Citation
Performance of the midtown Palm Beach PEP reef installation

Material Information

Title:
Performance of the midtown Palm Beach PEP reef installation
Creator:
Dean, Robert G.
Publisher:
Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida
Publication Date:

Subjects

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

Notes

Funding:
This publication is being made available as part of the report series written by the faculty, staff, and students of the Coastal and Oceanographic Program of the Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text
UFL/COEL-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
EXECUT11VE SUMMARY ................................................... 1
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 4
2. DESCRIPTIONS OF ENVIRONS AND PROJECT ............................ 5
2.1. The Environs .................................................... 5
2.2. Project Description ............................................... 8
3. MONITORING PROGRAM ............................................... 9
3.1. W aves .......................................................... 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. W ave Attenuation ............................................... 14
4.2. Currents ....................................................... 18
4.3. Settlement of Units ............................................... 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 by Zones ......................................... 35
5.8. Volumetric Changes Over Time .................................... 39
6. PHYSICAL MODEL STUDY ............................................. 39
6.1. Test Program ................................................... 39
6.2. Laboratory Results .............................................. 41
7. INTERPRETATION .................................................... 42
8. BIOLOGICAL STUDIES ................................................. 43
8.1. G eneral ........................................................ 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 1: Wave Data................................................I1-1
APPENDIX HI: PEP Reef Unit Settlement Results............................11-1
APPENDIX MI: Elevation and Volume Changes ..............................IlM-1
APPENDIX IV: PEP Experimental Reef Sea Turtle Monitoring Program...........lV-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
i




LIST OF FIGURES

page

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
. 176
. . 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 ...................




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

TableP
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 offt'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 3 30 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 Miarr- 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 (3 3 1 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 Il-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.

BIv Southern

Net Longshore ediment Transport
Port of
Palm Beach
Entrance
) 7
Bypassing location
_7
.7
0
.7
I]IPEP Reedf4176ft

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




Oil
a)
E4
C
CU
1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Yea r
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 yds'. 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
av +aQ 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.

Prtof PahlnadaBrmne

-3M -2M -100 0 100
fIin= OaigeFrcm 1883 Posit= (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 of h.+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 longterm 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
Approximately 240 feet
" V SWL
*.*~..: *.3.5 ft :...." ;'.
.. 9.5 ft Sand; *. .. . . .
. ..* .
. .. ". -." ".-." .--- PEP Reeff Seaward
.................:....................... ....
.................. .............................***..:. :..
*o o. o c.. ..
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
. ---1 400' for Those at DNR Monuments
=--S 850E
- -- -- 7 200'.N 900E

-,. ~~ 419"E 'E NOTES:
"-1 N 800E All Profile Lines at 900 Azimuth Except, as Noted,
8-5 -for 12 of the 15 Lines From DNR Monuments
-BREAKWATER Total of 75 Lines. (DEP Monuments Only Surveyed
. ...N 800E Annually, Others Quarterly).
0 1 N 800E
.... N 750E
I r 6- 675'
"" "1 150' Denotes 6 Spaces at 75 It Between Profile Lines
.. .. --- O,-10- 20', N 900E
-8..0E Most Southerly Line Except
for Those at DNR Monuments

0 5000 f

Figure 5 Profile Monitoring Plan Relative to PEP Reef Installation

:
im
O I
0
Z
0




5' 5.
2021
** 5' 5'
19* 186
77714 15 14 15

- -4-1
10 11

CONTROL POINT 500' NORTH OF BREAKWATER

0 a
2223
NORTH END OF BREAKWATER
AT&T SUBMERGED LAND EASEMENT
216' GAP
**
16 17
-- -BREAKWATER CENTER LINE

SOUTH END OF BREAKWATER
**
89
3
* CONTROL PoINT 500' SouTH
OF BREAKWATER

COPPER PIPE
LOOSE WASHER
(INmAL PosmoN)
WASHER AFTER SCOUR
/ SCOUR DEPTH
SCOUR ROD (TYPICAL) TOTAL = 28

Figure 6 Locations of Scour Rods Relative to PEP Reef Installation

10' 10' 26 27 28

N.T.S.

I
II II
6 7
*5 e4




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 comer 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 nim, 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:
Kt = Hs nearshore
Hs offshore shoaled
where K = transmission coefficient, Hs nearshore = nearshore significant wave height, and Hs 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.
Tnhle 2 Mnnthlv Averag'ed Sqi~niflennt Wave lHeight 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 reportedK, values are the averages of individual transmission coefficients and may differ slightlyfrom the values obtained by dividing the monthly averaged Hs Nearore by Hs off, osho.,ed in the table above

Month I=H,, H .._o_ I H ShoaleK,
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 ICt 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 ',$- i + 4_ -H: ,I S + +
0.4 +
01.0 + 1 I II
10 .. + ..........t % -" -+ !.... ... .. q . . ; . . .:
o.+ ... +;- ......i ..... ; .... ,..... ..........
0o .6 .... .i ...... ........... ................................. . . .......... .
0 .4 .. ...... . . .......... i ........... ........ -- - .......... . !
0 .2 .. . - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . - - -
lanuarj~ebuyarhApi May J une July :August Si
0 .0 : : I I 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.. *
- r + + ++ +
- + : +
........ +.......................... . + + +
. + -. ......... .
+ +4~ ~ + +++ +
+ + + + +
++
+ +
.. . . : .. . . . . . . . .. . ..... . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . ..-- . . . . .. . . . .
Ianuary-FebruaryMarch April May June July August Sept emberOct.
I: *I1 I I I" I' I*l I *t : I




