Christina Tobitsch

NYSDEC Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve

Chad Leister
Leister Consulting Company

Secondary Authors:
Emilie Hauser, Hudson River NERR
Lisa Auermuller, Jacques Cousteau NERR
Kelly Valencik, Delaware NERR
Lyndie Hice-Dunton, Delaware NERR
April 2014
FINDINGS OF A PRE-CONFERENCE
ASSESSMENT OF SHORELINE
STAKEHOLDERS IN SHELTERED WATERS OF
NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY AND DELAWARE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by Christina Tobitsch of the NYSDEC Hudson River National Estuarine
Research Reserve (NERR) and Student Conservation Association for the Hudson River Sustainable
Shorelines Project. This report was edited by Chad Leister of Leister Consulting Company.
Members of the NERRS Science Collaborative Transfer Project planning team who reviewed and
provided content to this document include Emilie Hauser of NYSDEC Hudson River NERR, Lisa
Auermuller of Jacques Cousteau NERR, Kelly Valencik of Delaware NERR, and Lyndie Hice-Dunton of
Delaware NERR. The front-end assessment consisted of 20 phone interviews conducted by Chad Leister.
The participation of the interview subjects was critical to this effort. The NERRS Science Collaborative
provided funding for this front-end assessment. Cover photos credits: David Bushek of Rutgers
University and Brian Cooke and Christina Tobitsch of Hudson River NERR and SCA.
About the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project
The Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project is a multi-year effort lead by
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Hudson River
National Estuarine Research Reserve, in cooperation with the Greenway Conservancy for the Hudson
River Valley. Partners in the Project include Cary Institute for Ecosystem Studies, NYSDEC Hudson River
Estuary Program and Stevens Institute of Technology. The Project is facilitated by The Consensus
Building Institute. The Project fulfills aspects of Goal 2 of the Action Agenda of the Hudson River Estuary
Program.
The Project is supported by the National Estuarine Research Reserve System Science Collaborative, a
partnership of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of New
Hampshire. The Science Collaborative puts Reserve-based science to work for coastal communities
coping with the impacts of land use change, pollution, and habitat degradation in the context of a
changing climate.
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors based on interview responses and do not
necessarily reflect those of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the
Greenway Conservancy for the Hudson River Valley or our funders. Reference to any specific product,
service, process, or method does not constitute an implied or expressed recommendation or endorsement.
Suggested Citation
Tobitsch et al. (2014). Findings of a Pre-Conference Assessment of Shoreline Stakeholders in Sheltered
Waters of New York, New Jersey and Delaware, In association with and published by the Hudson River
Sustainable Shorelines Project, Staatsburg, NY 12580. http://hrnerr.org.



TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Methods and limitations of study ............................................................................................................................ 4
Findings ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................. 14
Appendix A- Interview questions .......................................................................................................................... 15
Appendix B- Organizations interviewed .............................................................................................................. 17
Appendix C- Terminology ...................................................................................................................................... 18

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Characterization of state representation and roles of interview subjects. .......................................... 5
Figure 2. Word cloud of living shorelines terms. ................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3. Information participants have on performance of living shorelines in comparison with
traditional shoreline protection techniques. ........................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4. Percentage who account for sea level rise in living shorelines projects.......................................... 11
Figure 5. Is the state of living shorelines research sufficient? ............................................................................ 12



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document highlights the key results of a front-end assessment for the NERRS Science Collaborative
Transfer Project: Regional Dialogue (NY, NJ, DE) to Advance Sustainable Shorelines along Sheltered
Coasts. Twenty shoreline stakeholders from New York, New Jersey, and Delaware were interviewed to
help assess the current state of living shorelines information and address regional needs. The results of
these interviews, discussed in this document, helped shape the agenda for a one-day regional workshop
hosted at Rutgers University, New Brunswick on October 4, 2013.





