33
Supporting Decision Makers in Shoreline Management A Capacity Building Program Proposal for the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project Jennifer Schwartz Berky, October 23, 2012 OVERVIEW AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS Challenges for Municipal Stakeholders At present, most municipalities lack the capacity to adopt sustainable shoreline practices. The Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project has identified a range of barriers to adoption and developed a number of tools to meet these needs. Typically, challenges and needs that might affect municipal officials and employees include: Difficulty navigating complex system of laws, permits, and approvals. Lack of current municipal codes and ordinances affecting existing sites, buildings, and potential new construction. Lack of integration and consistency of existing codes with hazard mitigation, stormwater management, LWRP and even new comprehensive plans or visions. Politicization of climate change and sea level rise topics. Fragmented, reactive, and contentious decision-making regarding land use. Funding constraints; costs of proactive planning. Need for assistance or capacity in planning, outreach, mitigation, response and recovery. Lack of cooperation or coordination with surrounding municipalities and other jurisdictions. Lack of guidance, lack of feasible options Limited understanding of scientific and technical issues. Hierarchy of Needs and Challenges: While physical and ecological issues are barriers, they are filtered by decision-makers through institutional, social, and cultural contexts. The hierarchy in this report frames the barriers in terms of decision-making issues as follows 1. Institutional and governance 6. Adaptations options and process 2. Attitudes, values, motivations 7. Technological and structural issues 3. Resources and funding 8. Science 4. Capacity, expertise, and understanding 9. Communication 5. Politics and leadership Key Recommendations: Dissemination Requires Capacity Building In order to disseminate HRSSP findings and integrate them into local practice, this report suggests a capacity building process that moves outside the traditional “classroom” setting and into the community. Scenario building is a type of problem- and project-based learning approach that offers the best opportunity for all kinds of learners to participate. This process should involve field analysis, data collection, and direct participation in plan development. In turn, the knowledge and experiences of localities can inform practices at the state and federal levels, as well as in surrounding communities.

Supporting Decision Makers in Shoreline Management

  • Upload
    hrnerr

  • View
    5

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

A Capacity Building Program Proposal for the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project

Citation preview

  • Supporting Decision Makers in Shoreline Management A Capacity Building Program Proposal for the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project

    Jennifer Schwartz Berky, October 23, 2012

    OVERVIEW AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

    Challenges for Municipal Stakeholders At present, most municipalities lack the capacity to adopt sustainable shoreline practices. The Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project has identified a range of barriers to adoption and developed a number of tools to meet these needs. Typically, challenges and needs that might affect municipal officials and employees include:

    Difficulty navigating complex system of laws, permits, and approvals.

    Lack of current municipal codes and ordinances affecting existing sites, buildings, and potential new construction.

    Lack of integration and consistency of existing codes with hazard mitigation, stormwater management, LWRP and even new comprehensive plans or visions.

    Politicization of climate change and sea level rise topics.

    Fragmented, reactive, and contentious decision-making regarding land use.

    Funding constraints; costs of proactive planning.

    Need for assistance or capacity in planning, outreach, mitigation, response and recovery.

    Lack of cooperation or coordination with surrounding municipalities and other jurisdictions.

    Lack of guidance, lack of feasible options

    Limited understanding of scientific and technical issues. Hierarchy of Needs and Challenges: While physical and ecological issues are barriers, they are filtered by decision-makers through institutional, social, and cultural contexts. The hierarchy in this report frames the barriers in terms of decision-making issues as follows

    1. Institutional and governance 6. Adaptations options and process 2. Attitudes, values, motivations 7. Technological and structural issues 3. Resources and funding 8. Science 4. Capacity, expertise, and understanding 9. Communication 5. Politics and leadership

    Key Recommendations: Dissemination Requires Capacity Building In order to disseminate HRSSP findings and integrate them into local practice, this report suggests a capacity building process that moves outside the traditional classroom setting and into the community. Scenario building is a type of problem- and project-based learning approach that offers the best opportunity for all kinds of learners to participate. This process should involve field analysis, data collection, and direct participation in plan development. In turn, the knowledge and experiences of localities can inform practices at the state and federal levels, as well as in surrounding communities.

  • Recommendation 1: Conduct Outreach Interviews to Identify Multiple Pilot Communities for Capacity Building: The interviews are the first step in gathering information to implement capacity building in pilot communities with scenario building exercises for Recommendation #2.

    Recommendation 2: Implement Capacity Building with Scenario Building Exercises in Pilot Municipalities: Scenario exercises have become widely accepted in planning and environmental management circles as the most effective means of increasing understanding and managing complexity and uncertainty. Scenarios are outlined in the initial interviews and structured in hands-on workshops to include familiar, plausible situations.

    Recommendation 3: Increase Regional Cooperation and Information Sharing: Given the number of municipalities and variety of actors requiring knowledge and decision-making tools, identifying avenues of dissemination and, more importantly, adoption of a new paradigm, is a system-wide challenge.

    Recommendation 4: Build a Database That Includes A Full Range of Information Needed to Evaluate Shoreline Conditions: here is little regional coordination or interaction among municipalities, project consultants, and others. The HHRSP recommends a GIS database to help in the evaluation of shoreline data. Such a database could become a powerful tool not only for DEC decision-makers; using knowledge and data collected in and by communities, it could support a broader information- and knowledge-sharing process among decision-makers in the region.

  • MUNICIPAL SHORELINE CHALLENGES AND NEEDS: A REVIEW OF THE HHRSP LITERATURE

    This report synthesizes past HRSSP studies of barriers to adoption of ecologically enhanced shorelines. It also provides information about additional literature that specifically addresses the topic of these barriers. Most of the existing HRSSP literature defines the case for sustainable shoreline approaches on the Hudson River and provides detailed XYZ (science, policy, etc.). The main resources among these that are relevant to defining an approach for supporting, influencing, and meeting the needs of municipal officials and employees in making decisions about shorelines are the HRSSP reports by Ona Ferguson, Shawn Dalton, Jon Miller, David Van Leuven, David Strayer and Stuart Findlay, and Pace University.

    Some of the most detailed work on coastline practices and literature is available from communities on the West Coast of the U.S. and in Australia. While most of the work is from marine environments, the decision-making and capacity issues are similar. Where appropriate, these sources are brought in to support the recommendations of this report.

    Typically, challenges and needs that might affect municipal officials and employees include:

    Difficulty navigating complex system of laws, permits, and approvals.

    Lack of current municipal codes and ordinances affecting existing sites, buildings, and potential new construction.

    Lack of integration and consistency of existing codes with hazard mitigation, stormwater management, LWRP and even new comprehensive plans or visions.

    Politicization of climate change and sea level rise topics.

    Fragmented, reactive, and contentious decision-making regarding land use.

    Funding constraints; costs of proactive planning.

    Need for assistance or capacity in planning, outreach, mitigation, response and recovery.

    Lack of cooperation or coordination with surrounding municipalities and other jurisdictions.

    Lack of guidance, lack of feasible options

    Limited understanding of scientific and technical issues. Hierarchy of Needs and Challenges: This report identifies the socio-economic and human interactions associated with the barriers to sustainable shoreline adoption. Physical and ecological constraints come into play in decision-making, but they are filtered through institutional, social, and cultural contexts. These constrain or enable their decisions and actions. This initial hierarchy will frame the initial outreach interviews and then further developed together with the municipalities during the implementation of scenario building, training, and related actions. Challenges and needs facing municipalities are organized as follows:

    1. Institutional and governance

    2. Attitudes, values, motivations

    3. Resources and funding

    4. Capacity, expertise, and understanding

    5. Politics and leadership

    6. Adaptations options and process

    7. Technological and structural issues

    8. Science

    9. Communication

  • 1. Institutional and governance issues

    In the HHRSP literature, as well as in the general literature of this field1, institutional and governance issues were the most common barriers to adopting new shoreline techniques. These include the lack of internal and external cooperation among agencies and departments, stove-piped organization, silo thinking, and path dependence.2 Bureaucratic procedures or mindsets, reactive planning (at local, state, or federal government levels), lack of, disagreement about or competing mandates, legal barriers, contradictory regulation, limited jurisdiction, and a whole host of similar institutional and regulatory issues can hinder the adoption of newer shoreline approaches.

