Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZona narrative and protocol - REVISED 2-23-24Notice of Intent Joseph and Meredith Zona, 39 Seth Lane, S. Yarmouth Page 1 of 9 Performance Standards Narrative, Alternatives Analysis, and Construction Protocol Revised to add Riverfront Area in Blue Property Description The site is located at 39 Seth Lane in South Dennis, Massachusetts. The property lies on the west shore of Bass River, about 700 feet north of the Route 28 Bass River Bridge. 39 Seth Lane had an existing dwelling close to the water, with a concrete patio (both recently removed under a separate filing) and currently has a concrete and stone seawall, with two concrete and stone groins located approximately on the north and south property lines. The site is low; flooding at even nominal storm or monthly high tides. At the time of the inspection, a wrack line of debris was located all the way to the landward edge of the parking area, about 90 feet from the seawall. The existing seawall and groins are the focus of this site. The coastal beach extends out from the base of the seawall, but is completely flooded at high tide (no high tide beach). The property has a concrete and rock seawall across most of the property that jogs landward 5 feet at the south end of the existing patio, then extends another 30 feet south, leaving a gap of eighteen (18’) feet wide between the seawall and the south groin that has no formal protective structure. In this area, the beach extends to the edge of the lawn/parking area in a fairly uniform slope. The wall is concrete over stone, and it appears that the exposed stone is resting on the beach. The area was not probed to determine the depth of the stones. The wall gets less structural as you go south. While there doesn’t seem to be signs of shifting, if more beach elevation is lost, it will almost certainly shift seaward. The patio will follow suit with cracking and shifting. There is a rock groin on the south side of the property, approximately on the property line, which extends about 35 feet seaward from the outer section of the seawall (inline with the seaward edge of the patio). There is some form of structure and rocks along the south property line ending at the landward edge of the driveway/lawn/parking area. The groin is about 3 feet above the beach grade where MHW goes over the top of the stone. There is also another rock groin on the north property line, extending about 40 feet seaward from the outer edge of the patio (not the neighbor's fence). This groin is also about 3 feet above the current beach soil where MHW goes over it. During the inspection at low tide (9:45 AM on 1-25-23), there was about a foot of water at the outer ends of both groins. There was observed a 1-foot deep narrow trench around the outer end of the north groin, indicating some higher current velocity at that end. The groins are spaced about 88 feet apart. All of the structures on the site are licensed by DEP License 4145, issued in 1994. For more details, please refer to the evaluation report conducted by Shorefront Consulting in January, 2023, which is included in this filing. The report states that the groins were properly spaced relative to their length. Project Description The purpose of this project is to remove the concrete and stone seawall that is seaward of the old patio, then regrade with a combination of cut and fill to establish a 10:1 slope to restore more coastal beach and reduce erosion. Approximately 124+/- cubic yards of nourishment is proposed to fill the groins to capacity and to restore their function for downdrift beaches. In addition, it is proposed to remove all of the existing concrete that is on top of the groins and use the removed stones from the seawall to place them on top of the groins to maintain the current height. Any extra stone would be removed from the site. Description of Proposed Work Access for the project will be from the upland. The first task is to remove any shellfish in the area between the two groins and relocate them to the other sides (north and south) of the existing groins. The second task is to remove all the rocks and concrete from the seawall along the shoreline, and temporarily stockpile the stones upland of the wall. The next step is to remove the concrete from on top of the two groins, and replace with suitable stones from the removed seawall. It is assumed that there is enough stones in the seawall to accomplish this task. There will likely be some stones that are too large for the groin, and these will be removed from the site. If for some reason there is not enough small stones to restore the groin height, then additional stone would be brought in. Next, the beach will be regraded from the top of the slope by first cutting, then filling as you go seaward to create a 10:1 slope for the beach. Finally, additional beach nourishment will be added to fill the groins to capacity and continue the 10:1 slope. Refer to the project plan attached to this filing. Notice of Intent Joseph and Meredith Zona, 39 Seth Lane, S. Yarmouth Page 2 of 9 Mean High Water Determination The project site is located approximately a 1.8 miles upstream from the mouth of Bass River. The site is located directly adjacent to the main flow of the river. There is some influence from the river current restrictions this far up river. Therefore, the tidal elevations were verified using data from available