HomeMy WebLinkAbout20131025-TON-SBPF NOI-ConCom appl re Baxter Rd_201404071048560792PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP:PREPARED BY:LOCATION MAP:BAXTER ROAD TEMPORARY STABILIZATIONNOI SUBMISSIONBAXTER ROADNANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTSPREPARED FOR:TOWN OF NANTUCKETNANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS0'125'250'SCALE 1" = 500'01/4"1/2"0'1000'2000'SCALE 1" = 2000'01/4"1/2"One Financial Plaza1350 Main Street, Suite 1012Springfield, Massachusetts 01103(413) 241-6920 Fax (413) 241-6911www.miloneandmacbroom.comLIST OF DRAWINGSSHEET NO.TITLE1TITLE SHEET2EXISTING CONDITIONS3GENERAL PLAN4TYPICAL CROSS SECTION5-9CROSS SECTIONSDESIGNER:DATE:P.E. NO.:BY:MILONE & MACBROOM, INC.PROJECT SITEMilone & MacBroom, Inc. - 2013PROJECTSITEPROJECT SITEOctober 25, 2013James MacbroomOctober 25, 201343052C:\Users\richd.OFFICE\Documents\Baxter Road - Nantucket, MA\JMacBroom stamp.tiffDRAFT
SHEET NAMEDATEPROJECT NO.DESIGNEDRSDSCALEDRAWNSMWCHECKED---OCT. 25, 20132967-111" = 200'SHEET NO.2 OF 9DESCRIPTIONBYDATE0'50'100'01/4"1/2"EXISTING CONDITIONS - TEMPORARY SLOPE STABILIZATIONNANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTSBAXTER ROADSLOPE STABILIZATIONOne Financial Plaza1350 Main Street, Suite 1012Springfield, Massachusetts 01103(413) 241-6920 Fax (413) 241-6911www.miloneandmacbroom.com
15+0016+0017+0018+0019+0020+0021+0022+0023+0024+0025+0026+0027+0028+0029+0030+0031+0032+0033+0034+0035+0036+0037+0038+0039+0040+0041+0042+0043+0044+0044+08.52SHEET NAMEDATEPROJECT NO.DESIGNEDRSDSCALEDRAWNSMWCHECKED---OCT. 25, 20132967-11SHEET NO.DESCRIPTIONBYDATE0'50'100'01/4"1/2"NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTSBAXTER ROADSLOPE STABILIZATIONOne Financial Plaza1350 Main Street, Suite 1012Springfield, Massachusetts 01103(413) 241-6920 Fax (413) 241-6911www.miloneandmacbroom.com1" = 200'3 OF 9GENERAL PLAN - TEMPORARY SLOPE STABILIZATION
SHEET NAMEDATEPROJECT NO.DESIGNEDRSDSCALEDRAWNSMWCHECKED---OCT. 25, 20132967-11HOR: 1" = 20'SHEET NO.DESCRIPTION BYDATE
0'5'10'01/4"1/2"NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS
BAXTER ROAD
SLOPE STABILIZATION One Financial Plaza
1350 Main Street, Suite 1012
Springfield, Massachusetts 01103
(413) 241-6920 Fax (413) 241-6911
www.miloneandmacbroom.comVERT: 1" = 20'TYPTYPICAL CROSS SECTION - TEMPORARY SLOPE STABILIZATION
4 OF 9
23+00-1001020304050607080-10010203040506070800.0025.0050.0075.00100.00125.00150.00175.00200.00225.00250.00275.00300.00325.00350.00375.00400.00425.00450.000.0024+00-1001020304050607080-10010203040506070800.0025.0050.0075.00100.00125.00150.00175.00200.00225.00250.00275.00300.00325.00350.00375.00400.00425.00450.000.0025+00-1001020304050607080-10010203040506070800.0025.0050.0075.00100.00125.00150.00175.00200.00225.00250.00275.00300.00325.00350.00375.00400.00425.00450.000.00SHEET NAMEDATEPROJECT NO.DESIGNEDRSDSCALEDRAWNSMWCHECKED---OCT. 25, 20132967-11HOR: 1" = 40'SHEET NO.DESCRIPTIONBYDATE0'10'20'01/4"1/2"NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTSBAXTER ROADSLOPE STABILIZATIONOne Financial Plaza1350 Main Street, Suite 1012Springfield, Massachusetts 01103(413) 241-6920 Fax (413) 241-6911www.miloneandmacbroom.comVERT: 1" = 40'5 OF 9CROSS SECTIONS - TEMPORARY SLOPE STABILIZATIONX-SECTION
26+00-1001020304050607080-10010203040506070800.0025.0050.0075.00100.00125.00150.00175.00200.00225.00250.00275.00300.00325.00350.00375.00400.00425.00450.000.0027+00-1001020304050607080-10010203040506070800.0025.0050.0075.00100.00125.00150.00175.00200.00225.00250.00275.00300.00325.00350.00375.00400.00425.00450.000.0028+00-1001020304050607080-10010203040506070800.0025.0050.0075.00100.00125.00150.00175.00200.00225.00250.00275.00300.00325.00350.00375.00400.00425.00450.000.00SHEET NAMEDATEPROJECT NO.DESIGNEDRSDSCALEDRAWNSMWCHECKED---OCT. 25, 20132967-11HOR: 1" = 40'SHEET NO.DESCRIPTIONBYDATE0'10'20'01/4"1/2"NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTSBAXTER ROADSLOPE STABILIZATIONOne Financial Plaza1350 Main Street, Suite 1012Springfield, Massachusetts 01103(413) 241-6920 Fax (413) 241-6911www.miloneandmacbroom.comVERT: 1" = 40'6 OF 9CROSS SECTIONS - TEMPORARY SLOPE STABILIZATIONX-SECTION
29+00-1001020304050607080-10010203040506070800.0025.0050.0075.00100.00125.00150.00175.00200.00225.00250.00275.00300.00325.00350.00375.00400.00425.00450.000.0030+00-100102030405060708090-1001020304050607080900.0025.0050.0075.00100.00125.00150.00175.00200.00225.00250.00275.00300.00325.00350.00375.00400.00425.00450.000.0031+00-100102030405060708090-1001020304050607080900.0025.0050.0075.00100.00125.00150.00175.00200.00225.00250.00275.00300.00325.00350.00375.00400.00425.00450.000.00SHEET NAMEDATEPROJECT NO.DESIGNEDRSDSCALEDRAWNSMWCHECKED---OCT. 25, 20132967-11HOR: 1" = 40'SHEET NO.DESCRIPTIONBYDATE0'10'20'01/4"1/2"NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTSBAXTER ROADSLOPE STABILIZATIONOne Financial Plaza1350 Main Street, Suite 1012Springfield, Massachusetts 01103(413) 241-6920 Fax (413) 241-6911www.miloneandmacbroom.comVERT: 1" = 40'7 OF 9CROSS SECTIONS - TEMPORARY SLOPE STABILIZATIONX-SECTION
32+00-100102030405060708090-1001020304050607080900.0025.0050.0075.00100.00125.00150.00175.00200.00225.00250.00275.00300.00325.00350.00375.00400.00425.00450.000.0033+00-100102030405060708090-1001020304050607080900.0025.0050.0075.00100.00125.00150.00175.00200.00225.00250.00275.00300.00325.00350.00375.00400.00425.00450.000.0034+00-100102030405060708090-1001020304050607080900.0025.0050.0075.00100.00125.00150.00175.00200.00225.00250.00275.00300.00325.00350.00375.00400.00425.00450.000.00SHEET NAMEDATEPROJECT NO.DESIGNEDRSDSCALEDRAWNSMWCHECKED---OCT. 25, 20132967-11HOR: 1" = 40'SHEET NO.DESCRIPTIONBYDATE0'10'20'01/4"1/2"NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTSBAXTER ROADSLOPE STABILIZATIONOne Financial Plaza1350 Main Street, Suite 1012Springfield, Massachusetts 01103(413) 241-6920 Fax (413) 241-6911www.miloneandmacbroom.comVERT: 1" = 40'8 OF 9CROSS SECTIONS - TEMPORARY SLOPE STABILIZATIONX-SECTION
35+00-100102030405060708090100-1001020304050607080901000.0025.0050.0075.00100.00125.00150.00175.00200.00225.00250.00275.00300.00325.00350.00375.00400.00425.00450.000.0036+00-100102030405060708090100-1001020304050607080901000.0025.0050.0075.00100.00125.00150.00175.00200.00225.00250.00275.00300.00325.00350.00375.00400.00425.00450.000.0037+00-100102030405060708090100110-1001020304050607080901001100.0025.0050.0075.00100.00125.00150.00175.00200.00225.00250.00275.00300.00325.00350.00375.00400.00425.00450.000.00SHEET NAMEDATEPROJECT NO.DESIGNEDRSDSCALEDRAWNSMWCHECKED---OCT. 25, 20132967-11HOR: 1" = 40'SHEET NO.DESCRIPTIONBYDATE0'10'20'01/4"1/2"NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTSBAXTER ROADSLOPE STABILIZATIONOne Financial Plaza1350 Main Street, Suite 1012Springfield, Massachusetts 01103(413) 241-6920 Fax (413) 241-6911www.miloneandmacbroom.comVERT: 1" = 40'9 OF 9CROSS SECTIONS - TEMPORARY SLOPE STABILIZATIONX-SECTION
Attachment A
Baxter Road Stabilization Alternatives Analysis
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kara Buzanoski, Director of Public Works, Town of Nantucket
FROM: Nicolle Burnham, Milone & MacBroom, Inc.
