HomeMy WebLinkAboutNOI application
1
PROJECT NARRATIVE
24 FROTHINGHAM WAY, SOUTH YARMOUTH, MA
PROPOSED PIER, RAMP AND FLOAT
The area subject to this Notice is land within and on the immediate shoreline of Bass River, a
tidal estuary / river. The site location is on the South Yarmouth side of the waterway. Please see
the locus map for the exact location. The property is residential, containing a single-family
dwelling, landscaped areas and natural areas. Within the specific shorefront project area, the
shore area contains salt marsh, with a narrow mud-sand inter-tidal zone and a firm sandy bottom
as the sub-tidal area extends out into the river. No aquatic vegetation seaward of the salt marsh
was observed in the intertidal or sub-tidal area during the site evaluation visits, during the
topographic survey or during the shellfish survey. Few shellfish were noted in the shellfish
study, likely due to the faster tidal currents tending to prevent shellfish spat from establishing in
the bottom sediments. The Salt Marsh was well populated with ribbed mussels, a beneficial
species not typically subject to harvesting, not a regulatory listed shellfish species.
The proposed project involves construction of a pile supported pier, ramp and pile held float in
the location shown on the attached site plan. A segment of the proposed pile supported structure
traversing the Salt Marsh is termed a “catwalk” due to a choice differentiate and to have a 3 ft.
width minimizing the shading impacts in the Salt Marsh area. The outer 36 ft. of the proposed
pier is of a more typical 4 ft. width pier. The proposed pier is of typical design for pile-
supported structures in the local area, as with the ramp and pile-held float. The elevated portion
shall adhere to a 1.5 to 1.0 ratio of deck elevation above the salt marsh surface.
The open pile pier will not significantly interfere with circulation or sediment transport. All river
bottom areas can be viewed as viable shellfish habitat however the tidal currents do not support a
meaningful population of edible shellfish at this time. As a precautionary step, it is feasible to
rake the piling areas and relocate any shellfish uncovered prior to the activity commencing.
Ribbed mussels can be visually spotted and relocated for work within the salt marsh.
The proposed pier will provide a platform from which the applicants can berth and board a vessel
rather than the continual disruptive activity affecting the marsh, beach deposit, intertidal zone
bottom resulting from accessing the river via a pathway across the nearshore coastal complex of
salt marsh and intertidal zone.
The pier, ramp and float shall be constructed in typical manner and resemble many other
facilities in the Bass River system. All pilings that can be driven into place shall be driven.
Water access shall be by way of the river via small barge. The catwalk segment is of a different
scale than the wider pier segment and will use smaller diameter pile sizes. Portable mats and a
small tripod to hoist the hammer are required for post installation within the salt marsh. The
activity to set the poles is transient and the technique is shown to cause no significant damage to
the salt marsh if done professionally. Information and images relating to the successful practice
of pole installation within salt marsh areas is available as needed. The pier work involves hand
carpentry techniques to fit and attach the wood framing once the piles are in place. The ramp
and float shall be seasonally deployed, removed at an offsite boat ramp and stored in the upland
or at an offsite location.
2
Performance Standards – The following based on the presumption that the wetland interests
are applicable with exception of rare species habitat. Also the flowing is offered in the context
that a proposed pile supported pier ramp and pile held float is a common docking facility found
throughout Bass River and Massachusetts.
MGL Chapt 131 – Coastal Wetland Resource Areas affected include Salt Marsh, Land
Containing Shellfish, Coastal Beach, Land Under the Ocean. Riverfront Area exists on the
parcel but the project relates to MGL Chapt. 91 and is largely exempt from the RA performance
standards. A 50 ft. long, 150 sq. ft. section of catwalk between the shore and the MHW line is a
small project portion within the RA. This segment is collateral to the larger Chapt. 91
jurisdictional project and would not be an independent feature. Should a technical Rivers Act
performance standards analysis be required for this project segment we can provide one upon
request.
Salt Marsh – The proposed catwalk traverses an 80 ft. span of both high and low Salt Marsh.
