A SEDIMENT BUDGET ANALYSIS of MONTEREY BAY a Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Geology California State Unive

A SEDIMENT BUDGET ANALYSIS OF MONTEREY BAY

A Thesis Presented To the Faculty of the Department of Geology California State University, Sru1 Jose

In Partial Fulfillment of the Heq_uirements for the Degree Master of Science

by Erlc Rheydt Dittmer August 1972 iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my appreciation to Dre Robert

E. Arnal of Moss Landing Marine I.~e.boratories and

California State University, San Jose, for his cc:.H1., stant assistance and valuable suggestions. Thanks are also due to Doctors Broenkow~ Galehouse~ and Stevens for the invaluable aJd in their respective fields., As much of the field work required more than one person, I wish to thank those students at Moss IJtomdlng who gave many hours of spare time to this cause., Officia.ls at the Urd ted States ft..rmy Corps of

Engineers (San Franclsco), United St~:tes Geological

Survey (Salinas and Menlo Parle)~ and loca.l wat~r districts were all more tha.n helpful in obtainj.ng the needed lnformation included in thj.s report.,

Lastly 11 I wish to thank my wifee Lynnew for the many patient hours of typing and editing the variou~ drafts of thia paper~ iv ABSTRACT

During the period of investigation, the sediment budget for Monterey Bay was in near equi1lbrium with 1.1 - 1.2 x 106 cubic yards of sand supplied to the 6 bay ~1d 1.3 x 10 cubic yards of sand lost. Rivers and coastline erosion each contribute about

4 - 5 x 105 cubic yards of sa11d while longshore trans ... po:r.t from the north supplies 3 x 105 cubic yards., Sa.nd loss Yms dominated by dovmslope effects ( 8 x 105 cubic yards) with the Monterey Submarine Canyon being a major avenuea 3 x 105 and 2 x 105 cubic yards of sand respec tively were lost to dune formation and sand min.in.g (both are found prima.rily in the south bay). These totals reflect long term trends and no data were available for the 1971-1972 study period~ The net deficit could be attributed to factors that were not considered in thls studye such as volume changes

Structures which interfere with longshore transport illustrate the southvmrd littoral movement of sand in

Monterey Ba.y. Suryeys before and after tht~ StJ.nta Crufl Harbor- jet;ty construction indlcate that the accumulation upcoast of the j{~tty arn(,unted to 3 x 105 cubic yt~rds per year dul':·:i,ng 196) ar1d 1964.. Experimentf:l! using fluorescent v sand in the Moss Landing area verified that some sand bypasses the Monterey Submarine Canyon southward. Similar sediment tracings also indicate that sediment can remain just offshore for up to ten months without significant movement.

Beach profiles and sediments were an~lyz(~d at seven sites within Monterey Bay and changes were apparent ln bothc The characteristic steep and narrow winter profile and flat, wide summer profile wa.s not observe:de Changes in sediment size were related. to the a.T'l.gle of wa.ve attack with those bee.ches exposed to the rtv.:H;;t direct wave action having the largest grain si.,;,e,

Meteorolog:tca.l data indicate that the 1971~19?2 winter period included few storms and less than s,ver2,ge rainfa.ll. Changes in beach profiles and st?di.men1a:~ refleet this unusual ptn:·iod r'!T"i.d serve as a basis for compari!~on with future w more typical winter sea.mn1se TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAP'I'ER PAGE

l INTRODUCTION •••••••••••.•••.••••.••••• 1

PurpoSe 0 o e o 0 o o 0 e o e o 0 0 e t $ & 0 $ o e <1

Geology .... e 9 ...... e ..... 0 ... " • ,...... II ... Ill 4

Meteorology and Oceanogre.phy 111 ...... o 6 2 9 3 THE SEDIMENT BUDGET OF MONTEREY BAY ••• 15 Sediment Supplied to Monterey Bay ••••• 15

Longshore Transport Into Monterey Bay across Santa Cruz Point and Point Pinos •••••••••••••••••••••••• 23 I..,ongshore Tran.sport Within Monterey Bay 27

Physiographic Barriers ., " •••• ~· e "• e .. ., 27 Longshore Sediment Patterns Obtained By Sediment Tagging ••••••••·~··•••• 33 Experiments at Marina and Manresa Beaches eeeeeeee•&0e$&G$(\)00000&fl& 33 Experiments at Monterey Canyon

}-{ e ad • e ~ ., E> eeoe6e~eoee&eeeee•eoe•~•••••o 43 43

Beach Sedimentation ~>e$-..(lflae~.,·~~·(\) 47 vii

CHAPTER PAGE

Sediment Losses From Monterey Bay ~~~~~"' 49

sand Dune s ...... !II e " e " e " " " • $ \II II e II e 49 Losses Around Point Pinos and Santa Cruz Point eeee••••••••••••e••••~ee .so 50 51 53 BIBLIOGRAPHY 57

.. APPENDIX A - Station Descriptions e., o • .,., e.,,, a" \IIIII 61

APPENDIX B- Emery Procedures •••••••••~·•?"'l!l"e 6lt

APPENDIX C- Sand Painting Procedure ••••ctoee•e. 65

APPENDIX D .... Beach Profiles o•••••••~~>•••eeeet>e<~> 66 APPENDIX E - Beach Profile Cross Sectional Area0 80

APPENDIX F - Moss Landing Beach Profile Photos~ 82 APPENDIX G- Grain Size and Sorting Data ., •• ,. • .., 84

APPENDIX H ... Sediment Size and Sorting eet>~oiD"ll) 126 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1 Ten Year Average Surface Water Flow For The Monterey Bay Area 1950=1960 15 2 Estimates of the Sediment Load of the Salinas River ••••••••••••••••~••e••••• 16 I,ongshore Sand Transport From Fluores- cent Tagging =January to June 1972 ••• 34 4 Longshore Current Data For Northern Monterey Bay •••••••••••••••••••••••oe& 35 5 Slope and Sediment Characteristi.cs of Beaches in Monterey Bay •••••••••mee••• 6 Average Sand Losses From Monterey Bay • 7 Average Annual Sediment Budget Values for Monterey Bay seeeeeoeeeeeee@ee••••• 8 Net Beach Volume Changes For Monterey Bay ... July t~ 1971 To June, 1972 • e.,. u !ll) LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

2 Average swell conditions off the central California coast ••••••••••••••••••••••• 8

3 Shoreline features and station locations, Monterey Bay ...... , ••••• 11 4 Capitola Beach soon after the Santa Cruz Small Boat Harbor construction ••••••••• 21

5 Ca.pitola Beach, June 30~ 1972 ...... 21

6 Wave refraction diagram 9 Monterey Bay •• 24 7 Santa Cruz Small Boat Harbor west jetty- June 30, 1972 eeeeee$eoeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeee 25 8 Santa Cruz Small Boat Harbor inlet channel - June 211 1972 •• "., ••• ~ .... e .• 9 & • " 26

10 The relationship of erosion, transpor tation~ and deposition of sedimentary particles eeeeweee•••••••••••••••eeeeeee 30 11 Aerial photo tracing comparison of Santa Cruz Small Boat Harbor ••••••••••••••••• 31 12 Comparison of Moss Landing Harbor before and after chru1nel completion Iii. e e. 0 0 e Iii Iii. 32 13 Moss Landing Harbor - Monterey Submarine Canyon. study G e,.,.. "'0 e e II e 0 El. 0. Iii G e. 0 .... $.,Iii 37 14 Moss Landing Ha.rbor - Dredge spoil study 40 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

Purpose

Sand, as a natural resource, is becoming increas= ingly important for industrial and recreational purposes. The beaches between Monterey and Sa."'lta Cruz. Californ:ta are used extensively for these activities~~ Studies of Monterey Beaches, therefore. are valuable in determining any local sand accumulation or erosion. This study attempts to evaluate beach changes in Monterey Bay by examining beach profiles, longshore transport, and aerial photogt"aphse Data were collected between July ~t 1971 and Jw1e • 1972 0::1ccept for some older aeria.l photogrriphs used to establish long term trends.

Location and Characteristics

Montere~" Bay is a strikingly synm1etrical coastal featur·e t:'dtuated about seventy five miles ~outh of San

F'ran.cisco • C~ilifornia {Fige 1) e ~.,he bay is abc;ut twenty nautlcBJ.l m:l.leES long (north-south betw('ien Santa Cruz and Mont<\:n."ey} and thl.rteen nautical miles wid.e (from east

1'he b~.y it1 f.~8parated irJ.to north a.nd south portion~~ with Elkhorn Slough near MoBs Landlng and M{mterey Sub- -!l; Corralitos 2

#Freedom

ONTEREY N B~~Y

183

Sand City ~Seaside ~Del Ray Oaks 68

Nautical Miles -, \ 0 I 2 3 4 5

Figure ls Index Map, Monterey Bay 3 marine Canyon forming the boundary. Sub~equent dis cussions of north and south bay use this definition. Monterey Submarine Canyon (Fig. 6) is a major bathymetrlc feature extending westward from Elkhorn Slough. It reaches a depth of 1.000 fathoms six nautical miles from shore and has t:l..n average a~ds gradient of lt20 within the bay. Local shelf slopes average 1:100. The canyon serves as a sediment trap with the slopes in the north directed southwestward and those in the south directed northwestward" The Monterey Bay shoreline is ch2,rac·terized b:.r rock outcroppings flit both the Monterey ant'l Sr.mta Gr·~?, extremes~~ Between Santa Cruz and Aptos vertical cli.ff~;;J aver~ging 100 feet high are found. From the Pajaro River southward low dunes develop a.nd increase to a helght of 1.00 feet in the Fort Ord area (Dorman~ 1968 L, This Quarternary dune fleld increa,ses in height as it extends several miles inland. The Salinas Valley is a prominent feature extend ing 140 miles southwestward from Salinas, California. 'l,he San"'c;n Cru.:c: Mou.ntain9 form a topographlc high north of San.ta Gruz and extend northward ~:mb=parallel to the coae;t of S::•J'l Fr~~ncisc<)e 4

Ge.£:t9.E;;Y The geology of Monterey Bay is dominated by igne-

0\HJI a."1d metamorphic rocks found in the Santa Cruz •

Gabilan e a.n.d northern Santa Tjucia Range. Low grade metcunorphic s t~lso occur throughout the bay area in the Francisca.n Formation., Tertiary and Recent sediments are found throughout the area, espec:i.a.lly in the Salinas and Pajaro basi.nse These overlay the two previously mentloned basG,ment types and were derived from them

(Comptcm v 1966). The high grade metamorphic sequence with igne- ous intrusions is referred to as the Salinian Block

(Ci)mpton~ 1966) and dates from pre-Cretaceous, A gran.:ite prophyry forming the basement in the Monterey Bay area is part of the acidic intrusives of the Santa Lucia Granodiorite., Compton {196.6) dates this formation as late Cret.aceouse The Santa Lucia Granodiorite was intr.ttd.ed into rocks containing schist, gneiss, and car-

Although not as abundan.t as the a.cidic intrusive roc:ln:1~ the Fran.cisca.n shale¢ chortt ~md serpentine out crop in the~ Diablo Range a.nd. on the eastern side of t.he

Salina~ Vallayo This sequence is bordered on the west by the San And:r·(-:as Ft:ml t striking n.or.th.westwa.rd along the ez.stern Salinas Valley and continuing into the Santa 5 Cruz Mountains to San Francisco where it enters the Pacif:lc Ocean south of' the San Francisco Bay entrancee

The San Andreas Fault~ the primary tectonic feature of the area, is a right lateral strike slip fault sepa~ rating the Franciscan Formation of the Diablo Range from the Sru.inian Block to the southeast. The Sur-Nacimiento Fault strikes northwestward near the present shoreline forming the western boundary of the Salinian Bloclt"' Work is currently underway to elucidate the relationship of the Su.r-Nacimiento Fault with the Tularci tos Fault which also strilces :northwest~ ward intersecting the Monterey Submarine Canyone Several earthqu~.kes centered over the Monterey Submarine Canyon in the four to five magnitude range occurred in 1971 and 1972

(S. Kover 5 u.s. Geological Survey. personal communication). The Salinian Block is a folded. and faulted synclinal valley in granitic rock, whereas the Franciscan For mation is comprised of a very hj~ghly deformed eugeo~ synclinal sequence (Compton@ 1966). The sedimentary cover ranges from Cretaceous to Recent with the latter found. mostly centralized in the Sallrias and Pajaro Basins., Miocene rocks represented primar:ily by the Monterey Shale extend southward from

Monterey along the western Salinas Valley~ and within the southern half of M.:-m.terey Ba.yli' This formation is a highly silicious r. fine grained, diatoma<;eous shale~ 6 Pliocene rocks are found not only as valley fill, but also within Monterey Bay on the north wall of the submarine canyon and along the continental shelf' north to Santa Cruz (Martin and Emery, l967)o

Cretaceous rocks w primarj.ly sandstcme, are confined to the Sa~ta Clara Valley. The San Benito Riv€r@ flow ing west\~;•ard into the Pajaro Riverrt contributes sediment from the extreme southern end of the Santa Clara Valley$

Sediment is supplied to the ba.y by the Salinasf!l

Pa~iaro ~ and San Lorenzo Ri'~te:rs as well as by Soquel Creek fir

Shor®line erosion is FL'"'lother sediment source, eapeci~illy in those araas devoid. of beach sand protection against w~ve attack. The only other po~sible source of sediroen.t is that derived b~yond the boundaries of Monterey Bay

(Fig~ 1). Pofll:Eible sediment losses in the bay are from: 1) winds forming s~u1d dunes. 2) downslope movement~ and 3) indu~ tr-h?.l mining e

av~):>ages show that the ~ummer mean ma.xim~ ~re C.•rlly !.lben11t 3° C rdghe:r ·~;han the winter ~:t 18° c and 15° G r~H3P{~c tiv$Hyf> [email protected]:fall from the same: t\>1elve yea.r period avt1ragas 7 thirteen inches per year and occurs primar.ily between

November and April (U.,S. Naval Weather Service World Wide Airfield Summaries, May. 1969). According to Skogsberg (1934}. three seasons can be delineated in the bay. The first and predominant regime begins in February and lasts through the summer months with prevailing northwest winds and waves. Be tween September and November wind and waves shift to the west.) This is essentially a transition period introducing the winter storm periods which are con centrated between November and January. Consirrtent low pressure in the Aleutian area of the northeast Pacif).c is the source of winter storms. These low pressure systems result in south and southVliHlterly winds and waves Ul'ltil the northwesterly regime rt.~turns marking

the end of winter storms (Boli.nw 1964) e Wave rose da.ta for Mont~rey Bay used by Cherry ( 1966) show that the primary wa,ve direction is from the northwest (Fig" 2)"

Waves which approach the la.nd at m1 angle crea.te longshore currents parallel to the coastline due to in complete wa\l"e refraction(!> Longshore currents within

Mon.t<~rey Bay generally co inc ~.de with the seasonal wtl',:'l!e

Patterns (Wolf~ 1968)~ 8

N o

~Wave Height (ft.}

Wave ~ Period (sec.)

<':' 20 - N I 5 g 13 17 10 t 6 14 18+ \

\ ~,.. \ s \ \lb ,o ,.. ' ...... -...... _.,.,.., \ ~~ \.t~ ~. !~ ...... t: .,. ' ' ...... _ ---- __..,.

(Total percent is 117 because data are in terms of "Et I I swell hours-more than one wave 0 0 0 Oil N 1= '~ 0 train may arrive simultaneously) ,n

Figure 2a Average swell conditi.ons off the central California coast (duplicated from Cherrye 1966) CHAPTER 2

PROCEDURES

Some asr.~cts of the sediment budget could not be a.deq.uately determined due to lack of time • manpower$ or methodology., These lncludet 1) offshore winter bar formation (King" 1959) which could not be adequately determi.ned due to wave activity preventing the use of diving or small boats: 2) lack of methods for deter mining dmmslope sediment losses for an area such as

Monterey Bay; and 3) difficulty in evet.l uating short term shoreline erosion necessitating the use of long term figures. Annual changes in beach profiles were uf:.led. to deterntine net loss or accumulation of sand to Monterey

Bay beaches and fluore s:cent sand tagging allowed long... shore drift study. Aerial photograph comparisons aided in finding long term effects at Santa. Crl1Z and Moss La.n.ding Harbors<} The J:.,i ttora.l Environmental Investigation Program sponsored by the u.s. Army Corps of Engineers was the only previous \•.rork done pertaining to current pa.tterns within tho sw:.1lcsh zone wh

men.t tran.~port occurs ( U& S. Army Corp::1 of EngimH;:;rs ~ 1971). 10 Seven beach sites were selected to sample ade quately the beaches of Monterey Bay (Fig., J)., Exact locations of beach sites are given in Appendix A. Location 1@ Santa Cruz, was affected greatly by the construction of the Santa Cruz Small Boat Harbor in the early 196o•s. The concrete jetty interrupted longshore sand flow widening the beach west of the jetty. The Santa Cruz Beach site was chosen to eval uate the situation ten years after jetty construction.

, Locations 2 and 3~ the Manresa and Pajaro sites, were chosen to evaluate the long, uninterrupted beaches found between Moss Landing and Ri.o del Mar. Location 4, Moss Landing Marine IJaboratories. was established under the Sea Grant Pr'ogram. near Sandholdt Pier early in 1970 and this survey line was continued without mod

ification$ Monterey Canyon 8 harbor jettiese and recent harbor dredging were also studied to determine thier

relativ·e efft~cts Oil the local sediment pattern. Loca

tion 5 9 the Salinas River stationt is adjacent to a

sedim~nt sourc~:! that is now only open to the sea during s·torms in the winter. This site was chosen to investi ...,

gat~'* the possibili ·t·;)r of i.ntermi ttent beach accretion~~

Location 6 0 Marina Beach\\! was chosen to reprem:mt the.

long~~ un.interrupted. shoreline between. the Salinas River lorenzo 11

rViONTEREY

BAY /_·: i r rig a t i on canal .:.:

Pt. Pinos

Nautical Miles r--·-.--..----.--~~ /7 0 I 2 34 5 liE2] SAND

transect ~ROCKY ~CLIFFS

Figure 3s Shoreline foatur·es and station locations~ MonterPy BY.y 12 and Seaside 8 California.. It was also near one of the sand mining plants and profiles here could have been affected by the mining activity.. Location 7o Monterey

Beach 9 is the southern limit of the study area, and has been described as very stable (Dormru1 9 1968). This site was established to reevaluate previous findings.

Information ga.t;hered monthly at low tide B~.t the seven stations included: 1) beach profile survey (Emery~ 1961) (Appendix B)l 2) shoreline auxiliary data of wind, wave, and longshore current velocities, 3) two inch sedi ment cores taken at the high water ma.rk (HWM) 9 berm, half way between high water mark and swash zon~, and three in the swash zone, Sediment ;;malyses were made to correlate the sand si.ze and sorting at the seven beaches throughout the study period-. According to King (1959) the size of well sorted beach sand can be corre lated with concurrent wave energy. A sediment split of each sediment sample was gaved for rc~ference.. The size was determlned by means of an

Emery Settling Tube (Emery, 1938) e A cumulati V(~ curve was drawn from which the median diameter (Md) and Trask (1932) Sorting (So) Coefficients ( \IQ257Q75 ) were obtaJ..nede "Q25" and "Q7 5" represent the 25th and 75th Jiercenti1e points re specti velye lJ Two beaches@ Manresa and Marina, were chosen for introduction of tagged fluorescent sand to determine longshor(~ sediment velocities- Manresa Beach was felt to be stable, long 9 and representative of the north bay sediment transport characteristics as no manmade struc tures or unusual topographic or bathymetric features aff(~ct littoral sand transport. Marina was chosen to indica.te sediment transport in the south bay .. Two methods were used to determine longshore sand velocities., Five pou..nds of tagged sand were i.ntroduced at a stake reference in the swash zone and the time notedt Samples were taken five feet away both parallel and at right tmgles to the shoreline at 0 0 1, 2, 5, 10&

20~ 30 9 and 60 minute intervals., These samples were counted under the longwa.ve ultraviolet light. Sand \~sed for tagging wa£5 size ma.tched as closely as possible to that at the beach where it wa.s used!> Multiple size ana lyses VJ~H."€' also run on the sand before and after palnting

C~nd it was fou.nd that the acetone base pigment had ll·ttle eff~~ct on the ~~edimentary characteristicso The exact

Initial beach sampling was done with a grease coated Each sample was raproducible, but the number of too small consider:tng the high dispersion en- Subsequent sampling with jars for a consist- 14 ent volume was more successful statistically. A second method of velocity determination in volved the use of a battery powered longwave ultra. ... violet light at night. Samples were introduced in the swash zone and the patch outline was noted with timee Sandholdt Pier at Moss Landing was used as a reference for a series of monthly pictures taken parallel to the shoreline. Comparisons are included with discussion of beach profilese CHAPTER 3 THE SEDIMENT BUDGET OF MONTEREY BAY

Sediment Supplied to Monterey Bay

Riv~f! The year long study of Monterey Bay included the assessment of sediment supply from rivers, coastal erosion and longshore transport from outslde the study area. Quantitative results for the 19'llc·l972 period ware difficult to obtain and long tern data t"fere used to evaluate such situations. The Sa]inas and Pajaro Rivers dratn allu,rial. val

leys in the central Monterey Ba.y region 0 whereas the San Lorenzo and Soquel Rivers drain the mountains north of Monterey Bay. The overall runoff pattern was tabulated by Jfendricks (196~) 1.uiing data from 1950-1960 inclusive (Table 1). TABLE 1 TEN YEAR AVERAGE SURFACE WATER FI,OW FOR THE

MONTEREY BAY AREA 1950... 1960 (AFTER HENDRICKS 9 1964} Surfae.e Water Ps.~l.~-~ Flo''C.J~rJL:;}?e e !fLY *.'tt!!:l Salinas River 4,300 320@000 Pa.jaro River 1 e l,LQQ 120~000 San Loren?;o River 14·0 1069000 Soqu~l & Aptos Creek 25 100000

Hendrick:Sl • · da:t:;,. w.lll be usHd h.ere as a reference of

e:;q... ~c:ted. value~ for corrrparlson with the 1971~1972 da.i~e-.~. 16 at Pajaro and Sallnas Rivers furnished by the u.s .. Geological Survey (V. Piro, personal corrumunieation). Table 1 shows that the Salinas River has the highest

average disch~~ge of these rivers.

