Hurricane Kate storm surge data : report 5

tee ArmsCoud, Eig ‘hes, Ar, Teck, hep. CERC_ fhysce/

TECHNICAL REPORT CERC-87-12

HURRICANE KATE STORM SURGE DATA

Report 5
by
Andrew W. Garcia, William S. Hegge

US Army Corps
of Engineers

Coastal Engineering Research Center

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers
PO Box 631, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631

August 1987
Report 5 of a Series

Approved For Public Release, Distribution Unlimited

Prepared for DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
US Army Corps-of Engineers
Washington, DC 20314-1000

Under Hurricane Surge Prototype Data Collection
Work Unit 321-31662

When this report is no longer needed return it to
the originator.

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an
official Department of the Army position unless so
designated by other authorized documents.

The contents of this report are not to be used for

advertising, publication, or promotional purposes.

Citation of trade names does not constitute an

official endorsement or approval of the use of such
commercial products.

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
FormA
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB NO'0904.0168
Exp Date Jun 30, 1986
1b. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS

3. DISTRIBUTION/ AVAILABILITY OF REPORT .

2b. DECLASSIFICATION / DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE Approved for public release; distribution
nlimited.

S. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

Technical Report CERC-87-12
6a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
USAEWES, Coastal Engineering

R g
6c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code)

PO Box 631
Vicksburg, MS 39180-0631

6b. OFFICE SYMBOL
(If applicable)

7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION

7b. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code)

8b. OFFICE SYMBOL
(if applicable)

8a. NAME OF FUNDING/ SPONSORING
ORGANIZATION

US Army Corps of Engineers
&c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code)

9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER

10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS See reverse

PROGRAM PROJECT TASK WORK UNIT
NO NO

ELEMENT NO. ACCESSION NO
See reverse

Washington, DC 20314-1000

11. TITLE (include Security Classification)

Hurricane Kate Storm Surge Data

12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)
Garcia, Andrew C.; Hegge, William S.

13a. TYPE OF REPORT 13b TIME COVERED 14 DATE OF REPORT Wort Month, Day) |15. PAGE COUNT

Report 5 of a series FROM 1985 19 1986 August 198 86 {
16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION
Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,

VA 22161.

17 COSATI CODES
SUBGROUP

18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)
Hurricane Danny (LC) Storm surges (LC)
Hurricanes

19. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)

A summary of storm surge high-water mark, hydrograph, and wave data acquired during
and subsequent to Hurricane Kate is presented. The data were obtained and assembled as
part of a long-term research effort by the US Army Corps of Engineers to establish a
quantitative data set with the objective of providing, in a series of documents, the data
necessary for simulation and verification of numerical surge models. The data contained
herein were obtained primarily by the US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station and
the US Army Engineer District, Mobile, with supplemental data from contributing agencies
and institutions. Additional information is included in the form of photographs and a
descriptive narrative to aid investigators in assessing the degree of importance of an
individual measurement for the purpose of model verification.

20. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 21 ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
Gd UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED (©) same As RPT OJ otic users Unclassified
22a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b. TELEPHONE (Include Area Code) | 22c. OFFICE SYMBOL

DD FORM 1473, a4 mar 83 APR edition may be used until exhausted. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

All other editions are obsolete.
Unclassified

NAN AQUA

0 0301 O05%1eb5 5

Unclassified
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS
WORK UNIT ACCESSION NO. (Continued).

Hurricane Surge Prototype Data Collection Work Unit 321-31662

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

PREFACE

The information and data presented herein were assembled and analyzed
during 1985 to 1986 by authorization from the Office, Chief of Engineers
(OCE), Coastal Engineering Area of Civil Works Research and Development, as a
mission requirement of the Hurricane Surge Prototype Data Collection Work
Unit 321-31662. Messrs. John H. Lockhart, Jr., and John Housley are the OCE
Technical Monitors for the Coastal Engineering Research Area.

The work unit is a multiyear project of the Coastal Engineering Research
Center (CERC), US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES), under
general supervision of Dr. James R. Houston, Chief, CERC; Mr. Thomas W.
Richardson, Chief, Engineering Development Division; and Dr. Dennis R. Smith,
former Chief, Prototype Measurement and Analysis Branch (CD-P). Dr. Charles L.
Vincent is CERC Program Manager. Mr. Andrew W. Garcia, CD-P, is the Principal
Investigator of the Hurricane Surge Prototype Data Collection work unit, and
Mr. William S. Hegge, CD-P, is the engineer in charge of data collection
activities. This report was prepared by Messrs. Garcia and Hegge and edited
by Ms. Jamie W. Leach, Information Products Division, Information Technology
Laboratory, WES.

