Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Executive
Summary
The
Hudson
River
Sustainable
Shorelines
Project
(HRSSP)
Advisory
Committee
met
in
December
2014
to
review
and
discuss
work
completed
during
the
project,
share
how
the
committee
members
are
using
or
plan
to
use
project
results,
and
discuss
areas
for
potential
future
collaboration.
Project
results
and
data
can
be
found
at
https://www.hrnerr.org/hudson-river-sustainable-shorelines/.
The
HRSSP
project
team
developed
ecology
and
engineering
tools
and
data
and
a
set
of
demonstration
projects
that
exhibit
the
ecological
and
engineering
principles
of
sustainable
shorelines.
The
ecological
tools
and
data
from
the
project
will
help
shoreline
managers
better
understand
and
assess
the
ecology
of
their
shorelines.
The
engineering
data
and
tools
will
help
shoreline
managers
understand
the
physical
forces
that
impact
their
shorelines,
the
variety
of
treatment
options
available
to
manage
shorelines,
and
the
general
relative
costs
associated
with
shoreline
treatments.
The
case
studies
of
existing
demonstration
sites
and
designs
for
new
sites
are
instrumental
in
helping
users
see
how
these
ecologically
enhanced
shorelines
perform.
The
team
has
also
delivered
several
trainings
to
engineers
and
state
agency
employees
to
teach
participants
how
to
apply
the
tools
and
data.
Sustainable
Shorelines
Advisory
Committee
Meeting
December
3,
2014
Advisory
committee
members
described
their
plans
to
use
project
products
and
resources,
including
the
website,
for
a
variety
of
purposes.
State
agency
staff
have
or
will
incorporate
the
information
produced
by
the
project
into
guidance
documents
for
the
Community
Risk
and
Resiliency
Act,
the
Climate
Smart
Communities
program,
and
environmental
remediation
and
restoration
plans.
Regulators
do
and
will
use
the
information
to
encourage
permit
applicants
to
propose
shoreline
stabilization
methods
that
use
ecologically
beneficial
approaches.
Regulators
use
the
information
on
the
website
to
evaluate
the
sustainable
shorelines
proposals
they
receive.
Engineers
reported
that
they
will
utilize
the
information
to
enhance
and
support
the
services
they
provide
to
fill
a
market
niche
and
propose
projects
that
are
more
likely
to
be
aligned
with
permit
requirements.
The
Advisory
Committee
identified
several
potential
areas
of
future
work
to
encourage
the
adoption
of
sustainable
shorelines
or
areas
of
future
collaboration.
This
included
collaborating
with
the
railroads
to
incorporate
ecological
enhancements
into
some
of
the
(many
miles
of)
hardened
shorelines
they
own,
expanding
the
construction
and
monitoring
of
demonstration
sites,
and
completing
additional
ecological
research.
Research
ideas
included
assessing
ecological
tradeoff
of
in
water
structures,
classifying
habitat,
and
the
effect
of
adding
vegetation
to
hard
revetments.
In
addition,
they
explored
the
ideas
of
promoting
the
adoption
of
sustainable
shorelines
by
serving
as
a
technical
assistance
resource
or
by
helping
to
launch
a
sustainable
shorelines
certification
program.
They
did
not
commit
to
future
collaboration,
but
said
it
could
occur
on
a
project-by-project
or
topic-of-interest
basis,
and
it
might
involve
new
stakeholder
representatives
such
as
municipal
or
federal
representatives
or
creating
partnerships
with
organizations
completing
related
work.
Although
the
funding
for
this
project
is
expiring
there
is
interest
and
need
in
continued
collaboration.
Project
leaders
thanked
the
Advisory
Committee
members
for
their
guidance
and
support
over
the
five
years
of
the
project,
and
Committee
members
voiced
their
appreciation
for
the
projects
many
accomplishments.
Welcome,
Introductions
and
Project
Update
Betsy
Blair
welcomed
participants
to
the
final
meeting
of
the
Hudson
River
Sustainable
Shorelines
Advisory
Committee,
which
is
part
of
the
Hudson
River
Sustainable
Shorelines
Project
(HRSSP)
that
informally
started
in
2005
with
the
mapping
of
the
Hudson
River
and
formally
started
when
funding
from
the
National
Estuary
Research
Reserve
(NERRS)
Science
Collaborative
was
awarded
in
2008.
This
funding
will
conclude
in
June
2015.
The
purpose
of
the
final
Advisory
Committee
meeting
was
to
convene
members,
share
products
from
the
project,
and
jointly
discuss
opportunities
for
continuing
to
work
collaboratively
to
advance
shared
goals
for
the
Hudson
River
Estuary
and
its
shorelines.