projects in the neighborhood. Therefore, MHW is at elevation 1.5' NAVD88, and MLW is at elevation -2' NAVD88. Riverfront Area The property is located directly fronting the main flow of Bass River, and is therefore considered in the Riverfront area. The Riverfront area buffer zone is 200 feet. The area of work that is within the 100-ft. riverfront area is limited to the removal of the hard stone seawall structure, and the grading of the area landward of the seawall. No fill is proposed in the Riverfront area; only cutting to establish the 10:1 slope. The remaining work is seaward of MHW, and therefore not in the Riverfront area. Mitigation The project serves to enhance the resource areas by removing hard structures and restoring the beach area to a more natural state. A project of this type could be used as mitigation itself for another type of project, so therefore no mitigation for this project is proposed. However, there is 650 square feet of beach grass planting that was approved for mitigation for the house project. The plan shows the 650 square feet of mitigation to be directly landward of the existing stone wall that is now proposed for removal for this project. Therefore, the 650 square feet of beach grass plantings will have to be located elsewhere; perhaps landward of the proposed grading for the coastal beach. The commission may want a different location, etc. This can be discussed during the public hearing and a revised plan will be submitted immediately after for the changes. Navigation The proposed work does not extend beyond the existing groins. The channel looks to be at least 100 feet out from the groins, and the adjacent dock to the north extends further out than the existing groins. Therefore, no boats transiting the channel would be affected by the proposed work at this site. Therefore, there are no anticipated impacts to navigation of the waterway with regards to this project. Shellfish Survey A shellfish survey was conducted on December 2, 2023. The survey indicates shellfish located at the outer ends of the groin just beyond MLW, with only one plot indicating shellfish on the beach area. The report indicates a total of 14 shellfish found in 40 plots. These shellfish are proposed for relocation prior to any regrading and beach nourishment. It is assumed that the entire area would be raked to relocate any shellfish that weren’t exactly in the shellfish sample plots. Alternatives Analysis (Discussion of Options) “Do nothing” alternative: If nothing was done at this site, the beach will likely continue to erode. The existing stone and concrete seawall will collapse, creating a safety hazard and a general mess. While the site gets flooded consistently from higher tides, there doesn’t appear to be a sediment source from the upland (no coastal bank exists), and the groins are not full, indicating a loss of sediment from upstream beaches. Therefore, the site conditions would continue to degrade and the do nothing option was not chosen. This is why the owners wish to restore the site to a more natural state. Note: since the groins are at the property lines, moving them is not a consideration. Therefore, the spacing is constant, but the length can be looked into for alternatives. The suggested groin spacing, according to the research, suggests that the groins should be between 1.5 to 4 times the length of the groins. The groins extend roughly 40 feet out from the main seawall. Therefore, they should be spaced between 60 (1.5:1) and 160 (4:1) apart. At a spacing of 88 feet, they are spaced at a ratio of about 2.2:1, closer to the “too close” parameter as opposed to the “too far apart” parameter. If the ratios are used, then the groins as currently spaced, could be up to 58 feet long (1.5:1) or as short as 22 feet long (4:1). If we pick the 3:1 ratio as an average, then groins that are spaced 88 feet apart would be about 29 feet long. 1) Shorten the North groin up to 10 feet; If the north groin was shortened, it would almost certainly increase the amount of sand traveling south; and could ultimately reduce the beach on the abutter’s property to the north. Therefore, since this option could have a potentially negative impact on a neighbor’s property, this option is not considered. Notice of Intent Joseph and Meredith Zona, 39 Seth Lane, S. Yarmouth Page 3 of 9 2) Shorten the South groin up to 10 feet; If the south groin was shortened, it would allow more sand to pass to the south, likely reducing the amount of sand on the 39 Seth Lane property beach area. Sand would still accumulate on the north side of the north groin, but it wouldn’t be captured as much by the south groin. There is one possible advantage to this option: the marsh to the south of the south groin, on the 33 Seth Lane property, is very close to the outer edge of the beach. Some additional sand in thi s area would protect the outer edge of the marsh. Aerial photos don’t indicate that the marsh area is declining, but obviously more beach in front of them will provide more protection. If this option was chosen, some nourishment should take place on the 39 Seth Lane property to feed the south beaches. This should be considered carefully, since additional nourishment alone may accomplish the same goal. Note; remember that for more sand to accumulate on the beach, the north groin has to be shortened (not advised). IF both groins are shortened, then more sand will accumulate on the beach, but that sand will come from the abutter’s beach to the north, potentially lowering their beach. 