    Shawn Daltons interviewees3 identify the mismatches between policy and implementation at the state agency level and how these tend to hinder the local adoption of sustainable shoreline practices. This work finds that policy and regulatory staff is not always in sync with field permitting and review staff. Where there is insufficient knowledge of technologies of soft shoreline engineering, designs cannot be effectively assessed. Dalton suggests training among field staff at DEC, as well as Army Corps of Engineers, Soil and Water Conservation Services, and Department of State. While there were exceptions, where regulators were familiar with soft engineering design for stormwater (a technique that has been in use since the 1990s), the majority of interviewees identified the need for training across the board.

    Overall, Dalton found that the efficiency of the approval process for DEC permits depends upon the relationships between the proponents (or their representatives) and individual DEC staff persons. Typically, the relationships between consulting project engineers and regulators are weak. The engineers view permitters requirements as unrealistic. Engineers with more traditional backgrounds resisted new techniques more. A history of effective working relationships and two-way trust in the desired outcomes makes the approval process more effective. These relationships require more coordinated communication involving feedback mechanisms and a more adaptive management approach (see Appendix C).

    Ona Ferguson, in her five case studies, found very uneven and idiosyncratic application of sustainable shoreline techniques. Plans at municipal scale tend not to consider shoreline issues, with the exceptions being in previously undeveloped or recreational areas owned by municipalities or an environmental organization (such as Scenic Hudson). The five cases presented hybrid approaches ranging from re-establishing bulkheads to softer shorelines with habitat restoration goals. In these cases, the public and planning boards were either not aware or concerned about the impacts and ecological importance of the shoreline zone. In the case of the Riverwalk, the loss of park area prevented the use of a softer treatment. In another case, the developer and locality claimed that the need for cost minimization and erosion control dictated the approach. In Peekskill, grant requirements by DOS and the work with DEC led to softer shorelines in many places, although the municipality articulated the concern that developers might view soft shorelines quizzically. In Cold Spring, the Foundry Park Dock Superfund site resulted in extensive government review and a Scenic Hudson plan to stabilize shoreline and

    1 Australia, the U.S. West Coast, and the European Commission have the most advanced bodies of literature in this

    field. 2 The concept of path dependence explains how learning occurs primarily around techniques in use (David 1975),

    influencing how decisions may be limited by the decisions one has made in the past, even though past circumstances may no longer be relevant. 3 May 17, 2011

  • promote habitat. Taken together, the cases demonstrated that the outcomes of shoreline projects depend on a willingness to by municipalities to push for change.

    2. Attitudes, values, motivations

    Attitudes, values, and motivations (i.e., human nature) can shape the institutional environment and decision making. Whether it can be attributed to lack of concern, the politicization of climate science, denial, inability to think long term and accept change, or the more fundamental problem of short-term political motivations, planning for longer-term circumstances and climate change uncertainties is eclipsed by day-to-day concerns.

    In very recent, detailed work on barriers in adaptation planning (Moser and Ekstrom, 2012 for the California Energy Commission), five in-depth case studies in the San Franscisco Bay Region found that attitudes, values and motivations were only second to institutional barriers in the communities approaches to overcoming barriers. In the case where there was more skepticism about climate change, leadership was also missing. The authors have devised a survey to test whether these attitudes and potential actions are statistically valid. This work on the barriers is the most thorough in the adaptation literature and worth a more detailed discussion when the outreach work for HRSSP is devised.

    3. Resources and funding:

    Municipalities are typically constrained financially. In the wake of the 2008 economic crisis, the implementation of sustainable shorelines approaches has faced the same fiscal challenges of many long-term climate change adaptation measures. The lack of proactive planning and preventive maintenance helps perpetuate short-term fixes vs. long-term integrated approaches (Crabbe and Robin 2006). More than ever, decision-makers need to understand and communicate the cost-benefit equations of every financial commitment.

    The lack of evidence can also hinder financial commitments. As the SLR TF Report points out, more current and regular updating of maps, such as the coastal erosion hazard areas (CEHA) and FEMA floodplain areas would minimize investment in areas subject to coastal storm damage, erosion and sea level rise impacts. Municipalities limited staffing or staff capabilities and lack of funds can prevent proper regulation of inappropriate development in floodprone areas. Planning and zoning boards are under pressure to make decisions in a timely manner, despite the lack of information, to avoid litigation for takings. The lack of funds also prevents updating plans and zoning to address shoreline erosion and require more sustainable shoreline approaches. With the proper planning and zoning, municipalities can restrict or prohibit development and hardened approaches along shorelines and in environmentally sensitive areas, but these require enforceable zoning ordinances. Integration of these measures is the key to avoiding shoreline erosion and property and infrastructure losses.

    Daltons interviews also identified perceived financial constraints. Her interviewees expressed the belief that soft shorelines are more expensive than conventional ones and that developers dont want to get involved with more innovative approaches if they are more time consuming. Municipalities said it is harder to get funding for alternative techniques. Ferguson confirmed that funders are conservative about this: they want tried and true techniques .

    The costs and relative trade-offs of various Hudson River shoreline approaches and environments were the focus of the studies by Miller and Rella (2006) and Van Leuven (2011). Miller and Rellas inventory

  • identified 29 different shore protection approaches. The work provided simple descriptions of each type (e.g., soft to hard) and detailed analyses, including design considerations (exposure, tide range, geotechnical considerations, other factors), relative costs, modes of failure, habitat value, adaptation for changing climate, and ecological alternatives to the engineered approaches. The report summarizes each approach in a taxonomy that can prove to be a useful decision-making tool when carefully applied.

    Van Luvens economic assessment generated an overview of the long-term costs of different shoreline treatments. Costs included are not only of their installation, maintenance, and replacement, but the ecosystem service values of each shoreline approach. The methodology of ecosystem service assessment is tricky. Calculating the intrinsic values is not required by current regulations and there are still decision makers who do not perceive climate change as a pressing local issue. As a result, Van Luven undertook a limited economic assessment, even if it undervalued certain ecosystem services, contending that it nonetheless presents a greater opportunity for advancing ecologically friendly shore treatments than a risk of supporting more traditional hard engineering techniques. Evidence of the cost-benefits in clear, presentable format is needed for decision-makers and public support.

    In 2007, the National Academies Press released the report, Mitigating Shore Erosion Along Sheltered Coasts, which advocated the development of a new management framework within which decision makers would be encouraged to consider the full spectrum of options available. It found that costs are typically lower in communities where plans already exist, there is a structure in place that allows timely responses to permitting requests, and there are regulatory incentives (i.e., ease of permitting) for recommended shoreline approaches (p. 116). As with any transaction, the more complex and time consumed with hearings, multiple jurisdictions, reviews and permits involved, the higher the administrative and consulting costs will be.

    As these authors conclude, a longer term evaluation of the costs of shoreline protection should involve more than the transaction costs. Long-term plans should consider capital and operating costs, the potential for erosion and storm damage, the impacts on adjacent and upland properties, the impacts on public uses and access, the effect on ecological functions and in turn on ecosystem services, and the aesthetic impacts (ibid). There are few resources dedicated to proactive planning in smaller municipalities. Unfunded mandates and the need to meet basic legal requirements generate most planning activity.

    Box 1: The 2 Percent Tax Cap

    Most local governments lack sufficient operating budget and capital improvement budget to be proactive. The 2 percent tax cap in effect in 2012 was unrealistic for some of the communities hardest hit by tropical storms Irene and Lee of August 2011 because of flood recovery costs. They may override the tax cap with a 60 percent vote, but this does not relieve their economic decline. Stagnant global, national, and regional economies have caused much of the region to retract, even when the areas housing bubble and its externalities (i.e., benefits on local financial flows) improved the local economy. Private sector capital has been on a steady decline in our region, especially since 2008 and is likely for several years into the future according to recent projections. Land ownership and development patterns have steadily fostered sprawl. Even where growth has been modest, the land use pattern has increased the cost of services, infrastructure and the tax burden, without the concomitant increase in local productivity and investment in jobs.

  • 4. Capacity, Expertise and understanding

    Some of the most often-cited barriers to the adoption of green engineering tools in Daltons reports were related to a lack of capacity (p.18):

    a lack of knowledge in terms of design and installation;

    perceived costs of installation and maintenance;

    uncertainty regarding their longevity and efficacy in the unique energy regime of the Hudson River

    Likewise, Ferguson identified variations of understanding and capabilities among communities that have implemented waterfront projects. These included: a lack of prior experience and examples with a proven track record; a lack of general knowledge about soft engineering techniques and how they work, what they might cost, and the relative trade-offs between construction costs and long-term maintenance.

