Report of the USGS Coastal and Marine Geology 

Modeling Workshop 

Pacific Marine Science Center, Santa Cruz, CA 

March 22–23, 2005 

By Christopher R. Sherwood 

Open-File Report 2005–1193 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2006 

For product and ordering information: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, 

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

Suggested citation: 

Sherwood, C.R., 2006, Report of the USGS Coastal and Marine Geology Modeling Workshop, Pacific Marine 

Science Center, Santa Cruz, CA, March 22–23, 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005–1193, 

15 p. 

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. 

ii
Contents 

Summary ..............................................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................2

Goals for this Workshop....................................................................................................................................................3

Day 1–Project Talks ...........................................................................................................................................................3

Day 2–Discussions .............................................................................................................................................................3

Assessment .....................................................................................................................................................................4

Advantages CMG Brings to Model Development and Application ...................................................................5

Role of Federal Government in Coastal Research and Modeling......................................................................5

Role of Proprietary Models in CMG Research ......................................................................................................6

Issues Associated with Proprietary Code..............................................................................................................6

Role of Funds from Outside Funding Agencies (OFA) in CMG Research and Modeling Projects ...............7

Other Issues/Comments ............................................................................................................................................7

Goals, Strategy, and Planning ......................................................................................................................................7

Overall Goals and Directions ....................................................................................................................................8

Improved Communication and Efficiency...............................................................................................................9

Resource Issues........................................................................................................................................................10

Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................................11

Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................................................12

Figure 

1. Illustration showing model-related activities ..................................................................................................4 

Tables 

 1. List of attendees ..................................................................................................................................................13 

 2. Agenda Tuesday, March 22, USGS Pacific Science Center Conference Room......................................14 

 3. Tally of models used in CMG projects discussed at workshop ..................................................................15 

iii
Report of the USGS Coastal and Marine Geology 

Modeling Workshop 

Pacific Marine Science Center, Santa Cruz, CA 

March 22–23, 2005 

By Christopher R. Sherwood 

Summary 

A U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Coastal and Marine Geology (CMG) 

Modeling Workshop was held to discuss the general topic of coastal modeling, defined 

broadly to include circulation, waves, sediment transport, water quality, ecology, 

sediment diagenesis, morphology change, and coastal evolution, on scales ranging from 

seconds and a few centimeters (individual ripples) to centuries (coastal evolution) and 

thousands of kilometers (tsunami propagation). The workshop was convened at the 

suggestion of CMG Program Management to improve communication among modelers 

and model users, assess modeling-related activities being conducted at the three centers 

(Florida Integrated Science Center, FISC; Pacific Marine Science Center; PMSC; and 

Woods Hole Science Center; WHSC), and develop goals, strategies, and plans for future 

modeling activities. The workshop represents a step toward developing a five-year 

strategic plan, and was timed to provide input for the FY06 prospectus. The workshop 

was held at the USGS Pacific Marine Science Center in Santa Cruz on March 22–23, 

2005. 

One the first day, 25 CMG scientists presented short descriptions of ongoing 

projects, and discussed the overall project goals and how modeling-related activities were 

(will be) used to meet some of these goals. The presenters described their advances in 

science, modeling technology, and any challenges (scientific, technical, or programmatic) 

they had encountered. The talks revealed broad ranges of modeling activities and of 

specific models. 

On the second day, attendees broke into three discussion groups to discuss CMG 

modeling. Their charge, for the first discussion session, was to assess the status of 

modeling at CMG. A second discussion session to outline goals and strategies for 

improving the program was planned, but instead these topics were discussed in a plenary 

session. 

Participants noted the importance of modeling at CMG and the interplay between 

process studies, regional studies, and modeling. Most felt that modeling plays a critical 

role in CMG science, and that CMG can play a special role in advancing coastal science 

because the USGS has a unique ability to study problems at the appropriate time and 

space scales. This ability, and the ability to include everything from fundamental process 

CMG Modeling Workshop Report Page 1 28 July 2006 
studies to final publicly accessible products, is the special Federal role that USGS can 

bring to regional and national studies. 

