Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
March 2006
Prepared for:
ALDEN
This report was prepared by ASA Analysis and Communications, Inc. and Alden Research
Laboratory, Inc. under award NA03NOS4200141 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. The statements, findings, conclusions, and
recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the Department of Commerce.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Hudson River Estuary shoreline,
extending from the rivers mouth in New
York City to the Troy Dam, is very different
today from the shoreline that existed when
Henry Hudson first sailed up the river in
1609. The shoreline has undergone constant
natural erosional and depositional processes,
and has been subject to human modification
on a significant scale since the time of
European settlement of the valley.
Modifications have included dredging a
navigation channel, disposal of dredged
material which created new islands and
connected and expanded existing islands,
creation of railroad beds on both sides of the
river, installation of hardened shoreline
structures, marinas, docking facilities, and
other development. The cumulative result
of these activities has adversely affected
both the quality and quantity of the riparian
and near shore aquatic habitat. The natural
ecological communities that existed prior to
these activities have been transformed to
cultural (modified) communities that may
not perform the same ecological functions as
habitat for fish and wildlife. In addition,
these modified areas may not provide other
amenities, such as aesthetic enjoyment, or
opportunities to fish, swim, or otherwise use
the estuary.
Ingenta
EBSCOHost
Scientific Research
Illumina
Engineering Village
USACE
i
ASCE
NRCS
University reference libraries (University of
Massachusetts and Pennsylvania State
University) were accessed to obtain
references that could not be obtained
directly off the internet.
Much of the information on techniques
applicable to the Hudson River came from a
number of comprehensive review documents
(FISRWG 1998, USDA NRCS 1996,
GSWCC 2000, Allen and Leech 1997, Gray
and Sotir 1996, Schiechtl 1980, Schiechtl
and Stern 1997, Landphair and Li 2002).
Shoreline type
Current condition
Opportunity for improvement
ii
expected benefits
Recommendations
iii
Bank stability
Assessment of riparian plantings
Emergent vegetation assessment
Assessment of refuge/spawning habitats
and overall fish use.
Assessment of riparian wildlife habitat
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Alden and ASA would like to thank staff of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve, Hudson River Estuary
Program and the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission for input, and
assistance for this project. We would also like to thank the New York State Department of State
staff for providing useful comments and advice. Specific personnel acknowledgements include:
Daniel Miller, Habitat Restoration Coordinator, Hudson River Estuary Program. Dan was the
Project Manager and provided input and guidance to all aspects of the project including a
thorough tour of the entire Hudson River Estuary.
Geofrey Eckerlin, Environmental Analyst, Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve.
Geof provided valuable assistance conducting the river surveys and piloting the boat.
Emilie Hauser, Coastal Training Program Coordinator, Hudson River National Estuarine
Research Reserve. Emilie provided input and guidance in developing this report and
implementing a training program.
Daniel Giza, Biologist, Alden Research Laboratory. Dan was an integral part of the shoreline
river surveys.
Table of Contents
Section 1 Introduction................................................................................................................... 1
Section 2 Hudson River Estuary Shoreline..................................................................................... 2
Morphometry .............................................................................................................................. 2
Erosional Forces.......................................................................................................................... 2
Ecological Communities............................................................................................................. 5
Habitats & Communities............................................................................................................. 6
Habitat Modifications ................................................................................................................. 8
Shoreline Hardening ................................................................................................................... 8
Section 3 A Synthesis of Literature on Shoreline Stabilization Methods and Habitat
Enhancements Applicable to the Hudson River Estuary ................................................................ 9
Review of Available Literature Applicable to the Hudson River............................................... 9
Alternative Shoreline Stabilization Methods ............................................................................ 15
Applicability (of) Existing Shorelines ...................................................................................... 27
Vegetation for Stabilization Methods ....................................................................................... 27
Costs.......................................................................................................................................... 28
Section 4 Estuary Shoreline River Surveys and Selection of Shoreline Restoration Sites for Case
Studies of Soft Engineering Design .......................................................................................... 31
Initial Shoreline River Survey .................................................................................................. 31
Selection of Restoration Sites for Preliminary Soft Engineering Designs............................ 31
Section 5 Preliminary Soft Engineering Designs and Detailed Evaluation of Selected Shoreline
Example Sites................................................................................................................................ 39
Detailed Shoreline Survey of Selected Sites............................................................................. 39
Bowline Point Park ................................................................................................................... 41
Newburgh.................................................................................................................................. 53
Poughkeepsie ............................................................................................................................ 61
Henry Hudson Park................................................................................................................... 72
Campbell Island ........................................................................................................................ 81
Section 6 Regulatory Requirements.............................................................................................. 92
Section 7 Summary and Recommendations ................................................................................. 97
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 97
Recommendations................................................................................................................... 100
Section 8 References................................................................................................................... 101
vi
Appendix A, Glossary
Appendix B, Plants for Soil Bioengineering and Associated Systems for the Northeast Region
Appendix C, Cost Estimates
Appendix D, Vendors for bioengineering products
vii
List of Tables
Table 1 Hudson River Morphometry............................................................................................. 3
Table 2 Available River Bank Stabilization Techniques1............................................................ 11
Table 3 Permissible Shear Stress and Velocity for Selected Lining Materials (Fischenich 2001)
............................................................................................................................................... 14
Table 4 Stress and Velocity Levels for Vegetated Geogrid (Sotir and Fischenich 2003) ........... 16
Table 5 Stress and Velocity Levels for the Brush mattress (Allen and Fischenich 2000)........... 22
Table 6 Allowable Velocities for Rock Gabions (Chaychuk 2005) ............................................ 25
Table 7 Approximate Costs of Riverbank Stabilization Technique1 ........................................... 29
Table 8 Vegetative and Bioengineering Labor Estimates (Allen and Fischenich 2000) ............. 30
Table 9 NYSDEC Division of Environmental Permits Regional Offices ................................... 94
