proceedings regional (ny-nj-de) dialogue to advance sustainable shorelines along sheltered coasts

Elizabeth Livermont, Emilie Hauser, Christina Tobitsch, Lisa Auermuller,

Kelly Valencik and Lyndie Hice-Dunton

April 2014

PROCEEDINGS REGIONAL (NY-NJ-DE) DIALOGUE TO ADVANCE SUSTAINABLE SHORELINES ALONG SHELTERED COASTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This proceedings report was prepared by Elizabeth Livermont of Stevens Institute of Technology for the NYSDEC Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve (HRNERR). The regional dialogue work-shop and proceedings were funded by the NERRS Science Collaborative transfer project through the Greenway Conservancy for the Hudson River Valley. The NERRS Science Collaborative is located in New Hampshire and provides competitive grants to the 28 NERRs around the country. The planning team consisted of Coastal Training Program Coordinators Emilie Hauser (Hudson River NERR and NEIWPCC), Lisa Auermuller (Jacques Cousteau NERR) and Kelly Valencik (Delaware NERR), Christina Tobitsch (Hudson River NERR and Student Conservation Association) and Research Coordinator Lyndie Hice-Dunton (Delaware NERR). The full list of attendees can be found on page 31 of this document, and all presentations can be found at http://www.hrnerr.org/estuary-training/trainingtopic/regional-dialogue-nynjde. Cover photos credits: David Bushek, Rutgers University and Brian Cooke and Christina Tobitsch of HRNERR and SCA.

About the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project

The Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project is a multi-year effort lead by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve, in cooperation with the Greenway Conservancy for the Hudson River Valley. Partners in the Project include Cary Institute for Ecosystem Studies, NYSDEC Hudson River Estuary Program and Stevens Institute of Technology. The Project is facilitated by The Consensus Build-ing Institute. The Project fulfills aspects of Goal 2 of the Action Agenda of the Hudson River Estuary Pro-gram.

The Project is supported by the National Estuarine Research Reserve System Science Collaborative, a partnership of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of New Hamp-shire. The Science Collaborative puts Reserve-based science to work for coastal communities coping with the impacts of land use change, pollution, and habitat degradation in the context of a changing climate.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Greenway Conservancy for the Hudson River Valley or our funders. Reference to any specific product, service, process, or method does not con-stitute an implied or expressed recommendation or endorsement.

Suggested Citation

Livermont, E. A., Hauser, E., Tobitsch, C., Auermuller, L., Valencik, K., Hice-Dunton, L., (2014) Proceed-ing for Regional (NY-NY-DE) Dialogue to Advance Sustainable Shorelines along Sheltered Coasts (Octo-ber 4, 2013) In association with and published by the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project, Staatsburg, NY 12580, http://hrnerr.org

Regional (NY-NJ-DE) Dialogue to Advance Sustainable Shorelines Page 1

http://www.hrnerr.org/estuary-training/trainingtopic/regional-dialogue-nynjde


http://hrnerr.org/

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 3

DESCRIPTION of workshop ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Getting on the Same Page .......................................................................................................................................... 6

Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project ......................................................................................................... 9

A Comparative Cost Analysis of Ten Shore Protection Approaches ................................................................ 11

Regulatory Panel: Stepping Stones or Stumbling Blocks .................................................................................... 14

Situational Overview ................................................................................................................................................ 19

Ideas for Regional Collaboration Projects ............................................................................................................. 24

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................. 28

Appendix A: Table of Abbreviations and Acronyms .......................................................................................... 31

Appendix B: Participants ......................................................................................................................................... 32

Appendix C: Evaluation Responses ....................................................................................................................... 34

Appendix D: References and Resources ................................................................................................................ 37

DRAFT Regional (NY-NJ-DE) Dialogue to Advance Sustainable Shorelines Page 2

INTRODUCTION

The Sustainable Shorelines Project:

The Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project aims to develop science-based recommendations for shore zone management that preserve or enhance natural benefits while meeting engineering needs. Along the Hudson River Estuary’s 300 miles of shoreline, communities are experiencing increased flood-ing from changing rainfall patterns and greater inundation from rising waters. Pressure is growing to alter shorelines to hold back the waters and control erosion, and community leaders, regulators, land-owners, and funders are faced with important decisions about investments in shoreline infrastructure. These decisions will affect community waterfront use and determine the future of vital near-shore river habitats.

The Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve (HRNERR), with the involvement of many part-ners, launched the Sustainable Shorelines Project in 2008 to provide science-based information about the engineering, economic, and ecological tradeoffs among shoreline management options, given likely fu-ture conditions. New work is focusing on how aspects of structures can be manipulated, such as the roughness of the substrate used and the vegetative cover, to increase ecological benefits. The project will also increase understanding of how physical forces are reshaping shorelines, develop innovative shore-line demonstration sites, and integrate project results into a decision support tool.

The project’s collaborative approach involves diverse stakeholders to identify priority information needs, respond to project findings, and shape products and tools. Local government officials, shoreline experts and consultants, shoreline landowners, policy-makers, regulators, engineers, and others shape and guide the project by participating in advisory committees, focus groups, surveys, and case studies. Project find-ings are being used to make decisions about community waterfronts, regulatory and land use policies, shoreline development and long-term plans that will allow important natural shore zone areas to exist into the future.

Transfer Project:

The Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve received funding for a NERRS Science Collabora-tive Transfer Project in spring 2013. This transfer project was motivated by Reserve interest in the Science Collaborative project: Promoting Sustainable Shorelines along New York's Hudson River, also known as Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project (HRSSP).

The objectives of the transfer project included sharing the findings from the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project, addressing barriers to living shoreline adoption, and discussing regional approaches for the advancement of living shorelines with stakeholders who are interested in living shoreline issues in New York, New Jersey, and Delaware. The planning team consisted of:

Emilie Hauser Hudson River NERR Coastal Training Program Coordinator Lisa Auermuller Jacques Cousteau NERR Coastal Training Program Coordinator Kelly Valencik Delaware NERR Coastal Training Program Coordinator Christina Tobitsch Hudson NERR and SCA Intern


Lyndie Hice-Dunton Delaware NERR Research Coordinator Jennifer Holmes Delaware NERR Education Coordinator

To reach these goals, the team would convene a meeting of Reserve staff, state and federal regulators, and other shoreline stakeholders held on October 4, 2013 at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, NJ.

NERRS Front-End Assessment:

Prior to the workshop, potential event attendees were interviewed to more fully understand the individ-ual state-based perspectives and to refine these issues within the context of the region. This pre-event as-sessment helped develop the agenda for the workshop by gaining the stakeholders’ information needs and perception of barriers to advancing living shorelines. Beyond structuring valuable and productive discussions at the October workshop, this front-end assessment can be a useful tool for other interested parties and stakeholders looking to identify and address the research, economic, ecologic, engineering, and education needs, Tobitsch et al. (2014).



DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHOP

A meeting of Reserve staff, state and federal regulators, and other shoreline stakeholders was held on October 4, 2013 at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, NJ. Objectives of workshop were:

a. Share lessons learned from the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project as well as other are-as;

b. Define terms such as living shorelines and ecologically enhanced shorelines to be used regionally; c. Assess opportunities and constraints for implementing ecologically enhanced shoreline projects

within the NY, NJ, DE region; d. Discuss data, outreach and resource needs to further advanced living shorelines in the

NY/NJ/DE region; e. Outline next steps for working collaboratively on regionally focused living shoreline tools, re-

sources and guidance, potentially to be addressed through a future RFP opportunity; f. Identify interested parties willing to continue working collaboratively on regionally focused liv-

ing shoreline tools, research, resources and guidance.

These proceedings capture the content and discussion at the workshop, which followed the agenda be-low. The full list of attendees can be found in Appendix B, and all presentations can be found at http://www.hrnerr.org/estuary-training/trainingtopic/regional-dialogue-nynjde

Meeting Agenda • Welcome and Introductions: Moderated by Christina Tobitsch, NYSDEC HRNERR • Getting on the Same Page: Emilie Hauser, NYSDEC HRNERR • Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project: Betsy Blair, NYSDEC HRNERR • A Comparative Cost Analysis of Ten Shore Protection Approaches at Three Sites Under Two Sea

Level Rise Scenarios: Speakers: Jon Miller and Andrew Rella, Stevens Institute of Technology • Panel Discussion: Regulatory Stepping Stones or Stumbling Blocks

Panel: Ed Bonner (ACOE), Josh Thiel (NYSDEC – via telephone), Betsy Blair (NYSDEC), Ginger Kopkash (NJDEP), Jill Aspinwall (NJDEP), Jim Chaconas (DE DNRC) Moderated by Emilie Hauser, NYSDEC HRNERR

• Situational Overview: Attendees rotate tables to hear speakers share lessons learned in projects occurring in various regions and participate in roundtable discussions. Hudson River- Emilie Hauser, Long Island- Jay Tanski, NYC- Jessica Fain, NY NJ Harbor- Kate Boicourt, New Jersey -Jon Miller, Delaware Estuary- Dave Bushek, and SAGE (Systems Approach to Geomorphic Engi-neering)- Charlie Chesnutt. Moderated by Lyndie Hice-Dunton, Delaware NERR

• Ideas for Regional Collaboration Projects: Moderated by Lisa Auermuller, Jacques Cousteau NERR

• Next Steps & Wrap Up • Adjourn

*Due to the government shutdown, speakers listed in red were unable to attend.

