Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project Phase I: Mitigating Shoreline Erosion along the Hudson River

Estuarys Sheltered Coasts

A Final Report Submitted to

The NOAA/UNH Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine

Environmental Technology (CICEET)

Project Start Date: August 1, 2008

Submitted by: Elizabeth A. Blair

Manager, Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve &

Regional Marine Habitat Manager

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Norrie Point Environmental Center

P.O. Box 315, Staatsburg, New York 12580

January 22, 2013

This project was funded by a grant from NOAA/UNH Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology, NOAA Grant Number(s) NA06NOS4190167

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXPANDED EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS ....................................... 2

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 5

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Introduction: The Need for Information to Guide Effective Management and Restoration ....... 6

Organization of this Report ......................................................................................................... 6

Project Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 7

Objective 1: Establish a formal structure for project management and team collaboration ... 7

Objective 2: Evaluate and compare ecological functions of six types of natural and

engineered shoreline present in the Hudson Estuary. ......................................................... 8

Objective 3: Develop more accurate regional projections of climate impacts ...................... 12

Objective 4: Conduct an engineering analysis to evaluate selected shore ................................

protection measures .......................................................................................................... 13

Objective 5: Characterize the short- and long-term costs of different shoreline hardening, .....

vegetated approaches and land use management measures used to control erosion. ....... 14

Objective 6: Characterize legal framework and identify legal and ...........................................

regulatory opportunities for enhancing shoreline protection ............................................ 16

Objective 7: Involve stakeholders through collaboration and outreach ................................ 18

3. NEXT STEPS ....................................................................................................................... 23

4. APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 25

Appendix 1: Literature Cited .................................................................................................... 25

Appendix 2: Coordinating Team Members .............................................................................. 27

Appendix 3: Deliverables ......................................................................................................... 28

Appendix 4: Shorelines Project Milesones ............................................................................... 30

Appendix 5: Presentations to Professional Audiences at Conferences and Meetings .............. 32

2

1. EXPANDED EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS

This final report for Phase 1 of the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project, Mitigating

Shoreline Erosion along the Hudson River Estuarys Sheltered Coasts, describes collaborative research and outreach that characterized the needs of a variety of shoreline decision-makers;

identified ecological, engineering, and economic tradeoffs among different shoreline treatments;

and conveyed key results to a suite of decision makers. Project partners included the Stevens

Institute of Technology, the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, the NYS DEC Hudson River

Estuary Program, the NYS DEC Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve, and the

Consensus Building Institute.

Coastal Resource Issue: The vital shoreline, intertidal, and vegetated shallow habitats of the 152-

mile Hudson River estuary are at risk from impending shoreline changes associated with

development, sea level rise, increased flooding and storm surge, and human efforts to prevent

erosion and flooding of shoreline properties. Changes in shoreline are imminent as old structures

become unstable (Doyle et al. 2008), public and private agencies invest in waterfront

revitalization (Eisenman et al. 2010), and development pressure continues along the shoreline.

Climate change imposes new stresses on the shoreline. Projected sea level rise by 2080 of 41-55

inches under the rapid ice melt scenario (Rosenzweig et al. 2011) and increased flooding from

more intense rain storms and ocean-driven storm surges have made shorelines a ground zero for policy-makers and the public who will be dealing with both erosion and inundation

challenges. Rises of this magnitude will lead property owners along the tidal Hudson and other

coastal waters to either build, repair, or modify shoreline protection structures to protect their

properties (Titus et al. 1991, Nicholls et al. 1999, Titus and Richman 2001), or to choose

alternative strategies.

Study Area: This project focused on sites and conditions in the upper 127 miles of the Hudson

River estuary, from the Troy Dam south to the Tappan Zee Bridge, where water salinity and

biological communities range from freshwater tidal to brackish. In this region shorelines are

regularly subjected to tidal and river currents, wind-driven waves, ice scour, and the wakes of

recreational boats and large commercial vessels, and periodically inundated by flooding and

storm surge. To combat erosion and accommodate working waterfronts, roughly 41 percent of

the waters edge in the project area has been reinforced with riprap revetment, bulkhead, or cribbing, some of which is failing. Many riverfront communities are grappling with more

frequent flooding and how to protect infrastructure, public access, tourism and commercial

enterprises.

Relevance to Problem: This project generated estuary-specific scientific information and

analytical results, advancing the state of our knowledge of Hudson River shoreline ecology and

habitat functions, ecological tradeoffs of various shoreline modifications, applicability of

shoreline protection methods in the Hudson Estuary, the relative costs of various methods, and

the decision maker and legal landscape. This information has been and will be used to inform

community planning, regulatory decision-making, and professional practices related to decisions

about shoreline treatments.

3

Technology and Innovation: Unlike many other CICEET-funded projects, this work was not

broadly focused on testing a specific technology or innovation. Instead, this project relied on

established social science, ecological and engineering research methods. However, some

elements of the work were innovative, including a new approach for estimating life-cycle costs

of shoreline treatments. We also demonstrated user-driven research collaboration in our region

by creating a formal structure conducive to collaboration, and by building on a tradition of multi-

disciplinary collaboration on Hudson River habitat protection. The formal structure consists of a

project Coordinating Team and two advisory panels. The perspectives of all organizations

represented on the team and panels carried equal weight in their respective bodies. We worked

together to refine and accomplish the milestones and to make revisions as necessary. We used

several means of communication and operated according to a set of mutually accepted principles,

cultivated consensus in our decision-making, developed a clear and accessible communications

structure, and agreed on roles, responsibilities, and expectations. This approach has been very

favorably received by our intended users, and is being emulated in other projects.

Transferability: Many elements of this project are transferable to other areas. The ecological

research methods used in the comparative field analysis of six types of shoreline on the Hudson

can be used in other places. The shoreline life-cycle cost analysis, which was devised to

compare the capital and maintenance costs over an extended period of time factoring in rising

sea levels, can be used elsewhere. The literature review of freshwater shoreline ecology is

transferable to anywhere with freshwater shorelines, including non-coastal environments,

estuaries with freshwater tidal conditions, and the Great Lakes. The literature review of

engineered shoreline treatments is readily transferable to a wide audience.

Technical and Non-technical Barriers: Several barriers deter the application of innovative

shoreline management technologies by our intended users. Engineers and regulators need

evidence that innovative approaches will perform satisfactorily under the conditions in the

Hudson. Community decision-making processes gain momentum quickly, so there is a need to

intervene early in the process. Detailed guidance is needed about specific structural refinements

that can enhance ecological function of shoreline treatments and/or increase structural stability

under future conditions. A persistent lack of awareness of sea level rise projections, changing

flood zones, and other impacts of a changing climate slows adoption. Phase 2 of this project was

designed to remedy many of these barriers and challenges.

Intended Users of Project Results: Our project results have been and will be used by a range of

intended users, including property owners, policy-makers, government regulators, consultants,

experts, and advocates. Property owners are municipal and state land owners and land

conservancies. Policy-makers include government officials who influence policy and decisions

on shoreline regulation, climate adaptation, and investments in shoreline infrastructure and

community revitalization. The primary intended users in this category are the people most

directly involved in making climate adaptation policy in New York State (NYS), including staff

of the NYS Department of State (DOS) Coastal Resources Division; NYS Department of

Environmental Conservation (DEC); State Emergency Management Office; and NYS Energy

Research Development Agency. Officials (elected and appointed officials, volunteer boards, and

staff) of the 79 municipalities along the Hudson River Estuary also make important decisions

about shorelines in their communities, and may enact local ordinances that factor in the findings

4

of this project. Government regulators are users, including staff of several federal agencies

(ACOE, EPA, USFWS, NMFS); DEC permit, natural resource, and environmental quality staff

who review projects pursuant to state law and/or who negotiate shoreline remediation projects;

DOS staff who conduct coastal consistency reviews; and municipal code officers. Consulting

engineers, landscape architects, planners, scientists, attorneys and advocates who advise and

influence shoreline policies and decisions are also among our intended users.

