Forum On Hydrodynamic Modeling in The Hudson River Estuary and New York Harbor

FORUM ON HYDRODYNAMIC MODELING IN THE
HUDSON RIVER ESTUARY AND NEW YORK HARBOR

JANUARY 31, 2012
HUDSON RIVER FOUNDATION
NEW YORK, NEW YORK

White Paper

April 16, 2012

Prepared For:
NYSERDA

Prepared By:
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
Lexington, Massachusetts

Sponsored By:
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)

In Collaboration With:
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
Hudson River Estuary Program
Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve

Forum on Hydrodynamic Modeling in the Hudson River Estuary and New York Harbor

2

Acknowledgements
We wish to thank the following individuals who contributed to the success of the Forum:
Forum Presenters:
Robbie Berg, NOAA National Hurricane Center
Malcolm Bowman, State University of New York, Stony Brook
Edward Capone, NOAA National Weather Service, Northeast River Forecast Center
Roger Flood, State University of New York, Stony Brook
Jeff Gangai, CFM, Dewberry
Nickitas Georgas, Stevens Institute of Technology
Rocky Geyer, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
David Ralston, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Paul Weberg, U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency
Robert Wilson, State University of New York, Stony Brook
Forum Organizers
Emilie Hauser, NYSDEC Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve
Kristin Marcell, NYSDEC Hudson River Estuary Program and Cornell University WRI
Melanie Moore, Student Conservation Association member at NYSDEC Hudson River National
Estuarine Research Reserve
Amanda Stevens, NYSERDA
And special thanks to Dr. Dennis Suszkowski and Helena Andreyko of the Hudson River Foundation, who
hosted the Forum and James Lodge who ran the webinar.

Citation: Eastern Research Group, Inc. (2012) Forum on Hydrodynamic Modeling in the Hudson River
Estuary and New York Harbor: White Paper. Published by NYSERDA. Available at
http://hrnerr.org/public/training/Modeling/Modeling_index.html


3

Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 4
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 6
INCREASING THE UNDERSTANDING OF HYDRODYNAMIC MODELS & USER NEEDS .................. 9
IDENTIFYING CHARACTERISTICS OF MODELS AND PRIORITY USER NEEDS: FORECASTING
FLOODING AND SEDIMENT DYNAMICS ................................................................................ 16
NEXT STEPS ......................................................................................................................... 20
Appendix A: Acronym List .................................................................................................... 22
Appendix B: Links to Online Content .................................................................................... 23
Appendix C: Model Summaries ............................................................................................ 24
Appendix D: Table of Model Characteristics ......................................................................... 35
Appendix E: Map of Hudson River Estuary ........................................................................... 38
Appendix F: Forum Agenda .................................................................................................. 39
Appendix G: Participant List ................................................................................................. 41
Appendix H: Speaker Biographies ........................................................................................ 43
Appendix I: Pre-Workshop Survey Results ............................................................................ 46
Appendix J: Post-Forum Evaluation Results .......................................................................... 50


4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On January 31, 2012, a forum to spark discussion about using hydrodynamic modeling as a tool to
investigate how climate change might impact the Hudson River Estuary was convened at the Hudson
River Foundation. The forum brought together hydrodynamic modelers and model users to accomplish
three objectives:
To introduce and increase understanding of existing hydrodynamic models relevant to the
Hudson River Estuary;
To identify existing and potential future user needs as related to hydrodynamic modeling; and
To identify major gaps and future research needs to meet user needs and further develop
modeling capabilities.
Much of the day was dedicated to educating attendees about the types of hydrodynamic models that
are being used to analyze the Hudson River Estuary and New York Harbor. During eight presentations,
East Coast-based hydrodynamic modelers introduced forum participants to a broad array of models,
including:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Weather Services Northeast
River Forecast Center model
Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) Riverine Flood Study
NOAAs Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model
FEMAs Coastal Flood Study
Stevens Institute of Technologys New York Harbor Observation and Prediction System
SUNY Stony Brooks (SoMAS) Storm Surge Model for the New York Metropolitan Area
SUNY Stony Brooks (SoMAS) Tides, Currents and Datums in the Upper Hudson Estuary
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institutes Hydrodynamics and Suspended Sediment Model
Following the presentations, model developers and users engaged in a facilitated discussion on user
needs and data gaps for both ongoing and future projects. Generally, participants current needs
included observed data and modeled output on the effects of climate change (e.g., changes in storm
intensity, river flow, sea level rise as well as sediment and nutrient load and salinity data). Participants
also noted a need for observed data and model outputs at a variety of scales. Users identified needs for
guidance in a variety of areas including assistance in understanding model outputs, selecting
appropriate models for appropriate timescales, addressing uncertainty in modeling results to decision
makers, and accessing and selecting most the appropriate models to answer specific questions.
Modelers and users both agreed there was a need for greater collaboration among modelers and
between modelers and users.
Following the discussion on user needs, the next forum session focused on two issues identified by
participants in the pre-workshop survey: the effects of climate change on flooding and the effects of

5

climate change on sediment dynamics. Participants discussed research priorities and data, user, and
monitoring needs related to these two issues. There seemed to be agreement that among the most
critical data needs are complete shallow water bathymetric data, complete LiDAR data for the NYS
coastline, high resolution wind data, more comprehensive tributary discharge data, and downscaled
wave run-up data.
A list of acronyms used in this paper is in Appendix A. A list of on-line resources related to the forum,
and relevant topics is in Appendix B.


6

INTRODUCTION
The Hudson River Estuary extends 153 miles beginning at the Federal Dam at Troy and ending in New
York Harbor, see map in Appendix E. It is home to more than 200 species of fish, including the
endangered shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon, and supports an abundance of other river-
dependent wildlife and birds. Profoundly influenced by the ocean's tides for its entire length, the
Hudson River Estuary includes a wide range of wetland habitats, from the brackish marshes of Piermont
to the freshwater tidal mudflats and marshes of Tivoli Bays and Stockport Flats. The Hudson River
Estuary is vital to the economy of Northeast in general and New York in particular, serving as an
important shipping route, providing a variety of ecosystem services, and serving as source of drinking
water.
1

Since 1850, climate change has caused sea levels in New York Harbor to rise by 15 inches.
2
By the year
2080, sea levels at the mouth of the Hudson River could rise between 12 and 55 inches (NYSERDA, 2010;
Table 1). Changes of this magnitude could radically alter the characteristics of the estuary and harbor.
Presently, the Hudson Estuarys salt front typically lies 35 to 45 miles upstream from the Battery in New
York City.
3
Significant sea level rise could push this salt front further upstream, threatening the fragile
freshwater ecosystems that thrive there and Hudson River drinking water supplies. Sea level rise could
also threaten human infrastructure such as wastewater and energy systems, roads, and railroads.
4

TABLE 1. Projected Sea Level Rise in New York
1

Lower Hudson Valley & Long Island 2020s 2050s 2080s
Sea level rise
2
2 to 5 in 7 to 12 in 12 to 23 in
Sea level rise with rapid ice-melt scenario
3
5 to 10 in 19 to 29 in 41 to 55 in
Mid-Hudson Valley & Capital Region 2020s 2050s 2080s
Sea level rise
2
1 to 4 in 5 to 9 in 8 to 18 in
Sea level rise with rapid ice-melt scenario
3
4 to 9 in 17 to 26 in 37 to 50 in
1
NYSERDA ClimAID Team, 2010. Integrated Assessment for Effective Climate-change Adaptation Strategies in
New York State. C. Rosenzweig, W. Solecki, A. DeGaetano, M. O'Grady, S. Hassol, P. Grabhorn, Eds. New York
State Energy Research and Development Authority, 17 Columbia Circle, Albany, NY 12203.
2
Shown is the central range (middle 67%) of values from model-based probabilities (16 global climate models
by 3 GHG emissions scenarios) rounded to the nearest inch.
3
The rapid ice-melt scenario is based on acceleration of recent rates of ice melt in the Greenland and west
Antarctic ice sheets and paleoclimate studies.

In order to better understand the nature and extent of these effects, NYSERDA and the NYSDEC held a
forum on Hydrodynamic Modeling of the Hudson River and New York Harbor on January 31, 2012. The

1
http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/4923.html
2
NYS Climate Action Plan Interim Report (2010)
3
http://ny.water.usgs.gov/projects/dialer_plots/saltfront.html#HDR0
4
http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/39786.html

7

agenda for the day is in Appendix F. The forum convened hydrodynamic modelers and model users with
experience and interest in the Hudson River Estuary and New York Harbor systems (see Appendix G for a
list of participants and Appendix H for speaker biographies). Hydrodynamic models are essentially
computer programs that describe or predict the behavior of a body of waterin this case, the Hudson
Estuary. These models input different parameters, such as bathymetry and meteorological conditions,
through a complex series of algorithms to generate a set of outputs such as river flow volume and water
salinity.
5
The ultimate goal of the forum was to improve understanding of how hydrodynamic modeling
can be used to investigate the current and future effects of climate change on various aspects of the
Hudson River Estuary including:
Location and behavior of the salt front;
Frequency, severity, and extent of flooding;
Sediment movement and its effects;
Extent and migration of tidal wetlands and submerged aquatic vegetation; and
River and tributary ecological processes.
To achieve this goal, NYSERDA and NYSDEC had three main objectives for the forum: 1) to increase the
user understanding of existing models; 2) to identify priority user needs; and 3) to distinguish or, if
possible, reach consensus on key data gaps to be filled and future research and monitoring needs (e.g.,
near term versus longer term and sequencing). To achieve the first objective, the forum began with
presentations of eight models, which differ in terms of purpose, inputs, geographic scope, boundary
conditions, resolution, outputs (and the way in which outputs are validated against field measurements)
and the key assumptions underlying operation. The following were models presented during the forum:
National Weather Service Northeast River Forecast Center model (NOAA)
Riverine Flood Study (FEMA)
Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model (NOAA)
Coastal Flood Study (FEMA)
New York Harbor Observation and Prediction System (Stevens Institute of Technology)
Storm Surge Model for the New York Metropolitan Area (SoMAS, SUNY Stony Brook)
Tides, Currents and Datums in the Upper Hudson Estuary (SoMAS, SUNY Stony Brook)
Hydrodynamics and Suspended Sediment Model (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute)
Forum organizers approached the second objective through a facilitated discussion that allowed
participants the opportunity to discuss current hydrodynamic modeling projects and any user needs
associated with those projects. Additionally, participants discussed data and user needs as
hydrodynamic modeling progresses in the face of a changing climate.

5
http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/csdl/learn_models.html

8

Lastly, to achieve the third objective of identifying research, data and monitoring gaps and needs, a
facilitated discussion was held that focused on the results of the pre-workshop survey. This survey was
distributed to all participants in advance of the forum and results revealed that many pre-registrants
were familiar with one or two of the models, but no one was well versed in all of the selected models.
Surveys also showed that pre-registrants were most interested in models that offer predictions of
flooding and sediment dynamics. The agenda was designed to focus on these top two interests
expressed by participants (see Figure 1 below; for complete survey results, see Appendix I) and the
results of this discussion are detailed in Section IV, Identifying Characteristics of Models and Priority
User Needs: Forecasting Flooding and Sediment Dynamics.

FIGURE 1. Selected results from pre-forum survey.
This white paper, developed from the presentations and discussions at the forum, serves as a reference
document for model users and developers to address the overarching goal of improving understanding
of how hydrodynamic modeling can be used to investigate the current and future effects of climate
change on various aspects of the Hudson River Estuary. We hope that it will help begin a conversation
about how best to advance the field of hydrodynamic modeling so that these powerful tools can help
scientists and policymakers understand the effects of climate change on the Hudson.
0 5 10 15 20
Understanding salt front dynamics and
improving projections of how they may be
affected by climate change
Improving projections of areas affected by
flooding (including storm surge and
watershed inputs) now and under a
Improving projections of how tidal wetlands
and submerged aquatic vegetation may
migrate with climate change
Understanding sediment dynamics and
improving projections of how they may be
affected by climate change
Improving projections of storm dynamics
and how they may be affected by climate
change
Understanding river and tributary ecological
processes and how they may be affected by
climate change
Responses (N = 23)
Which of the following do you see as the two most important modeling
needs related to the Hudson Estuary and New York Harbor?
Most
Important
Important

9

The paper is organized by the three main forum objectives beginning with a summary of the model
presentations, a general discussion on current user needs for existing projects and future needs,
followed by a summary of the discussion on the two modeling topics identified as priorities by pre-
registrants (flooding and sediment modeling), and concluding with recommendations for next steps.
INCREASING THE UNDERSTANDING
OF HYDRODYNAMIC MODELS &
USER NEEDS
Summary of Presentations
For a more detailed description of each model please see Appendix C. Appendix D is a table of modeling
characteristics. Model presentations are also available online at:
Ed Capone (NOAA National Weather Service Northeast River Forecast Center) presented the Northeast
River Forecast Centers (NERFC) Model, which is capable of forecasting river levels at 200 locations in the
Northeast. For the Hudson River, the model can forecast water surface levels, flow vs. depth, and rough
velocities at gauge locations in Albany and Poughkeepsie using river system characteristics (length,
lateral inflows, downstream boundary), river cross-section information (coordinates of the bottom of
channel, distances between the cross sections), and channel properties (e.g., friction losses). The model
makes several assumptions including zero across channel velocity (one dimensional flow), uniform water
surface, and small river bed slopes (wave refraction has led to some inaccuracies in predicting water
levels at the Albany location). Additionally, the model has some difficulty with predicting seasonal
variability and accounting for tidal boundary forcing (non-one dimensional flow). NERFC Model
developers are currently working to enhance the model by integrating the Sea Lake and Overland Surges
from Hurricanes (SLOSH) Model and sea level rise models. Albany and Poughkeepsie forecasts can be
found online.
6