A special acknowledgment is due Messrs. Geary McDonald and Harold Doyal
of the US Army Engineer District, Mobile, for their cooperation in acquiring
and assembling the high-water mark data and for providing interpretive
guidance thereon.

This report is fifth in a series. Reports 1-4 provided similar data on
Hurricanes Chris, Alicia, Elena, and Danny, respectively.

Commander and Director of WES during report publication was COL Dwayne G.

Lee, CE. Technical Director was Dr. Robert W. Whalin.

PREFACE... .

CONVERS ION
UNITS OF

PART I:
PART II:
PART III:
PART IV:
PART V:
PART VI:
PHOTOS 1-16
PLATES 1-10
APPENDIX A:

CONTENTS

FACTORS, NON-SI TO SI (METRIC)

MEASUREMENT yorcieislelielelleievelelelelevekere 0000000000000000000 600000000000

JORABROIDUIG IOI 6 od od OO God 00K 00G000000000000000000000 °
METEOROLOGICAL DISCUSSION. ........ccccscesccccccce
FIELD ACTIVITIES..... 9000000000 o000dd00000G0000000
EDADINOGRVNASHLG DMWNG oo 66000000000 00D0DR000D00000050 200
POSTSTORM SURVEY......-22.ee0e D000dGu00000000000 doo

HIGH-WATER CONTOUR MAPS........ccccccceccesccseoe

Al

CONVERSION FACTORS, NON-SI TO SI (METRIC)
UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

Non-SI units of measurement used in this report can be converted to SI

(metric) units as follows:

Multiply By To Obtain
feet 0.3048 metres
knots (international) 0.5144444 metres per second
miles (US statute) 1.609347 kilometres
millibars 100.0000 pascals

HURRICANE KATE STORM SURGE DATA

PART I: INTRODUCTION

1. This report is the fifth in a series* providing a data base directed
toward verification of numerical storm surge models. As such, the emphasis is
on quantitative measurements of the hydrodynamic and meteorologic parameters
of Hurricane Kate rather than documentation of structural damage or changes in
coastal morphology. Photos 1-16 show areas which experienced significant
surge effects and are included to assist investigators in assessing the appli-
cability of individual high-water marks in verifying a particular numerical
model.

2. Contained herein are coastal and inland hydrographs and basic meteo-
rological data associated with Hurricane Kate. These data have been compiled
from a variety of sources; consequently, they cannot be guaranteed to be
absolutely accurate. Nevertheless, every reasonable effort has been made to

ensure the data are as consistent and complete as possible.

* Thomas H. Flor. 1983 (Jul). ''Poststorm Reconnaissance of Tropical Storm
Chris,"' Miscellaneous Paper HL-83-5, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Miss.

Andrew W. Garcia and Thomas H. Flor. 1984 (Nov). "Hurricane Alicia Storm
Surge and Wave Data," Technical Report CERC-84-6, US Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.

Andrew W. Garcia and William S. Hegge. 1987. "Hurricane Elena Storm Surge
Data," Technical Report CERC-87-10, Report 3, US Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.

Andrew W. Garcia and William S. Hegge. 1987. "Hurricane Danny Storm Surge
Data,'' Technical Report CERC-87-11, Report 4, US Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.

PART II: METEOROLOGICAL DISCUSSION

3. Hurricane Kate was first identified as a weak tropical wave located
northeast of the Virgin Islands on 13 and 14 November 1985.* The system
strengthened rapidly and already had attained tropical storm intensity when
first investigated by reconnaissance aircraft on 15 November 1985. Atmo-
spheric conditions in the area favored further development, and Kate reached
hurricane intensity by the afternoon of 16 November while located just north
of the Virgin Islands. During the next 48 hr, Kate moved on a track just
north of due west and continued to intensify. By late afternoon on
19 November, the eye of Kate had moved onshore the north-central coast of
Cuba. The eye of Kate remained overland during the next 12 hr emerging just
east of Havana at about 0000 hr Greenwich mean time (Gmt). During the passage
over Cuba, the central pressure of Kate had risen from 967 to 976 mb.**