All
meeting
presentations
and
handouts,
as
well
as
other
project
resources
and
information,
can
be
found
at:
hrnerr.org
Review
of
Work
Completed
Project
Team
members
gave
brief
presentations
about
the
work
they
completed
or
will
complete
for
the
HRSSP.
For
more
detail,
please
see
the
project
website,
https://www.hrnerr.org/hudson-river-
sustainable-shorelines/,
and
links
to
various
project
components
in
this
summary.
Ecological
Work
Stuart
Findlay
highlighted
the
ecological
research
completed
by
Cary
Institute
scientists
to
develop
science-based
recommendations
for
shore
zone
management.
The
following
research
or
products
have
been
or
will
be
produced:
A
literature
review
about
freshwater
shore
zone
ecological
characteristics
and
attributes).
(Published)
Sustainable
Shorelines
Advisory
Committee
Meeting
December
3,
2014
A
study
of
shoreline
wrack
and
invertebrate
usage.
(Published)
A
rapid
assessment
tool
to
help
shoreline
managers
understand
the
resources
on
their
property
and
how
the
shoreline
is
functioning.
A
shoreline
management
brochure.
A
decision
support
tool
to
guide
users
in
the
application
of
shoreline
management
approaches
(in
development).
Fish
and
shoreline
heterogeneity
research.
Preliminary
findings
indicate
that
fish
prefer
rough,
complex,
sloped
shorelines.
(in
manuscript)
Ecology
of
vegetated
rip
rap.
Preliminary
findings
indicate
that
riprap
shorelines
with
gentle
slopes
have
more
vegetation
than
steep
slopes.
(in
manuscript)
Stuart
indicated
an
interest
in
future
work
to
look
balancing
tradeoffs
between
ecology
and
various
stabilization
techniques.
For
example,
for
any
technique,
what
benefits
can
be
acquired
by
implementing
it
and
what
must
be
given
up
in
return?
Engineering
Work
Andrew
Rella
presented
for
the
Stevens
Institute
team
that
worked
on
engineering
research
for
the
HRSSP.
This
suite
of
projects
and
products
includes:
A
literature
review
of
shoreline
treatment
options
including
tradition,
hybrid,
and
ecologically
enhanced.
The
report
provides
a
brief
description
of
each
method
with
general
design
and
construction
guidance,
information
on
adaptability
to
sea
level
rise,
and
a
comparison
across
different
structures.
A
comparative
cost
analysis
among
nine
types
of
shoreline
treatment
at
three
sites
with
different
energy
regimes
under
two
sea
level
rise
scenarios
was
developed
to
help
shoreline
owners
or
managers
estimate
management
costs
for
each
shoreline
treatment
over
a
75
year
timeframe.
A
characterization
of
the
physical
environment
(in
this
case,
water
levels,
currents,
vertical
current
stresses
and
mixing,
and
surface
wind
waves)
impacting
the
Hudson
River
shoreline.
A
forensic
analysis
of
six
engineered
shoreline
projects
to
determine
how
and
why
they
were
damaged
or
withstood
the
forces
of
recent
big
storm
events.
Demonstration
Site
Network
Dan
Miller
presented
the
work
completed
on
the
demonstration
site
network:
The
project
has
created
a
demonstration
site
network
to
raise
awareness
of
sustainable
shorelines
approaches
that
have
been
implemented
along
Hudson
shorelines,
show
how
they
are
designed
and
constructed,
and
how
they
perform
overtime.
The
network
consists
of
four
sites
(in
Coxsackie,
Rhinecliff,
Cold
Spring,
and
Nyack)
that
were
designed
and
constructed
(or
will
be
constructed,
see
below)
as
part
of
the
Sustainable
Shorelines
project.
In
addition,
the
network
includes
several
additional
sites
that
were
designed
and
constructed
by
others,
using
sustainable
shorelines
principles.
Case
studies
and
site
reports
are
available
on
the
HRSSP
website.
Ninety
percent
complete
site
designs
for
Nyack
and
Cold
Spring
were
completed
in
November
2014.
The
plans
will
be
used
to
apply
for
permits
and
construction
will
begin
as
soon
as
funding
is
secured.
The
project
has
also
undertaken
a
bulkhead
(ecological)
enhancement
project
in
order
to
identify
methods
to
enhance
habitat
on
bulkheads,
since
bulkheads
are
necessary
in
some
locations
but
do
not
provide
quality
habitat.
A
pilot
project
will
be
installed
in
Rhinecliff
in
spring
2015.
Sampling
will
determine
whether
or
not
fish
are
attracted
to
the
enhanced
bulkheads.
Monitoring
Demonstration
Sites
Ben
Ganon
presented
information
about
the
monitoring
program
for
sites
in
the
demonstration
network.
