Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project

Phase I: Mitigating Shoreline Erosion along the Hudson River

Estuarys Sheltered Coasts

A Final Report Submitted to

The NOAA/UNH Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine
Environmental Technology (CICEET)

Project Start Date: August 1, 2008

Submitted by: Elizabeth A. Blair
Manager, Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve &
Regional Marine Habitat Manager
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Norrie Point Environmental Center
P.O. Box 315, Staatsburg, New York 12580

January 22, 2013









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



1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 5
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Introduction: The Need for Information to Guide Effective Management and Restoration ....... 6
Organization of this Report ......................................................................................................... 6
Project Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 7
Objective 1: Establish a formal structure for project management and team collaboration ... 7
Objective 2: Evaluate and compare ecological functions of six types of natural and
engineered shoreline present in the Hudson Estuary. ......................................................... 8
Objective 3: Develop more accurate regional projections of climate impacts ...................... 12
Objective 4: Conduct an engineering analysis to evaluate selected shore ................................
protection measures .......................................................................................................... 13
Objective 5: Characterize the short- and long-term costs of different shoreline hardening, .....
vegetated approaches and land use management measures used to control erosion. ....... 14
Objective 6: Characterize legal framework and identify legal and ...........................................
regulatory opportunities for enhancing shoreline protection ............................................ 16
Objective 7: Involve stakeholders through collaboration and outreach ................................ 18

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

4. APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 25
Appendix 1: Literature Cited .................................................................................................... 25
Appendix 2: Coordinating Team Members .............................................................................. 27
Appendix 3: Deliverables ......................................................................................................... 28
Appendix 4: Shorelines Project Milesones ............................................................................... 30
Appendix 5: Presentations to Professional Audiences at Conferences and Meetings .............. 32











2
1. EXPANDED EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS

This final report for Phase 1 of the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project, Mitigating
Shoreline Erosion along the Hudson River Estuarys Sheltered Coasts, describes collaborative
research and outreach that characterized the needs of a variety of shoreline decision-makers;
identified ecological, engineering, and economic tradeoffs among different shoreline treatments;
and conveyed key results to a suite of decision makers. Project partners included the Stevens
Institute of Technology, the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, the NYS DEC Hudson River
Estuary Program, the NYS DEC Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve, and the
Consensus Building Institute.

Coastal Resource Issue: The vital shoreline, intertidal, and vegetated shallow habitats of the 152-
mile Hudson River estuary are at risk from impending shoreline changes associated with
development, sea level rise, increased flooding and storm surge, and human efforts to prevent
erosion and flooding of shoreline properties. Changes in shoreline are imminent as old structures
become unstable (Doyle et al. 2008), public and private agencies invest in waterfront
revitalization (Eisenman et al. 2010), and development pressure continues along the shoreline.
Climate change imposes new stresses on the shoreline. Projected sea level rise by 2080 of 41-55
inches under the rapid ice melt scenario (Rosenzweig et al. 2011) and increased flooding from
more intense rain storms and ocean-driven storm surges have made shorelines a ground zero
for policy-makers and the public who will be dealing with both erosion and inundation
challenges. Rises of this magnitude will lead property owners along the tidal Hudson and other
coastal waters to either build, repair, or modify shoreline protection structures to protect their
properties (Titus et al. 1991, Nicholls et al. 1999, Titus and Richman 2001), or to choose
alternative strategies.

Study Area: This project focused on sites and conditions in the upper 127 miles of the Hudson
River estuary, from the Troy Dam south to the Tappan Zee Bridge, where water salinity and
biological communities range from freshwater tidal to brackish. In this region shorelines are
regularly subjected to tidal and river currents, wind-driven waves, ice scour, and the wakes of
recreational boats and large commercial vessels, and periodically inundated by flooding and
storm surge. To combat erosion and accommodate working waterfronts, roughly 41 percent of
the waters edge in the project area has been reinforced with riprap revetment, bulkhead, or
cribbing, some of which is failing. Many riverfront communities are grappling with more
frequent flooding and how to protect infrastructure, public access, tourism and commercial
enterprises.

Relevance to Problem: This project generated estuary-specific scientific information and
analytical results, advancing the state of our knowledge of Hudson River shoreline ecology and
habitat functions, ecological tradeoffs of various shoreline modifications, applicability of
shoreline protection methods in the Hudson Estuary, the relative costs of various methods, and
the decision maker and legal landscape. This information has been and will be used to inform
community planning, regulatory decision-making, and professional practices related to decisions
about shoreline treatments.


3
Technology and Innovation: Unlike many other CICEET-funded projects, this work was not
broadly focused on testing a specific technology or innovation. Instead, this project relied on
established social science, ecological and engineering research methods. However, some
elements of the work were innovative, including a new approach for estimating life-cycle costs
of shoreline treatments. We also demonstrated user-driven research collaboration in our region
by creating a formal structure conducive to collaboration, and by building on a tradition of multi-
disciplinary collaboration on Hudson River habitat protection. The formal structure consists of a
project Coordinating Team and two advisory panels. The perspectives of all organizations
represented on the team and panels carried equal weight in their respective bodies. We worked
together to refine and accomplish the milestones and to make revisions as necessary. We used
several means of communication and operated according to a set of mutually accepted principles,
cultivated consensus in our decision-making, developed a clear and accessible communications
structure, and agreed on roles, responsibilities, and expectations. This approach has been very
favorably received by our intended users, and is being emulated in other projects.

Transferability: Many elements of this project are transferable to other areas. The ecological
research methods used in the comparative field analysis of six types of shoreline on the Hudson
can be used in other places. The shoreline life-cycle cost analysis, which was devised to
compare the capital and maintenance costs over an extended period of time factoring in rising
sea levels, can be used elsewhere. The literature review of freshwater shoreline ecology is
transferable to anywhere with freshwater shorelines, including non-coastal environments,
estuaries with freshwater tidal conditions, and the Great Lakes. The literature review of
engineered shoreline treatments is readily transferable to a wide audience.

Technical and Non-technical Barriers: Several barriers deter the application of innovative
shoreline management technologies by our intended users. Engineers and regulators need
evidence that innovative approaches will perform satisfactorily under the conditions in the
Hudson. Community decision-making processes gain momentum quickly, so there is a need to
intervene early in the process. Detailed guidance is needed about specific structural refinements
that can enhance ecological function of shoreline treatments and/or increase structural stability
under future conditions. A persistent lack of awareness of sea level rise projections, changing
flood zones, and other impacts of a changing climate slows adoption. Phase 2 of this project was
designed to remedy many of these barriers and challenges.

Intended Users of Project Results: Our project results have been and will be used by a range of
intended users, including property owners, policy-makers, government regulators, consultants,
experts, and advocates. Property owners are municipal and state land owners and land
conservancies. Policy-makers include government officials who influence policy and decisions
on shoreline regulation, climate adaptation, and investments in shoreline infrastructure and
community revitalization. The primary intended users in this category are the people most
directly involved in making climate adaptation policy in New York State (NYS), including staff
of the NYS Department of State (DOS) Coastal Resources Division; NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC); State Emergency Management Office; and NYS Energy
Research Development Agency. Officials (elected and appointed officials, volunteer boards, and
staff) of the 79 municipalities along the Hudson River Estuary also make important decisions
about shorelines in their communities, and may enact local ordinances that factor in the findings

4
of this project. Government regulators are users, including staff of several federal agencies
(ACOE, EPA, USFWS, NMFS); DEC permit, natural resource, and environmental quality staff
who review projects pursuant to state law and/or who negotiate shoreline remediation projects;
DOS staff who conduct coastal consistency reviews; and municipal code officers. Consulting
engineers, landscape architects, planners, scientists, attorneys and advocates who advise and
influence shoreline policies and decisions are also among our intended users.

Shared Credit: The majority of this work was underwritten by the NOAA-funded Cooperative
Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET). Portions of the work
were partly or entirely funded by other sources, including the ecological literature review
(NOAA), ecological research (Hudson River Foundation and Hudson River Estuary Program),
and scenario planning (the Nature Conservancy and partners). We relied on the timely work of
others for climate projections of sea level rise and storm surge, and redirected CICEET funding
originally included for these purposes to other project needs.

Key Findings:
Ecological Findings: Shorelines are better thought of as shore zones, including the upland, shore
edge, and near-shore aquatic environments as they are interconnected and interdependent.
Freshwater shore zones perform and provide a wide variety of ecological functions, including
energy diffusion; habitat for terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates, invertebrates and plants; nutrient
transformation; and others. Different shoreline treatments have different ecological functions,
and these do not vary in parallel. Vertical shorelines have reduced ecological value. Wrack is an
important component of ecologically valuable shorelines.

Engineering Findings: There are diverse options for managing shorelines, including well-studied
traditional techniques (although the ecology of these is generally poorly known) and less
traditional ecologically-enhanced and/or soft shorelines (which, in general, are less well studied
than traditional shoreline treatments). To our knowledge, this is the first study to estimate site-
specific life-cycle costs of shorelines treatments, factoring in future sea level rise and storm
projections. Life cycle cost calculations, including construction, maintenance, and replacement
costs operating costs, for ten shoreline treatments at three sites along the Hudson River Estuary,
indicated that ecologically enhanced shorelines were cost-competitive with traditional structures.