4, After crossing Cuba, the eye of Kate passed within about 90 miles of
Key West. Maximum sustained winds recorded at Key West were about 47 mph.
Coincident with entering the Gulf of Mexico, Kate intensified very rapidly
during the following 24 hr with the central pressure dropping nearly 1 mb per
hour from 972 mb, reaching the lowest recorded pressure of 953 mb at 2000 Gmt
on 20 November. During this period, the center of Kate passed very close to
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data buoy located near
latitude 26.0 deg N, longitude, 85.9 deg W which reported a peak wind gust of
135 mph.

5. Shortly after entering the Gulf of Mexico, Kate began to turn toward
the north where it encountered the late season, cooler surface waters of the
Gulf which, combined with unfavorable atmospheric conditions, caused Kate to
weaken as it passed latitude 27° N. Upon landfall near Mexico Beach, Fla.,
early on the evening of 21 November, the central pressure of Kate had risen to
967 mb, and maximum winds had decreased from 121 to 98 mph. Kate moved inland

in the vicinity of Tallahassee, Fla., and was downgraded to a tropical storm

* The meteorological discussion and information contained in Table 1 are
taken from the preliminary report on Hurricane Kate provided by the
National Hurricane Center.

**k A table of factors for converting non-SI units of measurement to metric
(SI) units is presented on page 3.

Table 1

Preliminary Best Track -— Hurricane Kate
15-23 November 1985

Time Position, deg Pressure Wind
Date Gmt Latitude Longitude mb knots Stage
11/15 1800 21.1 63.0 999 35 Tropical storm
11/16 0000 21.6 63.9 998 45 Tropical storm
11/16 0600 Dil oi 64.2 996 50 Tropical storm
11/16 1200 Dil 5 64.8 993 55 Tropical storm
11/16 1800 Pal oil 65.3 987 70 Hurricane
11/17 0000 206 7 66.0 981 75
ILaLy/ 7 0600 20.4 66.4 984 U5)
Lal Ly 1200 20.7 67.3 982 U5
TBIG/ely/ 1800 Dil oll 68.8 977 80
LL / 133 0000 21.4 70.8 976 80
11/18 0600 26 TAL ofS 975 80
11/18 1200 21.6 W303) 975 80
11/18 1800 21.9 WS ai 972 85
11/19 0000 DD oA 76.0 967 95
iLaly/ 2) 0600 D2 il 78.4 968 95
11/19 1200 Dot 80.2 Oia 90
11/19 1800 D3) 502 81.9 976 80
11/20 0000 D9) 8355 972 85
11/20 0600 24.6 84.5 968 95
11/20 1200 DS) 6 2 85.3 956 105
11/20 1800 26.0 86.0 955 105
LL 2i 0000 26.8 86.5 954 105
Wily il 0600 DY 5 86.6 961 100
LIL /Aal 1200 S53) 86.5 965 95
11/21 1800 DY) 2 86.1 967 85
Lif 2Q2 0000 3052 85.1 975 80
Ny e272. 0600 Sil 55 83.5 983 65
LIL /22 1200 B25) Sil, 5) 990 50 Tropical storm
LI 22 1800 3367 TQ) 62 996 45
1/23 0000 BVA AT VOL 1003 40 Tropical storm
11/23 0600 34.4 73.5 1005 35) Tropical storm
(23 1200 34.0 72.0 1006 35) Tropical storm
11/23 1800 33355 70.5 1006 35 Extratropical
Minimum Pressure
11/20 2000 26.2 86.2 953 105 Hurricane
Landfall
L/P 2230 30.0 85.4 967 85 Hurricane

by early morning on 22 November. Figure 1 shows the approximate track of

Kate. Table 1 contains the preliminary best-track information.