DATE: October 1, 2013
RE: Alternatives Analysis Summary
Baxter Road Temporary Stabilization
Nantucket, Massachusetts
MMI #2967-11
Per request of the town of Nantucket, Milone & MacBroom, Inc. has evaluated potential methods of
stabilizing Baxter Road to protect access to private residences and existing sewer and water utilities
located beneath the roadway. As noted on our memorandum of September 24, 2013 the goal of this
current effort is to maintain vehicular access and utility service to the residential properties on Baxter
Road from Bayberry Lane north to the Sankaty Head Lighthouse. The project limits evaluated by MMI
are limited to those areas where Baxter Road appears in imminent danger of failure from bank failure.
Specifically, our project area extends from 85 to 91 Baxter Road and from 99 to 107.
Design Criteria
For the purposes of MMI’s work, measures installed will be considered temporary and intended to
provide some level of protection for the short term, while long term solutions are considered by the SBPF
and the town. The town has requested that the measures implemented under MMI’s work consider a
three year life. Given the varied erosion rates from year to year it is not possible to guarantee a specific
design life of any stabilization measure here.
After considering the project site and having discussions with Haley & Aldrich, who has performed
geotechnical evaluations on behalf of SBPF, we evaluated four potential stabilization methods:
1. Steel sheet piling along the toe of the bluff
2. Steel sheet piling along the top of the bluff (adjacent to Baxter Road)
3. Geotubes along the toe of the bluff
4. Grout injections for soil stabilization beneath the glacial till layer
Attached please find a matrix that compares each alternative, a plan view that depicts the installation
location of each, and cross sections views that detail each alternative. Each alternative is described
below.
Alternate 1
This alternate would entail driving steel sheet piling along the toe of the bluff for a distance of
approximately 1720 feet, essentially through the project sections defined above, and to a depth of
approximately 20 feet. The sheet piling would serve to protect the toe of slope from erosion due to wave
action. To maintain this system, sand may have to be replaced along the waterward face of sheeting
periodically as erosion occurs. Construction would result in steel sheeting being visible from the existing
ground surface to elevation 22.0, with an average exposed height of five feet. Not only would this create
less than desirable aesthetics, the sheeting would create an unnatural physical barrier paralleling the
shoreline. The bulkhead would likely be capped with poured-in-place concrete. This option, focusing on
Ms. Kara Buzanoski
October 1, 2013
Page 2
addressing the toe of slope, is considered technically feasible but costly and unlikely to be permitted by
the Town’s Conservation Commission.
Alternate 2
The second alternative would involve driving steel sheet piling along the edge of Baxter Road, or the edge
of the town-owned roadway right-of-way, generally to the limits described above. The intent is to protect
the town-owned infrastructure, rather than address toe failure. The premise behind this alternative is that
the sheet piling would support the roadway in the event of a total or partial but significant slope failure.
Theoretically this alternative is viable, however considering the practicality of construction and
geotechnical limitations of the area, several issues suggest that driving sheeting along the roadway is not
feasible. First, the sheets would be very long and difficult to drive through the thick glacial till layer.
Additionally, a substantial tieback system would be required, extending under the street and likely
conflicting with utilities. The depth of the sheets would be determined, in part, by the assumed retained
height based on some failure scenario. Accommodating a complete slope failure would be largely
infeasible, and planning for a partial failure would be difficult given the nature of the sandy soil layer
along the toe of slope and difficulty in establishing slope stability in conjunction with the sheet piling.
Finally, while this alternative attempts to protect the roadway and related infrastructure, it affords no
protection for the privately owned properties. For these reasons, this alternative has been deemed
infeasible.
Alternative 3
This alternative entails placement of sand-filled geotextile tubes along the toe of slope to provide
temporary protection from wave and tidal action. This alternative is largely constructible, the sand fill is
readily available, and the option presents a costs effective, short term solution for protecting the toe of
slope within the town’s study area. In protecting the slope, this treatment may result in short-term slope
stabilization. It is critical to understand, however, that these structures could be overtopped and/or
undermined even with detailed design consideration. Failure of the geotubes could result in failure of
Baxter Road and we cannot predict when this may occur. While these measures are considered
temporary, the installation of geotextile tubes can be expected to retard slope failure and can be designed
to prevent slope failure from normal tidal events. While there would be some impact to aesthetics, we
would anticipate this alternative can be permitted locally, given its temporary nature. For these reasons
this alternative is deemed a viable option for the short-term.
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 was presented by Haley & Aldrich (H&A) in our discussions with them. The grout would
be injected into the cohesionless sand layer at the toe of the slope and would serve to strengthen or
enhance the properties of the otherwise weak soil. From our discussions with H&A and based on their
previous findings in the field, the grouted sand layer would be approximately 35 feet thick. The weak
sand layer is overlain by a thick glacial till. This material in itself can be stabilized under normal
conditions, however given it is founded on the cohesionless underlying sand makes the glacial till
susceptible to failure as has been the case. This alternative has the advantage of being low impact when
compared to other options, particularly given the fact the grout will be ‘invisible’ from the surface
following construction and restoration of the impacted areas. While this alternative may be cost
prohibitive as a temporary solution, we are not dismissing this option and recommend it be studied
further.
Discussion on Alternatives
After discussing this project with Haley and Aldrich we find that the selected alternative for short-term
improvements should be one which, at a minimum, protects the cohesionless sand layer along the toe of
Ms. Kara Buzanoski
October 1, 2013
Page 3
the slope. Ideally the best long term solution should be one which stabilizes the cohesionless sand layer
more permanently. Based on these principles, Alternative 2 has been deemed infeasible. Haley &
Aldrich prepared a memorandum detailing this further in a memorandum to SBPF dated September 27,
2013. Based on where our investigations have led us thus far, we recommend the town pursue
Alternative 3, sand filled geotextile tubes at the toe of slope, to provide short-term protection while long
term solutions are further explored.
Further Discussion
In reviewing the slope stability analysis completed by Haley & Aldrich in 2007 and their memorandum of
September 27, 2013 we note that their conclusions indicate that the slope would be stable at and
approximately 40 degree angle. The current slope in our project area ranges from 31 to 40 degrees with
some sections near the top of slope as steep as 56 to 68 degrees. The implication is that the top of the
slope in our project area is inherently unstable, even with toe protection. In 2007 Haley & Aldrich
recommended toe stabilization combined with flattening the slope as the appropriate means of stabilizing
this area. None of the options we evaluated suggest grading the slope. In our opinion we need to make
the town aware of this issue, but we would not use a lack of proposed grading as a means to delay short
term toe revetment installation. Without doing anything the bank will likely fail. By installing the toe
revetment the failure may be delayed long enough to develop a long term solution.
