for unreasonable data (see App. C) . Errors were checked against original 

 field notes and either corrected or deleted. 



Since breaker direction was recorded in three formats during this 

 study, an arbitrary standardization procedure was used. Breaker direc- 

 tion data were standardized to the protractor notation as follows: com- 

 pass sector notations of northeast, east, and southeast were assigned to 

 coastal sectors 1, 3, and 5, respectively (Fig. 14). Occasional observa- 

 tions of east-northeast and east-southeast were coded as sectors 2 and 3. 

 There were no observations from sectors north or south. Coastal sector 

 notations were then converted to angles as follows: data falling in sec- 

 tors 2, 3, or 4 were treated as having angles equal to the respective 

 bisector angle; i.e., 73°, 90°, and 107°. Data in sectors 1 and 5 were 

 assigned values of 45° and 135°, respectively. Protractor direction 

 notations (Fig. 14, c) were used for all computations using breaker 

 angles. For display purposes, breaker directions were regrouped into 

 coastal sectors. 



The raw pipe profile data, which consist of distances from pipe tops 

 or reference marks to the sand level, were combined with the surveyed 

 distance-elevation pair for each pipe to obtain ground elevations. The 

 reduced data were then run through two separate editing programs. Obvi- 

 ous errors were checked against field notes and with the observer. These 

 errors generally appeared as spikes in an otherwise smooth profile shape, 

 and were errors of 1 foot or more in elevation. They were commonly the 

 result of transcribing errors, but also occurred as the result of damaged 

 pipes. (In the case of the subaqueous profiles, the observer occasion- 

 ally misidentified or unknowingly skipped a pipe station along a profile. 

 However, this was a rare occurrence that was usually immediately apparent 

 and corrected in the field at the completion of a survey.) The corrected 

 data were then rerun through the editing routines for further checks. It 

 was usually necessary to repeat the editing process several times. 



Tne largest amount of time in processing the data was spent in such 

 quality control. After the data had been screened for obvious errors, 

 they were transferred to magnetic tape for further analysis. The profile 

 data were analyzed for changes in the MSL shoreline position and changes 

 in the cross-sectional area between successive profile surveys. 



The MSL intercept was interpolated for each profile siarvey. If more 

 than one intercept occurred, the landwardmost position was used. If the 

 profile survey did not reach the MSL elevation, but did reach the +2- foot 

 (+0.61 meter) elevation, the profile was extrapolated to get the MSL inter- 

 cept. Any profile survey not reaching a minimum elevation of +2 feet was 

 discarded. 



A total of 117 profile surveys (or 2.4 percent of the total) did not 

 cross the +2-foot intercept. Most of these were collected during 10 sep- 

 arate two- tidal cycle series of 3-hour surveys, which are discussed sep- 

 arately. 



35 