Life
Saee
23 NOV ~ aM:
“o.
~.
LEGEND

© 0000 GMT
@ 1200GmT

HURRICANE
—-—-- TROPICAL STORM

O21 NOV

5
= Q'8 NOV

Figure 1. Approximate track of Hurricane Kate

—_ 2S

16 NOV
ZO
O17 NOV

PART III: FIELD ACTIVITIES

6. Prior to 20 November, it was uncertain if Kate would move northward
along the east or west coast of Florida. After emerging from the northwest
coast of Cuba, Kate appeared very likely to make landfall somewhere along the
Gulf of Mexico coastline. The Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC)
field teams had been placed on alert status on 19 November. On 20 November a
hurricane warning was issued from Bay St. Louis, Miss., to St. Marks, Fla.,
and the field teams began to deploy the onshore gages. At this time Kate was
expected to make landfall sometime on 22 November. The first field team in-
stalled instrumentation in the reach of coastline from Pass Christian, Miss.,
to Pensacola, Fla. The second team deployed gages from Fort Walton Beach to
Panama City, Fla.

7. During the night of 20 November, the forward speed of the hurricane
slowed to almost 5 mph while maintaining a northerly course. On the morning
of 21 November, Kate was located about 145 miles due south of Fort Walton
Beach. By the morning of 21 November, instrument packages had been deployed
along the coastline from Pass Christian, Miss., to Panama City, Fla. At about
noon on 21 November, a hurricane warning was issued for the area from Pensa-
cola, Fla., to St. Marks, Fla. At this time, the center of Kate was located
about 95 miles south-southwest of Panama City moving toward the north-
northeast at about 12 mph. During the remainder of the afternoon, Kate con-
tinued to turn eastward and made landfall near Mexico Beach, Fla., during the
early evening hours on 21 November.

8. Following the passage of Kate, the CERC field team returned to the
area of landfall and conducted a poststorm survey. Highlights of the survey

are contained in Part V.

PART IV: HYDROGRAPHIC DATA

oF Figures 2 and 3 show the locations of hydrographs covering the
reach of coastline from Pensacola, Fla., to Cedar Key, Fla., the area signifi-
cantly affected by Kate. The hydrographs are contained in Plates 1-10. The
hydrographs obtained at Pensacola, Destin, and Panama City (Plates 1, 2,
and 3, respectively) show a gradual rise and fall of water levels characteris-
tic of the left side of a landfalling hurricane. With the exception of the
hydrograph obtained at Cedar Key, the remaining hydrographs show the sudden
rise and fall of water levels characteristic of the right side of a land-
falling hurricane. Table 2 contains a listing of the maximum gage elevations
recorded during Kate.

10. Preliminary surge estimates as large as 12 ft in the vicinity of
Cape San Blas, Fla., were reported shortly after Kate made landfall. However,
these estimates included the effects of wave runup. The hydrograph obtained
at Apalachicola, approximately 24 miles east of Cape San Blas and 30 miles
southeast of Mexico Beach, recorded a maximum elevation of 7.2 ft NGVD. The
highest recorded gage level was 7.9 ft MSL (approximately 8.8 ft NGVD) at
Shell Point, Fla. (Plate 8), near Oyster Bay. This value is in excellent
agreement with a reliable high-water mark of 8.3 ft NGVD obtained nearby.

ll. The peak of the surge at Apalachicola coincided with predicted low
tide. However, since the predicted tide range on 21 November was only 0.9 ft
(see Plate 5), the contribution of the tide to the surge at this location was
not particularly significant. At Turkey Point and Shell Point, the surge peak
coincided with predicted mean tide level (see Plates 7 and 8); consequently,
the peak surge value can be considered to be a good estimate of the
hurricane-generated surge with little tide or wave effects. The hydrograph
obtained at Cedar Key indicates an increase in local water level which corre-
sponds to the approximate time Kate entered the Gulf of Mexico and continues
until shortly after landfall. During the period from approximately noon on
20 November to noon on 22 November, measured water levels at Cedar Key were

about 2 ft higher than predicted.

Sa DESTIN
PENSACOLA

PANAMA CITY

[Of hos 9910! aed ona to usd

Figure 2. Locations where hydrographs were obtained as shown
in Plates 1-3

ST.MARKS ©

SHELL
POINT

TURKEY
POINT

» CARRABELLE
ee ~ APALACHICOLA

CEDAR KEY

———e

Figure 3. Locations where hydrographs were obtained as shown
in Plates 4-10

10

Table 2
Times and Heights of Maximum Elevations

Maximum Water

Location Level, ft
Pensacola, Fla. 2.0
Destin, Fla. 255
Panama City, Fla. BAP)
Apalachicola, Fla. (Site 1) 762
Apalachicola, Fla. (Site 2) 6.4
Carrabelle, Fla. Toh
Turkey Point, Fla. Lod
Shell Point, Fla. 7.9
St. Marks, Fla.* 6.5
Ceder Key, Fla. 343)

Note:

*

Central Standard Time.
Mean sea level.

