DOC
United States
Department of
Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Seattle WA 98115
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Environmental
Engineering and Technology
Washington DC 20460
EPA-600/7-80-1 29
June 1980
Research and Development
&EPA
HF Radar
Measurements of
Circulation in the
Eastern Strait of
Juan De Fuca near
Protection Island
(July, 1979)
Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program
Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
HP RADAR MEASUREMENTS OF CIRCULATION IN THE EASTERN
STRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCA NEAR PROTECTION ISLAND (JULY, 1979)
By
Shelby Frisch
Wave Propagation Laboratory
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Boulder, Colorado 80303
-------
Completion Report Submitted to
PUGET SOUND ENERGY-RELATED RESEARCH PROJECT
MARINE ECOSYSTEMS ANALYSIS PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES
by
WAVE PROPAGATION LABORATORY
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
BOULDER, COLORADO 80303
This work is the result of research sponsored by the
Environmental Protection Agency and administered by the
Environmental Research Laboratories of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
The Environmental Research Laboratories do not approve,
recommend, or endorse any proprietary product or proprietary
material mentioned in this publication. No reference shall be
made to the Environmental Research Laboratories or to this
publication furnished by the Environmental Research
Laboratories in any advertising or sales promotion which would
indicate or imply that the Environmental Research Laboratories
approve, recommend, or endorse any proprietary product or
proprietary material mentioned herein, or which has as its
purpose an intent to cause directly or indirectly the
advertised product to be used or purchased because of this
Environmental Research Laboratories publication.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
An understanding of the surface circulation in a
partially- or fully-enclosed marine environment is necessary in
order to forecast the effects of an oil spill, pipeline oil
leak, or other varieties of floating pollutants. The Wave
Propagation Laboratory's program of surface current mapping
contributes to this understanding.
In this report we present HF radar observation
measurements in the Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca for a five
day period. The hourly measurements give surface currents at
1.2 km intervals. We have estimated the mean surface flow and
the semi- and diurnal-components of tidal currents. The
current maps demonstrate the extreme complexity of the surface
circulation and represent an important advance in understanding
the physical oceanography of this complicated, ecologically-
sensitive region.
Donald E. Barrick
Chief, Sea State Studies
Wave Propagation Laboratory
ill
-------
ABSTRACT
During July, 1979, the surface currents in the Eastern
Strait of Juan de Fuca were mapped with a High Frequency (HF)
radar system (CODAR). These currents were measured simultane-
ously over several hundred square kilometers continuously for
five days. The strong tidal currents and estuarine flow domi-
nated the circulation during most of this period of time, while
the relatively weak winds seemed to play a minor role. In ad-
dition, the effects of the highly variable bathymetry were much
more pronounced this year than last year. This may be due to
the fact that during August, 1978, the winds were much stronger
and, therefore, could have smeared any surface feature intro-
duced by the bathymetry. Whereas, this year, the winds were
much less of a factor, so that the horizontal shear zones and
areas of convergence and divergence were much more pronounced.
Some surface drifters were deployed and tracked by boat in
order to study smaller spatial scales (less than a kilometer)
in the current field. Although this drifter study was only
partially successful, it did demonstrate that large current
changes (possibly exceeding a knot) did occur in distances of
less than a kilometer. Identical drifters, initially placed
within a couple hundred meters of one another, did rapidly
spread apart, some to vanish forever.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ii
Abstract iv
Acknowledgments vi
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 3
3. Recommendations i»
U. Text 5
Appendix 11
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the indispensable
support of the following people without whom this study would
not have been possible. We thank Don Barrick for his
leadership and direction before and during the experiment. The
operation and maintenance of the radar was largely due to Mike
Evans, Dan Law, Alan Carr, Karl Sutterfield, John Forberg, and
Bob Weber. These same people designed, built, and operated the
radar system that will permit oceanographers to view the sea
through new "eyes*1.
vi
-------
INTRODUCTION
During the summer of 1979, the Sea State Studies group*
remotely measured the surface currents in the Eastern Strait of
Juan de Fuca using a High Frequency (HF) Doppler radar system
(CODAR)**. In the summer of 1978, similar measurements were
taken at an adjacent location in a joint oceanographic experi-
ment (Frisch and Holbrook, 1980) that lasted for almost a week.
This time, the radar was operated continuously for more than
five days in order to study the circulation in the neighborhood
of Protection Island (Figure 1), where the proposed oil pipe-
line would lie. The radar sites at Dungeness Spit and Fort
Ebey were selected to provide the optimal coverage area along
the proposed pipeline, and they also provided excellent cover-
age further out in the strait where the measurements were made
in the previous year. Comparisons of the data from these two
different experiments are of interest, therefore, because the
surface winds were much weaker in 1979 than they were in 1978.
As a result, the tides and estuarine flow were much more impor-
tant than the winds in controlling the surface circulation dur-
ing the latter experiment.
The radar mapped the surface currents simultaneously at
several hundred locations across the strait, continuously for
more than five days. Thus, both the Eulerian and Lagrangian
pictures of the circulation are available at the same time. In
this report, we present both Eulerian current vector maps and
Lagrangian drift tracks in order to better illustrate the in-
tricate flow in this important region.
During part of the experiment, we also deployed and
tracked surface drifters with a boat using mini-Ranger naviga-
tion for positioning. The purpose of these drifters studies
was twofold. First, we wanted to examine the currents on hori-
zontal scales smaller than the one kilometer resolution of the
radar. Second, we attempted to measure the vertical current
* Wave Propagation Laboratory (WPL), National Oceanic and At-
mospheric Administration (NOAA), U. S. Dept. of Commerce,
325 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado, 80303.
