Prepared for: Calibration of a Hydrodynamic Georgia Ports and Water Quality Model Authority for the Savannah Harbor Volume 1: Hydrodynamic Modeling Report APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ Title.cdr 11/12/03 Table of Contents Tables Figures January 2004 Section TABLE OF CONTENTS Page VOLUME 1: HYDRODYNAMIC MODELING REPORT 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................1-1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .....................................................................1-1 1.2 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION, BASELINE HYDROLOGY AND BASELINE HYDRODYNAMICS .............................................................1-2 1.3 STUDY GOALS ......................................................................................1-3 1.4 REPORT OUTLINE ................................................................................1-4 2.0 HYDRODYNAMIC CHARACTERIZATION OF THE LOWER SAVANNAH RIVER ESTUARY ..............................................................................................2-1 2.1 LOCATION .............................................................................................2-1 2.2 HYDROLOGY.........................................................................................2-2 2.3 ANTHROPOGENIC IMPACTS TO THE SYSTEM .................................2-2 2.4 JULY TO SEPTEMBER 1997 MONITORING ........................................2-6 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.4.4 2.4.5 2.4.6 Continuous Salinity and Temperature ........................................2-7 Continuous Currents...................................................................2-7 Water Surface Elevation Fluctuations.........................................2-8 Freshwater Flow .........................................................................2-8 Cross-Section Flow Measurements ............................................2-8 Meteorological ............................................................................2-9 2.5 AUGUST TO OCTOBER 1999 MONITORING ......................................2-9 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.5.4 2.5.5 2.5.6 2.5.7 Continuous Salinity and Temperature ......................................2-10 Continuous Currents.................................................................2-10 Continuous Water Level ...........................................................2-11 Freshwater Flow .......................................................................2-11 Cross-Section Flow Measurements ..........................................2-11 EPD Sampling Station Synoptics..............................................2-12 Meteorological ..........................................................................2-12 2.6 SUMMARY OF KEY HYDRODYNAMIC PROCESSES .......................2-12 3.0 HYDRODYNAMIC MODEL FORMULATION.....................................................3-1 3.1 CONSERVATION EQUATIONS.............................................................3-2 3.2 SOLUTION METHODOLOGY................................................................3-2 GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 i Section TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 3.3 TRANSPORT EQUATIONS ...................................................................3-3 3.4 THERMAL MODEL.................................................................................3-4 3.5 CHANGES MADE TO THE MODEL FOR THE SAVANNAH APPLICATION ........................................................................................ 3-4 3.5.1 Marsh Boundaries.......................................................................3-4 3.5.2 River Set Up ...............................................................................3-5 3.5.3 Vertical Mixing ............................................................................3-6 4.0 CONVERGENCE, SIGMA TRANSPORT AND MASS BALANCE TESTS ........4-1 4.1 CONVERGENCE TEST .........................................................................4-1 4.1.1 Model Grids ................................................................................4-2 4.1.2 Convergence Test Results .........................................................4-2 4.2 SIGMA COORDINATE TRANSPORT TEST..........................................4-4 4.2.1 Model Setup................................................................................4-5 4.2.2 Sigma Coordinate Transport Test Results..................................4-5 4.3 MASS BALANCE TESTS .......................................................................4-6 5.0 APPLICATION OF THE BFHYDRO MODEL TO THE LOWER SAVANNAH RIVER ESTUARY..........................................................................5-1 5.1 SIMULATION PERIODS ........................................................................5-1 5.1.1 Model Calibration........................................................................5-1 5.1.2 Model Validation .........................................................................5-2 5.2 MODEL GRID AND BATHYMETRY.......................................................5-2 5.2.1 Model Grid ..................................................................................5-2 5.2.2 Model Bathymetry.......................................................................5-3 5.3 MODEL COEFFICIENTS .......................................................................5-7 5.3.1 Bottom Friction............................................................................5-8 5.3.2 Horizontal Diffusivity ...................................................................5-8 5.3.3 Vertical Eddy Viscosity/Diffusivity ...............................................5-8 5.4 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FOR 1999 SIMULATIONS.........................5-9 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 5.4.4 5.4.5 Offshore Boundary......................................................................5-9 Upstream Boundary..................................................................5-10 Marsh Boundaries.....................................................................5-11 Point Source Inflow...................................................................5-11 Meteorological ..........................................................................5-11 5.5 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FOR 1997 SIMULATIONS.......................5-12 GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 ii Section TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 5.5.1 Offshore Boundary....................................................................5-12 5.5.2 Upstream Boundary..................................................................5-13 5.5.3 Point Source Inflow...................................................................5-13 6.0 HYDRODYNAMIC MODEL CALIBRATION METHODOLOGY..........................6-1 6.1 MEAN ERROR .......................................................................................6-3 6.2 ABSOLUTE MEAN ERROR ...................................................................6-3 6.3 ROOT MEAN SQUARE ERROR............................................................6-4 6.4 PERCENTILES.......................................................................................6-4 7.0 HYDRODYNAMIC MODEL CALIBRATION TO 1999 DATASET ......................7-1 7.1 BACKGROUND......................................................................................7-1 7.2 WATER SURFACE ELEVATION ...........................................................7-4 7.2.1 Graphical Comparison ................................................................7-4 7.2.2 Statistical Comparisons and Harmonic Analysis ........................7-5 7.3 CURRENTS AND FLOWS .....................................................................7-7 7.3.1 Graphical Comparison ................................................................7-7 7.3.2 Statistical Comparison ................................................................7-8 7.4 SALINITY................................................................................................7-9 7.4.1 Graphical Comparison ................................................................7-9 7.4.2 Statistical Comparisons ............................................................7-11 7.5 TEMPERATURE ..................................................................................7-12 7.5.1 Graphical Comparison ..............................................................7-12 7.5.2 Statistical Comparisons ............................................................7-12 7.6 COMPARISON WITH FEDERAL CRITERIA .......................................7-13 8.0 HYDRODYNAMIC MODEL VALIDATION TO 1997 DATASET .........................8-1 8.1 WATER SURFACE ELEVATION ...........................................................8-2 8.1.1 Graphical Comparison ................................................................8-2 8.1.2 Statistical Comparisons and Harmonic Analysis ........................8-2 8.2 CURRENTS AND FLOWS .....................................................................8-3 8.2.1 Graphical Comparison ................................................................8-4 8.2.2 Statistical Comparison ................................................................8-4 GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 iii Section TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 8.3 SALINITY................................................................................................8-5 8.3.1 Graphical Comparison ................................................................8-5 8.3.2 Statistical Comparisons ..............................................................8-5 8.4 COMPARISON WITH FEDERAL CRITERIA .........................................8-6 9.0 HYDRODYNAMIC MODEL SENSITIVITY .........................................................9-1 9.1 VERTICAL DIFFUSIVITY .......................................................................9-2 9.2 BOUNDARY SALINITY ..........................................................................9-2 9.3 HORIZONTAL DIFFUSIVITY .................................................................9-3 9.4 UPSTREAM INFLOW.............................................................................9-3 9.5 BOTTOM FRICTION ..............................................................................9-4 10.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................10-1 REFERENCES APPENDICES GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 iv TABLE LIST OF TABLES (placed behind each section) 1-1 Tidal Conditions 4-1 Convergence Test Model Runs 4-2 Convergence Test Results for Front River 4-3 Convergence Test Results for Little Back River 4-4 Results of Sigma Transport Test 5-1 Summary of 1999 Survey Information Used to Develop Model Bathymetry 5-2 Summary of 1997 Survey Information Used to Develop Model Bathymetry 5-3 Marsh Boundary Condition Parameters 6-1 Simulation, Calibration, and Validation Periods for the Hydrodynamic Model 6-2 Federal Expectations Criteria Summary 7-1 Simulated versus Measured Water Surface Elevation Statistics and Percentiles for Calibration Period (August 4-September 8, 1999) 7-2 Comparison of Water Surface Elevation Harmonics for Calibration Period (August 4-September 8, 1999) 7-3 Simulated versus Measured Velocity Statistics and Percentiles for Calibration Period (August 4-September 8, 1999) 7-4 Simulated versus Measured Volume Flux for 1999 7-5 Simulated versus Measured Salinity Statistics and Percentiles for Calibration Period (August 4-September 8, 1999) 7-6 Simulated versus Measured Temperature Statistics and Percentiles for Calibration Period (August 4-September 8, 1999) 7-7 Comparison of 1999 Calibration Results Against Federal Criteria 8-1 Simulated versus Measured Water Surface Elevation Statistics and Percentiles for Verification Period (July 15-September 30, 1997) GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 v TABLE LIST OF TABLES (placed behind each section) 8-2 Comparison of Water Surface Elevation Harmonics for Calibration Period (July 15- September 30, 1999) 8-3 Simulated versus Measured Velocity Statistics and Percentiles for Verification Period (July 15-September 30, 1997) 8-4 Simulated versus Measured Volume Flux for 1997 8-5 Simulated versus Measured Salinity Statistics and Percentiles for Verification Period (July 15-September 30, 1997) 8-6 Comparison of 1997 Verification Results Against Federal Criteria 9-1 Summary Table of Sensitivity Runs Performed for Hydrodynamic Model 9-2 Sensitivity of 50th Percentile Salinities 9-3 Sensitivity of 90th Percentile Salinities 9-4 Sensitivity of 50th Percentile Water Levels 9-5 Sensitivity of 95th Percentile Water Levels GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 vi FIGURE LIST OF FIGURES (placed behind each section) 1-1 Project Location Map 1-2 Historic Flow Conditions 2-1 Savannah River Watershed 2-2 1997 Continuous Salinity and Temperature Measurements 2-3 1997 Continuous Current Measurements 2-4 USGS Stations 2-5 1997 ADCP Transect Stations 2-6 1999 Continuous Salinity and Temperature Measurements 2-7 1999 Continuous Current Measurements 2-8 1999 ADCP Transect Stations 2-9 1999 EPD Sampling Stations 2-10 1999 Meteorological Stations 3-1 Schematic of Hydro Model Grid Cell 3-2 Schematic of Marsh Boundary Condition 5-1 Model Grid 5-2 1999 and 1997 Model Bathymetry 5-3 Longitudinal Bathymetric Profile of Front River for 1997 and 1999 5-4 Longitudinal Variation in Bottom Friction Coefficient 5-5 Offshore Tidal Boundary Condition for 1999 Simulation (August 1-October 7, 1999) 5-6 Upstream Freshwater Inflow at Clyo for 1999 Simulation (August 1-October 7, 1999) 5-7 Offshore Salinity Boundary Condition for 1999 Simulation (August 1-October 7, 1999) GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 vii FIGURE LIST OF FIGURES (placed behind each section) 5-8 Offshore Temperature Boundary Condition for 1999 Simulation (August 1-October 7, 1999) 5-9 Upstream Temperature Boundary Condition for 1999 Simulation 5-10 Marsh Areas Represented in Hydrodynamic Model 5-11 1999 Wind and Atmospheric Pressure used in Simulations 5-12 1999 Solar Radiation and Air Temperature used in Simulations 5-13 Offshore Tidal Boundary Condition for 1997 Simulation 5-14 Upstream Freshwater Inflow at Clyo for 1997 Simulation 5-15 Offshore Salinity Boundary Condition for 1997 Simulation 7-1 Simulated versus Measured Water Level at GPA-04, GPA-06, GPA-08 (August 4- September 8, 1999) 7-2 Simulated versus Measured Water Level at GPA-14, Hardeeville, Limehouse (August 4-September 8, 1999) 7-3 Longitudinal Plot of Water Surface Elevation Error Statistics for 1999 Calibration Period (August 4-September 8, 1999) 7-4 Simulated versus Measured Surface and Bottom Currents at GPA-04 (August 4- September 8, 1999) 7-5 Simulated versus Measured Surface and Bottom Currents at GPA-06 (August 4- September 8, 1999) 7-6 Simulated versus Measured Currents at GPA-16 (August 4-September 8, 1999) 7-7 Simulated versus Measured Current Contours at GPA-06 7-8 Simulated versus Measured Flows at FJ, FR2, and FR3 7-9 Simulated versus Measured Flows at MR2, BR, and LBR2 GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 viii FIGURE LIST OF FIGURES (placed behind each section) 7-10 Simulated versus Measured Surface and Bottom Salinity along the Lower Front River at GPA-04 and GPA-21 during Calibration Period (August 4, 1999 September 8, 1999) 7-11 Simulated versus Measured Surface and Bottom Salinity along the Upper Front River at GPA-06 and GPA-09 during Calibration Period (August 4, 1999 September 8, 1999) 7-12 Simulated versus Measured Salinity on the Middle River at GPA-10 and GPA-12 during Calibration Period (August 4-September 8, 1999) 7-13 Simulated versus Measured Salinity on the Little Back River at GPA-15 and Limehouse during Calibration Period (August 4-September 8, 1999) 7-14 Longitudinal Plot of Salinity Error Statistics for 1999 Calibration Period (August 4September 8, 1999) 7-15 Longitudinal Plot of Simulated versus Measured 10th, 50th, and 90th Percentiles for Salinity (August 4-September 8, 1999) 7-16 Simulated versus Measured Longitudinal Profile Color Contour Time Series 7-17 Comparison of Simulated versus Measured Vertical Profiles of Salinity at EPD Snapshot Stations (September 20, 27, 1999) 7-18 Comparison of Simulated versus Measured Salt Flux at Key Stations for 1999 Calibration Period 7-19 Simulated versus Measured Surface and Bottom Temperature along the Lower Front River at GPA-04 and GPA-21 during Calibration Period (August 4, 1999 September 8, 1999) 7-20 Simulated versus Measured Surface and Bottom Temperature along the Upper Front River at GPA-06 and GPA-09 during Calibration Period (August 4, 1999 September 8, 1999) 7-21 Simulated versus Measured Temperature on the Middle River at GPA-10 and GPA12 during Calibration Period (August 4-September 8, 1999) GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 ix FIGURE LIST OF FIGURES (placed behind each section) 7-22 Simulated versus Measured Temperature on the Little Back River at GPA-15 during Calibration Period (August 4-September 8, 1999) 7-23 Longitudinal Plot of Temperature Error Statistics for 1999 Calibration Period (August 4-September 8, 1999) 7-24 Longitudinal Plot of Simulated versus Measured 10th, 50th, and 90th Percentiles for Temperature (August 4-September 8, 1999) 7-25 Comparison of Simulated versus Measured Vertical Profiles of Temperature at EPD Snapshot Stations (September 20, 27, 1999) 8-1 Simulated versus Measured Water Level at GPA-04, GPA-06, GPA-08 (August 4- September 8, 1997) 8-2 Simulated versus Measured Water Level at I-95 and Lucknow Canal (August 4- September 8, 1997) 8-3 Longitudinal Plot of Water Surface Elevation Error Statistics for 1997 Calibration Period (July 15 - September 30, 1997) 8-4 Simulated versus Measured Surface and Bottom Currents at GPA-04 (August 4- September 8, 1997) 8-5 Simulated versus Measured Surface and Bottom Currents at GPA-08 (August 4- September 8, 1997) 8-6 Simulated versus Measured Flows at FR2, MR2, and LBR2 8-7 Simulated versus Measured Flows at FR3, BR, and FJ 8-8 Simulated versus Measured Surface and Bottom Salinity along the Lower Front River at GPA-02 and GPA-04 during Calibration Period (August 4, 1997 - September 8, 1997) 8-9 Simulated versus Measured Surface and Bottom Salinity along the Upper Front River at GPA-06 and GPA-09 during Calibration Period (August 4, 1997 - September 8, 1997) GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 x FIGURE LIST OF FIGURES (placed behind each section) 8-10 Simulated versus Measured Salinity on the Middle River at GPA-10 and GPA-12 during Calibration Period (August 4-September 8, 1997) 8-11 Simulated versus Measured Salinity on the Little Back River at GPA-15 and Lucknow Canal during Calibration Period (August 4-September 8, 1997) 8-12 Longitudinal Plot of Salinity Error Statistics for 1997 Calibration Period (July 15 September 30, 1997) 8-13 Longitudinal Plot of Simulated versus Measured 10th, 50th, and 90th Percentiles