120
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Annotated Protocols and Worksheets
Appendix B. Glossary of Key Terms and Feature Definitions
Appendix C. Summary of Regional Workshops
Appendix D. Summary of Permit Reviewer Meetings
Appendix E. Draft Monitoring Framework Matrices and Preliminary Protocols
Appendix F. Bibliography of Documents Reviewed
Appendix G. Project Core Team and Working Group Membership
Appendix H. Project Workplan and Schedule
(e-mail: [email protected] for a copy)
APPENDIX B.
GLOSSARY OF
KEY TERMS
AND FEATURE
DEFINITIONS
Appendix B Glossary of Key Terms and Feature Definitions
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS AND FEATURE
DEFINITIONS
Assessment points: points along the profile lines that are reasonably representative of the surrounding
area. Assessment points should be selected during the first site visit and are used repeatedly during
subsequent site visits (see Fig. 2).
Control points: semi-permanent, fixed, locations that should be easy to locate. Control points define
the landward most point on a profile line (typically). Their location with respect to the reference point
should be carefully determined. Points may be marked with PVC stakes, large spikes driven in the
ground, or other markers as appropriate (see Fig. 2).
Ecologically-Enhanced Hard Structural Features (EEF): features that would generally be categorized as
hard structural features, but have been designed in a manner so that they provide or are designed to
provide additional ecological benefits or reduce ecological impacts relative to traditional HSF. These
features are largely used in heavily urbanized areas where environmental degradation, regulatory
constraints, or critical infrastructure prohibit the use of natural or nature based shoreline infrastructure.
An example might be the integration or use of marine concrete technology to support enhanced
biological activity on structures that traditionally would not support robust marine habitat. (source:
developed by project team)
Erosional Areas: areas within a site which show evidence of past or ongoing erosion and potentially
have implications for structural stability of feature.
Feature: see shoreline feature.
Feature Displacement: the location of natural or man-made objects, as it is tracked over time.
Hard Structural Features (HSF): typically constructed of stone, pressure-treated wood, compacted
earth, or hard human-made materials (concrete, metal, etc.) and designed to control or direct water
and/or sediment movement. These features typically disrupt natural features and processes, and have
limited or no living components. Some examples include levees, bulkheads, seawalls, revetments, dams,
structural stream channels and stormwater conveyances. Hard structural features are not natural
resilience features. (source: CRRA)
High-water line (aerial imagery): the inland / upland limit of the tidal range as visible from aerial /
satellite imagery. See protocols for methods for determining the high water line. A shading difference is
typically visible between the wet and dry area due to the recent recession of the high tide. A fresh wrack
line of algae or debris may be visible as well, but should be relatively close to the water line of th e aerial
image. The identification of the high-water line may be more difficult in salt marsh areas. The high-water
line is typically easier to identify along sandy and rocky shorelines. For shorelines with bulkheads or
piers, the high-water line may be at the structure itself, especially in deep water within harbor areas.
Appendix B Glossary of Key Terms and Feature Definitions
High-water line: the approximated location of high water (mean high water) derived from observations
of aerial imagery. See “Mean high water” under “tide levels”
High Tide: see tide levels.
Indicator: a measurable or traceable attribute of a shoreline feature that can be used to evaluate
progress toward or achievement of a particular performance goal.
Intertidal: the area between the highest high tide and the lowest low tide, and is fl ooded once or twice
daily by the tide. Also see tidal range.
Low Tide: see tide levels.
Material Degradation: The degradation of man-made objects, that can be tracked over time to
understand structural stability and potentially magnitude of forces operating on the feature.
Mean Higher High Water (MHHW): see tide levels.
Mean High Water (MHW): see tide levels.
Mean Sea Level (MSL): see tide levels.
Mean Low Water (MLW): see tide levels
Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW): see tide levels
Native vegetation (or species): a plant (or animal) that is part of the balance of nature that has
developed over hundreds or thousands of years in a particular region or ecosystem. It is typically
contrasted with invasive vegetation (or species), which are artificially introduced and able to establish
on many sites, grow quickly and spread to the point of disrupting ecosystems in a harmful way, causing
damage to the environment, economy or human health.
Natural Features (N): features created by physical, geological, biological, and chemical processes that
evolve over time through the forces of nature. These include features like wetlands, floodplains, dunes,
and barrier islands. Individual features are part of larger natural systems and are linked by natural
processes (source: CRRA; USACE). Natural features can be
(1) Conserved Natural Features, when existing natural systems/features are protected and
managed to conserve the benefits they provide for future generations, or
(2) Restored Natural Features, when natural features and processes that have been degraded
or altered are re-established to enhance the natural capacity of the feature while supporting the
native ecological systems. (source: CRRA)
Appendix B Glossary of Key Terms and Feature Definitions
Nature-Based Features (NBF): features that mimic natural features and processes and are designed to
provide specific services, such as preventing erosion, reducing flood risk, increasing habitat or improving
water quality. They typically incorporate or promote the growth of living materials and limit disturbance
to existing habitat. Based on a number of factors, including site conditions, nature -based features may
include hard structural components (e.g. stone, concrete). However, they use the minimum amount of
structural components necessary to achieve project goals, while also realizing habitat and resilience
benefits. (source: CRRA)
Percent Cover: a visual estimate of the relative abundance of a particular ground cover type (e.g.,
vegetation, bare soil, gravel) in a given space .
Performance parameter: a factor that allows the evaluation of the relative effectiveness of a shoreline
management feature in providing ecological function, hazard mitigation services or socio -economic
benefits.
Points of interest (POI): points or features of interest that the site steward may wish to document over
time. POI may or may not be on a profile line and can be added at any time, but should be tracked over
time. Examples of POI include: large woody debris, erosional features, and parameters related to the
condition/function of erosion control structures.
Protocol: the specifications for collecting, recording/reporting, and storing data related to the agreed
upon indicators.
Reference points: permanent immovable objects that will presumably survive storms and other events.
These will provide a fixed geospatial reference point against which all other measurement points can be
compared (see Fig. 2).
Resilience service: the high-level grouping / categorization of the type of services and benefits that
shoreline management features provide to communities and ecosystems. For this project, three
resilience services have been identified: (1) Ecological function, which assesses a project’s contribution
to ecosystem health; (2) Hazard Mitigation & Structural Integrity, which identifies how well a project
mitigates risks associated with hazards and its ability to sustain that performance; and (3) Socio-
Economic Outcomes, which captures the project’s associated services that may impact community
resilience and well-being.
Segments: large areas of the site (on the order of 50 to several 100 feet) which are reasonably similar
(i.e. natural shoreline, bulkhead, revetment). No segment should consist of more than one shoreline
feature type. There can be multiple different segments within an individual site/feature (see Fig. 2).
Shapefile (.shp): a geospatial point and vector data format for geographic information system (GIS)
software. It is developed and regulated by Esri as a mostly open specification for data interoperability
among Esri and other GIS software products.The shapefile format can spatially describe vector features:
points, lines, and polygons, representing, for example, water wells, rivers, and lakes. Each item usually
has attributes that describe it, such as name or temperature.
Appendix B Glossary of Key Terms and Feature Definitions
Shoreline: the boundary between the water and the land. The actual shoreline is dynamic and moves
with changing water levels. For the purposes of mapping and tracking shoreline change, the high water
line or mean high water is used to define the shoreline so that i t can be compared over time.
Shoreline Feature: any type of shoreline; for the purpose of this monitoring framework this include
natural shorelines, nature-based shorelines, ecologically enhanced hard structural shorelines, and hard
structural shorelines. See the shoreline feature definitions and feature definition crosswalk at the end of
this glossary for a list of shoreline features used in the context of this monitoring framework. In
completing the protocols, ‘feature’ refers to a specific descriptor of the shoreline feature being
monitored (i.e. Coxsackie Boat Launch Nature-Based Shoreline).
Site or site/feature (for monitoring): the boundary of the shoreline feature or combination of
contiguous shoreline features being monitored. Adjacent areas (e.g. the neighborhood surrounding the
site) beyond the boundaries of the site may be part of some of the monitoring and if so are called out as
such in the protocol.
Species richness: Species richness is simply the number of species present in a sample area (e.g. a plot
with X, Y, and Z species has a species richness of 3).
Species composition: Species composition describes the relative proportion of individuals present in a
population by species (e.g. a plot with 5 individuals of X, 4 individuals of Y, and 1 individual of Z has a
species richness of 3 and a species composition of 0.5 (50%) for X, 0.4 (40%) for Y, and 0.1 (10%) for Z).
Subtidal: areas below the mean low water that are always inundated.
Tide levels (tidal datums): a standard elevation defined by a certain phase of the tide. Tidal datums are
used as references to measure local water levels. For the purpose of this monitoring framework, we will
use the definitions of tidal datums maintained by the Center for Operational Oceanographic Products
and Services and used by NOAA, including
Mean Higher High Water (MHHW): The average of the higher high water height of each tidal
day observed over the National Tidal Datum Epoch. For stations with shorter series, comparison
of simultaneous observations with a control tide station is made in order to derive the
equivalent datum of the National Tidal Datum Epoch.
Mean High Water (MHW): The average of all the high water heights observed over the National
Tidal Datum Epoch. For stations with shorter series, comparison of simultaneous observations
with a control tide station is made in order to derive the equivalent datum of the National Tidal
Datum Epoch.
Mean Sea Level (MSL): The arithmetic mean of hourly heights observed over the National Tidal
Datum Epoch. Shorter series are specified in the name; e.g. monthly mean sea level and yearly
mean sea level.
Appendix B Glossary of Key Terms and Feature Definitions
Mean Low Water (MLW): The average of all the low water heights observed over the National
Tidal Datum Epoch. For stations with shorter series, comparison of simultaneous observations
with a control tide station is made in order to derive the equivalent datum of the National Tidal
Datum Epoch.
Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW): The average of the lower low water height of each tidal day
observed over the National Tidal Datum Epoch. For stations with shorter series , comparison of
simultaneous observations with a control tide station is made in order to derive the equivalent
datum of the National Tidal Datum Epoch.
Tidal Range: the difference between the highest and lowest tide in the tidal cycle.
Transects (Profile Lines): sampling lines perpendicular to the water’s edge (the shoreline). There should
be a minimum of two transects per segment. Preliminary transects laid out during pre -site visit planning
should be confirmed during the first site visit and monitored during each subsequent visit.
Wave energy: the force a wave is likely to have on a shoreline. Wave energy at a specific site depends
on environmental factors like shore orientation, wind, channel width, and bathymetry. Boat wakes can
also generate waves (CRRA)
Wave Height: the vertical distance between the trough of a wave and the following crest (see Fig. 1)
Wave Period: the time required for two successive wave crests (peaks) to pass a fixed point (measured
in seconds) (see Fig. 1)
Wave Runup: the maximum vertical extent of wave uprush on a beach or structure above the still water
level (see Fig. 1).
Figure 1
Appendix B Glossary of Key Terms and Feature Definitions
Figure 2
Shoreline Measure / Feature Type / Category Definition / Description source of definition
Shoals, Mudflats, nearshore N/NB
The tidal wetland zone that at high tide is covered by saline or fresh tidal waters, at low tide is exposed
or is covered by water to a maximum depth of approximately one foot, and is not vegetated.
NYS DEC Tidal Wetland Categories
https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/5120.html
Shellfish beds / Reefs /
Constructed Reefs
N/NB/EEF
Structured habitat formed by marine organisms within the subtidal and sometimes intertidal zone(s).
Breakwaters HSF/EEF
Shore-parallel structures built within a water body to reduce wave
energy and erosion on the shoreward side. They can be
made of wood, timber, rock, concrete, rock cribbing, or other materials.
Sustainable Shorelines Project.
https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/remediation_hudson_pdf/shore
lineterminology.pdf
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation N/NB
Submerged aquatic vegetation (often shortened to SAV) is plants that are always under water. The
most common native species of SAV in the Hudson River watershed is water celery (Vallisneria
americana), but other species include clasping leaved pondweed (Potamogeton perfoliatus), and such
non-native plants as curly pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) and Eurasian water milfoil (Myriophyllum
spicatum).
NY DEC;
https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/87648.html
Living Shoreline (sill type) NB
Shoreline techniques that incorporate natural living features alone or in
combination with structural components such as rock, wood, fiber rolls,
bagged shell, and concrete shellfish substrate.1
This combination is also called hybrid. To be considered a living shoreline the techniques shall:
• Control or reduce shoreline erosion while maintaining benefits
comparable to the natural shoreline such as, but not limited to,
allowing for natural sediment movement;
• Use the minimum amount of structural components necessary for
hybrid techniques to obtain project goals;
• Improve, restore, or maintain the connection between the upland
and water habitats; and
• Incorporate habitat enhancement and natural elements, frequently
includes native re-vegetation or establishment of new vegetation
that is consistent with a natural shoreline typical of the site location
NY DEC, 2017.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/dmrlivingshore
guide.pdf
Tidal Wetlands / Salt marsh N/NB
Tidal wetlands are the areas where the land meets the sea. These areas are periodically flooded by
seawater during high or spring tides or, are affected by the cyclic changes in water levels caused by
the tidal cycle. Salt marshes and mud flats are some typical types of tidal wetlands found along New
York's marine shoreline. For the purposes of this project, "tidal wetlands" are vegtated features, and
mud flats (unvegetated) are listed separately. In NY State, tidal wetlands are classified by the amount
of water covering the area at high and low tides and the type of vegetation. New York State uses
specific categories and codes to describe and represent different types of coastal, tidal and fresh
water wetlands; these are: Intertidal Marsh; High Marsh; Fresh Marsh; Formally Connected; Coastal
Shoals, Bars, and Mudflats; Littoral Zone; Adjacent Area; Dredge Spoil
NYS DEC Tidal Wetland Categories
https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/5120.html
Groin / Jetty HSF
Shore-perpendicular structures built within a water body to reduce wave
energy and erosion on the shoreward side. They can be
made of wood, timber, rock, concrete, rock cribbing, or other materials.
Sustainable Shorelines Project.
https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/remediation_hudson_pdf/shore
lineterminology.pdf
The below is a working list and definitions and is intended to be updated as understanding of feature types evolve and new types of features emerge. It is intended as a starting point to develop consensus, for the purposes of this project, among project stakeholders around how to define and categorize the features / shoreline measures being
monitored
List & description of potential shoreline features / shoreline management strategies for consideration by source
12/4/2019 Page 1 of 2
Shoreline Measure / Feature Type / Category Definition / Description source of definition
The below is a working list and definitions and is intended to be updated as understanding of feature types evolve and new types of features emerge. It is intended as a starting point to develop consensus, for the purposes of this project, among project stakeholders around how to define and categorize the features / shoreline measures being
monitored
List & description of potential shoreline features / shoreline management strategies for consideration by source
Revetment HSF / EEF
Large sloping structures that armor the shore slope, or bank, to protect against erosion. Typically
constructed of large rocks or concrete armor units, revetments dissipate wave and current energy
along their slopes and within their void spaces. Rock revetments differ from traditional rip-rap slope
stability methods in that they are designed through a more rigorous engineering analysis and
thus provide a higher degree of protection.
Sustainable Shorelines Project.
https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/remediation_hudson_pdf/shore
lineterminology.pdf
Bulkhead HSF / EEF
Bulkheads are vertical walls which prevent the loss of soil and the further erosion of the shore.
Bulkheads are a commonly engineered shoreline method used to provide working waterfront or
protect vulnerable and eroding shorelines. They can be made of a variety of materials including but
not limited to rock, steel, concrete and wood.
Sustainable Shorelines Project.
https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/remediation_hudson_pdf/shore
lineterminology.pdf
Levee HSF
A levee as a man-made structure that helps contain or control the flow of water during a flood.
FEMA; https://www.fema.gov/media-
library/assets/documents/22951
Bluff N/NB
A bluff is any bank or cliff with a steeply sloped face that is along a body of water. A bluff extends from
the edge of a beach or nearshore area, to 25 feet landward of the bluffs peak.
NY DEC;
https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/86559.html
Beach / Beach Berm N/NB
The beach is the zone of earth that extends from the mean low water line, to the waterward toe of a
dune or bluff, whichever is closest to the water. Where no dune of bluff exists, the limit of a beach is
100 feet landward from in the line of permanent vegetation.
NY DEC;
https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/86559.html
Dune N/NB
A dune is a ridge or hill of loose, windblown, or artificially placed sand, and its vegetation. A dune
extends from the edge of its connecting beach, to 25 feet landward from the landward toe of the dune.
NY DEC;
https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/86559.html
Maritime upland
vegetation/habitat] forests /
shrublands / grasslands
N/NB
terrestrial habitats not directly influenced by the tidal zone but adjacent to (upland of) the shoreline /
tidal zone. This includes many specific habitat types.
team defined.
12/4/2019 Page 2 of 2
Shoreline Measure / Feature Type / Category Definition / Description source of definition guidance for physical deliniation the feature
Shoals, Mudflats, nearshore N/NB
The tidal wetland zone that at high tide is covered by saline or fresh tidal waters, at low tide is
exposed or is covered by water to a maximum depth of approximately one foot, and is not
vegetated.
