Nearshore Community Integrated Research Implementation...

Nearshore Community Integrated Research

Implementation Framework Fact Sheet

Framework for Collaborating and Coordinating Research and Applications

within the Nearshore Coastal Process Research Community

Collaborative Project Description

This project will utilize metrics to evaluate

the three collaboration approaches and end

products. Each of the three breakout groups

at the November 2016 Nearshore

Collaboration Workshop developed different

approaches for collaboration. The approaches

consist of short –term and long-term

coordinated projects. The goal of this project

is to evaluate each approach in order to

illustrate the pros and cons of different

options/frameworks for future collaborations,

and develop unbiased metrics with which to determine success.

The various approaches are summarized as:

Group 1: Leverage several existing but distinct projects within a site-specific area that were

funded by several sources to create an advanced outcome, focus on connection to users;

Group 2: Leverage ongoing research exploring a specific research question by individual PIs

from different entities that have a history of collaboration that apply for funding collectively,

more focus on answering the science question, not site-specific;

Group 3: Address a stated charge/driver that is focused on a specific site, PIs have individual

funding, a hybrid of Groups 1 and 2.

Outcomes from this project will be feedback to leadership, reporting out to program management, and

development of guidelines for future collaborative research projects. It will be important to find ways to

identify which agency or group contributed, provide authorship for that contribution, and develop

protocols for fair representation in the guidance.

Products

Evaluate the three approaches with unbiased metrics of success

Determine the conditions under which each approach is more applicable

Provide guidance in the form of a ‘menu’ with ways to collaborate/coordinate depending on your

needs

NPS/Roman

Agency Roles

Identify metrics of success

Leverage funding between agencies

Coordinate schedules/milestones from the other groups

Metrics for Success

Completion of products, and others to be determined

Schedule, milestones

1. Evaluate metrics for each Group at 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year

2. February 2017 – Report approach and status to leadership

3. February 2018 – Develop draft guidance for ‘research collaboration menu’

Team Members

ASBPA – Nicole Elko

BOEM – Jeff Reidenauer

Nearshore Advisory Council

NOAA – David Kidwell

USACE – Jeff Lillycrop

USGS – Cheryl Hapke, and John Haines

Other participating members of Groups 1, 2, and 3

December 2016

For questions, please contact

Nicole Elko, [email protected]

2

Nearshore Community Integrated Research Implementation

Collaborative Project Fact Sheet 1A (Short-term)

Coastal Evolution Through Time

NE Gulf of Mexico Framework Demonstration for

Effective Data Delivery and Visualization


The demonstration leverages and integrates

a number of organizational efforts within

the Northeast Gulf of Mexico. The team

will follow the Integrated Ocean Observing

System (IOOS) framework for data

integration and interoperability integration

of sensor data and simulation data across

different agencies and institutions by

leveraging the standards, tools and best

practices used already in place.

Cooperation will also lead to coordinated ‘storytelling,’ guidance on what the products will help

the user do, and determining how this work all fits together to enhance coastal resilience.

Strategy will be developed to enhance collaborative outreach and engagement with regional

stakeholders.

Examples of existing projected include evaluating different restoration options to determine best

practice- design evaluation by USGS and USACE, as well as the quantification of the benefits of

natural and nature-based features (NNBF) for various uses and flood mitigation (NOAA).

Products

SeaSketch visualization of activities within the NE GOM to increase coordination and

collaboration between agencies (Product of Action Item 1)

ESRI Storybook of collaborative efforts in NE GOM amongst agencies (Product of

Action Item 3)

Leveraging of ongoing work to address future needs and develop next-generation product

NOAA

3

Agency Roles

TBD after Action Item 1

Metrics for Success

Achievement of milestones action items – see below


1. Action Item 1 – January 2017: Have a web ex/conference call to determine all of the

different research tasks that are occurring in the region. The call will include folks in

attendance at the November 2016 workshop as well as others who work in the study area.

Each PI will provide an overview of what they are doing in the area. Academics and

federal agencies will be invited. Make SeaSketch or Google Earth map of collaborative

areas while we are discussing. Discuss GOMA meeting and stakeholder engagement.

o Goal: Find what the gaps in the research are and potentially engage academics.

