Proceedings Regional (Ny-Nj-De) Dialogue To Advance Sustainable Shorelines Along Sheltered Coasts

Elizabeth Livermont, Emilie Hauser, Christina Tobitsch, Lisa Auermuller,
Kelly Valencik and Lyndie Hice-Dunton

April 2014
PROCEEDINGS REGIONAL
(NY-NJ-DE) DIALOGUE TO ADVANCE
SUSTAINABLE SHORELINES ALONG
SHELTERED COASTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This proceedings report was prepared by Elizabeth Livermont of Stevens Institute of Technology for the
NYSDEC Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve (HRNERR). The regional dialogue work-
shop and proceedings were funded by the NERRS Science Collaborative transfer project through the
Greenway Conservancy for the Hudson River Valley. The NERRS Science Collaborative is located in
New Hampshire and provides competitive grants to the 28 NERRs around the country. The planning
team consisted of Coastal Training Program Coordinators Emilie Hauser (Hudson River NERR and
NEIWPCC), Lisa Auermuller (Jacques Cousteau NERR) and Kelly Valencik (Delaware NERR), Christina
Tobitsch (Hudson River NERR and Student Conservation Association) and Research Coordinator Lyndie
Hice-Dunton (Delaware NERR). The full list of attendees can be found on page 31 of this document, and
all presentations can be found at http://www.hrnerr.org/estuary-training/trainingtopic/regional-
dialogue-nynjde. Cover photos credits: David Bushek, Rutgers University and Brian Cooke and Christina
Tobitsch of HRNERR and SCA.
About the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project
The Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project is a multi-year effort lead by
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Hudson River
National Estuarine Research Reserve, in cooperation with the Greenway Conservancy for the Hudson
River Valley. Partners in the Project include Cary Institute for Ecosystem Studies, NYSDEC Hudson River
Estuary Program and Stevens Institute of Technology. The Project is facilitated by The Consensus Build-
ing Institute. The Project fulfills aspects of Goal 2 of the Action Agenda of the Hudson River Estuary Pro-
gram.
The Project is supported by the National Estuarine Research Reserve System Science Collaborative, a
partnership of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of New Hamp-
shire. The Science Collaborative puts Reserve-based science to work for coastal communities coping with
the impacts of land use change, pollution, and habitat degradation in the context of a changing climate.
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Greenway Conservancy for the Hudson
River Valley or our funders. Reference to any specific product, service, process, or method does not con-
stitute an implied or expressed recommendation or endorsement.
Suggested Citation
Livermont, E. A., Hauser, E., Tobitsch, C., Auermuller, L., Valencik, K., Hice-Dunton, L., (2014) Proceed-
ing for Regional (NY-NY-DE) Dialogue to Advance Sustainable Shorelines along Sheltered Coasts (Octo-
ber 4, 2013) In association with and published by the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project,
Staatsburg, NY 12580, http://hrnerr.org
Regional (NY-NJ-DE) Dialogue to Advance Sustainable Shorelines Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 3
DESCRIPTION of workshop ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Getting on the Same Page .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project ......................................................................................................... 9
A Comparative Cost Analysis of Ten Shore Protection Approaches ................................................................ 11
Regulatory Panel: Stepping Stones or Stumbling Blocks .................................................................................... 14
Situational Overview ................................................................................................................................................ 19
Ideas for Regional Collaboration Projects ............................................................................................................. 24
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................. 28
Appendix A: Table of Abbreviations and Acronyms .......................................................................................... 31
Appendix B: Participants ......................................................................................................................................... 32
Appendix C: Evaluation Responses ....................................................................................................................... 34
Appendix D: References and Resources ................................................................................................................ 37

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

INTRODUCTION
The Sustainable Shorelines Project:
The Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project aims to develop science-based recommendations for
shore zone management that preserve or enhance natural benefits while meeting engineering needs.
Along the Hudson River Estuarys 300 miles of shoreline, communities are experiencing increased flood-
ing from changing rainfall patterns and greater inundation from rising waters. Pressure is growing to
alter shorelines to hold back the waters and control erosion, and community leaders, regulators, land-
owners, and funders are faced with important decisions about investments in shoreline infrastructure.
These decisions will affect community waterfront use and determine the future of vital near-shore river
habitats.
The Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve (HRNERR), with the involvement of many part-
ners, launched the Sustainable Shorelines Project in 2008 to provide science-based information about the
engineering, economic, and ecological tradeoffs among shoreline management options, given likely fu-
ture conditions. New work is focusing on how aspects of structures can be manipulated, such as the
roughness of the substrate used and the vegetative cover, to increase ecological benefits. The project will
also increase understanding of how physical forces are reshaping shorelines, develop innovative shore-
line demonstration sites, and integrate project results into a decision support tool.
The projects collaborative approach involves diverse stakeholders to identify priority information needs,
respond to project findings, and shape products and tools. Local government officials, shoreline experts
and consultants, shoreline landowners, policy-makers, regulators, engineers, and others shape and guide
the project by participating in advisory committees, focus groups, surveys, and case studies. Project find-
ings are being used to make decisions about community waterfronts, regulatory and land use policies,
shoreline development and long-term plans that will allow important natural shore zone areas to exist
into the future.
Transfer Project:
The Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve received funding for a NERRS Science Collabora-
tive Transfer Project in spring 2013. This transfer project was motivated by Reserve interest in the Science
Collaborative project: Promoting Sustainable Shorelines along New York's Hudson River, also known as
Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project (HRSSP).
The objectives of the transfer project included sharing the findings from the Hudson River Sustainable
Shorelines Project, addressing barriers to living shoreline adoption, and discussing regional approaches
for the advancement of living shorelines with stakeholders who are interested in living shoreline issues in
New York, New Jersey, and Delaware. The planning team consisted of:
Emilie Hauser Hudson River NERR Coastal Training Program Coordinator
Lisa Auermuller Jacques Cousteau NERR Coastal Training Program Coordinator
Kelly Valencik Delaware NERR Coastal Training Program Coordinator
Christina Tobitsch Hudson NERR and SCA Intern

Lyndie Hice-Dunton Delaware NERR Research Coordinator
Jennifer Holmes Delaware NERR Education Coordinator
To reach these goals, the team would convene a meeting of Reserve staff, state and federal regulators, and
other shoreline stakeholders held on October 4, 2013 at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, NJ.
NERRS Front-End Assessment:
Prior to the workshop, potential event attendees were interviewed to more fully understand the individ-
ual state-based perspectives and to refine these issues within the context of the region. This pre-event as-
sessment helped develop the agenda for the workshop by gaining the stakeholders information needs
and perception of barriers to advancing living shorelines. Beyond structuring valuable and productive
discussions at the October workshop, this front-end assessment can be a useful tool for other interested
parties and stakeholders looking to identify and address the research, economic, ecologic, engineering,
and education needs, Tobitsch et al. (2014).

DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHOP
A meeting of Reserve staff, state and federal regulators, and other shoreline stakeholders was held on
October 4, 2013 at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, NJ. Objectives of workshop were:
a. Share lessons learned from the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project as well as other are-
as;
b. Define terms such as living shorelines and ecologically enhanced shorelines to be used regionally;
c. Assess opportunities and constraints for implementing ecologically enhanced shoreline projects
within the NY, NJ, DE region;
d. Discuss data, outreach and resource needs to further advanced living shorelines in the
NY/NJ/DE region;
e. Outline next steps for working collaboratively on regionally focused living shoreline tools, re-
sources and guidance, potentially to be addressed through a future RFP opportunity;
f. Identify interested parties willing to continue working collaboratively on regionally focused liv-
ing shoreline tools, research, resources and guidance.
These proceedings capture the content and discussion at the workshop, which followed the agenda be-
low. The full list of attendees can be found in Appendix B, and all presentations can be found at
http://www.hrnerr.org/estuary-training/trainingtopic/regional-dialogue-nynjde
Meeting Agenda
Welcome and Introductions: Moderated by Christina Tobitsch, NYSDEC HRNERR
Getting on the Same Page: Emilie Hauser, NYSDEC HRNERR
Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project: Betsy Blair, NYSDEC HRNERR
A Comparative Cost Analysis of Ten Shore Protection Approaches at Three Sites Under Two Sea
Level Rise Scenarios: Speakers: Jon Miller and Andrew Rella, Stevens Institute of Technology
Panel Discussion: Regulatory Stepping Stones or Stumbling Blocks
Panel: Ed Bonner (ACOE), Josh Thiel (NYSDEC via telephone), Betsy Blair (NYSDEC), Ginger
Kopkash (NJDEP), Jill Aspinwall (NJDEP), Jim Chaconas (DE DNRC)
Moderated by Emilie Hauser, NYSDEC HRNERR
Situational Overview: Attendees rotate tables to hear speakers share lessons learned in projects
occurring in various regions and participate in roundtable discussions. Hudson River- Emilie
Hauser, Long Island- Jay Tanski, NYC- Jessica Fain, NY NJ Harbor- Kate Boicourt, New Jersey -
Jon Miller, Delaware Estuary- Dave Bushek, and SAGE (Systems Approach to Geomorphic Engi-
neering)- Charlie Chesnutt.
Moderated by Lyndie Hice-Dunton, Delaware NERR
Ideas for Regional Collaboration Projects:
Moderated by Lisa Auermuller, Jacques Cousteau NERR
Next Steps & Wrap Up
Adjourn