The f!10St recent i.nforma.tion available from the UoS0 Geological Survey for these stations at the Salinas and Pajaro Rivers is as fo1lowss Salinas River, 1t4oo acre feet (March 19?1 to February 19?2); Pajaro River, 9.700 acre feet (April 1971 to March 1972). The period. of study, therefore • reflects smaller than average surface runoff by a factor of ten or more.

The sediment carried by these rivers~ however. is not proptllrtir.mal tl) '!MS"ter dist;harge... The lower e:ro"" sional resistance of alluvial valleys drained by the Salinas and Pajaro Rivers results in much higher sedi"" ment loadse Many estimates of the Salinas River. sedi

ment load ha~e been made using different methods (Table 2).

TABLE 2 ESTI!illl.TES OF THE SEDIMEN'l' LOAD OF THJ~ SALINAS RIVER Author M!!~h££ Sediment Load --~--~-·-· -l~'!..~:L_ "- Dorman, ( 1968) Delta Growth 2e 5x1o=> r:_ Wildf) (1965) J~8y..l0·;

·"'# u .. s*a .. s. {1969..,70) stream Monitor 2.0x105 17 Dorman (1968) analyzed the growth of the Salinas

River delta and suspended sediment data gathered by the U.Se Geological Survey at their Spreckels gauging stat.ion. Three factors must be consi.dered when using data from the Spreckels gauging stationi 1) water is used extensively for irrigation between this station and the

river moutho 2) a lagoon is formed by a wide beach bar preventing direct river access to the ocean except during winter storms with unusually high runoff; ru1d J) the total sediment supply of rivers include both suspended and bed loads§ but only the :former is measured at the Spreckels station,. The author estimates from Table 2 that approximately 3"' Oxl05 cubic yards of sed.ime·nt is a typical a~"lual figure for the Salinar~ River.$ Most of this volume is sup plied during t:he winter storm period when the river dis= charge is enough to broach trw beach "tH.trEl

Observations of the S~.li.nas Rlver between (.Tuly ~

1971 and ~Tune~ 1972 indicate that on only two days in

early ~Tan.w~.ry did the ri v~r breach the bar and that this dischar.gG was limitr::d to high tidal periods., Much

empties into the southern tip 18 of Moss Landing Harbor (Fig. 3). Although no recent sediment figures are a.va;,l.able yet 1 it is assumed that the sediment supplied during the study period was sub~ stantially less than average. The Pajaro River, similar to the Salinas, is sub ject to irrigational use below the last gauging station. Officials of the Pajaro Valley Maintenance District estimate that batween 2 - 3 x 103 cubic yards of sand were cleared from the channel during the 1971-1972 winter season, compared to typical values of 2 ~ 5 x 105 cubic yards of sand (B. Pavely, personal commwlication). The u.s. Army Corps of Engineers estimates the annual Soquel Creek sediment load at a .. o x 103 cubic yards using a factor of 0.,4 ... o.6 acre feet erosion per square mile (u.s. Army Corps of Engineers~ 1969)~

Asswdng similar erosional characteristics~ and extending thig factor to the San Lorenzo Hiver, i.t is estimated that 4 2$8 x 10 cubic ya.rds of sediment is carried to the ocean annually e No other SEH.:liJ11entary data are available for thes~ riverso The author also feels that wa:ter and sedi ... ment fi.gures fot• the 19?1. ... 1972 period are much leBs than the average for previous y·~arsl';

Few data are avai1a.ble for l~lkncn:on Slough, a tidal estu.e'.ry nero."" Moss IJa.nding., However!~ the slough con.... 19 tributes little sediment to the Monterey Bay becauses 1) surface discha.rge into Elkhorn Slough is minor. and 2) tidal current velocities in and out of the slough are simi).ar and would have little net effect on the sediment.

Rain gauge data obtained in the Wa.tsonville 0 Calif ornia area indicate that the July. 1971 - June, 1972 season was the eighth driest since 1882. Fifteen inches of rainfall were recorded compared to 20.30 inches average (B. O'Brien, Watsonville Pajaronian Newspaper, personal communication). The total average supply of river sediment is on the order of 4 - 5 x 105 cubic yards per year. Al though little direct data is available, the river sedi= ment supplied during the 1971-1972 period was much less because of lower runoff.

Coas_i~ine Erosion Coastline erosion is another major contributor to the sediment budget.. This is especi,ally apparent in areas where no sandy beaches are present to prevent direct waye erosion., Cliffs averaging 100 feet in height are found between Santa Cruz and Seacliff Beach. where residents of this cliff property are naturally coneerned about erosion. The u.s. Army 20 Corps of Engineers (1969) estimate that coastal erosion at a rate of one foot per year occurs hereQ Shortly after construction of the Santa Cruz Boat Harbor jetty in 1963, shoreline erosion increased and Capitola experienced a major beach loss (Fig. 4). During the period of this study, however, few problems were observed in this area. Communication with residents in the Capitola area also indicated a lack of erosion during the winter of 1971-1972. This can be attributed to three factors: 1) the mild winterw 2) the artificial addition of sand to Capitola beaches; and 3) the construction of groins in Capitola to create a wider beach (Fig. 5). The area south of Seacliff Beach to Monter$y contributes little sediment to the bay by wave erosion. The sand dunes common here are built from wind blown beach sand indicating a surplus of sand as usually only dry sand from the upper beach is subject to wind erosion. The total sediment load contributed by north bay cliff' erosion during an average year is approximately 1 x 105 cubic yards. This approximation is based on the U.. S., Army Corps of Engineers (1969) estimate of one foot of erosion per year for five mlles of exposed 100 foot cliffs in the north bay. 2J..

Figu:r,(-l' 4: Cnp:t tola Beach soori Hf'i;er the S.tmt,~l\ Cru~ Small Boat Harbor const:r,.uct~.on = u~s~ Army Carps of Engineers (1956) photo 22 Dorm~s1 (1968) estimates that 2 x 105 cubic yards of sedimen.t is derived from shoreline erosion off the dune :fiel:ds in the southern half of Monterey Bay& Ero sion is occurring along the coast between Pacific Grove a.nd iVionter~.~;,r du\1 to direct wave acti.o.n. Studies at

Moss :La.tlding Maring Laboratories (D. Blaskovich, 1972~ personal c:orcmmnioation) showed that the sand in this a.rea. is transported from Pacific Grove towards Monte1·cy (west to east) and that this sand is derived :from shoreline outcrops in that area. The amount of sand added is small!) however~ in comparison to that of the northern baye This is shown by the lack of extensive beach build~ up on the west side of the Monterey (Coast Guard) break- water~ and lack of silt accumulation leeward. of this breakwaters Shepard and Wanless (1971) compared the grru1ite shoreline south of Monterey using photographs twenty to thirty years apart rL>'ld found little erosional chunge·o Th~y· attributed this to the high reslste:mce of

Shcn:e.]J.ne erosi.on is a.ssuuH::d to have contributed an

insignlf'icr~rrt amount durlng the mild year of this study ey

A rea!:icnable figu;~·e 6 however" can be obtained by cr.m1-

with the total shoreline erosion, This tctal is 3 x 105 23

QnlZ Po!nt and Point Pin.os Sediment supplied to Monterey Bay includes the

input of longshore transport past Santt:

Construction of the Sa~ta Cruz Small Boat Harbor jetty ln 1963 allowed the amount of scmd in active trano port at that time to be estimated¢ Beach surveyfY- before and after construction by the u,s .. Arm.y Corps of Engi neers (1969) show that 6 x 105 cubic yards of sand accu= rnulatecl on tho beach Wf:st of the jetty during th.e two year.s :following completion&

During thls two year period li.ttle sand Wt:'U'J trans""

porttSd ovtn"" or around the end of the jetty as the beach was very narrow compared to the length of the construction It (Fige 11) 0 'J.'he 3 x lO.J cubic y~ird.s per year sand accu""'

lil.Ul.2>-tion~ thf)l"'cfore t is a very good indi.cation of exp~cted

local l.i t;tora1 "trm"iaport e San Lor~nzo N Rivu CAPITOLA

SCALE IN MILES I I I 0 2 3 ... _ ...... -SOrt ...... - ..·9oft ...... ,

,fj fvlARI NA

WAVE PERIOD: 14SECS. WAVE DIRECTION: WNW -----Depth contours MONTEREY (Monterey Canyon) MOOIFIEO F~OM JOHI'ISOI'I, o'BRI(Pi It ISUCS 1948

Figure 6 a Wave refraction diagram~ Monterey Bay 2.5 Now, however, sand is easily blown eastward over the top of the jetty by wind. The width of the beach a.nd shallow depth at the end of the jetty also allows substantial arommts of sediment to travel arotmd the tip., Observations by colleagues have also indicated that the tip of the north jetty, built of large tetra pods@ ls permeable to sand and that an undetermined amount enters the inlet channel in this manner (Fige ? ) •

Santa Cruz Sm~ll BoHt Ha..:rbor west jetty .,, June 3fJ~~ 1972 26 The problem increased to the point where harbor access was blocked periodically~ a~d dredging by the

Ue S. Army Corps of Engineers w~.s required. to keep the channel open (Fig. 8) e Data from the Santa Cru~ harbor master show that 9.2 x 104 cubic yards of sand were dredged from the chann.el during May e 1972 ( Le Peterson, personal co!fl.municatlon) ~: The average figure for longshore sediment supply to Monterey Ba.y 11 then. is 3 x 105 cubic yards JH!H• yea:r:e

Data for the 1971·1972 jfliHir is not; ~~vaD.a.bJ.e, but the author feels that the amouzrt would. be much less considering the lack of local coaatllne eroslon during this periodo

ch<:u:~.ne1 .,.., .Jt;:::.. :,'' ~ 1• dge arvJ B~e(~ 1.l[·~J~ ~1c; {.; tti:•lt~l .. Ht.~t;it~J.1) 27 Longshore Sediment Transport Within Monterey Bay

.Ph.y..f:l.tQ.g~~.ri~_E!

Littoral sediment tr~,.nsport in California is generally southward (downcoast) due to the primary northwest wave pattern. Waves approaching the shore at an angle undergo refraction which tends to bend the form parallel to the shoreline. This refraction is rarely complete, howevere and those sand grains small enough to be carried by the available energy a.re initially moved up the beach parallel to the wave direction& The backwash wave motion. due to gravity~ is essentia.lly perpendicular to the shoreline, however~ so that the net sand movement, induced by the angle nf incoming waves* is along the shore (Bascom~ 1964)e

Natural and artificial barriers to longshore trans~ port can indica:te the direction of mov~ment by trapping sediment on the side corresponding to the direction of the sed:i.me-nt Sfnrrce (Bascome 1964), The S&nta Cru~

Sm~.11 Bo~.t Hc.cr::-bor is an excellent example~ Immedia:'cely after constru.c·l~ion the beach upcoast (west) of the north

jetty widened~ whereas immediately downcr:ast of the

smaller Bouth jet"'t';y~ the beach narrowed,. Waves

deprived of sand by the north ,jetty~ began to erode the east beach until equilibrium \was age-lin established (Fig~. 11.)0 28

Capitola, which lost its beach soon after the completion of the small boat harbor upcoast, con- structed its own groin. The beach ls now widening north of this str·vcture (Fig. 9)., The a..'nount of

Figure 9 * Capitola Grcdn (The beach upcoat;t of the groin :ls widE:ned 'INhereas dovm~ coast cliff undercutting is progressing)

littoral sedinent transport past Capi tol.ri is di:ff:i.cult

to e~~timate due to the a.rt:ificia.l importation of san,d

d. uri ··-·.,..,g C-t.;;~~"l'.:i •· ~~t:.f1·,·~~r ~""' g~·oJ, d.U"· '" co~l<:"t"""···ct~'']. <·~ •.!. <~, ,4, on ;;) 29 Moss Landing Harbor was created in the mid-1940's by cutting a new chruanel 1. 000 yards south of the old

EHrhorn Slough e::dt., Jetties similar to those u.Eed to protect the Santa Cruz Small Bo~t Harbor were used here, but siltation problem~ have not been nf.H!irly so apparent as at Santa Cruz. The author feels that J x 105 cubic yaJ.... ds of sa.nd is a good estimate of the littoral tra.nsport north of Moss Landing as this figure seems valltl near SantB. Cruz and there are no indications of significant loss be= tween there and. Moss L&s"'ldi.ng.. 'I'he lack of unusual channel siltation at Moss Landing considering the above longshore transport can be explained by two factors: 1) the presence of the Monterey Submarine Canyon h~;1 ad which extends into the li ttor·al zone thus trapping much of the longshore transport (Fig. ll} h and 2) the rel?..tti v&ly strong diurnal tidal velocities on the order of one knot maxirnmn (Clark~ 197.2) which is enough to keep even sr:.J"l.d size particles in suspension (Figs 10) e rooor------.------.------.------r------, 30

/ / ,,/ / ./ / .01 0.1 1.0 10 100 DIAMETER IN M M

Figure lOs The relationship of erosion. trans portation. and depoai tion of' sedi ·rnentary particles (after Hjulstrom~ 1939).

Aerial photograph and nautical chart data are use~ ful in comparing the relative effects of the Sartta Cruz

and Moss Landing harbor constructions. Photographs before and after the small boat harbor construction at Santa Cruz. illustrate the magnitude of change the jet

ties incurred (Fig. 11)~ The upcoast accumulation and downcoast erosion after construction are apparent in this tracing comparison.. A similar comparison of aerial photo"" graphs taken before and after the harbor construction at

'"'~ Moss Landing reveals a different pattern.. Very li·t;tle net accumulation occurred upcoast of the north jetty where

as the beach to the south became wider (I•'ig. 12) "~~ -Dec.61 1961 aerial photo

----Dec. 13,1963 a e r i a I photo N

1/5) ~...... 0 -::> 0 1/5) 0-::1 ~ ~ ~-

tetrapod

0 900 ft SANTA CRUZ dotum: MSL HARBOR

Figure 11: Aerial photo tracing comparison of Santa Cruz Small Boat Harbor 32

... north jetty 0 ~

____ .., 1933-1940 --1969

0 900ft I I datum: MSL

Figure 12s Comparison of Moss Landing Harbor before and after channel completion (after the u.. s$ Army Corps of Engineers, San Frartc isco Districts Drawing Not} ll.t-51-1 and U~S.Ce & G.S., Chi!lrt No., 5403~ 14th ed.) 33 The Salinas River delta is the only significa'1t coastal feature between Moss Landing and Monterey that

would ha~~ any effect on the longshore transport. Al though this area is shallower than the surrounding bathy metry@ the author feels that the delta does little to hamper longshore sand movement. Monterey Ha.rbor has little sedimentation problem and there is correspondingly little sand accumulation around the western (coastguard) brea.kwate:r. This indicates that there is little net longshore transport proba.bly due to the lack of significant sand volume and the protected position of the harbor. In cases where large volumes of sand s.re involved, then. barriers within Monterey Bay indicate downcoast sediment movement.

Experi.ments at Marina and flianresa Beaches

Investigation of longshore sediment velocities a.t

Ma.m""eH~a and Marina. Beaches included the tracing of acetone

based fluorescent sand"' Sand§ similar in size and type~ was painted a.nd introdueed into the swash zone of each beach. at rno:nthly lntervalse One and twenty four hour

e:qxlrinmn:t durations wer·e tried~ but th~ latt{~r was f(nmd to be too long for ~.dE>qul:l'.te retur·n(l Unexpectedly high dispersion rates were encountered. Valid results were obtained only after the procedure was modified by de creasing the time inter,.. al to one hour and taking grab instead of surface samples., An experiment following the outline of dispersing fluorescent grains were effective in obtaining short term patterns, but the lack of man~ power precluded quantifying the res.mltse The results of the sediment tagging were: 1) neither Manresa nor Marina Beaches had consistent sediment velocities north or south during the study periods 2) the dir... action of sand movement wa.s the same as the longohore cur= rent on seven of the twelve runs; 3) two separate night tracings of fluorescent sand patterns at the Moss Landing beach transect site resulted in northward trends~ simila.r to the prevailing longshore current in this· SJ."ea; 4) al though no longshore sediment velocity opposed the long.-... shore currentll five of the twelve runs showed no dis cernible sediment transport (Table 3) ..

TABLE 3 I.ONGSHORE SAND TRANSPORT FROM FIJUORJ~SCENT TAGGING JP.NUARY 'J~O JUNE 1.972 Aver~,ge IL.Q.;[...11:,i~Q. s Jli.re,g t4_..QJ1 Velocity iF~L§~c ... t 6 1 Upcoa~t .25 J Dtnl;nc o ast o35 MosEl I.f!nding 2 2 UpcOfl~t G60 Marin,a. 6 2 Upco~cst el~Q 1 Do'V\;"l'lCOast ol5 35 Evidently. sediment movement varies with local condi tionse Some qualifying statenHo!!nts should be presentedt 1) the experiment~ wQre run at low tide when the ~'.-'Pll~h zona is the most irregul~.r. resulting in possible atypical current patterns, 2) the monthly experiment in·tervals may not be representative of the total sediment transport pattern. Data from the u.s. Army Corps of Engineers Lit- toral Environmental Observation Progra,m also illustrate the lack of significant trends during this study period (Table 4).

TABLE 4

LONGSHOP.E CURHENT DATA FOR NORTHERN MONTgREY BAY (U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. 1971) Current Current Number of Velocity ~ Qit~sJ;iqn QQ§~.Y§i t!QQ,§! ~f~~~

Seacliff Upcnaet 6 ,30 Aver<~! .... ~ ~--...,.,_...,,.,c,_··""""'~ July 22 - Aug,. 10 Downcoa.st 4 -33 1971 None 3 Capi toln Upcoast 2 .. 15 A'\rer. ~~-...... ~,.,_.-,, July 2 - Au~. 10 Do\m.coast Lj, .12 1971 None 21

Although the exact locations differ, these figures also indlcilte th~ lack of ~. net longshore trend~ No rc::!cent 36 storrns or rainfall i.ndicate a mild v.?inter which may have resulted in atypical local longshore current and sediment transport velocities. The positive corre lation between longshore current and sediment velocities may be more apparent during an avarage winter sea~on.

Experiments ~>Lt Monterey Canyon Head

Fluorescent tagging was utilized in the Moss Landing area with more success. The purpose was to see how effective Monterey Submarine Canyon was in preventing sand transport across the head" On March 7e 1972 at low tide (1530 hours) one thousand pounds of green fluorescent sand were placed thirty feet n(Yt."th of the Moss Landing Hs.rbor north jetty in the swash zone. On ~~.Tune 7, 1972 at high tide

( 2010 hours) a simil~,r introduction was made also ~lith one thousand p~1unds of EnLV'l.d at the same location@ but the sa.nd was dumped lntt:~ the water (Fig. 13) ... Th~ pt:i!'"" iod. of tlme between i.ntraductions at11owed. the dls P~'Jrtilal. of all but a trace of the previous material. On March 8* 1972 at 1320 hours six routine beach

ste~tion ;:o,Jhlch corttained a few of the green t~:tgged gr!3.ins.

