Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
NOI
October 18, 2022 Ref: 15144.00 Edwin Hoopes, Chairperson C/O Brittany DiRienzo, Conservation Administrator Yarmouth Conservation Commission Town of Yarmouth 1146 Route 28 South Yarmouth, MA 02664 RE: Notice of Intent: Great Island Road, Yarmouth Dear Chairperson Hoopes and Commissioners, On behalf of the Proponent, Great Island Homeowners’ Association, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB) is submitting the enclosed Notice of Intent (NOI) for barrier beach and dune renourishment located at Great Island Road, Yarmouth, Massachusetts. The Project proposes to undertake a phased approach to long term resiliency that includes both the near-term nourishment and maintenance of the Coastal Dunes and Barrier Beach, including both initial restoration of the dune system and implementation of an authorized long-term maintenance program for post-storm response. The intent of the project is to reinforce the natural protection provided by the dunes by restoring height in critical areas and re-nourishing the existing coastal beach system with compatible sediments. Site work includes the addition of sediment to the barrier beach and coastal dunes, and the planting of vegetation to stabilize the dune system and recreate habitat for shorebirds. An Eel Grass Monitoring Plan will monitor any impact to abutting eel grass beds. Inspections as part of an Ongoing Maintenance Agreement will allow the applicant to monitor erosion and proactively maintain the beach and dunes, and therefore the Proponent requests an extended five-year Order of Conditions. This application is being filed under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, MGL c.131, §40 (WPA) and its implementing regulations, 310 CMR 10.00 and the Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-Law, Chapter 143, and implementing regulations. The proposed Project will result in the alteration of 3400± linear feet of barrier beach and coastal dune. In addition, a portion of the project falls within the 100-foot buffer to a salt marsh. The area is mapped by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) as piping plover nesting habitat, and the plans propose measures for habitat protection to minimize impact. Furthermore, the site is within Land Subject to Coastal Flooding. The Project has been designed in compliance with all performance standards of the WPA and Bylaw. Wetland resource areas will be protected from incidental impacts during work through the implementation of an erosion and sedimentation control program. The program incorporates Best Management Practices (BMPs) specified in guidelines developed by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Yarmouth Conservation Commission September 19, 2022 Page 2 In compliance with the WPA and the Bylaw, notification to abutters regarding this NOI has been made by certified return receipt mail. A copy of the abutter notification form and a certified list of abutters are enclosed as part of the NOI. Please advertise this matter for public hearing at the Commission’s next scheduled meeting. We will be in attendance, along with Craig Fleming of the Great Island Homeowners’ Association. Should you have any questions concerning this submittal, or require additional information please contact me at 617.607.2604. Regards, Meredith Avery Managing Director – MA Environmental cc: Town of Yarmouth Yarmouth Dept. of Natural Resources MassDEP Southeast Regional Office Division of Marine Fisheries, Southeast Marine Fisheries Station Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Great Island Homeowners’ Association Notice of Intent Great Island Road Resiliency Project Yarmouth, MA PREPARED FOR Great Island Homeowners’ Association 1100 Great Island Road Yarmouth, MA, 02673 508.775.4888 PREPARED BY 101 Walnut Street PO Box 9151 Watertown, MA 02471 617.924.1770 09/19/2022 Great Island Road Resiliency Project i Table of Contents Table of Contents Notice of Intent Forms Notice of Intent Figures Attachment A Notice of Intent Narrative Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Site Description ................................................................................................................................... 5 Wetland Resource Areas ................................................................................................................. 7 Barrier Beach ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Project Description ............................................................................................................................ 8 Wetland Resource Area Impact .................................................................................................... 9 Buffer Zone Area Impact ............................................................................................................... 10 Proposed Ongoing Maintenance Agreement with the Commission .......................... 10 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................................... 11 Construction Methodology and Best Management Practices ....................................... 11 State Regulatory Compliance ...................................................................................................... 13 Coastal Dunes (310 CMR 10.28) ................................................................................................. 13 Barrier Beaches (310 CMR 10.29) ............................................................................................... 14 Salt Marsh (310 CMR 10.32)......................................................................................................... 15 Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (310 CMR 10.04) .............................................. 16 Work in Buffer Zone ........................................................................................................................ 16 Local Regulatory Compliance ...................................................................................................... 17 Local Shellfish Habitat Review .................................................................................................... 17 Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 17 Attachment B Abutter Information Attachment C Project Plans Attachment D Photolog Great Island Road Resiliency Project ii Table of Contents Attachment E Coastal Processes Analysis Attachment F MESA Filing Attachment G Local Forms Attachment H Eel Grass Monitoring Plan List of Tables Table 1 ͲWork in Wetland Resource Areas List of Figures Figure 1 – USGS Site Location Figure 2 – Aerial Overview Figure 3 – Priority Habitat Figure 4 – FEMA Floodplain Great Island Road Resiliency Project iii Table of Contents Notice of Intent Forms ›WPA Form 3A ›NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form wpaform3.doc • rev. 6/18/2020 Page 1 of 9 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by MassDEP: MassDEP File Number Document Transaction Number Yarmouth City/Town Important: When filling out forms on the computer, use only the tab key to move your cursor - do not use the return key. Note: Before completing this form consult your local Conservation Commission regarding any municipal bylaw or ordinance. A. General Information 1. Project Location (Note: electronic filers will click on button to locate project site): Great Island Road a. Street Address Yarmouth b. City/Town 02673 c. Zip Code Latitude and Longitude: 41.32425 d. Latitude 70.25301 e. Longitude 7;4 f. Assessors Map/Plat Number 1;4 g. Parcel /Lot Number 2. Applicant: Cynthia a. First Name Richards b. Last Name Great Island Homeowners' Association c. Organization 1100 Great Island Road d. Street Address Yarmouth e. City/Town MA f. State 02673 g. Zip Code 508-775-0259 h. Phone Number i. Fax Number greatislandhomeowners@gmail.com j. Email Address 3. Property owner (required if different from applicant):Check if more than one owner a. First Name b. Last Name c. Organization d. Street Address e. City/Town f. State g. Zip Code h. Phone Number i. Fax Number j. Email address 4. Representative (if any): Meredith a. First Name Avery b. Last Name VHB c. Company 101 Walnut Street d. Street Address Watertown e. City/Town MA f. State 02742 g. Zip Code 617-607-2604 h. Phone Number i. Fax Number mavery@vhb.com j. Email address 5. Total WPA Fee Paid (from NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form): 500 a. Total Fee Paid 237.50 b. State Fee Paid 262.50 c. City/Town Fee Paid wpaform3.doc • rev. 6/18/2020 Page 2 of 9 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by MassDEP: MassDEP File Number Document Transaction Number Yarmouth City/Town A. General Information (continued) 6. General Project Description: See attached. 7a. Project Type Checklist: (Limited Project Types see Section A. 7b.) 1. Single Family Home 2. Residential Subdivision 3. Commercial/Industrial 4. Dock/Pier 5. Utilities 6. Coastal engineering Structure 7. Agriculture (e.g., cranberries, forestry) 8. Transportation 9. Other 7b. Is any portion of the proposed activity eligible to be treated as a limited project (including Ecological Restoration Limited Project) subject to 310 CMR 10.24 (coastal) or 310 CMR 10.53 (inland)? 1. Yes No If yes, describe which limited project applies to this project. (See 310 CMR 10.24 and 10.53 for a complete list and description of limited project types) 2. Limited Project Type If the proposed activity is eligible to be treated as an Ecological Restoration Limited Project (310 CMR10.24(8), 310 CMR 10.53(4)), complete and attach Appendix A: Ecological Restoration Limited Project Checklist and Signed Certification. 