ML19208B293

From kanterella
Revision as of 14:08, 5 September 2019 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Thermal Plume Determination & Model Verification During Unit 3 Operation.
ML19208B293
Person / Time
Site: Crystal River Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 08/31/1979
From: Klousewitz R
WEST VIRGINIA WESLEYAN COLLEGE, BUCKHANNON, WV
To:
Shared Package
ML19208B284 List:
References
NUDOCS 7909190479
Download: ML19208B293 (57)
v • d • e


Text

.4.THERMAL PLUME DETERMINATION AND MODEL VERIFICATION DURING UNIT 3 OPERATION AUGUST 1979 RONALD H. KLAUSEWITZ W8ST VIRGINIA WESLEYAN COLLEGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION g0919.r;a29

,'Ihermal Plume !bdel Verification Contents Page Introduction 1 Materials and fiethods 1 Field Study 1 tbdel Study 2 Results 3 Field Study 3 tbdel Study 4 (bmparison of 3bdel Pesults and Field Results 9 Discussion and Conclusions 11 References 13 C 'j ])b0

.%List of Figures Page 1.STD stations 14 2.Observed sumer-max ebb 16 3.Calculated sumer-max ebb 17 4.Observed simrer-low water 19 5.Calculated sumner-low water 20 6.Overlay of 5 on 4 21 7 Observed sumer-max flood 23 8.Calculated strrer-max flood 24 9.Observed sumer-high water 26 10. Calculated sumer-high water 27 11. Overlay of 10 on 9 23 12. Observed 3' ebb 30 13. Observed 3' low 31 14. Observed 3' flood 32 15. Observed 3' high 33 16. Observed winter-low water 35 17. Calculated winter-law water 36 18. Overlay 17 on 16 37 19. Observed winter-max flood 39 20. Calculated winter-rux flood 40 21. Observed winter-high water 42 22.Calculated winter-high water 43 23. Overlay 22 on 21 44 pj])b~,..

._.List of Figures Page 24. Observed winter-max ebb 46 25.Calculated winter-nax ebb 47 26. Observed 3' ebb 49 27.Observed 3' low 50 28. Observed 3' flocd 51 29.Observed 3' high 52 , , -<ta'//lJL

..List of Tables Page 1.Simraer Ebb Flow 18 2.Struer Iow Water 22 3.Struer Flood Flow 25 4.Struer High Mater 29 5.Winter Iow Water 38 6.Winter Flocd Flow 41 7.Winter High Water 45 8.Winter Ebb Flow 48 O O m o3

..THERMAL PLUME MODEL VERIFICATION INTRODUCTION This section describes the nethod and results of establishing the location and size of the therral alume and the verification of the mathematical model of the Crystal River Discharge Basin.

The field surveys were undertaken with the methods and equipment described below.

At the time of the field surveys, meteorological data necessary to run duolication of the conditions during the field survey were recorded and subsequentiv apolied to the model.

This allowed the model to reoroduce the natural heating and cooling ef fects in action durina tha field surveys for nroper calibration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Field Study Two intensive field surveys were conducted in the Crystal River clant site discharge basins.

One survev was conducted during the warmest summer months (August 30, 1977), and one during the coldest winter months (January 27, 1978).

rach survey consisted of four runs of 90 minutes or less, centered around high, ebb, low and flood tide stages.

Temeerature and salinity measurements were taken at 26 stations (viqure 1) on each run with a Beckman Model RS-5 induction salinometer.

Tennerature and salinity were determined at surface and three foot intervals to depth at each station.

!lk 3

..Field Study (Continued)

Temoerature data from the field surveys was used to describe the extent of the thermal alume.

Contours were drawn O at l C intervals, above ambient, by intercolation between data points.Model Study The model used here has been emoloyed at Crystal River, with minor modifications, since 1970 It is a two-stage model with the hydraulic cortion linked to the thermal diseersion portion by recordings of velocity and death at calculation intervals.

The linking allows long-range runs of the thermal dispersion cortion without large quantities of comouter time.

The entire model and its origins are comoletely described in References (1) and (2).

In order to evaluate the accuracy of the model, a technique was required to systematically compare field results and model results for heat quality, areas involved, and the location of those areas.

A search of the literature orovided many examoles of qualitative comoarisons of field results by various methods.Most of these methods have been aoplied to the Crystal River model and recorted previously ((l) and (2)), but no quantitative methods of comoarison for quality, area, and location were found.

It was decided, therefore, to create an evaluation scheme which permits comoarison of numericallv O 2 f'i /} ..Model Study (Continued) simulated distribution of constituants over the same grid network for the field as is used in the model. Since this method is used for the first time in this recort, it will be briefly described below. The results of the acolication to this situation and a discussion of those results accear in the aporopriate sections of the report. The modeling effort entails the division of the area to be studied into a grid of equal X, Y dimension. These squares are the finite representation used in both water flow calculations and thermal distribution. For this study, field results were superimposed on the same grid net. Each square was then comoared for temoerature and a running tally of cercent variation maintained. Cumulative totals of squares for each temoerature were also kept so the model could be evaluated on two criteria: total involvement by temoerature and by location. Total involvement has been performed before ((1) and (6)), but the location analysis is unique to this study. This analvsis will indicate not only if the model is oroducing a olume of adequate size but also if it is placed procerly. _RESULTS Field Studv The results from the summer field studv are cresented as contour drawings of temoerature for surface and three foo t depth (Figures 2,4,7,9,12-15). 'Ihe winter survey is likewise presented (Figures 16,19,21,24,26-29). PD7 17,,'/IJu_.3 ..Model Study The nodel was first run under sunmer field conditions. cince net incoming radiation figures were not available for the days of the survey, data taken oreviously at Crystal River under similar sky conditions were used. All other data was taken from hourly recorts generated from on-site sensors at Crystal River. As stated above, the two stage model used for this effort is essentially the same as that used in the orecoerational study. However, the model now being used includes a techniaue for adjusting the system heat flow (3, 4, 5) which should allow for a more orecise plume area descriotion. First runs of the model to equilibrium croduced clune sizes on both low water and hich water far smaller than their countercarts encountered in the field. Under summer conditions (24 C wet bulb, 30 C dry bulb air temperatures, wind velocity of sixteen miles ner hour, and maximum daytime incoming radiation) the nodel was calculating temperature losses for water one decree C above a:tient 0 of 0.4 C cer minute. With this kind of extreme temoerature loss, the alume was extending in its +1 C contour no further than field results showed the +4 C contour. The basic orenises of Callaway, Byram and Ditsworth (3) were examined to see what was causina the excessive losses. At least part of the eroblem was involved with the definition of net incoming radiation. Callaway et. al. (3) defined net incoming radiation as the sum of incomina solar plus atmospheric radiation. In the studies from which the radiation O 4 m o7 , , Model Study (Continued) data was taken (2) a net solar pyronometer was used with radiation collection plates on both too and bottom to measure incomina radiation and reflected and emitted radiation from below. This eliminates the use of the back radiation term in the Callaway heat budget, and it was subsequently removed from the model heat budget. This, however, did not solve a'll of the lov temoerature oroblem as had been honed. After carefully checking all the parameters and calculations involved, a mini-model was constructed which carried out the extensive thermal budget calculations for a single packet of water of known volume at rest. This orogram was written for an exoerimental microprocessor comouter so that variations of boundary parameters and subsequent output could be observed without running the full Crystal River Model. Use of this microcrocessor model permitted verification of the fact that our reoroduction of the Callaway Model was acarate and, secondly, that the results we were getting were not consistent with ohysically observed results.The packet of water used in the calculation, for examole, would cool far below the temperatures experienced in the field for given air temperatures, humidities, solar radiation and wind velocity.Under certain conditions of incoming meteorological parameters, the model oroduced results which were logically inconsistent. Nater temoeratures below wet or dry temoeratures were observed.