The Modeling Workshop provided a much-needed opportunity for exchange of 

information among CMG modelers, model users, and interested researchers. More than 

half of the projects discussed were concerned with nearshore processes, erosion hazards, 

or shoreline change. This is a niche in which CMG leadership is both required and 

expected. 

CMG projects use many models, including proprietary models (Delft3D and DHI 

models) and open-source models (SWAN, ROMS). Choices exist between application of 

fully-featured proprietary models and the development of custom, open-source models, 

and between diversification and focus, but these choices were viewed as a positive and 

productive aspect of CMG science. 

Participants suggested that CMG should continue to collaborate with other 

Federal agencies (OFA) that have complementary interests in coastal and marine 

processes. We need to continue to interact with the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA) on issues of modeling and field programs for evaluating and improving models. 

Specifically, workshops should be held with these agencies and external scientists to 

coordinate modeling and model evaluation activities. 

The importance of OFA funds in CMG research was discussed, and it was 

recognized that OFA funds could influence our research directions, but no strategies for 

managing OFA opportunities were defined. 

A list of activities that will enhance CMG modeling, primarily by improved 

communication among modelers, model users, and interested scientists, was developed. It 

includes: exchange of experts among the centers; internal review of modeling projects; 

increased use of established web sites; and annual meetings such as this one. 

Introduction 

A U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Coastal and Marine Geology (CMG) 

Modeling Workshop was held to discuss the general topic of coastal modeling, defined 

broadly to include circulation, waves, sediment transport, water quality, ecology, 

sediment diagenesis, morphology change, and coastal evolution, on scales ranging from 

seconds and a few centimeters (individual ripples) to centuries (coastal evolution) and 

thousands of kilometers (tsunami propagation). The workshop was convened at the 

suggestion of CMG Program Management to improve communication among modelers 

and model users, assess modeling related activities being conducted at the three centers 

(Florida Integrated Science Center, FISC; Pacific Marine Science Center; PMSC; and 

Woods Hole Science Center; WHSC), and develop goals, strategies, and plans for future 

modeling activities. The workshop represents a step toward developing a five-year 

strategic plan, and was timed to provide input for the FY06 prospectus. 

CMG Modeling Workshop Report Page 2 28 July 2006 
Goals for this Workshop 

The workshop was convened to achieve the following goals. 

• Communicate CMG project goals, modeling approaches, progress, and 

challenges. 

• Assess CMG modeling programs. 

• Identify the scientific goals and scope of CMG modeling program. 

• Strategize to improve our modeling capabilities significantly. 

• Optimally plan, coordinate, fund, and enable our modeling program. 

• Provide information for 5-year science plan with specific outcomes. 

• Provide input to FY06 prospectus. 

Day 1–Project Talks 

One the first day, 25 CMG scientists presented short descriptions of ongoing 

projects, and discussed the overall project goals and how modeling-related activities were 

(will be) used to meet some of these goals. The presenters described their advances in 

science, modeling technology, and any challenges (scientific, technical, or programmatic) 

they had encountered. The talks revealed broad ranges of modeling activities and of 

specific models. Fourteen of the projects mentioned some use of SWAN, thirteen projects 

use Delft3D, five projects use the USGS Community Sediment Transport Model based 

on ROMS, and six projects were using or evaluating components of the Nearshore 

National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP) community model NearCOM. 

Only three projects specifically identified water-quality or water-column ecology as 

important components (Tampa Bay, Coral Reefs, and Puget Sound Seagrasses), and of 

these, only one (Tampa Bay) used the DHI (formerly the Danish Hydraulic Institute) 

suite of models. Three projects specifically mentioned shoreline change models, and ten 

projects are developing other models (or sub-models). 