3) Lower the height of either groin; If the height of the groins was changed so that the groins still protruded above the current beach height, approximately 3 feet or less, then there would be no effect on the current profiles, because the groins aren’t filled. IF they were lowered and then there was a sand source to fill them, the sand would not be contained and would then pass over the lower groins. Therefore, this option is not considered. 4) Extend either groin; This option would reduce the amount of sand accumulated on the 39 Seth Lane beach, and increase the amount of sand on the abutter’s beach to the north. This option would “starve” both 33 and 39 Seth Lane beaches, and therefore is not considered. 5) Eliminate either or both groins; If the north groin was eliminated, there would be some buildup of beach on the north side of the patio, but again, the abutter’s beach would likely diminish. If just the south groin was eliminated, then the 39 Seth Lane’s sand would pass south, benefitting the 33 Seth Lane beach, but likely leaving the 39 Seth Lane beach with much less sand. IF there were no “coastal engineered” structures to the north, and that shoreline was eroding at a normal rate, providing sediment to the littoral system, then this strip of land would be similar to what is observed in the 1938 aerial. The beach is uniform along the entire photo; with no areas that seem less than others. Now that bulkheads and seawalls were constructed north of the site, the whole littoral drift system has been changed, reducing the amount of sediment into the system, and ultimately reducing the beach elevations as well. Eventually all of these sites loose their high tide beach, as evidenced on the property to the north. While this is what people do to protect their properties, it is no longer permittable for houses constructed after August 10, 1978. This is to preserve the long shore drift of sediments and maintain beach elevations. Because there are man-made structures to the north, with no apparent increase in sand source available, this option is therefore not considered. 6) Eliminate the seawall and the patio; If this option was chosen, then the site would have more upland beach. The patio would also have to be removed, since the eroding beach would then undermine it. The site would be much more aesthetically pleasing as well. The site can be re-graded to match the southern portion of the existing beach, create a beach area upland of the seawall, and along the entire frontage of the site. Upper areas could be planted with woody shrubs and beach grass, creating a vegetated buff er strip between the lower “parking lot/lawn” and the beach. Careful consideration should be made because once this option is chosen, because there’s no going back. The only option to maintain the beach would be periodic beach nourishment. The conservation commission might be opposed to this option, or only allow it once over time. This option does not change the littoral drift system or rate of erosion; it will, however, create a coastal beach where none exists now. Consideration must also be made as to the type of plantings proposed; the plants have to be able to withstand high tide inundation by salt water. There are several plants available such as beach grass, Spartina Patens, Sea Cucumber, and Heather. These are all plants that live in a salt marsh transition zone that gets periodically inundated with salt water. This option can be considered, but with the caveats mentioned above. Notice of Intent Joseph and Meredith Zona, 39 Seth Lane, S. Yarmouth Page 4 of 9 7) Nourish the beach area but leave everything else unchanged; This option would put the beach back on the site without affecting any surrounding properties. Since there would be a new source of sediment, it can be assumed that the beach sediments will travel south, lowering the beach over time. The conservation commission might be opposed to this option, or only allow it once over time. There is no disadvantage to this option because everything else remains the same. Therefore, this option can be considered, as long as the commission will allow it. 8) Eliminate the stones on the south property line; This option was discussed during the site inspection with the owners. This only pertains to the narrow section of stone on the upland, starting at the edge of the grass parking area and proceeding west to the bottom of the wooded slope. The stones were likely put there to prevent waves from impacting the lawn/driveway area during high tides and storm surges. Removing the stones would increase the potential for wave energy to impact the site, but hopefully only on a periodic occurrence. More frequent storms would certainly have more impact, likely requiring some restoration. More salt tolerant plantings could be substituted for the rocks, both increasing vegetation, habitat and storm resiliency. However, there’s no substitution for the rocks. While this option can be considered, the long term impacts must also be considered. 