8. Property recorded at the Registry of Deeds for: Barnstable a. County b. Certificate # (if registered land) 494721 c. Book 0 d. Page Number B. Buffer Zone & Resource Area Impacts (temporary & permanent) 1. Buffer Zone Only – Check if the project is located only in the Buffer Zone of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland, Inland Bank, or Coastal Resource Area. 2.Inland Resource Areas (see 310 CMR 10.54-10.58; if not applicable, go to Section B.3, Coastal Resource Areas). Check all that apply below. Attach narrative and any supporting documentation describing how the project will meet all performance standards for each of the resource areas altered, including standards requiring consideration of alternative project design or location. wpaform3.doc • rev. 6/18/2020 Page 3 of 9 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by MassDEP: MassDEP File Number Document Transaction Number Yarmouth City/Town B. Buffer Zone & Resource Area Impacts (temporary & permanent) (cont’d) For all projects affecting other Resource Areas, please attach a narrative explaining how the resource area was delineated. Resource Area Size of Proposed Alteration Proposed Replacement (if any) a.Bank 1. linear feet 2. linear feet b. Bordering Vegetated Wetland 1. square feet 2. square feet c.Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways 1. square feet 2. square feet 3. cubic yards dredged Resource Area Size of Proposed Alteration Proposed Replacement (if any) d. Bordering Land Subject to Flooding 1. square feet 2. square feet 3. cubic feet of flood storage lost 4. cubic feet replaced e. Isolated Land Subject to Flooding 1. square feet 2. cubic feet of flood storage lost 3. cubic feet replaced f.Riverfront Area 1. Name of Waterway (if available) - specify coastal or inland 2.Width of Riverfront Area (check one): 25 ft. - Designated Densely Developed Areas only 100 ft. - New agricultural projects only 200 ft. - All other projects 3.Total area of Riverfront Area on the site of the proposed project:square feet 4.Proposed alteration of the Riverfront Area: a. total square feet b. square feet within 100 ft.c. square feet between 100 ft. and 200 ft. 5.Has an alternatives analysis been done and is it attached to this NOI? Yes No 6.Was the lot where the activity is proposed created prior to August 1, 1996? Yes No 3. Coastal Resource Areas: (See 310 CMR 10.25-10.35) Note: for coastal riverfront areas, please complete Section B.2.f. above. wpaform3.doc • rev. 6/18/2020 Page 4 of 9 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by MassDEP: MassDEP File Number Document Transaction Number Yarmouth City/Town B. Buffer Zone & Resource Area Impacts (temporary & permanent) (cont’d) Check all that apply below. Attach narrative and supporting documentation describing how the project will meet all performance standards for each of the resource areas altered, including standards requiring consideration of alternative project design or location. Online Users: Include your document transaction number (provided on your receipt page) with all supplementary information you submit to the Department. Resource Area Size of Proposed Alteration Proposed Replacement (if any) a. Designated Port Areas Indicate size under Land Under the Ocean, below b.Land Under the Ocean 1. square feet 2. cubic yards dredged c.Barrier Beach Indicate size under Coastal Beaches and/or Coastal Dunes below d.Coastal Beaches 1. square feet 2. cubic yards beach nourishment e.Coastal Dunes 1. square feet 2. cubic yards dune nourishment Size of Proposed Alteration Proposed Replacement (if any) f.Coastal Banks 1. linear feet g.Rocky Intertidal Shores 1. square feet h. Salt Marshes 1. square feet 2. sq ft restoration, rehab., creation i.Land Under Salt Ponds 1. square feet 2. cubic yards dredged j. Land Containing Shellfish 1. square feet k.Fish Runs Indicate size under Coastal Banks, inland Bank, Land Under the Ocean, and/or inland Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways, above l.Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 1.cubic yards dredged 1. square feet 4. Restoration/Enhancement If the project is for the purpose of restoring or enhancing a wetland resource area in addition to the square footage that has been entered in Section B.2.b or B.3.h above, please enter the additional amount here. a. square feet of BVW b. square feet of Salt Marsh 5. Project Involves Stream Crossings a. number of new stream crossings b. number of replacement stream crossings FRPELQHGZLWK'XQHQRXULVKPHQW wpaform3.doc • rev. 6/18/2020 Page 5 of 9 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by MassDEP: MassDEP File Number Document Transaction Number Yarmouth City/Town C. Other Applicable Standards and Requirements This is a proposal for an Ecological Restoration Limited Project. Skip Section C and complete Appendix A: Ecological Restoration Limited Project Checklists – Required Actions (310 CMR 10.11). Streamlined Massachusetts Endangered Species Act/Wetlands Protection Act Review 1. Is any portion of the proposed project located in Estimated Habitat of Rare Wildlife as indicated on the most recent Estimated Habitat Map of State-Listed Rare Wetland Wildlife published by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP)? To view habitat maps, see the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas or go to http://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/PRI_EST_HAB/viewer.htm. a. Yes No If yes, include proof of mailing or hand delivery of NOI to: Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Division of Fisheries and Wildlife 1 Rabbit Hill Road Westborough, MA 01581 8/17/2022 b. Date of map If yes, the project is also subject to Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) review (321 CMR 10.18). To qualify for a streamlined, 30-day, MESA/Wetlands Protection Act review, please complete Section C.1.c, and include requested materials with this Notice of Intent (NOI); OR complete Section C.2.f, if applicable. If MESA supplemental information is not included with the NOI, by completing Section 1 of this form, the NHESP will require a separate MESA filing which may take up to 90 days to review (unless noted exceptions in Section 2 apply, see below). c.Submit Supplemental Information for Endangered Species Review 1. Percentage/acreage of property to be altered: (a)within wetland Resource Area 9.9 acres percentage/acreage (b)outside Resource Area percentage/acreage 2. Assessor’s Map or right-of-way plan of site 2. Project plans for entire project site, including wetland resource areas and areas outside of wetlands jurisdiction, showing existing and proposed conditions, existing and proposed tree/vegetation clearing line, and clearly demarcated limits of work (a) Project description (including description of impacts outside of wetland resource area & buffer zone) (b)Photographs representative of the site Some projects not in Estimated Habitat may be located in Priority Habitat, and require NHESP review (see https://www.mass.gov/ma- endangered-species-act-mesa-regulatory-review). Priority Habitat includes habitat for state-listed plants and strictly upland species not protected by the Wetlands Protection Act. MESA projects may not be segmented (321 CMR 10.16). The applicant must disclose full development plans even if such plans are not required as part of the Notice of Intent process. wpaform3.doc • rev. 6/18/2020 Page 6 of 9 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by MassDEP: MassDEP File Number Document Transaction Number Yarmouth City/Town C. Other Applicable Standards and Requirements (cont’d) (c) MESA filing fee (fee information available at https://www.mass.gov/how-to/how-to-file-for- a-mesa-project-review). Make check payable to “Commonwealth of Massachusetts - NHESP” and mail to NHESP at above address Projects altering 10 or more acres of land, also submit: (d) Vegetation cover type map of site (e) Project plans showing Priority & Estimated Habitat boundaries (f)OR Check One of the Following 1. Project is exempt from MESA review. Attach applicant letter indicating which MESA exemption applies. (See 321 CMR 10.14, https://www.mass.gov/service-details/exemptions-from-review-for-projectsactivities-in- priority-habitat; the NOI must still be sent to NHESP if the project is within estimated habitat pursuant to 310 CMR 10.37 and 10.59.) 2. Separate MESA review ongoing. a. NHESP Tracking #b. Date submitted to NHESP 3. Separate MESA review completed. Include copy of NHESP “no Take” determination or valid Conservation & Management Permit with approved plan. 3. For coastal projects only, is any portion of the proposed project located below the mean high water line or in a fish run? a. Not applicable – project is in inland resource area only b. Yes No If yes, include proof of mailing, hand delivery, or electronic delivery of NOI to either: South Shore - Cohasset to Rhode Island border, and the Cape & Islands: Division of Marine Fisheries - Southeast Marine Fisheries Station Attn: Environmental Reviewer 836 South Rodney French Blvd. New Bedford, MA 02744 Email: dmf.envreview-south@mass.gov North Shore - Hull to New Hampshire border: Division of Marine Fisheries - North Shore Office Attn: Environmental Reviewer 30 Emerson Avenue Gloucester, MA 01930 Email: dmf.envreview-north@mass.gov Also if yes, the project may require a Chapter 91 license. For coastal towns in the Northeast Region, please contact MassDEP’s Boston Office. For coastal towns in the Southeast Region, please contact MassDEP’s Southeast Regional Office. c. Is this an aquaculture project? d. Yes No If yes, include a copy of the Division of Marine Fisheries Certification Letter (M.G.L. c. 130, § 57). wpaform3.doc • rev. 6/18/2020 Page 7 of 9 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by MassDEP: MassDEP File Number Document Transaction Number Yarmouth City/Town C. Other Applicable Standards and Requirements (cont’d) Online Users: Include your document transaction number (provided on your receipt page) with all supplementary information you submit to the Department. 