* CODAR is a High Frequency (HF) Doppler radar system devel-
oped by NOAA (Barrick et al., 1977).
1
-------
near the surface due to winds (which turned out to be weak most
of the time) . We discovered that the currents are so highly
variable in both space and time that this form of drifter
tracking by boat was impractical, and often impossible.
Presently, we are developing drifter transponder systems that
will permit us to remotely track drifters from shore in much
the same way that we now measure currents with CODAR.
-------
CONCLUSIONS
The results presented here illustrate a circulation
pattern around Protection Island and Admiralty Inlet that can
change dramatically in as little time as one hour and in as
little space as one kilometer. The area studied appeared to
split naturally into two regions that exhibited much different
current velocities. Over most of the strait, the velocities
exceeded 50 cm/s (200 cm/a in Admiralty Inlet) when the tidal
currents were strongest, and the estuarine flow itself was
almost one knot everywhere. This region we shall identify as
the stronger-flow region. A weaker-flow region existed in the
area roughly bounded by Dungeness Spit, Protection Island, and
Sequim (Figure 1). Here the currents were typically less than
50 cm/s and the estuarine flow was just a few centimeters per
second .
Another difference between these two different flow
regions was their tendencies to circulate water mass in
opposite directions. In the stronger-flow
region, the net flow was westerly due to the estuarine
influence. However, in the weaker-flow region, the tendency
was for an easterly flow. As the tides flooded the strait,
strong currents would bring water around Dungeness Spit,
sweeping east past Protection Island and into Admiralty Inlet.
But, as the tides ebbed, water would be trapped in the pocket
north of Sequim as the stronger currents farther out in the
strait carried water westward. One might almost guess this
behavior based upon the bathymetry alone.
The proposed pipeline would cut across the weaker and
stronger flow regions at a place where some of the strongest
horizontal current shears can exist. In addition, there
appears to be a region of tremendous convergence and divergence
just off the point near Fort Ebey. The flow converges at this
location from two directions: from the south out of Admiralty
Inlet and from the north along the coast of Whidbey Island.
Conversely, the flow diverges here when the currents are
reversed.
Considering the enormous amount of insight we
have gained in both this experiment and that in the previous
year, the CODAR system seems ideally suited for studies such as
this in an area which is so ecologically and economically
important.
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
This report presents examples of the circulation i-n the
Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca as remotely measured by CODAR.
Comparisons of these measurements with surface-drifter
observations show very good agreement. These results indicate
that this radar system may be very useful as either an
operational tool or a research instrument. It can be used to
compute the trajectories that oil may follow in a future tanker
spill or pipeline leak. This capability is especially helpful
in assessing the hypothetical impact upon the environment and
ecology. It could also be of assistance in directing clean-up
operations after an oil spill or in designing adequate
safeguards in anticipation of future problems. The research
potential of CODAR is also far-reaching. CODAR can be used to
measure the currents caused by various physical forces such as
winds, tides, run-off, etc. Our understanding of the
circulation in a particular area is thus improved and our
ability to manage the resources in that area are thereby
enhanced.
It is recommended that the on-going development of
CODAR be directed towards improving its accuracy and
reliability (which already meet or exceed those of other
instruments such as surface drifters) in order to better
accomplish these tasks. This radar system offers remote
measurements of current simultaneously over large areas and
continuously over many days at relatively low operating costs.
Using existing data sets, the projected goals for next year are
to obtain: (1) a surface current velocity with standard
deviation of 5 cm/s or better, and (2) a surface trajectory
position accuracy of 1 km after 21 hours. While CODAR offers
many advantages over existing, more conventional instruments,
it cannot always be substituted for them. In particular,
moored current meters measure the subsurface currents at depths
that are not probed by the radar. Both tools provide a
powerful combination in cases where the vertical structure of
circulation is important and needs to be studied. Surface
drifters can be invaluable for examining frontal zones and
shear boundaries where fine spatial resolution (hundreds of
meters) is important. Several drifters closely spaced may
extract features more precisely than the radar. Towards this
end we are presently developing a radar transponder package
that can be deployed in inexpensive and expendable drifter
packages. Thus, a variation of the CODAR system will provide
economical drifter tracking capability with improved
reliability.
-------
RADAR OPERATION
During July, 1979, two CODAR units were deployed at the
Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca in order to remotely measure
surface currents.* One unit operated continuously from Dunge-
ness Spit and the other unit operated continuously from Whidbey
Island at Fort Ebey (Figure 1). The data were collected begin-
ning at 0130 Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) on 5 July until 1200
on 10 July. Data were collected at either three-hour intervals
or one-hour intervals depending upon the immediate needs of the
experiment. The three-hour samples were taken to provide an
accurate picture of the strongest tidal components, while the
one-hour samples were selected for those times when intense
drifter studies and diffusion studies were being conducted.
Each data sample represents a 36-minute sea echo record that
provides a velocity resolution of better than 1 cm/s, even
though the current measurements over a 36-minute period may not
be meaningful to better than 5 cm/s. The radar measures the
phase velocity of a six-meter ocean wave which is shifted by
currents that are present. This phase velocity is also affect-
ed by dynamic wave action, limiting the accuracy of the
radar-measured currents to a few centimeters per second.