Paul Weberg (FEMA) presented the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Riverine Flood
Study. The studys hydrologic analyses use stream or rain gauge data to provide flood discharge
estimates for various size storms at different points along the Hudson River. This discharge estimate is
then used in a hydraulic analysis to provide flood elevations, velocities, and floodplain widths at river
cross-sections (twenty cross sections are used in the Hudson River study). When calculating discharges,

6
Albany: http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?wfo=aly&gage=albn6&view=1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
Poughkeepsie: http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?wfo=aly&gage=poun6&view=1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1

10

statistical analyses and watershed models are used to determine peak flows. These flows can be verified
using historical gauge records. At the conclusion of his presentation, Mr. Weberg discussed the recent
$1 million grant to the New York Citys Mayors Office through FEMAs RiskMap program to create new
flood risk maps that include projected sea level rise for planning purposes. Mr. Weberg explained that
regulatory decisions related to the FEMA Flood Insurance program are based on cost/benefit analyses
and that New York can require more stringent building code standards at the state level.
Robbie Berg (NOAA National Hurricane Center) presented the Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from
Hurricanes (SLOSH) model. The model is used to estimate storm surge heights from historical,
hypothetical, or predicted hurricanes and is used as the basis for Hurricane Evacuation Studies and to
assess vulnerability. Model parameters include track, pressure, and radius of maximum storm winds;
topography; and bathymetry for the modeled basin. Maximum Envelope of Water products (MEOWs)
are used to predict maximum possible storm surge in a region from a storm with particular
characteristics. All possible storm tracks for this particular storm are run to create a MEOW. The
Maximum of MEOWs (MOMs) is a model of aggregated MEOWs. MOMs are generated by taking many
storms of a particular strength (Category) and moving them inland at all locations along the coast in
different directions at different speeds. MOMs are the basis of hurricane evacuation maps that show the
expected surge for Category 1-4 storms. NOAAs new SLOSH basin model for New York includes surge
projections for the Hudson River up through northern Dutchess County (model developers recommend
extrapolating results from Dutchess County for areas upriver towards Troy). Because the model does not
include astronomical high tides, wave run-up, normal river flow, and precipitation, SLOSH has to be
paired with a freshwater riverine model to improve accuracy in the Hudson Estuary. The National
Weather Service (NWS) builds the model and the National Hurricane Center (NHC) runs the model.
Output from model runs are then sent to NWS regional offices (the regional office relevant to the
Hudson estuary is located in Upton, NY) where results are refined for tides and local conditions.

Jeff Gangai (Dewberry) presented on the FEMA Coastal Flood Study in New Jersey and New York which
produced base flood elevations for various size coastal storms for the region. The base flood elevations
include wave run-up and are used to produce FEMA flood insurance rate maps. For the New York City
region, 159 synthetic storms were generated using historical storm data to predict potential storm
surges. Storm surge simulation requires wind speed and direction, air pressure, and historical flood data.
Base flood elevation modeling requires topography, bathymetry, and location of other coastal features.
The main goal of the current modeling effort is to update flood insurance rate maps for the 100-year
flood in the region stretching from Cape May, New Jersey all the way up the Hudson to Troy, New York.
The study identifies coastal high hazard areas (Velocity Wave or VE Zones), areas where waves will be
less than 3 feet (AE Zones), provides an updated base flood elevation, and identifies the Limit of
Moderate Wave Action (LiMWA), which is the inland limit of waves greater than 1.5 feet. Mr. Gangai
discussed the uncertainty in the New York study due to lack of historic wind data. Additionally, the study
was complete prior to the availability of higher resolution LiDAR data for State of New York which will be

11

available by late summer 2012. He also clarified how FEMA considers coastal and riverine flooding
separately therefore no riverine storm flow variable is included in the coastal study.
Nickitas Georgas (Stevens Institute of Technology) presented on the New York Harbor Observation and
Prediction System (NYHOPS). NYHOPS is an estuarine circulation model that provides real time marine
forecasts including 10-minute averaged total water level predictions; three-dimensional currents,
temperature, and salinity profiles; surface wave fields; and is linked to a water quality model which
forecasts chromophoric dissolved organic matter. These forecasts have been used to issue flooding
alerts, as spill guidance, for search and rescue, transit planning, and will be used to identify shoreline
energy regimes in the Hudson River Estuary. The current system extends beyond New York and includes
the Northeast from Maryland to Massachusetts, but the focus remains on the New York region including
New York Harbor, the Hudson River Estuary, the south shore of Long Island, and Long Island Sound. The
system requires input of observed and forecasted tide data, offshore surges and waves, surface winds,
locally-adjusted air-sea heat fluxes, distributed gauged and ungauged river and stream inflows, major
discharges (historic), and river ice data. Dr. Georgas explained that accurate information on freshwater
flows (which are critical to water levels upriver) and wave effects were critical to the models predictive
capability.
Malcolm Bowman (State University of New York at Stony Brook and the School of Marine and
Atmospheric Sciences [SoMAS]) presented on the Storm Surge Model for the New York Metropolitan
Area. Using National Weather Service model outputs, bathymetry data, tide gauge observations, and
offshore tidal levels, the model makes daily predictions of sea levels (tide plus surge), regional winds,
and sea level pressure along the New York Bight coastline (New London, Connecticut to Lewes,
Delaware; including Long Island Sound, New York Harbor, and the lower Hudson River Estuary). The
model has been used most often to predict storm effects in the New York metropolitan area and if
water levels exceed one foot above the predicted high tide, the model will automatically send out a
warning to subscribers. Additionally, it has been used to explore the feasibility of regional storm surge
barriers for the same area and northern New Jersey. Dr. Bowman is currently working with the Stevens
Institute on an ensemble model that will integrate the NY Storm Surge Model with the NYHOPS and the
NOAA extratropical storm surge models to capitalize on the best components of each. There are also
plans to expand the geographic extent of the model to Troy, to cover the entire Hudson River Estuary.
Roger Flood and Robert Wilson (State University of New York at Stony Brook and SoMAS) presented on
the Tides, Currents and Datums in the Upper Hudson River. This tidal model of the Upper Hudson River
Estuary uses river bathymetry data, discharge information, and water elevation to refine tidal datums
(statistics on tidal range, elevation, and current velocities at different nodes along the river). There are
many temporal factors that modelers had to consider, including modeling the tide during a period of low
river flow and consideration of mean sea level rise variability. The model was developed to assist
NYSDECs effort to correct the tidal datum from Verrazano Narrows to Troy. Developers are also hoping

12

the model will be useful to the upcoming NYSDEC habitat restoration plan and for wetlands migration
studies.
Rocky Geyer and Dave Ralston (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution) presented the last model of the
forum, the Hydrodynamics and Suspended Sediment Model. The high-resolution, three-dimensional
model predicts water levels, salinity (as a function of boundary conditions), velocity and suspended
sediment concentrations for the area between the Battery and the dam at Troy as well as from the
Battery to Poughkeepsie. Model inputs include bathymetry, water level at the Battery, wind forcing,
river discharge, and properties for each sediment size class. Dr. Ralston discussed the evolution of the
model; how it began as a way of predicting salinity and how it evolved into three-dimensions to
accommodate sediment modeling. Sediment modeling has presented its own unique challenges for a
variety of reasons, including nonlinear interactions and the difficulty in characterizing channel erosion.
Nevertheless, model developers are interested in looking at smaller scale sediment processes as the
model continues to evolve.
General User and Modeler Needs
After learning about the eight different models, forum participants had the opportunity to share data
needs associated with ongoing modeling projects as well as potential needs and desires moving forward.
General Research, Data and Monitoring Needs
Participants were asked to share their ongoing work as it related to hydrodynamic modeling and existing
data and user needs. Existing efforts included:
Using sediment transport modeling to assist in toxic (contaminants) modeling.
Using SLAMM model to better understand how changes in sea level, salinity, and sediment
regimes affect plant communities.
Running SLAMM model in the Hudson River Estuary to help communities plan adaptation
efforts, with particular interest in understanding the effects of removal of barriers on tidal
wetland migration.
Evaluating tradeoffs between shoreline options, and increasing understanding of how different
shorelines types respond to physical stresses.
Habitat restoration planning, particularly anticipating how future perturbations could affect
wetland habitat.
USGS is looking at sediment load coming over Green Island (Federal Dam at Troy) dam to
determine how extreme flood events impact sediment transport.
Stevens Institute is collaborating with NOAA to determine how higher water temperature will
affect fisheries.
Needs and data gaps listed by participants as related to their ongoing work roughly fell into four
categories related to climate change, nutrient loads and salinity, scale and data accuracy, and
collaboration:

13

Climate change
Effects of how climate change might affect the strength and frequency of extreme events such
as Noreasters.
Changes in frequencies of extreme events in the last 30 years.
Effect of climate change on river flows.
Climate change impacts on upriver snowpack and sediment dynamics downstream.
Effects of climate changes (such as changing water temperatures and shifting habitats) on
fisheries.
Ways to link climate change, water quality, and sediment transport models.
Nutrient loads, sediment and salinity
Nutrient loading projections (which describe nutrient concentrations entering water) for 50
years or longer down the road.
Effects of land use on nutrient loads in the Hudson River.
Evaluation of loads from runoff vs. channel erosion.
Assessment of the effects of changing water level elevations on sediment bedload.
Access to hydrologists who can explain why model outputs and actual data are showing wide
variation in sediment loading (e.g., what is the source of sediment in the watershed?)
Accurate values for future salinity and sediment regimes.
Improve resolution of the sediment model from Poughkeepsie north to match the higher
resolution model south of Poughkeepsie.
Use of modeling to identify areas with the greatest hydrodynamic changes to prioritize
bathymetric resurveying.
Scale and accuracy
Higher resolution information about how contaminated sediments mix with clean sediments.
Still-water elevation at high resolution for SLAMM modeling.
More accurate and precise inputs for future models of salinity and sediment values.
Collaboration
Collaborative efforts between global climate and regional climate scientists and hydrodynamic
and sediment modelers to determine (understand) where the major uncertainties in regional
climate modeling lie.
Assistance needed linking models (running them in series) and integrating models (combining
components of existing models to create a new modeling tool) within and across disciplines and
better knowledge about when to link and when to integrate models.
More collaboration among sediment modelers, biogeochemists, and toxicologists.


14

Other
Models need to account for water storage and managed releases from dams in the watershed of
the Hudson River.
A good tidal datum and information on the rate at which tidal datum will rise over time.
More extensive shallow bathymetric data.
Wind data.
General Access and User Needs
Participants engaged in a discussion on user needs related to future hydrodynamic modeling efforts. The
discussion focused on themes of model outputs, scale, uncertainty, access and selection, and
collaboration:
Outputs
Outputs that are easy to access and use, including information in the form of maps.
More informative and interactive model websites.
Modelers need to explain how their model output data should be used so that users dont
misinterpret data or use it in error.
Better instructions about how to use probabilistic information (e.g., how does an emergency
manager make a decision based on a 40 percent chance?).
o Probabilistic models can often be easily misinterpreted and users need proper training
and literature to explain how to make decisions and conduct cost-benefit analyses
based on risk information.
Scales
Different model users operate on different time scales:
o Emergency management personnel use model outputs to develop emergency responses
in the short term.
o Urban planners use model outputs to plan new development in the long term.
o Environmental planners may use model outputs to assist in very long-term planning,
such as mitigating climate change damage to estuaries.
o The dichotomy between the short-term timescale of the emergency manager and the
long term timescale of the planner influences the temporal scope of the model.
o Models can more easily address immediate user needs (e.g., emergency management)
than longer term (e.g., planning). This gap may be due to the way models are built, the
goals of model developers and users, or simply the fact that uncertainty increases
further into the future.
Users need to be aware that comparing model outputs may be difficult because the models do
not necessarily scale parameters in the same way.


15

Uncertainty
Users and modelers need an agreed upon level of acceptable uncertainty that the general
modeling community is comfortable with for most purposes.
The modeling community also needs more information about the range of uncertainty in
specific cases.
The community needs uncertainty to be put in context so that they can identify the relative risks
(e.g., uncertainty range for specific sea level rise scenarios).
Need for literature that explains how models have been verified against historical events.

Model access and selection
For a non-expert user, choosing a model can be difficult.
o More guidance on each models purpose and identifying the pros and cons of using a
particular model to study different situations would be helpful.
o Users need to know when to utilize a model given its ranges, assumptions, and
limitations.
Access can be a problem; users may not know where to find models and model output (online
or through model developers) and what is available in real time.
Agencies involved with modeling must remember to market their models and circulate user
instructions.
Collaboration
A need exists for more two-way communication and collaboration between modelers and users
so that modelers can find out who their audience is and what it needs. Audiences are diverse,
and may include scientific researchers, policy analysts, regulators, and politicians.
Modelers and users need to collaborate more effectively to pursue funding opportunities.
Sharing high quality historical data is important for verifying hindcast data to measure the
accuracy of hydrodynamic models.
It is difficult to estimate uncertainty within each model and relative uncertainty among models
and between models/other forecasting tools. It is also difficult to determine the root cause of
uncertainty; whether the inputs or the model algorithms. Developers can help answer these
questions by participating in a collaborative effort in which they test their models using standard
inputs and then compare variability among model outputs. This type of reliability testing may be
best.


