HomeMy WebLinkAboutSE48_2824 2019 Annual Review _ Sconset Geotube ProjectSubmitted to:
Nantucket Conservation Commission
2 Bathing Beach Road
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Submitted by:
Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund
P.O. Box 2279
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02584
Prepared by:
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250
Maynard, Massachusetts 01754
March 2, 2020
2019 Annual Review –Sconset Geotextile
Tube Project (SE48-2824)
Nantucket, MA
21597/Sconset i Annual Review
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Key Findings 1
3.0 Monitoring Reports 2
4.0 Summary of Monitoring Results 3
4.1 Sand Delivery 3
4.2 Bluff Monitoring 4
4.3 Shoreline Monitoring 4
4.4 Underwater Video Monitoring 6
4.5 Annual Drainage System Report 6
5.0 Recommended Changes to Monitoring and Mitigation Program 6
5.1 Monitoring Program Adjustments 7
5.2 Mitigation Volume Adjustment 8
ATTACHMENT A MAY 2018 – DECEMEBR 2019 SAND DELIVERY AND CONTRIBUTION REPORT
ATTACHMENT B SCONSET BLUFF SEPTEMBER 2019 AERIAL SURVEY REPORT
ATTACHMENT C EXCERPT FROM SOUTHEAST NANTUCKET BEACH MONITORING, DECEMBER
2019, 80TH SURVEY REPORT
ATTACHMENT D SCONSET BEACH NOVEMBER 2019 UNDERWATER VIDEO SURVEY REPORTS
ATTACHMENT E DRAINAGE SYSTEM ANNUAL REPORT
21597/Sconset E-1 Annual Review
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 Introduction
Pursuant to the Order of Conditions (DEP File No. SE48-2824), the Sconset Beach Preservation
Fund (“SBPF”) was authorized to install geotextile tubes at the base of the coastal bluff below 87-
105 Baxter Road, cover the geotubes with a stockpile of sand as mitigation for installing the tubes
at the base of the Coastal Bank (i.e. the sand template), vegetate the natural bluff, and install a
coastal drainage system (including a catch basin) at 91 Baxter Road (collectively these activities
are referred to as the “Project”).
The Project was constructed in two phases. The initial phase was constructed in late December
2013 and January 2014 in accordance with an Emergency Certification approval issued by the
Nantucket Conservation Commission, and that authorized construction and maintenance of three
stacked tier of 45-foot circumference geotextile tubes covered by sand at the base of the eroding
Sconset Bluff, regulated as Coastal Bank (“bank”). That geotextile tube installation was
approximately 852 feet long located along the toe of the bank from 87-105 Baxter Road. The
second phase, constructed in October 2015 through February 2016, included the installation of a
fourth tier of geotextile tubes on lots 91-99, intermediate returns, end returns, and a surface
runoff drainage system. With the returns included, the total Project length is now 947 feet.
As part of the Order of Conditions for the Project, and annual review of the Project is required to
review information gathered through the Project’s monitoring and mitigation programs. This
Annual Report was prepared to review the existing monitoring data and provided recommended
changes to monitoring and mitigation programs for the future.
2.0 Key Findings
Significant monitoring has occurred during the greater than 6-year period since the initial
construction of the geotextile tubes in late 2013: 21 shoreline surveys, seven underwater video
surveys, five wetland wells monitoring events, beach invertebrate monitoring at four locations,
four drainage system reports, and aerial surveys of the bluff. SBPF has also regularly submitted
work reports describing template re-grading activities.
After more than six year of monitoring, there is no indication of adverse effects to adjacent
beaches, the nearshore hard bottom environment, the wetlands at the top of the bluff, or beach
invertebrates. Following are the key findings from the monitoring data.
♦ The shoreline monitoring data shows that the measured shoreline positions and the rate
of shoreline change are similar to historic patterns. There is no indication of accelerated
erosion in excess of historical observations in front of or adjacent to the geotubes.
♦ The bluff survey indicates that the mitigation sand template has contributed more than
two times more sand (13.8 cubic yards/linear foot/year [cy/lf/yr], although more than this
21597/Sconset E-2 Annual Review
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
has been delivered to the site) than the unprotected bluff (6.8 cy/lf/yr) over the last six
years.
♦ Underwater video surveys show that a productive cobble habitat area is located just
offshore from the geotextile tubes, with no indication that this cobble habitat is being
adversely affected by the sand mitigation.
♦ The significant mitigation required at Sconset is uniquely conservative. The sand
mitigation volume of 22 cy/lr/yr is 1.5-1.8 times the average bank contribution rate. Ten
comparable bank and dune protection projects on the Cape & Islands provided mitigation
equivalent to the average bank contribution volume; in most cases, the mitigation volume
was estimated by multiplying the average annual erosion of the bank or shoreline by the
height and length of the shoreline protected and was only required to be placed one time
per year. The largest annual sand delivery for those 10 projects is 1,100 cy/yr. If the same
method for sand calculation were used for the Sconset project area, a mitigation volume
of only 12.0 cy/lf/yr would be required.
♦ The conservative nature of the sand mitigation volume evidenced by the significant
volumes of mitigation sand delivered to the sand template and contributed off the sand
templated to the littoral drift system. Simply put, the annual volume of sand that is
currently required to be placed on the template has exceeded the volume of sand that is
typically lost off the and template each year, and this can result in a surplus of sand within
the template. If this trend continued, further addition of sand could eventually cover
vegetation on the upper portion of the bank, and steepen the access ramps, making
equipment access and template regrading difficult or impossible. An adaptive sand
management approach of simply refilling the template each year to 22 cy/lf is advocated.
3.0 Monitoring Reports
Individual monitoring reports are presented herewith as Attachments A-E:
♦ May 2018 – December 2019 Sand Delivery and Contribution Report (Attachment A)
♦ Sconset Bluff September 2019 Aerial Survey Report (Attachment B)
♦ Excerpt from Southeast Nantucket Beach Monitoring, December 2019, 80th Survey
Report (Attachment C)
♦ Sconset Beach November 2019 Underwater Video Survey Report (Attachment D)
♦ Drainage System Annual Report (Attachment E)
The following sections provide a summary of each of the referenced monitoring reports.
21597/Sconset E-3 Annual Review
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
4.0 Summary of Monitoring Results
4.1 Sand Delivery
As presented in Attachment A the “May 2018 – March 2019 Sand Delivery and Contribution
Report” (also referred to as the “Sand Report”), the Project incorporates substantial mitigation
volume of 22 cy/lf/yr. Given the project’s length of 947 feet, the total annual mitigation volume
is 20,834 cy.
Table 1 in the Sand Report (Attachment A) summarizes the sand deliveries and Attachment B
provides a description of the bluff monitoring results. The aerial survey of the bluff (see Section
4.2 of this Executive Summary below) indicated that not all mitigation sand eroded off the sand
template over the winter and that approximately 21,848 cy of sand remained in the template as
of September 2019, prior to the additional 11,172 cy delivered in the months following the survey.
During the course of the sand year 11,687 cy of sand, or 12.1 cy/lf, were contributed off the sand
template and into the littoral drift system.
The SBPF proposed to the Commission a more adaptive mitigation approach in previous annual
reports, as well as in the Notice of Intent to expand the geotube system (SE48-3115), because the
last few years have had lower erosion, leading to a significant portion of the mitigation sand
remaining in the sand template. Continuing to place 22 cy/lf/yr on the sand template would cover
up the vegetation on the bluff face and steepen the access ramps, making pedestrian or
equipment access and template management activities (such as re-grading) more difficult or
impossible.
During a meeting with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (“MassDEP”)
in early 2017, options for making the sand mitigation volume more adaptive to actual conditions
were discussed. MassDEP suggested one option may be to simply refill the template to 22 cy/lf
each spring. In this manner, whatever portion of sand that erodes each winter is replaced each
year so that a minimum of 22 cy/lf are available each year, prior to the start of the winter storm
season. SBPF believes this is a reasonable option that ensures a conservative volume of sand is
available while recognizing that actual bluff contribution rates are typically less than 22 cy/lf/yr.
As shown in Attachment A, after the February 2019 sand deliveries, an excess volume of 1,014 cy
of sand had been placed on the template before an additional 11,172 cy of sand was placed on
the template October 2019 through December 2019. This calculation is based on the template
mitigation volume of 20,843 cy minus the volume of sand on the template in September 2019, i.e.
21,848 cy (21,848 cy – 20,843 cy = 1,014 cy). As noted in the Sand Report, to satisfy a strict
mathematical formula of 22 cy/lf without taking into account the natural variability in the erosion
of the unprotected bluff or the height of the existing template, the 22 cy/lf of sand was achieved.
The additional 11,172 cy of sand placed in autumn 2019 increased the total sand volume on the
template to approximately 33,020 cy which correlates to approximately 34.9 cy/lf. There was a
small unknown amount of loss during November and December storms which resulted in minor
regrading and re-covering of the geotubes using sand from the top of the template.
21597/Sconset E-4 Annual Review
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
4.2 Bluff Monitoring
As presented in the “Sconset Bluff September 2019 Aerial Survey Report” included as Attachment
B, an aerial survey of Sconset Bluff was performed by AirShark on September 2 and 3, 2019.
Unmanned aerial vehicles (“UAV”) were used to survey the bluff face and geotextile tube area.
The data from the survey were processed and used to produce a digital surface model (“DSM”) of
Sconset Bluff.
The survey yielded the following findings:
♦ The results of the 2019 aerial survey were also used to calculate changes in the bluff
volume from 2018 to 2019 for those unprotected areas immediately adjacent to the
Project (Figure 1 in Attachment B). During review of the updated profile views it was
determined that the break in slope between the beach and bluff is best captured by using
elevation +12 feet relative to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88).
Therefore, the change in the bluff volume in these unprotected areas was calculated from
the toe of the bluff (elevation +12 MLW) to the top of the bluff. From May 2018 to
September 2019 the unprotected areas showed a calculated net accretion, and as
described in the 2019 report, this apparent accretion is within the vertical accuracy range
of the survey and likely represents no net change. From July 2013 to September 2019,
the unprotected areas eroded approximately 41,000 cy. This is equivalent to a distance-
weighted average of 6.8 cy/lf/yr.
♦ As of September 2019, the volume of sand in the template was 21,848 cy, which is
approximately 23 cy/lf. This volume includes the 12,163 cy delivered in the early portion
of the Sand Year.
♦ The Sand Report (Attachment A) and the September survey (Attachment B) show that, of
the total volume of sand delivered and placed for the winter storm season approximately
0.5 cy/lf was contributed to the littoral system.
♦ The project has contributed more sand (13.8 cy/lf/yr) than the unprotected bluff (6.8
cy/lf/yr) over the last six years (July 2013 – September 2019).
4.3 Shoreline Monitoring
Shoreline monitoring occurs quarterly at 46 profiles located along six miles of shoreline. Each
shoreline survey includes information on the change in the position of the shoreline (the Mean
Low Water [MLW] line) and the change in volume for each profile. Bathymetry is conducted each
spring and fall out to -25 or -35 feet MLW92 or 2,000 to 3,000 feet offshore, whichever is furthest.
Adverse impacts from the geotextile tubes would be expected to be the most apparent in the
areas immediately adjacent to the geotextile tubes. One of the purposes of the shoreline
monitoring is to ensure the long-standing pattern of shoreline retreat in the Project area and
immediately adjacent areas is not accelerating due to the presence of the geotextile tubes. To
21597/Sconset E-5 Annual Review
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
provide a comprehensive assessment, shoreline monitoring also occurs at profiles that were
established in the 1990’s farther to the north and south of the geotextile tubes, for a total
monitoring distance of approximately six miles.
Quarterly reports provide data for all profiles and include plots from nine beach profiles that
represent the stretch of beach subject to monitoring, to help visualize long-term trends. These
nine profiles include:
♦ Near the south of the monitoring area (Profile 84)
♦ Approximately 1,000 feet and 500 feet south of the geotubes (Profiles 90 and 90.6)
♦ Within the geotube area (Profiles 91, 91.5, and 92)
♦ Approximately 500 feet and 1,000 feet north of the geotubes (Profiles 9.5 and 93)
♦ Near the north end of the monitoring area (Profile S)
Shoreline data charts from these nine representative profiles are included in the “Southwest
Nantucket Beach Monitoring, December 2019, 80th Quarterly Report” prepared by Woods Hole
Group (“WHG”) and previously submitted to the Commission; the charts are reproduced here as
Attachment C. General observations derived from the plotted shoreline data included the
following:
♦ Each profile depicts periods of shoreline advance and shoreline retreat, demonstrating a
high degree of variability on short- and long-term time scales. This high degree of
variability, with observed short-term periods of erosion or accretion, suggests that
adverse effects from the geotextile tubes could only be reliably determined through years
of sustained erosion that deviate from historical observations.
♦ Each profile responds differently on variable time scales.
♦ This variability does not lend itself to fitting a long-term trend line with a high degree of
statistical accuracy.
♦ The November 2019 shoreline position in the Project area was generally similar (within
about 20 feet) to the shoreline position in the ~2008-2010 timeframe.
♦ The short-term variability shown by surveys since geotube installation in January 2014 is
similar to short-term trend variability (~2- to 3-year periods) observed over many years
of surveys before the geotubes were installed. Surveyed post-geotube shoreline changes
are not materially different from previous observations as related to rates and duration
of shoreline change. No accelerated erosion post-geotube installation in excess of
historical observations is evident.
21597/Sconset E-6 Annual Review
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
4.4 Underwater Video Monitoring
As presented in the “Sconset Beach Underwater Video Survey Report” submission, included in
Attachment D, on November 14, 2019, CR Environmental, Inc. (“CR”) and Epsilon conducted
underwater video surveys offshore from the geotube project site and directly adjacent areas at
the base of the bluff from 87-105 Baxter Road. Underwater video data was collected with CR’s
portable towed video sled along the transects shown on the figures within Attachment A in the
report (See Attachment D).
The surveys showed that a productive habitat area is located just offshore from the geotextile
tubes, with no indication that such cobble habitat is being covered by mitigation sand. During
the underwater video survey in November, 13 invertebrate species, one fish species, and five
marine plant and algal species were observed. The dominant biota across all transects included
unidentified branching brown algae, unidentified branching red algae, hydroids, barnacles,
common slipper shells, bread crumb sponge, sulfur sponge, and hermit crabs. Most of the survey
area had a 25-54% cobble coverage, and there is no indication that such habitat is being covered
by the mitigation sand. A comparison of the 2019 survey with the two surveys conducted in
2018 and two surveys conducted in 2017 demonstrates that results were broadly consistent and
did not indicate loss of cobble habitat due to the Project.
As described in the June 2016 report, the volume of the sand template is minimal compared to
volume of sand in the littoral system, and natural sand and shoal movements. It is our ongoing
recommendation that a reduction in the frequency of underwater video monitoring is warranted,
as meaningful data could only be generated in the event that regular monitoring indicates that
the sand mitigation template is contributing several times more sand than the unprotected bluff.
4.5 Annual Drainage System Report
The function of the stormwater drainage system has been monitored in accordance with the
Stormwater Operation and Maintenance Plan. As noted in Attachment E, “The system appears
to be functioning as designed, and we do not have any immediate concerns. There is
approximately X-inches of accumulated sediment in the base of the catch basin, which is below
the threshold for cleaning. We will continue to monitor the system.”
5.0 Recommended Changes to Monitoring and Mitigation Program
The Project’s mitigation and monitoring programs were reviewed to determine those types of
monitoring that provide the most useful data and value to assess the potential effects from the
Project. The recommended changes are the same as presented in the December 2016 Annual
Report and are summarized briefly below.
21597/Sconset E-7 Annual Review
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
5.1 Monitoring Program Adjustments
♦ Aerial bluff monitoring should occur annually to provide an assessment of bluff volume
change in protected and unprotected areas, as well as the volume of sand remaining in
the sand template.
♦ Shoreline surveys should be adjusted to collect the most meaningful data. Three years
of quarterly surveys have now been completed.
Shoreline monitoring frequency should be changed to a maximum of two times a
year. Analysis by WHG included in the December 2016 Annual Report indicates that
quarterly sampling and observation does not inform the analysis to any greater
degree. Therefore, a survey frequency of two times a year is recommended,
consistent with the monitoring suggestions in the MassDEP Beach Nourishment Best
Practices Guide (MassDEP, 2007) and recommendations from The National Research
Council (National Academy Press, 1995). One survey is recommended in late winter
/ early spring and the other is recommended in late summer/early fall.
Wading shots should be eliminated from the shoreline surveys. As presented in the
December 2016 Annual Report, an analysis of extrapolating the data from 0 to -5 feet
MLLW, as opposed to using a rodman to collect the data, shows that associated errors
are small (the average difference in the volume of sand estimated for each profile was
1.1 cy/ft, which equates to a 1.4% difference) The surveys can be completed in
approximately half the time if there are no wading shots, which would add
tremendous flexibility to completing the surveys in timely fashion, and also reduces
inherent risks to the survey crew.
Bathymetry monitoring frequency should be changed to once per year. The
December 2016 Annual Report described how bathymetry surveys conducted once
per year are sufficient to characterize regional morphology. Reducing the total
number of bathymetry survey profiles to ~22 that extend no more than 3,000 ft
offshore would potentially allow for the survey to be completed in a single calm
sea/weather day without sacrificing substantive information. To provide useful data
for present and long-term comparisons, the subset of ~22 profiles would include the
historic whole number profiles 81 through 99 plus profiles Q, S, and W. Additionally,
it is proposed that bathymetry monitoring be re-evaluated annually to assess its
continued value.