  1. i7 5')

', , Model Study (Continued) At this point, personal communication was made with R. J.Callaway who indicated that several errors in his originai document had been uncovered which related to encerical constants used in the ~model.He suggested that I use comouter printed inout in 'the back of the second volume of the recort instead of printed: conntants in , volume 1.Comparison between emoerical constants we had .5cen , using and those suggested by Callaway showed indeed that the , text ,'had an error in exoonent and that an exoonent of minus 3 should have been an exoonent of minus 6 giving calculations rouchly a thousand times too large in one of the more incortant sections of the heat budget calculations. This new constant was acolied to the microprocessor-based standing volume heat budget orogram and .considerably better results were excerienced. In order to '" guarantee conformance to naturally occurring phenomena this microprocessor-based model was then verified against another form of the same calculations. Edinger and Geyer (9) in " Heat Exchange in the Environment" give nomographic solutions for~ equilibrium temperature (provided the meteorological variables, solar radiation, vapor oressure of the air, air temperature, and wind'soeed are known).Although there were differences in some of the results, none of the differencer exceeded 30 cercent. It is anticioated that due to the more accurate and extensive calculations used in the Callaway model that it h croducing better results. '@6 D / ]/} j ') '*,'s , ,.'...fe ,.../, Mclel Study (Continued) _Inclusion of the new callaway calculations into the full model'oroduced a larger olume: and, incidentally, a further oroblem. The plume now extended beyon4 a coint; along the north sooll of the intake canal where the boundary had taken several sharo zig zaas ~to approxim&te this s0GtheIn 5 undary of the rodel area. When ,', e' higher temperature values reached the 'first of these boundary ~~;.-, irregularities, the model began to act as though another sdurce , of heat had been entered at that point. The problem accer!.r'ed only.cm extreme ebb flow away from the boundary irrecularity, Tc learn more about the nature of this instabiljtv, the

  • , micrtorocessor was used'again.

The small cortion of the model . where the instability occurred and the conditions at the time of the instability were reproduced. The microprocessor model indeed verified that the'shapp boundary change hadt eaused the problem. Although some instability was evident in the preocerational model in the area immediately cadjacent to the outfall, this. instability was localized and the literature indicated that instabilities at coints of high input to mathematical models were common. The microorocessor analysis showed the phenomenon occuring at the boundary was related to the input instability. Examination then began of the numerical technique being used. A full description of the numerical 'technique is contained in Reference 1 and will not he oursued here. Mathematicillh it emoloys a central difference which is the most stable of the standard difference aoproximations. Dritchard (8) indicated that stability was further enhanced by always "unstream";n., 7.e ...Iedel Sttdf (Continued) differencing, thus employing neither a forward nor a backaard diffemnce but changing frcm forward to backward depending on current flow. 'Ihis was tried in the microprocessor model and resulted in a great stability enhance-ment.Deference to an article published at MIT by Shamar & Harleman (7) gave the following general first order difference forrula for convection: ~C.+I'n - 2C. +C'(C +1,n - C 1,n)(C-C i,n 1-1,n)*1,n 1-1,n i-D g+p u+ (1 - p)AY-Lx-(ax)2___.i+1~I'"+-o i . 1, ,1...it The term p in this formula goes from 0.0 to 1.0. The central difference is y equal to 0.5. This gives a wide range of possibility for p which can be based on a test of velocity direction. 'Ihe final configuration of the thermal addition nodel contains two fixed and three variable parameters. The fixed paramters are the thermal input which is regulated by the mass volume concentration of heat added to the basin and the advective coefficient which is governed by the size of the time step. The variable paramters are diffusion in the X direction (east, mst in the basin), diffusion in the Y direction (north, south in the basin) and a newly introduced term, p. Values for the diffusion coefficient in the preoperational nodel were set by trial and error at 30 Pr2/SEC. in the X direction (EX) and 15 Pr2/SEC. in the Y direction. !bre recent work done with dye studies at 2 Crystal River lave yielded diffusion coefficients of 6.66 M /SEC. or approx-imately 70 Pr2/SEC. 8 m m ...Model Study (Continued) It was considered for the purooses of this study that diffusion coefficients were allowed to vary anywhere in the rance succested by these high and low values. The microprocessor-based computer was used to evaluate the interaction of the variable carameters. A single crid line for N= 20 was reproduced in this model of the model and variations of p and Ex were introduced. It was found that increase in # causes higher dissipation of heat as well as more raoid oronagation of the constituant and enhanced stability. Increase in Ex served only to smooth the resulting patterns. The cattern became slugaish and did not respond to changes in velocity. Finally, an ootimum value for these parameters was selected with [4

