Roosevelt Island Seawall Study.

Roosevelt Island, New York

US ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS,n
"NEW YORK DISTRICT

Final Report
June 2001
 ,,
,
/) ~
/-j
'I"
t: 0
0
~ N
Q)

~ c:
::J
(1.),
c:: I
~
~
.
0
-c:S a.
t: Q)

~ 0:
~ c: ro
.:!;:: .-
u..
~
(1.),
fI)
Q
a
c:c:
~
I
'f/J
•.1,""

~
(.)
~ )
~
~
en
.-
0
S
fI) ,>-
r
)
lZ l
:::::: . I
;cts en
.....
Q)
Q)

.-c:
~ c: .
C)

~ w
t: 0 "I-

~ en
~ a. ~

.:!;:: u0
~ >-
(I.) E
fI) ~

I,?:J C) «
~ -)
Cf)
.:::::>

.
:::.~"'_.:~--.-'~---~~~=-
.
-- -'
( Roosevelt Island Seawall Study
Roosevelt Island, New York

US ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS
MEW YORK DISTRICT

Final Report
June 2001
 SYLLABUS

The Roosevelt Island study area is located in the East River, between the Boroughs of
Manhattan and Queens in New York City. In most locations ofthe study area, riprap or concrete
walls protect the island shoreline. Over the years, loss of riprap and deterioration of the concrete
walls has occurred, particularly in the area where a steam tunnel serving two hospitals is located.

This seawall study was authorized through The Support For Others (SFO) Program. The
Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (31 U.S.C. 6505) and Section 922 ofthe Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (p.L. 99-662) give the Corps of Engineers authority to provide
reimbursable services to State and local governments.

A two phased study was undertaken to address shore stabilization concerns at the south end
of the island and assess the structural condition of the seawalls on Roosevelt Island with a view
toward recommendations for future actions.

In general, wall replacement versus wall repair actions were evaluated. Wall replacement
costs were estimated to be about ten times the cost of repair. Most of the seawalls surrounding
the island are in fair condition with varying needs for preventive maintenance. Prioritization of
wall replacement/repair sections was assessed and designated (reaches assigned during this
study). Sections N, 0, P, Q, R, and BB were assigned the highest priority because these sections
are further damaged than other wall sections. Only internal testing of the wall (not visual
inspection), could accurately determine the structural integrity and remaining useful life of the
wall sections. Failure to perform the necessary repairs or maintenance in these areas could
eventually lead to undermining of the promenade creating·an unsafe condition. While imminent
failure is not a concern, an appropriate preventive maintenance program should be undertaken.
The study also considered the need to add or replace riprap in the form of layers of stone to
protect the walls from wave energy. Riprap replenishment is particularly needed in the vicinity
of the steam tunnel on the east side of the island and at the high priority wall sections. The
estimated cost for the riprap replenishment is $2,582,000 (includes $70,000 for cultural
investigations).

The investigations for this report essentially concluded that as long as the shoreline
protection is maintained, storm damage mechanisms at the northern end of the island would not
adversely impact development and important public infrastructure up to nearly a 150-year event,
although nuisance flooding or ponding would occur before this stage. As a result, it does riot
appear that there would be sufficient storm damage reduction benefits to justify Federal
participation in a traditional shore protection project. There is an area of particular concern, i.e.
the existing steam tunnel, which extends from Goldwater Memorial Hospital to Coler Hospital.
Significant deteriorated conditions exist throughout the length of the tunneL In the event of a
failure, the steam tunnel services from the power plant will be compromised. This situation
warrants an independent study beyond the scope of this investigation. Since it currently supplies
the hospitals and since there is a need to maintain the steam tunnel for use by the New York City
Health and Hospitals Corporation, then it would be incumbent upon that agency to undertake the
required further study, as well as provide other assistance and support needed, to accomplish the
work.

..........••..J
c The Federal Government does have authority for a program to provide assistance for portions
of the water front bank protection of the steam tunnel. Under Section 14 of the Continuing
Authorities Program for emergency streambank and shoreline protection, the Corps of Engineers
can develop and construct streambank and shoreline protection projects to protect endangered
roadways, bridge approaches, public works facilities such as water and sewer lines, public and
private non-profit schools and hospitals, and other public facilities. This Corps of Engineers
program could be of assistance, and is available should RIOC and/or the NYC Health and
Hospitals Corporation decide to utilize it.

At the request ofRIOC, improvement alternatives at the southern end of Roosevelt

Island were investigated for the area of "non-walled shoreline". Two design plan alignments
were investigated: (1) bulkheading set-back from the existing shoreline approximately 15 feet,
extending along approximately 3,400 feet (2) bulkheading of the existing shoreline extending
along 3,600 feet of shoreline. Concrete walls, stone revetments and vinyl sheet walls were
evaluated. The most cost effective alternative of the above plans that were investigated is the
vinyl sheet pile wall set back approximately 15 feet from the shoreline. The estimated cost for
the 3,400 foot vinyl sheet pile wall is $3,640,000.

e-
11
 Roosevelt Island, NY

L Table of Contents

Title Page

Syllabus 1

I Introduction 1

II Coastal Processes 2

III Coastal Structures Adequacy Assessments 4

IV Southern Island Design Alternatives - Schemes I and II 8

V Environmental and Cultural Resources Baseline 8

VI Plan Formulation, Study Methodology, Process and

Investigations Overview 10

VII Structural Surveys on Existing Structures 12

C~
VIII Design Recommendations 15

IX Environmental and Cultural Resources Concerns 18

X Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations 21

APPENDICES

Appendix I - Coastal Processes - Existing Conditions

Appendix II - Initial Structural Assessment

Appendix III - Plan Alternatives

Appendix IV - Environmental and Cultural Resources Assessments

Appendix V - Structural Assessments

~·t Appendix VI - Proj ect Design for South End

~/
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ROOSEVELT ISLAND RECONNAISSANCE STUDY

ROOSEVELT ISLAND, NEW YORK

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Study Authority

The Support For Others (SFO) Program is comprised of Corps of Engineers'

performed work that is funded by non-Department of Defense Federal agencies or by State
and/or local governments of the United States. The Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (31
U.S.C. 6505) and Section 922 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L.
99-662) give the Corps of Engineers authority to provide reimbursable services to State and
local governments. In response to a letter dated 9 September 1996 from the Roosevelt
Island Operating Corporation (RIOC) a scope of work and Interagency Agreement
(enclosed) were prepared, following discussions and joint meetings, for a study to provide
technical assistance to RIOC through reimbursable SFO services.

B. Study Purpose and Scope

A reconnaissance type study has been conducted in a sequential, two phase

approach to address shore stabilization concerns at the south end of the island and assess
the structural condition for the existing seawalls on Roosevelt Island with a view toward
recommendations for future actions. During Phase I investigations, the existing island
perimeter seawall, in its varying compositions and structure, was surveyed. The southern,
less developed portion of Roosevelt Island was analyzed with potential remedial
recommendations for shoreline stabilization and protection with preliminary cost estimates,
along with environmental and cultural resources baseline information. Recommendations
for action and further study were outlined. Based upon consultation with RIOC in June
1998, the Phase I findings were presented and discussed with a view toward initiating
subsequent Phase II investigations and assessments. The Phase II investigations focused on
the final recommended alternative for the southern area, wall condition assessments,
estimated rip-rap replenishment quantities, and steam tunnel assessment with suggested
courses of action. The Phase II study scope of work items include plans for a seawall
project and further study recommendations, design criteria, and environmental and cultural
resources impact considerations. This report documents the combined results of both
phases of the study and summarizes its results, findings and conclusions. This report
contains the following appendices:

Appendix I - Coastal Processes -Existing Conditions

Appendix II - Initial Structural Assessment
Appendix III - Plan Alternatives
Appendix IV-Environmental and Cultural Resources Assessments
Appendix V - Structural Assessments
Appendix VI- Project Design For South End
 C. Study Area Location

The East River tidal strait connects the Upper New York Bay and Long Island
Sound, and separates Manhattan Island and the Bronx from the Boroughs of Brooklyn and
Queens. The East River shoreline has been subjected to stonn damages due to extremely
strong river currents and waves combined with a high stonn surge. A Federal navigation
project exists in the East River. The project consists of: a main channel 40 feet deep
(MLW), 1000 ft wide, from Upper New York Bay to the fonner Brooklyn Navy Yard, and
thence 35 ft deep (MLW), with widths ranging from 550 ft to 1000 ft. at Throgs Neck, over
an approximate length of 16 miles. The Roosevelt Island study area is situated within the
East River, almost equidistant from the shores of Manhattan and Queens and measures
about 2 miles long and 800 feet wide at its widest point for a total of approximately 147
acres (Figure 1). The island extends across from 48th Street north to 86th Street in
Manhattan and across from about 45 th Avenue to about 31 st Avenue in Queens. There is
access via an elevated tram from 59th Street in Manhattan. Vehicular access is available
from 36th Avenue in Long Island City Queens, and subway service includes the B, Q and S
trains. Since 1986, RIOC, a local government organization, has been the State's
jurisdictional entity responsible for maintaining and developing Roosevelt Island.

D. Data Gathering With Analysis

Corps of Engineers technical offices initiated a literature and record search

identifying data available as well as possible data gaps. Study team members conducted
appropriate site visits as necessary to aid in their assessments. The major technical areas
under study for this screening were:

Coastal Processes
Coastal Structures Survey
Preliminary Alternatives for Bulkheading -Non Walled Reaches (Southern Area)
Environmental and Cultural Resources Baseline

A brief description of these technical aspects follows. The initial emphasis for Phase I
investigations was on existing conditions and without project future conditions
assessments. Surveys and recommendations are also provided in this document.

II. COASTAL PROCESSES

An existing conditions evaluation was taken of the physical processes in the study
area. This included, but was not limited to:

• Climatology - mean average annual temperature 53.10 F, with recorded high

near 1040 F and low at -20 F.

• Tides and Datum - semi-diurnal tides-with mean ranges from about 4.3 ft to
4.8ft. Tidal range data is summarized in Appendix I - Table 1.

• Currents - Predominantly tidal in the study area. The flood current sets
2
 northeast and the ebb tide sets southwest. Maximmn current speeds range
from about 4.4 ft/sec to 8 ft/sec. (See Appendix. 1- Table 3).

• Winds - Prevailing wind direction is from the west. The mean annual speed
L is 14 mph and the maximmn annual speed is 52 mph. (See Appendix I,
Table 4 depicts storm wind frequency).

• Sea Level Rise - Approximately .014 ft/year based on historical data.

• Storm Surge - Stage frequency curves relate the elevation of flood waters to
the probability of recurring floods of equal or greater severity. Table 5 in
Appendix I indicates surge for different storm events. The contribution of
wind through setup during storm events also must be incorporated in
evaluating overall superelevation of the mean water level in the presence of
a land form. Table 6 in Appendix I denotes water setup heights for different
return period storms.

• Wave Height Frequency - Based upon wave analysis performed, the wave
climate is primarily wind driven and fetch limited. Significant design wave
heights and wave periods were obtained using shallow water wave
forecasting curves. Table 7 in Appendix I summarizes this data.

It was determined that during the December 1992 storm, the water level including setup for
Roosevelt Island was about 12.8 ft NGVD. Based upon storm surge and setup data this
would correspond to an approximate 175 year return period storm. The water level with

c setup for the 100 year return period event is estimated at 11.8 ft NGVD.

The following coastal processes and damage mechanisms were considered for
evaluation in order to predict the without-project future conditions:

Erosion. Either riprap or concrete walls in most locations protect the shoreline in
the study area from appreciable erosion. In view of the existing protective features,
storm induced erosion was evaluated, but was not considered'to be a serious
problem. There are scour problem areas and they are addressed under the existing
coastal structures evaluation section of this report (Appendix V).

Inundation and Runup. The combined tropical and extratropical surge

elevations, determined for Roosevelt Island with the addition of wave setup were
used for inundation determination. Runup, which is the vertical height above the
still water level to which water will run up a sloped surface from broken waves, was
predicted for the southern, unwalled section of the island. It is noted that runup is
not applicable for shoreline reaches fronted by walls and inundation will only occur
for these reaches when the walls are submerged or when flanking from the southern
end of the Island occurs behind the walls. Significant damage in terms of adverse
impacts to vital roads from storms from the East River is not anticipated up to an
approximate 150-year event return period (See Table 8 Appendix I) so long as the
existing shoreline protection structures are maintained. Also refer to the Appendices
3
 for inundation and runup extents for different storm frequencies.

Overtopping. Damages to the walls on the northern end of Roosevelt Island from

c wave overtopping were evaluated for a 50 and 75 year event since greater events
will essentially submerge the wall and thus negate the overtopping effect. The
results show that if a 5 ft. wide paved area for the 50-year event and a 7 ft. wide
paved area for the 75-year event exists next to the walls, then this paved area would
prevent scouring of the materiallandside of these walls. These minimum paved
widths behind the walls generally already exist for most walled areas. Those
unpaved areas adjacent to the wall are along the eastern side of the Island, which are
not subject to overtopping wave damage. Based on the results from the analyses
performed, no damages to adjacent buildings and roads from wave overtopping are
anticipated.

III. COASTAL STRUCTURES ADEQUACY ASSESSMENTS

The existing coastal structures were investigated during early study stages. A
characterization of the seawall types and transition zones was made based on available
information and engineering judgment. Observations also formed the basis of assessment
of the structural condition. The reaches were assessed and recommendations for action or
no action were developed. Local failure items and maintenance items such as railings and
guard posts concerned with safety issues and ancillary aesthetics issues were noted. Items
that could constitute global failure problems associated with the actual structural
functionality of the walls themselves, including any crack propagation that was deemed
significant, visible observations as to lower base wall conditions, and undermining
potential as seen at the site condition survey, were also noted. Appendix II contains
summarized information in tabular form regarding the island's varying wall characteristics,
by section, including recommendations for maintenance, testing and repair. Logically
defined sections ranging from "A" to "FF" along the island perimeter were assessed.
Corresponding photos and page numbers within Appendix II are cited along with the
locations of sectional details on Appendix II Plan sheets 1-5. The following paragraphs
summarize the conditions and recommendations for repairs and other improvements by
reaches or sections ofthe island perimeter. Section IV below describes specific design
alternatives for the southern, generally unprotected part of the island. As outlined therein,
two design schemes were investigated, including protection that would closely hug the
shoreline and an option that would provide protection utilizing a vinyl sheet pile wall
set-back a short distance from the existing shoreline. Coastal structural assessments were
developed for all portions of the island, exclusive of the south end for which the new design
alternatives are presented.

A. Preliminary Repair/Improvement Recommendations and Assessments

1. West Shore (Southern End).

The west shore of the southern end of the Island consists of varying types of shore
protection. (Riprap, placed stone, gabion cages, concrete, rubble stone are randomly placed
along the shoreline). The terrain of the southwest side of the southern end of the Island is

4
 generally irregular and hilly with dense vegetation for about 1,400 feet. This reach
essentially extends from the southern end of the island north to the approximate location of
the Strecker Lab landmark, which is presently being renovated. (See Appendix II Photos

c 1-6 "South West Shore Facing Manhattan", South West Site Work Photo 1, and Appendix
II Plan Sheets 1-5 for photo locations).

Protection alternatives consist of: stone revetment, vinyl sheet pile bulkheading or a
concrete seawall. Of the three options, the concrete seawall would be the most expensive
although, aesthetically, it would be more consistent with the northern portion of the Island.
Another alternative is for the existing material to be left in place in connection with a set
back bulkheading design scheme.

2. East Shore (Southern End).

The east shore of the southern end of the Island also consists of varying types of
shore protection features (Riprap, placed stone, concrete, rubble stone are randomly placed
along the shoreline). The terrain of the southeast side of the Island is similar to that along
the southwest side. A roadway occurs at mid elevation, near the Strecker Lab landmark,
with an emergency subway exit leading from the IND 53rd Street Station. This reach
essentially extends from the southern end of the island north to the approximate location of
the Strecker Lab landmark. (See Appendix II Photos 1-5 "South East Shore Facing
Queens", Southeast Site Work Photos 1-3, and Appendix II Plan Sheets 1-5 for photo
locations).

'--' Protection alternatives consist of: stone revetment, vinyl sheet pile bulk heading or
C__ a concrete seawall. Another alternative is for the existing material to be left in place in
connection with a set back bulkhead design.

The proposed bulkhead top elevations to preclude inundation and overtopping

damages .from a storm similar to the December 1992 event would set the elevation at 16.5
feet (Belmont Island Datum). The height of any proposed bulk heading would also be
dependent upon the extent of any fill that might be placed behind the bulkhead. Subsurface
explorations, including borings, would be required to verify soil index and strength
properties and depth to rock.

3. West Shore (Facing Manhattan).

Through the years varying types of seawalls have been constructed along the west
shore of the Island. The walls vary in age, material, height, composition and state of repair.
Failure of the concrete structures becomes evident with some form of visible distress such
as cracking, leaching, spalling, wear, settlement, deflection, etc. The evaluation process is
important in determining the cause of the failure, structural safety and for developing a
scope of work to correct the problem. This process includes in depth, detailed investigation
involving the necessary mapping, sampling, testing and exploratory efforts. This report is
limited however in that its scope of work did not include detailed investigations. (See
Appendix II Photos 1-15 "West Shore Facing Manhattan" and Appendix II Plan Sheets 1-5

5
for photo locations). Photos 1 -15 proceed in a northerly direction, for a length of about 1.5
miles, from the vicinity of Goldwater Memorial Hospital to the northern end of the island.
Photos 2, 7, 9 and 10 depict seawalls consisting of grouted stonewall. These walls lie on a
concrete ledge and have been capped at the time of concurrent, past restoration contracts.
New stanchions have also been incorporated. The walls require cleaning, with removal of
loose grout and replacement of damaged stone. The northernmost concrete seawalls, as
shown in photos 13,14 and 15, appear to be in the poorest condition. Stanchions appear to
have been drilled directly into the walls, without any capping. Additional structural
investigation is recommended.

Photos 1-9 along the west promenade facing Manhattan, which stretches from the
NYCDEP lift station to the Lighthouse area, are also sequenced in a northerly direction.
The photos are indicative of repair items that should be further investigated by RIOC.
There are areas in which cantilevered wall capping is highly deteriorated and need
preventive maintenance, and there are numerous disconnected railings, which should be
repaired after stanchion repair or installation. Continuous rip rap protection should be
provided along the base of the Island's seawalls to reduce the scouring effects of currents
and waves.. There are additional promenade drainage improvements that should be
investigated.

4. East Shore.

Varying types of seawalls have been constructed along the east shore as on the west
shore of the island. The major difference between the East Shore and the previously
mentioned West Shore is the approximately 4,200 linear feet of steam tunnel, which also
serves as a seawall, built in 1949, serving Goldwater Memorial Hospital to the south and
Coler Hospital to the north. The walls vary in age, material, height and condition. This
reach extends from the DEP Lift Station to the vicinity of Coler Hospital at the northern
end of the island (See Appendix II Photos 1-11 "East Shore Facing Queens"). Actions that
should be taken include: repair of concrete at wall joints, repair of timber bulkheads,
removal of deteriorated pilings, and adding rip rap for base wall protection. Steam Tunnel
repair is covered under Section V below.

Photos I-lOin Appendix II are sequenced in a northerly direction along the east
promenade facing Queens, from Manhattan Park to the Lighthouse. Recommendations are
presented in the appendix to repair deteriorated stanchions, seawall joints, protective
gratings between railings, and further structural testing is required.

5. Steam Tunnel.

The existing steam tunnel, which extends from Goldwater Memorial Hospital to
Coler Hospital, experiences flooding conditions. These problems, which occur throughout
the length of the steam tunnel, warrant an independent study beyond the scope of this

6
 investigation. The structural stability of the steam tunnel is being undennined due to
several factors. The rip-rap bed is being washed away. Joint covers are missing or damaged
and the concrete is deteriorating or spalling. The concrete steel reinforcement is also

c experiencing corrosion. Vegetation and trees at the tunnel's edges may be causing
additional leakage problems. In addition, the tunnel crest blocks stonn runoff, causing
water to pond behind it and thus allowing for additional concrete deterioration.
Recommendations and photos are contained in Appendix II.

6. North Shore.

Several areas of Roosevelt Island, including the northern end and the southwest end,
were inundated during the December 1992 stonn (See Photos 1-4 "Roosevelt IsIcind·-Past
Flooding"). There is a lighter colored portion of new wall at the end of the Island which
was erected after a barge collided with the seawall. The wall was rebuilt but sufficient
protective riprap was not provided (See Appendix II - Photos 1-5 "North Shore at
Lighthouse").

B. General Recommendations:

• Provide continuous riprap protection along the base ofthe Island's seawalls,
with replenishment where required.

• A standard for all future repairs for the existing wall system, street and
promenade repair, railing replacement, etc, should be developed.

• Investigate potential of seawalls constructed of quarried-stone for the

National Register of Historical Places. This could influence repair
operations.

• A survey for stanchion and railing repair and replacement is required.

Protective barriers should be provided at all railings.

• A survey of seawall keyways requiring filler is required.

• A survey of seawall joints requiring repair and cover plates is required.

• A map indicating the location of leaks within the steam tunnel is required.
This data needs to be correlated with the exterior conditions of the tunnel.
An in depth structural investigation of the steam tunnel is required.

• A prioritized list of structural repairs should be developed after testing and

further study.

7
 C. Specific Recommendations for the Steam Tunnel:

• Dewater, brace and inspect steam tunnel structural base.

• A structural study of the steel supports for the steam tunnel piping system is
C recommended.
Since tree roots may be a cause of some of the leaking problem in the steam
•
tunnel, some trees may need to be removed or relocated.
• Consider using the Roosevelt Island maintenance crew to prepare a map
indicating the location ofleaking steam tunnel joints and non-joint sections
and seal all non-requisite pipe openings into the steam tunnel.

IV. SOUTHERN ISLAND DESIGN ALTERNATIVES - SCHEMES I AND II

During early stages of the study (phase I), proposed improvement alternatives at the
southern end of Roosevelt Island were considered for the area of "non-walled" shoreline.
Two options or schemes were investigated. This was primarily due to given constructibility
concerns, site clearing costs, aesthetic conformity, and potential development constraints.

One design scheme involves bulkheading set-back from the existing shoreline
approximately 15 ft, extending along approximately 3,400 linear feet of shoreline. Concrete
walls, stone revetments, and vinyl sheetpile walls were also evaluated (Appendix III -
Plates 1-4). The least costly alternative was identified as the vinyl sheetpile wall with an
approximate cost of $2 million (excluding contingencies, engineering and design
construction management). A comparable concrete wall would cost approximately $5
million.

A second design scheme was investigated for the immediate shoreline with no
set-back limitations. Debris removal and clearing costs as well as site dewatering costs
become much more pronounced in the development of alternatives at the existing shoreline.
Constructibility and design constraints would essentially preclude the use of vinyl sheetpile
sections. A concrete wall to conform to island existing aesthetics would be the most
suitable alternative for implementation. Perimeter coverage would require about 3,600 feet
of protection of this design scheme. Concrete wall section costs at the shoreline are
projected to be about $11 million. Compared to concrete wall sections in the set-back
design scheme described above, the concrete wall sections at the shoreline would be
generally twice as costly per linear foot to construct.

v. ENVIROMENTAL AND CULTURAL REOURCES BASELINE

A. Cultural Resources Background

A number of historic structures are listed on the National Register of Historic Places
and have been designated New York City Landmarks. These structures are the Lighthouse,
the Octagon, the Chapel of the Good Shepard, the Blackwell House, the Strecker Memorial
Laboratory, and the Small Pox Hospital. A seventh structure, the City Hospital, is also a
designated New York City Landmark and is a National Register Property, however, it has
8
 been demolished. The footprint ofthe building and the demolition debris are extant.
According to current site file data, several prehistoric sites have been identified on the
Manhattan and Queens shorelines. The New York State Museum has given Roosevelt

c Island a very high potential for the presence of prehistoric archaeological sites (see
Appendix IV for additional information on cultural resources).

New York City acquired the island from the Blackwell family in 1828. Throughout
the 19th century, the city used the island to house a number of institutions including a
penitentiary, a small pox hospital, an alms house, a workhouse, the City (Charity) Hospital
and a lunatic asylum. Most of the structures were built of gray gneiss quarried on the
island. In 1921, the island's name was changed to Welfare Island and the grounds became
a Health Department camp for children with heart ailments and diabetes. In 1962, part of
the island was taken over by the Fire Department of New York for their training college. In
the late 1960s and early 1970s, a planned mixed income residential community with limited
traffic and visual as well as physical access to the river was developed on the island.
Currently, the island consists of numerous buildings, recreational facilities, historic
properties, parks, and the Goldwater Memorial Hospital and the Bird S. Coler Hospital,
both of which are centers for chronic and rehabilitative care.

B. Environmental Setting

The Lower East River is 7.5 miles in length and extends from the Battery in the south to
the Hell Gate in the north. Mean spring tidal range and mean depth are 5.8 ft. and 30.5 ft.
respectively. The bottom is irregular with depths ranging from 15 ft. to 65 ft. Samplings
conducted indicate sand and mud sediments and areas of both rough and smooth bottom
surfaces. Rock ledges covered with calcified worm tubes were also observed. Long-term
( mean salinities were. 21.4% and 25.2% respectively. The primary source of freshwater to
the East River is the Hudson River with additional input from other tributaries along with
seepage, runoff and sewage effluent flow.

1. Threatened and Endangered Species. The East River falls within the migration route
of the bald eagle, osprey and peregrine falcon which are all listed as endangered species.
Federally listed marine species, such as the shortnose sturgeon may be present in the Lower
East River.

2. Finfish Resources. The East River is within the migratory route of a number of
anadromous fish species of special concern. Seven species of migratory fish, four estuarine
species and 19 marine species have been observed there.

3. Avifauna. A number of waterfowl species of special concern utilize the East River as
wintering grounds, feeding on forage fish and aquatic vegetation.

4. Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats. Most of the East River is characterized by

estuarine subtidal open water permanently flooded habitat, as indicated on National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps for the Central Park and Brooklyn, NY quadrangles. Due
to the intense shoreline development, vegetated wetlands habitats are scarce. The northern
shoreline consists of a sea wall and does not exhibit any wetland habitat (See Appendix IV

f- 9
 for additional infonnation and references).

VI. PLAN FORMULATION, STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCESS AND

INVESTIGATIONS OVERVIEW

This study was governed by fewer constraints and programmatic requirements of

USACE Civil Works project criteria than would nonnally be associated with a
"Reconnaissance" type study, since the Support For Others Program allows for greater
flexibility in addressing customer needs while utilizing Corps experience. Notwithstanding
the ability to waive certain programmatic requirements for this study, traditional, sound
planning and engineering approaches as outlined in Engineer Regulation (ER 1105-2-100)
Planning Guidance for Civil Works and Engineer Manual (EM 1110-2-1614) Engineering
and Design, Design of Coastal Revetments, Seawalls, and Bulkheads, were utilized. The
Shore Protection Manual, USS Steel Sheet Piling Design Manual, and the AISC Manual of
Steel Construction, Allowable Stress Design, were used, as noted in the Appendices, in
project design. The NGVD datum was selected as the standard elevation of reference. The
correlation to the Belmont Island Datum (BID) cited on RIOC specifications is readily
available for conversion as follows: 0 ft NGVD = 2.265 ft. BID.

Phase II investigations sought to further assess the existing coastal structures along
the island, with qualitative assessments, based on sound engineering judgment, to prioritize
maintenance, repair, rehabilitation or possible replacement for observed problems.
Additionally, fonnulation and design for the southern, unprotected end of the island was
aimed at identifying a cost effective, environmentally acceptable plan of improvement that
meets RIOC planning objectives, planning constraints, and RIOC budgetary constraints.

Based upon preliminary screenings, and RIOC input, problems, needs and
opportunities indicated that primary stonn damage mechanisms do not pose significant
threat to development due to erosion, inundation, wave runup or overtopping for the
sections of the island for which coastal protective structures exist. Sections of existing
protection were cited as being in need of maintenance, rehabilitation, repair or possible
replacement. The complexity of the network of varying wall types is an additional concern
in tenns of establishing a comprehensive standard for the entire island. At the southern end
of the island, project design, based upon concurrence from RIOC, would be for a 100 year
return interval stonn (to preclude inundation or overtopping damage from a stonn event in
the range of a December 1992 stonn).

A. Planning objectives were identified as follows:

• Meet the specified needs and concerns ofRIOC and public at large.

• Be flexible to adapt to changing economic, social, and environmental

patterns and changing technologies.

• Integrate with and be complementary to other related programs in the area.

• Reduce the threat of potential future damages due to the effects of stonn

e 10
 damages.

B. Planning Constraints affect the methods of responding to the objectives and generally
may limit the range of solutions. The pertinent planning constraints are as follows:

• Plans must be consistent with existing Federal, State and local laws.

• Plans must represent sound, safe and acceptable engineering solutions and
be in compliance with good engineering practice.

• Plans must provide protection against the damage mechanisms as identified

in existing conditions evaluations.

• Plans must be efficient, and present optimal use of resources in response to

local preferences.

• Plans may not unreasonably impact on environmental or cultural resources.

It is within this fonnulation framework that the study proceeded to address structural
evaluations of the existing wall and design of protection for the south end.

C. Further Investigations

Upon completion of initial investigations as outlined in this report, it became apparent that
a decision will have to be made by RIOC regarding possible further detailed structural
studies of the existing wall system.

At the southern end of the Island, plan fonnulation of alternatives may be tailored
specifically with additional input on local preferences and budgetary constraints associated
with new capital improvement projects beyond routine operation and maintenance.

State and local jurisdictions generally follow similar procedures as in the NEPA
process when evaluating project alternatives. Though the present project would be
considered a non-Federal action, adherence to avoidance and minimization criteria is
inherent in the analogous NEPA state and local regulations.

There is potential to encounter both pre-historic and historic archaeological

resources on Roosevelt Island, particularly in undisturbed, open space recreation areas or
with the exception of the extreme southern tip of the island, beneath any fill placed on the
island. Construction, along the edges of the island, that would penetrate the ground surface,
would require additional archaeological investigations. In addition, a preservation plan
would be required to ensure none of the existing historic structures are damaged during all
phases of the project. There may also be a requirement to demonstrate, depending upon
project actions, that project implementation would not adversely impact threatened and
endangered species, finfish, avifauna, and wetlands habitats. Thus work implementation
restriction windows and other pennit constraints could apply.
11
 Additional environmental and cultural resources impact assessments would need to
be performed, particularly for the new actions proposed for the southern end of the island

c and permitting issues would have to be addressed based upon recommendations cited.

VII. Structural Surveys on Existing Structures

In accordance with the Phase II scope of work for structural surveys, additional
combined steam tunnel and seawall surveys were undertaken along with rip-rap surveys.
Within Appendix V, SubAppendices A through C provide details on the steam tunnel
including: locations of steam tunnel vents 1-16 (SubAppendix V-A), Survey photographs
(SubAppendix V-B), and 1949 construction details (SubAppendix V-C). Sub Appendices
V-D through I, within Appendix V, provide details on the surveys including: photos of
seawall conditions (SubAppendix V-D), recommendations for seawall repair (SubAppendix
V-E), maps locating seawall sections A-FF (SubAppendix V-F), photos of rip-rap
conditions (SubAppendix V-G), echo sounding maps and back-up data and calculations
(SubAppendix V-H), list of compiled seawall repair contracts (SubAppendix V-I-I), and
sample recommended rip-rap replacement cross sections (SubAppendix V-1-2).

A. Steam Tunnel

Seawall vents have been numbered 1 to 16 and they are located within wall sections
delineated "W"," X","Y","Z" and "AA" (Refer to SubAppendix V-A). After inspecting the
tunnel interior with RIOC representatives, the exterior was observed from the land side and
by boat during high and low tides (Refer to photos in SubAppendix V-B). Based upon 1949
construction details (SubAppendix V-C), the tunnel was built upon piers and piles.
Assuming the construction details are accurate, the piers, piles and pile caps may have
deteriorated due to inadequate amounts of fronting rip-rap.

Instances of both land side leakage and seawall leakage occur throughout the length
of the tunnel. Land side leakage sources are prevalent within the southern segment and
leakage from the seawall due to deterioration resulting from inadequate rip-rap was
prevalent within the northern segment, especially between vents 12-16. The tunnel's
leaking joints were scheduled to be repaired, but the work was never completed. In
preparation for that project, asbestos was removed from pipes on either side of each tunnel
joint. The joints still leak especially where additional rip-rap is required. Joints throughout
the length of the tunnel should be repaired as required. Any interior renovations must take
into account the presence of asbestos and its removal.

Land side sources of leakage with typical examples include:

• Tree roots along the interior tunnel walL SubAppendix B: page 1 - photo 5;
page 3 - photo 2.
• Large grassed areas along the interior tunnel wall leading to infiltration and
seepage. SubAppendix B: page 9 -photo 3.
• The lack of sewers for drainage on streets causes street drainage to be
directed toward the tunnel wall effectively trapping water. SubAppendix B:
12
 page 6 - photos 2-5.
• Possible deterioration of waterproofing system at the exterior face of the
interior walls. SubAppendix C: page 3

c • New construction (ie: new loading conditions) may have damaged interior
walls. SubAppendix B: page 8 - photos 1-6.

Seawall sources of leakage include:

• Inadequate rip-rap and associated deterioration. SubAppendix B: page 12-

photos 4 and 6.
• Damage to seawall joints. SubAppendix B: page 10, photos 7 and 8.

Recommendations for various sections include: Wall repair/replacement, repair roof cracks,
rip-rap placement, waterproofing, street drainage improvements, repair of expansion joints
as well as checks on interior waterproofing, modified wall loading conditions, crack repair,
inspection of tunnel piers, piles and caps for deterioration, and presence of tree roots.

Also, since inspection vessel draft clearance precluded the actual approach to the
tunnel wall during low tide when support structures are more visible, and in order to verify
the extent of the damage to walls, piles and pile caps, water seals and joint integrity, further
investigations are required as noted in Appendix V. Please refer to the Combined Steam
Tunnel and Sea Wall Survey for a listing of specific vent cross section areas and
recommendations.

B. Seawalls

Seawall sections were investigated at high and low tides from the land and water
vantage points. The purpose of the survey was to prioritize the seawall sections, locating
sections requiring repair, further investigation with possible replacement, additional rip-rap,
and to provide an estimate of additional rip-rap required through echo depth soundings.
Appendix V, SubAppendix D, includes photos of current seawall conditions by section.

Among the seawall sections listed in the Appendix, the sections with highest
assigned priority for repair and rehabilitation as part of on-going capital repairs would
likely include: N, 0, P, Q, R, and BB. These sections of the wall are assigned a higher
priority because these wall sections are further damaged than the other wall sections. Flood
damage to the wall area could cause undermining of the promenade creating an unsafe
condition. While imminent failure is not a concern, an appropriate preventive maintenance
program should be undertaken. These walls require additional investigation and associated
testing. See SubAppendix D- pages 7 through 9 and page 12 for photos of the area. Please
refer to SubAppendices E and F for a listing of specific seawall cross section areas and
recommendations.

C. Rip-Rap Surveys

Lack of rip-rap and accompanying seawall damage is noted in the photographs in

Appendix V, SubAppendix G. Cross sections were surveyed by rough measurements in the
13
 field at each seawall section in order to determine the adequacy of existing rip-rap.

Photos D7, GIl, H12, 113, 114, K15, R24-25, R/S 26 and Z40 (SubAppendix G)

c show sections that appear to be adequately protected by rip-rap and do not need
replenishment and repair at this time. Photos Al-3, B4, B/C5, F9-1O, Y39, and AA41-42
show that only portions of wall sections require additional rip-rap protection. Lastly, photos
B/C5, C6, E8, L16, M17-18, N19, 020, P2l, Q22-23, R/S26, S27, S29, S/T30, T3l,
UN32, V33, W34-35, X36-38, BB43, BB/CC44, DD45, EE46, and FF47 show areas
designated for full rip-rap replenishment.

The island rip-rap was surveyed during both high and low tides. Low tide
conditions afforded an opportunity to view the wall conditions, the extent of existing rip-
rap as well as the relationship between wall conditions and the lack of rip-rap. During high
tide it was possible to discern if given wall sections are adequately protected. Had we
viewed the rip-rap only at low tide an erroneous conclusion could have been reached that
adequate rip-rap is present. An example of this can be seen in photos S-28 and S-29, which
were taken at the same location. S-28 was taken at low tide and S-29 was taken at high
tide.Table A in Appendix V indicates the number of sounding cross sections that were
taken at various seawall sections. Table B within Appendix V indicates that Sections D, G,
R, I, J, K, R, and Z would not require rip-rap replenishment.

SubAppendix H contains depth sounding maps and data prepared through survey
investigations by USACE. This subappendix also includes back up data for land surveys
undertaken to locate additional rip-rap requirements and calculations for estimated tonnage
of rip-rap required.

C:- Wall section E, at the subway tunnel, does not appear to have any rip-rap (Sub
Appendix G - photo E-8). RlOC should verify the reason for lack of rip-rap over the
subway tunnel with the transit authority. Sections Land M are new walls but they include
inadequate rip-rap protection, as is shown in photos L16 and M17-18. The lack of adequate
rip-rap at sections N, 0, and P has resulted in wall deterioration to the point that wall
replacement may be necessary after in depth, detailed investigation involving necessary
testing and exploration efforts. Section S at the Lighthouse is also in particular need of rip-
rap replacement (photo S 27). Rip-rap replenishment is critical for the steam tunnel
especially at the northern end.

The following summary table depicts recommendations for rip-rap replenishment for
various seawall sections:

Critical Steam Tunnel Rip-Rap Replenishment

SECTION LENGTH

AA 1000 FT. of section where required

X 526 FT. (Full Section)
Y 300 FT. of section where required
W 268 FT. (Full Section)

14
 SUBTOTAL: 2,094 FT.

High Priority Seawall Sections and Rip-Rap Replenishment

C SECTION LENGTH
N 350 FT. (Full Section)
0 184 FT. (Full Section)
p 688 FT. (Full Section)
Q 216 FT. (Full Section)
BB 50 FT. (Full Section)

SUBTOTAL: 1,488 FT.

