76 -5.71 0.83 -4.88
98C-98E 200 216 1233 -1.58 -0.76 -2.18 -1.9 -0.56 0.2 0.85 1.44 -6.43 1.93 -4.5
98E-98G 200 228 1267 -2.48 -0.58 -1.82 -2.33 -1.22 -0.33 0.12 0.33 -7.22 -1.1 -8.32
98G-98H 100 228 650 -2.24 -0.49 -1.54 -2.17 -1.65 -0.63 -0.32 -0.31 -6.44 -2.91 -9.36
98H-981 100 240 694 -1.42 -0.59 -1.54 -1.9 -1.42 -0.1 0.97 0.62 -5.45 0.06 -5.39
981-98J 100 260 744 -0.58 -0.65 -1.53 -1.79 -1.15 -0.01 1.03 0.95 -4.55 0.82 -3.73
98J-98A 100 276 783 0.1 -0.68 -1.38 -1.52 -0.43 0.16 0.27 0.66 -3.48 0.67 -2.81
99A-99B 75 288 1238 0.75 -0.28 -1.14 -0.79 0.56 0.04 0.26 0.07 -1.45 0.93 -0.52
99B-99C 75 306 1138 0.92 0.75 0.02 -0.43 -0.09 -1.29 0.39 0.42 1.25 -0.58 0.67
99C-99D 75 1000 0.7 1.3 1.62 0.03 -1.13 -1.95 -0.41 0.2 3.65 -3.29 0.36
99D-99E 150 1000 0.67 1.16 1.48 -0.31 -1.01 -1.63 -1.69 -0.79 3.01 -5.12 -2.12
99E-99F 200 1333 0.75 0.79 1 -0.15 -1.05 -1.49 -1.3 -0.05 2.39 -3.89 -1.5
99F-100A 200 1333 0.99 1.08 1.48 0.35 -1.33 -1.11 0.18 0.96 3.9 -1.3 2.6
100A-100B 200 1333 0.76 1.68 2.19 0.65 -0.71 -0.42 0.73 0.69 5.27 0.3 5.57
100B-100C 200 1333 0.48 1.34 2.22 1.08 -0.26 0.14 0.79 0.52 5.13 1.18 6.31
100C-100D 200 1333 0.73 1.19 1.68 0.55 -0.89 -0.35 0.57 0.58 4.15 -0.1 4.05
100D-100E 200 1333 0.92 1.28 1.59 0.9 -0.12 -0.32 -0.4 0.18 4.7 -0.66 4.05
100E-100F 200 1333 0.94 0.73 1.42 0.94 0.28 -0.33 -0.96 0.28 4.04 -0.72 3.31
100F-101A 200 1333 0.76 0.45 1.02 0.49 0.2 0.21 -0.08 0.12 2.73 0.45 3.18
101A-101B 200 1333 0.52 0.68 1.1 0.03 -0.03 0.56 0.34 0.09 2.33 0.96 3.29
101B-101C 200 1333 0.38 0.36 1 0.21 -0.36 -0.65 -0.85 0 1.96 -1.87 0.09

Total 63866 -15 3 -23 -37 -17 -9 9 21 -72 4 -68.3

Vertical double lines indicate location of reef structure at time of monitoring survey.

111-3





Table lll-2a


P.E.P. Reef Monitoring -Volumetric changes ON survey line dated July 1994 and June 1995

Profile Dist. to Length of Volume Change (cu yards/linear foot) Inner Outer
Line Reef(ft) Cells (ft) Cell I Cell 2 Cell31 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 71 Cell 8 Subtotal Subtotal Total


92F
93B
93C
93D
93E
94A
948
94C
94D
94F
94G
94H
94J
95A
95B
95C
95D
95E
95E1
95F
95F1
96A
96A1
96B
96B1
96C
96C1
96D
96E
96F
96G
979
97A
97B
97C
97D
97E
97F
98A
988
98C
98E
98G
98H
981
98J
99A
99A1
99B
9981
99C
99C1
99D
99E
99F
100A
100B
100C
100D
100E
100F
101A
101B
101C


0.43 -2.50 -0.60 0.59 -0.84 -2.30 -2.05 -1.98
-0.34 -0.21 -1.53 -1.25 0.51 0.11 -1.60 -2.22
0.71 -3.09 2.00 1.37 2.24 2.48 1.85 1.44
0.44 4.79 7.36 1.88 0.07 2.14 2.35 1.11
0.34 2.47 -9.26 -3.15 -0.91 -2.37 -0.71 0.07
0.36 1.11 1.70 0.36 -2.04 0.67 -0.08 -0.32
-0.46 -1.84 0.06 -0.86 -1.29 -1.26 -1.79 -3.27
2.76 -3.83 -0.16 -3.29 -2.75 -1.61 0.55 0.22
4.38 3.26 2.41 1.71 0.86 -0.38 2.34 4.11
4.51 1.10 1.25 1.74 1.59 0.55 -0.43 -1.00
0.91 -0.54 3.96 3.25 -0.67 -1.31 -0.17 0.12
0.01 2.30 -1.14 -1.76 1.22 -0.13 -0.16 -1.14
-0.55 -0.37 6.63 1.68 0.15 -0.47 -0.05 -0.38
-2.89 -0.32 -1.44 0.96 0.96 0.50 -0.62 -3.47
2.83 2.06 0.61 1.11 1.48 1.12 0.70 0.05
3.67 1.13 0.11 1.30 -0.23 -0.09 0.48 1.54
3.04 1.08 -0.99 1.48 0.88 1.48 0.65 -0.41
-0.57 -3.37 -3.50 1.88 0.31 -1.92 -3.74 -3.33
0.78 -0.23 0.00 -0.10 -0.53 -2.15 -2.76 -1.64
-1.14 -0.82 -0.69 -2.14 -0.72 -0.62 0.10 -0.61
1.03 -0.74 -2.87 -3.57 -0.46 0.54 -0.61 -0.59
1.25 -0.79 -1.98 0.61 3.59 2.70 1.30 0.79
-2.37 -2.28 -2.78 -2.58 -1.57 -0.91 -1.76 -0.07
-2.40 -0.95 -2.91 -3.12 -2.08 0.67 -0.22 0.92
-3.13 -2.84 -3.23 -1.82 -0.41 -1.37 -1.07 -2.87
-1.86 -1.49 -0.93 -1.05 -1.00 -0.75 -0.70 -0.60
-3.02 -1.85 -0.56 -0.25 -0.45 0.02 0.25 0.24
-3.37 -2.62 -1.00 0.98 0.67 -0.80 -2.30 -2.18
-3.27 2.20 4.57 1.72 1.41 -0.59 -2.13 -2.38
-3.86 -1.28 -1.35 -0.86 0.37 2.06 1.76 0.35
-1.60 -2.32 -2.58 -1.76 0.46 0.55 -2.09 -3.12
-0.17 -1.31 -0.46 0.22 1.33 1.08 0.80 0.71
-0.40 -1.69 -0.53 0.98 -0.36 -2.97 -2.48 -2.58
-1.37 -2.52 -1.92 -0.61 0.57 -0.50 -3.21 -3.59
-2.21 -2.80 -2.30 -0.89 1.76 0.83 -0.23 -0.28
-1.24 -3.76 -3.41 0.62 -0.34 -1.05 0.07 -0.35
-1.32 -3.07 -2.30 -0.69 1.06 1.12 -0.17 -1.03
-1.17 -2.91 -2.37 -0.55 0.00 -0.27 -0.14 0.31
-3.04 -3.18 -2.10 -0.61 0.52 -0.94 -1.57 -0.12
-1.80 -2.19 -2.02 0.37 1.82 1.00 -0.18 0.05
-1.65 -1.79 -1.72 -0.75 -0.29 0.65 1.33 -0.63
-8.13 -6.70 -5.69 -1.03 -0.14 0.56 -0.96 0.19
-8.87 -8.65 -6.05 -2.34 -0.63 0.64 0.23 0.54
-9.99 -9.56 -8.29 -3.27 -2.06 -1.86 -2.68 -2.25
-15.98 -10.39 -9.45 -4.79 -1.73 -0.39 -1.07 -1.93
-21.01 -12.33 -9.54 -3.04 -1.16 -0.41 2.37 -1.77
-22.10 -12.38 -8.98 -3.78 0.60 1.86 1.47 -0.30
-23.01 -14.34 -11.63 -5.70 -1.87 2.89 3.27 -0.76
-21.76 -7.15 -5.71 -7.66 -2.94 2.35 2.95 -1.61
-14.12 -12.66 -3.70 -4.06 -4.31 -1.70 0.06 -1.32
-12.24 -14.11 -6.45 -5.63 -4.57 1.40 -0.38 -0.58
-10.57 -12.27 -6.88 -6.41 -6.06 -1.33 2.26 2.08
-9.29 -12.97 -7.82 -7.19 -5.36 -2.55 -0.01 0.88
-6.76 -15.24 -7.41 -6.55 -6.05 -0.66 1.36 2.37
-5.57 -8.40 -6.38 -4.10 0.27 1.51 2.06 0.83
-6.00 -11.18 -5.89 -1.14 0.64 2.08 -0.62 0.42
-3.48 -12.46 -9.99 -4.62 -3.78 -2.78 -1.16 -0.41
-3.00 -12.08 -9.05 -3.73 -1.17 -0.31 0.28 -0.25
-1.22 -9.61 -4.16 -0.59 0.89 1.57 -0.04 0.42
-3.17 -7.08 -4.54 -2.75 -2.76 -0.61 3.34 0.25
-2.21 -7.85 -3.13 -2.13 -3.51 0.52 2.44 0.49
-1.66 -7.65 -4.51 -1.30 0.03 1.13 2.15 2.08
-2.99 -4.61 -1.13 -0.11 -2.00 -0.57 1.73 0.25


-1.91 -2.77 -0.06 0.92 0.70 2.26 0.71 0.911 -3.82 4.58


-2.07 -7.17
-3.33 -3.21
1.00 8.02
14.47 5.66
-9.60 -3.93
3.52 -1.77
-3.10 -7.60
-4.52 -3.59
11.76 6.93
8.61 0.72
7.59 -2.04
-0.59 -0.22
7.39 -0.75
-3.69 -2.63
6.61 3.36
6.20 1.70
4.61 2.60
-5.56 -8.68
0.46 -7.07
-4.79 -1.85
-6.14 -1.12
-0.90 8.39
-10.01 -4.31
-9.38 -0.71
-11.02 -5.73
-5.33 -3.05
-5.68 0.06
-6.00 -4.60
5.23 -3.69
-7.35 4.54
-8.27 -4.20
-1.71 3.93
-1.64 -8.39
-6.43 -6.73
-8.20 2.08
-7.78 -1.66
-7.38 0.98
-6.99 -0.10
-8.93 -2.10
-5.64 2.69
-5.91 1.06
-21.56 -0.34
-25.90 0.79
-31.12 -8.85
-40.61 -5.12
-45.93 -0.97
-47.24 3.62
-54.68 3.55
-42.29 0.76
-34.55 -7.27
-38.43 -4.12
-36.12 -3.05
-37.27 -7.03
-35.96 -2.98
-24.45 4.67
-24.22 2.52
-30.56 -8.13
-27.87 -1.45
-15.58 2.84
-17.54 0.23
-15.31 -0.06
-15.13 5.39
-8.83 -0.59


Total -232.79 -270.44 -174.41 -87.85 -40.08 1.11 1.27 -27.60 -765.46 -65.19 -830.71

Vertical double lines indicate location of reef structure at time of monitoring survey.