Needs Assessment of Living Shoreline Stakeholders in NY, NJ and DE Page 3


INTRODUCTION
The Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) received funding for a NERRS
Science Collaborative Transfer Project in spring 2013. This Transfer Project was motivated by regional
interest in the previously funded Science Collaborative project: Promoting Sustainable Shorelines
along New York's Hudson River, also known as the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project
(HRSSP).
The purpose of the HRSSP is to provide science-based information about the best shoreline
management options for preserving important natural functions of the Hudson River Estuarys shore
zone, especially as sea level rise accelerates and storms increase in intensity. The project is generating
new information about engineering performance, economic costs, projected river conditions, legal and
regulatory opportunities, and the needs and priorities of key audiences. To date, project team
members have carried out numerous research activities including studies of shoreline treatment
impacts on river ecology, public perception of shorelines, climate change and sea level rise
adaptation, and ecological costs and benefits of shoreline treatments. Each of these activities
contributes to the dissemination of information to decision makers on shoreline changes.
The objectives of the Transfer Project included sharing the findings from the Hudson River
Sustainable Shorelines Project, addressing barriers to living shoreline adoption, and discussing
regional approaches for the advancement of living shorelines with interested stakeholders in New
York, New Jersey, and Delaware. The Project Team consisted of NERR coastal training program
coordinators at Hudson River (Emilie Hauser), Jacques Cousteau (Lisa Auermuller), and Delaware
(Kelly Valencik), Delaware Research Coordinator Lyndie Hice-Dunton and intern Christina Tobitsch
(Hudson River and Student Conservation Association). To reach these goals, the team convened a
meeting of Reserve staff, state and federal regulators, and other shoreline stakeholders on October 4,
2013 at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, NJ. Prior to the meeting, potential event attendees
were interviewed to help the planning team understand the individual state-based perspectives and
regional issues. This assessment helped develop the agenda for the workshop by gaining information
on stakeholders needs and perception of barriers to advancing living shorelines. Beyond structuring
valuable and productive discussions at the October workshop, this front-end assessment can be a
useful tool for other interested parties and stakeholders looking to identify and address the research,
economic, ecologic, engineering, and education needs. Here we present the findings from the
interviews conducted as a part of the Transfer Projects front-end situational assessment.
METHODS AND LIMITATIONS OF STUDY
The Project Team hired Chad Leister of Leister Consulting Company to conduct the front-end
situational assessment interviews by telephone and to assist the team in developing an interview
script and questions (Appendix A). The project team provided the contact information and made the
initial contact with the interviewees to schedule the interviews. Responses to interview questions
were summarized and entered into SurveyMonkey. The deliverables included raw data in the form
of interview notes and a brief summary of findings.

Needs Assessment of Living Shoreline Stakeholders in NY, NJ and DE Page 4



Needs Assessment of Living Shoreline Stakeholders in NY, NJ and DE Page 5

37%
18%
30%
15%
Roles
Outreach/Communication
Regulation/Policy
SiteDesignorProject
Management
Other
32%
36%
32%
StateRepresentation
NewYork
NewJersey
Delaware
Stakeholders were interviewed between May 21, 2013 and July 31, 2013. There was even
representation among the three states with a variety of roles in outreach, policy, site design, and
project management. Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of the interviewees based on their state
representation and respective roles. It should be noted that some interviewees represented multiple
states and/or roles simultaneously.


Figure 1. Characterization of state representation and roles of interview subjects.

FINDINGS
General Summary
The front-end assessment found that living shorelines is a relatively new approach in the study area.
Shoreline stakeholders need more data and information on engineering, natural science, economics,
and social science. Within the region, there are similarities and differences between needs, successes,
and barriers in each state. Interviewees agreed that a regional dialogue or workshop would be very
advantageous in allowing regional stakeholders to share and provide information on the progress and
projects completed in their state. In most cases, out-of-state stakeholders are unaware of tools and
materials available from neighboring states. For example, many interviewees were unaware of a cost
analysis of alternative shoreline techniques conducted by the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines
Project. Research like this could be replicated in other states if it would be valuable to stakeholders.
Some aspects, such as regulations, were identified as challenges by representatives from every state,
however these opinions were not unanimous. Creating open dialogues between state agencies could
allow states to share and receive information on what works, what does not work, and where there
may be opportunities for regionally consistent permitting and regulations involving living shorelines
in the future. Ultimately, all interviewees indicated interest in learning more about the living
shorelines work being conducted in neighboring states and agreed that a regional collaboration could
help identify opportunities for projects and partnerships.


