South Shore Coastal Infrastructure Inventory and Assessment Demonstration Project Coastal Hazards Commission Town of Marshfield Prepared for: Office of Coastal Zone Management Boston, MA February 28, 2007 Prosented by: Bourne Consulting Engineering Franklin, Massachusetts In Association With: ‘Applied Coastal Research & Engincering, Inc. Alpha Land Surveying & Engineering Associates Bourne Consulting Engineering BCE Waterfront Engineers‘TABLE OF CONTENTS Section I— Coastal Haza nent Ps INTRODUCTION PURPOSE DEVELOPMENT OF MassGIS DATABASE ATTRIBUTES DEVELOPMENT OF REPAIR / RECONSTRUCTION COSTS. Porteprepsesnessneyern (COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION ‘STRUCTURE INVENTORY SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Section MI — Structure Astesement Reports Section 1 ~ Structure Photographs LV Structure Documents ‘TOWN DOCUMENT LIST + Document Table MA DCR - DOCUMENT LIST Document Table MA DEP — Chp. 91 DOCUMENT LIST ‘Document Table + Copies of License Documents USACE. - PERMIT DOCUMENT LIST "© Document Table ‘© Copies of Permit DocumentsSour Sous Costa masratcrens Irony snp Assasin DemOneTRATIONPROMECT Section I Town of Marshfield Coastal Hazards Infrastructure and Assessment Program BEE,South Shore Coastal Infrastructure Inventory and Assessment Demonstration Project Coastal Hazards Commission s al Hazards INTRODUCTION ‘The Projectand Client ‘The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has initiated a Coastal Hazards Commission (CHC) to identify the ‘ulnerabilty ofthe state to coastal hazards. As one of five working groups working under the CH, the 20-¥r Infrastructure Plan was to establish a prirtization forthe repair Of coasal structures. The fc teas ofthe Working Group include: Publicly owned ifrasrsciire Infrastructure for which Sat is responsible Inventory of public hazards infrastructure valuation on conditions Development for prioriization of work Fstimation ocaptal end maintenance costs ‘The 20-Yr Infrastructure Working Group is led by Representative Frank Hynes with CZM asthe lead State Agency overseing the management ofthe projec. The region included inthe demonstration project was identified as the South Shore and included the eight communities of Hingham, Hull, Coase, Scituate, Mashfeld, Duxbury, Kingston and Plymouth Consultant Team ‘The consultant team that performed the demonstration projet was led by Bourse Consulting Engineering (BCE) of Franklin, MA who as responsible for overall project management, research and field assessments. Assisting BCE was Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Ine. of Mashpee, MA who as responsible fr field assessments and GIS data conversion. Alpha Land Surveying and Enginering of Middleboro, MA also supported the Team with field GPS survey, PURPOSE ‘Study Purpose | (CZM sects to identify the capacity of Massachusetts coastal structures to resist major coastal storms and prevent storm damage. In working toward this gosl, CZM has ‘niiated program to. perform an Sssessment of Commonwealth ovned andlor maintained coastal structures. The first phase of this ‘rogram i the performance ofa demonstration projet for coastal structures located onthe South Shore. ‘The demonstration project will identify existing stuctures, ther general conditions, ability to provide coastal protection and the probable cost for repairs. The information collected and developed will be incorporated into the MassGIS sysem to allow use for developing s 20 Year Coastal Infrastructure Pan, As this sa demonstration project it will serve as the basis for development ofa statewide inventory and assessment of all Commonwealth coastal structures and the needs for thir maintenance and/or tepat Incorporated into this project will be the identification of issues and limitations of the investigation edSourn swore Coasrat INFRASTRUCTURE {IsyEN TORY AND ASSESSMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT rent to achieve the overall goals and what shouldbe