16

IDENTIFYING CHARACTERISTICS OF
MODELS AND PRIORITY USER NEEDS:
FORECASTING FLOODING AND
SEDIMENT DYNAMICS
After the presentations and a discussion of broad user needs, the forum moved on to a facilitated
discussion on user needs, gaps, and possible research priorities as related to two specific modeling
topics selected during the pre-workshop survey. Based on pre-event surveys and expert opinion, the
workshop organizers decided to concentrate on two themes: improved forecasting of flooding and
sediment dynamics.
Flooding
Forum attendees agreed that one of the two most important hydrodynamic modeling research needs is
improved forecasting of flooding, especially in the face of a changing climate. An understanding of
future flood frequencies and elevations will aid in more informed land use development and planning,
thereby reducing risks and economic impacts.
How to improve models
Participants discussed how existing models could be improved and future models developed to best
address current user needs. Several research questions and data, monitoring, and user needs were
discussed in the context of model improvement and model development:
Key Research Questions
How do these models respond to forcing conditions, such as tidal, tributary, and runoff inflows,
and meteorological circumstances and what is the most effective way to define these
parameters in the model?
o What additional efforts can be made to validate the response of these models to forcing
conditions against field observations (e.g., nutrient concentrations)?
What are the effects of the built environment adjacent to the Hudson and its tributaries on
nutrient runoff?
What is the dynamic between the current and potential impacts of flooding and the ecological
and human response?
o Are there important feedbacks between flooding and the human responses to flooding
(e.g., surge barriers)? How should this inform future building standards?

17

o How will changes in the structure and shape of the Hudsons built environment and
natural shoreline affect flooding? In turn, how will flooding affect shoreline shape and
structure?
o How will hydrodynamic patterns change ecosystems? In turn, how will changing
ecosystems affect hydrodynamic patterns?
o How does flooding affect ecosystem services?
o What is the effect of flooding on tidal habitat?
o How can modelers better incorporate the outcomes (e.g., changes in runoff volume or
characteristics) from local adoption of green infrastructure or other stormwater best
management practices (BMPs) into these models?
o What are the effects of Hudson River hydrodynamics on critical ecological thresholds?
What will the climate be like in 2100 (e.g., what will be the effect of flooding in the Hudson River
Estuary)? How can this be modeled?
o Can global climate change models be downscaled to predict future wind field patterns, a
major factor in hydrodynamic modeling?
o Similarly, can we achieve more accurate and precise predictions for a variety of future
weather conditions, including frequency and intensity of storms and precipitation, storm
speeds and tracks, storm wind range, snowmelt volume, temperature ranges, and
insolation?
o Could hydrodynamic modeling be applied to drinking water quality analyses?
o How do soil moisture content and groundwater levels affect hydrodynamic model
parameters? Is it worthwhile to incorporate these characteristics into these models?
o Can models be developed to predict new averages (i.e. the new normal) for different
future climate scenarios (ecosystems respond as much to averages as to extremes). This
information can come partly from climate models, in addition to coming from
hydrodynamic models.
Data Needs
More comprehensive shallow water bathymetric data.
Access to high resolution, gridded atmospheric data that can be integrated into hydrodynamic
models. This includes wind field data, particularly wind field data for the back bays in the New
York Harbor region.
Wave run-up data (model developers may be able to find or extract this by conducting more
thorough analyses on current coastal water datasets).
Soil moisture content and groundwater level data.
High resolution LiDAR data to map the inter-tidal zone topography.
The market and nonmarket value of ecosystem services.
Monitoring Needs
More comprehensive meteorological, wind, wave, stream and hydrologic data.
o More comprehensive, higher resolution local wind and stream flow data.

18

o More precise precipitation data and more comprehensive gauge data to validate
models.
o More comprehensive data on wave run-up (additional field monitoring).

Note: Audience members were made aware of HRECOS (Hudson River Environmental
Conditions Observing System), which monitors hydrologic and meteorological parameters at
the Port of Albany, the George Washington Bridge and other locations. The HRECOS website
has links to external sources of real-time data also. (see Appendix B)
Note: On March 1, 2012 loss of funding will cause the discontinuation of USGS gauges at
West Point and Piermont.
Sediment Dynamics
Forum pre-registrants had also agreed on a second critical hydrodynamic modeling research need:
improved understanding of sediment dynamics and improved projections of how sediment dynamics
will be affected by climate change. Movement and changes of movement of sediment through the
landscape (erosion, transport, and deposition) can affect wetland migration, fisheries health, beach
width, navigation dredging, and a whole host of other activities and natural habitats that are managed
by the State of New York.
As with flooding, this research need demands better data for present conditions, more certainty as to
future conditions, and models that can incorporate future climate projections.
How to improve models
Key Research Questions
How well do todays sediment models work?
o How well do current models integrate storm surge and riverine effects?
o How well do current models account for biological and ecological effects on sediment
dynamics?
o How accurately do current model ensembles forecast present day conditions and
hindcast historic conditions?
How can models take into account future uncertainties?
o How can modelers better incorporate the outcomes (changes in sediment volume or
characteristics) from local adoption of green infrastructure or other stormwater best
management practices (BMPs) into these models?
o How can sediment models incorporate projections of climate changes?
How will feedbacks between the built environment, ecosystems, and sediment affect model
outputs?
o How does the built environment adjacent to the Hudson and its tributaries affect
sediment dynamics?

19

o Are there important feedbacks between flooding and the human responses to flooding
that will affect sediment dynamics? For example, how will surge barriers affect sediment
dynamics?
o How does shoreline/bank erosion and sediment deposition affect benthic ecology?
o How can we improve our understanding of bedload dynamics?
o How do soil moisture content and groundwater height affect sediment inputs from
runoff?
o What can we learn by coupling ecosystem data with sediment data (modeled or
measured)?
o How do dams in the watershed affect sediment dynamics?
How can we better quantify the economic impacts of changing sediment dynamics?
Data Needs
Sediment storage data: location, duration, and effects on marsh ecosystem.
Geochronology (the age of sediments) data at a variety of timescales.
High resolution LiDAR data to map the inter-tidal zone topography.
Shallow water bathymetry.
Repeated measurements over time of sediment particle size and settling velocities
Monitoring Needs
More comprehensive watershed input monitoring, including data on sediment inputs from
tributaries.
More comprehensive field data to validate models.
Better inventory of stream geomorphology.
Sense of whether number of stream gauges will remain the same, increase, or decrease, and
whether their accuracy can be improved.
Soil moisture content and groundwater height.
Implicitly, the modeling needs outlined by participants will require more comprehensive present day
data, more precise future climate scenarios, and models that can seamlessly integrate those scenarios. A
broad array of observed data and model outputs are required to answer the research questions selected
by participants. There seemed to be agreement that among the most critical data needs are complete
shallow water bathymetric data, complete LiDAR data for the NYS coastline (see Appendix B), high
resolution wind data, more comprehensive tributary discharge data, and downscaled wave run-up data.


20

NEXT STEPS
The Forum on Hydrodynamic Modeling in the Hudson River Estuary and New York Harbor represents the
first step in an ongoing process to accelerate progress among the regional hydrodynamic modeling
community. By bringing together a diverse group of model developers and users, the forum outlined
several interrelated strategic directions for hydrodynamic modeling of the Hudson Estuary and New
York Harbor, including:
The construction of higher resolution or more comprehensive datasets for critical model
parameters such as shallow water bathymetry, topography, and tributary flows.
A focus on investigating how climate change will affect flooding and sediment dynamics.
Improved collaboration between hydrodynamic and climate modelers as well as improved
communication between modelers and model output users.

To support current modeling as well as modeling in the future, forum participants had several common
needs related to climate change (e.g., predictions of extreme event frequency and changing wind
patterns), salinity, nutrient loading (e.g. data on sediment characteristics and land use influence), data
scale and accuracy (e.g., high resolution bathymetry to improve model output accuracy, handling model
uncertainty when factoring in potential climate change impacts), and improved collaboration between
modelers.

Attendees identified a variety of challenges going forward. Among these challenges, the one most often
acknowledged was the need for better communication and collaboration between model developers
and model users. Developers need to more actively market their models and supply their users with
guidance about when and how to use a particular model. Participants mentioned the importance of
making model outputs more understandable and relatable to the work of managers and decision-
makers. By keeping in mind, for example, that different managers will need model outputs at different
scales (e.g., emergency response personnel versus land use planners) modelers will ensure their work
can be translated into effective policy. Additionally, experts and non-experts alike understand the
importance of interpreting uncertainty, especially considering the wide range of scenarios for sea level
rise and other climate change-related impacts, so it becomes even more critical that managers and
decision-makers understand how to both interpret uncertainty and present uncertainty to the public.
The pressure is also on model output end-users, who need to more vigorously communicate their
research needs to model developers.

By the conclusion of the forum it was apparent that climate change is on the mind of both modelers and
model output users. Hydrodynamic modelers are grappling with challenges of incorporating sea level
rise, water temperature increases, and other climate change-related impacts that all contain a great
deal of uncertainty into existing and new models. In considering the potential effects of a changing
climate, forum participants agreed on several important research questions related to forecasting

21

flooding and sediment dynamics, including a common question of what do the feedbacks and dynamics
between human alterations in the watershed (dams, development, etc.), ecosystems, sediment
movement, and flooding look like. This commonality reveals an interest on the part of both modelers
and model end-users to take an ecosystem-based approach to modeling systems as well as managing
resources in the face of widespread climate-related impacts. As was seen from the model presentations,
there are already several efforts underway to create ensemble models that acknowledge the Hudson
River Estuary system as a whole, and this will likely to be the trend as climate change modeling advances
as well. Along with continued collaboration amongst modelers, users will need to reach out to model
developers to explain their model output needs, in turn, modelers need to explain to users the
sensitivity of a given model to various data inputs to the model This type of collaboration will help build
the comprehensive monitoring networks and datasets necessary for investigating how climate change
will affect the Hudson River Estuary and New York Harbor.


22

Appendix A: Acronym List

ADCIRC Advanced Circulation Model
AHPS NOAA Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service
CDOM Chromophoric (Colored) Dissolved Organic Matter
CSTMS Community Sediment Transport Modeling System
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Administration
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps
FVCOM Finite Volume Coastal Ocean Model
HEC -2 Hydrologic Engineering Center of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
HEC-RAS Hydrologic Engineering Centers River Analysis System
HRECOS Hudson River Environmental Conditions Observing System
LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging
MATLAB Matrix Laboratory (Mathworks, Inc.)
MEOW Maximum Envelope of Water
MM5 The fifth generation NCAR/Penn State Mesoscale Model
MOMs Maximum of MEOWs
NCDC National Climatic Data Center
NERRS National Estuarine Research Reserve System
NHS National Hurricane Center
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOS National Ocean Service
NSEP National Security Emergency Preparedness
NWS National Weather Service
NYHOPS New York Harbor Observation and Prediction System
NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
OR&R NOAA Office of Response and Restoration
POM Princeton Ocean Model
RFC River Forecast Centers
ROMS Regional Ocean Modeling System
sECOM Stevens Estuarine and Coastal Ocean Model
SLAMM Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model
SLOSH Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes
SUNY State University of New York
SoMAS School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences (SUNY)
USACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USCG United States Coast Guard
USGS United States Geological Survey
WRF Weather Research and Forecasting


23

Appendix B: Links to Online Content
Presentations for the Modeling Forum can be found at:

Forum Coordinators:
NYSERDA www.nyserda.ny.gov
NYSDEC
-Hudson River Estuary Program http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/4920.html
-Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/4915.html

Observing Systems:
HRECOS Hudson River Environmental Conditions Observing System:
http://www.hrecos.org/joomla/ HRECOS has nine stations that monitor hydrological and
meteorological parameters distributed from Lock 8 on the Mohawk River down the Hudson to Castle
Point off of Hoboken, NJ.

For other sources of real time data: On the HRECOS home page click on River Conditions and then
External Sources of Real-Time Data.

New York State Climate Change Reports
ClimAID - Responding to Climate Change in New York State: The ClimAID Integrated Assessment for
Effective Climate Change Adaptation Final Report (2011) Produced in a joint effort between Columbia
University, Cornell University and Hunter College and funded by NYSERDA. www.nyserda.ny.gov/climaid
Also available as a bound document for sale at New York Academy of Sciences:
http://www.nyas.org/Publications/Annals/Detail.aspx?cid=25b97f31-a879-4b28-b203-07e33d1a816d

NYS Climate Action Plan Interim Report (2010)
http://nyclimatechange.us/InterimReport.cfm

NYS Sea Level Rise Task Force Report (2010)
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/slrtffinalrep.pdf

Data and Model Resources:
MOMS and MEOWS are available as GIS files from the National Weather Service website for any user
who has a SLOSH display program. To obtain these files or the SLOSH display program, go to:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ssurge/ssurge_products.shtml
New York State 2011/2012 Coastal LiDAR - For information regarding the New York State 2011/2012
Coastal LiDAR, or to obtain the data, in late summer 2012, visit the data page of the New York State GIS
Clearinghouse (http://gis.ny.gov/gisdata/) or contact the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Division of Water at (518) 402-8267 or watergis@gw.dec.state.ny.us

24

Appendix C: Model Summaries
NOTE: See Appendix X for a list of acronyms used in the summaries.
See Appendix X for a map of the Hudson.