Needs Assessment of Living Shoreline Stakeholders in NY, NJ and DE Page 6

Terminology
Prior to conducting the front-end assessment, the team agreed that defining basic terminology is
important although challenging for living shorelines stakeholders. Interviewees did not use any one
definition consistently, even within the same state. In some cases, federal agencies have developed a
set of definitions such as those from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) general permits
1
and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
2
. Stakeholders also use other terms to
describe living shoreline projects, such as ecologically enhanced shorelines (EES) or sustainable
shorelines.
The Project Team describes these terms as follows
3
:
Living shorelines is a generic term for shoreline erosion control methods that provide habitat, preserve or
restore natural habitat and protect water quality. The definition is still evolving and there is debate as to what
constitutes a living shoreline. The term is sometimes used to describe a specific shoreline stabilization method
referred to as a sill with constructed near-shore wetland.
To eliminate confusion, we avoid using the term soft shorelines. To the lay person, soft shorelines
conjures images of sandy beaches rather than of vegetated slopes.
Sustainable Shorelines include management practices that seek to protect the shore zones wildlife
habitat, ecological benefits, outdoor recreation, community quality of life, and water-dependent businesses for
future generations.
Ecologically Enhanced Shorelines are a subset of shore protection methods that incorporate measures
to attract and support both terrestrial and aquatic biota and desirable ecological functions. These can be either
modifications to existing structures through the addition of plantings and other ecological measures or the
design of new structures incorporating ecologically-friendly materials, geometry, or placement. If correctly de-
signed, ecologically-engineered structures serve to prevent or reduce shore erosion while emulating the physical
and biological conditions of naturally occurring, stable shorelines. Valuable ecosystem services are enhanced or
restored; including provision of habitat for terrestrial and aquatic species, maintenance of water quality,
aesthetic, resilience and sustainability.
The term ecologically enhanced is used by the Hudson River Sustainable Project team because the
term living shoreline is sometimes perceived as being exclusively a vegetated shoreline.
Ecologically enhanced shorelines, such as biowalls and vegetated rip-rap can also include abiotic
features such as rock.
Prior to the interview, participants were sent background information about the HRSSP and the
aforementioned definitions. Terminology was not defined in the verbal interviews because
participants were asked to give their own definitions of living shoreline and ecologically enhanced

1
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. General Permits. http://www.sam.usace.army.mil/Missions/
Regulatory/GeneralPermits.aspx
2
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Living Shorelines. http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/
restoration/techniques/livingshorelines.html
3
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.


Needs Assessment of Living Shoreline Stakeholders in NY, NJ and DE Page 7

shorelines. Interviewees were also asked how they associate the term ecologically enhanced shoreline
with living shorelines.
The responses to this question were highly varied and sometimes conflicting. Some people believe the
terms living shoreline and ecologically enhanced shoreline to be synonymous, while others say they
differ in function. While some of the differences in agreement vary depending on state, there are also
cases of conflicting views of stakeholders from the same state. For example, one stakeholder defined
ecologically enhanced shorelines as not involving restoration; whereas other stakeholders in the same
state considered ecologically enhanced shorelines to primarily focus on habitat restoration.
Interviewees were additionally asked what other terms they commonly use when describing living
shorelines projects. These responses also showed significant variation. The summarized responses are
sorted by state and included in Appendix C.
The word cloud below depicts the most common words that were used when describing living
shorelines and ecologically enhanced shorelines (Figure 2). The size of the word reflects the frequency
of use among all the respondents. Based on the high frequency of some words, participants appear to
agree that these techniques involve:
Natural, ecological, or vegetative shoreline features and habitats
Enhancing, restoring, or adding value to a shoreline
Stabilization and management of a shoreline






Figure 2 cloud of living shorelines terms.
to Stakeholders
The interview participants represented organizations that provide technical guidance, outreach,
funding, or design and implementation of living shorelines in the Region. The names of the
participants are withheld to protect their anonymity, however a list of organizations participants
represented can be found in Appendix B.
Nearly all of the participants rated the issue of living shorelines as being extremely important to
themselves and their agency or organization. All participants also rated themselves as being
. Word
Relevance and Importance


Needs Assessment of Living Shoreline Stakeholders in NY, NJ and DE Page 8

geable to extremely knowledgeable about living
ant of an issue living shorelines are for their audience
y from not at all important to extremely
example,
ps
sponse suggests a need for additional communications and
somewhere between somewhat knowled
shorelines. However, when asked how import
or constituents, the answers varied tremendousl
important. This wide spectrum is partially due to the broad diversity of audiences frequently
engaged in shoreline management. Several individuals explained that the general public, for
is not aware of living shorelines and their benefits. The general public is just one of the many grou
they work with, and the variation in this re
outreach efforts on living shorelines.
Examples of audiences that the interviewees frequently interact with:
Engineers Landscape architects
Coastal engineers Regulators
Permit staff Municipal officials
Natural resource managers Advocates
Non-governmental organizations Property owners
General public
Responses about the importance of greening or ecologically enhancing working waterfronts varied
depending on state and direct project experiences. Participants in NY tended to emphasize the
als are involved in urban
hile maintaining recreational
the shoreline. Ecological was also important
cipants, although not Some interviewees noted that
orking waterfronts in their geo e participant
s much m egat Bay and other coastal
individuals area of
of

the
Cu

Virginia
importance of enhancing working waterfronts. Many of these individu
projects or work towards improving habitat along the Hudson River w
and economic uses of ly enhancing working waterfronts
to some of the NJ and DE parti as high a priority.
they do not have any w graphic area of work. On
acknowledged that the Hudson River i ore built up than Barn
shorelines in NJ and DE. The presence or lack of working waterfronts in each
study has ultimately affected the perception on the necessity and ability for ecological enhancement
harder structures. Users with prior experience greening harder structures value the importance and
were quick to address the success and barriers. Those with less experience voiced concerns about
ability to successfully green hardened structures associated with working waterfronts. Connecting
these two groups may assist those with less experience in learning from those who work more
regularly with working waterfronts.
rrent Sources of Information
All participants agreed that they need more information about the performance of living shoreline
techniques in comparison with traditional protection techniques. A large majority of participants said
they refer to other states and regions beyond the Mid-Atlantic for this information. The most common
outside sources of information referred to include colleagues and organizations from:
Chesapeake Bay Area
Gulf of Mexico
Alabama
Maryland
North Carolina