In addition to the toe stabilization we recommend that “run-on” to this slope from roadway and lawn
drainage and irrigation water be avoided. As the soils at the top of slope become saturated, weight is
added to the bank, increasing the instability.
Emergency Preparedness
In a letter to the town dated September 24, 2013 we recommended that emergency planning measures be
developed to address emergency access and water and sewer service the Baxter Road in the event that
failure occurs. To that end, we suggest the town develop a written action plan to provide physical access,
water and sewer facilities to the dwellings on Baxter Road in the event of a failure of one or more of those
town-owned facilities. In addition to having a written plan, with buy-in from appropriate emergency and
other staff, securing the necessary permissions and/or materials which may be necessary to respond in an
emergency situation would obviously improve response time. We understand the town has initiated this
process.
SHEET NAMEDATEPROJECT NO.DESIGNEDRSDSCALEDRAWNSWCHECKED---SEPT. 27, 20132967-111" = 100'SHEET NO.1 OF 6DESCRIPTIONBYDATE0'50' 100'0 1/2" 1"One Financial Plaza1350 Main Street, Suite 1012Springfield, Massachusetts 01103(413) 241-6920 Fax (413) 241-6911www.miloneandmacbroom.comPLAN VIEW - SLOPE STABILIZATION ALTERNATIVESNANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTSBAXTER ROADSLOPE STABILIZATION
SHEET NAMEDATEMATRIXPROJECT NO.DESIGNEDRSDSCALEDRAWNSWCHECKED---SEPT. 27, 20132967-11N.T.S.TYPICAL CROSS SECTION - SLOPE STABILIZATION
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS
BAXTER ROAD
SLOPE STABILIZATIONSHEET NO.2 OF 6DESCRIPTION BYDATE
One Financial Plaza
1350 Main Street, Suite 1012
Springfield, Massachusetts 01103
(413) 241-6920 Fax (413) 241-6911
www.miloneandmacbroom.com
SHEET NAMEDATEALT 1PROJECT NO.DESIGNEDRSDSCALEDRAWNSWCHECKED---SEPT. 27, 20132967-111" = 10'TYPICAL CROSS SECTION - SLOPE STABILIZATION - ALTERNATIVE 1
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS
BAXTER ROAD
SLOPE STABILIZATIONSHEET NO.3 OF 6DESCRIPTION BYDATE
One Financial Plaza
1350 Main Street, Suite 1012
Springfield, Massachusetts 01103
(413) 241-6920 Fax (413) 241-6911
www.miloneandmacbroom.com
SHEET NAMEDATEALT 2PROJECT NO.DESIGNEDRSDSCALEDRAWNSWCHECKED---SEPT. 27, 20132967-111" = 10'TYPICAL CROSS SECTION - SLOPE STABILIZATION - ALTERNATIVE 2
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS
BAXTER ROAD
SLOPE STABILIZATIONSHEET NO.4 OF 6DESCRIPTION BYDATE
One Financial Plaza
1350 Main Street, Suite 1012
Springfield, Massachusetts 01103
(413) 241-6920 Fax (413) 241-6911
www.miloneandmacbroom.com
SHEET NAMEDATEALT 3PROJECT NO.DESIGNEDRSDSCALEDRAWNSWCHECKED---SEPT. 27, 20132967-111" = 10'TYPICAL CROSS SECTION - SLOPE STABILIZATION - ALTERNATIVE 3
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS
BAXTER ROAD
SLOPE STABILIZATIONSHEET NO.5 OF 6DESCRIPTION BYDATE
One Financial Plaza
1350 Main Street, Suite 1012
Springfield, Massachusetts 01103
(413) 241-6920 Fax (413) 241-6911
www.miloneandmacbroom.com
SHEET NAMEDATEALT 4PROJECT NO.DESIGNEDRSDSCALEDRAWNSWCHECKED---SEPT. 27, 20132967-111" = 10'TYPICAL CROSS SECTION - SLOPE STABILIZATION - ALTERNATIVE 4
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS
BAXTER ROAD
SLOPE STABILIZATIONSHEET NO.6 OF 6DESCRIPTION BYDATE
One Financial Plaza
1350 Main Street, Suite 1012
Springfield, Massachusetts 01103
(413) 241-6920 Fax (413) 241-6911
www.miloneandmacbroom.com
Attachment B
Boring Logs
30
30
25
75
65
40
35
45
35
30
20
5
35
30
5
10
15
35
25
25
25
20
20
10
10
60
60
65
50
Medium dense mottled gray to light brown clayey SAND (SC) to silty
SAND (ML), mps 0.5 in., no structure, no odor, wet
70.58.5
62.017.0
Loose brown poorly graded SAND (SP), intermixed with brown sandy
ORGANIC SOIL (OL/OH), mps < 1 mm, no structure, no odor, dry
-AEOLIAN/ORGANIC DEPOSITS-
Medium dense dark brown (organic), silty SAND (SM), mps < 1 mm,
no structure, no odor, moist
Similar to above, except very dense
-ORGANIC DEPOSITS-
S3: Very dense dark orange brown, poorly graded SAND with silt
(SP-SM), mps 0.5 in., no structure, no odor, moist
NOTE: Similar material observed extremely well bonded in-situ in
excavation adjacent to borehole.
-GLACIAL TILL-
S3A: Very dense brown poorly graded SAND (SP), mps < 1 mm, no
structure, no odor, dry
S4: Very dense gray brown poorly graded SAND (SP), mps < 1 mm,
no structure, no odor, dry
-GLACIOFLUVIAL DEPOSITS-
Very dense light gray silty SAND (SM), intermixed with layers of
poorly graded SAND (SP), mps 0.5 in., weakly bonded in-situ, moist
76.52.5
Similar to above
Dense light brown to gray poorly graded SAND (SP), mps 0.75 in.,
well developed stratification, moist
Similar to above, except mps 1.5 in.
-GLACIOFLUVIAL DEPOSITS-
Similar to above with occasional oxidized seams of well graded SAND
(SW)
SP/
OL-
OW
SM
SP-
SM
SP
Dense gray silty SAND (SM), mps 0.75 in., no structure, no odor, wet
-GLACIAL TILL-
10
40
45
45
10
5
25
25
25
74.05.0
5
5
45
11
16
3
4
6
8
9
100/5
52
55
63
48
38
36
37
38
17
20
25
24
18
17
21
16
13
20
36
42
10
11
9
10
12
15
24
27
5
11
16
32
22
0.0
1.0
2.0
2.9
4.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
8.0
9.0
11.0
11.0
13.0
13.0
15.0
15.0
17.0
17.0
19.0
21.0
23.0
19.0
21.0
10
5
10
5
5
5
10
10
5
SM
5
S10
15
S1
9,10
S2
6
S38
S3A
10
S4
17
S5
15
S6
15
S7
17
S9
16
10
S1117
S816
SCONSET BEACH PRESERVATION FUND C/O NETCO
Cutting Head
O - Open End Rod
T - Thin Wall Tube
U - Undisturbed Sample
S - Split Spoon Sample
3 1/4
-
Project
Client
Contractor
TERRACE INSTALLATION FAILURE STUDY NANTUCKET, MA
Sample ID
H&A-TEST BORING-07-1 COPY OF HA-LIB07-1_MDD.GLB HA-TB+CORE+WELL-07-1.GDT G:\26694\001\FIELD DATA\2007 0925_26694-001TB.GPJ Sep 28, 07TEST BORING REPORT
SampleDepth (ft)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.GEOLOGIC, INC.
1 3/8
SP
Rig Make & Model:
Grout
Screen
Well Diagram
Acker Scout Track
0900
Sheet No.
July 27, 2007
of Hole
HSA
30
79.0
-
of Casing
Bottom
Cat-Head Doughnut Hammer
Time
Water Level Data
Note: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.% CoarseGravel Sand Field Test
% Fine% Coarse% Medium% FineDilatancyToughnessPlasticityStrengthField Test
StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)VISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(Density/consistency, color, GROUP NAME, max. particle size*,structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)USCS Symbol% Fines0
5
10
15
20 Sample No.& Rec. (in.)Depth (ft)Well DiagramB1(OW)D/S
MLW
9.0
File No.