Day 2–Discussions 

On the second day, attendees broke into three discussion groups to discuss CMG 

modeling. Their charge, for the first discussion session, was to assess the status of 

modeling at CMG. A second discussion session to outline goals and strategies for 

improving the program was planned, but instead these topics were discussed in a plenary 

session. 

CMG Modeling Workshop Report Page 3 28 July 2006 
Assessment 

Three reports from breakout groups were presented. The first group presented a 

figure showing the relationship of numerical models with model-related activities (fig. 1). 

CMG is concerned most with three related activities: developing and testing fundamental 

understanding of the physical processes (“Theory/Processes”); making field and 

laboratory observations (“Observations/Measurements”); and performing regional studies 

that address science issues of societal importance (“Regional Applications”). There is 

synergy among these three activities. Regional applications often define the modeling 

needs and generate OFA support. In some cases, the questions to be addressed may 

require new theory or improved understanding of fundamental processes. Observations 

and measurements provide direct information for regional studies, and, if performed in 

the context of regional studies, also provide data for input to models or for testing and 

validation of models, and can lead to new theory and a better understanding of processes. 

Theory and understanding of processes can lead to improved algorithms for incorporation 

in the models, and can also provide impetus for new measurements. 

Figure 1. Illustration of model-related activities. 

CMG Modeling Workshop Report Page 4 28 July 2006 
The two areas in which CMG has not traditionally played a large role are in 

“Dissemination and Hosting” of models or in development of “Software Infrastructure”. 

For example, CMG does not run any models in near-real time, does not have prominent 

web sites with model code, and does not have any computer scientists dedicated to 

developing code. However, individual researchers have played important roles in 

developing code and disseminating it among the research community. For example, Rich 

Signell and John Warner have made significant contributions to raw model code, and 

CMG has hosted quite a lot of code related to models and/or data analysis, including 

various codes from Dave Rubin, Rich Signell, Chuck Denham, Chris Sherwood, Jingping 

Xu, and (more recently) in-house contributions from Marinna Martini, Jessie Lacy, and 

Dan Hanes and collaborators. 

The second and third groups presented lists of viewpoints (or statements) 

regarding CMG modeling. The merged and reordered lists are as follows. 

Advantages CMG Brings to Model Development and Application 

• Modeling is an important component of virtually all CMG research programs. 

• Field data is limited by the collection environment, and models allow scientists to 

investigate an expanded environment and integrate field results. 

• CMG field efforts provide valuable data sets for improving models because our 

regional projects often provide a more diverse set of measurements, over larger 

areas or longer time periods, than issue-specific measurements. 

• CMG projects allow comparison of models and measurements over a wide range 

of environments and applications. This comparison allows us to identify 

weaknesses in models. 

• CMG researchers publish results in peer-reviewed literature. 

• CMG studies require a wide variety of processes to be modeled. 

Role of Federal Government in Coastal Research and Modeling 

• CMG problems tend to be more applied than most National Science Foundation 

(NSF)-funded research, but CMG can conduct fundamental research that may be 

required to address these questions. 

• CMG can approach some problems of societal importance with broader research 

efforts than local or state agencies or academic research programs. 

• CMG efforts on societal problems can identify weaknesses and improve models 

or solutions generated by academic research. 

• CMG efforts sometimes overlap with academic research, but CMG can also 

supplement large academic research programs with expertise, instrumentation, 

and a broader perspective. 

• CMG research is sometimes mandated by Congress. 

• CMG researchers and conclusions are generally perceived as objective and 

unbiased. 

CMG Modeling Workshop Report Page 5 28 July 2006 
• CMG methods, data, and results are often nonproprietary and available to the 

public. 

• CMG can direct SIR funding to address important and timely issues that require 

improved scientific understanding. 

Role of Proprietary Models in CMG Research 

• Sometimes proprietary models are the best technology available to address 

important issues. 

• Some proprietary models are professional products that (a) are designed to be 

robust, efficient, and tolerant of real-world use (b) are professionally supported, 

(including user manuals and support) (c) have graphical user interfaces that allow 

nonexpert users to operate the model. 