GETTING ON THE SAME PAGE

Speaker: Emilie Hauser, NYSDEC HRNERR

Objectives:

• Participants understand the variety of terms and the common objectives of living shorelines and ecologically enhanced shorelines to be used regionally and during the day

Presentation:

The Hudson River NERR received a grant from the NERRS Science Collaborative (NSC) to hold a work-shop, in which knowledge regarding sustainable shorelines would be transferred from the NSC funded Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project to the Jacques Cousteau and Delaware Reserves. The aim was to gather a mix of individuals from Delaware, New Jersey, and other areas of New York. Unfortu-nately, due to the shutdown of the federal government in early October, no federal employees were pre-sent and last minute changes to the agenda reflected this alteration. The goal of the workshop was to learn and share the knowledge and experience of all regions, with the common purpose of protecting shorelines from erosion while enhancing ecological function.

Prior to the workshop, a front-end assessment was conducted (as discussed in the Introduction), in which four areas of interest were identified: economics; engineering and design; social science and outreach; and regional regulatory opportunities. For the front-end assessment, 20 stakeholders were interviewed through a series of guiding questions to determine perspectives on living shorelines. One of the products from the assessment was a word cloud seen below which illustrates the most common words used. “Nat-ural”, “habitat”, “erosion” and “use” occurred frequently.

The workshop planning team found it was important to identify and define the relevant terms for sus-tainable shorelines for the multi-disciplinary group of researchers and other partners. The Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project prefers the term ecologically enhanced engineered shorelines, which is a


range of shoreline approaches that incorporate measures to promote living things. The definition is be-low:

Ecologically Enhanced Engineered Shoreline Protection A subset of shore protection methods that incorporate measures to attract and sup-port both terrestrial and aquatic biota and desirable ecological functions. These can be either modifications to existing structures through the addition of plantings and other ecological measures or the design of new structures incorporating ecologically-friendly materials, geometry, or placement. If correctly designed, ecologically-engineered structures serve to prevent or reduce shore erosion while emulating the physical and biological conditions of naturally occurring, stable shorelines. Valuable ecosystem services are enhanced or restored; including provision of habitat for ter-restrial and aquatic species, maintenance of water quality, aesthetic, resilience and sustainability. Related terms: Innovative, non-traditional, alternatives to hardening; bio-engineered; eco-alternatives; ecologically enhanced; green; habitat-friendly; non-structural; shoreline softening; soft shorelines; soft approach; soft engineered shoreline; soft shore protection, restored shoreline.

The shoreline often demarcates the boundary between private and public lands—in Delaware this is

mean low water and in New York and New Jersey it is mean high water.

The goal for sustainable shorelines is to protect one and/or all of the zones in the shoreline area, depend-ing on the situation. The shoreline approach depends on the goals and location of the anticipated project. Some of the relevant physical characteristics that influence shoreline approaches are:

• Geomorphology; • The rigors of ice, wind, tides currents and/or waves that cause erosion of the shoreline; • Salinity (varies from fresh in the north to sea water in the lower reaches of the estuary, and de-

pends on the salt water front, meteorology, precipitation, tides and storm surges);

The uses and what is being protected also vary from site to site from wetland or riparian shoreline resto-ration, working waterfronts, development, single-family homes, and confining dredge soil. The usage and site characteristics both determine the applicable solutions. The important goal is to provide ecologi-cal function and have a resilient protection approach. The take-away is to recognize that there are com-mon goals, regardless of region, and to strive for clarity in the discussion to understand the nomenclature of the researchers and other partners.

Q&A:

Q: The new definition for ecologically modified shorelines resonates, but appears to pertain more to the scientist than the public. Is this new term—ecologically modified shorelines—gaining better traction for living shorelines?


A: The term living shorelines is not used in conjunction with the Hudson, so the public would not necessarily resonate with that term. However, defining living shorelines is just one aspect of the en-tire definition.

Q: (Follow-up): What is the public response to sustainable shorelines?

A: The Sustainable Shorelines project is a broader land use management concept. It is not specific to a single project.

Q: Is there a learning curve with the public for defining and accepting what the term (sustainable shore-lines) means?

A: The learning curve was among the project team—the coordinating members, researchers and nat-ural resource managers-- which motivated the need for the definition. As of yet, the team is not working specifically with the general public. The term is still being rolled out, but Betsy Blair will discuss the relevant audience more in the next presentation.

A: (Follow-up): The project has very specific shoreline approaches; there is public document with the terms and their definitions, which can be found on www.hrnerr.org



HUDSON RIVER SUSTAINABLE SHORELINES PROJECT

Speaker: Betsy Blair, NYSDEC HRNERR

Objectives:

• Participants understand the process of collaborative learning and the basic findings of the HRSSP

Presentation:

The Hudson River NERR began studying shoreline management issues in 2005, beginning with a map-ping project that established that over half of the Hudson River estuary’s 300-mile shoreline had been engineered or substantially modified in some respect. It was also recognized that the continued rework-ing of the shoreline from development and waterfront revitalization, as well as the growing climate change-related physical pressures on shorelines (from more intense and frequent storms, increased flood-ing and surge, and sea level rise) had implications for the long-term survival of tidal wetlands, vegetated shallows, and other important natural resources in the estuary. This was sufficient impetus to explore whether there were shoreline treatment alternatives that would hold up, add ecological value, and add to the system’s resiliency.

The goal of the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project is to develop science-based information to guide management decisions and promote sustainable shoreline treatments that have ecological benefits and engineering stability that can persist despite climate changes. The NERRS Science Collaborative and its precursor CICEET1, began funding the Sustainable Shorelines Project in 2009, and provided resources for using a collaborative learning approach, one that relied heavily on input from our intended users to shape the research agenda and approach, formulate decision support tools, and otherwise make sure the results would be relevant and useful to themselves. The intended users included federal and state regu-lators, engineers and other shoreline design professionals, natural resource managers, and municipal offi-cials. Research priorities and approaches were explored with the intended users through focus groups, surveys, workshops, technical work groups and advisory committees, in which the following was asked:

• What do they need to know about shorelines and treatment choices? • What issues and information shortages do they face in doing their job? • If the current activities of the Sustainable Shoreline Project would be useful? • How decisions are made in their community? • What they knew (for shoreline engineers) and their constraints in applying solutions?

Common themes began to emerge. It was strongly articulated that demonstration sites are necessary, so that experts, clients, and regulators develop confidence in innovative designs. In the realm of cost com-parisons, attempting to assess and include ecosystem services was initially explored; however, many of the intended users were skeptical about ecosystem services valuations and doubted that their clients and

1 Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology

constituents would accept them. It was discovered that decisions about municipal shoreline design are made very early in the planning process, which means engagement about shorelines must begin almost before the project is even conceived. There was also a wide range of terms that people used to describe different kinds of shorelines, creating a need to create a common lexicon within our region. A fundamen-tal challenge of altering very hard, vertical shorelines was recognized -- landowners seek to maximize uplands, while resource managers and regulators seek to minimize impacts on the water side of shore-lines.

Q&A:

Q: One of the operational costs of a project is monitoring. Have the conversations with local decision-makers included the need for monitoring? Have there been any discussions of standards for moni-toring the performance of various sustainable shoreline projects?

A: Yes, the need for monitoring has been discussed with engineers, regulators, and local officials. The project team for sustainable shorelines believes monitoring is vital, and that it should include both structural engineering and ecological considerations, but the team has not reached an agreement on monitoring criteria or standards for performance monitoring.


A COMPARATIVE COST ANALYSIS OF TEN SHORE PROTEC-TION APPROACHES

Speakers: Jon Miller and Andrew Rella, Stevens Institute of Technology

Objectives:

• For participants to understand the findings of A Comparative Cost Analysis of Ten Shore Protection Approaches at Three Sites Under Two Sea Level Rise Scenarios

• This study compares the costs of several types of shoreline stabilization approaches (hard and soft). The analysis includes the need to plan for sea-level rise, the estimated costs of construction, maintenance and the frequency of replacement.

Presentation:

Jon Miller and Andrew Rella have been involved with the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Pro-ject since 2008, and discussed the engineering aspect of the project during the workshop. The per-spectives on sustainable shorelines have evolved a great deal since the project began. There tends to be negative impression of living shorelines among engineers—living shorelines are “just a bunch of plants”, which has a tendency to create an adversarial relationship between “plant” people and the “stone and rock” people, i.e. biologists and engineers. There has been significant progress on this is-sue in New Jersey as well as New York, though in different ways.

The initial engineering work was a literature review of all possible alternatives, spanning a range of hard to soft structures as well as hybrid structures (hard structures that incorporate living things). The alternatives included, but are not limited to: coconut fiber rolls; marsh sills; joint plantings/ live stakes; green or bio-walls (a vertical wall that has any living alteration); and live crib walls.

The literature review discusses 29 possible alternatives, with 2-4 pages on each type, including a scale of hard-to-soft aspects, the cost of installation and maintenance, and adaptability to sea level rise. An important consideration is that the shoreline is changing with time, and structures change with new environments. All of the options were summarized to assist in determining how an alternative would fair at one site versus another. The rankings of each alternative were originally conducted by Stevens; however, the partners for the project have assisted in vetting the numbers.