Needs Assessment of Living Shoreline Stakeholders in NY, NJ and DE Page 9

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Unspecified
None
StormsandResiliency
SedimentControlandErosionMonitoring
RefertoOtherColleagues/OtherSources
EcologicalStudiesandMonitoring
StructuralPerformance
Engineering
Costs
Percentageofparticipants
Informationparticipantshaveonperformance
oflivingshorelinesin
itionalshorelineprot niques
comparisonwith
trad etctiontech

Figure 3. Information participants have on performance of living shorelines in comparison with traditional
shoreline protection techniques.
Several people acknowledged the availability of information from outside the region. For example,
one living shoreline initiative in Maryland is looking at water quality, habitat, and submerged
aquatic vegetation growth in different shoreline stabilization environments. Some participants said
they have no information on hand and others said they have little information and need more.
g
be effectively translated to stakeholders in the three-state region.
ve a
ion
they
urces for the region, but it is clear that more work is

There were some concerns voiced on how research findings and practical information about livin
shoreline performance can
Responses conveyed concern that NY, NJ, and DE have different challenges including different
growing seasons and the timing and extent of ice when compared to areas to the south which ha
longer history of using living shorelines.
When asked directly about cost effectiveness information, every person indicated either informat
was completely lacking or was limited to basic numbers. This clearly indicates a need for more
detailed information. The only basic cost effectiveness information interviewees acknowledged
were aware of originated from either the side-by-side comparisons from the Partnership for the
Delaware Estuary
4
or the cost analysis conducted by Stevens Institute of Technology researchers for
the HRSSP
5
. These represent valuable reso

tnership for the Delaware Estuary. (2012). Living Shorelines: Healthy Shores, Healthy Communities.
://delawareestuary.org/pdf/Living%20Shorelines/FFF_2011_LivingShorelines_ALL_REVISED%20
df
lla, A. and Miller, J. (2012b). A Comparative Cost Analysis of Ten Shore Protection Approaches a
4
Par
http (
2).p
5
Re t


Needs Assessment of Living Shoreline Stakeholders in NY, NJ and DE Page 10

needed on cost.
Interview response indicated that while there may be several knowledge gaps on living shorelines in
this region, there are also certainly opportunities for New York, New Jersey, and Delaware to share

Consideration of Storm Resiliency and Sea Level Rise
perstorm Sandy or other recent storms
ose who thought the storm has not affected
ed for
their responses because
existing living shorelines handled the storm so well. Among this group, some participants echoed
ho
rviewees observed an increased recognition and discussion of living shorelines in state
policy following Sandy. Due to the detrimental impacts of Sandy in New Jersey, emergency
am
pedite
have either discussed, considered , or already
implemented sea level rise planning in their living shorelines projects. Reasons for not accounting for
sea level rise included that there is presently a greater concern over storm frequency than sea level

experiences and lessons learned from small scale stabilization projects and research conducted. One
hundred percent of the participants said they would be interested in learning more about what their
neighboring states are doing. Particularly, multiple responses indicated an interest in project costs,
site condition comparisons (such as energy regimes and bathymetry), design techniques, and success
and failures of the completed projects.

The interviews identified mixed feelings on whether Su
affected the use and perception of living shorelines. Th
living shorelines discussed both the lack of examples implemented prior to the storm and the ne
more time to adequately evaluate the success of living shorelines in a storm. The lack of known
available examples hindered the ability of some participants to assist policy makers to increase the use
of living shorelines to protect from storms, erosion, and sea level rise.
Another subset of participants noted a positive change of perceptions in
these feelings with some apprehension because a public perception that living shorelines are less
structurally effective than other approaches still persists. A large majority of the NY stakeholders w
were interviewed commended living shorelines projects for successfully protecting the shoreline in
recent storms. It is evident from the interviews that there is information about Sandy shore resiliency
that should be shared with a larger audience. While NJ and DE might not have enough examples of
living shorelines within the state to observe and collect data from, the lessons learned, successes, and
failures of living shorelines projects along the Hudson River and in the NY/NJ Harbor can provide
some valuable recommendations and information as more living shorelines projects begin moving
forward.
Many inte
amendments were added to the NJ Department of Environmental Protection Coastal Permit Progr
Rules and Coastal Zone Management Rules, which included a new permit to facilitate and ex
the process for building a living shoreline.
A total of 74% of the participants said they
rise and that sea level rise is not often included on state permit applications. The majority agreed that
accounting for sea level rise should be done even if it is not being done already.