Product: Develop a SeaSketch of all of the projects

2. Action Item 2: Meet at GOMA in March to speak with Stakeholders

3. Action Item 3 - Summer 2017: Story map of pieces we are pulling together. Figure out

what linkages are to determine what the story is

4. Action Item 4 – Late summer/End of FY17: Reconvene after SeaSketch and story map

are created once we have an idea of what we are all doing and what the gaps are to

determine where we will go with it and what type of products we’ll get out of it

5. Action Item 5: Academic engagement. Potential academic workshop

Team Members

Academics – TBD




Stakeholders – TBD

USACE – Katie Brutsche

USGS – Soupy Dalyander, Jeff Danielson (SeaSketch), Dean Gesch,

Rich Signell (sharing data for story map)

December 2016



4


Collaborative Project Fact Sheet 1B (Long-Term)

Coastal Evolution Through Time

National Integrated Coastal Hazard and Resilience Evaluation (NICHE):

Demonstration Study for NE Gulf of Mexico


This project is an active interagency collaboration

(resilience hub) to link current research efforts,

build on existing resilience tools and metrics and

combine different agency data portals. The short-

term proof-of-concept demonstration study within

the NE Gulf of Mexico collaboration will define

exactly what the NICHE will be. Once developed,

NICHE will be communicated with the end user to

see what is missing from existing tools, fill

missing data/tools and identify gaps to develop the

method to evaluate resilience (hazard, vulnerability, recovery, and adaptation). The NICHE will

capitalize on best available science across disciplines. Ultimately, NICHE may be able to tie how

coastal restoration and community actions reduce vulnerability and increase the potential for

recovery and adaptation.

Product

The final product will be determined as we communicate with end users and complete the NE

Gulf of Mexico Demonstration (could be a living map, framework for data integration across

agencies and users) but will generally be an evaluation of coastal hazards, vulnerability, and

resilience. The final product is envisioned to communicate hazard, vulnerability, and resilience

metrics as well as provide a visual data portal.

Metrics for Success

Metrics will be refined following the NE Gulf of Mexico collaboration, but principally will

consist of demo development progress and completion.

USGS

5


5 year project timeline

1. NE Gulf of Mexico Collaboration Demo

2. Mock up of NICHE in 1 year following Demo completion

3. Full development and engagement with end-users

Agency Roles

Academia – Develop new scientific knowledge and engineering methods to address

research gaps

ASBPA – Manage coordination, integration, advocacy, evaluation

BOEM – Identify the sediment resources

FWS – Identify the natural and ecosystem resources and associated management issues

IOOS – Manage multi-agency sensors and model data integration, GCOOS

NOAA – Conduct physical and biological oceanography; handle transition and

operational elements and applied sides. Identify the natural and cultural resource

management issues. Identify the stakeholder management issues

NPS – Identify the natural and cultural resources and associated management issues

USACE – Plan, design, construct, and operate coastal and environmental engineering

projects; identify stakeholder management issues; manage sediment on local and regional

scales; provide project baseline data; manage navigation channels including dredging and

placement in vicinity of inlets and within the Intracoastal Waterway

USGS – Collect and analyze baseline data for scientific evaluation of coastal restoration

efforts and system resiliency; conduct physical processes research including

oceanography; geology; habitat on barrier islands, beaches, dunes, bays and estuaries;

work with stakeholders to create specific decision analysis for adaptive management of

coastal systems.

Team Members

Academics – TBD




Stakeholders – TBD

USACE – Katie Brutsche

USGS – Soupy Dalyander, Rich Signell, and Jeff Danielson

December 2016



6


Collaborative Project Fact Sheet 2A (Short-Term)

Extreme Events and Model Development

Duck Multi-model NowCast Test Bed


The objective of this project is to identify model

strengths and weaknesses by running suite of models

continuously alongside one another over a range of

conditions. Ultimately, the skill assessment will

identify model deficiencies and inform model

development. Expected end users are applied and

operational modeling groups at USACE District

Offices, the Naval Oceanographic Office, and

NOAA National Weather Service and National

Ocean Service Offices.

Product

Journal publications/special issue on model strengths and weaknesses, comparison

Workshop on model setup and incorporation to the test bed

Archive of model run data

Establishment infrastructure for model management and data dissemination

Protocol for model and data sharing

Fact sheet

Integration with International Coastline Observatory Network (ICON)

Agency Roles

USACE – Leader. Hosts Model Test Bed at Field Research Facility, Duck, NC

o Observations

o Models: STWAVE, CMS, CSHORE, FUNWAVE, CSTORM

NOAA – ADCIRC, WW3, SWAN

NRL – Incorporates Delft3D-FM

USGS – Total Water Level prediction, COAWST

Academic – Tests COAWST, SWASH

USACE

7

Metrics for Success

Number of multiagency agency journal articles

Number of new models being added into the test bed

Number of conference presentations and sessions

Identification of missing physical processes or better parameterizations in models

Incorporation of academic partners

Addition of new test sites location/type


1. February 2017 – USACE (Jane Smith and Spicer Bak) will target writing a Coastal

Model Test Bed white paper from BathyDuck experiment so that project information can

be communicated.

2. March 2017 – USACE (Spicer Bak), NRL (Allison Penko), USGS (Joe Long) will

develop protocol for model comparison including a description of where model results

and data will be stored, what model variables will be compared (e.g., wave height, water

velocities), what data will be used for comparison (in situ, remotely sensed) and the

locations where data will be compared.