    There are many other capacity issues in municipalities that can affect their ability to address shoreline issues, as mentioned in the introduction, including:

    a lack of interaction and understanding of municipal plans and their interrelationships

    a lack of communication among departments

    a lack of funds to integrate plans (e.g., stormwater management, hazard mitigation, comprehensive plan and LWRP

    a lack of localized hazard risk and vulnerability assessment;

    a lack of/need for trained personnel (or training) in mapping.4

    a lack of/need for coordination among municipal planners, public works officials, transportation planners, and other appropriate municipal, county, or state officials;

    inadequate communication and dissemination of information among key personnel and with public;

    5. Politics and Leadership:

    All the HHRSP authors reviewed here identified economic development as the chief motivator of decision-makers and politicians. This isnt inherently a problem. However, the lack of alignment of decisions with policies and plans is reinforced by the short-term delivery imperative rather than a more precautionary approach. Policy makers at federal, state, and local levels need to balance expert information and science with public input and political pressures having to do with enforcing contentious land use laws, such as wetlands legislation, property rights, construction restrictions in coastal areas, and zoning for sensitive environmental areas.

    Increasing recognition of climate change and sea-level rise issues among staff, agency leaders, and the public can influence political decisions. Van Leuvens work on eco-system services highlights that these analyses must be made very concrete to leaders. How will it reduce the budget next year? How will they use the information? They must also be very clear about their meaning if total economic value isnt studied, people might mistake ecosystem service value for full value. The cost-benefit analyses of proactive approaches and eco-system services must be translated into clear, tangible, and measurable fiscal impacts to gain political traction.

    4 http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/dsas/

  • As the Climate Smart Communities Pledge, RGGI and NYSERDA funding become more prevalent in municipal decisions, more champions among staff and agency leaders will emerge. This will provide cover for political decisions and generate more political will for sustainable shoreline approaches.

    6. Adaptations Options and Process

    The conventional response to flooding and erosion is shoreline armoring:

    Landowners frequently respond to the threat of erosion by armoring the shoreline with bulkheads, revetments, and other structures. Although the armoring of a few properties has little impact, the proliferation of structures along a shoreline can inadvertently change the coastal environment and the ecosystem services that these areas provide. Managers and decision-makers have been challenged to balance the trade-offs between protection of property and potential loss of landscapes, public access, recreational opportunities, natural habitats, and reduced populations of fish and other living marine resources that depend on these habitats (National Resource Council 2007: 1)

    Even in communities where there is a greater understanding shoreline options, the need for guidance is mentioned repeatedly in the literature. Communities need more assistance with understanding the process. Miller recommended, and later developed (2011), brief handout materials (e.g., bulkheads, revetments) to provide guidance and explain the options to property owners. Further development of such materials within the context of a broader outreach campaign would include trainings and webinars, hands-on assistance with planning and vulnerability assessments, and publications dealing with related adaptation planning topics.

    7. Technology/structural

    Capacity building and information sharing among municipal participants has certain limitations, with the exception of those with technical backgrounds who can participate in professional development opportunities offered by FEMA, NOAA, USGS and others in mapping, floodplain management, and the like.

    The HRSSP authors identified various challenges to the adoption of sustainable shoreline techniques, including the perceived lack of alternatives, limited knowledge or the perception that the alternatives were too expensive.

    The Miller and Rella literature review is the most comprehensive HHRSP resource on the technological and structural challenges of shorelines. Their inventory of Hudson River shorelines identified that 42% were hard engineered, 47% were natural, and 11% were natural with remnants of engineering structures. The most common shoreline structure was rip-rap (32%), followed by woody (29%) and unvegetated (16%) slopes. The dominant substrate found within the region was unconsolidated rock (52%), mud/sand (16%) and mixed soil/rock (12%).

    They note that ecological impact was rarely considered during the design of shore protection works. In their five-level classification scheme and summary table of the relative structural, cost and habitat values of each approach, they offer an excellent basis for capacity building for decision-makers.

    Fergusons case studies point to the need for demonstration projects to show long-term viability against erosion, waves, winds, wakes and storms. Conventional engineers interviewed were skeptical of newer

  • approaches, although there are landscape architects and engineering firms with softer shoreline experience.

    As described in the capacity building and adaptation process section, guidance can incorporate structural and scientific (see below) topics, but these will be most effectively communicated in a problem-based/project-based learning setting optimally involving visits to demonstration sites and surveys of their own shorelines where decision-makers can see for themselves.

    8. Science

    According to Strayer and Findlay (2010), there are prominent gaps in our knowledge of the ecology of freshwater shore zones. They identify a gap in our ability to apply the general science to the management of specific sites and services. To support better Hudson River shoreline management, they advocate for more site- and species-specific analysis as well as an understanding of the larger system (biological populations, coastal habitat complexes). They suggest a means of incorporating scientific analysis into the design and management of shoreline practices. This would include taking better advantage of existing projects and devise additional experiments to collect data ranging from species resilience to the function of different shoreline materials. The rapid assessment tool (Findlay 2012) could also further the collection of valuable data. Collecting such data more systematically could trigger a quantum advance in the understanding and management of shore zones (Strayer and Findlay 2010). Furthermore, I would suggest that designing such data collection to be systematized in a manner similar to the Natural Resources Inventories conducted with communities, as Hudsonia has done, but in this case with municipal stakeholders, could increase the understanding of science and its role in shoreline management.

    Capacity building and outreach could include such problem based-learning activities to incorporate scientific topics on the consequences of erosion, storm water run-off, wetlands loss, wave energy effects, and the different impacts of hard and soft shoreline treatments. Making these more practically relevant to decision-makers could include discussions such as:

    How different shoreline approaches work to protect vulnerable infrastructure

    The ecosystem services forests, wetlands and subaquatic vegetation in the protection of shoreline communities

    9. Communication

    This underlies many of the other barriers listed above. A greater focus on communication would include the creation of clearer messages and possibly a narrative (or series of narratives) to make sustainable shorelines more relevant to a broader audience. Even if the target of this effort is municipal stakeholders, the messages should be broadly understandable.

    Although a communications strategy should focus on a general approach, extreme events, such as Tropical Storm Irene (August 28, 2011), may also create opportunities to raise awareness.

  • Initial Hierarchy of Needs and Challenges

    CHALLENGES IDENTIFIED

    NEEDS: INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS

    1. Institutional and governance: Improve working relationships and streamline decision-making:

    the lack of internal and external cooperation among agencies and departments

    stove-piped organization, silo thinking, and path dependence

    competing mandates, legal barriers, contradictory regulation, limited jurisdiction

    HRSSP investigators found that effective working relationships and two-way trust in the desired outcomes make the approval process more effective. These relationships require more coordinated communication involving feedback mechanisms and a more adaptive management approach.

    Streamline review, permiting, and decision-making process.

    Regional cooperation amongst state agencies and localities is needed.

    2. Attitudes, values, motivations: Pilot projects and demonstration projects can help make the case

    lack of concern, the politicization of climate science, denial, inability to think long term and accept change

    short-term political motivations eclipse longer-term planning; reactive planning dominates local

    Surveys of stakeholder perception and attitude change will help make the case for additional funding after a pilot round of workshops is completed.

    Extreme events, such as Tropical Storm Irene (August 28, 2011) and Hurricane Sandy (October 29, 2012), may also create opportunities to raise awareness.

    3. Resources and funding Provide more concrete decision-making tools and incentives

    Perpetual lack of funds; 2 percent tax cap

    Reactive planning increases the cost of response

    Pressure on planning and zoning boards to make decisions in a timely manner, despite the lack of information, to avoid litigation

    The lack of funds also prevents updating and integrating plans and zoning

    Perceived higher costs of soft shorelines

    Funders are conservative and want tried and true techniques.

    Calculating the full costs and benefits (i.e., of intrinsic values and eco-system service) is not required by current regulations

    Costs are typically lower in communities where plans already exist, there is a structure in place that allows timely responses to permitting requests, and there are regulatory incentives (i.e., ease of permitting) for recommended shoreline approaches .

    Miller and Rella taxonomy can be a useful decision-making tool when carefully applied

    Evidence of the cost-benefits in clear, presentable format is needed for decision-makers and public support.

    As with any transaction, the more complex and time consumed with hearings, multiple jurisdictions, reviews and permits involved, the higher the administrative and consulting costs will be. As recommended in item 1 (institutional and governance challenges), streamline of reviews, permitting and decision-making .

    Long-term plans should consider capital and operating costs, the potential for erosion and storm damage, the impacts on adjacent and upland properties, the impacts on public uses and access, the effect on ecological functions and in turn on ecosystem services, and the aesthetic impacts.

