Sustainable Shorelines Advisory Committee Meeting October 3, 2012 1

Sustainable Shorelines Advisory Committee Meeting

October 3, 2012, 9:30 am-3:00 pm
NYSDEC Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve
Norrie Point Environmental Center, Staatsburg, NY 12580

MEETING SUMMARY

Present:
Kristen Cady-Sawyer (NYS OPRHP)
Mark Castiglione (Hudson River Greenway)
Elisa Chae-Banaja (NOAA)
Debra Dunbrook (NYS Office of Emergency
Management, for Fred Nuffer)
Fran Dunwell (NYSDEC HREP)
Jamie Ethier (NYS Department of State)
Rick Gilbert (BlueShore Engineering)
Sven Hoeger (Creative Habitat Corp.)
Nordica Holochuck (New York Sea Grant)
Casey Holzworth (NYS OPRHP)
Susan Mareska (NYSDEC)
Barney Molloy (Historic Hudson River Towns)
Werner Mueller (HDR)
George Schuler (The Nature Conservancy)
Bill Shadel (American Littoral Society)
Sacha Spector (Scenic Hudson)
Chris White (Ulster County Planning, for Dennis
Doyle)
Larry Wilson (NYSDEC)

Coordinating Team
Betsy Blair (NYSDEC HRNERR)
Brian Cooke (NYSDEC HRNERR)
Ona Ferguson (Consensus Building Institute)
Stuart Findlay (Cary Institute)
Nickitas Georgas (Stevens Institute of
Technology)
Emilie Hauser (NYSDEC HRNERR)
Kristen Marcell (NYS DEC HREP)
Dan Miller (NYS DEC HREP and HRNERR)
Jon Miller (Stevens Institute of Technology)
Andrew Rella (Stevens Institute of Technology)
Eric Roberts (Consensus Building Institute)
David Strayer (Cary Institute)

Welcome, Introductions and Project Update
Betsy Blair and Ona Ferguson welcomed everyone to the first meeting since the Project Team was
folded into the Advisory Committee. Betsy congratulated the group for the completion of Phase I of the
project. All meeting presentations and handouts can be found at: http://cbuilding.org/sustshorelines.

Betsy provided brief updates on project work since the August update that was sent out:

Ecological Data Collection Data has been gathered and analysis is ongoing. Phase 2 ecological
work includes identifying shoreline types most frequently used by fish. Do fish tend to use
rough/uneven bulkheads more frequently than smooth bulkheads? The team used
electroshocking sampling techniques at 15 different sites to collect aquatic biological community
data. Each site was sampled three times during the year. The ecological team also assessed rip
rap shorelines to identify the types of common vegetation growing in rip rap. Plant communities
and physical traits were measured at 21 shorelines. The ecological team also designed a simple
Rapid Assessment Protocol to quickly assess shorelines for essential habitat data which has been
used so far by high school and college students.


Sustainable Shorelines Advisory Committee Meeting October 3, 2012 2
Perceptions of Shorelines Shawn Dalton completed a survey to understand peoples
perceptions of shorelines. Of the approximately 100 people who completed the survey, anglers
and kayakers represented the most commonly surveyed demographic groups. The small sample
size means that the study cannot accurately represent the perceptions of all shoreline users, but
it told us.
Sharing Results - Emilie Hauser will present a session entitled Promoting Resilient Shorelines
Along the Hudson Estuary: The Sustainable Shorelines Project
1
at the 2012 Erosion Control
Conference. Advisory Committee members are welcome to attend (Nov. 7-9 in Fishkill).
Advisory Committee members are also welcome at the fourth Revitalizing Hudson Riverfronts
community forum,
2
in which communities discuss climate risks and planning opportunities and
participate in community asset mapping sessions (Nov. 15 in Peekskill).

Cost Analysis Results
Jon Miller and Andrew Rella presented their findings as written up in the Sustainable Shoreline
Comparative Cost Analysis. The goal of the cost analysis was to produce a tool that could be used by
landowners to consider what types of shoreline treatment might be possible in terms of cost and
function over time. The team also hopes that the methodology can be adapted and reapplied in other
watersheds.

