Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwer
tyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio
pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwerty
uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrty
uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw
Applying Engineering Management Concepts to Address the Effects of Sea Level Rise on High-Risk Properties in
Norfolk, VA
2/28/2013
Thomas Brasek
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This paper uses engineering management concepts to address adaptation strategy activities
in response to regional sea level rise (SLR) in Southeastern Virginia. In particular, Norfolk is
encountering the complex challenges incident to climate change: rising seas and tides, more
extensive flooding, increasing frequency and intensity of adverse weather and accelerated
shoreline erosion. The impacts are far-reaching across the city and trends show that the
problem is getting worse. Engineering management concepts such as knowledge
management, systems analysis, engineering design, project management, environmental
planning and stakeholder consensus are useful when confronting “wicked” problems such as
this. The nature of the adaptation strategy is formulated using a systems-based perspective,
which is the foundation for the methodology. The strategy must be rigorous enough to help
authorities, businesses, property owners, and community planners in Norfolk cope with the
dynamic changes, higher uncertainty, and growing complexity due to SLR-based inundation
and erosion. The methodology is applied to a high-risk property in Norfolk, which serves as
a “roadmap” for prospective planners. Finally, the paper concludes with implications,
evaluates the project using objective assessment criteria, and recommends a way ahead for
taking on SLR-related issues both at the local and regional levels.
i
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
Background .................................................................................................................. 1
Context and Terminology ............................................................................................. 2
Issue Importance ......................................................................................................... 4
Project Definition ............................................................................................................. 5
Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 5
Objectives .................................................................................................................... 5
Project Focus and Significance .................................................................................... 5
Project Framing ............................................................................................................... 7
SLR-Induced Problems Facing Norfolk ........................................................................ 7
Complex Systems Problem Perspective .................................................................... 13
Assumptions and Limitations ..................................................................................... 14
Project Approach ........................................................................................................... 15
Overview .................................................................................................................... 15
Developing the Systemic Approach ........................................................................... 16
Analytical Strategy ..................................................................................................... 17
Systemic Perspective ................................................................................................. 18
Systems Model .......................................................................................................... 20
SSM Application ......................................................................................................... 22
Project Results and Implications ................................................................................... 28
Data Interpretation: Methodology Outputs ................................................................ 28
Application of the Methodology .................................................................................. 29
Output Enablers and Constraints ............................................................................... 31
Project Management ..................................................................................................... 33
Overview .................................................................................................................... 33
Design Parameters and Specifications ...................................................................... 33
Design Issues ............................................................................................................ 38
Project Evaluation and Recommendations .................................................................... 39
Complex Systems Failures ........................................................................................ 39
iii
Framework for Project Evaluation .............................................................................. 41
Recommendations and Implications at the Local Level ............................................. 42
Local Level Implications and Recommendations as a Result of the Project .............. 44
Implications and Recommendations Beyond the Local Level .................................... 46
Conclusions and Discussion of Deliverables ................................................................. 47
References .................................................................................................................... 49
Appendices .................................................................................................................. 52
Appendix A: “Living Shoreline” Treatment General Assumptions ............................. 52
Appendix B: “Living Shoreline” Treatment Critical Knowledge Factors ..................... 53
Appendix C: “Living Shoreline” Treatment Stakeholder Analysis .............................. 54
Appendix D: “Living Shoreline” Treatment Technical Specifications ......................... 56
Appendix E: Optimistic, Pessimistic and Most Likely Times for WBS Activities ........ 59
Appendix F: “Living Shoreline” Critical Path Activities ............................................... 61
Appendix G: Probability of Completing “Living Shoreline” Project on Time ............... 63
Appendix H: “Living Shoreline” Resource Loading Matrix ......................................... 65
Appendix I: “Living Shoreline” Time-Phased and WBS-Based Budgeting ................ 71
Appendix J: “Living Shoreline” Project Risk Management Assessment .................... 75
Appendix K: Student Biographical Data .................................................................... 78
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I express my sincerest appreciation to Mr. Kevin Du Bois from the City of Norfolk
Environmental Planning Division, Ms. Elizabeth Smith of ODU’s Climate Change and Sea
Level Rise Initiative (CCSLRI), and Ms. Shereen Hughes of the Wetlands Watch
organization for their dedicated support in this ongoing endeavor.
1
INTRODUCTION
Background: Authorities, land owners, businesses, and community planners in
Tidewater Virginia are being challenged by the negative effects of rising sea levels. This
inevitable phenomenon will force regional property owners to either adapt to or abandon
rapidly growing flood zones in the local communities. Former Old Dominion University
(ODU) president James Koch, in his annual State of the Region report, called sea-level
rise “the problem of the 21st century for Hampton Roads.” His assertion applies
specifically to Norfolk, which has experienced the highest relative increase in sea level
on the Eastern seaboard (14.5 inches since 1930). Rising sea levels have made the
region more vulnerable to storms, flooding, and tidal surges. Only New Orleans and
Corpus Christi are worse (Koch, 2010; McFarlane and Walberg, 2011).
The impacts of the changing climate are nowhere more imminent or intense than in
the coastal zones. Rising global temperatures, thermal water expansion, and land base
subsidence are all contributing to the following: sea level rise (SLR), altered precipitation
patterns, more frequent adverse weather effects, accelerated coastal erosion, increased
coastal water sedimentation, further saltwater intrusion of ground water, greater potential
for pollution from runoff and destroyed infrastructure. Paradoxically, reckoning with SLR is
easily postponed because it is not perceived as an immediate management concern. Yet
it cannot be ignored because of its potential for long-term, irreversible impacts on coastal
land use, populations, economies, and ecologies (Moser, 2005). Adaptation strategies
using engineering management concepts must be developed and applied to help Norfolk
residents confront these issues.
2
Context and Terminology: Methods for Managing SLR
Nicholls et al. (2008) discusses that SLR effects can have direct and indirect socio-
economic impacts depending upon human exposure to these changes. The coastal
system can be defined in terms of interacting natural and socio-economic systems. Both
systems are dynamic and complex, but adjustment can be distinguished in two forms:
autonomous and planned adaptation. Autonomous adaptation represents the natural
adaptive response to SLR such as increased vertical accretion of coastal wetlands within
the natural system. Bay tidal wetlands can help reduce future coastal flooding impacts
from SLR and may be permanently inundated or eroded as a result of SLR unless (1)
adequate amounts of sediments and/or production of organic matter allow marsh
elevations to rise at the same pace of SLR and/or (2) the wetlands are able to migrate
inland as the water levels rise (Culver et al., 2009). Autonomous adaptation is often
lessened or may be halted by human-induced, non-climatic influences.
On the other hand, planned adaptation, which emerges from socio-economic
systems, can reduce SLR-based vulnerabilities by a range of different methods. Ideally,
there are three (3) generic approaches (Volk, 2011):
Protection is the approach in which natural systems are controlled by hard or soft
engineering thereby reducing human influences in the zones that would be impacted
without the protection.
Managed Retreat employs the method in which all natural systems are allowed to
occur and human impacts are marginalized by “withdrawing” from the coast.
Accommodation is another approach where all natural systems effects are permitted
to occur and impacts are minimized by adjusting human use of the coastal zones.
3
These approaches can be then discretely categorized further into several different
planned adaptive methods to address SLR and coastal flooding as follows (Tam, 2009):
Barrier: a dam, gate, or lock or series of them managing tidal flows/ebbs.
Coastal armoring: linear shoreline protection in the form of seawalls or levees.
Elevated development: raising the height of the land and/or existing development.
Floating development: structures that either float permanently or are floatable in the
event of flooding. This concept is often referred to as “aquatecture.”
Floodable development: structures designed to withstand flooding or retain water.
Managed retreat: planned abandonment of threatened areas near the shoreline.
Living Shoreline: use of natural means (i.e., marshes/wetlands) to absorb
floodwaters, inhibit erosion, and provide habitat.
The advantages and disadvantages of the above methods are provided in Table 1.
Table 1: Advantages and Disadvantages of Methods for Managing SLR
Method Advantages Disadvantages
Barrier - Protects large areas from flooding - Can regulate flow & water level
- Expensive to construct - Ecologically damaging
Coastal Armoring
- Fixes shoreline in place - Good storm surge protection - Protects high value properties or threatened habitats
- Requires periodic maintenance - “Re-engineering” may be needed to accommodate storm surge and rising baseline sea levels
Elevated Development
- Enables flood-prone area building - Can retrofit low-lying infrastructure
- Alters shoreline characteristics - May require erosion protection
Floating Development
- Manages tide/flooding uncertainty - Resilient to seismic activity
- Not feasible for high-energy shorelines (high wind & waves)
Floodable Development
- Suite of tools selectable to the site - Better suited for urban areas
- Relatively untested concept - Damage beyond design volume
4
Managed Retreat
- Minimizes infrastructure damage through planned relocation - Enhances natural restoration
- Expensive to relocate heavily developed areas - Complex legal and equity issues
Living Shoreline
- Naturally adaptive to flooding - Creates critical natural habitat
- Needs greater land management - Requires time & monitoring
Issue Importance: As discussed, Norfolk is being challenged by a host of complex SLR-
induced issues. The mitigation methods ought to be developed on a strategic level
(region or community) so that they can be better applied at a tactical level (individual
neighborhoods and property owners). The methods discussed above as planned
adaptation strategies are neither an exhaustive nor extensive range of options. There will
be both benefits and drawbacks with each strategy, and a “one-size-fits-all” solution does
not exist. Some of these strategies may even be combined together. The implementation
of these strategies must be a collaborative approach seeking to enhance stakeholder
knowledge and build relationships.
The most significant shortfall facing Norfolk residents is the absence of a “go-to”
centralized authority and comprehensive plan regarding SLR issues, which results in
formulation of individual mitigation efforts that do not support an overarching plan. City
environmental planners are advocating the use of “living shoreline” treatment for erosion
control, but it is not part of a written policy or overall planned adaptation strategy. This
paper discusses a specific application of this treatment using a high-risk property in
Norfolk’s Larchmont section. This example ought to influence other local property owners
to consider a SLR management approach using a “living shoreline” treatment, which
provides good erosion control benefits while enhancing the natural local shoreline
5
habitats. Although the best SLR method for a specific case depends upon numerous
input factors, since most properties on Norfolk were built around tidal marshes and
wetlands, the assumption for employing this approach is very feasible.
There are a number of distinct issues which need to be addressed prior to
developing a methodology used as a countermeasure for the negative effects of SLR.
PROJECT DEFINITION
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to use engineering management concepts to
address adaptation strategy activities in response to regional SLR in Norfolk, Virginia.
Engineering management concepts such as knowledge management, systems analysis,
engineering design, project management, environmental planning, and stakeholder
consensus are useful when confronting complex problems like this one.
Objectives: The following objectives are presented to support the project’s purpose:
Develop the methodology needed to address a complex system using systems
analysis.
Employ knowledge management to foster stakeholder consensus and analysis via a
participatory approach.
Use engineering design and environmental planning along with project management
for executing a “living shoreline” treatment project on a high-risk property in Norfolk.
Influence Norfolk property owners to consider this treatment as an environmentally
responsible and financially reasonable approach addressing the consequences of
SLR.
Emphasize the need for an overarching SLR adaptation strategy for Norfolk under the
auspices of a centralized responsible agency.
6
Evaluate project effectiveness using objective assessment criteria.
Project Focus and Significance: This project will focus on SLR adaptation strategies
for Norfolk, Virginia. The specifics involve analyzing the dynamic factors to assist regional
property owners and other stakeholders understand the issues, perspectives, and
irrationalities to help them make informed decisions. An iterative decision-making
process will produce plans in which resources are converted into systems meeting human
needs and solving problems. Project thinking is important for effective systems
organization to achieve complex problem resolution. There must be compatibility among
the problem, problem domain, expectations and resources (M5I: manpower, material,
money, methods, minutes, and information). A “first-pass yield” solution might not be
sufficient. The initial plan developed may require further data collection and processing,
negotiating, and problem solving.
The analytic strategy is the design for qualitative and quantitative exploration
required to understand and make decisions concerning this complex problem. It entails
strategy formulation, data qualification and gathering, data analysis methods, and data
interpretation. The project expectations include developing methods for decision-making,
interpretation, action, and assessment to support effective technical management. The
strategy ought to provide a basis for reframing the problem if required. The methodology
should then be tested to assess its effectiveness. Therefore, it is applied to a high-risk
property in Norfolk that can be used as a baseline for developing an overarching SLR
adaptive strategy at the local and regional levels.
The property used illustratively here has been subjected to the deteriorative
shoreline erosion resulting from rising sea levels and destructive effects of recent storms.
7
The combined effects resulted in the loss of about 145 ft2 of dry land property since April
2005. It is situated also on protected wetlands and is subjected to stringent environmental
regulations. The landowner will draft the needed paperwork (design and permits),
research and select required materials, perform needed manual labor, furnish all
monetary expenses, and provide lessons learned at local outreach programs.