  • 4. Capacity, expertise, and understanding: Increase staff and decision-maker ability to integrate knowledge into local plans:

    Lack of experience with softer shoreline methods

    Limited information available regarding costs and longevity.

    More generally, a lack of integrated planning and management, a lack of trained personnel, a lack of adequate information and data, and poor communication among departments and with other jurisdictions.

    HHRSP lit recommends more time for trainings and workshops. The format and approach of such training should be carefully designed to include problem-based learning approaches (such as recommended scenario-building workshops), twinning with other communities, and some small degree of homework in the form of data collection to reinforce understanding and support system-wide feedback.

    5. Politics and leadership: Provide cover for political decisions

    Policy makers at federal, state, and local levels need to balance expert information and science with public input and political pressures.

    The cost-benefit analyses of proactive approaches and eco-system services must be translated into clear, tangible, and measurable fiscal impacts to gain political traction.

    6. Adaptation process and options Provide guidance on the process

    Property owners typically armor shorelines in an attempt to protect them.

    The need for guidance is mentioned repeatedly mentioned. Provide brief handout materials with guidance and options for property owners. A broader outreach campaign would include trainings and webinars, hands-on assistance with planning and vulnerability assessments, and publications dealing with related adaptation planning topics.

    7. Technological and structural issues Provide professional development opportunities

    Most municipal employees/stakeholders lack the technical backgrounds

    Limited knowledge or the perception that the alternatives were too expensive.

    Ecological impact is rarely considered during the design of shore protection works.

    Identify opportunities for municipalities to participate in professional development opportunities offered by FEMA, NOAA, USGS and others in mapping, floodplain management, and the like.

    Use the five-level classification scheme in Miller and Rella to further develop materials summary table of the relative structural, cost and habitat values of each approach, they offer an excellent basis for capacity building for decision-makers.

    Demonstration projects should be fully documented for outreach materials.

    8. Science: Incorporate better data into practice:

    Lack of knowledge and information on impacts of sea level rise, climate change, and shoreline best practices is typical among some practitioners, regulators, policy makers, municipal employees, and decision makers

    Incorporate local data collection into municipalitys participation in capacity building programs to build Estuary-wide database and program.

    Climate change needs to be integrated into other forms of training at the municipal level.

  • Further data collection is needed to demonstrate site-specific and system-wide issues (Strayer and Findlay).

    Best practices are already in place but, in many cases, they are not conceptualized as climate change or sea level rise strategies

    9. Communication: Increase acceptance by enlisting a broader spectrum of community leaders:

    More media involvement is required, more and frequency of publications for raising awareness and enhancing more capacity at greater levels, etc. (Dalton/Ferguson)

    Enlist community leaders in the communications process. Identify champions in the schools and in local government. These may include emergency management personnel and environmental educators. Integrating climate change into high school and college curricula with their problem-based learning activities connected to the municipalitys planning work would help increase the public and government acceptance and perception of the issues.

  • Initial Recommendations for Outreach, Dissemination and Integration into Local Practice:

    This review demonstrates the need for capacity building, rather than conventional dissemination approaches for increasing understanding, improving skills, and supporting the overcoming of obstacles faced by communities in adopting sustainable shoreline approaches. Capacity building evolved from the work of many global institutions in the 1990s (e.g., USAID, World Bank and UNDP). Its usage varies, but it typically refers to any activity that increases understanding and abilities, governance and funding. It has evolved to include feedback to the institutions that provide capacity building activities so that they may adapt their own understanding and management of the issues at hand and be more responsive and accountable.

    Knowledge sharing, which is the goal of dissemination, succeeds when people have an opportunity to experience and internalize the knowledge. This is the premise of problem-based and project-based learning, an approach that is rapidly gaining acceptance in development practice and higher education. In resource-constrained communities with short-term pressures (which describes most localities), a system of incentives is needed for participation. Even where the rewards are relatively small (e.g., a $1,000 technical assistance session), communities will provide a great deal of information and mobilize employees to meet the requests of the agency providing the incentive. This is an optimal way of collecting data, involving departments that require more interaction, and even generating a greater willingness to understand the premise of the topic. The Hudson River Valley Greenways successful outreach and participation methods rely on this carrot and stick approach.

    Dissemination and adoption of sustainable shoreline techniques can be viewed as a systems design and management challenge. Training is only one means for doing this. Successful learning first requires awareness of the problem or opportunity and its practical relevance. Before any training takes place, outreach to public officials and employees, volunteer decision-making boards, and other involved stakeholder groups should focus on addressing the issue of practical relevance.

    As Ferguson recommends, multiple pilot communities can lead the way. They can be chosen in a number of ways, but self-selection is the most recommended route. Their participation in training can be based on need (i.e., lack of funds or personnel capacity), upcoming projects (e.g., a comprehensive plan, LWRP, new development, a public works or parks project), conditions (e.g., storm damage, erosion), or any combination of these.

    Next, I recommend that these groups be offered an opportunity to participate in scenario building: a means of interactive learning whereby they can evaluate the HRSSP resources and understand their application in their own communities. In capacity-building literature, this is known as non-trivial evaluation. The HHRSP demonstration sites could offer this learning opportunity, combined with data on adaptability, costs and benefits. Methods include experiential (i.e., hands-on, field based) learning, project-based learning and problem-based learning.5

    financial and ecological costs, both incurred and avoided,

    legal precedent, political feasibility and acceptability, time required for permitting,

    site conditions, durability of the erosion control technique, spatial scale of the project, and

    5 Dalton also found that kind of learning approach requires a hands-on approach and needs to be phased (i.e., not

    in one session).

  • ancillary benefits such as public access, new revenue sources, ecosystem services provided, or broad public support.

    Nonetheless, the adoption of best practices is a slow process. These recommendations incorporate lessons learned from Dalton and Ferguson and suggest a more hands-on and interactive approach to dissemination and capacity building. Their recommendations for dissemination and outreach include the following:

    Action planning needs to be done in consultation with all active stakeholders; especially local administrative authorities, CBOs, NGOs, academic institutions, grassroot communities, etc.

    Sharing and decentralizing of responsibilities during the project implementation is very effective a tool to achieve greater results.

    Timing and period of the project (need for more follow up); measurement and indicators of the project- for many of the activities carried out, more time was still needed for better and more coherent assessment for change created in various communities. Also, limited coverage for involvement was due to the above factors.

    Setting up of multi-pilot structures to enhance physical and hands-on-skills for beneficiaries.

    From the recommendations and input given by different participants, a more and concrete dissemination strategy needs to be supported to create reach and access to local administrations and grassroots communities.

    Recommendation 1: Conduct Outreach Interviews to Identify Multiple Pilot Communities for Capacity Building (See Appendix A: Interview Protocol)

    The purpose of this study is to fill a gap in our understanding about how best to support, influence, and meet the needs of a wide range of municipalities and municipal officials and employees who choose and/or approve shoreline treatments for sites within their jurisdiction. Our focus will be to identify four pairs of communities and four distinct types of experiences that exemplify situations many communities have faced and/or are likely to face in adapting their shorelines to the impacts of climate change. The information we gather from the communities in this first interview phase includes background about municipal stakeholders, their agencies involvement and roles in adapting their shorelines, and any challenges they may have encountered along the way.

    The interviews are the first step in gathering information to implement capacity building in pilot communities with scenario building exercises for Recommendation #2.

    Recommendation 2: Implement Capacity Building with Scenario Building Exercises in Pilot Municipalities

    The initial hierarchy of needs and challenges above can help us develop the scenarios and work toward desired outcomes. To test this diagnostic framework, a series of five cases is outlined below in Appendix B using information on projects and situations in four (or four pairs of) local jurisdictions. I also recommend a regional adaptation scenario exercise, as this could be tested with advisory committee stakeholders (and/or an extension of that group to include other key stakeholder representatives, such as public facilities, the railroad, the bridge authority, etc.).

    The proposed scenarios to be developed are structured to include familiar, plausible situations as well as the aims and expected outcomes of these cases. The four local hypothetical case studies are based on

  • the most common situations and phenomena found in the HRSSP and related literature (e.g., Rising Waters, SLR Task Force report).

    Information gathered in the interviews should be used to flesh out these cases and create scenario outlines. I recommend a method called issues trees to construct the narratives and conceptual models from key informant interviews.6

    Few of the 77 municipalities on the Hudson River shoreline from Westchester to Albany have begun a deliberate process of adaptation planning (CITE DECs Climate Smart page: verify if anyone has done one.) However, several have implemented sustainable shoreline practices. These communities could be surveyed to bolster the needs analysis and information gathered in the case studies (Ferguson), and interviews (Dalton), and empirical literature from my initial literature survey.