Table 10 Local governmental agencies that have reached the local adoption stage of a Local
Waterfront Revitalization Plan as of February 1, 2006 (Source: NYS Department of State
http://www.nyswaterfronts.com/downloads/pdfs/LWRP_Status_Sheet.pdf)....................... 96
Table 11 Evaluation Summary..................................................................................................... 98
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Tidal Zones...................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2 Vegetated Geogrid (USDA NRCS 1996)...................................................................... 16
Figure 3 Live Crib Wall (USDA NRCS 1996)............................................................................ 18
Figure 4 Existing Shoreline (similar to Joint Planting design) .................................................... 19
Figure 5 Joint Planting (USDA NRCS 1996) .............................................................................. 20
Figure 6 Vegetative Cellular Concrete Block (USDA NRCS 1996)........................................... 20
Figure 7 Brush Mattress (USDA NRCS 1996)............................................................................ 23
Figure 8 Vegetative Rock Gabion Wall (USDA NRCS 1996).................................................... 26
Figure 9 Vegetative Rock Gabion Mattress (Allen and Leech 1997).......................................... 26
Figure 10 Hudson River Selected Shoreline Stabilization Sites.................................................. 40
Figure 11 Bowline Park General Vicinity ................................................................................... 46
Figure 12 Bowline Park, Existing Conditions Plan ..................................................................... 47
Figure 13 Bowline Park, Existing Conditions Section A ............................................................ 48
Figure 14 Bowline Park, Existing Conditions Section B............................................................. 49
Figure 15 Bowline Point Park Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Cross Section .................. 50
Figure 16 Bowline Park Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Cross Section A........................ 51
Figure 17 Bowline Park Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Cross Section B ........................ 52
Figure 18 Newburgh, General Vicinity ....................................................................................... 56
Figure 19 Newburgh, Existing Conditions Plan .......................................................................... 57
Figure 20 Newburgh, Existing Conditions Section A ................................................................. 58
Figure 21 Newburgh, Existing Conditions Section B.................................................................. 59
Figure 22 Newburgh Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Cross Section................................. 60
Figure 23 Poughkeepsie General Vicinity ................................................................................... 65
Figure 24 Poughkeepsie Existing Conditions Plan...................................................................... 66
Figure 25 Poughkeepsie Existing Conditions Section A ............................................................. 67
Figure 26 Poughkeepsie Existing Conditions Section B ............................................................. 68
Figure 27 Poughkeepsie Existing Conditions Section C ............................................................. 69
Figure 28 Poughkeepsie Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Section A.................................. 70
Figure 29 Poughkeepsie Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Cross Section B........................ 71
Figure 30 Henry Hudson Park General Vicinity.......................................................................... 76
Figure 31 Henry Hudson Park, Existing Conditions Plan ........................................................... 77
ix
Section 1 Introduction
The shoreline of the Hudson River Estuary,
which extends from the rivers mouth in
New York City to the Troy Dam, is very
different today from the shoreline that
existed in 1609 when Henry Hudson first
sailed up the river. The Hudsons shoreline,
like all river shorelines is subject to
constant, although usually gradual, natural
changes due to the processes of erosion and
deposition. Erosion of soil, sand and rock
within the watershed and along shorelines
due to surface runoff, wave action, high
flow velocities, and ice scouring, eventually
becomes deposition in areas of lower water
velocity along shorelines, in subtidal areas,
or at the mouth of the estuary. Although
tidal rivers such as the Hudson Estuary are
somewhat buffered against extreme high
flow, unusual events such as severe storms
coincident with peak tidal phases can
temporarily reverse erosional and
depositional patterns, resulting in rapid and
substantial changes to the shoreline.
Erosional Forces
Segment
RM 152 -94
RM 93-56
Hudson Highlands
West Point
Indian Point
RM 55-39
Haverstraw Bay
Croton Haverstraw
Tappen Zee
RM 38-24
RM 23- 0
Characterization
Narrow with extensive shoals and 29 tributaries; the
slope of the river bottom is greater in this segment than
others resulting in generally greater velocities The river
channel is heavily modified due to navigational
dredging in early and mid 20th century. Sediment
disposal was along shoreline or used to create artificial
islands. Shorelines are highly modified with rock and
timber crib dikes to contain the dredge spoil.
Series of progressively deeper pools moving
downstream; its volume is more than 1.5 times that of
the RM 152-94 stretch due to deep cutting of glaciers in
this constricted area; shallow shoreline and shoal areas
are common in the southernmost end of the reach.
Shores are mix of rock, sand and soil, some of which is
vegetated. There are numerous former industrial sites
with degrading shoreline structures. Shallow areas are
often vegetated with water chestnut, milfoil, or native
aquatic vegetation.
Deepest and most turbulent stretch; river narrows
abruptly, bends sharply, and increases to depths over
150 ft. Shorelines are either railroad bed, or bedrock
that slopes steeply to the river channel. Very little
shallow area exists in this segment, except on the
landward side of the railroad beds where there are
extensive tidal marshes, and in Peekskill Bay.
Short, broad (2.5 mi) stretch creating a broad, shallow
basin; this is the widest, shallowest section of river;
extensive shoal and shore-zone areas; major deposition
area; sediments high in organic matter; biologically
productive area, particularly as a fish nursery area. The
width of the river and relatively low landforms along
the shores make this the segment most impacted by
natural wave erosion.
Relatively straight, deep section with few shoals or
shore-zone habitat; due to urbanization and industrial
development, the lower 12 miles has little remaining
natural shoreline, particularly along the east shore. On
the western shore, Palisades escarpment has
significantly hindered development and most
modifications are those associated with rails and
highway rights of way.
Ecological Communities
As is typical in temperate estuaries, the
Hudson River Estuary contains a number of
different community types that have the
common characteristic that they are tolerant
of a wide range of environmental conditions.
In the Hudson, water temperatures can range
from 0 C to 30 C or above in nearshore
shallows. Salinities range from 0 ppt to >10
ppt depending on location and freshwater
inflow. Nutrients, sediment, and pollutant
inputs occur in pulses when precipitation
causes surface runoff and high tributary
inflows.
Nearshore communities in the estuary must
cope with cyclical inundation due to tides,
and with very high physical energy inputs.
These high energy inputs play a large role in
determining the nearshore community type.
To exist in the nearshore environment,
plants and animals must be able to withstand
the bi-directional tidal flows, the battering of
Shoreline Hardening
Habitat Modifications
Rip rap
Rock cribs
Steel sheet pile
Stone masonry
Timber bulkheads
Engineering Village
USACE
ASCE
NRCS
University reference libraries (University of
Massachusetts and Pennsylvania State
University) were accessed to obtain
references that could not be obtained
directly off the internet. The keywords used
to query the data bases include:
River restoration
River bioengineering
Soil bioengineering
Streambank stabilization
Biotechnical streambank stabilization
Ecological river restoration
Estuarine river restoration
The search yielded a list of citations and
abstracts for documents identified by the
keywords. Much of the information on
techniques applicable to the Hudson River
came from a number of comprehensive
review documents (FISRWG 1998, USDA
NRCS 1996, GSWCC 2000, Allen and
Leech 1997, Gray and Sotir 1996, Schiechtl
1980, Schiechtl and Stern 1997, Landphair
and Li 2002).