= National Ocean Service.

National Geodetic Vertical
Corps of Engineers.

Incomplete record.

11

Datum.

Time, CST/Date

1300/21/11/85
1600/21/11/85
1630/21/11/85
1700/21/11/85
1800/21/11/85
1800/21/11/85
1900/21/11/85
2000/21/11/85
2200/21/11/85
2200/21/11/85

Datum
MSL
NGVD
MSL
NGVD
MSL
NGVD
MSL
MSL
NGVD
MSL

Source

NOS
CE

NOS
CE

NOS
CE

NOS
NOS
NOS
NOS

PART V: POSTSTORM SURVEY

12. A poststorm survey of the high-water marks due to Hurricane Kate
was conducted during the period 22-27 November 1985. The survey included the
reach of coastline from Gulf Shores, Ala., to St. Marks, Fla. The elevations
of high-water marks did not exceed +9 ft, but at some locations combined surge
and wave runup exceeded 16 ft.

13. There was minor wind damage throughout the western end of the
Florida panhandle. The westernmost location where significant damage was
observed was Panama City Beach, Fla. The major beach erosion that occurred
throughout the eastern part of the panhandle began here. The extent of ero-
sion is evident in the condition of the seawall just west of the Rendezvous
Motel in Panama City Beach (Photo 1). The elevation of the surge-induced
flooding was approximately 5 ft.

14. At Mexico Beach, the erosion was more severe, uncovering and
destroying a seawall (Photo 2) that had been completely buried by a sand dune
prior to the hurricane. Surge elevations estimated at this location from the
watermark on the side of the canal on the west end of town (Photo 3) were
approximately 7 ft. Wind damage in this area was relatively minor.

15. The extent of wind damage increased rapidly farther east; an
example can be seen by the stripped siding and insulation on a storage tank at
the paper company in Port St. Joe (Photo 4). However, the amount of surge
damage in Port St. Joe was minimal due to the excellent protection offered by
the St. Joseph spit offshore. The spit itself suffered massive erosion, as
can be seen by the scarp cut into the duneline at the St. Joseph Peninsula
State Park (Photo 5). The combined surge and wave runup at this location ex-
ceeded +16 ft.

16. Property damage within the park was confined to boardwalks
(Photo 6) due to the lack of construction along the beachfront. Farther south
at Cape San Blas, there was more extensive damage. Several homes were totally
destroyed (Photo 7), and houses that survived were undermined by beach erosion
(Photo 8). The surge elevation at this location was approximately at 9 ft.
Many of the buildings located far enough from the beach to be protected from
surge damage suffered wind damage (Photo 9).

17. An attempt was made to survey St. George Island; however, surge-

induced flooding had undermined the approach ramp at the mainland end of the

12

bridge to the island, cutting off all vehicular access (Photo 10). Damage was
significant on the protected mainland coast behind the island. Several miles
of Highway 98 along the coast between Cape San Blas and Carrabelle were under-
mined and had collapsed (Photos 11 and 12). The Hut Restaurant in Apalachi-
cola was completely destroyed (Photo 13). Between East Point and Carrabelle,
several homes and trailers located on waterfront lots were totally destroyed
(Photos 14 and 15). Farther east, at Lighthouse Point, there was more
destruction (Photo 16). Throughout this area, surge elevations were approxi-
mately 7 ft. Wind and surge damage, although less severe, was reported as far

east as Ceder Key, Fla.

13

PART VI: CONCLUSION

18. Hurricane Kate was only the fourth November hurricane to landfall
in the United States this century and the first since the 30 October -

5 November hurricane of 1935. During transit through the Gulf of Mexico, Kate
attained Category 3 on the Saffir-Simpson scale which ranges from 1 (least
intense) to 5 (most intense). The surface waters of the Gulf of Mexico, which
had undergone seasonal cooling prior to Kate's transit, caused the hurricane
to weaken during the 24 hr before making landfall near Mexico Beach, Fla. At
its peak Kate was a medium-sized hurricane with winds in excess of 55 mph
extending over 100 miles in the east and north quadrants and gale force winds
extending 100 miles in the west and south quadrants.