    The various levels of government in the region face different barriers to adaptation planning and management decisions. The inclusion of county and regional entities (county government, state and regional authorities, and environmental organizations) would help increase our understanding of needs.

    BOX 2: Key municipal stakeholders for shoreline management

    Chief elected/appointed executive

    Town/Village/City Board/Council members

    Volunteer Boards: Planning, Zoning, Environmental, Historic

    Public Facility and Utility Managers

    Public Works Managers

    Zoning and Permitting Officials

    Land Use Planners

    Hazard Mitigation Planners

    Floodplain Managers

    Emergency Managers

    Stormwater Managers

    Natural Resource Planners

    Municipal Engineers

    Local Land Use Planners

    County government counterparts of the above list.

    In these interviews, surveys, and later scenario building exercises, variables associated with this work should include:

    the degree of exposure to/knowledge of the risks from climate change and sea level rise;

    the level of path dependence (i.e., resorting to familiar by decision-makers);

    the degree of adaptive capacity already present in the community;

    the degree of social vulnerability;

    the political will related to proactive planning; and

    6 A more thorough review of case literature and public documents and observation at pertinent public

    meetings are recommended. A survey could be administered to bolster the findings in the information gathering phase.

  • the financial resources available to engage in adaptation planning.

    A subset could be identified for scenario building exercises based on a degree of proactive planning present in a community (i.e., existing adaption work).

    Although the larger questions associated with global climate change certainly affect decision-making, that case studies have a narrower focus based on locally or regionally specific issues (e.g., local experiences and impacts associated with sea level rise and climate change, such as storm damage, erosion, ecosystem stress, and other physical threats). I also highly recommend incorporating social vulnerability into some of these cases, if not all, based on well-established work by Cutter et al (2003 and later versions, see Appendix C for a synthesis).

    Social Vulnerability Should be Included in the Work

    Social vulnerability is an important aspect of this work, and is noted in the HRSSP literature as one of the decision factors to be studied in this next HRSSP phase. The social vulnerability index methodology (SoVI) developed by Cutter and others requires a geographic information system (GIS)-based analysis that may not be done prior to the scenario building exercises. In discussions with NERR staff and HRSSP advisers, I would like to establish a method of incorporating potential later SoVI findings into this research. Even if the scope of this work does not explicitly include the social vulnerabilities, they should eventually be factored into the outcome-based decisions that result from the scenarios. Initial recommendations for this would include an overlay of the vulnerable areas with an analysis of LiDAR datasets, photogrammetric elevation data, and any other data sets that could help project impacts on the most vulnerable groups.

    Box 3: Using Issue Trees

    There are numerous methodologies available for developing scenarios. Issues trees establish key questions and logical sequences for addressing them. Their use can encourage participation by giving them the chance to brainstorm alternatives. Issues trees are generally used at the start of a project to provide structure for teams who are in the early stages of building their understanding of the subject.

    This seems to be the appropriate method for outlining the scenarios and developing them in the interview phase. It provides enough of a structure for each narrative, while the scope still remains general at this stage, and allows us to clarify the questions critical to the specific issue.

    The Issues Tree methodology below is modified from the model created by the Foresight Programme, which has worked with the UK Government to develop scenario methodologies since 1994.

    Recommendation 3: Increase Regional Cooperation and Information Sharing

    Dalton found that there is little regional coordination or interaction among municipalities, project consultants, and others. Information sharing could improve consideration of regional impacts of shoreline treatments, such as the effect of hardened shorelines on wetland systems maintenance and

  • migration or the increase in wave energy that could adversely affect the entire system. Most respondents spoke quite enthusiastically about the need for information sharing and training opportunities. Given the number of municipalities and variety of actors requiring knowledge and decision-making tools, identifying avenues of dissemination and, more importantly, adoption of a new paradigm, is a system-wide challenge. Mechanisms already exist that could support outreach and dissemination for training and adoption of HRSSP techniques (e.g., the 4-hours training credit requirements for volunteer planning and zoning officials, other continuing education credit requirements).

    Recommendation 4: Build a Database That Includes A Full Range of Information Needed to Evaluate Shoreline Conditions: Such conditions include shoreline type, slope, upland conditions, vulnerability (at shoreline and upland, physical, social and ecological), ownership, ecological factors, FIRM and CEHA mapping, Rapid Assessment data, and all parcel and other GIS data available from Federal, State, County, and localities. Some of these database plans are described in the Shorelines project background documents. The mapping needs are described in the SLR TF Report (see Appendix F), would support this approach (i.e., community capacity self-assessment in advance of grant and training participation). The GIS analysis of shoreline typologies and forms of ownership, combined with the Rapid Assessment Tool recently tested by Brian Cooke with my students in Kingston, would also support a better understanding of existing community shoreline conditions and needs. In a later phase of work, I would be interested in helping to design these research criteria.

    Integration into Local Practice

    Integration of HRSSP into local practices requires, first and foremost, an increase in local governments adaptive capacity.7 Scenario exercises have become widely accepted in planning and environmental management circles as the most effective means of increasing understanding and managing complexity and uncertainty. A thorough review of national and international empirical literature for best practices in decision-making for climate change finds that scenario building helps bridge the gap between scientific output and resource management action (Moore et al 2012).

    7 In social systems, the existence of institutions and networks that learn and store knowledge and experience,

    create flexibility in problem solving, and balance power among interest groups. IAIA10 Conference Proceedings: The Role of Impact Assessment in Transitioning to the Green Economy 30th Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment 6-11 April 2010, International Conference Centre Geneva - Switzerland (www.iaia.org)

  • APPENDIX A: Interview Protocol

    This protocol is not designed to be used in its entirety, as no interviewee will know all aspects of the process being explored. Instead, individual interviews will be tailored to the particular informant, his/her position, the particular case study to be explored, and any other aspects of the process that the informant may know about. The purpose of the protocol is to inform the Off-the-Shelf scenario construction. These may be developed as finished products, or as pilots to test the methodology of more tailored scenario building exercises that may be replicated in communities throughout the estuary as capacity building in advance of adaptation planning. (See Synthesis Report for discussion of scenario types.

    Interview introduction:

    The purpose of this study is to fill a gap in our understanding about how best to support, influence, and meet the needs of a wide range of municipalities and municipal officials and employees who choose and/or approve shoreline treatments for sites within their jurisdiction. Our focus is on four pairs of communities and four distinct types of experiences that exemplify situations many communities have faced and/or are likely to face in adapting their shorelines to the impacts of climate change.

    The information were seeking from you includes background about your and your agencys involvement and role in adapting the shoreline in your community and any challenges you may have encountered along the way.

    GENERAL BACKGROUND QUESTIONS:

    Section I: Background on institution(s) and interviewees

    1. Please tell us about your agencys management responsibilities.

    Follow up (FUP) A: Could you tell me a bit about your municipalitys current priorities?

    FUP B: Does your office interact with other local, state, regional or even federal agencies to do its work and meet its goals?

    2. What specifically does your work entail?

    FUP A: So you manage . What does that actually mean as far as your daily work is concerned?

    FUP B: Who do you interact with regularly to accomplish this?

    FUP C: How long have you been in this position?

    FUP D: What is your education background (degrees and discipline)?

    Section II. Understanding, Planning and Managing (establishing adaptive management capacity)

    Now Id like to turn to how your work, and your agencys work, may be affected by climate change.

    3. What are the main concerns about climate change for your agency? How do you think CC will (or already does) affect your Hudson River shorelines (including infrastructure, social well-being, ecosystems, etc.)?

    FUP A: Say more

    FUP B: Over what time scale?

    FUP C: Are you experiencing these threats now or has your municipality in the past?

    FUP D: When do you think impacts are likely to start being felt, and in what way?

  • 4. What does adaptation to climate change mean to you?

    FUP B:Would you say that the people you work with share your understanding of adaptation? 5. What do you think are the advantages of starting to adapt to climate change now?

    FUP A: What are the disadvantages?

    FUP B: Have these advantages and disadvantages played into your agency/organization/communitys decision to start adaptation planning?

    6. What specific plans and ordinances do you have that involve your shoreline areas? All-Hazards Mitigation Plan Post-Disaster Redevelopment Plan Capital Improvement Plan Climate Action Plan Comprehensive Plan (also LWRP, Open Space Plan, other) Stormwater Management Plan

    7. What specific upcoming projects are planned in the community involving your shoreline areas? 8. Which municipal departments, officials, and employees are involved in shoreline management

    issues? 9. What are the principal sources of guidance you use when making decisions dealing with flooding,

    storm surge, erosion, and shoreline approaches?

