HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019 Sand Compatability Sieve AnalysisSconset Bluff Sediment Analysis Tracking (2019 Sand Sources)
Phi ASTM Phi Range (Wentworth)
94% Sand
6% coarse 0.5-1.0
60% medium 1.0-2.0
28% fine sand 2.0+
South Shore Road 8-Aug-19 Peter Rosen 1.02 92% Sand Yes
17/19 Spearhead Road 26-Aug-19 Peter Rosen 0.89 92% Sand Yes
21 Derrymore Road 7-Sep-19 Peter Rosen 1.0 92% Sand Yes
77 Pocomo Road 16-Sep-19 Peter Rosen 1.03 96% Sand Yes
18 Greglan Road 12-Oct-19 Peter Rosen 0.78 94% Sand Yes
Sand Sample Textural Range (Phi) to date 0.78 - 1.05 Sand sources to date within range of on-site beach sediment texture
On-Site Sediments:
Beach Sediment Textural Range (1998 - 2006)0.7 - 1.5 Medium to Coarse Sand
Bank Sediment Textural Range (2001 - 2006)1.2 - 2.0 Medium Sand
Background Information:
On-Site Sediment Texture Year Phi Classification (Wentworth)Phi Scale Wentworth Classification
2001 2 -1 to 0 Very coarse sand
2003 1.8 0 to 1 Coarse sand
2006 1.2 1 to 2 Medium sand
1998 1.5 2 to 3 Fine sand
2001 1 3 to 4 Very fine sand
2003 0.9
2006 0.7
Compatable
Coastal Bank Sediments
Beach Sediments
Medium-Fine Sand
Medium Sand
Medium Sand
Medium Sand
Medium-Coarse Sand
Coarse Sand
Coarse Sand
Sheep Commons Lane Alpha Analytical Yes11-Jan-19
TextureSourceDateAnalyzed By
M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 03 SEPT 2019
To: J. Feeley, Cottage + Castle
From: D.R. Dunk
Subject: 17 Spearhead Road, Nantucket, MA – Seive Analyses from Geotech Boring Samples
In addition to the sieve analyses Dr. Peter Rosen performs for material collected at 5- and 10-foot depths,
McArdle Gannon Associates, Inc. also provided discrete sieve analyses for material collect at dept, some
17 – 20 feet deep at the same locations. There was no composite sample generated from this material,
there I present the average and median as a surrogate for a composite sample. Data from the discrete
locations are presented below in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of Sieve Analyses from Spearhead Road, Nantucket MA
Sample ID / Depth Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%) Total (%)
S-6 / 17’ – 19’ 3.6 75.2 21.2 100
S-8 / 22’ – 24’ 20.1 62.7 17.2 100
S-7 / 20’ – 22’ 3.9 79.3 16.8 100
S-8 (MGA 2) . 22’ – 24’ 12.6 74.6 12.8 100
S-6 (MGA 3) / 17’ – 19’ 11.2 76 12.8 100
S-9 / 25’ - 27’ 8.4 75.2 16.4 100
AVERAGE 9.97 73.83 16.20
MEDIAN 9.8 75.2 16.6
The material from depth, summarized above is primarily fine to coarse sand (73.8%), with the gravel
fraction (+10%) being primarily being fine to very fine gravel, with about 16% fines (very fine sand and
smaller). This material appears to be compatible with Sconset Beach beach sand. This deeper material
when mixed with the shallower materials, analyzed separately by Dr. Rosen and determined to be
compatible with Sconset Beach beach sand, to produce a site composite is likewise considered compatible
with the beach sand.
Encl. Particle Size Distribution Reports
11-21-2018
(no specification provided)
PL=LL=PI=
D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc=
USCS=AASHTO=
*
Olive, fine to medium SAND, some (-) Silt, trace fine Gravel.
3/4
1/2
#4#10
#20
#40
#60
#100#200
100.0
97.6
96.493.6
85.5
67.6
48.7
31.321.2
1.1786 0.8258 0.34030.2590 0.1426
Existing Fill
Water Content: 13.6%
Arrowhead, LLC
ACK Naturals
17 Spearhead Road, Nantucket, MA
W0736
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Source of Sample: MGA-1 Depth: 17 - 19'Sample Number: S-6 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.
*PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 3.6 2.8 26.0 46.4 21.26 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
11-21-2018
(no specification provided)
PL=LL=PI=
D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc=
USCS=AASHTO=
*
Olive, fine to medium SAND, some (-) fine to coarse Gravel,
little Silt, trace Brick.1.5
1
3/41/2
#4
#10
#20
#40#60
#100
#200
100.0
91.9
87.185.8
79.9
76.3
67.3
51.637.1
25.1
17.2
22.9882 9.9559 0.59510.4010 0.1890
Existing Fill
Water Content: 11.2%
Arrowhead, LLC
ACK Naturals
17 Spearhead Road, Nantucket, MA
W0736
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Source of Sample: MGA-1 Depth: 22 - 24'Sample Number: S-8 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.
*PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 12.9 7.2 3.6 24.7 34.4 17.26 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
11-21-2018
(no specification provided)
PL=LL=PI=
D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc=
USCS=AASHTO=
*
Olive-brown to tan, fine to medium SAND, little Silt, trace
fine Gravel, trace Brick.3/4
1/2
#4#10
#20
#40
#60
#100#200
100.0
98.3
96.192.9
80.9
56.9
38.3
24.816.8
1.4096 1.0162 0.46130.3525 0.1884
Existing Fill
Water Content: 9.6%
Arrowhead, LLC
ACK Naturals
17 Spearhead Road, Nantucket, MA
W0736
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Source of Sample: MGA-2 Depth: 20 - 22'Sample Number: S-7 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.
*PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 3.9 3.2 36.0 40.1 16.86 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
11-21-2018
(no specification provided)
PL=LL=PI=
D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc=
USCS=AASHTO=
*
Olive-gray, fine to medium SAND, little (-) Silt, little (-) fine
to coarse Gravel, trace Roots.1.5
1
3/41/2
#4
#10
#20
#40#60
#100
#200
100.0
90.9
90.990.9
87.4
83.0
68.7
46.329.9
19.0
12.8
9.3144 2.6316 0.63570.4730 0.2512 0.1048
Existing Fill
Water Content: 12.3%
Arrowhead, LLC
ACK Naturals
17 Spearhead Road, Nantucket, MA
W0736
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Source of Sample: MGA-2 Depth: 22 - 24'Sample Number: S-8 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.
*PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 9.1 3.5 4.4 36.7 33.5 12.86 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
11-21-2018
(no specification provided)
PL=LL=PI=
D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc=
USCS=AASHTO=
*
Dark olive, fine to medium SAND, little (-) Silt, little (-) fine
to coarse Gravel.1
3/4
1/2#4
#10
#20
#40
#60#100
#200
100.0
95.9
92.988.8
86.3
72.4
48.4
30.818.9
12.8
7.0086 1.7033 0.58280.4442 0.2434 0.1071
Existing Fill
Water Content: 13.4%
Arrowhead, LLC
ACK Naturals
17 Spearhead Road, Nantucket, MA
W0736
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Source of Sample: MGA-3 Depth: 17 - 19'Sample Number: S-6 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.
*PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 4.1 7.1 2.5 37.9 35.6 12.86 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
11-21-2018
(no specification provided)
PL=LL=PI=
D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc=
USCS=AASHTO=
*
Olive-gray, fine to medium SAND, little Silt, trace (+) fine to
coarse Gravel.1
3/4
1/2#4
#10
#20
#40
#60#100
#200
100.0
94.8
93.691.6
87.8
75.1
54.0
37.024.0
16.4
2.9281 1.4892 0.50910.3765 0.1953
Existing Fill
Water Content: 10.9%
Arrowhead, LLC
ACK Naturals
17 Spearhead Road, Nantucket, MA
W0736
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Source of Sample: MGA-3 Depth: 25 - 27'Sample Number: S-9 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.
*PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 5.2 3.2 3.8 33.8 37.6 16.46 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
GEO/PLAN ASSOCIATES 30 MANN STREET HINGHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 02043-1316 (781) 740-1340 geoplanassoc@gmail.com
September 7, 2019
Epsilon Associates P.O. Box 700
Maynard, Massachusetts 01754-0700
Attention: Mr. Dwight Dunk Re: Nourishment Sand Compatibility Analysis, 21 Derrymore Road, Nantucket
Dear Dwight: I performed size analyses of one sediment sample from 21 Derrymore Road,
Nantucket. The purpose of this letter is to evaluate the suitability of this sediment
source 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 mean size of the 21 Derrymore Road sample and other characteristics is
shown 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 the resulting time-series provides a measure of variability of the natural sands over time.