NYS DEC Tidal Wetland Categories
https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/5120.html
Understanding the location of tidal range within the site, this community can be
delineated based upon the general lack of vegetation within the intertidal zone,
substrate (i.e., deposition of mud, silts, and clays), and geomorphic position (i.e.,
typically found in sheltered areas). These habitats can be differentiated from
beaches primarily by substrate (i.e., beaches are primarily sand), and beaches are
located in higher wave environments.
Shellfish beds / Reefs /
Constructed Reefs
N/NB/EEF
Structured habitat formed by marine organisms within the subtidal and sometimes intertidal
zone(s).
These features can be delineated at low tide around the perimeter of the hard
structure providing wave attenuation and/or hard substrate to shellfish, benthic
organisms, and other aquatic populations. The perimeter of this hard structure can
be differentiated from the surrounding intertidal, and sub-tidal bottom that are
typically flat, and consisting of fine sediments and sands.
Breakwaters HSF/EEF
Shore-parallel structures built within a water body to reduce wave
energy and erosion on the shoreward side. They can be
made of wood, timber, rock, concrete, rock cribbing, or other materials.
Sustainable Shorelines Project.
https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/remediation_hudson_pdf/s
horelineterminology.pdf
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation N/NB
Submerged aquatic vegetation (often shortened to SAV) is plants that are always under water.
The most common native species of SAV in the Hudson River watershed is water celery
(Vallisneria americana), but other species include clasping leaved pondweed (Potamogeton
perfoliatus), and such non-native plants as curly pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) and
Eurasian water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum).
NY DEC;
https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/87648.html
Living Shoreline (sill type) NB
Shoreline techniques that incorporate natural living features alone or in
combination with structural components such as rock, wood, fiber rolls,
bagged shell, and concrete shellfish substrate.1
This combination is also called hybrid. To be considered a living shoreline the techniques
shall:
• Control or reduce shoreline erosion while maintaining benefits
comparable to the natural shoreline such as, but not limited to,
allowing for natural sediment movement;
• Use the minimum amount of structural components necessary for
hybrid techniques to obtain project goals;
• Improve, restore, or maintain the connection between the upland
and water habitats; and
• Incorporate habitat enhancement and natural elements, frequently
includes native re-vegetation or establishment of new vegetation
that is consistent with a natural shoreline typical of the site location
NY DEC, 2017.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/dmrlivingsh
oreguide.pdf
Typically, living shorelines include multiple native habitats along the shoreline based
upon tidal inundation. Delineation of the perimeter of these features should be
guided by the restoration design, baseline conditions, as well as guidance for habitat
types provided herein (i.e., tidal wetlands, reefs, beach/dunes).
Tidal Wetlands / Salt marsh N/NB
Tidal wetlands are the areas where the land meets the sea. These areas are periodically
flooded by seawater during high or spring tides or, are affected by the cyclic changes in water
levels caused by the tidal cycle. Salt marshes and mud flats are some typical types of tidal
wetlands found along New York's marine shoreline. For the purposes of this project, "tidal
wetlands" are vegtated features, and mud flats (unvegetated) are listed separately. In NY
State, tidal wetlands are classified by the amount of water covering the area at high and low
tides and the type of vegetation. New York State uses specific categories and codes to
describe and represent different types of coastal, tidal and fresh water wetlands; these are:
Intertidal Marsh
High Marsh
Fresh Marsh
Formally Connected
Coastal Shoals, Bars, and Mudflats
Littoral Zone
Adjacent Area
Dredge Spoil
NYS DEC Tidal Wetland Categories
https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/5120.html
These features can typically be delineated by utilizing the edge of vegetated
communities within the intertidal zone. The mean higher high water line should be
used at the upland boundary for this habitat type. If important to the project
monitoring, the high marsh can be delineated from the low marsh utilizing plant
community composition or by understanding the mean high water line for the project
area.
The below is a working list and definitions and is intended to be updated as understanding of feature types evolve and new types of features emerge. It is intended as a starting point to develop consensus, for the purposes of this project, among project stakeholders around how to define and categorize the features / shoreline measures
being monitored
List & description of potential shoreline features / shoreline management strategies for consideration by source
12/4/2019 Page 1 of 2
List and crosswalk of potential shoreline features / shoreline management strategies for consideration by source
DOI (2015). Recommendations for
assessing the effects of the DOI
Hurricane Sandy Mitigation and
Resilience Program
ABT (2015) Developing Socio-
Economic Metrics to Measure DOI
Hurricane Sandy Project and
Program Outcomes
MARCO (2017) Working towards a
robust monitoring framework for
natural and nature-based features in
the mid-Atlantic using citizen
science
NYC Coastal Green Infrastructure
Research Agenda (2013)
A Framework for Developing Monitoring
Plans for Coastal Wetland Restoration and
Living Shoreline Projects in NJ (2016)
Terminology for the Hudson River
Sustainable Shorelines Project
Shoreline Measure / Feature Type / Categor Measure / Feature
feature type
Measure / Feature
Type / Category
Measure / Feature Measure / Feature Measure / Feature Measure / Feature Measure / Feature Measure / Feature
Inlets Natural Features Bay
Nearshore Area Natural Features Nearshore Shallow and Nearshore Deep
Shoals Mudflats / sandflats
NNBF
Mudflat
Island (can include one or more of beach, dune,
breakwater, bluff, marsh, maritime forest, other
vegetation)
feature complex
Islands
NNBF
Barrier Island (can include one or more of beach,
dune, breakwater, bluff, marsh, maritime forest,
other vegegtation)
feature complex
Shellfish Beds/Reefs Natural Features
Reef, intertidal or submerged (also see
breakwater)
feature complex Shellfish reefs Constructed Reefs
Breakwater , submerged (nearshore berm, sill,
artifical reef - if containing living organismes or
plants, see reef)
feature complex
Breakwater, subaerial or emergent (nearshore
berm, sill, reef, can contain oysters, rock, shells,
mussels, submerged aquatic vegetation(SAV),
emergent or herbaceous vegetation)
feature complex
breakwater
Breakwater
Structural
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation N/NB
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Natural Features Submerged Submerged aquatic vegetation Aquatic Vegetation
Living Shoreline (sill type) NB
Living Shoreline (e.g. vegetation w/ sills, benches,
breakwaters)
feature complex Green Infrastructure: living shorelines Shoreline Living Shorelines
Living Shorelines (natural, hybrid, and
structural)
Sill with Constructed Near-Shore
Wetland
Tidal Wetlands / Salt marsh
N/NB
Tidal Wetlands Natural Features Salt Marsh
NNBF tidal wetland restoration
Marsh Vegetation
Fresh Emergent Marshes/Wetlands
NNBF
Fresh Shrub-scrub Wetland
NNBF
Brackish Shrub-scrub Wetland
NNBF
Brackish Flooded Swamp Forests
NNBF
Fresh Flooded Swamp Forest
NNBF
Groin / Jetty
HSF
Groin
Structural
jetty
revetments
revetments (modified for
ecological services)
Structural
live crib walls, live cribbing, or
vegetated cribbing
Structural
Rip-Rap
timber cribbing
gabions
sill
Storm surge barrier Bulkheads
bulkhead (modified for
ecological services)
Seawall
Levee
HSF
Levee
Structural
Bluff
N/NB
Bluff Bluff
NNBF
Beach / Beach Berm
N/NB
Beach Beaches (sand, gravel, cobble)
NNBF
Beach Beach Beaches
Dune
N/NB
Dune Dune / swale complex
NNBF
Dunes Dune Dunes
Maritime Forests NNBF
planted shoreline
Maritime Grasslands
NNBF
Maritime Shrublands
NNBF
Coastal floodplain
Floodplain
Riparian Area Riparian Buffers
NNBF
Riverine and Riparian Zone Riparian Riparian buffer
Pond
NNBF
Estuaries and Ponds
Forests Terrestrial Forest
NNBF
Forests
Terrestrial Shrublands
NNBF
terrestrial vegetation
Terrestrial Grasslands
NNBF
Bank Vegetated Geogrid
Bio/Green walls
Stream
joint planting, live stakes or
vegetated rip-rap
Uplands and watersheds
Green infrastructure: other methods
Urban retrofit
Maritime forests constructed maritime forests*Maritime forests and shrublands
Ecologically-enhanced bulkheads and
revetments
Grey infrastructure
constructed wetlands*WetlandsWetland
Constructed Breakwater Islands
Barrier Island
Marshes and wetlands
Natural Features
Seawall / revetment / bulkhead
N/NB
Non-tidal Wetlands
Structural
Structural
USACE, Use of NNBF for coastal resilience (see table 20)
NY CRRA
Natural FeaturesBarrier Island
OUR PROJECT - MEASURING FOR SUCCESS
Shoals, Mudflats, nearshore
Shellfish beds / Reefs /
Constructed Reefs
The below list of shoreline features (first two collumns) was develop for the purpose of gaining consensus, for the purposes of this project, among project stakeholders around (1) what features / shoreline measures being considered for monitoring under this project, and (2) how those features shoudl be categorized (as Natural (F), Nature-based (NB), Ecologically
Enhanced Hard Structural Features (EEF), or Hard Structural Features (HSF) The additional collumns of the table provide a "crosswalk" thta references literature (papers, guidelines, pollicies, etc.) that have discussed or defined NNBF and how the terms they have used or how they have categorized these features.
Floodplain
Maritime Forests
N/NB/EEF
HSF / EEF
Breakwaters HSF/EEF
[Maritime upland
vegetation/habitat] forests /
shrublands / grasslands
Revetment
Bulkhead
N/NB
HSF / EEF
12/03/2019 Page 1 of 1
APPENDIX C.
SUMMARY OF
REGIONAL
WORKSHOPS
Appendix C Summary of Regional Workshops
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF REGIONAL WORKSHOPS
Written by Helen Cheng, New York Sea Grant – Science and Resilience Institute at Jamaica Bay
Figure 1: Photographs of regional workshops and locations at Hudson River Estuary (top) and
NY-NJ Harbor (bottom)
Appendix C Summary of Regional Workshops
Table 1: Meetings locations of regional workshops and affiliations of the participants from
respective regions
Hudson River Estuary
Meeting Location: Norrie Point
Environmental Center- State Park in
Staatsburg
Hudson River Estuary Program
Milone & MacBroom, Inc.
Metro North
NYS Department of Conservation Hudson
River National Estuarine Research Reserve
NYS Department of Conservation
Hudson River National Estuarine Research
Reserve
Hudson River Fishermen’s Association
NY Sea Grant
NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation
Hudson River Valley Greenway Communities
Council
Westchester County Environmental Planning
Palisades Interstate Park Commission
Center for the Urban River at Beczak, Sarah
Lawrence
The Nature Conservancy
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of
Columbia University
Assessment and Restoration Division, NOAA
Shadel Environmental
RACE Coastal Engineering
VanLuven Environmental and Town of
Bethlehem
Scenic Hudson
New York – New Jersey Harbor
Meeting Location: The Admiral’s House on
Governors Island in New York
Cornell University: College of Architecture,
Art, and Planning
New York City Emergency Management
Waterfront Alliance
Trust for Governors Island
New York – New Jersey Baykeeper
Biohabitats
Freshkills Park Alliance
Randall’s Island Park Alliance
New York City Parks and Recreation
Princeton University
New York City Department of City Planning
Bronx River Alliance
Port Authority of New York – New Jersey
New York State Department of Conservation
The Nature Conservancy
New York City Department of Environmental
Protection
Billion Oyster Project
National Park Service, Gateway National
Recreation Area
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
Brooklyn Bridge Park Conservancy
Appendix C Summary of Regional Workshops
Long Island
Meeting Location: Danfords Hotel and
Marina in Port Jefferson
GF55 Partners
Fire Island National Seashore
Stony Brook University
South Shore Estuary Reserve
Nelson, Pope, & Voorhis, LLC
Peconic Estuary Program
NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation
The Nature Conservancy
Nassau County Soil & Water Conservation
District
Long Island Sound Study
Suffolk County Department of Economic
Development., Planning & Environment
GEI Consultants
Town of East Hampton
First Coastal Corporation
Town of Babylon
Great Lakes
Meeting Location: Sabin Hall at Fair Haven
Beach State Park in Sterling
Village of Sodus Point
New York Sea Grant
Consultant
Eastern Lake Ontario Dune Coalition
University of Pennsylvania – Landscape
Design
NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation
Wayne County Soil & Water Conservation
District
Town of Greece
SUNY Oswego – Biology
The Nature Conservancy
U.S. Coastal Guard Auxiliary
Cornell University – Landscape Architecture
Save our Sodus
Save the River
Regional Workshops
Prior to each workshop, there was a pre-workshop webinar to provide context to participants
on the project, the draft monitoring framework, and the layout of the workshop day prior to
the workshop day.
For the day of the workshop, the agenda included a presentation of the Monitoring Framework
with discussion of clarity of definitions and goals, a ranking activity on the draft monitoring
parameters and indicators, break-out sessions to discuss protocols for each resilience service
area, and overall feedback on the monitoring framework and network. See Supplemental
Information 1 below.
Appendix C Summary of Regional Workshops
The agenda for each workshop, format, and hand-outs remained relatively consistent with the
exception of the Great Lakes Regional Workshop, in which a slight change to the prompt
questions addressed in Session 4 were adjusted. These adjustments were made in response to
feedback from the Hudson, New York City, and Long Island workshops and reflections from the
Core Team. Specifically, it was suggested that the workshops could generate better feedback on
monitoring protocols by identifying existing protocols in addition to the example in the Draft
Monitoring Framework.
Supplemental Information 1: The following is the External Agenda from the Great Lakes
Regional Workshop held in September 2018.
AGENDA
Welcome, Introductions and Overview
Greeting, Workshop Host
Welcome, Project Sponsors
Workshop participant introductions
Agenda review and workshop protocols
Discussion Session #1: Understanding the Monitoring Framework
Project overview
Overview of draft Monitoring Framework
Our Goals and Assumptions
Overview of Framework table and key definitions
Participant Questions
Small Group Discussions
Are the goals and assumptions reasonable and accurate? Are the definitions clear?
Are there other things you want this group to consider?
Opportunity for brief report back on most salient themes raised
Discussion Session #2: Providing Feedback on Monitoring Parameters
Overview of draft candidate monitoring parameters
Hazard Mitigation and Structural Integrity
Ecological Function
Socio-Economic Outcomes
Exercise: Gauging participant feedback on draft monitoring parameters
Group discussions on exercise results: commonalities, divergent views, issues needing further
consideration
Appendix C Summary of Regional Workshops
Discussion Session #3: Providing Feedback on Monitoring Indicators
Overview of draft candidate indicators
Hazard Mitigation and Structural Integrity
Ecological Function
Socio-Economic Outcomes
Exercise: Gauging participant feedback on draft monitoring indicators
Group discussions on exercise results: commonalities, divergent views, issues needing further
consideration
Discussion Session #4: Providing Feedback on Monitoring Protocols
Plenary: Review project goals/assumptions, session overview
Breakout sessions by resilience service area
Review example protocols
Breakout group discussions on elements of a good monitoring protocol
What protocol is used widely and effectively in this region already?
-Does it works across shoreline types?
-Does it addresses resilience service areas?
-Does it generate information that would support comparative analysis? Why/why not?
Compare and contrast the existing protocol with the example from ‘Draft Framework’
-What would we have to change/adjust to make our protocol more effective?
Report back in plenary on key discussion themes by resilience service area
Discussion Session #5: Monitoring network
Developing a regional network
Would you use this framework, if we come to consensus on it? Would others? What would encourage
you to use it?
What are the opportunities to get groups involved in organized collection of data in this region using this
framework?
What are the barriers to using this framework? Can they be overcome? How?
Are there potential monitoring sites in this region?
Workshop Wrap-up and Next Steps
Discussion of project next steps
Participant feedback on workshop
Closing remarks
Appendix C Summary of Regional Workshops
In addition to the regional working group lead of a particular region, members of the core team,
including our regional working group coordinator and 1-2 technical working group leads/
representatives, were present at every workshop.
At each workshop, regional workgroup leads welcomed participants and handled logistics
throughout the day. Core team representatives led discussions introducing the monitoring
framework and the ranking activity on the draft monitoring parameters and indicators.
Technical working group members provided context to their respective resilience service areas
and led the break-out discussions. Roles of facilitation and note-taking throughout the
discussions were divided among the core team including the regional working group lead and
the technical working group lead/ representatives.
Discussion sessions were structured to gather individual and group feedback on the draft
performance parameters and indicators, and feedback from previous workshops were added to
the presentation materials, allowing the participants to view and build on previous comments.
Participants of the regional workshops shared shoreline management experience from their
region. A ‘Workshop Participant Comment Sheet’ was developed to provide additional feedback
throughout and at the end of the workshop.
After hosting all four regional workshops, the Core Team synthesized discussion notes,
completed charts, comments, suggestions, recommendations, and feedback into consolidated
discussion summaries. Syntheses of each of the workshops were done by their respective
regional workshop lead.
Regional Workshop Synthesis
Each regional synthesis summarized cross-cutting themes from the day-long regional workshop,
and provided a summary from each workshop session. Upon completion of the four regional
syntheses, the project team combined them into an overarching synthesis. This broader
summary highlighted priority items/ issues raised by each of the regions and identified common
concerns/ issues across regions, within each session of the agenda. Common themes and
concerns that were identified throughout all the sessions and all the regional workshops were
noted. This regional synthesis was presented at the first Permit Reviewers meeting (Task 6).
