A Comparative Cost Analysis of Ten ShoreProtection Approaches at Three Sites Under Two Sea Level Rise Scenarios

AComparativeCostAnalysisofTenShore
ProtectionApproachesatThreeSites
UnderTwoSeaLevelRiseScenarios
Preparedfor:
HudsonRiverValleyGreenway
HudsonRiverNationalEstuarine
ResearchReserve
Asapartof:
TheHudsonRiver
SustainableShorelinesProject
Preparedby:
AndrewJ.Rella,&
JonK.Miller,Ph.D.
July2012
Acknowledgements
This report was prepared by Andrew Rella
and Jon Miller of Stevens Institute of
Technology in the course of performing
work contracted for the Hudson River
SustainableShorelinesProject.
Theauthorswouldliketoacknowledgethe
Sustainable Shorelines coordinating team,
especially Emilie Hauser, Dave Strayer, and
KristinMarcellfortheirassistance.Reviews
of the cost estimate approach by Klaus
Jacob,PaulKirshen,andRickGilbertgreatly
improvedthefinaldocument.
AbouttheHudsonRiverEstuary
The Hudson River Estuary is a narrow, 152
mile arm of the sea that extends from the
southern tip of Manhattan north to the
TroyDam.Themaximumwidthoftheriver
is 3 miles in the Tappan Zee, but most of
the river is 0.51 mile wide, and the upper
section near Albany is less than 0.5 miles
wide.Muchoftheriveris2050feetdeep,
and a 32 foot deep navigation channel
extendsallthewaytoAlbany.However,the
river also contains extensive shallowwater
areas that are less than 5 feet deep at low
tide, many of which support wetlands or
bedsofsubmersedvegetation.Muchofthe
river bottom is sand or mud, although
patchesofgravel,cobble,relictoysterreefs,
anddebrisdoexist.Theaveragetidalrange
along the Hudson River is about 4 feet,
peaking at 5 feet at either end of the
estuary. In periods of normal freshwater
flows,strongtidalflows(oftengreaterthan
2ft/sec)reversethedirectionofwaterflow
every six hours throughout the entire

estuary, and are roughly 10 times as large
as downriver flow of fresh water. Water
levels are also determined chiefly by tides,
but can be strongly affected by high flows
from upriver and tributaries, and by storm
surges. The transition from fresh to
saltwater occurs in the lower half of the
river, depending on freshwater flows and
tides.
Forces impinging on the Hudsons shores
include winddriven waves, wakes from
commercial and recreational vessels,
currentsfromtidesanddownriverflow,and
floating debris and ice driven onshore by
these forces. Depending on their exposure
towind,currents,wakes,andice,andtheir
position relative to the navigation channel
and protective shallows, different parts of
the Hudsons shores receive very different
inputs of physical energy. Likewise, land
usesonthelandwardsideoftheshoreand
waterdependent uses on the riverward
side of the shore are highly variable along
the Hudson. As a result, different parts of
the Hudson place very different demands
onengineeredstructuresalongtheshore.
Theshorelinehasbeendramaticallyaltered
over the last 150 years to support industry
and other development, contain channel
dredgespoils,andwithstanderosion.About
halfoftheshorelinehasbeenconspicuously
engineered with revetment, bulkhead,
cribbing or reinforced with riprap. Many
additional shorelines contain remnant
engineeredstructuresfromprevioushuman
activities. The remaining natural
shorelines (which however have been

affected by human activities such as
disposal of dredge spoil, invasive species,
and contaminants) include a mix of
wooded, grassy, and unvegetated
communities on mud, sand, cobbles, and
bedrock.Milleretal.(2006)performedan
inventory of Hudson River shorelines
between the Tappan Zee Bridge and the
headoftideatthefederaldamatTroyand
proposed a five level classification scheme.
Of the 250 miles of shorelines inventoried,
42% were hard engineered, 47% were
natural, and 11% were natural with
remnants of engineering structures. The
most common shoreline structure was rip
rap (32%), followed by woody (29%) and
unvegetated (16%) slopes. The dominant
substrate found within the region was
unconsolidatedrock(52%),mud/sand(16%)
andmixedsoil/rock(12%).
About the Sustainable Shorelines

Project
The Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines
Project is a multiyear effort lead by the
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation Hudson River
National Estuarine Research Reserve in
cooperation
with
the
Greenway
Conservancy for the Hudson River Valley.
Partners in the project include Cary
Institute for Ecosystem Studies, NYSDEC
HudsonRiverEstuaryProgramandStevens
Institute of Technology. The Consensus
BuildingInstitutefacilitatestheproject.
The project is supported by the National
EstuarineResearchReserveSystemScience
ii
Collaborative,apartnershipoftheNational
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
andtheUniversityofNewHampshire.The
Science Collaborative puts Reservebased
science to work for coastal communities
copingwiththeimpactsoflandusechange,
pollution, and habitat degradation in the
contextofachangingclimate.
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this report are
thoseoftheauthorsanddonotnecessarily
reflect those of the New York State
DepartmentofEnvironmentalConservation
and the Greenway Conservancy for the
Hudson River Valley or our funders.
Reference to any specific product, service,
process, or method does not constitute an
implied or expressed recommendation or
endorsement of it. Generic shoreline
treatments for specific locations on the
HudsonRiverEstuaryarepresentedforthe
purpose of developing the relative cost
analysis. Their use in this analysis does not
imply regulatory approval of any such
method at a particular site. The Hudson
RiverisregulatedbyNewYorkStateunder
NYS Environmental Conservation Law (ECL)
Article 15, Part 608 (Use and Protection of
Waters), and associated wetlands and
adjacent buffer areas may be regulated by
ECL Article 24 Part 663 (Freshwater
Wetlands) or Article 25, Part 661 (Tidal
Wetlands). Individual project proposals are
evaluated on a case by case basis by DEC,
and each project must meet permit
issuancestandards.TheUnitedStatesArmy
Corps of Engineers also has regulatory
jurisdiction of adjacent federally regulated

wetlands and the Hudson River as a
navigable waterway. Project sponsors
should contact the USACOE and request a
jurisdictional determination from that
agency.
Terminology
There are many ways to describe both
standard and innovative engineering
methods to protect shoreline. The Hudson
River Sustainable Shorelines Project uses
the term ecologically enhanced engineered
shoreline to denote innovative techniques
that incorporate measures to enhance the
attractiveness of the approach to both
terrestrial and marine biota. Some
documentsandreportsoftheHudsonRiver
Sustainable Shorelines Project may use
other terms to convey this meaning,
including: alternatives to hardening, bio
engineered,
ecoalternatives,
green,
habitatfriendly, living, soft shorelines, or
softengineeredshoreline.
SuggestedCitation:Rella,Andrew,andJon
Miller, 2012. A Comparative Cost Analysis
of Ten Shore Protection Approaches at
Three Sites Under Two Sea Level Rise
Scenarios.Inassociationwithandpublished
bytheHudsonRiverSustainableShorelines
Project,
Staatsburg,
NY
12580,
http://hrnerr.org.
iii
HudsonRiverSustainableShorelinesProject
NYSDECHudsonRiverNationalEstuarine
ResearchReserve
NorriePointEnvironmentalCenter
Staatsburg,NY12580
8458894745hrnerr@gw.dec.state.ny.us
http://hrnerr.org
Authorscontact:jmiller@stevens.edu
Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................1
Methodology................................................................................................................................2
Poughkeepsie.................................................................................................................................10
Bulkhead.....................................................................................................................................12
Revetment..................................................................................................................................20
RipRap.......................................................................................................................................22
JointPlanting..............................................................................................................................26
VegetatedGeogrid.....................................................................................................................29
CribWall.....................................................................................................................................32
LiveCribWall..............................................................................................................................36
Sill...............................................................................................................................................39
BowlinePointPark(HaverstrawBay)........................................................................................41
Bulkhead.....................................................................................................................................43
BioWall......................................................................................................................................43
Revetment..................................................................................................................................43
RipRap.......................................................................................................................................47
JointPlanting..............................................................................................................................50
CribWall.....................................................................................................................................53
LiveCribWall..............................................................................................................................53
Sill...............................................................................................................................................53
HenryHudsonPark(AlbanyCounty)..............................................................................................56
Bulkhead.....................................................................................................................................59
Revetment..................................................................................................................................68
RipRap.......................................................................................................................................71
JointPlanting..............................................................................................................................74
iv
CribWall.....................................................................................................................................80
LiveCribWall..............................................................................................................................84
Sill...............................................................................................................................................87
Summary.........................................................................................................................................91
GlossaryofTerms...........................................................................................................................94
References......................................................................................................................................96
DesignSketchAppendix
CostAnalysisAppendix
StatisticsAppendix
Introduction
The Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project is focused on bringing together community
leaders, scientists, engineers, and natural resource managers to help people make decisions
about how to manage community waterfronts, control erosion and respond to increased
flooding and projected higher water levels. The project is generating information about the
performance, cost, and natural benefits of different shoreline management options, in the
contextoftheHudsonRiverEstuaryshumanandnaturalsetting.Theprojectisbeingguidedby
theexpressedneedsandinterestsoflocalgovernments,expertsandconsultants,shorelineland
owners, policymakers, and regulators. The goal of this project is to protect shorelines and
associatedwaterquality,wildlifehabitat,outdoorrecreation,andcommunityqualityoflifefor
futuregenerations.
Insupportoftheaboveobjectives,thisdocumentlaysoutthemethodologiesandprocedures
utilized to perform a comparative cost assessment of ten different shoreline stabilization
approaches at three sites, under two sea level rise scenarios. The ten approaches, the three
sites, and the two sea level rise scenarios were selected in consultation with the Sustainable
ShorelinesProjectteam.Aseventyyeartimeframewasselectedfortheanalysis.
The ten approaches selected include: timber bulkhead, steel sheet pile bulkhead, biowalls,
revetments,riprap,jointplanting,vegetatedgeogrids,timbercribbing,livecribwalls,andsills.
TheseapproacheswereselectedbasedontheiruseorpotentialuseatsiteswithintheHudson,
and cover the spectrum from more traditional approaches such as bulkheads, to more
innovativeapproachessuchasjointplanting.Itshouldbenotedthat manyof theapproaches
fallintoacategoryofshoreprotectionalternativesidentifiedashybridapproachesduetotheir
integrationofstructuralandnonstructuralelements.
The three sites that were selected represent a diverse selection of shoreline types typical of
thosefound alongthe Hudson.ThesitesareactuallyasubsetofthoseanalyzedintheAlden
andASA(2006)report.Theadvantagetousingthesesitesisthatthemajorityoftherequired
site information has already been collected, so the focus can be placed on designing the
structuresandpreparingthecostanalyses.TheHenryHudsonParksiteinAlbanyCounty,New
Yorkisamildmoderatelyslopedsite alongarelativelynarrow(~1000ft),yetshallow(~20ft)
section of the estuary. The Poughkeepsie site is located along the eastern bank abutting a
relatively deep (~50 ft) section of the river. The side slopes at Poughkeepsie are steep, rising
approximately1footverticallyforevery1.5horizontally.TheBowlinePointParksiteinUpper
HaverstrawBayinRocklandCountyrepresentstheoppositeextreme,withamildslopingbank
(~1footverticalforevery20fthorizontal)abuttingashallow(~10ft)butwide(15,000ft)reach
oftheriver.
The project team selected two sea level rise scenarios for the analysis. The first is simply an
extrapolation of the current rate over the next seventy years. The National Oceanic and
AtmosphericAdministration(NOAA)archivesandanalyzesthedatacollectedbythetidegauge
attheBattery.Themostrecentdataplacestherateofsealevelriseat2.77mm/yr,orroughly
10.9 per century (www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/index.shtml). Over the seventy
yearprojectperiod,thiscorrespondstoapproximately7.6.Thesecondscenarioistherapidice
meltscenario,whichpredicts48inchesofsealevelriseby2080(NewYorkCityPanelonClimate
Change,2009).Unlikethecurrenttrendwhichislinear,intherapidicemeltscenariotherateof
sea level rise accelerates and the changes become more dramatic towards the end of the
decade.
Methodology
DesignPhilosophy
The general characteristics of each site were obtained from the site profiles and descriptions
presentedinthe2006reportbyAldenandASA(Allen,etal.,2006).Supplementaryinformation
such as estimates of the wind wave heights for each site was obtained through additional
analyses. This information was used to develop the basic design parameters from which a
reliablereconnaissancephasecostanalysiscouldbeperformed(USACE,2008).Thepurpose
oftheanalysiswastocompareasmanyapproachesatasmanysitesaspossible.Asaresult,
some designs were carried out at sites where their applicability is questionable. Only in
situations where a given approach was considered extremely unsuitable given the site
conditions was a design and cost analysis not performed. It should be recognized that the
designsweredevelopedexpresslyforinputtothecostanalyses,andshouldnotbeconsidered
complete for construction purposes. Sketches depicting the designs are presented in an
Appendix.
CostDevelopment
For each design, an estimate of the initial construction cost was obtained from one of two
approaches.Whereavailable,thebulkcostsassociatedwithrecentlycompletedlocalprojects
of similar dimensions were used to estimate the cost of protection per length of shoreline.
When bulk costs were either not available or deemed inappropriate, material and labor costs
wereestimatedandusedtodevelopthefinalcostestimate.Insuchcases,thefinalcostswere
crosscheckedagainstsimilarprojectsandestablishedrangestoensurethattheestimateswere
reasonable. An Appendix detailing the cost information is provided. Due to the sometimes
significant variation in material and labor costs, every effort was made to be consistent
throughouttofacilitatecomparisonsacrosssitesandmethods.
The cost estimates were developed using a lifecycle cost approach. The basic lifecycle costs
were separated into four main categories. The initial construction (IC) costs are the costs
describedaboveassociatedwithconstructingeachofthealternativesasdesigned.
Maintenance and repair (M&R) costs refer to the costs associated with inspecting and
performingbasicmaintenanceforeachapproach.Somestructuressuchasbulkheadswillonly
require minimal M&R costs while others, particularly those with a vegetative component may
require more. All M&R costs are formulated in terms of a percentage of the initial cost. It is
assumed that M&R costs forseveraloftheapproacheswillincreaseundertherapidsealevel
rise scenario. M&R costs for shoreline stabilization alternatives with a living component (live
cribwalls,vegetatedgeogrids,jointplanting)areassumedtoincreaseby10%.M&Rcostsfor
woodenstructures(cribwalls,woodbulkheads)areassumedtoincreasesby5%.M&Rcostsfor
theremainingstructuresareassumedtoremainthesame.Thepercentincreaseisintendedto
bereflectiveoftheincreasedstressplacedondifferentmaterialsbyrisingsealevels.
Damage costs (DC) include costs outside of the typical M&R costs created by storm impacts
belowthedesignlevel(50yr).Thesestormsmayhavespecificimpactsthatrequiresignificant
modifications to restore the original function of the shoreline stabilization approach. Joint
plantingprovidesperhapstheclearestexample.Whilea10yrstormwillhaveminimalimpact
onanadequatelydesignedbasestructure(riprapslopeorrevetment),itwillmostlikelywipe
out the vegetation. In this case, the damage costs would refer to the cost to replace the
vegetationtorestoretheoriginalfunctionofthestabilizationapproach.Duringa50yrstorm,
thebasestructuremightbedamagedinadditiontothevegetation,andboththe10yrand50
yr damage costs would be incurred. This point is subtle, but important, as the damage costs
associatedwitha50yrstormwillnot alwaysbegreaterthanthoseassociatedwitha40year
storm.LikeM&Rcosts,damagecostsareformulatedintermsofapercentageoftheoriginal
cost.
Finally, some structures such as bulkheads have a finite lifespan, and regardless of the storm
conditions will need to be replaced once or even twice with the seventy year period. In the
lifecyclecostanalysis,thesecostsarereferredtoasreplacementcosts(RC).
SeaLevelRise
Thetwosealevelrisescenariosareincorporatedintotheanalysisbyconsideringtheirimpacton
theprobabilityofoccurrenceofsignificantstorms.Theapproachdiscussedbelowisasimplified
method of treating return periods and probability. Additional information is presented in an
Appendix.Eachshorelinestabilizationapproachisdesignedtoresistthe50yearstorm,where
50 year refers to the return period (Tr) of the storm. The probability of the design storm
occurringinanygivenyearis:
p=1/Tr
Forthe50yeardesignstorm,theannualprobabilityofoccurrenceis0.02.Theprobabilitythat
thedesignstormwilloccuroveraperiodofnyearsis:
pn=1(1p)n
Therefore, the probability that a 50 year storm (p = 0.02) will occur within the (n=) 70 year
analysisperiod,is0.757.Theexpectedormostlikelynumberofoccurrences(s)duringaperiod
ofnyearshoweveris:
s=n/Tr
Forthe50yeardesignstorm,themostlikelynumberofoccurrencesoverthe70yearanalysis
periodis1.4.
Sea level rise impacts the return period, because it raises the base water level, making the
extremesmoreandmorelikelytooccur.Tohelpillustratethis,theresultsofanextremevalue
analysisperformedontheBatteryParkwaterleveldata,areshowninFigure1.Theplotshows
the relationship between water level (xaxis), and cumulative probability, 11/Tr (yaxis). The
water level corresponding to the 10yr return period is approximately 12.25 ft. If the 10yr
waterlevelresultsindamage,overa25yearperiodthatcostcanbeexpectedtobeincurred2.5
times. If sea levels rise 0.5 ft, the base elevation is increased and it no longer takes a 10yr
stormtoreachthatelevation.Infact,a5yrstorm,whichwasoriginallyassociatedwithawater
levelof11.75ft,reachesthesameelevation(11.75ft+0.5ft=12.25ft).Overa25yearperiod,
the5yrstormcanbeexpectedtooccur5times,ortwiceasoften,incurringdamagecostseach
time.Thepresentanalysisusesthismethodologytoincreasethefrequencywithwhichdamage
costs are incurred. While climate change is expected to have additional impacts related to
potentialchangesinthefrequencyandintensityofstorms,andthedurationandextentofice
cover,theseimpactsarenotaswelldocumentedandarenotconsideredhere.
Extreme Value Analysis of Battery Park Water Levels
Data (Weibul Plot Pos)

GEV Distribution
Gumbel Distribution
0.9 Tr = 10 yrs
0.8 Tr = 5 yrs
0.7
CDF
0.6
0.5 Tr = 2 yrs
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
10
10.5
11
11.5
12
12.5
13
13.5
14
CY Water Level (ft StDat)
14.5
15
Figure1ExtremeValueAnalysisofWaterLevelDatafromBatteryPark.
Underthefirstsealevelrisescenario,theexistingrateofchangeisassumedtocontinue into
thefuture.Underthesecond,therateaccelerates,leadingtoamorerapidincreaseduringthe
secondhalfoftheseventyyearperiodunderconsideration.Inordertosimplifytheanalysis,the
seventyyearperiodisbrokenintothreeperiods,P1covering20122037(25years),P2covering
20372062 (25 years), and P3 covering 20622082 (20 years). The amount of sea level rise
predictedatthemidwaypointofeachperiodisusedtomodifythereturnperiodsduringthat
timeframe. This slightly overestimates the return periods during the first half of each period,
and underestimates them during the second half, but greatly simplifies the problem. As the
returnperiodsarereduced,theexpectednumberofoccurrencesofagivenstormincreasewith
time,asdothepotentialdamages.Thetablesbelowsummarizethesealevelriseadjustments.
Table1SeaLevelriseIncreases.
SeaLevelRiseattheMidpointofEachPeriod
Period
CurrentRate(in) RapidIceMelt(in)
P1(20122037) 1.32
9.00
P2(20372062) 3.96
24.00
P3(20622082) 6.34
41.00