Shared Credit: The majority of this work was underwritten by the NOAA-funded Cooperative

Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET). Portions of the work

were partly or entirely funded by other sources, including the ecological literature review

(NOAA), ecological research (Hudson River Foundation and Hudson River Estuary Program),

and scenario planning (the Nature Conservancy and partners). We relied on the timely work of

others for climate projections of sea level rise and storm surge, and redirected CICEET funding

originally included for these purposes to other project needs.

Key Findings:

Ecological Findings: Shorelines are better thought of as shore zones, including the upland, shore

edge, and near-shore aquatic environments as they are interconnected and interdependent.

Freshwater shore zones perform and provide a wide variety of ecological functions, including

energy diffusion; habitat for terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates, invertebrates and plants; nutrient

transformation; and others. Different shoreline treatments have different ecological functions,

and these do not vary in parallel. Vertical shorelines have reduced ecological value. Wrack is an

important component of ecologically valuable shorelines.

Engineering Findings: There are diverse options for managing shorelines, including well-studied

traditional techniques (although the ecology of these is generally poorly known) and less

traditional ecologically-enhanced and/or soft shorelines (which, in general, are less well studied

than traditional shoreline treatments). To our knowledge, this is the first study to estimate site-

specific life-cycle costs of shorelines treatments, factoring in future sea level rise and storm

projections. Life cycle cost calculations, including construction, maintenance, and replacement

costs operating costs, for ten shoreline treatments at three sites along the Hudson River Estuary,

indicated that ecologically enhanced shorelines were cost-competitive with traditional structures.

Legal and Regulatory Findings: Many legal, regulatory and land use avenues exist for effecting

changes in management of shorelines and erosion control. Federal and state regulators have a

need for regionally-specific scientific studies about shoreline options, and have a strong desire

for demonstration sites that will show feasibility, cost, and performance of alternate treatments.

Transfer Findings

Our intended users are eager to have information from this phase of the project, as well as

additional information about tradeoffs among management practices in the context of Hudson

River conditions. Interest is very high following high waters, flooding, and winds associated

with large storms Irene, Lee, and Sandy. All users wish to see demonstration sites and

associated information about site conditions and performance.

5

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Abstract: This collaborative research project constituted Phase 1 of the Hudson River

Sustainable Shorelines Project (www.hrnerr.org/hudson-river-sustainable-shorelines), which

connected ecologists, engineers, natural resource managers and shoreline decision-makers to

identify the best choices for preventing erosion along the Hudson River Estuary in ways that

preserve shoreline ecological functions, are cost-effective when long-term risks are factored in,

and are adaptable to the projected rising sea levels and increased flooding from climate change.

Phase 1 of the project was focused on shorelines in the upper 125 miles of the 152-mile Hudson

River Estuary, from the Tappan Zee Bridge (River Mile 27) north to the Federal Dam at Troy

(River Mile 152). The shoreline is about half natural and half engineered.

The project included studies of shoreline ecology, shoreline engineering alternatives and their

costs, the legal and regulatory framework for shoreline management, and factors that influence

the decision-making process. The Coordinating Team for this phase included natural and social

scientists, engineers, natural resource managers, communicators, and consensus building experts.

We undertook all aspects of this work using a collaborative approach, wherein our intended users

were included as key players in the research design, evaluation, and application. Our researchers

worked with each other and intended users to identify the highest priority information needs,

most useful products, and best communication modes. Our intended users participated in

advisory committees, working groups, focus groups, surveys, and case studies.

The shoreline ecology studies included a comprehensive synthesis of published literature on

ecological functions of freshwater shore zones, as well as a comparative field analysis of six

types of shoreline, focusing on the shoreline physical attributes and habitat functions of selected

biota. Ecological attributes varied widely with shoreline type, and ecological functions did not

vary in parallel. We identified a set of shoreline attributes that could be manipulated to enhance

function, and determined there was a need for finer scale studies of these attributes.

Two engineering studies were completed. The first was a review of published literature about

shoreline structures, with a ranking of each treatments hardness, construction cost, maintenance cost, and adaptability to climate change. The second was a comparative cost analysis of ten shore

protection approaches at three sites under two sea level rise scenarios over a 70-year period. The

results showed that at most sites there are ecologically enhanced approaches for which the

lifecycle costs are relatively similar to traditional approaches.

We commissioned a study to characterize the existing legal and regulatory framework governing

shoreline management and to identify opportunities for fostering best management practices

based on the results of the Sustainable Shorelines Project.

Needs assessments, outreach activities and social science research was planned and conducted

throughout the entire project in order to refine research questions, engage intended users,

understand real-world shoreline planning conditions, refine outreach products and strategies, and

evaluate progress and success.

6

Introduction: The Need for Information to Guide Effective Management and Restoration

Shorelines are among the most ecologically important, anthropogenically modified, and highly

valued parts of aquatic ecosystems, yet their ecological functions are often not understood well

enough to guide effective management and restoration. Shorelines provide a wide range of

ecological functions as habitats, parts of habitat complexes, edges between terrestrial and aquatic

realms, and corridors for dispersal. Humans have been drawn to shorelines since prehistoric

times, with the consequence that shorelines in inhabited areas often are highly modified. About

half of the natural shoreline of the Hudson River Estuary has been replaced by riprap, sheet pile,

wooden or concrete bulkheads, or other engineered structures which provide little ecological

value. This is a typical pattern along many coasts throughout the world. Shoreline restoration

often is one of the most feasible alternatives for the restoration of degraded aquatic ecosystems,

and is being considered for sites along the Hudson and elsewhere.

Another important impetus for developing better guidance for shoreline modification is sea-level

rise and other effects of global climate change. The estimated sea-level rise of 41-55 inches

(rapid ice melt scenario) by 2080 (Rosenzweig et al. 2011) along the Hudson River Estuary will

lead property owners along the tidal Hudson and other coastal waters to build, repair, or modify

structures along the shore to protect their properties. These structures are typically installed for at

least 30 years, but have often lasted well beyond their stated design life. However, with rapidly

changing conditions, a new paradigm may be in order to promote installation of structures that

can adapt over time, or those that can be replaced more frequently to adapt to changing

circumstances and still provide ecological value/function. Calculations of life cycle costs need to

factor in the changing risks, water levels, and physical forces in order to more accurately guide

public and private investments in these structures.

Around the world, people are struggling to come to terms with a rapidly changing climate future.

Our efforts to develop guidance for effective shoreline management and restoration will only be

as effective as we are in developing useful, relevant information, building confidence and trust in

the results, and working to influence the people making shoreline decisions. As a result, there is

a need for us to understand their needs and interests, their past behaviors and current

motivations, and their preferences for learning about these results. A growing body of evidence

suggests that this is most effectively accomplished through a process of collaborative research

and learning wherein intended users work closely with researchers from the outset to define and

refine the work.

Organization of this Report

This project included four main components: shoreline ecology studies, assessments of

engineering alternatives and costs, social science investigations (economic, legal and human

dimensions) and engagements with our intended users. This report uses the original seven

objectives to discuss these four components. The methods and results are discussed under each

objective.

7

Project Objectives

We seek to advance a future where decision-makers possess and apply the best available

information on shoreline management practices as they seek to protect, for future generations,

the shore zones wildlife habitat, ecological benefits, outdoor recreation, community quality of life, and water-dependent businesses.

Our project included seven objectives:

Objective 1: Establish a formal structure for project management and team collaboration

Objective 2: Evaluate and compare ecological functions of six types of natural and engineered

shoreline present in the Hudson Estuary.

Objective 3: Develop more accurate regional projections of climate impacts.

Objective 4: Conduct an engineering analysis to evaluate selected shore protection measures

Objective 5: Characterize the short- and long-term costs of different shoreline hardening,

vegetating approaches, and land use management measures used to control erosion.