The study analyzed lifecycle costs of ten shoreline treatments at three sites (Bowline, Poughkeepsie and
Henry Hudson Park) under two different Sea Level Rise (SLR) scenarios, Current Rate SLR and Rapid Ice
Melt SLR. The researchers selected the three sites based on shoreline slope data, which they obtained
from a previous report produced by Alden & ASA. The Bowline site has a mild slope, Henry Hudson Park
has a medium grade slope, while Poughkeepsie has a steep slope. The analyzed shoreline treatments
include bulkheads, revetments, riprap, timber cribbing, live crib walls, vegetated geo-grids, live stakes,
sills and green walls. Four of these shoreline treatments are considered traditional treatments, six are
considered ecologically enhanced treatments.

To complete the analysis, the researchers separated the total cost over the treatment lifecycle into four
categories:
Initial costs include materials and labor costs. The team reviewed construction bids to obtain
the initial costs figures and noted wide variation in construction bid cost estimates.
Maintenance and repair costs include routine costs not associated with damage from storm
related events. Maintenance costs are defined as a percentage of the initial construction costs.
Damage costs include costs only related to storms of a specific size and strength.
Replacement costsinclude the costs associated with replacing the treatments as materials
decay and cease functioning.

The analysis showed that ecologically enhanced shoreline treatments are generally competitive with
traditional shoreline treatments in terms of cost and effectiveness. This finding is consistent with the
findings of the NOAA publication Weighing Your Options, How to Protect Your Property from Shoreline
Erosion: A handbook for estuarine property owners in North Carolina. The analysis includes estimates of
average lifespans at which point replacement of a given treatment are likely to be required.

Participants discussion of the cost analysis generally addressed the following topics and themes:
Methodology People asked why certain storm frequencies were used. Jon said each storm was
linked to an expected impact and that the analysis did not always show increasing damage when

1
http://www.ieca-nechapter.org/images/25267_-_NE_IECA_Sustainable_Brochure_8-12.pdf
2
http://www.hudsonriver.com/hudson-river-conference-2012


Sustainable Shorelines Advisory Committee Meeting October 3, 2012 3
storm event sizes increased (e.g. while the cost of a 40-year event might be less than that
associated with a 20-yr event, when the 40-yr event occurs, both the 40-year and the 20-year
consequence occur so that cumulatively, damage always increases as storm severity increases).

Cost Calculations Participants asked that the report include (a) a description of how the cost
estimates were determined to demonstrate the impartiality of the analysis, (b) a sensitivity
analysis to show how uncertainty in the cost variables affect the final cost caused by a storm
event. Someone suggested analyzing return on investment calculations and considerations for
total project cost increases due to the varied time in permitting for different treatments.

Regulatory ConsiderationsParticipants discussed a range of regulatory considerations and
raised several questions about how treatment methods could be promoted, implemented or
monitored by regulatory agencies. Jon mentioned that New Jersey is incorporating living
shorelines approaches into their general permits and that New Jersey is more likely to issue
permits if NOAA or other agencies certify the shoreline treatments proposed in the permit
application. Someone noted that FEMA assistance does not include money for plantings and
that it would be worth looking into changing this if plantings are an important part of our
shoreline treatments.

Flood Protection vs. Erosion ProtectionSeveral people suggested that the report should clearly
acknowledge that it did not investigate flood control methods but focused instead on
treatments to reduce or eliminate shoreline erosion. Participants suggested that future cost
analysis should be augmented to include flood control methods, since flooding is expected to
occur in the long-term. They suggested considering the different options for addressing flooding
that are available to local governments (changing treatments, raising treatments, relocation).

Data UsefulnessHow will decision makers use these results? Most participants thought the
analysis produced helpful information for making land-use planning decisions; however some
expressed differing levels of comfort using the results to make recommendations. Participants
provided several examples of how the data could be used:
o Municipal Emergency Planners could use the data to conduct project cost comparisons
while identifying hazards and developing emergency response plans, which they must
update every five years. If a disaster strikes and the municipality has an emergency
response plan that includes measures for shoreline protection, then some of the
disaster relief funding can be used to implement the sustainable shoreline measures.
o Municipalities could potentially incorporate shoreline treatments into the permitting
process of planning and land use laws. Then, during a planning process, a municipality
could potentially identify structures to protect and the cost ramifications of protecting
or not protecting those structures, and sustainable shoreline treatment methods could
be a selected as a preapproved permit option for protecting structures.
o The information could help consultants promote sustainable shorelines because the
study allows a consultant to confidently tell a client that in X% of cases, alternative
shoreline treatment costs are no more expensive than traditional shoreline treatments.