The
program
is
designed
to
be
site
specific
(data
will
not
allow
for
comparisons
across
sites),
repeatable
(photos
and
data
points
are
collected
from
specific
coordinates
each
time),
feasible
(it
takes
an
hour
or
less
and
doesnt
require
a
lot
of
training
of
the
assessor),
and
consistent
(data
collection
and
storage
instructions
are
available
for
each
site,
and
theres
a
database
with
a
photo
inventory
for
each
site).
Monitoring
site
visits
are
conducted
in
the
fall
and
spring
to
identify
and
alert
site
owners
of
potential
maintenance
issues
and
to
gather
social,
ecological,
and
physical
parameters
to
evaluate
how
well
these
sites
are
meeting
their
objectives.
The
site
visits
also
serve
to
gauge
site
owner
satisfaction
with
the
project.
Trainings,
Outreach,
and
Tools
Emilie
Hauser
briefed
the
group
on
several
HRSSP-related
initiatives:
The
HRSSP
Coordinating
Team
delivered
a
training
in
July
to
teach
engineers
and
landscape
designers
how
to
apply
the
findings
of
the
HRSSP
project.
Participants
requested
more
information
about
regulatory
processes
that
would
accompany
implementation
of
sustainable
shorelines
approaches.
The
Team
plans
hopes
to
collect
feedback
from
the
regulators
about
trends
in
ecological
shoreline
enhancement
and
current
thinking
on
regulations
and
permit
requirements
for
ecological
shoreline
designs
in
New
York.
Once
completed,
additional
tools
will
be
posted
on
the
HRSSP
website.
These
tools
include
the
Cary
Institutes
decision
support
tool
and
Stevens
Institute
of
Technologys
research
on
whether
or
not
physical
forces
categorization
could
give
guidance
on
initial
shoreline
design
and
planning,
a
literature
review
to
see
how
physical
forces
categorization
could
be
compiled
into
a
usable
index,
and
more
data
on
ice
and
wakes.
Applying
the
Results
of
the
Hudson
River
Sustainable
Shoreline
Project
In
order
to
explore
the
various
ways
project
products
are
of
use
to
its
many
intended
audiences,
and
to
consider
any
final
work
that
could
be
done
to
make
them
of
more
use,
participants
discussed
how
they
use
project
results.
This
session
began
with
eight
Advisory
Committee
members
presenting
how
they
or
their
institutions
are
using
or
plan
to
use
the
results
of
the
HRSSP.
Several
uses
were
identified
such
as
the
integration
of
HRSSP
products
and
information
into
regulations
or
guidance
documents,
use
of
information
to
substantiate
recommendations,
use
of
information
to
support
decision-making,
and
demonstration
sites
used
to
educate
shoreline
managers
about
why
and
how
to
construct
sustainable
shoreline
designs.
Their
key
points
are
summarized
below.
Sven
Hoeger,
Creative
Habitat
Corp.,
commented
that
HRSSP
data
would
have
been
useful
in
the
design
phase
of
several
of
his
past
projects,
and
that
his
future
projects
will
benefit
from
the
information
generated
by
HRSSP,
especially
about
energy
regimes.
For
example,
past
clients
requested
shoreline
designs
incorporating
more
natural
features,
and
although
he
was
able
to
design
something
that
worked,
those
designs
were
based
on
his
personal
ecological
knowledge
and
best
professional
judgment.
Going
forward,
he
will
be
able
to
better
design
more
natural
shorelines
because
he
will
be
able
to
evaluate
potential
design
options
for
a
site
with
engineers,
using
the
HRSSP
engineering
data
(and
the
physical
forces
data
sets
in
particular).
Bill
Ottaway,
NYSDEC
Div.
of
Environmental
Remediation,
explained
how
the
Sustainable
Shorelines
project
has
begun
to
change
the
outlook
on
restoration
within
the
Division
of
Environmental
Remediation,
and
how
Division
staff
might
use
project
data
in
the
future.
He
commented
that
while
the
Division
mostly
improves
the
environment
by
removing
contaminants
of
concern,
in
some
cases
the
end
result
from
a
habitat
perspective
might
fall
short
of
what
could
have
been
achieved.
For
example,
a
complex
contaminated
shoreline
site
could
be
designed
to
have
riprap
shoreline
during
remediation
and
restoration,
rather
than
just
a
vertical
impermeable
wall.
The
HRSSP
project
has
helped
DER
realize
that
a
comprehensive
guidance
document
that
incorporates
HRSSP
findings
and
suggestions
might
facilitate
the
adoption
of
sustainable
shoreline
designs
into
restoration
plans,
and
he
is
writing
guidance
that
Sustainable
Shorelines
Advisory
Committee
Meeting
December
3,
2014
includes
initial
habitat
evaluations.
He
also
noted
that
some
clients
want
to
be
recognized
as
model
environmental
stewards.