    How is your understanding acquired (e.g., media inputs, experience/training in climate change, educational level and discipline, level of government, perceived degree of risk from climate change impacts).?

    10. What hurdles have you encountered in the past and which are you encountering at present?

    Which hurdles have you overcome and how?

    What kinds of information, tools or training would help you with these hurdles?

    META-ANALYSIS:

    How does their progress differ by place and level of government?

    What are the causes of the barriers and how do they differ by locations, levels of government, stage in the adaptation process?

    Which conditions, aids, assets or advantages helped communities avoid certain barriers in the first place?

  • APPENDIX B: Scenario Outlines

    Issues Tree Exercise:

    The exercise works well with ten to twelve participants but can be done with fewer. Participants work in groups to list and compare issues of concern using the PESTLE (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, and Legal and Environmental) questions outlined in Appendix XX.

    1. Introduce the broad scope of the scenario:

    The scope may be general at this stage. Lay out the scope, or the project aim, to the best of your ability. If questions remain, encourage some discussion. Close the discussion with a clearer scope statement.

    2. Capture critical issues:

    Participants are asked to capture one to three issues that they consider to be critical to the problem. These are issues that they consider to be critical to the project question and can be identified using the PESTLE analysis method. Ask them to express the issues as questions. The PESTLE interview protocol will get at these questions in a more formal way.

    3. Discuss the various issues

    Form four small groups. Ask the group members to exchange views on their critical issues. Ask them to consider why these issues were chosen as one of a few most important issues. What makes them most important?

    4. Consider dependencies of the issues

    Try to appreciate the relationship between issues and any hierarchy that can be applied to a nest of issues. Ask What consequences does this issue have?

    5. Construct trial issues trees

    Using the 4 alternative scenario trajectories (business as usual, managed retreat, accommodation, and protection), construct one or more issues trees of three to five levels. The most important question is the project scope. Each sublevel of two to three questions, should fully address its parent level. Test the logic and completeness of the question levels. Is the project aim suitably addressed? Does it cover the critical issues?

    6. Select the final issue tree

    Agree on the final logic structure. Use the tree to discuss gaps in knowledge and research areas needed to fill in the scenarios.

    7. Preparation

    Participants need clarity on the overall aim of the project. This could be a statement and a small amount of background reading. A large wall or table is helpful for testing different question trees.

  • 8. Implementation

    Issues trees are generally used at the start of a project to provide structure for teams who are in the early stages of building their understanding of the subject. If only an Off-the-Shelf scenario is desired (applying pre-existing, down-scaled scenarios to specific locations, population groups and policies), the process would end with field interviews and be used to generate publications and guidance. In more participatory scenario-building processes, such as Tailored Exploration (building and using context-specific scenarios to explore possible alternatives, impacts and adaptation policy options) or Tailored Visioning (building and to envisage desirable futures). The latter two have wider applications: they allow communities to develop context specific scenarios as part of their adaptation planning process.

  • Scenario 1: Developers Harden Shorelines

    Broad scope

    A developer proposes 1,500 units of housing on a waterfront site at a relatively low elevation. Within the 100-year flood plain and, in some cases, at the topographical elevation of the potential 4-foot sea-level rise elevation are some of the following: housing, commercial establishments, recreational sites and public walkways, and critical infrastructure, such as power, roads, and sewage pipes, and waste water treatment facilities. Water quality basins are located within the 100 year floodplain. Ground water may become contaminated. Nutrient loading, the likely result of runoff from lawns, building, and pavement, affect the water quality in the on-site wetlands and groundwater, as well as the nearshore subaquatic vegetation and wildlife. Road salting will similarly upset these ecosystems. Impervious surfaces cover a large portion of the site, contributing to run-off of non-point source pollution and potential erosion. Subdivision regulations require a minimum of 20-foot road widths, and the developer determines it will have 25-foot wide roads in most places, as well as sidewalks requested by the planning board, increasing impervious surface areas. Parking requirements for housing, retail and recreation areas further increase impervious surfaces. The developer promises to rebuild the bulkhead and has received support from some state agencies to cover some of the costs. The municipality has not negotiated a softer shoreline approach, except where bulkheads did not already exist. Otherwise, the developer plans to rebuild the bulkheads. The community agrees to adopt the subdivision as a part of the public infrastructure, assuming the cost of community services, among which include road maintenance, infrastructure repair, and sanitation. Over the years, the place experiences increasing damage from floods and storm surge. Blackouts, infrastructure damage, flooding of waterfront businesses and residences become more and more common. The regular costs of repair become prohibitive for the municipality. The residents and businesses relocate.

    Clarification of the scope: Municipalities should require large development projects to incorporate longer-range adaptation measures and sustainable shoreline approaches.

    1. Critical issues

    Political: Many politicians encourage developments as positive for their communities. They represent construction jobs and contracts. They may not be inclined to consider the longer-term cost of community services associated with road maintenance, police, fire, schools, hospitals, etc. They may not want to antagonize the developer with restrictions or costly requirements, such as softer shoreline treatments.

    Economic: Developers dont want to get involved with more innovative approaches if they cost time (not money); more cost effective to incorporate. Area required for softer shoreline solutions may take up space they consider to be valuable.

    Social: New developments may divert resources, such as public incentives for development, from community development funds elsewhere that may meet the needs of underserved populations.

    Technological: The solution may not be familiar to the developers consulting engineer, who advises a tried and true method.

    Legal: The time and costs associated with permitting may deter the developer.

    Environmental: Impacts on the wetlands, groundwater, wildlife and subaquatic vegetation will require more sensitive treatment in the zoning and stormwater permits and monitoring governing the project.

  • Using the interview protocol questions and broad scope of the scenario as prompts, ask interviewees to express the issues as questions, for example:

    How long does permitting take for different shoreline solutions?

    What are the long term costs of repairing and maintaining the different shoreline solutions?

    What does this end up costing the developer?

    Here is an example of the Issues Tree method Ive modified for scenario development using the interview protocol (see Appendix B)

  • In depth interviews will explore the remaining steps (3-8) to build the scenarios as either Off-the-shelf tools or to test Tailored Exploration or Tailored Visioning scenario exercise approaches.

    Scenario 2: Comprehensive Plans Dont Adapt

    Broad Scope

    The community is about to begin its Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan. The scope is developed in consultation with the Department of State. A Request for Proposal goes out and consultants compete for the work. The scope includes provisions for rezoning of waterfront areas to encourage revitalization, parks, trails, and waterfront access (e.g., kayak landings, possible marina space). Like many communities on the Hudson River, this one experiences some flooding from the bigger storms, as it did with tropical storms Irene and Lee in August 2011. The plan calls for a participatory process, including a steering committee of local experts and key stakeholders, such as business, community development, and environmental leaders. Interested residents attend the public sessions associated with the planning process. One of the public meetings includes a charrette in which they identify a list of goals, such as increase waterfront access, support eco-tourism, and protect shoreline properties from flooding. The plan is completed 18 months later. Eventually, the municipality hires another firm to incorporate the plan into the zoning ordinance. Fearing takings claims property owners, the new zoning does not attempt to reduce density in shoreline and low lying areas, as long as they are still in the 100-year floodplain. It does call for floodproofing for new structures. It includes requirements and incentives for the new construction or restoration of deteriorated bulkheading, not associated with the project, where the need is identified by the municipality.

    Clarification of the scope: Long-range planning processes require more information and knowledge of the long term impacts of sea-level rise and shoreline options in order to realistically incorporate them into their visioning processes and code revisions.

    In depth interviews will explore the remaining steps (2-8) to build the scenarios as either Off-the-shelf tools or to test Tailored Exploration or Tailored Visioning scenario exercise approaches.

    Scenario 3: Historic Waterfronts Face Increased Inundation

    Broad Scope

    Waterfronts all along the Hudson experienced heavy flooding during tropical storms Irene and Lee in August 2011. Numerous commercial and residential properties flooded and suffered other storm damage. In many cases, their basements flooded, developing mold and damaging their electrical systems, boilers, and other equipment. In some cases, the foundations experienced subsidence, which will eventually lead to structural damage in future storms. Many of the waterfront bulkheads were damaged. Where there were no bulkheads, severe erosion occurred. The parks and public facilities were also damaged and required costly repairs by the municipality. Several brownfield areas exist along the waterfront. These were also inundated for several days, leeching toxic materials into the river. The municipality and property owners applied for and received a certain amount of relief funding from FEMA. To slow the eventual long-term damage of increasing storm events on their waterfront, the

  • municipality determines that it wants to develop a No Adverse Impact (NAI) floodplain management approach and eventually a Local Multi-hazard Mitigation Plan. These will take time, money and expertise that are not available at the local level. The community repairs the damage and returns to business, bracing for the next storm.