-9.24
-6.54
9.02
20.13
-13.53
1.75
-10.70
-8.12
18.69
9.33
5.55
-0.81
6.63
-6.32
9.96
7.90
7.21
-14.24
-6.62
-6.64
-7.27
7.48
-14.32
-10.09
-16.75
-8.38
-5.62
-10.60
1.53
-2.81
-12.46
2.22
-10.03
-13.16
-6.12
-9.44
-6.40
-7.09
-11.03
-2.95
-4.85
-21.90
-25.12
-39.96
-45.73
-46.90
-43.62
-51.13
-41.53
-41.82
-42.56
-39.17
-44.30
-38.93
-19.78
-21.70
-38.69
-29.31
-12.75
-17.31
-15.37
-9.74
-9.42
0.76






Table lll-2b


P.E.P. Reef Monitoring Volume changes BETWEEN survey lines dated July 1994 and June 1995

Profile Dist. b/ Dist. to Area of cell Volume Chane cubic yards) Inner Outer Inner Cum Outer Cum.
Lines lines(ft) Reef(ft) (sq.yards) C Cell6 Cell 2 Cell3 C Cell Cell Cll 8Chg(cydsChg(cyds)Chg(cyds) Chgs(ads


92F-93B 400
93B-93C 200
93C-93D 200
93D-93E 200
93E-94A 200
94A-94B 200
94B-94C 200
94C-94D 200
94D-94F 300
94F-94G 150
94G-94H 150
94H-94J 200
94J-95A 200
95A-95B 100
95B-95C 100
95C-95D 100
95D-95E 100
95E-95E1 75
95E1-95F 75
95F-95F1 75
95F1-96A 75
6A96A-96A1 75
96A1-96B 75
96B-96B1 75
96B1-96C 75
96C-96C1 100
96C1-96D 100
96D-96E 200
96E-96F 200
96F-96G 200
96G-979 200
979-97A 200
97A-97B 200
97B-97C 200
97C-97D 200
97D-97E 200
97E-97F 150
97F-98A 150
98A-98B 150
98B-98C 150
98C-98E 200
98E-98G 200
98G-98H 100
98H-981 100
981-98J 100
98J-98A 100
9A99A-99A1 75
99A1-99B 75
99B-99B1 75
99B1-99C 75
99C-99C1 75
99C1-99D 75
99D-99E 150
99E-99F 200
99F-100A 200
100A-100B 200
100B-100C 200
100C-100D 200
100D-100E 200
100E-100F 200
100F-101A 200
101A-101B 200
101B-101C 200


19 -542 -426 -131 -67 -439 -729 -840
37 -330 47 12 275 259 25 -78
115 170 936 325 231 462 421 255
78 725 -190 -127 -85 -24 164 118
71 357 -757 -279 -296 -171 -79 -25
-10 -73 176 -50 -333 -59 -187 -359
230 -566 -10 -415 -404 -287 -124 -305
714 -56 225 -158 -190 -199 289 433
1334 654 549 518 367 26 286 467
407 42 391 374 69 -57 -45 -66
69 132 211 112 41 -108 -25 -77
-54 192 549 -8 137 -60 -22 -152
-344 -70 519 264 111 3 -68 -386
-3 87 -42 104 122 81 4 -171
325 160 36 121 62 52 59 80
335 111 -44 139 32 70 56 56
124 -115 -225 168 60 -22 -155 -187
8 -135 -131 67 -8 -153 -244 -186
-13 -39 -26 -84 -47 -104 -100 -84
-4 -58 -133 -214 -44 -3 -19 -45
86 -57 -182 -1111 118 121 26 8
-42 -115 -179 -74 76 67 -17 27
-179 -121 -213 -213 -137 -9 -74 32
-207 -142 -230 -185 -93 -26 -48 -73
-187 -162 -156 -108 -53 -80 -66 -130
-244 -167 -75 -65 -73 -37 -23 -18
-319 -223 -78 37 11 -39 -102 -97
-663 -42 358 270 208 -138 -443 -456
-712 92 322 86 178 148 -37 -203
-546 -360 -393 -262 83 261 -33 -276
-177 -363 -304 -154 179 163 -129 -240
-56 -300 -99 120 97 -189 -168 -187
-177 -421 -245 36 21 -347 -569 -617
-358 -532 -422 -151 233 33 -345 -386
-344 -656 -571 -27 142 -22 -16 -62
-256 -683 -571 -6 72 8 -10 -138
-187 -448 -350 -93 79 64 -23 -54
-316 -457 -335 -87 39 -91 -128 15
-363 -403 -309 -18 175 5 -131 -5
-259 -298 -280 -29 115 124 86 -44
-979 -848 -741 -179 -42 121 37 -44
-1700 -1534 -1174 -338 -77 120 -72 73
-943 -911 -717 -281 -135 -61 -122 -85
-1298 -998 -887 -403 -190 -112 -188 -209
-1849 -1136 -950 -392 -145 -40 65 -185
-2156 -1235 -926 -341 -28 73 192 -104
-1692 -1002 -773 -355 -48 178 178 -40
-1679 -806 -650 -501 -180 197 234 -89
-1346 -743 -353 -440 -272 24 113 -110
-989 -1004 -381 -364 -333 -11 -12 -71
-855 -989 -500 -452 -398 3 71 56
-744 -947 -551 -510 -428 -145 85 111
-1204 -2116 -1142 -1030 -856 -240 102 244
-1233 -2364 -1379 -1065 -578 85 342 320
-1157 -1958 -1227 -524 91 359 144 125
-949 -2365 -1588 -576 -313 -71 -178 1
-648 -2455 -1904 -836 -495 -310 -88 -66
-422 -2169 -1321 -432 -28 125 24 17
-439 -1669 -870 -334 -187 96 331 67
-537 -1493 -767 -488 -627 -9 579 74
-387 -1550 -764 -343 -348 164 459 258
-465 -1226 -564 -141 -197 56 388 234
-491 -738 -118 81 -130 169 244 116


-1080 -2076
-233 481
1547 1368
487 173
-608 -570
43 -938
-762 -1120
724 333
3055 1147
1215 -99
525 -169
679 -97
370 -339
146 36
641 253
541 215
-48 -304
-191 -591
-162 -335
-410 -111
-264 272
-409 153
-727 -188
-765 -241
-613 -329
-551 -150
-584 -227
-77 -830
-212 85
-1562 34
-998 -27
-335 -446
-807 -1512
-1463 -465
-1598 42
-1516 -68
-1078 66
-1194 -165
-1093 44
-866 281
-2746 72
-4746 44
-2851 -403
-3586 -698
-4327 -305
-4658 132
-3822 269
-3636 162
-2881 -244
-2737 -427
-2796 -269
-2752 -378
-5492 -751
-6041 169
-4867 719
-5478 -561
-5843 -958
-4345 139
-3312 307
-3285 17
-3044 533
-2396 480
-1266 399


-1080 -2076
-1313 -1595
233 -226
720 -53
112 -623
155 -1560
-607 -2680
117 -2347
3172 -1200
4386 -1298
4911 -1467
5590 -1564
5960 -1903
6107 -1867
6747 -1615
7288 -1400
7240 -1704
7049 -2295
6887 -2629
6477 -2741
6212 -2468
5803 -2315
5076 -2503
4311 -2745
3697 -3074
3147 -3224
2563 -3451
2485 -4281
2273 -4196
712 -4161
-286 -4189
-621 -4635
-1428 -6147
-2891 -6612
-4489 -6570
-6005 -6638
-7083 -6572
-8277 -6737
-9370 -6693
-10236 -6412
-12983 -6340
-17728 -6296
-20579 -6699
-24166 -7397
-28492 -7702
-33151 -7570
-36973 -7301
-40609 -7139
-43491 -7383
-46227 -7811
-49023 -8080
-51775 -8458
-57267 -9208
-63308 -9039
-68176 -8320
-73654 -8881
-79497 -9839
-83842 -9700
-87154 -9393
-90439 -9376
-93483 -8843
-95879 -8363
-97145 -7964


63914 -26230 -37468 -22904 -10540 -4441


54 185 -3763 -97140 -7966


Vertical double lines indicate location of reef structure at time of monitoring survey.

