HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

March 2006

Prepared for:


Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve


Hudson River Estuary Program

New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission

Prepared by:
Alden Research Laboratory, Inc.
Gregory Allen, Civil Engineer
Thomas Cook, P.E., Director of Environmental Services
Edward Taft, President

ASA Analysis & Communications, Inc.
John Young, Ph.D., Senior Scientist
David Mosier, Scientist
ALDEN
Solving Flow Problems Since 1894
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS



This report was prepared by ASA Analysis and Communications, Inc. and Alden Research
Laboratory, Inc. under award NA03NOS4200141 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. The statements, findings, conclusions, and
recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the Department of Commerce.


HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS


i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Hudson River Estuary shoreline,
extending from the river’s mouth in New
York City to the Troy Dam, is very different
today from the shoreline that existed when
Henry Hudson first sailed up the river in
1609. The shoreline has undergone constant
natural erosional and depositional processes,
and has been subject to human modification
on a significant scale since the time of
European settlement of the valley.
Modifications have included dredging a
navigation channel, disposal of dredged
material which created new islands and
connected and expanded existing islands,
creation of railroad beds on both sides of the
river, installation of hardened shoreline
structures, marinas, docking facilities, and
other development. The cumulative result
of these activities has adversely affected
both the quality and quantity of the riparian
and near shore aquatic habitat. The natural
ecological communities that existed prior to
these activities have been transformed to
cultural (modified) communities that may
not perform the same ecological functions as
habitat for fish and wildlife. In addition,
these modified areas may not provide other
amenities, such as aesthetic enjoyment, or
opportunities to fish, swim, or otherwise use
the estuary.
The Hudson River National Estuarine
Research Reserve (Reserve) and the Hudson
River Estuary Program (both part of the
New York State, Department of
Environmental Conservation [NYSDEC]),
in conjunction with the New England
Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission, contracted ASA Analysis &
Communication (ASA) and Alden Research
Laboratory, Inc. (Alden) to investigate
options for restoring both ecological and
sociological functions by enhancing
shoreline habitats through “soft engineering”
technologies. The project was completed by
conducting the following tasks:
A review of available literature on
shoreline stabilization methods
Field survey of potential shoreline
restoration sites in the Hudson River
Estuary
Evaluation of preliminary designs for
five example shoreline restoration sites
Description of the regulatory process for
conducting the restoration projects
This report presents the literature review, a
synthesis of the field survey, an evaluation
of five potential shoreline restoration sites,
and a summary of the regulatory process.
Literature Review
River bank stabilization techniques found in
literature that have potential to improve
aquatic habitat for fish were reviewed.
Initially, information on all available
techniques was reviewed. It was found that
the majority of the information applies to
restoration of small fresh water rivers and
streams. However, some of the techniques
were deemed to be potentially appropriate
for the tidal Hudson River Estuary.
The literature search was performed
electronically. Reference databases that
were queried included:
Ingenta
EBSCOHost
Scientific Research
Illumina
Engineering Village
USACE
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

ii
ASCE
NRCS
University reference libraries (University of
Massachusetts and Pennsylvania State
University) were accessed to obtain
references that could not be obtained
directly off the internet.
Much of the information on techniques
applicable to the Hudson River came from a
number of comprehensive review documents
(FISRWG 1998, USDA NRCS 1996,
GSWCC 2000, Allen and Leech 1997, Gray
and Sotir 1996, Schiechtl 1980, Schiechtl
and Stern 1997, Landphair and Li 2002).
Stabilization methods were considered
appropriate for Hudson River application if
they could withstand a shear stress greater
than 2.5 lbs/ft
2
. This shear stress was
chosen because it is equivalent to the
limiting shear stress for six inch riprap,
which was considered to be the minimum
required for the majority of shoreline along
the Hudson River Estuary. The following
five restoration techniques were identified
from the literature review as being
appropriate:
Vegetated Geogrids – Brush layering
with each soil layer wrapped in a
geosynthetic material
Live Crib Wall – Box like arrangement
of interlocking logs, timbers, pre-cast
concrete or plastic structural members.
The crib is filled with layers of soil and
live cuttings.
Brush mattresses – Live cuttings with
branches on the slope with butt ends
keyed into toe protection. The branches
are layered in a criss-cross overlapping
pattern and secured with wire and dead
stout stakes. A rock toe or fascine is
used for toe protection.
Joint Planting – Riprap slope with live
stakes driven into the joints between the
rocks.
Vegetated Rock Gabion Walls or
Mattresses – Gabion baskets made of
welded or twisted wire tied together and
filled with rocks. The baskets are
stacked like bricks (gabion wall) with a
layer of soil and live cuttings between
each course of baskets. Alternatively,
the baskets could be laid out on a slope
like tiles (gabion mattress) with soil and
live cuttings between baskets.
Surveys and Site Selection
River surveys of the estuary shoreline were
conducted to qualitatively assess the current
types, and condition of natural and
engineered shoreline habitats between
Piermont Marsh and Troy Dam.
Information obtained from the river surveys
was used to choose five shoreline sites to
develop preliminary designs as examples of
soft shoreline restoration using the
techniques identified in the literature review.
An initial survey of the Hudson River
Estuary conducted in August 2005 provided
a visual survey of the entire Hudson River
Estuary shoreline targeted for the restoration
analysis. Information gathered from this
survey was used to prepare a list of
candidate example sites to be considered for
a detailed evaluation of alternative shoreline
protection measures.
A total of 11 potential sites were identified
distributed throughout the Hudson River
Estuary. These sites were provided to the
project team for consideration. The sites
were assessed based on the following
criteria:
Shoreline type
Current condition
Opportunity for improvement
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

iii
Regional distribution of all proposed
sites
Landscape context (urban/rural)
Project applicability to other sites in the
Hudson River Estuary
Site specific consideration
The team selected five out of the eleven sites
for development of preliminary “soft
engineering” designs as examples that could
be used throughout the estuary. These sites
were chosen due to perceived advantages
over the other six candidate sites:
1. Bowline Point Park, Haverstraw
2. Newburgh
3. Poughkeepsie
4. Henry Hudson Park, Bethlehem
5. Campbell Island, Castleton on the
Hudson
The five sites were further evaluated and
preliminary designs were developed. The
soft engineering techniques identified from
the literature review were considered at each
example site. The evaluation of each
shoreline site included:
hydraulic conditions,
erosion and sediment conditions,
construction considerations,
estimated costs,
project operation and maintenance
requirements,
expected benefits
Each technique identified was qualitatively
screened for potential application at the five
selected shoreline restoration example sites.
The joint planting stabilization technique
was considered to be the most appropriate
for application most of the sites. This
alternative was the most flexible to
incorporate into retrofit designs. Most sites
have portions of existing rock slopes or
slopes that could be simply modified to
accommodate live stake installations. Other
alternatives required extensive excavation,
grubbing, and redesign of the entire
shorelines.
The shoreline restoration modifications
ranged from $75/ft at Bowline Park to
$983/ft at Campbell Island. The main
factors that affected the installation costs
were shoreline access and the amount the
slope had to be cut back (excavation). At
Bowline Point Park, the shoreline is
accessible from shore and would not require
extensive slope re-grading. By contrast,
Campbell Island would require a significant
slope cut and is only accessible using barge
mounted equipment.
Unit costs for joint planting ranged from
$3.75/ft
2
at Bowline Point Park to $36.63/ft
2

at Campbell Island. The available literature
listed joint planting costs ranging from $1/ft
2

to $5/ft
2
, not including riprap or site
excavation. These costs compare well with
our developed costs if you consider the
extent of riprap and excavation required for
each site. The available literature listed
vegetative geogrid costs ranging from
$16/ft
2
to $37/ft
2
. The literature reported
cost is about 50% less than the developed
costs for vegetative geogrids at Campbell
Island ($65.50/ft
2
). The higher cost at
Campbell Island is likely due to barge
mounted equipment and excessive
excavation.
Recommendations
Baseline data should be gathered before
implementation of a restoration project to
determine the net benefits of the shore line
treatment. After the project is implemented
follow-up monitoring should be conducted
and the data compared for several years.
The following information should be
gathered before and monitored after
implementation of a project:
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

iv
Bank stability
Assessment of riparian plantings
Emergent vegetation assessment
Assessment of refuge/spawning habitats
and overall fish use.
Assessment of riparian wildlife habitat


HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Alden and ASA would like to thank staff of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve, Hudson River Estuary
Program and the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission for input, and
assistance for this project. We would also like to thank the New York State Department of State
staff for providing useful comments and advice. Specific personnel acknowledgements include:
Daniel Miller, Habitat Restoration Coordinator, Hudson River Estuary Program. Dan was the
Project Manager and provided input and guidance to all aspects of the project including a
thorough tour of the entire Hudson River Estuary.
Geofrey Eckerlin, Environmental Analyst, Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve.
Geof provided valuable assistance conducting the river surveys and piloting the boat.
Emilie Hauser, Coastal Training Program Coordinator, Hudson River National Estuarine
Research Reserve. Emilie provided input and guidance in developing this report and
implementing a training program.
Daniel Giza, Biologist, Alden Research Laboratory. Dan was an integral part of the shoreline
river surveys.

HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

vi
Table of Contents
Section 1 Introduction................................................................................................................... 1
Section 2 Hudson River Estuary Shoreline..................................................................................... 2
Morphometry .............................................................................................................................. 2
Erosional Forces.......................................................................................................................... 2
Ecological Communities............................................................................................................. 5
Habitats & Communities............................................................................................................. 6
Habitat Modifications ................................................................................................................. 8
Shoreline Hardening ................................................................................................................... 8
Section 3 A Synthesis of Literature on Shoreline Stabilization Methods and Habitat
Enhancements Applicable to the Hudson River Estuary................................................................ 9
Review of Available Literature Applicable to the Hudson River............................................... 9
Alternative Shoreline Stabilization Methods............................................................................ 15
Applicability (of) Existing Shorelines ...................................................................................... 27
Vegetation for Stabilization Methods ....................................................................................... 27
Costs.......................................................................................................................................... 28
Section 4 Estuary Shoreline River Surveys and Selection of Shoreline Restoration Sites for Case
Studies of “Soft Engineering” Design .......................................................................................... 31
Initial Shoreline River Survey .................................................................................................. 31
Selection of Restoration Sites for Preliminary “Soft Engineering” Designs............................ 31
Section 5 Preliminary “Soft Engineering” Designs and Detailed Evaluation of Selected Shoreline
Example Sites................................................................................................................................ 39
Detailed Shoreline Survey of Selected Sites............................................................................. 39
Bowline Point Park ................................................................................................................... 41
Newburgh.................................................................................................................................. 53
Poughkeepsie ............................................................................................................................ 61
Henry Hudson Park................................................................................................................... 72
Campbell Island ........................................................................................................................ 81
Section 6 Regulatory Requirements.............................................................................................. 92
Section 7 Summary and Recommendations ................................................................................. 97
Summary................................................................................................................................... 97
Recommendations................................................................................................................... 100
Section 8 References................................................................................................................... 101
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

vii
Appendix A, Glossary
Appendix B, Plants for Soil Bioengineering and Associated Systems for the Northeast Region
Appendix C, Cost Estimates
Appendix D, Vendors for bioengineering products


HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

viii
List of Tables
Table 1 Hudson River Morphometry............................................................................................. 3
Table 2 Available River Bank Stabilization Techniques
1
............................................................ 11
Table 3 Permissible Shear Stress and Velocity for Selected Lining Materials (Fischenich 2001)
............................................................................................................................................... 14
Table 4 Stress and Velocity Levels for Vegetated Geogrid (Sotir and Fischenich 2003) ........... 16
Table 5 Stress and Velocity Levels for the Brush mattress (Allen and Fischenich 2000)........... 22
Table 6 Allowable Velocities for Rock Gabions (Chaychuk 2005) ............................................ 25
Table 7 Approximate Costs of Riverbank Stabilization Technique
1
........................................... 29
Table 8 Vegetative and Bioengineering Labor Estimates (Allen and Fischenich 2000) ............. 30
Table 9 NYSDEC Division of Environmental Permits Regional Offices ................................... 94
Table 10 Local governmental agencies that have reached the local adoption stage of a Local
Waterfront Revitalization Plan as of February 1, 2006 (Source: NYS Department of State
http://www.nyswaterfronts.com/downloads/pdfs/LWRP_Status_Sheet.pdf)....................... 96
Table 11 Evaluation Summary..................................................................................................... 98


HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

ix
List of Figures
Figure 1 Tidal Zones...................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2 Vegetated Geogrid (USDA NRCS 1996)...................................................................... 16
Figure 3 Live Crib Wall (USDA NRCS 1996)............................................................................ 18
Figure 4 Existing Shoreline (similar to Joint Planting design) .................................................... 19
Figure 5 Joint Planting (USDA NRCS 1996) .............................................................................. 20
Figure 6 Vegetative Cellular Concrete Block (USDA NRCS 1996)........................................... 20
Figure 7 Brush Mattress (USDA NRCS 1996)............................................................................ 23
Figure 8 Vegetative Rock Gabion Wall (USDA NRCS 1996).................................................... 26
Figure 9 Vegetative Rock Gabion Mattress (Allen and Leech 1997).......................................... 26
Figure 10 Hudson River Selected Shoreline Stabilization Sites.................................................. 40
Figure 11 Bowline Park General Vicinity ................................................................................... 46
Figure 12 Bowline Park, Existing Conditions Plan ..................................................................... 47
Figure 13 Bowline Park, Existing Conditions Section A ............................................................ 48
Figure 14 Bowline Park, Existing Conditions Section B............................................................. 49
Figure 15 Bowline Point Park Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Cross Section .................. 50
Figure 16 Bowline Park Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Cross Section A........................ 51
Figure 17 Bowline Park Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Cross Section B........................ 52
Figure 18 Newburgh, General Vicinity ....................................................................................... 56
Figure 19 Newburgh, Existing Conditions Plan .......................................................................... 57
Figure 20 Newburgh, Existing Conditions Section A ................................................................. 58
Figure 21 Newburgh, Existing Conditions Section B.................................................................. 59
Figure 22 Newburgh Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Cross Section................................. 60
Figure 23 Poughkeepsie General Vicinity................................................................................... 65
Figure 24 Poughkeepsie Existing Conditions Plan...................................................................... 66
Figure 25 Poughkeepsie Existing Conditions Section A............................................................. 67
Figure 26 Poughkeepsie Existing Conditions Section B............................................................. 68
Figure 27 Poughkeepsie Existing Conditions Section C............................................................. 69
Figure 28 Poughkeepsie Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Section A.................................. 70
Figure 29 Poughkeepsie Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Cross Section B........................ 71
Figure 30 Henry Hudson Park General Vicinity.......................................................................... 76
Figure 31 Henry Hudson Park, Existing Conditions Plan ........................................................... 77
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

x
Figure 32 Henry Hudson Park, Existing Conditions Section A................................................... 78
Figure 33 Henry Hudson Park, Existing Conditions Section B................................................... 79
Figure 34 Henry Hudson Park Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Cross Section A.............. 80
Figure 35 Campbell Island General Vicinity............................................................................... 86
Figure 36 Campbell Island, Existing Conditions Plan................................................................. 87
Figure 37 Campbell Island, Existing Conditions Section............................................................ 88
Figure 38 Campbell Island Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Cross Section ....................... 89
Figure 39 Campbell Island Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Cross Section ....................... 90
Figure 40 Campbell Island Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Cross Section ....................... 91
Figure 41 Uniform Procedures Act (UPA) Permit Process ......................................................... 95


HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

1
Section 1 Introduction
The shoreline of the Hudson River Estuary,
which extends from the river’s mouth in
New York City to the Troy Dam, is very
different today from the shoreline that
existed in 1609 when Henry Hudson first
sailed up the river. The Hudson’s shoreline,
like all river shorelines is subject to
constant, although usually gradual, natural
changes due to the processes of erosion and
deposition. Erosion of soil, sand and rock
within the watershed and along shorelines
due to surface runoff, wave action, high
flow velocities, and ice scouring, eventually
becomes deposition in areas of lower water
velocity along shorelines, in subtidal areas,
or at the mouth of the estuary. Although
tidal rivers such as the Hudson Estuary are
somewhat buffered against extreme high
flow, unusual events such as severe storms
coincident with peak tidal phases can
temporarily reverse erosional and
depositional patterns, resulting in rapid and
substantial changes to the shoreline.
These natural morphometric processes can
be accelerated or decelerated by human
activity in the watershed and along the
shoreline. Some activities result in
incidental changes, such as vessel-generated
waves that may increase shoreline erosion.
Often, the human effects are an intentional
attempt to arrest the natural erosional and
depositional processes to maintain the
shoreline in a fixed desired state for human
use.
Intentional modifications to the Hudson
River Estuary have resulted from the
establishment of railways and roads on both
shorelines, filling of shallow areas,
construction of bulkheads, installation of
marinas and docking facilities, dredging to
maintain navigation channels, dredge spoil
disposal, construction of dams on tributaries,
introduction of invasive species of
vegetation, and other agricultural, urban and
industrial types of development. All of
these activities cumulatively have changed
the estuarine habitats, both above and
underwater, so that they may not support the
richness of ecological communities and
processes that potentially could occur in the
estuary.
The Hudson River National Estuarine
Research Reserve (Reserve) and the Hudson
River Estuary Program (both part of the
New York Department of Environmental
Conservation [NYSDEC]), in conjunction
with the New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission, contracted
ASA Analysis & Communication (ASA)
and Alden Research Laboratory, Inc.
(Alden) to investigate options for restoring
and enhancing shoreline habitat through two
types of projects: softening hardened
shorelines (soft engineering) and stabilizing
eroding shorelines.
Caulk et al. 2000 defines soft engineering as
follows. “Soft engineering is the use of
ecological principles and practices to reduce
erosion and achieve the stabilization and
safety of shorelines, while enhancing
habitat, improving aesthetics, and saving
money. Soft engineering is achieved by
Hudson River and Sugarloaf Mountain, Pollepel
Island and Breakneck Ridge beyond
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

2
using vegetation and other materials to
soften the land-water interface, thereby
improving ecological features without
compromising the engineering integrity of
the shoreline”.
The project was completed by conducting
the following tasks:
review the available literature on
shoreline stabilization methods.
field survey of the Hudson River Estuary
shoreline to qualitatively assess the
current types, condition, and function of
natural and engineered shoreline habitats
between the Piermont Marsh and the
Troy Dam. Information on
anthropogenic, physical, hydrologic, and
meteorological conditions that could be
important determinants of likely
restoration success was also obtained.
selection of five example sites where
stabilization techniques could be used to
restore ecological function and maintain
human use activities (if appropriate)
analysis of the regulatory process for
conducting shoreline restoration projects
This report presents the literature review, a
synthesis of the field survey results, and an
evaluation of five examples of potential
shoreline restoration sites.
Section 2 Hudson River Estuary
Shoreline
Morphometry
The morphometry of the Hudson River has
been characterized by Central Hudson Gas
and Electric Corp. et. al. (1999) in the DEIS
for Bowline Point, Indian Point 1 and 2, and
Roseton Stations. For the purpose of the
DEIS, the authors divided the river into five
segments (Table 1).
Erosional Forces
Erosion, and its counterpart deposition, are
natural processes that determine, and are
determined by the river morphology.
Erosion occurs when the shear stress exerted
on substrate particles is sufficient to lift
them off the substrate and suspend them in
the water column. Shear stress is the force
per unit area exerted on objects in or at the
boundary layer of a moving fluid. The
stress is proportional to the velocity
gradient, i.e. the rate of change of velocity
with distance from the bottom (Vogel 1994).
Because the velocity required to suspend a
particle is higher than the velocity required
to keep it in suspension, suspended particles
are typically transported by the flow to
locations where velocities are lower and
settling can occur.
Erosion can occur in the supratidal (riparian)
zone, the intertidal zone, and the subtidal
zone. Above the high tide level, most
erosion will be wind or precipitation-
induced on steep and/or unvegetated soils.
Erosion of such areas can be reduced by
decreasing the slope, inducing vegetative
protection, or covering with erosion resistant
materials. However, storms or other events
causing high water levels or strong wave
action can also cause erosion in this zone.



HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

3
Table 1 Hudson River Morphometry
Region Segment Characterization
Albany/Troy Dam,
Catskill, Saugerties
RM 152 -94 Narrow with extensive shoals and 29 tributaries; the
slope of the river bottom is greater in this segment than
others resulting in generally greater velocities The river
channel is heavily modified due to navigational
dredging in early and mid 20
th
century. Sediment
disposal was along shoreline or used to create artificial
islands. Shorelines are highly modified with rock and
timber crib dikes to contain the dredge spoil.
Kingston, Hyde Park,
Poughkeepsie,
Cornwall
RM 93-56 Series of progressively deeper pools moving
downstream; its volume is more than 1.5 times that of
the RM 152-94 stretch due to deep cutting of glaciers in
this constricted area; shallow shoreline and shoal areas
are common in the southernmost end of the reach.
Shores are mix of rock, sand and soil, some of which is
vegetated. There are numerous former industrial sites
with degrading shoreline structures. Shallow areas are
often vegetated with water chestnut, milfoil, or native
aquatic vegetation.
Hudson Highlands
West Point
Indian Point
RM 55-39 Deepest and most turbulent stretch; river narrows
abruptly, bends sharply, and increases to depths over
150 ft. Shorelines are either railroad bed, or bedrock
that slopes steeply to the river channel. Very little
shallow area exists in this segment, except on the
landward side of the railroad beds where there are
extensive tidal marshes, and in Peekskill Bay.
Haverstraw Bay
Croton – Haverstraw
Tappen Zee
RM 38-24 Short, broad (2.5 mi) stretch creating a broad, shallow
basin; this is the widest, shallowest section of river;
extensive shoal and shore-zone areas; major deposition
area; sediments high in organic matter; biologically
productive area, particularly as a fish nursery area. The
width of the river and relatively low landforms along
the shores make this the segment most impacted by
natural wave erosion.
Palisades, New York
Harbor
RM 23- 0 Relatively straight, deep section with few shoals or
shore-zone habitat; due to urbanization and industrial
development, the lower 12 miles has little remaining
natural shoreline, particularly along the east shore. On
the western shore, Palisades escarpment has
significantly hindered development and most
modifications are those associated with rails and
highway rights of way.


HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

4
In the intertidal zone, the major erosive
forces are wind-induced waves, vessel-
induced waves, and ice scour.

Figure 1 Tidal Zones
Wind-induced waves – wind waves are
the result of the shear stress of air
moving over water. The shear stress on
the water surface induces water
movement along the surface in the
direction of the wind, and a subsurface
return current. Wave heights increase
with the wind velocity and distance over
which the shear stress acts (fetch). As a
result, regions of the estuary which are
less protected from winds by high land
forms, and provide long uninterrupted
distances over which the wind can act,
will be subject to stronger wave action
than will more protected areas. Thus
broad areas of the estuary (e.g.
Haverstraw Bay, Newburgh Bay) will be
subject to more wind-wave erosion than
will narrow, more protected areas (e.g.
West Point area).
Vessel-induced waves - Ship waves are
initially generated due to water
drawdown. As a ship proceeds, it
creates a return current, offset by water
depression the length of the ship, about
½ ft. The transition from depression to
an undisturbed water level creates a front
wave. A similar wave is generated off
of the stern, the back wave. Drawdown
creates a long solitary wave the length of
the ship. It is not easily observed in the
field. It does not break at the shoreline; it
is more like a quick tide pulse.
Secondary waves are created by inertial
forces. There are two sets of such waves.
Transverse waves are perpendicular to
the sailing line; diverging waves are at
an angle. These waves intersect. They
are short, behave like normal waves, and
break at the shoreline. These waves
have the potential to reach 1 ft in height.
Ship traffic is a major source of minor
and major damage to shoreline structures
on the Hudson River. For example, a
dock supported by concrete blocks at
Henry Hudson Park was recently so
damaged by ship waves that it had to be
removed.
Wave energy is dissipated along a
shoreline differently depending on the
shoreline geometry. Waves impacting
shallow shorelines dissipate some energy
gradually as the wave travels up the
shoreline. As the wave approaches
shallow water, the wave form changes,
becoming steeper and eventually breaks
when the wave crest speed exceeds the
wave speed. Shorelines with steep
slopes or vertical walls experience the
full force of the wave energy. The wave
energy is translated into high velocities
up and down the wall which may scour
the material at the base of the wall.
Ice has been shown to be a significant
modifier of physical, chemical, and
biological conditions in rivers (Prowse
2001a, Prowse 2001b). Driven by tides,
river currents, and winds, the physical
action of ice in the lower Hudson River
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

5
is a primary geomorphic process. Banks
and shallow substrates are scoured,
moving sediments and removing many
organisms. Ice rafts push, roll or slide
material along tidal flats. Anchor ice
can break loose and carry along large
chunks of material. These processes
result in localized areas of bank
instability, limited riparian and
submerged aquatic vegetation, and areas
of sediment deposition.
The severity of the disturbance varies
annually with the timing and extent of
ice floes. During the winter, the lower
Hudson Estuary typically has areas of
open water interspersed with areas of ice
that oscillate with the tide. The upper
Estuary can have ice locked into shore,
with only the navigational channel open.
During the spring, ice breakup results in
rafts of ice (floes) flowing up and
downstream with the tide, which can
form ice dams that hold back the flow of
water.
In the shallower parts of the subtidal zone,
waves and ice scour can be important
erosional forces, but outside the shallow
areas water velocity due to the net
downstream and tidal currents are more
important. In the Hudson, the currents vary
in magnitude and direction throughout the
tidal cycle, resulting in continuously shifting
areas of re-suspension (scour) and
deposition. However, there are areas where
net deposition occurs, which over time can
change the ecological community. When
deposition interferes with human uses,
primarily navigation, then dredging is
undertaken to restore desired water depths.
But because of the dynamic processes of
erosion and deposition, dredging is only a
temporary solution.
The boundaries of the supratidal, intertidal,
and subtidal zones are determined by the
mean sea level. If sea level rises, as is
predicted if global warming occurs, then the
zone boundaries will be shifted to higher
elevations and the importance of the various
erosional forces along any particular area of
the shoreline will change. Higher mean sea
level could lead to inundation of low-lying
coastal regions, more frequent flooding due
to storm surges, and worsening beach
(shoreline) erosion (IPCC 1996). Such rises
may have a number of impacts on the tidal
portion of the Hudson River, such as:
Shift of wave erosion and ice scour into
presently supratidal zone
Increase in use of hardened shoreline
structures to arrest the increase in wave
erosion.
Increased water depth over shallow
water zones
Further upstream penetration of the salt
water into presently freshwater
environments
Ecological Communities
As is typical in temperate estuaries, the
Hudson River Estuary contains a number of
different community types that have the
common characteristic that they are tolerant
of a wide range of environmental conditions.
In the Hudson, water temperatures can range
from 0 C to 30 C or above in nearshore
shallows. Salinities range from 0 ppt to >10
ppt depending on location and freshwater
inflow. Nutrients, sediment, and pollutant
inputs occur in pulses when precipitation
causes surface runoff and high tributary
inflows.
Nearshore communities in the estuary must
cope with cyclical inundation due to tides,
and with very high physical energy inputs.
These high energy inputs play a large role in
determining the nearshore community type.
To exist in the nearshore environment,
plants and animals must be able to withstand
the bi-directional tidal flows, the battering of
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

6
waves generated by storms on an
intermittent basis, and by vessel traffic (both
recreational and large commercial vessels)
on a more regular basis. Physical
disturbances also result from the transport of
large woody debris into the nearshore area
during high flows, and from scour of ice
floes and tidal movements of ice sheets in
the winter. This physical energy which is
dissipated in the nearshore environment
makes the substrate very changeable and
often leads to erosional processes in the
intertidal areas.
Edinger et al. (2002), expanded upon
Reschke’s earlier (1990) catalog of
ecological communities to describe 24
estuarine ecological communities in New
York, 15 of which occur along the Hudson
River Estuary. Ten of these are natural
communities:
tidal river
brackish subtidal aquatic bed
freshwater subtidal aquatic bed
brackish tidal marsh
brackish intertidal mudflats
brackish intertidal shore
freshwater tidal swamp
freshwater tidal marsh
freshwater intertidal mudflats
freshwater intertidal shore
Five of the communities are artificial or
cultural:
estuarine submerged structure
estuarine channel/artificial impoundment
estuarine impoundment marsh
estuarine dredge spoil shore
estuarine riprap/artificial shore
The freshwater communities typically have
salinities below 0.5 ppt and occur north of
Newburgh (RM 60), while brackish
communities have salinities usually above
0.5 ppt and occur primarily south of
Newburgh.
These distinct communities are determined
by their physical characteristics, and by the
plant and animal species that these
characteristics will support. Generally,
plants are determined by the conditions of
light, wind, moisture, salinity, nutrients,
substrate, and frequency and severity of
disturbances. Plants provide food and
shelter, and modify the environment in ways
that are beneficial to the animals that typify
the community. However, there are also
other factors that determine the animal
component of the community. Both the
aquatic and terrestrial communities of the
estuary have resident and migratory fauna.
The resident fauna, which are permanent
year-round members of the community, are
determined by the overall suitability of the
habitat for all life functions, including
growth, survival, and reproduction. The
migratory fauna, (e.g. fish such as American
shad, blueback herring, striped bass, bay
anchovy, and migratory birds such as robins,
hummingbirds, ducks, and some raptors) use
the estuary only for some of these functions.
Habitats & Communities
The river provides several distinct types of
habitats (combinations of depth, current
pattern, and substrate) which, in
combination with water salinity, determine
community type:
Shallow basin and backwater areas -
promote settling of suspended organic
matter. Such areas support freshwater or
brackish subtidal aquatic bed
communities. In freshwaters, rooted
vegetation is composed of rooted stands
of water celery, pondweed, waterweed,
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

7
and naiads (Edinger et al 2002). The
exotics water chestnut and Eurasian
milfoil may also be present. The plants
slow the flow of water, promote
sedimentation, and support invertebrates
such as oligochaetes, isopods,
amphipods, and chironomids (Boyce
Thompson Institute 1976). The
invertebrates and cover provided by the
vegetation support fishes, primarily
young, of white perch, spottail shiner,
striped bass, various members of the
sunfish family, and others. In brackish
areas the common plants are sago
pondweed, horned pondweed,
waterweed, coontail, and the exotic
Eurasian milfoil. The same groups of
invertebrates, although typically
different species, but also decapods
(crabs) and mollusks inhabit the beds,
providing food for the fish fauna.
Common fishes include striped bass, and
bay anchovy. The plants, invertebrates
and fish, attract birds such as canvasback
duck, bufflehead, common goldeneye,
merganser, greater scaup, snowy egret,
and great blue heron (Edinger et al
2002).
Exposed shoreline – shoreline areas
adjacent to deeper water are higher
energy environments in which organic
matter is scoured, leaving primarily sand
and gravel substrates. These areas
typically support the brackish and
freshwater intertidal shore communities,
and the estuarine riprap/artificial shore
community, which are less vegetated
than the aquatic bed communities,
although some of the same species may
be present. Due to the shallower water
nearshore, wave action and ice scour are
more severe than for the deeper aquatic
beds, Invertebrates, particularly
isopods, amphipods, and mollusks are
common. In freshwater portions of the
estuary, the zebra mussel is commonly
found on hard substrate. Fishes
commonly found in these communities
are striped bass, white perch, American
shad, blueback herring, and alewife.
Shallow shore zone areas with rooted
aquatic vegetation - provide substantial
cover and protection for invertebrates
and small fishes. These habitats include
the brackish tidal marsh, brackish
intertidal mudflats, freshwater tidal
swamp, freshwater tidal marsh,
freshwater intertidal mudflats, and
estuarine impoundment marsh
communities. These shallow nearshore
environments, can be natural or artificial
(many were created when the rail lines
cut off small embayments from the main
river). The plants present depend on the
degree of inundation, salinity, and
nearby terrestrial communities. The
stability of these shallow shore zone
communities is determined by the land
use and sediment loads from the
landward side, and the amount of water
exchange with the river proper. For
natural communities, water exchange is
typically not a limiting factor, but for the
artificially created communities, such as
those cut off from the river by railroad
beds, flushing can affect the rate of
sediment accumulation and amount of
faunal exchange with the river.
Common fishes include mummichog,
killifish, and other shallow-water
species.
Deep water areas with relatively high
velocities - contain deep, turbulent
currents that keep sediments in
suspension. These areas are classified as
tidal river communities. The bottom may
be hard or soft and there is little
vegetation because of the depth,
turbidity and strong currents. In
freshwater areas of the estuary hard
bottom habitats are infested with zebra
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

8
mussels, which obtain densities high
enough to filter large portions of the
water. They have been hypothesized to
remove enough organic matter from the
water column to lessen habitat suitability
for pelagic fishes, and raise the
suitability for benthic and shore zone
fishes (Strayer et al 2004). Common
fish species in these zones are Atlantic
and shortnose sturgeon, hogchoker,
American eel, Atlantic tomcod,
American shad, blueback herring,
alewife, and bay anchovy. Some
species, such as striped bass and
American shad are pelagic spawners,
which release their eggs in these areas
and the eggs and early larvae drift in the
water currents until they hatch and the
larvae have developed swimming
capabilities.
Habitat Modifications
Physical alterations to the estuary have been
ongoing for centuries, resulting in changes
to the natural ecological communities (e.g.
freshwater subtidal aquatic bed to estuarine
dredge spoil shore). Often, these alterations
are undertaken to control the natural
erosional processes that are constantly
taking place in the high-energy nearshore
areas, resulting in hardened shorelines.
Other prime reasons for alterations are
reversal of natural depositional processes
that occur in the river, i.e. dredging, and
creation of new terrestrial habitat (filling) as
a way to dispose of dredge spoil or for other
reasons.
On the Hudson River, significant habitat
impacts have resulted from:
hardening of the shoreline with
bulkheads and other erosion control
structures- changing intertidal shore
communities to riprap/artificial shore
communities.
navigational channel dredging- changing
shallow tidal river habitat and aquatic
bed communities to deepwater tidal river
communities. Disposal of the sediment
has lead to creation of dredge spoil
shoreline and terrestrial communities.
filling of low-lying areas including
wetlands- changing swamp and marsh
communities to cultural terrestrial
communities.
clearing of land for human uses –
converting natural terrestrial habitats to
cultural terrestrial habitats
constructing transportation infrastructure
– railroad and road construction and
culverts - changing the flow of surface
water, causing changes to wetlands,
fragmentation of habitats
Shoreline Hardening
Shoreline hardening is very common along
the estuary shore, and is the main type of
modification being addressed in this project.
Examples of shoreline hardening include
bulkheads, jetties, boat ramps, railbeds, and
other solid structures that have been used to
stabilize Hudson River shoreline areas. The
predominant materials used to build these
structures on the Hudson River include:
Rip rap
Rock cribs
Steel sheet pile
Stone masonry
Timber bulkheads
Large unsecured stones
Concrete
In addition, buildings and impermeable
surfaces (roads, parking lots) are often built
behind the shoreline structures. These
structures and accompanying shoreline
development have a variety of impacts on
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

9
the water column, submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV), wetlands, and soft bottom
features. These impacts include:
Reflection of wave energy off a
hardened shoreline accelerates subtidal
erosion and leads to loss of intertidal soft
bottom habitat.
Increases in turbidity in the water
column.
Deepening of near shore habitat and
elevated turbidity deters future
colonization of wetland or SAV plants.
Decreases in habitat complexity result in
reduced fish and invertebrate use of a
hardened shore.
Preservatives in timbered bulkheads that
can be toxic to living organisms.
Losses of wetland habitat behind
structures due to filling or reduced water
exchange.

HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

9
Section 3 A Synthesis of Literature
on Shoreline Stabilization Methods
and Habitat Enhancements
Applicable to the Hudson River
Estuary
Review of Available Literature
Applicable to the Hudson River
The Hudson River is a tidal estuarine river
that experiences fluctuations in water levels
and velocities. As a result, any “soft”
technique designed to replace an existing
hardened shoreline must be capable of
withstanding existing forces. In addition to
high current velocities, consideration needs
to be given to tidal flows that reverse with
ebb and flood tides, commercial shipping
and small boat traffic, ice floes and heavy
debris loads that exist in much of the river
environment. The hardened shorelines
typically provide critical stabilization of
infrastructure (roads, railroad beds, bridge
abutments, dredged spoil, etc.) and
protection against these forces.
River bank stabilization techniques found in
the literature which have the potential to
improve aquatic habitat for fish were
reviewed. Initially, information on all
available techniques was reviewed. It was
found that the majority of the literature
described restoration techniques appropriate
for small fresh water rivers and streams.
However, some of the techniques were
deemed to be potentially appropriate for the
tidal Hudson River Estuary.
The literature search was performed
electronically. Reference databases that
were queried include:
Ingenta
EBSCOHost
Scientific Research
Illumina
Engineering Village
USACE
ASCE
NRCS
University reference libraries (University of
Massachusetts and Pennsylvania State
University) were accessed to obtain
references that could not be obtained
directly off the internet. The keywords used
to query the data bases include:
River restoration
River bioengineering
Soil bioengineering
Streambank stabilization
Biotechnical streambank stabilization
Ecological river restoration
Estuarine river restoration
The search yielded a list of citations and
abstracts for documents identified by the
keywords. Much of the information on
techniques applicable to the Hudson River
came from a number of comprehensive
review documents (FISRWG 1998, USDA
NRCS 1996, GSWCC 2000, Allen and
Leech 1997, Gray and Sotir 1996, Schiechtl
1980, Schiechtl and Stern 1997, Landphair
and Li 2002).
Table 2 provides a comprehensive review of
all available stabilization methods. Alden
assessed this information to:
identify the relative advantages and
disadvantages of each alternative, and
determine the alternatives that have the
greatest potential for application on the
Hudson River Estuary.
Factors considered in accessing the relative
advantages and disadvantages of the
available stabilization techniques included:
cost and simplicity of installation
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

10
manual versus mechanized construction
maintenance requirement
longevity of technique
rate of stabilization (immediate versus a
longer time needed for plant growth)
applicable slopes
susceptibility to ice and debris damage
space requirements
aesthetics
habitat function
tidal flow
Allowable shear stress (based on velocity)
was the primary criterion for determining
whether a given soft engineering river bank
stabilization technique was applicable for
the Hudson Estuary. For the purposes of
this project, the limiting shear stress for rip
rap with an average diameter of 6 inches (6
inch d50) was chosen as the minimum
design criteria. This size is considered to be
the minimum size riprap that would be used
on a large river like the Hudson with a bank
slope equal to or less than 1:2 (V:H). Table
3 (Fischenich 2001) provides stability
thresholds for a variety of bank restoration
materials.
All available alternatives were qualitatively
assessed. Candidates for Hudson River use
were selected based on the information in
Table 2 and Table 3. The alternatives
chosen will withstand shear stresses greater
than 2.5 lbs/ft
2
(6 inch d50 rip rap). All are
integrated systems that incorporate hard
stabilization features for soil stability and
soft features that enhance the habitat
function:
Vegetated Geogrids
Live Crib Wall
Joint Plantings
Brush mattresses
Vegetated Rock Gabions or Mattresses
Each of these techniques (highlighted in
Table 1) is presented in detail in the next
section.



HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

11
Table 2 Available River Bank Stabilization Techniques
1

Method Description Advantages Disadvantages Applicable to the Hudson River
Wattling Staking bundled live branches
lengthwise along trenches dug on
contour of slopes. The bundles
are staked into place and partially
buried.
Low cost and simple installation
that can be completed entirely
with manual labor. Provides
immediate soil stabilization
Low allowable shear stress and
velocity limits and provides
shallow soil stabilization.
Susceptible to debris and ice
damage.
Allowable shear stresses and
velocities are too low for use on
the main channel to replace
hardened structures. May be
applicable for adjacent connected
wetland areas.
Live Stakes Live cuttings tamped directly into
soil. Roots bind soil together and
vegetation reduces water energy
acting on the river bank.
Low cost and simple installation
that can be completed entirely
with manual labor. Short
construction time.
Low allowable shear stress and
velocity limits and provides
shallow soil stabilization.
Susceptible to debris and ice
damage.
Allowable shear stresses and
velocities are too low for use on
the main channel to replace
hardened structures. May be
applicable for adjacent connected
wetland areas or combined with
other structural methods.
Live Fascines Live cuttings tied together in a
cylindrical bundle and staked into
a shallow trench parallel with the
bank slope.
Low cost and simple installation
that can be completed entirely
with manual labor. Short
construction time. Provides
immediate soil stabilization
Low allowable shear stress and
velocity limits. Stabilizes only a
shallow depth of soil and limited
to slim relatively unbranched
cuttings. Susceptible to debris and
ice damage.
Allowable shear stresses and
velocities are too low for use on
the main channel to replace
hardened structures. May be
applicable for adjacent connected
wetland areas or combined with
other structural methods.
Brush layering Live branch cuttings installed in a
river bank between layers of soil
in a criss-cross and overlapping
pattern.
Relatively simple installation and
fast stabilization of soil.
Low allowable shear stress and
velocity limits. Not suitable for
deep, organic topsoil layers and
susceptible to debris and ice
damage.
Allowable shear stresses and
velocities are too low for use on
the main channel to replace
hardened structures. May be
applicable for adjacent connected
wetland areas or combined with
other structural methods.
Branch
packing
Same as brush layering with the
addition of stakes and compacted
fill layers.
Lower costs than structural
techniques.
Relatively low to moderate
allowable shear stress and velocity
limits. Requires heavy equipment
to excavate slope and compact
soil. Susceptible to debris and ice
damage.
Allowable shear stresses and
velocities are too low to replace
existing hardened shorelines. The
added features of stabilization
described for a brush mattress
may be suitable.
Vegetated
Geogrids
Brush layering with each soil
layer wrapped in a geosynthetic
material.
Provides good stabilization with
relatively high allowable shear
stress and velocities. Slopes can
be close to vertical. Provides
higher aesthetic value than other
vegetated structural techniques.
Costs are relatively high.
Installation can be complex and
requires heavy equipment to
install.
Could be applicable to replace
hardened shorelines that have
limited space and require near
vertical slopes.
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

12
Method Description Advantages Disadvantages Applicable to the Hudson River
Live Crib Wall Box-like arrangement of
interlocking logs, timbers, pre-
cast concrete or plastic structural
members. The crib is filled with
layers of backfill and live cuttings
that root inside the crib and
beyond into the slope.
Provides protection for slopes
near vertical. Occupies less area
because of the steep slopes
possible and material should be
readily available. Allowable
shear stresses and velocities are
relatively high.
Requires heavy equipment to
install and pre-cast concrete types
are extremely heavy and
cumbersome.
Could be applicable to replace
hardened shorelines that have
limited space and require near
vertical slopes.
Live Grating A frame structure installed on a
slope consisting of wood,
concrete, metal or synthetic
polymer that requires a stable
footing.
Numerous designs available
depending on material and design
requirements. Allowable shear
stresses and velocities will vary
depending on design but should
be similar to other structural
methods.
Costs are relatively high.
Installation can be complex and
requires heavy equipment to
install. Maybe susceptible to
debris and ice damage depending
on the design.
Technique could be a suitable
replacement to existing riprap or
failed slopes.
Joint Planting Riprap with live stakes driven
into the joints between the rocks.
Relatively low cost and fast
installation on existing riprap
slopes. Provides additional
protection to the armor layer by
preventing washout of fines and
reinforcing the underlying soil.
Aesthetic, wildlife and aquatic
habitat are not as good as other
vegetated structural methods.
Technique could be applied to
existing riprap slopes provided
with adequate soil material to
support vegetation growth.
Brush Mattress Live cuttings with branches on
the slope with butt ends keyed
into toe protection. The branches
are layered in a criss-cross
overlapping pattern held in place
by dead stout stakes and wire. A
rock toe and/or a coconut fiber
roll can be used for toe
protection.
Provides good stabilization with
relatively moderate allowable
shear stress and velocities with
stone toe protection. Can be
installed with manual labor and
provides higher aesthetic value
than other vegetated structural
techniques.
Installation can be complex and
costs are moderate. Allowable
shear stress and velocities are
lower than other structural
methods and application is limited
to shallow slopes.
Could be applicable to replace
hardened shorelines that have
limited space and require near
vertical slopes.
Tree
Revetment
A series of whole dead trees
along the toe of the bank tied
together and anchored to shore.
Low installation costs especially
if trees are available from the top
of bank. Enhances aquatic
habitat near shore and reduces the
velocity and shear stress acting
on the bank.
Requires frequent maintenance, a
limited life and may cause damage
downstream if anchors fail.
Susceptible to debris and ice
damage.
Technique not recommended for
replacing existing hardened
shorelines.
Log and
Rootwad
Revetment
Logs and rootwads placed along
the bank tied together and
anchored to shore. The rootwads
and logs enhance the wildlife and
aquatic habitat.
Lower near bank velocities and
shear stresses that enhance
sediment deposition. Provide
creative habitat complexity and
hydraulic diversity. Low costs
compared to structural treatments
Requires frequent maintenance, a
limited life and may cause damage
downstream if anchors fail.
Susceptible to debris and ice
damage.
Technique not recommended for
replacing existing hardened
shorelines.
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

