6^ of approximately 19 h. The estimated period is 28 h. This Gulf- 

 wide oscillation resumes its dominant role in the computed 

 hydrographs on the left side of the track from Port Isabel to 

 Progreso. 



The model storm HUR13 which traversed PATH3 produced a peaik 

 surge of 5.81 m near Burrwood (grid point 37,48). The hydrograph 

 from Pensacola shown in Fig. 78 indicates a maximum water level of 

 less than one meter. The difference of almost 5 m in maximum surge 

 between Pensacola and Burrwood is probably due to the very narrow 

 shelf width at Pensacola. The initial rise of water levels that 

 match the first maximum of tjq is noticeable. The period, maximum 

 peak and time lag, 6q, determined from Fig. 79 are 26 h, 0.2 m and 11 

 h, respectively. The 77^ signal remains detectable in the hydrographs 

 from stations around the Gulf and again is the major part of the 

 response at stations on the west and southwest coast. 



The storm moving due north along PATH4 at 25 km/h with a 30 km 

 radius of maximum wind (HUR19) generated a maximum surge of 6.22 m 

 one grid block to the east of the Apalachicola sampling point. 

 However, the simulated hydrographs show higher water levels at Cedar 

 Key than at Apalachicola. The sampling point for Apalachicola is 

 only half a grid block away from the path. Consequently, this 

 station lies inside the radial distance between the storm center and 

 the maximum wind location and is hence subjected to a smaller wind 

 stress. The time sequence of the computed water level at Cedar Key 

 is shown in Fig. 80. The initial rise of water level prior to the 

 peak surge is almost undetectable. The tjq hydrograph, Fig. 81, 



135 



