TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

Transcription

1

2 SLI Doc. No HER Sept-2012 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES WIND DATA Wind Rose SOCIÉTÉ D ÉNERGIE DE LA BAIE JAMES Wind Wind Speed Statistical Analyses Wind Speed Over Water Fetch Direct Fetch Effective Fetch Wave run-up Wave Characteristics Significant Wave Height Wave Run-Up on Embankment Slope Reservoir Setup SHORE PROTECTION MANUAL Wind Elevation Duration-Averaged Wind Speed Stability Correction Location Effects Coefficient of Drag Fetch Direct Fetch Effective Fetch Wave run-up Significant Wave Height Wave Run-up on Embankment Slope and Reservoir Setup VAGUE Methodolgy CANADIAN DAM ASSOCIATION GUIDELINES Scenarios WAVE STUDY RESULTS North Spur Upstream Shore VAGUE Program Direct Fetch Effective Fetch...30 Form Number F AF-I

3 SLI Doc. No HER Sept-2012 iii 7.2 North Spur Downstream Shore VAGUE Program Direct Fetch Effective Fetch Upstream Cofferdam VAGUE Program Direct Fetch Effective Fetch North Overflow Dam VAGUE Program Direct Fetch Effective Fetch South Dam VAGUE Program Direct Fetch Effective Fetch Downstream Cofferdam VAGUE Program Direct Fetch Effective Fetch RECOMMENDATIONS...44 Appendix A Sample Results from the VAGUE Program Appendix B Fetch Figures Form Number F AF-I

4 SLI Doc. No HER Sept-2012 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3-1: Wind Rose for Happy Valley-Goose Bay Maximum Winds (based on hourly data from 1953 to 2010)... 8 Figure 4-1: Characteristics of Typical Wave...14 Figure 4-2: Wave Run-Up...15 Figure 5-1: Sketch of Two Conditions for Wave Setup [Ref. 4]...25 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Recommendations during Construction... 1 Table 2: Recommendations during Operation... 2 Table 4-1: Happy Valley-Goose Bay Maximum Wind Speeds and their Corresponding Directions...11 Table 4-2: Calculated Wind Speeds Over Water...13 Table 4-3: Average water depths upstream and downstream of Muskrat Falls...18 Table 5-1: Wind-Stress for Happy-Valley-Goose Bay with the Coefficient of Drag Applied...22 Table 6-1: Construction scenarios for wind-generated wave calculations...29 Table 6-2: Operation scenarios for wind-generated wave calculations...29 Table 7-1: North Spur - Upstream Shore - Summary of Results...37 Table 7-2: North Spur - Downstream Shore - Summary of Results...38 Table 7-3: Upstream Cofferdam - Summary of Results...39 Table 7-4: North Overflow Dam - Summary of Results...40 Table 7-5: South Dam - Summary of Results...41 Table 7-6: Downstream Cofferdam - Summary of Results...42 Table 7-7: Summary of Results for Recommendations...43 Table 8-1: Recommendations during Construction...44 Table 8-2: Recommendations during Operation...44 Form Number F AF-I

5 SLI Doc. No HER Sept-2012 v REFERENCES Ref. No. 1 Dam Safety Guidelines, Canadian Dam Safety Association, Guide pratique Conception Construction Contrôle, Société d énergie de la Baie James, June Shore Protection Manual Volume I, US Army Corps of Engineers, Shore Protection Manual Volume II, US Army Corps of Engineers, A-4HEC-0001-PC Design Criteria Hydraulic,, November 2011 (Nalcor No. MFA-SN-CD-0000-CV-DC Rev. A3) A-4GDD-0003-PC Muskrat Falls North Spur Stabilization Measures Plan,, August 2011 (Nalcor No. MFA-SN-CD-2800-CV-PL Rev. A2) A-4GDD-0004-PC Muskrat Falls North Spur Stabilization Measures Sections and Details 1 of 4,, August 2011 (Nalcor No. MFA-SN-CD-2800-CV-SE Rev. A2) A-4GDD-0005-PC - Muskrat Falls North Spur Stabilization Measures Sections and Details 2 of 4,, August 2011 (Nalcor No. MFA-SN-CD-2800-CV-SE Rev. A2) A-4GDD-0006-PB - Muskrat Falls North Spur Stabilization Measures Sections and Details 3 of 4,, November 2011 (Nalcor No. MFA-SN-CD-2800-CV-SE Rev. A1) A-4GDD-0007-PB - Muskrat Falls North Spur Stabilization Measures Sections and Details 4 of 4,, November 2011 (Nalcor No. MFA-SN-CD-2800-CV-SE Rev. A1) 11 HYFRAN-PLUS, B. Bobée et al., 2008 Form Number F AF-I

6 SLI Doc. No HER Sept EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Wind-generated waves must be taken into consideration in designing the various structures of the Muskrat Falls Hydroelectric Project, as well as in making improvements to preserve the structural integrity of the North Spur. Wave run-up and reservoir setup will determine freeboard requirements. The following report presents the wind data used in the analysis. It also describes different approaches used to evaluate the wave characteristics by the Société d Énergie de la Baie James (SEBJ) and the Shore Protection Manual (SPM). The Canadian Dam Association Guidelines (CDA) reference both the USACE (1984a, 1984b, 2003) and SEBJ (1997) for the computation of wave run-up. The program VAGUE and its function in determining wave height and fetch is also explained. The studied structures included the North Spur (upstream and downstream shores), Upstream Cofferdam, North Overflow Dam, South Dam and Downstream Cofferdam. The recommendations are as follows: Table 1: Recommendations during Construction Structure Results Recommendation North Spur Upstream Shore North Spur Downstream Shore Upstream Cofferdam Intake cofferdam Downstream Cofferdam Normal construction WL+1:20y wind = = 26.5 m Normal construction WL+1:20y wind = = 7.7 m Normal construction WL+1:20y wind = = 26.0 m Normal construction WL+1:20y wind = = 26.0 m Normal construction WL+1:20y wind = = 7.9 m Protection to at least El m. Protection to at least El. 7.5 m. The crest elevation of the cofferdam should be at least at el m. Crest elevation of the intake cofferdam at least at El m. Crest elevation of the cofferdam at least at El. 7.9 m.

7 SLI Doc. No HER Sept Table 2: Recommendations during Operation Structure Results Recommendation North Spur Upstream Shore North Spur Downstream Shore North Dam South Dam PMF+1:2y wind = = 46.9 m FSL+1:1,000y wind = = 42.9 m PMF+1:2y wind = = 13.4 m Normal max WL+1:1,000y wind = = 6.3 m FSL + 1:20y wind = wave of 0.28 to 1.68 m FSL + 1:1,000y wind = wave of 0.4 to 2.3 m PMF+1:2y wind = = 46.3 m FSL+1:1,000y wind = = 41.7 m Protection to at least El m. Protection to at least El. 7.5 m (also considering the winter conditions). Waves >0.3 m will splash over the dam (winds 1:20y and larger). Protection to at least at El m if in rockfill and at least El m if in RCC.