Many examples of pile supported piers and / or catwalks within salt marshes exist throughout
Cape Cod. The most notable factor of improvement toward minimizing adverse impact is the
structure deck elevation. Several decades of pier approvals have advanced using a 1 to 1 ratio of
deck width to deck height above the marsh surface. Within the past several years a 1 to 1.5 ratio
has gained support from the advisory agencies of Massachusetts, DMF, CZM, etc. The proposed
catwalk / pier deck elevation meets or exceeds the 1 to 1.5 ratio measured from the highest marsh
surface elevation to the bottom of the deck planks. Performance standards for Salt Marshes
(310CMR 10.32 (3) thru (6) list elevated walkways as “may be permitted” notwithstanding
310CMR 10.32.(3) and with consistency to 310 CMR 10. 21 thru 10.37. The piling locations are
locations where salt marsh vegetation will be occupied with the 8 inch diameter piling projection
( approx. 50 sq. in. per post.) In common practice, the language of 310CMR 10.32 indicates
acceptance of elevated walkways in certain cases given the potential use of land within a Salt
Marsh for access to the water. The general regulatory conclusion drawn by examination of
scores of elevated walkway approvals across Salt Marshes in Massachusetts is that an elevated
walkway, properly designed and constructed, carefully governed via an Order of Conditions,
provided to carry foot traffic over the Salt Marsh, is an acceptable alternative to a foot path. The
phrase “common practice” is mentioned as a context for weighing the overall impact to the Salt
Marsh in terms of the common working interpretation of the applicable rules. Many elevation
walkways have been approved under these regulations with respect to the practical interpretation
and application of 310CMR 10. 32 (3) and (4).
Land Containing Shellfish – “(4) Except as provided in 310 CMR 10.34(5), any project on land
containing shellfish shall not adversely affect such land or marine fisheries by a change in the
productivity of such land caused by: (a) alterations of water circulation; (b) alterations in relief
elevation; (c) the compacting of sediment by vehicular traffic; (d) alterations in the distribution
of sediment grain size; (e) alterations in natural drainage from adjacent land; or (f) changes in
water quality, including, but not limited to, other than natural fluctuations in the levels of
salinity, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, temperature or turbidity, or the addition of pollutants”
3
Ribbed mussels found to populate the Salt Marsh are not listed as a shellfish species for the
purpose of this regulation. Limited applicable shellfish were found in the shellfish study.
Regardless, the sandy mud river bottom is a potential habitat for listed species. Approximately
7.8 sq. ft. of river bottom will be occupied by the proposed pilings. This represents approx. 5
one hundredths of one percent (0.05%) as a proportion of the sandy bottom area across the parcel
waterfront out to the length of the proposed pier. Empirical evidence, available by direct
observation of many open pile piers over many decades demonstrates that open pile-supported
elevated pier structures do not cause for changes in water circulation that alters the sediment
structure (shoaling)(a),(b),(c),(d); the proposed float meets the depth requirements and does not
ground at times of low water; the proposed structure has no relationship to drainage of adjacent
land (e); the common use of the pier ramp and float for boating access to navigable water
constructed of appropriate materials and proper practices will not introduce pollutants or affect
the river water quality (f).
Land Under the Ocean –
“WHEN LAND UNDER THE OCEAN OR NEARSHORE AREAS OF LAND UNDER THE
OCEAN ARE FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT TO THE PROTECTION OF MARINE
FISHERIES, PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE HABITAT, STORM DAMAGE PREVENTION
OR FLOOD CONTROL, 310 CMR 10.25(3) THROUGH (7) SHALL APPLY:
(3) Improvement dredging for navigational purposes affecting land under the ocean shall be
designed and carried out using the best available measures so as to minimize adverse effects on
such interests caused by changes in: (a) bottom topography which will result in increased
flooding or erosion caused by an increase in the height or velocity of waves impacting the shore;
(b) sediment transport processes which will increase flood or erosion hazards by affecting the
natural replenishment of beaches; (c) water circulation which will result in an adverse change in
flushing rate, temperature, or turbidity levels; or (d) marine productivity which will result from
the suspension or transport of pollutants, the smothering of bottom organisms, the accumulation
of pollutants by organisms, or the destruction of marine fisheries habitat or wildlife habitat. (4)
Maintenance dredging for navigational purposes affecting land under the ocean shall be
designed and carried out using the best available measures so as to minimize adverse effects on
such interests caused by changes in marine productivity which will result from the suspension or
transport of pollutants, increases in turbidity, the smothering of bottom organisms, the
accumulation of pollutants by organisms, or the destruction of marine fisheries habitat or
wildlife habitat. (5) Projects not included in 310 CMR 10.25(3) or (4) which affect nearshore
areas of land under the ocean shall not cause adverse effects by altering the bottom topography
so as to increase storm damage or erosion of coastal beaches, coastal banks, coastal dunes, or
salt marshes. (6) Projects not included in 310 CMR 10.25(3) which affect land under the ocean
shall if water-dependent be designed and constructed, using best available measures, so as to
minimize adverse effects, and if non-water-dependent, have no adverse effects, on marine
fisheries habitat or wildlife habitat caused by: (a) alterations in water circulation; (b)
destruction of eelgrass (Zostera marina) or widgeon grass (Rupia maritina) beds; (c) alterations
in the distribution of sediment grain size; (d) changes in water quality, including, but not limited
to, other than natural fluctuations in the level of dissolved oxygen, temperature or turbidity, or
4
the addition of pollutants; or (e) alterations of shallow submerged lands with high densities of
polychaetes, mollusks or macrophytic algae.”