9) Remove all the concrete from all of the structures and leave the stone; The concrete is speculated to be installed either to provide more protection after the stones were placed, or perhaps done at the same time to provide a “cap”. As uncertain as the origin of the concrete is, it is certainly unsightly. If the concrete was removed, leaving the remaining stone in place, there would be a slight lessening of the storm resiliency because the height would be lowered. However, IF the stones are removed along the south property line as discussed above, then these stones could be installed over the existing stones to be a substitute for the rocks. This could happen for the groins alone, or include the seawall if it remains. Therefore this option can be considered. 10) Preferred option, project as proposed. The project was designed around restoring the beach area to a more natural state by removing existing hard structures. The existing groins are functioning properly and just need some additional nourishment to fill them to a more stable slope angle and to provide some source for the downstream beach. The concrete removal will enhance the natural look for the site, and no concrete will remain. Tampering with the length of the groins seems problematic at best, so leaving them alone and just supplying the nourishment provides the benefit of a more natural site, a more stable slope, and is aesthetically more pleasing. Therefore, the project as proposed provides the greatest benefits with the least amount of risk, and is the chosen option for this project. Performance Standards The project proposes the removal of hard structures on a coastal beach, the stabilization and enhancement of the beach, and nourishment to provide sediment to downdrift beaches. The resource areas for this proposed project include Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, Coastal Beach, Land Containing Shellfish, Land Under Ocean, and Riverfront Area. Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (LSCSF) – LSCSF is considered a resource area under 310 CMR 10, section 10.02 (1) d. The area from the existing bulkhead back to the lawn is below the flood elevation and therefore no coastal bank exists. There is an “artificial Top of Bank” at the top of the bulkhead. The work on the waterfront is still within LSCSF, so it will be treated as such. The area is therefore within Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage. Although LSCSF is an area that is allowed protection under the Wetlands Protection Act, there are no performance standards for this area. The work proposed in LSCSF is the work for the bulkhead installation. That work will not have any significant adverse impacts, and can be permitted under 310 CMR 10.05(6)k. The Yarmouth Wetlands Protection Regulations, section 4.10 (3) a (i-viii), have the following performance standards to consider: projects within LSCSF shall not have an adverse effect on the interests protected by the bylaw by: i. reducing the ability of the land to absorb and contain flood waters; The project will not change the ability of the land to absorb and contain flood waters. . i. reducing the ability of the land to buffer more inland areas from flooding and wave damage; Does not reduce this ability; remains unchanged. Notice of Intent Joseph and Meredith Zona, 39 Seth Lane, S. Yarmouth Page 5 of 9 ii. increasing the elevation or velocity of flood waters, or by redirecting or increasing flows or causing channelization, in each case at the project site, adjacent or nearby properties, or any public or private way. No change because there is no increase in the elevation of the land. Removing the seawall will reduce channelization in the existing beach area by widening the beach area and providing a more gradual slope for flood waters. iii. displacing or diverting flood waters to other properties or resource areas. Fences and privacy walls, including walls separating one property from another, may obstruct or divert flood flow and waves toward buildings and protected areas. Solid fences (stockade and similar) must be constructed with 6 inches of clearance below to allow the passage of floodwaters and wildlife; No change because the groins are not being altered. iv. causing, or creating the likelihood of, damage to other structures on land within the flood plain as debris (collateral damage); No change. v. causing ground, surface or saltate pollution triggered by coastal storm flowage; No change. vi. reducing the ability of the resource to serve as a wildlife habitat and migration corridor through activities such as, but not limited to the removal of substantial vegetative cover and/or installation of fencing and other structures which prevent wildlife migration across property. No change. vii. prevention of the migration of resource areas such as salt marshes due to sea level rise. No change. viii. If flood control and storm damage protection functions have already been impaired, redevelopment must improve existing conditions by reducing impervious surfaces, restoring flood control and storm damage protection functions, installing native plantings, or by restoring or creating other wetland resource areas. No change. The project, as proposed, has no adverse effects, and therefore can be conducted and permitted to minimize adverse effects to the listed interests in accordance with The Yarmouth Wetlands Protection Regulations, section 4.10 (3) a (i-viii). Coastal Beach - The area of coastal beach extends across the entire waterfront, and covers most of the nourishment area. Beach nourishment will be performed using as small equipment as possible to place the sand on the beach. An Excavator can likely reach all of the