2
A. Proposed Source Sediment
21 Derrymore Rd Mean: 1.0 phi (coarse-medium sand) Sorting Coefficient: 1.14 (poorly sorted) 96% sand, 4% gravel mud insignificant (less than 1% by weight)
B. Natural Bank Sediments 2001: 2.0 phi (medium – fine sand) includes 8% mud
2003: 1.8 phi (medium sand) includes 5.5% pebbles or granules
2006: 1.2 phi (medium sand) includes minor fine pebbles/granules The bank sediments range between medium-fine sand to medium sand, and contain varying amounts of fine gravel and mud. Direct observation of this
coastal bank shows that, although dominantly sand, there is frequently a mud
and gravel component and periodic 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) The 2006 samples are coarser than the earlier samples, either due to natural
variation in sand sources over time, or cyclic changes in size related to energy.
Regardless of the cause, these four sampling intervals indicate that the mean size of the natural sediment on the beach fluctuates, but is not coarser that the 0.7 phi 2006 samples.
D. Discussion Compatible beach sediment is not sand that exactly matches the existing beach,
but rather sediment that is relatively 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 of the beach (which is generally the case),
compatible sediment is equal or coarser than the existing sediment.
3
The proposed source area is glacial outwash sediments. The sample has minor amount of mud (<1%), which is lower than the natural bank source sediment. This is a plus for compatibility, as mud is quickly lost, and is the most common objections to nourishment sand are based on aesthetics or water turbidity. The
proposed source area is geologically the same material (glacial outwash
sediments) from the same vicinity as the natural bank materials. The sample contains some gravel (4%), but the gravel in this sample is all in the granule range, slightly coarser than sand. Nonetheless, gravel is a visible component of Sconset beaches and the adjacent shallow nearshore. Importantly, the sample is
coarse-medium sand, which has the greater likelihood of remaining stable on
Siasconset Beach than the natural bank source material. While the sizes are reported as means, there is a range of sizes finer and coarser in all samples. However, both the natural beach sediment and the proposed source material have very small amounts of sand finer than medium sand. This is the component
of the sand that is more likely to be 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.
The 21 Derrymore Road sediment sample is a match of mean size of beach sediment in 2001, and equal to the mean of the average of all beach samples. The sample is coarser than the natural bank source material. Therefore, based on the sample submitted, the proposed sand source from 21 Derrymore Road is
compatible for use as nourishment on Sconset Beach.
Please feel free to contact me if there are further questions concerning the evaluation of these samples.
Yours truly,
Peter S. Rosen, Ph. D. Coastal Geologist
GEO/PLAN ASSOCIATES 30 MANN STREET HINGHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 02043-1316 (781) 740-1340 geoplanassoc@gmail.com
October 12, 2019
Epsilon Associates 3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250
Maynard, Massachusetts 01754
Attention: Mr. Dwight Dunk
Re: Nourishment Sand Compatibility Analysis, 77 Pocomo Road, Nantucket
Dear Dwight:
I performed size analyses of the sediment sample from 77 Pocomo Road,
Nantucket. The purpose of this letter is to evaluate the suitability of this sediment source 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 mean sizes of the composite sample and other characteristics 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 the resulting time-series provides a measure of
variability of the natural sands over time.
The sample, beach, and bank characteristics are compiled below:
2
A. Proposed Source Pocomo Road Mean: 1.03 phi (medium sand)
Sorting Coefficient: 1.11 (poorly sorted)
96% sand, 4% gravel mud insignificant (less than 2% by weight) B. Natural Bank Sediments
2001: 2.0 phi (medium – fine sand) includes 8% mud 2003: 1.8 phi (medium sand) includes 5.5% pebbles or granules 2006: 1.2 phi (medium sand) includes minor fine pebbles/granules
The bank sediments range between medium-fine sand to medium sand, and contain varying amounts of fine gravel and mud. Direct observation of this coastal bank shows that, although dominantly sand, there is frequently a mud and gravel component and periodic 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)
The 2006 samples are coarser than the earlier samples, either due to natural variation in sand sources over time, or cyclic changes in size related to energy. Regardless of the cause, these four sampling intervals indicate that the mean
size of the natural sediment on the beach fluctuates, but is not coarser that 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 relatively 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 of the beach (which is generally the case),
compatible sediment is equal or coarser than the existing sediment.