3. June 2017 – NRL (Allison Penko) will set up Delft3D-FM for BathyDuck experiment

(September-October 2015). Model results will be shared with Spicer Bak.

4. August 2017 – USGS (Joe Long) will set up XBeach simulations in hydrostatic modes in

an operational framework. Model results will be shared based on the established

protocol.

5. September 2017 – USACE (Spicer Bak), NRL (Allison Penko), USGS (Joe Long) will

aim to revise the protocol for model data sharing based on experiences. At this point

additional models may be incorporated following the established protocol.

6. Long term goals: a. Integration of International Coastline Observatory Network (ICON)

b. Addition of ecological models (e.g. dune vegetation) for comparison with

remotely sensed data

c. Extension of test bed to sound side of FRF property or other sites

d. Annual Workshop at FRF

e. Data sharing via conference sessions

Team Members

NOAA – TBD

NRL – Meg Palmsten and Allison Penko

Queens University – Ryan Mulligan

USGS – Joe Long and Nathanial Plant

USACE – Spicer Bak, Jane Smith, Tyler Hesser, and Brad Johnson

December 2016



8


Collaborative Project Fact Sheet 2B (Short-Term)

Extreme Events

Extreme-Event Dune Response Tool


The cooperative effort tackles issues associated

with extreme event geomorphology change

prediction/collection, storm surge/coastal

flooding, recovery restoration, hydrodynamics,

biogeomorphodynamics, erosion/recovery cycles

and small-scale processes. Develop a tool to

predict magnitude of dune response (collision or

overwash) to extreme events given a total water

level forecast and initial profile. The tool could be

used in near real-time during emergency

management decision making or for scenario-

based planning. The project will particularly

advance coastal change forecasts and management

plans by incorporating the current advances in the science and engineering communities.

Products

Near-real time forecasts of dune erosion magnitudes Applied tool for engineering dune management planning

Journal Article – During storm collision regime observations & modeling

Journal Article – Advection/Diffusion model of dune erosion

Agency Roles

USGS – Coordinate with NOAA for rolling out total water level forecasts nationally.

Develop Accessible data set of Lidar profiles nationally (not just dune features, e.g.

netcdf files). Calculate probabilities of coastal change and the magnitudes of dune

erosion & overwash. Share knowledge on Coastal Change Hazards Portal (or equivalent)

USACE – Compile during-storm dune erosion data sets & integrate to common format.

Evaluate predictive models of dune erosion (collision regime). Identify engineering

planning needs & applications to dune design

NRL – Evaluate predictive models of dune erosion (collision regime)

NOAA – NWS provides operational wave and water level model output to aid with tool

development

NWS

9

Metrics for Success

Journal Articles on Storm/Dune Dynamics

Level of public accessing time-series predictions

Miles of coastline/Number of communities capable of receiving dune erosion forecast


Year 1

USGS, USACE, and NRL host web-meeting in January

USGS will implement current coastal change forecasts with time-series in pilot locations

by June 2017

NRL and USACE will publish journal article evaluating collision regime model during

storms by June 2017

USGS (Joe Long) will publish journal article on an advection/diffusion model of dune

erosion by September 2017

USACE and USGS will interact with Corps Districts to identify needs by June 2017

Year 2

USGS will improve portal capabilities or find alternate host

USGS, USACE, and NRL package dune modeling code

USGS will expand time-series predictions and make available to public

USACE, USGS & others will develop national lidar profile database

Year 3

Final tool integrated into portal and deployed to Districts for near real-time forecasts and

scenario based planning

Team Members

Academia – TBD

NOAA – TBD

NRL – Meg Palmsten

USACE – Kate Brodie

USGS – Hilary Stockdon, Joe Long

December 2016



10


Collaborative Project Fact Sheet 2C (Short-Term)

Extreme Events

Extreme Event Rapid Deployment Plan


This team aims to organize pre-, during, and

post- event coordination of research and data

collection and management so that researchers

are more organized to study extreme events with

better coverage and reduce redundancies. The

goal is to enable data that is collected by

researchers during mission response to be used

by a broader array of scientists across

government, academia, and industry and have a

greater impact.

Products

Web Meeting prior to each winter storm and Hurricane season with the near term goal of

organizing prior to winter 2017 to develop coordination, deployment strategies and

science questions.