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 ftls, 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
. ........................................ ................ ....."
IIF
SRemaining 2 73 Units I1-la
0 6 12 18 24 30 36
t (months after installation)
Figure 10 i-stories 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
4) 5
0 0
..* .- -. ............
-5 ~ . ......... -- - - - - W0 .4,- - - - ---V - - - - a - ,- - -
a 0 0 a
----- .. .. .. .. 0 .. . . - -- - - - -- -0 - -
V V
-2 0 .. ..... -------------- ... . . . ...................... .. ...............
00 3
= -2 5 ------- c3 ............................................................................... --.......... 7 .............. .
0 07129193 to 08114193(20 days)
o 30 .... ..... o0t 49o3 lo-831t0793l-2-3 d9-. ) ............. .....; .............. ...........
30 12/1193 to 0XM7194(77 days)
. . 0 310 7119 4 to 0 6 10 3) 4 (8 8 d a ys ) .. . .
-3 5 .. . .- i ; i ;9 f ). . . . . . . ............. ........ . . . .. .. . .
~ 09121194 to 06124195(277 days)
-40 ,, .
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Scour rod num ber
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.
1,10
Period "" 0" Scour rod settlement and reset
-Scour rod reset on sea ground
PePred 2-3
>- 20 ".i".: Period 5-o O 0.Period 6
o0
.30
0
W -5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Days after July 29,1993
Figure 12 Average Sea Floor Elevation iFstory and Changes in Average Elevations for Scour
Rod Numbers 14 through 19




4.5. Image Results
A digital image is a two dimensional ftmnctionf(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 (, 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 reef s crest width in this area varies from 400- 600 feet, a significant difference. Figure 15 presents a rectified image obtained




4 3 0
0
O 0
.0
4 o:
0 *
0
oc
E
omc
Q.j
o
LL J ".1 1 .1 1 1 [:
0~ ~ 0 C..0 0 0 C
'. o
0 c
a 0
... 9 o
.00
z z O
o o o o o o o o 4 o
Figure 14 Bathymetry in Camera View for June 1995 Figure 15 A Partially Rectified Image
Survey Obtained from Figure 13.
o..00 0, 0. 0'" 0 0: 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 0 .' 0 .
Ct 0 : .- .. .... : U : ..
(ii otul.I 0JO : 0i
Figre 4Bthyetr in Caer Vie fo'ue19 iue1 atal etfe mg
Suve Obtaied.frm Figre13




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 thi s 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 ists 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, 5 5.6%, 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.
PrfieLie Distance South Breaking near Breaking over Breaking over the
PrfieLieof 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 d,,, (median size of sand sample) values range from 0. 15 mm to
0.96 mm, averaging 0.35 mm.




Profile R96G In tens ity

500

1000

Bathym etry for M arch 1995

500 1000
Distance from monument R96G (ft)
Profile R970

500

1000

1500

1500

1500

Bathymer o a~19

500 10OOO 1500
Distance from monument R97D (ft)
Profile R98E
In te n s ity

500

1000

1500

Bathym etry for M arch 1995 0A 50 1000

0500 1000
Distance from monument R98E (ft) Figure 16 An Example of Image Intensity Analysis, April 11, 1995.
24

200 100

200
7;
100
0

rekn eauoeBreking over 1b. nttral reef -NW---13,eaking over the PEP R~eef

20 10
0
-10
-20
0

1500




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. Longs hore Shoreline Change Distributions
The changes in Mean Hi-gh Water (MII1W) 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 Months I I
Periods Intersurvey Cumulative Intersurvey Cumulative Intersurvey Cumulative
change change change j change change J 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
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
II +
07/94-11/94 28 2.78 i -19.66 2.09 !_-18.39 -14.26 i 36.34
II t
11/94-12/94 29 -5.37 1 -25.03 -4.84 -23.23 -7.02 1 29.32
1I +
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. Longs hore Volume Change Distributions
This section presents the distribution of volume changes per linear foot (ydsAllf both landward and seaward of the Reef along the 9,800 feet of monitored shoreline. These results are based on the volume changes occuning for each of the profile lines between monitoring surveys. Appendix HI-a presents a tabulation of the volume changes n profile line for inner and outer profile sections; Appendix Ml-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 Ml-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 yds3/lf and +15 yds3llf 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 Volumnetric Changes Per Unit Beach Length for Area
Landward of PEP Reef.