Legal and Regulatory Findings: Many legal, regulatory and land use avenues exist for effecting
changes in management of shorelines and erosion control. Federal and state regulators have a
need for regionally-specific scientific studies about shoreline options, and have a strong desire
for demonstration sites that will show feasibility, cost, and performance of alternate treatments.

Transfer Findings
Our intended users are eager to have information from this phase of the project, as well as
additional information about tradeoffs among management practices in the context of Hudson
River conditions. Interest is very high following high waters, flooding, and winds associated
with large storms Irene, Lee, and Sandy. All users wish to see demonstration sites and
associated information about site conditions and performance.


5
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Abstract: This collaborative research project constituted Phase 1 of the Hudson River
Sustainable Shorelines Project (www.hrnerr.org/hudson-river-sustainable-shorelines), which
connected ecologists, engineers, natural resource managers and shoreline decision-makers to
identify the best choices for preventing erosion along the Hudson River Estuary in ways that
preserve shoreline ecological functions, are cost-effective when long-term risks are factored in,
and are adaptable to the projected rising sea levels and increased flooding from climate change.

Phase 1 of the project was focused on shorelines in the upper 125 miles of the 152-mile Hudson
River Estuary, from the Tappan Zee Bridge (River Mile 27) north to the Federal Dam at Troy
(River Mile 152). The shoreline is about half natural and half engineered.

The project included studies of shoreline ecology, shoreline engineering alternatives and their
costs, the legal and regulatory framework for shoreline management, and factors that influence
the decision-making process. The Coordinating Team for this phase included natural and social
scientists, engineers, natural resource managers, communicators, and consensus building experts.
We undertook all aspects of this work using a collaborative approach, wherein our intended users
were included as key players in the research design, evaluation, and application. Our researchers
worked with each other and intended users to identify the highest priority information needs,
most useful products, and best communication modes. Our intended users participated in
advisory committees, working groups, focus groups, surveys, and case studies.

The shoreline ecology studies included a comprehensive synthesis of published literature on
ecological functions of freshwater shore zones, as well as a comparative field analysis of six
types of shoreline, focusing on the shoreline physical attributes and habitat functions of selected
biota. Ecological attributes varied widely with shoreline type, and ecological functions did not
vary in parallel. We identified a set of shoreline attributes that could be manipulated to enhance
function, and determined there was a need for finer scale studies of these attributes.

Two engineering studies were completed. The first was a review of published literature about
shoreline structures, with a ranking of each treatments hardness, construction cost, maintenance
cost, and adaptability to climate change. The second was a comparative cost analysis of ten shore
protection approaches at three sites under two sea level rise scenarios over a 70-year period. The
results showed that at most sites there are ecologically enhanced approaches for which the
lifecycle costs are relatively similar to traditional approaches.

We commissioned a study to characterize the existing legal and regulatory framework governing
shoreline management and to identify opportunities for fostering best management practices
based on the results of the Sustainable Shorelines Project.

Needs assessments, outreach activities and social science research was planned and conducted
throughout the entire project in order to refine research questions, engage intended users,
understand real-world shoreline planning conditions, refine outreach products and strategies, and
evaluate progress and success.


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

Shorelines are among the most ecologically important, anthropogenically modified, and highly
valued parts of aquatic ecosystems, yet their ecological functions are often not understood well
enough to guide effective management and restoration. Shorelines provide a wide range of
ecological functions as habitats, parts of habitat complexes, edges between terrestrial and aquatic
realms, and corridors for dispersal. Humans have been drawn to shorelines since prehistoric
times, with the consequence that shorelines in inhabited areas often are highly modified. About
half of the natural shoreline of the Hudson River Estuary has been replaced by riprap, sheet pile,
wooden or concrete bulkheads, or other engineered structures which provide little ecological
value. This is a typical pattern along many coasts throughout the world. Shoreline restoration
often is one of the most feasible alternatives for the restoration of degraded aquatic ecosystems,
and is being considered for sites along the Hudson and elsewhere.

Another important impetus for developing better guidance for shoreline modification is sea-level
rise and other effects of global climate change. The estimated sea-level rise of 41-55 inches
(rapid ice melt scenario) by 2080 (Rosenzweig et al. 2011) along the Hudson River Estuary will
lead property owners along the tidal Hudson and other coastal waters to build, repair, or modify
structures along the shore to protect their properties. These structures are typically installed for at
least 30 years, but have often lasted well beyond their stated design life. However, with rapidly
changing conditions, a new paradigm may be in order to promote installation of structures that
can adapt over time, or those that can be replaced more frequently to adapt to changing
circumstances and still provide ecological value/function. Calculations of life cycle costs need to
factor in the changing risks, water levels, and physical forces in order to more accurately guide
public and private investments in these structures.

Around the world, people are struggling to come to terms with a rapidly changing climate future.
Our efforts to develop guidance for effective shoreline management and restoration will only be
as effective as we are in developing useful, relevant information, building confidence and trust in
the results, and working to influence the people making shoreline decisions. As a result, there is
a need for us to understand their needs and interests, their past behaviors and current
motivations, and their preferences for learning about these results. A growing body of evidence
suggests that this is most effectively accomplished through a process of collaborative research
and learning wherein intended users work closely with researchers from the outset to define and
refine the work.

Organization of this Report

This project included four main components: shoreline ecology studies, assessments of
engineering alternatives and costs, social science investigations (economic, legal and human
dimensions) and engagements with our intended users. This report uses the original seven
objectives to discuss these four components. The methods and results are discussed under each
objective.




7
Project Objectives

We seek to advance a future where decision-makers possess and apply the best available
information on shoreline management practices as they seek to protect, for future generations,
the shore zones wildlife habitat, ecological benefits, outdoor recreation, community quality of
life, and water-dependent businesses.

Our project included seven objectives:
Objective 1: Establish a formal structure for project management and team collaboration
Objective 2: Evaluate and compare ecological functions of six types of natural and engineered
shoreline present in the Hudson Estuary.
Objective 3: Develop more accurate regional projections of climate impacts.
Objective 4: Conduct an engineering analysis to evaluate selected shore protection measures
Objective 5: Characterize the short- and long-term costs of different shoreline hardening,
vegetating approaches, and land use management measures used to control erosion.
Objective 6: Characterize legal framework and identify legal and regulatory opportunities for
enhancing shoreline protection
Objective 7: Involve stakeholders through collaboration and outreach

Methods and Results by Objective

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

The Sustainable Shorelines Project established a framework of three linked groups: Coordinating
Team, Project Team, and Advisory Committee, each serving different functions essential for
project completion. The integration lead, Consensus Building Institute (CBI), served as a neutral
facilitator and worked to keep these three groups productive, efficient, and fair. CBI staff helped
the Principal Investigator (PI) and Coordinating Team effectively engage stakeholders, conduct
meetings and focus groups, and strategically steer the project.

The Coordinating Team included a small core group of project leaders to guide all aspects of the
project. Members include representatives from the Reserve and the Hudson River Estuary
Program, researchers from Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies and Stevens Institute of
Technology, and the CBI (see Appendix 2 for list of members). The Coordinating Team held
regular conference calls and in person meetings.
The Project Team included the Coordinating Team and other researchers and natural resource
managers doing project-related work. These included experts in local laws, representatives from
environmental non-profits who work on the Hudson, and staff from several state agencies
engaged in coastal management and climate change. The Project Team met annually. This team
had the ability to provide insightful technical review of work products done under the project.
Sub-groups including outreach planning, engineering-ecology, and geospatial information were
also convened multiple times to coordinate and shape interdisciplinary work, test ideas, evaluate
progress, and share results and products.

8
The Shorelines Advisory Committee consisted of over two dozen representatives of a broad
range of intended users from coastal engineering, federal, state and local government, lending,
environmental, planning, railroads, and other sectors. The purpose of this group was to give
feedback throughout the project, provide strategic perspectives, and strengthen the project by
ensuring that its technical work sat squarely in the realm of the politically practical. The
Advisory Committee also met annually; often the Project Team members attended these
meetings as well. Between meetings, the principal investigator and other Coordinating Team
members consulted frequently with individual members of the Project Team and Shorelines
Advisory Committee. Emphasis was placed on hearing from stakeholders, capturing their
suggestions, and addressing their questions. This interaction allowed us to evaluate both our
research and our methods of explaining and disseminating our findings. Archived presentations
and written summaries of meetings captured what took place, next steps, and action items.

About a year into the project, we realized a need for a smaller management group to manage all
components of the project, such as coordinating the many related and interconnected sub-
projects, progressing and developing work products appropriate for intended users, and
advancing a web site and outreach products. While PI Betsy Blair had final authority for this, she
worked closely with Emilie Hauser (NYS DEC Hudson River National Estuarine Research
Reserve) and Ona Ferguson (CBI). This team of three checked in several times a month to report
progress, identify concerns, and clarify roles and tasks within all team levels.

The structure of the various groups worked well to foster communication, collaboration and
engagement, and to evaluate both the process and the various findings and outreach materials. A
table showing dates of meetings, release of reports and other milestones appears in Appendix 4.