Protocols - Rapid Response Protocol and Post-mortem damage protocol

Extreme Events Portal, given Coastal Act set up need for a data portal, development of

Accessible/Comprehensive Datasets/Cataloguing, and the potential for IOOS

coordination of data

Survey of Mapping Data, IWG-OCM

List of research questions; data needs; people (contacts) that becomes the extreme event

list for the portal. Established sites of ongoing measurements, interested people, known

storm event knowledge

Agency Roles

Leader - TBD

Web conference host – TBD (Rotation) o Working with WGDIAP on coordination around event o WebEx/Conference Protocol development

Data Cataloguing – TBD (potentially NOAA through Coastal Act/IOOS)

NWS

11

Metrics for Success

Number of agencies and researchers participating in pre-season coordination meeting

Number of successful data collection associated with report

Number of agencies accepting protocols

Number of publications resulting from coordinated extreme event data


The work leads to a larger project with a number of short-term gains along the way

1. December 2016 – USGS (Harry Jenter) will talk with WG/DIAP to see if they will

support this effort. Need a model for how to communicate and coordinate with the

relevant research agency and academic partners. USGS will follow up with group.

2. December 2016 – WHOI (Britt Raubenheimer) hosts an email list serve. Advertise at

Coastal List (WHOI), AGU (Britt) and ASPBA (Nicole Elko).

3. January 2017 – Explore options for instrument lending library at various agency

(USACE – Mary Cialone, USGS – Chris Sherwood, HIF-USGS – Harry Jenter, NSF-

NHERI) – Diane Foster (UNH). Initial Contact before January meeting.

4. January 2017 – USGS with possible assistance from UNH (Diane Foster) will set up a

national level Web meeting (with possible regional coordination POCs and discussions to

follow).

5. January 2017 – At web meeting IWG-OCM will present pre and post storm surveys

(USGS - Jeff Danielson).

6. January 2017 – Provide contact information for model predictions and report at web

meeting. Greg Dusek NOAA – NOS & NWS.

7. Develop a pool of trained volunteers from academic community.

Team Members

Academics – Britt Raubenheimer (WHOI), Diane Foster (UNH)

BOEM – Jeffrey Reidenauer

FEMA – TBD

NOAA – Greg Dusek (NOS), Arun Chawla (NWS)

USACE – Mary Cialone, Jeff Watters (FRF), Jane Smith (Modelling), Chris Massey

(Modelling)

USGS – Hilary Stockdon (St. Petersburg), Chris Sherwood (Woods Hole), Harry Jenter

(Headquarters), Jeffrey Danielson (IWG-OCM)

December 2016



12


Collaborative Project Fact Sheet 2D (Short-Term)

Extreme Events

Evaluation of Model Fidelity for Extreme Morphological Events


This work broadens the reach of an Office of Naval

Research project to extend and coordinate with more

models and cooperation from different agencies and

academic teams. In addition to contribution these

organizations will then have more to draw from the

work. The effort aims to evaluate and improve coastal

morphological model performance for selected storms

with large geomorphological events and develop good

data sets for model initiation and forcing.

Product

Quantitative assessment of model performance, including the identification of key model deficiencies

Agency Roles

ONR – Project facilitation

Deltares – Run Delft3D and participate in model comparison

USGS – Provide datasets for selected scenarios and run COAWST and Delft3D

and participate in model comparison

NRL – Provide wind forcing and work on Delft3D model development

University of Delaware – Run high-resolution models and provide improved sediment-transport

formulations.

Metrics for Success

Number of models tested from different agencies


Begins in February 2017 for three years, with milestones reached as different models are submitted.

Team Members

Deltares – TBD

NRL – Allison Penko

University of Delaware – TBD

University of Florida – TBD

USACE – Jane Smith and Chris Massey

USGS – John Warner, Chris Sherwood

Others as engaged December 2016



USGS

13


Collaborative Project Fact Sheet 2E (Long-Term)

Extreme Events

Dune Response to Extreme Events:

DUring Nearshore Event eXperiment (DUNEX)


The During Nearshore Event Experiment (DUNEX)

consists of conducting extreme-event field

experiment(s) to measure during-storm

hydrodynamics, meteorology, hydrology, sediment

transport, geology, ecology, and the resulting

morphological evolution of the beach and dune

system with overtopping and overland flow. The

research will take a two-pronged approach and

develop plans for both a storm-chasing experiment as

well as an extreme-event prone site.

The Storm Chasing Experiment (Hurricane on US Gulf of Mexico or East Coast) will improve

storm-chasing capabilities (logistics, methodology, coordination), develop pre-planned scenarios

for sites every 100 miles along the coast, and support storm-climatology based planning. The

Fixed Site Experiment will target a Nor’Easter on the northeast US Atlantic Coast. The

experiment will target integration of processes with longer-term processes & ecology feedbacks,

examine the potential for recovery components, and support storm-climatology based planning.