Three Sites Under Two Sea Level Rise Scenarios. In association with and published by the Hudson River
Sustainable Shorelines Project, Staatsburg, NY 12580, http://hrnerr.org.


Needs Assessment of Living Shoreline Stakeholders in NY, NJ and DE Page 11


Figure 4. Percentage who account for sea level rise in living shorelines projects
Barriers
Of those interviewed, 16 identified permitting and regulations as a barrier for living shorelines.
Interviewees from NJ explained that regulations were formerly a problem, but that has been
ameliorated because of the recent development of a general permit. Other participants recognized
ermitting of living shorelines.
l participants identified permitting as an issue, but it was generally agreed that regulators
would benefit from more information about cost, implementation, and performance. Some of the
els

at
rs.
ose, functionality
at
Sandy emergency rules as aiding the progress in allowing the general p
Not al
regulatory barriers described by participants include:
Incomplete understanding of living shorelines among permitting agencies
Tidal wetlands permits discourage the use of living shorelines
Lack of coordination between permitting agencies for living shorelines
Lack of a mechanism to encourage or require living shorelines at federal, state, or local lev
Hardened structures are still the default option
Permit review and approval processes do not allow some living shorelines
Design of regulations toward protecting resources rather than restoring habit
Restricted use of materials designated as fill in underwater areas

Lan owner misconceptions of living shorelines is another significant barrier At least ten participants d
described challenges and barriers that are faced when working specifically with property owne
Understanding the potential benefits of living shoreline projects, including the purp
and longevity, is typically misunderstood by landowners. Landowners sometimes fear th
42%
32%
26%
Percentagewhoaccountforsealevelrise
inlivingshorelinesprojects
Yes
Discussedbutnotimplemented
No


Needs Assessment of Living Shoreline Stakeholders in NY, NJ and DE Page 12

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Isthestateofresearchand
information
regardinglivingshorelinessufficientin
thesecategories?
Idon'tknow
Yes
Somewhat
No
implementing living shorelines will place restrictions on the activities that can be performed in that
area, such as the imposition of no wake zones. Other barriers include insufficient information on how
Ne
information available on
living shorelines is.
ifically, they were
acy
c, and

ved to be
Figure 5. Is the state of living shorelines research sufficient?
or more information on economics, with 95% responding negatively.
ived the highest positive response with more than 40 % of
indicating that there was at least somewhat sufficient knowledge in this category.
pportu ities f Colla ration nd Sy
articipants were very open to the idea of possible regional collaborations and presented a variety of
share
ntly
suggested during responses to multiple survey questions. Possible information sharing opportunities
Share lists of engineers and contractors.
living shorelines compare to traditional shoreline structures, knowledge level of
contractors/engineers, project costs, and lack of funding opportunities.
eds
Participants were asked
describe how sufficient the
current research and
Spec
questioned on the adequ
of natural science,
engineering, economi
social science information
currently available.
As depicted in the graph to
the right, all areas of
research are percei
lacking sufficient amounts
of information readily
available.


The most prominent need is f
The natural sciences category rece
respondents
O n or bo a nergy
P
opinions in identifying potential synergies as well as barriers preventing multi-state coordination. An
overwhelming majority of people felt strongly that there is great potential and opportunity to
information, research, and outreach strategies amongst the three states. This interest was freque
include:
Share outreach strategies in addition to information and conclusions.
Communicate lessons learned in economics, design, and social science.
Create partnerships and cross-share.
Utilize existing projects in the region as examples for collaboration.


Needs Assessment of Living Shoreline Stakeholders in NY, NJ and DE Page 13

Create a regional website to provide a clearinghouse of resources.
Utilize regional research institute(s) to create a larger base for information sharing.
g protocols among
discussions as a group.
rd language and

lling specific needs. For example they
oreline performance and
o regional collaboration is the differing regulatory conditions, since each state
a different set of permitting and regulatory requirements related to living shorelines. At the
le,
ep.
ng
(SAGE) program were noted as opportunities that could support regional collaboration. Responses
,
g
waterfronts. In Delaware, on the other hand, respondents suggested the primary purpose of living
lso
d
Re
lations and permitting challenges, opportunities or
ideas for regional collaborations, and real world projects or case studies. The following lists are
pecific topics and opinions mentioned during interviews.

Create a Mid-Atlantic Technical Workgroup to share data and monitorin
those working on technical aspects of projects.
Share case studies and legal/regulatory
Coordinate messaging for contractors and homeowners using standa
framework.