111-5






Table lll-2c


P.E.P. Reef Monitoring Elevation changes BETWEEN survey lines dated July 1994 to June 1995


Profile Dist. b/ Dist. to Area ofcelll
Line lines(ft) Reef(ft) (sq.vyards) I


92F-93B 400
93B-93C 200
93C-93D 200
93D-93E 200
93E-94A 200
94A-94B 200
94B-94C 200
94C-94D 200
94D-94F 300
94F-94G 150
94G-94H 150
94H-94J 200
94J-95A 200
95A-95B 100
95B-95C 100
95C-95D 100
95D-95E 100
95E-95E1 75
95E1-95F 75
95F-95F1 75
95F1-96A 75
6A96A-96A1 75
96A1-96B 75
96B-96B1 75
96B1-96C 75
96C-96C1 100
96C1-96D 100
96D-96E 200
96E-96F 200
96F-96G 200
96G-979 400
979-97A 200
97A-97B 200
97B-97C 200
97C-97D 200
97D-97E 200
97E-97F 150
97F-98A 150
98A-98B 150
98B-98C 150
98C-98E 200
98E-98G 200
98G-98H 100
98H-981 100
981-98J 100
98J-98A 100
99A99A-99A1 75
99A1-99B 75
99B-99B1 75
99B1-99C 75
99C-99C1 75
99C1-99D 75
99D-99E 150
99E-99F 200
99F-100A 200
100A-100B 200
100B-100C 200
100C-100D 200
100D-100E 200
100E-100F 200
100F-101A 200
101A-101B 200
101B-101C 200


Elevation Change (feet) Inner Outer Total
Celll Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell41 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell8 Chg(ft) Chg(ft) Chg(ft)


0.02 -0.61 -0.48 -0.15 -0.07 -0.49 -0.82 -0.95
0.08 -0.74 0.11 0.03 0.62 0.58 0.06 -0.18
0.26 0.38 2.11 0.73 0.52 1.04 0.95 0.57
0.18 1.63 -0.43 -0.29 -0.19 -0.05 0.37 0.27
0.16 0.80 -1.70 -0.63 -0.67 -0.38 -0.18 -0.06
-0.02 -0.16 0.40 -0.11 -0.75 -0.13 -0.42 -0.81
0.52 -1.27 -0.02 -0.93 -0.91 -0.65 -0.28 -0.69
1.61 -0.13 0.51 -0.36 -0.43 -0.45 0.65 0.97
2.00 0.98 0.82 0.78 0.55 0.04 0.43 0.70
1.22 0.13 1.17 1.12 0.21 -0.17 -0.13 -0.20
0.21 0.40 0.63 0.34 0.12 -0.32 -0.08 -0.23
-0.12 0.43 1.23 -0.02 0.31 -0.13 -0.05 -0.34
-0.77 -0.16 1.17 0.59 0.25 0.01 -0.15 -0.87
-0.01 0.39 -0.19 0.47 0.55 0.36 0.02 -0.77
1.46 0.72 0.16 0.54 0.28 0.23 0.27 0.36
1.51 0.50 -0.20 0.63 0.15 0.31 0.25 0.25
0.48 -0.44 -0.87 0.65 0.23 -0.08 -0.60 -0.72
0.04 -0.63 -0.61 0.31 -0.04 -0.71 -1.13 -0.87
-0.06 -0.18 -0.12 -0.39 -0.22 -0.48 -0.46 -0.39
-0.02 -0.27 -0.62 -0.99 -0.21 -0.01 -0.09 -0.21
0.46 -0.30 -0.97 -0.591 0.63 0.65 0.14 0.04
-0.25 -0.69 -1.07 -0.44 0.46 0.40 -0.10 0.16


-1.07 -0.73 -1.28 -1.28
-1.15 -0.79 -1.27 -1.03
-1.28 -1.11 -1.07 -0.74
-1.76 -1.20 -0.54 -0.47
-1.87 -1.31 -0.46 0.22
-1.60 -0.10 0.86 0.65
-1.75 0.23 0.79 0.21
-1.43 -0.94 -1.03 -0.69
-0.43 -0.89 -0.75 -0.38
-0.13 -0.72 -0.24 0.29
-0.44 -1.04 -0.61 0.09
-0.91 -1.36 -1.08 -0.38
-0.89 -1.69 -1.47 -0.07
-0.71 -1.88 -1.57 -0.02
-0.73 -1.75 -1.37 -0.36
-1.18 -1.71 -1.26 -0.33
-1.27 -1.41 -1.08 -0.06
-0.87 -1.00 -0.94 -0.10
-2.38 -2.06 -1.80 -0.43
-4.03 -3.63 -2.78 -0.80
-4.35 -4.20 -3.31 -1.30
-5.61 -4.31 -3.83 -1.74
-7.45 -4.58 -3.83 -1.58
-8.26 -4.73 -3.55 -1.31
-8.29 -4.91 -3.79 -1.74
-7.98 -3.83 -3.09 -2.38
-7.10 -3.92 -1.86 -2.32
-5.93 -6.02 -2.28 -2.18
-5.13 -5.94 -3.00 -2.71
-4.47 -5.68 -3.31 -3.06
-3.61 -6.35 -3.43 -3.09
-2.77 -5.32 -3.10 -2.40
-2.60 -4.41 -2.76 -1.18
-2.13 -5.32 -3.57 -1.30
-1.46 -5.52 -4.28 -1.88
-0.95 -4.88 -2.97 -0.97
-0.99 -3.75 -1.96 -0.75
-1.21 -3.36 -1.73 -1.10
-0.87 -3.49 -1.72 -0.77
-1.05 -2.76 -1.27 -0.32
-1.10 -1.66 -0.27 0.18


-0.82 -0.05 -0.45 0.19
-0.52 -0.15 -0.27 -0.40
-0.36 -0.55 -0.46 -0.89
-0.52 -0.26 -0.16 -0.13
0.06 -0.23 -0.60 -0.57
0.50 -0.33 -1.07 -1.10
0.44 0.36 -0.09 -0.50
0.22 0.68 -0.09 -0.72
0.44 0.40 -0.32 -0.59
0.23 -0.45 -0.40 -0.45
0.05 -0.86 -1.41 -1.53
0.59 0.08 -0.88 -0.98
0.36 -0.06 -0.04 -0.16
0.20 0.02 -0.03 -0.38
0.31 0.25 -0.09 -0.21
0.15 -0.34 -0.48 0.05
0.61 0.02 -0.46 -0.02
0.39 0.42 0.29 -0.15
-0.10 0.29 0.09 -0.11
-0.18 0.28 -0.17 0.17
-0.62 -0.28 -0.56 -0.39
-0.82 -0.49 -0.81 -0.90
-0.58 -0.16 0.26 -0.75
-0.11 0.28 0.73 -0.40
-0.23 0.87 0.87 -0.19
-0.86 0.94 1.11 -0.42
-1.43 0.13 0.60 -0.58
-2.00 -0.07 -0.07 -0.43
-2.39 0.02 0.42 0.34
-2.57 -0.87 0.51 0.67
-2.57 -0.72 0.30 0.73
-1.30 0.19 0.77 0.72
0.21 0.81 0.32 0.28
-0.71 -0.16 -0.40 0.00
-1.11 -0.70 -0.20 -0.15
-0.06 0.28 0.05 0.04
-0.42 0.22 0.74 0.15
-1.41 -0.02 1.30 0.17
-0.78 0.37 1.03 0.58
-0.44 0.13 0.87 0.53
-0.29 0.38 0.55 0.26


-1.22 -2.33
-0.52 1.08
3.48 3.08
1.10 0.39
-1.37 -1.28
0.10 -2.11
-1.71 -2.52
1.63 0.75
4.58 1.72
3.64 -0.30
1.57 -0.51
1.53 -0.22
0.83 -0.76
0.66 0.16
2.88 1.14
2.43 0.97
-0.18 -1.17
-0.89 -2.74
-0.75 -1.55
-1.90 -0.52
-1.41 1.45
-2.46 0.92
-4.36 -1.13
-4.24 -1.34
-4.21 -2.26
-3.96 -1.08
-3.43 -1.33
-0.19 -2.00
-0.52 0.21
-4.09 0.09
-2.45 -0.07
-0.80 -1.07
-2.00 -3.74
-3.73 -1.18
-4.11 0.11
-4.18 -0.19
-4.22 0.26
-4.48 -0.62
-3.82 0.15
-2.91 0.95
-6.68 0.17
-11.24 0.10
-13.16 -1.86
-15.49 -3.02
-17.44 -1.23
-17.84 0.51
-18.72 1.32
-17.28 0.77
-15.20 -1.29
-16.42 -2.56
-16.78 -1.61
-16.51 -2.27
-16.48 -2.25
-13.59 0.38
-10.95 1.62
-12.33 -1.26
-13.15 -2.16
-9.78 0.31
-7.45 0.69
-7.39 0.04
-6.85 1.20
-5.39 1.08
-2.85 0.90


-3.55
0.56
6.56
1.49
-2.65
-2.01
-4.23
2.38
6.30
3.35
1.07
1.31
0.07
0.82
4.02
3.40
-1.36
-3.63
-2.31
-2.42
0.04
-1.54
-5.49
-5.57
-6.46
-5.04
-4.76
-2.19
-0.31
-4.00
-2.52
-1.87
-5.74
-4.91
-4.00
-4.37
-3.96
-5.10
-3.66
-1.97
-6.51
-11.14
-15.02
-18.51
-18.66
-17.33
-17.40
-16.51
-16.49
-18.98
-18.39
-18.78
-18.73
-13.21
-9.33
-13.59
-15.30
-9.46
-6.76
-7.35
-5.65
-4.31
-1.95


Total 63914 -100.23 -119.25 -76.83 -38.29 -17.05 0.24 -0.05 -12.19 -334.65 -29.01 -363.61

Vertical double lines indicate location of reef structure at time of monitoring survey.