Product

DUNE-EX experiments and corresponding data and information

Journal Articles, Ph.D. Dissertations

Agency Roles

BOEM – pre/post sub-bottom mapping

NOAA – pre-post imagery/LIDAR (coastal mapping group); Water level and wave

observations (NOS CO-OPS)

NRL – sediment transport & remote sensing

USACE – provide during-storm data collection of hydrodynamic, morphology change,

sediment transport using remote sensing and in-situ measurements; pre-post LIDAR

mapping (JALBTCX)

USGS – provide pre-post LIDAR/imagery; pressure sensors & rapid deployment gauges

(meteorology), UAS, video-imaging during (hydro & morphology); sediment transport

NWS

14

Metrics for Success

Number of publications

Data sets for extreme-event numerical model development & validation

Graduate Student Ph.D. Dissertations

Interagency collaboration & coordination


Year 1

Academic Team (Britt Raubenheimer) will talk to NSF about funding

USACE and USGS will talk to internal funding managers (USACE – Kate Brodie and

Mary Cialone; USGS – Hilary Stockdon)

ASBPA will advocate for project importance (Nicole Elko)

Academic team and USACE (Britt Raubenheimer, Kate Brodie, and Mary Cialone) will

host a planning meeting to engage potential collaborators, by December 2017, perhaps

coordinated with ASBPA Fall 2017 meeting when dune research is presented

Year 2 – 3

Modeling studies to refine plans

Methodology R&D and instrumentation development for robust, easily deployable

packages

Identify planning committee

Identify data management & sharing plan and hardware

Develop proposals & identify funding

Annual planning meetings

Year 3 – 5

Planning committee helps with permitting, access, logistics, identifies gaps, resolves

conflicts, organizes PIs

More frequent planning meetings (web-ex or person depending on funding)

Year 5 – 6

DUNE-EX

Internal data distribution & experiment report

Year 7

Public data distribution

Journal publications, and similar documents

Team Members

Academia – Britt Raubenheimer, Others as Engaged

BOEM – Jeffrey Reidenauer, Jeff Waldner

NOAA – Greg Dusek


USACE – Kate Brodie, FRF personnel, Candice Piercy, Mary Cialone

USGS – Hilary Stockdon, Chris Sherwood, Harry Jenter, Jennifer Miselis

December 2016



15


Collaborative Project Fact Sheet 2F (Long-Term)

Extreme Events and Model Development

Dune Response to Extreme Events: High Fidelity Modeling


This work utilizes basic and applied research

to improve study, planning, management,

engineering and operation of dunes and

associated processes. The objective is to open

source version controlled modular modelling

system (e.g. Systems model coupling

capability, or GitHub). The output should be

easily translated to economic analysis,

ecological and human impact models that

incorporate the following components:

Wave, Winds, Tides , Inundation

Forcing

Overland Flow Model

Sediment Transport (Erosion, Accretion, Scour)

Vegetation

Groundwater

Physical Infrastructure Interactions

Possible extensions - Ecological, Human Impact and Economic Analysis

Product

Storm – regional scale High fidelity model with quantified uncertainty

Risk – national scale probabilistic model for scenario planning

Operational model for end users that reflects the current state of practice

Field Experiment Data and Results

Agency Roles

Field experiment host – TBD

Module development – TBD

R&D technology development – TBD

Develop funding and associated coordination for work – TBD

NPS/Krueger

16

December 2016



Metrics for Success

Number of models evaluated

Number of sub-projects set up

Number of events/times operational model is run


1. Spring 2017 – Identify roughly 3 data sets (e.g. Duck, 2015, Assateague Island, Dauphin

Island, Sandy impacts, Forsythe NWP). USACE (Brad Johnson, Kate Brodie), USGS

(Hilary Stockdon, Jeff Warwick, Jeff Danielson), and Oregon State University (Peter

Ruggiero)

2. Spring 2017 – Identify lab experiments, facilities, and people in structures. Possible

include considerations of article regions. USACE (Brad Johnson, Duncan Bryant), UNH

(Diane Foster).

3. Fall 2017 – Evaluate existing models with a High Fidelity Modelling workshop.

Workshop planning. USACE (Kate Brodie), NRS (Mara Orescanin), USGS (Chris

Sherwood, Jeff Danielson), and NOAA (Ashley Chappell).

4. Winter 2017 – Workshop will be used to formulate a plan and discuss a model

framework.

5. 2018 – 2019 – Module development

Team Members

Academic – Britt Raubenheimer, Nina Stark, TBD

BOEM – TBD

FEMA – TBD

NOAA – Greg Dusek, TBD

NRL – Allison Penko and Meg Palmsten

USACE – Brad Johnson, Kate Brodie, and Candice Piercy

USGS – Joe Long, Hillary Stockdon, Chris Sherwood, and Jeff Danielson

17


Collaborative Project Fact Sheet 2G (Long-Term)

Extreme Events

Dune Response to Extreme Events: Probabilistic Modeling


This joint project has been developed to understand

the major physical controls to for dune response

using an iterative process of (simplified) model

development and comparison with pre- and post-

storm lidar data, which will help define the simple

relationships for dune evolution. The work aims to

apply a simple model over large geographic areas.