After the literature review, a cost comparative analysis was conducted. Three sites along the Hudson were analyzed, looking at up to nine different shoreline approaches, which were determined as the most relevant for the Hudson River. Two different sea level rise (SLR) scenarios were used. The cost estimate was based on a 70-year lifetime. The analysis included: initial costs, maintenance and repair costs, damage costs, and the cost of replacements for when the structures outlived their intended lifespan. Damage cost (cost of repairing the structure to original functionality) saw the highest im-pact from the different SLR scenarios, as the seas rise the 50-year storm becomes more frequent. Bulkheads, no matter how well constructed, degrade over time and must be replaced every 35 years based on the assumptions in the cost analysis. The advantage of hybrid and soft approaches is the lack of a replacement requirement (living shorelines require upkeep and maintenance through their lifetime, but not total replacement)


The designs for the nine alternatives are for comparative purposes and should not be used as engi-neering specifications. The idea was to provide the “big picture” costs of the various alternatives and develop a consistent approach for SLR at various sites. Consistency was the primary focus—both in the engineering methods and the application of the approaches to various sites. Within the construc-tion bids used to develop the analysis, there is a great deal of variability in costs, which in part can be attributed to variations in the cost of materials v. contingency funds. The final cost of each approach was a ratio of the initial cost to eliminate some of the variability seen in the construction bids. The key takeaway was that several alternatives at each site were relatively similar in cost, and hard and hybrid costs were found to be “equal” when considering a 70-year life span.

The other two portions of the engineering research for the HRSSP are a physical forces characteriza-tion and a forensic analysis of shoreline resiliency during major storms. The physical forces character-ization provides a variety of ways to determine the environment.

• Wake data study, which was a one-day observation over a large reach of the Hudson. Based on those observations, an analytical model is under development.

• Ice data was collected from the U.S. Coast Guard and entered into a GIS layer.

• Currents and water levels were modeled with NYHOPS (New York Harbor Observations and Prediction System)

• A one-year climatology was developed for currents, shear stresses, water levels and waves and can be utilized not just for living shoreline projects, but also for any type of engineering project.

The forensic analysis is underway, and will examine at three recent large storms and their rain, wind and surge effects on selected sites along the Hudson. The goal is to identify the “key ingredients” for either the success or failure of a structure. Discussions with the engineering firms that originally designed the structure will be used to determine the design conditions. Additionally, extensive site visits will be performed to get a sense of the topog-raphy, sediment type and land cover in the area of the site. This will be followed up with

a bathymetric survey and wake study.

Q&A:

Photo credit: Emilie Hauser

Q: In the cost comparison, was the ease of permitting considered for the individual approaches?

A: No, the cost comparison was conducted in the ideal world, where all projects would face the same regulatory challenges.

Q: To clarify, the approach that was utilized is transferable but the data used for the calculation is site-specific? Is that correct?


A: The approach is there, and is detailed in the accompanying paper, but all of the assumptions are listed and can be modified if the relevant site has different considerations or other applicable assump-tions. The methodology is consistent, however, from site to site.

A: (Follow-up): The other take home from the cost comparison is that the innovative and hybrid ap-proaches are cost-competitive with the traditional techniques. This is important because the regula-tory community indicated if additional steps are required to implement a sustainable shorelines pro-ject, there cannot be an accompanying increase in financial burden.

Q: Was the level of performance compared between the various options, i.e. how a bulkhead fares in a 50-year storm?

A: A basic design methodology was used for the bulkhead, revetment, sill and other designs. Each structure type was designed to withstand a 50-year storm. Traditional design methods and best available guidance were utilized as well.

One of the important concepts is to decide on expectations ahead of time. For example, is a sill ex-pected to provide as much protection as a bulkhead during a storm? Is the project to provide flood protection or erosion protection? A sill will survive the storm, but it will likely get wet.

It is important to determine what the project goal is, and what should be accomplished. Monitoring on the back-end of a project is not ideal; however, the aim is to capitalize on existing capabilities. The goal is to develop these projects implementing a monitoring plan throughout the process. Then, if a large storm occurs a valuable data set is available.

A: (Follow-up): Emilie Hauser will discuss the demonstration site network in the situational over-view. The aim of monitoring is to set up a system in advance, so a review can be conducted on the in-itial gathered information, at a bare minimum.

A: (Follow-up): Structures in the comparison were only evaluated in appropriate areas, i.e. bulkheads were not evaluated in very mild energy sections, and sills were not examined on very high slopes.

Q: Were the adjacent impacts of the structure types examined?

A: The only adjacent effect that was examined in the cost analysis was flanking as its effect would need to be repaired. In the forensic analysis, adjacent effects will be look at in more depth.


REGULATORY PANEL: STEPPING STONES OR STUMBLING BLOCKS

Speakers: Josh Thiel, NYSDEC (via telephone) Betsy Blair, NYSDEC HRNERR Ginger Kopkash, NJDEP Jill Aspinwall, NJDEP Jim Chaconas, DE DNREC

Moderated by: Emilie Hauser, NYSDEC HRNERR

Objectives:

• Participants will learn and ask questions about the regional/state differences in regulations and interpretations across different states and understand the barriers to implementing living shorelines.

• Participants will have a better understanding of what would need to be changed to allow or increase the construction of living shoreline projects.

Introductions:

Unfortunately due to the federal shutdown the Army Corps representative was unable to attend.

NewYorkStateDEC:Fish,WildlifeandMarineResources:JoshThiel‐AquaticHabitatProtectionProgramManager

In general, regulations that govern jurisdiction for the various projects, at a large scale, are defined by where the project is located, and provide for differences in level of scrutiny. The area from the Troy dam (above Albany, NY) down the length of the Hudson River estuary into the marine district around Long Island is under the jurisdiction of the NYSDEC. There are two areas of jurisdiction: navigable waters be-low the Mean High Water (MHW) level and sections of the Hudson that are protected based on water classification standards, in which case jurisdiction over 50 feet of bank distance may be included. In cases with freshwater wetlands, there is overlapping jurisdiction. Any fringing wetlands, which are connected to the Hudson, are also included. Below the Tappan Zee Bridge, the jurisdiction only includes navigable water (MHW and lower). This is the area where tidal wetland jurisdiction begins to play a role, which is a much more complex and well-defined process for tidal wetlands.

The regulatory framework is a fairly open structure, so that specific project types are not defined in regu-lation. Each project is evaluated based on weighing its merits and qualities, not the type of structure that is being permitted. The loose set of standards is defined by environmental impacts and then a balance with the reasonable or necessary aspect of that project. There is a great deal of flexibility in that regard within the jurisdiction of the Aquatic Habitat Protection Program.

NewYorkStateHRNERR:TidalWetlands:BetsyBlair

It is the policy of New York State to protect tidal wetlands now and in the future. There is a set of regula-tions. The tidal wetlands are regulated in three geographic regions: Long Island, New York City (NYC)


and the lower Hudson (south of the Tappan Zee Bridge), and Westchester County Long Island Sound shores. Each region has a different regulatory style; it is a work in progress to develop consistent guide-lines and messages on what is allowable.

Tidal wetlands are grouped into three different bins: the adjacent area, which is the most permissive and least sensitive; shoals and mud flats; and tidal wetlands and marshes. There are general standards for tidal wetlands:

• Must be compatible with state policy to preserve and protect tidal wetlands from now and in the future;

• Must be compatible with public health and welfare; • Must be reasonable and necessary, i.e. other alternatives have been adequately addressed; • Must meet minimum setbacks if it is in the adjacent area; and • Must meet use guidelines—a table that lays out a number of different kinds of usage, several of

which relate to shorelines. There is a bias towards replacing what already exists. There is no permit needed for ordinary maintenance and repair, and while a permit is needed for in-kind and in-place replacement, those types of actions are considered generally compatible.

It is very difficult to construct bulkheads and other shore stabilization structures in marshes or the littoral zone if they have not existed before. This is good, as it is protective. However, they are generally com-patible (needing a permit) in shoals and mud flats and even the littoral zone. Filling is presumptively not compatible. Fill cannot be placed between the MHW and the MLW lines; it must be placed in the proper-ty-owners section of the shore, under tidal wetland regulations. Establishing plantings is generally com-patible, so augmenting shorelines in that manner is relatively easy. This is a broad overview; unfortu-nately, the devil is in the details. There are challenges in the future. The State of New York is unlikely to change either their regulations or laws, as the general viewpoint, is the state stands to lose more ground than they will gain. The way forward is working with those implementing the permits, and how to crea-tively interpret the existing framework for the long-term interest of the wetlands.

NewJerseyDEPRegulatoryProgram:GingerKopkashandJillAspinwall

New Jersey is a heavily regulated state. Working closely with partners, a review was conducted of exist-ing regulatory policies As a result of this review, the Department adopted new rules on April 16, 2013. These amendments facilitate the establishment of living shorelines by modifying the coastal general per-mit at N.J.A.C. 7:7-7.29 for habitat creation and enhancement to include the establishment of living shore-lines. It allows one to do an enhancement of the natural habitat, with some limitations. The Coastal Gen-eral Permit 29 authorizes habitat creation, restoration or enhancement and living shoreline activities sponsored by a Federal or State agency or other entity. A living shoreline project must be designed to protect, restore, or enhance a habitat. Unless the project is implemented by a state or federal agency, less than an acre of fill can be placed in the water. The designer must be mindful of submerged aquatic vege-tation habitat, shellfish habitat, marshland, and other special areas. In accordance with the regulations, the Department may approve a reduction in the size of a particular special area in order to allow an in-crease in a different special area if the Department determines that the activities causing the reduction are sufficiently environmentally beneficial to outweigh the negative environmental effects of the reduction. Where the living shoreline is intended to restore an existing shoreline to a previous location, the living


shoreline, including all associated fill, may approve a reduction in the size of a particular special area in order to allow an increase in a different special area if the Department determines that the activities caus-ing the reduction are sufficiently environmentally beneficial to outweigh the negative environmental ef-fects of the reduction. Where the living shoreline is intended to restore an existing shoreline to a previous location, the living shoreline, including all associated fill, shall not exceed the footprint of the shoreline as it appeared on the applicable Tidelands Map adopted by the Tidelands Resource Council (base map pho-tography dated 1977/1978), except for a structural component of the project intended to reduce wave en-ergy.