Data Presentation Participants suggested ideas to help present the data in an accessible and
easily understood format. One participant suggested creating a detailed methodology section
using terminology familiar to municipal leaders instead of technical jargon. Ideally, the
methodology section would simply describe how the study arrived at different cost estimations
and enable municipal leaders plug site-specific data into a formula to compute the cost of
various treatment options at any property. Another participant said the Office of Emergency


Sustainable Shorelines Advisory Committee Meeting October 3, 2012 4
Management is currently developing a process for municipalities to approve projects. The
participant suggested creating a one-page handout/guide, which municipalities could use to
help them estimate the costs of projects involving shoreline treatments.

Final Project Products
Participants discussed the products (demonstration sites, reports, websites) being produced in this
project, brainstorming what else the project should produce that would be helpful and what might need
translation in to simpler terms/brochure format. Emilie Hauser and Ona Ferguson began the discussion
with a quick poll to determine which of the projects materials participants had reviewed. Most have
read the ecological brochure and reviewed the website. Over half the participants had read the
terminology document and engineering literature review. Those who havent had a chance to read the
materials indicated lack of time as the primary reason.

What types of materials should the project be producing? What would be useful?

Graphical, easily digestible information for policy makers. The ecological brochure was cited as
an example of an appropriate balance between details and easily digestible information.
Products with enough information so that economists and engineers can dive into the details.
Subject-specific PowerPoint. When people present information from this project to different
stakeholder groups, only the information most relevant to that stakeholder group should be
presented. For example, one slide deck might focus on environmental science. A second slide
deck might focus on the engineering. A third slide deck might focus on policy considerations.
Pre-drafted legislative or planning language for government officials. Ideally, local level
decision-makers could review this pre-drafted language, adapt it to their community needs, and
promote its use in project approval processes.
Final products that provide compelling economic, ecological and regulatory rationales for
implementing sustainable shorelines.
Documenting the endorsement of sustainable shorelines by engineers might lend additional
long-term credibility to sustainable shoreline design.
Documentation describing how to move sustainable shorelines applications through the
regulatory approval process.
A sustainable shoreline decision-making flow chart similar to the VIMS and Maryland decision-
making flowcharts would be useful.
Training sessions for people involved in permitting and construction of shoreline treatments
(policy makers, engineers and others).
Educational campaign for municipal leaders, possibly providing continuing education credits.
Sustainable Shorelines GIS layers provided to agencies at all levels, included on the state DEP
environmental resource mapper webpage.
Dedicate a portion of the website to a GIS mapping tool which would allow a visitor to identify
whether or not a specific location would be suitable for a sustainable shoreline treatment.

How should the project raise awareness of these products and results with its intended users? What
should the project be doing to make key audiences aware of this work, and what are the best audiences
and how do we meet/engage with them?

Give small presentations
Offer training programs
Maintain the sustainable shorelines website and keep it up to date
Create a dynamic video about project findings.


Sustainable Shorelines Advisory Committee Meeting October 3, 2012 5
Raise awareness of the Sustainable Shorelines brand and message by placing Sustainable
Shorelines signs at demonstration sites with the website URL.
Provide the Sustainable Shorelines GIS layers to local, state and federal agencies and on the
state DEP environmental resource mapper webpage.
Identifying organizations, agencies or other sources that could provide technological support or
matching funds for implementing sustainable shorelines would be helpful.
Network with target audiences / present project results to: government agencies, nonprofits,
private companies and academic institutions. Key target audiences suggested:
o Army Corp of Engineers Identify and contact the person who administers the
permitting process with the goal of establishing a regulatory framework that includes
options for sustainable shorelines.
o Regulators (if they reinforce that these are good practices, engineering consultants are
more likely to promote such treatments with clients. If not, engineers have incentives
to promote shoreline treatments that can be most easily permitted. Someone said
engineering consultants have a high degree of flexibility for promoting soft shoreline
treatments; however, they are often blamed for costly delays caused by the permitting
process, so they have an incentive to promote the shoreline treatment with the least
likelihood of potential permitting delays.
o Municipal Environmental Boards Representatives on municipal environmental boards
might be able to promote sustainable shorelines initiatives to local level politicians.
o Municipal Leaders Target municipal leaders through a grassroots educational
campaign, possibly using opportunities for continuing education credits.
o Regional Economic Development Councils (REDC) Promote sustainable shorelines
through economic development councils. In the future, funds will be disbursed through
the Consolidated Funding Application process and local municipalities and nonprofits
could describe why sustainable shorelines should be in their plan. But, to ensure
sustainable shoreline can be funded through CFA, this group must prove to the state
that sustainable shorelines policy is both a good policy and a good economic decision.
o Regional and urban planners