Ingenta
Scientific Research
Illumina
EBSCOHost
maintenance requirement
longevity of technique
habitat function
tidal flow
Vegetated Geogrids
10
Joint Plantings
Brush mattresses
Vegetated Rock Gabions or Mattresses
Each of these techniques (highlighted in
Table 1) is presented in detail in the next
section.
Description
Staking bundled live branches
lengthwise along trenches dug on
contour of slopes. The bundles
are staked into place and partially
buried.
Advantages
Low cost and simple installation
that can be completed entirely
with manual labor. Provides
immediate soil stabilization
Disadvantages
Low allowable shear stress and
velocity limits and provides
shallow soil stabilization.
Susceptible to debris and ice
damage.
Live Stakes
Live Fascines
Brush layering
Branch
packing
Vegetated
Geogrids
11
Method
Live Crib Wall
Live Grating
Description
Box-like arrangement of
interlocking logs, timbers, precast concrete or plastic structural
members. The crib is filled with
layers of backfill and live cuttings
that root inside the crib and
beyond into the slope.
A frame structure installed on a
slope consisting of wood,
concrete, metal or synthetic
polymer that requires a stable
footing.
Joint Planting
Brush Mattress
Tree
Revetment
Log and
Rootwad
Revetment
Advantages
Provides protection for slopes
near vertical. Occupies less area
because of the steep slopes
possible and material should be
readily available. Allowable
shear stresses and velocities are
relatively high.
Numerous designs available
depending on material and design
requirements. Allowable shear
stresses and velocities will vary
depending on design but should
be similar to other structural
methods.
Relatively low cost and fast
installation on existing riprap
slopes. Provides additional
protection to the armor layer by
preventing washout of fines and
reinforcing the underlying soil.
Provides good stabilization with
relatively moderate allowable
shear stress and velocities with
stone toe protection. Can be
installed with manual labor and
provides higher aesthetic value
than other vegetated structural
techniques.
Disadvantages
Requires heavy equipment to
install and pre-cast concrete types
are extremely heavy and
cumbersome.
12
Method
Dormant Post
Planting
Description
Woody live posts planted in a
square a triangular grid along the
river bank.
Advantages
Reduce near bank erosion by
reducing velocities and more
stable than live stakes.
Disadvantages
Relatively low allowable shear
stress and velocity of river bank if
not combined with other methods.
Susceptible to debris and ice
damage and harvesting posts can
be destructive to the donor stand.
Coconut Fiber
Rolls
Vegetative
Rock Gabions
Vegetative
Rock Gabion
Mattress (Reno
Mattress)
1. Table derived from: Gray and Sotir 1996; Schiechtl and Stern 1996; Freeman and Fischenich 2000; FISRWG 1998; Landphair and Li 2002; Allen and
Fischenich 2000; Sylte and Fischenich 2000.
13
Table 3 Permissible Shear Stress and Velocity for Selected Lining Materials (Fischenich
2001)
Permissible
Shear Stress
(lb/ft2)
Permissible
Velocity (ft/sec)
Class A turf
3.7
6-8
Class B turf
2.1
4-7
Class C turf
3.5
Boundary Category
Vegetation
Temporary Rolled
Erosion Control
Products (RECPs)
Boundary Type
1.2-1.7
4-6
0.7-0.95
3-4
0.1-0.6
N/A
0.41-2.5
N/A
0.45
1-2.5
1.5-1.65
1-3
2.25
3-4
Fiberglass roving
2.5-7
Unvegetated
5-7
4.0-6.0
7.5-15
8-21
6 inch D50
2.5
5-10
9 inch D50
3.8
7-11
12 inch D50
5.1
10-13
18 inch D50
7.6
12-16
24 inch D50
10.1
14-18
Wattles
0.2-1.0
Reed fascine
0.6-1.25
Coir roll
3-5
4-8
9.5
0.4-4.1
3.90-8.2
12
0.4-6.25
12
Live fascine
1.25-3.10
6-8
2.10-3.10
3-10
Gabions
10
14-19
Concrete
12.5
>18
Jute net
Straw net
Coconut fiber with net
Non-Degradable RECPs
Partially vegetated
Fully vegetated
Riprap
Soil Bioengineering
Hard Surfacing
14
Table 4 Stress and Velocity Levels for Vegetated Geogrid (Sotir and Fischenich 2003)
Time
Velocity (ft/sec)
Initial (immediately
after construction)
3-5
5-9
Established (after 1 to
2 years of growth)
14
16
Joint Planting
The following information was taken from
Schiechtl 1980, USDA NRCS 1996,
GSWCC 2000, and Donat 1995
Joint planting involves adding vegetation
(live stakes) to an existing stone or riprap
slope or creating a vegetated rock slope.
Live stakes are tamped into joint spaces
between the rocks. The slope should be
graded similar to the natural river bank slope
(Schiechtl 1980). A detail of a joint planting
system is shown on Figure 5.
The materials for joint planting consist of
willows or woody plants that propagate
roots easily. The live stakes should be 2 to 3
inches in diameter and 3 to 3.5 ft in length
(GSWCC 2000). The live stakes should be
installed the same day they are cut or
18
19
20
Brush Mattress
The following information was taken from
Allen and Fischenich 2000, USDA NRCS
1996, and GSWCC 2000.
A brush mattress is a mat of intertwined live
branches covering a river bank with a live
fascine (live cutting materials) over a rock
base. The brush mattress is secured with
wire or twine, live stakes, and stout dead
stakes. The live sprouting plants act to
reduce the river velocity and shear stress
along the shore, and encourage sediment
depositions at high water levels (Allen and
Fischenich 2000). The system creates an
interlocking network of roots that anchor the
slope in place. A detail of a brush mattress
is shown on Figure 7.
