CICEET Progress Report for the period 3/01/08 Through 8/31/08

Project Title: Mitigating Shoreline Erosion along the Hudson River Estuary’s Sheltered Coasts
Principal Investigator(s): Betsy Blair, Hudson River NERR (HRNERR)
Project Start Date: 8-1-08
Report Compiled By: Betsy Blair

Figures

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Tables

Table 1

• Established a small coordinating team to oversee project development and to insure close coordination with other regional and state initiatives on climate change.
• Coordinating Team members began discussions with Pat Field and Ona Ferguson of the Consensus Building Institute, the group selected to work with the Coordinating Team and Project Team in order to facilitate use of a joint fact finding process.

Evaluate and compare ecological functions of six types of natural and engineered shoreline present in the Hudson Estuary.
Dave Strayer and Stuart Findlay (Cary IES) were awarded funding by the Hudson River Foundation for a two-year research project to investigate the ecological functions of Hudson River shorelines in the freshwater tidal reaches. This work is being done in collaboration with the Hudson River NERR (HRNERR), with the HRNERR portion funded by New York State. This information will be used to evaluate tradeoffs in ecosystem services that arise from different erosion prevention measures.

In fall, 2007, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies (Cary IES) documented the physical structure of the shorelines through study of ten physical and chemical variables that have been shown to affect ecological structure and function in other habitats. In summer, 2008, invertebrate biodiversity and abundance (Cary IES) and fish biodiversity (HRNERR) were studied. Data have been analyzed using ANOVA and an exploratory regression analysis.

Findings to date (Dave Strayer): Regardless of what ecological variable is measured, there is a great deal of variation in the ecological attributes of different shorelines along the Hudson River. Some of this variation is clearly related to the type or physical structure of the shoreline. For example, fish communities clearly differ among the different shoreline types. Relatively flat and featureless sandy shores support large numbers of small fish, physically complex shorelines such as rock and riprap support moderate numbers and high diversity of larger fish, and vertical seawalls support very few fish of any kind. The species composition of the fish community composition also is related to the shoreline type. The physical structure of the shoreline also affects its ecological function. For instance, flatter shorelines accumulate more organic matter, which serves both as shelter and a food source for organisms, and is a hotspot for biogeochemical cycling. The fact that humans often steepen shorelines by converting them to vertical seawalls or steep revetments may hamper the ecological value of many shorelines.

Develop more accurate regional projections of climate impacts.
No work was done on this objective for this project, although other related work has progressed independently, and will be factored into a revised scope for this project element.

Conduct an engineering analysis to evaluate selected shore protection measures
Work on this objective is scheduled to begin in spring, 2009.

Characterize the short- and long-term costs of different shoreline hardening, vegetating approaches, and land use management measures used to control erosion.

• Made project presentation at NERRS Annual Meeting (November, 2008) and solicited input from NOAA and NERRS colleagues
• Reviewed literature on quantification of ecosystem services (August, 2008 to February, 2009)
• Consulted informally with selected stakeholders and prospective users of cost information, including staff of the New York State Emergency Management Office, the Hudson River Estuary Program, the New York Ocean and Great Lakes Ecosystem Conservation Council, the New York State Climate Change Office, about cost information needs.

Participate in a multi-stakeholder scenario planning process
Developed and executed subcontract with the Nature Conservancy, Eastern New York Chapter, to underwrite and participate in the Rising Waters scenario project.

The Nature Conservancy’s Eastern NY Chapter advanced Rising Waters, a multi-stakeholder scenario planning process to think about the future of the Hudson River Estuary, and how we collectively can best adapt to expected future changes in climate. Rising Waters has been facilitated by Steve Aldrich of Bio Economic Research Associates. Shorelines project Coordinating Team members Kristin Marcell, David Van Luven, Stuart Findlay, and Betsy Blair all participated in the Rising Waters Steering Committee, Scenario Development Team, and other work groups. Rising Waters Progress Report (by David Van Luven), with background beginning in April, 2008

(1) We held a Scoping Workshop in April, 2009 with approximately 100 representatives of a broad set of stakeholder groups, including financial and insurance companies, conservation organizations, research institutions, county planning agencies, state government agencies, and marina owners. In the workshop, we introduced participants to the scenario building process and then collectively identified the elements that the scenarios would need to contain, particularly driving forces (such as economic considerations and natural processes), prime community movers (whether for change or the status quo), major uncertainties, and primary concerns.