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

GETTING ON THE SAME PAGE
Speaker: Emilie Hauser, NYSDEC HRNERR
Objectives:
Participants understand the variety of terms and the common objectives of living shorelines and
ecologically enhanced shorelines to be used regionally and during the day
Presentation:
The Hudson River NERR received a grant from the NERRS Science Collaborative (NSC) to hold a work-
shop, in which knowledge regarding sustainable shorelines would be transferred from the NSC funded
Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project to the Jacques Cousteau and Delaware Reserves. The aim
was to gather a mix of individuals from Delaware, New Jersey, and other areas of New York. Unfortu-
nately, due to the shutdown of the federal government in early October, no federal employees were pre-
sent and last minute changes to the agenda reflected this alteration. The goal of the workshop was to
learn and share the knowledge and experience of all regions, with the common purpose of protecting
shorelines from erosion while enhancing ecological function.
Prior to the workshop, a front-end assessment was conducted (as discussed in the Introduction), in which
four areas of interest were identified: economics; engineering and design; social science and outreach; and
regional regulatory opportunities. For the front-end assessment, 20 stakeholders were interviewed
through a series of guiding questions to determine perspectives on living shorelines. One of the products
from the assessment was a word cloud seen below which illustrates the most common words used. Nat-
ural, habitat, erosion and use occurred frequently.
The workshop planning team found it was important to identify and define the relevant terms for sus-
tainable shorelines for the multi-disciplinary group of researchers and other partners. The Hudson River
Sustainable Shorelines Project prefers the term ecologically enhanced engineered shorelines, which is a

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

The shoreline often demarcates the boundary between private and public landsin Delaware this is
mean low water and in New York and New Jersey it is mean high water.
The goal for sustainable shorelines is to protect one and/or all of the zones in the shoreline area, depend-
ing on the situation. The shoreline approach depends on the goals and location of the anticipated project.
Some of the relevant physical characteristics that influence shoreline approaches are:
Geomorphology;
The rigors of ice, wind, tides currents and/or waves that cause erosion of the shoreline;
Salinity (varies from fresh in the north to sea water in the lower reaches of the estuary, and de-
pends on the salt water front, meteorology, precipitation, tides and storm surges);
The uses and what is being protected also vary from site to site from wetland or riparian shoreline resto-
ration, working waterfronts, development, single-family homes, and confining dredge soil. The usage
and site characteristics both determine the applicable solutions. The important goal is to provide ecologi-
cal function and have a resilient protection approach. The take-away is to recognize that there are com-
mon goals, regardless of region, and to strive for clarity in the discussion to understand the nomenclature
of the researchers and other partners.
Q&A:
Q: The new definition for ecologically modified shorelines resonates, but appears to pertain more to the
scientist than the public. Is this new termecologically modified shorelinesgaining better traction
for living shorelines?

A: The term living shorelines is not used in conjunction with the Hudson, so the public would not
necessarily resonate with that term. However, defining living shorelines is just one aspect of the en-
tire definition.
Q: (Follow-up): What is the public response to sustainable shorelines?
A: The Sustainable Shorelines project is a broader land use management concept. It is not specific to
a single project.
Q: Is there a learning curve with the public for defining and accepting what the term (sustainable shore-
lines) means?
A: The learning curve was among the project teamthe coordinating members, researchers and nat-
ural resource managers-- which motivated the need for the definition. As of yet, the team is not
working specifically with the general public. The term is still being rolled out, but Betsy Blair will
discuss the relevant audience more in the next presentation.
A: (Follow-up): The project has very specific shoreline approaches; there is public document with the
terms and their definitions, which can be found on www.hrnerr.org

HUDSON RIVER SUSTAINABLE SHORELINES PROJECT
Speaker: Betsy Blair, NYSDEC HRNERR
Objectives:
Participants understand the process of collaborative learning and the basic findings of the HRSSP
Presentation:
The Hudson River NERR began studying shoreline management issues in 2005, beginning with a map-
ping project that established that over half of the Hudson River estuarys 300-mile shoreline had been
engineered or substantially modified in some respect. It was also recognized that the continued rework-
ing of the shoreline from development and waterfront revitalization, as well as the growing climate
change-related physical pressures on shorelines (from more intense and frequent storms, increased flood-
ing and surge, and sea level rise) had implications for the long-term survival of tidal wetlands, vegetated
shallows, and other important natural resources in the estuary. This was sufficient impetus to explore
whether there were shoreline treatment alternatives that would hold up, add ecological value, and add to
the systems resiliency.
The goal of the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project is to develop science-based information to
guide management decisions and promote sustainable shoreline treatments that have ecological benefits
and engineering stability that can persist despite climate changes. The NERRS Science Collaborative and
its precursor CICEET
1
, began funding the Sustainable Shorelines Project in 2009, and provided resources
for using a collaborative learning approach, one that relied heavily on input from our intended users to
shape the research agenda and approach, formulate decision support tools, and otherwise make sure the
results would be relevant and useful to themselves. The intended users included federal and state regu-
lators, engineers and other shoreline design professionals, natural resource managers, and municipal offi-
cials. Research priorities and approaches were explored with the intended users through focus groups,
surveys, workshops, technical work groups and advisory committees, in which the following was asked:
What do they need to know about shorelines and treatment choices?
What issues and information shortages do they face in doing their job?
If the current activities of the Sustainable Shoreline Project would be useful?
How decisions are made in their community?
What they knew (for shoreline engineers) and their constraints in applying solutions?
Common themes began to emerge. It was strongly articulated that demonstration sites are necessary, so
that experts, clients, and regulators develop confidence in innovative designs. In the realm of cost com-
parisons, attempting to assess and include ecosystem services was initially explored; however, many of
the intended users were skeptical about ecosystem services valuations and doubted that their clients and

1
Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology

constituents would accept them. It was discovered that decisions about municipal shoreline design are
made very early in the planning process, which means engagement about shorelines must begin almost
before the project is even conceived. There was also a wide range of terms that people used to describe
different kinds of shorelines, creating a need to create a common lexicon within our region. A fundamen-
tal challenge of altering very hard, vertical shorelines was recognized -- landowners seek to maximize
uplands, while resource managers and regulators seek to minimize impacts on the water side of shore-
lines.
Q&A:
Q: One of the operational costs of a project is monitoring. Have the conversations with local decision-
makers included the need for monitoring? Have there been any discussions of standards for moni-
toring the performance of various sustainable shoreline projects?
A: Yes, the need for monitoring has been discussed with engineers, regulators, and local officials.
The project team for sustainable shorelines believes monitoring is vital, and that it should include
both structural engineering and ecological considerations, but the team has not reached an agreement
on monitoring criteria or standards for performance monitoring.

A COMPARATIVE COST ANALYSIS OF TEN SHORE PROTEC-
TION APPROACHES
Speakers: Jon Miller and Andrew Rella, Stevens Institute of Technology
Objectives:
For participants to understand the findings of A Comparative Cost Analysis of Ten Shore Protection
Approaches at Three Sites Under Two Sea Level Rise Scenarios
This study compares the costs of several types of shoreline stabilization approaches (hard and
soft). The analysis includes the need to plan for sea-level rise, the estimated costs of construction,
maintenance and the frequency of replacement.
Presentation:
Jon Miller and Andrew Rella have been involved with the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Pro-
ject since 2008, and discussed the engineering aspect of the project during the workshop. The per-
spectives on sustainable shorelines have evolved a great deal since the project began. There tends to
be negative impression of living shorelines among engineersliving shorelines are just a bunch of
plants, which has a tendency to create an adversarial relationship between plant people and the
stone and rock people, i.e. biologists and engineers. There has been significant progress on this is-
sue in New Jersey as well as New York, though in different ways.
The initial engineering work was a literature review of all possible alternatives, spanning a range of
hard to soft structures as well as hybrid structures (hard structures that incorporate living things).
The alternatives included, but are not limited to: coconut fiber rolls; marsh sills; joint plantings/ live
stakes; green or bio-walls (a vertical wall that has any living alteration); and live crib walls.
The literature review discusses 29 possible alternatives, with 2-4 pages on each type, including a scale
of hard-to-soft aspects, the cost of installation and maintenance, and adaptability to sea level rise. An
important consideration is that the shoreline is changing with time, and structures change with new
environments. All of the options were summarized to assist in determining how an alternative
would fair at one site versus another. The rankings of each alternative were originally conducted by
Stevens; however, the partners for the project have assisted in vetting the numbers.
After the literature review, a cost comparative analysis was conducted. Three sites along the Hudson
were analyzed, looking at up to nine different shoreline approaches, which were determined as the
most relevant for the Hudson River. Two different sea level rise (SLR) scenarios were used. The cost
estimate was based on a 70-year lifetime. The analysis included: initial costs, maintenance and repair
costs, damage costs, and the cost of replacements for when the structures outlived their intended
lifespan. Damage cost (cost of repairing the structure to original functionality) saw the highest im-
pact from the different SLR scenarios, as the seas rise the 50-year storm becomes more frequent.
Bulkheads, no matter how well constructed, degrade over time and must be replaced every 35 years
based on the assumptions in the cost analysis. The advantage of hybrid and soft approaches is the
lack of a replacement requirement (living shorelines require upkeep and maintenance through their
lifetime, but not total replacement)