0 1000 2000
N North

3000 4000 5000 6000
Distance from monument 92F (ft:

7000 8000 9000 10000

Figure 19 Longshore Distribution of Volumetric Changes Per Unit Beach Length for Area
Seaward of PEP Reef.
28

Reef .....0 8/9 3-0719 4
0 719 2-0619 5 0_ 8993 -06/9 5




250
200 V1 0.0\ ~
S150 Q4l
(100 t
CC
tu 50 :n6
E01 05 A
0 5 i "" '.-" .. ',i'
-200 -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
200 U
150
U)0 n 100 A (
LUJ 50 E 0
00
-50 /.. ""
49 100V '0-150
-00 '
-250
--a-North D istance f ro m mo nument 9 2F (f t)
Figure 21 Elevation Changes Between July 1994 and June 1995 Surveys.




250

100 V V o l7I
Q10
- 100
(L 50 "."i! ..
0, 0 -0a.o
,.-,,.... .-5'.;Q .. .VI.; ', .0- ,
C.) -5
9-200 .3.
-250 z
-2 0 ..... .s .:..!". ." ...
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
---- North Distance from monument 92F (ft)
Figure 22 Elevation Changes Between July 1992 and June 1995 Surveys.
A' B' E' C' D' --t
250
150
50 '" " .o
00
u-50 0
-2100 0011A
EA
0 0 .. :
-250 "
~~~~~~~~ ,,,,, -. 11 ,.....
-100'
-2 50
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
A -- B-J E C -J -EJ

North

Distance from monument 92F (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 Basisfor 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 Basisfor 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, I OOB and 97C) are




300 400 500 600
Distance from monument 94D (ft)

700 800
-eaw-d -

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

:S e c tion B-B'
-- --' .. . . . -. . ........... --- - - - ............... -- - - - - ------.. i I : = ; ~ ~ 9 -. .. .I
- July19 :2 f August:1993
. . . . - - - - - - -..
June 19:95
Reef
Seawall
- - -- - - - -- " ---- - - - - -
. . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . --- - - - - - - - -.-. -. -. .- . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .
. . . . .-. . . ..-. . . . ..- -. . . ..- -. . . . ..- . . ..- - -e = -:.: ,

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

9.tio. A -A ........ ........-- .............. ..... -- -- .... .... .... ... -- - -- - ------------... - - ... .. .. .. . .. . . . . .. . J l 1 9 2. .
J uly 1 9 92 August 1993 July 1994
_____June 1995
. ................. . .................. .................... ... . . . .... . . . ............ J . ..1 .. ......
. .. ..... ..... :........ -,--- -- .. .. . .. . .. . --- ............ . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ......... ... ...... ... ........
i I i I I I i ..........

100 200

20
-. 15
10
z
- 0
0
o -5 w -10
-15
-, n




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 yds3/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
Sea al' Se c tion c-c,
15 ................. .................... ..................... ............... .................. 1992
- August 1993
10 .......................................................................................................... ..Ju ly 19 9 4
C- June 1995
o...........
0o- 0
- 5 .... ...... ...... . . . . -; " ----- --- -- ---- --- ---- -------- --- -- - -- - - ------- ----- ---. -- - .. .. . . . .. -- .. . . . . --.. .. ....... .....
t 10 .. . . . -- - - - - - -- - - ........ -- - -- - - -- - -- - - .. . . .. . . .. ...
- 1 5 . . . . . . . . ..- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . .!... . ... ... . . . . . . . - - - --- -;. '
-2 0, I ,,
0100 200 300 400 500 600 700 So
D istance from m onument 99B (ft) Sewr ------ d Figure 26 Section C-C'. Profile at South End of Reef. Monument R09974B.




20 I
S--sea Nall Section D -D'
> 5 ....... ........... ............. ............... ................ ................ ...... ...... . . A u st 9 3 /
-. 15July 1992
> August 1993
10 July 1994
. ...... ----------June 1995
0
0
I .......... : --- ----------- r ............... ................ ................ .............. -5
-10
-15 ..........................- ........ ............... "----- --------- -------------- ................ --..............
-20 I
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
> 15
z
- 10
- 5
0 n

a .. PEP Reef
> -5 "- - - - .... .
- 1 5 ... ... ... .. ... . ........... -- -- -- -- -- -- ... .i ............ ..... ....... . . .! " . .
W -10 --- -1 5 - - - - - - - - - - - . . . .---- - - -
-20 i
0 150 300 450 600 750 900 1050 1200 1350 1500
Distance from m onum ent 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

I t I I I I I '
-S eawall