NOAA National Weather Service (NWS) Northeast River Forecast Center (NERFC) Model (Ed Capone,
NOAA NWS Northeast River Forecast Center)

Organization/Funding: National Weather Service
Contacts: Ed Capone (NERFC, Edward.Capone@noaa.gov)
Description: The Hudson Estuary forecast model was developed by the NOAA National Weather Service
(NWS) to forecast river levels at Poughkeepsie and Albany. It is based on the HEC-RAS (Hydrologic
Engineering Center River Analysis System) model developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hydrologic Engineering Center. This is the full unsteady version of HEC-RAS. The 1-D model uses 20 cross
sections in the reach from the Battery to Troy Dam in Albany, NY. The latest version of HEC-RAS does not
have the capability to model wind but the Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) is working on this option
for the NWS. The HEC-RAS model replaces the 1-D NWS Floodwave (FLDWAV) model that was used
previously at the NERFC.
Geographic extent: Hudson Estuary from Troy Dam
Real time/ Operational: Yes
Data inputs: Geometric data consisting of river system schematic (length, connections, etc.), cross
section data (coordinates of the bottom of channel, distances between the cross sections, etc), and
channel properties (friction losses). Boundary conditions include the downstream astronomical tide and
forecast storm surge time series (stage) at the Battery plus the upstream forecast hydrograph (time
series) at Troy, NY. Calibrated lateral inflows (time series hydrographs) are also placed at intermediate
reaches of the model indicating where substantial inflow is entering the river.
Outputs/Products: The main output is water level forecasts for the next 72 hours at 1-hour increments
on the Hudson River at Poughkeepsie and Albany. Water levels at the 20 cross sections can be retrieved
on the Hudson at a point in time, max/min/ tidal ranges over a period of time or water level profile of
the entire estuary (at cross section points) at a single point in time. By manipulating input geometry and
boundary conditions, the model can integrate scenarios such as tidal variation, different tributary flow
levels, sea level rise at the Battery, storm surge, channel changes, wind forcing(future option) and future
land movement (uplift, subsidence).
References:
NERFC staff: http://www.erh.noaa.gov/nerfc/staff.shtml

Additional Points:
The main purpose of the model is river flood forecasting. Forecasts include backwater flooding to
help project when the river will reach flood stage.
The model is plagued by more unknowns during snowmelt season because of the variable nature
of tributary flows.
Model is somewhat less accurate for Albany than for Poughkeepsie, mostly because model fails to
account for wave refractions in Albany area.
NERFC has worked with Cornell researchers (Jery Stedinger) to evaluate the effect of sea level rise
on the Hudson Estuary.

25

NERFC is working to pursue an ensemble model by incorporating the Sea Lake and Overland
Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model into their system. Initial attempts resulted in inaccurate
forecasts at Albany, so NERFC is working with the Stevens Institute to correct this.
The model is relatively simple so that it can be run in a short period of time to forecast real time
flood risk.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Riverine Flood Study (Paul Weberg, FEMA)
Organization/Funding: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Contacts: Paul Weberg (Dewberry), Alan Springett (FEMA), Bill Nechamen (DEC DOW), Bill McDonnell
(William.Mcdonnell@dhs.gov)
Description: The Riverine Flood Study uses a HEC-2 or HEC-RAS (Hydrologic Engineering Center River
Analysis System) model to describe base flood elevations in a specified watershed. The study examines
20 different cross sections of the Hudson River and utilizes both hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. Cross
sections are typically selected where there is an abrupt change in channel characteristics. The hydrologic
analysis determines the amount of rainfall that will stay within a watershed (e.g. absorbed by soil) and
the rate at which the remaining amount of rainfall will reach the stream. It is used to determine flood
discharges for various size rain storms. Hydraulic studies describe how the floodwaters move through
the stream and the floodplain. The data are processed using a hydraulic computer model, most
commonly HEC-2 or HEC-RAS developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering
Center. The final step in preparing riverine flood studies is to produce the floodway analysis, which
identifies where encroachment by development will increase flood elevations significantly and worsen
flood conditions. A floodway analysis is done with a computer program that fills the floodplain with land
and squeezes the floodwater toward the channel until the flood level rises one foot. At this point the
floodway boundaries are drawn.
Geographic extent: As specified by the study. The Hudson Estuary has an historical riverine flood study.
Real time/ Operational: No
Data inputs: For hydrologic analysis: USGS stream gauges at specified locations and storm data. For
hydraulic analysis: flood hydrology, or discharges; the cross section data on how much area there is to
carry the flood; and stream characteristics roughness, slope, locations and sizes of structures, and
watershed characteristics like impervious surface area and soil type.
Outputs/Products: Hydrologic analyses provide flood discharges for various size rainstorms (100, 500
year) at different points along a stream. Hydraulic analyses use the hydrologic output to provide flood
elevations, velocities, and floodplain widths at each cross section for a range of flood flow frequencies.
These elevations are the primary source of data used by engineers to map the floodplain. The floodway
analysis provides the lines for the floodway boundaries.
References: Your best source for this info would be to read through the flood insurance studies (FIS) for
each county of interest. There are some of the more recent FIS texts linked on the website.
Otherwise for the older FIS text you would need to go to the FEMA map service center website.
https://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/StoreCatalogDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=1000
1&langId=-1&userType=G

Additional Points:

26

FEMA uses hydrology and hydraulic analyses to develop flood maps.
Hydrology studies typically follow this sequence: 1) estimate the volumetric flow in river, 2) assign
probability of the flow using statistical tools, and 3) verify output using stream gauge or rain
gauge data.
Hydraulic studies typically follow this sequence: 1) determine topography of the river channel and
floodplain, 2) apply discharge estimates from hydrological studies, 3) compute flood elevations,
4) determine the floodplain, 5) predict the floodway.
In FEMA discharge computations, they use statistics and watershed models to help find peak
flows and depict them as hydrographs. To measure flows, FEMA uses USGS stream gauges.
When FEMA determines peak flows statistically, it tries to verify the statistical predictions using
historical stream flow records, such as past maps and physical high water marks. High water
marks from large storm events are very valuable to this process.
For un-gauged watersheds, FEMA sometimes uses USGS regression equations. However, these
equations sometimes have an error of up to 40 percent. Therefore, FEMA sometimes estimates
stream flows in un-gauged watersheds by extrapolating data from nearby, gauged watersheds.
FEMA often gets data about flow near built structures from the U.S. Department of
Transportation.
FEMA regulations prevent development inside the 100-year floodway, but do allow some types of
development (using fill) in the flood fringe, the area inside the 100-year floodplain but outside
the floodway.

NOAA Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model (Robbie Berg, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] National Hurricane Center [NHC])

Organization/Funding: NOAA, federal funding
Contacts: Robbie Berg (NOAA/NWS/NHC), Jamie Rhome (NOAA/NWS/NHC), Dan OBrien (SOEM)
Description: A computerized model run by the National Hurricane Center (NHC) is used to estimate
storm surge heights resulting from historical, hypothetical, or predicted hurricanes. Nationally, thirty-
seven overlapping basins are covered by the SLOSH model. Graphical output from the model displays
storm surge heights in feet above the model's reference level (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
[NGVD] or North American Vertical Datum of 1988 [NAVD88]) and above ground level (AGL). The model
accounts for astronomical tides but does not include rainfall amounts, riverflow, or wind-driven waves.
The SLOSH model is best used for defining the potential maximum surge for a location.
Geographic extent: The extent of inundation mapping that is based on SLOSHs surge height projections
has typically been only as far up as Westchester County (Rockland not mapped) as this is the extent of
the Hurricane Evacuation Study. NOAAs new NY3 SLOSH Basin model currently includes storm surge
height projections up the Hudson as far as northern Dutchess County. SLOSH modeling is limited to the
lower Hudson despite the NY3 SLOSH Basin extending up to the Troy Dam. Downstream river flow and
the extensive inland channel of the Hudson present hydrological conditions that are not well handled by
the SLOSH model. The SLOSH team leaders recommend taking the outputs from N. Dutchess County and
extrapolating them northward to the Troy Dam because the surge will behave more like a wave from
that point northward.
Real time/ Operational: No. However, the Probabilistic Storm Surge (p-surge) product is based on
SLOSH output and is operational in real time.

27

Data inputs: Pressure, size, forward speed, track, winds from National Weather Service, topography,
structures/barriers, and wave reflection.
Outputs/Products: Water elevation/Maps of storm surge heights
References: More information on the SLOSH model can be obtained on NHC's website:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ssurge/ssurge_slosh.shtml
Publications and presentations on SLOSH: http://slosh.nws.noaa.gov/sloshPub/index.php?L=7
Additional Points:
The SLOSH model outcome is used as the basis for determining hurricane evacuation zones.
The SLOSH model is at the mercy of the uncertainties associated with its forecast inputs.
SLOSH has three uses: real time forecasting, validation and training, and assessing vulnerability to
future hypothetical storms.
The model basins are being updated to account for new LiDAR data and to assess vulnerability to
hypothetical large storms in addition to average storms.
For accurate flood prediction in the Hudson SLOSH has to be coupled with a freshwater riverine
model.
SLOSH can be run deterministically to predict the effects of an impending storm based on a single
set of characteristics (e.g., storm track, forward speed). However, a single deterministic SLOSH
output shouldnt be used in a real event because the output depends heavily on the track the
storm takes; a small change in storm track can have a large effect on surge. Since the
deterministic model only uses a single storm track, multiple runs of the deterministic model
using many different tracks are used to predict storm surge.
Maximum Envelope of Water products (MEOWs) are used to predict maximum possible storm
surge in a region from a storm with particular characteristics. All possible storm tracks for this
particular storm are run to create a MEOW.
The Maximum of MEOWs (MOMs) is a model of aggregated MEOWs. MOMs are generated by
taking many storms of a particular strength (Category) and moving them inland at all locations
along the coast in different directions at different speeds. MOMs are the basis of hurricane
evacuation maps that show the expected surge for Category 1-4 storms.
The SLOSH probabilistic storm surge model is an ensemble of hypothetical storms based on an
actual forecast. Its output shows the probability in each location of a geographic grid of
experiencing a certain size storm surge, or the probability that a surge will exceed a certain
height (e.g., 10 ft). The probabilistic model has been validated using actual storm events.
There is an extra-tropical version of the model, and its domain is much larger, including the entire
eastern Atlantic, but it doesnt run in real time. No MOMs or MEOWs exist for this model.
Which SLOSH projection to use (e.g., MOM, MEOW, probabilistic) depends on how far out (in
time) the storm is. MOMs are used several days to months in advance of hurricane season,
MEOWs are used 48-120 hours before landfall as the characteristics of a storm become more
clear, and the probabilistic model is used to predict expected surge within 48-12 hours of
landfall.
MOMs and MEOWs for the 37 operational SLOSH basins are available online from the National
Hurricane Center (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ssurge/ssurge_momAvail.shtml) and NYS
evacuation zones can be downloaded from the NYS GIS Clearinghouse
(http://gis.ny.gov/gisdata/inventories/details.cfm?DSID=1043 )
MOMS and MEOWS are available as GIS files from NWS website for any user who has a SLOSH

28

display program. To obtain these files or the SLOSH display program, click here:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ssurge/ssurge_products.shtml
There is a limit to how fine the resolution of SLOSH basins can be because SLOSH has to be concise
enough that a computer can run it quickly for real-time forecasts.
SLOSH did very well predicting Irene. The model tends to be more accurate predicting shorter
higher surge events. It is less accurate with slower sloppier storms.

FEMA Coastal Flood Study (Jeff Gangai, Dewberry)
Organization/Funding: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Contact: Jeff Gangai (Dewberry), Paul Weberg (FEMA), Alan Springett (FEMA), Bill Nechamen (DEC
DOW), Bill McDonnell (William.Mcdonnell@dhs.gov)
Description: This FEMA study uses the ADCIRC (Advanced Circulation) and SWAN (Simulating Waves
Nearshore) models and information from historical hurricanes and noreasters to determine base flood
elevations from various size coastal storms (e.g., 10, 100, 500 year storms). The study results are useful
in producing FEMA flood insurance rate maps. The process uses the Joint Probability Method to break
historical storms into several parameters and then applies optimum sampling methods to create
synthetic extreme events and predict the resultant storm surges. One hundred and fifty-nine synthetic
storms on multiple tracks were generated for the current study of the NYC region. This process produces
stillwater flood elevations for storms of a given probability (e.g. 100-year storm or 1% annual chance
event). The stillwater elevations for the 100-year storm are then used in an overland wave height and
runup analysis. Coastal flood engineers survey transects and the ground elevation data along with
bathymetry, shapes and locations of coastal features (islands, harbors, etc), and land use type data.
These are used by computer programs to determine the expected height of the wave crests and runup
above the storm surge. This information is transferred to the best available topographic map and flood
elevations are interpolated between transects. The official Base Flood Elevation (BFE) is the stillwater
elevation plus wave runup, or the wave crest elevation, whichever is greater. The resulting BFE can be
many feet higher than the stillwater elevation. The model is then validated using historical information.
Geographic extent: Defined by the study area. The current mid-Atlantic study includes New Jersey, NYC,
and the Hudson River.
Data inputs: Coastal storm surge simulation: wind speed, wind direction, air pressure, historical flood
data. Flood elevations with waves: shorelines transect ground elevations, bathymetry, shape and
location of coastal features.
Outputs/Products: The coastal flood study identifies coastal high hazard areas (Velocity Wave or VE
Zones) where wave action will be the strongest and provides a BFE or a base flood depth (in feet above
the ground). It also maps areas of flooding where waves will be less than 3 feet high (AE Zones). The
new NYS maps will also identify the LiMWA (Limit of Moderate Wave Action) or the inland limit of the
area affected by waves greater than 1.5 feet.
References:
http://www.ramppteamcom/documents/region2/storm_surge/Supporting%20Documents%202011_11
_10.pdf
http://www.rampp-team.com/ny.htm#nycoat

Additional Points:

29

The main goal of the current modeling effort is to produce flood insurance rate maps to predict
flood hazards at the 100-year level in the region stretching from Cape May, NJ to Troy, NY.
This is not a prediction model; it is based on historical storms that are likely to occur in the future.
It takes 6-8 hours to run the ADCIRC/SWAN models for each storm. The models are too large to be
run in real time for forecasting purposes.
The model output maps containing several wave run-up zones. A zones show where waves
exceed three feet and B zones show where waves could exceed 1 foot.
The current model run for the region does not include new LiDAR from NYC or NYS since neither
were complete when the study began.