The designs for the nine alternatives are for comparative purposes and should not be used as engi-
neering specifications. The idea was to provide the big picture costs of the various alternatives and
develop a consistent approach for SLR at various sites. Consistency was the primary focusboth in
the engineering methods and the application of the approaches to various sites. Within the construc-
tion bids used to develop the analysis, there is a great deal of variability in costs, which in part can be
attributed to variations in the cost of materials v. contingency funds. The final cost of each approach
was a ratio of the initial cost to eliminate some of the variability seen in the construction bids. The
key takeaway was that several alternatives at each site were relatively similar in cost, and hard and
hybrid costs were found to be equal when considering a 70-year life span.
The other two portions of the engineering research for the HRSSP are a physical forces characteriza-
tion and a forensic analysis of shoreline resiliency during major storms. The physical forces character-
ization provides a variety of ways to determine the environment.
Wake data study, which was a one-day observation over a large reach of the Hudson. Based on
those observations, an analytical model is under development.
Ice data was collected from the U.S. Coast Guard and entered into a GIS layer.
Currents and water levels were modeled with NYHOPS (New York Harbor Observations and
Prediction System)
A one-year climatology was developed for currents, shear stresses, water levels and waves and
can be utilized not just for living shoreline projects, but also for any type of engineering project.
The forensic analysis is underway, and will
examine at three recent large storms and their
rain, wind and surge effects on selected sites
along the Hudson. The goal is to identify the
key ingredients for either the success or
failure of a structure. Discussions with the
engineering firms that originally designed the
structure will be used to determine the design
conditions. Additionally, extensive site visits
will be performed to get a sense of the topog-
raphy, sediment type and land cover in the
area of the site. This will be followed up with
a bathymetric survey and wake study.
Q&A:
Photo credit: Emilie Hauser
Q: In the cost comparison, was the ease of permitting considered for the individual approaches?
A: No, the cost comparison was conducted in the ideal world, where all projects would face the same
regulatory challenges.
Q: To clarify, the approach that was utilized is transferable but the data used for the calculation is site-
specific? Is that correct?

A: The approach is there, and is detailed in the accompanying paper, but all of the assumptions are
listed and can be modified if the relevant site has different considerations or other applicable assump-
tions. The methodology is consistent, however, from site to site.
A: (Follow-up): The other take home from the cost comparison is that the innovative and hybrid ap-
proaches are cost-competitive with the traditional techniques. This is important because the regula-
tory community indicated if additional steps are required to implement a sustainable shorelines pro-
ject, there cannot be an accompanying increase in financial burden.
Q: Was the level of performance compared between the various options, i.e. how a bulkhead fares in a
50-year storm?
A: A basic design methodology was used for the bulkhead, revetment, sill and other designs. Each
structure type was designed to withstand a 50-year storm. Traditional design methods and best
available guidance were utilized as well.
One of the important concepts is to decide on expectations ahead of time. For example, is a sill ex-
pected to provide as much protection as a bulkhead during a storm? Is the project to provide flood
protection or erosion protection? A sill will survive the storm, but it will likely get wet.
It is important to determine what the project goal is, and what should be accomplished. Monitoring
on the back-end of a project is not ideal; however, the aim is to capitalize on existing capabilities. The
goal is to develop these projects implementing a monitoring plan throughout the process. Then, if a
large storm occurs a valuable data set is available.
A: (Follow-up): Emilie Hauser will discuss the demonstration site network in the situational over-
view. The aim of monitoring is to set up a system in advance, so a review can be conducted on the in-
itial gathered information, at a bare minimum.
A: (Follow-up): Structures in the comparison were only evaluated in appropriate areas, i.e. bulkheads
were not evaluated in very mild energy sections, and sills were not examined on very high slopes.
Q: Were the adjacent impacts of the structure types examined?
A: The only adjacent effect that was examined in the cost analysis was flanking as its effect would
need to be repaired. In the forensic analysis, adjacent effects will be look at in more depth.


REGULATORY PANEL: STEPPING STONES OR STUMBLING
BLOCKS
Speakers: Josh Thiel, NYSDEC (via telephone)
Betsy Blair, NYSDEC HRNERR
Ginger Kopkash, NJDEP
Jill Aspinwall, NJDEP
Jim Chaconas, DE DNREC
Moderated by: Emilie Hauser, NYSDEC HRNERR
Objectives:
Participants will learn and ask questions about the regional/state differences in regulations
and interpretations across different states and understand the barriers to implementing living
shorelines.
Participants will have a better understanding of what would need to be changed to allow or
increase the construction of living shoreline projects.
Introductions:
Unfortunately due to the federal shutdown the Army Corps representative was unable to attend.
New York State DEC: Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources:
Josh Thiel Aquatic Habitat Protection Program Manager
In general, regulations that govern jurisdiction for the various projects, at a large scale, are defined by
where the project is located, and provide for differences in level of scrutiny. The area from the Troy dam
(above Albany, NY) down the length of the Hudson River estuary into the marine district around Long
Island is under the jurisdiction of the NYSDEC. There are two areas of jurisdiction: navigable waters be-
low the Mean High Water (MHW) level and sections of the Hudson that are protected based on water
classification standards, in which case jurisdiction over 50 feet of bank distance may be included. In cases
with freshwater wetlands, there is overlapping jurisdiction. Any fringing wetlands, which are connected
to the Hudson, are also included. Below the Tappan Zee Bridge, the jurisdiction only includes navigable
water (MHW and lower). This is the area where tidal wetland jurisdiction begins to play a role, which is
a much more complex and well-defined process for tidal wetlands.
The regulatory framework is a fairly open structure, so that specific project types are not defined in regu-
lation. Each project is evaluated based on weighing its merits and qualities, not the type of structure that
is being permitted. The loose set of standards is defined by environmental impacts and then a balance
with the reasonable or necessary aspect of that project. There is a great deal of flexibility in that regard
within the jurisdiction of the Aquatic Habitat Protection Program.
New York State HRNERR: Tidal Wetlands:
Betsy Blair
It is the policy of New York State to protect tidal wetlands now and in the future. There is a set of regula-
tions. The tidal wetlands are regulated in three geographic regions: Long Island, New York City (NYC)

and the lower Hudson (south of the Tappan Zee Bridge), and Westchester County Long Island Sound
shores. Each region has a different regulatory style; it is a work in progress to develop consistent guide-
lines and messages on what is allowable.
Tidal wetlands are grouped into three different bins: the adjacent area, which is the most permissive and
least sensitive; shoals and mud flats; and tidal wetlands and marshes. There are general standards for
tidal wetlands:
Must be compatible with state policy to preserve and protect tidal wetlands from now and in the
future;
Must be compatible with public health and welfare;
Must be reasonable and necessary, i.e. other alternatives have been adequately addressed;
Must meet minimum setbacks if it is in the adjacent area; and
Must meet use guidelinesa table that lays out a number of different kinds of usage, several of
which relate to shorelines. There is a bias towards replacing what already exists. There is no
permit needed for ordinary maintenance and repair, and while a permit is needed for in-kind and
in-place replacement, those types of actions are considered generally compatible.
It is very difficult to construct bulkheads and other shore stabilization structures in marshes or the littoral
zone if they have not existed before. This is good, as it is protective. However, they are generally com-
patible (needing a permit) in shoals and mud flats and even the littoral zone. Filling is presumptively not
compatible. Fill cannot be placed between the MHW and the MLW lines; it must be placed in the proper-
ty-owners section of the shore, under tidal wetland regulations. Establishing plantings is generally com-
patible, so augmenting shorelines in that manner is relatively easy. This is a broad overview; unfortu-
nately, the devil is in the details. There are challenges in the future. The State of New York is unlikely to
change either their regulations or laws, as the general viewpoint, is the state stands to lose more ground
than they will gain. The way forward is working with those implementing the permits, and how to crea-
tively interpret the existing framework for the long-term interest of the wetlands.
New Jersey DEP Regulatory Program:
Ginger Kopkash and Jill Aspinwall
New Jersey is a heavily regulated state. Working closely with partners, a review was conducted of exist-
ing regulatory policies As a result of this review, the Department adopted new rules on April 16, 2013.
These amendments facilitate the establishment of living shorelines by modifying the coastal general per-
mit at N.J.A.C. 7:7-7.29 for habitat creation and enhancement to include the establishment of living shore-
lines. It allows one to do an enhancement of the natural habitat, with some limitations. The Coastal Gen-
eral Permit 29 authorizes habitat creation, restoration or enhancement and living shoreline activities
sponsored by a Federal or State agency or other entity. A living shoreline project must be designed to
protect, restore, or enhance a habitat. Unless the project is implemented by a state or federal agency, less
than an acre of fill can be placed in the water. The designer must be mindful of submerged aquatic vege-
tation habitat, shellfish habitat, marshland, and other special areas. In accordance with the regulations,
the Department may approve a reduction in the size of a particular special area in order to allow an in-
crease in a different special area if the Department determines that the activities causing the reduction are
sufficiently environmentally beneficial to outweigh the negative environmental effects of the reduction.
Where the living shoreline is intended to restore an existing shoreline to a previous location, the living