.8 and Ex

2 40 FT /SEC. Finally, in order to evaluate oossible numeric diseersion problems (see Reference 1) summation terms for all heat entered and all heat in the basin were added to the full model. The model was run without external heating and cooling mechanisms to obtain a conservative situation. The correction term listed in Reference 1 was added and modified until close agreement between summation terms was obtained. The heat budget was then reinstalled for final runs. Comoarison of Model Results and Field Results The microorocessor-based comouter was also involved in this part of the study. The comouter-derived model results were fed p j])hl9 ...Comoarison (Continued) into the microorocessor in an X,Y array comoarable to the crid dimension of the estuary discharce area. Each grid was assioned a temperature value based on the comouter orintout from the full Crystal River '4odel run on the Florida Dover Corcoration IB't 370 Model.A transoarent crid overlav was suoerimoosed over the field results. A 1incar intereolation between contour curves gave temoerature by grid location. From this input, the micro-crocessor-based comouter calculated areas of involvement and percent hit by individual grid. Perce: hit is calculated by comparing each calculated and field result block individuallv. If the two are within +.50C a hit is generated for that contour interval (OC). For examole, m=12, n=24 in the model was calculated at 1.430C (af ter correction for ambient) . The field results 0 interpolated to 1.8 C. This indicates that the results for the model are close enough to be a hit. All of the hits and misses are summed and a cercent hit generated. The results by area of involvement and cercent hit are cresented in Tables 1 thru 4 for sunmer data and Tables 5 thru 9 for winter data. In addition, the model generated contour drawings for sumer (Figures 3,5,8,10) and winter (Figures 17,20,22,25) are presented, and four example overlays of nudel results on field results are included (Figures 6,11,18,23). J f.]IdR v/us .DISCUSSIQ1 AND CONCIUSIOJS A sumary table is presented below reflecting the results from the eight detailed analysis Tables 1-8. Acreage Mean %Hit Total Acreage Total Error Mean %Plume % Error Hit g (Within (Within (Total Pltme, Size) ('Ibtal Plume Isotherm)Isotherm)Position)Strmer ebb 84.3 11.7 15.7 88.4 low 83.9 15.9 3.6 73.2 flood 40.5 13.8-24.2 79.3 high 41.8 16.8-28.1 71.6 Winter low 19.6 46.2---- -flood 31.2 15.2 0.6 68.2 high 221.2 2.2 72.0 48.6 ebb--13.4 36.2-- -The optimum situation is for Columns 1 and 3 to be near zero and Columns 2 and 4 as high as possible. A scan of the sumury table indicates that the plume is generally in the right positon as a whole, because the numbers in column 4 are fairly large. Column 4 (total hit %) is generated by ccmparing all values above ambient in the calculated results with all values above ambient in the field results. 'Ihe problem ccmes (in Column 2) when looking at individual values of heat for any area. This indicates that the individual isotherms are generally not taking the sane positions in the nodel as they are in the field results. -,... DISCUSSICN AND CCNCI13SIONS (Continued) O It is also evident that the whole plume is not positioned as well in the winter run as the sumur run. Exannnation of the iidividual contour drawings shows this to be largely an exaggeration of the nodel plum to the North and the Withlacoochee River / Barge Canal caplex. In previous nodel runs the fresh water inflow frun the Withlacoochee River / Barge Canal conplex was entered as velocities along the northern boundary. These input values were not available and an approxinntion based on a Jag tine of 45 in tidal phase and head input nutching a current survey of September 9 and 10,1972 was used. However, this did not fully match physical conditions. Particular attention should be paid to the overlay drawings for high and low water, winter conditions, Figures 18 and 23 which show the northern e:caggeration of the nodel results. The technique of generating " hits" in plune evaluation seems to be very use-ful and should be generated in future nodel runs for cmparison purposes. 12 O aj])43 ..REFERENCES CITED (1)Klausewitz, Ronald H. Diffusion "odel for a Shallow, Barricaded Estuarv. M.A.Thesis, University of South Florida (1973) 71 numb. leaves. (2)Klausewitz, R., 1972.Preliminary results of the discersion model for the Crysta:. River power olant. Indeoendent environmental study of thermal effects of oower olant discharge. Technical Reoort No. 1, Mar. Sci. Inst., University of South Florida, St. Petersbura, 24 co. (3)Callaway, R.J., K.V.Byram, and G. R.Ditsworth, 1969 Mathematical model of the Columbia River from the Pacific Ocean to the Bonneville Dam, Fed. Water Dollution Control.Admin., Corvallis, Oregon, 155 po. (4)TVA, Division of Water Control Planning Engineerina Laboratorv. Heat and Mass Transfer Between a Water Surface and the Atmosohere. Norris, Tenn. (1968)98 on.(5)Klausewitz, R.H., S.L. Palmer, B.A.Rodcers and K. L.Carder.Natural Heating of Salt Marsh Waters in the area of the Crystal River Power Dlant. Indeoendent Environrental Study of Thermal Ef fects of Power Plant Discharge. Technical Report #3, Dept. of Marine Science, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, Florida (1974) 31 co.(6)Palmer, S. L., K.L. Carder, B.A.Rodgers and D.J.nehrens.Calibration of a Thermal Enrichment Model for Shallow, Barricaded Estuaries: Annual Reoort 1974-75. Deoartment of Marine Science, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, Florida, 141 op. (7)Shamir, Uri Y. and Donald R. F.Harleman, 1966. Numerical and Analytical Solutions of Discersion Droblems in Homogeneous and Layered Aquifers. Deoartment of Civil Engineering, Mass. Inst. of Technology, Reoort No. 89, 206 po.(8)Pritchard, D.W.(1958): The equations of nass continuity in estuaries. J.Mar. Res. 17:412-423. (9)Edinger, J. E. and J. C.Geyer, 1965: Feat exchance in the environment. Edison Electric Institute, N.Y.259 on.\ :1 h , - , - ~ ... i', : ' ;" -:- .' .. .. xl..l.'* . .. \ \. ~ -. . . i . . . .:,..:<; *.N...:.. ',.;. . ; p .. . . ..-.. . :.s.. ~.. . . ....2. *;p ,, :,. .-.., . . .. v ...g._:..., o t. .' ..s'.'.-.*.. . . ,: , , . . ',* *" ,.. . :.;;:;;y ._; .._ ,,,. .., . ..:.... _ ,. ,;. ..-.,.2::. -g: g..;::.:s 1. ;,,a. .'y -c......,, r D S ' .'(.f. . .:.i:f, f,,;;,.-l$y,.'. x ,>f.-...jg..; . , .: '---.-. r.j*..,..-..-, o .s ...--......~-e i . . e;s,-l.p.s;.-.....-.e- .e,.: .4:-c..u.e.;9'o 7 8 49 , W'%q 8 e us..*o e s s*g 9 m 9. . . .* [.*: .e e IslI io-..a e-.16'.,->h.'e'l ;<,.t.'*e\a se a' o% , \ ,iz p :s;i..'7' * *'$ d-; c..4,j%G#. . . < . . ' * * ." s* $* 5E'E.: ,.o......a ;.;. ' ....G Zo 21 22 24..h'., g-.2s e as 27-., a e, a..OO ,.. , .,..Qa.o~9~I~-0 o JU__I.__J'O FIGURE 1 - Station locations for temperature and salinity field surveys, Crystal River, Florida.. .7.4/--// ..CAILUIATED AND OBSERVED PIDE COMPARISON RESULTS SIMER SURVEY Average bbterological Conditions: Twet ( C) 24.0 Tdry (OC) 30.0 Net Incoming Solar [KCAL) 0746 M2.Wind Velocity (MPH) 14.1 Wind DirectioniO from N.) 90.2 Tarbient(OC) 28.0 0]]ikb ... . ,', ' , . :: .; , ,.I*...;;.,,~.\; '?.i:} :ll .:.'.., i;,',*. . . .:.....,,. . ' . . . .. .:.i.;,;......t.--N....r..-.;;,.;g 10:.,:s_ ..; .' , .r . . . '< :. . :,......q.,...!,.....:...f;, , . . . . . "-o ,.- . ...<.....',.'.l.,.. l,'l'*:':*'.,.*,1'.*..... n., ,,... . . ...:...e.v..< ,-;..;'.~f:g!q...,'$;Lk.' ~..;{ . *.: .'

1,* ';:';., ,. .*,.,s.~i,; v=.4:3;.^q.;: > r.;im**.i. y... ; ;;r. n. ~ :::

,. . , p., c.,,, o,,ns. 7'-n:-.;'e.....*'#'..[. ,, . . , ,. a c3'*,, ,.., ' , ,.9,{*~ii,{*",'h*'a-~o g;r , ,-: */..*,:.-4..,_,,*.4 0-% . ., .;.:: ,~ . . /: ,.r h9.N*h q.u***h ,0 as A T.-g. c :?.*, .; -+4 7 1.--..a'.0'+3-'E.h)' 'r.,o%.%,fy ye *g,-.a W*';2'..J>s ,,,"f'z. ... . p....'o' k* h.l'1'.'l '+2 r.;.~.;'...,.'+1@t a t.r.J.,%..., .=..D**E.Oa.,-n.--0 O JL Q 1 FIGURE 2 OBSERVED PLUME AT MAXIMUM EBB FLOW SURFACE TEMPERATURE, CONTOURS IN *C ABOVE AMBIENT iff j [ ('j'SUMMER SURVEY, AUGUST 30, 1977 .'..;p: ::: .: ' . ' . . :: : y . . . ..

....;>
:lV*--Jw. . . :. . _
. ":V,.;9.s:ii

.:4M?.!.'NDC^*.'*;..* t : .* ?!- --%::..,,c,., o ,.,>., i,D-Q..i?:.'.Y.' . .; ,~,.~..,....~.n.a., ,.c. l .%:r - l. . -*.... . ..'. lr .'-;j,.'}. _' ';, e.'. T '.l\l'&'-,.]*,' -~ . .%o ' .l.::,;. ,;;),:l;; 2.'.}I ,'; *.8 D<. . .ave u.. ,-< :. >.-.x/-. , ',.:' .?.t. ).'... z.. . ../(- ~ 4'-o.\,oe,s.s-9.,.f;--.," / . j f