Concurrently, the Technical Working Group members, particularly those who were in
attendance at one or more of the regional workshops, provided a summary of key takeaways
for their particular area of focus. These summaries were categorized by resilience service area.
Each resilience service area summary was then organized by region, followed by the sessions
asking for feedback on Parameters, Indicators, and Protocols.
Appendix C Summary of Regional Workshops
Finally, overall take-aways and impressions from the technical working group members were
noted.
In addition to Regional Workshop narrative summaries, matrices from each regional workshop
were combined into an Excel file tracking the ‘ranking’ of each parameter and indicator. The
compiled matrix shows which parameters and indicators were prioritized by participants at
each regional workshop, and overall. The combined matrix is available at the end of this
summary (within Appendix C).
Findings from Regional Workshops
The workshops generated important feedback. Some was general in nature; others focused on
specific comments to strengthen the framework’s utility and applicability.
Most broadly, workshop participants saw value in striving to develop a statewide framework
and generally supported the broad approach put forward. That said, the workshops generated
a number of themes, issues and concerns regarding the draft framework - some cross-cutting
across all four workshops, others unique to a particular region or two. In general, comments
raised across all four regions fell into two broad categories: (1) data and (2) people.
Across all four regions, participants voiced concern regarding the potential to establish a
consensus perspective on the baseline measurement needed for data collection and
standardization of data collection given site-specific characteristics, goals and needs
Capacity and audience for this framework also was raised in each session as participants were
unclear on the intended audience for this framework. Given the effort needed to implement
this project, there were questions of: who will do this work and who will fund this work/ where
will the funding come from?
There was also feedback that varied across the regions. In the Hudson River Estuary,
participants cited existing work already focused on the success of living shorelines. Entitled The
Sustainable Shorelines Project, this project was highlighted by the participants, one of whom
has been serving as the project coordinator. There were also comments on the importance of
determining the success of the project and the need of an evaluation process of the project.
In New York City, participants discussed the need to clarify data standardization, usage,
distribution, and ownership. Additionally, emphasis was made on considering specific site goals
and the need to decide whether to monitor the NNBF structure or what is behind the NNBF.
On Long Island, participants emphasized the need to clarify and confirm the appropriate sea
level rise projections to use in conjunction with the framework. Long Island participants
Appendix C Summary of Regional Workshops
specifically emphasized the imperative of engaging property owners, especially private property
owners.
The Great Lakes regional workshop was the last one held. After hearing feedback from the
previous workshops, participants emphasized distinguishing attributes of the Great Lakes
region important to factor into any framework, including the impacts of the St. Lawrence River
and the need to measure and account for sediment budget and ice impacts.
Analyses were also conducted based on the feedback and notes from each of the sessions and
discussions of the day. Specific comments were made on the parameters, indicators, and
sample protocols of the three resilience services: 1) hazard mitigation and structural integrity,
2) socio-economic outcomes, and 3) ecological function socio-economic outcomes.
Feedback on Hazard Mitigation and Structural Integrity included consideration of physical
processes such as land movement and water levels. The importance of tracking contaminants
was met with mixed reviews from the regions; participants from the Great Lakes did not think
measuring contaminants was relevant. In regards to indicators, there were considerations of
using existing data and tools available as well as other indicators such as wind and waves. When
it comes to building a protocol, in reference to the sample protocols provided, there was a need
to provide instruction and training, and to utilize existing tools and data sets.
Feedback on the Socio-economic Outcomes underscored the importance of tracking such
measurements. Parameters of public access and quality of life was rated highly. In order to
measure these successfully, people and communities need to be involved in order to
understand the value of the project and project success. For indicators, there was concern of
implicit bias in terms of language and assigning value (i.e. good or bad) to an indicator, for
example property value and tourism. The sample protocols for this resilience service area can
use existing data such as ticket sales etc. There were concerns of defining engagement,
especially engagement with the NNBF, as well as the ‘who’ of use, whether the NNBF should
encourage residents versus non-residents. Additionally, there were concerns about collecting
data on private and public property, lands, and sites.
Finally feedback on Ecological Function parameters focused on the concerns of lumping and
splitting parameters. There were also suggested additions based on the regions including
carbon, ice impacts, and species. There were also cross -cutting parameters with Hazard
Mitigation and Structural Integrity resilience service. Additionally, participants noted that
multiple indicators could be successfully tracked with one protocol but it was important to be
mindful of the frequency and extent of monitoring needed. Protocol discussions highlighted the
need to provide instruction, units of measurements as well as defining the scale of monitoring,
such as how often and spatial and vertical limits.
Appendix C Summary of Regional Workshops
Finally, as part of the last session of the workshop, we gathered feedback on establishing a
Monitoring Network, addressing what sites to monitor, partners to collaborate with, as well as
the challenges of using the Framework and how to overcome those challenges.
Overall, participants viewed the Framework and the overall project highly. Participants would
use the framework if the following criteria were investigated and confirmed:
Funding provided
Interest/ support/ buy-in
Simple and easy to use
Inexpensive
Sustainable and has long term use
Considers site specific goals.
Participants identified challenges but also strategies to overcome those challenges. Challenges
in funding and capacity can be addressed by grants, collaborations, integrating with other
projects, and involvement from the community. Challenges in understanding the Framework
can be resolved by highlighting the value, providing incentives, and demonstrating success.
When addressing complexing scale, considering direct application to current issues and/or
projects, training and mentoring, and simple explanations would overcome this challenging.
Finally, fear of skepticism, fear and distrust, can be addressed by highlighting the value for
users, education and demonstrations, and access to the data.
Ecological Function: Regional Workshop Ranking Results
Key
black text: draft framework language
red text:
added by a participant during regional workshop
supportive
not
supportive
supportive
not
supportive
supportive
not
supportive
supportive
not
supportive
supportive
not
supportive
supportive
not
supportive
supportive
not
supportive
supportive not supportive Totals
Biodiversity
10 0 13 0 5 4
Species richness and evenness by plant
community / habitat type
6 0 9 0 3 7
25
(species richness and species evenness)
Benthic invertebrate abundance,
composition, richness, biomass, population
density
6 0 11 0 4 5
26
Sustain & increase native biodiversity (consider targeting
biodiversity of healthy reference sites,as determined by site
visits and historical literature).
Mobile organisms (ie fish) abundance,
richness
7 0 9 0 1 2 1
19
vertebrates
2
2
Biological Health
12 0 13 1 19 0
% vegetative cover/species or functional
group or area
9 0 10 0 21 2 1
42
(abundance / size /reproduction)
Height of vegetation / # stems (to assess
biomass/size/cover)
0 0 0 0 0 1 1
1
Conserve or restore habitats.
% native vegetation cover, % non-native
vegetation cover, % bare ground/sand, %
wrack, % woody debris (branches, logs)
3 0 7 1 11 2
23
Survival rate of living material
7 0 6 0 6 6
25
Flowering, fruiting
1 0 0 4 1 2 2
4
Recruitment of plant species
2 0 3 0 3 0 1
8
Plant community (composition, richness,
invasives)
6 0 5 0 0 1 14
25
Area (sq. acreage) of Natural habitat and
expansion of area
18 0 1
19
Habitat connectivity
9 0 12 0 18 0
Connectivity across land/water interface /
connection of upland to in-water habitat
4 0 11 0 8 2
25
Sustain or Increase habitat connectivity along and across the
shoreline zone.
Connectivity of/within same / similar type
habitats
2 0 3 0 7 1
13
connectivity water -> WETLAND -> pland
0
0
Hydrology
4 0 11 0 13 0
Tidal hydrology (continuous & discrete data):
inundation frequency, (peak) water level
6 0 5 0 11 0
22
(water movement/tidal movement/flushing) tidal flushing / residence time
1 0 9 0 6 1
17
Maintain, restore or enhance tidal and internal site hydrology.
Marsh sediment accretion rates with surface
elevation tables and horizon markers
5 0 2 0 17 3
27
Water quality
5 0 12 0 7 5
Nutrients (nitrogen, phosphate) /
denitrification
4 0 4 0 0 4 11
19
(processes that support / contribute to quality) Presence and abundance of filter feeders
0 0 4 0 0 1 0
4
Improve or maintain processes that contribute to water quality.
Dissolved oxygen
6 0 7 0 2 2 5
20
Salinity
2 0 2 1
5
macro/chem/phys parameters DEC protocol?
1
1
Sediment and substrate
8 0 4 0 9 0
7 6 0 4
22
(availability / transport / distribution at and/or adjacent to
site)
0
0
Maintain, restore or enhance sediment availability and transport
processes.
Transition of shore building materials (sand)
ACCRETION?
8 0 0 11
19
Contaminants
5 0 3 4 0 8
10 0 4 2 0 7
14
(that affect ecological function) 0
Reduce contaminants that threaten ecosystem function.
This should combine with Biol Health 0
Carbon Value (sequestration)
1 0 2 5 10 0 6
0
Land Use
2 4 2 1
this may be 1 standard question on a tool to
establish if a change has occurred
1
1
11
15
5
0
Survival of living material (proper
implementation of maintenance guidance for
NNBF)
5
Presence of toxins & contaminants
Long Island Regional
Workshop
INDICATOR/METRIC
Great Lakes Regional
Workshop
Great Lakes Regional
Workshop
NYC Regional Workshop
Hudson Valley Regional
Workshop
9
0
PERFORMANCE PARAMETER/ Goal statement
Long Island Regional
Workshop
0
NYC Regional Workshop
Hudson Valley Regional
Workshop
13
5
6
0
0
0
0
0
Hazard Mitigation and Structural Integrity: Regional Workshop Ranking Results
Key
black text: draft framework language
red text: added by a participant during regional workshop
supportive
not
supportive
supportive
not
supportive
supportive
not
supportive
supportive
not
supportive
supportive
not
supportive
supportive
not
supportive
supportive
not
supportive
supportive
not
supportive
Total
supportive
Topographic Change
14
0
12 0 21 0
Change in vertical elevation of
asset.*
10 8 9 6 33
Maintain natural coastal
processes while reducing or
avoiding increase in exposure of
people, property, and ecosystems
to coastal hazards through
shoreline erosion
Change in shoreline position /
sea level rise adaptability.
7 14 20 6 47
Change in horizontal position of
asset.*
2 1 4 5 12
Loss or gain of sediment
updrift/downdrift.
3 7 17 12 39
Change in the shoreline feature
itself
Change in shoreline position of
adjacent bank
2 8 10
Coastal Hazards
15 0 14 0 21 0
Wind driven wave heights /
wave periods landward/seaward
of asset.
10 7 8 13 38
Reduce exposure or vulnerability
of people, property, or
ecosystems to coastal flooding
hazards (storm surge, wave
attack, high tide flooding, sea
level rise currents etc )
Boat wake wave heights / wave
periods landward/seaward of
asset.
3 4 1 3 4 1 12
Change in water elevation as a
measure of flooding, surge,
SLR, tides, etc
landward/seaward of asset
10 9 16 5 40
Currents adjacent to asset.
6 4 0 1 2 12
Change in the area
around/adjacent/behind the
feature
other types of flooding aside
from wave heights (surge/high
tide/rainfall runoff)
2 2
Structural Integrity
12 0 15 0 18 0
Change in vertical elevation of
asset.
3 4 11 0 18
Avoid structural failure and
sustain the structural integrity of
the shoreline feature
Change in horizontal position of
asset.
2 3 9 0 14
Change in vegetation, shellfish,
or other biomass of structure.
6 8 1 8 4 26
Local scour, visible erosion,
escarpments.
Recognize regional diversity
10 10 18 5 43
Grey material degradation.
1 5 3 3 12
Ice scour / extent more less
9 9
Upland Connectivity/Access for
people
2 0 2 0
pre - post implementation
comparison
3 5 8
ie) emerging management,
evacuation
Long term marsh sedimentation
rates (See ecological)
4 4
2 0 8 0
0
0
Hudson Valley Regional
Workshop
Long Island Regional
Workshop
Great Lakes Regional
Workshop
NYC Regional
Workshop
Great Lakes Regional
Workshop
Long Island Regional
Workshop
INDICATOR/METRIC
NYC Regional Workshop
2(?)
10
0
Influences (increase/decrease)
development/settlement areas
exposed to hazards
Hudson Valley
Regional Workshop
PERFORMANCE PARAMETER/
goal statement
15
15
2
0
0
1(?)
0
Socio-Economic Benefits: Regional Workshop Ranking Results
Key
black text: draft framework language
red text: added by a participant during regional workshop
supportive
not
supportive
supportive
not
supportive
supportive
not
supportive
supportive
not
supportive
Total supportive
Human health and safety
8 13 13 0
# of households potentially impacted by a
resilience project
25
Improve human health, safety, or
# of households exposed to flooding/erosion
35
wellness # of recreational facility users 1
# of closed rec areas due to water quality 2
Property value and infrastructure
7 4 6 8 5
Public facilities (e.g., parks) and critical facilities
protected by proposed project
32
Enhance or protect Property and
infrastructure value
Sales values of homes/% change in home
values
3
Critical facilities protected by proposed project
(combined above)
14
societal demographics 4
Quality of life
7 0 11 3 2
Reportings and expressions from participants of
how the shoreline factors into the life of their
community
23
Enhance / protect quality of life
Opinions from participants on major
enviornmental risks in a community.
12
Tellings and expressions of the sacred, revered,
and unique aspects of a community as told by
participants.
6
6 2 9 8 0
# of days residents are unable to work because
of disturbance
10
Monthly (or yearly) rent of residential homes in $ 1
# of days of business closure 12
# applications for new business permits 0
# of overnight stays of tourists in local guest
lodging (hotels, AirBNB)
3
# of site visits (resident vs non-resident if
possible)
8
# of people employed in fisheries and
aquaculture
3
$ value of all recreation and tourism 26
# of primary jobs generated by construction and
maintenance of a waterfront project
4
flood insurance rates 0
3 5 8 6 4
# of FTE staff employed at local institutions per
year
1
# of FTE staff engaged with/working on
waterfront
3
# educational programs/events on waterfront 12
# of local school classes incorporating
waterfront into curriculum
5
Tellings and observations from participants of
how they are adapting to major climate risks
6
Expressions of the benefits and drawbacks of
nature-based shoreline features among local
communities
17
avoided costs (i.e. value of risk reduction)
1
11 0 13 6 0
# different stakeholder groups participating in
public meetings related to waterfront project
22
# groups (or diversity of participants)
participating in waterfront stewardship
20
Expressions of distrust between participants
and other members / stakeholders / power
holders in/of the community.
5
Expressions of trust and connectivity between
participants and other members / stakeholders /
power holders in/of the community
16
Observations and sightings of formal and
informal public uses of waterfront public space
17
Public Access
13 0 11 0 6 5 0
Linear feet of accessible shoreline 3
Financial mobility of vulnerable communities 3
7
Participation and stewardship
Increase Participation and
stewardship
0
0
0
0
Economic resilience and
livelihoods
Improve / increase / enhance
economic resilience and livelihood
opportunities
8
5
Institutional knowledge and
individual capacity
Increase / enhance Institutional
knowledge and individual capacity
Adaptation - the ability of an
organization or group to adapt to
change
PERFORMANCE
PARAMETER/goal statement
Hudson Valley
Regional Workshop
0
7
8
NYC Regional
Workshop
INDICATOR/METRIC
Long Island Regional
Workshop
Great Lakes Regional
Workshop
0
APPENDIX D.
SUMMARY
OF PERMIT
REVIEWER
MEETINGS
Appendix D Summary of Permit Reviewer Meetings
Measuring Success: Monitoring Natural and Nature Based Features in New York State
Permit Managers Call #1
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2019 1:00-2:30 pm
Virtual Webinar
Participants: Permit Staff
Dawn McReynolds (NYSDEC R1)
Steve Metivier (USACE)
Matt Chlebus (NYSDEC Central Office)
Peter Weppler (USACE)
Candice Piercy (USACE)
Corbin Gosier (NYSDEC)
Cate Alcoba (USACE)
James Haggerty (USACE)
John Petronella (NYSDEC, R3)
Tom Voss (NYSDEC, R6)
Michael Marrella (NYC City Planning)
Amanda Regan (USACE)
Brian Drumm (NYSDEC, R3)
Heather Gierloff (NYSDEC R3/ HRNERR)
Angela (Betsy) Schmizzi (NYSDEC, R3)
Roselle Henn Stern (USACE)
Matt Maraglio (NYDOS)
Rich Groh (Town of Babylon)
Rena Weichenberg (USACE)
Jonathan Stercho (NYSDEC, R7)
Dave Bimber - (NYSDEC, R7)
Daria Mazey- (USACE)
Michael Morgan (USACE)
Alexa Fournier (NYSDEC)
Beth Geldard (NYSDEC)
Participants: Core Team
Marit Larson (NYC Parks)
Helen Cheng (SRIJB/NYSG)
Adam Parris (SRIJB)
Katie Graziano (SRIJB)
Bennett Brooks (Consensus Building Institute)
Carolyn Fraioli (NYDOS)
Kathleen Fallon (NYSG)
Kristin Marcell (DEC)
Roy Widrig (NYSG)
Amanda Stevens (NYSERDA)
Hannah Davis (Scape)
Rob Pirani (HEP)
Novem Auyeung (NYC Parks)
Doug Partridge (Arcadis)
Isabelle Stinnette (HEP)
Pippa Brashear (Scape)
Kathy Bunting-Howarth (NYSG)
Appendix D Summary of Permit Reviewer Meetings
Notes
1:00-1:05
Welcoming Remarks
Adam Parris, SRIJB Carolyn Fraioli, DOS Amanda Stevens, NYSERDA Introductions and
Ground Rules
Bennett Brooks (Facilitator, Consensus Building Institute)
1:05-1:35
Project Overview and Background
Adam Parris, SRIJB
Regional Workshop Summaries
Helen Cheng, SRIJB
1:35-2:15
Evaluating Indicators: Mentimeter Surveys and Discussion
Structural Integrity/Hazard Mitigation
Local Scour/Erosion/Escarpments came out as a high priority – Why?
