Design for Entrance Channel Navigation Improvements, Morro ... · Technical Report CERC-93-2 March...

Technical Report CERC-93-2

AD-A263 996 March 1993

US Army Corps IEIH IIEof EngineersWaterways FxperimentStation

Design for Entrance Channel NavigationImprovements, Morro Bay Harbor,Morro Bay, California

by Robert R. Bottin, Jr.Coastal Engineering Research Center

DTICApproved For Public Release; Distribution Is Unlimited ELECTE-S• MAY 19931993g

93-09965

93 5 0; 06 8

Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles

The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising,publication, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade namesdoes not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the useof such commercial products.

I PRINTED ON RECYCaED PAPER

Technical Report CERC-93-2March 1993

Design for Entrance Channel NavigationImprovements, Morro Bay Harbor,Morro Bay, California

by Robert R. Bottin, Jr.

Coastal Engineering Research Center

U.S. Army Corps of EngineersWaterways Experiment Station3909 Halls Ferry RoadVicksburg, MS 39180-6199

Accesion ForNTIS CRA&IDTIC TABUnannounced [Justification ................

By .................Dist ibution I

Availability Codes

Avail and I or

Dist Special

Final report 4V

Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited

Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, Los AngelesLos Angeles, CA 90053-2325

UUS Army Corpsof EngineersWaterways Experiment

Waterways Expiriment Station Cnataloging-in-Publlcatlon Data

Bottin, Robert R.Design for entrance channel navigation improvements Morro Bay

Harbor, Morro Bay, California / by Robert R. Bottin, Jr., Coastal Engineer-Sing Research Center ; prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, Los

S Angeles., 142 p. :-Il. ; 28cm.-- (Technical report ; CERC-93-2)

Includes bibliographical references.1. Harbors -- California -- Morro Bay -- Design and construction.

2. Intracoastal waterways -- California. 3. Channels (Hydraulic engineer-ing) -- California -- Morro Bay - Design and construction. 4. Morro Bay(Calif.) I. United States. Army. Corps of Engineers. Los Angeles.I. Coastal Engineering Research Center (U.S.) IlI. U.S. Army Engineer

Waterways Experiment Station. IV. Title. V. Series: Technical report(U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station) ; CERC-93-2.TA7 W34 no.CERC-93-2

Contents

Preface ........................................... iv

Conversion Factors, Non-SI to SI Units of Measurement ........ .. vi

I-Introduction ................................... I

The Prototype ..................................The Problem ..................................... 5Proposed Improvements ............................. 5Purpose of the Model Study ........................... 6

2-The Model ....................................... 7

Design of Model .................................. 7The Model and Appurtenances ......................... 9Selection of Tracer Material ........................... 12

3-Test Conditions and Procedures .................... 13

Selection of Test Conditions ...................... 13Analysis of Model Data ......................... 17

4- Tests and Results ............................. 18

The Tests . . . ... .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. 18Test Results ...................................... 20Discussion of Test Results ........................... 25

5-Conclusions ..................................... 2(

References ......................................... 30

Tables 1-23

Photos 1-64

Plates 1-47

ii

Preface

A request for a model investigation of wave conditions at Morro BayHarbor, California, was initiated by the U.S. Army Engineer District, LosAngeles (SPL) in a letter to the U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Pa-cific (SPD). Authorization for the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experi-ment Station (WES) to perform the study was subsequently granted byHeadquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Funds for model testingwere authorized by SPL on 27 January and 20 May 1992.

Model tests were conducted at WES during the period June throughSeptember 1992 by personnel of the Wave Processes Branch (WPB) of theWave Dynamics Division (WDD), Coastal Engineering Research Center(CERC) under the direction of Dr. James R Houston and Mr. Charles C.Calhoun, Jr., Director and Assistant Director of CERC, respectively; andthe direct guidance of Messrs. C. E. Chatham, Jr., Chief of WDD; andDennis G. Markle, Chief of WPB. Tests were conducted by Messrs. Mar-vin G. Mize, Civil Engineering Technician; William G. Henderson, Corn-put er Assistant; and Joseph Cessna, Contract Student; under thesupervision of Mr. Robert R. Bottin, Jr., Project Manager. This report wasprepared by Mr. Bottin and typed by Ms. Debbie S. Fulcher, WPB.

Prior to the model investigation, Messrs. Bottin and Mize met with rep-resentatives of SPL and visited Morro Bay Harbor to inspect the prototypesite and attend an engineering review conference. During the course ofthe investigation, liaison was maintained by means of conferences, tele-phone communications, and monthly progress reports. Visitors to WESwho observed model operation and/or participated in conferences duringthe course of the study were:

Mr. George Domurat SPDMr. Art Shak SPLMs. Diana Bisher SPLMr. Robert Michael SPLDr. Richard Kent Consultant to City of Morro Bay, CaliforniaMr. Dick Rodgers Chief Harbor Patrol Officer, City of Morro

Bay, California

iv

Dr. Robert W. Whalin was Director of WES during model testing andthe preparation and publication of this report. COL Leonard G. Hassell,EN, was Commander.

v

Conversion Factors,Non-SI to SI Units of Measurement

Non-SI units of measurement used in this report can be converted to SIunits as follows:

Multiply By To Obtain

cubic feet per second 0.02831685 cubic meters per second

cubic yards 0.7646 cubic meters

degrees (angle) 0.01745329 radians

feet 0.3048 meters

inches 25.4 millimeters

knots (international) 1.8532 kilometers per hour

miles (U.S. statute) 1.609347 kilometers

square feet 0.09290304 square meters

square miles (U.S. statute) 2.589998 square kilometers

vi

1 Introduction

The Prototype

Morro Bay Harbor is located in a natural embayment on the centralcoast of California about midway between Los Angeles and San Francisco(Figure 1). It serves as the only all-weather small craft commercial/recreational harbor between Santa Barbara and Monterey. Morro Bay ex-tends inland and parallels the shore for about 4 milesI south of its en-trance at Morro Rock. The bay is approximately I mile wide and has anarea of about 3.5 square miles. A sandspit, about 4 miles long by 0.5 milewide, separates Morro Bay from the ocean. The harbor is protected fromthe effects of the open ocean by an existing Federal navigation project con-sisting of two permeable rubble-mound breakwaters, an inner harborgroin, and a stone revetment. The existing Morro Bay Federal Projectalso has 13,700 ft of navigation channels and is shown in Figure 2.

The north breakwater is 1.885 ft long with an average crest elevation(el) 2 of +18 ft, while the south breakwater is 1,832 ft in length with a crestelevation varying from +14 to +18 ft. These breakwaters are positioned toform a 900-ft-wide entrance. Other structural features include a 1,600-ft-long stone revetment located adjacent to Morro Rock, a 1,000-ft-longstone groin located along the northern end of the sandspit adjacent to theentrance channel, and a stone revetment extending northeasterly adjacentto Navy Channel. The Federal navigation channel commences at the gapformed by the outer breakwaters and extends to the lower bay via threechannel reaches. The authorized entrance channel depth is -16 ft and theinnermost channel is maintained at a depth of -12 ft. The harbor has un-dergone several modifications, repairs, improvements, etc. since initialconstruction started in 1941 (U.S. Army Engineer District (USAED), LosAngeles 1991; Bottin 1988). An aerial view of the existing harbor en-trance is shown in Figure 3.

1 A table of factors for converting non-Sl units of measurement to SI units is presented on

page vi.2 All elevations (el) cited herein are in feet referred to mean lower low water (mllw).

Chapter 1 Introduction

/

C GCIesce'tr 0 J

EURIEKA

NOYO , /

SACRAMENTO

- SANFRANCISCO

0

M MONTEREY \ N'0

O '

rnt

MORRO BAY \"VEGAS

PROJECT LOCATION

SANTA BARBARA

1w ,VENTURA

LOS ANGELES

OCEANSIDE

SCALE SAN DIEGO

Figure 1. Project location

2 Chapter 1 Introduction

CHAN A

MORROBA

-SPI

Fiur 2Exsig6 MorrO BaBedrlPrjc

Chapter1 Intrductio

-~ 7 4,

Fiur 3.- Aeilve o-or.ayetac

Morro Bay contains an extensive complex of private and public facillities consisting of docks, piers, and moorings. The H-arhor Depairtmnittmanages about 450 berths and moorings. There are also tso small niari-nas in Morro Bay. The State Park Marina has facilities for over 100t recre--ational vessels, and the Morro Bay Marina has 17 slip,. and 26 ott'-dhoremooring facilities. The Coast Guard also berths two 82-ft cutiers" In ifheBay. The harbor contains commercial boat slips. sport fishing facilities.specialty shops. canoe/kayak and sk-iff rental lacilifies. a small trailer,park, several motels, 20 restaurants, a yacht Club. marinedin-construction operations, and four commercial fish bu-ycrs/proccssor-s,There are three fuel dock facilities and tvo boat hanI-ou~t repair tac ilitit's-

A major use ot the Morro Bay wvaterfront is for tonurI ,m. The h arbor.provides a výisual attraction, and the regional settin- is e \ trente lx va luabl.'for recreation with 4 mill ion recreational days, from oint- ot -tok\,T N \ s tors

estimated on an ann ual basis. The Bay is a stopping! Point alih ,n 01C ceutral Cal iforni a coastline, Parks, gol11 Courses, and] a Wide ran2 (1c ofk atCr-related tonri st-oriented act ivitie~s are available In the areai

The Problem

Morro Bay Harbor is known as one of the most dangerous harbors inthe United States. Since 1962, 20 deaths, 67 injuries, and more than$600,000 in vessel damages have resulted from accidents caused by steepand breaking wave conditions in the Harbor entrance (USAED, Los Ange-les 1991). These hazardous conditions, which occur predominantly duringthe winter months, close the harbor an average of 50 days a year, with asignificant impact on commercial fish landings, charter boat operations,and Morro Bay's value as a landlocked harbor of refuge.

Morro Bay Harbor's entrance hazard is well-known and respected. Ithas a long-term reputation with a national impact. A California Depart-ment of Boating and Waterways publication entitled Safe Boating Hintsfor Morro Bay, has labeled the Harbor entrance as "one of the roughest onthe West Coast," and cautions, "The boat operator should exercise cautionregardless of experience," (USAED, Los Angeles 1991). In its September1988 issue, Yachting magazine described Morro Bay as ". , . one of themost fearsome inlets on the West Coast." An article in the February 1981Motor Boating and Sailing magazine, cited Morro Bay as being among".. . eight of the most dangerous inlets in the United States" (USAED,Los Angeles 1991).

Morro Bay Harbor experiences entrance problems because of its expo-sure to storm wave conditions in the Pacific and the bathymetry in the vi-cinity of the harbor entrance. Breaking wave conditions occur at theentrance when ocean wave heights exceed 10 ft. Hazardous conditionsalso are itported for 8- to 10-ft waves, which tend to steepen sharplywhen they reach the shallower channel entrance, particularly during ebbtide coaditions (USAED, Los Angeles 1991). Harbor officials have ob-served waves as low as 6 to 8 ft in height steepening sharply in the en-trance, when there is a strong ebb 'ide current and winds from the westand northwest.

Proposed Improvements

The Morro Bay Harbor Feasibility Study (USAED, Los Angeles 1991)was conducted to provide safer navigation by mitigating the undesirablesteep and breaking wave conditions in the entrance. A wide array of navi-gation improvements was investigated, including breakwater extensions,detached offshore breakwaters, and modifications to the existing Federalentrance channel. The breakwater alternatives lacked economic justifica-tion and were eliminated from consideration. The channel modificationswere viable and economically justified. The proposed plan includes deep-ening the entrance to -30 ft and extending the channel seaward to the-30-ft contour. The channel would be widened to 950 ft at the seawardsection and narrowed to 570 ft between the breakwater heads. The plan

Chapter 1 Introduction

also provides for advanced maintenance by deepening the n'ew channel to-40 ft and providing a triangular advanced maintenance area south of themodified channel. The advanced maintenance area would allow for shoal-ing over a 3-year period, consistent with current maintenance dredging op-erations at Morro Bay.

The proposed channel modification plan is expected to allow mostlarge waves to pass through the entrance to Morro Bay Harbor withoutbreaking, or steepening, and creating a hazardous condition. The safer en-trance would thus allow increased passage in and out of Morro Bay. Theplan is also expected to reduce the number of days each year that the en-trance is impassable, from 50 to 2. This accomplishment would increasenet revenues to commercial fishermen, reduce vessel damages, and pro-vide other benefits, as well as reduce the potential for death and injury.

Purpose of the Model Study

At the request of USAED, Los Angeles (SPL), a physical coastal hy-draulic model investigation was initiated by the U.S. Army Engineer Wa-terways Experiment Station's (WES) Coastal Engineering ResearchCenter (CERC) to:

a. Study wave conditions in the Morro Bay Harbor entrance for the ex-isting channel configuration, the proposed channel modificationplan, and the advanced maintenance depth of the new channel.

b. Determine if the proposed channel improvements would reduce break-ing and steepening of waves in the entrance channel, and thus im-prove navigation conditions.

c. Determine impacts of the proposed channel improvements on existingbreakwaters and on the spit between the south breakwater and thegroin.

d. Develop remedial channel configurations for alleviation of undesir-able conditions, if necessary.

6 Chapier 1 Introduction

2 The Model

Design of Model

The Morro Bay Harbor model (Figure 4) was constructed to an undis-torted linear scale of 1:90, model to prototype. Scale selection was basedon the following factors:

a. Depth of water required in the model to prevent excessive bottomfriction.

b. Absolute size of model waves.

c. Available shelter dimensions and area required for model construc-tion.

d. Efficiency of model operation.

e. Available wave-generating and wave-measuring equipment.

f. Model construction costs.

A geometrically undistorted model was necessary to ensure accurate repro-duction of wave and current patterns. Following selection of the linearscale, the model was designed and operated in accordance with Froude'smodel law (Stevens et al. 1942). The scale relations used for design andoperation of the model were as follows:

Characteristic Dimension' Model-Prototype Scale Relations

Length L Lr = 1:90

Area L2 Ar - Lr2 = 1:8,.100

Volume L3 Vr = Lr3 = 1:729,000

Time T Tr = Lr½/2 = 1:9.49

Velocity L/T Vr = Lr½/Z = 1:9.491 Dimensions are in terms of length (L) and time (").