Objective 6: Characterize legal framework and identify legal and regulatory opportunities for

enhancing shoreline protection

Objective 7: Involve stakeholders through collaboration and outreach

Methods and Results by Objective

Objective 1: Establish a formal structure for project management and team collaboration

The Sustainable Shorelines Project established a framework of three linked groups: Coordinating

Team, Project Team, and Advisory Committee, each serving different functions essential for

project completion. The integration lead, Consensus Building Institute (CBI), served as a neutral

facilitator and worked to keep these three groups productive, efficient, and fair. CBI staff helped

the Principal Investigator (PI) and Coordinating Team effectively engage stakeholders, conduct

meetings and focus groups, and strategically steer the project.

The Coordinating Team included a small core group of project leaders to guide all aspects of the

project. Members include representatives from the Reserve and the Hudson River Estuary

Program, researchers from Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies and Stevens Institute of

Technology, and the CBI (see Appendix 2 for list of members). The Coordinating Team held

regular conference calls and in person meetings.

The Project Team included the Coordinating Team and other researchers and natural resource

managers doing project-related work. These included experts in local laws, representatives from

environmental non-profits who work on the Hudson, and staff from several state agencies

engaged in coastal management and climate change. The Project Team met annually. This team

had the ability to provide insightful technical review of work products done under the project.

Sub-groups including outreach planning, engineering-ecology, and geospatial information were

also convened multiple times to coordinate and shape interdisciplinary work, test ideas, evaluate

progress, and share results and products.

8

The Shorelines Advisory Committee consisted of over two dozen representatives of a broad

range of intended users from coastal engineering, federal, state and local government, lending,

environmental, planning, railroads, and other sectors. The purpose of this group was to give

feedback throughout the project, provide strategic perspectives, and strengthen the project by

ensuring that its technical work sat squarely in the realm of the politically practical. The

Advisory Committee also met annually; often the Project Team members attended these

meetings as well. Between meetings, the principal investigator and other Coordinating Team

members consulted frequently with individual members of the Project Team and Shorelines

Advisory Committee. Emphasis was placed on hearing from stakeholders, capturing their

suggestions, and addressing their questions. This interaction allowed us to evaluate both our

research and our methods of explaining and disseminating our findings. Archived presentations

and written summaries of meetings captured what took place, next steps, and action items.

About a year into the project, we realized a need for a smaller management group to manage all

components of the project, such as coordinating the many related and interconnected sub-

projects, progressing and developing work products appropriate for intended users, and

advancing a web site and outreach products. While PI Betsy Blair had final authority for this, she

worked closely with Emilie Hauser (NYS DEC Hudson River National Estuarine Research

Reserve) and Ona Ferguson (CBI). This team of three checked in several times a month to report

progress, identify concerns, and clarify roles and tasks within all team levels.

The structure of the various groups worked well to foster communication, collaboration and

engagement, and to evaluate both the process and the various findings and outreach materials. A

table showing dates of meetings, release of reports and other milestones appears in Appendix 4.

Objective 2: Evaluate and compare ecological functions of six types of natural and engineered

shoreline present in the Hudson Estuary

Shore zones are vital habitat for multiple life stages of many fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and

invertebrates. Different shore zones provide different kinds and levels of habitat, and when

aggregated, can significantly influence life in the Hudson River ecosystem. This part of the

project generated information from the literature and field studies to identify shoreline types and

features that are best to support life in the Hudson River, as well as those that reduce near shore

life. Although surprisingly little is known world-wide about the ecosystem services associated

with shorelines and shoreline mitigation techniques, we were well equipped to address this in the

Hudson River Estuary. We built on past work by members of this team and others to

characterize key biotic, chemical, and physical functions or ecosystem services of two important near-shore communities: tidal freshwater marshes (Findlay et al. 2002) and submerged

aquatic vegetation (SAV) beds (Nieder et al. 2004; Findlay et al. 2006).

The ecology studies work was primarily accomplished by David Strayer, Stuart Findlay, and

colleagues at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies. Although most of this work was funded

by others (the Hudson River Foundation & NOAA), it was an integral part of this shorelines

project. The work included 1) a review and summary of literature about ecosystem services and functions performed by shorelines, 2) field studies that a) compared current functions of six

types of shoreline with respect to physical attributes and habitat functions of selected biota, and

9

b) a study of the part wrack plays in shoreline ecosystems. These studies all informed our

understanding of ecosystem tradeoffs of existing methods to control shoreline erosion. It also

raised additional questions about shoreline functions that we are addressing in Phase 2.

Literature Review

Dave Strayer and Stuart Findlay (Cary Institute for Ecosystem Studies) completed a

comprehensive synthesis of literature, The Ecology of Freshwater Shore Zones, published in

early 2010 in the journal Aquatic Sciences. The abstract is reproduced here:

Freshwater shore zones are among the most ecologically valuable parts of the planet, but have been

heavily damaged by human activities. Because the management and rehabilitation of freshwater shore

zones could be improved by better use of ecological knowledge, we summarize here what is known about

their ecological functioning. Shore zones are complexes of habitats that support high biodiversity, which

is enhanced by high physical complexity and connectivity. Shore zones dissipate large amounts of

physical energy, can receive and process extraordinarily high inputs of autochthonous and allochthonous

organic matter, and are sites of intensive nutrient cycling. Interactions between organic matter inputs

(including wood), physical energy, and the biota are especially important. In general, the ecological

character of shore zone ecosystems is set by inputs of physical energy, geologic (or anthropogenic)

structure, the hydrologic regime, nutrient inputs, the biota, and climate. Humans have affected freshwater

shore zones by laterally compressing and stabilizing the shore zone, changing hydrologic regimes,

shortening and simplifying shorelines, hardening shorelines, tidying shore zones, increasing inputs of

physical energy that impinge on shore zones, pollution, recreational activities, resource extraction,

introducing alien species, changing climate, and intensive development in the shore zone. Systems to

guide management and restoration by quantifying ecological services provided by shore zones and

balancing multiple (and sometimes conflicting) values are relatively recent and imperfect. We close by

identifying leading challenges for shore zone ecology and management.

Regardless of what ecological variable is measured, there is a great deal of variation in the

ecological attributes of different shorelines along the Hudson River. Some of this variation is

clearly related to the type or physical structure of the shoreline. For example, fish communities

clearly differ among the different shoreline types. Relatively flat and featureless sandy shores

support large numbers of small fish, physically complex shorelines such as rock and riprap

support moderate numbers and high diversity of larger fish, and vertical bulkheads support very

few fish of any kind. The species composition of the fish, plant and invertebrate communities is

related to the shoreline type. Although plant species richness does not differ across shoreline

type, the percentage of plant species that are not native is higher along engineered shores

(bulkheads, riprap, and cribbing) than along natural shore. Biological communities change

greatly with elevation (from shallow subtidal to supertidal), so sea level rise will change

biological communities. The physical structure of the shoreline also affects its ecological

function. For instance, flatter shorelines accumulate more organic matter, which serves both as

shelter and as a food source for organisms, and is a hotspot for biogeochemical cycling. The fact

that humans often steepen shorelines by converting them to vertical bulkheads or steep

revetments may reduce the ecological value of many shorelines.

In addition, the investigators have seen some evidence that biological diversity is generally

higher along physically complex shores, whether that complexity is surface roughness, variation

in grain size, or sinuosity in map view. Fish may be more abundant and diverse along more

sheltered shores than along exposed ones.

10

David Strayer wrote a popular summary of the literature review findings, entitled Managing

Shore Zones for Ecological Benefits, which was published in brochure form in 2011 and has

been disseminated to a variety of intended users and posted on the project web site.

Field Studies of the Ecological Functions of Shorelines

David Strayer, Stuart Findlay, and colleagues also studied two aspects of shoreline ecology:

biodiversity and the ecology of wrack (floating organic matter). The first was a field comparison

study of the biodiversity of three types of natural and three types of engineered shorelines along

the Hudson River shoreline. The second study looked at the ecology of wrack (floating organic

matter) on these different types of shorelines.

Biodiversity Study

In the biodiversity study, researchers documented the biodiversity supported by different kinds

of shore zones in the Hudson (Strayer et al. 2012). They chose six common types of shore zones,

three natural (sand, unconsolidated rock, and bedrock), and three engineered (riprap, cribbing, and bulkheads). Methods are described in detail in the publication. They measured selected

physical characteristics (shore zone width, exposure, substrate roughness and grain size,

shoreline complexity) of three examples of each of these shore types, and also sampled

communities of terrestrial plants, fishes, and aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates.