New York Harbor Observation and Prediction System (NYHOPS), (Nickitas Georgas, Stevens Institute of
Technology)
Organization/Funding: Stevens Institute of Technology/Multiple state and federal funding sources
Contact: Alan Blumberg and Nickitas Georgas at Stevens Institute of Technology
Description: Third generation of the New York Harbor Observing and Prediction System (NYHOPS v3, [1-
4]). NYHOPS v3 is an extensively validated, fully three dimensional, estuarine circulation model that
provides real time 48-hour marine forecasts of the ocean, estuarine, and freshwater coastal zone. The
model is based on the sECOM version of the POM family of models. This forecast model is operationally
used for flooding alert guidance by the NWS, spill guidance by NOAA OR&R (Office of Response and
Restoration), search and rescue by USCG (United States Coast Guard), transit planning by the Hudson
River Pilots and similar associations, and will be used to identify shoreline energy regimes in the Hudson
Estuary.
Geographic extent: Maryland to Massachusetts (<200m deep), with a special focus on the New York
Harbor region and includes the Hudson river and estuary up to the Federal Dam at Troy, NY.
Grid size: Variable. Current horizontal resolution averages 360 m in the Hudson, down to 25 m in some
tributaries. This will be refined with current funding (Sustainable Shorelines Project) to an average of
85m.
Real time/ Operational: Yes; 48 hour forecasts and 24 hour hindcasts initialized every 6 hrs. Present
conditions nowcasts. Forecasts will be extended to 72hrs with funding from NYSG.
Data inputs: Offshore boundary tides, surges, waves, temperature and salinity profiles, surface winds
and pressure, locally adjusting air-sea heat fluxes, distributed gauged and ungauged river inflows,
historic power plant and water treatment facilities, real time data from NOS, USGS, HRECOS, AHPS,
NCDC, Coast Guard Ice data.
Outputs/Products: 10-minute-averaged total water level predictions [5], 3D currents, 3D water
temperature and salinity profiles, surface wave fields. Real time web application [6], downloadable
datasets [7-9], GIS files for shoreline energy regime classification work (in preparation). The model is
also operationally linked to a water quality model forecasting Chromophoric dissolved organic matter
(CDOM, [10]).
References: [1] Georgas N., and A. F. Blumberg. (2010). "Establishing Confidence in Marine
Forecast Systems: The design and skill assessment of the New York Harbor Observation and
Prediction System, version 3 (NYHOPS v3)", Eleventh International Conference in Estuarine and Coastal
Modeling (ECM11) November 4-6, 2009 Seattle, Washington. Spalding, M. L., Ph.D., P.E., American
Society of Civil Engineers. 660-685.

30

[2] Bhushan, S., Blumberg, A. F., and N. Georgas. (2010) "Comparison of NYHOPS hydrodynamic model
SST predictions with satellite observations in the Hudson River tidal, estuarine, and coastal plume
region", Eleventh International Conference in Estuarine and Coastal Modeling (ECM11) November 4-6,
2009 Seattle, Washington. Spalding, M. L., Ph.D., P.E., American Society of Civil Engineers. 11-26.
[3] Tom Di Liberto, Brian A. Colle, Nickitas Georgas, Alan F. Blumberg, and Arthur A. Taylor. (Dec
2011). "Verification of a Multi-Model Storm Surge Ensemble Around New York City and Long Island for
the Cool Season", Weather and Forecasting, American Meteorological Society. 26 (6), 922-939.
[4] Georgas, Nickitas. "Large Seasonal Modulation of Tides Due to Ice Cover Friction In a Mid-
Latitude Estuary", Journal of Physical Oceanography, American Meteorological Society. Accepted.
[5] Storm Surge Warning System (SSWS):
http://www.stevens.edu/SSWS
[6] New York Harbor Observing and Prediction System (NYHOPS):
http://www.stevens.edu/NYHOPS and
http://hudson.dl.stevens-tech.edu/maritimeforecast/maincontrol.shtml
[7] NYHOPS Google Earth page:
http://hudson.dl.stevens-tech.edu/maritimeforecast/google/index.shtml
[8] NYHOPS THREDDS:
http://colossus.dl.stevens-tech.edu/thredds/catalog.html
[9] NYHOPS supporting observations:
http://hudson.dl.stevens-tech.edu/maritimeforecast/PRESENT/data.shtml
[10] Georgas, N., Li, W. and A. Blumberg. (2009). "Investigation of Coastal CDOM Distributions
Using In-Situ and Remote Sensing Observations and a Predictive CDOM Fate and Transport Model.",
Office of Naval Research Ocean Battleship Sensing Fiscal Year 2009 Annual Reports CD, Office of
Naval Research; Ocean Battleship Sensing S&T Department. 23.

Additional Points:
The current system includes the Northeast from Maryland to Massachusetts; with a focus on the
New York/New Jersey region including New York Harbor, the Hudson tidal river and estuary to
Troy, and Long Island Sound. Operational NYHOPS v3 results are available since 2006.
The Hudson River is a very dynamic, non-stationary environment, where storms, spring freshets,
and icy winter periods alter tides, currents, and mixing. Tidal constituents and tidal datums are
not fixed and vary dramatically depending on (for example) whether storms, freshets, and/or
surface ice cover are occurring, or not. Therefore, short-record-based tidal datums (extrapolated
based on comparisons to the tidal datums of long-record primary NOS stations) have very
limited application in making future projections. On the other hand, very-long-record-based
tidal datums may only project very-long-period-mean changes, and that, only under the
assumption that river inflows, ice cover, bathymetry, and the like will not change as the long-
term-mean climate changes. Flooding, for example, is an event, not a decadal average. The
Hudson River requires comprehensive computer modeling based on a probabilistic description
of the future climate to make meaningful projections of future events for adaptation.
Climate predictions show an increase in the intensity of rainfall and the number of future storms.
An important unknown is what would the increased sediment and CDOM loads that will come
down the river with these future storms do to water transparency and trophic (predator/prey)
interactions. NYHOPS includes an operational CDOM fate and transport forecast model. It also
includes a sediment transport (suspended sediment and bedload) model, though not in forecast

31

mode. To make meaningful predictions for a present and future climate, improved knowledge of
distributed sediment loading concentrations is required. The HRECOS sensor network will help
us with that.
As ocean levels continue to rise in the future, salt may creep further up the Hudson, potentially
compromising existing and proposed freshwater intakes. A model such as NYHOPS could predict
these changes and test design alternatives.

Storm Surge Model for the New York Metropolitan Area (Malcolm Bowman, State University of New
York (SUNY) Stony Brook)
Organization/Funding: SUNY Stony Brook, NY Sea Grant, Eppley Foundation, NYC DEP.
(http://stormy.sunysb.edu)
Contacts: Malcolm Bowman, Brian Colle (SUNY Stony Brook)
Description: Based on the ADCIRC barotropic tidal model and the MM5/WRF (Weather Research and
Forecasting) family of regional weather models. Makes daily ensemble-based predictions of total sea
level (tide + surge), and regional winds and sea level pressure (slp). Predictions are compared with sea
level observations at various National Ocean Service (NOS) and USGS (United States Geological Survey)
tide stations along the New York Bight coastline, in LI south shore inlets and bays, Long Island Sound and
New York Harbor. Predicted winds and slp are compared with observations of various offshore National
Data Buoys. The model has also been used to test the feasibility and efficacy of regional storm surge
barriers to protect Metro New York and northern NJ from extreme storm surges.
Geographic extent: New York Bight Coastline from New London CT to Lewes DE; Long Island Sound, New
York Harbor, lower Hudson River/Estuary.
Real time/ Operational: Yes; daily-updated 48 hour predictions.
Data inputs: NWS global weather model outputs, bathymetry, National Ocean Service (NOS) & USGS
tide gauge observations, offshore tidal levels (from a global ADCIRC model).
Outputs/Products: Total sea level (tide + surge), vertically-integrated currents, offshore winds and sea
level pressure.

Additional Points:
This model has been most often used to predict actual storm surges in the NYC metropolitan area.
If water levels exceed one foot above the predicted high tide, the model will automatically send
out a warning to subscribers. Water levels exceeding two feet above predicted high tide trigger
a second warning.
In the future the models geographic extent will be expanded up the Hudson River to Troy and
there are plans to create a high-resolution grid within Jamaica Bay.
The model resolution varies from 70 km on outer boundaries down to seven meters within
restricted coastal regions. The MM5 component of the model runs at 36 and 12 km resolution.
SUNY shares the ensemble data with the NWS.
SUNY uses a five day running mean to identify and correct biases in model.
The model needs wave setup predictions to better predict storm surges. This will be attained by
running a coupled ADCIRC/SWAN dynamics/wave model.
The model must account for stream discharges to properly model inland surges originating up the
Hudson River.
SUNY Stony Brook (Brian Colle) is responsible for the development and running a nine-member

32

ensemble of MM5/WRF atmospheric models.
A collaborative effort to integrate this model with the NYHOPS and the NOAA extratropical storm
surge models is expected to show the benefits of creating ensemble models that benefit from
including a suite of modern models which include a variety of initial conditions, resolution and
parameterization of physical processes.

Tides, Currents and Datums in the Upper Hudson River (Roger Flood/Bob Wilson, SUNY Stony Brook)

Organization/Funding: SoMAS, Stony Brook University (SUNY Stony Brook), DEC funding
Contacts: Roger Flood and Robert Wilson (SoMAS, Stony Brook University (SUNY Stony Brook))
Description: This tidal model of the Upper Hudson River Estuary is based on a FVCOM (Finite Volume
Coastal Ocean Model) hydrodynamic model and has been used to refine tidal datums in the Upper
Hudson. The model was verified through comparison with recent water level and current speed
measurements. The model used is the community hydrodynamic model ROMS. It is expected to be
useful for the upcoming NYSDEC habitat restoration plan band for wetlands migration studies.
Geographic extent: Focus area is Troy Dam to Poughkeepsie, but model output extends to The Battery.
Grid size: Variable with minimum across-river size of the order 10m and an along-river size on the order
of 300 m.
Data inputs: Hudson River bathymetry data, Green Island discharge, water elevation at the Battery in
NYC.
Outputs/Products: Output in GIS-compatible format (ArcGIS grids, shapefile attribute tables and
associated metadata that describe tidal range, elevation statistics and current velocities at nodes along
the river spaced at approximately 300 meter intervals. Output also includes a description of inundation
statistics at model nodes along the river. Output files are available on request.

Additional Points:
The model was developed for two reasons:
o SUNY has assisted with NYSDECs bathymetric effort in Hudson from Verrazano Narrows
to Troy, helping to correct the tidal datum using tidal observation data. Earlier
approaches to determining tidal datums north of the City of Hudson were not
satisfactory where tides are highly variable.
o Observations of tide range over time show a great deal of temporal variability.
Water level along the Hudson River is affected by tides, river flow and channel morphology. There
is a higher tide range in Troy than at the Battery.
To model tidal datums the researchers did the appropriate calculations for a one month period
when river flow was low; however, it is recognized that averaged tide levels do vary through the
year.
Mean sea level and tidal range varies over time and with distance along the river and the model
has been used to calculate percent inundation for different elevations along the river.
Understanding the percent of time that elevation is dry or above water is useful for
understanding current habitat conditions.
The model has been verified against M4, M6, semi-diurnal, and diurnal tidal constituents along
the Hudson estuary.

33

Nonlinear terms and tide can significantly amplify and reshape a surge.
The model does show that a surge occurring at high tide results in a high, possibly dangerous,
water level. The model also shows that a surge whose peak occurs at slack tide during can be as
dangerous as the surge whose peak occurs at high tide.
The storm surge can be significantly amplified by a convergent channel.
The river pulse can be significantly amplified in a divergent channel and in a deepening channel.
The longer the storm surge or the river pulse, the more dangerous!