♦ Underwater video monitoring should only be required once every three years or in the
event that regular monitoring indicates that the sand mitigation template is contributing
several (3-5) times more sand than the unprotected bluff.
21597/Sconset E-8 Annual Review
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
♦ Drainage system reporting. The drainage system monitoring has been conducted for
three years. At this time, it is proposed that the Town Director of Public Works monitor
the catch basin for maintenance, as is done for other Town catch basins.
5.2 Mitigation Volume Adjustment
The mitigation requirement for the Project is to place a minimum of 22 cy/lf/yr annually. As has
been noted in previous submissions, the average annual pre-construction bank contribution
volume, calculated from 1994-2013, is 12-14.3 cy/lf/yr (depending on bank recession
methodology). The conservative volume of 22 cy/lf/yr is 1.5-1.8 times the average pre-
construction bank contribution.
A review of ten comparable bluff and dune protection projects presented in Attachment B of the
December 2016 Annual Report, shows that sand mitigation volumes for other Coastal Bank
stabilization projects are mostly based upon average annual erosion of the bluff or shoreline
multiplied by the height and length of the shoreline protected. That review demonstrated that
the significant sand mitigation volume required at Sconset (equivalent to 1.5-1.8 times the bluff
contribution volume) is uniquely conservative. The conservative nature of the sand mitigation
volume is evidenced by the fact that significant volumes of mitigation sand are remaining in the
sand template at the end of each winter. At the end of the sand year 2018 the volume of sand
remaining on the template was 10,200; while at the end of sand year 2017, 17,000 cy remained
on the template; and 15,000 cy remained on the template after sand year 2016.
SBPF recommends a more adaptive mitigation program, where the full mitigation of 22 cy/lf
would be available each year for the winter storm season, but will not be indiscriminately placed
annually regardless of how much sand remains in the template. The proposed mitigation plan is
to place the full 22 cy/lf in the sand template prior to the start of the storm season each fall.
Consistent with current practice, each time the seaward portion of the sand cover washes away
as designed during storm events, the sand template will be re-graded (sand from the top will be
pushed down) so that the geotextile tubes remain covered and sand is available to the littoral
system. Each following year (prior to the start of the storm season), a sufficient volume of sand
will be added to refill the sand template to 22 cy/lf/yr, so that 22 cy/lf is always available at the
start of each storm season. We believe this mitigation approach will be much more adaptive and
will allow the mitigation sand requirement to provide adequate sand to maintain an adequate
volume of sand to littoral system.
The proposed mitigation approach recognizes that not all of the sand on the template is
contributed to the littoral system each year. As noted above, in 2018, which included a
particularly intense late-winter storm season, about 10,200 cy of sand remained in the template
after the storm season ended, even though the volume of sand contributed from the sand
template was higher than the volume of sand contributed from the unprotected bank. The
proposed approach avoids increasing the height of the template each year to accommodate
another full placement of 22 cy/lf even though ample sand remains, and instead simply refills the
san to the 22 cy/lf mark each year. Continuing to increase in height of the sand template each
21597/Sconset E-9 Annual Review
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
year is not recommended because it covers the existing bank vegetation and steepens the access
ramps, making pedestrian and equipment access and template management activities (such as
re-grading) more difficult or impossible.
Attachment A
May 2018 - December 2019 Sand Delivery and Contribution Report
May 2018 - December 2019
Sand Delivery and Contribution Report
Baxter Road and Sconset Bluff
Stabilization Project
Nantucket, MA
February 2020
Submitted by:
Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund
PO Box 2279
Nantucket, MA 02584
Prepared by:
Epsilon Associates
3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250
Maynard, MA 01754
In Association with:
Cottage + Castle, Inc.
37 Old South Road, Unit #6
Nantucket, MA 02554
21597/Sconset 1 2019 Annual Sand Delivery Report
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
ANNUAL SAND DELIVERY REPORT
1.0 Introduction
The Baxter Road and Sconset Bluff Stabilization Project (the “Project”) was constructed in two
phases. The first phase was constructed in late December 2013 and January 2014 under an
Emergency Certification approval issued by the Nantucket Conservation Commission. The first
phase consisted of the installation of three stacked tiers of 45-foot circumference geotextile tubes
at the base of the eroding Sconset Bluff. The geotextile tube installation was approximately 852
feet long and extends along the toe of the bank from 87-105 Baxter Road. The second phase was
constructed in October 2015 through February 2016 and includes the installation of a fourth tier
of geotextile tubes on lots 91-99, intermediate returns, end returns, and a surface runoff drainage
system. With the returns included, the total project length is now 947 feet.
The purpose of the annual sand delivery report is to present the sand mitigation volumes and
corresponding delivery tickets for each “Sand Year” from April 1 through March 31 of any given
year. SBPF has previously submitted detailed Sand Reports for the first five sand years associated
with the Project:
• November 2013 through March 31, 2014 (referred to as the “2014 Sand Year”)
• April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015 (referred to as the “2015 Sand Year”)
• April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016 (referred to as the “2016 Sand Year”)
• April 1, 2016 through January 31, 2018 (referred to as the “2017 Sand Year”)
• February 1, 2018 through April 30, 2018 (referred to as the “2018 Sand Year”)
This report presents information on sand deliveries during the period from May 1, 2018 through
December 31, 2019 (referred to as the “2019 Sand Year”).
2.0 Sand Delivery Requirements
The Project incorporates a substantial mitigation volume of 22 cubic yards/linear
foot/year[cy/lf/yr]. Given the project’s length of 947 feet, the total annual mitigation volume
required is currently 20,834 cy. As required by the Project’s Order of Conditions (SE48-2824),
annually in Sept. – Nov. place sand to ensure a substantial volume of sand (10 – 15 cy/lf) is
available at the onset of the winter storm season, place additional sand as needed during the
winter and if the total volume is not placed before March 1, the balance shall be placed by March
31. Delivery tickets are to be provided annually to document the total volume of sand provided
on a yearly basis.
21597/Sconset 2 2019 Annual Sand Delivery Report
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
3.0 Volume of Mitigation Sand Delivered
The following nine tables document the sand delivery amounts.
♦ Tables 1-2 present a summary of the volume of sand delivered and contributed from
December 2013 through December 31, 2019. Table 3 presents a comparison of the
volume of sand eroded from the bluff in adjacent unprotected areas from July 2013 –
September 2019.
♦ Table 4 presents the volume of sand delivered during the period from December 2013 –
March 31, 2014, which includes construction of the initial Project.
♦ Table 5 presents the total volume of mitigation sand delivered during the period from
April 1, 2014 – March 31, 2015.
♦ Table 6 presents the total volume of sand delivered during the period from April 1, 2015
– March 31, 2016, which includes supplementary construction of the fourth tier and
returns.
♦ Table 7 presents the total volume of sand delivered during the period from April 1, 2016
– January 31, 2018.
♦ Table 8 presents the total volume of sand delivered during the period from February 1,
2018 – April 30, 2018.
♦ Table 9 presents the total volume of sand delivered during the period from May 1, 2018
– December 31, 2019.
Each of these tables is discussed in further detail below.
3.1 Table 1. Summary of Sand Delivery Volume
Lines 1-4 of Table 1 describe the total volume of sand delivered to the site, and separate this total
into the following categories: mitigation sand, sand used on the bluff face, and sand used for
construction (inside or behind the geotextile tubes). Neither sand placed on the bluff face nor
sand used for construction is counted towards the mitigation requirement. Lines 5-11 of Table 1
provide a summary of the required mitigation volume. The base mitigation volume is determined
by multiplying the 22 cy/lf/yr by the Project’s length (Line 5). This volume is then adjusted by
subtracting out the surplus sand from the previous year and the amount of sand eroded from the
bluff face. The surplus sand is calculated as that sand delivered the previous year that is in excess
of the base mitigation requirements and that is still in the sand template at the end of the sand
year (see Lines 6-8). The bluff erosion volume accounts for that portion of the bluff face that
continued to erode and is discussed further in Section 5.0 below.
Lines 13 and 14 of Table 1 presents the final calculation of whether the project’s mitigation
requirement was met. Any surplus of sand delivered during one sand year, up to but not in excess
21597/Sconset 3 2019 Annual Sand Delivery Report
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
of the amount remaining on the sand template on the beginning of the new sand year, is carried
forward and counted towards the following year’s requirement.
3.2 Table 2. Summary of Sand Contribution
Table 2 presents a summary of the volume on sand contribution for the period from December
2013 – March 31, 2019. Table 2 provides a breakdown of the sand contribution from the sand
template, bluff face, construction, and the total contribution. Line 9 of Table 2 provides the total
volume of sand contributed during the 2019 Sand Year. Line 10 provides the average sand
contribution from December 2013 – March 31, 2019.
3.3 Table 3. Bluff Volume Loss in Unprotected Areas Adjacent to Geotextile Tubes
Tables 3a-c present a comparison of the volume of sand eroded from the bluff in adjacent
unprotected areas from July 2013 – September 2019. Table 3a provides the bluff volume change
during the 2018-2019 Sand Year. During this period the estimate of the annual change in volume
from unprotected areas was calculated as -1.2 cy/lf/yr, which signifies accretion, as explained in
Section 5.2 below. Table 3b presents the bluff volume loss during the period of July 2013 – May
2018. Table 3c presents the bluff volume loss in the unprotected areas adjacent to the geotextile
tubes from July 2013 – September 2019.
3.4 Table 4. Sand Delivery December 2013 – March 31, 2014
Table 4 presents the volume of sand delivered during the period from December 2013 – March
31, 2014, which includes construction of the initial Project. Table 4 provides a detailed breakdown
of that portion of sand placed within and behind the geotextile tubes and presents the total
volume of mitigation sand placed over, in front of, and at the ends of the geotextile tubes. All
delivery tickets for the total volume delivered of 39,204 cy were previously submitted to the
Conservation Commission, most recently as part of the 2015 Sand Report.
3.5 Table 5. Sand Delivery April 1, 2014 – March 31, 2015
Table 5 presents the total volume of mitigation sand delivered during the period from April 1,
2014 – March 31, 2015. Three separate deliveries were made over this period of time. All delivery
tickets for the total volume of 14,428 cy were submitted as part of the 2015 Sand Report.
3.6 Table 6. Sand Delivery April 1, 2015 – March 31, 2016
Table 6 presents the total volume of sand delivered during the period from April 1, 2015 – March
31, 2016. Table 6 provides a detailed breakdown of the sand delivered for construction, sand
delivered for mitigation, and sand delivered to the bluff face. All delivery tickets for the total
volume of 22,485 cy delivered during the 2016 Sand year were provided in the 2016 Sand Report,
including the 19,066.7cy delivered during the most recent construction period in November,
December, and January and the 3,418 cy delivered in April 2015.
3.7 Table 7. Sand Delivery April 1, 2016 – January 31, 2018
Table 7 presents the total volume of sand delivered during the period from April 1, 2016 – January
18, 2018. Deliveries occurred in the latter half of 2016, in May and December 2017, and in January
21597/Sconset 4 2019 Annual Sand Delivery Report
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
2018. All delivery tickets for the total volume delivered of 15,138 cy were submitted as part of
the 2017 Sand Report.
3.8 Table 8. Sand Delivery February 1, 2018 – April 30, 2018
Table 8 presents the volume of mitigation sand delivered during the period from February 1, 2018
– April 30, 2018. Three separate deliveries were made over this period of time. All delivery tickets
for the total volume delivered of 8,152 cy were submitted as part of the 2018 Sand Report.
3.9 Table 9. Sand Delivery from May 1, 2018 – December 31, 2019
Table 9 presents the total volume of sand delivered during the period from May 1, 2018 –
December 31, 2019. Deliveries occurred between October 2018 to February 2019, and between
October 2019 to December 2019. All delivery tickets for the total volume delivered of 23,335 cy
are included with this report.
3.10 Summary
Table 1 shows that sand delivery requirements were met during the first three years of the
Project1, with a surplus of sand delivered in the Project’s first two years. At the end of the Project’s
fourth winter in 2017, SBPF proposed using an adaptive mitigation approach, whereby the sand
template was refilled to 22 cy/lf/yr. (This adaptive mitigation approach was discussed with the
Commission during the Project’s March 2018 Annual Review and is also described in the 2017
Sand Report). The UAV survey in September 2019 indicated there was approximately 21,848 cy
within the template at the time of the survey. An additional 11,172 cy was delivered before
December 31, 2019 bringing the total volume within the sand template to be approximately
33,020 cy which correlates to approximately 34.9 cubic yards per linear foot. There was a small
unknown amount of loss during November and December storms which resulted in minor
regrading and re-covering of the geotubes using sand from the top of the template.
4.0 Annual Aerial Survey of Bluff
SBPF contracted AirShark to perform the annual aerial survey of the bluff in September 2019.
Airshark is the same firm that previously performed the 2017 and 2018 aerial surveys. A separate
report on the aerial survey is attached (the “Sconset Bluff September 2019 Aerial Survey Report”
or the “2019 Survey Report”).
5.0 Changes in Bluff Volume
Changes in Bluff Volume are also reported in the Sconset Bluff September 2019 Aerial Survey
Report. To understand changes in the bluff volume since Project construction, the results of the
2019 survey were compared to the previous aerial surveys of the Project area that were
conducted in May 2018, August 2017, and July 2013. The July 2013 survey was conducted about
6 months prior to the installation of the geotextile tubes.
5.1 Changes in Bluff Volume in Adjacent Unprotected Areas
The results of the 2019 aerial survey were used to calculate the changes in the bluff volume from
2018 to 2019 for those unprotected areas immediately adjacent to the geotextile tube project
(Figure 1). During review of the updated profile views it was determined that the break in slope
21597/Sconset 5 2019 Annual Sand Delivery Report
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
between beach and bluff is best captured by using elevation +12 feet relative to the North
American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88).1 Therefore, the change in the bluff volume in these
unprotected areas was calculated from the toe of the bluff (elevation +12 feet NAVD 88) to the
top of the bluff.
♦ For the north unprotected area, the section of the bluff within 802 feet immediately to
the north of the geotextile tubes was used.
♦ For the south unprotected area, the section of bluff within 138 feet immediately to the
south of the geotextile tubes was used. Areas farther south than this could not be used
because they had coir or jute terraces installed so were not representative of the
unprotected bluff.
♦ No areas with a bulge of sand from sand delivery activities at the accessway between 85
and 87 Baxter Road were used in the calculations. In particular, the size of the south
unprotected area was reduced in 2019 (i.e. the northern boundary was moved farther
south) to account for sand delivery activities and the associated accretion of sand on the
bluff face extending farther south in 2019 than in previous years.
As shown in Tables 3a-c, this analysis indicates that the unprotected areas immediately adjacent
to the geotextile tubes eroded at the following rates:
♦ For the most recent year (May 2018 – September 2019), the unprotected areas showed
a calculated net accretion of approximately 1,082 cy (Table 3a). This is equivalent to a
distance-weighted average accretion rate of 1.2 cy/lf/yr. As discussed further below, this
apparent accretion is within the vertical accuracy range of the survey and likely represents
no net change.
♦ For the period from geotextile tube installation to the previous reporting period (July
2013 – May 2018), the unprotected areas eroded approximately 41,000 cy (Table 3b).
This is equivalent to a distance-weighted average of 8.1 cy/lf/yr.
♦ For the period from geotextile tube installation to the most recent survey (July 2013 –
September 2019), the unprotected areas eroded a distance-weighted average equivalent
of 6.8 cy/lf/yr (Table 3c).
The 2018-2019 estimate of the annual change of sand volume from unprotected areas was
calculated as -1.2 cy/lf/yr, which signifies accretion. However, we do not anticipate any accretion
actually occurred on the bluff face in the adjacent unprotected areas. The calculated result
presented in Table 3a may either: 1) represent a minor amount of sand accumulating at the toe
of the bluff, or 2) represent values that are within the vertical accuracy range of the drone survey.
The calculated change in volume correlates to approximately 0.4 feet (12.2 cm) of sand along the
1 The conversion from Mean Low Water 92 to NAVD 88 is -1.88 feet.
21597/Sconset 6 2019 Annual Sand Delivery Report
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
940 feet of unprotected bluff. This change most likely reflects no net loss of unprotected bluff
face with a minor amount of sand accumulation along the toe of the bluff. This result of no change
to bluff face volume on the adjacent areas is consistent with the calm storm season.
5.2 Changes in Bluff Volume Above Geotextile Tubes
The 2019 aerial survey was also used to calculate the changes in bluff volume above the geotextile
tubes for the most recent year. No significant change in the bluff volume above the geotextile
tubes was expected, because this portion of the bluff face is above the reach of storm waves and
is also fully vegetated. The change in the bluff volume above the geotubes was calculated as
approximately 587 cy of accretion; however, this accretion correlates to approximately 0.37 feet
(11.3 cm), which is about the vertical accuracy range of the survey methods. This suggests that
the small calculated change in bluff volume is within the vertical accuracy range and that there
has been no net change to the bluff face above the template, which is as expected.
6.0 Volume of Sand in Template
The volume of sand in the template was calculated by determining the total volume of the
template at the time of the 2019 aerial survey and subtracting the known volume of sand within
the geotextile tubes and returns located above the beach level. The total volume of sand above
the beach level was 33,561 cy and the total volume of sand in the geotubes is 11,713 cy. This
yields a sand cover volume in September 2019 of approximately 21,848 cubic yards. This was
prior to the delivery of an additional 11,172 cubic yards between October and December 31, 2019,
as described in Section 3.10, which results in an estimate of approximately 33,020 cy on the
template and which correlates to 34.9 cy/lf for the 947-foot-long-geotube system.