The summary of performance standards for Land Under the Ocean is included to draw
attention to a certain contrast between projects that is evident. The common practice of
improvement and maintenance dredging is outlined as a direct focus in the regulations.
Dredging work requirements are outlined as a priority in this section because dredging is so
common and provides the greatest proportion of alterations to Land Under the Ocean. Both
dredging practices occur with maintenance dredging being most common, often involving large
bottom areas, channels and mooring basins. All the standards for Land Containing Shellfish
apply to Land Under the Ocean. However, of important note is the comparative scale of the
relatively minor bottom sediment alteration by the installation and presence of ten 10-inch
diameter pilings (7.8 sq. ft.) compared to many typical dredging operations. For this reason and
the outline above for Land Containing Shellfish we can conclude that the proposed pile
supported structure, ramp, and pile -held float will not significantly adversely impact Land
Under the Ocean. The Bass River is a known catadromous and anadromous fishery route but
the banks of the river are not being altered.
Coastal Beach – “WHEN A COASTAL BEACH IS DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFICANT
TO STORM DAMAGE PREVENTION, FLOOD CONTROL, OR PROTECTION OF
WILDLIFE HABITAT, 310 CMR 10.27(3) THROUGH (7) SHALL APPLY: (3) Any project on
a coastal beach, except any project permitted under 310 CMR 10.30(3)(a), shall not have an
adverse effect by increasing erosion, decreasing the volume or changing the form of any such
coastal beach or an adjacent or downdrift coastal beach.”
The Coastal beach is the very narrow span of sandy mud between the Salt Marsh boundary and
the MLW tide line. The land area involved is 15 sq. ft. There are no pilings proposed within the
Coastal beach allowing the catwalk to span the small beach deposit at 6 to 7 ft. above it.
Judgement allows for a conclusion of no significant adverse impact.
Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flow (LSCSF) – The proposed structure is designed to exist
within a tidal water body with incident storm action and is therefore, incidentally appropriate for
a flood zone. There are no performance standards for LSCSF
Town of Yarmouth Wetland Regulations - Examination of the Yarmouth Regulations relating
to Land Containing Shellfish, Salt marsh, Coastal Beach, Land Under the Ocean, Land
Subject to Coastal Storm Flow demonstrate a high level of consistency with the
Commonwealth of Mass Wetland Regulations. The summary in Section 1 is applicable to the
listed Coastal Resource Areas in the Town of Yarmouth Wetland Regulations with exception of
Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flow.
The Town of Yarmouth Wetland Regulations include performance standards for Land Subject to
Coastal Storm Flow. The standards require structures within flood zones to be suitable designed
and anchored to prevent or limit damage and creation of debris. The proposed pier, ramp, and
float, designed to be within a tidal waterway is adequately designed to be consistent with the
flood zone standard.
5
Additionally, not included in the listed performance standards for the specific resource areas, the
Town of Yarmouth Wetland Regulations offer a series of General Requirements for docks and
piers outlined in Section 1.09 (4). Some of the General Requirements are not fully defined and
must be determined through identification of the factors that may have formed the basis of the
general requirements.
By way of our initial review, the proposed facility meets the General Requirements with
exception of Item (10) and (12. (b).