1 A th-""r""~c.-h-~~ v . v '""t.-:-, ... t. b·"'_ \;;; ...c:.:r 't'...... _.. 1~"' in~n.P>"'t't,:i .£"' .... ,,;. J~¥ ""''' AJ. t·h"'t<:J.. •'-·V"""'l''l';:;i ~A i!. ,.J.,~t~•1rY ,.,,b<;;j-!~;:- """' b,,l ltt'~., .. .-:,n+1 a V: -t>_.t'JI.. "'·to'~ it,.. t...:. the presence cf fluorescent sand at certain lacalli:J.. {~D .. / . . . . . ~::~ Pau I!· N :.\:~Island . ::.:·......

turning basin

·•e •• •• '"• • • •,. ~ .. • •• or. a

~ ...... P.G.&E . '•. '·· '· .'· i .I'· I .... i / ( ( Monterey ·· ..... ·. Canyon '•. ·. .. •. -. \ ·•. I ...... -: ...... · .. ~·· Q

. ,...- , .... -·-·-·..,_.·-·-·,/ _.,. .. .,.. ro· -··-· -·

MONTEREY

B t\ Y Moss Landing

LANDING recovery pattQ)rn ·TAGGED SAND M ~!:i r . 7, I 9 7 2- • - 0 STUDY 0 so 0 f t June 7., 1972--.. x ..._ -l.---!.---..1 datum: M S L depths In fathoms Figure 13s Moss Lamding Harbor - Monterey Submarine Cm1yo.n study )8

on Moss J.~anding beach (Fl.g., 13)., Experiments on June 8@ 1972 resulted in additional information. Peterson Grab samples were taken beginn.ing one hour after sediment int:roductic:m,. Sampling was begun at the turning basln e.nd proceeded out to the canyon axis to equiprnent depth limitations of twenty fathoms. The a.rea of actual sediment transport was ne!.r the port and starboard buoys located near the ends

of the north ?..nd south jetties respectively (Fig., l))e A portable long''Ma.ve ul trf!.vit1let light was then used a.long the beach between the south jetty and 400 yards

south of ~• .rmdholdt Pl~r from 2200 to 2.400 hourrh Conclusions that can be drawn from these results

are~ 1) sedl.mr;nt was [email protected] across the head of the Monterey Submarine Canyon m:!ar the port and starboard buoys at depths of two to ten fathoms' 2) sediment is more readily tr?J!lsported ncr{H~s the c:myon head during

~.m ebbing tide; a.nd 3) the recovery patte-rn indicates tht>lt

at lea~:;t some of the longBhore tr~nsport occurs in water

le~~s th~n one fathom deep.,

Bec~.use the: amount of sand recovered on the beat:h

sidering the high di rsion rates of tagged sand, the

entsx:·s th~;, sulnngr:'i.. ne canyon ~fl though q_ua.nti tati ve values could not be dA;t£:;nnined .. 39 The methods and results should be qualified: 1) the June (, 1972 (ebbing tide) trial was more thor ough than the March 7, 1972 (flooding tide) trial; and 2) the presence of beach fluorescence blurred the bound aries but not enough to invalidate the results of the artificially tagged sand.

Moss Landing Dredge Spoil Study

The u.s. Army Corps of Engi.neers supervised the dredging of Moss Landing Harbor between Sandholdt Bridge and the entrance channel during the summer of

1971. The contractor, Smith Ri.ce Inc. 11 removed more 4 than 9.,0 x 10 cubic yards of material using 1 8 000 yard barges. Students at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories analyzed the effects of the ;dredging on the loc~tl bath·ynH~try, water quality~ and benthic and littoral llfe~ The disposal site near Sandhol.dt Pier was chosen to sati~~fy disposal design depths t'.. nd student diving

4 More than leO x 10 pounds of red fluorescent dyed

~Hxld were dept>fdte·d ·,·d.th tht;; dredge spoil material to evaluate the di.spr on and net transport of the dredg~ .. .. · Elkhorn ..... ::·.. : Pau I!~· . . . N Yacht Harbor :\::ilsland . :.·.

.. I t~:• ...... •. .. ·.. ·. ::·: . ·· ...... ·::.. • P.G.& E. .. . ·~:: . ·...... ~·. '· '·· .. . .. ::'.· . ) •. ::.·::· I ... .. / ...... · I / . ( .. (Monterey ~:...... · . '·.. '• :..-::;·· ·· ·. Canyon ... ·...... •. --. '1111. ::: .. \ ...... i ... I Kaiser ...... 40 .· ... .. -·-·· -·-·-' .... ··' ··'· lO · -· -·-·

MONTEREY Moss landing \(;: B A Y

Harbor - Dredge spoil study 41 Periodic beach surveys were made before, during and after the six week operations to determine any back ground fluorescence and initial transport.. Two pro blems were encountered~ 1) tagged sand could not be mixed thoroughly into each barge load; and 2) the exact dumpi.ng site varied due to sea and fog condi tiona~ and a faulty gate activation. mechanism on one of the barges. The tagged sand. therefore. may not have behaved exactly as did the dredge material and the site of dumping

No bacJcground fluorescence wa~~ observed before dredging began. Beach surveys were carrled out during dredging with no tagged sand recovery, and diver grab sampling at the disposal site also gave negative results, Dyed wood chips and feathers which apparently floated to

shor~ soon after the first barges were dumped were re covered two days after dredging began. Apparently some ma:t:erial cd;he:r than sand received the dye 9

Monthly sampling wa.s continued through Ma.rch 7 ~ 1972 without success~ On that date 1 however. scattered red grainB were recovered within one hundred yards north and

south of S~1ndholdt Pier(; I..~aboratory analysis verified

tho pr.~:s1~rwe of tagged sand 9 e.l though most of the grains were faded due to abrasione Sarnpli:ng sinctl March shows grBin recovery over a wider area, but with less concen- 42 trationo On June 8 0 1972 a night beach survey indi cated that red grains extended from the south jetty to 400 yards south of Sandholdt Pier. There were less than twenty grains found between those extremes, however, compared to a.pproximately fifty found on March 7, 1972.

No attempt was ma.de to quantify the process due to the introduction problem, yet the results are quite interesting. It was expected that winter storms, with the correspondingly high wave ener.gies, would disrupt the drt~dge spoil accumulations and the resultant dis persion would allow the tagged material to be statisti cally sampled. Apparently the mild local winter had little effect on the materia.J.,allowing it to remain undisturbed until March!' Recovery patterns can be attributed to the seasonal wave energy patterns that exist regardless of local con= dltions4> Dredge material was emplaced at the end of the

:rB l~~tl ve ly low energy summer wave regime when the larger vdnt4:n~ w~v~s were becoming dominant. Winter. wa.ves tend to withdraw beach sand some distance offshore forming distlr1ct bars (Bascome 1961.J.). 'l'hese waves and a ten fa.thom disposal site pr<>bably prevented onshore mov~~ment of sand(' According to diver surv£1ys, a net ba.thy~ metric high remained at the disposal site throughout the 4J wave regime, however. and this tends to return off... shore sand to the beaches. Such a phenomenon could have carried portions of the dredge spoil onto the beach in March., Conclusions derived from this study are1 1) some of the dredge material was available to be transported to the beach seven to nine months after insertion 8 2) most of the material has dispersed. probably into the Monterey Canyon; 3) the fluorescent tagging technique ls efff~ctive for a least nine months' and 4) red sand extended somewhat more to the north than to the south (this could have been caused by the prevalent: north= ward flowing longshore current in this area).

Chart~cteristics of the Mon.terey Bay Beaches

Twelve months of beach profile and sedlment sam- pl:tng data were obtvdned to detcn·mine the annual changes

s~diment B<'impli.ng indlcate a significant amount of var-

Bench profiles werP run ac::cording to Emery • s pro cedu:r~e ( 1961} f~:xcept th.at s 1) April fog conditions in the north bay and the lack of a visible sea horizon at TABLE .5: SLOPE AND SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS OF BEACHES IN MONTEREY BAY i ;z:; i ::c: 0 z Pr.l B z { 0 H H E-t• 0• ~ 0 ~ 0 H - r:tJ f.il < Q z 0 1:-' I:Ll jj:~ t:-r.:t H <. ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ z H (.') "<;;." - 0 0 r:n ~~ z ~-· CJ r.n rn z z :3:.: z I t::~ 0 IX rr... H 0 0 ~ s < < 0 fi1 f?. ~ ~....- P:.. - !i. g: U1 iXl N ~ 0 ~ ::X:: E-l 0 H H 0 0 s 0 >-tp:; H ~ 0 !=-. E-t H 0 E-t 0 ~ 8 8 ::X:: Q ...... < ::r..:: ::X:: ~i r~ f.il 8 z ...... t; U1 < < 0 iZl p::; '(/j p.. - q :Z E-1 ....., :E 0 Pr-J 0 < ::::> 0::: ~ )12 :s r.u E-t r-·, C; ,_ ~; - p._, p::; '~ < 0::: z 0 H ~ 0 0::: H t'z z ~ ~1 s r'i ~ ,...:! ~ ~ H ~ z f.il H !iS rz:j ~ 0 0::: H 0 E-t I c.o ~ ~ t') tl:l 1=0 0::: \12 p::; H p::; ~ 0::: ~ (Z... P-; Cl H ~ 0 i <

S.fU'iTA CRUZ 400 1- 20 MINOR e17-~t37 1~10- MOD- HIGH NONE DOWNCOAST EAST- (1) 1.64 ERATE WARD MAN PES A 340 1- 20 SPRING .16-.42 lel7- HIGH LOW NONE TOWARDS VAR- L.50 SHORE I ABLE PAJARO 350 1-"3° SPRING el6-.,36 1.22- HIGH LOW MINOR TOWARDS VAR- 1 .. 56 SHORE I ABLE fv10SS 140 1- 50 MINOR .2)-e35 1E>20- LOW HIGH MINOR TOWARDS NORTH- (2) LANDING 2el4 SH0&1!; WARD SALINAS 380 4-10° MOD- o25-J.e5 1 .. 16- MOD- LOW MOD- TOWARDS VAR- (3) ERATE 2e08 ERATE ERATE SHORE I ABLE MARINA 170 5- 80 MOD- ,19-1.5 1.13- HIGH LOW MAJOR TOWARDS VAR- (4) ERATE 1&62 SHORE I ABLE MONTEREY 200 J- 30 MINOR el9-e24 1 .. 08- LOW HIGH MINOR UFCOAST E.AST- L,60 WARD (l) Effects of Santa. Cruz Small Boat Harbor .jetty (2) :Effects of both jetty amd Monterey Submarine Canyon (3) Intermittent flow of Salinas River ~ ~ {4) Recrea.ticnu.'ll.l vehicle traffic a.:nd s:;:md mining 45 the Salin~s site both required the use of a hand levclf and 2) modifications pertnitting one person to carry out the procedure were ma,de (Appendix B)" All profiles ended in the swash zona so their lengths vary with tidal stage. Consecutive profile plots (Appendix D) used to compare shape ~~d slope changes were assigned vertical and horizontal limits to determine changes in area (Appendix E). Data from the seven beaches (Table 5) allow some conclusions: 1) the small grain size, lack of berm formation, and minor profile change at Santa Cruz 0 Moss Landi.ng, and Monterey Beaches are probably caused by the high wave refraction (and possibly the result.a~t low wave energy) common, to these beaches; 2) Ma.l'lresa and Pajaro Beaches, subject to more direct wave action~ ha.ve defi.:rdt~ berm formation a.nd larger profile changes occurrb1g eYen durtng th(~ calmest W 1€H~oth~rr J) the lar gest grain ~3izes and steepest slopfH1 found at Ma.rina ~,.nd Salin.as Beaches are probably du.e to the relatively high wave t.n1ergy concentrated here; 4) the increase in pro file area at SR!~nlis whe:n figt~rer:J fr,r.r this Btudy were compa~"t':id to thor:u:; taken in February v f·~arch £tnd May of

1971 <~auld bt:c: duo to low river discharge whlch did not hav~! th~:t e<~m.p~~tonce to carry this accumuJ.~.-tion ou.t to se~q S) ~xtensi ve dur.i.e fieldf~ e!"tSt of Marina. and Sali,m.1s 46 and the large profile change at Santa Cruz (Appendix D) indlcate the lmportance of local winds. (Much of the

wid~ Santa Cruz Beach is exposed to the northwest winds v:hieh c&.rry sand over the jetty and into the harbor) (Fig. 7)1 6) the correlation between beach slope, grain

slzew ~nd. wave energy described by Bascom (1964) is

especially app~rent when comparing Marina and Monterey Beaches; and 7) the lack of characteristic wintor/

surt;mer profiles could be attributed to the mild wea.ther. These conclusions require some qualifications:

1) the rG'.pi.d beach adjustment to chr:mging conditions

(fllill.BCtHn 11 1960) may not be adequa.tely described by ID(?il1.thly meamrr.ements (especially as none of the pro-

files ~rf1re run during harsh weather) a 2) estimates of ltttc.n:·al transport volume could not be made as nAt

ga:tn at on~ b~":!ach could not be assumed to have or3.gi.nat~d

from. a loss elr-:;~where ~ 3) it is assum.ed that wave traln therefore, refraction (Fig. 6)

!'E"~mained Ct)n~~ta.nt dt1rlng the 19'?1-1972 study period

(no. :rceent d~E1ta on (:; i ther wave energy or (H.rection is avail&ble for thie year). 47 the southern fence boundary of Moss Landing Marine Laboratories. Sandholdt Pier can be used as a reference when noting the monthly height changes. These photographs illustrate the beach changes and can be compared to the profiles (Appendix D).

Beach Sediment~tion Sediment samples taken with a two inch core at the most recent high water mark (HWM), berm. half way between the HWM an.d swash zone e a,nd three in the low tide swash zone were analyzed for size and sorting values (Emery, 1938) (Appendix G)o Grain size 0 beach slope. and wave energy have already been correlated in the previous section on beach profiles, Additional conclusions ~lre ~ 1) all of the more than 500 samples consisted of well sorted sands agreeing with previous beach descriptions (Ba.scom 0 1964); 2) winter grain sizes ( ~l~rnm) are somewhat larger than summer grain sizes (~~;~)mm) possibly due to higher wave energiesa 3} higher winter waves may also have been responsible for the removal of fine sands from Marina and Salim.H::; Beaches reDulting in the very coarsef yet well sorted& sand founct ther(:~ f 4) the lack of sorting trends per

Pendicular.· to tl1.e shoreline can be explained by the 48 the most recent high water wlth the resultant wave generated similarities: 5) the lack of sedimentary correlation between Moss Landing and Pajaro Beaches suggests the large effect Mon-terey Submarine Cartyon has on local sand transportr and 6) the lack of positive sedimentary correlation between Marina and Monterey could be due to the formation of dunes at Marina. Graphs of the size and sorting variations for each beach (Appendix H) make some of the above conclusions more apparent. The conclusions derived from these data should be qua.lifie

J ll" "-~ 5 J~:: 10 · cublc yard::~ of sand is in actS. ve littoral t:r.a.nc:port down coast annually :tn the south bay. Net

longr~hore tran12:port :ts typically r~out:hward t then 6 with decret:lsing amounts seJuth of Monterey Submarine Ca.nyone Sediment Losses From Monterey Bay

Loss of sand from Monterey Bay is the result of dune formation, sand mining 8 and submarine transport downslope and around the boundaries of the bay~

§..f!nd D!!ne s Sand dunes are found between the Paja.ro River and Monterey with the area of Fort Ord being the widest and tnickeste Inland portions, extending up to ten miles southeastward 11 have been stabilized by local vegetation. Dunes north of Moss Landing are narrow and probably re flect little net sand losse Dorman (1968) compiled wind data from the u.s. Naval Auxiliary Landing Field and aerial photographs of the dunes between Moss Landing and Monterey. His estimate of net sand accumulation was 2 x 104 cubic yards per year and h.e revised it to 3 x 105 cubic yards per ye.a.r due to the sheltered, inland locatS.on of the wind da.ta. source., This is the only data available for dune~ accumu.lation and is utilized here since no other data are available lb D~.ta for the 1971-197 2 winter season su.ffer from lack of recent information., Dune growth is continuing, however~ as the California Division

Of Highways is r.:on.st~.ntly w:tthdraw:tng dune sand from the fr-e!?.wa.y i.n Seaside e 50 Losses Around Point Pinos and Santa Cruz Point - ...... ------...---

Longshore transport around Point Pinos and s~mta Cruz Point are assumed to be minimal due to wind and wave regimes. Energy vectors of both wind and waves are directed primarily eastward and southeastward Such conditions hinder near shore sand transport out. around these rocky promontories. Sand transport studies included in this report indicate that sand moved east"" ward in both Monterey and Santa Cruz areas. Longshore transport losses, therefore, probably are negligible ..

~§lope_ Losses

Bathymetric patterns in Monterey Bay suggest that nearshore sediment may be lost downslope. Accumulati.on in the Monterey Submarine Fan, therefore, represent the offshore losses of the affected shoreline. Monterey Bay contributes only a minor percentage of this sediment (Menard, 1960). Dorman (1968), studying only southern Monterey Bay, estimates down can.;>ron losses at 5 x 105 cubic yards p~r year (he a.dmits thit~ estimate is subjective)., The author feels that most of the 3 x 105 cubic

Yards of san.d in annual li ttt:tral tran:r:~pnrt i1'1 the north

bay ~.s trapped by the Mont:erey Subr:m.ri.ne C~·myon~ Thus Q 51 adding this figure to that estimated by Dorman for the south bay, a total of 8 x 105 cubic yards is obtained.,

Sand Min_!n.g

Lone Star Industries and the Monterey Sand Company each operate two sand mining plants between the Salinas River mouth and Seaside. California. The California State Division of Mines recorded that a combined total of 2.1 x 105 cubic yards of sand were extracted by nlin i.ng in 1969 (E. Welday, personal communication)., Data have not been tabulated for the current year so ~n estimate of 2 - 2.5 x 105 cubic yards of sand per year is used in this report. Total sand volumes reported to the state include only sa.nd withdrawn from public lands, that is, below .. mean high tidee Addltional sand mined and not reported 0 therefore 9 would increase the above figure. Observations of the Lone Star Industry Prattco Plant which is located just north of the Marina Beach survey site reveals that there is little net effect to beach continuity s Aerial photographs of the bf~aches near the sand companies subfJta."l.tiate this observation far the 19?1-1972 period~

Be~lch profiles (Appendix D) show little net accu-

Tnula.tlon, or erosion at any of the beach sites~ Two 52 recent trends should be mentioned. however; 1) over the past three years the beach at Capitola has been widening due to groin constructionr and 2) the beach at Pa.jaro Dunes has had a net increase over the past two and a half years according to a. long time resident (F$ Nombala.is, personal communication).

TABLE 6 AVERAGE SAND LOSSES FROM MONTEREY BAY Dunes J x 105 cubic yards per year Downslope 8 x lo5·cubic yards per year Mining 2 X 105 cubic yards per year Total Sediment Loss 1.3 x 106 cubic yards per year

The summary of sediment losses from Monterey Bay reflects long term data (Table 6). CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSIONS

Sediment budget figures for Monterey Bay vary with changes in the environment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate thi.s ~a.nd budget for the perlod between July. 19?1 and June, 19?2. The absence of expected winter conditions a.nd recent data neccsslts:.ted the use of long term figurese The summary of the

Monterey Bay sand budget that follcnvs 11 then, is wha:t can be expected during a typical year (Table 7).

TABLE 7 AVERAGE ANNUAIJ SEDIMENT BUDGET VALUES FOR MONTEREY BAY §.§!.21ment ~~JlE.~~LX1:l §es.i.m£n.t.u.!i.Q§!UX~cl Longshore Transport Jxl05 Downslope 8xlo5 Rivers 4-5xl05 Dune Formation 3xl05 Shoreline Erosion -=.i?LlO~ Sand Mining .?_'fJJ>.5 Total ll-12xl05 Total 13xl05

The resul ta.nt annual sand deficit ( 1·2 x 105 cubic .

Yards of sand) was not obSflrved by the author during the

P'~riod of this study$ There are some factors@ not con sid~r·r-ed0 that could alter these results~ 1) sand blown in from the land (JJorma.n. 1968 estimates 3 x 104 cubic

Ya.ros for th\3' seu:th bay)~ a.nd 2) the large amount of sand transferred annually to winter offshore bars (Bascom. 1964) could not be adequately quantified as there has been no accurate surveying methods devised which could be used in the area of breaker activity. Changes in net beach voltme above the low tide swash zone were measured, howevere. and must be considered especially when any coastline structures are added which disrupt normal longshore sand transport • The large sand acctmulation upcoast of the Santa Cruz Harbor jetty is an example. Net accumulation or ero sion values were obtained with the extrapolation to a standard on.e nautlcal mile beach length (Ta.ble 8).

TABIJE 8 NET BEACH VOLill~ CHANGES FOR MONTEREY BAY JULY, 1971 - JUNE. 1972* NET CHANGE/ NET CHANGE NAUTICAL MI .. 2 4 .JFeet ) .!f!.u_lds~x 10 ) Santa Cruz - 163 - 3.7 Ma11.re sa. + 115 Pajaro - 172 Moss Landing 41 Salin~ks ** Marina + 239 Monterey 10 Data comnuted from beach profile area total (Appendix E) Insufficient data 55 The area change required for a volume change of 1 x 105 cubic yards is 440 Ft2 and this figure can be used to compare the expected variations at each beach studied.