Table2StormFrequencyModificationBasedonCurrentSeaLevelTrend.
CurrentTr
50
40
25
10
CurrentRateofSLR
P1(20122037)
ModifiedTr #Storms
44.9
0.56
34.2
0.73
22.2
1.13
8.8
2.84
P2(20372062)
ModifiedTr #Storms
33.3
0.75
24.4
1.02
16.3
1.53
6.3
3.97
P3(20622082)
ModifiedTr #Storms
24.7
1.01
19.3
1.30
11.7
2.14
4.7
5.32
Table3StormFrequencyModificationBasedonRapidIceMeltScenario.
RapidIceMeltRateofSLR
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
P3(20622082)
CurrentTr ModifiedTr #Storms ModifiedTr #Storms ModifiedTr #Storms
50
18.5
1.35
2.7
9.26
1.0
25.00
40
13.1
1.91
2.1
11.90
1.0
25.00
25
8.3
3.01
1.5
16.67
1.0
25.00
10
3.3
7.58
1.0
25.00
1.0
25.00
Itshouldbepointedoutthatatallthreesites,thedifferencebetweenmeanhighwater(MHW)
andthetopofslopebasedontheprofilesintheAldenandASAreport(Allen,etal.,2006)is
between36and46inches.Undertherapidsealevelrisescenario,theexistingbankatallthree
siteswillbesubmergedathightideatsomepointduringtheseventyyearstudyperiod.While
the analysis accounts for this by assuming the damages associated with even the smallest
stormsrecuronayearlybasis,thelikelihoodisthatasignificantinterventionbeyondthescope
of this report would be required. Options might include retreating inland, filling the adjacent
areatoraisetheelevations,orconstructingafloodwallorberm.Whenconsideringtheresults
ofthecostanalysisundertherapidsealevelrisescenario,considerationshouldbegiventothe
factthatonceacriticalelevationisreached,likelynearthestartofperiodP3,criticaldecisions
willhavetobemade,andthepossibilityexiststhatallpriorshorelinestabilizationinvestments
willbelost.
InflationandDiscounting
Thelifecyclecostanalysisusesapresentvalueapproachwhereallcostsareconvertedinto2012
dollars.Allhistoriccostinformationisscaledupusingthemethodologyanddatacontainedin
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Civil Works Construction Cost Index System (CCWIS) guide.
FuturecostsareinflatedusingtheCCWIS,butalsodiscountedata4%annualrateaccordingto
the mostrecentfederalguidance (USACE,2012). TheCCWIS tablesonlyextend15yearsinto

thefuture.Inordertocovertheperiodofanalysis,therate(1.7%)usedinthetableswasheld
constantandprojectedthroughtheseventyyearprojectlife.Thefollowingexampleillustrates
theuseoftheinflationanddiscountratesinthecostestimates.
Assume the cost in 2012 of building a bulkhead is $100,000. The cost in 2012 dollars to
reconstructthebulkheadin2072isfirstadjustedtoaccountforinflationaccordingto:
$100,000 1
0.017
$274,950
Theinflatedcostisthecostin2072toreconstructthebulkhead;howeverthecostmustalsobe
adjustedtoaccountforthediscountrateifapresentvalueanalysisisused.Thisadjustmentis
asfollows:
$274,950/ 1
0.04
$26,251
The net result is the cost in 2012 dollars that takes into account the competing influences of
inflationanddiscounting.Error!Referencesourcenotfound.illustratesthatwiththeinflation
set at 1.7% and the discount rate set at 4.0%, over time the discount rate has a more
pronouncedimpactonthecostintermsofthepresentvalue.
AnexampleofthewaylifecyclecostsarecalculatedisprovidedbelowinFigure3.Thedifferent
color boxes represent the four different types of costs: Initial (blue), maintenance (purple),
damage (green), and replacement (yellow). The analysis is broken up into three different
periods,withcostscalculatedatthemidpointofeach.Intheexampleshowntherearedamages
associatedwithtwodifferentstormlevels.Theexpectednumberofstormsofeachtype(and
thereforedamages)increasesduringperiods2and3duetosealevelrise.Boththedamageand
themaintenanceareformulatedasapercentageoftheinitialcost.Inadditiontothedamage
and maintenance costs, the entire structure is replaced in periods 2 & 3. All of the costs in
periods2and3areadjustedforinflation,andthendiscountedbackto2012dollars.Thefinal
cost is then the sum of the initial cost, and the inflated and discounted costs associated with
maintenance,stormdamage,andreplacement.
InflationandDiscountRatioGrowth
Inflation/DiscountRatio
10.0
1.0
0.1
CWCCISData
TACCOMData
Combined
1.7%Inflation
4%DiscountRate
0.0
2012
2022
2032
2042
Date
2052
Figure2GrowthoftheInflationandDiscountTermswithTime.
2062
2072

Figure3DevelopmentofLifecycleCost.
Poughkeepsie
ThePoughkeepsiesiteislocatedjustsouthoftheMidHudsonBridgealongtheeasternshoreof
theHudsonRiverasshowninFigure4Acrosssectionillustratingthesiteconditionsasof2006
which was presented in the Alden and ASA (Allen, et al., 2006) report is reproduced here as
Figure5.ThemajorsitecharacteristicsaresummarizedinTable4.AsillustratedinFigure5,the
existingshorelineisbulkheadedwithaconcretecap.ThePoughkeepsieshorelineistypicalof
many of the steep sloped shorelines which have traditionally been bulkheaded. The Alden
report attributed the erosion of the Poughkeepsie shoreline to scour from ice, waves, and
wakes.Runofffrombehindthebulkheadwasalsocitedasaproblem.Windwaveheightswere
calculated using the methodology presented in Chapter 3, Section 6 of the Shore Protection
Manual(USACE,1977),assumingawindspeedof50mphandaconstantdepthof50feet.For
thefourfetchesdefinedinFigure4thecalculatedwindwaveheightsareasshowninTable5.
Figure4PoughkeepsieSiteandFetchDelineations.
10

Figure5ExistingCrosssectionatPoughkeepsie.
Table4PoughkeepsieSiteCharacteristicsandDimensions.
General Characteristics
Width of River
Depth Range
Average Depth
Current Range
Mean Current Velocity (Main Channel)
Mean Current Velocity (Shoreline)
Side Slope
Dimensions Above High Water Level
Width
Height
Slope Length
2,600 ft
30 125 ft
50 ft
0-3 ft/s
1 ft/sec
1 ft/sec
1V:1.6H
18 ft
3.5 ft
18 ft
11
9,013 ft2
31.5 ft2
15,750 ft3
Surface Area
Cross-section Area
Volume
Dimensions of Intertidal Zone
Width
Height
Slope Length
Surface Area
Cross-section Area
Volume
7 ft
3.5 ft
7 ft
3,536 ft2
12.25 ft2
6,125 ft3
Table5FetchesandRelatedWindWaveHeightsatPoughkeepsie.
Length
(mi)
2.00
0.50
0.75
2.00
Fetch 1
Fetch 2
Fetch 3
Fetch 4
Wave Height
(ft)
2
1.0
1.3
2.5
Inadditiontothecostsdescribedbelowwithineachsection,therewillbeacostassociatedwith
theremovaloftheexistingbulkheadstructureandrock.Asthiscostwillbeincurredregardless
oftheshorelinestabilizationapproachselected,itisnotincludedinthecostanalysis.
Bulkhead
Bulkheadsareoneofthemorecommonshorelinestabilizationapproachesusedalongriverine
andestuarinecoastlines.Bulkheadsareverticalsoilretentionstructuresdesignedtoeliminate
bankerosionbyencapsulatingthesoilbehindit.Bulkheadscantakeseveralforms,howeverthe
two most common types are cantilevered bulkheads and anchored bulkheads. Cantilevered
bulkheadsareusedinrelativelylowheightapplicationsandsimplyrelyontheirembedmentfor
support.Anchoredbulkheadsaresimilartocantileveredbulkheads,onlyananchoringsystemis
addedtoprovideadditionallateralsupport.
DuetotherelativelylowgradesateachoftheHudsonRiversites,cantileveredbulkheadswere
selectedforeachsite.Afterbalancingtheloadsandpressuresactingonthefrontandrearfaces
ofthebulkhead,thedesignparameterslistedinTable6wereobtained.
12
Table6BulkheadDesignSummary.
HeightofWallAboveSubstrate
DepthofPenetration
TotalWallHeight
13.1ft
12.1ft
25.2ft
Bulkheadpricesvaryconsiderablydependingonthematerialselected.Costsforwood,steeland
concretebulkheadsareshownbelowinTable7,anddonotincludelaborcosts.
Table7BulkheadMaterialCostComparison(Whalen,etal.,2011).
Material
CostRange/lf
Steel
Wood
Concrete
$7001,200
$116$265
$500$1000
Althoughnotexplicitlyconsideredinthisanalysis,bulkheadscanbemodifiedtoadapttorising
sealevelsthroughtheadditionofacap.Thecapwillnormallyconsistofeitherwoodsecuredto
the face of the bulkhead, or concrete cast to raise the elevation of the structure. Such a
modification must be carried out carefully however; as effectively increasing the unsupported
length of the structure changes the pressure distributions on which the original design was
based. Oftentheadditionofananchorwillbenecessaryifthestructureis retrofit. Thecost
associatedwithsuchmodificationscanbesignificant.
WoodBulkhead
Giventhesteepsideslopes,proximitytothenavigationchannelandexposuretorelativelylong
fetches, an estimate of $265/lf or $132,500 was obtained for the material costs. Labor costs
wereestimatedbasedontheprevailingwageformarineconstructionintheStateofNewYork
(http://wpp.labor.state.ny.us/wpp/publicViewPWChanges.do). Assuming 400 man hours for
construction,at$35/hr,anestimateof$14,000forlaborisobtained.Inadditiontothecosts
associated with the bulkhead construction, a lump sum cost of $25,000 is added to cover the
costofearthworknotdirectlyrelatedtothebulkheadconstruction.Thetotalestimateofthe
initial costs associated with the construction of a wooden bulkhead at Poughkeepsie is
$171,500.
Indevelopingthelifecyclecostforwoodenbulkheads,thefollowingassumptionsweremade:
Periodic maintenance and repairs will be necessary. An estimate of 20% of the initial
costissetasideformaintenanceandrepairduringeachperiod.
Itisassumedthatmaintenanceandrepaircostsforwoodstructureswillincreaseunder
therapidsealevelrisescenario.A5%increaseisapplied.
13
Woodbulkheadsgenerallyhavealifespanofbetween25and40years.Forthepurpose
ofthisanalysis,a30yearlifespanisassumed.
Wood bulkheads are resilient. The following damages are expected during significant
storms:
Table8ExpectedDamageWoodBulkhead.
Tr
Expected Impacts
Damage costs (% IC)
50
40
25
10
Moderate overtopping & scour

None
Minor scour
None
10%
N/A
5%
N/A
14
WoodBulkheadCostEstimate
InitialConstructionCost
$171,500
CurrentRateofSLR
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
Storm
50
40
25
10
Replacement
Maintenance
Damage
10%
5%
100%
20%
0.56
0.73
1.13
2.84
0.00
1.00
$7,220
$
$7,302
$
$
$25,935
0.75
1.02
1.53
3.97
1.00
1.00
P3(20622082)
Cost
#Storms
$5,566
$
$5,686
$
$74,139
$14,828
1.01
1.30
2.14
5.32
1.00
1.00
*#stormsreferstothenumberoftimesthecostisappliedforreplacementandmaintenance
Storm
50
40
25
10
Replacement
Maintenance
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
Damage
10%
5%
100%
25%
1.35
1.91
3.01
7.58
0.00
1.00
$17,524
$
$19,530
$
$
$32,419
9.26
11.90
16.67
25.00
1.00
1.00
$68,648
$
$61,783
$
$74,139
$18,535
15
TotalCost
$4,537 $17,323
$ $
$4,789 $17,776
$ $
$44,825 $118,965
$8,965 $49,728
InitialCost $171,500
TotalCost $375,292
P3(20622082)
Cost
#Storms
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
1.00
1.00
TotalCost
$112,063 $198,234
$ $
$56,031 $137,344
$ $
$44,825 $118,965
$11,206 $62,160
TotalCost $688,203
SteelBulkhead
Giventhesteepsideslopes,proximitytothenavigationchannelandexposuretorelativelylong
fetches, a cost estimate of $1,200/lf or $600,000 which is on the higher end of the ranges
obtained was selected. Labor costs were estimated based on the prevailing wage for marine
construction
in
the
State
of
New
York
construction, at $35/hr, an estimate of $12,250 for labor is obtained. In addition to the costs
associated with the bulkhead construction, a lump sum cost of $25,000 is added to cover the
costofearthworknotdirectlyrelatedtothebulkheadconstruction.Thetotalestimateofthe
initialcostsassociatedwiththeconstructionofasteelbulkheadatPoughkeepsieis$637,250.
Indevelopingthelifecyclecostforsteelbulkheads,thefollowingassumptionsweremade:
Maintenanceandrepaircostsforsteelbulkheadsaregenerallyminimal.Anestimateof
5%oftheinitialcostissetasideformaintenanceandrepairduringeach.
Steelbulkheadsgenerallyhavealifespanofbetween25and40years.Forthepurpose
Steel bulkheads are resilient. The following damages are expected during significant
storms:
Table9ExpectedDamageSteelBulkhead.
Tr
Expected Impacts
Damage costs (% IC)
50
40
25
10

None
Minor scour
None
10%
N/A
5%
N/A
16
SteelBulkheadCostEstimate
$637,250
CurrentRateofSLR
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
Storm
50
40
25
10
Replacement
Maintenance
TotalCost
$16,858 $64,369
$ $
$17,795 $66,051
$ $
$166,558 $442,042
$8,328 $46,194
TotalCost $1,255,906
Damage
10%
5%
100%
5%
P3(20622082)
Cost
#Storms
Storm
50
40
25
10
Replacement
Maintenance
0.56
0.73
1.13
2.84
0.00
1.00
$26,829
$
$27,131
$
$
$24,092
0.75
1.02
1.53
3.97
1.00
1.00
$20,682
$
$21,126
$
$275,483
$13,774
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
Damage
10%
5%
100%
5%
1.35
1.91
3.01
7.58
0.00
1.00
$65,114
$
$72,567
$
$
$24,092
9.26
11.90
16.67
25.00
1.00
1.00
$255,077
$
$229,569
$
$275,483
$13,774
17
P3(20622082)
Cost
#Storms
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.30
2.14
5.32
1.00
1.00
TotalCost
$416,396 $736,587
$ $
$208,198 $510,334
$ $
$166,558 $442,042
$8,328 $46,194
BioWall
The term biowall has been used generically to encompass a suite of shoreline stabilization
approacheswithsimilarcharacteristics.Mostbiowallsareusedinareasthathavetraditionally
been protected by bulkheads. Biowall can refer to simple ecological enhancements used to
modify traditional bulkheads such as hanging planter baskets, or more complex approaches
which incorporate nontraditional materials and design layouts. For the purposes of this
analysisabiowallwillbedefinedasanecologicallyenhancedconcretepanelbulkheadwhich
incorporates three precast tide pools. The enhancements used to modify the concrete panel
includerougheningthesurface,andtheuseoflowPHconcretemixtomaximizegrowth.The
tidepoolsareprecastconcretestructuresthataredesignedtofillupduringhightideandhold
areservoirofwateroncethewaterlevelhasdropped.Thismaintainsawetenvironmentthat
allowsorganismstogrowinalocationthatwouldnormallybetoodry.
Biowalls are a fairly new concept and cost information is extremely limited. In general,
ecologicallyenhancedconcretecosts715%morethanregularPortlandcement(ShimritPerkol
Finkel, 2012). Traditional concrete bulkheads cost between $500 and $1000 per linear foot
(Devore,2010);thereforeanecologicallyenhancedconcretebulkheadcanbeexpectedtocost
between $575 and $1150 per linear foot. Tide pools for revetment habitat development
generallycostbetween$1000and$1500each(ShimritPerkolFinkel,2012).AtPoughkeepsie
whichisrelativelyhighenergy,thehighendofthesenumbersisusedtodeveloptheestimated
cost.Laborcostswereestimatedbasedontheprevailingwageformarineconstructioninthe
StateofNewYork(http://wpp.labor.state.ny.us/wpp/publicViewPWChanges.do).Assuming400
man hours for construction, at $35/hr, an estimate of $14,000 for labor is obtained. An
additionallumpsumcostof$25,000isaddedtotheestimatetocoverthecostofearthworknot
directly related to the biowall. The total estimate of the initial costs associated with the
constructionofabiowallatPoughkeepsieis$618,500.
Table10BiowallCostInformation.
EcologicallyEnhancedConcreteBulkheadperlf
$1,150
TotalCostofEnhancedConcreteBulkhead
$575,000
CostperTidePool
$1,500
TotalCostofTidePools
$4,500
TotalCostofBiowall
$579,500
Indevelopingthelifecyclecostforabiowall,thefollowingassumptionsweremade:
Maintenanceandrepaircostsforbiowallsaregenerallyminimal.Anestimateof10%
oftheinitialcostissetasideformaintenanceandrepairduringeach.
18
Concrete bulkheads generally have a lifespan of between 20 and 50 years. For the
purposeofthisanalysis,a40yearlifespanisassumedforthebiowall.
Biowallsareresilient.Thefollowingdamagesareexpectedduringsignificantstorms:
Table11ExpectedDamageBiowall.
Tr
Expected Impacts
Damage costs (% IC)
50
40
25
10