*A11 of the data presented in this report are provided
on magnetic tape. These are 9-track, ANSI compatible magnetic
tapes written at 1600 CPI with phase encoding on a Digital
Equipment Corporation PDP-11 computer using RSxIlM software.
Each map is contained in a separate file with a header that ex-
plains the contents of that file.
-------
ESTUARINE CIRCULATION AND TIDES
The mean current and the tidal components at periods of
24.61 hours and 12.3 hours were computed from the entire five
and one half days of data using a least-squares method. The
mean current (Figure 2) gives a very good picture of the
estuarine flow across the strait. The blank area in the middle
of the map lies along the baseline drawn between the two radar
sites. The total current vectors in this area cannot
be measured directly because both radar units measure the same
component of velocity. The velocity component perpendicular to
this baseline is not measured by the radar, but it can be
derived from the data with the appropriate analysis. Further
studies with this data will, in the future, include the
currents across this baseline area.
In Figure 2, we can clearly see the strong and weak
flow regions. At most locations the velocity exceeds 25 om/s.
But, in the pocket southeast of Dungeness Spit and west of
Protection Island, the current is barely detectable. This is
understandable because there is no large source of fresh water
runoff in this region. The currents are also seen to converge
off of Fort Ebey, where they combine from the north and south
to produce a strong jet going to the northwest. Therefore, it
is imperative to study currents in this important area in order
to understand the complete circulation pattern blanked by the
radar baseline. In future studies, we will examine this area
in detail after the baseline problem is removed.
The 12.3-hour tidal ellipses are given in Figure 3 and
the 24.61-hour tidal ellipses are given in Figure 4. Again,
the region along the baseline is not visible and the ellipses
near it are more greatly in error. These figures also show
that the weak flow region exhibits relatively weak tides. The
strongest tidally-induced currents appear near the convergence
zone off Fort Ebey where Admiralty Inlet empties into the
strait. The jet-like feature going from Admiralty Inlet to the
northwest out into the strait is evident in Figure 4 as in
Figure 2. Also, while the 12.3-hour tides are stronger than
the 24.61-hour tides in the south (i.e., south of the
baseline), both tidal components are about the same strength
farther out in the strait. Thus, the shorter-period tides
dominate the flow in the vicinity of the proposed oil pipeline,
where the longer-period tides and estuarine flow are relatively
weak.
-------
SELECTED CURRENT MAPS
A complete set of current maps is supplied at
three-hour intervals in the appendix in Figures A1.00 - A1.M2.
A handful of these are reproduced here simply to illustrate the
circulation pattern across the strait. For example, Figure 5
shows the flow at a time when the waters were emptying from the
strait with near-maximum velocity. This pattern reproduced
itself every morning of the experiment. The strongest currents
existed in Admiralty Inlet and just north of Fort Ebey, while
the weakest currents were in the area just west of Protection
Island. The jet running from Admiralty Inlet to the northwest
is evident and the convergence off Whidbey Island is very
pronounced.
Figure 6 illustrates the currents sweeping down around
Dungeness Spit and east past Protection Island, then on into
Admiralty Inlet. The contrast in velocities between the
strong-flow and weak-flow regions appeared to be less during
flood tide than during ebb tide. This is mainly due to the
much larger surface currents that existed in the strong-flow
region at ebb tide. The behavior of the currents below the
surface could not be measured, but these observations suggest a
strong, vertical structure to the circulation. ,
Other interesting bathymetry-related features were
revealed this year that were possibly obscured in 1978 by the
high winds. Note, for example, the convergence zone north of
the baseline in Figures 7-9. Certainly, these maps imply the
presence of features on scales smaller than the one kilometer
resolution of the radar. These are features that could hardly
be discerned in the 1978 data, no doubt due to the smearing
influence of winds. These features must be induced by the
mountainous bathymetry that exists in the strait. Surface
winds would tend to create currents that are not sensitive to
bathymetry and thus would be expected to obscure such features.
A very interesting phenomenon is revealed in the
sequence of Figures 10 - 12. A very strong convergence zone
develops midway between the two radar sites in about three
hours. It then dissipates in the next three hours. In looking
only at Figure 11, the convergence of water from the north and
south would seem to create a very unstable situation. The
result (seen in Figure 12) is almost a complete 180 degree
reversal in the current at some points. Consider Admiralty
Inlet, for example. (It is indeed unfortunate that we were
-------
forced to place the radar baseline where it was for logistical
reasons. Future studies with this data must include this very
significant baseline region.)
We next examine the region around Protection Island in
detail. The map sequence in Figures A2.00 - A2.42 in the
appendix shows this area enlarged, at three-hour intervals
throughout the experiment. In some ways, this is the most
difficult region to analyze because of the island and
the bathymetry which tends to isolate it from the rest of
the strait. In Admiralty Inlet and around Whidbey Island the
currents are strong so that mixing readily occurs with the rest
of the strait. But in the weaker flow region examined here,
the water may be trapped for days. Later, the drifter studies
will be used to illustrate this point.
Figure 13 shows the strong easterly flow during flood
tide, which usually exceeded the westerly flow at ebb tide by a
large margin. This is to be contrasted with the situation in
Admiralty Inlet and the rest of the strait where the opposite
was normally the case. There the ebbing currents were much
larger than those during flooding. Figure U shows one rare
exception to this rule that occurred near the end of the
experiment. Figure 15 gives an example of the flow which is
more typical of the ebb tide. The area mapped here is so small
that some features may not be resolved by the radar. However,
the general circulation near Protection Island should be
correctly depicted here.