In addition, several participants presented a strong interest in sharing known information and taking
action in a collaborative group to move forward in fulfi
suggested developing a set of regional standards for monitoring living sh
investigating opportunities for funding collaboration, such as a new tri-state fund or grants.
he primary barrier t T
has
federal level, these states are managed in multiple regions of the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). While regional differences can be a strugg
bringing all parties, including federal agencies to the table to talk was suggested as a worthwhile st
The ACOE Nationwide General Permit and Systems Approach to Geomorphologic Engineeri
indicated that the sharing of permit language and knowledge of living shorelines amongst state
agencies can help them revise and expedite the permitting process for living shorelines
Another barrier to collaboration between the states is the differences in the purposes of living
shorelines and what they are built to protect. As discussed earlier, working waterfronts have
dramatically shaped the Hudson River shoreline for centuries, by means of constructed railroads
bulkheads, and docks. Working waterfronts do not, however, hold the same priority in parts of NJ
and DE. In New York and New Jersey, respondents valued the importance of greening harder
structures or implementing hybrid techniques that can withstand the demands of workin
shorelines has been to protect wetlands and many of the desired methods are relatively softer
shoreline approaches. Geographic and geomorphic differences such as wave and ice conditions a
exist between different states. Differences like these in shoreline demands, needs and purpose coul
potentially limit opportunity for collaborations.

gional Living Shoreline Workshop
Survey participants were asked what topics they would like to see covered at a regional living
shorelines workshop, including challenges and/or opportunities for discussion. The three primary
topics of interest included comparison of state regu
s


Needs Assessment of Living Shoreline Stakeholders in NY, NJ and DE Page 14


Regulatory
Tidelines Resource Council Rules (DE)
Shellfish regulatory issues
Comparison of state and federal regulations and permitting
Identification of regional/state differences in regulations and interpretations
Recent changes in NJ regulations
How to get a yes on permit review
nsider policies on the regulating the use of fill
e effective than a hit and miss scattering of projects
ups
Case Studies/ Real Life Projects
lures
w of project performance
s
Other topics mentioned less frequently included outreach for homeowners and contractors,
nd storm resiliency of living shorelines, sharing of innovative design
tion on funding sources, assistance with site selection and
permit staff.
CONCLUSION
Reco

Regional Collaboration
Data and information sharing
Region-wide research opportunities with NERRS
A large scale regional effort is mor
Creation of partnerships and workgro

Successes and fai
Cost-benefit analysis and revie
Pre- or post- field experience to demonstration site
Identify demonstration projects with complete information

examining and discussing flood a
ideas, design assistance, informa
opportunities for technical training of consultants, contractors and

The
con formation
obt for the discussions
the October 4, 2013 event, Regional Dialogue to Advance Sustainable Shorelines along Sheltered
oasts. Presentations and proceedings can be found at http://www.hrnerr.org/estuary-
front-end assessment helped identify the needs and challenges stakeholders face when designing,
structing, and maintaining living shorelines in New York, New Jersey, and Delaware. The in
ained from the study was used to help develop an agenda and key talking points
at
C
training/trainingtopic/regional-dialogue-nynjde/. Despite the uncertainty and challenges still ahead for
some states regarding permitting and regulations, cost-benefits of specific techniques, and storm
s. resiliency, all participants agreed that there is value in sharing data and information across state border



Needs Assessment of Living Shoreline Stakeholders in NY, NJ and DE Page 15

APPENDIX A- INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. How do you define the term iving shorelines? If I described a project as an ecologically enhanced
shoreline, what would that dicate to you? How would that differ from a living shoreline? Are
there other terms that you use to describe living shoreline projects?
2. What is your role with living shorelines (select all that apply)?
a) Outreach or Communication
b) Regulatory or Policymaker
c) Project Management or Design
d) Other: _______________________
3. Level of Knowledge and Need (Please rate on a scale of 1-5)

How knowledgeable do you consider yourself about living shorelines?
1 not at all knowledgeable
5 extremely knowledgeable

How important of an issue are living shorelines for you and your agency or organization?
1 not at all important
5 extremely important

How important of an issue are living shorelines for your audience or constituents?
1 not at all important
5 extremely important

4. We are aware of some examples of living shorelines that have been constructed in the Hudson River,
New York City and Delaware River areas. Also, the Army Corps of Engineers and National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration are compiling a list of these in NY and NJ. Are you interested in
learning more about specific examples? Are you interested in learning what is being constructed now
or may be constructed in the next few years?
5. In some areas there is a need to stabilize shorelines in order to provide for working waterfronts
(docking, shipyards, etc.) How important is greening or ecologically enhancing working waterfronts
to you/ your organization?
6. What barriers to living shorelines have you encountered? Any federal, state, or local permitting
barriers? What about other barriers such as financing, cost, durability, or functionality? Any others?