4. Is any portion of the proposed project within an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)? a. Yes No If yes, provide name of ACEC (see instructions to WPA Form 3 or MassDEP Website for ACEC locations). Note: electronic filers click on Website. b. ACEC 5. Is any portion of the proposed project within an area designated as an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) as designated in the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards, 314 CMR 4.00? a. Yes No 6. Is any portion of the site subject to a Wetlands Restriction Order under the Inland Wetlands Restriction Act (M.G.L. c. 131, § 40A) or the Coastal Wetlands Restriction Act (M.G.L. c. 130, § 105)? a. Yes No 7. Is this project subject to provisions of the MassDEP Stormwater Management Standards? a. Yes. Attach a copy of the Stormwater Report as required by the Stormwater Management Standards per 310 CMR 10.05(6)(k)-(q) and check if: 1. Applying for Low Impact Development (LID) site design credits (as described in Stormwater Management Handbook Vol. 2, Chapter 3) 2. A portion of the site constitutes redevelopment 3. Proprietary BMPs are included in the Stormwater Management System. b. No. Check why the project is exempt: No new impervious surface proposed. 1. Single-family house 2. Emergency road repair 3. Small Residential Subdivision (less than or equal to 4 single-family houses or less than or equal to 4 units in multi-family housing project) with no discharge to Critical Areas. D. Additional Information This is a proposal for an Ecological Restoration Limited Project. Skip Section D and complete Appendix A: Ecological Restoration Notice of Intent – Minimum Required Documents (310 CMR 10.12). Applicants must include the following with this Notice of Intent (NOI). See instructions for details. Online Users: Attach the document transaction number (provided on your receipt page) for any of the following information you submit to the Department. 1.USGS or other map of the area (along with a narrative description, if necessary) containing sufficient information for the Conservation Commission and the Department to locate the site. (Electronic filers may omit this item.) 2.Plans identifying the location of proposed activities (including activities proposed to serve as a Bordering Vegetated Wetland [BVW] replication area or other mitigating measure) relative to the boundaries of each affected resource area. wpaform3.doc • rev. 6/18/2020 Page 8 of 9 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by MassDEP: MassDEP File Number Document Transaction Number Yarmouth City/Town D. Additional Information (cont’d) 3.Identify the method for BVW and other resource area boundary delineations (MassDEP BVW Field Data Form(s), Determination of Applicability, Order of Resource Area Delineation, etc.), and attach documentation of the methodology. 4.List the titles and dates for all plans and other materials submitted with this NOI. a. Plan Title b. Prepared By c. Signed and Stamped by d. Final Revision Date e. Scale f. Additional Plan or Document Title g. Date 5.If there is more than one property owner, please attach a list of these property owners not listed on this form. 6. Attach proof of mailing for Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, if needed. 7.Attach proof of mailing for Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, if needed. 8.Attach NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form 9.Attach Stormwater Report, if needed. E. Fees 1.Fee Exempt: No filing fee shall be assessed for projects of any city, town, county, or district of the Commonwealth, federally recognized Indian tribe housing authority, municipal housing authority, or the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Applicants must submit the following information (in addition to pages 1 and 2 of the NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form) to confirm fee payment: 2. Municipal Check Number 3. Check date 4. State Check Number 5. Check date 6. Payor name on check: First Name 7. Payor name on check: Last Name Proposed Shoreline Stabilization and Management Plan FOTH Infrastructure and Env. LLC 7/14/2022 wpaform3.doc • rev. 6/18/2020 Page 9 of 9 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by MassDEP: MassDEP File Number Document Transaction Number Yarmouth City/Town F. Signatures and Submittal Requirements I hereby certify under the penalties of perjury that the foregoing Notice of Intent and accompanying plans, documents, and supporting data are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the Conservation Commission will place notification of this Notice in a local newspaper at the expense of the applicant in accordance with the wetlands regulations, 310 CMR 10.05(5)(a). I further certify under penalties of perjury that all abutters were notified of this application, pursuant to the requirements of M.G.L. c. 131, § 40. Notice must be made by Certificate of Mailing or in writing by hand delivery or certified mail (return receipt requested) to all abutters within 100 feet of the property line of the project location. 1. Signature of Applicant 2. Date 3. Signature of Property Owner (if different)4. Date 5. Signature of Representative (if any)6. Date For Conservation Commission: Two copies of the completed Notice of Intent (Form 3), including supporting plans and documents, two copies of the NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form, and the city/town fee payment, to the Conservation Commission by certified mail or hand delivery. For MassDEP: One copy of the completed Notice of Intent (Form 3), including supporting plans and documents, one copy of the NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form, and a copy of the state fee payment to the MassDEP Regional Office (see Instructions) by certified mail or hand delivery. Other: If the applicant has checked the “yes” box in any part of Section C, Item 3, above, refer to that section and the Instructions for additional submittal requirements. The original and copies must be sent simultaneously. Failure by the applicant to send copies in a timely manner may result in dismissal of the Notice of Intent. noifeetf.doc • Wetland Fee Transmittal Form • rev. 10/11 Page 1 of 2 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Important: When filling out forms on the computer, use only the tab key to move your cursor - do not use the return key. A. Applicant Information 1. Location of Project: Great Island Road a. Street Address Yarmouth b. City/Town c. Check number d. Fee amount 2. Applicant Mailing Address: Craig a. First Name Fleming b. Last Name Great Island Homeowner's Association c. Organization 1100 Great Island Road d. Mailing Address Yarmouth e. City/Town MA f. State 02673 g. Zip Code 508-775-0259 h. Phone Number i. Fax Number greatislandhomeowners@gmail.com j. Email Address 3. Property Owner (if different): a. First Name b. Last Name c. Organization d. Mailing Address e. City/Town f. State g. Zip Code h. Phone Number i. Fax Number j. Email Address To calculate filing fees, refer to the category fee list and examples in the instructions for filling out WPA Form 3 (Notice of Intent). B. Fees Fee should be calculated using the following process & worksheet. Please see Instructions before filling out worksheet. Step 1/Type of Activity: Describe each type of activity that will occur in wetland resource area and buffer zone. Step 2/Number of Activities: Identify the number of each type of activity. Step 3/Individual Activity Fee: Identify each activity fee from the six project categories listed in the instructions. Step 4/Subtotal Activity Fee: Multiply the number of activities (identified in Step 2) times the fee per category (identified in Step 3) to reach a subtotal fee amount. Note: If any of these activities are in a Riverfront Area in addition to another Resource Area or the Buffer Zone, the fee per activity should be multiplied by 1.5 and then added to the subtotal amount. Step 5/Total Project Fee: Determine the total project fee by adding the subtotal amounts from Step 4. Step 6/Fee Payments: To calculate the state share of the fee, divide the total fee in half and subtract $12.50. To calculate the city/town share of the fee, divide the total fee in half and add $12.50. $237.50 noifeetf.doc • Wetland Fee Transmittal Form • rev. 10/11 Page 2 of 2 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Fees (continued) Step 1/Type of Activity Step 2/Number of Activities Step 3/Individual Activity Fee Step 4/Subtotal Activity Fee Cat Beach Nourishment 1 $500 $500 Step 5/Total Project Fee: $500 Step 6/Fee Payments: Total Project Fee: $500 State share of filing Fee: a. Total Fee from Step 5 City/Town share of filling Fee: b. 1/2 Total Fee less $12.50 c. 1/2 Total Fee plus $12.50 C. Submittal Requirements a.) Complete pages 1 and 2 and send with a check or money order for the state share of the fee, payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Department of Environmental Protection Box 4062 Boston, MA 02211 b.) To the Conservation Commission: Send the Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent; a copy of this form; and the city/town fee payment. To MassDEP Regional Office (see Instructions): Send a copy of the Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent; a copy of this form; and a copy of the state fee payment. (E-filers of Notices of Intent may submit these electronically.) Proof of Mailing of State Fee From:TrackingUpdates@fedex.com To:Katie Young Subject:[External] FedEx Shipment 770240612174: This shipment is scheduled to be sent Date:Tuesday, October 18, 2022 4:39:41 PM FedEx Hi. This shipment is scheduled to be sent on Wed 10/19/2022. The delivery date may be updated when FedEx receives the package. Estimated delivery date Thu, 10/20/2022 before 4:30pm INITIATED TRACKING NUMBER 770240612174 FROM Vanasse Hangen Brustlin 101 Walnut Street Proof of mailing to SERO Watertown, MA, US, 02472 TO DEP Southeast Region 20 Riverside Drive Lakeville, MA, US, 02347 REFERENCE 1514600 SHIPPER REFERENCE 1514600 PACKAGING TYPE FedEx Pak ORIGIN Watertown, MA, 02472 DESTINATION Lakeville, MA, US, 02347 SPECIAL HANDLING Deliver Weekday STANDARD TRANSIT Thu, 10/20/2022 by 4:30pm NUMBER OF PIECES 1 TOTAL SHIPMENT WEIGHT 1.00 LB SERVICE TYPE FedEx Standard Overnight Get the FedEx® Mobile app Create shipments, receive tracking alerts, redirect packages to a FedEx retail location for pickup, and more from