In
these
cases,
he
said
it
is
easy
now
to
suggest
that
the
client
review
the
HRSSP
website
to
identify
the
type
of
shoreline
that
would
be
most
beneficial
at
the
end
of
the
remediation
project.
Heather
Gierloff,
NYSDEC
Region
3
Bureau
of
Habitat,
spoke
about
how,
from
a
permitting
perspective,
project
data
and
findings
help
to
substantiate
the
decisions
of
permitting
staff,
as
shoreline
treatment
approaches
move
from
traditional
stabilization
methods
to
more
adaptable
and
ecologically
enhanced
stabilization
methods.
Historically,
riprap
has
been
the
most
often-proposed
stabilization
technique.
Now
the
goal
is
to
help
permit
applicants
obtain
a
permit
that
will
both
stabilize
and
enhance
the
ecology
of
the
shoreline.
Applicants
are
often
surprised
when
they
are
not
granted
a
permit
that
proposes
the
use
of
traditional
stabilization
approaches.
Instead
of
simply
telling
the
applicant
the
stabilization
must
be
done
differently,
permitting
staff
now
directs
applicants
to
the
HRSSP
website
to
help
them
learn
why
enhanced
ecological
approaches
are
beneficial
and
how
such
approaches
might
be
constructed.
Mark
Lowery,
NYSDEC
Office
of
Climate
Change,
described
how
he
uses
project
data
and
products
in
two
areas:
development
of
guidance
pursuant
to
the
Community
Risk
and
Resiliency
Act
(CRRA)
and
in
the
Climate
Smart
Communities
program.
Signed
into
legislation
in
September
2014,
the
CRRA
Act
requires
DEC
to
adopt
sea
level
rise
(SLR)
projections.
CRRA
also
requires
that
applicants
to
any
of
the
19
different
facility
siting
programs,
permitting
programs
and
funding
programs
listed
in
CRRA
demonstrate
to
regulators
how
they
incorporated
the
storm
surge,
SLR,
and
flooding
considerations.
DEC
must
update
the
technical
and
guidance
documents
for
each
of
the
19
programs
to
incorporate
these
new
criteria.
DEC
and
DOS
must
provide
guidance
on
natural
resources
and
nature-based
measures
for
community
resiliency.
He
expects
that
a
lot
of
the
HRSSP
data
and
information
will
be
included
in
the
natural
resources
and
nature
based
measures
guidance.
Additionally,
he
said
they
will
look
to
the
HRSSP
as
a
model
for
transferring
knowledge
to
other
systems
across
the
state
and
for
developing
sustainable
guidance
for
coastal
environments.
Similar
to
the
planned
CRRA
guidance
documents,
he
commented
that
many
HRSSP
resources
have
been
incorporated
into
the
manual
for
the
Climate
Smart
Communities
Certification
Program
(http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/96511.html).
Jaime
Ethier,
NYS
Department
of
State,
Office
of
Planning
and
Development,
described
how
he
anticipates
using
HRSSP
data
and
products
in
3
ways:
while
interacting
with
municipalities
during
Local
Waterfront
Revitalization
Program
planning
efforts,
while
administering
their
annual
grant
program
administration,
and
during
consistency
reviews
for
projects
proposed
by
municipalities
and
shoreline
land
owners.
He
intends
to
refer
the
engineers
and
communities
to
the
HRSSP
information
to
help
them
better
understand
the
range
of
available
alternative
shoreline
stabilization
techniques.
Similarly,
the
consistency
review
unit
is
making
efforts
to
utilize
softer
shoreline
methods
and
will
promote
the
HRSSP
information
and
tools.
Kristin
Cady-Sawyer,
NYSDEC
Region
4,
Division
of
Environmental
Permits,
spoke
about
how
she
uses
the
HRSSP
data
and
how
permit
applicants
could
use
the
data
and
case
studies
of
demonstration
sites.
She
said
it
is
helpful
to
have
the
HRSSP
information
available
when
NYSDEC
Permits
staff
and
Habitat
staff
coordinate
review
of
a
permit
application.
When
applicants
choose
to
propose
an
approach,
it
will
be
helpful
for
the
applicants
to
review
HRSSP
data
and
resources
so
that
they
submit
correct
documentation
and
justification
for
the
approach.
Additionally,
the
demonstration
sites
will
show
the
benefits
of
sustainable
shorelines
and
how
those
sites
were
designed,
which
can
be
translated
into
future
permit
applications.
Sustainable
Shorelines
Advisory
Committee
Meeting
December
3,
2014
Sacha
Spector,
Scenic
Hudson,
explained
how
he
anticipates
Scenic
Hudson
will
use
the
demonstration
network
sites
on
their
properties
as
an
outreach
tool,
and
plans
to
invite
municipal
representatives
or
others
to
the
properties
to
discuss
how
they
were
designed,
permitted,
and
constructed.