7. Do you account for sea level rise in your living shorelines projects, project plans, or communications
on living shorelines? If so, how? If not, do you plan to do so in the future? Please describe if possible.
8. What information do you have about the cost effectiveness of living shorelines techniques in
comparison with traditional shoreline protection techniques?
9. What information do you have about the performance of living shorelines techniques in comparison
with traditional shoreline protection techniques?
10. What sources do you use when seeking information regarding living shorelines?
l
in


Needs Assessment of Living Shoreline Stakeholders in NY, NJ and DE Page 16

11. Is the state of natural science research and information regardin
additional natural science information on this subject would be helpf
g living shorelines sufficient? What
ul?
shorelines sufficient? What
l?
h and information regarding living shorelines sufficient? What
on this subject would be helpful?
envision between the three states (NY, NJ, DE) and relevant
relines?
think that they are
viewed onomically effective?
17. Who else should in your state or area of service regarding this issue?
18. Are there a ask during this interview but should have? Do you have any
oth

12. Is the state of engineering research and information regarding living shorelines sufficient? What
additional engineering information on this subject would be helpful?
13. Is the state of economic research and information regarding living
additional economic information on this subject would be helpfu
14. Is the state of social science researc
additional social science information
15. What opportunities or synergies do you
federal agencies in pursuing the implementation of living sho
16. Did Superstorm Sandy affect the use and perception of living shorelines? Do you
as more or less structurally and/or ec
I contact
ny questions that we did not
er questions, comments, or concerns?



Needs Assessment of Living Shoreline Stakeholders in NY, NJ and DE Page 17

APPENDIX B- ORGANIZATIONS INTERVIEWED
American Littoral Society
Army Corps of Engineers New York District
Barnegat Bay Partnership
Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve

New York State Department of State
Stevens Institute of Technology
The Nature Conservancy
















Center for Inland Bays
Delaware Coastal Program
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation
Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
New York New Jersey Harbor and Estuary Program
New York Sea Grant
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service
Partnership for the Delaware Estuary
Rutgers University



Needs Assessment of Living Shoreline Stakeholders in NY, NJ and DE Page 18

APPENDIX C- TERMINOLOGY
Words and phrases used by participants to describe
living shorelines (LSL)
New York New Jersey Delaware
Vegetation The antithesis of a hard structure
Prevents erosion
Softer shoreline treatments
Shoreline stabilization
Natural compon
Rip r n development
component of a shorel
a ia
stabilization proje
Riparian corridors
A living shoreline is a shoreline
reatment for erosion control and t
flooding that incorporates
egetation, fill and structural
mponents to enhance features of
e shoreline to minimize
isruption of natural coastal
rocesses
horeline erosion control treatment
at seeks to mimic the function of
natural shoreline while still
roviding erosion control benefits
SL is a stabilization technique that
cludes some aspect of ecological
nhancement
SL means hybrid approaches to
oreline management which
clude vegetative materials,
shellfish, or other living features to
manage sediment transport
processes

Using different approaches and
ents are the major
ine
ct
bulkheading or
Measures that reduce the natural
forces that cause erosion
Integration of living resources to
erosion control efforts that also serve
to create habitat.
Shoreline erosion control treatment
that seeks to mimic the function of a
natural shoreline while still
providing erosion control benefits
Enhances ecological values rather
than degrading it
It is a misconception that a LSL is a
natural shoreline
LSL is an engineered structure meant
to achieve a management goal ( such
as flood or erosion control) while
enhancing the ecology
Not to be confused with restoration
of a natural shoreline
Shoreline erosion control treatment
that seeks to mimic the function of a
natural shoreline while still providing
erosion control benefits
e to stabilize shoreline while
increasing biodiversity through the
use of natural materials and plants
Alternative to hardened shoreline
Provides habitat
Shoreline stabilization
Utilizing planting and natural
materials
Limited hard structures
Mimics natural functions
Improved upon condition of what
was existing
A good LSL project should be
ecologically enhancing
Enhances ecological values rather
than degrading it
It is a misconception that a LSL is a
natural shoreline
An engineered structure meant to
achieve a management goal ( such as
flood or erosion control) while
enhancing the ecology

v
co
th
d
p
S
th
a
p
L
in
e
L
sh
in
shoreline
materials
Techniqu
Something beyond
biologs.