(2) In May, 2008, we convened the first meeting of the 21-member Scenarios Team and began to develop written scenarios.

(3) The first round of draft scenarios were reviewed by about 75 stakeholders in a second Vetting Workshop in June, 2008. Participants in the workshop provided extensive constructive feedback and advice on which aspects of the scenarios were plausible, understandable, and compelling.

(4) Beginning in July and continuing through August, 2008, small Working Groups of experts and knowledgeable participants worked through the scenarios in the context of: Infrastructure, Ecosystems, Government, Agriculture, Communications/Community Impacts, Technology & Economic Issues, and Climate Information. The Scenarios Team and 8-member Steering Committee then met by phone through early September to integrate the information into a revised set of scenarios. These new scenarios more effectively highlighted the implications of climate change for communities and natural systems, and ways different decisions by communities would mitigate or amplify the different climate change impacts.

(5) In late September, 2008, more than 50 stakeholders met in a third day-long Implications Workshop to review the new scenarios for plausibility and accuracy, and to consider the implications of climate change in the different scenarios on shorelines, floodwaters, and more.

(6) Through October and early November, 2008, the Working Groups and Steering Committee finalized the scenarios and integrated additional technical information into them.

(7) In late November, 2008, approximately 50 stakeholders convened for a fourth Strategies Workshop to begin identifying potential response ideas in the context of the four final scenarios.

(8) In December, 2008 and January, 2009, the Scenarios Team and Steering Committee refined the broad list of potential response ideas into a discrete set of 80 concise response options.

Identify stakeholders
HRNERR staff began development of database of shoreline landowners and other stakeholders (property owners, experts and consultants, government regulators, and policy- and law-makers), and identified government officials in shoreline municipalities

Assess stakeholders’ needs for information and training
Work on this objective is scheduled to begin later in the project.

Develop and begin implementation of a communications and outreach plan
Work on this objective is scheduled to begin later in the project.

Data Generated to date
See attached table and graphs on shoreline ecosystem services, prepared by Dave Strayer.

Project Objectives for Next Reporting Period

Describe technical and non-technical objectives

• Establish overall management structure and process for collaboration, identify participant roles, and adjust project schedule.
• Coordinate sub-projects to insure effective sequencing, efficient use of stakeholder contacts, transfer of data, and communications.
• Complete Rising Waters project reports; explore use of scenarios and project reports in advancing the shorelines project, especially implementation of shoreline adaptation strategies.
• Define a process for calculating economic costs that will result in information that will be useable to primary stakeholders.
• Launch engineering sub-project.
• Wrap up ecosystem services project.
• Implement an updated climate downscaling project, as needed.

Outline work plan to meet identified objectives

• Work with Consensus Building Institute to clarify project process and schedule. Finalize subcontract with CBI in April.
• Convene a meeting of Project Team in May and hold monthly conference calls for team members to share info on progress.
• Meet with engineering project manager in April, and finalize subcontract in April.
• Work with Coordinating Team and CBI in April to define the cost calculations process.
• Complete assessment of stakeholder needs and preferences for cost data.
• Clarify current climate downscaling needs given recent climate research, revise scope of work, and execute sub-contract.

Expenditures
Expenditures are currently below the range expected because we are still executing subcontracts. This will quickly correct itself once the subcontracts are in place.

What else?
The Governor’s budget provided for the elimination of the Greenway Conservancy (the UNH contract recipient for this project) in the 2009 New York State budget. If this comes to pass, the governor proposes to transfer existing Greenway funds and contractual commitments to another agency. This situation remains fluid.