Calculations were also performed on that portion of the sand template that is located above the
fourth tier. Per the Project’s Order of Conditions, the sand on the top of the fourth tier is not
counted as mitigation sand. This volume is calculated as approximately 3,790 cubic yards. It is
anticipated that sand on top of the sand template, including sand on top of the fourth tier, will
continue to be pushed down to re-cover the geotextile tubes as needed. Therefore, the volume
above the fourth tier will become available through time.
7.0 Volume of Sand Contributed to Littoral System
Table 2 presents the approximate volume of sand contributed to the littoral system. The amount
contributed is that portion of the sand delivered to the site that is no longer in place in the sand
template and therefore is deemed to have been contributed to the littoral system. As has been
previously noted, the mitigation sand is delivered to the top of the geotextile tubes and then is
pushed over to cover the face of the tubes. On an as-needed basis after erosion events, the sand
on top of the geotextile tubes is pushed from the top of the tubes to the face of the tubes
whenever needed to re-cover exposed geotextile tubes. Table 2 has been prepared to provide a
reasonable estimate of how much mitigation sand has entered the littoral system over the past
six years.
21597/Sconset 7 2019 Annual Sand Delivery Report
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
For each of the six sand years (Sand Year 2014, Sand Year 2015, Sand Year 2017, Sand Year 2018,
and Sand Year 2019), this estimate was calculated by the following steps shown in Table 2:
1. Beginning with the volume of sand in the sand template at the start of each year (this
was estimated in Sand Years 2014 – 2016 and measured in Sand Years 2017 – 2019);
2. Adding the total amount of mitigation sand delivered each year (this is a known
amount for each Sand Year);
3. Subtracting the volume of sand in the sand template at the end of each year (this was
estimated in Sand years 2014 – 2016 and measured in Sand Years 2017 – 2019);
4. Adding the bluff volume eroded (this is known as a total from 2013 through 2018 and
was apportioned to Sand Years 2015 and 2016 as described above in Section 5.1 of
the 2017 Sand Report);
5. Adding the volume of sand contributed during construction (this is known from 2013);
6. Determining the total volume of sand contributed (both as a total volume and as a
rate expressed in cy/lf/yr), including as an average rate from 2013-2019.
A review of Tables 2 and 3a-c indicates that the sand template has consistently contributed more
sand than the unprotected bluff to the north and south of the project:
♦ During the first five years, the unprotected bluff contributed an average of 8.1
cy/lf/yr, while the sand template contributed an average of 16.5 cy/lf/yr.
♦ During the most recent year, the unprotected bluff contributed -1.2 cy/lf/yr (this
signifies accretion) as discussed above in Section 5.1, it is within the vertical accuracy
which represents no net change of unprotected bluff. The sand template contributed
0.5 cy/lf/yr.
♦ Over the nearly six years from July 2013 – September 2019, the unprotected bluff
contributed an average of 6.8 cy/lf/yr and the sand template has contributed an
average of 13.8 cy/lf/yr (although more than this has been delivered to the site).
Tables
Line Sand Amounts 12/13-3/31/14 4/1/14-3/31/15 4/1/15-3/31/16 4/1/16-1/31/18 2/1/18-4/30/18 5/15/18-12/31/19
1 Total Volume Delivered for Geotube Construction (See Line 5 in Table 4 and Line 5 in Table 6)12,653 0 2,931 0 0 0
2 Total Volume Delivered for Mitigation (see Tables 4-7)23,951 14,429 15,085 15,138 8,152 23,335
3 Total Volume Delivered to Bluff Face (Not Counted as Mitigation; See Ln 10 in Tbl 4 & Ln 12 in Tbl 6)2,600 0 4,469 0 0 0
4 Total Volume Delivered by Truck (Sum Lines 10-12)39,204 14,429 22,485 15,138 8,152 23,335
5 Required Mitigation Volume (22 cy/lf * Project Length of 852' for 3 tiers, 947' for 4 tiers w/ret.)18,744 18,744 20,834 20,834 20,834 20,834
Surplus Sand From Prior Year
6 Surplus Delivered in Prior Year (From Line 13 in Preceding Column)0 5,207 3,029 -583 -6,278 -18,960
7 Volume on Template at Start of Sand Year 0 5,900 8,500 15,000 17,000 10,200
8 Countable Surplus Present in Sand Template (Line 6; Not to Exceed Line 7)0 5,207 3,029 -583 -6,278 -18,960
9 Volume on Template at End of Sand Year 5,207 8,500 15,000 17,000 10,200 33,020
Bluff Erosion
10 Net Contribution from Erosion of Bluff Face (pre-veg & during 4th tier const.; see Table 6)0 2,138 2,138 0 0 0
11 Adjusted Required Mitigation Volume (Line 5 - Line 8 - Line 10)18,744 11,400 15,667 21,417 27,112 39,794
12 Total Volume Delivered for Mitigation (Line 2 above)23,951 14,429 15,085 15,138 8,152 23,335
13 Mitigation Surplus or Deficit (-) ( Line 12 - Line 11)5,207 3,029 -583 -6,278 -18,960 -16,459
14 Mitigation Surplus or Deficit (-) to Refill Template to 22 CY/LF 755 -10,634 12,186
Table 2. Summary of Sand Contribution in Cubic Yards (CY), December 2013 - March 31, 2019
Line Sand Amounts 12/13-3/31/14 4/1/14-3/31/15 4/1/15-3/31/16 4/1/16-5/31/17 6/1/17-5/14/18 5/15/18-12/31/19
1 Volume on Template at Start of Sand Year (Line 7 in Table 1)0 5,900 8,500 15,000 17,000 10,200
2 Total Volume Delivered for Mitigation (Line 2 in Table 1; Lines 1 and 2 in Table 7)23,951 14,429 15,085 10,550 12,741 23,335
3 Volume on Template at End of Sand Year (Line 9 in Table 1)5,900 8,500 15,000 17,000 10,200 33,020
4 Total Volume Contributed from Sand Template (Line 1 +2 - Line 3)18,051 11,829 8,585 8,550 19,541 515
5 Total Volume Contributed from Sand Template (cy/lf/yr)21.2 13.9 9.1 8.9 20.3 0.5
6 Net Contribution from Erosion of Bluff Face (Line 10 in Table 1)0 2,138 2,138 0 0 0Construction Contribution
7 Contribution from Construction (Line 8 in Table 4)3,707 0 0 0 0 0Total Annual Sand Contribution
8 Total Volume Contributed 21,758 13,966 10,723 8,550 19,541 515
9 Total Volume Contributed in cy/lf/yr 25.5 16.4 11.3 8.9 20.3 0.5
10 Average Sand Contribution from 2013-2019 (cy/lf/yr)13.8
Mitigation Volume Summary
Sconset Bluff and Baxter Road Geotextile Tube Project, 87-105 Baxter Road, Nantucket, MA
Table 1. Summary of Sand Delivery in Cubic Yards (CY), December 2013-March 31, 2019
Bluff Face Contribution
Sand Delivery Summary
Base Required Mitigation Volume
Mitigation Volume Adjustments
Template Sand Contribution
Note: 2019 sand template measured in September, 2019. No template re-grading occurred from April 1 - September 2019, so September measurement is representative of March 31 conditions.
Page 1 of 10
Line Area Volume Eroded (CY)Length (Feet)Duration (Years)Annual Change (CY/LF/YR)
1 North Unprotected Area -797 802 1.0 -1.0
2 South Unprotected Area -285 138 1.0 -2.1
3
Total Bluff Erosion for Adjacent Unprotected Areas (Distance-weighted average)-1,082 -1.2
Line Area Volume Eroded (CY)Length (Feet)Duration (Years)Annual Change (CY/LF/YR)
1 North Unprotected Area 35,423 802 5.1 8.7
2 South Unprotected Area 5,577 192 5.1 5.7
3
Total Bluff Erosion for Adjacent Unprotected Areas (Distance-weighted average)41,000 8.1
Line Area Volume Eroded (CY)Length (Feet)Duration (Years)Annual Change (CY/LF/YR)
1 North Unprotected Area 35,423 802 6.1 7.3
2 South Unprotected Area 5,577 192 6.1 4.8
3
Total Bluff Erosion for Adjacent Unprotected Areas (Distance-weighted average)41,000 6.8
Table 3a. Bluff Volume Loss in Unprotected Areas Adjacent to Geotextile Tubes, May 15, 2018 - September 2019
Table 3b. Bluff Volume Loss in Unprotected Areas Adjacent to Geotextile Tubes, July 2013 - May 2018
Note: Bluff face accretion is shown in Table 3a for the 2019 Sand Year. As described in the 2019 Sand Delivery and Contribution Report no net change is reported. Therefore a value of 0 was
used for the 2019 Sand Year to calculate the 6-year average annual rate change.
Table 3c. Bluff Volume Loss in Unprotected Areas Adjacent to Geotextile Tubes, July 2013 - September 2019
Page 2 of 10
Line Sand Delivery Amounts Cubic Yard
(CY)/ Linear
Foot (LF)
Project Length (LF)Total CY
1 Inside Tier 2 Geotube 5 852 3,834
2 Inside Tier 3 Geotube 5 835 3,758
3 Bench Behind Tier 2 Geotube 3 852 2,556
4 Bench Behind Tier 3 Geotube 3 835 2,505
5 Total Sand For Geotube Construction (Sum Lines 1-4)12,653
6 Template on Top 22 852 18,744
7 Template at Ends 1,500
8 Sand Contributed to Littoral System During Construction 3,707
9 Total Mitigation Volume (Sum Lines 6-8)23,951
10 Total Volume Delivered to Bluff Face (Not Counted as Mitigation)2,600
11 Total Sand Delivered (Sum Lines 5, 9, and 10)39,204
Line Sand Delivery Amounts Cubic Yard (CY)/ Linear Foot (LF)
Project Length (LF)Total CY
1 April 2014 7.1 852 6,015
2 Jan 2015 5.3 852 4,477
3 Feb 2015 4.6 852 3,936
4 Total Sand Delivered (Sum Lines 1-3)14,429
Geotube Construction
Mitigation Volume
Bluff Face Volume
Total Sand Delivered
Table 5. Sand Delivered April 1, 2014 - March 31, 2015
Mitigation Volume
Table 4. Sand Delivered December 2013 - March 31, 2014
Page 3 of 10
Line Sand Delivery Amounts Cubic Yard
(CY)/ Linear
Foot (LF)
Project Length (LF)Total CY
Fourth Tier
(3) 120' long x 45' circumference tubes(1) 75' long x 45' circumference tubeTotal of 435 linear feet
Northern Returns
(4) 25' long x 30' circumference tubesTotal of 100 linear feet
Northern Intermediate Returns(1) 35' long x 30' circumference tube(1) 45' long x 30' circumference tubeTotal of 80 linear feet
Southern Returns(1) 65' long x 30' circumference tube(1) 70' long x 30' circumference tube(1) 75' long x 30' circumference tube(1) 80' long x 30' circumference tubeTotal of 290 linear feet
Southern Intermediate Returns(1) 35' long x 30' circumference tube(1) 45' long x 30' circumference tubeTotal of 80 linear feet
6 Total Sand For Geotube 4th Tier and Returns Construction (Sum Lines 1-5)2,931
7 November and December 2015 (immediately post-construction)15,085
8 Total Mitigation Volume 15,085
9 Total Volume Delivered to Bluff for Vegetation (April 2015)3,418
10 Total Volume Delivered to Bluff to Fill Gully South of Viewing Area (Nov/Dec 2015)931
11 Total Volume Delivered to Bluff to Fill Gully at Viewing Area (Jan 2016)12012Total Volume Delivered to Bluff Face (Not Counted as Mitigation)4,469
13 Total Sand Delivered (Sum Lines 6, 8, and 12)22,485
2 2.0 100
3 2.0 80 160
200
Mitigation Volume
Bluff Face Volume (Not Counted as Mitigation)
Total Sand Delivered
4
1 4.21 435 1831
Table 6. Sand Delivered April 1, 2015 - March 31, 2016
Geotube Construction - 4th Tier and Returns
2.0 290 580
5 2.0 80 160
Page 4 of 10
Line Sand Delivery Amounts Cubic Yard (CY)/ Linear
Foot (LF)
Project Length (LF)Total CY
1 August through December 2016 1,230
2 May 2017 9,320
3 December 2017 2,090
4 January 2018 2,499
5 Total Sand Delivered (Sum Lines 1-4)15,138
Line Sand Delivery Amounts Cubic Yard (CY)/ Linear Foot (LF)
Project Length (LF)Total CY
1 February 2018 40
2 March 2018 5,506
3 April 2018 2,606
5 Total Sand Delivered (Sum Lines 1-3)8,152
Line Sand Delivery Amounts Cubic Yard (CY)/ Linear
Foot (LF)
Project Length (LF)Total CY
1 October 2018 2,204
2 November 2018 3,156
3 January 2019 4,120
4 February 2019 2,683
5 October 2019 5,400
6 November 2019 4,266
7 December 2019 1,506
8 Total Sand Delivered (Sum Lines 1-4)23,335
Table 9. Sand Delivered May 1, 2018 - December 31, 2019
Mitigation Volume
Mitigation Volume
Mitigation Volume
Table 8. Sand Delivered February 1, 2018 - April 30, 2018
Table 7. Sand Delivered April 1, 2016 - January 31, 2018
Page 5 of 10
Sand Delivery Receipts
DELIVERY DETAIL 5/1/2018 ‐ 3/31/2019Vendor Invoice #Date Truck ID Time Quantity Unit Cost Invoice Total Service Sand TicketRead Custom Soils, LLC 60479 10/12/2018 SHU815:14 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137805Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 MCDUF56:58 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137808Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 CUR17:01 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137809Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 JCM17:04 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137810Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 ANGUS17:07 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137811Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 GEL297:09 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137812Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 RCS537:18 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137816Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 SORENT7:35 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137824Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 SHU87:40 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137827Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 MCDUF58:19 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137836Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 CURTIS8:22 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137837Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 JCM18:26 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137838Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 ANGUS18:44 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137841Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 GEL298:46 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137842Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 SHU88:56 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137843Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 SORENT8:58 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137844Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 MCDUF59:33 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137855Read Custom Soils, LLC6060510/15/2018 CUR19:37 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137856Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 JCM19:43 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137858Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 ANGUS110:11 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137863Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 SORENT10:13 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137864Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 SHU810:18 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137866Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 GEL2910:22 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137868Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 MCDUF510:55 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137872Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 CUR111:00 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137874Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 JCM111:09 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137878Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 SORENT11:30 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137883Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 SHU811:42 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137887Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 ANGUS111:44 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137888
Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 GEL2911:47 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137889Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 MCDUF512:19 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137895Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 CUR112:24 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137897Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 JCM112:27 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137898Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 SORENT13:01 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137906Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 ANGUS113:12 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read137909Read Custom Soils, LLC 60605 10/15/2018 GEL291:20 ‐ ‐ ‐ Beach Sand/Read137912Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 SOLAR n/a20.00 16.50 330.00 Beach Sand/Read74177PM Reis Trucking 136177 10/30/2018 #414:00 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis127808PM Reis Trucking 136177 10/30/2018 #415:00 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis127808PM Reis Trucking 136177 10/30/2018 #415:40 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis127808PM Reis Trucking 136177 10/30/2018 #213:40 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis128684PM Reis Trucking 136177 10/30/2018 #214:20 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis128684PM Reis Trucking 136177 10/30/2018 #214:55 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis128684PM Reis Trucking 136177 10/30/2018 #215:25 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis128684PM Reis Trucking 136177 10/30/2018 #2513:30 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128777PM Reis Trucking 136177 10/30/2018 #2514:15 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128777PM Reis Trucking136177 10/30/2018#2514:5520.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128777PM Reis Trucking 136177 10/30/2018 #2515:25 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128777PM Reis Trucking 136177 10/30/2018 New Mack 13:30 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128830PM Reis Trucking 136177 10/30/2018 New Mack 14:00 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128830PM Reis Trucking 136177 10/30/2018 New Mack 14:30 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128830PM Reis Trucking 136177 10/30/2018 New Mack 15:00 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128830PM Reis Trucking 136177 10/30/2018 #513:30 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137001PM Reis Trucking 136177 10/30/2018 #514:05 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137001PM Reis Trucking 136177 10/30/2018 #514:40 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137001PM Reis Trucking 136177 10/30/2018 #515:10 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137001PM Reis Trucking 136177 10/30/2018 #515:45 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137001Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 SHU87:00 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read138999Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 POMPEO17:06 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139000Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 CUR17:11 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139002Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 SHU97:30 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139010Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 SHU17:32 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139011Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 MCDUF57:36 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139013DELIVERY DETAIL 5/1/2018 ‐ 3/31/2019Vendor Invoice # Date Truck ID Time Quantity Unit Cost Invoice Total Service Sand Ticket
Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 RMBK17:41 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139015Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 SHU88:16 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139032Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 POMPEO18:18 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139033Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 CUR18:36 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139035Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 SHU19:05 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139039Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 SHU99:08 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139040Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 RMBK19:11 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139041Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 SHU89:35 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139047Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 POMPEO19:39 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139049Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 MCDUF510:00 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139057Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 CUR110:04 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139058Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 SHU110:32 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139064Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 SHU810:47 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139065Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 SHU910:51 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139067Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 RMBK110:53 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139068Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 POMPEO1 10:55 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139069Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 MCDUF511:27 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139080Read Custom Soils, LLC60920 10/30/2018CUR111:3326.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139083Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 SHU112:00 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139094Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 SHU812:10 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139095Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 SHU912:20 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139096Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 RMBK112:27 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139099Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 POMPEO1 12:37 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139103Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 MCDUF513:00 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139108Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 CUR113:02 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139109Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 SHU113:22 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139115Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 POMPEO1 13:53 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139125Read Custom Soils, LLC 60920 10/30/2018 MCDUF514:20 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139132PM Reis Trucking 135885 11/8/2018 #128:05 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis136396PM Reis Trucking 135885 11/8/2018 New Mack7:20 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis136397PM Reis Trucking 135885 11/8/2018 New Mack8:30 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis136397PM Reis Trucking 135885 11/8/2018 New Mack9:30 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis136397PM Reis Trucking 135885 11/8/2018 #48:15 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis136398PM Reis Trucking 135885 11/8/2018 #49:00 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis136398DELIVERY DETAIL 5/1/2018 ‐ 3/31/2019Vendor Invoice # Date Truck ID Time Quantity Unit Cost Invoice Total Service Sand Ticket
PM Reis Trucking 135885 11/8/2018 #57:00 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis136399PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #49:00 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis127014PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #49:38 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis127014PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #410:13 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis127014PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #410:47 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis127014PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #411:21 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis127014PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #411:58 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis127014PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #412:32 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis127014PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #413:26 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis127014PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #257:26 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128784PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #258:15 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128784PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #258:50 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128784PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #259:20 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128784PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #259:45 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128784PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #2510:25 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128784PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #2510:55 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128784PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #2511:30 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128784PM Reis Trucking135936 11/13/2018#2512:0820.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128784PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #2512:40 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128784PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #2513:13 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128784PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #2513:45 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128784PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 New Mack7:20 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128838PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 New Mack8:15 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128838PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 New Mack8:45 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128838PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 New Mack9:10 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128838PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 New Mack9:45 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128838PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 New Mack 10:20 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128838PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 New Mack 11:00 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128838PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 New Mack 11:30 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128838PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 New Mack 12:05 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128838PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 New Mack 12:40 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128838PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 New Mack 13:20 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128838PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 New Mack 13:55 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128838PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #127:35 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis131993DELIVERY DETAIL 5/1/2018 ‐ 3/31/2019Vendor Invoice # Date Truck ID Time Quantity Unit Cost Invoice Total Service Sand Ticket
PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #128:20 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis131993PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #128:55 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis131993PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #129:30 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis131993PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #1210:00 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis131993PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #1210:30 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis131993PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #1211:10 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis131993PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #1211:40 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis131993PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #1212:15 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis131993PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #1212:45 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis131993PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #1213:20 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis131993PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #57:25 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137008PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #58:12 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137008PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #58:50 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137008PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #59:23 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137008PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #59:56 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137008PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #510:27 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137008PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #511:01 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137008PM Reis Trucking135936 11/13/2018#511:3220.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137008PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #512:06 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137008PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #512:40 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137008PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #513:15 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137008PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 #513:47 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137008PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 Tri‐Axle7:45 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137352PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 Tri‐Axle8:25 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137352PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 Tri‐Axle9:00 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137352PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 Tri‐Axle9:35 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137352PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 Tri‐Axle10:10 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137352PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 Tri‐Axle10:40 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137352PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 Tri‐Axle11:15 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137352PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 Tri‐Axle11:50 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137352PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 Tri‐Axle12:20 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137352PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 Tri‐Axle13:00 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137352PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 Tri‐Axle13:35 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137352PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 Perry Mack 7:20 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138692DELIVERY DETAIL 5/1/2018 ‐ 3/31/2019Vendor Invoice # Date Truck ID Time Quantity Unit Cost Invoice Total Service Sand Ticket
PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 Perry Mack 7:55 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138692PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 Perry Mack 8:30 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138692PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 Perry Mack 9:15 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138692PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 Perry Mack 9:40 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138692PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 Perry Mack 10:15 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138692PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 Perry Mack 10:50 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138692PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 Perry Mack 11:25 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138692PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 Perry Mack 12:00 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138692PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 Perry Mack 12:30 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138692PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 Perry Mack 13:05 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138692PM Reis Trucking 135936 11/13/2018 Perry Mack 13:40 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138692Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 SHU8 13:12 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139818Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 CUR1 14:23 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139835Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 POMPEO1 15:12 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139845Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 POMPEO1 6:56 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139847Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 ANGUS1 7:02 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139850Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 CUR1 7:06 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139852Read Custom Soils, LLC61113 11/15/2018SHU87:1026.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139854Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 SORENT7:58 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139865Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 POMPEO18:16 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139871Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 ANGUS18:30 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139872Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 CUR18:32 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139873Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 SHU88:34 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139874Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 JCM19:30 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139884Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 SORENT9:32 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139885Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 POMPEO19:53 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139889Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 SHU810:03 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139893Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 CUR110:08 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139896Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 ANGUS110:26 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139901Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 SORENT11:03 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139908Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 JCM111:14 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139913Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 POMPEO1 11:18 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139915Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 SHU811:20 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139916Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 CUR111:33 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139920DELIVERY DETAIL 5/1/2018 ‐ 3/31/2019Vendor Invoice # Date Truck ID Time Quantity Unit Cost Invoice Total Service Sand Ticket
Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 SHU211:46 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139925Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 ANGUS111:53 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139927Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 SORENT112:16 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139931Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 JCM112:27 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139934Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 RCS5312:37 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139936Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 POMPEO1 12:42 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139937Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 SHU812:52 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139938Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 CUR113:03 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139941Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 SHU213:25 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139948Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 ANGUS113:27 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139949Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 MCDUFF513:32 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139952Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 SORENT13:37 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139954Read Custom Soils, LLC 61113 11/15/2018 JCM113:47 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read139957AH Construction LLC 214 11/26/2018 4 trucks 3 hrs each 192 8.75 1680 Beach Sand/AHAH Construction LLC 214 11/26/2018 2 trucks 3 hrs each 96 8.75 840 Beach Sand/AHAH Construction LLC 214 11/26/2018 2 trucks 9 hrs each 288 8.75 2520 Beach Sand/AHPM Reis Trucking 139263 1/10/2019 #258:25 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128796PM Reis Trucking 139263 1/10/2019 #259:05 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128796PM Reis Trucking 139263 1/10/2019 #259:40 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128796PM Reis Trucking139263 1/10/2019#2510:1520.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128796PM Reis Trucking 139263 1/10/2019 #2511:00 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128796PM Reis Trucking 139263 1/10/2019 #2511:45 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis128796PM Reis Trucking 139263 1/10/2019 #58:30 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137031PM Reis Trucking 139263 1/10/2019 #47:35 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138358PM Reis Trucking 139263 1/10/2019 #48:15 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138358PM Reis Trucking 139263 1/10/2019 #49:00 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138358PM Reis Trucking 139263 1/10/2019 #49:45 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138358PM Reis Trucking 139263 1/10/2019 #410:30 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138358PM Reis Trucking 139263 1/10/2019 #411:20 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138358PM Reis Trucking 139263 1/10/2019 New Mack7:40 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138403PM Reis Trucking 139263 1/10/2019 New Mack8:45 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138403PM Reis Trucking 139263 1/10/2019 New Mack9:30 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138403PM Reis Trucking 139263 1/10/2019 New Mack 10:00 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138403PM Reis Trucking 139263 1/10/2019 New Mack 10:45 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138403DELIVERY DETAIL 5/1/2018 ‐ 3/31/2019Vendor Invoice # Date Truck ID Time Quantity Unit Cost Invoice Total Service Sand Ticket
PM Reis Trucking 139263 1/10/2019 New Mack 11:30 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138403PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 Perry Mack 10:05 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis128499PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 Perry Mack 10:40 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis128499PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 Perry Mack 11:15 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis128499PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 Perry Mack 11:50 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis128499PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #5 13:20 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137032PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #5 13:55 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137032PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #5 14:30 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137032PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #5 15:05 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137032PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #5 15:45 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137032PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 Tri‐Axle 10:35 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137363PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 Tri‐Axle 11:10 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137363PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 Tri‐Axle 11:41 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137363PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 Tri‐Axle 12:13 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137363PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 Tri‐Axle 12:45 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137363PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 Tri‐Axle 13:42 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137363PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 Tri‐Axle 14:35 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137363PM Reis Trucking139322 1/11/2019 Tri‐Axle15:1322.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137363PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #2511:25 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138251PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #2512:05 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138251PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #2512:30 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138251PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #2513:15 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138251PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #2513:50 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138251PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #2514:25 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138251PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #2514:55 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138251PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #2515:25 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138251PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #410:35 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138360PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #411:00 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138360PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #411:30 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138360PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #412:05 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138360PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #412:50 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138360PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #413:30 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138360PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #414:10 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138360PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #414:55 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138360DELIVERY DETAIL 5/1/2018 ‐ 3/31/2019Vendor Invoice # Date Truck ID Time Quantity Unit Cost Invoice Total Service Sand Ticket
PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #415:25 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138360PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #416:00 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138360PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #311:22 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138407PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #312:00 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138407PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #312:30 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138407PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #313:15 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138407PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #313:47 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138407PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #314:25 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138407PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #314:55 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138407PM Reis Trucking 139322 1/11/2019 #315:20 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138407PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #57:40 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137035PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #58:25 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137035PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #59:00 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137035PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #59:35 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137035PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #510:10 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137035PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #510:45 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137035PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #511:21 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137035PM Reis Trucking138886 1/17/2019#512:0020.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137035PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #512:40 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137035PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #513:43 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137035PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #514:25 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137035PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #515:00 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137035PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #515:30 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis137035PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 Tri‐Axle7:55 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137366PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 Tri‐Axle8:35 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137366PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 Tri‐Axle9:10 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137366PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 Tri‐Axle9:55 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137366PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 Tri‐Axle10:25 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137366PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 Tri‐Axle11:10 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137366PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 Tri‐Axle12:00 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137366PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 Tri‐Axle14:30 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137366PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 Tri‐Axle15:05 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137366PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 Tri‐Axle15:40 22.00 50.00 1,100.00 Beach Sand/Reis137366PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 AJMack7:15 18.00 50.00 900.00 Beach Sand/Reis137656DELIVERY DETAIL 5/1/2018 ‐ 3/31/2019Vendor Invoice # Date Truck ID Time Quantity Unit Cost Invoice Total Service Sand Ticket
PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 AJMack8:02 18.00 50.00 900.00 Beach Sand/Reis137656PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 AJMack9:00 18.00 50.00 900.00 Beach Sand/Reis137656PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 AJMack9:40 18.00 50.00 900.00 Beach Sand/Reis137656PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 AJMack10:20 18.00 50.00 900.00 Beach Sand/Reis137656PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 AJMack11:00 18.00 50.00 900.00 Beach Sand/Reis137656PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 AJMack11:30 18.00 50.00 900.00 Beach Sand/Reis137656PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 AJMack12:10 18.00 50.00 900.00 Beach Sand/Reis137656PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 AJMack12:40 18.00 50.00 900.00 Beach Sand/Reis137656PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 AJMack13:10 18.00 50.00 900.00 Beach Sand/Reis137656PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 AJMack13:40 18.00 50.00 900.00 Beach Sand/Reis137656PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 AJMack14:15 18.00 50.00 900.00 Beach Sand/Reis137656PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 AJMack14:45 18.00 50.00 900.00 Beach Sand/Reis137656PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 AJMack15:15 18.00 50.00 900.00 Beach Sand/Reis137656PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 AJMack15:50 18.00 50.00 900.00 Beach Sand/Reis137656PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #258:00 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138256PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #258:50 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138256PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #259:30 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138256PM Reis Trucking138886 1/17/2019#2510:0520.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138256PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #2510:40 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138256PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #2511:15 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138256PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #2512:30 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138256PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #2513:12 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138256PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #2514:00 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138256PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #2514:40 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138256PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #2515:30 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138256PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 Perry Mack 7:35 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138303PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 Perry Mack 8:10 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138303PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 Perry Mack 8:40 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138303PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 Perry Mack 9:25 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138303PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 Perry Mack 10:00 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138303PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 Perry Mack 10:30 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138303PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 Perry Mack 11:05 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138303PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 Perry Mack 11:50 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138303PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #47:45 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138364DELIVERY DETAIL 5/1/2018 ‐ 3/31/2019Vendor Invoice # Date Truck ID Time Quantity Unit Cost Invoice Total Service Sand Ticket
PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #48:45 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138364PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #49:30 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138364PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #410:25 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138364PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #410:40 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138364PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #411:10 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138364PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #411:45 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138364PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #412:45 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138364PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #413:15 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138364PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #413:50 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138364PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #414:35 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138364PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #414:58 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138364PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #415:40 20.00 50.00 1,000.00 Beach Sand/Reis138364PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #127:50 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138463PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #128:30 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138463PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #129:00 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138463PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #129:40 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138463PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #1210:15 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138463PM Reis Trucking138886 1/17/2019#1210:5016.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138463PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #1211:30 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138463PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #1212:00 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138463PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #1212:50 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138463PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #1213:36 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138463PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #1214:20 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138463PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #1214:55 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138463PM Reis Trucking 138886 1/17/2019 #1215:30 16.00 50.00 800.00 Beach Sand/Reis138463AH Construction LLC 229 1/23/2019400.00 150.00 1,650.00 Beach Sand/AHAH Construction LLC 229 1/23/2019 1 truck, 9 loads 5 hrs 104.00 150.00 750.00 Beach Sand/AHRead Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 SHU87:15 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144349Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 JCM17:24 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144353Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 ANGUS17:31 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144356Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 RCS537:33 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144357Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 RCS517:42 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144361Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 MCDUFF57:53 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144367Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 SHU88:24 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144377DELIVERY DETAIL 5/1/2018 ‐ 3/31/2019Vendor Invoice # Date Truck ID Time Quantity Unit Cost Invoice Total Service Sand Ticket
Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 JCM18:33 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144378Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 ANGUS18:52 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144379Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 RCS538:55 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144380Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 RCS519:00 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144382Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 LINDQUIST9:03 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144383Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 MCDUFF59:09 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144385Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 SHU89:37 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144390Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 JCM19:44 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144391Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 ANGUS110:16 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144400Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 RCS5310:20 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144402Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 RCS5110:29 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144405Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 LINDQUIST 10:30 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144406Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 MCDUFF510:37 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144410Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 SHU810:53 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144418Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 JCM110:58 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144421Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 ANGUS111:43 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144429Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 RCS5311:44 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144430Read Custom Soils, LLC62142 1/24/201926.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144432Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 MCDUFF511:55 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144434Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 SHU812:10 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144436Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 JCM112:15 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144438Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 ANGUS113:07 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144459Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 RCS5313:08 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144460Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 RCS5113:11 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144461Read Custom Soils, LLC 62142 1/24/2019 MCDUFF513:18 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read144463Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 CAMERON7:07 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145688Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 BLANTON7:10 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145689Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 SHU87:14 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145690Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 MCDUFF57:16 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145691Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 LINDQUIST7:20 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145692Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 POMPEO17:23 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145693Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 ANGUS17:29 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145696Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 RCS517:33 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145698Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 CAMERON8:27 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145713DELIVERY DETAIL 5/1/2018 ‐ 3/31/2019Vendor Invoice # Date Truck ID Time Quantity Unit Cost Invoice Total Service Sand Ticket
Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 BLANTON8:35 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145716Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 SHU88:39 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145717Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 MCDUFF58:51 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145718Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 LINDQUIST8:53 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145719Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 POMPEO18:57 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145720Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 ANGUS19:12 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145722Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 CAMERON9:45 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145729Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 BLANTON9:54 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145733Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 SHU89:59 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145736Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 LINDQUIST 10:11 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145737Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 POMPEO1 10:14 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145738Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 ANGUS110:36 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145741Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 CAMERON 10:59 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145743Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 BLANTON11:09 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145746Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 SHU811:15 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145748Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 LINDQUIST 11:25 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145751Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 POMPEO1 11:31 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145753Read Custom Soils, LLC62283 2/13/2019ANGUS112:0026.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145760Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 CAMERON 12:10 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145761Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 BLANTON12:20 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145763Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 shu812:37 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145766Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 LINDQUIST 12:41 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145768Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 POMPEO1 12:47 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145771Read Custom Soils, LLC 62283 2/13/2019 ANGUS113:16 26.00 16.50 429.00 Beach Sand/Read145776AH Construction LLC 241 2/21/2019 Multiple 2/6/2019 252.00 30.00 7,560.00 Beach Sand/AHAH Construction LLC 241 2/21/2019 Multiple 2/7/2019 108.00 30.00 3,240.00 Beach Sand/AHAH Construction LLC 241 2/21/2019 Multiple 2/8/2019 348.00 30.00 10,440.00 Beach Sand/AHAH Construction LLC 241 2/21/2019 Multiple 2/9/2019 486.00 30.00 14,580.00 Beach Sand/AHAH Construction LLC 241 2/21/2019 Multiple 2/10/2019 540.00 30.00 16,200.00 Beach Sand/AHAH Construction LLC 241 2/21/2019 Multiple 2/11/2019 72.00 30.00 2,160.00 Beach Sand/AHDELIVERY DETAIL 5/1/2018 ‐ 3/31/2019Vendor Invoice # Date Truck ID Time Quantity Unit Cost Invoice Total Service Sand Ticket
DELIVERY DETAIL 4/1/2019 - 12/31/2019
Truck Delivery Date Loads Per Load
CYD's
Total
CYD's Hours Amount Source Delivery Vendor Delivery Location
658 10/17/2019 9 18 162 7.00 1,050.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
658 10/18/2019 12 18 216 8.00 1,200.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
658 10/19/2019 5 18 90 3.00 450.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
658 10/21/2019 7 18 126 5.50 825.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
658 10/23/2019 8 18 144 6.00 900.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
658 10/24/2019 13 18 234 8.50 1,275.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff65810/30/2019 3 18 54 1.50 300.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff65811/7/2019 1 18 18 0.75 75.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
658 11/13/2019 13 18 234 8.50 1,275.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
658 11/14/2019 13 18 234 8.50 1,275.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
658 11/19/2019 7 18 126 5.00 750.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
658 11/20/2019 5 18 90 3.50 525.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
658 11/21/2019 11 18 198 7.50 1,125.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
097 10/17/2019 12 18 216 8.50 1,275.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
097 10/18/2019 13 18 234 9.50 1,425.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff09710/19/2019 6 18 108 5.00 750.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff09710/21/2019 5 18 90 4.50 675.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
097 10/23/2019 5 18 90 4.50 675.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
097 10/24/2019 10 18 180 7.50 1,125.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
097 10/30/2019 4 18 72 1.50 275.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
097 11/14/2019 11 18 198 7.00 1,050.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
097 11/19/2019 6 18 108 5.00 750.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
097 11/20/2019 2 18 36 2.00 300.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff09711/21/2019 12 18 216 9.00 1,350.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff09711/14/2019 11 18 198 7.00 1,050.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
097 11/19/2019 6 18 108 5.00 750.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
097 11/20/2019 2 18 36 2.00 300.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
097 11/21/2019 12 18 216 9.00 1,350.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
083 10/17/2019 8 18 144 6.00 900.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
083 10/18/2019 8 18 144 6.00 900.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
083 10/19/2019 8 18 144 6.00 900.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff08310/30/2019 3 18 54 2.00 350.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff08311/13/2019 12 18 216 7.50 1,125.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
083 11/14/2019 6 18 108 4.00 600.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
083 11/19/2019 10 18 180 6.50 975.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
083 11/20/2019 5 18 90 3.00 450.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
083 11/21/2019 10 18 180 8.00 1,200.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff50010/17/2019 10 18 180 6.50 975.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff50010/18/2019 12 18 216 7.50 1,125.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
500 10/21/2019 9 18 162 6.00 900.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
500 10/23/2019 4 18 72 3.00 450.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
500 10/24/2019 9 18 162 6.00 900.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
500 11/13/2019 11 18 198 6.50 975.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
500 11/14/2019 9 18 162 6.00 900.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
500 11/19/2019 10 18 180 7.50 1,100.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
500 11/19/2019 2 18 36 0.50 100.00 Baxter Road, from South Shore Road AH Construction To Bluff20710/18/2019 6 18 108 4.00 600.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff20711/19/2019 10 18 180 7.00 1,000.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
207 11/19/2019 2 18 36 1.00 200.00 Baxter Road, from South Shore Road AH Construction To Bluff
473 12/7/2019 7 18 126 8.00 1,200.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
473 10/17/2019 12 18 216 8.00 1,200.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
473 10/18/2019 13 18 234 8.50 1,275.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
473 10/19/2019 5 18 90 3.00 450.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
473 10/21/2019 8 18 144 6.00 900.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff47310/23/2019 8 18 144 6.50 975.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff47310/24/2019 13 18 234 9.00 1,350.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
473 10/30/2019 1 18 18 1.00 150.00 Baxter Road, from TCE AH Construction To Bluff
473 11/11/2019 8 18 144 6.00 900.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
473 11/19/2019 11 18 198 8.00 1,200.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
473 11/19/2019 2 18 36 1.00 150.00 Baxter Road, from South Shore Road AH Construction To Bluff
473 11/20/2019 5 18 90 3.00 450.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff
473 11/21/2019 12 18 216 8.00 1,200.00 Baxter Road, from Sandlot AH Construction To Bluff47310/29/2019 26 18 468 6.00 900.00 Baxter Road, from Sankaty Road AH Construction To Bluff47310/20/2019 20 18 360 5.00 3,000.00 Baxter Road, from Sankaty Road AH Construction To Bluff
473 10/31/2019 5 18 90 1.50 225.00 Baxter Road, from Sankaty Road AH Construction To Bluff
473 12/1/2019 29 18 522 8.00 10,440.00 Baxter Road, from South Shore Road AH Construction To Bluff
Valero/Davidson 12/13/2019 34 18 612 12,240.00 Baxter Road, from TCE AH Construction To Bluff
Glowacki 12/13/2019 6 18 108 2,150.00 Baxter Road, from TCE AH Construction To Bluff
Lafluer 12/13/2019 5 18 90 1,800.00 Baxter Road, from TCE AH Construction To Bluff
TCE 12/13/2019 3 18 48 960.00 Baxter Road, from TCE AH Construction To Bluff
DELIVERY DETAIL 4/1/2019 - 12/31/2019
Truck Delivery Date Loads Per Load
CYD's
Total
CYD's Hours Amount Source Delivery Vendor Delivery Location
Attachment B
Sconset Bluff September 2019 Aerial Survey Report
Sconset Bluff September
2019 Aerial Survey Report
Baxter Road and Sconset Bluff
Stabilization Project Nantucket,
MA
November 2019
Submitted by:
Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund
PO Box 2279
Nantucket, MA 02584
Prepared by:
Epsilon Associates
3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250
Maynard, MA 01754
21597/Sconset 1 2019 Bluff Aerial Survey Report
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
2019 ANNUAL BLUFF AERIAL SURVEY REPORT
1.0 Introduction
The Baxter Road and Sconset Bluff Stabilization Project (the “Project”) consists of three-four tiers
of geotextile tubes, vegetation planting on the bluff face, and the installation of stormwater runoff
drainage system. The Project was constructed in two phases by the Sconset Beach Preservation
Fund (“SBPF”). The first phase was constructed in late December 2013 and January 2014 under
an Emergency Certification approval issued by the Nantucket Conservation Commission. The first
phase consisted of the installation of three stacked tiers of 45-foot circumference geotextiles
tubes at the base of the eroding Sconset Bluff. The geotextile tube installation was approximately
852 feet long and extends along the toe of the bank from 87-105 Baxter Road. The second phase
was constructed in October 2015 through February 2016 and includes the installation of a fourth
tier of geotextile tubes on lots 91-99, intermediate returns, end returns, and a surface runoff
drainage system. With the returns included, the total project length is now 947 feet.
SBPF intends to perform an annual survey of the bluff face each year, to facilitate the calculation
of the following parameters:
♦ Annual change in volume of the bluff face above the geotubes;
♦ Annual change in volume of the unprotected bluff sections to the north and south of the
geotextile tubes; and
♦ Volume of sand in the sand template.
The 2019 drone LiDAR survey described below is the fourth aerial survey conducted since the
Project’s Order of Conditions was issued in Fall 2015.
2.0 Annual Aerial Survey and Data processing
An aerial survey of Sconset Bluff was performed by AirShark on September 2 and 3, 2019. As
described in the “Southeast Nantucket Beach Monitoring, September 2019, 79th Survey Report”
prepared by Woods Hole Group and dated September 2019, this aerial survey included the bluff,
dune, and beach areas within the Siasconset Monitoring Area from Low Beach to Wauwinet that
have been monitored by Woods Hole Group and others for over 20 years. A subset of the aerial
survey data was processed and used to produce a digital surface model (DSM) of those parts of
Sconset Bluff within and immediately adjacent to the area of the geotextile tubes. The remainder
of this report focuses on the aerial survey data from the aerial survey data from the area of
Sconset Bluff within and immediately adjacent to the geotextile tubes.
2.1 2019 Survey Details
AirShark was contracted by the SBPF to conduct a UAV flight on September 2 and 3, 2019 of
Siasconset Bluff. Airshark is the same firm that previously performed the 2017 and 2018 aerial
surveys. The UAV utilized Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) to map the bluff, geotextile tubes,
21597/Sconset 2 2019 Bluff Aerial Survey Report
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
and beach along Baxter Road. LiDAR measures distance to a target by illuminating that target
with a pulsed laser light, and measuring the reflected pulses with a sensor.
The September 2019 LiDAR mission at Siasconset Beach was flown with a customized DJI M600
Pro flight platform, with a LiDAR capture system provided by Phoenix Aerial Systems. The
platform was flown at approximately 200 – 250ft above ground level (AGL) above the beach in a
series of oval pattern flights. This resulted in a single pass directly up the beach, with the return
to home capturing data along the bluff and giving an approximate 40% sidelap across the previous
LiDAR track. Due to the scale of the project area, the point spacing of the project varies but is
generally between 30-40 points/m2. In comparison to the 2018 collection, the September 2019
collections were performed on a series of automated missions which improves both repeatability
and collection efficiency. Takeoff and landings continue to be flown manually.
The collection and data processing were produced to meet the American Society for
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (“ASPRS”) 2.5 centimeters (cm) and 5 cm Vertical Accuracy
Classes. Independent control and check points were not available for this collection; however,
“Aeropoints,” manufactured by Propeller Aero were laid down near the launch zones for each
flight. Aeropoints are “mapping grade” GNSS receivers embedded in square foam targets; these
targets provide a manufacturer specified ~5 cm Root Mean Square Error (RMSEz) accuracy point
when laid out according to instructions. In practice these targets tend to be significantly more
accurate under ideal conditions; for this project the Aeropoints report approximately 1 cm RMS
horizontal positional error (X and Y). Comparing the LiDAR data against the 9 available Aeropoints
yields a vertical RMSEz of 1.5 cm (Z). An ortho image of the project area was also generated from
the low-resolution onboard RGB camera, with a ground resolution of approximately 15 cm/pixel.
3.0 Changes in Bluff Volume
To understand changes in the bluff volume since Project construction, the results of the 2019
survey were compared to the previous aerial surveys of the Project area that were conducted in
May 2018, August 2017 and July 2013. The July 2013 survey was conducted about 6 months prior
to the installation of the geotextile tubes.
3.1 Changes in Bluff Volume in Adjacent Unprotected Areas
The results of the 2019 aerial survey were used to calculate the changes in the bluff volume from
2018 to 2019 for those unprotected areas immediately adjacent to the geotextile tube project
(Figure 1). During review of the updated profile views it was determined that the break in slope
between beach and bluff is best captured by using elevation +12 feet relative to the North
American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88).1 Therefore, the change in the bluff volume in these
unprotected areas was calculated from the toe of the bluff (elevation +12 feet NAVD 88) to the
top of the bluff.
1 The conversion from Mean Low Water 92 to NAVD 88 is -1.88 feet.
21597/Sconset 3 2019 Bluff Aerial Survey Report
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
♦ For the north unprotected area, the section of the bluff within 802 feet immediately to
the north of the geotextile tubes was used.
♦ For the south unprotected area, the section of bluff within 138 feet immediately to the
south of the geotextile tubes was used. Areas farther south than this could not be used
because they had coir or jute terraces installed so were not representative of the
unprotected bluff.
♦ No areas with a bulge of sand from sand delivery activities at the accessway between 85
and 87 Baxter Road were used in the calculations. In particular, the size of the south
unprotected area was reduced in 2019 (i.e. the northern boundary was moved farther
south) to account for sand delivery activities and the associated accretion of sand on the
bluff face extending farther south in 2019 than in previous years.
As shown in Tables 1a-d, this analysis indicates that the unprotected areas immediately adjacent
to the geotextile tubes eroded at the following rates:
♦ For the most recent year (May 2018 – September 2019), the unprotected areas showed
a calculated net accretion of approximately 1,082 cy (Table 1a). This is equivalent to a
distance-weighted average accretion rate of 1.2 cy/lf/yr. As discussed further below, this
apparent accretion is within the vertical accuracy range of the survey and likely represents
no net change.
♦ For the previous reporting period (August 2017 – May 2018), the unprotected areas
eroded just over 17,000 cy (Table 1b). This is equivalent to a distance-weighted average
of 17.4 cy/lf/yr.
♦ For the period from geotextile tube installation to the previous reporting period (July
2013 – August 2017), the unprotected areas eroded just over 23,700 cy (Table 1c). This
is equivalent to a distance-weighted average of 5.8 cy/lf/yr.
♦ For the period from geotextile tube installation to the most recent survey (July 2013 –
September 2019), the unprotected areas eroded a distance-weighted average equivalent
of 6.8 cy/lf/yr (Table 1d).
Table 1a Bluff Volume Loss in Unprotected Areas Adjacent to Geotextile Tubes for the Most Recent Year,
May 15, 2018 - September 2019
Line Area
Volume
Eroded
(CY)
Length
(Feet)
Duration
(Years)
Annual
Change
(CY/LF/YR)
1 North Unprotected Area -797 802 1.0 -1.0
2 South Unprotected Area -285 138 1.0 -2.1
3 Total Bluff Erosion for Adjacent Unprotected
Areas
-1,082 -1.2
Note: A negative eroded volume correlates to accretion rate. See accompanying text; the calculated accretion is
within the error range of the survey and likely represents no net change.
21597/Sconset 4 2019 Bluff Aerial Survey Report
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Table 1b Bluff Volume Loss in Unprotected Areas Adjacent to Geotextile Tubes for the Previous
Reporting Period, August 2017 - May 2018
Line Area
Volume
Eroded
(CY)
Length
(Feet)
Duration
(Years)
Annual
Change
(CY/LF/YR)
1 North Unprotected Area 14,229 802 1.0 17.7
2 South Unprotected Area 3,054 192 1.0 15.9
3 Total Bluff Erosion for Adjacent Unprotected
Areas
17,283 17.4
Table 1c Bluff Volume Loss in Unprotected Areas Adjacent to Geotextile Tubes, July 2013 - August 2017
Line Area
Volume
Eroded
(CY)
Length
(Feet)
Duration
(Years)
Annual
Change
(CY/LF/YR)
1 North Unprotected Area 21,194 802 1.0 6.5
2 South Unprotected Area 2,523 192 1.0 3.2
3 Total Bluff Erosion for Adjacent Unprotected
Areas
23,717 5.8
Table 1d Bluff Volume Loss in Unprotected Areas Adjacent to Geotextile Tubes for the Six Years since
Geotextile Tube Installation, July 2013 - September 2019
Line Area
Volume
Eroded
(CY)
Length
(Feet)
Duration
(Years)
Annual
Change
(CY/LF/YR)
1 North Unprotected Area 35,423 802 6.0 7.3
2 South Unprotected Area 5,577 192 6.0 4.8
3 Total Bluff Erosion for Adjacent Unprotected
Areas
41,000 6.8
Note: Bluff face accretion is shown in Table 1a for the 2019 Sand Year. As described in this report no net change is
reported. therefore, a value of 0 was used for the 2019 Sand Year to calculate the 6-year average annual rate
The 2018-2019 estimate of the annual change of sand volume from unprotected areas was
calculated as -1.2 cy/lf/yr, which signifies accretion. However, we do not anticipate any accretion
actually occurred on the bluff face in the adjacent unprotected areas. The calculated result
presented in Table 2a may either: 1) represent a minor amount of sand accumulating at the toe
of the bluff, or 2) represent values that are within the vertical accuracy range of the drone survey.
The calculated change in volume correlates to approximately 0.4 feet (12.2 cm) of sand along the
940 feet of unprotected bluff. This change most likely reflects no net loss of unprotected bluff
21597/Sconset 5 2019 Bluff Aerial Survey Report
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
face with a minor amount of sand accumulation along the toe of the bluff. This result of no change
to bluff face volume on the adjacent areas is consistent with the calm storm season.
3.2 Changes in Bluff Volume Above Geotextile Tubes
The 2019 aerial survey was also used to calculate the changes in bluff volume above the geotextile
tubes for the most recent year. No significant change in the bluff volume above the geotextile
tubes was expected, because this portion of the bluff face is above the reach of storm waves and
is also fully vegetated. The change in the bluff volume above the geotubes was calculated as
approximately 587 cy of accretion; however, this accretion correlates to approximately 0.37 feet
(11.3 cm), which is about the vertical accuracy range of the survey methods. This suggests that
the small calculated change in bluff volume is within the vertical accuracy range and that there
has been no net change to the bluff face above the template, which is as expected.
4.0 Volume of Sand in Template
The volume of sand in the template was calculated by determining the total volume of the
template at the time of the 2019 aerial survey and subtracting the known volume of sand within
the geotextile tubes and returns located above the beach level. The total volume of sand above
the beach level was 33,561 cy and the total volume of sand in the geotubes is 11,713 cy. This
yields a sand cover volume in September 2019 of approximately 21,848 cubic yards, which
correlates to 23 cy/lf for the 947-foot-long geotube system.
Calculations were also performed of that portion of the sand template that is located above the
fourth tier. Per the Project’s Order of Conditions, the sand on the top of the fourth tier is not
counted as mitigation sand. This volume is calculated as approximately 3,790 cubic yards. It is
anticipated that sand on top of the sand template, including sand on top of the fourth tier, will
continue to be pushed down to re-cover the geotextile tubes as needed. Therefore, the volume
above the fourth tier will become available through time.
USGS, MassGIS
G:\Projects\Lighthouse\2019\Lighthouse_2019_ArcPro\Lighthouse_2019_ArcPro.aprx
2018 to 2019 Sand Volume Comparison
Figure 1
Baxter Road and Sconset Bluff Storm Damage Prevention Project Nantucket, Massachusetts
Data Source: Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Information Technology Division
Basemap: Orthophotography Provided by AirShark, MassGIS
°0 112.5 225
Feet
Scale 1:2,700
1 Inch = 225 Feet
Net Gain
Net Loss
LEGEND
645cy Loss 930cy Gain
5,846cy Loss 6,643cy Gain
156cy Loss 743cy Gain
Attachment C
Excerpt from Southeast Nantucket Beach Monitoring, December 2019
80th Survey Report
SOUTHEAST NANTUCKET BEACH MONITORING
December 2019
80th SURVEY REPORT
107 Waterhouse Road
Bourne, MA 02532
January 2020
Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company
Siasconset 80th Survey 2000-162 19 January 2020
“See Proprietary Note on Title Page”
3.3 LONG-TERM TRENDS
To help visualize long-term trends at select profiles along the monitoring area, a series
of figures illustrate cumulative change (feet) in shoreline position relative to a 1994
baseline position (zero on the vertical axis) over time on the horizontal axis for a
representative subset of beach profiles. The figure captions include profile-specific
observations. Nine (9) beach profiles are shown in Figures 5 through 13 to represent
the stretch of beach subject to monitoring including:
• Near the south of the monitoring area (Profile 84)
• Approximately 1,000 ft and 500 ft south of the geotubes (Profiles 90 and 90.6)
• Within the geotube area (Profiles 91, 91.5 and 92)
• Approximately 500 ft and 1,000 ft north of the geotubes (Profiles 92.5 and 93)
• Near the north end of the monitoring area (Profile S)
Individual data points on each plot represent the change in shoreline position at mean
low water (MLW), based on the surveyed beach profile at that time. Positive numbers
indicate shoreline advance and negative numbers indicate shoreline retreat relative to
the 1994 baseline (assumed zero). Blue dots represent data obtained from surveys
before the installation of geotubes, while red dots represent data since geotube
installation. The plots differentiate the pre- and post-geotube installation periods as a
known geographic and temporal reference point highlighting results subject to the
current regulatory requirements, and expected to be subject to future monitoring.