Objective 2: Evaluate and compare ecological functions of six types of natural and engineered
shoreline present in the Hudson Estuary

Shore zones are vital habitat for multiple life stages of many fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and
invertebrates. Different shore zones provide different kinds and levels of habitat, and when
aggregated, can significantly influence life in the Hudson River ecosystem. This part of the
project generated information from the literature and field studies to identify shoreline types and
features that are best to support life in the Hudson River, as well as those that reduce near shore
life. Although surprisingly little is known world-wide about the ecosystem services associated
with shorelines and shoreline mitigation techniques, we were well equipped to address this in the
Hudson River Estuary. We built on past work by members of this team and others to
characterize key biotic, chemical, and physical functions or ecosystem services of two
important near-shore communities: tidal freshwater marshes (Findlay et al. 2002) and submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV) beds (Nieder et al. 2004; Findlay et al. 2006).

The ecology studies work was primarily accomplished by David Strayer, Stuart Findlay, and
colleagues at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies. Although most of this work was funded
by others (the Hudson River Foundation & NOAA), it was an integral part of this shorelines
project. The work included 1) a review and summary of literature about ecosystem services
and functions performed by shorelines, 2) field studies that a) compared current functions of six
types of shoreline with respect to physical attributes and habitat functions of selected biota, and

9
b) a study of the part wrack plays in shoreline ecosystems. These studies all informed our
understanding of ecosystem tradeoffs of existing methods to control shoreline erosion. It also
raised additional questions about shoreline functions that we are addressing in Phase 2.

Literature Review
Dave Strayer and Stuart Findlay (Cary Institute for Ecosystem Studies) completed a
comprehensive synthesis of literature, The Ecology of Freshwater Shore Zones, published in
early 2010 in the journal Aquatic Sciences. The abstract is reproduced here:
Freshwater shore zones are among the most ecologically valuable parts of the planet, but have been
heavily damaged by human activities. Because the management and rehabilitation of freshwater shore
zones could be improved by better use of ecological knowledge, we summarize here what is known about
their ecological functioning. Shore zones are complexes of habitats that support high biodiversity, which
is enhanced by high physical complexity and connectivity. Shore zones dissipate large amounts of
physical energy, can receive and process extraordinarily high inputs of autochthonous and allochthonous
organic matter, and are sites of intensive nutrient cycling. Interactions between organic matter inputs
(including wood), physical energy, and the biota are especially important. In general, the ecological
character of shore zone ecosystems is set by inputs of physical energy, geologic (or anthropogenic)
structure, the hydrologic regime, nutrient inputs, the biota, and climate. Humans have affected freshwater
shore zones by laterally compressing and stabilizing the shore zone, changing hydrologic regimes,
shortening and simplifying shorelines, hardening shorelines, tidying shore zones, increasing inputs of
physical energy that impinge on shore zones, pollution, recreational activities, resource extraction,
introducing alien species, changing climate, and intensive development in the shore zone. Systems to
guide management and restoration by quantifying ecological services provided by shore zones and
balancing multiple (and sometimes conflicting) values are relatively recent and imperfect. We close by
identifying leading challenges for shore zone ecology and management.
Regardless of what ecological variable is measured, there is a great deal of variation in the
ecological attributes of different shorelines along the Hudson River. Some of this variation is
clearly related to the type or physical structure of the shoreline. For example, fish communities
clearly differ among the different shoreline types. Relatively flat and featureless sandy shores
support large numbers of small fish, physically complex shorelines such as rock and riprap
support moderate numbers and high diversity of larger fish, and vertical bulkheads support very
few fish of any kind. The species composition of the fish, plant and invertebrate communities is
related to the shoreline type. Although plant species richness does not differ across shoreline
type, the percentage of plant species that are not native is higher along engineered shores
(bulkheads, riprap, and cribbing) than along natural shore. Biological communities change
greatly with elevation (from shallow subtidal to supertidal), so sea level rise will change
biological communities. The physical structure of the shoreline also affects its ecological
function. For instance, flatter shorelines accumulate more organic matter, which serves both as
shelter and as a food source for organisms, and is a hotspot for biogeochemical cycling. The fact
that humans often steepen shorelines by converting them to vertical bulkheads or steep
revetments may reduce the ecological value of many shorelines.

In addition, the investigators have seen some evidence that biological diversity is generally
higher along physically complex shores, whether that complexity is surface roughness, variation
in grain size, or sinuosity in map view. Fish may be more abundant and diverse along more
sheltered shores than along exposed ones.

10

David Strayer wrote a popular summary of the literature review findings, entitled Managing
Shore Zones for Ecological Benefits, which was published in brochure form in 2011 and has
been disseminated to a variety of intended users and posted on the project web site.

Field Studies of the Ecological Functions of Shorelines
David Strayer, Stuart Findlay, and colleagues also studied two aspects of shoreline ecology:
biodiversity and the ecology of wrack (floating organic matter). The first was a field comparison
study of the biodiversity of three types of natural and three types of engineered shorelines along
the Hudson River shoreline. The second study looked at the ecology of wrack (floating organic
matter) on these different types of shorelines.

Biodiversity Study
In the biodiversity study, researchers documented the biodiversity supported by different kinds
of shore zones in the Hudson (Strayer et al. 2012). They chose six common types of shore zones,
three natural (sand, unconsolidated rock, and bedrock), and three engineered (riprap, cribbing,
and bulkheads). Methods are described in detail in the publication. They measured selected
physical characteristics (shore zone width, exposure, substrate roughness and grain size,
shoreline complexity) of three examples of each of these shore types, and also sampled
communities of terrestrial plants, fishes, and aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates.

Community composition of most taxa differed across shore types, and frequently differed
between wide, sheltered shores and narrow, exposed shores. Non-native plant species were
especially well represented along engineered shores. Nevertheless, a great deal of variation in
biological communities was not explained by their six-class categorization of shore zones or the
physical variables that they measured. No single shore type was best for all kinds of biodiversity,
but engineered shore zones (especially cribbing and bulkheads) tended to have less desirable
biodiversity characteristics than natural shore zones. It is noteworthy that rip-rap was
indistinguishable from naturally rocky shorelines in many respects. Table 1 provides an
overview of the attributes examined and whether or not they differed among shore types.

Wrack Study
Organic matter that is washed onto shore, or wrack, is an important component of shoreline
ecosystems. Wrack provides habitat for invertebrates, as well as soil organic matter and nutrients
to both upland terrestrial communities and aquatic ecosystem. While marine wrack has been
studied extensively, wrack along freshwater shorelines has received little attention. Strayer,
Findlay and Harris studied the standing stocks, mobility, decomposition rates, and invertebrate
communities of wrack (chiefly wild-celery, Vallisneria americana) on different types of Hudson
River shorelines, both natural and engineered. Initial work (Harris and Strayer 2011) was
published as part of Harriss masters thesis. A manuscript describing findings on the role of
wrack is now in review at Estuaries and Coasts (Strayer, Findlay and Harris, in review).
Methods are described in the publications.




11

Table 1. Summary of differences in major ecological characteristics of different types of shores
along the Hudson River. All variables are scaled to a maximum of 100, based on untransformed
data to allow comparisons across variables (note that statistical tests usually were based on
transformed data). Boldface indicates variables that differed significantly among shore types.
Aquatic invertebrate data are from D-net samples.

Sand Rock Bedrock Riprap Cribbing Bulkhead p
Fish diversity 77 95 95 100 100 89 0.32
Abundance of large
(>20 cm long) fish
6 55 100 61 15 21 0.01
Abundance of small
(<20 cm long) fish
100 12 8 17 5 1 0.0003
Species richness of
native plants
100 84 90 55 45 32 0.05
Species richness of
non-native plants
69 67 56 78 53 100 0.64
% of plant species
that are not native
42 43 37 68 53 100 0.0003
Aquatic invertebrate
diversity
92 74 100 95 100 78 0.40
Aquatic invertebrate
abundance
54 32 100 74 24 50 0.22
Terrestrial invertebrate
diversity
58 80 40 100 48 87 0.23
Terrestrial invertebrate
abundance
44 27 59 53 37 100 0.48

The study showed that standing stocks of wrack sometimes exceeded 1 kg DM/m2, and were
highest on shorelines having flat slopes. Engineered shorelines such as bulkheads often
accumulated little or no wrack. Artificial wrack (hay) placed below the high tide mark was rarely
retained, particularly on highly exposed shores. Wrack on cribbing shorelines decayed
significantly faster than on other shoreline types. Wrack supported dense and diverse
communities of invertebrates, which may serve as food for higher trophic levels (e.g., fish and
birds). Invertebrate abundance was significantly different among shoreline types, with the lowest
abundance found on cribbing. Invertebrate diversity was significantly higher on sandy, rocky,
and riprap shorelines than on cribbing. Cribbing and other steep, reflective shorelines capture
little wrack and provide poor habitat for wrack-dwelling invertebrates. As managers seek to
restore shorelines and protect infrastructure from future sea level rise, it is likely structures such
as cribbing, bulkheads, and riprap will be used. Because such hard shorelines minimize the
ecological functions associated with wrack, they may be inferior to non-structural solutions such
as relocating or elevating critical infrastructure, or building shorelines with soft engineering.
Lastly, the investigators have identified a set of questions related to how specific attributes of a
shore increase or decrease its ecological value, for instance: What size of riprap is best? Is it one
uniform size or mixed sizes? Could modifications that reduce the reflectivity of bulkheads

12
improve their value as fish habitat? Would adding roughness to shores to retain wrack enhance
their ability to retain nutrients? Would making a straight shore sinuous increase its ecological
value? If so, how much sinuosity is needed?
Objective 3: Develop more accurate regional projections of climate impacts

The Hudson River Estuary and its shorelines are affected by a complex array of tides, currents,
waves, weather patterns, storm surges, and global climate trends. In order to make good
decisions about shorelines, we needed to understand these natural forces today and how they
might change in the future. A key part of our work was to develop a reasonable set of scenarios
of water level rise and other physical impacts of climate change to use as context for project
analyses, findings and recommendations. Work funded by this project and elsewhere has filled
these needs. Early in 2009, we helped complete the Rising Waters project. New work, separately
funded, was completed on storm surge and sea level modeling (Stedinger and Yi 2009).