the palm of your hand -Download now. From:TrackingUpdates@fedex.com To:Katie Young Subject:[External] FedEx Shipment 770239267500: This shipment is scheduled to be sent Date:Tuesday, October 18, 2022 3:33:37 PM FedEx Hi. This shipment is scheduled to be sent on Tue 10/18/2022. The delivery date may be updated when FedEx receives the package. Estimated delivery date Wed, 10/19/2022 before 4:30pm INITIATED TRACKING NUMBER 770239267500 FROM Vanasse Hangen Brustlin 101 Walnut Street Proof of mailing to NHESP Watertown, MA, US, 02472 TO Div. of Fisheries and Wildlife NHESP 1 RABBIT HILL RD WESTBOROUGH, MA, US, 01581 REFERENCE 1514400 SHIPPER REFERENCE 1514400 PACKAGING TYPE FedEx Pak ORIGIN Watertown, MA, 02472 DESTINATION WESTBOROUGH, MA, US, 01581 SPECIAL HANDLING Deliver Weekday STANDARD TRANSIT Wed, 10/19/2022 by 4:30pm NUMBER OF PIECES 1 TOTAL SHIPMENT WEIGHT 1.00 LB SERVICE TYPE FedEx Standard Overnight Get the FedEx® Mobile app Create shipments, receive tracking alerts, redirect packages to a FedEx retail location for pickup, and more from the palm of your hand -Download now. From:TrackingUpdates@fedex.com To:Katie Young Subject:[External] FedEx Shipment 770239130371: This shipment is scheduled to be sent Date:Tuesday, October 18, 2022 3:21:08 PM FedEx Hi. This shipment is scheduled to be sent on Tue 10/18/2022. The delivery date may be updated when FedEx receives the package. Estimated delivery date Wed, 10/19/2022 before 4:30pm INITIATED TRACKING NUMBER 770239130371 FROM Vanasse Hangen Brustlin 101 Walnut Street Proof of mailing to the Division of Marine Fisheries Watertown, MA, US, 02472 TO DIVISION OF MARINE FISHERIES Attn: Env. Reviewer 836 SOUTH RODNEY FRENCH BLVD NEW BEDFORD, MA, US, 02744 REFERENCE 1514400 SHIPPER REFERENCE 1514400 PACKAGING TYPE FedEx Pak ORIGIN Watertown, MA, 02472 DESTINATION NEW BEDFORD, MA, US, 02744 SPECIAL HANDLING Deliver Weekday STANDARD TRANSIT Wed, 10/19/2022 by 4:30pm NUMBER OF PIECES 1 TOTAL SHIPMENT WEIGHT 1.00 LB SERVICE TYPE FedEx Standard Overnight Get the FedEx® Mobile app Create shipments, receive tracking alerts, redirect packages to a FedEx retail location for pickup, and more from the palm of your hand -Download now. Great Island Road Resiliency Project iv Table of Contents Notice of Intent Figures ›Figure 1 – USGS Site Location ›Figure 2 – Aerial Overview ›Figure 3 – Priority Habitat ›Figure 4 – FEMA Floodplain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reat Island Road Resiliency Project 4 Attachment A Notice of Intent Narrative Attachment A Notice of Intent Narrative Great Island Road Resiliency Project 5 Attachment A Notice of Intent Narrative This Notice of Intent (NOI) is filed pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (MGL Chapter 131, Section 40) and its implementing regulations (310 CMR 10.00); and the Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-Law, Chapter 143, and its implementing regulations. Introduction The Great Island Homeowners’ Association (the Applicant) is proposing a beach and dune nourishment project and management plan that will provide long-term coastal resiliency to the community on Great Island, Yarmouth, and its associated environs. The proponent plans to achieve resiliency for the Great Island Road Causeway and Fox Point (the Project Site) as well as to the neighboring pristine salt marsh by restoring coastal dune in the most critical areas while re-nourishing the existing coastal beach (the Project). This proposed work is considered Phase 1 of a longer-term plan for further resiliency, including redesigning the roadway. Proposed work related to the Project will occur within Barrier Beaches, Coastal Dunes, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, and within the 100-foot buffer of a Salt Marsh. This program includes provisions to minimize areas of disturbance through phasing and sequencing, and limit erosion through stabilization with revegetation. No new structures or paved surfaces are proposed. As this project is proposing a beach renourishment monitoring plan, the Applicant is requesting a 5-year Order of Conditions, with provisions to allow renourishment of the beach when there is a 30% loss of material. Site Description Great Island is an approximately 600-acre peninsula located in West Yarmouth, Massachusetts. The landscape consists largely of undeveloped beaches, dunes, salt marsh, fields, and wooded areas. The Project Area consists of the Great Island Road Causeway and shoreline from approximately 850’ north of White Cedar Road to Fox Point. The Causeway and shoreline form the northwest corner of Nantucket Sound. The island borders Lewis Bay, and a boat harbor (Uncle Robert’s Cove) as shown in Figure 1. Great Island’s shoreline currently includes 103 licensed coastal protection structures (groins, jetties, and seawalls). Great Island is home to unique ecological resources, including a pristine salt marsh between Fox Point and Uncle Robert’s Cove. The area is mapped by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) as piping plover nesting habitat (Figure 3), which is experiencing ongoing degradation from the erosion of the dune and beach system (Photographs 5 & 6). Using NAVD88 as a reference datum (NAVD88 = 0.0), the Mean Low Water (MLW), Mean High Water (MHW), and Annual High Tide (HTL) Great Island Road Resiliency Project 6 Attachment A Notice of Intent Narrative elevations are -2.0 feet, +1.3 feet, and +4.5 feet, respectively. The proposed Project sections are located within FEMA Flood Zone VE El. 13.0 feet and 14.0 feet. The community, consisting of 44 homes, is accessible solely via a paved, mile-long causeway and short-span bridge. Ongoing erosion of the coastal dune along Nantucket Sound results in more frequent overtopping of the remaining dune and flooding of the roadway behind it. The erosion threatens the stability of the road, as the shoreline encroaches upon the existing pavement and low points on the Causeway. In addition to the ongoing erosion, the bridge and the bridge approaches currently experience flooding several times a year during high tide and storm events. The combination of these ongoing issues results in limitations to emergency vehicle access and egress on the island (Photograph 1). Sections of the causeway are currently level with the barrier beach with no coastal dune remaining. Much of the coastal beach is currently below the mean high-water mark (Photograph 3). Mature vegetation has been destroyed as evidenced by the exposed root systems (Photograph 7). Coastal erosion also threatens to breach the coastal dune at Fox Point. This area is experiencing some of the highest rates of erosion on the island. The area to the northwest of the Fox Point coastal groin has experienced dune loss to a point that the elevation between the marsh and the seaward barrier beach are within a foot. A breach at this location would cause severe damage to the salt marsh and threaten the access bridge. This vulnerability is expected to increase due to climate change, as projected sea level rise and increased frequency and intensity of coastal storms will further threaten these areas. The continued erosion necessitates the creation of a long-term management strategy. The proposed approach for achieving long-term resiliency at Great Island, which is a combination of hard and soft measures, is a two phased approach. Phase 1 (as presented in this Notice of Intent) involves the initial restoration of the coastal dune and barrier beach system, and implementation of an authorized long-term maintenance program for post-storm response. It is anticipated that Phase 1 will be anticipated to last 10-15 years. Phase 2 would more comprehensively address flooding of the roadway that occurs through Lewis Bay. The phase would include raising the bridge and roadway elevation to mitigate the increasing frequency of flooding events anticipated as part of sea level rise projections. The proponent anticipates filing a future Notice of Intent for the second phase of the Project, as the designs for the roadway and bridge are advanced and impact analyses, avoidance, minimization, and mitigation are further developed for that phase. This comprehensive approach provides Great Island with a long-term management plan that is strategic, so that future coastal resiliency response is proactive rather than reactive. According to the most recently available data provided by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) 1, proposed work will occur in Priority and Estimated Habitats of Rare Species (PH 945, EH 756). There are no certified or potential vernal pools located on or adjacent to the Project Site (Figure 3). Work will take place between mean high and mean low water and this Notice of Intent is provided to the Department of Marine Fisheries for concurrent review. Great Island Road Resiliency Project 7 Attachment A Notice of Intent Narrative Eelgrass (Zostera marina) has been mapped by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) in the subtidal zone bordering the proposed nourishment area. Eel grass mapping was conducted in 2021 to supplement this data and is included in the project plans. According to the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF), the proposed nourishment area is shellfish habitat, as well as spawning habitat for horseshoe crabs (Limulus polyphemus), which deposit their eggs in the upper intertidal regions of sandy beaches during high tides from late spring to early summer. Communications with the local shellfish constable indicate that no commercial shell fishing takes place in this location 1. No portion of the Project Site is located within an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). No portion of the Project Site is in an area designated as an Outstanding Resource Water. No portion of the Project site is located within a Zone II Wellhead Protection Area2. According to the most recently issued FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)3, proposed work will occur within a High-Risk Coastal Area (Figure 4). Wetland resource areas on/adjacent to