included in future investigatons/assessments of coastal structures forthe other regions, Goals of Sidy ‘The goal sof the South Shore Coastal Infastructure Inventory and Assessment Project include: ‘To be used asthe model to go forward for assessment of coastal structures forthe remainder of the coastal regions To identify areas of research andor assesment that need tobe modified for future phase that were not included within the demonstration project ‘Complete the stady with the final report by November 15, 2006 for submission tothe Coastal Hazards Commission ‘To identify all the coastal structures the stat either owns cr has responsibility to maintain forthe ight communities included within the study Of the structures identified, determine the structure losation and characteristics, the structure condition relative to providing coastal protection and the smuctre importance in relation to what itis protecting. To the depree possible, identity the structure elevation ard the FIRM mapping flood elevation and category To the deyre possible, identily structure owner snd avaiable documents ffom local, state and federal agencies. ‘To establish an estimated cost to rehabilitate the coastal stuctres to provide the level of project csablished inthe structure's original design. * Provide the information in format compatible for incorporation into the MassGIS system Limicof Study Due to the time constraints and the amount of effort necessary to collect, process and comple the information, the following are identified a imitations ofthe information presented. All property ownership was taken 36 presumed. No legal investigation of ovmership was performed during the project. Propery ownership is bated on town assessor maps. Where structures were located outshore of assessor map defined property lines, it was assumed to Be ‘Town land unless other information indicated olberwise, Where structures were located eutshore ‘of Mean Low Water, property is assumed to be State owned ‘The structure ownership was based on assessor maps and rscarch atthe loa, state and federal levels. Where there was indication of public werk on a structure on Tov land or on private Property, the structure was presumed to be Town owed, Where the structure was on ste roperty, the strecture was presumed to be sate owned. Where owmership of the structure was not lear but was located on private propery, the stuctue ownership was defined as unknown, ‘The study included town and state owmed structures as it was assumed that most town owned structures received state funding at some level for consruction andlor maintenance. (© Federal structures were identified but no assesment of conditions or priority was performed. ‘Structures that were determined tobe private were rat include, ‘Undocumented structures considered to be on private land, but having the potential to Ihave been publily built and/or maintained, were identified as having an unknown ownership” a 1a ‘Town of Marsh‘Sour Snoke Cousras InPaasraverine {nanrony AND ASSESSMENT DEMONSTRATION Paste? + The prioritizing of structures was based primarily on risk to general infrastructure ad dewsity of housing. Infrastructure included was buildings, The study didnot consider ll nfastructre ease inclading 2 Noconsideration on utility impacts — water, electricel, sewer, gas © Noconsderation of roadway and bridge protection © Evacuation routes were not considered within the investigation © Locationof Emergency Shelters were not included in peority assessments ‘+ Research was ferformed atthe local, state and federal levels. The local research was linited to location and documenting available coastal structure contact drawings. Research at DOW ase Kestrcted to availble historic construction plant for coastal structures af the MADCR Waterways oie in Hingham, MA. No investigation of sate archives was perfarmed. Reeerch at MA DEP Chp 31 and USACE was limited to recorded permits and licenses found in thee fae, ‘No investigation was performed