The live cutting materials for brush
mattresses consist of live branch cuttings of
willows, viburnum, shrub dogwood, or
similar plant species that propagate roots
easily. The branches should be 2 to 3 years
old, to 1 inches in diameter and 5 to 10
ft in length. Riprap is typically used for the
base and the live fascines consist of bundles
of live cut branches partially buried in a
trench near the base of the slope. The
material for the wire could be coir bristle
twine, tie wire or similar.
Construction of the brush mattress system
begins with excavation of the slope base to
install a rock base. The rock should extend
into the river channel to provide scour
protection at the toe of the slope and should
continue upslope to the low water level.
The remaining bank should be graded at a
slope of 1:2 (V:H) or flatter. The live
fascine would be installed in a trench 8 to 10
inches deep located adjacent to the top of the
rock base and would be sloped to reduce
erosion and pooling of water upslope of the
21
Table 5 Stress and Velocity Levels for the Brush mattress (Allen and Fischenich 2000)
Velocity (ft/sec)
< 4.0
0.4 - 3.0
< 5.0
4.0 - 7.0
<5
0.8 - 4.1
< 12
4.0 - 8.0
22
23
24
D50 (inches)
Critical
Velocity1
(ft/sec)
Limit
Velocity2
(ft/sec)
34
3.4
11.5
13.8
0.5
36
4.3
13.8
14.8
Mattress
0.75
34
3.4
14.8
16
Mattress
0.75
36
4.7
14.8
20
Mattress
1.0
35
13.6
18
Mattress
1.0
46
16.4
21
Basket
1.5
4-8
19
24.9
Basket
1.5
5 - 10
7.5
21
26.2
Type
Thickness
(ft)
Filling Stone
Range
(inches)
Mattress
0.5
Mattress
1. Velocity at which the revetment will remain stable without movement of rock fill.
2. Velocity which is still acceptable although there is some deformation of the protections due to
movement of the stones within the wire baskets.
25
26
Viburnums
Dogwoods
The plant species chosen for a project
should be carefully selected based on the
following criteria:
Native plants
Availability, (the plants may be obtained
from a local nursery or harvested from a
nearby stand)
Rooting ability from cutting (integrity of
the stabilization structures depend on the
successful establishment of the
plantings)
Growth rate (rapid growth rate will limit
the systems vulnerability to floods and
heavy storm events immediately after
installation while vegetation is becoming
established)
Spread potential (density of vegetation
will benefit the systems integrity)
Salinity tolerance (bank vegetation will
be exposed to brackish water in lower
regions of the estuary)
Flood tolerance (bank vegetation will be
susceptible to high currents and water
levels during floods)
Costs (cost will vary depending on
location, species and type of planting)
Maintenance requirements (maintenance
requirements will depend on how well
the plants meet the criteria above; e.g.
easily propagated roots, rapid growth
rate, high establishment speed, good
spread potential, and good salinity and
flood tolerance will minimize the degree
of maintenance required)
Appendix B lists suggested woody plants for
the proposed restoration efforts. These
plants are available commercially, can be
rooted from cuttings, and are native to the
US and already found in New York. This
Costs
Soft river bank stabilization techniques are
typically much less expensive than
traditional hard stabilization methods (Allen
and Leech 1997). However, there is wide
variability in the cost of plantings, inert
materials and labor, depending on location
and complexity of the alternative. Due to
their greater stability, the techniques
selected for possible Hudson River Estuary
application tend to be more costly than other
soft techniques that are suitable for smaller,
ice-free rivers and streams with lower wave
energy profiles. Therefore, the relative cost
comparison below is between techniques
suitable for the Hudson River.
28
Unit
Capital
Costs
$16 - 37
per square
foot
$13-33 per
square foot
$1 5 per
square foot2
$3 - 14 per
square foot
$176 527
per cubic
yard of
protection
Reference
Sotir and
Fischenich 2003
Gray and Sotir
1996
Gray and Sotir
1996
Allen and
Fischenich 2000
Freeman and
Fischenich 2000
Relative Cost
Assessment
High
High
Medium
Medium
High
1.
2.
Does not include riprap and assumes 4 cuttings per square yard.
29
Table 8 Vegetative and Bioengineering Labor Estimates (Allen and Fischenich 2000)
Activity
Labor Required
Wattling
Brush Layering
Dormant Posts
Willow Cuttings
Plant Roll
Coconut Fiber Roll
Sprig Planting
Seedling Planting
Ball and Burlap Shrubs
2-5 m/hr
2-5 m/hr
0.2 - 1.0 m2/hr
45 - 50 cuttings/hr
6 m/hr
1.5 m/hr
4.0 - 20 m2/hr
30 - 120 plants/hr
10 - 25 plants/hr
Containerized Plants
Vegetative Geogrids
Seeding
Hydroseeding
20 - 40 plants/hr
0.2 - 0.4 m/hr
0.02 - 0.2 ha/hr
0.05 - 0.15 ha/hr
30
31
Shoreline
Newburgh Shoreline
4. Beacon, possible industrial site
Shoreline
Shoreline
32
Poughkeepsie Shoreline
6. Upper Schodack Island, Castleton on the
Hudson. East side of river with
degrading timber crib with concrete cap.
Henry Hudson Park Aerial Photograph
33
Corning Preserve
34
Shoreline type
Current condition
Opportunity for improvement
Regional distribution of all proposed
sites
e. Landscape context (urban/rural)
f. Project applicability to other sites in the
Hudson River Estuary
g. Site specific consideration
35
2. Newburgh
a. Shoreline Type - former industrial
land with riprap/concrete and iron
debris shore. Overgrown with
woody vegetation.
b. Current condition - stable with
concrete and iron debris. Overgrown
with woody vegetation.
c. Opportunity for improvement The
site will likely be developed in the
near future. If so, project managers
would like to offer a soft shoreline
engineering alternative to an
inevitable action.
d. Regional distribution of all proposed
sites - This site represents the only
proposed site in Newburgh Bay.
e. Landscape context (urban/rural) This site is in an urban area.
f. Project applicability to other sites in
the Hudson River Estuary - The
shoreline is adjacent to a remediated
brownfield site littered with
discarded concrete and scrap metal
debris. The shoreline resembles a
riprap bank. Concepts developed at
this site can be applied to similar
sites throughout the estuary.
g. Site-specific consideration This is
the only example in an urban setting
with predominantly riprap-type
(stone, concrete and scrap metal)
stabilization. The parcel is a
remediated brownfield site owned by
the City of Newburgh with plans for
development.