the Project Site are described below. Wetland Resource Areas Wetlands on/adjacent to the Project Site were identified on January 20, 2021, by wetland scientists with FOTH Engineering. The following sections of this narrative describe the wetlands and identify resource areas that are regulated under the WPA Regulations (310 CMR 10.00) and the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). These resources are defined under the WPA Regulations (310 CMR 10.00) as follows h Coastal Dunes: Any natural hill, mound, or ridge of sediment landward of a coastal beach deposited by wind action or storm over-wash, including sediment deposited by artificial means and serving the purpose of storm damage prevention or flood control. h Barrier Beach: A narrow low-lying strip of land generally consisting of coastal beaches and coastal dunes extending roughly parallel to the trend of the coast. It is separated from the mainland by a narrow body of fresh, brackish, or saline water or a marsh system. h Salt Marsh: A coastal wetland that extends landward up to the highest high tide line and is characterized by plants that are well adapted to or prefer living in, saline soils. A salt marsh may contain tidal creeks, ditches, and pools. h Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage: Land subject to any inundation caused by coastal storms up to and including that caused by the 100-year storm, surge of record or storm of record, whichever is greater 1 Personal communication dated March 8, 2021 2 DEP, 2017. Approved Wellhead Protection Areas (Zone II). 3 Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Hazard Flood Layer, Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) MassGIS. Great Island Road Resiliency Project 8 Attachment A Notice of Intent Narrative The following describes the three distinct areas of beach within the project area: Barrier Beach The area consists of the sandy Barrier Beach seaward of Coastal Dune, from the Dune face to Mean Low Water. Elevations of the beach range from -2.0 to 4.0 NAVD88 on average. Sediment sampling has been conducted along the length of the project area and results of the analysis are provided in Attachment F. Sixteen (16) stone groins and one stone revetment line the beach in this location. In many areas, the landward ends of the groins are exposed. Overall, the representative grainsize was 0.30 mm, though exposed cobble and glacial erratics are observed in the Fox Point area. Coastal Dune The Coastal Dune area consists of dune forms of various heights ranging from 4.0 to 9.0 NAVD88. Dunes are predominantly vegetated with beach grass (Ammophilia breviligulata) and sea rose (Rosa rugosa). At some locations within the project area, the shoreline and dune have eroded to an extent that the groins are at risk of being flanked, where wave action can transport sand landward of the structure. Salt Marsh This area consists of a large contiguous salt marsh bordering on a tidal inlet flowing from Lewis Bay. The area is dominated by smooth cordgrass (Spartina alternaflora) and salt meadow cordgrass (Spartina patens). This Salt Marsh is at risk of exposure to higher velocity wave energy from the lack of dune height along the Fox Point area. While no work is proposed within the Salt Marsh, the project area is within its 100- foot buffer area. Project Description The proposed Project aims to develop and permit a beach and dune nourishment plan that will constitute Phase 1 of a long-term coastal resiliency project for Great Island. The intent of the project is to reinforce the natural protection provided by the dunes by restoring height to the coastal dunes in the most critical areas and re-nourishing the existing coastal beach system with compatible sediments. This will, in turn, help to prevent routine flooding of the Causeway. Approval of this application and subsequent local, state, and federal permits will allow the Great Island community to address current resiliency needs and provide an authorized maintenance program for post-storm response during the validity period of all authorizations rather than on a case-by-case basis. This approach provides Great Island with a phased management plan that is well- planned and strategic, allowing future coastal resiliency response to be proactive rather than reactive. The Project Site has been divided into two distinct areas which differ based on their topography and exposure to storm events. As a complete project, these areas are integral to addressing coastal erosion and preserving access between Great Island and Great Island Road Resiliency Project 9 Attachment A Notice of Intent Narrative the mainland. The initial phase of the project is intended to provide coastal protection from smaller storm events and ongoing erosion, rather than larger 100-year events. Future phases of the project and permitting combined with a proposed maintenance plan will address further impacts associated with sea level rise and larger, more frequent storm events. Restoring the dunes, including placement of cobble, would require construction equipment such as dump trucks to bring in the sand and cobble and grade it to the appropriate height and slope. The plugs of beach grass would be brought in on a truck and would be planted by hand. Time of year (TOY) restrictions would be adhered to for piping plover nesting season, April 1 through August 31 (notably these overlap with time of year restrictions for horseshoe crab spawning, May 1 through July 31). Eel grass beds offshore from the project are to be monitored per the Eel Grass Monitoring Plan (Attachment H) Summarized below are the proposed management strategies: Area 1 – Exposed Causeway: Area 1 is a 2,600± linear foot area of shoreline that consists of sections with degraded and missing dunes and is bounded by existing licensed stone groins to the north and south. The design for this section is comprised of clean sand of a grain size and color compatible with that of the existing beach (310 CMR 10.27(5)) and dune to reinforce and rebuild the existing dune system to elevation 10.0 feet NAVD88 with slopes of 10:1 wherever possible to keep the nourishment above mean low water (MLW). The area will also include revegetation with beach grass. A section view indicating dune slopes and limits is shown on Sheet S-006. Area 2 - Fox Point: The Fox Point area has been identified as a critical boundary between the existing salt marsh system that separates Lewis Bay/Uncle Robert’s Cove from Nantucket Sound. The surrounding topography has been reduced by storm activity, and extreme high tides now pass over the degraded coastal dune. This condition currently poses a threat of breaching into the salt marsh and creating intertidal hydrologic connectivity. Such an event would have a devastating effect on the salt marsh due to a significant increase in water velocities, and sediment transport/deposition. Furthermore, a breach threatens to impact the only bridge allowing for vehicular access to and from the island. The proposed management of this area will consist of dune restoration with a cobble core constructed along 730± LF as shown on Sheet S-004, as well as nourishment of the coastal beach, and vegetation for both piping plover habitat and stabilization. Work in wetland resource areas and the 100-foot buffer zone is described below. This work fully complies with all applicable performance standards as demonstrated in the Regulatory Compliance section of this Narrative. Wetland Resource Area Impact The Project will result in unavoidable temporary impacts to resource areas related to construction on the Project Site, though there is no anticipated loss of any resource area type or function. Impacts include adding sand to barrier beach and sand and cobble to Great Island Road Resiliency Project 10 Attachment A Notice of Intent Narrative coastal dune, though it is important to note that due to coastal processes, the final conditions of the site post-work will change over time. Table 1 Work in Wetland Resource Areas Resource Area Type of Alteration Temporary Impact Barrier Beach/Coastal Dune Sand fill for beach nourishment. Sand/cobble for coastal dune. 3,400 linear feet 76,146 yd³ sand 1,222 yd³ cobble Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage Fill for dune and beach nourishment 189,370 feet² Source: VHB, 2022. Buffer Zone Area Impact Work will occur within the 100-foot buffer area to the Salt Marsh, as the Fox Point cobble and sand renourishment abuts the edge of the Salt Marsh (S-003). Proposed Ongoing Maintenance Agreement with the Commission The Project proposes to undertake a phased approach to long term resiliency that includes both the near-term nourishment and maintenance of the Coastal Dunes and Coastal Beach, including both initial restoration of the dune system and implementation of an authorized long-term maintenance program for post-storm response. This approach will recharge the littoral system with compatible sediments through rebuilding and maintaining the existing coastal dune and barrier beach system, which will help prevent further degradation. The Proponent requests a five-year Order of Conditions to proactively respond to beach and dune erosion to create flood resiliency. This plan is based on Beach Nourishment: MassDEP’s Guide to Best Management Practices for Projects in Massachusetts’ recommended beach monitoring practices. The beach monitoring plan is as follows: 1. Monitoring timeline: a. Beach nourishment monitoring shall occur seasonally the first year after initial project completion; and/or b. After a major (named) storm event, or, if no storm event occurs, at least once per year. 2. Measurements will occur at the seven transects described on S-005 and S-006 and identified by numbers 1-7 within the Proposed Beach Nourishment Sheets 1 and 2. 3. Monitoring shall include: a. the percent nourishment remaining within the project area compared to baseline conditions; Great Island Road Resiliency Project 11 Attachment A Notice of Intent Narrative b. the occurrence of downdrift accretion on beaches; c. affected terrestrial and marine species; d. the presence of areas highly susceptible to erosion as indicated by variable longshore beach widths; and e. the future nourishment volumes needed to maintain the sediment supply. 