New York State Climate Projections:
Over the course of the work, 2009 to 2012, we have benefitted from climate research under the
NYS Energy Research and Development Agencys ClimAID project (Rosenzweig et al. 2011)
which provided New York State-specific climate projections, information detailing New Yorks
vulnerability to the effects of climate change, and potential adaptation strategies to reduce those
vulnerabilities. Three other reports influenced our thinking: the New York City Panel on
Climate Change (2009), the NYS Sea Level Rise Task Force Report (2010) and the NYS
Climate Action Plan Interim Report (2010).

The ClimAID report provides the scientific basis for the projections of sea level rise and flood
recurrence intervals for the climate/weather scenarios used for projecting shoreline performance,
which are used in the engineering cost analysis. In consultation with the ClimAID scientists and
the New York State Climate Change Office, we decided to use sea level rise projections from
90th percentile of the rapid ice melt scenario. The rationale for using the higher end of rapid ice
melt projections is that global measurements of emissions and of ice melt seem to be at or
exceeding high end projections. Following the State, we have used the 2020s, 2050s and 2080s
for benchmarks.

Rising Waters Project
The Rising Waters project defined four potential scenarios of climate change in the Hudson
Valley for 2030, and achieved consensus on a set of recommendations for climate change
adaptation strategies in the Hudson Valley. A final report issued in spring, 2009 was the
culmination of two years of a multi-stakeholder process to analyze likely future impacts of
climate change and to build consensus on what should be done to improve preparedness.
Notable was a recommendation to improve the resilience of shorelines, natural systems, and
critical infrastructure throughout the Hudson Valley to the impacts of extreme weather, with the
following action: identify and promote sustainable methods for shoreline erosion control that
will secure key infrastructure while enabling vital natural communities to exist and migrate
landward as sea level rises. The Rising Waters recommendations have been advanced through
the shorelines project and stakeholder participants are part of our advisory groups.

13
Storm Surge Modeling
Our original proposal to CICEET contained a task to generate accurate regional data about
projections of climate change impacts, especially about precipitation. However, it was apparent
that adequate regional data would be available through NYSERDA funded ClimAID and New
York City work (NYC Panel on Climate Change, 2009). Upon the recommendation of our
climatologist, Art Degaetano of Cornell University, we focused initially on a broader question
about the relative contribution of precipitation, sea level rise, and storm surge to water level
changes in the estuary under plausible climate change scenarios. Stedinger and Yi (2009) created
a onedimensional model of storm surge in the estuary under present conditions which confirmed
that sea level rise and storm surge propagate up all 152 miles of the estuary to the Troy Dam.
We have used the results, data and recommendations from state climate initiative to understand
the future climate conditions and sea level rise. Specifically, we have used the rapid ice melt
scenario for sea level rise projections in the engineering cost analysis discussed under Objective
5. The Rising Waters scenario planning project served as model of community engagement,
scenarios and risk analysis. As a result of all these efforts, many users and decision makers are
better informed about sea level rise and climate change adaptation.

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

Engineers at Stevens Institute of Technology worked on three related aspects of shoreline
protection: 1) a literature review, 2) a detailed desk study of selected approaches, and 3) an
assessment of performance and life-cycle costs of shoreline treatments based on projected
conditions in the Hudson River.

A review of engineering literature about shoreline techniques was undertaken by graduate
student Andrew Rella under the leadership of Jon Miller. A draft report was completed in 2010,
and the final version was completed in summer 2012 (Rella and Miller 2012a), using Sustainable
Shorelines Project terminology and nomenclature (Hauser 2012).
The objective of the literature review was to provide a general overview of the variety of shore
protection alternatives (both traditional and ecologically enhanced) currently being used along
sheltered shorelines, and was not intended to be specific to the Hudson River Estuary. A
systematic approach was used to facilitate comparison of the alternatives. The methods are
generally presented in the following order: shore face, shore parallel treatments; shore face,
shore perpendicular treatments; and shore detached, shore parallel treatments. Each shoreline
protection technique is qualitatively evaluated in 4 categories: approach, construction cost,
maintenance cost, and adaptability. Approach refers to the type of shore protection strategy being
employed and ranges from what has traditionally been referred to as hard by the engineering
community (bulkheads for example), to more natural or soft approaches such as vegetative
planting. Construction cost takes into account the typical costs associated with initial
construction, while maintenance cost refers to the cost of maintaining the system over its
lifetime. Adaptability considers the effort required to modify in-place projects to handle new
conditions brought on by climate change or other changes. Each method is described
consistently, covering six categories: description, design and construction, adaptability,
advantages, disadvantages, and similar techniques.

14
Based on the information gathered from the focus groups, the needs assessment and the advisory
group meeting, short one-page summary documents were designed for bulkheads and
revetments. These documents are intended for use at the municipal level and to complement the
Phase II characterization of the Hudson River wave/current/ice climate.
The content of the literature review was informed by two focus groups held with federal and
state regulators (NYSDEC, NYS Office of General Services, NYS Department of State, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) in early 2010. The
purpose of the meetings was to learn from the regulators their impressions of the shorelines
project engineering study, trends theyre seeing in shoreline permit applications, shoreline
techniques they would most like us to study further, and types of research and outreach products
would be most useful to them. From these meetings, we confirmed that users seek detailed
information about risk and performance of engineered shorelines.
A second part of the engineering work was to consist of the selection of a subset of shoreline
treatment options for a more detailed analysis. The subset of options was selected. An outline
for conducting these analyses was agreed upon and drafts completed on revetments and
bulkheads. Based on feedback from the Coordinating Team, users, and advisors, we decided that
these detailed summaries were not necessary, that engineers could rely on existing textbooks and
guidance instead.
The third part of the engineering work was to develop an approach for assessing performance
and cost of shoreline treatments based on projected conditions in the Hudson River. The
research plan was modified based on advice from our users and advisors. The report (Rella and
Andrew 2012b) was the result. It highlights several shoreline protection approaches and
estimates of their long term costs (70 years) in the context of sea level rise at three sites
representative of low, medium, and high energy conditions. Details of this work are described
under Objective 5, below.
Objective 5: Characterize the short- and long-term costs of different shoreline hardening,
vegetated approaches and land use management measures used to control erosion

We originally intended to perform a robust analysis of the value of ecosystem services provided
by shorelines and to use this information to evaluate the full costs and benefits of specific
shoreline protection approaches. However, based on expert and stakeholder input, we pursued
an alternative a life-cycle cost analysis to compare the short- and long-term costs of protecting
coastlines with traditional versus non-traditional means. The sections below describe both
exploratory work related to ecosystem services valuation and the life-cycle cost analysis.

Ecosystem Services Valuation
In fall 2010, David VanLuven, an ecologist and planner, was hired to review all information
gathered to date on economic analyses and user needs and develop recommendations to the team
about how and whether to move forward with holding an economic valuation roundtable and/or
selecting an ecological economist to undertake an ecosystem services valuation. During the
review period, VanLuven consulted extensively with individual members of the Coordinating
Team, prepared a briefing for the spring 2011 Project Team meeting, and drafted a report. This

15
was distributed to a work group composed of interested members of the Project Team and
Advisory Committee for review and comment. The final report Economic Tradeoffs between
Shoreline Treatments: Phase I, Assessing Approaches was completed in August 2011.

The report focused on the shore zone, defined as one meter above and one meter below the
intertidal zone, not including the floodplain. It recommended that an economic assessment be
split into two parallel tracks: the engineering costs (see Rella and Miller 2012b) and the value of
ecosystem services. For practical reasons, VanLuven recommended that the project focus on the
subset of shore zone ecosystem services for which the best data existed, i.e., those associated
with seven kinds of recreation (hunting, trapping, fishing, bird watching, walking, boating, and
swimming), although he recognized that data were scarce even for these. The report suggested
that surveys or focus groups be conducted with user groups to determine what aspects of
shorelines are of particular interest to those shoreline users.

Following up on the VanLuvens recommendations, anglers and kayakers were surveyed during
the summer of 2012 in order to determine whether these Hudson shoreline users prefer a tidy,
homogenous shore zone to one hosting wrack and woody debris and to learn how river users
perceive and value the shoreline. This study, conducted by Shawn Dalton of Thrive Consulting
(Dalton 2012), is summarized under Objective 7.