3. Poughkeepsie, near Kaal Rock,
Dutchess County
a. Shoreline type - former
industrial/municipal land with rip rap
shore. Overgrown with woody
vegetation, steep underwater bank.
b. Current condition - The shore may
be eroding in some places. The
36
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
37
38
Shoreline geometry
Shoreline substrate
39
40
Mean Catch
Striped bass
11.03
Atlantic silverside
9.38
White perch
7.12
Atlantic menhaden
5.75
Bay anchovy
4.99
Blueback herring
4.98
American shad
2.66
42
Estimated Costs
The estimated cost to repair the shoreline is
about $75/ft or $3.75/ft2. The estimated cost
is based on a modified shoreline width of 20
ft and a shoreline length of 1,200 ft.
Assumptions used to develop the costs are
provided in Appendix C.
Willows
Viburnums
Dogwoods
Joint planting preliminary designs are
presented on Figure 16 and Figure 17.
Construction
The shoreline repairs and plantings would be
accomplished using a backhoe or excavator
and manual labor. The site would first be
re-graded as required to provide a minimum
slope of 1V:2H. The concrete bulkhead wall
would be broken up into pieces and used for
bank stabilization. Stone or concrete debris
would cover the bank to a depth of 12
inches. Surplus material from existing
banks with stone and concrete debris depths
greater than 12 inches could be used for
areas without existing stone protection.
Live cut stakes would then be installed in
the stone slope. The stakes would be
tamped in by hand. Using steel stakes (# 6
rebar), the creation of pilot holes may be
needed to ease installation.
Repairing the shoreline is expected to take
approximately 4 weeks. To maximize the
success of live stakes becoming established,
construction should be scheduled when the
sap is rising in the trees to be harvested,
which usually occur in mid to late winter
(Crossman and Simm 2004). Alternatively,
the cuttings could be harvested when the
plants are dormant and stored until needed.
The dormant cuttings should be refrigerated
between 31F to 40F and 60 to 70 percent
humidity (Mulberg and Moore 2005).
Dormant cuttings are also available from
vendors.
44
45
Bowline
Point Park
46
Figure 15 Bowline Point Park Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Cross Section
50
Newburgh
This shoreline site is located in Newburgh,
approximately mile upstream of the
mouth of Quassaick Creek and immediately
downstream of the Newburgh Municipal
Launch at RM 60 on Newburgh Bay.
Newburgh Bay is approximately 1.5 miles
wide and extends from Storm King
Mountain 8.2 miles north to Chelsea.
Existing Conditions
The selected shoreline is approximately 790
ft long extending from the Newburgh
Municipal Launch downstream to a small
cove adjacent to an abandoned smoke stack.
The shoreline mainly consists of large stone,
concrete, and scrap iron debris with
abundant woody vegetation above the high
water elevation. Scrap metal is scattered
throughout the river bank area with
remnants of a few large steel barges evident.
The adjacent upland property consists of a
remediated brownfield site owned by the
City of Newburgh.
Mean Catch
Blueback herring
19.8
Hydraulics
Banded killifish
14.1
American shad
10.8
Aquatic Habitat
The Newburgh Bay section of the river
typically has low salinities and represents
53
White perch
8.5
Striped bass
8.3
Spottail shiner
3.6
55
Newburgh
Site
56
Aquatic Habitat
Poughkeepsie
The shoreline site is located on the Hudson
River in Poughkeepsie below the midHudson Bridge at RM 76, just downstream
of Victor C. Waryas Park and south of Kaal
Rock. The Hudson River in this area is
relatively deep, averaging 50 ft or greater,
and is approximately 2,600 ft wide.
Existing Conditions
The Poughkeepsie shoreline is
approximately 960 ft long, extending from
the northern end at Kaal Rock to another
steep slope at the southern end. The
shoreline mainly consists of degrading
concrete bulkheads, old timber piles and
stone slopes. The concrete bulkheads are
degrading and are being undermined by
erosion.
Mean Catch
Blueback herring
Hydraulics
This section of the river is characterized as a
relatively narrow, deep section of the river.
The main river channel extends from shore
to shore without shoal areas. The mean tidal
velocity in the main river channel is
approximately 1 ft/sec with a tidal flow of
about 100,000 cfs (CHGEC et al. 1999).
The shoreline water velocities are expected
to be similar to the main river channel
currents depending on wind direction.
61
100.3
Unidentifed herrings
32.3
Spottail shiner
16.8
American shad
12.9
White perch
10.7
Striped bass
5.2
Banded killifish
3.4
Stone Shoreline
63
64
Poughkeepsie
shoreline
Hydraulics
The water depth along the shore is relatively
shallow, with depths ranging from 3 to 10 ft
along the timber bulkhead and sloping away
from the bulkhead at a 1V:15H slope (7%).
The navigational channel is located
approximately 600 ft from shore. The mean
current velocity in the main river channel is
approximately 1.2 ft/sec, with a tidal flow of
about 10,000 cfs (CHGEC et al. 1999).
Maximum velocity is about 2.2 ft/sec and a
maximum tidal fluctuation of about 4.5 ft
(LMS and THG 2005). The shoreline water
72
Mean Catch
30.7
20.0
Banded killifish
19.8
Spottail shiner
16.1
Tesselated darter
10.4
White perch
2.9
Striped bass
1.7
73
74
Expected Benefits
75
Henry Hudson
Park
76
Figure 34 Henry Hudson Park Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Cross Section A
80
Campbell Island
Campbell Island is located approximately 1
mile upstream of Henry Hudson Park on the
east side of the river, at RM 140. The
Hudson River in this area is relatively
narrow (approximately 1,000 ft wide). The
main navigation channel is maintained at a
width of 400 ft wide and a depth of 32 ft.
Existing Conditions
The Campbell Island shoreline restoration
example is approximately 850 ft long,
extending downstream from a timber
bulkhead/natural shoreline transition to a
river pipeline crossing. The shoreline is an
old timber crib bulkhead wall with the upper
bank filled with rock and capped with
concrete, similar to the Henry Hudson Park
shoreline. The bulkhead was capped with
concrete in 1915. Campbell Island was
created with dredged spoil material from the
navigational channel. The timber bulkhead
is degrading and has failed in a number of
areas. Rock material under the concrete cap
is eroding into the river through the failed
bulkhead.
The adjacent upland property is
undeveloped, with woody vegetation. A few
large trees are located near the shoreline.