8 SLI Doc. No HER Sept INTRODUCTION has signed an agreement with Nalcor Energy (the Client) to deliver engineering, procurement and construction management services for the Lower Churchill Project (LCP) in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. As part of the LCP, the Muskrat Falls Hydroelectric Development is located on the Churchill River, about 30 km upstream of Happy Valley Goose Bay and about 291 km downstream of the Churchill Falls Hydroelectric Development, which was developed in the early 1970 s. The installed capacity of the project will be 824 MW (four 206 MW units). Wind-generated waves must be taken into consideration in designing the various structures of this facility, as well as in making improvements to preserve the structural integrity of the North Spur. The significant height of wind-generated waves will help to determine the required size of riprap for structures. This will be carried out in a separate report. Wave run-up and reservoir setup will determine freeboard requirements which are presented here. The following report describes the methodology that was used to determine properties of wind-generated waves, such as: Effective fetch length; Significant wave height; Wave period; Minimum duration of wind; Wave run-up; and Reservoir setup. The report also includes a detailed discussion of historical climate data for Happy Valley-Goose Bay, with particular focus on historical wind data.

9 SLI Doc. No HER Sept The methods described above will be applied to the North Spur (upstream and downstream shores), Upstream Cofferdam, North Overflow Dam, South Dam and Downstream Cofferdam. The results of the analysis will be presented in this report. The results of the wave study will then be used to determine required riprap size for the North Spur, Upstream Cofferdam, Downstream Cofferdam and South Dam. This will be presented in a separate future report.

10 SLI Doc. No HER Sept OBJECTIVES The objectives of this report are to: Present the wind data used in the analysis; Describe different approaches used to evaluate the wave characteristics: o o o The approaches in both the Société d Énergie de la Baie James (SEBJ) and the Shore Protection Manual (SPM) for wind-generated wave calculations; The program VAGUE and its function in determining wave height and fetch; and The Canadian Dam Association Guidelines with regards to wave runup and reservoir setup. Present the results of the wave study for the North Spur (upstream and downstream shores), Upstream Cofferdam, North Overflow Dam, South Dam and Downstream Cofferdam.

11 SLI Doc. No HER Sept WIND DATA The wind data for this study was obtained from the historical climate database located on Environment Canada s website. Wind speed is measured in km/h and is generally observed at 10 m above the ground. It is given in the direction (true or geographic, not magnetic) from which the wind blows, for example a northeast wind is one blowing from the northeast. Data is reported hourly and the monitoring station is located over land at the Happy Valley- Goose Bay airport, which is the closest monitoring station to the project site. Data was available from 1953 to present and the wind direction and speed from 1953 to 2010 was extracted for the analysis. The data was organized to determine the maximum wind speed per direction considering all 12 months of the year. The data was also organized for what was determined to be the open water period, as this is the period in which waves would be present (June to November). This is because during the winter a thermal ice cover is expected to form making wave generation impossible. A similar ice cover is also expected to form downstream of the project site. The maximum wind speed per direction for the open water season for all years was determined. A Gumbel distribution analysis was performed on both sets of data, all months and open water season, and the results recorded. Other statistical distributions were also tested (log normal, log normal 3-parameter, log pearson) with Gumbel having the best fit for the data and giving the most conservative results. The statistical analysis was performed using software known as HYFRAN-PLUS (B. Bobée et al., 2008). HYFRAN-PLUS (HYdrological FRequency ANalysis PLUS DSS) is software used to fit statistical distributions. It includes a number of mathematical tools that can be used for the statistical analysis of extreme events. Also, it can perform basic analysis of any time series of Independent and Indentically Distributed (IID) data.

12 SLI Doc. No HER Sept WIND ROSE A wind rose was sketched for the over land wind speed in km/h. The following results are presented in Figure 3-1: the maximum wind speed per direction for all months and all years; the maximum wind speed per direction for the open water season for all years; the 1:2 year results of the Gumbel analysis for all months; the 1:2 year results of the Gumbel analysis for the open water season; the 1:20 year results of the Gumbel analysis for all months; the 1:20 year results of the Gumbel analysis for the open water season; the 1:1,000 year results of the Gumbel analysis for all months; and the 1:1,000 year results of the Gumbel analysis for the open water season.

13 SLI Doc. No HER Sept All Months Maximum Per Direction 1:2 Year Gumbel Analysis Results, All Months 1:20 Year Gumbel Analysis Results, All Months 1:1,000 Year Gumbel Analysis Results, All Years Open Water Season Maximum Per Direction 1:2 Year Gumbel Analysis Results, Open Water Season 1:20 Year Gumbel Analysis Results, Open Water Season Figure 3-1: Wind Rose for Happy Valley-Goose Bay Maximum Winds (based on hourly data from 1953 to 2010) 1:1,000 Year Gumbel Analysis Results, Open Water Season

14 SLI Doc. No HER Sept SOCIÉTÉ D ÉNERGIE DE LA BAIE JAMES 4.1 WIND The following sections highlight the methodology proposed by the SEBJ for the estimation of wind-generated waves. For calculations using the SEBJ approach, a wind analysis had to be carried out. The steps for this analysis are discussed in the following sections. Wind speeds are normalized at an elevation of 10 meters. For different elevations, the wind speeds are corrected with the following approach: V V 1 2 H = H Where: V 1 V 2 H 1 H 2 wind speed for an elevation of 10 m (km/h) wind speed for a non-standard elevation of the anemometer (km/h); standard elevation of the anemometer (10 m); and non-standard elevation of the anemometer (m). The results of these calculations are used in the wind speed statistical analyses. Since the wind speeds in the climate data for Happy Valley-Goose Bay provided on the Environment Canada website are already normalized for 10 m elevations, this calculation was not necessary Wind Speed Statistical Analyses The Gumbel distribution is used to estimate the period of recurrence of the wind, because it was the best fit for the data and gave the most conservative results. The analyses was performed on wind speed over land and then transformed to wind speed over water as explained in Section

15 SLI Doc. No HER Sept For design purposes, periods of recurrence of 1:2 year, 1:20 year and 1:1,000 year will be considered all months of the year as well as the open water season (June- November). The results of the Gumbel distribution can be found in Table 4-1.

16 SLI Doc. No HER Sept Table 4-1: Happy Valley-Goose Bay Maximum Wind Speeds and their Corresponding Directions Wind Speed (km/h) Wind Direction ALL MONTHS OPEN WATER SEASON (0 N) 1:2 year 1:20 year 1:100 year 1:1,000 year 1:2 year 1:20 year 1:100 year 1:1,000 year

17 SLI Doc. No HER Sept Wind Speed Over Water To transform the wind speed over land to wind speed over water, the following approach was used: U = 1.5* for U t 50 km/h e U t U 0.643* U for 50 < U t < 120 km/h e = t U e = U t for U t 120 km/h Where: U t U e wind speed over land (km/h); wind speed over water (km/h). The proposed approach is valid for fetch lengths greater than 5 km. For fetch lengths between 0 and 5 km, the wind correction factor must be reduced linearly. For simplification purposes in the calculations, it is assumed that all fetch lengths will be greater than 5 km. This is a conservative estimate as the calculated wind speed over water would be lower for fetch lengths less than 5 km. Therefore, the calculated wind speeds over water can be found in Table 4-2.