shoreline, including all associated fill, may approve a reduction in the size of a particular special area in
order to allow an increase in a different special area if the Department determines that the activities caus-
ing the reduction are sufficiently environmentally beneficial to outweigh the negative environmental ef-
fects of the reduction. Where the living shoreline is intended to restore an existing shoreline to a previous
location, the living shoreline, including all associated fill, shall not exceed the footprint of the shoreline as
it appeared on the applicable Tidelands Map adopted by the Tidelands Resource Council (base map pho-
tography dated 1977/1978), except for a structural component of the project intended to reduce wave en-
ergy.
It is important to emphasize that a projectto fall under the general permitmust have sponsorship
from a federal or state agency. The NJ Department of Environmental Protection is currently working on
establishing consistency, given that New Jersey exists in two Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) districts.
There is training to ensure that all regulators are operating on the same page and ensure the permit appli-
cant has a smoother and efficient permitting process.
Delaware DNREC Wetlands and Subaqueous Section:
Jim Chaconas
One of the functions of the Wetlands and Subaqueous Section of the DE DNREC is to issue permits to
stabilize shorelines. The criteria for issuing the permits were developed approximately 20 years ago un-
der the authority contained in the Subaqueous Lands Act and, more specifically, in the Regulations
Governing the Use of Subaqueous Lands promulgated for the Act in 1993. Non-structural methods of
stabilizing the shoreline are preferred over structural methods (the motivation was to use rip-rap and/or
vegetation instead of bulkheads). This was primarily in the Inlands Bays area of southern Delaware.
This has been very successful as most of the natural shorelines have been stabilized with rip-rap instead
of bulkheads. There are issues with the contractors and using vegetation primarily related to liability in
having to guarantee their work.
In lieu of forcing living shorelines, Delaware has used incentives. One is a vegetative cost share program.
Delaware will match the cost of a project dollar for dollar up to $5000 for a vegetative stabilization pro-
ject. It does allow some rock to be placed, but a ratio of 2 ft
2
of vegetation to each 1 ft
2
of rock limits the
total amount of rock. This program has been in place since 2005, and the funding comes from the non-
point source pollution 319 program. The cost-share program has funded approximately 40 projects in
that time. About 5 projects are funded a year, plantings in the late spring and early summer imposing
some limitations on projects.
Delaware has also developed the statewide activity approval (SAA) (issued earlier in 2013). The SAA
was developed under the authority of the Regulations Governing the Use of Subaqueous Lands, and is
an expedited permit similar to an Army Corps of Engineers nationwide permit. If you qualify under the
parameters of the statewide activity approval, the project does not have to go out for public hearing, a 20-
day process. This can be critical for vegetative stabilization practicesfrequently for these projects, get-
ting the permit is put off until the last minute, and at that point the window of opportunity is gone. The
SAA applies to revetments in front of wetlands, marsh toe sills, and to using coir fiber logs. Only a few
people have applied for it at this point. The SAA is also compatible with the Corps of Engineers Nation-
wide Permit (specifically, Permit 13), and provides for coordination with the commenting agencies: U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service for endangered species and the National Park Service for a Wild and Scenic Wa-
tershed.
The barriers for the state are the contractors themselves. Many of the contractors only have experience
installing bulkheads and rip-rap, so it is an education process to get them to try living shorelines. Dela-
ware has been actively trying to do vegetative stabilization for the past 15 years. It is hard to find con-
tractors for these projects and start a business in soft shoreline engineeringan issue of guaranteeing a
projects longevity. Along those lines, more outreach is required. In cases where a contractor is willing to
use vegetation for stabilization, a maintenance agreement is often built into the construction contract.
There are a number of invasive species in the Inland Bays areas; when a project is first planted, it is very
vulnerable to invasive species. The maintenance allows the shoreline to develop as designed. Even suc-
cessful projects have issues though, often times homeowners and recreational users are not aware of what
the natural flora should be, and have a tendency to take a weed whacker and mow down the site. Educa-
tion and outreach are a critical part of vegetative shorelines.
Q&A:
Q: What is the definition of a marsh toe sill, and a marsh revetment?
A: A revetment is the rock placed in front of an existing wetland or marsh, hoping for it to fill in
without adding additional material. A sill is the structure placed away from the shoreline, and fill
behind it, planting behind it in the area protected by the rock sill.
Q: Has there been a discussion of beneficial use of dredged materials (to assist marshes in keeping pace
with Sea Level Rise (SLR))?
A: It has been discussed specifically for Jamaica Bay on Long Island, as wetlands are rapidly disap-
pearing; it was also discussed in conjunction with the Hudson River wetlands as neither will keep up
with SLR. The conversation is just beginning, within the table of tidal wetland uses, the use of
dredge spoil is considered incompatible.
Q: What is the status of the manipulation of marshes for mosquito control?
A: Mosquito ditching is done on a county level by vector control, but there is a lot of discussion on
open marsh management to minimize the impacts. There is a site in Jamaica Bay where they have
tried side-casting sediment to build it back up, but it is a large-scale Corps project. It is very unusual
for the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation to allow it.
A: (Follow-up): From NJ experience, when the regulatory programs were developed, there was the
thought that everyone wanted to build or fill for buildings and/or structures. In NJ, everything is
regulated; a great deal of time was spent trying to fix the rules to make them relevant at the single-
family homeowner level. An issue was non-profits want to do projects for the benefit of the envi-
ronment, but there was an issue in permitting fill for the benefit of marshes.
Q: What is the policy of placing a coir log and allowing sediment to naturally backfill, i.e. skirting the
issue of placing fill between the MHW and the MLW?

A: From the regulatory standpoint, NY has a complex regulatory interest and the interpretation is
site-specific. It is possible, if it can be demonstrated that it is reasonable and necessary.
A: (Follow-up): It depends on where the project is located, i.e. if it is in a tidal wetland. But the con-
servation benefit must be considered as well as what is reasonable and necessary.
A: (Follow-up): Additionally, it has been the experience that when coir logs are installed if rapid
backfilling does not occur the project will likely fail.
Q: Are there thoughts on making the regulatory agency part of the audience, and not just informing the
engineers on what they are allowed to design?
A: That is a conversation that is just beginning. The trajectory is to build an understanding of the
needs and concerns of the engineers, and to build trust. Regulators are reasonable people. The at-
tempt is to discuss creative interpretation of regulations and laws, and in time, this will hopefully,
lead to better dialogue. A special case is with remedial sites, and discussing with the NYSDEC Divi-
sion of Environmental Remediation, how should the dozens of contaminated areas that are held in
place by shoreline structures be dealt with, many of which are very hard, all of which are vulnerable
to breaching? It is a joint learning process; in that case, the goal is to incorporate knowledge about
the SLR projections and increasing vulnerabilities in the discussion.
Q: What is the policy on the use of shellfish in living shorelines?
A: The use of shellfish is controversial in New Jersey, due to the consumable products in prohibitive
waters (FDA regulations). The shellfish are not edible.
A: Also controversial in Delaware.
A: It is considered an attractive nuisance in New York.
Q: Is there any tracking on the long-term viability of innovative projects? Is it the right thing to do?
A: There are very few dollars available to do vegetative shoreline stabilization. Funding sources are
very small and limited. Unfortunately, monitoring is not a big part of the funding, even though it is
critical to measuring the success of a project. The NJDEP Wetland Mitigation Unit has a monitoring
component, which has a statute to check on projects. It is critical, but extremely underfunded. Moni-
toring will be necessary for the entire success of the program as a whole.
A: With the adoption of the new regulations this year, the tracking of projects is starting from scratch.
The right projects and objectives need to be identified, and then monitoring can be used to determine
what will work in New Jersey. Many of the regulatory guidelines are borrowed from other states and
regions, without any analysis to determine if it will work in New Jersey. Many of the projects are
very site-specific, which are a blend of ecology and engineering. The goal is to develop a program,
where the specifics of what works are fed back into the policy and regulation, and attempt to grow
something that works and is specific to New Jersey.


SITUATIONAL OVERVIEW
Speakers: Emilie Hauser, HRNERR
Jay Tanski, NY Sea Grant
Jessica Fain, NYC Planning
Jon Miller, Stevens Institute of Technology
David Bushek, Haskin Shellfish Research Lab, Rutgers University
Kate Boicourt, NY-NJ Harbor & Estuary Program
Moderated by: Lyndie Hice-Dunton, DE NERR
Objectives:
Share lessons learned and provide an overview of the status of sustainable shoreline projects
in NY, NJ, and DE.
Hudson River:
Speaker: Emilie Hauser, HRNERR
Demonstration projects are essential to get all of the relevant stakeholders on board, especially contrac-
tors and regulators/managers. A single demonstration project is not enough, as multiple techniques and
physical site characteristics must be evaluated. Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project has devel-
oped case studies of projects. The existing projects are primarily located on public lands.
A questionnaire is available online for designers to
submit projects for consideration. The primary audi-
ence is the engineers and regulators, and the secondary
are the landowners. The engineers and/or regulators
are often placed in the position of translating ideas of
sustainable shorelines to the landowners. A ranking
system and assessment process has been developed
and implemented for the active and completed demon-
stration projects in the area, leading to the establish-
ment of a network of case studies. The framework
identified key projects in the Hudson that have demon-
strated sustainable shoreline principles. These case
studies are available on the website, which includes the cost (when available) and the name of the de-
signer.
Photo credit: Sven Hoeger, Creative Habitat
The cost to design a project in the region varies from $75,000 to $100,000; including construction can in-
crease the cost to $300,000. Unlike other locations, the Hudson River has ice considerations during the
winter. Approximately half of the projects are in freshwater (still have a tidal component), as compared
to areas in New Jersey and Delaware. For all projects, it takes time to establish the vegetation, i.e., one
site had a major storm eleven months after installation and most of the plantings were lost.