Water depth ranges from 3 to 10 ft along the
timber bulkhead, sloping away from the
bulkhead at a 1V: 5H grade (20%).
Mean Catch
Hydraulics
Banded killifish
81
50.9
American shad
34.3
Spottail shiner
28.9
Blueback herring
28.5
Tesselated darter
15.4
White perch
8.6
Alewife
1.4
Pumpkinseed
1.1
83
84
85
Campbell Island
shoreline
86
93
NYSDOS
NYSDEC
NYSOPRHP
NYSOGS
Contact
Margaret Duke
NYS-DEC
2 1 South Putt Corners Road
New Paltz, NY 12561-1696
Telephone: (845) 256-3054
William Clarke
NYS-DEC
1150 North Wescott Road
Schenectady, NY 12306-2014
Telephone: (518) 357-2069
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
New York District
Attention: CENAN-OP-R
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278-0090
(917) 790-8411 (Permits, dredging)
(518) 273-0870 (Troy dam and lock)
Division of Coastal Resources and
Waterfront Revitalization
New York State Department of State
41 State Street
Albany, New York 12231
Telephone (518) 474-6000
Fax (518) 473-2464.
New York Natural Heritage Program
625 Broadway, 5th Floor
Albany, NY 12233-4757
Phone: (518) 402-8935
Fax: (518) 402-8925
State Historic Preservation Office
Peebles Island State Park
PO Box 189
Waterford, NY 12188-0189
(518) 237-8643
N.Y.S. Office of General Services
Real Estate Development - Land
Management
Corning Tower, 26th floor
Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12242-0001
Phone (518) 474-2195
Fax (518) 474-0011
LandUnderWater@ogs.state.ny.us
94
Authority
Pre-Application
Conference with DEC, get early feedback, determine necessary permits,
conduct necessary assessments
Application
Submit appropriate forms, plans, maps, reports, and assessments
Completeness Determination
DEC will request additional information or issue completeness
determination; classify project as minor or major
Minor Project
No public review,
DEC review only
Major Project
Public notice published in ENB and
newspapers
Decision
Public Comment
Comments received and responded to by
applicant; DEC decides if hearing necessary
Decision
Hearing
Hearing record issued
Decision
95
Table 10 Local governmental agencies that have reached the local adoption stage of a
Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan as of February 1, 2006 (Source: NYS Department of
State http://www.nyswaterfronts.com/downloads/pdfs/LWRP_Status_Sheet.pdf).
Locality
Local Adoption
SOS
Approval
OCRM
Concurrence
Albany (C)
10/91
10/91
1/92
Athens (V)
10/94
9/01
3/02
Beacon (C)
10/91
4/92
9/92
Croton-on-Hudson (V)
3/92
6/92
9/92
8/05
Esopus (T)
7/87
11/87
8/88
Haverstraw (V)
8/03
5/04
1/05
Kingston (C)
7/92
10/92
10/93
Lloyd (T)
5/94
3/95
7/95
Newburgh (C)
5/01
11/01
8/02
7/90
9/90
9/90
Nyack (V)
1/92
4/92
7/92
Ossining (V)
7/91
7/91
7/93
Peekskill (C)
1/04
7/04
1/05
Piermont (V)
1/92
2/92
4/92
Poughkeepsie (C)
4/99
Poughkeepsie (T)
1/99
4/99
6/99
4/89
9/95
11/95
Rensselaer (C)
5/86
3/87
8/87
Rhinebeck (T)
2/89
Saugerties (V)
2/85
10/85
6/86
1/95
3/95
9/95
1/97
6/97
7/97
6/94
10/94
2/95
Tivoli (V)
4/91
4/91
7/91
96
Vegetated Geogrids
Brush Mattresses
Summary
construction considerations,
97
Joint Planting
Vegetated Rock Gabion Walls or
Mattresses
Five sites along the Hudson River Estuary
were evaluated and preliminary designs
were developed. The soft engineering
techniques identified from the literature
review were considered at each site. The
evaluation of each shoreline site included:
hydraulic conditions,
aquatic habitat
erosion and sediment conditions,
River
Mile
River
Characteristics
35
Approximately
2.8 miles wide,
the largest fetch
on the river.
Newburgh
60
Poughkeepsie
76
Henry
Hudson Park
138.5
Benefits
expected
Proposed Design
Unique
Considerations
Area
(ft2)
1. Prevent
erosion of
shoreline
2. Maintain
easy public
access to
shoreline
3. Potential
future site for
swimming
1. Prevent
erosion of
shoreline
2. Increase
public access to
shoreline
3. Enhanced
fishing
opportunities
1. concrete
bulkhead removed
2. riprap installed as
required
3. live stakes
installed
4. large structures
placed in water for
refuge habitat
24,000
Unit
Costs
($/ft2)
$3.75
1. remove scrap
metal
2. large armor stone
and concrete moved
below water for
refuge habitat.
3. riprap installed as
required
4. live stakes
installed
1. concrete
bulkhead removed
2. riprap installed as
required
3. live stakes
installed
4. large structures
placed in water for
refuge habitat
1. concrete cap
removed
2. concrete
structures placed in
water for refuge
habitat
Remediated
brownfield site.
Shoreline
access limited
and
construction
conducted from
barge.
16,000
$17.69
River bottom is
steep near
shore.
19,160
$7.36
18,000
$13.67
Primary
Erosional
Forces
Natural wave
action, vesselinduced
waves
Existing
Shoreline
Conditions
1. riprap
2. brick debris
3. concrete
debris
4. concrete
bulkhead
5. stone walls
6. SAV bed
7. jetties
Approximately
4,000 ft with an
average depth of
about 30 ft.
Natural wave
action, vesselinduced
waves, ice
scour
1. riprap
2. large armor
stone
3. concrete
debris
4. scrap metal
6. heavy
riparian
vegetation
Approximately
2,600 ft wide
and 50 ft deep.
Steep bottom
slope of 63%
near shore.
Vesselinduced
waves, ice
scour
1. riprap
2. deteriorating
concrete
bulkhead
3. timber piles
4. timber jetty
1. Prevent
erosion of
shoreline
2. Public access
to shoreline
Approximately
1,100 ft with an
average depth of
about 20 ft.