111-6







Table lll-3a


P.E.P. Reef Monitoring Volumetric changes on survey line dated July 1992 and June 1995

Profile Dist. to Length of Volume Change (cu. yards/linear foot) Inner Outer
Line Reef (ft) Cells (ft) Celll Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8 Subtotal Subtotal Total


-5.78 -7.03 -1.60 -0.61
1.13 -8.83 -7.69 -2.64
3.00 -6.75 -5.33 -2.40
1.73 -4.08 -0.06 -0.14
1.74 -0.90 -11.13 -3.66
1.42 -3.38 -2.03 -0.99
-5.66 -3.56 -1.28 -1.39
-1.73 -1.38 -1.17 -0.83
-1.50 1.54 0.96 0.77
-0.82 0.12 1.30 1.42
-1.21 2.39 0.63 1.48
0.77 -1.09 -5.65 -4.47
0.66 -2.36 -0.19 -0.19
-7.37 -2.31 -0.71 0.69
-3.66 -1.43 0.12 0.40
-1.61 -1.75 -0.06 1.22
-0.46 -0.60 -0.47 0.14
-1.82 -10.55 -9.45 -2.38
-7.00 -12.65 -9.24 -8.10o
2.00 -8.38 -12.52 -6.86
-0.70 -11.82 -12.77 -10.87


92F
93B
93C
93D
93E
94A
94B
94C
94D
94F
94G
94H
94J
95A
95B
95C
95D
95E
95F
96A
96B
96C
96D
96E
96F
96G
97A
97B
97C
97D
97E
97F
98A
98B
98C
98E
98G
98H
981
98J
99A
99B
99C
99D
99E
99F
100A
100B
100C
100D
100E
100F
101A
101B
101C


-4.28 -4.05 -3.92
-4.51 -2.70 -2.34
-6.24 -2.54 -4.56
-5.08 -5.17 -4.19
-7.14 -7.77 -5.47
-6.53 -7.60 -4.99
-8.21 -8.47 -6.56
-6.46 -9.07 -6.44
-6.46 -8.64 -5.06
-5.23 -6.15 -3.59
-5.19 -6.28 -4.01
-5.79 -6.21 -3.30
-5.21 -5.95 -2.91
-4.45 -6.43 -4.13
-7.86 -9.10 -4.69
-7.46 -7.33 -2.46
-6.77 -8.14 -3.94
-8.34 -10.74 -5.20
-9.13 -12.18 -5.77
-9.87 -13.49 -6.44
-3.05 -11.21 -11.91


-2.52 -2.37
-0.82 0.48
-2.42 0.72
-0.20 3.48
0.43 -1.02
-1.28 0.48
-0.68 1.82
0.13 -0.59
1.42 0.19
0.55 -1.23
-1.35 -1.46
0.75 0.41
-0.88 -0.87
2.35 2.76
0.96 0.73
0.59 0.21
-0.55 -1.04
-0.81 -2.69
-2.27 1.00
-3.10 0.02
-8.49 -3.03
-2.80 -1.92
-1.08 -2.15
3.29 1.07
-2.77 -0.37
-0.11 -0.89
-0.57 0.20
-0.29 -0.47
-0.84 0.49
-2.15 -2.93
-0.82 0.62
-1.40 -0.20
0.20 -1.40
-0.93 -0.50
-3.88 -1.32
3.51 4.40
1.03 -1.29
-1.19 -4.34
1.35 1.34
2.61 3.85
3.05 5.37
-5.39 -1.87


-5.80 -4.51 -7.87 -11.33 -6.25
-2.66 -3.57 -7.96 -9.78 -9.63
-3.18 -4.05 -10.25 -11.11 -8.09
-1.96 -3.74 -1.76 -1.78 -4.12
-2.37 -3.23 -2.17 -3.19 -1.98
-0.57 -3.45 -1.40 -3.85 -4.42
-0.50 -2.09 -1.81 -2.62 -1.66
1.69 0.16 -1.67 -3.82 -1.74
2.56 0.47 0.24 -0.54 -2.66
3.66 0.28 -1.52 -4.62 -2.78
2.66 -1.80 0.03 -1.13 -0.07
3.90 0.33 -1.50 -4.84 -3.59
1.86 2.09 1.44 -0.80 -0.83


-1.27
0.74
2.41
5.61
0.32
0.63
1.90
1.27
0.49
-2.72
-0.12
-0.27
-1.95
2.72
0.70
0.07
-2.56
-4.62
3.28
1.71
-0.93
-1.51
-4.05
0.52
-1.20
-2.21
1.30
-0.98
0.53
-1.76
-1.53
0.99
-0.87
0.61
1.08
1.13
-1.50
-2.68
4.09
2.41
0.66
1.77
-2.99
-6.54
-4.81
-2.78
0.72
-1.46
1.40
-0.18
-0.33
-0.89
1.61
-1.93
-2.26


0.22
1.37
3.23
3.15
1.25
1.32
1.03
1.33
1.60
-2.99
0.61
-0.21
-0.44
2.32
1.13
-0.55
-3.52
-6.30
3.50
0.80
1.43
-0.89
-4.93
-1.60
-2.12
-4.66
0.74
-0.19
-0.49
-1.15
-2.07
1.43
0.40
0.26
0.57
1.19
-1.02
-1.86
2.73
0.99
1.69
1.06
-0.16
-3.40
-2.77
-1.06
4.15
0.09
2.48
0.08
0.97
-0.56
2.44
0.35
-0.89


-15.01 -5.94
-18.03 1.78
-11.48 3.95
-2.55 12.05
-13.95 0.98
-4.98 1.14
-11.89 4.08
-5.12 2.14
1.77 3.70
2.01 -6.39
3.29 -2.31
-10.44 0.69
-2.08 -4.14
-9.70 10.15
-4.57 3.53
-2.20 0.31
-1.40 -7.67
-24.19 -14.42
-36.98 5.51
-25.75 -0.58
-36.17 -11.02
-17.07 -7.12
-14.99 -12.21
-24.31 3.27
-28.86 -6.45
-30.09 -7.88
-26.24 1.67
-30.72 -1.93
-28.43 -0.30
-22.36 -7.99
-15.57 -3.80
-16.74 0.82
-18.81 -1.68
-16.45 -0.57
-15.67 -3.55
-29.61 10.24
-22.53 -2.79
-21.98 -10.07
-31.72 9.51
-37.66 9.86
-41.06 10.77
-35.52 -4.42
-24.84 -20.73
-18.87 -29.35
-20.04 -26.78
-8.32 -9.75
-6.64 -0.29
-3.64 -9.63
0.11 -0.39
4.44 -5.66
6.71 -2.55
7.00 -8.86
7.70 2.85
7.79 -10.02
8.12 -4.77


Total -139.42 -218.77 -260.67 -177.49 -86.78 -52.13 -16.23 2.08 -796.29 -153.01 -949.30

Vertical double lines indicate location of reef structure at time of 1995 monitoring survey.


-4.82
-5.44
-10.97
-14.42
-9.71
-7.12
-7.48
-6.46
-2.20
-0.60
-1.26
-3.51
-2.37
-0.67
-7.95
-5.29
-3.13
-7.44
-10.59
-11.26
-9.36
-6.67
-4.68
-2.56
-0.86
1.13
1.78
4.50
4.26
3.43
4.57
6.82
5.06
2.72


-20.95
-16.26
-7.53
9.50
-12.97
-3.84
-7.81
-2.98
5.47
-4.37
0.97
-9.75
-6.21
0.46
-1.04
-1.89
-9.07
-38.62
-31.47
-26.33
-47.19
-24.20
-27.20
-21.03
-35.31
-37.97
-24.57
-32.65
-28.74
-30.35
-19.37
-15.91
-20.49
-17.02
-19.22
-19.37
-25.32
-32.04
-22.22
-27.80
-30.29
-39.94
-45.57
-48.22
-46.82
-18.07
-6.93
-13.27
-0.29
-1.22
4.15
-1.86
10.56
-2.22
3.35







Table lll-3b


P.E.P. Reef Monitoring Volume changes between survey lines dated July 1992 and June 1995


Profile Dist. b/ Dist. to Area of cel Volume Change (cubic yards) Inner Outer Inner Cum.
Lines lines(ft) Reef (ft) (sq.yards) I Cellll Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8 Chg(cyds) Chg(cyds) Chg(cyds)


92F-93B 400
93B-93C 200
93C-93D 200
93D-93E 200
93E-94A 200
94A-94B 200
94B-94C 200
94C-94D 200
94D-94F 300
94F-94G 150
94G-94H 150
94H-94J 200
94J-95A 200
95A-95B 100
95B-95C 100
95C-95D 100
95D-95E 100
95E-95F 75
95F-96A 75
96A-96B 75
96B-96C 75
96C-96D 100
96D-96E 200
96E-96F 200
96F-96G 200
96G-97A 400
97A-97B 200
97B-97C 200
97C-97D 200
97D-97E 200
97E-97F 150
97F-98A 150
98A-98B 150
98B-98C 150
98C-98E 200
98E-98G 200
98G-98H 100
98H-981 100
981-98J 100
98J-98A 100
99A-99B 75
99B-99C 75
99C-99D 75
99D-99E 150
99E-99F 200
99F-100A 200
100A-100B 200
100B-100C 200
100C-100D 200
100D-100E 200
100E-100F 200
100F-101A 200
101A-101B 200
101B-101C 200


2667
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333
2000
1000
1000
1333
1333
667
667
667
778
320 646
320 646
500
542
140 417
208 1244
240 1222
200 1144
212 1222
224 1211
212 1178
212 1167
208 1089
184 767
184 800
200 858
212 892
216 1233
228 1267
228 650
240 694
260 744
276 783
288 612
306 569
500
1000
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333


-929 -3172 -1858 -650 -667 -377 -104 317
413 -1559 -1302 -504 -324 121 316 460
473 -1083 -539 -254 -262 421 803 639
347 -498 -1118 -380 23 247 593 440
316 -428 -1315 -465 -85 -54 94 257
-424 -694 -331 -238 -196 230 253 235
-740 -493 -246 -222 -55 123 317 236
-323 16 -21 -6 155 -40 177 293
-348 248 339 328 296 -156 -334 -209
-153 188 144 218 -60 -201 -213 -178
-33 98 -377 -224 -45 -79 -29 30
143 -344 -585 -466 -13 -46 -221 -65
-671 -467 -90 51 147 189 77 188
-551 -187 -29 54 166 175 171 173
-264 -159 3 81 78 47 39 29
-104 -118 -26 68 2 -42 -124 -204
-114 -558 -496 -112 -68 -187 -359 -491
-661 -1740 -1401 -7861 -231 -127 -101 -210
-375 -1577 -1631 -11211 -403 77 374 322
97 -1515 -1896 -1330 -869 -226 58 167
-415 -1208 -1261 -1109 -846 -371 -183 41
-1027 -879 -674 -626 -387 -407 -556 -583
-1641 -1075 -524 -690 221 -108 -353 -653
-2539 -1131 -772 -875 52 70 -68 -372
-2413 -1221 -1294 -966 -288 -127 -341 -678
-3365 -2733 -3074 -2092 -137 -140 -182 -784
-1460 -1474 -1607 -1155 -86 -28 32 55
-1394 -1468 -1754 -1300 -113 2 -45 -68
-867 -1292 -1771 -1150 -300 -243 -123 -164
-281 -1169 -1479 -865 -298 -231 -329 -321
-140 -782 -932 -570 -166 31 -40 -48
-357 -824 -937 -549 -90 -120 9 137
-441 -825 -912 -466 -55 -143 -20 49
-228 -725 -928 -528 -361 -137 127 63
-862 -1231 -1553 -882 -38 308 221 177
-1324 -1532 -1643 -715 453 311 -37 17
-421 -711 -774 -320 -8 -282 -209 -144
-528 -756 -944 -457 8 -150 70 43
-901 -874 -1146 -548 198 260 325 186
-1093 -950 -1283 -610 283 461 153 134
-1547 -969 -1852 -1376 -175 263 182 206
-1202 -663 -1178 -1483 -1254 -608 -91 67
-851 -634 -605 -1187 -1583 -1191 -714 -267
-543 -438 -571 -1365 -1567 -1329 -851 -463
-342 -515 -778 -1201 -1289 -1221 -759 -383
27 -433 -697 -393 -497 -610 -207 309
291 -293 -668 -357 -704 -639 -74 424
628 -106 -554 -321 -647 -607 -5 256
875 119 -192 -348 -644 -339 122 255
769 425 63 -143 -436 -439 -51 105
801 623 75 -127 -517 -544 -122 41
1139 632 -152 -149 -576 -285 72 188
1188 656 -147 -147 -597 -366 -33 279
779 576 241 -6 -564 -441 -419 -54