• Some proprietary models are the result of significant investment and development 

that CMG might not want or be able to duplicate. 

• Use of proprietary models allows CMG to respond to stakeholder questions in an 

efficient and timely manner. 

• In several instances, proprietary models include processes that are not included in 

CMG models and that are required to address specific problems. In other 

instances, the integrative capabilities of proprietary models confer significant 

advantages in their use. 

• Collaboration with developers of proprietary models allows CMG modelers to 

build insight and expertise, and transfer that knowledge into our own research and 

models. 

Issues Associated with Proprietary Code 

Use of proprietary model code has several potential disadvantages.

• If the code cannot be examined, it is hard to ensure the model is behaving as 

intended. It is also hard to ensure that the model is being used properly. 

• If the code cannot be released to others, it is difficult to document, report, and 

confirm research methods. 

• If the code cannot be altered and recompiled, it is generally hard to fix or improve 

the model. It cannot be maintained by CMG, ported to other machines or 

operating systems, or modernized. 

• If the code or executables cannot be shared, the pool of potential collaborators is 

smaller. 

• If access to the code is considered a competitive advantage, government use may 

infringe on private industry. 

CMG Modeling Workshop Report Page 6 28 July 2006 
Role of Funds from Outside Funding Agencies (OFA) in CMG Research and 

Modeling Projects 

• OFA funds are increasingly important to the CMG budget. 

• Targets of OFA funds help CMG identify high-priority issues. 

• Receipt of OFA funds helps demonstrate worth of CMG research. 

• OFA-funded projects provide opportunities for CMG to collaborate with other 

agencies and address problems with an appropriate scale of resources. 

• OFA funds usually do not pay the entire cost of CMG participation, so the 

funding agency essentially leverages CMG resources. This works to everyone’s 

advantage if the OFA project aligns with CMG goals, but can derail CMG 

planning if the OFA project distorts CMG priorities. 

Other Issues/Comments 

Use of most models requires a significant investment of resources beyond 

acquisition or development of the model itself. Training in the use of the model, 

experience in adapting the model to specific problems, and development of model tools 

and analysis techniques all require significant time and energy on the part of specially 

trained CMG researchers. 

The USGS has a unique role to play in advancing and applying coastal and marine 

science. CMG has a vertically integrated science and technology capability that allows us 

to contribute to all of the steps in the process of providing science to address problems 

important to society. These steps include basic research into fundamental physical 

processes, development of new hypotheses, formulation of these hypotheses into 

algorithms suitable for modeling, making critical measurements to test the hypotheses 

and their representation in models, incorporating advances from the general scientific 

community into our models and testing them, acquiring and developing new technology 

for making observations, conducting field and laboratory measurement programs, 

evaluating models against these data, and finally, applying models to address important 

issues in coastal and marine geology. 

Goals, Strategy, and Planning 

Recommendations for changes and improvement to the program were assembled 

in a plenary discussion session. The following list has been expanded and reordered, but 

is based on the list of suggestions compiled during the meeting. Attendees were not 

polled and no votes on these suggestions were taken, so they do not represent a consensus 

of the attendees. 

CMG Modeling Workshop Report Page 7 28 July 2006 
Overall Goals and Directions 

Advance understanding of processes that shape the coastal environment, 

incorporate hypotheses in state-of-the-art numerical models, and apply the 

knowledge and models to important problems related to coastal hazards and 

resources—The overarching goal of modeling at CMG is to advance our practical 

knowledge of coastal processes. Our work should provide and/or adopt sound, testable 

hypotheses regarding the processes involved in sediment transport over a wide range of 

time and space scales. These hypotheses take the form of numerical models that specify 

our understanding and allow us to test our understanding against observation and 

alternative hypotheses. The models allow us to quantify these processes for specific cases 

(for example, in regional studies), which means we can evaluate the importance of 

various processes and extend our understanding beyond available observations (i.e., use 

the model to synthesize or make predictions). Field observations, in turn, allow us to 

evaluate our models critically. 