..~ Y'Al**, eR,?.--,i', I i e\\.,.-s... 4 ..;c /

,..g I./t,#:&s\T'-.:f('1/'}! $w \\/,) i i\,../I(s'A-)l)\*o u/f (s .:-.,. 3 j ffl%7l' . . .' ' Y:7. '- \.s l l% s,//,..q: 'h x'y!').'A// 7 N/, ,-. .tf g Q. - N+3d' i e.-.*,$: 1.;. v-,*%,i-.s+, b*.g. -{I%~>+1...'.%r.g.n.'?m P o a y 9 I j P32g CALCULATED PLUME FIGURE 3 SUMMER RUN TIMES 42 HRS. g -, 7}{,/-EBS FLOW RUN No. CR120779/S CONTOURS IN 'C ABOVE AMBIENT ...O Table 1 SUMMER EBB FLON Model Time: 42 Srs Corrected for ambient by .7 C Plume Comoarison: S Hit O C Calculated Field% Error Acres Acres Calc-field I I field>5 190.9 73.2 160.8 20.3 4-5 370.6 151.1 145.3 4.1 0 3-4 402.4 219.5 93.3 19.6 2-3 572.6 582.2-1.6 12.2 1-2 526.5 757.1- 39.5 3.4.Total 2063.0 1793.1 19 7 11 >Mean Total Mean % Error olure o0.4'84 3 q fp g 0 ouJud , o;7 i3;_l-m 'D " 3]J A 1 A e ut0 3 ...l'* : ,' . . . ..'; . :: \ ..?:0...,...:.. '.. :. :1a ,.%, :@ +?.. : c.,,.f ... 55.;O!'. N L--..4..': : .. v..', * .fk..),'hj.f. [-fl.: .."'Ili ,*. ~ * .& d {f ' '"*...' . .* : '.--.- 'o ,::: , .:;,@' il[l'.# g:S:,'. : .'.:. p: in.'ar..n 9/' "..*t-, ' -. . . 9_ . ':1 f. ;!)-*-*%.*'.,0l'*I,~,1li..s.;*.. .'M::.' ' * . , - s'-_" ' ..-uis:',y .: c_.~,... , . .:.' ' *.,,. .. ?_ l: 9" , -:., ;:,~ .4 _ ; ', s..z;,,.r:.,'.ed A,W' ' ' 'e<ca,'l-.., ,' , 'cn*..-, e# o , , e.c o c0. .'_y-u j _. ., ,*: h.%. . . .*..t.r"t : ./.e ,.J..o~. ~ ..:f,', , , o e gg -a%f m"**,8 s+5^%.7...,^h::r.'j*s s.p.f# '.I ,-#p%d,.#,*,,;8,Q h , .: q, ed+4=;.4 I p S'../,;%-%v' ' l.T..'.a K.a .,e*.:.3'",.f--.+3 ,.o'.'-,-.' \\ s'.+2 ,.: ,+1%-k G...>-f-w.- ,-,',T ,*.e...*.--n D ~l }') b , i FIGURE 4 OBSERVED PLUME AT LOW TIDE j O Cs m SURFACE TEMPERATURE, CONTOURS IN 'C A80VE AMBIENT ~SUMMER SURVEY, AUGUST 30,1977 s--' "- ..,[f!y .__ t-,,j (,-~r-'lp W h,'\3//i'$:x-f*4I~N W. \ ./ J\_\.,9 >u.*m'o#,:~ll*g*.7 J s*.*.',.%pN%-~~ll.^' ~ 'Nb J\,* ,\et//t.' \ \\\S..I-l[./\\c\,\1k-\: j g.fl}\\\v'.*O%\.!y.\'\;~l. +ss / m Gs JgYO.\o!\\\\hr I N ' s p f / j\\~. . ;L,,,. . . c~} f '-s\/v r2.4/\s x ,s\+3N. /y 9 N.\\Mf+2 D\/Q u/'a/~t j vlr'P*, o w'., CALCULATED PLUME FIGURE 5 SUMMER RUN o f3 TIME = 45 HRS. O LOW WATER RUN No CRl20779/S 'CONTOURS IN OC ABOVE AMBIENT C'[~I 0 L(U],1_!a DJ a. '.-..\l!!'Q;;~Q. :lO fi M".....I-s: p-/h g';,7 _.,..- '_. ,. ~ c.:j.;I.t , , ,---: ' cv . .)e...oo , 1 f.*g , o ,y*, ,-,'D*-&//(flh~?? ,\\e**'%\,, D ,.A\caf#'\\\'yf'f 3;'">f ?I-3)--'--..L!!f , j//x 6 m *y 8 /,I h.;1 L NN',./** !.Q f s' g ' ' ' 'y .. 'W.....>" ys% l\/[-+2 , O y h.%-+1.., , p*g a 17\FIGURE 6 LA D ON 08SEh O O U E ,: 4 r SUMMER RUM LOW WATER y'[/l)21 , COMTOURS IN 'C ABOVE AMSIENT P'~T t 0 a Ju_t_I_a '..O.Tible 2 SUMMER LON WATER Model Time: 45 hrs 0 Corrected for ambient by .7 C Plume Comoarison: R Hit O C Calculated Field% Error ICalc-field} Acres Acres field> 5 170.2 62.0 174.5 6.3 4 5 458.1 203.6 125.0 31.2 0 3 -- 4 392.9 230.6 70.4 6.2 2-3 410.4 485.1-15.4 12.4 1-2 709.4 1083.2-34.5 23.6 3.6 vean Total 2141.0 a n g a c; ,, e o____r_--.-Mean % Error Diu-e 73.2 mo 83.4'*e r , 0//.") ], ool~op-7-E.3 L a o .....: n. .. . :. ::.~'. ' ~.,...a; ;55. l..Q ?_ n lL.-.:.)'.....,. . .' :;.:p,.-Q..'.Qc....,;p d ,.. -...*-?' *h':.':W p... : .,'fD.','];.,{ 'i'..'{lf*'*. ' ' . .'. . . .-. . .;.o ,.--p7 1:.'p- '. .. ? '- r.:. . . , m e ='"'. -4.+.. n .'. i:,a.s b. .o.., . '; f~,:L:;.n. ' '. . . ., c. . .. ~ . ..;1 i. .;,';.;' n _ . .. :; _,. . .,:. , ,......~..:.

.'q.y.,.... ..%*,..g 1'*...... , .. , .q< : .1.f...* * * * >..s ; *;. ,:p .i...,. e o ,,,,:.,~s ,,'p j.t- .;c,. * : ;. ,..,*, s, e>., 9
  • Y ,, , y c.'., e+4-. .'. :. , ,. -. ;, ;.,e+:.,. > A*: d y- ..&-, t., . , e'g-....g..:*-Q*, ,.\. . ,.4 3.o#g.?s j.., u.o ,*^t\#%...^^-#. :s' .-.\...-s , ~.+2 Os.%.3.n-, p g ~%gfg' ,.\.g 44%.s 8-,:.*/4#,...'%,, .('r , ,.:s. ,s. . . .+i...,...'b* g o , k ' : '%..*-.-G.*3..)w.::f-',- =<f e of N FIGURE 7 0 P- @M,'s~4 [r (.J)//lOBSERVED PLUME AT MAXIMUM FLOOD FLOW

'SURFACE TEMPERATURE, CONTOURS IN 'C ASOVE AMBIENT Odk SUMMER SURVEY, AUGUST 30,1977 ]h]I.m 1et #3

  • .*;* m = ~--_.), ,#'A..\-,[a !$' i. ', \-,'*,g t-*_^ll.....\q N-: :- m/. J ,., ,., , L:\^L , ~ .: p f y /. .--, i-u.\.j.4 =-,.-T .\/so s ,'g'~/)pe4 g ,-%, ,p.f J,\---N_e*'M A' M.S\(m i,, g'T ii'V[' ~('<\'O'\dej.L , t, I'g+5 h , k y f;I ,-O~CG '>I 3 i'l*'('y.(\y s\'&,'(\il.} . .w: s f^~-s,[\. c)%)l\\%+4'j.%a'.S/'/N M+T9/0 N O' , - -~, f ., si/q...._, R':.+\'..\,' s*i)lN A}]*0/p'7 W'r .p o-(f's N s' .\3 s,*\CALCULATED PLUME

_f G$E 4'C SUMMER RUN O TIME *36 HRS. n FLOOD FLOW o o JU RUN No. CRl20779/S '9'I h-,/ /.,}3CONTOURS IN 'C ABOVE AMBIENT A O'0. 0.u.L 1_, 11. ,.1 Table 3 SUMMER FLOOD FLori Model Time: 36 hrs Corrected for ambient by .7 C Plume Comparison: 1 R Hit OC Calculated Field% Error Acres Acres Calc-field I I field>6 0 63.8-100.0 0.0 5-6 124.5 86.2 44.4 3.4 4-5 328.8 271.3 21.2 33.7 3-4 381.4 387.8- 1.65 20.1 2-3 379.8 547.4-30.6 15.4 1-2 489.9 892.1-45.1 10.2 Total 1704.5 2248.6-24.2 11_q Meanl-Total Mean 9 Error Dlume 79.3'O OJ 40.5[') 'a u o o 1!0'"0 0 lf'e'.b.-A ~4 ,.: , . . . .