19. Finally, the area of landfall had experienced hurricane effects
only 2 months earlier during Hurricane Elena. In some instances, the
evaluation of high-water marks was hampered because of the difficulty in
determining if marks had predated Kate. Moreover, along some beach areas,
damage due to Elena was severe enough that morphological changes due to Kate
were indiscernible or absent. For these reasons, gage data were sometimes
extrapolated to greater distances than otherwise would have been necessary.

20. A series of contour maps showing the high-water marks from Panama

City Beach to St. Marks, Florida, is presented in Appendix A.

14

Photo 1. Erosion around end of seawall, Panama City
Beach, Fla.

Photo 2. Destroyed seawall, Mexico Beach, Fla.

15

Photo 3. High-water mark, Mexico Beach, Fla.

Photo 4. Damaged tank covering, Port
St. Joe, Fla.

16

Photo 5. Beach erosion, St. Joseph Peninsula State
Park, Fla.

Photo 6. Damaged boardwalk, St. Joseph Peninsula State
Park, Fla.

17

Photo 7. Destroyed house, Cape San Blas, Fla.

Photo 8. Beach erosion under house, Cape San Blas, Fla.

18

Photo 9. Roof damage, Cape San Blas, Fla.

Photo 10. Highway damage, St. George Island Bridge, Fla.

1G)

Photo 11. Highway damage between Cape San Blas and
Carrabelle, Fla.

Photo 12. Highway damage near Carrabelle, Fla.

20

Photo 13. Building destruction, Apalachicola, Fla.

Photo 14. Trailer destruction between East Point and
Carrabelle, Fla.

21

Photo 15. House destruction between East Point and
Carrabelle, Fla.

Photo 16. House destruction, Lighthouse Point, Fla.

22

S8 YagWSAON
WG

"74 “YIOOUSN3d

Q3Au3Sa

>
—D
=
[ou
AO
7
ca
7)
<=
—D
4
©
Fa
“
4
ry

PLATE 1

G8 YAEW4AON
Le

"V4 “NILS3O

ze
=D)
came
7)
A
(vy)
se
(v3)
<=
=p)
ad
&)
CZ,
=u)
lame!

BIGASE 2

G8 YSEWIAON

=
— =D)
4
™
0)
IN
7
ie
Ga
a=
—D
=|
-O
ZZ
“
ny
4

“V4 “RLIO YWYNYd

S8 YsEW4AON
Le

| SIS ead “UaeoiHey wey

=
—D
4
Ga
AO
a)
(G2)
<=
—D
ca
O
Zz
‘e
aa
ry

PLATE 4

G8 YSaEGWAAON

=
—D
4
7
AO
ea)
fe
™]
<=
—D
4

14 “NO

2 4LIS “14 “YIOOIHOYWdY

S8 YsgW4AON

Sicemcnmagouge

=
=)
=
ay
0)
7]
C
i)
=<
—D
r
@&
CZ,
“o
>
Le

PLATE 6

G8 YsaEGWSAON
LG

2
—D
Lame |
(4
0)
7)
Ee
™7
<=
=)
ad

“NO

Ils

Ssesni U4ud
—— @4AuaS80

1) STUNG) 2CaSSIA

PLATE 7

S8 Y4EWSAON

TW) “NO THEE

=
—D
=
eu}
AO
[ea
(eee
ae)
<
—D
4
CO
GE
“e
eal
td

PLATE 8

S8 YAEWSAON

“TS SSM OS

ae
—D
—j
|
A
a
(
Ia)
a
—D
|
(S)
Ze
‘“
“4
=

PLATE 9

G8 YAEWSAON
LG

2
=D
=
a)
0)
™
=
{")
=<
—D
=
©)
ZZ
‘“o
4
4

WaiWai

WOIYO14 “AS YuCso

PLATE 10

APPENDIX A: HIGH-WATER CONTOUR MAPS

This appendix contains a series of contour maps which are segments of US
Geological Survey maps of the area. All of the segments were taken from
1/24,000-scale maps which were reproduced at 65 percent of their original
size, resulting in a 1/37,000 scale for the contour map segments in this
appendix. Each map segment covers an area approximately 4 miles by 5 miles.
All of the map segments have a contour interval of 2 m, except for segments 40
and 43 which have a contour interval of 5 ft. High-water marks surveyed by
the US Army Engineer District, Mobile, are plotted on these maps. Not all
maps contain a high-water mark but are included for reasons of continuity.