Continue to invest in a range of process research, model testing/development, and 

application to real problems—The general sense gleaned from attendees was that the 

present CMG approach is good and should be continued. That approach includes 

observation and process studies, model development, model evaluations, and use of 

models to address societally important problems. 

Incorporate nearshore processes into ROMS—It was clear from the presentations and 

discussion that many of the present CMG projects involve nearshore dynamics. The 

widespread use of Delft3D and the use of the Nearshore NOPP model NearCOM 

indicates that CMG scientists need models that include nearshore sediment transport and 

shoreline evolution. There was discussion about the merits of putting these processes into 

the USGS Community Sediment Transport Model (built on ROMS), which would allow 

us to build, test, use, and distribute a public-domain model with these capabilities. The 

goal of incorporating nearshore physics and shallow-water sediment transport capabilities 

into the Community Sediment Transport Model in ROMS could be a central aspect of a 

long-term CMG strategy, and might be exactly the right niche. We would want to work 

closely (as partners) with the Nearshore NOPP community, and use regional projects to 

provide data for model testing. Deciding to pursue this course will involve a significant 

commitment of resources, but there was strong support for this among some attendees. 

Others attendees expressed doubts about the need for this model and whether the 

resources were available to bring such a model to the same level as Delft3D. 

Continue to collaborate with Delft while encouraging Delft3D to be open-source—

Many projects are using Delft3D to address both fundamental science and societally 

important issues. We have benefited from our interactions with Delft researchers and 

produced results with Delft3D that no other modeling system could have produced, and 

many attendees recommended that we continue to use Delft3D and collaborate with 

Dutch researchers. There is some hope that Delft3D will become open-source, but (at 

present) there is no guarantee that this will occur. 

CMG Modeling Workshop Report Page 8 28 July 2006 
Work toward observational studies to evaluate models focused on cross-shelf 

transport and mixed sediments—A long-term (ca. 5-year) goal might be to plan 

multiagency field studies designed specifically to measure key processes and provide 

critical tests for sediment-transport models. With sufficient planning, a collaborative 

effort among CMG, ONR, the USACE, and possibly other agencies [NOPP, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NSF, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), the USEPA and state agencies] might produce one or 

more measurement / modeling projects that could simultaneously produce insight into 

processes, data for forcing and testing models, and answer important resourcemanagement questions. 

Participate in observatory science planning—There will be significant expansion of 

funding and opportunities associated with regional and national coastal observatory 

systems, and the USGS needs to stay abreast of opportunities for funding and 

collaboration. 

Recognize importance of OFA funds—OFA projects provide a mechanism for 

stakeholders to benefit from USGS expertise when the problems are not appropriate for 

private consultants. The importance of OFA funds in CMG research was discussed, and it 

was recognized that OFA funds could influence our research directions, but no strategies 

for managing OFA opportunities were defined. 

Improved Communication and Efficiency 

The following suggestions all encourage improved communication and 

collaboration among CMG scientists involved in process studies, model validation and 

improvement, and model applications in regional studies. 

Yearly modeling science meeting—Attendees at this workshop overwhelmingly 

approved the suggestion that some kind of annual forum for exchange of project plans 

and science results be established. Most agreed that the short project reports were a 

valuable component of the workshop. 

Internal modeling advisory committee—One suggestion for improving coordination 

among CMG modelers and model users was to establish an inhouse modeling advisory 

committee. Conceptually, this might be a small group of senior researchers representing 

the three centers and various disciplines that would serve as a resource for modelers and 

model users within CMG. They could review proposals and work plans, provide 

recommendations for model applications, and generally help connect modelers and users. 

Use external advisory committees on big modeling projects—On large modeling 

projects, external advisors should be invited to review the project and provide 

constructive criticism. 