... .. .. .. -- --- -- -- -- -- -- --S e c tio n E -E . - - -- - -- - - -
. ..... .... July 1992
-... ............. August 1993
. .. July 1994
June1995




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 1 zone 2 2000' 9E i e .
are between monuments 95E and 99B and zones five and six are
.- zone 3 zone 4 4000'
defined by monuments 99B and 101A. The northern and southern Z" regions extend roughly 2000 feet north and south of the Reef and the 99B zon ....... zone...... .. 2000...
central region is within the approximate 4000 feet Reef confines. 101A 24+! +4'hFiur 29+/ Zone/ Loaton
5.6. Seaward Elevation Changes by Zones Fgr 9Zn oain
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 MI presents




2
0 -2
C-4
0
-6
E -8
-10
2
-6o
-0
-2
0
c -4
0
c -6
()
M -8
C
C-10
0
-2
0
o -6
C
w -8 <-10
4)
g2
0
.-2
-4
m -6
()
M -8
C
(a-1 0

420
Seaward -

480

July 1994 to June 1995
..........................................N Are -- -4
' ........ North areas (zonel&zone2)
S-- -~..." _Reef confines (zone3&zone4)
S - - South areas (zone5&zone6)
._ /PET Ilel

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)
August 1993 to June 1995

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

360 420
Seaward --

360 Sawr20 480

360 Seaw420 480

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

----------........................
North areas (zonel&zone2) Reef confines (zone3&zone4) S - South areas (zone5&zone6)
/Pl Ree%

0

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

0
-

0

S....... North areas (zonel&zone2) '- Reef confines (zone3&zone4)
South areas (zone5&zone6)
PI P le e ..

Auus i199 to" JuTly 400




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/lf, 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 f .........

94A 95E
0
99B 101

17,600

240'

3,600

-5,700

-+- 240'
(a)

-v
2000'
4000'
2000' A-

July 1994 to June 1995

94A 95E
0
z
99B 101A

7,300

-47,800

-52,900

-1,100 "Reef.

-5,400
-1,700

-- 240' -- 240' -.-I
(b)

-v
2000' 4000' 2000'

July 1992 to June 1995

-8,100 200
.................... .... .............
Reef

106,900

-6,600

2000'

-10,900 -20,400 2000
-- 240' -- 240'

August 1993 to June 1995

94A 95E
z
99B

101

A

240' -q- 240' H
(d)

Figure 31 Volumetric Changes by Zones for Four Periods.

-37,400

94A 95E
0
z
99B 1OA

200 2000'
4000'
2000'
__L

1,700 800
.................... q ......... . .
.Reef.
-85,200 -1,800
-35,300 -7,400

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 ylls ) occurred landward of the Reef The second greatest loss (-35,300 yds') 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

50000
0
-50000

-1 5 0 0 0 0 I ".. "I 2 " "4 .
Figure 32 Histories of Cumulative Volume Changes for Three Inner Zones.
Seaward of Reef Alignment

150000

50000
0
-50000

-150000

Figure 33 Histories of Cumulative Volume Changes for Three Outer Zones.
40

I I
* *. * 2000 N and S of Reef
---*--- within Reel confines (zone 4)
I. Net
- - -- --- 2000 N (zone 2)
- ..... ...... 2000S (zone 6)
4/n I I I I 4 / 0
04/93 03/94 07/ '4 1 1/4 12/94 03195 00195




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

1:8 Gravel Gridaed
B each Test Area

Paddlle
Waveznaker

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.

jP
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 fiction 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 13 0%. 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 Fletemneyer 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




(3 31 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 ofDEP 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)




I I I II

+++ ++++ 4 4#+ ++

+

- w\sH 0

.. . . . . .
.J.... . ... ... . ...i '

0
0
e0
D
o 4 s
o
o
*o
a o
o w
04 0
o *: w~u'
C)
* 0D
oD

10 0

(s) W

0
le
o
NN
0
* 0 .< N4
a)
o 4 C0
o
0)
o b o ,
0m




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

0 .5 I : II
._.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -- - 0 4 . . .. . . . . . . . ............ ............... ...
0.4 - -
E January February, March April May June July A "Z 0 .3 - - --. .- - - - --... . .- - - - ---.. .- --.... .
0
a) + C + + +
a) 0.2 :, -+% ------:+- +1 -- -+ ...
- + 0+ + + +
+ +_ + + +
0.10
0.0 -t V + ++ ~4 #-~
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 Date
Figure 1-4 Offshore Gage Mean Current, January October, 1994

270 300

240 270 300

1-3




E ..-I-........................... .+