for Salinity (July 15 - September 30, 1997) 8-14 Simulated versus Measured Longitudinal Profile Color Contour Time Series GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 xi 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Applied Technology and Management, Inc. (ATM) was retained by the Georgia Ports Authority (GPA) to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed Savannah Harbor Expansion Project using two models: a three-dimensional hydrodynamic model of the Lower Savannah River Estuary; and a three-dimensional water quality model of the Lower Savannah River Estuary. The goal of the modeling effort is to provide tools capable of simulating the existing water surface elevation, currents, temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen (DO) in the estuary, as well as tools capable of projecting the spatial and temporal distribution of the parameters listed above under various altered conditions of physical geometry (deepening), boundary forcing, and loading conditions. In support of the overall model development, two extensive field data collection programs were conducted, one in 1997 and one in 1999. The 1997 study was conducted in order to provide data for calibration of the hydrodynamic model as well as a simplified dissolved oxygen model. The results of the 1997 data collection are summarized in a report entitled "Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Monitoring within the Lower Savannah River Estuary, JulySeptember 1997" (Applied Technology and Management, 1998b). A three-dimensional boundary-fitted model was constructed based on the 1997 data collection and the geometry of the Savannah River Estuary. Following calibration of the hydrodynamic and salinity model, a simplified DO model was developed. The model description, calibration and results were summarized in the report entitled "Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Modeling of the Lower Savannah River Estuary" (Applied Technology and Management and Applied Science Associates, 1998). Additionally, the model results were incorporated into the Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the deepening project (Applied Technology and Management and Lockwood Greene, 1998). Following review of the EIS and the modeling report, by state and federal agencies and the Modeling Technical Review Group (MTRG), it was determined that a Tier II EIS document would be required to further evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Savannah Harbor Deepening. Under the Tier II EIS a recommendation was made for providing an improved water quality model based upon a more comprehensive data set to be collected in the summer of 1999. Additionally, the 1999 data collection would provide further refinements to the hydrodynamic model. The results of the 1999 data collection effort are GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 1-1 summarized in a report entitled "Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Monitoring within the Lower Savannah River Estuary, July-September 1997" (Applied Technology and Management, 1998b). This report (Volume I) provides a detailed presentation of the calibration and validation of the Hydrodynamic Model, along with all assumptions, inputs, formulations and analyses conducted throughout this study. The Hydrodynamic Model is calibrated to the more comprehensive data set collected in 1999 and then validated against the original data collected in 1997. 1.2 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION, BASELINE HYDROLOGY AND BASELINE HYDRODYNAMICS The Savannah River originates in the mountains of Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina and flows south-southeasterly 312 miles to the Atlantic Ocean near the port city of Savannah, Georgia. The Savannah River is formed at Hartwell Reservoir by the Seneca and Tugaloo Rivers. The Savannah River, flowing in a south-southeasterly direction, forms the border between the states of Georgia and South Carolina. The Savannah River Basin has a surface area of 10,577 square miles, of which 4,581 square miles are in South Carolina, 5,821 square miles are in Georgia, and approximately 175 square miles are in North Carolina. Like other basins of large rivers in the Southeast which flow into the Atlantic Ocean, the Savannah River Basin embraces three distinct areas: the Mountain Province, the Piedmont Province, and the Coastal Plain. The primary area of concern for the evaluation of the proposed deepening is within the Coastal Plain region, from upstream of where the river crosses I-95 to it's confluence with the Atlantic Ocean. Through this region, the river transitions from fresh water to saline while passing through a highly dynamic zone with tidal ranges on the order of 8 feet, extensive tidal marshes, and current velocities exceeding 2 meters per second in places. Figure 1-1 presents the geometry of the Savannah River below the I-95 Bridge. The figure outlines the extents of the deepened channel, the river mile system within the study area, and the location of the City of Savannah in relation to the river. While the primary area of concern is from upstream of I-95 to the mouth, the model grid was extended upstream to the City of Clyo (RM 60) to provide flow input from the furthest downstream U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) flow gaging station. GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 1-2 The primary forcing mechanisms for circulation and transport within the estuarine portions of the Savannah River are the offshore tides and the freshwater inflow from the watershed. Table 1-1 presents the tidal statistics for the Ft. Pulaski gage at the mouth of the river. The statistics show the magnitude of the tidal range within the system with a mean range on the order of 6-7 feet (2 meters) and a maximum range on the order of 9-10 feet (3 meters). The tidal influence within the system extends well upstream of the entrance channel along the Front River, Back River and Little Back River. During periods of low flow, brackish water extends upriver as high as the crossing at I-95 (RM 28) and reversing flow conditions are measured as far upstream as Ebeneezer Creek. Tidal fluctuations within the river extend upstream of Hardeeville. The Clyo gaging station (USGS station 02198500) has been monitored continuously since 1929 and provides a comprehensive record of the freshwater flow conditions to the estuarine portions of the Savannah River. Figure 1-2 presents the historic flow conditions from 1930 to the present along with a distribution of the daily flows. The bottom plot shows the influence of the dams put into the system in the 1950's which reduced the maximum flow conditions which, prior to 1950, exceeded 60,000 cfs (1700 m3/s) at times. Additionally, the dams increased the minimum flow conditions on the river, and the lowest recorded daily average flow value post dam construction is 4,710 cfs (133 m3/s) on Nov 22, 1981. On both the distribution plot and the time series of average flows in Figure 1-2, the flow conditions for 1999 and 1997 are presented. The data shows that the average flow in 1999 was low in comparison to past years as the system entered into the extensive drought period from 1999 to 2002. The minimum daily average flow value measured during the study period of August to September of 1999 was 5,600 cfs (159 m3/s) while it was 10,600 (300 m3/s) in 1997. 1.3 STUDY GOALS The general goal of this study was to develop a three-dimensional hydrodynamic model that is capable of accurately simulating the temporal and spatial distribution of the water surface elevation, currents, salinity and temperature within the Lower Savannah River Estuary under existing conditions as well as under a proposed deepened condition. An extensive review of the model development work by representatives of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&W), the United States Geologic Survey (USGS), the GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 1-3 Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD), the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), and representatives of industry and municipal discharges along the river, occurred from 1999 through the present with frequent technical review meetings. During this process, guidelines for model performance were developed by representatives from the Federal Agencies. These guidelines specified performance criteria for the simulation of the water surface elevation, currents, salinity and temperature. The draft write up of the performance criteria is presented within Appendix GG (the document was not finalized through this process). The criteria provide guidelines for model performance and acceptability, but based upon extensive discussion with the technical reviewers, do not reflect absolute criteria that must be met for the model to be deemed acceptable. The basis for model acceptability is to be based upon a weight of evidence approach, the accurate simulation of the key processes in the system within the limits of present accepted technology, and the needs of the model for predictive purposes. The follow section outlines the report components that are to provide the basis for a weight of evidence review of the Hydrodynamic Model for the Lower Savannah River Estuary. 1.4 REPORT OUTLINE This report presents the calibration and validation of the Hydrodynamic Model to the data sets from 1999 and 1997 respectively. In addition, it summarizes results and studies presented within other reports that are relevant to the development and calibration of the hydrodynamic model. The following outlines the specific chapters of this report: 2.0: Characterization of the Hydrodynamics of the Lower Savannah River Estuary Outlines key aspects of the system hydrodynamics (determined from analysis of the measured data in 1999 and 1997), and provides the groundwork for evaluation of the models ability to capture key processes. 3.0: Hydrodynamic Model Formulation Presents the formulation of the BFHYDRO Hydrodynamic Model. 4.0: Convergence, Sigma Transport and Mass Balance Tests Presents the results of a series of test conducted on the BFHYDRO model to assure proper formulation and solution of the equations as well as sufficient grid resolution to resolve the system. GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 1-4 5.0: Application of the BFHYDRO Model to the Lower Savannah River Estuary - Presents the development of the baseline hydrodynamic model for the Lower Savannah River Estuary using the BFHYDRO model including; the simulation periods, model geometry, boundary condition inputs, and model coefficients for both the calibration period in 1999 and the validation period in 1997. 6.0: Hydrodynamic Model Calibration Methodology Presents the graphical and statistical methods used in the calibration and validation of the hydrodynamic model. 7.0: Hydrodynamic Model Calibration to 1999 Dataset Presents, the results of the calibration of the hydrodynamic model to the 1999 data set, including the graphical and statistical comparisons. 8.0: Hydrodynamic Model Validation to 1997 Dataset Presents, the results of the validation of the Hydrodynamic Model to the 1997 data set, including the graphical and statistical comparisons. 9.0: Hydrodynamic Model Sensitivity Analyses Presents results from sensitivity analysis of the Hydrodynamic Model. 10.0: Summary and Conclusions GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 1-5 2.0 HYDRODYNAMIC CHARACTERIZATION OF THE LOWER SAVANNAH RIVER ESTUARY This section describes the physical environment of the Lower Savannah River Estuary and the resulting hydrodynamic characteristics that are to be modeled. The descriptions are based upon the data collection efforts conducted in 1997 and 1999 and other available data. The 1999 and 1997 data sets are described in detail below. 2.1 LOCATION The drainage basin of the Savannah River consists of an area of 10,577 square miles, of which 175 square miles are in southwestern North Carolina, 4,581 are in western South Carolina, and 5,821 are in Georgia (Figure 2-1). The headwaters are located in the highforested slopes of the Blue Ridge Mountains. The principal headwater streams, the Tugaloo and the Seneca, combine near Hartwell, Georgia to form the Savannah River. From that point, the river flows about 300 miles southeasterly to discharge into the Atlantic Ocean near Savannah, Georgia. The major downstream tributaries include the Broad River in Georgia, the two Little Rivers in Georgia and South Carolina, Brier Creek in Georgia, and Stevens Creek in South Carolina. The basin is predominantly forested, with wetlands existing along the river floodplains. Extensive wetlands occur at the coast due to the flat topography and high tidal range. For the purposes of this study, the Lower Savannah River Estuary consists primarily of the following sections and these are the main focus of this study (Figure 1-1): The main trunk of the Savannah River from the Interstate-95 (I-95) Bridge down to the river mouth at Fort Pulaski; The Back River, the Little Back River, and the Middle River, including the areas within the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge (SNWR); and The South Channel from Fort Jackson to the Atlantic Ocean. The harbor comprises the lower 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and about 11 miles of channel across the bar to the Atlantic Ocean. The City of Savannah, Georgia, dominates the mainland on the south side of the harbor. Savannah's historic downtown area is located on a bluff approximately 18 miles above the River's mouth. Heavy GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 2-1 industry and shipping facilities are along the south side of the harbor upstream from the City's historic downtown area to the head of the harbor. More heavy industries and a few shipping facilities line the harbor downstream from the historic downtown area of the City to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW). From the AIWW to the River's mouth, both sides of the harbor are predominantly undeveloped areas consisting of islands, marshes, dredged material disposal areas, and other natural sites. Dredged material disposal areas, former rice fields constructed in the 18th and 19th centuries, and marshes characterize the areas along the South Carolina side of the harbor. Land use on the South Carolina side of the Savannah River is basically agricultural and silvicultural, with some recreational land use. Wetland habitat types found along Savannah Harbor include saltwater aquatic, saltwater coastal flats, saltwater marshes, freshwater aquatic, freshwater flats, and freshwater marsh. 2.2 HYDROLOGY Freshwater flows near Clyo, Georgia, (RM 61) average 11,600 cfs (329 m3/s) with maximum and minimum annual mean discharges of 20,900 cfs (592 m3/s) and 9,820 cfs (278 m3/s), respectively, since 1962. The U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) station at Clyo, approximately 61 miles upstream of the mouth of the Savannah River, is the most downstream gage that records river discharges. Below this point, the Savannah River is tidal and USGS personnel have indicated that flow measurements would prove unreliable. The Savannah Harbor experiences a large semi-diurnal tide. Tidal fluctuations average 6.8 feet (2.1 meters) at the mouth of the estuary and 7.9 feet (2.4 meters) at the upper limit of the harbor. The tidal influence extends approximately 45 miles upstream to Ebenezer Landing, Georgia. Maximum velocities encountered in the navigation channel are approximately 4 fps (1.2 m/s) on the flood tide and 5 fps (1.5 m/s) on ebb tide. Ebb velocities are usually somewhat higher than flood velocities. 2.3 ANTHROPOGENIC IMPACTS TO THE SYSTEM Granger (1968) summarized the early work on the Savannah River: Work on the harbor, and on the river above and below the town, falls into two general periods: First, operations that were designed to increase depths in GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 2-2 front of the town by diverting water from the Back River to the Front River and to reduce shoaling by removing obstruction; and second, overall plans for improvements that were based on comprehensive studies for obtaining a desired depth in the entire channel from the Bar to the upper harbor limits. The first period, covering the years from 1733-1850, consisted of work done when necessary by the town, the Commissioners of the Port and Pilotage, by the U.S. Treasury, by the Corps of Engineers and by the Topographical Bureau; the second period covers the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers from the 1850's to the present time with the exception of the confused interruptions during the Civil War years. The major efforts to deepen the harbor began in 1873 when General Gilmore submitted a project for the formation of a channel, 22 feet (6.7 m) deep at Mean High Water (MHW) from Savannah to the sea. This was to be accomplished by building a dam at the Cross Tides, by widening the waterway opposite the city and by dredging the lower reach. In 1874, Congress authorized a 22-foot deep project based on this plan. This project was successfully modified and enlarged, and work under it continued until 1890. In 1890 Lieutenant Carter submitted a plan for a 26-foot (7.9 m) MHW channel from Tybee Roads to Savannah. Since that time, the design depth of the channel has increased down to 42 feet (12.8 m) MLW with varying depths along specific reaches. The history of the federal project authorization is as follows: June 23, 1874: Regulating works. Annual Report 1873, p. 747. March 2, 1907: Tentative Provisions for a 26-foot channel from the Quarantine Station to the Seaboard Air Line Railway Bridge. H. Doc. 181, 59th Cong., 1st sess. June 25, 1910: Definite Provision for the 26-foot channel. July 25, 1912: A 21-foot channel from the Seaboard Air Line Railway Bridge to the foot of Kings Island. H. Doc. 563, 62d Cong., 2d sess. August 8, 1917: A 30-foot depth from the sea to the Quarantine Station. H. Doc. 1471, 64th Cong., 2d sess. January 21, 1927: A 21-foot channel above Kings Island. H. Doc. 261, 69th Cong., 1st sess. GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 2-3 January 21, 1927: Channel 30 feet deep, with general width 500 feet, from the ocean to the Quarantine Station, thence 26 feet deep, general width 400 feet, to the Seaboard Air Line Railway Bridge, thence 21 feet deep and 300 feet wide to Kings Island. Widening at West Broad and Barnard Streets; anchorage basin; mooring dolphins; regulating dam across South Channel; relocation of the Inland Waterway; dredging Drakes Cut to 13 feet; widening to 525 feet at Kings Island; extension of training walls, revetments, and jetties. Consolidation of projects relating to Savannah Harbor. H. Doc. 262, 69th Cong., 1st sess. July 3, 1930: Channel 26 feet deep and 300 feet wide from the Seaboard Air Line Railway Bridge to the foot of the Kings Island. S. Doc. 39, 71st Cong., 1st sess. August 30, 1935: Authorized the 30-foot project and eliminated from the project (a) the relating dam across South Channel; (b) the relocation of the