• This what people are asking us for. People ask for permits so that they don’t lose their house
into the lake.
Appendix D Summary of Permit Reviewer Meetings
• We used NNBF as part of our coastal storm risk management suite of measures, but we really
defined it as an erosion control feature that is connected to a larger design. So being able to
demonstrate the erosion control helps to make that case and collect that data for the future.
• Local scour will be relatively easy to measure.
Why did certain indicators rank lower?
• I did not rank local scour very high, I thought that if you measure primary things – horizontal /
vertical position, that would quantify it better and still get at the same answer. More basic
measurements, and more scientific.
• There’s a difference between structural integrity and hazard mitigation – you might get your
structure intact, but might not be the same as hazard mitigation. In general, better to think of
those as separate categories.
• Chat box: I ranked "Change in vegetation, shellfish, or other biomass of structure" high
because it is relatively easy to measure and can be used to assess the success of the design and
helpful for adaptive management and maintenance of the project.
[Participant Question about who was invited to the Regional Workshops]
Core Team (via Chat): Regional workshop participants were people in the regions who are
working on NNBFs related to the resilience service areas of ecological function, socio-economic
services, and hazard mitigation and structural integrity. Participants ranged from NGOs,
academics, Feds and non-feds, experts, leads of homeowner's associations, and more.
Feasibility:
Participant Question: Should we assume that this is over the duration of roughly 2 years of monitoring?
Assume that we are speaking over the duration of one season of measurements.
Two stand out as most feasible – Local scour, and change in vegetation. Thoughts?
Appendix D Summary of Permit Reviewer Meetings
• Participant Q: What is the focus? From a coastal protection/resiliency perspective? Is that the
main focus, or are we considering everything that the measure would provide?
- Think of it in three areas (structural integrity/ hazard mitigation,
ecological function, socioeconomic benefits)
- One thing we didn’t say at the outset, while we’re asking you to poll, nothing is being
voted off the island – we’re looking to get input, to get a nuanced and detailed
understanding of how we think about these indicators. All of this input goes back to
Technical Working Groups, all informing. Regional workshop participants were people in
the regions who are working on NNBFs related to the resilience service areas of
ecological function, socio-economic services, and hazard mitigation and structural
integrity.
- Participants ranged from NGOs, academics, Feds and non-feds, experts, leads of
homeowner's associations, and more.
• Change in elevation, horizontal position, and shoreline is simple because routine topo/bathymetric
lidar surveys via the national coastal mapping program already measure these
Ecological Function Indicators
Top four are emerging as higher priorities than the others. Why are those particularly important
indicators?
• Some of those are a lot easier to measure, and easier to compare amongst each other.
• Depends on the feature. You can’t rule out other aspects that are not as high.
So if we’re trying to narrow it down, do any emerge as something that would work across features? Does
it need to really vary based on feature?
• Yes, it needs to vary based on the feature. If you’re on a hard structure, you’re not gonna have
any vegetation. So you’ll have to look at other things – benthic inverts, fisheries, etc.
Appendix D Summary of Permit Reviewer Meetings
• (Core Team) We recognize that we’re not going to get a ‘positive’ results for all the indicators,
but the point is to be able to share that – just that a bulkhead is different than a living shoreline.
Understanding that those features are going to vary, but we want to capture that result even if
it is zero.
Any indicators that you expected to see, but you didn’t see here?
• Benthic invertebrates /macroalgae are going to be more important on a breakwater than in
other categories. Say there isn’t vegetation – there may be something else providing ecological
function.
• (Core Team): It’s also considering how much gray or green is being put in. Impervious cover
/more or less- The hard structure may provide attachment points, it all depends on what the
feature is and what you are monitoring for.
• (Core Team): Question also is tied to the wording. This asks about function of a feature, but we
also want to expand it out to site level.
Feasibility – Ecological
Chat box: Measuring is relative - is it quantitative or qualitative. You can get a sense/ relative measure
via homeowners taking pictures as an example
Appendix D Summary of Permit Reviewer Meetings
Socio-Economic Indicators
Top 4, why did they emerge as a high priority indicator?
• A lot of these shoreline projects tend to be, when there’s an even like Lake Ontario a few years
ago, many households have the same problem – solutions are group solutions of ones that
work, not individual solutions. So number of households is an important indicator.
• Anything quantifiable is going to come out higher for me, just to justify. From a COE
perspective, the numbers are more important, the other things might be important from a
political perspective.
Anything missing?
• No answer.
Appendix D Summary of Permit Reviewer Meetings
The indicators that start with a # or $ sign is ranked more feasible. Is that a fair interpretation? Any
surprises?
• Loss of life and safety is a huge socio-economic factor, along with economic value of
protecting homes/infrastructure. This also parallels with the Corps analysis for CSRM projects.
Recreation and tourism also have socioeconomic value and are recognized in the Corps planning
process.
(Core Team): Let us know in the chat box (or via email) whether this type of polling is effective.
2:15-2:25
Considering Regional Differences
Do you have any advice or recommendations for us, for how we should handle differences? In other
words, what is distinct that you would want taken into account when comparing projects in your region
to projects in other areas in the state?
• Every single project is for a different purpose and has slightly different site characteristics,
even if they are right next door to each other. So you need to account for intra-regional
differences also.
• Must make sure to not be dis-incentivizing work in an urban environment
• Depends on your goals and objectives – for example, non-native vs native - - will you spend
the money to remove non-native for native habitat? When it comes down to cost and actual
objectives, it’s important to think of the purpose of the project, what it is trying to achieve.
• Echoing the authority that we’re working under – if it’s a multi-objective project, looking at
restoration plus storm risk management, or justifying it just on storm risk management benefits
alone – for us that makes a big difference. Having a monitoring framework that can allow us to
gather data and build a case for NNBF long term, to measure benefits but not setting up
expectations for how a project is going to perform, that are either hard to
measure/demonstrate early on.
• Having a monitoring framework that can allow us to gather data and build a case for NNBF
long term, and get that data to measure benefits, but also make sure that we’re not setting up
Appendix D Summary of Permit Reviewer Meetings
expectations for how a project is going to perform that aren’t in line with the objective of the
project, or are just hard to demonstrate early on. Making sure that we’re helping ourselves, not
hurting ourselves.
Core Team – We should mention, there is a separate section on basic project information that is
baseline information that everyone collects. From a scientific standpoint, we want to lean towards
indicators that we know we can monitor over a long period of time, because for resilient service areas
(ecological function, socio-economic outcomes) , those are things where the longer we collect
data/more robust a trend we see, is going to be more telling over longer time. That’s part of what
distinguishes what someone might collect on their project, going back to the question about the
timeframe.
Core Team– Flip the question real quick, it’s easy to think about where there are differences, but if we
back up and try to look statewide – Are any of these indicators a measure of ecological value that we
can use statewide? Where is the commonality?
● No response – Leave that question with you, and let you think about it.
2:25- 2:30
Conclusions and Next Steps
We want to continue to get your feedback – send us emails, stay in touch between now and second
meeting which is Jan. 25, 1-2:30.
Appendix D Summary of Permit Reviewer Meetings
Measuring Success: Monitoring Natural and Nature Based Features in NYS
Permit Call #2 Notes
Virtual Webinar
January 25, 2018
1:00-2:30 pm
PARTICIPANTS: PERMIT STAFF
Alexa Marinos (T. of Babylon)
Amanda Regan (USACE)
Angela Schimizzi (NYSDEC R3)
Brian Drumm (NYSDEC R3)
Candice Piercy (USACE)
David Bimber (NYSDEC R7)
Dawn McReynolds (NYSDEC R1)
Heather Gierloff (NYSDEC R3)
Michael Morgan (USACE)
Peter Weppler (USACE)
Richard Groh (T. of Babylon)
Steven Metivier (USACE)
Tiffany Toukatly (NYSDEC R7)
Jean Foley (NYSDEC R7)
Tom Voss (NYSDEC R6)
PARTICIPANTS: CORE TEAM
Katie Graziano (Science and Resilience
Institute at Jamaica Bay)
Helen Cheng (SRIJB/ NY Sea Grant)
Adam Parris (SRIJB)
Bennett Brooks (Consensus Building
Institute)
Carolyn Fraioli (NYSDOS)
Tanna LeGere (NYSDOS)
Amanda Stevens (NYSERDA)
Katinka Wijsman (New School)
Kathleen Fallon (NY Sea Grant)
Pippa Brashear (SCAPE)
Chris Haight (NYS Parks)
Vince DeCapio (Arcadis)
Peter Groffman (CUNY)
Isabelle Stinnette (NY NJ HEP)
Marit Larson (NYC Parks)
Rob Pirani (NY NJ HEP)
Roy Widrig (NY Sea Grant)
Hannah Davis (SCAPE)
Kristin Marcell (NYSDEC)
Appendix D Summary of Permit Reviewer Meetings
I. Introduction
Adam Parris (SRIJB)
● Thank you for taking the time to fill out surveys, we will send results from that.
II. Key takeaways from last call (Permit Reviewer Call #1):
1) 26 participants, most people stayed with us throughout the call.
2) Reviewed the Framework – 3 resilience service areas
a) Structural Integrity/Hazard Mitigation (heard some feedback to split those apart)
– most relevant to permitters
b) Ecosystem Function
c) Socio-economic Outcomes
3) Ranked indicators according to usefulness and feasibility
a) 3 or 4 emerged from each group as the top-rated, and there was good
agreement between usability and feasibility.
b) Combining with feedback from Regional Workshops to create ‘core’ indicators
today, to go through similar exercises.
III. Agenda Review
IV. MENTIMETER VOTING ON ‘CORE’ INDICATORS
Core Team – Circle back on the indicator level. Aim is to gauge interest and support for
indicators that have risen to the top in each service area.
Hazard Mitigation/Structural Integrity – Which are most helpful to gauge the function of
shoreline measures toward reducing risk to people, property, shoreline ecosystem.
The question is whether the whole group of indicators is useful for all projects, and would you
recommend collection of these indicators.
Hazard Mitigation/Structural Integrity: All Projects
● Local scour/visible erosion
● Slope or change in slope
● Change in water elevation and/or wave heights landward/seaward of the feature
● Change in vertical elevation of points on the feature
● Change in horizontal position of points on the feature
1a. The following are useable and reasonable to ask for in a simple monitoring plan, for ALL
projects regardless of scale
Appendix D Summary of Permit Reviewer Meetings
1b. I would be willing to recommend (not require) collection of these in a permit*?
Depending on the scale of the project, private landowners aren’t going to be able to do
some of this monitoring. They don’t necessarily know anything about anything, it would
have to be really easy
Change in vertical elevation/horizontal elevation is easy to do in GIS. But Local scour
can’t be looked at from GIS data. The metric needs to meet the size/scale of the project,
and it depends who will be responsible for the monitoring.
The idea is that landowners would be expected to collect the data. would you be willing
to recommend that
it depends on the magnitude of the data you want collected. I could ask them to collect
it, but might not be scientifically rigorous. I could say take a picture, or tell me if it fell
apart. Depends on rigor and who will do the collection.
Scale of the project and who will be constructing it would affect the willingness of
someone to provide this information. But until we can enforce a standard process and a
solid monitoring plan that would contribute to the knowledge about the success of the
project, I would hesitate to recommend anything. Nobody wants to do more than they
are required. If we include special conditions, they are written in a way that they need
to be enforceable and are tied to compliance -when we require mitigation, we have a
set standard language, no ambiguity and everything we require is justified, it’s not a
suggestion. We can’t be liberal with that kind of language. People will only do what they
have to do.
Appendix D Summary of Permit Reviewer Meetings
Compliance of the permit – did they build what they said they would build. The question
of how is it working – I’m with xx here, we don’t put that in permit. It’s nice to do if they
want to, but it won’t really fly.
Haz Mitigation/Structural Integrity (for large scale projects)
● Wave heights/wave energy
● Sediment loss/gain downdrift/updrift of the feature
● Survival rate of living material/change in biomass
2a. The above are useful and reasonable to add to the above for LARGER or state- funded
projects ONLY (Type of question: Agree/ Disagree):
2b. I would be willing to recommend (not require) collection of these in a permit. (Type of
question: Yes/No)
Generally feeling they are useful and reasonable, but not very willing to recommend them.
Agree with [USACE] relating to enforceability and compliance – we don’t issue permits
with voluntary conditions. Who would handle enforcement?
(Core Team)– We’ve skirted around the issue of enforceability. We thought as it more about
incentives. What incentives might be appealing. The larger struggle is with smaller private land
Appendix D Summary of Permit Reviewer Meetings
owners – it’s not enforceable unless there is something that feeds off the permitting process.
On larger projects, it might be a question of consistency – we can make sure that we are
collecting comparable data. Maybe it would have the same format of required data.
Tidal wetlands…. I’m thinking in the context of projects down state, like living shorelines
,fills, shoreline types that are going to fill below mean high water, or something that
trips it so that I can require monitoring. But like a bulkhead that doesn’t trip certain
requirements, I can’t ask for it.
(Core Team, Facilitator) Can you recommend it?
Yea you could but, you wouldn’t put that in a permit condition. The permit conditions
are only what the applicant has to do. A large chunk of the projects would trip the
regulatory thing that would require the applicant to do it - - but not every single NNBF
project.
(Core Team, Facilitator) - a situation could present an opportunity where it could be required. If
a larger project is generating impacts, it could be a part of the condition to require monitoring.
Hitch your wagon to these opportunities.
Ecological Function – All Projects
● Vegetative cover (%)
● Survival rate of living material/change in biomass
● Species composition/richness/native vs. non-native
● Wrack/woody debris on shoreline
3a. The following are useful and reasonable ask for in a simple monitoring plan, for
ALL projects regardless of scale (Type of question: Agree/ Disagree):
3b. Would you be willing to recommend (not require) collection of these in a permit? (Type of
question: Discussion)
Appendix D Summary of Permit Reviewer Meetings
Slightly disagree. I’m not sure why you would ask about vegetative cover for bulkheads
because the answer would be 0. Some of it is not applicable to certain types of projects.
It doesn’t apply to things that aren’t natural and nature-based.
Core Team – I can clarify. One of the ways we’re thinking about the framework is comparative
analysis of performance. The simple fact that it’s “0” is relevant, because it tells us something
about ecological function. The comparative analysis is something we’re trying to get at to tell us
how NNBF work for hazard mitigation, ecological function.
Core Team– We want to be able to compare. In this case, ‘all project’ means all scales of
project.
I disagreed, because we’re working with private small owners, who would probably look
at those words and run away screaming, because it’s not written for the general public.
Unreasonable expectation that people can provide that information, or an accurate
account of what is being requested of them.
Core Team, Facilitator: If they were worded differently, would your comfort level increase?
At the heart of it. it is offputting to the homeowner, there is already a sense of a
burden, so when we consider new conditions, we have to make sure we absolutely need
it. The vegetative cover would only come in if it was relevant to our decision making
process. Not necessarily if it’s just to figure out whether NNBF work. We are constrained
by laws and regulations, so we are sensitive to additional requests.
Appendix D Summary of Permit Reviewer Meetings
Core Team: What are the consequences, if I was getting the permit, and it’s not ecologically
function - so say it met certain goals and not others. What is the agreed upon purpose and
need, and what is the incentive for the applicant. Would they have leeway ….
Core Team: Is there a benefit and a consequence to the homeowner?
In the ecological function group, it was designed by basic research scientists, and we
tried to be very simple, but the top two – they are simple, easy to assess, fundamental
to the performance of the feature. So whatever the consequences are, if there’s no
vegetative cover where it’s supposed to be living, that’s a clear indicator of
success/problem.
Core Team – This monitoring is to learn and gather knowledge. Is there an idea that there
would be consequences to the homeowner.
Core Team– I think that’s for permitters to answer.
Core Team – this is related to the difference between recommend and require. Those
distinctions are difficult – the boundary between recommend and require is not all that clear.
Whatever is attached to the permit requirement can have consequences for them. We still
want to learn in this area and figure out how to do that – the question for me is, who are we
incentivizing and what mechanisms are we using? Does it have to be the Permit? Can it be
NEPA review, or incentivizing conservation groups that are right now the most active and
focused on learning in this area.