-6609 -832
-2952 573
-1403 1600
-1650 1302
-1893 212
-1687 522
-1701 622
-335 584
568 -403
398 -652
-536 -122
-1252 -345
-1177 602
-713 684
-339 192
-180 -368
-1279 -1105
-4588 -669
-4705 370
-4644 -870
-3993 -1361
-3206 -1933
-3930 -893
-5317 -318
-5895 -1434
-11266 -1243
-5696 -26
-5916 -224
-5080 -829
-3794 -1178
-2423 -223
-2666 -64
-2645 -168
-2409 -309
-4528 669
-5214 744
-2225 -643
-2685 -28
-3469 968
-3936 1032
-5744 476
-4527 -1886
-3278 -3756
-2918 -4210
-2836 -3653
-1496 -1005
-1028 -993
-353 -1003
455 -605
1115 -821
1371 -1141
1471 -601
1550 -716
1591 -1479


Total 58370 -23586 -37922 -45052 -31034 -15419 -9305 -2712 479 -137597 -26957

Vertical double lines indicate location of reef structure at time of 1995 monitoring survey.


-6609
-9561
-10965
-12614
-14507
-16194
-17895
-18230
-17662
-17264
-17801
-19052
-20230
-20943
-21282
-21462
-22741
-27329
-32034
-36678
-40671
-43877
-47807
-53124
-59019
-70284
-75980
-81896
-86976
-90769
-93193
-95859
-98503
-100913
-105441
-110655
-112880
-115565
-119034
-122971
-128714
-133241
-136519
-139437
-142273
-143769
-144796
-145149
-144695
-143580
-142209
-140738
-139189
-137598







Table lll-3c


P.E.P. Reef Monitoring Elevation changes between survey lines dated July 1992 and June 1995


Profile Dist. b/ Dist. to Area of cel Elevation Change (feet)
Line lines(ft) Reef (ft) (sq.vards) I Celll I Cell 21 Cell 31 Cell 41 Cell 51 Cell 61 Cell 71 Cell


SInner Outer ITotal
I1 Ch(ft) I Cheft) Che(ft)


92F-93B 400
93B-93C 200
93C-93D 200
93D-93E 200
93E-94A 200
94A-94B 200
94B-94C 200
94C-94D 200
94D-94F 300
94F-94G 150
94G-94H 150
94H-94J 200
94J-95A 200
95A-95B 100
95B-95C 100
95C-95D 100
95D-95E 100
95E-95F 75
95F-96A 75
96A-96B 75
96B-96C 75
96C-96D 100
96D-96E 200
96E-96F 200
96F-96G 200
96G-97A 400
97A-97B 200
97B-97C 200
97C-97D 200
97D-97E 200
97E-97F 150
97F-98A 150
98A-98B 150
98B-98C 150
98C-98E 200
98E-98G 200
98G-98H 100
98H-981 100
981-98J 100
98J-98A 100
99A-99B 75
99B-99C 75
99C-99D 75
99D-99E 150
99E-99F 200
99F-100A 200
100A-100B 200
100B-100C 200
100C-100D 200
100D-100E 200
100E-100F 200
100F-101A 200
101A-101B 200
101B-101C 200


2667
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333
2000
1000
1000
1333
1333
667
667
667
778
320 1333
320 1167
1000
792
140 967
208 1244
240 1222
200 1144
212 2422
224 1211
212 1178
212 1167
208 1089
184 767
184 800
200 858
212 892
216 1233
228 1267
228 650
240 694
260 744
276 783
288 1238
306 1138
1000
1000
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333


-1.05
0.93
1.06
0.78
0.71
-0.95
-1.66
-0.73
-0.52
-0.46
-0.10
0.32
-1.51
-2.48
-1.19
-0.47
-0.44
-1.49
-0.96
0.29
-1.57
-3.19
-3.96
-6.23
-6.33
-4.17
-3.62
-3.55
-2.23
-0.77
-0.55
-1.34
-1.54
-0.77
-2.10
-3.14
-1.94
-2.28
-3.63
-4.18
-3.75
-3.17
-2.55
-1.63
-0.77
0.06
0.65
1.41
1.97
1.73
1.80
2.56
2.67
1.75


-3.57 -2.09 -0.73 -0.75
-3.51 -2.93 -1.13 -0.73
-2.44 -1.21 -0.57 -0.59
-1.12 -2.52 -0.85 0.05
-0.96 -2.96 -1.05 -0.19
-1.56 -0.74 -0.54 -0.44
-1.11 -0.55 -0.50 -0.12
0.04 -0.05 -0.01 0.35
0.37 0.51 0.49 0.44
0.56 0.43 0.65 -0.18
0.29 -1.13 -0.67 -0.13
-0.77 -1.32 -1.05 -0.03
-1.05 -0.20 0.11 0.33
-0.84 -0.13 0.24 0.75
-0.72 0.02 0.36 0.35
-0.53 -0.12 0.31 0.01
-2.15 -1.91 -0.43 -0.26
-3.91 -3.15 -1.77 -0.52
-4.06 -4.19 -2.881 -1.04
-4.55 -5.69 -3.99 -2.61
-4.58 -4.78 -4.20 -3.21
-2.73 -2.09 -1.94 -1.20
-2.59 -1.26 -1.66 0.53
-2.78 -1.89 -2.15 0.13
-3.20 -3.39 -2.53 -0.75
-3.39 -3.81 -2.59 -0.17
-3.65 -3.98 -2.86 -0.21
-3.74 -4.47 -3.31 -0.29
-3.32 -4.55 -2.96 -0.77
-3.22 -4.07 -2.38 -0.82
-3.06 -3.65 -2.23 -0.65
-3.09 -3.51 -2.06 -0.34
-2.88 -3.19 -1.63 -0.19
-2.44 -3.12 -1.78 -1.22
-3.00 -3.78 -2.15 -0.09
-3.63 -3.89 -1.69 1.07
-3.28 -3.57 -1.48 -0.04
-3.26 -4.08 -1.97 0.04
-3.52 -4.62 -2.21 0.80
-3.64 -4.91 -2.34 1.08
-2.35 -4.49 -3.34 -0.42
-1.75 -3.11 -3.91 -3.31
-1.90 -1.82 -3.56 -4.75
-1.31 -1.71 -4.10 -4.70
-1.16 -1.75 -2.70 -2.90
-0.97 -1.57 -0.88 -1.12
-0.66 -1.50 -0.80 -1.58
-0.24 -1.25 -0.72 -1.46
0.27 -0.43 -0.78 -1.45
0.96 0.14 -0.32 -0.98
1.40 0.17 -0.29 -1.16
1.42 -0.34 -0.33 -1.29
1.48 -0.33 -0.33 -1.34
1.30 0.54 -0.01 -1.27


-0.42
0.27
0.95
0.56
-0.12
0.52
0.28
-0.09
-0.23
-0.60
-0.24
-0.10
0.43
0.79
0.21
-0.19
-0.72
-0.29
0.20
-0.68
-1.41
-1.26
-0.26
0.17
-0.33
-0.17
-0.07
0.01
-0.63
-0.64
0.12
-0.45
-0.50
-0.46
0.75
0.74
-1.30
-0.65
1.05
1.77
0.64
-1.60
-3.57
-3.99
-2.75
-1.37
-1.44
-1.37
-0.76
-0.99
-1.22
-0.64
-0.82
-0.99


-0.12
0.71
1.81
1.33
0.21
0.57
0.71
0.40
-0.50
-0.64
-0.09
-0.50
0.17
0.77
0.17
-0.56
-1.38
-0.23
0.96
0.17
-0.70
-1.73
-0.85
-0.17
-0.89
-0.23
0.08
-0.11
-0.32
-0.91
-0.16
0.03
-0.07
0.43
0.54
-0.09
-0.97
0.30
1.31
0.59
0.44
-0.24
-2.14
-2.55
-1.71
-0.46
-0.17
-0.01
0.27
-0.12
-0.27
0.16
-0.07
-0.94


0.36
1.04
1.44
0.99
0.58
0.53
0.53
0.66
-0.31
-0.54
0.09
-0.15
0.42
0.78
0.13
-0.92
-1.89
-0.47
0.83
0.50
0.15
-1.81
-1.57
-0.91
-1.78
-0.97
0.14
-0.17
-0.42
-0.89
-0.19
0.51
0.17
0.21
0.43
0.04
-0.66
0.19
0.75
0.51
0.50
0.18
-0.80
-1.39
-0.86
0.70
0.95
0.58
0.57
0.24
0.09
0.42
0.63
-0.12


-7.44 -0.94
-6.64 1.29
-3.16 3.60
-3.71 2.93
-4.26 0.48
-3.80 1.17
-3.83 1.40
-0.75 1.31
0.85 -0.61
1.19 -1.96
-1.61 -0.37
-2.82 -0.78
-2.65 1.35
-3.21 3.08
-1.52 0.86
-0.81 -1.66
-4.94 -4.26
-10.32 -1.50
-12.10 0.95
-13.93 -2.61
-15.13 -5.16
-9.95 -6.00
-9.47 -2.15
-13.05 -0.78
-15.45 -3.76
-13.95 -1.54
-14.11 -0.06
-15.07 -0.57
-13.06 -2.13
-10.45 -3.25
-9.48 -0.87
-10.00 -0.24
-9.24 -0.59
-8.11 -1.04
-11.01 1.63
-12.35 1.76
-10.27 -2.97
-11.60 -0.12
-13.98 3.90
-15.07 3.95
-13.92 1.15
-11.94 -4.97
-9.83 -11.27
-8.75 -12.63
-6.38 -8.22
-3.37 -2.26
-2.31 -2.23
-0.79 -2.26
1.02 -1.36
2.51 -1.85
3.08 -2.57
3.31 -1.35
3.49 -1.61
3.58 -3.33


63773 -64.28 -100.10 -119.99 -82.20 -39.34 -23.86


-7.77 0.02 -366.56 -71.02 -437.55


Vertical double lines indicate location of reef structure at time of 1995 monitoring survey.