• Item (10) – The proposed end of the float, if measured from the MHW line along its axial
location is 120 ft. from the location of MHW slightly less, (118 ft.) if measuring to one
side. If the measurement was taken from a location approx. 30 ft. south of the float
location on the site the distance from the MHW line at that location to the float extent is
approx. 80 ft. with slight variation depending on the angle of measurement. The
shoreline on locus is not a uniform line but highly circuitous. A simple specified distance
limit requirement of 80 ft. might be a more equitable limitation if shoreline variations
were considered in the evaluation. The wording of the regulation and common
interpretation that the distance be measured axially along the specific location of the pier
limits consideration of the subtleties of an undulating shoreline topography. Thus, a
waiver is requested from the regulation as written with a request that the shape of the
shoreline be considered.
• Item (12) – (b) Mooring - A single mooring exists 86 ft. from the end of the proposed
float. 100 ft. is the required separation in Section 1.09(4). The required separation of 100
ft. appearing in the regulation does not factor the vessel size or mooring line / chain
scope. The regulation requires the same separation of 100 ft. from a navigation channel
as from a mooring. Moorings allow anchored vessels to swing uncontrolled with the
wind and tide and navigation channels contain vessels under way, under control. There is
no basis in the regulations for the specific 100 ft. distance. Marinas, in contrast with the
100 ft. separation have high density boating conditions with many vessels underway,
moored, and stored with navigating conditions of far less distance. Uncontrolled
moorings, in motion, are directly adjacent and within navigation channels in this reach of
Bass River. A boat berthed on a pile held float is in a fixed location, predictable for any
transiting boat. The contrast in potential navigation conflicts with boater between the
buoy / chain moored boat and the fixed float moored boat is notably in need of further
explanation given the 100 ft. separations required for the float – moored boat. The
existing mooring shown on the proposed pier plan is used by the directly adjacent abutter
to the south who also has a pier, ramp and float where shown on the plan. The vessel that
occasionally uses the mooring is not large. The boat size and mooring location and
possible alternative locations may be of further interest in the review discussion for the
Notice of Intent.
• Item 12 (b) Navigation Channel – Plotting the “navigation channel” in this reach of the
river has challenges. The river curves through this reach. A line between the red buoys,
approx. 1200 ft. apart is a straight line that, as it passes the proposed pier site becomes
coincident with the west side of the mapped channel appearing in record dredge plans.
Red buoys would commonly be set along the east side of the channel demonstrating that
the curve is very pronounced at the proposed pier site. Vessels transiting the river at this
6
location adhere visually to the buoys but do so on a curved track with other visual aids,
moorings, Ship Shops Marina, etc. An aerial image is available showing two boats
transiting the immediate area. The boats positions have been plotted on the plan of the
proposed pier. The end of the proposed float measures 89 ft. to the line between the
buoys, (the approx. west side of the “mapped” channel) and measures 118 ft. from the
extrapolated path of the inshore boat. A reasonable conclusion to reach is that the
approximate channel boundary in this curved river location is approximately 100 ft. from
the end of the float. Given the general shape of the river channel at this location a
conclusion can be reached that the proposed location is eligible for a waiver because the
location is reasonably consistent with the intent to maintain ample separation that is close
to the specified regulatory distance between a fixed vessel location and the navigation
channel.
Respectfully Submitted,
Cape Cod Engineering, Inc.
Shellfish Survey
24 Frothingham Way
South Yarmouth, Massachusetts
1
SHELLFISH SURVEY DESCRIPTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On May 19, 2022, Paul Mancuso and Conor Gilbertson, Wetland Scientists of BSC Group
(BSC) conducted a shellfish survey from MHW into Land Under the Ocean of Bass River at
24 Frothingham Way in South Yarmouth, MA (the Site). The purpose of the survey was to
evaluate shellfish habitat, shellfish species, and shellfish population density within the area of
a proposed pier, ramp, and float within Lewis Bay. This shellfish survey accompanies a
Notice of Intent application for a proposed pier, ramp, and float at 24 Frothingham Way,
South Yarmouth, MA (the Site).