Community composition of most taxa differed across shore types, and frequently differed

between wide, sheltered shores and narrow, exposed shores. Non-native plant species were

especially well represented along engineered shores. Nevertheless, a great deal of variation in

biological communities was not explained by their six-class categorization of shore zones or the

physical variables that they measured. No single shore type was best for all kinds of biodiversity,

but engineered shore zones (especially cribbing and bulkheads) tended to have less desirable

biodiversity characteristics than natural shore zones. It is noteworthy that rip-rap was indistinguishable from naturally rocky shorelines in many respects. Table 1 provides an

overview of the attributes examined and whether or not they differed among shore types.

Wrack Study

Organic matter that is washed onto shore, or wrack, is an important component of shoreline ecosystems. Wrack provides habitat for invertebrates, as well as soil organic matter and nutrients

to both upland terrestrial communities and aquatic ecosystem. While marine wrack has been

studied extensively, wrack along freshwater shorelines has received little attention. Strayer,

Findlay and Harris studied the standing stocks, mobility, decomposition rates, and invertebrate

communities of wrack (chiefly wild-celery, Vallisneria americana) on different types of Hudson

River shorelines, both natural and engineered. Initial work (Harris and Strayer 2011) was

published as part of Harriss masters thesis. A manuscript describing findings on the role of wrack is now in review at Estuaries and Coasts (Strayer, Findlay and Harris, in review).

Methods are described in the publications.

11

Table 1. Summary of differences in major ecological characteristics of different types of shores

along the Hudson River. All variables are scaled to a maximum of 100, based on untransformed

data to allow comparisons across variables (note that statistical tests usually were based on

transformed data). Boldface indicates variables that differed significantly among shore types.

Aquatic invertebrate data are from D-net samples.

Sand Rock Bedrock Riprap Cribbing Bulkhead p

Fish diversity 77 95 95 100 100 89 0.32

Abundance of large

(>20 cm long) fish

6 55 100 61 15 21 0.01

Abundance of small

(

12

improve their value as fish habitat? Would adding roughness to shores to retain wrack enhance

their ability to retain nutrients? Would making a straight shore sinuous increase its ecological

value? If so, how much sinuosity is needed?

Objective 3: Develop more accurate regional projections of climate impacts

The Hudson River Estuary and its shorelines are affected by a complex array of tides, currents,

waves, weather patterns, storm surges, and global climate trends. In order to make good

decisions about shorelines, we needed to understand these natural forces today and how they

might change in the future. A key part of our work was to develop a reasonable set of scenarios

of water level rise and other physical impacts of climate change to use as context for project

analyses, findings and recommendations. Work funded by this project and elsewhere has filled

these needs. Early in 2009, we helped complete the Rising Waters project. New work, separately

funded, was completed on storm surge and sea level modeling (Stedinger and Yi 2009).

New York State Climate Projections:

Over the course of the work, 2009 to 2012, we have benefitted from climate research under the

NYS Energy Research and Development Agencys ClimAID project (Rosenzweig et al. 2011) which provided New York State-specific climate projections, information detailing New Yorks vulnerability to the effects of climate change, and potential adaptation strategies to reduce those

vulnerabilities. Three other reports influenced our thinking: the New York City Panel on

Climate Change (2009), the NYS Sea Level Rise Task Force Report (2010) and the NYS

Climate Action Plan Interim Report (2010).

The ClimAID report provides the scientific basis for the projections of sea level rise and flood

recurrence intervals for the climate/weather scenarios used for projecting shoreline performance,

which are used in the engineering cost analysis. In consultation with the ClimAID scientists and

the New York State Climate Change Office, we decided to use sea level rise projections from

90th percentile of the rapid ice melt scenario. The rationale for using the higher end of rapid ice

melt projections is that global measurements of emissions and of ice melt seem to be at or

exceeding high end projections. Following the State, we have used the 2020s, 2050s and 2080s

for benchmarks.

Rising Waters Project

The Rising Waters project defined four potential scenarios of climate change in the Hudson

Valley for 2030, and achieved consensus on a set of recommendations for climate change

adaptation strategies in the Hudson Valley. A final report issued in spring, 2009 was the

culmination of two years of a multi-stakeholder process to analyze likely future impacts of

climate change and to build consensus on what should be done to improve preparedness.

Notable was a recommendation to improve the resilience of shorelines, natural systems, and critical infrastructure throughout the Hudson Valley to the impacts of extreme weather, with the following action: identify and promote sustainable methods for shoreline erosion control that will secure key infrastructure while enabling vital natural communities to exist and migrate

landward as sea level rises. The Rising Waters recommendations have been advanced through the shorelines project and stakeholder participants are part of our advisory groups.

13

Storm Surge Modeling Our original proposal to CICEET contained a task to generate accurate regional data about

projections of climate change impacts, especially about precipitation. However, it was apparent

that adequate regional data would be available through NYSERDA funded ClimAID and New

York City work (NYC Panel on Climate Change, 2009). Upon the recommendation of our

climatologist, Art Degaetano of Cornell University, we focused initially on a broader question

about the relative contribution of precipitation, sea level rise, and storm surge to water level

changes in the estuary under plausible climate change scenarios. Stedinger and Yi (2009) created

a onedimensional model of storm surge in the estuary under present conditions which confirmed that sea level rise and storm surge propagate up all 152 miles of the estuary to the Troy Dam.

We have used the results, data and recommendations from state climate initiative to understand

the future climate conditions and sea level rise. Specifically, we have used the rapid ice melt

scenario for sea level rise projections in the engineering cost analysis discussed under Objective

5. The Rising Waters scenario planning project served as model of community engagement,

scenarios and risk analysis. As a result of all these efforts, many users and decision makers are

better informed about sea level rise and climate change adaptation.

Objective 4: Conduct an engineering analysis to evaluate selected shore protection measures

Engineers at Stevens Institute of Technology worked on three related aspects of shoreline

protection: 1) a literature review, 2) a detailed desk study of selected approaches, and 3) an

assessment of performance and life-cycle costs of shoreline treatments based on projected

conditions in the Hudson River.

A review of engineering literature about shoreline techniques was undertaken by graduate

student Andrew Rella under the leadership of Jon Miller. A draft report was completed in 2010,

and the final version was completed in summer 2012 (Rella and Miller 2012a), using Sustainable

Shorelines Project terminology and nomenclature (Hauser 2012).

The objective of the literature review was to provide a general overview of the variety of shore

protection alternatives (both traditional and ecologically enhanced) currently being used along

sheltered shorelines, and was not intended to be specific to the Hudson River Estuary. A

systematic approach was used to facilitate comparison of the alternatives. The methods are

generally presented in the following order: shore face, shore parallel treatments; shore face,

shore perpendicular treatments; and shore detached, shore parallel treatments. Each shoreline

protection technique is qualitatively evaluated in 4 categories: approach, construction cost,

maintenance cost, and adaptability. Approach refers to the type of shore protection strategy being

employed and ranges from what has traditionally been referred to as hard by the engineering community (bulkheads for example), to more natural or soft approaches such as vegetative planting. Construction cost takes into account the typical costs associated with initial

construction, while maintenance cost refers to the cost of maintaining the system over its

lifetime. Adaptability considers the effort required to modify in-place projects to handle new

conditions brought on by climate change or other changes. Each method is described

consistently, covering six categories: description, design and construction, adaptability,

advantages, disadvantages, and similar techniques.

14

Based on the information gathered from the focus groups, the needs assessment and the advisory

group meeting, short one-page summary documents were designed for bulkheads and

revetments. These documents are intended for use at the municipal level and to complement the

Phase II characterization of the Hudson River wave/current/ice climate.