-8.37
-5.35
0.44
-0.78
-3.78
-2.62
-2.43
0.56
0.25
-0.76
-1.98
-3.59
-1.29
-0.13
-0.66
-2.47
-9.20
-11.83
-11.15
-16.54
-20.29
-15.95
-11.63
-13.83
-19.21
-15.49
-14.17
-15.64
-15.19
-13.70
-10.35
-10.24
-9.83
-9.14
-9.39
-10.59
-13.24
-11.72
-10.08
-11.12
-12.77
-16.91
-21.10
-21.38
-14.60
-5.63
-4.55
-3.05
-0.34
0.66
0.52
1.96
1.87
0.25


Total






Table III-4a


P.E.P. Reef Monitoring Volumetric changes on survey line dated August 1993 and June 1995

Profile Dist. to Length ol Volume Change (cu. yards/linear foot) Inner Outer
Line Reef (ft)Ces ft Cels (f) Cell l Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8 Subtotal Subtotal Total


92F
93B
93C
93D
93E
94A
94B
94C
94D
94F
94G
94H
94J
95A
95B
95C
95D
95E
95E1
95F
95F1
96A
96A1
96B
96B1
96C
96C1
96D
96E
96F
96G
97A
97B
97C
97D
97E
97F
98A
98B
98C
98E
98G
98H
981
98J
99A
99B
99C
99D
99E
99F
100A
100B
100C
100D
100E
100F
101A
101B
101C

Total


0.09 -1.68 -0.45 0.57 -0.49 -0.31
1.21 3.86 0.70 0.81 1.78 1.29
1.73 4.99 2.85 0.71 -0.32 0.72
0.65 8.29 4.59 0.97 0.40 1.32
1.47 1.89 -7.28 -2.39 0.22 -0.40
1.16 2.29 -1.11 -1.16 -1.64 -0.63
-0.35 0.42 -1.02 -2.24 -0.68 1.04
0.98 -1.70 0.75 -0.73 -0.28 -0.79
1.35 1.07 1.51 1.04 0.38 1.22
0.82 -1.39 -1.90 0.35 -0.51 -0.04
0.48 0.42 0.69 1.70 -0.72 -1.31
0.46 1.30 0.12 -1.64 -1.18 -1.90
1.10 2.11 4.94 -0.45 -2.43 -0.99
-0.39 -0.23 -1.47 -1.01 0.13 0.18
0.13 -1.00 0.37 1.34 1.40 0.97
-0.47 -0.76 -0.04 1.41 1.19 0.70
0.79 -0.07 0.16 1.64 0.02 -1.08
-0.79 -2.35 -4.45 -1.50 2.34 -0.82
0.41 0.57 -4.73 -2.88 -0.17 -2.96
-1.28 0.16 -4.79 -4.37 0.71 -0.54
-1.03 -0.85 -6.65 -7.75 1.71 -0.71
4.46 -1.46 -1.15 -1.57 1.09 2.14
-1.18 -4.07 -3.31 -5.77 -4.84 -2.13
0.75 -3.72 -2.99 -4.67 -3.32 -1.93
-1.11 -4.62 -4.19 -5.12 -3.11 0.26
-1.82 -2.39 -2.28 -2.12 -0.24 0.57
-3.07 -2.34 -1.69 -1.30 0.01 -0.39
-3.18 -3.40 -1.06 0.87 0.33 -1.83
-7.41 -0.37 1.39 -2.80 3.02 0.10
-8.72 -2.50 -3.27 -2.80 -0.45 2.20
-7.07 -4.06 -6.01 -3.22 0.55 -0.39
-2.81 -1.48 -3.05 -1.95 -0.51 -0.27
-4.28 -3.56 -5.41 -2.09 1.98 -0.59
-4.27 -4.17 -6.33 -3.81 1.24 0.86
-2.39 -4.87 -6.98 -3.65 -1.94 -3.65
-2.61 -3.78 -5.68 -3.25 1.73 2.27
-3.24 -3.34 -5.27 -2.59 -0.10 0.01
-4.06 -4.04 -5.37 -2.85 -0.36 -0.81
-4.58 -4.26 -5.55 -3.09 0.65 1.36
-3.14 -3.73 -6.49 -3.31 -1.56 0.46
-13.15 -7.88 -9.88 -6.30 -1.17 1.58
-14.32 -9.92 -9.56 -6.93 -4.76 -1.80
-14.26 -10.41 -11.43 -8.11 -5.08 -2.16
-18.30 -12.30 -13.42 -8.74 -5.31 -0.56
-21.56 -13.65 -13.17 -7.97 -3.31 -0.27
-21.03 -14.62 -12.58 -6.77 0.51 2.57
-18.70 -6.44 -8.38 -9.01 0.20 1.86
-10.66 -11.04 -3.68 -6.46 -8.18 -4.65
-7.76 -10.26 -3.38 -6.24 -6.77 -5.16
-5.31 -12.79 -5.26 -8.87 -9.15 -5.28
-3.71 -7.32 -4.09 -2.45 -1.30 -0.47
-3.46 -7.48 -1.60 -1.23 -3.71 -0.85
-2.67 -8.68 -4.57 -1.65 -2.58 -1.73
-1.67 -9.92 -4.60 -1.88 -3.53 -0.75
0.69 -6.48 -1.16 0.02 -0.73 0.43
-0.99 -4.50 -0.46 0.65 -1.67 -0.91
-0.20 -7.18 -0.89 -1.37 -3.33 -0.64
-0.31 -6.31 -2.21 0.13 0.73 3.21
-2.04 -2.91 1.45 -1.41 -2.85 -0.18
-1.16 -2.86 1.81 3.17 -0.07 -1.03

-211.78 -217.77 -198.96 -152.09 -66.03 -23.59


-1.47 3.83
6.58 1.60
10.28 5.18
14.51 7.25
-6.31 1.86
1.19 -2.48
-3.18 1.20
-0.70 0.97
4.98 11.12
-2.13 -1.98
3.30 0.16
0.24 -5.80
7.69 -4.50
-3.10 -0.56
0.85 3.75
0.13 5.71
2.53 -4.86
-9.10 -5.29
-6.63 -8.13
-10.27 0.24
-16.29 -3.41
0.27 5.32
-14.33 -6.43
-10.63 -4.15
-15.04 0.48
-8.61 2.51
-8.40 2.19
-6.78 -9.25
-9.19 -1.04
-17.29 3.00
-20.37 -4.51
-9.29 0.71
-15.35 -7.39
-18.57 2.66
-17.90 -5.46
-15.32 1.96
-14.45 1.94
-16.32 -2.18
-17.48 4.04
-16.68 3.01
-37.20 5.64
-40.74 -9.85
-44.21 -10.83
-52.76 -2.85
-56.34 0.82
-54.99 5.30
-42.54 4.20
-31.85 -10.48
-27.64 -15.29
-32.23 -17.48
-17.57 1.91
-13.77 -0.48
-17.57 -3.80
-18.06 -0.51
-6.93 1.47
-5.28 -1.33
-9.63 -1.72
-8.69 9.04
-4.91 0.01
0.96 -4.32


13.05 19.28 -780.58 -57.28 -837.90


Vertical double lines indicate location of reef structure at time of monitoring survey.

111-10


2.36
8.18
15.47
21.76
-4.44
-1.29
-1.99
0.26
16.10
-4.11
3.45
-5.56
3.19
-3.67
4.60
5.84
-2.33
-14.39
-14.76
-10.04
-19.69
5.60
-20.76
-14.78
-14.56
-6.11
-6.21
-16.03
-10.23
-14.29
-24.87
-8.57
-22.74
-15.91
-23.36
-13.36
-12.51
-18.50
-13.44
-13.67
-31.56
-50.58
-55.04
-55.61
-55.52
-49.69
-38.35
-42.33
-42.93
-49.72
-15.67
-14.25
-21.38
-18.58
-5.46
-6.61
-11.35
0.35
-4.90
-3.36





Table lll-4b


P.E.P. Reef Monitoring Volume changes between survey lines dated August 1993 and June 1995

Profile Dist b/ Dist to Area of c Volume Change (cubic yards) Inner Outer Inner Cun Outer Cun
Lines lines(ft) Reef(ft) (sq.yards Celll Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell7| Cell 8 Chg(cydds C cdChg(cyds Chgs(yads


92F-93B 400
93B-93C 200
93C-93D 200
93D-93E 200
93E-94A 200
94A-94B 200
94B-94C 200
94C-94D 200
94D-94F 300
94F-94G 150
94G-94H 150
94H-94J 200
94J-95A 200
95A-95B 100
95B-95C 100
95C-95D 100
95D-95E 100
95E-95E1 75
95E1-95F 75
95F-95F1 75
95F1-96A 75
6A96A-96A1 75
96A1-96B 75
96B-96B1 75
96B1-96C 75
96C-96C1 100
96C1-96D 100
96D-96E 200
96E-96F 200
96F-96G 200
96G-97A 400
97A-97B 200
97B-97C 200
97C-97D 200
97D-97E 200
97E-97F 150
97F-98A 150
98A-98B 150
98B-98C 150
98C-98E 200
98E-98G 200
98G-98H 100
98H-981 100
981-98J 100
98J-98A 100
99A-99AB 75
99B-99C 75
99C-99D 75
99D-99E 150
99E-99F 200
99F-100A 200
100A-100E 200
100B-100C 200
100C-100E 200
100D-100E 200
100E-100F 200
100F-101A 200
101A-101E 200
101B-101C 200