atthe Registry of Deeds DEVELOPMENT OF MassGIS DATABASE ATTRIBUTES The specific attributes tht would be incorporated into the MassGIS system were developed based onthe scope af work Database Atwibutes + Attibute Destriptions Definitions ‘Sinlctue Number: A sigue structure number was given to each coastal tucture, The number was ‘based on existing numbering systems that include the State Department of Environmental Procenca community number followed by the local community assessor's parcel numbering system, The log three digit of the munber represent the structure within the parcel. Where stnucaace svtend ove several parcels, the stuctue is referenced to a parcel that is approximately av the eeney of tee Structures that are on Town property, which would otherwise not have & parcel number, are ‘férenced toa parcel tht iin the immediate vicinity ofthe coastal struct On this basis, the following isthe general numbering convention: (CCC-MMM-PPP-BBE-SSS Where: CCC DEP Community Number MMM Community Map Number BBB Block Number (000 ino block numbering system) PPP Comunity Parcel Number SSS Structure Number 13 ‘Town of Marshfield‘Sour Suoke Cousrat Inrwasrnverine [Ira ony Ad ASSESSUENT DEMONSTRATION PROIECT Propenty Ownership: All aroperty ownership was on a “presumed” basis as no legal verification of ‘ownership was performed. The ownership ofthe property as classified nde four basic areas Which were private ovmership (Privat), Town ownership (Loca), Commonwealth of Massachasets ‘ownership (State), federa. government ovmership (Federal) or unknown. Property ownership was based on Town assessor's maps. Where the location was located above Mean Low Water, and not Within a defined parcel, the property ownership was presumed tobe the Tow unless documentation as found to indicate olzrwise. Where a structure was lorated offshore of Mean Low Water, the ‘Property ownership was presumed tobe the stat, ‘Sinusture Ownership: The ownership ofall structures is presumed 2s no verification of owne'ship ‘was performed. Ownership ofthe structure was determined by research into histore state and feral permits and the entity incieated on the permits as the applicant. Where no other information was ound, the following was uiized: ‘+ structures located on pavate land but appearing tobe significant structures were identified as ‘owned by the Towa or as “Unknown”. Unknown was used were there was a question of local oe private ownership ‘Structures on Tow property were assumed tobe owned by the Town Structures that were located off-shore were presumed tobe federally owned + Structures that were identified as being privately owned were eliminated from the databae Basis of Ownership: The tess of structure ownership was provided to give rationale to the structure ownership and identified the research resource tht identified the ownership or the methoddogy otherwise used. The resporses utilized were limited tthe following: ‘+ DPW~DPW Employ Interview + DCR- Contact Drawings DEP—ChOI Licese + USACE Rermie Property Owneship + Ofshore Sructre Structure Owners Name: Ownerships names reflect the presumed owner of publicly ovned structures. AX this was for public structures only, the ownership was reteted to the community ‘name, the sate agency or he federal agency alist Structure Record: The year ofthe oldest document located for the structure. The information is determined fom the document research performed on the suctue from local, state and fecerl agencies. If no documents could be found than this entry is denoted as ‘Unknown’. Waere ‘documentation of the suche could be found, the date from the oldest document was utilized Primary Structure / Sssotdary Structure: Many of the coastal structures consisted of combed Structures which were rated separately. It was typically ound that one structure was significantly ‘more predominant (Ex. Balkhead/Seawall) and was therefore identified as the Primary Strustce ‘while a smaller structure might exist infront (ex. Revetment) of it. The ype, height and mater of cach structure are identificd separately. The condition of each structure was based on the Primary ‘Structure, Where there was no secondary strature, the elds were let bank Structure Type: The structie type was categorized into five basic coastal structure categories which ‘were Bulkhesd/Seawal, Revetment, Coastal Beach, Catal Dune, and Jtty/Groin. 