4. Upon observation of a 30% loss of renourishment material, the Conservation Commission shall be informed in writing as to the need for additional renourishment action. The Conservation Commission shall be given a report on the observed erosion, and a timeline for the work, including anticipated start and end dates. The Conservation Commission shall be provided a copy of all monitoring reports yearly. If renourishment is required, the Commission will be informed in writing, including the anticipated start and end times for work. Mitigation Measures A suite of mitigation measures is proposed to prevent short- and long-term impacts to wetland resource areas and compensate for direct disturbances (if proposed). An erosion and sedimentation control program will be implemented to minimize temporary impacts to wetland resource areas during the construction phase of the project. The program incorporates Best Management Practices (BMPs) specified in guidelines developed by the DEP 4 and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)5. Proper implementation of the erosion and sedimentation control program will: ›minimize exposed areas of sediment through sequencing and temporary stabilization; ›place structures to manage stormwater runoff and erosion; and ›establish a permanent vegetative cover or other forms of stabilization as soon as practicable. These practices comply with criteria contained in the NPDES General Permit for Discharges from Large and Small Construction Activities issued by the EPA. Construction Methodology and Best Management Practices The proposed construction methodology and best management practices will minimize and avoid impacts to resource areas to the maximum extent practicable and include the following: 4 DEP, 1997. Massachusetts Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Urban and Suburban Areas: A Guide for Planners, Designers, and Municipal Officials. 5 EPA, 2007. Interim Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Construction Sites. Office of Water. Report EPA 833-R-060-04. Great Island Road Resiliency Project 12 Attachment A Notice of Intent Narrative 1. The contractor shall always minimize impacts to coastal resource areas during the proposed work; 2. Mobilize equipment on site and provide a significant amount of area for material and equipment; 3. The excavator shall be staged within Great Island Road; 4. All material will be provided from upland sources and will be placed on the beach from Great Island Road; 5. Any areas of exposed soil or stockpiles that will remain inactive for more than three (3) days shall be stabilized, including the implementation of a wattle or compost filter tube around the base of the stockpile. 6. No heavy equipment will be stored or refueled in the resource areas; 7. The contractor will access the construction area utilizing unvegetated areas along the causeway where the beach is level with the paved area wherever possible; 8. The contractor will schedule work seaward of the AHTL during times of lower tides; 9. The contractor will grade the berm and crest according to the plans approved within the issued environmental permits and stamped by a Professional Engineer; 10. Absolutely no release is allowed into the waterway of any petroleum product, epoxies, resins, admixtures, touch-up coatings, or the like. Accidental releases shall be reported to the Harbormaster, Town Engineer, Conservation Commission, and, if applicable, the Coast Guard. The contractor shall have on site sufficient sorbent pads and booms to contain an accidental spill; 11. Debris from construction operations is to be cleaned up on a regular basis and disposed of off-site at a properly designated facility; 12. No refueling of construction equipment shall be permitted within 100’ of any coastal resource area; 13. No work will take place on the dune or barrier beach during piping plover nesting season (April thru August). This timeline overlaps with the Horseshoe Crab breeding season (May thru July); 14. Upon completion of final grading, unpaved areas not permanently stabilized through other forms of stabilization or other methods of landscaping will be planted with American Beachgrass (Ammophila breviligulata) sourced from a nursery. The American Beachgrass shall be planted in a grid with max spacing of 18”. More information on plantings is located on Sheet S-006; 15. The Eel Grass Monitoring Plan (Attachment H) shall be adhered to during and after nourishment work to monitor impacts on the eel grass beds. Great Island Road Resiliency Project 13 Attachment A Notice of Intent Narrative State Regulatory Compliance As demonstrated below, work in wetland resource areas and/or the 100-foot buffer zone fully complies with applicable performance standards contained in the WPA regulations. Coastal Dunes (310 CMR 10.28) When a coastal dune is determined to be significant to storm damage prevention, flood control or the protection of wildlife habitat, 310 10.28(3) through (6) shall apply (3) Any alteration of, or structure on, a coastal dune or within 100 feet of a coastal dune shall not have an adverse effect on the coastal dune by a) The ability of waves to remove sand from the dune: No new hardened structures are proposed; no material is proposed which does not currently exist within the existing coastal environment; and no elevations are proposed which are above what is naturally existing at the project site. b) Disturbing vegetative cover to destabilize the dune: Dune will be vegetated, and nourishment profiles have been located to avoid burying existing areas of mature vegetation along the project alignment. c) Causing any modification of the dune form that would increase the potential for storm or flood damage: Per the project proposal, dune volumes would be greatly expanded, increasing the system’s resiliency to storm damage, and in some cases, rebuilding dunes where they have been completely lost. d) Interfering with the landward or lateral movement of the dune: There are no new impediments proposed that would impact lateral or landward mobility proposed within this Project scope. e) Causing artificial removal of sand from the dune: The re-created dune profiles have been designed with natural and stable crest elevations, slopes, and vegetative cove. All sand and cobble used will be compatible with existing sediments in grain size and color. f) Interfering with mapped or otherwise identified bird nesting habitat: The dune and beach nourishment component of the project has been designed to minimize impacts to nesting habitat by incorporating a 10:1 beach slope, using compatible sand and cobble, and avoiding all work during the April 1 to August 31 nesting season. The proposed nourishment will restore areas within piping plover habitat to previous elevations. Great Island Road Resiliency Project 14 Attachment A Notice of Intent Narrative (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of 310 CMR 10.28(3), when a building already exists upon a coastal dune, a project accessory to the existing building may be permitted, provided that such work, using the best commercially available measures, minimizes the adverse effect on the coastal dune caused by the impacts listed in 310 CMR 10.28(3)(b) through (e). Such an accessory project may include, but is not limited to, a small shed or a small parking area for residences. It shall not include coastal engineering structures. N/A as the Project does not involve an existing building or project accessory to an existing building. (5) The following projects may be permitted, provided that they adhere to the provisions of 310 CMR 10.28(3): a) pedestrian walkways, designed to minimize the disturbance to the vegetative cover and traditional bird nesting habitat. N/A as the project does not involve pedestrian walkways. b) fencing and other devices designed to increase dune development. N/A as the project does not involve pedestrian walkways. c) plantings compatible with the natural vegetative cover. Proposed planting of dune grasses adheres to 10.28(3). (6) Notwithstanding the provisions of 310 CMR 10.28(3) through (5), no project may be permitted which will have any adverse effect on specified habitat sites of Rare Species, as identified by procedures established under 310 CMR 10.37. The project has been designed to include slopes appropriate for piping plover habitat, revegetation of habitat, and a TOY restriction prohibiting work during nesting season. Barrier Beaches (310 CMR 10.29) (3) When a Barrier Beach Is Determined to Be Significant to Storm Damage Prevention, Flood Control, Marine Fisheries or Protection of Wildlife Habitat. 310 CMR 10.27(3) through (6) (coastal beaches, below) and 10.28(3) through (5) (coastal dunes, refer to previous section), shall apply to the coastal beaches and to all coastal dunes which make up a barrier beach. 10.27(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 downdrift coastal beach: The proposed project increases the volume on the coastal beach and is intended to replenish eroded landforms and will therefore provide materials for downdrift beaches. Great Island Road Resiliency Project 15 Attachment A Notice of Intent Narrative 10.27(4) Any groin, jetty, solid pier, or other such solid fill structure which will interfere with littoral drift, in addition to complying with 310 CMR 10.27(3), shall be constructed as follows… N/A as the Project does not propose the construction of groins, solid piers, or other such solid fill features. 10.27(5) Notwithstanding 310 CMR 10.27(3), beach nourishment with clean sediment of a grain size compatible with that on the existing beach may be permitted. The project proposes the use of clean sediment of a grain size and color compatible with that on the existing beach. 