Hydrodynamics and Suspended Sediment Model (Rocky Geyer and David Ralston, Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution)
Organization/Funding: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (http://www.whoi.edu/) and US
Geological Survey (http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/); funding from federal (NSF, USGS) and foundation
(HRF) sources.
Contacts: Rocky Geyer (rgeyer@whoi.edu) and Dave Ralston (dralston@whoi.edu)
Description: This hydrodynamic and sediment transport model of the Hudson estuary uses the Regional
Ocean Modeling System (ROMS), the Community Sediment Transport Modeling System (CSTMS) and
Simulating Waves Nearshore (SWAN). The model has been tested against extensive observations of
water level, salinity, velocity, and suspended sediment concentration at multiple locations along the
estuary.
Geographic extent: The model has been run with two basic grid configurations, one extending from the
Battery to the dam at Troy, and the other a higher resolution grid from the Battery to Poughkeepsie. The
model is three dimensional in space, with horizontal resolutions of about 50 m across the estuary and
150 m along the estuary, and vertical resolution of about 1 to 2 m. An expanded domain that includes
New York Harbor and the East River is currently in the testing phase.
Data inputs: Data inputs include bathymetry, water level at the Battery, wind forcing, and river
discharge at Green Island or Poughkeepsie, depending on the grid. The sediment module requires
properties for each sediment size class, such as settling velocity, critical stress for erosion, and
erodability.
Outputs/Products: The model produces time-varying fields of water level, velocity, salinity, and
suspended sediment throughout the estuary. The sediment module keeps track of bed composition,
including erosion and deposition and changes in bed composition with multiple sediment size classes.

Additional Points:
Modeling suspended sediment transport is difficult because:
o Measurements of suspended sediment are imprecise.
o Sediment interactions are nonlinear.
o Characterization of sediment erosion and settling properties is difficult.
The original model measured only salinity, but in the last couple of years researchers have added
a sediment component.
The model developers are interested in looking at small scale sediment transport processes,
including impacts on sediment trapping in the estuary and on fluxes to the coastal ocean.
The developers truncated the model at Poughkeepsie and the Battery because of good data on
boundary conditions at these locations. The Poughkeepsie sediment and flow data come from

34

the USGS Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) and tide data come from the NOAA tide gage
at the Battery.
Wind is important in determining where salinity intrusion occurs.
Weve learned that sediment fluxes are laterally segregated between the channel and shoals, that
salinity fronts play an important role in the temporary trapping of sediment and that a three
dimensional model is necessary to resolve these lateral and frontal processes.
The developers created a simpler model of salinity and sediment transport in the Hudson that can
operate on laptops using Matlab. This model solves a simplified set of equations with lower
resolution vertically and horizontally, and it is useful for modeling conditions in the estuary over
much longer time spans (decades to centuries).
Big discharge events can create river currents strong enough to drive salt out of much of the
estuary and supply large amounts of sediment to New York Harbor. These large events are very
important for understanding sediment fluxes in the estuary.


35

Appendix D: Table of Model Characteristics

Developer Design Purpose Geographic
extent
Time Horizon Real time/
Operational
Base model Grid size/
Resolution
Inputs Data used to
calibrate/validate
the model
Outputs Output format(s)
and stakeholder
access
Limitations/Notes Is the model
proprietary or
open source?
NOAA National
Weather Service
Northeast River
Forecast Center
model
NOAA To forecast flooding in
Poughkeepsie and
Albany. Can be used to
run scenarios that
include trib flow, tidal
variation, sea level rise,
storm surge, channel
changes and future
land movement. Future
options to include wind
forcing in the model.
Hudson estuary
to Troy Dam
Deterministic
forecasts out 72
hours at 1-hr
increments.
Yes HEC-RAS
(Developed at
USACE
Hydrologic
Engineering
Center in
Davis, CA)
20 river cross
sections
River system
characteristics (length,
connections, etc),
channel properties at
cross sections, hydraulic
structures, tidal stage,
boundary conditions
(water level, flow rate),
tributary flows, storm
surge, water elevation
from wind setup is a
future option from HEC
NOAA and USGS
gages
Water elevation, Max/min tidal
ranges over a period of time,
water elevation profile of entire
estuary at a single point in time
at each cross section.
Hourly forecasts
available via
website, available in
NWS Advanced
Hydrologic Prediction
System
Can't model wind effects
now, but HEC to provide
this option in the future.
Limits of 1-D modeling.
Modeling needs to be
operational meaning run
time needs to be done
according to daily
forecast schedule.
HEC-RAS
components from
the Hydrologic
Engineering Center
use a LINUX
platform.
NOAA Sea, Lake
and Overland
Surges from
Hurricanes
(SLOSH) model
NOAA/NWS
National
Hurricane
Center and
Meteorological
Development
Laboratory
Estimation of maximum
surge heights from
historical, hypothetical,
or predicted hurricanes.
Guidance for forecasting
and assessment of local
vulnerablity to
hurricanes.
Coastal NYS and
Hudson estuary
up to northern
Dutchess Co., but
SLOSH maps only
go to
Westchester.
For predicted
hurricanes
forecasts
updated every
6 hours.
Probabalistic
vulnerability
maps (MOMs
and MEOWs)
predict present
day
vulnerability.
No, but the
Probabilistic
Storm Surge (p-
surge) product is
based on SLOSH
output and is
operational in real
time.
Vulnerability
maps (MOMs
and MEOWs) are
used
operationally and
are available at
any time.
None Variable. For
NY3 basin, the
average cell
resolution is 3.1
km^2; the
average land cell
resolution is 2.2
km^2. The
minimum
overland cell
resolution is 214
m^2.
Pressure, size, forward
speed, track, and winds
from National Hurricane
Center tropical cyclone
forecasts, topography,
structures/barriers.
NOAA and USGS
gages
Water elevation MOMs, MEOWs,
and historical runs
available from the
SLOSH Display
Program, can be
converted to GIS
shapefiles. P-surge
data available on
the NHC website
when a hurricane
watch/warning is in
effect, also available
as GIS shapefiles.
Doesn't account for
rainfall amounts,
riverflow, or wind-driven
waves. Tides and local
conditions are
incorporated by NWS
regional offices to refine
forecasts. Mapping
stops at Westchester
b/c that is the extent of
the Hurricane Evacuation
Study.
Open Source
FEMA riverine
flood study
FEMA To determine Base
Flood Elevations (BFE) in
a specified watershed.
Watershed
specified by the
study. The last
updates of
tributaries in the
city was in the
1990's. The last
study of the
mainstem Hudson
estuary was in
1980s. Tributaries
to the estuary
have been
modeled at
varying dates.
Predict present
day vulnerability
No Hydraulic
model is HEC-
2 or HEC-RAS
(USACE
Hydrologic
Engineering
Center).
20 river cross
sections
For hydrologic analysis:
stream gages at specified
locations and storm data.
For hydraulic analysis:
flood hydrology or
discharges, cross section
data and stream
characteristics
(roughness, slope,
locations and sizes of
structures), watershed
topography, impervious
surface cover, and soil
type.
NOAA and USGS
gages
Base flood elevations for FEMA
flood insurance maps
FEMA flood
insurance maps
available in GIS
format and depth
and velocity grids
A riverine study includes
a hydrologic analysis to
determine rainstorm
discharge and the
hydraulic model (HEC-
RAS) to assess how
floodwaters move
through system. A
floodway analysis then
identifies where
development will be
impacted by or impact
flood conditions. Can't
model wind effects.
Open source

36

extent
Operational
Resolution
Inputs Data used to
calibrate/validate
the model
and stakeholder
access
proprietary or
open source?
FEMA coastal
flood study
FEMA To determine Base
Flood Elevations (BFE or
the greater of stillwater
flood, surge and wind-
driven water elevations)
from a 5, 10, 25, 50,
100, or 500-year coastal
storm
Area specified by
the study. A
coastal study is
underway for
New Jersey, NYC
and the Hudson
estuary. Last
coastal study of
NYC and the
Hudson estuary
was in early
1980s.
Predict present
day vulnerability
No ADCIRC and
SWAN
60-70 meters in
the new study
for NJ, NYC, and
Hudson estuary.
Coastal storm surge
simulation: wind speed,
wind direction, air
pressure, historical flood
data. Flood elevations
with waves: shoreline
transect ground
elevations, bathymetry,
shape and location of
coastal features.
ADCIRC model
validated based on
historical storm data
(high water marks and
gage data)
Maps high hazard areas
(Velocity Wave or VE Zones)
where wave action will be the
strongest and provides a BFE
or a base flood elevation (in
feet above the ground). It also
maps areas of flooding where
waves will be less than 3 feet
high (AE Zones ) and areas
of shallow flooding including the
LiMWA.
FEMA flood
insurance maps,
available in GIS
format
Too large of a model to
run in real time. Does
not consider future
conditions, but based on
past history.
Concentrates on water
level accuracy but not
velocities or circulation.
Designed for return
period results.
Resolution may not be
appropriate for smaller
tidal tributaries.
ADCIRC is open
source to FEMA
and universities.
Private interests
have to pay for it.
New York Harbor
Observation and
Prediction
System
Stevens
Institute of
Technology
Operational forecasts of
hydrodynamic conditions
in and around New York
Harbor: 3D receiving
water model of coastal,
estuarine and
freshwater zones. A non-
operational system will
be used to characterize
physical forces impacting
Hudson River shorelines
(currents, winds, waves,
ice).
7 states: MD to
MA
(waters<200m
deep). Hudson
estuary to Troy
Dam. Focus on
NY Harbor.
48 hr forecasts,
nowcasts, 24 hr
hindcasts
initiated every 6
hrs. Forecasts
will be extended
to 72hrs with
funding from
NYSG.
Yes, since 2006. sECOM
version of the
POM family of
models
Variable.
Operational
horizontal
resolution
averages 360 m
in the Hudson,
down to 25 m in
some tributaries.
Being refined to
avg. of 85 m in
the Hudson.
Offshore boundary tides,
surges, waves,
temperature and salinity
profiles, surface winds
and pressure, locally
adjusting air-sea heat
fluxes, distributed gaged
and ungaged river
inflows, real time data
from Ntl Ocean Service,
US Geological Survey,
Hudson River
Environmental Conditions
Observing System, Adv.
Hydrologic Prediction
Service, Ntl. Climatic Data
Center, power plants,
water treatment facilities,
coast guard ice data.
Water level, current
profiles, temperature,
salinity, wave
observations, gliders
and SLDMB drifters. In
the Hudson: water
level observations from
11 tide gages
(Stevens, HRECOS,
NOS, and USGS), two
real-time ADCPs (for
current profiles, at
Poughkeepsie from
USGS and at Albany
from the Beacon
Institute) and 11
current stations from a
2006 NOAA
deployment.
Operationally, 10-minute-
averaged total water level
predictions, 3D currents, 3D
water temperature and salinity
profiles, surface wave fields;
2006 to date. Non-operational
system will provide means and
ranges for currents, winds,
waves, and ice conditions along
the Hudson shoreline in a GIS
format.
Real time web
applications,
including storm
surge forecasts,
downloadable
datasets (netCDF
and text). Model
products sent sub-
daily to NWS/CHPS,
NOAA OR&R,
USCG, Hudson
River pilots. Model
operationally linked
to a water quality
model forecasting
Chromophoric
dissolved organic
matter.
The operational system
requires large and
expensive computational
resources. Although
sECOM simulates wetting
and drying and overland
flow (from either
precipitation or coastal
surge), the operational
grid does not presently
include lands above
normal tide levels; The
new grid will. Also, water
treatment and power
plant effluents are based
on historic monthly
discharges, not real time
hydraulic routing. And
the sECOM sediment
transport module is not
presently used.
sECOM is open
source.
Tides, Currents
and Datums in
the Upper
Hudson River
SoMAS, Stony
Brook
University
To determine tidal
datums in upper Hudson
estuary
Troy Dam to
Poughkeepsie
primary focus,
but model output
extends to The
Battery
Model run from
April to
November,
2006.
No ROMS
hydrodynamic
model
Variable with
minimum across-
river grid size of
the order 10 m
and along-river
grid size on the
order of 300 m.
Hudson River bathymetry
data, Green Island
Discharge, Battery
elevation
NOAA, USGS and USB
elevation data, NOAA
ADCP velocity data
Description of tidal range,
elevation statistics and current
velocities at nodes along the
river spaced at about 300
meter intervals. Output also
includes a description of
inundation statistics at model
nodes along the river.
Output in GIS-
compatible format
(ArcGIS grids,
shapefile attribute
tables and
associated
metadata). Request
data files from R.
Flood at SoMAS.
Water elevation statistics
expected to apply over a
much longer time period
than the model run.
Open source