14 ‘Town of MarshfeldSovru Stone Coasrat Iveeastnvcrune Dereon AND ASSESSMEN: DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ‘Structure Material: The identification of the coastal structure's material of construction was performed and represents the primary material. Stone stuctues consisted cf both mortared and non: mmortred conditions. ‘Structure Height: Each type of structure was categorized by its visible height in feet which was broken rt four specitic ranges which ae 15 feet ‘Stusture Condition: A preliminary assessment ofthe condition for each stcture was performed by the field :eams. This was by visual observation only and no detailed investigation was performed, The ‘condition assessments were based ona predefined five level rating system fat ranged fom Rating A for Excellent Condition to Rating F for Critical Condition. & detailed lstng ofthe conditions snd their defitions canbe seen in Exhibit A Priority Rating: In order to account forthe need for protection at any one ste «five level priority Tating sytem was established. This allowed for consideration of public infrastructure protection, density of residential housing for development of structure overall importare for coastal protection, ‘The ratings range from Level 1 for no infastracture or residence protection to Level § for ertcal inshore infrastructure protection and/or high density residential. The detail listing and definitions forthe peonity categories can be seen in Exhibit, ‘Stmucture Repair Reconstruction Cost: A preliminary estimation of eonstustion costs to maintain or repair stactures was made based onthe preliminary field assesment of the structures. A Repair Cot Matrix was developed based on stricture type, condition, height and materia and ean be seen in Exhibit C Once each structure’ type, height, and material classifications were determined, the cot er foot forthe structure was determine from the Repuir Cost Matrix and multiplied by the length of| {he strctire to obtain the estimated repairrestoration ost. The cost matrix repair cost include @ 20, Percent construction cost contingency aswell at 10 percent costs fr enginewrng and permitting, Structure Length: The length of each structure is provided and utilized inthe development ofthe ‘eparieemstrution costs. The lengths are given to the nearest foot and taken as the near distance along the structure, as determined by the GPS location, which takes into account structure angles and curvature ‘Stuictur Elevation: The elevation of stuctures was determined in feet fom existing infrmation ‘where avilable, The datum used is NAVD 88 and elevations at tothe nears foot, From «previous study much ofthe south shore coastal structures ad elevations defined based on LIDAR mapping data, Where evailable structure documentation with elevations was found, in areas with no LIDAR, da, the information was included within the stucture information. What there was no LIDAR informatin or existing documentation, the item hasbeen et bank LDA (Dion nd aig nn ht cee bg wd Shin ier resent) essay, oe foto fac and mecerag puke og ee (seman cr cevone EMA Zone and Elevation; For each structure the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) were ‘escachec for their Flood Zone designation and theit Base Flood Elevaticn ftom the most recent FIRM maze for the specific Town. The elevations are provided in feet on the sume datum a the FIRM maps (NGVD) with no adjustments or conversions, ~~ BCEE= 1s ‘Town of Marshfield‘S014 SuORE Cousra,Inpeaseavecrine ‘NENTORY ano Assessuevr Devonsinarion Pees, SIGUE. Comments. The enginerng tea