67.0
9.0
See PlanLocation
26694-001
Time (hr.)
7/27/07
Inside Diameter (in.)None
Boring No.
Driller
Summary
--
SM
SC/
ML
SP
SP
SP-
SW
Field Tests:
Elapsed Riser Pipe
Start
Bit Type:S H&A Rep.
Plasticity: N - Nonplastic L - Low M - Medium H - HighDry Strength: N - None L - Low M - Medium H - High V - Very High
1
Elevation
Casing
Datum
Type
Barrel
Water
Concrete
Hammer Fall (in.)
Bentonite Seal
FinishDrilling Equipment and Procedures
D. Warren
Casing:
PID Make & Model:
Hoist/Hammer:
--
11.0
Depth (ft) to:
Sampler
Overburden (ft)
Rock Cored (ft)
of
July 27, 2007
3
Drill Mud:
Hammer Weight (lb)-140
C. O'Donnel
Boring No.
Date
HSA Spun to 65.0 ft
Filter Sand
Dilatancy: R - Rapid S - Slow N - None
Toughness: L - Low M - Medium H - High
*Note: Maximum particle size is determined by direct observation within the limitations of sampler size.
Cuttings
B1(OW)D/S
Samples S24
SM-
SP
Bottom
S1517
5
5
5
S2116
S2014
S19
17
S18
15
S17
18
25
35
23.0
25.0
30
60
55
55
65
60
5
60
S1418
60
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
60S16
18
16
26
36
28
16
18
26
28
50.0
52.0
45.0
47.0
40.0
42.0
37.0
39.0
35.0
37.0
32.0
34.0
30.0
32.0
27.0
29.0
25.0
27.0
S13
17
S12
15
18
14
30
16
20
24
32
20
20
22
26
20
26
27
33
58
40
38
51
12
20
27
36
22
42
41
52
13
22
28
33
24
23
33
41 Well DiagramSample No.& Rec. (in.)25
30
35
40
45
50Depth (ft)60 % FinesUSCS SymbolVISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(Density/consistency, color, GROUP NAME, max. particle size*,
structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)Field Test
StrengthPlasticityToughnessDilatancy% Fine% Medium% Coarse% FineField TestSandGravel
SampleDepth (ft)% CoarseVery dense light brown poorly graded SAND (SP), mps 0.5 in., no
structure, no odor, dry, trace shell fragments
-MARINE DEPOSITS-
SP-
SM
SP
SP
SP
Similar to above
Similar to above, except dense with trace shell fragments
Similar to above, except mps 0.25 in.
Similar to above, except very dense
Similar to above, except dense
Similar to above except mps 0.5 in.Sampler Blowsper 6 in.Very dense light gray brown poorly graded SAND (SP), mps 0.5 in.,
well developed stratification, dry
SP
Very dense light gray brown poorly graded SAND (SP), mps 0.75 in.,
well developed stratification, dry
-GLACIOFLUVIAL DEPOSITS-54.025.0
5
30
40
40
30
30
Very dense light gray brown poorly graded SAND (SP) with silt, mps
1.0 in., well developed stratification, dry, occasional irregular oxidized
pockets
Boring No.TEST BORING REPORT
H&A-TEST BORING-07-1 COPY OF HA-LIB07-1_MDD.GLB HA-TB+CORE+WELL-07-1.GDT G:\26694\001\FIELD DATA\2007 0925_26694-001TB.GPJ Sep 28, 0726694-001
B1(OW)D/S
B1(OW)D/SBoring No.
SP
File No.
SP
NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
of 3Sheet No.
SP
SP
SP
2
15
5Similar to above except very dense with frequent very thin oxidized
lenses and occasional thin laminae of gray sandy SILT (ML)
-MARINE DEPOSITS-
40
Very dense light gray brown poorly graded SAND (SP), interbedded
with seams (1.0 to 2.0 in.) of well graded SAND (SW), mps 0.5 in.,
well developed stratification dry, trace shell fragments
50
45
3
30
55.0
57.0
Boring No.
NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
of 3
12.067.0
10
SP
SP-
SW
SP
BOTTOM OF EXPLORATION AT 67.0 FT
NOTE: 1.0 in diameter observation wells installed at 67.0 ft and 18.0 ft
in single borehole upon completion.
Very dense light gray brown poorly graded SAND (SP), mps 0.25 in.,
weakly stratified, no odor, dry, trace shell fragments with occasional
irregular oxidized pockets and seams
Sheet No.
31
48
56
71
25
38
44
53
65.0
67.0
60.0
62.0
28
50
64
72
5
Boring No.
S2418
S23
19
S22
18
Field TestSandGravel
% Coarse% MediumFile No.StrengthUSCS SymbolVISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(Density/consistency, color, GROUP NAME, max. particle size*,
structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)% FinePlasticityToughness% CoarseDilatancy% Fines% FineField Test
TEST BORING REPORT
Sampler Blowsper 6 in.SampleDepth (ft)55
60
65
H&A-TEST BORING-07-1 COPY OF HA-LIB07-1_MDD.GLB HA-TB+CORE+WELL-07-1.GDT G:\26694\001\FIELD DATA\2007 0925_26694-001TB.GPJ Sep 28, 0726694-001
B1(OW)D/S
B1(OW)D/SWell DiagramDepth (ft)Sample No.& Rec. (in.)
1.0
3.0
50
20
40
45
30
45
45
50
60
30 70
25
5
50
45
35
35
20
35
5
20
25
25
25
55
65
SP
Dense brown silty SAND (SM), interbedded with layers of poorly graded
SAND (SP), mps 0.5 in., no structure, no odor, moist
Very dense brown silty SAND (SM), interbedded with light gray poorly
graded SAND (SP), mps 0.5 in., no structure (SM), stratified (SP), no odor,
moist
Very dense brown poorly graded SAND with silt (SP-SM), interbedded with
occasional layers (less than 4.0 in.) of brown well bonded silty SAND (SM),
mps 0.5 in., weakly stratified, dry
NOTE: Drill action indicates cobbles at 18.0 ft.
Very dense light brown to light gray poorly graded SAND (SP), mps 0.5 in.,
stratified, no odor, dry
OL/
OH
20
SP
Very dense brown silty SAND (SM) to sandy SILT (ML), mps 0.75 in.,
moderately bonded in-situ, moist
NOTE: Drill action indicates cobbles at 7.0 ft.
CH/SP-
SM
SM-
ML
SM
SM-
SP
SM-
SP
SM-
SP
SP-
SM/SM
SP
SM
78.51.5
30
Similar to above except very dense interbedded with layers of orange
brown to gray poorly graded SAND (SP)
Dense brown silty SAND (SM), mps 0.75 in., moderately bonded in-situ,
moist
-GLACIAL TILL-
77.03.0
74.06.0
60.519.5
NOTE: Hand excavated.
S1, Top 6.0 in.: Very soft brown sandy ORGANIC SOIL (OL/OH), mps < 1
mm, no structure, no odor, moist
-GRASS MAT/TOPSOIL/FILL-
Loose orange brown silty SAND (SM) mps < 1 mm, no structure, no odor,
moist
-AEOLIAN DEPOSITS-
Medium dense orange brown to light brown poorly graded SAND (SP), mps
< 1 mm, no structure, no odor, moist
Similar to above
-UPPER GLACIOFLUVIAL DEPOSITS-
Hard mottled orange brown to gray brown fat CLAY (CH), interbedded with
irregular seams and layers of gray brown poorly graded SAND with silt (SP-
SM), mps 0.5 in., weakly stratified, no odor, moist
15
6
7
22
34
45
27
23
26
15
24
25
26
18
24
28
24
15
19
21
22
17
26
29
25
22
27
28
26
14
27
34
47
S2
18
20
3.0
5.0
5.0
7.0
7.0
7.1
9.0
9.0
11.0
11.0
13.0
13.0
15.0
15.0
17.0
17.0
19.0
20.0
22.0
5
7
8
8
1
1
4
5
S3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
S1
20
5
10
5
5
5
5
15
Elevation
5S3A14
S4
20
S518
S6
17
S7
20
S819
S9
18
S10
19
10
10
5
50
Client
Contractor GEOLOGIC, INC.