The content of the literature review was informed by two focus groups held with federal and

state regulators (NYSDEC, NYS Office of General Services, NYS Department of State, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) in early 2010. The

purpose of the meetings was to learn from the regulators their impressions of the shorelines

project engineering study, trends theyre seeing in shoreline permit applications, shoreline techniques they would most like us to study further, and types of research and outreach products

would be most useful to them. From these meetings, we confirmed that users seek detailed

information about risk and performance of engineered shorelines.

A second part of the engineering work was to consist of the selection of a subset of shoreline

treatment options for a more detailed analysis. The subset of options was selected. An outline

for conducting these analyses was agreed upon and drafts completed on revetments and

bulkheads. Based on feedback from the Coordinating Team, users, and advisors, we decided that

these detailed summaries were not necessary, that engineers could rely on existing textbooks and

guidance instead.

The third part of the engineering work was to develop an approach for assessing performance

and cost of shoreline treatments based on projected conditions in the Hudson River. The

research plan was modified based on advice from our users and advisors. The report (Rella and

Andrew 2012b) was the result. It highlights several shoreline protection approaches and

estimates of their long term costs (70 years) in the context of sea level rise at three sites

representative of low, medium, and high energy conditions. Details of this work are described

under Objective 5, below.

Objective 5: Characterize the short- and long-term costs of different shoreline hardening,

vegetated approaches and land use management measures used to control erosion

We originally intended to perform a robust analysis of the value of ecosystem services provided

by shorelines and to use this information to evaluate the full costs and benefits of specific

shoreline protection approaches. However, based on expert and stakeholder input, we pursued

an alternative a life-cycle cost analysis to compare the short- and long-term costs of protecting coastlines with traditional versus non-traditional means. The sections below describe both

exploratory work related to ecosystem services valuation and the life-cycle cost analysis.

Ecosystem Services Valuation

In fall 2010, David VanLuven, an ecologist and planner, was hired to review all information

gathered to date on economic analyses and user needs and develop recommendations to the team

about how and whether to move forward with holding an economic valuation roundtable and/or

selecting an ecological economist to undertake an ecosystem services valuation. During the

review period, VanLuven consulted extensively with individual members of the Coordinating

Team, prepared a briefing for the spring 2011 Project Team meeting, and drafted a report. This

15

was distributed to a work group composed of interested members of the Project Team and

Advisory Committee for review and comment. The final report Economic Tradeoffs between

Shoreline Treatments: Phase I, Assessing Approaches was completed in August 2011.

The report focused on the shore zone, defined as one meter above and one meter below the

intertidal zone, not including the floodplain. It recommended that an economic assessment be

split into two parallel tracks: the engineering costs (see Rella and Miller 2012b) and the value of

ecosystem services. For practical reasons, VanLuven recommended that the project focus on the

subset of shore zone ecosystem services for which the best data existed, i.e., those associated

with seven kinds of recreation (hunting, trapping, fishing, bird watching, walking, boating, and

swimming), although he recognized that data were scarce even for these. The report suggested

that surveys or focus groups be conducted with user groups to determine what aspects of

shorelines are of particular interest to those shoreline users.

Following up on the VanLuvens recommendations, anglers and kayakers were surveyed during the summer of 2012 in order to determine whether these Hudson shoreline users prefer a tidy,

homogenous shore zone to one hosting wrack and woody debris and to learn how river users

perceive and value the shoreline. This study, conducted by Shawn Dalton of Thrive Consulting

(Dalton 2012), is summarized under Objective 7.

Life Cycle Cost Analysis

A comparative cost analysis of ten different shoreline protection approaches at three sites

representative of the diverse shorelines within the Hudson River Estuary was conducted by

Andrew Rella and Jon Miller (2012b) of the Stevens Institute of Technology. The objective of

the analysis was to compare the short- and long-term costs of protecting coastlines using both

traditional and non-traditional shoreline treatments. The analysis considered a period of seventy

years and included two sea level rise scenarios. The first conservative estimate assumed that the

current rate of sea level rise would persist over the next seventy years, while the second

considered the dramatic rapid ice melt scenario (New York City Panel on Climate Change 2009),

described in Table 2. To achieve the desired objective, a life cycle cost analysis was performed.

Table 2 - Sea level rise projections

Sea level rise at the midpoint of each period

Period Current Rate (in) Rapid Ice Melt (in)

P1 (2012-2037) 1.32 9.00

P2 (2037-2062) 3.96 24.00

P3 (2062-2082) 6.34 41.00

For each shoreline protection approach, four main categories of costs were considered: initial

costs, maintenance and repair costs, damage costs, and replacement costs. The analysis was

carried out in present day (2012) dollars. Ten shoreline stabilization approaches were selected

for analysis, including both traditional (timber bulkheads, steel sheet pile bulkheads, revetments,

rip-rap, and timber cribbing) and ecologically enhanced methods (bio-walls, joint planting,

vegetated geogrids, live crib walls, and sills)1. The approach taken was to develop basic design

1 For descriptions of the shoreline protection methods, see Rella and Andrew (2012a) and Hauser (2012).

16

on which representative cost estimates could be based. Each of the designs was developed

expressly for input to the cost analyses, and focused on the major cost components. Three

locations on the Hudson with varying energy regimes, slopes and substrates were used to

develop the designs. The sites were selected from a previous study (Allen et al. 2006) and

included the Poughkeepsie waterfront, Bowline Park, and Henry Hudson Park.

The two sea level rise scenarios were used to adjust the frequency of occurrence of significant

storm events. Each of these storm events is associated with a specific set of impacts, which

varies from structure to structure. These impacts result in damage to the structure and incur a

cost associated with restoring the original function of the stabilization approach.

Within the limitations of the analysis, the results show that at most sites there is a suite of

alternatives for which the lifecycle costs are relatively similar. Given the uncertainties

associated with many aspects of the economic valuations, the error bands on the results are such

that many of the costs are functionally equivalent. While ecologically enhanced structures may

not be the cheapest overall, this analysis confirms that over a seventy- year period under both the

current rate and rapid ice melt sea level rise scenarios, several of the ecologically enhanced

approaches are cost competitive with some of the traditional approaches (see Table 3).

Objective 6: Characterize legal framework and identify legal and regulatory opportunities for

enhancing shoreline protection

The Shorelines Project Team recognized its need to develop a common understanding of the

laws and regulations that governed shoreline management, in order to identify opportunities for

changing minds and behaviors about best management practices. Pace University Land Use Law

Center staff conducted the inventory of the Federal, State, and local programs that govern

shoreline management along the Hudson River Estuary. This report was prepared by and under

the direction of Jessica Bacher, reviewed by knowledgeable experts and intended users, and

completed in 2011.

The programs reviewed included: Clean Water Act Sections 401, 404, and Phase II Stormwater

Management programs; Federal Emergency Management Agency multi-hazard mitigation

planning and federal flood insurance programs; NYS Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal

Resources Act; NYSTidal Wetlands Law and associated regulations; NYS Freshwater Wetlands

Law and associated regulations; NYS State-Owned Underwater Lands; New York State Historic

Preservation Act; State Environmental Quality Review Act; brownfield remediation laws and

regulations; and local land use law. We also asked Pace Land Use Law Center to analyze

leverage points where there were opportunities to promote better shoreline management.

Legal opportunities fall into four categories: 1) Authority that already exists in the law that could

be leveraged, whether or not the authority is currently being utilized; 2) Legal programs that

already exist that are not currently part of the approval framework or not primarily thought of as

part of the process, but could be used in some way with or without legal amendments (for

example, if new coastal hazard maps were created, then the Coastal Erosion Hazard Program

could be used); 3) Leverage points that could be used or are used in practice that are not obvious

17

on the face of the law; and 4) New leverage points that are the result of amendments to these

programs, the basis of new case law, or the adoption of new programs.

Table 3. Comparative cost analysis for hypothetical designs at three locations N/A means the site conditions were not conducive to the engineering approach.