Inland Waterway; and (c) the further extension of training walls, revetments, and jetties. H. Doc. 276, 73d Cong., 2d sess. March 2, 1945: Deepening the channel and turning basin above the Seaboard Air Line Railway Bridge from 26 to 30 feet and widening the channel opposite the Atlantic Coast Line Terminals to a maximum of 550 feet for a length of 5,000 feet. H. Doc. 283, 76th Cong., 1st sess. (1) November 7, 1945: Deepening the channels to 36 feet deep and 500 feet wide across the ocean bar; 34 feet deep and generally 400 feet wide, increased to 550 feet opposite the Atlantic Coast Line Terminals, with a turning basin 34 feet deep at the Mexican Petroleum Corp. Refinery; and with such modifications thereof as the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers may consider desirable. H. Doc. 227, 79th Cong., 1st sess. (1) July 24, 1946: Extending channel 30 feet deep, 200 feet wide, upstream from Atlantic Creosoting Terminal to a point 1,500 feet below the Atlantic Coastal Highway Bridge, with turning basin 30 feet deep at upper end. H. Doc. 678, 79th Cong., 2d sess. (1) September 3, 1954: Deepening the channel to 34 feet and widening to 400 feet, from the upper end of the presently authorized 34-foot channel in the vicinity of the American Oil Company Refinery wharf, to the Savannah Sugar Refinery with a turning basin at the upper end of the proposed improvement made by widening the channel to 600 feet for a length of 700 feet and providing approaches. H. Doc. 110, 83d Cong., 1st sess. (1) GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 2-4 October 23, 1962: Enlargement of turning basin near Kings Island to a width of 900 feet and a length of 1,000 feet, with suitable approaches, at a depth of 34 feet. S. Doc. 115, 87th Cong., 1st sess. October 27, 1965: Deepening the bar channel from 36 feet to 40 feet, the channel between the bar channel and Garden City Terminal from 34 feet to 38 feet, and the channel from the Garden City Terminal to the vicinity of the Savannah Sugar Refinery from 30 feet to 36 feet; widening the bar channel from 500 feet to 600 feet, the channel between Fort Pulaski and Atlantic Coast Line Terminal from 400 feet to 500 feet, and the channel between Garden City Terminal and the Savannah Sugar Refinery from 20O feet to 400 feet; providing necessary wideners of the bends; constructing a new turning basin 900 feet wide by 1,000 feet long by 34 feet deep opposite the Atlantic Coast Line Terminals; and enlargement of existing turning basin at the American Oil Company Terminal from 600 feet wide by 600 feet long to 900 feet wide by 1,000 feet long. H. Doc. 226, 89th Cong., 1st sess. October 27, 1965: Providing sediment control works consisting of tide gate structure across Back River; sediment basin 40 feet deep, 600 feet wide, about 2 miles long, with entrance channel 38 to 40 feet deep and 300 feet wide; drainage canal across Argyle Island 15 feet deep and 300 feet wide; control works and canals for supplying fresh water to Savannah National Wildlife Refuge; and facilities to mitigate damages to presently improved areas other than refuge lands. H. Doc. 223, 89th Cong., 1st sess. SPCW Resolution June 15, 1976 and HPWTC of June 9, 1976 under authority of Sec. 201 of Flood Control Act of 1965: Provided for modification of the existing project to include (1) incorporation of the LASH Turning Basin as an element of the existing Federal navigation project for maintenance purposes, (2) provided for the enlargement of the Kings Island Turning Basin to 1,500 feet wide, 1,600 feet long, and 38 feet deep, and for the incorporation of the existing Oyster Bed Island Turning Basin into the Federal Navigation Project. H. Doc. 94-520, 94th Cong., 1st sess, June 8, 1976. July 16, 1984: Construction of 3 new work curve wideners in the inner harbor channel. Curve Widener No. 1 is between mile 11.1 and 11.9. Curve Widener No. 2 is between mile 13.2 and 13.8. Curve Widener No. 3 is between mile 14.0 and 14.8. The wideners are located on the north side of the channel. Cost of new construction $1,711,940. PL 98-360. GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 2-5 WRDA 1986 - October 17, 1986: Savannah Harbor Widening as described in Report of Chief of Engineers, dated December 19, 1978. Authorized widening channel from 400 feet to 500 feet from Fig Island Turning Basin to Kings Island Turning Basin, a distance of 5.6 miles. PL 99-662. H. Doc 6, 99th Cong., 2d sess, dated October 17, 1986, Sec. 201. Section 867: Allows planning, engineering and design to remove drift and debris as part of operations and maintenance. Section 1135: Implemented a fish and wildlife habitat restoration project which utilized material dredged from Federal navigation projects to improve salinity levels in the Back River area by filling in an existing canal. WRDA 1992 - October 31, 1992: Savannah Harbor Deepening - Deepened harbor by 4 feet, from -38 feet MLW to -42 feet MLW in the Inner Harbor and from -40 feet MLW to 44 feet MLW in the Bar Channel for a total of 31 miles of harbor improvements. It is clear from the history presented above that the Lower Savannah River Estuary has undergone significant physical alteration over the past century. These alterations, especially the continued deepening, the construction of the tide gate, and excavation and filling of connecting channels (i.e., New Cut) have permanently altered the hydrodynamic conditions in the system. The most dramatic result of these alterations has been the increased intrusion of salinity up the main channel of the river. Presently, saline conditions extend to the I-95 Bridge crossing nearly 27 miles upriver of the mouth at Fort Pulaski. The simulation of the present hydrodynamic conditions within the system, including the salinity intrusion is the primary goal for the development of the hydrodynamic model. The following describes the measured hydrodynamic data sets utilized in the development of the hydrodynamic model and some key hydrodynamic characteristics to be simulated by the model. 2.4 JULY TO SEPTEMBER 1997 MONITORING For the purpose of model calibration, ATM conducted an intensive field-monitoring program in 1997 to quantify the hydrodynamic conditions within the Lower Savannah River Estuary. Under this monitoring effort a total of 14 continuous monitoring stations measured water GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 2-6 surface elevation, specific conductivity (converted to salinity), and temperature between July 1997 and September 1997. The continuous monitoring stations consisted of permanently mounted instruments that recorded data at 15-minute intervals. The stations within the navigation channel generally recorded surface and bottom concentrations, while those outside of the channel recorded near-bottom concentrations. The instruments were placed near the bottom (i.e., approximately 3 feet above the bottom) in the reaches outside of the channel to provide the worst-case condition of salinity intrusion. Additionally, continuous current measurements were taken at locations within and outside of the navigation channel. Detailed descriptions of the methodologies utilized, the locations of stations, the data collected, and findings from the intensive field monitoring program are presented in a report entitled "Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Monitoring of the Lower Savannah River Estuary, July-September 1997" (Applied Technology and Management, 1998b). The following provides brief descriptions of the different hydrodynamic data collected. 2.4.1 Continuous Salinity and Temperature Figure 2-2 shows the locations of the continuous salinity and temperature measurements throughout the system. The stations are distributed up the Front River, Back River, Middle River, and Little Back River from offshore up to the I-95 Bridge. As the legend shows, all of the stations measured either: bottom and surface salinity (in the channel areas along the Front River); or bottom salinity (outside of the channel). A single station that measured the offshore salinity (GPA-01) was positioned in the middle of the water column. In addition to the GPA stations, USGS maintained specific conductance sensors on their stations at the Houlihan Bridge, Lucknow Canal, and the USF&W station. Figure 2-4 presents the locations of the USGS stations. Plots of the measured continuous salinity and temperature data, collected in 1997, are presented in Appendix A. 2.4.2 Continuous Currents To quantify the vertical variation in the density-driven flow, as well as the tidal flow passing through the system, two bottom-mounted Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCP) and two electro-magnetic current meters (S-4) were deployed. Figure 2-3 shows the locations of the current meters. The ADCPs recorded continuous currents at 1-meter intervals over the water GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 2-7 column, and the S-4 collected mid-depth current velocities, at 15-minute intervals, over a 30day period. The two S-4 current meters experienced significant problems during deployment. Plots of the measured current data, collected in 1997, are presented in Appendix A. 2.4.3 Water Surface Elevation Fluctuations Each of the GPA stations where continuous salinity and temperature data were collected had a pressure sensor that recorded the water surface elevation fluctuations. In addition, USGS maintained various stage gages throughout the system as shown in Figure 2-4. While the USGS stations were surveyed relative to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 1929), the GPA stations were not. Corrections to the pressure sensor data were performed to bring each station as close as possible to the datum used for the USGS gages. This correction is described in detail in the report entitled, "Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Monitoring of the Lower Savannah River Estuary, July-September 1997" (Applied Technology and Management, 1998b). Plots of the 1997 measured water surface elevation data are presented in Appendix A. 2.4.4 Freshwater Flow USGS maintains a flow measurement station at Clyo. This flow measurement station provided the upstream freshwater inflow data for the model. The Clyo gage is located approximately 60 miles upstream of the mouth of Savannah Harbor. 2.4.5 Cross-Section Flow Measurements Boat-mounted ADCP transects measured cross-sectional discharges across the width and depth of the river at critical locations. Figures 2-5a and 2-5b show the location of the crosssection transects. These data were used to quantify flux at these areas throughout the tidal cycle. The sections were chosen to try and capture the distribution of flows where the Front River splits at Fort Jackson, the distribution of flows in the Front River, Middle River, and Little Back River where the Houlihan Bridge crosses the system just above the channel, and finally in the upper reaches where the three branches rejoin just below the I-95 bridge. GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 2-8 2.4.6 Meteorological For the 1997 monitoring effort it was anticipated to use the meteorological station located at the Savannah Airport. Unfortunately, this gage was not operating at the time of the 1997 data collection effort and no local data were available. Searches for other meteorological stations from which accurate local data could be extracted did not provide a station near enough for reliable data to use in the model. This limited the ability of the 1997 simulations to accurately predict temperature. 2.5 AUGUST TO OCTOBER 1999 MONITORING Based upon review of the modeling performed under the Tier I EIS, it was determined that a more comprehensive data collection effort was required to calibrate the water quality component of the model. The monitoring study consisted of a series of data collection efforts conducted in parallel from August 2, 1999 through October 9, 1999. The data utilized in the development of the hydrodynamic model are summarized in the following list: Deployment of YSI water quality instruments at 29 instrument locations in the river. There were 21 stations with 8 in the navigational channel consisting of top and bottom instruments. The water quality instruments measured temperature and salinity at 5-minute intervals. Deployment of YSI pressure transducers at 21 instrument locations in the river. Water surface elevation was measured at 5-minute intervals. Deployment of 2 bottom-mounted Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers in the harbor that measured vertical profiles of velocity at 10-minute intervals. Deployment of 6 Nortek Aquadopp Current Meters at and upstream of I-95 Bridge that measured a point velocity at 10-minute intervals. ADCP transects performed at 29 locations throughout the estuary to monitor flow during a tide cycle. Longitudinal profiling of 10 stations established by EPD in the 1980s. GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 2-9 Deployment of 3 meteorological stations that measured rainfall, air temperature, barometric pressure, wind speed and direction, solar radiation, and relative humidity at 5-minute intervals. Detailed descriptions of the methodologies utilized, the locations of stations, and the data collected from the intensive field monitoring program are presented in a report entitled "Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Monitoring of the Lower Savannah River Estuary, August 2 through October 9, 1999" (Applied Technology and Management, 2000). These data are used for the calibration and verification of the hydrodynamic and salinity model. The following summarizes the types of data collected relative to the hydrodynamic model. 2.5.1 Continuous Salinity and Temperature Figures 2-6a and 2-6b show the locations of the continuous salinity and temperature measurements throughout the system. The stations are distributed up the Front River, Back River, Middle River, and Little Back River from the mouth near Fort Pulaski up to Ebeneezer Creek. As the legend shows, the stations measured bottom and surface salinity and temperature in the channel areas along the Front River, surface temperature and salinity in the Middle and Little Back Rivers, and bottom or mid-depth temperature and salinity in other areas outside of the channel. In contrast to the bottom measurements collected during 1997, surface measurements were performed in the Middle River and Little Back River for the 1999 monitoring in order to record the salinity that enters the marshes during high tide periods. The surface sensors were mounted on buoys and therefore provided an accurate measurement of the true surface values even as the water surface fluctuated. In addition to the GPA stations, USGS maintained specific conductance sensors on their stations at the Houlihan Bridge, Limehouse, and the USF&W dock. Figure 2-4 presents the locations of the USGS stations. Plots of the measured continuous salinity and temperature data, collected in 1999, are presented in Appendix B. 2.5.2 Continuous Currents To quantify the vertical current structure, two bottom-mounted Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCPs) were deployed along with side viewing Aquadopp Current Meters. Figures GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 2-10 2-7a and 2-7b show the locations of the current meters. The ADCPs recorded continuous currents at 1-meter intervals over the water column, and the Aquadopps collected single middepth current readings. The Aquadopps, which were located at and above I-95, were installed primarily for the Chloride Study (a separate study associated with the SHEP), but provided some additional verification of the flows in the upper river. Plots of the measured current data collected in 1999 are presented in Appendix B. 2.5.3 Continuous Water Level Each of the GPA stations where continuous salinity and temperature data were collected had a depth sensor that recorded the water surface elevation fluctuations. In addition, USGS maintained various stage gages throughout the system as shown in Figure 2-4. While the USGS stations were surveyed relative to the NGVD 1929 datum, the GPA stations were not. Corrections to the pressure sensor data were performed to bring each station as close as possible to the datum used for the USGS gages. This correction is described in detail in the report entitled, "Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Monitoring of the Lower Savannah River Estuary, August 2 through October 9, 1999" (Applied Technology and Management, 2000). Plots of the measured water surface elevation data collected in 1999 are presented in Appendix B. 2.5.4 Freshwater Flow As in the 1997 period, the USGS maintained flow measurement station at Clyo was used to provide freshwater inflow data. The Clyo gage is located approximately 60 miles upstream of the mouth of Savannah Harbor. 2.5.5 Cross-Section Flow Measurements Boat-mounted ADCP transects measured cross sectional discharge across the width and depth of the river at critical locations. Figure 2-8 shows the transect locations. These data were used to quantify flux at these areas throughout the tidal cycle. GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 2-11 2.5.6 EPD Sampling Station Synoptics Studies conducted in the 1980s by GAEPD performed synoptic profile measurements of salinity and temperature at 10 stations traveling upriver on the Front River (Figure 2-9). The EPD stations were sampled as crews followed the slack high and low tide conditions traveling upriver. Lag between the observed low and high slack conditions between Fort Pulaski (entrance to Savannah River from Atlantic Ocean) and Port Wentworth (Approximately Front River Mile 21.2) is 1.3 hours. For the 1999 monitoring period these stations were again sampled synoptically three times. The dates for the synoptic measurements were September 13, September 20 and September 27 1999. During the September 13th sampling, efforts were made to provide cross-sectional representations of the system as well as synoptic measurements. Sampling in four locations along the river cross section at each EPD monitoring location slowed the sampling such that synoptic high and low tide measurements could not be completed given the number of crews available. The number of boats and crew were modified for the subsequent samplings, and synoptic high and low tide measurements were taken. 