Chapter 2 The Model 7

a I > "o,I I .- *-~

4 /- I

\ / I -

IPT+ £LEV&T.... . O Fl~l I/

//t t/

Figure 4. Model layout

The existing breakwaters, groin, and revetments at Morro Bay Harborentrance are rubble-mound structures. Experience and experimental re-search have shown that considerable wave energy passes through the inter-stices of this type structure; thus, the transmission and absorption of waveenergy became a matter of concern in design of the 1:90-scale model. Insmall-scale hydraulic models, rubble-mound structures reflect relativelymore and absorb or dissipate relatively less wave energy than geometri-cally similar prototype structures (Le M~haut• 1965). Also, the transmis-sion of wave energy through a rubble-mound structure is relatively lessfor the small-scale model than for the prototype. Consequently, some ad-justment in small-scale model rubble-mound strucwures is needed to en-sure satisfactory reproduction of wave-reflection and wave-transmission

8 Chapter 2 The Model

characteristics. In past investigations at WES (Dai and Jackson 1966,Brasfeild and Ball 1967), this adjustment was made by determining thewave-energy transmission characteristics of the proposed structure in atwo-dimensional model using a scale large enough to ensure negligiblescale effects. A section then was developed for the small-scale, three-dimensional model that would provide essentially the same relative trans-mission of wave energy. Therefore, from previous findings for structuresand wave conditions similar to those at Morro Bay, it was determined thata close approximation of the correct wave-energy transmission characteris-tics could be obtained by increasing the size of the rock used in the 1:90-scale model to approximately two times that required for geometricsimilarity. Accordingly, in constructing the rubble-mound structures inthe Morro Bay Harbor model, the rock sizes were computed linearly byscale, then multiplied by 2 to determine the actual sizes to be used in themodel.

The Model and Appurtenances

The model reproduced about 7,000 ft of the California shoreline, theMorro Bay entrance, and bathymetry in the Pacific Ocean to an offshoredepth of -60 ft with a sloping transition to the wave generator pit eleva-tion of -90 ft. The total area reproduced in the model was approximately11,640 sq ft, representing about 3.4 square miles in the prototype. A gen-eral view of the model is shown in Figure 5. Vertical control for modelconstruction was based on mean lower low water (mllw). Horizontal con-trol was referenced to a local prototype grid system.

Model waves were generated by a 60-ft-long, unidirectional spectral,electrohydraulic, wave generator with a trapezoidal-shaped, vertical-motion plunger. The vertical motion of the plunger was controlled by acomputer-generated command signal, and the movement of the plungercaused a displacement of water which generated the required test waves.The wave generator was mounted on retractable casters, which enabled itto be positioned to generate waves from required directions.

A water circulating system (Figure 4) consisting of a 6-in. perforated-pipe water-intake and discharge manifolds, a 3-cfs pump, and sonic flowtransducers with a multiprocessor transmitter, was used in the model to re-produce a steady-state tidal ebb flow. The flow corresponded to maxi-mum ebb tidal discharges measured in the prototype. The magnitude ofthe current was measured by timing the progress of a weighted float overa known distance.

An Automated Data Acquisition and Control System, designed and con-structed at WES (Figure 6), was used to generate and transmit control sig-nals, monitor wave generator feedback, and secure and analyze wave dataat selected locations in the model. Through the use of a microvax com-puter, the electrical output of capacitance-type wave gages, which varied

Chapter 2 The Model 9

L. L

100

DIGITAL EOUIPtIENT

AND Sir CENTRAL DISK / TAPE DIGITAL" NANALO TO PACKS PRUONCING CONTROLLERS CONVERTO .

OIGI TALOUTPUT

CONTROL

LINES

CCHANNEL

TSELECTIONCCIRCRTIrTRLINErS SELIECTED

-ifCOR

FOR DISPLAY ANDR E C OR D I NGC

O S L

,SELECTIONCIRCUITRY AESTN

WAME STANDCALI3RATION

STATUS UGHTSWAVE ROD ANDPOTENTIOMETERUNE PAIRS FOR

EACH WAVE STAND

CALIBRATION POTENTIOMETER

CONTROL LINS WVETAN

TOWAVE GENERATOR

Figure 6. Automated Data Acquisition and Contro! System

with the change in water-surface elevation with respect to time, was re-corded on magnetic disks. These data were then analyzed to obtain theparametric wave data.

A 2-ft (horizontal) solid layer of fiber wave absorber was placedaround the inside perimeter of the model to dampen wave energy thatmight otherwise be reflected from the model walls. In addition, guidevanes were placed along the wave generator sides in the flat pit area to en-sure proper formation of the wave train incident to the model contours.

Chapter 2 The Model 1 1

Selection of Tracer Material

A fixed-bed model molded in cement mortar was constructed and atracer material selected to qualitatively determine the movement and depo-sition of sediment in the vicinity of the harbor. The tracer was chosen inaccordance with the scaling relations of Noda (1972), which indicate a re-lation or model law among the four basic scale ratios, i.e. the horizontalscale X,; the vertical scale p;t the sediment size ratio n.; and the relativespecific weight ratio ny'. These relations were determined experimentallyusing a wide range of wave conditions and bottom materials and are validmainly for the breaker zone.

Noda's scaling relations indicate that movable-bed models with scalesin the vicinity of 1:90 (model to prototype) should be distorted (i.e., theyshould have different horizontal and vertical scales). Since the fixed-bedmodel of Morro Bay Harbor was undistorted to allow accurate reproduc-tion of short-period wave and current patterns, the following procedurewas used to select a tracer material. Using the prototype sand characteris-tics (median diameter, D50 = 0.20 mm, specific gravity = 2.65) and assum-ing the horizontal scale to be in similitude (i.e. 1:90), the median diameterfor a given specific gravity of tracer material and the vertical scale werecomputed. The vertical scale then was assumed to be in similitude and thetracer median diameter and horizontal scale were computed. This resultedin a range of tracer sizes for given specific gravities that could be used.Although several types of movable-bed tracer materials were available atWES, previous investigations (Giles and Chatham 1974, Bottin and Cha-tham 1975) indicated that crushed coal tracer more nearly represented themovement of prototype sand. Therefore, quantities of crushed coal (spe-cific gravity = 1.30; median diameter, D50 = 0.47 mm) were selected foruse as a tracer material throughout the model investigation.

12Chapter 2 The Mode)

3 Test Conditions andProcedures

Selection of Test Conditions

Still-water level

Still-water levels (swl's) for harbor wave action models are selected sothat various wave-induced phenomena that are dependent on water depthsare accurately reproduced in the model. These phenomena include refrac-tion of waves in the project area, overtopping of harbor structures bywaves, reflection of wave energy from various structures, and transmis-sion of wave energy through porous structures.

In most general cases, it is desirable to select a model swi that closely ap-proximates the higher water stages that normally occur in the prototype; how-ever, since the occurrences of steep and breaking waves are of primaryinterest at Morro Bay, lower tide stages were also selected for model tests.

Morro Bay experiences tides of the mixed semidiurnaltype, with two highs and two lows occurring daily. Tidal Feetdata representative at the site are shown to the right Extreme high water +7.5(USAED, Los Angeles 1991). Tidal monitoring over acomplete tidal cycle throughout Morro Bay reveals virtu- Mean higher high water +5.3ally no tidal elevation changes between the entrance chan-nel and the central and south areas of the Bay.

Mean sea level +2.9Swl's of 0.0, +2.9, and +7.0 ft were selected by SPL

for use in testing the Morro Bay model. The 0.0- and M .. we.1.+2.9-ft values represent mean lower low water and mean Mean lower low water 0.0

sea level, respectively, and were used while testing opera-tional wave conditions. The maximum ebb tidal flow wassuperimposed while using the +2.9-ft swl. The +7.0-ft swl (expected an-nual occurrence during the storm season) was used while testing extremewave conditions.

Chapter 3 Test Conditions and Procedures 13

Factors influencing selection of test wave characteristics

In planning the testing program for a model investigation of harborwave-action problems, it is necessary to select heights, periods, and direc-tions for the test waves that will allow a realistic test of proposed improve-ment plans and an accurate evaluation of the elements of the variousproposals. Surface-wind waves are generated primarily by the interac-tions between tangential stresses of wind flowing over water, resonancebetween the water surface and atmospheric turbulence, and interaction be-tween individual wave components. The height and period of the maxi-mum significant wave that can be generated by a given storm depend onthe wind speed, the length of time that wind of a given speed continues toblow, and the distance over water that the wind blows (fetch). Selectionof test wave conditions entails evaluation of such factors as:

a. The fetch and decay distances (the latter being the distance overwhich waves travel after leaving the generating area) for various di-rections from which waves can approach the problem area.

b. The frequency of occurrence and duration of storm winds from thedifferent directions.

c. The alignment, size, and relative geographic position of the naviga-tion entrance to the harbor.

d. The alignments, lengths, and locations of the various reflecting sur-faces inside the harbor.

e. The refraction of waves caused by differentials in depth in the areaseaward of the harbor, which may create either a concentration or adiffusion of wave energy at the harbor site.

Storms and deepwater wave data

Meteorological conditions that can result in severe waves at Morro Baylargely consist of intense extratropical cyclones that develop in the north-ern Pacific Ocean and move eastward. These low pressure systems are ca-pable of generating strong winds and large waves. The size of wavesarriving at Morro Bay is a function of the intensity of the low pressurecenter, the speed and direction of the center's movement, and its locationwith respect to Morro Bay, which directly influences the fetch area. Typi-cally, these low pressure systems pass to the north of Morro Bay. Coldfronts associated with these extratropical systems usually extend from thecenter of the low southward. Prefrontal southerly winds are capable ofgenerating waves of considerable height; however, waves related to pre-frontal activity do not impact Morro Bay until the front is relatively closeto the coast, limiting their fetch and resulting in a limited extreme wavecondition for the southerly sector. The range of directions from whichdeepwater wa'es may approach the harbor entrance at Morro Bay is from

14 Chapter 3 Test Conditions and Procedures

190 to 310 deg, although during most of the year, waves arrive predomi-nantly from the west-northwest.

Measured prototype wave data covering a sufficiently long durationfrom which to base a comprehensive statistical analysis of deepwaterwave conditions for the Morro Bay area were not available. However, sta-tistical wave hindcast estimates representative of this area were obtainedfrom the CERC Wave Information Studies (Corson 1985). The data hadthe following general statistics: a) mean significant wave height, 8 ft;b) mean peak period, 10.3 sec; c) most frequent wave direction, 292.5deg; d) largest significant wave height, 28 ft; and e) peak period associ-ated with the highest wave, 12.5 sec. The station from which the datawere collected was located approximately 41 miles west-southwest of theharbor entrance and included historical pressure field records for the years1956-1975.

Wave refraction

When wind waves move into water of gradually decreasing depth, trans-formations take place in all wave characteristics except wave period (tothe first order to approximation). The most important transformationswith respect to the selection of test wave characteristics are the changes inwave height and direction of travel due to the phenomenon referred to aswave refraction. The change in wave height and direction may be deter-mined by using the numerical Regional Coastal Processes Wave Transfor-mation Model (RCPWAVE) developed by Ebersole (1985). This modelpredicts the transformation of monochromatic waves over arbitrary ba-thymetry and includes refractive and diffractive effects. Diffraction be-comes increasingly important in regions with complex bathymetry. Finitedifference approximations are used to solve the governing equations andthe solution is obtained for a finite number of grid cells which comprisethe domain of interest.

When the refraction coefficient (Kr) is determined, it is multiplied bythe shoaling coefficient (Ks) and gives a conversion factor for deepwaterwave heights to shallow-water values. The shoaling coefficient, a func-tion of wave length and water depth, can be obtained from the Shore Pro-tection Manual (1984). For this study, a wave refraction analysis, usingRCPWAVE, was conducted by CERC (Kaihatu, Lillycrop, and Thompson1989). A rectangular depth grid (6.1 x 13.8 miles) was utilized with gridspacing ranging from 200 to 600 ft. Depths were obtained from the latestCorps of Engineers surveys (1988) and National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration charts.

Shallow-water wave heights and refracted wave directions were propa-gated to an area immediately seaward of the harbor entrance (-47-ftdepth). Based on the refraction analysis, most waves approached the en-trance within a window between 260-300 deg, with approximately 90 per-cent of all waves approaching from about 275 deg at the -47-ft contour.


An extrema! analysis ofSWaveHeight(ft) the hindcast shallow-

10 2;.0 water waves (USAED,

S25 26.0 Los Angeles 1991) indi-I cated that extreme storm

50 30.0 waves and their frequen-1100 ý330 cies are as shown in the

adjacent tabulation.

Selection of test waves

Based on the hindcast data and wave refraction analysis, SPL selectedthe following test wave characteristics to be used in the model investiga-tion. Operational wave conditions weregenerated from 275 deg with swl's of 0.0 Selected Test Waves'and +2.9 ft, and extreme wave conditions r ..s . t.were generated from 260, 275. and 300 Period, s Height, ft

deg with a +7.0-ft swl. Operational Waves

For sediment tracer tests, waves from 12 8

250 and 300 deg were selected to deter- 15 8,12, 14, 16mine sediment movement patterns in the .......vicinity of the harbor entrance. These di- 17.8,12,16rections created longshore currents re- 20 8,12,16

quired to move the tracer material. E WavesRepresentative test waves for the 0.0- and Extreme Waves+7.0-ft swl's were selected for use during 15 21,26,30tracer tests.

17 21,26, 30

Monochromatic wave conditions were 20 21

generated for all selected test waves 1throughout the model investigation since d Ain selected test waves weredetined seaward of the harbor

entrance wave time series and wave forms entrance at approximately the 47-ft

could be compared more easily than for contour.spectral wave conditions. To compare sig-nificant wave heights at various locations in the model, however, unidirec-tional wave spectra (based on Joint North Sea Wave Project (JONSWAP)parameters) also were generated for selected test wave conditions.

Maximum ebb tidal velocities

Prototype data collected by SPL indicated that maximum ebb tidal ve-locities of 2 knots occur in the entrance channel (area between the groinon the south and the revetment on the north). This value occurred with atide level of +2.9 ft. Discharges were reproduced in the model and an ebbvelocity of 2 knots was simulated. This value was used during model test-ing for operational test waves with the +2.9-ft swl.

16 Chapter 3 Test Conditions and Procedures

Analysis of Model Data

Relative merits of the various plans tested were evaluated by:

a. Comparison of wave heights and the form of the waves at selected lo-cations in the model.

b. Comparison of sediment tracer movement and subsequent deposits(for the optimum plan).

c. Visual observations and wave pattern photographs.

In the wave-height data analysis, the average height of the highest one-third of the waves ( Hs ), recorded at each gage location, was computed.All wave heights then were adjusted, by application of Keulegan's equa-tion,' to compensate for excessive model wave height attenuation due toviscous bottom friction. From this equation, reduction of wave heights inthe model (relative to the prototype) can be calculated as a function ofwater depth, width of wave front, wave period, water viscosity, and dis-tance of wave travel.

G. H. Keulegan. (1950). "The Gradual Damping of a Progressive Oscillatory Wave withDistance in a Prismatic Rectangular Channel," Unpublished data, National Bureau of Standards.Washington, DC, prepared at request of Director. WES, Vicksburg, MS, by letter of 2 May 1950.


-4 Tests and Results

The Tests

Existing Conditions

Comprehensive wave-height tests were conducted for existing condi-tions (Plate 1) to establish a base from which to evaluate the effectivenessof various improvement plans. Wave height data were secured at variouslocations throughout the harbor entrance for selected test waves from 260,275, and 300 deg. In addition, wave pattern photographs and videotapefootage were obtained for representative test waves from these directions.