-------
DRIFTER STUDIES
Ihe drifter studies were conducted in two parts, only
one of which is directly pertinent to the present study. On 7
July, several drifters were deployed and tracked west of
Protection Island. Four different drogue depths (i.e., 0.0,
0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 meters) were used and three of each drogue
were initially spaced very close together. The intent was to
detect and measure any horizontal or vertical current shears
which could not be measured by the radar. Figures A3.00 -
A3. 12 in the appendix show the drifter positions and the
radar-predicted trajectories for all cases. The agreement is
well within the present capabilities of the radar; the radar
capability is not yet at its theoretical limit. The strongest
effect contributing to the dispersion of the drifters appeared
to be the variability in the currents from one place to another
spaced perhaps a kilometer apart. Since the winds were not
that significant, we conclude that the bathymetry played a key
role in establishing those current shears. In Figure 16, for
example, we see the currents in this area at about mid-day when
the drifters were being tracked. Near the drifter positions,
the current changes by about 25 cm/a in 1 kilometer. In one
hour, these drifters could double their separation if the
currents were constant. Needless to say, when the flow changes
rapidly in space and time the picture becomes exceedingly
complex.
On that day (7 July), only four of the twelve drifters
were recovered due to the rapidly changing currents. The 14-m,
twin-engine vessel that was chartered for this work could not
keep up with the drifters, even with a cruising speed of 8 m/s.
The dispersion rate was so rapid and the tracks so
unpredictable that the new positions of the drifters could not
be estimated with enough accuracy for recovery. The only way
to successfully track the drifters was to stand off at some
convenient distance while maintaining constant visual contact.
Later in the experiment, reserve drifters were deployed farther
out in the strait where we hoped to have less trouble following
them. This attempt was doomed even though we tried to maintain
closer contact with the drifters. Those tests convinced us of
the advantage of tracking drifters using transponders and a
shore-based system similar to CODAR. The transponders were
successfully tested during the experiment, and the radar system
is presently under development to track them.
While we had only limited success in tracking real
drifters, we did generate several simulated trajectories to see
-------
how some hypothetical floating objects might move. Figure 17
shows a two-day trajectory with an initial position west of
Protection Island. In this weak flow region, the drifter
appears to be slowly drifting to the east as we predicted
earlier. The trajectory looks fairly good, except for a couple
of cusps which look suspicious. These might be explained by
the fact that the data sampling interval was three hours during
the time of the track and the time interval between drifter
positions was ten minutes. The trajectory is marked every
thirty minutes. Also, the data were not filtered in time.
Figure 18 gives the same track for the first of these two days,
but using only the mean and tidal currents that were extracted
from the data. The general shapes are similar and the cusp is
still present. Since the tidal analysis amounts to a very good
low-pass filter in time, we conclude that the cusp is a spatial
feature and not due to sampling. Because the winds were not
very strong, the difference in the tracks in Figures 17 and 18
may be due to our incomplete tidal analysis of the data. On
the other hand, the currents here 'are weak so that perhaps even
weak winds could make a difference. The answer to some of
these questions must await further analysis.
Figure 19 shows a trajectory starting behind Protection
Island and running for 24 hours. Figure 20 gives this same
track but extended to 48 hours. The hypothetical drifter very
clearly parallels the coast and stops short of land on several
occasions. Note that this drifter gets trapped behind the
island, and even drifts slowly to the west. Between this
trajectory and that shown in Figure 17, we could guess that
floating debris or oil might collect behind the island and in
Discovery Bay. The next track in Figure 21 actually appears to
be entering the bay. Unfortunately, with the present
analysis techniques we could not pursue the drifter much
further.
The collection of surface-borne objects near Protection
Island is made believable when we recall that the westward
currents dominate outside of this region but the eastward
currents dominate inside the region. Figures 22 and 23 show
the trajectories of two hypothetical drifters starting farther
and farther to the east of the island. There still is a
tendency for the drifter to become trapped, at least
temporarily, in the area around Protection Island. The ragged
appearance to all of these tracks is again due to the
processing, and can be improved with forthcoming analysis
techniques.
10
-------
cf cf
3- H-
3
(D
O -
C
T S
T 3
T cf
(D OJ
O «
p) O
3 1
(D
(T
A 9
U
O Q.
O (D
S
cf O
3* C
cf
3" H-
O 3
ca
(D cf
3*
a CD
09
a. ca
(D cf
3 H-
VO CO
-J O
C»
cf
3"
D)
cf
a>
o
CO
H- o
O *!
C H-
3 oq
C
T
CD
(D
3
33-0)
CD O- CO
W CO
(D
3- 3
H- GO
O
3* O H- CD
SO Cf
oo *:
C 3 0) O
MOD
a. CD a c
3 D
T cf H«
3 0) O CO
cf T
CT CD cf O
(D >->
3* C W
H- -O IT cf
3 O CD ff
a. 3 «< to
T) cf
T 3"
O CD
cf
(D
O (U
cf "J
H- CD
O W
M Q)
W M
M O
(U 3
3 W
a
cf
3-
> (D
cf
Cf -O
3" T
(D O
O
GO O
V CO
g n>
(D O.
o n
3 O
O
* >
Q. M
a «<
(D CO
«< Cf
(D
M S
0) S
3 (D
a i
a>
3" O
(D O
ca so
(0 cf
(0
ca a
H-
cf
o Q>
Cfl cf
Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca
Smith Island
o
New Dungeness Spit
Protection
Island
Sequim
Discovery
Bay
-------
B JUL 79 1:148:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBET WflSHINGTO
14.0 KM , 100.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
Figure 2. The estuarine flow is shown for the area around the
proposed pipeline and for an area farther out in the strait for
comparison with last year's data. The current velocities were
computed from five and one half days of data by taking the mean
value in a least-squares sense.
