Specific conclusions and recommendations for each alternative site are as
follows:
a. Anasosopo. Wind wave and swell heights are bigger than at the other
sites but significantly reduced from offshore incident wave heights. The
site satisfies the 0.6-m (2-ft) criterion but does not meet the 0.3-m (1-ft)
criterion. The site is potentially impacted by resonant oscillations with
periods of 50 to 60 sec and 122 sec.
b. Aua. Wind wave and swell heights meet both the 0.6-m (2-ft) and 0.3-m
(1-ft) criteria. A small bathymetric hump near the site causes a localized
exceedance of the 0.3-m (1-ft) criterion, but that issue could be addressed
in detailed design of harbor facilities. The site is impacted by a number
of resonant oscillation modes with periods between 75 sec and 236 sec.
c. Leloaloa. Wind wave and swell heights meet the 0.6-m (2-ft) criterion
but do not meet the 0.3-m (1-ft) criterion except at the more sheltered,
west end of the site. This site is least likely to be adversely affected by
harbor oscillations.
d. Anua. Wind wave and swell heights are negligible, far below the
criteria. The site is potentially impacted by resonant oscillations with
periods of 130, 188, 455, and 649 sec.
These study results provide an assessment of potential harbor sites relative to
short and longwave criteria. The modeling approach and evaluation criteria
provide a useful basis for comparing alternative sites. However, more detailed
studies are recommended at a later stage of planning and design. More detailed
studies can take into account specific harbor designs and more attention to ship
sizes and operations to be accommodated. Additional natural processes which
may affect operations, such as wave-generated currents in reef areas, can also be
evaluated in more detailed studies.
44
Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations
Previous Page