Life Cycle Cost Analysis
A comparative cost analysis of ten different shoreline protection approaches at three sites
representative of the diverse shorelines within the Hudson River Estuary was conducted by
Andrew Rella and Jon Miller (2012b) of the Stevens Institute of Technology. The objective of
the analysis was to compare the short- and long-term costs of protecting coastlines using both
traditional and non-traditional shoreline treatments. The analysis considered a period of seventy
years and included two sea level rise scenarios. The first conservative estimate assumed that the
current rate of sea level rise would persist over the next seventy years, while the second
considered the dramatic rapid ice melt scenario (New York City Panel on Climate Change 2009),
described in Table 2. To achieve the desired objective, a life cycle cost analysis was performed.

Table 2 - Sea level rise projections
Sea level rise at the midpoint of each period
Period Current Rate (in) Rapid Ice Melt (in)
P1 (2012-2037) 1.32 9.00
P2 (2037-2062) 3.96 24.00
P3 (2062-2082) 6.34 41.00

For each shoreline protection approach, four main categories of costs were considered: initial
costs, maintenance and repair costs, damage costs, and replacement costs. The analysis was
carried out in present day (2012) dollars. Ten shoreline stabilization approaches were selected
for analysis, including both traditional (timber bulkheads, steel sheet pile bulkheads, revetments,
rip-rap, and timber cribbing) and ecologically enhanced methods (bio-walls, joint planting,
vegetated geogrids, live crib walls, and sills)
1
. The approach taken was to develop basic design

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

16
on which representative cost estimates could be based. Each of the designs was developed
expressly for input to the cost analyses, and focused on the major cost components. Three
locations on the Hudson with varying energy regimes, slopes and substrates were used to
develop the designs. The sites were selected from a previous study (Allen et al. 2006) and
included the Poughkeepsie waterfront, Bowline Park, and Henry Hudson Park.

The two sea level rise scenarios were used to adjust the frequency of occurrence of significant
storm events. Each of these storm events is associated with a specific set of impacts, which
varies from structure to structure. These impacts result in damage to the structure and incur a
cost associated with restoring the original function of the stabilization approach.

Within the limitations of the analysis, the results show that at most sites there is a suite of
alternatives for which the lifecycle costs are relatively similar. Given the uncertainties
associated with many aspects of the economic valuations, the error bands on the results are such
that many of the costs are functionally equivalent. While ecologically enhanced structures may
not be the cheapest overall, this analysis confirms that over a seventy- year period under both the
current rate and rapid ice melt sea level rise scenarios, several of the ecologically enhanced
approaches are cost competitive with some of the traditional approaches (see Table 3).

Objective 6: Characterize legal framework and identify legal and regulatory opportunities for
enhancing shoreline protection

The Shorelines Project Team recognized its need to develop a common understanding of the
laws and regulations that governed shoreline management, in order to identify opportunities for
changing minds and behaviors about best management practices. Pace University Land Use Law
Center staff conducted the inventory of the Federal, State, and local programs that govern
shoreline management along the Hudson River Estuary. This report was prepared by and under
the direction of Jessica Bacher, reviewed by knowledgeable experts and intended users, and
completed in 2011.

The programs reviewed included: Clean Water Act Sections 401, 404, and Phase II Stormwater
Management programs; Federal Emergency Management Agency multi-hazard mitigation
planning and federal flood insurance programs; NYS Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act; NYSTidal Wetlands Law and associated regulations; NYS Freshwater Wetlands
Law and associated regulations; NYS State-Owned Underwater Lands; New York State Historic
Preservation Act; State Environmental Quality Review Act; brownfield remediation laws and
regulations; and local land use law. We also asked Pace Land Use Law Center to analyze
leverage points where there were opportunities to promote better shoreline management.

Legal opportunities fall into four categories: 1) Authority that already exists in the law that could
be leveraged, whether or not the authority is currently being utilized; 2) Legal programs that
already exist that are not currently part of the approval framework or not primarily thought of as
part of the process, but could be used in some way with or without legal amendments (for
example, if new coastal hazard maps were created, then the Coastal Erosion Hazard Program
could be used); 3) Leverage points that could be used or are used in practice that are not obvious

17
on the face of the law; and 4) New leverage points that are the result of amendments to these
programs, the basis of new case law, or the adoption of new programs.

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

Current Sea Level Rise Scenario

Poughkeepsie Henry Hudson Park Bowline Point Park
Wooden Bulkhead $ 375,292 $ 271,348 N/A
Steel Bulkhead $ 1,255,906 $ 989,845 N/A
Revetment $ 340,984 $ 315,930 $ 313,642
Rip rap $ 318,896 $ 143,292 $ 325,113
Crib Wall $ 308,531 $ 232,515 N/A
Live Crib Wall $ 372,794 $ 287,733 N/A
Joint Planting $ 491,088 $ 231,799 $ 496,511
Vegetated Geogrid $ 300,315 $ 269,136 N/A
Bio Wall $ 1,102,131 $ 569,330 N/A
Sill N/A $ 241,874 $ 173,106

Rapid Ice Melt Sea Level Rise Scenario

Poughkeepsie Henry Hudson Park Bowline Point Park
Wooden Bulkhead $ 688,203 $ 497,593 N/A
Steel Bulkhead $ 2,372,407 $ 1,869,818 N/A
Revetment $ 1,081,098 $ 1,001,664 $ 994,407
Rip rap $ 1,133,764 $ 509,442 $ 1,077,429
Crib Wall $ 765,821 $ 577,137 N/A
Live Crib Wall $ 1,074,401 $ 829,252 N/A
Joint Planting $ 1,826,545 $ 862,150 $ 1,846,714
Vegetated Geogrid $ 648,316 $ 581,007 N/A
Bio Wall $ 2,185,780 $ 1,129,114 N/A
Sill N/A $ 464,930 $ 332,745
For outreach purposes, focusing on leverage points in federal and state programs would result in
a wider and more comprehensive impact, but there is less flexibility to make these adjustments
given the complexity of these programs. Local governments have extensive authority to use
their land use tools and to create innovative programs, but the results are more piecemeal and
subject to local political will.
Programmatic and legal opportunities to influence shoreline structures through the local land use
legal framework includes sea level rise components in comprehensive plans; coordinated
planning efforts; local laws that control shoreline structures through as-of-right or special use
permit uses, subdivision and site plan regulations, and overlay zones; conservation advisory

18
councils and other boards or task forces; rolling easements; inter-municipal coordination; county
government action; official sea level rise projections for New York State; provision of training
and resources for local governments; and possible mandates for local governments (Pace, 2011).
The Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 restricts state and local authority
to regulate land owned or controlled by railroads. The railroads own a substantial portion of
Hudson shoreline property.

Pace contractors also received National Sea Grant funding to modify their 4-day Land Use
Leadership Alliance training to focus on climate change, sea level rise and Hudson River
shorelines for a training conducted in fall, 2010. Three Coordinating Team members provided
content and delivered sections of the training based on Sustainable Shorelines Project results.

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

We intended our project results to be used by federal, state, and local government regulators and
policy makers; public agency land managers; experts and consultants (engineers, landscape
architects and restoration ecologists, scientists, attorneys) who advise private land management
decisions; major private landowners; advocates; social and natural scientists. We also surveyed
recreational users of shorelines, an important stakeholder group.
As described under Objective 1, the project benefitted from the advice and guidance from over
two dozen intended users in our Shorelines Advisory Committee. However, many other intended
users of shoreline project information took part in shorelines project work groups, focus groups,
key informant interviews, and surveys, as described below. Some were engaged regularly, others
were engaged once to inform specific research activities. Because this project spanned many
different interest areas and research and outreach efforts, participants often worked together in
multiple, interconnected ways. These participants provided valuable advice to the project, and
also extended shorelines project knowledge and findings to their own organizations.
I ntended User and Stakeholder Assessments
Many intended users were engaged in efforts to solicit specific information or expert opinion
through focus groups, case studies, interviews, and surveys (see Table 4). Intended users
included shoreline design experts, regulators, municipal officials, planners, and railroad
representatives; recreations users were recognized as an important stakeholder. Findings were
disseminated to the Shorelines Advisory Committee and Coordinating Team via meeting
presentations, webinars, and written reports. Specific stakeholders were identified primarily
from personal knowledge and recommendations from others.