It is important to emphasize that a project—to fall under the general permit—must have sponsorship from a federal or state agency. The NJ Department of Environmental Protection is currently working on establishing consistency, given that New Jersey exists in two Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) districts. There is training to ensure that all regulators are operating on the same page and ensure the permit appli-cant has a smoother and efficient permitting process.

DelawareDNRECWetlandsandSubaqueousSection:JimChaconas

One of the functions of the Wetlands and Subaqueous Section of the DE DNREC is to issue permits to stabilize shorelines. The criteria for issuing the permits were developed approximately 20 years ago un-der the authority contained in the Subaqueous Lands Act and, more specifically, in the “Regulations Governing the Use of Subaqueous Lands” promulgated for the Act in 1993. Non-structural methods of stabilizing the shoreline are preferred over structural methods (the motivation was to use rip-rap and/or vegetation instead of bulkheads). This was primarily in the Inlands Bays area of southern Delaware. This has been very successful as most of the natural shorelines have been stabilized with rip-rap instead of bulkheads. There are issues with the contractors and using vegetation primarily related to liability in having to guarantee their work.

In lieu of forcing living shorelines, Delaware has used incentives. One is a vegetative cost share program. Delaware will match the cost of a project dollar for dollar up to $5000 for a vegetative stabilization pro-ject. It does allow some rock to be placed, but a ratio of 2 ft2 of vegetation to each 1 ft2 of rock limits the total amount of rock. This program has been in place since 2005, and the funding comes from the non-point source pollution 319 program. The cost-share program has funded approximately 40 projects in that time. About 5 projects are funded a year, plantings in the late spring and early summer imposing some limitations on projects.

Delaware has also developed the statewide activity approval (SAA) (issued earlier in 2013). The SAA was developed under the authority of the ‘Regulations Governing the Use of Subaqueous Lands,” and is an expedited permit similar to an Army Corps of Engineers nationwide permit. If you qualify under the parameters of the statewide activity approval, the project does not have to go out for public hearing, a 20-day process. This can be critical for vegetative stabilization practices—frequently for these projects, get-ting the permit is put off until the last minute, and at that point the window of opportunity is gone. The SAA applies to revetments in front of wetlands, marsh toe sills, and to using coir fiber logs. Only a few people have applied for it at this point. The SAA is also compatible with the Corps of Engineers Nation-wide Permit (specifically, Permit 13), and provides for coordination with the commenting agencies: U.S.


Fish and Wildlife Service for endangered species and the National Park Service for a Wild and Scenic Wa-tershed.

The barriers for the state are the contractors themselves. Many of the contractors only have experience installing bulkheads and rip-rap, so it is an education process to get them to try living shorelines. Dela-ware has been actively trying to do vegetative stabilization for the past 15 years. It is hard to find con-tractors for these projects and start a business in soft shoreline engineering—an issue of guaranteeing a project’s longevity. Along those lines, more outreach is required. In cases where a contractor is willing to use vegetation for stabilization, a maintenance agreement is often built into the construction contract. There are a number of invasive species in the Inland Bays areas; when a project is first planted, it is very vulnerable to invasive species. The maintenance allows the shoreline to develop as designed. Even suc-cessful projects have issues though, often times homeowners and recreational users are not aware of what the natural flora should be, and have a tendency to take a weed whacker and mow down the site. Educa-tion and outreach are a critical part of vegetative shorelines.

Q&A:

Q: What is the definition of a marsh toe sill, and a marsh revetment?

A: A revetment is the rock placed in front of an existing wetland or marsh, hoping for it to fill in without adding additional material. A sill is the structure placed away from the shoreline, and fill behind it, planting behind it in the area protected by the rock sill.

Q: Has there been a discussion of beneficial use of dredged materials (to assist marshes in keeping pace with Sea Level Rise (SLR))?

A: It has been discussed specifically for Jamaica Bay on Long Island, as wetlands are rapidly disap-pearing; it was also discussed in conjunction with the Hudson River wetlands as neither will keep up with SLR. The conversation is just beginning, within the table of tidal wetland uses, the use of dredge spoil is considered incompatible.

Q: What is the status of the manipulation of marshes for mosquito control?

A: Mosquito ditching is done on a county level by vector control, but there is a lot of discussion on open marsh management to minimize the impacts. There is a site in Jamaica Bay where they have tried side-casting sediment to build it back up, but it is a large-scale Corps project. It is very unusual for the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation to allow it.

A: (Follow-up): From NJ experience, when the regulatory programs were developed, there was the thought that everyone wanted to build or fill for buildings and/or structures. In NJ, everything is regulated; a great deal of time was spent trying to “fix” the rules to make them relevant at the single-family homeowner level. An issue was non-profits want to do projects for the benefit of the envi-ronment, but there was an issue in permitting fill for the benefit of marshes.

Q: What is the policy of placing a coir log and allowing sediment to naturally backfill, i.e. skirting the issue of placing fill between the MHW and the MLW?


A: From the regulatory standpoint, NY has a complex regulatory interest and the interpretation is site-specific. It is possible, if it can be demonstrated that it is reasonable and necessary.

A: (Follow-up): It depends on where the project is located, i.e. if it is in a tidal wetland. But the con-servation benefit must be considered as well as what is reasonable and necessary.

A: (Follow-up): Additionally, it has been the experience that when coir logs are installed if rapid backfilling does not occur the project will likely fail.

Q: Are there thoughts on making the regulatory agency part of the audience, and not just informing the engineers on what they are allowed to design?

A: That is a conversation that is just beginning. The trajectory is to build an understanding of the needs and concerns of the engineers, and to build trust. Regulators are reasonable people. The at-tempt is to discuss creative interpretation of regulations and laws, and in time, this will hopefully, lead to better dialogue. A special case is with remedial sites, and discussing with the NYSDEC Divi-sion of Environmental Remediation, how should the dozens of contaminated areas that are held in place by shoreline structures be dealt with, many of which are very hard, all of which are vulnerable to breaching? It is a joint learning process; in that case, the goal is to incorporate knowledge about the SLR projections and increasing vulnerabilities in the discussion.

Q: What is the policy on the use of shellfish in living shorelines?

A: The use of shellfish is controversial in New Jersey, due to the consumable products in prohibitive waters (FDA regulations). The shellfish are not edible.

A: Also controversial in Delaware.

A: It is considered an attractive nuisance in New York.

Q: Is there any tracking on the long-term viability of innovative projects? Is it the right thing to do?

A: There are very few dollars available to do vegetative shoreline stabilization. Funding sources are very small and limited. Unfortunately, monitoring is not a big part of the funding, even though it is critical to measuring the success of a project. The NJDEP Wetland Mitigation Unit has a monitoring component, which has a statute to check on projects. It is critical, but extremely underfunded. Moni-toring will be necessary for the entire success of the program as a whole.

A: With the adoption of the new regulations this year, the tracking of projects is starting from scratch. The right projects and objectives need to be identified, and then monitoring can be used to determine what will work in New Jersey. Many of the regulatory guidelines are borrowed from other states and regions, without any analysis to determine if it will work in New Jersey. Many of the projects are very site-specific, which are a blend of ecology and engineering. The goal is to develop a program, where the specifics of what works are fed back into the policy and regulation, and attempt to grow something that works and is specific to New Jersey.


SITUATIONAL OVERVIEW

Speakers: Emilie Hauser, HRNERR Jay Tanski, NY Sea Grant Jessica Fain, NYC Planning Jon Miller, Stevens Institute of Technology David Bushek, Haskin Shellfish Research Lab, Rutgers University Kate Boicourt, NY-NJ Harbor & Estuary Program

Moderated by: Lyndie Hice-Dunton, DE NERR

Objectives:

• Share lessons learned and provide an overview of the status of sustainable shoreline projects in NY, NJ, and DE.

Hudson River:

Speaker: Emilie Hauser, HRNERR

Demonstration projects are essential to get all of the relevant stakeholders on board, especially contrac-tors and regulators/managers. A single demonstration project is not enough, as multiple techniques and physical site characteristics must be evaluated. Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project has devel-oped case studies of projects. The existing projects are primarily located on public lands.

A questionnaire is available online for designers to submit projects for consideration. The primary audi-ence is the engineers and regulators, and the secondary are the landowners. The engineers and/or regulators are often placed in the position of translating ideas of sustainable shorelines to the landowners. A ranking system and assessment process has been developed and implemented for the active and completed demon-stration projects in the area, leading to the establish-ment of a network of case studies. The framework

identified key projects in the Hudson that have demon-strated sustainable shoreline principles. These case studies are available on the website, which includes the cost (when available) and the name of the de-signer.

Photo credit: Sven Hoeger, Creative Habitat

The cost to design a project in the region varies from $75,000 to $100,000; including construction can in-crease the cost to $300,000. Unlike other locations, the Hudson River has ice considerations during the winter. Approximately half of the projects are in freshwater (still have a tidal component), as compared to areas in New Jersey and Delaware. For all projects, it takes time to establish the vegetation, i.e., one site had a major storm eleven months after installation and most of the plantings were lost.