2.5.7 Meteorological For the 1999 monitoring efforts, three meteorological stations were established that measured wind, rainfall, solar radiation, relative humidity, atmospheric pressure, and air temperature. Figures 2-10a and 2-10b present the locations of these instruments. The instruments were placed as close to the standard 10-meter height as possible. Where the sensors were lower, corrections to the measured data were made. 2.6 SUMMARY OF KEY HYDRODYNAMIC PROCESSES In any successful modeling study of a complex system, it is critical to identify how the model is to be used, and focusing the model development on the simulation of the associated key processes. For the Savannah Harbor Hydrodynamic Model these key processes were determined through extensive analysis of the data and documented in three reports: "Analysis of the Historical Data for the Lower Savannah River Estuary" (Applied Technology and Management, 1998a), "Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Monitoring within the Lower Savannah River Estuary, July-September 1997" (Applied Technology and Management, GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 2-12 1998b), and "Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Monitoring within the Lower Savannah River Estuary, August-October 1999" (Applied Technology and Management, 2000). Additionally, the goals of the study determine the key processes. For the Hydrodynamic Model the goals are: Simulation of the salinity intrusion into the system, and the temporal and spatial distribution of the salinity above Fort Jackson (primarily within the marshes of the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge). Simulation of the water levels throughout the system and the resulting high tide inundation of the marshes. Evaluation of the effects of the proposed navigation channel deepening on the hydrodynamics and primarily the salinity intrusion and distribution above Fort Jackson (primarily within the marshes of the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge). Development of transport processes sufficient for simulation of dissolved oxygen conditions within the main harbor area. One of the major findings of the monitoring program was to confirm the importance of the stratification/destratification process on the temporal and spatial distribution of salinity throughout the harbor, the Middle River, and the Little Back River. The analysis of the historic data showed that following the decommissioning of the Tide Gate, the maximum salinity intrusion along the Front River occurred primarily during neap tide conditions, whereas maximums occurred during spring tide conditions when the Tide Gate was in operation. One potential cause for this alteration is the reduction in the ebb tide velocities along the Front River above Fort Jackson following the Tide Gate decommissioning. Since vertical turbulence is directly proportional to tidal velocities, a reduction in the velocities causes an associated reduction in turbulent mixing. Therefore, during neap tide conditions, there is not enough energy to break down the salinity gradient, and water masses with higher salinity are able to intrude further into the system. Furthermore, the analyses of the continuous and synoptic data identified mechanisms of salinity transport in the system not reported in previous studies. The higher levels of salinity within the Middle River, in comparison to the Little Back River, appear to be transported directly from the Front River through the connection at RM 20. Since the closure of New Cut, the only downstream connection remaining between the Middle River and the Little Back River is Rifle Cut. Salinity measured in the Little Back River at Station GPA-15 identified the GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 2-13 impacts on salinity concentrations due to flows from the Middle River through Rifle Cut. Based upon the data from the USGS gage at the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&W) Dock, these impacts appear to be localized to the vicinity of the entrance to Rifle Cut. The timing of the salinity distribution also shows some interesting characteristics. Along the Front River, as the tidal forcing goes from a neap tide condition to a spring tide condition the stratification begins to breakdown. At this point the peak salinity concentrations are beginning to reduce along the Front River but begin to peak up in the Middle and Little Back River. Overall, the data showed around a three to four day lag in the timing of the salinity high tide peaks in the Front River as compared to the Little Back River. This characteristic is somewhat unique and defines the timing of salinity spikes in the areas of the freshwater marshes. Evaluation of the water surface elevation data showed that the tidal amplitudes in the system increase moving upstream to a point above the Houlihan Bridge after which the tidal amplitudes are gradually dampened. At the Houlihan Bridge the tidal amplitudes are on the order of 20 percent greater than at the mouth of the system. The dampening continues upstream past I-95 where there is a net mean water level set up that continues as the tidal amplitudes are reduced. This balance within the Front River carries over to the Middle and Little Back River where the tidal amplitudes are dampened relative to the main stem and a net mean water level setup exists. In summary, the analyses of the data identified some important characteristics relative to the temporal and spatial distribution of the salinity and the water levels within the Lower Savannah River Estuary, including: The stratification/destratification along the maintained portion of the Front River and the resulting upstream salinity intrusion under more stratified conditions; The increased surface salinity concentrations up the Middle River in relation to the Little Back River due to the direct connection with the Front River above Hutchinson Island; The transport of higher salinity waters from the Middle River to the Little Back River through Rifle Cut and the associated localized impacts to salinities; The lag of salinity peaks on the Middle and Little Back River relative to the Front River; GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 2-14 The amplification and dampening of the water surface elevations throughout the system; and The net set up/set down of the mean water level. The model development and calibration focused upon these characteristics. Additionally, the stratification/destratification and longitudinal transport is the primary mechanism of transport to be transferred over to the water quality modeling study. GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 2-15 3.0 HYDRODYNAMIC MODEL FORMULATION The complexity of the physical environment must be considered when selecting a hydrodynamic model. It is clear from the characterization of the Lower Savannah River Estuary that there are a number of complex processes occurring within the system. In general, the water body is long, thin, and full of turns and branches. For the level of prediction required for the hydrodynamic simulations, a full 3-dimensional, coupled, prognostic hydrodynamic, salinity, and temperature model was utilized. For a standard rectangular grid finite difference model, if the grid spacing is made small enough to resolve the smallest spatial scales of interest, the computational costs often become excessive. On the other hand, if the number of mesh points is not large enough, the numerical predictions may be in error throughout the solution domain. Ideally, a model grid would be able to incorporate variable cell sizes, enabling the modeler to resolve the areas of interest without being penalized by over-resolving the entire grid. In addition, the ideal grid would accurately follow the geometry of the coastline without the "stair step" problem or overresolution required from a rectangular grid. For the Lower Savannah River Estuary application, a boundary-fitted hydrodynamic model (BFHYDRO) was used to simulate water surface elevation, velocity, salinity and temperature. The boundary-fitted model matches the model coordinates with the shoreline boundaries of the water body accurately representing the study area. This system also allows the user to adjust the model grid resolution as desired. This approach is consistent with the variable geometry and coastal features of the Lower Savannah River Estuary. The model may be applied in either two or three dimensions depending upon on the nature of the problem and the complexity of the study. A copy of the BFHYDRO FORTRAN code, as used in this study, is included in Appendix HH. The boundary-fitted method uses a set of coupled quasi-linear elliptic transformation equations to map an arbitrary horizontal multi-connected region from physical space to a rectangular mesh structure in the transformed horizontal plane (Spaulding, 1984). The threedimensional conservation of mass and momentum equations, with approximations suitable for lakes, rivers, and estuaries that form the basis of the model, are then solved in this transformed space. In addition, an algebraic transformation is used in the vertical dimension to map the free surface and bottom on to coordinate surfaces. The resulting equations are solved using an efficient semi-implicit finite difference algorithm for the exterior mode (two- GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 3-1 dimensional vertically averaged) and by an explicit finite difference leveled algorithm for the vertical structure of the interior mode (three-dimensional). A detailed description of the original model with associated test cases is included as Appendix BB (Muin and Spaulding, 1997). The manuscript was originally part of a Ph.D. dissertation that extended the boundary-fitted model capabilities by applying a contravariant velocity formulation to the transformed momentum equations. A brief description of the model is given in the following sections. 3.1 CONSERVATION EQUATIONS The basic equations are written in spherical coordinates to allow for accurate representation of large model areas. The conservation equations for water mass, momentum (in three dimensions), constituent mass (salinity), and temperature form the basis of the model. It is assumed that the flow is incompressible, that the fluid is in hydrostatic balance, the horizontal friction is not significant, and the Boussinesq approximation applies. The boundary conditions are as follows: At land the normal component of velocity is zero; At open boundaries the free surface elevation must be specified and salinity and temperature must be specified on inflow. On outflow, salinity and temperature are advected out of the model domain; A bottom stress or a no-slip condition is applied at the bottom; No water or salt or temperature is assumed to transfer to or from the bottom; A wind stress is applied at the surface; and Surface waters exchange heat with the atmosphere. 3.2 SOLUTION METHODOLOGY The set of governing equations with dependent and independent variables transformed from spherical to curvilinear coordinates, in concert with the boundary conditions, is solved by a semi-implicit, split-mode finite difference procedure (Swanson, 1986). The equations of motion are vertically integrated and, through simple algebraic manipulation, are recast in GNV/2004/98991A/HY/HYRPT/1/23/2004 3-2 terms of a single Helmholtz equation in surface elevation. This equation is solved using a sparse matrix solution technique to predict the spatial distribution of surface elevation for each grid. The finite difference solutions utilize a staggered grid structure where velocity flux (vector) terms are defined on the outer boundaries of the grid cell, while scalar quantities such as water surface elevation, salinity and temperature are solved at the cell center. Figure 3-1 presents a schematic of the grid cell structure. The vertically averaged velocity is then determined explicitly using the momentum equation. This step constitutes the external or vertically averaged mode. Deviations of the velocity field from this vertically averaged value are then calculated, using a tri-diagonal matrix technique. The deviations are added to the vertically averaged values to obtain the vertical profile of velocity at each grid cell, thereby generating the complete current patterns. This constitutes the internal mode. The methodology allows time steps based on the advective, rather than the gravity, wave speed as in conventional explicit finite difference methods and, therefore, results in a computationally efficient solution procedure (Swanson, 1986). 3.3 TRANSPORT EQUATIONS The salinity and temperature transport models are solved by a simple explicit technique except for the vertical diffusion term which is solved by a three time level, implicit scheme to ease the time step restriction due to the small vertical length scale. The advection terms are solved using a first order upwind-differencing scheme that is first order accurate. The QUICKEST formulation for the advective terms was implemented and tested in the model to try and achieve sharper gradients in salinity structure. This formulation did not provide significant improvement in the model simulations but did introduce additional instability. For this reason the final simulations presented within this report utilize the first-order upwind solution scheme for the advective terms. Horizontal gradients in temperature, (as well as in salinity, density and pressure) are evaluated along lines of constant depth to reduce the artificial numerical dispersion in the vertical associated with the sigma transformed system. The horizontal diffusion terms are solved by a centered-in-space, explicit technique. The diffusive and advective stability criteria for the numerical techniques are, t 5 ppt - +/- 10% - +/- 10% - (ppt) 50% < 5 ppt - - +/- 0.5 +/- 0.5 - Temperature (oC) * - - +/- 1 - - +/- 30 +/- 30 - Surface Currents (m/s) ** +/- 25% - - - +/- 25% +/- 30 Volume Flows (m/s) ** +/- 25% - - - +/- 25% - * 50% represent Absolute Mean Error for temperature ** 5% and 95% represent the max. ebb and flood conditions for current and flow GNV/2004/98991A/HY/12/31/2003 Table 7-1. Simulated versus Measured Water Surface Elevation Statistics and Percentiles for Calibration Period (August 4-September 8, 1999) Simulated Elevation (m) Measured Elevation (m) Difference Error Absolute Station River Mean Mean Name Mile 5% 50% 95% 5% 50% 95% 5% 50% 95% Error Error FRONT RIVER GPA-26 0.8 -0.84 0.45 1.57 -0.86 0.41 1.57 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.03 GPA-02 4.5 -0.88 0.46 1.53 -0.93 0.39 1.53 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.05 GPA-04 10.4 -0.90 0.66 1.75 -0.97 0.52 1.69 0.07 0.15 0.06 0.11 0.11 GPA-21 13.9 -0.91 0.69 1.78 -1.00 0.48 1.61 0.09 0.21 0.17 0.16 0.16 Broad St. 14.6 -0.94 0.76 1.83 -1.00 0.54 1.70 0.06 0.22 0.13 0.14 0.15 GPA-06 16.6 -0.82 0.77 1.83 -0.92 0.53 1.67 0.10 0.24 0.16 0.17 0.17 GPA-22 18.7 -1.00 0.85 1.90 -1.10 0.59 1.72 0.10 0.25 0.18 0.18 0.18 GPA-08 20.5 -0.98 0.83 1.91 -1.01 0.59 1.71 0.03 0.25 0.20 0.16 0.16 Houlihan 21.5 -1.02 0.76 1.82 -1.05 0.47 1.64 0.03 0.29 0.18 0.18 0.18 GPA-09 21.5 -0.98 0.85 1.89 -1.02 0.58 1.70 0.03 0.27 0.20 0.17 0.17 GPA11r 23.4 -0.96 0.83 1.88 -0.89 0.56 1.60 -0.07 0.27 0.28 0.17 0.20 I95 27.7 -0.87 0.91 1.91 -0.61 0.82 1.69 -0.26 0.09 0.23 0.02 0.17 GPA-14 27.7 -0.87 0.91 1.91 -0.61 0.82 1.69 -0.26 0.09 0.23 0.02 0.17 Average: Front River: 0.00 0.19 0.16 0.12 0.15 BACK RIVER GPA-05 14.5 -0.90 0.76 1.86 -0.96 0.59 1.67 0.06 0.16 0.19 0.14 0.14 Lknow 24 -0.92 0.88 1.88 -0.72 0.86 1.78 -0.20 0.02 0.10 -0.02 0.11 Average: Back River: -0.07 0.09 0.15 0.06 0.13 UPRIVER OF I-95 GPA-16 30.2 -0.29 1.04 1.93 -0.23 0.96 1.70 -0.06 0.08 0.23 0.05 0.12 Hardeeville 34.5 1.26 1.88 2.37 1.28 1.83 2.17 -0.02 0.05 0.21 0.07 0.10 GPA-17 43.0 1.90 2.41 2.79 2.26 2.61 2.83 -0.36 -0.20 -0.05 -0.19 0.21 Average: Upriver I-95: -0.15 -0.02 0.13 -0.02 0.14 RMS Error 0.03 0.07 0.13 0.18 0.16 0.19 0.20 0.18 0.21 0.19 0.23 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.25 0.17 GNV/2004/98991A/HY12/30/2003 Table 7-2. Comparison of Water Surface Elevation Harmonics for Calibration Period (August 4-September 8, 1999) Measured Amplitude (m) Simulated Amplitude (m) River Length Station Name Mile (Days) M2 Ft. Pulaski 0.8 76.0 1.00 GPA-02 4.5 24.0 1.10 GPA-04 10.4 43.0 1.14 GPA-21 13.9 33.0 1.12 Broad Street 14.6 76.0 1.14 GPA-06 16.6 51.0 1.15 GPA-22 18.7 40.0 1.22 GPA-08 20.5 66.0 1.17 Houlihan 21.5 37.0 1.14 GPA-09 21.5 66.0 1.17 GPA-11 23.4 57.0 1.07 I95 27.7 76.0 0.95 GPA-05 14.5 39.0 1.07 Limehouse 24.0 76.0 1.03 GPA-16 30.2 55.0 0.81 Hardeeville 34.5 76.0 0.22 GPA-17 43.0 54.0 0.04 River Station Name Mile Ft. Pulaski 0.8 GPA-02 4.5 GPA-04 10.4 GPA-21 13.9 Broad Street 14.6 GPA-06 16.6 GPA-22 18.7 GPA-08 20.5 Houlihan 21.5 GPA-09 21.5 GPA-11 23.4 I95 27.7 GPA-05 14.5 Limehouse 24 GPA-16 30.2 Hardeeville 34.5 GPA-17 43.0 Length (Days) 76 24 43 33 76 51 40 66 37 66 57 76 39 76 55 76 54 M2 235.9 240.0 245.3 255.1 251.7 252.9 251.9 256.1 260.7 257.1 267.3 280.9 257.5 278.2 290.4 339.3 9.4 N2 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.21 0.19 0.15 0.14 0.19 0.16 0.10 0.04 0.01 N2 222.1 227.5 237.4 242.0 243.9 248.4 247.3 245.9 256.2 247.2 271.9 293.2 249.6 288.8 310.6 338.9 41.6 S2 K1 O1 0.16 0.11 0.09 0.13 0.14 0.08 0.16 0.13 0.09 0.17 0.09 0.09 0.16 0.12 0.10 0.16 0.10 0.10 0.17 0.15 0.11 0.16 0.11 0.10 0.18 0.09 0.10 0.16 0.11 0.09 0.13 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.10 0.09 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.02 Measured Phase (degrees) S2 K1 O1 259.4 276.9 282.0 285.0 283.4 281.5 295.3 290.3 287.4 291.5 306.6 332.0 288.9 329.9 336.8 12.4 352.5 141.0 145.0 152.4 141.9 151.5 152.7 157.7 156.1 153.6 154.7 169.8 182.3 149.4 180.7 191.2 202.8 283.1 134.4 144.3 145.3 136.6 144.1 141.7 155.3 146.5 149.6 149.6 150.9 170.7 133.8 169.3 168.4 193.2 237.9 M4 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.16 0.14 0.03 0.01 M4 320.4 329.3 331.9 344.3 338.0 338.2 337.9 341.8 346.8 342.5 15.5 48.4 350.6 38.7 76.6 203.9 280.9 M6 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.00 M6 358.8 52.7 87.5 120.0 128.5 125.1 153.8 149.9 168.1 151.9 162.9 206.4 107.0 199.3 247.9 52.5 175.9 M2 1.00 1.07 1.12 1.10 1.14 1.14 1.22 1.20 1.16 1.20 1.18 1.15 1.10 1.14 0.94 0.33 0.21 M2 231.2 231.5 235.4 240.2 239.5 241.1 239.6 242.0 245.7 243.4 246.4 248.9 240.6 248.3 257.5 303.4 323.6 N2 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.20 0.23 0.20 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.19 0.14 0.06 0.04 N2 218.6 220.4 225.5 227.4 229.9 235.8 232.3 230.2 238.5 232.2 242.2 244.0 226.9 243.8 266.6 287.5 315.3 S2 K1 O1 0.15 0.11 0.09 0.13 0.14 0.09 0.15 0.13 0.08 0.18 0.09 0.09 0.17 0.11 0.09 0.16 0.10 0.09 0.17 0.14 0.09 0.17 0.12 0.09 0.21 0.09 0.09 0.17 0.12 0.09 0.16 0.11 0.09 0.16 0.11 0.10 0.16 0.09 0.09 0.16 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.03 Simulated Phase (degrees) S2 K1 O1 255.2 276.9 269.0 264.0 267.7 267.4 276.0 272.0 268.0 274.1 275.8 282.4 262.4 282.0 289.5 322.8 343.8 140.0 139.2 147.2 135.6 144.0 146.3 148.6 145.8 140.0 147.0 150.3 150.5 141.7 151.3 157.0 180.4 191.6 131.9 142.8 139.0 129.9 135.8 133.5 139.2 135.6 136.1 136.8 134.8 141.6 126.1 142.6 140.1 162.6 168.1 M4 0.06 0.10 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.22 0.15 0.04 0.02 M4 307.5 311.1 311.0 316.8 313.5 315.8 309.6 312.5 319.0 314.8 323.1 329.8 316.6 328.2 358.3 117.3 169.1 Differences in M2 M6 Constituent Percent Error (m) 0.00 0.00 0% 0.01 -0.03 -3% 0.02 -0.02 -2% 0.03 -0.02 -2% 0.04 0.00 0% 0.04 -0.01 -1% 0.03 0.00 0% 0.04 0.03 3% 0.05 0.02 2% 0.05 0.03 3% 0.06 0.11 9% 0.07 0.20 17% 0.03 0.03 3% 0.07 0.11 10% 0.07 0.13 14% 0.01 0.11 33% 0.01 0.17 81% M6 51.8 29.0 62.0 76.4 70.0 72.1 68.5 71.2 78.2 72.7 81.2 94.3 73.7 82.7 131.8 259.3 307.8 Differences in M2 