Vesselinduced
waves, ice
scour
1. deteriorating
timber
bulkhead with
concrete cap
2. breached
areas in
1. Prevent
erosion of
shoreline
2. Maintain
future potential
for swimming
98
Shoreline
Restoration
Site
Campbell
Island
River
Mile
140
River
Characteristics
Approximately
1,000 ft with an
average depth of
about 20 ft.
Primary
Erosional
Forces
Vesselinduced
waves, ice
scour
99
Existing
Shoreline
Conditions
bulkhead
1. deteriorating
timber
bulkhead with
concrete cap
2. breached
areas in
bulkhead
Benefits
expected
Proposed Design
beach at site
3. timber bulkhead
allowed to remain
4. re-grade bank
and install riprap as
required
5. live stakes
installed
1. concrete cap
removed
2. timber bulkhead
allowed to remain
3. re-grade bank
and install riprap as
required
4. install geogrid,
live cutting and soil
layers
5. live stakes
installed
1. Halt erosion
of dredge spoil
Unique
Considerations
Area
(ft2)
Unit
Costs
($/ft2)
Artificial
dredged spoil
island.
Shoreline
access limited
and
construction
conducted from
barge.
12,000
$65.50
100
Recommendations
Before a shoreline restoration project is
implemented, baseline data should be
gathered to determine the net benefits of the
shoreline treatment. After the project is
installed, follow-up monitoring should be
conducted to compare with baseline
information. Shoreline information should
be gathered before implementation of a
project to establish the existing baseline
conditions. To determine the relative
benefits and success of the project compared
to baseline conditions the following
information should be monitored after
installation:
Bank stability
Assessment of riparian plantings
Emergent vegetation assessment
Assessment of refuge/spawning habitats
and overall fish use.
Assessment of riparian wildlife habitat
Section 8 References
Adams, M.A. 2002. Shoreline Structures
Environmental Design: A Guide For
Structures Along Estuaries and Large
Rivers. Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
Vancouver, BC and Environmental Canada,
Delta, BC. 68p and appendices.
Allen, H.H., and Fischenich, J.C. 2000.
Brush mattress for streambank erosion
control, EMRRP Technical Notes
Collection. U.S. Army Engineer Research
and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
www.wes.army.mil/el/emrrp
(http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/
heritage/draft_ecny2002.htm)
102
http://nyswaterfronts.com/waterfront_natura
l_narratives.asp#HudsonRiver
Prowse, T. D. 2001a. River Ice Ecology,
Hydrologic, Geomorphic, and Water Quality
Aspects. Journal of Cold Regions
Engineering, 15(1):1-6.
Prowse, T. D. 2001b. River Ice Ecology,
Biological Aspects. Journal of Cold Regions
Engineering, 15(1):17-33.
103
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY
The following glossary was compiled from Fischenich and Allen 2000, Adams 2003 and
Eubanks and Meadows 2002.
Branch Packing
Glossary
Brush Layer
Anadromous
Fish that leave freshwater and migrate to the
ocean to grow and mature. They return to
freshwater to spawn.
B
Bank stability
Buffer
Cover
Benthic
Of or pertaining to animals and plants living
on or within the substrate of a water body.
Brackish water
Generally, water containing dissolved
minerals in amounts that exceed normally
acceptable standards for municipal,
domestic, and irrigation uses. Considerably
less saline than sea water. Also, Marine and
Estuarine waters with Mixohaline salinity
(0.5 to 30 due to ocean salts). Water
containing between 1,000-4,000 parts per
million (PPM) Total Dissolved Solids TDS).
The term brackish water is frequently
interchangeable with Saline Water.
A-1
Current
Erosion
Degradation
Fetch
The open area and distance across a body of
water in which wind can exert energy on
waves to increase their strength of impact on
the shoreline.
Fill Material
Soil that is placed at a specified location to
bring the ground surface up to a desired
elevation or angle of slope.
Flow Rate
Volume of flow per unit of time; usually
expressed as cubic feet per second.
G
Geomorphology
The geologic study of the characteristics,
origin, and development of landforms.
Ice Floe
Estuary
A coastal body of water that is semienclosed, openly connected with the ocean,
and mixes with freshwater drainage from
land and at its landward margin water levels
are measurably altered by tides.
A-2
J
Joint Planting
The insertion of live stakes in the spaces or
joints, between previously placed rock
riprap. When placed properly, the cuttings
are capable of rooting and growing.
M
Morphology
Science of structure of organisms. River
morphology deals with the science of
analyzing the structural makeup of rivers
and streams.
Morphometry
Measurement of external form
Lifts
Nearshore
Reach
Rebar
Live Fascine
Revetment
Live Siltation
Live branch cuttings that are placed in
trenches at an angle from shoreline to trap
sediment and protect the shore against wave
action.
Live Stake
Live branch cuttings that are tamped or
inserted into the earth to take root and
produce vegetative growth.
A-3
Riparian Vegetation
Vegetation growing along banks of streams,
rivers, and other water bodies tolerant to or
more dependent on water than plants further
upslope.
Riprap
A layer, facing, or protective mound of
rubble or stones randomly placed to prevent
erosion, scour, or sloughing of a structure or
embankment; also, the stone used for this
purpose.
Shear Strength
S
Salinity
The concentration of mineral salts dissolved
in water. Salinity may be measured by
weight (total dissolved solids), electrical
conductivity, or osmotic pressure. Where
sea water is known to be the major source of
salt, salinity is often used to refer to the
concentration of chlorides in the water.
Salt Wedge
Silt
Scour
Slope
The amount of vertical rise divided by the
horizontal run.
Soil Bioengineering
An applied science that combines structural,
biological, and ecological concepts to
construct living structures for erosion,
sediment, and flood control. It is always
based on sound engineering practices
integrated with ecological principles.
Subtidal
Sediment
Surface Runoff
Sediment Load
The sediment transported through a channel
by stream flow.
A-4
T
Toe
The break in slope at the foot of a river bank
where it meets the river bed.
Top of Bank
Wake
A wave generated by watercraft.
V
Vegetated Geogrid
Live branch cuttings placed in layers with
soil lifts wrapped in erosion control fabric.