PROBLEM FRAMING: level, scope, environment, goal, data set
There are a host of issues which must be identified, analyzed, and framed within the
proper context to develop the appropriate strategy. Engineering management concepts
such as systems analysis and knowledge management are useful in helping to properly
frame this complex problem. SLR and its coastal inundation effects in Tidewater Virginia
belong to a category of dilemmas called “wicked problems.” These are problems which
cannot be “solved” in and of themselves, but they can be properly managed within certain
bounds. Wicked problems are cross-disciplinary and are viewed from multiple
perspectives. Therefore, it is important to identify the critical elements and then gain
consensus on the problem situation to be addressed from as many stakeholders as
possible. Obtaining an acceptable answer to the correct problem is better than solving
the wrong problem precisely and committing a Type III error. A systems-based
methodology will provide an approach for the detailed examination of the operational
structure. Therefore, defining mechanisms are essential to defining system structure and
identifying “entering arguments” for framing this complex problem.
SLR-Induced Problems Facing Norfolk: Norfolk authorities, landowners, businesses,
and community planners have to reconcile actions for the following problems:
8
Problem #1: Climate change and SLR effects are inundating Virginia’s coastal zones
Problem Statement: Virginia has the highest rate of measured SLR of any state on the
eastern seaboard. An increase of 1.45 feet was registered by the Sewell’s Point tidal
gauge from 1909 to 2009 (NOAA Tidal Gauges, US Climate Change Program 2009); the
rate of sea level rise at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel is 4.42 millimeters/year from
1927 to 2010 (Kilroy and Beatley, 2011, Ezer and Corlett, 2012).
Context: Relative sea level rise is being driven by two factors: absolute sea level rise and
land subsidence. The latter factor accounts for about one-third to one-half of the relative
SLR. As global average temperatures continue to increase, absolute sea levels will also
rise. By the year 2100, average temperatures are expected to rise by 5.1oF with annual
precipitation increasing by 11 percent. The aggregate result of these phenomena will
contribute to the existing SLR problem. Much of the East Coast of the United States can
expect to experience rises in sea level by about one meter by the turn of the next century
(McFarlane and Walberg, 2010; Hoyer, 2010) Moreover, the flat topography of Tidewater
Virginia could contribute to an average storm surge increase of about 3 feet over this
same time period (Harper, 2013).
Dynamics: Climate change is not only contributing to increasing coastal flooding but also
the frequency, intensity, and duration of adverse weather activity. Accelerated shoreline
erosion, loss of habitats (wetlands), saline intrusion of groundwater, and
property/infrastructure damage are the unintended consequences. The combined effects
of sediment compaction and groundwater withdrawal are causing the Tidewater Virginia
region to “sink,” which is resulting in the high disparity in relative SLR (Harper, 2010 and
9
Fears, 2012). For perspective, a one-meter SLR has the potential of inundating about 30
percent of the City of Norfolk (Brighton, 2012).
Perspectives: Scientists and academia have developed a myriad of theories regarding
climate change. Most of them agree that global warming is occurring as a result of
excessive greenhouse gas emissions due to human activity in burning carbon-based fuels.
Melting of polar icecaps and shifting Gulf Stream patterns are the key drivers for SLR on
the East Coast (Paskoff, 2006; Ezer and Corlett, 2012).
Problem #2: Regional economic and strategic activities are at risk
Problem System: Tidewater Virginia has significant economic and strategic assets and
activities being impacted by the increased flooding, accelerated shoreline erosion, and
more frequent storm surges and tidal actions.
Context: Tidewater Virginia was ranked as tenth in the world for assets at risk from SLR
(Nicholls et al., 2008). The region is home to numerous military and government
installations as well as other shoreline industrial sectors, such as marine terminals and
shipyards. In a nearby locality, the Virginia Beach waterfront has infrastructure which
supports the local economy through tourism. Many of the above activities are built on
low-lying ground, which are experiencing significant flooding and erosion problems.
Dynamics: The land recession threatens billions of dollars of oceanfront investments
focused just on tourism. SLR is already causing significant flooding issues in the older
shoreline communities, causing millions of dollars in adaptation efforts. Norfolk City alone
spends $6 million per year on flood mitigation and erosion control projects ranging from
overhauling storm drains, installing bulkheads in low-lying developments, and extending
10
outfall pipes in some of the waterfront residential areas (Hoyer, 2010). But the city’s
annual budget for addressing these issues is only $3 million (Hutchins, 2011).
Perspectives: The built environment in Tidewater Virginia has significant assets that are
vital to our local economy and national security. Both public and private infrastructure is
vulnerable, and adaptive strategies to protect these assets will cost time and money. A
comprehensive plan that does not include protection of certain high-risk zones will force
individual business and land owners to plan/fund/execute their own mitigation projects.
Problem #3: Wetlands, critical habitats, and natural systems are threatened
Problem System: Increasing inundation (levels and frequencies) is threatening the
natural systems in Southeastern Virginia.
Context: Higher tidal waters pose significant potential impacts to coastal ecosystems.
This includes loss of primary coastal dunes to erosion, loss of existing aquatic vegetation
(due to water clarity issues, rising water temperatures, and increased water depths) and
flooding of vegetative wetlands in intertidal zones (Pyke et al., 2008). These
environments support not only human systems, but also flora and fauna native to the
region as well as many migratory bird species. The wetlands are vital to the health of
Virginia’s ecosystems. They filter nutrients, sediment, and pollution from surface and
ground water, absorb excess flood and rain water, protect the shoreline from erosion, and
provide a habitat to native plants, animals, and birds (Brechwald, 2011).
Dynamics: Tidal wetlands can accrete vertically and have kept pace with past rates of
SLR. However, changes in sediment budgets, wetlands health, and accelerating SLR
can “overpower” this ability to accrete vertically. Due to SLR, the intertidal zones are
11
moving landward to their coastal ecosystems. The shoreward movement eventually
causes the wetlands to “drown in place” due to the presence of more hardened shoreline
infrastructures. Regional experts estimate that Virginia stands to lose about 50 to 80
percent of its tidal wetlands over the next century (Stiles, 2010).
Perspectives: Most of the infrastructure in Tidewater Virginia is built around tidal marshes
and wetlands. Regional environmental groups and city planners advocate the use of
“soft” structures such as living shorelines to preserve the existing wetlands and curb the
negative effects of increased seawater inundation.
Problem #4: Insurance premiums are increasing
Problem System: Nationwide, insurance premiums for home and business owners in
coastal communities have become more expensive and more difficult to obtain from
private insurance agencies. This condition is especially true in Tidewater Virginia.
Context: Devastating “megastorms” such as Hurricane Katrina have brought this issue
to the forefront. The most recent disaster, Hurricane Sandy, was one of the most costly
storms in American history and is still negatively impacting insurance agency profit
margins with some agencies reporting losses up to 77 percent during the last quarter of
2012 (Lubber, 2013). Risk modelers hired by insurance companies are updating their
schemata to include increasing SLR and water temperatures, both of which are resulting
in higher intensity storms and more frequent flooding activities (Shean, 2008).
Dynamics: The vulnerability of coastal properties and infrastructure to damage is
increasing as are the assets at-risk, while more high-risk development continues along
Virginia’s shorelines. Banks will not issue mortgages to new homeowners in high-risk
12
areas without flood insurance, which is becoming more difficult and expensive to obtain.
Insurance policy “blue-lining” is being implemented, in which some agencies will deny
new policies, reduce existing coverage, or cancel policies altogether. Other property
owners able to maintain coverage are faced with higher premiums and steeper
deductions (Smitherman, 2007). In Virginia, underwriting standards are not regulated so
the state has very little leverage to force private insurance companies to provide
coverage.
Perspectives: Insurance agencies, like other businesses, are seeking to maximize profits.
Since an excessive number of claims will impact profit margins, insurance firms are forced
to reconsider the number and types of policies based on risk analyses. In any case,
home, property, and business owners/renters will feel the impact either through lost
coverage or increased premiums/steeper deductions.
Problem #5: Lack of “centralized” authority and comprehensive plan
Problem System: There is no go-to authority for Norfolk (and Tidewater Virginia) business
and property owners to provide policy, guidance, and funding options for SLR adaptation
strategies.
Context: Communities and property owners at risk do not have a clear point of contact
for assistance from a central government agency. For example, if a property owner
desires to implement a SLR adaptation strategy to address an erosion control problem,
then the individual is forced to navigate and obtain compliance to a series of federal, state,
and local government requirements without a single, responsible point of contact.
Therefore, the individual projects are executed more in piecemeal, ad hoc fashion, which
is not normally part of an overall community adaptation strategy.
13
Dynamics: The implementation of a joint permit application (JPA) has streamlined the
process for individuals seeking approval for remediation projects. However, the JPA must
be presented and approved by federal (US Army Corps of Engineers), state (Department
of Environmental Quality), and local (City Planning) organizations. Since most of the built
environments are constructed around wetlands, the project must be briefed to and
approved by a local Wetlands Board. There are other entities that are added and
subtracted from the review, recommendation, and/or approval chain depending upon the
specific application. Nevertheless, the process is cumbersome and time-consuming.
Complex Systems Problem Perspective: Why is this scenario complex?
This situation is a complex problem because of the following dynamics:
This is a “wicked problem” with a large number of agents (stakeholders).
The relationship among stakeholders is complicated and interdependent.
SLR and shoreline inundation has economic, ecological, and strategic impacts.
Both human and natural systems will continue to be affected by higher tidal flows.
Insurance coverage in the region is increasingly difficult to secure and existing policy
premiums continue to rise.
Coastal communities face a significant challenge in attracting the leadership,
interagency governmental coordination, research investments, tool development, and
financial support for implementation of SLR adaptation strategies and policies.
Education and outreach about the situation are more at the “grassroots” level.
By and large, Norfolk property owners are “left on their own” to cope with mitigation.
14
Dynamic Complexity: Dynamic Complexity is marked by emergence in which the system
changes based on changes in the environment. There is much dynamism with
environmental, economic, and strategic assets at risk due to the consequences of climate
change. A large number of entities are involved in “satisficing” the situation (Federal,
state and local government agencies; insurance, financial and academic institutions;
property and business owners, etc.). Research studies have been commissioned to
evaluate the issues and implications, but there is no “problem lead.” The stakeholders must
come together now to address a complex problem regarding the planning, development,
and implementation SLR adaptation strategies for Norfolk.
Adaptivity: A higher degree of adaptivity is seen here as the overall system changes in
response to the changes in the context. For example, it is important to recognize the
implicit knowledge and insight of those who understand the context surrounding this
complex problem. However, in this particular scenario, the overall system adaptivity is
hampered somewhat by the lack of an overarching strategy.
Emergence: Overall this is a complex system, which exhibits internal elaboration with
evidence of emergence over time. The global effects of climate change are seemingly
irreversible and are expected to worsen over time. This will add further complexity to the
system. A “quick-fix” approach without considering the interrelated key elements will not
produce a meaningful outcome.
Project Assumptions: The following assumptions are applicable to this project:
Norfolk is a large coastal urban center located on low-lying areas prone to inundation.
The city will continue to be subjected to episodic flooding due to storms, but land loss
due to SLR-induced lateral erosion is permanent.
15
Norfolk’s coastal zone is defined by interactions between natural and socio-economic
systems. These interactions are both complex and dynamic.
Stakeholders can be identified with defined roles and responsibilities.
Technological tools are capable of generating data (encroachment, hydrodynamics,
and inundation) for vulnerability indices and mapping to determine high-risk areas in
the region.
An adaptation strategy can be tailored to specific applications and multiple
approaches may be combined.
SLR adaptation is an iterative process, which must be consistently revisited as new
information becomes available.
Project Limitations: There are several limitations associated with the approach to be
devised. Specifically, this project cannot:
Fully incorporate socio-economic analyses.
Develop the necessary policy, legislative, and regulatory modifications or identify the
funding sources and financial incentives to implement and sustain approved mitigation
approaches.
Represent the community and individual property owners’ legal frameworks and
administrative structures (zoning, permitting, tax basing, and legal restrictions).
Obtain the level of fidelity needed to be truly predictive for the number of Norfolk
enclaves and property owners that will need information.
Incorporate specific agreements, shared plans, and objectives between regional
observing and governance groups.
PROJECT APPROACH
16
Overview: This problem approach is organized to develop first the background for the
systemic view of SLR adaptation strategies for the Tidewater Virginia region. Second,
indicators are identified to properly frame the problem situation. Next, the nature of the
adaptation strategies is formulated using a systems-based perspective, which is the
foundation for the methodology. The methodology is then presented, discussed at recent
Hampton Roads SLR adaptation workshops, and applied to an individual, high-risk
property in Norfolk. Engineering management concepts (systems analysis and
knowledge management) will be used to formulate this approach.
Developing the Systemic Perspective: Application of Systems Principles There are three key principles that apply to this particular problem, and these help inform
the systemic perspective as follows:
Satisficing: There will never be an “optimal” solution for SLR adaptation, but one can be
found that adequately addresses the issue and “satisfies” the complex problem scenario.
This “satisficing” concept needs to be considered when aligning the context, framing,
approach, and expectations. Furthermore, identifying an appropriate solution must be
predicated on the available resources and the best probability of success for all
stakeholders, but particularly Norfolk landowners.
Transferability: SLR adaptation strategies must be transferable to all Norfolk property
owners, businesses and community planners. However, each application is unique, and
there is not a “one size fits all” approach on a tactical level. The policies, guidance, and
tools developed and implemented locally should be capable of being shared with other
coastal communities such as New Orleans, Corpus Christi, and Miami, which are
suffering similar destructive SLR-related impacts.