+ ++ 41
+4t-- + + + ++t-I
N
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
Date
Figure I-5 Offshore Gage Mean Current Direction, January October, 1994
1.5 : : I 1: : I: :
+
++ + + + +
- + '+ + + =
-+4
*+~ 4+ + 10 :
_ -, -+ -, : :+ + + + : #
January F bruary: March : April ay n July A gust 'ptembeiOctober
0 .0 I I I 'l I I' a l' I
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
Date
Figure I-6 Nearshore Gage Significant Wave Height, January October, 1994.

I-4




4Fr 4 V. -!I 1 rl: R ii ii ii 1 ii i i i ii
++ ++ : + +
- + + +; + I-HHil- + t + ---
+ +~ tt& -'b_ + + +U

January

February: March

t i+ +
++': ----- IApril May June Ju i -

15
10
U)
E

ly

August September October
I. I I ,

0
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
Date

180 210 240 270 300

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

1-5

* I. I ,
+:+
+ + + ++ t -if- -H--i
+ : ++ : + .. .. -- *: -- -- ---- --
+ ; + : +
++ -r+ +H -
S : + ++
+F t H -s-...-H

- ..

I




0 .5 I I I: I: II
0.4 ...... ... ....+ ................................. .........................................
January February: March April May June July August September October
+ + :+ +:
+ ++ + + + +
+:+ + -, .. +: +
0.1+ ] + f+ + + ~ ~ + +
0.0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
Date
Figure 1-9 Nearshore Gage Mean Current, January October, 1994
N
w .. .....
+++. + ++- ++ + -4: +
:+ 4:' :
+- + -H :,- + H- + +H -i : i ,- %
.: ~+ +S +-+ + H + +
-- + + *++ +
-t + +~ ++ +
++
+ + + ++ ++-j ++
+ +
N.. .. . . .. . . . ... . .. .... . I I : '-,: e t
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
Date
Figure 1-10 Nearshore Gage Mean Current Direction, January October, 1994

1-6




Tm(S)

0 Co)
O
O)
-4
o

+.. . + .. .: -. . =k : .. ........ ..... .
- d+ ++
+ +
+* + + +
+ + +
+ ++ + ,+++ +
'..............
v~14#+t +i
++

..... ....1
u++
%+ j+ +
+t:
+ + + +
+ + + + +-.
++ +
++
.-H +:
++ -11 ..4T7.

. . . . .

0
co
CA .0)
-4
N) ICO (D
co
cn aO

o H s(m) _.,
)~ ~ *c3I 0
C-i +
++ -+ +
- -+# +--+,t- '+++'
++
+t
S+ -44* ++ .+ + i+ + +
++
++
+ t-tW-4 - ---+14 + + +
+ + +
> "+1,i +++ +++ ++
- +++
~44 +++~
+ ++
+ + +1:
_ + t ++ 4 + +
++ ++
...... + ..- v. ,.......t. .. :................ .
> ++- + -. +- +
4.+41tt
+
- ++ + ++
, +i

.




I I I ' I I ' i 1 : I "
. ................ .................. ................ + .. . .T.. . . - :
~ ~ ~ 4 ...... -..-.-. -: : : +.- t~~4 44 +~
o dur+i a+ + t+ +
No data available during Janu~ary through March

NII I I M J e
0 18 36 54 72 90 108 126 144 162 180
Date
Figure 1-13 Offshore Gage Modal Wave Direction, January June, 1995.

January ebruary

0 .5 I I I I : I : 1 I I
0.4
January February March April May June
0 .3 :-------:--O
No data available during January through March
+ *+
++
.6.,-H- + + +'4
= o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . !. . .... +: . . + . . . +
-I: *+_ : i frK t+0.0
0 18 36 54 72 90 108 126 144 162 180
Date
Figure 1-14 Offshore Gage Mean Current, January June, 1995.

I-8

March Aprl

May

June




+ : -+ +
+

No data available during January through March January Vebruary, March

*I- ~
* 4
.4
+ +

+
-~ +


+
+

+ +--

I ~~44.4~ ~WA+

Im
0 18 36 54 72 90 108 126 144
Date
Figure 1-15 Offshore Gage Mean Current Direction, January June, 1995.

1.5
1.0 0.5

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

162 180

162 180

1-9




I I I : II I
+: + ++- :- + +

+ a-

:+ + :

- fIh :I -+- + I"a + :
........ -4f:4 -----+---... -w 4 -.. .. .+
-+++---Ha -H+ -H- + + + + -Hi-H--- -H-+-+- a+H-+ 4-H- a
++ --1--H' -i+ + :+ -i ++ + a-a+H + T # +
+i +T- ++
+4 + + :#- :# T .

January Februar

Ma rch

S Ii :- *- H
* + -F-

+ -t-at:+ 4--.---- 44-:- + -H-..........: .... -....+ +*----H-i + +++ + -a t- H- at a. at -- H-+ a + -H- at- aa a -at- -H-H-
:-+f +-H- -+ +J-+ + H- -+-:+ + H -F a- -a- + -H- i+ + + + + + + +
+a a -4 a : a-+
. -a- ----

p+ril
April

t- ++ + +

June

May

0 18 36 54 72 90 108 126 144 162 180
Date
Figure 1-17 Nearshore Gage Modal Period, January June, 1995.

I
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

10 I,)
E I
5
0

' I I : I I I I I :
................. ................................... .. %+
+ +
+ +IJAA +++
+ +
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. ... . .... . . . . . . . .
No data available during January through March
~~~~~~~~~~................... ................ --------- ----- --................. ...............