Ecological Function – large, well-resourced projects.
4a. The following are useful and reasonable to add to the above for LARGER or state- funded
projects ONLY (Type of question: Agree/ Disagree):
4b. I would be willing to recommend (not require) collection of these in a permit? (Type of
question: Agree/Disagree)
● Species Diversity
● Connectivity across land/water interface
● Benthic invertebrate abundance
● Tidal hydrology
● Sediment accretion (marshes only)
Appendix D Summary of Permit Reviewer Meetings
Core Team: There’s already kind of a culture/practice of monitoring for ecological impacts.
I wear a lot of hats. In that capacity, we do recommend to partners and are successful in
getting these things done.
Core Team, Facilitator – Willingness to recommend seems lower. Maybe the nature of the
conversation, and people taking that in.
I think it’s possible that we’re all thinking about it and are less willing to recommend,
overall.
Some of the hesitation on these parameters is the difficulty in the measurement
methods. Equipment is hard to require or even suggest. So the difficulty/cost/specialty
is a factor .
Socio-Economic Outcomes – All projects.
5a. The following are useful and reasonable to ask for in a simple monitoring plan, for all
projects regardless of scale: (Type of question: Agree/ Disagree)
5b. I would be willing to recommend (not require) collection of these in a permit. (Type of
question: Agree/disagree + Discussion)
● # of stakeholders / groups participating in stewardship activities
● # households exposed to flooding and/or erosion
● # public facilities with reduced risk
Appendix D Summary of Permit Reviewer Meetings
Core Team, Facilitator - Pretty strongly ‘disagree’
This is sort of the take home point, that it’s not the responsibility of permitees to handle
this, it requires modeling, it needs to happen at a higher level.
Socio-economic Outcomes – Large Projects.
6a. The following are useful and reasonable to add to the above for larger or well- funded
projects ONLY (Type of question: Agree or Disagree):
6b. I would be willing to recommend (not require) collection of these in a permit (Type of
question: agree/disagree)
● Change in value of recreation and tourism
● # and diversity of stakeholders attending public meetings in project design
● Survey of community shoreline use or attitudes toward shoreline feature benefits/costs
Appendix D Summary of Permit Reviewer Meetings
for me this is farther and farther away from what we actually regulate. At the water,
that’s where our permit ends – recreation and tourism, those kinds of things are just not
associated with our permit.
chat box – in my opinion, this is information that everyone would like to have, but
requiring through homeowners – I would be more willing to recommend allowing access
for others to monitor, i.e. researchers.
Core Team– Maybe the question is not doing the monitoring, but providing the access for
others to the monitoring. I think that’s a really interesting things to highlight.
Core Team – In San Francisco, it’s a similar mechanism to what [DEC] proposed – the key
though is taking a percentage of the permit fees and putting it into a pot of money that
supports the data collection and analysis. So you have to look at the structure of permit fees, or
find some source of funding for outside parties to do the monitoring.
Implementing the Framework
Which of the following are most useful, reasonable or necessary to make progress in implementing a
program or framework for monitoring in NYS. (Type of question: choose top three)
(The following correspond with categories on the x-axis of chart below)
● Recommending tracking of the simple indicators above in any permit
● Recommending the tracking of the simple and additional indicators above in a state-funded
project
Appendix D Summary of Permit Reviewer Meetings
● Recommending tracking of the simple indicators above in development of a general permit
● Funding more demonstration projects
● Funding more partners to monitor existing projects
● Providing more guidance for regulatory programs
● Changing regulations
● Training for permit staff
● Other?
One of the others would be projects that were undertaken for public benefit, on state
land – not necessarily demonstration projects, but areas where this can be done where
you can incorporate monitoring money for funding allocation. Different from ‘state
funded’ projects – Lake Ontario Flood Relief money went to individual homeowners. It’s
still state-funded, but going to individuals.
Core Team, Facilitator - Why did monitoring existing projects rank so highly?
Given the current way regulations are written, I don’t see how most projects could
require that people do this monitoring. Could be voluntary outside of the permit
process, like send a letter after someone receives a permit, but would probably lead to
inconsistent data. If you want consistent data, and make sure work gets done, provide
funding for some outside agency to do the monitoring.
Appendix D Summary of Permit Reviewer Meetings
Core Team – Funding more demonstration projects and funding more partners to monitor – is
there a benefit to a demonstration project if there’s no way to measure the success of the
project? Those two seem to go hand in hand.
Assumption that for a demonstration project, monitoring was implied.
Core Team – Caveat, including monitoring as a funding requirement – but a lot of grant projects
only fund capital investment, not monitoring. So as we think about the mechanisms, it’s
important to think about.
Core Team – the idea of ‘Recommending tracking of simple indicators in general permit,’
nobody thought that was a feasible way. Why?
If you’re going to require it in a general permit, you still need regulatory backing to do
that. I’m not sure what that regulatory backing would be.
At USACE, those general permits exist and they don’t have the requirement in them.
So until the regulations change, that idea is a non-starter.
I don’t know how you’d put incentives – If you want to bring in an incentive, a general
permit wouldn’t be the right place for that. The only thing people want from a permit is
to get them faster. If you were to use that to incentivize - - it sounds like you’re paying
to play, and that’s just not the way we work.
Monitoring Length Questions
Appendix D Summary of Permit Reviewer Meetings
In a regulatory context, you can always have those conversations and recommend,
certain projects where I can require, I have two hats – I do things to promote projects
moving forward. The 5 years is based on NYS monitoring.
Core Team, Facilitator: If you think about the permitee – would asking for data collection from
a 2-5 year period, how much resistance would that meet?
The type of projects that I’m thinking about – like new innovative shoreline types – if
someone is willing to do that in the first place, they are likely willing to do some amount
of monitoring.
Find out where it’s a good fit – it may not be as much of a burden for those going down
a more innovative path.
(on chat)- wouldn’t be comfortable asking the monitoring, btu if someone was
interested in doing it we could recommend that 2-5 years is a good time.
Depends on magnitude of the project.
Core Team, Facilitator: What’s the longest you can imagine? Is there a band beyond the 5
years?
Core Team: A lot of people are answering 2-5 years, which is lower than I expected. Do you feel
like having the 2-5 year tracking would give you enough to feel confident that you had an
understanding of how the project is performing?
Appendix D Summary of Permit Reviewer Meetings
Depends on the magnitude – and is it a pilot? Is it a brand new thing? If it’s something
people are pretty confident about already, you can ask for less.
Regional Differences
Core Team, Facilitator: Is this real? Are these regional differences real?
No I don’t think it’s a real difference. Sediment monitoring, substrate, should be similar
throughout all the regions. It might depend more on the site/project, not the state
region.
I think Ice Scour is probably more important in the great lakes but otherwise I don’t
think so.
CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS
Core Team: TWG finalize draft framework, monitoring in spring and summer.
APPENDIX E.
DRAFT
MONITORING
FRAMEWORK
MATRICES AND
PRELIMINARY
PROTOCOLS
This appendix describes the draft list of indicators and potential
protocols that were shared with the Regional working groups.
1__
2__
3__
4__
5__
6__
7__
8__
9__
10__
11__
12__
13__
14__
15__
16__
17__
18__
19__
20__
21__
22__
23__
24__
25__
26__
27__
28__
29__
30__
31__
32__
33__
34__
35__
36__
37__
38__
39__
40__
41__
42__
43__
44__
45__
46__
47__
ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION
DRAFT MONITORING
FRAMEWORK MATRIX
Ecological Function: One of the most compelling
features of NNBF is the ecological benefits that they
can provide. These benefits range from increasing
biodiversity and habitat at a site to providing con-
nectivity to other sites. NNBF can facilitate hydro-
logic functions within and between coastal sites and
can support processes that improve water quality.
Much of this function is facilitated by maintenance
of sediment formation and transport processes.
The natural processes and ecological functions
of shorelines are closely linked to their provision
of other benefits, including hazard mitigation and
social and economic benefits. Thus monitoring
strategies for these benefits are highly comple-
mentary and should be coordinated with moni-
toring plans for hazard mitigation and structural
integrity and socio-economic outcomes. There is
high potential for low-cost, possibly citizen-based
rapid assessment protocols for these ecological
benefits. There are potential concerns with eco-
logical disamenties, for example installation of
ecologically attractive features at a site with past
contamination could create an “attractive nuisance”
and facilitate wildlife exposure to contaminants.
PRELIMINARY PROTOCOLS
The draft summary table contains a subset of pos-
sible protocols that can be used for monitoring
each ecological parameter and metric listed. The
protocols come from a variety of sources, and we
drew from existing, published protocols when pos-
sible. The current list of protocols for monitoring
biotic parameters (i.e., biodiversity, biological health)
are mostly focused on marsh and upland systems,
and most protocols require medium to high levels
of expertise and effort. Although some protocols
can be used to monitoring multiple parameter or
metrics, unlike the Hazard Mitigation & Structural
Integrity TWG, many of our protocols are suitable
for measuring only one parameter or one metric.
D R A F T
D R A F T
D R A F T
D R A F T
1
__1
__2
__3
__4
__5
__6
__7
__8
__9
__10
__11
__12
__13
__14
__15
__16
__17
__18
__19
__20
__21
__22
__23
__24
__25
__26
__27
__28
__29
__30
__31
__32
__33
__34
__35
__36
__37
__38
__39
__40
__41
__42
__43
__44
__45
__46
QUESTIONS FOR THE RWG
• Ideally, we will end up with a list of parameters
and metrics that are measurable using
rapid field protocols that are low cost and
require minimal expertise. Also, which
metrics would be easiest to compare across
all types of NNBF? At the moment, the
protocols listed in the summary table are
mostly intended for wetlands, so we would
be interested in suggestions for protocols
that could be applied to other NNBF types.
• What level of detail should protocols included
with draft monitoring framework have?
• Are there other rapid protocols not included
in this monitoring framework that need
to be considered? Which parameters
and metrics could they monitor?
• We also understand that there is often a
tradeoff between rapid, low cost protocols
and data quality and robustness, so we
are looking for feedback on how to best
balance the need for data that can detect
differences in NNBF with protocols that are
not cost-prohibitive or require expertise
that most groups would not have.
• Should we be considering the potential
ecological disamenities, for example
installation of ecologically attractive features
at a site with past contamination could
create an “attractive nuisance” and facilitate
wildlife exposure to contaminants?
D R A F T
D R A F T
D R A F T
D R A F T
2
RESILIENCE
SERVICE
PERFORMANCE
PARAMETER
POTENTIAL PERFORMANCE GOAL STATEMENT INDICATOR/METRIC PROTOCOL
Ecological
Function
Biodiversity (species
richness and species
evenness)
Sustain & increase native biodiversity (consider
targeting biodiversity of healthy reference sites,as
determined by site visits and historical literature).
Species richness and evenness by plant community / habitat type
2-Fauna Presence
3-Horseshoe Crab Spawning Activity Survey
4-Standardized North American Marsh Bird Monitoring Protocol
5-Saltmarsh Habitat & Avian Research Programs (SHARP)
6-Monitoring Nekton as a Bioindicator in Shallow Estuarine Habitats
7-Quantifying Vegetation and Nekton Response to Tidal Restoration of a New England Salt Marsh
8-Plant and animal species ID using iNaturalist
9-Natural Areas Conservancy Upland Forest Assessment
Benthic invertebrate abundance, composition,
richness, biomass, population density
2-Fauna Presence
10-Benthic epifauna survey
11-Benthic fauna survey
Biological Health
(abundance / size /
reproduction)
Conserve or restore habitats.
% vegetative cover/species or functional group or area
12-Vegetation extent using aerial imagery
13-Vegetation extent in field transects/plots (area covered by veg)
9-Natural Areas Conservancy Upland Forest Assessment
Height of vegetation / # stems (to assess biomass/size/cover)
14-Rapid assessment protocol TBD
1-Change in vegetation structure
% native vegetation cover, % non-native vegetation cover, %
bare ground/sand, % wrack, % woody debris (branches, logs)
1-Change in vegetation structure
Survival rate of living material 17-Vegetation survival survey
Flowering, fruiting 1-Change in vegetation structure
Recruitment of plant species 1-Change in vegetation structure
Plant community (composition, richness, invasives)
18-Invasive plant survey
1-Change in vegetation structure
Habitat connectivity
Sustain or Increase habitat connectivity along
and across the shoreline zone.
Connectivity across land/water interface /
connection of upland to in-water habitat
16-Rapid assessment protocol (TBD)
Connectivity of/within same / similar type habitats 16-Rapid assessment protocol (TBD)
Hydrology (water
movement, including tidal
movement / flushing)
Maintain, restore or enhance tidal and internal site hydrology.
Tidal hydrology (continuous & discrete data):
inundation frequency, (peak) water level
19-NOAA Inundation Analysis Tool
20-NOAA Tide Level Monitoring Protocol
TBD
tidal flushing / residence time
Marsh sediment accretion rates with surface
elevation tables and horizon markers
21-Marsh surface elevation tables (SET)
22-Real time kinematic (RTK) positioning
Water quality (processes
that support /
contribute to quality)
Improve or maintain processes that contribute to water quality.
Nutrients (nitrogen, phosphate) / denitrification Rapid assessment protocol TBD
Presence and abundance of filter feeders 10-Benthic epifauna survey
Dissolved oxygen
30-USGS National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data
27-USGS Guidelines and Standard Procedures for Continuous Water-Quality Monitors
Sediment and substrate
(availability / transport
/ distribution at and/
or adjacent to site)
Maintain, restore or enhance sediment
availability and transport processes.
Survival of living material (proper implementation
of maintenance guidance for NNBF).
sediment availability / transport / distribution*. bio
accumulation / substrate accumulation over time
Rapid assessment protocol TBD
23-Spatially integrative metrics reveal hidden vulnerability of microtidal salt marshes
24-USGS measurement, controlling factors, and error
analysis for SS fluxes in a tidal wetland
Contaminants (that affect
ecological function)
Reduce contaminants that threaten ecosystem function. Presence of toxins & contaminants
25-Site history analysis (TBD)
29-Contaminant testing in soils, plants, and/or animal tissues
26-USGS NFM for the Collection of Water-Quality Data--Chapter A8. Bottom-Material Samples
31-USGS SOP for collection of soil and sediment samples for the SCoRR strategy pilot study
3
ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION MATRIX
ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION PRELIMINARY PROTOCOL LIST
^methods from study
*guidelines for developing protocol
4
# PROTOCOL NAME
EXISTING
AVAILABLE
PROTOCOL?
APPLICABLE TO
ALL NNBFS?
STATUS TYPE
EXPERTISE
REQUIRED
COST/
EFFORT
SOURCE
Example Protocol
1 Change in vegetation structure Y Draft Included Field Medium Medium
NYC Parks Salt Marsh Monitoring Guidelines
Additional Protocols to Consider
2 Fauna Presence Y Y Suggested Field Low TBD
NYC Parks Salt Marsh Monitoring Guidelines
3 Horseshoe Crab Spawning Activity Survey Y
N (beach/
sandy shorline)
recommended
existing protocol
Field Medium TBD
Sclafani, M., K. McKown, B. Udelson. 2014. Horseshoe Crab (Limulus polyphemus) Spawning Activity Survey Protocol for the New
York State Marine District. Cornell University Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County. New York State Department of Environ-
mental Conservation. (http://nyhorseshoecrab.org/NY_Horseshoe_Crab/Documents_files/Total%20Count%20Protocol.pdf)
4
Standardized North American Marsh
Bird Monitoring Protocol
Y N (salt marsh) Draft Included Field High TBD
Conway, C.J. 2011. Standardized North American Marsh Bird Monitoring Protocol. Water-
birds 34(3):319-346. http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1675/063.034.0307
5 Saltmarsh Habitat & Avian Research Programs (SHARP) Y
N (salt marsh
only)
recommended
existing protocol
Field High TBD
Saltmarsh Habitat & Avian Research Program. 2015. Nest Monitoring Standard Operat-
ing Procedure. (https://www.tidalmarshbirds.net/?page_id=1596)
6
Monitoring Nekton as a Bioindica-
tor in Shallow Estuarine Habitats
N*
N (sea grass
and salt marsh)
Suggested Field High TBD
Raposa, K.B., C.T. Roman, Heltshe, J.F. 2003. Monitoring nekton as a bioindicator in shalLestuarine habitats. Envi-
ronmental Monitoring and Assessment 81: link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-0299-7_21
7
Quantifying Vegetation and Nekton Response to
Tidal Restoration of a New England Salt Marsh
N^ N (salt marsh) Suggested Field High TBD
Roman, C.T., K.B. Raposa, S.C. Adamowicz, M.J. James-Pirri, J.G. Catena. 2002. Quantifying Vegeta-
tion and Nekton Response to Tidal Restoration of a New England Salt Marsh. Restoration Ecology 10(3):450-
460. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1526-100X.2002.01036.x
8 Plant and animal species ID using iNaturalist Y Y Suggested Field Low TBD
https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/how+can+i+use+it
9 Natural Areas Conservancy Upland Forest Assessment Y N (upland forest) Suggested Field High TBD
Natural Areas Conservancy
10 Benthic epifauna survey Y N (salt marsh) Suggested Field Medium TBD
NYC Parks Salt Marsh Monitoring Guidelines
11 Benthic fauna survey Y N (salt marsh) Suggested Field High TBD
NYC Parks Salt Marsh Monitoring Guidelines
12 Vegetation extent using aerial imagery Y N (salt marsh) Draft Included Desktop Low TBD
NYC Parks Salt Marsh Monitoring Guidelines
13
Vegetation extent in field transects/
plots (area covered by veg)
Y N (salt marsh) Suggested Field Medium TBD
NYC Parks Salt Marsh Monitoring Guidelines
14
Rapid assessment protocol to measure height
of vegetation (to be developed?)