,. . , , . . . . .... . ..._ g,.[g ,;

... . . . -.. ..:c.w:sh_:.-:.. . ..... . .....:...,:o:.n.y,. . *: s ' ., . < > . , .. .....<-;'... < f..Q, , . V. : . i ,,.o t..p;: n.':'.: ~a ;..a.p. :,..n.,..,,. ,: -. . . :, ~., . . ..... . . -..2.* ] ,*., : ..

  • ';g (, . ' ', .

i.*%o . ::q ,'lg.f. 2; ^* ,._,,'. . ' ~::,;' . ' , v.....av .y..?..,.. :.. :.. . , , -:. ,.~:-::;,.a- n . ---. --.,* ,-,' \) .. .-s"-,..*~*5'ac#+,{...*p,' ' ,'- ......; '/+4'4 ,?,.l.,'q*9 O+3---u+.*O#' _ . , (;^.V-'?'*<h..**+2r ,O%f,.4*: , ,. . '?'j%/'j%_sf',. r..+1.i .,. g>J :i.r;. r, O--..r. .I...1~e t.,o eg ===.*?...'S FIGURE 9..rp<3 OBSERVED PLUME AT HIGH TIDE oo.g, , SURFACE TEMPERATURE, CONTOURS IN 'C. ABOVE AMBIENT O'o"'SUMMER SURVEY, AUGUST 3 0,1977 A' ..-..y.,'.N.~.'-- .-. ,. . :c,+ .:/ ...-:.-:::. -' .:....... , k,l, ' j ''5*z.-y' ** * *- ,.s ,-...pk,.: : :&,,. ,: : .. ' //'-.......~:.. . 3,. u - ~.,...f ?,., , **f, ,/P': :*..,}, , ,'-([. . -lc; .. . :.. .... ,........,...'-'y/,.;~, . ,-.-., , , , ,-g-l."o,;*-.. t ,. \, , (.\ (v/ e 4,-, L.g--a..8....~. :. 1)y ^'T e+ , . e.(y --,-)-)e)4./ ts , k:/ I\v).*t l'.,4' ./% -f i*\q% %L,, ' , /)J'++/,~-.u , R;r Q+!'h4O:-. . . . . . %T$*$:... Qs'-. . . .e* $: s.,l.'f..o a~..*=e o , g..,.S\CALCULATED Pt.UME I to SUMMER RUN O'TIMES 39 HRS. O O HIGH WATER " RUN No. CRl20779/S O~~CONTOURS IN *C ABOVE AMBIENT g~O < }/] { [, V-J\"3 .. .- .y~\,.,"*...[p~ . W.j Yy)f@N t,;'*\'W.~el e .\'Y , , ,;s ~\f~1?(\r/p.~.-\M-4 s u r\*+.\f;;\..+$i/'*., 1(y jl-+,._;n tsw-/&::'-'\~~.; s %x9 '/ !v#%~'o ,.:pr-..,. , , t\;ts/M o o%,\ J-Ck i.,..a'O c._,..-..--- , , e ID ON OBSERVED PLUME q , ONTOURS N 'C ABOVE AMBIENT b N's'2',7- <g]_, i 13 a-,-_e 0 ..Table 4 SUM.MER IIIGII WATER Model Time: 39 hrs 0 Corrected for ambient by .7 C Plume Comnarison: '" OC Calculated Field% Error I~alc-fieldI C Acres Acres field>6 0 82.7-100.0 0.0 5-6l162.2 124.1 30.7 18.6 4-5 235.4 190.9 23.3 40.2 3-4 294.3 448.5-34.4 26.4 2-3 451.7 556.7-18.9 6.3 1-2 497.8 881.2-43.5 9.3 Total 1641.4 2284.1-28.1 16.8 Mean'.l Total ,Mean % Error olune 71.6_3 c3 r, fQQ 41.8-ij\ u t-rm 9 c3 q{.(3).k 3 v .;.,,,.-;,-y , . ,". ; ,';- T.*' ' , '.: ,.','/ . ' . . '.. k . , ,, , ,'

    • "'., t , ,,-s..O I , . , , ' . ' .

', ._ , ' ; ' ' 't,"-;.. .f. :c','. ' . ,; ':., a-.:~ ,y * ; ' . : 'n ~ r.::: ,, +-,:,',. . * ? ' ' e- . ~;,-. , ' . ' , ,+5'a..r ,'.',l.'. ;5.. .,.. ' ' 'i-,1* * , ,*.. e. *.s ; .-. ,':). ' - ,: c2 T. .,: .:f, 4 5,.., ' , . , 'j ., r-..oc.',>-*.,* g, pe'%,.re d?" a **. . _ ...,-['.f, ;A*;,.9,[#*o*, k*.'b-.S 4,\w.-* **0 us.+v**^7 , ,_, :*. . -44 , ,'[-]L,,.J+3l.,o__,#g%.<.o'+2#g, g,-<;c:q, ,fy 1 , 3.0 gw.-.1%.7+,., . ;'$, ,..... ....o' k' , ',*:.b o%~,', p<=>'.a y y ,.-FIGURE 12 oea OBSERVED PLUME AT MAXIMUM EBB FLOT -3 FOOT TEMPERATUR E, CONTOURS IN 'C ABOVE AMBIENT DD'SUMMER SURVEY, AUGUST 30,1977 7~g 9.I b-.TO.-,- .v Oh,&,.', ,'i.'? '*; . . . , , .* ' ' j S ' * ' ', ,,* ' j:; ,3.'-= - ,';, , , , ,'..-*I.'.y,f. UA;I_.,}i *-O .,.b.I['.'.(i) .y G. , , .). . . <T

  • ~s Y\ ';* * ' ' '.,' ' ' " '.'. . : .. i. .