He
said
Scenic
Hudson
will
continue
to
advocate
for
sustainable
shorelines
in
pre-permit
designs.
Over
the
long
term,
Scenic
Hudson
is
committed
to
installing
additional
soft
shoreline
approaches
throughout
the
Hudson
River
and
to
studying
how
well
the
shorelines
adapt
to
rising
water,
storms,
and
other
events
with
the
hope
of
continuing
to
develop
information
about
how
to
better
design
structures
overtime.
He
indicated
he
would
make
his
organizations
planning
staff
aware
of
the
HRSSP
resources,
and
facilitate
the
use
of
these
materials
at
Scenic
Hudson
properties.
Kristin
Marcell,
NYSDEC
Hudson
River
Estuary
Program
and
Cornell
U,
described
the
NYC
Coastal
Green
Shoreline
Infrastructure
Research
Plan,
and
recognized
the
value
of
the
HRSSP
approach
and
products
in
shaping
a
research
agenda
for
NYC.
Much
of
the
HRSSP
information
and
research,
as
well
as
outstanding
questions
identified
by
HRSSP,
are
incorporated
into
the
plan.
A
final
draft
will
be
available
for
review
in
coming
weeks.
(http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/100057.html).
Group
Discussion
The
discussion
focused
primarily
on
issues
related
to
the
permitting
process
and
how
to
make
sustainable
shorelines
approaches
the
default
proposed
approach
to
shoreline
management.
Others
offered
ideas
about
how
they
might
use
the
data:
Several
members
underscored
the
importance
of
maintaining
the
website,
especially
as
a
resource
to
which
professional
designers
can
refer
their
clients.
Others
expressed
appreciation
to
permit
staff
for
directing
applicants
to
HRSSP
information,
and
one
said
that
knowing
the
permit
staff
direct
applicants
to
the
HRSSP
resources
makes
engineering
firms
more
comfortable
with
directing
clients
to
the
same
resources;
it
helps
clients
to
better
understand
the
decision
making
process
used
to
approve
or
deny
a
permit.
Other
members
highlighted
the
need
to
generate
adoption
of
sustainable
shoreline
approaches
through
regulatory
means,
and
through
the
development
of
regulatory
guidance.
They
predict
there
will
be
an
increase
in
sustainable
shorelines
design
proposals
as
more
HRSSP
information
is
incorporated
into
the
regulatory
decision
making
process
and
becomes
more
the
norm.
In
Virginia,
for
example,
the
permit
application
requires
an
applicant
to
explain
why
they
did
not
propose
a
living
shoreline
approach
if
they
proposed
a
hard
shoreline
approach
instead.
Participants
discussed
whether
or
not
sustainable
shorelines
designs
are
common
knowledge
and,
if
they
are
common
knowledge,
why
they
are
not
proposed
more
frequently.
Some
suggested
that
most
engineers
are
aware
of
ecologically
enhanced
approaches,
but
they
are
infrequently
selected
because
either
the
engineers
believe
the
approaches
are
harder
to
design
and
permit
and
cost
more
in
construction
and
maintenance
than
traditional
hard
shorelines
or,
soft
shoreline
approaches
are
not
selected
because
the
client
specifically
requests
a
hardened
shoreline
approach.
Others
said
that
most
engineers
are
not
aware
of
ecologically
enhanced
shoreline
design
options
and
many
clients
simply
think
that
bulkheads
help.
Additionally,
the
clients
are
not
inclined
to
pay
for
the
design
and
construction
of
something
that,
to
them,
looks
like
weeds.
Instead,
good
design
for
these
clients
means
a
shoreline
that
looks
new.
Someone
suggested
it
would
be
great
to
create
holistic,
multipurpose
permit
authorization
/
application
that
meld
economic
development
with
the
restoration
of
neighboring
lands.
A
few
commenters
described
how
they
might
use
the
HRSSP
information.
One
said
his
organization
is
in
the
process
of
updating
environmental
sensitivity
index
maps
and
he
could
incorporate
HRSSP
data
on
constructed,
enhanced,
or
natural
shorelines
into
the
index
to
help
complete
a
hazard
assessment
for
SLR
and
flooding.
Another
participant
commented
that
the
Interstate
Environmental
Commission
is
branching
into
other
areas
of
water
quality,
which
has
Sustainable
Shorelines
Advisory
Committee
Meeting
December
3,
2014
made
them
particularly
interested
in
HRSSP.
He
commented
that
in
some
places,
like
the
Chesapeake
Bay,
living
shorelines
will
receive
credit
for
TMDLs.
In
a
similar
vein,
he
is
considering
how
the
Commission
can
use
the
HRSSP
information
in
the
future.