Improvement plans

The originally proposed improvement plan consisted of a deepened, ex-panded entrance channel. Wave heights, wave patterns, and videotapefootage were obtained for 15 test plan configurations. Variations con-sisted of changes in the alignment and/or depth of the dredged entrancechannel. Brief descriptions of the improvement plans are presented in thefollowing subparagraphs; dimensional details are shown in Plates 1-5.

a. Plan I (Plate 2) consisted of the originally proposed, deepened, ex-panded entrance channel. The channel was drcdged to -40 ft andcovered about 1,133,500 sq ft in the entrance. Channel side slopeswere lv:4h. The -40-ft channel included an overdredge depth of10 ft. It was anticipated that the capacity of the channel would begreat enough to allow for a 3-year maintenance dredging cycle.

b. Plan 2 (Plate 3) entailed the elements of Plan 1, but an area(22,500 sq ft) of the dredged channel west of the head of the southbreakwater was filled in to existing depths.

18 Chapter 4 Tests and Results

c. Plan 3 (Plate 3) involved the elements of Plan 1, but a 100-ft-wideportion of the dredged channel west of the head of the south bieak-water was filled in to the existing contours. The area in which theexisting contours were placed entailed approxima.ely 106,500 sq ft.

d. Plan 4 (Plate 3) included the elements of Plan 1, but a portion(169,300 sq ft) of the dredged channel west of the head of the southbreakwater was filled in to existing depths.

e. Plan 5 (Plate 3) involved the elements of Plan 1, but a larger portion(238,300 sq ft) of the dredged channel west of the head of the southbreakwater was filled in to existing depths.

f. Plan 6 (Plate 3) included the elements of Plan 1, but approximately412,000 sq ft of the dredged channel west of the head of the southbreakwater was filled in to existing contours. The southeast channelline of the dredged channel was in alignment with the existing -16-ftchannel.

g. Plan 7 (Plate 3) consisted of the elements of Plan 6, but a triangulararea (12,500 sq ft) of the dredged channel south of the head of thenorth breakwater was filled in to existing depths.

h. Plan 8 (Plate 4) entailed the elements of Plan 6, but an area (73,500sq ft) south and west of the head of the north breakwater was filledin to existing depths.

i. Plan 9 (Plate 4) involved the channel alignment of Plan 8, but the sideslopes of the southeastern portion of the channel were flattenedfrom IV:4H to IV:1OH.

j. Plan 10 (Plate 4) included the chanrnel alignment of Plan 8, but an ad-ditional area (129,600 sq ft) in the southern portion of the entrancechannel was filled in to existing depths.

k. Plan I 1 kPlate 4) entailed the elements of Plan 8, but an area of ap-proximately 216,500 sq ft in the southern portion of the entrancechannel was filled in to existing depths.

1. Plan 12 (Plate 4) consisted of elements of Plan 11, but an area(80,000 sq ft) of the channel northwest of the head for the southbreakwater was filled in to existing depths.

m. Plan 13 (Plate 4) included the channel alignment of Plan 6, but the40-ft-deep channel was decreased to 35 ft.

n. Plan 14 (Plate 5) involved the entrance channel configuration ofPlan 7. The -40-ft entrance channel covered an area of about709,000 sq ft. The plan also included a -30-ft sand trap area(477,700 sq ft) northeast of the head of the south breakwater.

Chapter 4 Tests and Results 19

o. Plan 15 (Plate 5) entailed the elements of Plan 14, but the depth ofthe entrance channel was decreased from -40 to -30 ft.

Wave height tests

Wave height tests were conducted for the various improvement plansfor test waves from one or more of the selected test directions. Tests in-volving many of the plans, however, were limited to the most critical di-rection (i.e., 275 deg). The optimum improvement plans (Plans 14 and15), as determined by SPL, were tested comprehensively for waves fromall test directions. Wave gage locations for each improvement plan areshown in Plates 2 through 5.

Wave patterns and videotape footage

Wave patterns and/or videotape footage were obtained for various im-provement plans for test waves from the selected test directions. Wavepatterns were obtained for the original plan (Plan 1) and the optimum im-provement plans (Plans 14 and 15), while videotape footage was obtainedfor representative test waves for all the improvement plans (Plans 1-15).

Sediment tracer tests

Sediment tracer tests were conducted for improvement plan 14 only.Tracer material was introduced into the model at the root of the northbreakwater for test waves from 300 deg. For test waves from 250 deg,tracer material was introduced into the model on the shoreline south of theharbor entrance.

Test Results

In evaluating test results, relative merits of the various improvementplans were based on an analysis of measured wave heights in the harborentrance, the movement of tracer material and subsequent deposits, and vi-sual observations. Model wave heights (significant wave height or H113)were tabulated to show measured values at selected locations. In addition,wave height data were plotted depicting values through the entrance chan-nel, and the forms of the waves in the entrance were plotted and comparedfor various improvement plans. The general movement of tracer materialand subsequent deposits were shown in photographs. Arrows were super-imposed onto the photographs to define sediment movement patterns.


Wave tests from 275 deg

Existing conditions. Results of wave height tests for existing condi-tions are presented in Tables 1-4 for test waves from 275 deg with the0.0-, +2.9- and +7.0-ft swl's. For the 0.0-ft swl, maximum wave heights'

were 19.9 ft in the entrance (gage 11) for 15-sec, 16-ft monochromaticwaves; 20.7 ft at the head of the north breakwater (gage 9) for 17-sec,16-ft monochromatic waves, 15.5 ft at the head of the south breakwater(gage 15) for 20-sec, 12-ft monochromatic waves; and 2.9 ft along the spitbetween the south breakwater and the groin (gage 22) for 20-sec, 16-ftmonochromatic waves. With the +2.9-ft swl, maximum wave heightswere 24.0 ft in the entrance (gage 10) for 20-sec, 16-ft monochromaticwaves; 18.3 ft at the head of the north breakwater (gage 9) for 15-sec,12-ft monochromatic waves; 18.9 ft at the head of the south breakwater(gage 15) for 20-sec, 12-ft monochromatic waves; and 6.1 ft along the spitbetween the south breakwater and the groin (gage 22) for 17-sec, 8-ftmonochromatic waves. Maximum wave heights, for the +7.0-ft swl, were32.9 ft in the entrance (gage 10) for 17-sec, 30-ft monochromatic waves;22.5 ft at the head of the north breakwater (gage 9) for 17-sec, 26-ft mono-chromatic waves; 15.1 ft at the head of the south breakwater (gage 15) for15-sec, 21-ft monochromatic waves; and 9.7 ft along the spit between *hesouth breakwater and the groin (gage 22) for 15-sec, 30-ft monochromaticwaves. Wave heights obtained for spectral wave conditions (Table 4)were generally significantly less in height than those obtained for mono-chromatic wave conditions. Typical wave patterns obtained for existingconditions for test waves from 275 deg are shown in Photos 1-9.

Improvement plans. Wave height test results with Plan 1 installed arepresented in Tables 5-8 for test waves from 275 deg with the 0.0-, +2.9-,and +7.0-ft swl's. For the 0.0-ft swl, maximum wave heights were 18.5 ftin the entrance (gage 10) for 15-sec, 16-ft monochromatic waves; 20.5 ftat the head of the north breakwater (gage 9) for 15-sec, 16-ft monochro-matic waves; 17.5 ft at the head of the south breakwater (gage 15) for17-sec, 16-ft monochromatic waves; and 3.3 ft along the spit between thesouth breakwater and the groin (gage 21) for 20-sec, 12-ft monochromaticwaves. With the +2.9-ft swl, maximum wave heights were 21.3 ft in theentrance (gage 10) for 20-sec, 16-ft monochromatic waves; 21.7 ft at thehead of the north breakwater (gage 9) for 15-sec, 16-ft monochromaticwaves; 16.4 ft at the head of the south breakwater (gage 15) for 17-sec,16-ft monochromatic waves; and 4.5 ft along the spit between the southbreakwater and the groin for 15-sec, 8-ft monochromatic waves. Maxi-mum wave heights, for the +7.0-ft swi, were 33.1 ft in the entrance (gage10) for 17-sec, 30-ft monochromatic waves; 27.3 ft at the head of thenorth breakwater (gage 9) for 15-sec, 21-ft monochromatic waves; 24.4 ftat the head of the south breakwater (gage 15) for 17-sec, 30-ft monochro-matic waves; and 8.8 ft along the spit between the south breakwater andthe groin (gage 21) for 15-sec, 30-ft test waves. As was the case for

I Refers to maximum significant wave heights throughout report.


existing conditions, spectral wave conditions were generally significantlyless than monochromatic conditions. Representative wave patterns ob-tained for Plan I for test waves from 275 deg are presented inPhotos 10-18.

An evaluation of wave conditions to this point for existing conditionsand Plan 1 revealed that, for operational wave conditions (0.0- and +2.9-ftswl's), wave heights in the entrance generally improved. However, for ex-treme wave conditions (+7.0-ft swi), wave heights significantly increasedat the heads of the breakwaters, particularly the south breakwater.Plans 2-13 were installed in the model (using gravel as opposed to con-crete grout) to expeditiously determine preliminary alternatives that mightreduce wave heights at the head of the south breakwater.

Results of wave height tests for Plans 2-13 for 15-sec, 21-ft and 17-sec,26-ft waves from 275 deg with the +7.0-ft swl are presented in Table 9.Maximum wave heights for Plans 2-13, respectively, were 34.0, 35.4,34.0, 30.5, 33.7, 31.5, 32.9, 35.0, 32.5, 30.9, 32.4, and 26.4 ft in the en-trance (gages 10-12); 26.5, 28.1, 26.9, 25.0, 27.2, 27.2, 28.3, 27.2, 27.9,27.5, 27.7, and 24 ft at the head of the north breakwater (gage 9); 26.0,22.8, 22.3, 21.2, 18.8, 18.8, 18.8, 22.1, 20.1, 21.4, 18.4, and 19.7 ft at thehead of the south breakwater (gage 15); and 7.5, 7.5, 8.0, 7.6, 6.0, 6.0,7.3, 7.8, 7.5, 6.8, 7.5, and 8.0 ft along the spit between the south breakwa-ter and the groin (gages 21-24).

Representatives of the US Army Engineer Division, South Pacific(SPD) and SPL visited WES during the conduct of the preliminary tests(Plans 2-13). An examination of test results revealed that the channel con-figuration of Plan 7 appeared to be optimum. Plan 7 resulted in reducedwave heights at the head of the south breakwater with maximum capacityfor sediments. Visual observations of these tests revealed that the waverundown at the head of the north breakwater was coinciding with the inci-dent wave at the gage 9 location. This was not considered representativeof wave conditions at the breakwater head, and SPL requested that gage 9be moved slightly to a location seaward of the head. It was also notedthat the gage 7 location, although in the center of the entrance for existingconditions, was on the edge of the Plan 7 channel. SPL requested thatgage I be moved adjacent to gage 7 and centered in the channel.

Results of wave height tests for Plan 14 are presented in Tables 10-13for test waves from 275 deg with the 0.0-, +2.9-, and +7.0-ft swl's. Forthe 0.0-ft swl, maximum wave heights were 19.1 ft in the entrance (gage10) for 20-sec, 16-ft monochromatic waves; 21.9 ft at the head of thenorth breakwater (gage 9A) for 17-sec, 16-ft monochromatic waves; 16.6ft at the head of the south breakwater (gage 15) for 20-sec, 16-ft mono-chromatic waves; and 3.3 ft along the spit between the south breakwaterand the grcin (gage 22) for 20-sec, 16-ft monochromatic waves. With the+2.9-ft swl, maximum wave heights were 21.5 ft in the entrance (gage 10)for 20-sec, 16-ft monochromatic waves; 17.7 ft at the head of the northbreakwater (gage 9A) for 15-sec, 16-ft monochromatic waves; 19.5 ft at


the head of the south breakwater (gage 15) for 20-sec, 14-ft monochro-matic waves; and 5.3 ft along the spit (gage 21) for 15-sec, 16-ft mono-chromatic waves. Maximum wave heights, for the +7.0-ft swl, were31.9 ft in the entrance (gage 11) for 17-sec, 30-ft monochromatic waves;24.0 ft at the head of the north breakwater (gage 9A) for 15-sec, 2 1-ftmonochromatic waves; 19.5 ft at the head of the south breakwater (gage15) for 15-sec, 26-ft and 20-sec, 21-ft monochromatic waves; and 6.7 ftalong the spit between the south breakwater and the groin (gages 21, 23,and 24) for 15-sec, 26-ft and 17-sec, 30-ft monochromatic waves. Mono-chromatic waves generated significantly larger wave heights than spectralwave conditions. Typical wave patterns for Plan 14 are presented in Pho-tos 19-27 for test waves from 275 deg. During testing of Plan 14, SPL re-quested that 15-sec, 17-sec, and 20-sec waves with a height of 14 ft betested. This wave height (14 ft) is the threshhold (maximum) at whichbenefits were obtained. Visual observations indicated that waves did notbreak seaward of the -40-ft channel of Plan 14. Some of the 16-ft waveheights secured earlier had broken in this location.

Wave heights obtained for Plan 15 are presented in Tables 14-17 fortest waves from 275 deg with the 0.0-, +2.9-, and +7.0-ft swl's. Maxi-mum wave heights, with the 0.0-ft swl, were 18.4 ft in the entrance(gage 11) for 20-sec, 16-ft monochromatic waves; 18.8 ft at the northbreakwater (gage 9A) for 17-sec, 16-ft monochromatic waves; 19.5 ft atthe head of the south breakwater (gage 15) for 20-sec, 14-ft monochro-matic waves; and 3.5 ft along the spit between the south breakwater andthe groin (gages 21-23) for several monochromatic wave conditions. Withthe +2.9-ft swl, maximum wave heights were 20.6 ft in the entrance(gage 11) for 20-sec, 16-ft monochromatic waves; 20.2 ft at the head ofthe north breakwater (gage 9A) for 20-sec, 12-ft monochromatic waves;19.7 ft at the head of the south breakwater (gage 15) for 20-sec, 12-ftmonochromatic waves; and 6.2 ft along the spit between the south break-water and the groin (gage 24) for 17-sec, 16-ft monochromatic waves.For the +7.0-ft swl, maximum wave heights were 31.3 ft in the entrance(gage 10) for 17-sec, 30-ft monochromatic waves; 22.2 ft at the head ofthe north breakwater (gage 9A) for 17-sec, 26-ft monochromatic waves;19.7 ft at the head of the south breakwater (gage 15) for 20-sec, 21-ftmonochromatic waves; and 8.7 ft along the spit between the south break-water and the groin (gage 22) for 17-sec, 26- and 30-ft monochromaticwaves. Maximum wave heights for monochromatic waves were signifi-cantly greater than those obtained for spectral wave conditions. Represen-tative wave patterns for Plan 15 are presented in Photos 28-36.


Existing conditions. Results of wave height tests for existing condi-tions are presented in Table 18 for test waves from 300 deg with the+7.0-ft swl. Maximum wave heights were 31.0 ft in the entrance (gage10) and 21.6 ft at the head of the north breakwater (gage 9A) for 17-sec,30-ft monochromatic waves; and 15.8 ft at the head of the south


breakwater (gage 15) and 7.6 ft along the spit between the south breakwa-ter and the groin (gage 23) for 20-sec, 21-ft monochromatic waves. Repre-sentative wave patterns for existing conditions are shown in Photos 37-39for test waves from 300 deg.