beach, which would avoid any heavy equipment on the beach and avoid the compaction of sediments. Under the Yarmouth Wetlands protection regulations (12/11/23), section 4.02, 3(a-f); the project as proposed does not affect the ability of waves to remove sediment from the beach (waves are not prevented from reaching the shoreline), will not disturb the vegetative cover (there is none), cause any modification of the beach or downdrift beach (it will only enhance them) that would increase the potential for storm of flood damage, interfere with the natural movement of the beach, or cause artificial removal of sand from the beach. Acco rdingly, there is no seaweed in this location proposed for removal. The construction will not change the role for the beach in storm damage prevention, flood control, or protection of wildlife habitat. The project will also not change the ability of the beach to respond to wave action, or have any negative effect for any downdrift beach. The project, as designed will have no adverse impacts to the coastal beach, and therefore meets the performance standards for work on a Coastal Beach. Therefore, the project as proposed can be permitted under 310 CMR 10.27 (1) through (7), and the Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, section 4.05 (3) a-f. Land Containing Shellfish; 310 CMR 10.34; Projects within 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; The project does not change water circulation. (b) alterations in relief elevation; The project does not change relief elevation. (c) the compacting of sediment by vehicular traffic; Not applicable. (d) alterations in the distribution of sediment grain size; The project will use compatible nourishment material. Notice of Intent Joseph and Meredith Zona, 39 Seth Lane, S. Yarmouth Page 6 of 9 (e) alterations in natural drainage from adjacent land; or no alterations in drainage. (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. The project does not change the water quality. (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of 310 CMR 10.34(4), projects which temporarily have an adverse effect on shellfish productivity but which do not permanently destroy the habitat may be permitted if the land containing shellfish can and will be returned substantially to its former productivity in less than one year from the commencement of work, unless an extension of the Order of Conditions is granted, in which case such restoration shall be completed within one year of such extension. The project does will not change shellfish habitat and shellfish are expected to return naturally. (6) In the case of land containing shellfish defined as significant in 310 CMR 10.34(3)(b) (i.e., those areas identified on the basis of maps and designations of the Shellfish Constable), except in Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, the issuing authority may, after consultation with the Shellfish Constable, permit the shellfish to be moved from such area under the guidelines of, and to a suitable location approved by, the Division of Marine Fisheries, in order to permit a proposed project on such land. Any such project shall not be commenced until after the moving and replanting of the shellfish have been commenced. The shellfish population is not considered significant. (7) Notwithstanding 310 CMR 10.34(4) through (6), projects approved by the Division of Marine Fisheries that are specifically intended to increase the productivity of land containing shellfish may be permitted. Aquaculture projects approved by the appropriate local and state authority may also be permitted. The project will not negatively impact the shellfish habitat. (8) Notwithstanding the provisions of 310 CMR 10.34(4) through (7), no project may be permitted which will have any adverse effect on specified habitat of rare vertebrate or invertebrate species, as identified by procedures established under 310 CMR 10.37. Not applicable. For the Yarmouth Wetlands Protection Regulations, Section 4.08 (3a-f, 4, and 5); projects located in 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 in water circulation; (b) alteration 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, temperature or turbidity, or the addition of pollutants. Refer to previous comments for a-f. (4) The Conservation Commission may, after consultation with the shellfish constable, permit shellfish to be removed from such an area under the guidelines of and to a suitable location approved by the state Division of Marine Fisheries, (DMF) in order to permit a proposed project on such land. Any such project shall not be commenced until after the moving and replanting of the affected shellfish has been completed. Refer to construction protocols. (5) Notwithstanding section 4.08, (3), projects approved by said D.M.F. that are specifically intended to increase the productivity of land containing shellfish maybe permitted at the discretion of the Conservation Commission. Aquaculture projects approved by the appropriate local and state authorities may also be permitted at the discretion of the Conservation Commission. The project is not an aquaculture project. Therefore, the project as proposed can be approved under the DEP wetlands protection act, section 310 CMR 10.34, and the Yarmouth Wetlands Protection Regulations under sections 4.08 (3a-f, 4, and 5). Notice of Intent Joseph and Meredith Zona, 39 Seth Lane, S. Yarmouth Page 7 of 9 Land Under the Ocean – The area beyond MLW is land under the ocean. The proposed work in this area is limited to the beach nourishment. The nourishment serves to enhance the beach area and the area seaward of MLW by providing a more stable environment that should be less subject to erosion. 