Other Seawall Sections Requiring Rip-Rap Replenishment

SECTION LENGTH
A 320 FT. of section where required
B 10 FT. of section where required
C 262 FT. (Full Section)
E 260 FT. (Full Section)
F 30 FT. of section where required
L 356 FT. (Full Section)
M 245 FT. (Full Section)
S 463 FT. (Full Section)
T 1,023 FT. (Full Section)
C U
V
550
290
FT. (Full Section)
FT. (Full Section)
CC 1,000 FT. (Full Section)
DD 50 FT. (Full Section)
EE 680 FT. (Full Section)
FF 969 FT. (Full Section)

SUBTOTAL: 6,508 FT.

TOTAL LENGTH OF SECTIONS REQUIRING RIP-RAP REPLENISHMENT: 10,090 FT.

VIII. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

A. South End

In order to meet planning objectives subject to the constraints mentioned in Section

VII of this report, the vinyl sheet pile wall was selected as the final plan, based largely on
cost constraints. The vinyl sheet piling wall provided the lowest cost project as well as
favorable maintenance and virtually no environmental problems as construction would be

15
 land based. The set back location (12-15 ft from the shore) also results in another
advantage: the exposed portion of the sheet piling is above the Mean High Water line and
will be virtually maintenance free. Where an existing concrete wall fronts the southern end

c shoreline, the wall concrete would be broken up to serve as under layer stone beneath annor
stone rip-rap to be placed for aesthetics.

1. Design Parameters

A 100 year return interval event, slightly less than the December 1992 storm, was
selected for design. The predicted storm surge elevation for the project area for a 100 year
storm was determined to be 12.7 ft (Belmont Island Datum). For the design of the sheet pile
wall, a height of elevation 16.5 ft (Belmont Island Datum) was utilized for protection
against possible overtopping of the wall and inundation due to wave action for this event.
The wall would serve to protect RIOC planned development for the south end of the island,
subject, of course, to the actual elevation of the development. The exposed height fronting
the wall will be approximately 7 ft above existing grade, and will be backfilled to elevation
+16.5 ft (Belmont Island Datum). The finished surface will include pavement and grass.

The alignment of the wall was determined based upon weighing the ability to
provide the maximum area landward of the bulkhead versus maintaining sufficient fronting
earth to utilize the vinyl sheeting. Placement of the wall closer to the shoreline would
induce higher than allowable bending moments in the sheeting which would necessitate use
of more expensive steel sheet piling.

For ease of construction, the sheet pile wall alignment is laid out in straight line
segments. A total of approximately 3,400 linear feet was determined for the project area,
and stationing in the.Appendix includes labels every 100 feet. Borings should be taken
along the alignment as part of construction plans and specifications to verify soil conditions
and the existence of boulder fields. It is assumed that some boulders would be encountered
during pile driving, and therefore the cost estimate includes use of a steel sheet pile
mandrel to drive through boulders and facilitate driving the vinyl sheeting.

An anchored vinyl sheet pile wall has been designed utilizing the Free Earth
Method approach. Applicable surcharge loads, soil unit weights and strength parameters
were incorporated into the design. The location of the anchor is required to be 23 ft from
the sheet piling. Horizontal tie rods at a 10 ft spacing are specified using 1 1/4" diameter
rods of ASTM A36 steel. Continuous wales, composed of two C6XIO.5 channels were
chosen and would be bolted to sheet piling and with separators to each other. Pre-cast
reinforced concrete deadmen for anchorage are located 2 ft below the ground surface.
Based on coordination with RIOC, the area immediately behind the wall would generally
be reserved for vehicular or pedestrian usage and thus would not be impacted by the buried
wall anchors.

Armor stone, at the existing walled areas in the southern section of the island, to
cover concrete debris from the broken up walls (the underlayer stone) would be sized at 1/3
to 1/2 ton, which is consistent with protection in the area that is performing in a satisfactory
manner. Current velocities at the south end of the island are lower; therefore, one-ton stone

16
 was not deemed necessary for the south end as compared to the north end. Due to this
relatively low current velocity environment at the south end of the island, comprehensive
shore stabilization from erosion is not required. Overtopping safeguards, such as stone or

c pavement, for the sheet pile wall are not required based upon design.

A timber cap (6"X12" cross section) will be attached to the bulkhead along its entire
length and will serve to anchor the 4 ft high aluminum railing, which is specified for safety
reasons. The specific design of the railing will be as approved by RIOC. Refer to
Appendix VI for plan and cross sectional views.

2. South End Costs

1. Design Criteria and Recommendations - Rip-Rap and Seawall Repair.

Table D within Appendix V lists sounding elevations and land elevations for each
seawall section and for each profile cross section taken within each designated reach.
SubAppendix I-I represents a listing of prior documented seawall construction activities at
Roosevelt Island along various perimeter points. SubAppendix 1-2 contains typical cross
sections used in past rip-rap replenishment contracts listed in SubAppendix I-I. The typical
cross sections show top of rip-rap blankets at both 5ft. and 505ft. elevations compared with
mean high water at 4.3 feet.

Sub Appendix H field data was utilized to make comparisons to design sections that
would be deemed adequate. Rip-rap replenishment estimates would be based upon a top of
rip-rap blanket of 5.5ft. minimum with a 1ft. pay tolerance, which coincides with both past
replenishment cross sections and existing rip-rap elevations considered adequate.

Quantities were estimated based upon a top of rip-rap blanket of 6.5 ft (includes 1
ft. pay tolerance) and a 1.5 on 1 slope as depicted in Detail A, Appendix V. Existing slopes
shown in Detail A are based on an average of the existing slopes obtained from the
sounding data. SubAppendix H includes tonnage calculations.

17
 In summary, for the Steam Tunnel and High Priority Wall Sections (AA, W, X, Y,
N, 0, P, Q, and BB) approximately 11,000 tons of one-ton stone would be required for the

c required length.of3,582 ft. For the remaining sections (A, B, C, E, F, L, M, S, T, D, V, CC,

DD, EE, and FF) approximately 28,000 tons of one-ton stone would be required to cover
the 6,508 ft.

2. Rip-rap Replacement Costs

Employing January 1999 price levels, the resulting costs are estimated at nearly
$2,284,000 for rip-rap replenishment. Applying a contingency to this base amount results
in a total cost of $2,512,000. The direct cost, exclusive of contingency, is based upon
11,000 tons at $60/ton, which equates to about $660,000 for the Steam Tunnel and High
Priority Seawall Sections, and 28,000 tons at $58/ton, which equates to $1,624,000 for the
remaining sections. Slightly reduced unit costs may be realized for work with larger
quantities.

Appendices V and VI contain all design calculations and plates pertaining to the wall,
anchoring system, rip-rap replenishment and costs.

Total engineering and construction costs for both south end setback vinyl sheet pile design
and rip-rap replenishment efforts are estimated at $5,872,000, inclusive of contingencies.

The southern end of Roosevelt Island contains considerable existing rip-rap lying above
mean high water (+4.3 local datum). Above mean high water, erosive forces from river
currents are not very strong even during storms. By removing rip-rap from southern areas
above mean high water and reusing at the northern end of the island, if specification
requirements are met, a cost savings of about $30/ton could be realized. A more detailed
investigation would be needed to estimate the quantity of riprap available for reuse and to
estimate the potential project cost savings.

IX. ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES CONCERNS

A. Coastal Structures and Rip-rap Replacement

1. Potential Impacts to Environmental Resources

Repairs and rehabilitation efforts, as identified and recommended in this study may
require additional documentation due to proximity of environmentally sensitive areas along
the island perimeter. Any water based repair operations that could also involve dewatering,
rip-rap replacement and activity below the Mean High Water (MHW) line would require
DSACE regulatory permits and also NYSDEC Coastal Zone Management consistency
approvals.

2. Potential Impacts to Cultural Resources

18
 According to historic documentation, portions of the seawall were constructed by
the island's inmates using gneiss quarried on the island. In some places, the seawall was
built to help create additional land, particularly in the northern portion of the island.
Because of its association with the institutional life of the island, the original portions of
the seawall are potentially significant cultural resources. As a result, the seawall,
particularly those portions around the entire length that are made of quarried stone, should
be identified and evaluated to see if they meet the criteria for the National Register of
Historic Places. This would include conducting additional documentary research of the
various institutional records, such as those for the prison and lunatic asylum, for references
to the construction ofthe seawall by inmates as well as subsequent construction and repair
records of the RlOC and previous operating agencies to identify original segments. This
research would be complimented by the examination of the seawall by a historic
preservation specialist with experience in maritime history and archaeology, particularly in
the construction of marine structures, such as seawalls, piers, and bulkheads.

If found to be eligible, any repair work must be conducted in accordance with the
appropriate historic preservation standards and guidelines. From a cultural resources
standpoint, any new seawall construction should be compatible in size, texture and color
with any remnants of the original gneiss seawall for preservation purposes. Original
portions of the seawall should not be removed if they remain structurally sound and stable.
If any original sections require removal they should be replaced, in-kind, with similar
material. Additional investigations concerning seawall assessments would have to be
completed prior to construction and are estimated to be about $70,000.

B. South End Wall Design

1. Potential Impacts to Environmental Resources

The vinyl sheet pile walls would be set back from the shoreline by approximately
15 feet for an alignment length of approximately 3,400 feet. Since, this part of the island is
not near any existing development, environmental, aesthetic and noise concerns should not
pose a significant problem. Activities will be primarily based from the land side, above
MHW, which will also alleviate but not preclude the need for any associated water and
Federal channel related permits since existing wall removal and replacement of rip-rap in
this area would fall below the existing MHW line. State and City Environmental Quality
Review procedure will likely require that safeguards concerning the NYC landmarks be
taken during construction. Vibrations, as experienced during pile driving, are not expected
to be severe; however, the exact nature of any boulder fields is presently not known.
Bracing for the structures could be required by RlOC as appropriate.

2. Potential Impacts to Cultural Resources

There is a potential to encounter both prehistoric and historic archaeological

resources on Roosevelt Island, particularly in the southern half of the island. According to
19th century maps of the island, a number of structures associated with City Hospital and
the Small Pox Hospital and the other institutions on the island were located along the

19
 shoreline (see Appendix IV). It should be noted that although the City Hospital has been
demolished there has been no archaeological investigations of the surrounding area that
might recover information on the lives of the patients at the hospital or the medical
practices of the .hospital. The subsequent development that has occurred on most of the rest
of the island has not taken place here, increasing the potential to recover archaeological
deposits relating to the institutional use of the island and possibly the prehistoric and early
historic period occupation ofthe island as well. The proposed vinyl sheet pile alternative
requires excavation for the concrete footings and the burial or driving of the vinyl sheet
pile; both activities have the potential to disturb potentially significant archaeological
deposits.

At a minimum the archaeological investigations should consist of shovel testing

within the bounds of the construction area of the vinyl sheet piling and its footings as well
as the area of staging areas and roads. A shovel testing program should be implemented in
accordance with federal, state and local standards of conducting archaeological testing and
should be conducted by qualified professional archaeologists. In additional to field testing,
additional documentary research should also be completed and would include, but not be
limited to, the review of documents generated by or written about the institutions that were
located on the island, particularly the City and Small Pox Hospitals, and the Strecker
Memorial Laboratory.

Construction activities associated with the installation of the vinyl sheet pile wall
also have the potential to damage the existing historic properties on this end of the island.
The placement of the sheet pile wall and associated deadmen would occur approximately
15 feet and 38 feet, respectively, away from the existing shoreline. As currently planned,

c/ the location of the sheet pile wall and the deadmen have the potential to disturb standing
historic properties, particularly the Small Pox Hospital. The location of the sheet pile wall
in this area may have to be adjusted to avoid the Small Pox Hospital. In addition,
vibrations from the pile driving required to install the vinyl sheet pile may adversely impact
the deteriorating Small Pox Hospital and Strecker Memorial Laboratory, both National
Register.properties and New York City Landmarks. Prior to vinyl sheet pile installation, a
structural assessment should be conducted to assess the buildings' stability and to
determine the possible impacts from pile driver vibrations. This assessment should include
a plan to stabilize and protect the building during construction and to monitor the effects of
all phases of construction. Ideally, all of the historic properties at Roosevelt Island should
have a management plan for their basic preservation and maintenance to prevent further
deterioration, while maintaining them in a "mothballed" (unused, but stabilized and
maintained) condition. This management plan would include a regular inspection and
maintenance schedule that would permit the identification and remedy of potential
problems before deterioration and damage to the buildings could occur.

Archaeological Investigations of Sheet Pile Wall/Deadman Placement are estimated to be

about $200,000.ap.d would have to be completed prior to construction. Structural
Assessments of the Small Pox Hospital and Strecker Memorial Laboratory are estimated to
be about $80,000.

20

-- ._ .. ---~-~ ...._----- -- . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ .. ----------------------------------- . ----- --- -------- -----_. -----

 x. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Phase I and 'Phase II investigations have been completed in response to a request

c from RIOe to provide reimbursable Support for Others (SFO) services to address shore
stabilization concerns at the south end of the island and assess the structural condition of
the existing seawall with a view toward recommendations for future actions.

Formulation and design for the south end of Roosevelt Island have been conducted
in accordance with accepted planning and engineering practices to meet planning objectives
subject to identified constraints. Vinyl sheet piling, set back from the shoreline, was
selected as the most viable, cost effective, environmentally acceptable plan. The length of
the alignment would span approximately 3,400 feet and provide low maintenance
protection to guard against a 100-year storm event. The cost for the anchored sheet pile
walls is estimated at about $3,360,000. Adding the cultural resources investigations, the
total cost would be in the range of about $3,360,000 plus $280,000 or $3,640,000.

Seawall surveys and resulting engineering determinations concerning repair,

rehabilitation, and further testing with possible replacement of walls and associated
appurtenant seawall features are presented in this report. In general, wall replacement
versus wall repair costs would be markedly different in order of magnitude, with wall
replacement costs being larger by perhaps an order of up to about ten (10) times the cost of
repair on a linear foot basis. Prioritization of required work in this report is noted to the
extent practical and possible given the limited data available. Additional investigations,
structural testing and cultural resources testing are necessary to confirm the severity and
significance of early screening determinations, as cited in Appendices IV and V. These

o investigations would include but be not limited to: concrete testing, including coring,
ultrasonic and hammer testing and evaluation of the associated severity of cracking
determined from this testing at noted locations. The investigations must also consider the
occurrence of tree root interference at steam tunnel locations, street drainage concerns, the
integrity of waterproofing seals, expansion joint conditions, and the adequacy of rip-rap at
noted· locations. Several engineering consultants available to this area are expert at such
testing. Prioritization of wall replacement/repair sections was also assessed as follows in
no particular order: Sections N, 0, P, Q, R, and BB. In order to further prioritize and
schedule the repair/rehabilitation of these sections, testing as indicated above must be
accomplished. Only internal testing of the wall (not visual inspection) can accurately
determine the structural integrity and remaining useful life of the wall sections. Since any
wall repair may disturb the fronting riprap prior to repair work, it is advisable to place
riprap improvements after the wall repair. Appendix V cites numerous locations where
fronting rip-rap is not considered adequate. Failure to perform the necessary repairs or
maintenance could eventually lead to undermining of the promenade creating an unsafe
condition. While imminent failure is not a concern, an appropriate preventive maintenance
program should be undertaken. Sections AA, W, X, and Y would require rip-rap
replenishment at the Steam Tunnel. Rip-rap replenishment at high priority wall replacement
would be recommended for Sections N, 0, P, Q, and BB. Sections D, G, H, I, J, K, R, and
Z would not require rip-rap replenishment:.

21
 The cost for rip-rap replenishment and cultural resources investigations is estimated
to be about $2,582,000 (includes $70,000 for cultural investigations). These maintenance
suggestions are also offered for RIOCconsideration. In the future, given the complexities
presented by the existing numerous seawall types (and construction histories)
encompassing the northern part of the island, RIOC should consider a common design level
standard for future repair and construction. RIOC should similarly consider a design level
standard for street, promenade and guard rail repair. Architectural design need not be
consistent, and certain types of early construction may be culturally significant, but levels
of protection should be consistent throughout. RIOC would decide the design for
implementation as part of on-going capital repairs.

Total Cost South End $3,640,000

Total Cost -Coastal Structures and Rip-rap replenishment $2,582,000
Totals $6,222,000

Environmental and cultural resources impacts assessments, for the actions

recommended for existing seawalls and the south end design, are described in Section IX. It
appears that any water-based staging operations for seawall repair and pile driving
operations for new construction at the south end would be the most environmentally and
culturally sensitive construction activities that may require permitting and additional .
resource agency coordination.

Investigations for this report essentially concluded that as long as the shoreline
protection is maintained, storm damage mechanisms at the northern end of the island would
not adversely impact development and important public infrastructure up to nearly a 150-
year event, though nuisance flooding or ponding would occur before this stage. As a result,
it does not appear that there would be sufficient storm damage reduction benefits tojustify
Federal participation in a traditional shore protection project at the northern end of the
island. Rip-rap replacement and on-going capital repairs of seawalls would thus be a local
responsibility. Current Administration policy does not allow for project justification
primarily based upon recreation benefits. Thus repair of stancionsand railings, though a
legitimate safety issue, would be beyondFederal participation given current criteria.

At the southern end of the island, there is no current development, aside from
abandoned NYC Landmark buildings, which are not threatened by storm damages. Based
upon Corps planning guidance, future developments may not be used to economically
justify a Federal project, although there are exceptions. A Federal project may not be
justified based upon development for which it would potentially provide impetus.
However, if development and plans are already committed in the future without project
condition, then such benefits could possibly be employed in evaluating Federal interest.

The New York Harbor Collection and Removal of Drift Project, originally
authorized by the River and Harbor Acts of 1915, 1917 and 1930, was considered as a
potential viable way of securing Federal involvement. Under Operation and Maintenance
authority for the New York Harbor and its tributaries, the ~orps of Engineers maintains
Federal navigable waterways so that they would be free from waterborne debris that could
~.•...
22
 pose a threat to navigation. The New York Harbor Collection and Removal of Drift Project,
as modified, allows for the collection and removal of potential sources of drift, such as
derelict vessels and shore structures in the New York Harbor and its tributaries. Thus

c although this study authority would not be a proper vehicle for shore construction at
Roosevelt island, it could be a means to remove and dispose of shore debris, especially
debris that could threaten navigation in Federal channels.

The Steam Tunnel may be considered vital public works infrastructure. As such, the
Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) allows for small scale Federal studies and
investigations under existing, standing legislative authorities. CAP studies are geared
toward evaluating potential projects oflimited scope and complexity. Section 14 of the
Flood Control Act of 1946 (PL 79-526) is aimed at emergency streambank and shoreline
erosion protection for public facilities and services. Unstable conditions caused by
streambank and shoreline erosion would generally call for prompt action to eliminate the
threat to public health and safety, and to prevent interruption of vital services.

Corps of Engineers guide specification EC 1105-2-211 indicates that: "Work under

the Section 14 authority shall serve to prevent erosion damages to endangered highways,
highway bridge approaches, public works, churches, public and private nonprofit hospitals
and schools and other nonprofit public services by the construction and repair of emergency
streambank and shoreline protection work."

The steam tunnel provides service to two area hospitals and the integrity of the
interior wall could affect the ability of the tunnel to function as intended, and in the event
of a failure the steam services from the power plant will be compromised. Assuming that
the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation has means of further assessing a
potential disruption to this service, the work could be classified as vital public
infrastructure.

To summarize, it does not appear likely at the present time that the Corps of
Engineers would be in a position to participate under existing authorities, in any large scale
or comprehensive storm damage solutions for Roosevelt Island. Current policies would
preclude Federal project viability. Traditional Corps reconnaissance, feasibility and
Preconstruction, Engineering and Design efforts would require a more strict observance of
Civil Works planning guidance. There could be potential to pursue some portion of
qualifying debris removal and disposal activities under the New York Harbor Collection
and Removal of Drift Project. Section 14 of the Continuing Authority Program may have
the potential to address a portion of the storm damage problems for that area of the
shoreline that is linked in direct proximity to the steam tunnel. SFO work would still
appear, however, to be the only immediate means of securing further island wide Federal
involvement, based upon information available.