12
-------
5 JUL 79 1:148:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FOHT EBEY WflSHINGTO
M.O KM . 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
FiRure 3. The 12.3-hour period tidal ellipses are shown for
the area around the proposed pipeline and for an area farther
out in the strait for comparison with last year's data. The
tidal coefficients were computed from five and one half days of
data by doing a least squares fit to the data.
13
-------
5 JUL 79 1:48:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WRSHINGTO
4.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
0148
Figure 4. The 2M.61-hour period tidal ellipses are shown for
the area around the proposed pipeline and for an area farther
out in the strait for comparison with last year's data. The
tidal coefficients were computed from five and one half days of
data by doing a least squares fit to the data.
14
-------
9 JUL 79 8: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT E8EY WflSHINGTO
4.0 KM , 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
Figure 5. The current field at 0800 (PDT) on 9 July 1979 is
shown for the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The radar sites
were located at Dungeness Spit and Whidbey Island where the.
star is positioned.
15
-------
6 JUL 79 23: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
4.0 KM . 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
'
\
\
6. The current field at 2300 (PDT) on 6 July 1979 **
shown for the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The radar sites were
located at Dungeness Spit and Whidbey Island where the star is
positioned.
16
-------
5 JUL 79 11: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WHSHINGTO
4.0 KM . 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH
Figure 7. The current field at 1100 (PDT) on 5 July 1979 is
shown for the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The radar aites were
located at Dungenesa Spit and Whidbey laland where the atar ia
positioned.
17
-------
5 JUL 79 17: 0:00
DUNCENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
4.0 KM , 200.0 CM/5
TRUE NORTH f
Spu
18
-------
6 JUL 79 11: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBET WRSHINGTO
1.0 KM , 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
Figure 9. The current field at 1100 (PDT) on 6 July 1979 is
shown for the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The radar sites were
located at Dungeness Spit and Whidbey Island where the star is
positioned.
19
-------
6 JUL 79 17: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY HRSHINGT0
il.O KM , 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
Figure 10. The current field at 1700 (PDT) on 6 July 1979 is
shown for the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The radar sites were
located at Dungeness Spit and Whidbey Island where the star ia
positioned.
20
-------
6 JUL 79 20: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBET WflSHINGTO
4.0 KM . 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
/ /
/
/ ' ', / ' '
X *
X * , \
*
X x
\
' ^ . \
I ' V *
\
< <
1
\
''\\v;v'v
/ " , N
Figure 11. The current field at 2000 (PDT) on 6 July 1979 is
shown for the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The radar sites were
located at Dungeness Spit and Whidbey Island where the star is
positioned.
21
-------
6 JUL 79 23s 0:00
OUNCENESS SPIT HflSH
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
1.0 KM , 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH t
\
\
Figure 12. The current field at 2300 (PDT) on 6 July 1979 is
shown for the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The radar sites were
located at Dungeness Spit and Whidbey Island where the star is
positioned .
22
-------
6 JUL 79 11: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WRSH.
FORT EBEf WflSHINGTO
3.0 KM , 150.0 CH/S
TRUE NORTH f
Figure 13. The current field at 1100 (PDT) on 6 July 1979 is
shown for the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The radar sites were
located at Dungeness Spit and Whidbey Island where the star is
positioned.
23
-------
10 JUL 79 8: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBET WflSHINGTO
3.0 KM , 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
Figure 14. The current field at 0800 (PDT) on 10 July 1979 is
shown for the Str-ait of Juan de Fuca. The radar sites were
located at Dungeness Spit and Whidbey Island where the star is
positioned.
24
-------
9 JUL 79 20: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WHSH.
FORT EBEY HflSHINGTO
3.0 KM , 150.0 CM/S j_
TRUE NORTH |
Figure 15. The current field at 2000 (PDT) on 9 July 1979 is
shown for the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The radar sites were
located at Dungeness Spit and Whidbey Island where the star is
positioned.
25
-------
7 JUL 79 U: 0:00
OUNGENESS SPIT WHSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
3.0 KM , 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
Figure 16. The current field at 1400 (PDT) on 7 July 1979 is
shown for the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The radar sites were
located at Dungeness Spit and Whidbey Island where the star is
positioned .
26
-------
05-JUL-79
7 JUL 79
02:00:00
2: 0:00
2.00 KM H
0.50 HR
TRUE NORTH
Figure Ij- A two-day trajectory is shown for a hypothetical
drifter initially placed west of Protection Island. The
start time is 0200 (PDT) on 5 July 1979. The track is marked
every half hour and the initial location is marked with a box
27
-------
05-JUL-79
6 JUL 79
02:00:00
2: 0:00
2.00 KM | .
0.50 HR
TRUE NORTH f
Figure 18. The first day of the two-day trajectory in Figure
17 is reproduced here but only the estuarine flow and tides are
included.
28
-------
05-JUL-79
6 JUL 79
02:00:00
2: 0:00
2.00 KM ^_
0.50 HR
TRUE NORTH
Figure 19. A one-day trajectory is shown for a hypotheti-
cal drifter initially placed just east of Protection Is-
land. The start time is 0200 (PDT) on 5 July 1979. The
track is marked every half hour and the initial location is
marked with a box.