10.27(6) (When a Tidal flat is determined to be significant to marine fisheries or the protection of wildlife habitat). In addition to complying with the requirements of 310 CMR 10.27(3) and (4), a project on a tidal flat shall if water-dependent be designed and constructed, using best available measures, so as to minimize adverse effects…on marine fisheries and wildlife habitat caused by: alterations in water circulation; alterations in the distribution of sediment grain size; and changes in water quality, including, but not limited to, other than natural fluctuations in the levels of dissolved oxygen, temperature or turbidity, or the addition of pollutants. The project proposes multiple mitigation measures to minimize adverse effects on marine fisheries and wildlife habitat. Nourishment will be conducted by the contractor during low tide to minimize turbidity. All sediment will be clean, and therefore not increase pollutant levels. The project does not pose impacts to the distribution of sediment grain size as it proposes nourishment with similar sediments. Horseshoe crabs that breed in the tidal flats will be protected through the implementation of a TOY restriction. (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of 310 CMR 10.29(3), no project may be permitted which will have any adverse effect on specified habitat sites of rare vertebrate or invertebrate species, as identified by procedures established under 310 CMR 10.37. The Project as proposed will not have any adverse effects on specified habitat sites of rare vertebrae or invertebrate species. TOY restrictions, revegetation, and appropriate slopes have been proposed to mitigate adverse impacts. Salt Marsh (310 CMR 10.32) (3) A proposed project in a salt marsh, on lands within 100 feet of a salt marsh, or in a body of water adjacent to a salt marsh shall not destroy any portion of the salt marsh and shall not have an adverse effect on the productivity of the salt marsh. Alterations in growth, distribution and composition of salt marsh vegetation shall be considered in evaluating adverse effects on productivity. 310 CMR 10.32(3) shall not be construed to prohibit the harvesting of salt hay; The Project is located only within the buffer zone (within 100 feet) of salt marsh in Area 2, and there are no direct impacts to salt marsh area. In addition, the proposed restoration measures at Fox Point would reinforce the seaward areas at risk of a breach, Great Island Road Resiliency Project 16 Attachment A Notice of Intent Narrative which could adversely affect the salt marsh by increasing tidal energy and sediment transport/deposition. (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of 310 CMR 10.32(3), a small project within a salt marsh, such as an elevated walkway or other structure which has no adverse effects other than blocking sunlight from the underlying vegetation for a portion of each day, may be permitted if such a project complies with all other applicable requirements of 310 CMR 10.21 through 10.37. N/A as the Project does not propose any small project within the salt marsh. All work is to occur outside of the salt marsh area. (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of 310 CMR 10.32(3), a project which will restore or rehabilitate a salt marsh, or create a salt marsh, may be permitted in accordance with 310 CMR 10.11 through 10.14, 10.24(8), and/or 10.53(4). N/A as the Project does not propose the restoration, rehabilitation, or creation of a salt marsh. (6) Notwithstanding the provisions of 310 CMR 10.32(3) through (5), no project may be permitted which will have any adverse effect on specified habitat sites of Rare Species, as identified by procedures established under 310 CMR 10.37. The Project does not propose any adverse of effect on specified habitat of Rare Species within the salt marsh area. Habitat within the buffer area to salt marsh includes mitigation measures such as TOY restrictions, revegetation, and appropriate slopes for piping plover habitat. Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (310 CMR 10.04) Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage is land subject to any inundation caused by coastal storms up to and including those caused by the 100-year storm, surge of record or storm of record, whichever is greater. The areas mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on community Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) confirms that the 100-year flood plain within the coastal zone is included within LSCSF. LSCSF in this area contains other jurisdictional resource areas which are important for storm damage prevention and flood control. The entire Project footprint is located within LSCSF. The nourishment of the existing dunes and beach will enhance the flood resiliency of the eastern shoreline. Work in Buffer Zone As identified in 310 CMR 10.53(1) of the WPA regulations, “the issuing authority should consider the characteristics of the buffer zone, such as the presence of steep slopes, that may increase the potential for adverse impacts on resource areas. Conditions may include limitations on the scope and location of work in the buffer zone as necessary to avoid alteration of resource areas. The issuing authority may require erosion and sedimentation controls during construction, a clear limit of work, and the preservation of natural Great Island Road Resiliency Project 17 Attachment A Notice of Intent Narrative vegetation adjacent to the resource area and/or other measures commensurate with the scope and location of the work within the buffer zone to protect the interests of the Act.” The Project is located within the buffer zone (within 100 feet) of salt marsh in Area 2, and no additional buffer zone will be impacted. The buffer overlaps with resource area on the project site, and all other performance standards for those areas have been met. The proposed restoration measures at Fox Point would reinforce the area to prevent a potential breach, which could adversely affect the salt marsh by increasing tidal energy. Local Regulatory Compliance All proposed work complies with the applicable performance standards of the Town of Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, which overlap those performance standards contained in the WPA regulations. Local Shellfish Habitat Review According to the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF), the proposed nourishment area is shellfish habitat, and spawning habitat for horseshoe crabs (Limulus polyphemus), which deposit their eggs in the upper intertidal regions of sandy beaches during high tides from late spring to early summer. The Proponent has already consulted with the Shellfish Constable, who has determined that here has been no mapped shellfish habitat along that shoreline, and the area does not support viable shellfish resources currently. There are no records of anyone shellfishing in the area either commercially or recreationally, per email correspondence with Terry O’Neil of the MA Division of Marine Fisheries, dated March 8, 2021 (See Attachment H). Per Section 1.09 (1.h) Submittal Requirements, of the Yarmouth Wetland Regulations: “Coastal projects such as, but not limited to, docks, piers, bulkheads, revetments, dredging and boardwalks shall require submittal of all Notice of Intent, plans and supplemental information to the Town of Yarmouth Waterways/Shellfish Committee via the Natural Resources office by certified mail or hand delivery. The applicant or his representative must provide the Conservation office proof that this has been done or the filing will not be accepted by the Conservation office.” It is anticipated that the Waterways Committee will provide the Applicant with a hearing date prior to the opening of the Notice of Intent Hearing with the Conservation Commission. Summary The Applicant is proposing to permit and develop a Dune and Beach Nourishment program that will provide the first Phase of a long-term coastal resiliency program to protect the community on Great Island, Yarmouth, and its associated environs. This project would help improve resiliency for the Great Island Road Causeway and Fox Point as well as to the neighboring salt marsh by restoring coastal dune in the most critical areas while, while simultaneously re-nourishing the existing barrier beach. Great Island Road Resiliency Project 18 Attachment A Notice of Intent Narrative Proposed work related to the Project will occur within Barrier Beaches, Coastal Dunes, and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage. This program includes provisions to minimize areas of disturbance through phasing and sequencing, and stabilization through revegetation of the re-nourished dunes. The area is mapped by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) as piping plover nesting habitat, and potential construciton impacts will be mitigated through adherence to a time of year restriction. The Project aims to develop and permit a beach and dune nourishment plan that will constitute Phase 1 of a long-term coastal resiliency project for Great Island. The intent of the project is to reinforce the natural protection provided by the causeway by restoring some height to the coastal dunes in the most critical areas and re-nourishing the existing coastal beach system with compatible sediments. Additionally, a maintenance program for post-storm response during the validity period of all authorizations will allow the Great Island community to address future resiliency needs in a proactive manner. The applicant respectfully requests that the Yarmouth Conservation Commission find these measures adequately protective of the interests identified in the WPA and local regulations and issue a five-year Order of Conditions approving the work described in this NOI and shown on the accompanying plans. Great Island Road Resiliency Project Attachment B Abutter Information Attachment B Abutter Information ›Notice to Abutters ›List of Abutters ›Town Assessor Abutter Maps NOTIFICATION TO ABUTTERS UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT & TOWN OF YARMOUTH WETLAND BY-LAW, CHAPTER 143 In accordance with the second paragraph