Needs Assessment of Living Shoreline Stakeholders in NY, NJ and DE Page 19


Balance between a natural
shoreline that also allows for access
and u
recre
Any approach for stabilizing a
shoreline combining structural
element s. Its a
spectrum
LSL is the only term to be broadly
embraces by the public and
Wetland
LSL is a
stabilization to protect a coastal
ing
and restoring it to a
natural shoreline
rotection project that uses
natural habitats to protect some
bilizing a
shoreline combining structural

reline or

Not to be confused with restoration of
a natural shoreline
LSL is the only term to be broadly
ted shorelines
A shorelin e
natural en
against it
to
changing conditions such as sea level
se of the waterfront including
ation and maritime activities
management community
Provides habitat
embraces by the public and
management community
Vegeta
s and natural feature
.

naturally oriented
resources such as a wetland or tak
a bulkhead
Shoreline p
infrastructure behind it
Any approach for sta
elements and natural features. Its a
spectrum
A shoreline that resembles a natural
habitat that allows the sho
the habitat behind it to adapt over
time to changing conditions such as
sea level rise.
e that works with th
vironment instead of
Can change with the surroundings
Provides habitat
Wetland
A shoreline that resembles a natural
habitat that allows the shoreline or the
habitat behind it to adapt over time
rise.




Needs Assessment of Living Shoreline Stakeholders in NY, NJ and DE Page 20

Words and phras ip cribe es used by partic ants to des
ecologicall orelin y enhanced sh es (EES)
New York New Jersey Delaware
Ma
Enhance habitat value or ecological
function
EES is not restoration
EES is synonymous with LSL
Habitat restoration is the primary purpos
of a EES
EES is one that is degraded or ecologicall
underperforming and restoring it
EES includes some level of engineering a
design to create an ecological enhancement
EES is some deliberate effort to foster
habitat within the tidal zone and other ne
shore submerged and upland areas
EES suggest that the purpose is to provide
habitat but not necessarily address erosion
as in LSL
EES is one where the predominant focus is
natural, bioengineering using native species
to help stabilize a shoreline and improve
ecological balance.
Sometimes EES falls under LSL, but there is
a subtle difference
Form of LSL and EES may be the same but
functions are different
LSL is flexible, EES can be more rig
lueless
ssarily the same as LSL
ot
habitat and
nd
ing it
and or
to grow
roadly under LSL
EES indicates there is some type of
restoration that took place on that
function as
a habitat.
EES is preferred to use over LSL
An enhancement to shore protection
approach to enhance its ecological value.
EES is providing ecological services
above what existed before.
Differences are subtle but important
Form of LSL and EES may be the same
but functions are different Not clear
whether EES is a LSL

ed
nderperforming and
restoring it
An EES is not necessarily a
a EES could enhance
the habitat
Oysters or other habitat
structure
EES are subsets of LSL
projects
EES is something almost
valueless and adding value
to it
EES is providing ecological
services above what existed
before.
Different in subtle but
important ways
Form of LSL and EES may be
the same but functions are
different
LSL is flexible, EES can be
more rigid
EES not necessarily the same
as LSL
nmade
e
EES is a shoreline project that is n
entirely LSL, a hybrid.
EES provides better
y
nd
ecosystem services
EES is one that is degraded or
ecologically underperforming a
restor

ar
EES is restoring a marsh or wetl
creating a wetland that is going
on its own
EES fits b
id
and
EES is one that is degrad
or ecologically
u
EES is something almost va
adding value to it
EES not nece
shoreline. Enhances ability to
LSL, but
LSL efforts
EES is not the same as LSL
for permits
EES is something done to
increase the complexity of


Needs Assessment of Living Shoreline Stakeholders in NY, NJ and DE Page 21



Other terms used by participants instead of living
shorelines (LSL)
York New Jersey Delaw New are
Alternati

natives

ditional engineering
Marsh sill
Green infrastructure
ch to enhance its
ecological value.

Hybrid shoreli

Hyb

Grey

Natu

Rest

Ecos
reen Bulkheading

Vege
Vege

r
or

Bioe
Stream morphology

ature-based solution
oas

atu
ystem services

Accretion

s
Green Bulkhe

relin

on
Chance t ands to
igrate
egetate
Vegetated stab

Shorelin

Shoreline enha

cosyste

Accretion
ion
Habitat



ves to hardening
Ecoalter
Hybrid engineering

Nontra

Green engineering

Softer engineering

Natural stream design


G

Marsh breakwater


Beach restoration or
enhancement

Sho

Sh
Green Bulkheading

Hybrid structural approaches



Managed natural protective
features

N

C
Ecologically enhanced is preferred
over LSL

An enhancement to shore
protection approa
N

Ecos
ne
rid approaches Sho
and green infrastructure
ral application
Erosi

oration techniques
m

ystem services
V

tated shoreline
tated stabilization
eline softening
E
eline enhancement
ngineering

Eros

tal defenses
ral or green infrastructure
Ero
Habitat
ion control

ading
e stability
control
o allow wetl
d shoreline
ilization
e softening
ncement
m services
control