Constituent Degrees Minutes 4.6 9.6 8.5 17.7 9.9 20.5 14.9 30.8 12.2 25.2 11.8 24.4 12.3 25.5 14.1 29.2 15.0 31.0 13.8 28.5 20.9 43.2 32.1 66.4 16.9 35.0 30.0 62.1 32.8 68.0 35.9 74.3 45.8 94.8 GNV/2004/98991A/HY/12/30/2003 Table 7-3. Simulated versus Measured Velocity Statistics and Percentiles for Calibration Period (August 4-September 8, 1999) Simulated Currents Measured Currents Difference Station River Name Mile Depth 5% GPA-04 10.4 Surface -1.10 Bottom -0.45 GPA-06 16.6 Surface -1.12 Bottom -0.60 GPA-14 27.7 Surface -0.55 GPA-18 28.9 Surface -0.44 GPA-16 30.2 Surface -0.56 GPA-17 43.0 Surface -0.38 Average: Front River: 50% -0.21 0.32 0.12 0.24 -0.12 0.03 -0.30 -0.32 95% 0.50 0.53 0.63 0.52 0.22 0.27 -0.02 -0.22 5% 50% 95% FRONT RIVER -0.96 0.12 0.86 -0.74 0.17 0.74 -1.02 -0.15 0.64 -0.61 0.05 0.55 -0.34 -0.11 0.20 -0.43 -0.07 0.48 -0.68 -0.37 -0.01 -0.66 -0.56 -0.47 5% -0.14 0.29 -0.11 0.01 -0.21 -0.01 0.12 0.27 0.03 50% -0.33 0.15 0.27 0.19 -0.01 0.10 0.07 0.24 0.09 95% -0.36 -0.20 -0.01 -0.03 0.02 -0.21 -0.01 0.25 -0.07 Mean Error -0.26 0.07 0.09 0.08 -0.05 -0.04 0.07 0.25 0.03 Error Absolute Mean Error 0.28 0.19 0.25 0.17 0.09 0.12 0.08 0.25 0.18 RMS Error 0.32 0.23 0.33 0.24 0.11 0.15 0.10 0.25 0.22 GNV/2004/98991A/HY/12/30/2003 Table 7-4. Simulated versus Measured Volume Flux for 1999 Station Name FJ(GPA4) FR2(GPA9) FR3(GPA21) MR2(GPA10) LBR2(GPA15) BR I95(GPA14) MR1 GPA17 GPA18 GPA16 EIE SCU KC FR1 LBR1 UC FW1 FW2U FW3 FW4 FW5 FW6 Modeled Flow (m/s) 2519 -5605 -5276 -823 -1970 -1989 1210 -3550 -3150 220 -590 342 -611 159 -591 -678 750 1502 -1700 -1560 1300 -693 322 406 143 -183 163 59 68 555 55 -71 -1229 -1048 695 -110 -128 112 -112 -172 37 -230 122 -384 150 222 253 665 -924 -1043 830 Measured Flow (m/s) 2856 -5108 -4687 -919 -1524 -1538 1650 -3008 -2810 164 -468 370 -491 110 -258 -271 929 958 -1682 -1600 1185 -733 369 441 95 -158 105 75 86 442 48 -63 -1079 -945 658 -56 -176 104 -173 -76 61 -176 103 -247 163 250 398 681 -819 -1164 985 Difference (%) -11.8 9.7 12.6 -10.4 29.3 29.3 -26.7 18.0 12.1 34.1 26.1 -7.6 24.4 44.5 129.1 150.2 -19.3 56.8 1.1 -2.5 9.7 -5.5 -12.7 -7.9 50.5 15.8 55.2 -21.3 -20.9 25.6 12.7 12.7 13.9 10.9 5.6 96.4 -27.3 7.7 -35.3 126.3 -39.3 30.7 18.4 55.5 -8.0 -11.2 -36.4 -2.3 12.8 -10.4 -15.7 GNV/2004/98991A/HY/12/30/2003 Table 7-5. Simulated versus Measured Salinity Statistics and Percentiles for Calibration Period (August 4-September 8, 1999) Simulated Salinity (ppt) Measured Salinity (ppt) Difference Station Name River Mile Depth 10% GPA-26 0.8 Surface 21.5 Bottom 29.6 GPA-02 4.5 Surface 12.8 Bottom 25.4 GPA-03 5.5 Bottom 11.7 GPA-04 10.4 Surface 6.0 Bottom 16.8 GPA-21 13.9 Surface 4.1 Bottom 10.9 GPA-06 16.6 Surface 3.3 Bottom 10.7 GPA-22 18.7 Surface 1.4 Bottom 6.4 GPA-08 20.5 Surface 0.5 Bottom 3.1 GPA-09 21.5 Surface 0.3 Bottom 1.1 Houlihan 21.5 Middle 1.0 GPA-11r 23.4 Bottom 0.0 GPA-14 27.7 Bottom 0.0 Average: Front River: GPA-10 21.8 Surface 0.8 GPA-12 23.7 Surface 0.0 Average: Middle River: GPA-05 14.5 Bottom 2.8 GPA-07 18.9 Surface 0.9 GPA-15 20.9 Surface 0.4 USFW 22.1 Middle 0.3 Limehouse 24.2 Middle 0.2 Average: Back River: 50% 28.4 32.4 19.3 29.9 14.4 8.3 23.4 6.6 18.2 5.4 16.4 2.9 11.1 2.0 7.2 1.3 3.7 3.4 0.7 0.0 1.5 0.4 6.9 1.4 0.9 0.7 0.4 90% 31.4 35.0 27.7 33.6 16.8 11.6 28.9 9.8 24.9 8.7 21.8 4.3 16.1 3.5 12.9 2.9 7.4 6.5 2.9 0.0 3.1 1.2 11.5 2.1 1.8 1.2 0.7 10% 50% 90% FRONT RIVER 19.5 26.3 30.5 26.1 30.0 32.9 14.5 20.4 26.7 22.5 27.4 31.3 16.3 18.5 20.5 8.2 11.5 16.2 14.6 19.2 27.0 5.2 7.6 11.2 12.0 17.0 25.3 3.5 5.9 8.7 9.4 15.0 23.2 0.7 2.6 5.4 3.0 7.9 12.5 0.1 0.6 4.0 0.3 4.2 12.3 0.1 1.2 4.9 0.1 2.0 7.6 0.0 1.3 5.4 0.1 0.1 2.9 0.0 0.1 0.1 MIDDLE RIVER 0.3 1.1 3.4 0.1 0.4 2.3 BACK RIVER 2.7 8.6 12.9 0.2 0.8 4.0 0.1 0.3 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.5 10% 2.0 3.5 -1.7 2.8 -4.6 -2.2 2.3 -1.1 -1.1 -0.2 1.3 0.7 3.3 0.5 2.8 0.2 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 50% 2.1 2.4 -1.1 2.5 -4.2 -3.2 4.3 -0.9 1.2 -0.5 1.4 0.3 3.1 1.3 3.0 0.1 1.8 2.1 0.6 -0.1 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.2 -1.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.1 90% 0.9 2.1 1.0 2.3 -3.7 -4.6 1.8 -1.4 -0.3 0.0 -1.4 -1.1 3.6 -0.6 0.7 -2.1 -0.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -1.2 -0.7 -1.4 -1.9 0.9 1.0 0.2 -0.2 Mean Error 1.8 2.7 -0.6 2.5 -4.2 -3.2 3.3 -1.1 0.5 -0.3 0.7 0.0 3.3 0.5 2.3 -0.4 0.8 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.2 -0.4 -0.1 -1.1 -0.1 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.0 Error Absolute Mean Error 2.5 2.7 2.2 2.6 4.2 3.2 3.4 1.4 1.8 1.2 1.8 0.9 3.5 0.9 3.0 1.0 1.7 1.6 0.7 0.0 2.0 0.6 0.5 0.5 1.9 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.9 RMS Error 3.2 3.0 2.7 3.0 4.6 3.7 4.0 1.7 2.2 1.6 2.1 1.2 4.2 1.1 3.5 1.4 2.3 1.9 1.4 0.1 2.4 0.7 1.0 0.8 2.6 1.6 0.7 0.7 0.3 1.2 GNV/2004/98991A/HY/12/30/2003 Table 7-6. Simulated versus Measured Temperature Statistics and Percentiles for Calibration Period (August 4-September 8, 1999) Simulated Temp. (C) Measured Temp. (C) Difference (C) Station Name River Mile Depth 10% GPA-26 0.8 Surface 27.4 Bottom 27.8 GPA-02 4.5 Surface 27.3 Bottom 29.7 GPA-03 5.5 Bottom 27.3 GPA-04 10.4 Surface 26.9 Bottom 27.7 GPA-21 13.9 Surface 26.8 Bottom 27.3 GPA-06 16.6 Surface 26.4 Bottom 27.2 GPA-22 18.7 Surface 26.3 Bottom 27.2 GPA-08 20.5 Surface 26.1 Bottom 26.8 GPA-09 21.5 Surface 26.1 Bottom 26.5 GPA-11r 23.4 Surface 26.2 GPA-14 27.7 Surface 25.7 Average: Front River: GPA-10 21.8 Bottom 26.3 GPA-12 23.7 Bottom 26.1 Average: Middle River: GPA-05 14.5 Bottom 27.0 GPA-07 18.9 Bottom 26.7 GPA-15 20.9 Surface 26.8 Average: Back River: GPA-18 28.9 Surface 25.7 GPA-16 30.2 Surface 25.8 GPA-17 43.0 Surface 25.7 Average: I-95 UpRiver: 50% 29.3 30.0 29.5 30.6 29.6 29.3 29.9 29.1 30.1 28.2 29.0 28.7 29.6 28.8 29.5 28.7 29.2 28.1 27.3 29.0 28.4 29.9 29.0 29.0 27.3 27.3 27.3 90% 30.8 30.8 30.7 30.7 30.5 30.5 30.6 30.4 30.5 29.5 30.3 30.4 30.4 30.4 30.4 30.3 30.4 30.0 29.5 30.4 30.3 30.5 30.5 30.5 29.5 29.5 29.6 10% 50% 90% FRONT RIVER 27.8 29.9 31.3 27.8 30.2 31.1 27.9 30.1 31.4 30.0 30.8 31.3 28.0 30.5 31.7 27.6 30.3 31.4 27.9 30.3 31.5 27.6 30.1 31.4 27.8 30.6 31.5 27.1 28.6 30.4 27.6 29.2 30.8 26.7 29.1 31.0 27.3 29.7 31.2 26.3 29.1 30.9 26.6 29.4 31.1 26.3 29.1 31.0 26.4 29.4 31.0 26.1 27.9 30.3 25.8 27.0 29.3 MIDDLE RIVER 26.4 29.3 30.8 26.0 28.1 30.8 BACK RIVER 27.4 30.2 31.3 26.5 29.2 30.7 26.0 29.1 30.4 UPRIVER of I-95 25.7 27.2 29.5 25.7 26.9 29.1 25.2 26.2 28.7 10% -0.3 -0.1 -0.6 -0.3 -0.7 -0.7 -0.2 -0.8 -0.5 -0.7 -0.4 -0.4 -0.1 -0.2 0.2 -0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 -0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 -0.4 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.2 50% -0.6 -0.2 -0.6 -0.2 -0.8 -1.1 -0.4 -1.0 -0.5 -0.5 -0.2 -0.4 -0.1 -0.3 0.1 -0.4 -0.2 0.2 0.2 -0.4 -0.3 0.3 0.0 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 -0.2 0.1 0.4 1.0 0.5 90% -0.5 -0.4 -0.7 -0.6 -1.1 -0.9 -0.9 -1.0 -1.0 -0.9 -0.5 -0.6 -0.8 -0.5 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.4 0.2 -0.7 -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 -0.8 -0.3 0.1 -0.3 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.4 Mean Error -0.4 -0.2 -0.6 -0.4 -0.8 -0.8 -0.4 -0.9 -0.6 -0.6 -0.3 -0.4 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 -0.3 -0.1 0.0 0.1 -0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 -0.1 0.3 0.7 0.3 Error (C) Absolute Mean Error 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.5 RMS Error 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.7 GNV/2004/98991A/HY/12/30/2003 Table 7-7a. Comparison of 1999 Calibration Results Against Federal Criteria: Water Surface Elevation Simulated (m) Measured (m) Station River M2 Phs M2 Phs Name Mile 5% 50% 95% M2-Amp (deg) 5% 50% 95% M2-Amp (deg) FRONT RIVER GPA-26 0.8 -0.84 0.40 1.57 1 232 -0.86 0.38 1.57 1 236 GPA-02 4.5 -0.88 0.38 1.53 1.07 264 -0.93 0.35 1.53 1.1 272 GPA-04 10.4 -0.90 0.54 1.75 1.15 200 -0.97 0.43 1.69 1.16 210 GPA-21 13.9 -0.91 0.55 1.78 0.95 182 -1.00 0.40 1.61 0.99 197 Broad St. 14.6 -0.94 0.59 1.83 1.15 240 -1.00 0.45 1.70 1.15 252 GPA-06 16.6 -0.82 0.61 1.83 1.17 329 -0.92 0.44 1.67 1.18 341 GPA-22 18.7 -1.00 0.64 1.90 1.27 240 -1.10 0.46 1.72 1.27 252 GPA-08 20.5 -0.98 0.64 1.91 1.2 166 -1.01 0.48 1.71 1.17 180 Houlihan 21.5 -1.02 0.57 1.82 1.25 240 -1.05 0.39 1.64 1.23 256 GPA-09 21.5 -0.98 0.64 1.89 1.17 197 -1.02 0.47 1.70 1.13 211 GPA11r 23.4 -0.96 0.63 1.88 1.14 101 -0.89 0.46 1.60 1.03 122 I95 27.7 -0.87 0.70 1.91 1.15 249 -0.61 0.68 1.69 0.96 281 Average: Front River: BACK RIVER GPA-05 14.5 -0.90 0.61 1.86 1.21 151 -0.96 0.47 1.67 1.15 169 Lknow 24 -0.92 0.68 1.88 1.14 249 -0.72 0.70 1.78 1.04 278 Average: Back River: UPRIVER OF I-95 GPA-16 30.2 -0.29 0.91 1.93 0.92 174 -0.23 0.85 1.70 0.81 205 Hardeeville 34.5 1.26 1.86 2.37 0.33 304 1.28 1.79 2.17 0.21 340 GPA-17 43.0 1.90 2.39 2.79 0.23 193 2.26 2.58 2.83 0.05 242 Average: Upriver I-95: Overall Average: * Expection criteria suggests +/- 2cm for 5th and 95 percentile amplitudes and +/- 30min for phase Shading indicates stations meeting criteria 5% 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.03 -0.07 -0.26 0.02 0.06 -0.20 -0.07 -0.06 -0.02 -0.36 -0.15 0.0 Difference (m) M2 Phs 50% 95% M2-Amp (min) Stations Meeting* Expectation Criteria M2 Phs 5% 50% 95% M2-Amp (min) 0.02 0.01 0.00 -10 0.03 0.00 -0.03 -17 0.11 0.06 -0.01 -21 0.15 0.17 -0.04 -30 0.14 0.13 0.00 -25 0.17 0.16 -0.01 -24 0.18 0.18 0.00 -26 0.16 0.20 0.03 -29 0.18 0.18 0.02 -32 0.17 0.20 0.04 -29 0.17 0.28 0.11 -43 0.02 0.23 0.19 -66 0.13 0.15 0.03 -29 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0% 17% 17% 50% 75% 0.14 0.19 0.06 -38 0 0 0 0 0 -0.02 0.10 0.10 -62 0 1 0 0 0 0.06 0.15 0.08 -50 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0.06 0.23 0.11 -65 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0.21 0.12 -74 1 0 0 0 0 -0.19 -0.05 0.18 -103 0 0 0 0 0 -0.02 0.13 0.14 -81 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.1 0.1 0.1 -41 6% 18% 12% 35% 53% GNV/2004/98991A/HY/7-07a+b/12/30/2003 Table 7-7b. Comparison of 1999 Calibration Results Against Federal Criteria: Tidal Harmonics Measured Amplitude (m) Simulated Amplitude (m) River Length Station Name Mile (Days) M2 N2 S2 K1 O1 M2 N2 S2 K1 O1 Difference (simulated - measured) M2 N2 S2 K1 O1 Comparison to Federal Expectations Criteria M2 N2 S2 K1 O1 Ft. Pulaski GPA-02 GPA-04 GPA-21 Broad Street GPA-06 GPA-22 GPA-08 Houlihan GPA-09 GPA-11 I95 GPA-05 LucknowCan GPA-16 Hardeeville GPA-17 0.8 69.0 1 0.18 0.15 0.11 0.08 1 0.18 0.15 0.11 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 1 1 1 1 4.5 23.3 1.1 - 0.12 0.14 0.08 1.07 - 0.12 0.14 0.08 -0.03 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 - 1 1 1 10.4 18.0 1.16 - 0.16 0.1 0.09 1.15 - 0.16 0.1 0.08 -0.01 - 0.00 0.00 -0.01 1 - 1 1 1 13.9 11.1 0.99 - - 0.08 - 0.95 - - 0.09 - -0.04 - - 0.01 - 0 - - 1 - 14.6 69.0 1.15 0.19 0.16 0.12 0.09 1.15 0.2 0.17 0.11 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.00 1 1 1 1 1 16.6 25.0 1.18 - 0.17 0.12 0.1 1.17 - 0.17 0.12 0.09 -0.01 - 0.00 0.00 -0.01 1 - 1 1 1 18.7 18.5 1.27 - 0.2 0.15 0.11 1.27 - 0.2 0.16 0.1 0.00 - 0.00 0.01 -0.01 1 - 1 1 1 20.5 62.3 1.17 0.18 0.15 0.11 0.1 1.2 0.2 0.16 0.12 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 -0.01 0 1 1 1 1 21.5 25.4 1.23 - 0.19 0.15 0.1 1.25 - 0.19 0.15 0.09 0.02 - 0.00 0.00 -0.01 1 - 1 1 1 21.5 36.8 1.13 0.2 0.16 0.09 0.1 1.17 0.22 0.17 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 -0.01 0 1 1 1 1 23.4 25.9 1.03 - 0.15 0.09 0.09 1.14 - 0.15 0.09 0.09 0.11 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 - 1 1 1 27.7 69.0 0.96 0.14 0.11 0.12 0.11 1.15 0.19 0.16 0.12 0.09 0.19 0.05 0.05 0.00 -0.02 0 0 0 1 1 14.5 13.0 1.15 - - 0.1 - 1.21 - - 0.1 - 0.06 - - 0.00 - 0 - - 1 - 24.0 69.0 1.04 0.16 0.13 0.12 0.12 1.14 0.19 0.16 0.12 0.09 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.00 -0.03 0 0 0 1 0 30.2 21.0 0.81 - 0.1 0.1 0.11 0.92 - 0.1 0.11 0.09 0.11 - 0.00 0.01 -0.02 0 - 1 1 1 34.5 69.0 0.21 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.33 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0 1 1 1 1 43.0 8.4 0.05 - - 0.02 NaN 0.23 - - 0.05 - 0.18 - - 0.03 - 0 - - 0 - 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.00 -0.01 35% 71% 86% 94% 93% River Length Measured Phase (degrees) Simulated Phase (degrees) Station Name Mile (Days) M2 N2 S2 K1 O1 M2 N2 S2 K1 Ft. Pulaski 0.8 69 236 220 261 141 134 232 217 257 140 GPA-02 GPA-04 GPA-21 4.5 23.33 272 - 10.4 18.01 210 - 13.9 11.1 197 - 248 308 14 264 - 318 350 276 200 - - 278 - 182 - 248 305 318 346 - 272 Broad Street 14.6 69 252 242 286 151 143 240 228 270 144 GPA-06 16.6 24.95 341 - 335 6 30 329 - 335 359 GPA-22 18.7 18.54 252 - 279 155 162 240 - 279 144 GPA-08 20.5 62.28 180 228 110 62 163 166 212 92 51 Houlihan GPA-09 GPA-11 21.5 25.36 256 - 288 155 162 240 - 288 144 21.5 36.76 211 226 238 279 327 197 211 219 269 23.4 25.9 122 - 217 270 255 101 - 217 250 I95 27.7 69 281 292 334 181 169 249 242 285 150 GPA-05 14.5 13.01 169 - - 318 - 151 - - 303 LucknowCan 24 69 278 288 332 180 168 249 242 284 151 GPA-16 30.2 21.03 205 - 314 360 272 174 - 314 331 Hardeeville 34.5 GPA-17 43.0 69 340 337 9 201 194 304 286 323 180 8.4 242 - - 92 - 193 - - 6 * Expection criteria suggests +/- 2cm for 5th and 95 percentile amplitudes and +/- 30min for phase Shading indicates stations meeting criteria Difference (simulated - measured) in Degrees Difference (simulated - measured) in Minutes Comparison to Federal Expectations Criteria O1 M2 N2 S2 K1 O1 M2 N2 S2 K1 O1 M2 N2 S2 K1 O1 131 -5 -4 -4 -1 -3 -10 -8 -8 -3 -11 1 1 1 1 1 9 -8 - 0 -2 -5 -17 - 0 -9 -19 1 - 1 1 1 266 -10 - 0 -4 -10 -21 - 0 -17 -42 1 - 1 1 0 - -15 - - -7 - -30 - - -26 - 0 - - 1 - 135 -12 -14 -15 -7 -8 -25 -30 -31 -28 -34 1 1 0 1 0 19 -12 - 0 353 -10 -24 - 0 1409 -45 1 - 1 0 0 151 -13 - 0 -11 -11 -26 - 0 -42 -45 1 - 1 0 0 152 -14 -16 -18 -10 -12 -29 -33 -36 -41 -50 1 0 0 0 0 148 -16 - 0 -10 -14 -32 - 0 -42 -58 0 - 1 0 0 317 -14 -15 -19 -10 -10 -29 -32 -39 -40 -44 1 0 0 0 0 236 -21 - 0 -20 -19 -43 - 0 -81 -82 0 - 1 0 0 141 -32 -50 -49 -31 -28 -66 -104 -99 -123 -123 0 0 0 0 0 - -18 - - -15 - -38 - - -60 - 0 - - 0 - 142 -30 -45 -48 -29 -26 -62 -96 -96 -115 -112 0 0 0 0 0 250 -31 - 0 -28 -23 -65 - 0 -113 -97 0 - 1 0 0 162 -36 -51 314 -21 -31 -74 -108 628 -84 -135 0 0 0 0 0 - -50 - - -87 - -103 - - -346 - 0 - - 0 - -41 -59 23 14 -64 47% 29% 57% 29% 14% GNV/2004/98991A/HY/7-07a+b/12/30/2003 Table 7-7c. Comparison of 1999 Calibration Results Against Federal Criteria: Currents Station Name River Mile Depth Simulated Currents (m/s) 5% 95% M2 amp Measured Currents (m/s) 5% 95% FRONT RIVER M2 amp M2 phs GPA-04 10.4 Surface -1.10 0.50 0.79 182.15 -0.96 0.86 0.87 169.34 Bottom -0.45 0.53 0.47 192.77 -0.74 0.74 0.67 165.97 GPA-06 16.6 Surface -1.12 0.63 0.74 196.16 -1.02 0.64 0.66 209.52 Bottom -0.60 0.52 0.50 193.86 -0.61 0.55 0.47 203.16 GPA-14 27.7 Surface -0.55 0.22 0.26 207.82 -0.34 0.20 0.28 250.51 GPA-18 28.9 Surface -0.44 0.27 0.30 239.97 -0.43 0.48 0.37 245.92 GPA-16 30.2 Surface -0.56 -0.02 0.23 210.75 -0.68 -0.01 0.28 239.13 GPA-17 43.0 Surface -0.38 -0.22 0.03 278.54 -0.66 -0.47 0.03 9.85 Average: Front River: * Expection criteria suggests +/- 25% for 5th and 95 percentiles and +/- 30 min for phase Shading indicates stations meeting criteria 5% -0.14 0.29 -0.10 0.01 -0.21 -0.01 0.12 0.28 0.03 Difference (m/s) 95% M2 amp M2 phs -0.36 -0.21 -0.01 -0.03 0.02 -0.21 -0.01 0.25 -0.07 -0.08 -0.20 0.08 0.03 -0.02 -0.07 -0.05 0.00 -0.04 27 55 -28 -19 -88 -12 -59 -189 -39 Stations Meeting* Expectation Criteria 5% 95% M2 amp M2 phs 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 63% 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 38% 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 88% 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 50% GNV/2004/98991A/HY/7-07c+e+f12/30/2003 Table 7-7d. Comparison of 1999 Calibration Results Against Federal Criteria: Flow Simulated Flow (m3/s) Measured Flow (m3/s) %Difference 2519 2856 -11.8 FJ(GPA4) -5605 -5108 9.7 -5276 -4687 12.6 -823 -919 -10.4 FR2 (GPA9) -1970 -1524 29.3 -1989 -1538 29.3 -590 -468 26.1 MR2 (GPA10) 342 370 -7.6 -611 -491 24.4 159 110 44.5 LBR2(GPA15) -591 -258 129.1 -678 -271 150.2 750 929 -19.3 -1700 -1682 1.1 BR -1560 -1600 -2.5 1300 1185 9.7 -693 -733 -5.5 322 369 -12.7 I95(GPA14) 406 441 -7.9 MR1 123 95 29.5 GPA17 -183 -158 15.8 GPA18 157 105 49.5 GPA16 59 75 -21.3 EIE 68 86 -20.9 SCU 472 442 6.8 55 48 14.6 KC -71 -63 12.7 -1229 -1079 13.9 FR1 -1048 -945 10.9 695 658 5.6 LBR1 -110 -56 96.4 -128 -176 -27.3 UC 110 104 5.8 -118 -174 -32.2 55 61 -9.8 FW2U -230 -176 30.7 122 103 18.4 FW3 -354 -247 43.3 150 163 -8.0 FW4 222 250 -11.2 253 398 -36.4 FW5 665 681 -2.3 -924 -819 12.8 -1043 -1164 -10.4 FW6 830 985 -15.7 Overall Average: * Expection criteria suggests +/- 25% for 5th and 95 percentiles Shading indicates stations meeting criteria Stations Meeting* Expectation Criteria 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 69% GNV/2004/98991A/HY/7-07d/12/30/2003 Table 7-7e. Comparison of 1999 Calibration Results Against Federal Criteria: Salinity Station Name River Mile Depth GPA-26 0.8 Surface Bottom GPA-02 4.5 Surface Bottom GPA-04 10.4 Surface Bottom GPA-21 13.9 Surface Bottom GPA-06 16.6 Surface Bottom GPA-22 18.7 Surface Bottom GPA-08 20.5 Surface Bottom GPA-09 21.5 Surface Bottom GPA-11r 23.4 Bottom GPA-14 27.7 Bottom Average: Front River: GPA-10 21.8 Surface GPA-12 23.7 Surface Average: Middle River: GPA-05 14.5 Bottom GPA-07 18.9 Surface GPA-15 20.9 Surface USFW 22.1 Middle Limehouse 24.2 Middle Average: Back River: Overall Average: Simulated (ppt) M2 Phase 50% 90% (deg) 28.4 31.4 259 32.4 35.0 288 19.3 27.7 252 29.9 33.6 275 8.3 11.6 229 23.4 28.9 276 6.6 9.8 283 18.2 24.9 279 5.4 8.7 269 16.4 21.8 292 2.9 4.3 278 11.1 16.1 328 2.0 3.5 294 7.2 12.9 252 1.3 2.9 291 3.7 7.4 263 0.7 2.9 288 0.0 0.0 255 1.5 3.1 262 0.4 1.2 197 6.9 11.5 236 1.4 2.1 275 0.9 1.8 286 0.7 1.2 259 0.4 0.7 225 Measured (ppt) M2 Phase 50% 90% (deg) FRONT RIVER 26.3 30.5 243 30.0 32.9 261 20.4 26.7 265 27.4 31.3 280 11.5 16.2 259 19.2 27.0 262 7.6 11.2 280 17.0 25.3 291 5.9 8.7 269 15.0 23.2 278 2.6 5.4 322 7.9 12.5 291 0.6 4.0 294 4.2 12.3 260 1.2 4.9 273 2.0 7.6 261 0.1 2.9 289 0.1 0.1 330 MIDDLE RIVER 1.1 3.4 275 0.4 2.3 285 BACK RIVER 8.6 12.9 258 0.8 4.0 280 0.3 0.9 302 0.1 0.3 291 0.2 0.5 303 50% 2.1 2.4 -1.1 2.5 -3.2 4.3 -0.9 1.2 -0.5 1.4 0.3 3.1 1.3 3.0 0.1 1.8 0.6 -0.1 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 -1.