None
Minor scour
None
10%
N/A
5%
N/A
19
BioWallCostEstimate
InitialConstructionCost $618,500
CurrentRateofSLR
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
P3(20622082)
Storm
Damage
Cost
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
#Storms
50
10%
0.56
$26,039
0.75
$20,073
1.01
$16,362
40
0.73
$
1.02
$
1.30
$
25
5%
1.13
$26,332
1.53
$20,504
2.14
$17,271
10
2.84
$
3.97
$
5.32
$
Replacement 100%
0.00
$
1.00
$267,378
0.00
$
Maintenance
10%
1.00
$46,767
1.00
$26,738
1.00
$16,166
InitialCost
TotalCost
TotalCost
$62,475
$
$64,108
$
$267,378
$89,670
$618,500
$1,102,131
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
P3(20622082)
Storm
Damage
Cost
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
#Storms
50
10%
1.35
$63,198
9.26
$247,572
25.00
$404,144
40
1.91
$ 11.90
$ 25.00
$
25
5%
3.01
$70,431
16.67
$222,815
25.00
$202,072
10
7.58
$ 25.00
$ 25.00
$
Replacement 100%
0.00
$
1.00
$267,378
0.00
$
Maintenance
10%
1.00
$46,767
1.00
$26,738
1.00
$16,166
InitialCost
TotalCost
20
TotalCost
$714,914
$
$495,318
$
$267,378
$89,670
$618,500
$2,185,780
Revetment
A revetment is a sloped engineered shore protection method similar to rip rap; however the
design is often more involved consisting of multiple layers and/or filter fabric, with the
individual stones placed more precisely. Revetments tend to use larger stone falling in the
boulder category according to the Wentworth scale. The median stone size (D50) and weight
(W50) for the revetment armor stone were determined using the wellknown Hudson formula
(USACE,1977).TheHudsonformulausesthebalancebetweenthestabilizing(i.e.weight)and
destabilizing(i.e.shearstresses)forcesactingonthestonetodetermineanappropriatestone
size.Thelargestwindwaveheight(2.5ft)wasselectedasinputintotheHudsonformula.At
thePoughkeepsiesite,thecalculatedwindwaveheightisroughlyconsistentwithtypeofwakes
thatwouldbeexpected(Brunoetal.,2002).TheresultsfromtheHudsonformularecommend
amedianstonesize(D50)of1.09feetindiameterwithaweight(W50)of217pounds.Giventhe
propensityforicescouratthesite,therecommendedvaluewasscaledup20%,resultingina
D50of1.3ftandaW50of363lbs.Sincerevetmentsareconstructedwithuniformlysizedstones,
an underlayer, and geotextile filter layer are included to prevent the washout of the fine
material. The table below summarizes the material costs for the two layer revetment. Each
layerisassumedtobetwostonediameterswithanaverageporosityof40%.Geotextilecosts
werecalculatedusingaunitcostof$0.90/sy,whichwhenmultipliedbythetotalsurfaceareaof
therevetmentgives$1,395.
The placement of revetment stones is generally more precise and requires specialized labor.
LaborcostswereestimatedbasedontheprevailingwageformarineconstructionintheStateof
New York (http://wpp.labor.state.ny.us/wpp/publicViewPWChanges.do). Assuming 400 man
hoursforconstruction,at$35/hr,an estimateof$14,000forlaborisobtained. Anadditional
costof$20,000isaddedtothematerialandlaborcoststoaccountforgeneralearthwork,not
includedintheestimate.Thisbringsthefinalinitialcostto$207,538.
Table12MaterialCostsforRevetments(Bids).
Layer
Thickness Volume Weight Weight RockCost

Total
(ft)
(ft3)
(lbs)
(tons) (perton)
Cost
Armor
2.32
19,253 3,174,253 1587
$97
$153,939
Underlayer
0.11
2705
445,970
222
$82
$18,204
Indevelopingthelifecyclecostforrevetments,thefollowingassumptionsweremade:
Maintenanceandrepaircostsforrevetmentsaregenerallyminimal.Anestimateof15%
oftheinitialcostissetasideformaintenanceandrepairduringeach.
Revetmentsareresilient.Thefollowingdamagesareexpectedduringsignificantstorms:
21
Table13ExpectedDamageRevetment.
Tr
Expected Impacts
Damage costs (% IC)
50
40
25
10

Additional rock displacement
Minor scour & rock displacement
None
15%
5%
10%
N/A
Althoughnotexplicitlyconsideredinthisanalysis,revetmentscanusuallybemodifiedtoadapt
torisingsealevelsbyaddingstonestothecrestofthestructure.Inthiscase,theoriginaldesign
callsforarmoringthebanktothetopoftheexistingslope;thereforeadditionalmeanssuchas
infillingwouldberequiredtocontinuetoelevatethecrest.Normallythecostassociatedwith
addingstonestothecrestofanexistingstructurewouldberelativelyminimal.
22
RevetmentCostEstimate
$207,538
CurrentRateofSLR
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
P3(20622082)
Storm
Damage
Cost
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
#Storms
50
15%
0.56
$13,106
0.75
$10,103
1.01
$8,235
40
5%
0.73
$5,736
1.02
$4,596
1.30
$3,513
25
10%
1.13
$17,672
1.53
$13,761
2.14
$11,591
10
2.84
$
3.97
$
5.32
$
Replacement
100%
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
Maintenance
15%
1.00
$23,539
1.00
$13,458
1.00
$8,137
InitialCost
TotalCost
TotalCost
$31,445
$13,845
$43,023
$
$
$45,133
$207,538
$340,984
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
P3(20622082)
Storm
Damage
Cost
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
#Storms
50
15%
1.35
$31,809
9.26
$124,609
25.00
$203,416
40
5%
1.91
$14,974
11.90
$53,404
25.00
$67,805
25
10%
3.01
$47,267
16.67
$149,531
25.00
$135,611
10
7.58
$ 25.00
$ 25.00
$
Replacement
100%
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
Maintenance
15%
1.00
$23,539
1.00
$13,458
1.00
$8,137
InitialCost
TotalCost
23
TotalCost
$359,835
$136,183
$332,409
$
$
$45,133
$207,538
$1,081,098
RipRap
Riprapisamethodofshoreprotectionthatuseswellgradedstonestoarmorthecoast.The
sizeofthestonesgenerallyfallswithinthecobblerangeaccordingtotheWentworthscale.Rip
rapreliesonitsweightforstabilityanddissipatestheincidentenergyonitsslope.Estimatesof
riprap size based on current velocity generally lead to material much smaller than would be
required to resist the potential wind and ship generated waves at the site. To calculate the
requiredstonesize,ariprapspecificversionoftheHudsonformula(USACE,1977)wasutilized.
TheHudsonformulausesthebalancebetweenthestabilizing(i.e.weight)anddestabilizing(i.e.
shearstresses)forcesactingonthestonetodeterminetheappropriatesize.Thelargestwave
height(2.5ft)calculatedbasedonthefetchesdefinedaboveforthePoughkeepsiesitewasused
forinputintotheHudsonformula.AtthePoughkeepsiesite,thecalculatedwindwaveheightis
roughlyconsistentwithtypeofwakesthatwouldbeexpected(Bruno,2003).Theresultsfrom
theHudsonformularecommendamedianstonesize(D50)of1.0footindiameterwithaweight
(W50)of173pounds.Giventhepropensityforicescouratthesite,therecommendedvaluewas
scaledup20%,resultinginaD50of1.2ftandaW50of285lbs.Fortheriprapslopeprotection,
onlyasinglelayer(40%porosity)withathicknessequaltotwicethemedianstonediameteris
placedontopofageotextilefilterfabric.Geotextilecostswerecalculatedusingaunitcostof
$0.90/sy,whichwhenmultipliedbythetotalsurfaceareaoftheslopegives$1,395.
Table14CostEstimateforRockMaterialtoBuildRipRap.
Layer Thickness Volume Weight RockCost

Total
(ft)
(ft3)
(lbs)
PerTon
Cost
Armor
2.14
217,772 2,930,079
$97
$142,108
Theplacementofriprapstonesisgenerallyveryquickanddoesnotrequirespecializedlabor.
includedintheestimatethusfar.Thisbringsthefinalinitialcostto$174,003.
Indevelopingthelifecyclecostforriprapslopes,thefollowingassumptionsweremade:
Maintenanceandrepaircostsforripraparegenerallylow.Anestimateof20%ofthe
initialcostissetasideformaintenanceandrepairduringeachperiod.
Thefollowingdamagesareexpectedduringsignificantstorms:
24
Table15ExpectedDamagesRiprap.
Tr
Expected Impacts
Damage costs (% IC)
50
40
25
10
Significant overtopping & scour

Moderate scour
Minor scour
None
20%
10%
10%
N/A
Although not explicitly considered in this analysis, riprap slopes can usually be modified to
adapttorisingsealevelsbyaddingstonestothecrestofthestructure.Inthiscase,theoriginal
designcallsforarmoringthebanktothetopoftheexistingslope;thereforeadditionalmeans
such as infilling would be required to continue to elevate the crest. Normally the cost
associatedwithaddingripraptothecrestofanexistingstructurewouldberelativelyminimal.
25
RipRapCostEstimate
CurrentRateofSLR
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
P3(20622082)
Storm
Damage
Cost
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
#Storms
50
20%
0.56
$14,651
0.75
$11,295
1.01
$9,206
40
10%
0.73
$9,618
1.02
$7,707
1.30
$5,891
25
10%
1.13
$14,816
1.53
$11,537
2.14
$9,718
10
2.84
$
3.97
$
5.32
$
Replacement 100%
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
Maintenance
20%
1.00
$26,314
1.00
$15,044
1.00
$9,096
InitialCost
TotalCost
TotalCost
$35,152
$23,216
$36,071
$
$
$50,454
$174,003
$318,896
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
P3(20622082)
Storm
Damage
Cost
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
#Storms
50
20%
1.35
$35,559
9.26
$139,299
25.00
$227,396
40
10%
1.91
$25,108
11.90
$89,549
25.00
$113,698
25
10%
3.01
$39,629
16.67
$125,369
25.00
$113,698
10
7.58
$ 25.00
$ 25.00
$
Replacement 100%
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
Maintenance
20%
1.00
$26,314
1.00
$15,044
1.00
$9,096
InitialCost
TotalCost
26
TotalCost
$402,255
$228,356
$278,696
$
$
$50,454
$174,003
$1,133,764
JointPlanting
Livestakingorjointplantinginvolvesplantinglivestakesorvegetationintothevoidspacesina
riprapslopeorrevetment.Iftheriprapslopeorrevetmentalreadyexiststheonlycostsare
relatedtotheplantmaterialsandthelaborforinstallation.Table16providessomeinformation
onthetypicalcostsofmaterialsusedinjointplanting.
Table16CostforStakestobeCoupledwithRipRap(NRPCVT,2004).
Range
SurfaceAreaofSite
CostforPlanting(@$3.00/sq.ft)
Cost
$2.05$4.78/ft2
9014ft2
$27,041
$54.08/ft
Labor costs for joint planting are minimal as upwards of 100 stakes can be planted per hour
depending on the work force (USACE, 2001). Assuming four cuttings per square yard (EPA,
1993), the Poughkeepsie Site would require upwards of 4000 plantings. Applying an average
laborrateof$25/hr,thefollowingcostestimateforlaborwasobtained.
Table17LaborCostsforLiveStakes.
SurfaceArea
CuttingDensity
PlantsRequired
InstallationRate
LaborRate
LaborCost
1002yd2
4/yd2
4,008
100/hr
$25/hr
$1,002
Takingintoaccountthelaborcostsandthematerialcosts,thecostestimateforjointplantingat
Poughkeepsieis$28,043,or$56/lf.Itisassumedthatthejointplantingwillbeconstructedin
conjunctionwiththeriprapslopediscussedintheprevioussection.Thetotalestimatedcost
forariprapprotectedslopewithjointplantingis$202,046or$404/lf.
Indevelopingthelifecyclecostforjointplanting,thefollowingassumptionsweremade:
Theriprapdiscussedintheprevioussectionformsthebaseforthejointplantingand
the total cost is the cost of constructing the riprap slope plus the cost of the joint
planting.
Jointplantingaddstothemaintenanceandrepaircostsassociatedwithariprapslope.
Anadditional5%oftheinitialcostisestimatedforjointplantingbringingtheestimate
forariprapslopewithjointplantingto25%.
27
It is assumed that maintenance and repair costs for living structures will increase
significantlyundertherapidsealevelrisescenario.A10%increaseisapplied.
Jointplantingsarenotespeciallyresilient.Thefollowingdamagesareexpectedduring
significantstorms:
Table18ExpectedDamageJointPlanting.
Tr
Expected Impacts
Damage costs (% IC)
50
40
25
10

Moderate scour
Minor scour
Loss of plantings
20%
10%
10%
10%
Althoughnotexplicitlyconsideredinthisanalysis,riprapslopeswithjointplantingcanusually
be modified to adapt to rising sea levels by adding stones and vegetation to the crest of the
structure.Inthiscase,theoriginaldesigncallsforarmoringthebanktothetopoftheexisting
slope;thereforeadditionalmeanssuchasinfillingwouldberequiredtocontinuetoelevatethe
crest.Normallythecostassociatedwithaddingriprapandvegetationtothecrestofanexisting
structurewouldberelativelyminimal.
28
JointPlantingCostEstimate
$202,046
Storm
50
40
25
10
Replacement
Maintenance
P1(20122037)
Cost
#Storms
P3(20622082)
Cost
#Storms
TotalCost
$10,690 $40,817
$6,841 $26,957
$11,284 $41,884
$28,090 $106,152
$ $
$13,202 $73,232
TotalCost $491,088
Damage
20%
10%
10%
10%
100%
25%
CurrentRateofSLR
P2(20372062)
Cost
#Storms
Storm
50
40
25
10
Replacement
Maintenance
0.56
0.73
1.13
2.84
0.00
1.00
$17,013
$11,168
$17,204
$43,401
$
$38,193
0.75
1.02
1.53
3.97
0.00
1.00
$13,115
$8,949
$13,396
$34,661
$
$21,836
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
Damage
20%
10%
10%
10%
100%
35%
1.35
1.91
3.01
7.58
0.00
1.00
$41,290
$29,155
$46,016
$115,737
$
$53,470
9.26
11.90
16.67
25.00
0.00
1.00
$161,749
$103,982
$145,574
$218,361
$
$30,571
29
P3(20622082)
Cost
#Storms
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
0.00
1.00
1.01
1.30
2.14
5.32
0.00
1.00
TotalCost
$264,044 $467,084
$132,022 $265,159
$132,022 $323,612
$132,022 $466,120
$ $
$18,483 $102,524
VegetatedGeogrid
A vegetated geogrid is constructed of successive layers of soil wrapped in a geotextile fabric.
Each layer is stacked upon the previous at an inclined angle to resist any forward movement;
while vegetation is added between each layer to promote a natural aesthetic and habitat
development. The vegetation once established will also act to reinforce the strength of the
structure.Thenumberoflayersandtheamountofwrappingisdeterminedbytheheightofthe
wall.Themajormaterialcostsforvegetativegeogridsconsistsofthegeotextilefabric,thefill
material, and the live vegetation. At Poughkeepsie it is assumed that the existing soil will be
usedtofillthegeotextilewrapsatareducedcostof$25/ton.Thecostsforeachelementare
summarizedinError!Notavalidbookmarkselfreference..Anadditional$35,000isaddedto
thefinalcosttoaccountforearthworknotdirectlyrelatedtofillingeachlayer.Preparingasite
ofthiswidthandlengthwillrequireasignificantamountofexcavation.
Table19MaterialCostsforVegetatedGeogridatPoughkeepsie,NY.
GeotextileCosts(HaliburtonCooperative)
NumberofLayers
4
WrapLength
7.15ft
Lengthofgeotextileperlayer
23.45ft
Totallength
93.82ft/lf
Totalareaofwrap
46,910ft2
AverageCost(Storrar)
$0.90/yd2
TotalGeotextileCost
$4,691
SedimentCosts(SwanRiverTrust)
Volumeoffillrequired(40%porosity)
15,600ft3
Unitweightofsedimentfill
165lb/ft3
Weightofstoneneeded
2,574,000lbs
AverageCost
$25/ton
TotalFillCost
$32,175
VegetationCosts(WSDT,2002)
6x2PrunedLiveWillowBranches
5000
UnitCost
$1.20
TotalVegetationCost
$6000
hours for construction, at $35/hr, an estimate of $17,500 for labor is obtained. The total
estimatedcostforavegetatedgeogridstructureatPoughkeepsieis$95,366.
Indevelopingthelifecyclecostforvegetatedgeogrids,thefollowingassumptionsweremade:
30
Maintenance and repair costs for vegetated geogrids are generally minimal. An
estimateof20%oftheinitialcostissetasideformaintenanceandrepairduringeach
period.
Vegetatedgeogridsdonottypicallyhavealonglifespan.Althoughclaimsofaslongas
120 years can be found, given the condition along the Hudson, a 20 year lifespan is
utilizedintheanalysis.
Table20ExpectedDamageVegetatedGeogrid.
Tr
Expected Impacts
Damage costs (% IC)
50
40
25
10

None
Loss of vegetation
None
20%
N/A
10%
N/A
Althoughnotexplicitlyconsideredinthisanalysis,vegetatedgeogridscanbemodifiedtoadapt
torisingsealevelsbyaddingadditionallayerstoanexistingstructure.Ifadditionallayersare
added,caremustbetakentoensurethatanynewlayersaresecuredtotheexistingstructure
andanchoringsystemsuchthattheentirestructurebehavesasasingleunit.Inthiscase,the
originaldesigncallsforarmoringthebanktothetopoftheexistingslope;thereforeadditional
meanssuch asinfillingwouldberequiredto continue toelevatethecrest. Normallythecost
associatedwithaddinganadditionallayertoavegetatedgeogridwouldberelativelyminimal.
31
VegetatedGeogridCostEstimate
CurrentRateofSLR
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
P3(20622082)
Storm
Damage
Cost
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
#Storms
50
20%
0.56
$8,030
0.75
$6,190
1.01
$5,046
40
0%
0.73
$
1.02
$
1.30
$
25
10%
1.13
$8,120
1.53
$6,323
2.14
$5,326
10
2.84
$
3.97
$
5.32
$
Replacement 100%
1.00
$72,109
1.00
$41,227
1.00
$24,926
Maintenance
20%
1.00
$14,422
1.00
$8,245
1.00
$4,985
InitialCost
TotalCost
TotalCost
$19,266
$
$19,770
$
$138,261
$27,652
$95,366
$300,315
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
P3(20622082)
Storm
Damage
Cost
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
#Storms
50
20%
1.35
$19,489
9.26
$76,346
25.00
$124,629
40
0%
1.91
$ 11.90
$ 25.00
$
25
10%
3.01
$21,720
16.67
$68,711
25.00
$62,315
10
7.58
$ 25.00
$ 25.00
$
Replacement 100%
1.00
$72,109
1.00
$41,227
1.00
$24,926
Maintenance
30%
1.00
$21,633
1.00
$12,368
1.00
$7,478
InitialCost
TotalCost
32
TotalCost
$220,464
$
$152,745
$
$138,261
$41,478
$95,366
$648,316
CribWall
Timbercribbingfunctionssimilartoagravitybulkhead,inthatitsstabilityisdirectlyrelatedto
itsweight.Thisinturnisdependentuponitsheighttowidthratio,whichshouldbelessthan3
(FEMA, 2000). The weight of the crib pushes perpendicularly upon the wooden posts that
create the crib, and the allowable stress in the wood determines the capacity of each crib.
Generally,thepostsare6to8feetlong(NRCS,2007),withallowablestressesintherangeof
200to1000lb/in2dependingonthespeciesofwood(FEMA,2000).Table21summarizesthe
cribdesign.AlargercribwasselectedforPoughkeepsietocombatthehigherdegreeofwave
energy at the site. Using 8 foot lengths, 63 cribs would be required along 500 ft of river
frontage.Thevolumeofeachcribis355ft3.Whenfilledwithstonewithanaverageporosityof
40%,thisrequiresnearly1100tonsofstoneandover5,000logs.Acribwallcoveringanarea
thislargewillrequireextensiveexcavation;howeverthesoilandstonefromthesitecouldbe
recycledbackintotheprojectasfillforthecribs.Thecostoftherecycledfillmaterialusedto
determinethematerialcostsforthestructurewas$25/ton.Thecostsaresummarizedbelowin
Table23.Anadditional$35,000isaddedtothefinalcosttoaccountforearthworknotdirectly
relatedtobuildingandfillingthecribs.
Table21SelectionofLogCriteriaforCrib.
LogLength
8ft
LogCrossSection
4.5inx4.5in
DesignStress
750lb/in2
CribConfiguration
2x2
Capacity
60,750lbs
Capacitypereachcontact
15,187lbs
Table22DeterminationofWeightofFilledCrib.
Area
44.44ft2
Volume
355.56ft3
Unitweightofstone
165lbs/ft3
TotalWeightofCrib
29.31tons
TotalNumberofCribs
62.50(500/8)
Weightofstone(40%Porosity)
1099tons
33
Table23CostSummaryforTimberCribbing(HaliburtonCooperative).
TimberCribbing(BasedoffDesignof6'wx6'hx500'l)
Items
#ofUnits
Logs,untreatedD.Fir,CedarorHemlock
5,630logs
SedimentFillMaterial(Upper6ofcrib)
825tons
StoneFill(Lower2ofcrib)
275tons
TotalCost
CostperLinearFoot
(WSDT,2002)
Cost/Unit
Total
$6.18/log $34,782
$25/ton
$20,625
$72/ton
$19,800
$75,207
$150.40
Theamountoflaborrequiredtoconstructawoodencribwallwillberoughly1.5timeswhatis
necessaryforawoodenbulkhead.Laborcostswereestimatedbasedontheprevailingwagefor
marine
construction
in
the
State
of
New
York
construction,at$35/hr,anestimateof$21,000.Thetotalestimatedcostforconstructingacrib
wallatthePoughkeepsiesiteis$131,207.
Indevelopingthelifecyclecostforcribwalls,thefollowingassumptionsweremade:
Maintenanceandrepaircostsforcribwallsaregenerallymoderate.Anestimateof20%
oftheinitialcostissetasideformaintenanceandrepairduringeachperiod.
Wooden cribs have a lifespan of approximately 2540 years. For the purposes of this
analysis,completereplacementisassumedafter30years.
Woodencribwallsareresilient.Thefollowingdamagesareexpectedduringsignificant
storms:
Table24ExpectedDamageTimberCribbing.
Tr
Expected Impacts
Damage costs (% IC)
50
40
25
10