18 SLI Doc. No HER Sept Table 4-2: Calculated Wind Speeds Over Water Wind Speed (km/h) Wind Direction ALL MONTHS OPEN WATER SEASON (0 N) 1:2 year 1:20 year 1:100 year 1,000 year 1:2 year 1:20 year 1:100 year 1:1,000 year

19 SLI Doc. No HER Sept FETCH Direct Fetch The direct fetch corresponds to the length of the reservoir in a specific direction. The direct fetch is estimated for any direction to determine the maximum wave Effective Fetch The effective fetch for a specific point is estimated from radial lengths. At each point identified along the reservoir rim, radial lengths are measured to the shore (or island); radials are normally evaluated at one-degree intervals. The effective fetch is estimated with the following equation: F ( 90 R ( θ+γ) γ= 90 θ) = 90 γ= 90 2 cos ( γ) cos( γ) Where: R (θ+γ) F(θ) θ radial length in direction θ+γ (m); effective fetch length in direction θ (m); azimuth of the central radial of the fetch; and γ angle between a radial and the central radial (from -90 to 90 ). 4.3 WAVE RUN-UP Wave Characteristics A wave of normal amplitude is characterized by four main parameters, as shown on Figure 4-1. Figure 4-1: Characteristics of Typical Wave

20 SLI Doc. No HER Sept Where: a H s L V wave amplitude (m); wave height (m); wave length (m); and wave velocity (m/s). The wave run-up on a structure or a dam is estimated from the significant wave as shown on Figure 4-2. The significant wave is a statistical term relating to the highest one-third of the waves of a given wave group defined by the average of their heights and periods. Figure 4-2: Wave Run-Up Where: R u wave run-up (m) Significant Wave Height The following three formulae are used to estimate the significant wave height, the average period of the wave and the duration of the wind required to obtain the significant wave:

21 SLI Doc. No HER Sept Where: H s F U T 02 t significant wave height (m); effective fetch (km); wind speed (km/h); wave period of significant wave (s); and minimum duration of wind (h). The evaluation of the significant wave height is an iterative approach. First, the height is estimated using the hourly wind speed. The minimum duration of the wind is then estimated. If the minimum duration is less than or equal to one hour, the significant wave height is retained; otherwise, the wind speed is estimated for the minimum duration and the significant wave height is revised until the minimum duration corresponds Wave Run-Up on Embankment Slope The wave run-up on embankment slope is estimated with one of these two formulae: 3.5 cot cot cot. 1.5 cotα 2.7 Where: angle of the slope of the embankment (horizontal / vertical). Based on this approach, the significant wave height corresponds to a probability of exceedance 30% of the time. It should be noted here that the steepest slope in which either of the above equations are applicable to is 1.5H:1V. Therefore, this method is not applicable to vertical walls. A design wave height equivalent to the average of the highest 10% of all waves will be used for the calculations for wave run-up and reservoir setup. This is found by multiplying the significant wave height by 1.27 [Ref. 1]. The slopes of the structures studied in this report are as follows: North Spur (upstream shore): 1.5H:1V North Spur (downstream shore): 2H:1V Upstream Cofferdam: 1.5H:1V

22 SLI Doc. No HER Sept North Overflow Dam: vertical wall South Dam: 1.7H:1V for rockfill option and vertical wall for RCC option Downstream Cofferdam: 2H:1V 4.4 RESERVOIR SETUP The reservoir setup is estimated with the direct fetch. The direct fetch represents the maximum length of the reservoir in the wind direction in which the maximum wave could be generated. To calculate the reservoir setup, islands are normally neglected. The average water depth along the direct fetch is used to estimate the reservoir setup. The reservoir setup is estimated with the following equation: Where: S u U F d d reservoir setup (m); wind speed (km/h); direct fetch (km); and average water depth along the direct fetch (m). In this report, reservoir setup for all structures in the upstream reservoir is calculated using a direct fetch of 52 km which considers the entire length of the Muskrat Falls Reservoir. For all structures in the downstream river reach, calculations are made using a direct fetch of 38 km which considers the entire length of the Churchill River from Muskrat Falls to Goose Bay. This ensures a conservative estimate of the reservoir setup. In reservoir setup calculations, islands are ignored. Water depths are as follows:

23 SLI Doc. No HER Sept Table 4-3: Average water depths upstream and downstream of Muskrat Falls Water Level (m) Upstream 1 Water Depth (m) Downstream Average water depth using the Hatch 1330 HEC-RAS model between river stations km and 78.7 km. 2 Average water depth using the Hatch 1330 HEC-RAS model between river stations 0.8 km and 41.8 km.

24 SLI Doc. No HER Sept SHORE PROTECTION MANUAL The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) developed the SPM, which is referenced by the CDA Guidelines as a guideline for the analysis of wind and waves and the calculation of runup. In 1993, SNC-Lavalin developed the guidelines in the SPM into a program called VAGUE used to determine significant wave height. The procedures it follows will be described in the following sections. This program was used to compute the most critical combination of effective fetch and wind speed for the generation of the maximum significant wave along a structure of interest. The program uses the wind rose and the lake configuration. The VAGUE methodology will be described in more detail in Section WIND Elevation If wind speeds are not measured at a 10-meter elevation, then they must be adjusted accordingly. If the elevation the wind is measured at is less than 20 m, the simplified approach for estimating the speed at 10 m is to apply the following equation / Where: U 10 wind speed for an elevation of 10 m (km/h); U z wind speed for a non-standard elevation of the anemometer (km/h); and z non-standard elevation of the anemometer (m). The results of these calculations are used in the wind speed statistical analyses. Since the wind speeds in the climate data for Happy Valley-Goose Bay provided on the Environment Canada website are already normalized for 10 m elevations, this calculation was not necessary. The wind speeds used in the analysis are as shown in Table 4-1, to which the appropriate corrections described below were applied.

25 SLI Doc. No HER Sept Duration-Averaged Wind Speed Often times, winds speeds are reported as the fastest mile or extreme velocity. For wave forecasting models, the wind speed must be converted to a time-dependent average wind speed. The procedures for this are discussed in the SPM and no further explanation will be given here. The wind speeds provided by Environment Canada are 1-hour averages and therefore no calculation is necessary Stability Correction Stability correction is applied to account for the difference in temperature between the air and the water. If the temperatures are the same, then the boundary layer has neutral stability and no correction is needed. If the water temperature is higher than the air temperature, the boundary layer is unstable and the wind speed is more effective in causing wave growth. If the air temperature is higher than the water temperature, the opposite is true. The equation applied for the correction is as follows: 10 Where: U R T wind speed adjusted for stability correction factor (from Figure 3-14 of the SPM) U 10 wind speed at 10 m elevation In the absence of temperature information, R T = 1.1 should be assumed. The stability correction was not considered in this analysis, as it is not recommended in Section 6 of the CDA Guidelines Location Effects In many cases, wind speeds measured over water are not available but the data from nearby land sites are. Wind speeds over nearby land sites can be converted to wind speeds over water if they are the result of the same pressure gradient and the only major difference is the surface roughness. The equation applied for the correction is as follows: 10

26 SLI Doc. No HER Sept Where: U R L wind speed adjusted for stability correction factor (from Figure 3-15 of the SPM) U 10 wind speed at 10 m elevation If the anemometer is adjacent to shore, winds blowing off the water do not require any adjustment for location effects. Winds blowing off the land require the use of the correction factor, R L, which can be found in Figure 3-15 of the SPM. For this site location, R L = 1.0 was used. This states that there is no effect on the wind speed based on location Coefficient of Drag Once the appropriate conversions for wind speed are made, the wind speed is converted to a wind-stress factor using the following formula: Where: U A U wind-stress factor; and wind speed in m/s. The wave growth formulae and nomograms are expressed in terms of the wind-stress factor, U A. This factor accounts for the nonlinear relationship between wind stress and wind speed. The wind speeds for Happy Valley-Goose Bay with the coefficient of drag applied can be found in Table 5-1. Table 4-2 and Table 5-1 differ mainly from the fact that Table 4-2 presents the wind speed over water whereas Table 5-1 presents the wind-stress factor. The equations used by each of the methods are different.