37

extent
Operational
Resolution
Inputs Data used to
calibrate/validate
the model
and stakeholder
access
proprietary or
open source?
Stony Brook
stormsurge
model for Metro
New York, Long
Island Sound and
New York Bight
Apex
Stony Brook
Storm Surge
Research
Group
To model storm surge,
local & regional winds
and the potential
effectiveness of surge
barriers to protect NYC,
LI and northern NJ.
Eastern seaboard
between New
London CT and
Lewes DE.
Gridding will be
extended up the
Hudson River to
Troy and within
Jamaica Bay.
48 hr forecasts,
updated daily.
Yes ADCIRC tidal
model/Stony
Brook MM5 &
WRF weather
models
running in
ensemble
mode.
7m to 70 km,
variable
unstructured grid
for ocean model;
10 km to 35 Km
orthogonal grid
for SBU
MM5/WRF
weather models.
High resolution
grids will be
implemented in
Great South and
Jamaica Bays w/
NYSG support.
Bathymetry, offshore
boundary tides; surface
winds and pressure from
NWS obs. & Stony Brook
MM5/WRF weather
models, real time data
from Ntl Ocean Service &
US Geological Survey tide
gauges.
Water level
observations from 11
tide gauges (NOS and
USGS); winds and sea
level pressure from
offshore weather
buoys.
Total water level predictions &
observations (@ 6 min.
intervals) for 48 hour
forecasts, 2D currents; surface
winds and sea level pressure.
Web-based time
series of modeled &
observed coastal
water levels;
modeled &
observed sea level
press. & winds at
offshore buoys;
email-based
advisory warnings;
animations of
metro, regional and
eastern seaboard
surge predictions.
2D hydrodynamics; no
wave set up (to be
implemented 2012). Low
resolution in Great South
Bay, Jamaica Bay (to be
upgraded 2012 w/ NYSG
support). Plans to
expand the model up
the Hudson River to
Troy.
Both
Hydrodynamics
and suspended
sediment model
Woods Hole
Oceanographic
Institution
To model 3D water
elevation, velocity,
salinity and sediment
transport
Battery to Troy
Dam (lower
resolution) and
Battery to
Poughkeepsie
(higher
resolution).
Expanding to NY
Harbor and East
River.
9/2009-
12/2009, but
reconfigurable.
Resolves tidal
cycle processes
over seasonal
to interannual
time frames.
No ROMS
(Regional
Ocean
Modeling
System),
CSTMS
(Community
Sediment
Transport
Modeling
System), and
SWAN
(Simulating
Waves
Nearshore)
Horizontal - 50m
across the
estuary and
150m along the
estuary. Vertical -
1-2m
Bathymetry, water level
at the Battery, wind
forcing, river discharge at
Green Island and
Poughkeepsie (depending
on the grid), properties
for each sediment size
class such as settling
velocity, critical stress for
erosion and erodability.
Observations of water
level, salinity, velocity,
and suspended
sediment concentration
at multiple locations in
the estuary.
Water elevation, velocity,
salinity, suspended sediment,
and bed composition including
erosion and deposition and
changes in bed composition
Standard ROMS
NETCDF output
files. Technical
expertise required
to interpret the
output.
Research tool. Has
possibility to transition to
operational tool to predict
shoaling and
contaminant transport
within five years.
Open source

38

Appendix E: Map of Hudson River Estuary

Location
River
Mile
Federal Dam at Troy 153
Green Island 153
Albany 145
Kingston 92
Poughkeepsie 75
West Point 53
Piermont 25
Battery 0

Battery
Poughkeepsie
Albany

39

Appendix F: Forum Agenda
8:45-9:30 Registration, continental breakfast, networking

9:30 9:45 Welcome and Introductions

9:45 10:00 Background

Meeting objectives and desired outcome
Present model characteristics and priority model user needs

10 11:15 Modeling Presentations and Discussion

1. NOAA National Weather Service Northeast River Forecast Center model (Ed Capone,
NOAA NWS Northeast River Forecast Center (on phone)
2. FEMA Riverine flood study (Paul Weberg, FEMA)
3. NOAA Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model (Robbie Berg,
NOAA National Hurricane Center)
4. FEMA Coastal flood study (Jeff Gangai, Dewberry)

11:15-11:30 Break

11:30 Noon Facilitated Discussion

How do models address user needs?
What are the major gaps in addressing user needs?

12:00 12:30 Lunch

12:30-12:45 Summarize Results of Morning Session (Arleen ODonnell)

12:45 - 2:00 Modeling Presentations and Discussion

5. New York Harbor Observation and Prediction System (Nickitas Georgas, Stevens
Institute of Technology)
6. Storm surge model for the New York metropolitan area (Malcolm Bowman, SUNY
Stony Brook)
7. Flood/Wilson hydrodynamic model for the upper Hudson Estuary (Roger Flood/Bob
Wilson, SUNY Stony Brook)
8. Hydrodynamics and suspended sediment model (Rocky Geyer and David Ralston,
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

2:00 2:30 Facilitated Discussion for Panel Two (Arleen facilitates)

How do models address user needs?

40

What are the major gaps in addressing user needs?

2:30 2:45 Break

2:45 4:15 Facilitated Discussion: What do we need to meet user priorities and address key gaps?

1. Given priority user needs, what are the most critical research questions we need to
answer?
2. What are the most critical monitoring and data needs to answer the research
questions?
3. What are the most critical gaps in modeling results that we need to fill to meet user
priorities?
4. What do we need to enable users to access and use the modeling results?

4:15 4:30 Wrap up, Next Steps and adjourn Kristen Marcell


41

Appendix G: Participant List
Brian Batten
Dewberry

Robbie Berg*
NOAA / National Weather Service / National Hurricane
Center 305-229-4420
robert.berg@noaa.gov

Betsy Blair
NYSDEC Hudson River National Estuarine Research
Reserve

Lynn Bocamazo
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Kate Boicourt
NY-NJ Harbor Estuary Program/EPA

Malcolm Bowman*
SoMAS, Stony Brook University
631-632-8669
malcolm.bowman@stonybrook.edu

Michael Bradley
Hunter College

Edward Capone*
NOAA/National Weather Service
508-824-5116 x258
edward.capone@noaa.gov

Alan Cohn
NYC Dept of Environmental Protection

Brian Colle
Stony Brook, Coastal Meteorology and Atmospheric
Prediction Group

Dana Coyle
NYC Metropolitan Transportation Authority

*Speaker
Jonathan Dickinson
New York City Mayor's Office of Long-Term Planning and
Sustainability

Clare Dunn
NYSDEC Hudson River Estuary Program

Kevin Farley
Manhattan College

Sarah Fernald
Reserve

Stuart Findlay
Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies

Roger Flood*
SUNY Stony Brook
631-632-6971 / 8685
rflood@notes.cc.sunysb.edu; roger.flood@sunysb.edu

Ward Freeman
USGS New York Water Science Center

Jeff Gangai*
Dewberry

Nickitas Georgas*
Stevens Institute of Technology;
Center for Maritime Systems
201-216-8218
ngeorgas@stevens.edu

Rocky Geyer*
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
508-289-2868
rgeyer@whoi.edu

Emilie Hauser
Reserve 845-889-4745 x 112
eehauser@gw.dec.state.ny.us


42

John Ladd

Robin Landeck Miller
HDR|HydroQual, Inc.

Simon Litten
Consultant / NYSDEC (retired)

Jim Lodge
Hudson River Foundation

Mark Lowery
NYSDEC, Office of Climate Change

Kristin Marcell
NYSDEC Hudson River Estuary Program and Cornell
University
845-256-3017
kamarcel@gw.dec.state.ny.us

Andrew Meyer

Daniel Miller

Jon Miller
Stevens Institute

William Nechamen
NYSDEC Floodplain Management

Irene Nielson
U.S. EPA Region 2

Frank Nitsche
Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory

Dan O'Brien
NYS Office of Emergency Management

Arleen O'Donnell
Eastern Research Group
781-674-7220
arleen.odonnell@erg.com

Alene Onion
Hudson River Environmental Conditions Observing
System/ Hudson River Estuary Program, NYSDEC
Andrew Peck
The Nature Conservancy

Barry Pendergrass
NYS Department of State - Coastal Resources

Dave Ralston*
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Beau Ranheim
NYC Dept of Environmental Protection

Andy Read
URS Corp

Alexandra Remnek
U.S. EPA

Sacha Spector
Scenic Hudson

Amanda Stevens
NYSERDA 518-862-1090 x3325
ads@nyserda.org

Brad Stratton
The Nature Conservancy

Dave Strayer
Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies

Dennis Suszkowski
Hudson River Foundation

Gary Wall
U.S. Geological Survey

Paul Weberg*
FEMA 212-680-3638
paul.weberg@dhs.gov

Robert Wilson*
SUNY Stony Brook
631-632-8689
rwilson@notes.cc.sunysb.edu

Josh Wolff
Eastern Research

*Speaker

43

Appendix H: Speaker Biographies
Robbie Berg, NOAA National Hurricane Center
Robbie Berg is a hurricane specialist at the NOAA's National Hurricane Center in Miami, Florida.
He is originally from Long Island, New York, and received a B.S. in Meteorology and a B.S. in
Marine Science from North Carolina State University in Raleigh. He has also completed
graduate work at the University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric
Science. Robbie has worked at the National Hurricane Center since 2002 and has been a
hurricane specialist since 2008. In addition to hurricane forecasting, Robbie is a presenter and
participant in several meteorological meetings and is an instructor for several courses aimed at
the emergency management community and forecasters from other countries. Robbie is the
NHC focal point for the social science aspects of hurricane forecasts and outreach, and he is an
alum of the Weather and Society Integrated Studies (WAS*IS) program. Robbie is also heavily
involved in the storm surge program at NHC.
Malcolm Bowman, State University of New York, Stony Brook
Dr. Bowman is Professor of Physical Oceanography and Distinguished Service Professor at Stony
Brooks School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences. He is the Founding Director of the Stony
Brook Storm Surge Research Group, a Distinguished Member of the National Society of
Collegiate Scholars, President of the Stony Brook Environmental Conservancy and a Director of
the Environmental Defence Society (NZ).
He served on Mayor Michael Bloombergs New York Panel on Climate Change which advises the
Mayor, the City Council and city agencies on mitigation and adaptation measures for the
protection of Metropolitan New York against the anticipated threats of climate change.
Bowman studies coastal oceanography and regional climate change issues, particularly as they
relate to the impact of extreme weather events and rising sea level on Metropolitan New York
and Long Island. His research interests include estuarine and continental shelf oceanography,
the physics and nature of storm surges and regional surge/tsunami protection using an
extended system of coastal barriers.
Bowman has contributed to many television documentaries, online and radio news interviews
hosted by National Geographic Society, CBS News/Science Channel, ABC News, Franco-German
TV, NHK Japan Public Television, WABC, WCBS, WNYC, WLNY, BBC, Newsday and others.
He is featured in a new documentary entitled Earth Under Water, focused on future flooding
threats and damage control for New York City and other global cities over the 21st century and
beyond. It is produced by Picture Films (UK), underwritten by National Geographic and was
released to American audiences in June 2011.

44

Ed Capone, NOAA National Weather Service. Northeast River Forecast Center
After spending 20 years in the private sector in Boston, MA as a Civil/Hydraulic engineer on
many domestic and international large dam projects, Mr. Capone joined the National Weather
Service in 1993 as Hydrometeorological Analysis and Support Forecaster at the Northeast River
Forecast Center. Ed now serves as the Centers Service Coordination Hydrologist ensuring the
NERFC Products and Services meet the ever increasing demand of the NWS customers/partners
assisting in decision support services during critical hydrometeorogical events.
Roger Flood, State University of New York, Stony Brook
Roger Flood is a geological oceanographer in the School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences at
Stony Brook University. Research interests include sediment transport, bedforms, benthic
habitat. High-resolution sea-floor mapping and shipwrecks. Recent studies have occurred in
the Peconic Bays, Jamaica Bay, and Hempstead Bay.
Jeff Gangai, Dewbury
Mr. Jeff Gangai has been practicing coastal engineering for over 17 years. He holds a Bachelor
of Science in Maritime Systems Engineering from Texas A&M University at Galveston and a
certificate in Coastal Engineering from Old Dominion University. His area of specialty is coastal
hazards including coastal processes and marine structures. Before joining Dewberry he worked
for five years with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at the Galveston, TX District. For over 11
years he has worked at Dewberry on the National Flood Insurance Program for the coastal
regions of U.S., evaluating and reviewing coastal flood hazards. He serves as a senior coastal
technical specialist and project manager supporting coastal flood studies, and is the coastal
department manager for Dewberry.
Nickitas Georgas, Stevens Institute of Technology
Dr. Georgas is a Senior Research Engineer at The Center for Maritime Systems (CMS) at Stevens.
Nickitass main research area is estuarine and coastal ocean dynamics. His main focus is the
development of numerical models to forecast the hydrodynamics and water quality of inland
and coastal waters. After graduating from Stony Brook University in 2001, he worked for 5
years as a consultant for HDR|HydroQual, participating in a variety of coastal engineering
studies around the eastern seaboard of the United States, involving feasibility, impact
evaluation, use-attainability, TMDL/WLA/LA, BMP, and dredging assessments, by designing and
coupling hydrodynamic, sediment transport, and water quality models. He joined CMS in 2006,
and is responsible for the continuous development and daily forecasts of the New York Harbor
Observing and Prediction System (NYHOPS: www.stevens.edu/maritimeforecast) that include
the Stevens Storm Surge Warning System forecasts (SSWS: www.stevens.edu/SSWS).
Rocky Geyer, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
W. Rockwell Geyer is a Senior Scientist and acting Chair of the Department of Applied Ocean
Physics and Engineering at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI). Geyer received
his Bachelors degree in Geology at Dartmouth College in 1977 and his PhD in Physical
Oceanography at the University of Washington in 1985. He specializes in estuarine and coastal

45

transport processes, with particular interest in frontal trapping processes and sediment
transport. He has worked in many different estuaries and coastal environments, including the
Amazon outflow, the fjords and estuaries of the Pacific Northwest, numerous estuaries and
tidal channels in New England, the Hudson River, the Eel River plume in northern California, the
western Gulf of Maine Coastal Current, and Singapore Strait. His research includes a blend of
observational, process-studies and numerical modeling, directed both at basic research
questions and applied problems of societal concern, such as harmful algal blooms and
contaminant transport. WHOI has awarded Geyer is with the Mary Sears Chair for Excellence in
Oceanography, and he received the Pritchard Award from the Estuarine Research Federation
for his published contributions to estuarine physical oceanography.
Paul Weberg, US Federal Emergency Management Agency
Paul Weberg presently serves as the senior engineer for the Mitigation Division for the Region II
office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Mr. Weberg is a licensed Professional
Engineer (P.E.) in New York State and graduated from NYU/Poly with a B.S. in Civil Engineering.
Presently, Paul has oversight of floodplain management & mitigation activities in New York,
New Jersey, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. He also serves as program manager for all
flood insurance studies being performed by A/E firms in Region II. Mr. Weberg has represented
Region II at conferences throughout the years, as well as speaking at an international
conference on floodplain management in Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Bob Wilson, State University of New York, Stony Brook
Robert Wilson is a Physical Oceanographer with the School of Marine and Atmospheric
Sciences, Stony Brook. Research interests include description of estuarine dynamics, transport
and mixing based on both analysis of observations and modeling. Recent numerical modeling
experience includes the application of ROMS to Long Island Sound, and application of FVCOM
to Jamaica Bay and the south shore lagoons of Long Island.