Damage to cribs
None
None
10%
20%
N/A
N/A
Althoughnotexplicitlyconsideredinthisanalysis,cribwallsandlivecribwallscanbemodified
to adapt to rising sea levels through the construction of additional cribs. Such a modification
must be carried out carefully however; as increasing the height of the structure changes the
pressure distributions. In addition care must be taken to ensure that the additional weight
34
doesnt cause the allowable stress in the timber and the bearing capacity of the earth
supportingthestructuretobeexceeded.Assumingthoseconditionsaremet,thecostofadding
anadditionalcribisrelativelylow.
35
CribWallCostEstimate
CurrentRateofSLR
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
P3(20622082)
Storm
Damage
Cost
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
#Storms
50
10%
0.56
$5,524
0.75
$4,258
1.01
$3,471
40
20%
0.73
$14,504
1.02
$11,623
1.30
$8,884
25
1.13
$
1.53
$
2.14
$
10
2.84
$
3.97
$
5.32
$
Replacement 100%
0.00
$
1.00
$56,721
1.00
$34,294
Maintenance
20%
1.00
$19,842
1.00
$11,344
1.00
$6,859
InitialCost
TotalCost
TotalCost
$13,253
$35,012
$
$
$91,014
$38,045
$131,207
$308,531
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
P3(20622082)
Storm
Damage
Cost
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
#Storms
50
10%
1.35
$13,407
9.26
$52,519
25.00
$85,734
40
20%
1.91
$37,866
11.90
$135,050
25.00
$171,468
25
3.01
$ 16.67
$ 25.00
$
10
7.58
$ 25.00
$ 25.00
$
Replacement 100%
0.00
$
1.00
$56,721
1.00
$34,294
Maintenance
25%
1.00
$24,802
1.00
$14,180
1.00
$8,573
InitialCost
TotalCost
36
TotalCost
$151,660
$344,384
$
$
$91,014
$47,556
$131,207
$765,821
LiveCribWall
Livecribwallsaredesignedverysimilarlytotimbercribbing;howeveronlythebaselayerisfilled
with stone. The remainder of the crib is filled with alternating layers of sediment and live
branches.Theresultisaboxlikestructurethatretainsthestructuralintegrityofacribwall,but
onethatalsopromoteshabitatgrowth.Thedesignandcostofthecribsisasdiscussedabove,
withsoilreplacingthemajorityofthestone.AtPoughkeepsie,itisassumedthatthemajorityof
thefillneedscanbefulfilledusingonsitematerial.CostinformationissummarizedinTable25.
An average price of $25/ton was utilized for the cost of recycled fill material. An additional
$35,000isaddedtothefinalcosttoaccountforearthworknotdirectlyrelatedtobuildingand
fillingthecribs.
Table25CostSummaryforVegetatedGeogrid(HaliburtonCooperative).
LiveCribWall
(BasedoffDesignof6'wx6'hx500'l)(WSDT,2002)
Items
Units
Cost/Unit
Total
5,630
$6.18/log
$34,782
Willow,prunedlivebranches
5,000
$1.74/cutting
$8,721
(6'x2"diameter)
825tons
$25/ton
$20,625
StoneFill(Lower2ofcrib)(40%Porosity) 275tons
$72.00/ton
$19,800
TotalCost
$83,928
Costperlinearfoot
$167.86
Theamountoflaborrequiredtoconstructalivecribwallwillbethesameasforatraditional
cribwallwithanaddedexpenserelatedtoplantingthevegetation.Laborcostswereestimated
based on the prevailing wage for marine construction in the State of New York
(http://wpp.labor.state.ny.us/wpp/publicViewPWChanges.do). 600 man hours are allotted for
constructing and filling the cribs, with an additional 50 hours added to account for planting.
Usingarateof$35/hr,thelaborcostsareestimatedat$22,750.Addingthelaborcoststothe
materialcostsresultsinatotalestimateof$141,678.
Indevelopingthelifecyclecostforlivecribwalls,thefollowingassumptionsweremade:
Maintenanceandrepaircostsforlivecribwallsaregenerallymoderate.Anestimateof
25%oftheinitialcostissetasideformaintenanceandrepairduringeachperiod.
37
Live crib walls are resilient. The following damages are expected during significant
storms:
Table26ExpectedDamageLiveCribWall.
Tr
Expected Impacts
Damage costs (% IC)
50
40
25
10

Damage to cribs
Loss of vegetation
None
10%
20%
10%
N/A
38
LiveCribWallCostEstimate
$141,678
Storm
50
40
25
10
Replacement
Maintenance
P1(20122037)
Cost
#Storms
P3(20622082)
Cost
#Storms
TotalCost
$3,748 $14,311
$9,593 $37,806
$7,912 $29,370
$ $
$37,030 $98,278
$9,258 $51,351
TotalCost $372,794
Damage
10%
20%
10%
100%
25%
CurrentRateofSLR
P2(20372062)
Cost
#Storms
Storm
50
40
25
10
Replacement
Maintenance
0.56
0.73
1.13
2.84
0.00
1.00
$5,965
$15,662
$12,064
$
$
$26,782
0.75
1.02
1.53
3.97
1.00
1.00
$4,598
$12,551
$9,394
$
$61,247
$15,312
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
Damage
10%
20%
10%
100%
35%
1.35
1.91
3.01
7.58
0.00
1.00
$14,477
$40,888
$32,267
$
$
$37,494
9.26
11.90
16.67
25.00
1.00
1.00
$56,711
$145,827
$102,079
$
$61,247
$21,437
39
P3(20622082)
Cost
#Storms
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.30
2.14
5.32
1.00
1.00
TotalCost
$92,576 $163,763
$185,152 $371,868
$92,576 $226,922
$ $
$37,030 $98,278
$12,961 $71,892
Sill
Sills are typically designed as low elevation structures and are constructed on flat or near flat
bottomsinrelativelyshallowwater.ThesteepsideslopesatthePoughkeepsiesitemakethe
constructionofasillextremelyimpractical;thereforeitwasnotconsideredinthecostanalysis.
40
BowlinePointPark(HaverstrawBay)
Bowline Point Park is located in Haverstraw Bay on the western bank of the Hudson between
theoildockfortheBowlineGeneratingStationandtheinlettoBowlinePondasshowninFigure
6.Acrosssectionillustratingthesiteconditionsasof2006whichwaspresentedintheAlden
andASA(Allen,etal.,2006)reportisreproducedhereasFigure7.Themajorsitecharacteristics
aresummarizedinTable27.AsillustratedinFigure7,theexistingshorelineatBowlinePoint
Park has been reinforced with rubble riprap. The Bowline Point Park shoreline is typical of
many of the mild sloped shorelines fronting the wide, shallow sections of the Hudson. The
Alden report attributed the erosion of the Bowline Point Park shoreline to wind and wake
generated waves. Wind wave heights were calculated using the methodology presented in
Chapter3,Section6oftheShoreProtectionManual(USACE,1977),assumingawindspeedof
50mphandaconstantdepthof10feet.ForthefourfetchesdefinedinFigure6,theestimated
windwaveheightsareasgiveninTable28.
Fetch1
Fetch2
Fetch3
Fetch4
Figure6BowlinePointParkSiteandFetchDelineations.
41

Figure7ExistingCrosssectionatBowlinePointPark.
Table27BowlinePointParkSiteCharacteristicsandDimensions.
Width of River
Average Depth
Depth at Shoreline
Mean Current Velocity (Shoreline)
Tidal Flow
Max Tidal Fluctuation
Side Slope
Dimensions of Above High Water Level
Width
Height
Slope Length
Surface Area
Cross-section Area
Volume
Width
Height
Slope Length
Surface Area
Cross-section Area
Volume
14,700 ft
10 ft
< 10 ft
1.2 ft/sec
0.5 ft/sec
130,000 ft3/sec
2.9 ft
1V:20H
25 ft
4 ft
25 ft
12,510 ft2
44 ft2
21,875 ft3
20 ft
3.5 ft
20 ft
10,012 ft2
35 ft2
17,500 ft3
42

Table28FetchesandRelatedWindWaveHeightsatBowlinePointPark.
Fetch 1
Fetch 2
Fetch 3
Fetch 4
Length
(mi)
3.10
2.50
3.50
6.00
Wave Height
(ft)
2.10
2.00
2.25
2.50
Bulkhead
Bulkheads were not considered a viable alternative at the Bowline Point Park site. The
extremelymildslopeoftheexistingshorelinemakestheconstructionofverticalornearvertical
retaining structures (bulkheads, biowalls, timber cribbing, live crib walls, and vegetated
geogrids) impractical. The nearly horizontal nature of the Bowline Point Park site does not
provide enough natural relief to make these structures costefficient without adding a
significantamountoffill.Doingsowouldchangetheprojectfromashorelineprotectionproject
toalandreclamationproject,negatinganyusefulinformationthatcouldbeobtainedfromthe
costanalysis.Itshouldbenotedthatthissuggestionisconsistentwiththeconclusionsreached
intheAldenandASA(Allen,etal.,2006)report.
BioWall
BiowallswerenotconsideredaviablealternativeattheBowlinePointParksite.Theextremely
mildslopeoftheexistingshorelinemakestheconstructionofverticalornearverticalretaining
structures (bulkheads, biowalls, timber cribbing, live crib walls, and vegetated geogrids)
impractical. The nearly horizontal nature of the Bowline Point Park site does not provide
enough natural relief to make these structures costefficient without adding a significant
amountoffill.Doingsowouldchangetheprojectfromashorelineprotectionprojecttoaland
reclamation project, negating any useful information that could be obtained from the cost
analysis.Itshouldbenotedthatthissuggestionis consistentwiththe conclusionsreachedin
theAldenandASA(Allen,etal.,2006)report.
Revetment
boulder category according to the Wentworth scale. The median stone size (D50) and weight
43
size. The largest wind wave height (2.5 ft) calculated based on the fetches defined above for
BowlinePointParkwasusedforinputintotheHudsonformula.AttheHenryHudsonsite,the
calculated wind wave height is roughly consistent with type of wakes that might be expected
(Bruno). The results from the Hudson formula recommend a median stone size (D50) of 0.59
feetindiameterwithaweight(W50)of34pounds.Giventhepropensityforicescouratthesite,
therecommendedvaluewasscaledup20%,resultinginaD50of0.7ftandaW50of56lbs.Since
revetments are constructed with uniformly sized stones, an underlayer, and geotextile filter
layerareincludedtopreventthewashoutofthefinematerial.Thetablebelowsummarizesthe
materialcostsforthetwolayerrevetment. Each layerisassumedtobe twostonediameters
withanaverageporosityof40%.Geotextilecostswerecalculatedusingaunitcostof$0.90/sy,
whichwhenmultipliedbythetotalsurfaceareaoftherevetmentgives$2,252.
Layer

Total
3
(ft)
(ft )
(lbs)
(tons) PerTon
Cost
Armor
1.25
18,810 3,101,096 1,550
$97
$150,350
Underlayer
0.106
2,643
435,811
217
$82
$17,794
Table30ExpectedDamageRevetments.
Tr
Expected Impacts
Damage costs (% IC)
50
40
25
10

None
15%
5%
10%
N/A
44

45
$190,896
CurrentRateofSLR
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
P3(20622082)
Storm
Damage
Cost
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
#Storms
50
15%
0.56
$12,055
0.75
$9,293
1.01
$7,575
40
5%
0.73
$5,276
1.02
$4,228
1.30
$3,232
25
10%
1.13
$16,255
1.53
$12,657
2.14
$10,661
10
2.84
$
3.97
$
5.32
$
Replacement
100%
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
Maintenance
15%
1.00
$21,651
1.00
$12,379
1.00
$7,484
InitialCost
TotalCost
TotalCost
$28,924
$12,735
$39,573
$
$
$41,514
$190,896
$313,642
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
P3(20622082)
Storm
Damage
Cost
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
#Storms
50
15%
1.35
$29,258
9.26
$114,617
25.00
$187,105
40
5%
1.91
$13,773
11.90
$49,122
25.00
$62,368
25
10%
3.01
$43,476
16.67
$137,541
25.00
$124,737
10
7.58
$ 25.00
$ 25.00
$
Replacement
100%
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
Maintenance
15%
1.00
$21,651
1.00
$12,379
1.00
$7,484
InitialCost
TotalCost
46
TotalCost
$330,980
$125,263
$305,754
$
$
$41,514
$190,896
$994,407
RipRap
shearstresses)forcesactingonthestonetodeterminetheappropriatesize.Thelargestwind
waveheight(1.8ft)calculatedbasedonthefetchesdefinedabovefortheBowlinePointPark
sitewasusedforinputintotheHudsonformula.AttheHenryHudsonParksite,thecalculated
windwaveheightisroughlyconsistentwiththetypeofwakesthatwouldbeexpected(Bruno,
2003).TheresultsfromtheHudsonformularecommendamedianstonesize(D50)of0.57feet
indiameterwithaweight(W50)of30pounds.Giventhepropensityforicescouratthesite,the
recommendedvaluewasscaledup20%,resultinginaD50of0.68ftandaW50of52lbs.Forthe
riprapslope protection,onlyasinglelayer(40%porosity)withathicknessequaltotwice the
median stone diameter is placed on top of a geotextile filter fabric. Geotextile costs were
calculatedusingaunitcostof$0.90/sy,whichwhenmultipliedbythetotalsurfaceareaofthe
revetmentgives$2,252.
Total
(ft)
(ft3)
(lbs)
PerTon
Cost
Armor
1.2
18,272 3,012,494
$97
$146,105
hoursforconstruction,at$35/hr,anestimateof$7,000forlaborisobtained.Anadditionalcost
of $10,000 is added to the material and labor costs to account for general earthwork, not
47
Table32ExpectedDamageRiprap.
Tr
Expected Impacts
Damage costs (% IC)
50
40
25
10

Moderate scour
Minor scour
None
20%
10%
10%
N/A
48
RipRapCostEstimate
CurrentRateofSLR
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
P3(20622082)
Storm
Damage
Cost
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
#Storms
50
20%
0.56
$13,923
0.75
$10,733
1.01
$8,749
40
20%
0.73
$18,279
1.02
$14,648
1.30
$11,197
25
10%
1.13
$14,080
1.53
$10,964
2.14
$9,235
10
2.84
$
3.97
$
5.32
$
Replacement 100%
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
Maintenance
20%
1.00
$25,006
1.00
$14,297
1.00
$8,644
InitialCost
TotalCost
TotalCost
$33,405
$44,124
$34,279
$
$
$47,947
$165,357
$325,113
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
P3(20622082)
Storm
Damage
Cost
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
#Storms
50
20%
1.35
$33,792
9.26
$132,378
25.00
$216,097
40
10%
1.91
$23,861
11.90
$85,100
25.00
$108,049
25
10%
3.01
$37,660
16.67
$119,140
25.00
$108,049
10
7.58
$ 25.00
$ 25.00
$
Replacement 100%
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
Maintenance
20%
1.00
$25,006
1.00
$14,297
1.00
$8,644
InitialCost
TotalCost
49
TotalCost
$382,267
$217,009
$264,848
$
$
$47,947
$165,357
$1,077,429
JointPlanting
relatedtothematerialsusedandthelaborforinstallation.Table33providessomeinformation
onthetypicalcostsofthematerialsusedinjointplanting.
$2.05$4.78/ft2
12,510ft2
$37,530
$75.06
Range
SurfaceAreaofSite
Costperlinearfoot
1993), the Henry Hudson Site would require upwards of 5500 plantings. Applying an average
laborrateof$25/hr,thefollowingcostestimateforlaborwasdetermined.
SurfaceArea
CuttingDensity
PlantsRequired
InstallationRate
LaborRate
LaborCost
1,390yd2
4/yd2
5,560
100/hr
$25.00/hr
$1,390
the Henry Hudson Park site is $38,920, or $77/lf. It is assumed that the joint planting will be
constructed in conjunction with the riprap slope discussed in the previous section. The total
estimatedcostforariprapprotectedslopewithjointplantingis$204,277or$408/lf.
planting.
50
significantstorms:
Tr
Expected Impacts
Damage costs (% IC)
50
40
25
10