The plots demonstrate temporal variability as can be seen with the following examples:
• Periods of stability with little cumulative change in shoreline position as seen in
Figure 5 from December of 1996 to May of 2002;
• Periods of shoreline advance as seen in Figure 5 from May 2002 to February
2005; and
• Periods of shoreline retreat as seen in Figure 6 from December 1996 to February
2005.
General observations derived from the data plotted on Figures 5 through 13 are
summarized below. This collection of long-term observations accentuates the high
degree of variability at this site:
• Each profile includes times of shoreline advance and shoreline retreat,
demonstrating a high degree of variability on short and long-time scales. This
high degree of variability, with observed short-term periods of erosion or
accretion, suggests that adverse effects from the geotextile tubes could only be
reliably determined through years of sustained erosion that deviate from historic
observations.
Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company
Siasconset 80th Survey 2000-162 20 January 2020
“See Proprietary Note on Title Page”
• Each profile responds differently on variable time scales.
• This variability does not lend itself to fitting a long-term trend line with a high
degree of statistical accuracy.
• The current November 2019 shoreline position at many profiles is generally
similar (within about 20 feet) to the shoreline position in the ~2005-2008
timeframe.
• The short-term variability shown by surveys since geotube installation in January
2014 is similar to short-term variability (~2-3 year periods) observed over many
years of surveys before the geotubes were installed. Surveyed post-geotube
shoreline changes are not materially different from previous observations as
related to rates and duration of shoreline change. No accelerated erosion in
excess of historical observations is evident.
Figures 5 through 13 follows below with observations made for each profile.
Figure 5. Cumulative Shoreline Change (ft) at Profile 84 since November 1994.
• Figure 5 shows an overall shoreline advance of ~+110 ft since 1994
• Relatively stable shoreline position with modest retreat from 1996 to late 2001
• 200 ft of shoreline advance from September 2001 to January 2004
• Variable alternating periods of relative stability with modest shoreline advance
and retreat spanning multiple years since 2004
• Relative stability since ~2013.
Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company
Siasconset 80th Survey 2000-162 21 January 2020
“See Proprietary Note on Title Page”
Figure 6. Cumulative Shoreline Change (ft) at Profile 90 since November 1994.
• Figure 6 shows variable periods of shoreline retreat, stability, and advancement
• Net shoreline erosion on the order of -110 ft since 1994
• Relatively consistent erosion from 1996 through April 2001;
• Sharper short-term shoreline retreat between June 2005 and February 2006
• Shoreline advance from February 2006 to November, 2007
• Substantial trend of beach accretion from April 2011 to April 2014
• Relative stability since ~2013.
Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company
Siasconset 80th Survey 2000-162 22 January 2020
“See Proprietary Note on Title Page”
Figure 7. Cumulative Shoreline Change (ft) at Profile 90.6 since November 1994.
• Figure 7 shows variable periods of shoreline erosion, stability, and accretion
• General trend of shoreline erosion between 1996 and 2003
• Substantial advance from October 2003 to February 2005
• Sharp retreat from 2005 to 2006
• Net shoreline retreat on the order of -90 ft since 1994
• Current shoreline position similar to 2004, with relative stability since ~2013.
Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company
Siasconset 80th Survey 2000-162 23 January 2020
“See Proprietary Note on Title Page”
Figure 8. Cumulative Shoreline Change (ft) at Profile 91 since November 1994.
• Figure 8 shows net shoreline loss since 1994 on the order of -110 ft
• Substantial trend of beach erosion at variable rates through 2007
• Variable shoreline position since 2005 with reversing trends of beach accretion
and erosion
• Substantial shoreline advance from September 2012 to March 2013
• Little net change in the shoreline position since April 2007; similar to other
profiles
• Trend of milder shoreline erosion in September 2010 to September 2012,
October 2003 to June 2005, and December 1998 to June 2000
• Current trend shows relative stability since before 2013.
Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company
Siasconset 80th Survey 2000-162 24 January 2020
“See Proprietary Note on Title Page”
Figure 9. Cumulative Shoreline Change (ft) at Profile 91.5 since November 1994.
• Figure 9 shows net shoreline retreat on the order of -90 ft since 1994
• Relatively consistent long-term shoreline erosion from 1996 through September
2012; with short-term variability
• Substantial beach accretion occurred from September 2012 to March 2013
• Current shoreline position similar to December 2012; the observation that the
current shoreline position is similar to the condition 8-10 years ago is common to
other profiles
• Recent trend of relative beach stability since October 2015, and with similar
shoreline position since before 2013.
Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company
Siasconset 80th Survey 2000-162 25 January 2020
“See Proprietary Note on Title Page”
Figure 10. Cumulative Shoreline Change (ft) at Profile 92 since November 1994.
• Figure 10 shows net erosion on the order of -70 ft since 1994
• Current shoreline position similar to observations since 2005; similar to other
profiles
• Recent trend of beach stability since October 2015, and with similar shoreline
position since before 2013.
Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company
Siasconset 80th Survey 2000-162 26 January 2020
“See Proprietary Note on Title Page”
Figure 11. Cumulative Shoreline Change (ft) at Profile 92.5 since November 1994.
• Figure 11 shows net erosion on the order of -50 ft since 1994
• Current shoreline position similar to observations since 2005; similar to other
profiles
• Trend of beach stability for more than ~10 years.
Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company
Siasconset 80th Survey 2000-162 27 January 2020
“See Proprietary Note on Title Page”
Figure 12. Cumulative Shoreline Change (ft) at Profile 93 since November 1994.
• Figure 12 shows relatively stable shoreline position since 1998
• Majority of net losses occurred between 1994 and 1998
• Net erosion on the order of -50 ft since 1994
Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company
Siasconset 80th Survey 2000-162 28 January 2020
“See Proprietary Note on Title Page”
Figure 13. Cumulative Shoreline Change (ft) at Profile S since November 1994.
• Figure 13 shows variable shoreline response
• Net shoreline advance on the order of 25 ft since 1994
• Majority of accretion occurred up to 2011, with sharp periods of erosion
between
• Recent trend of beach stability since 2013.
• As with other profiles, the current shoreline position similar to 2005
3.4 WAVE AND WATER LEVEL CONDITIONS
For the current 80th survey, defined by the time period of September 4th, 2019 through
November 27th, 2019, no nearshore wave data was available since the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution’s (WHOI) Martha’s Vineyard Coastal Observatory (MVCO) was
still not operational. Offshore wave data was taken from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) Station
44008, located 54 nautical miles southeast of Nantucket Island.
At NDBC Station 44008, there were approximately twelve (12) significant wave events
that exceed 1.5 m during the last three months with an overall energy-weighted average
wave height for the time period of 2.7 meters, which is a significant increase since the
last quarter. Three separate storms between September and November produced
waves offshore that exceeded 7 m (22.5 ft) and the largest storm produced waves over
8 m between October 17th and 19th, indicative of a very energetic fall season.
Attachment D
Sconset Beach November 2019 Underwater Video Survey Reports
Submitted to:Nantucket Conservation Commission2 Bathing Beach RoadNantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Submitted by:Siasconset Beach Preservation FundP.O. Box 2279Nantucket, Massachusetts 02584
February 18, 2020
Sconset Beach Underwater Video Survey
Report
Prepared by:
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250
Maynard, Massachusetts 01754
CR Environmental, Inc.
639 Boxberry Road
East Falmouth, Massachusetts 02536
Nantucket, MA
Sconset Beach Underwater Video
Survey Report
Nantucket, MA
Submitted to:
Nantucket Conservation Commission
Submitted by:
Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund
Prepared by:
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
CR Environmental, Inc.
February 18, 2020
Table of Contents
21597/Sconset Geotextile Tube Project i Table of Contents
Underwater Video Survey Report Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Table of Contents
UNDERWATER VIDEO SURVEY REPORT 2
1.0 Introduction 2
2.0 Vessel Operations, Navigation, and Survey Design 2
3.0 Survey Data Acquisition and Processing 3
4.0 Survey Results 4
4.1 Biota 5
4.2 Bottom Sediment Coverage 6
5.0 Conclusions 8
ATTACHMENT A Video Survey Maps
Figure 1 Underwater Video Trackline Map
Figure 2 Percent Cobble/Boulder Present at Trackline Intersections (November 2019)
Figure 3 Percent Cobble/Boulder Present at Trackline Intersections (November 2018)
Figure 4 Percent Cobble/Boulder Present at Trackline Intersections (June 2018)
Figure 5 Percent Cobble/Boulder Present at Trackline Intersections (November 2017)
Figure 6 Percent Cobble/Boulder Present at Trackline Intersections (June 2017)
Figure 7 Percent Cobble/Boulder Present at Trackline Intersections (October 2016)
Figure 8 Percent Cobble/Boulder Present at Trackline Intersections (June 2016)
ATTACHMENT B Video Survey Screenshot Figures
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Sconset Beach Video Survey – Bottom Sediment Coverage and Biota
Underwater Video Survey Report
21597/Sconset Geotextile Tube Project 2 Underwater Survey Report
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
UNDERWATER VIDEO SURVEY REPORT
1.0 Introduction
On November 14, 2019, CR Environmental, Inc. (“CR”) and Epsilon Associates, Inc. (“Epsilon”) on
behalf of the Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund (“SBPF”) conducted the autumn 2019
underwater video survey offshore from the geotube system, at the base of the bluff from 87-105
Baxter Road, Nantucket, MA. These geotubes were installed in December 2013 and January 2014
(with an approximate length of 852-feet) and were then expanded in November and December
2015 to a total length of 947-feet.
As part of the Order of Conditions (DEP File No. SE48-2824) for the geotube project, underwater
video monitoring is required as described in Special Conditions 28 of the Order of Conditions,
which reads in part:
“… Photographs and/or video shall be taken along the transects within the project
area and the area directly adjacent to the project area. The underwater video shall
be able to characterize the bottom sediments, species present and relative abundance
including the calculating of the percent cobble where appropriate. …”
The purpose of the underwater video survey monitoring is to evaluate if mitigation sand that
washes off the sand template and carried into the littoral system, i.e. that sand on top of the
geotextile tubes, is causing a significant alteration or loss of cobble/boulder habitat located
directly offshore of the geotube system. The November 2019 survey marks the seventh
underwater video survey since the geotubes were installed. This document describes the data
acquisition and processing methods, equipment used for the survey, and survey results.
2.0 Vessel Operations, Navigation, and Survey Design
The underwater video monitoring survey activity was conducted on November 14, 2019 from the
35-foot fishing vessel Althea K. The vessel was configured to accommodate navigation and video
acquisition systems and was furnished with a portable generator to power survey electronics. The
survey crew on the underwater video survey consisted of a boat captain and one mate, a field
biologist, an oceanographic technician, and an environmental scientist. The survey was
conducted to continue to visually to characterize bottom sediments, biota, and type of bottom
cover offshore from the geotube project site (see Figures 1-8 in Attachment A).
Navigation for the survey was accomplished using a Hemisphere VS-110 12-channel sub-meter
(GPS) system. The GPS system was interfaced to a laptop computer running HYPACK 2013A
hydrographic survey software. HYPACK recorded vessel position, water depth, and provided a
steering display for the vessel captain.
During the November 2019 survey, a total of nineteen (19) 3- to 5-minute video drifts were
performed and bottom coverage was obtained at 33 of the 35 survey point intersections. The air
temperature was between 35 to 40 degrees, wind speed at 5 to 10 knots, swells at 2 feet for the
first three hours of the survey, which then increased to 10 to 15 knots with increased swells
following the change in tide. Due to these workable ocean conditions, good quality underwater
video data were obtained at most of the stations. At a few of the stations, the vessel was forced
21597/Sconset Geotextile Tube Project 3 Underwater Survey Report
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
to maneuver (power) in the seas to achieve the correct drift direction. In these cases, the video
sled was at time towed sideways and the video data quality reduced. However, classification of
the major substrate types and biota could still be performed by selecting the highest available
video quality near each survey point intersection.
3.0 Survey Data Acquisition and Processing
Underwater video operations were conducted using a real-time high-resolution color underwater
video data acquisition system which permitted the characterization of bottom habitat and the
species present. Maps showing the location of the video transects offshore are provided in
Attachment A.
Underwater video data were collected with CR’s portable towed video sled consisting of a
lightweight aluminum frame, Outland Technologies’ high-resolution low light color camera, and
two wide-angle 250-watt lights with variable output control. The video camera was cabled to the
surface to an OTI-960 DVR recorder and topside monitor. A GoPro 4 Black color camera with
internal data storage was also mounted to the towed sled and recorded footage simultaneously
with the Outland camera as a second source of data. The video sled was lowered and raised using
a lifting davit and lobster pot hauler mounted on the stern and the height of the system off the
bottom was continually adjusted to achieve the best bottom coverage and video quality. The
vessel speed varied between 0.5 to 1.7 knots.
Mounted lasers on the video sled frame were used for scaling purposes, and a calibrated scale
template was overlain on the video frame or screen captures. The distance between template
grid lines in both the X and Y directions was equal to approximately 6 inches. This grid system
permitted scaling and estimating of bottom biota and determining substrate classes and their
percent coverage. When the video camera was one foot off the bottom, the viewing area of the
camera was approximately 1.5 ft x 1.5 ft (18” x 18”) and the video quality was optimal for bottom
sediment characterizations and biota identifications.
HYPACK navigation files were recorded during each video drift. Video data were transferred to a
processing computer and viewed by a staff scientist at Epsilon. Representative screen captures
(frame images) were extracted along each video drift to characterize bottom sediments and biota
offshore from the project.
To analyze the bottom characteristics of each video drift, screenshots were taken at points as
close as possible to the June 2017 survey’s seven shore-parallel and three shore-perpendicular
transect intersections (Figure 6). The November 2019 survey collected video drifts over these
intersections. In addition, coordinates for two previously-established, shore-perpendicular
survey transects (90.6 and 92.5) were added to the figure, then screenshots were pulled from
points nearest the June 2017 survey’s intersections between those two transects and the seven
shore-parallel transects.
Using the GPS data collected simultaneously with the video, the time stamps for each of these
intersection points were extracted into a spreadsheet. The intersection coordinates were found
by scrolling through the video until the time matched as closely as possible to the time recorded
to the GPS data coordinates. Sometimes the view closest to the intersection point was not
optimal due to the camera position being either too far from or too close to the bottom, or the
21597/Sconset Geotextile Tube Project 4 Underwater Survey Report
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
video sled was towing on its side so that the scale lasers were not visible. In these instances, a
screenshot was captured as close as possible to the intersect position where the view was
improved. The scale grid was overlain on the video view. Live video (not shown) was reviewed
concurrent with the screenshots for the most accurate assessment of biota and bottom substrate.
Once the scale grid was in place, the bottom coverage was classified along a gradient of grain sizes
using the Auster hierarchical approach (Auster 1998). Bottom sediment and habitat types within
the offshore area included: flat sand, sand ripples, sand waves, pebble, cobble, and boulder. The
percent cover for bottom sediment types present in each screenshot was approximated using the
scale grid. Each of the nine grid sections was reviewed and bottom sediment was categorized
individually, then an average was calculated for the complete screenshot. The percent bottom
type numbers were rounded to the nearest five percent for presentation in Table 1. To maintain
consistency across the 33 screenshots, the same individual reviewed all final percent cover
estimates concurrently with the live video.
Each screenshot is given three identifiers in Table 1. First, the intersection location is indicated
by the name of the transect, which is the same as the distance in feet from the shore (see Figure
1). The November 2019 intersection locations followed the November 2018 survey transect,
therefore these distance labels are unchanged (see Figures 1 and 2). Second, the shore
perpendicular transect that crosses the shore-parallel transect is listed. Lastly, each screenshot is
given a number consistent with the order of all the past surveys’ intersection numbering (i.e. the
November 2019 intersection numbering is consistent with all previous surveys, back to June
2016).
4.0 Survey Results
Table 1 provides the bottom sediment coverage and biota present in the underwater video drifts
collected in November 2019 offshore from the geotube system. Screenshots captured from the
underwater video are numbered 1-35 (excluding 15 and 29) and are presented in Attachment B –
Video Survey Screenshot Figures. Note, the November 2019 screenshot numbering 1-35
corresponds to the intersection numbers depicted on Figure 1 – Underwater Video Trackline Map,
found in Attachment A – Figures.
Results of each screenshot are tabulated in terms of bottom sediment coverage percentages and
biota. Screenshots between intersection numbers 1 through 21 were taken at intersection
locations between shore-parallel and shore-perpendicular survey transects established for the
underwater video monitoring, while screenshots between intersection numbers 22 through 35
used shore-perpendicular transect locations taken from the previously established Woods Hole
Group shoreline monitoring transects.
