Figure 54. The computed gage data were compared with field data for gages 
TG1, TG2, and TG3 (Figures 55-57). 
205. An excellent match in phase and range was obtained between model 
and recorded tides at Sandy Hook Bay Marina (TG1). This was expected since 
TG1 gage data were used as boundary conditions. Good results at high tides 
were obtained at Red Bank (TG2) and Rumrunner Restaurant (TG3). Differences 
between tide gage data and model results at gages TG2 and TG3 were less than 
0.10 ft and 0.15 ft, respectively. The model predicted a later and higher low 
tide, 7.5 min and 0.1 ft, respectively, at Rumrunner than was indicated in 
field gage data; however, this discrepancy had little significance in this 
project. 
206. Although a small difference between calculated and measured water 
level is indicated at hour 39 for Red Bank (Figure 56), the computed peaks 
follow a pattern similar to that predicted in the NOAA Tide Tables (1985) for 
the given time period. The discrepancy may be related to error in the gage 
data and/or a meterological factor which was neglected in the calibration 
process. 
Verification 
207. The calibrated model was verified for a time interval of 39 hr, 
from 0400 June 3 to 1900 June 4 1985. The results, presented in Figures 58 
through 60, show the model adequately predicted the tide gage data during this 
period. 
208. Two historical storms, the March 1962 northeaster and Hurricane 
Donna (1960), were simulated on the nearshore grid. Data from the Sandy Hook 
tide gage were used to supply the boundary condition to drive the storm surge 
model. Wind speed and direction data were obtained from the Standard Project 
Hurricane (SPH) windfield model (National Weather Service 1979) for Donna and 
FIMP for the March 1962 storm. 
209. The most accurate method for calibration and verification of the 
historical storm would involve using historical inlet and channel configura- 
tions. However, this was beyond the scope of this project, and present-day 
bathymetry was used instead. 
210. Results of both historical simulations are compared with water 
levels reported in "Flood Mark Determination for Selected Storms" prepared by 
VEP Associates, Inc. (1985). The comparisons, given in Tables 13 and 14 for 
the 1962 storm and Donna, respectively, show a good match between the computed 
116 