TERRACE INSTALLATION FAILURE STUDY NANTUCKET, MA
SCONSET BEACH PRESERVATION FUND C/O NETCO
H&A-TEST BORING-07-1 COPY OF HA-LIB07-1_MDD.GLB HA-TB+CORE+WELL-07-1.GDT G:\26694\001\FIELD DATA\2007 0925_26694-001TB.GPJ Sep 28, 07TEST BORING REPORT
Sample No.& Rec. (in.)3 1/4
SampleDepth (ft)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.Depth (ft)0
5
10
15
20
July 26, 2007
Water Level Data
30
1 3/8
-
of Casing
Bottom
Cat-Head Doughnut Hammer
Project
Time
-
Note: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Sample ID
80.0
HSA Cutting Head
O - Open End Rod
T - Thin Wall Tube
U - Undisturbed Sample
S - Split Spoon Sample ToughnessSand Field Test
% Fine% Coarse% Medium% Fine% Fines% CoarsePlasticityStrengthField Test
StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)VISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(Density/consistency, color, GROUP NAME, max. particle size*,structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)USCS SymbolDilatancyGravel
Sheet No.
Location
B2
Time (hr.)
Inside Diameter (in.)None
Boring No.
Date
Summary
File No.
Field Tests:
3
Drill Mud:
Hammer Weight (lb)-140
C. O'Donnel
of Hole
Driller
Plasticity: N - Nonplastic L - Low M - Medium H - HighDry Strength: N - None L - Low M - Medium H - High V - Very High
--
Elapsed Riser Pipe
Start
Bit Type:S H&A Rep.
74.0
1
26694-001
See Plan
MLW
Overburden (ft)
Drilling Equipment and Procedures
July 26, 2007
D. Warren
Casing
Casing:
PID Make & Model:
Hoist/Hammer:
--
Depth (ft) to:
Boring No.
Sampler
Hammer Fall (in.)
Rock Cored (ft)
of
Rig Make & Model:
Grout
Screen
Well Diagram
Acker
S22
HSA Spun to 70.0 ft
Bottom
Filter Sand
Dilatancy: R - Rapid S - Slow N - None
Toughness: L - Low M - Medium H - High
*Note: Maximum particle size is determined by direct observation within the limitations of sampler size.
Cuttings
Finish
Samples
Bentonite Seal
Datum
Type
Barrel
Water
Concrete
B2
5
5
5
10
5
5
S1618
5
22.0
24.0
65
Very dense light gray brown poorly graded SAND (SP), mps 1.0 in., well
developed stratification, dry
Similar to above, except dense, mps < 1 mm
-GLACIOFLUVIAL DEPOSITS-
Similar to above
5
25
35
25
25
205
30
5
60
65
60
65
50
60
5
5
S15
20
50
32
40
43
41
S1716
16
26
4650
50.0
52.0
45.0
47.0
40.0
42.0
35.0
37.0
30.0
32.0
25.0
27.0
S14
19
S1317
S12
18
S1118
12
24
24
24
10
25
42
52
14
18
16
15
20
33
50
59
20
34
40
48
Similar to above with occasional thin seams (less than 1.0 in) of well
graded SAND (SW)
Similar to above, except mps 0.75 in.
Field Test
% CoarseUSCS SymbolVISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(Density/consistency, color, GROUP NAME, max. particle size*,
structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)Field Test
StrengthGravel
ToughnessSand
Dilatancy% Fines% Fine% Medium% Coarse% FinePlasticityB2Boring No.
2
File No.
Boring No.
NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
of
B2
Sheet No.26694-001
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
Dense light gray brown poorly graded SAND (SP), mps 3/8 in., well
developed stratification, dry
3
Sampler Blowsper 6 in.Similar to above
NOTE: Drill action indicates coarse gravel/cobbles at 43.0 ft (possible
ventifacts)Sample No.& Rec. (in.)25
30
35
40
45
50 SampleDepth (ft)TEST BORING REPORT
H&A-TEST BORING-07-1 COPY OF HA-LIB07-1_MDD.GLB HA-TB+CORE+WELL-07-1.GDT G:\26694\001\FIELD DATA\2007 0925_26694-001TB.GPJ Sep 28, 07Depth (ft)
SP
60
65
25
25
65
40
10
5
10
5
5
5
5
60
5
55.0
57.0
BOTTOM OF EXPLORATION AT 73.7 FT
Similar to above, except mps 1.0 in.
Similar to S19
Similar to above, interbedded with frequent thin laminae and seams of
brown sandy SILT (ML) and light gray lean CLAY (CL), one seam of brown
well graded SAND with gravel (SW) at approximately 66.3 to 66.5 ft, mps
0.5 in.
Very dense light gray brown poorly graded SAND (SP), mps 1.5 in.,
stratified, no odor, dry
Similar to above, except mps 0.25 in.
-GLACIOFLUVIAL DEPOSITS-
30
5
5
20
20
20
6.373.7
59
68
85
50/2
16
36
53
75
25
24
38
72
27
37
51
74
10
20
30
34
5
72.0
73.7
70.0
72.0
65.0
67.0
60.0
62.0
S2116
SP/
ML/
SW/
CL
S22
15
S2020
S19
17
S18
20
5
SP
Gravel Field Test
ToughnessUSCS SymbolVISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(Density/consistency, color, GROUP NAME, max. particle size*,
structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)Field TestSand
Plasticity% CoarseDilatancy% Fines% Fine% Medium% Coarse% FineStrengthNOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.H&A-TEST BORING-07-1 COPY OF HA-LIB07-1_MDD.GLB HA-TB+CORE+WELL-07-1.GDT G:\26694\001\FIELD DATA\2007 0925_26694-001TB.GPJ Sep 28, 0726694-001
B2
B2Boring No.
3
Boring No.
of 3Sheet No.
SP
SP
File No.
55
60
65
70 Sample No.& Rec. (in.)TEST BORING REPORT
Depth (ft)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.SampleDepth (ft)
25
25
65
25
40
30
30
30
50
20
30
10
45
35
35
35
30
60
1.0
3.0
35
65
5
25
25
25
40
65
65
60SP
SP-
SM
SP
SP
SM/
ML
SM/
ML-
SP
SM/
ML-
SP
ML
SP
Similar to above, except light brown to gray interbedded with occasional
seams of well graded SAND (SW), mps 0.5 in., stratified, no odor, dry
SP
SP-
SW
Elevation
--
Elapsed Riser Pipe
SP
Medium dense orange brown poorly graded SAND with silt (SP-SM), mps
0.25 in., no structure, no odor, dry
-AEOLIAN DEPOSITS-
5
77.03.0
73.07.0
NOTE: Hand excavated.
Medium dense light brown poorly graded SAND (SP), mps < 1 mm, no
structure, no odor, dry
Similar to above, except brown, mps 0.5 in.
-UPPER GLACIOFLUVIAL DEPOSITS-
Very dense brown sandy SILT (ML), to silty SAND (SM), mps 0.25 in.,
weakly bonded, stratified, no odor, moist
Similar to above, interbedded with frequent seams of light brown to gray
poorly graded SAND (SP)
-GLACIAL TILL-
Similar to above, except dense
Similar to S4
Medium dense light brown poorly graded SAND (SP), mps 0.25 in., no
structure, no odor, dry
Similar to above, except very dense, mps 1.5 in.