Improvement plans. Results of wave height tests with Plan 14 in-stalled are presented in Table 19 for test waves from 300 deg with the+7.0-ft swl. Maximum wave heights obtained were 30.7 ft in the entrance(gage 10) for 17-sec, 30-ft monochromatic waves; 23.3 ft at the head ofthe north breakwater (gage 9A) for 17-sec, 30-ft monochromatic waves;17.5 ft at the head of the south breakwater (gage 15) for 17-sec, 21-ftmonochromatic waves; and 7.0 ft along the spit between the south break-water and the groin (gage 24) for 15-sec, 26- and 30-ft monochromaticwaves. Typical wave patterns for Plan 14 for test waves from 300 deg arepresented in Photos 40-42.

Wave heights obtained for Plan 15 are presented in Table 20 for testwaves from 300 deg with the +7.0-ft swi. Maximum wave heights were28.8 ft in the entrance (gage 10) for 17-sec, 26-ft monochromatic waves;22.0 ft at the head of the north breakwater (gage 9A) for 17-sec, 30-ftmonochromatic waves; 17.4 ft at the head of the south breakwater (gage15) for 15-sec, 30-ft monochromatic waves; and 6.2 ft along the spit be-tween the south breakwater and the groin (gage 24) for 15-sec, 26- and30-ft monochromatic waves. Representative wave patterns for Plan 15 fortest waves from 300 deg are shown in Photos 43-45.


Existing conditions. Results of wave height tests for existing condi-tions are presented in Table 21 for test waves from 260 deg with the+7.0-ft swl. Maximum wave heights were 28.6 ft in the entrance (gage10) and 23.7 ft at the head of the north breakwater (gage 9A) for 17-sec,26-ft monochromatic waves; 22.1 ft at the head of the south breakwater(gage 15) for 20-sec, 21-ft monochromatic waves; and 11.7 ft along thespit between the south breakwater and the groin (gage 21) for 17-sec,30-ft monochromatic waves. Typical wave patterns for existing condi-tions are shown in Photos 46-48 for test waves from 260 deg.

Improvement plans. Wave height test results with Plan 14 installedfor test waves from 260 deg with the +7.0-ft swl are presented in Table22. Maximum wave heights were 30.5 ft in the entrance (gage 1i) for17-sec, 26-ft monochromatic waves; 23.2 at the head of the north breakwa-ter (gage 9A) for 17-sec, 26-ft monochromatic waves; 21.0 ft at the headof the south breakwater (gage 15) for 20-sec, 21-ft monochromatic waves;and 9.3 ft along the spit between the south breakwater and the groin(gage 21) for 17-sec, 30-ft monochromatic waves. Typical wave patternsfor Plan 14 are presented in Photos 49-51 for test waves from 260 deg.


Results of wave height tests for Plan 15 are presented in Table 23 fortest waves from 260 deg with the +7.0-ft swl. Maximum wave heightswere 30.7 ft in the entrance (gage 11) for 17-sec, 26-ft monochromaticwaves; 22.1 ft at the head of the north breakwater (gage 9A) for 17-sec,26-ft monochromatic waves; 21.6 ft at the head of the south breakwater(gage 15) for 20-sec, 21-ft monochromatic waves; and 11.5 ft along thespit between the south breakwater and the groin (gage 21) for 17-sec,30-ft monochromatic waves. Representative wave patterns for Plan 15 arepresented in Photos 52-54 for test waves from 260 deg.

Sediment tracer tests. The general movement of tracer material andsubsequent deposits obtained for Plan 14 for test waves from 300 and250 deg with the 0.0- and +7.0-ft swl's are shown in Photos 55-64. Fortest waves from 300 deg, sediment tracer moved in a southerly directionalong the seaward side of the north breakwater and deposited in the en-trance channel. For wave heights 16 ft or greater, some material movedacross the entrance toward the head of the south breakwater and/ordowncoast to the south. It was noted that extreme wave conditions for the+7.0-ft swl resulted in sediment being moved over and/or through thenorth breakwater with deposits on the leeward side of the structure. Fortest waves from 250 deg, sediment material moved northerly around thehead of the south breakwater into the new -30 ft sand trap area. The mostextreme waves for each swl resulted in sediment tracer material also mov-ing and depositing into the deepened entrance channel.

Discussion of Test Results

Operational waves (8 to 16 ft) from 275 deg for existing conditions in-dicated hazardous wave conditions in the harbor entrance. Observationsindicated that almost all the test waves for the 0.0- and +2.9-ft (maximumebb flow) swl's began peaking up and/or breaking in the entrance creatinghazardous navigation conditions. Wave height tests showed that waveheights were greater in the entrance than their respective incident heightsin deeper water.

Extreme waves (21 to 30 ft) from 275 deg for existing conditions re-sulted in waves breaking seaward of and through the entrance. Afterbreaking occurred, the waves reformed and broke again on the slope adja-cent to the shoreline. It was noted for the +7.0-ft swl that most of thewaves broke prior to impinging upon the head of the south breakwater.

Tests conducted for Plan I indicated that the dredged channel was effec-tive in reducing wave heights in the entrance for operational wave condi-tions from the predominant 275-deg direction. Observations revealed thatthese 8- to 16-ft waves did not break in the entrance, and test results indi-cated that most conditions resulted in wave heights significantly less thanthose obtained for existing conditions. The results of extreme wave condi-tions for Plan 1, however, indicated that wave heights at the head of the


south breakwater substantially increased (from 18.9 to 24.4 ft). The deep-ened entrance channel allowed more energy to reach the structure, as op-posed to breaking and losing energy as with the existing contours. Waveheights along the spit between the south breakwater and the groin, in gen-eral, were less for Plan 1 than for existing conditions.

An examination of test results for the expedited test plans (Plans 2-13),indicated that some of the existing contours would have to remain sea-ward of the head of the south breakwater to prevent excessive waveheights. The channel configuration of Plan 7 appeared to be optimum (al-lowing the maximum dredging area with minimum wave heights at thesouth breakwater). Additional sand trap area, however, was required tocompensate for the capacity lost due to infilling the area seaward of thesouth breakwater head. The selected Plan 14 configuration would allowenough capacity for a 2-yr dredging frequency cycle.

Test results for Plan 14 indicated that the improvement was effective inreducing wave conditions in the entrance for operational waves from thepredominant 275-deg wave direction. The plan was particularly effectivein an area starting at a projection of the north breakwater (approximategage 12 location) shoreward to a projection of the south breakwater (ap-proximate gage 7 location). Visual observations indicated no breakingwaves in the new entrance channel. A comparison of maximum signifi-cant wave heights through the entrance (gages 10-12 and 7A-1) for exist-ing conditions and Plan 14 is presented in Plates 6-19 for test waves withthe 0.0- and +2.9-ft swi. In addition, a comparison of wave form (steep-ness) in the outer entrance (gages 10-12 and 7, 7A) for operational waveconditions is shown in Plates 20-47. In general, these plots reveal im-proved navigation conditions in the entrance. Wave heights are lower forPlan 14, and the waves are not as steep and are nonbreaking for the im-provement plan.

For extreme wave conditions from 275 deg, Plan 14 resulted in no ad-verse wave conditions at the head of the north breakwater or along the spitbetween the south breakwater and the groin. Wave heights at the head ofthe south breakwater, however, increased slightly. The SPL stated that thesouth breakwater was designed for 19-ft incident waves, and Plan 14 re-sulted in 19.5-ft waves at the head of the structure. This was 0.6 ft greaterthan the 18.9-ft wave heights secured for existing conditions. Visual ob-servations indicated that the waves were not breaking directly on the struc-ture head, but seaward, for Plan 14. A bore (waves with air entrainment)was observed, which would have less energy than waves breaking on thestructure directly. In addition, results obtained for these conditions wereproduced by monochromatic waves. Spectral waves (which are more nearto the waves produced in nature) generally resulted in lower wave heightsthroughout the study area. In view of these considerations, SPL deter-mined that wave heights between 19 and 20 ft would be acceptable at thehead of the south breakwater. No test wave condition exceeded the 24-ftdesign wave at the north breakwater for Plan 14, and wave heights alongthe spit between the south breakwater and the groin were generally less


for Plan 14 than for existing conditions. Maximum wave heights alongthe spit were 9.7 and 6.7 ft, respectively, for existing conditions andPlan 14.

The -30-ft-deep entrance channel of Plan 15 resulted in wave condi-tions in the entrance similar to Plan 14 for operational waves from275 deg. In some cases wave heights were larger,and in some instances,wave heights were smaller. Maximum wave heights in the entrance oc-curred for Plan 14, but were less than 1 ft higher than the Plan 15 values.For extreme wave conditions from 275 deg, wave heights for Plan 15 alsowere lower in some cases and higher in some cases than Plan 14. In gen-eral, wave heights were lower at the north breakwater and higher in the en-trance for Plan 15. Maximum wave heights at the head of the southbreakwater were 0.2 ft higher (19.7 ft) for Plan 15 than for Plan 14. Onthe spit between the south breakwater and the groin, maximum waveheights were 2.0 ft higher for Plan 15 than Plan 14 but were still 1.0 ftless than those obtained for existing conditions.

Wave heights obtained for test waves from 300 deg for existing condi-tions were, in general, slightly less than those obtained in the vicinity ofthe entrance for existing conditions for test waves from the predominant275-deg direction. For existing conditions, wave heights were less at thehead of the north breakwater (0.9 ft) and in the entrance (1.9 ft) fur wavesfrom 300 deg, but slightly higher (0.7 ft) at the head of the south breakwa-ter. Maximum wave heights were 1.9 ft less along the spit for test wavesfrom 300 deg as opposed to the predominant 275-deg direction with exist-ing conditions installed. Wave heights for Plans 14 and 15 were compara-ble to those for existing conditions at the head for the north breakwaterand in the entrance for test waves from 300 deg. These plans, however, re-sulted in larger wave heights at the head of the south breakwater than ex-isting conditions, but they were less (1.5 ft) than the 19-ft design waveheight. Wave heights along the spit between the south breakwater and thegroin wLcC less for Plans 14 and 15 than for existing conditions. In sum-mary, the installation of Plan 14 or 15 will not have adverse impacts onthe structures or the spit for test waves from 300 deg.

Wave height tests revealed that waves from 260 deg resulted i- themost severe conditions in the vicinity of the harbor entrance. The260-deg direction allowed more energy in the harbor than the other wavedirections, and large wave heights (greater than the structure was designedfor) were obtained at the head of the south breakwater for existing condi-tions. Also for existing conditions, wave heights along the spit betweenthe south breakwater and groin were 2 ft greater for waves from 260 degas opposed to the predominant 275-deg direction. Wave heights at thehead of the south breakwater for Plans 14 and 15 were 2 1.0 and 21.6 ft, re-spectively, for test waves from 260 deg. These values were greater thanthe 19- to 20-ft wave height range selected by SPL; however, they wereless than wave heights (22.1 ft) secured for existing conditions for corre-sponding wave conditions. These results indicate that if 20-sec, 21-ftwaves approach the harbor from 260 deg, the south breakwater head


currently will be subject to damage. The installation of either Plan 14 or15 will not increase the likelihood of damage to the structure.

An assessment of the littoral processes at Morro Bay (USAED, Los An-geles 1991) reveals, in general, that southerly sediment transport is pre-dominant along the coast; however, northerly sediment transport towardthe harbor entrance in the localized area of Morro Bay is predominant.This could be a result of the unique alignment of the coastline adjacent tothe harbor entrance. The location of Morro Rock also may limit the south-ern transport of sediment. It is estimated that the annual transport rate to-ward the harbor entrance is 71,000 cu yd from the north and 400,000 cu ydfrom the south (USAED, Los Angeles 1991). Historic maintenance dredg-ing records indicate that an average of 115,000 cu yd of sediment depositin the entrance annually. The remainder of the sediment continues tomove outside the entrance. Sediment tracer tests conducted for Plan 14 in-dicated that sediment moving in a southerly direction will deposit in thedeepened entrance channel, and material moving in a northerly directionwill deposit in both the entrance channel and the new sand trap area northof the south breakwater head. The SPL estimates that the capacity of the-40 ft entrance channel and the -30 ft sand trap will allow for maintenancedredging at 3-year intervals.


5 Conclusions

Based on results of the coastal hydraulic model investigation reportedherein, it is concluded that:

a. For the existing harbor entrance, operational waves (8 to 16 ft inheight) from the predominant 275-deg direction resulted in hazard-ous entrance navigation conditions due to wave steepening and/orbreaking.

b. For the originally proposed improvement plan (Plan 1), navigationconditions in the entrance were improved for operational wavesfrom 275 deg; however, the plan resulted in significantly increasedwave heights which may cause damage to the head of the southbreakwater during extreme wave conditions (waves ranging from 21to 30 ft in height).

c. Of the improvement plans tested, the channel and sand trap configura-tion of Plan 14 appeared to be optimal with respect to all wave con-ditions from all directions. Navigation conditions in the entrancewill be improved, and the plan will have no negative impact on theexisting structures or the spit between the south breakwater and thegroin.

d. Sediment tracer tests indicated that sediment moving in the predomi-nant northerly direction will deposit in the deepened entrance chan-nel and sand trap area of Plan 14 as desired, and material moving inthe southerly direction will deposit in the deepened entrancechannel.

e. The -30-ft entrance channel of Plan 15 will result in similar wave con-ditions for operational and extreme waves as the -40-ft channel ofPlan 14, which would be acceptable with regard to entrance condi-tions and would have no negative impact on the breakwaters andspit area.

Chapter 5 Conclusions 29

References

Bottin, R. R., Jr. (1988). "Case histories of Corps breakwater and jettystructures, South Pacific Division," Technical Report REMR-CO-3,Report 1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg, MS.

Bottin, R. R., Jr., and Chatham, C. E., Jr. (1975). "Design for waveprotection, flood control, and prevention of shoaling, CattaraugusCreek Harbor, New York; hydraulic model investigation," TechnicalReport H-75-18, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg, MS.

Brasfeild, C. W., and Ball, J. W. (1967). "Expansion of Santa BarbaraHarbor, California; hydraulic model investigation," Technical ReportNo. 2-805, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg, MS.

Corson, W. D. (1985). "Pacific Coast Hindcast Deepwater WaveInformation," WIS Report 14, U.S. Army Engineer WaterwaysExperiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Dai, Y. B., and Jackson, R. A. (1966). "Design for rubble-moundbreakwaters, Dana Point Harbor, California; hydraulic modelinvestigation," Technical Report No. 2-725, U.S. Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Ebersole, B. A. (1985). "Refraction-diffraction model for linear waterwaves," Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering,American Society of Civil Engineers 111 (6), 985-999.