,June

M y

i

1 I I 1 1 i 1 I I I I I I

May

Apr 1

January february March,




0.5 I I '
0.4
January February March April M
- 0. 3 .--------------.----------------.-------................................
~0..
"I No data available during January through March +
+ +
+
= ++ + +4- +
.+ % +
0 .1 ... ... ... .................. .................. .. ..+_"t 2 + ... .+++
0.0 I + 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.

162 180

I-11

+
* + TI + + 7
+
No data available during January through March + + ++
:+ -t+
+
+ +
++ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . .







APPENDIX H
PEP Reef Unit Settlement Results




I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I

0 10 20 30
Unit Number
Figure H-1 Top of Structure Elevations Original 57 Units.

II-2

+--++
...........+...................................... -....... ...........
+0
++ ++
- +-+ + + + +
++ + + + ++ +4
-+ + + + +
++-- + + +
++ ++ +
+ + + +
+ ++ +++ ++
+
O

0 00

0 0
0 0 0
0 00
OO1 0 0000 0
.. . . ........ t ....

00
0000 O
- - - - - - -
O0

+ Design
O 09/92
El 08/93
7 12/93
A 03/94 S 06/94 X 11/94
12/94 03/95
06/95
II' II

llEIIl[ll




o
> 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
z
Z0
w
> 6 ---- --
-8 built
-~~< 3 : 0/ 94
50 6 0 70 80 9 0 10 0
un it #
Figure H-2 Top of Structure Elevations Units 50-100.
-3 I
0
................. ............................... .. ..........
(D 3
> 4- -- --- -
C> K7 )C C)- C) CD
-3 as-abC00 > 5 . . . . ._ ... . . . ...... rV. .;... o o ....... . . .
8/9built
.0 8/9300
-- - -- - - V ---------- r I -3BM -- -- ------- V 29
-7 < 3/ 94
-4- 6/ 94
X 11/94
S 12/94
- N 03195
06/ 95
-8 I
10 0 110 12 0 13 0 14 0 150
un it #
Figure H-3 Top of Structure Elevations Units 100-150.

II-3




Elevation (ft. N i i01

O
C C-3

G VD)

0) -

Elevation (ft. N GVD)
0) 01 G




- 7 ...... 0. .1 ,, ....0...........-: ...... .
-8 .
250 260 270 280 290
un it #
Figure II-6 Top of Structure Elevations Units 250-300.

300

310

320

330 un it #

340

Figure 11-7 Top of Structure Elevations Units 300-330.
II-5

300

350

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
C) DCD 00 (D00:y C 50 0 ~ 0

. . . . . .

s-built /93 2/ 93 194
194
2/94 3/ 95 6/ 95

-, N-N---ON N

I I I I

...........

- - - - - -

N







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

111-1




Table Il-la

P.E.P. Reef Monitoring Volumetric changes on survey line dated August 1993 and July 1994.
Profile Dist. to I Length o Volume Chane (cu. ards/linear foot Inner Outer
Line Reef (ftA Cells (ft) CellI Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8 Subtotal Subtotal 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 -4.101 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
1OOD 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
10OF 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.
I11-1




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 ofcel Volume Change (cubic yards) Inner Outer Inner Cu Outer Cu1
Lines lines(ft) Reef(ft) (sq.yards) Cell Cell 2 Cell 31 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8Chg(cyd~ Chg(cydsl Chg(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 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 -86 -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 III-1c
P.E.P. Reef Monitoring Elevation changes between survey lines dated August 1993 and July 1994.

Profile Dist b/ Dist to Area of cell Elevation Change (feet) Inner Outer Total
Line lines(ft) Reef (ftl (sqyards) Celll Cell2 Cell 3 Cell 4 CellI Cell 61 Cell 7 Cell 8 Ch(ft) Chg(ft) Chg(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-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 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-100OB 200 100B-100C 200 100C-100D 200 100D-100E 200 100E-100F 200 100F-101A 200
101A-101B 200 101B-101C 200

0.27 0.58 0.28 0.3
0.43 0.21
-0.38
-1.08
-1.51
-0.93
0
0.47 0.93
-0.05
-1.54
-1.44
-0.48
-0.06
-0.05
-0.39
0.2 0.99 0.98 1.16 0.58
-0.13
-0.06
-0.95
-2.21
-2.71
-1.95
-1.32
-1.27
-0.83
-0.69
-1.01
-0.87
-1
-1.08
-1.58
-2.48
-2.24
-1.42
-0.58
0.1 0.75 0.92 0.7 0.67 0.75 0.99 0.76
0.48 0.73 0.92
0.94 0.76 0.52 0.38

0.46 0.37 0.71 0.31 -0.29 -0.13
-0.35 -0.5 -0.58
-0.03 0.33 0.26
-0.17 0.35 0.15
-0.65 0.23 0.22 0.27 0.69 0.7
0.43 0.45 0.54
-0.46 -0.58 0.23
-0.66 -0.48 -0.13
-0.32 -0.55 -0.4
-0.45 -1.12 -0.52
-0.92 -0.77 -0.19
-0.39 -0.21 -0.11 0.08 0.3 0.14 0.06 0.13 -0.4
-0.62 0.23 -0.28
-11 0.44 0.19
-0.81 0.34 0.02
-1.071 0.5 -0.14
-1.21 -0.19 -0.29
-1.21 -1.3 -0.4
-1.07 -1.01 -0.86
-1 -0.74 -0.39
-1.13 -0.37 0.62
-0.86 0.26 0.68
-0.4 -0.13 -0.18
-1.12 0.31 -0.08
-1.59 0.2 0.2
-0.89 -0.19 -0.21
-1.09 -0.01 0.44
-1.09 0.31 0.65
-1.12 0.23 -0.01
-1.85 -0.54 -0.66
-1.88 -0.26 -0.4
-1.35 0.17 0.42
-1.21 -0.28 0.12
-1.5 -0.54 0.13
-1.52 -0.62 0.04
-1.9 -0.56 0.2
-2.33 -1.22 -0.33
-2.17 -1.65 -0.63
-1.9 -1.42 -0.1
-1.79 -1.15 -0.01
-1.52 -0.43 0.16
-0.79 0.56 0.04
-0.43 -0.09 -1.29 0.03 -1.13 -1.95
-0.31 -1.01 -1.63
-0.15 -1.05 -1.49 0.35 -1.33 -1.11 0.65 -0.71 -0.42 1.08 -0.26 0.14 0.55 -0.89 -0.35 0.9 -0.12 -0.32 0.94 0.28 -0.33 0.49 0.2 0.21 0.03 -0.03 0.56 0.21 -0.36 -0.65