Manresa~ Pajaro, and Marina Beaches are those most likely to undergo annual changes of this magnitude. The Salinas Beach is also in this category but the lack of data makes this a subjective statement. A summation of the net changes for these seven beaches, however, can not be used to represent the net change for the entire Monterey Bay. Annual beach sand volume changes, then, can easily modify the sand budget of Monterey Bay. Beach data cov ering many years should be used to cancel out the expected beach aggradation during mild winters and erosi.on during unusual harsh weather (Bascom~ 1964). Aerial photographs of the entire bay taken over many years would be helpful in determining any gross beach variations. The sediment budget figures offered in this paper are subject to modification as more data becomes available. Some suggestions for further study includes 1) an attempt in include beach profile measurements in the breaker zone$ 2) continued measurement of the beach profileB presented here; .3) an attempt at qua.nti_fying the amount of sand tr2;pped by Monterey Submarine Canyon near. Moss Landing (fluor£?scent tagging prov-ed succeBsful in thls type of 56 application; and 4) the monitoring of periodic dredg ings of Santa Cruz Harbor. Much of this paper is devoted to profile and sedi ment variations of beaches within Monterey Bay. These data represent a baseline figure for the July 0 1971 to June" 1972 period t?.nd make possible a future comparison for dlfferent environmental conditions. BIBLIOGRAPHY REFERENCES CITED

Bascom~ w., 1964~ Waves and beaches~ New York, Doubleday and Co., 267 P• BollnD R.L •• 1964. Hydrographic data from the area of the Monterey Submarine Canyon, 1951 ... 1955, Office of Naval Research Contract, National Science Found ation Contracts. Clearinghouse, p .. 1-8 ..

Cherry 0 J .A., 1966~~ Sand movement along equilibri.t.l.rn beaches north of San Francisco: Jour .. Sed. Petrology, v .. 36w no. 2, P• 341-357•

Clarke L.R., 1972. Long period wave eharacteri~tlcs in Moss J..~anding Harbor and Elkhr»rn Slough (Masters Thesis), San Jose, San .Jose State Uni vers5. t~r ~ 73 p .. Compton. ReR., 1966e Granitic a.nd metamorphic rocks of the Sal.inian Block. California Goast Ranges~ i.n Bailey. E.H., ed., Geology of Northern California: California Div~ Mines Bull. 190. P• 277-287~ Dorman. C.E.@ 1968, The southern Monterey Bay littoral cell: a prelimin~.ry sediment budget study (Masters Thesi.s): Monterey~ United States Naval Postgraduate School, 234 p .. Emery, KeOea 1961, A simple method of measuring beach profiles: Llmnology and Oceanographye v. 6~ p, 90-93..,

• 1938~ Rapid method of mecha.nic~l analy~;is of S'iildsi Jour ... Sed .. Petrology. v. 8t p .. 105.,111.,

Hendricks, E.L.~ ed., 1964* Compilation of records of surface waters of the United Statet~~ October 1950 to Septomber l960r. part II'~ Pacific slope basins :in Calif= ornia.t UeSe Geol. Su.rvey Water Supply Papt-H"'.. 1735. p, 715o

HjulstromB R.~ 1939~ Transportation of detritus by moving \','l"llter@ Rec~nt Marine Sediments~ Tulrna1) Am. Assoc. Petrolo Geologists.

Ingle~ J.C. 6 1966~ The movement of beach sand~ D.:1l 1 d. . t ~ '>2<1 "-vc .opment s ln . .;..e,... · unen ,ol.og;yf! \re 5 ~ lw ..~_ p., 59

6 Johnson, J.W., 0 Brien, M.P.@ Isaacs 0 J.D., 1948~ Graphical cons tion of wav~ refrac on di U.S~ Navy Hydt'ographic Office Pube :no" 605~ Pe 75·•

King~ e .A.M. 9 1959~ Beaches and. coasts~ !A)rtdon., Arnold~ i+03 p®

Martil'le B.D~~ and Emeryt KeO,., 196?., Ge f.Jf

Motlte rey C ~:myon 9 C :i. fornia: Am.., A£H:3oc 0 tro leum Geologists Bulls, v" 51~ no~ 11 1 P• 2281-2)04.

Menard~ lf. We 11 1960 ~ Posslble pre-Plelstocene d.er~p r:•ea fans off central C lf

Skogsberg~ T~ 9 1934~ Report of hydrograpl':dtc ·wo~-:-k in Monterey Ba.y in 1933: Am~ Geophys., Union ~ ~ 15th anne meet&s pt~ 1~ p. 220=2210

Tra.sk, P.D. ~ 1932, Origin and environment of sou::r.co sediments for Houstonw • Petrol. t.~ Gulf Publ, Co..,~ 323 Pe

U ~ S. Army Corrts of Engineer$:>~ 1971 f IJi ttor:al c;'m::cr ... va:'r;lot1 Irr"~t?:t~~l!~ ir1 Ctl]~.i. r<)nia ~ San isc~:l ·ur1~Yu.-r-~~M li d on Sunset~ Twin LakeB 8 and Seac f~ Be~.ches~ Monterey Bay$ u,s, Army Corp~ of Engin::::;er~:~ 1969~ G:tty ~~±" fJ to~~.. ~~.~ befiC:1~~~ ~.)r·c~ on ~~t;ud::yr ~ Gr:t1~1. Go ~ :L f·o I'~l'l i ~~ i Sem F'r.:~.nc:isco 11 Project Repor·t P 19 p!f

'I tT .. S~ f.h3 of Interior, Geologic2l Survey ( I ~ 1 Gj(\0 ·- . ' - € sources for California 1 I1 Strr ords~ VC! le ather rvice Wor

''IJ $ 8 ~ pt'l.rt I~ p.,

Iv1.;) t.·li; <:! I'+:1y I~

m::.lSS

y~e 1Sicrn.f1 u:f li,·;t)~e 5J St-lYl JtJS'El 60

APPENDICES 61 APPENDIX A

Station Descrintions

Santa Cruz Beach Transect e Location: 122° 00.25 w Starting Reference (0.00'): Base of metal pole (marked) about seventy five yards east of stairway at end of 4th street in Santa Cruz Bearing: To whistle buoy in Santa Cruz Harbor; also in line with flag pole at top of cliff behind 0.00'

Manresa Beach Transect

Location: 36° J~5 • so' N ; 121° 51.6o' ~~li Starting Reference (0.00'): Marked on eleventh step below lower gate of stairs leading down from pink house which is about seventy five yards south of Manresa State Beach parking lot Bearing: 230° magnetic; on line with 0.00' and south edge of pink building

Pajaro Beach Transect Location: Starting Reference (0.00'): Marked by "X" on ninth step below top of access stairs in front of the condominium near Pajaro River Mouth Bearing: 230° magnetic APPENDIX A CONTINUED 62

Station Descriptions Continued

Moss Landing Beach Transect v Location: N; 121° 47.30 W Starting Reference (0.00'): Top of sea wall in front of south edge of Moss Landing Marine Lab building, Moss Landing Bearing: On line with south wall of Moss Landing Marine Laboratory

Salinas River Beach Transect Location: Starting Reference (0.00'): On survey marker (#LS-2369) below white stake on top of dune about two hundred yards north of present lagoon. Also, position is about 030 to Pacific Gas & Electric stacks and 750 to Fremont Peak Bearing; On line with second white metal stake; also 2700 magnetic

Marina Beach Transect ' Location: 36° 42.50 N; 121° 48.50 . W Starting Reference (0.00'): Marked on southern of two white one foot by one foot wood posts one hundred yards north along beach from parking lot at end of Beach Road, Marina Bearing: On line with southern edge of Lone Star Sand Co. fence, 2600 magnetic APPENDIX A CONTINUED

Station Descriptions Continued

Monterey Beach Transect Location: Starting Reference (0.00'): Marked on north west corner of apartment complex fence at end of Park Avenue, Monterey Bearing: Along west fence line, 345° magnetic APPENDIX B 64

EMERY PROCEDURES

Beach Transects Five foot by one inch by one inch poles marked in one tenth foot intervals from the top were used as des cribed in Emery (1961). A modification to allow one person to work alone was done as follows: 1) Two additional one inch by one inch by six foot poles were bolted to the original marked poles with i x 3" bolts and wing nuts, 2) A parallelogram was formed with the original marked poles now five feet apart and the attaching sticks fastened about one foot from the top and bottom. Such an arrangement can easily be handled by one person and also folded into a station wagon for transport without dismanteling. The steepest beach section in this study was 12° and the distance error would amount to only 2% of actual horizontal distance. The modif ication, therefore, is well within the precision of the method.

Sand Anal:vsis The method of sand analysis used is that described in Emery (1938). That portion greater than 2mm was weighed and the percentage of the total obtained. This figure was incorporated into the cumulative curve. The sample was first dried, then split into two portions. One was saved for reference and the other was analyzed for size and sorting. 6.5 APPENDIX C

Sand Painting Procedure

Fluorescent pigment from Radiant Color Inc., Oakland, California, was used topaint all the tagged sand. Five colors (green, yellow, orange, red and pink) are available, but only red and green were utilized here. The similar ities of green and yellow or pink, red, and orange became obvious over extended sampling periods. The procedure of painting follows: 1) Dry the sand sized material to be painted, 2) Mix pigment in acetone (three fourths pound to a gallon or until fully dissolved), 3) One tenth gallon of paint is required for one hundred pounds of sand. The best method utilizes a portable electric cement mixer: a) Add i of paint required each five minutes allowing acetone to evaporatB (caution: acetone is extremely flammable and toxic), b) It takes about one half hour to paint one hundred pounds of sand, c) The sand can be stored in sand bags (fifty pounds units are recommended).

Thanks are due to Lone Star Industries for supplying more than enough sand bags for this project at no cost. APPENDIX D BEACH PROFILE - SANTA CRUZ l~

..--.. 0 8 f:r-1 f:r-1 ~ - 2 '--" 8z - 4 H 0 P-t - 6 f:r-1 0 z - 8 ~ f:r-1 !iJ f:r-1 -10 0::: ',?.: Vertical exaggeration ten times 0 -12 1--l July 30" 1971 November 4, 1971 - .. - ·- .. -o f:r-1 p::) ;..;14 September 2, 1971 ------ December 2, 1971 1: 1 11 .. t 1,.,. f:r-1 0 October 1, 1971 ••••••••••••• January 13, 1972 X X X X X X X X ~ -16 8 U} H -18 ~ -20

-22

-24 -26 0 40 80 120 280 360 400 DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE POINT (FEET) APPENDIX D BEACH PROFILE - Sru~TA CRUZ

8 0 -~ r::-.1 f;;:.. 2 -~ z H 0 - p.,

Vertical exaggeration ten times February 11~ 1972 l\1ay 4e 1972 - ·-· -- · ~· - March 9~ 19'72 ------.. June 21\1 1972 1--1 1 ,. , .,...,.~ tTUn.e 3t X X X X x ')(X April 6 11 1972 30 9 1972

I -18 ~ ·-20 l -22

-26 APPENDIX D BEACH PROFilE - IViANRESA 0

- 2

...... 4· E-t - rx:l rx:l r:t; 6 ...... - E-t z 8 H - 0 p" -10 rx:l 0 2 B2 -12 rx:l ~... -14 ~ ?= 0 -16 H IJ_:j p::J -18 Vertical exaggeration ten times rx:l D July :30, 1971 November 4, 1971 -·-· _ .. _,_ z

-2L~

-26

-28

-30 0 80 120 160 200 2L~o 2 o 320 360 400 DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE POINT (FEET) APPENDIX D BEACH PROFILE - MANRESA 0 - 2

- 4 ...... E-l 6 EJ-[:c., '-" - 8 z8 H (l,0-10 -

ILl ~ -12 rLI 0::: rLI -14 (:l:; f:I.'l 0::: -16 ;3: 0 ..... r-=l ·~ rLI -18 . - r:q rLI Vertical exaggeration ten times 0-20 z February 11, 1972 May 419 1972 c::r:: -·-· --· -- ..... 8 r.n -22 March 9~~ 1972 June 2, 1972 /J'/f(//;'lfu H Cl April 6, 1972 ...... June JO, 1972 -24

-26

-28

-30 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE POINT (FEET) APPENDIX D BEACH PROFILE - PAJ ARO 0 - 2

...... 8- 4 r:u r~ ...... ,p-..,- 6 8z H - 8 0 P-. -10 ILl 0z ~ -12 ~ !i-f ~ -14 ?:: 0 -16 t-=1 Vertical exaggeration ten times ~ f!:) July 30. 1971 November. 4, 1971 - ·-·- · -· -18 ~ 0 September 2, 1971 --- -- December 2" 1971 ,. 1 1 ' ,. ,. ~ z <: -20 January 13, 1972 )C x ')( x" ~"'>' 8 October 1" 1971 ...... • • • · • (// H Q -22

-24

-26

-28 -30 0 40 80 120 200 280 320 400 DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE POINT (FEET) APPENDIX D BEACH PROFILE - PAJARO 0

- 2

4 8 [l::j j:l:.J fi-t - 6 '--" 8z 8 H - 0 t:l..; -10 f:Ll 0z .... f..:t-1 0::; -12 f:Ll I'L< Ill -14 0.::: 3:: Vertical exaggeration ten times 0 -16 r-:1 ~Ll February 11~ 1972 May 4, 1972 - .. - .. - • - p::) -18 March 9, 1972 ------June 2 , 197 2 1 l t ,. 1 1 ' ,. f:Ll 0 z April 6, 1972 ..... 0 •••••• June JO, 1972 ){ ~ X :te x X. 'lC ){ .,_,; -20 8 U} H 0 -22

-24·

-26 t~ -28 -30 0 40 80 120 200 240 280 320 360 400 DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE POINT (FEET) APPENDIX D BEACH PROFILE - MOSS LANDING 0

- 2

..--.. 8- 4 r:il~ ...... r:c... _ 6 z8 H- 8 0 il< ~ -10 ()z r:il p:: -12 !J.j ~ ~ -14 ::;: 0-16 H r:il r::L! r:il -18 ()..,. ,_ Vertical exaggeration ten times ~ -20 UJ H July 30, 1971 November 3, 1971- · -· -Q r:::l -22 September 2, 1971-__;---- December 1, 1971 ,. 1 1 P ' ,. ' ; ' ~ •• ~

October 1, 1971 0 0 0 G a a G 8 8 e G 0 January 12, 1972 ~ X X 'lC )( )( X X l( X;< -24

-26

-28

-30 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE POINT (FEET) APPENDIX D BEACH PROFILE - MOSS LANDING 0

- 2

E-iz H - 0 :I ill r:r.:J -10 0z ~ -12 ~~ [:<, ~ -14 ::s: 0 H -16 ...... r:r.:J r:q r:r.:J -18 0z Vertical exaggeration ten times

-26 -28

-30 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE POINT (FEET) APPENDIX D BEACH PROFILE - SALINAS 0

- 2 4 ...... - 8 rr:J I=Ll - 6 r.x.., '-" 8- 8 ?-: H 0 p_, -10 I=Ll 0 z -12 f.r-=1rx: rr:1 i:J:~ - 14 ~rx: ?= -16 0 t-=:1 53 -18 I=Ll 0 Vertical exaggeration ten times z -20 ~ 8 February 20, 1971 ~ -22 ~ March 20, 1971 -24 May Be 1971

·-..) -26 -{::- -28

-30 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE POINT (FEET) APPENDIX D BEACH 0

- 2

-.-4 E--i rx:J ~- 6

E--i ...... ,:::_. - 8 H 0 0... -10 rL1 0z rx:J -12 w~ wli-< -14 ~ 3::: 0 -16 Vertical exaggeration ten times H ru t=Q -18 April 5, 1972 June 1-J 1972 r::r:l May·J, 1972 June 29 f 1972 l J f ,. I ( I I z0 <::t; -20 E--i r:J) H Cl -22 -24

-26 -28

-30 , I 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE POINT (FEET) APPENDIX D BEACH PROFILE - MARINA 0 2

- 4- Vertical exaggeration ten times ,--.,. E-1 July 30. 1971 fLl - 6 fLl f.::-, Septemoer 2w 1971 --~ 8 October 1, 1971 zE-1 H November 3t 1971 0 -10 lll,l/l/ll I I p_, December 1 0 1971 fLl -12 January 12, 19'12 0z ~3 0" fLl -14 r=., ~il et:: -16 3: 0 wH -18 fX1 fr..:J -20 z0

-26

-28

-30 0 40 80 120 160 200 280 320 360 400 DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE POINT (FEET) APPENDIX D BEACH PROFILE - MARINA 0 - 2 Vertical exaggeration ten times .--.. - 4 E-l rx4 [r) February 10, 1972 ~.,_; - 6 ...... March 8, 1972 ------E-i z- 8 April 5e 1972 • 0 • • • • • 0 • 0 • H 0 May 3- 1972 p_, -10 -·-·-·-· i=x-1 June le 1972 //llll '1//{lf (.) z June 29, 1972 l<)(XXXXXXXXX !J::l -12 0: f:Ll • ,, + F. -14 \ ~· +.._.+ CL1 • \. * 0::: \\' ...... • \ • ,..+- -16 \ . .,.. 6 \\ .,II i-i-- H 0 \ 0 ~ !J::l \, ::q -18 . .~ . rx4 ~ u ) ·. . ti -20 \ .. 0: ~). . rx4 j:c.; '. ' -22 ·''\ 2 \, ... -24 .'\' .. ' -26 .,, ' . ' -28 '\ " '\ -30 .. 0 40 80 APPENDIX D BEACH PROFILE - MONTEREY 0

- 2 ...--. 8 4 r.x:1 - (i.:l ..._...-~ 6 8z H - 8 0 p... -10 ii:t 0 2 ii:t p::; -12 ~ ~ P::l p::; -14 3: 0 H -16 ~ p:::j Vertical exaggeration ten times ~ -18 0 July 30u 1971 November .3, 1971 - · - · -- • ;z; ~~..... September 2, 1971 December 1. 1971 8 -20 U1 ...... H October 1. 1971 January 12 11 1972 Q -22

-24

-26 ·-...J OJ -28 -JO t 0 80 320 400 DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE POINT (FEET) APPENDIX D BEACH PROFILE - MONTEREY 0 - 2

- Lj. E-1 fLl_ 6 fLl r:r...... - 8 8z H 0-10p._, fLl .. zu -..L2 \Ll ~ \Ll -14 jJ:., \Ll ~ -16 3: 0 Vertical exaggeration ten times ~ -18 February 10. 1972 p::) May .3. 1972 -·--·-·- r:i1 March 8, 1972 June 1, 1972 : : • • c " : o ~ • 1 , 0-20 ~ ...... 'I(

-26

-28 -30 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 .360 400 DISTANCE FROM REFERENCE POINT (FEET) [!,.J:PENDIX E - BEACH PROFILE AREA (SQUARE FEET)

Z-:21-Z1 2-2-:Z1 10-1-71 11-J-·a. 12-1-21 1-12-£2 2-1o-z2

MONTEREY 211600 * 1~789 2.770* 2.484 2,545 2,711 2e732 MARINA 39981 3e971 4.,184 4,096 4,067 4,124 4,228 SALINAS

MOSS LANDING 1tt255 1~188 * 1,243 * 1,)06 11)224 1,310 1,359

PAJARO 4 0 940 * 4~843 * 5,231 5,145 4.1-,407 49479 4,Jll

MAl'fRESA 3@320 * 3,654* 3.706* 3~626 3,144 3,103 3.095

StLNTA CRUZ 7t478 * 7,246 7~893 7,822 7.583 71\1621 7e512

:2-B-Z2 ~-:.s-zg, B-Z2 6-1-22 6-22-22 Jlt§_tance 13~

MONTEREY 2\!)<535 2§528 2~449 2,659 2w590 2oo• 20$0~

MARINA 4,059 4~150 49028 4~267 4,220 140 9 4o.o•

SALINAS 5~266 4,976 5.172 5.151 JOO' 20e0 8

MOSS LANDING ltt314 1,35<:! 1~239 1,215 1,194 110' 20e0 8

11 11 co PAJARO l.j. ~ 584 4~)60 4,675 4,?65 4"768 .300 20$0 0

MAu~HESA 30.;23.., * .39319 3o21.3 3,962 3~815 300 9 20e0~

SANTA CRUZ 7077'3 70938 7~408 7,827 7,083 400' 20~0' * Estimated 81

APPENDIX E BEACH TRANSECT CROSS SECTIONAL AREA 8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000 ~

E-i lil lil f:r-t 4,000 ( 4) ~ ~ :::> a Cf) J,OOO

2,000

1,000

rl rl rl rl rl C\J C\J C\J C\J C\J C\J C\l ('.. ('.. ('.. ('.. ('.. ('.. ('.. ('.. ('.. ('.. ('.. ('..