Giles, M. L., and Chatham, C. E., Jr. (1974). "Remedial plans forprevention of harbor shoaling, Port Orford, Oregon; hydraulic modelinvestigation," Technical Report H-74-4, U.S. Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Kaihatu, J. M., Lillycrop, L. S., and Thompson, E. F. (1989). "Effects ofentrance channel dredging at Morro Bay, California," MiscellaneousPaper CERC-89-13, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways ExperimentStation, Vicksburg, MS.

30 References

Le Mdhaut6, B. (1965). "Wave absorbers in harbors," Contract ReportNo. 2-122, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg, MS, prepared by National Engineering Science Company,Pasadena, CA, under Contract No. DA-22-079-CIVENG-64-81.

Noda, E. K. (1972). "Equilibrium beach profile scale-modelrelationship," Journal, Waterways, Harbors, and Coastal EngineeringDivision, American Society of Civil Engineers 98 (WW4), 511-528.

Shore Protection Manual. (1984). 4th ed., 2 Vols, U.S. Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center,U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Stevens, J. C., et al. (1942). "Hydraulic models," Manuals ofEngineering Practice No. 25, American Society of Civil Engineers,New York.

U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles. (1991). "Morro Bay Harbor,San Luis Obispo County, CA," Feasibility Report, Los Angeles, CA.

References 31

0 qD 0016- O C. - O - 16 N 0 6- C'2 - 1 l CD1.-

00o O C ) N O ' C) It 'rC) C co. OD -CO11

ON q N " .- N- -CDU)0 N (RUqUN CO-e')CDi N

N' U) 0' 0 N v' 0 O CO NIL CO ) N m C 0 - NO m CO m 0. N

In 0

W'C o o,,-ý Co I6 Rý 66 C qC C-N C ')U 14 ) -0 '4 -ER -N -4 q NN - N N

oc

ODN 0- .- N N N MC 1, N Cd) C 00 N D U) 0 V)) -t N N N

, I- - -- .-

0 , Iq ý U0

v' CI 0 , 0 - N C' CO 9' CO 0M 0) M ir C') C N N

, (P U)0C4 14: r)U .- O)0)0)C')C-:C4 ')e.-C 0)-* *C-P-

V U) OD 00M NN' 0 V c 0)0. M NO V- (C' D M N N N

0

I-~ m) 'ITU0 -0 N 1001-t

coZ

+(0 ~ ~ (0O 1 C' ) R l (0q U) 000 N' C ')'IT 0 )

NN 0 . 0 NR C) "0 C) In0 MO ") (0 0' ID U 0 1.- 0' C' 0

C , L i N -ý nw 0 wc

n r. N m C") U) U) Ný C6 r-)- - - 0 0 ( U) ý 0 N 0 m 'r N '

40

L O (D0 NN ) N? '( 0) ( 0 ( )U N ( ý Nv 0)

LU -1m " -1->

0 to M U.-' MO ' (0 0 .- ,--0 U) N '?- 0 l 0(0 1 D T I

ADl N i (0 - v 4 0 v N Nn (6 N m w) 0)0 N' 0- (0 C') U) (0

0

4.

o) 013

>0

(I *'W N NO U ON ((0))) 0 0(( N - ' N? (

(P CO - l C') Vý U) CD 0 , ) N N r! U) - C C)U 0 wD N- -Cj n L u - 0w: Dw - -

CM -- - - -

F:II

0

cJ0h- (Dm c ,.S0 cv C2 C')C N N. cu )N - D - C ) ) 0

- N- -2 -m .- .- N.N - -

0

co

>0(D-(CL1

U) OM C ) 4n O - NOR U) vN r, 0 DWWCDw,-

Ln -7 cyý9 )0 O ) bN 0

c! -- I!-. - R I -! I -;o '- I

CD (P .- C 0) r- OD N. -0) O N Lq ) N - (13 CP) Nf N O W

I- Nl W N M UN ((P C4 0ý(

C~ -ý .4 in 0 - -D w

0o N -D q~U U) q C') VW M) 't w~l m)00 0)0vi CD m- )i )0 6 u

0

CO

%q C O RO M' OR C!) U)I -ý I' CD vO r, ON w O

0l 11 R(' ý ( RU)cm 0 O prý0 W C o

0) COS 0 C' -4 C- C- N (V C')-4 0 -4 w)0 ~ N 4N ND

0

M n U r mL W O C N O W ~ O D ) v C 0 )

oC-2 OD" - ,0 mNc

0 C

C)LL m )~U )) ' WU)~ 0)lU )- 00U '

I cn (i (P ti C! (R .i V. -

I CO 10 11 O-1 CO~f In -i "K C C IT) N Ni

o ý 0 0- 6 r, 01ý r.- v~ N N - ' n t C N N

to 110 0. , CO' 0) 0 0 f'-ý '- -: CO In LO -41 'qý In Nv 0! . -T -ý l - - ! " - ý -

o O0 NCC

0 n ' 0 ~ a 0) In q' - C ' '- I nqC' ' n

U,- _o _ - --- c-0w w v 0 P.

() m ) T a 0I 3 n I

Im0

4o C-N 00 0. v C') t olm 0 ý 2

IN .YCSO

41

M>~'~ I r n .0 OC

C".I I InH00 .. O -C-IM C' ' C O C-C C)I -

00 00m v v4 N0 o 0 v ) v v O m0 m N (0 C) 00))0)c')

t- to -o m N ) N N P- 0 m I

C14 ON 0i N- 4 0 0 4 )0 - N- r- N 0 CO C ON 0

C0

PN 0(0 .. V V) (0- 0) (00) N 0 ) 0 N %N V1 ( C N ) N N'

II- ý r'cy LV CV-r co v N 4((0 1 mO ( - 0(0o(04 N N N

*m 0

WC a 0m NW N (0 - (U) - -N N NO , N 0)01000 M' N MNM

in -o 0- -N M W- - W N 0 M t

CL 1000 CON-mIa

.0

N % N N co N r

'W M' in. N I' C)N N M N - M

- - - - - - - - -~

0 -CVD 0 V

0 N CN N Nj Nq (m Nm cm -

0ao0)

If) l R (!cl 'ý U r- N c? C -0 C')0 .- M VD m0 C (IC N toW -0 -?q C- vNCw Nc ~ ~ Nr V r D c c o M M0CD D W Uk

N mN 0 4

v Fn' o 7 2T (

go 00CL

ULJ

r- --- - - - -

cm -M M0 CD g'l u0 0o Mg 0o 0o 04 p. go go go M . g

00

I-

In ( 0 qC ýC ý V N N N O R ý ,

c - ý - i - q IT " f. M t - - -ý -ý m m

0 00

.3 0. C-1 F. C% -N -C,- -4

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

V Cý C U U)V0) U') 0ý 0~ ) 0 YV) N- M V CD V % 0 1- M

C-4

to v

to - ORO' - m t 0 )~ 0)C O0 0 0 U)nC

4) .0 CO- 0) 0) 0 0) 0V v' M- CD m m o ntII N vNnwC N r jf

CL -I

E -- -, is - - N

o0 ~ V ~- 0 0)- 00 NO) 0 v fV mV wV r') 0 0 0) to r-1

'C0 C\ o l

-- 7V U) CO V 0 ') N O- 0 NC O01V-aUq)m

w I- -- q v v- " t o I

coo~c Qý - -- Nn Nv

oc~

E 00 C~

', 0r,

c

ýc1~ -1-1- 01 U) aIiV :!

04~

(-'- NNoiNN W) co go0 - c - F 2 0w

CVCI

C

oY VNN -- -V N iIpO

cC I

C.. W.- U) 0 P clý 0 C? ) 0ý (P It ~ t U) ()0 0) 0ý(

C') ~ ~ 0 C0 N - -

"tR ci -

(D

C') kn 0o v?- NO It) 0)0)0 n W) I

CM - - - IN-

C* ý r, o ' ,

c

C.

NN D cm ~ C ~ N CJ 0. eq 04

C NN

0~. NN- cn 0v (n~ -li enqN ( N i n 0N f

N m ' N 40 lp cm q ('J laq 0 0ý 0ý 0! 0) in 0) (i (0 0 l Go t-

C\ 0Q £0 WN O D n -W Un 0w 0 0) 0 0) in f. - Nl 0o 0)

V NN cO N a m4 Nf- N, £00 m W- cm M OM OC a W

0- - ,- N

CI -ý I - ý - 7 - l I c4 - 1 - - - - - - - - -

46-i £ -i ON 'no w) r- oW N w00 mn 0 0 m JNJ

x W R 0 qr l (Dw v o CV M W l'E q 0i - r- 46 4 6 ( 6 (6 w4*

LO -I - - -m-.C n w c c 6 0 w I

00 O CO I" N con ~ ) w w 0 0

NCsJ Up CNý7 ) Cý -

1 0o

* -

0A

fC n RU tp U) 0)'- rOD D n D0 ~ O - D - 0 q(OUO

-~CI ----- -- - - - -- - -

0 to U) *-ý (p 0(-p) O C N N - 0ý q 0 , ~ C)0 0 U

iv C- - - - - - -v-t o ý

.0 -ý :::

IF C

_) 0 C.) C.) .No (.) OD flN-,)N-C U04rCD -N

0) N-jC 641O -0 4 0 -4 4 6 Ci' l mV

CV~ vi ) v to 0 0 1 C.) 11 C\1 to ) tn C) OD OC kr .) C) C. .- - -- I T I ) I

- I

(I) (% \ S 0,1C p

I-ý Ufl- co C.) Ni Ni U) N- ad 0 0) ) C6 ODN N.- (vN U) N m 0 )

E

oO cox

-l 0 -LO r- tn vv-

E ,-p'0

Ip I CNEq -~ 0 f- - i 0 0 0 t i C

0

0 )o- W O CD 0i w. ' N N U) 0 wO co NC. N-C. ') N CD CD N

U) (D !D0CDj l

N NV v -m

!-~ ~~~~~ 0 r, ) - ) 0 - ) N I.- r.- M ) 0 C d ) U ) U.- P)N. N "~ ~ N N N - .-

co-- -

+0 C, £q 0 q 1 !rýt:I ý q r, ~ ,!q C!q q O

U)U

00

. . ..N . . .

N - - - -Y -YN C

0

0; I*.'

(AN M V, in W r- CD 0 N (n) t- OD)! Ch N. - CV V)) "0) N )

. C) .-.- -N N N N N -U N

0U

W..

'N0

-g-

VNN U ý 0)0 N C) (00a! r( N q ~w on 0 ) ! r OD t-r l t 0 Lf t L)o

hi C

U) go- N N w to Ua 0 1-) to 00 N N ' MN M r M IN Al U) U) M~U)

U 0 Go ~U) IQ ))~ qU r0)C)NU)P0)U)O6 r

!f- (D 0 N~ cN 4~ 4 * 0 v U) m- m Vi ) t C) 0 V Ui V m ) C.) V) IT+

a, viN m w ,c

oo cm -0C4 in 0) a 4 0 ý c - r - 0 ý

0 N U) N 0 MO MO NN N) M M-6 r- N N 0 N C N NO

IT-I

N -- s - - 1 . owI r- M-o 0 9

b . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DC (D (o o) r- to P)00 Kr r- 'T C r m t U) 'T m) U) mC N r

00) O r N N 0 0 D C NINI -- - - 1 1

- C)0 N M 0 0M Go CD) rCD ( D) N CD 0 (D w) mf 0m N U) 0

a Go 0 C CO C - 0 N ND 0) 0D C D -UC) 0) co Go ' N -1 0)i N

r N 0 . N c

.00

. D - - N C\; 't a) cN - U) C ) cC I-. o wC 0) mO C N ) C)C)

C- -PV - U R C t y ý l ý r

P - 0 a 0 o -tP - r 0 21 1- c m

0

0 ý- - - ý OR -ý -

0- N N -0WMMMC mc

-a-- - -

C',C 0 o (D C') <C CO) < 0 c) U M m 0 W. N' mJ v )

r- (nC m C

~'CM M M 0 -0 -f- V-

in w

0 c

N 1 - N ~) ~) )0) 't CO) (V ) (D V ) 00) OD N W ) r~ ) V0

CO,

ISM

. 0 Nr ) 0) 0 0) Oi C) q 7 IN N #p VN r. (p C. q N N) C% ( ý 9

N L d) -N-I 0 0 0 v N -0 v~ w 0) U) In N v m) vU -V

0

t)n In U)ý -ý (s 0 ) N NcIpN ~ 1 0)0 co NNo In - - O m0 N .1 O -4 N m~'

oo -r - p -m 1 -- ý r--.tC~ - -?

0

In N in 0 V-00 OD ON) C. ~ 0 N ~ ) Vd

>0 t

m T

CC

cm m- N Nv n r

IN I l

C0 R

~~ Um N, C' mU NO) v) 0) in O N N-cO O 0 N N6!)

a) w r-- -iciM IIV

C14

to U N qn &D 0 Ifl L6 UU U) ')C'~~C ~ NNO ~ NU)N )C02

0

-- --O -- -- ) Nt-w ' 6 -U ~ - N . . . .

F- J N4 f-0) rOU' N -. c 0) 0) . . . . . . ..

C!+ - N 0 - N N -- N l 1 p ý

0(0 "R CI -1** -- -q NO p q p~N 00 a

c - ") I0 0 m QO w - 0) ( (0 0 ) w ~U 0 0 0 0 CO v

0or 00 C ') No -o I" W N0 P- 0 0 to 0) 0 't inf,1 0 0 w N v~

6. -- -d166 C u o" 6 c

V

F--! w dr -6a

E

MI. (00 NC 0 W 0) 00)C 00N .-0 OM 0 0 D M ~ (0 j)

10) Co! (P NOl N w0 N U 0) w) No ( 0! C') -0N to -q -m ii .

tp ip N U) NW, 0)- M 1 ( -1 ( aq 7 WO 10) 0 " (0)W O

c. -R -4 p-q 0 ý0 ,!U p c

co 0 0)0 cm 0 W (0(0 -l r r N oll-) I (0)~ N N N 0)

2o C2 !2(n

NLEI-1( (0 0 N )'I ~O

-ý l r--qIN

tp q fl q qlP lp i q J

- * -, mN -0q 0 ~r-j i o -4 -i -R Nl W M -P

-4 -C4 N6 l N 46

-~ -- - -N -N - - - -

030

EE

- N * -p C- -i p -q -p C'J -a-

00

U.2

oq CY

tn t -i (P -ý NU) Uý (PN - N C -0 D C C U CR

N0 ( NI M ' N N in0

cl' IN N, fC' (fl - C!NNC

0- D O' -C' (p qC (00) q 'C' (00) C') "It)0 (

CY N N 0m!oe NW !2 CD v' Ni) -~ CD f ~ N N 0) .w

-~~~t - m inJr NN I--- - ~

ooCD.