TBD TBD TBD Field Low TBD
TWG?
15
Hudson River Living Shorelines Rapid
Assessment Protocol
Y TBD
recommended
existing protocol
Field Low TBD
Findlay, S. O. Ferguson, E. Hauser, J. Miller and A. Williams. Hudson River Monitoring Protocol: Living Shorelines Rapid Assessment
Protocol. NYSDEC Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve, Norrie Point Environmental Center, Staatsburg, NY 12580.
16
Rapid assessment protocol connectiv-
ity across land/water (to be developed?)
TBD TBD TBD Field Low TBD
TWG?
17 Vegetation survival survey Y N (salt marsh) Suggested Field Medium TBD
NYC Parks Salt Marsh Monitoring Guidelines
18 Invasive Plant survery Y N (salt marsh) Suggested Field Medium TBD
NYC Parks Salt Marsh Monitoring Guidelines
19 NOAA Inundation Analysis Tool Y Y Suggested Desktop Low TBD
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/inundation/usersguide/usersguide.pdf
20 NOAA Tide Level Monitoring Protocol Y Y Suggested Desktop Low TBD
NOAA
22 Marsh surface elevation tables (SET) Y N (salt marsh) Suggested Field High TBD
NYC Parks Salt Marsh Monitoring Guidelines
22 Real time kinematic (RTK) positioning Y N (salt marsh) Suggested Field High TBD
NYC Parks Salt Marsh Monitoring Guidelines
23
Spatially integrative metrics reveal hidden vul-
nerability of microtidal salt marshes
N ^ N (salt marsh) TBD Desktop High TBD
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14156
24
USGS measurement, controlling factors, and
error analysis for SS fluxes in a tidal wetland
N * N (salt marsh) TBD Field High TBD
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70027349
25 Site history analysis? TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
TBD
26
USGS NFM for the Collection of Water-Quality
Data--Chapter A8. Bottom-Material Samples
Y TBD TBD Field High TBD
https://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/Chapter8/508Chap8final.pdf
27
USGS Guidelines and Standard Procedures
for Continuous Water-Quality Monitors
Y TBD TBD Field High TBD
https://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/2006/tm1D3/
28
Rapid assessment protocol - sediment/
substrate (to be developed?)
TBD TBD TBD Field Low TBD
TWG?
29
Contaminant testing in soils, plants, and/or animal tissues
Y N (salt marsh) Suggested Field High TBD
NYC Parks Salt Marsh Monitoring Guidelines
30
USGS National Field Manual for the Col-
lection of Water-Quality Data
Y TBD TBD Field High TBD
https://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/index.html
31
USGS SOP for collection of soil and sediment
samples for the SCoRR strategy pilot study
Y TBD TBD Field High TBD
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20151188B
32 Photo Points Y Y Suggested Field Low TBD
NYC Parks Salt Marsh Monitoring Guidelines
1__
2__
3__
4__
5__
6__
7__
8__
9__
10__
11__
12__
13__
14__
15__
16__
17__
18__
19__
20__
21__
22__
23__
24__
25__
26__
27__
28__
29__
30__
31__
32__
33__
34__
35__
36__
37__
38__
39__
40__
41__
42__
43__
44__
45__
46__
47__
EXAMPLE PROTOCOL: CHANGE IN VEGETATION STRUCTURE
Purpose:
Characterize the restored vegetation communities and determine plant survival, cover, and den-
sity over time. Determine if the restoration successfully provides the function of vegetated habitat.
Definition: Vegetation structure is the cover, density, height, and diameter attributes of the vegetation.
Metrics:
• Percent cover of vegetation, by species
• Stem density (number of stems per unit area), by species
• Stem height, by species
• Stem diameter, by species
Methods:
Percent cover:
Characterize percent cover of vegetation and non-vegetation in plots (Figure 1). Use visual percent
cover estimates to determine the cover of vegetation by individual species and non-vegetation (bare
ground, plant litter, organic wrack, garbage, etc.) in each quadrat. Estimate percent cover to a mid-
point of the agreed-upon vegetation class and come to a consensus on cover class for each species, for
example, using the Ecological Society of America cover class midpoints (0.50%, 2.50%, 8.75%, 18.75%,
37.50%, 62.50%, 87.50%). Use midpoints of cover classes instead of the cover class range to facili-
tate data summary and analysis. Assign cover class midpoints for each species within a plot, rather
than absolute values. Cover may be impacted based on structural diversity (e.g. species occur in differ-
ent strata and may overlap), thus the plot total percent cover may be less than or greater than 100%.
Stem density:
Determine stem density by counting the number of individual stems for each plant spe-
cies within a subplot of the same plots used for percent cover (Figure 1). Make sepa-
rate counts of both the number of flowering and non-flowering stems.
Stem height:
Measure stem height from the bottom of the stem at the ground or above any exposed roots to
the terminal leaf node (final leaf branching point) prior to the base of the inflorescence (flowering
head). Measure the stem height of five random stems of the dominant species in plots (Figure 1).
Stem diameter:
Measure stem diameter of the same five stems of the dominant species measured for stem
height in the same plot. Measure the diameter a quarter of the height of the stem (e.g. stem
height=100cm, measure stem diameter 25cm from the ground) using millimeter calipers.
D R A F T
D R A F T
5
__1
__2
__3
__4
__5
__6
__7
__8
__9
__10
__11
__12
__13
__14
__15
__16
__17
__18
__19
__20
__21
__22
__23
__24
__25
__26
__27
__28
__29
__30
__31
__32
__33
__34
__35
__36
__37
__38
__39
__40
__41
__42
__43
__44
__45
__46
__47
Data Management:
Field crews can collect data on paper or digitally using portable tablets or data loggers in the field. If
using paper data sheets, use of waterproof paper sheets , is advised to ensure data are not lost due
to rain or other issues with water that may occur in the field. Field collected data should be checked
for completeness prior to leaving the field site. The field collected data should be scanned or down-
loaded and stored digitally once monitoring is complete. Upon return from the field, data should be
entered into a computer spreadsheet, such as Microsoft Excel, or monitoring database, and checked
against the field collected data record by an independent observer for quality assurance. Qual-
ity assurance should reflect protocols outlined in the project QAPP, if one exists for the project.
All digital data (entered data, spatial data, photos, analysis, etc.) should be stored with meta-
data that describes the data and their source. Sampling metadata should define all column head-
ers in data spreadsheets and spatial data metadata should describe the spatial data type (point,
line, polygon), what the data represent (sampling area, plots, transects, etc.), the source of
the data (field location, collectors, and collection date), and any additional attributes.
Ideally, a plan for what type(s) of data analysis will be conducted should be developed before any
data are collected. Data analysis can range from descriptive statistics and graphs that summarize
metrics to inferential statistical analyses that test hypotheses regarding different restoration meth-
ods or site characteristics. For inferential statistics, picking an appropriate statistical model that is
suitable for the data being collected ensures that the results are interpreted properly. For example,
some statistical models assume that data are normally distributed. If a dataset does not meet that
assumption, this can lead to erroneous results. Finally, all analysis should be tracked and document-
ed fully (include all formulas, computational language, and test results for statistical analyses).
D R A F T
D R A F T
6
1__
2__
3__
4__
5__
6__
7__
8__
9__
10__
11__
12__
13__
14__
15__
16__
17__
18__
19__
20__
21__
22__
23__
24__
25__
26__
27__
28__
29__
30__
31__
32__
33__
34__
35__
36__
37__
38__
39__
40__
41__
42__
43__
44__
45__
46__
47__
HAZARD MITIGATION &
STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY
DRAFT MONITORING
FRAMEWORK MATRIX
Hazard Mitigation: How well does this feature
reduce risk? While shoreline management fea-
tures cannot prevent hazards from occurring, they
can mitigate their negative effects on people
or assets by reducing their exposure or vulner-
ability to that hazard. By hazard, we are referring
to a potential source for damage, harm or other
adverse effect like flooding and coastal erosion.
Structural Integrity: How well will the shoreline
management feature “hold up” and still main-
tain other performance goals (goals related to
hazard mitigation, ecological performance, or
community benefits)? These metrics should con-
sider material performance and physical condition
over time among other things. Note: This topic is
relevant to the other resilience service areas, and
may be its own resilience service, but for now has
been examined alongside hazard mitigation.
The Hazard Mitigation and Structural Integrity group
developed the evaluation roadmap to specifically
address the following performance parameters:
• In the evaluation of topographic change
due to natural coastal processes and
large storm events, a feature should
be designed to maintain natural coastal
processes, allow a shoreline to adapt to
sea level rise, as well as reduce shoreline
erosion that can have adverse effect on
people, property, and native ecosystems.
• In the evaluation of the coastal flooding
hazards, a feature should be designed to
reduce the exposure or vulnerability to coastal
flooding that can have adverse effect on
people, property, and native ecosystems.
• In the evaluation of structural integrity,
a feature should be designed and built
to sustain structural integrity over time
within context of natural coastal processes,
as well as large storm events.
To evaluate these three performance param-
eters, eleven distinct indicators or metrics were
identified. To facilitate measurements of these
indicators/metrics, seven protocols have been
developed. The TWG is cognizant of the fact
that additional protocols may be necessary to
facilitate different levels of expertise required to
evaluate the identified indicators or metrics.
PRELIMINARY PROTOCOLS
The TWG developed or identified seven protocols
to evaluate performance goals, and more specifi-
cally the identified metrics/indicators. The pro-
tocols developed by the TWG drew from existing,
published protocols when possible, as well as best
professional judgment. While many of the pub-
lished protocols are based upon natural shorelines
or NNBFs, the TWG attempted to develop protocols
that were not specific to asset type (i.e., inclu-
sive of both “grey” and “green” shoreline types).
The TWG recognizes that current protocols require
a higher level of expertise, or are more intensive
field protocols. Future revisions may address the
following to better reflect input from the RWGs:
• Simplify existing protocols, or develop
parallel protocols that are more
directed to citizen science.
• Develop more qualitative protocols to
address (1) evaluation of grey degradation,
and/or (2) degradation, local scour,
visible erosion, escarpments.
• Modify existing protocols to better
address regionally specific storm
events or seasonality of monitoring
• Customize existing protocols for
tide level and boat wake.
D R A F T
D R A F T
D R A F T
D R A F T
7
__1
__2
__3
__4
__5
__6
__7
__8
__9
__10
__11
__12
__13
__14
__15
__16
__17
__18
__19
__20
__21
__22
__23
__24
__25
__26
__27
__28
__29
__30
__31
__32
__33
__34
__35
__36
__37
__38
__39
__40
__41
__42
__43
__44
__45
__46
QUESTIONS FOR THE RWG
• We need feedback regarding the
scope of metrics and practicality of
implementing outlined protocols.
• Are there metrics/indicators
that should be added?
• Are there protocols that need to be
added, modified or built upon?
• Do metrics/protocols adequately
address shorelines in your region?
• Are protocols too intensive? Can protocols be
simplified, but still retain ability to accurately
evaluate identified metrics/indicators? Or
should TWG develop parallel protocols
more directed towards citizen science?
D R A F T
D R A F T
D R A F T
D R A F T
8
RESILIENCE
SERVICE
PERFORMANCE
PARAMETER
POTENTIAL PERFORMANCE
GOAL STATEMENT
INDICATOR/METRIC PROTOCOL
Hazard
Mitigation &
Structural
Integrity
Topographic Change
Maintain natural coastal processes while
reducing or avoiding increase in exposure
of people, property, and ecosystems to
coastal hazards through shoreline erosion
Change in vertical elevation of asset. 2-Asset Elevation
Change in shoreline position / sea level rise adaptability.
1-Erosion Pin Install - NYCDPR*
1-Footprint Change - NYCDPR*
1-Asset Aerial Dimension
Change in horizontal position of asset. 1-Asset Aerial Dimension
Loss or gain of sediment updrift/downdrift.
1-Asset Aerial Dimension
2-Asset Elevation
Coastal Hazards
Reduce exposure or vulnerability
of people, property, or ecosystems
to coastal flooding hazards (storm
surge, wave attack, high tide flooding,
sea level rise, currents, etc.)
Wind driven wave heights / wave periods landward/seaward of asset. 3-Wave Measurement
Boat wake wave heights / wave periods landward/seaward of asset. 4-Boat Wake monitoring - NYCDPR*
Change in water elevation landward/seaward of asset 5-Tide Level monitoring - NYCDPR*
Currents adjacent to asset. 6-Current Measurement
Structural Integrity
Avoid structural failure and
sustain the structural integrity
of the shoreline feature
Change in vertical elevation of asset. 2-Asset Elevation
Change in horizontal position of asset. 1-Asset Aerial Dimension
Change in vegetation, shellfish, or other biomass of structure. 7-Asset Vegetation, Shellfish, or Other Biomass
Local scour, visible erosion, escarpments.
1-Asset Aerial Dimension
2-Asset Elevation
Grey material degradation.
1-Asset Aerial Dimension
2-Asset Elevation
HAZARD MITIGATION & STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY MATRIX
*may not apply to all regions
9
HAZARD MITIGATION & STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY PRELIMINARY PROTOCOL LIST
# PROTOCOL NAME EXISTING AVAILABLE PROTOCOL? STATUS TYPE EXPERTISE REQUIRED COST/LEVEL OF EFFORT SOURCE
Example Protocol
1 Asset Aerial Dimension Y Draft Included Field Medium Medium
Erosion Pin Install - NYCDPR,
Oyster Monitoring Guidelines*
Additional Protocols to Consider
2 Asset Elevation Y Draft Included Field High TBD
Erosion Pin Install - NYCDPR,
Oyster Monitoring Guidelines*
3 Wave Measurement N Draft Included Field High TBD TWG
4 Boat Wake monitoring - NYCDPR Y
recommended
existing protocol
Field High TBD NYCDPR
5 Tide Level monitoring - NYCDPR Y
recommended
existing protocol
Field Medium TBD NYCDPR
6 Current Measurement N Draft included Field High TBD TWG
7 Asset Vegetation, Shellfish, or Other Biomass N Draft included Field Medium TBD TWG
*may not apply to all regions
10
1__
2__
3__
4__
5__
6__
7__
8__
9__
10__
11__
12__
13__
14__
15__
16__
17__
18__
19__
20__
21__
22__
23__
24__
25__
26__
27__
28__
29__
30__
31__
32__
33__
34__
35__
36__
37__
38__
39__
40__
41__
42__
43__
44__
45__
46__
47__
EXAMPLE PROTOCOL: ASSET AERIAL DIMENSION
Summary information:
Protocol name / shorthand: Asset Aerial Dimension
Related resilience service category: Hazard Mitigation
Associated Parameter: Topographic Change / Structural Integrity
Associated Metric(s): (1) change in shoreline position/sea level rise adaptability; (2) change
in horizontal position of asset; (3) loss or gain of sediment updrift/downdrift; (4) local
scour, visible erosion, escarpments; and/or (5) grey material degradation.
Quantitative/qualitative: Quantitative
Data output / data format: Elevations and geographical extent, typically export-
ed to excel spreadsheet as well as Geographic Information System (GIS)
Protocol type (easy, medium, hard): Medium
Description of monitoring methods / field protocols:
This protocol involves the data collection relative to mapping the aerial dimension of the
asset. In term of hazard mitigation, the measure of aerial dimensions of an asset is criti-
cal to estimating the amount of restored area (if measuring a NNBF), persistence of the
asset over time, as well as the quality of intended services provided to the shoreline over
time. The aerial dimensions of an asset is necessary in evaluating the following metrics:
• Change in shoreline position/sea level rise adaptability
• Change in horizontal position of asset
• Loss or gain of sediment updrift/downdrift
• Local scour, visible erosion, escarpments
• Grey material degradation
At a negative low tide (if applicable), the perimeter of the asset footprint should be mapped using
a mapping/survey grade Global Positioning System (GPS) with post-processing capabilities. Col-
lection of as many data points as possible is recommended and could be facilitated through con-
tinuous measurements within GPS. The larger the data set of data points, the more accurately
the perimeter of the asset can be delineated. Temporary place markers (i.e., wood stakes or PVC
pipes) can be placed along the asset perimeter for reference in subsequent surveying events. Pho-
tographs should be taken along perimeter to provide reference of site conditions. Data forms to
be developed by a project at a minimum should include the following base information:
• Observers
• Site location.
• Survey data and time.
• Time as it relates to tidal period (i.e., low tide, high tide)
• Survey settings: (1) equipment; (2) coordinate system; (3) datum; and (4) base monument (if utilized).