Table 1 provides an assessment of the biota present and the bottom type at each of the 35
screenshot locations.
21597/Sconset Geotextile Tube Project 5 Underwater Survey Report
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
4.1 Biota
During the underwater video survey, 13 invertebrate species, one fish species, and five marine
plant and algal species were observed. The dominant biota across all transects included
unidentified branching brown algae, unidentified branching red algae, Irish moss red algae,
rockweed brown algae, hydroids, barnacles, common slipper shells, bread crumb sponge, sulfur
(boring) sponge, and hermit crabs. Additional biota observed at the transect intersections
included northern star coral, orange encrusting bryozoan, red beard sponge, rock crab, surf clam
shell, and unidentified shell fragments. Additionally, while either not captured or identifiable in
the intersection screenshots, the following biota were observed during the video survey
fieldwork: moonsnail, sand shrimp, common skate and egg casing, and scallop shell.
♦ Branching brown and red algae were abundant and were observed in the entire survey
area. This was likely Irish moss and rockweed algae, which are often difficult to distinguish
if the camera is not close or the sled speed is not slow enough.
♦ Sulfur sponge and hydroids were abundant and were found in nearly every transect, with
the exception of the transect closest to shore: TR-250.
♦ Hermit crabs were the most abundant and were observed across the whole survey area
and were observed mostly in the offshore cobble/boulder environment.
♦ Bread crumb sponge was abundant and was found in all transect, but not identified at
every intersection.
♦ Common slipper shells were abundant in the entire survey area, mostly beyond 700 feet
offshore.
♦ Moonsnails were observed in transect TR-725 near intersections 8, 9, and 31.
♦ Rock crabs were observed in all transects, except for the two closest to shore: TR-250 and
TR-415.
♦ Sand shrimp were observed in transect TR-250 near intersections 1 and 22.
♦ Common skate was observed in transect TR-1915 and a skate egg case was seen near
intersection 28.
Overall, the November 2019 survey continues to show a biologically productive habitat is located
just offshore from the geotube bank stabilization system. The June 2016, October 2016, June
2017, November 2017, June 2018, and November 2019 surveys had similar dominant biota of
branching brown and red algae, sulfur sponge, bread crumb sponge, and common slipper shells.
Besides some expected seasonal variability of the species present, the November 2019 survey had
results consistent with the dominant biota observed in 2016, 2017, and 2018 and there is no
indication of adverse effect of marine biota from the geotube system and sand contributed off
the sand template.
21597/Sconset Geotextile Tube Project 6 Underwater Survey Report
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
4.2 Bottom Sediment Coverage
In addition to biota, Table 1 lists the bottom coverage types observed in the survey area. The
bottom sediment categories include sand flat, sand waves, sand ripples, pebble, cobble, and
boulder. An additional category shows the cobble and boulder percentage combined into one
percentage. These percentages were combined to show a more representative picture of the
bottom substrate differences across the survey area. These combined data were used to create
Figure 2, which shows the abundance of cobble/boulder from the November 2019 survey. The
cobble/boulder surface was calculated using a geoprocessing tool that interpolates a surface from
points using an inverse distance weighted (IDW) technique1.
The percentage of cobble/boulder coverage ranges from green gradients colors (0-24%), to blue
gradient colors (25-69%), and finally to red gradient colors (70-100%) (Figure 2). The percent
cobble/boulder coverage varies significantly across the survey area, from <10% to 80%. In
November 2019, most of the survey area has 25-54% cobble/boulder coverage.
A comparison was made between this November 2019 survey and the 2016, 2017, and 2018
survey results. An understanding of the natural variability in the nearshore environment provides
important context for interpreting results between surveys. Although the presence of
cobble/boulder habitat is widespread just offshore from the geotextile tubes, there is significant
natural variability within this habitat. As explained in the October 2016 survey report, the percent
cobble/boulder coverage can vary by 20% or more when reviewing video from locations even one
or two seconds (this time correlates to about 4 to 10 feet) either before or after the intersection
point selected for screenshot capture. While each survey collects video data along similar
transects, it is nearly impossible to collect video data at absolutely identical locations between
surveys, due to both minor variation in the position of the vessel during video survey data
collection and due to the occasional need to adjust screenshot capture locations by one or two
seconds in order to capture the clearest view. Accordingly, some variation is expected in the
cobble/boulder percent cover in each survey, since each survey will represent slightly different
locations.
With these considerations in mind, the results of the November 2019 survey were compared with
the previous six surveys conducted in June 2016, October 2016, June 2017, November 2017, June
2018, and November 2018. Following are the key findings from this comparison:
♦ All seven surveys showed that most of the sampling area had 25-54% cobble coverage.
♦ All seven surveys indicated that the nearshore survey areas had the lowest
cobble/boulder percent coverage, from <10% to 24%.
♦ The cobble/boulder cover was found to increase further offshore. In the November 2019,
November 2018, June 2018, November 2017, and June 2017 surveys, the increased
cobble/boulder cover started to closer to shore (at about 415 feet offshore) than in the
1 The November 2019 figure shows an IDW interpolation with a fixed search radius that included all 33 intersection
points.
21597/Sconset Geotextile Tube Project 7 Underwater Survey Report
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
June 2016 and October 2016 surveys (where increased cobble/boulder coverage was
observed starting around 700 feet offshore).
♦ All seven surveys identified the same general areas as having the highest concentration
of cobble/boulder:
o June 2016 intersections 9, 11, 12, 15, 33, and 35 has 65-90% cobble/boulder
coverage.
o October 2016 intersections 9, 11, 15, 22, and 25 had 65-90% cobble/boulder
coverage.
o June 2017 intersections 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 33, and 35 had 65-85% cobble/boulder
coverage.
o November 2017 intersections 8, 13, 18, 33, and 35 had 65-85% cobble/boulder
coverage.
o June 2018 intersections 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 33, and 35 had 65-100%
cobble/boulder coverage.
o November 2018 intersections 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 31, 33, and 35 had 65-100%
cobble/boulder coverage.
o November 2019 intersections 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, 33, and 35 had 65-80%
cobble/boulder coverage.
While these results were generally consistent with each other, there was some variation. As
explained above, the differences in percent cobble/boulder coverage between the six surveys are
considered to be the results of natural variability. A couple locations where the percent
cobble/boulder appeared to decrease in November 2019 from the previous surveys (intersections
11, 13, and 30) were checked and were within 10% of the past four surveys. Intersections 6, 14,
16, 20, 21, 23, 25, 28, and 34 showed increased cobble/boulder percentages than the previous
surveys with a difference of 5-10%. Intersection 27 showed increased cobble/boulder percentage
of approximately 15% but was checked and was lower than the percent cobble/boulder in June
2018 and the same percent cover in November 2017.
These observations suggest that the apparent difference between the two 2016 surveys, the two
2017 surveys, the two 2018 surveys, and the 2019 survey reflects the slightly different locations
21597/Sconset Geotextile Tube Project 8 Underwater Survey Report
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
chosen for screenshot capture between the seven surveys and is not indicative of change in
cobble/boulder habitat.
Overall, the November 2019 underwater video survey indicates that a productive widespread
cobble/boulder habitat area is located just offshore from the geotextile tubes, and there is no
indication that such habitat is being covered by the sand mitigation.
5.0 Conclusions
An underwater video survey of the area located just offshore of the geotube system and
surrounding areas was conducted in November 2019, approximately 6 years after the installation
of the geotextile tubes at the base of the bluff. During this survey, 13 invertebrate species, one
fish species, and five marine plant and algal species were observed. The dominant biota across
all transects included branching brown algae, branching red algae, hydroids, barnacles, common
slipper shells, bread crumb sponge, sulfur sponge, and hermit crabs. Besides some expected
seasonal variability of the species present, the November 2019 survey continues to show
biologically productive benthic habitat just offshore from the geotextile tubes, and there is no
indication of adverse effect on marine biota from the geotextile tube project.
The bottom sediment type was also surveyed. The percent cobble/boulder coverage varied
significantly across the survey area, from <10% to 80% with increasing percentage of
cobble/boulder coverage correlated with increasing distance offshore. The November 2019
survey results were broadly consistent with the survey results from 2016, 2017, and 2018: most
of the survey area in November 2019 had 25-54% cobble/boulder coverage, similar to the
previous surveys, and localized areas of higher cobble coverage were found at similar locations in
all seven surveys. While some variation was found between the seven surveys, an analysis of
survey results described in the October 2016 survey report showed that the percentage of
cobble/boulder coverage at video locations within just a few feet of one another could vary by up
to 20-30%, indicating that much of the observed differences between the seven surveys can be
attributed to natural variability. Based on the continued prevalence of cobble/boulder habitat
located directly offshore of the geotextile tube Project, there is no evidence that cobble/boulder
habitat is being covered by the mitigation sand.
As described in the June 2016 report, the volume of the sand template is minimal compared to
the volume of native sand moving in the littoral system and shoal movements. It is our ongoing
recommendation that a reduction in the frequency of underwater video monitoring is warranted.
Regular monitoring to date indicates that mitigation sand is not contributing to the loss of, or
covering of, cobble/boulder substrate.
Flat Sand/Sand
Waves/Sand
Ripples
Pebble Cobble Boulder
TR-250 91.9 1 55 5 30 10 40
Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Common
Slipper Shells, Hermit Crabs,
Bread Crumb Sponge,
Northern Star Coral
TR-250 91.35 2
TR-250 91 3 100 0 0 0 0 Unidentified Floating Algae
TR-415 91.9 4 95 0 5 0 5
Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Unidentified
Floating Algae
TR-415 91.35 5 80 0 20 0 20
Rockweed, Unidentified
Branching Algae, Hydroids,
Northern Star Coral, Hermit
Crabs, Shell Hash
TR-415 91 6 40 0 35 25 60
Rockweed, Unidentified
Branching Brown and Red
Algae, Shell Hash, Hermit
Crabs, Red Beard Sponge,
Barnacles
TR-725 91.9 7 55 0 15 30 45
Irish Moss, Unidentified
Branching Brown and Red
Algae, Common Slipper Shells,
Orange Encrusting Bryozoan,
Hydroids, Barnacles, Sulfur
Sponge, Bread Crumb Sponge
TR-725 91.35 8 30 0 10 60 70
Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Common
Slipper Shells, Shell Hash, Rock
Crab, Hermit Crabs, Sulfur
Sponge
TR-725 91 9 25 5 25 45 65
Rockweed, Irish Moss,
Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Common
Slipper Shells, Shell Hash,
Hermit Crab, Sulfur Sponge,
Bread Crumb Sponge
TR-1050 91.9 10 20 55 25 0 25
Rockweed, Irish Moss,
Common Slipper Shells, Shell
Hash, Unidentified Branching
Brown and Red Algae, Clam
Shell
No Data Available
Table 1. Sconset Beach Video Survey November 14, 2019 - Bottom Sediment Coverage and Biota
Shore-Parallel
Transect #
Shore-
Perpendicular
Transect #
Screenshot
Label
Bottom Sediment Coverage
(Percent)Cobble +
Boulder
(Percent)
Biota
Page 1 of 4
Flat Sand/Sand
Waves/Sand
Ripples
Pebble Cobble Boulder
Shore-Parallel
Transect #
Shore-
Perpendicular
Transect #
Screenshot
Label
Bottom Sediment Coverage
(Percent)Cobble +
Boulder
(Percent)
Biota
TR-1050 91.35 11 45 5 5 45 50
Rockweed, Irish Moss,
Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Shell Hash,
Hermit Crab, Unidentified
Floating Algae
TR-1050 91 12 40 10 0 50 50
Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Common
Slipper Shell, Bread Crumb
Sponge, Shell Hash, Moon
Snail, Hermit Crabs
TR-1300 91.9 13 45 5 15 35 50
Rockweed, Irish Moss,
Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Unidentified
Floating Red Algae, Sulfur
Sponge, Bread Crumb Sponge,
Hydroids, Shell Hash
TR-1300 91.35 14 15 15 35 35 70
Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Sulfur Sponge,
Bread Crumb Sponge,
Common Slipper Shells
TR-1300 91 15 5 25 60 10 70
Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Sulfur Sponge,
Bread Crumb Sponge,
Hydroids, Common Slipper
Shells, Hermit Crabs
TR-1595 91.9 16 10 20 55 15 70
Rockweed, Irish Moss,
Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Orange
Encrusting Bryozoan, Sulfur
Sponge, Bread Crumb Sponge,
Hydroids, Northern Star Coral,
Hermit Crab, Common Slipper
Shells
TR-1595 91.35 17 5 40 55 0 55
Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Sulfur Sponge,
Bread Crumb Sponge, Orange
Encrusting Bryozoan,
Hydroids, Northern Star Coral,
Barnacles, Common Slipper
Shells
TR-1595 91 18 15 20 40 25 65
Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Sulfur Sponge,
Bread Crumb Sponge,
Common Slipper Shells, Shell
Hash
Page 2 of 4
Flat Sand/Sand
Waves/Sand
Ripples
Pebble Cobble Boulder
Shore-Parallel
Transect #
Shore-
Perpendicular
Transect #
Screenshot
Label
Bottom Sediment Coverage
(Percent)Cobble +
Boulder
(Percent)
Biota
TR-1915 91.9 19 35 25 30 10 40
Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Sulfur Sponge,
Red Beard Sponge, Bread
Crumb Sponge, Hermit Crab,
Hermit Crab, Common Slipper
Shells, Shell Hash
TR-1915 91.35 20 40 10 15 35 50
Irish Moss, Unidentified
Branching Brown and Red
Algae, Sulfur Sponge, Bread
Crumb Sponge, Red Beard
Sponge, Barnacles
TR-1915 91 21 50 15 35 0 35
Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Bread Crumb
Sponge, Sulfur Sponge, Clam
Shell, Common Slipper Shells
TR-250 92.5 22 80 0 20 0 20
Unidentified Floating Algae,
Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Hermit Crab
TR-415 92.5 23 60 0 15 25 40
Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Hydroids, Shell
Hash
TR-725 92.5 24 65 0 15 20 35
Rockweed, Irish Moss,
Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Shell Hash,
Hydroids, Barnacles
TR-1050 92.5 25 45 10 25 20 45
Unidentified Branching Red
Algae, Barnacles, Sulfur
Sponge, Bread Crumb Sponge,
Red Beard Sponge, Common
Slipper Shell, Shell Hash
TR-1300 92.5 26 0 65 35 0 35
Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Bread Crumb
Sponge, Common Slipper
Shells, Hermit Crab
TR-1595 92.5 27 65 0 30 5 35
Irish Moss, Unidentified
Branching Brown and Red
Algae, Sulfur Sponge,
Common Slipper Shells,
Hermit Crab, Barnacles
TR-1915 92.5 28 45 20 30 5 35
Irish Moss, Unidentified
Branching Brown and Red
Algae, Common Slipper Shells,
Sulfur Sponge, Red Beard
Sponge, Moon Snail, Hermit
Crab
TR-250 90.6 29 No Data Available
Page 3 of 4
Flat Sand/Sand
Waves/Sand
Ripples
Pebble Cobble Boulder
Shore-Parallel
Transect #
Shore-
Perpendicular
Transect #
Screenshot
Label
Bottom Sediment Coverage
(Percent)Cobble +
Boulder
(Percent)
Biota
TR-415 90.6 30 70 0 20 10 20
Unidentified Branching Red
and Brown Algae, Unidentified
Floating Algae, Common
Slipper Shells, Bread Crumb
Sponge, Hermit Crabs, Orange
Encrusting Bryozoan,
Hydroids, Shell Hash, Clam
Shell
TR-725 90.6 31 45 0 15 40 55
Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Hydroids,
Bread Crumb Sponge, Red
Beard Sponge, Orange
Encrusting Bryozoan
TR-1050 90.6 32 5 60 10 25 35
Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Common
Slipper Shells, Sulfur Sponge,
Shell Hash, Hydroids, Northern
Star Coral, Hermit Crab
TR-1300 90.6 33 25 5 40 30 70
Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Barnacles,
Bread Crumb Sponge, Orange
Encrusting Bryozoan
TR-1595 90.6 34 0 60 30 10 40
Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Sulfur Sponge,
Bread Crumb Sponge,
Common Slipper Shells, Shell
Hash, Hermit Crab, Northern
Star Coral, Red Beard Sponge
TR-1915 90.6 35 5 15 65 15 80
Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Bread Crumb
Sponge, Red Beard Sponge,
Barnacles, Common Slipper
Shells, Shell Hash, Hermit Crab
Page 4 of 4
Attachment A
Video Survey Maps
Figure 1 Underwater Video Trackline Map
Figure 2 Percent Cobble/Boulder Present at Trackline Intersections (November 2019)
Figure 3 Percent Cobble/Boulder Present at Trackline Intersections (November 2018)
Figure 4 Percent Cobble/Boulder Present at Trackline Intersections (June 2018)
Figure 5 Percent Cobble/Boulder Present at Trackline Intersections (November 2017)
Figure 6 Percent Cobble/Boulder Present at Trackline Intersections (June 2017)
Figure 7 Percent Cobble/Boulder Present at Trackline Intersections (October 2016)
Figure 8 Percent Cobble/Boulder Present at Trackline Intersections (June 2016)
92.5
90.6
TR-91.9
TR-91.35
TR-91.13
TR-725
TR-1,300
TR-1,595
TR-415
TR-250
TR-1,915
TR-1,050
3
1
22
30
6
5
23
31
9
8
7
24 25
10
11
12
32
26
13
14
15
33
27
16
17
18
34
28
19
21
35
204
G:\Projects\Lighthouse\2019\2019_Underwater_Survey\MXD\Underwater_Video_Transects_20200117.mxd
Figure 1Underwater Video Trackline Map
Sconset Beach Video Survey Nantucket, Massachusetts
LEGEND
Basemap: 2018 World Imagery, ESRI °0 375 750
Feet1 inch = 750 feet
Scale 1:9,000
Transect Survey Point Intersection
Shoreline Survey Transects
Video Drift Transects (November 2019)
Video Drift Transects (June 2017)
Geotube Area
N
orth
A
tl
a
nti
c
OceanService Layer Credits: Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GISUser Community
Notes: -Transects 92.5 and 90.6 were not video drifttransects and were added to the figure so thatcoordinates could be pulled.-Transects TR-91.9, TR-91.35, and TR-91.13 areJune 2017 video drift transects and were added to the figure so that coordinates could be pulled.-The NAD27 Datum was used for consistency with Woods Hole Group Shoreline Surveys.