""'-0 ""'-N ""'-rl ""'-(') ""'-rl ""'-C\J ""'-0 ""'-co ""'-\(\ ""'-("':', ""'-rl ""'-()'\ z: '-..... ~ ~ C\J ('.. ""'- ()'\ ""'-0 rl ""'-C\J rl C\J ""'-(') ""'-..:::r ""'-\(\ ""'-\0 ""'-\0 rl rl rl

(1) SANTA CRUZ BEACH (5) MANRESA BEACH (2) SALIN AS BEACH ( 6) MONTEREY BEACH ( J) PAJARO BEACH ( 7) MOSS LANDING BEACH ( 4) MARINA BEACH 82

APPENDIX Fz MOSS LANDING BEACH PROFILE PHOTOGRAPHS

February 10~ 19?2

March 8 9 1972

l'!prll 5 ~ 1972 83

APPENDIX F CONTINUED: MOSS LANDING BEACH PROFILE PHOTOGRAPHS

May 3, 1972

June 2, ,, 1972

June 24~ 1972 APPENDIX G: GRAIN SIZE AND SORTING DATA SANTA CRUZ BEACH Date July ::202 1921 SeJ2tember 2. 1271 Station * 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 ~ 4 5 6 Distance -- ~rom o.oo (Ft.) N/A NLA NLf:._ :285..: N/A NLA NLA ;220' NLA :222 I NLA ..lfLa_ 3lope ( 0) " II " 2. 58 II " II 1. 75. II J..07 II II

I rain .., . )lZ6: (mm) ** - 2.00 II II II 0 " II " NLA II 0 " " I! II , II II II II 2 0 00 1.00 " 0 " " 0

II II II II II II II II II L. 00 - • 707 1.0 _l~ II .707 s500 " II II :2·1 II " " " II 6.J II II .sao .)50 II " It 6.2 " " II If - " " w 9.5 " .)50 .2)0 " " .. 26.0 II II II II II 27.0 " "

If II If II II II .250 .180 " " " ~?.. " z6.2 ,180 .125 " II " 98.6 " " II " II 100.0 II " .125 ~ 088 " " II 100.0 " II " " II II " 088 .062 I! " II " II II II II II II

led ian liameter (mm) " ----II II .20 II II " " " .22 II " ,orting (Trask) II II " 1.21 II II II II " 1.10 II II

Station Code: 1 - HWM J - Swash .. HWM I 2 5 - Swash 2 2 .. Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 - Swash J * Cumulative Percent ::n +="" SANTA CRUZ BEACH

Date October 1, 1271 November 4! 1271 Station * 1 2 2 4 2 6 1 2 2 4 2 6 Dista.."l.ce From o.oo (Ft.) 420' 420' 420' ,240' S40' ~ Slope ( 0) 2,18 2.18 2.18 2&18 2.18 2.18

Grain Size~ (mm) ** - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.00 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-3 1.00 - .707 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2·2 2.0 1.8 2-2 .707 - .500 0 0 4.9 ).4 0 J.1 ---1.8 0 17.2 4.0 s.4 10.3 ·500 - .)50 ?.9 ?.? 8.2 8.:2, 6.5 7_.7 z.l 12.2 22.2 8.0 12.2 ~2 sJ50 - .250 23.8 21.5 2).0 --18.6 16.1 18.5 28.6 J4.o 6).8 ---16.0 26.8 25.2 .250 - .180 74.6 89.2 65.6 22·2 :;10.0 _28._2 7_].2 81.1 89.7_ 40.0 _21.8 48.] .180 - .125 100.0 _98·5 28 .l-1- 28.J 96.8 26·2 08.2 98.1 100.0 88.0 _89.J 8~'( ~- --- .125 - .088 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 -- 100.0 100.0 100.0 .088 - .062

Median Diameter (mm) .20 .21 .20 .18 .18 .12 .21 .22 .22 .24 .18 .18 Sorting (Trask) 1.15 1.12 1o21 1.16 1.14 1.21 1.24 1.22 1.JJ 1.25 ..1.!.1§. 1.)4

* Station Code: 1 - HWM J - Swash - HWM I 2 5 - Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 - Swash 3 ~t_* Cumulative Percent ()0 'J'I. SilliTA CRUZ BEACH

Date December 1~ 1271 Januar;y: 1), 1272 Station * 1 2 2 4 6 1 2 :2 4 2 6 Distance From o.oo (Ft.) _jOO' 28,2' 400' 6:20' 6;20' 6]0' _?_90. 280' 410' .222' _225' 2.2.2' Slope ( 0) ).)8 .88 1.90 1.64 1.64 1.64 2·38 4.06 1.!.l2_ 1 • .58 1.,28 1. 58

Grain Size: (mm) ** - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.00 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 --0 0 0 0 1.7 0 1.00 - e707 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.9 ,2.2 1.8 ~ 707 - .soo 0 0 0 2.0 2·8 2.1 2·2 0 0 _2.8 1].8 _L_l .sao - .]50 7·2 ,2.8 10.0 14.0 18.9 10.6 :24.6 1:2.8 ,2.4 11.,2 29.] 18.2 .350 - .250 28.] 28.2 28.0 46~0 ,22.8 42.6 29.6 46.6 26.8 26.2 46.6 :22.2 • 250 - .180 711.4 82.J.. 72.0 20.0 92._2 8,2.1 88 • .2 2:2·1 62.6 ,29.6 2.2. 2 61.8 .180 - .125 100.0 100.0 -26.0 100.0 100.0 27·2 100.0 100.0 28.2 22·:2 26.6 24·5.. .125 - .088 100.0 100.0 100.0 ---100.0 100.0 100.0 • OB8 - .062

VIed ian. Diameter (mm) .22 ---.21 .21 o24 .26 .2] .28 .25_ .20 ---!.l2. .24 .20 3orting (Trask) 1.12_ 1.12 i.20 1.25 1.25 1.25 ___h].§. 1.22 1.20 1.]2 1.42 1.]6

:.c Station Code: 1 - HWM 3 Swash - HWM I 2 5 Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 - Swash 3 *-}(- Cumulative Percent CD ()',. SANTA CRUZ BEACH

Date Februar;y: 11' 1272 March 2E 1272 Station * 1 2 2 4 2 6 1 2 :2 4 5 6 Distance From o.oo (Ft.) 28 2' 280' 22.2' ,200' :200' ,200' 400' 37.2' 4,20' ,20.2' ;20.2' ,20.2' Slope (0) ---2.42 1.26 5·87 1.02 1.02 1.02 --4.62 2.67 2.00 3e55 2..!5.2 2~5.2 Grain Size~ (mm) ** - 2t00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.00 - 1900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.2 1.z _1d 1.00 - .707 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21.3 16.z 16.2 .?07 - .500 0 0 ,2.2 :2·8 ).6 ).8 0 1.8 :2$8 :26.1 :2:2·:2 :21·2 o500 - .J50 6.9 2·7 24.2 20.8 25.4 24.6 11.9 23.2 2:2.1 . 2.2·7 20.0 _20.0 ·350 ~ .250 JB.o 35.2 51.8 47.2 _50.2 _4:2.4 :29·0 ,27.2 ,23.8 23.8 _§_6 ·2 --68.4 ~250 - .180 89.7 83.1 86.2 83.0 8).6 79.2 86.,2 92.8 86.,2 23.4 21·? .. 20.Q .180 as.) 100.0 - .125 G 1' 28.2 98_!]_ 98.1 98.2 98.1 28·3 _2.§_.!l_ 28.3_ 98.5_ ~.i .125 "" .088 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ---lOOoO .. 088 - .062

!VIe dian ,....~ Diameter (mm) .2:2_ ~23 ooG2 ~24 .22_ .2:2. ·?2 _._.IT .26 ·32 ·2.2 ~ Sorting (Trask) 1.20 1.20 1.41 1..28 1.37 _1.36 1.21 1.24 1.30 1.65 1.64 _L.£.Q.

* Station Codes 1 - HVIM 3 "" Swash - HWM /2 5 - Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 "" Swash 3 ** Cumulative Percent 0 ""'

SANTA CRUZ BEACH Date June 2, 1222 June 30, 1972 Station * 1 2 2 4 2 6 1 2 2 4 2 6 Dista"lce SOC)' 500' From o.oo (Ft o) 33.2~- 2SO I 410' 4zo• 470' _!±.70. _350' 340' 455' 500' --- Slope (0) .20 2·8:Z 2.55 1.24 1.24 1.24 :2-12 3-75 2e15 2.10 2.10 2.10

Grain Size: (mm) ** - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2e00 ~ 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1o00 - • 707 0 0 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .707 - .500 1&8 2,6 8.8 1.8 1.8 1.2 0 1.8 0 0 0 0 o_500 - ·350 18.2 2J.6 29.8 2·4 2·2 2·Z. 1;2.0 ~ 18.2 4.0 1.8 1.8 0 o350 - o2)0 49,1 52·'Z 27.8 19.7 21.8 18.2_ 38.2 47.2 16.0 5 .L~ --9.1 3.8 ~250 - .180 89.1 90. 2. 91.2 28·2 61.8 26o7 82.2 89.0 52.0 37·5 43.7 35 .. 9 .180 - .125 28.2 100.0 G8.2 28.]. 26·:2 26.2 98.2 100.0 94.0 84.0 92.7 92.5 .125 - .088 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ,088 - .062

Median Diameter (mm) .22 .26 .27 .12 .20 .19 • 23 .. 25 .18 .16 .17 .17 Sorting (Trask) 102] 1.28 1.20 1.15 1.21 1.19 1.22 1 .. 19 1.17 1.24 1.18 1.16

* Station Code: 1 - HWM 3 - Swash - HWM / 2 5 - Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 - Swash 3 ~-* Cumulative Percent OJ '-D MANRESA BEACH Date July ]0. 1221 SeJ2tember 2, 1271 Station -l'c 1 2 3 4 ~ 6 1 2 2 4 2 6 Jista.."1ce :<'rom o.oo (Ft. ) N[A 1~0' N[A 21~' N[A N[A N[A 16.2~ N[A 220' N[A N[A 3lope ( 0) II 2.92 .. 2.85 II " .. )o4J " 2.46 II "

;rain 3ize (mm) ** 2.00 II y_LA_ " 0 " " II N[A tl 0 tl " 2.00 :LOO " " II 1.2·2 " It II " II 0 II II II fl .. .. L. 00 .707 " -- 27.0 " " " 0 " " .?07 .500 "' II .. ]8.1 " " II " II 0 " II ,, .500 .J50 " " 68.J " " " .. II 6.} " " .]50 .250 ----II " " 90.5 II II II " II 20.6 " " .250 .180 II " " 98.2 " II " " II 68.2 " II .180 .125 .. " .. 100.0 II " " " " 100.0 " " .125 .088 " It II " " " " " .. " '088 • 062 II II " " II " " II II II

1edian )iameter (mm) .. .. " .4] " " " " " .21 " II )orting (Trask) " ---II II 1 • .21 " " " II " l.l:z II II

Station Code~ 1 HWM 3 Swash HWM I 2 5 Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 - Swash 3 -~- Cumu1ati ve Percent '-() 0 MANRESA BEACH Jate October 1, 1271 November 4, 1971 3tation * 1 2 :2 4 .2 6 1 2 :2 4 2 6 listance 'rom o.oo (Ft.) 1,20' 1,20° 202' 260~ 260' 260' 160' 4_20' 420' 4,20' ( 0) 2 ,.,,.. , , ., 1.]_( ;lope 2.70 2.70 )e67 h.9JL 1.98 1.98 • ,. 2 ..L • .L I 1.17

~rain :ize: (mm) ** - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 00 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _l& -. 00 - • 707 0 0 --0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.£ 0 :z.6 707 - .sao 0 0 0 1.6 0 6.7 0 0 0 _2.6 2.1 _2.4 500 - ,J50 8.2 8.) 10.0 8.1 9.7 23.} 4.0 1.2 1.8 ---20.4 12.5 19.6 350 - .250 )2.8 27.1 - JO.O 22.6 29.0 45.0 24.0 22.2 16~1 L~6 $3 -~ _}_0.4 250 - .180 8J.6 84.7 _78.3 _§_~ 74.2 _2lh_l 80.0 7 5. 9 66.1 87.0 8J.:z ---80.4 180 - .125 98.4 100.0 96.rz 28.4 98.4 100.0 98.0 98.1 28.2 100.0 100.0 28.2 125 - .088 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 088 - .062

edian iameter (mm) .21 .20 .22 .20 .21 .2J .22 .21 .20 .24 .22 .22 orting (Trask) 1.21 1.17 1.19 1.19 1.22 1.37 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.28 1.24 1.24

") Station Code: 1 - HWM ..) - Swash - HWM I 2 5 - Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 - Swash 3 * Cumulative Percent '.() i-' MANRESA BEACH

Date December 22 1271 - Januar;y: 1]. 1272 Station * 1 2 2 4 c; 6 1 2 2 4 2 6 Distance From 0.00 (Ft.) 400' 400' 400' 272' 27 2' 275' Slope ( 0) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.15 1.12 l.lj

Grain Size: (mm) ** - 2$00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.00 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 0 1.6 1.00 - • 707 0 0 1.9 1.2 0 0 0 0 0 2·2 2·1 8.1 .?07 - .500 0 1.8 10.9 18e9 2·7 2.0 2.4 2.6 0 10 • .2_ 12.6 21.0 .500 - .)50 9.4 12 • .2_ 32s7 J0.2 29.6 12.7 2·8 7·2 2·8 43.2 44.1 ---46.8 ·350 - .250 37.8 1.n$1 65·2 26.2 64.8 42.1 ]6.6 ]6.8 }2.z. 78.9 72·7 72·7 .250 - .180 20.6 _jl2~ 24.2 100.0 _9~ 24.1 87.8 86.8 20.4 28.2 26.6 28.4 .180 - .125 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 27.4 28.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 ~125 - .088 100.0 --100.0 • 088 - .062

Median Diameter (mm) .23 .2} .]0 .2] .28 .24 .2] .24 .22 .26 .]4 .]4 Sorting (Trask) 1.20 1.25 1.20 1.18 1.20 1.20 1.19 1.13 1.08 1.20 1.29 l.JO l:· Station Code: 1 - HWM 3 - Swash - HWM I 2 5 - Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 - Swash 3 Cumulative Percent *'* '-.( 1\: MANRESA BEACH !Jate February 11, 1272 March 2e 1222 3tation * 1 2 :2 4 2 6 1 2 :2 4 2 6 listance 'rom o.oo (Ft .. ) 60' 6o~ 180. 220' 2200 ....£90' 1:20' 160' 122' 220' 220' 220' :lope (0) J.2o J.2o 2.26 2e72 2.?2 2.72 1.26 J.82 6.0J 1.81 1.81 1.81 rain ,j_z;e: (mm) ** - 2~00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~. 00 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 1.8 1.7 0 0 0 1.8 7.4 4 .. 5 -~ 00 - .70? 0 0 0 J.4 2~2 J.4 0 0 0 _1j_J?_ 18._2 12.4 707 - ~soo 0 0 1.7 6@2 19.J ,2.1 8.6 6.4 :2·.2 J1.6 26.0 2Z·2 500 - .)50 ].4 ).0 _11_~ J,2.8 40.4 2,2.4 ]4.,2 ]6.2 26.4 ,22.2 ,20.0 _5~ 350 - .250 17.2 20.0 46 •. 2 6J.8 66.7 ,27.6 ~ ~ ,26.2 '(2.0 _1b_l z:z.o 250 - .180 _6,2.,2 66.7 87.2 88.0 8:z.7 88.1 26.6 28.4 24.8 24.8 24·.2 _25~ 180 - .125 _28·:2 28.J 100.0 28.J 100.0 98.] 100.0 100.0 98 <2 98.3 100.0 28~2 125 - .088 100.0 1 oo. 0 ---100.0 100.0 --100.0 100.0 100.,0 088 - ~062

ediaYl iameter (mm) .20 .20 .24 .)0 .JO .27 .22 .;21 • 27 .]6 ·:22 .JB orting (Trask) l..l:z 1.18 1.2] 1. :Lit 1.]4 l.JO 1.27 1.26 1.23 1.55 1.45_ 1.41

"':) Station Code: 1 - HWM -' - Swash - HWM I 2 5 - Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 - Swash 3 11- Cumulative Percent '.0 \...o.) MANRESA BEACH

Date April 6! 1272 Ma::t: 4 2 12Z2 Station * 1 2 2 4 :2 6 1 2 2 4 2 6 )istance :"rom 0. 00 (Ft.) 120' 110' 170' 290' 220' 220' _1_5.0@ 200' 200' 210' J10' 210' ( 0) 3lope 4.22 5.76 2.62 1.20 1.20 1.20 l e 76 4.50 4.50 1.64 1.64 1.64

}rain 3ize: (mm) *'r,. - 2e00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.00 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.,2 L.OO - • 707 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 4.2 2·8 2·.2 1].6 . 707 - .500 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 17.6 18.8 21.6 16.2 28p8 .500 - ·350 1].] 22.2 _19-.!.l 26.4 2].1 22.2 2].2 49.2 20.0 21.0 Jz.o ,27.6 .350 - .250 20.0 61.1 22.7 60.2 62·2. .22·2 .2.2·2 8o.z 22·1 66.6 66.6 80.:2_ .250 - .180 22-0 26.4 22·1 22o4 24 .. 3 94o4 _94.6 98.2 92.8 94.2 24.4 22·.2 .180 - .125 100.0 100.0 98.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 _2_8 .1 . 100.0 100.0 .125 - .088 100.0 100.0 '088 - o062

~edian )iameter (mm) .22 .27 .2,2 .28 .28 .. 27 .2z ·2.2 .. 2_2 ·2.2 .]0 ·.22. ;orting (Trask) 1.41 1.21 1.22 1.26 1.2] 1.21 1 .. 27 1.]4 1.]2 1 .. 46 1.27 1.44

Station Code: 1 HWM 3 Swash HWM I 2 5 Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 - Swash 3 '* Cumulative Percent '.0 +:- 41 MANRESA BEACH

Date June 2! 1972 ·June JOa 1222 3tation * 1 2 2 4 2 6 1 2 :2 4 2 6 )istance

~rain ;ize: (mm) ** - 2,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~. 00 - 1.00 Je4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -" 00 - .. 707 25e4 1.9 1~8 :2·2 1.7 ]e6 0 0 1.8 2.0 0 0 .707 - .soo ~ ;2.6 8.8 1_2.,2 8.] 14.2 0 1.8 --.2.:5 2·9 0 0 .soo - $350 81-J.. 'Z. ~ 28.0 J4._2 28.3 ]2.1 12.6 21.8 21.4 17.6 ].6 3·5 .J50 - .250 96.7 79.6 ,24.3 23.4 _jO.O ~:2 • .2 22·:Z ,26.J J9.4 29.4 _14. 5 1,2.8 250 - .. 180 100~0 100.0 94~6 84._2 86.7 85.7 96.5 28.2 78.6 ~ ---40.0 42.2 180 - .125 100.0 98.3 28·3 26~4 28.J 100.0 28.2 8,2.9 8J.:z 84.2 125 - e 088 100.0 100.0 1 00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 088 - .062

iedia.>J. ~iameter (mm) 0:21 0:20 • 22 .26 .2_2 .26 .26 .27 .23 .20 .16 .16 .orting (Trask) ..1dl 1.16 1.28 1.45 1 .. 3£ 1 .. 41 1.18 1.22 1.30 1.37 1.30 1~JO

Station Code: 1 - HWM 3 - Swash - HWM I 2 5 - Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 - Swash J * Cumulative Percent '-( \..r ,j PAJARO BEACH

ate July JO' 1971 Se:Qtember 2e 1271 tat ion * 1 2 :2 4 2 6 1 2 :2 4 2 6 istance rom o.oo (Ft.) NLA 200' NLA 280' N/A NLA NLA 120' NLA 26,2' N/A N/A lope ( 0) II 1.55 " J.50 " .. " 3.85 " 1.68 " It rain ize: (mm) -lt·* 2.00 II NLA " 0 " " II NLA " 0 II " .oo 1.00 " " " 0 " " " " " 0 " " .oo • 707 " " " 1.2 " " II II !I 0 II II 707 .500 II " II 2·2 " " " " II 2·1 " II 500 .J50 " II " 22.J II " II " II 17.1 II fl .. II II 1111 @ 350 .250 " ~hl " " " " 22·2 250 .180 " " II 29·.2 " II " " .. 21.4 " II 180 .125 " " " 100.0 " " " II II 98.6 It ---" 125 • 088 II II " " " It " II 100.0 " " II It II II 888 Q 062 " " " " " "