13
Method Description Advantages Disadvantages Applicable to the Hudson River
Dormant Post
Planting
Woody live posts planted in a
square a triangular grid along the
river bank.
Reduce near bank erosion by
reducing velocities and more
stable than live stakes.
Relatively low allowable shear
stress and velocity of river bank if
not combined with other methods.
Susceptible to debris and ice
damage and harvesting posts can
be destructive to the donor stand.
Allowable shear stresses and
velocities are too low for use on
the main channel to replace
hardened structures. May be
applicable for adjacent connected
wetland areas or combined with
other structural methods.
Coconut Fiber
Rolls
Coconut husk fibers bound
together with twine or netting
woven of coconut fibers in a
cylindrical pattern. Roll is
installed at toe of slope and with
planting on the roll.
Flexible rolls can be molded to
the slope conditions and requires
only minor slope disturbance to
install. Can be used as a silt
fence for earth work projects and
will enhance other bank
protection techniques.
Moderate to low allowable shear
stress and velocity limits.
Susceptible to debris and ice
damage.
Allowable shear stress and
velocity limits are too low to
replace existing hardened
shorelines. Can be used in
combination with other methods
such as the brush mattress.
Vegetative
Rock Gabions
Gabion baskets made of welded
or twisted wire tied together and
filled with rock. The baskets are
stacked like bricks with a layer of
soil and branch cuttings between
each course of baskets.
Relatively simple construction
that provides protection for steep
slopes. Occupies less area
because of the steep slopes
possible and allowable shear
stresses and velocities are
relatively high.
Planting after installation is nearly
impossible. Requires heavy
equipment to install.
May be applicable to replace
hardened shorelines that have
limited space and require near
vertical slopes.
Vegetative
Rock Gabion
Mattress (Reno
Mattress)
Similar to a gabion wall, stacked
to match the existing slope of the
bank. Live cuttings are tamped
between gabion baskets.
Relatively simple construction
that provides protection for
slopes near vertical. Occupies
less area because of the steep
slopes possible. Allowable shear
stresses and velocities are
relatively high.
Requires heavy equipment to
install and not as attractive as
other vegetated structural
methods.
May be applicable to replace
hardened shorelines that have
limited space and require near
vertical slopes.
1. Table derived from: Gray and Sotir 1996; Schiechtl and Stern 1996; Freeman and Fischenich 2000; FISRWG 1998; Landphair and Li 2002; Allen and
Fischenich 2000; Sylte and Fischenich 2000.



HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

14
Table 3 Permissible Shear Stress and Velocity for Selected Lining Materials (Fischenich
2001)
Boundary Category Boundary Type
Permissible
Shear Stress
(lb/ft
2
)
Permissible
Velocity (ft/sec)
Vegetation Class A turf 3.7 6-8
Class B turf 2.1 4-7
Class C turf 1 3.5
Long native Grasses 1.2-1.7 4-6

Short native grasses and bunch
grass
0.7-0.95 3-4
Reed plantings 0.1-0.6 N/A
Hardwood tree plantings 0.41-2.5 N/A
Jute net 0.45 1-2.5
Temporary Rolled
Erosion Control
Products (RECPs)
Straw net 1.5-1.65 1-3
Coconut fiber with net 2.25 3-4
Fiberglass roving 2 2.5-7
Non-Degradable RECPs Unvegetated 3 5-7
Partially vegetated 4.0-6.0 7.5-15
Fully vegetated 8 8-21
Riprap 6 inch D
50
2.5 5-10
9 inch D
50
3.8 7-11
12 inch D
50
5.1 10-13
18 inch D
50
7.6 12-16
24 inch D
50
10.1 14-18
Soil Bioengineering Wattles 0.2-1.0 3
Reed fascine 0.6-1.25 5
Coir roll 3-5 8
Vegetated coir mat 4-8 9.5
Live brush mattress (initial) 0.4-4.1 4
Live brush mattress (grown) 3.90-8.2 12
Brush Layering (initial/grown) 0.4-6.25 12
Live fascine 1.25-3.10 6-8
Live willow stakes 2.10-3.10 3-10
Hard Surfacing Gabions 10 14-19
Concrete 12.5 >18
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

15
Alternative Shoreline Stabilization
Methods
A review of literature published on each of
the shoreline stabilization systems that are
deemed applicable to the Hudson River is
presented in the following sections.
Vegetated Geogrid
The following information was taken from
Gray and Sotir 1996, Li and Eddleman
2002, Allen and Leach 1997, USDA NRCS
1996, and Sotir and Fischenich 2003.
A vegetated geogrid is a system of
successive soil lifts wrapped in a synthetic
material with live branch cuttings placed
between layers. The system provides rapid
vegetation growth following installation.
The vegetation acts as a buffer to reduce the
river’s energy and shear stress at the soil
surface. The synthetic mesh adds additional
strength to anchor and prevent soil erosion.
Once the live cuttings become established,
the root systems intertwine with the geogrid
binding the system together (Gray and Sotir
1996). The design is based on a dual fabric
system adapted from synthetic reinforced
retaining walls used for bridge abutments
and road embankments (Allen and Leach
1997). A section of the system is shown on
Figure 2 (USDA NRCS 1996).
The materials for the live branches consist
of willow, dogwood or woody plants that
propagate roots easily. The branches are
typically ½ to 2 inches in diameter and
extend to the back of the geogrid
reinforcement. The geogrid material is
made of a synthetic polymer selected based
on allowable tensile strength and provides
the primary reinforcement (Gray and Sotir
1996).
The geogrid system is constructed by
excavating the bank and installing a rock
footing to the mean high tide water depth.
The footing should extend down to the
expected scour depth. Typically, two lifts of
rock wrapped in geogrid are adequate for the
rock footing. Live branch cuttings are
placed in a crisscross pattern so that the tips
extend just beyond edge of the slope in
between each soil lift of 6 to 8 inches thick
(Gray and Sotir 1996). The first soil lift is
placed over the branches and rock footing
and compacted (USDA NRCS 1996).
Burlap strips or geotextile fabric about 4 ft
wide should be placed at the slope face to
contain the soil, and the soil should be
suitable for plant growth. Forms can be
used to protect the fabric while compacting
for each lift. Each layer can be keyed into
the previous layer with stakes or rebar. The
upstream and downstream end of the
treatment should be protected with a
hardened structure or carefully tied into the
existing vegetation to prevent flanking or
erosion around the ends (Allen and Leach
1997).
Vegetative geogrid installations have been
used mainly on relatively small rivers and
streams and must be used with caution on
the Hudson River. The expected shear stress
and velocity thresholds for a fully
established vegetative system are 8 lbs/sq ft
and 14 ft/sec, respectively, as shown in
Table 4. The system should be inspected
after the first couple of floods and monitored
until the vegetation has become established
(Sotir and Fischenich 2003). The system
should also be inspected in early spring after
large ice floes.

HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

16
Table 4 Stress and Velocity Levels for Vegetated Geogrid (Sotir and Fischenich 2003)
Time Velocity (ft/sec) Shear Stress (lb/ft
2
)
Initial (immediately
after construction)
3-5 5-9
Established (after 1 to
2 years of growth)
8 14


Figure 2 Vegetated Geogrid (USDA NRCS 1996)


HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

17
Live Crib Wall
The following information was taken from:
Gray and Sotir 1996, Li and Eddleman
2002, Allen and Leach 1997, USDA NRCS
1996, GWSCC 2000, Donat 1995, and
Schiechtl 1980
A live crib wall is a reinforced earthen
system that consists of timbers and
vegetative cover. The timbers are arranged
in a box pattern creating structural cribs that
are filled with suitable fill and layers of live
branch cuttings. The live cuttings extend to
the native soil behind the crib structure and
the root systems intertwine with the crib
binding the system together once the live
cuttings become established (Gray and Sotir
1996). A detail of a live crib wall is shown
on Figure 3.
The materials for the live branches consist
of willow, dogwood or woody plants that
propagate roots easily. The branches are
typically ½ to 2 inches in diameter and
extend to the back of the crib. The inert
materials consist of untreated timbers or logs
ranging from 4 to 6 inches in diameter with
the varying lengths to suit specific site
conditions (USDA NRCS 1996).
Prefabricated concrete, steel or plastics are
also used as crib material (Donat 1995).
The crib wall is constructed by excavating
the river bank down to the expected scour
depth. The first level of timbers is placed on
a rock footing which extends into the river
to provide toe protection from scour. These
timbers are placed in two continuous rows
parallel with the shoreline and
approximately 5 ft apart. The next level of
timbers are placed perpendicular to and on
top of the first level creating a crib pattern
secured with spikes or rebar dowels. The
toe of the wall is typically protected from
scour with rocks. The wall is battered at an
angle towards the shore approximately 6:1
(V:H) or greater to provide additional
stability (Gray and Sotir 1996). The crib is
filled with rocks to the base flow water
level. Above the base flow water level,
layers of live branch cutting and compacted
soil are installed between each level of
timbers. At least 10 branch cuttings should
be used per running meter. The soil around
the live cuttings must be protected from
washout at the wall face by carefully placed
branch packing or rock placement. If the
packing is too tight, vegetation development
could be hindered (Schiechtl 1980). The
upstream and downstream end of the crib
wall should be protected or keyed into the
existing slopes to prevent flanking (GSWCC
2000).
Live crib walls have been used mainly for
streams and small rivers but could be
applicable to the Hudson River. Crib walls
create a steep slope, which require less space
while providing a natural looking
appearance. Additional support, such as
tiebacks to deadmen anchors, may be
required depending on the height of the wall.
The Hudson River currently has many
timber bulkheads. A live crib wall may be a
suitable alternative under the proper site
conditions. The timbers used for the crib-
wall, often eastern white cedar, red pine,
jack pine, or spruce (Heaton et al. 2002), are
untreated to avoid adverse environmental
impacts. Therefore, the lifespan of these
materials will be less than treated timbers.
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

18

Figure 3 Live Crib Wall (USDA NRCS 1996)

Joint Planting
The following information was taken from
Schiechtl 1980, USDA NRCS 1996,
GSWCC 2000, and Donat 1995
Joint planting involves adding vegetation
(live stakes) to an existing stone or riprap
slope or creating a vegetated rock slope.
Live stakes are tamped into joint spaces
between the rocks. The slope should be
graded similar to the natural river bank slope
(Schiechtl 1980). A detail of a joint planting
system is shown on Figure 5.
The materials for joint planting consist of
willows or woody plants that propagate
roots easily. The live stakes should be 2 to 3
inches in diameter and 3 to 3.5 ft in length
(GSWCC 2000). The live stakes should be
installed the same day they are cut or
carefully stored for installation. The rock
should be sized appropriately for the slope
and the hydraulic river conditions.
Prefabricated cellular concrete cells can be
used as an alternative to riprap to stabilize
the slope. The concrete cell structure offers
similar slope protection with vegetation in
the voids of the cellular grid, as shown on
Figure 6.
Construction of a new joint planting system
requires excavation of the river bank below
the expected scour depth and installation of
a rock footing that extends into the river to
provide toe scour protection. The rock
should be placed loosely or hand placed at a
slope similar to the natural stream bank no
thicker than 2 ft (GSWCC 2000). Two to
ten healthy live cuts per square meter should
be placed perpendicular to the rock slope
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

19
and hand tamped (Donat 1995). The live
stakes should be installed to two-thirds their
total length into the soil beneath the rock
with the end slightly protruding from the
rock face. A steel probe or rebar may be
used to prepare a pilot hole through the
riprap bed to ease installation of the live
stakes (USDA NRCS 1996).
The joint planting technique can also be
used for existing riprap slopes. Live stakes
would be installed on the existing riprap
slope similar to that described above. If the
riprap layer is too thick suitable soil will
need to be added in the voids to support
vegetation growth. Soil would be added to
slopes with armor layers greater than 3 to 4
ft. Dredged material may be suitable for this
application.
The Hudson River Estuary has shorelines
where the joint planting technique is
naturally occurring. Portions of the Hudson
River banks were stabilized using riprap in
the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Many of
these shorelines have not been maintained
and have since overgrown with vegetation
while maintaining a stable river bank. These
existing shorelines (Figure 4) are good
examples of the desired end product for the
joint planting technique.
Live stake installations should be monitored
until the stakes take root and inspected after
major storms and floods. The amount of
vegetation can be increased considerably if
pruned and fertilized during the second
season (Schiechtl 1980).
Rough rock surfaces and flexible branches,
slow water velocities and reduce shear
stresses near the river bank. These
conditions allow for additional vegetation
growth on the river bank. The vegetation
creates shade for the river and may reduce
water temperature, improving aquatic
habitat. Joint planting could be a valuable
tool for enhancing habitat in the Hudson
River Estuary due to the dominance of
hardened riprap in modified shoreline areas.



Figure 4 Existing Shoreline (similar to Joint Planting design)

HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

20

Figure 5 Joint Planting (USDA NRCS 1996)


Figure 6 Vegetative Cellular Concrete Block (USDA NRCS 1996)

HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

21
Brush Mattress
The following information was taken from
Allen and Fischenich 2000, USDA NRCS
1996, and GSWCC 2000.
A brush mattress is a mat of intertwined live
branches covering a river bank with a live
fascine (live cutting materials) over a rock
base. The brush mattress is secured with
wire or twine, live stakes, and stout dead
stakes. The live sprouting plants act to
reduce the river velocity and shear stress
along the shore, and encourage sediment
depositions at high water levels (Allen and
Fischenich 2000). The system creates an
interlocking network of roots that anchor the
slope in place. A detail of a brush mattress
is shown on Figure 7.
The live cutting materials for brush
mattresses consist of live branch cuttings of
willows, viburnum, shrub dogwood, or
similar plant species that propagate roots
easily. The branches should be 2 to 3 years
old, ½ to 1 ½ inches in diameter and 5 to 10
ft in length. Riprap is typically used for the
base and the live fascines consist of bundles
of live cut branches partially buried in a
trench near the base of the slope. The
material for the wire could be coir bristle
twine, tie wire or similar.
Construction of the brush mattress system
begins with excavation of the slope base to
install a rock base. The rock should extend
into the river channel to provide scour
protection at the toe of the slope and should
continue upslope to the low water level.
The remaining bank should be graded at a
slope of 1:2 (V:H) or flatter. The live
fascine would be installed in a trench 8 to 10
inches deep located adjacent to the top of the
rock base and would be sloped to reduce
erosion and pooling of water upslope of the
fascine (Allen and Fischenich 2000). The
fascine bundles are typically 6 to 8 inches in
diameter with the basal ends pointing in the
same direction in the trench. The bundles
are wrapped with twine every foot along the
length. Brush cuttings are placed with basal
ends pushed into the live fascine. Dead
stout stakes are installed in a grid pattern
about 3 to 5 ft apart with wire attached
between stakes securing the brush cuttings
in place. The brush mattress and live
fascine are covered with soil that is worked
into the branches by tamping to create good
stem to soil contact (Allen and Fischenich
2000). The system could be lightly watered
to assist soil compaction and stem soil
contact.
Maintenance requirements will vary
depending on site conditions and the
frequency of storm events and floods. The
bank should be monitored regularly and
repaired as necessary until the vegetation
has taken root and become well established.
The upstream and downstream ends of the
treatment should be monitored for scour and
may require more substantial treatments to
prevent flanking.
Applications of brush mattresses have been
used for relatively small rivers and streams.
Expected shear stress and velocity
thresholds are 4-8 lbs/sq ft and 12 ft/sec,
respectively, for brush mattresses fully
vegetated with rock toe protection, as shown
in Table 5. The thresholds for non-
vegetated brush mattresses just after
construction are much less and should be
closely monitored until the vegetation
becomes established. The ability of this
option to protect the bank from ice damage
is limited (USDA NRCS 2002).


HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

22
Table 5 Stress and Velocity Levels for the Brush mattress (Allen and Fischenich 2000)
Brush mattress type Velocity (ft/sec) Shear Stress (lb/ft
2
)
Staked only w/o rock
bolster at toe (initial)
< 4.0 0.4 - 3.0
Staked only w/o rock
bolster at toe (grown)
< 5.0 4.0 - 7.0
Staked only w/rock
bolster at toe (initial)
< 5 0.8 - 4.1
Staked only w/rock
bolster at toe (grown)
< 12 4.0 - 8.0
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

23

Figure 7 Brush Mattress (USDA NRCS 1996)

Vegetative Rock Gabions
The following information was taken from
Freeman and Fischenich 2000, USDA
NRCS 1996, Gray and Sotir 1996, and
Maccaferri 2005,
Vegetated rock gabions are galvanized wire
baskets, filled with rock or fill material and
stacked along the river bank with live
cuttings placed in between the rock gabions.
The rock gabions are tied together to
provide bank slope protection at sites that
have limited space and require a steep bank
in excess of 1:1.5 (V:H) (Freeman and
Fischenich 2000).
The live cutting materials for vegetative
gabions consist of live branch cuttings of
willows, viburnum, shrub dogwood or
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

24
similar plant species that propagate roots
easily. The branches should be ½ to 2 ½
inches in diameter and long enough to reach
the soil behind the gabions (USDA NRCS
1996). The wire baskets could be made of
galvanized or plastic coated welded wire or
woven wire mesh. Recently, high strength
plastic material (Tensar) has also been used
for baskets (Freeman and Fischenich 2000).
The gabion fill typically consists of rock
sizes ranging from 4 to 9 inches (USDA
NRCS 1996) and select fill capable of
supporting vegetation growth (Gray and
Sotir 1996).
Construction of a vegetated gabion wall
starts by excavation of the bank to a level
below the expected scour depth and
preparing a footing at an angle slightly tilted
into the bank. Wire baskets are placed on
the footing, tied together with wire, and
filled with rock. The wall width at the base
may need to be two or more gabion baskets
wide depending on the wall height. As a
rule of thumb, the minimum base width to
height ratio is 0.5 (Gray and Sotir 1996),
however, a professional engineer should
approve the design. A thin layer of earthen
backfill and live branch cuttings are placed
perpendicular to the slope at the top of each
row. The butt end of the branches extends
into the backfill behind the gabions and the
other end protrudes a few inches beyond the
wall face (Gray and Sotir 1996).
Alternatively, the rock gabion baskets could
be placed on the river bank slope, similar to
a riprap design, with live stakes and
branches placed between the basket joints
(Figure 9). This type of installation is called
a “gabion mattress” or Reno mattress.
Maintenance of the vegetated gabion wall
must include inspection of the wire baskets
for damage. Any broken or bent wires
should be repaired. According to Freeman
and Fischenich (2000), large woody tree
growth within the baskets should be cut to
prevent damage to the gabion wires.
However, other authors (Gray and Sotir
1996) encourage growth within the gabions
to help anchor the wall. Maintenance
requirements are site specific and depend on
the relative risks associated with gabion wire
failure. A wall that is considered low risk
could allow large woody vegetation to grow
within the gabions, while a high risk wall
would require removal of the growth. The
toe of the bank should be inspected for scour
and the wall should be checked for bulging
and repaired as necessary.
Site conditions should be reviewed to
determine the applicability of the gabion
wall for stabilizing a river bank. Table 6
provides critical shear velocity values for
various rock gabion designs (Chaychuk
2005).
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

25
Table 6 Allowable Velocities for Rock Gabions (Chaychuk 2005)
Type
Thickness
(ft)
Filling Stone
Range
(inches) D50 (inches)
Critical
Velocity
1

(ft/sec)
Limit
Velocity
2

(ft/sec)
Mattress 0.5 3 – 4 3.4 11.5 13.8
Mattress 0.5 3 – 6 4.3 13.8 14.8
Mattress 0.75 3 – 4 3.4 14.8 16
Mattress 0.75 3 – 6 4.7 14.8 20
Mattress 1.0 3 – 5 4 13.6 18
Mattress 1.0 4 – 6 5 16.4 21
Basket 1.5 4 - 8 6 19 24.9
Basket 1.5 5 - 10 7.5 21 26.2
1. Velocity at which the revetment will remain stable without movement of rock fill.
2. Velocity which is still acceptable although there is some deformation of the protections due to
movement of the stones within the wire baskets.
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

26

Figure 8 Vegetative Rock Gabion Wall (USDA NRCS 1996)


Figure 9 Vegetative Rock Gabion Mattress (Allen and Leech 1997)

HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

27
Applicability (of) Existing Shorelines
The techniques identified in the literature
review could be used to stabilize natural
eroding shorelines. The efforts would be
similar to those identified for stabilizing
failing and eroding hardened shorelines. For
example, stabilizing a failing concrete
bulkhead wall would require: 1) the
bulkhead wall to be removed, 2) bank re-
graded, and 3) installation of the
recommended soft engineering treatment.
Stabilizing a naturally eroding shoreline
would involve similar efforts: 1) bank re-
graded, and 2) installation of the
recommended soft engineering treatment.
Vegetation for Stabilization Methods
The following information was taken from
NRCS 1996, Adams 2002, and Hoag and
Landis 2001.
All the river bank stabilization methods
utilize vegetation as a long term component
to stabilize the river bank. Rapid re-
vegetation following construction is
essential for a successful bank stabilization
project. Therefore, the most common and
cost effective methods for re-vegetating
shorelines utilize dormant, non-rooted,
branched hardwood cuttings (Hoag and
Landis 2001). Benefits associated with
using cuttings for bioengineering soil
stabilization techniques include:
1. stability of cutting when exposed to high
current velocities
2. an ability to plant in areas where the
water table is deeper than 30 cm
3. lower costs than traditional bare root or
container nursery stock
The plant families most commonly
referenced in the literature for
bioengineering systems include:
Willows
Viburnums
Dogwoods
The plant species chosen for a project
should be carefully selected based on the
following criteria:
Native plants
Availability, (the plants may be obtained
from a local nursery or harvested from a
nearby stand)
Rooting ability from cutting (integrity of
the stabilization structures depend on the
successful establishment of the
plantings)
Growth rate (rapid growth rate will limit
the system’s vulnerability to floods and
heavy storm events immediately after
installation while vegetation is becoming
established)
Spread potential (density of vegetation
will benefit the systems integrity)
Salinity tolerance (bank vegetation will
be exposed to brackish water in lower
regions of the estuary)
Flood tolerance (bank vegetation will be
susceptible to high currents and water
levels during floods)
Costs (cost will vary depending on
location, species and type of planting)
Maintenance requirements (maintenance
requirements will depend on how well
the plants meet the criteria above; e.g.
easily propagated roots, rapid growth
rate, high establishment speed, good
spread potential, and good salinity and
flood tolerance will minimize the degree
of maintenance required)
Appendix B lists suggested woody plants for
the proposed restoration efforts. These
plants are available commercially, can be
rooted from cuttings, and are native to the
US and already found in New York. This
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

28
list is subset of the species listed in NRCS
1996 Appendix 16B).
If possible, the plant species selected should
also represent the characteristics of natural
assemblages in the area. However, projects
are susceptible to invasion of aggressive,
non-native plants that can establish cover
over the project site (Adams 2002). The
plants selected for the project should be
selected, planted, monitored and maintained
to limit the establishment of invasive
species. Invasive riparian plants common to
the Hudson valley include:
Purple loosestrife (Lythrum
salicaria)
Common Reed (Phragmites
australis)
Japanese Knotweed (Polygonum
cuspidatum)
Invasive aquatic plants common to the
Hudson are:
water chestnut (Trapa natans)
Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum
spicatum)
Costs
Soft river bank stabilization techniques are
typically much less expensive than
traditional hard stabilization methods (Allen
and Leech 1997). However, there is wide
variability in the cost of plantings, inert
materials and labor, depending on location
and complexity of the alternative. Due to
their greater stability, the techniques
selected for possible Hudson River Estuary
application tend to be more costly than other
soft techniques that are suitable for smaller,
ice-free rivers and streams with lower wave
energy profiles. Therefore, the relative cost
comparison below is between techniques
suitable for the Hudson River.
The available literature contains a
reasonable amount of information on the
approximate unit capital costs and relative
costs of the different techniques. A
summary of the published cost data for
techniques appropriate to the Hudson River
is provided in Table 7. Additional labor
requirements for various bioengineering, as
provided by Fischenich and Allen 2000, are
provided in Table 8. This information can
be used to estimate the labor requirements of
various soft engineering installation tasks.
Vegetative Geogrids
The cost of using vegetative geogrids is
moderate to high compared to other
methods. The labor required for installation
is about 1 man-hour per linear foot of treated
bank and typically accounts for
approximately 66 percent of the total project
costs (Allen and Leech 1997).
Live Crib Wall
The capital costs associated with installing a
live crib wall for protection are considered
moderate to high compared to other methods
(Li and Eddleman 2002).
Joint Planting
The capital cost to install joint planting is
considered low compared to other methods
(Li and Eddleman 2002). The cost will be
significantly lower if the application is for a
slope already protected with stone compared
to installing the entire system (stone and all).
Brush Mattress
The cost of a brush mattress is low and
requires 2 to 5 man-hours per square meter.
The Waterways Experimentation Station
(WES) reported a rate of 1 square meter per
man-hour for a project constructed by
students using hand tools. The rate included
harvesting brush, cutting branches and
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

29
constructing mattresses (Allen and Leech
1997).
Vegetative Rock Gabions
The cost of vegetative rock gabions are high
compared to other techniques. The cost of
the wire gabion baskets (without stones)
range from $1.50 - $2.30 each (Freeman and
Fischenich 2000).

Table 7 Approximate Costs of Riverbank Stabilization Technique
1
Stabilization
Techniques
Unit
Capital
Costs Reference
Relative Cost
Assessment
Vegetated
Geogrids
$16 - 37
per square
foot
Sotir and
Fischenich 2003
High
Live Crib Wall
$13-33 per
square foot
Gray and Sotir
1996
High
Joint Planting
$1 – 5 per
square foot
2
Gray and Sotir
1996
Medium
Brush Mattress
$3 - 14 per
square foot
Allen and
Fischenich 2000
Medium
Vegetated Rock
Gabions
$176 – 527
per cubic
yard of
protection
Freeman and
Fischenich 2000
High
1. For comparison, all costs were adjusted to 2005 $ due to inflation.
2. Does not include riprap and assumes 4 cuttings per square yard.
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

30
Table 8 Vegetative and Bioengineering Labor Estimates (Allen and Fischenich 2000)
Activity Labor Required
Wattling 2-5 m/hr
Brush Layering 2-5 m/hr
Dormant Posts 0.2 - 1.0 m
2
/hr
Willow Cuttings 45 - 50 cuttings/hr
Plant Roll 6 m/hr
Coconut Fiber Roll 1.5 m/hr
Sprig Planting 4.0 - 20 m
2
/hr
Seedling Planting 30 - 120 plants/hr
Ball and Burlap Shrubs 10 - 25 plants/hr
Containerized Plants 20 - 40 plants/hr
Vegetative Geogrids 0.2 - 0.4 m/hr
Seeding 0.02 - 0.2 ha/hr
Hydroseeding 0.05 - 0.15 ha/hr

HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

31
Section 4 Estuary Shoreline River
Surveys and Selection of Shoreline
Restoration Sites for Case Studies
of “Soft Engineering” Design
This ongoing project is intended to classify
the Hudson River shoreline characteristics
from the Tappan Zee Bridge to the Troy
Dam. The results of this project will be an
inventory of shoreline types for the entire
estuary. Information obtained from the river
surveys were used to choose five shoreline
sites for examples
Initial Shoreline River Survey
River surveys of the estuary shoreline were
conducted to qualitatively assess the current
types, condition of natural and engineered
shoreline habitats between Piermont Marsh
and Troy Dam. The shoreline types were
identified and classified as part of an
ongoing separate NYSDEC shoreline
characterization project that will be used in
restoration planning and prioritization. The
shoreline characterization project was
considered to be highly valuable for the
shoreline restoration project presented in
this report.
The initial shoreline classification river
surveys were conducted on August 16
th
and
17
th
, 2005. The survey team was deployed
from Norrie Point State Park in Staatsburg,
NY in a 21 ft Boston Whaler. On August
16
th
, the river survey team traveled upstream
from Norrie Point to Troy Dam and then
back to Norrie Point. On August 17
th
the
team traveled from Norrie Point downstream
to the Tappan Zee Bridge and back. These
two trips provided a visual survey of the
entire Hudson River Estuary shoreline
targeted for restoration analysis.
Selection of Restoration Sites for
Preliminary “Soft Engineering”
Designs
The initial shoreline river survey was used
to prepare a list of candidate sites to be
considered for a detailed evaluation of
alternative shoreline protection measures.
Information from United States Geological
Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps,
orthographic photos and navigation charts
were also used to develop the list of
potential restoration sites. A total of 11
potential sites were identified and are listed
below:
1. Nyack Beach State Park, Nyack. Beach
and park. Masonry wall eroding and
scoured.

Nyack Beach State Park Aerial Photograph


Nyack Beach State Park Shoreline

Shoreline
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

32
2. Bowline Point Park, Haverstraw.
Eroding shoreline of concrete and riprap.

Bowline Park Aerial Photograph


Bowline Point Park Shoreline

3. Newburgh, possible industrial site

Newburgh Aerial Photograph


Newburgh Shoreline

4. Beacon, possible industrial site

Beacon Aerial Photograph

5. Poughkeepsie. South of Victor C.
Waryas Park near Kaal Rock. Eroding
concrete and riprap shore line.

Poughkeepsie, Aerial Photograph

Shoreline
Shoreline
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

33

Poughkeepsie Shoreline

6. Upper Schodack Island, Castleton on the
Hudson. East side of river with
degrading timber crib with concrete cap.

Schodack Island Aerial Photograph


Schodack Island, USGS Delmar Quad

7. Henry Hudson Town Park, Bethlehem.
River-front park with degrading timber
crib and concrete cap.

Henry Hudson Park Aerial Photograph


Henry Hudson Park Shoreline

HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

34
8. Campbell Island, Castleton on the
Hudson. East side of river with
degrading timber crib with concrete cap.

Campbell Island Aerial Photograph


Campbell Island Shoreline

9. Across river from Patroon Island on east
side of river. Timber wall with concrete
cap shoreline.

Across from Patroon Island


Across from Patroon Island

10. Corning Preserve, Albany to Watervliet.
Five-mile waterfront park. Eroding
hardened shoreline, timber wall with
concrete cap. Areas near Patroon Island
and Breaker Island.

Corning Preserve Aerial Photograph


Corning Preserve

HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

35
11. Congress St. Bridge, Watervliet. West
side of river, natural eroding bank just
south of bridge.

Congress St. Bridge Aerial Photograph


Congress St. Bridge Shoreline

The candidate shoreline sites listed above
were provided to the project team for
consideration. At a meeting on August 23
rd
,
2005, five out of the eleven sites were
selected by the project team for development
of preliminary “soft engineering” designs.
The sites were assessed based on the
following criteria:
a. Shoreline type
b. Current condition
c. Opportunity for improvement
d. Regional distribution of all proposed
sites
e. Landscape context (urban/rural)
f. Project applicability to other sites in the
Hudson River Estuary
g. Site specific consideration
The initial assessment identified five
example sites that represented different
shoreline types along the Hudson Estuary
study area and offered the greatest potential
as examples of shoreline restoration
methods that could be applied throughout
the region. All five sites are owned by
public entities, some of whom have an
interest in developing or improving the
property. The five selected sites have
advantages over the other six candidate
sites. A discussion of the selection criteria
for five sites selected for detailed survey is
provided below:

1. Bowline Point Park, Upper
Haverstraw Bay, Rockland County
a. Shoreline type - Degraded, eroding
concrete bulkhead and rip rap near
the high tide line. Unvegetated
beach is exposed at low tide.
b. Current condition - Sections of the
concrete bulkhead are crumbling.
c. Opportunity for improvement -
Bulkhead will need to be repaired or
replaced in the future.
d. Regional distribution of all proposed
sites - This site is the southern most
proposed site.
e. Landscape context (urban/rural) -
This site is in an urban area.
f. Project applicability to other sites in
the Hudson River Estuary -The
setting of a public beach/shoreline
requiring stability to protect park
lands while providing the benefits of
habitat enhancement is common
throughout the estuary. Concepts
developed at this site can be applied
throughout the estuary.
g. Site-specific consideration – This is
the only site in Haverstraw Bay. The
site offers a shallow shoreline with a
large unvegetated intertidal zone.

HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

36
2. Newburgh
a. Shoreline Type - former industrial
land with riprap/concrete and iron
debris shore. Overgrown with
woody vegetation.
b. Current condition - stable with
concrete and iron debris. Overgrown
with woody vegetation.
c. Opportunity for improvement – The
site will likely be developed in the
near future. If so, project managers
would like to offer a soft shoreline
engineering alternative to an
inevitable action.
d. Regional distribution of all proposed
sites - This site represents the only
proposed site in Newburgh Bay.
e. Landscape context (urban/rural) -
This site is in an urban area.
f. Project applicability to other sites in
the Hudson River Estuary - The
shoreline is adjacent to a remediated
brownfield site littered with
discarded concrete and scrap metal
debris. The shoreline resembles a
riprap bank. Concepts developed at
this site can be applied to similar
sites throughout the estuary.
g. Site-specific consideration – This is
the only example in an urban setting
with predominantly riprap-type
(stone, concrete and scrap metal)
stabilization. The parcel is a
remediated brownfield site owned by
the City of Newburgh with plans for
development.

3. Poughkeepsie, near Kaal Rock,
Dutchess County
a. Shoreline type - former
industrial/municipal land with rip rap
shore. Overgrown with woody
vegetation, steep underwater bank.
b. Current condition - The shore may
be eroding in some places. The
overgrown vegetation is likely a
positive attribute for habitat.
c. Opportunity for improvement -
Project managers believe that, since
this area of shoreline is the focus of
urban redevelopment efforts by the
City of Poughkeepsie and
developers, alteration of the current
condition is likely. If so, project
managers believe the site presents an
excellent opportunity to demonstrate
a soft shoreline engineering
alternative for the inevitable action.
d. Regional distribution of all proposed
sites - The naturally hard and steep
shorelines coupled with abundant
railroad infrastructure in this region
of the estuary limit opportunities for
shoreline habitat improvement.
However, considering the waterfront
revitalization occurring throughout
this region, implementation of soft
shoreline technologies presents great
opportunities for adding ecological
benefit to waterfront revitalization
programs.
e. Landscape context (urban/rural) -
This site is in an urban area.
f. Project applicability to other sites in
the Hudson River Estuary - Soft
shoreline techniques suggested for
this site will have applications to
urban waterfront revitalization
projects throughout the estuary.
g. Site-specific consideration - This is
the only proposed site between the
upper estuary sites and Newburgh
Bay.

4. Henry Hudson Park, Bethlehem,
Albany County
a. Shoreline type- Timber and rock
cribbing covered with a concrete cap.
This type of engineered shoreline is
widely distributed and is likely the
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

37
most common type of engineered
shore throughout the upper region of
the estuary.
b. Current condition - The structure is
eroding and collapsing at several
locations.
c. Opportunity for improvement-
Shoreline stability needs to be
improved to protect park property.
Lack of vegetation in the intertidal
zone due to concrete minimizes
habitat value for fish and wildlife.
d. Regional distribution of all proposed
sites- This is a northern estuary site,
a region where massive habitat
destruction occurred due to federal
navigation channel construction and
maintenance. Historically, this
region of the river likely had an
abundance of naturally “soft” or
vegetated shoreline.
e. Landscape context (urban/rural) - the
site is in a rural setting but is heavily
used by urbanites from the Albany
area.
f. Project applicability to other sites in
the Hudson River Estuary - This type
of shoreline is very common
throughout the upper estuary.
Successful implementation of a
reasonable, habitat-friendly
restoration alternative example
would create an opportunity for
restoration on a much larger scale in
the region.
g. Site-specific consideration- The site
is immediately adjacent to a
proposed dredge spoil dewatering
site in support of the upper Hudson
PCB remediation project. This
remediation work will be a stress on
the park which will create interest in
environmental benefits projects.

5. Campbell Island, Rennselaer County
a. Shoreline Type- Same as #1, Henry
Hudson Park
b. Current condition- Same as #1,
Henry Hudson Park
c. Opportunity for improvement-
Shoreline stability needs to be
improved to retain dredge spoils
from re-entering the river channel.
Lack of vegetation and a concrete
intertidal zone and lack of vegetation
minimizes habitat value for fish and
wildlife. Breaches in the concrete
cap at several locations have resulted
in re-establishment of wetland plants
on the landward side of the
remaining cribbing.
d. Regional distribution of all proposed
sites- Second site in the upper
Hudson River Estuary. The existing
shoreline habitat at this site is
common in the upper estuary. A
second example site would provide
additional techniques for similar
shorelines.
e. Landscape context (urban/rural) -
Site is in a rural portion of
Rennselaer County on state owned
land and not easily accessed by the
public. An advantage of the site
being inaccessible to the public is
that it will be protected from further
human disturbance, post-restoration.
f. Project applicability to other sites in
the Hudson River Estuary- This type
of shoreline is very common
throughout the upper estuary.
Development of reasonable, habitat-
friendly restoration alternatives
would create an opportunity for
restoration on a much larger scale in
the region.
g. Site-specific consideration- This site
would offer a second design
alternative to the one proposed for
Henry Hudson Park. A second
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

38
design is desirable because of the
extensive use of this engineering
system in this region of the river.
Having two design alternatives will
increase the likelihood that one will
lead to a feasible design that can be
used on a larger scale. At least one
of the two designs will focus on
retrofitting the existing structure to
make it more stable and to provide
better habitat. The other may focus
on total replacement.




HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

39
Section 5 Preliminary “Soft
Engineering” Designs and Detailed
Evaluation of Selected Shoreline
Example Sites
The existing shoreline characteristics of
each site were reviewed and evaluated to
determine appropriate “soft engineering”
alternatives for each site. The techniques
identified in the literature review were
considered, as well as modified techniques
to accommodate the site-specific features
and to enhance aquatic habitat to the
maximum extent possible. This section
provides an evaluation of “soft engineering”
techniques for each selected site.
Detailed Shoreline Survey of Selected
Sites
The five sites selected for application of soft
shoreline stabilization techniques were
surveyed on September 13
th
and 14
th
, 2005.
The Bowline Park, Newburgh, and
Poughkeepsie sites were surveyed on
September 13
th
. The Henry Hudson Park
and Campbell Island sites were surveyed on
September 14
th
. The surveys were
conducted by Alden staff with assistance
from the NYSDEC/HRNERR staff. The
NYSDEC/HRNERR provided a 16 ft work
skiff and operator for the two day survey of
the sites. The skiff operator also provided
valuable assistance collecting survey data.
Data collected during the site surveys
included:
Photographic documentation
Bathymetry with Global Positioning
System (GPS) coordinates
Location of water line with GPS
coordinates
Location of top of bank with GPS
coordinates
High tide water elevation
Shoreline geometry
Shoreline substrate
The bathymetric data was collected using a
survey rod for depths less than 10 ft. Depths
greater than 10 ft were obtained using a
depth finder mounted to the side of the work
skiff. Bathymetric measurements were
located with GPS coordinates.
The waterline and top of bank was mapped
by continuously recording GPS coordinates
along the edge of water and top of bank.
Relative elevations and overall shoreline
cross section geometry was obtained using a
hand held level, survey rod and tape.
Qualitative visual observations of the soil
substrate, riparian vegetation, overall bank
stability, and adjacent land use were noted.
The locations of the five sites are shown on
Figure 10.
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

40

Figure 10 Hudson River Selected Shoreline Stabilization Sites


HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

41
Bowline Point Park
Bowline Point Park is located on the western
shore of the Hudson River in Haverstraw
Bay near Bowline Point at River Mile (RM)
35, in the town of Haverstraw, New York.
Haverstraw Bay is the widest fetch in the
Hudson River Estuary, approximately 2.8
miles wide, and extends approximately six
miles from Stony Point to Croton Point
(Figure 11). The site includes an area of
shoreline modifications intended to reduce
erosion of the park property.
Existing Conditions
Bowline Point Park shoreline is
approximately 1,300 ft long, extending from
the southern end at the inlet to Bowline
Pond to the oil unloading dock for Bowline
Generating Station at the northern end. The
shoreline is a combination of the estuarine
riprap/artificial shore community in the
process of return to a brackish intertidal
shore community, with a substrate that
mainly consists of stone, discarded brick,
and a few small concrete and stone walls.
The stone walls are deteriorating and have
been undermined by erosion in a few
locations. Three rock gabion jetties are
located along the shore extending
approximately 40 ft into the river. The
gabions are degrading and have been capped
with bituminous pavement. A plan of
Bowline Point Park shoreline is shown on
Figure 12 and sections are shown on Figure
13 and Figure 14.
The adjacent upland property consists of a
recreational water park with maintained
grass, walkways and limited woody riparian
vegetation.
The shallow slope in the intertidal zone
exposes an unvegetated beach area of sand,
cobles, stones, and deteriorating brick. An
analysis of potential swimming sites for the
Hudson Estuary has identified a possible
location for a future swimming beach at the
park (LMS 2005). Submerged aquatic
vegetation (brackish subtidal aquatic bed) is
present in the shallow waters adjacent to the
shoreline.
Hydraulics
This section of river is relatively shallow
and wide. The navigation channel is about
2,700 ft from shore, approximately 300 ft
wide, with a maximum depth of about 32 ft
at mean low water. The areas outside of the
main river channel have water depths
typically less than 10 ft. Tidal water levels
fluctuate 2.9 ft. Wind-driven and ship-wake
waves have potential to be large, several feet
or more. The near-shore water depth is
relatively shallow with a river bed slope of
approximately 5% from the shoreline. The
shallow water depths minimize the
magnitude of the river currents near shore.
The mean current velocity in the main river
channel is approximately 1 ft/sec at a tidal
flow rate of about 130,000 cfs (CHGEC et
al. 1999). The shoreline water velocities are
expected to be less than 0.5 ft/sec.
Aquatic Habitat
The brackish (0-10 ppt) and shallow water
(<15 ft) of Haverstraw Bay provides nursery
habitat for a large variety of fishes. The fish
community in the vicinity of Bowline Point
Park has been sampled by the Beach Seine
Survey conducted since the 1970s by the
owners of power generating facilities on the
estuary. Since 1980, 892 beach seine
samples on 6 beach sites in or near Bowline
Point Park, have collected a total of 53
species of fish. The fish community at these
sites was dominated by estuarine and marine
species (striped bass, Atlantic silverside,
white perch, Atlantic menhaden, and bay
anchovy) and anadromous herrings
(blueback herring and American shad) that
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

42
occur primarily during their emigration from
the estuary at the end of the growing season:
Species Mean Catch
Striped bass 11.03
Atlantic silverside 9.38
White perch 7.12
Atlantic menhaden 5.75
Bay anchovy 4.99
Blueback herring 4.98
American shad 2.66
The other 47 taxa collected all averaged less
than 1 specimen per sample
The bay also provides winter habitat for
shortnose sturgeon (NYSDOS 2005), and
summer feeding areas for blue crabs.
Submerged aquatic vegetation beds (SAVs),
which encompass much of the area within
200 ft from shore, provide good habitat for
fishes and invertebrates.
Erosion and Sediments
The primary means of bank erosion at the
site is wave action (wind and vessel), with
ice scour probably less important but still a
factor in some years. The existing concrete
retaining wall is located below the high
water elevation. Sand underneath the wall
has been washed out and undermined by the
waves breaking on or near the wall.