e 23
~~~~"'=r, ,-:. _;~_. ·~~-,-~_.--~~::-,c~~.-~,,~';',:r-"-~-·_":--··--·-q.~~~---- .• .. --:_n. -~ .. -" " .
-"-.,-~'~~': ':, -,-' ...- .- - -_.......' '.'-

APPENDIX I
COASTAL PROCESSES
EXISTING CONDITIONS
 Roosevelt Island - SFO

(~' Existing Conditions

Climatology
Data available to describe the climate of the study area are from the U.S. Coast Pilot 2
(Reference 1), weathe~ table for the New York region. The extreme temperatures observed were
104°P above zero and 2°P below with a mean annual temperature pf53.1°P. The relative
humidity averages approximately 77 percent and the average annual precipitation is
approximately 41.8 inches.

Tides and Datums

Tides in the study area are semi-diurnal and have mean ranges from 4.3 ft. at East 41 st Street,
New York City to 4.8 ft. at the North end of Roosevelt Island. Data were obtained from Tide
Tables 1997 (Reference 2). Tide ranges (in feet) are summarized in Table. I.

TABLEt
Tidal Ranges

Mean Spring Mean Tide Level

Station Range Range (ft. MLLW)
East 4rst Street, NewYork City 4.3 5.2 2.4
37th Avenue, Long Island City 4.5 5.5 2.4
. Roosevelt Island, north end 4.8 5.8 2.6

The relationship between Ivq.,LWand NGVD is shown on Table 2. Per Survey Branch, for East
31 st to Queensboro Bridge,:tv.lLW is equal to -2.01 ftNGVD (MSL 1929) and from NOAA Tidal
Bench Mark at East 41 st Street Pier, East River, elevations of tidal datums referred to :tv.lLLW are
obtained.

TABLE 2
Tidal Datum Relationships

Plane feetNGVD feetMLLW

Mean Higher High Water (WlliW) +2.64 +4.89
Mean High Water (MHW) +2.30 +4.55
Mean Tide Level (NITL) +0.15 +2.4
National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD) o +2.25
Mean Low Water (:tv.lLW) -2.01 +0.24
Mean Lower Low Water (MILW) -2.25 o

1
 For conversion into Belmont Island datum, use the elevation of Belmont Island which is 2.265 ft.
below mean sea level at Sandy Hook per topographic maps provided by the Roosevelt Island
Operating Corporation (RIOC). Therefore,

Plane feetNGVD feet (Belmont Island datum)

NGVD o +2.265

Currents
Currents in the study area are predominantly tidal. The flood current sets northeast and .the ebb
sets southwest. The direction and velocity of the currents are affected by strong winds which
may increase or decrease the periods of flood or ebb. Locations of tide stations, obtained from
tidal current tables (Reference 3), near the study area and their current maximum speeds are as
shown on Table 3.

TABLE 3
Maximum current speed (knots)

Station ebb flood

Roosevelt Island, west of, off 75th St. 4.7 3.8
Roosevelt Island, east of, off 36th St. 3.4 3.5
() Roosevelt Island, west of, off 67th 8t.
Roosevelt Island, west of, off 63 rd 8t.
4.0
2.9
3.6
2.8
Roosevelt Island, east of 2.6 2.8

Winds
Wind data summarized as shown below are based on US Coast Pilot 2, New York City area
(New York, New York 40 0 39'N, 73°47'W) weather table (Reference 1), which is the closest
weather station for the Roosevelt Island area. An annual wind rose diagram, as shown on Figure
1, was constructed for the East River Reconnaissance study and shows the percentage of
occurrence of wind speed disturbances. The wind rose diagram indicates that winds from the
north, northeast, east and southeast occur less than 10 percent of the time; winds from the
northwest occur between 10 and 15 percent ofthe time; and winds from the south, southwest and
west occur more than 15 percent of the time.

Mean annual speed 12.2 knots (14 mph)

Prevailing wind direction West
Maximum annual speed 45 knots (52 mph), west (based on 22 year record)

2
 Storm wind frequencies, as predicted in the East River Reconnaissance Study (Reference 4),
were determined from the extreme wind distribution curve shown in American National Standard
Institute (ANSI). The results are applicable to the Roosevelt Island study area and are as shown
on Table 4.

TABLE 4
Storm Wind Frequency

Return Period Wind Speed (mph)

(Years) Fastest Mile Wind Mean Hourly Wind
5 62 47
10 70 53
25 82 60
50 90 67
100 100 74
200 108 80

Sea Level Rise

A sea level rise of approximately 0.014 ft. per year is indicated based on readings of the NOAA
tide gauge between 1933 and 1986 at Sandy Hook. Based ona projection of the historical
records, this rate will be assumed to continue into the future.

Storm Surge
Storms which affect the area of Roosevelt Island are northeasters (extratropical) and hurricanes
(tropical). Northeasters are large-scale low pressure disturbances which usually occur from
November through March, typically lasting two to three days, making it possible for the storm to
act during several periods of high astronomical tides. Hurricanes occur less frequently in the
study area than northeasters but have the potential to be more devastating to the project area due
to their high wind speed and high surge. The average period between hurricanes is about 5.7
years. The biggest storm event which affected Roosevelt Island has been the December 1992
storm which lasted for a period of three days. The occurrence from the 10th to the 12th of
December 1992 caused inundation from significant water rise in the northern portion ofthe
island. Some damages occurred to the seawalls in that area.

Stage frequency curves relate the elevation of flood waters to the probability of recurring floods
of equal or greater severity. Storm surge levels, summarized on Table 5, are based on previous
study results by Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM) (Reference 5). The values of storm surge
elevations for Roosevelt Island, located approximately 5.5 miles from the Battery, were obtained
by extrapolation between node 73, which is 3.8 miles from the Battery, and node 72 which is

F
~f. . 'i

3
located 7.3 miles from the Battery. Figure 2 shows the location of the nodes. The extrapolated
curve shown on Figure 3 show the combined tropical and extratropical storm surge elevation vs.
frequency obtained from CDM nodes 73 and 72.

TABLE 5
Storm Surge Elevations (ft. NGVD)

Return
Period CDM CDM Roosevelt -
(Years) (node 73) (node 72) Island
2 5.7 6.5 6.0
5 6.7 7.7 7.1
10 7.2 8.5 7.8
25 8.2 9.5 8.8
50 8.8 10.4 9.5
100 9.6 11.4 10.4
200 10.4 12.4 11.3
500 12.0 14.1 12.9

It was determined, from available pictures taken during the December 1992 storm, that the water
level, including setup, for Roosevelt Island was 12.8 ft NGVD. Setup, which is the
superelevation of the mean water level caused by wind forces pushing the storm surge level
upward due to the presence of a land form, was calculated using Coastal Engineering Manual
(Reference 8) method. The design water level for each return period was then obtained by
adding the storm surge and setup as shown in Table 6 below. Thus the December 1992 event
was equivalent to an approximate 175 year return period storm based on the CDM stage
frequency results.

TABLE 6
Design Storm Surge Water Levels (ft. NGVD)

Return
Period Storm Design
(Years) Surge Setup SWL
5 7.1 1.1 8.2
10 7.8 1.2 9.0
25 8.8 1.3 10.1
50 9.5 1.3 10.8
100 10.4 1.4 11.8
200 11.3 1.7 13.0

4
 Wave Height Frequency
It was determined, based on wave analysis performed, that the wave climate at Roosevelt Island
is primarily wind driven and fetch limited. Traffic generated waves, that is, wave heights from
boats and barges which travel in the East River were calculated (approx. 1 ft. high) and found to
have no significant impact to the shoreline. The wave height-frequency relationships were
calculated using the depth limited method and the fetch/duration limited method as developed in
the Shore Protection Manual (Reference 7). The average fetch distance and depth were
determined at 3 degree intervals from a point at the center of the southern tip of Roosevelt Island
Shoreline in the direction of maximum wind and longest fetch. Navigation Chart # 12335 was
used for data input. Water depths used include still water level due to storm surge. Significant
wave heights (Hs) and wave periods (T) were obtained using shallow-water wave forecasting
curves published in ETL 1110-2-305 (Reference 6). Results are shown on Table 7.

TABLE 7
Design Significant Wave Heights & Wave Periods

Return Wave Wave

Period Height, Period,
(Years) Hs (ft) T (sec)
5 3.1 2.9
10 3.5 3.1
25 4.2 3.3
E) 50
100
4.6
5.1
3.4
3.5
200 5.9 3.6

5
 UVuhou~ProjectConditions

The following coastal processes were considered for evaluations in order to predict the without-
project conditions.
Storm-Induced Erosion
Inundation & Runup
Overtopping.

Erosion. Storm induced erosion was not evaluated since there is no apparent erosion of the
shoreline and available records do not indicate erosion problems of the Island. The shoreline in
the project area is protected by riprap or concrete walls in most locations.

Inundation & Runup. The predicted inundation and runup extents for the 25, 100 and 200 year
return period events are as shown on Figures 4a, 4b & 4c. Runup, which is the vertical height
above the still water level to which water will run up a sloped surface from broken waves, was
predicted using runup methodology from SPM 1984 (Reference 7). The combined tropical and
extratropica1 surge elevations, determined for Roosevelt Island with the addition of wave setup
(from Table 6), were used for inundation determination. Inundation with runup limits for the 25,
100 & 200 year return periods are shown for the southern end of the island for areas subject to
runup, i.e. sloped areas, on Figure 4c and the inundation limits for the 25, 100 & 200 year return
periods are shown for the northern end of Roosevelt Island on Figures 4a & 4b. It is to be noted
that runup is not applicable for shoreline reaches fronted by walls and inundation will only occur
for these reaches when the walls are submerged or flanking from the southern end of the Island
occurs behind the walls. Damage (as defIned by adverse impacts to buildings or roads/for
essential vehicular traffic) from inundation is not anticipated up to an approximate 150 year
event return period. Refer to Table 8 for maximum surface water elevation.

Overtopping. In order to determine possible damage of walls due to overtopping from wave
action, the existing walls on the northern end of the island were evaluated using SPM 1984
method. The overtopping rate determined for each return event was compared to maximum
allowable overtopping thresholds developed by CIRIA 1980 (Reference 10). Damages to the
walls from overtopping were evaluated for a 50 year event and a 75 year event since greater
events will essentially submerge the wall and thus negate overtopping. The results show that a 5
ft. wide paved area for the 50 year event and 7-ft. wide paved area for the 75 year event, next to
the walls are needed to prevent scouring of the materiallandside of these walls. The widths of
the required paved areas were calculated using ASCE Coastal Engineering Practice (Reference 9)
and it was determined that sufficient protection is provided against overtopping for the evaluated
return events since existing paved areas adjacent to wall range between 7.5 & 12 ft. It is noted
that unpaved areas adjacent to the wall are in the eastern side of the island that is not sUbject to
overtopping wave damage.

e-
6
Based on the results from the analyses performed no damages from overtopping are anticipated.

The maximum surface water elevations, determined from Inundation and Runup, are as shown·
on Table 8 below. The Northern Reach refers to the area north of City Hospital and the Southern
Reach refers to the area south of City Hospital.

TABLE 8
Maximum Surface Water Elevations

Return Northern Reach Southern Reach

Period Inundation Inundation with Runup
(Years) (ft. NGVD) (ft. Belmont Island) (ft. NGVD) (ft. Belmont Island)
25 10.1 12.4 11.7 14.0
100 11.8 14.1 13.7 16.0
200 13.0 15.3 14.9 17.2

7
 References

1. US Coast Pilot 2, Atlantic Coast Cape Cod to Sandy Hook, US Department of Commerce,
NOAA, National Ocean Service (NOS) 1994.

2. Tide Tables 1997, Atlantic Coast ofNorth America, US Department of Commerce, NOAA,
NOS.

3. Tidal Current Tables 1995, Atlantic Coast ofNorth America, US Department of Commerce,
NOAA,NOS.

4. East River Draft Reconnaissance Report, US Army Corps of Engineers, New York District,
February 1995.

5. New York City Flood Insurance Study, Report No.7, Prepared for New York City
Department of Environmental Conservation, By Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM),
November 1981.

6. Vincent, C.L. and Lockhart, J.H., US Army Corps of Engineers ETL 1110-2-305,
Determining Sheltered Water Wave Characteristics, February 1984.

Ej 7. Shore Protection Manual, Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1984.

8. Coastal Engineering Manual, EC 1110-2-289, September 1996.

9. ASCE, Coastal Engineering Practice, 1992.

10. Construction Industry Research & Information Association Center for Civil Engineering
Research & Codes, Manual on the Use of Rock for Coastal and Shoreline Engineering,
CIRIA Special Publication 83, CUR Report 154, Publication 1991.

8
 . . .-. .
_ANNUAL WIND ROSE DIAGRAM
. . .

w ~H-+-:-H__I~

Cj s

~'-E:f\LT ROO~G"'E L, :I:S.LMJ.~J N.~

FRE..Q~tJ.C.~
C(;.~
'S~o~~ ?RDTEC-T~bN. t>'RQ"SE.c.:r
g.~ . F.tG. URE' '1.
~.~
16.~
\ i-.S
\ 5,~
\ (,.1-
I :l.t\-

9
·1
aT
I
c:
I
j1. ~:~
.Jr..
~,

n - ~ lr·
i

...,.
en
J <ll
So-
<ll

-
-i-J
s::

I I ;-
0
en
-i-J
s::
I .,...
0
0-
I;-
0
en r
lr:',
)c/
s::
.,...
0
-i-J
.
:
I
I

·ra
I u
0
-.l

1. .
!
j.
~.;
- .~. ." . ." . t
i

~
............... _-.......~._ .. _-_. ~ .. _.:..
Ji
. . .---
~
/ -_. -~_.:----- . ,".

~
;;
:l
~.

t
. .~ll"'
.' t I.
o .~ •
11

Sl
~

c: ,£;)-'2
:2 a

H
I-
H
.<::
-' ....
<J
<S:l

~ I!-~
I!J"
~cj
(f)
W
r.c
LJ ~ Wo :::s
"/ <I> t£ Ii
g~~
\.!j
H
rt 01 C!.lf) lJ...
;:::5
U
d'"l
<P
5'
0
:z
w
;5
a 0
01
uJ
rY.
lJ-
uJ 0
0 r-
UJ
« <J
2
l- 0 a:
UI
E) p
"2-
a:
...J
cf)
fJ
0
) 0
rf'l
0
ns
rJ)

H
f--l
it
uJ
o / 0

r-
.-J
fj..

7-
nC o I
L r-
.:f
l!J ;s If)

>
uJ
I-
LV <::>
= L
if)
Ci ./
0
0 l1>
L -
r:i- /
I
'.
<)
I.
1/7 o

c)
It
r-...-......---.
--~ .. _.----- - -

:.0
·t-I

tJW
>-0
zO::
-- ~
.0. E
Oz :.J
~ Q 0.
(f)1-
_0
~:J
I-w 0::
...J 01- _x
W VU
> 0:: c
W 0. ·2
(J)W ro
OZ -0
e-5------~
0:: W c-
o:: -
o
I
(f)

o
';,

(j)---- - - - - - -
 ",.1
. ~J

-.(!-
,e
co
.·1.: C"'..-..
cu-
'~l ~
w
-,
o _"
••,
~J
U)
.!9
0. '5.
U)
a a
'k I I
>-0 () .?;-. .?;-
zO::: ~ ::f- (3 0'-
_a.. ,!;
Oz -J 'J.. '<-

zo .~_)" 0 '+-
a
0. .... .c .c
::5-
(/)0W
::J
C
::J
"'_' t
,_ a a t
0::: zz
<':i

I- ....1: ....................
-JI- 06 \1 C C
wO e "':\
,., ,2 a
......., .-
>0:::
wa.. a ~ cu ro
:0::;
cu < 1:J 1:J
(/)W 1:J H § §
OZ e --.lEe
0- ::J
e _c.; 1:J 1:J
0:::0:1
a:: :;-,.g ,2
_0
:r:--- ----j'--,-2J- ill
<: u.. 'w... ~-~

(J)
'~ E e ()
_~JJ ::J L. o
,1i1_ OJ ~ f'{\
0::: 0:::
A)
I~~
L. L.
II
1fl00
/"/00

I/0 i
I
~'
I !
I I
I i
"
o
- ,"I

)
. ,

---(,!,
0---- -----'~'
 b
w
-.
>-0 (J)
:!:::
zO:::
.Q.. E
Oz :.:J
zo 0.
:5-
(/)1-
::J
C

-frl ::J
0:::
~I- ~
w O c
>0:::
wo. 2m
(/)W "0
02 c
0- ::J
0:::u:J C
0:::
__ .,0
-~-:r:-- -
U)

: I
: I
~ I
:
I
I
I
I
I

1
'-.
o
/ o
II
o
o
r6
I l.u
•. ,j
d:
(.J
<j)

f'I; ""
;:} :1
() t:J
Y 1-'
"1 '2
o ()
U <.j

1_ jJ
\1. Il-
I I
00
-- 0

J i
------~o--
 --- -~ - - _.~._---_._-- ._,-~.--;._---~---,-:-~-.-~:~ .

APPENDIX II
INITIAL
STRUCTURAL
ASSESSMENT
 APPENDIX 11- PHASE I - STRUCTURAL COMMENTS SOUTHERN END
(The southern end of Roosevelt Island was investigated for possible shore protection alternatives. See Appen-
dix I - Coastal Processes for detailed infonnation ertainin a to this Coastal Assessment of the southern end.)
ROOSEv"'ELT ISLAND - SOUTH WEST SHORE FACING MANHATTAN
he west shore of the southern end 1 2 ~---:__,_..,...--.,.."..,..-
fthe Island consists ofvarying types
f shore protection. Riprap, placed
tone, gabion cages, concrete, rubble "
tone, etc. are randomly placed along
he shoreline.
he east shore of the southern end of
he Island also consists of varying
ypes of shore protection.
SCHEMEl
NLAND WALL SYSTEM LO-
ATED APPROXIMATELY 15'
LAND - This Scheme leaves the
horeline as is resulting in cost sav-
.ngs at this time. An inland wall sys-
em would be located approximatley
15' inland. The savings re~ulting
om this scheme must be compared
ith the loss of future developable
and, the aesthetic impact on future
evelopment and the possible need
or Scheme I in the future.
SCHEME II
BULKHEADING AT THE
SHORELINE - Referring to the
three options provided in the Plan
Alternatives of Appendix III, the
concrete seawall would be the
most expensive. Aesthetically it
would be more consistent with the
northern portion of the Island.
nder this scheme existing shore pro-
ection would be replaced at both the
outh west and east shores. Deterio-
ated pilings would need to be re-
oved as well as tree roots and shrub-
ery. Borings would be required to
erify soil properties and depth to
ock.
alvageable materials such as riprap
d wall stone are to be reused only
.f specification requirements are met.
his scheme would provide the
ost land for future development.
See Plan Alternatives of this report
or Scheme comparisons.)

1
 ROOSEVELT ISLAND - SOUTH WEST SITE WORK
he terrain of the south west side of 1~ -.
he southern end of the Island is ir-
egular and hilly. It is covered with
ense vegetation. A temporary stair
as been erected. There are three lev-
Is at this site. The landmarked
'Renwick" ruin is at an intermediate
levation. The existing shore protec-
ion is at the base of the hilly area.

he terrain of the south east side of

e southern end ofthe Island is simi-

A roadway occurs at approximately

id elevation. There is an emergency
ubway exit leading from the Inde-
SOUTH EAST SITE WORK
endent Line's 53rd St. Station. The
andmarked Strecker Lab is presently
eing renovated.

he proposed height of bulkheading

ould be dependent upon future de-
elopment and the extent of fill re-
uired to accommodate the new Mas-
er Plan. The landmarked "Renwick"
in would most likely be a control-
ing elevation.

he depth, size, alignment and extent

f the emergency subway tunnel must
e verified as well as that of existing
d future utilities, sewer lines, etc.
at would occur at the bulkhead line.

orings would be required to verify

oil properties and depth to rock.
See Design Alternatives for wall sec-
ion comparisons.)

2
 APPENDIXII-STRUCTURAL
ASSESSMENT NORTH END
( ROOSEVELT ISLAND - WEST SHORE FACING M.L\..NHATTAN '\
n assessment was made of the ex- 1 2
·sting sea walls that protect the north- 1;;~riJH~~~~~
rn end of the Island. Through the ~
ears varying types of seawalls have
een constructed along the West
hore of the Island. The walls vary
·n age, material, height and condi-
Ion.
ailure of concrete structures be-
omes evident with some form ofvis-
'ble distress such as cracking, leach-
·ng, spalling, scaling, stains, disinte-
ration, wear, settlement or deflec-
ion. The evaluation process is im-
ortant in determining the cause of
he failure, the structural safety ofthe
tructure and for developing a scope
fwork to correct the problem. This
rocess includes in depth, detailed
·nvestigation involving the necessary
apping, sampling, testing and ex-
loratory efforts. This report is lim-
·ted. It is based on walk-through or
rive-by inspection and a review of
arious project drawings.
hotos 1 through 14 illustrate the di-
ersity of seawall types, material,
ondition, and past repair efforts. The
hotos are numbered in the order in
hich they have been taken working
·n a northerly direction. (See accom-
anying maps for photo locations.)
hoto 1 - this section ofconcrete wall
as been damaged and repaired in the
ast. The repair has failed. The
tancion's support has failed. Re-
air of this portion of the wall is re-
uired. (See photo 1 page 5.)
hotos 2, 7, 9, & 10 - these sections
onsist of grouted stone wall. The
aIls have been provided a
oncrete ledge and have been capped
See accompanying tables and maps
or wall descriptions, lengths, photo
ocations and summary of recom-
endations.)

3
 ROOSEVELT ISLAND - WEST SHORE FACING IVIANHATTAN
d new stancions incorporated. The 11 12
tone walls require deaning and loose \ t>
rout should be removed and re- t

laced. Damaged stone should be

eplaced in kind. Photo 2 illustrates
cantilevered cap with stancions.
romenade photos appearing on pg.
in the report illustrate failure ofthe
antilever cap at stancion locations.
hotos 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 - these
hotos illustrate locations that require
·prap protection. PROVIDE CON-
INUOUS RlPRAP PROTECTION
LONG THE BASE OF THE
SLAND'S SEA WALLS. Some of
hese photos also illustrate unpro-
ected ledges added at the base ofthe .
alls.
hotos 3 and 4 - these photos illus-
ate the varying heights ofsea walls.
hotos 1 to 4 on pg. 13 illustrate
ooding that occurred in December
f 1992. See the Existing Conditions
ection for data pertinent to required
eawall height such as flooding and
vertopping.
hotos 13, 14 and 15 - these photos
·llustrate concrete sea walls at the
orthem end of the Island that are in
e poorest condition. New stancions
ere not incorporated with a cap.
hey were drilled directly into the
alls compromising the walls further.
tructural investigation including
esting is required. Wall replacement
ay be required at this location.
 ROOSEVELT ISLAND - WEST PROl\1ENADE FACING MANHATTAN
1 2 ---~=;____-..,.--,."
hotos 1 through 9 are sequenced in
northerly direction. They illustrate
arious repairs that have been under-
aken over the years.

hoto 1 illustrates the damaged

tancion shown in Photo 1 on page
. Although repaired in the past, this
ection of the sea wall requires fur-
her investigation and repair.

hotos 2, 4 and 5 illustrate the canti-

evered capping shown on Photo 2 on
age 3. The capping is in the pro-
ess offailure at the comer as well as
t the stancions. This capping will
ventually need to be replaced.

hotos 1 and 3 show disconnected

ailings. This occurs at many loca-
ions on the Island. All railings must
e repaired and connected in place af-
er stancion repair or installation.
he railing in photo 1 did not break
t the welded joint. It has been cut.

hoto 6 illustrates the unprotected

oncrete ledge which has been at-
ached to the seawall. This is a new
edge attached to the older seawall.
n time this ledge will experience
eterioration as well. As mentioned
reviously it is recommended that
ONTINUOUS RIPRAP PROTEC-
ION BE PROVIDED ALONG
HE BASE OF THE ISLAND'S
EA WALLS.

5
 ROOSEVELT ISLAND - WEST PROMENADE FACING MANHATTAN
hotos 7, 8 and 9 illustrate various 7
tages of promenade repair. Note
hoto 8 illustrates a drainage chan-
e!. In Photo 7 and 9 the drainage
hannel eventually disappears under
bitumen blacktop.

hoto 7 shows evidence of standing

ater which would be a hazard dur-
.ng freezing temperatures. The bitu-
en is not sloped toward the drain
d the seawall is not allowing the
ater to pass.

T IS RECOMMENDED THAT
HE ISLAND DEVELOP A STAN-
ARD FOR ALL FUTURE RE-
AIRS. THIS STANDARD
HOULD APPLY TO FUTURE
EVELOPMENT AS WELL.

6
 s on the West Shore, through the
ears varying types of seawalls have
een constructed along the Eest Shore
f the Island. The major difference
·s the approx. 4,200 ft. long steam
el serving Goldwater Memorial
ospital to the South and Coler Hos-
ital to the North which was built in
1949. The walls vary in age, mate-
.aI, height and condition.

s mentioned previously, failure of

oncrete structures becomes evident
ith some form of visible distress
uch as cracking, leaching, spalling,
caling, stains, disintegration, wear,
ettlement or deflection. This state-
ent applies particularly to the Steam
unnel. The evaluation process is im-
ortant in determining the cause of
he failure, the structural safety ofthe
tructure and for developing a scope
f work to correct the problem.

his report is limited. It is based on

alk-through or drive-by inspection
d a review ofvarious project draw-
·ngs. Additional investigation is req-
isite.

hotos 1 through 11 illustrate the di-

ersity of seawall types, material,
ondition, and past repair efforts. The
hotos are numbered in the order in
hich they have been taken working
·n a northerly direction. (See accom-
anying maps for photo locations.)

hotos 1, 3, 6, 9 and11- these photos

'llustrate locations that require riprap
rotection. CONTINUOUS RlPRAP
ROTECTION IS REQUIRED AT
HE BASE OF ALL SEAWALS.

7
 ROOSEVELT ISLAND - EAST SHORE FACING QUEENS
hotos 2,3 & 4 - these'sections con- 7 8
ist of stone walls. The wall in photo
has been repaired similar to that on
e West Shore of the Island. It has
een provided a concrete ledge and a
ap with stancions. It requires clean-
.ng and loose grout should be re-
oved and replaced. The condition
f the wall in photo 3 is similar to
hat at the southern end ofthe Island.
here is no riprap protection. This
all should be further investigated
ogether with the bridge abutment for
equisite improvement. The wall in
hoto 4 also requires additional in-
estigation. It had been repaired in
e past and appears to be leaning
orward. The stones are dislodged.
hotos 5, 6, 7 - repair concrete at
oints, provide premolded joint filler
nd joint covers where required.
lean weepholes.
hotos 8 and 10 - repair timber bulk-
ead and remove unnecessary, dete-
.orated timber pilings.
hoto 9 - the riprap bed below the
team tunnel has washed away un-
ermining its structural stability. Fur-
her investigation is requisite. Dewa-
er, shore and inspect steam tunnel
tructural base. The steam tunnel
'11 be discussed later.
hoto 10 - this photo illustrates the
arying heights of the sea wall.
looding occurred at the northern
ower section of this wall. Photos 1
o 4 on pg. 13 illustrate flooding that
ccurred in December of 1992. See
he Existing Conditions Section for
ata pertinent to seawall height such
s flooding and overtopping.
hoto 11 - this cracked concrete wall
equires riprap protection and further
.nvestigation.

8
 ROOSEVELT ISLAND - STEAl\1 TUNNEL AT SOUTHERN END
he condition of the southern sec- 1 2~~~
ion of the steam tunnel is similar to
hat of the northern end.

- wall movement has oc-

hoto 2 - water pooling on the floor

as resulted in pipe support steel de-
erioration. An indepth structural
tudy of the steel supporting mem-
ers is recommended.

hoto 3 - the tunnel's leaking joints

ere scheduled to be repaired, but the
ork was never completed. In
reparation for this project, asbes-
os was removed from pipes on ei-
her side of each tunnel joint. The
oints still leak. It is recommended
at the Roosevelt Island maintenance
rew prepare a map indicating the
ocation of problem joints. This in-
onnation needs to be correlated with
e exterior conditions of the tunnel.

hoto 4 - blocks have been placed 00-

er steel supports in an attempt to
revent further deterioration.

hoto 5 - It was noted that leaking

ccurs at both the water side and land
ide of the tunnel. There are trees
owing at the edge ofthe tunnel wall.
ree roots may be a cause ofsome of
his leakage problem. Trees may
eed to be relocated.

hoto 6 - the tunnel roof serves as a

alkway in some locations. Concrete
epairs have been attempted and have
ailed. Patching can result in future
ripping hazards. Photo 5 shows a
omplete bitumen layer.

9
 ROOSEVELT ISLAND - STEAM TUNNEL AT NORTHERN END
hoto 1 - similar flooding conditions 1 2..__------ .----_
ccur at the northern end of the tun-
el as well.

hoto 2 - pump support gratings are

eteriorated and need to be replaced.

hoto 3 - steel reinforcing in the tun-

els concrete walls are exposed and
eteriorated.

hoto 4 - exposed asbestos is evident

ithin the tunnel.

hoto 5 and 6 - open pipes in the tun-

el wall are also causing water and
ud to accumulate. This is an easy
arter to rectify. Roosevelt Island
aintenance crew should seal all non
requisite pipe openings into the tun-
el.

hoto 7 - Vegetation and trees at the

unnels edge may be causing addi-
ionalleakage problems.

hoto 8 - structural steel pipe sup-

orts are in need of further study and
epaIf.

he steam tunnel problems warrant

independent study. The tunnel's
.p rap bed is being washed away
dermining its structural stability.
t's base is deteriorating due to a lack
frip rap. It's joint covers are miss-
.ng or damaged. Its concrete is
palling and deteriorating. Concrete
teel reinforcing, steel support beams
or piping, steel grating are in an ac-
ive corrosive state.

10
 ROOSEVELT ISLAND - EAST PROMENADE FACING QUEENS
· 1 2
hotos 1 through 10 are sequenced
.n a northerly direction. (See accom-
anying maps for photo locations.)
hoto 1 - wooden piles are to be re-
oved.

hoto 2 illustrates wave action from

passing vessel. See Existing Con-
itions Section for overtopping data.
hoto 3 - there is a large joint open-
.ng in the promenade at intersection
f the sidewalk with the end of the
team tunnel. A protective cover
hould be placed over this opening.
A senior resident of the Island com-
lained that she had fallen and hit her
ace on the promenade at this loca-
ion.)
hoto 4 illustrates the extent of de-
erioration at the base of the steam
unnel. This occurs more often at
oint locations. Note the absence of
iprap which is a key factor to this
roblem. Refer back to Photo 9 on
age 8. In addition to the deteriorated
ase the riprap bed supporting the
el has washed out from under the
unnel in many locations. Further
tructural investigation is required.
hotos 5, 6 and 7 illustrate deterio-
ated stancions. All stancions at this
orthem section of the promenade
hould be replaced.
hoto 8 - sea wall keyways require
remolded joint filler. All deterio-
ated filler should be removed and
eplaced.
hoto 9 - maintenance of drainage
hannels in grassed areas is required.
hoto 10 - provide protective grates
etween railings.

11
 ROOSEVELT ISLAND - NORTH SHORE AT LIGHTHOUSE
1 -----------------------,,--...
he northern end ofthe Island was in-
dated during the December 1992
torm. Photos 1 to 4 on pg. 13 illus-
ate flooding that occurred in Decem-
er of 1992. See the Existing Condi-
ions Section for data pertinent to sea-
all height pertaining to flooding &
vertopping,.

he lighter colored segment of wall

t the north end ofthe Island is a new
all erected due to a barge collision
ith the seawall. The wall was re-
uilt but protective riprap was not
rovided. As was noted previously,
ROVIDE CONTINUOUS RIPRAP
ROTECTION ALONG THE 2
ASE OF THE ISLAND'S SEA
ALLS.

ue to the past flooding in this area

d the poor condition of the adjoin-
.ng sea walls, further investigation of
he northern sea walls is also recom-
ended.

See accompanying maps for photo 10-

ations.)

12
 ROOSEVELT ISLAND - PAST FLOODING
1 - SOUTH-WEST PORTION OF ISLAND
Photos taken during December 199
storm. Concrete walls exhibiting ex
tensive deterioration are located a
northern end ofthe Island which wa
inundated during the 1992 Storm.

2 - NORTH-EAST PORTIO
OF ISLAND

-NORTH END OF ISLAND

13
c

(
'

':
., j

14
 n
'.
PHASE 1 WALL SURillEPORT n
SECTION LENGTH(FT) DESCRIPTION RECOMMENDATION PHOTO PAGE

A 1,401 Concrete sea wall Repair corner section of wall, stancion and 1 (SHORE PHOTO) 3
railing located approximately 197 ft. from 1(Promenade 5
northern limit of undeveloped southern end Photo)
of the Island. Repair deteriorated concrete
and expansion joints as required.

B 202 Stone wall with cantilevered concrete Clean stone wall, remove loose grout and 2 3
cap. replace. Cantilevered concrete cap is 2,3,4,5 5
failing at corners and stanctions. Capping
will eventually need to be replaced. Repair
railing.

C 262 This section includes a stone wall at Clean stone wall, remove loose grout and 3 3
the southern 59th St. Bridge abutment replace. Repair deteriorated concrete
and a concrete wall at the northern and expansion joints as required.
Bridge abutment.

D 625 Stepped concrete wall. Within this Repair deteriorated concrete & expansion 4,5 3
length the first rise in height is joints as required.
1'-7". The second rise in height is
1'·0".

E 260 Cobble stone wall. Clean, remove loose grout and replace. 6 3

F 122 Wood pier. Good condition. 7 3

G 673 Stone wall with concrete Clean stone wall, remove loose grout 7,8 3
(noncantilevered) cap. and replace.

H 384 Concrete wall. Repair deteriorated concrete & 8,9 3

expansion joints as required.

I-'
VI
 (i)
':: .. , ..... ..'/
~
'~'.L ; rj)
PHASE 1 WALL SURVEY REPORT

SECTION LENGTH(FT) DESCRIPTION RECOMMENDATION PHOTO PAGE

702 Stone wall. Portion of wall has been Replace remaining stancions as 9,10 3
capped and new stancions were required. Clean stone wall, remove
installed. loose grout and replace.

J 1,232 Coarse aggregate concrete wall. Repair deteriorated concrete & 10 3

expansion joints as required.

K 298 Concrete wall. Repair deteriorated concrete & 11 4

expansion joints as required.

L 356 Coarse aggregate concrete wall. Repair deteriorated concrete & 11,12 4
Measurement includes vessel art work. expansion joints as required.

M 245 New concrete wall and pier. Good condition.

N 350 Coarse aggregate concrete wall. Structural testing is required along 13 4

Poor condition. this section. Wall replacement may
be required.

0 184 Coarse aggregate concrete wall. Structural testing is required along 13 4

this section. Wall replacement may
be required.

P 688 Concrete wall. Good condition. Check wall with adjacent walls.
Wall replacement may be required.

~
0'
 n
'c . ._.~
n (;\
, /

PHASE 1 WALL SURVEY REPORT

SECTION LENGTH(FT) DESCRIPTION RECOMMENDATION PHOTO PAGE

Q 216 Coarse aggregate concrete wall. Structural testing is required along this 14 4
segment. Wall replacement may be
necessary.

R 460 Coarse aggregate concrete wall. Structural testing is required along this 15 4
segment. Wall replacement may be 8,9 6
necessary.

S 463 Concrete stepped wall. One foot The northern end of the Island requires 1,2,3,4,5 12
rise in height. A 40' section of this riprap protection to avoid future damage
wall was replaced due to a barge from the swift currents and barge traffic.
collision.

T 1,023 Coarse aggregate concrete wall. The
overall condition of this wall on the
East shore is good as compared to
Sections N, 0, Q & R on the West
Shore which may need replacement.
Test, repair concrete and expansion joints 11 8
as required. Replace stancions and 9 11
railings, provide for railing safety barrier
at railings. Clear grass from drainage
paths.

U 550 Same as section T. Test, repair concrete and expansion joints 10 8

as required. Replace stanclons and railings, 1,5,6,7,8 11
provide for railing safety barriers as 10
required. Remove wood pilings.

V 290 Same as section T above. Note Test, repair concrete and expansion joints 10 8
change in height in photo 10. as required. Replace stancions and 2 11
See photos "flooding" 2&4 pg. 13 railings, provide for railing safety
along sections T, U & V. barriers as required.

I-'
......
 n rT)
\. i'
n
PHASE 1 WALL SURVEY REPORT

SECTION LENGTH(FT) DESCRIPTION RECOMMENDATION PHOTO PAGE

W 268 Concrete steam tunnel (see Detail A). Steam tunnel problems warrant an 9 8
The riprap bed supporting the steam independent structural investigation to 1 to 6 9
tunnel has washed away in several determine its structural stability. 1 to 8 10
locations undermining its structural Roosevelt Island maintenance crew
stability. The tunnel is experiencing should prepare a map indicating location
leaking at its joints. There is an absence of problem joints and leaking.
of joint covers at many locations. One
resident fell last week bruising her face. 3 11
This occurred at the joint opening at the
tunnel to sea wall interface. Tree growth
may also be a source of leaking along the
landside wall.

X 526 Location of new break in Steam Tunnel Investigate as part of Independent

Wall. Steam Tunnel study.

Y 1,072 Continuation of steam tunnel. Repair or replace timber fender piles 8 8

and pilings at 35th Ave. Bridge.

Z 135 Continuation of steam tunnel. Repair deteriorated concrete & expansion 7 8

joints as required.

M 2,124 Continuation of steam tunnel to end. Repair deteriorated concrete & expansion 5,6 7
joints as required. Clean weepholes.

BB 50 Stonewall. Clean stone, remove loose grout and replace. 4 7

The wall in photo 4 requires additional
investigation. It had been repaired in the
past and appears to be leaning forward.
Stones are dislodged.

......
ex>
 rJ m n
SECTION LENGTH(FT) DESCRIPTION RECOMMENDATION PHOTO PAGE

CC 1,000 Concrete wall. Good condition

DD 50 Stone wall at 59th St. Bridge abutment. This wall should be investigated together 3 7
with the bridge abutment for requisite
improvement.

EE 680 Stone wall with concrete (noncantilevered) Clean stone wall, remove loose grout and 2 7
cap. replace.

FF 969 Concrete wall. Repair concrete expansion joints as 1 7

required.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Provide continuous riprap protection along the base of all the Island's seawalls.

2. A standard for all future repairs should be developed. This standard should apply to future development as well.

3. See Existing Conditions Section for flooding and overtopping data pertinent to wall heights.

4. A survey for stancion and railing repair and replacement is required. Protective barriers are required at all
railings and should also be incorporated into the survey.

5. A survey of seawall keyways requiring filler is required.

6. A survey of seawall joints requiring repair and cover plates is required.

7. A map indicating the location of leaks within the steam tunnel is required. This data needs to be correlated
with the exterior conditions of the tunnel. An in depth structural Investigation of the steam tunnel is required.

8. A prioritized list of structural repairs should be developed after testing and further study.

t-'
1.0
 C'j __ ... J _ . -r

_ _I UNITED NmON~ ~ I I I _~

SOUTH WEST SHORE FACING MANHATTAN WEST S~ORE FACING MANHATTAN i

~~~~~ PHOTOS 1 THROUGH 6 PHOTOS 1 THROUGH 3

I I SOUTBPOINT
"A"

rlrt,,~-:'e Site of FDR Jiemorial Park

3 4 5 :--- =r=- -===---- -- - -;~ - -- - - - - ----...

1 2 . ~_ _~
. _ . . .--1-~----=~
. ~
(~. ----------------
,-- -- --
.--------

'--------._----- 1
3
4 5 - ~.---. :......
., t-- .--. -- ---
1 ----1--..-_---I

2 ,
courwA'DZ IIIII02I&L , 3

~ RENl'ICIC RUIN I ~ lAB DZP im stauaa 1

BOSPI'fJL
'. ,
,

.\ l'-
.
rJn.'
,~,
I.aamak , SH&lSPBI:
1aJMIm.... "FF" "EE" ".1.".,"
n
-'
i
.
EuM:ltesq - - .
' 9 6 9 ft.' Il _ ·
rr- 680 ft.
~~,,
~'
5 It.t
~
, I
I ,\ ,.\ RACQUD
o

I I .
0

o _

C.")
~ .... . : PHOTOS 1 THROUGH 3 i. . . " \
PHOTOS 1 THROUGH 5 . .. ROOSEVELT ISLAND ~ \
I 20
I
.~.__. .~_~ ~_~ _~ ~ _ ~ __.._.__.~_. ._.~ _.__ __~__.- - .- ._. .~ _.~ .__.._~_.~~. ~~.___ .J _ _
 (~

\----\
-.....
---_/
; I 1 J~ 1 1 I I I J I I _~-i 1 I

I 'WEST SHORE FACING MANHATTAN

I . PHOTOS 4 THROUGH 10 I
; Chapel of the Good Shepherd
COMKUNlTY' CENTER
"D" "E" "F" "G" "H" Landmark "I" "J"
625 ft. Subway Station 673 ft. 384 ft. 702 ft. ,PS/IS217 1,232 ft.
I~
Q &. B lines
r
1.\ 260 ft.
I
I122 ft.LaD:dmaric ilIJ.CP'EIL BOUSE I ' , ':-L\' '-------lW-N-IU---TI=-~~~-A
Roosevelt Island .Operating Corporation L Northlo_ Ph... 11
! I~~~~

i RlTereroa 111m-School J6Jli-Sclaools Northtown Phase I

J(ec!StaUOJl steps
i Pier
~srAnoN
RlYERCROSS' JSWm HOUSE ~

10
:L ' 8 9' -------
4 5 6 7

L·· 'ld-.
...
....
........ ::...
..... .
. .
.....: ...: ....
.--:::.:

({

-- :7 ------8
~

--------'"--------- 6
~~
0dbIn1 e-.
lIO&lalb•• P'&u

'::\~~
4
\ 5 ~SC1*l

1:
;.
PCIIIt omce at
Sapermubt.
IIO'IOItC&m
PDSKI

I
.PI
.

Future Site of SOU'reTOWH BIaekn1l Jlbd-SC1wMII

II BUS 'M:IIll'
tala J'kat 1958 BOusDa& Units
IIUCDIUo PAB asr
. I
J:IWL AIlU.
!&S1'WOCIt

-II
l " - '
,..
"CC"

1,000 ft.
"BB"

5
n. "AA"

2,124 ft. _

EAST SHORE FACING QUEENS

"Z"

: I 135 ftf.

I
1-\.
..
~
"Y"

1,072 ft.

(} ,. .

I
.
PHOTOS 4 THROUGH 8
STEAM TUNNEL
i
I

I
-I I I
I
ROOSEVELT ISLAND 21
 I
WEST SHORE FACING MANHATTAN NORTH SHORE AT LIGHTHOUSE
\i ----:P..:....::H:.::..O.:...T.::..O.::..S.:.....:..:...:11.:....-..-T_H_R-.:.O.. U-=G.
. . . .:. :.H:.. . :1::..:5 -'---_ _---l!PHOTOS 1 THROUGH 5
I I
c ~.

I~I' - __ Ii
I
CJ.P.L PARK
'"
.~

CD
I~
~
- LJ " "K" "L" "M" "N" "0" "p" "Q" "R"
I

1,232 ft.. 298 ft. 356 ft. 245 ft. 350 ft. 184 ft. 688 ft. 216 ft. 460 ft.
-----,..------1~; I I J. ._y, I I 1:1 I I

Boat House 851

: _~ \~\1~ \ MAJ~HATI'AN PARK

Sporafleld
TATER TUmU ~Ol ~lotjcal Park
UGHTHOUSE PARK
Narthlo- Phue n
Pool
13- UGHTHO
I 12
----------- LandmlU'lc
.I 11_
, --=t- -
I -=--t -- ---~ 1
"8"
2
3 463 ft.

billal'-
..
-:... .. ' .:. ... 4
..:.:.~ '. . -.:.:.
_;
C
.:~:~::~
.........
•• ·0

................
.
.
~
.
-----'
••

,('~'''''''·''':'·f:l1·:: "1".,.~
\.:: : ..::: ;:;;... .-:.1,
'i~~~~~~~~~~~)r:· ' .-
-
.: ~ ::.:: -- -'- 9

::~\~\~ Comfort SlaUoa

'ms C=uz1a DEP un Statioa c:otD BOSlPUL

I
FIlE SU'l1OR 'l5O
'fmY JAaa- fte1ci
~
PBISZ 1 I AVI& DPtJSI Commtm1~
!!Ice ~ 1IOtDRGA'I'E COWlCDOII SfA1'IOK (AY.lC) GudeU
uzbt. . . . ~'Y" !iIP JJft statlCll
BUS r.w::um "X" "W" "V" "U" "T"
1,072 ft. .526 ft. 268 ft..' 290 ft. 55G ft. 1,023 ft.

- - - - - 1EAST SHORE FACING1 '1

QUEENS
I I I ~ .
c) II~-------ST=EA~M~T=UN~NE-L--------l
. PHOTOS 9 THROUGH 11 :
I
. --l
ROOSEVELT ISLAND
NOT\TO SCALE: MEASUREMENTS ARE (+ OR -)
22
I
-c_J~.----_----- - - ------ - - ----- --------
 c _______1UNITED tanoN~ J I I I _

WEST PROMENADE FACING MANHA1JTAN

SOUTa: WEST SITE WORK
SOUTHPOI~IT PHOTOS 1 THROUGH 5
PHOTO 1

Futu~ Site of FDR Wemorial Park

-----
'(-
~ ....-....-~"---....~ --- --
------------~:
---~
..

---~"
i

r- 1

'-------------- --<-._--- 2

- --.~ ~ f!'-- - __

,, .,
.J ~

GOUnfADZ IIDOJD&L
IIOSPlUL
\
, ,,
t
'.
'0\ .
• RENWICK RUIN
J.acbDazk -S1'RECIER WJ DIP Uft !tau.
SH&l&PBE
\
,
\

,,
rk
l ...... \ StauI
\ \
n .....ieK7 I:dt" \
• \
itOUSKi&a'
JW:QUII aij8T- ,,
~Ium \
\
SOUTB EAST SITE WORK
I
•
,, , \ .
\
I. PHOTOS 1 THROUGH 3
,
c) ROOSEWI.JT ISLAND
\
t

23
 c I.
-L --L:"':rAR< L
WEST PROMENADE FACING MANHATTAN
I PHOTOS 6 THROUGH 9
OCTAGON PARK

Boat Bouse 851

::~~~\\~~l\~ Sportafleld.
UTER TtImt'EL ~Ol Ecolo&ic:al Park
~~HATI'AN PARK UGHTHOUSE PARK
NorlhlD- Pbue II
p~
UGHTHOUSE

__ -~ I
--i--- - - -
Landmark

- -r:::::::f ~

b- Ida-
-::;..- . -:-:-:
::::.:::.;.:~:
-~:::C~,
......-:- -
-{.::-:.:.:.' .
~-

-- -'-
:\~\\\:\~ Comfort SlaUaa
COlD BOSIPTAL
FIBI SDTIOR 'l:iO
'eDDIs c:1Ul'ta HI' un Statiaa
'fSY I.eaI- lWei
JlO'fOIGl1Z
PIWIZ 1 AVI£ JDmiI
c:oJ.U!C'DOII STA11OJ( ("YAe) Comm1Ddt1 Gardeu
race. IIOIDR'aD
DIP Uft staUca
J&I'bt. I PIaMe II
BUS rMmft

EAST PROMENADE FACING QUEENS

~
.1 PHOTOS 1 THROUGH 10 \

--~-I·

c-\ I STEAM TUNNEL ~

ROOSEVELT ISLAND
24
 ..
.!'.••• •
·r- .... -..
:
.
-::::;::"",,:-_.~-----
, .... : ~'~."'.
.._--.........-
, . , " ·11--=......- - - - -...·-
~
,t, (.~
f''''
-t:
.at.,.
. t\~V.".::t;,r;':?rJ....
'e::i .. , h"J .. '•.. ' ~(...:. .•-..:.:..
. G8H NO.2133C-3-067
1 . . 4 _~

r SECTION G~6", UQTION H-H

,
~

.t ,.-to Poaf
o"0'"
.i~JJ 4cr~:tbr ~ ",.., . -E
g -'OnI n"c_~'
o,/----r r·.·.~
I
-, ,'..., , '.':0-' I
-, F
r- II~ Ir~,,.
Alltrnde".",Hto~·.

,rCho",r.c. /R.u,h OrO" ~a.,..""""."...

"10"",10 - , .
!_ "G'
o lJvr4
I .

,. .
a ...0 .... ,ore
'- [rChowrfer--
..
,--
It 4""011
...<. .. , I
. I
I
t-------- ----_._----- .,
_ {I < .'
., ,., a-:w. ~7ft~
. --rl;l;4:::~:::;::;:::::;:::;~;;:::;;;;j1~-h- . ...: ."
,
IT
, ..
", ~ ., I .r~
,
-
t
m ..,. , . WI I ..
>-.. Wei,. 1- -~
• '11
. C-.tnJcf;OfI hint
:c ',:, ..;
... I·,
, . .
t
t· I J· '1
0" ..... '.. • I 1-')
.~~
r .,
';
8.•-
"c. , '.
~ ",.,,,;'
1+J7
"or ltetltt'orc... Nnf".. pICOI'

of
or .. '. .5ecI~ :v.-", R.'" ~ i.. ::::', t'l I
,! p .
!
i ~ . I I .. ~ :l ,! l
0/ ~ ~ ] !;:\.' '~l ~f , Ir Ir ! . . . All' bore J"'

r
I. Joi,,' ,, '
17" I
.Jlc.p,~,. iJl
r-;-~"l/r
t::r~£tf.
r~_ .&/I"".0It Joi,.t C."a/ruclio,.
"Gl!F
,.
I
'1>1 Ir ~ ~
"C~, t, .'
.

I
n ". . It~r.. i'.·· I'l.f. 1
f-r.:J - '~e-
+-+i=~
I

I ., TIl.· :1 "_10/ "-.

.. 1-
l'
b . ".- c: ':I'S
~ •.'.-: • .I l tl!
C o."t
.~/tw..~1

<TT.,..j . -.+-' -I'~~::}1

I
> ,..
! ~i
....
.,,~J
. ?~ .. IIIhI .'
.': t-
r:--C' r I~ . .
"r.!
I .' ,
!iI
I

~."
r
I "',,,1 I
r can.t,.uet1- Jo/,,'
I ' ,
'l '.
.•..". ~"11"1
/i:: tot.
jtEi,
' : , : 1 " : .II: ''It. '
"'lor

..., ~
,r--
.. +--+---+ -l-.
•
I
' I

•
I
I '~','
-
".+-f.'
-
"'. I .
- .-- f--r:t--
!l. ' .
~
. ,
-
, "IrA

~
, . .,.
,-:.':

~
"1"
11:& ' -
..
, ~~ , ..'.
.
.. ..
,.
;,
~r.~
t- t h
1\ : :. ..:;.,:.-.~
......... ...:x:-
~ip.. , .ft 1.1' « •. i
l
...... .'.~
'-
-, ~-:-jo'-.~.~,.....~
:
;
j .... I 1 ....P..-et,.\ I'''_'''lretra
" '__ .'d_ I~"U.~ ] j-
... ta- "
j
"~:::'" I r'r I =A--:,.1.- - ,..,.ho ,. . &v.J
t ."., I't . . . . "".a-,. ~,.;,.,. .IA> f1 ~ N.""
::J
..
n-~ . --
~".",..,. Ibl."""f ....... ........,.. 'MCU'*"" "~Irver~. ~.",. ,.,..,.
c""'A~"''''' .
~
'r' iT' ~
top dl,Irib",#"on 60".
r!O""'4 $'ogg~"j.in'"
'.
\ ~.ial;,., .s.. Wa"
--'
G N07.- T~"
. T.-..J .I"""'" Oft ,0.""~
pJu ......""
' - - . - - -'
(fi~ «'WIN " ."/tr
• I.... «'.u _ ""ONT ELEVATION SECTjON E-E TYPIGAL SECTION
SNOW,•• ItIIMFOIICl• •'
SECTION F-F REAR ELEVATlOr,

ELEVATION SECTION C'- C arM..tl' d

~
~
Ge"". pi". 101'
COMBINED STEAM TUNNEL AND SEA WALL
TUNNEL ON EXISTING SEA WALL
,--
.-
~;'l
"

0
J, C:)n", Irucllon JOInt
sc....,Lf r <>
0
, I'"or di"'."'4;,~It•• ~.,.,­
ond r.Irt""r-:~1l'I
'0'
se. - D. 'o;J:,,,t II 0''''''9
l
•
L-_
-
-
,
...!>
w
,"'!!I,d ..

...1J
r. 90'~ pI".