;;dian iameter (mm) " II II .22 " II .. II II .18 II " Jrting (Trask) II " " 1.27 " " " " " 1.32 II " Station Code: 1 - HWM 3 - Swash - HWM / 2 5 - Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 - Swash 3 II- ~ Cv.mu1ati ve Percent 0'- PAJARO BEACH

Date October lt 1221 November 4! 1221 Station * 1 2 2 4 2 6 1 2 2 4 .2 6 Distance 200e From o.oo (Ft.) 200' 250' -· 220' 220' 290' 18.2' 480' 480' 480' Slope ( 0) --2.82 2.82 2·1.2 2.20 2s20 2.20 2·57 .oo .oo .oo Grain Size: (mm) ** - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.00 - 1.00 0 ---0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1~ 0 0 0 1.00 - .707 0 0 0 6.2 8.2 4.2 0 1.2 .2·Z 2·Z 4.0 J.8 .707 - .500 1.,2 0 0 20.2 J0.4 1l.J 4.0 21.2 9.4 7.4 16.0 1l.J .500 - ·350 17.6 14.2 8.6 45.]. 51.8 26.8 22.0 6,2.,2 --26.4 25.9 _.JJh.Q y;.8 ·350 - .250 -51$5 4?.8 ---22.4 64.1 80.4 4Z·2 60.0 28.1 4?.2 JZ. Q ,26.0 52.8 9250 - .. 180 21.2 82.6 6J.8 8z.s 98.2 z.6.1 24.0 100.0 Z.2·~ ,27.4 z4.o Z7 .4_ e 180 - .. 125 lOOoO 100~0 98. 3.. 28.4 100.0 27.2 100.0 28.1 88.2 24.0 26·?. .125 - .088 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 • 088 - .062 Yledian Diameter (mm) .22 .24 .. 12 .3J .26 .24 .12 .28 .25 .20 ---.28 .26 Sorting (Trask) 1.22 1.20 1.15 1.45 1.41 1.44 1.22 1.22 1.44 1. 53 1.51 1. 24

* Station Code: 1 - HWM 3 - Swash - HWM I 2 5 - Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 _j) - Swash 3 ~* Cumulative Percent ·..r ---.. PAJARO BEACH :1te December 2! 12Z1 Januar;y 12! 12Z2 t;ation * 1 2 2 4 5 6 1 2 2 4 2 6 Lstance :-om o .. 00 (Ft.) 400' 400' 400' 225' 222' 222' ~ope (0) .68 .68 .68 -95 ·25 ·25

:-a in LZe: (mm) ** - 2$00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,00 - 1n00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .oo - .. 707 0 0 0 1.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 1.2 7 07 - .500 0 0 _1& 18.2 0 1.2 0 0 0 _h..§. 7.8 11 .. 1 )00 - ~350 :;2.8 7-2 22,2 44.4 2"2 22a0 2·6 2·2 2·8 22·2 22·2 4o.z l50 - .250 21.2 22 .. 6 24.2 87.0 21·2 22·8 14.2 21.1 1Z·2 j6 .. 4 28.8 zo.4 ~50 - o180 z1.2 66.0 87.:2_ 28.,1 Z2·6 20.4 62 .. 6 71 .. 2 62.2 22ft7 88o2 2286 .80 - .125 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 28.2 100.0 98.~ 100.0 28.0 100.0 .25 - • 088 100.0 100.0 100.0 ~88 - .062

dian ameter (mm) .. 20 .20 .26 .24 .. 21 .27 .12 .20 .20 .. 2z .. 28 -:22 rting (Trask) ~l2. 1e19 1.32 1.23 1.25 1.31 1 .. 14 1.1) 1 .. 12 1.26 1.31 1.32

Station Code: 1 - HWM 3 - Swash - HWM I 2 5 - Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 - Swash 3 \.() Cumulative Percent OJ 4! PAJARO BEACH

)ate Februar;y: 11! 1212 March 2a 1212 3tation * 1 2 ~ 4 2 6 1 2 :2 4 2 6 )istance 9 ~rom OoOO (Ft .. ) 20' 20 110' 2.22' _3...22: ~.2.2' 80' 60' 260' 460' 460' 46o• a ope (0) 1.40 1e40 2.89 • 52 .52 .. _22 2.14 2·1.2 ~27 • 52 • .23 ·.22 rrain 5ize ~ (mm) ** - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ $00 - leOO 0 0 0 2.0 1.7 8.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~. 00 - s707 0 0 1.2. 12.6 17.0 2.2·2 0 0 0 2·Z 2 .. 0 1 .. 8 .707 - .500 0 1.2_ ,2.8 22.4· },2.6 41.~ 0 0 0 z.4 4.1 J .. 6 ,500 - .. 350 1J.8 866 }8.,2 ,21e0 22·2 60.J 0 0 z .. l 2.2·2 18.4 14.J 350 - .250 44.8 }4.,2 7].2 zo.6 78.0 __ Z2·2 12.,2 14.0 JZ·.2 44.4 J4.z }0.4 250 - .. 180 82.6 28.~ 96.2 22e2 26 .. 6 22·0 60 .. 8 66.6 62.,2 z4.1 6,2.J 62.2 180 - .125 98.J 100.,0 100.0 ~1 100e0 28AJ 28 .. } 100 .. 0 21.2 94.4 R9.8 23.0 125 - .088 100 .. 0 100.,0 100.0 100.0 __28.} 100.,0 21·2 28.] 088 - .062 100 .. 0 100.0 100.0

iedian tiameter (mm) o2,2 .24 .}2 .. ]6 .40 .~7 .12 .. 20 .. 21 ~2:2 .21 .. 20 orting (Trask) 1 .. 22 1..1_.2 1,.28 1 .. 53 1 .. 42 1.68 1.16 1 .. 12 1 .. 32 1.41 L.J6 1.34

Station Code: 1 - HWM 3 - Swash - HWM I 2 5 - Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 - Swash 3 * Cumulative Percent \..() '-.0 ~ PAJARO BEACH

Date A:Qril 62 1222 Ma;y: 4!! 1222 Station * 1 2 1 4 s 6 1 2 J 4 5 6 Distance From OBOO (Ft.) 60' 60' 13.2' 2(,2w 22.2~ 27.2' 140' 210' 12.2' 220' ~ ]20' S1cpe ( 0) hll_ 3·33 2.20 1 .. 12 1.12 1.12 .. 27 ~£Q_ .67 3·3.2 3-35 3·35 }rain Size: (mm) ** - 2&00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 0 2.00 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 ].8 1 .. 8 l.OO - ~707 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.7 10e2 8.,2 12. 2 .707 - .soo ---0 0 0 2·.2 0 0 1.8 - ].0 12.1 ]2.7 12.9 _2J.£ .soo = @350 J.6 1e8 - 9 .. 4 3 ;2.1 24.,2 22·2 2·0 ]1 .. 8 41.3 _.22~ _J.L!_Q 4,2 .'+ .)50 - $250 -~ _lhl 41.,2 6l.Lt- 21.0 .2 2.z 29.8 6].z. 72.4 87.8 64.8 62.1 .250 - .,180 _96.4 -2hl 8,260 s:z.8 81.7 8 2·3 so.z 24.0 26.6 26.0 20.6 22·2 .180 ·- .125 100s0 _2~ 100.0 100.0 28.0 98.4 100.0 lOO.Q 100.0 100.0 --100.0 100.0 .125 - .088 100.0 lOOoO 100s0 ,088 - .062

:Iedian Jiarneter (mm) • 24 .. 20 ~24 .29 .2,2 .28 o22 .28 o)2 .42 .JO .J2 3orting (Trask) 1.06 1.18 1.,20 1.36 1.)~ 1~37 1 .. 17 1..22 1.~ l.J2 1.40 1.45 ., Station Code: 1 ·· HWM .) - Swash - HWM I 2 5 Swash 2 2 -· Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 - Swash 3 ~ ~~ Cumulative Percent i-' 0 0 PAJARO BEACH

)ate June 2. 1972 June 30 1972 )tation * 1 2 2 4 2 6 1 2 2 4 2 6 )istance 1 ~rom 0 e 00 (Ft.) 8 2 e 164' 164' 262' 262' 265' 110' 105' 200' 335' 335' 335 ilope (0) -92 8e10 8e10 2. 23 .2<23 3·52 7. 07 7~41 2.14 2.58 2.58 2.58

;rain )ize: (mm) ** - 2 .. 00 0 0 0 12.2 8 .. 8 4.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 : c 00 - 1.00 0 0 0 14.8 2·4 6s2 0 1.7 0 0 0 0

-9 00 - .. 707 1.z 2·2 ·1. z 22.0 12.6 8.2 0 J.J 0 0 0 0 707 - .sao 6.7 12.8 6.8 21·2 2]~ 12.2 1.2. 16.2 c;.4 0 1.2 0 500 - .350 ~hl SOeO 20·2 4J.O 2Z·2 28.6 20.2 48.J J2.2 1.8 J.8 1.8 350 - .250 J8.4 82 .. 8 62 .. 7 52·Z 26a2 42.0 22·2 80.2 60.8 .2·2 13 .. 2 5.1-J. 250 - .180 8l.z 28·3 26.6 20·2 20.6 8 2·Z 24·2 2Z·8 82.4 26 .L~ 39.6 27.3 180 - .125 10000 ---100o0 100.0 100.,0 100.0 100a0 100.0 28.4 100.0 73.7 88.6 80.1 125 - $088 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 088 - .,062

led ian 1iameter (mm) .22 ·22. .22 .28 .27 .24 .2,2 .34 .28 e15 .16 .15 orting (Trask) l.)O 1.24 1.22 ---1.81 1.27 ~2.§. 1.22 1.29 1 .. 35 1.22 1.22 1.21 Station Code: 1 - HVIM 3 - Swash - HWIVI I 2 5 - Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 .6 - Swash 3 Cumulative Percent * \-' 0 1-' MOSS LANDING BEACH Date Jul;y: J02 1971 Se:Qtember 2! 1271 Station * 1 2 2 4 2 6 1 2 :2 4 2 6 Distance From o.oo (Ft.) NLA N/A NLA 10,2' NLA N/A NLA NLA NLA 20' NLA NLA Slope (0) " " .. 4.84 tl " " " " 4.20 " "

Grain Size: (mm) ** 2.00 " " " 0 " " " " It 0 II II 2.00 1.00 II " II .2·7 " " II II " 22.1 " II 1.00 • 707 " .. II 18.1 II II " II II 27.9 " II .707 .500 II " " 2,2.1 II " II " .. J6.7 " " .500 cJ50 " " II 40.} II " " " " 20.0 " II .J50 - .250 " II II z1.o .. " " " " 80.2 " " .250 .180 " II " 28.7 " It " " " 28·2 " II .180 .125 " " " 100.0 " " " " " 100.0 .. " .125 .088 II " " " .. " II !I II " • 088 • 062 " .. " II II " II II II II

:Vie dian Diameter (mm) " II " .JO " II " " " ·2.2 .. .. Sorting (Trask) " " II 1.44 !! " II " II 1.56 " " * Station Code: 1 - HWM 3 - Swash - HWM I 2 5 - Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 - Swash J Cumulative Percent ** :--' 0 1\) MOSS LANDING BEACH

)ate October 1! 1271 November 22 1221 itation * 1 2 :2 4 2 6 1 2 :2 4 2 6 >istance 1rom Os 00 (Ft.) 20e 102' 102' 102' 20' 22,2° 225' 222 8 llope (0) 1.16 ).60 }.60 3.60 o.oo .8} .83 .83

~rain >ize: (mm) ** - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~. 00 - 1.00 16 .. 7 16.2 12.4 21·2 28 .. 6 22·2 8.2 1Z·2 18.2 1.2 }.6 1<2

.& 00 - .707 2}.1 _?_.?__0. 12.4 40.} 34.} 2Z·2 18.2 26.} }0.0 }.8 :z.l J .. 8 707 - .soo }0.8 29.6 2}.9 42.8 4-1.4 }} .. 8 28.} :22·1 40.0 2·8 14.J z.z 500 - ·350 4z.4 42·2 22·8 ,22.8 48.6 41.2 48.2 22.6 21·2 12.2 2}.2 1_2.4 350 - .250 79e,2 80.J. ?1 .. 6 70.8 ?le4 62 .. 2 z8 .. 2 z8~~2 70.0 40.4 42.2 ]6.,2 250 - .180 100.,0 28.6 100.0 22·1 22·2 91..2 28·2 26·2 22·<2 80.8 80.4 z8.8 180 - .125 100.0 28.6 28 .. 6 28·2 100.0 100 .. 0 100.0 28.1 26.4 28.1 125 - .,088 lOOeO ---100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 :)88 - .062

~dian Larneter (rnrn) • :22 ·22 .JO ·29 .}4 .}0 ..:24 .:2£ ·27 .. 24 .24 .22 )rting (Trask) 1.,29 1.56 1.37 2.14 2.14 1.93 1.44 1 .. 68 1.84 1.26 1.36 1.2}

Station Code: 1 - HWM 3 - Swash - HWM I 2 5_,_,- Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 - Swash 3 Cumulative Percent \-' 0 MOSS LANDING BEACH

'ate December 12 1921 Januar;y: 122 1222 tation * 1 2 :2 4 2 6 1 2 :2 4 2 6 'istance 'rom 0., 00 (Ft.,) 40' 212' 212' 212. 20' 120' 120' 120' lope ( 0) 6.67 1.26 1.26 1 .. 26 4.37 .82 .82_ .82 rain ize: (mm) ** - 2e00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mOO - 1.00 1.8 0 20u7 2·6 2·6 6.2 12·2 2·0 20.2 2·2 8.8 1a2 cOO - e707 8.8 1.9 27 .. 6 9.4 2·4 8.2 28.6 7.6 ;28.1 10 .. ,2 12.8 .2·2 707 - .. 500 21.1 2s8 :24·2 12.0 1;2.2 14 .. 6 :28.1 16.7 42.2 14.0 22 .. 8 2·2 500 - -350 _!±5_e_§_ 21.2 48.:2 24.2 24 .. 2 27.1 60.2 37.9 62.1 26.;2 :2:2·:2 17.0 .350 - .250 28·2 27e7 22 .. 4 42.1 42.1 _20.0 84.1 21.2 84.1 22.6 22·6 22·6 250 - .180 28.2 28.1 94.8 86.,8 86.8 87u2 26.8 98.2 28.4 82·.2 22·0 84.2 180 - .125 100.0 10060 100.0 28.!.1 28.1 92-9 28.4 100.,0 100.0 98.2 100 .. 0 28.1 125 - e088 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 088 - .062 ..

edian 1iameter (mm) ·22 .26 ·2.2 .22 .22 .22 .42 ·20 • 20 .. 26 .. 22 .22 1 orting ( J.lrask) 1.17_ 1.12 1.8_1 1.22 1.31 1.23 1.67 l .. J5 2.20 1.22 1.50 1.22

Station Code: 1 - HWM 3 - Swash - HWM / 2 5 - Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 .e;. · - Swash 3 Cumulative Percent * 1-' 0 + MOSS LANDING BEACH

Date Februar;y: 10! 1272 March 81 1222 Station * 1 2 2 4 5 6 1 2 2 4 2 6 Distance 8 Prom o.oo (Ft .. ) 42 I 40 e 100° 12.5' 122' 122' 2 2. 6o• 110 120' 120' 1zo• Slope ( 0) D.Jj_ ~ 4m68 1.35_ 1.}2 1.!_35 ~ 1o95_ 6.17 1:_!..2)_ 1-23 1.93 }rain -. . ::>lze: (mm) ** - 2§00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.7 0 0 0 2e00 - 1.00 0 12.4 12·2 1 .. 6 ~] .4 0 0 0 ~ ,5.4 6.8 J.z

l~OO - 8 707 4.9 21.7 18.3 4.9 2·2 1 .. 6 0 1.8 24.7 8.2 12·2 z.4 .?07 - .. soo 2·8 2864 28.4 8.2 10.4 2·2 1.8 2.!..2. ,26.2 1'+.J. 22eZ 11.1 .soo - .. 350 29~0 ~ 4o.o _19.-!.l_ 2o.z 11.,2 20 .. 0 22.4 61.0 28.6 24.1 22e~ .J50 - e250 66.2 80e0 ~ 44~1 41o4 _g_hl ,24. 5 62.8 _...... _71.4· _21~ 56.8 46.J. ,250 - e180 98.4 _2_8.4 9).0 82o0 7932 68.9 96-2 _98.1 22·1 21s0 20.8 88.8 .180 - .125 100.0 100.0 ---lOOoO 100.0 ~ - 9.2. 0 100.0 100.0 ~ ~ 100.0 _98.2 ,125 - .088 100.0 28.4 100.0 100.0 lOO.Q ,088 - .062 100.0

7ecUan )iameter (mm) -~ ·2.2 .22 • 2:2 .2} .21 .26 .28 1$00 .26 .. 28 o24 )orting (Trask) 1.24 1.42 1. 55_ 1.22 1.32 1.26 1.22 1.2J 2.4,2 1.21 1..44 1 .. 24

Station Code: 1 HWM 3 Swash - HWM / 2 5 Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 _p - Swash J f-l ·~- Cumulative Percent 0 \J"\ MOSS LANDING BEACH

)ate APril 52 1272 Ma;y :2! 1222 itation * 1 2 2 4 2 6 1 2 2 4 2 6 :istance "rom o.oo (Ft.) 60 1 :;20' 8 2v 120' lJO' 1;20' 25' 40' 20' 140' 1L~o' 140' :lope (0) 6.15 6.15 5 .1}1 2.48 5.48 5.48 5.88 z.lz 6.16 3.88 ;2.88 ).88

~rain ;ize: (mrn) -:!-* - 2.,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l.J 0.7 1 .. 4 ~ 9 00 - 1.00 10@0 0 ;2.6 24.2 20.4 20 .. 4 11.2 3·4 22.8 31.2 24.2 24.2

.• oo - 0 707 18.J 3s2 2·4 32.8 27.2 22 .. 4 12·Z 12 .. 1 44.3 J6.2 30·2 22.6 707 - .500 ..1..5~ 2·7 12 .. ;2 :27-2 33·9 :2062 ]1.2 12.G 22·2 41.8 ~.£ ]4.8 500 - o350 J6.z J2.J 32.2 46 .. 5_ 47.2 40.7 20.8 32·7 ---64.0 _54.1 44.2 ·-·-42.2 350 - .250 66.7 62·2 67.2 62.1 62·2 61.0 80 .. ] 74.2 82.0 Z2·2 62.0 zo.o 250 - .180 260c_ 26.7 98e} _91.4 88.1 22·0 28·3 28 .. 2 96.z 23·2 24.8 24.8 180 - $125 100.0 _2_8 .4 100.0 28.2 100.0 28.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 .. 0 100.0 28-3 125 - .. 088 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 088 - .. 062

led ian liameter (rnrn) <20 .28 .22 -32 ·34 .22 ·32 ·31 • 23 ·32 ·31 .. )2 ·Orting (Trask) 1.44 1.22 1.2z 2.16 1.86 1.72 1.4z 1.34 2.06 2.14 2.02 2.04

Station Code: 1 - HWM 3 - Swash - HWM I 2 5 - Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 - Swash 3 -1:- Curnulati ve Percent 1-' a-.0 MOSS LANDING BEACH

)ate June 12 1222 June 29, 1972 )tation ·* 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 _J_ 4 6 >is tance 1 rom 0. 00 (Fto) 20' JO' 20 t 125' 125' 122' 35' 50' 100' 155' 155' 155 1 ilope ( 0) 3.24 .:h§_2._ 6.74 4.22 4.22 4.22 6.83 3.53 4.90 0.81 0.81 0.81

~rain )ize ~ (mm) ** - 2o00 0 0 0 0 0 2·2 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ .. 00 - 1~00 1.,2 201 12.8 1e2 1 .. 7 22·1 0 6.6 40.7 0 0 0 -· 00 - ~707 11.1 11.6 22o8 2·7 2o1 28.o 3.6 16.4 49.2 0 0 0 .70? - .500 22o2 20.4 2S.O 7 .. 4 6.8 41.2 14.5 24.6 55.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 500 - .,J50 48.2 4:J.2 27.8 16.7 17 .. 0 21.0 4o.o 41.0 6?.8 lJ.2 lJ.J ?.0 350 - .250 27-8 79.8 86.0 42.6 _12~ zo.6 76 • .3 75·5 81 • .3 .39-7 29.9 19.3 250 - .180 28.2 28·2 - 28 ·2 22·2 88.1 21.6 100.0 98.4 98 • .3 85.0 72.0 72.2 180 - .125 100.0 100.0 100o0 --100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0--- 100.0 98.2 98 • .3 98.3 125 -- • 088 100.0 100.0 100.0 088 - .062

red ian .66 .23 .21 o21 liameter (mm) • 2 2 •:2.1 ·32 .. 24 ,.22 0 2.2 .31 .32 ,orting (Trask) ---1.41 1.28 lo21 1.20 1.2} 2.22 1 • .31 1.41 2.63 1.20 1.22 1.10 Station Code: 1 -- HWM 3 - Swash - HWM I 2 5 - Swash 2 2 ~ Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 - Swash 3 -~ Cumulative Percent !--' 0 """ SALINAS BEACH late July JO! 1971 Se:Qtember 2! 1271 tation * 1 2 2 4 2 6 1 2 2 4 2 6 1istance 'rom o.oo (Ft.) NL) NLA N/A 410' N/A NLA N/A N/A N/A 222' N/A N/A lope ( 0) " It " 8.20 .. " " II " 8.27 II "