TR-725
TR-1,300
TR-1,595
TR-415TR-250 TR-1,915
TR-1,050
TR-91.13
TR-91.35
TR-91.9
92.5
90.6
TR-725
TR-1,300
TR-415TR-250
3
1
22
30
6
5
23
31
9
8
7
24 25
10
11
12
32
26
13
14
15
33
27
16
17
18
34
28
19
21
35
204
G:\Projects\Lighthouse\2019\2019_Underwater_Survey\MXD\Percent_Cobble_Boulder_Transects_20200119.mxd
Figure 2Percent Cobble/Boulder Present at Trackline Intersections (November 2019)
Sconset Beach Video Survey Nantucket, Massachusetts
LEGEND
Basemap: 2018 World Imagery, ESRI °0 375 750
Feet1 inch = 750 feet
Scale 1:9,000
Transect Survey Point Intersection
Shoreline Survey Transects
Video Drift Transects (November 2019)
Video Drift Transects (June 2017)
Geotube Area
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GISUser Community
Notes: -Transects 92.5 and 90.6 were not video drifttransects and were added to the figure so thatcoordinates could be pulled.-Transects TR-91.9, TR-91.35, and TR-91.13 areJune 2017 video drift transects and were added to the figure so that coordinates could be pulled.-The NAD27 Datum was used for consistency with Woods Hole Group Shoreline Surveys.
% Cobble/Boulder
0-9%
10-24%
25-39%
40-54%
55-69%
70-84%
85-100%
N
ort
h
A
tl
a
nti
c
Ocean
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
TR-725
TR-1,300
TR-1,595
TR-415TR-250 TR-1,915
TR-1,050
TR-91.13
TR-91.35
TR-91.9
90.6
92.5
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
19161310741
2 5 8 11 14 17 20
21
33 34
12
31
63
9
15 18
29 30
32
35
G:\Projects\Lighthouse\2018\2018_Underwater_Video\MXD\Percent_Cobble_Boulder_Transects_20190221.mxd
Figure 3 Percent Cobble/Boulder Present at Trackline Intersections (November 2018)
Sconset Beach Video Survey Nantucket, Massachusetts
LEGEND
Basemap: 2017 World Imagery, ESRI °0 375 750
Feet1 inch = 750 feet
Scale 1:9,000
!(Transect Survey Point Intersection
Shoreline Survey Transects
Video Drift Transects (November 2018)
Video Drift Transects (June 2017)
Geotube Area
N
orth
A
tl
a
nti
c
OceanNotes: -Transects 92.5 and 90.6 were not video drifttransects and were added to the figure so thatcoordinates could be pulled.-Transects TR-91.9, TR-91.35, and TR-91.13 areJune 2017 video drift transects and were added to the figure so that coordinates could be pulled.-The NAD27 Datum was used for consistency with Woods Hole Group Shoreline Surveys.
% Cobble/Boulder
0-9%
10-24%
25-39%
40-54%
55-69%
70-84%
85-100%
92.5
90.6
TR-91.9
TR-91.35
TR-91.13
TR-1,050
TR-1,915
TR-250 TR-415
TR-1,595
TR-1,300
TR-725
6
5
4
9
8
7
3
2 12
11
10
15
14
13
18
17
16
20
19
21
30 31
29
32 33 34
23 24
22
25
26 27
35
28
1
G:\Projects\Lighthouse\2018\2018_Underwater_Video\MXD\Percent_Cobble_Boulder_Transects_20180607.mxd
Figure 4 Percent Cobble/Boulder Present at Trackline Intersections (June 2018)
Sconset Beach Video Survey Nantucket, Massachusetts
LEGEND
Basemap: 2017 World Imagery, ESRI °0 375 750
Feet1 inch = 750 feet
Scale 1:9,000
Transect Survey Point Intersection
Shoreline Survey Transects
Video Drift Transects
Geotube Area
N
orth
A
tl
a
nti
c
OceanNotes: -Transects 92.5 and 90.6 were not video drifttransects and were added to the figure so thatcoordinates could be pulled.-Transects TR-91.9, TR-91.35, and TR-91.13 areJune 2017 video drift transects and were added to the figure so that coordinates could be pulled.-The NAD27 Datum was used for consistency with Woods Hole Group Shoreline Surveys.
% Cobble/Boulder
0-9%
10-24%
25-39%
40-54%
55-69%
70-84%
85-100%TR-91.9
TR-91.35
TR-91.13
24
26
28
7
14
2322
41
52
3 6
29 30 31 32 33 34
35
21
15
9
25
10
8 11
17
19
2013
27
16
1812
G:\Projects\Lighthouse\2017\2017_Underwater_Survey\MXD\Percent_Cobble_Boulder_20171116_30.mxd
Figure 5 Percent Cobble/Boulder Present at Trackline Intersections (November 2017)
Sconset Beach Video Survey Nantucket, Massachusetts
LEGEND
Basemap: ESRI World Imagery °0 375 750
Feet1 inch = 750 feet
Scale 1:9,000
N
orth
A
tl
a
nti
c
OceanNote: -Transects 92.5 and 90.6 were not video drift transects and were added to the figure so that coordinates could be pulled-The NAD27 Datum was used for consistency with Woods Hole Group Shoreline Surveys
92.5
90.6
TR-91.9
TR-91.35
TR-91.13
TR-1,050
TR-1,915
TR-250
TR-415
TR-1,595
TR-1,300
TR-725
Transect Survey Point Intersection
Video Drift Transects
Shoreline Survey Transects
Video Drift Transects (June 2017)
Geotube Area% Cobble/Boulder
0-9%
10-24%
25-39%
40-54%
55-69%
70-84%
85-100%
Transect Survey Point Intersection(no data collection November 2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31 32 33 34 35
G:\Projects\Lighthouse\2017\2017_Underwater_Survey\MXD\Percent_Cobble_Boulder_20170928.mxd
Figure 6 Percent Cobble/Boulder Present at Trackline Intersections (June 2017)
Sconset Beach Video Survey Nantucket, Massachusetts
LEGEND
Basemap: 2016 NAIP Imagery, USDA FSA °0 375 750
Feet1 inch = 750 feetScale1:9,000
Transect Survey Point Intersection
Shoreline Survey Transects
Video Drift Transects
Geotube Area% Cobble/Boulder
0-9%
10-24%
25-39%
40-54%
55-69%
70-84%
85-100%
N
orth
A
tl
a
nti
c
OceanNote: -Transects 92.5 and 90.6 were not video drift transects and were added to the figure so that coordinates could be pulled-The NAD27 Datum was used for consistency with Woods Hole Group Shoreline Surveys
92.5
90.6
TR-91.9
TR-91.35
TR-91.13
TR-1,050
TR-1,915
TR-250
TR-415
TR-1,595
TR-1,300
TR-725
TR-91.9
TR-91.35
TR-710
TR-1,265 TR-1,590
TR-400TR-250
TR-1,925
TR-1,020
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31 32 33 34 35
G:\Projects\Lighthouse\2016\Percent_Cobble_Boulder_20161221.mxd
Figure 7 Percent Cobble/Boulder Present at Trackline Intersections (October 2016)
Sconset Beach Video Survey Nantucket, Massachusetts
Data Source: Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Information Technology Division
LEGEND
°0 350 700
Feet1 inch = 700 feet
Scale 1:8,400
Screenshot Location
Video Drift Transects
Shoreline Survey Transects
Geotube Area
% Cobble/Boulder
0-9%
10-24%
25-39%
40-54%
55-69%
70-84%
85-100%
90.6
92.5 TR-91.9
TR-91.35
TR-91.13
NorthAtlanticOcean
Note: -Transects 92.5 and 90.6 were not videodrift transects and were added to the figureso that coordinates could be pulled-The NAD27 Datum was used for consistency withWoods Hole Group Shoreline Surveys
Basemap: 2013 Orthophotography, MassGIS
TR-91.9
TR-91.35
TR-91.13
TR-220 TR-370
TR-720 TR-1,020
TR-1,280 TR-1,580
TR-1,900
N
orth
A
t
la
n
ti
c
Oc
e
an18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
09
08
07
06
05
04
03
02
01
21
20
19
343332313029
35
272625242322
28
G:\Projects\Lighthouse\2016\Percent_Cobble_Boulder_20161012.mxd
Figure 8 Percent Cobble/Boulder Present at Trackline Intersections (June 2016)
Sconset Beach Video Survey Nantucket, Massachusetts
Data Source: Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Information Technology Division
LEGEND
0 350 700
Feet1 inch = 700 feet
Scale1:8,400
Screenshot Location
Video Drift Transects
Shoreline Survey Transects
Geotube Area
% Cobble/Boulder
0-10%
10-25%
25-40%
40-55%
55-70%
70-85%
85-100%
90.6
92.5
Note: -Transects 92.5 and 90.6 were not videodrift transects and were added to the figureso that coordinates could be pulled-The NAD27 Datum was used for consistency withWoods Hole Group Shoreline Surveys
Attachment B
Video Survey Screenshot Figures
1 (Sand 55%, Pebble 5%, Cobble 30%, Boulder 10%) Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Common Slipper Shells, Hermit Crabs, Bread Crumb Sponge, Northern
Star Coral
3 (Sand Waves 100%) Unidentified Floating Algae
4 (Sand Waves 95%, Cobble 5%) Unidentified Branching Brown and Red Algae,
Unidentified Floating Algae
5 (Sand Waves 80%, Cobble 20%) Rockweed, Unidentified Branching Algae, Hydroids,
Northern Star Coral, Hermit Crabs, Shell Hash
6 (Sand 40%, Cobble 35%, Boulder 25%) Rockweed, Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Shell Hash, Hermit Crabs, Red Beard Sponge, Barnacles
7 (Sand 55%, Cobble 15%, Boulder 30%) Irish Moss, Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Common Slipper Shells, Orange Encrusting Bryozoan, Hydroids,
Barnacles, Sulfur Sponge, Bread Crumb Sponge
8 (Sand 30%, Cobble 10%, Boulder 60%) Unidentified Branching Brown and Red Algae,
Common Slipper Shells, Shell Hash, Rock Crab, Hermit Crabs, Sulfur Sponge
9 (Sand 25%, Pebble 5%, Cobble 20%, Boulder 45%) Rockweed, Irish Moss,
Unidentified Branching Brown and Red Algae, Common Slipper Shells, Shell Hash,
Hermit Crab, Sulfur Sponge, Bread Crumb Sponge
10 (Sand 20%, Pebble 55%, Cobble 25%) Rockweed, Irish Moss, Common Slipper
Shells, Shell Hash, Unidentified Branching Brown and Red Algae, Clam Shell
11 (Sand 45%, Pebble 5%, Cobble 5%, Boulder 45%) Rockweed, Irish Moss,
Unidentified Branching Brown and Red Algae, Shell Hash, Hermit Crab, Unidentified
Floating Algae
12 (Sand 40%, Pebble 10%, Boulder 50%) Unidentified Branching Brown and Red
Algae, Common Slipper Shell, Bread Crumb Sponge, Shell Hash, Moon Snail, Hermit
Crabs
13 (Sand 45%, Pebble 5%, Cobble 15%, Boulder 35%) Rockweed, Irish Moss,
Unidentified Branching Brown and Red Algae, Unidentified Floating Red Algae, Sulfur
Sponge, Bread Crumb Sponge, Hydroids, Shell Hash
14 (Sand 15%, Pebble 15%, Cobble 35%, Boulder 35%) Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Sulfur Sponge, Bread Crumb Sponge, Common Slipper Shells
15 (Sand 5%, Pebble 25%, Cobble 60%, Boulder 10%) Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Sulfur Sponge, Bread Crumb Sponge, Hydroids, Common Slipper
Shells, Hermit Crabs
16 (Sand 10%, Pebble 20%, Cobble 55%, Boulder 15%) Rockweed, Irish Moss,
Unidentified Branching Brown and Red Algae, Orange Encrusting Bryozoan, Sulfur
Sponge, Bread Crumb Sponge, Hydroids, Hermit Crab, Common Slipper Shells
17 (Sand 5%, Pebble 40%, Cobble 55%) Unidentified Branching Brown and Red Algae,
Sulfur Sponge, Bread Crumb Sponge, Orange Encrusting Bryozoan, Hydroids, Northern
Star Coral, Barnacles, Common Slipper Shells
18 (Sand 15%, Pebble 20%, Cobble 40%, Boulder 25%) Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Sulfur Sponge, Bread Crumb Sponge, Common Slipper Shells, Shell
Hash
19 (Sand 35%, Pebble 25%, Cobble 30%, Boulder 10%) Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Sulfur Sponge, Red Beard Sponge, Bread Crumb Sponge, Hermit Crab,
Hermit Crab, Common Slipper Shells, Shell Hash
20 (Sand 40%, Pebble 10%, Cobble 15%, Boulder 35%) Irish Moss, Unidentified
Branching Brown and Red Algae, Sulfur Sponge, Bread Crumb Sponge, Red Beard
Sponge, Barnacles
21 (Sand 50%, Pebble 15%, Cobble 35%) Unidentified Branching Brown and Red
Algae, Bread Crumb Sponge, Sulfur Sponge, Clam Shell, Common Slipper Shells
22 (Sand Waves 80%, Cobble 20%) Unidentified Floating Algae, Unidentified
Branching Brown and Red Algae, Hermit Crab
23 (Sand 60%, Cobble 15%, Boulder 25%) Unidentified Branching Brown and Red
Algae, Hydroids, Shell Hash
24 (Sand 65%, Cobble 15%, Boulder 20%) Rockweed, Irish Moss, Unidentified
Branching Brown and Red Algae, Shell Hash, Hydroids, Barnacles
25 (Sand 45%, Pebble 10%, Cobble 25%, Boulder 20%) Unidentified Branching Red
Algae, Barnacles, Sulfur Sponge, Bread Crumb Sponge, Red Beard Sponge, Common
Slipper Shell, Shell Hash
26 (Pebble 65%, Cobble 35%) Unidentified Branching Brown and Red Algae, Bread
Crumb Sponge, Common Slipper Shells, Hermit Crab
27 (Sand 65%, Cobble 30%, Boulder 5%) Irish Moss, Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Sulfur Sponge, Common Slipper Shells, Hermit Crab, Barnacles
28 (Sand 45%, Pebble 20%, Cobble 30%, Boulder 5%) Irish Moss, Unidentified
Branching Brown and Red Algae, Common Slipper Shells, Sulfur Sponge, Red Beard
Sponge, Moon Snail, Hermit Crab
30 (Sand 70%, Cobble 20%, Boulder 10%) Unidentified Branching Red and Brown
Algae, Unidentified Floating Algae, Common Slipper Shells, Bread Crumb Sponge,
Hermit Crabs, Orange Encrusting Bryozoan, Hydroids, Shell Hash, Clam Shell
31 (Sand 45% Cobble 15%, Boulder 40%) Unidentified Branching Brown and Red
Algae, Hydroids, Bread Crumb Sponge, Red Beard Sponge, Orange Encrusting
Bryozoan
32 (Sand 5%, Pebble 60%, Cobble 10%, Boulder 25%) Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Common Slipper Shells, Sulfur Sponge, Shell Hash, Hydroids, Northern
Star Coral, Hermit Crab
33 (Sand 25%, Pebble 5%, Cobble 40%, Boulder 30%) Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Barnacles, Bread Crumb Sponge, Orange Encrusting Bryozoan
34 (Pebble 60%, Cobble 30%, Boulder 10%) Unidentified Branching Brown and Red
Algae, Sulfur Sponge, Bread Crumb Sponge, Common Slipper Shells, Shell Hash, Hermit
Crab, Northern Star Coral, Red Beard Sponge
35 (Sand 5%, Pebble 15%, Cobble 65%, Boulder 15%) Unidentified Branching Brown
and Red Algae, Bread Crumb Sponge, Red Beard Sponge, Barnacles, Common Slipper
Shells, Shell Hash, Hermit Crab
Attachment E
Drainage System Annual Report
20 Mary Ann Drive • Nantucket, MA 02554
508-825-5053 • www.NantucketEngineer.com
January 29, 2020 Dwight Dunk, PWS, BCES - Principal
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250
Maynard, Massachusetts 01754 RE: SBPF - Baxter Road
Drainage System Monitoring
Dear Dwight:
We have been monitoring the function of the stormwater drainage system near 87 Baxter Road, in
accordance with the Stormwater Operation and Maintenance Plan. The system appears to be
functioning as designed, and we do not have any immediate concerns. There is approximately
eight-inches of accumulated sediment in the base of the catchbasin, which is below the threshold
for cleaning. We will continue to monitor the system.
There is some sediment along the gutter line of Baxter Road which we recommend be swept and
removed from the area.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Nantucket Engineering & Survey, P.C.
By: Arthur D. Gasbarro, PE, PLS
CC: Josh Posner, SBPF