As a whole, there is limited monitoring except at a site specifically funded by the program. The next step
for the region is to develop and fund a monitoring program for a wide range of sites and methods.
Long Island & COPRI:
Speaker: Jay Tanski, NY Sea Grant
The primary point of this discussion was the current method for protection of shorelines: Long Island
region uses a low-sill bulkhead that has a couple of different drawbacks. As discussed, they must be built
landward of the shoreline. In order to dissipate wave energy there must be 30 feet of marsh, which does
not exist in most cases, so a bulkhead is placed behind (landward of ) the low-sill bulkhead, and as a re-
sult many of the marshes are being destroyed during storms. The regulatory system in Long Island is not
very favorable to other solutions. Demonstration projects are needed as well as a method to simplify the
permitting process.
Coasts, Oceans, Ports, and Rivers Institute (COPRI) has a nation wide collaborative effort that contains a
database of living shoreline sites with engineering information. Seventy-one projects have been added as
of the time of the meeting, with 117 different criteria (i.e. fetch, slope, energy/waves) being evaluated.
The sites are primarily located in the Mid-Atlantic, Southeast and Gulf coast. Its primary use (as deter-
mined by COPRI) is to provide engineering guidance. The project is meant to assist in developing engi-
neering guidance for living shoreline projects based on evaluating what has worked and not worked un-
der various physical conditions. Performance information is included, however, the monitoring stand-
ards are subjective. Alongside this work, there is an opportunity for NY, NJ and DE to contribute their
projects to the database.
The permitting process must be improved for the Long Island area. Potential future work could involve
the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS), and coastal zone managers. New York State has a
myriad of regulators and stakeholders that could and should be involved. FEMA regulations have also
been updated to include language specific to living shorelines.
New York City and Harbor:
Speaker: Jessica Fain, NYC Planning
The planning document Vision 2020 was released in 2011 and has eight goals for New York City. This is
the first time it was updated since the 1990s, and was the result of a one-year collaborative project with a
wide range of waterfront stakeholders. Three of plans goals are relevant to the discussion of advancing
sustainable shorelines: #5 restoring the natural environment; #7 improving government oversight; and #8
creating climate resilience. A focus of the plan was to not only address land use along the waterfront, as
was the focus in previous plans, but also issues about the waterways themselves for maritime use and
restoration opportunities.
Currently, an update of the local waterfront revitalization program (WRP) is in the process of public re-
view, and will address coastal zone management (CZM) policies. It has to be reviewed by all 41 commu-
nity boards, borough presidents, City Planning Commission and City Council, as well as the NYS Dept of
State and U.S. Dept of Commerce. As part of the update, several new Special Area Designations were
created to better reflect the nuances of the NYC Waterfront. For example, Priority Marine Activity Zones
have been identified and mapped. In these areas, the WRP policies identify hardened edges that that

should be maintained for maritime uses. Outside of those areas, softer shorelines are encouraged. An-
other Special Area Designation is the Recognized Ecological Complexes. Based on a range of ecological
and restoration plans and studies, these are areas of significance where restoration efforts should be en-
couraged. Policy 6, on flooding and erosion, has been updated, and requires projects to identify and re-
duce risks from climate change, sea level rise, storm surge and erosion. The WRP provides municipality-
level coastal policies and is nuanced based on what each community wants. The climate vulnerability
assessment provides more clarity on what will succeed in permitting, and addresses priorities of the NY
state and the federal government.
Once it has been approved by NYC, each project that undergoes consistency review by New York State
for the Coastal Zone Management Act must also show consistency with the local NYC WRP policies.
This allows for the uniqueness of a community, while upholding consistent state requirements. Policies
addressing living shorelines will be addressed in the new CZM document. Rebuilding and resiliency are
keys in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.
Another effort by the NYC Department of City Planning is a report entitled Urban Waterfront Adaptive
Strategies. This effort was fund through a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant. It was completed in June of 2013. Urban Waterfront
Adaptive Strategies provides a systematic assessment of the coastal flood hazards that face New York City,
a thorough survey of coastal protection and adaptation strategies that may be suitable for different shore-
line and neighborhood types, and a framework for evaluating coastal protection alternatives. The report
is intended to serve as a resource for planners, policymakers, and communities within New York City,
the region, and elsewhere in the coastal United States. It divides the NYC shoreline into geomorphologi-
cal categories based on a number of criteria including uses and provides an inventory of urban strategies.
It also presents a range of resiliency strategies for dealing with either event-based or gradual hazards.
The document addresses each strategy, how it addresses the relevant hazards, where it is geomorphically
applicable as well as its benefits and disadvantages. The analysis takes a broad view of costs and com-
pares all co-benefits and challenges of a potential strategy. The work was started before Hurricane Sandy
but has become a part of the intellectual backbone of the work done by the Mayors office following
Sandy.
New Jersey:
Speaker: Jon Miller, Stevens Institute of Technology
The situational overview for New Jersey provided a snapshot of the status of living shorelines in NJ along
ocean coasts and bay shores. The primary discussion topics included:
How the manner in which NJ DEP works with stakeholders/applicants has been evolutionary
and is key to moving ahead with sustainable shorelines. The commitment of staff and DEP con-
tractor time and flexibility of process has been crucial.
Monitoring is the big issuewhat is the ideal number of sites, types of structures, protocol and
length of time for a successful monitoring program? A large site with many components would
be a more efficient way to address need for monitoring data, but is expensive. There is a need to
think in phases of implementation and be ready to react when funding chances arise. Monitoring
protocols need to be straightforward, simple, and repeatable so a credible database can be built.

Mapping potential sites from an engineering and ecological perspective is vital in order to be
ready to take advantage of funding. Additionally, there is a need to move beyond thinking on a
permit-by-permit scale and shifting to thinking on a regional level. (What is the analogy to wa-
tersheds for shorelines?) The impact on adjacent properties as part of engineering/ecological
recommendations must be considered and cannot be one size fits all.
The State of New Jersey developed a shore master plan for state in the 80s, which has not been updated
that much, though there could be movement as a result of Superstorm Sandy. Change in the States regu-
latory approach was prompted by several factors, such as the National Research Council report on shel-
tered shorelines and the 2006 living shorelines project (the first in NJ). This project ran into a number of
hurdles, and used half of the budget to get through permitting. The process, however, pointed out short-
comings in the existing regulation (similar experiences in NY Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines pro-
ject also occurred).
Several outcomes resulted from the hurdles faced during the permitting of the 2006 project. NJDEP
committed to coordinating state regulation with other oversight agencies and providing outside consult-
ing expertise to help applicants understand range of engineering options that could be implemented to
meet their objectives. Additionally, there is non-regulatory DEP staff on hand to help applicants triangu-
late their objectives/ideas within regulatory framework. Based on these improvements, when there is a
"good idea" for a project that includes a treatment that used to be a deal breaker (e.g., cover SAV habitat)
regulators will consider allowing that if the articulated benefits outweigh the loss. Review is much more
considerate of objectives than it used to be.
A recent case study is based on work initiated by Ocean County in New Jersey, which had plans to redo a
park before Sandy. Now Ocean County is looking for post Sandy recovery money to carry out the plans,
as well as accomplish other Sandy-related restoration. NJDEP hired Stevens Institute of Technology to
develop engineering guidelines for sustainable shorelines projects in NJ, as part of this effort, Stevens has
been working with the County. One important effort was a site visit with both County and DEP person-
nel, which promoted an exchange of ideas, e.g., need to keep beach, extent of fill, etc. The site visit has
sparked continued dialog between County and DEP entities. An issue with stakeholder buy-in is a legacy
of bad feelings toward permitting agencies, based on past actions. However, recent changes in the per-
mitting process, and actions such as the site visit are changing this outlook.
Delaware Estuary:
Speaker: David Bushek, Rutgers University
Rutgers University with the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary is utilizing ribbed mussels and coconut
fiber logs to protect vulnerable marshes in the Delaware Estuary in low energy sites. The mussels serve
to stabilize the edge of the shoreline, as they bind to the root structures of the vegetation as well as ferti-
lizing it. Frequently, the marsh grass has re-grown behind the coconut fiber logs and they have been very
effective in stabilization. During the recent storms, marsh grass and fiber logs have fared well. However,
a layer of armored mussels is not developing to the extent initially expected. Scientists are still hoping to
see more mussels attach to the vegetative structures. The treatment is only valid in low energy regimes
unless there is a sill protecting it. A sampling strategy is needed that will not damage the structure.