19
Table 4. Intended User and Stakeholder Assessments

Date Description / Method / Audience Product
7-Jan-10 Focus Groups (2) of State and Federal Regulators:
Albany & Troy
summary with key
findings
4-Feb-10 Focus Group of State and Federal Regulators:
New York City
summary with key
findings
5-May-10 Focus Group: Municipal Officials summary with key
findings
2010 Summer/Fall Interviews and literature search: CBI case studies key findings document
& internal report
2010 Fall to
Spring 2011
Interviews: Dalton/Thrive Decision Making report
31-Jul-12 Survey: Dalton /Thrive User Preferences report

Regulator Focus Groups
In early 2010, focus groups were held with both state and federal regulators in order to introduce
them to the Sustainable Shorelines project and discuss the state and federal agencies experience
with shoreline restoration projects. Key findings were:
State and federal regulators are the most important stakeholders to engage initially. These
personnel have the tools and leverage to protect natural resources to the best extent
practical while allowing the protection of infrastructure and properties. They believe that
the current trend in applications is away from hardened shorelines and to softer sloping
solutions.
Regulators want to know that shoreline structures can be permitted, that they work
(perform as designed, are durable and have long term stability), can be built by average
contractors, and are affordable. For methods that include vegetation, they desire
information on maintenance intervals, effort over time, and costs. Permit staff do not
need a cost valuation for ecological services.
Regulators want assurances that models of storm surge and sea level rise are accurate,
and they want these to include wave action, since structures must withstand boat wakes.
Regulators anticipate there will be an increase in the number of property owners
interested in berms for protection from inundation, rather than erosion.
There is a need to consider appropriate structures for containment of contaminated
brownfield sites.
Railroads are aware of sea level rise and climate change and are definitely planning.
Municipal Leaders Focus Group on Adapting to Climate Change
In 2010, a Hudson River Shoreline Municipal Leaders Discussion on Adapting to Climate
Change was held on May 5
th
. This focus group was organized jointly by Coordinating Team
members and staff at the Department of State who are working on adaptation planning for the
state. CBI facilitated the discussion. The focus group found that municipal officials are
interested in protecting their shoreline from sea level rise. They want maps and accurate

20
projections of sea level rise. They want regulations for compliance and adaptation. They
understand the severity of the threat of sea level rise. They would like help in conveying the
threat of sea level rise and climate change to their staff and constituents. Final notes from this
session were distributed to focus group participants

Research on Stakeholders Decision-Making Roles
2

In order to gather information from a range of stakeholders about how they make decisions on
shoreline protection, we developed case studies of shoreline development projects along the
Hudson River in the last decade. Some of the questions we wanted answered included: What
influenced them to make the choices they did? How were stakeholders influential? What role
did permit requirements play in their decision-making? How does the shoreline perform after the
project has been implemented?

Communities were selected based on criteria of
location of community, low elevation which
makes them vulnerable to sea level rise impacts,
variety of shoreline protection methods, status of
project, and the availability of knowledgeable
and willing staff and experts. Google Earth and
site plans were used to locate and illustrate the
projects; meeting notes, newsletters, articles, and other information were reviewed to develop the
background of the studies. Hour- long interviews and follow-up email correspondence with 11
stakeholders knowledgeable about the cases were used to understand the decision making
process. Interviewees provided comment to the draft summaries. For each municipality, 2-4 page
draft summaries were used internally by the Coordinating Team. A draft final report was
completed and shared with Advisory Team members. A two page summary of lessons learned
was shared more broadly. Consensus Building Institute managed this effort from summer 2010
to spring 2011. They found that decision makers want information on type of soft and hybrid
shoreline choices, the effectiveness of these choices, their cost, and the ecological and
community benefits. The study found that innovative designs are installed where champions are
advocating for them. In the five cases studied, the choice of shoreline stabilization approach was
made early and was dependent on the adjacent land use. Lastly, it found that state agencies can
influence choices through permitting.

In reviewing the findings of these reports, the Project Team and Advisory Committee both
recommended that the project find an acceptable, descriptive alternative to the term soft
shoreline. They also identified that liability is a barrier to innovative design. They continue to
see regulators are a key audience for the project. Lastly, they identified the need to understand
how stakeholders assess risk.






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

Southern Waterfront Park and Trail in
Peekskill
Pierson Park and Riverwalk in Tarrytown
Four Mile Point Park in Greene County
The Harbors at Haverstraw
Foundry Dock Park in Cold Spring


21
Research on Shoreline Decision Making
3

In the fall of 2010 and winter 2011, Shawn Dalton, of Thrive Consulting, carried out an
assessment of individual shoreline decision-makers (not related to single development projects),
using semi-structured interviews. The abstract reproduced below describes the purpose and
findings. In addition, Dalton found that it is difficult to find a regional land planning solution
because of local home rule, but the large railroad ownership of shoreline may provide
opportunities to promote change at a larger scale.

Interviews were conducted with experts, consultants, developers, and railroad representatives involved in
the management of the Hudson River shoreline, and designs for shoreline stabilization, restoration, and
development. The goals of this work are to document whether and how climate change and sea level rise
are currently viewed and incorporated into shoreline planning and design along the Hudson; to identify
and document barriers to the adoption of soft shoreline engineering techniques into the design process;
and to identify potential training needs and mechanisms of information sharing among actors in this
organizational network.

Findings indicate that incorporation of sea level rise and climate change into shoreline planning and
design range from non-existent to central, depending upon project goals, timing of design, intended uses,
regulatory requirements, funding and available personnel. Barriers to adoption of soft shoreline
engineering techniques include intended uses, limited available area, access, knowledge base of designer
or engineer, low levels of confidence in the longevity of soft shorelines, and cost or perceived cost of
construction and maintenance. The need for training is considered to be universal, but the type and depth
of requisite training varies with prior experience, organizational mission or mandate, and specific work
on shoreline projects (i.e., design, engineering, construction, landscaping).

Shoreline Users Perception Survey
4

Recreational users of the Hudson were interviewed during the summer of 2012 in order to
determine whether shoreline users prefer a tidy, homogenous shore zone, to one hosting wrack
and woody debris and to learn how river users perceive and value the shoreline. The survey was
administered to both a group of anglers and a group of kayakers, and asked questions about
general use of the Hudson River, as well as specific preference and use questions about a set of
seven photographs showing different types of shoreline along the Hudson. Findings indicate a
wide variety of aesthetic preferences among shoreline users. Respondents in general have a
strong sense of the ecological value of different types of shorelines, but do not necessarily
connect that with opportunities to allow their own land management practices to improve the
health of the river system.

Scenario Based Learning
In summer 2012 a consultant was engaged to fill a gap in our understanding about how best to
support, influence, and meet the needs of a wide range of municipalities and municipal officials
and employees who choose and/or approve shoreline treatments for sites within their jurisdiction.

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

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


22
This internal report provided methodology on how scenario exercises can be used as a means of
increasing understanding and managing complexity and uncertainty.

Other Avenues Used to Engage I ntended Users
We have engaged intended users by creating and/or joining other networks or project that relate
to shorelines management. For example, many of our intended users participated in the Rising
Waters scenario planning process, previously described on page 12. In addition, we have worked
closely with several intended users through the Shoreline and Habitat Adaptation Dialog, a group
advancing a focused set of research and mapping initiatives to further shoreline and habitat
resilience to climate change. Also, through separate funding, we have provided technical
assistance to municipalities and state agencies on shorelines projects in order to promote the
application of Sustainable Shorelines Project findings.

The Shoreline and Habitat Adaptation Dialog
Since June, 2010 several Coordinating Team members have been meeting quarterly with other
agency and nonprofit colleagues in an informal discussion on climate change adaptation, habitat
protection, and shoreline management along the Hudson River Estuary. This group in part grew
out of the Rising Waters scenario project, and the desire share information about the Shorelines
Project, collaborate on other related initiatives, and avoid duplication of effort. Most participants
serve on one of the Shorelines standing committees, but in this venue they support and extend
the shorelines work through advancement of other several related projects, including LiDAR
high resolution topographic mapping, Sea Level Affecting Marsh Migration models, wildlife
connectivity studies, and assessments of community and ecological vulnerability to climate
change.

Technical Assistance to Shoreline Communities
Members of the Coordinating Team, primarily Dan Miller, frequently meet with Hudson River
estuary property owners to advise them on shoreline protection strategies, primarily for
municipal or state lands. The interaction provides an opportunity to better understand the needs
of these intended users, and to convey recommendations informed by shorelines project results.

Shorelines Project Communications and Findings Dissemination
The Coordinating Team developed interim messages as findings emerged from the shorelines
project. Methods of dissemination included social science research (described above),
presentations and technical assistance. Team members gave presentations of the research and
findings at advisory group meetings and at other events where they informed the audience of
aspects of the project and also sought their input about shorelines decision-making. A list of
project milestones and presentations appears in Appendix 4. The social science research
informed the method and content of the general messaging, outreach products, presentations and
technical assistance.

Shorelines Project Communications Planning
In early 2010, a communication sub-group of the Project Team completed products to advance
communication and stakeholder engagement. An internal guidance document for the
Coordinating and Project Decision-Support Tool for Developing an Outreach and
Communication Strategy for the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project was created. It

23
summarized current available information about existing levels of expertise among stakeholders
involved in shoreline management; presented several possible needs assessment methods for
improving the understanding of current knowledge levels of shoreline managers; recommended
strategies to maximize the effectiveness of our outreach and communication efforts; and
considered means by which outreach and communications strategies can most effectively deliver
relevant content and management tools to different stakeholder audiences. It also put forth an
approach for adapting outreach and communication strategies as new knowledge is gained.

Outreach Products
Appendix 3 includes the list of reports, papers, fact sheets, and a brochure that were produced
from this phase of the funding. The brochure, Managing Shore Zones for Ecological Benefits, is
an attractive summary of 10 factors that make for healthy, ecolocially rich shores. Several
hundred of these have been distributed at presentations and meetings, and more have been
downloaded from the project web site. The fact sheets are available for others seeking to inform
or influence some of our intended user audiences. An overview document was written to give a
broad but succinct summary of overall project objectives and key findings. Initially written for
advisory group members, it has also been used to inform potential funders and agency partners
about our work.

Uniform Look and Standard Terminology
A uniform look was created for project materials, including a logo and templates for documents.
The logo appears at the bottom left corner of this report. Emilie Hauser also developed uniform
definitions of shoreline terms, and we have sought to standardize use of these terms in
communications by team members and with users.