260 436 51 275 259
295 885 356 151 146
239 1328 744 168 8
213 1018 -270 -141 62
264 418 -839 -354 -142
82 271 -213 -339 -232
63 -128 -27 -297 -96
232 -63 226 31 10
325 -47 -59 208 -19
97 -72 -91 154 -92
71 129 61 5 -142
156 341 506 -209 -361
70 187 347 -146 -230
-13 -62 -55 17 76
-17 -88 17 137 130
16 -42 6 152 61
0 -121 -214 7 118
-15 -67 -344 -1641 81
-33 27 -357 -272 20
-87 -26 -429 -454 91
128 -87 -293 -350 105
123 -207 -167 -275 -141
-16 -292 -236 -392 -306
-14 -313 -269 -367 -241
-110 -263 -242 -272 -126
-245 -236 -199 -171 -11
-313 -287 -138 -22 17
-1059 -377 33 -194 335
-1613 -287 -188 -560 257
-1580 -657 -928 -602 10
-1977 -1108 -1811 -1034 9
-709 -504 -846 -404 147
-855 -774 -1174 -589 322
-666 -904 -1331 -746 -70
-500 -865 -1266 -690 -21
-438 -534 -822 -438 122
-547 -554 -798 -409 -35
-648 -623 -819 -446 22
-579 -600 -903 -480 -69
-1629 -1161 -1637 -961 -273
-2747 -1780 -1944 -1323 -592
-1429 -1017 -1050 -752 -492
-1628 -1135 -1243 -842 -520
-1993 -1297 -1329 -836 -431
-2129 -1413 -1287 -737 -140
-2980 -1579 -1572 -1183 54
-2203 -1311 -905 -1160 -598
-1382 -1598 -530 -952 -1121
-980 -1729 -648 -1133 -1194
-902 -2011 -936 -1132 -1045
-717 -1480 -569 -368 -501
-613 -1616 -617 -288 -629
-434 -1860 -917 -353 -611
-97 -1640 -575 -186 -426
-29 -1098 -162 68 -240
-118 -1167 -135 -71 -500
-51 -1348 -310 -123 -260
-235 -921 -76 -128 -212
-321 -576 326 175 -292


Total 61027 -32017 -32885 -29097 -21797 -9949 -2927

Vertical double lines indicate location of reef structure at time of monitoring survey.


3302 3690 -115793 -5886


1022 1086
1687 678
2479 1244
820 912
-512 -62
-200 -128
-389 216
427 1209
427 1371
88 -137
266 -423
793 -1030
459 -506
-113 159
49 473
133 43
-328 -508
-590 -503
-634 -296
-996 -119
-600 72
-527 -41
-936 -397
-963 -137
-887 112
-851 235
-759 -353
-1596 -1029
-2648 196
-3766 -151
-5930 -758
-2463 -668
-3392 -473
-3647 -280
-3322 -350
-2232 292
-2308 -18
-2535 139
-2562 528
-5388 865
-7794 -421
-4247 -1034
-4848 -684
-5455 -101
-5567 306
-7315 713
-5580 -471
-4462 -1933
-4490 -2458
-4981 -1558
-3134 142
-3134 -429
-3564 -432
-2499 95
-1221 14
-1491 -305
-1832 732
-1360 906
-395 -431


1022
2709
5188
6008
5496
5296
4908
5335
5762
5850
6115
6909
7367
7255
7304
7437
7108
6518
5884
4889
4288
3761
2825
1862
975
125
-634
-2231
-4879
-8645
-14575
-17038
-20430
-24077
-27398
-29631
-31938
-34474
-37036
-42423
-50217
-54464
-59313
-64768
-70334
-77649
-83229
-87690
-92180
-97161
-100295
-103429
-106993
-109492
-110714
-112205
-114037
-115397
-115792


1086
1764
3008
3920
3858
3730
3946
5155
6526
6389
5965
4935
4428
4588
5061
5104
4596
4093
3797
3678
3750
3709
3312
3175
3287
3522
3169
2140
2336
2185
1426
758
285
5
-345
-53
-71
68
596
1461
1040
6
-678
-779
-473
239
-232
-2164
-4623
-6180
-6038
-6467
-6899
-6803
-6789
-7094
-6361
-5456
-5887






Table lll-4c


P.E.P. Reef Monitoring Elevation changes between survey lines dated August 1993 and June 1995


Profile Dist. b/ Dist. to Area of c|
Line lines(ft) Reef(ft) (sa.vardsl


92F-93B
93B-93C
93C-93D
93D-93E
93E-94A
94A-94B
94B-94C
94C-94D
94D-94F
94F-94G
94G-94H
94H-94J
94J-95A
95A-95B
95B-95C
95C-95D
95D-95E
95E-95E1
95E1-95F
95F-95F1
95F1-96A
96A-96A1
96A1-96B
96B-96B1
96B1-96C
96C-96C1
96C1-96D
96D-96E
96E-96F
96F-96G
96G-97A
97A-97B
97B-97C
97C-97D
97D-97E
97E-97F
97F-98A
98A-98B
98B-98C
98C-98E
98E-98G
98G-98H
98H-981
981-98J
98J-98A
99A-99B
99B-99C
99C-99D
99D-99E
99E-99F
99F-100A
100A-100B
100B-100C
100C-100D
100D-1 00E
100E-100F
100F-101A
101A-101B
101B-101C


2667
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333
2000
1000
1000
1333
1333
667
667
667
778
667
667
667
583
500
500
500
396
389
483
1244
1222
1144
2422
1211
1178
1167
1089
767
800
858
892
1233
1267
650
694
744
783
1238
1138
1000
1000
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333
1333


Elevation Change (feet) Inner Outer Total
Celll Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 61 Cell 71 Cell 8 Ch(ft) I Cha(ft) I Chg(ft)


0.29
0.66
0.54
0.48
0.59
0.18
0.14
0.52
0.49
0.29
0.21
0.35
0.16
-0.06
-0.08
0.07
0.00
-0.07
-0.15
-0.39
0.66
0.74
-0.10
-0.08
-0.83
-1.89
-1.94
-2.55
-3.96
-4.14
-2.45
-1.76
-2.18
-1.71
-1.38
-1.72
-2.05
-2.26
-1.95
-3.96
-6.51
-6.59
-7.03
-8.03
-8.16
-7.22
-5.81
-4.15
-2.94
-2.03
-1.61
-1.38
-0.98
-0.22
-0.07
-0.27
-0.11
-0.53
-0.72


0.49 0.06 0.31
1.99 0.80 0.34
2.99 1.67 0.38
2.29 -0.61 -0.32
0.94 -1.89 -0.80
0.61 -0.48 -0.76
-0.29 -0.06 -0.67
-0.14 0.51 0.07
-0.07 -0.09 0.31
-0.22 -0.27 0.46
0.39 0.18 0.01
0.77 1.14 -0.47
0.42 0.78 -0.33
-0.28 -0.25 0.08
-0.40 0.08 0.62
-0.19 0.03 0.69
-0.47 -0.83 0.03
-0.30 -1.55 -0.74
0.12 -1.61 -1.22
-0.12 -1.93 -2.04
-0.45 -1.50 -1.801
-1.24 -1.00 -1.65
-1.75 -1.42 -2.35
-1.88 -1.61 -2.20
-1.99 -1.84 -2.06
-1.82 -1.53 -1.32
-1.78 -0.85 -0.13
-0.91 0.08 -0.47
-0.70 -0.46 -1.38
-1.72 -2.43 -1.58
-1.37 -2.24 -1.28
-1.25 -2.10 -1.00
-1.97 -2.99 -1.50
-2.33 -3.42 -1.92
-2.38 -3.49 -1.90
-2.09 -3.21 -1.72
-2.08 -2.99 -1.53
-2.18 -2.86 -1.56
-2.02 -3.04 -1.62
-2.82 -3.98 -2.34
-4.22 -4.60 -3.13
-4.69 -4.84 -3.47
-4.90 -5.37 -3.64
-5.23 -5.36 -3.37
-5.41 -4.93 -2.82
-3.83 -3.81 -2.87
-3.46 -2.39 -3.06
-4.79 -1.59 -2.86
-5.19 -1.94 -3.40
-4.52 -2.11 -2.55
-3.33 -1.28 -0.83
-3.64 -1.39 -0.65
-4.18 -2.06 -0.80
-3.69 -1.29 -0.42
-2.47 -0.36 0.15
-2.63 -0.30 -0.16
-3.03 -0.70 -0.28
-2.07 -0.17 -0.29
-1.30 0.73 0.39


0.29 0.22
0.33 0.45
0.02 0.46
0.14 0.21
-0.32 -0.23
-0.52 0.09
-0.22 0.06
0.02 0.10
-0.03 0.27
-0.28 -0.30
-0.43 -0.72
-0.81 -0.65
-0.52 -0.18
0.34 0.26
0.58 0.38
0.27 -0.09
0.46 -0.37
0.37 -0.64
0.09 -0.59
0.41 -0.21
0.54 0.28
-0.84 0.00
-1.83 -0.91
-1.45 -0.38
-0.95 0.24
-0.09 0.07
0.11 -0.69
0.81 -0.42
0.63 0.56
0.03 0.47
0.01 -0.16
0.37 -0.21
0.82 0.07
-0.18 -0.72
-0.06 -0.38
0.48 0.67
-0.13 -0.22
0.08 0.14
-0.23 0.46
-0.66 0.50
-1.40 -0.05
-2.27 -0.91
-2.24 -0.59
-1.74 -0.17
-0.54 0.44
0.13 0.81
-1.58 -0.55
-3.36 -2.21
-3.58 -2.35
-2.35 -1.29
-1.13 -0.30
-1.41 -0.58
-1.37 -0.56
-0.96 -0.07
-0.54 -0.11
-1.13 -0.35
-0.59 0.58
-0.48 0.68
-0.66 -0.27


0.27
0.42
1.32
0.98
0.06
0.17
0.37
1.08
0.74
0.01
-0.15
-0.44
-0.12
0.14
0.35
-0.18
-1.01
-1.04
-0.49
-0.45
-0.29
0.12
-0.16
0.21
0.66
0.79
-0.83
-1.43
-0.01
0.30
-0.19
-0.93
-0.97
-0.07
-0.36
0.05
-0.04
0.08
0.94
0.94
-0.05
-0.89
0.16
1.29
1.00
1.07
0.90
-0.50
-1.38
-0.53
0.50
0.33
0.59
0.63
0.35
0.35
0.95
1.21
-0.30