-GLACIOFLUVIAL DEPOSITS-
Similar to above, except dense, except mps < 1 mm
Very dense light brown poorly graded SAND (SP), mps 0.25 in., stratified,
no odor, dry
66.014.0
6
6
5
7
7
8
8
9
21
27
31
32
25
26
21
23
21
27
25
22
11
12
12
10
21
27
38
42
29
22
24
27
60
21
27
14
25
26
23
3.0
5.0
5.0
7.0
7.0
9.0
9.0
11.0
11.0
13.0
13.0
14.0
14.0
15.0
15.0
17.0
17.0
19.0
5
5
7
6
21.0
23.0
S1
17
19.0
21.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10S1115
S2
15
S3
12
S414
S517
S6
16
S7
12
S7A9
S810
5
S10
16
S9
17
SCONSET BEACH PRESERVATION FUND C/O NETCO
H&A-TEST BORING-07-1 COPY OF HA-LIB07-1_MDD.GLB HA-TB+CORE+WELL-07-1.GDT G:\26694\001\FIELD DATA\2007 0925_26694-001TB.GPJ Sep 28, 07TEST BORING REPORT
SampleDepth (ft)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.Contractor
Depth (ft)0
5
10
15
20 Sample No.& Rec. (in.)HSA
-
of Casing
Bottom
Cat-Head Doughnut Hammer
Time
Water Level Data
Note: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
TERRACE INSTALLATION FAILURE STUDY NANTUCKET, MA
80.0
GEOLOGIC, INC.
Cutting Head
O - Open End Rod
T - Thin Wall Tube
U - Undisturbed Sample
S - Split Spoon Sample
3 1/4
-
Project
Client
Sample ID ToughnessField Test
% Fine% Coarse% Medium% Fine% FinesSand
% CoarseGravel
PlasticityStrengthField Test
StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)VISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(Density/consistency, color, GROUP NAME, max. particle size*,structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)USCS SymbolDilatancy30
Hammer Weight (lb)
None
Boring No.
Driller
Summary
Field Tests:
3
Drill Mud:Inside Diameter (in.)
-140
C. O'Donnel
Boring No.
Date
HSA Spun to 65.0 ft
Bottom
Filter Sand
Bit Type:S H&A Rep.
Plasticity: N - Nonplastic L - Low M - Medium H - HighDry Strength: N - None L - Low M - Medium H - High V - Very High
1
26694-001
See Plan
MLW
Dilatancy: R - Rapid S - Slow N - None
Toughness: L - Low M - Medium H - High
File No.
67.0
Location
B3
Time (hr.)
Hoist/Hammer:
--
Depth (ft) to:
Sampler
Overburden (ft)
Rock Cored (ft)
of
Casing:
Casing
Rig Make & Model:
Grout
Screen
Well Diagram
Acker Scout Track
Sheet No.
July 24, 2007
of Hole
Start
Type
*Note: Maximum particle size is determined by direct observation within the limitations of sampler size.
Cuttings
B3
Samples S31
PID Make & Model:
Datum1 3/8
Barrel
Water
Concrete
Hammer Fall (in.)
Bentonite Seal
FinishDrilling Equipment and Procedures
July 24, 2007
D. Warren
35
5
5
S2416
S16
18
S1720
S1815
S19
18
S20
20
S2120
S23
19
S2520
S26
18
S2717
5
S22
17
65
5
45
50
60
65
55
45
55
50
55
23.0
25.0
65
5
S13
16
5
5
10
10
5
60
5
5
5
5
65
60
45
5
14
22
24
32
S15
20
41.0
43.0
25.0
27.0
27.0
29.0
29.0
31.0
31.0
33.0
33.0
35.0
35.0
37.0
39.0
41.0
13
19
23
22
43.0
45.0
45.0
47.0
47.0
49.0
49.0
51.0
51.0
53.0
53.0
55.0
37.0
39.0
27
32
S12
18
50
23
39
48
45
13
16
29
27
17
23
24
32
25
33
34
36
13
18
26
28
21
22
26
26
34
32
33
39
46
51
55
47
S1415
16
41
45
46
25
40
29
30
32
50
44
73
55
55
40
37
18
25
36
24
26
25
32
35Sample No.& Rec. (in.)Depth (ft)TEST BORING REPORT
SampleDepth (ft)25
30
35
40
45
50 Sampler Blowsper 6 in.Field Test
% FinesDilatancy% CoarseToughnessPlasticity% Medium% CoarseStratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)VISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(Density/consistency, color, GROUP NAME, max. particle size*,
structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)USCS SymbolStrengthGravel
% FineSand Field Test
% FineSimilar to above with well developed stratification and occasional thin
seams of well graded SAND (SW)
Similar to above, except light gray
-MARINE DEPOSITS
Dense light gray poorly graded SAND (SP), mps 0.25 in., stratified, no odor,
dry, occasional irregular oxidized pockets (less than 1.0 in.)
Dense light gray brown poorly graded SAND (SP), 1 mm, stratified, no
odor, dry, one piece decomposed coarse gravel in spoon tip
Dense light gray brown poorly graded SAND (SP), mps 0.25 in., weakly
stratified, no odor, wet
Similar to above, except very dense
Similar to above, except dense
-GLACIOFLUVIAL DEPOSITS-
27.053.0
Similar to above, except very dense
Similar to above, except mps 0.75 in.
Similar to above, except mps 0.25 in.
Similar to above
Similar to above
Similar to above
Similar to above
30
45
50
35
50
40
25
Similar to above, except dense with no well graded seams, frequent thin
oxidized laminae
40
40
30
40
30
2
Similar to above
Sheet No.3of
NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
File No.
SP
Boring No.B3
B3
26694-001
Boring No.
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
H&A-TEST BORING-07-1 COPY OF HA-LIB07-1_MDD.GLB HA-TB+CORE+WELL-07-1.GDT G:\26694\001\FIELD DATA\2007 0925_26694-001TB.GPJ Sep 28, 07SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
45
55
40
55.0
57.0
Similar to above
50
40
55
60 30
SP
NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
of 3Sheet No.
SP
13.067.0
SP
BOTTOM OF EXPLORATION AT 67.0 FT
Similar to above with occasional thin oxidized seams
Very dense light gray poorly graded SAND (SP), mps 0.25 in., weakly
stratified, no odor, dry
Similar to above
-MARINE DEPOSITS-
5
SP 525
42
56
46
24
35
56
65
60
62
54
60
32
33
22
24
37
65.0
67.0
60.0
62.0
57.0
59.0
3
10
5
S3120
S30
18
S29
15
S2816
SandGravel
% FineBoring No.PlasticityUSCS SymbolVISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(Density/consistency, color, GROUP NAME, max. particle size*,
structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)Field TestField Test
StrengthToughness% CoarseDilatancy% Fines% Fine% Medium% CoarseH&A-TEST BORING-07-1 COPY OF HA-LIB07-1_MDD.GLB HA-TB+CORE+WELL-07-1.GDT G:\26694\001\FIELD DATA\2007 0925_26694-001TB.GPJ Sep 28, 07Sampler Blowsper 6 in.SampleDepth (ft)Depth (ft)26694-001
B3
B3Boring No.
TEST BORING REPORT File No.Sample No.& Rec. (in.)55
60
65
30
1565
30
25
80
40
35
30
25
30
25
70
35
SP
2540
55
65
5
55
65
20
60
20
Loose brown sandy SILT to silty SAND with gravel (ML/SM), mps 0.5 in.,
weakly bonded stratified, no odor, moist
-GLACIAL TILL (FLOW TILL)-
67.015.066.515.5
NOTE: Hand excavated.
-GRASS MAT/TOPSOIL/FILL-
Loose orange brown silty SAND (SM), mps < 1 mm, no structure, no odor,
moist
-AEOLIAN DEPOSITS-
Medium dense light brown to brown poorly graded SAND (SP), mps 0.25
in., weakly stratified, no odor, dry
-UPPER GLACIOFLUVIAL DEPOSITS-
Top 10.0 in., dense brown poorly graded SAND (SP), mps 0.75 in., no
structure, no odor, dry
Bottom 10.0 in., dense brown silty SAND (SM) mps < 1 mm, no structure,
no odor, moist
Dense brown poorly graded SAND (SP), mps 0.25 in., no structure, no
odor, dry
Dense brown silty SAND (SM), trace fine gravel, weakly bonded in-situ, no
odor, moist, mps 0.75 in.
