Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Action Items
All
Please let Emilie Hauser know about any sustainable shorelines projects that you are aware of
that could be included in the Shoreline Demonstration Site Network.
Please let Stuart Findlay or Jon Miller know if you have any additional thoughts or suggestions
about the draft protocols.
Project Team
Post meeting slides and handouts on the project website.
Distribute the list of resources and link to the project website.
Overview
The newly re-formed Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Advisory Committee convened on January 20,
2016 to learn about the fourth phase of the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project, Assessing
Ecological and Physical Performance of Sustainable Shoreline Structures, and to provide early input on
the proposed technical approach and products. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA)
supports this project through the National Estuarine Research Reserve System Science Collaborative. As
with all Science Collaborative-supported efforts, the sustainable shorelines project is user-driven. This
Advisory Committee is comprised of land owners, funders, regulators, natural resource managers,
designers (engineers, landscape architects, restoration scientists, etc.) and land stewards. Sustainable
design metrics, During the 2016 field season, they will collect preliminary data from the six
refine approaches as necessary.
Year Two (2017): The project team will provide a project update and the Advisory Committee
will provide feedback on draft protocols and approach. The researchers will apply the protocols
in the field, and teach land stewards how to apply the protocols via a webinar. After the land
stewards are trained, they will field-test the protocols at their sites.
Year Three (2018): The researchers will revise and finalize the protocols based on the experience
of land stewards applying them in the field during the previous year. The Advisory Committee
and land stewards will convene via webinar to learn about and discuss the final protocols. The
land stewards and others will apply the protocols to test replicability. A final meeting between
the land stewards and the Advisory Committee will be convened to provide the research team
with feedback on the projects final products.
1. General impressions on the protocols Participants collegially discussed and deliberated the pros
and cons and other related issues to consider about a variety of topics. Overall, participants thought
the project was on the right track and they supported the idea of a simple, cost effective way to
monitor site performance. Participants were glad the measurements were simple enough that they
could be collected without a lot of formal training because the simplicity could a wider variety of
people, possibly including high school teachers and students, to collect data. Many participants said
the tools and methods described seem straightforward and easy to apply.
2. Purpose and impact of the protocols Participants suggested clarifying the purpose of the protocols
so that land stewards understand why they should collect the information, how the data might be
used (by them or others), and what could be the result of their efforts. One way to clarify the
purpose might be to include in the guidance materials a list of several ways the data could be used
or applied. Another way might be to explain that the value of the project is not in the individual
measurements; instead it is in the ability of a series of individual measurements to show trends over
time. Participants identified the following potential purposes which confirmed the project teams
intention:
To identify if a site or a portion of a site fails or succeeds
To identify early signs or thresholds that may lead to site failure
To identify ecological changes and potential management actions (e.g. in response to
invasive species).
Participants also commented on the impact of the protocols:
A participant commented that the structural data might help identify which sites failed, but
the data would not inform site design or identify the reasons for site failure. Jon agreed the
data would not completely illuminate why a site failed and that it would not inform site
design; however, pre- and post-failure data could be combined with modeling to help
discern the cause of site failure. It may also help to focus future research efforts on aspects
of site design that contribute to site failure.
A participant suggested that it would be useful if Phase 4 work produced an executive
summary-style report containing a snapshot of site conditions on a yearly basis. This type of
report could be replicated for all sites and could provide a way for organizations collecting
data to communicate and showcase the results of their efforts.
3. Proposed revisions to the protocols Participants suggested the following revisions to the protocols:
Shorten the protocols Some thought the protocols were too long. One suggested shortening
them to fit on one page. Suggestions for shortening the protocols included:
Reduce the protocols to a set of core measurements that must be completed at each
site.
Only request measurements that provide the most useful data and which cannot be
acquired through other means such as looking up information on publicly available
databases.
Consider whether there should be different types of questions for different types of
shoreline treatments. For example, maybe wave measurements are only required at
sites with sills and not required for revetments or simple shorelines. If optional
questions are identified, the researchers could include text describing the additional
value of measuring optional variables to encourage their inclusion.
Integrate the ecological and structural protocols (which are currently distinct).
Add questions In contrast to the goal of shortening the protocols, some suggested adding
questions:
Sustainable Shorelines Advisory Committee Meeting January 20, 2016
Consider when and how to direct those applying the protocols to sources of additional data
or information that might be useful (e.g. what to do or who to contact if a problem is
identified).
Include visual aids to describe concepts and approaches to be applied in the field. Consider
developing a laminated visual cookbook to serve as field guide.
Provide instructions to identify photo points (if added to the protocol) and how to identify
sturdy benchmarks/reference locations that will not move in a large storm event.
Include health and safety protocols.
5. Implementation Committee members said the protocols must be easily completed if it is expected
that land stewards will collect the data voluntarily. Participants offered the following ideas to collect
data for the project in the short-term and to encourage land stewards to collect data using the
protocols in the long-term:
Create links to other monitoring programs or projects: Participants said the researchers could
possibly partner with organizations or agencies that permit shoreline management actions to
collect additional data points in the short and long-term. For example, the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservations Division of Environmental Remediation could
request that property owners collect and submit relevant data in their annual reports. Similarly,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requires site owners to monitor a site for three to five years
after a management strategy is implemented and they could possibly encourage shoreline
owners to collect and submit the data. Another potential collaboration opportunity is to partner
with the Day in the Life of the River program, which enables high schools students to collect
data with the Hudson River Estuary Program that is then analyzed by Columbia University.
Citizen science groups, friends of groups, or watershed associations, conservation
organizations, municipal open space committees and environmental staff may also be willing to
apply the protocols.
Clarifying the purpose of collecting data could motivate land stewards to implement the
protocols: For example, land stewards may be more likely to implement the protocols if they will
be able to use the data in some way and describe to their constituents why collecting the data is
useful or how it helps the organization or the environment. One committee member said the
reason his organization would implement the protocols is to trouble spot issues with structures
before the issue becomes catastrophic, and to that end it would be useful if the protocols help
them identify and understand potential problems with the structures. Additionally, they would
implement the protocols because they believe sustainable shorelines contribute to a better
functioning estuary and by completing the protocols he hopes they can document change and
describe what they are accomplishing for the estuary.
Equipment and tool management A participant noted that though relatively simple and
affordable, the tools are not common household items and asked where the tools would be
stored if the protocols are implemented by volunteer groups. Another person suggested that
perhaps the Advisory Committee could help to assemble tool kits. Others suggested that
volunteers would step up to buy the low cost tools, similar to how trail maintainers buy the
tools needed for trail maintenance. Stuart suggested that someone who has been trained
should store the equipment.
Long-term implementation and data management Participants stressed the need to identify
options for the long-term data collection, storage and maintenance, especially if volunteer
groups will be collecting the data after the Phase 4 project concludes. It will be important to
identify potential organizations that can provide additional training for data collection (likely
including HRNERR). Participants suggested that land stewards may be more likely to collect the
data if they know it is part of a larger effort and that the data will be available in a centralized
database for future use.
Sustainable Shorelines Advisory Committee Meeting January 20, 2016