F.S. Buonaiuto, N.C. Kraus / Coastal Engineering 48 (2003) 5165
55
Table 3
Inlet parameters and geomorphic classification
Hs, m
Spring Tidal
Tidal prism,
hc, m
Jetties
Hayes (1979) classification
Location
State
106 m3
Range, m
Perdido Pass
AL
0.70
0.27
16.54
1.50
0
wave-dominated
0.70
0.27
16.54
0
East Pass
FL
0.60
0.15
15.17
2.50
2
wave-dominated
0.60
0.15
15.17
2.25
2
Fort Pierce Inlet
FL
0.80
0.94
17.30
4.00
2
mixed-energy wave-dominated
0.80
0.94
17.30
4.00
2
Hillsboro Inlet
FL
0.50
0.88
1.50
2
mixed-energy tide-dominated
Lake Worth
FL
1.00
0.94
28.40
5.50
2
mixed-energy wave-dominated
New Pass
FL
0.40
0.64
8.70
1.25
0
mixed-energy wave-dominated
0.40
0.64
8.70
2.50
0
0.40
0.64
8.70
2.25
0
0.40
0.64
8.70
1.25
0
Ponce de Leon Inlet
FL
0.40
0.82
16.25
2.50
2
mixed-energy tide-dominated
St. Lucie Inlet
FL
0.50
0.94
19.55
2.25
2
mixed-energy wave-dominated
St. Marys Entrance
GA
1.08
1.95
135.07
6.00
2
mixed-energy tide-dominated
Ludington Harbor
MI
0.70
0.00
0.00
3.25
wave-dominated
New Buffalo Harbor
MI
0.70
0.00
0.00
3.00
wave-dominated
St. Joseph
MI
0.79
0.00
0.00
2.75
wave-dominated
0.79
0.00
0.00
3.25
Moriches Inlet
NY
1.40
1.06
44.49
3.50
2
wave-dominated
Shinnecock Inlet
NY
1.20
1.06
33.20
2.50
2
wave-dominated
1.20
1.06
33.20
2.50
2
Charleston Harbor
SC
1.02
1.76
162.82
4.00
2
mixed-energy
tide-dominated
Columbia River
WA
2.43
2.53
1100.00
10.00
2
mixed-energy
wave-dominated
Grays Harbor
WA
2.35
2.74
521.00
10.00
2
mixed-energy
wave-dominated
Willapa Bay
WA
2.35
2.46
490.00
8.00
0
mixed-energy
wave-dominated
1995; for the Gulf of Mexico the 20-year period 1976
of interpolation procedure. Both inlets have similar
through 1995; and for the Great Lakes, the 32-year
morphology with a prominent ebb-tidal shoal, small
period 1956 through 1987. Tidal prisms were obtained
bars residing on top of the shoals, and bisecting
from the literature and the US Army Corps of Engi-
navigation channels. However, the soundings inter-
vals for these inlets represent extremes in spacing in
neers' Coastal Inlets Research Program database
the SHOALS data set, with mean distances to the
(http://www.cirp.wes.army.mil/cirp/cirp.html).
nearest neighbors of 3.1 m for Moriches and 7.6 m
for New Pass. Questions can be raised as to
2.3. Sensitivity analysis
whether a 3-m interval is too fine (introducing
contamination by small features and artificial results
The spatial density of the data governs resolution
through generation of numerical data points between
of identifiable bathymetric features, but at the same
measured points) and if a 7.6-m interval is too
time contamination of descriptions of larger scale
coarse (giving inadequate resolution of features of
forms by fine-scale bottom features such as ripples
and ephemeral bars and troughs is to be avoided.
interest such as channel slopes). For calculating
Mean nearest-neighbor distances were calculated for
limiting slopes, sampling transects were constructed
each SHOALS data set. The overall mean distance
perpendicular to depth contours along the periphery
between soundings of all SHOALS data was 4.6 m,
of the ebb shoals and through the inlet channels, as
with individual mean spacing ranging from 1.8 to
illustrated in Fig. 2 for Moriches Inlet. Depths were
7.8 m. Data sets from Moriches Inlet and New Pass
mapped, and slopes were computed along each
were analyzed by varying the grid interval and type
transect.
Previous Page