The mussels are from hatcheries, but the methods for transporting and installing them at the site need
improvement, as spawning and rearing methods have never been developed and they behave differently
than more commonly produced oysters and clams. In some cases, oysters are building on top of the mus-
sels. A graduate student from Rutgers is currently writing a paper showing that the marsh edge receives
protective benefits from mussels in the Delaware Estuary sites.
Some of the issues that were identified deal with how
long the treatments are viable. The first treatment was
in 2008, and the logs are beginning to degrade, and
the eventual outcome is unknown for the project sites.
In most of the areas, however, the treatments fared
well during the recent storms when they were appro-
priately sited (i.e. low energy areas). Further south
there are hybrid structures with intertidal oysters that
are protecting areas with higher energy regimes. The
oysters are moving northward due to climate change.
There may be funding for more shoreline projects
from the several million dollars going to wildlife ref-
uges to recover from Hurricane Sandy.
Photo credit - David Bushek
New York New Jersey Harbor: Ecologically Enhanced Shorelines:
Speaker: Kate Boicourt, NY-NJ Harbor & Estuary Program
The NY-NJ Harbor and Estuary Program is in the process of developing a standard protocol for assessing
ecologically enhanced shorelines, in order to monitor and compare the habitat benefits of stabilization
methods employed in urban areas. They are launching the project A Standard Protocol for Assessing
the Habitat Quality of Ecologically Enhanced Urban Shorelines. Ultimately the design of the assessment
will be used to measure in-place shorelines in the region and provide a standardized protocol for moni-
toring and comparing sites. An advisory committee with diverse backgrounds including experts in inver-
tebrates and fish and engineers will support the project.
The long-term goal is to have a standard way to measure and encourage shoreline decisions that reduce
the negative ecological impact on even our most urban shorelines, and to enhance existing conditions for
habitat to the extent feasible. One example was of a project on the Harlem River, which tends towards
the more green end of the spectrum: there are drilled holes for gastropods to live and tiered heights for
plantings and ecological habitats. In urban corridors, it is important to create connectivity for species
movement (snack-bars for fish as they are migrating).
The short-term costs for design and engineering are very heavy upfront, which may make sustainable
shoreline projects unpalatable to many collaborators, but long-term ecological benefits need to be exam-
ined. Shoreline sustainability needs to take into account not just structural and ecological sustainability
but also long-term resiliency.

IDEAS FOR REGIONAL COLLABORATION PROJECTS
Moderated by Lisa Auermuller, Jacques Cousteau NERR
Objectives:
Assess opportunities and constraints for implementing ecologically enhanced shorelines projects
within the NY, NJ, DE region;
Discuss data, outreach and resource needs to further advanced living shorelines in NY, NJ, DE
region
Based on the recurring themes in the situational overviews as well as the dialogue after the presentations,
the workshop planning team identified with five categories for future regional collaborations, as illustrat-
ed above: long-term monitoring; demonstration projects; economic considerations (including costs for
design, engineering, implementation and maintenance); education of stakeholders; and regulatory struc-
tures. Participants were then asked to brainstorm aspects of these five areas, which were captured on flip
charts and are summarized.
Long-Term Monitoring:
Long-term monitoring of sustainable shoreline projects was easily identified as a key theme, but critically
both the physical project (engineering performance) and its ecological performance must be considered.
The lack of an adequate budget was frequently mentioned as the biggest challenge to an effective moni-
toring plan (both short- and long-term). Budgets are never sufficient for the project, and monitoring is
often the first thing to be cut.
Monitoring is an issue of scales: the database under development by COPRI is one scale, while a detailed
case study of a few demonstrations is at the other end. Monitoring should include social and ecological
Sustainable
Shorelines
Monitoring
Demonstration
Projects
Economic
Considerations
Educating
Stakeholders
Regulatory

aspects of the projects on a larger scale beyond the project boundaries, both updrift and downdrift, and
should be used as a knowledge-building mechanism. An appropriate monitoring program can also be
used for evaluation of the effectiveness of the various sustainable shoreline structures.
Regulators are willing to take some risks for demonstration projects. However, the general public would
like to see projects that accomplish the mitigation and/or restoration goals for which they were designed.
In many cases, regulators and the general project do not have access to such information. Therefore, it is
necessary to cultivate a list of success stories for sustainable shorelines. In order to determine success, the
goals of the monitoring program must be separated between engineering criteria and ecological en-
hancement.
In order to continue prioritizing sustainable shoreline practices, the requirements for regulatory-
mandated monitoring should remain minimal. The collection of data to further scientific knowledge
should be treated separately. There is a push from the federal Office of Management and Budget to in-
clude monitoring in all federally funded projects. It would be advantageous for the core group of shore-
line educators, researchers and regulators to develop a set of basic monitoring parameters in order to
drive the discussion regarding mandated monitoring. Collectively, there exists the need and want to see
and highlight the success of sustainable shorelines projects in the future; a robust monitoring system with
a minimal list of parameters was identified as a requirement to determine success and track projects.
In order to develop a long-term monitoring program, a handful of demonstration sites must be selected
with a variety of site characteristics and structures. Additionally, a set of basic parameters should be de-
veloped collectively by an advisory committee consisting of regulators, engineers, contractors and the
public.
Demonstration Projects:
A regional focus for a system of demonstration projects is necessary to assist in selling the concept and
provide for increased diversity in the types of projects. The successes in other regions, such as the Gulf
Coast, will not necessarily translate to the Mid-Atlantic region. The closer the demonstration sites, the
more ownership the general public has towards the concept and makes it easier to gain buy-in from local
property owners. Demonstration sites should be considered part of a marketing package to the general
public as well as regulators. Well-situated, socially, ecologically, and economically successful demonstra-
tions projects will simplify and fast-track buy-in on all levels.
There is a need for both large-scale and small-scale projects; different scales may be based on the location
of interest, i.e. a project along the Delaware Bay, Barnegat Bay or along a section of New York City. A
regional scale map of potential sites and site characteristics with demonstration projects overlaid is re-
quired. It will allow the transfer of structures based on different sites having similar physical characteris-
tics. As discussed in the situational overview, COPRI is beginning to create a national database of sites;
however, their project is not based on the regional scale, and only provides engineering guidance, not the
social or ecological benefits.
Economics/ Design & Engineering & Implementation & Maintenance:
The COPRI database described in the situational overview details the engineering criteria necessary for

sustainable shorelines. However, several issues need to be addressed in addition to what the database
provides such as the logistics getting materials to the site, and how to deal with vegetation (how it stabi-
lizes a shoreline v. once it grows too large and begins to destabilize the armoring rocks).
One aspect that was agreed upon by all of the participants was the need to map existing shorelines espe-
cially in metropolitan regions. Some discussed aspects of a regional map of shorelines were:
What type of mapping is needed?
Where should be mapped?
What are the mapping targets?
What are the areas of opportunities?
The idea is to start with GIS areal interpretation and a field verification of sites to gather more details. As
more groups are encouraged to adopt sustainable shoreline practices, better information can be gathered
about whether a particular treatment will succeed and where it should be promoted. Maps will allow a
simple visual device for evaluating potential treatments at different sites, i.e. protecting natural habitats
such as marshes v. stabilizing a working waterfront. The three states each represent a mixture of envi-
ronments where the tactics may be similar, but applied differently.
Education of Stakeholders:
The education of stakeholders on the existing policy and regulatory structures was identified as a key
component both in the front-end assessment and during the discussions of the workshop. It is important
that stakeholders have an understanding of the path to follow towards gaining a permit for a sustainable
shorelines project. Additionally, it is important to create a cycle of utilizing the best available knowledge
to create new and relevant policies, and then to use the best policies to identify new areas to research.
Followed up by creating decision-support tools to assist in recognizing the best projects.
As a group, the relevant terminology and respective definitions for sustainable shorelines needs to be
agreed upon, and then a system of education needs to be implemented. Education methods can be
shared within the region. A regional method should include a discussion of the resiliency and ecological
benefits of sustainable shorelines, and begin to merge the lessons learned within each state. Furthermore,
the education should be targeted to individual stakeholders, i.e., different types of incentives for getting
engineers involved in designing projects.
There is a diverse group of relevant stakeholders, not limited to:
Regulators,
Contractors,
Engineers,
Single and multi- family residential owners,
Municipalities and other public entities, and
Utilities and infrastructure entities.
As mentioned in the regulatory stepping-stones panel, the creation of a general permit, which included
sustainable shorelines projects, was a major step forward for the State of New Jersey. Many participants

mentioned that the lessons learned in the process for New Jersey and Delaware would be useful for New
York. A case study detailing the challenges and methods by which they were overcome would be benefi-
cial, especially if it identified what a sustainable shoreline policy would/could look like in New York.
Additionally, having a specific project to highlight, as a success, is vital for changing the permitting pro-
cess.
For the public, it would be beneficial to hold a conference to discuss the most expedient way to get a
permit, i.e., which steps in the design process would assist in streamlining the permitting process. The
goal would be to demonstrate which projects work and those that do not, both in meeting engineering
and ecological goals as well as in successfully moving through the permitting process. One participant
mentioned that Connecticut is interested in sustainable shoreline projects as well. Educational methods,
especially, can be shared between regions beyond NY, NJ, and DE.
Regulatory Approach:
The primary conclusion of the discussion on regulatory approaches was the need to make regulators a
consistent part of the conversation for new and ongoing sustainable shoreline projects. The participants
all agree that involving the regulators early is beneficial. However, the lack of the federal regulators at
the workshop due to the federal shutdown limited the ability to discuss widespread applicability of dif-
ferent structure types. Additionally, it would be helpful to discuss the differences between the states and
the way in which regulators enforce the existing regulations, and how modifications are made. (Are pro-
jects being hindered by the uncertainty of success or issues of cost?) This type of discussion is necessary
at the municipal, county, state and federal level. A follow-up comment was the issue of presenting in-
formation to regulators and a need to improve the level of clarity, especially through clearly defined and
agreed upon terminology. This, however, included both information presented by and to regulators.
As a follow-up to a discussion of the enforcement of existing regulations, an educational field-trip for
regulators to see the projects and their installation was suggested. Representatives from Stevens Institute
of Technology indicated that the presence of NJ DEP personnel at a site inspection made a positive differ-
ence down the line in the permitting process. Based on this, Stevens was asked to conduct a training sem-
inar for both regulators and contractors on sheltered shorelines and their implementation. The partici-
pants agreed that a similar seminar for engineers and landscaping architects to get everyone on the same
page would be beneficial.