-rain ~ize: (mm) ** - 2.00 II " II 0 II " " " It 0 " II :. 00 1.00 II " " 22.1 " " II " II 16.0 II II II tl II II If II . 9 00 . 707 " " J6.2 " 24.0 " 707 .sao " " " 4J.2 " " " II " JO. 7 " --" 500 - .J50 " " " 28.0 " " II " .. 42·2 .. " 350 .250 " II " 84.0 " II " .. " 86.7 " " 250 ~180 " II " 98.6 " " II " II 100.0 " " , 180 .125 II II .. 100.0 " " " II " " II 125 • 088 " " " II " II II " " 088 .062 " " " " " II " " " "

edian VI II II If .. iameter (mm) " .42 " " " .}2 " .. II .. orting (Trask) .. " ~0 " " " " 1.49 "

Station Code; 1 HWM J Swash - HWM I 2 5 - SwaSii::t 2 4 Swash 1 6 - Swash J 2 Berm I-' 0 * Cumulative Percent en SALINAS BEACH

)ate October 1! 1271 November ] 1 1221 itation -ll· 1 2 2 4 2 6 1 2 2 4 2 6 listance "rom o.oo (Ft.) 242' 22.2' 272' 27.2' 242' 222. 220' 242 I 242. 242' llope (0) .oo 10.20 10.20 10.20 11.25 .oo 8.34 .22 .22 .22

~rain iize ~ (mm) ** - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~. 00 - 1.00 2J.6 2J.6 20.J 22.7 28.2 42·.2 ·22. 0 22.8 42.2 1.8 1.8 10.2 -0 00 - • 707 J6.1 36.1 26.2 24·2 22·4 ·28 .4 ;28.1 4o.2 61.0 2·1 2·5 12.2 707 - .sao so.o 20.0 42o8 42 ·2 ,22.8 70.1 42.6 22·6 21.2 18.2 10.2 22.4 ,sao - e))O 22·2 72.2 22·2 68.6 78.9 89.6 68.2 22·6 84.:z 40.0 J2.:Z 41.4 ,J]O - .250 22·2 27.2 2 2.:z. 22·2 27.2 22·4 88.2 24.4 26.6 :zo.2 65.5 6s .. s ,2)0 - .180 ---100.0 ---100.0 98.6 28.6 28.6 100.0 28.4 98.1 28.3 26.4 26 .. 4 _2l.J·.8 ,180 - .125 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ,125 - .088 ,088 - • 062

fled ian )iameter (mm) • 20 ·20 .LI-8 .4,2 • 22 .92 .so • 56 1.00 .]1 .JO ·11 )orting (Trask) 1.63 1.6:2_ 1.70 1.24 1. 7 5 --1.81 1.8Q 1.68 1.]6 1.28 1.44 Station Code: 1 HWM 3 Swash HWM I 2 5 Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 - Swash J Cumulative Percent 1-' '* 0 \..0 ,a

SALINAS BEACH

)ate December 1! 1221 January 12 1 1222 ltation * 1 2 :2 4 2 6 1 2 2 4 2 6 )i.stance 'rom 0800 (Ft.) 24~' 22:2' 410' ,210' 210' 210. ;240' ;220' 280' 4;20' 420' 420' :lope ( 0) 10.12 .oo ;2.82 1.47 1.47 1.~-7 8.12 .oo ~Q 4.2? 4.77 4.2z frain ;ize: (mm) ** - 2@00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.4 12.8 12·:2 ~ c 00 - 1.00 12·:2 18.2 26.;2 } .. 8 2·6 2·:2 :2 2.4 24.2 2;2.8 22·1 67.5 22·2 • 9 00 - .707 22.8 22 ·l 4:2·2 2·2 12·2 1;2.0 42.8 :2 2. 2 ;20.2 65.2 21.6 81.0 707 - .500 1+2 .1 42.2 ;29o6 1;2.2 12.2 18.,2 28 ·2 46.8 :22·2 62.2 22·6 8].4 500 - ~350 70.1 72.7_ 78.2 28.J ]4.6 4o.2 72.2 ?1.0 62.1 80.8 8 2·1 88.1 350 - .250 2'+ ~2 24.2 24.7 6?.2 62.2 72 ·2 9;2.8 2:2·2 20·2 24·2 24.5_ 26.4 250 - .180 100.0 98.1 100 ._Q 28.1 28.1 28.1 27·2 96.8 28.4 28.6 28.6 28·2 180 - .125 100.0 100e0 100.0 100.0 100.0 28.4 100e0 100.0 100.0 100.0 125 - .088 100.0 088 - e062

edian iameter (mm) a4,2 .. 48 .. 62 •20 •20 .J2 .6;2 .4z .41 1.}0 1 .. ~-0 1.,20 orting (Trask) 1.61 1.50 1.60 1.24 1.32 1.J~ 2.12 1.21 1.72 2.20 1.82 1.27 ·station Code: 1 - HWM 3 - Swash - HWM I 2 5 - Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 -· Swash J

~~ Cumulative Code 1-' I-' 0 J SALINAS BEACH

)ate February 10 2 1272 March 8! 1222 3tation * 1 2 :2 4 2 6 1 2 :2 4 ,2 6 )istance ('r.l.J,.. \ 1 <'rom 0, 00 .i:' u e I 27 2 t 27 2' :222' ]80' _]80' ]80 272' 27.2' JJO' J20g :220' J20fl )lope ( 0) 2.06 2e06 2.86 3.98 :2·28 :2·28 1.30 1.,10 2·27 4.71 4.z1 4.z1

~rain 3ize: (mm) ~--h(. - 2 .. 00 0 0 0 0 0 J.O 0 0 0 4.0 :2·2 1.4 ~. 00 - 1.00 20 .. z 2;2.4 24.2 12.0 18.8 22.2 7·2 8.6 1~.6 4J.2 :2~·2 J6.o Lo 00 - .?07 J8.o ]9.4 ]2.] 22.6 26.6 ]6.6 12·2 12.0 20.4 24.2 48.2 47.J .707 - .sao 22·2 54·2 ~2 .. 0 ]6.2 _]4.4 44.0 ]0.2 J2.8 26.6 62 .. 0 26.8 ,24. 0 .sao - .)50 81$1 81.7 62.2 62 .. 1 64el 62.6 66.z 6,2.,2 48.,2 z4 .. z z4.o zo.s .)50 - .2SO 28.] 26.8 88.8 88.0 2:2·8 87.0 22.1 2:2·0 Sll-.4 22.0 21 .. 4 21.6 .250 - .180 100.0 28.6 98.4 98.] 28·.2 96.J 28.,2 100.0 28·.2. 2B.J 2B.J 100.0 .180 - o125 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.,0 100.,0 .125 - • 088 ,088 - o062

~edian )iameter (mm) . :a • 24 .. 44 .40 .41 .44 .40 ,40 ":2 5. .. so .62 .62 iorting (Trask) 1. 57 1.64 1.81 1.62 1 .. 50 1.91 1.29 1.:2z 1.41 2.0J 1.2] 1.28

Station Code: 1 HWM 3 Swash HWM I 2 5 Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 --Swash 3 '* Cumulative Percent !--' f-' f-' SALINAS BEACH

)ate A:Qril 12! 1222 May 3, 1222 itation * 1 2 2 4 2 6 1 2 2 4 .2 6 )istance ~rom o.oo (Ft.) _n_s_: 22 2' 210' 2:20' ·:250' 2 20. 27 20 270' :220' 422' 422' 4] 2. >lope (0) 6.62 6.62 8.21 6.62 ---6.62 _2_. 62 4.1+8 2.00 2.87 4.48 4.48 4.48

~rain )ize: (mm) ** - 2.00 0 2.:2 0 4.2 ] .. 2 2·2 0 0 0 4.3 4.5 4.4 :. 00 - 1.00 28.8 22·2 28.1 6o.o 6o.s ,26.1 2].4 2o.z 12.8 22.8 22·5 41.2_ ~. 00 - e707 40e2 4].,2 50·2 68.7 64.0 65·2 :22·:2 42.8 22ol 28·2 40.1 42.1 ,707 - .soo 21.6 22~0 61.2 74.0 22·:2 71.8 :20·2 22·2 _!:1:._2. 0 42.8 42·:2 22·0 500 - .J50 27·:2 22·7 81.0 84.;2 84.0 84.2 22·2 22·2 64.2 2~-1 62. 2 zo.o 350 - .250 22·4 92.0 22·7 ~ 24.0 93-7 24.0 25· 2 20.J 8].0 86.8 89.2, 250 - .180 98n2 98 .. 2 98.4 98.4 100.0 98.4 100.,0 28.J 100.0 28.6 28.6 28. ~ 180 ~ .125 100.0 100.0 100.0 lOOsO 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 125 - • 088 088 - .062 edian iameter (mm) .2?_ .60 ·24 1.20 1.2Q 1.10 • 22 • 22 .42 .Jz .4J .zo orting (Trask) l.'Z9 1.77 1.43 1-25 1.86 1.22 1.64 1.80 1. 52 2.15 2.08 2.09

Station Code: 1 - HWM 3 - Swash - HWM I 2 5 - Swagb 2 2 - Berm 4 Swash 1 6 Swash 3 - - f-' ~- f-' Cumulative Percent !\) SALIN AS BEACH

)ate June 12 1222 June 29, 1972 3tation * 1 2 3 4 5 ---6 1 2 3 4 5 ()" )istance "rom 0.00 (Ft.) 225..:. 225' J42' 405' 402 B 405' 275' 275' .340' 405' 1+0 :2, e 402' Hope ( 0) .Je72 ].79 5e00 6.93 6.23 6.93 6. 07 6.07 7.00 3.70 3.70 3.70 ira in :>ize: (mm) *-~ - 2.00 0 0 1.) 16.2 6.8 2·2 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~. 00 - 1.00 16.2 30o0 42.6 85 .. 6 82·2 86 .. 0 36.1 36.1 13.1 ;2.8 0 0 L. 00 - .707 26. 2 4o.o 60.,8 21e) 22·2 22·4 45.9 45.9 23.0 11.2 0 0 ,707 - o500 )8.) :a .. 3 23·0 22.8 24.0 26·2 59.1 59.1 31.2 18.8 1.6 1.2 .500 - .350 (0.0 81.2 82·2 22·7 98.2 28·2 82.0 82.0 57.4 24.4 11._2 16.7 ·350 - .250 czs.o 26e6 27·3 28.6 100.0 100.0 98.4 98.4 90.3 61.8 4_2.9 44._2 .250 ~ .180 100.0 100.0 28o8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.6 96.8 94.5_ 180 - ,.125 100.0 98.2 100.0 100.0 125 - .088 100.0 088 - .,062

'edian ··iameter (mm) .4) ·22 ·21 1.:2,0 1.:2,0 1<20 .60 .60 .38 .26 .25 .2_2 orting (Trask) 1.48 le88 1.69 1.22 lo20 1.22 2.09 2.09 1.47 1.22 1.15 1.16

Station Code: 1 - HWM 3 - Swash - HWM I 2 5 - Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 -~.,Swash 3 ~!- Percent 1-' Cumulative 1-' w MARINA BEACH late ,Ju1v ]_Q' 1971 S~j2tember 2! 1971 tat ion_ * 1 2 3 4 _j__ ----6 ----1 2 3 4 ') 6 ~istB.rlc~ 'rcn: o.oo (Ft. ) N/A N/A N{A ____110', __ N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A 13 5' N/A N/A lone ( 0 ) " " " 8.3:±_ " " II II " 8~02 " II rain ize: (mm) ** 2.00 " II " 0 II II ---" " " 0 " " .oo J .oo " .. " 0 II II " II " 6.2 " " .oo .707 ---II II II 0 " " " " " 16.9 II " 707 .soo " II " 0 " " II " " L!-o.o " " 500 .)50 " II " 6.s " " " " " 81. s II II

II 150 .250 " " 16.1 " " " II II 98~ " " 250 - .lRO ----II " II 59.7 " " " II ·II 100.0 " " 180 .125 " " " 98.3 II " II II II " " II 125 - • 088 " " 100.0 " II ---II ----" II " " ORB .062 " " " " " " " II " II

edian iameter ( P!ffi) " " " 10 II " " " II .44 " " ------~ Jrting (Trask) If ----" " 1.13 " " " It " 1.27 " " Station Code: 1 - HWM 1 - Swash HWM I 2 5 - Swash 2 2 Rerm 4 Swash 1 6 - Swi=tsh 1 Cumulative Percent 1-' * 1-' {::'- MARINA BEACH

!ate October 1 1971 November 2z 1971 :tat ion ~} ---1 2 3 4 C) 6 1 --2 2 4 C) 6 listance 'rom o.oo (Ft. ) 90' 13 s I 1?2' ~ _?_£L 222' 22 2. ( 0 ) lope ---· 5.27 --- §_~ 8.)0 8.~0 ------2.70 2.70 2 & 70 -T'airt '. ·J.Ze~ (m'n) ~r* 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -- --·0 0 0 ~. 00 - 1.00 '3).8 _14. 5 1.!..9 26.1 1.!.6.9 _1~ ----22.0 19.0 8 .. 3 1@Q 1.9 0 .oo - ~707 48.1) 3'3.9 2).0 37.7 62.2 J4.9 44.1 43.1 18.3 3.8 5.7 :2·7

707 - .soo h6$2 56. s 4-2.6 __,~,._._~1.6 79-7 58.7 64.4 62.1 28.3 5.7 _2.4 5·6 500 - .)50 -·-89~'7 _22.1 77.0 88.4 95~1 8 5. 7 88.1 89.7 56.7 22.6 49.1 25.9

1C:O 6'-~ 0 -· j - .250 _9'~::..2 ---100.0 96.7 _2_7. 1 100.0 9~.!'.-~ 98o) 100.0 88.} 62o3 2 66.7 250 - .1RO 100.0 100.0 ---100.0 ---1.00.0 100.0 96.7 98.1 98.1 98.1 180 .125 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - --- ··-- 1.25 - .088 --- -- 088 - ~062

edian iameter (mm) -~ • 24 .4S .so .95 .60 .66 .62 ---.28 .27 .)4 ----.28 orting (Trask) 1.61 _h36 1.45 1.62 ---1.64 1.45 1.47 1.SO ---1.68 1.22 1.38 1.23

I Station Code~ 1 - HWM 3 - Swash - HWM I 2 5 - Swash 2 2 Berm 4 Sw2sh 1 6 Swssh 3 - - - 1-' 1-' * Cumulative Percent \..n MARINA BEACH

)ate December 1. 1971 January 1~, 1972 ~tat ion ~!- ---1 2 ) ---4 s 6 ---1 2 3 4 5 6 1istance "rom o.oo (Ft. ) 60' 100' 19)' _1..2.5~ 19S u 195' 195' 12S' llope ( 0 ) 4.87 8m)4 s. 1 0 2.10 5.10 7.17 7~17 ?.17

;rain ;ize: (mm) - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >,.GO - 1800 18.2 --8.,6 ___lh]_ 7.1 9.3 9.'3 8.3 8.5 _l~ 24 .. 6 31.9 42.2 .. oo - .707 11.0 34.5 28.1 _17.9 18..!_)_ 22 .. 2 33.3 )0.5 33 .. 8 42.1 --46.8 60.,2 707 - ,_500 49 .. 1 ____2_:1..!..?_ so.o 26a8 27 .. 8 37.0 )4.2 so.8 S8. 2 S9 .. 6 66.0 76.6 500 - e)50 72.7 8h.2 8)e3 66.0 ?4.0 ?4.1 8)e4 88.1 90 .. 8 ~7.? 91-2 93.8 3 .250 00.9 98.'3 so - -·---"'-98o1 94 .. ? 94.4 94.4 _9~ 98.3 96.9 96. 5. 97.9 26. 2. 250 - e180 96.4 ·---100a0 100.0 100.0 --100.0 100 •. Q _9_7. 9 100e0 _98.5 100.,0 ---·100.0 100.0 180 - .125 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 - ~- -··-·- --·------·- --·-·------..-- -·~--- 125 ~ OE38 ------·-- ··------·- --- -··-·-- 088 - e 062 ,___, - --- -·~··-- __ edian iameter (mm) --·-~so -·---.!..2.?. • !:)2 ,40 --·-.40 .44 .. S3 __!__50 e S4 ---.60 .66 ---.88 orting (Trask) _lDl 1.41 -.:LJ.2. 1.,2!) 1.,22 __l_., '37. 1.)7 1 .. 38 1.38 ~52 1.59 1.69

'":) c; Station Code: 1 - HWM j - S·Nash - HWM I 2 - Swash 2 2 Berm 4 Swash 1 6 Swash - ·- - 3 1-' 1-' -~ Cumul2.t1ve Percent a'

MARINA BEACH

Date April C) 1972 May 3, 1972 . ' -.: . . . ~lr- ::--ca-clon l 2 2 4 s 6 1 2 1 4 ~ 6 ::Jistance Prom o.oo ( Ft e ) --100' 80' 1:25' 175' 175' 17 5' 90' 8 5 I 125' 18 '). 18 c;' 18 5' ( 0) Slope 9.88_ 5~81 7e2c; 8.22 8.22 8.22 10~10 9.26 0__2]_ 2·93 hl.L WL :i-ra.... in Jlze: (mm) -fr* - 2.00 0 0 0 8 .. 9 9.2 6.6 0 0 0 6.5 12 .. ] 14 .. 5 2.00 - 1.00 18~7 12e7 1 c; .. 4 2:2 <2 6).4 63.c; 12 .. 6 18.7 22.9 81..7 90o1 8:;! .. ~ 1 .. 00 - .707 J9o0 28.2 40.4 7l.S so. 3 ~9 .. 8 29.2 J4.o 44.8 8 2.8 94.4 91 .. 4 0 707 - .500 62.7 60<2 6 ') o4 82.0 88.:2 82.9 so.o 20·2 60.3 BS~c; 95.7 94~2 .soo - eJ50 93.3 92.1 88sS 94eO 95@0 97.1 82.9 86.5 86.2 91.2 97.2 _3_7. 2

• 3 50 - o250 __28.) _:__,:,;;..,98. c; 96.4 _37.0 98.4 98 .. 6 96.9 98.) 98.2 92.5 98.6 98.6 ,250 - .180 100.0 100.0 98~2 98.) 100.0 ---100.0 100.0 ---J.OO.O 100.,0 93.9 100.0 100.0 ,180 - .125 100.0 100.0 -·------100.0 . 125 - .088 ---- ,088 - .062 ------1edian '. . _.: l8Jl!. e -r e r (mm) .60 ~S7_ ___!_.,)J3_ 1.1 1~2 1.2 ~u o45 n c;8 -c-1.SO 1e60 _1-_o.jO ' _,_ 0 )or ~...lrte; (Trask) 1.JO 1. 27_ 1.32 ---1. S1 ---1.41 1~49 1.6) 1 •..2.£ 1. 56 1.17 1.21 ---1.22 Statior: Code: 1 HV!r!I 3 Swash HWM I 2 5 - Swash 2 2 Berm 4 Swash 1 6 - Sl!\18Sh 3 - - ,_. •* Cumulative Percent f-' OJ MARINA BEACH Date June 1! 1272 June 22! 1222 Station * 1 2 2 4 ~ 6 1 2 2 4 2 6 Distance 1 From 0.00 (Fte) 105~ 140' 120' 21,2' 212' _?)£. 20' 110 1,20' 20,2' 20!2' 202~ Slope ( 0) 6.33 7ft07 2-00 6.64 6.64 6.64 7.20 5·23 7-30 6.10 6.10 --6.10 Grain Size: (mm) ** - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z.J 12·2 18.5 2e00 - 1.00 12.0 26mB 28.2 21.8 12.0 :20.0 2·0 21 .. 2 2,2.0 zs.J 87.6 sz.J 1.00 - • 707 29eJ 41.0 42.2 J4.,2 30.0 ~1-7 1,2.0 22.8 :22·1 8J.J 9].2 2J.6 • 707 - .500 4J.l 52·6 27.8 ,20.9 48!3 6,2.2 20.0 42·2 22·4 8,2.0 26.0 26.2 .500 - o350 zz.6 82.1 86.4 80.0 80.0 86.J 6_2.0 76.6 22ol 86 .. 7 22·2 27 ~_5 .350 - .250 96.4 _26 ·:2 97.8 26.3 26.7 24.9 9,2.0 27·2 98.,2 22·1 28·2 2~46 .250 - .180 100.0 100.0 100.0 100e0 28·2 28.3_ 100.0 28·2 100.0 28·:2 28·2 100.0 0180 - .. 125 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 .125 - .088 .088 - .062