A-5
APPENDIX B
PLANTS FOR SOIL BIOENGINEERING AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS FOR THE
NORTHEAST REGION
The following table was compiled from NRCS Engineering Field Handbook, Chapter 16,
Appendix 16B (USDA NRCS, 1996)
Scientific
name
Common
name
Commercial
availability
Plant
type
Root
type
Rooting
ability
from
cutting
Baccharis
halimifolia
eastern
baccharis
yes
medium
shrub
fibrous
good
fair
fast
Cephalanth
us
occidentalis
buttonbush
yes
large
shrub
fair to
good
slow
Cornus
amomum
silky
dogwood
yes
fast
Cornus
drummondii
roughleaf
dogwood
yes
Cornus
racemosa
gray
dogwood
yes
Cornus
sericea ssp
sericea
red-osier
dogwood
yes
Populus
balsamifera
balsam
poplar
yes
small
shrub
shallow,
fibrous
fair
large
shrub
root
suckering
,
spreading
fair
medium
to small
shrub
shallow,
fibrous
fair
medium
shrub
shallow
good
tall tree
deep,
fibrous
B-1
very good
Plant
materials
type
Status
Fair
fascines,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
medium
Poor
brush mats,
layering,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
medium
Poor
fascines,
stakes, brush
mats, layering,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
fascines,
stakes, brush
mats, layering,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
fascines,
stakes, brush
mats, layering,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
Growth
rate
Establishmen
t speed
Spread
potential
Fair
medium
fast
fast
Fair
medium
fast
Fair
fascines,
stakes, brush
mats, layering,
cuttings,
plants
fascines,
stakes, poles,
brush mats,
layering,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
US native
occurs in
NY
Notes
Scientific
name
Common
name
Commercial
availability
Plant
type
Root
type
Populus
deltoides
eastern
cottonwoo
d
yes
tall tree
shallow,
fibrous,
suckering
Physocarpu
s opulifolius
common
ninebard
Rosa
virginiana
virginia
rose
Salix
discolor
pussy
willow
yes
Salix
amygdaloid
es
peachleaf
willow
yes
Salix exigua
coyote
willow
yes
Rooting
ability
from
cutting
Growth
rate
Establishmen
t speed
Spread
potential
very good
fast
fast
Poor
Plant
materials
type
Status
fascines,
stakes, poles,
brush mats,
layering,
cuttings, root
suckers, plants
US native
occurs in
NY
US native
occurs in
NY
yes
medium
shrub
shallow,
lateral
fair
slow
slow
Poor
fascines, brush
mats, layering,
cuttings,
plants
yes
small
shrub
rhizomat
ous and
fibrous
good
fair
fast
Fair
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
rapid
fascines,
stakes, poles,
layering,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
fascines,
stakes, poles,
brush mats,
layering,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
large
shrub
shallow,
fibrous,
spreading
very good
large
shrub to
small
tree
shallow
to deep
very good
medium
shrub
shallow,
suckering
,
rhizomat
ous
good
B-2
fast
fast
fast
fascines,
stakes, poles,
brush mats,
layering,
cuttings,
plants
Notes
US native
occurs in
NY
Rooting
ability
from
cutting
Growth
rate
Establishmen
t speed
Spread
potential
medium
medium
Fair
Scientific
name
Common
name
Commercial
availability
Plant
type
Root
type
Salix
interior
sandbar
willow
yes
large
shrub
shallow
to deep
excellent
Salix
purpurea
purpleosier
willow
yes
medium
tree
shallow
excellent
Sambucus
canadensis
american
elder
yes
medium
shrub
Sambucus
racemosa
red
elderberry
yes
medium
shrub
Spiraea
alba
meadowsweet
spirea
yes
short
dense
tree
dense
shallow,
lateral
fair to
good
snowberry
yes
small
shrub,
dense
colony
forming
shallow,
fibrous,
freely
suckering
good
rapid
slow
arrowwood
yes
good
fast
slow
Symphorica
rpos albus
Viburnum
dentatum
medium
to tall
shrub
fibrous
and
stolonifer
ous
shallow,
fibrous
B-3
fast
fast
Poor
Poor
Plant
materials
type
fascines,
stakes, poles,
brush mats,
layering,
cuttings,
plants
Status
US native
occurs in
NY
Notes
Thicket forming. This species has
been changed to S. exigua. Use in
combination with species with
rooting ability, good to excellent.
Low salinity tolerance.
fascines,
stakes, poles,
brush mats,
layering,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
fascines,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
good
fast
fast
good
medium
slow
fascines, brush
mats, layering,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
medium
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
fascines, brush
mats, layering,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
layering,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
Fair
Scientific
name
Common
name
Commercial
availability
Plant
type
Root
type
Viburnum
lentago
nannyberry
yes
large
shrub
shallow
B-4
Rooting
ability
from
cutting
fair to
good
Growth
rate
Establishmen
t speed
fast
fast
Spread
potential
Plant
materials
type
fascines,
cuttings,
stakes, plants
Status
US native
occurs in
NY
Notes
Thicket forming; tolerates city
smoke. Tolerates full shade. Older
branches often root when they touch
soil. Use in combination with
species with rooting ability good to
excellent.
APPENDIX C
COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS
C-1
Escalation
Permitting costs
Estimates of costs for each alternative are
provided in tables C-1 to C-6.
Estimated
Cost
($)
6,000
1,000
4,000
22,000
30,000
2,000
$65,000
7,000
$72,000
Indirect Costs
C-2
18,000
$90,000
Estimated
Cost
($)
19,000
69,000
64,000
53,000
$205,000
21,000
$226,000
Indirect Costs
57,000
$283,000
Estimated
Cost
($)
9,000
24,000
44,000
24,000
2,000
$103,000
10,000
$113,000
Indirect Costs
C-3
28,000
$141,000
Estimated
Cost
($)
16,000
42,000
97,000
23,000
1,000
$179,000
18,000
$197,000
Indirect Costs
49,000
$246,000
Estimated
Cost
($)
Direct Costs
Mobilization and Demobilization
Remove Concrete Bulkhead
Re-grade Slope, Install Stone Protection and Timber Piles
Geogrid, Brush Layering and Live Stake Installation
52,000
68,000
213,000
239,000
$572,000
57,000
$629,000
Indirect Costs
C-4
157,000
$786,000
Estimated
Cost
($)
Direct Costs
Mobilization and Demobilization
Remove Concrete Bulkhead
Re-grade Slope, Install Stone Protection and Timber Piles
Live Stake Installation
19,000
68,000
116,000
10,000
$213,000
21,000
$234,000
Indirect Costs
C-5
59,000
$293,000
APPENDIX D
LIST OF VENDORS FOR BIOENGINEERING MATERIALS
D-1