29
-------
05-JUL-79
7 JUL 79
02:00:00
2: 0:00
2.00 KM
0.50 HR
TRUE NORTH
Figure 20.
days.
The trajectory in Figure 19 is extended to two
30
-------
05-JUL-79
6 JUL 79
02:00:00
2: 0:00
2.00 KM |
0.50 Hfl
TRUE NORTH
Figure 21. A one-day trajectory is shown for a hypotheti-
cal drifter initially placed south of Protection Island.
The start time is 0200 (PDT) on 5 July 1979. The track is
marked every half hour and the initial location is marked
with a box.
31
-------
05-JUL-79
6 JUL 79
02:00:00
2: 0:00
2.00 KM |
0.50 HR
TRUE NORTH f
Figure 22. A one-day trajectory is shown for a hypotheti-
cal drifter initially placed east of Protection Island.
The start time is 0200 (PDT) on 5 July 1979. The track is
marked every half hour and the initial location is marked
with a box.
32
-------
05-JUL-79
6 JUL 79
02:00:00
2: 0:00
2.00 KM |
0.50 HR
TRUE NORTH f
Figure 23. A one-day trajectory is shown for a hypotheti-
cal drifter initially placed just west of Admiralty Inlet.
The start time is 0200 (PDT) on 5 July 1979. The track is
marked every half hour and the initial locoation is marked
with a box.
33
-------
APPENDIX
Figures A1.00 - A1.H2 (pgs. 35 - 77) give the surface
currents at three-hour intervals from 0200 (PDT) on 5 July to
0800 on 10 July. The radar sites are indicated with a small
star and are located at Dungeness Spit in the west and Fort
Ebey in the east. The blank area in the middle of the maps is
along the baseline between the two sites where both vector
components of the current velocity are not directly
available. Future analysis of this data will include the
currents in this area.
Figures A2.00 - A2.12 (pgs. 78 - 120) give the
currents in the area of interest bounded by Dungeness Spit,
Protection Island, and Sequim. This area is included in the
previous set of maps, but here it is shown with greater
resolution. This region of weaker flow does not show very well
in these earlier maps where the scale was chosen to better
display the stronger currents in Admiralty Inlet and farther
out in the strait.
Figures A3.00 - A3.50 (pgs. 121 - 172) show the actual
drifter positions and the radar predicted trajectories starting
at the initial position for those drifters. The drifter
positions are marked with a circle while the radar track is
marked with ticks every half hour. The drogue depth is
indicated as follows: AO is drifter "A" with zero drogue, A1
is with 0.5 meter drogue, A2 is with 1.0 meter drogue, A3 is
with 2.0 meter drogue. The letters "A", "B", "C", etc. were
used to distinguish identical drifters with the same drogue.
34
-------
05-JUL-79 02:00:00
DUNCENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT E0EY WflSHINGTO
4.0 KM . 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
35
-------
5 JUL 79 5: 0:00
OUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
4.0 KM , 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
36
-------
5 JUL 79 8: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY HRSHINGTO
4.0 KM . 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
37
-------
5 JUL 79 11: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBET WflSHINGTO
4.0 KM . 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH t
> , " K \
* - \ \ \ \ v
38
-------
5 JUL 79 1U: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBET WflSHINGTO
H.O KM . 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
/
\
39
-------
5 JUL 79 17: 0:00
OUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
14.0 KM . 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH t
40
-------
5 JUL 79 20: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WHSHINCTO
U.O KM . 200.0 CM/S h
TRUE NORTH f
V
V
41
-------
5 JUL 79 23: 0:00
OUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBET HflSHINGTO
4.0 KM , 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
42
-------
6 JUL 79 2: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBET WflSHINGTO
4.0 KM . 200.0 CM/S ,_
TRUE NORTH |
43
-------
6 JUL 79 5: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WRSHINGTO
11.0 KM , 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
44
-------
6 JUL 79 8: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT HRSH.
FORT EBEY HflSHINGTO
4.0 KM , 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
* \ N i N » A
-,',.- ^\<\\\
45
-------
6 JUL 79 11: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT HRSH.
FdflT EBEY WflSHINGTO
4.0 KM , 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
,''>','.
- ' x ' ! '
'' I '
/ / ' v ^ "
/ / \ \ t
x , / 7 \ \ ^
/ k H * v
'''''/'NVW
' ' '. ' ' \\ ^ x
.'"''' \v\ "
1 * \
^
\ »-
/
k * /
\ /
" X\
^>\
« .\
\ ' ' -^^^
V- ' ' ' ',VN\
. - . / ' ^ /
^ 'I,
/ . i 7
j <
i /
\
-;//r /
46
-------
6 JUL 79 14: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBET WflSHINGTO
U.O KM . 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH |
47
-------
6 JUL 79 17: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WRSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
4.0 KM , 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
48
-------
6 JUL 79 20: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
4.0 KM . 200.0 CM/S h
TRUE NORTH f
49
-------
6 JUL 79 23: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
4.0 KM . 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
50
-------
7 JUL 79 2; 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBET WHSHINGTO
y.O KM . 200.0 CM/S h
TRUE NORTH j
N.