provided a brief description and comment on the Sas Ben pe OTHE Hel anesmene wilco ge SHPPOTt ofthe condition rating that 182s giten forthe structure within DOR Waterwaye ott ie ana YP Paicuar recor oul te cr of esexipi [SAGE Rami: USACE Permits epithe store information that could be found within the ae came Eines requstary oftce a Cones ne Ane particular cer could be found, Ble” Samed as aes and tached a teas through the GIS database information Ly re BBE of license document informa oo ‘eveloped and included within the deishae ‘ith imiteddeserptions LOPMENT 1 ‘ONSTRUCTION iructure Con ws i sey crew which wa ed by ase penn ABSENCE. The defnions of de eames Uilized forthe assessments ie peste te entteOanee, ep oF rehabilitation cost and Image if subject to & major conse ‘Town of Marshfield‘Sour Snows Cousrat INpeasrevcruns {INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT alue of these muintenance costs is assumed to be 10 percent of the construction cas. CRating Structures requiring modertc to significant level ofrpai or reconstrtion and would be expevied to experience significant damage if abject eg ‘major coasal storm event. The sructute is presumed tobe effecting onder Imsior storm event. The value ofthe repair costs is assumed to be 30 percent ‘ofthe constuction cost D Rating’ Structures requiring significant level of rehabilitation or ttal resonstrction and would be expected to experience significant damage or possibly fal it subject fo a major consal storm event. The valve af the repair cots ie ‘ssumed t be 100 percent ofthe construction cos, FF Rating Structures requiring complete reconstruction and would expect to provide litle or no protection from a major coastal storm event. The value of the ‘epair costs is assumed o be 100 percent ofthe constuction est plus» oat {or removal/disposal ofthe original sructre Hsight of Structure Height of « structure is a major factor in the structure cost and {erefore was identified as a significant factor is assessing rebbiltatin/tepas concen, costs. The structures were broken down int four major categorice whikc is" Stoctres greater than 15 fetin height ~ assumed 20 fet typical ‘Length of Structure ~ Length is based on field GPS location with measurements rounded to the nearest fot. Hthcad (Seawall Smuctres- These structures ae assumed to be constructed ou of concrete, feel stone or wood with each having its own criteria for establishing costs, For eesh coneen ‘ype the following was assumed: Concrete Seawalls~ These walls were assumed to be gravity structures with the volume of concrete used based on the bottom width being one-half ofthe structure height Cems ‘of constuction were based on a per cubic yard estimate that varied fm $340 to Sony er cubic yard depending onthe structure height. Values for excavation and demolition Of existing structure were als included, Stone Seawalls «These walls were treated the same as concrete scawals and assumed to Erg structures withthe volume ofthe sracture ated onthe btiom wa beng i ‘Town of MarshfieldSovru Stoke Coasrax InreasrRucrine Irn t0ny nb ASSESSMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT + Timber Bulkheeds ~ Timber bulkheads were presumed to be constructed with timber piles at eight fot on center, horizontal wales and vertical four inch sheathing. The unit ‘cost for installed materials used were $1,500 per ple and $750 pet bm. ‘Revetment Stretures — Revetment structures were presumed tobe constructed of dry placed (no concrete) stone with a two on one slope and a horizontal toe and erown equal tothe {hickness layer established foreach height condition. The toal thickness ofthe revetment layers varied fiom sx to ten feet with the cost of armor and under layer stone assumed to Be 50 per ton and the crushedstone base tobe $15 per tn, Groins and Jets ~ Grons and jeties were assumed to be the same materials and ‘onstrtion asthe revetment srutures but would have two sides and therefore double the quantities. Coastal Beaches ~ Costs fr restoration of Coastal beaches presumed the placement of beech Fenourishment sinds at a J-on-20 slope over the existing beach conditions, "The cost for ‘deposition of sand assume relatively close soure of material and utilized $20 per cubic yard for the material installed. (Coastal Dunes ~ Restoration of coastal dunes assumed a eross section of renourished sand with a one-on-four slope on one side ofa 25 foot width at the defined dune height, The cost, {or deposition of sand assumed relatively close source of material and utilized $20 per cubic yard forthe material installed ‘Contingency ~ A contingen:y of 20 percent was added to all costs to reflect the unknowns associated with this level of ehabilitation repair estimating. FEnginesring and Regustory Approvals — A ten percent inreate to the cost matrix prices was assessed io represent the engineering design and regulatory approval requirements for the restoration ofthese strotures, 1s ‘own of MarshfieldIrv 10Ry AnD ASSESSMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT EXHIBIT.A, Structure Condition Table ~ 5 Level Rating System Preliminary Condition ‘Level of Acten Required Like new condion Structure expected to withstand major ‘oa orm without mage Sable landform (beach, dune or bank). Adequate systean exits ‘oprovide protection om mejor coats ‘Sucture observed to exhibit very minor peoblens, superficial a ‘ture. Minor erosion olan i preset, A. | Excelent ‘Stuctre landform adequate to provide protection froma major | Mtoe ast storm with 2 mage. Aine fen to preven! lt faut deterioration snd extend i of ste Suctre is sound but may exhibit minor deterioration, ection os, cracking, palling undemnining. andor soo. Sucre couse fo wistand major oat storm with ite to moderate ‘Sido ens ano may matte nant Som hesou on ooroncesdalon ‘moet psoas Structure tages: ‘Structure Documents: anes oe TOs OTA iRDECE ——— [ROC TOT PROPOSED HORE” TRS TOSOSTODORTE [ROW — Gara [PROPOSED SHORE [aeENSRORETOOTRTA — Prepared By: Sourne Consulting Engineering(C2M South Shore Coastal Infrastructure Inventory and Assessment “Town: (Marshfield Structure Assessment Form sree: [ERR DORATATO— key: onmuntrrap booed crue Popa Owe: Location cate: [f= [ror Beate I ara Presumed Seichre Owre: asad Comer ee Faroe ve ane Ett Sr Ra soe Ronanctr Repco pon i I 5170 Leng: Top Botan: FR Mop oe IR Map Bete Pep UP Ss Sosy Fest Foatnvoa pte: peer ye Secs Tp: Sect ae Pieter ieee eee taeeare te emrrrree oncerg Condon Prioiy hate roe Rating Level of Action Medora Action Descripion Sucre sound tna et ar Deseription ower = aes, = oeaameneeee ey =e Seen, aaa Salou Structure Documents ow Pty Fee Proc Cones Inco Sucures Prete win init Pov Setconrensushre Seage Prepared By: Bourne Consulting Engincering(C2M South Shore Coastal Infrastructure Inventory and Assessment “Town: [Marshfield Structure Assessment Form Smee: [EH 00 ET oy commun pk re-ere rove Own Location Date: fe ota i ae eames Soucue Onn aston Comma for Frevor=ne er a: ret rare Rao = 7 Leh: Tp Eeaon: RN Hap ie FU Mp eto: gemmete secs! Seana Secure Surety Sire 8 cova soa wh So et gaa GRC Ts al SES DE WRIT ST oS ‘Sachin and ply ep ary ee here te crt rd ore et Condon Priority ating Powe ating ow Pry Level of ction Mae “Aston Fun Project Conlon DDeserivion SEC ahi vanced alot svition sre Sucre Praca th i "eer mrt scion tes. cr, eating, TPN cant innerue Oasot Seommg. atnrSvck a ‘engeorasgnicat age nd poseie se erg tener nna rare ‘theca cn ite. Acton ‘Sova rela mae enon so ‘Stn vedas reumnes ‘nc st sobs one picton ‘inn morc em, Ater en ‘ect scouts ‘ftcalanrom sma Sit sm Structure Images: ‘Structure Documents: [eznos ann cne oo POTS — Prepared Oy: Bourne Consuting Engineering(C2M South Shore Coastal Infrastructure Inventory and Assessment “Tow: [Marshfield Structure Assessment Form seca ERE tar comarep insane reo Oe ‘ator: Date f= Farce I waa eae tun onmrt = pone — feornrenpane Eero = s a a Lc ee ete avon Ste Sumnay = an Tea aes Saw FT WaRDAT SI aE GAH 9 IR Condon 