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The property at 24 Frothingham Way contains a single-family home. The residence is abutted by
single-family homes to the south and west, with the Bass River Yacht Club marina to the east,
and the Bass River to the east. The following wetland resource areas are located onsite:
• Land Under the Ocean
• Land Containing Shellfish
• Salt Marsh
• Coastal Bank
• Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (LSCSF)
3.0 SHELLFISH INVENTORY
In order to evaluate existing shellfish habitat at the site, BSC conducted a shellfish survey from
the Mean Highwater (MHW) to below Mean Low Water (MLW). The weather during the survey
was light rain with temperatures around 61F. The survey commenced as low tide was
approaching. In order to sample for shellfish within the project area, 8 transects, located 8 feet
apart (plus the distance between 4-foot wide excavated plots, resulting in a 10 distance between
transects), each with between 10 and 11 plots, located 10 feet apart (beginning from the edge of
the 4-foot by 4-foot plot, resulting in a distance of roughly 10 feet between plots), were
conducted as follows:
Transect 1 – Located 40 feet to the west of proposed pier. Extending approximately 110 feet
seaward from MHW.
Transect 2 – Located 30 feet to the west of proposed pier. Extending approximately 110 feet
seaward from MHW.
Transect 3 – Located 20 feet to the west of proposed pier. Extending approximately 110 feet
seaward from MHW.
Transect 4 – Located 10 feet to the west of the proposed pier. Extending approximately 110 feet
seaward from MHW.
Transect 5 – Located 10 feet to the east of proposed pier. Extending approximately 110 feet
seaward from MHW.
Transect 6 – Located 20 feet to the east of proposed pier. Extending approximately 110 feet
seaward from MHW.
Shellfish Survey
24 Frothingham Way
South Yarmouth, Massachusetts
2
Transect 7 – Located 30 feet to the east of proposed pier. Extending approximately 110 feet
seaward from MHW.
Transect 8 – Located 40 feet to the east of proposed pier. Extending approximately 110 feet
seaward from MHW.
Typically, plots would extend at least 30 feet beyond the farthest float, ramp, or other structure
associated with an existing or proposed pier/dock. However, beyond roughly 110 feet, the depths
and substrate conditions (deep muck) were too great for the safety of the shellfish surveyors.
In all transects, Plot #1-#5 was within salt marsh (Spartina alterniflora), therefore these areas
were only visually inspected. Plots #7 - #11 were sampled between the intertidal beach and Land
Under Ocean. Each plot was excavated to sample for shellfish using a standard Clam Rake,
Quahog Rake. Each shellfish observed in the plot was recorded then placed back into the plot
from which it came from. The following shellfish species were observed during the survey;
quahogs (Mercenaria mercenaria), soft-shell clams (Mya arenaria), eastern oysters (Crossostrea
virginica), ribbed mussles (Geukensia demissa), and cockle (Cerastoderma spp).
Figure 1: Showing approximate location of Transects and Plots for the shellfish survey at 24
Frothingham Way.
The table below identifies all shellfish found within the plots along the 8 Transects:
Shellfish Survey
24 Frothingham Way
South Yarmouth, Massachusetts
3
Table 1 – Shellfish Inventory
Plot – Description Shellfish Substrate and Other
Observations
Transect 1
MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh
10’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh
20’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh
30’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh
40’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh
50’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh
60’ seaward of MHW 0 6” of sand then peat 70’ seaward of MHW 1 soft-shell Sandy 80’ seaward of MHW 1 soft-shell Sandy 90’ seaward of MHW 0 Sandy 100’ seaward of MHW 0 Sandy
Transect 2
MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 10’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 20’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 30’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 40’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 50’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 60’ seaward of MHW 0 6” of sand then peat 70’ seaward of MHW 0 Sandy 80’ seaward of MHW 0 Sandy 90’ seaward of MHW 0 Sandy 100’ seaward of MHW 0 Sandy
Transect 3
MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 10’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 20’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 30’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 40’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 50’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 60’ seaward of MHW 0 6” of sand then peat 70’ seaward of MHW 1 little neck Sandy 80’ seaward of MHW 1 chowder, 1 cherrystone Sandy 90’ seaward of MHW 0 Sandy 100’ seaward of MHW 0 Sandy 110’seaward of MHW 1 oyster Sandy
Transect 4
MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 10’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 20’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 30’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh
Shellfish Survey
24 Frothingham Way
South Yarmouth, Massachusetts
4
40’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 50’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 60’ seaward of MHW 0 6” of sand then peat 70’ seaward of MHW 2 soft-shells Sandy 80’ seaward of MHW 1 soft-shell Sandy 90’ seaward of MHW 0 Sandy 100’ seaward of MHW 0 Sandy 110’ seaward of MHW 0 Sandy
Transect 5
MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 10’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 20’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 30’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 40’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 50’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 60’ seaward of MHW 0 6” of sand then peat 70’ seaward of MHW 1 soft-shell Sandy 80’ seaward of MHW 1 little neck Sandy 90’ seaward of MHW 0 Sandy 100’ seaward of MHW 0 Sandy 110’ seaward of MHW 0 Sandy
Transect 6
MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 10’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 20’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 30’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 40’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 50’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 60’ seaward of MHW 0 6” of sand then peat 70’ seaward of MHW 0 Sandy 80’ seaward of MHW 1 soft-shell Sandy 90’ seaward of MHW 0 Sandy 100’ seaward of MHW 0 Sandy 110’ seaward of MHW 0 Sandy
Transect 7
MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 10’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 20’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 30’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 40’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 50’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 60’ seaward of MHW 0 6” of sand then peat 70’ seaward of MHW 2 soft-shells Sandy 80’ seaward of MHW 1 soft-shell Sandy 90’ seaward of MHW 1 cockle Sandy 100’ seaward of MHW 0 Sandy 110’ seaward of MHW 0 Sandy
Shellfish Survey
24 Frothingham Way
South Yarmouth, Massachusetts
5
Transect 8 MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 10’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 20’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 30’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 40’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 50’ seaward of MHW Ribbed mussels Salt marsh 60’ seaward of MHW 0 6” of sand then peat 70’ seaward of MHW 1 soft-shell Sandy 80’ seaward of MHW 0 Sandy 90’ seaward of MHW 0 Sandy 100’ seaward of MHW 1 cherry stone Sandy 110’ seaward of MHW 0 Sandy
TOTAL NUMBER OF OBSERVATION PLOTS = 88
TOTAL NUMBER OF RIBBED MUSSELS = 1000’s
TOTAL NUMBER OF EASTERN OYSTERS = 1
TOTAL NUMBER OF QUAHOGS = 5
TOTAL NUMBER OF SOFT-SHELL CLAMS = 11
Total NUMBER OF COCKLE = 1
It should be noted that many periwinkles (Littorina littorea) were documented within the
intertidal sampling areas. Ribbed Mussels are very abundant within the Spartina salt marsh
located on Site. There was one cockle observed. There were two horseshoe crabs observed
moving along the sediment surface with the Bass River.
4.0 TEMPORARY IMPACTS
Proposed work related to the proposed pier, ramp and float could have minor impacts on the
intertidal area and Land Under the Ocean, but overall would have very limited impacts on
shellfish due to the low population density and through the observance of appropriate seasonal
timing.
The proposed work could occur during the fall/winter/early spring months when shellfish life
cycle activity is reduced. During the winter, shellfish live at increased depths in the tidal
bottom with reduced metabolism. Therefore, only minimal impacts to shellfish habitat are
expected (pilings).
Pile driving work should occur from a barge at mid to high tide to prevent the barge from
running aground.
If necessary, existing shellfish could be dug and relocated from the site. However, based on
this shellfish survey this should not be necessary since a small population of shellfish were
located near the work area.
5.0 SUMMARY
BSC’s shellfish survey identified the following:
5 individual Quahogs were found within the 88 shellfish plots surveyed. In addition, no
spat or seeds were noted across the surveyed area.
Shellfish Survey
24 Frothingham Way
South Yarmouth, Massachusetts
6
Salt marsh located along the entire seaward edge of the Site and beyond MHW. These
areas contained dense populations of ribbed mussels. Periwinkles were noted in
inundated/intertidal portions of the site.
Photo 1: View of a chowder quahog found during the shellfish survey at 24 Frothingham
Way.
Photo 2: View of an eastern oyster found during the shellfish survey at 24 Frothingham
Way.
Site Photographs
24 Frothingham Way
South Yarmouth, MA
05/19/2022
Page 1
Photo 3: View of the cockle found during the shellfish survey at 24 Frothingham Way.
Photo 4: View of a soft-shell clam found during the shellfish survey at 24 Frothingham
Way.
Site Photographs
24 Frothingham Way
South Yarmouth, MA
05/19/2022
Page 2