Demonstration Sites & Demo Site Network
Dan Miller, Emilie Hauser and Brian Cooke presented information about Demonstration Sites and the
Demo Site Network.

Demonstration Site Network - Brian presented a brief history of the Demo Site Network, the goal of
which is to provide engineers, property owners and land use decision makers with detailed lessons
learned from sites on the Hudson experimenting with ecologically enhanced shoreline projects. The
Network elucidates the lessons learned by assessing shoreline restoration projects based on best
management practices. Sites are assessed for inclusion with a tool used to determine whether ecological
function was considered among other considerations, and the team working on this then writes a case
study of these sites and posts it on the networks web page. On the website, each demonstration site is
described with contact and design information.
http://www.hrnerr.org/hudson-river-sustainable-shorelines/demonstration-site-network/

The network does not include private lands because one of the objectives is to identify sites on the
Hudson that anyone can visit. It is seeking to identify a wide-range of sites to demonstrate how
treatments can withstand high levels of use. The assessment phase of the site selection process also
identifies how and why landowners constructed a specific type of sustainable shoreline.



Sustainable Shorelines Advisory Committee Meeting October 3, 2012 6
Demonstration Sites - Dan gave an update of the Coxsackie demonstration site. Construction began in
February 2012. After waiting six months to receive the construction permit, rip rap sills were
constructed in four hours. Vegetation was later planted in each zone created by the sills. As of July 30,
the vegetation was still growing. An interpretive brochure is being developed about this project.

Dan also introduced a few new candidate demonstration sites. Dutchess County maintains a park
property in Poughkeepsie which includes a house on the shore. Initially, the property owners wanted to
install one treatment along the entire shoreline to provide deep water access from an existing bulkhead.
Dan suggested they consider other options, including soft shoreline treatments. The property owners
are now considering soft shoreline treatments to enable kayak access. The project is funded through a
Hudson River Estuary Program grant.

Dan described two other potential sites. The Dockside site, near Cold Spring, is owned by the park
district and is a high-energy area. The Village of Cold Spring is interested in maintaining the site because
it has a high level of use by the public. The Nyack Beach State Park site is still very early in development,
but it is a high-energy area at the base of the Palisades. Both have received funding through a
partnership with the New York Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). One
participant suggested that Dan ask landowners to incorporate economic development plans into the site
development plans so landowners may apply for construction funding.

Modeling Physical Forces in the Hudson River
Nickitas Georgas presented an update on the work to characterize physical forces. The basic scope of
the project is to inform shoreline engineering studies by characterizing currents, waves and ice and
wakes. Current and wave energy is evaluated through numerical modeling, and ice and wake energy are
measured using empirical data.

Nickitas began the project with the NYHOPS model
3
, which provides good hydrodynamic and wave
forecasts, but has a coarse computational grid for much of the Hudson River. He then built a more
accurate and distributed model with a higher resolution that describes the Hudson River shoreline,
floodplain, and islands better and includes a better representation of the Hudson River tributaries. This
new model has sub 100-meter resolution along the entire NYSDEC Hudson River shoreline. Nickitas
anticipates the model will provide basic and probability statistics for water levels, current speed, wave
height and peak wave periods. However, the enormous amount of computations the computer must run
to complete the model required Nickitas to scale back the data on the floodplains.

Participants asked if there is much difference between wake and wave action. Jon Miller said that most
wake action is similar to wave action, except barge wake action is more like a surge than a wave and
thus exhibits different energy intensity. Jon suspects wakes have approximately the same strength as
waves produced by wind, and we will know by the end of this project. The team observing wakes
observed vessel speed and size and spoke with boating association that monitors boat locations to
correlate individual boats with wakes. Someone suggested that the wave intensity data might help to
strategically identify pilot project areas for ecologically enhanced shorelines.