*00

.5 -N C C)C4 c U Nq RU 0 (n Ln (P N0C DN

CLC

m) v (0) to r, -o N~ mN v4 Nn N Nl NNw C

M -- - - - - --- -- - --- - cm N 3tS1C 1 ) ) O ~ D) W ) D C ~ N C)

(l inO in oý q &Q " q q (I llq I c m q C4 qcl 441 w t

(I C4 V N

al -R -I q t. q 'R N q C4

U)U)( il)C U

moo

F4 oc

o t2

5 . - - -N N r v t2 Na

in ----

p I-- - -

q-

04 (1 !!g &C

CM LE~

n~~n(-N~

~iit n00-C)CL X-N

tP kq iC - N CD ' Oý tll- If CD Oý N v 0 1- W M

N N N4 6J (PO N &Q q 0! - ýl

U .ý

0ý r- 0 a- 0- -u w v -Dw

L- 3 - - - --d d --: M OD -: -- g g -:6 66 -v

(V N Ijccc*

OR -ý c t q ( - ýC - 7 I l

O(D IV ~ b NO CC.(NR

0

0

CO '0 0 W tECCcq U

-) 10 tn (O 'O NO Nt 0 O tOD D0 0 ) -

13 N - - N- N N -

-Na rýdic CD C~ N W ad0 O ~ ) ~

IRN 'tc ( ý N 0 N aWOCI - - - NN C'JN-

-~ CMCDA N rtO-NO

IN JI ~ ,' & r (6 od v ad I-0N ,

C- NN

II

-If C4 0) - aq InC q~ NCD If) p~ pD Nq -l aq) 0

w 00 N co -t. -:

NS - - L

c

CMVIfm CD I)C )C D 0 0CX D 0 - C D 0 C ~C

.00 0 N. ~-~'N- ~~L NL.1-

NN -- . N C N N

r, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ) -a -v 0 Y !O ýN(6a

M 0 N - NN ,~ V N- V ýC O - tO

o Lo- - r - N N - - -

o toit) h

M- Xt- ~ o6.~~

Photo 1. Typical wave patterns for existing conditions: 15-sec. 12-ft monochromaticwaves from 275 deg: swl 0- 0. ft

Photo 2. Typical wave patterns for existinn conditions. 17-ec. 16 ft nionoclhromrlticwaves from 275 deg: swi , 0.0 t!~

Photo 3. Typical wave patterns for existing conditions: 17 sec. 16-it spectral walvcs froml'275 deg: swi 0.0 ft

m ill . . . . .. . .

Photo 4. Typical wave patterns for existing conditions: 15 sec. ýt mnoroctrornamicwaves from 275 deg. swi, +2.9 ft (maximum ebb flow cjndlitionsýi

Photo 5. Typical wave patterns for existing conditions; 17-sec. 1 6-ft monochromaticwaves from 275 deg; sw) +2.9 ft (maximum ebb flow conditions)

Photo 6. Typicai wave patterns for existing conditions-, 17-sec. 16-ft speŽctral waves, f rom275 deg-, swi = +2.9 ft (maximum ebb flow conditions)

Photo 7. Typical wave patterns for existing cor ltlons: 15 qec. 7 t !'9-N#>.

waves from 275 deg: swl t 17T0 ft

Photo 8. Typical wavw Ilatterns for ox'-Itinq conditlon-, 17 3.( ,0 11 mono(: mrf ),!,fwave,, from 275 d~gq, qwl 7 0 ft

Photo 9. Typical wave patterns for existing conditions: 15-sec. 21-ft spectral waves from275 deg: swl = +7.0 ft

Vt °

Photo 10 Typical wave patterns for Plan I 15 sYc. 12-ft monochtoman : . , w5deg: swl - 0.0 ft

P hoto 11 Typical wave patte rns f or PlIan 1' 17 -sec, 16-f t rnonoch ro mat jc w ave s irc~275 deg: swl 0.0 ft

Photo 1 2. Typical waive patterns; for Plan 1 1i m'~c' 1 6-it speclrt w~lve f- T"SWl 0.0 ft

Photo 13. Typical wave patterns for Plan 1: 15-sec, 12-ft monochromatic waves froam275 deg; swl +2.9 ft (maximum ebb flow conditions)

Photo 14, Typical wave patterns for Plan 1 17 sec. 16 ft monochromatic w,,ives froin275 deg,. swi +2ý9 ft fmaximum ebb flow conditions)

Photo 15. Typical wave patterns for Plan 1. 17 sec. I6 ft npectrrcf ,x" r fro-.-swl +2_9 ft (maximum ebb flow conditionsi

S,

• : 'r•".'• p'

t: ! O t ' , ! G [ t~ f : j i • / • V • •- t , • l , .) • ~ [ ' , i , - ' ' , . ' ; . . .A.

4 40

,V,

Photo 18- Typical wave patterns for Plan 1: 1 5-sec. 2 1 -t s;pectral waves from 275 deq:-swl -i-7.0 ft

Photo 19. Typical wave patterns for Plan 14: 15 sec. 12 ft mjoor1clrofltilC W~.

275 deg: swI 0.0) it

-- WT

Photo 20. TYPICal wveaJ Patlc'fncý ior PI '.. ~ ~ VA-

27-5 deg', swl 0 0 it

Photo 21. Typical wave patterns for Plan 14: 17-sec. 16-ft spectral waves from 275 dog,swl = 0.0 ft

Photo 22. Typical wave patterns for Plan 14 15-sec.,C, 12-ft siiorio locr if t wmv; from275 deg: swl 4 -2.9 ft (maximum ebb flow condltlons,)

7,r7

Photo 23 Typical wave patterns for Plan 141: 17 sec. 6 ft mrc'"275 deg: swi -- -2 9 f: Jmaximium ebb tlow ocio

Photo 24 Typical wa ve patternm- for P ia 1 ni16 0 1

*M 2) ti ebbxn1t)'11 flow (Cr1 t 3m

Photo 25. Typical wave patterns tor Plan 14:. 15sec. 21 ft monocthroma!,:c vv,.,ý275 deg, swl +7.0 ft

Photo 26, Typical wavce Oallerwn- for Pla-n 1,4ý 17 5(,( -4 f, Pj(jCchOi'

2 '5 deg. swi 0'11

Photo 27 Typical wave patterns for Plan 14: 15 sec. 2 1 fI spectral wave- I Cr "_5swI ±7 0 ft

Photo 218 Iypw~fl ,Y;iv(, paltfern2 for Plpvi 15f~ 1 c f 1r m~~~ r I Iit I~-~

2 '(- dq: -wv 0 ft

Photo 29. Typical wave patterns for Plan 15: 17-sec. 1 6-ft monochromatic waves from275 dleg. swl =0.0 ft

45

Photo 30, Typical wave patterns for Plan 15. 1 7-sec. 1 6-ft spectral waves f romn 27,5 den.swl 0 0 ft

Photo 31 Typical wave patterns for Plan 15: 15 sec. 12 2fl, rmanc,,~chon275 deg. swl +ý2.9 ft imaximurn ebb flow condittion,2i

Pht 3ý TypcI! N ~V-ý pWfWY1V !of ii

Photo 33. Typical wave patterns for Plan 15: 17-sec, 16-ft spectral waves from 275 deg:swl +2.9 ft (maximum ebb flow conditions)

Photo 34. Typical wave patterns for Plan 15, 15-sec, 21ft monochromatic waves from275 deg. swl = +7.0 ft

-7-,

photo 35 Typical wave patt erns tar Plan157 e.3-tm

0

275 deg'. swl 0 1

.... . .7 ....

Photo 37. Typical wave patterns for existing conditions, 15-sec, 21-ft monocnromaticwaves from 300 deg: swl +7.0 ft

Photo 38. Typical wave patterns for existing conditions; 17 sec. 30 ft monochromaticwaves from 300 deg: swl = +7.0 ft

Photo 39. Typical wave patterns for existing conditions, 15 sec. 21,~ spcciW an..ý''300 deg: swl = 17.0 ft

Photo 40 Typical wive patterns for Plan 14ý 15sn f o hroma; ~''

300 dleg. swl - 7.0 ft

Photo 41. Typical wave patterns for Plan 14: 17-sec, 30-ft monochromatic wavEs from300 deg: swi = +7.0 ft

#4 ,

Photo 42. Typical wave patterns for Plan 14: 15-sec. 21-ft 'pecrý, lw-- "0 .swl = +7.0 ft

Photo 43. Typical wave patterns for Plan 15; 15-sec. 211!t monochromatic wavef; froTr300 deg; swi +7.0 ft

Photo 44, Typical wave patterns for Plan 15. 17 sec. an ft monochromatic wa-vc,ý from300 deg. swi +7.0 ft

Photo 45 -TYP'ca l wave pa tterns for Plan 1 ,1 -e .2 js e t a a e r m 3

Sw ! +7. ft5 5 s c 2 t S e trl w v s fo 0 o

-A

Photo 46- Typia waePatterns for exitn o~inwaves from 260 deg: sw! +7.0 ft

2-tm,'crjj~

Photo 47 Typical wave patterns for existing conditions. 17 sec. 30 f;mnetwaves from 260 deg, swi =+7.0 ft

-Aga wt-ý

Phctn 48 Typi.ir wavev p itt& mc for e-Ytn x a ndit~or1 ',i9q,.2.60 dtq 7. ~0 ft

Photo 49. Typical wave patterns for Plan 14: 15-sec. 21-ft monochromatic waves from260 deg; swl +7.0 ft

Photo 50. Typical wave patterns for Plan 14.- 1 7-soc. 304ft monochromatic waves from260 deg'. swl =+7.0 ft

PhOtO 51 Typical wave patterns fOr Plan 14: 15 -sec, 2 1-ft Spectral wVVQVO from 260 dog,

SWI 1= ~7, t

Photo 53. Typical wave patterns for Plan 15;, 17-sec. 30-ft monochromatic waves fronm260 deg; swl +7.0 ft

Photo 54. Typical wave patterns for Plan 15,b 15-sec. 21-ft spectral waves fromn 260 deqswl = +7,0 it

z'- 4

Photo 55. General movement of tracer material and subsequent deposits for Plan 14 for12-sec, 8-ft monochromatic waves from 300 deg; swl 0.0 ft

I

Photo 56. General movement of tracer material and subsequent deposits for Plan 14 for15-sec, 12-ft monochromatic waves from 300 deq: swl 0 0 ft

Photo 57. General movement of tracer material and subsequent deposits for Plan 14 for17-sec, 16-ft monochromatic waves from 300 deg: swi 0.0 ft

Photo 58- General movement of tracer material and subsequent deposis for Plan 14 for15-sec. 21-ft monochromatic waves frcm 300 deg. sw! 0- +t0i

Photo 59. General movement of tracer material and subsequent deposits for Plan 14 for17-sec, 26-ft monochromatic waves from 300 deg: swl +7.0 ft

Photo 60. General movement of tracer material and subsequent deposits for Plan 14 for12-sec. 8. ft monochromatic waves from 250 deg. swl = 0.0 ft

Photo 61. General movement of tracer material and subsequent deposits for Plan 14 for15-sec, 12-ft monochromatic waves from 250 deg; swl = 0.0 ft

A/A

Photo 62. General movement of tracer material and subsequent deposits for PRan 14 for17-sec, 16-ft monochromatic waves trom 250 deg; swl = 0.0 ft

Photo 63, General movement of tracer material and subsequent deposits for Plan 14 for

15-sec. 21 -ft monochromatic waves from 250 deg,- swl +7.0 ft

Photo 64. Gcrieral rnoverneflt of tracer material and ;ubseqUent e AforŽv'

1 7 sec. 26 ft mnonochromatic waves from 250 deg. -swi

NOTES I,. CONTOURS AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN

IN FEET REFERRED TO MEAN LOWERLOW WATER (MLLW) .

2. GAGES 25-27 WERE MOVED ALONG THE I --47 FT CONTOUR DEPENDING UPONINCIDENT WAVE DIRECTION

,41

/ i/i

El -1I / ' /

I.4 692000

8REIwr/ -N-

2'9

/ \ J /

G NUB/,"R,\ A LC

,Plat 1

I / /

,. o~o No..•NO oo ,o3 1//

SCALES • oQ •o• EXISTING CONDITIONS

Plate 1

NOTES

I CONTOURS AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN / /IN FEET REFERRED TO MEAN LOWERLOW WATER (MLLW)

/ NJ ~/ l

/ 3° •

/ / 40-N-/ •® /

5RAW •E - -- / GOI

a• ."020

192

I /40

2?

I-- , t -

Tommvq 0 500 400 too ,, ELEMENTS OF PLAN I

Plate 2

NOTES APAE OMA OE

L CONTOURS ANO ELEVATIONS SHOWN IIN FEET AfFEARREO TO ME~AN LOWER

LOW WVATE IMLLW)

/ A

/ '"/ / /Ii/

NOR THKW , # 4/

IN 61.00 j., I-7 ,

/, // 2

¾ ; I%,WATR / , GROI

023

'"LN ," ... ' U-P.LAN 5

.26 I PLAN 4 -- PLA

P27 PLANS \

6- ANDPLAN5~

t !t

I /I/LEGENO /

I@ GAGE NUMSER AND LOCATION 1 /

,omft • o 300 goo too , F IELEMENTS OF PLANS 2-7

Plate 3

NOTES /L. CONTOURIS ANO ELEVATIONS SHOWN

IN FEET REFERRED TO MEAN LOWERLOW WATER (MLLW)

/ !

I.