17
Sustainability: The solution must be capable of addressing the problem on both near-
term and sustainable bases. Climate change is making an indelible mark on the region
due to increased flooding, storm surges, shoreline erosion, and saltwater intrusion.
Unfortunately, the situation appears to be irreversible. Thus the research, planning, and
vulnerability studies ought to continue to ensure the City of Norfolk is best postured to
respond and take a leadership role in this global issue. A sustainable local strategy ought
to be the city’s primary objective. In turn, individual mitigation projects must be property
aligned with this strategy.
Analytical Strategy: The analytic strategy is the design for qualitative and quantitative
exploration needed to understand and make decisions concerning a complex problem.
It entails strategy formulation, data gathering, analysis methods, and data interpretation.
The strategy ought to provide a basis for “reframing” the problem if required.
Globally, a recent UN Conference on Climate change in Copenhagen underscored
that not enough is being done to support mechanisms between scientific knowledge and
adaptation policies in mobilizing stakeholders (people, businesses, and institutions) to
prepare for the negative impacts of rising seas. Multiple dimensions in the coastal system
include the bio-physical, economic, social, and institutional arrangements of coastal
communities (Lane and Watson, 2010).
Criteria are given relative to the broad definition of participating groups within coastal
communities: (1) governance and local policy makers, (2) public and private infrastructure
communities, (3) business and economic activity organizations, (4) citizens’ interest
groups, and (5) special interest groups (conservation and environmental). The analytical
approach captures and profiles community data via graphical information system (GIS),
18
which identifies sensitive areas to storm surge, erosion, and SLR. The decision model
compares among stakeholders alternative evaluations or community adaptation strategies
in the face of extreme weather conditions and provides a ranked group decision evaluation
procedure to assist decision-makers in operational and strategic negotiation and
evaluations (Paskoff, 2006).
Is the solution deterministic and probabilistic? No, but the situation can be improved. The
problem statement is formulated by information provided. Literature review is an
important part of problem solving. There are other coastal communities (nationally or
globally) experiencing similar challenges. Although the magnitude and specifics may
differ, the concepts are essentially the same. Lastly, any models formulated must be
tested with empirical data in the form of case studies to the maximum extent possible.
Systemic Perspective: What must be addressed to avoid a Type III system error?
This project focuses on local SLR adaptation strategies. The specifics involve analyzing
the dynamic factors to help Norfolk property owners and other stakeholders understand
the issues, perspectives and irrationalities to influence informed decisions. The systemic
approach applied in this scenario must take into account the following concepts:
Uniqueness of problem and context: An “off-the-shelf” approach will not likely work. Case
studies are available which examine strategies for SLR mitigation, adaptation, and
accommodation in other vulnerable areas in the United States. Some of the
circumstances, however, are unique to those particular regions and may not be fully
relevant to Norfolk stakeholders.
19
Human influences: Modeling and simulation are effective and can help develop
simulation methodology to determine which areas of a coastal community are most
vulnerable to destructive SLR effects. Also, these models will help identify some of the
interactions between natural and socio-economic systems. However, this logic and
science must be reconciled with “human” needs. In other words, irrationalities will be
introduced into the design. Decision-makers will have to determine the “best fit” based
on allocation of resources such as time, manpower, and finances. Regardless, these
approaches will not address the root cause of SLR (i.e., global warming and climate
change).
Iteration of understanding: An iterative decision-making process will produce plans in
which resources are converted into systems meeting human needs and solving problems.
The initial plan developed may require further data collection and processing, negotiating,
and problem solving.
Emergence (instabilities in the environment): As the design is being formulated, there will
be new instabilities (relationships, limitations, constraints, etc.) to consider. For example,
some of the socio-economic factors (population growth, coastal development trends,
insurance subsidization, effects on fisheries, etc.) may change, which will need to be
factored into the design process.
Compatibility: There must be compatibility among the problem, problem domain,
expectations and resources (M5I: manpower, material, money, methods, minutes, and
information). Ultimately, there must be shared stakeholder consensus.
Misclassification: The solution to an improperly framed problem can lead to costly
consequences (i.e., poor resource allocation, wasted time, etc.). For example, a
20
community decides to address shoreline erosion along a bay using coastal armoring (hard
structuring) to support the new development of luxury condominiums. One of the builders
contends that a seawall (coastal armoring) was used effectively to fortify a construction
project located alongside marshlands in another state.
Armoring is one of the oldest flood protection tools but is only engineered as a
short-term solution for a certain storm size and relative SLR change. Coastal armoring
must be designed by considering the system’s energy level (oceans, bays, rivers,
streams, watersheds, and marshes all have varying degrees of wind and wave actions).
The seawall must be monitored and maintained periodically to ensure its integrity.
Paradoxically, a seawall increases vulnerability. Hard shoreline protection is not
as effective as natural shorelines at dissipating the energy from wind and waves. This
makes these structures more vulnerable to erosion, and they actually promote erosion of
nearby unfortified areas such as beaches and natural sand dunes (Tam, 2009). The
structural flood protection can also increase human vulnerability by giving condominium
residents a false sense of security and further encourage development in areas prone to
flooding or storm surge damage. This puts more people and assets at risk.
In the end, this expensive countermeasure does not solve the problem. The
community property owners are unhappy because: (1) private beach owners adjacent to
the complex are coping with excessive shoreline erosion, (2) the seawall dimensions are
not being adjusted to accommodate new sea level baselines, (3) nobody is responsible
for maintaining the seawall, and it was ineffective in preventing the flooding of several
condominiums during a recent nor’easter storm.
Systems Model: Developing the right approach
21
Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) (Checkland, 1999). SSM is appropriate for ambiguous
problem statements with a higher degree of uncertainty using primarily qualitative data.
The problem system boundaries are not normally clearly defined, and the contextual
considerations appear in the foreground. Therefore, SSM applications are best used in
addressing an unstructured problem situation, describing it from as many perspectives as
possible, and using these discussions to develop cogent conceptual systems models.
These models are not used for developing an ultimate solution but rather for instituting
system change. The problem domains often defy those solved using hard systems
approaches with quantitative data collection exclusively.
SSM Benefits: SSM is used to embed the community and individual landowners to
establish local priorities, define the scope of the local research, pinpoint institutional
arrangements, involve decision makers and affected organizations, establish measurable
vulnerability and performance indicators, and develop decision alternatives. SSM is the
tool that addresses the issues with adaptation and sustainable development at the local
community level by acknowledging that human problems are complex and issue-based. It
employs a “participatory” approach requiring interdisciplinary collaboration to develop
solutions. This is accomplished using situational accommodation by community members
rather than through problem optimization. SSM seeks “common ground” through structured
debate on management where the need is for a system of inquiry and adaptive learning,
which reacts to events by responding to behavior rather than changing behavior patterns
and their underlying causes (Senge, 1990).
SSM Problems: SSM has its share of criticisms. First, it is not suited for the design of
complex system solutions where there is a high level of conflict. There is a danger of model
22
“supremacy” in which system experts could potentially create bias by considering their
models more correct or relevant to the problem situation. Additionally, bias can be
introduced via a lack of accountability in power, conflict, and irrationalities inherent in these
ill-structured problems. Conflicts of interest can be introduced at the expense of structured
discussions. Since SSM approaches are participatory in nature, inconsistent worldviews
generated by “homogenous” or “like-mindedness” among the stakeholders will tend to
break down the process. Moreover, the stakeholder must be capable of implementing a
SSM skill set and being a subject matter expert in the problem situation. Lastly, SSM is not
a panacea for addressing all messy, ill-structured problems. It must be tailored to the
situation and is not intended to be a rote application process.
SSM Application: SSM will follow the systems thinking in the seven stages defined and
described by Checkland (1999).
SSM Stage 1: Inquire into the (real world) situation.
Virginia has the highest rates of relative SLR recorded on the East Coast of the United
States (Harper, 2010). The Tidewater region of the state has significant economic and
strategic activities at risk from both current and future SLR projections. This increases
the urgency for coastal Virginia residents to execute SLR adaptive planning and
implementation with the support of federal, state, and local authorities. Presently there is
no single agency responsible for SLR policy, information or guidance to local
communities. Successful adaptation strategies will require all sectors (federal, state,
local, academic, non-governmental and private) to collaborate throughout the process to
provide local communities and homeowners with resources, scientific data, and political
support (Culver et al., 2009). The dynamic regional SLR situation, varying
23
interests/perspectives among the stakeholders, complexity accompanying interagency
coordination, and lack of concise guidance result in an inability to confront the issues
“concretely.” Hence there is the need for SSM.
SSM Stage 2: Describe the (real world) situation.
The Commonwealth of Virginia and many coastal communities have commissioned studies
and are carrying out local research related to SLR. The majority of these efforts are being
conducted by academic institutions like Old Dominion University, the Virginia Institute of
Marine Sciences, and the University of Virginia (Brighton, 2012). Adaptive strategy
“toolkits” are available to businesses and homeowners through non-governmental
organizations and conservation groups such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation,
Wetlands Watch, Elizabeth River Project and The Hermitage Foundation. However, land
use decisions are the domain of local governments and as the inundation and erosion
threats grow in Tidewater Virginia, the local governments need the policy and tools to
develop, fund, and implement mitigation strategies. The situation is expressed by the
interactions between these elements in the “rich picture” below (Figure 1).
24
Figure 1: SSM “Rich Picture” of Interactions
The main issues to address in the SSM are the following: (1) define the SLR problem
situation for Norfolk property owners, (2) explore impacts on the built environment, natural
systems, and regional economy, (3) gather the data, information, and tools, (4) discuss
the approaches for adaptive planning and implementation, and then (5) build and sustain
capacity/support (Culver et al., 2009).
SSM Stage 3: Define relevant systems (“CATWOE” elements identified)
Clarity is acquired through viewing stakeholder perspectives, understanding their
implications, and using these insights to develop conclusions and recommendations for
future action. This stage helps to set up the system conceptualization using Checkland’s
“CATWOE” mnemonic as follows:
(C) Customers: Norfolk property owners, businesses, and community planners.
25
(A) Actors: Federal, state, and local agencies, local coastal communities, academic
institutions, financial and insurance agencies, non-government and private
organizations.
(T) Transformation: Strategic-level (regional) and tactical-level (community &
homeowner) adaptive approaches (i.e., living shorelines, hardened structures,
“aquatecture”, etc.) and SLR “adaption authority” organization.
(W) World View: Improve quality of life/quality of service in Norfolk by providing cost-
effective SLR adaptation strategies that minimize impact on the local economy and
native habitats (wildlife and wetlands), while increasing the resilience of both residents
and the built environment.
(O) Owners: Federal, state, and local governments and their associated agencies.
(E) Environmental Constraints: SLR tactical and strategic approaches might not be
economically feasible and may be unable to keep pace with the present rate of coastal
inundation and shoreline erosion. There may be incongruence between these
approaches in the specific application of problem areas (i.e., land use, storm histories,
“high-energy” versus “low-energy” shorelines, topography, bathymetry, existence of
protected wetlands, habitats, and species, etc.).
SSM Stage 4: Conceptual Modeling
The model consists of the various terms and concepts previously defined in the paper.
Moreover, Lane and Watson (2010) suggest proper modeling simulation requires three
additional groups of parameters:
Visual/Spatial Mapping: Integrated dynamics of the ecological, socioeconomic and
cultural subsystems can be developed using Geographical Information Systems (GIS)
26
software and Google Earth to produce maps, graphs and tables to support analyses.
Mapping is used to simulate/animate storm events supporting community/small group
discussions to help make informed decisions regarding mitigation strategies.
Vulnerability Assessment: Community vulnerability indices are devised using static
and dynamic mapping. These are weighted by the detrimental impacts assessed to
natural systems and economic bases (i.e., loss of property, infrastructure damage,
cleanup/rebuilding costs, etc.).
Adaptive Capacity & Resilience: Models the communities’ aptitude to develop and
implement strategies for environmental changes, which are determined by: (1)
technological options, (2) available resources, (3) structure and decision-making, and
(4) ability to manage information. Adaptation is constrained by the resilience of
“natural” systems in evolution with “human” systems. Resilience refers to the coping
ability of the adaptive capacity of the affected community to recover from a damaging
external impact (flooding, storm surge, erosion, etc.).
The objective of models is to provide a means to structure debate about a problematic
situation. This conceptual model construct is depicted in Figure 2 on the following page.
27
Climate change/SLR
Natural SensitivityNatural Adaptive
Capacity
Natural Vulnerability
Planned
Adaptation
Vulnerability
Assessment
Adaptive Capacity
& Resilience
Visual/Spatial
Mapping
Biogeophysical
effectsHuman
Interferences
Socio-economic
Sensitivity
Socio-economic
Adaptive Capacity
Socio-economic
Vulnerability
Residual Impacts
Policy Options
Autonomous
Adaptation
SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEM
NATURAL SYSTEM
IMPACTS & VULNERABILITIES
Figure 2: Conceptual Model of SLR Adaptive Planning & Implementation
SSM Stage 5: Comparing conceptual model with real world
The conceptual model enables the development and assessment of policy options for
decision-makers. These complement the participant-based SSM to identify areas of
agreement to further investigate and prepare for future environmental scenarios.