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 alterations in water circulation, destruction of eelgrass (Zostera marina) or widgeon grass (Rupia maritina) beds, distribution of grain size, changes in water quality, including, but not limited to, other than natural fluctuations in the level of dissolved oxygen, temperature or turbidity, or the addition of pollutants; or alterations of shallow submerged lands with high densities of polychaetes, mollusks or macrophytic algae. The project, as proposed, has no significant adverse effects, and therefore can be conducted and permitted to minimize adverse effects to the listed interests in accordance with 310 CMR 10.25 (6). The Yarmouth Wetlands Protection Regulations, section 4.01(3) a-g, have the following performance standards to consider. The project is designed to minimize adverse effects 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; The project does not increase flooding or erosion. (b) Sediment transport processes which will increase flood or erosion hazards by affecting the natural replenishment of beaches; The project will improve the sediment transport process because the groins will be filled, allowing sediments to traverse along the beach naturally. (c) Water circulation which will result in an adverse change in flushing rate, temperature, or turbidity levels; or The project will not change these parameters. (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 habitat or nutrient source areas. The project will relocate any shellfish prior to the nourishment, at the direction of the Natural Resources Director, and will not result in the smothering of bottom organisms, or the destruction of habitat. (e) Maintenance dredging for navigational purposes affecting land under the ocean shall be carried out using the best available measures so as to minimize adverse effects 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 habitat or nutrient source areas. The project does not propose any dredging. (f) Projects not included in section 4.01, (a through e) 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. The beach re-grading and nourishment will reduce erosion and will not cause negative impacts to the coastal beach. (g) Projects not included in section 4.01, (a through c) which affect land under the ocean shall be designed and performed so as to cause no adverse effects on wildlife, marine fisheries or shellfisheries caused by: i. Alterations in water circulation; The project does not alter water circulation. ii. Destruction of eelgrass beds (Zostera marina); Not applicable; no eelgrass at the site. The project, as proposed, has no significant adverse effects, and therefore can be conducted and permitted to minimize adverse effects to the listed interests in accordance with The Yarmouth Wetlands Protection Regulations, section 4.01(3) a-g. Notice of Intent Joseph and Meredith Zona, 39 Seth Lane, S. Yarmouth Page 8 of 9 Riverfront Area The property is located directly fronting the main flow of Bass River, and is therefore considered in the Riverfront area. The Riverfront area buffer zone is 200 feet. The area of work is within the 100-ft. Riverfront area is limited to the removal of the hard stone seawall structure, and the grading of the area landward of the seawall. No fill is proposed in the Riverfront area; only cutting to establish the 10:1 slope. The remaining work is seaward of MHW, and therefore not in the Riverfront area. Riverfront Performance Standards 310 CMR 10.58 (3); “Where a proposed activity involves work within the riverfront area, the issuing authority shall presume that the area is significant to protect the private or public water supply; to protect the groundwater; to provide flood control; to prevent storm damage; to prevent pollution; to protect land containing shellfish; to protect wildlife habitat; and to protect fisheries.” The riverfront area on this property provides some recharge of flood waters, which mitigates flooding and damage from storms. The root systems of the vegetation keep the soil porous, increasing infiltration capacity. Vegetation also removes excess water through evaporation and transpiration. Vegetated riverfronts also dissipate the energy of storm flows, reducing damage to pubic and private property. There is no vegetative cover for fisheries for this site, so this function does not appear to be applicable for this property. The riverfront area, being so close to a salt water river, likely does not provide protection for private or public water supplies or groundwater. In these areas, there is likely an amount of salt water intrusion into the groundwater at some distance from the river’s edge, and at lower elevations. The other functions of the riverfront area, such as flood control, storm damage prevention, and the prevention of pollution, the protection of land containing shellfish (there is a small population of shellfish on the outer beach), wildlife habitat. With respect to Land Containing Shellfish, please refer to that section of the bylaw compliance. This project will not have a negative impact on Land Containing Shellfish because