As a whole, there is limited monitoring except at a site specifically funded by the program. The next step for the region is to develop and fund a monitoring program for a wide range of sites and methods.

Long Island & COPRI:

Speaker: Jay Tanski, NY Sea Grant

The primary point of this discussion was the current method for protection of shorelines: Long Island region uses a low-sill bulkhead that has a couple of different drawbacks. As discussed, they must be built landward of the shoreline. In order to dissipate wave energy there must be 30 feet of marsh, which does not exist in most cases, so a bulkhead is placed behind (landward of ) the low-sill bulkhead, and as a re-sult many of the marshes are being destroyed during storms. The regulatory system in Long Island is not very favorable to other solutions. Demonstration projects are needed as well as a method to simplify the permitting process.

Coasts, Oceans, Ports, and Rivers Institute (COPRI) has a nation –wide collaborative effort that contains a database of living shoreline sites with engineering information. Seventy-one projects have been added as of the time of the meeting, with 117 different criteria (i.e. fetch, slope, energy/waves) being evaluated. The sites are primarily located in the Mid-Atlantic, Southeast and Gulf coast. Its primary use (as deter-mined by COPRI) is to provide engineering guidance. The project is meant to assist in developing engi-neering guidance for living shoreline projects based on evaluating what has worked and not worked un-der various physical conditions. Performance information is included, however, the monitoring stand-ards are subjective. Alongside this work, there is an opportunity for NY, NJ and DE to contribute their projects to the database.

The permitting process must be improved for the Long Island area. Potential future work could involve the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS), and coastal zone managers. New York State has a myriad of regulators and stakeholders that could and should be involved. FEMA regulations have also been updated to include language specific to living shorelines.

New York City and Harbor:

Speaker: Jessica Fain, NYC Planning

The planning document Vision 2020 was released in 2011 and has eight goals for New York City. This is the first time it was updated since the 1990’s, and was the result of a one-year collaborative project with a wide range of waterfront stakeholders. Three of plan’s goals are relevant to the discussion of advancing sustainable shorelines: #5 restoring the natural environment; #7 improving government oversight; and #8 creating climate resilience. A focus of the plan was to not only address land use along the waterfront, as was the focus in previous plans, but also issues about the waterways themselves for maritime use and restoration opportunities.

Currently, an update of the local waterfront revitalization program (WRP) is in the process of public re-view, and will address coastal zone management (CZM) policies. It has to be reviewed by all 41 commu-nity boards, borough presidents, City Planning Commission and City Council, as well as the NYS Dept of State and U.S. Dept of Commerce. As part of the update, several new Special Area Designations were created to better reflect the nuances of the NYC Waterfront. For example, Priority Marine Activity Zones have been identified and mapped. In these areas, the WRP policies identify hardened edges that that


should be maintained for maritime uses. Outside of those areas, softer shorelines are encouraged. An-other Special Area Designation is the Recognized Ecological Complexes. Based on a range of ecological and restoration plans and studies, these are areas of significance where restoration efforts should be en-couraged. Policy 6, on flooding and erosion, has been updated, and requires projects to identify and re-duce risks from climate change, sea level rise, storm surge and erosion. The WRP provides municipality-level coastal policies and is nuanced based on what each community wants. The climate vulnerability assessment provides more clarity on what will succeed in permitting, and addresses priorities of the NY state and the federal government.

Once it has been approved by NYC, each project that undergoes consistency review by New York State for the Coastal Zone Management Act must also show consistency with the local NYC WRP policies. This allows for the uniqueness of a community, while upholding consistent state requirements. Policies addressing living shorelines will be addressed in the new CZM document. Rebuilding and resiliency are keys in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.

Another effort by the NYC Department of City Planning is a report entitled Urban Waterfront Adaptive Strategies. This effort was fund through a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant. It was completed in June of 2013. Urban Waterfront Adaptive Strategies provides a systematic assessment of the coastal flood hazards that face New York City, a thorough survey of coastal protection and adaptation strategies that may be suitable for different shore-line and neighborhood types, and a framework for evaluating coastal protection alternatives. The report is intended to serve as a resource for planners, policymakers, and communities within New York City, the region, and elsewhere in the coastal United States. It divides the NYC shoreline into geomorphologi-cal categories based on a number of criteria including uses and provides an inventory of urban strategies. It also presents a range of resiliency strategies for dealing with either event-based or gradual hazards. The document addresses each strategy, how it addresses the relevant hazards, where it is geomorphically applicable as well as its benefits and disadvantages. The analysis takes a broad view of costs and com-pares all co-benefits and challenges of a potential strategy. The work was started before Hurricane Sandy but has become a part of the intellectual backbone of the work done by the Mayor’s office following Sandy.

New Jersey:

Speaker: Jon Miller, Stevens Institute of Technology

The situational overview for New Jersey provided a snapshot of the status of living shorelines in NJ along ocean coasts and bay shores. The primary discussion topics included:

• How the manner in which NJ DEP works with stakeholders/applicants has been evolutionary and is key to moving ahead with sustainable shorelines. The commitment of staff and DEP con-tractor time and flexibility of process has been crucial.

• Monitoring is the big issue—what is the ideal number of sites, types of structures, protocol and length of time for a successful monitoring program? A large site with many components would be a more efficient way to address need for monitoring data, but is expensive. There is a need to think in phases of implementation and be ready to react when funding chances arise. Monitoring protocols need to be straightforward, simple, and repeatable so a credible database can be built.


• Mapping potential sites from an engineering and ecological perspective is vital in order to be ready to take advantage of funding. Additionally, there is a need to move beyond thinking on a permit-by-permit scale and shifting to thinking on a regional level. (What is the analogy to wa-tersheds for shorelines?) The impact on adjacent properties as part of engineering/ecological recommendations must be considered and cannot be one size fits all.

The State of New Jersey developed a shore master plan for state in the 80s, which has not been updated that much, though there could be movement as a result of Superstorm Sandy. Change in the State’s regu-latory approach was prompted by several factors, such as the National Research Council report on shel-tered shorelines and the 2006 living shorelines project (the first in NJ). This project ran into a number of hurdles, and used half of the budget to get through permitting. The process, however, pointed out short-comings in the existing regulation (similar experiences in NY Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines pro-ject also occurred).

Several outcomes resulted from the hurdles faced during the permitting of the 2006 project. NJDEP committed to coordinating state regulation with other oversight agencies and providing outside consult-ing expertise to help applicants understand range of engineering options that could be implemented to meet their objectives. Additionally, there is non-regulatory DEP staff on hand to help applicants triangu-late their objectives/ideas within regulatory framework. Based on these improvements, when there is a "good idea" for a project that includes a treatment that used to be a deal breaker (e.g., cover SAV habitat) regulators will consider allowing that if the articulated benefits outweigh the loss. Review is much more considerate of objectives than it used to be.

A recent case study is based on work initiated by Ocean County in New Jersey, which had plans to redo a park before Sandy. Now Ocean County is looking for post Sandy recovery money to carry out the plans, as well as accomplish other Sandy-related restoration. NJDEP hired Stevens Institute of Technology to develop engineering guidelines for sustainable shorelines projects in NJ, as part of this effort, Stevens has been working with the County. One important effort was a site visit with both County and DEP person-nel, which promoted an exchange of ideas, e.g., need to keep beach, extent of fill, etc. The site visit has sparked continued dialog between County and DEP entities. An issue with stakeholder buy-in is a legacy of bad feelings toward permitting agencies, based on past actions. However, recent changes in the per-mitting process, and actions such as the site visit are changing this outlook.

Delaware Estuary:

Speaker: David Bushek, Rutgers University

Rutgers University with the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary is utilizing ribbed mussels and coconut fiber logs to protect vulnerable marshes in the Delaware Estuary in low energy sites. The mussels serve to stabilize the edge of the shoreline, as they bind to the root structures of the vegetation as well as ferti-lizing it. Frequently, the marsh grass has re-grown behind the coconut fiber logs and they have been very effective in stabilization. During the recent storms, marsh grass and fiber logs have fared well. However, a layer of armored mussels is not developing to the extent initially expected. Scientists are still hoping to see more mussels attach to the vegetative structures. The treatment is only valid in low energy regimes unless there is a sill protecting it. A sampling strategy is needed that will not damage the structure.


The mussels are from hatcheries, but the methods for transporting and installing them at the site need improvement, as spawning and rearing methods have never been developed and they behave differently than more commonly produced oysters and clams. In some cases, oysters are building on top of the mus-sels. A graduate student from Rutgers is currently writing a paper showing that the marsh edge receives protective benefits from mussels in the Delaware Estuary sites.

Some of the issues that were identified deal with how long the treatments are viable. The first treatment was in 2008, and the logs are beginning to degrade, and the eventual outcome is unknown for the project sites. In most of the areas, however, the treatments fared well during the recent storms when they were appro-priately sited (i.e. low energy areas). Further south there are hybrid structures with intertidal oysters that are protecting areas with higher energy regimes. The oysters are moving northward due to climate change. There may be funding for more shoreline projects from the several million dollars going to wildlife ref-uges to recover from Hurricane Sandy. Photo credit - David Bushek

New York New Jersey Harbor: Ecologically Enhanced Shorelines:

Speaker: Kate Boicourt, NY-NJ Harbor & Estuary Program

The NY-NJ Harbor and Estuary Program is in the process of developing a standard protocol for assessing ecologically enhanced shorelines, in order to monitor and compare the habitat benefits of stabilization methods employed in urban areas. They are launching the project “A Standard Protocol for Assessing the Habitat Quality of Ecologically Enhanced Urban Shorelines.” Ultimately the design of the assessment will be used to measure in-place shorelines in the region and provide a standardized protocol for moni-toring and comparing sites. An advisory committee with diverse backgrounds including experts in inver-tebrates and fish and engineers will support the project.