Performance indicators can assess the ongoing spatial and temporal status of coastal
properties at risk from adverse environmental effects. Stiles (2010) asserts that the
models will influence the adaptation plans to cope with the SLR risks in Southeastern
Virginia. If the risks become more severe over time, then financial incentives, carefully
planned infrastructure investment, and regulatory programs can be aimed at the high-risk
zones to minimize property owners to the probabilities of higher inundation. Moser (2005)
suggests that uncertainties in the human dimensions of global change deeply affect the
responses to climate change impacts such as SLR.
28
SSM Stage 6: Debate desirable and feasible change
There are several required elements of local government adaptation strategies for SLR,
erosion control, and storm surge protection. The first requirement is public support and
awareness, especially from private landowners, who possess the majority of the properties
in and around Virginia shorelines. Second, technical resources need to be sufficient to
focus and prioritize local government efforts. This information will help to influence
planning, land use, incentives/disincentives, direct investment, and public infrastructure.
Third, financial resources must be made available to meet the adaptation strategy identified
(living shoreline, barrier, coastal armoring, planned retreat, etc.). Direct funding and tax
credits may be needed to either purchase vulnerable properties or secure development
rights/easements on private properties. Financial compensation will be required. Lastly,
localities within Norfolk must have programs available to execute adaptive planning. To
ensure success, they must also have the “regulatory authority” to place conditions on land
use options. This authority would be the responsible point of contact to help communities
and individual property owners navigate the process as well as shepherd the research,
policy, guidance, and funding processes.
SSM Stage 7: Implement changes
The final stage is assigning and implementing action from proposed changes in the previous
stage. SSM rests on the assumption that changes identified as systemically desirable are
easier to implement than final solutions derived through “hard” technology focused systems
thinking. Regardless, these changes have to be implemented in a clear, measureable way
and translated into planned service objectives. This may entail a change to business rules
and close communication between all the involved agents. The key to developing an
29
effective system is to ensure participation by all the key stakeholders. Stiles (2010) suggests
that a “toolkit” using an organizational approach can bundle the adaptation program for local
governments, businesses, property owners, and planners into functional categories as
follows:
Presentations creating awareness of and preparation for climate change impacts
(planning tool).
Programs providing monetary incentives to influence behavior to mitigate risks; secure
funds for the projects increasing the SLR risks to infrastructure and natural resources
(financial tool).
Procedures that prevent or redirect land use decisions so as to reduce the risks of
climate change (regulatory tool).
A board, activity, or agency appointed to coordinate community and individual
adaptation strategies to include data packaging, processing, and funding
assistance/authorization (planning, financial, and regulatory tools).
The next step must entail using these tools to begin SLR adaptation work today and make
the process more effective through prompt legislative and regulatory changes.
PROJECT RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS
Data Interpretation: Methodology Outputs
One of the project’s objectives is to develop a methodology to address a complex problem
such SLR adaptation. The methodology, in turn, must then be capable of satisfying the
other project’s other objectives. More specifically, the results and implications of this project
are specified in terms of outputs formulated from the SSM approach. These include the
following criteria in Table 2 (Lane and Watson, 2010):
30
Table 2: Outputs from SSM Approach
Outputs Description Method or Pathway
Knowledge creation and
communication
Collaboration and integration of new knowledge of managing adaptation strategies to environmental change in coastal communities.
- Websites & social networks - Landowner workshops - Newsletters & working papers
Co-learning
Database forming a core resource for identifying, analyzing & disseminating information to community members about impacts of regional SLR effects.
- Data depositories - Developed software - Learning aids
Decision support tools
Models and methods for scenario analysis and decision support tools to improve adaptive strategies.
- Case studies - Local problem analyses
Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators
Vulnerability, performance and risk indicators to assess temporal and spatial status of coastal communities.
- Community-based indices - Developed indices and use
Training Academic and community-based training for local (professional and non-professional) land owners.
- Training presentations - Toolkits & written guidance
Adaptation Action Plans (AAPs)
Templates developed as outcomes for each community in the region to a range of flooding/storm surge activity.
- AAP dissemination - Case studies/examples
Central SLR and Flooding Policy
Agency
Government agency chartered with providing policy and guidance on SLR-related issues with Federal, state and local agents.
- Legislative policy & power - Planning guidance - Project funding & financial incentives for landowners
Application of the Methodology: The methodology captures and provides local
community data using the Geographical Information System (GIS) and identifies high-risk
areas to SLR and storm surge. The decision model illustrates, displays, highlights, and
confirms among the participants the evaluation of SLR adaptation strategies subjected to
extreme weather simulations (hurricanes and nor’easter flooding events) to aid decision-
makers in operational and strategic negotiations and evaluations.
This methodology was discussed at two workshops on 16 November 2012 (hosted
by Old Dominion University) and 13-14 February 2013 (hosted by the Virginia Institute of
Marine Sciences and Wetlands Watch), and then applied to an existing case study of a
31
high-risk property in Norfolk, Virginia. The workshops discussed the innovation and
adoption of best practices for reckoning with SLR issues in Hampton Roads. Specifically,
one breakout group explored the effectiveness of adopting and implementing actual
adaption activities to enable adaptive management among Tidewater Virginia
municipalities and individual property owners. The outputs developed by the methodology
are discussed in terms of enablers and constraints, and they are applied to the high-risk
property in Norfolk.
Overview of the application: The methodology was used in a specific application (a high-
risk property) to evaluate its effectiveness. The term “high-risk” is used here to describe
Norfolk residential properties, which have repetitively experienced damage/material losses
and amassed a progressively higher number of insurance claims due to episodic flooding
caused by the effects of SLR (City of Norfolk Letter, 2012). Engineering management
concepts such as engineering design, environmental planning, and project management
are utilized in this application.
Property description: The property is located in Norfolk, Virginia, and has been subjected
to the deteriorative forces of shoreline erosion since it was built in 1984. The site is situated
on the Lafayette River watershed in the city’s Larchmont section. In recent years the
erosion problem has been exacerbated by combined effects of rising diurnal tides and
recurring destructive weather patterns (i.e., Nor’easter storms in 2007 and 2009 and
Hurricanes Isabel, Irene, and Sandy). The combined effects of these events have caused
the loss of about 145 square feet of dry land property since April 2005.
The progressive water levels and significant shoreline encroachment have put a
single-car detached garage in jeopardy of structural weakening due to water damage.
32
This garage may have to be dismantled or relocated within the next five years in view of
present trends unless this erosion issue is addressed via an adaptive strategy.
Furthermore, the shoreline erosion is occurring along protected wetlands, which provides
a critical habitat to threatened flora and fauna. Thus this location is subject to strict
regulations excluding projects that create wetland environmental disturbances. The
property is located in an “A4 flood zone,” meaning that it has at least a 26% chance of
flooding out the house over the lifespan of a 30-year mortgage. SLR-induced effects are
starting to impact property values, and the ability to contract for flood insurance coverage
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is more problematic.
Output Enablers and Constraints: This systems-based methodology does not solve the
identified systemic issues. Rather, it makes important contributions to the SLR adaptation
strategy for an individual landowner or community planner. The following results are
offered using the five outputs:
First, the knowledge creation and communications, co-learning and decision-
support tools desired outputs were enabled via website literature reviews and site surveys
conducted at local SLR remediation projects. These sites employed different techniques
to help inhibit coastal erosion on low-energy systems (minimal wind and wave action) using
a range of armored structures (bulkheads and revetments) and living shorelines. The
dozens of sites visited were all on public record and could be accessed by referrals and
websites. The projects most comparable to this one used the living shoreline methods.
Two local precedents were the 46th Street (and Colley Avenue) Wetlands Restoration
Project <http://www.lrwpartners.org/LWP/46th_St_Wetlands> and Virginia Zoo Wetlands
Project <http://www.virginiazoo.org/documents/Wetlandsfactsheet>, both of which share
33
the same waterway with this particular property in Larchmont. Subject matter experts
who designed and implemented these projects discussed the use of biodegradable
structural materials and herbaceous plants to help rebuild or “supplement” the wetlands,
which have a natural propensity to absorb floodwaters and curb shoreline erosion. These
outputs were constrained by the informal context of the process. Specifically, there are
multiple organizations, references, and websites containing information but no specific,
“one-stop-shopping” for projects of this type. Rather the Norfolk property owner has to
perform all the research and seek consultation individually without the assistance of a
centralized authority or agency.
Next, the monitoring and evaluation indicators were established through
environmental modeling and simulation. Visual mapping using the Geographical
Information System (GIS) is the best tool, and it can provide the property owner with state-
of-the-art vulnerability data based on present and predictive SLR related activity.
However, in the process of executing this output, the flood insurance rate map (FIRM)
was found to be incorrect for the high-risk property used in this application. It is the official
map of the community on which FEMA delineates special hazards and risk premium
zones. The flood zone characterization on the deed was taken from inaccurate FIRM
data, and the property had insufficient flood insurance coverage. Although this error was
discovered and is in the process of being corrected, it underscores the importance of
monitoring as an iterative function. Thus, a constraint to vulnerability data is that risk
assessments and monitoring indices must be updated periodically due to the dynamic
nature of climate change and SLR, as well as their overall effects on the region.
34
Third, the training output was enabled through many no-cost, informal workshops
offered by academic institutions, environmental organizations, and non-profit interest
groups. This training uses subject matter experts to discuss the highlights of local
adaptation projects and recommends certain techniques to ensure implementation
success. However, the major constraint is that there is no hands-on training unless an
individual desires to perform on-the-job training with volunteers, paid consultants, or
environmental construction companies. Additionally, the laborious joint permit application
(JPA) required for these types of projects can be confusing, but it can be successfully
completed by referring to on-line resources.
The remaining two outcomes, adaptation action plans (AAPs) and central SLR and
flooding agent, have not been created and could not be assessed as enablers. Therefore,
until these desired outcomes are developed and implemented with responsible
individuals, they will continue to be constraints to the process.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT: “Roadmap” for Norfolk Property Owners
Overview: Engineering-based project management is used to develop the design goals,
critical knowledge factors, stakeholder analysis metrics, design specifications, work
breakdown structure (WBS), program evaluation and review techniques (PERT) including
critical path activities, resource loading matrix, and budgeting for this specific application
in Norfolk.
Design Parameters and Specifications: The following details are provided as key
project management and design elements for this “living shoreline” treatment project.
These parameters are needed to plan and execute this type of SLR adaptation strategy.
35
Design goals: The goals for this specific application are to mitigate the detrimental effects
of SLR-induced flooding and erosion by: (1) using the minimum amount of structural
protection necessary; (2) having high potential to achieve wetlands restoration; (3) having
high potential to significantly improve wildlife habitat; (4) offering innovation to wetlands
protection, restoration, and management methods; (5) providing monitoring and
evaluation of restoration activity effectiveness, and (6) incorporating all the previous goals
at a reasonable cost (assuming that Federal, state and/or local compensation will not be
an option). The general assumptions for developing a SLR adaptation project for Norfolk
home and property owners are specified in Appendix A.
Critical knowledge factors: The understanding of permit laws and regulations, site
observations and evaluations, structural erosion control components, and selection of
vegetation are the four (4) key critical knowledge factors considered for this particular
project. Appendix B shows why these knowledge factors are essential to the project,
details the sources and creation methods, and identifies the respective transfer media.
Stakeholder analysis: It is important to identify the following stakeholder influences
present in this application: (1) alignment of interests, (2) linkage to the project, (3) power
over execution and deliverables, and (4) project management experience. Appendix C
examines the interactions of the stakeholders specifically identified to execute action in
this “living shoreline” treatment application. Naturally, larger projects of this type would
require a broader range of stakeholders (especially those carried out on public lands).
Design specifications: The use of natural alternatives was chosen for this particular
application. The waterfront is subjected to low-energy wave and wind actions, so a “living
shoreline” could best absorb the impacts of SLR-induced erosion and best function like a
36
“sponge” to absorb floodwaters. The shoreline along the property can be “hardened” by
biodegradable structural components and (re)planting wetlands vegetation.
Aesthetically-pleasing vegetative techniques are preferred when combined with other
natural alternatives to help counter erosion while minimizing wetland disturbances.
Native plants and wetland-friendly vegetation are naturally adapted to the area’s
characteristics (soil, climate, pests, and temperature ranges). These plants are easier to
grow and require minimal upkeep. Moreover, a border of these plants (fringe marsh) can
act as a buffer to slow down the flow of run-off water and provide a natural filter for
impurities. The technical details are specified in Appendix D, and these include the
project site (highlighted as an overlay on the property survey), plan view, and cross-
sectional drawings. The plan was developed to satisfy the design goals using the
knowledge factor and stakeholder inputs. Figures 3 and 4 provide an overview of the
work breakdown schedule (WBS) for project activities and their corresponding
(alphanumeric) event, while the program evaluation and review technique (PERT) for
activity sequencing is presented in Figure 5.