The elevations of the high-water marks are labeled in metres above National
Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) except for segment 43, which is labeled in feet

above NGVD. All high-water marks are denoted by a @ symbol.

Al

Figure Al.

20 " 19

Portland

( Latavere-

Freeport

A) = SS
ex | =
Red Hebd 3S

Blue Pona-\

j Calm
I@ i Crystal Lake
3 “y (

7 NOR
Grayton Beach <<<

Seagrove Beach ~ =

Index to high-water contour

A2

es ( i
Inlet aif Boot 5 SS
Q a Oni
Sunnyside Beach rae P
Laguna Beach A The
SS

Edgewater Gulf Beachs
Long Beach Resort4
Panama City Bead

Biltmorg

maps, segments 1-3

eri

= = es ini Wraos F
oh
~g@r _Broad
y Branch “}_ 2
ae @)
& = ol SS
a Kinard

Ge ; a Na

\ ~T Sa |Z Wooas

ifchka

Nils
_}| Wewah

CUES th,

{ Po ~~
\\ ST JOSEPH

$\\ Oak Grove Q
EAC j
\\) Bay:
ge
%
Cape San Bla

Cape St George ——

Figure A2. Index to high-water contour maps, segments 2-23

A3

, Dead

/GULF

SS oul

est Vincent Pt

XS TY
ISLAND)
West PaseQ

S

Cape St George

Figure A3. Index to high-water contour maps, segments 19-39

: wy
: ie
ii 33) = 5
: IS ,
i ze itle oF = LA a)
D . as ees Clg =) 8 Ke Ki
_ a a ey le G \ ake Ss Ie i \ ; y) ey
eae aan

‘ -

ATIONAL

am he mess 1 as|
| y) a = | Rian v ~]}
= +7 SS + ww 5) ee a)

We Ae 1
Z ra be 2
Je OLIFE REFUGE a

= Oo
a Hamptot
Ore Springs
Fengalioy,_ P nS
dt S <p —~-—

Figure A4.

A5

Index to high-water contour

Sponge Point

Long Gras:

maps, segments 38-45

Gulf Lagoon B

2

each

fe
see oasis Seal ; :
@ i
{
fa
iy
{
|
|
} 18
j
i
; et
t
|
= - — _ Biltmore Beach
i ' \ i
| ls
| : | ; : x
i | i
cael i |
f \ }
i |
: a
| 19 i S |
| 18 t i
BEST ceuisiotes j Se SUR AUN : 3 po soe
i |
a
| a |
20
18 {

Figure A5. Segment l

A6

8 1
‘Sulphur Point
a npson Park

i Nis + : gS }
| . Marina
7 i Ne he eyo u =
N | sae

| S |
i } SSS } of oo
} 43N. |

at eee .
| hight \ ™) Buena Vista Point ~ |

Bear Point 2 oe :
. ~ N,
Bear Point »
» SS ? cc)
: seis \. Wy,
. 45> 40 Ses H
phaanelia Beach 2 6 S 8 i
Se 0!
~ ay .
SS iy, s
Noe ay >
ss cae 12
eee es
| Saas
7. S
S| 2 A Nee
2 Se j
eee |
SI
|
2 t <
ise 5 pos.
fo}
4 6 Light
q
©
Gourtney Point
6 2
. BAY
y Light
3
9
| } PP |
} 10 | ’ j
i Beaten 2 ——| |
a |
zB 1
v
a A ~
5 vf 13
vas na
4 4 12
Pa
Wey |
» |
1
40 |
oe os
i
8
9 |
} 4
° ©
7
si
vy
Ss 3 Fe

Figure A6. Segment 2

A7

Oye
x

uk

Al

Figure A7. Segment 3

A8

eo!

i
Cr

~.
AS

Rock Jetty —

“Light

o

~
zs

10

igure A8. Segment 4

F

AY

Palmetto
Poi

Figure A9. Segment 5

A10

25
=
)
oa

D
Cc
a)

Segment 6

Al0

Figure

All

{

Crooked Pane

oIn

“

Figure All.