Lr
• --I I---'-
l ..,
I ; ..,
"
lL
11 I.
'"~I
1

!~/
'
tS
.'rlr:/crl T.,. 7 " -, ,-con3Irvel,on .Jolf)1 I. '\ ~,,'crl TC'~ .. "H~e .. • • " Sfd WI ,~/v I"l>' ,~
: b
I
";'.
• ,I 110' I. - 'It Fe"':e Po~'
;.. ..:. ~ I
L I .~
t.LJ1.
af ... -- ;:. --.. - :;-.; .. ,. .- . .. -
' I-l
I:- .L, .
1a 0 ""r. c= --- ...0 -... I '
~!
I
" _____ L __
j
-j'. ' ~
"
, --
- -- ~ ~,~
- --- -- -- I -
-It . - Top or CGp,"S CI.'3 1-' .~ ~

~ . ,l
to". ,. m-~~
• ,;:
IK'.]'
~
11" --- .
I
C
. .~ , ,
~-t
~.,----:
~~ ~
1,I II
. I. ~: . ";)j
""'"'i"'I"1!1;
.. ; .
, ~ \\\\\\ II
L Cloll A Com::r./e M~I
! ; \
-Cone,..'. p,.o/cc/.o,. f,
! '
'o;nl
'1' • ~., I·,~·'·~,·'S •. "
'----.:...------_._---------
;. (ICI'~' A C"o'lcrf:!t Mol
~ \\, 1-----,-.:;'
~ · .
.,.
. I ,I
~;?I
I 0;
.... f----------·-----1---!:~~:--~~~~---~
I
Drill "'01••
'Z'·S:"'- ond gf"otJl bo, 'i ~j
,........ , , • -----oj

~ Rebuilt "'.0 WtlIJ I I • HI. I I I · ~~' ." ~ELIf!::59.!i.~!' 0Et( ~PfH:"~ or'!~Po.'.~J~.Il.'"_""'!i...#J. --'
. a
ELEVATION SECTIOI~ D- D
1"0''".01 I~"~ l:O-mo , " I'· f' .. .nELE_fATltL " .S£CTJON J-J
COMBINED STEAM TUNNEL AND SEA WALL:
TUNNEL ON ROCK
Z:O·
~CA.LE' 'b I SCALE: b I' 5___
DETAILS
o f
~5;;l!,!'!!!!==!'!!!!!50;;;;;I,
r AT JUNCTiON
COPING
OF INLAND TUNNEL WITH SE' WALL
I~'~
5CA.l.E:1!!
rReitlfbrc:.m.,.., afilftlfMJrl~1 •• oul"
.L:- ~

",....,,,d
SCALE, 'i-w t' ! f . ...
.- ~ ';. '.'.
I' .!!:
IJ)

'.I'
'-'di".
Mtttal Flo."'inS """vi "0""""9 . Ii-,-
l. lIN
•,.,.,.,.,.,., IIIIO/.,."...,.ng
,.".. MNI til.,.• •, 'u,.."e/ ,. . . giv.,.
~ co.,,~ 01" ./~'JI'r';".W '.~. : :., .:. ~,
'. ~;?o:;:""f.-:ll-::t
•
:,. ... N
:.
'-;"""::"·-1',
'. •.
.I .. ':.' -.: 1 I
~-.---'--

. . "b
---< j"---!....:----.
,; j j
• •
. :--- -:-- - ' - --, '0
"- ~. \obri•• I~
--,'-''4
'

;, {-v.,.." ,.~ v '"\'.' ....J 8

... - J.
...
, 0"';

~-----1
""Of'S ..
I --....1.-.--- . . ..... 1'<1,.. .5101 go'~ ."'•• ~ I J' ,.•
I.
t=-:..:::.:::.:::l::::-· <I' '-T-' ~
l. ["-----1 •
I -rr-------------------- ., All 80':.. ,.~
r
·-....-------
• io1 lop .ir roof ~/oO r~:

I 'S(Crrorl~-,
•I . SECTION L-L ,
. "d'" --_........
: .~1~1 ~ ~ I~~~.J
1 j
j
II
..
• :~ '
d 80r.:. "Tclr.$.f.1 /! "ij-. 1Jor. II· eIre. .t!1
G.,....tWlN n......
':'"~"":"

••
.. ..._--',," ,I DETAILS
"0
SCA!:,~.:...I is
OF
"
~

RAILING
1

~.l--rt'" po""io" Join' ,

-Co".lrue'io" Joinl
l\..~ ~I :.
I,
,, . ~
'.1; "
I
I iPr-emtxlld", JoirJ /ofo.,.io/; ,, ("or. IZ·dre.
• :'
"
"

,,, ~
i !"fe',,1
'
fTloal'oins

. ....
M.I"I

'; ..
~/"ahin9
-
.,
~.
.'
• ".. ' . I:
,I
,I
" DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
CITY OF HEW YORK

• DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND- ARCHITECTURE";

.:.
'.' .., •. :·t··::..':'. " ,
:!' r .O«/."u. ~:::::.::::.=::,I
~--... ~
." POWER PLANT EXPANSION
-~."":" ~'-"=':'-~~~.:.~.~.,. -." J·'No,.... PHASE "B" - fOMBINED STEAM TUNNEL
.,
AI'.rno"
o 301".:1' IZcl~-:-:
_lno •. ..,.
r----'-.-_..__ t
N I?"'~4~· ""'~At..~•.:",S!~~~m9NE
",.'-, JH ,.,.'.1.,. -. No"•.~ lO/l d,.'ri~vlion hor.
FOR THE DEPARTNENT Of' NDSPITAU

IW tIin-.,;-,. ,..,.,.,. ... L~,. ".,../nlj.,,· ,_ j.Jn'

,
I---
1'0

4'"
,."Ii
.
'.
'!O·II'Wr-; ""099r;.r join'",
DETAIL OF FLA~IGE FOR RAILING
,oa Ul" AT V£.T . .0 c"ossov,:. CH.... I .
R£NRY7JUI,
Uc. NY
MADE 8 y IJM£. C9Nr;s""g'II1,fJ'::flil'1"TI:
I
25
SECTfON A - A' . TYPICAL SECTION -...b~ CHEerEO BY r. t 'f4r.~"'_~,.~l/1,l ,!"s~n>jij!~
S&IIIID• • ~. i'.I\A11
J
INLAND
,>
TtlNNEL " ...
.!!!""",- TV P! ~ III I "11='1' .. " " . . .
Ic:..&-.w·
.,"'"
 r » .L. ~CO::::.__ _..:.._ .L ~n.:.,..-------l,_. ~o-~------,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ ------Qen
...
U)
~~~~~~~~99~~~~~~~~~~N~-~9y9--j

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0-'--1
):::.

<:

~~g~~22288~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ::0
<:
0 --.
):::.

\Q
:::J
~~ ~~~~~~~a ~~a~ ~ ~~~ a~ '--1 :3
~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
::r::
<:
G) -
CD
:::J
<:
Cl
:3
~~~~~~~~~~~§~~~~~~~~~~~~~~k' l!)
):::.
rr,
..
CD

~~~~~~~~~~~~8~~~~~~~~~~~~~C; -
'--1
rr, DIS
-~o ~ aa~ ~-~~ ~~ ~~-~ ~~.; <:
G)
Cl
C/)

~
/d
~
- ~
0+5
- Cl ::0
+
o
o Id
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - I DIS
t I

( I
tJ
..
<, U) /d
--I
.
J'!.i'/7£ ~C DIS
•
. ..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~': OJ
/d
rr,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~j
-
):::.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
::0
<:
G)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DIS
• D6
lei

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ ~
'--1LJ
-<0
LJ-
rr,<:
'--1
l \
\ /,
,,<"
.

.
. \
'

l!) /" ...

~~~~9~~~~~~~~~~~~~-99 '--1
~~~~~~~~~~~~§~~~~§~~~ -
):::.
'--1
0
<:
~
\
<: -.
<Q
a ::J

~~~~~~~il!~~i;~!~I~~~
::0 :3

~~~ - ~
-
::r:: -~ ~ ~~ ~~
'--1
<:
G)
-
CD
:::J
<:
Cl
OfS
Id
,
rr, ..
:3
CD

~~~~~II~~~~~~~i~~;I~1 -
):::.
~
l!)
'--1 ~
<: ~
G)
-
a

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
tJ
U)
'--1
•
DIS
/d

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ OJ DIS
~~~-~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~--
rr, \
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /d
):::.

~~Q~~8g~~~~~g~~~~~&~
~~~~~~q~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- ::0
<:
G) DIS
n, rT] n, n, n, rT] ,.,; ...., i"; rrl n, f"T1 n, n, rr· I I

i /0

DIS
/d

(Jl
o

N
(Jl DIS
/d
o
"~"\
(J1
o !
....
_,~~
.
~

(Jl
o

Z/

----;~
..'

• r"l""">f'c..

~f~iII

•
;,•
o

D+5
Id
0+5
Id
.]/O·02~9/
/d DIS

-
"'ft
r0-
m
MZ8'9/~9/ DIS
/d
z
o
•

tl
...
..•
II
1ft
III

12.
.. -_._..._.. -' ._----_._-_. ---- ---------- ------------_._------------ ._--_.--- ... - ------ . _ - - - - - - - - - _ .

--'- -._~ -----

 APPENDIX III
PLAN ALTERNATIVES
 Roosevelt Island - SFO

C, Design Alternatives

The following are the design alternatives which were considered for protection of the
non-walled shoreline at the southern end of Roosevelt Island, which is approximately
3,400 linear foot and set back from the shoreline approximately 15 ft.

SCHEME 1 Bulkhead Set back 15' from shoreline

1. Concrete Wall
A concrete wall with concrete post and handrail system was developed similar to the
concrete wall at the northern end of the Island. The approximate preliminary cost is
outlined below. Cross-sections for the concrete wall and the railing system are as shown
on Plates 1 and 2 respectively.

MaterialIItem $Ilinear foot of wall

Concrete (incl. Reinforced steel) 1,200
Excavation and Backfill 150
Concrete post with handrail system 50
Dewatering of site 130

Total cost per linear foot $1,530

Total linear foot of shoreline 3,400

Approx. total cost for a concrete wall $5,202,000*

2. Revetment
The cross section for the revetment being considered is shown on Plate 3. The
approximate preliminary cost is outlined below:

MaterialIItem $/linear foot of wall

Armor stone 1,240
Underlayer stone 300
Excavation and Backfill 40
Filter Fabric 50

Total cost per linear foot $1,630

Totallinear foot of shoreline 3,400

Approx. total cost for a revetment $5,542,000*

C~\

1
 3. Vinyl Sheet Pile Wall

c An anchored sheet pile wall of high strength vinyl (polyvinyl chloride plastic) material is
another alternative which was evaluated. The cross section for the anchored wall is as
shown on Plate 4. This is the least costly alternative as determined from the approximate
preliminary cost breakdown shown below.

MateriallItem $/linear foot of wall

Sheet Piling 195
Wale, Tie Rod, Timber Cap 200
Backfill 160
Concrete Deadman 45
Aluminum Railing 30

Total cost per linear foot $630

Total linear foot of shoreline 3,400

Total cost for a vinyl sheet pile wall $2,142,000*

SCHEME 11 - Immediate Shoreline (No set back)

The following is the design alternative which was considered for protection of the non-
walled shoreline of the southern end of Roosevelt along the shoreline itself (MSL) which
is approximately 3,600 linear ft. The cross section for this concrete wall is the same as
shown on Plate 1, except that it will be located at the shoreline (not set back 15 ft.) and
will be pile supported.

Concrete Wall- Along Shoreline $/linear foot of wall

Concrete (incl. Reinforced steel) 1,200
Piles 300
Excavation and backfill (incl. debris removal) 300
Concrete post with handrail system 50
Cofferdaming & dewatering of site 450
Scour protection 720

Total cost per linear foot $3,021

Totallinear foot of shoreline 3,600

Approx. total cost for a concrete wall along the shoreline $10,875,600*

*These estimated costs do not include Contingency (C), Engineering and Design (E&D)
and Supervision and Administration (S&A).

2
c
m us ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS

:y
1'-6"
CONCRETE POST
WITH HANDRAIL

o .1
, I
, I
'--'

BACKFILL

CONCRETE WALL
13'-0"

\EXISTING
ELEVATION IN FT.
BELMONT ISLAND
DATUM

+6.0----
,
WEEPHOLES
~4".0 PVC PIPE
./' . 15" O.C. 5'-0"

,
: L[ : ::
!
,I 2'-0"
10'-0"
"I

'CONCRETE WALL SECTION

4 3 2 1 0 4
! - - -
ROOSEVEL T ISLAND, NY
SCALE:: 1/4" -1' -0" SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT
PLATE 1
US ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS

CONCRETE
/ POSTS

A .

o
~
o I
~
PIPE RAILS<-...
o 1-=------1

,
,

•
•
I
L __ ..J
,
I

I
I
I
.,
I

I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
"- __ ..I
'---

RAILING WITH POSTS

N.T.S.

ROOSEVEL T ISLAND, NY
SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT
PLATE 2
 - 2 .7 - "VlJW ,..-,~r--r--.r--{

f&F~
~
-8.7
FIL TER FABRIC

~ I~ 40 ' ..I...
1
.. 10 12 I • I

ELEVATION IN FT.
BELMONT ISLAND DATUM

REVETMENT X-SECTION
N.T.S.
ROOSEVEL T ISLAND, NY
SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT
PLATE 3
·.

c
m
us ARMY ·CORPS
OF ENGINEERS

/ ALUMINUM RAILING

REINFORCED
TIMBER CAP CONCRETE\
DEADMAN
,

'\

INSIDE
WALE TIE ROO \
9'
~. E
c XIS T_IN_G_GR_O_U_N_D_
'" - '1A'Y:1A'Y:111X
§j~
, --~1\~~
-1-- ,- ~

HIGH STRENGTH VINYL

~ SHEET PILING
6'

ELEV ATION IN FT.

BELMONT ISLAND DATUM

ANCHORED SHEET PILE WALL

4 3 2 1 0 4 ROOSEVEL T ISLAND, NY
! - -

SCALE: 114"-1'-0" SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT

PLATE 4
 APPENDIX IV
ENVIRONMENTAL AND
CULTURAL RESOURCES
ASSESSMENTS
 APPENDIX IV

c Table of Contents

I Environmental Resources Baseline

II Cultural Resources Assessment

c
 I ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES BASELINE

Environmental Setting
c The Lower East River is 7.5 miles in length and extends from the Battery in the south to
Hell Gate in the north. Mean tidal range and depth in the East River are 5.9 feet and
30.5 feet respectively. Bottom topography of the Lower East River is irregular with
depths ranging from 15 feet near the shorelines to 65 feet or greater as distance from
the shore increases (NYCDEP, 1981). Side-scan sonar surveys and sediment
sampling conducted in this area indicated sand and mud sediments and areas of rough
(>6") and smooth «6") bottom surface relief. Rock ledges covered with calcified worm
tubes were also observed in the area (NYCDEP, 1981). Long term mean salinities in
the Lower East River are 21.4% and 25.2%, respectively (Jay and Bowman, 1975).
The primary source of freshwater to the East River is the Hudson River with additional
input from the Bronx, Passaic and Hackensack Rivers, western Long Island Sound,
groundwater seepage, direct surface water runoff, and sewage treatment effluent flow
(Jay and Bowman, 1975). .

Threatened and Endangered Species

The East River falls within the migration route of the bald eagle (Ha/iaaetus
/eucocepha/us), which is a Federally listed endangered species, and the osprey
(Pandion ha/iaetus), which is a New York State listed species, and may be utilized by
the Federally listed per~grine falcon (Fa/co pereginus). Federally listed marine species,
such as the shortnose sturgeon may be present in the Lower East River.

Finfish Resources

The East River is within the migrat~onal route of a number of anadromous fish species
of special concern. Seven speciei of migratory fish, four estuarine species and 19
marine species have been observed in the East River (Woodhead, 1991-): Migratory
species include alewife (A/osa pseudoharengus), blueback herring (A/osa aestivalis),
American shad (A/osa sapidissima), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), striped bass
(Morone saxatilis), Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod) and rainbow smelt (Osmerus
mordax).

Avifauna

A number of waterfowl species of special concern utilize the waters of the East River as
wintering grounds, feeding on icthyoplankton, benthic invertebrates, forage fish, and
aquatic vegetation. Species which have been observed or are expected to occur in the
study area include the greater scaup (Aythya marila), red breasted merganser (Mergus
serrator) , canvasback (Aythya valisineria), American widgeon (Anas americana), black
duck (Anas rubripes), pintail (Anas Acuta), ruddy duck (Oxyurajamaicensis), gadwall

c (Anas strepera), and bufflehead (Bucephala albeo/a).

1
 Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats

c Most of the East River is characterized by estuarine subtidal open water permanently
flooded habitat (E10W), as indicated on National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps for
the Central Park and Brooklyn, NY quadrangles. The NWI maps employ the hierarchal
wetland classification scheme developed by Cowardin et al. (1979). Due to the intense
shoreline development along the East River, vegetated wetland habitats are scarce.
The northern shoreline of Roosevelt Island consists of a seawall and does not exhibit
any wetland habitat. The southern shoreline of the island does not exhibit any wetland
habitat.

References

Andrle, R.F., and J.R. Carroll. 1988. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State.
Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Gol~t, and E.T. Laroe. 1979. Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.

Jay, D.A. and·M.J. Bowman. 1975. The Physical Oceanography and Water Quality of
New York Harbor and Western Long Island Sound. Marine Sciences Research
Center Technical Report No. 23.

New York Natural Heritage Program. 1993. Unpublished Endangered Species

Database.
.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Report to New York District Corps of Engineers.

Woodhead, P.M.J. 1991. Inventor¥ and Characterization of Habitat and Fish

Resources, and Assessment of Information on Toxic Effects in the New York-
New Jersey Harbor Estuary. Report to U.S. EPA Region II, NY-NJ Harbor Estuary
Program.

2
 c
Cultural Resources Assessment
Roosevelt Island, New York County, New York
Reconnaissance Study

Nancy J. Brighton
Environmental Assessment Section, Environmental Analysis Branch
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District
November 1999

(
 c

Table of Contents

I. Study Area Location and Environmental Setting 1

II. Repositories Consulted 1

III. National Register of Historic Places 3

IV. Study Area Prehistory 4

( V. Study Area History 4

VI. Project Plans 17

VII. Potential Impacts to Cultural Resources 21

A. Existing Seawall 21

B. Proposed Alternative for the Southern End 28

References 30

( 1
c List of Figures

Figure 1. Portion of the Central Park Quadrangle. 2

Figure 2. A portion of the facsimile ofthe.unpublished British Headquarters 6

Map of New York and its environs from 1782 showing four to
five structures in the center of the island.

Figure 3. A portion of the New York City Commissioners map showing 7

Blackwell's Island with only three structures.

Figure 4. West fayade of the Blackwell House, Roosevelt Island 8

Figure 5. East fayade of the Octagon, the fonner New York City Lunatic 9
Asylum, Roosevelt Island.

Figure 6. A portion of the coastal survey map showing the northern tip of 10
Blackwell's Island that included the Octagon of the New York City
C Lunatic Asylum and two of the wings extending from it.

Figure 7. A portion of an 1874 survey map showing the structures existing on 12

the island. The "Lodge" and "Retreat" buildings are situated in the
vicinity of the letters "n" and "d" on the map.

Figure 8. West fayade of the Small Pox Hospital, Roosevelt Island. 14

Figure 9. Lighthouse, Roosevelt Island, looking northeast. 15

Figure 10. A section of the coastal survey for the East River showing the 16
southern end ofthe island with the Penitentiary, Charity (City)
Hospital and other associated structures.

Figure 11. The demolished remains of the City Hospital with the Strecker 18
Memorial Laboratory just behind the debris to the right, looking
northeast.

Figure 12. The southern end of Roosevelt Island after the construction of the 19
Queensboro Bridge with the extant buildings that included the
Penitentiary, the City Hospital, the Small Pox Hospital and the Strecker
Laboratory.

C 11
 C List of Figures

Figure 13. The fill located at the extreme southern end of Roosevelt Island, 20
just south of the Small Pox Hospital.

Figure 14. Plan sheet showing the proposed location of the vinyl sheet pile 22
wall.

Figure 15. Proposed cross section of the vinyl sheet pile wall alternative. 23

Figure 16. A section of concrete seawall along the northwest side of the 24
island, looking south.

Figure 17. The concrete seawall with riprap along the west-side of the island, 25
looking north.

Figure 18. A stone section of the seawall with recently replaced mortar, 26
concrete cap, drains and railing, looking northeast.

(- Figure 19. A stone block section of the seawall with riprap on the west side of
the island, looking north.
27

l 111
I. Study Area Location and Environmental Setting

The Roosevelt Island study area is situated in the East River, the tidal strait that connects
the Upper New Yark Bay with Long Island Sound and separates Manhattan and the Bronx from
Brooklyn and Queens (Figure 1). The island extends approximately two miles along a north-
south axis, paralleling Manhattan Island from 48th Street to 85th Street, and is about 800 feet
wide at its widest point. Roosevelt Island covers a total area of about 147 acres.

The Roosevelt Island community was created in the 1970s as part of the federal
government's "New Communities" Program. In 1984, the Roosevelt Island Operating
Corporation was formed to take over the management of the island. Today, the island is home to
a diverse community of about 7500 people. It has a number of apartment complexes for low and
middle income families, shops, four parks, playgrounds, indoor and outdoor recreational
facilities as well as m'o large medical facilities at either end of the island specializing in chronic
care and rehabilitative medicine (Goldwater Memorial Hospital and the Bird S. Coler Hospital).
The footings for the central section of the Queensboro Bridge are located on the west and east
sides of the southern half of the island. Most of the island is accessible to residents and visitors,
\\ith the exception of the south half of the island, which is fenced off because of the deteriorating
condition of the historic properties in this area. The island can be reached by the Roosevelt
Island Tram, subway, bus or car.

II. Repositories Consulted

Research on the prehistory and history of the project area was conducted at the following
institutions:

The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (NYCLPC) Library

and files.

The Environmental Analysis Branch, Cultural Resources Library, New York

District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The New York Public Library, Map, General Research and U.S. History, Local
History and Genealogy Divisions.

Two cultural resources studies have been completed for portions of Roosevelt Island.
The first was conducted in 1985 for the Northtown Phase II Project area (Geismar 1985). This
report was not available at the NYCLPC, however, it was used in the preparation of the second
cultural resources study in 1989, prior to the construction ofPS/IS 217 (Historical Perspectives
1989). In addition, a history of the island through the 19th century was also reviewed
(Montgomery 1988).

1
(

Figure 1: Portion of the Central Park Quadrangle with Roosevelt Island and the Queensboro
Bridge (USGS 1979).

2
c III. National Register of Historic Places

There are no known archaeological sites listed on or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places present on Roosevelt Island. A number of historic structures are listed on the
National Register and have been designated New York City Landmarks. These structures are:

1. The Lighthouse: a gray gneiss structure at the northern tip of the island completed in
1873 (NYCLPC 1976). This structure is accessible, although not open, to the public.

2. The Octagon: a gray gneiss octagonal section of the Metropolitan Hospital (formerly
the New York City Lunatic Asylum) built in 1835 (NYCLPC 1971, 1976). This
structure is located just south of the Bird S. Coler Hospital on the north half of the
island. It has been fenced off due to its deteriorating condition.

3. The Chapel of the Good Shepherd: a late Victorian Gothic chapel built in 1888-
. 1889 for use by the inmates of the Almshouse, which later became the New York
City Home for the Aged and Infirmed (NYCLPC 1976). Located on Main Street in
the center of th~ island, the church is used for ecumenical services and community
center activities.

4. The Blackwell House: a clapboard frame house built for James Blackwell, owner of
the island prior to its sale to the city in 1828, that was used as the penitentiary
(- administrator's residential quarters, and later as the home ofthe Warden ofthe
Almshouse (NYCLPC 1976). The house was restored in 1973.

5. The Strecker Memorial Laboratory: a gray gneiss structure built in 1892 as a part of
the City (Charity) Hospital, located to the north, to conduct bacteriological and
pathological work; it was recognized as one of the most complete laboratories of its
time (NYCLPC 1976). This structure is not accessible to the public. Situated behind
a chain link fence on the southern tip ofthe island, the structure is off-limits because
of its deteriorating and dangerous condition.

6. The Small Pox Hospital: a Greek Revival structure built of gray gneiss in 1854-
1856 for the treatment of small pox for both paying patients and charity cases; it later
became part of the Home for the Nurses of the Maternity and Charity Hospital
Training School that opened on the island in 1875 and was associated with the City
(Charity) Hospital, situated nearby (NYCLPC 1976). Located to the southwest of the
Strecker Memorial Laboratory, the building is not accessible to the public due to its
deteriorating and dangerous condition.

A seventh structure, the City (Charity) Hospital is also a designated New York City Landmark
and is a National Register property, however, it has been demolished. The ruins lie at the
southern tip of the island adjacent to the Strecker Memorial Laboratory and the Smallpox
Hospital. The Queensboro Bridge, which spans the East River at Roosevelt Island, is also listed
on the National Register.

3
c IV. Study Area Prehistory

According to current research, the earliest human occupation of the northeast began
approximately 12,000 to 13,000 years ago. Numerous overviews of this period have been
presented elsewhere (e.g. Geismar 1985 and Historical Perspectives 1989) and will not be
repeated in this report. An assessment of Roosevelt Island's potential for the identification of
prehistoric archaeological sites based upon previous research will be presented below.

According to the New York State Museum and the New York State Historic Preservation
Office (NYSHPO) site files, several prehistoric sites have been identified along the Manhattan
and Queens shorelines of the East River in the vicinity of Roosevelt Island. These sites include

1. two shell middens located at Halletts Cove, Queens, across from the northern tip of
Roosevelt Island.

2. a burial site and a village site located in the vicinity of Long Island City, one half mile
inland of the East River shoreline;

3. a site on the Manhattan shoreline in the vicinity of East 59th Street; and

4. the Sunswick Shell Midden site identified on the Roosevelt Island shoreline
(Historical Perspectives 1989:5).

( The New York State Museum has given Roosevelt Island a very high potential for the presence
of prehistoric archaeological sites (Historical Perspectives 1989:5).

V. Study Area History

There is some dispute as to the original European owner of Roosevelt Island. Several
early sources state Dutch governor, Wouter Van Twiller, was given the property in 1637. Other
references to the island's ownership indicate it belonged to the Dutch West India Company. It
was, however, taken over by Peter Stuyvesant in 1652 and was leased in that same year to
Francoys Fyn (Historical Perspectives 1989:6).

In 1664, with the English take-over of New Netherlands, the island was given to Captain
John Manning by Governor Nicholls. Manning became infamous for his role in the surrender of
New York to Dutch in 1673, for which he was court-martialed two years later. He settled at his
home located at the southern tip of the island, then called "Manning's Island". After his death,
the island was given to his stepdaughter, Mary Manningham, and her husband, Robert
Blackwell. It remained in the Blackwell family until 1828, although it was referred to as
"Blackwell's Island" until 1921 (Historical Perspectives 1989:6).

During the Revolutionary War, the British landed on the island during the Battle of Long
Island, but were driven offby fire from the batteries on the Manhattan side of the East River
(Historical Perspectives 1989:6). A map reproduced from one made in 1782 shows structures
only in the center of the island that probably represent structures associated with the Manning

4
and Blackwell families (Figure 2). After the war, the island was put up for sale. According to
the advertisement, the island was 107 acres in size, eight acres of which were salt meadow. The
property had two small dwelling houses, a barn, a cider mill, and orchards with apple, pear,
peach, plum and cherry trees. The island also had stone quarries and springs for water. The
1811 map of the island shows one large structure in the center and two small, possibly attached
buildings that may have been the dwelling houses and barn listed in the advertisement (Figure 3).
The island was sold in 1823 to John Bell, who died two years later. The property reverted back
to the Blackwell family until it was finally sold to New York City in 1828 (Historical
Perspectives 1989:7-8).

The existing Blackwell House is a clapboard frame farmhouse built in the vernacular
style of the late eighteenth century (Figure 4). It has a two story "main section with a one-story
kitchen wing that was built after the completion of the main building. The house also had a
larger addition to the north of the main building, which was razed during the 1973 renovation.
The house was originally built for the Blackwell family and was sold along with the island to the
city in 1828. The house was used as a residential quarters for the administrator of the
penitentiary and, in the fate 19th century, for the almshouse warden. The house was abandoned
tlrroughout most ofthe 20th century (NYCLPC 1976).

The city began the construction of a penitentiary on the southern tip of the island shortly
after its purchase of the island. The building was completed in 1829 and the first inmates arrived
in 1830. William "Boss" Tweed was one ofpenitentiary's most famous inmates. In the 1870s,
Tweed was imprisoned on the island, although he was hardly treated as an ordinary prisoner.
Tweed was given preferential treatment, living outside the penitentiary. He took his meals in
privacy at the warden's house and was served by other convicts "specially deputized to wait
upon him" (Grafton 1980:152; Harper's Weekly 1875:1029). The building was demolished, a
little more than one hundred years after it was built, in 1936 (Historical Perspectives 1989:8;
Montgomery 1988:131-132).

In 1835, construction began on the New York City Lunatic Asylum at the northern end of
the island to ease the overcrowded conditions at Bellevue Hospital. Originally designed by
Andrew Jackson Davis, the proposed plan consisted of a V-shaped structure with a central
administration pavilion and octagonal towers at the corners and square towers at the ends of the
arms. Only a portion of this original design, one octagon tower and two wings extending from it,
were built in the Greek Revival style using gray gneiss quarried from the island (Figure 5). The
1851 survey of Hell Gate shows the northern section of Roosevelt Island, including the
octagonal to\ver and two radiating wings of the asylum, as well as the lunatic dock and an area
identified as "Gallows Hill" (Figure 6). The structure was altered in 1878 when each of the
wings was raised to tlrree stories and a high dome was added to the octagonal tower. The
buildings were abandoned in the 1950s. The wings were demolished in 1970 leaving only the
octagonal tower extant (NYCLPC 1971).

Male patients of the asylum who were willing and able worked on the grounds tending to
vegetable gardens or building seawalls to reclaim additional land. In 1894, the inmates were
transferred to the state's asylum on Ward's Island when it had become apparent that the city
could not care for its indigent insane. The building was renamed Metropolitan Hospital and it

5
c
- - - . . . - - - - . - - - - . - - - - - - - . . .. . .lIIIlO'~

Figure 2. A portion of a facsimile of the unpublished British Headquarters Map

of New York and its environs from 1782 showing four to five structures
in the center of the island (Stevens 1900).

6
(\
f".
(~\

.~~~;~i~i~lf
Figure 3. A portion of the New York City Commissioners map showing Blackwell's Island with
only three structures (New York City Commissioners 1811).

7
Figure 4. West fayade of the Blackwell House, Roosevelt Island (Photograph by
N.J. Brighton, April 1999).

8
 (

Figure 5. East fayade of the Octagon, former New York City Lunatic Asylum,
Roosevelt Island (Photograph by N.J. Brighton, April 1999).

9
 Figure 6. A portion of the coastal survey map showing the northern tip of
Blackwell's Island that included the Octagon of the New York City
Lunatic Asylum and two of the wings extending from it (USGA 1851).

c
10
 c continued to function as a general hospital whose specialty was the care of tubercular patients
(NYCLPC 1976).

During his 1842 visit to America, English author, Charles Dickens, visited many of the
institutions on Blackwell's Island. Dickens noted the building housing the lunatic asylum was
"handsome" and "remarkable for a spacious and elegant staircase" (Dickens 1972: 140).
Although it was not yet completed, the building was already of a size to accommodate a large
number of patients. The patients and their living conditions, as noted by Dickens, were less than
ideal. Dickens found that "everything had a lounging, listless, madhouse air", which he found to
be "very painful" (Dickens 1972: 140). The wards themselves could have been "cleaner and
better ordered" (Dickens 1972:140).

The lunatic asylum was also visited by Elizabeth Cochrane; more popularly kno\\'TI as
Nellie Bly, a reporter for Joseph Pulitzer's New York World. In 1887, Bly, posing as a "lunatic"
had herself sent to Blackwell's Island for ten days to see what the care of the inmates was like.
In her famous expose for the newspaper, Bly reported patients were being committed to the
asylum by untrained doctors based upon very little evidence. The patients were given
substandard food and clothing and were often subjected to verbal and physical abuse by both
doctors and nurses. Her story created such public outrage that the city agreed to provide
additional funding to the institution (Cochrane 1887).

Cochrane noted additional structures on the island that were associated with the lunatic
(- asylum. The "Lodge" and the "Retreat" were two structures used to house violent patients
(Cochrane 1887:93). According to 19th century maps, they were located on the east side of the
island, to the southeast of the asylum (Figure 7). Cochrane also noted that a small Catholic
church was available on the island for Sunday services for those patients who had been quiet and
well behaved during the week (Cochrane 1887:93). "Mild" patients worked in the scrub brush
factory, the mat factory and the laundry for which they did not receive any wages (Cochrane
1887:90).

The city's alms house moved to the island in 1840s. It consisted of two identical
buildings, one for men and one for women, built \\ith gray gneiss quarried from the island.
Inmates from the prison were used as labor in the building's construction. In 1869, two blind
asylums were added to form the New York City Home for the Aged and Infirm. The home was
closed in 1952. The healthy inmates were sent to a Staten Island farm colony and the sick went
to the Goldwater Memorial Hospital located on the south end of the island, on the former site of
the penitentiary (Historical Perspectives 1989:9).

In 1842, Dickens also visited the island's alms house, which he found to be "badly
ventilated and badly lighted" and "not too clean" (Dickens 1972:141). He was also taken to the
penitentiary. There he discovered the women working in covered sheds. The men worked at the
island's stone quarries (Dickens 1972:142).

In 1850, a workhouse was also built on the island, in between the alms house and the
lunatic asylum. Originally designed to be a large complex of four \\ings radiating from a central
(-/ core, only two T-shaped wings, one for men and one for women, were constructed. The

11
c

(
Figure 7. A portion of an 1874 survey map showing the structures existing on the
island. The "Lodge" and "Retreat" buildings are situated in the vicinity of
the letters "n" and "d" on the map (USGS 1874).

12
c workhouse was a type of prison in which the inmates would work to support themselves and earn
a profit for the city. They made clothing for themselves and other residents of Blackwell's
Island as well as the inmates on nearby Randall's Island. They also grew their own vegetables,
made their own utensils, trays, buckets and washbasins, as well as cigars, from 1860 to 1879
(Historical Perspectives 1989:10). By the beginning of the 20th century, the workhouse became
less rehabilitative and more prison-like. The inmates were transferred to Riker's Island in the
1920s and by 1934 the workhouse was used as a medical center for the Department of
Correction. The building was demolished in 1936 (Historical Perspectives 1989: 11).

Construction on the Small Pox Hospital began in 1854 and was completed and opened in
1856. Designed by James Renwick, the building consisted ofa low, pitched roof with a
crenelated cupola ·and parapets (Figure 8). It was faced with the island's gray gneiss. The
current plan was the result of later additions. :The hospital could accommodate approximately
100 patients and its sole purpose was the treatment of small pox. Charity cases were housed in
wards on the lower floors, while private rooms were situated on the upper floors for paying
patients. The City or Charity Hospital was built just to the north of the Small Pox Hospital in
1858. The Small Pox Hospital later became Riverside Hospital although it continued to care for
small pox patients. In 1886, the building was converted to a home for the nurses of the
Maternity and Charity Hospital Training School that was established in 1875. City Hospital
relocated to Queens in the 1950s and its Roosevelt Island buildings were abandoned (NYCLPC
1976).

The lighthouse was completed in 1873 on the marshes located just north of the island
( (Figure 9). until subsequent landfilling activities, it was connected to the main island by a
wooden bridge. According to a legend recounted in the city's landmark nomination, a patient
from the Lunatic Asylum was permitted to build a stone fort on the site because he feared an
invasion from Great Britain. The patient had to be persuaded to give up the fort for the
construction of the lighthouse and the patient demolished the fort himself. According to an 1870
report, the Warden indicated" an industrious but eccentric patient" built a large section of the
seawall that permitted the reclamation of the land for the lighthouse. The lighthouse is 50 feet
tall and was built using the island's gray gneiss (NYCLPC 1976).

The ::\ew York Bay and Harbor Survey for 1874 shows the entire island from north to
south, including the structures that were present on the island by this time. These include, from
north to south, the lighthouse, the lunatic asylum, the workhouse, the alms house, the Blackwell
house and outbuildings, the penitentiary and the City and Small Pox hospitals (see figure 7). The
portion of the 1887 survey that includes the southern portion of the island shows the expansion
that occurred in association with the expansion of the Small Pox Hospital to include a home for
the nurses of the Maternity and Charity Hospital Training School (Figure 10).

The Chapel of the Good Shepard was completed in 1889. The church \vas built as a gift
to the New York Protestant Episcopal Mission Society for use by the inmates of the almshouse
and, later, the New York City Home for the Aged and Infirm. Its has a capacity of 400 people
and contains a large reading room, a clergy robing room and a room for use by Mission Society

c workers. The church was designed by F. Clarke Withers as a Late Victorian chapel resembling
the Gothic style of English parish churches (NYCLPC 1976).

13
 c

Figure 8. West fayade of the Small Pox Hospital, Roosevelt Island (Photograph by
N.J. Brighton, April 1999).

(
14
c

Figure 9. Lighthouse, Roosevelt Island, looking northeast (Photograph by N.J.

Brighton, April 1999).

15
 c

'-~,.-:'--:-':-"-"'-.-.:~:-::._-~,:--- .< .. - "

\$;/

Figure 10. A section of the coastal survey for the East River showing the
southern end of the island with the Penitentiary, Charity (City)
Hospital and other associatedstructures (USGS 1887).

16
 c The Strecker Laboratory, situated between the Small Pox Hospital and the City Hospital,
was built in 1892 to provide City Hospital with a modern laboratory to conduct bacteriological
and pathological analyses (Figure 11). It was remodeled in 1905 to include the addition of a
.third story. Like the other buildings at Roosevelt Island, the structure was built using the island's
gray gneiss (NYCLPC 1976).

In 1921 the island's name was changed to Welfare Island and the grounds became a
Health Department camp for children with heart ailments and diabetes. The 1937 Geodetic
Survey shows the installation of the Queensboro (59th Street) Bridge (Figure 12). The map,
published in 1937 but probably drawn sometime before 1937, shows the penitentiary building
prior to its demolition. A number of buildings, including the Strecker Laboratory just west of the
City Hospital, are located at the southern tip of ~he island.

In the 19505, fill was added to island to the south of the Small Pox Hospital, extending
the island out into the East River in preparation for the construction of a Franklin D. Roosevelt
Memorial that was never built (Figure 13). Part of the island was taken over by the Fire
Department of New York for their Fire Department Training College in·1962. The Fire
Department used old buildings and built new ones that were razed in 1977 (Historical
Perspectives 1989: 12). In the late 1960s and early 1970s, a planned mixed income residential
area with limited traffic and visual and physical access to the river was developed on the island.
The island was given its present name, Roosevelt Island, in 1973 in honor of Franklin Delano
Roosevelt. The tram was first operated in 1976 to provide additional access to the island. The
island now consists of numerous apartment buildings, recreational facilities and parks, the
( Goldwater Memorial Hospital and the Bird S. Coler Hospital, as well as a number of extant
historic properties (Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation 1992).

VI. Project Plans

As part of the reconnaissance study effort, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York
District (District) is assessing the island's storm damage problems. The existing island perimeter
seawall, which varies in its construction methods and materials, was examined to identify
potential problems and to recommend future action. The southern portion of the island, which
does not have a seav,;all, was also studied to identify potential protection solutions.

The assessment of the seawall identified a number of failures:

1. concrete seawall sections suffered from cracking, leaching, spalling, settlement and
deflection;

2. missing riprap protection from a number of sections along the base of the island's
seawall; ,

3. the steam tunnel, which runs along the eastern shore of the island, suffers from land
side and seawall leakage resulting from a lack of rip-rap protection. damage to
seawall joints, tree roots, lack of sewers for drainage, deterioration of the
('-- .

17
c

Figure 11. The demolished remains of the City Hospital with the Strecker Memorial
Laboratory just behind the debris to the right, looking northeast
(Photograph by N.J. Brighton, April 1999).

18
c

(
Figure 12. The southern end of Roosevelt Island after the construction of the
Queensboro Bridge with the extant buildings that included the
Penitentiary, the City Hospital, the Small Pox Hospital and the Strecker
Laboratory (USGS 1937).

19
(-

Figure 13. The fill located at the extreme southern end of Roosevelt Island, just south
of the Small Pox Hospital (Photograph by N.J. Brighton, April 1999).

20
c waterproofing system of the interior walls and new construction that may have damaged
interior walls.

General recommendations for the seawall include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. the placement of continuous riprap along the base of all of the island's seawalls;

2. the development of a standard for all future repairs to prevent incompatible repair,
maintenance and replacement of seawall sections; and

3. a structural study and inspection of the steam tunnel.

The reconnaissance study also proposed alternatives for the protection of the unprotecte~
southern end of the island (Figure 14). The selected alternative consists of a vinyl sheet pile
wall setback approximately 12 to 15 feet from the shoreline (Figure 15). The vinyl sheet pile
would be driven into the ground. The sheet pile would be anchored by a tie rod and buried pre-
cast reinforced concrete deadman located approximately 23 feet behind the vinyl sheet pile (see
Figure 15). A timber cap would be attached to the vinyl sheet pile bulkhead along its length to
anchor an aluminum railing.