As per Figure 5, the living shoreline project is to be carried out in three distinct
phases: research and information gathering, construction and planting, and post-
execution monitoring and education. The first phase is consists of knowledge acquisition,
consultation with subject matter experts, and permit authorization. The next phase
incorporates the key preparatory and site labor, which includes soft-structure installation
as well as the planting of native vegetation. The final phase involves post-construction
inspection, evaluation and maintenance as well as providing outreach to/lessons learned
for other Norfolk property owners.
37
Figure 3. “Living shoreline” project Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)
38
Figure 4: Project WBS activities specified by event.
Critical path activities and resource loading: Prior to determining the critical path activities
for this application, the estimated normal time using the optimistic, pessimistic and most
likely time completion is calculated for each WBS activity (Appendix E). The critical path
activities are shown in Appendix F. In referring to the PERT charts, the living shoreline
project should be accomplished in 336 days with a 97.9% probability of completing it
within one year (365 days) as per Appendix G. The overall project duration is about 48
weeks, which differs significantly from the 68 weeks estimated in the project proposal.
This divergence is due to inaccurate estimates regarding the time period required
between steps in the permitting process as well as availability and delivery of custom-
made structural materials.
39
Figure 5: PERT graphic for project activities by event.
A resource loading matrix for each phase (Appendix H) gives the specific WBS activity
duration (overall for each item and in time units per week).
Budgeting: Appendix I shows the time-phased and WBS-based project budgeting. The
total cost of installing a living shoreline on this property is calculated to be $2274.96.
There are some longer lead-time items (i.e., permit approval, material procurement, and
maintenance) required for the plan, which are based on conservative estimates. Crashing
can reduce the material acquisition time, but the other critical path activities are
dependent upon other external factors such as agency review processes and favorable
weather conditions.
Design issues: The following issues had to be reconciled with the original plan:
JPA design parameters: The original design plan was inadequate for the initial permit
application and needed modification. Specifically, only a plan view drawing was
submitted when a cross-sectional view was also required (added to WBS 1.1.1.2.2.1).
This second submission had to show the mean range of tides, elevation, and slope of the
property as well as the proposed location of the coir logs, substrate fill, and installed
vegetation. This step could be accomplished without delaying the approval process.
A
B
C
E
G
D F H
I
J
K
L
M N O
R
Q
S
T
U
W V P
40
Site observation: An essential element of the project planning entailed a site observation
(WBS 1.1.1.1.2.1) to determine the impact on the site’s flora and fauna. An abandoned
mallard duck nesting area was discovered close to an area that was to be cleared, graded,
and replanted. Mallard hens tend to be “philopatric,” meaning they may return to the site
of previously successful nests. Consultation with bird experts deemed that on-site work
could be conducted if no hatchling/duckling activity is present.
Debris removal: This activity (WBS 1.2.1.2.1.2) included removal of invasive plant
species. Specifically, the site had a non-native marsh reed (phragmites australis), which
reduces the diversity of plant and wildlife species. It was discovered that physical
eradication was not enough and chemical treatment would also be required to inhibit its
return. This condition may also impact site long-term maintenance (WBS 1.3.1.1.2.1).
PROJECT EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The next step entails an evaluation of the results and implications. First, the factors for
complex systems failures are explored. Next the discussions will cover the interpretations
of the overall approach developed using SSM and apply the evaluation criteria to the
specific application. The long-term and short-term assessments of the “living shoreline”
treatment project will be discussed. Lastly, the paper concludes with the implications and
limitations of the methodology and recommends the way ahead for this approach.
Complex Systems Failure: What can go wrong and why?
There are some possible conditions in the project that could cause it either not to meet or
unacceptably diverge from its specified or implied performance requirements.
Regardless the goal is to identify these, preferably prior to failure.
41
Design, deployment, or operational failure: Models will not always obtain the level of
resolution needed to be truly predictive for the many communities requesting the
information. Therefore, they should be used as scenario-generators to inform individual
SLR adaptation strategy selections. Examining a range of scenarios will enable the
community and local property owners to understand the priorities. A robust solution is
one that meets the minimum number of criteria across a broad spectrum of characteristics
(Culver et al., 2010).
Contextual alignment or integration failure: The verification phase of the models could
fail in their transformation from input to output. In other words, the boundaries, entities,
and parameters (any one or all of them) could be determined incorrectly. In particular, the
SSM approach validation may not be a viable alternative to actual experimentation.
Indirect impacts: The analytical approach here cannot possibly address all the indirect
impacts of a SLR adaptive strategy, which are more difficult to identify and analyze. For
example, a hardened structure, such as a levee, was built to fortify coastal development.
But it can negatively impact the local ecosystems. Although the levee benefits the
homeowners and businesses, the costs are extracted elsewhere. Specifically, the
reduced sediment supply, morphological changes, and impeded drainage created the
demise of adjacent wetlands. The receding marsh-water interface interrupted the life
cycles of many fish species and affected the yield at the local fisheries. So there are both
environmental and socio-economic consequences of this particular method. This
example underscores the need for an environmental impact study to be integrated into
the process to help identify the non-linear effects posed by the implementation of the
particular SLR adaptation strategy.
42
Failure to manage risk: All projects have risks, which are the possible undesired events
that could result in the failure to meet one or more of the project’s objectives. The most
important aspect of project risk management entails identifying which risks are most
severe and then evaluating their impact on the project. In the case of the “living shoreline”
treatment project on the high-risk property in Norfolk, the risk management was assessed
using four (4) risks that could cause it to fail: regulatory/permit rejection, survival of the
planted vegetation (flora), water/storm damage, and design failure. Quality, schedule,
and season/weather were three (3) dimensions with which to measure the impact of these
risks. The scales for both risk impact and the probability of occurrence were determined
for each of the four risks identified above. The overall project risk factor was determined
to be “medium” (the specific values and equation are provided in Appendix J). However,
risk management evaluation is an ongoing process throughout the project’s lifecycle.
Thus the hazards and safeguards must be revisited periodically to minimize the
probability of project failure.
Framework for Project Evaluation: Common to all the SLR adaptation strategies is a
host of adaptive tools which are analyzed by the following:
Power needed to execute them (i.e., planning, regulatory, spending, tax tools)
Policy objectives being addressed (i.e., protection, preservation, retreating methods)
Existing or potential land uses (i.e., critical infrastructure, developable lands)
The trade-offs among tools are then assessed against relevant metrics. The trade-offs
will be defined in terms of evaluation criteria (Grannis, 2011) provided in Table 3. This
framework evaluation will enable decision-makers (community and individual
landowners) to consider the viability of the individual SLR adaptation strategy desired.
43
Table 3: Evaluation criteria for SLR adaptation strategies
Evaluation criterion Description
Economic - Strategy’s economic benefit (public and private) - Minimizes: (1) loss of critical infrastructure, (2) costs to design, implement, insure and maintain, and (3) economic disruptions
Environmental - Minimizes impacts on natural resources and ecosystems - Enhances autonomous adaptation processes - Safeguards existing wetlands and critical habitats
Social - Maximizes protection to people and property - Implements a strategy that results in unintended consequences for other public or private property
Administrative - Technical, fiscal, and political feasibility - Minimal administrative complexity and likelihood of permits - Flexibility in response to range of SLR-induced hazards
Legal - Implements strategy within existing authorities - Potential for legal barriers or liabilities
Recommendations and Implications at the Local Level
Applying this framework to the erosion control case in Norfolk, the evaluation of the
strategy can be obtained based on the criteria defined above. Figure 6 depicts this
evaluation using a stoplight chart employing several tools defined by Grannis (2011),
Stiles (2010), and Volk (2011). The SLR adaptation strategies having the best success
for permits locally are the “living shoreline” treatments, beach nourishment, tidal marsh
enhancement, and marsh sills. These methods best address the erosion control
problems in lower energy situations by having good potential for long-term protection,
shoreline restoration, and enhancement of vegetated habitats. The “living shoreline”
treatment has the best benefits for this specific application because it has the best
possibility of reducing bank erosion to the affected site and the neighboring properties.
The use of biodegradable materials helps improve marine habitat and spawning while
enhancing the water quality. Lastly, this treatment also has the most affordable
construction costs of all the planned adaptation strategies discussed earlier.
44
Tool Evaluation Criteria
Economic Environmental Social Administrative Legal
Planning Zoning regulations Building restrictions Hard-armoring permits Soft-armoring permits Insurability Capital improvement Buffer/protection Development credits Sustainability
Green = maximum benefit and feasibility, minimal costs (advantageous)
Yellow = some disadvantages and feasibility issues (neutral) Red = little or no benefit, costly or infeasible (disadvantageous) White = not applicable
Figure 6: Evaluation Criteria Applied to High-Risk Property in Norfolk, Virginia
The specific application used throughout this paper could be considered as part of a larger
local strategy (once it is formally developed). Thus it must be assessed using the above
evaluation factors along with short-term and long-term assessments as follows:
Short-term: This “living shoreline” treatment project’s success will be gauged by its
feasible completion within time and budgetary constraints. From start to finish, it should
be completed within about 48 weeks. There are two critical path activities (WBS
1.1.2.1.1.2 and 1.2.1.1.1.1) having the longest dwell times. The first activity is joint permit
application (JPA) approval, which is a bureaucratic process that cannot normally be
expedited due to the generally high number of caseloads within the responsible agencies.
Second is procurement of the organic structural components. These materials are made
from coconut husks cured in water and are made to order. The manufacturer could
accelerate these items by about two weeks (for about a 15 to 20 percent increase in cost).
45
However, the Norfolk property owner might decide not to act or may execute
another strategy if the costs (time, effort, money) outweigh the benefits. In discussing
this with other homeowners experiencing similar effects, their first inclination is to “harden”
the shorelines with railroad ties, bulkheads and revetments. Others see that the “living
shoreline” treatment has distinct advantages but are more reticent to devote the effort
needed toward site maintenance. Therefore, an outreach program laying out the “pros”
and “cons” is important to ensure Norfolk homeowners and community leaders have the
most accurate data available to them to make an informed decision.
Long-term: The long term advantage of the “living shoreline” treatment is that it is
sustainable with minimal maintenance required once the plants have matured past at
least two growing seasons. If the plants are native species, they will be able to thrive in
the environment and germinate on their own toward self-sustainment. There is no proof
that residences with a “living shoreline” or some other type of soft hardening (beach
nourishment or natural waterline revetment) are assessed at higher property values.
Realtors have yet to use these as selling points when the properties are put up for sale.
If homeowners using these treatments can convince their neighbors to do so, then this
will be proof that a local strategy works. Ideally, multiple homeowners along a particular
waterway using a single SLR adaptation strategy would lend itself better to the cause.
Local Level Implications and Recommendations as a Result of the Project
Developing the SLR Adaptation Plan & Authority for Norfolk, VA: To date, the SLR
adaptation strategies in Norfolk have been carried out predominantly at individual levels
using data produced by science and research without supporting an overarching strategy.
Mitchell (2012) claims that in areas where government takes little or no action, individuals
46
will be left to take action to protect their own properties. So where is the appropriate level
of action needed to help control the number of disparate, ad hoc SLR mitigation projects?
Efforts at the federal or state level may be too general to address the local conditions and
concerns. Culver et al. (2009) assert that the regional level is the “sweet spot for
adaptation planning.” Thus planning ought to be both formulated and integrated at the
local level under the auspices of a local authority or agency. Without this, the
implementation of individual projects may be ineffective or even harmful. For example, if
one area protects its shoreline while the neighboring localities do not, then it is likely that
all of them will flood or be subjected to accelerated erosion.
Stages of protection: Policymakers must consider three stages when developing an
overarching local SLR adaptation strategy. First, the level of protection versus degree of
risk must be considered. Next, the planning horizon must be identified. For example,
should the strategy support minimizing risk in response to the 1 in 20 year storm?, 1 in 50
year storm?, 1 in 500 year storm?, or 1 in 5000 year storm? Finally, the strategy should
be able to dissolve the risk into distinct steps (Mitchell, 2012).
Coastal Zone Management: The concept of locally integrated coastal zone management
is a good basis for an urban policy. It considers the expected SLR and sets up a program
of action for sustainable development (Culver et al., 2009). Before coastal zone
adaptation strategies can be developed, tools for mapping shoreline flooding hazards
must be accurate and updated periodically. Imprecise or incomplete topographic and
bathymetric data are the primary causes for inaccurate flood models. If the data is
incorrect, then the result will be inaccurate Base Flood Elevations, which are used to
establish insurance premiums.
47
Community profiles: Lane and Watson (2010) suggest community profile databases
ought to capture the risks from SLR effects, and these should be guided by structured
development of resource inventories including physical, economic, and social capital.
The data consisting of base maps, storm histories, topography, and coastal hydrography
can be useful for assessing outcomes and projecting the likelihood of real threats to
regional infrastructure, environments, and economies.
Implications and Recommendations Beyond the Local Level: A range of further work
that would be particularly useful to policymakers can be identified to include the following
topics (Nicholls, 2003):
Continued development of local, regional, national, and global impacts and
vulnerability assessments of coastal areas. Studies will provide more detailed
knowledge and allow validation of regional and global integrated assessment models.
This will promote further quantification of the impacts of SLR, including more
consistent identification and mapping of vulnerable “hot spots.”
Consideration of the impacts of other climate change as well as the broader
implications of global change for the coastal zone.
Continued assessment of the adaptation process in coastal zones.