27 WAVE PROTECTION STUDY SLI Doc. No HER Sept Table 5-1: Wind-Stress for Happy-Valley-Goose Bay with the Coefficient of Drag Applied Wind-Stress Wind Direction ALL MONTHS OPEN WATER SEASON (0 N) 1:2 year 1:20 year 1:100 year 1:1,000 year 1:2 year 1:20 year 1:100 year 1:1,000 year

28 SLI Doc. No HER Sept FETCH Direct Fetch As was discussed previously, the direct fetch corresponds to the length of the reservoir in a specific direction. The direct fetch is estimated for any direction to determine the maximum wave Effective Fetch The effective fetch for a specific point is estimated from radial lengths. At each point identified along the reservoir rim, radial lengths are measured to the shore (or island); radials are normally evaluated at one-degree intervals. The SPM states that confidence in the computed results begins to deteriorate when wind direction variations exceed 15 and deteriorates significantly when direction deviations exceed 45. The USACE recommends determining the effective fetch by constructing nine radials from the point of interest at 3 intervals and extending them to the shoreline. The lengths of the radials are then arithmetically averaged. 5.3 WAVE RUN-UP Significant Wave Height The following three formulae are used to estimate the significant wave height, the average period of the wave and the duration of the wind required to obtain the significant wave for fetch-limited, deep-water waves: / / /

29 SLI Doc. No HER Sept Where: H mo F U A T m significant wave height (m); effective fetch (m); wind-stress factor; wave period of significant wave (s); and t minimum duration of wind (s). 1 hr = 3600 s Wave Run-up on Embankment Slope and Reservoir Setup Section 3.5 of the SPM discusses wave run-up and reservoir setup. Two conditions are described for the production of wave run-up and reservoir setup, as shown in the following figure extracted from the SPM. It is assumed that the condition causing wave run-up and reservoir setup at the Muskrat Falls project site is similar to that in Figure 5-1(a). With this assumption, it is stated that the computation includes the values for both wave run-up and reservoir setup. Section 7.2 of the SPM discusses wave run-up, overtopping and transmission. Section 7.2.a discusses calculations for Regular (Monochromatic) Waves, while Section 7.2.b discusses calculations for Irregular Waves. It is assumed for the wave study on Muskrat Falls Hydroelectric Development structures that waves will be monochromatic which, are waves with the same wavelength and period. A design wave height equivalent to the average of the highest 10% of all waves will be used for the calculations for wave run-up and reservoir setup. This is found by multiplying the significant wave height by 1.27 (Shore Protection Manual, Section 7.1.2). The processes described in the SPM will be used for the calculations. Please refer to the SPM for a detailed description of the processes involved. For calculations on sloped sections, Figures 7-12 and 7-13 will be used. For vertical walls, Figures 7-13 and 7-14 will be used.

30 SLI Doc. No HER Sept Figure 5-1: Sketch of Two Conditions for Wave Setup [Ref. 4]

31 SLI Doc. No HER Sept Where: SWL stillwater level (i.e., the water level that would exist if no wave action were present); MWL mean water level (i.e., when shoaling and breaking occur); d b S S b S w R the minimum depth where wave breaking occurs; the total rise from d b to where the mean water level intersects the shoreline; reservoir setdown (i.e., the difference in normal stillwater level and and mean water level. The maximum reservoir setdown as shown in the figure, is the difference in the normal stillwater level and the minimum depth where breaking occurs, d b.); net reservoir setup; and wave run-up. 5.4 VAGUE METHODOLGY As stated previously, VAGUE is a program developed by SLI for the determination of wind generated waves. Inputs to VAGUE are the geometry of the lake, water depth, coordinates of the point of interest, wind rose, number of radials and number of degrees between each of the radials. The outputs are the direction, wind-stress, duration, effective fetch length, whether calculations are fetch limited or duration limited, the significant wave height and period. Fetch The VAGUE program estimates the fetch in a slightly different way than the method proposed by the 1984 SPM. The effective fetch is estimated with the following equation: F ( θ) = nbr*int erval R ( θ+γ) γ= nbr*int erval nbr*int erval cos( γ) γ= nbr*int erval 2 cos ( γ)

32 SLI Doc. No HER Sept Where: R(θ+γ) F(θ) θ nbr interval γ radial length in direction θ+γ (m); effective fetch length in direction θ (m); azimuth of the central radial of the fetch; total number of radials on one side of the central radial (specified by the user); angle between adjacent radials (specified by the user); and angle between a radial and the central radial. Wind The wind speed in VAGUE is converted to a wind-stress factor, or coefficient of drag, using the formula described in Section Wave The VAGUE program utilizes the equations for deep water wave forecasting [Ref. 3] as well as the equations for shallow water wave forecasting [Ref. 3]. The equations for deep water wave forecasting were described in Section The equations for shallow water wave forecasting are as follows: tanh tanh tanh tanh tanh tanh

33 SLI Doc. No HER Sept Where: g H U A d F T t acceleration of gravity (m/s²); significant wave height (m); adjusted wind speed (m/s); constant depth (m); fetch length (km); wave period (s); wave duration (hr). The criteria used for determining whether the equations for shallow water or deep water will be used are: and,

34 SLI Doc. No HER Sept CANADIAN DAM ASSOCIATION GUIDELINES The Canadian Dam Association Guidelines (CDA) reference both the USACE (1984a, 1984b, 2003) and SEBJ (1997) for the computation of wave run-up. Since the analysis of wind and wave effects to determine wave run-up do not follow a single set of prescribed calculations, it is wise to use more than one method and compare the results. The approaches of both the SEBJ and USACE will be used to calculate wave height to determine wave run-up and reservoir setup at Muskrat Falls. They are each separate, comprehensive systems for evaluating waves, and waves are evaluated in a different manner within each system. 6.1 SCENARIOS Each of the studied structures will be analyzed for different conditions as outlined in the CDA Guidelines. These conditions are as follows: Table 6-1: Construction scenarios for wind-generated wave calculations Construction Scenario Structures North Spur (upstream) Summer Conditions: North Spur (downstream) Diversion Headpond Level (DHL) = 24 m Upstream Cofferdam Downstream Water Level = 5.98 m South Dam Wind = 1:20 years Downstream Cofferdam Table 6-2: Operation scenarios for wind-generated wave calculations Operation Scenario Normal Operation: Reservoir Full Supply Level (FSL) = 39 m Downstream Level at Max. Turbined Flow (2,660 m³/s) = 3.87 m Wind = 1:1,000 years Extreme Conditions: Reservoir at Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) = 45.1 m Downstream Level at PMF = m Wind = 1:2 years Structures North Spur (upstream) North Spur (downstream) North Overflow Dam South Dam North Spur (upstream) North Spur (downstream) South Dam

35 SLI Doc. No HER Sept WAVE STUDY RESULTS 7.1 NORTH SPUR UPSTREAM SHORE Three different scenarios, presented in Section 6.1, must be considered in the analysis of wind-generated waves for the upstream shore of the North Spur. The results of the analysis using the proposed SEBJ and SPM methods as well as the wave characteristic results found using the VAGUE program are presented in Table VAGUE Program The VAGUE program was used to compute the significant wave height and determine the most critical fetch along the upstream shore of the North Spur. Various points along the upstream bank of the North Spur were chosen and the program was run to obtain the fetch and the significant wave height. The most critical fetch was extracted from these results, that is, the direction and location with the highest significant wave. This was found to be at 250 WSW (200 in VAGUE) from Point A presented in Appendix B. As an example, Appendix A shows the results from the VAGUE program at Point A using inputs of 1:20 year wind for the open water season, average depth of m (corresponding to an upstream water level of 24 m) and 9 radials at 3 intervals as recommended by the CDA. The most critical scenario is highlighted in yellow Direct Fetch The point from which the most critical combination of direct fetch and wind speed was measured on the upstream shore of the North Spur is shown as Point A in Appendix B. The direct fetch was found to be 4.91 km in length Effective Fetch Using the SEBJ approach, the effective fetch was calculated to be 1.67 km for the upstream shore of the North Spur. Using the SPM approach, the effective fetch was calculated to be 4.91 km. The VAGUE program returns an effective fetch value of 4.88 km. The differences are attributable to the approach of computing the effective fetch explained in Sections 4.2.2, and 5.4.

36 SLI Doc. No HER Sept Appendix B illustrates the nine radials at three degree intervals used to calculate the effective fetch as described in the SPM methodology.

37 SLI Doc. No HER Sept NORTH SPUR DOWNSTREAM SHORE Three different scenarios, presented in Section 6.1, must be considered in the analysis of wind-generated waves for the downstream shore of the North Spur. The results of the analysis using the proposed SEBJ and SPM methods as well as the wave characteristic results found using the VAGUE program are presented in Table VAGUE Program Using the VAGUE program, the most critical fetch was found to be at 70 ENE (20 in VAGUE) from Point B presented in Appendix B. As an example, Appendix A illustrates the results from the VAGUE program at Point B using inputs of 1:20 year wind for the open water season, average depth of m (corresponding to a downstream water level of 5.98 m) and 9 radials at 3 intervals as recommended by the CDA. The most critical scenario is highlighted in yellow Direct Fetch The point from which the most critical combination of direct fetch and wind speed was measured on the downstream shore of the North Spur is shown as Point B in Appendix B. The direct fetch was found to be 2.16 km in length Effective Fetch Using the SEBJ approach, the effective fetch was calculated to be 1.65 km for the downstream shore of the North Spur. Using the SPM approach, the effective fetch was calculated to be 2.21 km. The VAGUE program returns an effective fetch value of 2.19 km. The differences are attributable to the approach of computing the effective fetch explained in Sections 4.2.2, and 5.4. Appendix B illustrates the nine radials at three degree intervals used to calculate the effective fetch as described in the SPM methodology.

38 SLI Doc. No HER Sept UPSTREAM COFFERDAM Since the Upstream Cofferdam will only be in use during construction, only one scenario must be examined to determine the extent of wind-generated waves for this structure. The results of the analysis using the proposed SEBJ and SPM methods as well as the wave characteristic results found using the VAGUE program are presented in Table VAGUE Program Using the VAGUE program, the most critical fetch was found to be at 270 W (180 in VAGUE) from Point C presented in Appendix B. As an example, Appendix A illustrates the results from the VAGUE program at Point C using inputs of 1:20 year wind for the open water season, average depth of m (corresponding to an upstream water level of 24 m) and 9 radials at 3 intervals as recommended by the CDA. The most critical scenario is highlighted in yellow Direct Fetch The point from which the most critical combination of direct fetch and wind speed was measured on the Upstream Cofferdam is shown as Point C in Appendix B. The direct fetch was found to be 1.01 km in length Effective Fetch Using the SEBJ approach, the effective fetch was calculated to be 0.73 km for the Upstream Cofferdam. Using the SPM approach, the effective fetch was calculated to be 1.95 km. The VAGUE program returns an effective fetch value of 1.93 km. The differences are attributable to the approach of computing the effective fetch explained in Sections 4.2.2, and 5.4. Appendix B illustrates the nine radials at three degree intervals used to calculate the effective fetch as described in the SPM methodology.

39 SLI Doc. No HER Sept NORTH OVERFLOW DAM The North Overflow Dam differs somewhat from the other structures presented in this report in that it will act as a spillway during PMF conditions. Therefore, the requirement for freeboard is not quite the same as for other structures. The crest height of the North Overflow Dam is 39.3 m with full supply level being 39 m. This leaves only 0.3 m of freeboard during normal operating conditions. This means that if the wave run-up plus the reservoir setup exceeds 0.3 m, the waves will overtop the dam. The objective of this section is to determine whether or not this is likely to occur. The results of the analysis using the proposed SEBJ and SPM methods as well as the wave characteristic results found using the VAGUE program are presented in Table VAGUE Program Since the Upstream Cofferdam and the North Overflow Dam run parallel to each other, the results from the VAGUE analysis for the Upstream Cofferdam will also be used for the North Overflow Dam. There would be very little difference in the distance between the points and so it is assumed that the results from the Upstream Cofferdam are applicable to the results of the North Overflow Dam. Therefore, the most critical fetch was determined to be at 270 W (180 in VAGUE) from Point D presented in Appendix B Direct Fetch The point from which the most critical combination of direct fetch and wind speed was measured on the North Overflow Dam is shown as Point D in Appendix B. The direct fetch was found to be 1.01 km in length Effective Fetch Using the SEBJ approach, the effective fetch was calculated to be 0.73 km for the North Overflow Dam. Using the SPM approach, the effective fetch was calculated to be 1.95 km. The VAGUE program returns an effective fetch value of 1.93 km. The differences are attributable to the approach of computing the effective fetch explained in Sections 4.2.2, and 5.4. Appendix B below illustrates the nine radials at three degree intervals used to calculate the effective fetch as described in the SPM methodology.

40 SLI Doc. No HER Sept SOUTH DAM Since the South Dam will be in use during operations, two cases must be examined to determine the extent of wind-generated waves for this structure. The results of the analysis using the proposed SEBJ and SPM methods as well as the wave characteristic results found using the VAGUE program are presented in Table VAGUE Program Using the VAGUE program, the most critical fetch was found to be at 290 WNW (160 in VAGUE) from Point E presented in Appendix B. As an example, Appendix A illustrates the results from the VAGUE program at Point E using inputs of 1:2 year wind for the open water season, average depth of m (corresponding to an upstream water level of 45.1 m) and 9 radials at 3 intervals as recommended by the CDA. The most critical scenario is highlighted in yellow Direct Fetch The point from which the most critical combination of direct fetch and wind speed was measured on the South Dam is shown as Point E in Appendix B. The direct fetch was found to be 3.69 km in length Effective Fetch Using the SEBJ approach, the effective fetch was calculated to be 0.85 km for the South Dam. Using the SPM approach, the effective fetch was calculated to be 2.17 km. The VAGUE program returns an effective fetch value of 2.16 km. The differences are attributable to the approach of computing the effective fetch explained in Sections 4.2.2, and 5.4. Appendix B illustrates the nine radials at three degree intervals used to calculate the effective fetch as described in the SPM methodology.

41 SLI Doc. No HER Sept DOWNSTREAM COFFERDAM The Downstream Cofferdam will only be in use during construction, so only one case needs to be examined to determine the extent of wind-generated waves for this structure. The results of the analysis using the proposed SEBJ and SPM methods as well as the wave characteristic results found using the VAGUE program are presented in Table VAGUE Program Using the VAGUE program, the most critical fetch was found to be at 50 ENE (40 in VAGUE) from Point F presented in Appendix B. As an example, Appendix A illustrates the results from the VAGUE program at Point F using inputs of 1:20 year wind for the open water season, average depth of m (corresponding to a downstream water level of 5.98 m) and 9 radials at 3 intervals as recommended by the CDA. The most critical scenario is highlighted in yellow Direct Fetch The point from which the most critical combination of direct fetch and wind speed was measured on the Downstream Cofferdam is shown as Point F in Appendix B. The direct fetch was found to be 2.19 km in length Effective Fetch Using the SEBJ approach, the effective fetch was calculated to be 1.78 km for the Downstream Cofferdam. Using the SPM approach, the effective fetch was calculated to be 2.22 km. The VAGUE program returns an effective fetch value of 2.20 km. The differences are attributable to the approach of computing the effective fetch explained in Sections 4.2.2, and 5.4. Appendix B illustrates the nine radials at three degree intervals used to calculate the effective fetch as described in the SPM methodology.

42 SLI Doc. No HER Sept Fetch Direction: Water level = 24 m Wind = 1:20 Table 7-1: North Spur - Upstream Shore - Summary of Results All Months Water level = 39 m Wind = 1:1,000 Water level = 45.1 m Wind = 1:2 250 WSW Direct Fetch (km): 4.91 Société d Énergie de la Baie James: Effective Fetch (km): 1.67 Water level = 24 m Wind = 1:20 Open Water Season Water level = 39 m Wind = 1:1,000 Water level = 45.1 m Wind = 1:2 Wind Speed (km/h): H s (m): T 02 (s): t (h): H D (m) = 1.27*H s : Wave Run-up (m): Reservoir Setup (m): Run-up + Setup (m): Shore Protection Manual: Effective Fetch (km): 4.91 Wind-Stress: H s (m): T 02 (s): t (h): H D (m) = 1.27*H s : Run-up + Setup (m): VAGUE 3 : Effective Fetch (km): H s (m): T 02 (s): t (h): For comparison of effective fetch and wave characteristics only.

43 SLI Doc. No HER Sept Fetch Direction: Direct Fetch (km): Water level = 5.98 m Wind = 1:20 Société d Énergie de la Baie James: Table 7-2: North Spur - Downstream Shore - Summary of Results All Months Water level = 3.87 m Wind = 1:1,000 Water level = m Wind = 1:2 70 ENE 2.16 km Effective Fetch (km): 1.65 Water level = 5.98 m Wind = 1:20 Open Water Season Water level = 3.87 m Wind = 1:1,000 Water level = m Wind = 1:2 Wind Speed (km/h): H s (m): T 02 (s): t (h): H D (m) = 1.27*H s : Wave Run-up (m): Reservoir Setup (m): Run-up + Setup (m): Shore Protection Manual: Effective Fetch (km): 2.21 Wind-Stress: H s (m): T 02 (s): t (h): H D (m) = 1.27*H s : Run-up + Setup (m): VAGUE 4 : Effective Fetch (km): H s (m): T 02 (s): t (h): For comparison of effective fetch and wave characteristics only.

44 SLI Doc. No HER Sept Fetch Direction: Table 7-3: Upstream Cofferdam - Summary of Results All Months Water level = 24 m Wind = 1: W Direct Fetch (km): 1.01 Société d Énergie de la Baie James: Effective Fetch (km): 0.73 Open Water Season Water level = 24 m Wind = 1:20 Wind Speed (km/h): H s (m): T 02 (s): t (h): H D (m) = 1.27*H s : Wave Run-up (m): Reservoir Setup (m): Run-up + Setup (m): Shore Protection Manual: Effective Fetch (km): 1.95 Wind-Stress: H s (m): T 02 (s): t (h): H D (m) = 1.27*H s : Run-up + Setup (m): VAGUE 5 : Effective Fetch (km): 1.93 H s (m): T 02 (s): t (h): For comparison of effective fetch and wave characteristics only.

45 SLI Doc. No HER Sept Fetch Direction: Table 7-4: North Overflow Dam - Summary of Results Water level = 39 m Wind = 1:20 All Months Water level = 39 m Wind = 1:1, W Direct Fetch (km): 1.01 Société d Énergie de la Baie James: Effective Fetch (km): 0.73 Water level = 39 m Wind = 1:20 Open Water Season Water level = 39 m Wind = 1:1,000 Wind Speed (km/h): H s (m): T 02 (s): t (h): H D (m) = 1.27*H s : Wave Run-up (m): Reservoir Setup (m): Run-up + Setup (m): Shore Protection Manual: Effective Fetch (km): 1.95 Wind -Stress: H s (m): T 02 (s): t (h): H D (m) = 1.27*H s : Run-up + Setup (m): VAGUE 6 : Effective Fetch (km): H s (m): T 02 (s): t (h): For comparison of effective fetch and wave characteristics only.

46 SLI Doc. No HER Sept Table 7-5: South Dam - Summary of Results Fetch Direction: Water level = 24 m Wind = 1:20 All Months Water level = 39 m Wind = 1:1,000 Water level = 45.1 m Wind = 1:2 290 WNW Direct Fetch (km): 3.69 Water level = 24 m Wind = 1:20 Open Water Season Water level = 39 m Wind = 1:1,000 Water level = 45.1 m Wind = 1:2 RF: Rockfill dam RCC: RCC dam with vertical upstream face Société d Énergie de la Baie James: Effective Fetch (km): 0.85 Wind Speed (km/h): H s (m): T 02 (s): t (h): H D (m) = 1.27*H s: Wave Run-up RF (m): Wave Run-up RCC (m): Reservoir Setup (m): Run-up + Setup RF (m): Run-up + Setup RCC (m): Shore Protection Manual: Effective Fetch (km): 2.17 Wind-Stress: H s (m): T 02 (s): t (h): H D (m) = 1.27*H s: Run-up + Setup RF (m): Run-up + Setup RCC (m): VAGUE 7 : Effective Fetch (km): H s (m): T 02 (s): t (h): For comparison of effective fetch and wave characteristics only.

47 SLI Doc. No HER Sept Table 7-6: Downstream Cofferdam - Summary of Results Fetch Direction: All Months Water level = 5.98 m Wind = 1:20 50 ENE Direct Fetch (km): 2.19 Société d Énergie de la Baie James: Effective Fetch (km): 1.78 Open Water Season Water level = 5.98 m Wind = 1:20 Wind Speed (km/h): H s (m): T 02 (s): t (h): H D (m) = 1.27*H s : Wave Run-up (m): Reservoir Setup (m): Run-up + Setup (m): Shore Protection Manual: Effective Fetch (km): 2.22 Wind-Stress: H s (m): T 02 (s): t (h): H D (m) = 1.27*H s : Run-up + Setup (m): VAGUE 8 : Effective Fetch (km): 2.20 H s (m): T 02 (s): t (h): For comparison of effective fetch and wave characteristics only.

48 SLI Doc. No HER Sept Table 7-7 summarizes the results for each of the structures which will be considered for the recommendations in the following section. It can be seen that in most cases, the SEBJ presents more conservative results. The recommendations will be made respecting the results using both methods. Table 7-7: Summary of Results for Recommendations Structure North Spur Upstream Shore North Spur Downstream Shore Upstream Cofferdam North Dam Intake cofferdam South Dam Downstream Cofferdam Scenario WL = 24 m Wind = 1:20 year WL = 45.1 m Wind = 1:2 year WL = 39 m Wind = 1:1,000 year WL = 5.98 m Wind = 1:20 year WL = m Wind = 1:2 year WL = 3.87 m Wind = 1:1,000 year WL = 24 m Wind = 1:20 year WL = 39 m Wind = 1:1,000 year WL = 24 m Wind = 1:20 year WL = 45.1 m Wind = 1:2 year WL = 39 m Wind = 1:1,000 year WL = 5.98 m Wind = 1:20 year Wave Run-up + Reservoir Setup (m) SEBJ SPM

49 SLI Doc. No HER Sept RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results presented in the previous section, it is recommended to utilize the following considerations in the design of the structures. It is noted that the results and the recommendations are with respect to wind generated waves. If there are other more severe conditions, the recommendation must be reviewed. Table 8-1: Recommendations during Construction Structure Results Recommendation North Spur Normal construction WL+1:20y wind = Protection to at least El m. Upstream Shore = 26.5 m North Spur Downstream Shore Normal construction WL+1:20y wind = = 7.7 m Upstream Cofferdam Normal construction WL+1:20y wind = = 26.0 m Intake cofferdam Normal construction WL+1:20y wind = = 26.0 m Downstream Cofferdam Normal construction WL+1:20y wind = = 7.9 m Table 8-2: Recommendations during Operation Protection to at least El. 7.5 m. Structure Results Recommendation North Spur Upstream Shore North Spur Downstream Shore North Dam South Dam PMF+1:2y wind = = 46.9 m FSL+1:1,000y wind = = 42.9 m PMF+1:2y wind = = 13.4 m Normal max WL+1:1,000y wind = = 6.3 m FSL + 1:20y wind = wave of 0.28 to 1.68 m FSL + 1:1,000y wind = wave of 0.4 to 2.3 m PMF+1:2y wind = = 46.3 m FSL+1:1,000y wind = = 41.7 m The crest elevation of the cofferdam should be at least at el m. Crest elevation of the intake cofferdam at least at El m. Crest elevation of the cofferdam at least at El. 7.9 m. Protection to at least El m. Protection to at least El. 7.5 m (also considering the winter conditions). Waves >0.3 m will splash over the dam (winds 1:20y and larger). Protection to at least at El m if in rockfill and at least El m if in RCC. The required riprap size will be determined in a separate report utilizing the results for windgenerated waves from this report.

50 SLI Doc. No HER Sept-2012 A APPENDIX A Sample Results from the VAGUE Program

51 SLI Doc. No HER Sept-2012 A-1 North Spur Upstream Shore Direction Speed Duration Fetch Control Wave Height Period m/s 1.0h 22.1m fetch 0.03m 0.41s m/s 1.0h 20.6m fetch 0.04m 0.44s m/s 1.0h 20.0m fetch 0.04m 0.44s m/s 1.0h 19.9m fetch 0.05m 0.46s m/s 1.0h 20.5m fetch 0.05m 0.47s m/s 1.0h 21.9m fetch 0.04m 0.46s m/s 1.0h 24.3m fetch 0.04m 0.47s m/s 1.0h 28.4m fetch 0.04m 0.46s m/s 1.0h 35.5m fetch 0.05m 0.53s m/s 1.0h 50.5m fetch 0.06m 0.59s m/s 1.0h 85.6m fetch 0.10m 0.75s m/s 1.0h 126.4m fetch 0.11m 0.84s m/s 1.0h 164.9m fetch 0.14m 0.94s m/s 1.0h 204.0m fetch 0.14m 0.97s m/s 1.0h 282.9m fetch 0.18m 1.13s m/s 1.0h 502.5m fetch 0.28m 1.43s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.38m 1.77s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.60m 2.28s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.74m 2.66s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.86m 2.95s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.80m 2.79s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.60m 2.37s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.41m 1.93s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.32m 1.70s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.29m 1.61s m/s 1.0h 976.8m fetch 0.27m 1.56s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.30m 1.65s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.31m 1.71s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.30m 1.65s m/s 1.0h 784.4m fetch 0.24m 1.46s m/s 1.0h 386.6m fetch 0.13m 1.04s m/s 1.0h 130.7m fetch 0.06m 0.69s m/s 1.0h 53.1m fetch 0.03m 0.49s m/s 1.0h 36.6m fetch 0.03m 0.46s m/s 1.0h 28.9m fetch 0.03m 0.41s m/s 1.0h 24.6m fetch 0.03m 0.41s

52 SLI Doc. No HER Sept-2012 A-2 North Spur Downstream Shore Direction Speed Duration Fetch Control Wave Height Period m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.34m 2.00s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.40m 2.02s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.35m 1.84s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.36m 1.78s m/s 1.0h 968.2m fetch 0.33m 1.67s m/s 1.0h 809.3m fetch 0.26m 1.51s m/s 1.0h 673.8m fetch 0.23m 1.41s m/s 1.0h 533.1m fetch 0.17m 1.22s m/s 1.0h 409.5m fetch 0.18m 1.19s m/s 1.0h 278.9m fetch 0.14m 1.04s m/s 1.0h 176.8m fetch 0.14m 0.96s m/s 1.0h 110.4m fetch 0.11m 0.81s m/s 1.0h 83.1m fetch 0.10m 0.75s m/s 1.0h 68.8m fetch 0.08m 0.68s m/s 1.0h 60.4m fetch 0.08m 0.68s m/s 1.0h 55.5m fetch 0.09m 0.69s m/s 1.0h 52.8m fetch 0.09m 0.67s m/s 1.0h 52.0m fetch 0.10m 0.70s m/s 1.0h 52.8m fetch 0.09m 0.69s m/s 1.0h 55.5m fetch 0.09m 0.69s m/s 1.0h 60.4m fetch 0.10m 0.72s m/s 1.0h 68.8m fetch 0.10m 0.74s m/s 1.0h 80.4m fetch 0.10m 0.74s m/s 1.0h 89.8m fetch 0.09m 0.74s m/s 1.0h 96.0m fetch 0.09m 0.75s m/s 1.0h 102.3m fetch 0.09m 0.74s m/s 1.0h 113.4m fetch 0.10m 0.79s m/s 1.0h 132.2m fetch 0.10m 0.82s m/s 1.0h 165.3m fetch 0.12m 0.89s m/s 1.0h 409.5m fetch 0.18m 1.19s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.22m 1.51s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.26m 1.76s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.25m 1.77s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.31m 1.97s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.29m 1.92s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.35m 2.08s

53 SLI Doc. No HER Sept-2012 A-3 Upstream Cofferdam Direction Speed Duration Fetch Control Wave Height Period m/s 1.0h 119.0m fetch 0.07m 0.71s m/s 1.0h 109.1m fetch 0.09m 0.76s m/s 1.0h 103.8m fetch 0.09m 0.75s m/s 1.0h 102.0m fetch 0.10m 0.79s m/s 1.0h 103.6m fetch 0.11m 0.80s m/s 1.0h 108.6m fetch 0.10m 0.78s m/s 1.0h 118.1m fetch 0.10m 0.79s m/s 1.0h 134.3m fetch 0.09m 0.78s m/s 1.0h 160.6m fetch 0.11m 0.87s m/s 1.0h 187.0m fetch 0.12m 0.91s m/s 1.0h 206.4m fetch 0.15m 1.01s m/s 1.0h 219.5m fetch 0.15m 1.01s m/s 1.0h 240.9m fetch 0.16m 1.06s m/s 1.0h 277.0m fetch 0.16m 1.08s m/s 1.0h 339.5m fetch 0.20m 1.20s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.48m 2.03s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.50m 2.12s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.59m 2.27s m/s 1.0h 901.9m fetch 0.39m 1.75s m/s 1.0h 800.0m fetch 0.36m 1.67s m/s 1.0h 695.3m fetch 0.34m 1.60s m/s 1.0h 593.8m fetch 0.30m 1.50s m/s 1.0h 533.9m fetch 0.25m 1.39s m/s 1.0h 496.6m fetch 0.21m 1.29s m/s 1.0h 470.0m fetch 0.20m 1.26s m/s 1.0h 461.0m fetch 0.18m 1.22s m/s 1.0h 474.6m fetch 0.20m 1.26s m/s 1.0h 515.8m fetch 0.20m 1.28s m/s 1.0h 548.3m fetch 0.21m 1.31s m/s 1.0h 542.8m fetch 0.20m 1.30s m/s 1.0h 490.4m fetch 0.14m 1.13s m/s 1.0h 413.1m fetch 0.11m 1.00s m/s 1.0h 312.1m fetch 0.08m 0.88s m/s 1.0h 219.4m fetch 0.08m 0.83s m/s 1.0h 164.4m fetch 0.07m 0.73s m/s 1.0h 135.7m fetch 0.07m 0.72s

54 SLI Doc. No HER Sept-2012 A-4 South Dam Direction Speed Duration Fetch Control Wave Height Period m/s 1.0h 50.1m fetch 0.03m 0.44s m/s 1.0h 52.0m fetch 0.04m 0.50s m/s 1.0h 55.9m fetch 0.04m 0.53s m/s 1.0h 62.5m fetch 0.05m 0.59s m/s 1.0h 73.7m fetch 0.06m 0.62s m/s 1.0h 93.8m fetch 0.06m 0.64s m/s 1.0h 122.8m fetch 0.06m 0.69s m/s 1.0h 154.5m fetch 0.06m 0.71s m/s 1.0h 190.3m fetch 0.08m 0.80s m/s 1.0h 251.7m fetch 0.09m 0.88s m/s 1.0h 389.3m fetch 0.13m 1.06s m/s 1.0h 555.6m fetch 0.16m 1.19s m/s 1.0h 705.2m fetch 0.19m 1.32s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.23m 1.55s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.33m 1.92s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.37m 1.97s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.33m 1.82s m/s 1.0h 795.1m fetch 0.25m 1.49s m/s 1.0h 498.7m fetch 0.20m 1.27s m/s 1.0h 334.2m fetch 0.16m 1.12s m/s 1.0h 263.4m fetch 0.14m 1.03s m/s 1.0h 233.4m fetch 0.12m 0.96s m/s 1.0h 216.0m fetch 0.11m 0.90s m/s 1.0h 207.0m fetch 0.09m 0.85s m/s 1.0h 190.9m fetch 0.09m 0.83s m/s 1.0h 153.0m fetch 0.07m 0.75s m/s 1.0h 106.1m fetch 0.06m 0.68s m/s 1.0h 76.5m fetch 0.04m 0.57s m/s 1.0h 61.9m fetch 0.04m 0.53s m/s 1.0h 53.5m fetch 0.03m 0.49s m/s 1.0h 48.5m fetch 0.03m 0.45s m/s 1.0h 45.8m fetch 0.02m 0.40s m/s 1.0h 44.6m fetch 0.02m 0.39s m/s 1.0h 44.9m fetch 0.02m 0.40s m/s 1.0h 46.6m fetch 0.02m 0.39s m/s 1.0h 48.4m fetch 0.02m 0.43s

55 SLI Doc. No HER Sept-2012 A-5 Downstream Cofferdam Direction Speed Duration Fetch Control Wave Height Period m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.36m 2.06s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.47m 2.24s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.44m 2.15s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.48m 2.16s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.46m 2.07s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.37m 1.90s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.35m 1.83s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.28m 1.68s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.32m 1.75s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.30m 1.69s m/s 1.0h 948.2m fetch 0.33m 1.66s m/s 1.0h 624.9m fetch 0.25m 1.43s m/s 1.0h 302.3m fetch 0.18m 1.14s m/s 1.0h 159.7m fetch 0.12m 0.90s m/s 1.0h 46.3m fetch 0.07m 0.62s m/s 1.0h 20.3m fetch 0.06m 0.49s m/s 1.0h 14.1m fetch 0.05m 0.43s m/s 1.0h 11.2m fetch 0.05m 0.42s m/s 1.0h 9.6m fetch 0.04m 0.39s m/s 1.0h 8.6m fetch 0.04m 0.37s m/s 1.0h 8.1m fetch 0.04m 0.37s m/s 1.0h 7.8m fetch 0.03m 0.36s m/s 1.0h 7.8m fetch 0.03m 0.34s m/s 1.0h 8.1m fetch 0.03m 0.33s m/s 1.0h 8.6m fetch 0.03m 0.34s m/s 1.0h 9.6m fetch 0.03m 0.34s m/s 1.0h 11.2m fetch 0.03m 0.37s m/s 1.0h 14.1m fetch 0.03m 0.39s m/s 1.0h 20.3m fetch 0.04m 0.44s m/s 1.0h 35.8m fetch 0.05m 0.53s m/s 1.0h 58.4m fetch 0.05m 0.56s m/s 1.0h 93.4m fetch 0.05m 0.62s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.16m 1.32s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.28m 1.84s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.30m 1.94s m/s 1.0h m fetch 0.34m 2.02s

56 SLI Doc. No HER Sept-2012 B APPENDIX B Fetch Figures

57 SLI Doc. No HER Sept-2012 B-1 North Spur Upstream Shore Critical Direct Fetch North Spur Upstream Shore Radial Lines for Calculating the Effective Fetch using SPM

58 SLI Doc. No HER Sept-2012 B-2 North Spur Downstream Shore Critical Direct Fetch North Spur Downstream Shore Radial Lines for Calculating the Effective Fetch using SPM

59 SLI Doc. No HER Sept-2012 B-3 Upstream Cofferdam Critical Direct Fetch Upstream Cofferdam Radial Lines for Calculating the Effective Fetch using SPM

60 SLI Doc. No HER Sept-2012 B-4 North Overflow Dam Critical Direct Fetch North Overflow Dam Radial Lines for Calculating the Effective Fetch using SPM

61 SLI Doc. No HER Sept-2012 B-5 South Dam Critical Direct Fetch South Dam Radial Lines for Calculating the Effective Fetch using SPM

62 SLI Doc. No HER Sept-2012 B-6 Downstream Cofferdam Critical Direct Fetch Downstream Cofferdam Radial Lines for Calculating the Effective Fetch using SPM