Website
In 2012, Sustainable Shorelines project information was posted on a website of the Hudson River
National Estuarine Research Reserve (www.hrnerr.org). The site includes a description of the
project, lists and downloadable publications and resources and pages which describe
engineering, ecological and the demonstration site network. Early in the project, meeting
summaries and presentations and research reports were posted on the CBI website
(http://www.cbuilding.org/node/1241).

Publications
Several peer-reviewed journal articles, papers and reports have resulted from this work. These
deliverables are listed in an Appendix 3, with URL addresses where applicable, or may be
viewed via the website listed above.

Presentations
Sustainable Shorelines Coordinating Team members have been on the road and internet giving
presentations and webinars to a variety of audiences. Appendix 5 includes a list of presentations
to professionals.

3. NEXT STEPS
The work described in this report has been continued through the ongoing efforts of the Project
Team and other researchers, resource managers, collaborators, and advisors. Under Phase 2 of

24
the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project (primarily funded by NOAA through the
NERRS Science Collaborative) we undertook 1) an in-depth study of the ecology of engineered
shorelines to characterize in finer detail the ecology of built shorelines, develop a protocol for the
rapid assessment of shoreline ecological functions, and test small scale manipulations; 2) a
characterization of the physical forces impinging on Hudson River shorelines, including ship
wakes, waves, currents, and ice; 3) design and construction of a shoreline demonstration project,
and creation of an on-line inventory of this and other shoreline demonstration projects; and 4) the
development of at least one decision support tool for creating ecologically-enhanced, adaptable,
and resilient shoreline options suited for current and projected local conditions. In Phase 3 of the
Sustainable Shorelines Project, with additional funding from the NYS DEC Hudson River
Estuary Program, we are designing two other demonstration projects. As resources permit, well
seek to invest in knowledge and products about the highly developed shorelines from the Tappan
Zee Bridge south to and including New York City. We also plan to work with environmental
quality engineers to evaluate the special case of managing shorelines at brownfield
contamination sites, which are abundant along the Hudson River shoreline, in part due to the
large number of coal gasification plants constructed in the late 19
th
and early 20
th
centuries.

Throughout these phases, we will continue to deliver targeted outreach and communications, and
to advance an agenda for any regulatory changes or other institutional responses indicated by our
work, in concert with the Hudson River Estuary Program, the New York State Climate Change
Office, funding programs and institutions, non-government organizations, and policy makers.

25
APPENDIX 1: LITERATURE CITED

Allen, G., T. Cook, E. Taft, J. Young, and D. Mosier, 2006. Hudson River Shoreline Restoration
Alternatives Analysis. Prepared by Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. and ASA Analysis and
Communications, Inc for the Hudson River NERR and NEIWPCC.

ClimAID: Integrated Assessment for Effective Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in New
York State: Response to Climate Change in New York State . 2011.
http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/climaid

Dalton, S, M. Everett, N. Holochuck, and E. Hauser. 2010. A Decision-Support Tool for
Developing an Outreach and Communication Strategy for the Hudson River Sustainable
Shorelines Project. Draft for internal use.

Doyle, M.W., E.H. Stanley, D.G. Havlick, M.J. Kaiser, G. Steinbach, W.L. Graf, G.E. Galloway
and J.A. Riggsbee. 2008. Aging infrastructure and ecosystem restoration. Science 319: 286-
287.

Eisenman, R. J. Anzevino, S. Rosenberg, and S. Spector (eds.). 2010. Revitalizing Hudson
Riverfronts: Illustrated Conservation & Development Strategies for Creating Healthy,
Prosperous Communities. Scenic Hudson, Inc. 101pp.

Findlay, S.E.G., E. Kiviat, W.C. Nieder & E.A. Blair. 2002. Functional assessment of a
reference wetland set as a tool for science, management and restoration. Aquatic Science
64:107-117.

Findlay, S. E. G., W. C. Nieder, E. A. Blair, and D. T. Fischer. 2006. Multi-scale controls on
water quality effects of submerged aquatic vegetation in the tidal freshwater Hudson
River. Ecosystems 9:84-86.

Harris, C., D.L. Strayer, and S. Findlay. In review. The ecology of freshwater wrack along
natural and engineered Hudson River shorelines.

Harris, C. and D. Strayer. 2011. The Ecology of Wrack: Decomposition and Use By
Invertebrates On Natural and Engineered Shorelines of the Hudson River. Section IV: 1-29
pp. In D.J. Yozzo, S.H. Fernald, and H. Andreyko (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar
Fellowship Program, 2009. Hudson River Foundation.

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

New York City Panel on Climate Change: Climate Risk Information. 2009.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/NPCC_CRI.pdf

New York State Climate Action Plan Interim Report. 2010.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/80930.html

26

New York State Sea Level Rise Task Force Final Report. 2010.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/slrtffinalrep.pdf

Nicholls, R. J., F. M. J. Hoozemans, and M. Marchand. 1999. Increasing flood risk and wetland
losses due to global sea-level rise: regional and global analyses. Global Environmental
Change Human and Policy Dimensions 9:S69-S87.

Nieder, W.C., Eugenia Barnaba, Stuart E.G. Findlay, Susan Hoskins, Nordica Holochuck,
Elizabeth A. Blair. 2004. Distribution and abundance of submerged aquatic vegetation
in the Hudson River Estuary. J. Coastal Research 45:150-161.

Rosenzweig, C., W. Solecki, Al DeGaetano, M. OGrady, S. Hassol, P. Grabhorn (Eds.). 2011.
Responding to Climate Change in New York State: The ClimAID Integrated Assessment for
Effective Climate Change Adaptation. Technical Report. New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority, Albany, NY. www.nyserda.ny.gov.

Strayer, D.L. and S.E.G. Findlay. 2010. The ecology of freshwater shore zones. Aquatic Sciences
72: 127-163.

Strayer, D.L., S.E.G. Findlay, D.M. Miller, H.M. Malcom, D.T. Fischer, and T. Coote. 2012.
Biodiversity in Hudson River shore zones: influence of shoreline type and physical structure.
Aquatic Sciences 74:597-610.

Titus, J. G., R. A. Park, S. P. Leatherman, J. R. Weggel, M. S. Greene, P. W. Mausel, S. Brown,
C. Gaunt, M. Trehan, and G. Yohe. 1991. Greenhouse effect and sea-level rise the cost
of holding back the sea. Coastal Management 19:171-204.

Titus, J. G., and C. Richman. 2001. Maps of lands vulnerable to sea level rise: modeled
elevations along the US Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. Climate Research 18:205-228.

National Research Council, Committee on Mitigating Shore Erosion along Sheltered Coasts.
2007. Mitigating Shore Erosion along Sheltered Coasts. Washington, DC: National Academies
Press. 174pp.


27
APPENDIX 2: COORDINATING TEAM MEMBERS

Betsy Blair, NYSDEC* Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve
Ona Ferguson, Consensus Building Institute
Stuart Findlay, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Emilie Hauser, NYSDEC Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve
Kristin Marcell, NYSDEC Hudson River Estuary Program
Daniel Miller, NYSDEC Hudson River Estuary Program
Jon Miller, Stevens Institute of Technology
David Strayer, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Kathie Weathers, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies

*NYSDEC - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation



28
APPENDIX 3: DELIVERABLES -- REPORTS & PUBLICATIONS

Grey Literature
Blair, E., 2012. Project Overview. In association with and published by the Hudson River
Sustainable Shorelines Project, Staatsburg, NY 12580, http://hrnerr.org.

Dalton, S. (2012) Shoreline Use and Perception Survey Report. In association with and published
by the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project, Staatsburg, NY 12580, http://hrnerr.org

Dalton, S., Ph.D, 2011. Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project Report: Decision Making
Regarding Shoreline Design and Management. In association with and published by the Hudson
River Sustainable Shorelines Project, Staatsburg, NY 12580, http://hrnerr.org.

Harris, C. and D. Strayer. 2011. The Ecology of Wrack: Decomposition and Use By
Invertebrates On Natural and Engineered Shorelines of the Hudson River. Section IV: 1-29
pp. In D.J. Yozzo, S.H. Fernald, and H. Andreyko (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar
Fellowship Program, 2009. Hudson River Foundation.
http://www.hudsonriver.org/ls/reports/Polgar_Harris_TP_03_09_final.pdf

Hauser, E., 2012. Terminology for the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project. In
association with and published by the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project, Staatsburg,
NY 12580, http://hrnerr.org.

Land Use Law Center at Pace Law School, 2011. Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project:
Legal Framework Analysis. In association with and published by the Hudson River Sustainable
Shorelines Project, Staatsburg, NY 12580, http://hrnerr.org.
Rella, Andrew, and Jon Miller. 2012a. Engineered Approaches for Limiting Erosion along
Sheltered Shorelines: A Review of Existing Methods. In association with and published by
Stevens Institute the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project, Staatsburg, NY 12580,
http://hrnerr.org.
Rella, Andrew, and Jon Miller. 2012b. A Comparative Cost Analysis of Ten Shore Protection
Approaches at Three Sites Under Two Sea Level Rise Scenarios. . In association with and published
by Stevens Institute the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project, Staatsburg, NY 12580,
http://hrnerr.org.
VanLuven, D., 2011. Economic Tradeoffs between Shoreline Treatments: Phase I Assessing
Approaches. In association with and published by the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines
Project, Staatsburg, NY 12580, http://hrnerr.org.