The long-term goal is to have a standard way to measure and encourage shoreline decisions that reduce the negative ecological impact on even our most urban shorelines, and to enhance existing conditions for habitat to the extent feasible. One example was of a project on the Harlem River, which tends towards the more “green” end of the spectrum: there are drilled holes for gastropods to live and tiered heights for plantings and ecological habitats. In urban corridors, it is important to create connectivity for species movement (“snack-bars” for fish as they are migrating).

The short-term costs for design and engineering are very heavy upfront, which may make sustainable shoreline projects unpalatable to many collaborators, but long-term ecological benefits need to be exam-ined. Shoreline sustainability needs to take into account not just structural and ecological sustainability but also long-term resiliency.



IDEAS FOR REGIONAL COLLABORATION PROJECTS

Moderated by Lisa Auermuller, Jacques Cousteau NERR

Objectives:

• Assess opportunities and constraints for implementing ecologically enhanced shorelines projects within the NY, NJ, DE region;

• Discuss data, outreach and resource needs to further advanced living shorelines in NY, NJ, DE region

Based on the recurring themes in the situational overviews as well as the dialogue after the presentations, the workshop planning team identified with five categories for future regional collaborations, as illustrat-ed above: long-term monitoring; demonstration projects; economic considerations (including costs for design, engineering, implementation and maintenance); education of stakeholders; and regulatory struc-tures. Participants were then asked to brainstorm aspects of these five areas, which were captured on flip charts and are summarized.

Long-Term Monitoring:

Long-term monitoring of sustainable shoreline projects was easily identified as a key theme, but critically both the physical project (engineering performance) and its ecological performance must be considered. The lack of an adequate budget was frequently mentioned as the biggest challenge to an effective moni-toring plan (both short- and long-term). Budgets are never sufficient for the project, and monitoring is often the first thing to be cut.

Monitoring is an issue of scales: the database under development by COPRI is one scale, while a detailed case study of a few demonstrations is at the other end. Monitoring should include social and ecological

Sustainable ShorelinesMonitoring

Demonstration Projects

Economic Considerations

Educating Stakeholders

Regulatory

aspects of the projects on a larger scale beyond the project boundaries, both updrift and downdrift, and should be used as a knowledge-building mechanism. An appropriate monitoring program can also be used for evaluation of the effectiveness of the various sustainable shoreline structures.

Regulators are willing to take some risks for demonstration projects. However, the general public would like to see projects that accomplish the mitigation and/or restoration goals for which they were designed. In many cases, regulators and the general project do not have access to such information. Therefore, it is necessary to cultivate a list of success stories for sustainable shorelines. In order to determine success, the goals of the monitoring program must be separated between engineering criteria and ecological en-hancement.

In order to continue prioritizing sustainable shoreline practices, the requirements for regulatory-mandated monitoring should remain minimal. The collection of data to further scientific knowledge should be treated separately. There is a push from the federal Office of Management and Budget to in-clude monitoring in all federally funded projects. It would be advantageous for the core group of shore-line educators, researchers and regulators to develop a set of basic monitoring parameters in order to drive the discussion regarding mandated monitoring. Collectively, there exists the need and want to see and highlight the success of sustainable shorelines projects in the future; a robust monitoring system with a minimal list of parameters was identified as a requirement to determine success and track projects.

In order to develop a long-term monitoring program, a handful of demonstration sites must be selected with a variety of site characteristics and structures. Additionally, a set of basic parameters should be de-veloped collectively by an advisory committee consisting of regulators, engineers, contractors and the public.

Demonstration Projects:

A regional focus for a system of demonstration projects is necessary to assist in selling the concept and provide for increased diversity in the types of projects. The successes in other regions, such as the Gulf Coast, will not necessarily translate to the Mid-Atlantic region. The closer the demonstration sites, the more ownership the general public has towards the concept and makes it easier to gain buy-in from local property owners. Demonstration sites should be considered part of a marketing package to the general public as well as regulators. Well-situated, socially, ecologically, and economically successful demonstra-tions projects will simplify and fast-track buy-in on all levels.

There is a need for both large-scale and small-scale projects; different scales may be based on the location of interest, i.e. a project along the Delaware Bay, Barnegat Bay or along a section of New York City. A regional scale map of potential sites and site characteristics with demonstration projects overlaid is re-quired. It will allow the transfer of structures based on different sites having similar physical characteris-tics. As discussed in the situational overview, COPRI is beginning to create a national database of sites; however, their project is not based on the regional scale, and only provides engineering guidance, not the social or ecological benefits.

Economics/ Design & Engineering & Implementation & Maintenance:

The COPRI database described in the situational overview details the engineering criteria necessary for


sustainable shorelines. However, several issues need to be addressed in addition to what the database provides such as the logistics getting materials to the site, and how to deal with vegetation (how it stabi-lizes a shoreline v. once it grows too large and begins to destabilize the armoring rocks).

One aspect that was agreed upon by all of the participants was the need to map existing shorelines espe-cially in metropolitan regions. Some discussed aspects of a regional map of shorelines were:

• What type of mapping is needed? • Where should be mapped? • What are the mapping targets? • What are the areas of opportunities?

The idea is to start with GIS areal interpretation and a field verification of sites to gather more details. As more groups are encouraged to adopt sustainable shoreline practices, better information can be gathered about whether a particular treatment will succeed and where it should be promoted. Maps will allow a simple visual device for evaluating potential treatments at different sites, i.e. protecting natural habitats such as marshes v. stabilizing a working waterfront. The three states each represent a mixture of envi-ronments where the tactics may be similar, but applied differently.

Education of Stakeholders:

The education of stakeholders on the existing policy and regulatory structures was identified as a key component both in the front-end assessment and during the discussions of the workshop. It is important that stakeholders have an understanding of the path to follow towards gaining a permit for a sustainable shorelines project. Additionally, it is important to create a cycle of utilizing the best available knowledge to create new and relevant policies, and then to use the best policies to identify new areas to research. Followed up by creating decision-support tools to assist in recognizing the best projects.

As a group, the relevant terminology and respective definitions for sustainable shorelines needs to be agreed upon, and then a system of education needs to be implemented. Education methods can be shared within the region. A regional method should include a discussion of the resiliency and ecological benefits of sustainable shorelines, and begin to merge the lessons learned within each state. Furthermore, the education should be targeted to individual stakeholders, i.e., different types of incentives for getting engineers involved in designing projects.

There is a diverse group of relevant stakeholders, not limited to:

• Regulators, • Contractors, • Engineers, • Single and multi- family residential owners, • Municipalities and other public entities, and • Utilities and infrastructure entities.

As mentioned in the regulatory stepping-stones panel, the creation of a general permit, which included sustainable shorelines projects, was a major step forward for the State of New Jersey. Many participants


mentioned that the lessons learned in the process for New Jersey and Delaware would be useful for New York. A case study detailing the challenges and methods by which they were overcome would be benefi-cial, especially if it identified what a sustainable shoreline policy would/could look like in New York. Additionally, having a specific project to highlight, as a success, is vital for changing the permitting pro-cess.

For the public, it would be beneficial to hold a conference to discuss the most expedient way to get a permit, i.e., which steps in the design process would assist in streamlining the permitting process. The goal would be to demonstrate which projects work and those that do not, both in meeting engineering and ecological goals as well as in successfully moving through the permitting process. One participant mentioned that Connecticut is interested in sustainable shoreline projects as well. Educational methods, especially, can be shared between regions beyond NY, NJ, and DE.

Regulatory Approach:

The primary conclusion of the discussion on regulatory approaches was the need to make regulators a consistent part of the conversation for new and ongoing sustainable shoreline projects. The participants all agree that involving the regulators early is beneficial. However, the lack of the federal regulators at the workshop due to the federal shutdown limited the ability to discuss widespread applicability of dif-ferent structure types. Additionally, it would be helpful to discuss the differences between the states and the way in which regulators enforce the existing regulations, and how modifications are made. (Are pro-jects being hindered by the uncertainty of success or issues of cost?) This type of discussion is necessary at the municipal, county, state and federal level. A follow-up comment was the issue of presenting in-formation to regulators and a need to improve the level of clarity, especially through clearly defined and agreed upon terminology. This, however, included both information presented by and to regulators.

As a follow-up to a discussion of the enforcement of existing regulations, an educational “field-trip” for regulators to see the projects and their installation was suggested. Representatives from Stevens Institute of Technology indicated that the presence of NJ DEP personnel at a site inspection made a positive differ-ence down the line in the permitting process. Based on this, Stevens was asked to conduct a training sem-inar for both regulators and contractors on sheltered shorelines and their implementation. The partici-pants agreed that a similar seminar for engineers and landscaping architects to get everyone on the same page would be beneficial.


CONCLUSION

The planning team constructed the workshop to be an opportunity to foster connections and contacts with neighboring states for sustainable shoreline projects. Unfortunately, the workshop took place one week into the federal shutdown, and federal employees were unable to attend as either speakers or par-ticipants. In spite of this, a productive meeting was held with a series of presentations and engaging dis-cussion sessions. As identified in both the front-end assessment and the meeting the region shares many goals for living shorelines as well as similar challenges and struggles. By facilitating the workshop, a core group of shoreline educations, researchers and regulators were able to “sit down at the same table”, and learn what each other are doing, and share strategies and approaches for overcoming local issues.