The model will be forced with NWPS forecast total

water levels and probabilistic scenarios using the

Coastal Hazard System (CHS) dataset.

This work will support the determination of the probability that a certain site will experience a

specific amount of dune erosion can be determined (based on both likelihood of response to

specific forcing and the likelihood of that forcing occurring). The approach will include the

uncertainty or error bounds of that probability. This work will support probabilistic models and

lead to the enhanced probabilistic forecasting of dune response by developing a simplified X-

beach or equivalent dune model that operates off of probabilistic water levels/storms, including

existing surrogate models that tie into the Nearshore Wave Prediction System (NWPS). While

some simplification may be required for national-scale product, the probabilistic approach will

allow for better identified and informed magnitudes of coastal change for forecasting purposes.

Products

Improved national scale probabilistic model for scenario planning with CHS with

improved spatial coverage

Dune erosion forecasts with decision support capability

Agency Roles

Provision of simplified dune response model

NWPS model via NOAA, in particular the National Weather Service

Providing probable storms & water levels (via CHS), overall and surrogate model of

incoming storms

USGS

18

Metrics for Success

Integration into larger jointly funded project among agencies (USGS, USACE, NOAA)

National coverage for scenario based dune modeling


January 2017 – Phone call between team members and development of data and model

integration steps

Team Members

NOAA – Arun Chawla


USACE - Chris Massey, Kate Brodie

USGS – Hilary Stockton, Joe Long

December 2016



19


Collaborative Project Fact Sheet 3A (Short-Term)

Human and Ecosystem Health

Marsh Vulnerability Protocols (MVP): A Pilot Project to Assess

Indices for Restoration Site Selection at Forsythe NWR


E. B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge (FNWR)

received funds to restore salt marshes using a variety of

methods including thin-layer placement of sediment in

the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. In order to accomplish

this restoration, FNWR prioritized and selected

restoration sites within the refuge based on an organic

approach utilizing an expert opinion-based decision-

making process. In a separate effort, USGS is

developing a structured vulnerability analysis within

FNWR. This project, supported by the National

Nearshore Collaboration Workgroup, will conduct a post-hoc analysis of the two site-selection

approaches. The collaborative product brings together multiple agencies and academic

institutions, and compares a method based on local knowledge with one that might be applied in

a broader, national context more easily.

Product

A report describing the comparison of expert opinion and vulnerability index methods for

identifying marsh restoration sites in the FNWR on Barnegat Bay, and recommendations to be

incorporated into a future structured decision approach.

Agency Roles

USACE – working with biologists at FNWR to implement restoration on selected sites

and inform Refuge future monitoring plans. Co-author report.

USGS/USFWS – synthesizing physical, geomorphic, & ecological drivers of wetland

change.

USGS – The deliverable products are ScienceBase catalogs that display drivers (e.g.

wave attack, sediment supply, SLR, salinity intrusion) and derived vulnerability indices

USFWS/McLaughlin

20

Metrics for Success

Completion of evaluation of two methods and publication of findings.

Distribution of findings to Marsh Restoration Managers through a Regional Collaboration

Work Group to be developed. Possible Regional Collaboration Work Group Members are

as follows: Regional Nearshore Collaboration Workgroup - Academic Institutions,

Barnegat Bay Partnership, BOEM, HR Wallingford, NJ DOT, NJ DEP, NOAA, NPS,

TNC, USACE, USFWS, USGS, & EPA

Inclusion of comparison product on web portals


1. January – April 2017: Initial Communication between Primary Project Members

a. January 2017: Confirm collaboration is underway, briefly summarize first steps

accomplished, define metrics for success & funding leveraged, identify group

communication method, and refine next steps if needed.

b. March – USACE (Candice Piercy and Elizabeth Murray) and USGS (Dan Nowacki) will

discuss USFWS assessment.

c. April – USGS (Dan Nowacki) contacts USACE (Candice Piercy) when vulnerability

index is ready.

2. January 2017 – March: USFWS full ranking of sites.

a. USACE will work with USFWS to develop a process description and ranking system

3. April 2017: USGS Ranking Process

a. Early Spring Models will be ready for comparison. Project completed within two years.

4. June 2017: 6 month update

5. TBD: Stakeholder outreach

a. Identify local partners/Regional Collaboration Work Group Members for communicating

interest in the region and planned work.

b. Present results of comparison at FNWR to Regional Collaboration Work Group via

webinar or local meeting and discuss implications for marsh management in coastal NJ,

soliciting ways in which the results could inform a structured decision approach.

6. Near end of project: Develop Strategic plan for long term activities.

a. Should be discussed with regional team. Consider funding mechanisms.

b. Coordinate with National Nearshore Collaboration Workgroup about potential funding

and priorities for long-term supplement to this project.

c. Incorporate findings from comparison and outreach webinar into long-term plans

d. Engagement Strategy – a meeting would be valuable and NJ Sea Grant could be

interested in hosting a working meeting.