Future
Action,
Engagement,
Research,
and
Collaboration
Because
the
current
funding
for
this
project
is
coming
to
an
end,
this
meeting
provided
an
opportunity
for
Advisory
Committee
members
to
offer
ideas
about
what
else
needs
work
in
the
Hudson
related
to
shorelines.
The
group
discussed
potential
areas
of
future
collaboration
and
coordination
on
research,
education,
and
outreach
to
advance
the
adoption
of
sustainable
shorelines
practices
in
the
Hudson
River.
Comments
and
ideas
are
grouped
thematically.
Promote
or
encourage
the
use
of
HRSSP
data
Several
participants
commented
that
a
critical
next
step
is
to
get
engineers,
designers,
permitters/regulators,
and
clients
of
engineering
firms
to
use
project
data.
Technical
Assistance
-
The
Advisory
Committee
or
a
similar
group
could
provide
active
technical
assistance
and
refined
guidance,
beyond
what
is
available
on
the
HRSSP
website,
to
parties
interested
in
implementing
a
sustainable
shoreline
design.
Certification
or
Licensing
o Perhaps
there
should
be
a
certification
program
linked
to
regulations
and
permitting.
This
would
require
the
regulators
to
determine
that
certain
types
of
projects
are
approvable
and
engineers
or
designers
to
learn
about
the
available
data,
resources,
and
regulations
and
complete
a
certification
program.
This
would
enable
engineering
firms
to
use
the
certification
as
a
marketing
tool
to
show
they
understand
the
concepts
and
can
use
the
tools
to
complete
ecological
shoreline
design
faster
and
better.
o If
a
sustainable
shorelines
certification
program
is
developed,
consider
where
it
can
be
most
easily
inserted
into
education
and
career
development.
Accredited
undergraduate
programs
may
have
too
many
rigid
requirements;
but
a
semester
or
two
semester
long
course
to
disseminate
information
may
fit
more
easily
into
professional
development
plans
and
work
schedules.
o If
certification
leads
to
licensing,
the
licensing
authority
assumes
some
liability
with
the
professionals
that
are
certified
and
licensed.
Partner
organizations
may
be
useful
if
this
route
is
selected.
o Instead
of
certifying
engineers
or
consulting
firms,
perhaps
the
shoreline
design
itself
could
be
certified,
similar
to
Energy
Star
Certifications.
o Systems
Approach
to
Geomorphic
Engineering
(SAGE)
may
be
developing
a
similar
certification
program.
If
engineers
follow
specific
principles,
they
are
more
likely
to
receive
financial
support.
Restore
Americas
Estuaries
currently
has
a
grant
proposal
to
help
develop
a
shorelines
academy
that
would
lead
to
professional
certification.
Engage
the
railroad
companies
Participants
commented
on
the
potentially
significant
impact,
challenges,
and
opportunities
of
working
with
the
railroad
companies,
who
own
approximately
28%
of
the
Hudson
River
shorelines,
much
of
it
hardened.
When
the
railroad
companies
update
their
infrastructure,
significant
impact
could
be
achieved
if
the
HRSSP
can
provide
feasible
sustainable
shoreline
design
solutions
that
meet
the
companys
interest
in
protecting
their
infrastructure.
Natural
disasters
that
disrupt
service
may
eventually
encourage
railroad
companies
to
take
different
approaches,
however
their
initial
efforts
are
likely
to
focus
on
less
expensive
solutions
such
as
raising
mechanical
equipment,
while
long
term
efforts
would
likely
focus
on
expensive
solutions
such
as
elevating
tracks.
Sustainable
Shorelines
Advisory
Committee
Meeting
December
3,
2014
Could
the
companies
be
convinced
to
provide
funding
for
sustainable
shorelines
strategies
if
they
understand
they
have
one
of
the
largest
impacts
on
the
shorelines
of
the
Hudson
River?
Government
could
provide
incentives
for
railroad
companies
to
implement
ecologically
enhanced
shoreline
designs.
These
could
be
through
encouragement
in
the
regulations
or
financial
assistance
for
design
or
construction.
However,
some
suggested
railroad
companies
are
unlikely
to
fund
anything
that
does
not
contribute
to
continued
operation
of
the
railroad.
Efforts
to
engage
the
Metropolitan
Transit
Authority
(MTA)
with
a
cooperative
grant
program
initially
seemed
promising
but
ultimately
were
not
successful.
Members
speculated
that
MTA
senior
management
may
not
be
aware
of
the
value
of
constructing
ecologically
enhanced
shorelines
on
their
properties.
Seek
funding
for
partnerships
with
the
railroad
companies
from
the
Hudson
River
Foundation.
The
MTA
could
be
a
good
partner.
They
may
be
interested
in
demonstration
projects.