CONCLUSION
The planning team constructed the workshop to be an opportunity to foster connections and contacts
with neighboring states for sustainable shoreline projects. Unfortunately, the workshop took place one
week into the federal shutdown, and federal employees were unable to attend as either speakers or par-
ticipants. In spite of this, a productive meeting was held with a series of presentations and engaging dis-
cussion sessions. As identified in both the front-end assessment and the meeting the region shares many
goals for living shorelines as well as similar challenges and struggles. By facilitating the workshop, a core
group of shoreline educations, researchers and regulators were able to sit down at the same table, and
learn what each other are doing, and share strategies and approaches for overcoming local issues.
Setting the Stage
As a part of the transfer project, the planning team conducted a front-end assessment where a variety of
different shoreline stakeholders in NY, NJ, and DE were interviewed to help assess the current state of
shoreline information and future needs in the region. Words such as natural, habitat, erosion control, and
ecology were used by nearly all of the stakeholders during the interviews. Regardless of the exact defini-
tions, the region shared quite a few of the same principles and common goals relating to sustainable
shorelines. Based on feedback from this process, the workshop included conversations on any sustaina-
ble shoreline method, which provide habitat enhancement and protection from coastal erosion.
The Hudson River Research Reserve considers living shorelines as just one possibility in a spectrum of
shoreline techniques, which feature natural components. As such, the term sustainable shorelines began
to gain traction. Due to the unique physical characteristics of the Hudson Riverice, wakes, waves and
varying salinityand the need to account for, and maintain, working waterfronts, solutions must pre-
serve or enhance the ecological benefits of the area while also meeting engineering needs.
The Hudson River Research Reserve attempts to help stakeholders weigh their options by providing the
necessary background information to make well-informed decisions. For example, engineers from Ste-
vens Institute of Technology have assessed the lifetime costs of ecologically enhanced shorelines, includ-
ing maintenance and upkeep. The engineers from Stevens have also completed an analysis of a dozen
different engineered shoreline approaches and their various tradeoffs. The HRNERR also utilizes real life
examples, through the development of a demonstration site network, to educate stakeholders and engi-
neers on the utilization and design of sustainable shoreline projects along the Hudson River.
Key Takeaways and Synergies
By the end of the workshop, several key themes were identified that had been mentioned throughout the
presentations, speed dating sessions, and final facilitated discussion led by Lisa Auermuller. Each state
identified similar concerns for:
Long-term monitoring standards;
Additional demonstration projects;
Information on economic costs;
Stakeholder education; and
Better regulatory protocols.

Monitoring
Establishing long-term monitoring can help assess two important components of sustainable shorelines: =
Existing ecological services and those created and/or enhanced by a sustainable shorelines pro-
ject; and
Information on the long-term stability of shoreline techniques, i.e. engineering criteria.
A mechanism for sharing the lessons learned from a demonstration site network and a concurrent moni-
toring program would enable the region to collectively strengthen the existing knowledge of best man-
agement practices. Developing a region-wide consistent set of important parameters would assist
comparisons between ecosystems as well as states. Specifically, but not limited to the monitoring discus-
sions, funding was identified as a barrier for implementation of sustainable shorelines.
Demonstration Projects
Landowners and regulators are more likely to buy-into techniques and approaches that have a demon-
strated track record of success in nearby locations. Based on this and other reasons, there is a need for
more regionally, relevant projects, to use as potential marketing and educational devices for stakeholders.
As mentioned in the situational overview, projects that allow for site visits are valuable, in allowing first
hand encounters to improve individual understanding of how living shorelines function and are de-
signed. Sharing detailed information on the planning process, design, successes and failures of ecologi-
cally enhanced shorelines projects helps other stakeholders, engineers and landscape architects learn
from each other within each ecosystem as well as regionally. Therefore, establishing a methodology for
sharing the information gathered from demonstration sites is as important as adding new sites. One such
method is the COPRI database, though its primary purpose is for engineering-specific variables.
Cost Considerations
Typically, when the cost a shoreline project is examined, the focus is on the cost of construction and in-
stallation. The cost of maintenance and repair is typically not considered. Information regarding the to-
tal cost of a project needs to be compiled and compared between multiple approaches. A number of fac-
tors are critical when evaluating which shoreline management technique is utilized and is a balancing act
of priorities. For example, initially, bulkheads and rip-rap techniques appear more financially feasible
due to lower construction costs; however, there are other non-monetary costs to be considered, such as
the impact to the ecosystem, and user preferences.
Education
Education for stakeholders is essential for the advancement shoreline projects. Each topic discussed dur-
ing the course of the workshop included some level of an education component. The variety of stake-
holder involved in sustainable shorelines projects necessitates a nuanced approach to each group with
varying levels of background knowledge. Simultaneously, getting each group of stakeholders on the
same page (or the region) is important. One aspect of this challenge is identifying a universal set of ter-
minology and respective definitions. Encouraging and improving the dialogue between different stake-
holders can help break through some of the typical barriers faced with living or ecologically enhanced
shorelines, such as the development of the general permit in New Jersey.

Regulatory
There are clearly differences in state regulatory approaches, but participants agreed this was not neces-
sarily a limiting factor for collaborating on the other aforementioned needs for sustainable shorelines. In
fact, learning about the different state approaches during the workshop gave many of the participants
ideas on ways their state could improve the permitting process and their regulatory programs.
The Steps Forward:
Throughout the meeting, several steps forward were identified. Due to the federal shutdown, the regula-
tory panel did not include any of the relevant federal agencies, such as the Army Corps of Engineers.
There was universal agreement that a follow-up meeting should occur in which all of the regulatory enti-
ties could be involved in a discussion on how the existing regulations and policies work together. As
such, the planning committee convened a webinar on February 10, 2014 to share information with federal
staff who could not attend the in-person event because of the federal shutdown and included a summary
of the Mid-Atlantic Living Shorelines Summit. The agenda, presentations, an archived copy of the webi-
nar can be found at: http://www.hrnerr.org/sustainable-shorelines-follow-up-webinar-for-ny-nj-de/.
In addition, to the follow-up meeting with federal staff, the group also identified several other steps for-
ward:
The extension and replication of studies and protocols in other states and regions would be bene-
ficial.
There was strong participant interest in work groups and future collaboration opportunities.
Working collaboratively builds the capacity of the region to advance living shorelines.
An educational field-trip for regulators to see the projects and their installation was suggested,
similar to that conducted in Ocean County, NJ.
Furthermore, pending the results of the NFWF funding, the planning team will re-engage and find new
opportunities to collaborate within the region.

APPENDIX A: TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ACOE Army Corps of Engineers
CICEET The Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology
COCA Coastal and Ocean Climate Applications (Funding source from NOAA Climate Program
Office)
COPRI Coasts, Oceans, Ports and Rivers Institute
CZM Coastal Zone Management
DE Delaware
DE DNRC Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
DOI
US Department of the Interior
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
GIS Geographic Information Systems
HRNERR Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve
HRSSP Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project
IMCS Institute of Marine and Coastal Science
MHW Mean High Water
MLW Mean Low Water
NEIWPCC New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
NERRS National Estuarine Research Reserve System
NJ New Jersey
NJ DEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NSC NERRS Science Collaborative
NY New York
NYC New York City
NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NYSDOS New York State Department of State
SAGE Systems Approach to Geomorphologic Engineering
SCA Student Conservation Association
SLR Sea Level Rise
SUNY State University of New York
TNC The Nature Conservancy
USACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USGS United States Geological Survey


APPENDIX B: PARTICIPANTS

Attendee Position Organization
Tricia Arndt Environmental Scientist Delaware Coastal Management
Program
Jill Aspinwall Environmental Specialist NJ Department of Environmental
Protection
Lisa Auermuller Watershed Coordinator Jacques Cousteau National Estua-
rine Research Reserve
Mark Biddle Environmental Scientist Delaware Dept. of Natural Re-
sources and Environmental Control
Watershed Assessment
Betsy Blair Manager NYS DEC Hudson River NERR
Kate Boicourt Restoration Coordinator NY-NJ Harbor & Estuary Program
Brian Boutin Director of Conservation Programs The Nature Conservancy in Dela-
ware
David Bushek Director/Associate Professor Rutgers - Haskin Shellfish Research
Lab
Jim Chaconas Environmental Scientist Delaware Dept. of Natural Re-
Arthur Coppola Refuge Manager US Fish & Wildlife Service-Prime
Hook National Wildlife Refuge
Mike De Luca Associate Director Rutgers Institute of Marine &
Coastal Sciences and JCNERR
Patty Doerr Director of Coastal and Marine
Programs
The Nature Conservancy in New
Jersey
Jessica Fain Planner New York City Department of City
Planning
Jenna Gatto Field Tech Reservist Barnegat Bay Partnership
Emilie Hauser Coastal Training Program Coordi-
nator
NYS DEC Hudson River NERR and
NEIWPCC
Lyndie Hice-
Dunton
Research Coordinator Delaware National Estuarine Re-
search Reserve
Steven Jacobus Section Chief NJ Department of Environmental
Protection
Ginger Kopkash Manager NJDEP Land Use Management
Annabella
Larsen
Wildlife Biologist US Fish & Wildlife Service-Prime
Hook National Wildlife Refuge
Dolores Leonard Communications Director NERRS Science Collaborative
Elizabeth
Livermont
PhD Candidate Stevens Institute of Technology
Kristin Marcell Special Project Coordinator NYS DEC /Cornell University
Martha Max-
well-Doyle
Deputy Director Barnegat Bay Partnership
Jon Miller Research Assistant Professor Stevens Institute of Technology