All the studies above would need to be supported by:
Modifying existing data and guidance on impact and vulnerability assessments.
Developing more robust databases on global coastal zones as existing data is not
ideal for integrated assessment.
Conceptualization, validation, and strategic visioning through a social learning
process.
48
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION OF DELIVERABLES
The following précis provides the status and content of each of the project deliverables.
First, this paper advocated that a systems-based approach can be applied to a complex,
“wicked” problem like SLR-induced challenges for Norfolk Virginia property owners. Next
the nature of the adaptation strategies was formulated using soft systems methodology
(SSM), the most appropriate means for addressing problems having higher degrees of
uncertainty. The specifics for developing the methodology involved analyzing the
dynamic factors to help regional property owners and other stakeholders understand the
issues, perspectives, and irrationalities to influence informed decisions. Project thinking
was important for effective systems organization to achieve complex problem resolution.
Although disciplinary knowledge and technological expertise were key enablers, it
was vital to understand the insights and contributions of those who comprehend the
problem context to ensure the legitimacy of the outputs. Thus knowledge management
during two interactive workshops fostered collective action through participatory
engagement thereby enabling stakeholders to move towards a common goal to institute
system change. An iterative decision-making process produced plans in which resources
are converted into systems, meeting human needs and solving problems.
A specific application of this methodology was used on a high-risk property in
Norfolk’s Larchmont section. Engineering management concepts such as project
management, engineering design, and environmental planning were used to carry out an
individual “living shoreline” treatment project. This application was laid out as a “road
map” to influence other local property owners to decide upon this particular SLR planned
adaptation strategy, which is financially reasonable and provides good erosion control
49
benefits while enhancing the natural shoreline habitats. Since most properties on Norfolk
are built around tidal marshes and wetlands, the assumption for employing this treatment
is very feasible.
The paper discussed some of the reasons for complex systems failure both
macroscopically and at the individual project level. Failure can occur at various stages in
the process: design, deployment or operational failure and/or contextual alignment, or
integration failure. Risk analysis for the specific high-risk property project was performed
using four risk factors along three dimensions that could lead to project failure. Moreover,
the project evaluation used economic, environmental, social, administrative, and legal
assessment criteria with each of these terms being defined within context of the project.
The most important challenge presently facing Norfolk residents is the absence of
a “go-to” centralized authority and comprehensive plan regarding SLR issues. Thus
Norfolk property owners must carry out their own individual projects executed more in a
piecemeal, ad hoc fashion, which are normally not part of an overall community
adaptation strategy. The paper discussed some implications and provided logical
recommendations for addressing this issue.
50
REFERENCES
Beer, S 1985, Diagnosing the System for Organizations, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, UK.
Brechwald, D 2011, Adapting to Sea Level Rise in the Bay Area: San Francisco and its
Potential as a Regional Leader, Master of Urban Planning, Harvard Graduate School of
Design, viewed 31 October 2012, <http://www.danabrechwald.net>.
Brighton, C 2012, ‘The Rising Tide: Research and Planning’, Tidewater Current, Fall
2012, Sea-Level Rise related article posted 23 September 2012, viewed on 24 October
2012, <http://tidewatercurrent.com/fall2012/features.html>.
Checkland, P 1999, Systems Thinking: Systems Practice (2nd ed.), John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Culver, M, Schubel, J, Davidson, M, Haines, J and Texeira, K 2009, Proceedings from
the Sea Level Rise and Inundation Community Workshop held 03-05 December 2009,
Sponsored by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Geological
Survey, Landsdowne, MD.
Ezer, T and Corlett, W 2012, ‘Is Sea Level Rise Accelerating in the Chesapeake Bay?
Demonstration of a Novel New Approach for Analyzing Sea Level Data’, Geophysical
Research Letters, Vol. 39, pp 6-12.
Fears, D 2012, ‘Built on Sinking Ground, Norfolk Tries to Hold Back the Tide of Sea
Level Rise’, Washington Post, news article printed 17 June 2012.
Grannis, J 2011, Adaptation Tool Kit: Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Land Use,
Georgetown Climate Center, Georgetown Law, Washington, DC, compiled October
2011 viewed 23 October 2012, <http://www.georgetownclimate.org>.
Harper, S 2010, ‘Sinking Land, not Rising Sea Level, is Bigger Concern Here, Study
Says’, The Virginian Pilot, news article printed 21 December 2010.
Harper, S 2013: ‘State Must Take Lead in Fighting Sea Level Rise’, The Virginian Pilot,
news article printed 12 January 2013.
Hoyer, M 2010, ‘Consultants Work on Flood Plan as Tides Rise and Norfolk Sinks’, The
Virginian Pilot, news article printed 26 August 2010.
Hutchins, S 2011, ‘Study Stresses the Threat Norfolk Faces from Flooding’, The Virginian
Pilot, news article printed 22 August 2011.
51
Kilroy, E and Beatley, T 2011, ‘Changing Tides: A Sea Level Rise Planning Analysis in
Virginia Beach, VA’, project of PLAC 5880: Coastal Planning in the Urban &
Environmental Planning Department, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
Koch, J 2010, ‘Costs of Defending Against Rising Sea Levels and Flooding in the Mid-
Atlantic Metropolitan Coastal Areas: The Basic issues’, Journal of Regional Analysis &
Policy, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp 53-60.
Lane, D and Watson, P 2010, ‘Managing adaptation to environmental change in coastal
communities: Canada and the Caribbean’, submitted to the 11th Annual Conference of
the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies (SALISES) held 24-26
March 2010, University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad & Tobago,.
Lubber, M 2013, ‘Rethinking Our Place in a Post-Hurricane Sandy World’, Forbes on-
line, article posted on 07 February 2013.
McFarlane, B and Walberg, E 2011, Climate Change in Hampton Roads: Impacts and
Stakeholder Involvement, MS PowerPoint presentation for the Hampton Roads
Planning District Commission (HRPDC), 25 April 2011.
Mitchell, M 2012, ‘Adaptation Practices and Lessons Learned: A State Perspective’,
presentation at the Hampton Roads SLR and Flooding Adaptation Forum, 16 November
2012, Suffolk, VA.
Moser, S 2005, ‘Impact assessments and policy response to sea-level rise in three U.S.
states: An exploration of human-dimension uncertainties’, Global Environmental
Change No. 15, pp 353-369.
Nicholls, R 2003, ‘Case Studies on Sea-level Rise Impacts’, OECD Workshop on the
Benefits of Climate Policy: Improving Information for Policy Makers, Cedex 16, Paris,
France.
Nicholls, R, Hanson, S, Herweijer, C, Patmore, N, Hallegatte, S and Muir-Wood, R
2008, Ranking Port Cities with High Explosives and Vulnerability to Climate Extremes,
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Weather Service
(NOAA/NWS) 2009, NOAA Tidal Gauges, US Climate Change Program website viewed
23 October 2012, <http://www.noaa.gov/resources>.
City of Norfolk, Virginia 2012, ‘Letter to City Homeowners addressing notification and
action regarding repetitive flood damages and losses’, Office of the Director for Norfolk
City Land Use Services dated 07 December 2012.
52
Old Dominion University and Hampton Roads Planning District Conference 2012.
Increased Flooding Risk Due to SLR in Hampton Roads: Concerns, Best Practices, and
Plans for Adaptation, 16 November 2012, Suffolk, VA.
Paskoff, R 2006, ‘Effects of Sea-Level Rise on Coastal Cities and Residential Areas’,
Climate Change, Human Systems & Policy - Vol II, Encyclopedia of Life Support
Systems (EOLSS), Lumiẻre University, Lyon, France.
Pyke, C, Najjar, R, Adams, M, Breitburg, D, Hershner, C, Kemp, M, Mulholland, M and
Sellner, K 2008, ‘Climate Change and the Chesapeake Bay’, U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay
Program. Science & Technology Advisory Committee white paper, Annapolis, MD.
Senge, P 1990, The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday, New York.
Shean, T 2008, ‘Some to Save, Others to Pay with New Flood Zone Maps’, The Virginian
Pilot, news article printed 10 July 2008.
Smitherman, L 2007, ‘Insurers Shrink from Costs: Legislators Here and Elsewhere Aim
to Help Homeowners as Industry Fears Growing Risks’, Baltimore Sun, news article
printed 18 February 2007.
Stiles, W 2010, ‘A Toolkit for Sea Level Rise Adaptation in Virginia’, posted to Wetlands
Watch website in May 2010, viewed 24 October 2012. <http://www.wetlandswatch.org>.
Tam, L 2009, ‘Strategies for Managing Sea Level Rise’, Urbanist, November/December
2009, San Francisco Planning & Urban Research website viewed 24 October 2012,
<http://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/strategiesformangingsealevelrise.>
VIMS Center for Coastal Resources Management and Wetlands Watch Conference
2013. A Collaborative Summit: Protecting Water Quality Through Actions on Urban-
Suburban Properties, 13-14 February 2013, Williamsburg, VA.
Volk, M 2011, An Analysis of Strategy for Adaptation to Sea Level Rise, MS PowerPoint
presentation on University of Florida Department of Landscape Architecture website
viewed 24 October 2012, <http://research.fit.edu/searchsealevelriselibrary/documents.>.
53
APPENDIX A: “Living Shoreline” Treatment General Assumptions
The “living shoreline” treatment erosion control plan must meet the following criteria:
Be necessary (there is active, detrimental shoreline erosion occurring due to SLR)
Avoid wetland impacts (affected area is located on protected wetlands)
Preserve existing vegetation to the maximum extent possible
Minimize land disturbance and provide mitigation plantings should existing vegetation
have to be removed
Have an access path that will provide the minimum disturbance as needed
Meet federal, state, and local erosion and sediment control ordinance requirements
Requires a permit (via Joint Permit Application: JPA) to start work.
Provide evidence that wetland restoration and enhancement will be completed within
a single growing season (timeline)
Have good potential to achieve wetland restoration (resource)
Have the capacity to improve wildlife habitat (resource)
Provide innovation to wetland protection, restoration, management, and enhancement
methods and outcome-based performance measures and methods (resource)
Provide a habitat for birds, fish and marine life; act as a sponge to mitigate the effects
of flooding; improve the health of our waterways; add beauty and value to surrounding
homes and neighborhoods (environmental impact)
1
APPENDIX B: “Living Shoreline” Treatment Critical Knowledge Factors
The four (4) critical knowledge factors considered for this project are as follows: (1) Permit Laws and Regulations, (2) Site
Observations and Evaluation, (3) Structural Erosion Control Components, and (4) Vegetation Selection
Table B: Assessment of Critical Knowledge Factors
Knowledge Component
Why is this knowledge critical?
What is the primary source of this knowledge?
How is this knowledge
transferred?
What is the knowledge creation
method?
Permit Laws & Regulations
Knowledge of regulated and exempt activities is essential to achieving first pass permit approval by local, state and federal authorities.
Each regulatory agency issues publications with required permit input information. These can be downloaded from respective websites.
Via internet, mail and person-to-person contact. E-mail is best means of knowledge exchange and consultation.
Laws & regulations on this subject have been consistent since the 1980s. Few modifications were promulgated.
Site Observations & Evaluation
Determining causes and mechanisms of erosion, environmental impact & design considerations.
Checklists and pamphlets provided on the regulatory agencies’ websites.
Hyperlink downloads and printouts used at site for inputs to permits.
Metrics considered here are also fairly consistent & stable regardless of erosion control project.
Structural Erosion Control Components
Considering costs vs. benefits of hardened vs. organic structures will influence design plans.
Blogs, websites & subject matter expert correspondence.
Via internet and question & answer sites
Lessons learned & case studies are useful to future projects of this type.
Vegetation Selection
Plants must be easy to grow, require minimal maintenance, and have best survival rates to ensure project success.
Consultation with local botanists and local wetlands preservation organizations.
Face-to-face knowledge exchange with local organizations
Long-term results will influence types of bushes, seedlings & grasses used in subsequent designs.
53
55
APPENDIX C: “Living Shoreline” Treatment Stakeholder Analysis
The erosion control project has five (5) stakeholders as follows:
Table C-1: Stakeholder Analysis Metrics (Part 1)
56
Stakeholders
How are stakeholder
interests aligned with project interests?
How formally is stakeholder linked to
the project?
What power does stakeholder exert
over project execution and deliverables?
Does stakeholder’s past performance affect
stakeholder management?
Project Manager (Homeowner)
Vested: property protection, home
value, and wetlands preservation.
Formally: success or failure of project is directly linked to
planning and execution.
Direct control over managing permit,
materials, budget & labor timelines.
Vast majority of Norfolk homeowners will not have requisite experience for SLR adaptation projects.
Local Wetlands Board (LWB): City
of Norfolk, VA
First regulatory agency in permitting
process.
Formally: Norfolk LWB Environmental is one of the permit approval
authorities
Works with Project Manager, State &
Federal Agencies in issuing permits.
Agency has a good track record in working with
homeowners to review/obtain permits.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Second regulatory agency in permitting
process.
Formally: DEQ is one of the permit approval
authorities
Works with Project Manager, local &
Federal Agencies in issuing permits.
Agency needs time to adjudicate private
properties bounding wetlands due to
caseloads.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Third regulatory agency in permitting
process.