VII. Potential Impacts to Cultural Resources

c A. Existing Seawall

According to historic documentation, portions of the seawall were constructed by the

island's inmates using gneiss quarried on the island. In some places, the seawall was built to help
create additional land. Because of its association with the institutional life of the island, the
seawall is a potentially significant cultural resource. As a result, the seawall, particularly those
portions around the entire island that are made of quarried stone, should be identified and
inspected to see if they meet the criteria for the National Register of Historic Places (Figures 16,
17, 18, and 19). This would include conducting additional documentary research of the various
institutional records, partic-qlarly those for the prison and lunatic asylum, for references to the
construction of the seawall by inmates as well as subsequent construction and repair records of
the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation and previous operating agencies to determine which
segments are original and which have been replaced. This research would be complimented by
the examination of the seawall by a historic preservation specialist with experience in maritime
history and archaeology, particularly in the construction of marine structures, such as seawalls,
piers, and bulkheads.

If found to be eligible, any repair work should be conducted in accordance with the
appropriate historic preservation standards and guidelines. Any new seawall construction should
be compatible in size, texture and color with any remnants of the original gneiss seawall.
Original portions of the seawall should not be removed if they remain structurally sound and
stable. If any original sections require removal they should be documented in place and replaced

21
c
,
~<So~
/\
.
\~
'.
/.
. /~." '\
,",.-,
'

.. ~~ ..
-. X\
.;;;~

c
I.

V
._~::::~
e,~~"""_.ll ~

~/

\~<;;; ;
IZ·O. lS~3'~(\.
~ o
<:>
a
0-;]->
0--

x
a:. I ...... ~
:<: ';'~ c-!j 0--

@ ,,r> ;, \ '" '0

~ ;!.. _ c:0 c:.~

__,.2 c:.\\0. \'
:' ~
\

:;:
~
"-
"-
~

Figure 14. Plan sheet showing the proposed location mJ u.s. ARMT
EHGINEEIl DISTlUc:r
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NEW TOIIlC,. NEW TORI(
.
of the vinyl sheet pile wall. Note the map identifies the ............... -..
outline of the City Hospital foundations and the
- 0......, ROOSEVEU ISlAND _ SFO

_.-----
foundations of two other buildings to the south of it as .... DC
ROOSEVELT ISLAND
SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT

c/
well as the Small Pox Hospital and the Strecker
Memorial Laboratory (USACE 1999). _........
'-d_ ....

SAC
ROO~T lSlANo
...... _cr
BUlKHEAD PLAN

- - ... .............
NEW TORK
a-.
Kctl(We-r:,. n fR 1""
e-...........
.... 1*-50"

22
G'I"P'.DnOGIl . . &000
- c.-.. (.L 1Ir'I.-.:. IDCacUI -. ('1)
c ~4-1 HIGH ALUMINUM
PRESCAST REINFORCED
CONCRETE DEADMAN ---,
/ TUBULAR RAILING <15' LONG)
I .. 23' - -_ _J - - , ~.
I
I
6" 12"
X I ! FINISHED SURF ACE
TIMBER CAP \ I / PAVEMENT/GRASS

I /
VINYL
SHEET
PILE
SPLICE PLATE
J.
• 2' I
.
I
I

--r-;
I

II l /":=--
,
/ __
_
--
~~II~Ojl ~_~~-'- 1:/
I ,

\\)('~1
DOUBLE
4'-6"
DETAIL A . CHANNEL WALE
5' 1
(CONTINUOUS)
1--'-- -:- --- - - - - --- - - - --\/ ,
I - I
I
EXISTING CONCRETE WAlL I
I
I
DET AIL A--.I ~ ..- -
- -
,
I
,
'" 'CTED
" - COMP r:- FILL
SELECI
ST A. 10+14W - 16+95W
AND STA.10+25E - ~ I I ELEV. _
I ;

I
C~~ 16+98E. SEE NOTE ':: VARIES / COMPACTED I.. 10' ---J ~1'-3"
BELOW. I I
I I
-'- \ COMMON FILL

I I LftPPROXIMATE EXISTING
I I GROUND SURFP-.CE
I I

1/3 TON - Yz
ARMOR STONE
TON-\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r HIGH STRENGTH VINYL
SHEET PILING
NOTES: 1. THE EXISTING CONCRETE W~LL BETWEEN
ST A. 10+14W & 16+95W AND ST A. 10+25E & 16+98E
SHALL BE DEMOLISHED AND USED AS UNDERLAYER
STONE. EVERYWHERE ELSE, FRONTING GRADES ARE
11 - ELEV. -2.2 TO BE LEFT UNDlSTURBED.
- '

2 2. ALL ELEVAtiONS REFERENCED TO FT. BELMONT

ISLAND DATUM.
," 1:=1' •

Figure 15. Proposed cross section of the vinyl sheet

ROOSEVELT ISLAND, NEW YORK
43 2
!
1 0 4 pile wall alternative (USACE 1999).
-
SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION - BULKHEAD
c: SCALE: 114"·1'-0'-
23 PLATE 1
-:z
L. .....
Figure 16. A section of concrete seawall along the northwest side of the island,
looking south (Photograph by N. J. Brighton, April 1999).

24
Figure 17. Concrete seawall with riprap along the west side of the island, looking
norill (Photograph by N.J. Brighton, April 1999).
Fignre 18. A stone section ofthe seawall with recently replaced mortar, concrete cap,
drains and railing, looking northeast (Photograph by N.J. Brighton, April
1999).

26
Figure 19. A stone block section of the seawall with riprap on the west side of the
islfu"'ld, looking north (Photograph by N.J. Brighton, April 1999).

27
 with similar material. All repair work should be coordinated with the NYCLPC andthe
NYSHPO.

B. Proposed Alternative of Southern End

There is a potential to encounter both prehistoric and historic archaeological resources on

Roosevelt Island, particularly in the southern end of the island. According to 19th century maps
ofthe island, a number of structures associated with City Hospital and the Small Pox Hospital
and the other institutions on the island were located here (see Figures 6, 7 and 10). The
subsequent development that has occurred on much of the rest of the island has not taken place
here, increasing the potential to recover archaeological deposits relating to the institutional use of
the island and possibly the prehistoric and early historic period occupation of the island as well.
The proposed vinyl sheet pile alternative requires excavation for the concrete footings and the
burial of the vinyl sheet pile; both activities have the potential to disturb potentially significant
archaeological deposits.

At a minimum the archaeological investigations should consist of subsurface testing

within the bounds of the construction area ofthe vinyl sheet piling, its footings and staging areas
south of the Goldwater Hospital to the south end of the Small Pox Hospital. The area at the very
tip of the island, south of the Small Pox Hospital, was created in the 1950s and would not require
subsurface testing. Testing may require the use of a backhoe or other large earthmoving
equipment to remove the debris associated with the City Hospital demolition that covers the
hospital foundation and the area surrounding it. The shovel testing program should be
implemented in accordance with federal, state and local standards for conducting archaeological
investigations and should be undertaken by qualified professional archaeologists. Prior to field
testing, additional documentary research should also be completed and could include, but not be
limited to, the review of documents generated by or written about the institutions that were
located on the island, particularly the City and Small Pox Hospitals, and the Strecker Memorial
Laboratory, as well as the existing Historic American Building Survey (HABS) documentation.
All work should be coordinated with the NYCLPC and the NYSHPO.

Construction activities associated with the installation of the vinyl sheet pile also have the
potential to damage the existing historic properties on this end of the island. The vinyl sheet pile
will be installed 15 feet inland from the existing shoreline and the concrete deadmen will be
installed 23 feet from the sheet pile wall or 38 feet from the existing shoreline. According to
these plans, the location of deadmen may fall inside or adjacent to the the deteriorating Small
Pox Hospital and Strecker Memorial Laboratory, both National Register properties and New
York City Landmarks (see Figures 8 and 11). The locati9n of the sheet vinyl wall and the
deadmen should be changed to avoid the historic structures.

Vibrations from the pile driving required to install the vinyl sheet pile may also adversely
impact he extant historic structures. Prior to vinyl sheet pile installation, a structural assessment
should be conducted to assess the buildings' stability and to determine the possible impacts from
pile driver vibrations. This assessment should include a plan to stabilize and protect the
buildings during construction and to monitor the effects of all phases of construction. Ideally, all

o of the historic properties at Roosevelt Island should have a management plan for their basic

28
preservation and maintenance in a "mothballed" condition to prevent further deterioration. This
management phm would include a regular inspection and maintenance schedule that would
permit the identification and remedy of potential problems before deterioration and damage to
the buildings could occur.

29
 References

Cochrane, Elizabeth
1887 Ten Days in a Mad House or Nellie Bly's Experience on Blackwell's Island Feigning
Insanity in Order to Reveal Asylum Horrors Norman L. Munro, Publishers. New York.

Dickens, Charles
1972 American Notes for General Circulation. Penguin Books, Great Britain. First Published
in 1842.

Geismar, Joan .
1985 An Archaeological Evaluation of the Northtown Phase II Project Area, Roosevelt Island,
New York. Report on file at the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation,
Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau and the New Yark City Landmarks
Preservation Commission.

Grafton, John
1980 New York in the Nineteenth Century: 317 Engravings from Harper's Weekly and other
Contemporary Sources. Dover Publications. New York.

Harper's Weekly

c 1875 "Blackwell's Island". December 18, 1875. Vol. XIX, no. 990. page 1029.

Historical Perspectives
1989 Board of Education: Roosevelt Island School Site PS/IS 217, CEQR No. 88-102M
(Revised), Archaeological Assessment Report. Prepared for Parsons, Brinckerhoff,
Quade and Douglas. Report on file at the New York City Landmarks Preservation
Commission.

Montgomery, Elizabeth V. Trump

1988 A Separated Place Middletown, Connecticut.

New York City Commissioners

1811 New York City Commissioners' Map. Sheet 3.

New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission

1971 National Register Nomination Forms: Strecker Memorial Laboratory, The Octagon. On
file at the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission.

1976 New York City Landmark Nominations: Chapel of the Good Shepard (LP-0907), The
Smallpox Hospital (LP-0908), Strecker Laboratory (LP-0909), The Octagon (LP-091 0),
The Lighthouse (LP-0911), The Blackwell House (LP-0912). On file at the New York
Landmarks Preservation Commission.

30
Rakos, Lynn
1995 A Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Study of the East River, from the Downtown
Brooklyn Waterfront to the Throgs Neck Bridge, Counties ofNew York, Kings, Queens,
and Bronx, New York. Report on file at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York
District.

Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation

1992 Roosevelt Island, New York City, Walking Tour and Map. Roosevelt Island Operating
Corporation of~he State ofNew York.

Stevens, B.F.
1900 Facsimile of the unpublished British Headquarters Colored Manuscript Map of New
York and Environs 1782. Reproduced from the original drawing in the War Office,
London.

U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey

1851 Hell Gate and its Approaches. Survey of the Coast of New York.

1874 Bay and Harbor ofNew York.

1887 Hell Gate and the East River from South End of Blackwell's Island to Lawrence's Point.

1937 East River - Tallman Island to Queensboro Bridge.

1979 Central Park, New York - New Jersey Quadrangle.

31
APPENDIX V
STRUCTURAL
ASSESSMENTS
 Appendix V

C' Table of Contents

Sub-Appendix A Location of steam tunnel vents 1-16 (pgs. 1-17)

Sub-Appendix B Survey photographs (pgs. 1-13)

Sub-Appendix C 1949 Construction Details (pgs. 1-5)

Sub-Appendix D Photos of Seawall Conditions (pgs. 1-13)

Sub-Appendix E Recommendations for seawall repair (pgs. 1-4)

Sub-Appendix F ~apslocatingseawallsections (pgs. 1-3)

Sub-Appendix G Photos of rip-rap conditions (pgs. 1-11)

Sub Appendix H Echo sounding maps and back-up (pgs. 1-21)

data and calculations

Sub Appendix 1-1 List of compiled seawall repair (pgs. 1-9)

contracts
C) Sub Appendix 1-2 Sample recommended rip-rap (pgs. 1-8)
replacement cross sections
c

APPENDIX V
Sub APPENDIX A

()
LOCATION OF STEAM
TUNNEL VENTS 1 - 16
 ROOSEVELT ISLAND
APPENDIX V - PHASE II
COMBINED STEAM TUNNEL I SEA WALL SURVEY
At the time ofthe interior tunnel inspection Roosevelt Island employees pointed out tunnel ar
eas prone to leakage. They noted that during combinations ofhigl) tide and rainstorms the tunnel experiences
greater water infiltration than that photographed during the time ofthis inspection. After inspecting the tunnel
interior, the exterior was investigated both on shore and by boat. The draft ofthe boat limited approach to the
tunnel wall. Further investigation is required. 1949 details shown in Appendix Cpoint out that the tunnel has
been built on piers and piles. According to the tunnel design, this system was to be protected by rip rap.
Assuming the tunnel has been constructed as per the 1949 drawings, the piers, piles and their caps may have
been undermined due to the lack ofrip rap protection in many locations especially between vents 12 to 16.

It was found that although instances ofboth landside and seawall leakage occurs throughout the length
ofthe tunnel, landside sources were prevalent within the Southern segmentofthe tunnel while leakage from the
seawall due to a lack ofrip rap was prevalent within the Northern Segment. The tunnel's leakingjoints were
. scheduled to be repaired, but the work was never completed. In preparation for that project, asbestos was
removed from pipes on either side ofeach tunnel joint. Thejoints still leak especially where additional rip rap
is required. Joints throughout the length ofthe tunnel shouldbe repaired as requITed. Interiorrenovations must
take into account the presence ofasbestos..

Landside sources ofleakage include:

a tree roots along the interior tunnel wall;
b. large grassed areas along the interior tunnel wall;
c. lack of sewers for drainage on streets. Street drainage is often directed toward the tunnel wall over

o grassed areas with the intent for water to pass over the tunnel roofto the East River. The problem arises
due to the fact that the tunnel roofis often higherthan the eroded grassed area or sloped downward toward the
grassed area from the East River edge causing the pooling ofwater at the landside tunnel wall.
d. possible deterioration ofwaterproofing system at the interior wall. See detail for 1949 waterproofmg
design in Appendix C. (This should be checked.)
e. New construction as for examplethe introduction of:firehydrants & benches may have damagedthe interior
walls. The construction ofnew structures such as the parking garage along the interiortunnel wall has intro-
duced different loading conditions at the wall. (See Appendix B, photo 3, pg. 7; photos 3, 4 pg. 8.)

Seawall sources ofleakage include:

a lack ofrip rap;
b. damage to seawall joints.
APPENDIX A -locates the Combined Steam Tunnel and Sea Wall vents. The sea wall vents have been
numbered 1through 16. The map selected for Appendix A is captioned:
NEW YORK. URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
WELFARE ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Master Engineering Plan Parcelization, Horizontal Controls & Bench Marks South Town & Town Center
by Gibbs & Hill, Inc., dated May 1971

This map was selected because drawings captioned:

CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE
Power Plant Expansion Phase B - Combined Steam Tunnel and Sea Wall- Stage Two
by Rose and Rose Engineers, dated June 23, 1949
did not conform with existing dimensions between vents. It does not match existing conditions.
-1-
 APPENDIX B - includes survey photographs. Photos have been organized according to vent loca-
tions.

c APPENDIX C - includes 1949 details ofthe Combined Steam Tunnel and Sea Wall showing that it was
constrUcted on piles and piers. It includes details ofrip rap placement both at the sea wall and the land side
ofthe tunnel. It also includes details ofthe landside waterproofing system. The 1949 details show the
waterside base ofthe tunnel unprotected by rip rap. This has proved inadequate and a cause ofdeteriora-
tion at the base. Rip rap should be placed to protect the base ofthe tunnel as well.

See Phase I Report for further comments.

SOURCES OF TUNNEL LEAKAGE

VENT SECTION 1 - 2

LOCATION OF PROBLEMS
Leaks occur aI?proximately 60 feet before Vent 1at a bend. See Appendix B, photo 1, pg. 1..

CONTRIBUTING SOURCE OF PROBLEMS

Possible sources ofleakage on either side ofthe bend are shown in photos 2,3,4,6 and 7. These include the
intersection between the steam tunnel and a cobblestone wall, a repair ofthe tunnel roofand expansion joint
deterioration. A possible source ofinteriorwall leakage isthe 110' length oftrees located at the interior wall of
the tunnel starting approximately 140' from Vent 1. See Appendix B photo 5. Photo 8 shows a lack ofrip rap
at a section ofthe tunnel base.

c:· RECOMMENDATION
Replace rip rap at location shown in photo 8. Replace cobblestone wall photo 6 at intersection oftunnel and
sea wall. Check tree roots for possible tunnel wall damage. Check tunnel interiorwall waterproofing system.
See detail for 1949 waterproofing design in Appendix C. Waterproofas required. Repair expansionjoints
as required. Replace cobblestone wall.

VENT SECTION 2 - 3

LOCATION OF PROBLEMS
Interior wall spalling occurs within this segmentas shown in Appendix B, photo 1, pg. 2.

CONTRIBUTING SOURCE OF PROBLEMS

Tunnel roofand interior wall repairs are shown in photos 2,3 and 4 on pg. 2. Existing damage may have been
caused before these repairs were made. Photo 5 shows adequate rip rap placement Landside problems
appear to be the cause ofleakage problems.

RECOMMENDATION
Check tunnel rooffor additional crack repair requirements. Check tunnel interior wall waterproofing system.
See detail for 1949 waterproofing design in Appendix C. Waterproofas required.
-2-
 VENT SECTION 3-4

LOCATION OF "PROBLEMS

c There is a bulge in the landside wall within this section. See Appendix B, photo 1, page 3. Water is shOWl
at the tunnel floor in photos 4 and 5. This occurs after the tunnel bend in the tree area

CONTIUBUTING SOURCE OF PROBLEMS

The bulge in the landside wall may be caused by a row oftrees and grassed area at landside. See photos 2
and 3. Photo 6 shows adequate rip rap. Expansionjoints appear to be a problem for the sea wall side.

RECOMMENDATION
Check tree roots for possible wall damage. Check tunnel interior wall waterproofing sytem. See detail for
1949waterproofiing design in Appendix C. Waterproofas required. Repair expansionjoints as required.

VENT SECTION 4 - 5; VENT SECTION 5 - 6; VENT SECTION 6-7

LOCATION OF PROBLEMS
General leakage.

CONTIUBUTINGSOURCEOFPROBLEMS
Appendix B, photos 1,2 and 4, pg. 4 illustrates damage at joints. It also shows adequate rip rap.

RECOMMENDATION
Repair expansionjoints as required. Photo 3 on pg. 4 within Vent Section 6 - 7 shows a broken stancion
. in need of repair.

VENT SECTION 7 - 8

LOCATION OF PROBLEMS
Appendix B, photos 1 and 2, pg. 5 show general interior wall deterioration and spalling.

CONTIUBUTING SOURCE OF PROBLEMS

Photos 3 to 5 show a grassed area with trees along the interior wall. In addition to water infiltration from
grassed areas and tree roots , street drainage is channeled toward the interior tunnel wall. The tunnel roof
is situated at a higher level than the drainage channel, resulting in pooling ofwater at the interiortunnel wall.
It appears that the street drainage design intended rain waters to flow through channels, over the tunnel roof
and into the East River. This is not occuring. In addition, often these channels are cut into the grass without
a concrete liner resulting in water infiltration behind the tunnel wall. Photo 6 shows adequate rip rap at the
exterior sea wall. Water problems in this section appear to be landside problems.

RECOMMENDATION
Correct street drainage. Repair seawall expansionjoints as required. Check tree roots for possible wall
damage. Check tunnel interior wall waterproofing system. See detail for 1949 waterproofing design in
Appendix C. Waterproofas required.
....
-.)-
 VENT SECTION 8 - 9

LOCATION OF PROBLEMS
There is general interior wall spalling and deterioration in this vent section. See Appendix B, photo 1pg. 6.

CONTillBUTrnGSOURCEOFPROBLEMS
Photos 2 through 5 on pg. 6 again show street drainage, tree and grassed area problems similar to that
shown for Vent Section 7 - 8. Photo 6shows an exposed section oflower tunnel lacking rip rap.

RECOMMENDATION
Same as for Vent Section 7 - 8. Add rip rap where required.

VENT SECTION 9 -10

LOCATION OF PROBLEMS
There is general interior wall spalling and deterioration with exposed reinforcement in this vent section. See
Appendix B, photos 1 and 2, pg.7.

CONTillBUTING SOURCE OF PROBLEMS

Again as in Vent Sections 7 - 8 and 8 - 9 drainage from the street is diverted to the interior tunnel walL In
addition, photo 3 shows that the tunnel roofis sloped down from the East River toward the street causing
pooling at the interior walL Photo 4 on pg. 7.shows adequate rip rap placement.

RECOMMENDATION
Correct street drainage, repair seawall expansionjoints as required. Check tunnel interior wall waterproof-·
ing system. See detail for 1949 waterproofing system design in Appendix C. Waterproofas required.
Check installation oftrrehydrant at interior wall.

VENT SECTION 10-11

LOCATION OF PROBLEMS
There is general interior wall spalling and deterioration with exposed reinforcement inthis vent section. See
App~ndix B, photos 1 and 2, pg. 8.

CONTRIBUTING SOURCE OF PROBLEMS

Again as in Vent Sections 7 - 8, 8 - 9 and 9 - 10 drainage from the street is diverted to the interior tunnel
walL In addition, photos 3 and 4 show that the tunnel roofis sloped down from the East River toward the
street while the street is sloped toward the interiortunnel wall causing pooling atthe interior walL Photos 5
and 6 on pg. 8 show adequate rip rap placement'buttunnel joints need repair. Differing site conditions
exist with the construction ofthe parking garage which has introduced different loading conditions.

RECOMMENDATION
Correct street drainage, repair seawall expansionjoints as required. Check tunnel interior wall waterproof-
ing system. See detail for 1949 waterproofing design in Appendix C. Waterproofas required. Verify that
construction ofparking garage has not compromised the interior tunnel walL
(C,
~) -4-
 VENT SECTION 11-12

LOCATION OF·PROBLEMS

c There is general interior wall spalling and deterioration with exposed reinforcement in this vent section. See
Appendix B photos 1 and 2 pg. 9.

CONTIDBUTINGSOURCEOFPROBLEMS
Photos 3 and 4 show a large grassed area along this tunnel section as well as damaged tunnel ceiling.
Photos 5, 6 and 7 show adequate rip rap placement except for a small section. Joint covers are in place.
Problems appear to be from the grassed area.

RECOMMENDATION
Check tunnel interior wall for adequacy ofwaterproofing. See detail for 1949 waterproofing system
design in Appendix C. Waterproofas required. Check that bench installation has not damaged tunnel wall,
photo 3, pg. 9.

VENT SECTION 12 - 13

LOCATION OF PROBLEMS
Appendix B photos 2. and 4 pg. 10 show tunnel floor and wall damage. The tunnel floor is lifting. Water
has accumulated on floor with evidence ofsalt indicating the presence ofsalt water.

CONTIDBUTING SOURCE OF PROBLEMS

This sectionis experiencing water infiltration from both the land and water side due to craCks in the roof
grassed areas, deteriorated wall joints and missing rip rap all as shown in photos 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Photo 5
shows moisture path on grassed area toward interior tunnel wall. Photo 1shows a section ofadequate rip
rap.

RECUMMENDATION
Check'tunnel interior wall for adequacy ofwaterproofing. See detail for 1949 waterproofing system design
in Appendix C. Waterproofas required. Replace rip rap as required. Repair tunnel roofcracks and
expansionjoints. Check tunnel piers, piles & caps for deterioration. Repair as required.

VENT SECTION 13 - 14

LOCATION OF PROBLEMS
Appendix B, photo 1, pg. II" shows damage at lower tunnel.

CONTroBUTINGSOURCEOFPROBLEMS
Photo 1pg. 11 shows missing rip rap which is contributing to the deterioration ofthe tunnel.

RECOMMENDATION
Replace rip rap as required. Check tunnel piers, piles and caps for deterioration. Repair as required.
Repair expansionjoints.

() -5-
 VENT SECTION 14 - 15

LOCATION OF PROBLEMS

c Appendix B, photos 2,3,4 & 5, pg. 11 show damage below vents 14 and 15 as well as the section be-
tween the vents.

CONTRIBUTING SOURCE OF PROBLEMS

Photos2,3,4&5 pg.ll show missing rip rap anddeterioratedjointswhichare contributing to the
deterioration ofthe tunnel.

RECOMMENDATION
Replace rip rap as required. Repair expansionjoints. Check tunnel piers, piles & caps for deterioration.
Repair as required.

VENT SECTION 15 -16

LOCATION OF PROBLEMS
AppendixB, photos 1 &2,pg.12 show damage to the tunnel floor. Waterinfiltmtesthroughthefloor.

CONTRIBUTrnGSOURCEOFPROBLEMS
Photos 3 & 5 show high grassed area and cracked tunnel ceiling. Photos 4, 6 8i 7 show lack ofrip rap
resulting in damage to lower portion ofthe tunnel. These photos also indicatejoint damage. .

RECOMMENDATION
Replace rip rap as required. Repair expansion joints. Check tunnel piers, piles & caps for deterioration.
Repair as required.

VENT 16 - TO LAND VENT

LOCATION OF PROBLEMS
Photo 1 shows deterioration where steam tunnel meets adjoining sea wall. Photo 3 shows landside vent in
the distance. Interior wall is bowing out in this section.

CONTRIBUTrnG SOURCE OF PROBLEMS

Photos 2 and 3 show trees and grassed areas at interior wall side. Photo 1 shows lack ofrip rap at location
where steam tunnel meets adjoining sea wall.

RECOMMENDATION
Check tunnel interior wall for adequacy ofwaterproofing. See detail for 1949 waterproofing syStem design
in Appendix C. Waterproofas required. Check tree roots. Replace rip rap as required. Check and repair
intersection ofsteam tunnel and adjoining sea wall.

-6-
 ROOSEVELT ISLAND .
APPENDIX V - PHASE IT

c SEA WALLIRIP RAP SURVEYS

Seawall Sections A through FF have been investigated at both high and low tides, from the shore and
by boat. The purposes of these surveys were to prioritize sea wall repair, locate sections requiring
additional rip rap and provide an estimate of additional rip rap required. Sections W to AA (Steam
Tunnel Sections) are presented in detail within the "Combined Steam Tunnel/Sea Wall Survey".

Photographs ofsea wall conditions at each sea wall section were taken and are located in Appendix D.·
Appendix E contains "Recommendations for Sea Wall Repair" which is referenced to the photographs
of Appendix D. Appendix F contains maps locating Sea Wall Sections A through FF.

Photographs of rip rap conditions at each sea wall section are located in Appendix G. Appendix H
contains sounding maps prepared by the Survey Branch of the USACE. Appendix H also contains
the back up data for land surveys undertaken to locate additional rip rap requirements and calcula-
tions for estimated tonnage of rip rap required.

An attempt was made to obtain an existing history of sea wall and rip rap repair which would list
dates and locations of past sea wall repair and rip rap replacement. Due to changeovers in Roosevelt
Island personnel over the years, such a listing does not exist. An attempt has been made to list dates
of past sea wall repair contracts from drawings provided by the Roosevelt Island Operating Corpora-
tion. This listing is located in Appendix 1-1. Appendix 1-2 contains examples of recommended rip
G rap replacement cross sections taken from these contract ~wings.

SEA WALL SURVEY

The listing of sea wall repair contracts provided in Appendix 1-1 indicates that the average sea wall
repair contract was dated approximately 10 years ago. During the following 10 year time period the
sea walls have experienced deterioration. This deterioration is not limited to the old structures but
also to new items such as the cantilevered capping in Section B which is in the process of deteriora-
tion as shown in photos 2, 4 & 5 of Appendix 11- Phase I - West Promenade Facing Manhattan and
Appendix D pg. 1, photo 6.

As previously stated, "Recommendations for Sea Wall Repair" other than at the "Combined Steam
Tunnel/Sea Wall", are located in Appendix E and referenced to the photos in Appendix D. Among
the Sea Wall Sections listed, the sections with high priority include: The concrete walls of Sections
N, 0, P, Q, R and the stone wall of Section BB.JThese walls require additional investigation and
may need to be replaced. Photos of these Sections can be found in Appendix D on pages 7, 8, 9 and
12. It should also be noted that of these sections N, 0, P, Q and BB are also in need of rip rap
replenishment. This indicates that a lack of proper rip rap protection has contributed to the deteriora-
tion of these walls. The stone walls of Sections C and DD at the 59th St. Bridge abutments (as
shown in Appendix D pgs. 2 & 13) should be investigated together with the bridge abutment for
possible upgrade. The stone walls of Sections B, E, G, I and EE (as shown in Appendix D
7
 pgs. 1,3, 4 and 13) should be cleaned and loose grout removed and replaced. The deteriorated
concrete of the remaining concrete walls and their expansion joints are to be repaired as required.

c RIP RAP SURVEY

As stated previously, existing rip rap conditions are shown in the photos of Appendix G. It was
necessary to survey the Island both during low and high tides. At low tide one can view the wall
conditions, the extent of existing rip rap as well as the relationship between wall conditions and
lack of rip rap. In addition, by viewing the rip rap only at low tide, an erroneous con~lusion could
be made that adequate rip rap is present. An example of this can be seen in photos S-28 and S-29
both taken at the same location. Section S shown in S-28 at low tide appears to have adequate rip
rap placement. Note the difference in photo S-29 taken at the same location during high tide. Dur-
ing high tide the walls of Section S are not adequately protected. This same condition holds true at
other locations. It was necessary to survey the rip rap by land as well as boat to obtain elevations of
rip rap placed at proper elevations not requiring replenishment where the vessel could not approach.
Photos AI-3, B4, B/C5, F9-1O, Y39, AA4l-42 show that only portionS ofthe sections require rip
rap replenishment. Photos D7, GIl, Hl2, II3, 114, K15, R24-25, R/S 26, Z40 show the sections that
are adequately protected by rip rap and do not need replenishment at this time. Table B lists these
sections with their average approximate rip rap elevations taken from the land survey. Photos B/C5,
C6, E8, L16, MI7-18, N19, 020, P21, Q22-23, R/S26, S27, S29, S1T30, TIl, UN32, V33, W34-35,
X36-38, BB-43, BB/CC44, DD45, EE46, FF47 show areas designated for full rip rap replenishment
along their lengths. Table C categorizes the Rip Rap areas to be replenished with the lengths of the
sections requiring replenishment. Appendix H contains all Sections with their approximate rip rap
elevations taken by land. It also contains sounding maps with sections and calculations for esti-
(). mated tonnage .of rip rap required. The estimate is based on the use of one ton stone.

Section E is at the subway tunnel. No rip rap is shown in photo E8. It should be verified with the
transit authority if rip rap is required or was left out during tunnel construction for a particular
reason. Photos F9, BB43, BB/CC44 show electric cables extending from the sea walls. Photo 2 on
Pg. 6 of Appendix D shows a sewer outlet. Utility & sewer locations are to b~ investigated to deter-
mine proper rip rap placement in these areas. Although Sections L and M are new walls, inadequate
rip rap was incorporared into their design as is shown in photos L16 and M17-18. Lack of rip rap in
.time may compromise these new walls.This can be seen in photos N19, 020, P21, Q22-23 where the
lack of adequate rip rap protection has resulted in deterioration which requires in depth investigation
to determine if replacement is necessary. Ifwall replacement proves necessary, adequate rip rap
must be incorporated into the design. Section S at the lighthouse is in particular need of rip rap
replenishment. Currents at this point of the island are strong. In addition, it is vulnerable to vessel
damage as has occurred in the past when it was struck by a barge. Photo S-27 shows the new wall
with lack of adequate rip rap during high tide. Rip rap replenishment is critical for the steam tunnel,
specially at the northern end (see steam tunnel survey). Photos W34-35, X36-38, Y39 and AA41-42
show steam tunnel areas requiring rip rap replenishment.

SURVEY PROCESS WITH CONCLUSIONS

C\ Soundings at sea wall sections were taken by USACE survey boat. Sea wall sections and the num-
berof sounding cross sections taken at each sea wall are shown in Table A.
8
 TABLE A - SOUNDING CROSS SECTIONS
SEA WALL SECTIONS NUMBER OF SOUNDING CROSS SECTIONS TAKEN

c A
B
3
1
C 3
E 1
L 2
M 1
N 2
o 1
P 1
R 1
S 2
T 2
U 1
VIW (STEAM TUNNEL) 1
X (STEAM TUNNEL) 3
Y (STEAM TUNNEL) 1
AA 1
CC 1
Existing rip rap elevations at sections found not requiring rip rap replenishment range from 5.8' to
10.5'. They are shown in Table B. All other sections were found to ha:ve an average approximate
rip rap elevation less than 5.5'. .
- .
TABLE B - SECTIONS NOT REQUIRING RIP RAP REPLENISHMENT
SECTION AVERAGE APPROX. RIP RAP ELEVATION

D 10.5'
G 6.6'
H 5.8'
I 6.8'
J 8.3'
K 8.8'
R 6.6'
Z 6.5'

REPLENISHMENT CATEGORIES:
Three categories of rip rap replenishment have been developed for this survey:
A. Rip rap replenishment at the steam tunnel.
B. Rip rap replenishment at high priority sections requiring in depth. investigation with possible wall
replacement. Rip rap replenishment is required both with or without wall replacement in these areas.
C. Other sections requiring rip rap replenishment.
A breakdown of each wall section by category and estimated length of section requiring rip rap
replenishment is shown in TableC. Table D contains rip rap elevations gathered from both land and
water surveys. There is a variation in rip rap elevations within the sections. This is due to the
random placement of the stone. The estimate of requited rip rap was based on an average of these
elevations. Appendix H contains back up data.
9
 TABLE C - RIP RAP REPLACEMENT CATEGORIES
WITH LENGTHS OF SECTION REQUIRING REPLENISHMENT

c A. RIP RAP REPLENISHMENT AT THE STEAM TUNNEL:

SECTION LENGTH
AA 1,000 FT. OF SECTION WHEREREQUIRED
Y 300 FT. OF SECTION WHERE REQUIRED
X 526 FT. (FULL SECTION)
W 268 FT. (FULL SECTION)
SUB-TOTAL: 2,094 FT.

B. RIP RAP REPLENISHMENT AT HIGH PRIORITY SECTIONS (REQUIRING IN DEPTH

INVESTIGATION WITH POSSIBLE WALL REPLACEMENT): (RIP RAP REPLENISHMENT
IS REQUIRED BOTH WITH OR WITHOUT WALL REPLACEMENT.)

N 350 FT. (FULL SECTION)

o 184 FT. (FULL SECTION)
P 688 FT. (FULL SECTION)
Q 216 FT. (FULL SECTION)
BB 50 FT. (FULL SECTION)
SUB-TOTAL: 1,488 FT.

C) C. OTHER SECTIONS REQUIRING RIP RAP REPLENISHMENT

."
A 320 FT. OF SECTION WHERE REQUIRED
B 10 FT. OF SECTION WHERE REQUIRED
C 262 FT. (FULL SECTION)
E 260 FT. (FULL SECTION)
F 30 FT. OF SECTION WHERE REQUIRED
L 356 FT. (FULL SECTION)
M 245 FT. (FULL SECTION)
S 463 FT. (FULL SECTION)
T 1,023 FT. (FULL SECTION)
U 550 FT. (FULL SECTION)
V 290 FT. (FULL SECTION)
CC 1,000 FT. (FULL SECTION)
DD 50 FT. (FULL SECTION)
EE 680 FT. (FULL SECTION)
FF 969 FT. (FULL SECTION)
SUB-TOTAL: 6,508 FT.

TOTAL LENGTH OF SECTIONS REQUIRING RIP RAP REPLENISHMENT: 10,090 FT.

. 10
 TABLED
RIP RAP ELEVATIONS TAKEN FROM WATER AND LAND SURVEYS

C SECTION SOUNDING ELEVATION LAND ELEVATION

A 2.3' 1.6' 2.6' 4.2' 6.0' 6.7'
B 1.8' 4.8' 9.5'
C 3.6' 3.1 ' no access
E .3' 1.2' 7.9'
F no access
L .5' 3.2' 5.6'
M lA' 3.6' 4.3' 5.1'
N 2.6' 5.6'
0 2.8' 3.1' 2.7' 1.7'
P 4.2' 5.1 ' 4 ."'... , 4.9' 5.0'
Q 5.0'
R .6' 6.2' 7.0'
S 3.1 ' 2.6' 5.0' 3.7' 3.8' 3.8'
T 3.2' 2.8' 5.7' 3.5' 5.2'
U 2.1 ' 3.1 '
V 3.1 ' 2.8' 5.3' 1.5;
W 3.1 ' 6.8'
X 304' 1.9' 3.0' 2.7' 3.3' 3.8'
y 3.6' 7.8'

b AA
BB
3.2' 7.2' 4.9' 7.2' 304'
2.6'
CC 1.3' .3' 3.3'
DD no access
EE 3.7' 2.3'
FF 5.1 '

ESTIMATED COST FOR RIP RAP REPLENISHMENT

APPENDIX 1-2 contains typical cross sections used in past rip rap replenishment contracts listed in
Appendix 1-1. These cross sections show top of rip rap blankets at both 5.0' and 5.5' with M.H.W.
el. at 4.235'. The vessel soundings also reference MHW at 4.235' A land rip rap survey was also
conducted from the promenade by dropping a line down to the rip rap along the sea wall to obtain an
estimate of the elevation of top of existing rip rap along the sea walls. Appendix H contains this
data. Taking this data into consideration, the rip rap replenishment estimate for this study is based
on a top of rip rap blanket of 5.5' minimum with aI' pay tolerance which coincides with both past
replenishment cross sections and existing rip rap elevations considered adequate. Quantities were
estimated based on a top ofrip rap blanket of 6.5' and a 1.5 on 1 slope as shown in Detail A. The
existing slopes shown in Detail A are based on an average of the existing slopes obtained from the
sounding data.

11

- -- - - - ------------ -- - - - - - - --------
 The estimated cost for the rip rap replenishment with one ton stone follows:

c FOR THE STEAM TUNNEL AND HIGH PRIORITY WALL SECTIONS (Sections AA, Y, X, W,
N, 0, P, Q, B13 - 3,582 ft)

11,000 tons @ $60/ton = $660,000

FOR THE REMAINING SECTIONS (Section A, 13, C, E, F, L, M, S, T, D, V, CC, DD, EE, FF -

6,508 ft.)

28,000 tons @ $58/ton = $1,624,000.

Note: Price reduction due to larger quantity.

The resulting costs are estimated at $2,284,000. Applying a contingency to this base amount results
in a total cost of about $2,512,000.