2.37 3.56
4.32 0.44 2.1 -0.28 0.75 1.66
0.22 1.14
-0.54 1.82 0.84 3.01
-0.67 1.97
-3.94 0.34
-3.38 -0.11
-0.78 -0.76 0.26 -2.1 0.2 -0.38
-1.16 0.55
-2.66 0.99
-1.83 -0.77
-1.08 -0.79
-1.78 0.61
-2.11 0.39
-2.56 0.01
-1.64 -0.98
-0.71 -1.17
-1.25 -1.25
-1.4 0.16
-2.34 2.75
-2.39 3.13
-1.14 -0.65
-3.66 -0.48
-5.98 0.27
-5.78 -0.49
-4.89 2.18
-4.1 2.09
-4.91 -0.02
-5.27 -0.83
-4.99 -0.78
-4.54 0.88
-4.18 0.55
-5.04 0.33
-5.71 0.83
-6.43 1.93
-7.22 -1.1
-6.44 -2.91
-5.45 0.06
-4.55 0.82
-3.48 0.67
-1.45 0.93 1.25 -0.58 3.65 -3.29 3.01 -5.12 2.39 -3.89 3.9 -1.3 5.27 0.3 5.13 1.18 4.15 -0.1 4.7 -0.66 4.04 -0.72 2.73 0.45 2.33 0.96 1.96 -1.87

5.92
4.76 1.82
2.41 1.36 1.28 3.85 1.3
-3.61
-3.49
-1.54
-1.84
-0.18
-0.61
-1.67
-2.61
-1.87
-1.17
-1.72
-2.55
-2.62
-1.87
-2.5
-1.24
0.41 0.75
-1.79
-4.14
-5.71
-6.26
-2.71
-2.01
-4.93
-6.09
-5.77
-3.65
-3.62
-4.71
-4.88
-4.5
-8.32
-9.36
-5.39
-3.73
-2.81
-0.52
0.67 0.36
-2.12
-1.5
2.6 5.57 6.31
4.05 4.05 3.31 3.18 3.29
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 111-2a

P.E.P. Reef Monitoring Volumetric changes ON survey line dated July 1994 and June 1996 Profile Dist. to Length of Volume Change (cu. yrds/linear foot) Inner Outer
Line Reef(ft) Cells (ft) CellI I Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 51 Cell 61 Cell 71 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 979 97A
97B
97C 97D 97E 97F 98A
98B 98C 98E 98G 98H 981
98J
99A 99A1 99B
99B1 990
99C1 99D 99E
99F
100A
1008 100C 100D 100E
1OOF
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 -2.141 -0.72 -0.62 0.10 -0.61
1.03 -0.74 -2.87 -3.571 -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 111-2b

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 ards) Inner ]Outer Inner Cum Outer Cum.
Lines lines(ft) Reef(ft) ( sq.yards)l e C Cell Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8 Chg(cyds hg(cyds Chg(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 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-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 99A-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 111-2c

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

Profile Dist. b/ Dist. to Area of celli
Line lines(ft) Reef(ft) (sq.yards) 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 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-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
99A-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 10OA-100B 200 100B-100C 200 100C-100D 200 10OD-100E 200 100E-100F 200 10OF-IOIA 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
300 646
320 646
300 562
500 500
542 280 438
140 417
160 511
208 1244
240 1222
200 1144
212 1222 228 1256
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
300 631
306 569
500 500 500 1000 1333 1333 1333 1333 1333 1333 1333 1333 1333 1333

Elevation Change (feet) Inner Outer Total
Cell ] Cell 21 Cell 3 Cell 4f Cell 51 Cell 61 Cell 71 Cell 8 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 -0.66 -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 111-3a

P.E.P. Reef Monitoring Volumnetric changes on survey line dated July 1992 and June 1995 Profile IDist. to L1ength o Volume Changre (Cu. yards/linear foot) Inner Outer
Line Reef (ft) Cells (ft) I CelII Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 41 Cell 51 Cell 61 Cell 71 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 -8.10 2.00 -8.38 -12.52 -6.86
-0.70 -11.82 -12.77 -10.87

92F
93B 93C 930 93E
94A 94B 940 94D 94F 94G 94H 94J 95A 95B 950 950 95E 95F 96A 96B 960 960 96E 96F 96G 97A 97B 970 970 97E 97F 98A 98B 980 98E 98G 98H 981 98J 99A
99B 990 990 99E 99F 1 OOA 1 GOB 1 000 1000) 100GE 1 OOF 101 A
101 B 1010
Total