Moderate scour
Minor scour
Loss of plantings
20%
10%
10%
10%
51
$204,277
Storm
50
40
25
10
Replacement
Maintenance
P1(20122037)
Cost
#Storms
P3(20622082)
Cost
#Storms
TotalCost
$10,808 $41,268
$6,916 $27,255
$11,409 $42,347
$28,400 $107,324
$ $
$13,348 $74,040
TotalCost $496,511
Damage
20%
10%
10%
10%
100%
25%
CurrentRateofSLR
P2(20372062)
Cost
#Storms
Storm
50
40
25
10
Replacement
Maintenance
0.56
0.73
1.13
2.84
0.00
1.00
$17,200
$11,291
$17,394
$43,881
$
$38,615
0.75
1.02
1.53
3.97
0.00
1.00
$13,260
$9,048
$13,544
$35,043
$
$22,077
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
Damage
20%
10%
10%
10%
100%
35%
1.35
1.91
3.01
7.58
0.00
1.00
$41,746
$29,477
$46,524
$117,015
$
$54,061
9.26
11.90
16.67
25.00
0.00
1.00
$163,535
$105,130
$147,182
$220,773
$
$30,908
52
1.01
1.30
2.14
5.32
0.00
1.00
P3(20622082)
Cost
#Storms
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
0.00
1.00
TotalCost
$266,960 $472,241
$133,480 $268,087
$133,480 $327,186
$133,480 $471,267
$ $
$18,687 $103,656
VegetatedGeogrid
VegetatedgeogridswerenotconsideredaviablealternativeattheBowlinePointParksite.The
CribWall
CribwallswerenotconsideredaviablealternativeattheBowlinePointParksite.Theextremely
mildslopeoftheexistingshorelinemakestheconstructionofverticalornearverticalretaining
structures (bulkheads, biowalls, timber cribbing, live crib walls, and vegetated geogrids)
impractical. The nearly horizontal nature of the Bowline Point Park site does not provide
enough natural relief to make these structures costefficient without adding a significant
amountoffill.Doingsowouldchangetheprojectfromashorelineprotectionprojecttoaland
reclamation project, negating any useful information that could be obtained from the cost
analysis.Itshouldbenotedthatthissuggestionis consistentwiththe conclusionsreachedin
theAldenandASA(Allen,etal.,2006)report.
LiveCribWall
Live crib walls were not considered a viable alternative at the Bowline Point Park site. The
Sill
StonesillshavebeenusedextensivelyinareasliketheChesapeakeBaysincethemid1980sto
protectlowtomediumenergyshorelines,andtopromotethegrowthofmarshland.Research
has shown that a typical crosssection developed by the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources (DNR, 1993), has worked well both within Maryland and when applied elsewhere.
ThetypicalcrosssectionisreproducedbelowinFigure8.Therecommendedstonesizesforlow
53
andmediumenergysitesdeterminedbyHardawayandByrne(1999)aresummarizedinTable
36.ForthelowenergyHenryHudsonParksite,astonesizeof400poundswasselected.Using
theMarylandcrosssectionasaguide,thedesignparametersshowninTable37wereusedto
developthecostforasillattheBowlinePointParksite.Thesuggesteddimensionsresultina
sillwithatotalcrosssectionalareaof47ft2/ft.Over500ft,thesillhasatotalvolumeof23,540
ft3. The cost estimate was developed assuming a porosity of 40% for the structure and an
averagerockpriceof$97perton.
Figure8TypicalCrossSectionforSill(DNR,1993).
Table36WeightsforVaryingEnergyRegimes(VirginiaInstituteofMarineScience).
EnergyRegime
Low(02feet)
Medium(24feet)
SuggestedStoneSize
300900lbs
4001200lbs
Table37SelectedSillDimensionsforHenryHudsonPark.
SeawardSlope
1V:2.0H
ShorewardSlope 1V:1.5H
CrestWidth
5ft
SillHeight
5.5ft
54
Table38MaterialCostsSill.
Unitweightofstone
165lbs/ft3
Sizeofstone(Dn50)
2.43ft
Volumerequired
14,124ft3
TonsofStone
1,164
CostofSill
$112,908
CostofSillperlinearfoot
$225
The placement of sill stones is generally more precise and requires specialized labor. Labor
costswereestimatedbasedontheprevailingwageformarineconstructionintheStateofNew
York (http://wpp.labor.state.ny.us/wpp/publicViewPWChanges.do). Assuming 500 man hours
forconstruction,at$35/hr,anestimateof$17,500forlaborisobtained.Anadditionalcostof
$5,000isaddedtothematerialandlaborcoststoaccountforgeneralearthwork,notincluded
intheestimate.Thisbringsthefinalinitialcostto$135,408.
Indevelopingthelifecyclecostforsills,thefollowingassumptionsweremade:
Maintenanceandrepaircostsforsillsaregenerallyminimal.Anestimateof10%ofthe
Sillsareresilient.Thefollowingdamagesareexpectedduringsignificantstorms:
Table39ExpectedDamageSill.
Tr
Expected Impacts
Damage costs (% IC)
50
40
25
10
None
Some stone replacement
None
None
N/A
10%
N/A
N/A
Althoughnotexplicitlyconsideredinthisanalysis,sillscanusuallybemodifiedtoadapttorising
sealevelsbyaddingstonetobuildupthecrestelevation.Withrapidsealevelrisehowever,itis
unlikelythatsedimentaccumulationandmarshgrowthwilloccurnaturally.Thecostassociated
withaddingstonetoasillwillgenerallybehigherthanforsimilarlandbasedstructuresdueto
theadditionalcostsrelatedtomarineconstruction.
55
SillCostEstimate
CurrentRateofSLR
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
P3(20622082)
Storm
Damage
Cost
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
#Storms
50
0.56
$
0.75
$
1.01
$
40
10%
0.73
$7,484
1.02
$5,998
1.30
$4,584
25
1.13
$
1.53
$
2.14
$
10
2.84
$
3.97
$
5.32
$
Replacement 100%
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
Maintenance
10%
1.00
$10,239
1.00
$5,854
1.00
$3,539
InitialCost
TotalCost
TotalCost
$
$18,066
$
$
$
$19,631
$135,408
$173,106
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
P3(20622082)
Storm
Damage
Cost
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
#Storms
50
1.35
$
9.26
$ 25.00
$
40
10%
1.91
$19,539
11.90
$69,687
25.00
$88,479
25
3.01
$ 16.67
$ 25.00
$
10
7.58
$ 25.00
$ 25.00
$
Replacement 100%
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
Maintenance
10%
1.00
$10,239
1.00
$5,854
1.00
$3,539
InitialCost
TotalCost
56
TotalCost
$
$177,705
$
$
$
$19,631
$135,408
$332,745
HenryHudsonPark(AlbanyCounty)
HenryHudsonParkliesalongthewestbankoftheHudsonRiverinAlbanyCountyasshownin
Figure9.Acrosssectionillustratingthesiteconditionsasof2006whichwaspresentedinthe
Alden and ASA (Allen, et al., 2006) report is reproduced here as Figure 10. The major site
characteristicsaresummarizedinTable40.AsillustratedinFigure10,theexistingshorelineat
HenryHudsonParkhasbeenarmoredwithashoreparalleltimberandrockcribstructurewitha
concrete cap. The Henry Hudson Park shoreline is typical of many of the moderately sloped
shorelinesalongtheHudson,whereavarietyofstabilizationalternativescouldbeapplied.The
Alden report attributed the erosion of the Henry Hudson Park shoreline to a combination of
wakes from ships transiting the navigation channel, large ice floes during the winter months,
andsurfacerunofffromthepark.Windwaveheightswerecalculatedusingthemethodology
presented in Chapter 3, Section 6 of the Shore Protection Manual (USACE, 1977), assuming a
windspeedof50mphandaconstantdepthof20feet.ForthefourfetchesdefinedinFigure9,
theestimatedwindwaveheightsareasgiveninTable41.
Fetch1
Fetch2
Fetch3
Fetch4
Figure9:HenryHudsonParksiteandfetchdelineation.
57

Figure10ExistingCrosssectionatHenryHudsonPark.
Table40HenryHudsonParkSiteCharacteristicsandDimensions.
Width of River
Average Depth
Depth at Shoreline
Maximum Current Velocity (Main Channel)
Tidal Flow
Max Tidal Fluctuation
Side Slope
Dimensions Above High Water Level
Width
Height
Slope Length
Surface Area
Cross-section Area
1,000 ft
15-20 ft
3 - 10 ft
1.2 ft/sec
2.2 ft/sec
10,000 ft3/sec
4.5 ft
1V:15H
11 ft
3.5 ft
11 ft
5,523 ft2
19 ft2
58
9,625 ft3
Volume
Width
Height
Slope Length
Surface Area
Cross-section Area
Volume
7 ft
4 ft
7 ft
3,536 ft2
14 ft2
7,000 ft3
Table41FetchesandRelatedWindWaveHeightsatHenryHudsonPark.
Fetch 1
Fetch 2
Fetch 3
Fetch 4
Length
(mi)
1.55
0.20
0.33
0.85
Wave Height
(ft)
1.8
0.7
0.9
1.3
Inadditiontothecostsdescribedbelowwithineachsection,therewillbeacostassociatedwith
the removal of the existing deteriorated bulkhead structure. As this cost will be incurred
regardlessoftheshorelinestabilizationapproachselected,itisnotincludedinthecostanalysis.
Bulkhead
Bulkheadsareoneofthemorecommonshorelinestabilizationapproachesusedalongriverine
andestuarinecoastlines.Bulkheadsareverticalsoilretentionstructuresdesignedtoeliminate
bankerosionbyencapsulatingthesoilbehindit.Bulkheadscantakeseveralforms,howeverthe
two most common types are cantilevered bulkheads and anchored bulkheads. Cantilevered
bulkheadsareusedinrelativelylowheightapplicationsandsimplyrelyontheirembedmentfor
support.Anchoredbulkheadsaresimilartocantileveredbulkheads,onlyananchoringsystemis
addedtoprovideadditionallateralsupport.
DuetotherelativelylowgradesateachoftheHudsonRiversites,cantileveredbulkheadswere
selectedforeachsite.Afterbalancingtheloadsandpressuresactingonthefrontandrearfaces
ofthebulkhead,thedesignparameterslistedinTable42wereobtained.
59

Table42BulkheadDesignSummary.
HeightofWallaboveSubstrate 11.40ft
DepthofPenetration
10.68ft
TotalHeightofWall
22.08ft
Bulkheadpricesvaryconsiderablydependingonthematerialselected.Costsforwood,steeland
concrete bulkheads obtained from local bids on projects with similar dimensions are shown
belowinTable43andincludematerialandlaborcosts.
Table43BulkheadMaterialCostComparison(Whalen,etal.,2011).
Material
Steel
Wood
Concrete
CostRange/lf $7001,200 $116265
$500$1000
Althoughnotexplicitlyconsideredinthisanalysis,bulkheadscanbemodifiedtoadapttorising
sealevelsthroughtheadditionofacap.Thecapwillnormallyconsistofeitherwoodsecuredto
the face of the bulkhead, or concrete cast to raise the elevation of the structure. Such a
modification must be carried out carefully however; as effectively increasing the unsupported
length of the structure changes the pressure distributions on which the original design was
based. Oftentheadditionofananchorwillbenecessaryifthestructureis retrofit. Thecost
associatedwithsuchmodificationscanbesignificant.
WoodBulkhead
Given the moderate side slopes, proximity to the navigation channel and exposure to modest
fetches,acostestimateof$190/lfor$95,000whichisinthemiddleoftherangesobtainedwas
selected.Laborcostswereestimatedbasedontheprevailingwageformarineconstructionin
theStateofNewYork(http://wpp.labor.state.ny.us/wpp/publicViewPWChanges.do).Assuming
400 man hours for construction, at $35/hr, an estimate of $14,000 for labor is obtained. In
additiontothecostsassociatedwiththebulkheadconstruction,alumpsumcostof$15,000is
added to cover the cost of earthwork not directly related to the bulkhead construction. The
total estimate of the initial costs associated with the construction of a wooden bulkhead at
HenryHudsonParkis$124,000.
Indevelopingthelifecyclecostforwoodbulkheads,thefollowingassumptionsweremade:
Periodic maintenance and repairs will be necessary. An estimate of 20% of the initial
costissetasideformaintenanceandrepairduringeachperiod.
60
Woodbulkheadsgenerallyhavealifespanofbetween25and40years.Forthepurpose
Wood bulkheads are resilient. The following damages are expected during significant
storms:
Table44ExpectedDamageWoodBulkhead.
Tr
Expected Impacts
Damage costs (% IC)
50
40
25
10

None
Minor scour
None
10%
N/A
5%
N/A
61
WoodBulkheadCostEstimate
$124,000
CurrentRateofSLR
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
Storm
50
40
25
10
Replacement*
Maintenance*
Damage
10%
5%
100%
20%
0.56
0.73
1.13
2.84
0.00
1.00
$5,220
$
$5,279
$
$
$18,752
0.75
1.02
1.53
3.97
1.00
1.00
P3(20622082)
Cost
#Storms
$4,024
$
$4,111
$
$53,605
$10,721
1.01
1.30
2.14
5.32
1.00
1.00
Storm
50
40
25
10
Replacement*
Maintenance*
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
Damage
10%
5%
100%
25%
1.35
1.91
3.01
7.58
0.00
1.00
$12,670
$
$14,120
$
$
$23,440
9.26
11.90
16.67
25.00
1.00
1.00
62
P3(20622082)
Cost
#Storms
$49,634
$
$44,671
$
$53,605
$13,401
TotalCost
$3,280 $12,525
$ $
$3,463 $12,853
$ $
$32,410 $86,015
$6,482 $35,955
TotalCost $271,348
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
1.00
1.00
TotalCost
$81,025 $143,330
$ $
$40,512 $99,304
$ $
$32,410 $86,015
$8,102 $44,944
TotalCost $497,593
SteelBulkhead
Given the moderate side slopes, proximity to the navigation channel and exposure to modest
fetches, a cost estimate of $950/lf or $475,000 which is in the middle of the ranges obtained
wasselected.Laborcostswereestimatedbasedontheprevailingwageformarineconstruction
in the State of New York (http://wpp.labor.state.ny.us/wpp/publicViewPWChanges.do).
Assuming 350 man hours for construction, at $35/hr, an estimate of $12,250 for labor is
obtained.Inadditiontothecostsassociatedwiththebulkheadconstruction,alumpsumcost
of $15,000 is added to cover the cost of earthwork not directly related to the bulkhead
construction. The total estimate of the initial costs associated with the construction of a
woodenbulkheadatHenryHudsonParkis$502,250.
Indevelopingthelifecyclecostforsteelbulkheads,thefollowingassumptionsweremade:
Maintenanceandrepaircostsforsteelbulkheadsaregenerallyminimal.Anestimateof
Steelbulkheadsgenerallyhavealifespanofbetween25and40years.Forthepurpose
Steel bulkheads are resilient. The following damages are expected during significant
storms:
Table45ExpectedDamageSteelBulkhead.
Tr
Expected Impacts
Damage costs (% IC)
50
40
25
10

None
Minor scour
None
10%
N/A
5%
N/A
63
SteelBulkheadCostEstimate
$502,250
CurrentRateofSLR
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
Storm
50
40
25
10
Replacement*
Maintenance*
Damage
10%
5%
100%
5%
0.56
0.73
1.13
2.84
0.00
1.00
$21,145
$
$21,383
$
$
$18,988
0.75
1.02
1.53
3.97
1.00
1.00
P3(20622082)
Cost
#Storms
$16,301
$
$16,651
$
$217,123
$10,856
1.01
1.30
2.14
5.32
1.00
1.00
Storm
50
40
25
10
Replacement*
Maintenance*
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
Damage
10%
5%
100%
5%
1.35
1.91
3.01
7.58
0.00
1.00
$51,320
$
$57,194
$
$
$18,988
9.26
11.90
16.67
25.00
1.00
1.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
1.00
1.00
64
P3(20622082)
Cost
#Storms
$201,040
$
$180,936
$
$217,123
$10,856
TotalCost
$13,287 $50,732
$ $
$14,025 $52,059
$ $
$131,273 $348,396
$6,564 $36,408
TotalCost $989,845
TotalCost
$328,184 $580,543
$ $
$164,092 $402,221
$ $
$131,273 $348,396
$6,564 $36,408
Biowalls
The term biowall has been used generically to encompass a suite of shoreline stabilization
approacheswithsimilarcharacteristics.Mostbiowallsareusedinareasthathavetraditionally
been protected by bulkheads. Biowall can refer to simple ecological enhancements used to
modify traditional bulkheads such as hanging planter baskets, or more complex approaches
which incorporate nontraditional materials and design layouts. For the purposes of this
analysisabiowallwillbedefinedasanecologicallyenhancedconcretepanelbulkheadwhich
incorporates three precast tide pools. The enhancements used to modify the concrete panel
includerougheningthesurface,andtheuseoflowPHconcretemixtomaximizegrowth.The
tidepoolsareprecastconcretestructuresthataredesignedtofillupduringhightideandhold
areservoirofwateroncethewaterlevelhasdropped.Thismaintainsawetenvironmentthat
allowsorganismstogrowinalocationthatwouldnormallybetoodry.
Biowalls are a fairly new concept and cost information is extremely limited. In general,
ecologicallyenhancedconcretecosts715%morethanregularPortlandcement(ShimritPerkol
Finkel, 2012). Traditional concrete bulkheads cost between $500 and $1000 per linear foot
(Devore); therefore an ecologically enhanced concrete bulkhead can be expected to cost
between $575 and $1150 per linear foot. Tide pools for revetment habitat development
generally cost between $1000 and $1500 each (Shimrit PerkolFinkel, 2012). At the Henry
HudsonParksitewhichisrelativelylowenergy,thelowendofthesenumbersisusedtodevelop
the estimated cost. Labor costs were estimated based on the prevailing wage for marine
construction
in
the
State
of
New
York
construction,at$35/hr,anestimateof$14,000forlaborisobtained.Anadditionallumpsum
costof$15,000isaddedtotheestimatetocoverthecostofearthworknotdirectlyrelatedto
thebiowall.Thetotalestimateoftheinitialcostsassociatedwiththeconstructionofabiowall
atHenryHudsonParkis$319,500.
Table46BiowallCostInformation.
EcologicallyEnhancedConcreteBulkheadperlf
$575/lf
TotalCostofEnhancedConcreteBulkhead
$287,500
CostofTidePools
$3,000
TotalCost
$290,500
Indevelopingthelifecyclecostforabiowall,thefollowingassumptionsweremade:
Maintenanceandrepaircostsforbiowallsaregenerallyminimal.Anestimateof10%
65
Concrete bulkheads generally have a lifespan of between 20 and 50 years. For the
purposeofthisanalysis,a40yearlifespanisassumedforthebiowall.
Biowallsareresilient.Thefollowingdamagesareexpectedduringsignificantstorms:
Table47ExpectedDamageBiowall.
Tr
Expected Impacts
Damage costs (% IC)
50
40
25
10

None
Minor scour
None
10%
N/A
5%
N/A
66
BioWallCostEstimate
$319,500
CurrentRateofSLR
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
P3(20622082)
Storm
Damage
Cost
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
#Storms
50
10%
0.56
$13,451
0.75
$10,369
1.01
$8,452
40
0.73
$
1.02
$
1.30
$
25
5%
1.13
$13,603
1.53
$10,592
2.14
$8,922
10
2.84
$
3.97
$
5.32
$
Replacement* 100%
0.00
$
1.00
$138,120
0.00
$
Maintenance*
10%
1.00
$24,158
1.00
$13,812
1.00
$8,351
InitialCost
TotalCost
TotalCost
$32,273
$
$33,116
$
$138,120
$46,321
$319,500
$569,330
Storm
Damage
50
10%
40
25
5%
10
Replacement* 100%
Maintenance*
10%
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
1.35
1.91
3.01
7.58
0.00
1.00
$32,646
$
$36,383
$
$
$24,158
9.26
11.90
16.67
25.00
1.00
1.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
0.00
1.00
67
P3(20622082)
Cost
#Storms
$127,889
$
$115,100
$
$138,120
$13,812
TotalCost
$208,770 $369,305
$ $
$104,385 $255,868
$ $
$ $138,120
$8,351 $46,321
Revetment
bouldercategoryaccording totheWentworthscale. The medianstonesize(Dn50)andweight
size. The largest wind wave height (1.8 ft) calculated based on the fetches defined above for
HenryHudsonParkwasusedforinputintotheHudsonformula.AttheHenryHudsonsite,the
calculated wind wave height is roughly consistent with type of wakes that might be expected
(Brunoetal.,2003).TheresultsfromtheHudsonformularecommendamedianstonesize(D50)
of0.47feetindiameterwithaweight(W50)of16pounds.TheRockManual()suggeststhatin
iceproneareas,theminimumstonesizeusedinarevetmentisatleastaslargeasthethickness
of the anticipated ice. Ice reports collected by the U.S. Coast Guard generally indicate ice
thicknessesontheorderof1footduringthewinter.Giventhepropensityforicescouratthe
site, the recommended value was scaled up resulting in a D50 of 1.2 ft and a W50 of 285 lbs.
Since revetments are constructed with uniformly sized stones, an underlayer, and geotextile
filter layer are included to prevent the washout of the fine material. The table below
summarizes the material costs for the two layer revetment. Each layer is assumed to be two
stonediameterswithanaverageporosityof40%.Geotextilecostswerecalculatedusingaunit
costof$0.90/sy,whichwhenmultipliedbythetotalsurfaceareaoftherevetmentgives$906.
Layer