Nickitas also produced GIS layers of ice probabilities based on a compilation of empirical USCG ice
reports (daily ice data record from 2005-2012). He presented this new Hudson River Ice Climatology GIS
layer during the meeting. It allows a landowner to select an area of interest and view a statistics report
card that includes ice thickness, cumulative probability of ice thickness, ice type, coverage percent and
cumulative probability of ice coverage. Further, his analysis of the ice coverage effects on water levels

3
www.stevens.edu/NYHOPS


Sustainable Shorelines Advisory Committee Meeting October 3, 2012 7
and currents has revealed that the presence of a winter ice cover dramatically alters the tidal regime in
the Hudson River: for example, some currents are cut in half during periods of ice, but increase in other
areas. This information could prove useful for engineers.

The results of this work are slated to be available in GIS shapefile format and in a 3-5 page summary of
findings. Participants were asked if these GIS layers will be useful to engineers working on projects in
the Hudson and how these physical constraints results can be made useful to other end users. Overall,
participants said the information will be useful for engineers. Their comments included:
Cross-referencing the model with land use would be very useful.
Are the differences between shoreline and mid-stream demonstrable in these GIS files? At this
point, data is not being computed across the river, so users can only access data along the
shorelines, not in the middle of the river. That expansion is would require translation of orders
of magnitude more data from the model.
Making the data available as a web application might be useful.

Shorelines Related Future Needs
Betsy Blair led a discussion to identify possible next steps after this project is finished. She asked
participants to think how the group what else people in the region need to undertake to launch an era
of Sustainable Shoreline design and construction. Discussion included the following ideas:

Creating an updatable guide, or cookbook, that incorporates design criteria and permitting
processes to move the results from a boutique product to an institutionalized product.
In the past, people have suggested streamlining the permitting process through SEQRA, but the
use of a Standard Activity Permit might be more appropriate for sustainable shorelines because
review of standard activity permits can be expedited and provides guidance to consultants. The
SEQRA process is currently undergoing revisions and the short form will be made longer, which
should reduce the uncertainty facing the lead agency. One participant said that in his
experience, most shorelines applications were Type 2 and exempt from SEQRA permitting.
Additional Research Ideas:
o Investigate the ecological value of green walls in the Hudson River.
o Investigate more treatment structures than the 10 in the Cost Analysis.
o Additional research and analysis on the adaptability of shallow habitats to provide a
compelling argument for sustainable shoreline construction.
o Investigate how to adapt treatment structures to SLR and eventually flood conditions.
o Conduct ecosystem services evaluations.
o Investigate how to incorporate heterogeneity of shoreline types into design criteria.
o Investigate how construction of sills could trap sediment and reduce wetland attrition.
o Investigate how to split the difference and investigate other low slope habitats.
o Conduct cost benefit analysis of specific shoreline types.
o Investigate whether or not vegetation provides increased or decreased shoreline
stability during storm events.
o Conduct a sensitivity analysis on the cost analysis.
Future sites could receive certification of completion from Sustainable Shorelines or from the
SITES program of the American Association of Landscape Architects.
Additional Outreach Ideas
o Increase engagement with the railroad companies.
o Enhance and broaden shoreline literacy through simple programs like estuary snapshot
day or increasing use of Rapid Assessment Tools.


Sustainable Shorelines Advisory Committee Meeting October 3, 2012 8
Enhance our understanding of how to work within the regulatory environment of Reasonable
and Necessary permitting standards (661.9
4
). Research from this project could inform the
decision by taking into account such factors as reasonable alternatives. For example, if there is
nothing of great value protected on the shore side, it will not meet the necessary requirement.
In which case it might be reasonable to put in a more sloped shoreline instead of a vertical one.
Part 608, the threshold for excavation at low and high tide, is undergoing revision.

Wrap Up and Next Steps
The Coordinating Team would discuss outcomes from todays meeting, and the facilitation team will
write up the meeting summary. They will be thinking in the next year about incorporating economic
development concerns and regional sustainability initiatives, SEQRA changes, and creating an
implementation agenda.

Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 3:00 pm.

4
http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/13338.html#13366