O ,. . , ,....T[:' N.".'5 p wy , e'..itse=*'%-v.'",'C' , ....f .,,!f$lf b...,."#'l e,'#,-' , , . *-.,.7,',;'. e\. 4 O,j'"'#4. .? ,.,4 e ,.,/.8'!%.e,1_ ..y , . . <. a

I;---r:.*,.- -~, 4 , N;+5 , ,.,: s, s...o-" . .,-;, . .^6 , ,ff 44 4.n J ,, gg% ..-y s: 1-'. ,4-. /.G.....*1"y*%>+3; ~...e'e s* * #,p e.....-.::. g" r. ..go Q...+2.'u*.. l*\

,...+.1....$e c 1h.he.. a ow-m.-?,/I%.1 N]FIGURE 13 OBSERVED PLUME AT LOW TfDE _3 FOOT TEMPERATURE, CONTOURS IN *C ABOVE AMBIENT , SUMMER SURVEY, AUGUST 30,1977 O..O . ~ - _ * -. ,-.s.;..,,..;y[...*..' ( . ,' * ' . , ,,* j , ,:,(.[ .[,* : . . G(, ? . ., ' {[**',. i! ,-.'y ,. ;,..91.. ....,...:.19-s.-..o::. ..*'t".M'.4'.s ..,,. e[ :- -:.. . . .......';7.<+6.'i n., .,....., , ' ' .!+b-s,.;p,.I:;.,' ..,'..a. . an , a., , .._.,.o o ,p ,, ,+4 ,'*-, ,......:,.*,- l' .:, , A*;a ,,I'o y ,' ).i':-,..,.-'#% . .-h.[ I.,., o y+3 0 s 9 , , g.i*%a.tr4 ,.o#b^w-.u..,s ,*-.,*2+?;r-':g ,;a 98{', ,..* * * *\d', ,-% .-4%e%3, .&.+'rg---,. s ,....-.@'o%-.', n p o a y 1-.,.-FIGURE 14 gq OBSERVED PLUME AT MAXIMUM FLOOD FLOW J',)q; Q.,', i.3 FOOT TEMPERATURE, CONTOURS IN 'C ABOVE AMBIENT m SUMMER SURVEY, AUGUST 30,19T7 9'D g 0'O L ,.i. .c :r .c;;'.,~ ' . . . :: i ir;..'20 , , , . . . , . ..-':: .:NB10.1.? u --. lL-. c p.t.,.:r. - ' 'lf-l~.M

'. :f,.:;i.;

..'. JF 4.'.*".'u :. ,:., . ' !*.kh,#f{i,;y=,I.' . * ~ ' o, ,.-.:.,'f. .'{ .y'.1, : se I,-,;.f :....;;;;; tn* * *t.,..,, tr..'!,'... .: '.*. . ,'. . , , ..'* ... . , 'g-. , . , -. . :c;<.e..,, , ..*. :. . . ... . . . , ,,'%2pp.. . i.x.: .hg' ,4.:i[ .n'.... . ...~..g;.:.:.:,;.,..n p..=,el.., ,< o ,p,, ,.--,-,..,....s. ..%.._. ...g.s ..-e 4 s :..:-J '.!, e-#!:. -+4.*k-A.p...\:*', .:, h..I ,.**I g#3---e.e, O s. s>, s7.,. t.-y.. . ;;.. .. a).,., ,: '+2 s v..y_1 <,.#fD.e d gYY;. .:.e%%* -4.4 s,-'.y. .F * *., a'. '. .: . -,. a ,o=p f*1 , y,,;-y--.a',': h.e..y)'f%, a s**w *.!s-,<t.-a's 0 M_4 FIGURE 15-OBSERVED PLUME AT HIGH TIDE ggM/!OU f'3 FOOT TEMPERATURE, CONTOURS IN 'C A80VE AMSIENT n---A SUMMER SURVEY, AUGUST 30,197T - CAILLuTED AND OBSEETD plt 2E OCtFARISON RESULTS WINTER SURVEY Average Meterological Conditions: Twet (OC) 0.4 Net Incaming Solar (M) 0746 'Idry (OC) 9.24 2 11.Wind Velocity (191i) 21.0 -Wind Direction (o frcm N.)280 Trbient (OC) 13 ,.'/I.'U$- ."J/ . :.. .. ' *: .: : Gl.h' i?. ':; . - . . : . ..

e$;?ist :

..:fl..@,daMi;. . . ... ::r. ]../:iG!Q.'$(N'JL-..I. lf. .'.{ g. & '07-, pit q.... . : *.o i^.i:: f.p.9

.p..r. s g.'. . .. 'q -. . . - ,. -v.r. c s',: ig,v'n y;_.:*.:.:.,;...;;8

":. '...'J, )_:s <. . .+S..:. .::-:..:.,.,. . _ -',. :; 'y."}; .**J- . . . . . . .

.'
.s*:,.. . ,.S' " ~ h, ;. ,'j.p~ ';: - .Jo ,.-, ,;>.,.-q. . . .g n;.p ,, s.--,_.~ .<a o ,p ,,.r i.>,,'$.-gh'.s ,**i ye N 4 6.sig .*O\'&;a e s..v.... . , .'}}....,.g./;...., t.;,~ 'p4mf,*<._.+'X').m eg ,%>..::0 a 6j ---, j , ,, g;, Qe/ * ,*.o--p+6'. . . ./\\, r. , .i/. ,.,...;,...--.+4., ,.2e.j De s, , s~~-*.,-,.,.s.~%. . _-_, f:' q s FIGURE 16 I'0BSERVED NLUllE AT LOW TIDE c.- , , in;Ihg'SUhFACE TEMPERATURE, dGP! TOURS IN 'C A80VE AMSIENT c e,.7 Q-{1 WINTZR SUPNEY, JANUA.tY 27, 1978 j I~!~2.L-

. -, ,, G. .,...w[,N~: , ,.\-') @ ' 'w N .Y. n[-:{.4.A.s' f.-J, m.i/.,))!A 3','ll ,* 'f[>Q%\ (A~, s/p 4x i\\-"\f ,<1y.g'T , ,. !%. . . , ~ -, /, , ((6 e%/jy 7\I+'.,.$\ f.^o A i's'.y x 6 O-Q Ny/ f//'\\b~\N w \+5 f'l'\# d \ T/'7{1 D/l0: 7 x' /z?!o7 v.i i'+1 O/\\, sy#P o e n'\\q o l NN<s CALCULATED PLUME FIGURE 17 WINTER RUN (D (O TIME =45 HRS. !Q{D-],,,)c)LOW WATER n RUN No. CR120779/W _i /. s/CONTOURS IN 'C ABOVE AMBIENT O~g- }L U'd g_fj_a o< 4-. . . . .--..::~-_'.:-', ..N.3;:...o.?-........-n i' * ' ' -<.,.pr:.ow. ._, I.,__..._,.-,.s.:. . .,.-._.-.l.; . , i.. I' . .".., 7':. .,f, ,'~p.7 s N-4;.._..o (/1 pe: z--O i'y.3"/j N ( [ edf/e 1 2' x NN s B T/'jk" ,,-l \\?xx)y\Q..-_'r\-..k J.M<y f[i *s. .e/M~%p.+1%,...a-;;y.. v y ( m N'..+/1.x-o.3'N-..T N.'h s+4 a./]I%\/I%O/i.+.\.+E 0 g+,'J..,~-~.\s FIGURE is OVERtA OM OBSERVED PLUME D]D D 'f /j ~/ f'U f!"J"Me" r o o 30 CONTOURS IN 'C ABOVE AMBIENT m.k Al_] _~_a .., Table 5 WINTER LON NATER Model Time: 45 hrs Run No. CR120779/w Plume Comoarison: R Hit O C Calculated Field% Error Acres Acres Cale-field I I field>9 38.2 33.4 14.4 70.2 8-9 74.8 35.0 113.7 43.5 6 7-8 373.8 77.9 370.8 30.1 6-7 356.3 122.5 190.8 10.2 5-6 254.5 211.5 20.3 21.0 4-5 302.2 402.4-24.9 0.7 I 3-4 345.2 coen contourocen contour 0.3 2-3 329.2 0.1"" 1-2 661.7 0.1" 27 5.9"" Total 19.6 Mean f i Total Mean % Error Dlume*O D Cs CD E"' D)19~I" [ 'l}/}}Jt.A k A_. ,' ,., , , .-.-,i>,:..'.. , , , . . . , . C I- ' ' *.', *~ .

  • . .* ..*?b50';Il!

,,, J , * <.'<.fi '.3 ,'.:MM E , ,.c..l N L ,... ,i: "'I ,. . ' . . . > . .. , .{ hEh,'$ '.l . l .'