D R A F T
D R A F T
11
__1
__2
__3
__4
__5
__6
__7
__8
__9
__10
__11
__12
__13
__14
__15
__16
__17
__18
__19
__20
__21
__22
__23
__24
__25
__26
__27
__28
__29
__30
__31
__32
__33
__34
__35
__36
__37
__38
__39
__40
__41
__42
__43
__44
__45
__46
__47
D R A F T
D R A F T
12
Requirements (equipment, training, etc.):
This protocol does require use of a mapping/survey grade Global Positioning System (GPS)
with post-processing capabilities. These can be rented on a daily or weekly basis from mul-
tiple vendors throughout New York. Alternatively, a standard handheld GPS could be used.
Data collection with the GPS will require definition of at least the following settings:
• Frequency. Point – 1 second. Polyline – 1 foot.
• Minimum positions per point observation – 10 positions
• PDOP mask – A PDOP threshold of 6 is necessary to achieve sub-meter accuracy.
• Coordinate system – project specific.
• Real time settings. In order to guarantee the ability to post-process,
real time data correction should always be set to NO.
Data points should be transferred from GPS into mapping software (e.g., ArcGIS) or civil engineering
software (e.g., AutoCAD, Microstation). Transfer of data and post-processing should be performed with
GPS-specific software (i.e., Trimble TerraSync), and typically is supplied by GPS rental company. Moni-
toring frequency should occur immediately after construction (i.e., baseline), and then annually. Addi-
tional surveys are recommended after events that could alter shoreline position (e.g., hurricanes).
Seasonal monitoring may also be needed in October and April to account for changes in weather/
wind patterns, seasonality of the beach profile, and seasonal above ground biomass changes.
Data QA/QC procedures:
An engineer or scientist with background in mapping should review the dataset to verify the data set
is consistent with existing project mapping, and that the geographic points makes sense based upon
site observations. Publicly available aerial photography can also be utilized to confirm mapping.
Data format and management requirements:
Data sets will be transferred from GPS as either a text file or ESRI shape file. Text files which can
be quite large would then be converted or projected in an appropriate mapping program (i.e., Arc-
GIS). It is assumed that data is collected in the appropriate coordinate system and does not need
to be converted at a later date. Management of data is best done through appropriate definitions
of metadata. Metadata describes geographic information system (GIS) resources in the same way
a card in a library’s card catalog describes a book. It then supports sharing of files and data.
Data analysis protocols
Data points should be transferred from GPS into mapping software (e.g., ArcGIS, ESRI, Redlands, CA). Post-
processing should be completed consistent with mapping software protocols. Mapping software should
allow mapping of the geographical extent of the asset overlaid on a basemap (i.e., topography, aerial
photograph). This can provide comparisons to as-built conditions or previous monitoring events. In addi-
tion, the mapping software can facilitate calculation of the aerial extent reported in square feet or acres.
1__
2__
3__
4__
5__
6__
7__
8__
9__
10__
11__
12__
13__
14__
15__
16__
17__
18__
19__
20__
21__
22__
23__
24__
25__
26__
27__
28__
29__
30__
31__
32__
33__
34__
35__
36__
37__
38__
39__
40__
41__
42__
43__
44__
45__
46__
47__
SOCIO-ECONOMIC OUTCOMES
DRAFT MONITORING
FRAMEWORK MATRIX
Socio-Economic Outcomes captures the shore-
line services that may impact community resil-
ience and well-being. This can be difficult to define
and may overlap with other areas, but essen-
tially, this category is aimed at assessing if and
how shoreline management features contribute
to the community’s or society’s quality of life.
The socio-economic framework has been divided up
into six primary categories in order to best capture
the outcomes most directly tied to improving the
environment as well as the health and well-being
of the local community. Human health and safety
is framed at the household – community level and
designed to the dynamics happening at that level.
Property value and infrastructure is framed at the
community-regional scale with the ability to com-
pare and contrast with other areas throughout
the state. Quality of life is how the feature might
benefit or impact an individual, group, or commu-
nity’s comfort, happiness or general satisfaction
in the vicinity of the project. Economic resilience
and livelihoods speak to the special feature of
the coastlines and how they uniquely impact the
economic vitality of a region. Institutional knowl-
edge and individual capacity are tied together
as a lens to better understand local culture and
capacity. Participation and stewardship is viewed
as critically important for education and politi-
cal engagement around these issues and areas.
PRELIMINARY PROTOCOLS
The current list of protocols is wide-ranging and
requires a more nuanced understanding of what is
needed at each site and across sites. The types of
protocols used will depend on the resources, time
and energy that is available to deploying these
protocols. Also, in some cases, protocols can be
used as a rapid assessment and in others situa-
tions, it will require longer periods of time to col-
lect the data. In addition, some protocols might
be repeated at different timeframes and intervals.
Overall, there is a range of protocols that include
using publicly available datasets (i.e. property val-
ues, health indicators, employment stats). The mixed
method data protocols (qualitative and quantita-
tive) can be bundled into survey, observation and
informant interviews. These protocols would be
used to assess outcomes and issues related to qual-
ity of life, civic engagement and social cohesion.
D R A F T
D R A F T
D R A F T
D R A F T
13
__1
__2
__3
__4
__5
__6
__7
__8
__9
__10
__11
__12
__13
__14
__15
__16
__17
__18
__19
__20
__21
__22
__23
__24
__25
__26
__27
__28
__29
__30
__31
__32
__33
__34
__35
__36
__37
__38
__39
__40
__41
__42
__43
__44
__45
__46
QUESTIONS FOR THE RWG
• Which socio-economic outcomes are
viewed as most important and WHY?
What appears less important and
WHY? Knowing the why is critical.
• We would like to know more about the
application of the most important protocols.
• Who will be collecting data
using these protocols?
• How much time will they have?
• Who will analyze / prepare the
data once it is collected?
• What mechanisms are in place to
view, share and interpret the data?
• Ideally, it would be helpful
to know about the context of
how these protocols will be
implemented in these areas.
D R A F T
D R A F T
D R A F T
D R A F T
14
RESILIENCE
SERVICE
PERFORMANCE
PARAMETER
POTENTIAL PERFORMANCE
GOAL STATEMENT
INDICATOR/METRIC PROTOCOL
Socio-economic
Outcomes
Human health
and safety
Improve human health, safety, or wellness
# of households potentially impacted by a resilience project 11-Households Potentially Impacted by Resilienece Project
# of households exposed to flooding 12-Households Exposed to Flooding
Property value and
infrastructure
Enhance or protect Property
and infrastructure value
Public facilities (e.g., parks) protected by proposed project 16-Public Facilities Protected by Project
Sales values of homes 15-Market Values of Homes
Quality of life Enhance / protect quality of life
Reportings and expressions from participants of how the shoreline factors into the life of their community TBD
Opinions from participants on major enviornmental risks in a community. TBD
Tellings and expressions of the sacred, revered, and unique aspects of a community as told by participants. TBD
Economic resilience
and livelihoods
Improve / increase / enhance economic
resilience and livelihood opportunities
# of days residents are unable to work because of disturbance 18-Days Unable to Work because of Disturbance
Monthly (or yearly) rent of residential homes in $ 17-Monthly Rent
# of days of business closure 1-Days of Business Closure
# applications for new business permits 2-Applications for New Business Permits
# of overnight stays of tourists in local guest lodging (hotels, AirBNB) 20-Overnight Stays in Local guest lodging
# of site visits (resident vs non-resident if possible) 1-Site Visits
# of people employed in fisheries and aquaculture 7-People Employed in fisheries and Aquaculture
$ value of all recreation and tourism 10-Value of Recreation and Tourism
# of primary jobs generated by construction and maintenance of a waterfront project 9-Primary Jobs Generated by Const. & Maint.
Institutional knowledge
and individual capacity
Increase / enhance Institutional
knowledge and individual capacity
# of FTE staff employed at local institutions per year 13-FTE Staff Employed at Local Institutions
# of FTE staff engaged with/working on waterfront 14-FTE Staff Engaged with/Working on Waterfront
# educational programs/events on waterfront 5-Educational Programs/Events on waterfront
# of local school classes incorporating waterfront into curriculum TBD
Tellings and observations from participants of how they are adapting to major climate risks. TBD
Expressions of the benefits and drawbacks of nature-based shoreline features among local communities. 6-Local Schools Incorporaring Waterfront into Curriculum
Participation and
stewardship
Increase Participation and stewardship
# different stakeholder groups participating in public meetings related to waterfront project 4-Stakeholder Groups in Public Meetings
# groups (or diversity of participants) participating in waterfront stewardship TBD
Expressions of distrust between participants and other members /
stakeholders / power holders in/of the community.
TBD
Expressions of trust and connectivity between participants and other
members / stakeholders / power holders in/of the community
3-Groups Participating in Waterfront Stewardship
Observations and sightings of formal and informal public uses of waterfront public space. TBD
SOCIO-ECONOMIC OUTCOMES MATRIX
15
SOCIO-ECONOMIC OUTCOMES PRELIMINARY PROTOCOL LIST
# PROTOCOL NAME EXISTING AVAILABLE PROTOCOL? STATUS TYPE EXPERTISE REQUIRED COST/LEVEL OF EFFORT SOURCE
Example Protocol
1 Site Visits N Draft Included TBD TBD TBD TWG
Additional Protocols to Consider
2 Applications for New Business Permits N suggested TBD TBD TBD TBD
3 Groups Participating in Waterfront Stewardship N Draft Included TBD TBD TBD TWG
4 Stakeholder Groups in Public Meetings N Draft Included TBD TBD TBD TWG
5 Educational Programs/Events on waterfront N suggested TBD TBD TBD TBD
6 Local Schools Incorporaring Waterfront into Curriculum N suggested TBD TBD TBD TBD
7 People Employed in fisheries and Aquaculture N Draft Included TBD TBD TBD TWG
8 Operating Fisheries N suggested TBD TBD TBD TBD
9 Primary Jobs Generated by Const. & Maint. N Suggested TBD TBD TBD TBD
10 Value of Recreation and Tourism N Suggested TBD TBD TBD TBD
11 Households Potentially Impacted by Resilience Project N Draft Included TBD TBD TBD TWG
12 Households Exposed to Flooding N Draft Included TBD TBD TBD TWG
13 FTE Staff Employed at Local Institutions N Suggested TBD TBD TBD TBD
14 FTE Staff Engaged with/Working on Waterfront N Suggested TBD TBD TBD TBD
15 Market Values of Homes N Draft Included TBD TBD TBD TWG
16 Public Facilities Protected by Project N Draft Included TBD TBD TBD TWG
17 Monthly Rent N Draft Included TBD TBD TBD TWG
18 Days Unable to Work because of Disturbance N Draft Included TBD TBD TBD TWG
19 Days of Business Closure N suggested TBD TBD TBD TBD
20 Overnight Stays in Local guest lodging N Draft Included TBD TBD TBD TWG
21 Expressions of trust/connectivity between participants and other members / stakeholders of the community N suggested TBD TBD TBD TBD
22 Reportings and expressions from participants of how the shoreline factors into the life of their community N suggested TBD TBD TBD TBD
23 Opinons from participants on major environmental risks in a community N suggested TBD TBD TBD TBD
24 Tellings and observations from participants of how they are adapting to major climate risks N suggested TBD TBD TBD TBD
25 Expressions of the benefits and drawbacks of features N suggested TBD TBD TBD TBD
26 Expressions of distrust between participants and members / stakeholders / power holders in/of the community N suggested TBD TBD TBD TBD
27 Observations of public uses of waterfront public space N suggested TBD TBD TBD TBD
28 Tellings/expressions of the sacred, revered, and unique aspects of a community as told by participants N suggested TBD TBD TBD TBD
16
1__
2__
3__
4__
5__
6__
7__
8__
9__
10__
11__
12__
13__
14__
15__
16__
17__
18__
19__
20__
21__
22__
23__
24__
25__
26__
27__
28__
29__
30__
31__
32__
33__
34__
35__
36__
37__
38__
39__
40__
41__
42__
43__
44__
45__
46__
47__
EXAMPLE PROTOCOL: # OF SITE VISITS (RESIDENT
VS NON-RESIDENT IF POSSIBLE)
Summary information
Protocol name / shorthand: Site Visits
Related resilience service category: Socio-Economic
Associated Parameter: Economic Resilience / Livelihood Opportunities: Tourism & Recreation
Associated Metric(s): # of Site Visits
Quantitative/qualitative: Quantitative
Data output / data format: TBD
Protocol type (easy, medium, hard): TBD
Description of monitoring methods / field protocols
• Map project site and entry and exit points from site.
• Visit site on weekdays and weekends and different times of day to
observe and verify entry and exit from site at mapped points.
• Determine rank order of use of entry points.
• Place visitor counter in discrete location at top ranked entry point. Install
additional counters at secondary entry and exit sites as appropriate.
• Mount video camera overlooking site where can observe overall use of site.
• Collect data from counters on weekly basis and review video footage on weekly basis
(video should be reviewed at greater than normal speed to expedite analysis).
• Compare ratios of counts from counters with numbers of individuals observed
on video camera for weekly period. If ratios appear stable can discontinue
video camera and rely on counters for ongoing monitoring.
• Conduct visitor survey (see attached sheet) monthly for 1 year after project completion
to understand origins of visitors and non-resident versus resident proportions.
• Map annual visitor zip codes into ArcGIS.
• Characteristics of the site will determine how complicated process will be (i.e.,
single access/entry/exit sites easier to monitor for visitation in this way).
Requirements (equipment, training, etc)
• Person counter
• Mounted camera
• Statistical software
• Training in review of video and in statistical analysis techniques may be necessary.
• Instruction in process for accessing counter data
• Counter data and video camera data should be monitored continuously.
Data analysis can occur on a seasonal or annual basis.
D R A F T
D R A F T
17
__1
__2
__3
__4
__5
__6
__7
__8
__9
__10
__11
__12
__13
__14
__15
__16
__17
__18
__19
__20
__21
__22
__23
__24
__25
__26
__27
__28
__29
__30
__31
__32
__33
__34
__35
__36
__37
__38
__39
__40
__41
__42
__43
__44
__45
__46
__47
Data QA/QC procedures
Videos should be counted by two individual with counts compared for accuracy. Outliers in daily counter
data should be evaluated and compared against special events, etc. that may have driven visitors to site.
Data format and management requirements
Data will be numeric and entered into database program such as Excel or other statistical program.
Data analysis protocols
Data from the counts and the survey may be analyzed in Excel but more in-depth statistical analyses would
likely require more advanced statistical software. Annual average counts should be tracked from (ideally)
prior to project completion to 5 years after project completion. For sites, where it is known there was no
visitation (or no significant visitation) it would be appropriate to assume 0 as the pre-project average.
Responses from the proposed visitor survey can be mapped into ArcGIS to evaluate any decay in likeli-
hood of visitation with distance from the site. Question 2 from the survey can be analyzed using qualita-
tive approaches to identify any commonalities in reasons people indicate that they would visit the site.
On-site visitor survey
“Hello, I’m conducting a survey for XX to evaluate the use of this site. This should only take a few minutes.”
SURVEY DATE:
NAME OF PERSON CONDUCTING SURVEY:
1. Zip code of visitor
2. Why are you visiting this site?
3a. Have you visited this site before?
3b. If Yes, how many times have you visited this site?
4a. Did you stay in a hotel or other over-
night rental accommodation last night?
4b. If yes, what is the address of the accommodation?
D R A F T
D R A F T
18
1__
2__
3__
4__
5__
6__
7__
8__
9__
10__
11__
12__
13__
14__
15__
16__
17__
18__
19__
20__
21__
22__
23__
24__
25__
26__
27__
28__
29__
30__
31__
32__
33__
34__
35__
36__
37__
38__
39__
40__
41__
42__
43__
44__
45__
46__
47__
ADDITIONAL PROJECT INFORMATION
In addition to information specific to the three
resilience services the framework is monitoring for,
it will be important to also gather key metadata
regarding the scale, context, cost, and maintenance
of the individual shorelines being monitored.
This information is important to contextualize the
scope of certain interventions and better enable
comparison across different shoreline features
or feature types. In some cases, this information
may also be quantitative data. For example,
maintenance costs of NNBF tend to decrease over
time, whereas it tends to increase over time for
hardened structures. Data on these trends, and
others, can be derived from the ‘Annual cost of
maintenance’ indicator specified in the table below.
RESILIENCE
SERVICE
PERFORMANCE
PARAMETER
POTENTIAL PERFORMANCE
GOAL STATEMENT
INDICATOR/METRIC
Additional
Project
Information
Project costs be cost-effective: achieve
Cost of construction (need to define
what costs are included here)
Soft costs: cost of design, environmental
review, and permitting
Annual cost of maintenance
Maintenance
and Operation
requirements
be able to maintain and
operate over time at
reasonable cost / effort
type(s) of maintenance and operation required
Skillsets required for maintenance and operation
Maintenance or repair frequency
Timeline NA
time required for design, environmental
review, permitting and construction
Size NA project area
D R A F T
D R A F T
D R A F T
D R A F T
19
APPENDIX F.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
OF DOCUMENTS
REVIEWED
Prepa red by Katinka Wijsman – Katinka.wijsman@newschool.edu. With input from Alison Schlesinger a nd Jessica Fain.