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.1 * Expection criteria suggests +/- 10% for mean salinity>5ppt; +/- 0.5ppt for salinity<5ppt and +/30 minutes for phase Shading indicates stations meeting criteria Difference (ppt) M2 Phase M2 Phase 90% (deg) (min) 0.9 15 31 2.1 27 56 1.0 -14 -28 2.3 -5 -9 -4.6 -29 -61 1.8 14 30 -1.4 3 6 -0.3 -12 -25 0.0 -1 -1 -1.4 14 28 -1.1 -44 -91 3.6 37 76 -0.6 -1 -2 0.7 -8 -17 -2.1 18 38 -0.2 2 4 0.0 -2 -3 0.0 -74 -153.9 0.0 -3 -6.8 -0.3 -13 -27 -1.2 -88 -182 -0.7 -50 -104.1 -1.4 -22 -45 -1.9 -5 -11 0.9 -16 -34 1.0 -32 -65 0.2 -78 -161 -0.2 -30.6 -63.4 Stations Meeting* Expectation Criteria 50% 90% Phase 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 56% 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 61% 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 61% 1 1 100% 1 0 50% 1 0 50% 0 0 0 0 1 20% 52% 0 0 0 0 1 20% 52% 0 1 0 0 0 20% 52% GNV/2004/98991A/HY/7-07c+e+f12/30/2003 Table 7-7f. Comparison of 1999 Calibration Results Against Federal Criteria: Temperature Simulated Measured Difference Stations Meeting* Station River Expectations Name Mile Depth 50% 50% 50% Criteria FRONT RIVER GPA-26 0.8 Surface 29.3 29.9 -0.6 1 Bottom 30.0 30.2 -0.2 1 GPA-02 4.5 Surface 29.5 30.1 -0.6 1 Bottom 30.6 30.8 -0.2 1 GPA-03 5.5 Bottom 29.6 30.5 -0.8 1 GPA-04 10.4 Surface 29.3 30.3 -1.1 0 Bottom 29.9 30.3 -0.4 1 GPA-21 13.9 Surface 29.1 30.1 -1.0 1 Bottom 30.1 30.6 -0.5 1 GPA-06 16.6 Surface 28.2 28.6 -0.5 1 Bottom 29.0 29.2 -0.2 1 GPA-22 18.7 Surface 28.7 29.1 -0.4 1 Bottom 29.6 29.7 -0.1 1 GPA-08 20.5 Surface 28.8 29.1 -0.3 1 Bottom 29.5 29.4 0.1 1 GPA-09 21.5 Surface 28.7 29.1 -0.4 1 Bottom 29.2 29.4 -0.2 1 GPA-11r 23.4 Surface 28.1 27.9 0.2 1 GPA-14 27.7 Surface 27.3 27.0 0.2 1 Average: Front River: -0.4 95% MIDDLE RIVER GPA-10 21.8 Bottom 29.0 29.3 -0.3 1 GPA-12 23.7 Bottom 28.4 28.1 0.3 1 Average: Middle River: 0.0 100% BACK RIVER GPA-05 14.5 Bottom 29.9 30.2 -0.3 1 GPA-07 18.9 Bottom 29.0 29.2 -0.2 1 GPA-15 20.9 Surface 29.0 29.1 -0.1 1 Average: Back River: -0.2 100% UPRIVER of I-95 GPA-18 28.9 Surface 27.3 27.2 0.1 1 GPA-16 30.2 Surface 27.3 26.9 0.4 1 GPA-17 43.0 Surface 27.3 26.2 1.0 0 Average: I-95 UpRiver: 0.5 67% Overall Average: 93% * Expection criteria suggests +/- 1oC for 50th percentiles Shading indicates stations meeting criteria GNV/2004/98991A/HY/7-07c+e+f12/30/2003 Table 8-1. Simulated versus Measured Water Surface Elevation Statistics and Percentiles for Verification Period (July 15-September 30, 1997) Simulated Elevation (m) Measured Elevation (m) Difference Error Absolute Station River Mean Mean Name Mile 5% 50% 95% 5% 50% 95% 5% 50% 95% Error Error FRONT RIVER FortPulaski 0.8 -0.85 0.40 1.41 -0.96 0.38 1.46 0.11 0.02 -0.04 0.02 0.05 GPA-02 4.5 -0.84 0.48 1.47 -0.92 0.51 1.64 0.08 -0.03 -0.16 -0.04 0.10 GPA-04 10.4 -0.89 0.59 1.61 -1.04 0.48 1.66 0.15 0.11 -0.05 0.08 0.10 Broad Street 14.6 -0.90 0.69 1.69 -1.06 0.52 1.63 0.16 0.17 0.06 0.12 0.12 GPA-06 16.6 -0.91 0.68 1.67 -1.05 0.51 1.66 0.14 0.16 0.01 0.11 0.12 GPA-08 20.5 -0.96 0.75 1.77 -1.02 0.63 1.77 0.06 0.12 0.00 0.05 0.08 Houlihan 21.5 -0.94 0.77 1.75 -0.99 0.63 1.74 0.06 0.14 0.01 0.07 0.09 GPA-09 21.5 -0.96 0.79 1.77 -0.91 0.62 1.71 -0.05 0.17 0.05 0.08 0.13 GPA-11r 23.4 -0.99 0.79 1.79 -0.87 0.73 1.66 -0.13 0.06 0.13 0.00 0.12 I95 27.7 -0.79 0.83 1.76 -0.73 0.83 1.74 -0.06 0.01 0.02 -0.02 0.10 Average: Front River: 0.05 0.09 0.00 0.05 0.10 MIDDLE RIVER GPA-10 21.8 -0.96 0.76 1.74 -0.99 0.64 1.74 0.03 0.12 0 0.05 0.15 GPA-12 23.7 -0.88 0.81 1.73 -0.75 0.72 1.67 -0.13 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.16 Average: Middle River: -0.05 0.11 0.03 0.04 0.16 BACK RIVER GPA-05 14.5 -0.88 0.64 1.65 -1.00 0.52 1.57 0.12 0.13 0.08 0.10 0.11 GPA-07 18.9 -0.85 0.77 1.77 -0.85 0.66 1.67 0.00 0.11 0.10 0.07 0.20 Lucknow 24.2 -0.88 0.80 1.72 -0.59 0.81 1.66 -0.29 -0.01 0.06 -0.06 0.12 GPA-13 26.6 -0.93 0.79 1.73 -0.74 0.81 1.71 -0.19 -0.02 0.02 -0.06 0.12 Average: Back River: -0.09 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.14 RMS Error 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.10 0.11 0.18 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.13 0.25 0.18 0.17 0.18 GNV/2004/98991A/HY/12/30/2003 Table 8-2. Comparison of Water Surface Elevation Harmonics for Calibration Period (July 15-September 30, 1997) Measured Amplitude Simulated Amplitude River Length Station Name Mile (Days) M2 FortPulaski 0.8 77 1.00 GPA-02 4.5 41 1.03 GPA-04 10.4 24 1.19 Broadstreet 14.6 77 1.15 GPA-06 16.6 55 1.16 GPA-08 20.5 44 1.16 Houlihan 21.5 77 1.18 GPA-09 21.5 45 1.13 GPA-11 23.4 32 1.06 I-95 27.7 77 0.96 GPA-05 14.5 32 1.12 Lucknow 24.2 77 1.05 GPA-07 18.9 21 1.06 GPA-13 26.6 45 1.02 GPA-10 21.8 35 1.15 GPA-12 23.7 77 1.00 River Length Station Name Mile (Days) M2 FortPulaski 0.8 77 233.8 GPA-02 4.5 19.69 240.8 GPA-04 10.4 11.17 246.6 Broadstreet 14.6 77 248.4 GPA-06 16.6 28.94 249.2 GPA-08 20.5 14.85 255.8 Houlihan 21.5 77 255.3 GPA-09 21.5 22.06 256.7 GPA-11 23.4 32.9 267.9 I-95 27.7 77 276.8 GPA-05 14.5 33.35 251.9 Lucknow 24.2 77 274.7 GPA-07 18.9 10.05 284.5 GPA-13 26.6 44.92 276.3 GPA-10 21.8 35.46 265.0 GPA-12 23.7 34.52 268.4 N2 0.25 0.24 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.26 0.28 0.25 0.26 0.21 0.27 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.29 0.28 N2 224.8 228.9 236.6 243.5 243.8 247.8 251.8 249.1 273.6 282.0 252.1 280.2 285.6 288.6 252.3 269.5 S2 K1 O1 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.17 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.15 0.11 0.15 0.13 0.10 0.15 0.14 0.10 0.18 0.10 0.09 0.15 0.13 0.10 0.15 0.09 0.08 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.10 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.15 0.14 0.19 0.15 0.11 0.14 0.12 0.12 Measured Phase S2 K1 O1 257.5 265.0 266.4 280.5 286.1 284.1 290.6 292.2 326.1 327.7 299.3 325.3 290.1 336.9 314.0 310.0 144.3 150.2 146.1 154.6 154.2 163.5 161.4 165.6 175.0 185.1 157.6 184.4 189.8 188.7 166.4 177.4 136.9 149.5 142.8 145.5 144.5 155.4 151.7 160.7 163.1 168.5 146.2 167.7 168.9 169.7 158.2 165.6 M4 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.10 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.11 0.11 M4 319.6 334.1 336.8 336.7 336.9 345.7 344.9 350.8 25.1 47.1 349.7 41.0 62.4 44.5 7.5 26.9 M6 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.03 M6 0.4 45.6 93.7 125.4 124.6 152.1 154.8 164.0 176.0 211.1 126.9 208.5 225.0 216.9 163.7 188.5 M2 0.94 0.95 1.09 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.12 1.10 1.13 1.07 1.08 1.07 1.09 1.10 1.13 1.08 M2 235.0 237.7 241.6 242.9 242.2 246.3 246.4 247.4 247.2 251.7 240.4 250.8 251.3 249.7 246.3 250.6 N2 0.23 0.23 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.27 0.26 0.28 0.25 0.28 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.28 0.26 N2 227.2 225.9 242.7 237.1 237.5 237.1 241.6 238.5 245.9 249.0 237.0 248.3 250.2 251.2 245.2 247.8 S2 K1 O1 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.15 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.16 0.08 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.14 0.14 0.09 0.16 0.10 0.08 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.16 0.10 0.08 0.14 0.15 0.10 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.14 0.15 0.09 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.15 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.14 0.10 0.14 0.15 0.10 0.13 0.12 0.09 Simulated Phase S2 K1 O1 259.6 258.2 266.4 272.6 278.5 271.6 278.3 273.4 291.7 286.8 279.1 285.7 290.1 289.9 288.8 285.2 145.0 151.6 139.8 149.7 147.8 155.9 152.1 156.6 150.9 156.2 146.2 156.7 153.6 154.3 150.0 156.3 137.5 146.9 140.7 141.0 137.1 147.0 143.0 147.7 138.8 146.1 133.4 146.7 153.2 141.2 139.5 146.3 M4 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.11 0.17 0.15 0.18 0.16 0.17 M4 318.5 324.3 323.5 319.5 317.5 321.2 320.5 323.3 324.0 336.4 316.5 333.4 342.0 331.2 321.6 332.6 Differences in M6 M2 Constituent Percent Error (m) 0.00 -0.06 -6% 0.01 -0.08 -8% 0.01 -0.10 -8% 0.03 -0.07 -6% 0.02 -0.07 -6% 0.04 -0.06 -5% 0.04 -0.06 -5% 0.04 -0.03 -3% 0.04 0.07 7% 0.05 0.11 11% 0.02 -0.04 -4% 0.05 0.02 2% 0.05 0.03 3% 0.05 0.08 8% 0.03 -0.02 -2% 0.05 0.08 8% M6 28.4 42.4 85.9 88.0 84.4 93.7 94.5 96.0 95.8 115.4 80.7 101.5 106.9 104.9 93.2 103.4 Differences in M2 Constituent Degrees Minutes -1.2 -2.4 3.1 6.5 5.1 10.5 5.5 11.5 7.0 14.4 9.5 19.7 8.9 18.5 9.3 19.3 20.8 43.0 25.2 52.1 11.5 23.8 23.9 49.5 33.2 68.8 26.6 55.1 18.7 38.6 17.7 36.7 GNV/2004/98991A/HY/12/30/2003 Table 8-3. Simulated versus Measured Velocity Statistics and Percentiles for Verification Period (July 15-September 30, 1997) Simulated Currents Measured Currents Difference Station River Mean Name Mile Depth 5% 50% 95% 5% 50% 95% 5% 50% 95% Error Error Absolute Mean Error RMS Error GPA-04 10.4 Surface -0.98 -0.26 0.40 -0.90 0.09 0.83 -0.09 -0.35 -0.43 -0.27 0.28 0.34 Bottom -0.42 0.30 0.48 -0.68 0.18 0.78 0.26 0.12 -0.30 0.05 0.22 0.26 GPA-08 20.5 Surface -1.14 0.12 0.58 -0.88 -0.16 0.79 -0.26 0.28 -0.20 -0.01 0.21 0.26 Bottom -0.80 0.20 0.49 -0.76 -0.09 0.59 -0.04 0.29 -0.09 0.09 0.20 0.27 GPA-15 20.9 Middle -0.82 -0.06 0.65 -0.77 -0.09 0.59 -0.05 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.40 0.54 GPA-10 21.8 Middle -0.56 -0.11 0.26 -0.64 -0.14 0.47 0.08 0.03 -0.21 -0.04 0.13 0.16 Average: -0.02 0.07 -0.20 -0.03 0.24 0.31 GNV/2004/98991A/HY/12/30/2003 Table 8-4. Simulated versus Measured Volume Flux for 1997 Station Modeled Flow Measured Flow Difference (m/s) (m/s) (%) 904 BR (GPA5) 988 1051 1109 -14.0 -10.9 -1207 -1197 0.8 2500 2608 -4.1 FJ (GPA4) 3400 3100 3200 6.3 3050 1.6 -4020 -3800 5.8 -5102 -4560 11.9 247 350 -29.4 FR1 -857 -663 29.3 I95(GPA14) 188 -644 221 -632 -14.9 1.9 LBR1 -27 -47 -42.6 MR1(GPA12) 52 -148 38 36.8 -70 111.4 FR3(GPA21) 1442 1919 1650 3029 -12.6 -36.6 1580 1550 1.9 FR2(GPA9) 874 -1287 856 2.1 -1081 19.1 210 250 -16.0 MR2(GPA10) 148 145 2.1 LBR2(GPA15) 180 182 -1.1 GNV/2004/98991A/HY/12/30/2003 Table 8-5. Simulated versus Measured Salinity Statistics and Percentiles for Verification Period (July 15-September 30, 1997) Simulated Salinity (ppt) Measured Salinity (ppt) Difference Station Name River Mile Depth 10% GPA-02 4.5 Surface 11.1 Bottom 21.6 GPA-04 10.4 Surface 4.0 Bottom 10.9 GPA-06 16.6 Surface 0.9 Bottom 1.8 GPA-08 20.5 Surface 0.1 Bottom 0.2 Houlihan 21.5 0.1 GPA-09 21.5 Bottom 0.1 GPA-11r 23.4 Bottom 0.0 I-95 27.7 Bottom 0.0 Average: Front River: GPA-10 21.8 Bottom 0.2 GPA-12 23.7 Bottom 0.0 Average: Middle River: GPA-05 14.5 Bottom 0.8 GPA-07 18.9 Bottom 0.1 GPA-15 20.9 Bottom 0.1 USFWS 22.1 0.0 Lucknow 24.2 0.0 GPA-13 26.6 0.0 Average: Back River: 50% 16.4 26.4 6.4 19.6 3.1 11.1 0.7 4.0 1.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 3.7 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 90% 23.2 29.5 10.2 24.0 5.9 17.1 2.4 9.5 4.6 4.5 1.2 0.0 1.7 0.4 9.1 1.3 1.4 0.5 0.2 0.0 10% 50% 90% FRONT RIVER 10.0 15.1 22.0 19.8 25.4 29.1 4.9 9.1 14.9 12.5 18.1 22.9 1.3 3.7 7.0 2.5 9.9 17.0 0.1 0.4 5.2 0.1 1.3 10.2 0.0 0.2 4.8 0.1 0.3 6.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 MIDDLE RIVER 0.1 0.5 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.9 BACK RIVER 0.8 5.0 10.7 0.1 0.4 3.2 0.1 0.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 10% 1.1 1.8 -1.0 -1.6 -0.4 -0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50% 1.3 1.1 -2.7 1.5 -0.7 1.2 0.3 2.7 1.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 -1.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 90% 1.2 0.5 -4.7 1.2 -1.2 0.1 -2.8 -0.7 -0.2 -1.5 1.0 -0.1 -0.7 -1.3 -0.5 -0.9 -1.6 -2.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 -0.2 -0.5 Mean Error 1.1 1.1 -2.8 0.7 -0.8 0.4 -0.6 1.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 -0.3 -0.2 -0.3 -1.1 -0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 Error Absolute Mean Error 2.4 1.8 2.9 2.1 1.2 2.3 0.9 1.9 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 1.5 0.6 0.2 0.4 2.5 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 RMS Error 3.0 2.3 3.6 2.7 1.5 2.8 1.8 2.5 1.4 1.5 0.5 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 0.7 3.0 1.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.9 GNV/2004/98991A/HY/12/30/2003 Table 8-6a. Comparison of 1997 Verification Results Against Federal Criteria: Water Surface Elevation Simulated (m) Measured (m) Station River M2 Phs M2 Phs Name Mile 5% 50% 95% M2-Amp (deg) 5% 50% 95% M2-Amp (deg) FRONT RIVER FortPulaski 0.8 -0.85 0.40 1.41 0.94 235 -0.96 0.38 1.46 1 234 GPA-02 4.5 -0.84 0.48 1.47 0.95 238 -0.92 0.51 1.64 1.03 241 GPA-04 10.4 -0.89 0.59 1.61 1.09 242 -1.04 0.48 1.66 1.19 247 Broad St. 14.6 -0.90 0.69 1.69 1.08 243 -1.06 0.52 1.63 1.15 248 GPA-06 16.6 -0.91 0.68 1.67 1.09 242 -1.05 0.51 1.66 1.16 249 GPA-08 20.5 -0.96 0.75 1.77 1.1 246 -1.02 0.63 1.77 1.16 256 Houlihan 21.5 -0.94 0.77 1.75 1.12 246 -0.99 0.63 1.74 1.18 255 GPA-09 21.5 -0.96 0.79 1.77 1.1 247 -0.91 0.62 1.71 1.13 257 GPA11r 23.4 -0.99 0.79 1.79 1.13 247 -0.87 0.73 1.66 1.06 268 I95 27.7 -0.79 0.83 1.76 1.07 252 -0.73 0.83 1.74 0.96 277 Average: Front River: MIDDLE RIVER GPA-10 21.8 -0.96 0.76 1.74 1.13 246 -0.99 0.64 1.74 1.15 265 GPA-12 23.7 -0.88 0.81 1.73 1.08 251 -0.75 0.72 1.67 1 268 Average: Middle River: BACK RIVER GPA-05 14.5 -0.88 0.64 1.65 1.08 240 -1.00 0.52 1.57 1.12 252 GPA-07 18.9 -0.85 0.77 1.77 1.09 251 -0.85 0.66 1.67 1.06 284 Lucknow 24.2 -0.88 0.80 1.72 1.07 251 -0.59 0.81 1.66 1.05 275 GPA-13 26.6 -0.93 0.79 1.73 1.1 250 -0.74 0.81 1.71 1.02 276 Average: Back River: Overall Average: * Expection criteria suggests +/- 2cm for 5th and 95 percentile amplitudes and +/- 30min for phase Shading indicates stations meeting criteria 5% 0.11 0.08 0.15 0.16 0.14 0.06 0.05 -0.05 -0.12 -0.06 0.05 0.03 -0.13 -0.05 0.12 0.00 -0.29 -0.19 -0.09 0.0 Difference (m) M2 Phs 50% 95% M2-Amp (min) Stations Meeting* Expectation Criteria M2 Phs 5% 50% 95% M2-Amp (min) 0.02 -0.05 -0.06 2 -0.03 -0.17 -0.08 -6 0.11 -0.05 -0.10 -10 0.17 0.06 -0.07 -11 0.17 0.01 -0.07 -14 0.12 0.00 -0.06 -20 0.14 0.01 -0.06 -19 0.17 0.06 -0.03 -19 0.06 0.13 0.07 -43 0.00 0.02 0.11 -52 0.09 0.00 -0.03 -19 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0% 20% 40% 0% 80% 0.12 0.00 -0.02 -39 0 0 1 1 0 0.09 0.06 0.08 -37 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 0.03 0.03 -38 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 0.12 0.08 -0.04 -24 0 0 0 0 1 0.11 0.10 0.03 -69 1 0 0 0 0 -0.01 0.06 0.02 -49 0 1 0 1 0 -0.02 0.02 0.08 -55 0 1 1 0 0 0.05 0.07 0.02 -49 25% 50% 25% 25% 25% 0.1 0.0 0.0 -29 6% 25% 38% 13% 56% GNV/2004/98991A/HY/8-06a+b/12/30/2003 Table 8-6b. Comparison of 1997 Verification Results Against Federal Criteria: Tidal Harmonics Measured Amplitude (m) Simulated Amplitude (m) Difference (simulated - measued) Comparison to Federal Expectations Criteria River Length Station Name Mile (Days) M2 N2 S2 K1 O1 M4 M6 M2 N2 S2 K1 O1 M4 M6 M2 N2 S2 K1 O1 M4 M6 M2 N2 S2 K1 O1 M4 M6 FortPulaski GPA-02 GPA-04 Broadstreet GPA-06 GPA-08 Houlihan GPA-09 GPA-11 I-95 GPA-05 Lucknow GPA-07 GPA-13 GPA-10 GPA-12 0.8 77.0 1 0.25 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.05 0.01 0.94 0.23 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.04 0 -0.06 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 4.5 41.0 1.03 0.24 0.17 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.01 0.95 0.23 0.15 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.01 -0.08 -0.01 -0.02 0.00 -0.01 0.01 0.00 0 - 1 1 1 1 1 10.4 24.0 1.19 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.11 0.09 0.02 1.09 0.27 0.08 0.16 0.08 0.11 0.01 -0.10 0.00 0.00 0.01 -0.03 0.02 -0.01 0 - 1 1 0 1 1 14.6 77.0 1.15 0.27 0.15 0.13 0.1 0.1 0.02 1.08 0.27 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.13 0.03 -0.07 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 0.03 0.01 0 - - 1 - 0 1 16.6 55.0 1.16 0.28 0.15 0.14 0.1 0.1 0.02 1.09 0.27 0.14 0.14 0.09 0.13 0.02 -0.07 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.03 0.00 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 20.5 44.0 1.16 0.26 0.18 0.1 0.09 0.11 0.03 1.1 0.26 0.16 0.1 0.08 0.15 0.04 -0.06 0.00 -0.02 0.00 -0.01 0.04 0.01 0 - 1 1 1 0 1 21.5 77.0 1.18 0.28 0.15 0.13 0.1 0.11 0.03 1.12 0.27 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.16 0.04 -0.06 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 0.05 0.01 0 - 1 1 1 0 1 21.5 45.0 1.13 0.25 0.15 0.09 0.08 0.12 0.03 1.1 0.26 0.16 0.1 0.08 0.16 0.04 -0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.01 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 23.4 32.0 1.06 0.26 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.03 1.13 0.28 0.14 0.15 0.1 0.17 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.00 -0.03 0.05 0.01 0 - 1 1 0 0 1 27.7 77.0 0.96 0.21 0.1 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.04 1.07 0.25 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.16 0.05 0.11 0.04 0.03 -0.01 -0.04 0.03 0.01 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 14.5 32.0 1.12 0.27 0.14 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.01 1.08 0.28 0.14 0.15 0.09 0.11 0.02 -0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.01 0.01 0 - 1 1 1 1 1 24.2 77.0 1.05 0.24 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.05 1.07 0.26 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.17 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.01 -0.01 -0.04 0.02 0.00 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 18.9 21.0 1.06 0.25 0.15 0.08 0.09 0.13 0.04 1.09 0.26 0.15 0.09 0.09 0.15 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0 - - 1 - 1 1 26.6 45.0 1.02 0.25 0.11 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.06 1.1 0.26 0.13 0.14 0.1 0.18 0.05 0.08 0.01 0.02 -0.01 -0.04 0.03 -0.01 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 21.8 35.0 1.15 0.29 0.19 0.15 0.11 0.11 0.03 1.13 0.28 0.14 0.15 0.1 0.16 0.03 -0.02 -0.01 -0.05 0.00 -0.01 0.05 0.00 1 - 0 1 1 0 1 23.7 77.0 1 0.28 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.03 1.08 0.26 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.17 0.05 0.08 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 -0.03 0.06 0.02 0 - - 1 - 0 1 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.02 0.03 0.00 13% 83% 85% 100% 62% 38% 100% Measured Phase (degrees) Simulated Phase (degrees) Difference (simulated - measued) in Degrees Difference (simulated - measued) in Mintues Comparison to Federal Expectations Criteria River Length Station Name Mile (Days) M2 N2 S2 K1 O1 M4 M6 M2 N2 S2 K1 O1 M4 M6 M2 N2 S2 K1 O1 M4 M6 M2 N2 S2 K1 O1 M4 M6 M2 N2 S2 K1 O1 M4 M6 FortPulaski 0.8 77 234 225 257 144 137 320 0 235 227 260 145 137 318 28 1 2 2 1 1 -1 28 2 5 4 3 3 -1 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 GPA-02 4.5 19.69 241 229 265 150 149 334 46 238 226 258 152 147 324 42 -3 -3 -7 1 -3 -10 -3 -6 - -14 6 -11 -10 -2 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 GPA-04 10.4 11.17 247 237 266 146 143 337 94 242 243 266 140 141 324 86 -5 6 0 -6 -2 -13 -8 -10 - 0 -25 -9 -14 -5 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 Broadstreet 14.6 77 248 244 280 155 145 337 125 243 237 273 150 141 320 88 -6 -6 -8 -5 -5 -17 -37 -11 - - -20 - -18 -26 1 - - 1 - 1 1 GPA-06 16.6 28.94 249 244 286 154 144 337 125 242 237 278 148 137 318 84 -7 -6 -8 -6 -7 -19 -40 -14 -13 -15 -26 -32 -20 -28 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 GPA-08 20.5 14.85 256 248 284 163 155 346 152 246 237 272 156 147 321 94 -10 -11 -13 -8 -8 -24 -58 -20 - -25 -30 -36 -25 -40 1 - 1 0 0 1 0 Houlihan 21.5 77 255 252 291 161 152 345 155 246 242 278 152 143 321 95 -9 -10 -12 -9 -9 -24 -60 -19 - -25 -37 -38 -25 -42 1 - 1 0 0 1 0 GPA-09 21.5 22.06 257 249 292 166 161 351 164 247 239 273 157 148 323 96 -9 -11 -19 -9 -13 -28 -68 -19 -22 -38 -36 -56 -28 -47 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 GPA-11 23.4 32.9 268 274 326 175 163 25 176 247 246 292 151 139 324 96 -21 -28 -34 -24 -24 299 -80 -43 - -69 -96 -105 309 -55 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 I-95 27.7 77 277 282 328 185 169 47 211 252 249 287 156 146 336 115 -25 -33 -41 -29 -22 289 -96 -52 -70 -82 -115 -97 299 -66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GPA-05 14.5 33.35 252 252 299 158 146 350 127 240 237 279 146 133 317 81 -12 -15 -20 -11 -13 -33 -46 -24 - -40 -45 -55 -34 -32 1 - 0 0 0 0 0 Lucknow 24.2 77 275 280 325 184 168 41 208 251 248 286 157 147 333 102 -24 -32 -40 -28 -21 292 -107 -49 -67 -79 -111 -90 303 -74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GPA-07 18.9 10.05 284 286 290 190 169 62 225 251 250 290 154 153 342 107 -33 -35 0 -36 -16 280 -118 -69 - - -145 - 289 -81 0 - - 0 - 0 0 GPA-13 26.6 44.92 276 289 337 189 170 44 217 250 251 290 154 141 331 105 -27 -37 -47 -34 -29 287 -112 -55 -79 -94 -137 -123 297 -77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GPA-10 21.8 35.46 265 252 314 166 158 7 164 246 245 289 150 139 322 93 -19 -7 -25 -16 -19 314 -70 -39 - -50 -65 -81 325 -49 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 GPA-12 23.7 34.52 268 269 310 177 166 27 188 251 248 285 156 146 333 103 -18 -22 -25 -21 -19 306 -85 -37 - - -84 - 316 -59 0 - - 0 - 0 0 * Expection criteria suggests +/- 2cm for 5th and 95 percentile amplitudes and +/- 30min for phase -29 -41 -40 -60 -56 123 -41 56% 50% 46% 31% 23% 50% 31% Shading indicates stations meeting criteria GNV/2004/98991A/HY/8-06a+b/12/30/2003 Table 8-6c. Comparison of 1997 Verification Results Against Federal Criteria: Currents Simulated Currents (m/s) Measured Currents (m/s) Station River Name Mile Depth 5% 95% M2 amp M2 phs 5% 95% M2 amp M2 phs FRONT RIVER GPA-04 10.4 Surface -0.98 0.40 0.64 171.52 -0.90 0.83 0.80 169.71 Bottom -0.42 0.48 0.35 191.36 -0.68 0.78 0.63 164.08 GPA-08 20.5 Surface -1.14 0.58 0.71 203.79 -0.88 0.79 0.74 168.91 Bottom -0.80 0.49 0.46 196.84 -0.76 0.59 0.59 172.31 GPA-15 20.9 Middle -0.82 0.65 0.12 255.68 -0.77 0.59 0.56 188.34 GPA-10 21.8 Middle -0.56 0.26 0.32 162.07 -0.64 0.47 0.46 191.08 Average: Front River: * Expection criteria suggests +/- 25% for 5th and 95 percentiles and +/- 30 min for phase Shading indicates stations meeting criteria 5% -0.08 0.26 -0.26 -0.04 -0.05 0.08 -0.02 Difference (m/s) 95% M2 amp M2 phs -0.43 -0.16 4 -0.30 -0.28 56 -0.21 -0.03 72 -0.10 -0.13 51 0.06 -0.44 139 -0.21 -0.14 -60 -0.20 -0.20 44 Stations Meeting* Expectation Criteria 5% 95% M2 amp M2 phs 1 0 0 1 1 1 67% 0 0 0 1 1 0 33% 1 0 1 1 0 0 50% 1 0 0 0 0 0 17% GNV/2004/98991A/HY/8-06c+d/12/30/2003 Table 8-6d. Comparison of 1997 Verification Results Against Federal Criteria: Flows Station Simulated Measured Stations Meeting* Name Flow (m3/s) 904 Flow (m3/s) %Difference 1051 -14 Expectation Criteria 1 BR (GPA5) 988 1109 -11 1 -1207 -1197 1 1 2500 2608 -4 1 3400 3200 6 1 FJ (GPA4) 3100 3050 2 1 -4020 -3800 6 1 -5102 -4560 12 1 FR1 247 350 -29 0 -857 -663 29 0 I95(GPA14) 188 221 -15 1 -644 -632 2 1 LBR1 -27 -47 -43 0 MR1(GPA12) 52 38 37 0 -148 -70 111 0 1442 1650 -13 1 FR3(GPA21) 1919 3029 -37 0 1580 1550 2 1 -3033 -3688 -18 1 874 856 2 1 FR2(GPA9) -1287 -1081 19 1 210 250 -16 1 MR2(GPA10) 148 145 2 1 LBR2(GPA15) 180 182 -1 1 * Expection criteria suggests +/- 25% for 5th and 95 percentiles Shading indicates stations meeting criteria GNV/2004/98991A/HY/8-06c+d/12/30/2003 Table 8-6e. Comparison of 1997 Verification Results Against Federal Criteria: Salinity Simulated (ppt) Measured (ppt) Station River M2 Phase M2 Phase Name Mile Depth 50% 90% (deg) 50% 90% (deg) 50% FRONT RIVER GPA-02 4.5 Surface 16.4 23.2 249 15.1 22.0 254 1.3 Bottom 26.4 29.5 281 25.4 29.1 280 1.1 GPA-04 10.4 Surface 6.4 10.2 239 9.1 14.9 296 -2.7 Bottom 19.6 24.0 273 18.1 22.9 263 1.5 GPA-06 16.6 Surface 3.1 5.9 270 3.7 7.0 256 -0.7 Bottom 11.1 17.1 289 9.9 17.0 271 1.2 GPA-08 20.5 Surface 0.7 2.4 285 0.4 5.2 265 0.3 Bottom 4.0 9.5 251 1.3 10.2 256 2.7 Houlihan 21.5 1.4 4.6 264 0.2 4.8 261 1.2 GPA-09 21.5 Bottom 1.2 4.5 265 0.3 6.0 257 1.0 GPA-11r 23.4 Bottom 0.0 1.2 283 0.1 0.2 280 0.0 I-95 27.7 Bottom 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.1 - 0.0 Average: Front River: 0.6 MIDDLE RIVER GPA-10 21.8 Bottom 0.6 1.7 260 0.5 3.0 259 0.1 GPA-12 23.7 Bottom 0.1 0.4 207 0.1 0.9 275 0.0 Average: Middle River: 0.0 BACK RIVER GPA-05 14.5 Bottom 3.7 9.1 232 5.0 10.7 255 -1.3 GPA-07 18.9 Bottom 0.4 1.3 276 0.4 3.2 272 0.1 GPA-15 20.9 Bottom 0.5 1.4 287 0.2 1.1 271 0.3 USFWS 22.1 0.2 0.5 262 0.0 0.3 302 0.1 Lucknow 24.2 0.0 0.2 241 0.0 0.2 315 0.0 GPA-13 26.6 0.0 0.0 236 0.1 0.2 265 -0.1 Average: Back River: -0.1 Overall Average: * Expection criteria suggests +/- 10% for mean salinity>5ppt; +/- 0.5ppt for salinity<5ppt and +/30 minutes for phase Shading indicates stations meeting criteria Difference (ppt) M2 Phase M2 Phase 90% (deg) (min) 1.2 -5 -11 0.5 2 3 -4.7 -57 -119 1.2 10 21 -1.2 14 30 0.1 18 37 -2.8 20 41 -0.7 -4 -9 -0.2 3 7 -1.5 8 17 1.0 4 8 -0.1 - - -0.6 1 2 -1.3 2 3 -0.5 -68 -141 -0.9 -33 -69 -1.6 -22 -46 -2.0 4 8 0.4 16 33 0.2 -40 -83 0.0 -74 -154 -0.2 -29 -59 -0.5 -24 -50 Stations Meeting* Expectation Criteria 50% 90% Phase 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 50% 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 50% 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 73% 1 0 1 0 100% 0% 1 0 50% 0 1 1 1 1 1 83% 65% 0 0 1 1 1 1 67% 50% 0 1 0 0 0 0 17% 53% GNV/2004/98991A/HY/8-06e/12/30/2003 Table 9-1. Summary Table of Sensitivity Runs Performed for Hydrodynamic Model Sensitivity Test Modified Parameter Run Title Baseline (BL) Upper (UP) Lower (LW) Description Bottom Friction Horizontal Diffusivity Vertical Diffusivity Upstream Flow Offshore Salinity Cd Ah Time Series Vertical Diffusivity Freshwater Inflow Clyo Boundary Concentration SENFBF SENHD SENVMH SENFRH SENSAL Aug-99 Aug-99 Aug-99 Aug-99 Aug-99 +10% +25% +10% +10% +1ppt -10% -25% -10% -10% -1ppt GNV/2004/98991A/HY/12/30/2003 Table 9-2. Sensitivity of 50th Percentile Salinities Base Case Vertical Mixing Boundary Salinity Horizontal Mixing Station Salinity (ppt) +10% -10% +1ppt -1ppt +25% -25% Front River Bottom GPA26b 32.42 -0.1 0.1 1.0 -1.0 0.0 0.0 GPA02b 29.95 -0.2 0.2 1.0 -1.0 0.0 0.0 GPA04b 23.56 -0.6 0.6 0.9 -0.9 -0.1 0.1 GPA21b 18.31 -0.8 0.9 0.8 -0.8 -0.2 0.2 GPA06b 16.36 -0.9 1.1 0.8 -0.8 -0.2 0.2 GPA22b 11.02 -1.0 1.1 0.6 -0.7 -0.2 0.2 GPA08b 7.33 -0.9 0.9 0.5 -0.5 -0.2 0.2 GPA09b 3.84 -0.5 0.5 0.3 -0.3 -0.1 0.2 GPA11rb 0.75 -0.1 0.3 0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 Front River Surface GPA26s 28.52 0.3 -0.4 0.8 -0.8 0.0 0.0 GPA02s 19.5 0.5 -0.7 0.6 -0.6 -0.1 0.1 GPA04s 8.43 0.2 -0.1 0.3 -0.3 0.0 0.1 GPA21s 6.72 0.0 0.0 0.3 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 GPA06s 5.43 0.0 0.0 0.3 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 GPA22s 2.95 -0.1 0.1 0.2 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 GPA08s 2.3 -0.1 0.1 0.2 -0.2 0.0 0.0 GPA09s 1.38 -0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 Middle River GPA10s 1.49 -0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 GPA12rs 0.36 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Little Back River GPA05b 7.04 -0.6 0.7 0.4 -0.4 -0.1 0.1 GPA07s 1.43 -0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 GPA15s 0.84 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 USFWS 0.72 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Limehouse 0.33 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Upstream Inflow +10% -10% 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 -0.2 0.2 -0.3 0.3 -0.3 0.3 -0.4 0.4 -0.5 0.5 -0.3 0.4 -0.3 0.3 -0.1 0.2 -0.3 0.3 -0.3 0.4 -0.4 0.4 -0.4 0.4 -0.3 0.3 -0.3 0.3 -0.2 0.2 -0.2 0.2 -0.1 0.1 -0.3 0.3 -0.2 0.2 -0.1 0.2 -0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.1 Bottom Friction +10% -10% 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.1 -0.3 0.3 -0.3 0.3 -0.3 0.3 -0.3 0.3 -0.3 0.2 -0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GNV/2004/98991A/HY/9-2+9-312/30/2003 Table 9-3. Sensitivity of 90th Percentile Salinities Base Case Vertical Mixing Boundary Salinity Horizontal Mixing Station Salinity (ppt) +10% -10% +1ppt -1ppt +25% -25% Front River Bottom GPA26b 34.97 0.0 0.1 1.0 -1.0 0.0 0.0 GPA02b 33.58 -0.2 0.2 1.0 -1.0 0.0 0.0 GPA04b 28.87 -0.6 0.6 1.0 -1.0 -0.1 0.1 GPA21b 25 -0.8 0.8 0.9 -1.0 -0.1 0.1 GPA06b 21.79 -0.9 1.0 0.9 -0.8 -0.2 0.2 GPA22b 16.25 -1.0 1.1 0.7 -0.7 -0.2 0.2 GPA08b 13.15 -1.0 1.1 0.6 -0.6 -0.2 0.2 GPA09b 7.58 -0.6 0.7 0.5 -0.4 -0.2 0.2 GPA11rb 3 -0.3 0.4 0.2 -0.2 -0.1 0.1 Front River Surface GPA26s 31.38 0.2 -0.2 0.9 -0.9 0.0 0.0 GPA02s 27.78 0.3 -0.5 0.9 -0.9 0.0 0.1 GPA04s 11.81 0.2 -0.2 0.4 -0.4 -0.1 0.1 GPA21s 9.96 0.0 -0.1 0.4 -0.4 -0.1 0.1 GPA06s 8.69 0.0 0.0 0.4 -0.4 -0.1 0.1 GPA22s 4.43 -0.1 0.1 0.2 -0.2 0.0 0.0 GPA08s 3.98 0.0 0.0 0.2 -0.2 0.0 0.0 GPA09s 3.04 -0.1 0.1 0.2 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 Middle River GPA10s 3.22 -0.2 0.2 0.2 -0.2 -0.1 0.1 GPA12rs 1 -0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 Little Back River GPA05b 11.68 -0.7 0.8 0.5 -0.5 -0.1 0.1 GPA07s 2.22 -0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 GPA15s 1.86 -0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 USFWS 1.26 -0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 Limehouse 0.65 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Upstream Inflow +10% -10% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.1 -0.2 0.2 -0.3 0.4 -0.4 0.4 -0.4 0.4 -0.4 0.4 -0.1 0.1 -0.2 0.2 -0.3 0.3 -0.4 0.4 -0.4 0.5 -0.3 0.4 -0.3 0.4 -0.3 0.3 -0.3 0.3 -0.2 0.2 -0.3 0.3 -0.2 0.3 -0.2 0.2 -0.2 0.2 -0.1 0.2 Bottom Friction +10% -10% 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.1 -0.2 0.2 -0.3 0.3 -0.3 0.3 -0.3 0.3 -0.3 0.2 -0.2 0.2 -0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.2 0.2 -0.1 0.0 -0.2 0.1 -0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.1 -0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.1 GNV/2004/98991A/HY/9-2+9-312/30/2003 Table 9-4. Sensitivity of 50th Percentile Water Levels Station Base Case WSE (m) Vertical Mixing +10% -10% Ft.Pulaski 0.45 GPA-02 0.45 GPA-04 0.66 BroadSt. 0.76 GPA-21 0.69 GPA-06 0.77 GPA-08 0.83 Houlihan 0.76 GPA-09 0.84 GPA-11 0.87 GPA-14 0.91 I-95 0.91 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 GPA-05 0.76 LucknowCan 0.88 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 GPA-16 1.04 GPA-22 0.85 Hardeeville 1.88 GPA-17 2.41 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 Boundary Salinity Horizontal Mixing +1ppt -1ppt +25% -25% Front River 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 Back River 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 Upper River 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 Upstream Inflow +10% -10% Bottom Friction +10% -10% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 -0.02 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.13 -0.13 0.07 -0.07 0.17 -0.18 0.09 -0.10 GNV/2004/98991A/HY/12/30/2003 Table 9-5. Sensitivity of 95th Percentile Water Levels Station Base Case WSE (m) Ft.Pulaski 1.57 GPA-02 1.52 GPA-04 1.75 BroadSt. 1.83 GPA-21 1.78 GPA-06 1.83 GPA-08 1.91 Houlihan 1.82 GPA-09 1.89 GPA-11 1.91 GPA-14 1.91 I-95 1.91 GPA-05 1.86 LucknowCan 1.88 GPA-16 1.94 GPA-22 1.90 Hardeeville 2.37 GPA-17 2.79 Vertical Mixing +10% -10% 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 Boundary Salinity Horizontal Mixing +1ppt -1ppt +25% -25% Front River 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 Back River 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 Upper River 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 Upstream Inflow +10% -10% 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.02 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.12 -0.10 0.18 -0.18 Bottom Friction +10% -10% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.06 0.09 0.00 0.00 -0.05 -0.10 GNV/2004/98991A/HY/12/30/2003 Prepared for: Calibration of a Hydrodynamic Georgia Ports and Water Quality Model Authority for the Savannah Harbor Volume 1: Hydrodynamic Modeling Report APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ Title.cdr 11/12/03 January 2004 98-991 H&WQ HY 1-1CDR 11/04/03 95 28 Creek 27 46 Savannah National Wildlife Refuge Boundary 46 170 Union River 26 26 27 25 25 170 Alt 170 River Savannah 24Ursla 24 Argyle 26 Island 25 Island Back 23 23 24 23 Middle Little 21 Front River Alt 22 22 17 17 21 Onslow 22 21 25 112+000 Island 20 21 River 20 103+000 New Cut (Close1d9) 20 18 South Carolina May River Bull Island Barataria Island River Sound Broad Hilton Head Island South Carolina Georgia Project Location Savannah Calibogue H11u090tScahviannsonna19h85IsRlaivnedr 1970 307 80 26 307 16 25 17 Georgia Wright 17 River New Daufuskie 15 80 16 Back River 15 8516 Alt 17 Alt 25 14 Tide Gate Sedimentation 13 Basin 12 55 10 50 9 45 8 Elba Island River Island Mungen Cr. 7 40 75 14 13 70 16 Savannah 17 25 80 26 26 11 60 10 65 12 Fort 9 Jackson 8 Sa35vanna6 h30 5 25 Jones New River Island Oatland Toll Island 80 M7cQSuoeuethns6 Islan5 d Talahi Cha4nnel 3 15 4 20 River Island Bird Turtle Island Tybee Island National Wildlife Refuge Boundary Oysterbed Island 0+000 210 1 5 0 --51 -10-2 -15-3 -20 -4 Whitemarsh Island Island Bull Cockspur 3 Island Fort 2 Pulaski Waters Road Skidaway Road Wiilm ngton River Wilmington River 80 1 26 0 204 Island Tybee Island -7 -35 -6 -30 -5 -25 0 6,000 12,000 Scale in Feet Legend -85 Channel Station (in Thousand Foot Increments) 0+000 Key Channel Station 1 Existing Savannah Harbor Navigation Project (with River Mile Designation) Proposed Limit of Inner Harbor Channel Deepening Existing Bar Channel (to be Subjected to Dredging) Additional Bar Channel to be Deepened (Extent Dependent Upon Authorized Depth) -40 -8 -45 -9 -50 -10 -55 -11 Atlantic Ocean -12 -65 -13 -60+000 Savannah Ocean Dredged Material -70 -14 -75 Disposal Site (ODMDS) -15 -80 -16 -85+000 Salt Creek Figure 1-1 Project Location Map APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. Annual Number of Records 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0 Distribution of Daily Discharge (1930-2001) Note: Distribution represents bins of 1,000 cfs. 1930 - 2001 June-September, 1997 June-September, 1999 10,000 20,000 30,000 Mean Daily Discharge (cfs) 40,000 50,000 Annual Discharge (1930-2001) 60,000 50,000 >60,000 cfs 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1930 1940 1950 1960 Minimum Daily Discharge Maximum Daily Discharge 1999 1970 1980 1990 Mean Discharge 1997 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2000 Mean Discharge (m3 / sec.) 98-991 H&WQ HY 1-2.CDR 10/31/03 Mean Discharge (cfs) Figure 1-2 Historic Flow Conditions APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. North Carolina South Carolina Georgia 98-991 H&WQ HY 2-1.CDR 11/03/03 Figure 2-1 Savannah River Watershed APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY Fig 2-2.CDR 11/01/03 Figure 2-2 1997 Continuous Salinity and Temperature Measurements APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 2-3.CDR 11/13/03 Figure 2-3 1997 Continuous Current Measurements APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. Union Creek 95 02198840 (I-95 Bridge) 46 46 170 Savannah National Wildlife Refuge Boundary 170 Alt 170 M Savannah River Back River Ursla Island Argyle Island Middle 21 Onslow 02198920 Island (Port Wentworth) Little 02198979 (Limehouse) 021989784 (Lucknow Canal) 021989791 (USFW Dock) 17 25 River New Cut (Closed) South Carolina Legend Water Surface Elevation Water Surface Elevation and Specific Conductance Specific Conductance Hutchinson Island Savannah River 307 80 26 307 16 25 17 Back River 17 Tide Gate Sediment Basin Elba Island 02198977 (Broad Street) Fort Jackson 16 Savannah 80 26 Oatland Toll Island 80 Whitemarsh 26 Island Bird Island Wrgi ht River New Daufuskie River Island M Qc South ueens Island Talahi Island Bull FieldsJones Island Mungen Cr. New River Turtle Island Atlantic Ocean Channel 02198980 (Fort Pulaski) Cockspur Island Fort Pulaski Georgia 204 Wilmington River Island 80 26 Tybee Island Salt Creek 98-991 H&WQ HY 2-4.cdr 11/06/03 Waters Road Skidaway Road Wilmiongt n River Cut Figure 2-4a U.S. Geological Survey Stations APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. Savannah Ebenezer Creek River Creek Birds Branch Poly Creek 275 Lockner Mill Creek Creek Raccoon Creek Dasher Creek Creek WSilwloewigpoegffeCrreek 21 Abercorn Big Collis 0 5,000 10,000 Scale in Feet 02198760 (Hardeeville) 321 Legend Water Surface Elevation 95 46 17 Savannah Union River Front 98-991 H&WQ HY 2-4.cdr 11/06/03 Little 95 River River St. Augustine Creek Figure 2-4b U.S. Geological Survey Stations River Back Middle Creek 170 17 ALT 17 APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY Fig 2-5a.CDR 11/01/03 Figure 2-5a 1997 ADCP Transect Stations APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY Fig 2-5b.CDR 11/01/03 Figure 2-5b 1997 ADCP Transect Stations APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. Union Creek 95 GPA-14 46 46 170 Savannah National Wildlife Refuge Boundary 170 Alt 170 M Savannah River River Little Back GPA-11R GPA-12R Ursla Island Argyle Island USFW Dock South Middle 17 21 GPA-10 25 GPA-09 Onslow Island GPA-15 Rivre Front GPA-08 River New Cut (Closed) GPA-07 Carolina Legend 2 levels - Near Bottom and Near Surface Instruments 1 level - Near Surface (1 meter below surface) Instrument Bird Island Wrgi ht GPA-22 307 Hutchinson Island Savannah River 80 26 307 Back RiveGr PA-05 GPA-06 17 Tide Gate Sediment Basin Elba GPA-04 Island GPA-21 Fort Jackson GPA-23 1 level - Mid-Depth (at Mean RiverTide) Instrument New 1 level - Near Bottom R(i1vermeter above bottom) Instrument Daufuskie Island GPA-25 FieldsJones Mungen Cr. New River 16 25 17 16 Savannah 80 26 26 GPA-24 GPA-02 Island Oatland Toll Island 80 McQSuoeuethns Island GPA-03 Whitemarsh Island Talahi Island Bull Channel Turtle Island Atlantic Ocean GPA-26 Cockspur Island Fort Pulaski Georgia 204 Wilmington River Island 80 26 Tybee Island Salt Creek 98-991 H&WQ HY Fig 2-6a & 2-6b.CDR 11/06/03 Waters Road Skidaway Road Wilmington River Cut Figure 2-6a 1999 Continuous Salinity and Temperature Measurements APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. River Savannah Clyo Ebenezer Creek 275 Lockner Creek GPA-17 Mill Creek Creek Raccoon Abercorn Big Collis Creek GPA-20 GPA-19 21 Savaann h GPA-16 GPA-18 GPA-14 Onion Creek River Front Little 95 River River St. Augustine Creek River Back Middle 0 5,000 10,000 Scale in Feet 321 Legend 95 2 levels - Near Bottom and Near Surface Instruments 1 level - Near Surface (1 meter below surface) Instrument 1 level - Mid-Depth (at Mean Tide) Instrument 1 level - Near Bottom (1 meter above bo4t6tom) Instrument 17 170 17 ALT 17 98-991 H&WQ HY Fig 2-6a & 2-6b.CDR 11/06/03 Figure 2-6b 1999 Continuous Salinity and Temperature Measurements APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. Union Creek 95 46 46 170 Savannah National Wildlife Refuge Boundary 170 Alt 170 M Savannah River River Little Back Ursla Island Argyle Island Middle 17 21 25 Onslow Island River Front River New Cut (Closed) South Carolina Legend Bottom Mounted ADCP and Tide Station Side-looking ADP (Aquadopp) and Tide Station Hutchinson Island Savannah River 307 80 26 307 16 25 17 GPA-06 