Al2

é i
| INSUFFICIENT DATA
| { |
| { i
el
: Ge {
o
‘i
ar to
ae Be: aes SED
e
‘ 70,
O
5
. “«
a
2
ss = 4 RSS ps sea ttas ace ce cc ros Pe RR Aw SAL EE SSeS
e {
| *e | e |

Segment 7

je
a
re
“a
>
te)
®
=
fe
3

Bar Point

igure Al2. Segment 8

F

13

A

TIENT

Area subject to
frequent change
act

»

oy

Figure Al3. Segment 9

Ratti Id Pi
spi oN

LEG eR eS =
Murray Point

Nesser Flat
os 3.

Figure Al4. Segment 10

Al5

Area subject to
frequent change

a

Figure Al5. Segment 11

Al6

bject to: frequent change

8
?
@e
Area subject to frequent change &
|
e
Co
8
Light >
i
Light
x sz
Ww
“4
10 9
FaeaE cor DERTA 5135 DEC. para Light
oon PROJECT DEPTH 10.7-11.9 METEAS (35-37 FEET), DEC. 1979 Re
a eerie er ar Ae Le a RROD 6 RMT SAS — —
at aes >= Yow
or ee 5 ~ Pe
- ee Seo io)
So

Figure Al6. Segment 12

Al7

Area subject to
frequent change

Figure Al7. Segment 13

A18

Area subject to

Figure Al8. Segment 14

Al19

Sencar ne

x
i
a7

Area subject to frequent change
Oats
rent

ATIONAL WILDLIFE

<

REFUGE

CAPE SAN BLAS
ee

Segment 15

Figure Al9.

A20

Segment 16

Figure A20

A21

Figure A21. Segment 17

A22

f}

i
Al

}

igure A22. Segment 18

F

A23

Pickalene Ss
Hales:

Figure A23. Segment 19

A24

ee

2 o>

nt

ise Po

i
£

igure A24. Segment 20

F

A25

Area subject to
frequent change
Ie
Platform * : 2
i
i 3 ;
a
i eeeacete Hees iiaue meow erc ee ae © light
}
2

Figure A25. Segment 21 (HWM = high-water mark)

A26

Segment 22

No}
~“
<x
co)
u
3)
60
fy

igure A27. Segment 23

F

A28

Blounts ” Bay

Area subject to
frequent change
iS

Figure A28.

A29

Segment 24

Figure A29. Segment 25

A30

: 3
Green Point

‘

+
|
i
:
aoe Spearmint se
i i a
| | =
} ees :
s
| fe:
}
:
3 +
i af
|

Figure A30. Segment 26

A31

yess

é Spoil Area io
\
Ss {
e
&
& ¢ 2 Sams Bayou oy
ro) ies :

Figure A31. Segment 27

A32

L-
3
3
2
5S 6
3
3 4
3
o
. a
¢
2 cy
3
2 » Light
Be
oN 6
foe
ELS 4
ea
ne
a Ne 6
Noo a
J nl Waa

Figure A32. Segment 28

A33

?nt change

be

£

Figure A33. Segment 29

A34

Figure A34. Segment 30

igure A35. Segment 31

F

A36

3

a
z
pe
5
C)
=
i}
°
S

Segment 32

A37

Figure A36.

Figure A37. Segment 33

A38

st
(99)
oe)
G
ov
Bi
Vv

n

gure A38

Segment 35

A39

Figure

A4O

Segment 36

igure A4O.

F

A41

v

Area subject to
frequent change

Figure A41. Segment 37

A42

Metcalf Point
3 2

St a ainansaaehitarelaemanecaiceacatadcs 77
ce ri nee,

Figure A42. Segment 38

A43

2

Area subject to
frequen! choage

Figure A43. Segment 39

A44

Figure A44. Segment 40

A45

oe

19

%

a

Segment 41

A45

igure

F

A46

ALLIGATOR

HARBOR

Fee

‘Compground

Southwest Cape
4

Figure A46. Segment 42

A47

Figure A47. Segment 43

A48

+
se
s)
G
i)
Bi
tc)
icp)

igure A48.

F

Figure A49. Segment 45

A50

OD a

as oe Le :
IL Ue -

ny

yee

Ane

(a'Dy