See Appendix H for tonnage calculations.

12
 w
z
:;

"ot-o<
:a

I-'
W

EAD LINE MOT [:

I. Hl 1l1Y1110'1 11111 TO N.l." IlIYlTlO. 11 I[lNOIl

IllUD. [L. 0.00. 'OIC. IS 2.21\ lilT I[lO' '.S.l.
.IT SUOY MODI.

2. IIIt0NU' O••••• COUll 01 OUIIIIIOIO 1I10GI PIli

~ :~~{t D' 1IIIIIlY IU' 01 'llllU ISlUO Il. ILui.

I 2 3 04 :5 6 \S. To, CDOIDIIlTl ITST[N IS IASID U'O' TIl 0'[ IITlIlISOID

·BIIIllU1 " TMt u.s. Utey UGIIlUtS (Olllf'" 10. S.D.'''f) .liD till
CHANNEL THE BASIC UCM"IIJOUHD IH'ORWITION SHOwN ON THIJ 'DUO_Ill ... !llIlJUTIO. WAS N10[:
DRAWING H.... eE.tN .. [,."ODUCED WITH THE PER"ISSION

\
0' KIHei. GAVUIIS, CO'UUlTINO fH'IJIlURS f H[W toRK. U.S. COOlOlPnlS IIG (0010111111
U.S. "GO. I. S 11.311.210 • 10.000.000
:'. t4fl)'UCATIOH THAT HAS I[EN ADOtD '"' CHANGED
THAT SHOWN ON THE ORIGINAL MI"" a O,lVARII DRAWl .....
'''oy w .".111 [ 1\.000.000
IS TtC AfSP'OH$IlIUTY Of OUIBS a HILL.ftlC.,N£W YORK.
\

,......,20'
0' 60' 100' .
NEW YORK STATE
GRAPHIC SCALE
URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
EA-..Sr TYPE r~rY"r/"H WELFARE ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORI
;996~-I MONUMENT
·353.95, EL . .t1. 777 MASTER ENGINEERING PLAN
5°2./9 PARCELIZATION, HORIZONTAL CONTROLS 8 BENCH MAR:
/5/./0
795.96
SOUTH TOWN TOWN CENTER a --..,...---
G/~ S Hili, Inc.
'\ ... SCALE DATE /DWG, No. SHEET ,
..... "...
.......... ~
".~ ,
~ ••• (o..UJlUC1o-l
3 OF 6
t
\ F
, 1'·'5-7,IL.'.I"G '.hUST£R £NGINHltlNG PLAN

'.. u . . , . . G .~ ...
JO. NO. zln AS SHOWN (MAY 1971
21336
I.I-ST3 SHEEH

APPENDIX A
 "
I
(,
'I•.

/.

.....
~

III.'

IT. f.1t
\.!U!.!.tL
PIERHEAD::-:-::--~A·Ni.
6

LEGEND

LE ASE LINC
MOOlrlCAlION 1
ER

GENERAL NOT£S
pOllYrNO.

i. ,UILOIU lHOUrs Of IUClLl ~J""4

1 10 Sv/f-/F
UIUUIOU OUIIMG INI IIlIL D
:SJ/f'/~
t. lNI liUJIn IOSIlIOIS 0' ALL II
:5J/f-14
10 III IUCH llHS III SUIJICI 1
UCIII£'1I.

·....
~.
•
 8
6

) EAS '1l!m2c!I.
THt II.lSlC "CHO~OUHD IHIDHMATtCII 'HDWH OH TH"
DflAWIHO HAS IUN HtPHODuCED ...... THE PERMISSION
0' KING .. OAY"'U' • CONSULTING plINURS. HEw YORK.

INIOHM'TIOH THAT HAS I[[N ,Dtt1l OR CHAHGtD

'ROM TAA1· 'HOWH ON THE ORIGIN'oL IIlING a OAVARII
DAAMNal IS THE. RUPoHSlluurr lit II •• S a HILL,
IHC' I H£W ,o.ne.
!!...!!..!...!J
rYPE" I £J.£VAT/ON I. lLL !LIUIIOJl llrl' 10 N.lo>. 11IVlTlO. AI IllNO",
IHl.O. Ilo O.~O. >HICH IS 2.2B 'UI tlLO' H.S.l. o 20
NEW YORK STATE
~N(/MCNr

'10'. (8.101. I£l./J.JU A! S"OI HOD'.

ONI/JlINr 2. Il.CHNU. O••••• COI.U 01 OUI!.nolo .. IOO[ flU
o. [HrUlI .... 0' 'IL'U[ ISl"O n. I7.Ut •
GRAPHIC SCALE URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPOR~'
.o NI/,tIINr
I. TO[ coo'olun IUIIN IS IU!O UfO' IH[ OI[ [1I1I11SHIO
II IHI U.S. UN' IIG1I!!tS 101l.IIG '0. 1.0.276) lOO IH[
WELFARE ISLAND DEVELOPMENT
'OllO.1I0 IIUSL1TlO. ",I N10[: MASTER ENGINEERING PLAN
U. I. COOIO'UUI 110 COOIOIUUS PARCELIZATION. HORIZONTAL CONTROLS a BENe
U.S. NO.... I 11.191.15' • 10.000.000 NORTH TOWN a MOTORGATE

I
• 102.101 [ IS.OOO.OOO

•~
.~// \ "
A [HGIN(tAiN/l n'H
G/~ SHill.
."''''"''10
"
JOI1<0.2133
-
lne.
'' C.""UIlVCTOflI SCALE
AS SHowN
DATE
MAY 1971
IOWG. No,"
21338
IoI-S14
c

3
 II.::.L _ _ ~

-II.'

,_"'--,
I .....
I

PA~KIHO

PIE
'l,), " ',\ 7/0
......
0'1

o
EA

LEGEND

PROPOSED MODIFICAnON

PARCEL LINE

'""\"'" .
I. 'MI I[LAlIY! 'OIlIlOIS or \LL UK IUllOlI1I KIU liSP["
10 'wI rlielL , .. II III ('0 OHO/NArlS
liCK! uell. NOIITN I rAST
1$196.f5T I /8274--10 '"...
'" 15138.21 1/8608."
15719.27
15085.87
1/9375.24
11899/.75
"
,
•-. ,.,.
,. ,d!
,f...

'"
 io'ULAIUIY L.ln~..,..r/ .
.T"OC~~:r (
&_- , -
x
u
!=
:I

in

PIERtlEAO 16
I-' NiP l :
'-.J IT.T.Y.
15 I. HI n1U1l0~1 11'11 TO M.L. •• 11Ir&IIOI AT IILNOII
!SlUD. Il. 0.00. ".ICI IS 1.16$ lilT IILD. M.I.L.
U IUD' MOOI.
/
• 1. 1I".N"1 01 ~ ••• ' COIlIi 0' OUIUUOIO 111011 PIli
O' IlIlIlLl IU' 0' wIlfUl ISlllO IL 17.'11.
S. IMI COOID lUll IIIlIN II 11110 U'OI ,"I 011 11I1ILIIOID
II IMI U.I. UN' ""11111 (DU.III 10. I.D ..SIII 110 UI

CHANN\\
fOL\OwIJG UlISl&tlOI _U '11011
EA ST U. I. 10DIOIU1I1
~~!.!.!.
U.I. NO'. I. 1 II.SlI.Ul I 10.000.000
/
3 4 5
\
.
\
102.111 I IS.ODO.ODO

l!!!!l!!!!. \

\ TIC UIIC UC"'O~ _AlIOH lItO,.,. Of! no'

!l'IA"IN' lUI bErN 1 . _ 0 WITH Tit! , .....,,1<*
0' "HI a GAVAO". C-.""I IHIllHt£ftl,HIW TOlIN.
IN'OR"&TIOH THlT HOI"" ADDIO 01 CHANI.ID 'ROll
THAl IHDWN OIl 1 Ht _ "INO • DAV,,"" DOA... "
I' THI: AU,'ON!iIIILn':I1 ...., a HILL .IHC.•NlW 'OAK.

. GRIJ"lIII: SCALE NEW YORK STATE

CO'OItDINAr£s
URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPOR
I EAsr Typr
NOI/TH
'5196 o!ST 118274.-10 MO/ItJUM£AJr
WELFARE ISLAND DEVELOPMEN'
'57"8.1./ 118608.1' MONV,l/ENT i'I7
MASTER ENGINEERING PLAN
~719.27
5085.~ 7
119375·24
118991.75
MOM/8.M
,wO...·v..uNr
I' I
PARCELIZATION. HORIZONTAL CONTROLS 8 BE:
~.10TORGATE 8 ECOLOGICAL PARK
i i •

\. ~.
~,3,~~~~.
, ...:. t!'.'.'
j-j '-~'TP:I"'-IT1jf(HGii"HOINO'lAN
_ ..- ....... _...
::I;::t;:,--:.:·~-.=:;-J~
QJbIxI S:.~~~!'-:
.... ,,-
1"' ... ' ••LOUoG..._.... _ •• ~ .......

'01 NO. 2153

SCALE
AS SHOWN
DATE
MAV ICl71
DWG.Nc
21336
U.OTJO
c

APPENDIX V
Sub APPENDIX B
SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS

~ ~ ~ ~~~~-~ ~~- -~ ~~ ~ ~ ~---~-- ~ --~---- ~. ~ ~-~~ ~--~ -~ -~ ~--~~-- -------_._--~----- ~ ~ -- ~ -~~ ._~-----~ ~.- -~.~ ~ ~--- ~~~---~--
7

6A

1
2-

2 3

2
 3

6
 4- 5

VENT 5 - VENT 6

VENT 6 - VENT 7

3 4

4
7-

3 4:

5 6

5
8

3 4

5 6

6
3 4

7
 10 - 1

3 4

8
 1-

3 4

5
6

7
9
 2

3 4

6
2

1
 4

7
16 -

3
 APPENDIX V
Sub APPENDIX C .
1949 CONSTRUCTION
DETAILS
 ....., -- •• • 'tv •. £..1.,.) JV-,:?,!R~,Utj~

~. - . '-'r' /:. -~"..'!'-~'::__e.. ~~~/~_9. . .~?~ .I!.."..I!.!? -.~!:. :~~~ .;

'-.~e£.!. !....~O: 7', 22 2J.?'
--: ; --~
:,
: ! r- Cons true fion Join!

-- - --- .. _---- ... ------------------- - ------------ ------------t"'--------- ---------------------------------1 ~

N

.~ -- ---
,I --------- -- .
I

.,:j r . I r i I r~ ,..,
~ P: ~ i:1 I ~; ; ~ ; :.l
~
t3 . . . ' ~-'-- I I I
• 'l-...:-~-L1--~~~·'_·~ ..
I

---i+--'-: -:-r---47f~ -_.

t::
fl··
~ II: I : : I I I I ~ : : :: ; I I III
l :. I f : I : I ,'I I , i I I ~ : I II
I~I'L.. II I, I I II .:' II 1. 1
~ .•.• : • . . . . . . . : : :: I : I ::: :' : :: :: II:
~.:
1 . · .
~.I,\
._. ~'
II I I:
;:
II
1;'1:1
I : ::1
:1: ::_: I 1,1
: .. · Aoorol River bed. 01 roee·;;"T~:~':/ C· .... ~\~~~ !! !: !! ~:
II . ~-.;."';~L_ _rn;~';ll LA33u1"'Ied Roc./: LIne ofong Ii Tunnel
_ . Apf!rox To. of Rip'r;,p>~fdPi'~''i'I:,*~, •. ";~,,......~ ·l·' " .
- .: 'po."':! Ion .10m! Con" true tio(l .Joint e){pon~ Ion Join . Cons f rue lIon Joml Expon3lonJolnl.,

=__-=.~ JI'.g a Ion <t Tunnel Jf!9'

Combined Sleom Tunnel ond SeQ /Yof!. Tunnel on Pile". For
Jf! 9'
dlJloiJ;;;;e~Io-';;;~-;;;;;- - ' -
i ....:J~f_~"'9_' _
- I
:LOPEOI ~
15' 20'
~

/, > Rom,,; . . i./,no So. W." '" " " .

...:!:o:.. 130JlerRoom- PowerP/oi,; / ( ., I
/4.'7-
-.........,- ...........-..;. - WinS fo b.. r ..moncl. ~u J'
. - -., . - _;;;J --.

.
- .- .. _ •• - - ••

:
.;

-I

:
Dw . No.

I Ii'
for cI./aJf"
,-J.r-~--~-.--,-' r-'--'--T ..:-;------ ~,!g"E...21g.
: : . ;-.~-:.••;,.~
. .;;0_....
I Siory jjrlcl. Bldg

__ ......
.,!'Sl] .P.'!!i:!!~~fJ:~!!lff!"-;: __ r -,. ',-
T> .- \I_ .:~': ~~"~/!)/_~P'T.$!~t:~
$Pic..3~.·J.~4_~: '~',' !:
\
'

I : ~ ~ 1'{l-,of'L_o
' .
-. T:t- ::_,~:f':':fT _s.~o!,_tJ_ -~
I I • I
t-I :
. '

i4 .. J' J_'''_-.-:~
• <II
•.. 1 "_Lo .............
_ .. _.J .......
: ...r.:-;,--:., __ ...... -::i. _";":
l ".. ;.("_- ~ ..-::• ... __...... :.. .. ..:I __....
t• '.
:
_!. __-
,. .\' ,:
:1 ... : ..... _, _ .. _ ......
'.
_.c:::.. I • I , " I f I
.:J~_1._J._ .. l_;_J_r:-~'1.J
I ~
:.I..... I 1. . .

-r------,;------r .: r,-iCombin«lsl"","'I
-r------- ------{- I lli<) -.>"---'';=;,~- . i.-::.-----------I-I.JLl---l'----------I,·--
I -·------ .. -t-t '"I I~
':'
- "-1f' !-.
; : .? , ,
'--.--._--1 I
_
. =L: t~I/;..~
_.1 • . . . .

• .--_o__"'T"
~ .• · • .

T"""------"
,
I
,... .
- - ..•.
_
- .. --+---f~
1
... =.---==-.. -::+:
. _ . _..• -j
, "-- ..
...'l--
~_
.. -----·..,:r.·.jti
= : t - - ._ .• __ ~.Jf-1 ~
,

'u. 1· J
. . --""""1 ----t n -- __ r-"-" r-'-"· .. ;~ .....; ... '~,"l ~-.:l,\.

£l!:"
.
.~
, \r 1 to- .,--_....
0
----(-,.
I. I
... - - - - - , ,-----.,-
r- •
.... - - - - . ,
,:
-.,.... ...
I ,
a- _L __ ._.... 1 ..,. -
... .1-' , • I I " " · , .....

1 -ll' ; l'.'..)" ::.

......, 4 • •

-r;-:·.~~ .• _. • I'~' . I \+"'' ; : J.lr & - . ...Ir.,!! . 1'\ . I"·'

. 111',':.w.' ~. .
~-i....~:;' - ../.~ "'" ~-l .._ 1;'·e.,,'1~·('l9· \.TOpOfJ'RiPro~s)0;e'~tc~of"X!311;;9Se~~OI!
-<'
L . . .. ... ......... .
t. I I " • • ! \' :II L I .!..

~ •..:..
il1urf.
tPi~:Suppqrff
,I..
.1 .j!
I'"I .t-: ...L:! l._·__
I
I: 1'1,' , I II"
I .. :;
\ ~~

r· ~--.--I--~~~
'"t 1"1 'I : i
1- _ -!.!!". '" _ :i· ~Sl.o -~ip. ... : ; I' i ; : l: '._.1 :. _... 1...
'I . a

"''-';:~~-;'~;p'--~--:!~~_'
...

t~s-~ IE!~r·r--·
~! r -'I---'--"~-
• •, ~.~- - •

10!6' ~\J
.

~.
r'--

_..11·j·· sspe)~e 'S:~OJl-

, - . - - - - . - .. , -.- -.

79!4{ ~ I .~ .. I 1~
~

.
t'.97
:r,'G8
_ _ -!:/o.
"Po"
,J'o.-,
0",,--"
.60
-'0,,,;
:
I ~... I" :.
t-'otAnchor ~'PO":
I _ - - i-Approx.
. C0fl31ruf'~ •.I'-on --..'
Toe of Rir1'Po Slope
Jo'rr------~---.
'I!
I
-- -. '" .r.~~~on3/~n Jail'll l , I

'--'.- ... -.-..- r..~:_",!,!r:

! :
..
con.,fru'i lIon ..b,nll
eJ<13 J ,itg r,
. ;I
E.pon"on..b/I'I~
.
'~'6--
7
,.
_____.... 6·
I
,
I.
I,.::?
:;;

").
Sfa. .J7'60. 0 I , .
i ~
, .
b
l' -. --. ~-- .."!...e..r.I.!-1.:horf'
:
----·-·1·--
:
'
'
~ I ,I
: I

20
;;;;j
._
-
(,t/",
__ ~ S!8
• I
' 716'
.
,J 7!6' -;.. 716" -+- 7:6,.1 7!6' ":6'
•
7:6'
,
_ 7.'€-....1.-?:.tr.. _,_ 7~':"~.I 7:6" .
----.- .----
7/S-
.
7:6"'·_::.:t9'L

-::: !.:':'?~!:-.e..~~'~~~r:.$.. ~:?_!1:~/I.!O ~E~:. _. ....._... ... _._ "_" ._. ._.... __ .. _.... __ ._. _._....__
- _ _..... E..§p.S~ ~..J.E.!..!:..:.2i.:.~ . .__ __ $:o3}__
r
I-'
APPENDIX C 1
~.,

"-
\.

\\
.'. ""'" .
'- '.
\

\"\

2
 6',c:;,

I'O~ ..··G·
~
"

c.:......
, t rene.e P031

!..

I IiI~ II '""-
t------------ 1~-----------------------
I lSI [ .- 0\
<: •
. Con:slruction Joint '"
I
I :6i: , for Re;nforcement ~~e TYepu:al
'bg
I
~ • Seclion ~howin9 R~"n orr::efT1enf 8~
·1
I
I
I
I ~ , j . ......c: ~
~o
b ~
./

.
I t.. • 4,)

I .'S "
-a
I'Q' 1 e b '0
£xpan:Jion Jain/
~I ~I ~'"II'".,~ :s j'::."'
.".-: -'-i ....g> 'b ...~
0

..
~ C'onIJlruc/ion JOInl
~ ,~
i I
I Oll."
ll. E g-
0. <:
~
l-g c .~~
0 0 -:'; ;.

:I I :l! b <;::,'t; tl>

!i " Tee' Me/al Tn ;, ;;: I) ,; ":

'r~E .£
I..
~-at)
4 t ,,~
I
I
E"bt.
~ ~~
7'
....
'1"4',
I~;::~
.t:
glQ ~~-2E
t:
"I
rt . .
~
--",-~. t
~~ ,,'b~
Conetructlon Joint I
ll. :E ,
I • t .~ n W1
4Jh' .. 0) c: 0
.~I
I
1· .
!::::ftt-'-::._~--------- .. _ _·...,1 r A
iI. ':"1''''' I

!.,.,,!. ~I
0_ ;'.5
I~ E
I"'" .........,
t-
A '. .,,,,,,, .' ~
'-;,
I
! 0,

]:Q.
I• . • . ' 1""
~."."':.
I
I I
,,, ... .. . . . .•
t
,.• :~ - v
~ I t

III.
)~l I
~{J '
.• "r • ~..f.C!,4,:,?fJ?!!.~~
.~
.,'0

R,prap

l~~~~;IlV'"''''''-;:'''lT1f!G~'£l3~~~''fi'-~~
~ , " .' r-r.---r-'
.. CI03.' A Concrete Mal
~{op. Protection

",ell ",.,./1 whcr. ll«ce3:Jar'1 to consfruef"pJt!.f';3. Bc,.cI(;tJl wdh r'p .. r~p

7' (1'-10'

~
NOTt: - Tvnne/.supporfed On piers .sllown.
Tunnel ,svpporled on piles .:slml!dr·

ELEVATION SECTION C-C

COMBINED STEAM TUNNEL AND SEA WALL

TUNNEL ON EXISTING SEA WALL
SCALE:
W' r,
EXPCna/on Joinl ~ Con:sfrvclion Join!
. 0
Melal r•• ( I ,.-con:>lrlJc/ion Joinl
I r-Melal T ••

''r'''Y
I

fE"""
.I
"':--~
' ..'
~ =--=-----~~-------~~
I
: - ' " 18
.•_---1.--=-..---=---=---_--=-==-=
-, .
.'
.
.
.,
()
.'"
',. '
Rock
A':Jumed
lln~

3
J!t;', 7:6'
--
/·:97,
•
1tH1 .Jolnl i ;::
..,.
P0<J/_
68.60
'"
,"'.
~.:
Ol··'·-r-·--··.... I ..
I:'I
i

I-'(Anchor
T ' ._.~.._-......
r'Con,/rIlP!ton
Foa,.I
I
J
\.iApprox.
Jo,!"'r------ 1I --- .. -·
.!
I
:roe

, -d'
I r of Ri' 'klp,Slope
'1
.. J":PO/IS.... ._~-

Slope P LAN . J:.::.J_J'G' ~. I,.!! $/0, J7·60. 0 !

____··s·~, "\. I
SCALE: ~' 'i)' I~' 2{i ._-., """:" 'l. .[!Q_7!8' ~ 7(6'-->-- 7f 6'...- 7!6'_1 7i6' .5!6': 7f 6'

•••• _ • __ • ._. - r ••• , • • • _. •• _ •• __ . , _ •• ,_. _ • • • • • • • • • • ..r.::. !!~'!!.t;!:: •.e..~ t: ~~':.~_. '!!!'. !r0.t'. fo ~{!:!!,. '_'_' . ' , _. ,.. ,. . __. _. '" .. _ _.
I:
,
:
I
loir
I
,
1117'
I /Oil'
I - ~c:J."10!7'.f}S:3* •
.-- - - ' - - ' - - - - .- ---._- --- S!3r

r------,
rf\ j -.i

, I
L th

I , ~;'l
.--------- ------;----r··-- _J
I
l---------------t----t--------------------.-----i---------.-..:." ----- --- -----. ----'- ---------- ------- -- ------- -- ---"-.!:
--."
I
,
I
"
-c:
. __ .
I
._ _-_._.. ~ -- ~

\)

d.bd~~~~~~g~~_~~~~~'fr~~w~Jmdbbh~~~~bft~~~~~~~*~~~~·~
or Riprop Slope ·A~.stJmed Roclc /',r"1 along tt. TiJn.~e~ Top of Riprop Sloptl
u
L
. I
.1lf 9·
Q>n.s/rvcfian J o i n l ' ,
.1119' .
!;tponuon Jo,hI
.11(9'
Ir Con:J Irllc han Joinl
.11!g'
E,-pOluion ..hI;' 1
J/'f}'
CoM/rllclion Joinl-.
,

Combined Sftlom Tunnel and SitQ Wall Tvnnel an P,aN. Tor de 10 II., refer 10 Di-wg.*AIZ

ELEVATION /~
~ ~ td 1$' 20
SCALE: 2SiI:::> '
•• _ __ 73pc:J_" 1$110(.

Remov(J exi,ting Seo wall 10 !lJ.S,

--r _. ---r-
''''-' -,-
JIJ.':.!J'_ _ ._._.. __ • _...

.roC! Riprop
-- -.--.---- ---'
of Slopt!!
..
--··--+--·----t'--_.-- ._--f--.-
, _. ._. ~~!lO·__ l.5 f I O ' . . .

I;::;
r-·- .,_.. ,..-~ . . "--'-"T--"-"l'~
/0(/11"

·-·-1~
,

I'
!
tg""S.
' •I .:
•
~ ~
r ,...,i(!; -
ov .T:..2:...-J.
--r-:- • .
•
0 f
.
-rO;,j'.:--,--'--r------':""--------..--- -.. -........--T'l...-.--y--- ,-
I'
L"<4 I
I
II'
J:
.
:
. : . . , t ','
: :L ' . :"
•
'rOoT'" ""\--'-" r-·,- 'r-,--r- .. a-r'"'fi--r- _ ..... ,
I • I I • • •
't: I
t •
;
• rt
It:
f' ~ I : : : I
t
: : : I
.. - __ , __ r" -;- ....
I I
r. i : : :._._ :...... : :
'.
!
-"f- '-....- ..
If'.
: : : :
f

:
, • •

I
•

:
If'
: : : :
1"1,ti
1
f't)

------ I :
J :
I • ,",,'U"'L-_.' _ _ .. _ _ ~ 1 I• • J ....... _ •• _ •• "". 1_-, . . . . 1 .• ~ L (L. J .1"1. • • L_.J_.I __ •__ ~.~• ...:._ . . . .'_ .. oJ. toO
l-----~------·J~ t ~-L.l- -- ~-L or'---------- --- .. ~, ~--.,----------~- -l..-~J-- -J'~
.L __ -T-' - - - - - - - •• ~'"
I " t·
:~comlinea'SI"o~.
I
,rvnnel4: St!o If'olt,
I' I
1 I
I • I t .
L I.
: i:,
'+ 4---
'It : , : : : : :

! ~ ! I ! ' ;j i I .--wta.. "-,.:

• I
' . ---.--+.;.
• I I'
. ---
·_·--
-+-t- - _.--
- -.~. . 1f-1- -:--
-~--. ...-,../---- Iji--:
.--- -·--J·t"'t·---r-··· I . -- O' .. 1;'
"
i ~ I.,.
I
.l ...... -
•••
__ ... -_ ..... ~- .... - - -_ ... - - - - - - - -
•
-
I • " • I I to:',
..,-- ... - - - - - - - ... - ......... -r ...----- ... -.- ... - ... -i .... -~ _L-_ --- .. ---- --!'""'- t i-a- --- - - -~..:::;
I 0 1(;

_ -.a
__ ~_-.-,.__""--r-'r--y---"'f-oy--,-.~'.' !'t--t--r~.--. -,--.'::t.. -:'1""''' _ _ "'!_ _1 _ _ .. ., , -. 1..

PLAN
0' ~' 'i)' 1$' 20'
~ 1 f

~ I

. ------------------------:.--------.. ~ ------_..i
4
 ROOSEVELT ISLAND RIP RAP REQUIREMENTS
(ELEVATION AS PER FT. ABOVE MEAN LOW WATER)

A. STEAM TUNNEL AREA - 2,094 FT.

SEAWALL--

6.5'

---- .........= -4.235'

M.H.W. ......... --
3.13'

EXISTING RIP RAP -l

B. HIGH PR IOR ITY ARE'A-POSSIBLE WALL REPLACEMENT
AND RIP RAP REPLENISHMENT - 1,488 FT.

6.5'

M.H.W. = 4.235'
... -........... _........ PROPOSED REPAIR
3.08'
'3.0
-, 1

~
/

EXISTING RIP RAP-/

c. REMAINING AREA - 6,508

6.5'

M.H.W. = 4.235'

1.81 '

. EXISTING RIP RAP ~

DETAIL A 5
 APPENDIX V
Sub APPENDIX D
PHOTOS OF SEAWALL
. CONDITIONS
 SECTION A

3 5

SECTION B

APPENDIX D - PG. 1
 SECTION C

1
3

APPENDIX - PG. 2
 SECTION E

SECTION F

SECTION G

5 6

APPENDIX D - PG. 3
 SECTION

SECTION I

APPENDIX - PG. 4
 SECTION J

SECTION K

APPENDIX D - PG. 5
 SECTION L

APPENDIX - PG. 6
SECTION M

1 2

3 4

SECTION N

5 6

7 8

APPENDIX D - PG. 7
 SECTION 0

SECTION P

5
APPENDIX D - PG. 8
 SECTION Q

2
1

SECTION R

APPENDIX D - PG. 9
 SECTION S

1 2

APPENDIX D - PG.
 SECTION T

SECTION U

5
4

SECTION V

6
APPENDIX - PG. 11
 SECTION BB

SECTION CC

APPENDIX D - PG. 12
 SECTION DD

SECTION EE

SECTION FF
4

APPENDIX D - PG. 13
 APPENDIX V
Sub APPENDIX E
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR SEAWALL REPAIR

c
 ('\ (\
(n
APPENDIX E - PG. 1 (PHASE II - SEA WALL SURVEY)
APPENDIXD
SECTION LENGTH(FT) DESCRIPTION RECOMMENDATION PHOTO PAGE

A 1,401 Concrete sea wall. Repair corner section of wall, stancion 1-5 1
and railing located approximately 197 ft.
from northern limit of undeveloped southern
end of the Island. Repair deteriorated
concrete & expansion joints as required.

B 202 Stone wall with cantilevered concrete Clean stone wall, remove loose grout and 6-7 1
cap. replace. Cantilevered concrete cap is failing
corners and stancions. Capping will
eventaully need to be replaced. Repair
railing.

C 262 This section includes a stone wall at These walls should be investigated together 1-3 2
the southern 59th St. Bridge abutment with the bridge abutment for requisite
and a concrete wall at the northern improvement.
Bridge abutment.

D 625 Stepped concrete wall. Within this Repair deteriorated concrete & expansion 4-6 2
length the first rise in height is 1'-7". joints as required.
The second rise in height is 1'-0".

E 260 Cobble stone wall. Clean, remove loose grout and replace. 1-2 3

F 122 Wood pier. Good condition. 3-4 3

G 673 Stone wall with concrete (non- Clean stone wall, remove loose grout 5-6 3
cantilevered) cap. and replace.

H 384 Concrete wall. Repair deteriorated concrete & expansion 1-3 4

joints as required.

I-'
 (\ (\
in
APPENDIX E - PG. 2 (PHASE II - SEA WALL SURVEY)
APPENDIX D
SECTION LENGTH(FT) DESCRIPTION RECOMMENDATION PHOTO PAGE

702 Stone wall. Portion of wall has been Replace remaining stancions as 4-6 4
capped and new stancions were installed. required. Clean stone wall, remove
loose grout and replace.

J 1,232 Coarse aggregate concrete wall. Repair deteriorated concrete & 1-2 5
expansion joints as required.

K 298 Concrete wall. Repair deteriorated concrete & 3-5 5

expansion joints as required.

L 356 Coarse aggregate concrete wall. Repair deteriorated concrete & 1-4 6
Measurement includes vessel art expansion joints as required.
work.

M 245 New concrete wall and pier. Good condition. 1-4 7

N 350 Coarse aggregate concrete wall. Structural testing is required along 5-8 7
Poor condition. this section. Wall replacement may
be required.

0 184 Coarse aggregate concrete wall. Structural testing is required along 1-2 8
this section. Wall replacement may
be required.

P 688 Concrete wall. Check wall with adjacent walls. 3-6 8

Wall replacement may be
required.

N
 (\
I
0 in
APPENDIX E - PG.3 (PHASE II - SEA WALL SURVEY)
APPENDIX D
SECTION LENGTH(FT) DESCRIPTION RECOMMENDATION PHOTO PAGE

Q 216 Coarse aggregate concrete wall. Structural testing is required along this 1-2 9
segment. Wall replacement may be
necessary.

R 460 Coarse aggregate concrete wall. Structural testing is required along this 3-4 9
segment. Wall replacement may be
necessary.

S 463 Concrete stepped wall. One foot Repair concrete & replinish riprap as 1,2,3,4,5 10
rise in height. A 40' section of this required to avoid future damage from
wall was replaced due to a barge the swift currents and barge traffic.
collision.

T 1,023 Coarse aggregate concrete wall.
The overall condition of this wall
on the East shore is good compared
to Sections N, 0, P, Q and R on the
West shore which may need replacement.
Test, repair concrete and expansion 1-3 11
joints as required. Replace stancions
and railings as required. Provide
for safety barrier at railings. Clear
grass from drainage paths.

U 550 Same as Section T. Test, repair concrete and expansion 4-5 11

joints as required. Replace stancions
and railings, provide for railing safety
barriers as required. Remove wood
pilings.

V 290 Same as Section T above. Test, repair concrete and expansion 6 11

joints as required. Replace stancions
and railings, provide for railing safety
barriers as required.

w
 {\' (\
(~

APPENDIX E - PG.4 (PHASE II - SEA WALL SURVEY)

APPENDIX 0
SECTION LENGTH(FT) DESCRIPTION RECOMMENDATION PHOTO PAGE

BB 50 Stone wall. This wall requires additional 1 12

investigation. It had been repaired
in the past and appears to be leaning
forward. Stones are dislodged.

CC 1,000 Concrete wall. Good condition. 2-4 12

DO 50 Stone wall at 59th St. Bridge abutment. This wall should be investigated together 1 13
with the bridge abutment for requisite
improvement.

EE 680 Stone wall with concrete (noncantilevered) Clean stone wall, remove loose grout 1-2 13
cap. and replace.

FF 969 Concrete wall. Repair concrete expansion joints as 3-4 13

required.

··SECTIONS W TO AA ARE THE STEAM TUNNEL. SEE STEAM TUNNEL REPORTS PHASES I AND II.

~
c

APPENDIX V
Sub APPENDIX F .
MAPS LOCATING
SEAWALL SECTIONS
 ,#

(~
, I 1\ \
~ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \
UNm:D NATION \ \ \ \
I \ \ \
\ D \ \ \;.
\~z \\ \\f.
\\
\~ \ \ \~

o 0
\~g \\ \\ \~\~
SOUTHWEST SHORE FACING MANHATTAN WEST SI;IORE FACING MANHATTAN
\~ l\
\\:= \\ \\
• 0 t:l \

\ \

I I SOUTHPOIN'I' 0
"A" •
0 "B" \ \
' \\"C'~i..i..-I
~ I \ \ \

. : \ \ \
0.. \ \ \\

'

I
1,401 ft.
I'

!
I
202ft. \
1\\
\

1\. i1.\\ \
62
\
\ \

\ \.
it •

.
F1ItarC Site of FDR Wcmorial Park
\ ' \

____·-0-.-------
. - - - - - _----+...J-~-
0.0

- .. , 0" •

\.
--=--- ==r= ____ .:

c -- -----
-- -- -- -- --- .

r -- --~

'-,---,-----------
--.~~t_'---­
o. ------ \
c=JS'I'1!!Z JIDI')KIIL \

• EEN'IICJC RUIN S1'RECIER IJDI 1m StaUtA

, BOSPfUL \
'. \
\
I.aM:mck
u
.
LAB
T. . . . . .zk "FF" "EE" . st«Dii\ . I""rin,,~,
up
\
15~,ft1
Em r : = - - 7 ! : d . ' 'WOLL
I ; 969 ft. I' 680 ft.
I I ' . · =Wau"i" \ I
o : FAST SHORE FACING QUJ ' 1 I

(~ ROOSE\TEJ-IT ISLAND
\
\
\
\

APPENDIX F
 .#

:- I - I ---f. ~ -L . J. l I I I L· 1-1 1 I

( !
i WEST SHORE FACING MANHATTAN
~ ..: r
"D" "E" "F" Chapel of the Cood Shepherd
625 ft. "G" ·"H"
COWlmNITY crNn:R
SUbway Station Landmark "1" "J"
~ &: B lines

, 260 ft.
673 (t.
BUcnm ROUSE
384 ft
I, 702 ft. pS / IS 217 1,232 ft.
1 Landmari::
i BLu:xnu. PAJIX nsr Roosevelt .Island ,Operating Corporation MANHATI'AN PA
j NorlhLo_ Ph... II
t R1~ JilInl-Sehool

~m_
lled1taUOD Ste~
Pier IWU-Sc:hoo1a Northtown Phase I

.}t\~t~ ~ ~ t\ \ RlVERcRoss· ISUND HOUSE

" t:S1"VIElI"

-- - - - t.. -

"
- -- -- -- -

,,
"'J~
.::.:'J •••
::t~:~~
L"-d....
-..
...
~.~.'.
. .

~~

'
\ \

~1
~
c
'-.-.- ..
e

L
't3
..
.:'.
_~

-....,.
:::.t :.=.
:
~i-:!Ii :.. ....
:.: ~:. :.:.:~.:.: . :7: . :~: :( .~ ~ :~ :;:
::di· .:. ':~::~~:~::::~:~~:'."':!" ....
..

;--~~:r=~-
".-
..:::~::....
~~- ~-----~-------

FubJre Site of SOOTHTOO

, -r-:-
~: =1
~Catc
,elt !CI:Di
~!c!leal
IIOIWl1'bII P.,t.B
---
P. omc. a:
~
PmSZ I
Ii
}It\;~ji~~t~~;
Caaa I'!aat ~
1958 Ho~ Units ~ Jaai-Scbocl I
~
.
l.&S1"IOOB JIU! lJoCtlf
"CC" "BB" JILU.:DDI. P.,t.B E.IS1' JZrJJ1. AU1
"AA"
';Z" "y"

c
ROOSEVELT ISLAND 2
 WEST SHORE FACING MANHATTAN
NORTII SHORE AT. ..LIGHTHOUSE
I ---- '..

I
I L 1,_
c L
"L" "M" "N" "0" "p"
PAR~ -
a>
co
"4
356 ft. 245 ft. 350 ft. 184 ft. "Q"
688 ft.
216 ft. 460 ft.

Boat House 851

JdA....HATrAN PARK Sportnlelc1 'l'A'IZR 'fUm'EI. BOI ~lolic:.I Park

HarthLo_ Phuc II

Pool liGHTHOUSE PARK

-..
---_.-- ------------
I' UGHTHO

---..l ----t I'

Landmark:

-
L ::::
.......
..
.?::.::.:.. . . :.
.
cJ!)-
.
.
:~:::
-::
.•.:~.:.:.:.: :;
"5"
463 ft.
-.:;;

c
f::~:fJ1i~_~3
-.:-::.~...:::::.. .:-:... .~j
..-_. .-._.
.:.~:~:::::::::.:. :-:.:._:~
'.

Comfort StaUaa
nKZ SUnoli ~ ~amIIa
JIOTO£CltE
PmS 1
me. ~
I ~
I J..VJ/: DnlSI
COW!C1OII STAneK (J.YJ.C)
'voy t.apr JW4

Commumt;)' Gudeu
Cmzrla Da' un statiaa COU2 BOSlPT..U.