Continue
to
develop
and
monitor
demonstration
sites
Several
participants
commented
on
the
importance
of
continuing
to
provide
and
monitor
on-the-ground
examples
of
sustainable
shorelines
to
help
answer
why
they
perform
well
or
not.
Select
demonstration
sites
strategically
instead
of
opportunistically.
Identify
the
types
of
designs
we
want
to
construct,
identify
the
location
where
a
specific
design
is
feasible
and
take
action
to
secure
permission
and
authorization
to
design
and
construct
the
shoreline
treatment.
A
group
like
the
Advisory
Committee
could
be
used
to
identify
sites,
then
letters
could
be
sent
to
land
owners
requesting
time
to
discuss
the
potential
with
them.
Set
a
goal
to
complete
a
specific
number
of
demonstration
projects
with
railroad
companies.
Explore
the
potential
to
work
with
SAGE
on
demonstration
sites.
Incorporate
natural
shorelines
into
the
demonstration
site
network
shorelines,
including
those
that
are
managed
with
ecological
approaches,
but
whose
landowners
may
not
know
they
are
doing
anything
special.
Publicly
recognize
landowner
for
their
management
practices
to
build
awareness
and
interest
in
sustainable
shorelines.
Continue
to
monitor
demonstration
sites,
but
add
teeth
to
the
monitoring
program
to
ensure
sites
are
properly
maintained.
Continue
the
social
science
aspect
of
demonstration
site
monitoring,
for
insights
about
how
and
why
people
are
using
sustainable
shorelines.
Implement
monitoring
that
would
allow
comparison
to
baseline
shoreline
types.
This
would
allow
for
comparisons
of
how
well
sites
weather
storm
events
and
the
type
and
cost
of
maintenance
required
after
the
storm
events
and
provide
data
about
what
the
benefit
of
incorporating
more
ecological
considerations
into
sites
(or
leaving
them
alone).
Continue
ecological
research
Several
participants
highlighted
the
need
for
additional
information
or
action
on
specific
ecological
components.
Ecological
Tradeoff
Analysis:
Participants
noted
the
hurdle
of
permitting
in-water
structures
and
suggested
research
to
assess
the
tradeoffs
that
would
be
made
if
a
section
of
the
river
was
filled
in
or
a
structure
were
built
in
the
river.
In
particular,
a
participant
suggested
investigating
the
tradeoffs
between
breakwater
and
benthic
habitats,
since
the
benthic
habitat
impact
is
often
the
reason
a
permit
is
not
issued.
Habitat
Maps:
Classify
areas
of
higher
or
lesser
value
river
bottom
habitat.
Because
the
use
of
many
benthic
habitats
by
fish
and
other
organisms
is
not
well
understood
and
variable
according
to
location,
life
stage,
and
season,
additional
research
may
be
warranted
to
develop
recommendations
for
in-water
shoreline
structures/treatments
in
geographic
areas
where
one
treatment
has
ecological
advantages
over
another
treatment.
The
ecological
research
could
help
people
avoid
making
decisions
that
would
negatively
impact
valuable
habitat
areas.
A
participant
noted
that
sustainable
shoreline
treatments
are
typically
limited
to
impacted
or
developed
sites,
so
it
is
more
of
an
ecological
lift
than
an
ecological
trade.
Sustainable
Shorelines
Advisory
Committee
Meeting
December
3,
2014
Future
Partnerships,
Collaboration,
and
Communication
Initially,
the
HRSSP
had
both
a
technical
group
and
an
advisory
committee;
but
the
two
were
combined
for
efficiency.
The
Advisory
Committee
has
grown
to
provide
a
forum
and
structure
for
disseminating
and
discussing
information
and
building
relationships.
While
group
members
overwhelmingly
supported
continuation
of
the
group
in
some
form,
they
offered
the
following
ideas
about
the
future
of
the
group.
The
group
could
continue
to
serve
as
an
advisory
board.
For
example,
as
the
NYSDEC
staff
present
information
to
end
users,
they
could
collect
questions
and
concerns
and
bring
them
to
the
group
for
clarification.
New
members
could
be
added
to
the
group.
If
the
group
continues,
consider
inviting
representatives
from
municipalities
and
other
state
or
federal
agencies
to
participate.
Only
convene
the
group
if
there
is
a
specific
topic
or
project
that
could
benefit
from
coordination
among
participants.
This
may
mean
that
participants
only
attend
sessions
with
topics
of
interest
to
them.
It
was
suggested
the
group
meet
twice
per
year,
assuming
there
is
good
reason.
Many
members
present
liked
the
idea
of
working
together
on
the
development
of
an
outreach
or
extension
component
(training
package,
seminar,
or
other)
to
promote
the
use
of
the
information
and
tools
created
through
the
project.