Appendix F Bibliography of Documents Reviewed
APPENDIX F: BIBLIOGRAPHY OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Literature under consideration
Reference
number
Name
Full name
Title
1
DOI-MEG
Department of the Interior (Metrics Expert Group)
Recommendations for Assessing the Effects of the DOI Hurricane Sandy Mitigation and Resilience Program
on Ecol ogical System and Infrastructure Resilience in the Northeast Coastal Region
2
NJRCI
New Jersey Resilient Coastlines Initiative (Measures
and Monitoring Workgroup)
A framework for developing monitoring plans for coastal wetland restoration and living shoreline projects
in New Jersey
3
NYCEDC
New York Ci ty Economic Development Corporation
Wa terfront Facilities Maintenance Management System Inspection Guidelines and Manual
4
Stoddard
Stoddard, Larsen, Hawkins, Johnson, Norris in
Ecological Applications
Setti ng expectations for the ecological condition of s treams: the concept of reference condition
5
ABT
ABT As s ociates
Devel oping Socio-Economic Metrics to Measure DOI Hurricane Sandy Project and Program Outcomes
6
USACE
Uni ted States Army Corps of Engineers
North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study, Use of Natural and Nature-Based Features for Coastal
Res ilience
7
USGS-FI
Uni ted States Geological Survey
Fire Island Coastal Cha nge
8
MARCO
The Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean
Working towards a robust monitoring framework for natural and nature-based features in the mid-Atlantic
usi ng citizen science Atlantic regional council on the ocean
9
NYS
New York Sta te Department of State and Department
of Environmental Conservation
New York Sta te Salt Marsh Restoration and Monitoring Guidelines
10
USGS-JB
Uni ted States Geological Survey
Ja ma ica Bay wetland response to Hurricane Sandy
11
HRNERR
Huds on River National Estuarine Research Reserve
(a) Hudson River sustainable shorelines project phase I: mitigating shoreline erosion along the Hudson
River estuary's sheltered coasts; (b) sustainable shorelines along the Hudson river estuary: phase II,
promoti ng resilient shorelines and ecosystem services in a n era of ra pid cl imate change; (c) assessing
ecological a nd physical performance
12
USGS-
CRMS
Uni ted States Geological Survey
Coast-wide Reference Monitoring System in Louisiana
13
RCF
Reef Check Foundation
Reef Check California Instruction Manual: A guid e to rocky reef monitoring
Prepa red by Katinka Wijsman – Katinka.wijsman@newschool.edu. With input from Alison Schlesinger a nd Jessica Fain.
Appendix F Bibliography of Documents Reviewed
Geography, terminology, audience, web basis
Reference
number
Name
Year
No of
pages
Geographic
situatedness
NNBF term
Audience
Web-
based?
1
DOI-
MEG
2015
69
North Ea s t Coastal
Regi on
Ecol ogical and community resilience
projects
Eval uators of DOI-sponsored projects
No
2
NJRCI
2016
57
New Jersey (and
beyond)
Na tural and Nature-based Solutions (living
shorelines and ti dal wetlands)
Us er groups: academics, environmental non-profits,
regul atory agencies, restoration professionals, community
organizations, funding agencies, citizen science groups, and
private landowners.
No
3
NYCEDC
2016
319
New York Ci ty
n/a
Ci ty a gencies and their consultants working on the city's
waterfront (especially EDC)
Yes
4
Stoddard
2006
10
n/a
n/a
Scientists conducting a ecological assessment of stream
envi ronments
No
5
ABT
2015
125
Northeastern U.S. coast
Green Infrastructure
Eval uators of DOI-sponsored projects (but hoping to go
beyond)
No
6
USACE
2015
479
North Atlantic Coast
Na tural and Nature-based Features
A technically-oriented audience, focus on vulnerability
as sessment and the use of NNBF to improve coastal
resilience
No
7
USGS-FI
2012
n/a
Fire Island
Bea ches, dunes
Protocol is "hidden"; website is reporting results. Protocol for
scientists?
Yes
8
MARCO
2017
23
Mid-Atlantic coast
Na tural and Nature-based Features
Ci ti zen science monitoring
No
9
NYS
2000
147
New York Sta te
Sal t marsh restoration
Intended for use with voluntary projects sponsored by
muni cipalities. Little and more experienced individuals both.
No
10
USGS-JB
2015
2
(project
sheet)
Ja ma ica Bay
Ti dal Wetland
Protocol is "hidden"; website is reporting results. Protocol for
scientists?
Yes
11
HRNERR
2013;
2015;
2017
34; 32;
32
Huds on River Shoreline
Sustainable shorelines
Range of users: property owners, policy-makers, government
regul ators, consultants, experts, advocates. Protocol is
developed for non-scientists
Yes
12
USGS-
CRMS
2010
2
(project
sheet)
Louisiana coast
Coastal protection and restoration efforts
Va riety of user groups: resource managers, academics,
landowners, researchers
Yes
13
RCF
2015
106
Temperate rocky reefs
of Ca l ifornia
Management of coral reefs
Ci ti zen-scientists volunteers who are experienced divers
Yes
Prepa red by Katinka Wijsman – Katinka.wijsman@newschool.edu. With input from Alison Schlesinger a nd Jessica Fain.
Appendix F Bibliography of Documents Reviewed
Organization of monitoring metrics and usability for NNBF project
Reference
number
Name
Organization
Good for?
1
DOI-
MEG
Typol ogy linked to goals
Comprehensive examples for all but community benefits monitoring categories. Core metrics allow comparability
across scales
2
NJRCI
Both typol ogy a nd goals (separate metric
tabl es)
Us er friendly format and inclusion of citizen scientists for monitoring. Includes a sample monitoring plan template
3
NYCEDC
Typol ogy (hard structures, shoreline,
wetl and)
Grey infrastructure considerations for our comparisons, especially in urbanized shoreline projects. Online database
and standardization of data collection
4
Stoddard
n/a
Framework for how to understand baseline conditions and then monitor change
5
ABT
Typol ogy on the basis of resilience goals
Soci o-economic metrics of resilience i dentified with accompanying methods of data collection; case-study examples.
Detailed. Synergies between biophysical and ecological outcomes and socio -economic resilience goals
6
USACE
Typol ogy (with ecosystem service
considerations)
Provides metrics for a vulnerability assessment which could function as input for performance assessments. Includes
perspective on regional sediment management, and takes a systems approach. Detailed.
7
USGS-FI
Site performance
Comprehensive long-term shoreline monitoring program, but expensive
8
MARCO
Goa l based
Metrics are created by bringing goals and habitats together; methods are developed i n easier and more difficult
scenarios. Accessible and comprehensive
9
NYS
Site performance
Gui dance for voluntary restoration projects, not mitigation projects. Appendix includes insight into permitting a nd
regul atory context.
10
USGS-JB
Site performance
Focus on assessing estuarine and adjacent wetland physical response to major storm events. Long term data
gathering, but costly to operate.
11
HRNERR
Site performance
Focus on shoreline s tabilization techniques. Explicitly discusses trade-offs between ecological, engineering, and
economic goals in shoreline management options.
12
USGS-
CRMS
Site performance
Site with data collection of approximately 400 reference sites, running since 2005. Requires upfront investment
13
RCF
Typol ogy (counting species)
Example for making monitoring accessible to citizen scientists
Prepa red by Katinka Wijsman – Katinka.wijsman@newschool.edu. With input from Alison Schlesinger a nd Jessica Fain.
Appendix F Bibliography of Documents Reviewed
NNBF and Non-NNBF features discussed
NNBF types mentioned (n.b. different levels of detail)
Non-NNBF features addressed
Reference
number
Name
Wetlands
and/or
marshes
Living
shorelin
e
Beach/
Dunes
Reefs
Maritime
fores ts
and/or
shrublands
Mudflats
Riparian
buffer
Barrier
Islands
Other
Grey
infra -
structure
(over-
arching)
Revet-
ments
Break-
waters
Bulkheads
Other
1
DOI-
MEG
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Nearshore shallows
and deeps; uplands
and watersheds;
es tuaries and
ponds
√
-
√
-
-
2
NJRCI
√
√
√
√
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
√
√
-
3
NYCEDC
√
√
√
-
√
-
-
-
-
√
√
-
√
Groyne,
Wa ve
screen
4
Stoddard
-
-
-
-
-
-
√
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
ABT
√
√
√
√
-
-
√
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6
USACE
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Submerged aquatic
vegetation, ponds,
swa mps, terrestrial
gras sland /
shrubland / forests
√
√
√
√
Groins,
levee
7
USGS-FI
-
-
√
-
-
-
-
√
-
-
-
-
-
-
8
MARCO
√
-
√
√
√
√
√
-
Submerged aquatic
vegetation, urban
retrofit
-
-
-
-
-
9
NYS
√
√
-
-
-
√
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10
USGS-JB
√
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11
HRNERR
√
√
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
√
-
-
-
-
12
USGS-
CRMS
√
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13
RCF
-
-
-
√
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Prepa red by Katinka Wijsman – Katinka.wijsman@newschool.edu. With input from Alison Schlesinger a nd Jessica Fain.
Appendix F Bibliography of Documents Reviewed
Resilience goal categories discussed and metrics suggested
Resilience goal categories discussed
Metrics
Reference
number
Name
Ecol ogical
function
Structural
Integrity
Ha zard
Miti gation
Community
benefits
Ideas for core
metrics?
Ideas for
ecological
function
metrics?
Ideas for
structural
integrity
metrics?
Ideas for
ha za rd
mitigation
metrics?
Ideas for
community
benefits
metrics?
1
DOI-MEG
√
√
√
-
√
√
√
√
-
2
NJRCI
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
3
NYCEDC
√
√
√
-
-
-
√
√
-
4
Stoddard
√
-
-
-
-
√
-
-
-
5
ABT
√
√
√
√
√
-
-
√
√
6
USACE
√
√
√
√
-
-
√
√
√
7
USGS-FI
√
-
√
-
-
√
-
√
-
8
MARCO
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
9
NYS
√
-
√
-
-
√
-
-
-
10
USGS-JB
√
-
√
-
-
√
-
-
-
11
HRNERR
√
√
√
√
-
√
-
-
-
12
USGS-CRMS
√
-
-
-
-
√
-
-
-
13
RCF
√
-
-
-
-
√
-
-
-
APPENDIX G.
PROJECT CORE
TEAM AND
WORKING GROUP
MEMBERSHIP
Appendix G Project Core Team and Working Groups
APPENDIX G: PROJECT CORE TEAM AND WORKING GROUP
MEMBERSHIP
Project Core Team
Project Manager
Katie Graziano, Project Scientist, Science and Resilience Institute at Jamaica Bay (SRIJB)
(Previously: Jessica Fain, SRIJB)
Principal Investigator
Brett Branco, Executive Director, SRIJB
(Previously: Adam Parris, Executive Director, SRIJB)
Project Sponsorship and State Management Support
Carolyn Fraioli, New York Department of State (NYDOS)
Tanna Legere, New York Department of State (NYDOS)
Amanda Stevens, New York State Energy and Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA)
Core Team Members
Katherine Bunting-Howarth, NY Sea Grant
Katinka Wijsman, The New School (Member of Socio-Economic TWG)
Kristin Marcell, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Hudson
River Estuary Program/ Cornell (Co-lead for Permit Reviewer Meetings)
Marit Larson, NYC Parks Department
Novem Auyueng, NYC Parks Department (Pilot data collection for NYC; Database
Development Co-Lead)
Chris Haight, NYC Parks Department (Pilot data collection for NYC)
Rob Pirani, NY-NJ Harbor and Estuary Program
Technical Working Group (TWG) Leads
Pippa Brashear, SCAPE (Overall TWG Lead, Framework Development Lead)
Peter Groffman, Cary Institute, CUNY Advanced Science Research Center and Brooklyn
College (TWG Lead: Ecological Function)
Appendix G Project Core Team and Working Groups
Doug Partridge, Arcadis (TWG Lead: Structural Integrity and Hazard Mitigation;
Database Development co-lead)
Vince DeCapio, Arcadis (TWG Lead: Structural Integrity and Hazard Mitigation)
Erika Svendsen, US Forest Service (TWG Co-Lead: Socio-Economic Outcomes)
Regional Working Group (RWG) Leads
Bennett Brooks, Consensus Building Institute (Overall RWG Project Lead)
Helen Cheng, Science and Resilience Institute at Jamaica Bay, NY Sea Grant (RWG Lead
for New York City)
Kathleen Fallon, NY Sea Grant (RWG Lead for Long Island)
Isabelle Stinnette, NY-NJ Harbor and Estuary Program (RWG Lead for Hudson River)
Roy Widrig, NY Sea Grant (RWG Lead for the Great Lakes)
Pilot Data Collection
Data collection leads for sites in New York City Harbor:
Novem Auyueng, NYC Parks Department
Chris Haight, NYC Parks Department
Data collection leads for sites in Hudson Valley, Long Island, and Great Lakes region:
Katie Graziano, SRIJB (Field Coordination)
Katharhy G., SRIJB/Brooklyn College (Ecological Function)
Dylan Corbett, SRIJB/Arcadis (Hazard Mitigation and Structural Integrity)
Lindsey Strehlau-Howay, SRIJB (Socio-Economic Outcomes)
Appendix G Project Core Team and Working Groups
Project Advisory Committee
Alison Branco, Coastal Director, The Nature Conservancy New York, Long Island Chapter
Dawn McReynolds, Assistant Director, Marine Resources Division NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation
Doug Wilcox, Empire Innovation Professor of Wetland Science, SUNY Brockport and Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative
Heather Weitzner, Coastal EIT, OBG
Kim Penn, Climate Coordinator, NOAA Office of Coastal Management
Lisa Auermuller, Watershed Coordinator, Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research
Reserve
Peter Murdoch, Science Advisor, Northeast Region United States Geological Survey
Ernie Holmberg, Geotechnical Engineering Bureau, NYS Department of Transportation
Todd Bridges, Senior Research Scientist, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center
Tom Herrington, Research Professor, Monmouth University
Appendix G Project Core Team and Working Groups
Technical Working Group (TWG) Members
Overall TWG Project Lead: Pippa Brashear, SCAPE (Core Team Member)
Ecological Function:
(TWG Lead) Peter Groffman, Cary Institute, CUNY Advanced Science Research Center and
Brooklyn College
Marit Larson, NYC Parks (Core Team Member)
Novem Auyeung, NYC Parks (Core Team Member)
Christopher Haight, NYC Parks (Core Team Member)
Christina Kaunzinger, Rutgers University
Joshua Unghire, USACE
Colin Beier, SUNY ESF
Laura Johnson, Heidelberg
Shimrit Perkol-Finkel, SEARC
Stuart Findlay, Cary Institute
Chris Schubert, USGS
Hazard Mitigation & Structural Integrity:
(TWG Lead) Doug Partridge, Arcadis
(TWG Lead) Vince DeCapio, Arcadis
Norbert Psuty, Rutgers University
Jon Miller, Stevens Institute of Technology
Catherine Seavitt, City College of New York
Bryan Hinterberger, USACE
Amy Simonson, USGS
Andy Peck, The Nature Conservancy
Pauk Cocca, USACE
Tanna LeGere, NYS DOS
Socio-Economic Outcomes:
(TWG Co-Lead) Erika Svendsen, US Forest Service
(TWG Co-Lead – Phase 1) Phil Silva, The Nature Conservancy
(TWG Co-Lead – Phase 2) Katie Graziano, Science and Resilience Institute
Katinka Wijsman, The New School, (Core Team Member)
Anthony Dvarskas, Stony Brook University
Jennifer Bolstad, Local Office
Malgosia Madajewicz, Columbia University
MichaelSchwebel, 100 Resilient Cities
Sara Meerow, University of Michigan
Shorna Allred, Cornell University
Valerie Luzadis, SUNY
APPENDIX H.
PROJECT
WORKPLAN AND
SCHEDULE
Appendix H Project Workplan and Schedule
APPENDIX H: PROJECT WORKPLAN AND SCHEDULE
PROJECT PHASES:
Phase I: Draft Monitoring Framework, March - May 2018
Develop Draft Monitoring Framework (roadmap + protocols) largely based on input and
recommendations from Technical Working Groups.
Phase II: Regional Workshops, June 2018 – November 2018
Gather and synthesize input on Draft Framework through regional workshops.
Phase III: Revised Monitoring Framework, December 2018 – February
2019
Develop Revised Monitoring Framework based on Regional Workshops and Agency
Meetings/Feedback.
Phase IV: Monitoring Data Collection at Pilot Sites, June 2019 -
September 2019.
Conduct training with monitoring teams at the beginning of monitoring season.
Implement Revised Monitoring Framework to monitoring of pilot sites: target of 4 sites
(2 nature-based, 1 natural, and 1 structural feature) per region (Long Island, New York
City, Hudson River, Great Lakes).
Synthesize findings from pilot application of monitoring framework, and make
recommendations for framework modification based on the pilot application.
Phase V: Final Monitoring Framework, August 2019 - January 2020
Finalize the Monitoring Framework based on feedback and recommendations from pilot
testing.
Develop database to house data collection, and populate with collected data from pilot
sites.
Publish and circulate final monitoring framework (including an informational webinar
open to public and all stakeholders contacted throughout the process).
Write and submit manuscript for peer review.