Formally: USACE is one of the permit
approval authorities
Works with Project Manager, State and
local agencies in issuing permits.
Agency tends to quickly issue permits approved by
subordinate authorities: local & DEQ.
NGOs and non-profit conservation
organizations
Organization assists and advises local homeowners with wetlands projects.
Informally linked. Foundation uses
knowledge sharing on voluntary basis.
Advisory body only with an interest in
successful wetlands projects.
Advisors have many years of experience and good working relations with local homeowners.
57
Table C-2: Stakeholder Analysis Metrics (Part 2)
Stakeholders
How are the alignment & misalignment dealt
with?
How will the approach be
implemented?
How will stakeholder satisfaction be
measured?
How will stakeholder performance be
measured?
Project Manager
(Homeowner)
Prompt and thorough action with permitting agencies to ensure
goals & timelines met.
Plan of action and milestones for effective issue
resolution.
Successful first pass approval and long-term project sustainability.
Erosion control project goals met. Educational
presentation delivered to other homeowners.
Local Wetlands Board (LWB): City of Norfolk,
VA
Agency will formally visit site to assess erosion
control-wetlands compatibility.
Permit will be previewed by
agency prior to formal submission.
First pass permit approval
recommendation. Else minor modifications to establish suitability.
Local regulations are correctly incorporated into
permit.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Informal client-agency correspondence prior to
formal submission.
Agency will issue benchmarks that
will have to be met by the homeowner
First pass permit approval
recommendation. Else minor modifications to
meet benchmarks.
State environmental statutes are properly
adjudicated prior to final USACE approval.
US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE)
Agency will ensure project metrics are in full compliance with Federal
laws.
Detailed plans including prints from
formal project surveys.
First pass permit approval. Else minor
modification to plans to meet standards.
Permit meets all Federal environmental regulations enabling project success.
NGOs and non-profit
conservation organizations
Steering committee provides guidance and
education for local wetlands projects.
Project manager visits with subject matter experts.
Subject matter experts successfully contributed
to erosion control project.
Foundation will have more data points for lessons learned and knowledge
sharing file.
APPENDIX C: “Living Shoreline” Treatment
Stakeholder Analysis
58
APPENDIX D: “Living Shoreline” Treatment Technical Specifications
The project will use biodegradable coir logs, sand for substrate composed of less than 10
percent clay, and a variety of herbaceous plants and grasses native to the local wetlands.
Coir products are fibrous, natural materials manufactured from coconut husks cured in
water. The erosion control area consists of about 54.2 feet of linear shoreline, and the
assembly will extend from the shoreline to about 3-5 feet into the waterway (minimizing
water flow obstructions). Five coir logs (BioD-Roll 30) are 1 ft x 10 ft each and will be
fitted in a loose row parallel to the shoreline with each side anchored every 2.5 feet by
wooden stakes and secured with twine. Coir matting (700 g/m2 mesh; BioD-Mat 90), will
be laid out along the cleared grade on the landward side of the mean low waterline. Sand
substrate will be used as fill between the logs and shoreline. The vegetation will be
planted in the coir logs, the filler substrate, and landward along the waterline in the
matting. Marsh elder (iva frutescens) shrubs will be introduced at or slightly above mean
high water mark. Cordgrass (spartina alterniflora) will be emplaced from the mid-tide line
(to seaward). Since the site is on a tidal mudflat with brackish water, both of these plants
have a high survival rate, provide food for and cover to a variety of native birds, and have
excellent erosion control and soil stabilization characteristics.
(Erosion control area, plan view & cross-sectional site drawings given on following pages).
APPENDIX D: “Living Shoreline”
Treatment Technical Specifications
59
Figure D-1: Erosion Control Area Depicted on Homeowner’s Survey
APPENDIX D: “Living Shoreline”
Treatment Technical Specifications
60
Figure D-2: “Living shoreline” plan view
Figure D-3: “Living shoreline” cross-sectional view
61
APPENDIX E: Optimistic (o), Pessimistic (p), and Most Likely (m) Time Completion for each WBS Activity
WBS Activity
Activity Description Event Precedent Activities
Estimated Optimistic Time (o)
Estimated Most Likely
Time (m)
Estimated Pessimistic
Time (p)
Estimated Normal
Time (T)*
1.1.1.1.1.1 Site Observations A - 7 days 14 days 18 days 13.5 days
1.1.1.1.1.2 Literature Review B - 7 days 14 days 27 days 15 days
1.1.1.1.2.1 Site Evaluation C A,B 3 days 9 days 15 days 9 days
1.1.1.1.2.2 Concept Plan D C,E 3 days 7 days 11 days 7 days
1.1.1.2.1.1 Site Survey E - 7 days 12 days 14 days 11.5 days
1.1.1.2.2.1 Final Site Plan F D 6 days 11 days 16 days 11 days
1.1.2.1.1.1 Erosion & Sediment Control G - 4 days 9 days 14 days 9 days
1.1.2.1.1.2 Joint Permit Application (JPA) H F,G 54 days 90 days 126 days 90 days
1.2.1.1.1.1 Procurement: Structural I H 44 days 50 days 68 days 52 days
1.2.1.1.1.2 Procurement: Organic J H 35 days 42 days 67 days 45 days
1.2.1.2.1.1 Site Access K H 3 days 6 days 9 days 6 days
1.2.1.2.1.2 Debris removal L H 7 days 13 days 19 days 13 days
1.2.1.2.2.1 Bank grading & leveling M K,L 9 days 12 days 21 days 13 days
62
WBS Activity
Activity Description Event Precedent Activities
Estimated Optimistic Time (o)
Estimated Most Likely
Time (m)
Estimated Pessimistic
Time (p)
Estimated Normal
Time (T)*
1.2.1.2.2.2 Marking & Staking Operations N M 5 days 8.5 days 18 days 9.5 days
1.2.2.1.1.1 Construction: Matting & fiber log
installation
O I,J,N 10 days 12.5 days 15 days 12.5 days
1.2.2.1.1.2 Construction: Substrate
backfilling & leveling
P O 4 days 7 days 10 days 7 days
1.2.2.1.2.1 Planting: landward component Q P 6 days 10 days 14 days 10 days
1.2.2.1.2.2 Planting: seaward component R P 6 days 9 days 12 days 12 days
1.2.2.1.3.1 Protection: Straw blanketing &
mulching
S Q,R 1 day 4 days 10 days 4.5 days
1.2.2.1.3.2 Protection: Pest barriers T S 2 days 3 days 7 days 3.5 days
1.3.1.1.1.1 Maintenance: short-term U S 38 days 45 days 58 days 46 days
1.3.1.1.2.1 Maintenance: long-term V T,U 64 days 69 days 80 days 70 days
1.3.1.1.3.1 Outreach & lessons learned W V 0.5 days 2 days 3.5 days 2 days
*= calculated using Simpson’s Rule: T = (o + 4m + p)/6
APPENDIX E: Optimistic (o), Pessimistic (p), and Most Likely (m)
Time Completion for each WBS Activity
63
APPENDIX F: “Living Shoreline” Critical Path Activities
Figure F-1: Research & Information-Gathering Phase
64
APPENDIX F: “Living Shoreline” Critical Path Activities
Figure F-2: Construction & Planting Phase (Part 1)
65
APPENDIX F: “Living Shoreline” Critical Path Activities
Figure F-3: Construction & Planting Phase (Part 2) and Post-Execution Monitoring & Education Phase
66
APPENDIX G: Probability of Completing “Living Shoreline” Project on Time
In referring to the PERT charts, the expected time to complete the project is 336 days.
So µ = 336 days.
Critical path activities have been identified as B-C-D-F-H-I-O-P-Q-S-U-V-W.
Standard deviation of each activity is determined by the formula: σ = (p – o)/6.
Variance of critical path (CP) activities is σB-C-D-F-H-I-O-Q-S-U-V-W = ∑σcp2 = 203.86 days2.
The standard deviation of the CP activities is √∑σcp2 = 14.28 days
Ideally, the project must be completed within one year (365 days). So the deadline is
set at P = 365 days.
Using the Z statistic, a probabilistic analysis can be performed as follows:
Z = (P - µ)/ √∑σcp2 = (365 – 336)/14.28
Z = 2.03
Referring to Standard Normal Cumulative Probability Tables, for Z = 2.03, the
probability is 0.9788.
There is a 97.88% probability of completing the project within the 365 day timeframe.
67
APPENDIX H: “Living Shoreline” Resource Loading Matrix
Table H-1: Research & Information-Gathering Phase
WBS Activity
Activity Description Activity Duration
Resource Description Units/week
1.1.1.1.1.1
Site Observations
2 weeks
(13.5 days)
Observe flora and fauna activities/patterns 1 hr
Determine prime erosion mechanisms 0.5 hr
Visit erosion control projects on similar sites 1.5 hrs
1.1.1.1.1.2
Literature Review
2.1 weeks
(15 days)
Review case studies and local projects 2.5 hrs
Read & understand environmental regulations 3 hrs
Develop a set of alternatives 1.5 hr
1.1.1.1.2.1
Site Evaluation
1.3 weeks
(9 days)
Determine diurnal flood/ebb characteristics 1.5 hr
Observe ecological and physical barriers 0.5 hr
Develop design safety factor 0.5 hr
1.1.1.1.2.2
Concept Plan
1 week
(7 days)
Aesthetics planning 1 hr
Hydraulic settings planning 0.5 hr
Habitat diversity planning 2.5 hr
1.1.1.2.1.1
Site Survey
1.7 weeks
(11.5 days)
Waterline measurements (L x W x D) 1.25 hr
Property survey mark overlays 1 hr
Benchmark determinations 1.5 hr
68
APPENDIX H: “Living Shoreline” Resource Loading Matrix
Table H-1: Research & Information-Gathering Phase
WBS Activity
Activity Description Activity Duration
Resource Description Units/week
1.1.1.2.2.1
Final Site Plan
1.6 weeks
(11 days)
Plan-view drawing development 0.25 hr
Cross-sectional drawing development 0.5 hr
Proposed structure and plant emplacements 0.25 hr
1.1.2.1.1.1
Erosion & Sediment Control
1.3 weeks
(9 days)
Water quality impairment controls 1 hr
Quantify soil disturbance activities 0.5 hr
Construct simple sediment basins 1.5 hr
1.1.2.1.1.2
Joint Permit Application (JPA)
12.9 weeks
(90 days)
Parts 1, 2 & 3: General information, authorizations and applicable appendices
2.5 hr (in first week only)
Agency reviews (local, State & Federal) 0.8 hr
Agency authorizations (local, State & Federal) 0.5 hr
69
APPENDIX H: “Living Shoreline” Resource Loading Matrix
Table H-2: Construction & Planting Phase
WBS Activity
Activity Description
Activity Duration
Resource Description Units/week
1.2.1.1.1.1
Procurement: Structural
7.5 weeks
(52 days)
Select structural components 2 hrs (1st wk only)
Order and purchase coir logs and stakes (dwell time for awaiting products is ~7 wks)
1 hr (1st wk only)
Receipt of goods; move to garage (stow dry) 3 hrs (last wk only)
1.2.1.1.1.2
Procurement: Organic
6.5 weeks
(45 days)
Select plants, seedlings, and grasses 1.5 hr (1st wk only)
Order & purchase goods (dwell time ~6 wks) 0.8 hr (1st wk only)
Receipt of plants; move to yard staging areas 3 hrs (last wk only)
1.2.1.2.1.1
Site Access
0.9 weeks
(6 days)
Relocate obstructions in backyard 2 hrs
Remove wire fence along waterline 2.5 hrs
Establish four wetlands embarkation points 2 hrs
1.2.1.2.1.2
Debris removal
1.9 weeks
(13 days)
Eradicate invasive and dead plants 5 hrs
Remove old cement blocks & railroad ties 3 hrs
Solid waste disposal 4 hrs
70
APPENDIX H: “Living Shoreline” Resource Loading Matrix
Table H-2: Construction & Planting Phase
WBS Activity
Activity Description
Activity Duration
Resource Description Units/week
1.2.1.2.2.1
Bank grading & leveling
1.9 weeks
(13 days)
Clear marked areas 3.5 hrs
Shovel soil to even irregular contours 2 hrs
Level area with garden rakes 2.5 hrs
1.2.1.2.2.2
Marking & Staking Operations
1.4 weeks
(9.5 days)
Measure and mark posting points at low tide 2 hrs
Hammer stakes into marking points 0.5 hr
Connect stakes with string 0.5 hr
1.2.2.1.1.1
Construction: Matting & fiber log installation
1.8 weeks
(12.5 days)
Lay jute matting along graded bank 6 hrs
Install coir logs along marked areas on site 7.5 hrs
Anchor coir logs with stakes and hemp twine 3 hrs
1.2.2.1.1.2
Construction: Substrate backfill & leveling
1 week
(7 days)
Shovel sand into gaps shoreline-coir log gaps 2 hrs