there are protocols to relocate the shellfish prior to the beach nourishment. “By providing recharge and retaining natural flood storage, as well as by slowing surface water runoff, riverfront areas can mitigate flooding and damage from storms. The root systems of riverfront vegetation keep soil porous, increasing infiltration capacity. Vegetation also removes excess water through evaporation and transpiration. This removal of water from the soil allows for more infiltration when flooding occurs. Increases in storage of floodwaters can decrease peak discharges and reduce storm damage. Vegetated riverfronts also dissipate the energy of storm flows, reducing damage to public and private property.” This is the primary function of the riverfront area for this property. “Where the presumption set forth in 310 CMR 10.58(3) is not overcome, the applicant shall prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there are no practicable and substantially equivalent economic alternatives to the proposed project with less adverse effects on the interests identified in M.G.L. c.131 § 40 and that the work, including proposed mitigation, will have no significant adverse impact on the riverfront area to protect the interests identified in M.G.L. c. 131 § 40.” According to the above, the riverfront area may not play a role in in the protection of fisheries, groundwater or private or public water supplies. This equates to the “one or more” of the interests in 310CMR 10.58(3). Therefore it appears that the presumption is rebuttable, and the presumption of significance is partially overcome. However, there are no practicable and substantially equivalent economic alternatives (see alternatives, above) to the proposed project with less adverse effects. All of the alternative have the risk of negative impacts to the surrounding resource areas, except for the option chosen. The proposed work will have no significant adverse impact on the riverfront area to protect the interests identified in M.G.L. c. 131 § 40. Notice of Intent Joseph and Meredith Zona, 39 Seth Lane, S. Yarmouth Page 9 of 9 CONSTRUCTION PROTOCOL The staging area for materials will be on the applicant’s property and driveway. The work area shall be kept to a minimum. A small excavator is required to remove the stones and concrete, and relocate the small stones along the top of the groins. All these areas can be reached from the upland without putting equipment on the beach. Worse case would be a small Bobcat to spread the sand from the land over the existing beach, working seaward. All material removed from the area shall be properly disposed of. If any new stones are required, then can be offloaded in the existing driveway and placed by excavator from the upland. All concrete and debris shall be removed an disposed of properly. Nourishment protocol: All shellfish shall be removed from the beach area and relocated north and south of the existing groins prior to placing the nourishment. The Yarmouth Department of Natural Resources shall be notified prior to the shellfish relocation for any additional instructions. All nourishment shall be performed outside of any time of year (TOY) restrictions. Material to be compatible with existing sediments. However, coarser sand is better for nourishment because it stays in place longer and has less fines to leach into the water. Pre-Construction Meeting Prior to construction, a pre-construction meeting shall be held on-site with the Contractor, Property Owner (or owner’s representative), and the Conservation Commission and/or agent. The purpose of the meeting is to clearly delineate the limits of work and access, as well as the staging area. The Contractor will describe the proposed means and methods for performing the work within the requirements of the plans, order of conditions and construction protocol. The Contractor will comply with mitigation measures as established by the Conservation Commission. To be discussed at this meeting: • Existing property conditions, necessary precautions to be taken by the Contractor; • Means and methods for construction; • Means and methods for siltation controls; • Necessary post-construction reparations and conditions; • Procedure for post-construction inspection; • Shorefront Consulting’s responsibilities for inspection and project coordination During Construction, the site shall be accessible for inspection during reasonable hours by all parties, members of the conservation commission and their agents, and the Project Manger. Post-construction meeting Upon completion of construction, a post-construction meeting shall be held on-site with the Contractor, Property Owner (or owner’s representative), and the Conservation Commission and/or agent. The purpose of this meeting is to determine that the project has been satisfactorily completed in accordance with all permits, and that no additional work or mitigation is required by the Contractor. Restoration of project area Upon completion of construction, the staging areas, vegetated areas, and any other areas disturbed by the construction effort shall be returned as much as practical to their pre -construction conditions to the satisfaction of the property owner and conservation agent. All disturbed vegetated areas shall be re-vegetated with indigenous vegetation to match pre-construction conditions for the surrounding areas, or as determined during the pre-construction meeting.