Setting the Stage

As a part of the transfer project, the planning team conducted a front-end assessment where a variety of different shoreline stakeholders in NY, NJ, and DE were interviewed to help assess the current state of shoreline information and future needs in the region. Words such as natural, habitat, erosion control, and ecology were used by nearly all of the stakeholders during the interviews. Regardless of the exact defini-tions, the region shared quite a few of the same principles and common goals relating to sustainable shorelines. Based on feedback from this process, the workshop included conversations on any sustaina-ble shoreline method, which provide habitat enhancement and protection from coastal erosion.

The Hudson River Research Reserve considers living shorelines as just one possibility in a spectrum of shoreline techniques, which feature natural components. As such, the term sustainable shorelines began to gain traction. Due to the unique physical characteristics of the Hudson River—ice, wakes, waves and varying salinity—and the need to account for, and maintain, working waterfronts, solutions must pre-serve or enhance the ecological benefits of the area while also meeting engineering needs.

The Hudson River Research Reserve attempts to help stakeholders weigh their options by providing the necessary background information to make well-informed decisions. For example, engineers from Ste-vens Institute of Technology have assessed the lifetime costs of ecologically enhanced shorelines, includ-ing maintenance and upkeep. The engineers from Stevens have also completed an analysis of a dozen different engineered shoreline approaches and their various tradeoffs. The HRNERR also utilizes real life examples, through the development of a demonstration site network, to educate stakeholders and engi-neers on the utilization and design of sustainable shoreline projects along the Hudson River.

Key Takeaways and Synergies

By the end of the workshop, several key themes were identified that had been mentioned throughout the presentations, “speed dating” sessions, and final facilitated discussion led by Lisa Auermuller. Each state identified similar concerns for:

• Long-term monitoring standards; • Additional demonstration projects; • Information on economic costs; • Stakeholder education; and • Better regulatory protocols.


Monitoring

Establishing long-term monitoring can help assess two important components of sustainable shorelines: =

• Existing ecological services and those created and/or enhanced by a sustainable shorelines pro-ject; and

• Information on the long-term stability of shoreline techniques, i.e. engineering criteria.

A mechanism for sharing the lessons learned from a demonstration site network and a concurrent moni-toring program would enable the region to collectively strengthen the existing knowledge of best man-agement practices. Developing a region-wide consistent set of “important” parameters would assist comparisons between ecosystems as well as states. Specifically, but not limited to the monitoring discus-sions, funding was identified as a barrier for implementation of sustainable shorelines.

DemonstrationProjects

Landowners and regulators are more likely to buy-into techniques and approaches that have a demon-strated track record of success in nearby locations. Based on this and other reasons, there is a need for more regionally, relevant projects, to use as potential marketing and educational devices for stakeholders. As mentioned in the situational overview, projects that allow for site visits are valuable, in allowing first hand encounters to improve individual understanding of how living shorelines function and are de-signed. Sharing detailed information on the planning process, design, successes and failures of ecologi-cally enhanced shorelines projects helps other stakeholders, engineers and landscape architects learn from each other within each ecosystem as well as regionally. Therefore, establishing a methodology for sharing the information gathered from demonstration sites is as important as adding new sites. One such method is the COPRI database, though its primary purpose is for engineering-specific variables.

CostConsiderations

Typically, when the cost a shoreline project is examined, the focus is on the cost of construction and in-stallation. The cost of maintenance and repair is typically not considered. Information regarding the to-tal cost of a project needs to be compiled and compared between multiple approaches. A number of fac-tors are critical when evaluating which shoreline management technique is utilized and is a balancing act of priorities. For example, initially, bulkheads and rip-rap techniques appear more financially feasible due to lower construction costs; however, there are other non-monetary costs to be considered, such as the impact to the ecosystem, and user preferences.

Education

Education for stakeholders is essential for the advancement shoreline projects. Each topic discussed dur-ing the course of the workshop included some level of an education component. The variety of stake-holder involved in sustainable shorelines projects necessitates a nuanced approach to each group with varying levels of background knowledge. Simultaneously, getting each group of stakeholders on the same page (or the region) is important. One aspect of this challenge is identifying a universal set of ter-minology and respective definitions. Encouraging and improving the dialogue between different stake-holders can help break through some of the typical barriers faced with living or ecologically enhanced shorelines, such as the development of the general permit in New Jersey.


Regulatory

There are clearly differences in state regulatory approaches, but participants agreed this was not neces-sarily a limiting factor for collaborating on the other aforementioned needs for sustainable shorelines. In fact, learning about the different state approaches during the workshop gave many of the participants’ ideas on ways their state could improve the permitting process and their regulatory programs.

The Steps Forward:

Throughout the meeting, several steps forward were identified. Due to the federal shutdown, the regula-tory panel did not include any of the relevant federal agencies, such as the Army Corps of Engineers. There was universal agreement that a follow-up meeting should occur in which all of the regulatory enti-ties could be involved in a discussion on how the existing regulations and policies work together. As such, the planning committee convened a webinar on February 10, 2014 to share information with federal staff who could not attend the in-person event because of the federal shutdown and included a summary of the Mid-Atlantic Living Shorelines Summit. The agenda, presentations, an archived copy of the webi-nar can be found at: http://www.hrnerr.org/sustainable-shorelines-follow-up-webinar-for-ny-nj-de/.

In addition, to the follow-up meeting with federal staff, the group also identified several other steps for-ward:

• The extension and replication of studies and protocols in other states and regions would be bene-ficial.

• There was strong participant interest in work groups and future collaboration opportunities. • Working collaboratively builds the capacity of the region to advance living shorelines. • An educational “field-trip” for regulators to see the projects and their installation was suggested,

similar to that conducted in Ocean County, NJ.

Furthermore, pending the results of the NFWF funding, the planning team will re-engage and find new opportunities to collaborate within the region.


http://www.hrnerr.org/sustainable-shorelines-follow-up-webinar-for-ny-nj-de/

APPENDIX A: TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ACOE Army Corps of Engineers CICEET The Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology COCA Coastal and Ocean Climate Applications (Funding source from NOAA Climate Program

Office) COPRI Coasts, Oceans, Ports and Rivers Institute CZM Coastal Zone Management DE Delaware DE DNRC Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control DOI US Department of the Interior FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GIS Geographic Information Systems HRNERR Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve HRSSP Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project IMCS Institute of Marine and Coastal Science MHW Mean High Water MLW Mean Low Water NEIWPCC New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission NERRS National Estuarine Research Reserve System NJ New Jersey NJ DEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NSC NERRS Science Collaborative NY New York NYC New York City NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NYSDOS New York State Department of State SAGE Systems Approach to Geomorphologic Engineering SCA Student Conservation Association

SLR Sea Level Rise SUNY State University of New York TNC The Nature Conservancy USACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USGS United States Geological Survey


APPENDIX B: PARTICIPANTS

Attendee Position Organization Tricia Arndt Environmental Scientist Delaware Coastal Management

Program Jill Aspinwall Environmental Specialist NJ Department of Environmental

Protection Lisa Auermuller Watershed Coordinator Jacques Cousteau National Estua-

rine Research Reserve Mark Biddle Environmental Scientist Delaware Dept. of Natural Re-

sources and Environmental Control Watershed Assessment

Betsy Blair Manager NYS DEC Hudson River NERR Kate Boicourt Restoration Coordinator NY-NJ Harbor & Estuary Program Brian Boutin Director of Conservation Programs The Nature Conservancy in Dela-

ware David Bushek Director/Associate Professor Rutgers - Haskin Shellfish Research

Lab Jim Chaconas Environmental Scientist Delaware Dept. of Natural Re-

sources and Environmental Control Arthur Coppola Refuge Manager US Fish & Wildlife Service-Prime

Hook National Wildlife Refuge Mike De Luca Associate Director Rutgers Institute of Marine &

Coastal Sciences and JCNERR Patty Doerr Director of Coastal and Marine

Programs The Nature Conservancy in New Jersey

Jessica Fain Planner New York City Department of City Planning

Jenna Gatto Field Tech Reservist Barnegat Bay Partnership Emilie Hauser Coastal Training Program Coordi-

nator NYS DEC Hudson River NERR and NEIWPCC

Lyndie Hice-Dunton

Research Coordinator Delaware National Estuarine Re-search Reserve

Steven Jacobus Section Chief NJ Department of Environmental Protection

Ginger Kopkash Manager NJDEP Land Use Management Annabella Larsen

Wildlife Biologist US Fish & Wildlife Service-Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge

Dolores Leonard Communications Director NERRS Science Collaborative Elizabeth Livermont

PhD Candidate Stevens Institute of Technology

Kristin Marcell Special Project Coordinator NYS DEC /Cornell University Martha Max-well-Doyle

Deputy Director Barnegat Bay Partnership

Jon Miller Research Assistant Professor Stevens Institute of Technology


Andrew Rella Ph. D. Graduate Student Stevens Institute of Technology Alison Rogerson Environmental Scientist Delaware Dept. of Natural Re-

sources and Environmental Control Bill Shadel Associate Director NEIWPCC - IEC District Dave Strayer Freshwater Ecologist Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies Jay Tanski Sr. Coastal Processes Specialist New York Sea Grant Christina Tobitsch

Estuary Stewardship Educator NYS DEC Hudson River NERR and Student Conservation Association

Debbie Voelbel Environmental Specialist 3 NJDEP Bureau of Coastal Engineer-ing

Due to the federal shutdown, the following individuals were unable to attend at the last minute:

Kate Alcoba US Army Corps of Engineers NY District

Carl Alderson NOAA Restoration Center

Adrienne An-toine

NOAA

Edward Bonner US Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District

Charles Chestnutt

US Army Corps of Engineers / SAGE

Arthur Coppola US Fish & Wildlife Service-Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge

Karen Greene NOAA NMFS Habitat Conservation Division

Michael Hayduk US Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District

Annabella Larsen

US Fish & Wildlife Service-Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge

Jodi McDonald US Army Corps of Engineers NY District


APPENDIX C: EVALUATION RESPONSES

Question 1: Participating in this event was a good use of my time.