8 Priory Rating exe ang Level of Aeon nae Acton ‘Deserion Stott very mie Description bie. iperioa nana ena eosin {Sartore presen Suche om ‘Spt epost fons ma ‘0 ever inl ure sterrton anemone eotevucse ‘Structure Documents: aw Paty Fre Pj Canlaon otro Siar nfarsucare Damas Prepared By: Bourne Consuing Engineering(C2M South Shore Coastal Infrastructure Inventory and Assessment ‘Town: [Marshfield Structure Assessment Form Shute: [REMOSOR OTTO — ey: omar op ck gre tie = aa oe = os om ee a = foo ome coer ucae tae seer pos ; if gs Length: _ Top Baton: FIRM Map Zane: FIRM Map Bevetor: fester poise ineniiiesiiiaiiniaiaiaiaeiiaeiaiaiiaieniaaman Twas Dan a pe Tre I SRT Conditon 8 Prionty ating oot eting Lae ty Levelof Acton Moot sion Fite Prec Conateratan Deseription Sty chanved wx vey mor ‘Deseripson ore Stee Pracert wen Untog (oie, pers rnatre Me elon ‘pion aod Sra actu Damage ‘Gisnom's peer” Stacie! aon Siutuomen estanags Roce chen Serena hare estan oe ered Structure mages: Structure Documents: eevee OPTS Prepared By: Bourne Consulting Engineering(2 South Shore Coastal infrastructure Inventory and Assessment ‘Town: [Marshfield Structure Assessment Form snc rn OTT — er cay i re ie et Oe coat ate | = ao I Ta | ree ce ne —— | = ora — fet nc et paar i SE | tow” Tomi: Ri wen 7 me eon ieniraynae = eS sri saan tt sc Soo anna ope a Aa gee tea | eres contin Prerty fag EP are Polen Nose [oO fa Pe aon Pn Tg OT as ‘Shred reset som whe Rodos sonage Aston ke bene ‘roars powcr Ml pteston fom me ‘Shea sarm ane okonora oo ‘etre Naser ore come ‘Salen ort andor mayne sort (Sty rectstacine arg emapr meta Sem Reto un rae aon Iter soma ce He Structure Images: ‘Structure Documents: ene Prepered By: Bourne Consulting Engineering‘C2M South Shore Coastal Infastrcture Inventory and Assessment ‘Town: (Marshfield — = fore a = = = = ee ———— ae = = = —— ae pacman, putinnanage ‘Lerath: Top Elevation: [FIRM Map Zone: FIRM Map Elevation: poo fa pea Secondany Tecate Sere Hehe Ser uma Su a sna el of Sac casos TS DS GT VARS Pi WT Ha STEHT to have shied an ee Sl conn ¢ ‘ec tae se” tetra See Soames, aos =e =e. Prioty Reune econ Prnty eon Cine Pct npverert Desion pe rear tt Ranger wot (<1 ortng epee! *0otentof shores Structure images: Stucture Documents: [era ar TOOTS Fao RrerosC oreo rOT pe — [Fes PROPOSED parE TOODRTE Prepared By: Bourne Consulting Engineering(2M South Shore Coastal Infrastructure Inventory and Assessment ‘Town: [Marshfield Structure Assessment Form sears [EHOSAITORETAT — Kor commun nap ec pasre soy Oo cea ate [ow fase I asa reseed Scr Ome snd On Corer f= Par omaamn oer name fet Sneha ‘sins craton Ca Posse I eh Teo dati a rt Fae wee ret Seat sey Seon: seucur Surman | eine nlieliesieaalincl Tie SEER TOE Ta AY NT We AEST SIS he aN RTE ‘Suc sound but may aint moe ‘vat, lon us acy ing ‘cring anor soo Scare sano Sem eco tr ‘hocre pos grmeton form aoe Sealand ener Iaarn exe nom may obec ‘Sty re! treme nga coe om Aton tent pve aon ‘twirl petra ene He Condon ating Level of Action Description Prionty Rating Acton ‘Structure Images: Structure Documents: FREIRERTTOTTIEOTR — = MROPW NOV. 190 Deseripion ow Pty Fete Project Cosi Inca Sucre Prete wih ited ‘antl Siri nactvotr Danane PROT TORE AMET TETROT— Prepared By: Bourne Consulting Engineering(CN South shore Coastal nrasticture Inventory and Assessment ‘own: [Marshfield ‘Structure Assessment Form monn parerarnsae ey cent apd pac ure ar cai oat = po a = ore ome tates ae er sae i 7 ‘os etnies Feta to roe aia pens Pray Matra pee fester a a 28 rT NOMI a ORO E DT Ts BSW TOF We HSE TE TD onion Prony ating Fae Rating Neder Ponty Level of detion Meta ‘acion Sept ene Pe np Description Stace sind utmay bs ae Us "Gert, conan ech suing, ——Descripion ge Shuches wh pot or ‘Seon’ noe cons scm wets Restart Owe Seg resco ‘ocr aoe, Acer hen once ‘oteeotshree ‘eke Moca an wae rope ‘Sear out ancm may be scat Som fc ent pre oten ro rfl tac an xed Structure tages: Structure Documents: [enero ORS Prepared By: Bourne Consulting Engineering