Median Diameter (mm) .42 • 26 o,22 • 21 .42 ·72 .40 .4,2 • 22 1.40 1.60 1.60 Sorting (Trask) _1_0.1 1a?O 1.69_ 1.58 1.42 1o60 .....k.J.l 1. 58 1.42 1.24 1.21 1.2,2 * Station Code: 1 - HWM 3 - Swash - HWM / 2 5 - Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 - Swash 3 "'*-=*' Cumulative Percent 1- 1- \..( MONTEREY BEACH

)ate October 1' 1971 November ], 1971 )tat ion ~(- c_ ) __i_ 1 --'"' 4 5 6 --1 ·----2 _l_ --4 - 6 )istr."-nce "rom o.oo ( Ft ~ ) 1 0 ° 1o• 50' :to• 90' 90' 1 20' 21 c;' 215' 215. )lope (') .oo .oo ) • )h 1.5c; 1$ c;s -- 'L 55 2.6? 2o55 2.55 _g. ~5 ;rain ;ize: (mm) 1(-~- - 2.00 0 0 0 ---0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? • 00 - 1.00 () 0 1.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 J • 9 Q 2.0 '7 ~. 00 - . ? 0'7 0 0 h • L 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.7 3.8 4.1 ''707 - . )00 0 0 J.o.o 0 0 ---0 0 0 0 -~ s.~ _10.2 .soo - • 1 c;o }~h ).2 23.4 1.9 0 4.o ---4.2 2.4 5.9 27.8 1'3.5 26._5 . 3 so - .2c;o v~. o 21~0 r,Lj, ~ 7 25.9 18.2 26.2 19.0 29.4 ss.6 30.6 4-6 q -·- _25_.!.9 ~---- ?c;o 7 t:; .4 - .180 --80.6 9S .J 8 5.?. 78.2 100.0 79.2 71.4 z6.s 90.7 71.2 ~2 180 - .125 ---OR.4 Q(-,.8 98.4 100.0 100.0 --- 97.9 lOOoO 98.0 98.1 98~1 98.0 125 - • 088 ---100.0 100.0 ----100~0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 088 - o062 ------edian i:=m1eter (mm) .22 .20 .25 e20 .19 • 21 .21 e19 .22 .26 .22 ~l± ortin,cr (Trask) 1.18 1.15 1.24 1.15 1.15 1.12 1664 1.1] 1.J.9 1.11 __l_U'.2 1.36

Station Code: 1 HWM Swash HWM 2 - 3 - - I 5 ·- Swash ,..,2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 - Swash I J...,t. 1--' Cumulative Pt=!rcent 1\.) 0 MONTEREY BEACH

)ate ,Jul;v '30! 1 ?] September 2! 1921 )t8t ion ~~ 1 2 '3 4 ') 6 1 2 2 4 2 6 )j stance ~rom OoOO ( Ft ~ ) ___._____NIA _.l[LA NIA 145 ° N/A N/A N/A NIA N/ll. 110' N/A NIA )lope ( 0) " " " 2. 8 s " - " II --II " )w42 ---" "

~ra.i.n ~ i ze ~ (mm) *~f- II II II II .. 2s00 ---" " 0 " " 0 " II II II II II ~ 0 00 l.~OO " " 0 " ------0 " " $00 -.707 II II " 0 " II ---" " II 0 II " '707 • 500 ---" II II ----0 " II " " II 0 II " ,c:;oo o)50 " " II 0 " " II II II 0 ---" II 8&0 II II II II J50 .250 " " " --·-- " ----" 8.3 " 250 $180 II " II 6).0 " II " II " 62.0 II " 180 .j_.<:::~'"'5 " " II 100.0 " II II " " 100.0 .. II 1.25 • 088 II II " " " " II " " " II II II .. 088 .062 ---" " " " " " edian I! .. II II It IV iameter (mm) " " __.19 --- .20 " " II II II II .. II II II orting (Trask) ---- 1.1'3 ---- " " --1.• 09 Station Code 1 - HWM 3 - Swash - HWJVI I 2 5 - Swa.sh 2 2 - Berm 4 Swash 1 6 - Swash 3 Cumulative Percent J-1 * !\) J-1 MONTEREY BEACH

)ate December 1, 1971 Januar;r 12! 1972

""...t.. .J-. )Gawlon * l 2 ~ 4 !.) 6 1 2 '-3 4 2 6 Jistance <'rom O~OO (Ft~) 2SS' 255' 2.5-L --120' 245' 245' 24S~ ( 0) )lope 1.20 1.20 .!_.~ 3.45 1.67 1.67 1.67

;rain )ize: (mm) ""~* - 2o00 0 0 0 0 0 ---0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. 00 - 1.00 0 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L. 00 - .707 ---·-0 ].7 ---0 _b_Q 0 0 1.9 0 0 2.0 0 1.8 ,707 - e 500 1.8 _sff6 2.1 4.1 1.8 2.1 L1o6 1.9 0 6.1 1.9 c;. 4· .soo - .]50 9.1 18.S 10~6 14.6 11o) 14.6 14·. 8 9.LJ. 9.1 22.4 1 c; 01 16o1 .350 - ~250 2].6 L~o. 7 )6.2 L~J.B )4.0 41~7 .. J7. 0 28.] 40.9 42.9 J 2· 8 3 s.? .250 - .180 8).6 87e0 89.4 87.5 81.1 89.5 . 85.2 79.2 90 .. 9 81~7 79.2 75.0 ------"- .180 - .125 l 00$0 -·-9fL1 100.0 --100~0 100.0 100.,0 98..!'~ 98.1 100.0 98.0 98.J. 98a2 125 - .088 100.0 --- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100e0 ---100e0 088 - .062 ------fed ian )iameter (mm) -~ e2J • 23 ---.24 e2) .23 .23 .21 .24 .24 .22 .22 ~orting (Trask) l.1L1 1.21 1.14 1.22 --- 1.16 --1.22 1.20 1.19 1.20 ~26 1.24 1.2? Station Code: 1 - HWM 3 - Swash - HWJ\1! I 2 5 - Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 - Swash 3 -~ Cumulative Percent I-' 1\) 1\) MONTEREY BEACH

Jate February lOey 1972 March 8..1!_]972 - c: ~tation l '2 1 4 h 1 2 '3 4 ___,;_ 6 * - -·-·-- s ... -·-·------><- ---·- --··· )i StRX!c·: ~rc:n 2 t) I '7 __ >< ___ 0 o.oo ( F't. ) 10' .,._,_.,.;;;:.._c; ' 200' 200' _,200' ... __ ,..__,. 10' 110' 62 220' 220' 220' ------"'--· --~- ... ,...... _ --- -··-.. ( (; ) )lope '3 • ')8 ~-~g_ 2.5£ h~ b_?Q_ 2a )6 3.17 2.1~ ~.OJ_ ~.!.. ?:.2__ 2.21_ 2~22._

~r21in ;ize: (mm) *~- - 2.00 0 0 ---0 0 --0 ---0 0 0 0 ----lo2 1.9 -><-0 : ~ 00 - 1,00 ---0 0 0 _1~9 0 ---2 .. 0 0 0 0 12.8 2·7 1o8 ~ 707 2.1 0 2$1 ).8 0 4.0 0 0 0 18~3 13.2 _j_!.Z •". 00 - --~- -·- '70'7 9500 ?.0 1~8 6.4 7 .. 1e8 8~o 1.8 0 0 22.0 - --- -·-- 5 -"'"'- --·- _11_~ ~.2 .)00 - .)50 --·20~9 __ _]_J:_ - 17.0 20e8 _0_2. ---20.0 12.7 ~3 .. 5 -~ ::n.o 30.2 __18.9 _._ ~250 1~-6 ~ 6 11.9 42s,2. _]281 42~0 14.6 22.8 __5_L l Sl. 0 17.8 ''350 ------~ _:_ 4S~l _£(~ --- --"-- --- ~·- 2 50 - .180 8Bo4 91o0 91~4 88.6 8) .. 0 86mO __§_~ ~~ 83~ 87.8 --86.8 ~ 180 ,125 -~J._!_f2_ lOOeO 100 .. 0 _2_8 .1 98.1 __98. 0 100.0 98 .. 1 100.0 97~ 100.0 98.1 - --- -·-w- -·--"-· -·- -- 125 - ~088 lOOeO lOOeO 100e0 ---100.0 -- 1.00~0------l.OOoO 100.0 088 - ,, 062 ----

!8ulan. ri • )i 8.rneter (mrn) ---a24 .22 ---.24 ---....:..,2!) -~ .2) ----.22 .20 .22 .26 --.26 .22 orting (Trask) 1.2}_ .. 1.16 -~_Q. lo2R J.ll+ lo26 1.,19 1.19 1.17 ---1 .. 48 1.41 1.2!)

, ~ Station Code: .1. - HWM j - Swash - Hwm I 2 5 -~,Swash 2 2 Berm 4 Swash 1 6 Sv.r8 sh - - - 3 f--1 .f';- ..., 1 ...!- • l\) ~uu.rnu-'.a t..:l.ve Percent \.....) MONTEREY BEACH

Date ApriJ_ 2, 1972 May :20 1972 Station -~ l ---2 1 4 ') 6 1 ---2 '3 l.j. 5 6 Dist~trtce F'rom 0.,00 (Ft. ) _9_L 10 ')' -----1LJ-o • 200' 200' 2oo• - ; 7 5' r.;o• 140' 230' 210' 210 1 Slope ( 0 ) 4 A lj, 1 4.64 ') ~ t:;? 2e00 2,00 2e00 4.30 5.62 2!)34 2.4? 2e47 2.4? --- ~~ :}rein s, i ze ~ (r.~m) ~~-* - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.,00 - 1.00 0 0 0 0 2.0 2.2 0 0 0 0 --0 0 1@00 ~ ~ 707 0 0 0 2.,0 4- .. 0 -~ 0 0 0 _1.9 0 2.0 ,.?07 - 3 500 0 0 2~1 4e1 8.0 1'3.3 0 0 0 ) .. 8 1 .. 9 4.,0 e500 - .350 5·7 )m6 16n6 16_!l_ 24.0 ----28.9 0 8.5 3 .. 8 21 .. 2 18.9 18 e 0 .)50 - .250 ---26.4 ---22 3 4 41e'Z_ 16.7 42.0 46.7 15.5_ 27.3 30.8 Lf-L~ • 3 41.5 _]6. 0 ~250 - .180 79.) __[1.1 _§ '). 5 _]_9~ 82.0 8l!-. L,t. 7 s. 8 - 9:J.) ?8.8 82.7_ 8 '50 0 74 .. 0 .180 - ~125 _28.~ 100$0 100.0 9 8. 0 98 ._Q. 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.0 98.1 98$1 ----98.0 .12 5 - .088 100~0 ---- 100.() --100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 '0-38 - • 062 ------

ned ian )iameter (mm) .21 .20 .24 .24 m24 .21 .22 .21 0 24 .24 .22 --- ~l ---~- )ortin.~ ( r_erssk) 1.16 1.]:1_ 1.26 le2? lo )"':\ 1. 3'3 1.15 1.1'3 ~19 1.26 1 .. 24 1.11 --- -~

1 Stc~tion Code: 1 HWM ---' Swash HWM I 2 5 Swash 2 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 - Swash 3 ~~r Cumulative Percent !-' !\) +:- 4! MONTEREY BEACH ate .June 1~ 1972 ~__..29_a-1.97 2

-1.. _,_. / t.,.ac,IOn * ---l 2 3 4 t) --6 --1 2 3 4 5 0 ist::::.nce rom OoOO (Ft. ) ---60° __1_2~. 125 D 22S I 22S' 221)' 55' 55' ---110' 225' 225' .Z25' ( 0) 2. 07 __ lope -, . 3~10 t;;..,"-)~17_ ... 2~_31._ g$ 91 ~· b._9l:_. 2~91 5.07 2.!..97_ 3-93_ ~~·---~ -~ &2L .?.!.91~ rain 1 z,e: (mm"l ** - 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~oo - 1.00 --0 --0 0 707 ~.2 9.6. . 0 0 0 19.6 11.5 14.2 .oo - • ?O? --0 ---0 ---0 --ll) e4 17o0 17.) 0 0 0 2J.6 16.4 21.4 707 - o500 0 0 0 _19:...~1 20e4 2le2 0 0 0 _?2~ 19.7 _9.0 500 - eJ50 ----0 _1..'!.._9- C:,,7 ---28.8 30$5 2?.0 __h2 J.6 5.8 JJ.4 _]_2.8 ~Q 350 - ~250 l!) • L~ 19.3 26 .L~ ~?-3 4L!-G1 18.') ---17.8 _j_..z_Ji 23.1 1+7 .1 49.~ ~--~2 250 - .180 _z]_?_Q 73~Q 71.7 73.0 74-.6 71.0 _§_7.8 ~~ _6_1~ _§_~~-2 - 80.4 __1§~~ 180 .125 9892 Of3ml _2_8_~_2 __36_".__7_ 98$2 -- 98 .J _9.~_~3 98.1 98.0 _2~.?: - -~CZfl_~-~ ~----~~ ..... -"-~·-·~------.2~~

~ -.._____ ~ 100.0 100.0 100.0 125 0088 ---1n0o0 lOOoO 100~0 100.0 100.0 J 00 () 100.0 100.0 100.0 -- --- '\0 0 jt)") - ~062 - .. _,,_ ------· ... ~- --- -·-~---.. -··---· --.. -- ---··-··- ·---·------··- ·------.. ---- , . ?0 l2.Tl

L2.me te r... (mrn) ~20 .20 _o_gQ .22 ~22 ._...... 20 .20 .20 .24 .24 --~- ~--. ___ --..--~ --~-· .. -~- ..... -~-~··- ~--~~--·- ·------"-..'!...~3. --·~'"------"-··-·---'- ----~~-2 )!'ting ( Tra.sk) _1.13._ 1 l r' 1.20 1.16 1.16 1.21 1.69 1.48 1.62 -~ ----- _h~7 1. i1 _L_~ ------· ---

) Swash ~ 2 c:, Sv.ras1·1 2 Station Code: l - HWM - HWM I -' - 2 - Berm 4 - Swash 1 6 - Swash 3 f-i Cumulative PeTcent 1\.) 1...!'\

:1.1

SIZE (mm) (Md) ( ) 0 0 0 0 0 f-1 f-1 f-1 f-1 • .. . . • ...... 0 N .{:::" 0\ OJ 0 N .{:::" 0\ 7/J0/71

9/ 2/71 1111 .. ' ..

101 1/71 ' 'fl - ' I I Ul t:IJ 11/ 4/71 t:! H fi3 12/ 2/71 :::s: z f-3 ~ ~ ~ Ul '1:1 t:IJ H 1/13/72 Ul N t2 ;:t> trl z t:! tJj H trJ ~ :X: ;:t> t:! 2/11/72 0 ::r: ::r: Ul 0 ~ 9/72 f-3 3/ H :z; c;1 4/ 6/72

"41' 51 4/72 D I I' f-1 6/ 2/72 1\) ---:1 6/30/72 f-1 !--' N N 1\) 1\) 9 " ...... 0 N .{:::" 0\ OJ 0 N ..{::" 0\ SORTING (TRASK) (------) .Jl SIZE (mm) (Md) ( ) ..0 ..0 ..0 .0 ..0 ..I-' ..I-' ..I-' ..I-' 7/J0/71 0 N -{:::" 0'\ OJ 0 N ..{:::" 0'\ ~ "' " 9/ 2/71 'Ill ' ""' ... ' 10/ 1/71 ' ... • ... "...... 11/ 4/71 JP CIJ...... trJ ..... t:J ...... H IJ ... 12/ 2/71 \ ~ z f-d 1-:3 !l> !l> y CIJ. f-d 1/13/72 ::x> H :::cJ N ~ ... .. 0 trJ z ...... t:J ... .. b:J !l> H 2/11/72 ... trJ z :><: .. " !l> t:J .. "' 0 :;I: , .. .. !:I: CIJ. e' 0 J/ 9/72 I :::cJ I 1-:3 I H I z l}j 6/72 J, Q \ ' '' 5/ 4/72 ' lit " ' ' " " I-' .. .. 1\) 6/ 2/72 .... •• co 6/J0/72 (-! I-' I-' I-' I-' N N I-' N 0 a ...... 0 l\) ..{:::" 0'\ "(X) SORTING (TRASK) (------)0 N +- 0'\ 4! SIZE (mm) (Md) ( 0 0 0 0 0 1-' 1-') 1-' 1-' .. . " • ...... • 0 1\) ..{::" 1\) 7/30/71 0\ CD 0 ..{::" 0\

9/ 2/71 ...... 10/ 1/71 l ...... - _...... - _...... ------11/ 1/71 Ul \ \ t::r:1 \ t:1 \ :=s: H 0 12/ 1/71 'l! Ul ~ \ Ul z ' t--3 ' f:-1 ::x> '\ ::x> Ul f-cJ 1/12/72 'Ill :z: H t:1 N ti1 ' H I • t::r:1 z I z t:1 2/10/82 •I 0 ::x> H I II. z >< I b:J t:J I t::r:J :::r:: ::x> Ul () 0 3/ 8/72 !. ;I: ::a t--3 -- -- ...... H ...... z -...... 0 4/ 5/72 -.. ----· ...... 5/ 3/72 ...... --'~a -..... -- -- 1-' 1\) _ ...... -... - 6/ 1/72 -- -- \.0 6/29/'?2 i-' !-' 1-' !-' i-' 1\) 1\) 1\) 1\) ...... • .. .. . 0 1\) ..{::" 0\ CD 0 1\) "..{::" 0\ SORTING (TRASK) ( ------) SIZE (mm) (Md) ( 0 0 0 0 0 f-' J f-' f-' . .. .. ~ .. " . .. .. 7/J0/71 0 1\.) co 0 N a-.

9/ 2/71 ...... 10/ l/71 .,.- .,"'::Il , ...... UJ. t:Ij 11/ 1/71 t:J , H , Ei1 0 UJ. :;::: 12/ 1/71 8 ...... _ ~ :t> H UJ. 'lj ...... :;::: H - -...... _ ::t> N ti1 1/12/71 --II', UJ. t:Ij :;::: , t:J , tJj :t> H ,. .. t:Ij z :X: ::t> t:J 2/10/72 '~' 0 ::r! ...... ::r! UJ...... 0 .... ::u -...... 8 ...... , J/ 8/72 ! ...... H z q 4/ 5/72

...... 51 J/72 - I!IIID __ ....~

I -- f-' ------1....0 6/ 1/72 , .. ------0 / I I I ., .. EWIIMhmt Ill 6/29/72 ~· 'f5 1'0 it" 1\.) 1\.) l-' r-' f-' ...... 0 "1\.) .{::'" "0 1\.) ".{::'" a-. co 0" SORTING (TRASK) (------) 131

APPENDIX H

\ SEDIMENT SIZE AND SORTING

MARINA BEACH 1.6 2e6

1.4 2.4

..-..1. 2 2.2 ..-.. I I l I • 1.0 2. 0; I I I I I I ...... 1. 8.---. ~ V1

1.6o :z; H E-1 'I 0::: ,, '\ 0 " I , \ ' \ (/) \ 1.1} \ ,' '' I \ \ \ I \ ' \ ,I \ ' '\ \ ,' ' , \ ·-----$ ' I ' I \ " .. 1.2 ''to

""J' 0. 0 L_ ___ • 1.0 r-1 rl r-1 r-1 r-1 C\l (\J (\J (\J (\J (\J (\J c-... r~ {'- ~ C'-- ~ ~ i:'- i:'- ~ '-.,_ "'-.., '-.,_ '-.,_ z '-.,_ ,....._, '-.,_ '-.,_ '-.,_ '-.,_ z 0 (\J .--1 r-1 r-1 C\.l 0 co V\ (") r-1 0'\ r-1 r-1 (\J ~ '-.,_ ,, '-.,_ '-.,_ '-..... '-.,_ '-.,_ ...... , '-.,_ '-.,_ '-.,_ ('. 0'- 0 ri (\J r-1 (\] (") -::t V\ '-() '-() r-1 r-1 r-1 41 SIZE (mm) (Md) ( ) 0 0 0 0 0 f-' f-' f-' f-' ...... Q • .. 0 1\.) ~ 0'- (X) 0 1\.) ~ 0'- 7/J0/71 + I 9/ 2/71 .

\ 10/ 1/?l \ + \ ' \ .. Ul 11/ 1/71 I tr.J I " t.J I H I

l ' ~ 12/ 1/?1 .. 3: :z . 0 8 '• z ~ l 8 Ul '"d • tr.J H 1/12/72 .. ::u N tg I tr.J tr.J z I f-