Total
3
(ft)
(ft )
(lbs)
(tons) PerTon
Cost
Armor
2.15
14,877 2,452,720 1226
$97
$118,955
Underlayer
0.98
6,818 1,124,163
562
$82
$46,084
68
Table49ExpectedDamageRevetments.
Tr
Expected Impacts
Damage costs (% IC)
50
40
25
10

None
15%
5%
10%
N/A
69
$192,289
CurrentRateofSLR
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
P3(20622082)
Storm
Damage
Cost
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
#Storms
50
15%
0.56
$12,143
0.75
$9,361
1.01
$7,630
40
5%
0.73
$5,314
1.02
$4,259
1.30
$3,255
25
10%
1.13
$16,373
1.53
$12,749
2.14
$10,739
10
2.84
$
3.97
$
5.32
$
Replacement* 100%
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
Maintenance*
15%
1.00
$21,809
1.00
$12,469
1.00
$7,539
InitialCost
TotalCost
TotalCost
$29,135
$12,828
$39,862
$
$
$41,817
$192,289
$315,930
Storm
Damage
50
15%
40
5%
25
10%
10
Replacement* 100%
Maintenance*
15%
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
1.35
1.91
3.01
7.58
0.00
1.00
$29,472
$13,874
$43,794
$
$
$21,809
9.26
11.90
16.67
25.00
0.00
1.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
0.00
1.00
70
P3(20622082)
Cost
#Storms
$115,454
$49,480
$138,544
$
$
$12,469
TotalCost
$188,470 $333,396
$62,823 $126,177
$125,647 $307,985
$ $
$ $
$7,539 $41,817
RipRap
shearstresses)forcesactingonthestonetodeterminetheappropriatesize.Thelargestwind
waveheight(1.8ft)calculatedbasedonthefetchesdefinedabovefortheHenryHudsonPark
sitewasusedforinputintotheHudsonformula.AttheHenryHudsonParksite,thecalculated
windwaveheightisroughlyconsistentwiththetypeofwakesthatwouldbeexpected(Bruno,
2002).TheresultsfromtheHudsonformularecommendamedianstonesize(D50)of0.45feet
indiameterwithaweight(W50)of15pounds.Giventhepropensityforicescouratthesite,the
recommendedvaluewasscaledup20%,resultinginaD50of0.54ftandaW50of26lbs.Forthe
riprapslope protection,onlyasinglelayer(40%porosity)withathicknessequaltotwice the
median stone diameter is placed on top of a geotextile filter fabric. Geotextile costs were
calculatedusingaunitcostof$0.90/sy,whichwhenmultipliedbythetotalsurfaceareaofthe
revetmentgives$906.

Total
3
(ft)
(ft )
(lbs)
PerTon
Cost
Armor
0.96
6,694 1,103,724
$97
$53,530
hoursforconstruction,at$35/hr,anestimateof$8,750forlaborisobtained.Anadditionalcost
of $15,000 is added to the material and labor costs to account for general earthwork, not
71
Table51ExpectedDamageRiprap.
Tr
Expected Impacts
Damage costs (% IC)
50
40
25
10

Moderate scour
Minor scour
None
20%
10%
10%
N/A
72
RipRapCostEstimate
$78,186
CurrentRateofSLR
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
P3(20622082)
Storm
Damage
Cost
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
#Storms
50
20%
0.56
$6,583
0.75
$5,075
1.01
$4,137
40
10%
0.73
$4,322
1.02
$3,463
1.30
$2,647
25
10%
1.13
$6,658
1.53
$5,184
2.14
$4,367
10
2.84
$
3.97
$
5.32
$
Replacement* 100%
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
Maintenance*
20%
1.00
$11,824
1.00
$6,760
1.00
$4,087
InitialCost
TotalCost
TotalCost
$15,795
$10,432
$16,208
$
$
$22,671
$78,186
$143,292
Storm
Damage
50
20%
40
10%
25
10%
10
Replacement* 100%
Maintenance*
20%
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
1.35
1.91
3.01
7.58
0.00
1.00
$15,978
$11,282
$17,807
$
$
$11,824
9.26
11.90
16.67
25.00
0.00
1.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
0.00
1.00
73
P3(20622082)
Cost
#Storms
$62,592
$40,238
$56,333
$
$
$6,760
TotalCost
$102,178 $180,748
$51,089 $102,609
$51,089 $125,229
$ $
$ $
$4,087 $22,671
InitialCost $78,186
TotalCost $509,442
JointPlanting
relatedtothematerialsusedandthelaborforinstallation.Table52providessomeinformation
onthetypicalcostsofthematerialsusedinjointplanting.
$2.05$4.78/ft2
5,522ft2
$16,568
$33.14
Range
SurfaceAreaofSite
Costperlinearfoot
1993), the Henry Hudson Site would require upwards of 2400 plantings. Applying an average
laborrateof$25/hr,thefollowingcostestimateforlaborwasdetermined.
SurfaceArea
CuttingDensity
PlantsRequired
InstallationRate
LaborRate
LaborCost
614yd2
4/yd2
2,455
100/hr
$25.00/hr
$614
the Henry Hudson Park site is $17,182, or $34/lf. It is assumed that the joint planting will be
constructed in conjunction with the riprap slope discussed in the previous section. The total
estimatedcostforariprapprotectedslopewithjointplantingis$95,368or$191/lf.
planting.
74
significantstorms:
Tr
Expected Impacts
Damage costs (% IC)
50
40
25
10

Moderate scour
Minor scour
Loss of plantings
20%
10%
10%
10%
75
Storm
50
40
25
10
Replacement*
Maintenance*
Damage
20%
10%
10%
10%
100%
25%
$95,368
CurrentRateofSLR
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
0.56
0.73
1.13
2.84
0.00
1.00
$8,030
$5,271
$8,121
$20,486
$
$18,028
0.75
1.02
1.53
3.97
0.00
1.00
P3(20622082)
Cost
#Storms
$6,190
$4,224
$6,323
$16,360
$
$10,307
1.01
1.30
2.14
5.32
0.00
1.00
Damage
20%
10%
10%
10%
100%
35%
Storm
50
40
25
10
Replacement*
Maintenance*
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
1.35
1.91
3.01
7.58
0.00
1.00
$19,489
$13,762
$21,720
$54,629
$
$25,239
9.26
11.90
16.67
25.00
0.00
1.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
0.00
1.00
76
P3(20622082)
Cost
#Storms
$76,347
$49,080
$68,713
$103,069
$
$14,430
TotalCost
$5,046 $19,266
$3,229 $12,724
$5,326 $19,770
$13,259 $50,105
$ $
$6,232 $34,566
InitialCost $95,368
TotalCost $231,799
TotalCost
$124,632 $220,469
$62,316 $125,158
$62,316 $152,749
$62,316 $220,014
$ $
$8,724 $48,393
InitialCost $95,368
TotalCost $862,150
VegetatedGeogrid
A vegetated geogrid is constructed of successive layers of soil wrapped in a geotextile fabric.
Each layer is stacked upon the previous at an inclined angle to resist any forward movement;
while vegetation is added between each layer to promote a natural aesthetic and habitat
development. The vegetation once established will also act to reinforce the strength of the
structure.Thenumberoflayersandtheamountofwrappingisdeterminedbytheheightofthe
wall.Themajormaterialcostsforvegetativegeogridsconsistsofthegeotextilefabric,thefill
material,andthelivevegetation.AtHenryHudsonParkitisassumedthattheexistingsoilwill
beusedtofillthegeotextilewrapsatareducedcostof$25/ton.Thecostsforeachelementare
summarized in Table 55. An additional $20,000 is added to the final cost to account for
earthworknotdirectlyrelatedtofillingeachlayer.Preparingasiteofthiswidthandlengthwill
requireasignificantamountofexcavation.
Table55MaterialCostsforVegetatedGeogridatHenryHudsonPark.
GeotextileCosts(HaliburtonCooperative)
NumberofLayers
3
WrapLength
7.40ft
Lengthofgeotextileperlayer
24.28ft
Totallength
72.85ft/lf
Totalareaofwrap
36424.15ft2
AverageCost(Storrar)
$0.90/yd2
Totalgeotextilecost
$3,642
SedimentCosts(SwanRiverTrust)
Volumeoffillrequired
18,581ft3
Unitweightofsedimentfill
165lbs/ft3
Weightofstoneneeded
3,065,832lbs
AverageCost
$25/ton
TotalFillCost
$38,323
VegetationCosts(WSDT,2002)
6x2PrunedLiveWillowBranches
5000
UnitCost
$1.20
TotalVegetationCost
$6,000
hours for construction, at $35/hr, an estimate of $17,500 for labor is obtained. The total
estimatedcostforavegetatedgeogridstructureatHenryHudsonParkis$85,465.
77
Indevelopingthelifecyclecostforvegetatedgeogrids,thefollowingassumptionsweremade:
Maintenance and repair costs for vegetated geogrids are generally minimal. An
estimateof20%oftheinitialcostissetasideformaintenanceandrepairduringeach
period.
Vegetatedgeogridsdonottypicallyhavealonglifespan.Althoughclaimsofaslongas
120 years can be found, given the condition along the Hudson, a 20 year lifespan is
utilizedintheanalysis.
Table56ExpectedDamageGeogrid.
Tr
Expected Impacts
Damage costs (% IC)
50
40
25
10

None
Loss of vegetation
None
20%
N/A
10%
N/A
Althoughnotexplicitlyconsideredinthisanalysis,vegetatedgeogridscanbemodifiedtoadapt
torisingsealevelsbyaddingadditionallayerstoanexistingstructure.Ifadditionallayersare
added,caremustbetakentoensurethatanynewlayersaresecuredtotheexistingstructure
andanchoringsystemsuchthattheentirestructurebehavesasasingleunit.Inthiscase,the
originaldesigncallsforarmoringthebanktothetopoftheexistingslope;thereforeadditional
meanssuch asinfillingwouldberequiredto continue toelevatethecrest. Normallythecost
associatedwithaddinganadditionallayertoavegetatedgeogridwouldberelativelyminimal.
78
VegetatedGeogridCostEstimate
$85,465
CurrentRateofSLR
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
P3(20622082)
Storm
Damage
Cost
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
#Storms
50
20%
0.56
$7,196
0.75
$5,548
1.01
$4,522
40
0%
0.73
$
1.02
$
1.30
$
25
10%
1.13
$7,277
1.53
$5,667
2.14
$4,773
10
0%
2.84
$
3.97
$
5.32
$
Replacement* 100%
1.00
$64,622
1.00
$36,947
1.00
$22,338
Maintenance*
20%
1.00
$12,924
1.00
$7,389
1.00
$4,468
InitialCost
TotalCost
TotalCost
$17,266
$
$17,717
$
$123,907
$24,781
$85,465
$269,136
Storm
Damage
50
20%
40
25
10%
10
Replacement* 100%
Maintenance*
30%
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
1.35
1.91
3.01
7.58
1.00
1.00
$17,466
$
$19,465
$
$64,622
$19,387
9.26
11.90
16.67
25.00
1.00
1.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
1.00
1.00
79
P3(20622082)
Cost
#Storms
$68,420
$
$61,578
$
$36,947
$11,084
TotalCost
$111,690 $197,575
$ $
$55,845 $136,887
$ $
$22,338 $123,907
$6,701 $37,172
InitialCost $85,465
TotalCost $581,007
CribWall
Timbercribbingfunctionssimilartoagravitybulkhead,inthatitsstabilityisdirectlyrelatedto
itsweight.Thisinturnisdependentuponitsheighttowidthratio,whichshouldbelessthan3
(FEMA, 2000). The weight of the crib pushes perpendicularly upon the wooden posts that
create the crib, and the allowable stress in the wood determines the capacity of each crib.
Generally,thepostsare6to8feetlong(NRCS,2007),withallowablestressesintherangeof
200to1000lb/in2dependingonthespeciesofwood(FEMA,2000).Table57summarizesthe
cribdesign.AsmallercribwasselectedforHenryHudsonParkduetothelowerenergyatthe
site.Using6footlengths,83cribswouldberequiredalong500ftofriverfrontage.Thevolume
of each crib is 131ft3. When filled with stone with an average porosity of 40%, this requires
nearly897tonsofstoneandover5,000logs.Acribwallcoveringanareathislargewillrequire
extensiveexcavation;howeverthesoilandstonefromthesitecouldberecycledbackintothe
projectasfillforthecribs.Thecostoftherecycledfillmaterialusedtodeterminethematerial
costsforthestructurewas$25/ton.ThecostsaresummarizedbelowinTable59.Anadditional
$20,000isaddedtothefinalcosttoaccountforearthworknotdirectlyrelatedtobuildingand
fillingthecribs.
Table57SelectionofLogCriteriaforCrib.
LogLength
6ft
LogCrossSection
3.5inx3.5in
DesignStress
500lb/in2
CribConfiguration
2x2ftxft
Capacity
24,500lbs
Capacitypereachcontact
6,125lbs
Table58DeterminationofWeightofFilledCrib.
Area
21.78ft2
Volume
130.67ft3
Unitweightofstone
165lbs/ft3
TotalWeightofCrib
10.77tons
TotalNumberofCribs(500/6)
83.33
WeightofStone(40%Porosity)
538tons
80
Table59CostSummaryforTimberCribbing(HaliburtonCooperative).
TimberCribbing(BasedoffDesignof6'wx6'hx500'l)
Items
#ofUnits
5,630
538
StoneFill(Lower2ofcrib)
134
TotalCost
CostperLinearFoot
(WSDT,2002)
Cost/Unit
Total
$6.18/log $34,782
$25/ton
$13,450
$72/ton
$9,648
$57,880
$115.76
Theamountoflaborrequiredtoconstructawoodencribwallwillberoughly1.5timeswhatis
necessaryforawoodenbulkhead.Laborcostswereestimatedbasedontheprevailingwagefor
marine
construction
in
the
State
of
New
York
construction,at$35/hr,anestimateof$21,000.Thetotalestimatedcostforconstructingacrib
wallattheHenryHudsonParksiteis$98,880.
Indevelopingthelifecyclecostforcribwalls,thefollowingassumptionsweremade:
Maintenanceandrepaircostsforcribwallsaregenerallymoderate.Anestimateof20%
Woodencribwallsareresilient.Thefollowingdamagesareexpectedduringsignificant
storms:
Table60ExpectedDamageWoodenCrib.
Tr
Expected Impacts
Damage costs (% IC)
50
40
25
10

Damage to cribs
None
None
10%
20%
N/A
N/A
pressure distributions. In addition, care must be taken to ensure that the additional weight
81
82
CribWallCostEstimate
$98,880
CurrentRateofSLR
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
P3(20622082)
Storm
Damage
Cost
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
#Storms
50
10%
0.56
$4,163
0.75
$3,209
1.01
$2,616
40
20%
0.73
$10,931
1.02
$8,759
1.30
$6,695
25
1.13
$
1.53
$
2.14
$
10
2.84
$
3.97
$
5.32
$
Replacement* 100%
0.00
$
1.00
$42,746
1.00
$25,844
Maintenance*
20%
1.00
$14,953
1.00
$8,549
1.00
$5,169
InitialCost
TotalCost
TotalCost
$9,988
$26,386
$
$
$68,590
$28,671
$98,880
$232,515
Storm
Damage
50
10%
40
20%
25
10
Replacement* 100%
Maintenance*
25%
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
1.35
1.91
3.01
7.58
0.00
1.00
$10,104
$28,537
$
$
$
$18,691
9.26
11.90
16.67
25.00
1.00
1.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
1.00
1.00
83
P3(20622082)
Cost
#Storms
$39,579
$101,776
$
$
$42,746
$10,686
TotalCost
$64,611 $114,294
$129,222 $259,534
$ $
$ $
$25,844 $68,590
$6,461 $35,839
InitialCost $98,880
TotalCost $577,137
LiveCribWall
Livecribwallsaredesignedverysimilarlytotimbercribbing;howeveronlythebaselayerisfilled
with stone. The remainder of the crib is filled with alternating layers of sediment and live
branches.Theresultisaboxlikestructurethatretainsthestructuralintegrityofacribwall,but
onethatalsopromoteshabitatgrowth.Thedesignandcostofthecribsisasdiscussedabove,
with soil replacing the majority of the stone. At Henry Hudson Park, it is assumed that the
majorityofthefillneedscanbefulfilledusingonsitematerial.Costinformationissummarized
inTable61.Anaveragepriceof$25/tonwasutilizedforthecostofrecycledfillmaterial.An
additional $20,000 is added to the final cost to account for earthwork not directly related to
buildingandfillingthecribs.
Table61CostSummaryforLiveCribWall(HaliburtonCooperative).
LiveCribWall
(BasedoffDesignof6'wx6'hx500'l)(WSDT,2002)
Items
#ofUnits
Cost/Unit
Total
5,630
$6.18/log
$34,782
Willow,prunedlivebranches
5,000
$1.74/cutting
$8,721
(6'x2"diameter)
SedimentFill(upper4.5)
538
$25/ton
$13,450
StoneFill(lower1.5,40%porosity)
134
$72/ton
$9,648
TotalCost
$66,601
Costperlinearfoot
$133.20
Theamountoflaborrequiredtoconstructalivecribwallwillbethesameasforatraditional
cribwallwithanaddedexpenserelatedtoplantingthevegetation.Laborcostswereestimated
based on the prevailing wage for marine construction in the State of New York
(http://wpp.labor.state.ny.us/wpp/publicViewPWChanges.do). 600 man hours are allotted for
constructing and filling the cribs, with an additional 50 hours added to account for planting.
Usingarateof$35/hr,thelaborcostsareestimatedat$22,750.Addingthelaborcoststothe
materialcostsresultsinatotalestimateof$109,351.
Indevelopingthelifecyclecostforlivecribwalls,thefollowingassumptionsweremade:
Maintenanceandrepaircostsforlivecribwallsaregenerallymoderate.Anestimateof
84
Live crib walls are resilient. The following damages are expected during significant
storms:
Table62ExpectedDamageLiveCribWall.
Tr
Expected Impacts
Damage costs (% IC)
50
40
25
10