Current Sea Level Rise Scenario

Poughkeepsie Henry Hudson Park Bowline Point Park

Wooden Bulkhead $ 375,292 $ 271,348 N/A

Steel Bulkhead $ 1,255,906 $ 989,845 N/A

Revetment $ 340,984 $ 315,930 $ 313,642

Rip rap $ 318,896 $ 143,292 $ 325,113

Crib Wall $ 308,531 $ 232,515 N/A

Live Crib Wall $ 372,794 $ 287,733 N/A

Joint Planting $ 491,088 $ 231,799 $ 496,511

Vegetated Geogrid $ 300,315 $ 269,136 N/A

Bio Wall $ 1,102,131 $ 569,330 N/A

Sill N/A $ 241,874 $ 173,106

Rapid Ice Melt Sea Level Rise Scenario

Poughkeepsie Henry Hudson Park Bowline Point Park

Wooden Bulkhead $ 688,203 $ 497,593 N/A

Steel Bulkhead $ 2,372,407 $ 1,869,818 N/A

Revetment $ 1,081,098 $ 1,001,664 $ 994,407

Rip rap $ 1,133,764 $ 509,442 $ 1,077,429

Crib Wall $ 765,821 $ 577,137 N/A

Live Crib Wall $ 1,074,401 $ 829,252 N/A

Joint Planting $ 1,826,545 $ 862,150 $ 1,846,714

Vegetated Geogrid $ 648,316 $ 581,007 N/A

Bio Wall $ 2,185,780 $ 1,129,114 N/A

Sill N/A $ 464,930 $ 332,745

For outreach purposes, focusing on leverage points in federal and state programs would result in

a wider and more comprehensive impact, but there is less flexibility to make these adjustments

given the complexity of these programs. Local governments have extensive authority to use

their land use tools and to create innovative programs, but the results are more piecemeal and

subject to local political will.

Programmatic and legal opportunities to influence shoreline structures through the local land use

legal framework includes sea level rise components in comprehensive plans; coordinated

planning efforts; local laws that control shoreline structures through as-of-right or special use

permit uses, subdivision and site plan regulations, and overlay zones; conservation advisory

18

councils and other boards or task forces; rolling easements; inter-municipal coordination; county

government action; official sea level rise projections for New York State; provision of training

and resources for local governments; and possible mandates for local governments (Pace, 2011).

The Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 restricts state and local authority

to regulate land owned or controlled by railroads. The railroads own a substantial portion of

Hudson shoreline property.

Pace contractors also received National Sea Grant funding to modify their 4-day Land Use

Leadership Alliance training to focus on climate change, sea level rise and Hudson River

shorelines for a training conducted in fall, 2010. Three Coordinating Team members provided

content and delivered sections of the training based on Sustainable Shorelines Project results.

Objective 7: Involve intended users and stakeholders through collaboration and outreach

We intended our project results to be used by federal, state, and local government regulators and

policy makers; public agency land managers; experts and consultants (engineers, landscape

architects and restoration ecologists, scientists, attorneys) who advise private land management

decisions; major private landowners; advocates; social and natural scientists. We also surveyed

recreational users of shorelines, an important stakeholder group.

As described under Objective 1, the project benefitted from the advice and guidance from over

two dozen intended users in our Shorelines Advisory Committee. However, many other intended

users of shoreline project information took part in shorelines project work groups, focus groups,

key informant interviews, and surveys, as described below. Some were engaged regularly, others

were engaged once to inform specific research activities. Because this project spanned many

different interest areas and research and outreach efforts, participants often worked together in

multiple, interconnected ways. These participants provided valuable advice to the project, and

also extended shorelines project knowledge and findings to their own organizations.

Intended User and Stakeholder Assessments

Many intended users were engaged in efforts to solicit specific information or expert opinion

through focus groups, case studies, interviews, and surveys (see Table 4). Intended users

included shoreline design experts, regulators, municipal officials, planners, and railroad

representatives; recreations users were recognized as an important stakeholder. Findings were

disseminated to the Shorelines Advisory Committee and Coordinating Team via meeting

presentations, webinars, and written reports. Specific stakeholders were identified primarily

from personal knowledge and recommendations from others.

19

Table 4. Intended User and Stakeholder Assessments

Date Description / Method / Audience Product

7-Jan-10 Focus Groups (2) of State and Federal Regulators:

Albany & Troy

summary with key

findings

4-Feb-10 Focus Group of State and Federal Regulators:

New York City

summary with key

findings

5-May-10 Focus Group: Municipal Officials summary with key

findings

2010 Summer/Fall Interviews and literature search: CBI case studies key findings document

& internal report

2010 Fall to

Spring 2011

Interviews: Dalton/Thrive Decision Making report

31-Jul-12 Survey: Dalton /Thrive User Preferences report

Regulator Focus Groups

In early 2010, focus groups were held with both state and federal regulators in order to introduce

them to the Sustainable Shorelines project and discuss the state and federal agencies experience with shoreline restoration projects. Key findings were:

State and federal regulators are the most important stakeholders to engage initially. These

personnel have the tools and leverage to protect natural resources to the best extent

practical while allowing the protection of infrastructure and properties. They believe that

the current trend in applications is away from hardened shorelines and to softer sloping solutions.

Regulators want to know that shoreline structures can be permitted, that they work

(perform as designed, are durable and have long term stability), can be built by average

contractors, and are affordable. For methods that include vegetation, they desire

information on maintenance intervals, effort over time, and costs. Permit staff do not

need a cost valuation for ecological services.

Regulators want assurances that models of storm surge and sea level rise are accurate,

and they want these to include wave action, since structures must withstand boat wakes.

Regulators anticipate there will be an increase in the number of property owners

interested in berms for protection from inundation, rather than erosion.

There is a need to consider appropriate structures for containment of contaminated

brownfield sites. Railroads are aware of sea level rise and climate change and are definitely planning.

Municipal Leaders Focus Group on Adapting to Climate Change

In 2010, a Hudson River Shoreline Municipal Leaders Discussion on Adapting to Climate

Change was held on May 5th

. This focus group was organized jointly by Coordinating Team

members and staff at the Department of State who are working on adaptation planning for the

state. CBI facilitated the discussion. The focus group found that municipal officials are

interested in protecting their shoreline from sea level rise. They want maps and accurate

20

projections of sea level rise. They want regulations for compliance and adaptation. They

understand the severity of the threat of sea level rise. They would like help in conveying the

threat of sea level rise and climate change to their staff and constituents. Final notes from this

session were distributed to focus group participants

Research on Stakeholders Decision-Making Roles2 In order to gather information from a range of stakeholders about how they make decisions on

shoreline protection, we developed case studies of shoreline development projects along the

Hudson River in the last decade. Some of the questions we wanted answered included: What

influenced them to make the choices they did? How were stakeholders influential? What role

did permit requirements play in their decision-making? How does the shoreline perform after the

project has been implemented?

Communities were selected based on criteria of

location of community, low elevation which

makes them vulnerable to sea level rise impacts,

variety of shoreline protection methods, status of

project, and the availability of knowledgeable

and willing staff and experts. Google Earth and

site plans were used to locate and illustrate the

projects; meeting notes, newsletters, articles, and other information were reviewed to develop the

background of the studies. Hour- long interviews and follow-up email correspondence with 11

stakeholders knowledgeable about the cases were used to understand the decision making

process. Interviewees provided comment to the draft summaries. For each municipality, 2-4 page

draft summaries were used internally by the Coordinating Team. A draft final report was

completed and shared with Advisory Team members. A two page summary of lessons learned

was shared more broadly. Consensus Building Institute managed this effort from summer 2010

to spring 2011. They found that decision makers want information on type of soft and hybrid

shoreline choices, the effectiveness of these choices, their cost, and the ecological and

community benefits. The study found that innovative designs are installed where champions are

advocating for them. In the five cases studied, the choice of shoreline stabilization approach was

made early and was dependent on the adjacent land use. Lastly, it found that state agencies can

influence choices through permitting.

In reviewing the findings of these reports, the Project Team and Advisory Committee both

recommended that the project find an acceptable, descriptive alternative to the term soft shoreline. They also identified that liability is a barrier to innovative design. They continue to see regulators are a key audience for the project. Lastly, they identified the need to understand

how stakeholders assess risk.