Support
from
NYSDEC
staff
in
Albany
would
also
help
to
advance
information
dissemination.
For
example,
they
could
encourage
trainings
be
completed
by
Soil
and
Water
Conservation
Districts,
municipalities,
and
machine
operators
who
help
to
rebuild
stream
channels.
Demonstration
site
monitoring
is
another
area
of
potential
coordination.
Currently,
only
the
minimum
monitoring
is
being
completed.
The
group
could
collectively
envision
a
better
way
to
operationalize
monitoring,
especially
after
big
storm
events
where
some
sites
may
succeed
and
fail
and
collection
of
data
points
would
be
of
high
value.
Consider
partnerships
with
other
organizations
doing
similar
work.
Examples
include
SAGE,
Restore
Americas
Estuaries,
the
Climate
Change
Science
Clearinghouse
of
New
York,
or
creating
partnerships
and
sharing
best
practices
between
lakefront
and
riverfront
shoreline
managers
through
the
Great
Lakes
Restoration
Initiative.
Additionally,
if
members
are
aware
of
individuals
or
corporations
looking
for
areas
to
complete
mitigation
requirements,
they
could
contact
staff
at
DEC,
who
could
recommend
a
potential
project
from
the
list
of
Environmental
Benefits
Projects.
Continue
to
maintain
the
HRSSP
website,
which
many
cited
as
a
valuable
resource,
and
consider
adding
an
interactive
online
forum
or
a
method
such
as
webinars
to
share
ideas
virtually.
Members
could
post
reports
or
present
what
theyve
done
or
what
is
trending
in
their
area
of
expertise.
This
might
require
a
coordinator.
Project
Wrap
Up,
Final
Comments,
and
Next
Steps
Sustainable
Shorelines
Advisory
Committee
Meeting
December
3,
2014
Several
additional
products
are
forthcoming,
and
Advisory
Committee
members
may
be
asked
to
provide
feedback
on
those
products;
however
this
meeting
marked
the
final
opportunity
to
convene
as
the
Advisory
Committee.
Committee
members
offered
these
final
thoughts
on
the
project.
Many
participants
commented
on
the
high
quality
and
usability
of
the
HRSSP
outputs
and
the
products
applicability
to
their
work.
For
example,
one
participant
said
she
is
glad
the
website
makes
the
data
so
accessible,
because
it
serves
as
a
resource
that
she
can
extend
to
permit
applicants
and
provides
her
with
support
for
permitting
decisions
when
working
with
applicants
in
the
field.
Another
commented
on
how
useful
the
products
will
be
when
incorporated
into
the
Community
Risk
and
Resiliency
Act.
Several
new
participants
said
they
looked
forward
to
taking
the
HRSSP
products
and
incorporating
them
into
their
work
in
floodplain
management.
Another
participant
said
the
greatest
benefit
of
products
for
him
is
that
now
he
has
the
science
to
support
innovation
solutions.
Many
participants
commented
on
the
value
of
participating
in
the
HRSSP.
For
example,
one
person
said
he
was
a
better
engineer
for
participating
in
the
HRSSSP
project.
Another
said
participation
was
really
valuable
because
it
provided
him
with
good
input
and
allowed
him
to
see
trends
and
build
understanding
of
likely
future
directions
ahead
of
the
marketplace.
Others
commented
on
the
value
of
extending
their
professional
network
by
interacting
with
people
they
otherwise
might
not
have
met.
Several
participants
offered
congratulations
to
the
HRSSP
research
team.
Commenting
on
the
difficulty
of
sustaining
momentum
on
collaborative
projects,
a
member
stated
that
the
high
attendance
at
the
last
meeting
is
a
testament
to
the
strong
leadership,
organization,
and
facilitation
skills
of
the
Coordinating
Team.
Another
person
commented
that
it
was
a
model
for
future
collaborative
projects.
Another
member
said
the
project
was
successful
because
the
project
leaders
had
a
good
vision
for
a
five-year
project
and
foresight
to
stay
ahead
of
the
curve.
Several
participants
reiterated
the
importance
of
maintaining
this
network
of
engineers,
regulators,
municipal
leaders
and
agency
staff.
Betsy
Blair
and
Emilie
Hauser
thanked
all
the
participants
for
their
time
and
contribution
and
for
laying
groundwork
for
NYSDEC
to
move
forward.
They
gave
thanks
and
recognition
to
the
NERRS
Science
Collaborative,
whose
support
made
this
project
possible,
and
said
that
while
this
meeting
marked
the
close
of
a
chapter,
it
is
not
the
end
of
the
book.
They
look
forward
to
maintaining
contact
and
collaborating
with
the
members
of
the
Advisory
Committee
to
continue
making
positive
impact
in
years
to
come.
10