Dense brown, poorly graded SAND (SP), mps 0.25 in., no structure, no
odor, dry with one layer brown sandy SILT (ML), similar to S4A from
approximately 9.5 to 10.0 ft
-GLACIAL TILL-
74.08.0
Medium dense light gray poorly graded SAND (SP), mps 0.25 in., weakly
stratified with occasional irregular oxidized seams, no odor, dry
-GLACIOFLUVIAL DEPOSITS-
79.52.5
Medium dense light gray brown poorly graded SAND (SP), mps 1.0 in., no
structure, no odor, dry
Similar to above, except mps 0.75 in.
-GLACIOFLUVIAL DEPOSITS-
Very dense brown poorly graded SAND (SP), mps 1.5 in., no structure, no
odor, dry
NOTE: Poor recovery, spoon pushing coarse gravel.
Dense light brown to gray brown poorly graded SAND (SP), mps 0.25 in.,
weakly stratified, no structure, no odor, dry
1.0
3.0
Dense light gray brown poorly graded SAND (SP), interbedded with
occasional seams of brown poorly graded SAND with silt (SP-SM), mps
0.25 in., weakly stratified, occasional oxidized seams, dry
50
25
10
50
71.011.0
60
5
5
81.01.0
522
26
21
24
26
20
16
20
21
15
12
13
15
16
7
8
19
21
7
8
19
21
20
46
5132
24
23
7
15
16
18
4
5
9
10
S1
18
S2
16
S3
20
3.0
5.0
5.0
7.0
7.0
8.0
8.0
9.0
9.0
11.0
11.0
13.0
13.0
15.0
15.0
17.0
15.5
17.0
17.0
19.0
19.0
21.0
18
20
S518
1
1
4
5
21.0
23.0
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
S49
5
5
5
5
20
65
SP
5
55
S6
20
S7
14
S86S8A
12
S9
15
S10
6
S1116
5
5
5
15
5
S4A9
3 1/4
-
Project
Client
Contractor GEOLOGIC, INC.
TERRACE INSTALLATION FAILURE STUDY NANTUCKET, MA
SCONSET BEACH PRESERVATION FUND C/O NETCO
H&A-TEST BORING-07-1 COPY OF HA-LIB07-1_MDD.GLB HA-TB+CORE+WELL-07-1.GDT G:\26694\001\FIELD DATA\2007 0925_26694-001TB.GPJ Sep 28, 07U - Undisturbed Sample
TEST BORING REPORT
T - Thin Wall TubeSampleDepth (ft)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.Depth (ft)0
5
10
15
20
SM
of Casing
Grout
Screen
Well Diagram
Acker Scout Track
Sheet No.
July 25, 2007
of Hole
30
1 3/8
S - Split Spoon SampleSample No.& Rec. (in.)Bottom
Cat-Head Doughnut Hammer
Time
Water Level Data
Note: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Sample ID
82.0
HSA Roller Bit
O - Open End Rod
-% CoarseGravel Sand Field Test
% Fine% Coarse% Medium% FineDilatancyToughnessPlasticityStrengthField Test
StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)VISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(Density/consistency, color, GROUP NAME, max. particle size*,structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)USCS Symbol% Fines74.0
Rig Make & Model:H&A Rep.
Plasticity: N - Nonplastic L - Low M - Medium H - HighDry Strength: N - None L - Low M - Medium H - High V - Very High
1
26694-001
See Plan
MLW
S
File No.
Bit Type:
Location
B4
Time (hr.)
Inside Diameter (in.)None
Boring No.
Driller
SP
SP
SM
SP/
ML
SP/
SP-
SM
SP
ML/
SM
SP
SP
SP
SP
Elevation
--
Elapsed Riser Pipe
Start
Casing:Datum
Type
Barrel
Water
Concrete
Hammer Fall (in.)
Bentonite Seal
FinishDrilling Equipment and Procedures
July 25, 2007
Summary
Casing
PID Make & Model:
Hoist/Hammer:
--
Depth (ft) to:
Sampler
Overburden (ft)
Rock Cored (ft)
of
D. Warren
Bottom
Field Tests:
3
Drill Mud:
Hammer Weight (lb)-140
C. O'Donnel
Boring No.
Date
HSA Spun to 70.0 ft
Filter Sand
Dilatancy: R - Rapid S - Slow N - None
Toughness: L - Low M - Medium H - High
*Note: Maximum particle size is determined by direct observation within the limitations of sampler size.
Cuttings
B4
Samples S26
23.0
25.0
5
5
5
S2118
S2018
S19
18
S18
20
S1718
S1616
S15
17
S14 55
35
50
40
40
35
35
65
55
65
65
60
5
55
S12
17
60
60
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
45
S134
22
32
30
31
50.0
52.0
45.0
47.0
40.0
42.0
37.0
39.0
35.0
37.0
33.0
35.0
31.0
33.0
29.0
31.0
27.0
29.0
25.0
27.0
35
23
25
14
15
20
23
20
31
36
39
26
36
41
45
17
34
30
32
38
53
42
58
18
18
22
42
19
18
25
26
8
12
19
21
16
33
20
19
40
42
50
48
NR
25 % FinesUSCS SymbolVISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(Density/consistency, color, GROUP NAME, max. particle size*,
structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)Field Test
StrengthPlasticityToughnessDilatancy% Fine% Medium% Coarse% FineField TestSandGravel
% CoarseSimilar to above, except mps 0.5 in.
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SPSample No.& Rec. (in.)Similar to above
Similar to above, except very dense with trace coarse gravel mps 1.5 in.
Similar to above
Similar to above with minor oxidation
Similar to above, except dense with highly oxidized layer from
approximately 32.0 to 32.5 ft
Very dense light gray brown poorly graded SAND (SP), mps 0.25 in., well
developed stratification, dry with occasional irregular oxidized pockets
Very dense brown poorly graded SAND (SP), mps 0.25 in., no structure, no
odor, moist
NOTE: Poor recovery, spoon pushing cobble/gravel.
NOTE: No recovery 25.0 to 27.0 ft.
Similar to above
-GLACIOFLUVIAL DEPOSITS-
5
25Similar to above
H&A-TEST BORING-07-1 COPY OF HA-LIB07-1_MDD.GLB HA-TB+CORE+WELL-07-1.GDT G:\26694\001\FIELD DATA\2007 0925_26694-001TB.GPJ Sep 28, 0725
30
35
40
45
50Depth (ft)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.SampleDepth (ft)Sheet No.326694-001
B4
B4Boring No.
2
File No.
Boring No.
NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
of
25
TEST BORING REPORT
50
5
35 50
65
5
5
10
5 55.0
57.0
35
BOTTOM OF EXPLORATION AT 74.0 FT
Similar to above, except mps 1.5 in. with no stratification
-MARINE DEPOSITS-
Very dense light gray poorly graded SAND with silt (SP-SM), mps 0.75 in.,
weakly stratified, no odor, dry
Similar to above with frequent thin seams (less than 1.0 in.) of brown well
graded SAND (SW), mps 0.75 in.
Very dense light gray brown poorly graded SAND (SP), mps 0.75 in., well
developed stratification, no odor, dry
Similar to above
-GLACIOFLUVIAL DEPOSITS-
8.074.0
25
30
5 50
10
13.568.5
28
26
24
28
32
47
55
56
32
34
33
81
23
31
21
28
28
45
44
39
72.0
74.0
70.0
72.0
65.0
67.0
60.0
62.0
S26
18
10
5
S2521
S2419
S23
19
S22
16
SP/
SW
SP
Sand
% CoarseUSCS SymbolVISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
(Density/consistency, color, GROUP NAME, max. particle size*,
structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptionsGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)StratumChangeElev/Depth (ft)Field Test
StrengthGravel
ToughnessDilatancy% Fines% Fine% Medium% Coarse% FineField Test
Plasticityof26694-001
B4
B4Boring No.
3
File No.
NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
TEST BORING REPORT
3Sheet No.
SP
SP-
SM
Boring No.