I /N! -m4,0

/

/ N

S., .1.,)

*2, IE-•. / / ,1

PLANS 8-12T-' - - , , ) ,

t EL -40

PLANS , I I / \ "..,11LANS 1- -- '-PLANS 8 AND 13

PLAN 10• "0t'\

1.2 \ �-- AN . l /

I H G

/) ( (Iv IOh slope))IIs(

I / /

**GAG N4UMKEN ANO LOCATION I (

,Ov"T, o so* *o.0 40, ELEMENTS OF PLANS 8-13

Plate 4

NOTESII. CONTOURS AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN

IN FEET REFERRED TO MEAN LOWERLOW WATER (MLLW)

2. GAGES 25 -2T WERE MOVED ALONG THE --47 FT CONTOUR DEPENDING UPON--INCIDENT WAVE DIRECTION-

!/

Io,/ 1/2_,o, __ ___,o._o. /

( REAKWArER / i01N

,J,. - /,°,~ / !' " --

//

A k

II / -"

/ EL'5/

I * I PLAN 15

L ( I .EL "30)/

! I ' " ar//

// \

I /k ,,

. GAGE NUMBER AND LOCATION(

SCALES

00t~ 00 too 1, ELEMENTS OF PLANS 14 AND 15

Plate 5

25-

20-

" 15-to-

zS0 -

5-

to it 12 15 4 3 Z

Gage Location*7A for Plon 14

12 -SECOND, 8 -FOOT WAVE

25-

20-

15-0 IIi /I S

10

to 1t 12 17 65 4 3 2

Gage Location"*7A for Plan 1415-SECOND, 8-FOOT WAVE

LEGEND'Existing Conditions- Plan 14

COMPARISON OF WAVE HEIGHT IN ENTRANCE CHANNELFOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAN 14;

12 AND 15-SEC, 8-FT MONOCHROMATIC WAVESFROM 275 DEGREES, SWL = 0.0 FT

Plate 6

20O

5-c-

Gage Location

*?Afo Pan1415 -SECOND, 12 -FOOT WAVE

25-20-

-

0 -

oI I I

5 4 3 2

Gage Location

7A for Pion 14 15 - SECOND, 16-FOOT WAVE

LEGENDExisting ConditionsPlan 14

COMPARISON OF WAVE HEIGHT IN ENTRANCE CHANNELFOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAN l1 ;

15-SEC, 12 AND 16-yT MONOCHROMATIC WAVESFROM 275 DEGREES, SWL = 0.0 FT

Plae 7

25-

20

5-

jIS

10-

0

I0 11 12 7 5 4 J 2

Gage Local on"]K7A for Plan 1417-SECOND, 8- FOOT WAVE

25-

20-

15-

5--7

, ,

0 124 2Gage Location

*7A for Plan 14GaeLctn17- SECOND, 12-FOOT WAVE

LEGEND

Existing ConditionsPlan 14

COMPARISON OF WAVE HEIGHTS IN ENTRANCE CHANNELFOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAN 14;

17-SEC, 8 AND 12-FT MONOCHROMATIC WAVESFROM 275 DEGREES, SWL = 0.0 FT

Plate 8

25-

15--• . •

I0 11 12 17 6 5 4 3 2 1

Gage Location*7A for Plon 14

17- SECOND, 16-FOOT WAVE

25-

20

SIS

15-

0-

tO 12 '7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Gage Location"*7A foe Plan 14

20-SECOND, 8- FOOT WAVE


COMPARISON OF WAVE HEIGHTS IN ENTRANCE CHANNELFOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAN l4;

17-SEC, 16-Fr AND 20-SEC, 8-FT MONOCHROMATICWAVES FROM 275 DEGREES, SWL = 0.0 FT

Plate 9

20-

o-

I !10 11 12 4 3 2 1

Gage Location*7A for Plan 14


25-

ZO- •

U. N

to

01*

3:

0- I IZ I10 11 12 *7 54 3 2

Gage Location*7A for Plan 14 20-SECOND, 16-FOOT WAVE

LEGEND

Existing Conditions

Plan 1h

COMPARISON OF WAVE HEIGHTS IN ENTRANCE CHANNELFOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAN l4;

20-SEC, 12 AND 16-FT MONOCHROMATIC WAVES

FROM 275 DEGREES, SWL = 0.0 FT

Plate 10

25-

20-

"15

I0- I 114

Gage Location"*ýTA for Plan (4 12- SECOND, 8-FOOT WAVE

25

20

15-

*10--

5

0 |'i

10 11 125 4 3 2,5

Gage Location"•7A for Plan (415 -SECOND, 12-FOOT WAVE

LEGEND



12-SEC, 8-FT AND 15-SEC, 12-FT SPECTRAL WAVESFROM 275 DEGREES, SWL = 0.0 FT

Plate 11

20O

to

Is

0 I I I I

,6 !2 4 " 2Gage Location"*7A for Plan |4


25-

20-

- 15

e I0,

0-

tO 11 12 I'54

Gage Location*TA for Plan 14 20- SECOND, 8- FOOT WAVE

LEGEND

Existing ConditionsPlanI 14


17-SEC, 16-FT AND 20-SEC, 8-FT SPECTRALWAVES FROM 275 DEGREES, SWL = 0.0 FT

Plate 12

25-

20-

-1 -

"0-to I 1 I 7 54 2

Gage Location*7A for Plan12- SECONO, 8-FOOT WAVE

25

20

.U-

5-

0 11 12 7 6 542

Gage Location•7A for Plon 14 15 - SECOND, 8-FOOT WAVE

LEGEND



12 AND 15-SEC, 8-FT MONOCHROMATIC WAVESFROM 275 DEGREES, SWL = +2.9 FT

Plate 13

20-

0-

0- I 1 I I 'I

10 II 12 *7 6 5 4 2

Gage Location*TA for Pion 14 15 - SECOND, 12 -FOOT WAVE

IA.

Sio

3

10 11 12 2 4Gagell Locoation

"*7A for Plan 14

15 -SECOND, 16-FOOT WAVE

LEGENDExisting Conditions

-Plan lh


15-SEC, 12 AND 16-FT MONOCHROMATIC WAVESFROM 275 DEGREES, SWL = +2.9 F'

Plate 14

25-

20

Z5-

0 II s iI"

0-

I0 II t2 "(7, 5 4 .3 2

Goge Location"*7A for Plan 14

17 - SECOND, 8-FOOT WAVE

25-

20-

• 15-

15-

10 II 12 1 6 5 2

Gage Locoaion*7AforPion14 17- SECOND, 12-FOOT WAVE


COMPARISON OF WAVE HEIGHTS IN ENTRANCE CHANNELFOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAN lh;

17-SEC, 8 AND 12-FT MONOCHROMATIC WAVESFROM 275 DEGREES, SWL = +2.9 FT

Plate 15

25-

20-

0-

0 II I12II10 1 .5 4 3 2

Gage Location7A for Pion 14 17-SECOND, 16-FOOT WAVE

25-

20-

z15-

S I 123 2

Gage Location*A forPlan14 20-SECOND, 8-FOOT WAVE

LEGENDExisting Conditions

- - - Plan 14


17-SEC, 16-FT AND 20-SEC, 8-FT MONOCHROMATICWAVES FROM 275 DEGREES, SWL = +2.9 FT

Plate 16

25-

2O-

Ui.

toIN

5-

to 71 5 4 32


25-20-

I0 II II 5 4 10 11 1 15 4 3 2

Gage Location")*TA for Plan 1420- SECOND, 16-FOOT WAVE

LEGEND



20-SEC, 12 AND 16-FT MONOCHROMATIC WAVESFROM 275 DEGREES, SWL = +2.9 FT

Plate 17

25-

20-

I IsII

0

I0 I6 12 4 3 2


25

20-

o15-

0I 1I ... I'50 II 12 37 52

Gage Location*7A for Plan 14

15-SECOND, 12-FOOT WAVE

LEGEND



12-SEC, 8-FT AND 15-SEC, 12-FT SPECTRALWAVES FROM 275 DEGREES, SWL = +2.9 FT

Plate 18

5-

20-

2 15 11 15-

0- I I II0 11 12 7, 6 5 4 3 2

Gage Location"*7A for Plan 1417 - SECOND, 16-FOOT WAVE

25

20

q, 10 I -

oPII O W HEIG IN E

Gage Location

FOA for PEan C420-SECOND, 8-FOOT WAVE

LEGEND

Existing Conditions-- Plan 14

COMPARISON OF WAVE HEIGHTS IN ENTRANCE CHANN1~ELFOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AIND PLAN ih;

17-SEC, 16-FT AND 20-SEC, 8-FT SPECTRALWAVES FROM 275 DEGREES, SWL = +2.9 FT

Plate 19

LEGEND

- EXISTING CONDITIONS-- PLAN 14

8.0o

6.0

2.0

0.0

-2.0~-2.0 ~

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9o 1o0

TIME, SECGAGE 10

8.0

S6.0

0

S2.00.0

-2.0

- 4.010.0 10 20 30 4o 50 60 70 80 9o 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 11

8.0

S6.0

(4.E 2.0

-2.0-h.0 v

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 60 70 80 90 10C

TIME, SEC

GAGE 12

8.0

6 .o4 .0

0 2.0

0.0 10 20 30 ho 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 7 (7A FOR PLAN l4)

COMPARISON OF WAVE FORM (STEEPNESS) IN ENTRANCECHANNEL FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAN 1ik;

12-SEC, 8-FT MONOCHROMATIC WAVES FROM275 DEGREES; SWL = 0.0 Fr

Plate 20

LEGEND

EXISTING CONDITIONS

-- PLAN 14

8.0-

66.0

4..0

2.0

. 0.0 V-2.0-4.0

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 6o 70 80 90 100

TIME, SECGAGE 10

8.0.P 6.o

4 4.0

4-2.0

"0.0-2.0

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100TIME, SEC

GAGE 11

8.0-

S6.0-

0 .

~2.0o / / / ] 1S0.0

' -2.0V v-k~ • - __ ___ _ _

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1o0

TIME, SEC

GAGE 12

8.0

6.0

4.02.0

> 0.0S-2.0

-h.0 I0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 7 (7A FMR PLAN 14)

COMPARISON OF WAVE FORM (STEEPNESS) IN ENTRANCECHANNEL FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAN 14;

15-SEC, 8-Fr MONOCHROMATIC WAVES FROM275 DEGREES; SWL = 0.0 Fr

Plate 21

LEGEND

EXISTING CONDITIONS-PLAN 1h

0.

-5.1

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SECGAGE 10

E- 5.0

S0.0

-5.0r L - I -- J |

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100TIME, SEC

GAGE 11

10.0

0 5.0

0 .0 1A. k

-5,0| 1 " I I0.0 1o 20 30 4o 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SECGAGE 12

o 5.0

20.0

-5.P lt0.0 10I 20 30 4~o 50 60 70 so 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 7 (7A MOR PLAN 14)


15-SEC, 12-FT MONOCHROMATIC WAVES FROM275 DEGREES; SWL = 0.0 FT

Plate 22

LEGEND

-- EXISTING CONDITIONS-- PLAN 1h

16 .0 -

•-8.0.0

S0.0-

-8,0 t t I, ,

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 6o 70 80 90 100

TIME, SECGAGE 10

16.o -

12.0•"8.0 /

GAGE 1i

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 12

S12.0

o

8 .0,, 4.0

-8.00.0 10 20 30 4&o 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

i6oGAGE - GA

12

12.012.0

5 S.0

l t2

-8.0 _ .o0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 go 1o00

TIME, SECGAGE 7 (7A FOIR PLAN 1L)

COMPARISON OF WAVE FORM (STEEPNESS) IN ENTRANCECHANNEL FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAN l14;


Plate 23

LEGEND-- EXISTING CONDITIONS

- PLAN 14

6.o

4.02.

- 2 .0 i I , I . . .S00

~-2.

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SECGAGE 10

6.0-

4.0'.0

o 2.0

0.0

a -2.0-4.o I , I , I I I

0.0 10 20 30 LO 50 60 70 80 90 100TIME, SECGAGE 11

6.0

S2.0

S-2.0

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SECGAGE 12

6.0 -

Pa 2.00. -

S-4.o-

0. 0 10 20 30 4•o 50 60 70 80 90 100TIME, SEC

GAGE 7 (7A FOR PLAN 14)


17-SEC, 8-FT MONOCHROMATIC WAVES FROM275 DEGREES; SWL =0.0 FT

Plate 24

LEGENDEXISTING CONDITIONS

--- PLAN 14i0.0

5.0

S0.0

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SECGAGE 10

10.0

5.0

5.0

/ - /, /v I0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 6o 70 80 go 10o

TIME, SECGAGE 11

10.0 -

5.0

0.0

-5-0L- '

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 12

10.0 -

10.0

5.0

0.0 10 20 30 ho 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SECGAGE 7 (OA FMR PLAN 14)

COMPARISON OF WAVE FORM (STEEPNESS) 1N ENTRANCECHANNEL FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAN 14;

17-SEC, 12-FT MONOCHROMATIC WAVES FROM275 DEGREES; SWL = 0.0 Fn

Plate 25

LEGEND

- EXISTING CONDITIONS- PLAN 14

12.0

[• 8.0

0.0

S-6.ovs..8.0o _" I I - I I iL .I I I I I

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME. SECGAGE 10

12.0 1 30- 50 60

z

0.0- 1 0 3 0 5 0 7 a 9 0

-4.0-8 .0 | 1 I

0.0 10 20 30 ho 50 60 70 80 90 100TIME, SEC

GAGE 7L

12.0-

S0.00

-P.o 2.

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 6o 70 80 go 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 12

12.0-

0 4.0

S0.0

-4.o - v,

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 6o 70 80 90 IGO

TIME, SEC

GAGE 7 (7A FnR PLAN 14)

COMPARISON OF WAVE FORM (STEEPNESS) IN ENTRANCECHANNEL FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAN 14 ;

I7-SEC, 16-FT MONOCHROMATIC WAVES FROM275 DEGREES; SWL = 0.0 FT

Plate 26

LEGEND

EXISTING CONDITIONSPLAN l4

10.0

o 5.0

TIME. SEC

10.0 I

0.0 10 20 30 140 50 6o 70 60 9- 100

TfIME, SEC

GAGE 11

10.*0-

5.0-

: II IS0.0 10 20A

II I I I I

0.0 10 20 30 L0 50 60 70 80 9: 100

TIME, SECGAGE 12

10.0 1

m"5. 0

0 .0 Al

0.0 10 20 30 ho 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 7 (TA FOR PLAN 14)



Plate 27

LEGEND

- EXISTING CONDITIONSS•PLAN l1

16.o

8.00,.

0.0_14.0

-8.0GG 10.0 10 20 30 LO 50 60 70 60 90 1IN

TIME, SEC

GAGE 10

16.012.0-

4 I.0

0.0

4 O0

-8.01 I I I I 1 I l I

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIM•, SEC

GAGE 12

16.o -

S12.o,•z 8.0

S0.0-4 .oI I I I 1 I I ,,

0.0 10 20 30 I'0 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, ?Sý

GAGE 12

16.o

212.0

4u.o

2 0.0

-8.Plate0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 6o TO 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

CAGE 7 (7A FOR PLAN 14)


20-SEC, 12-FT MONOCHROMATIC WAVES FROM275 DEGREES; SWL = 0.0 Fr

Plate 28

LEGEND

EXISTING CONDITIONS-PLAN 14

20.-

10.

0.0

-1O." 1 1 1 1 1 I I I - I -j

0.0 10 20 30 Lao 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIIPE, SECGAGE 10

20.-

2 10.-010

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 60 70 80 90 100TIME, SEC

GAGE 11

20.

0.0

-10. I I I I I

0.0 10 20 30 ho 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 12

10. [

S 0.0

0.0 10 20 30 4,0 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SECGAGE 7 (7A FOR PLAN 14)

COMPARISON OF WAVE FORM (STEEPNESS) IN ENTRANCECHANNEL FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAN IL;

20-SEC, 16-FT MONOCHROMATIC WAVES FROM

275 DEGREES; SWL = 0.0 FT

Plate 29

LEGEND

- EXISTING CONDITIONSPLAA' IL

6.o

2.0

0.0S-2.0

-6.o0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 ioc

TIME, SECGAGE 10

6"•.o•

0.0 00 2.0

0.0S-2.0-] -4,.o

-6 .o I I I I I

0.0 10 20 30 4.o 50 60 70 8o 90 1O0TIME, SEC

GAGE 12

6.o,-

2-.0.0

-6.o " I I I I 1- I I I I I

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 12

6.0 -

2 82. 0 -P AL020

-6.oPI300.0 10I 20 30 4,0 50 6o 70 80 go 100

TME, SEC

GAGE 7 (OA FOR PLAN 14,)


12-SEC, 8-FT SPECTRAL WAVES FROM275 DEGREES; SWL = 0.0 FT

Plate 30

LEGEND

EXISTING CONDITIONS--- PLAN 14

16.o

12.

0.

i-4.

o8 .0 L

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 6A 70 80 90 IOC

TIME, SEC

GAGE 10

12.0

8.0

. 0 .