2 Ferguson, O. 2011. Lessons Learned: Five Case Studies of Recent Shoreline Development Projects

Southern Waterfront Park and Trail in Peekskill

Pierson Park and Riverwalk in Tarrytown

Four Mile Point Park in Greene County

The Harbors at Haverstraw

Foundry Dock Park in Cold Spring

21

Research on Shoreline Decision Making3

In the fall of 2010 and winter 2011, Shawn Dalton, of Thrive Consulting, carried out an

assessment of individual shoreline decision-makers (not related to single development projects),

using semi-structured interviews. The abstract reproduced below describes the purpose and

findings. In addition, Dalton found that it is difficult to find a regional land planning solution

because of local home rule, but the large railroad ownership of shoreline may provide

opportunities to promote change at a larger scale.

Interviews were conducted with experts, consultants, developers, and railroad representatives involved in

the management of the Hudson River shoreline, and designs for shoreline stabilization, restoration, and

development. The goals of this work are to document whether and how climate change and sea level rise

are currently viewed and incorporated into shoreline planning and design along the Hudson; to identify

and document barriers to the adoption of soft shoreline engineering techniques into the design process;

and to identify potential training needs and mechanisms of information sharing among actors in this

organizational network.

Findings indicate that incorporation of sea level rise and climate change into shoreline planning and

design range from non-existent to central, depending upon project goals, timing of design, intended uses,

regulatory requirements, funding and available personnel. Barriers to adoption of soft shoreline

engineering techniques include intended uses, limited available area, access, knowledge base of designer

or engineer, low levels of confidence in the longevity of soft shorelines, and cost or perceived cost of

construction and maintenance. The need for training is considered to be universal, but the type and depth

of requisite training varies with prior experience, organizational mission or mandate, and specific work

on shoreline projects (i.e., design, engineering, construction, landscaping).

Shoreline Users Perception Survey4 Recreational users of the Hudson were interviewed during the summer of 2012 in order to

determine whether shoreline users prefer a tidy, homogenous shore zone, to one hosting wrack

and woody debris and to learn how river users perceive and value the shoreline. The survey was

administered to both a group of anglers and a group of kayakers, and asked questions about

general use of the Hudson River, as well as specific preference and use questions about a set of

seven photographs showing different types of shoreline along the Hudson. Findings indicate a

wide variety of aesthetic preferences among shoreline users. Respondents in general have a

strong sense of the ecological value of different types of shorelines, but do not necessarily

connect that with opportunities to allow their own land management practices to improve the

health of the river system.

Scenario Based Learning

In summer 2012 a consultant was engaged to fill a gap in our understanding about how best to

support, influence, and meet the needs of a wide range of municipalities and municipal officials

and employees who choose and/or approve shoreline treatments for sites within their jurisdiction.

3 Dalton, S. 2011. Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project Report: Decision Making Regarding Shoreline

Design and Management. 4 Dalton, S. (2012) Shoreline Use and Perception Survey Report

22

This internal report provided methodology on how scenario exercises can be used as a means of

increasing understanding and managing complexity and uncertainty.

Other Avenues Used to Engage Intended Users

We have engaged intended users by creating and/or joining other networks or project that relate

to shorelines management. For example, many of our intended users participated in the Rising

Waters scenario planning process, previously described on page 12. In addition, we have worked

closely with several intended users through the Shoreline and Habitat Adaptation Dialog, a group

advancing a focused set of research and mapping initiatives to further shoreline and habitat

resilience to climate change. Also, through separate funding, we have provided technical

assistance to municipalities and state agencies on shorelines projects in order to promote the

application of Sustainable Shorelines Project findings.

The Shoreline and Habitat Adaptation Dialog

Since June, 2010 several Coordinating Team members have been meeting quarterly with other

agency and nonprofit colleagues in an informal discussion on climate change adaptation, habitat

protection, and shoreline management along the Hudson River Estuary. This group in part grew

out of the Rising Waters scenario project, and the desire share information about the Shorelines

Project, collaborate on other related initiatives, and avoid duplication of effort. Most participants

serve on one of the Shorelines standing committees, but in this venue they support and extend

the shorelines work through advancement of other several related projects, including LiDAR

high resolution topographic mapping, Sea Level Affecting Marsh Migration models, wildlife

connectivity studies, and assessments of community and ecological vulnerability to climate

change.

Technical Assistance to Shoreline Communities Members of the Coordinating Team, primarily Dan Miller, frequently meet with Hudson River

estuary property owners to advise them on shoreline protection strategies, primarily for

municipal or state lands. The interaction provides an opportunity to better understand the needs

of these intended users, and to convey recommendations informed by shorelines project results.

Shorelines Project Communications and Findings Dissemination

The Coordinating Team developed interim messages as findings emerged from the shorelines

project. Methods of dissemination included social science research (described above),

presentations and technical assistance. Team members gave presentations of the research and

findings at advisory group meetings and at other events where they informed the audience of

aspects of the project and also sought their input about shorelines decision-making. A list of

project milestones and presentations appears in Appendix 4. The social science research

informed the method and content of the general messaging, outreach products, presentations and

technical assistance.

Shorelines Project Communications Planning In early 2010, a communication sub-group of the Project Team completed products to advance

communication and stakeholder engagement. An internal guidance document for the

Coordinating and Project Decision-Support Tool for Developing an Outreach and Communication Strategy for the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project was created. It

23

summarized current available information about existing levels of expertise among stakeholders

involved in shoreline management; presented several possible needs assessment methods for

improving the understanding of current knowledge levels of shoreline managers; recommended

strategies to maximize the effectiveness of our outreach and communication efforts; and

considered means by which outreach and communications strategies can most effectively deliver

relevant content and management tools to different stakeholder audiences. It also put forth an

approach for adapting outreach and communication strategies as new knowledge is gained.

Outreach Products

Appendix 3 includes the list of reports, papers, fact sheets, and a brochure that were produced

from this phase of the funding. The brochure, Managing Shore Zones for Ecological Benefits, is

an attractive summary of 10 factors that make for healthy, ecolocially rich shores. Several

hundred of these have been distributed at presentations and meetings, and more have been

downloaded from the project web site. The fact sheets are available for others seeking to inform

or influence some of our intended user audiences. An overview document was written to give a

broad but succinct summary of overall project objectives and key findings. Initially written for

advisory group members, it has also been used to inform potential funders and agency partners

about our work.

Uniform Look and Standard Terminology

A uniform look was created for project materials, including a logo and templates for documents.

The logo appears at the bottom left corner of this report. Emilie Hauser also developed uniform

definitions of shoreline terms, and we have sought to standardize use of these terms in

communications by team members and with users.

Website

In 2012, Sustainable Shorelines project information was posted on a website of the Hudson River

National Estuarine Research Reserve (www.hrnerr.org). The site includes a description of the

project, lists and downloadable publications and resources and pages which describe

engineering, ecological and the demonstration site network. Early in the project, meeting

summaries and presentations and research reports were posted on the CBI website

(http://www.cbuilding.org/node/1241).

Publications

Several peer-reviewed journal articles, papers and reports have resulted from this work. These

deliverables are listed in an Appendix 3, with URL addresses where applicable, or may be

viewed via the website listed above.

Presentations Sustainable Shorelines Coordinating Team members have been on the road and internet giving

presentations and webinars to a variety of audiences. Appendix 5 includes a list of presentations

to professionals.

3. NEXT STEPS

The work described in this report has been continued through the ongoing efforts of the Project

Team and other researchers, resource managers, collaborators, and advisors. Under Phase 2 of

24

the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project (primarily funded by NOAA through the

NERRS Science Collaborative) we undertook 1) an in-depth study of the ecology of engineered

shorelines to characterize in finer detail the ecology of built shorelines, develop a protocol for the

rapid assessment of shoreline ecological functions, and test small scale manipulations; 2) a

characterization of the physical forces impinging on Hudson River shorelines, including ship

wakes, waves, currents, and ice; 3) design and construction of a shoreline demonstration project,

and creation of an on-line inventory of this and other shoreline demonstration projects; and 4) the

development of at least one decision support tool for creating ecologically-enhanced, adaptable,

and resilient shoreline options suited for current and projected local conditions. In Phase 3 of the

Sustainable Shorelines Project, with additional funding from the NYS DEC Hudson River

Estuary Program, we are designing two other demonstration projects. As resources permit, well seek to invest in knowledge and products about the highly developed shorelines from the Tappan

Zee Bridge south to and including New York City. We also plan to work with environmental

quality engineers to evaluate the special case of managing shorelines at brownfield

contamination sites, which are abundant along the Hudson River shoreline, in part due to the

large number of coal gasification plants constructed in the late 19th

and early 20th

centuries.