Increased use of Lotus QuickPlace: add model-specific forums or QuickPlaces—

Lotus QuickPlaces provide an easy way to transfer files and collaborate within the USGS 

and with a small group of outside collaborators. We will try to promote the use of the 

CMGSoft QuickPlace, starting with this workshop report. 

CMG Modeling Workshop Report Page 9 28 July 2006 
Circulate modeling proposals among modelers—There was some discussion of the 

history (and demise) of the earlier peer-review process in CMG, and general agreement 

that peer-reviewing at least provided a method for communicating research plans and 

progress. One suggestion was to pass modeling-related proposals past the internal 

advisory group; another was to generally publicize modeling proposals on the CMGSoft 

QuickPlace. 

Get a list of OFA / NSF / NOPP / ONR / USACE / USEPA opportunities—We need 

some way of sharing opportunities and plans as they arise so that we can optimize use of 

resources and make sure we are not deflected from our CMG goals by OFA projects. 

Exchange experts—An effective way to exchange information is to exchange expertise 

(and the experts) among centers. We should encourage both short and long exchanges of 

modelers and field researchers among the three CMG centers. Specifically, we agreed 

that Rich Signell and John Warner should travel to Santa Cruz to train researchers in the 

use of ROMS, Cliff Hearn should travel to Woods Hole to exchange information about 

use of DHI in the Tampa Bay project, and Giles Lesser should travel to Woods Hole to 

train staff in use of Delft3D.

Develop test cases—It was suggested that we build a series of model test cases, 

including both simple conceptual cases and more complex real-world cases that would 

facilitate model testing and comparison. 

Explore DHI models among centers—It was suggested that we introduce researchers at 

the three centers to DHI models (DHI used to stand for Danish Hydraulic Institute, but 

the nonprofit research institute is now formally named DHI). DHI models are a critical 

component of the Tampa Bay Integrated Model. Expanding the number of scientists 

familiar with the model would provide CMG reasearchers with a more complete view of 

available models and increase the number of scientists that could support Tampa Bay 

modeling efforts. 

Resource Issues 

The following items all revolved around limitations in resources presently 

available to CMG modelers. Most of these can be resolved without additional funds, but 

will require efforts supported by program management. 

Try to get supercomputer resources—The fastest computers available inhouse to CMG 

modelers are equivalent to high-performance PCs costing about $8K. Through temporary 

and informal agreements, we can access faster systems (for example, Linux clusters at 

Texas A&M, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and the Navy High Performance 

Computing Center), but access is limited to a few USGS researchers and subject to 

change. Ideally, we would like to have a formal agreement for supercomputer resources 

with ONR, the USACE, the Department of Energy, or other agency. 

CMG Modeling Workshop Report Page 10 28 July 2006 
Work around Information Technology (IT) issues associated with semipublic 

research web sites to exchange large data sets—Department of Interior and USGS IT 

departments are focused on security and are not well versed in the unique IT 

requirements associated with numerical modeling, exchange of huge data sets, and 

research on experimental methods for information exchange. USGS modelers are 

working with nonstandard operating systems (versions of Unix and Mac OS) and 

experimenting with data exchange systems (for example, Distributed Ocean Data 

Systems (DODS), BitTorrent, map servers, etc.) that require us to distribute or access 

data in ways that are difficult to reconcile with traditional security guidelines. There are 

solutions to these problems, but we may need support from managers at the highest levels 

to implement them. 

Permanent personnel—The distribution of modeling expertise among the three centers 

is skewed towards Woods Hole, and there is a need for more modeler expertise in both 

Santa Cruz and St. Petersburg. We also need to add support staff capable of running 

models and developing and applying modeling tools to generate input and evaluate 

output. 