~ ft-. ~'Y" JmP 11ft. Statlall

BUS boCIJ:l'r "X" "W" "V" "U" "T"
1,072 ft. ·526 ft. 268 ft..· 290 ft. 550 ft. 1,023 ft•.
------1 II! I ~ .
c_ STEAM TUNNEL 1"T Ro6sEVELT ISLAND
"
NOT TO SCALE: MEASUREMENTS ARE (+ OR-)
3
 APPENDIX V
Sub APPENDIX G
PHOTOS OF RIP-RAP
CONDITIONS
 RIP RAP REPLENISHMENT
A-I ?:ti:c::;?;?§~"§g~ A-2 A-3

B-4 B/C-5

C-6

PG.l
 D-7 E-8 .

F-IO

F-9

APPENDIX G - PG. 2
 G-ll j H-12

J-14

1-13

APPENDIX G - PG. 3
K-15 L-16

M-17

M-18

APPENDIXG - PG. 4
N-19 <--
0-20

Q-22

P-21
R-24 R-25

Rl8-26

8-27
S-28

srr-30

T-31
 V-33

UN-32

W-34

W-35

APPENDIX G - PG. 8
 X-37

X-36

X-38

Y-39
 BB-43

BB/CC-44
 DD-45

EE-46 FF-47

APPENDIX G -PG.l1
 APPENDIX V
Sub APP NDIX H
ECHO SOUNDING MAPS
AND BACK-UP DATA AND
CALCULATIONS
 n

/{tJO.J6 vG t--T .z:.St4A/D

. nIP ~ ./);J-T/f . ..'" ,J

r IJ t711 5 F/Jc/lt/L. M IJ N 11 f;) rI /}
L/jpt!J SCIIC.t/G y' ..
/<1,0 t/p LVI} L(
TO/' cJr tv-1tL
tf.p{' 0t/N [) /J;'ST/j/VC£

-
E-L 15- vJ<J-r!f/J,.!
J3 J-GJV-9T/f/~ ,= /2. trl"l (J l/IV9
-
I fir-{ /{/p"c/JP
-
'Tt:";

7 ~y 'I
/ ,/'-tX'
6'·,/"
('. 9"

I '-0" "
3 '__ ~.
5' t3 IS' 'ft
:2
;.J
cf ,- ), 'I
..
1

7 b - Ytf t-f I~ '- 3> " I " Z" 10 ... b J

/').'-/0" J' - )"

51-/
~o J~ ~ /I'~
,I,
_ _..J--
9 E- ;J. J..{-
"-0 v I)
+.;c;-----=~.....:.J_l.__ll_-L-.L.--=---j--------/--------:.:..----l----L--.-..!'-.l-----
.. 7 '_ 11"
F IIi pJEIt-- NO A.13f10//J/ L

/0 C' - b II r: /. c"
II
(.' b /·/0 II

/2- ,<", '. ) 0"

11
I'> 5'-11
1'1 &"/I'/.
\
It 71 -)... 'I
/(, tt'-I!"
(fJJ .5-'. 'I"
(j§ 3 /.7"
JjI.£'1
19
1.0 J - 'fJ'o' II'· (}'" ,{ .3 r~ ef'l '} '- 9 '.I

")// ;;;' • ~ 'I

~y
;J I -/0 ./

y~ .3 ' - / '1
1'1 I 1_./0 1,1
"
J-- ?of r~ 7" 1/
'2.,6 'I
C ~j-" 5' -7'
L - 2.-? () I 17 ~o ~. II p!-, r J'- 3 ".
II .
" '-J./
7' '-11 '/

30 tJ - I hi ' 10 '- I " 'f '-, . .

7/-s_1/ ,
,),. -" o'
I;;;: I'

"
f~J'/

5-; -0"
II
y'- 7 II

5' J.)..- ./
ll'_II"
( ' ' ... / II
,
s~/
I
I,

3 /-/0

..• '.~_'<o~' .~ ..

• . .";,':':~I·
. ..",.,. ',' , , .. 'I~f'''''' .~.:., "" .••.
 ;; (}OJ 6vG i / / ..z:.SL.4A/D
s:-r :- .$ T'EI)"l 11//VNFb J)jP //;f-f? J)/TT/f
~'t S() 1I ,;!>,' N[,,-
J-&'C, ~J/ (}t/ Slfo;f~ ,PRe/Nt:- a. u£.GM
L/)p/J Sc/lCv!2 y..
P t1/~ LV I} 1-(
'TO/' or /).//)t( / (J

E-L /5.t/nr/t/u /)/S TI'j,1/C£

- - -
s- ?90
I
- 1/ --
p /Z- (.I1'1 C-I'Z... ()(/tvtJ.

2 -7' II
'T P
-
7~
/Z!p"cIJ P

~ '/
e
5 '- 10"
,
L--6 vA-TlldL--

I"
'it..- 7/"..{'~ -> -?
9' ~'-~'1
rJ s- ~?c:J1 / 'I '/ S''''K'~
lty T-j ~(}I '1"
9 '... c'I
/'-o~
,)A-MIY J4-S ?);(}/..fMl
7'-
C, '-0 I, 3 ........,",
liS I -cfO' S" I -~ v
9 '-11'/ " 't ' . . 1" ---
?jb l' - 9'x-(j' ,i 1-/'; I,;-tJ.J
q '-11 ~
" b '-/0
II
3 "-I ~I/) J"../l("
''11 u'- ~/'o' J (/'1
'I

:2--() , 9'-/1 II '1

7'- /" :J ' -
'if{ v'" $'"/-/(' 5'- Y'I
v- 2. yO' I()'- S" 'I If
-
~1
/ - C P'
I, J
/? r _/1
.rO
* V ~ ~'10 I I(} '-5 I-
I(

,
- 7'/
--
,<'"'I (ST) W - I/V' J)'/- of IJ t,1_[{'I b
,y-v .(~!-) y. -LO' /0'-9 ;;,.. '__g- 'I
f~' - 5"
IJ II

52 0r(s~ 'X - :z-.yO' " :l, 1- " /0' - / 'I 3'-:s'/

".,,' r
,y~ *Csr) 't "'leI' x- J'"'>'-y"
II
7'-6
II
3 1 - /(J If
, >Aip f{/'J-P
tJ t;-f; /.) I;j: D
.x:J (.sr) y--- 5'30 I 1 ~'-, 'I It
'>''''9 7 -9 P ,13 t>.'TlvI::'EA.!
,,
% Csr) ~ hO' - J 3'. {' 'I ~ "'-II
I,
C'-b y
..5"'; (ST) A-IJ - ~ j,()' J ~ ',... S- 'I ~I
b '- -3 ~ 7!... 2. '1
j-g (5r) :hI} -r'w l J ,I'-J-Y I,
J?'-R'" ;;'- 9 1/
';-'1 (sl) /f1J. - I ~ ~o t
b f) ( sr) •. J:f-".tJ. ••i7Kr)'
J ~'- b ~
)? '-s" "
t(
If i_

/tJ '-0
'i
....
,,'-
.5
;)..
"-f Y
H
0'

MG-J1-~
01 "IS .. ..;;£.()/. :"'~ --S".
fl' II II
/d""~l" ;;2 .f~ f=.~tlkt5"

(,~ le6 - /(.;(): . .;".." I .. 7 II II

J;< '-3 'I ... y 'I "'&IH1.
t. 1'1- (l b~_r
t''!.

~·~-..s~IO
I I •
. I( r, ,
7"-3- " ..;;' _3"
b3, /;J '- b
_ ?.f ~ .5 I-"R 1/
(,y i6~- )",-,0
. 1(;' I I

tl.
0' ; -II
10 ' .. ~ r;<t _1'1 .. 3 It
-

t../ I;~ ... .,).,() It.

,
:2,'
,
~G r "')'(J' JI'-~~ ,JJ
~ ",../ " Sl..
( t
'"

0
 () (~;
~ 4"'"'i
r

O°tiii° O
9
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NEW YORK DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
c
moo 0000
~
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 102)8

SURVEY OF: EAST RIVER. NEW YORK

VICINITY OF ROOSEVELT ISLAND
CONDITION SURVEY
SCALE: ONE INCH = 50 FEET

PARTY CHIEF: W. MATIAS DATE OF SURVEY: 4 MAY 1999

PROJECT MANAGER: C. POSTIGLIONE FIELD BOOKS: 14112

APPROVED: R. KISS SHEET 4 OF 7

DATE: 17 MAY 1999

,/ \
NOTE:
CONTROL OAT A
THE INFORMATION DEPICTED ON THIS MAP REPRESENTS THE
RESUL TS OF SURVEYS MADE ON THE DATES INDICATED J>I
BENCHMARK: LOTALUMBER AND CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS INDICATING THE GENERAL U
CONDITIONS EXISTING AT THAT TIME. "tl
ELEVATION: 7.49 NGVD -Ij
COORDINATES REFER TO THE LONG ISLAND LAMBERT SYSTEM (NAD 1983) '~
.J
SOUNDINGS REFER TO THE PLANE OF MEAN LOW WATER H
'~
SHORELINE AND SHORELINE STRUCTuRES DIGITIZED THE PLANE OF MEAN LOW WATER 15.2.265 FEET BELOW NGVD (1929)
FROM NOAA CHART NO. 12366 MARCH 7 1992 THE SOUNDING DATA DEPICTED ON THIS MAP WAS COLLECTED :~
USING CLASS 1 SURVEY STANDARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
EM 1110-2-1003.
w THE DATA ON THIS MAP IS REPRESENTATIVE OF LARGER DATA SET ON LEVEL 48
 --

7 '\
f

'\ " )(

•.
~

•a
M~NHATTAN
. uLJU
L~ L~
• • I
• X
• • •
u
' ..,
~ lA~
ULJL- ,.. , U U U"u l JL 1\ L l L Jl I
. ,ULJU'UUU
- , , ., -- , . •.
" .-" ' ,-' ,
j \
, ,
j
'
j
",
j
. '
j= \
"
j

\1 •I ••.
1 \ L..J ~A-
)( I

UI'_A-
J I .1 ~bjIl

_ 0 nnn
L.J
~
--- --.---' ~ ~, UI'_A- ,f 11\ ~

--- l~/
-
l'
1

I v . "

1/ f"
--- - ------- -
--- -
r
~

-------
--- -------------
i-i A '6"1-\ L" "H '/ "AJ
U
'C"_ t " tf~l}

I
----[ I V tt-ri I
"I /0 1/
"R" X-
I ,
-

I'
I
I

.,~.
i

_ l
I
I
--- - -- -j
1 _

- --------_. ---' "

\,r - Its
~I
I}

p
x ~- II'
,

-
•
--.... r

- I
"'-.!" t Tfl r /7
,
j
",I
I
1.7

fJ " , "I
I
~, ~f
lY ~J
~1.

ltVjw • \ \ "T /'

JD~
II
. II
,i
f
I' C '1
II
I.
" ) ( I, ).1
IIU •
2.0

Jgo
I
-LJ If
.,,-./ -.......
'V
-~
~~- -----,I \ • ]D
~o\
I
..... L

~ ~OL.
\
r rr::o
- ----
I __. JL ----.lL jU l ;?:L-'
<\
~\
\ 1 1S
~
\\' '\ I 1\ '\ I I . am.A;
r--

\'-...~,
\
)( \ ~~~ ~
L~l ~ _____ {

...,. • • II • · --. r ...,

I
:I .
. '
. '
i i •

t
-
,\ \,
\
~
~\ \!
'" I ,
I'
,
)(
\
"\

Q[TEENS

'l2~~~~=
"--

~ j
at DEPARTMENT OF THE
NEW YORK DISTRICT CORPS Of ENGINEERS
NEW YORI(. NEW YORl( 10215
A~

SURVEY OF: EA 51 RIVER. NEW YORK

VICINITY OF ROOSEVELT ISLAND
CONDITION SURVEY
NOTl:

CONTIlCl. DATA THE 1NF00000TlON DEPlCTm C* THIS IoUIP REPRESENTS ,HE SCALE:ON E INCH = 300 F EEl.
RfSll..T5 OF Sl.J!VEYS IUClE ON THE DATES NlICATED
N«J CNii OHLY B[ COi&JEA£L lIS NlICATING TI£ GEHERIlL
8ENC1f111/1f1(' LOT JIl~ COIOTIONS ElOSTJ«: AT THAT aE
El.£VATICI* 7." NGVO ClXIIOI .....T£S RU£Jl T8 TN[ U_ ISLAHIl L~ S"ISTlM (NJoD 1.31
SOUICllNGS llIUfII TO THE I"UM: OF III[M LOW WATER
SHlJIEl. I N[ AND SHCRL I ME SHIUCTIJIl£S 0 I GIT IZED
THE PL~ OF III[M LOW WATER IS 2.21!> FEEl BElOW NGVD (19291 P~RTY CH I EF :,-!!.W.:...-!...!!!A:!.!T....!I~A~S _ DATE OF SURVEY: 4 MAY 1999
FRCIII NOAA CM"," NO. 12366 lWICM T 1992 THE SWNOI. DATA DlPICTEJ) 011 TMIS _
EM 1110-2-1003.
IM5 CIlLLECTlD
USI. CLASS 2 SUllV£Y STANDAIlOS IN ACCCIIllAM:£ .'TIl F IELD ..
BOOKS:_1~4I..!1 2"",2.~ _
W"llA~J1Y'fL".tIs HtJ"MfSEHTATM: OF A LNlGER DATA so
x-
,
SHEET 1 Of 7

/ , ,CfY" """
APPROVED:...:.R.:.;.~K~I.:::S::::.S

0.1£:11 MAY 1999

_

,lJjJ~MJ>I)(

FLE NO.162
,
'I !j'"

4
REClEST NO. 1924
- - ------ --
~.
-,
 2
3

C ~,
:8
.<4

Jj
<4 •

if
I ~
· ..
~
··· ··

~
··· ·
··
°0 <4 :1 ··
·
1
it~· ·····
~l:i ··· ·····
·
··· ··
<43.0

·· ··
JIJI ·
:r:8 ··
42.1

Ci <42.2
<42.1

1111)(
1fl
~
~
:t:
, <42.1

R§)
r\
n 39.6
H:l ~if
,.6
.6
U:l
29.2 t
§1j ·
·· ·
1!1 ···
U:§ ···
15.9

J9:K
15.2
1<4.6
".- ;l
C) #:
+1.g
Il +2.6

+1.3 5

+ .6
 I
4 I
I
6
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I I
I j
I
1 . j
I
I j
I j
1
I j
+3. f
'----------j

. C) j

j
6 j

.-J
 8

.C)
-- 0+0.3
- - - - ---------------------_. -----
7
 ()

9
n ~d.'·

ji'§fi
t~
()
'.'-._".' ' 10
50:0
lf~~
41.~ .

\H
45.8
45.1
it!
43.8
42.~
:~J
19:!
tl.
9.
8.

\\
11
·
···,
: l
.
I ..

··
"

···
',1

+3.6

0.5

----='"----='"~----='"----='"~

CP
. -----------------
\---------------
c

9'
C
~.,
' \

.. )
··;7:.'-

10
 17

18

11

.. __.....----
 \

19

+ 12
 20

13

~.' 4> 4C(tA . . .

 -..--
.
.

21
+2.1
\\

\
1
j

14
 22

'
.
C)

15
 ISLAND
24

------
23

----
+1.9
f3:7"""
1. 0 \\

"Oi}'
··
· LI
~:\
2•• 9

6. in
0
\\
8.2

J\\ 5.2

IH
29.2
29.5
30.1
29.5

jG~l
~9.2
§J
29.6
29.2
29.2
30 ••
30.0 30.7
30.6
~~:!
J!l
9.5
29:~
~9.3
0.0

i~:~
it! Hii
iaoJ: 6

~B'~
3G••

'\\:\
ill
j~J
- '
..::: .-

16
 ROOSE~,
I

26
2.1:\

~ +"3.6
+3.0

~~~ tll
C) dl 15.8

11
III nfl
if!f
26.,
I

30.3 I

Iff!
HII
Ifi
30• .-
I

III Iff!
31 .~
31.7 I
I

,
29.6

if]
32.7
31 ••
I

·
n~~ I

····
33.8
U:! I
· ~.7
:~
··· 32:1
·· I
·:4 l~J
II:! I
jf:§
CJ .?0 iJ} I
-- - j

!
j
17
. . . _.~ ......._:.. .... " ." :.. - .... - j
o

c·
~\
... '1
/

00
N 18
 o n
'-.." L J.'" n ,/

.
\

!:\Z.O~~~~DE . -r ···.!Q::.9:...-1 G·~'-O." uJ

lOP OF WALL. ELE.VA110N ; i c.ONS'rl..UCT CONCrl..E.iE -r.
. VA::-Y l..forz t:LE.V.A:TloNS II I PO';:), AND lZ-A\\.-ING .Y J
56:::: C~'55 SECTION5
~ ~lOo E:')(.\?I'NC'; ~iON~ WALl- ~
j , " "
PLAN O\'\G'S, PST-
WEEP HOLE 21,'22f$:.23 \1 I\NO R.~\L'N6 TO ~E UJ
'·D1AMATE.R 1'0' c./G. , ~ ,. OEMOL.\?KE.D Q
~=--:---~-t=~===~o ..1.. :
\ ...

._
I "':

l
@ZIP-IZ.f\P
• ~pe.c,,A-.L. ZONE. . :;>
c!l
.: JI

5E:.LE:CT cz,iR.UCTURAL FILL

(5EE 6PECIFICATIONS)
F~~rr-,C FI' "t=~
'Il-.~ I
~
4' +
... -
, ~
~~\...':J.O J .,'
0
7-
EL.4:2.:~:>~ 0
, , '. '.(
('Oct: SP=CIFICAiION5) a' I £M.HW.
, E.\-. -1.0 I . !1J ... '1\ .;.Y-. ~-- ~,
. .l ~. / __[M.l-.W. "1..0.00):
. -.~ ~ . /----. -, ~<:,~ ~
"(f) i ' ~ ,,;. Q..
f:'><CAVATION LINE. I'

CON~" RUGi CONe

•
.... 'TYP\C~L ~E.CT'ON N- N"
(AT ~I,O\A/.AT~R:., HO~P'T~\,.-)
(FrlOM COlA. 1-tG,'L.:t. 10 C;:;,TA, \~+e;,G»:t..)
SG,b>..LE., ~~": ,'-0"
.'

'(P~_OF- MI\'Tt:!z'IA..\... 1"0 ~e. U'=:>E.O FOrr.... lZ.IP-I2.AP

SAFE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
-- - - - - - - .- - - - -- - - FOR EVERYONE. INC,
L:.(1,~ND :
-- - - -- - - I-- -- -- -- -- - -
R.IP,fZ.A.P COVE.R. LP\'(I:.R. e;,HA..LL HA'IE. 5"TONe.::.
RANGING> FftOM 1~ l.e.~."0 11.'::>0 l.b~. (OZI INCt-lE.e;, To '2.1 INCllE", I - - -
-- - - I-- - - - - - - - - --
- - - -
-
ROOSEVELT ISLAND
"'T l.EA";,l 1'::>'. 8'( We.I<:>l-\T,OF PAR.:T1C.l.E.~ ~H""I..l- ~e e.ETwaeN
'!lOO LP.>~. AND '~'i:>O l.~f>. l'U\ ",NO 1.1 INc~ec:.)
- --_. - - - - ,_. - - - - - . RECONSTRUCTION OF SEAWALL AND
rz.IP·e .... p u .. o<!~lA'(elt. !!o1\"'LL. HPNl: 'OTONGb IlAN61N6 FIlOIolI
1!, ~r:>~, TO 1"2. ... 1.1!>~. (10 INCHe."" TO I"Z. Il'lGl~~",,)
rz:.,p· rt. ..... P rt.ANOOM ~Ne:. &t'AL.l- 1-1"'''6 e>To ..... e.c:.
-' - -- - - - -- - - - - =1 .. -. pnOMENADE AT THE BIRD S, COLER
Il",N6ING> . PlZ.OM' Eo l.e.~.TO 1&0 l.B",.(4 IN<:.HG~ TO 2.1 INCHG.<1»
!-or Lc:.",':,t ;"'·1. p'>'1'we.IC>HT, OF r ....lLiICl.c:..,. bHAl.I.. Be: e>GT..,eeN .- - - - - - - - - - - -- - AND GOLDWATER HOSPITALS
- '- -- - I - - I - - f - - - - -. -
",,0 U'.S. 10 '~O ~P.>& (.~ INCHG.e;, TO 1., INCHI1<:», .
RIP, rr..",,.. ':::ope.c., ... \..... 'Z.ONC= e;,1-1""L.L CON'DI'::>T of 'b"oNe.~
'Oe.U'-c..Tl~O FIZONI T~'e. "oTONe. PP\rz.TICl.ao:. pr~ODUc.ep
'
-- '--,--- _.,.;;------- _.
, - y_.'i!'.:! .o\~: ~.~ -r~ - - - .:. . - - ~~ elO~
- . "- DETAILS
Glbb C. Hili I . AS SHOWI'
__ ~ .o:"t~ ~~ ~". _ rc
FlZ:Ol'-' Ol!MOl.ITION of "oHONc WAL.L. P\T GOL.OWATE;r~
)lOt,I'I""'\.. "'l<:.e",. ,IIG r·AIl.'!ICl.E.o:. &I,IALL. WI!ICoII e.e'WI!.I!N A ,,,., "'.R, ,.~. I~-V:
J _____. ~~ ~~~f:~f~~!11~t(~~~_. rc"
._
If
'1Ye. 1':"1I.1S t t(~I""'''~''HI·~'l\''1
:;':F':;--"--'-~:;: ",":;;;,;; ii1i";';7t.::'';;;'; "J ' ----
~._ ..~~ ...~" ___ ~'!~: ICAlII _~_

- __ .....-
, .... !lUI.tlll.'·' ••. C<-'.I."""'1
'I' "'l.fot. In i\t.uo l.(~::~ ll'~ INC-IIf:.';.> "TO ~(" Itlc:.I·\(~,::»

~o Le>~ 10 ::''''00 l.e.e;, (llllN:He.::~ TO !>G. INCHE.&).

~
AT l.e'-"-:.T
')',,'/,,1:0'( V/I!.I<l>HT or~ i)'-"fr.f1CL.o!.~ :)1l1'L.L- ~I; r:>l!.Tl'/c:.EN.

I
.-
'll. 110 ••" .... .
(1ft'
-- -.
A".5!;"l'· - - . . ~ \ '0" .... "'UID
.. _.--:--- _ .. _
'0'
.':'~-"--
.... _110.213:\
.......... ... .-..
2J33PS-r-27
....

I or
 c -~~~--~;;'.tJ,.ii2illjl-~--~~~~-------------­
~>~-
~ .. _.. - ... _------ .._--
~._ - ~._------ ------_ .. -.---------_._------_. __ ._._._---- _.------ ----

e:-'
- - - cY-6,5 ..: !-- ;;> - ~ _ ~-.~- - - - -- --- - u • __ - -. ---- - - - - - - •• -.- ••

=-----~==~~~-~~=~-~~~=--~/-------=~tP~~-~=i3~~---~
------- fd~/·r;/~-. ~I '- ----- ... ---- - - -.---------.---------.--------------------- -------- ---. - .. ---

- '~ - _.. _- _._----- - ._._. _.- /--_. - - ------------

__ ~~~~Z-7L/--) --~=~~--=
~~z;g~-~L~(~'Ztl-£)t{7~L,?k?Z{L~--'"6;G.P-!!Ji ""--
-----------------.--.------ - ----.- -------..--------. - - - - ----- E<gi?D 4t~ "------- - - '
._----- ---_._--- - - ---- ------_. -- -- ------_._---------- --------------,. '--

---------_. - ._------------_ .. _---- --- _._- ------------------ . _ - - - - - - - - -

------- -_ .. - --- - -----._-- - ----- -- _. __ ._- - --------. -----_._--_._----- - - - -----------

_._-----------
~l)~-~_:-. -~-:-_- __ ~-._~_~~_._. -.~~~~_~-_-~- .__
-'-----'-- ._- - -- ._. -- -- ---- ---- - .-.- . ------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - _._--- ·-0--'- "-if--

. - -------------
 APPENDIX V
Sub APPENDIX 1-1
LIST OF COMPILED
()
SEAWALL REPAIR
. CONTRACTS

o
- - _.. __ _.~-_ .. _ - _ . _ - - - - - .. _ _ _- _. .--."
 APPENDIX 1-1

ROOSEVELT ISLAND SEA WALL REPAIR CONTRACTS

1. Job No. 29-3243 Construction Dock Water Tunnel Area 1/84

2. North Town Sea Wall Repair, Gibbs & Hill, May 24, 1984

3. Reconstruction of Sea Wall and Promenade at Bird S. Coler Hospital

Nicholas Dimenna & Sons
Charles F. Vachris Consulting Engineers
March 19, 1987

4. Reconstruction of Sea Wall and Promenade at Goldwater Hospital (West Channel)

Nicholas Dimenna & Sons Inc., Charles F. Vachris Consulting Engineers, March 19, 1987

5. Sea Wall Reconstruction - West Channel Northtown II, Lighthoue Park, Octagon Park, Tramway
Tower to Subway Shaft, Northtown. Gibbs & Hill, Job No. 2133, 1987-1989

6. Contract 88-117
Dock Area Overlook and Lower Promenade, March 3, 1989

7. Sea Wall Construction - West Channel Tramwy Tower to Subway Shaft

Gibbs & Hill, July 28, 1989

8. Contract No. 89-3203

Sea Wall Repair - Sections T, U, V, W
Hayden & Wegman, Aug. 1989

9. Sea Wall Repairs from Subway Shaft up to & Including West View.
HaydenlWegman
October 1989

10. Contract No. 90-3854

Sea Wall RepairslReplacement
HaydenlWegman, April 1990

11. Contract No. 95-9587

DEP Sea WaI1ISitework Sections AA, BB & CC
DiDomenico.& Partners
August 1995

o
1
 ..
f~,:'f~:fi;i:;
~ ;

'} ;'"

JOB NO. 29-3243

~\,,:~ :':, :'' ::''/:,: ,: ,,':: .' ,:,.,

.....
,",:
,;";:
..
..
,':-,', ..
. .'. "'.

.
.'
,,,.-

, I

..
.
Ul
UJ
:I
..p

-....J>
:I
0
Z
Z
~
«
....J
...l if)
IL
z ~
G
J
W
-~ ..1
--.J
W
,>
Z oJ th Z W
7- () Z <.J)
t1. ..l z <J:
:r <! -l 0
\!) :r \fI
\J Cl. 0
·:t
.. -" .
W
{I
~
er::: z.~
:~ir,
I-

~"f>.
!~ ..::'.'
, I
.j\
U)
~
t-
-l'
~
.-LLJ- 0
lL.
;f:~r' . ~ (f)
::-..
',"" . bl 0
j'
'Ill t::=:
:;. \ll Z
'> W
tl bL
l-
\- I
-t' .s- I-
4 \
m ~ 0::
>- fu
0
'" . Z

"
:

..
.:~ .i. Ill,

~ ~
:', :I
..~;. '. III
:r ~
a
"

~
~

'I•
j ~'
g
X
i ! I ~
2

I \
~
...
0 1 n_!~ --~-------
 ..
"f)//
/">:::, ~.'.' ..
:

'0 - ,- ,··Q'Ji:i'~~!:_"iJ
.:
....
, ~..

~:'i'
' . -- l." .~:. , •••• ..,
.;, '. . :_.···~;_::...;..~-·1.:~· ...~ .
-"'J,\~':~> r:: :'." ~.:'~ ': ..
.. ):.-::' .. ~~ '/.;.::.
: .:,".::.". '-:~.:~-
-:'., i..

HAN'N E'L • 1
~:~ •.: . ': ::..
","\,"-

.......:.. ~;~... /'.'~.. ;;" ... -:

... ', '.:":"::":~ :.:
.
' ' . '.:~ :.~:-t-:. '.~:
.- ~. .
::.:.'.:;

').-

./
WESt ~bAD

NORTHTOWN Jr.

LIGHT
. HOUSE

MOTORGATE

==~~
I : ROOSEVELT ISLAND
;):22 Y
t t BRIDGE .
HOG
tJ:l;;O':d
t1:l8
t/l::r:L:
80
~ O·
';"
::r: Z
H
IV
......
t'\HW
t'\HW
......
1..0
00

HANNEL ~
I
......
1..0
co
\;0

VJ
 t :~ "~1' ",.:.: ~ ' ;

o
O;:;';2-i~;f"~:~'~;:~;:t~i~~11i¥~1~¥:C,. In
'.~;: :~~~~,~,~ .:,

. .. ' ~ ... '~:_'.: .. ::~ .'~~' :

o'

....... . - ,',/;,;;,~'~;~lJ~{~{:
.; ..... ~

lEST CHANNEL ." : '":.': '~.' :~~:'~~~~~-:.< /.~:: '~.:,~~:;~::'~::

. ":.1; . '_,_" •••.• ', " '. ',' .<:~:::;.:;.,;;.?".; .:.0 • •" ..... __

.
. :'1.· ~. " ......
- .'. .' :~~:. : -~.;; .... ' ...... "

FOR OSTAIL 0;:::

TeM~O~RY CONSiRUCTtON'
~Ot5e.E DNG.2/33?ST-Ae/
; . .', .. -
/~
'

... '.. ~:' ., "

I ,
.CONi~
~.
~ ~ ~ -~~--=- N' ~-.:~. <1-l>~
C
:ra---r(J1fiJl'-'" - - (;iiir-'ROAO__ -:----.::- _: 4 ,.

~
1.'rU .. f Po,
~ATER 1E~.r:-l II
~ ~
. . . ." . . , "\."?/
JL
, NO
I HORTHTOW" X.
I
!
OlURCH
.TUNNE;\- OCT GOH PARK \-, /1
.
~"-""r \.. "".. /
__ ~---~ . t . L, ~J fIT~.f"'t 'I . "'J

rn~
-! -. ~TRAl ·ROA.Q.)~TH ~
~ ~n"-W'-'I";'r l l l .~-lIGHT
.
HORTHTOWH
i.... J
PARK -
~~"'
.... _ -
.,~
..'.-:: "
. MOTORGA!E
'.
~'j
IRE--' f"
-',
JL!r ' ,"~ i. COURTS·
T"
: •
.
TENNIS / _ \\ .... 1 ' i .... 1 -./r-"'.:~ r./' HOUSE

~~~~TPROt.lF.N~.1.~~~ ," :,. _.. .._~ __\S,---.:~-£m:-~c...~V7MJO ~ '. .

lEAD AND ElULKHEAD liNE " n~SEVElT
• ,BRIDGE
ISlA';- - :' ~"!:L~~~-::
.... ~ _

t-'y
HO
G1ttl
::r:
t-3Z
::r: 0
Q.
c::
UlN
t'J1-1
A ST CHANNEL W
"Ow
):I
;;0
;.:.;:

AN
.p-
 ()
o ~.. •.-•.•;..:"'.":-j" :.:....:~•.:•• ~:'-': ~

"::.: :.:." .:.:,~~:":~~¥;~I~~~~t(~W.~~B7;:,:

()<~:,fi::~L;;,:;i' i :; ..
.

.':::
....., .
.:
..... "~

:. .. _:': ....
.:. ~~.. ;:'~ ~:::.~ ;~": ; -~

::.... ::
. .-.
~"
I
,-'
I

,"
. c··-:>··:~t~W(~;F~:·r;: " "
.....
•• # •

".0::." .. " • '.J:' '

'"

.;.·:~'~:;6.-~t~-J:::·:~:~;
.,. _.' ~.}t . . . . . .: • • ' - - '. . . "

, - .';.:. !
" :,;. ~.,' ,':.:, ·~;<.~.;!d-/:~:t:j:(::-7~_',
.- \ • '~.> -
"
,' _ .. ;':" . i": : :.~.• ;1.~~: .-'. ,.; ':"" ..
.' ::~.,: ";.:':.. .-:

i~;' r. '._

E A.S T Rl V E R

. :." ,
.:.:··.i.~.;:":···
.:.. -...;..
..,;. -. ._" ~'. ':". ·~·t· ~·i::':~t:{S.~~·:::-·:;·~':~~:~~:·.·· ~.~.
CONTRACT ";"; - ".....
. AREA
---_._ ..
SECT!OII~'}
' _-.,I
, "

BLACKWEL~
'ARK WEST

~
eL~CKWELL ~ [.
PARK EAST .- U El

~ ~:z:::-.::-.f
.;,>~ ~:~::'S~:
. :.-

.'~
. ..
.....~ !~:~. .. .. ~ ..
"
'
.. /:'::~~;:~":" :.~ .:~'?~"~:~>"::i: .".' ~ .~ tt1 ~
.~ ,., :".
. "t: .
'1'
;:t::" :.!.I () 11
:*f," ......
=.:: . K ~F3~
~·.r
:-<:H ~
COO':>
.~ t-3 .z: •
~ ()
'-xj:.ii
t-3 '':t]
:A1-N,
. ~

EAST R I V E R. <'(I '~

.-3
::)

V1
 .'....... :.
. ".
()
! .'
n.···
'<",

n
1 L'

0":'
\... / ..

ST CHANNEL

..
.....
t· .:

1--/
/ " ..-!

\
~~¢ - ~ -=:.~.~gRO~Ao17Q~==-'::::::==------""""
'lXJ
e ~
J1 NORTHTOWN
c.
W ST ROA

Jr.
-
1
- ;

~l~~~
J L
t-=: J

CHU~H
EPISCOPAL
,
.'
(/J '1'1' n
----.................
n . . "-
:::..--..~I I :- oc~. GON, PARK '" I II c::=...\ j ~ \.. ................
\~
\ ) NORTHTOWN '- LIGHT
HOUSE
II PARK • ~ I. j~l!JJ NOTORGATE
I '-EAST PROMEIIA

KHEAO UNE ~ROOS~ELT ISLAN; I~

.: I BRIDGE .
" '.' .
..
',.~,

'."
'..

en:> C-l
CHANNEL tt:I () 0
0\-3 tP
8~
H:;)Z
o a 0
ZOZ'
d:U tv
d~ .....
~ w
~w

0'

i )0.
I_ _ ~~~~
 I
...........
",
,,:,1-,
0'
II CONTFACT NO. 89-3203
SEAWALL REPAIR T U V W
c~" ,.
...
11
;
1&' I
"./ '
-I
-"1 R
.
~
~ 1
.. ,
,.'
:
nl
-.
'I!
":T J

,0 :l
~
,.0
, :So ..,.
1
- .....
r
'.'
.' ..:::
"
~ <.l
Z
i.' C.
..
:- I.~· .; ••••:.
·1··· ...·:
J
...
.... .. ,....
;
l.\
.-rl
II.!
: " ~ .~ -J
.... ,; LLJ
Z ..J
"
" Z LLJ
Z·
"
<t
:I: Z'
U <£ Z
::I:
U <I:
~
--J
~ "C10 a..
(f)
LLJ \fl ~
\. ~
:: "
~
-
~
(f)
<t
_I to' LIJ
8 Z
I",
-0
ol\
C'
I,· y
"
-'.. a:: \J u'
LLJ
.:
>
- -II.!....
()
~. r-
a:: v.'
u' <I:
7.
V u
0
-i,
"" ~
(f)
, <t
LLJ
--
~\
•... ; \
C) :.... 1,',:
. ::.'. ~' ~':
~' >~
: ..:.: .> .
. :.~; .:: .
.... : ...
.': '~.:.:'~~'
,
.. ,.-
•
I
" ",
, 7
. ~::
 : ..,
..
""7

); ......
-l
6
z
o
"'Tl
m
x.
en
-l
z ;:,.,.;:! i ;' I ,'.

c;)
(")
o
z
o
=i
i5 .. ::': .
. ,:;:
z
(f)

. ':' ...
... ., .. '
'
.
'.'
:\; ..
".
1•
~.

.. ' .
";' .

"0
D
J
~ P-
n
")
."
,-
iTi
-;
.Y ....
5.,. ..
. ....,: .
~:
;

c~
......:>.1"
"

...
,
, I
, i
'j

.. I,',

'"
",'

.. '~:" . ,. .'

"
..

'
:~:.

. ::~.'..i:i:'
.
.... :.:;:):.\.;: .. . : ..~ .'

.
." .~~):~
• .,1 1 ."
:'::': ..
.':'", .
",:.,
~ : . .
.
.....
~
,~

• I •••• ; • • • " •• ~ !
.. ;:" .~ ..... I',;

'.;.. "

.. ' .••. t , '.

"I·,
,..

o
;

- ..
~
'.
, .
. i
!
6..
'.

< r['
rn 8 I
\.
'.'
...... 1J ..:.:.;: .' f.
VStit:-Ob· ; ~:
"''1
','
:. ..
• UJ.'Il .LJ'iiC1.LJ.\l.();)
 r
I
.
....
,,~~

..:i:

....
:,...
) ..
::

.)
.....
~
SAVH1.ve 0
~
~
U)
Z
w
w ~
en
.~
8
Ii @
o~
2C

~
!

'0"
..... ";.. '

. '. ~ .-

, ," .'
':". o. ' ; ' . ; . : <. ': 9
 APPENDIX V
Sub APPENDIX 1-2
SAMPLE RECOMMENDED
o RIP-RAP REPLACEMENT
CROSS SECTIONS

o
 n
c.", /
o n

ZoG" 10'-0·
P~OME.NI\D~
P~I:!C45T CONe.. -
-STANCHION PANEL- Z·B~.!C. PAVEl<S
01'1 2" .6END
PIPE. ~-\ILS -=.:::::::.:: I "dill
ME.TAL EDG E. sr~ll~
3' Pvc.. WEEP HOLE..
WIT~ 5·'S.Yo~ ST• .$TL.
(.,ONe.. ClJ~e.
PE.~;:O~TE.!> PLATE G E:.N E.~At. FILL
E.L. \0.5

.v
.~;~~~ .• ~.:~" .. ' ". FI~TE~ .~4i~Ie.
~.J

'oIV .. )..
.,.~..J ~_

~ c tr -:- C.~USHE.O ~ToNE.' BED

EL.5.5 '

~ E..xIST. STONE.
SEA. WALL
~

~x'ST. CONe.. ClJ~

"';1

l
::>
t"f
':1
-;1
'iJ
!-3
j:j
';(1

.r:
::>
(J)
'---"-"-'~ _ -- ~_ ----=-- . --- - _- ..- __._ -- _- - -_ --- - _._..- - - . _ _:;:: .. "d
H
1-3
E::
TYPICAL S~A WALL S~CTION Ie'
5C-A:'" E. \1':: 3'

I-'
 n n n
' .,-.,. ,,~/

' '''-I _, .. ,~

~r=.:::. PLAN FOrL A..L-lGNME.NT " 10'·0" F'iZ..OME:.~Oe:.