Back River 17 Tide Gate Sediment Basin Elba GPA-04 Island Fort Jackson 16 Savannah 80 26 Oatland Toll Island 80 Whitemarsh 26 Island Bird Island Wrgi ht River New Daufuskie River Island M Qc South ueens Island Talahi Island Bull FieldsJones Island Channel Mungen Cr. New River Turtle Island Atlantic Ocean Cockspur Island Fort Pulaski Georgia 204 Wilmington River Island 80 26 Tybee Island Salt Creek 98-991 H&WQ HY 2-7a&b.CDR 11/02/03 Waters Road Skidaway Road Wilmiongt n River Cut Figure 2-7a 1999 Continuous Current Measurements APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 2-7a&b.CDR 11/02/03 Savannah Ebenezer Creek River Birds Branch Poly Creek 275 Lockner Creek Mill Creek GPA-17 Creek Raccoon Creek Dasher WSilwloewigpoegffeCrreek Creek 21 Abercorn Big Collis Creek GPA-20 GPA-19 GPA-16 GPA-18 Savannah City of Savannah Raw Water Intake GPA-14 Union Creek River Front Little 95 River River St. Augustine Creek Figure 2-7b 1999 Continuous Current Measurements River Back Middle 0 5,000 10,000 Scale in Feet 321 Legend Bottom Mounted ADCP and Tide Station Side-looking ADP (Aquadopp) and Tide Station 46 17 170 17 ALT 17 APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 2-8.CDR 11/14/03 Figure 2-8a 1999 ADCP Transect Stations APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 2-8b.CDR 11/14/03 Figure 2-8b 1999 ADCP Transect Stations APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. Union Creek 95 46 46 170 Savannah National Wildlife Refuge Boundary 170 Alt 170 M Savannah River River Little Back Ursla Island Argyle Island Middle 21 EPD-10 Onslow Island River EPD-09 Rivre Front 17 25 New Cut (Closed) South Carolina Hut chinson Isal nd Savannah River Bird Island Wright 307 EPD-08 River New Daufuskie EPD-07 Back River Tide Gate EPD-03 River Island Sediment 17 Basin Elba EPD-02 Island Mungen Cr. 80 26 307 16 25 17 EPD-06 16 EPD-04 Fort Jackson EPD-05 Savannah Toll 80 80 26 Oatland Island EPD-01 McQSuoeuethns Island Talahi FieldsJones Island Channel New River Turtle Island Atlantic Ocean Whitemarsh Island Bull Cockspur 26 Island Island Fort Pulaski Georgia 204 Wilmington River Island 80 26 Tybee Island Salt Creek 98-991 H&WQ HY 2-9.CDR 11/08/03 Waters Road Skidaway Road Wilmington River Cut Figure 2-9 1999 EPD Sampling Locations APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. Union Creek 95 46 46 170 Savannah National Wildlife Refuge Boundary 170 Alt 170 M Savannah River River Little Back Ursla Island Argyle Island Middle 17 21 25 Onslow Island River Front River New Cut (Closed) South Carolina Hutchinson Island Savannah River Bird Island Wrgi ht 307 80 26 307 Back River Tide Gate Sediment Basin Elba 17 Island GPA-21 Fort Jackson River New Daufuskie River Island Fiel ds Jones Mungen Cr. New River 16 25 17 16 Savannah 80 26 26 Oatland Toll Island 80 Whitemarsh Island McQSuoeuethns Island Talahi Island Bull Island Turtle Island Atlantic Ocean Channel GPA-26 Cockspur Island Fort Pulaski Georgia 204 Wilmington River Island 80 26 Tybee Island Salt Creek 98-991 H&WQ HY 2-10.CDR 11/04/03 Waters Road Skidaway Road Wilmington River Cut Figure 2-10a 1999 Meteorologic Stations APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. River Savannah Mill Creek Discharge at Clyo USGS 02198500 Ebenezer Creek 275 Lockner Creek GPA-17 0 5,000 10,000 Scale in Feet 321 95 Creek Raccoon Abercorn Big Collis Creek Savaann h 21 City of Savannah Raw Water Intake Onion River Front Little 95 River River St. Augustine Creek Figure 2-10b 1999 Meteorologic Stations River Back Middle Creek 46 17 170 17 ALT 17 APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 2-10.CDR 11/04/03 98-991 H&WQ HY 3-1.CDR 11/03/03 Figure 3-1 Schematic of Hydro Model Grid Cell APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. Schematic of Marsh Boundary Condition 98-991 H&WQ HY 3-2.CDR 11/07/03 Figure 3-2 Schematic of Marsh Boundary Condition APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 5-1.CDR 11/02/03 Figure 5-1 Model Grid APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 5-2.CDR 11/07/03 Figure 5-2 1999 and 1997 Model Bathymetry APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. Bottom Elevation (m-NGVD) GPA-14 FR-1 GPA-11 GPA-9 GPA-8 GPA-22 GPA-6 GPA-21 GPA-4 GPA-2 GPA-26 GPA-1 -4 -6 Average River Bottom Elevation in Navigation Channel Model Grid Cell (Bathymetry) -8 Bottom Elevation of Model Grid Cells Representing Navigation Channel Continuous Monitoring Stations -10 -12 -14 -16 -18 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 River Mile 98-991 H&WQ HY 5-3.CDR 12/30/03 Figure 5-3 Longitudinal Bathymetric Profile of Front River for 1997 and 1999 APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. Bottom Friction 0.060 0.050 0.040 Dimensionless Bottom Friction (Cd) Variation as a Function of River Mile Bottom Friction Station 0.030 0.020 0.010 GPA-17 Becks Ferry Rd GPA-16 GPA-14 FR-1 GPA-11 GPA-9 GPA-8 GPA-22 GPA-6 GPA-21 GPA-4 GPA-2 GPA-26 0.000 Clyo -0.010 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 River Mile 98-991 H&WQ HY 5-4.CDR 11/11/03 Figure 5-4 Longitudinal Variation in Bottom Friction Coefficient APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. Surface Elevation (m) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 -2 8/1 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 -2 9/8 Savannah River Open Boundary Water Surface Elevation Summer 1999 8/8 8/15 8/22 8/29 9/5 1999 Date Savannah River Open Boundary Water Surface Elevation Summer 1999 9/15 9/22 9/29 10/6 10/13 1999 Date 98-991 H&WQ HY Fig 5-5.CDR 11/13/03 Surface Elevation (m) Figure 5-5 Offshore Tidal Boundary Condition for 1999 Simulation (August 1 - October 7, 1999) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. Flow Rate (m3/s) Savannah River Volume Flow at Clyo Summer 1999 300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 7/26 8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 1999 Date 300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 9/8 Savannah River Volume Flow at Clyo Summer 1999 9/15 9/22 9/29 10/6 10/13 1999 Date 98-991 H&WQ HY Fig 5-6.CDR 11/13/03 Flow Rate (m3/s) Figure 5-6 Upstream Freshwater Inflow at Clyo for 1999 Simulation (August 1 - October 7, 1999) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. Salinity (ppt) Savannah River Open Boundary Salinity Summer 1999 40 35 30 25 20 8/1 40 8/6 8/11 8/16 8/21 8/26 8/31 9/5 1999 Date Savannah River Open Boundary Salinity Summer 1999 35 30 25 20 9/8 9/13 9/18 9/23 9/28 10/3 10/8 1999 Date 98-991 H&WQ HY 5-7.CDR 11/17/03 Salinity (ppt) Figure 5-7 Offshore Salinity Boundary Condition for 1999 Simulation (August 1 - October 7, 1999) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. Temperature (C) Savannah River Open Boundary Water Temperature Summer 1999 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 7/26 8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 1999 Date 98-991 H&WQ HY 5-8.CDR 11/17/03 Figure 5-8 Offshore Temperature Boundary Condition for 1999 Simulation (August 1 - October 7, 1999) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. Temperature (C) Savannah River Water Temperature at Clyo Summer 1999 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 7/26 8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 1999 Date 98-991 H&WQ HY 5-9.CDR 11/11/03 Figure 5-9 Upstream Temperature Boundary Condition for 1999 Simulation APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. Marsh Extents Middle/Back River Front/Middle River 98-991 H&WQ HY Fig 5-10.CDR 11/07/03 Figure 5-10 Marsh Areas Represented in Hydrodynamic Model APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. Atmospheric Pressure (mbar) Wind Speed (m/s) Meteorological Data, Savannah, Ga. Summer 1999 1050 8 1000 6 950 4 900 2 850 7/26 8/2 1050 8/9 8/16 8/23 1999 Date Surface Pressure Wind Speed Meteorological Data, Savannah, Ga. Summer 1999 8/30 0 9/6 8 1000 6 950 4 900 2 850 9/8 9/15 9/22 9/29 10/6 1999 Date Surface Pressure Wind Speed 10/13 0 10/20 Wind Speed (m/s) 98-991 H&WQ HY 5-11.CDR 11/11/03 Atmospheric Pressure (mbar) Figure 5-11 1999 Wind and Atmospheric Pressure used in Simulations APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. Temperature (C) Solar Radiation (W/m^2) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 7/26 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 9/8 8/2 9/15 Meteorological Data, Savannah, Ga. Summer 1999 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/30 1999 Date Air Temperature Solar Radiation 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 9/6 Meteorological Data, Savannah, Ga. Summer 1999 9/22 9/29 10/6 1999 Date Air Temperature Solar Radiation 10/13 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 10/20 Solar Radiation (W/m^2) 98-991 H&WQ HY 5-12.CDR 11/11/03 Temperature (C) Figure 5-12 1999 Solar Radiation and Air Temperature used in Simulations APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. Tidal Elevation (m) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 7/9 Savannah River Open Boundary Water Surface Elevation Summer 1997 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 Date Savannah River Open Boundary Water Surface Elevation Summer 1997 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 Date 98-991 H&WQ HY Fig 5-13.CDR 11/17/03 Tidal Elevation (m) Figure 5-13 Offshore Tidal Boundary Condition for 1997 Simulation APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. Flow Rate (m3/s) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 7/9 Savannah River Volume Flow at Clyo Summer 1997 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 Date 8/13 8/20 Savannah River Volume Flow at Clyo Summer 1997 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 Date 98-991 H&WQ HY Fig 5-14.CDR 11/17/03 Flow Rate (m3/s) Figure 5-14 Upstream Freshwater Inflow at Clyo for 1997 Simulation APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. Salinity (ppt) Savannah River Open BoundarySalinity Summer 1997 40 35 30 25 20 7/11 7/18 7/25 8/1 8/8 1997 Date 8/15 8/22 Savannah River Open BoundarySalinity Summer 1997 40 35 30 25 20 8/22 8/29 9/5 9/12 9/19 9/26 10/3 1997 Date 98-991 H&WQ HY 5-15.CDR 11/18/03 Salinity (ppt) Figure 5-15 Offshore Salinity Boundary Condition for 1997 Simulation APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-1.CDR 10/31/03 Figure 7-1 Simulated versus Measured Water Level at GPA-04, GPA-06, GPA-08 (August 4-September 8, 1999) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-2.CDR 10/31/03 Figure 7-2 Simulated versus Measured Water Level at GPA-14, Hardeeville, Limehouse (August 4-September 8, 1999) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-3.CDR 11/03/03 Figure 7-3 Longitudinal Plot of Water Surface Elevation Error Statistics for 1999 Calibration Period (August 4-September 8, 1999) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-4.CDR 11/11/03 Figure 7-4 Simulated versus Measured Surface and Bottom Currents at GPA-04 (August 4-September 8, 1999) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-5.CDR 10/31/03 Figure 7-5 Simulated versus Measured Surface and Bottom Currents at GPA-06 (August 4-September 8, 1999) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-6.CDR 10/31/03 Figure 7-6 Simulated versus Measured Currents at GPA-16 (August 4-September 8, 1999) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-7.CDR 11/11/03 Figure 7-7 Simulated versus Measured Current Contours at GPA-06 APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-8.CDR 11/18/03 Figure 7-8 Simulated versus Measured Flows at FJ, FR2, and FR3 APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-9.CDR 11/13/03 Figure 7-9 Simulated versus Measured Flows at MR2, BR and LBR2 APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-10.CDR 10/31/03 Figure 7-10 Simulated versus Measured Surface and Bottom Salinity along the Lower Front River at GPA-04 and GPA-21 during Calibration Period (August 4, 1999 - September 8, 1999) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-11.CDR 10/31/03 Figure 7-11 Simulated versus Measured Surface and Bottom Salinity along the Upper Front River at GPA-06 and GPA-09 during Calibration Period (August 4, 1999 - September 8, 1999) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-12.CDR 10/31/03 Figure 7-12 Simulated versus Measured Salinity on the Middle River at GPA-10 and GPA-12 during Calibration Period (August 4-September 8, 1999) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-13.CDR 10/31/03 Figure 7-13 Simulated versus Measured Salinity on the Little Back River at GPA-15 and Limehouse during Calibration Period (August 4-September 8, 1999) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-14.CDR 11/03/03 Figure 7-14 Longitudinal Plot of Salinity Error Statistics for 1999 Calibration Period (August 4-September 8, 1999) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-15a.CDR 10/31/03 Figure 7-15a Longitudinal Plot of Simulated versus Measured 10th, 50th, and 90th Percentiles for Salinity (August 4-September 8, 1999) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-15b.CDR 10/31/03 Figure 7-15b Longitudinal Plot of Simulated versus Measured 10th, 50th, and 90th Percentiles for Salinity (August 4-September 8, 1999) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-16.CDR 11/14/03 Figure 7-16 Simulated versus Measured Longitudinal Profile Color Contour Time Series APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-17.CDR 11/14/03 Figure 7-17 Comparison of Simulated versus Measured Vertical Profiles of Salinity at EPD Snapshot Stations (September 20, 27, 1999) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. Transect FR3 (GPA-21) Transect FR3 (GPA-21) Transect FR3 (GPA-21) 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-18a.CDR 11/12/03 Figure 7-18a Comparison of Simulated versus Measured Salt Flux at Key Stations for 1999 Calibration Period APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. Transect FR2 (GPA-09) Transect FR2 (GPA-09) 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-18b.CDR 11/12/03 Figure 7-18b Comparison of Simulated versus Measured Salt Flux at Key Stations for 1999 Calibration Period APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. Transect MR2 (GPA-10) Transect MR2 (GPA-10) Transect LBR2 (GPA-15) 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-18c.CDR 11/11/03 Figure 7-18c Comparison of Simulated versus Measured Salt Flux at Key Stations for 1999 Calibration Period APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-19.CDR 10/31/03 Figure 7-19 Simulated versus Measured Surface and Bottom Temperature along the Lower Front River at GPA-04 and GPA-21 during Calibration Period (August 4, 1999 - September 8, 1999) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-20.CDR 10/31/03 Figure 7-20 Simulated versus Measured Surface and Bottom Temperature along the Upper Front River at GPA-06 and GPA-09 during Calibration Period (August 4, 1999 - September 8, 1999) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-21.CDR 10/31/03 Figure 7-21 Simulated versus Measured Temperature on the Middle River at GPA-10 and GPA-12 during Calibration Period (August 4September 8, 1999) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-22.CDR 11/05/03 Figure 7-22 Simulated versus Measured Temperature on the Little Back River at GPA-15 during Calibration Period (August 4September 8, 1999) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-23.CDR 11/03/03 Little Back River and Middle River Figure 7-23 Longitudinal Plot of Temperature Error Statistics for 1999 Calibration Period (August 4-September 8, 1999) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-24a.CDR 10/31/03 Figure 7-24a Longitudinal Plot of Simulated versus Measured 10th, 50th, and 90th Percentiles for Temperature (August 4-September 8, 1999) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-24b.CDR 10/31/03 Figure 7-24b Longitudinal Plot of Simulated versus Measured 10th, 50th, and 90th Percentiles for Temperature (August 4-September 8, 1999) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 7-17.CDR 11/14/03 Figure 7-25 Comparison of Simulated versus Measured Vertical Profiles of Temperature at EPD Snapshot Stations (September 20, 27, 1999) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 8-1.CDR 11/02/03 Figure 8-1 Simulated versus Measured Water Level at GPA-04, GPA-06, GPA-08 (August 4-September 8, 1997) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 8-2.CDR 11/02/03 Lucknow Canal Figure 8-2 Simulated versus Measured Water Level at GPA-14 (I-95) and Lucknow Canal (August 4-September 8, 1997) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 8-3.CDR 11/11/03 Little Back River and Middle River Figure 8-3 Longitudinal Plot of Water Surface Elevation Error Statistics for 1997 Calibration Period (July 15-September 30, 1997) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 8-4.CDR 11/11/03 Figure 8-4 Simulated versus Measured Surface and Bottom Currents at GPA-04 (July 15-September 30, 1997) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 8-5.CDR 11/11/03 Figure 8-5 Simulated versus Measured Surface and Bottom Currents at GPA-08 (July 15-September 30, 1997) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 8-6.CDR 11/13/03 Figure 8-6 Simulated versus Measured Flows at FR2, MR2 and LBR2 APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 8-7.CDR 11/13/03 Figure 8-7 Simulated versus Measured Flows at FR3, BR and FJ APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 8-8.CDR 11/11/03 Figure 8-8 Simulated versus Measured Surface and Bottom Salinity along the Lower Front River at GPA-02 and GPA-04 during Calibration Period (August 4, 1997 - September 8, 1997) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 8-9.CDR 11/11/03 Figure 8-9 Simulated versus Measured Surface and Bottom Salinity along the Upper Front River at GPA-06 and GPA-09 during Calibration Period (August 4, 1997 - September 8, 1997) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 8-10.CDR 11/11/03 Figure 8-10 Simulated versus Measured Salinity on the Middle River at GPA-10 and GPA-12 during Calibration Period (August 4-September 8, 1997) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 8-11.CDR 11/11/03 Figure 8-11 Simulated versus Measured Salinity on the Little Back River at GPA-15 and Lucknow Canal during Calibration Period (August 4-September 8, 1997) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 8-12.CDR 11/11/03 Little Back River and Middle River Figure 8-12 Longitudinal Plot of Salinity Error Statistics for 1997 Calibration Period (July 15-September 30, 1997) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 8-13a.CDR 11/11/03 Figure 8-13a Longitudinal Plot of Simulated versus Measured 10th, 50th, and 90th Percentiles for Salinity (July 15-September 30, 1997) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 8-13b.CDR 11/11/03 Figure 8-13b Longitudinal Plot of Simulated versus Measured 10th, 50th, and 90th Percentiles for Salinity (July 15-September 30, 1997) APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. 98-991 H&WQ HY 8-14.CDR 11/11/03 Figure 8-14 Simulated versus Measured Longitudinal Profile Color Contour Time Series APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC.