NOAA Technical Report NOS CS 23 

THE ST. JOHNS RIVER OPERATIONAL FORECAST 

SYSTEM (SJROFS) AND ITS SKILL ASSESSMENT 

Silver Spring, Maryland 

March 2006 

n 0 a a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Ocean Service 

Coast Survey Development Laboratory 
Office of Coast Survey 

National Ocean Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

The Office of Coast Survey (CS) is the Nation's only official chartmaker. As the oldest United 

States scientific organization, dating from 1807, this office has a long history. Today it 

promotes safe navigation by managing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration's (NOAA) nautical chart and oceanographic data collection and information 

programs. 

There are four components of CS: 

The Coast Survey Development Laboratory develops new and efficient techniques to 

accomplish Coast Survey missions and to produce new and improved products and 

services for the maritime community and other coastal users. 

The Marine Chart Division collects marine navigational data to construct and 

maintain nautical charts, Coast Pilots, and related marine products for the United 

States. 

The Hydrographic Surveys Division directs programs for ship and shore-based 

hydrographic survey units and conducts general hydrographic survey operations. 

The Navigation Services Division is the focal point for Coast Survey customer service 

activities, concentrating predominantly on charting issues, fast-response 

hydrographic surveys and Coast Pilot updates. 
NOAA Technical Report NOS CS 23 

THE ST. JOHNS RIVER OPERATIONAL FORECAST 

SYSTEM (SJROFS) AND ITS SKILL ASSESSMENT 

Aijun Zhang 

Edwards Myers 

Frank Aikman Ill 

March 2006 

noaa National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

U.S. DEPARTMENT National Oceanic and National Ocean Service 

OF COMMERCE Atmospheric Administration John H. Dunnigan, 

Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., Assistant Administrator 

VADM USN (Ret.), Under Secretary 

Office of Coast Survey 

Captain Roger L. Parsons, NOAA 

Coast Survey Development 

Laboratory 

Mary Erickson 
NOTICE 

Mention of a commercial company or product does not constitute an 

endorsement by NOAA. Use for publicity or advertising purposes of 

information from this publication concerning proprietary products or the 

tests of such products is not authorized. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... iv 

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ iv 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................v 

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1 

2. MODEL SYSTEM OVERVIEW ................................................................................................3 

2.1. EFDC Hydrodynamic Model........................................................................................3 

 2.2. Model Grid....................................................................................................................4 

2.3. Model Input Files..........................................................................................................5 

 2.4. Installation using CVS system......................................................................................6 

2.5. System Interruption and Recovery Procedure ..............................................................7 

3. MODEL RUN SCENARIO DEFINITION ................................................................................9 

3.1. Astronomical Tide Only Simulation.............................................................................9 

 3.2. Model Hindcast Simulation ..........................................................................................9 

3.3. Semi-Operational Nowcast/Forecast Simulation........................................................10 

4. SKILL ASSEESSMENT STATISTICS AND DATA .............................................................11 

 4.1. Skill Assessment Statistics..........................................................................................11 

4.2. Data.............................................................................................................................13 

5. RESULTS FOR WATER LEVEL SKILL ASSESSMENT.....................................................15 

6. RESULTS FOR CURRENT SKILL ASSESSMENT..............................................................19 

7. CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................................27 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................28 

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................29 

APPENDIX A. COMPARISON OF TIDAL CONSTITUENT AMPLITUDES AND 

EPOCHS FOR WATER LEVEL.......................................................................................31 

APPENDIX B. SKILL ASSESSMENT SCORE TABLES FOR WATER LEVELS ..................39 

APPENDIX C. COMPARISON OF TIDAL CONSTITUENT AMPLITUDES AND 

EPOCHS FOR CURRENTS .............................................................................................47 

APPENDIX D. SKILL ASSESSMENT SCORE TABLES FOR CURRENT SPEEDS ..............50 

APPENDIX E. SKILL ASSESSMENT SCORE TABLES FOR CURRENT 

DIRECTIONS ...................................................................................................................56 

iii
LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Skill assessment Statistics ..............................................................................................11 

Table 2. Data series Groups and the variables in each ................................................................12 

Table 3. Acceptance error limits (X) snd maximum duration limits ...........................................12 

Table 4. Water Level Stations Used in Skill Assessment ............................................................13 

Table 5. Current Stations Used in Skill Assessment ...................................................................13 

Table 6. Mean Values of the Observed and Simulated Nowcast Water Level ............................17 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Model grid of the St. Johns River Nowcast/Forecast System .......................................4 

Figure 2. Current Speed Time Series of the Observed, Predicted, Model Simulated Tide- 

 only, and Hindcast in 1998 ...........................................................................................20 

Figure 3. Current Speed Time Series of the Observed, Predicted, Model Simulated 

 Nowcast, and Forecast in 2003 .....................................................................................21 

Figure 4. Observed Velocity Scatter Diagrams for J2, J5, and J6 in 1998 and 2003 ...................22 

iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

An experimental model-based nowcast/forecast system for the St. Johns River (SJROFS) 

has been implemented in NOAA’s Coast Survey Development Laboratory (CSDL). This 

hydrodynamic model system uses the Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) 

circulation model to make hourly nowcasts and 36 hour forecasts four times a day of 

water levels, currents, salinity, and temperature. The nowcast/forecast system is run 

under the standardized Coastal Ocean Modeling Framework (COMF) that NOS is 

implementing for operational forecast systems. 

A standard suite of NOS skill assessment statistics which includes Central Frequency 

(CF), Negative and Positive Outlier Frequency (NOF and POF), Maximum Duration of 

Negative and Positive Outlier (MDNO and MDPO), and the Worst Outlier Frequency 

(WOF) were computed for four model scenarios: 1) astronomical tidal simulation, 2) 

hindcast simulation, 3) semi-operational nowcast simulation, and 4) semi-operational 

forecast simulation. A forecast method comparison is presented between the model 

forecast and persistence forecast which is based upon the observed persisted residual 

value and astronomical tidal prediction. For each scenario, the modeled and observed 

time series of water levels and currents were compared at eight water level stations, 

which are Mayport, Main Street Bridge, Long Branch, Buckman, Red Bay Point, Racy 

Point, Palatka, and Buffalo Bluff, and at the three current stations of J2 (Mayport Basin 

Entrance), J5 (Dames Point Bridge), and J6 (Trout River). Time series of astronomical 

tide and hindcast simulations were created for the year of 1998, and the time series of 

semi-operational nowcast and forecast simulations were created for the year of 2003. 

 The skill assessment statistics for water levels pass the criteria for each of the four 

scenarios at the eight stations. Therefore, the model’s water level nowcasts and forecasts 

are of sufficient accuracy to recommend that the SJROFS be made operational. Most of 

CF, NOF, POF, MDNO, and MDPO for water currents either pass or are close to the 

criteria for the astronomical tidal and hindcast simulations. However, model nowcasts 

and forecasts of water currents are less satisfactory than those from the hindcast 

simulation, and are incapable of meeting the criteria for the test period. The astronomical 

tidal current predictions might be used as a worthy operational product, especially for the 

period of no storm surge events. 

The skill assessment results for each scenario are summarized as follows: 

Astronomical Tidal Simulation:

1) Water Level 

The modeled tidal constituents are in very close agreement with the observed values. The 

amplitude errors of M2 range from 0.6 cm to 2.6 cm with the maximum error of 2.6 cm at 

Buffalo Bluff, and M2 phase errors range from -1.9 to 12.7 degrees (-4 to 26 minutes) 

with the largest deviation of 26 minutes at Buffalo Bluff. The RMS errors vary from 2.7 

at Mayport to 6.9 cm at Buffalo Bluff. CF, NOF, POF, MDNO, MDPO, and WOF all 

v
pass the criteria for the entire time series, and amplitudes of high and low water for all of 

the 8 stations. CF fails at some stations for time of high and low water. 

2) Currents 

For the dominant M2 constituent, the modeled amplitudes are smaller than the observed 

values at all of the three stations, and the differences are -12.5, -19.8, and -8.9 cm/s at J2, 

J5, and J6 respectively. The phase differences between the modeled and observed values 

are -0.3, -1.5, and -7.8 degrees at J2, J5, and J6 respectively. CF, NOF, POF, MDNO, 

and MDPO all pass the criteria for current speed time series, amplitudes of maximum 

flood and ebb currents at J2 and J6, but fail to pass the criteria at J5. CF, NOF, POF, 

MDNO, and MDPO all passed the criteria for current direction at the three stations. 

Hindcast

1) Water Level 

The RMS errors vary from 6.2 cm at Mayport to 10.7 cm at Buffalo Bluff. CF, NOF, 

POF, MDNO, MDPO, and WOF all pass the criteria for 6-minute water level time series, 

amplitudes of high and low water except Buffalo Bluff which is directly connected to the 

sponge boundary area. 

2) Current 

RMS errors of the current speeds are 17.6, 12.8, and 14.2 cm/s at J2, J5, and J6, 

respectively. CF, NOF, POF, MDNO, and MDPO pass the criteria for current speeds, and 

amplitudes of maximum flood and ebb currents at J5 and J6 stations, but CF fails at J2 

with values of greater than 84%. CF also fails for the time of the maximum flood and ebb 

currents at the all three stations. CF, NOF, POF, MDNO, and MDPO pass the criteria for 

current direction at the three stations. The differences of mean current directions are 13, 

8, and 9 degrees at J2, J5, and J6, respectively. 

Semi-Operational Nowcast

1) Water Level 

The RMS errors at the 8 stations range from 3.7 cm at Buckman Bridge to 14.6 cm at 

Buffalo Bluff. CF, NOF, POF, MDNO, MDPO, and WOF all pass the criteria for 6-

minute entire time series, amplitudes of high and low water except Buffalo Bluff. 

2) Current 

At J2, the RMS errors of the current speeds and directions are 30.6 cm/s and 46 degrees. 

MDNO and MDPO pass the criteria, but CF and POF fail to pass the criteria for the 

current speeds. CF, NOF, POF, MDPO, and MDPO pass the criteria for the directions of 

maximum ebb currents, However, CF, NOF, POF, MDPO, and MDPO fail to pass the 

vi
criteria for the current directions. At J5, CF, NOF, POF, MDPO, and MDPO pass the 

criteria for the maximum ebb current speeds, but fail to pass the criteria for the other 

tests. CF, NOF, POF, MDPO, and MDPO pass the criteria for current directions. At J6, 

NOF, POF, MDNO, and MDPO pass the criteria for the current speeds, the maximum 

flood and ebb current speeds, and all tests of current direction. CF fails to pass the criteria 

for some tests. 

Semi-Operational Forecast

1) WaterLevel 

RMS errors out to 24 hours are less than 10 cm at all stations. CF, NOF, POF, MDNO, 

MDPO, and WOF all pass the criteria for entire time series, amplitudes of high and low 

water except Buffalo Bluff. 

2) Currents 

At J2, for current speeds, the values of CF range from 69% to 71.4%, and POF are all 

greater than 10% throughout 24 forecast hours. NOF, MDNO, and MNPO pass the 

criteria for all forecast hours. For current directions, CF range from 54% to 58% 

throughout 24 forecast hours. Most of NOF, CF, and POF fail to pass the criteria. 

 At J5, NOF, MDNO, and MDPO pass the criteria for current speeds, the maximum flood 

and ebb current speeds, but CF fails for some tests. CF, NOF, POF, MDNO, and MDPO 

pass the criteria for the directions of the maximum flood and ebb currents. However, CF 

and POF fail to pass the criteria for current directions. 

At J6, the current speed RMS errors range from 26 cm/s to 23.2 cm/s. NOF, POF, 

MDNO, and MDPO pass the criteria for the current speeds, the maximum flood and ebb 

current speeds. CF fails to pass the criteria for some tests. For the current direction, the 

RMS errors range from 15 degrees to 16 degrees, most of CF, NOF, POF, MDNO, and 

MDPO fail to pass the criteria. 

The results of the forecast method comparison show that the astronomical tidal water 

level prediction fails to meet the criteria since non-tidal water level information is 

missing; and the persisted water level forecasts pass the criteria at all stations. 

Astronomical tidal current predictions pass the criteria for both current speed and 

direction. Persisted current forecasts pass the criteria for current speeds, but fail for 

current direction at the 3 stations. 

vii
1. INTRODUCTION 

Over half of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of the coast, and coastal areas 

serve as centers of commerce for tourism, transportation, recreation, fishing and other 

activities. Coastal storms can therefore cause substantial costs to this infrastructure, 

which is inextricably linked to the U.S. economy. The Coastal Storms Program (CSP) is a 

nationwide effort led by NOAA to help coastal communities better prepare for and 

respond to the hazards that might occur during storm events, and lessen the impacts of 

storms on coastal communities. The first pilot project of the CSP was in the St. Johns 

River, where various NOAA offices worked with the northeast Florida community to 

develop products and tools that would help them address planning, mitigation, and 

response strategies for storm events. One of these tools is a three-dimensional 

hydrodynamic model that can provide forecasts of water levels, currents, salinity and 

temperature throughout the lower river estuary. The Coast Survey Development 

Laboratory (CSDL) of the National Ocean Service (NOS) is leading the development of 

this forecast circulation model for eventual operational implementation in the Center for 

Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS). 

In meeting with local stakeholders during the initial phase of this pilot project, CSDL 

identified a well-calibrated hydrodynamic modeling application that had been developed 

by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) for the St. Johns River 

(Sucsy and Morris, 2001). This modeling application was set up to simulate circulation 

conditions in the St. Johns River during a hindcast period of 1995-1998. CSDL therefore 

coordinated with the SJRWMD to transfer the model to NOAA for implementation in an 

operational nowcast/forecast system. While the model parameterizations (e.g. friction, 

boundary types, external forcing implementation, etc.) remain the same between the 

SJWMD hindcast and the NOS nowcasts/forecasts, the operational framework supporting 

the latter provides the structure to systematically make routine simulations that can be 

quality controlled to provide consistent, accurate results that meet NOS performance 

criteria. 

The operational framework for implementation of coastal ocean models in NOS is 

referred to as the Coastal Ocean Modeling Framewok (COMF). The first component of 

COMF is a standard file format for output of the model results. The SJRWMD model 

application used the Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) (Hamrick, 1992a; 

1992b), and therefore the initial step in porting their model into COMF was to adjust the 

output into the COARDS-compliant netCDF format that NOS supports. Another 

component of COMF is the use of standard scripts to access real-time data and forecasts 

used as input to the nowcast/forecast model simulations. The EFDC simulations were set 

up to perform hourly nowcasts (a simulation over the previous one hour up until the 

present time) and four forecasts (extending 36 hours into the future) per day using these 

standard COMF scripts. 

With these components of COMF in place for the St. Johns River model, the final step in 

the transition to operational implementation is to quality assess the performance of a 

model application against standard NOS skill assessment criteria (Hess et al., 2003). A 

- 1 -
software tool (Zhang et al., in preparation) was developed to perform this skill 

assessment with models in the COMF environment, and the St. Johns River model results 

were subsequently analyzed using this tool for different simulation scenarios (tides only, 

hindcasts, operational nowcasts and forecasts). Skill assessment score tables were 

compiled for each location where observations were available using the software 

package, and these tables will help guide the best approach for transitioning the model to 

an operational environment. 

Section 2 of this report focuses on an overview of the St. Johns River Operational 

Forecast System (SJROFS) with a brief description of EFDC, the model grid for this 

application, the input files, installation of SJROFS using the Concurrent Versioning 

System (CVS), and system interruption and recovery procedures. Section 3 describes the 

model run scenarios for the astronomical tide simulation, a model hindcast simulation, 

and semi-operational nowcast/forecast simulations. A summary of the NOS skill 

assessment criteria and available observations in the St. Johns River are summarized in 

Section 4. Lastly, the performance of the model is reviewed based upon skill assessment 

criteria relating to water levels and currents in Sections 5 and 6, respectively. Section 7 

presents a summary of the SJROFS skill assessment. 

- 2 -
2. MODEL SYSTEM OVERVIEW 

2.1 EFDC Hydrodynamic Model 

The physics of the EFDC model and many aspects of the computational scheme are 

equivalent to the widely used Blumberg-Mellor model (Blumberg & Mellor, 1987). The 

EFDC model solves the three-dimensional, vertically hydrostatic, free surface, turbulent 

averaged equations of motions for a variable density fluid. The model uses a stretched or 

sigma vertical coordinate and Cartesian or curvilinear, orthogonal horizontal coordinates. 

Dynamically coupled transport equations for turbulent kinetic energy, turbulent length 

scale, salinity and temperature are also solved. The two turbulence parameter transport 

equations implement the Mellor-Yamada level 2.5 turbulence closure scheme (Mellor & 

Yamada, 1982) as modified by Galperin et al (1988). An optional bottom boundary layer 

submodel allows for wave-current boundary layer interaction using an externally 

specified high frequency surface gravity wave field. The numerical scheme employed in 

EFDC to solve the equations of motion are summarized in Hamrick, 1992a; 1992b. 

The EFDC model application to the lower St. Johns River uses external forcing by water 

level, ocean salinity, wind, and fresh water discharges entering the model domain. The 

model calculates water levels, velocity in three components, salinity, and temperature. 

The EFDC had been well calibrated for a simulation of the lower St. Johns River for 

1995-1998 by the SJRWMD. To build upon this existing resource, the SJRWMD shared 

this model application with CSDL for development of an operational nowcast/forecast 

system for the St. Johns River. While many of the model parameterizations (e.g. friction, 

boundary types, external forcing implementation, etc.) remain the same between the 

SJWMD hindcast model system and the NOS operational nowcast/forecast model 

system, the wetting/drying function is deactivated in the NOS operational 

nowcast/forecast system. 

2.2 Model Grid 

An orthogonal, boundary-fitted, structured grid extending upstream from the Atlantic 

Ocean near Mayport to Buffalo Bluff (Figure 1) was created by the SJRWMD for their 

hindcast simulation. The model area contains a 188 km2

 portion of the Atlantic coastal 

shelf for mixing of the discharged river water with ocean waters. The upstream model 

boundary contains a 32 km2 sponge to reduce artificial wave-reflection of the progressive 

tidal wave passing through the upstream boundary. The boundary-fitted model grid is 

based on a transformed 188 x 105 rectangular computational grid containing 2,210 water 

cells. Horizontal cell sizes, irrespective of direction, range from 81–2,040 m. The model 

grid generally does not extend up the tributaries to the head of tide, and the model 

application does not allow for flooding and drying of grid cells. There are six stretched, 

sigma vertical layers. 

Principal bathymetric data for the model were obtained from a river survey performed by 

the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) in 1993. Additional 

bathymetric data included a 1993 survey of Mill Cove and the approach to the river 

- 3 -
entrance by the U.S. Army Corps. Of Engineer (USACE), a 1995 survey of the Cedar and 

Ortega Rivers by Morgan and Eklund, Inc., and various NOS’s surveys of smaller tidal 

tributaries and the adjacent Atlanic Shelf. All bathymetric data were converted to meters 

relative to the North Atlantic Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). The shoreline data 

were obtained from two sources: (a) a digitized version of the St. Johns River shoreline 

from USGS 7.5 minute quad maps at 1:24000 scale, and (b) 1995 digital orthorectified 

quarter quad (DOQ) images obtained from the National Aerial Photography Program. 

Figure 1. Boundary-fitted model grid of the lower St. Johns River and observation 

locations which are used in skill assessment. 

- 4 -
2.3. EFDC Input Files 

The master input file, efdc.inp, is required for all model runs. The information in 

efdc.inp provides model runtime control parameters, output control, and physical 

information describing the model domain and external forcing functions. Many options 

in the code are activated by integer switches. The options are normally activated by 

specifying nonzero integer values. Setting switches to zero deactivates the option. A 

more detailed explanation about the efdc.inp file can be found in the User’s Manual for 

EFDC (Tetra Tech, Inc., 2002). 

Additional input files required in order to run the EFDC model are listed below: 

 File Name Comments 

 

aser.inp Atmospheric time-series data. Required for all model runs for which 

 atmospheric conditions are needed (i.e., when NASER=1 on card image 14). 

cell.inp Horizontal cell type identifier file. Required for all model runs. 

celllt.inp Horizontal cell type identifier file for saving mean mass transport. Required 

 for all model runs. 

dxdy.inp Horizontal grid spacing or metrics, depth, bottom elevation, bottom 

 roughness and vegetation classes for either Cartesian or curvilinear 

 orthogonal horizontal grids. Required if ISCLO=1 or if ISCLO=0 and (LC- 

 LVC) .GT. 2 on card image 9 of file efdc.inp. 

lxly.inp Horizontal cell center coordinates and cell orientations for either 

 Cartesian or curvilinear-orthogonal grids. Required if ISCLO=1 or if 

 ISCLO=0 and (LC-LVC) .GT. 2 on card image 9 of file efdc.inp. 

pser.inp Open boundary water surface elevation time series file. Required if 

 NPSER .GE.1 on card image 16 of file efdc.inp. 

qser.inp Volumetric source-sink time series file. Required if NQSER .GE.1 on card 

 image 23 of file efdc.inp. 

restart.inp Restart file for restarting a simulation. Required if ISRESTI =1 on card 

 image 2 of file efdc.inp. 

salt.inp Initial salinity distribution for cold start, salinity stratified flow simulations. 

 Required if ISTOPT = 1 on line 2, card image 6 of file efdc.inp. 

show.inp Controlling screen print of conditions in a specified cell during simulation 

 runs. Required if ISHOW > 1 on card image 2 of file efdc.inp. 

- 5 -
sser.inp Salinity time series file for open boundary. Required if NSSER .GE.1 on 

 card image 22 of file efdc.inp. 

tser.inp Temperature time series file for open boundary. Required if NTSER .GE.1 

 on card image 22 of file efdc.inp. 

wser.inp Wind time series file for surface forcing. Required if NWSER > 0. 

The input files listed above can be classified into four groups as shown below. 

(1) Horizontal grid specification files: cell.inp, celllt.inp, dxdy.inp, gcellmap.inp, lxly.inp 

 (2) General data and run control files: efdc.inp, show.inp 

(3) Initialization and restart files: salt.inp, restart.inp 

(4) Time series forcing and boundary condition files: aser.inp, pser.inp, qser.inp, 

sser.inp, tser.inp,wser.inp 

2.4. Installation Using CVS System 

CVS is a software which coordinates many developers working on the same project. This 

software package keeps all the programs in a directory structure, which allows control 

over multiple versions. The St. Johns River Operational Forecast System (SJROFS) has 

been committed to the CVS system, so users/developers can install a version of SJROFS 

using the CVS system on the user’s local computer. The preferred approach is to run 

SJROFS from the user's local directory, where all COMF related directories and 

programs are stored. For instance, if the user runs SJROFS from his/her local directory: 

 /comf/development/COMF_user/ 

Under this directory, there are such directories as ohms, opds, oqcs, and oqctools. All 

model related files will be located under ohms directory, and all model outputs should be 

saved in a user's local directory such as, 

 /comf/development/COMF_user/ohms/SJROFS/archive. 

Several steps are involved in order to install SJROFS in the user's local directory: 

step 1) Checkout the SJROFS from the CVS repository. Download SJROFS to the user's 

local directory by running the following commands (in the shell environment): 

 export CVS_RSH=ssh

 export CVSROOT=dsofs1.nos-tcn.noaa.gov:/comf/CVSPROJECTS

 cd /comf/development/COMF_user/ohms

 cvs co SJROFS 

 

- 6 -
 A new directory "SJROFS" will be created, which includes some subdirectories. 

 

step 2) Set correct environment variables by modifying the following file called 

“setenvironmentvariables_XX.sh” (Gross, et al., in preparation) in directory,oqcs. 

 And then run the following commands: 

 / se

 export MODELDIR=$COMFDIR/ohms/SJROFS

source comf/development/COMF_user/oqcs/ tenvironmentvariables_sjrofs.sh

 

step 3) Create empty archive directories 

 cd $MODELDIR 

 mkdir archive 

 mkdir $COMFDIR/ohms/SJROFS/archive/hotstart 

 mkdir $COMFDIR/ohms/SJROFS/archive/CORMSFLAGS 

 mkdir $COMFDIR/ohms/SJROFS/archive/modelinput 

 mkdir $COMFDIR/ohms/SJROFS/archive/netcdf 

step 4) Recompile fortran programs as needed: 

 cd $MODELDIR/sorc 

 COMPILE_SJROFS.sh 

step 5) Make sure all control files for IDL graphics are in $MODELDIR/info. There 

should not be problems if the user downloads SJROFS from CVS because all 

control files are stored there. 

 plot_field_sjrofs.ctl 

 plot_timeseries_cu_sjrofs.ctl 

 plot_timeseries_wl_sjrofs.ctl 

step 6) Run SJROFS 

 cd $MODELDIR/scripts 

 MAIN_SJROFS_COLDSTART.sh 

 

 MAIN_SJROFS_COLDSTART.sh will run a nowcast simulations for 30 days to your 

computer current system time (call “time_nowcastend”) from initial model setup 

conditions. This run will generate restart files for an operational nowcast run. After 

completing this warm-up run, operational nowcasts and forecasts can be conducted 

by turning on the crontab job, 

 crontab SJROFS.crn 

 

 Thereafter, SJROFS will run automatically, and will provide hourly 

nowcasts and 36-hour forecasts at 5, 11, 17 and 23 hours (UTC). 

2.5. System Interruption and Recovery Procedure 

In the event of a hardware failure or computer system crash, the disk system should be 

reconstructed to as recent a state as possible. Because the system requires a restart file for 

- 7 -
the nowcast run, there are two approaches to recover SJROFS. The first option is to make 

a cold start by performing step 6 described in Section 2.4. The second approach is to 

make a hot start model run. If the user wants to restart SJROFS from a specific past time 

(e.g., 03/10/2005 00:00), the two files called “200503100000_SJROFS_hotstartout” and 

“200503100000_SJROFS_hotstartout_wlmayp” in the directory of 

$ARCHIVE/hotstart/200503 have to be manually copied to $MODELDIR/init using the 

following commands: 

cp $ARCHIVE/hotstart/200503/200503100000_SJROFS_hotstartout $MODELDIR/init/hotstart.dat 

 cp $ARCHIVE/hotstart/200503/200503100000_SJROFS_hotstartout_wlmayp $MODELDIR/init/wlmaypold.dat 

SJROFS will then operate normally by switching on the crontab job. SJROFS will run 

nowcast simulations from that specific time to the present nowcast time, and restart files 

will be generated for the next cycle’s nowcast (or forecast) run. Since real-time river 

discharge and salinity data from the USGS web site can only be accessed over the 

previous 31 days, SJROFS cannot run nowcast simulations longer than 31 days before the 

current time using this approach. In this case, the cold start approach could be used to 

recover SJROFS. 

 

 

- 8 -
3. MODEL RUN SCENARIO DEFINITION 

In order to evaluate the performance of the SROFS model under a range of conditions, 

the NOS skill assessment criteria are applied to four model simulation scenarios. These 

include a simulation of just the tides, a hindcast simulation, the nowcast simulations and 

the forecast simulations. Each is discussed in more detail below. 

3.1. Astronomical Tides Only Simulation 

For the astronomical tides only simulation, water levels along the open ocean boundary 

are forced using the accepted CO-OPS constituents from Mayport modified with a 5% 

increase in tidal amplitudes and a phase shift of -10 minutes. There are no river discharge 

inflows and surface forcings. The salinity and temperature are held constant. 

3.2. Model Hindcast Simulation 

To facilitate the transition of the EFDC hindcast simulation developed by the SJRWMD 

into an operational nowcast/forecast model, we first transferred their input files and codes 

to CSDL. Their hindcast simulation was then reproduced to ensure that all appropriate 

files were transferred correctly to the CSDL computer environment. 

For the hindcast simulation, the ocean boundary of the grid is forced with a superposition 

of the observed subtidal water levels at Mayport (shown in Figure 1) and predicted tides. 

The former are determined by 30-hour low-pass filtering of observations, and the latter 

are based on tidal harmonics available at Mayport with a slight adjustment 

(approximately 5% increase in tidal amplitudes) for matching the model with 

observations. Salinity is also specified along the ocean boundary as a linear transition 

from 35 psu at the surface to 36 psu at the bottom. 

At the upstream boundary, the SJRWMD uses a sponge condition (as seen in Figure 1 by 

the rectangular region at the upstream end) to control reflection of the tides back into the 

model domain. The main flow of the St. Johns River was forced at the upstream 

boundary using data collected by the USGS gauge at Buffalo Bluff. Salinity is also 

specified at Buffalo Bluff using conductivity data collected by the USGS gauge. 

Freshwater discharge from 61 other tributaries was specified in the SJRWMD model. 

These values were estimated from a GIS-based hydrologic model that uses rainfall-runoff 

ratios that are dependent on land-use and soil types. 

Wind forcing was provided from a Jacksonville Naval Air Station wind sensor and was 

specified throughout the grid as spatially constant and temporally varying. A spatially 

constant rainfall was likewise applied throughout the domain using a composite of 8 

rainfall stations. River evaporation was determined based on daily pan evaporation data 

in Gainesville multiplied by a pan correction factor. 

- 9 -
3.3. Semi-Operational Nowcast/Forecast Simulation 

For the nowcasts, water levels along the open ocean boundary are determined using a 

slight correction factor of 1.05 applied to real-time water level data at the Mayport, 

Florida NOAA water level gauge. Salinity along the open ocean boundary is set equal to 

the hindcast values of 35 psu at the surface and 36 psu at the bottom. Wind data available 

from the NOAA Mayport station is applied to all the grid cells in the model. Finally, realtime river discharges along six of the main tributaries entering the St. Johns River are 

downloaded from the USGS as lateral inflows to the model. The nowcasts are run every 

hour. 

Thirty-six hour forecasts are made with the model four times a day. Along the open ocean 

boundary, water levels are specified as a superposition of the tide predictions from 

Mayport and the subtidal water level forecasts at Fernandina Beach, Florida. The latter 

are made available by the National Weather Service (NWS) as output from their 

Extratropical Storm Surge Model. River discharges are currently persisted from the latest 

observations from the same six USGS gauges used in the nowcasts. Forecasts of surface 

wind and air pressure from the North American Mesoscale (NAM) model are interpolated 

onto the EFDC model grid as surface forcing. 

- 10 -
4. SKILL ASSESSMENT STATISTICS AND DATA 

4.1 Skill Assessment Statistics 

Skill assessment is an objective measurement of the performance of a model when 

systematically compared with observations. NOS skill assessment criteria were created 

for evaluating the performance of circulation models (Hess et al., 2003), and a software 

package was subsequently developed to compute these criteria using standard file formats 

output from the models (Zhang et al., in preparation). The software can compute the skill 

assessment scores automatically using files containing observations, predictions, and 

nowcast/forecast model results. A standard suite of skill assessment statistics is defined in 

Table 1 (Hess et al., 2003). The target frequencies of the associated statistics are, 

 CF(X) ≥90%, POF(2X) ≤1%, NOF(2X) ≤1%, WOF(2X) ≤0.5% 

 MDPO(2X) ≤ L, MDNO(2X) ≤ L 

Table 1. Skill Assessment Statistics (from Hess et al., 2003) 

Variable Explanation 

Error The error is defined as the predicted value, p, minus the reference (observed or 

astronomical tide value, r : ei = pi - ri. 

SM Series Mean. The mean value of a series y. Calculated as y N yi

i

N

= =

∑1

1

. 

RMSE Root Mean Square Error. Calculated as RMSE e N i

i

N

= =

∑1 2

1

.

SD Standard Deviation. Calculated as SD e e N i

i

N

= − −

=

∑1

1

1

2 ( )

CF(X) Central Frequency. Fraction (percentage) of errors that lie within the limits +X. 

POF(X) Positive Outlier Frequency. Fraction (percentage) of errors that are greater than X. 

NOF(X) Negative Outlier Frequency. Fraction (percentage) of errors that are less than -X. 

MDPO(X) Maximum Duration of Positive Outliers. A positive outlier event is two or more 

consecutive occurrences of an error greater than X. MDPO is the length of time (based 

on the number of consecutive occurrences) of the longest event. 

MDNO(X) Maximum Duration of Negative Outliers. A negative outlier event is two or more 

consecutive occurrences of an error less than -X. MDNO is the length of time (based on 

the number of consecutive occurrences) of the longest event. 

WOF(X) Worst Case Outlier Frequency. Fraction (percentage) of errors that, given an error of 

magnitude exceeding X, either (1) the simulated value of water level is greater than the 

astronomical tide and the observed value is less than the astronomical tide, or (2) the 

simulated value of water level is less than the astronomical tide and the observed value 

is greater than the astronomical tide. 

- 11 -
There are three types of data sets (Table 2): Group 1, a time series of values at uniform 

time intervals; Group 2, a set of values representing the consecutive occurrences of an 

event (such as high water or slack water); and Group 3, a set of values representing a 

forecast valid at a given projection time. The acceptable error limits (X) and maximum 

duration limits (L) for the associated variable applied to the SJROFS are presented in 

Table 3. 

Table 2. Data series groups and the variables in each. Note that upper case letters 

indicate a prediction series (e.g., H), and lower case letters (e.g., h) indicate a reference 

series (observation or astronomical prediction). Slack water is defined as a current speed 

less than 1⁄2 knot. The direction is computed only for current speeds greater than 1⁄2 knot 

(from Hess et al., 2003). 

Group Variable Symbol 

Group 1 Water level H, h 

(Time Series) Current speed U, u 

 Current direction D,d 

 Salinity S, s 

 Water temperature T,t 

Group 2 Amplitude of high water AHW,ahw 

(Values at a Tidal Stage) Amplitude of low water ALW,ahw 

 Time of high water THW,thw 

 Time of low water TLW,tlw 

 Amplitude of maximum flood current AFC,afc 

 Amplitude of maximum ebb current AEC,aec 

 Time of maximum flood current TFC,tfc 

 Time of maximum ebb current TEC,tec 

 Direction of current at maximum flood DFC,dfc 

 Direction of current at maximum ebb DEC,dec 

 Time of start of current slack before flood TSF,tsf 

 Time of end of current slack before flood TEF, tef 

 Time of start of current slack before ebb TSE, tse 

 Time of end of current slack before ebb TEE, tee 

Group 3 Water level at forecast projection time of nn hrs Hnn, hnn 

(Values from a Forecast) Current speed at forecast projection time of nn hrs Unn, unn 

 Current direction at forecast projection time of nn hrs Dnn, dnn 

 Salinity at forecast projection time of nn hrs Snn, snn 

 Water temperature at forecast projection time of nn hrs Tnn, tnn 

Table 3. Acceptance error limits (X) and the maximum duration limits (L) 

variables X L (hours) 

H, Hnn, AHW,ALW 15 cm 24 

THW, TLW 0.5 hours 25 

U, Unn, AFC, AEC 0.26 m/s 24 

TFC, TEC 0.5 hours 25 

TSF, TEF, TSE, TEE 0.25 hours 25 

D, Dnn, 22.5 degrees 24 

DFC, DEC 22.5 degrees 25 

- 12 -
4.2 Data 

For SJROFS, skill assessment scores were computed at 8 locations for water levels 

(Table 4) and at 3 locations for currents (Table 5) where the observations are available in 

both 1998 and 2003 (see Figure 1 for the locations). For the skill assessment of the 

astronomical tide and hindcast simulations, water level observations during 1998 were 

obtained from the SJWMD. The ADCP current meter data were obtained from CO-OPS 

(Bourgerie, 1999). For the skill assessment of the nowcast and forecast simulations, the 

verified water level observations at the 8 stations were obtained from CO-OPS. The water 

current meter data for 2003 were obtained from a more recent CO-OPS survey that 

included the same three ADCP deployment locations. The accepted harmonic constants 

for tidal water levels at the 8 water level stations derived by CO-OPS were used to make 

water level tidal predictions and were also used in comparisons with the modeled 

harmonic constants obtained through harmonic analysis of water level time series from 

the astronomical tide simulation. Harmonic constants of the water currents were obtained 

by harmonically-analyzing the ADCP data time series and were used to make tidal 

current predictions. 

Table 4. Water level stations used in the skill assessment 

Station ID Name Latitude Longitude Period pf record 

8720218 Bar Pilots Dock 30.395 -81.465 01/02/ - 12/31/1998 

01/02 - 12/31/2003 

8720226 Main St. Bridge 30.320 -81.658 01/02/ - 12/31/1998 

06/13 - 12/31/2003 

8720242 Long Branch 30.360 -81.620 07/01/ - 12/31/1998 

01/02 - 03/28/2003 

8720357 Buckman 30.192 -81.692 06/25/ - 12/31/1998 

05/08 - 12/31/2003 

8720503 Red Bay Point 30.968 -81.618 01/02/ - 06/22/1998 

01/02 - 12/31/2003 

8720625 Racy Point 29.800 -81.536 08/10/ - 12/31/1998 

04/29 - 08/01/2003 

8720774 Palatka 29.635 -81.619 01/02/ - 06/12/1998 

08/17 - 12/31/2003 

8720767 Buffalo Bluff 29.585 -81.669 06/29/ - 12/31/1998 

09/04 - 12/31/2003 

Table 5. Current stations used in skill assessment 

Station ID Name Latitude Longitude Period pf record 

J2 Mayport Basin Entrance 30.397 -81.399 06/03 - 07/21/1998 

07/28 - 10/07/2003 

J5 Dames Point Bridge 30.385 -81.555 07/23 - 08/15/1998 

05/23 - 07/23/2003 

J6 Trout River 30.384 -81.628 07/22 - 09/16/1998 

05/23 - 07/23/2003 

- 13 -
- 14 -
5. RESULTS FOR WATER LEVEL SKILL ASSESSMENT 

 

Skill assessment statistics were calculated for each model scenario (astronomical tides 

only, hindcast, nowcast and forecast) and for a model-independent persisted forecast. The 

NOS skill assessment software was used to automatically generate skill assessment tables 

for each of the stations mentioned in Section 4.2. Tables of observed and modeled tidal 

harmonic constants were also generated using a least squares harmonic analysis 

algorithm in the skill assessment software. The results of the skill assessment for each 

scenario are presented below. 

Astronomical Tide Only 

The astronomical tidal simulation was made for the entire year of 1998, and water level 

time series were saved in six minute intervals at locations where observations were 

available. The model was forced with water level ocean boundary conditions derived 

from the tidal predictions at Mayport by forcing the amplitudes of four lower frequency 

constituents (MM, SSA, SA, and MSF) to be zero. At Mayport, the amplitudes of the four 

constituents are 2.5, 7.7, 11.5, and 3.9 cm, respectively. This is done because the four 

lower frequency constituents are zero for the CO-OPS accepted tidal constituents at 

Buckman Bridge, Main Street Bridge, Racy Point, and Red Bay Point, and because the 

limitation of only performing a one-year simulation. The harmonic constants derived 

from the simulated water level time series are compared with the CO-OPS accepted 

harmonic constants in Appendix A. 

Due to the close proximity of the Mayport station to the model ocean boundary, the 

simulated tidal constituents at this station are in close agreement with the observed 

values, with amplitude error being 1.3 cm and the phase error being 1.9 degrees (4 

minutes) for the M2 constituent. At the other seven stations, the M2 amplitude error 

ranges from 0.6 to 2.6 cm (maximum error of 2.6 cm at Buffalo Bluff), and the M2 phase 

error ranges from -1.9 to 12.7 degrees (-4 to 26 minutes; largest deviation of 26 minutes 

at Buffalo Bluff). It is noted that the simulated tides at Buffalo Bluff are affected by the 

sponge boundary condition directly upstream of Buffalo Bluff. The simulated amplitudes 

and phases for the other constituents match the observed values well, as shown in 

Appendix A. 

The standard suite of statistics was computed for comparing the simulated and predicted 

tidal water level time series and are presented in Appendix B (Scenario: Tidal Simulation 

Only). The RMS errors vary from 2.7 cm at Mayport to 6.9 cm at Buffalo Bluff. CF, 

NOF, POF, MDNO, MDPO, and WOF all pass the criteria for the entire time series, as 

do the amplitudes of high and low water. CF fails at some stations for the times of high 

and low water. 

- 15 -
Hindcast 

A detailed comparison of EFDC model results with observations in the Lower St. Johns 

River were presented in Sucsy et al (2001). Their (SJRWMD) EFDC hindcast simulation 

was transferred to CSDL and rerun for the entire year of 1998 using all the input files 

from SJWMD. The model simulated water level time series were compared with the 

observations from SJRWMD at the eight water level stations. The standard suite of 

statistics for this simulation are presented in Appendix B (Scenario: Hindcast). The 

results show that the RMS errors vary from 6.2 cm at Mayport to 10.7 cm at Buffalo 

Bluff. The CF, NOF, POF, MDNO, MDPO, and WOF all pass the criteria for the 6-

minute water level time series, as well as the amplitudes of high/low water at all of the 

stations except Buffalo Bluff, which is directly connected to and affected by the sponge 

boundary condition. 

Semi-Operational Nowcast/Forecast 

Semi-operational nowcasts and forecasts were made during the year of 2003, and the 

results from these simulations were concatenated into continuous time series for analysis 

using the skill assessment software. The vertical reference datum is a common issue for 

total water level comparisons of model simulations and observations. The model 

simulation has a single well defined mean sea level datum that is equal to zero (the sea 

surface with no slope). The mean sea level reported with the observations is a local value 

calculated from data which is generally not the same as the value of model mean sea level 

because of fresh water effects, meteorological forcing, and baroclinic effects. Mean 

values of the simulated and observed water levels were calculated based on one-year long 

nowcast time series and verified water level observations referenced to mean sea level 

from CO-OPS during 2003 at the eight water level stations (Table 6). The mean water 

level differences between the model and observations will produce more than 10 cm 

differences in water level skill assessment statistics within St. Johns River except at 

Mayport. Since the mean water level differences are almost constant for each station, 

these mean value difference corrections are applied to the corresponding model time 

series for the semi-operational nowcasts and forecasts before computing skill assessment 

statistics. 

Tables in Appendix B (SCENARIO: Semi-Operational Nowcast) show the skill 

assessment statistics for the semi-operational nowcast. The RMS errors at the eight water 

level stations range from 3.7 cm at Buckman Bridge to 14.6 cm at Buffalo Bluff. CF, 

NOF, POF, MDNO, MDPO, and WOF all pass the criteria for the 6-minute entire time 

series. The amplitudes of high/low water also pass the skill assessment criteria, except at 

Buffalo Bluff. 

 

For the semi-operational forecasts, the RMS errors out to 24 hours are less than 10 cm at 

all stations. CF, NOF, POF, MDNO, MDPO, and WOF all pass the criteria throughout 

the 24 forecasts hours. The amplitudes and times of high and low water also pass the 

criteria, with the exception of CF at Mayport and Buffalo Bluff (CF >80% at both 

stations). 

- 16 -
Forecast Method Comparison 

The semi-operational forecast model results are compared with both the astronomical tide 

predictions and persistence forecasts. A persistence forecast is constructed by adding an 

offset value, which is based on an observed offset at one station during some time period 

before the forecast is made (subtracting the tidal prediction from the observation 

produces the non-tidal component), to the tidal prediction for the duration of the 24 hour 

forecast. A persistence forecast can be easily made without running a numerical model if 

a real-time observation and tide tables are available at a specific station. Within the St. 

Johns River, 24-hour persistence forecasts are made using the following procedure: (1) 

For each forecast cycle, an offset between the observation and the tidal prediction at 

forecast time=0 is calculated. (2) This offset value is then considered to be constant and is 

superimposed with the tidal predictions to generate 24 hour persistence forecasts of the 

cycle. Therefore, a persisted forecast is defined as the tidal prediction plus an offset, 

where the offset is equal to observation minus tide prediction at forecast time=0. 

A suite of statistics for persistence forecasts is presented in Appendix B (Scenario: 

Persistence forecast). The persistence forecasts passed the skill assessment criteria and 

were generally better than the model forecasts at all of the eight water level stations. The 

reasons might be that: (1) there were rarely storm surge events in 2003; (2) astronomical 

tides predominate the water level variations in the Lower St. John River; (3) the errors in 

total water level forecasts were partly caused by the errors in the astronomical tidal 

simulation. It is expected that better forecasts should be obtained by the model forecasts 

during storm surge events. 

The semi-operational forecasts were also compared with astronomical tidal predictions. 

The results show that the astronomical tidal prediction failed to pass the skill assessment 

criteria because of the inability to produce non-tidal water level variations via this 

method. 

Table 6. Means of the simulated and observed water level (in centimeters) 

Station ID Name Observed Mean Modeled Mean Difference 

8720218 Bar Pilots Duck -0.7 0.0 0.7 

8720226 Main St. Bridge -0.09 11.0 11.09 

8720242 Long Branch 0.14 11.1 10.9 

8720357 Buckman -3.4 17.9 21.3 

8720503 Red Bay Point -3.0 18.6 21.6 

8720625 Racy Point -3.3 19.3 22.6 

8720774 Palatka -3.4 20.7 24.1 

8720767 Buffalo Bluff 3.1 25.6 22.5 

- 17 -
- 18 -
6. SKILL ASSESSMENT OF WATER CURRENTS 

Skill assessment for the currents were made at three locations where ACDP surveys were 

conducted by CO-OPS in 1998 and 2003. The observations of water currents at a depth 

of about 4 m below the Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) were compared with the 

model results at the second vertical sigma layer from the surface (about 3.3 m at J2, 3 m 

at J5, and 3.3 m at J6). The current observations were filtered using a 3-hour low-pass 

Fourier filter to eliminate high frequency variance in the ADCP measurements before 

being compared with model results. Figure 2 shows sample current speed time series 

comparisons of observations, tidal predictions, modeled tide-only simulations, and 

hindcast simulations in 1998 for the three ADCP locations. Figure 3 presents a portion of 

the current speed time series of the observations, tidal predictions, and model semioperational nowcast and forecast simulations in 2003. Figures 2 and 3 demonstrate that 

the tidal current predictions match the observations very well at these stations. The 

astronomical tidal constituents account for about 95% of the total variance, with the M2

constituent comprising more than 90% of the total variance alone, at the J2, J5, and J6 

stations. The observed velocity scatter diagram is presented in Figure 4. It shows that the 

currents at J2 in 1998 are different from those in 2003. For example, maximum flood 

currents are not well defined during the 2003 survey. These differences are attributed to 

the ADCP location in 2003 being located 105 m eastward of the location in 1998 (out of 

the mouth of St. Johns River entrance). The flood directions for the 1998 data at all three 

stations are also different from those in 2003. These changes might be caused by 

bathymetric and hydrodynamic changes around the stations. In addition, the ADCP 

measurements may not have been long enough (the time lengths of ADCP data are 48, 

22, and 52 days at J2, J5, and J6, respectively), thus the observed harmonic constants 

obtained directly from the observations and skill assessment results generated based on 

the ADCP measurements may exhibit bias, and cannot completely represent the accuracy 

of the model simulation. 

Tidal Simulation Only 

The observed harmonic constants of the currents derived from the ADCP time series 

were compared with the modeled harmonic constants derived from one-year of tide-only 

simulations (see Tables C.1-C.3 in Appendix C). The principle current directions of the 

modeled and observed currents are very close, with differences between the modeled and 

observed values of 14, 2, and 2 degrees at J2, J5, and J6, respectively. For the dominant 

M2 constituent, the modeled amplitudes are smaller than the observed values at all three 

stations with differences of -12.5, -19.8, and -8.9 cm/s at J2, J5, and J6, respectively. The 

phase differences between the modeled and observed currents are -0.3, -1.5, and -7.8 

degrees at J2, J5, and J6, respectively. For the second largest constituent, N2, amplitude 

differences are 2.5, -3.4, and -1.6 cm/s at J2, J5, and J6, respectively, and phase 

differences between the model and observed values are -0.2 (J2), -4.3 (J5), and -3.4 

degrees (J6). 

The tide-only model simulation was compared with the tidal current prediction using the 

observed harmonic constants. The skill assessment score tables listed in Appendix D 

- 19 -
Figure 2. Observed (filtered), tidal predicted, model tide-only simulated, and hindcast 

simulated current speed time series in 1998 at the J2, J5, and J6 stations. 

 

07/31/1998 08/01/1998 08/02/1998

0.0

0.5

1.0

07/31/1998 08/01/1998 08/02/1998

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

06/21/1998 06/22/1998 06/23/1998

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

observation

tidal prediction

model tidal simulation

model hindcast

J2-Mayport Basin Entrance

J5-Dames Point Bridge

J6-Trout River

Current Speed (m/s)

- 20 -
Figure 3. Observed (filtered), tidal predicted, model nowcast, and model forecast current 

speed time series in 2003 at the J2, J5, and J6 stations. 

07/09/2003 07/10/2003 07/11/2003

0.0

0.5

1.0

07/09/2003 07/10/2003 07/11/2003

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

07/29/2003 07/30/2003 07/31/2003

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5 observation

tidal prediction

model nowcast

model forecast

J2 (Mayport Basin Entrance)

J5 (Dames Point Bridge)

J6 (Trout River)

Current Speed (m/s)

- 21 -
Figure 4. Velocity scatter diagrams for J2, J5, and J6 in 1998 (left panel) and 2003 (right 

panel). 

show the results from these comparisons. At J2 (Mayport basin entrance), the modeled 

and observed mean velocity values are 36.7 cm/s and 44.6 cm/s, and the RMS error 

between the simulated and observed current speeds is 11.7 cm/s. The CF, NOF, POF, 

MDNO, and MDPO statistics all pass the criteria for the entire 6-minute current speed 

time series, and the amplitudes of maximum flood and ebb currents. CF, NOF, POF, 

MDNO, MDPO all pass the criteria, but CF fails for the times of maximum flood and ebb 

currents (74.2 for TFC and 72.3 for TEC), and the start and end times of slack currents 

before flood (77.0 for TSF and 79.3 for TEF). 

At J5 (Dames Point Bridge), Figure 2 shows that the tide-only simulated currents are 

smaller than the tidal current predictions during the maximum flood and ebb currents (the 

modeled and observed mean current speeds are 46.3 cm/s and 59.1 cm/s respectively). 

The RMS error of the current speeds at J5 is 18 cm/s. CF fails to pass the criteria for the 

- 22 -
6-minute time series of current speeds, and the amplitudes of maximum flood and ebb 

currents. CF fails the criteria for the time of maximum flood currents, and the start time 

of slack currents before flood. NOF, POF, MDNO, and MDPO all pass the criteria for 

each of the tests. 

At J6 (Trout River Cut), Figure 2 shows that the amplitudes of the maximum flood and 

ebb currents are close. The simulated and observed mean current speeds are 39 and 44 

cm/s, and the RMS error between them is 10 cm/s. NOF, CF, and MDNO fail the criteria 

for the time of the maximum flood currents (TFC) and the start time of current slack 

before ebb (TSE). CF, NOF, POF, MDNO, and MDPO all pass the criteria for all the 

other tests. 

CF, NOF, POF, MDNO, and MDPO (Scenario: Tidal simulation only in Tables E.1-E.3) 

all pass the criteria at the three stations for the current direction. The RMS errors of the 

current directions are 13.6, 6.3, and 6.9 degrees, and the differences of mean current 

directions are 12, 4, and 3 degrees at J2, J5, and J6, respectively. 

Hindcast Simulation 

 

The observed ADCP time series were compared with the hindcast simulations for 1998 at 

the three locations. Time series in Figure 2 shows that the simulated and observed 

amplitudes of maximum flood and ebb currents are very close at J2 and J5 stations, and 

the simulated amplitudes of maximum ebb currents are larger than the observed values at 

J6 station. The skill assessment score tables (Scenario: Hindcast in Tables D.1-D.3) 

show that the mean speed differences are 1.6 cm/s, -0.8 cm/s, and 5.3 cm/s, and the RMS 

errors of current speeds are 17.6 cm/s, 12.8 cm/s, and 14.2 cm/s at J2, J5, and J6, 

respectively. For the current speeds, CF, NOF, POF, MDNO, and MDPO all passed the 

criteria for the amplitudes of maximum flood and ebb currents at J5 and J6 stations, but 

CF fails at J2 station (a value greater than 84%). CF fails to pass the criteria for the time 

of the maximum flood and ebb currents at all three stations. CF also fails to pass the 

criteria for the time of current slack at J2 station. 

CF, NOF, POF, MDNO, and MDPO all pass the criteria (Scenario: Hindcast in Tables 

E.1-E.3) for current direction at the three stations. The RMS errors for the direction of the 

currents are 15, 10.8, and 13.8 degrees, and the differences of mean current directions are 

13, 8, and 9 degrees at J2, J5, and J6, respectively. 

Semi-Operational Nowcast 

The simulated speeds and directions of the currents from the semi-operational nowcasts 

were compared with the ADCP measurements taken by CO-OPS in 2003 at the three 

locations. Figure 3 shows that the maximum flood currents are not well defined in the 

ADCP observations at J2, but they exist in the model nowcast time series with small 

values (less than 0.4 cm/s). This might be caused by the coarse model grid resolution not 

being able to resolve such local bathymetric and hydrodynamic features. Skill assessment 

- 23 -
results for this scenario are listed in Tables D.1 – D.3 for current speeds and Tables E.1-

E.3 for current directions (Scenario: Semi-Operational Nowcast). 

For J2, the mean velocity of 47.6 cm/s for the model nowcast is greater than the observed 

value of 32.8 cm/s. The RMS error for the entire 6-minute time series of current speeds 

is 30.6 cm/s. CF and POF fail to pass the skill assessment criteria, but MDNO and 

MDPO pass the criteria for all tests. The maximum ebb current speeds of the nowcast are 

much greater than the observed values with the RMS error being 42.7 cm/s. The time of 

the maximum ebb currents and slack currents in the nowcasts falls about 50 minutes 

behind those of the observations (the RMS error is 0.82 hours). For the directions of the 

currents, the mean directions of the nowcasted and observed currents are 134.8 and 105 

degrees, respectively (the RMS error is 46 degrees). CF, NOF, POF, MDPO, and MDPO 

fail to pass the criteria for the entire 6-minutes time series of the current directions. CF, 

NOF, POF, MDPO, and MDPO pass the criteria for the directions of the maximum ebb 

currents. 

For J5, the mean velocities of the model nowcasts and observations are 58.1 and 49.8 

cm/s, and the RMS error is 24.9 cm/s. A CF value of 67.7% fails to pass the criteria for 

the entire 6-minute time series of currents. The maximum flood current speeds of the 

nowcasts are greater than the observed values with an RMS error of 22.9 cm/s, and the 

maximum ebb current speeds of the nowcasts are close to the observed values with an 

RMS error of 9.7 cm/s. The time of the maximum ebb currents and slack currents 

precedes the observations by about 50 minutes (RMS errors are about 0.8 hours), and the 

time of the maximum flood currents almost coincides with that of the observations with 

an RMS error of 0.49 hours. CF, NOF, POF, MDPO, and MDPO pass the criteria for the 

maximum ebb current speeds, but fail to pass the criteria for the other tests. For current 

direction, the mean directions are 162 and 150 degrees for the model nowcasted and 

observed currents, respectively. CF, NOF, POF, MDPO, and MDPO pass the criteria for 

all tests. 

For J6, the mean velocities of the model nowcasts and observations are 52.5 and 39.1 

cm/s, and the RMS error is 25.8 cm/s. CF fails to pass the criteria with a value of 61%, 

and NOF, POF, MDNO, and MDPO pass the criteria for the entire 6-minute time series 

of current speeds. CF, NOF, POF, MDPO, and MDPO pass the criteria for the maximum 

flood current speeds with an RMS error of 8 cm/s. CF fails to pass the criteria, but NOF, 

POF, MDNO, and MDPO do pass the criteria for the maximum ebb current speeds with 

an RMS error of 34 cm/s. The RMS error of the time of the maximum flood currents is 

about 0.9 hours, and the RMS error of the time of the maximum ebb currents is 0.64 

hours. The RMS errors range from 0.47 to 1.23 hours, and CF fails to pass the criteria for 

the time of slack currents. For current direction, mean current directions are 90 and 120 

degrees for the model nowcasts and observations, respectively; CF fails to pass the 

criteria for the entire 6-minute time series of current directions and the directions of the 

maximum flood current speed, CF does pass the criteria for the directions of the 

maximum ebb current speed. NOF, POF, MDPO, and MDPO pass the criteria for all 

tests. 

- 24 -
Semi-Operational Forecast 

Figure 3 shows that the semi-operational forecasts of current speed are similar to those of 

the model nowcasts at all of the three stations. Skill assessment results are listed in Tables 

D.1 – D.3 for current speeds and Tables E.1-E.3 for current directions (Scenario: SemiOperational Forecast). 

For J2, the RMS errors of the current speed range from 29.6 cm/s at forecast hour 0 to 32 

cm/s at forecast hour 24. CF ranges from 69% to 71.4% throughout the 24 forecast hours, 

but it does not significantly degrade with time. POF is greater than 10% for all forecast 

hours. NOF, MDNO, and MNPO pass the criteria for all forecast hours. The maximum 

ebb current speeds of the model forecasts are greater than the observations with an RMS 

error of 44.4 cm/s. The time of the modeled maximum ebb currents occur about 0.83 

hours before the observations. CF and POF fail to pass the criteria for all the tests. For 

current direction, RMS errors range from 27 to 29 degrees, and CF ranges from 54% to 

58% throughout the 24 forecast hours. Most of the NOF, CF, and POF fail to pass the 

criteria. 

 For J5, RMS errors of current speed range from 21.8 cm/s at forecast hour 6 to 25.4 cm/s 

at forecast hour 0, and CF ranges from 68% (forecast hour 0) to 75.9% (forecast hour 6) 

throughout the 24 forecast hours, and does not significantly degrade over time. NOF, 

MDNO, and MDPO pass the criteria for the current speed forecasts throughout the 24 

forecast hours. The RMS error of the maximum flood current speeds is 24.4 cm/s and the 

RMS error of the maximum ebb current speeds is 10.8 cm/s. The CF of the maximum 

flood current speeds fails to pass the criteria with a value of 63.6%. The CF of the 

maximum ebb current speeds passes the criteria with a value of 97.3%. NOF, POF, 

MDNO, and MDPO pass the criteria for both the maximum flood and ebb current speeds. 

The RMS errors of the time of the maximum flood and ebb current speeds are 0.5 hours 

and 0.69 hours, respectively, and the CF of them fails to pass the criteria (71% and 

45.5%). Most of CF, NOF, POF, MDNO, and MDPO fail to pass the criteria for the start 

and end time of slack currents before flood and ebb. For current direction, the RMS 

errors range from 9.4 degrees (forecast hour 6) to 14.2 degrees (forecast hour 0), CF 

ranges from 30.3% (hour 0) to 32.4% (hour 6), and POF ranges from 63.1% (hour 0) to 

64.3 (hour 6) throughout the 24 forecast hours. CF, NOF, POF, MDNO, and MDPO pass 

the criteria for the directions of the maximum flood and ebb currents. 

For J6, RMS errors of the current speed range from 26 cm/s at forecast hour 0 to 23.2 

cm/s at forecast hour 6, and CF ranges from 62% (forecast hour 0) to 65% (forecast hour 

6) throughout the 24 forecast hours without significantly degrading over time. NOF, 

POF, MDNO, and MDPO pass the criteria for the current speed forecasts throughout the 

24 forecast hours. CF, NOF, POF, MDNO, and MDPO pass the criteria for the maximum 

flood current speeds with an RMS error of 7.6 cm/s and CF value of 99%. NOF, POF, 

MDNO, and MDPO pass the criteria and CF fails for the maximum ebb current speeds 

with a RMS error of 32.8 cm/s and CF value of 5.2%. CF fails to pass the criteria for time 

of the maximum flood and ebb current speeds, and start and end time of the slack 

currents. For the current direction, the RMS errors range from 15 degrees to 16 degrees, 

- 25 -
CF ranges from 35.4% to 35.8%, and POF ranges from 57.9% to 58.3% throughout the 

24 forecast hours. CF, NOF, POF, MDNO, and MDPO pass the criteria for direction of 

the maximum ebb currents. NOF, POF, MDNO, and MDPO pass the criteria, but CF fails 

for the direction of the maximum flood currents. 

Forecast Method Comparison 

Currents from the persistence forecasts and tidal predictions were compared with the 

observations, and the results are presented in Appendix D for current speeds and in 

Appendix E for current directions. The results show that, for persistence forecasts, CF, 

NOF, POF, MDNO, and MDPO pass the criteria for current speeds throughout the 24 

forecast hours at all the three stations. They also pass the criteria for the maximum flood 

and ebb current speeds at each of the three stations. CF, NOF, POF, MDNO, and MDPO 

fail to pass the criteria for current direction forecasts throughout the 24 forecast hours at 

all three stations. The persistence forecast performs better than the semi-operational 

current speed forecasts in estimating current speeds. However, the semi-operational 

forecasts provide better results than the persistence forecasts for the current direction. For 

the tidal current predictions, CF, NOF, POF, MDNO, and MDPO pass the criteria for 

both the current speeds and directions at the three stations. The reasons might include: (1) 

the astronomical tidal constituents account for more than 95% of the total variance at J2, 

J5, and J6. Therefore, both the tidal current prediction and the persistence forecast which 

is based on tidal current prediction can capture most of the signal in the current 

observations; (2) there were rarely storm events in the St. Johns River during the ADCP 

survey time period of 2003. 

- 26 -
7. CONCLUSIONS 

As part of the Coastal Storms Program (CSP), NOS has implemented an application of 

the EFDC circulation model in the St. Johns River to perform operational hourly 

nowcasts and 36-hour forecasts. The application was integrated into the Coastal Ocean 

Modeling Framework (COMF) that NOS has implemented for operational coastal and 

estuarine systems. The model results were compared with the observations at eight water 

level stations and 3 water current stations using the NOS standard skill assessment 

software. The skill assessment for this application focused on the performance of the 

model in simulating water levels and currents in four model run scenarios. These include 

an astronomical tide simulation, a model hindcast, a semi-operational nowcast, and a 

semi-operational forecast. 

The skill assessment results indicate that most statistical parameters of water levels pass 

the NOS skill assessment criteria for the four model run scenarios at the eight stations, 

and amplitudes and epochs of the dominant M2 constituent from the model tide-only 

simulation are very close to the observed values at all stations. 

Most of CF, NOF, POF, MDNO, and MDPO either pass or are close to the criteria for all 

tests at the three current stations for tide-only simulation and model hindcast simulations. 

However, most of CF, NOF, POF, MDNO, and MDPO fail to pass the criteria for the 

semi-operational nowcast and forecast simulations at the three current stations. The semioperational current nowcasts are less satisfactory than those from the hindcast simulation. 

This might be attributed to a couple of different reasons. First, river discharge inflows 

were specified at 61 locations throughout the entire St. Johns River, and there were more 

than 10 locations from Mayport to Jacksonville where ADCP measurements were 

conducted in 1998 and 2003. River discharges are specified at only 6 locations for the 

semi-operational nowcast and forecast, all of which are upstream of Jacksonville and the 

locations of the NOS ADCP survey. As river discharges have an important impact on the 

currents, this may explain why the hindcast currents performed better than the 

nowcast/foreast results. Another factor for the discrepancy may be that the same 

bathymetric data were used in both the hindcast simulation of 1998 and the semioperational nowcast and forecast of 2003. However, between 1998 and 2003 bathymetric 

and hydrodynamic changes may have occurred near the stations which could potentially 

affect the current pattern. Therefore, specifying more river discharge inputs and updating 

the bathymetric and hydrodynamic changes might improve the current nowcasts and 

forecasts. The tidal current prediction and persistence current forecast, which is based on 

the tidal current prediction, are better than the model current forecast since tidal current 

dominate the signal in lower St. Johns River. 

Based on the skill assessment results for the model hindcast and the semi-operational 

nowcast/forecast described above, the following issues should be useful to further 

improve water current forecasts of the SJROFS: (1) sensitivity tests about impacts of 

river discharges on current and salinity simulations. Climatological river discharge data 

may be used for the locations where real time river discharge data is not available for the 

- 27 -
semi-operational nowcast/forecast simulation. (2)Real time salinity and temperature data 

are needed to evaluate the salinity and water temperature from the semi-operational run. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

We thank the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) for providing the 

calibrated EFDC model to CSDL for implementation in a real-time nowcast/forecast 

system. We are grateful to Dr. John Hamrick, of Tetra Tech, Inc., for providing guidance 

in implementing SJROFS. We are also grateful to CO-OPS for providing ADCP 

measurements for comparison. 

 

- 28 -
REFERENCES 

Blumberg, A. F., and G. L. Mellor, 1987. A description of a three-dimensional coastal 

ocean circulation model. In: Three-Dimensional Coastal Ocean Models, Coastal and 

Estuarine Science, Vol. 4. (Heaps, N. S., ed.) American Geophysical Union, pp. 1-19.

Bourgerie, R., 1999. Currents in the St. Johns River, Florida Spring and Summer of 1998. 

NOAA Technical Report, NOS CO-OPS 025. 

Galperin, B., L. H. Kantha, S. Hassid, and A. Rosati, 1988. A quasi-equilibrium turbulent 

energy model for geophysical flows. J. Atmos. Sci., 45, 55-62.

Gross, T. F., H. Lin, M. Vercent, and Z. Bronder, 2006. Coastal Ocean Modeling 

Framework:COMF. NOAA Technical Report, in prepareation. 

Hamrick, J.M., 1992a, A three-dimensional environmental fluid dynamics compute code: 

Theoretical and computational aspects. Special Rept. 317. The College of William and 

Mary, Virginia Inst. of Marine Sciences, Virginia. 

Hamrick, J.M., 1992b, Estuarine environmental impact assessment using a threedimensional circulation and transport model. In Estuarine and Coastal Modeling, 

Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference, ASCE, New York. 

Hess, K.W., Gross, T.F., Schmalz, R.A., Kelley, J.G.W., Aikman III, F., Wei, E., 

Vincent, M.S. (2003). “NOS Standards for Evaluating Operational Nowcast and Forecast 

Hydrodynamic Model Systems.” NOAA Technical Report, NOS CS 17. 

Mellor, G. L., and T. Yamada, 1982. Development of a turbulence closure model for 

geophysical fluid problems. Rev. Geophys. Space Phys., 20, 851-875.

Sucsy, P.V. and F.W. Morris, 2001, Calibration of a Three-dimensional Circulation and 

Mixing Model of the Lower St. Johns River, St. Johns River Water Management District, 

Palatka, Florida. 

Tetra Tech, Inc., 2002. User’s Manual for Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC). 

A report for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

 

Zhang, A., Hess, K.W., Wei, E. and Myers, E.P. (2005). “Implementation of Model Skill 

Assessment Software for Water Level and Currents.” NOAA Technical Report, in 

preparation. 

- 29 -
- 30 -
APPENDICES: 

In the Appendice tables, water level units are in meters, water current units are in 

meters/second, phase (epoch) units are in degrees referenced to UTC (GMT), time is in 

hours. 

APPENDIX A. Comparison of Water Level Harmonic Constants 

Table A.1. Mayport: Bar Pilots 

 

Observation:CO-OPS Accepted Harmonic Constants 

Model: Least Squares H.A. Beginning 1- 2-1998 at Hour 0.00 

Phases are degrees, referenced to UTC(GMT) 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Observed Modeled Difference 

 N Constituent Amplitude Epoch Amplitude Epoch Amplitude Epoch 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 1 M(2) 0.676 25.3 0.663 23.4 -0.013 -1.9 

 2 S(2) 0.105 48.3 0.100 48.0 -0.005 -0.3 

 3 N(2) 0.157 7.3 0.151 5.9 -0.006 -1.4 

 4 K(1) 0.084 202.5 0.078 199.7 -0.006 -2.8 

 5 M(4) 0.033 159.4 0.040 160.8 0.007 1.4 

 6 O(1) 0.058 210.9 0.052 216.8 -0.006 5.9 

 7 M(6) 0.009 196.0 0.010 199.2 0.001 3.2 

 8 MK(3) 0.008 20.4 0.010 7.6 0.002 -12.8 

 9 S(4) 0.005 290.7 0.004 285.9 -0.001 -4.8 

 10 MN(4) 0.013 156.0 0.017 152.7 0.004 -3.3 

 11 NU(2) 0.032 2.7 0.031 1.1 -0.001 -1.6 

 12 S(6) 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 

 13 MU(2) 0.012 31.2 0.010 41.8 -0.002 10.6 

 14 2N(2) 0.019 354.6 0.018 353.8 -0.001 -0.8 

 15 OO(1) 0.004 212.6 0.003 198.7 -0.001 -13.9 

 16 LAMDA(2) 0.009 47.8 0.010 41.1 0.001 -6.7 

 17 S(1) 0.011 158.3 0.011 158.4 0.000 0.1 

 18 M(1) 0.003 221.2 0.003 207.1 0.000 -14.1 

 19 J(1) 0.005 210.2 0.004 208.0 -0.001 -2.2 

 20 MM 0.000 230.4 0.002 207.3 0.000 0.0 

 21 SSA 0.000 55.4 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 

 22 SA 0.000 190.2 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 

 23 MSF 0.000 202.7 0.002 189.7 0.000 0.0 

 24 MF 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 

 25 RHO(1) 0.002 214.5 0.002 216.4 0.000 1.9 

 26 Q(1) 0.011 209.5 0.010 217.0 -0.001 7.5 

 27 T(2) 0.010 22.1 0.009 21.8 -0.001 -0.3 

 28 R(2) 0.005 291.8 0.005 291.2 0.000 -0.6 

 29 2Q(1) 0.002 219.2 0.002 226.7 0.000 7.5 

 30 P(1) 0.029 202.2 0.028 202.2 -0.001 0.0 

 31 2SM(2) 0.003 60.1 0.003 66.4 0.000 6.3 

 32 M(3) 0.006 186.4 0.005 177.2 -0.001 -9.2 

 33 L(2) 0.041 31.4 0.045 16.9 0.004 -14.5 

 34 2MK3(3) 0.008 44.0 0.010 34.3 0.002 -9.7 

 35 K(2) 0.028 48.2 0.026 41.6 -0.002 -6.6 

 36 M(8) 0.003 4.2 0.004 7.9 0.001 3.7 

 37 MS(4) 0.013 175.8 0.015 177.8 0.002 2.0 

- 31 -
Table A.2. Main Street Bridge 

 

Observation:CO-OPS Accepted Harmonic Constants 

Model: Least Squares H.A. Beginning 1- 2-1998 at Hour 0.00 

Phases are in degrees, referenced to UTC (GMT) 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Observed Modeled Difference 

 N Constituent Amplitude Epoch Amplitude Epoch Amplitude Epoch 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 1 M(2) 0.279 74.9 0.257 64.9 -0.022 -10.0 

 2 S(2) 0.036 103.8 0.034 95.4 -0.002 -8.4 

 3 N(2) 0.057 62.6 0.053 50.2 -0.004 -12.4 

 4 K(1) 0.029 246.3 0.025 238.4 -0.004 -7.9 

 5 M(4) 0.020 353.2 0.016 324.0 -0.004 -29.2 

 6 O(1) 0.021 256.7 0.017 258.1 -0.004 1.4 

 7 M(6) 0.014 12.6 0.020 346.7 0.006 25.9 

 8 MK(3) 0.010 124.0 0.007 92.3 -0.003 -31.7 

 9 S(4) 0.000 0.0 0.002 38.0 0.000 0.0 

 10 MN(4) 0.009 341.9 0.007 319.3 -0.002 -22.6 

 11 NU(2) 0.011 56.4 0.012 42.7 0.001 -13.7 

 12 S(6) 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 

 13 MU(2) 0.006 168.7 0.005 155.3 -0.001 -13.4 

 14 2N(2) 0.004 60.9 0.005 39.9 0.001 -21.0 

 15 OO(1) 0.001 235.7 0.001 235.5 0.000 -0.2 

 16 LAMDA(2) 0.008 94.4 0.006 72.2 -0.002 -22.2 

 17 S(1) 0.008 219.6 0.003 196.8 -0.005 -22.8 

 18 M(1) 0.002 251.4 0.001 281.2 -0.001 29.8 

 19 J(1) 0.002 241.0 0.001 242.9 -0.001 1.9 

 20 MM 0.000 0.0 0.010 23.0 0.000 0.0 

 21 SSA 0.000 0.0 0.001 39.6 0.000 0.0 

 22 SA 0.000 0.0 0.000 318.6 0.000 0.0 

 23 MSF 0.000 0.0 0.008 46.5 0.000 0.0 

 24 MF 0.000 0.0 0.004 45.9 0.000 0.0 

 25 RHO(1) 0.001 261.2 0.001 270.2 0.000 9.0 

 26 Q(1) 0.004 261.0 0.003 260.8 -0.001 -0.2 

 27 T(2) 0.005 64.8 0.003 68.6 -0.002 3.8 

 28 R(2) 0.000 105.1 0.002 334.9 0.000 0.0 

 29 2Q(1) 0.001 267.1 0.000 264.3 -0.001 -2.8 

 30 P(1) 0.010 239.4 0.009 239.6 -0.001 0.2 

 31 2SM(2) 0.000 0.0 0.000 143.5 0.000 0.0 

 32 M(3) 0.000 0.0 0.003 227.4 0.000 0.0 

 33 L(2) 0.030 71.5 0.025 58.7 -0.005 -12.8 

 34 2MK3(3) 0.010 124.7 0.008 99.0 -0.002 -25.7 

 35 K(2) 0.010 106.9 0.009 87.5 -0.001 -19.4 

 36 M(8) 0.000 0.0 0.002 249.3 0.000 0.0 

 37 MS(4) 0.004 6.4 0.003 340.2 -0.001 26.2 

- 32 -
Table A.3. Long Branch 

 

Observation:CO-OPS Accepted Harmonic Constants 

Model: Least Squares H.A. Beginning 1- 2-1998 at Hour 0.00 

Phases are in degrees, referenced to UTC (GMT) 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Observed Modeled Difference 

 N Constituent Amplitude Epoch Amplitude Epoch Amplitude Epoch 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 1 M(2) 0.379 64.3 0.363 54.6 -0.016 -9.7 

 2 S(2) 0.053 95.2 0.050 84.9 -0.003 -10.3 

 3 N(2) 0.078 49.7 0.077 39.7 -0.001 -10.0 

 4 K(1) 0.042 230.4 0.038 222.6 -0.004 -7.8 

 5 M(4) 0.015 41.9 0.006 45.8 -0.009 3.9 

 6 O(1) 0.030 240.2 0.027 237.3 -0.003 -2.9 

 7 M(6) 0.021 334.3 0.028 312.4 0.007 -21.9 

 8 MK(3) 0.008 110.7 0.004 69.1 -0.004 -41.6 

 9 S(4) 0.003 33.8 0.002 25.3 -0.001 -8.5 

 10 MN(4) 0.008 10.5 0.005 19.5 -0.003 9.0 

 11 NU(2) 0.016 40.7 0.017 31.7 0.001 -9.0 

 12 S(6) 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 

 13 MU(2) 0.008 155.2 0.007 132.0 -0.001 -23.2 

 14 2N(2) 0.008 63.2 0.007 29.8 -0.001 -33.4 

 15 OO(1) 0.003 264.8 0.001 220.3 -0.002 -44.5 

 16 LAMDA(2) 0.012 78.0 0.008 61.4 -0.004 -16.6 

 17 S(1) 0.006 198.6 0.005 183.8 -0.001 -14.8 

 18 M(1) 0.002 252.3 0.001 238.8 -0.001 -13.5 

 19 J(1) 0.002 244.3 0.001 229.0 -0.001 -15.3 

 20 MM 0.000 344.9 0.013 23.0 0.000 0.0 

 21 SSA 0.000 27.9 0.001 39.0 0.000 0.0 

 22 SA 0.000 159.5 0.000 319.2 0.000 0.0 

 23 MSF 0.000 321.0 0.011 36.4 0.000 0.0 

 24 MF 0.000 308.0 0.005 41.5 0.000 0.0 

 25 RHO(1) 0.001 235.9 0.001 252.4 0.000 16.5 

 26 Q(1) 0.005 231.4 0.005 235.3 0.000 3.9 

 27 T(2) 0.008 51.8 0.005 57.3 -0.003 5.5 

 28 R(2) 0.001 243.9 0.002 325.5 0.001 81.6 

 29 2Q(1) 0.001 13.1 0.001 247.0 0.000 126.1 

 30 P(1) 0.014 227.6 0.013 226.7 -0.001 -0.9 

 31 2SM(2) 0.001 54.6 0.001 116.5 0.000 61.9 

 32 M(3) 0.001 288.3 0.004 226.8 0.003 -61.5 

 33 L(2) 0.050 67.6 0.034 46.1 -0.016 -21.5 

 34 2MK3(3) 0.008 109.6 0.007 76.1 -0.001 -33.5 

 35 K(2) 0.015 96.9 0.013 76.2 -0.002 -20.7 

 36 M(8) 0.003 42.6 0.001 328.3 -0.002 74.3 

 37 MS(4) 0.002 74.6 0.002 143.8 0.000 69.2 

- 33 -
Table A.4. Buckman Bridge 

Observation:CO-OPS Accepted Harmonic Constants 

Model: Least Squares H.A. Beginning 1- 2-1998 at Hour 0.00 

Phases are in degrees, referenced to UTC (GMT) 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Observed Modeled Difference 

 N Constituent Amplitude Epoch Amplitude Epoch Amplitude Epoch 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 1 M(2) 0.140 109.4 0.131 104.7 -0.009 -4.7 

 2 S(2) 0.017 137.4 0.016 135.6 -0.001 -1.8 

 3 N(2) 0.027 98.7 0.026 90.4 -0.001 -8.3 

 4 K(1) 0.021 280.1 0.017 274.3 -0.004 -5.8 

 5 M(4) 0.009 188.0 0.007 187.3 -0.002 -0.7 

 6 O(1) 0.018 282.3 0.013 286.0 -0.005 3.7 

 7 M(6) 0.010 116.5 0.012 85.5 0.002 -31.0 

 8 MK(3) 0.003 178.3 0.002 136.9 -0.001 -41.4 

 9 S(4) 0.001 106.7 0.001 118.8 0.000 12.1 

 10 MN(4) 0.003 168.6 0.003 156.7 0.000 -11.9 

 11 NU(2) 0.006 91.5 0.006 82.7 0.000 -8.8 

 12 S(6) 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 

 13 MU(2) 0.003 218.6 0.003 214.3 0.000 -4.3 

 14 2N(2) 0.003 63.2 0.002 78.1 -0.001 14.9 

 15 OO(1) 0.000 0.0 0.001 273.2 0.000 0.0 

 16 LAMDA(2) 0.005 124.2 0.003 114.1 -0.002 -10.1 

 17 S(1) 0.005 230.1 0.002 237.4 -0.003 7.3 

 18 M(1) 0.002 34.2 0.000 326.2 -0.002 68.0 

 19 J(1) 0.001 205.6 0.000 231.3 -0.001 25.7 

 20 MM 0.000 0.0 0.017 24.4 0.000 0.0 

 21 SSA 0.000 0.0 0.002 40.5 0.000 0.0 

 22 SA 0.000 0.0 0.001 318.1 0.000 0.0 

 23 MSF 0.000 0.0 0.014 40.4 0.000 0.0 

 24 MF 0.000 0.0 0.006 41.8 0.000 0.0 

 25 RHO(1) 0.000 0.0 0.001 306.3 0.000 0.0 

 26 Q(1) 0.003 286.5 0.002 284.1 -0.001 -2.4 

 27 T(2) 0.002 107.4 0.002 107.3 0.000 -0.1 

 28 R(2) 0.002 359.5 0.001 12.8 -0.001 13.3 

 29 2Q(1) 0.001 252.0 0.000 301.5 -0.001 49.5 

 30 P(1) 0.005 276.1 0.006 279.7 0.001 3.6 

 31 2SM(2) 0.001 280.5 0.000 0.0 -0.001 79.5 

 32 M(3) 0.001 277.6 0.002 286.3 0.001 8.7 

 33 L(2) 0.009 98.7 0.014 101.1 0.005 2.4 

 34 2MK3(3) 0.005 164.6 0.004 143.6 -0.001 -21.0 

 35 K(2) 0.005 139.7 0.005 127.2 0.000 -12.5 

 36 M(8) 0.001 153.1 0.001 134.8 0.000 -18.3 

 37 MS(4) 0.002 246.5 0.002 236.5 0.000 -10.0 

- 34 -
Table A.5. Red Bay Point 

Observation:CO-OPS Accepted Harmonic Constants 

Model: Least Squares H.A. Beginning 1- 2-1998 at Hour 0.00 

Phases are in degrees, referenced to UTC (GMT) 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Observed Modeled Difference 

 N Constituent Amplitude Epoch Amplitude Epoch Amplitude Epoch 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 1 M(2) 0.124 168.9 0.118 157.5 -0.006 -11.4 

 2 S(2) 0.014 202.3 0.014 188.7 0.000 -13.6 

 3 N(2) 0.023 155.4 0.022 141.9 -0.001 -13.5 

 4 K(1) 0.021 302.8 0.018 298.2 -0.003 -4.6 

 5 M(4) 0.007 247.3 0.007 226.2 0.000 -21.1 

 6 O(1) 0.018 305.6 0.014 307.4 -0.004 1.8 

 7 M(6) 0.010 233.8 0.013 193.7 0.003 -40.1 

 8 MK(3) 0.003 234.8 0.002 202.1 -0.001 -32.7 

 9 S(4) 0.001 229.8 0.000 191.4 -0.001 -38.4 

 10 MN(4) 0.002 221.5 0.003 201.9 0.001 -19.6 

 11 NU(2) 0.006 146.9 0.006 136.1 0.000 -10.8 

 12 S(6) 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 

 13 MU(2) 0.003 298.4 0.003 284.6 0.000 -13.8 

 14 2N(2) 0.003 114.3 0.002 122.4 -0.001 8.1 

 15 OO(1) 0.000 0.0 0.001 300.3 0.000 0.0 

 16 LAMDA(2) 0.004 179.1 0.003 170.7 -0.001 -8.4 

 17 S(1) 0.005 252.9 0.002 261.6 -0.003 8.7 

 18 M(1) 0.002 45.5 0.001 358.1 -0.001 47.4 

 19 J(1) 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 

 20 MM 0.000 0.0 0.017 24.7 0.000 0.0 

 21 SSA 0.000 0.0 0.002 40.9 0.000 0.0 

 22 SA 0.000 0.0 0.001 317.3 0.000 0.0 

 23 MSF 0.000 0.0 0.014 41.7 0.000 0.0 

 24 MF 0.000 0.0 0.006 42.6 0.000 0.0 

 25 RHO(1) 0.001 297.4 0.001 323.6 0.000 26.2 

 26 Q(1) 0.003 312.2 0.002 306.7 -0.001 -5.5 

 27 T(2) 0.002 176.3 0.001 160.4 -0.001 -15.9 

 28 R(2) 0.000 0.0 0.001 64.9 0.000 0.0 

 29 2Q(1) 0.001 253.5 0.000 333.8 -0.001 80.3 

 30 P(1) 0.005 295.8 0.006 304.3 0.001 8.5 

 31 2SM(2) 0.001 34.9 0.000 0.0 -0.001 -34.9 

 32 M(3) 0.001 332.1 0.001 342.0 0.000 9.9 

 33 L(2) 0.009 162.8 0.014 158.9 0.005 -3.9 

 34 2MK3(3) 0.004 227.0 0.003 205.9 -0.001 -21.1 

 35 K(2) 0.004 196.4 0.004 181.8 0.000 -14.6 

 36 M(8) 0.002 317.1 0.002 271.5 0.000 -45.6 

 37 MS(4) 0.001 300.4 0.002 278.3 0.001 -22.1 

- 35 -
Table A.6. Racy Point 

 

Observation:CO-OPS Accepted Harmonic Constants 

Model: Least Squares H.A. Beginning 1- 2-1998 at Hour 0.00 

Phases are in degrees, referenced to UTC (GMT) 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Observed Modeled Difference 

 N Constituent Amplitude Epoch Amplitude Epoch Amplitude Epoch 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 1 M(2) 0.166 208.6 0.149 198.5 -0.017 -10.1 

 2 S(2) 0.024 247.5 0.017 234.1 -0.007 -13.4 

 3 N(2) 0.029 203.9 0.028 183.0 -0.001 -20.9 

 4 K(1) 0.023 330.3 0.019 315.2 -0.004 -15.1 

 5 M(4) 0.006 336.8 0.006 341.9 0.000 5.1 

 6 O(1) 0.013 314.3 0.014 323.0 0.001 8.7 

 7 M(6) 0.009 330.3 0.011 301.5 0.002 -28.8 

 8 MK(3) 0.000 0.0 0.002 261.3 0.000 0.0 

 9 S(4) 0.001 275.8 0.000 280.4 -0.001 4.6 

 10 MN(4) 0.000 0.0 0.003 312.8 0.000 0.0 

 11 NU(2) 0.006 204.5 0.007 175.7 0.001 -28.8 

 12 S(6) 0.001 231.1 0.000 0.0 -0.001 128.9 

 13 MU(2) 0.004 6.5 0.005 323.5 0.001 43.0 

 14 2N(2) 0.004 199.2 0.002 160.3 -0.002 -38.9 

 15 OO(1) 0.001 346.3 0.001 319.8 0.000 -26.5 

 16 LAMDA(2) 0.001 226.6 0.004 212.1 0.003 -14.5 

 17 S(1) 0.000 0.0 0.002 278.7 0.000 0.0 

 18 M(1) 0.001 322.3 0.001 16.1 0.000 53.8 

 19 J(1) 0.001 338.2 0.000 0.0 -0.001 21.8 

 20 MM 0.000 0.0 0.017 24.8 0.000 0.0 

 21 SSA 0.000 0.0 0.002 41.3 0.000 0.0 

 22 SA 0.000 0.0 0.001 317.0 0.000 0.0 

 23 MSF 0.000 0.0 0.014 42.7 0.000 0.0 

 24 MF 0.000 0.0 0.006 43.6 0.000 0.0 

 25 RHO(1) 0.001 307.4 0.001 334.7 0.000 27.3 

 26 Q(1) 0.003 306.3 0.002 323.3 -0.001 17.0 

 27 T(2) 0.001 246.0 0.002 205.7 0.001 -40.3 

 28 R(2) 0.000 249.1 0.001 108.0 0.000 0.0 

 29 2Q(1) 0.000 298.4 0.000 358.6 0.000 0.0 

 30 P(1) 0.008 329.1 0.006 321.7 -0.002 -7.4 

 31 2SM(2) 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 

 32 M(3) 0.000 0.0 0.001 50.7 0.000 0.0 

 33 L(2) 0.005 213.2 0.019 200.8 0.014 -12.4 

 34 2MK3(3) 0.000 0.0 0.004 272.0 0.000 0.0 

 35 K(2) 0.007 250.7 0.005 227.2 -0.002 -23.5 

 36 M(8) 0.002 86.9 0.003 69.5 0.001 -17.4 

 37 MS(4) 0.000 0.0 0.001 30.3 0.000 0.0 

- 36 -
Table A.7. Palatka 

 

Observation:CO-OPS Accepted Harmonic Constants 

Model: Least Squares H.A. Beginning 1- 2-1998 at Hour 0.00 

Phases are in degrees, referenced to UTC (GMT) 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Observed Modeled Difference 

 N Constituent Amplitude Epoch Amplitude Epoch Amplitude Epoch 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 1 M(2) 0.192 227.3 0.173 223.3 -0.019 -4.0 

 2 S(2) 0.021 265.7 0.019 260.2 -0.002 -5.5 

 3 N(2) 0.032 213.9 0.032 207.4 0.000 -6.5 

 4 K(1) 0.022 324.7 0.019 327.1 -0.003 2.4 

 5 M(4) 0.015 37.8 0.015 28.1 0.000 -9.7 

 6 O(1) 0.016 330.9 0.014 333.8 -0.002 2.9 

 7 M(6) 0.014 96.7 0.019 52.8 0.005 -43.9 

 8 MK(3) 0.004 350.7 0.002 313.7 -0.002 -37.0 

 9 S(4) 0.001 9.6 0.000 12.4 -0.001 2.8 

 10 MN(4) 0.004 16.3 0.006 6.5 0.002 -9.8 

 11 NU(2) 0.010 208.1 0.009 199.8 -0.001 -8.3 

 12 S(6) 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 

 13 MU(2) 0.008 344.3 0.006 347.6 -0.002 3.3 

 14 2N(2) 0.005 168.8 0.002 183.0 -0.003 14.2 

 15 OO(1) 0.001 266.1 0.001 333.4 0.000 67.3 

 16 LAMDA(2) 0.006 243.8 0.005 237.3 -0.001 -6.5 

 17 S(1) 0.004 324.7 0.002 291.0 -0.002 -33.7 

 18 M(1) 0.002 61.8 0.001 29.5 -0.001 -32.3 

 19 J(1) 0.001 256.4 0.000 0.0 -0.001 103.6 

 20 MM 0.000 126.1 0.017 24.9 0.000 0.0 

 21 SSA 0.000 15.6 0.002 41.5 0.000 0.0 

 22 SA 0.000 213.2 0.001 317.0 0.000 0.0 

 23 MSF 0.000 107.3 0.014 43.4 0.000 0.0 

 24 MF 0.000 104.8 0.006 44.3 0.000 0.0 

 25 RHO(1) 0.001 290.7 0.001 343.0 0.000 52.3 

 26 Q(1) 0.003 343.2 0.002 334.7 -0.001 -8.5 

 27 T(2) 0.003 211.2 0.002 231.6 -0.001 20.4 

 28 R(2) 0.001 201.6 0.001 133.2 0.000 -68.4 

 29 2Q(1) 0.001 279.9 0.000 0.0 -0.001 80.1 

 30 P(1) 0.003 344.0 0.006 333.8 0.003 -10.2 

 31 2SM(2) 0.002 69.0 0.000 0.0 -0.002 -69.0 

 32 M(3) 0.002 76.3 0.002 98.4 0.000 22.1 

 33 L(2) 0.014 229.4 0.022 226.1 0.008 -3.3 

 34 2MK3(3) 0.007 340.0 0.005 313.9 -0.002 -26.1 

 35 K(2) 0.006 257.5 0.006 253.6 0.000 -3.9 

 36 M(8) 0.003 235.2 0.004 231.5 0.001 -3.7 

 37 MS(4) 0.003 85.3 0.004 77.1 0.001 -8.2 

- 37 -
Table A.8. Buffalo Bluff 

 

Observation:CO-OPS Accepted Harmonic Constants 

Model: Least Squares H.A. Beginning 1- 2-1998 at Hour 0.00 

Phases are in degrees, referenced to UTC (GMT) 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Observed Modeled Difference 

 N Constituent Amplitude Epoch Amplitude Epoch Amplitude Epoch 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 1 M(2) 0.161 242.9 0.135 255.6 -0.026 12.7 

 2 S(2) 0.017 284.1 0.014 292.7 -0.003 8.6 

 3 N(2) 0.028 227.3 0.024 239.4 -0.004 12.1 

 4 K(1) 0.017 333.6 0.017 347.7 0.000 14.1 

 5 M(4) 0.018 82.5 0.008 57.7 -0.010 -24.8 

 6 O(1) 0.012 340.4 0.013 353.2 0.001 12.8 

 7 M(6) 0.015 170.4 0.012 125.7 -0.003 -44.7 

 8 MK(3) 0.004 13.5 0.002 5.9 -0.002 -7.6 

 9 S(4) 0.000 0.0 0.000 47.2 0.000 0.0 

 10 MN(4) 0.005 62.7 0.004 36.4 -0.001 -26.3 

 11 NU(2) 0.009 225.2 0.007 232.8 -0.002 7.6 

 12 S(6) 0.001 39.2 0.000 0.0 -0.001 -39.2 

 13 MU(2) 0.007 355.6 0.005 24.7 -0.002 29.1 

 14 2N(2) 0.004 189.0 0.001 210.8 -0.003 21.8 

 15 OO(1) 0.001 283.4 0.000 355.6 -0.001 72.2 

 16 LAMDA(2) 0.004 261.5 0.004 270.7 0.000 9.2 

 17 S(1) 0.003 338.8 0.002 311.9 -0.001 -26.9 

 18 M(1) 0.002 74.6 0.001 55.9 -0.001 -18.7 

 19 J(1) 0.001 239.7 0.000 162.0 -0.001 -77.7 

 20 MM 0.000 128.2 0.017 25.2 0.000 0.0 

 21 SSA 0.000 13.2 0.002 42.4 0.000 0.0 

 22 SA 0.000 212.6 0.001 316.4 0.000 0.0 

 23 MSF 0.000 122.0 0.014 45.3 0.000 0.0 

 24 MF 0.000 113.1 0.006 46.1 0.000 0.0 

 25 RHO(1) 0.001 343.0 0.001 2.1 0.000 19.1 

 26 Q(1) 0.002 357.8 0.002 355.0 0.000 -2.8 

 27 T(2) 0.003 212.6 0.001 264.2 -0.002 51.6 

 28 R(2) 0.001 195.6 0.001 164.1 0.000 -31.5 

 29 2Q(1) 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 

 30 P(1) 0.003 355.9 0.005 355.0 0.002 -0.9 

 31 2SM(2) 0.002 87.2 0.000 0.0 -0.002 -87.2 

 32 M(3) 0.003 101.9 0.002 135.4 -0.001 33.5 

 33 L(2) 0.012 250.4 0.018 260.3 0.006 9.9 

 34 2MK3(3) 0.006 4.4 0.004 0.5 -0.002 -3.9 

 35 K(2) 0.005 270.5 0.004 287.4 -0.001 16.9 

 36 M(8) 0.004 355.1 0.003 280.8 -0.001 -74.3 

 37 MS(4) 0.004 132.3 0.002 108.2 -0.002 -24.1 

- 38 -
APPENDIX B. Skill Assessment Scores of Water Levels

Table B.1. Mayport 

Observed data time period from: / 1/ 2/1998 to /12/31/1998 

Data gap is filled using SVD method 

Data are filtered using 3.0 Hour Fourier Filter 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

VARIABLE X N IMAX SM RMSE SD NOF CF POF MDNO MDPO WOF 

CRITERION - - - - - - <1% >90% <1% <N <N <.5% 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 SCENARIO: TIDAL SIMULATION ONLY 

H 87121 -0.013 

h 87121 0.000 

H-h 15 cm 24h 87121 -0.013 0.027 0.023 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 702 -0.032 0.035 0.015 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 701 -0.003 0.008 0.008 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 702 0.018 0.065 0.062 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 701 -0.111 0.124 0.056 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: HINDCAST 

H 87121 -0.141 

h 87121 -0.146 

H-h 15 cm 24h 87121 0.005 0.062 0.061 0.0 98.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 702 -0.035 0.056 0.044 0.0 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 701 0.042 0.063 0.046 0.0 98.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 702 -0.104 0.241 0.218 0.0 94.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 701 0.115 0.249 0.221 0.0 95.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL NOWCAST 

H 86651 -0.007 

h 86651 -0.007 

H-h 15 cm 24h 86651 0.000 0.033 0.033 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 697 -0.039 0.051 0.033 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 698 0.015 0.021 0.015 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 697 0.079 0.142 0.118 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 698 0.010 0.077 0.076 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL FORECAST 

H00-h00 15 cm 24h 1448 -0.001 0.032 0.032 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H06-h06 15 cm 24h 1448 -0.003 0.099 0.099 0.1 87.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H12-h12 15 cm 24h 1448 -0.001 0.083 0.083 0.2 93.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.21 

H18-h18 15 cm 24h 1448 -0.005 0.110 0.110 0.4 84.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.28 

H24-h24 15 cm 24h 1448 -0.004 0.104 0.104 0.5 88.7 0.9 0.0 6.0 0.62 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 698 -0.013 0.054 0.053 0.0 98.7 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 699 -0.017 0.053 0.050 0.0 99.1 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 698 0.189 0.374 0.322 0.0 81.7 1.4 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 699 0.170 0.366 0.324 0.6 80.8 0.4 

 COMPARISON: PERSISTENCE FORECAST 

H00-h00 15 cm 24h 1448 0.000 0.012 0.012 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H06-h06 15 cm 24h 1448 0.000 0.082 0.082 0.2 93.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.07 

H12-h12 15 cm 24h 1448 0.000 0.071 0.072 0.2 95.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.14 

H18-h18 15 cm 24h 1448 0.000 0.104 0.104 0.8 87.0 0.6 6.0 0.0 0.69 

H24-h24 15 cm 24h 1448 0.000 0.098 0.098 0.7 89.2 0.8 6.0 6.0 0.90 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 698 0.003 0.044 0.044 0.0 99.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 698 -0.005 0.051 0.051 0.0 99.3 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 698 -0.059 0.230 0.223 0.7 95.8 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 698 0.038 0.283 0.281 1.1 91.4 0.6 

 COMPARISON: ASTRONOMICAL TIDE ONLY 

H-h 15 cm 24h 87121 0.008 0.145 0.145 1.3 66.8 1.4 9.7 31.9 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 701 0.002 0.125 0.125 0.1 75.9 1.0 0.0 24.8 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 701 0.013 0.156 0.156 2.1 61.3 1.3 37.7 37.1 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 701 -0.057 0.164 0.154 0.0 99.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 701 0.042 0.211 0.207 0.0 96.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 

- 39 -
Table B.2. Main Street Bridge 

Data gap is filled using SVD method 

Data are filtered using 3.0 Hour Fourier Filter 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

VARIABLE X N IMAX SM RMSE SD NOF CF POF MDNO MDPO WOF 

CRITERION - - - - - - <1% >90% <1% <N <N <.5% 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 SCENARIO: TIDAL SIMULATION ONLY 

H 87121 0.013 

h 87121 0.000 

H-h 15 cm 24h 87121 0.013 0.047 0.046 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 701 -0.019 0.028 0.021 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 701 0.049 0.053 0.018 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 701 0.295 0.628 0.555 1.9 55.2 12.8 0.0 25.1 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 701 -0.003 0.138 0.138 0.0 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: HINDCAST 

H 87111 -0.032 

h 87111 -0.079 

H-h 15 cm 24h 87111 0.047 0.070 0.051 0.2 98.5 0.2 3.7 4.2 0.23 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 677 0.072 0.076 0.023 0.0 99.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 693 0.030 0.042 0.029 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 677 -0.352 0.546 0.418 7.2 60.9 0.1 62.4 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 693 0.082 0.274 0.262 0.1 92.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL NOWCAST 

H 84306 0.005 

h 84306 0.002 

H-h 15 cm 24h 84306 0.003 0.042 0.042 0.0 99.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 658 0.015 0.039 0.036 0.0 99.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 677 -0.009 0.042 0.041 0.0 99.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 658 0.088 0.411 0.402 3.0 81.5 1.1 24.7 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 677 -0.037 0.221 0.218 0.4 96.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL FORECAST 

H00-h00 15 cm 24h 1408 0.003 0.043 0.043 0.0 99.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H06-h06 15 cm 24h 1408 0.004 0.055 0.055 0.0 98.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.07 

H12-h12 15 cm 24h 1408 0.003 0.057 0.057 0.0 98.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.21 

H18-h18 15 cm 24h 1408 0.001 0.072 0.072 0.0 95.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.21 

H24-h24 15 cm 24h 1408 0.000 0.076 0.076 0.1 95.1 0.4 0.0 6.0 0.36 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 674 0.021 0.045 0.040 0.0 98.7 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 678 -0.010 0.042 0.041 0.0 99.1 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 674 -0.061 0.444 0.440 2.7 74.2 1.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 678 -0.040 0.317 0.314 1.0 87.9 0.0 

 COMPARISON: PERSISTENCE FORECAST 

H00-h00 15 cm 24h 1408 -0.001 0.005 0.004 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H06-h06 15 cm 24h 1408 -0.001 0.052 0.052 0.0 99.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H12-h12 15 cm 24h 1408 -0.001 0.050 0.050 0.0 98.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.07 

H18-h18 15 cm 24h 1408 -0.001 0.072 0.072 0.0 96.5 0.3 0.0 6.0 0.28 

H24-h24 15 cm 24h 1408 -0.001 0.071 0.071 0.0 96.3 0.2 0.0 6.0 0.21 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 665 0.004 0.034 0.034 0.0 100.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 673 0.002 0.032 0.032 0.0 99.9 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 665 -0.212 0.579 0.539 8.4 57.4 1.4 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 673 -0.128 0.367 0.345 1.5 83.2 0.1 

 COMPARISON: ASTRONOMICAL TIDE ONLY 

H-h 15 cm 24h 84776 -0.002 0.160 0.160 4.2 60.5 0.9 72.2 19.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 680 -0.004 0.140 0.140 2.1 69.7 0.1 88.3 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 682 0.006 0.177 0.177 5.7 52.5 1.6 125.0 37.2 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 680 -0.274 0.573 0.503 7.5 59.1 0.6 25.2 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 682 -0.153 0.303 0.263 0.1 89.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

- 40 -
Table B.3. Long Branch 

Data gap is filled using SVD method 

Data are filtered using 3.0 Hour Fourier Filter 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

VARIABLE X N IMAX SM RMSE SD NOF CF POF MDNO MDPO WOF 

CRITERION - - - - - - <1% >90% <1% <N <N <.5% 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 SCENARIO: TIDAL SIMULATION ONLY 

H 87121 0.035 

h 87121 0.000 

H-h 15 cm 24h 87121 0.035 0.067 0.058 0.0 98.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 701 0.005 0.034 0.034 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 701 0.069 0.072 0.020 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 701 0.128 0.400 0.379 0.0 76.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 701 0.052 0.180 0.172 0.0 96.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: HINDCAST 

H 65262 -0.012 

h 65262 -0.059 

H-h 15 cm 24h 65262 0.047 0.070 0.052 0.0 96.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 520 0.093 0.098 0.033 0.0 95.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 525 0.028 0.041 0.030 0.0 99.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 520 -0.497 0.593 0.322 7.3 48.3 0.0 24.9 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 525 0.030 0.246 0.245 0.2 95.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL NOWCAST 

H 20639 -0.046 

h 20639 -0.060 

H-h 15 cm 24h 20639 0.014 0.054 0.052 0.0 99.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 165 0.041 0.059 0.043 0.0 98.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 166 -0.007 0.049 0.048 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 165 -0.051 0.267 0.263 0.6 93.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 166 -0.066 0.188 0.176 0.0 98.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL FORECAST 

H00-h00 15 cm 24h 344 0.014 0.058 0.056 0.0 98.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H06-h06 15 cm 24h 343 0.024 0.075 0.071 0.0 95.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.29 

H12-h12 15 cm 24h 342 0.023 0.075 0.071 0.0 95.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.58 

H18-h18 15 cm 24h 341 0.022 0.090 0.088 0.0 89.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.59 

H24-h24 15 cm 24h 340 0.021 0.092 0.090 0.0 90.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.29 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 164 0.057 0.075 0.048 0.0 94.5 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 166 -0.009 0.053 0.052 0.0 100.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 164 -0.105 0.422 0.410 1.8 76.2 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 166 -0.104 0.323 0.307 0.6 86.7 0.0 

 COMPARISON: PERSISTENCE FORECAST 

H00-h00 15 cm 24h 344 0.000 0.007 0.007 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H06-h06 15 cm 24h 343 0.000 0.070 0.070 0.0 97.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H12-h12 15 cm 24h 342 -0.001 0.061 0.061 0.0 98.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.29 

H18-h18 15 cm 24h 341 -0.001 0.091 0.091 0.3 92.1 0.6 0.0 6.0 0.88 

H24-h24 15 cm 24h 340 -0.002 0.084 0.084 0.0 93.5 0.6 0.0 6.0 0.59 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 162 -0.008 0.046 0.046 0.0 100.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 164 0.008 0.042 0.041 0.0 100.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 162 -0.061 0.458 0.455 1.2 71.6 1.2 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 164 -0.155 0.380 0.348 1.2 81.7 0.6 

 COMPARISON: ASTRONOMICAL TIDE ONLY 

H-h 15 cm 24h 20639 -0.085 0.145 0.117 2.0 66.9 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 165 -0.103 0.142 0.099 0.0 63.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 166 -0.063 0.141 0.127 1.2 68.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 165 -0.137 0.422 0.400 0.6 77.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 166 -0.195 0.348 0.289 0.0 80.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

- 41 -
Table B.4. Buckman Bridge 

Data gap is filled using SVD method 

Data are filtered using 3.0 Hour Fourier Filter 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

VARIABLE X N IMAX SM RMSE SD NOF CF POF MDNO MDPO WOF 

CRITERION - - - - - - <1% >90% <1% <N <N <.5% 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 SCENARIO: TIDAL SIMULATION ONLY 

H 87121 0.055 

h 87121 0.000 

H-h 15 cm 24h 87121 0.055 0.060 0.024 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 701 0.046 0.049 0.017 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 699 0.060 0.063 0.021 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 701 0.323 0.395 0.227 0.0 80.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 699 0.339 0.549 0.432 0.0 77.1 16.3 0.0 99.1 

 SCENARIO: HINDCAST 

H 83893 0.043 

h 83893 -0.026 

H-h 15 cm 24h 83893 0.069 0.079 0.037 0.0 98.5 0.2 0.0 4.3 0.12 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 667 0.090 0.093 0.023 0.0 99.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 653 0.050 0.058 0.029 0.0 99.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 667 -0.004 0.304 0.304 0.6 88.9 0.0 35.7 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 653 0.285 0.381 0.252 0.0 81.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL NOWCAST 

H 56269 0.030 

h 56269 0.025 

H-h 15 cm 24h 56269 0.006 0.037 0.036 0.0 99.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 453 0.020 0.037 0.032 0.0 99.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 448 -0.008 0.038 0.038 0.0 99.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 453 0.240 0.339 0.240 0.2 86.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 448 0.232 0.320 0.220 0.0 89.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL FORECAST 

H00-h00 15 cm 24h 941 0.005 0.038 0.037 0.0 99.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H06-h06 15 cm 24h 942 0.005 0.042 0.041 0.0 99.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H12-h12 15 cm 24h 943 0.004 0.048 0.048 0.0 98.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.11 

H18-h18 15 cm 24h 944 0.003 0.057 0.057 0.0 97.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.11 

H24-h24 15 cm 24h 945 0.001 0.069 0.069 0.2 96.4 0.3 0.0 6.0 0.42 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 454 0.019 0.038 0.032 0.0 99.3 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 448 -0.004 0.037 0.037 0.0 99.1 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 454 0.126 0.383 0.362 0.7 78.2 0.7 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 448 0.259 0.410 0.318 0.7 78.3 1.6 

 COMPARISON: PERSISTENCE FORECAST 

H00-h00 15 cm 24h 941 0.000 0.005 0.005 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H06-h06 15 cm 24h 942 0.000 0.029 0.029 0.0 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H12-h12 15 cm 24h 943 0.000 0.040 0.040 0.0 99.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H18-h18 15 cm 24h 944 0.000 0.053 0.053 0.0 97.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H24-h24 15 cm 24h 945 0.000 0.061 0.061 0.0 96.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 450 0.005 0.022 0.022 0.0 99.8 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 431 -0.005 0.019 0.019 0.0 100.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 450 -0.211 0.459 0.408 4.9 72.4 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 431 -0.375 0.597 0.465 11.4 58.7 0.2 

 COMPARISON: ASTRONOMICAL TIDE ONLY 

H-h 15 cm 24h 56739 -0.024 0.167 0.165 8.5 60.4 0.5 108.3 20.6 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 457 -0.022 0.159 0.157 7.4 64.3 0.7 112.8 24.7 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 440 -0.027 0.171 0.169 9.3 58.2 0.5 125.6 11.4 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 457 -0.212 0.415 0.357 1.8 75.1 0.0 11.9 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 440 -0.398 0.608 0.461 10.9 59.3 0.5 25.0 0.0 

- 42 -
Table B.5. Red Bay Point (Shands Bridge) 

Data gap is filled using SVD method 

Data are filtered using 3.0 Hour Fourier Filter 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

VARIABLE X N IMAX SM RMSE SD NOF CF POF MDNO MDPO WOF 

CRITERION - - - - - - <1% >90% <1% <N <N <.5% 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 SCENARIO: TIDAL SIMULATION ONLY 

H 87121 0.056 

h 87121 0.000 

H-h 15 cm 24h 87121 0.056 0.063 0.029 0.0 99.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 701 0.055 0.058 0.017 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 702 0.052 0.056 0.022 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 701 -0.170 0.246 0.179 0.0 98.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 702 -0.263 0.350 0.231 0.0 81.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: HINDCAST 

H 78334 0.055 

h 78334 -0.015 

H-h 15 cm 24h 78334 0.070 0.083 0.044 0.0 97.2 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.02 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 584 0.083 0.087 0.027 0.0 99.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 604 0.052 0.060 0.031 0.0 99.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 584 -0.257 0.416 0.327 2.4 79.5 0.5 37.1 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 604 -0.094 0.358 0.346 4.1 90.6 0.3 99.3 0.0 

 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL NOWCAST 

H 54791 0.058 

h 54791 0.039 

H-h 15 cm 24h 54791 0.019 0.045 0.041 0.0 99.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 441 0.035 0.050 0.036 0.0 99.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 441 0.001 0.043 0.043 0.0 98.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 441 -0.041 0.173 0.168 0.0 98.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 441 -0.074 0.155 0.136 0.0 98.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL FORECAST 

H00-h00 15 cm 24h 917 0.019 0.046 0.041 0.0 99.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H06-h06 15 cm 24h 918 0.019 0.047 0.043 0.0 99.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H12-h12 15 cm 24h 919 0.019 0.054 0.051 0.2 98.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H18-h18 15 cm 24h 920 0.018 0.057 0.055 0.1 98.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H24-h24 15 cm 24h 921 0.016 0.072 0.070 0.3 96.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 442 0.035 0.051 0.037 0.0 99.1 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 443 0.003 0.043 0.043 0.0 98.9 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 442 0.036 0.243 0.241 0.0 93.7 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 443 0.142 0.236 0.188 0.0 95.0 0.2 

 COMPARISON: PERSISTENCE FORECAST 

H00-h00 15 cm 24h 917 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H06-h06 15 cm 24h 918 0.000 0.031 0.031 0.0 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H12-h12 15 cm 24h 919 0.000 0.037 0.037 0.0 99.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H18-h18 15 cm 24h 920 0.001 0.052 0.052 0.0 98.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H24-h24 15 cm 24h 921 0.001 0.058 0.058 0.0 96.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 440 0.000 0.020 0.020 0.0 100.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 443 0.001 0.017 0.017 0.0 100.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 440 -0.087 0.426 0.418 3.2 78.6 0.2 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 443 -0.068 0.373 0.368 2.0 80.8 0.0 

 COMPARISON: ASTRONOMICAL TIDE ONLY 

H-h 15 cm 24h 55261 -0.038 0.167 0.163 9.4 63.6 0.0 132.6 0.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 444 -0.043 0.164 0.158 9.7 65.8 0.0 137.7 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 444 -0.032 0.171 0.168 9.9 61.9 0.0 212.9 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 444 -0.084 0.376 0.367 0.2 83.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 444 -0.059 0.339 0.334 0.5 85.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 

- 43 -
Table B.6. Racy Point 

Data gap is filled using SVD method 

Data are filtered using 3.0 Hour Fourier Filter 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

VARIABLE X N IMAX SM RMSE SD NOF CF POF MDNO MDPO WOF 

CRITERION - - - - - - <1% >90% <1% <N <N <.5% 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 SCENARIO: TIDAL SIMULATION ONLY 

H 87121 0.051 

h 87121 0.000 

H-h 15 cm 24h 87121 0.051 0.057 0.025 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 701 0.047 0.049 0.015 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 701 0.057 0.059 0.014 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 701 -0.109 0.258 0.234 0.0 93.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 701 -0.140 0.283 0.246 0.0 91.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: HINDCAST 

H 65923 0.034 

h 65923 -0.015 

H-h 15 cm 24h 65923 0.050 0.060 0.034 0.0 99.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 531 0.063 0.071 0.034 0.0 99.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 530 0.042 0.053 0.032 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 531 -0.066 0.209 0.198 0.0 96.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 530 0.087 0.228 0.211 0.0 96.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL NOWCAST 

H 37815 0.030 

h 37815 0.033 

H-h 15 cm 24h 37815 -0.003 0.041 0.041 0.0 99.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 305 0.016 0.039 0.036 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 304 -0.014 0.048 0.046 0.0 98.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 305 -0.054 0.204 0.197 0.3 97.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 304 -0.010 0.177 0.177 0.0 97.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL FORECAST 

H00-h00 15 cm 24h 631 -0.004 0.041 0.041 0.0 99.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H06-h06 15 cm 24h 631 -0.003 0.043 0.043 0.0 99.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H12-h12 15 cm 24h 631 -0.006 0.049 0.049 0.0 98.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H18-h18 15 cm 24h 631 -0.008 0.050 0.050 0.0 99.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H24-h24 15 cm 24h 631 -0.012 0.062 0.061 0.0 96.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 305 0.020 0.042 0.038 0.0 100.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 304 -0.013 0.048 0.046 0.0 98.7 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 305 -0.054 0.293 0.288 0.3 90.8 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 304 0.249 0.327 0.212 0.0 90.5 0.3 

 COMPARISON: PERSISTENCE FORECAST 

H00-h00 15 cm 24h 631 -0.026 0.027 0.004 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H06-h06 15 cm 24h 631 -0.026 0.047 0.039 0.0 99.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H12-h12 15 cm 24h 631 -0.026 0.047 0.039 0.0 99.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H18-h18 15 cm 24h 631 -0.026 0.059 0.052 0.0 98.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H24-h24 15 cm 24h 631 -0.027 0.058 0.052 0.0 97.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 304 -0.024 0.037 0.028 0.0 100.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 302 -0.025 0.034 0.023 0.0 100.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 304 -0.060 0.368 0.364 1.3 84.5 0.3 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 302 -0.164 0.401 0.366 3.6 81.5 0.0 

 COMPARISON: ASTRONOMICAL TIDE ONLY 

H-h 15 cm 24h 37815 -0.033 0.180 0.177 12.0 62.7 0.2 156.3 8.5 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 304 -0.034 0.170 0.167 9.5 63.2 0.3 149.4 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 303 -0.029 0.187 0.185 13.9 62.7 0.0 237.5 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 304 -0.065 0.286 0.279 0.0 91.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 303 -0.161 0.335 0.294 0.3 86.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 

- 44 -
Table B.7. Palatka 

Data gap is filled using SVD method 

Data are filtered using 3.0 Hour Fourier Filter 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

VARIABLE X N IMAX SM RMSE SD NOF CF POF MDNO MDPO WOF 

CRITERION - - - - - - <1% >90% <1% <N <N <.5% 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 SCENARIO: TIDAL SIMULATION ONLY 

H 87121 0.057 

h 87121 0.000 

H-h 15 cm 24h 87121 0.057 0.065 0.031 0.0 99.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 701 0.047 0.049 0.016 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 701 0.057 0.062 0.025 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 701 0.260 0.335 0.212 0.0 87.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 701 0.104 0.362 0.347 0.0 88.6 4.7 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: HINDCAST 

H 78685 0.080 

h 78685 -0.004 

H-h 15 cm 24h 78685 0.084 0.098 0.050 0.1 94.0 0.3 2.4 3.8 0.17 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 616 0.096 0.104 0.039 0.0 92.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 620 0.065 0.072 0.031 0.0 99.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 616 -0.031 0.467 0.467 3.1 70.3 0.3 25.1 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 620 0.325 0.421 0.268 0.2 72.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL NOWCAST 

H 56699 0.067 

h 56699 0.058 

H-h 15 cm 24h 56699 0.009 0.077 0.077 0.8 96.3 0.0 43.3 1.6 0.03 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 454 0.020 0.066 0.063 0.7 98.2 0.0 23.6 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 450 -0.015 0.081 0.080 0.9 94.9 0.0 38.7 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 454 0.088 0.386 0.376 0.4 80.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 450 0.146 0.273 0.231 0.2 93.8 0.9 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL FORECAST 

H00-h00 15 cm 24h 948 0.009 0.078 0.077 0.8 96.4 0.0 36.0 0.0 0.00 

H06-h06 15 cm 24h 949 0.009 0.078 0.078 0.8 96.2 0.0 36.0 0.0 0.00 

H12-h12 15 cm 24h 950 0.008 0.084 0.084 0.9 95.3 0.1 36.0 0.0 0.21 

H18-h18 15 cm 24h 951 0.006 0.083 0.083 1.2 95.5 0.0 42.0 0.0 0.32 

H24-h24 15 cm 24h 952 0.005 0.095 0.095 0.9 92.3 0.0 24.0 0.0 0.42 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 455 0.023 0.067 0.063 0.7 98.2 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 449 -0.008 0.080 0.079 0.9 95.5 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 455 0.229 0.437 0.373 0.2 73.2 1.5 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 449 0.427 0.503 0.266 0.0 54.1 1.3 

 COMPARISON: PERSISTENCE FORECAST 

H00-h00 15 cm 24h 948 -0.030 0.031 0.006 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H06-h06 15 cm 24h 949 -0.030 0.053 0.043 0.0 99.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H12-h12 15 cm 24h 950 -0.030 0.053 0.044 0.0 98.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H18-h18 15 cm 24h 951 -0.029 0.066 0.059 0.1 97.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H24-h24 15 cm 24h 952 -0.029 0.067 0.061 0.1 97.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 452 -0.032 0.047 0.035 0.0 99.3 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 443 -0.026 0.035 0.023 0.0 99.8 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 452 -0.159 0.467 0.440 3.8 71.9 0.7 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 443 -0.306 0.523 0.425 6.3 64.6 0.7 

 COMPARISON: ASTRONOMICAL TIDE ONLY 

H-h 15 cm 24h 57169 -0.057 0.187 0.178 12.6 60.1 0.1 158.4 3.1 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 459 -0.062 0.172 0.161 10.2 65.1 0.0 199.1 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 451 -0.049 0.190 0.184 12.9 58.5 0.0 225.5 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 459 -0.172 0.420 0.384 1.3 73.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 451 -0.310 0.489 0.379 5.1 69.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 

- 45 -
Table B.8. Buffalo Bluff 

Data gap is filled using SVD method 

Data are filtered using 3.0 Hour Fourier Filter 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

VARIABLE X N IMAX SM RMSE SD NOF CF POF MDNO MDPO WOF 

CRITERION - - - - - - <1% >90% <1% <N <N <.5% 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 SCENARIO: TIDAL SIMULATION ONLY 

H 87121 0.056 

h 87121 0.000 

H-h 15 cm 24h 87121 0.056 0.069 0.040 0.0 99.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 629 0.032 0.036 0.015 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 643 0.055 0.060 0.024 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 629 0.786 0.857 0.340 0.0 19.2 28.9 0.0161.1 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 643 0.275 0.557 0.484 0.0 82.3 16.2 0.0112.9 

 SCENARIO: HINDCAST 

H 83392 0.125 

h 83392 0.041 

H-h 15 cm 24h 83392 0.083 0.107 0.068 0.1 84.2 0.1 3.0 2.7 0.17 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 573 0.079 0.097 0.056 0.0 89.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 646 0.072 0.086 0.048 0.0 95.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 573 0.437 0.746 0.605 2.1 40.8 18.7 24.8 74.6 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 646 0.309 0.449 0.326 0.0 72.3 3.6 0.0 49.9 

 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL NOWCAST 

H 27791 0.131 

h 27791 0.161 

H-h 15 cm 24h 27791 -0.030 0.115 0.111 2.1 88.4 0.0 49.9 0.0 2.10 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 201 -0.012 0.094 0.093 1.5 93.5 0.0 23.9 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 216 -0.053 0.123 0.111 2.8 87.0 0.0 49.4 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 201 0.312 0.561 0.468 0.0 65.7 10.0 0.0 24.8 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 216 0.114 0.358 0.340 0.0 85.6 3.2 0.0 12.3 

 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL FORECAST 

H00-h00 15 cm 24h 467 -0.029 0.115 0.112 2.1 88.2 0.0 54.0 0.0 2.14 

H06-h06 15 cm 24h 468 -0.030 0.115 0.112 2.1 88.0 0.0 54.0 0.0 2.14 

H12-h12 15 cm 24h 469 -0.028 0.116 0.113 2.1 86.8 0.0 48.0 0.0 2.13 

H18-h18 15 cm 24h 470 -0.027 0.125 0.122 2.6 86.2 0.0 42.0 0.0 2.34 

H24-h24 15 cm 24h 471 -0.026 0.127 0.125 2.1 84.9 0.0 36.0 0.0 1.91 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 193 -0.009 0.096 0.096 1.6 92.2 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 212 -0.048 0.117 0.107 2.4 88.2 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 193 0.379 0.574 0.432 0.5 60.6 10.4 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 212 0.469 0.562 0.310 0.5 50.9 2.4 

 COMPARISON: PERSISTENCE FORECAST 

H00-h00 15 cm 24h 467 0.000 0.006 0.006 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H06-h06 15 cm 24h 468 0.000 0.050 0.050 0.0 98.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H12-h12 15 cm 24h 469 0.001 0.042 0.042 0.0 98.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H18-h18 15 cm 24h 470 0.001 0.065 0.065 0.0 97.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

H24-h24 15 cm 24h 471 0.001 0.063 0.063 0.0 97.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 193 0.015 0.036 0.033 0.0 100.0 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 158 0.000 0.026 0.026 0.0 100.0 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 193 -0.490 0.806 0.641 21.2 29.5 2.6 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 158 -0.388 0.632 0.500 13.3 55.1 0.0 

 COMPARISON: ASTRONOMICAL TIDE ONLY 

H-h 15 cm 24h 28261 -0.187 0.244 0.157 25.9 39.5 0.0 133.7 0.0 0.00 

HHW-hhw 15 cm 24h 201 -0.164 0.215 0.139 16.4 44.8 0.0 99.8 0.0 

HLW-hlw 15 cm 24h 188 -0.191 0.253 0.167 31.4 39.4 0.0 160.2 0.0 

THW-thw 0.50h 25h 201 -0.437 0.778 0.645 20.9 35.8 2.5 97.8 0.0 

TLW-tlw 0.50h 25h 188 -0.407 0.699 0.570 14.9 45.7 2.1 36.5 0.0 

- 46 -
APPENDIX C. Comparison of Current Harmonic Constants 

Table C.1. Mayport Basin Entrance (J2) 

 

Observation: 29-Day H.A. Beginning 6- 3-1998 at Hour 15.40 

Model: Least Squares H.A. Beginning 1- 2-1998 at Hour 0.00 

Phases are in degrees, referenced to UTC (GMT) 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Observed( R= 0.02) Modeled( R= 0.000) Difference 

 N Constituent Amplitude Epoch Amplitude Epoch Amplitude Epoch 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

CURRENT ALONG PCD DIR= 82 DIR= 94 

 1 M(2) 0.656 178.2 0.531 177.9 -0.125 -0.3 

 2 S(2) 0.059 174.0 0.076 197.7 0.017 23.7 

 3 N(2) 0.088 157.7 0.113 157.5 0.025 -0.2 

 4 K(1) 0.057 333.2 0.050 354.1 -0.007 20.9 

 5 M(4) 0.019 157.6 0.034 304.7 0.015 147.1 

 6 O(1) 0.027 1.1 0.034 9.5 0.007 8.4 

 7 M(6) 0.030 67.2 0.031 41.7 0.001 -25.5 

 8 MK(3) 0.000 0.0 0.009 176.4 0.000 0.0 

 9 S(4) 0.009 261.3 0.005 97.8 -0.004 -163.5 

 10 MN(4) 0.000 0.0 0.011 294.5 0.000 0.0 

 11 NU(2) 0.017 160.4 0.024 158.2 0.007 -2.2 

 12 S(6) 0.007 97.4 0.000 0.0 -0.007 -97.4 

 13 MU(2) 0.000 0.0 0.002 96.2 0.000 0.0 

 14 2N(2) 0.012 137.2 0.012 139.0 0.000 1.8 

 15 OO(1) 0.001 305.2 0.002 343.1 0.001 37.9 

 16 LAMDA(2) 0.005 176.3 0.010 202.7 0.005 26.4 

 17 S(1) 0.000 0.0 0.007 313.2 0.000 0.0 

 18 M(1) 0.002 347.1 0.001 81.1 -0.001 94.0 

 19 J(1) 0.002 319.3 0.002 306.2 0.000 -13.1 

 20 MM 0.000 0.0 0.008 20.3 0.000 0.0 

 21 SSA 0.000 0.0 0.002 114.7 0.000 0.0 

 22 SA 0.000 0.0 0.001 253.5 0.000 0.0 

 23 MSF 0.000 0.0 0.009 348.5 0.000 0.0 

 24 MF 0.000 0.0 0.002 70.4 0.000 0.0 

 25 RHO(1) 0.001 13.1 0.001 26.8 0.000 13.7 

 26 Q(1) 0.005 14.9 0.005 9.1 0.000 -5.8 

 27 T(2) 0.003 174.2 0.007 172.5 0.004 -1.7 

 28 R(2) 0.000 173.9 0.004 84.3 0.000 0.0 

 29 2Q(1) 0.001 28.8 0.000 0.0 -0.001 -28.8 

 30 P(1) 0.019 335.3 0.016 355.1 -0.003 19.8 

 31 2SM(2) 0.000 0.0 0.001 210.4 0.000 0.0 

 32 M(3) 0.000 0.0 0.006 335.2 0.000 0.0 

 33 L(2) 0.013 157.7 0.040 184.9 0.027 27.2 

 34 2MK3(3) 0.000 0.0 0.011 203.4 0.000 0.0 

 35 K(2) 0.016 173.7 0.020 192.9 0.004 19.2 

 36 M(8) 0.004 158.7 0.007 167.2 0.003 8.5 

 37 MS(4) 0.000 0.0 0.012 315.7 0.000 0.0 

- 47 -
Table C.2. Dames Point Bridge (J5) 

 

Observation: 15-Day H.A. Beginning 7-23-1998 at Hour 16.00 

Model: Least Squares H.A. Beginning 1- 2-1998 at Hour 0.00 

Phases are in degrees, referenced to UTC (GMT) 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Observed( R= 0.02) Modeled( R= 0.000) Difference 

 N Constituent Amplitude Epoch Amplitude Epoch Amplitude Epoch 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

CURRENT ALONG PCD DIR= 76 DIR= 80 

 1 M(2) 0.868 224.7 0.670 223.2 -0.198 -1.5 

 2 S(2) 0.109 260.0 0.087 242.0 -0.022 -18.0 

 3 N(2) 0.168 205.7 0.134 201.4 -0.034 -4.3 

 4 K(1) 0.077 5.9 0.075 18.2 -0.002 12.3 

 5 M(4) 0.071 177.7 0.013 62.0 -0.058 -115.7 

 6 O(1) 0.020 74.7 0.051 29.8 0.031 -44.9 

 7 M(6) 0.037 216.6 0.022 120.2 -0.015 -96.4 

 8 MK(3) 0.000 0.0 0.014 262.3 0.000 0.0 

 9 S(4) 0.005 287.1 0.004 163.7 -0.001 -123.4 

 10 MN(4) 0.000 0.0 0.006 82.1 0.000 0.0 

 11 NU(2) 0.033 208.3 0.031 205.5 -0.002 -2.8 

 12 S(6) 0.004 348.4 0.000 0.0 -0.004 11.6 

 13 MU(2) 0.000 0.0 0.010 56.6 0.000 0.0 

 14 2N(2) 0.022 186.8 0.014 176.9 -0.008 -9.9 

 15 OO(1) 0.001 297.1 0.002 10.1 0.001 73.0 

 16 LAMDA(2) 0.006 241.1 0.016 250.0 0.010 8.9 

 17 S(1) 0.000 0.0 0.010 339.2 0.000 0.0 

 18 M(1) 0.001 40.3 0.002 104.0 0.001 63.7 

 19 J(1) 0.002 331.5 0.002 303.0 0.000 -28.5 

 20 MM 0.000 0.0 0.011 19.8 0.000 0.0 

 21 SSA 0.000 0.0 0.002 133.6 0.000 0.0 

 22 SA 0.000 0.0 0.002 277.8 0.000 0.0 

 23 MSF 0.000 0.0 0.014 348.5 0.000 0.0 

 24 MF 0.000 0.0 0.003 94.6 0.000 0.0 

 25 RHO(1) 0.001 104.2 0.002 48.5 0.001 -55.7 

 26 Q(1) 0.004 109.1 0.008 30.0 0.004 -79.1 

 27 T(2) 0.006 260.0 0.008 214.3 0.002 -45.7 

 28 R(2) 0.001 260.0 0.005 124.8 0.004 -135.2 

 29 2Q(1) 0.001 143.5 0.000 0.0 -0.001 -143.5 

 30 P(1) 0.026 5.9 0.024 20.6 -0.002 14.7 

 31 2SM(2) 0.000 0.0 0.001 229.5 0.000 0.0 

 32 M(3) 0.000 0.0 0.009 28.7 0.000 0.0 

 33 L(2) 0.024 243.6 0.061 237.1 0.037 -6.5 

 34 2MK3(3) 0.000 0.0 0.018 274.8 0.000 0.0 

 35 K(2) 0.030 260.0 0.023 238.1 -0.007 -21.9 

 36 M(8) 0.017 52.1 0.003 312.0 -0.014 100.1 

 37 MS(4) 0.000 0.0 0.003 42.8 0.000 0.0 

- 48 -
Table C.3. Trout River Cut (J6) 

Observation: 29-Day H.A. Beginning 7-22-1998 at Hour 16.40 

Model: Least Squares H.A. Beginning 1- 2-1998 at Hour 0.00 

Phases are in degrees, referenced to UTC (GMT) 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Observed( R= 0.02) Modeled( R= 0.005) Difference 

 N Constituent Amplitude Epoch Amplitude Epoch Amplitude Epoch 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

CURRENT ALONG PCD DIR= 15 DIR= 17 

 1 M(2) 0.647 252.1 0.558 244.3 -0.089 -7.8 

 2 S(2) 0.071 272.9 0.066 268.3 -0.005 -4.6 

 3 N(2) 0.091 222.1 0.107 225.5 0.016 3.4 

 4 K(1) 0.078 30.9 0.061 28.3 -0.017 -2.6 

 5 M(4) 0.027 53.1 0.016 314.2 -0.011 98.9 

 6 O(1) 0.051 43.3 0.042 38.2 -0.009 -5.1 

 7 M(6) 0.043 210.5 0.018 185.7 -0.025 -24.8 

 8 MK(3) 0.000 0.0 0.009 286.7 0.000 0.0 

 9 S(4) 0.004 260.2 0.002 216.2 -0.002 -44.0 

 10 MN(4) 0.000 0.0 0.007 273.9 0.000 0.0 

 11 NU(2) 0.018 226.1 0.027 224.8 0.009 -1.3 

 12 S(6) 0.004 78.7 0.000 0.0 -0.004 -78.7 

 13 MU(2) 0.000 0.0 0.013 37.6 0.000 0.0 

 14 2N(2) 0.012 192.1 0.009 201.7 -0.003 9.6 

 15 OO(1) 0.002 18.4 0.002 24.1 0.000 5.7 

 16 LAMDA(2) 0.005 261.7 0.015 262.7 0.010 1.0 

 17 S(1) 0.000 0.0 0.008 349.2 0.000 0.0 

 18 M(1) 0.004 37.1 0.002 107.0 -0.002 69.9 

 19 J(1) 0.004 24.7 0.001 293.4 -0.003 91.3 

 20 MM 0.000 0.0 0.007 22.3 0.000 0.0 

 21 SSA 0.000 0.0 0.002 155.9 0.000 0.0 

 22 SA 0.000 0.0 0.002 309.8 0.000 0.0 

 23 MSF 0.000 0.0 0.010 345.4 0.000 0.0 

 24 MF 0.000 0.0 0.002 103.7 0.000 0.0 

 25 RHO(1) 0.002 48.7 0.002 56.1 0.000 7.4 

 26 Q(1) 0.010 49.5 0.007 38.0 -0.003 -11.5 

 27 T(2) 0.004 272.1 0.006 245.7 0.002 -26.4 

 28 R(2) 0.001 273.7 0.003 145.4 0.002 -128.3 

 29 2Q(1) 0.001 55.7 0.000 0.0 -0.001 -55.7 

 30 P(1) 0.026 31.8 0.019 33.0 -0.007 1.2 

 31 2SM(2) 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 

 32 M(3) 0.000 0.0 0.007 58.1 0.000 0.0 

 33 L(2) 0.013 222.1 0.060 253.1 0.047 31.0 

 34 2MK3(3) 0.000 0.0 0.014 293.0 0.000 0.0 

 35 K(2) 0.019 274.6 0.019 264.8 0.000 -9.8 

 36 M(8) 0.014 286.6 0.003 265.8 -0.011 -20.8 

 37 MS(4) 0.000 0.0 0.006 344.6 0.000 0.0 

- 49 -
APPENDIX D. Skill Assessment Scores of Current Speed 

Table D.1. Mayport Basin Entrance (J2) 

Data gap is filled using SVD method 

Data are filtered using 3.0 Hour Fourier Filter 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

VARIABLE X N IMAX SM RMSE SD NOF CF POF MDNO MDPO WOF 

CRITERION - - - - - - <1% >90% <1% <N <N <.5% 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 SCENARIO: TIDAL SIMULATION ONLY 

U 87121 0.367 

u 87121 0.446 

U-u 26 cm/s 24h 87121 -0.079 0.117 0.087 0.0 98.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 

AFC-afc 26 cm/s 24h 702 -0.214 0.216 0.034 0.0 90.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 

AEC-aec 26 cm/s 24h 701 -0.056 0.066 0.034 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TFC-tfc 0.50h 25h 702 0.025 0.400 0.399 0.0 74.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TEC-tec 0.50h 25h 701 -0.348 0.400 0.198 0.0 72.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TSF-tsf 0.25h 25h 697 -0.264 0.405 0.306 1.0 77.0 0.0 12.8 0.0 

TEF-tef 0.25h 25h 701 0.210 0.377 0.313 0.0 79.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TSE-tse 0.25h 25h 701 -0.057 0.279 0.273 0.6 92.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TEE-tee 0.25h 25h 701 0.055 0.264 0.259 0.0 92.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: HINDCAST 

U 11512 0.464 

u 11512 0.448 

U-u 26 cm/s 24h 11512 0.016 0.176 0.175 0.0 84.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

AFC-afc 26 cm/s 24h 75 -0.128 0.158 0.094 0.0 89.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 

AEC-aec 26 cm/s 24h 75 0.098 0.136 0.095 0.0 93.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TFC-tfc 0.50h 25h 75 0.348 0.576 0.462 0.0 50.7 4.0 0.0 24.7 

TEC-tec 0.50h 25h 75 0.563 0.684 0.392 0.0 42.7 13.3 0.0 12.7 

TSF-tsf 0.25h 25h 74 0.759 0.809 0.281 0.0 14.9 18.9 0.0 24.7 

TEF-tef 0.25h 25h 75 0.534 0.564 0.183 0.0 41.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 

TSE-tse 0.25h 25h 85 0.178 0.369 0.325 1.2 87.1 1.2 0.0 0.0 

TEE-tee 0.25h 25h 86 0.347 0.437 0.267 0.0 67.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL NOWCAST 

U 9665 0.476 

u 9665 0.328 

U-u 26 cm/s 24h 9665 0.148 0.306 0.268 0.1 68.6 12.4 0.2 3.2 

AEC-aec 26 cm/s 24h 70 0.394 0.427 0.166 0.0 20.0 22.9 0.0 22.1 

TEC-tec 0.50h 25h 70 0.764 0.837 0.343 1.4 8.6 14.3 0.0 13.0 

TSE-tse 0.25h 25h 23 0.023 0.816 0.834 8.7 34.8 21.7 0.0 0.0 

TEE-tee 0.25h 25h 67 0.080 0.355 0.348 0.0 89.6 3.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL FORECAST 

U00-u00 26 cm/s 24h 161 0.141 0.296 0.261 0.0 70.2 12.4 0.0 0.0 

U06-u06 26 cm/s 24h 161 0.124 0.296 0.270 0.0 71.4 11.2 0.0 0.0 

U12-u12 26 cm/s 24h 161 0.146 0.314 0.279 0.0 68.9 13.0 0.0 0.0 

U18-u18 26 cm/s 24h 161 0.148 0.308 0.271 0.0 71.4 12.4 0.0 0.0 

U24-u24 26 cm/s 24h 161 0.147 0.320 0.285 0.6 71.4 13.7 0.0 0.0 

AEC-aec 26 cm/s 24h 69 0.414 0.444 0.164 0.0 15.9 24.6 0.0 22.1 

TEC-tec 0.50h 25h 69 0.728 0.831 0.404 1.4 21.7 26.1 0.0 13.2 

TSE-tse 0.25h 25h 15 0.179 1.003 1.022 20.0 33.3 33.3 0.0 0.0 

TEE-tee 0.25h 25h 67 0.357 0.516 0.376 0.0 71.6 7.5 0.0 0.0 

- 50 -
 COMPARISON: PERSISTENCE FORECAST 

U00-u00 26 cm/s 24h 161 0.005 0.055 0.055 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

U06-u06 26 cm/s 24h 161 0.006 0.148 0.149 0.6 91.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 

U12-u12 26 cm/s 24h 161 0.006 0.103 0.103 0.0 98.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 

U18-u18 26 cm/s 24h 161 0.006 0.146 0.146 0.0 90.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

U24-u24 26 cm/s 24h 161 0.007 0.124 0.124 0.0 95.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

AEC-aec 26 cm/s 24h 62 0.012 0.118 0.118 0.0 95.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TEC-tec 0.50h 25h 62 -0.015 0.398 0.401 3.2 79.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 

TSE-tse 0.25h 25h 40 0.166 0.817 0.810 10.0 47.5 15.0 0.0 23.9 

TEE-tee 0.25h 25h 58 -0.364 0.647 0.540 13.8 58.6 1.7 49.5 0.0 

 COMPARISON: ASTRONOMICAL TIDE ONLY 

U-u 26 cm/s 24h 9665 -0.021 0.101 0.099 0.1 98.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 

AEC-aec 26 cm/s 24h 73 -0.034 0.096 0.091 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TEC-tec 0.50h 25h 73 -0.049 0.370 0.369 2.7 80.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TSE-tse 0.25h 25h 48 -0.136 0.793 0.789 16.7 37.5 6.3 0.0 0.0 

TEE-tee 0.25h 25h 71 -0.033 0.362 0.363 0.0 88.7 1.4 0.0 0.0 

- 51 -
Table D.2. Dames Point Bridge (J5) 

Observed data time period from: / 7/23/1998 to / 8/15/1998 

Data gap is filled using SVD method 

Data are filtered using 3.0 Hour Fourier Filter 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

VARIABLE X N IMAX SM RMSE SD NOF CF POF MDNO MDPO WOF 

CRITERION - - - - - - <1% >90% <1% <N <N <.5% 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 SCENARIO: TIDAL SIMULATION ONLY 

U 87121 0.463 

u 87121 0.591 

U-u 26 cm/s 24h 87121 -0.128 0.181 0.128 0.0 83.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 

AFC-afc 26 cm/s 24h 700 -0.208 0.227 0.093 0.0 72.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

AEC-aec 26 cm/s 24h 701 -0.264 0.273 0.066 0.0 54.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TFC-tfc 0.50h 25h 700 0.368 0.430 0.222 0.0 69.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TEC-tec 0.50h 25h 701 -0.079 0.203 0.187 0.0 98.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TSF-tsf 0.25h 25h 698 -0.408 0.484 0.261 0.4 65.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TEF-tef 0.25h 25h 700 0.044 0.253 0.249 0.0 94.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TSE-tse 0.25h 25h 700 0.154 0.251 0.199 0.0 95.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TEE-tee 0.25h 25h 700 0.037 0.190 0.186 0.0 99.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: HINDCAST 

U 5418 0.561 

u 5418 0.563 

U-u 26 cm/s 24h 5418 -0.002 0.128 0.128 0.0 94.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 

AFC-afc 26 cm/s 24h 36 0.039 0.137 0.134 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

AEC-aec 26 cm/s 24h 43 -0.040 0.082 0.073 0.0 97.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TFC-tfc 0.50h 25h 36 0.372 0.475 0.299 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TEC-tec 0.50h 25h 43 0.267 0.601 0.544 0.0 55.8 11.6 0.0 0.0 

TSF-tsf 0.25h 25h 36 0.119 0.289 0.268 0.0 91.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TEF-tef 0.25h 25h 36 0.224 0.346 0.268 0.0 91.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TSE-tse 0.25h 25h 39 0.334 0.433 0.280 0.0 71.8 5.1 0.0 0.0 

TEE-tee 0.25h 25h 39 0.227 0.314 0.219 0.0 84.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL NOWCAST 

U 14427 0.581 

u 14427 0.498 

U-u 26 cm/s 24h 14427 0.083 0.249 0.235 1.0 67.7 1.9 1.5 1.4 

AFC-afc 26 cm/s 24h 111 0.183 0.229 0.137 0.0 68.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 

AEC-aec 26 cm/s 24h 110 0.066 0.097 0.072 0.0 99.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TFC-tfc 0.50h 25h 111 0.131 0.490 0.474 0.9 79.3 8.1 0.0 24.9 

TEC-tec 0.50h 25h 110 -0.591 0.838 0.597 20.9 24.5 2.7 13.2 0.0 

TSF-tsf 0.25h 25h 114 -0.717 0.860 0.478 24.6 21.1 0.0 87.9 0.0 

TEF-tef 0.25h 25h 115 -0.529 0.706 0.470 6.1 20.9 0.9 24.9 0.0 

TSE-tse 0.25h 25h 116 -0.061 0.465 0.463 0.0 68.1 1.7 0.0 0.0 

TEE-tee 0.25h 25h 116 -0.778 0.889 0.432 34.5 15.5 0.0 137.8 0.0 

- 52 -
 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL FORECAST 

U00-u00 26 cm/s 24h 241 0.087 0.254 0.239 0.8 68.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 

U06-u06 26 cm/s 24h 241 0.078 0.218 0.204 0.4 75.9 0.8 0.0 0.0 

U12-u12 26 cm/s 24h 241 0.093 0.243 0.225 0.4 70.1 2.9 0.0 0.0 

U18-u18 26 cm/s 24h 241 0.080 0.232 0.218 0.4 73.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 

U24-u24 26 cm/s 24h 241 0.089 0.243 0.227 0.8 72.6 2.9 0.0 6.0 

AFC-afc 26 cm/s 24h 107 0.185 0.244 0.160 0.0 63.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 

AEC-aec 26 cm/s 24h 112 0.068 0.108 0.084 0.0 97.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TFC-tfc 0.50h 25h 107 0.229 0.511 0.459 0.9 71.0 5.6 0.0 62.2 

TEC-tec 0.50h 25h 112 -0.368 0.686 0.581 11.6 45.5 5.4 12.4 12.7 

TSF-tsf 0.25h 25h 114 -0.502 0.721 0.520 13.2 30.7 0.0 38.0 0.0 

TEF-tef 0.25h 25h 114 -0.377 0.642 0.522 4.4 32.5 1.8 0.0 0.0 

TSE-tse 0.25h 25h 115 0.062 0.490 0.488 0.9 71.3 5.2 0.0 12.5 

TEE-tee 0.25h 25h 115 -0.553 0.714 0.455 7.0 27.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 COMPARISON: PERSISTENCE FORECAST 

U00-u00 26 cm/s 24h 241 0.007 0.071 0.071 0.0 99.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 

U06-u06 26 cm/s 24h 241 0.008 0.161 0.161 0.4 91.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 

U12-u12 26 cm/s 24h 241 0.008 0.154 0.154 0.0 92.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 

U18-u18 26 cm/s 24h 241 0.008 0.160 0.161 0.0 92.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 

U24-u24 26 cm/s 24h 241 0.008 0.153 0.153 0.0 90.9 0.8 0.0 0.0 

AFC-afc 26 cm/s 24h 104 -0.037 0.158 0.154 0.0 90.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

AEC-aec 26 cm/s 24h 109 -0.003 0.143 0.144 0.0 91.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TFC-tfc 0.50h 25h 104 0.227 0.509 0.458 1.0 71.2 5.8 0.0 37.7 

TEC-tec 0.50h 25h 109 0.156 0.560 0.541 0.9 65.1 6.4 0.0 12.7 

TSF-tsf 0.25h 25h 104 0.007 0.495 0.497 0.0 70.2 4.8 0.0 37.9 

TEF-tef 0.25h 25h 102 0.169 0.478 0.449 0.0 72.5 4.9 0.0 12.3 

TSE-tse 0.25h 25h 92 0.012 0.668 0.671 7.6 45.7 5.4 12.3 0.0 

TEE-tee 0.25h 25h 102 0.079 0.469 0.465 0.0 65.7 2.9 0.0 24.8 

 COMPARISON: ASTRONOMICAL TIDE ONLY 

U-u 26 cm/s 24h 14427 -0.003 0.121 0.120 0.1 95.2 0.1 0.8 0.5 

AFC-afc 26 cm/s 24h 107 -0.039 0.106 0.098 0.0 99.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 

AEC-aec 26 cm/s 24h 112 -0.007 0.106 0.107 0.0 98.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TFC-tfc 0.50h 25h 107 0.250 0.500 0.435 0.9 72.9 5.6 0.0 37.7 

TEC-tec 0.50h 25h 112 0.144 0.544 0.527 0.0 64.3 5.4 0.0 12.7 

TSF-tsf 0.25h 25h 115 0.100 0.466 0.457 0.9 80.9 7.8 0.0 37.7 

TEF-tef 0.25h 25h 113 0.162 0.431 0.401 0.0 85.0 7.1 0.0 37.8 

TSE-tse 0.25h 25h 115 0.158 0.445 0.418 0.0 79.1 4.3 0.0 0.0 

TEE-tee 0.25h 25h 115 0.048 0.389 0.388 0.0 84.3 2.6 0.0 12.0 

- 53 -
Table D.3. Trout River Cut (J6) 

Observed data time period from: / 7/22/1998 to / 9/16/1998 

Data gap is filled using SVD method 

Data are filtered using 3.0 Hour Fourier Filter 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

VARIABLE X N IMAX SM RMSE SD NOF CF POF MDNO MDPO WOF 

CRITERION - - - - - - <1% >90% <1% <N <N <.5% 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 SCENARIO: TIDAL SIMULATION ONLY 

U 87121 0.390 

u 87121 0.443 

U-u 26 cm/s 24h 87121 -0.053 0.100 0.085 0.0 99.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 

AFC-afc 26 cm/s 24h 662 -0.073 0.095 0.060 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

AEC-aec 26 cm/s 24h 701 -0.082 0.089 0.036 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TFC-tfc 0.50h 25h 662 -0.574 0.688 0.380 10.9 34.1 0.0 161.5 0.0 

TEC-tec 0.50h 25h 701 -0.070 0.175 0.160 0.0 99.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TSF-tsf 0.25h 25h 670 -0.212 0.302 0.215 0.1 91.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TEF-tef 0.25h 25h 675 -0.084 0.290 0.277 0.0 91.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TSE-tse 0.25h 25h 675 -0.534 0.585 0.238 1.3 43.4 0.0 24.9 0.0 

TEE-tee 0.25h 25h 675 -0.168 0.292 0.238 0.0 92.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: HINDCAST 

U 13419 0.505 

u 13419 0.452 

U-u 26 cm/s 24h 13419 0.052 0.142 0.133 0.0 97.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

AFC-afc 26 cm/s 24h 84 0.037 0.107 0.101 0.0 98.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 

AEC-aec 26 cm/s 24h 106 0.165 0.172 0.047 0.0 97.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TFC-tfc 0.50h 25h 84 -0.761 0.902 0.488 34.5 23.8 0.0 37.6 0.0 

TEC-tec 0.50h 25h 106 0.325 0.575 0.476 0.0 45.3 4.7 0.0 0.0 

TSF-tsf 0.25h 25h 93 0.413 0.480 0.245 0.0 63.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 

TEF-tef 0.25h 25h 93 0.212 0.273 0.172 0.0 97.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TSE-tse 0.25h 25h 98 -0.471 0.519 0.219 2.0 56.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TEE-tee 0.25h 25h 98 -0.221 0.277 0.167 0.0 98.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL NOWCAST 

U 14409 0.525 

u 14409 0.391 

U-u 26 cm/s 24h 14409 0.134 0.258 0.221 0.0 61.0 0.7 0.0 0.9 

AFC-afc 26 cm/s 24h 111 0.022 0.080 0.078 0.0 99.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 

AEC-aec 26 cm/s 24h 115 0.338 0.340 0.039 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TFC-tfc 0.50h 25h 111 -0.795 0.897 0.418 31.5 17.1 0.0 37.5 0.0 

TEC-tec 0.50h 25h 115 -0.438 0.646 0.477 7.0 36.5 0.9 13.0 0.0 

TSF-tsf 0.25h 25h 115 -0.029 0.474 0.475 0.0 78.3 4.3 0.0 0.0 

TEF-tef 0.25h 25h 115 -0.580 0.688 0.371 3.5 21.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TSE-tse 0.25h 25h 116 -0.796 0.901 0.424 37.9 16.4 0.0 87.0 0.0 

TEE-tee 0.25h 25h 108 -1.168 1.230 0.387 83.3 16.7 0.0 633.0 0.0 

- 54 -
 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL FORECAST 

U00-u00 26 cm/s 24h 240 0.136 0.260 0.222 0.0 62.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 

U06-u06 26 cm/s 24h 240 0.133 0.232 0.191 0.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

U12-u12 26 cm/s 24h 240 0.134 0.250 0.211 0.0 63.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 

U18-u18 26 cm/s 24h 240 0.135 0.237 0.196 0.0 65.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

U24-u24 26 cm/s 24h 240 0.135 0.247 0.207 0.0 63.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 

AFC-afc 26 cm/s 24h 101 0.022 0.076 0.073 0.0 99.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

AEC-aec 26 cm/s 24h 115 0.325 0.328 0.042 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TFC-tfc 0.50h 25h 101 -0.571 0.734 0.463 20.8 45.5 0.0 12.3 0.0 

TEC-tec 0.50h 25h 115 -0.148 0.564 0.547 7.0 60.9 3.5 12.9 0.0 

TSF-tsf 0.25h 25h 111 0.133 0.508 0.492 0.0 82.0 10.8 0.0 49.4 

TEF-tef 0.25h 25h 113 -0.364 0.557 0.423 0.0 42.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TSE-tse 0.25h 25h 115 -0.689 0.824 0.453 23.5 18.3 0.0 49.5 0.0 

TEE-tee 0.25h 25h 110 -1.014 1.091 0.403 74.5 16.4 0.0 224.4 0.0 

 COMPARISON: PERSISTENCE FORECAST 

U00-u00 26 cm/s 24h 240 0.001 0.051 0.051 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

U06-u06 26 cm/s 24h 240 0.001 0.103 0.103 0.0 97.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 

U12-u12 26 cm/s 24h 240 0.001 0.105 0.106 0.0 97.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 

U18-u18 26 cm/s 24h 240 0.002 0.102 0.102 0.0 97.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 

U24-u24 26 cm/s 24h 240 0.002 0.103 0.103 0.0 97.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 

AFC-afc 26 cm/s 24h 113 0.002 0.106 0.106 0.0 98.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 

AEC-aec 26 cm/s 24h 104 0.005 0.095 0.095 0.0 98.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TFC-tfc 0.50h 25h 113 0.121 0.397 0.379 0.0 80.5 2.7 0.0 37.2 

TEC-tec 0.50h 25h 104 0.273 0.557 0.487 0.0 61.5 5.8 0.0 12.8 

TSF-tsf 0.25h 25h 100 -0.058 0.471 0.470 2.0 74.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 

TEF-tef 0.25h 25h 104 0.107 0.409 0.397 0.0 79.8 2.9 0.0 0.0 

TSE-tse 0.25h 25h 102 0.035 0.401 0.402 0.0 79.4 2.0 0.0 11.7 

TEE-tee 0.25h 25h 102 0.091 0.395 0.386 1.0 83.3 2.0 0.0 0.0 

 COMPARISON: ASTRONOMICAL TIDE ONLY 

U-u 26 cm/s 24h 14409 -0.004 0.076 0.076 0.0 98.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 

AFC-afc 26 cm/s 24h 116 -0.006 0.054 0.053 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

AEC-aec 26 cm/s 24h 111 0.001 0.038 0.038 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TFC-tfc 0.50h 25h 116 0.098 0.370 0.358 0.0 82.8 3.4 0.0 37.2 

TEC-tec 0.50h 25h 111 0.271 0.550 0.481 0.0 58.6 7.2 0.0 12.8 

TSF-tsf 0.25h 25h 113 0.064 0.409 0.405 0.0 85.0 5.3 0.0 13.4 

TEF-tef 0.25h 25h 115 0.130 0.376 0.355 0.0 87.8 3.5 0.0 0.0 

TSE-tse 0.25h 25h 115 0.099 0.359 0.347 0.0 85.2 2.6 0.0 11.3 

TEE-tee 0.25h 25h 115 0.122 0.345 0.325 0.0 87.0 2.6 0.0 11.5 

- 55 -
APPENDIX E. Skill Assessment Scores of Current Direction 

Table E.1. Mayport Basin Entrance (J2) 

Observed data time period from: / 6/ 3/1998 to / 7/21/1998 

Data gap is filled using SVD method 

Data are filtered using 3.0 Hour Fourier Filter 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

VARIABLE X N IMAX SM RMSE SD NOF CF POF MDNO MDPO WOF 

CRITERION - - - - - - <1% >90% <1% <N <N <.5% 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 SCENARIO: TIDAL SIMULATION ONLY 

D 87121 179.482 

d 87121 167.451 

D-d 22.5 dg 24h 87121 12.031 13.651 6.451 0.0 98.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

DFC-dfc 22.5 dg 24h 702 17.390 17.450 1.451 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

DEC-dec 22.5 dg 24h 701 6.908 7.279 2.296 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: HINDCAST 

D 11512 178.071 

d 11512 165.367 

D-d 22.5 dg 24h 11512 12.705 15.115 8.190 0.0 91.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 

DFC-dfc 22.5 dg 24h 75 19.274 19.514 3.076 0.0 85.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 

DEC-dec 22.5 dg 24h 75 6.919 8.345 4.698 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL NOWCAST 

D 9665 192.372 

d 9665 136.018 

D-d 22.5 dg 24h 9665 9.430 31.800 30.371 2.7 77.8 11.9 2.9 3.6 

DEC-dec 22.5 dg 24h 72 9.253 13.395 9.753 0.0 97.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL FORECAST 

D00-d00 22.5 dg 24h 161 7.734 27.211 26.170 9.3 58.4 32.3 0.0 0.0 

D06-d06 22.5 dg 24h 161 8.777 29.013 27.740 9.3 57.1 33.5 0.0 0.0 

D12-d12 22.5 dg 24h 161 7.595 29.007 28.082 13.7 54.0 31.1 12.0 0.0 

D18-d18 22.5 dg 24h 161 7.417 28.516 27.620 14.9 54.7 29.8 12.0 0.0 

D24-d24 22.5 dg 24h 161 7.549 28.738 27.815 13.0 55.3 31.1 12.0 0.0 

DEC-dec 22.5 dg 24h 69 9.276 12.939 9.087 0.0 98.6 1.4 0.0 0.0 

 COMPARISON: PERSISTENCE FORECAST 

D00-d00 22.5 dg 24h 161 0.067 4.246 4.258 23.0 49.7 24.8 18.0 6.0 

D06-d06 22.5 dg 24h 161 -0.538 14.082 14.116 28.6 50.9 19.3 6.0 12.0 

D12-d12 22.5 dg 24h 161 -0.005 9.854 9.885 22.4 54.0 22.4 12.0 6.0 

D18-d18 22.5 dg 24h 161 -1.369 14.037 14.014 32.3 50.9 16.8 6.0 18.0 

D24-d24 22.5 dg 24h 161 0.017 7.812 7.837 23.6 51.6 23.6 12.0 18.0 

DEC-dec 22.5 dg 24h 73 -3.500 10.183 9.629 0.0 97.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 COMPARISON: ASTRONOMICAL TIDE ONLY 

D-d 22.5 dg 24h 9665 -0.996 10.601 10.555 0.4 93.7 0.0 0.9 0.0 

DEC-dec 22.5 dg 24h 73 -0.981 6.937 6.915 0.0 98.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

- 56 -
Table E.2. Dames Point Bridge (J5) 

Observed data time period from: / 7/23/1998 to / 8/15/1998 

Data gap is filled using SVD method 

Data are filtered using 3.0 Hour Fourier Filter 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

VARIABLE X N IMAX SM RMSE SD NOF CF POF MDNO MDPO WOF 

CRITERION - - - - - - <1% >90% <1% <N <N <.5% 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 SCENARIO: TIDAL SIMULATION ONLY 

D 87121 163.937 

d 87121 159.375 

D-d 22.5 dg 24h 87121 4.562 6.346 4.412 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

DFC-dfc 22.5 dg 24h 700 2.359 3.478 2.558 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

DEC-dec 22.5 dg 24h 701 7.300 7.749 2.602 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: HINDCAST 

D 5418 160.431 

d 5418 152.316 

D-d 22.5 dg 24h 5418 8.116 10.839 7.186 0.0 97.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 

DFC-dfc 22.5 dg 24h 36 7.514 8.085 3.029 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

DEC-dec 22.5 dg 24h 43 10.196 12.045 6.489 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL NOWCAST 

D 14427 166.018 

d 14427 153.047 

D-d 22.5 dg 24h 14427 7.472 14.332 12.231 0.3 93.4 0.4 0.3 1.0 

DFC-dfc 22.5 dg 24h 111 7.009 11.511 9.173 0.0 91.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 

DEC-dec 22.5 dg 24h 110 17.278 17.859 4.540 0.0 88.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL FORECAST 

D00-d00 22.5 dg 24h 241 8.045 16.329 14.239 5.8 30.3 63.1 6.0132.0 

D06-d06 22.5 dg 24h 241 8.891 12.937 9.417 2.5 32.4 64.3 0.0108.0 

D12-d12 22.5 dg 24h 241 8.126 16.095 13.922 5.0 32.4 62.2 0.0108.0 

D18-d18 22.5 dg 24h 241 8.165 16.035 13.829 4.1 31.5 62.2 0.0126.0 

D24-d24 22.5 dg 24h 241 8.171 16.123 13.928 5.8 31.1 62.2 0.0108.0 

DFC-dfc 22.5 dg 24h 107 8.593 13.424 10.362 0.0 90.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 

DEC-dec 22.5 dg 24h 112 16.778 17.392 4.601 0.0 89.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 COMPARISON: PERSISTENCE FORECAST 

D00-d00 22.5 dg 24h 241 -0.054 5.468 5.479 34.4 25.7 34.9 30.0 42.0 

D06-d06 22.5 dg 24h 241 3.959 22.557 22.253 28.2 32.0 36.5 42.0 66.0 

D12-d12 22.5 dg 24h 241 -0.413 7.599 7.603 34.0 31.5 32.0 30.0 24.0 

D18-d18 22.5 dg 24h 241 3.540 26.251 26.066 27.8 31.5 39.0 42.0 54.0 

D24-d24 22.5 dg 24h 241 -0.886 11.771 11.762 34.4 30.7 32.8 30.0 30.0 

DFC-dfc 22.5 dg 24h 103 -1.029 11.575 11.586 0.0 95.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 

DEC-dec 22.5 dg 24h 112 0.566 6.749 6.756 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 COMPARISON: ASTRONOMICAL TIDE ONLY 

D-d 22.5 dg 24h 14427 0.805 7.281 7.236 0.0 99.4 0.1 0.0 0.5 

DFC-dfc 22.5 dg 24h 107 -0.579 8.470 8.490 0.0 97.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 

DEC-dec 22.5 dg 24h 112 0.376 4.699 4.705 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

- 57 -
Table E.3. Trout River Cut (J6) 

Observed data time period from: / 7/22/1998 to / 9/16/1998 

Data gap is filled using SVD method 

Data are filtered using 3.0 Hour Fourier Filter 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

VARIABLE X N IMAX SM RMSE SD NOF CF POF MDNO MDPO WOF 

CRITERION - - - - - - <1% >90% <1% <N <N <.5% 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 SCENARIO: TIDAL SIMULATION ONLY 

D 87121 100.023 

d 87121 97.751 

D-d 22.5 dg 24h 87121 2.273 6.918 6.534 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

DFC-dfc 22.5 dg 24h 662 8.932 9.076 1.612 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

DEC-dec 22.5 dg 24h 701 -0.624 3.563 3.511 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: HINDCAST 

D 13419 91.686 

d 13419 102.383 

D-d 22.5 dg 24h 13419 -3.378 13.822 13.403 0.3 97.5 0.0 3.2 0.0 

DFC-dfc 22.5 dg 24h 84 7.164 9.113 5.666 0.0 96.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

DEC-dec 22.5 dg 24h 106 -5.564 8.576 6.557 0.0 99.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL NOWCAST 

D 14409 94.352 

d 14409 122.403 

D-d 22.5 dg 24h 14409 9.513 15.448 12.171 0.0 76.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 

DFC-dfc 22.5 dg 24h 111 33.062 33.256 3.603 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 

DEC-dec 22.5 dg 24h 115 7.471 8.371 3.792 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 SCENARIO: SEMI-OPERATIONAL FORECAST 

D00-d00 22.5 dg 24h 240 9.351 15.445 12.318 5.8 35.4 57.9 0.0108.0 

D06-d06 22.5 dg 24h 240 10.125 16.369 12.889 5.8 35.0 57.9 0.0102.0 

D12-d12 22.5 dg 24h 240 9.421 15.492 12.324 4.6 35.8 57.9 0.0102.0 

D18-d18 22.5 dg 24h 240 9.940 16.152 12.757 5.4 35.4 58.3 0.0102.0 

D24-d24 22.5 dg 24h 240 9.588 15.648 12.393 4.6 36.7 57.5 0.0102.0 

DFC-dfc 22.5 dg 24h 101 32.931 33.166 3.957 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

DEC-dec 22.5 dg 24h 115 6.892 7.874 3.824 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 COMPARISON: PERSISTENCE FORECAST 

D00-d00 22.5 dg 24h 240 -0.403 4.651 4.643 31.7 33.3 30.4 24.0 24.0 

D06-d06 22.5 dg 24h 240 -0.969 16.468 16.474 35.8 31.3 30.8 48.0 42.0 

D12-d12 22.5 dg 24h 240 0.406 7.701 7.707 33.3 35.0 30.4 42.0 12.0 

D18-d18 22.5 dg 24h 240 -0.849 17.084 17.099 32.9 34.6 30.0 30.0 24.0 

D24-d24 22.5 dg 24h 240 -0.023 6.335 6.349 33.3 34.2 31.3 48.0 18.0 

DFC-dfc 22.5 dg 24h 116 -0.401 5.929 5.941 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

DEC-dec 22.5 dg 24h 110 -1.103 7.295 7.245 0.0 98.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 COMPARISON: ASTRONOMICAL TIDE ONLY 

D-d 22.5 dg 24h 14409 -0.323 3.617 3.603 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

DFC-dfc 22.5 dg 24h 116 -0.128 3.252 3.264 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

DEC-dec 22.5 dg 24h 111 -1.508 3.555 3.233 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

- 58 -