1--,'--CON~irl.iJC.~
I
iop OF WA\-L. E.L. 10.0 .. -.-/ I ,.. .. --~-- -----. - - - -

CONc:,l'~UC\ CONCee.TE. G~"IT"'( WALl.- . .. . CONCR.E:.TE: PO:;,i

E.')(.\?TING CONe. W~LL
"NO Ro"ILlN0 TO ~E
.
~.I
t;\ E.L. ':>.0
.
...... EL.10.h I .- - .~--
K:.E. MOV~D .i!L __ - - - - - - -- - - --:- ~ ," WSe.P HO\..S \'1 OI~ME
, ireIP·fZ.~p cov€.fZ., , \0' c.{c.· "
I
I .... ~..H=R.. ..
or
~-- E.)('CA'/&..TION L.~~
·M.H.W. E.'-.~.1.~1
I
_L =:.' '~.
~--, ,~-,
~
A'
5EL.ECT

._. ..
'.C:",.RUC;TURAL. FI'-L.
•.:.~ I, ~. "-.F=-AeRIC FILTeR
~a.l?~i CON'TINUOUS ,

-( . -, &iii
2iII;I. .
' .....0~
",. • I !..

FILL·

\\t: c=/" . " rA»x"

~
'r' '..!....~ (-.bJ-L - ------,\:-- ,.)..PprzoXIMATE: 10P OF- eoCK.
~
. J ~ "Z.IP- rz.p..p UN':)cIZ.L~'(~rz.\ CUT OFF- E.~I,,=,'TINe;:, ':JTe.e::L &HE:;E.T
- .. . . P1LE. CE.L..Lc:, ~o Tl-\IS \.,.\Ne.

TYP\CAL SECTiON L,- L-

(A.i ;o\t2..0 ~. COLE.\Z. KOSP\T,o..L)
(FIZ.OM "OTA.. <Ool 4~:r.. TO ~\~. 0)+101.)
5CALE:. Ye,".::. \ '-0"
N
 o o (), "

T/W. E.L. 10.0

E."'I~'T. CONe. WAl-L
ANO ~AIL.IN<=r -:-0
~E. R.E.t0C>VED---.....,.. 10'-0" I PlZ,OMGNAOE..

. . -CON~iR..UC"T CONCR.E:re "'. .....

EL ~I"\(-rvp.)1
""""'"' ~ I , •
~'.• PO f:tT AND ~A.(L'NG '::.'2:'
. , . : --:~ ~ . •
t.,:~:,~r.':· ~:-,
0.' •••• '

, - CONSTR..UCT CONe. GRA,,'TY WA\..L..

, ~E:XCAVATION LIP\JE.
.~ ,

I SELECT 5TRUCTURAL. FILL

_ (s:.= eA:CI~'CAT'ONs) , ...
.-:-L t.e,;:=~lA~~ "r ~j_-. / \VEE.P HO\..E "'DIAMe.TEI~ IO',cle.
FAe~,c F\\'"\E.~(SEE 5PECIF,ICATIONS)
'EL.-I.O

L.

E.~e~VAiION AND :::'~

~
' '--APPR:..OXIMATE "TOP OF ~OCK.
cuT OF=-F ,e.",(.I'51'ING ~TE.E.L COHE:.E.T
PIL,E. CELL ~ , 0 T-<-\Ic:;;. LINE::. ~
~ FAe,~IC FI\.--re.rz-
. 2 T2.IP·IZ.AP UNOe.tz.~'(E.R.

TYP\CAL" 5E.CTION M - M
(A'T elRoD ~. COL..E.{Z.. K95P1\'p..\..-)
(Fe-OM COTA. "b;-~~ :: 'TO '='TA. Ca+ 4o'S::t. AND
"OT;::..... ~-"15"±. ,0 c:;;;.T'A... \"2.+4~t)
1
COCALE. 'B" -::. 1 -0"

w
 ? i l'"
" / i? i.iii"",_"". ;.--C"
. iiii"J ;iiA••I~".'''~fCi
. J .

n
' • ·.'<.iJ>

/
'2.'-0" ., '- 0"
I--~-- -'
IP~OMe:NA.OE i.
E.'l<.t~T:NG ?o'::;lT \ I I :
CON~TRlJC.T R.,b.l'-ING
AND SA.F-ETY ME.5H
~. I
,
FO~ E.LEVATION ~ OE.TAIL.
see. owe,. '2.1?>~ PST- 'Z.1
! I) I - '--;-:GE.MO .... e. ~XICOT A~~H,o.'-7 AND
, CON~T~UCT ~iZ-ECA-;:;,T CC~C
PA\le.e~ (c::,e:.e. OETA. \L. e>
ON OWG. '2.1:>~PST-2:1)
EL. \O.O~ .
.. ~ /,: .

'-\ " ". .91

~-.---~--'

(COEE OSTAIL. 10 ON OWG .

. '2.1~::' p~, ·21
<ZMOVe:. MATE.f<:..:jlI.L AND
r=>AC K.. F , L.L. '" I'n.... '='E: LE.':'"7"
!V, AT l:.. rc:. fA L. .
\
\

lli""'" --" ~-~

=X.I~TtNG fC.1P-R.AP - - - - - -

SECT\ON p-p
STA.O+2iliTO 5+55 ()

oCAL= !4'. ,'- o~

.,)
H
.~
'Jj

;:q
o
(f)
'0
H
p, ~
,];I
t-'
 n
" .. j
o n /

'Z~(j

APP~X..E..'(15~ GRA~;
NEW PO~~ WITH
,.RAILI~~ o.NO
GRAnNG ... : ~-

ro'TOP SOIL
,.
. lOP OF WALL
ae.V. 11.50 'j t
.'EXISTINC; eEAwALL 10 ee
RaMO/E.O AND RE.PLACeO
BY A NE.W WALL
. l3~o·

<07 Re.MOVe. EXISTING MATERIAL

AND R~pL.Ace WITl-l 5:L=.ci
STRUCTURAL I=ILL

FA3RIC FILTE.R

e'·"!)' 12~O'
.. e>LOPE A~ INOICATCO TO eE U~O FO"<' elODING
F'UP,FOOE5 ONL"l', THE ACTUAL ~oPE fHALL ee
E5TABLI~CD OY THE CONTRACTOR TO
A50URE. E)(CA'iATION SiA~ILIT"(.

TYPICAL WALL SECTION

DETAIL I
N.T.S.

.-
~OfH£1/f '

, /~\~•
,~

§ir-
...

......
A

~~......;0;0; ~
1"

. ~t::
,

AS, BUiLT. lJl<.A\JINGS ~ Y C.OlJ5IN5 ~TRAGTING c.o~p. ·7.':{'S;

ROOSEVELT ISLAND
OPERATING CORPORATION
I-
SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION-VIEST CHANNEL
NORTHTOWN II: - SECTION X Y Z
SECTIONS AN::> DETtllLS S~ET 2 OF2
•
V1 ~' ...,,0:. .
-- Ai:M1':ku.r- - - - - - ' - -
po, """. eibb# E: k'!f', '!!.$
[JoG"W'.':I,",':.~CLY"
"",. ,S SHOW"

h
rCRIN;:r;>:'::M4riON . ..".:W:1

';:-I~n::-i""
'0. _J t,U t u c .. ,<#
•
........... :::: .., .... '.", ..
-
.,... ItlOYALa 1.,.vtD
•• ___ • _ _ •_ _ _ _ _. _'011
. __ ... _ _ Jut NC
~n"u _ _'_ . 1'"
21·""\
2133 PST-46
...-_-=:.....__________-----.-
 ~OLD~ATER HOSPITAL
_. :~::-. - ~.:."-.-:;.
;cY" z;: .
.,. ',I.:, Z':.·~. ,,.
"" . ··z··
" I
I
i'
:-...;4: ~ :
'J: '. i
U I
i
,
o
t- "
If) ,
i
f-' j .I.
i
':t j.
(f) :.1";.: .,
j .~"
~ I
w .:.;:'!'
i
i
0"
;;
-
cD
oJ)
r:J
ul
~
1\.0
. z
luJ "2
", .. 0
04'
y III
{lUI
i
I·
P
o
·0
'Z
_w
(i"e!
d):t
~
j
.,
I-
2 NO U
c -1
~
~
_
lJJ
<.n
o
.O-I~
_..1
<1.
~
~'
If)
~ ~~
c.-
O.i
I-Ill
c
6
 (J)Po '-l--~~'
z
o
_
I'0
j I t ',r--.
:- :-~:
o i~~, Jc:.. '
/W
r. i:, i
VI (f) --:-l
1-" ,_J
~.,
)l N
- .:1
~ ~
I
'.', H
~ IJJ I <':1 ~
~ ~ I :(\ ~
-.J .z:, ":, I ~
a.. <i j ;:( ~
~' ,~ ,/", :,',' '-I
J
,''""''- ol':•• ' "I,'",'U ';
,:
," et: 0 ':," :.., (
,", - ;;; j
,0- 1- ;:, J
() lIl
,~ lJJ I
-J (j) <.0'"u 'I
.\ _J !!~
<l. g' L()
I'l');~
r
~--1..Ll!1-~£j-~'
«;: t ui
(f) _
_.....:_ ce U, J NVi'
10
~
Z
~ loll
-, "'_ -r'
1-' ..s:::: -'-
--'
<i'
«
0'
() 0
UJ od
~. a.
~~0
~ U -J ~
{'
lU ,..: I..? 0.. u_
'-0' , (0/
~, n 'I
;;i~ w ..
1-.:.. IIV
~.
J
..-a:
« ........
W
,9
t{) '. fl, S (f) co)
~ I:...
o
rv-
LJ.-. .
l1J
") c«CD
H.'
',~
z
c(
...J
0...
LU
u:
_J 0:
!:2 a: Z I"
:,:
iI
, )
,
....... ! ... 0 c'
-I - u ~
:-r ~
..J
-i f-
, ,
~
.::- Lu « 0 f
~ ~ UJ
l;;-!~ ,\!. , "orr" ',,' :;;~ - .,
, '" ' , () ..... o _"
"
~
':' ,'!'i'::;/' .1 tc <: '
(f.I
j
", r ( ','
,,,,
,~,!
,"' ul
, v' J I-.,!
/) '.,.
.n
oJ;- t( Yo _.
'y
\II l '
/_.
,
9 w ,
"
,:
, ," ',' :: ' , .. " y '- ~ ~~ II)
;. '" 9,r ... 111
I":::" I
"
, '.,. , !" " ,
" ±",,{"'.!~U3.V' i" -, C
IIi Iv. ':J.. II} I<:; """
'-' \.J :s: • (l)
,~-.:.._- 'I
:!'!___' ''..; ~
(
1.\\
, ' :' \ )
' I , c/ « III I! II! G
U ().. IJ ..n '"...
:>
, ~',_, I " \' ~~ ~ ~/
: '
", ' • ':,,0.
III• , ,
..'I t' , ' '" <S
v',"'... ..,I'
~~ -~'"
.... I
1'V.<:;
'.. _~\" ' 'K~-~ IY. ~,;, "".,
'l;.~,' ,,', ~ .::' ~
'r \11 "' 0.. • (I '-j
r--6'11i""'\~--~,:,,"~,; , ~,
II, _I, I .,
~j -,
...
~i 1)~ . ~'.
.~
I, q 0(("
I
," \J ?: 1 : j ,"
\~~ -,.j,
'$ ,': .. ~.-:
It ~Q, •~\1i ' '"
>
«
1I.,1
lit I"•
'7 . III
(f ..... ~
•' !'-
_, IV '> ~
"
C) , , )
on '"
~; so
0.
-0
, • 'L... /
G
I,~l
'I ,.:.. ..
'j: ~. ~~)' Q ' "t./
, '. \~l --
l.{) ,.:.:
";) y
() IIi ~ 'll_l, I -.j
"<.'1111
,I
.
III rj'
\II
::.>
Q
tv
'-.
,.......
u.! / \)
l1J
~)
-.J
-)
<to
,:s:
<i
, '
ill
, ' ..{)
.' '. :. ~ ,,'
.1·" ,~
:i", .:' .
! ~.~ tll
~I
I '
':.'
,-,~
, "
-.i <r
llJ
~
':(.. 1"
~ ,',' .
I .. ' , •••.• !.' .
. 'I' ',1" '
liI~",Il"
I, I .~ ~ ~ 1\: I: :.•,1.
, .' ~': t{~~I"I',t"
,:t"l:/I,!:
" ..
"I ,'I
' . .'
' I 'I: ' '
I' 'I' "
, ':.t. I~"".i" 01 ",•
liI'!'i'\lil'I""":' I
,::
" ;:;" •
u o \',1" ,
o
 0: n""< i .,L/
n
•
EtZ.O~~~~D E , -r- ....!Q::.Q~ -1 G·~·-o." uJ
1DP OF WALL ELE.VA110N ; i c..ONs\{Z.UCT CONCrz..e..iE,; !
, VA \2. Y.LfOrz.
E:LE.V.A:TION<':' I' I PO';:;)T ANO fZ.A.\l-ING .Y J
SE::: C~'55 SECTIONS 'j I) .' :
~ PLAN DIAG'S, 2133 ;::>ST- E')<.\,;:>TINC-;; 'OiONG. WALL. ~
WEEP HOLE 21, '2 2 ~ 2:::> \1 "NO e,b.,\LING TO ~E UJ
\'DlAtv1ATE:R 1'0' C./G. \' ' • OEMOL..\e;;,KE.D :(
U I / ..: 4 ZIP-~"'P .; ~I
~=~--",,-i=:~===::J .1.. : ~PE.C''''L. ZONE. . ::J
~iR.UCTUlZAL ~.
0 '_

SeLE:CT FILl-
(SEE 5PECIFICAilONS)
4' +
- - t::\.... -&.0 J ..'
,
2cO
F~etz.\C
F\I.. "E:~ ~ 1 , ' , ,'. '~
(seE 5PE:CE'F~CATION5)
~. - I·'
'0\ I ~
,_~ ~!=~HW. EL.4.7..~'::J 0
\.0
.L ~J.= ."/ .... " -R-
r-(--r
__~.\....w. Et..O.OO~1

,-.~ ~_.- -~--- --¥h

-! -(

. , ,- I

&&f) i
l

dlKC;'i1
th.j I 'C.C:C::.-l~
'. "-- I ,;.
~
...

E.')(.CAVATION L\NE. -~--- 1~7'. - L!:~ _.j~r-o" ,

, E.'X\ST. (2.IP-Q../>."P
CON'OTR.\Jc:r CONe GR..,b..'J\l1' WALl- " -
~,_~~~'r __
.
I I

•
... 'TYP'C~L ~ECT\ON N- N"
(A, ~I.O\A/.AT~~ HO~P''''lloo..'.-)
(FIZOM COlA. 1-tG,'2.,:t. 10 ~T~. \~+~G:o±.)
SCALE. ~~": "-0"
:
SAFE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
rYPE. OF- MJ\TE.fZ.IAL. 1'0 re>e. U<;:,E.D FoR.- !ZIP-IZAt='
_E.GEND: -- - - - - - _.
- - - - - - - FOR EVERYONE, INC.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
) ~IP-re.AP COV'E.R. LA..... E.R. 'SHA.LL. HA'IEt 5TONE5
rl.ANG>ING:> Fre.OM 1!:>O I.~':>. TO l'l.o;,O I.e.&. (ZI INCHE.':> TO '1.1INCtle-:. I - - - - - - - - - - - - - ROOSEVELT ISLAND
"'T I.EAo:.t 1&.,.. 8'( We.IC>HT,OF PAR-Tlel.E.& 51-1 .... ~\- ~e e>ETYoIeSN -- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -_._" -
f-- - - - - - - - - -- . RECONSTRUCTION OF SEAWALL AND
-- - - _. -' -- - - - -
'!lOO l.e~. AND IZ&o 1.e>&,ll.A AND '2.1 INCHE.,::»
D rz.IP- eAr-> UNOl!~lA,(Ell. !-HIl,I.L. 1-I"'\iG ,&ToNe t:> llANG.II·-!G> FIlO ~

~
1& U?>!>. TO I'2.'i> I.~'<!o. (10 'NCHe.S TO I'l. INCH!:.'i»
rz.IP, lZ.A.P lZANooM Z-ONE. 'OHP-'-'- HA.VE bTONE.-:'
~"'NGING. ,FeoM & 1.e.~,TO 1&0 1.e.&.(4 INCHG& TO ZI INCHeo:.}
-'

-- - -
-
- - - - - - - -- _. - ~
=1 .._. PROMENADE AT THE BIRD S, COLER
AND GOLDWATER HOSPITALS

= ==--==
"'T LE"",:>1 1",,'/D P.,,( We.IC:lHT, OF PAIt..TICI.e..,. o;,HJl.I.L. e.e: E!>IHweeH
- '- -- - - - - I- - - -
9
~o l.fb&. 10 ,~O L.e>, ('llINCHE:S TO 'Z.I INCH6.":». .
RIP- ~",r- ,::OPE-C, .....\..- 'Z.ONl:: SI-I..... L.L CON,:>I'i:>T of ~"ONE:!>
&E.Le.c:..TE.CO FIZOM Tt-Ie. 'bTONE. PA.IZ.TICI.6o:. Prz.OOUC60
•

= ~

S._.i~ ~~: !!.~

~ o:'?,: ~lt. JI(. _ r:; __
~ -:- --=_. w- e, ID~
-=- ,ii."~ ~~~l~~!1~T~~ ~ ~_ . rc G,/?-:~~.~,:!!!!:!..nc::
-,
..- DETAILS

S~~~~ _ _
FIZ.Ol-1 OEMOI.ITION OF "",.ONe. WAL.L. AT GOI..DWATrarz..
HO~PIT""\.. ....2:.6...... 'THE: I"AIt.TICI.E.& &H....I.L. WEIGH e>E.'WE.EN

' ' '-1.

'ZOo I.b!:o TO ~'i>OO I.e>::' l!4INCHE."" TO ~" INC-HE.51 AT \.e.A~T
__
---,-- " "(\i' "".R. F.L.
-- -_._.- ~
- -- E
'I'(C 1':'1lI~ 4. '~~I~II'''~'' N'f'l'UU'\.
. ..'.... 101.1111.'·101. ('-'''DOC'...,
•.. ,,,.
ICAU,

I'
AS

e'( WEIC>HT OF- PAlt.r1CLeS ::.H.... L~ ~Ii P.>E.TNe;,E.N.

~o \.e.~ 10 ,:>"'00 I.e."" (I61N:He.~.. To ?>Go INCt-le.5).
_<lIlO 1IW'
''::' .......... ,..,
•
uc._ ... -..-
m~~'L" ..=:=,
In( ..... II C
'UUCP 'P=_,'-:-.-'.O_~t.I.~~~~.~._. __
M' ~I'I

•
.1·', "
,.

• •
~

•
:.=-- 2 33PS r 27
-

I
00 I
 APPENDIX VI
PROJECT DESIGN FOR
SOUTHEND.
 Roosevelt Island - SFO
C'
Project Design

The following processes and conditions were used to complete final design of the selected sheet
pile wall alternative for the southern end of Roosevelt Island.

General Conditions. The final selection for shoreline protection for the Roosevelt Island, NY
Southern Reach area was based on cost considerations. Of the three wall alternatives determined
in Phase I of the project study, the vinyl sheet piling wall provided the lowest cost project as well
as favorable maintenance for the constructed project. Accordingly, a final design ofthe vinyl
sheet pile wall was completed using conditions for an event with a 100 year return. interval,
which is slightly less than the December 1992 storm.

Height Determination. The predicted storm surge elevation for the project area for a 100 year
return. period event was determined to be 12.7 ft (Belmont Island Datum). For the design of the
sheet pile wall, a height of elevation 16.5 ft (Belmont Island Datum) was used to provide
protection against possible overtopping damages of the wall, due to wave action, for such an
event. Runup and overtopping values were determined using methods from the Shore Protection
Manual (Reference 1). The resulting overtopping was found to be minimal for the chosen wall
height.

Alignment. The alignment of the wall was determined to be 12 to 15 ft setback from the
shoreline based on the following criteria: to provide the maximum area landward ofthe
bulkhead and to have fronting earth for the wall in order to utilize vinyl sheeting. By placing the
wall closer to the shoreline, higher than allowable bending moments would be induced in the
vinyl sheeting; a more costly (initial cost and maintenance) steel sheeting would then be
required. In addition, the alignment was determined in straight segments (with lengths and
bearings as shown on the plan sheet) as opposed to following the curved line of the shoreline for
ease of construction. During Plans and Specs, borings should be accomplished along the
alignment to determine the existence of boulder fields. It was assumed that the rock line is
lower than elevation -2.2 Belmont Island Datum (the tip elevation of the sheet pile) which based
on borings near the shoreline at other parts of the Island appear correct; ifborings indicate
otherwise, the cost of sheet pile will increase moderately for anchoring into rock, but the design
will not be compromised. Also, during driving of sheet piling, to be conservative, it was
assumed that boulders will be encountered, but a steel sheet pile mandrel, encompassing the
vinyl sheeting, will be used to break through the boulders. This mandrel will be extracted once,
the vinyl sheeting is fully driven.

Maintenance. An advantage to having the sheet pile wall set back from the shoreline is the fact
that the exposed portion of the sheet piling will be above the mean high water line, so discoloring

-_._~
of the sheet piling will not occur. This enhances the advantage of vinyl sheeting which is
virtually maintenance free.

Stationing. An east and a west stationing method was chosen as shown on the plan view.
Stations are labeled every 100 ft starting from the southern end of the project limit, with a label
of "0+00 E" indicating the beginning of the east section of the wall and a label of "0+00 W"
indicating the beginning of the west section of the wall. A total linear foot of wall of
approximately 3,400 ft was determined for the entire project area.

Design Calculations. An outline of the design assumptions and calculations is as shown below.
Details of all calculations are shown on the attached sheets 1-7. Methods used for design
calculations are from the references listed at the end of this document.
A. Anchored Sheet Pile wall:
1. A surcharge of 100 Ib/ft2 was assumed, which is representative of pedestrian and light
to medium vehicular loading within 25 feet of the bulkhead.
2. Granular soil type, with a saturated unit weight of 110 Ib/ft3 , a submerged unit weight
of 65 Ib/ft3, and angle of internal friction of 30°, was used.
3. The friction between the sheet piling and the soil was assumed to be zero to be
conservative.
4. The free earth support method of design for an anchored sheet pile wall was used and
. maximum design moments were determined for the following 3 conditions:
Condition I - 100 year design surge (el. +12.7) and breaking wave (5.1 ft) attacking
the bulkhead with saturated earth on the landside of the bulkhead.
Condition II - A mean low water (el. +0.3) condition on the seaside of the bulkhead
and saturated earth on the landside.
Condition III - A river water surface of elevation +7.5 (grade elevation of fronting
earth) and saturated earth on the landside of the bulkhead.
(a) For Condition I, water surge elevation and wave forces were counter-balanced
by the passive earth pressure from the landside of the bulkhead and therefore did
not lead to maximum depth of penetration or bending moment conditions.
(b) For Condition II, the depth of penetration was calculated to be 5.7 ft with a
maximum bending moment of2,048 ft-Ib.
(c) For Condition III, the depth of penetration was calculated to be 9.7 ft (8.8 ft
per design + 10% to account for soil uncertainty) with a maximum bending
moment of 3,231 ft-lb.
Condition III is therefore the design condition. All three conditions utilized a reduced
coefficient of passive pressure due to a sloping frontal earth foundation and negated
the passive resistance of the top 0.5 ft of earth/stone below grade.
5. The passive pressure coefficient was reduced and the top 0.5 ft below grade is
considered non-contributory toward passive resistance.
6. Shoreguard series 500 vinyl sheet piling or equivalent is required for use since its
allowable moment of 4,223 ft-Ib exceeds the design moment of 3,231 ft-Ib.

2
 7. An anchorage system for the sheet pile wall was designed as follows:
(a) The location of the anchor was determined to be 23 ft from the sheet piling so that
it is positioned outside of the active failure zone of the sheet piling and the passive
failure zone of the anchor slab.
(b) Tied rods were designed by determining the anchor pull per each tie rod, using a
tie rod spacing of 10ft and assuming that the rods will be horizontal with the ground.
A size of 1 3/8" diameter upset to 1 7/8" diameter was obtained assuming ASTM
A36 steel for each tie rod.
(c) The continuous wales were designed assuming ASTM A36 steel and by assuming
a structural condition whereby walings are between a single span condition and a
continuous beam condition. A section modulus of 6.15 in3 was determined for each
channel and 2 C7x12.25 channels were chosen to provide the required total. Wales
will be bolted to the sheet piling and bolted with separators to each other.
(d) Pre-cast reinforced concrete deadmen located 2 ft below the ground surface were
designed with the following dimensions with a factor of safety of 1.2:
H (distance from the base of the slab to the ground surface) = 7ft
h (height of the anchor slab) = 5 ft
w (width of the anchor slab) = 15 in
1(length of the anchor slab) = 15 ft
s (spacing between anchor slabs) = 5 ft
z (location of the tie rod from the base of the slab) = 2.5 ft

B. The armor stone to cover concrete (to be demolished from the existing fronting wall and

c reused as underlayer) is sized at )/3 ton to Y:z ton which is consistent with existing riprap
used for bank protection in the area and which is performing satisfactorily. Due to the
relatively low current velocity environment at the southern reaches of Roosevelt Island,
comprehensive shoreline stabilization from erosion is not required.

C. Overtopping of the Sheet Pile wall:

Runup, per the SPM (Reference 1), was calculated using the parameters for the 100 year
return period event, design still water level (SWL = 12.7 ft), period (T = 3.5 sec) and
deep water wave height (H' 0 = 5.1 ft). The elevation at the toe of the wall was
determined to be 10.0 ft, which is the height to which the armor stone was designed to
extend to. Figure 7-14 and 7-13 from the SPM were used to determine runup and Figure
7-24 was used to obtain parameters needed to calculate the overtopping rate. The
overtopping rate for the designed wall was determined to be 0.018 ft 3/sec/ft of wall. Due
to virtually no overtopping effects, the landside of the bulkhead can be grassed or paved.
Overtopping in excess of 0.2 ft 3/sec/ft of wall is considered to require a splash blanket.

Timber Cap. Atimber cap of 6"x12" cross section will be attached to the sheet pile bulkhead
along its total length as shown on the typical cross section sheet and serves to anchor aluminum
railing.

o
3
 Aluminum Railing. 4 ft high aluminum railings as shown on the typical cross section
sheet will be added to the top of the sheet pile bulkhead for safety considerations.

Plates. A typical cross-section of the sheet pile bulkhead, including reaches where a
fronting existing concrete wall will be demolished and used for underlayer, is shown on
Plate 1. A top view of the wall including the anchor system is shown as Plate 2. An
isometric view ofthe design sheet pile wall is shown on Plate 3, and a full-scale plan
view showing the alignment of the wall and location of the anchorage system is including
as Sheet No. 1

Project Costs

GeneraL Project costs are displayed in Table 1. January 1999 price levels are utilized
with a resulting total cost of$3,357,300. This included 12% for contingencies due to
potential quantity increases from updated surveys, 7% for engineering and design to
develop plans and specifications including obtaining additional borings and 8% for
construction management. These percentages are applied to the total direct construction
cost of $2,606,500. Costs for Vinyl sheeting include the employment of a leased mandrel
(included in mob and demob) to drive piling through any boulders encountered. All
materials are assumed to be trucked to the project site. Clearing and grubbing costs
included removal of all surface debris and vegetation. It is noted that precast reinforced
concrete for the tie rod anchoring is included since there is an approximately 25%

o reduction in cost compared with cast-in-place concrete. Construction duration should last
between 5 and 7 months. Construction is to be accomplished using land based equipment.
Select backfilled is to be used in the vicinity ofthe concrete deadman to better guarantee
required soil strength in lieu of the questionable strength of existing backfill to be
excavated at the site.

Comparison With Preliminary Costs Preliminary costs provided previously purposely

omitted several items (included herein) that were common to all alternatives and
therefore not used previously when comparing alternatives. These items included mob
and demob @ $150,000, clearing and grubbing @ $45,000, contingencies @ $313,000,
engineering and design and construction management @ $438,000, and a net $7,000
decreases in the wall system from an increase in depth and a decrease due to refinement
of the design of the wales and tie rods. In addition, the demolition of approximately 1,350
linear foot of existing concrete wall and reuse as underlayer with overlaying riprap was
included for aesthetics @ $276,00. These cost additives total $1,215,000 which when
subtracted from the $3,357,000 total leaves $2,142,000.

(J
4

------ -----------~-~--- --~-~---~----------------~------------~------------------------._----

 TABLEl
C' Price Estimate
Roosevelt Island New Bulkhead

Estimated Unit Estimate

Description Quantity Unit Price Amount
Vinyl Sheeting 63,600 sofo $14 $ 890,400
Steel Wales 71,400 lb $2 $ 142,800
Tie Rods 47,100 lb $1.50 $ 70,700
Precast Concrete Deadman 600 Coy. $475 $ 285,000
Timber Pile Cap 20.4 MBF $3,000 $ 61,200
Aluminum Railing 3,400 I.f. $35 $ 119,000
Excavation & Backfill 15,700 Coy. $10 $ 157,000
Select Backfill 15,300 c.y. $23 $ 351,900
Concrete Demolition for
Underlayer Stone 1,000 c.y. $150 $ 150,000
Clearing & Grubbing 3 Ac $15,000 $ 45,000
Surface Treatment 2.3 Ac $25,000 $ 57,500
Riprap Armor 2,100 ton $60 $ 126,000
Mob & Demob job L.S. $ 150,000
Subtotal $2,606,500
Contingency (12%) $ 312,800
Cj Subtotal
E&D(7%)
$2,919,300
$ 204,400
Construction Management (8%) $ 233,600

Total $3,357,300

)
·c···
..."

5
c' References

1. Shore Protection Manual, Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1984.

2. USS (United States Steel) Steel Sheet Piling Design Manual, July 1975.

3. AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.) Manual of Steel Construction,

Allowable Stress Design, 9th Edition, January 1991.

4. Engineering Manual (EM 1110-2-1614), Engineering and Design, Design of Coastal

Revetments, Seawalls, and Bulkheads, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, June
1995.

·0
6
 -(f)':--l--~-'~'
I ~
Z- I
. 0
.o
:-
101.("
_
.-
~
J i
--
,,\
.
w ::: v'
~.
r-
(f)
,_J
I~-J.i
. 'f ~
N
Z <i I
U.J ~ ;':';
~
l..t.i
IJJ I ~
i'
~ B I ~) ~
0 Cl
--l ",--' "(' p,
CL~j :: t<t;
. ~' if) ,(,,1,/,
....I".z d ","~,;. u ;
'I,', , .. :
: "'-i.,. _•• '.
;~ 0, ,:,.:~:,
", _" m'~
,0_ 1- ~
() J
0.:: IJJ I I
II -J
_..I
(J) I' <..O;j
L() ~~I ~
I
I -~------ S;iJ'Lij I
,;t; r~Q)i\.1
I ~CO I
"2' <r
ti
,-:::.
"J, 1,:--':"--- I 0
lJJ
(I) II: ~ U 1~'1 I
• V)'
11.1 I-
...() Z '
~ w I
--I
__I to. ~ :c I
<i ~ IJJ t ,vo\
~I . ~ 0 l "V
~ , '
.:J ~:,'
IJ .<,' " ',' "
~ -< 0 _ -r ~
u--l l/1!
.. ,,~ .
t? Q.. lJ~ ~~ I
','~:':
ll!. <;., .: ,"'
"0,
1""'-
I{)

'i~ ;I~
...., . '
. ~~
J
'I
~., ~ W. Cl
c: -
I !
'-
0),,'
~.) (J) ()
~
w :!
'><
LU I ' L.
o
,..,_
L.t-
0
:<: l
- !
I, )
G ~ OJ 1- ';
\II Z CL (j) U 'I
c{, -:: ':
"0 ..U z·
, -~ IX .- 0:
1-' 1
~ ;~:!
"
....
~'l-
L

.........
.-r
:>-
~
~
ld
;.
o :;:. U.J
-.
-,
-<
I 0
1-
0
u
i
i"
9
I.. :::" \ :i :< u:
I.,J
1.1 ,
..n
;;:
"~I
i ~
-.
-~l
<l
~',

"
'
~j -,
.1, • I ...
Q
\J ~
'Q" ".

~
<::t'''' I,
I : j ','
~<r
lL! l" I'"
";l-.1Il
'0
'l /
C)
\.::.
\.)
l1J
~)
. '
':.'
.
'.'
u o Q
 co
----------t-----~-_1_------_+_------,---"----- .- - - t _ - - - - - -
I, I -Ja '" ~ . 0 I f (J'1.•J ...;t.:5 /. "'1
~ //- ~ .~ ~/: , t - , t?/. ()-'f,./-:Y9 J ')
.,6.:.//1?/ " I~.s- ; Jt;. ../ :,/o'e .. fI 'I J~
.
,. "( -,lI
" r ; t.
" //~ / ,I It.5·, i i , 0 J - C (-lS? J:5 -.
"":1ft"'4..L.~ V
(/ ~ q~"S.('f ./
4 6 -, I.- II 6-,J' " I~ 1-, f I ,Of.> ~ A (.is) /C(
o·eJ u .... ,,, "
" /J/ - .I ~ .4 'j - ~ I> " .,A" /r., { I Ot.. 4 - X . (.LS)>>' h.>
I.1- ,01 I. -;, {-. .., ~ I. ,0-:1'1: - X ~s)1f $5
't6-,~ ;.8-,/ II hy-/~I ,(2/1- A1 (.IS) 1.-5
.. I1-
-----/,-~-,--;-/--l---'-, -/-/--./--..:8..----1- - - - - ) - ,----t---<l-sr·_-,-:;r?~/;---j--,-;()i)A':-c;-- :k (l5
-·------/I-h-j-..>-,-I-·---.}-/~--/-....>---I-----)I---I---" /1-
-,--:..,r=---/-(}/--:---I--,-()/f--,:---- £h---"
II
oIJ'd -s ~
110/ -, ~ ~. 6 I L It L-, Z Ib '
'1/'1. 1../-(;/,1"97 -g
d(/Yt./{JY ~.L (i.rll/1IJ;Y;:/ J...M -z/ "",/
------ -
f/Y l?O?/~ oJ
:;lJN(/J SIr;
, . rfl1/-loW/1'97-rf
J) f(/J9 Y -11-£(/11
/YO /..,f()'119'7-g 7, v/11 -;If? r:/ ().../. )7~/?1 -:/?,/o.L _...
'c!-(I(j elf;!
A.9/12;'/15 (l4f/7
r/ f)f.l tJ ., t1-r
..5#::JSJ1 7!J -;JIVI::JP/d :;ZJ!o//s
'1~/ ,t(jtJ 11 () 5 :I:
{/-£-8J(f d-f/Y d ( Y 1JNNI)J. J-v (19.1 S -: ].5
u o o
 G 1lTIZ] !~
I ' J!] r

~
US ARMY CORPS PRESCAST REINFORCED

r
OF ENGINEERS 41HIGH A CONCRETE DEADMAN ---~
BOLT TUBULAR LUMINUM
, RAILING (lSI LONG)
PLATE
WASHER C7x12.25
(TOP & BOTTOM) ." 23 1
~I

r
ill '" !

1%1" )2f TIE ROD

FINISHED SURF ACE
~
6" X 12"

II
It
... ". i
TIMBER CAP \
, ELEV.
16.5
PAVEMENT/GRASS

VINYL /j
SHEET~ I
'I

I L 1

I
! //fi/f 21
PILE
!II

DETAIL A
'\ '" SPLICE PLATE
DOUBLE
CHANNEL WALE
! I
14'-6"
13h ")2f
TIE ROD
,
1

L-· ......
......--1
(CONTINUOUS)
" ( ,I. ...... -",""" 5'

-
(
'-"1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \ \ / ...... - I
I I

c~ EXISTING CONCRETE WALL: :

I I
DETAIL A , COMPACTED
SELECT FILL

~COMPACTED L10'~
ST A. 10+14W - 16+95W I I
AND ST A. 10+25E - ~ ELEV.
16+98E. SEE NOTE ':: VARIES7 \ ~11-3"
BELOW. I I
I I
,'- \ COMMON FILL

I I L APPROXIMATE EXISTING
I I GROUND SURFACE
I I

ARMOR STONE
I
I
1/3 TON - YZTON\ I
. I
I
I
I
I
I
r H1GH STRENGTH VINYL
SHEET PILING
NOTES: 1. THE EXISTING ,CONCRETE
ST A. 10+14W & 16'+95W AND
SHALL BE DEMOLISHED AND
STONE. EVERYWHERE ELSE,
WALL BETWEEN
5T A. 10+25E & 16+98E
USED AS UNDERLAYER
FRONTING GRADES ARE
- ELEV. -2.2 TO BE LEFT UNDISTURBED.
2. ALL ELEVATIONS REFERENCED TO FT. BELMONT
.. 15' ~I1
ISLAND DATUM.
I

ROOSEVELT I ISLAND, NEW YORK

-' SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT
C
... "

--7
4 3 2 1 0 4

TYPICAL CROSS SECTION - BULKHEAD

seAL E: 1/ 4 " = l' - 0 "
PLATE
, 1 9
 US ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS
'..
I
5'
. ..
'
I
15'
...'I
I

I
I I
!
I III
III
III . I l' 3" I~III
1 I
IiI
III I
I
PRESCAST REINFORCED I
1[.
CONCRETE DEADMAN I
I!

Ii:
III
II
1 18" rd ~
3
I

TIE ROD "\.

23'
(7

4' HIGH ALUMINUM

DOUBLE C7x12.25 TUBULAR RAILING
CHANNEL WALE -~\
(C 0 NTIN Uo'U S)
6" X 12" SPLICE PLATE
HIGH STRENGTH VINYL
\IMBER CAP . SHEET PILlNG7
III ,
1/3 TON - YzTON -~
ARMOR STONE

ROOSEVELT ISLAND, NEW YORK

C) SHORE P.R(JTECTION PROJECT
TYPICAL PL~N VIEW - BULKHEAD 10
'PLATE 2