-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

-139.42 -218.77 -260.67 -177.49 -86.78 -52.13

-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

-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 111-3b

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 Cell I Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 41 Cell 51 Cell 61 Cell 71 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 10OA-100B 200 100B-100C 200 100C-100D 200 100D-100E 200 100E-100F 200 100F-101A 200 101OA-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 -786 -231 -127 -101 -210
-375 -1577 -1631 -1121 -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
Verticaldouble lines indicate location ofreefstructure attime 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 111-3c

P.E.P. Reef Monitoring Elevation changes between survey lines dated July 1992 and June 1995
Profile Dist. b/ Dist. to Area of cell Elevation Change (feet) Inner Outer Total
Line lines(ft) Reef(ft) (sq.yards)I CellII Cell 21 Cell 31 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 71 Cell 8 1Chg(ft Ch(ft) IChg(ft)

92F-93B 400 936-93C 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 100 958-95C 100 95C-95D 100 95D-95E 100 95E-95F 75 95F-96A 75 96A-96B 75 968-96C 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 9813-98C 150 98C-98E 200 98E-98G 200 98G-98H 100
98H-981 100 981-98J 100 98J-98A 100 99A-99B 75 998-99C 75 99C-99D 75 99D-99E 150 99E-99F 200 99F-100A 200 1O0A-100B 200 100B-1 00C 200 100C-100D 200 100D-100E 200 1O0E-1 OF 200 10OF-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 -2.88 -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 lll-4a
P.E.P. Reef Monitoring Volumetric changes on survey line dated August 1993 and June 1995
Profile Dist. to Length o Volume Chane (cu. yards/linear foot) Inner Outer
Line Reef(ft Cells (ft) CelI Cel 2 1 Cell 31 Cel 4 Cel 51 Cel 61 Ce i 7 Cel S Subtotal TSUbotal

92F
93B 93C
93D
93E
94A
94B
94C
94D 94F 94G 94H 94J 95A 95B 95C
95D 95E 95E1 95F 95F1 96A 96A1
96B
9681 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 1 OOA
100B
100C 100D 1 DOE 1 OOF 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
-5634 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.
I11-10

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 111-4b

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 Cell1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8 Chg(cyds Chg(cyd Chg(cyds Chs(vads

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 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-100( 200 100C-1001 200 100D-100E 200 100E-100F 200 100F-101A 200 101A-101E 200 101B-101( 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 -164 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

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

3302 3690 -115793 -5886

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

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 111-4c

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

Profile Dist. b/ Dist. to Area of cl
Line lines( t) Reef(ft) (sa.vardsf

92F-93B 93B-93C 93C-93D 93D-93E 93E-94A
94A-94B 948-94C 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 96CI -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
IOOA-100B 1001-100C 100C-1COD 10OD-100E 100E-100F
10OF-101A
1OIA-101B 101-101C

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

ElevationLChange (feet) Inner Outer I Total
CellIl Cell 21 Cell 31 Cell 4 Cell5I Cell6I Cell 7 Cell 8 Chg(ft) Chgtft) Ch (fi)

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 Tcrtle Monitorin g Program
FINAL itRPORT
-by
John R. Fletemeyer
OctoberA -L 14 1995 A

*!
4J ~ ~ -c
1~
CI L A

* ~t. I*~,
- ~.1 -

- ... -




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




-6,5
R-66
A-57
* -69
*R-70 .R-7
.A-72
.IR-74
R -75
S LAKE WORTH R-7 INLET
PRJECT
---78 SITE ,
-7c
--Borrow Site
(24 IR-8
z -1 ATLANTIC
R-37 OCEAN
*-89
---I *a :- FIGURE 1: location of Project Site
I. : -I . .._....R_ 9
,,--Project Site
0 5000
Sccle in Feet
---- so
._-.
TOWN OF PALM BEACH Revisions c wn cy.
NOURISHMENT PROJECT LOCATION execez y:
TW-oNrO: Pc:eA Sree: \O
TOWN OF PALM BEACH C,29:
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 a!., 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.
RESU LTS
Seasonal Nesting:
Nesting for the three season period (1993-1 995) 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
ye~ar period. 1993 1995.
Year Date off Date off
(Season) First Crawl! Last Crawl! Days1993 05/04/93 08/25/93 111
1994 04/16/94 08/18/94 1 23
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
7 0 /----- ..... ........ ---- -------- --- ------....... .
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 FalseCrawls a 14(

30 25 20
Note: The Clark Beach area is not represented in this
figure. 15
10
5 0

7 EMNests
............................................... . ..............U.. .... M F a ls e C ra w ls ................................. .................... ..............................

t 0 4
I.e l i -r v n t~ -I- - ---.... .. .. ......... ....... .. .. ..- ..... .. ........ . .... .

,= 9 11 co, g
N-,O&e io I e

."50 ,

mI




1994

20

Total Nests =96 Total FalseCrawls = 87

15 10

Note: The Clark Beach area is not represented in this figure.

MNests M False Crawls

"...........

Ib