Rake to level and smooth grading 2 hrs
Pack sand down with tamping tool 0.5 hr
71
APPENDIX H: “Living Shoreline” Resource Loading Matrix
Table H-2: Construction & Planting Phase
WBS Activity
Activity Description
Activity Duration
Resource Description
Units/week
1.2.2.1.2.1
Planting: landward component
1.4 weeks
(10 days)
Dig and clear planting holes 2 hrs
Emplace plants and seedlings in soil 1.25 hrs
Level soil and treat with organic fertilizer 1 hr
1.2.2.1.2.2
Planting: seaward component
1.3 weeks
(9 days)
Dig planting holes (at low tide) 1.8 hrs
Emplace plants in coir logs and substrate fill 1 hr
Level soil and treat with organic fertilizer 1 hr
1.2.2.1.3.1
Protection: Straw blanketing & mulching
0.7 weeks
(4.5 days)
Lay out straw over newly-planted seedlings & shoreline grasses
2 hrs
Pack mulch along substrate fill sand 2 hrs
Mulch around the base of the new plants 1 hr
1.2.2.1.3.2
Protection: Pest barriers
0.5 week
(3.5 days)
Erect meshing around straw blankets 0.5 hr
Place wire cages around new plants 0.8 hr
Secure cages with stakes and zip-ties 0.5 hr
72
APPENDIX H: “Living Shoreline” Resource Loading Matrix
Table H-3: Post-execution Monitoring & Education Phase
WBS Activity
Activity Description
Activity Duration
Resource Description
Units/week
1.3.1.1.1.1
Maintenance: short-term
6.6 weeks
(46 days)
Irrigate new vegetation 4 hrs
Remove invasive plants and grasses 2 hrs
Periodically repack and level substrate fill 2 hrs
1.3.1.1.2.1
Maintenance: long-term
10 weeks
(70 days)
Reseed or replant as needed 2 hrs
Evaluate need for new coir logs 1 hr
Maintain shoreline in response to irregular diurnal tides until plants/grasses anchor soil
1 hr
1.3.1.1.3.1
Education: outreach & lessons learned
0.3 weeks
(2 days)
Review project journal for salient points and discuss with subject matter experts
3.5 hrs
Prepare presentation and lessons learned 2.5 hrs
Present presentation (x2) 2 hrs
73
APPENDIX I: “Living Shoreline” Treatment Time Phased and WBS-Based Budgeting
Table I-1: Project Budget Using WBS Activity Resource Loading Chart
WBS Activity
Activity Duration
Resource Description Units/week Costs/week Overhead
(%)
1.1.1.1.1.1
2 weeks
(13.5 days)
Observe flora and fauna activities 1 hr None -
Determine prime erosion mechanisms 0.5 hr None -
Visit erosion control projects 1.5 hrs None -
1.1.1.1.1.2
2.1 weeks
(15 days)
Review case studies and local projects 2.5 hrs None -
Read & understand environmental regulations 3 hrs None -
Develop a set of alternatives 1.5 hr None -
1.1.1.1.2.1
1.3 weeks
(9 days)
Determine diurnal flood/ebb characteristics 1.5 hr None -
Observe ecological & physical barriers 0.5 hr None -
Develop design safety factor 0.5 hr None -
1.1.1.1.2.2
1 week
(7 days)
Aesthetics planning 1 hr None -
Hydraulic settings planning 0.5 hr None -
Habitat diversity planning 2.5 hr None -
1.1.1.2.1.1
1.7 weeks
(11.5 days)
Plan-view drawing development 1.25 hr None -
Cross-sectional drawing development 1 hr None -
Proposed structure and plant emplacements 1.5 hr City employee (no cost)
-
1.1.1.2.2.1
1.6 weeks
(11 days)
Waterline measurements 0.25 hr None -
Property survey mark overlays 0.5 hr None -
Benchmark determinations 0.25 hr None -
1.1.2.1.1.1
1.3 weeks
(9 days)
Water quality impairment controls 1 hr None -
Quantify soil disturbance activities 0.5 hr None -
Construct simple sediment basins 1.5 hr None -
1.1.2.1.1.2
12.9 weeks
(90 days)
Parts 1, 2 & 3: General information, authorizations & applicable appendices
2.5 hr (in 1st week only)
$125 0%
Agency reviews (local, State & Federal) 0.8 hr None -
Agency authorizations (local, State & Federal) 0.5 hr None -
74
WBS Activity
Activity Duration
Resource Description Units/week Costs/week Overhead
(%)
1.2.1.1.1.1
7.5 weeks
(52 days)
Select structural components 2 hrs (1st wk only) None -
Order and purchase coir logs and stakes (dwell time for awaiting products: ~7 wks)
1 hr (1st wk only)
Coir logs: $594 Coir mats: $118 Twine: $33.50 Stakes: $26
10%
Receipt of goods; move to garage (stow) 3 hrs (last wk only) None -
1.2.1.1.1.2
6.5 weeks
(45 days)
Select plants, seedlings, and grasses 1.5 hr (1st wk only) None -
Order & purchase goods (dwell time ~6 wks)
0.8 hr (1st wk only)
Shrubs: $443 Grasses: $256 Seeds: $52.50
15%
Receipt of plants; move to yard staging areas
3 hrs (last wk only)
None -
1.2.1.2.1.1
0.9 weeks
(6 days)
Relocate obstructions in backyard 2 hrs None -
Remove wire fence along waterline 2.5 hrs None -
Establish four wetlands embarkation points 2 hrs None -
1.2.1.2.1.2
1.9 weeks
(13 days)
Eradicate invasive and dead plants 5 hrs None -
Remove old cement blocks & railroad ties 3 hrs None -
Solid waste disposal (Truck rental) 4 hrs Rental: $22/hr 10%
1.2.1.2.2.1
1.9 weeks
(13 days)
Clear marked areas 3.5 hrs None -
Shovel soil to even irregular contours 2 hrs None -
Level area with garden rakes 2.5 hrs None -
1.2.1.2.2.2
1.4 weeks
(9.5 days)
Measure & mark posting points at low tide 2 hrs None -
Hammer stakes into marking points 0.5 hr None -
Connect stakes with string 0.5 hr None -
1.2.2.1.1.1
1.8 weeks
(12.5 days)
Lay jute matting along graded bank 6 hrs None -
Install coir logs along marked areas on site 7.5 hrs None -
Anchor coir logs with stakes & hemp twine 3 hrs None -
1.2.2.1.1.2
1 week
(7 days)
Shovel sand into shoreline-coir log gaps 2 hrs None -
Rake to level and smooth grading 2 hrs None -
Pack sand down with tamping tool 0.5 hr None -
APPENDIX I: “Living Shoreline” Treatment Time Phased
and WBS-Based Budgeting
75
WBS Activity
Activity Duration
Resource Description Units/week Costs/week Overhead
(%)
1.2.2.1.2.1
1.4 weeks
(10 days)
Dig and clear planting holes 2 hrs None -
Emplace plants and seedlings in soil 1.25 hrs None -
Level soil and treat with organic fertilizer 1 hr Fertilizer: $23 10%
1.2.2.1.2.2
1.3 weeks
(9 days)
Dig planting holes (at low tide) 1.8 hrs None -
Emplace plants in coir logs & substrate fill 1 hr None -
Level soil and treat with organic fertilizer 1 hr Fertilizer: $21 10%
1.2.2.1.3.1
0.7 weeks
(4.5 days)
Lay out straw over newly-planted seedlings & shoreline grasses
2 hrs Straw bundle: $12.65
10%
Pack mulch along substrate fill sand 2 hrs Mulch: $31.60
Sand: $147.50
10%
Mulch around the base of the new plants 1 hr None -
1.2.2.1.3.2
0.5 week
(3.5 days)
Erect meshing around straw blankets 0.5 hr Coir mesh: $46 10%
Place wire cages around new plants 0.8 hr Vinyl caging: $38
10%
Secure cages with stakes and zip-ties 0.5 hr Stakes & ties: $23.75
10%
1.3.1.1.1.1
6.6 weeks
(46 days)
Irrigate new vegetation 4 hrs None -
Remove invasive plants and grasses 2 hrs None -
Periodically repack and level substrate fill 2 hrs None -
1.3.1.1.2.1
10 weeks
(70 days)
Reseed or replant as needed 2 hrs None -
Evaluate need for new coir logs 1 hr None -
Maintain shoreline in response to irregular diurnal tides until plants/grasses anchor soil
1 hr
None
-
1.3.1.1.3.1
0.3 weeks
(2 days)
Review project journal for salient points and discuss with subject matter experts
3.5 hrs None -
Prepare presentation & lessons learned 2.5 hrs None -
Present presentation (x2) 2 hrs None -
APPENDIX I: “Living Shoreline” Treatment Time Phased
and WBS-Based Budgeting
76
Total budget
items: $2274.96
APPENDIX I: “Living Shoreline” Treatment Time
Phased and WBS-Based Budgeting
77
APPENDIX J: “Living Shoreline” Project Risk Management Assessment
The erosion control project has four (4) risks that can cause it to fail:
1. Regulatory/permit rejection (RPR)
2. Survival of flora (SF)
3. Water/storm damage (WSD)
4. Design failure (DF)
There are three dimensions to measure the impact of these risks:
1. Quality (Q)
2. Schedule (S)
3. Season/Weather (SW)
Scale of the probability of occurrence (Po):
Po RPR SF WSD DF
Low (0.1)
All natural means; minimal wetlands impact
Native plants and grasses
Regular diurnal tides & normal precipitation
Simple: easy acclimation & sustainability
Medium (0.5)
Mix of natural & artificial means; minor wetlands disturbances
Mix of native and exotic plants
and grasses
Mix of tidal fluctuations;
short heavy rain periods
Standard: more detail & requires greater upkeep
High (0.9)
Mostly manmade structures; major wetlands impacts
Mostly exotic plants and
grasses
Irregular diurnal tides; abnormal
rain/storm surge
Complex: difficult to execute &
maintain
The scale of risk impact (Ri):
Ri Q S SW
Low (0.1)
Minimal quality impact; good project results
No impact on critical path activities
Conducive to planting, construction & maintenance
Medium (0.5)
Moderate quality impact; results usable
Moderate impact on critical path activities
Conducive to construction; some
impact on planting & maintenance
78
High (0.9)
Results not usable Time goals not met Not conducive to
construction, planting or maintenance
The erosion control project has four (4) risks that can cause it to fail:
1. Regulatory/permit rejection (RPR): Natural means with no inorganic (artificial)
structures. Minimal disturbance to wetlands.
2. Survival of flora (SF): Native plants, seedlings and grasses.
3. Water/storm damage (WSD): Probable instances of irregular storm surges and
periods of heavy rain and tidal fluctuations (i.e., nor’easter season)
4. Design failure (DF): Design is simple to install and maintain.
Risk, probability assessment, and risk value assigned are summarized by the following:
Risk Probability assessment Risk value assigned
RPR Low 0.1
SF Low 0.1
WSD Medium 0.5
DF Low 0.1
The erosion control project has three (3) dimensions to measure the impact of the risks
should they materialize:
Regulatory/permit rejection (RPR) impact on the following:
Quality: low (0.1)
Schedule: medium (0.5)
Season/Weather: low (0.1)
Survival of flora (SF) impact on the following:
Quality: high (0.9)
Schedule: low (0.1)
APPENDIX J: “Living Shoreline”
Project Risk Management Assessment
79
Season/Weather: low (0.1)
Water/storm damage (WSD) impact on the following:
Quality: high (0.9)
Schedule: medium (0.5)
Season/Weather: low (0.1)
Design failure (DF) impact on the following:
Quality: high (0.9)
Schedule: low (0.1)
Season/Weather: low (0.1)
The overall project risk factor (OPRF) is calculated using the following equation:
Po = (0.1 + 0.1 + 0.5 + 0.1)/4 = 0.200
Ri = (0.1 + 0.5 + 0.1 + 0.9 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.9 + 0.5 + 0.1 + 0.9 + 0.1 + 0.1)/12 = 0.367
OPRF = Po + Ri – (Po x Ri) = 0.494
Criteria for determining OPRF is as follows:
Low: 0.000-0.299
Medium: 0.300-0.699
High: 0.700-1.000
Therefore, this endeavor can be considered a MEDIUM risk project.
APPENDIX J: “Living Shoreline”
Project Risk Management Assessment
80
APPENDIX K: Student Biographical Data: CAPT Thomas P, Brasek, U.S. Navy
Tom Brasek, a native of Audubon, NJ, graduated from USNA in 1987 with a BSME.
Following nuclear power and warfare specialty training pipelines, Captain Brasek served
in engineering division officer billets aboard USS BAINBRIDGE (CGN 25). His next sea
duty assignment was Combat Systems Officer in USS HAWES (FFG 53) from where he
transferred to USS ENTERPRISE (CVN 65) as Electrical Officer. He also served as
Executive Officer in USS LABOON (DDG 58) followed by a tour as Operations Officer in
USS KEARSARGE (LHD 3). His most recent assignment at sea was Commanding
Officer of USS GUNSTON HALL (LSD 44).
Ashore, Captain Brasek was the Inner Range Officer at the Atlantic Fleet Weapons
Training Facility in Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico and assigned as Executive Assistant to
the Deputy Director for Naval Reactors. He was the lead military strategist for warfare
planning scenarios in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy prior to his
present assignment as OIC, Surface Nuclear Propulsion Mobile Training Team, in which
he trains our Navy Carrier force in safe propulsion plant operations.
He earned a MSME from the Naval Postgraduate School and is a licensed
Professional Engineer (ME, California).