-4.o - N-,

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 11

16.o -

12.0S8.0-4 0

0.0

-8.0 , I I I,' . .

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 12

16.0 -

F2-12.EES8.0

20.0

-8.0 f I3 I I I0.0 o 0 20 30 4~o 50 6o 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC


COMPARISON OF WAVE FORM (STEEPNESS) IN ENTRANCECHANNEL FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAN 1L,;

15-SEC, 12-FT SPECTRAL WAIVTS FROM275 DEGREES; SWL = 0.0 FT

Plate 31

LEGEND

- EXISTING CONDITIONS-- PLAN I1

16.o -

12.0'_S8.0 A

4. -,.S0.0

-8.0 1

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 10

16.0 -

8.04 o.

0 0.0

-4.o -. £_-8.0 I I I l .. .

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 6o 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 12

16.o -

S12.o08 .0

S0.04k.0

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 12

16.0

S12.04= .o .-

20.0

-3 .o2

0.0 o 0 20 30 ho 50 60 TO 80 90 100TIME, SEC


COMPARISON OF WAVE FORM (STEEPNESS) IN ENTRANCE

CHANNEL FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAN 14;

17-SEC, 16-Fr SPECTRAL WAVES FROM

275 DEGREES; SWL = 0.0 FT

Plate 32

LEGEND

- EXISTING CONDITIONSPLAN 14

o• 2.00.0

0.0

-2 .0-

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SECGAGE 10

6.o -.

z• 2.0i0.02.0

-4,O i I I L, I I I I I

0.0 10 20 30 4O 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 11

6.0 -

4.o .o

0

-2.0-4,.o " I I I I I I ,

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 12

6.0-4.-S2.0

S0.0

-2.0

4•.oi0.0 10 20 30 4ao 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 7 (7A FOR PLAN l4)


20-SEC, 8-Fr SPECTRAL WAVES FROM275 DEGREES; SWL = 0.0 FTY

Plate 33

LEGEND

- EXISTING CONDITIONS- PLAN 14

8.0

6.0

0.

-2.0S0.0

-2.0

0.0 10 20 30 4O 50 60 70 80 90 IOC

TIME, SECGAGE 10

8.0

- 6.0

0.00.0

-2.0

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 60 70 80 90 10CTIME, -EC

GAGE 11

8.0-

6" .0 -.

0

-2.0-•-0"o --

7 I

'-4.

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 60 70 80 90 lOc

TIME, SEC

GAGE 12

6.o

~4.0o2.0 -

-2.0

0.0 10 20 30 'o 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC


COMPARISON OF WAVE FORM (STEEPNESS) IN ENTRANCECHANNEL FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAN i4;


275 DEGREES; SWL = +2.9 FT

Plate 34

LEGEND

-- EXISTING CONDITIONS

PLAI. 148.0 -.

6.0 .0

4.0

2.0

S-2.0

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SECGAGE 10

8.0-• 6.0 o -z4.0

0 S2.0

0.0

-4.0

0.0 io 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9o 1ooTIME, SEC

GAGE 11

8.0-

6.04.0.O

0E- 2.0 -

0O.0S-2.0

_4,.0

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 12

8i.0

4.00 S2.0 -S0.0

-2.0

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC




275 DEGREES; SWL =+2.9FT

Plate 35

LEGEND


10 .0

< -5.0:

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SECGAGE 10

10.0Ori Ai

C

5.0

0.0

-5.0 ,J

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 11

0.0 1

-5.oG 120.0 10 20 30 40 50 6o 70 8o 9c 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 12

Pt 5.0S0.0

-5.00.0 10 20 30 4o 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME. SECGAGE T PTA MOR PLAN 14)


15-SEC, 12-FIT MONOCHROMATIC WAVES FROM275 DEGREES; SWL = +2.9 FT

Plate 36

LEGEND

-- EXISTING CONDITIONS- PLAN 14

16.o -

8.0

_4.0

-8.0 N i l I I I I

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 10

16.o

FGA12.oEz"8.0

0.04.o

-8.00.0 10 20 30 4to 50 60 70 80 90 10O

TIME, SEC

GAGE 12

16.o

fZ12.0

B.0 -~4•.o

S0.0

-8.o

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 60 TO 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 12

16.0 -

12.0I

S0.0

-4.o' I vI I v

0.0 1o 20 30 4o 50 60 TO 8o 90 100

TIME, SEC





Plate 37

LEGEND.EXISTING CONDITIONS

-- PLAN 14

6• .o

L ' 4.0

U; 2.0o-0

0.0 10 2 0-o 5 0 7 o 9 0S-2.0 J

-4.01 1 GAGE 10_L0.0 10 20 30 ,o 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SECGAGE 10

6.0-

2.0

S-2.0

0.0 10 20 30 4O 50 6o 70 8O 90 100TIME, SEC

GAGE 11

6.0

4u.o

• 2.0

0.0

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SECGAGE 12

4,0

-" 2.0 \oooo o.or I

0.0 1o 20 30 4o 50 60 70 8o 90 100TIME, SEC

GAGE 7 (OA FOR PLAN 14)

COMPARISON OF WAVE FORM (STEEPNESS) IN ENTRANCECHANNEL FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAN 1I4;

17-SEC, 8-FT MONOCHROMATIC WAVES FROM275 DEGREES; SWL = +2.9 FT

Plate 38

LEGEND-- EXISTING CONDITIONS

-- PLAN l1

10.0

5.0

j 0.0

-5.0 __ L ___0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 10

10.0

5.0

S0.0

-5 .0 ..-..- .....

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 60 70 80 90 10

TIME, SEC

GAGE 11

10.0

5.0 -

0.

-5,0 I\ I I I\/ I I

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8o 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 12

0.

0.0 10 20 30 4so 50 60 70 80 90 100

TINE, SEC

GAGE 7 (7A FOR~ PLAN 4 s)

COMPARISON OF WAVE FORM (STEEPNESS) IN ENTRANCECHANNEL FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAN lh;

17-SEC, 12-FT MONOCHROMATIC WAVES FROM275 DEGREES; SWL = +2.9 Fr

Plate 39

LEGEND

-- EXISTING CONDITIONS-- PLAN 14

G12G.1. 8.0

-• 4.o

-8.0 I | | . .. !. .

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIvE, SEC

GAGE 10

SGAGE°1

12.0

8.0

'-0

H 4.o0

S0.0

-L.o-8.0 I I I I I I

0.0 10 20 30 h0 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIM, SEC

GAC-"-" i1

•: 8.04 .o i/I

0-b.0

o0.0 io 20 30 4o 50 60 70 80 90 ioo

M-- SECGAGE 12

12.0

4 .o

-8.01 I 1 1 I I t I Io0.0 10 20 30 4,0 5 60 70 8O 90 100

TIME. SEC

GAGE 7 (7A FO-R PLAN IL)


17~SEC, 16-FT MONOCHROMATIC WAVES FROM

275 DEGREES; SWL = +2.9 Fr

Plate 40

LEGEND

EXISTING CONDITIONS-- PLAN 14

10.0

5.0

0.0

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 106

TIME, SEC

GAGE 10

10.0 -

0 5.o0

S0.0I

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 6o 70 80 90 Ioc

TIME, SEC

GAGE 11

5.0

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 60 70 80 90 icr

TIME, SEC

GAGE 12

10.0 -

5.0

0.0

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 6o 70 80 90 100

rIME, SEC

GAGE 7 (7A FOR PLAN 1h)

COMPARISON OF WAVE FORM (STEEPNESS) IN ENTRANCECHANNEL FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAI 14;

20-SEC, 8-FT MONOCHROMATIC WAVES FROM275 DEGREES; SWL = +2.9 F;

Plate 41

LEGEND'EXISTING CONDITIONS

-PLAN 14

16.o .-

G12.Eo 8.0 i

- 0.0

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 io1

TIME, SEC

GAGE 10

16.o -

0 8.0

4,008.0,1 -

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 6o 70 80 90 1ooTIME, SEC

GAGE 1?

16.0 r

12.0

8.0

4.000 0.0

4- .o

8 .I I I I I I I I0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10

TIME, SEC

GAGE 12

16.or

- 1, -E 1 -- MONOICHROATI I I W I A VE F00o 10 20 30 4o 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 7 (TA FOR PLAN 14)


20-SEC, 12-FTr MONOCHROMATIC WAVES FROM


Plate 42

LEGEND"EXISTING CONDITIONS

--- PLAN$ i•

20.

10.

S0.0

0.0 10 20 s4 40 50 60 70 80 90 Io0TIME, SEC

GAGE 10

20.

10.

0.0

-IE0. SE0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SECGAGE 1l

20.

S0.0

-10. : I i t I i I I ,

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 12

20. -

S0.0. N •-101 1 1 - I- I I I I I I I

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 60 70 po go Doo

TIME, SEC





Plate 43

LEGEND


6.o -

6.0

02.0 1

-6.or L•0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SECGAGE 10

6.0"

2.0 /0.0

-2.0

1

-6.o I I I I I " I 10.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 11

6.0-

2: 2.0

• 2.0

-4.o --6 . o I II I

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SECGAGE 12

6.o0-4•.o -

2. -k.

-0.0 V

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 6o 70 so go 100

TIME, SEC



12-SEC, 8-FT SPECTRAL WAVES FROM


Plate 44

LEGENfDEXISTING CONDITIONS

--- PLAN 1L'

16.o 0G12o0

0.0 1 0 3 O 5 0 i o 9 0""IP8,SE

4•.o

0.0

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 6o 70 6c 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 10

16.0 1

8.04 .0

0.0

-4.oj-8.0

0. 0 10 20 30 4o 50 6o 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 1P

15SC,1-r PCRA AESFO

16.o -

0 8.0-

EPlate 45

S0.0

-8.0 1 , 1 1..... 1 J0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 6o 70 8" 90 100

TIME, SECGAGE 12

16.0 -S12.0

S8.o-

•. 0.0

-8 .0 1 .... . ,0.0 io 20 30 4o 50 6o TO 80 90 100

TIME, SEC


COMPARISON OF WAVE FORM (STEEPNE&';) IN ENTRANCECHANNEL FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAN 14 ;

15-SEC, 12-FT SPECTRAL WAVES FROM275 DEGREES; SWL = +2.9 Fr

Plate 45

LEGEND

EXISTING CONDITIONS-- PLAN 14

16.0 2

G12G

8 I.0.4o.o-0.0

-8.01 1 1 1 f I i I I

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 60 70 8o 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 10

016.o -

12.0o 8.0

S0.0

-_ .0-8.0 I , 1 I

0.0 10 20 30 4o 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 7 1

275. DERES SL,2901

16,P 4

S8.0'

4.

-8.o0 . l l I II .. I0.0 10 20 30 4O 50 6o 70 80 90 lO00

TIME, SEC

GAGE 12

16.o

S12.0S8.0E.o

•"0.0

-4.o I I I I I I I I

0.0 o 0 20 30 ho 50 60 70 8o 90 100

TIME, SEC


COMPARISON OF WAVE FORM (STEEPNESS) IN ENTRANCECHANNEL FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAN 14,

17-SEC, 16-FT SPECTRAL WAVES FROM275 DEGREES; SWL = +2.9 FT

Plate 46

LEGEND

- EXISTING CONDITIONSPLAN 14

6.0-

o 2.0S0.0ok

S-2.0'•

-4.o I t

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 10

6.0-

4. 0 .

2.0

0.0

-2.0

-14.0F I0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 11

6.0-

14.0

z 2.0

S0.0

• -2.0/

-4.o I0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC

GAGE 12

6.o-

S2.0

-2.0

0.0 10 20 30 ho 50 60 70 80 90 100

TIME, SEC



20-SEC, 8-FT SPECTRAL WAVES FROM275 DEGREES; SWL = +2.9 FT

Plate 47

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE i No 0

Public reporting burden for thiscoll'echon olinformation is estimated to average 1 hour per response. ciudig the time to( roeewrng instrinh eatcthio 0ss.lg 041a re 5gai•e, ao f4'. 4 t4'-.the data needed, and completing and reviewing the colfction of information Send comments regarding thi burden estimate or any other aspect of Ims co-ec'tOn 01 rrtOrmrown r,0c','X " gost5r

or reducng this burden, to Washington HeadquarterServices. Directorate for informatonOperatRonh and Report, 1215 Jeffer n HDr irs Highway S,4o1204 Ari,rngo! VA 22X2 4302 a. reOffice of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVEREDMarch 1993 Final report

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE '5. FUNDING NUMBERSDesign for Entrance Channel Navigation Improvements, Morro BayHarbor, Morro Bay, California

6. AUTHOR(S)Robert R. Bottin, Jr.

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) i8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station REPORT NUMBER

Coastal Engineering Research Center Technical Report CERC-93-2

3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

P.O. Box 2711Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

A 1:90 scale, three-dimensional hydraulic model was used to investigate the design of proposed entrance channeldepth modifications at Morro Bay Harbor, California, with respect to navigation conditions. The impact that theproposed depth changes may have on wave conditions at the existing structures and the spit between the southstructures also was addressed, and sediment tracer patterns were obtained in the entrance. The model reproduced theharbor entrance, approximately 7,000 ft of the California shoreline, and offshore bathymetry in the Pacific Ocean to adepth of 60 ft mean lower low water (mllw). A 60-ft-long unidirectional, spectral wave generator, an automated dataacquisition system, and crushed coal tracer material were utilized in model operation. It was concluded from testresults that:

a. For the existing harbor entrance, operational waves (8 to 16 ft in height) from the predominant 275 degdirection resulted in hazardous entrance navigation conditions due to wave steepening and/or breaking.

b. For the originally proposed improvement plan (Plan 1), navigation conditions in the entrance were improved foroperational waves from 275 deg; however, the plan resulted in significantly increased wave heights which may causedamage to the head of the south breakwater during extreme wave conditions (waves ranging from 21 to 30 ft in height).

(Continued)

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

Breakwaters Hydraulic models 142Harbors, California Morro Bay Harbor, California . . ... -

Harbor shoaling Navigation 16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACTOF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLAS5IFIED

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Slandard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)Prescnbed by ANSI Sto Z39- 18298 102

13. (Concluded).

c. Of the improvement plans tested, the channel and sand trap configuration of Plan 14 appeared to beoptimal with respect to all wave conditions from all directions. Navi-,tion conditions in the entrancewill be improved, and the plan will have no negative impact on the existing structures or the spit betweenthe south breakwater and the groin.

d. Sediment tracer tests indicated that sediment moving in the predominant northerly direction willdeposit in the deepened entrance channel and sand trap area of Plan 14 as desired, and material movingin the southerly direction will deposit in the deepened entrance channel.

e. The -30-ft entrance channel of Plan 15 will result in similar wave conditions for operational andextreme waves as the -40-ft channel of Plan 14, which would be acceptable with regard to entranceconditions and would have no negative impact on the breakwaters and spit area.

Design for Entrance Channel Navigation Improvements, Morro ... · Technical Report CERC-93-2 March...

Documents

Transcript of Design for Entrance Channel Navigation Improvements, Morro ... · Technical Report CERC-93-2 March...