Team Members

Project Delivery Team:

USACE – Candice Piercy/Elizabeth Murray

USFWS – Paul Castelli

USGS – Dan Nowacki/Zafer Defne December 2016



21


Collaborative Project Fact Sheet 3B (Short-Term)


Modernize Sharing of Ecological Data, with a Pilot Effort in Sharing

Marsh Project Data at Forsythe NWR and Greater Barnegat Bay Region


There are a number of agencies working in Forsythe

National Wildlife Refuge and the greater Barnegat

Bay region. This project seeks to investigate and

standardize the collection and distribution of

ecological data being collected in the area. The end

goal is to develop an ecological data sharing strategy

that enables easy connectivity with physical datasets.

The research will recommend best data-storage and

sharing practices for ecological data by leveraging

applicable best practices from the standardization of

physical science dataset. Examples of best practices

include the use of NetCDF, Climate and Forecast (CF) metadata conventions, as well as SeaSketch.

Additional outcomes may include the development of metadata standards for ecological data. Groups will

coordinate to find out what activities in the region are collecting ecological and physical marsh data.

Product

A white paper of current data collection activates in Barnegat Bay that will used to develop exportable

best practices for sharing ecological data.

Agency Roles

USACE – will lead the effort to identifying agencies

USGS – has ongoing work in the region; metadata and standards expert for physical data

NOAA – has ongoing work in the region

USFWS – has ongoing work in the region

Regional Nearshore Collaboration Workgroup - Academic Institutions, HR Wallingford, NJ

DOT, NJ DEP, NOAA, NPS, and TNC

NOAA

22

Metrics for Success

Under development for January 2017 meeting


This work is expected to take 1-2 years.

1. January – March: USACE (Herman) will work with USGS on current datasets.

2. January 2017: Confirm collaboration is underway, briefly summarize 1st steps accomplished,

define metrics for success & funding leveraged, ID group communication method, refine next

steps if needed.

3. June 2017: 6 month update

4. June – TBD: Contact regional Group and request metadata and list of activities.

5. June – TBD: Touch base with broader nearshore conference community regarding ecological

data collection.

Team Members

Project Team:

USACE – Brook Herman


USGS – Dan Nowacki/Rich Signell

Regional Nearshore Collaboration Work Group:

Academic Institutions – TBD, potentially through Sea Grant Network

HR Wallingford – David Powers

NJ DEP – TBD

NJ DOT – TBD

NOAA – David Kidwell/TBD at NJ Sea Grant Network/NERRS)

NPS – Cliff McCreedy

TNC – TBD

December 2016



23


Collaborative Project Fact Sheet 3C (Short-Term)


Larval Transport: Identify Dominant Drivers for Cross-shore Transport

of Early- and Late-stage Larvae Using Bio-physical Models


This project assesses the current state-of-the-art

biophysical models to study larval transport in

the coastal ocean. The work also aims to further

the model development required to accurately

simulate cross-shore larval transport.

Potential science/management questions to be

answered include:

Beach replenishment: What are the

ecological impacts of beach

replenishment projects, and can a best

time or best method for replenishment

be identified?

Dredging: How do sand shoals provide larval habitat, and

how can this information be used to time dredging activities?

The coordination work also should seek to determine the relevant physical and biological datasets

required to validate existing biological and physical models investigating larval transport. These needs

include deciding which study sites provide the necessary biophysical information to carryout these efforts.

E.g., along California and Oregon Coasts. Research on larval transport models may also extend to other

relevant questions, such as nearshore pollutant/contaminant and heat transport, is an additional goal

extension. Over the long-term this project will improve the coupled modeling of biological and physical

processes in coastal waters.

Product

Technical report on state-of-the-art larval transport modeling capability, identification of

available datasets, data gaps, model advancement requirements, and important products to be

derived in long-term.

Identifying funding sources and longer term needs, such as BOEM funding opportunities.

NOAA/Leroux

24

Agency Roles

To be determined at first 2017 discussion.

Metrics for Success

To be determined at first 2017 discussion.


BOEM (Deena Hansen) and University of Washington (Nirni Kumar) will host a conference call

to continue to hone this activity.

January 2017 – Confirm collaboration is underway, briefly summarize 1st steps accomplished,

define metrics for success & funding leveraged, identify group communication method, refine

next steps if needed.