Answer Responses Strongly Agree 8 Agree 8 Unsure Disagree Strongly Disagree

Please explain: • I learned so much about what other states are doing, and I was able to transfer results of our HR sustainable

Shorelines Project • Well organized. Good amount of learning new things and sharing of ideas • Learned a lot and made valuable new contacts • Good to make contacts with others working on various aspects of shore management • Strongly agree, needed regional coordination • It was especially beneficial to figure out tactics the states are taking on living shorelines • I learned more about what’s going on and got to meet practitioners • Both for new info and networking • The forum allowed me to step back and look at the big picture including factors related to policy decisions

and citizen outreach/input. • It was incredibly important to network and build a common knowledge and terminology with those work-

ing on similar issues in our region • Networking with colleagues and discussing opportunities and lessons learned is always of benefit • Glad to see DE and NJ are moving forward • Communication is critical for the advancement of "sustainable shorelines" concepts in the state of New Jer-

sey, therefore any event that encourages us all to work and share our ideas is valuable

Question 2: How much has this event increased your knowledge and understanding of innovative shore-line projects and research happening in NY, NJ, and DE? (Circle one)

Answer Responses

A great deal 3 A lot 7 Some 5 A little Not at all

Please explain: • Changes in policy in NJ/DE. Informal conversations with other participants • Was aware of many already • A lot, especially in other states • Already aware of most issues, but good to hear what others are doing • I was aware of some of the initiatives, but it was great to see some of the different approaches in NY • Great to see examples of successful projects


• To date much of my experience was visiting websites, which doesn't compare with actually talking to the people involved.

• Was complete unaware of DE, LI, & NYC work prior • Realized some of the drawbacks to too much regulation or bureaucratic processes • I think it more helped increase my knowledge/understanding of the interests of programs within our re-

gions> what is the range of uses (rural, suburban, waterfront) and how that affects the strategy. We have a real diversity of shoreline conditions and it’s helpful to see the full range/way of communication, education, and incentivizing sustainable shorelines.

• There were techniques and innovative ideas and policies/ regulatory and incentives that were helpful • Learned about general permit in New Jersey, cost share in Delaware, barriers to installation in Long Island

Tidal wetlands

Question 3: Did you learn something you will apply to your work or future decisions? (Circle one)

Answer Responses Yes 14

No

Maybe 2

Prefer not to answer/Not applicable

Please explain: • One example is the use of coir logs and bivalve shells, to pilot a mash stabilization project at Piermont

Marsh in the HR like that being done in Delaware • Connections, precedent research. • Lessons learned from others • This more point to the economic argument for living shorelines • Helped to see array of "needs" when it comes to a living shorelines "framework" • This program gave me a lot of food for thought to focus a lot of topics for developing the program in NJ • Solicit more citizen input • Absolutely engaging the potential uses/ implementing landowners, engineers, and regulators. • The outreach materials provided as examples were very helpful. Will consult there for guidance and consid-

er developing state specific documents. • Info gained from other states will be used to facilitate efforts in my state • I will use some of terms shared today in future regulatory changes. • Follow up with methodology of shorelines categorization in New York City. Possibly follow up with barri-

ers in Long Island.

Question 4: Please take a moment to think about all the sessions and activities of this workshop (Hudson River Sustainable Shoreline Overview, Comparative Cost Analysis, Regulatory Panel Discussion, Situa-tion Overview, Ideas for Regional Collaboration, etc.) and share what you thought was most effective and useful for you and what needed improvement.

• I appreciated the Regulatory Panel Discussion the most and getting a better understand of both the ultimate regulations in NJ and DE created and the process and motivations that spurred the process

• All parts of meeting were valuable to me • Was skeptical of breakout/ speed dating but found they were valuable • The most useful part was the discussion of the comparative cost analysis as this was identified as a major

hurdle to the institutionalization of these techniques. Unfortunately, federal partners were absent and their input was missed (not the fault of the organizers)

• Great mix of PowerPoints and discussion


• The "speed dating" session was a great way to follow lunch and avoid the carb crash… and get some new in-fo in nearly on situation

• It was very educational to hear how regulatory program are managed in other states including the envi-ronmental impact concerns faced by other states. It would be helpful to have the COE involved in future workshops.

• The final discussion and overview of intent of the workshop were really productive in that I think they help us foster potential partnerships. In an ideal world, it would be great to get out some example sites, as a plat-form for discussion, though that can be a real challenge to do in a single day. Having the day ending with a discussion of group objectives is likely to make this network last beyond a single day (and helps to speak ideas for group proposals) Thank you!

• The regulatory panel discussion and overview was interesting and more time should have been allowed for this session to allow more questions and discussion

• There was a strong adherence to meeting the goals of transferring knowledge. We are in the early stages of enabling sustainable shorelines so the cost analysis and project challenges were the most useful to hear. I think the regulatory panel could have had a lot more discussion if time had allowed.

• Regulatory panel discussion was very useful. Would have liked to have been able to go to more situational overview presentations.



APPENDIX D: REFERENCES AND RESOURCES

COPRI

Coasts, Oceans, Ports, and Rivers Institute, an Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers). A da-tabase of existing living shorelines projects around the United States. http://mycopri.org/

DELSI

Delaware Estuary Living Shorelines Initiative. Pilot project designed to stabilize eroding shorelines of tidal marshes. http://www.delawareestuary.org/Living_Shorelines NJDEP Regulatory Program

NewJerseyCoastalGeneralPermit29

http://www.nj.gov/dep/landuse/coastal/cp_gp29.html NewYorkCityDepartmentofCityPlanning 2013. A guide indentifying and evaluating potential strate-gies for waterfront in the face of climate change and sea level rise. Urban Waterfront Adaptive Strategies

Workshop Related Resources

Front‐EndAssessment

Tobitsch et al. (2014). Findings of a Pre- Conference Assessment of Shoreline Stakeholders in Sheltered Waters of New York, New Jersey and Delaware, In association with and published by the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project, Staatsburg, NY 12580. http://www.hrnerr.org/estuary-training/trainingtopic/regional-dialogue-nynjde

Speakers’PresentationsandOtherResources

Regional (NY-NJ-DE) Dialogue to Advance Sustainable Shorelines along Sheltered Coasts http://www.hrnerr.org/estuary-training/trainingtopic/regional-dialogue-nynjde

SituationalOverviewPresentationsandResources

...... Hudson River ...... http://www.hrnerr.org/download/sustainable_shorelines/NYNJDEDemoSitePoster.pdf ...... Long Island & COPRI ...... http://www.hrnerr.org/download/training/Tanski_NERRS_2013.pdf ...... http://mycopri.org/ ...... NYC and Harbor ...... http://hrnerr.org/download/training/Assessment_urban%20shorelines.pdf ...... New Jersey ...... http://hrnerr.org/download/training/NJ%20Living%20Shorelines%20Past,%20Present,%20Future.pdf

http://mycopri.org/

http://www.delawareestuary.org/Living_Shorelines

http://www.nj.gov/dep/landuse/coastal/cp_gp29.html

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/sustainable_communities/sustain_com7.shtml



http://www.hrnerr.org/download/sustainable_shorelines/NYNJDEDemoSitePoster.pdf

http://www.hrnerr.org/download/training/Tanski_NERRS_2013.pdf

http://mycopri.org/

http://hrnerr.org/download/training/Assessment_urban%20shorelines.pdf

http://hrnerr.org/download/training/NJ%20Living%20Shorelines%20Past,%20Present,%20Future.pdf


...... Delaware Estuary ...... http://hrnerr.org/download/training/DELSI%20Factsheet_Final_2011%20v2.doc ...... http://delawareestuary.org/Living_Shorelines ...... NY-NJ Harbor and Estuary Program: Ecologically Enhanced Shorelines ...... http://www.hrnerr.org/download/training/Assessment_urban%20shorelines.pdf WebinarFollow‐up to Regional (NY-NJ-DE) Dialogue to Advance Sustainable Shorelines along Sheltered Coasts Presentations and archived webinar held on February 10, 2014 http://www.hrnerr.org/sustainable-shorelines-follow-up-webinar-for-ny-nj-de/

http://hrnerr.org/download/training/DELSI%20Factsheet_Final_2011%20v2.doc

http://delawareestuary.org/Living_Shorelines

http://www.hrnerr.org/download/training/Assessment_urban%20shorelines.pdf

http://www.hrnerr.org/sustainable-shorelines-follow-up-webinar-for-ny-nj-de/

proceedings regional (ny-nj-de) dialogue to advance sustainable shorelines along sheltered coasts

Documents

hudson river valley

hudson river estuary

sustainable shorelines

regional nyny

proceedings regional

reservebased science

kelly valencik delaware

christina tobitsch of