46

Appendix I: Pre-Workshop Survey Results
Survey was administered by Survey Monkey. Responses were collected from Jan. 9 to Jan. 16, 2012.
The survey was sent to 47 people and 21 completed the survey, for a response rate of 45%.

Question 1.


47

Question 2.
Other uses and explain your answers:

I, personally, am not involved with using any modeling; however, I am sure that others in NYSDEC do use
modeling.
SLOSH is being used with NYC OEM for evacuation and other emergency management planning activities.
We are in conversation with FEMA to use the coastal model inputs for other regional storm surge studies.
I am not certain that the Corps is presently using the FEMA riverine model, but older version has been
used in the past with relationship to flood control studies.
Teaching
We apply the results of flooding models to the study of vulnerable waterfront facilities (wastewater
treatment) and capacity of the sewer system. More immediately, we are looking to improve models of
pathogen transport from combined sewer overflow in New York Harbor.
We are trying to improve model methodologies, particularly for quantifying sediment transport, erosion
and deposition. This is particularly relevant to contaminant transport and fate.
As an engineer with URS I have developed riverine and coastal flood models for FEMA for the last two
years. Now I am working in the Regional Support Center for FEMA Region II and providing support
regarding all flood mapping products and services provided to FEMA by Risk Assessment, Mapping and
Planning Partners (RAMPP). I deal with riverine and coastal flood models from FEMA on a daily basis.


48

Question 3.

Please explain your answer:
I find dealing with FIRM's and FIS's relatively straight forward. The new RiskMAP products from FEMA
such as depth and analysis grids are also relatively "consumer" friendly. Having products in digital format
is extremely helpful and makes things a lot easier for the average citizen. These products significantly
improve our ability to promote flood risk awareness in affected communities.
I have not been involved with using any of these models.
The SLOSH model has been used to broadly define inundation areas. NYHOPS is being explored for its use
on an operational basis for pathogen modeling, but it may also be useful to understand operational
constraints posed by tidal fluctuations.
this is what we do
We generally don't use the raw models, but use the outputs in the form of flood elevations and stream
profiles.


49

Question 4. Which of the following do you see as the two most important modeling needs related to
the Hudson Estuary and New York Harbor? N = 21

Question 5. Are there any modeling needs missing from the list above that would be important to
your work/organization?
Just making sure that as global and regional climate models improve, they are applied to New York State
to better inform climate-related changes and impacts.
To the extent that contaminant transport may be different from sediment transport, you haven't explicitly
listed contaminant transport as an issue that might be addressed with modeling. Another area of interest
is modeling species distribution in the estuary. This is completely outside the areas covered by your list of
models and applications, but is an extremely important area of interest.
Understanding how multiple sources of flooding (riverine, coastal, urban/sewer) combine in a setting like
NYC.
Improving regional climate prediction models that provide forcing variables for Hudson scale models

Additional Comments
While I do think it is important that we research how sea level rise will affect storm events and flood hazard areas,
I think that analyzing and understanding how it will affect the marine ecosystems is also very important. All of the
above modeling needs are very important.

50

Appendix J: Post-Forum Evaluation Results
Total event attendees: 50 (includes the 14 speakers and coordinators; includes 1 speaker and 2
participants who attended by webinar)

Federal 9
State 15
Local 3
Regional 1
NGO 5
Private 4
University 13
Total 50

Total evaluations: 23

Question 1. Participating in this event was a good use of my time. (circle one)
Strongly Agree 10 Agree 11 Neutral 1 Disagree 0 Strongly Disagree 0 No Answer - 1
Explain your answer:
1- Important to understand breadth and scope of work currently underway.
3- Learned more about Hudson River modeling status and heard varied discussions on data and model needs.
4- The networking/learning opportunities were fantastic. I met many interesting people and learned a lot.
5- Networking and hearing what other organizations are working on and what data set are being produced.
8- Informative.
10- Hydrodynamic modeling is not my main research interest but is related to some of the work that I do.
11- A little too focused on the specificity of models and not as much on practice for me.
12- Exposed me to models I had little awareness of. Met new people.
14- Nice summary of current uses of modeling.
16- Learned about different models, networking, ideas (also included in the topic).
20- Presentations and discussions gave me some new insights.
21- I advanced my knowledge of hydrodynamic modeling projects and programs, and satisfied myself that work we are funding
is not duplicative. The meeting was well designed and well-run, packing with useful, interesting information that is relevant to
many aspects of my work.
22- It was good to hear about so many models all at the same time. Appreciated hearing about river forecasting, SLOSH (NOAA
Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes) model and FEMA.
23- It was hard to get much out of it via the webinar. The sound was going in and out, and its always hard to catch the nuances
and pointing over the internet.

Question 2. As a result of this event I have increased my knowledge and understanding of the science
of hydrodynamic modeling of the Hudson River Estuary. (circle one)
Strongly Agree -7 Agree -16 Neutral -0 Disagree -0 Strongly Disagree -0
3- See above and climate change issues.
5- I'm no expert in sediment transport, so I learned a lot in this area.
8- Both the science of hydrodynamics and applications.

51

9- Good overview of various existing efforts and purposes.
10- I was not familiar with the storm surge models before today. I was aware of some of the other work but enjoyed the
discussions.
14- Lots of new model info from groups I have not seen before.
21- See above.
22- I only knew a bit about NYHOPS (New York Harbor Observation and Prediction System) and NWS (National Weather Service)
river forecasting.
23- Definitely, I got an overview of several of the models, which gives me enough knowledge to know what they're
accomplishing and what's missing.

Question 3. Did you learn something that you will apply in your work or personal decisions? (circle
one) Yes -17 No -6 Maybe -0
3- Climate change issues - thoughts on issue by experts.
5- Hydrology and hydraulic data sets that I didnt know existed.
8- Multiple points.
9- Improved understanding of existing tools and their products and limitations. Comprehensive list of needs.
11- There may be some products that could feed into our conservation planning.
12- Sources of information, web available, etc that could be useful. Some information presented on Irene that is helpful to
know in particular. Flood studies I had only heard referenced I now have a better handle on.
13- Mechanism for accessing model products is unclear.
14- Bathymetry for these models is important.
16- I hope to include some of the data into further received projects.
21- Yes - I met 3 people I intend to follow up with on river habitat-related issues, for instance railroad adaptation plans.
22- Understanding flood channel and flood insurance. Also sediment modeling.
23- I think that I learned that there are some models and products out there that could provide something useful to me and my
shoreline open space planning efforts, but I'll have to learn more about them.

Q 4. Attendee level of satisfaction with
each
presentation /discussion
1 (not
satisfied) 2
3
(Satisfied) 4
5 (Very
Satisfied) N/A
NOAA NWS Northeast River Forecast
Center model (Ed Capone)
0 3 7 7 3 3
FEMA riverine flood study (Paul Weberg
0 2 8 4 6 3
NOAA Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from
Hurricanes (SLOSH) model (Robbie Berg)
0 1 1 9 9 3
FEMA coastal flood study (Jeff Gangai)
0 1 3 10 5 4
New York Harbor Observation and
Prediction System (Nickitas Georgas)
0 0 0 9 10 4
Tides, Currents and Datums in the Upper
Hudson River (Roger Flood/Bob Wilson)
0 0 5 11 5 2

52

1 (not
satisfied) 2
3
(Satisfied) 4
5 (Very
Satisfied) N/A
Storm surge model for the New York
metropolitan area (Malcolm Bowman)
0 0 7 9 4 3
Hydrodynamics and suspended sediment
model (Rocky Geyer)
0 0 1 9 11 2
Facilitated discussion
0 1 6 7 7 2

Question 5. Please let us know what you feel are specific steps that should / could be taken by you or
others in the next year as a result of this forum.
Research Needs
1- Facilitate data development.
4- For the flooding community: research on wind, sediment, climate issues.
5- Academia results and studies summarized and emailed to todays participants.
7- Inventory landscape features that affect sediment delivery.
9- Prioritize based on benefit to state of knowledge and return on investment
10- Research related to hydrodynamics and flooding (wind effects and future climate forcing) and sediment transport (more
experience in sediment transport modeling.)
11- Future climate applied to models.
12- Better integration of riverine and storm surge.
14- More inter-model comparison.
15- We could determine climate change scenarios to use with these models.
16- Comparing sediment modeling results to some recent monitoring results.
18- Producing better leading functions for upstream watersheds, especially in a changing climate and landscape.
21- Continue integration of models.
22- Analysis of new LiDAR data.

Monitoring Needs
4- More riverine and tidal gauges are necessary! Need more funding!
5- Semi-annual conference call or email on "anything new."
7- Maintain and build-out USGS sediment monitoring network (SSN) on tributaries to track changes in loads due to land use and
climate change
8- Strategic tide and wind gauges.
10- Monitoring related to hydrodynamics/flooding and sediment transport (watershed loads, net fluxes through the estuary).
14- Data collection website.
15- Modeling wind forcing.
18- Better hydrologic station distribution upstream.
21- Water level recording and sediment (Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler)
22- Funding for USGS tide gauges at Piermont and West Point. Outreach about HRECOS (Hudson River Environmental
Conditions Observing System) activities.

Data Needs
4- Assurance that quality records will be maintained and recorded.
5- Distribute new data sets to all parties that were here.
7- Long term sustainable sediment load monitoring data.
9- Data sharing portal, broad-based needs assessment, evaluation of gaps between products and needs.
10- Sediment erosion.
11- Advertise the results of this to funders/policymakers.
12- Assignment of probabilities to storm surge similar to DFIRM (Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map).
14- Share data more.
18- Pathogens, ice, specific climate projections, or specific climate ranges.
21- Shallow water bathymetry.

53

User Access Needs
4- Interactive products and websites = paramount.
5- Post results and presentations online.
13- How will a new collaboration actually come about? What's the motivation for all parties? Will these be case driven? More
general?
14- Meeting with users and modelers.
15- An email listserve with updates on research could be useful and/or a website for modeling on the Hudson River and Estuary.
16- List of websites to ocean data.
17- Continued dialogue between modeling community and those who work with user communities.
18- Continue putting together these forums; user base will be expanded this way!
21- Organize periodic follow-up meetings to promote collaboration, share info, and coordinate problem solving.
22- Needs assessment of users and case studies of how users could use or have used the models.
23- I'm looking forward to the white paper that comes out, because that will give me the background for the models and
summaries of the discussions that can help me fit what I learned into my normal work.

Question 6. Please let us know what topics discussed today that you would like to learn about in more
detail and what other topics would you like to learn about at a future event.
1- Riverine flooding and opportunities to look to coastal flood modeling
3- Direction of HREP (Hudson River Estuary Program) climate change approach.
4- Sediment transport/erosion characteristics and monitoring/studying techniques.
5- Forecast modeling from NOAA.
8- Sediment transport in 3D.
9- Vision for what type of modeling tools are being identified as priorities given potential benefits of products.
10- Sediment transport; sediment transport modeling; chemical/biological interactions.
11- Digital Elevation Models (DEMs), including Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR).
12- FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) Coastal Flood Study.
14- More uses. Needs presentation for the modelers.
17- I appreciate being updated on the summary of models applied to the Hudson River estuary.
18- You (NYSERDA) have created a very nice document about the local effects of climate change for me. I would be interested
to come to one of the meetings of the group that helped you with the report.
22- What is the best value for the dollar to model inundation and storm surge and watershed flooding?

Question 7. We welcome any additional comments on what you enjoyed today, or what you think
needs improvement for our next event.
5- Excellent session.
7- Less food.
9- Identify and separate needs for modeling existing conditions, future conditions (now) research and development, and how
that will improve modeling of existing and future conditions from 5-10 years from now.
11- Thanks for the great food and snacks!
12- Shorten event, long day travel to and from event.
13- Creation and management of laundry lists is not a productive use of time. Last hour was wasted.
14- Next meeting maybe focus on one topic.
15- Overall very good and useful in seeing what people are working on.
18- Thank you for keeping the environment cordial, and for the very nice lunch.
21- Generating the lists at the end was less productive.22- Last discussion session was not helpful. Should not simplify, it is
complicated. Give more time for speakers, less time for discussion.

Forum On Hydrodynamic Modeling in The Hudson River Estuary and New York Harbor

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Forum On Hydrodynamic Modeling in The Hudson River Estuary and New York Harbor

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

FORUM ON HYDRODYNAMIC MODELING IN THE

HUDSON RIVER ESTUARY AND NEW YORK HARBOR

Other uses and explain your answers:

Potrebbero piacerti anche