Conclusions 

The Modeling Workshop provided a much-needed opportunity for exchange of 

information among CMG modelers, model users, and interested researchers. It was clear 

that numerical models of various coastal processes are an integral part of CMG research 

activities. Field or laboratory observations often provide the impetus for model advances, 

and models often provide the impetus for critical process studies. Numerical models are 

formal, quantifiable, and testable hypotheses that describe our understanding of physical, 

oceanographic, and sedimentological processes in coastal regions. They allow us to 

interpolate among sparse data and extrapolate beyond observable conditions. Models are 

widely used by CMG scientists to address important problems of coastal erosion, 

shoreline evolution, and the fates of sediments, and nutrients, contaminants in coastal 

settings. CMG researchers contribute to model development, testing, and application at 

virtually every stage in the process. 

More than half of the projects discussed at the Modeling Workshop were 

concerned with problems involving nearshore processes, erosion hazards, or shoreline 

change. The USGS mandate to address coastal erosion hazards and the focus of current 

USGS projects requires CMG expertise in modeling nearshore processes. This is a niche 

in which CMG leadership is both required and expected. 

CMG projects use many models, including proprietary models (Delft3D and DHI 

models) and open-source models (SWAN, ROMS). There are good justifications for both 

approaches, and good reasons to maintain a diversified suite of modeling tools. It is also 

apparent that CMG modeling expertise is spread thinly over a range of projects and 

models. Choices exist between the application of fully featured proprietary models and 

the development of custom, open-source models, and between diversification and focus. 

No recommendation for choosing a single approach was formally endorsed by the 

attendees, and there were suggestions that the existing multiple approaches are 

productive, but improved communication is needed. 

We should collaborate with other Federal agencies that have complementary 

interests in coastal and marine processes. We need to continue to interact with ONR, the 

CMG Modeling Workshop Report Page 11 28 July 2006 
USACE, and the USEPA on issues of modeling and field programs for evaluating and 

improving models. 

The importance of OFA funds was recognized, but no strategy for managing this 

opportunity was defined. 

Workshop attendees developed a list of list of activities that will enhance CMG 

modeling, primarily by improved communication among modelers, model users, and 

interested scientists. Important items on this list include exchange of experts among the 

centers, internal review of modeling projects, increased use of established web sites, and 

annual meetings such as this one. 

Acknowledgments 

The workshop was funded by CMG through individual projects. The author 

thanks his co-organizers (Dawn Lavoie, Dan Hanes, and Clif Hearn) for their efforts in 

preparing for and hosting the workshop. Thanks also to Jamie Lescinski, who helped with 

logistics in Santa Cruz, and Jeff List, Peter Ruggiero, and Jeff Williams, who reviewed 

earlier versions of this report and made valuable suggestions. 

CMG Modeling Workshop Report Page 12 28 July 2006 
Table 1. List of attendees. 

Organizers 

Lavoie, Dawn, USGS CMG Headquarters, Reston 

Hanes, Dan, PMSC, Santa Cruz 

Hearn, Clif, FISC, St. Petersburg 

Sherwood, Chris, WHSC, Woods Hole 

Participants 

Barnard, Patrick, PMSC, Santa Cruz 

Butman, Brad, WHSC, Woods Hole 

Cheng, Ralph, Water Resources Discipline, National Research Program, Menlo Park

Field, Mike, PMSC, Santa Cruz 

Geist, Eric, PMSC, Menlo Park

Gelfenbaum, Guy, PMSC, Menlo Park

George, Doug, PMSC, Menlo Park

Jaffe, Bruce, PMSC, Santa Cruz 

Lacy, Jessie, PMSC, Santa Cruz 

Lescinski, Jamie, PMSC, Santa Cruz 

List, Jeff, WHSC, Woods Hole 

Noble, Marlene, WHSC, Menlo Park 

Rubin, Dave, PMSC, Santa Cruz 

Ruggiero, Peter, PMSC, Menlo Park 

Signell, Rich, WHSC, Woods Hole 

Storlazzi, Curt, PMSC, Santa Cruz 

Thompson, Dave, FISC, St. Petersburg

Warner , John, WHSC, Woods Hole 

Williams, Jeff, WHSC, Woods Hole 

Xu, Jingping, PMSC, Menlo Park

Yates, Kim, FISC, St. Petersburg 

CMG Modeling Workshop Report Page 13 28 July 2006 
Table 2. Agenda Tuesday, March 22, USGS Pacific Science Center Conference Room. 