/
\
\
\
\
'.'-, ' />
\- > x *
51
-------
7 JUL 79 5: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
U.O KM . 200.0 CM/S h
TRUE NORTH t
52
-------
7 JUL 79 81 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT UflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
4.0 KM , 200.0 CM/S (_
TRUE NORTH f
53
-------
7 JUL 79 11: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBET WflSHINGTO
4.0 KM . 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
54
-------
7 JUL 79 HI: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
4.0 KM . 200.0 CM/S h
TRUE NORTH f
' " \\sA
55
-------
7 JUL 79 17: 0:00
OUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBET WflSHINGTO
4.0 KM , 200.0 CM/S
THUE NORTH f
s.
' v ^ \
56
-------
7 JUL 79 20: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
U.O KM . 200.0 CM/S h
TRUE NORTH f
57
-------
7 JUL 79 23: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT HflSH.
FORT EBEY WRSHINGTO
11.0 KM .
-------
8 JUL 79 2: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WRSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
H.O KM , 200.0 CM/S h
TRUE NORTH f
59
-------
8 JUL 79 5: 0:00
OUNGENESS SPIT HRSH.
FORT EBEY HflSHINGTO
y.O KM . 200.0 CM/S
TflUE NORTH t
60
-------
8 JUL 79 8: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTQ
4.0 KM . 200.0 CM/S ,_
TRUE NORTH f
61
-------
8 JUL 79 11: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBET WRSHINGTO
LJ.Q KM . 200.0 CM/S h
TRUE NORTH t
vv ', I
62
-------
8 JUL 79 14; ChOO
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WRSHINGTO
U.Q KM , 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH |
63
-------
8 JUL 79 17: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WRSH.
FORT EBET HflSHINGTO
14.0 KM , 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
64
-------
8 JUL 79 20: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBET WflSHINGTO
4.0 KM , 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
V
V .. \
N V
>v \
V x x
N r
0^.<
^- \
0^ \ <
«o 1
\ x
vl
A\
^\
V '
v ^ x - /
. V . ^- ^ '
\ *^ ^_
\ v *~ - "" - " °- / /
1 \ ^ - "~ , / '
* "- * " ' I
v *- ^- "«_;'
v - "-.-^-- \ I
*~ ^^"°^- /4
- ^ v^ *-/ 7
^^ " --""^Xv-1^/'
^^.-----Xl-T.-^ '
N^^^-'XXNV
v "X^ i
\
\ v"~
- \ \ v N --
" \ V \ k ^^ ^
,-. --x\VA\xV_
-
/ ,
J \
1
'//
//
/
L
V *
\
/ /
/
-V \
"£>
\
65
-------
8 JUL 79 23: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WRSHINGTO
4.0 KM . 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
V
66
-------
9 JUL 79 2: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT HflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
y.Q KM . 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
67
-------
9 JUL 79 5: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WRSHINGTO
M.O KM . cOO.O CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
' 1 '
I * , I
68
-------
9 JUL 79 8: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WFtSH.
FORT EBET WHSHINGTO
1.0 KM . 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
69
-------
9 JUL 79 11: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WRSHINGT0
4.0 KM . 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH t
\
xv
. / /
X v
\^ . V
^
\ : V
t
" N ^
\ N \\
-Jx-^
70
-------
9 JUL 79 lUt 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT HflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
4.0 KM . 200.Q CM/S , ,
TRUE NORTH f
71
-------
9 JUL 79 17: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBET WRSHINGTO
4.0 KH . 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH |
72
-------
9 JUL 79 20: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT HflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
4.0 KM , 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH |
73
-------
9 JUL 79 23: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINCTO
H.O KM . 200.0 CM/S ,_
TRUE NORTH t
O-
V
^ X.
\
\
- "' ' ll
I \.
\
\
V' I
\
*V,oN--
: \\ -t>.
74
-------
10 JUL 79 2: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WHSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
y.O KM , 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
75
-------
10 JUL 79 5: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBET WflSHINOTO
4.0 KM . 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
76
-------
10 JUL 79 8: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT HflSH.
FORT EBEY WRSHINCTO
4.0 KM . 200.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
77
-------
05-JUL-79 02:00:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
3.0 KM , 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
78
-------
5 JUL 79 5s 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WRSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTQ
3.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
79
-------
S JUL 79 8: OiOO
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBET WflSHINGTO
3-0 KM , 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH |
80
-------
5 JUL 79 11: 0:00
DUNCENESS SPIT WRSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
3.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
81
-------
5 JUL 79 14: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
3.0 KM , 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH
82
-------
5 JUL 79 17: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBET WflSHINGTO
3.0 KM
TRUE NORTH
150.0 CM/S
83
-------
5 JUL 79 20: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WRSH.
FORT EBEY WRSHINGTO
3.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
84
-------
5 JUL 79 23: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY HflSHINGTO
3.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S |_
TRUE NORTH f
85
-------
6 JUL 79 2: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBET WflSHINGTO
3.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S h
TRUE NORTH f
86
-------
6 JUl 79 5: 0:00
JNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
ORT EBEY HflSHINGTO
3.0 KM , 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
87
-------
6 JUL 79 8: 0:00
OUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WfiSHINGTO
3.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH |
-------
6 JUL 79 11: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WRSH.
FORT EBET WRSHINGTO
3.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S |_
TRUE NORTH f
89
-------
6 JUL 79 14: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT HRSH.
FORT EBET WflSHINGTQ
3.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S ,_
TRUE NORTH f
90
-------
6 JUL 79 17: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
3.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S h
TRUE NORTH f
\
91
-------
6 JUL 79 20: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTQ
3.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
\
' , \
92
-------
6 JUL 79 23: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBET WHSHINGTO
3.0 KM , 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
\
93
-------
7 JUL 79 2: 0:00
OUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WRSHINGTO
3.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
94
-------
7 JUL 79 5: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
3.0 KM , 150.0 CM/S
TflUE NORTH |
95
-------
7 JUL 79 8: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
3.0 KM , 1BO.O CM/S
TRUE NORTH |
96
-------
7 JUL 79 11: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WRSH.
FORT EBET WflSHINGTO
3.0 KM , 150.0 CM/S |_
TRUE NORTH f
\
97
-------
7 JUL 79 11: 0:00
OUNGENESS SPIT MRSH.