    Clearer scope statement: Municipalities need increased support to plan for longer-term flooding impacts.

    In depth interviews will explore the remaining steps (2-8) to build the scenarios as either Off-the-shelf tools or to test Tailored Exploration or Tailored Visioning scenario exercise approaches.

    Scenario 4: Regional: Rails In Peril

    Broad Scope

    The Metropolitan Transportation Authoritys Metro North Rail Road (MNR) total assets, including 800 miles of track and roadbeds, stations, terminals, tunnels, rolling stock and others, are on the order of $ 10 Billion. The Hudson line to Poughkeepsie, which largely follows the east shore of the Hudson, with this routes lowest critical elevation (LCE=6.5 ft). The Hudson River rail lines are subject to coastal storm surges, and the reliability of their day-to-day operations, is compromised not only by coastal storm flooding, but from frequent minor floods and runoff. The MTAs own adaptation plan notes that its individual operating agencies is generally not familiar with future climate trends, tides, flood probabilities, and related adaptation options; and that it has not sufficient engineering expertise to provide in-house the type of specialized analysis needed for its facilities vulnerabilities to weather and climate. On the other hand staff may readily provide data on past operational experience during extreme weather events. These are necessary but insufficient to plan for future sustainable operations under different climate conditions. There is a willingness and eagerness to cooperate, but uncertainty how to approach adaptation strategies systematically and professionally, without the required scientific and technical support from the outside (MTA 2008). Flooding of this critical regional infrastructure poses threats to economic well-being and safety for many communities along the Hudson River. A scenario exercise involving those municipalities that flood with the regional actors and stakeholders involved would offer many valuable insights for this project.

    In depth interviews will explore the remaining steps (2-8) to build the scenarios as either Off-the-shelf tools or to test Tailored Exploration or Tailored Visioning scenario exercise approaches.

  • Appendix C: Adaptive Management and Scenario Planning

    Adaptive planning, also known as adaptive management (Gunderson et al, 2009), is used to deal with complex, highly uncertain situations. Resilience, or the ability of any system human, ecological, or otherwise to persist and absorb change and disturbance, is the foundation of adaptation. After traumatic events, resilience is a measure of the ability of a system, or community, to self-reorganize (Walker et al., 2002). Recent complex systems theories have been applied to human-ecological resilience (Gunderson and Holling, 2002). Hollings model of dynamic change has three properties: the potential for change, the degree of connectedness, and the system resilience (Holling 2001).

    In these views of reliance theory and adaptive management, the degree of connectedness in human systems has a great deal to do with their ability to adapt. This is somewhat related to the social science literature of social capital, wherein reciprocity and relationships has intrinsic, qualitative, and even quantifiable benefits for development.

    Figure 1: Ideal-type Stages of the Adaptation Decision-making Process Source: Moser and Ekstrom (2010: 15)

    Figure 2: Scenario planning is appropriate where there is a lot of uncertainty Source: Peterson et al (2003:

    This is important in relation to the role of decision makers in municipalities. Municipal decision makers must take many actors and their actions into account. They are typically a diffuse and diverse group of people whose decisions are subjective and based on a calculation of trade-offs.

    Scenario building is appropriate when there is resistance, lack of understanding, conventional wisdom, short-term thinking, a need for leadership. It is important that the participants are convinced of the relevance of the process and the value and soundness of the results. Therefore, it is critical that the foundation of a scenario (i.e., the situation, the evidence, the XYZ of the scenario are based in the reality of the decision maker) or they will not ultimately contribute to decisions, actions and implementation. The scenario method allows us to evaluate them comparatively, consider the consequences, and develop policies to support adaptation planning and adaptive management.

  • Appendix E:

    PESTLE ANALYSIS QUESTIONS:

    POLITICAL. These questions would be used in the case of those decision-makers interacting directly with mayors, supervisors, town or village board members, city council, and municipal chief administrators and managers. This can include department heads in planning, public works, wastewater treatment, parks and recreation, as well as the political figures themselves. Q1: Is there political support to implement and maintain this specific action? Q1A: Who are the stakeholders of this type of action? FUP: Have all of the stakeholders been offered

    an opportunity to participate in the planning process? Q1B Is there enough public support to ensure the success of this approach? FUP: What kind of

    outreach has been done? Q1C Have political leaders participated in waterfront and shoreline planning process so far? Has

    the process been codified as local law and/or adopted as an element of the comprehensive plan? (i.e., zoning, comp plan revision, LWRP)

    ECONOMIC. These questions are asked specifically of chief elected officials and financial advisors, economic development staff, the assessors office, and possibly elected representatives serving on financial committees. Economic considerations should include the current and projected economic base. Q1: What is the estimated cost of this specific action? FUP: Are there currently sources of funds that

    can be used to implement the action? FUP: What benefits will the action provide? Q1A: How can these approaches be accomplished at the lowest cost to the public? FUP: Does the

    cost seem reasonable for the size of the problem and likely benefits? Q1B What burden will be placed on the tax base or local economy to implement this action? Q1C Does the action contribute to other community economic goals, such as capital improvements

    or economic development? FUP: How are these prioritized? FUP: What proposed actions should be considered but be tabled for implementation until outside sources of funding are available?

    Q1D Does the municipality have the capability (staff, technical experts, and/or funding) to implement the action, or can it be readily obtained? FUP: Can the community provide the necessary maintenance? FUP: Can it be accomplished in a timely manner?

    SOCIAL. Public awareness and support are necessary for the success of the implementation of adaptive strategies. If the community has developed a waterfront plan and addressed questions of sea level rise and adaptation, there may be informants who can answer these questions. These may be elected officials, planners, planning consultants, demographers and planners at the county level, community development organizations, social and environmental advocacy groups, waterfront advisory committees. Q1: Will the proposed action adversely affect one segment of the population? Q2: Will the action disrupt established neighborhoods, break up voting districts, or cause the

    relocation of lower income people? Q3: Is the action compatible with present and future community values? FUP: Are these

    articulated in long-term planning documents, administrative codes, or other local laws? Q4: Will the actions adversely affect cultural values or resources? Q5: Will the actions adversely affect recreational resources?

  • TECHNICAL. Key informants for these questions include the municipal engineer, public works staff, and building department staff. They can explore issues of technical feasibility and cost effectiveness, consider long-term and secondary impacts. Q1 How effective is the action in avoiding or reducing future losses? FUP: Will it create more

    problems than it solves? FUP: Does it solve the problem or only a symptom? Q2: Has the action been compared to alternative actions in terms of construction costs,

    maintenance costs, and adaptability? Q3: Is acquisition and relocation of structures out of the floodplain feasible in this community?

    LEGAL. The communitys legal counsel and possibly other technical staff (planning director, public works commissioner) are key informants for these questions. Q1: Will this action comply with local, state, and federal environmental laws or regulations? FUP:

    Does the community have the authority to implement the proposed action? FUP: Is there a technical, scientific, or legal basis for the proposed action? FUP: Are the proper laws, ordinances, and resolutions in place to implement the action?

    Q2: Are there any potential legal consequences? FUP: Will the community be liable for the actions or support of actions, or lack of action? FUP: Is the action likely to be challenged by stakeholders who may be negatively affected?

    ENVIRONMENTAL. Key informants for this may include the local health department, conservation commissions, environmental or water resources agency, building officials, and local environmental groups. They are asked to consider negative consequences to environmental assets such as endangered species, wetlands, and other protected natural resources. Q1: How will this action affect the environment (land, water, endangered species)? Q2: Is the action consistent with community environmental goals? Q3: Are there any actions (recent, planned or possible) that couldcontrol sediment and erosion?

    support stream corridor and wetland restoration?