  • W.O ,*pt;.,y<.s 3*, ,p .n:9: k'~s.l.ii.- r.; Q.". ., .re;:.--.;qq,':d.',:+S ',g,;A: * ..

.--'n ; ::i.':n.'.'.

.'.'.%.,2. s : .. _,.,,- '-:+g.: ', ' '%+7' ' ,*,_...'.. . . . . . . .
  • .{}.' >-_, s :.~" *-,: , , . , ' ,'.-t~p,'r*..,_- g.: . '.ed po "Y ,,..u-,<,.y',;g . 4 A<*3 y+4' ): '*E.--.o-*c:f-, g.j'9*-!+4 +5+3***+7#'#i ., i+1+6\^V j.',. =j. '.'*..i.$f*i.-g.df gV sq%#5;" ,%,,$-: , ,-x.../?fe.r *
  • 6.,o*; 'l.. .f*~ ' ~ (o G
  • 'I:,fii..'...-', 0-.>f*'I'*,# %1 o',I ,.* * *.< j; l l\!L t FIGURE 19 p OBSERVED PLUME AT MAXIMUM FLOOD FLOW b'Q SURFACE TEMPERATURE, CONTOURS IN 'C ASCVE AMBIENT WINTER SURVEY, JANUARY 2T,1978

.? h' ~. 's m'p[%2l,[ ,I {.'r:--<v e' l. .R ' '.l)k-.\^.<e ay, ,jp~" p.>4Cpf'}i[Gjpg4d O $S QN\)f '/\\\t ,\.j[IL\/h. h'\~-S (\y '\J~ x.j l),-<%.N% sq-/+s.i'1//n.~( \s"$f..s y<x,+5 v<j ,.'x N N T-// /3...j N%;," ,#\'-,\+2f g 2,. ,3 u-%+1 0~o%4,_ M..4 e----um."x..TJ ('-.o CRl20779/W CONTOURS IN

  • C ABOVE AMBLENT Of-~]~~g o.R.1$b 5-a

..Table 6 WINTER FLOOD FLON Model Tine: 36 hrs Plume Comoarison:

  • it O C Calculated Field% Error ICalc-field)

Acres Acres field'9 0 85.9-100.0 0 8-9 30.2 46.1- 34.4 0.2 7-8 90.7 73.2 23.9 2.6 6-7 179.7 151.1 18.9 18.7 5-6 252.9 194.0 30.4 43.2 4-5 251.3 283.1-11.2 33.7'3-4 292.7 378.6-22.7 20.1 2-3 337.2 292.7 15.2 12.3 1-2 415.1 334.0 24.3 6.4 Total 1849.9 1838.7 0.6 15.:2 vean-Total"ean % Error o i,3mg 68.2 r c 31.2 0 D ,'n ,i !, ,l q.as wu!rn D'9~T~.S.I_o_a ,*,'f.:Nig;;,. "+.-~ - - *-.. ; y:. ..n.'. ';,'.,, O ,}&~ ~. . :%V". . ,-.' '+c: , , , 9 .'. -. n...r, ,,, ,: c - -#9.....s.,.i A.**a.*, ,., , , ,.:;c'-, e' , (.~:~.-, , . .,. . .N'l~.,.,_**- +'*;, : 1x :. , ...4 7'-o*'-:%,~. e , . . ' . , g,%,.1 . ,,., , o e*'~h t5 o49 ,,.-e oC ' '*.- .g. ' , '*p,.o ,>.,.1..,...:4 .6.-M. .. y .- (Y.!.o a 9*+1 a g e'L+4%8,.4,..*s o.'.$::..'.^, .-V.,' ' I-5 ~ - ,)**.hr J',,,," ' Wh , pg,.L ,o..g*y)*'; .... .* *

  • g

,. . ,. *

  • f. . .
  • dh, g--c' @*-C. ; l.'.'. g.'.e t.,'t'a P y O n c,!.p FIGURE 21 OO'OBSERVED Pt.U;AE AT HIGH TIDE gg-lt, , SURFACE TEM PERATURE, CONTOURS IN 'C ABOVE AMBIENT

! '~g , g--Oi/WINTER SURVEY, JANUARY 27,1978 a_(-O-9;::lc..t/t, .....a.'. : , _mr')+'\-W..-~._.;.."~,c+-,J 9_.pl -. j f};,', i'.: o...-./' I ..' " ., p. n ,.., P i ,\l }i j t/p/3.m.+8'g.\, 4-l(/'ff. A-) T)'j ,l&sij,.(/ \ "!Y J ,I )I )/tw m e v\N q ~3+(/-N.4 3\\m % " "'/8 '.6w%/N, *s%/,)#y o.s. ::{N x,$l-.d:-r-N-+a /o~-N/, q#tl Q-y a J., , S..CALCULATED PLUME b I=9H I.mme_ __ere G10_&yks,. l .</.l,~= = =m-J y "},+1'\'o#,4 3 J k e'+2lD_\I ,l~'p'&&ple.(j N('e(e ) lh I)\'*t ,\ a\, j7 A ,-,!e%, r-!k\%s'v'.fx\ s ON'~l(" 4 ,#.x N.-I/\j,'J.# /\N%" g [l /,', G, , . . * * * ',,. . , ,*;* [('h<J F 4\Q','.-^m 0/c'j0'g h-i 7 3%~\\CALCULATED PLUME-DASHED LINE I O E LAID N OBSERVED PLUME HIGH WATER r CON TOURS IN *C ABOVE AMBIENT o t'g F Q l !}b} ~j','l e M ,@].J'3-- ,^.s Table 7 WINTER HIGH MATER Model Time: 39 hrs Plume Comoarison: '" OC Calculated Field% Error (Calc-fieldI Acres Acres field> 10 0 19.1-100.0 0.0 9-10 0 44.5-100.0 0.0 8-9 109.8 28.6 283.9 2.1 7-8 157.5 36.6 330.3 0.6 6-7 135.2 41.4 226.5 0.1 5-6 205.2 20.7 841.3 0.0 4-5 314.9 114.5 175.0 0.0 3-4 281.5 181.3 55.3 5.3 2-3 349.9 249.7 40.1 6.4 1-2 509.0 462.9 9.9 7.2-2.2'4ean Total 2063.0 1199.3 72.0 ToEal 48*6 Mean % Error Dlume 0 0 221.2 OO ,e ,la\9 q--<or;.(b.1L D s a.....s,...,. .....:;t......5'!-;-.:$ .'.1,.','*'***;.O E. ---..: ','.{. ', . , ; 2 ,'-* :~'

  • . . r..'*s, , . n, , ' ,..:~- Q n ~' ",::-^,; 'n',')....' ', .',.'G;,s .
  • ~ , * *;,';l.. . ~; .,,~, r. .'+g ,.*~-. ' . .-._.,;,-rd: '?. a.-, ' _ , ,-.,,'? ":, *;,.' , '..