FORT EBET WflSHINGTO
3.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
98
-------
7 JUL 79 17: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
3.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
99
-------
7 JUL 79 20: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FQHT EBEY MflSHINGTO
3.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH
100
-------
7 JUL 79 23: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
3.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S \-
TRUE NORTH f
101
-------
8 JUL 79 2: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBET WRSHINGTO
3.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
x /
102
-------
8 JUL 79 5: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT HflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
3.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
103
-------
8 JLJL 79 8: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBET WflSHINGTO
3.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
104
-------
8 JUL 79 11: 0:00
OUNGENESS SPIT WRSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTQ
3.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
105
-------
8 JUL 79 1H: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WRSHINGTO
3.0 KM , 150.0 CM/S h
TRUE NORTH t
106
-------
8 JUL 79 17: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBET WflSHINGTQ
3.0 KM , 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
107
-------
8 JUL 79 20: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBET WflSHINGTO
3.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
\
108
-------
8 JUL 79 23: 0:00
OUNGENESS SPIT HflSH.
FORT EBEY WHSHINGTQ
3.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
109
-------
9 JUL 79 2: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
3.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH |
110
-------
9 JUL 79 5: 0:00
DUNCENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
3.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
111
-------
9 JUL 79 8: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
3.0 KM , 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
112
-------
9 JUL 79 11: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WRSHINGTO
3.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S h
TRUE NORTH f
113
-------
9 JUL 79 IMs 0:00
OUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
3.0 KM , 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
114
-------
09-JUL-79 17:00:00
OUNGENESS SPIT WOSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTQ
3.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH f
115
-------
9 JUL 79 20: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT HflSH.
FORT EBEY Hf)CL>1TNGTO
3.0 KM , 150.0 CMVS
TRUE NORTH |
116
-------
9 JUL 79 23: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT Wfl£H.
FORT EBEY HflSHINGTO
3-0 KM . 150.0 CM/S h
TRUE NORTH
117
-------
10 JUL 79 2: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY WflSHINGTO
3.0 KM . 150.0 CH/S
TRUE NORTH f
118
-------
10 JUL 79 5: 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WRSH.
FOHT EBET WflSHINDTO
3.0 KM . 150.0 CM/S
TRUE NORTH
\
\
119
-------
10 JUL 79 8s 0:00
DUNGENESS SPIT WflSH.
FORT EBEY HRSHINGTO
3.0 KM , 150.0 CM/S h
TRUE NORTH f
120
-------
07-JUL-79
7 JUL 79
RflW / RO
1824
10:33:00
18:23:00
2.00 KM |
0.50 Hfl
TRUE NORTH
121
-------
07-JUL-79 10:33:00
7 JUL 79 16:23:00
FIRM / Rl
1623
2.00 KM |
0.50 Hfl
TRUE NORTH f
122
-------
07-JUL-79
7 JUL 79
RflW / Rl
1826
16:27:00
16:17:00
2.00 KM ,
0.50 HR
TRUE NORTH |
123
-------
07-JUL-79
7 JUU 79
RflW / 02
1830
10:33:00
18:23:00
2.00 KM |
0.50 HR
TRUE NORTH t
124
-------
07-JUL-79
7 JUL 79
RflW / fl3
1829
10:33:00
18:23:00
2.00 KM |
0.50 Hfl
TRUE NORTH f
125
-------
07-JUL-79
7 JUL 79
RRW / BO
1357
10:47:00
13:57:00
2.00 KM ,
0.50 HR
TRUE NORTH |
126
-------
07-JUL-79
7 JUL 79
RflW / Bl
115U
10:47:00
1 1:147:00
2.00 KM |
0.50 HR
TRUE NORTH |
127
-------
07-JUL-79
7 JUL 79
RflW / 82
1162
10:47:00
11:147:00
2.00 KM |
0.50 HR
TRUE NORTH
128
-------
07-JUL-79
7 JUL 79
RflW / 83
10:47:00
114: 7jOO
2.00 KM j
0.50 HR
TRUE NORTH f
129
-------
07-JUL-79 11:04:00
7 JUL 79 12:2U:00
RflW / CO
1230
2.00 KM |
0.50 HR
TRUE NORTH f
130
-------
07-JUL-79
7 JUL 79
RflW / Cl
1454
11:04:00
14:54:00
2.00 KM |
0.50 HR
TRUE NORTH |
131
-------
07-JUL-79
7 JUL 79
RflW / C2
1456
11:04:00
14:54:00
2.00 KM |
0.50 HR
TRUE NORTH
132
-------
07-JUL-79 11:04:00
7 JUL 79 14:54:00
RflW / C3
1502
2.00 KM ,
0.50 HR
TRUE NORTH |
133
* GPO 699-288 1980
------- |