June 2017 – 6 month update

Team Members

Project Team:

BOEM ‒ Deena Hansen

HR Wallingford ‒ David Powers

NOAA ‒ TBD at Northeast Science Center

University of Washington ‒ Nirni Kumar

USACE ‒ Todd Swannack

USGS ‒ TBD

WHOI ‒ Britt Raubenheimer

December 2016



25


Collaborative Project Fact Sheet 3D (Long-Term)


National Assessment of Drivers of Marsh Sustainability and Vulnerability


The overall project aims to assess the regional

applicability of the vulnerability index developed by

USGS. The USGS is synthesizing physical,

geomorphic, and ecological drivers of wetland

change. The deliverable products are ScienceBase

catalogs that display drivers (e.g. wave attack,

sediment supply, SLR, salinity intrusion, etc) and

derived vulnerability indices including the UVVR,

wave attack, carbon stock, etc, through GIS and web

mapping services. This assessment will inform

management efforts by identifying the most

vulnerable and the most stable areas of wetlands. Other settings will benefit from an improved ability to

generalize across a range of tidal, geomorphic, and ecological factors to evaluate wetland vulnerability to

sea level rise. Restoration decisions and other management actions that use the results will have an

improved chance of success and inappropriate strategies for particular locations can be avoided.

This plan proposes the expansion of this vulnerability index, currently being implemented in Barnegat

Bay, NJ, to more sites nationwide. Sites may include areas similar to Avalon NJ, Narrow River RI, Seal

Beach CA, Grand Bay LA, Cape Cod MA , Gateway NY, Assateque MD/VA, Fire Island NY, Timiquan

FL, Northern San Francisco Bay CA, Great Marsh MA, Lower Columbia WA, Puget Sound WA,

Galveston Bay TX. Other sites will be considered as well, however, these locations have the advantage of

current involvement and contacts within the partner agencies, potentially expediting development of case

sites for the application of the vulnerability index.

As described in the Marsh Vulnerability Protocols fact sheet, this plan compares the vulnerability indices

produced by the USGS index to vulnerabilities identified by local experts and decision makers in the

expanded sites.

Product

A report describing the comparison of the marsh vulnerability index method developed by USGS at

Barnegat Bay to expert opinion prioritizations at numerous sites around the country, to ascertain if it can

be applied nationally without modification. Assessment of findings and potential next steps.

USFWS

26

Agency Roles

USGS – Providing marsh vulnerability index approach.

USACE/NOAA/USFWS/NPS/Academia – Facilitating collaboration with other sites as available.

Local Agencies – Expert-opinion based approach at each additional assessment site.

Metrics for Success

Publication for additional comparison sites

Sharing assessment and vulnerability index via web portals

Regional tool development where appropriate


Early Spring 2017 – Models will be ready for comparison, and will be compared at Forsythe

NWR (See Marsh Vulnerability Protocols Short Term Proposal).

From this point the schedule of the project depends on the success of the short-term project and

identification and engagement of other comparison sites.

Team Members

Academic Institutions – TBD


NPS – Cliff McCreedy

USACE – Candice Piercy/Elizabeth Murray


USGS – Dan Nowacki

Local contacts for sites as they are finalized.

December 2016



27

Nearshore Community Integrated Research

Project Fact Sheet Acronyms

ADCIRC – Advanced Circulation Model

ASBPA – American Shore and Beach Preservation Association

BOEM – Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

CHS – USACE Coastal Hazard System

CMS – Coastal Modeling System

COAWST – Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere-Wave-Sediment Transport

CSHORE – one-dimensional time-averaged nearshore profile model

CSTORM – coastal storm modelling system

Delft3D-FM – Deltares flexible mesh 3 dimensional modeling suite

DOT – Department of Transportation

DEP – Department of Environmental Protection

EPA – Environmental Protection Agency

FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency

FRF – USACE Field Research Facility

FUNWAVE - Fully Nonlinear Boussinesq Model

GCOOS – Gulf of Mexico Coastal Ocean Observing System

GOMA – Gulf of Mexico Alliance

ICON – Integration of international coastline observatory network

IOOS – Integrated Ocean Observing System

IWG-OCM – Interagency Working Group on Ocean and Coastal Mapping

NERRS – National Estuarine Research Reserve System

NNBF – natural and nature-based features

NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPS – National Park Service

NRL – U.S. Navy Research Laboratory

NWPS – Nearshore Wave Prediction System

NWR – National Wildlife Refuge

NWS – National Weather Service

ONR – Office of Naval Research

PI – Principal investigator

POC – Point of Contact

STWAVE – Steady-State Spectral Wave model

SWAN – Simulating WAves Nearshore model

SWASH – Simulating WAves till SHore

TBD – To Be Determined

TNC – The Nature Conservancy

UNH – University of New Hampshire

USACE – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USGS – U.S. Geological Survey

USFWS – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

WG/DIAP – Working Group for Disaster Impact Assessments and Plans

WHOI – Wood Hole Oceanographic Institute

WW3 - Wave Watch II

XBeach – 2 dimensional coastal model

28

Nearshore Community Integrated Research Implementation...

Documents

Transcript of Nearshore Community Integrated Research Implementation...