Peer Reviewed Journal Articles
Harris, C., D.L. Strayer, and S. Findlay. In review. The ecology of freshwater wrack along
natural and engineered Hudson River shorelines.


29
Strayer, D.L. and S.E.G. Findlay. 2010. The ecology of freshwater shore zones. Aquatic Sciences
72: 127-163. (http://springerlink.com/content/147526m7134jnt48/fulltext.pdf)

Strayer, D.L., S.E.G. Findlay, D. Miller, H.M. Malcolm, D.T. Fischer, and T.Coote, 2012.
Biodiversity in Hudson River shore zones: influence of shoreline type and physical structure.
Aquatic Sciences 74: 1-14.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00027-012-0252-9?LI=true#page-1

Internal Documents
Dalton, S, M. Everett, N. Holochuck, and E. Hauser. 2010. A Decision-Support Tool for
Developing an Outreach and Communication Strategy for the Hudson River Sustainable
Shorelines Project. Unpublished internal report prepared by the Hudson River Sustainable
Shorelines Project, Staatsburg, NY 12580, http://hrnerr.org.

Ferguson, O., 2011. Hudson River Shoreline Development Report: Findings from five case
studies of recent shoreline development projects. In association with and published by the
Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project, Staatsburg, NY 12580, http://hrnerr.org.

Brochure and Fact Sheets
Managing Shore Zones for Ecological Benefits. 2011. Brochure written by David Strayer and
published by the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project, Staatsburg, NY 12580,
http://hrnerr.org.

Dalton, S. 2011. Lessons Learned: Decision Making Regarding Shoreline Design and
Management. Published by the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project, Staatsburg, NY
12580, http://hrnerr.org.

Ferguson, O. 2011. Lessons Learned: Five Case Studies of Recent Shoreline Development
Projects. Published by the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project, Staatsburg, NY 12580,
http://hrnerr.org.


30
APPENDIX 4: SHORELINES PROJECT MILESTONES DURING CICEET FUNDING

Date Milestone
1-Aug-08 CICEET funding for shorelines project begins
2009

11-May-09 Project Team Meeting

Rising Waters project completed
23-Oct-09 Project Team Meeting
2010

February 2010
Decision-Support Tool for Developing an Outreach and Communication
Strategy for the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project completed
7-Jan-10 Focus Groups (2): State and Federal regulators: Albany & Troy
4-Feb-10 Focus Group: State and Federal regulators: NYC
5-May-10 Focus Group: Municipal Officials
23-Jun-10 Shorelines Advisory Committee Meeting
Fall, 2010 Municipal shoreline decision-making case studies completed
2010 Shoreline ecology literature review published (Strayer and Findlay 2010)
Fall, 2010 Project Team meeting
Fall, 2010
Pace University Land Use Leadership Alliance 4-day training on Hudson
River shorelines and climate change
2011

1-Feb-11 Shorelines and Habitat Adaptation Dialog Meeting
25-Mar-11 Shorelines and Habitat Adaptation Dialog Meeting
11-Apr-11 Project Team Meeting
6-May-11 Shorelines Advisory Committee meeting
Spring, 2011 Hudson River habitat training for regulators at 4 venues by Blair & others
23-Jun-11 Shorelines and Habitat Adaptation Dialog Meeting
August-11 VanLuven economic tradeoffs report completed
9-Nov-11 Revitalizing Riverfronts Community Forum in Beacon
14-Nov-11 Project Team Meeting
Fall, 2011 Hudson River Foundation seminar and webinar by Strayer
Fall, 2011 American Shore & Beach Preservation Association presentation by Miller
23-Sep-11 Shorelines and Habitat Adaptation Dialog Meeting
1-Dec-11
NYC Green Harbor & Aquatecture Task Force: Blair brief presentation on
shorelines project
9-Dec-11 Shorelines Advisory Committee Meeting
2012

13-Jan-12 Revitalizing Riverfronts Community Forum in Kingston

31
6-Feb-12 Connecticut Nature Conservancy webinar on Shorelines Project by Blair
Feb-12 Hudson Valley Watershed Alliance shorelines presentation by Strayer
15-Feb-12 Shorelines and Habitat Adaptation Dialog Meeting
23-Apr-12 Revitalizing Riverfronts Community Forum in Hudson
16-May-12 Shorelines and Habitat Adaptation Dialog Meeting
31-Jul-12 Dalton user preferences study completed
31-Jul-12 Website launched: http://www.hrnerr.org/hudson-river-sustainable-shorelines/
31-Jul-12 Project branding and document design completed
31-Jul-12 Engineering literature review completed
31-Jul-12 Engineering comparative cost analysis completed
31-Jul-12 Shorelines Project Phase 1 completed; CICEET funding ends



32
APPENDIX 5: PRESENTATIONS TO PROFESSIONAL AUDIENCES

Presentations to Professional Audiences involved in Estuary Management, Regulation,
Natural Resource Protection, and Research

Project results were presented to Hudson River Estuary Management Advisory
Committee (HREMAC), and to the HREMAC fish habitat subcommittee in 2009-2010.
HREMAC members represent interests directly involved in the estuary including
commercial fishing, recreational uses, research, education, conservation, local
government, marine trades and industry. (http://www.dec.ny.gov/about/46924.html)

Presentations at NERRS meetings / webinars - Betsy Blair gave a presentation at the
annual NERRS meeting in fall 2010 and Emilie Hauser presented at the Coastal Training
Program Coordinators meeting in spring 2011.

The Shoreline & Habitat Adaptation Dialog (SHAD) - Quarterly Meetings 2011-2012.
Several Coordinating Team members have been meeting quarterly with other agency and
nonprofit colleagues in an informal discussion on climate change adaptation, habitat
protection, and shoreline management along the Hudson River Estuary. We provided
updates on various elements of the shorelines project to the SHAD group when it met on
February 1, March 24 and June 23. Most participants serve on one of the Shorelines
standing committees, but in their SHAD role they support the Project with spatial
mapping and analysis expertise.

Outreach to State and Federal Agency Staff Spring, 2011. HRNERR staff presented
findings of the Sustainable Shoreline project to 61 executive, permit/regulatory, and
natural resource staff of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on three dates in four locations and via video-
conference as part of a presentation on Hudson River habitats.

Green Harbor and Aquatecture Task Force Meeting December 1, 2011. Jon Miller and
Betsy Blair attended this meeting in New York City and Betsy provided a brief overview
of the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project to about 50 attendees, a diverse group
of stakeholders from the New York/New Jersey Harbor area. As a result of this outreach,
we identified one potential demonstration site, distributed our guidance Managing Shore
Zones for Ecological Benefits to a diverse group of stakeholders, and made a number of
connections to organizations working on shoreline management issues in the harbor area.

Webinar on Shorelines Project - February 6, 2012. The Connecticut chapter of The
Nature Conservancy hosted Betsy Blair in a 1-hour webinar on the Shorelines Project.
As a result of this webinar, we identified several potential users of the information in
Connecticut and New York.

Seminars on Shorelines Project. Dave Strayer gave a project overview and details about
his ecological findings to natural resource managers and research scientists at the Hudson
River Foundation presentation and webinar in fall, 2011 and to the Hudson River

33
Watershed Alliance meeting in February, 2012. Jon Miller gave a presentation in fall,
2011 at the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association 2011 Annual
Conference in New Orleans, La. The talk was entitled "From Soft Shorelines to
Ecologically Enhanced Shorelines".
(www.asbpa.org/conferences/2011abstracts/MillerJ.doc)

Presentations Focused on Audiences Engaged in Municipal Climate Adaptation Planning
Findings from this project have been disseminated to municipal decision makers through
presentations at a land use leadership training and three Revitalizing Hudson Riverfronts events.
The findings have also been included in a community adaptation plan for the City of Kingston
and will be included in a focused technical assistant effort which is in the planning stages with a
first stakeholder meeting scheduled for December 2012.

Land Use Leadership Alliance Training - 2010 Fall. Pace University Land Use Law
Center received national Sea Grant funding to modify their Land Use Leadership
Alliance training to focus on climate change, sea level rise and Hudson River shorelines.
This 4-day training was conducted in the autumn in partnership with the Sustainable
Shorelines Project and included the findings of the legal work conducted by Pace
(objective 6). Community leaders involved with land use and conservation planning
attended the training.

Revitalizing Hudson Riverfronts Community Forums - Fall 2011- Spring 2012. Kristin
Marcell presented information about sustainable shorelines considerations and initial best
management practices at three Revitalizing Riverfronts community forums. These
meetings were organized by Scenic Hudson, the Hudson River Estuary Program, and the
Research Reserve to promote community dialogue on climate adaptation. The first forum
was held in Beacon, NY on 11/9/2012, and was attended by about 50 community leaders
from at least three Hudson River municipalities. The second meeting was held
01/13/2012 in Kingston, NY, and drew nearly 100 community leaders from five
communities. The third was held in Hudson NY on 04/23/2012 and drew almost 100
participants from surrounding communities. A fourth event is scheduled for November
2012, focused on Westchester County. Participants received copies of Managing Shore
Zones for Ecological Benefits brochure and the guidebook Revitalizing Hudson
Riverfronts (Eisenman et al. 2010) which has a chapter on ecologically enhanced
shoreline protection methods.