The remaining shoreline mainly consists of a
gradual stone and concrete debris slope. A
few areas have little debris and are actively
eroding. One bank location is being
undermined at the base of a large tree, as
shown in the picture below.


Bank Stabilization Alternatives
The five techniques identified in the
literature review were initially screened to
determine the shoreline restoration that
would be most appropriate for the site.
Vegetated Geogrids – Vegetated geogrids
could be installed at near-vertical slopes and
would provide a higher aesthetic value than
other structural techniques. However, this
method would require extensive excavation
of the upland area and would have relatively
high costs. Therefore, vegetated geogrids
were not chosen for evaluation at Bowline
Point Park.
Live Crib Wall - A live crib wall could be
installed above the high water elevation to
replace the existing concrete and stone walls
that are failing. However, the aesthetics and
economics of this option are not as
preferable as other methods. Therefore, a
live crib wall was not considered for
evaluation at Bowline Point Park.
Brush Mattress – A brush mattress would
require minimal excavation because of the
existing shallow slopes. However, since the
Eroding bank at base of large tree
Existing undermined concrete wall
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

43
brush mattress is very labor intensive to
install, the abundant stones on this site make
joint planting a less expensive alternative.
Although the brush mattress was not chosen
for final consideration, a preliminary design
was developed, as presented on Figure 15.
Vegetated Rock Gabions – Vegetated rock
gabions could be used to replace the existing
stone and concrete walls. However, the
aesthetics of the gabion wall would not be as
acceptable as other methods. Also, a rock
gabion wall would be a “harder engineering”
design than the existing shoreline.
Joint Planting - The existing shoreline has
sufficient supply of rocks and stones to
stabilize the shoreline. The site could be
easily retrofitted by joint planting with
minimal excavation. Therefore, joint
planting was chosen for further evaluation.
Proposed Design: Remove Bulkheads
Joint Planting Installation
The shoreline, with its existing riprap and
stone, appears to be stable and would require
minimal alterations. Some eroded areas,
including an area around the base of a large
tree, would be repaired. The repairs would
involve adding compacted soil covered by a
layer of stones. The remaining stone
shoreline would be planted with live stakes.

Shoreline areas with deteriorating stone and
concrete walls would require more
significant modifications. The concrete and
stone would be re-graded to provide a
minimum bank slope of 1V:2H. Stone
material on the site would be repositioned
and additional stone would be brought in to
stabilize the slope, if necessary.

The existing rock gabion jetties could be left
in place to provide erosion protection and
aquatic habitat.

The live stakes would be installed between
the stone joints above the high water
elevation to the top of the bank at 2’ to 3’
spacing. The live stakes should be 2” to 3”
in diameter and installed the same day as
harvested, if possible. If the live stake can
not be installed on the same day as
harvested, then the stakes should be properly
stored.
Native riparian vegetation should be
considered for live stake vegetation. The
species chosen for live stake planting must
propagate roots easily and quickly. The
integrity of the stabilization structure
Rock gabion jetty
Concrete wall shoreline
Concrete debris and stone shoreline
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

44
depends on the successful establishment of
the plantings. The most common species
used for live staking include:
Willows
Viburnums
Dogwoods
Joint planting preliminary designs are
presented on Figure 16 and Figure 17.
Construction
The shoreline repairs and plantings would be
accomplished using a backhoe or excavator
and manual labor. The site would first be
re-graded as required to provide a minimum
slope of 1V:2H. The concrete bulkhead wall
would be broken up into pieces and used for
bank stabilization. Stone or concrete debris
would cover the bank to a depth of 12
inches. Surplus material from existing
banks with stone and concrete debris depths
greater than 12 inches could be used for
areas without existing stone protection.
Live cut stakes would then be installed in
the stone slope. The stakes would be
tamped in by hand. Using steel stakes (# 6
rebar), the creation of pilot holes may be
needed to ease installation.
Repairing the shoreline is expected to take
approximately 4 weeks. To maximize the
success of live stakes becoming established,
construction should be scheduled when the
sap is rising in the trees to be harvested,
which usually occur in mid to late winter
(Crossman and Simm 2004). Alternatively,
the cuttings could be harvested when the
plants are dormant and stored until needed.
The dormant cuttings should be refrigerated
between 31°F to 40°F and 60 to 70 percent
humidity (Mulberg and Moore 2005).
Dormant cuttings are also available from
vendors.
Estimated Costs
The estimated cost to repair the shoreline is
about $75/ft or $3.75/ft
2
. The estimated cost
is based on a modified shoreline width of 20
ft and a shoreline length of 1,200 ft.
Assumptions used to develop the costs are
provided in Appendix C.
Operation and Maintenance
Requirements
The live stakes should be monitored until
they take root and become established,
(typically the first two seasons). If large
sections of the bank fail to become
established then additional live stakes
should be planted. The bank should be
inspected for damage after major storm,
flood and ice events. Vegetation could be
increased by pruning and fertilizing during
the second season.
Benefits Expected
The existing shoreline is degrading, with a
large section comprised of a deteriorated
concrete bulkhead. The bulkhead is failing
and unattractive. Other portions of the
shoreline have large deposits of concrete
that are also unattractive and deter full use
of the site.
The joint planting alternative would create a
vegetated bank that would hide and utilize
most of the concrete debris while stabilizing
the shoreline. This would allow
development of more stable intertidal and
subtidal communities that would not be
constantly threatened by sediments eroding
from the site. Reduced sedimentation also
would allow a more diverse array of benthic
invertebrates, which provide food for
inshore fishes. Future development of a
swimming beach would not be precluded by
the restoration.
The vegetation would also reduce water
runoff, nutrient and sediments loading.
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

45
River viewing areas could be incorporated
into the shoreline design to allow public
access to the river for fishing and recreation.
Additional benefits could include the
placement of in water structures from the
demolition of the concrete bulkhead and
relocation of large stones. However, placing
structures below water could trigger
significant regulatory requirements.



HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

46

USGS Quad, Haverstraw
Figure 11 Bowline Park General Vicinity
Bowline
Point Park
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

47

Figure 12 Bowline Park, Existing Conditions Plan
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

48

Figure 13 Bowline Park, Existing Conditions Section A
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

49

Figure 14 Bowline Park, Existing Conditions Section B
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

50

Figure 15 Bowline Point Park Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Cross Section
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

51

Figure 16 Bowline Park Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Cross Section A
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

52

Figure 17 Bowline Park Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Cross Section B
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

53
Newburgh
This shoreline site is located in Newburgh,
approximately ½ mile upstream of the
mouth of Quassaick Creek and immediately
downstream of the Newburgh Municipal
Launch at RM 60 on Newburgh Bay.
Newburgh Bay is approximately 1.5 miles
wide and extends from Storm King
Mountain 8.2 miles north to Chelsea.
Existing Conditions
The selected shoreline is approximately 790
ft long extending from the Newburgh
Municipal Launch downstream to a small
cove adjacent to an abandoned smoke stack.
The shoreline mainly consists of large stone,
concrete, and scrap iron debris with
abundant woody vegetation above the high
water elevation. Scrap metal is scattered
throughout the river bank area with
remnants of a few large steel barges evident.
The adjacent upland property consists of a
remediated brownfield site owned by the
City of Newburgh.
The bottom slope of the river near shore is
approximately 1V:3H.
Hydraulics
The main river channel is located
approximately 300 ft from shore. The main
channel width is approximately 4,000 ft with
an average depth of about 30 ft. Water
levels fluctuate 2.8 ft due to the tide
fluctuations. The mean tidal velocity in the
main river channel is approximately 1 ft/sec
with a tidal flow of about 100,000
ft
3
/sec(CHGEC et al. 1999). Shoreline
water velocities are expected to be less than
0.5 ft/sec.
Aquatic Habitat
The Newburgh Bay section of the river
typically has low salinities and represents
the upstream limit of the salt wedge during
low summer flows. The area provides
valuable habitat for various fish species and
represents the downstream extent of nursery
habitat for American shad (Hattala 1997)
and spawning of Atlantic sturgeon (Dwyer
et al. 2000). In addition, nearby tributaries
(Moodna, Quassaick, Fishkill, and
Wappinger Creeks) provide spawning
habitat for numerous anadromous species
such as alewife and blueback herring. In
turn, the area surrounding the study site may
represent potentially suitable nursery habitat
for these species following hatching.
The fish community in the vicinity of the
Newburgh site has been sampled at 4 nearby
beach seine sites in 439 individual samples
since 1980. The fish community at these
sites was dominated by anadromous herring
species (blueback herring and American
shad) that occur primarily late in the
summer or fall, resident freshwater species
(banded killifish and spottail shiner),
estuarine resident white perch, and striped
bass:
Species Mean Catch
Blueback herring 19.8
Banded killifish 14.1
American shad 10.8
White perch 8.5
Striped bass 8.3
Spottail shiner 3.6
Thirty-six (36) additional species were
captured, and only four of those averaged
more than one specimen per sample.
Erosion and Sediments
The existing shoreline at the Newburgh site
has large armor stones and is covered with
concrete and scrap metal debris. The shore
appears to be stable and is vegetated from
about mid-bank to top-of-bank. Because of
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

54
the river width and low velocities, wave
action appears to be the major cause of
shoreline erosion. The large stones and
concrete debris act to protect the shoreline
from wave energy. The vegetation on the
upper bank slopes adds to the bank’s
stability due to the root systems holding the
soil.
Bank Stabilization Alternatives
The Newburgh site has extensive riparian
vegetation from mid-bank to the top of bank.
Vegetating this bank zone is a common
recommendation for all the “soft
engineering” designs identified in the
literature. The shoreline at Newburgh has
been undisturbed for many years, which has
allowed the vegetation to become
established. The shore is also heavily
armored with concrete and stone and is
stable. The existing condition is not
dissimilar in some ways to the joint planting
alternative. Accordingly, joint planting with
the removal of debris has been chosen as the
most appropriate restoration alternative.
Proposed Design: Removal of Industrial
Debris with Joint Planting
The large concrete blocks and rock (armor
layer) limit the ability of vegetation to take
root from the high water surface elevation to
mid-bank. Also, numerous industrial
artifacts, scrap metal, and iron construction
debris litter the shoreline and should be
removed.
The thickness of the existing concrete blocks
and large rocks may prohibit the installation
of live stakes. Moving the concrete and
rocks may be required to facilitate the
installation of live stakes. Also, soil should
be spread over and into the gaps of the
armor layer to support planted vegetation in
areas where the armor layer is greater than 3
ft thick. Dredged material, if available, may
be suitable to be used in place of the soil.
The live stakes would be installed at 2’ to 3’
intervals in the voids of the armor layer to
the top of the bank or to existing woody
vegetation. The live stakes should be 2” to
3” in diameter and installed the same day as
harvested. If this is not possible, the stakes
should be properly stored as described for
Bowline Park.
Native riparian vegetation plantings would
be the same as for the Bowline Point Park
site described, but would not need to be as
tolerant of salinity. Invasive species should
be replaced with native vegetation if found
present among the existing riparian
vegetation.
The restoration design for this site is
presented on Figure 22.
Construction
The shoreline repairs and plantings would be
accomplished using a barge-mounted
backhoe and manual labor. The existing
scrap metal and industrial debris would first
be removed from the site. If the armor layer
was still too thick to drive stakes through,
soil fill sufficient to support vegetation
would be placed in the rock voids. Live cut
stakes would then be installed in the stone
slope. The stakes would be driven in by
hand. The creation of pilot holes may be
needed using steel stakes (rebar) to ease
installation. Pilot holes could be installed
with a hydraulic backhoe outfitted with a
steel rod to push through the existing riprap
layer if manual installation is not possible.
Repairing the shoreline is expected to take
approximately 6 weeks. To maximize the
success of live stakes becoming established,
construction should be scheduled when the
sap is rising in the trees to be harvested,
which usually occurs mid to late winter
(Crossman and Simm 2004). Alternatively,
the cuttings could be harvested when the
plants are dormant and stored until needed,
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

55
as described for Bowline Park. Dormant
cuttings are also available from vendors.
Estimated Costs
The estimated cost for the shoreline
modifications is approximately $354/ft or
$17.70/ft
2
. The cost estimate assumes a
modified shoreline width of 20 ft and a
shoreline length of 800 ft. Assumptions
used to develop the cost are provided in
Appendix C.
Operation and Maintenance
Requirements
The live stakes should be monitored until
they take root and become established,
(typically the first two seasons). The bank
should be inspected for damage after major
storm and flood events. Vegetation could be
increased by pruning and fertilizing during
the second season.
Benefits Expected
The existing shoreline is stable but is littered
with scrap metal and large concrete debris
that is unattractive and represents a hazard
for public use of the area. However, the
upper bank is vegetated. The installation of
live stakes would create additional
vegetation that would hide some of the
remaining concrete debris. Alternatively, all
the concrete could be removed and disposed
of off site, and then more visually pleasing
stone could be used to stabilize the bank.
The additional riparian vegetation would
also reduce water runoff, nutrient and
sediments loading from the adjacent
property. River viewing areas could be
incorporated into the shoreline design to
allow public access to the river for
recreation. The “cleanup” aspects of the
project would enhance public use of the site,
either as an adjunct to the public boat launch
area, or for future redevelopment of the
adjacent site.
Habitat benefits of this restoration effort
would be relatively minor, particularly for
aquatic habitat since the site is presently not
actively eroding




HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

56

USGS Quad, Cornwall-on-Hudson
Figure 18 Newburgh, General Vicinity
Newburgh
Site
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

57

Figure 19 Newburgh, Existing Conditions Plan
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

58

Figure 20 Newburgh, Existing Conditions Section A
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

59

Figure 21 Newburgh, Existing Conditions Section B
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

60

Figure 22 Newburgh Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Cross Section
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

61
Poughkeepsie
The shoreline site is located on the Hudson
River in Poughkeepsie below the mid-
Hudson Bridge at RM 76, just downstream
of Victor C. Waryas Park and south of Kaal
Rock. The Hudson River in this area is
relatively deep, averaging 50 ft or greater,
and is approximately 2,600 ft wide.
Existing Conditions
The Poughkeepsie shoreline is
approximately 960 ft long, extending from
the northern end at Kaal Rock to another
steep slope at the southern end. The
shoreline mainly consists of degrading
concrete bulkheads, old timber piles and
stone slopes. The concrete bulkheads are
degrading and are being undermined by
erosion.
The adjacent upland property consists of a
public park. The deteriorated shoreline
areas and failed concrete bulkheads are
fenced off to the public. The public park has
a parking area and grass areas with woody
riparian vegetation near the shoreline.
The water depth is relatively deep along the
shoreline, with a slope of approximately
1V:1.6H (63%).
Hydraulics
This section of the river is characterized as a
relatively narrow, deep section of the river.
The main river channel extends from shore
to shore without shoal areas. The mean tidal
velocity in the main river channel is
approximately 1 ft/sec with a tidal flow of
about 100,000 cfs (CHGEC et al. 1999).
The shoreline water velocities are expected
to be similar to the main river channel
currents depending on wind direction.
Aquatic Habitat
The aquatic habitat in the vicinity of
Poughkeepsie is considered a significant
segment of the Hudson River and has been
designated as the “Poughkeepsie Deepwater
Habitat” by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. The deepwater habitat extends
fourteen miles from the hamlets of West
Park to Marlboro. Water depths average 50
ft and range from 30 ft to as deep as 125 ft at
“Crum Elbow”.
The deep water provides winter and
spawning habitat for shortnose sturgeon, a
federally listed endangered species.
Shortnose sturgeon yolk-sac larvae have
been collected from depths of 45 to 120 ft.
Although limited in this section of the
estuary, there is some shallow near shore
habitat. The fish community in the vicinity
of the site near Kaal Rock has been sampled
at 7 nearby beach seine sites in 430
individual samples since 1980. The
anadromous herrings, although numerically
abundant, are highly seasonal in occurrence.
Most abundant freshwater species were
spottail shiner and banded killifish; white
perch and striped bass were also common:
Species Mean Catch
Blueback herring 100.3
Unidentifed herrings 32.3
Spottail shiner 16.8
American shad 12.9
White perch 10.7
Striped bass 5.2
Banded killifish 3.4
Thirty-nine (39) additional species were
captured, and only four of those averaged
more than one specimen per sample. Marine
species such as bay anchovy, Atlantic
menhaden, and bluefish are rare, but do
occasionally occur in the areas.
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

62
Erosion and Sediments
The source of existing shoreline erosion is a
combination of ice scour, current velocity,
wave action and stormwater runoff. Upland
areas above the existing concrete bulkhead
walls are covered with impervious pavement
which increases runoff and erosion behind
the bulkheads. The bulkhead walls are also
undermined by wave and ice scour as shown
in the picture below.


Bank Stabilization Alternatives
The five most appropriate techniques for this
site are the same as described for the
Bowline Point Park site.
Vegetated Geogrids - Vegetated geogrids
would require extensive excavation of the
upland area because of the steep slopes.
This excavation would result in a relatively
high project costs when compared to other
options. Therefore, vegetated geogrids were
not chosen for evaluation.
Live Crib wall - A live crib wall could be
installed above the high water elevation to
replace the existing concrete bulkheads that
are failing. However, the aesthetics and
economics of a live crib wall would be less
attractive than for other stabilization
methods. Therefore, a live crib wall was not
selected for further evaluation.
Brush Mattress - A brush mattress would
require extensive excavation at this site due
to the existing steep slopes. A brush
mattress is very labor intensive to install and
is not as durable as other options.
Therefore, a brush mattress was not chosen
for evaluation.
Vegetated Rock Gabions - Vegetated rock
gabions could replace the existing concrete
bulkheads. However, there are other
methods that would better improve the
aesthetics of the site.
Joint Planting - This site could be easily
retrofitted by joint planting with minimal
excavation in without a bulkhead.
Therefore, joint planting was chosen for
further evaluation.
Proposed Design: Bulkhead and
Pavement Removal, Re-grade Slopes and
Joint Planting
The existing shoreline, with its riprap and
stone, is considered to be stable and would
require minimal alterations. Some eroded
areas, including the base of existing large
trees, would be repaired. The repairs would
involve adding compacted soil covered by a
layer of stones.


The failing concrete bulkhead and adjacent
pavement areas would have to be removed.
The material under the bulkhead would be
covered with 12 inches of stone and graded
to provide a minimum bank slope of 1V:2H.
If the site does not have enough stone
Undermined Concrete Bulkhead
Stone Shoreline
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

63
material, additional stones would be brought
in and installed as required.


The live stakes would be installed in
between the stone joints above the high
water elevation to the top of the bank in a
similar manner as described for the joint
planting options described above for
previous sites.
Native riparian vegetation would be the
same as described for the previous sites
(willows, viburnums, dogwoods).
Preliminary joint planting designs for
Poughkeepsie are presented on Figure 28
and Figure 29.
Construction
The shoreline repairs and plantings would be
accomplished using a backhoe or excavator
and manual labor working from shore.
Stone or concrete debris would cover the
bank to a depth of 12 inches and be graded
to a minimum slope of 1V:2H. Material
would come from breaking up the pavement
cap and concrete bulkhead wall,
redistributing debris from thicker areas to
unprotected areas or brought in.
Alternatively, all the concrete could be
removed, disposed of off site, and replaced
with attractive stone. Live cut stakes would
then be installed in the stone slope in a
similar manner as described above for other
sites.
Repairing the shoreline is expected to take
approximately 4 weeks. To maximize the
success of live stakes becoming established,
construction should be scheduled when the
sap is rising in the trees to be harvested,
which usually occurs mid to late winter
(Crossman and Simm 2004). Alternatively,
the cuttings could be harvested when the
plants are dormant and stored until needed,
as described for Bowline Park. Dormant
cuttings are also available from vendors.
Estimated Costs
The estimated cost to modify the shoreline
with joint plantings is $147/ft or $7.36/ft
2
.
The estimate assumes a modified shoreline
width of 20 ft and a total length of 960 ft.
Total project cost estimates and typical
assumptions used to develop the cost are
provided in Appendix C.
Operation and Maintenance
Requirements
The live stakes should be monitored until
they take root and become established
(typically the first two seasons). The bank
should be inspected for damage after major
storm and flood events. Vegetation could be
increased by pruning and fertilizing during
the second season.
Expected Benefits
The existing concrete bulkhead is
undermined and failing and other portions of
the shoreline have large deposits of concrete
that are eyesores. The large concrete debris
would be broken up and re-used in bank
areas for protection or replaced with
attractive stone. The vegetated bank would
hide most of the concrete debris left on site.
Either option would create a safer, more
aesthetically pleasing waterfront for the
public park than the present decaying
bulkhead. River viewing areas could be
incorporated into the shoreline design to
Concrete Bulkhead near Kaal Rock
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

64
allow public access to the river for fishing
and recreation.
Removal of impervious upland areas and the
newly vegetated banks would reduce water
runoff, nutrient and sediments loading.
The joint planting will provide some
enhancement to the riparian habitat for
wildlife, however the project will have little
effect on subtidal habitats. Intertidal
habitats will be restored to a more natural
state that would be more conducive to
colonization by aquatic invertebrates.
Because the aquatic habitat in the vicinity is
primarily one of deep water, the project
would have little effect on the fishes of the
area, although young fish that feed in the
nearshore area may benefit from an
enhanced invertebrate fauna.


HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

65


USGS Quad, Poughkeepsie
Figure 23 Poughkeepsie General Vicinity
Poughkeepsie
shoreline
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

66

Figure 24 Poughkeepsie Existing Conditions Plan
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

67

Figure 25 Poughkeepsie Existing Conditions Section A
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

68

Figure 26 Poughkeepsie Existing Conditions Section B
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

69

Figure 27 Poughkeepsie Existing Conditions Section C
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

70

Figure 28 Poughkeepsie Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Section A
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

71

Figure 29 Poughkeepsie Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Cross Section B
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

72
Henry Hudson Park
Henry Hudson Park is located on the west
side of the Hudson River in the town of
Bethlehem, just upstream of the NY
Thruway Connection Bridge at RM 138.5.
The Hudson River in this area is relatively
narrow (approximately 1,100 ft wide) and
shallow (an average depth of about 20 ft).
The main navigation channel is maintained
at a width of 400 ft and a depth of 32 ft near
the eastern shore.
Existing Conditions
The Henry Hudson Park shoreline site is
approximately 1,800 ft long, extending
downstream from the boat launch to mouth
of the Vloman Kill Creek. The shoreline is
an old timber crib bulkhead wall, with the
upper bank filled with rock and capped with
concrete. The timber bulkhead is degrading
and has failed in a number of areas. Rock
material under the concrete cap is eroding
into the river through the failed bulkhead.
The adjacent upland property is a public
recreational park with a boat launch and
accessible fishing areas along the shore. A
picnic area extends the entire length of the
shoreline, providing picnic tables, grills,
benches, and groomed landscaping. A few
large trees are located near the shoreline.
Hydraulics
The water depth along the shore is relatively
shallow, with depths ranging from 3 to 10 ft
along the timber bulkhead and sloping away
from the bulkhead at a 1V:15H slope (7%).
The navigational channel is located
approximately 600 ft from shore. The mean
current velocity in the main river channel is
approximately 1.2 ft/sec, with a tidal flow of
about 10,000 cfs (CHGEC et al. 1999).
Maximum velocity is about 2.2 ft/sec and a
maximum tidal fluctuation of about 4.5 ft
(LMS and THG 2005). The shoreline water
velocities are expected to be similar to the
main river channel currents depending on
wind direction.
Aquatic Habitat
The Hudson River in the vicinity of Henry
Hudson Park provides primarily a river
channel habitat. The main river channel is
approximately 600 ft off the shoreline with a
shoal gradually sloping towards the river
bank and water depths averaging about 15 ft.
The southern boundary of the site is the
mouth of Vloman Kill Creek. The mouth of
Papscanee Marsh and Creek is directly
across the river. Papscanee Marsh and
Creek and Vloman Kill Creek have been
identified as significant by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. These tributaries are
important spawning and nursery habitat for
several anadromous fish species, including
blueback herring, alewife, and American
shad. Vloman Kill Creek supports
significant runs of these anadromous species
(NYSDOS 2005). Resident forage fish
species are also common in these tributaries,
including killifish and shiners.


The fish community of the mainstem of the
Hudson in the vicinity of the Henry Hudson
Park has been sampled at 4 nearby beach
seine sites in 138 individual samples since
1980. The fish community at these sites was
dominated by the anadromous herrings
(blueback herring, and American shad), and
Mouth of Vloman Kill Creek
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

73
a few small freshwater species (banded
killifish, spottail shiner, and tessellated
darter) that serve as forage for gamefish:
Species Mean Catch
Blueback herring 30.7
Unidentified clupeids 21.4
American shad 20.0
Banded killifish 19.8
Spottail shiner 16.1
Tesselated darter 10.4
White perch 2.9
Striped bass 1.7
Thirty-two (32) additional species were
captured, and none of those averaged more
than one specimen per sample.
The main channel of the Hudson River in
the vicinity of Henry Hudson Park is also a
spawning area for shortnose sturgeon
(NYSDOS 2005).
Erosion and Sediments
The existing shoreline has an old timber
bulkhead capped with concrete. The
bulkhead wall has been breached in several
locations and appears to be overtopped at
high water. Rock fill material under the
concrete cap has been eroding and falling
into the river, causing large portions of the
concrete cap to fail. Erosional forces
affecting the shoreline include wakes from
passing ships, ice floes and surface runoff.
Wave energy produced by large passing
ships can be significant. For example, on
July 22, 2005, the docks and concrete piers
at the boat launch were severely damaged by
the wake of a passing ship (Town of
Bethlehem 2005).


Erosion due to surface runoff is also a factor
contributing to the failure of the existing
design. The upland side of the concrete caps
appears to have acted as a dam. Water
pooled and drained under the cap, eroded the
bank and undermined the concrete cap.
Erosion and damage due to ice is also a
concern in this portion of the river. Large
ice floes scour the shoreline and create high
shear forces.
Bank Stabilization Alternatives
The five most appropriate techniques for this
site are the same as described for the other
sites.
Vegetated Geogrids - Vegetated geogrids
can be installed at near vertical slopes and
provide high aesthetic value compared to
other structural techniques. However,
because of extensive excavation that would
be required in the upland area, vegetated
geogrids were not chosen for evaluation at
Henry Hudson Park.
Live Crib Wall – A live crib wall could be
installed above the high water elevation to
replace the existing concrete bulkheads that
have failed. However, the aesthetics and
costs are not as good as other methods, and a
live crib wall was not considered for
evaluation at Henry Hudson Park.
Brush Mattress – A brush mattress would
require extensive excavation because of the
Undermined concrete cap in breached section
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

74
existing steep slopes. Brush mattresses are
very labor intensive to install and are not as
durable as other options. Because they
require a shallower slope compared to other
alternatives, the installation of a brush
mattress would also require a larger upland
area. Therefore, a brush mattress has not
been chosen for evaluation at Henry Hudson
Park.
Vegetated Rock Gabions – Vegetated rock
gabions could be used to replace the existing
timber bulkheads. However, the aesthetics
of the gabion wall would not be as
preferable as other methods.
Joint Planting – The existing river bank
could be retrofitted by removing the
concrete cap and adding live stakes with
minimal excavation. Therefore, joint
planting was chosen as the preferred
methods for further evaluation at Henry
Hudson Park.
Proposed Design: Concrete Removal, Re-
grade Bank with Joint Planting
The shoreline would be modified by
removing the degrading concrete cap, re-
grading the slope and planting live stakes.
Timber bulkhead areas with excessive
degradation could be stabilized by installing
timber piles where necessary. A new timber
bulkhead would not be installed. Rather,
additional piles would be added to provide
lateral stabilization to the existing bulkhead
and to dissipate wave energy where the
existing bulkhead has failed.

The existing concrete caps would be
removed and reused in the subtidal area.
The existing rock fill would then be re-
graded to a minimum slope of 1V: 2H with a
minimum depth of 12 inches.
The live stakes would be installed in
between the re-graded stone fill from the
high water elevation to the top of the bank at
2’ to 3’ spacing. The live stakes should be
2” to 3” in diameter and either installed the
same day as harvested or properly stored.
Similar to the other restoration sites, native
riparian vegetation should be considered
(willows, viburnums and dogwoods).
The preliminary bank stabilization design
for Henry Hudson Park is presented on
Figure 34.
Construction
The shoreline repairs and plantings would be
accomplished using a backhoe or excavator,
pile driver, and manual labor working from
shore.
Using a pile driver from shore, the timber
piles would be driven in the breached areas
in the existing bulkhead wall. The concrete
cap would then be removed and stored for
reuse in the subtidal area. The rock fill
behind the bulkhead wall would be re-
graded to a minimum slope of 1V:2H,
providing at least a 12 inch depth. Live cut
stakes would then be installed in the stone
Breached section in timber bulkhead
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

75
slope. The stakes would be driven in by
hand.
Repairing the shoreline is expected to take
approximately 6 weeks. To maximize the
success of live stakes becoming established,
construction should be scheduled when the
sap is rising in the trees to be harvested,
which usually occurs mid to late winter
(Crossman and Simm 2004). Alternatively,
the cuttings could be harvested when the
plants are dormant and stored until needed,
as described for Bowline Park. Dormant
cuttings are also available from vendors.
Estimated Costs
The estimated cost to modify the shoreline
with joint plantings is $137/ft or $13.67/ft
2
.
The estimate assumes a modified shoreline
width of 10 ft and a total length of 1,800 ft.
Total project cost estimates and typical
assumptions used to develop the cost are
provided in Appendix C.
Operation and Maintenance
Requirements
The live stakes should be monitored until
they take root and become established,
(typically the first two seasons). The bank
should be inspected for damage after major
storm and flood events. Vegetation could be
increased by pruning and fertilizing during
the second season.
Expected Benefits
The existing timber bulkhead and concrete
cap shoreline is un-vegetated and failing.
The bulkhead has breached and the adjacent
land is eroding in a number of areas. The
concrete cap would be moved to subtidal
area to enhance habitat. The installation of
live stakes would create a vegetated bank
that would be more attractive to wildlife,
and more aesthetically pleasing for human
enjoyment than the current shoreline. River
viewing areas could be incorporated into the
design maintain public access to the river for
recreation. Conversion of the shore just
upstream of the boat ramp to a swimming
beach (LMS 2005) would also be enhanced
by the restoration work.
The proposed shoreline design would
stabilize the bank and reduce erosion from
stormwater runoff. The vegetation would
also reduce the nutrient and sediment
loading from the runoff. These
modifications will also decrease erosion of
shoreline from wind and vessel-induced
waves, tidal currents and ice scour and
should result in reduced sedimentation and
lower turbidity.
The nearshore habitats will change toward a
freshwater intertidal shore community from
the present cultural community. This should
lead to an enhanced aquatic invertebrate
fauna, better feeding habitat for inshore
fishes, and attraction of game fish to the site.


HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

76

USGS Quad, Delmar
Figure 30 Henry Hudson Park General Vicinity
Henry Hudson
Park
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

77

Figure 31 Henry Hudson Park, Existing Conditions Plan
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

78

Figure 32 Henry Hudson Park, Existing Conditions Section A
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

79

Figure 33 Henry Hudson Park, Existing Conditions Section B
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

80

Figure 34 Henry Hudson Park Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Cross Section A
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

81
Campbell Island
Campbell Island is located approximately 1
mile upstream of Henry Hudson Park on the
east side of the river, at RM 140. The
Hudson River in this area is relatively
narrow (approximately 1,000 ft wide). The
main navigation channel is maintained at a
width of 400 ft wide and a depth of 32 ft.
Existing Conditions
The Campbell Island shoreline restoration
example is approximately 850 ft long,
extending downstream from a timber
bulkhead/natural shoreline transition to a
river pipeline crossing. The shoreline is an
old timber crib bulkhead wall with the upper
bank filled with rock and capped with
concrete, similar to the Henry Hudson Park
shoreline. The bulkhead was capped with
concrete in 1915. Campbell Island was
created with dredged spoil material from the
navigational channel. The timber bulkhead
is degrading and has failed in a number of
areas. Rock material under the concrete cap
is eroding into the river through the failed
bulkhead.
The adjacent upland property is
undeveloped, with woody vegetation. A few
large trees are located near the shoreline.
Water depth ranges from 3 to 10 ft along the
timber bulkhead, sloping away from the
bulkhead at a 1V: 5H grade (20%).
Hydraulics
The navigational channel is located
approximately 400 ft from shore. The mean
current velocity in the main river channel is
approximately 1.2 ft/sec, with a tidal flow of
about 10,000 cfs (CHGEC et al. 1999).
Maximum velocity is about 2.2 ft/sec and a
maximum tidal fluctuation of about 4.5 ft
(LMS and THG 2005). The shoreline water
velocities are expected to be similar to the
main river channel currents depending on
wind direction.
Aquatic Habitat
The vicinity of Campbell Island is primarily
a river channel habitat. The main river
channel is approximately 400 ft off the
shoreline.
The mouth of Papscanee Marsh and Creek
are located at the southern end of Campbell
Island. Papscanee Marsh and Creek have
been identified as significant by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. This tributary is
important spawning and nursery habitat for
several anadromous fish species, including
blueback herring, alewife, and American
shad. Resident forage fish species are also
common, including killifish and shiners.
The main channel of the Hudson River in
the vicinity of Campbell Island is also a
spawning area for shortnose sturgeon
(NYSDOS 2005).
The fish community in the vicinity of the
Campbell Island site has been sampled at 2
nearby beach seine sites in 51 individual
samples since 1980. The fish community at
these sites was a typical freshwater
community dominated by a few resident
species (banded killifish, spottail shiner) and
anadromous herrings (American shad and
blueback herring):
Species Mean Catch
Banded killifish 50.9
Unidentified clupeids 37.1
American shad 34.3
Spottail shiner 28.9
Blueback herring 28.5
Tesselated darter 15.4
White perch 8.6
Alewife 1.4
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

82
Pumpkinseed 1.1
Twenty-five (25) additional species were
captured, and none of those averaged more
than one specimen per sample.
Erosion and Sediments
The factors causing erosion at the Campbell
Island shoreline are similar to those
affecting the nearby Henry Hudson Park
shoreline: wakes from passing ships, ice
scour, and stormwater runoff.
The existing shoreline has an old timber
bulkhead capped with concrete, similar the
Henry Hudson Park shoreline. The
bulkhead wall has been breached in several
locations and appears to be overtopped at
high water. Rock fill material under the
concrete cap has been eroding and falling
into the river, causing large portions of the
concrete cap to fail.




Bank Stabilization Alternatives
As with the other sites, the same five
techniques were initially screened to
determine the technique most appropriate
for this site.
Vegetated Geogrids - Vegetated geogrids
would require extensive excavation of the
upland area and removal of riparian
vegetation for installation. However, other
than the existing riparian vegetation, there
are no other land use constraints to limit the
area of shoreline needed for installation.
Therefore, vegetated geogrids were chosen
as the primary alternative for evaluation at
Campbell Island.
Live Crib Wall – The live crib wall could be
installed above the high water elevation to
replace the existing failed concrete
bulkheads. However, aesthetics associated
with live crib walls are not as favorable as
other alternatives. Therefore, a live crib
wall was not considered for evaluation at
Campbell Island.
Brush Mattress – A brush mattress would
require extensive excavation because of the
existing steep slopes. This would require
deforestation of the existing riparian
Timber bulkhead overtopped at high tide
Undermined and broken concrete cap
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

83
vegetation on Campbell Island. Brush
mattresses are very labor intensive to install,
are not as durable, and would disturb a
larger upland area compared to other
alternatives. Therefore, the use of a brush
mattress has not been chosen for evaluation
at Campbell Island. However, a preliminary
design was developed (Figure 38).
Vegetated Rock Gabions – Vegetated rock
gabions could be used to replace the existing
timber bulkheads. However, because the
aesthetics of the gabion wall are not as
favorable as other methods, vegetated
gabions were not selected for evaluation at
Campbell Island.
Joint Planting - The Campbell Island
shoreline could be retrofitted with joint
planting by removing the existing concrete
cap and adding live stakes, similar to the
Henry Hudson Park shoreline. Because the
retrofit would require minimal excavation,
joint planting was selected as a secondary
alternative for evaluation at Campbell
Island.
Proposed Design: Remove Concrete, Re-
grade Slope with Vegetated Geogrid
Installation
The shoreline would be modified by
removing the degrading concrete cap, re-
grading the slope and adding live plantings
and geogrid layers. Timber bulkhead areas
with excessive degradation could be
stabilized by installing timber piles where
necessary. A new timber bulkhead would
not be installed. Rather, additional piles
would be added to provide lateral
stabilization to the existing bulkhead and to
dissipate wave and ice energy.
The existing concrete caps would be
removed and the existing rock fill would
then be re-graded to a minimum slope of
1V: 2H with a minimum depth of 12 inches.
The rock fill would cover the bank slope
below the high water elevation.
Above the high water elevation live cuttings
and geogrid soil layers would be installed at
a 1V:2H slope. A foundation layer of rocks
wrapped in geogrid would be installed as a
footing for the soil lifts (Figure 39). In
between each geogrid soil lift a blanket of
intertwining live cuttings would be installed
in a shallow bed of soil with the ends
protruding about 2 to 3 inches from the
bank. Dead stout stakes would be installed
every 3 to 4 ft into each geogrid soil layer to
key the layers together.
Live stakes would be installed on the layer
at 2 to 3 ft spacing. The live stakes should
be 2 to 3 inches in diameter and either
installed the same day as harvested or
properly stored.
Similar to the other restoration sites, native
riparian vegetation should be considered
(willows, viburnums and dogwoods).
Construction
The shoreline repairs and plantings would be
accomplished using a backhoe or excavator,
pile driver, and manual labor working from
shore or barge. Shoreline access may be
difficult without clearing and grubbing a
significant portion of the existing riparian
vegetation. Therefore, heavy construction
equipment may need to access the shoreline
from a barge.
Using a pile driver from shore or barge, the
new timber piles would be driven in the
breached areas in the existing bulkhead wall.
The concrete cap would then be removed
and the rock fill behind the bulkhead wall
re-graded to a minimum slope of 1V: 2H,
providing at least a 12 inch depth.
The vegetative geogrid layers would then be
installed. Live branch cuttings would be
placed by hand in between each geogrid soil
layer. A shallow soil layer (3 to 4 inches)
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

84
would cover the live cuttings and dead stout
stakes would be installed before covering
with the next geogrid soil layer.
Live cut stakes would then be installed on
the top layer. The stakes would be driven in
by hand.
Repairing the shoreline is expected to take
approximately 6 weeks. To maximize the
success of live cuttings becoming
established, construction should be
scheduled when the sap is rising in the trees
to be harvested, which usually occurs mid to
late winter (Crossman and Simm 2004).
Alternatively, the cuttings could be
harvested when the plants are dormant and
stored until needed, as described for
Bowline Park. Dormant cuttings are also
available from vendors.
Estimated Costs
The estimated cost to modify the shoreline
with vegetative geogrids is $983/ft or
$65.50/ft
2
. The estimate assumes a modified
shoreline width of 15 ft and a total length of
800 ft. Total project cost estimates and
typical assumptions used to develop the cost
are provided in Appendix C.
Secondary Design, Remove Concrete, Re-
grade Slope with Joint Planting
Installation
The shoreline would be modified similar to
Henry Hudson Park by removing the
deteriorating concrete cap, re-grading the
slope, and adding live stakes. Timber
bulkhead areas with excessive degradation
would be stabilized by installing timber
piles. A new timber bulkhead would not be
necessary.


The existing concrete caps would be
removed. The existing rock fill would be re-
graded to a minimum slope of 1V:2H with at
a minimum depth of 12 inches.
Similar to the previous restoration sites, the
live stakes would be installed in between the
re-graded stone fill, from the high water
elevation to the top of the bank.
The preliminary joint planting design for
Campbell Island is presented on Figure 39.
Construction
The shoreline repairs and plantings would be
accomplished using a backhoe or excavator,
pile driver, and manual labor working from
shore or barge. Shoreline access may be
difficult without clearing and grubbing a
significant portion of the existing riparian
vegetation. Therefore, heavy construction
equipment may need to access the shoreline
from a barge.
The timber piles would be driven in the
breached areas of the existing bulkhead wall
from shore using a pile driver. The concrete
cap would then be removed. The rock fill
behind the bulkhead wall would be re-
graded to a minimum slope of 1V:2H
providing at least a 12 inch depth. Live cut
stakes would then be installed in the stone
slope. The stakes would be driven in by
hand.
Existing shoreline with concrete cap
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

85
Repairing the shoreline is expected to take
approximately 6 weeks. To maximize the
success of live stakes becoming established,
construction should be scheduled when the
sap is rising in the trees to be harvested,
which usually occurs mid to late winter
(Crossman and Simm 2004). Alternatively,
the cuttings could be harvested when the
plants are dormant and stored until needed,
as described for Bowline Park. Dormant
cuttings are also available from vendors.
Estimated Costs
The estimated cost to modify the shoreline
with joint plantings is $366/ft or $36.63/ft
2
.
The estimate assumes a modified shoreline
width of 10 ft and a total shoreline length of
800 ft. Total project cost estimates and
typical assumptions used to develop the cost
are provided in Appendix C.
Operation and Maintenance Requirements
The live stakes should be monitored until
they take root and become established,
(typically the first two seasons). The bank
should be inspected for damage after major
storm and flood events. Vegetation could be
increased by pruning and fertilizing during
the second season.
Expected Benefits
The existing timber bulkhead and concrete
cap shoreline is un-vegetated and failing,
and the dredge spoils which comprise
Campbell Island are eroding back into the
estuary. A restoration project would halt
this erosion and allow the establishment of
vegetation to the shoreline. Because there
is little human use of this site, a heavy
vegetative cover could be established which
would also provide habitat for terrestrial
wildlife.
Restoration will also have benefits for
aquatic habitats since reduced erosion means
less sedimentation of benthic habitats and
improved water clarity in the area.
Additionally, the reduced sedimentation will
allow a more natural community of benthic
invertebrates, providing additional feeding
opportunities for inshore fishes, and game
fish.



HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

86

USGS Quad, Delmar
Figure 35 Campbell Island General Vicinity
Campbell Island
shoreline
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

87

Figure 36 Campbell Island, Existing Conditions Plan
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

88

Figure 37 Campbell Island, Existing Conditions Section
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

89

Figure 38 Campbell Island Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Cross Section
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

90

Figure 39 Campbell Island Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Cross Section
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

91

Figure 40 Campbell Island Preliminary Soft Engineering Design Cross Section
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

92
Section 6 Regulatory Requirements
New York’s Environmental Conservation
Law (ECL) provides statutory authority for
protecting the state’s natural resources
through regulatory permits. The NYSDEC
Division of Environmental Permits
administers the ECL-required permits under
the provisions of the Uniform Procedures
Act (UPA). Any activities involving stream
disturbance, excavation or filling in
navigable waters, or projects requiring a
Water Quality Review Certification to
obtain a federal permit are subject to the
UPA procedures.
The process of obtaining a DEC permit
under the UPA is outlined on Figure 41.
The UPA sets time frames and procedures
for filing and reviewing applications,
providing public notice, holding public
hearings, and reaching final decisions.
Actions required to obtain a permit follow a
timeline consisting of pre-application
activities, filing an application, responding
to DEC comments, responding to public
comments, and receiving the final decision.
The first step, though not required by UPA,
is usually to contact the DEC regional
permit staff (Table 9). A pre-application
conference allows a project proponent to
familiarize DEC staff with the project and
its objectives, get a preliminary reaction to
the proposal, get a list of necessary permits,
and become familiar with the application
requirements. Prospective DEC permits for
restoration work along the Hudson River
may include protection of waters permits,
coastal erosion permits, tidal wetlands
permits, and a state water quality
certification if a federal permit for dredged
or fill material will be required from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The next step in the DEC permit process is
filing an application. This generally
includes submitting the joint application
form, location maps, design plans,
supporting documents, and environmental
assessment as prescribed by DEC. The State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR)
will apply to all projects requiring a
discretionary permit. An application is not
complete until a properly completed SEQR
environmental assessment form has been
submitted and either a lead agency declared
or a negative declaration issued.
If a project may have a significant impact on
historical structures or archaeological sites
protected by the State Historic Preservation
Act (SHPA), the State Historic Preservation
Office (http://nysparks.state.ny.us/shpo/
environ /index.htm) must evaluate this
impact.
If a project requires more than one DEC
permit, the applicant must submit all
applications simultaneously. The DEC will
respond within 15 days on whether or not
the application is complete. If additional
information is required, the DEC review
timeframe begins again with the applicant’s
response.
At this point, the UPA allows for projects to
be divided into two categories, minor or
major. Most projects permitted by DEC are
classified as minor, and do not require
public review. If the project is major, DEC
and the applicant will advertise the
application, and receive public comments.
DEC may then require the applicant to
respond to public comments, and decide if a
public hearing is necessary based upon the
response to public comments.
The final permit decision usually consists of
a permit issued with conditions for
conserving natural resources and
environmental quality. Permit decisions
must be made by DEC within 45 days of
determining the application complete for
minor projects, or within 90 days of
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

93
completeness determination for major
projects when no hearings are held. For
major projects with hearings, DEC issues a
hearing notice within 60 days of
completeness determination, and must begin
the hearings within 90 days of completeness
determination. The final decision is due
within 60 days of the availability of the
official hearing record.
Permits from agencies other than DEC may
also be necessary. The Corps of Engineers
regulates the placement of fill or dredge
spoil and the construction of certain
structures in waterways and wetlands
(http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/business/
buslinks/regulat/index.htm). The Corps'
jurisdiction is applicable beyond those major
waterways that are traditionally referred to
as "navigable waters". A coordinated
procedure is in place for Corps of Engineers'
review of applications for Protection of
Waters Permits. When a permit application
is filed with DEC, a copy will be forwarded
to the Corps of Engineers. The DEC and the
Corps have different application
requirements, and the Corps of Engineers
will contact the applicant for additional
information as needed.
If the project is located in a coastal area and
a federal approval is required, the federal
agency must obtain a Coastal Consistency
Certification from the New York State
Department of State
(http://nyswaterfronts.com/consistency.asp).
before it can give its approval. The federal
agency, usually the Corps of Engineers will
contact the applicant if a consistency review
is necessary.
The New York State Office of General
Services manages most underwater land
holdings belonging to the State of New York
(http://www.ogs.state.ny.us/realEstate/
permits/default.html). Approvals or
easements may need to be obtained from the
OGS to conduct projects on state lands.
During review of project applications, DEC
will notify OGS if state-owned underwater
lands appear to be involved.
Local governments may also require
building permits, flood plain permits, and
consistency with a Local Waterfront
Revitalization Plan or other approvals. It
will be necessary to contact each appropriate
county, city, town, or municipality to
determine their requirements.
Table 10 lists the municipalities that have
reached the local adoption stage of a Local
Waterfront Revitalization Plan as of July 1,
2005. It will be necessary to contact each
appropriate county, city, town, or village to
determine their requirements.

HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

94
Table 9 NYSDEC Division of Environmental Permits Regional Offices
Agency Contact Authority
NYSDEC
Region 3
Dutchess, Orange, Putnam,
Rockland, Sullivan, Ulster,
and Westchester
Margaret Duke
NYS-DEC
2 1 South Putt Corners Road
New Paltz, NY 12561-1696
Telephone: (845) 256-3054
NYSDEC
Region 4
Albany, Columbia, Greene,
Montgomery, Rensselaer,
and Schenectady
William Clarke
NYS-DEC
1150 North Wescott Road
Schenectady, NY 12306-2014
Telephone: (518) 357-2069
Issue Protection of Waters and
Wetlands permits. Water quality
certification for federal permits.
US Army Corp of Engineers
New York District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
New York District
Attention: CENAN-OP-R
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278-0090
(917) 790-8411 (Permits, dredging)
(518) 273-0870 (Troy dam and lock)
Issue permits for dredging and fill in
navigable waters and federal
wetlands. Controls dam at Troy and
navigation lock.
NYSDOS
Division of Coastal Resources and
Waterfront Revitalization
New York State Department of State
41 State Street
Albany, New York 12231
Telephone (518) 474-6000
Fax (518) 473-2464.
Conducts Coastal Management
Consistency review required for
federal permits
NYSDEC
New York Natural Heritage Program
625 Broadway, 5th Floor
Albany, NY 12233-4757
Phone: (518) 402-8935
Fax: (518) 402-8925
Reviews project potential to impact
threatened or endangered plants or
animals
NYSOPRHP
State Historic Preservation Office
Peebles Island State Park
PO Box 189
Waterford, NY 12188-0189
(518) 237-8643
Reviews project potential to impact
historic sites
NYSOGS
N.Y.S. Office of General Services
Real Estate Development - Land
Management
Corning Tower, 26th floor
Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12242-0001
Phone (518) 474-2195
Fax (518) 474-0011
[email protected]
Issues easements for use of state-
owned underwater property


HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

95



Pre-Application
Conference with DEC, get early feedback, determine necessary permits,
conduct necessary assessments






Application
Submit appropriate forms, plans, maps, reports, and assessments







Completeness Determination
DEC will request additional information or issue completeness
determination; classify project as minor or major





Minor Project
No public review,
DEC review only

Major Project
Public notice published in ENB and
newspapers





Decision

Public Comment
Comments received and responded to by
applicant; DEC decides if hearing necessary







Decision

Hearing
Hearing record issued






Decision

Figure 41 Uniform Procedures Act (UPA) Permit Process

HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

96
Table 10 Local governmental agencies that have reached the local adoption stage of a
Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan as of February 1, 2006 (Source: NYS Department of
State http://www.nyswaterfronts.com/downloads/pdfs/LWRP_Status_Sheet.pdf).
Locality Local Adoption
SOS
Approval
OCRM
Concurrence
Albany (C) 10/91 10/91 1/92
Athens (V) 10/94 9/01 3/02
Beacon (C) 10/91 4/92 9/92
Croton-on-Hudson (V) 3/92 6/92 9/92
Dobbs Ferry (V) 8/05
Esopus (T) 7/87 11/87 8/88
Haverstraw (V) 8/03 5/04 1/05
Kingston (C) 7/92 10/92 10/93
Lloyd (T) 5/94 3/95 7/95
Newburgh (C) 5/01 11/01 8/02
North Greenbush (T) 7/90 9/90 9/90
Nyack (V) 1/92 4/92 7/92
Ossining (V) 7/91 7/91 7/93
Peekskill (C) 1/04 7/04 1/05
Piermont (V) 1/92 2/92 4/92
Poughkeepsie (C) 4/99
Poughkeepsie (T) 1/99 4/99 6/99
Red Hook (T) 4/89 9/95 11/95
Rensselaer (C) 5/86 3/87 8/87
Rhinebeck (T) 2/89
Saugerties (V) 2/85 10/85 6/86
Schodack (T) / Castleton (V) 1/95 3/95 9/95
Sleepy Hollow (V) 1/97 6/97 7/97
Stony Point (V) 6/94 10/94 2/95
Tivoli (V) 4/91 4/91 7/91




HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

97
Section 7 Summary and
Recommendations
The Hudson River Estuary has been
modified significantly from its pre-colonial
condition to enhance navigation and to
stabilize shoreline development projects.
Throughout the estuary, the natural shoreline
has been transformed to hard engineered
structures to contain dredged sediments and
stabilize shoreline development. This report
has identified “soft engineering” techniques
that could replace “hard engineering”
structures and enhance shoreline habitat.
This report also evaluated and developed
preliminary “soft engineering” shoreline
design examples for five sites along the
Hudson River Estuary.
Summary
A literature review of available “soft
engineering” shoreline stabilization methods
was conducted to identify techniques that
would be applicable to the Hudson River
Estuary. Five techniques were identified
from the literature review:

Vegetated Geogrids
Live Crib Wall
Brush Mattresses
Joint Planting
Vegetated Rock Gabion Walls or
Mattresses
Five sites along the Hudson River Estuary
were evaluated and preliminary designs
were developed. The soft engineering
techniques identified from the literature
review were considered at each site. The
evaluation of each shoreline site included:
hydraulic conditions,
aquatic habitat
erosion and sediment conditions,
construction considerations,
estimated project costs,
project operation and maintenance
requirements, and
expected benefits
The five sites evaluated and the proposed
preliminary soft engineering techniques are
summarized in Table 11.

HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

98
Table 11 Evaluation Summary
Shoreline
Restoration
Site
River
Mile
River
Characteristics
Primary
Erosional
Forces
Existing
Shoreline
Conditions
Benefits
expected
Proposed Design Unique
Considerations
Area
(ft
2
)
Unit
Costs
($/ft
2
)
Bowline
Point Park
35 Approximately
2.8 miles wide,
the largest fetch
on the river.
Natural wave
action, vessel-
induced
waves
1. riprap
2. brick debris
3. concrete
debris
4. concrete
bulkhead
5. stone walls
6. SAV bed
7. jetties
1. Prevent
erosion of
shoreline
2. Maintain
easy public
access to
shoreline
3. Potential
future site for
swimming
1. concrete
bulkhead removed
2. riprap installed as
required
3. live stakes
installed
4. large structures
placed in water for
refuge habitat
Public park with
groomed
landscaping.
24,000 $3.75
Newburgh 60 Approximately
4,000 ft with an
average depth of
about 30 ft.
Natural wave
action, vessel-
induced
waves, ice
scour
1. riprap
2. large armor
stone
3. concrete
debris
4. scrap metal
6. heavy
riparian
vegetation
1. Prevent
erosion of
shoreline
2. Increase
public access to
shoreline
3. Enhanced
fishing
opportunities
1. remove scrap
metal
2. large armor stone
and concrete moved
below water for
refuge habitat.
3. riprap installed as
required
4. live stakes
installed
Remediated
brownfield site.
Shoreline
access limited
and
construction
conducted from
barge.
16,000 $17.69
Poughkeepsie 76 Approximately
2,600 ft wide
and 50 ft deep.
Steep bottom
slope of 63%
near shore.
Vessel-
induced
waves, ice
scour
1. riprap
2. deteriorating
concrete
bulkhead
3. timber piles
4. timber jetty
1. Prevent
erosion of
shoreline
2. Public access
to shoreline

1. concrete
bulkhead removed
2. riprap installed as
required
3. live stakes
installed
4. large structures
placed in water for
refuge habitat
River bottom is
steep near
shore.
19,160 $7.36
Henry
Hudson Park
138.5 Approximately
1,100 ft with an
average depth of
about 20 ft.
Vessel-
induced
waves, ice
scour
1. deteriorating
timber
bulkhead with
concrete cap
2. breached
areas in
1. Prevent
erosion of
shoreline
2. Maintain
future potential
for swimming
1. concrete cap
removed
2. concrete
structures placed in
water for refuge
habitat
Public park with
groomed
landscaping.
Large waves
from passing
ships.
18,000 $13.67
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

99
Shoreline
Restoration
Site
River
Mile
River
Characteristics
Primary
Erosional
Forces
Existing
Shoreline
Conditions
Benefits
expected
Proposed Design Unique
Considerations
Area
(ft
2
)
Unit
Costs
($/ft
2
)
bulkhead beach at site 3. timber bulkhead
allowed to remain
4. re-grade bank
and install riprap as
required
5. live stakes
installed
Campbell
Island
140 Approximately
1,000 ft with an
average depth of
about 20 ft.
Vessel-
induced
waves, ice
scour
1. deteriorating
timber
bulkhead with
concrete cap
2. breached
areas in
bulkhead
1. Halt erosion
of dredge spoil

1. concrete cap
removed
2. timber bulkhead
allowed to remain
3. re-grade bank
and install riprap as
required
4. install geogrid,
live cutting and soil
layers
5. live stakes
installed
Artificial
dredged spoil
island.
Shoreline
access limited
and
construction
conducted from
barge.
12,000 $65.50


HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

100
Each technique identified was qualitatively
screened for potential application at the five
selected shoreline restoration examples. The
joint planting stabilization technique was
considered to be the most appropriate for
application most of the sites. This
alternative was the most flexible to
incorporate into retrofit designs. Most sites
have portions of existing rock–armored
slopes or slopes that could be simply
modified to accommodate live stake
installations. Other alternatives required
extensive excavation, grubbing, and
redesign of the entire shorelines.
The shoreline restoration modifications costs
ranged from $75/ft at Bowline Park to
$983/ft at Campbell Island. The main
factors that affected the installation costs
were shoreline access and the amount the
slope had to be cut back. At Bowline Point
Park, the shoreline is accessible from shore
and would not require extensive slope re-
grading. By contrast, Campbell Island
would require a significant slope cut and is
only accessible using barge mounted
equipment.
Unit costs for joint planting ranged from
$3.75/ft
2
at Bowline Point Park to $36.63/ft
2

at Campbell Island. The available literature
listed joint planting costs ranging from $1/ft
2

to $5/ft
2
, not including riprap or site
excavation. These costs compare well with
our developed costs if you consider the
extent of riprap and excavation required for
each site. The available literature listed
vegetative geogrid costs ranging from
$16/ft
2
to $37/ft
2
. The literature reported
cost is about 50% of the developed costs for
vegetative geogrids at Campbell Island
($65.50/ft
2
). The higher developed cost at
Campbell Island is likely due to barge
mounted equipment and excessive
excavation.
Recommendations
Before a shoreline restoration project is
implemented, baseline data should be
gathered to determine the net benefits of the
shoreline treatment. After the project is
installed, follow-up monitoring should be
conducted to compare with baseline
information. Shoreline information should
be gathered before implementation of a
project to establish the existing baseline
conditions. To determine the relative
benefits and success of the project compared
to baseline conditions the following
information should be monitored after
installation:
Bank stability
Assessment of riparian plantings
Emergent vegetation assessment
Assessment of refuge/spawning habitats
and overall fish use.
Assessment of riparian wildlife habitat

HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

101
Section 8 References
Adams, M.A. 2002. Shoreline Structures
Environmental Design: A Guide For
Structures Along Estuaries and Large
Rivers. Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
Vancouver, BC and Environmental Canada,
Delta, BC. 68p and appendices.
Allen, H.H., and Fischenich, J.C. 2000.
Brush mattress for streambank erosion
control, EMRRP Technical Notes
Collection. U.S. Army Engineer Research
and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
www.wes.army.mil/el/emrrp
Allen, H.H., and Fischenich, J.C. 1999.
Coir geotextile roll and wetland plants for
streambank erosion control, EMRRP
Technical Notes Collection TN EMRRP-
SR-4. U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Allen, H.H. and Leech, J.R. 1997.
Bioengineering for Streambank Erosion
Control - Report 1, Guidelines, Technical
Report EL-97-8. U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experimental Station,
Vicksburg, MS. Can be found at:
http://www.wes.army.mil/el/wetlands/wlpub
s.html
Bentrup, G. and Hoag, J.C. 1998. The
Practical Streambank Bioengineering
Guide. User’s Guide for Natural
Streambank Stabilization Techniques in the
Arid and Semi-arid Great Basin and
Intermountain West. USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service Plant
Materials Center, Aberdeen, Idaho
Caulk, A.D., Gannon, J.E., Shaw, J.R.,
Hartig, J.H. 2000. Best Management
Practices for Soft Engineering Solutions.
Greater Detroit American Heritage River
Initiative, Detroit, Michigan.
Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp.
(CHGEC et al.), Consolidated Edison
Company of New York, Inc., New York
Power Authority, and Southern Energy New
York. 1999. Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for State Pollutant Discharge
Elimination Systems Permits for Bowline
Point, Indian Point 2&3, and Roseton Steam
Electric Generating Stations.
Chaychuk, D. 2005. The Use of Gabions
and Reno Mattresses in River and Stream
Rehabiliation. Stormwater Industry
Association 2005 Regional Conference, Port
Macquarie, NSW. Sustainable Stormwater:
You Are Responsible – Justify Your
Decisions. April 20-21, 2005.
Crossman, M., and Simm, J. 2004. Manual
on the Use of Timber in Coastal and River
Engineering. Thomas Telford Publishing,
London.
Donat, M. 1995. Bioengineering techniques
for streambank restoration. A review of
central European practices. Province of
British Columbia. Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks, and Ministry of Forests.
Watershed Restoration Project Report No.
2:86p.
Dwyer, F.J., D.K. Hardesty, C.G. Ingersoll,
J.L. Kunz, and D.W. Whites. 2000.
Assessing contaminant sensitivity of
American shad, Atlantic sturgeon and
shortnose sturgeon; Final Report, February
2000. U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia
Environmental Research Center, Columbia,
Missouri.
Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G.
Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero
(editors). 2002. Ecological Communities of
New York State. Second Edition. A revised
and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's
Ecological Communities of New York State.
(Draft for review). New York Natural
Heritage Program, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation,
Albany, NY.
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

102
(http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/
heritage/draft_ecny2002.htm)
Eubanks, C.E., and Meadows, D. 2002. A
Soil Bioengineering Guide for Streambank
and Lakeshore Stabilization, FS 683. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Forest Service,
San Dimas, CA, October 2002.
http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/soil-bio-
guide/
Fischenich, C. 2001. Stability Thresholds
for Stream Restoration Materials, EMRRP
Technical Notes Collection ERDC
TNEMRRP-SR-29. U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development
Center,Vicksburg, MS.
Fischenich, J.C., 2000. Stream
Management. US Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS.
FISRWG, 1998. Stream Corridor
Restoration: Principles, Processes and
Practices. The Federal Interagency Stream
Restoration Working Group, ISBN-0-
934213-59-3.
Freeman, G. E., and Fischenich, J.C. 2000.
Gabions for streambank erosion control,
EMRRP Technical Notes Collection ERDC
TN-EMRRP-SR-22. U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, MS.
Gray, D., and Sotir, R. 1996. Biotechnical
and soil bioengineering slope stabilization:
A practical guide for erosion control. A
Wiley-Interscience Publication, New York,
New York. 378 pages.
GSWCC. 2000. Guidelines for Streambank
Restoration. (Revised March/2000).
Georgia Soil and Water Conservation
Commission.
Hattala, K.A. 1997. Managing Hudson
River American Shad: A biologist’s
perspective on the shad’s ups and downs.
Shad Journal. Vol. 2, No. 3: 9-11.
Heaton, M. G., R. Grillmayer, and J. G.
Imhoff. 2002. Ontario’s Stream
Rehabilitation Manual. Ontario Streams.
Belfountain, ON. Can be found at
http://www.ontariostreams.on.ca/
Hoag, J.C. and Landis, T.D. 2001.
Riparian Zone Restoration: Field
Requirements and Nursery Opportunities.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Aberdeen, ID.
Landphair, H.C., Li, M.H. 2002.
Investigating the Applicability of
Biotechnical Streambank Stabilization in
Texas, Report 1836-1. Texas Transportation
Institute, Texas.
Li, M. and Eddleman, K.E. 2002.
Biotechnical engineering as an alternative
to traditional engineering methods, A
biotechnical streambank stabilization design
approach. Landscape and Urban Planning
60 (2002) 225–242. Texas Transportation
Institute.
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP
(LMS) and The Hudson River Group. 2005.
Swimming in the Hudson River Estuary
Feasibility Report on Potential Sites.
Prepared for the Hudson River Estuary
Program and the New York State Office of
Parks.
Mulberg, G. and Moore, N.J. 2005.
Streambank Revegetation and Protection, A
Guide for Alaska, revised 2005, Technical
Report No. 98-3. Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish.
April 2005.
New York State Department of State
Division of Coastal Resources (NYSDOS).
2005. Coastal Resources Online, Significant
Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats.
Accessed online September, 2005 at
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

103
http://nyswaterfronts.com/waterfront_natura
l_narratives.asp#HudsonRiver
Prowse, T. D. 2001a. River Ice Ecology,
Hydrologic, Geomorphic, and Water Quality
Aspects. Journal of Cold Regions
Engineering, 15(1):1-6.
Prowse, T. D. 2001b. River Ice Ecology,
Biological Aspects. Journal of Cold Regions
Engineering, 15(1):17-33.
Reschke, C. 1990. Ecological Communities
of New York State. New York Natural
Heritage Program. New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation.
Latham, N.Y. 96p. +xi.
(http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/
heritage/EcolComm.htm)
Schiechtl, H.M. and Stern, R. 1996. Water
Bioengineering Techniques for Watercourse,
Bank and Shoreline Protection. Blackwell
Science, Klosterneuburg, Austria.
Schiechtl, H.M. 1980. Bioengineering for
Land Reclamation and Conservation. The
University of Alberta Press, Alberta,
Canada.
Sotir, R.B., and Fischenich, J.C. 2003.
Vegetated Reinforced Soil Slope for
Streambank Stabilization, EMRRP
Technical Notes Collection ERDCTN-
EMRRP-SR-30. U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, MS.
Strayer, D.L., Hattala, K.A. and Kahnle,
A.W. 2004. Effects on an Invasive Bivalve
(Dreissena polymorpha) on Fish in the
Hudson River Estuary. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aqautic Sciences, 61 (2004
924-941.
Sylte, T.L., and Fischenich, J.C. 2000.
Rootwad composites for streambank
stabilization and habitat enhancement,
EMRRP Technical Notes Collection ERDC
TN-EMRRP-SR-21. U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, MS.
Town of Bethlehem. 2005. Town of
Bethlehem, Henry Hudson Park. Accessed
online website November 20005 at:
http://www.townofbethlehem.org/ParkHenH
.html
USDA NRCS, 1996. Chapter 16,
Streambank and Shoreline Protection.
Engineering Field Handbook, USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Aberdeen, ID.
Vogel, S. 1994. Life in Moving Fluids. 2
nd

Edition. Princeton University Press.


HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS





APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY

The following glossary was compiled from Fischenich and Allen 2000, Adams 2003 and
Eubanks and Meadows 2002.


HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

A - 1
Glossary

A
Anadromous
Fish that leave freshwater and migrate to the
ocean to grow and mature. They return to
freshwater to spawn.
B
Bank stability
The ability of a stream bank to counteract
erosion or gravity forces.
Basal or Butt End
The bottom end or end nearest the trunk of a
cutting taken from a riparian plant that will
root if planted face down in the soil
(opposite the budding tip’s end of the
cutting).
Bathymetry
physical relief features or the surface
configuration of the ocean bottom or
someother large body of water.
Benthic
Of or pertaining to animals and plants living
on or within the substrate of a water body.
Brackish water
Generally, water containing dissolved
minerals in amounts that exceed normally
acceptable standards for municipal,
domestic, and irrigation uses. Considerably
less saline than sea water. Also, Marine and
Estuarine waters with Mixohaline salinity
(0.5 to 30 due to ocean salts). Water
containing between 1,000-4,000 parts per
million (PPM) Total Dissolved Solids TDS).
The term brackish water is frequently
interchangeable with Saline Water.
Branch Packing
Live woody branch cuttings and compacted
soil used to repair slumped areas of
streambanks.
Brush Layer
Live branch cuttings laid in crisscrossed
fashion on benches between successive lifts
of soil.
Brush Mattress
A combination of live stakes, fascines, and
live branch cuttings installed to cover and
protect streambanks and shorelines.
Buffer
A vegetated area of grass, shrubs, or trees
designed to capture and filter runoff from
surrounding land uses.
Bulkhead
an engineered structure, such as a sheet pile
wall, that retains fill within a shoreline
environment
C
Cover
Anything that provides protection for fish
and/or wildlife from predators or
ameliorates adverse conditions of stream
flow and/or seasonal changes in metabolic
costs. May be instream structures such as
rocks or logs, turbulence, and/or overhead
vegetation. Anything that provides areas for
escape, feeding, hiding, or resting.
Critical shear stress
The minimum amount of shear stress
exerted by stream currents required to
initiate soil particle motion. Because gravity
also contributes to stream bank particle
movement but not on stream beds, critical
shear stress along river banks is less than for
river beds.
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

A - 2
Current
The part of a body of water that has a
continuous onward movement.
D
Dead Stout Stakes
Stakes, made from 2- by 4-in. lumber used
to hold erosion control fabric, fascines, and
brush mattresses, and so on, in place.
Degradation
The long-term hydraulic process by which
stream and riverbeds lower in elevation. It is
the opposite of aggradation.
Deposition
The settlement of materials out of moving
water and onto the channel bed, banks, and
floodplains that occurs when the flowing
water is unable to transport the sediment
load.
Dredging
Removing material (usually sediments) from
wetlands or waterways, usually to make
them deeper or wider.
Discharge
The volume of water passing through a
section of channel during a specified period
of time, which is usually measured in cubic
feet per second (cfs) or cubic meters per
second (m
3
/sec).
E
Estuary
A coastal body of water that is semi-
enclosed, openly connected with the ocean,
and mixes with freshwater drainage from
land and at its landward margin water levels
are measurably altered by tides.
Erosion
In the general sense, the wearing away of
the land by wind and water. As used in this
document, the removal of soil particles from
a bank primarily by water action.
Erosion Control Fabric
Woven or spun material made from natural
or synthetic fibers and placed to prevent
surface erosion.
F
Fetch
The open area and distance across a body of
water in which wind can exert energy on
waves to increase their strength of impact on
the shoreline.
Fill Material
Soil that is placed at a specified location to
bring the ground surface up to a desired
elevation or angle of slope.
Flow Rate
Volume of flow per unit of time; usually
expressed as cubic feet per second.
G
Geomorphology
The geologic study of the characteristics,
origin, and development of landforms.
I
Ice Floe
A flat expanse of floating ice smaller than an
ice field.
Intertidal
pertaining to that area along the shoreline
between low tide and high tide water
elevations
Inundation
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

A - 3
flooding or submergence; the act of causing
an object to be beneath the surface of water
J
Joint Planting
The insertion of live stakes in the spaces or
joints, between previously placed rock
riprap. When placed properly, the cuttings
are capable of rooting and growing.
L
Lifts
Layers of loose soil wrapped in erosion
control fabric used to rebuild and recontour
a bank.
Live Branch Cuttings
Living, freshly cut branches from woody
shrub and tree species that readily propagate
when embedded in soil.
Live Crib wall
A rectangular framework of logs or timbers
constructed with layers of live plant cuttings
that are capable of rooting.
Live Fascine
Bound, elongated, cylindrical bundles (6 to
8 in. in diameter) of live branch cuttings
used to stabilize streambanks that are placed
in shallow trenches, partly covered with soil,
and staked in place, also referred to as
wattle.
Live Siltation
Live branch cuttings that are placed in
trenches at an angle from shoreline to trap
sediment and protect the shore against wave
action.
Live Stake
Live branch cuttings that are tamped or
inserted into the earth to take root and
produce vegetative growth.
M
Morphology
Science of structure of organisms. River
morphology deals with the science of
analyzing the structural makeup of rivers
and streams.
Morphometry
Measurement of external form
N
Nearshore
in close to proximity to the shoreline, either
from water or land
R
Reach
A length of stream that has generally similar
physical and biological characteristics.
Rebar
Steel reinforcement bar used primarily for
reinforcing concrete. It has a variety of uses
in restoration work.
Revetment
A facing of stone, wood, or other natural
materials placed on a bank as protection
against wave action and currents.
Riparian Vegetation
Vegetation growing along banks of streams,
rivers, and other water bodies tolerant to or
more dependent on water than plants further
upslope.
Riprap
A layer, facing, or protective mound of
rubble or stones randomly placed to prevent
erosion, scour, or sloughing of a structure or
embankment; also, the stone used for this
purpose.
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

A - 4
S
Salinity
The concentration of mineral salts dissolved
in water. Salinity may be measured by
weight (total dissolved solids), electrical
conductivity, or osmotic pressure. Where
sea water is known to be the major source of
salt, salinity is often used to refer to the
concentration of chlorides in the water.
Salt Wedge
A layer of salt water that lies beneath a layer
of fresh water within the lower reaches of an
estuary; the separation of the two layers
persists as the fresh water is substantially
less dense than the salt water and the water
column is not sufficiently mixed by wave
and tidal action; the salt water layer
decreases in depth with increasing distance
from the ocean due to the increasing
elevation of the channel bottom, with the
upstream point defined by an intercept with
the bottom; the salt wedge moves
downstream and upstream within the
distributary channels of an estuary with
outgoing and incoming tides, respectively
Scour
Concentrated erosive action from waves,
flowing water or ice that removes and
carries away material from the bed and
banks.
Sediment
Solid fragments of inorganic or organic
material that come from the weathering of
rock and are carried and deposited by wind,
water, or ice.
Sediment Load
The sediment transported through a channel
by stream flow.
Shear Strength
The internal resistance of a body to shear
stress. Typically includes frictional and
cohesive components. Expresses the ability
of soil to resist sliding.
Shear Stress
The force per unit area tending to deform a
material in the direction of flow. The pull
on a bank that may cause it to slide.
Silt
Slightly cohesive to noncohesive soil
composed of particles that are finer than
sand but coarser than clay; commonly in the
range of 0.004 to 0.0625 mm, silt will
crumble when rolled into a ball.
Slope
The amount of vertical rise divided by the
horizontal run.
Soil Bioengineering
An applied science that combines structural,
biological, and ecological concepts to
construct living structures for erosion,
sediment, and flood control. It is always
based on sound engineering practices
integrated with ecological principles.
Subtidal
pertaining to that area of the shoreline below
the low tide elevation
Surface Runoff
That portion of precipitation that moves over
the ground toward a lower elevation and
does not infiltrate the soil.
T
Toe
The break in slope at the foot of a river bank
where it meets the river bed.
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

A - 5
Top of Bank
The break in slope between the river bank
and the surrounding upland terrain.
V
Vegetated Geogrid
Live branch cuttings placed in layers with
soil lifts wrapped in erosion control fabric.
W
Wake
A wave generated by watercraft.





HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS







APPENDIX B
PLANTS FOR SOIL BIOENGINEERING AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS FOR THE
NORTHEAST REGION

The following table was compiled from NRCS “Engineering Field Handbook”, Chapter 16,
Appendix 16B (USDA NRCS, 1996)



HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

B-1
Scientific
name
Common
name
Commercial
availability
Plant
type
Root
type
Rooting
ability
from
cutting
Growth
rate
Establishmen
t speed
Spread
potential
Plant
materials
type Status Notes
Baccharis
halimifolia
eastern
baccharis
yes
medium
shrub
fibrous good fair fast Fair
fascines,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
Resistant to salt spray; unisexual
plants. Occurs MA to FL and TX.
Cephalanth
us
occidentalis
buttonbush yes
large
shrub

fair to
good
slow medium Poor
brush mats,
layering,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
Survived 3 years of flooding in MS.
Will grow in sun or shade.
Cornus
amomum
silky
dogwood
yes small
shrub
shallow,
fibrous
fair fast medium Poor fascines,
stakes, brush
mats, layering,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
Pith brown, tolerates partial shade.
'Indigo' cultivar was released by MI
PMC.
Cornus
drummondii
roughleaf
dogwood
yes large
shrub
root
suckering
,
spreading
fair Fair fascines,
stakes, brush
mats, layering,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
Root suckers too. Pith usually
brown. Occurs Saskatchewan to KS
and NE, south to MS, LA, and TX.
Cornus
racemosa
gray
dogwood
yes medium
to small
shrub
shallow,
fibrous
fair medium Fair fascines,
stakes, brush
mats, layering,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
Forms dense thickets. Pith usually
brown, tolerates city smoke. Occurs
ME and MN to MC and OK.
Cornus
sericea ssp
sericea
red-osier
dogwood
yes medium
shrub
shallow good fast medium Fair fascines,
stakes, brush
mats, layering,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
Forms thickets by rootstocks and
rooting of branches. Survived 6
years of flooding in MS. Pith white,
tolerates partial shade. Formerly C.
stolonifera. 'Ruby' cultivar was
released by NY PMC. Low salinity
tolerance.
Populus
balsamifera
balsam
poplar
yes tall tree deep,
fibrous
very good fast fast fascines,
stakes, poles,
brush mats,
layering,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY

HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

B-2
Scientific
name
Common
name
Commercial
availability
Plant
type
Root
type
Rooting
ability
from
cutting
Growth
rate
Establishmen
t speed
Spread
potential
Plant
materials
type Status Notes
Populus
deltoides
eastern
cottonwoo
d
yes tall tree shallow,
fibrous,
suckering
very good fast fast Poor fascines,
stakes, poles,
brush mats,
layering,
cuttings, root
suckers, plants
US native
occurs in
NY

Physocarpu
s opulifolius
common
ninebard
yes
medium
shrub
shallow,
lateral
fair slow slow Poor
fascines, brush
mats, layering,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
Use in combination with other
species with rooting ability good to
excellent.
Rosa
virginiana
virginia
rose
yes
small
shrub
rhizomat
ous and
fibrous
good fair fast Fair plants
US native
occurs in
NY

Salix
discolor
pussy
willow
yes large
shrub
shallow,
fibrous,
spreading
very good rapid fascines,
stakes, poles,
layering,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
Use on sunny to partial shade sites.
Salix
amygdaloid
es
peachleaf
willow
yes large
shrub to
small
tree
shallow
to deep
very good fast fast fascines,
stakes, poles,
brush mats,
layering,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
Often roots only at callus cut. May
be short lived. Under development
in ID for riparian sites. Not tolerant
of shade. Hybridized with several
other willow species. Medium
salinity tolerance.
Salix exigua coyote
willow
yes medium
shrub
shallow,
suckering
,
rhizomat
ous
good fast fascines,
stakes, poles,
brush mats,
layering,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
Relished by livestock. Under
development in ID for riparian sites.
'Silvar' cultivar released by WA
PMC. Low salinity tolerance.
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

B-3
Scientific
name
Common
name
Commercial
availability
Plant
type
Root
type
Rooting
ability
from
cutting
Growth
rate
Establishmen
t speed
Spread
potential
Plant
materials
type Status Notes
Salix
interior
sandbar
willow
yes large
shrub
shallow
to deep
excellent medium medium Fair fascines,
stakes, poles,
brush mats,
layering,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
Thicket forming. This species has
been changed to S. exigua. Use in
combination with species with
rooting ability, good to excellent.
Low salinity tolerance.
Salix
purpurea
purpleosier
willow
yes medium
tree
shallow excellent fast fast Poor fascines,
stakes, poles,
brush mats,
layering,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
Tolerates partial shade. 'Streamco'
cultivar released by NY PMC.
Sambucus
canadensis
american
elder
yes
medium
shrub
fibrous
and
stolonifer
ous
good fast fast Poor
fascines,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
Softwood cuttings root easily in
spring or summer. Pith white.
Sambucus
racemosa
red
elderberry
yes
medium
shrub
good medium slow
fascines, brush
mats, layering,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
Softwood cuttings root easily in
spring or summer. Pith brown. This
may be S. Callicarpa.
Spiraea
alba
meadow-
sweet
spirea
yes
short
dense
tree
dense
shallow,
lateral
fair to
good
medium plants
US native
occurs in
NY
Propagation by leafy softwood
cuttings in mid-summer under mist.
Symphorica
rpos albus
snowberry yes
small
shrub,
dense
colony
forming
shallow,
fibrous,
freely
suckering
good rapid slow Fair
fascines, brush
mats, layering,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
Plant in sun to part shade, especially
on wet sites.
Viburnum
dentatum
arrowwood yes medium
to tall
shrub
shallow,
fibrous
good fast slow layering,
cuttings,
plants
US native
occurs in
NY
Thicket forming; tolerates city
smoke. Use rooted plant materials.
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

B-4
Scientific
name
Common
name
Commercial
availability
Plant
type
Root
type
Rooting
ability
from
cutting
Growth
rate
Establishmen
t speed
Spread
potential
Plant
materials
type Status Notes
Viburnum
lentago
nannyberry yes large
shrub
shallow fair to
good
fast fast fascines,
cuttings,
stakes, plants
US native
occurs in
NY
Thicket forming; tolerates city
smoke. Tolerates full shade. Older
branches often root when they touch
soil. Use in combination with
species with rooting ability good to
excellent.


HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS







APPENDIX C
COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS


HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

C-1
COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS
Cost estimates were developed for each of
the shoreline restoration alternatives. The
estimates are based on quantities developed
from conceptual designs for each alternative
and from historical data from other projects.
The cost data were adjusted for identifiable
differences in project size, operations, and
best professional judgment. The estimates
are intended to provide budgetary costs and
to identify the relative cost differences
between alternatives.
Alden’s cost estimates typically reflect the
following assumptions:
Present day prices and fully
contracted labor rates as of
November 2005.
Forty-hour work week with single
shift operation.
Direct costs for material and labor
required for construction of all
project features.
Distributable costs for site non-
manual supervision, temporary
facilities, equipment rental, and
support services incurred during
construction. These costs have been
taken as 85-100% of the labor
portion of the direct costs for each
alternative.
Indirect costs for labor and related
expenses for engineering services to
prepare drawings, specifications, and
design documents. The indirect
costs have been taken as 10% of the
direct costs for each alternative.
Allowance for indeterminates to
cover uncertainties in design and
construction at this preliminary stage
of study. An allowance for
indeterminates is a judgment factor
that is added to estimated figures to
complete the final cost estimate
while still allowing for other
uncertainties in the data used in
developing these estimates. The
allowance for indeterminates has
been taken as 10% of the direct,
distributable, and indirect costs of
each alternative.
Contingency factor to account for
possible additional costs that might
develop but cannot be predetermined
(e.g., labor difficulties, delivery
delays, weather). The contingency
factor has been taken as 15% of the
direct, distributable, indirect, and
allowance for indeterminate costs of
each concept.
The costs do not include the following items
that will affect estimates of the total capital
costs:
Costs to perform additional
laboratory or field studies that may
be required.
Costs to dispose of any hazardous or
non-hazardous materials not
previously identified that may be
encountered during excavation and
dredging activities.
Costs for administration of project
contracts and for engineering and
construction management incurred
by the NYSDEC.
Escalation
Permitting costs
Estimates of costs for each alternative are
provided in tables C-1 to C-6.

HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

C-2
Table C-1 Bowline Park Joint Planting Estimated Costs
Item
Estimated
Cost
($)
Direct Costs
Mobilization and Demobilization 6,000
Silt Curtains 1,000
Remove Concrete and Re-grade Slope 4,000
Additional Stone 22,000
Live Stake Installation 30,000
Site Landscaping Repairs from Construction Activities 2,000

Direct Costs (September 2005 $) $65,000

Indirect Costs 7,000
Total Construction and Indirect Costs $72,000

Allowance for Indeterminates/Contingencies 18,000

Total Estimated Project Costs (September 2005 $) $90,000

HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

C-3
Table C-2 Newburgh Joint Planting Estimated Costs
Item
Estimated
Cost
($)
Direct Costs
Mobilization and Demobilization 19,000
Remove Scrap Metal 69,000
Move Large Stones and Re-grade Slope 64,000
Live Stake Installation 53,000

Direct Costs (September 2005 $) $205,000

Indirect Costs 21,000
Total Construction and Indirect Costs $226,000

Allowance for Indeterminates/Contingencies 57,000

Total Estimated Project Costs (September 2005 $) $283,000

Table C-3 Poughkeepsie Joint Planting Estimated Costs
Item
Estimated
Cost
($)
Direct Costs
Mobilization and Demobilization 9,000
Remove Concrete Bulkhead, fence and pavement 24,000
Re-grade Slope and Install Stone Protection 44,000
Live Stake Installation 24,000
Site Landscaping Repairs from Construction Activities 2,000

Direct Costs (September 2005 $) $103,000

Indirect Costs 10,000
Total Construction and Indirect Costs $113,000

Allowance for Indeterminates/Contingencies 28,000

Total Estimated Project Costs (September 2005 $) $141,000
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

C-4
Table C-4 Henry Hudson Park Joint Planting Estimated Costs
Item
Estimated
Cost
($)
Direct Costs
Mobilization and Demobilization 16,000
Remove Concrete Bulkhead and fence 42,000
Re-grade Slope, Install Stone Protection and Timber Piles 97,000
Live Stake Installation 23,000
Site Landscaping Repairs from Construction Activities 1,000

Direct Costs (September 2005 $) $179,000

Indirect Costs 18,000
Total Construction and Indirect Costs $197,000

Allowance for Indeterminates/Contingencies 49,000

Total Estimated Project Costs (September 2005 $) $246,000

Table C-5 Campbell Island Vegetative Geogrid Estimated Costs
Item
Estimated
Cost
($)
Direct Costs
Mobilization and Demobilization 52,000
Remove Concrete Bulkhead 68,000
Re-grade Slope, Install Stone Protection and Timber Piles 213,000
Geogrid, Brush Layering and Live Stake Installation 239,000

Direct Costs (September 2005 $) $572,000

Indirect Costs 57,000
Total Construction and Indirect Costs $629,000

Allowance for Indeterminates/Contingencies 157,000

Total Estimated Project Costs (September 2005 $) $786,000
HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

C-5

Table C-6 Campbell Island Joint Planting Estimated Costs
Item
Estimated
Cost
($)
Direct Costs
Mobilization and Demobilization 19,000
Remove Concrete Bulkhead 68,000
Re-grade Slope, Install Stone Protection and Timber Piles 116,000
Live Stake Installation 10,000

Direct Costs (September 2005 $) $213,000

Indirect Costs 21,000
Total Construction and Indirect Costs $234,000

Allowance for Indeterminates/Contingencies 59,000

Total Estimated Project Costs (September 2005 $) $293,000


HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS









APPENDIX D
LIST OF VENDORS FOR BIOENGINEERING MATERIALS



HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

D-1

Ernst Conservation Seeds
9006 Mercer Pike Meadville, PA 16335-9299
Telephone: 800-873-3321
814-336-2404
Fax: 814-336-5191
Website: http://www.ernstseed.com
Provide products for bioengineering including: live stakes, wattle/fascines, live branch
layering, brush mattresses, live cuttings, live whips, rooted cuttings/bareroot plants, posts,
coir logs and blankets.

RoLanka International
155 Andrew Dr, Stockbridge, GA 30281
Telephone: 800-760-3215
770-506-8211
Fax: 770-506-0391
Website: http://www.rolanka.com
Provide coir and synthetic bioengineering products

Eco-Systems, Inc.
6640 N. Old State Road 37, Bloomington, IN 47408
Telephone: 812-336-6664
Fax: 812-336-6747
Website: http://www.soilandwater.com
Provide numerous bioengineering products including: coir logs and blankets and geo-
fabrics.
North American Green
14649 Highway 41, North Evansville, IN 47725
Telephone: 800-772-2040
Website: http://www.nagreen.com
Provide coir and synthetic bioengineering products

Mirafi Construction Products
North East Region Sales Manager, Burlington, CT
Telephone: 860 675 9200
Voice Mail: 888 795 0808, ext 1804
Fax: 860 675 9201
Manufacture synthetic bioengineering products