Throughout these phases, we will continue to deliver targeted outreach and communications, and

to advance an agenda for any regulatory changes or other institutional responses indicated by our

work, in concert with the Hudson River Estuary Program, the New York State Climate Change

Office, funding programs and institutions, non-government organizations, and policy makers.

25

APPENDIX 1: LITERATURE CITED

Allen, G., T. Cook, E. Taft, J. Young, and D. Mosier, 2006. Hudson River Shoreline Restoration

Alternatives Analysis. Prepared by Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. and ASA Analysis and

Communications, Inc for the Hudson River NERR and NEIWPCC.

ClimAID: Integrated Assessment for Effective Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in New

York State: Response to Climate Change in New York State . 2011.

http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/climaid

Dalton, S, M. Everett, N. Holochuck, and E. Hauser. 2010. A Decision-Support Tool for

Developing an Outreach and Communication Strategy for the Hudson River Sustainable

Shorelines Project. Draft for internal use.

Doyle, M.W., E.H. Stanley, D.G. Havlick, M.J. Kaiser, G. Steinbach, W.L. Graf, G.E. Galloway

and J.A. Riggsbee. 2008. Aging infrastructure and ecosystem restoration. Science 319: 286-

287.

Eisenman, R. J. Anzevino, S. Rosenberg, and S. Spector (eds.). 2010. Revitalizing Hudson

Riverfronts: Illustrated Conservation & Development Strategies for Creating Healthy,

Prosperous Communities. Scenic Hudson, Inc. 101pp.

Findlay, S.E.G., E. Kiviat, W.C. Nieder & E.A. Blair. 2002. Functional assessment of a

reference wetland set as a tool for science, management and restoration. Aquatic Science

64:107-117.

Findlay, S. E. G., W. C. Nieder, E. A. Blair, and D. T. Fischer. 2006. Multi-scale controls on

water quality effects of submerged aquatic vegetation in the tidal freshwater Hudson

River. Ecosystems 9:84-86.

Harris, C., D.L. Strayer, and S. Findlay. In review. The ecology of freshwater wrack along

natural and engineered Hudson River shorelines.

Harris, C. and D. Strayer. 2011. The Ecology of Wrack: Decomposition and Use By

Invertebrates On Natural and Engineered Shorelines of the Hudson River. Section IV: 1-29

pp. In D.J. Yozzo, S.H. Fernald, and H. Andreyko (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar

Fellowship Program, 2009. Hudson River Foundation.

Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project. 2011. Managing Shore Zones for Ecological

Benefits. Illustrated brochure

New York City Panel on Climate Change: Climate Risk Information. 2009.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/NPCC_CRI.pdf

New York State Climate Action Plan Interim Report. 2010.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/80930.html

26

New York State Sea Level Rise Task Force Final Report. 2010.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/slrtffinalrep.pdf

Nicholls, R. J., F. M. J. Hoozemans, and M. Marchand. 1999. Increasing flood risk and wetland

losses due to global sea-level rise: regional and global analyses. Global Environmental

Change Human and Policy Dimensions 9:S69-S87.

Nieder, W.C., Eugenia Barnaba, Stuart E.G. Findlay, Susan Hoskins, Nordica Holochuck,

Elizabeth A. Blair. 2004. Distribution and abundance of submerged aquatic vegetation

in the Hudson River Estuary. J. Coastal Research 45:150-161.

Rosenzweig, C., W. Solecki, Al DeGaetano, M. OGrady, S. Hassol, P. Grabhorn (Eds.). 2011. Responding to Climate Change in New York State: The ClimAID Integrated Assessment for

Effective Climate Change Adaptation. Technical Report. New York State Energy Research and

Development Authority, Albany, NY. www.nyserda.ny.gov.

Strayer, D.L. and S.E.G. Findlay. 2010. The ecology of freshwater shore zones. Aquatic Sciences

72: 127-163.

Strayer, D.L., S.E.G. Findlay, D.M. Miller, H.M. Malcom, D.T. Fischer, and T. Coote. 2012.

Biodiversity in Hudson River shore zones: influence of shoreline type and physical structure.

Aquatic Sciences 74:597-610.

Titus, J. G., R. A. Park, S. P. Leatherman, J. R. Weggel, M. S. Greene, P. W. Mausel, S. Brown,

C. Gaunt, M. Trehan, and G. Yohe. 1991. Greenhouse effect and sea-level rise the cost of holding back the sea. Coastal Management 19:171-204.

Titus, J. G., and C. Richman. 2001. Maps of lands vulnerable to sea level rise: modeled

elevations along the US Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. Climate Research 18:205-228.

National Research Council, Committee on Mitigating Shore Erosion along Sheltered Coasts.

2007. Mitigating Shore Erosion along Sheltered Coasts. Washington, DC: National Academies

Press. 174pp.

27

APPENDIX 2: COORDINATING TEAM MEMBERS

Betsy Blair, NYSDEC* Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve

Ona Ferguson, Consensus Building Institute

Stuart Findlay, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies

Emilie Hauser, NYSDEC Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve

Kristin Marcell, NYSDEC Hudson River Estuary Program

Daniel Miller, NYSDEC Hudson River Estuary Program

Jon Miller, Stevens Institute of Technology

David Strayer, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies

Kathie Weathers, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies

*NYSDEC - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

28

APPENDIX 3: DELIVERABLES -- REPORTS & PUBLICATIONS

Grey Literature

Blair, E., 2012. Project Overview. In association with and published by the Hudson River

Sustainable Shorelines Project, Staatsburg, NY 12580, http://hrnerr.org.

Dalton, S. (2012) Shoreline Use and Perception Survey Report. In association with and published

by the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project, Staatsburg, NY 12580, http://hrnerr.org

Dalton, S., Ph.D, 2011. Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project Report: Decision Making

Regarding Shoreline Design and Management. In association with and published by the Hudson

River Sustainable Shorelines Project, Staatsburg, NY 12580, http://hrnerr.org.

Harris, C. and D. Strayer. 2011. The Ecology of Wrack: Decomposition and Use By

Invertebrates On Natural and Engineered Shorelines of the Hudson River. Section IV: 1-29

pp. In D.J. Yozzo, S.H. Fernald, and H. Andreyko (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar

Fellowship Program, 2009. Hudson River Foundation.

http://www.hudsonriver.org/ls/reports/Polgar_Harris_TP_03_09_final.pdf

Hauser, E., 2012. Terminology for the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project. In

association with and published by the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project, Staatsburg,

NY 12580, http://hrnerr.org.

Land Use Law Center at Pace Law School, 2011. Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project:

Legal Framework Analysis. In association with and published by the Hudson River Sustainable

Shorelines Project, Staatsburg, NY 12580, http://hrnerr.org.

Rella, Andrew, and Jon Miller. 2012a. Engineered Approaches for Limiting Erosion along

Sheltered Shorelines: A Review of Existing Methods. In association with and published by

Stevens Institute the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project, Staatsburg, NY 12580,

http://hrnerr.org.

Rella, Andrew, and Jon Miller. 2012b. A Comparative Cost Analysis of Ten Shore Protection

Approaches at Three Sites Under Two Sea Level Rise Scenarios. . In association with and published

by Stevens Institute the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project, Staatsburg, NY 12580,

http://hrnerr.org.

VanLuven, D., 2011. Economic Tradeoffs between Shoreline Treatments: Phase I Assessing Approaches. In association with and published by the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines

Project, Staatsburg, NY 12580, http://hrnerr.org.

Peer Reviewed