1.15 1.22
3.80 1.53
5.58 2.80
1.85 2.05
-1.15 -0.14
-0.45 -0.29
-0.87 0.49
0.96 2.72
0.64 2.06
0.26 -0.41
0.80 -1.27
1.78 -2.32
1.03 -1.14
-0.51 0.72
0.22 2.13
0.60 0.19
-1.27 -1.96
-2.65 -2.26
-2.85 -1.33
-4.48 -0.53
-3.09 0.37
-3.16 -0.25
-5.62 -2.38
-5.78 -0.82
-6.72 0.85
-6.56 1.81
-4.71 -2.19
-3.85 -2.48
-6.50 0.48
-9.87 -0.40
-7.34 -0.94
-6.10 -1.65
-8.64 -1.20
-9.38 -0.72
-9.15 -0.97
-8.74 1.14
-8.65 -0.07
-8.86 0.49
-8.62 1.78
-13.11 2.10
-18.46 -1.00
-19.60 -4.77
-20.94 -2.96
-21.98 -0.41
-21.32 1.17
-17.73 1.73
-14.72 -1.24
-13.38 -5.80
-13.47 -7.37
-11.21 -3.50
-7.05 0.32
-7.05 -0.96
-8.02 -0.97
-5.62 0.21
-2.75 0.03
-3.36 -0.69
-4.12 1.65
-3.06 2.04
-0.89 -0.97


2.37
5.32
8.38
3.90
-1.29
-0.74
-0.39
3.68
2.70
-0.15
-0.47
-0.53
-0.11
0.21
2.35
0.79
-3.22
-4.92
-4.18
-5.02
-2.72
-3.41
-8.00
-6.60
-5.87
-4.75
-6.90
-6.33
-6.02
-10.27
-8.28
-7.76
-9.84
-10.10
-10.12
-7.59
-8.72
-8.37
-6.84
-11.00
-19.46
-24.37
-23.90
-22.39
-20.15
-16.01
-15.96
-19.18
-20.84
-14.71
-6.73
-8.02
-8.99
-5.41
-2.72
-4.04
-2.47
-1.02
-1.86


63866 -95.65 -98.78 -90.96 -69.42 -29.55 -9.96


6.52 8.73 -354.74 -24.28 -379.04


Vertical double lines indicate location of reef structure at time of monitoring survey.

111-12












APPENDIX IV


PEP Experimental Reef Sea Turtle Monitoring Program
FINAL REPORT


by
John R. Fletemeyer
October 14, 1995


IV-1






P E. P Experimental Reef

Sea Turtle Moni~torrin Programl





John R. Fleltemeycr

OIcatober 1If, 19P395

.,





r Tj~~~~i .iP? ;*'


-- = L






C' 11T


~,1 * iv -B~l
..-. **%
'I -- ~ '

,..~ .
. -. .'



\ *. *. .







INTRODUCTION


In an effort to reduce the impact of beach erosion along a 4,000 feet section of
shoreline in Palm Beach, Florida (Fig. 1), the Town Council voted to contract
American Coastal Engineering, Inc. to design, construct, and deploy a Prefabricated
Erosion Prevention Reef (PEP).

The PEP Reef consisted of 330 concrete, steel reinforced triangular modules, each
weighing 25 tons. The PEP Reef structure until its final removal on August 19, 1995,
was located at "Mid-Town" beach and extended from just south of Hammon Avenue
north to Barton Avenue.

A requirement for the permitting of this "experimental" erosion control barrier was a
comprehensive monitoring study consisting of both physical and biological elements.
One of the biological elements was a sea turtle monitoring program. The objective
of this program was to assess how the PEP Reef impacted (negatively or positively)
sea turtle nesting behavior and incubation success.

This report represents the final report of a series of three reports required by the
contract specifications that were developed by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The first two
reports represented interim progress reports and were submitted in October 1993
and October 1994.

METHODS

To aid in systematically monitoring nesting activity, the study area was divided into
52 zones that were each 100 feet in length. This was accomplished using a
measuring wheel and marking the east side of the neighboring sea wall with spray
paint. After dividing the study area into these reference zones, the beach was then
further divided into two sections, the PEP project section (= zones 1-26) and the
control section (= zones 27-52). Regarding the control section, this was located
directly south of the PEP Reef and served to make comparisons between the PEP
beach and the "natural" beach.

At the extreme north end of the PEP barrier reef is Clarke Avenue beach. Although
this area was monitored on a daily basis in the same way as the rest of the study
area, its short length prevented it from being conveniently divided into zones of equal
length. Also, because of a 210 feet gap in the PEP Reef to allow an AT&T
submerged telephone cables to pass through, the nesting data collected on Clarke
Avenue beach was not included in the same data set as the section of the PEP Reef





-65
R -66


R-67

*mR-70
*R-71
.R-72
Rh-7i3


R-76 R-75
S, 'LAKE WORTH
R-77 INLET
PROJECT
R-78 SITE

^U I r











I
f '* -\ Borrow Site






R-S ATLANTIC
`, S !7- OCEAN



-0 FIGURE 1: location of Project Site



















A-i-', Sccle in reet




..0

TOWN OF PALM BEACH Revisions --yn =. ,
NOURISHMENT PROJECT
rcc- oc LOCATION ec y:
or: re 5se
TOWN OF PALM BEACH 7-29-9
5-29-95







that was divided into 26 zones.


Beach monitoring began on April 19, 1993, and consisted of a Florida DER permitted
worker walking from the north end of the study area to the south end. When a sea
turtle crawl was observed, it was identified as being either a "nesting" crawl or a
"false" crawl. Next, a diagram was made of the crawl in a field book so that it could
be given a "type" designation using the guidelines developed in the Delray Beach
sea turtle study (developed by this investigator). Additional data that was recorded
included the distance the crawl terminated from the high tide line, the species of
turtle responsible for the crawl, and whether or not there were any associated
disturbances that might impact incubation success, i.e. nest predation, human
disturbances (egg poaching), beach erosion, salt water overwash, etc.

The final treatment of the crawl involved placing two identification stakes in the
vicinity of the nest. One was placed with a special "Unlawful to Disturb" identification
sign approximately three feet northwest of the egg chamber, while the second stake
was placed due west of the chamber next to the sea wall. In the case of the second
stake, a line with the exact distance between the stake and the egg chamber was
tacked to the stake. This permitted the location of the nest in the event that the first
stake located next to the egg chamber was lost.

Following this procedure, each nest was monitored daily for any unusual
disturbances and for the emergency of baby turtles. Whenever there was evidence
that salt water reached the nest due to a storm event or an unusually high tide, this
event was recorded for future analysis.

When hatchling sea turtle tracks were observed emerging from a nest, the incubation
time (= days) was recorded into a field book. The following day, the nest was
excavated and the contents were examined using the criteria recommended in the
Manual of Sea Turtle Research and Conservation Techniques (Pritchard et al.,
1978). Following the examination of the nest, the contents were reburied on the
beach.

DATA ANALYSIS

During the course of this three year study, a number of problems occurred that
effected the collection of data and impacted the validity of the study's research
design. These included:

A number of nests were lost due to severe beach erosion and a
number of nests were impacted from being overwashed with







saltwater.


Three nests were removed from the beach during the 1995
season by an egg poacher who was subsequently apprehended
by the local police.

Prior to and during the 1995 season, the entire beach located
next to the PEP Reef was lost to erosion. Consequently, there
was no nesting activity in zones 1-26 except for one false crawl.

During the 1995 season, the PEP Reef study was terminated
when the Town Council voted to remove the PEP Reef and
construct a beach restoration project. The final module was
removed on August 19, 1995.

The combination of the above circumstances were responsible for limiting the
opportunity to collect sufficient data to make appropriate descriptive and analytical
comparisons between the study area and the control area on both an inter seasonal
and intra seasonal basis.

RESULTS

Seasonal Nesting:

Nesting for the three season period (1993-1995) averaged 114 days and ranged
from 108 days in 1995 and 123 days in 1994 (Table 1).

Table 1: Duration of nesting activity in the study area over a three
year period, 1993 1995.

Year Date of Date of
(Season) First Crawl Last Crawl Days
1993 05/04/93 08/25/93 111
1994 04/16/94 08/18/94 123
1995 04/30/95 08/15/95 108







Nesting Frequency:


A total of 713 crawls were observed during the three seasons and ranged between
218 crawls during the 1994 season and 251 crawls during the 1995 season. From
the total number of crawls between 1993 and 1995, 403 resulted in nests containing
eggs.

Nesting by Species:

A majority (98%) of nests were made by Atlantic loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta
caretta caretta. However, a small representative number of nests were made by
green turtles, Chelonia mydas, and leather back turtles, Dermochelys coriacea
(Table 2).

Table 2: Summary of sea turtle nesting by species observed in the
study area over a three season period (1993-95).

Season Loggerhead Green Leather back
(Year) Nests Nests Nests
1993 126 0 0
1994 116 0 3
1995 154 3- 1

Nesting Success:

Overall nesting success in the study area from 1993 to 1995 was 56 percent. On a
seasonal basis, nesting success varied considerably showing a marked seasonal
increase (Fig. 2). When nesting success is compared between the PEP beach and
the neighboring control area, a difference of 12 percent is observed; 66 percent for
the PEP beach and 54 percent for the control area. This observation remains
relatively consistent for each season and indicates that turtles attempting to nest on
the PEP beach were more likely to successfully nest than turtles on the control
beach.

Nesting Distribution:

During the past three seasons, nesting activity was not uniformly distributed in the
study area (Fig. '3). It was most pronounced in the control area between zones





Fig. 2: Seasonal Comparison of Nesting
Success (1993 1994) in the study






70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1993 1994 1995


Year


area.








Figures 3 a,b,c, & d

3a Nesting activity during 1993 season

3b Nesting activity during 1994 season

3c Nesting activity during 1995 season

3d Combined nesting activity (1993 1995)






1993


40
Total Nests =146
Total FalseCraws 14035

30

25

20
Note: The Clark
Beach area is not
represented In this
figure. 15

10

5

0


,, P 4P Atp qe ,U NCO b Z b' t) 'b %Z' 16 10 4) 0 0 bb, ,ro 0 \P b'l,@




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