55
60
65
70
SPSample No.& Rec. (in.)H&A-TEST BORING-07-1 COPY OF HA-LIB07-1_MDD.GLB HA-TB+CORE+WELL-07-1.GDT G:\26694\001\FIELD DATA\2007 0925_26694-001TB.GPJ Sep 28, 07Depth (ft)Sampler Blowsper 6 in.SampleDepth (ft)
Attachment C
Haley and Aldrich Memorandum Regarding Sheet Pile Installation (DRAFT)
MEMORANDUM
27 September 2013
File No. 26694-001
TO: Sconset Beach Preservation Fund
c/o Les Smith, Epsilon Associates
FROM: Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Mark X. Haley
SUBJECT: Evaluation of steel sheeting adjacent to Baxter Rd.
At your request, we have reviewed the proposed option for driving steel sheet piling at the edge of Baxter
Road. The purpose of the sheet pile wall would be to provide temporary protection for the utilities located
beneath Baxter Rd. from damage due to bank erosion. Although details of the proposal were not available
to us, we have made certain assumptions. These include the following:
• Depth of sheeting 45 to 50 ft. below Baxter Road grade, approximately one half
of slope height.
• Sheeting would be designed to cantilever about 20 ft. (Note: normal steel
sheeting can only cantilever to about a 20 ft. height without bracing. If the sheet
pile wall was required to retain a greater height of soil, bracing would be
required.)
• A ‘Z-type’ sheet would be used.
• Sheet piling would be vibrated into place not top driven. This method of
installation was selected to reduce vibrations during pile driving.
• That the sheeting can be driven through the dense near surface soils. (Note; the
soils in upper portion of the slope consist of dense glacial till that will be
difficult to advance a pile through.)
At first glance this proposal would appear to provide near surface soil retention adjacent to the road, but
upon further evaluation of the option, a number of issues may make this option detrimental to the overall
slope stability. These include the following:
• The sheeting line will create a joint or vertical plane at the edge of road, that may
result in a shear plane, resulting in slope instability.
• Disturbance of the soil on both sides of the sheeting will allow water to seep into
this zone and have the potential for weakening the soil and reducing slope
stability.
• Having evaluated this slope in 2007 and again in 2012, the erosion and slope
failure occurs from loss of ground at the toe of slope. The existing medium sand
stratum at the toe of slope is highly erodible and once eroded by wave action the
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
465 Medford St.
Suite 2200
Boston, MA 02129
Tel: 617.886.7400
Fax: 617.886.7600
HaleyAldrich.com
Sconset Beach Preservation Fund
27 September 2013
Page 2
slope becomes undermined causing slope failure of the soils above. This
proposed option does not address toe of slope instability.
• The steel sheeting would probably only extend about half the height of slope, and
could thus be undermined causing a significant global slope failure.
• The sheet pile line will prevent water flow towards the ocean, and water will
build up behind the sheeting thus increasing the hydrostatic pressures in the
slope, increasing the horizontal driving force and decreasing the stability of the
slope.
• Installation of the sheeting will cause vibrations and potential downward
movement of the soils along the slope face.
It is our opinion; that options to consider for slope stabilization on a temporary or permanent basis should
be focused at the existing toe of slope. Protecting the soils at the toe of slope from erosion will reduce the
undermining of the slope and slope instability. Based on recent surveys, summer 2013, the slope angles
in the area of Lots 99,101 and 105 are in the range of 31 to 40 degrees except near top of slope where the
slope is much steeper in the range of 56 to 68 degrees. Based on our slope evaluations in 2007 slope
angles less than about 40 degrees are stable but become unstable when the slope angle approaches 45
degrees especially in a rain event where water is added to the soil stratigraphy.
.
Attachment D
Sand Source Data and Analysis
1
GEO/PLAN ASSOCIATES 30 MANN STREET
HINGHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 02043-1316
Voice & Fax: (781) 740-1340
Email: GeoPlanAssoc@gmail.com
October 20, 2011
Epsilon Associates
P.O. Box 700
Maynard, Massachusetts 01754-0700
Attention: Mr. Les Smith
Re: Sediment Compatibility Analysis, Siasconset Beach
Dear Mr. Smith:
I performed size analyses of composite sediment samples from two sand pits from
Nantucket in October, 2011. The purpose of this letter is to evaluate the suitability of
these pit sediment sources as mitigation sediment for a segment of beach along
Siasconset Beach, Nantucket. The project area is within previously-identified sampling
sites designated as sediment sampling transects (Line 15 through Line 19). Extensive
sediment sampling of the area (beach, bank, dune) was performed in 2006 along these
lines and adjacent areas by Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc. Other grain size
data from this beach area is available from earlier sampling in 1998, 2001 and 2003.
Some of these samples I collected and analyzed.
The composite or mean sizes are compiled below for comparison. While the
methodologies for analysis are consistent, the reporting of the data, the lateral extent of
the sampling along Siasconset Beach, and the field sampling methods may vary. This
doesn’t affect the documentation of the sand characteristics, and that the resulting time-
series provides a measure of variability of the natural sands over time. These mean
sizes and other characteristics are compiled below.
2
A. Proposed Pit Sediment Sources:
Holdgate Partners Mean: 0.57 phi (coarse sand)
88% sand 12% gravel
(most gravel granules or finer; <4mm); mud (insignificant)
Myles Reis Pit Mean –0.07 phi (very coarse sand)
83% sand 17% gravel
(most gravel fine pebbles or finer; <8mm); mud (insignificant)
B. Natural Bank Sediments
2001: 2 phi, (medium - fine sand) includes 8% mud
2003: 1.8 phi (medium sand) includes 5.5% pebbles or granules
2006: 0.45 phi (coarse sand) includes minor fine pebbles/granules
The bank sediments vary between medium-fine sand to coarse sand, and contain
varying amounts of fine gravel and mud. Direct observation of this coastal bank has
shown that, although dominantly sand, there is frequently a mud and gravel component
and periodically mud layers and clay banks are part of the deposit. The fine or coarse
tails and the variation in sizes are typical for glacial outwash sediments in this setting.
C. Beach Sediments
1998: 1.5 phi (medium sand)
2001: 1.0 phi (medium – coarse sand)
2003: 0.9 phi (coarse sand)
2006: 0.7 phi (coarse sand) [Line 15 – Line 19]
The more recent 2006 samples are coarser than the earlier samples, either due to
natural variation in sand sizes over time, or any cyclic changes relating to energy.
Regardless of the cause, these four sampling intervals indicate that the natural
sediment on the beach is not coarser than the 0.7 phi 2006 samples.
3
D. Discussion
Compatible beach sediment is not sand that exactly matches the existing beach, but
rather sediment that is stable and can coexist with the naturally deposited sediment in
the coastal setting. If the compatibility of the sediment is evaluated relative to potential
stability on the beach (which is generally the case), compatible sediment is equal or
coarser than the existing sediment.
Both of the proposed source areas are also glacial outwash sediments. Both samples
have insignificant mud (<1%), which is a plus for compatibility, as mud is quickly lost,
and is the most common aesthetic and water turbidity objection. Both of the proposed
source areas are geologically the same material (outwash sediments) from the same
vicinity as the natural bank materials. Both samples contain gravel. While the gravel
does not match surface beach sediment samples, small gravel is a visible component
on these beaches and shallow nearshore. Importantly, both samples are coarse sand,
which has the greatest likelihood of remaining stable on the Siasconset Beach. While
the sizes are reported as means, there are ranges of sizes finer and coarser in all
samples. However, both the natural beach sediment and both potential pit sources have
very small amounts of sand finer that medium sand. This is the component of the sand
that is most likely to be quickly lost from the beach. Therefore, the wave sorting will
likely re-sort nourishment sand to have comparable sizes to existing conditions, or
coarser, so most of the source material will have as great a probability of remaining
within the adjacent beach system as the natural bank material.
Both source pits sediment samples are slightly coarser than both the natural bank and
the existing beach sediments. Much of the variation in mean size is due to the
differences in gravel content. The differences in gravel content, however, are not
significant. Grain size is measured by weight, which is affected by gravel greater than if
it were measured by volume, which is how sediment is specified for mitigation purposes.
Therefore, both proposed source pit sediments are beach-compatible sediments.
Please feel free to contact me if there are further questions concerning the evaluation of
these sand samples.
Yours truly,
Peter S. Rosen, Ph. D.