Andrew Rella Ph. D. Graduate Student Stevens Institute of Technology
Alison Rogerson Environmental Scientist Delaware Dept. of Natural Re-
Bill Shadel Associate Director NEIWPCC - IEC District
Dave Strayer Freshwater Ecologist Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Jay Tanski Sr. Coastal Processes Specialist New York Sea Grant
Christina
Tobitsch
Estuary Stewardship Educator NYS DEC Hudson River NERR and
Student Conservation Association
Debbie Voelbel Environmental Specialist 3 NJDEP Bureau of Coastal Engineer-
ing

Due to the federal shutdown, the following individuals were unable to attend at the last minute:
Kate Alcoba US Army Corps of Engineers NY District
Carl Alderson NOAA Restoration Center
Adrienne An-
toine
NOAA
Edward Bonner US Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District
Charles
Chestnutt
US Army Corps of Engineers / SAGE
Arthur Coppola US Fish & Wildlife Service-Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge
Karen Greene NOAA NMFS Habitat Conservation Division
Michael Hayduk US Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District
Annabella
Larsen
US Fish & Wildlife Service-Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge
Jodi McDonald US Army Corps of Engineers NY District


APPENDIX C: EVALUATION RESPONSES

Question 1: Participating in this event was a good use of my time.
Answer Responses
Strongly Agree 8
Agree 8
Unsure
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Please explain:
I learned so much about what other states are doing, and I was able to transfer results of our HR sustainable
Shorelines Project
Well organized. Good amount of learning new things and sharing of ideas
Learned a lot and made valuable new contacts
Good to make contacts with others working on various aspects of shore management
Strongly agree, needed regional coordination
It was especially beneficial to figure out tactics the states are taking on living shorelines
I learned more about whats going on and got to meet practitioners
Both for new info and networking
The forum allowed me to step back and look at the big picture including factors related to policy decisions
and citizen outreach/input.
It was incredibly important to network and build a common knowledge and terminology with those work-
ing on similar issues in our region
Networking with colleagues and discussing opportunities and lessons learned is always of benefit
Glad to see DE and NJ are moving forward
Communication is critical for the advancement of "sustainable shorelines" concepts in the state of New Jer-
sey, therefore any event that encourages us all to work and share our ideas is valuable

Question 2: How much has this event increased your knowledge and understanding of innovative shore-
line projects and research happening in NY, NJ, and DE? (Circle one)
Answer Responses
A great deal 3
A lot 7
Some 5
A little
Not at all
Please explain:
Changes in policy in NJ/DE. Informal conversations with other participants
Was aware of many already
A lot, especially in other states
Already aware of most issues, but good to hear what others are doing
I was aware of some of the initiatives, but it was great to see some of the different approaches in NY
Great to see examples of successful projects

To date much of my experience was visiting websites, which doesn't compare with actually talking to the
people involved.
Was complete unaware of DE, LI, & NYC work prior
Realized some of the drawbacks to too much regulation or bureaucratic processes
I think it more helped increase my knowledge/understanding of the interests of programs within our re-
gions> what is the range of uses (rural, suburban, waterfront) and how that affects the strategy. We have a
real diversity of shoreline conditions and its helpful to see the full range/way of communication, education,
and incentivizing sustainable shorelines.
There were techniques and innovative ideas and policies/ regulatory and incentives that were helpful
Learned about general permit in New Jersey, cost share in Delaware, barriers to installation in Long Island
Tidal wetlands

Question 3: Did you learn something you will apply to your work or future decisions? (Circle one)
Answer Responses
Yes 14
No
Maybe 2
Prefer not to answer/Not applicable
Please explain:
One example is the use of coir logs and bivalve shells, to pilot a mash stabilization project at Piermont
Marsh in the HR like that being done in Delaware
Connections, precedent research.
Lessons learned from others
This more point to the economic argument for living shorelines
Helped to see array of "needs" when it comes to a living shorelines "framework"
This program gave me a lot of food for thought to focus a lot of topics for developing the program in NJ
Solicit more citizen input
Absolutely engaging the potential uses/ implementing landowners, engineers, and regulators.
The outreach materials provided as examples were very helpful. Will consult there for guidance and consid-
er developing state specific documents.
Info gained from other states will be used to facilitate efforts in my state
I will use some of terms shared today in future regulatory changes.
Follow up with methodology of shorelines categorization in New York City. Possibly follow up with barri-
ers in Long Island.

Question 4: Please take a moment to think about all the sessions and activities of this workshop (Hudson
River Sustainable Shoreline Overview, Comparative Cost Analysis, Regulatory Panel Discussion, Situa-
tion Overview, Ideas for Regional Collaboration, etc.) and share what you thought was most effective and
useful for you and what needed improvement.
I appreciated the Regulatory Panel Discussion the most and getting a better understand of both the ultimate
regulations in NJ and DE created and the process and motivations that spurred the process
All parts of meeting were valuable to me
Was skeptical of breakout/ speed dating but found they were valuable
The most useful part was the discussion of the comparative cost analysis as this was identified as a major
hurdle to the institutionalization of these techniques. Unfortunately, federal partners were absent and their
input was missed (not the fault of the organizers)
Great mix of PowerPoints and discussion

The "speed dating" session was a great way to follow lunch and avoid the carb crash and get some new in-
fo in nearly on situation
It was very educational to hear how regulatory program are managed in other states including the envi-
ronmental impact concerns faced by other states. It would be helpful to have the COE involved in future
workshops.
The final discussion and overview of intent of the workshop were really productive in that I think they help
us foster potential partnerships. In an ideal world, it would be great to get out some example sites, as a plat-
form for discussion, though that can be a real challenge to do in a single day. Having the day ending with a
discussion of group objectives is likely to make this network last beyond a single day (and helps to speak
ideas for group proposals) Thank you!
The regulatory panel discussion and overview was interesting and more time should have been allowed for
this session to allow more questions and discussion
There was a strong adherence to meeting the goals of transferring knowledge. We are in the early stages of
enabling sustainable shorelines so the cost analysis and project challenges were the most useful to hear. I
think the regulatory panel could have had a lot more discussion if time had allowed.
Regulatory panel discussion was very useful. Would have liked to have been able to go to more situational
overview presentations.


APPENDIX D: REFERENCES AND RESOURCES
COPRI
Coasts, Oceans, Ports, and Rivers Institute, an Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers). A da-
tabase of existing living shorelines projects around the United States.
http://mycopri.org/
DELSI
Delaware Estuary Living Shorelines Initiative. Pilot project designed to stabilize eroding shorelines of
tidal marshes.
http://www.delawareestuary.org/Living_Shorelines
NJDEP Regulatory Program
New Jersey Coastal General Permit 29
http://www.nj.gov/dep/landuse/coastal/cp_gp29.html

New York City Department of City Planning 2013. A guide indentifying and evaluating potential strate-
gies for waterfront in the face of climate change and sea level rise.
Urban Waterfront Adaptive Strategies

Workshop Related Resources
FrontEnd Assessment
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.

Speakers Presentations and Other Resources
Regional (NY-NJ-DE) Dialogue to Advance Sustainable Shorelines along Sheltered Coasts
Situational Overview Presentations and Resources
...... Hudson River
...... http://www.hrnerr.org/download/sustainable_shorelines/NYNJDEDemoSitePoster.pdf

...... Long Island & COPRI
...... http://www.hrnerr.org/download/training/Tanski_NERRS_2013.pdf
...... http://mycopri.org/

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

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


...... Delaware Estuary
...... http://hrnerr.org/download/training/DELSI%20Factsheet_Final_2011%20v2.doc
...... http://delawareestuary.org/Living_Shorelines

...... NY-NJ Harbor and Estuary Program: Ecologically Enhanced Shorelines
...... http://www.hrnerr.org/download/training/Assessment_urban%20shorelines.pdf

Webinar Followup to Regional (NY-NJ-DE) Dialogue to Advance Sustainable Shorelines along Sheltered
Coasts
Presentations and archived webinar held on February 10, 2014
http://www.hrnerr.org/sustainable-shorelines-follow-up-webinar-for-ny-nj-de/

Proceedings Regional (Ny-Nj-De) Dialogue To Advance Sustainable Shorelines Along Sheltered Coasts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proceedings Regional (Ny-Nj-De) Dialogue To Advance Sustainable Shorelines Along Sheltered Coasts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Kelly Valencik and Lyndie Hice-Dunton

You might also like