  • APPENDIX F: Sea Level Rise Task Force Recommendations Linked to Shorelines:

    "Guidance should address evaluating and updating emergency management strategies and plans. In particular, there is a critical need for more focused and sustained engagement by public health professionals (Recommendation 9). Better data and analysis are needed to help communities assess their vulnerability to immediate mortality risks, risks of infectious and vectorborne diseases, healthrelated costs of flooding and mental health problems, and the need for early warning systems." (Ahearn, 2005 in SLR Task Force Report)

    "Shoreline inventories should be completed for infrastructure, critical facilities and existing structural shorelinedefense measures. Tidal wetland and coastal erosion hazard area maps have not been updated in decades even though, in the case of coastal erosion hazard area maps, such updates are required by law." (SLR Task Force Report) 6. Develop maps and other tools to assist decision makers in preparing for, and responding to, sea level rise.

    What: Ensure that decision makers have access to current and accurate planning data in the following categories: a) Basic mapping data:

    i. Highresolution elevation data: Landelevation data are critical to mapping the projected impacts of sea level rise, related storm surge and flooding. The best available technology should be used to gather these data.

    ii. Coastal erosion hazard areas (CEHA): Remapping is necessary for effective management of New York States coastal erosion hazard areas to minimize investment in areas subject to coastal storm damage, erosion and sea level rise impacts. The original maps should be replaced with digital maps using geographic information systems (GIS) and current imagery with accurate coastal erosion hazard areas delineated. Subsequent periodic review and update of CEHA maps will be needed in order to maintain accurate identification of erosion hazard areas and the use of this information to reduce the loss of property, investment and lives.

    iii. Tidal and freshwater wetland boundaries: The state should maintain complete uptodate maps of tidal and freshwater wetlands. The existing tidal wetlands maps are nearly 40 years old and should be updated to include all existing tidal wetland areas. Guidance and criteria to map areas of tidal wetland migration should be developed. The Tidal Wetland Act should be modified to include consideration of the effects of sea level rise on tidal wetlands over time and tidal wetlands should be reinventoried to include migration areas.

    iv. Detailed shoreline inventories: The state should map the location and status of critical habitats, natural and humanmade shoreline protective features, infrastructure and critical facilities at risk.

    v. FEMA floodplain maps: Accuracy and electronic access to these maps should be improved for local governments and the public to allow them to identify areas within the coastal risk management zone more readily.

    vi. Socioeconomic and environmental data on relevant nonclimate stressors should be made available for incorporation into vulnerability assessments.

  • b) The state should adopt, support and promote the use by the public and private sector of sources of decisionsupport tools and information for planning (maps and data), such as the existing Nature Conservancy model (www.coastalresilience.org), or similar models, including maps of areas of future inundation from sea level rise and highintensity storms, changes in shoreline position, and areas of potential habitat migration including wetlands, dunes and barrier islands.

    How/Who: New York State agencies (e.g., DOS, DEC, Office of Cyber Security (OSC), DOT, OEM) with an interest in, and/or responsibility for, data collection and dissemination should form a working group to identify and implement funding strategies at the state and federal agency levels to ensure that information collection and dissemination are coordinated with federal agencies, New York City and other local governments, and that information is updated on a regular basis.

    When: A working group should determine funding strategies within one year. Priority for highresolution elevation data acquisition should be given to unmapped counties of greatest vulnerability. Full implementation within five to ten years.

  • Appendix G: Schedule 1 Scope of Services SCHEDULE 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES

    Overview: Climate change and the associated accelerated sea level rise threaten Hudson River intertidal and sub-tidal habitats. Decisions about shoreline erosion control measures will exacerbate or mitigate this habitat loss. The Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve (HRNERR), through the Greenway, was awarded a grant by the University of New Hampshire Cooperative Institute of Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology to explore opportunities for mitigating both the impacts of climate change (including sea level rise) and the human responses to sea level rise on Hudson River shoreline erosion. Considerable work has been done to date under the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project (HRSSP) to characterize the Hudson River shorelines ecological functions, compare engineering approaches, define physical conditions that affect shorelines, characterize the legal and regulatory framework in which decisions are made, and understand the conditions that affect decision-making by regulators and engineers. Initial guidance has been drafted on managing shorelines for ecological benefits. The project has begun to explore alternatives for tools to help engineers, regulators, policy-makers, municipal officials and employees, and advocates make decisions about shoreline management. This scope of services is for work to fill a gap in our understanding about how best to support, influence, and meet the needs of a wide range of municipalities and municipal officials and employees who choose and/or approve shoreline treatments for sites within their jurisdiction. Municipal officials include chief executives, members of legislative bodies, members of appointed and ad hoc boards, committees and task forces such as planning boards and conservation advisory committees in New York Hudson River waterfront towns, cities and villages. Municipal employees include paid or contractual staff of New York Hudson River waterfront towns, cities and villages, in such departments as highway, sanitation, parks, engineering, planning and economic development. To the extent that the needs of shoreline landowners are similar, the results of this work may also be used to support and influence private landowner decisions about shoreline management. This scope will build on existing knowledge. We know there are many hurdles to overcome in supporting decision-making about shoreline management, including lack of understanding about several factors: the costs and benefits of different shoreline approaches, future risks to shorelines performance, and the design and efficacy of ecologically engineered treatment options. Other hurdles include conflicting incentives, uncertainties about the priorities of regulators, and the time and funding constraints faced by municipal officials and employees. Tasks: This $4,500 contract will support an initial phase of work to carry out the following tasks:

    1) Review existing HRSSP documents that are relevant to defining an approach for supporting, influencing, and meeting the needs of municipal officials and employees in making decisions about shorelines. Also interview the projects principal investigator and the outreach coordinator to learn about overall project structure and status.

    2) Develop a report that synthesizes past HRSSP studies of barriers to adoption of ecologically

    enhanced shorelines, incorporates contractors knowledge of municipal officials and employees

  • needs and challenges, develops an initial hierarchy of these needs and challenges, and makes initial recommendations of best approaches to disseminate HRSSP findings and integrate HRSSP findings into local practice.

    3) Create 1-page outlines of four scenarios that may be developed in a second phase, and a 1-page

    description of how the scenarios will be used and how they will benefit the HRSSP. It is anticipated that the scenarios will focus on specific, typical shoreline management and decision-making situations and conditions that municipal officials and employees are likely to face in future years, such as construction or improvements that will occur in response to a proposed development project, erosion, or storm damage. The purpose of this task is to advance the HRSSPs thinking about scenario development, further define for the HRSSP Coordinating Committee what a developed scenario would look like, and create a draft list of potential scenarios that can be tested with future municipal interviewees and informants.

    4) Draft a protocol for interviewing municipal officials and employees in a future phase. The

    protocol should, at a minimum, include questions that will elucidate information about interviewees role(s) in making decisions about shorelines; their background; awareness and knowledge of changing conditions (flooding patterns, sea level rise); the principal sources of guidance they use when making decisions; reaction to and priorities for development of scenarios (as described in task 3); and needs for additional information, tools, or training.

    5) Present and deliver items 2, 3, and 4 to the HRSSP principal investigator and available members

    of the HRSSP Coordinating Committee. Deliverables:

    1) Synthesis report 2) Scenario products, including four 1-page scenario outlines and a 1-page overview of intended

    use 3) Interview protocol 4) Meeting/presentation at conclusion

    Timeline: July 16-30, 2012

  • APPENDIX H: Bibliography

    IMCORE (ND). A review of approaches to scenario-building and scenario development for coastal

    areas. Centre for Research in Futures and Innovation, University of Glamorgan.

    Jarrar, Yasar F. and Zairi, Mohamed "Best practice transfer for future competitiveness: a study of best practices," Total Quality Management 11, 4-6 (July 2000): 734ff.

    Jones, Bryan (1999). Bounded Rationality. Annual Review of Political Science. 2:297321 http://www.princeton.edu/~smeunier/JonesBounded1.pdf

    Miller and Rella (2006). Engineered Approaches for Limiting Erosion along Sheltered Shorelines: A Review of Existing Methods As a part of: Mitigating Shoreline Erosion Along the Hudson River Estuarys Sheltered Coasts.

    Moore, Sara, Erika Zavaleta, and Rebecca Shaw (University of California, Santa Cruz). 2012. DecisionMaking Under Uncertainty: An Assessment of Adaptation Strategies and Scenario Development for Resource Managers. California Energy Commission. Publication number: CEC5002012027.

    Moser, Susanne C., and Julia A. Ekstrom. 2012. Identifying and Overcoming Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation in San Francisco Bay: Results from Case Studies. California Energy Commission. Publication number: CEC-500-2012-034.

    National Research Council. Mitigating Shore Erosion along Sheltered Coasts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2007.

    Peterson, et al. 2003. Scenario Planning: a Tool for Conservation in an Uncertain World. Conservation Biology 17: 358366.