?-%g,%"'~*'.-, g-a o * / ,,. , , . , , ,.o , ,'*'..,,_..... ' ' '. . < . ..+'o--q,3 A;3. , ,'4 f , b 18~.CU -..S U'.**6 us.4%i-,J*'+7.', ,. 2<J $, , q7 g ,+6%,f('[" ,*%-+s>,l* E.?f._ ..*** ),*.**4',..',, g"+4...b* $,_ ' . . .. .w .l'+3 ,..+2*+1 e%4.., }e ,.-..-FIGURE 24 g y7 OBSERVED PLUME AT MAXIMUM EBB FLOW .j ()~UU'!, . ,'SURFACE TEMPERATURE , CONTOURS IN 'C ABOVE AMBIENT WINTER SURVEY, JANUARY 27,1978 T_e Ju_dL i a. 9.~~Y.:!... . - \_ . %, fl, P T ,'y GQ-[~Q.Qfcf) -/l.\, , , -t*e I). / lI lli-s.x\s s n-~I'/[},\'p\\\(\ f,->cNN \s Qs f~ .)I/l))/1 ,, / \ y, ~ ,/j , ) \\/8*((,\'.%i\'-'t!g;(kd\+e ("//pA;, i Ny 4 Qm N. N N+ s/'h ': y ~ r ced,/) l/'\"*%Q%~*L/,. , ,...3 3 m,+2%ls J J ~'-0 ,4 0//b.-\\s-\n\'CALCULATED PLUME IM 42 HRS. ""r; ,!!uh.m. ._ 4 n --" we aE A,lkie , '_*.O.Table 8 WINTER EB3 FLON Model Time: 42 hrs Run No. CR120779/'r Plume Comoarison: S.Hit OC Calculated Field% Error Acres Acres Calc-field I I field)8 0 31.8-100.0 0.0 7-8 104.2 44.5 134.2 53.2 6-7 260.8 93.8 178.0 28.7 5-6 264.0 140.0 88.6 13.4 4-5 279.0 195.6 42.6 9.3 3-4 338.8 243.4 39 2 2.4 2-3 421.5 268.8 56.8 0.1 t 1-2 507.4 poen contour ocen contour 0.1 Total 2175.7 coen contour ocen contour 13.4 Mean Total Mean % Error niume 3g , , D' D-o o.M a q cc 7 A oJu_J]_Jt_oj7 j p3 ; ..*. . l's.;?N -lL -.y . . .-;, . ..s.. . .:i i:~. ':.' .:W.. . . , . . . . . .... . . ...*: ,' ;.c " , q9.,:w:. h -,.. . ' '.. ,l;. l..vi: .::.

._y:: 'mp'.3.Y..-c...:.t. : '..0 ,. . -.'.... .,@',$'.:'/.' .'. rf, '",1'~h'..- .. 'j::Sq;j .

==*','t.l-'j.c_. ' .. .3 ,':s ! ',:. l ;.,_D-,.:. . . ,.,;..Ol,......_,-!..._.. . .. ;. y;'s.,:-p:.: '. ' '-t'..?,, ,'.#,**- . .;;:, e.,.-;e, . .,. . . , . , .~.. a - - *.'.<.y..f:.., e*ys.-AP/n>.*.s*....d s I<o ,.-agP 4 4 ,. ,c:. . .,a ao-..:.'z'L . . <. g

  • {.h-. = , . ..a 4;r<*/...,.' ' --V*....u;~%;.f.',.f', ,.-4',1 D f>'*m%* **\u+.,' :..;n 7 , . - .,. g::: -. ,f a;.<..+. . -)2:;, 3-M pk.4%.*#.<.Ir,,.m c'4'.g a w%s;*%:-)>-'.. v r f, ..i . * )4 6* g.,:.'.,.f "."'.**, , , .. . - ...G.]: ,-, 4.': ,-'+2.+1'G g&heY%n...I" . . .,-FIGURE 26 Op~4 o O n'f\ eb L-OBSERVED PLUME AT MAXIMUM EBB FLOW J UO.3 FOOT TEMPERATURE CONTOURS IN 'C ABOVE AMBIENT

.0 WINTER SURVEY, JANUARY 27,1978 .9:: i=-:...; - y~ - ;.:. . , . ,... . .:a::.b.;3. .:... * ..: : :i(.'f n.: .::-n ..;Q. )_ ..l'::-' ,. . ,' -/ {., O t**.e*. ..,@. :l.'.r.' .:.:. f. . . . "5m""""=.: 2 l .. ,'.^' " ~<* r. ...y*-:.-, -;, )....: : .3 <. -'"l. .: f N;Ny,9-, ," $ $

+,
-.('+9;:....w.....,., o , ,-.,....r c.-._i>.a# p*,**,g ,. ..>--,s.-g p,,..s...-7/.j..,--%, , 9 o , w.-,*us*e 6 0_..I^r' G: [,dj*'*,-J 1. *r'.tO'<e%,%,&,%.f d;-a3 ,l*/Y'&*'.$ '., y.

4sl.-... ...... . . .Oo..C. ;.l.I..*+5+4.f.N+2+1 n ,.~, 5,I 1-.-FIGURE 27 OOI OBSERVED PLUME AT LOW TIDE QQ 3 FOOT TEMPERATURE, CONTOURS IN 'C ABOVE AMBIENT -~-._ _10;, '/l OJ m WINTER SURVEY, JANUARY 27, 1978 W-,-O ,.... , _ , , . .. ,. . . .-. ' , '. -;:.. llk. , , . . .. . , .

  • c .y . ;. , ,. Elj.f,: '., ;.;. .

.'4 :-. ,*N l----j,-ij., vi 2.,;IkIh#['i. '.h '.' si! "*C' i.--.<.[ .'.. : .. i. . o , g .. ,:, ., . p 2,'.,.',,{. '3 p:i.:, ..: , .v.d/ ~ ' mite =e*.--,',:.*'..: , :p_.*r , -. -,-.a.-,*--,.8+9 i-. . ' 'r.,;f',j ..s~-, ,:.a.., " (., h t ,.2.., . ,." Y.. . . ' .;,,, . rll-- - . co+7..*l'-.,.-;. ,g.s : . ;,'.j,5.-, s.....-+s'.eo,p%**....,._:.f ,'+4.A'* ' , , y :, , A R.I-.. . , ..g t;--.8.-e' ~ ~ '~,..**,' 4 ,.j. .._ .:%

  • ,# .l.,.3 ,., s: '+3%0~&*t%j'%, ,s..c+\+s\, v..e.S w; '.{...Q.**a-'-+5~'.h.-.a>(,.#p%D.+4 k.3. %cI%d'6 %e s's'..fu/-#4 ,,*** )f',.o=f.. .+3~~~'e 8* i.[f*42-,g'.', 4+1*.%J b*%, Pw *9*r.FIGURE 28 Q-4 e [ '[\O9 08 SERVED PLtNE AT MAXIMUM FLOOD FLOW co 3 FOOT TEMPERATURE, CONTOURS IM 'C ABOVE AMBIENT o--'WINTER SURVEY, JANUARY 27, 1978 O 2-

..O' ' ' * " * = * I'?.'.' 2. \Q. .j+T, ..,%....,.. . D Q;ff", u.;, , , .,... . , ." c)lp.. . .r. ..,.-..v. . .,. . .;. .;.,...,'\...,.. . , . _ . . ....'i,' , g s.. '.v... ,.^t....*,...* r .,., '?-:.-.*. . .. , . .s.-+8'1-. ..., . ' . * , . . ....s,. , . .- ;% ',.-, ,. . . . ., . .,.,, 7 0,{} ,,*;.. f. , 5 ,' j, -' . '

  • , , *.. . . , , , >
.5; . '. ' ~, ,,. ' 'o:.,: g ,.....-.....,... > :, ;..+4 Q.:- ....9,. ..o s.;A*: o-~::"/*+3.*'+2.,,, 4 .,.,'[.-.- . . , , ,., ,*9*+l*M*+4li%A. .*0 6 4-^?.*
  • 5.--,)6:*,*'...Y(J r;, ,"O%f.,..,: q oa../)~.s'f$,.s..'_. . . ...* j:l. q , g.....o* @...*~a t-~.~ + .eg o ,'*:..*..., FIGURE 29 q rn '.]D OBSERVED PLUME AT HIGH TIDE r.-,1.jt, J wo ,3' / i I () J 3 FOOT TEMPERATURE, CONTOURS IN 'C ABOVE AMBIENT b WINTER SURVEY, JANUARY 27, 1978

'o Jt)_&l_1 UU a APPENDIX C ,-, 1n' ,' [tOU}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19208B293&oldid=1884995"