Speaker(s) Topic

Hanes, Sherwood, Lescinski Welcome 

Lavoie Introduction

Sherwood Palos Verdes Remediation Studies 

Noble SoCal Internal Tides/Swash 

Xu Monterey Canyon Turbidity Currents

Rubin Modeling Sediment Transport When Velocity is Irrelevant

Barnard Ocean Beach 

Yates Tampa Bay Project

 Break 

Signell Adriatic Sea 

Field Coral Reefs 

Storlazzi Shelf Habitats 

Ruggiero Southwest Washington Coastal Erosion Study, Coastal Evolution

Modeling Project

Lescinski Coastal Evolution Modeling Project: Cross-Shore Profile Modeling

George Capitol Lake

Lacy Puget Sound Seagrasses / Ripple-Scale Models 

Gelfenbaum Elwha, Willapa Bay, Tsunami Inundation 

Geist Tsunami Generation / Propagation

 Lunch 

List North Carolina, National Assessment Overview

Thompson Hurricane Wave Modeling 

Jaffe Tsunami Sedimentation, San Francisco Bay Geomorphic Change

Butman Massachusetts Bay Mapping and Habitat 

Warner Hudson River, South Carolina

Williams usSEABED, Seafloor Mapping and Characterization, Aggregates 

Assessment 

Break 

Sherwood National Community Sediment Transport Model

Hearn Tampa Bay Integrated Coastal Model approach 

Gelfenbaum Delft3D Capabilities and Cooperative Plans 

Cheng Recent Advances in Unstructured Grid Models 

Warner ROMS Sediment Model

Signell Modeling Tools and Data Exchange 

Hanes Role of Numerical Modeling in CMG 

CMG Modeling Workshop Report Page 14 28 July 2006 
Table 3. Tally of models used in CMG projects discussed at workshop. 

Shoreline Water 

Speaker Project SWAN Delft3D ROMS NearCom DHI Change Quality Other

Sherwood Palos Verdes 

Remediation Studies 1 1

Noble SoCal Internal 

Tides/Swash 1

Xu Monterey Canyon

Turbidity Currents 1

Rubin Modeling Sediment 

Transport When Velocity

is Irrelevant 1 

Barnard Ocean Beach 1 1 1 

Yates Tampa Bay Project 1 1 1 1 

Signell Adriatic Sea 1 1 

Field Coral Reefs 1 1 1 1 

Storlazzi Shelf Habitats 1 1 

Ruggiero Southwest Washington 

Coastal Erosion Study 1 1 1 1 

Lescinski Coastal Evolution 

Modeling Project: CrossShore Profile Modeling 1 1 1 

George Capitol Lake 1 

Lacy Puget Sound 

Seagrasses 1 

Lacy Ripple-Scale Models 1

Gelfenbaum Elwha 1 1 

Gelfenbaum Willapa Bay 1 1 

Gelfenbaum Tsunami Inundation 1 

Geist Tsunami 

Generation/Propagation 1 1 

Jaffe San Francisco Bay

Geomorphic Change 1 

Jaffe Tsunami Sedimentation 1

List North Carolina 1 1 1 1 

Thompson Hurricane Wave 

Modeling (part of

National Assessment) 1 

Butman Massachusetts Bay

Mapping and Habitat 1 1 

Warner Hudson River 1 1 

Warner South Carolina 1 1 1 1 1 

Williams usSEABED, Seafloor 

Mapping & 

Characterization,

Aggregates Assessment 

13 13 5 5 1 3 3 10

CMG Modeling Workshop Report Page 15 28 July 2006