Damage to cribs
Loss of vegetation
None
10%
20%
10%
N/A
85
LiveCribWallCostEstimate
Storm
50
40
25
10
Replacement*
Maintenance*
Damage
10%
20%
10%
100%
25%
$109,351
P1(20122037)
Cost
#Storms
0.56
0.73
1.13
2.84
0.00
1.00
CurrentRateofSLR
P2(20372062)
Cost
#Storms
$4,604
$12,088
$9,311
$
$
$20,671
0.75
1.02
1.53
3.97
1.00
1.00
P3(20622082)
Cost
#Storms
$3,549
$9,687
$7,250
$
$47,272
$11,818
1.01
1.30
2.14
5.32
1.00
1.00
Damage
10%
20%
10%
100%
35%
Storm
50
40
25
10
Replacement*
Maintenance*
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
1.35
1.91
3.01
7.58
0.00
1.00
$11,173
$31,559
$24,905
$
$
$28,939
9.26
11.90
16.67
25.00
1.00
1.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
1.00
1.00
86
P3(20622082)
Cost
#Storms
$43,771
$112,553
$78,787
$
$47,272
$16,545
TotalCost
$2,893 $11,046
$7,404 $29,180
$6,107 $22,669
$ $
$28,581 $75,854
$7,145 $39,634
TotalCost $287,733
TotalCost
$71,453 $126,397
$142,906 $287,018
$71,453 $175,145
$ $
$28,581 $75,854
$10,003 $55,488
TotalCost $829,252
Sill
StonesillshavebeenusedextensivelyinareasliketheChesapeakeBaysincethemid1980sto
protectlowtomediumenergyshorelines,andtopromotethegrowthofmarshland.Research
has shown that a typical crosssection developed by the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources (cite), has worked well both within Maryland and when applied elsewhere. The
typicalcrosssectionisreproducedbelowinFigure11. Therecommendedstonesizesforlow
andmediumenergysitesdeterminedbyHardawayandByrne(1999)aresummarizedinTable
63.ForthelowenergyHenryHudsonParksite,astonesizeof300poundswasselected.Using
theMarylandcrosssectionasaguide,thedesignparametersshowninTable64wereusedto
developthecostforasillattheHenryHudsonParksite.Thesuggesteddimensionsresultina
sillwithatotalcrosssectionalareaof69ft2/ft.Over500ft,thesillhasatotalvolumeof34,719
ft3. The cost estimate was developed assuming a porosity of 40% for the structure and an
averagepriceof$97pertonofrock.
Figure11TypicalCrossSectionforSill(DNR,1993)
Table63WeightsforVaryingEnergyRegimes(VirginiaInstituteofMarineScience).
EnergyRegime
Low(02feet)
Medium(24feet)
SuggestedStoneSize
300900lbs
4001200lbs
87
Table64SelectedSillDimensionsforHenryHudsonPark.
SeawardSlope
1V:2.0H
ShorewardSlope 1V:1.5H
CrestWidth
3ft
SillHeight
5.5ft
Table65MaterialCostsSill.
Unitweightofstone
165lbs/ft3
Sizeofstone(Dn50)
1.82ft
Volumerequired
20,831ft3
TonsofStone
1,718
CostofSill
$166,700
CostofSillperlinearfoot
$333
The placement of sill stones is generally more precise and requires specialized labor. Labor
costswereestimatedbasedontheprevailingwageformarineconstructionintheStateofNew
York (http://wpp.labor.state.ny.us/wpp/publicViewPWChanges.do). Assuming 500 man hours
forconstruction,at$35/hr,anestimateof$17,500forlaborisobtained.Anadditionalcostof
$5,000isaddedtothematerialandlaborcoststoaccountforgeneralearthwork,notincluded
intheestimate.Thisbringsthefinalinitialcostto$189,200.
Indevelopingthelifecyclecostforsills,thefollowingassumptionsweremade:
Maintenanceandrepaircostsforsillsaregenerallyminimal.Anestimateof10%ofthe
Sillsareresilient.Thefollowingdamagesareexpectedduringsignificantstorms:
Table66ExpectedDamageSill.
Tr
Expected Impacts
Damage costs (% IC)
50
40
25
10
None
Some stone replacement
None
None
N/A
10%
N/A
N/A
Althoughnotexplicitlyconsideredinthisanalysis,sillscanusuallybemodifiedtoadapttorising
sealevelsbyaddingstonetobuildupthecrestelevation.Withrapidsealevelrisehowever,itis
unlikelythatsedimentaccumulationandmarshgrowthwilloccurnaturally.Thecostassociated
88
withaddingstonetoasillwillgenerallybehigherthanforsimilarlandbasedstructuresdueto
theadditionalcostsrelatedtomarineconstruction.
89
SillCostEstimate
$189,200
CurrentRateofSLR
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
P3(20622082)
Storm
Damage
Cost
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
#Storms
50
0.56
$
0.75
$
1.01
$
40
10%
0.73
$10,458
1.02
$8,380
1.30
$6,406
25
1.13
$
1.53
$
2.14
$
10
2.84
$
3.97
$
5.32
$
Replacement* 100%
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
Maintenance*
10%
1.00
$14,306
1.00
$8,179
1.00
$4,945
InitialCost
TotalCost
TotalCost
$
$25,243
$
$
$
$27,430
$189,200
$241,874
Storm
Damage
50
40
10%
25
10
Replacement* 100%
Maintenance*
10%
P1(20122037)
P2(20372062)
Cost
Cost
#Storms
#Storms
1.35
1.91
3.01
7.58
0.00
1.00
$
$27,301
$
$
$
$14,306
9.26
11.90
16.67
25.00
0.00
1.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
0.00
1.00
90
P3(20622082)
Cost
#Storms
$
$97,370
$
$
$
$8,179
$
$123,628
$
$
$
$4,945
InitialCost
TotalCost
TotalCost
$
$248,300
$
$
$
$27,430
$189,200
$464,930
Summary
This document lays out the methodologies and procedures utilized to perform a comparative
costassessmentoftendifferentshorelinestabilizationapproachesatthreesites,undertwosea
level rise scenarios over a seventy year period. The ten approaches selected include: timber
bulkheads, steel sheet pile bulkheads, biowalls, revetments, riprap, joint planting, vegetated
geogrids,timbercribbing,livecribwalls,andsills.Thetwosealevelrisescenariosrepresentthe
two extremes typically considered, namely the persistence of the existing trend, and the so
calledrapidicemeltscenario.Thecostestimatesweredevelopedusingalifecyclecostapproach
inpresentday(2012)dollars,withthecostsseparatedintofourmaincategories:
InitialConstruction(IC)costcostsassociatedwithconstructingeachofthealternatives
asdesigned,
MaintenanceandRepair(M&R)costscostsassociatedwithinspectingandperforming
basicmaintenanceforeachapproach,
Damagecosts(DC)costscreatedbystormimpactsrequiringsignificantcapitaloutlay
torestoretheoriginalfunctionoftheapproach,
Replacementcosts(RC)coststoreplacestructuresthathavereachedtheendoftheir
usefullife.
TheresultsoftheanalysisaresummarizedbelowinTable67.AtthePoughkeepsiesite,sixof
theninealternativeshadalifecyclecostofbetween$300,000and$400,000underthecurrent
sea level rise scenario. Given the uncertainties related to prices, inflation, discounting,
performance,etc.thecostofeachoftheseapproachesisessentiallythesame.Thegroupofsix
high performing approaches contains a combination of traditional as well as ecologically
enhancedstructures.Thelifecyclecostofjointplantingisdrivenupbythereplacementcosts
associatedwithreplantingthevegetationafterevery10yrstorm.Thehighcostsforbiowalls
and steel sheet pile bulkheads are largely related to the replacement costs associated with
materialdegradation.
AttheHenryHudsonParksiteunderthecurrentsealevelrisescenario,allofthealternatives
weregenerallycheaperduetothemoderateslopeandmoreshelteredlocation.Whilethecost
analysisshowedthatriprapwasthecheapestalternative,otherfactorssuchasthelikelihoodof
ice suggest that riprap may not represent the best alternative. A second group of five
alternativeswereestimatedtocostbetween$200,000and$300,000.Onceagain,thisgrouping
includedbothtraditionalstructuressuchaswoodenbulkheads,aswellasecologicallyenhanced
alternativessuchassillsandvegetatedgeogrids.
91
AtBowlinePointParkamajorityoftheverticalalternativeswereexcludedfromtheanalysisdue
tothelackofnaturalreliefatthesite.Ofthealternativesconsidered,thesillwasthecheapest,
followedbyrevetmentandriprap.Againjointplantingdoesnotperformwell,duetothecosts
associated with replacing the vegetation on a consistent basis. Sills end up costing the least
becauseduringbigstormstheygetovertopped,minimizingdamagetothestructure.
Table67SummaryofCostEstimate.
CurrentSeaLevelRiseScenario
Poughkeepsie
WoodenBulkhead $375,292
SteelBulkhead
$1,255,906
Revetment
$340,984
Riprap
$318,896
CribWall
$308,531
LiveCribWall
$372,794
JointPlanting
$491,088
VegetatedGeogrid $300,315
BioWall
$1,102,131
Sill
N/A
RapidSeaLevelRiseScenario
Poughkeepsie
WoodenBulkhead $688,203
SteelBulkhead
$2,372,407
Revetment
$1,081,098
Riprap
$1,133,764
CribWall
$765,821
LiveCribWall
$1,074,401
JointPlanting
$1,826,545
VegetatedGeogrid $648,316
BioWall
$2,185,780
Sill
N/A
HenryHudsonPark
$271,348
$989,845
$315,930
$143,292
$232,515
$287,733
$231,799
$269,136
$569,330
$241,874
HenryHudsonPark
$497,593
$1,869,818
$1,001,664
$509,442
$577,137
$829,252
$862,150
$581,007
$1,129,114
$464,930
BowlinePointPark
N/A
N/A
$313,642
$325,113
N/A
N/A
$496,511
N/A
N/A
$173,106
BowlinePointPark
N/A
N/A
$994,407
$1,077,429
N/A
N/A
$1,846,714
N/A
N/A
$332,745
Under the rapid sea level rise scenario, only three alternatives at Poughkeepsie have lifecycle
costslessthanonemilliondollars.Threemorehavecostsjustoveronemilliondollars.Both
groupingscontainatleastecologicallyenhancedapproach.AtHenryHudsonPark,fiveofthe
92
ten approaches have cost estimates ranging from $400,000 to $600,000. While this group
includes vegetated geogrids and sills, other ecologically advanced techniques cost significantly
more. Once again this is due to the cost associated with replacing the vegetation on a fairly
frequentbasis.Finally,atBowlinePointPark,thesillremainsthecheapestalternative.Since
sillsaresubmergedstructures,theysustainminimaldamageduringstorms;howevertheyalso
losetheireffectivenesswithtime.
Within the limitations of the analysis, the results show that at most sites there is a suite of
alternatives for which the lifecycle costs are relatively similar. Given the uncertainties
associated with many aspects of the economic valuations, the error bands on the results are
suchthatmanyofthecostsarefunctionallyequivalent.Withinthisgroupingaregenerallyone
or more alternatives that incorporate some sort of ecological enhancement. This finding is
consistentwitharecentNOAAreportentitledWeighingYourOptionsthatdeterminedthecosts
of many living shorelines stabilization approaches was on par with bulkheads. While
ecologically enhanced structures may not be the cheapest overall, this analysis confirms that
overaseventyyearperiodunderboththecurrentandrapidsealevelrisescenarios,severalof
the ecologically enhanced approaches are cost competitive with some of the traditional
approaches.
93
GlossaryofTerms
BiowallWallsorbarriersthatincorporatelivingplantsorstakesintotheirdesign.Thistermis
usedtorefertoacollectionofapproaches,allofwhichattempttosoftenatraditionallyhard
edgethroughtheintroductionofecologicallyfriendlymodifications.
Bulkhead Traditionally, the most common shoreline hardening technique used to protect
vulnerableanderodingshorelines.Usedatthebaseofbluffsorsteepshorelines,bulkheadsare
verticalwallswhichpreventthelossofsoilandthefurthererosionoftheshore.
Crib Wall - Boxlike arrangement of interlocking logs, timbers, precast concrete or plastic
structuralmembersareusedtoformacrib,whichisthenfilledwithbrokenrock.
LiveCribWallAlivecribwallisathreedimensional,boxlikechamberthatisconstructedout
of untreated log or timber and is placed at the streams base flow level. The interior of the
structurehasalternatinglayersofsoiland/orfillmaterialandlivebranchesthataremeantto
rootthemselvesinsidetheboxandeventuallyextendintotheslopeofthebank.
Joint Planting Joint planting consists of adding live stakes or vegetation into open spaces or
jointsinanalreadyexistingortobeconstructedriprap,orrockcoveredslope.Asthestakes
mature, they create a living root mat beneath the structure that binds the soil and prevents
additionalsoilerosion.
Revetment Revetments are shore attached structures built to protect natural sloping
shorelinesagainstwaveenergyanderosion.Revetmentsuselargerocks(orothermaterials)on
thefrontofaduneorstreambanktodissipatewaveand/orcurrentenergytopreventfurther
recessionofthebackshore.
RiprapAriprapslopefunctionssimilartoarevetment; howevertheyare constructedfrom
smallrocks,cobbleandgravel,insteadoflargestones.Riprapstructuresarmortheshoreline
byprovidingabaselayer,whichisstableundernormalstreamflowconditions.
SillLowprofile,shoreparallelmoundsplacedoffshorewiththepurposeofretainingsediment
and elevating the nearshore profile. Sills can be constructed of natural (stone, soil, etc.) or
synthetic(geotextilerolls)materialsandaretypicallyusedaspartofaperchedbeachsystem.
VegetatedGeogridAvegetatedgeogridisaterracedwallconsistingofalternatinghorizontal
layersofsoilwrappedinsyntheticfabricandlivebranchcuttings.Thelivebranchcuttingsserve
94
tobothreducethewaveenergyandshearstressonthewallandbindthegeogridtogether,as
thevegetationmatures.
95
References
Allen,G.,T.Cook,E.Taft,J.Young,andD.Mosier,2006.HudsonRiverShorelineRestoration
AlternativesAnalysis.PreparedbyAldenResearchLaboratory,Inc.andASAAnalysisand
Communications,Inc.,http://www.hrnerr.org/estuarytraining/trainingtopic/estuary
shorelines/
Allen,H.H.andJ.R.Leech,1997.BioengineeringforStreambankErosionControl,Report1:
Guidelines.U.S.ArmyEngineerWaterwaysExperimentStation,TREL978.
ArmyBudgetOffice,2002.InflationandRealGrowthHandbook.<http://www.asafm.army.mil/>
Blankenship,TimK.ToRepairorReplaceaBulkhead:ThatistheQuestion.CoastalSystems
International,Inc.<http://www.coastalsystemsint.com/media/pop_marina_dock_age.htm>.
Bruno,M,Fullerton,B.,Datla,R.FerryWakeWashinNY/NJHarbor.Hoboken:Davidson
LaboratoryTRSITDL0292812,2002.
Caulk,A.D.,J.E.Gannon,J.R.Shaw,andJ.H.Hartig,2000.BestManagementPracticesforSoft
EngineeringofShorelines.GreaterDetroitAmericanHeritageRiverInitiative,Detroit,
Michigan.
CenterforSustainableDesign,MississippiStateUniversity,1999.WaterRelatedBest
ManagementPracticesintheLandscape.<http://www.abe.msstate.edu/csd/NRCS
BMPs/pdf/streams/bank/coconutfiberroll.pdf>,<ftp://ftpfc.sc.egov.usda.gov/WSI/
UrbanBMPs/water/erosion/stonerevet.pdf>
ChicagoBotanicGarden.2012.
CiityofRockvilleDepartmentofPublicWorks,2003.StandardPricesforCostEstimatingand
PermitApplications.<http://www.rockvillemd.gov/egov/pw/
Standard_Prices_Cost_Est_Permit.pdf>
CommitteeonMitigatingShoreErosionalongShelteredCoasts,NationalResearchCouncil,
2007.MitigatingShoreErosiononShelteredCoasts.NationalResearchCouncilofthe
NationalAcademies,TheNationalAcademiesPress,Washington,D.C.174pp.
Davis,J.E.andS.T.Maynord,1998.ShorelineandChannelErosionProtection:Overviewof
Alternatives.WetlandsResearchProgramTechnicalNotesCollection(WRPTechnicalNote
HSRS4.1),U.S.ArmyEngineerWaterwaysExperimentStation,Vicksburg,MS.
96
Davis,J.E.andS.T.Maynord,1998.WetlandShorelineProtectionandErosionControl:Design
Considerations,WetlandsResearchProgramTechnicalNotesCollection(WRPTechnicalNote
HSRS3.1),U.S.ArmyEngineerWaterwaysExperimentStation,Vicksburg,MS.
DCR.2012.TheVirginiaStreamRestorationandStabilizationBestManagementPracticesGuide,
Workshop,DepartmentofConservationandRecreation.June2012.
DCR.2004.TheVirginiaStreamRestorationandStabilizationBestManagementPracticesGuide.
DivisionofSoilandWaterConservation,Richmond,Virginia.
Devore,Debbie.CostandMaintenanceofLivingShorelines.SouthFloridaEcologicalServices
Office,VeroBeach,Florida,2010.
DNR,2005.ShoreErosionControl,TheNaturalApproach.MarylandDepartmentofNatural
Resources.
Douglass,S.,andJ.Chen,2004.OverviewofCoastalEngineeringIIRevetmentDesign.
PresentationgivenatFHWANationalHydraulicsConference,Asheville,NC.
<http://www.southalabama.edu/usacterec/coastalengoverview_revetments.pdf>.
Erdle,S.,J.L.D.Davis,andK.G.Sellner,eds.2008.Management,Policy,ScienceandEngineering
ofNonstructuralErosionControlintheChesapeakeBay:Proceedingsofthe2006Living
ShorelineSummit.CRCPubl.No.08164,GloucesterPoint,VA.136pp.
EPA,1993.ManagementGuidance,StreambankandShorelineErosionManagmentMeasure.
RetrievedJune2012,<http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPA/MMGI/Chapter6/ch64.html
FEMA,2000.FEMANationalUS&RResponseSystemStructuralCollapseTechnician,Modula2a
ShoringBasics.
Finkel,Shimrit.EcoConcrete:ConcreteEcologicalSolutions.2011
Fischenich,J.C.,2001.ImpactsofStabilizationMeasures.EMRRPTechnicalNotesCollection
(ERDCTNEMRRPSR32),U.S.ArmyEngineerResearchandDevelopmentCenter,Vicksburg,
MS.
Fischenich,C.2001.StabilityThresholdsforStreamRestorationMaterials.EMRRPTechnical
NotesCollection(ERDCTNEMRRPSR29),U.S.ArmyEngineerResearchandDevelopment
Center,Vicksburg,MS.
GeoSyntecConsultants,2006.MassachusettsNonpointSourcePollutionManagementManual.
PreparedfortheMassachusettsDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection.
<http://projects.geosyntec.com/NPSManual/NPSManual.pdf>.
97
HaliburtonCooperative.SolutionstoRiverbankErosion:ASummaryofCurrentShoreline
StabilizationTechniquesfortheGullRiverInMinden,Ontario.2008
Hardaway,C.C.,andByrne,R.J.1999.ShorelineManagementinChesapeakeBayVSG9911.
VirginiaSeaGrant.VirginiaInstituteofMarineScience,GloucesterPoint,VA.
Herrington,T.O.,Datla,R.,andR.Royce,2005.AlternativeShorelineStabilizationStructures:
PhysicalModelTests.DavidsonLaboratory,TRSIT04090284.
Hoag,J.C.,2000.CostsandConsiderationsofStreambankBioengineeringTreatments.
Riparian/WetlandProjectInformationSeriesNo.15.USDANaturalResourcesConservation
Service.<http://plantmaterials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/idpmcarwproj15.pdf>.
IowaDepartmentofNaturalResources,2006.HowtoControlStreambankErosion.
<http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/erosion/manuals/streambank_erosion.pdf>
JeffersonPattersonPark&Museum.Site#4Sills.LivingShorelinesTour.
<http://www.jefpat.org/Living%20Shorelines/webdata/Assets/PDF%20Links/JPPM
%20Tour%20Stop%204%20DRAFT%2012406%20FINAL.pdf>.
Mangro,K.Revetments.CoastalWiki.<http://www.coastalwiki.org/coastalwiki/Revetments>.
MarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment,WaterManagementAdministration,2000.
MarylandsWaterwayConstructionGuidelines.<http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/
document/wetlandswaterways/mgwc.pdf>.
MDEasternShoreRC&CCouncilInc.StreamRestoration,UsingBioengineeringTechniques"A
DemonstrationProject",RockCreekPark,FrederickCity.
MichaelKosiw,K.P.,2008.Solutionstoriverbankerosion:Asummaryofcurrentshoreline
stabilizationtechniquesfortheGullRiverinMinden,Ontario.
Miller,D.,2006.UnderstandingandManagingHudsonRiverShorelines.Presentationgivenat
HudsonRiverEstuaryShorelinesWorkshop,SoftEngineeringSolutionstoShoreline
Stabilization.
Miller,D.,Bowser,C.,Eckerlin,J.2006 ShorelineClassificationintheHudsonRiverEstuary,
unpublished,NYSDECHudsonRiverNationalEstuarineResearchReserve.GeogspatialData
availableatNYSGISClearinghouseHudsonRiverEstuaryShorelineType
http://gis.ny.gov/gisdata/inventories/details.cfm?DSID=1136
NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration.LivingShorelines.NOAARestorationPortal.
<https://habitat.noaa.gov/restorationtechniques/public/shoreline_tab1.cfm>.
98
NationalResourceConservationService,NationalEngineeringHandbook,2007,UnitedStates
DepartmentofAgriculture,USACE
NewYorkCityPanelonClimateChange,2009.ClimateRiskInformation.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/NPCC_CRI.pdf.
NewYorkStateSoilandWaterConservationCommittee,2005.NewYorkStateStandardsand
SpecificationsforErosionandSedimentControl.NewYorkStateDepartmentof
EnvironmentalConservation.
NonpointSourcePollutionManagement.VegetatedGeogridFactSheet.Massachusetts,2006.
NorthCarolinaDivisionofCoastalManagement,2008.CoastalHazards&StormInformation::
EstuarineShorelineStabilzationOptions.
<http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/Hazards/estuarine_stabilization%20options.htm>.
NorthwestRegionalPlanningCommision,2003.TheShorelineStabilizationHandbookforLake
ChamplainandOtherInlandLakes.NationalSeaGrantLibraryPublicationLCSG0403.
<http://nsgd.gso.uri.edu/lcsg/lcsgh04001.pdf>.
NRPCVT.(n.d.).TheShorelineStabilizationHandbookforLakeChamplainandOtherInland
Lakes.NorthwestRegionalPlanningCommissionVermont.
NSP.(2006).LiveStakesFactSheet,NSPManagementManual.NonpointSourcePollution,
Massachusetts.
NSP.2006).VegetatedGeogridFactSheet,NSPManagementManual.NonpointSource
Pollution,Massachusetts.
OhioDepartmentofNaturalResources.RiprapRevetments.OhioStreamManagementGuides
FactSheet16.<http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/portals/7/pubs/fs_st/stfs16.pdf>.
PartnershipfortheDelawareEstuary.DelawareEstuaryLivingShorelineInitiative.
<http://www.delawareestuary.org/science_projects_living_shoreline.asp>.
PerkolFinkel,Shirmrit.PersonalCommunication.June15,2012.
Rich,Brad.LivingShorelines:TheNaturalAlternative.NorthCarolinaCoastalFederation,2012.<
http://www.nccoast.org/Article.aspx?k=e2423e82a89847ef80fd588aa2fc886e>
Rich,Brad.LivingShorelinesRequireCarefulPlanning.NorthCarolinaCoastalFederation,2012.
<http://www.nccoast.org/Article.aspx?k=e9997eeb1cc345ad9a5b809420a939d1>
99
SeachangeConsulting,2011.WeighingYourOptions,HowtoProtectYourPropertyfrom
ShorelineErosion:AHandbookforEstuarinePropertyOwnersinNorthCarolina.<
http://www2.coastalscience.noaa.gov/publications/ccfhr/detail.aspx?resource=qTdfDNQY4s
cKSLBQYIjuVMxxCF/1lKrrRlaQbf3HVho=>
Shafer,D.J.,R.Roland,andS.L.Douglass.2003.PreliminaryEvaluationofCriticalWaveEnergy
ThresholdsatNaturalandCreatedCoastalWetlands.WRPTechnicalNotesCollection(ERDC
TNWRPHSCP2.2),U.S.ArmyEngineerResearchandDevelopmentCenter,Vicksburg,MS.
Smylnycky,N.,2012.2012DiscountingGuide.TACOMLCMCCostandSystemsAnalysis,TP2012
027.
Sotir,R.B.,andJ.C.Fischenich.2007.LiveStakeandJointPlantingforStreambankErosion
Control.EMRRPTechnicalNotesCollection(ERDCTNEMRRPSR35),U.S.ArmyEngineer
ResearchandDevelopmentCenter,Vicksburg,MS.
StormwaterManagementResourceCenter.StreamRestoration:BankProtectionPractices.
<http://www.stormwatercenter.net/Assorted%20Fact%20Sheets/Restora
tion/bank_protection.htm>.
Storrar,C.,2007.AlternativesforAddresingPheasantBranchCreek"MiniHemble"SlopeFailure.
SwanRiverTrust,2008.BestManagementPractices,Chapter8:RockRevetments.
UrbanCreeksCouncil.LiveStakingandJointPlanting.<http://www.urbancreeks.org/
Live_Staking_Joint_Planting.pdf>.
U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers(USACE),1977.ShoreProtectionManual.WaterwaysExperiment
Station,CorpsofEngineers,CoastalEngineeringResearchCenter,Washington,D.C.
U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers(USACE),1981.LowCostShoreProtectionaGuideforEngineers
andContractors.AReportoftheShorelineErosionControlDemonstrationProgram(Section
54Program).
U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers(USACE),1993.ReviewofRecentGeotextileCoastalErosion
ControlTechnology.DepartmentoftheArmy,Washington,D.C.
U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers(USACE),2000.AGuidetoDevelopingandDocumentingCost
EstimatesDuringtheFeasibilityStudy.<http://www.epa.gov/superfund/>
U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers(USACE),2001.PlantMaterialAcquisition,Layout,andHandling
forFloodControlProjects.ERDCTR0114.FloodDamageReductionResearchProgram.
100
U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers(USACE),2002.CoastalEngineeringManual.EngineerManual
111021100,U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers,Washington,D.C.(in6volumes).
U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers(USACE),2006.CoastalEngineeringManual,ChapterVI,Designof
CoastalProjectElements.CoastalEngineeringManual.
U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers(USACE),2008.ConstructionCostEstimatingGuideforCivilWorks.
CECWECTechnicalLetterNo.11102573.DepartmentoftheArmy,Washington,D.C.
U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers(USACE),2012.EconomicGuidanceMemorandum,1201,Federal
InterestRatesforCorpsofEngineersProjectsforFiscalYear2012.Memorandumfor
PlanningCommunityofPractice.
U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers,St.PaulDistrict.Revetments.FactSheets,LowCostShore
Protection.<http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/docs/shore_prot/lowcost/revetments.pdf>.
U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,1996.EngineeringFieldHandbook,Chapter16:Streambankand
ShorelineProtection,NaturalResourcesConservationService.
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.ClimateReadyEstuaries.<http://www.epa.gov/
CRE/shorelinessoft.html>.
VirginiaInstituteofMarineScience.LivingShorelineDesignGuidelinesforShoreProtectionin
VirginiasEstuarineEnvironments.2010.
WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology,1994.ShorelineArmoringEffectsonCoastalEcology
andBiologicalResourcesinPugetSound,Washington.CoastalErosionManagementStudies,
Volume7.<http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/
pugetsound/building/bulkhead_eff.html>.
WashingtonStateAquaticHabitatGuidelinesProgram,2002.IntegratedStreambankProtection
Guidelines.
APPENDICESFOLLOWTHISPAGE
101
Design Sketch Appendix