The proposed source area is a 77 Pocomo Road, Nantucket. The sample has a
minor amount of mud (<2%), which is a plus for compatibility, as mud is quickly lost, and is the most common objections to nourishment sand are based on aesthetics or water turbidity. The proposed source area is not the same as the natural bank sediments. Based on an assumption from the location (without
field confirmation), the Pocomo Road sediments are likely a glacial
lakebottom/lake margin deposit, unlike areas south of the moraine, which are mostly glacial outwash and have generally been coarser. The sample contains a small amount of gravel, but it is exclusively fine granules near the sand boundary. Gravel is a visible component of Sconset beaches and the adjacent
shallow nearshore, which this material will not measureably augment.
Importantly, the sample is medium sand, which overlaps with the finer component of Siasconset Beach sand. However, it is not the more stable portion of the sediment population. This is the component of the sand that is more likely to be 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 be transported offshore or alongshore. However, the Pocomo Road sample is comparable to the size of the natural bank sediment, which is fed to the beach and re-sorted by waves.
Therefore, the 77 Pocomo Road sediment is compatible for use at Sconset Beach, particularly for use in the geotube template. Since it has a low mud content, it’s use as such will be more stable than typical natural bank sediment.
Please feel free to contact me if there are further questions concerning the
evaluation of these samples. Yours truly,
Peter S. Rosen, Ph. D. Coastal Geologist
GEO/PLAN ASSOCIATES 30 MANN STREET HINGHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 02043-1316 (781) 740-1340 geoplanassoc@gmail.com
October 12, 2019
Epsilon Associates P.O. Box 700 Maynard, Massachusetts 01754-0700
Attention: Mr. Dwight Dunk Re: Nourishment Sand Compatibility Analysis, 18 Greglan, Nantucket Dear Dwight:
I performed size analyses of composite sediment samples from two locations. The purpose of this letter is to evaluate the suitability of these 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 mean sizes of the composite samples and other characteristics 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 the resulting time-series provides a measure of variability of the natural sands over time.
2
A. Proposed Sources Mean: 0.78 phi (coarse sand) Sorting Coefficient: 1.06 (poorly sorted)
94% sand, 06% gravel
mud insignificant B. Natural Bank Sediments
2001: 2.0 phi (medium – fine sand) includes 8% mud 2003: 1.8 phi (medium sand) includes 5.5% pebbles or granules 2006: 1.2 phi (medium sand) includes minor fine pebbles/granules
The bank sediments range between medium-fine sand to medium sand, and contain varying amounts of fine gravel and mud. Direct observation of this coastal bank shows that, although dominantly sand, there is frequently a mud and gravel component and periodic 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) The 2006 samples are coarser than the earlier samples, either due to natural variation in sand sources over time, or cyclic changes in size related to energy. Regardless of the cause, these four sampling intervals indicate that the mean
size of the natural sediment on the beach fluctuates, but is not coarser that the
0.7 phi 2006 samples. D. Discussion
Compatible beach sediment is not sand that exactly matches the existing beach, but rather sediment that is relatively 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 of the beach (which is generally the case),
compatible sediment is equal or coarser than the existing sediment.
3
The proposed source areas are glacial outwash sediments. Both samples have
insignificant mud (<1%), which is a plus for compatibility, as mud is quickly lost, and the most common objections are based on aesthetics or water turbidity. The 18 Greglan source area is geologically the same material (glacial outwash sediments) from the same vicinity as the natural bank materials. Both samples contain some gravel. While the gravel does not necessarily match surface beach
sediment samples, small gravel is a visible component of these beaches and the
adjacent shallow nearshore. Importantly, the sample is coarse sand which is coarser than the natural source, which is the coastal bank, and coarser than most beach samples. These coarser sands have the greatest likelihood of remaining stable on Siasconset Beach. While the sizes are reported as means,
there is a range of sizes finer and coarser in all samples. However, both the natural beach sediment and both potential source have very small amounts of sand finer than medium sand. This is the component of the sand that is more likely to be 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. Therefore, the source sediment at 18 Greglan is beach nourishment compatible.
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.
Coastal Geologist