Part of:
A Comparative Cost Analysis of Ten Shore

Protection Approaches at Three Sites
Under Two Sea Level Rise Scenarios
Prepared by:
Andrew J. Rella, &

Jon K. Miller, Ph.D.
Design Sketches by:
Laura Lemke
Poughkeepsie Alternative 1: Wood Bulkhead
Poughkeepsie Alternative 2: Steel Sheet Pile
Poughkeepsie Alternative 3: Bio-wall
Poughkeepsie Alternative 4: Revetment
Poughkeepsie Alternative 5: Rip-Rap
Poughkeepsie Alternative 6: Joint Planting
Poughkeepsie Alternative 7: Vegetated Geogrid
Poughkeepsie Alternative 8: Crib wall
Poughkeepsie Alternative 9: Live Crib Wall
Bowline Point Park Alternative 1: Revetment
Bowline Point Park Alternative 2: Rip-Rap
Bowline Point Park Alternative 3: Joint Planting
Bowline Point Park Alternative 4: Sill
Henry Hudson Park Alternative 1: Wood Bulkhead
Henry Hudson Park Alternative 2: Steel Sheet Pile Bulkhead
Henry Hudson Park Alternative 3: Bio-wall
Henry Hudson Park Alternative 4: Revetment
10
Henry Hudson Park Alternative 5: Rip-Rap
Henry Hudson Park Alternative 6: Joint Planting
11
Henry Hudson Park Alternative 7: Vegetated Geogrid
Henry Hudson Park Alternative 8: Crib Wall
12
Henry Hudson Park Alternative 9: Live Crib Wall
Henry Hudson Park Alternative 10: Sill
13
Cost Analysis Appendix

Part of:

Prepared by:
Andrew J. Rella, &

Bulkhead Cost Analysis:

Bulkhead
Low
Average
High
Removal of Existing Bulkhead
$16/cubic yard
$75/cubic yard
$170/cubic yard
Composite Bulkhead
$355/linear foot
$560/linear foot
$750/linear foot
Vinyl Sheet Bulkhead
$590/linear foot
$860/linear foot
$1200/linear foot
Steel Sheet Bulkhead
$1400/linear foot
$1800/linear foot
$2450/linear foot
10' Anchor Piles and Rods
$10/linear foot
$10/linear foot
$20/linear foot
Railroad Tie
$40/each
$50/each
$60/each
Toe Protection
$50/cubic yard
$63/cubic yard
$75/cubic yard
Splash Apron
$50/cubic yard
$63/cubic yard
$75/cubic yard
Filter Fabric
$50/square yard
$63/square yard
$75/square yard
Drainage System
$1000/bulkhead
$3000/bulkhead
$6500/bulkhead
Backfill
$9/cubic yard
$23/cubic yard
$35/cubic yard
Topsoil
$1/cubic yard
$28/cubic yard
$60/cubic yard
Hydroseed
$.1/square foot
$.25/square foot
$.50/square foot
Repairs
$100/linear foot
$250/linear foot
$400/linear foot
REFERENCE:
Recent Bids Submitted to NJDEP
Revetment Cost Analysis:

Revetment
Limestone Rock
Granite Rock
.2-.7 feet diameter filter stone
.7-1.4 feet diameter filter stone
Sediment Fill
Gravel Fill
Soil Compactor
Excavator
Truck and Transport Cost
REFERENCE:
Low
$25/ton
$40/ton
$5/ton
$45/ton
$90/day
Average
$40/ton
$60/ton
$45/ton
$40/ton
$10/ton
$65/ton
$90/day
$115/day
High
$55/ton
$80/ton
$15/ton
$90/ton
$140/day
$80/day
$85/day
$90/day
Swan River Trust, 2008. Best Management Practices, Chapter 8: Rock Revetments.
Rip-Rap Cost Analysis:

Rip-Rap
Limestone Rock
Granite Rock
.2-.7 feet diameter filter stone
.7-1.4 feet diameter filter stone
Sediment Fill
Gravel Fill
Soil Compactor
Excavator
Truck and Transport Cost
REFERENCE:
Cap Stone
Core Stone
Granular Fill
Low
$25/ton
$40/ton
Average
High
$40/ton
$55/ton
$60/ton
$80/ton
$45/ton
$40/ton
$5/ton
$10/ton
$15/ton
$45/ton
$65/ton
$90/ton
$90/day
$90/day
$115/day
$140/day
$80/day
$85/day
$90/day
Swan River Trust, 2008. Best Management Practices, Chapter 8: Rock Revetment
$60/ton
$60/ton
$24/ton
$97/ton
$80/ton
$77/ton
REFERENCE:
$160/ton
$105/ton
$105/ton
BIDS
Live Stakes/Joint Planting Cost Analysis:

Live Stakes/Joint Planting
The installed cost of live stakes typically range from $1 to $2
per stake
* if rock slope is already existing and assumes four cuttings per square yard
REFERENCE:
EPA, 2010. Guidance for Federal Land Management in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed. EPA841-R-10-002
Timber Cribbing Cost Analysis:

Timber Cribbing
Quantity (based off of 6'w x 6'h x100'l Live Crib Wall)
Logs, untreated Douglas Fir
Logs, untreated Cedar
Logs, untreated Hemlock
$4.25 each
$4.25 each
$4.25 each
1126
1126
1126
Nails (Spikes)
Loppers (2.5" capacity)
10 lb Sledge Hammer
$0.52 each
$60.00 each
$20.00 each
250
2
2
Shovel
Adze Hoe
$20.00 each
$20.00 each
2
2
REFERENCE:
Haliburton Cooperative. Solutions to Riverbank Erosion: A Summary of Current Shoreline Stabilization

Techniques for the Gull River In Minden, Ontario. 2008
Live Crib Wall Cost Analysis:

Live Crib Wall
Logs, untreated Douglas Fir
Logs, untreated Cedar
Logs, untreated Hemlock
Willow pruned live branches
(6'x2")
Willow pruned live branches
(4'x2")
Nails (Spikes)
Shears
Loppers (2.5" capacity)
10 lb Sledge Hammer
Shovel
Adze Hoe
REFERENCE:
Quantity (based off of 6'w x 6'h x100'l Live Crib Wall)

$4.25
$4.25
$4.25
$1.20
each
each
each
each
$0.75 each
$0.52 each
250
$15.00 each
4
$60.00 each
2
$20.00 each
2
$20.00 each
2
$20.00 each
2
Haliburton Cooperative. Solutions to Riverbank Erosion: A Summary of Current Shoreline Stabilization
Techniques for the Gull River In Minden, Ontario. 2008
Green (Bio) Wall Cost Analysis:

Green (Bio) Wall
ECOncrete matrices cost 7-15% more than Portland cement
Tide-pools varies according to size and number of units, but will generally range 1000-1500$ per unit
REFERENCE:
1126
1126
1126
1000
Perkol-Finkel, Shirmrit. Personal Communication. June 15, 2012.
Vegetated Geogrid Cost Analysis:

Vegetated Geogrid
$13-$30/square foot
REFERENCE:
NSP. (2006). Vegetated Geogrid Fact Sheet, NSP Management Manual. Nonpoint
Source Pollution, Massachusetts.
66 percent of vegetative geogrid costs can be attributed to labor

1 man-hour of labor is needed per linear foot of construction
REFERENCE:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1997. Bioengineering for Streambank Erosion
Control. Technical Report EL-97-8. Environmental Impact Research Program
Cost of geotextile is $0.70 per square yard (2007 Dollars)
REFERENCE:
Storrar, C., 2007. Alternatives for Addresing Pheasant Branch Creek "Mini-Hemble"
Slope Failure.
Additional Resources
EPA, 2010. Guidance for Federal Land Management in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. EPA841-R-10-002
Bedient, P.B. and W.C. Huber, 1988. Hydrology and Floodplain Analysis. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Coastal Construction Manual. Chapter 4: Fundamentals. Federal Emergency Management Agency.
CIRIA C683. The Rock Manual: Chapter 3 & 5.
Statistics Appendix
Part of:

Prepared by:
Andrew J. Rella, &

In the main body of A Comparative Cost Analysis of Ten Shore Protection Approaches at Three Sites
Under Two Sea Level Rise Scenarios, a somewhat simplified treatment of the issue of return periods and
probability was presented. The information in this appendix is intended to supplement that material for
those interested in a slightly more rigorous explanation.
In the text, the probability of a storm with the return period Tr occurring in any given year is given as:
p = 1/Tr
A more rigorous explanation is as follows. If we assume that storms follow a Poisson distribution and
are causally unrelated to one another, then the probability that an event with an average recurrence
interval (return period) Tr occurs during an exposure period t is:
P=1-e(-t/Tr)
The difference between the two approaches is illustrated below in Figure 1. In general the difference is
negligible for values of t/Tr, less than 0.1 which is the minimum value considered in the main report.
Comparison of Rigorous and Simplified Approaches for
Calculating the Annual Probabilty of Occurence of Significant Storms
10
Probability of Occurence
Simple Approach
Rigorous Approach
-1
10
-2
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
Return Period Tr
Figure 1
70
80
90
100

A Comparative Cost Analysis of Ten ShoreProtection Approaches at Three Sites Under Two Sea Level Rise Scenarios

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A Comparative Cost Analysis of Ten ShoreProtection Approaches at Three Sites Under Two Sea Level Rise Scenarios

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

AComparativeCostAnalysisofTenShore

every six hours throughout the entire

shorelines (which however have been

About the Sustainable Shorelines

jurisdiction of adjacent federally regulated

Extreme Value Analysis of Battery Park Water Levels

Data (Weibul Plot Pos)

CY Water Level (ft StDat)

the mostrecentfederalguidance (USACE,2012). TheCCWIS tablesonlyextend15yearsinto

Damage costs (% IC)

Moderate overtopping & scour

Damage costs (% IC)

Moderate overtopping & scour

Damage costs (% IC)

Moderate overtopping & scour

Thickness Volume Weight Weight RockCost

Damage costs (% IC)

Moderate overtopping & scour

Layer Thickness Volume Weight RockCost

Damage costs (% IC)

Significant overtopping & scour

Damage costs (% IC)

Significant overtopping & scour

Damage costs (% IC)

Moderate overtopping & scour

Damage costs (% IC)

Moderate overtopping & scour

Damage costs (% IC)

Moderate overtopping & scour

Thickness Volume Weight Weight RockCost

Damage costs (% IC)

Moderate overtopping & scour

Damage costs (% IC)

Significant overtopping & scour

Damage costs (% IC)

Significant overtopping & scour

Damage costs (% IC)

CostRange/lf $7001,200 $116265

Damage costs (% IC)

Moderate overtopping & scour

Damage costs (% IC)

Moderate overtopping & scour

Damage costs (% IC)

Moderate overtopping & scour

Thickness Volume Weight Weight RockCost

Damage costs (% IC)

Moderate overtopping & scour

Layer Thickness Volume Weight RockCost

Damage costs (% IC)

Significant overtopping & scour

Damage costs (% IC)

Significant overtopping & scour

Damage costs (% IC)

Moderate overtopping & scour

Damage costs (% IC)

Moderate overtopping & scour

Damage costs (% IC)

Moderate overtopping & scour

Damage costs (% IC)

Design Sketch Appendix

A Comparative Cost Analysis of Ten Shore

Andrew J. Rella, &

Poughkeepsie Alternative 1: Wood Bulkhead