of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 131, Section 40, you are hereby notified of the following: A. The name of the applicant is _____Great Island Homeowner’s Association_________________ B. The applicant has filed a Notice of Intent with the Yarmouth Conservation Commission, seeking permission to remove, fill, dredge or alter an Area Subject to Protection under the Wetlands Protection Act (MGL c. 131 s. 40 & Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-Law, Chapter 143). C. The address of the lot where the activity is proposed is ___Great Island Road (7-1;4-4) _______ D. Proposed work is ________Barrier beach and dune renourishment to improve flood resiliency _____________________________________________________ E. Copies of the Notice of Intent may be examined at the Yarmouth Town Hall at the Conservation Commission office between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday. For more information, call (508) 398-2231 ext. 1288. F. Copies of the Notice of Intent may be obtained from either the applicant or applicant’s representative. Applicant’s phone number ____508-775-0259__________________ Or Applicant’s representatives phone number _________617.607.2604 __________________ G. Information regarding the date, time and place of the public hearing may be obtained by calling the Yarmouth Conservation Commission office at (508) 398-2231 ext. 1288 H. Person sending this notification (applicant, representative or other) Name _________________Meredith Avery_____________________ Address ______101 Walnut St. _______________________ Town ___Watertown__________ State __MA_____ Zip __02472_______ Telephone ____617-607-2604___________________________________ NOTES : x Notice of the public hearing, including date, time and place will be published at least five (5) days in advance in a newspaper of general circulation. x Notice of the public hearing, including date, time and place will be posted in the Town Hall not less than forty-eight hours in advance. x You may also contact the Southeast Regional Office of the Department of Environmental Protection at (508) 946-2800 for more information about this application. 4/ 8/ / / CHACE ARNOLD B GREAT ISLAND REALTY TRUST 1100 GREAT ISLAND RD WEST YARMOUTH , MA 02673 4/ 7/ / / GRIFFEN JOHN W TR ZALDASTANI ANNE V TR 2 HUGHES PL BRONXVILLE , NY 10708 4/ 6/ / / CHACE ARNOLD B GREAT ISLAND REALTY TRUST 1100 GREAT ISLAND RD WEST YARMOUTH , MA 02673 4/ 10/ / / NICHOLAS LYNN HOLMAN TRS NICHOLAS ROBERT C III 1405 29TH ST NW WASHINGTON , DC 20007-3148 4/ 9/ / / BRADY JAMES C JR TR THE BRADY GI-47 NOMINEE TRUST P O BOX 351 GLADSTONE , NJ 07934-0351 4/ 5/ / / CHACE ARNOLD B GREAT ISLAND REALTY TRUST 1100 GREAT ISLAND RD WEST YARMOUTH , MA 02673 6/ 5/ / / CHACE ARNOLD B GREAT ISLAND REALTY TRUST 1100 GREAT ISLAND RD WEST YARMOUTH , MA 02673 4/ 4/ / / CHACE ARNOLD B JR TRS GREAT ISLAND REALTY TRUST 1100 GREAT ISLAND RD WEST YARMOUTH , MA 02673 6/ 8/ / / CHACE ARNOLD B GREAT ISLAND REALTY TRUST 1100 GREAT ISLAND RD WEST YARMOUTH , MA 02673 6/ 6/ / / CHACE ARNOLD B JR TRS GREAT ISLAND REALTY TRUST 1100 GREAT ISLAND RD WEST YARMOUTH , MA 02673 6/ 7/ / / CHACE ARNOLD B GREAT ISLAND REALTY TRUST 1100 GREAT ISLAND RD WEST YARMOUTH , MA 02673 Please use this signature to certify this list of properties abutting within 100' of the parcel located at: Great Island Rd., West Yarmouth, MA 02673 Assessors Map 4, Lot 4 ______________________________________ Andy Machado, Director of Assessing August 3, 2022 6/ 8/ / / CHACE ARNOLD B GREAT ISLAND REALTY TRUST 1100 GREAT ISLAND RD WEST YARMOUTH , MA 02673 6/ 6/ / / CHACE ARNOLD B JR TRS GREAT ISLAND REALTY TRUST 1100 GREAT ISLAND RD WEST YARMOUTH , MA 02673 6/ 7/ / / CHACE ARNOLD B GREAT ISLAND REALTY TRUST 1100 GREAT ISLAND RD WEST YARMOUTH , MA 02673 7/ 1/ / / CHACE ARNOLD B JR TRS GREAT ISLAND REALTY TRUST 1100 GREAT ISLAND RD WEST YARMOUTH , MA 02673 10/ 1/ / / CHACE ARNOLD B JR TRS GREAT ISLAND REALTY TRUST 1100 GREAT ISLAND RD WEST YARMOUTH , MA 02673 14/ 1/ / / MICOZZI MANAGEMENT INC TR C/O1995 PAMELA MICOZZI REV TRUST 159 CAMBRIDGE ST ALLSTON , MA 02134 14/ 139/ / / SIMONELLI JOSEPH E TR THE SIMONELLI REALTY TRUST 753 THOMPSON RD THOMPSON , CT 06722 Please use this signature to certify this list of properties abutting within 100' of the parcel located at: Great Island Rd., West Yarmouth, MA 02673 Assessors Map 7, Lot 1 ______________________________________ Andy Machado, Director of Assessing August 3, 2022 Great Island Road Resiliency Project Attachment C Project Plans Attachment C Project Plans © 2020 Microsoft Corporation © 2020 Maxar ©CNES (2020) Distribution Airbus DS © 2020 Microso02ft Corporation © 2020 Maxar ©CNES (2020) Distribution Airbus DSSITEVICINITY MAPSCALE: 1 INCH = 5,000 FEETWEST YARMOUTHNANTUCKET SOUNDLEWIS BAYHYANNISSITEVICINITY MAPSCALE: 1 INCH = 1,000 FEETNANTUCKET SOUNDLEWIS BAYGREAT ISLANDSHEET NUMBERSEAL AND SIGNATUREDRAWING INDEXSHEET NUMBERTITLEG-001 COVER SHEET AND DRAWING INDEXG-002 PROJECT NOTESS-001 EXISTING SITE PLAN - SHEET 1 OF 2S-002 EXISTING SITE PLAN - SHEET 2 OF 2S-003 PROPOSED BEACH NOURISHMENT - SHEET 1 OF 2S-004 PROPOSED BEACH NOURISHMENT - SHEET 2 OF 2S-005 PROPOSED NOURISHMENT SECTIONS - SHEET 1 OF 2S-007 PROPOSED NOURISHMENT SECTIONS - SHEET 2 OF 2PROPOSED SHORELINE STABILIZATION ANDMANAGEMENT PLANGREAT ISLAND H.O.A.GREAT ISLAND, YARMOUTH MAJUNE 14, 2021REV. 1 - JULY 14, 2022COVERSHEETSHEET TITLEPrepared by:Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC49 BELLEVUE AVENUE,NEWPORT, RI 02840(PE NAME)(TITLE)FOTH INFRASTRUCTURE & ENVIRONMENT, LLCFOR PERMIT PURPOSES ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONDWG Filename: gi hoa_fox point and causeway nourishment.dwg Layout: e-div cover sheet_24x36DWG Folder Location: PW:\\PW-APS1.FOTH.COM:PW_IE\DOCUMENTS\CLIENTS\GREAT ISLAND HOA\0017G312.10\DRAWINGS\BEACH NOURISHMENT\Friday, September 30, 2022 11:09:22 AMPrepared for:GREAT ISLAND H.O.A.G-001 S-001EXISTINGCONDITIONSSHEET 1 OF 2DATUMSNAVD88MLWNAVD88MLW3.32.00.0-2.3AHTLLEGENDMEAN LOW WATERMHWMLLW4.50.0-0.266.51.3-2.0PLAN UTILIZES DATUM FROMNOAA vDATUM v3.9.TRANSFORMATION BASEDUPON PROJECT LOCATION AT41°37'24.2821"N ,-070°15'46.2954 EDATUMSMEAN HIGH WATERHIGH TIDE LINEFEMA FLOOD ZONEDEP WETLANDS SALTMARSH (MA GIS)LIMIT OF EELGRASSFROM SURVEY1FT CONTOURSFROM SURVEY5FT CONTOURSFROM SURVEYLIMIT OF BEACH GRASSFROM SURVEYMATCH LINE:CONTINUE ON SHEET S-002PROPERTY LINELIMIT OF EX. STRUCTUREPROJECT NO: 17G312.10DRAWNBY DATEDATE OF PREPARATIONSHEET NUMBERFOR PERMIT PURPOSES ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONMC, JH SEE NOTESJH, BF 6/14/2021SS/BF 6/14/2021SS 6/14/2021 S-002EXISTINGCONDITIONSSHEET 2 OF 2MATCH LINE:CONTINUE ON SHEET S-001PROJECT NO: 17G312.10DRAWNBY DATEDATE OF PREPARATIONSHEET NUMBERFOR PERMIT PURPOSES ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONMC, JH SEE NOTESJH, BF 6/14/2021SS/BF 6/14/2021SS 6/14/2021 S-003PROPOSEDBEACHNOURISHMENTSHEET 1 OF 2LEGENDMATCH LINE:CONTINUE ON SHEET S-0051S-0052S-0053S-0054S-005PROJECT NO: 17G312.10DRAWNBY DATEDATE OF PREPARATIONSHEET NUMBERFOR PERMIT PURPOSES ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONMC, JH SEE NOTESJH, BF 6/14/2021SS/BF 6/14/2021SS 6/14/2021MEAN LOW WATERMEAN HIGH WATERHIGH TIDE LINEFEMA FLOOD ZONEDEP WETLANDS SALTMARSH (MA GIS)LIMIT OF EELGRASSFROM SURVEY1FT CONTOURSFROM SURVEY5FT CONTOURSFROM SURVEYLIMIT OF BEACH GRASSFROM SURVEYPROPERTY LINELIMIT OF EX. STRUCTURELIMIT OF PROPOSEDBEACH NOURISHMENTLIMIT OF PROPOSEDBEACHGRASS PLANTING S-004PROPOSEDBEACHNOURISHMENTSHEET 2 OF 3MATCH LINE:CONTINUE ON SHEET S-0045S-0066S-006PROJECT NO: 17G312.10DRAWNBY DATEDATE OF PREPARATIONSHEET NUMBERFOR PERMIT PURPOSES ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONMC, JH SEE NOTESJH, BF 6/14/2021SS/BF 6/14/2021SS 6/14/20217S-006 ELEVATION (FT)OFFSET (FT)-50510152025-505101520250 20 40 60 80 100 1200-20PROPOSED COBBLEBERM W/2:1 SLOPEPROPOSED VEGETATED SANDNOURISHMENT W/VARYINGSLOPE TO MLW (10:1 MAX)FEMA FLOODZONE AE (EL. 13)FEMA FLOODZONE VE (EL. 14)TOP OF BERMEL. 10 NAVD8830' OFFSET FROM MHWFOR BEACH ACCESSPROPOSED BEACH GRASS PLANTINGSEE SHEET S-006 (LIMITS VARIES)ELEVATION (FT)OFFSET (FT)-50510152025-505101520250 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1800-20PROPOSED COBBLEBERM W/2:1 SLOPEFEMA FLOODZONE AE (EL. 13)FEMA FLOODZONE VE (EL. 14)TOP OF BERMEL. 10 NAVD88PROPOSED VEGETATED SANDNOURISHMENT W/VARYINGSLOPE TO MLW (10:1 MAX)PROPOSED BEACH GRASS PLANTINGSEE SHEET S-006 (LIMITS VARIES)30' OFFSET FROM MHWFOR BEACH ACCESSELEVATION (FT)OFFSET (FT)-50510152025-505101520250 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1600-20FEMA FLOODZONE AE (EL. 13)FEMA FLOODZONE VE (EL. 14)TOP OF BERMEL. 10 NAVD88PROPOSED VEGETATED SANDNOURISHMENT W/VARYINGSLOPE TO MLW (10:1 MAX)PROPOSED VEGETATED SANDNOURISHMENT W/4:1 SLOPE TOEX. GRADEPROPOSED BEACH GRASS PLANTINGSEE SHEET S-006 (LIMITS VARIES)30' OFFSET FROM MHWFOR BEACH ACCESSELEVATION (FT)OFFSET (FT)-50510152025-505101520250 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1600-20FEMA FLOODZONE AE (EL. 13)FEMA FLOODZONE VE (EL. 14)TOP OF BERMEL. 10 NAVD88PROPOSED VEGETATED SANDNOURISHMENT W/VARYINGSLOPE TO MLW (10:1 MAX)PROPOSED VEGETATED SANDNOURISHMENT W/4:1 SLOPE TOEX. GRADEPROPOSED BEACH GRASS PLANTINGSEE SHEET S-006 (LIMITS VARIES)30' OFFSET FROM MHWFOR BEACH ACCESSS-005PROPOSEDNOURISHMENTSECTIONS 1 OF 2SCALE: 1 INCH = 10 FEET1FOX POINT PROPOSEDNOURISHMENT SECTION STA 4+50S-003SCALE: 1 INCH = 10 FEET2FOX POINT PROPOSEDNOURISHMENT SECTION STA 8+00S-003SCALE: 1 INCH = 10 FEET3FOX POINT PROPOSEDNOURISHMENT SECTION STA 12+00S-003SCALE: 1 INCH = 10 FEET4GREAT ISLAND CAUSEWAY PROPOSEDNOURISHMENT SECTION STA 20+00S-003PROJECT NO: 17G312.10DRAWNBY DATEDATE OF PREPARATIONSHEET NUMBERFOR PERMIT PURPOSES ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONMC, JH SEE NOTESJH, BF 6/14/2021SS/BF 6/14/2021SS 6/14/2021 ELEVATION (FT)OFFSET (FT)-50510152025-505101520250 20 40 60 80 100 120 1400-20FEMA FLOODZONE VE (EL. 14)TOP OF BERMEL. 10 NAVD88PROPOSED VEGETATED SANDNOURISHMENT W/VARYINGSLOPE TO MLW (10:1 MAX)PROPOSED VEGETATED SANDNOURISHMENT W/4:1 SLOPE TOEX. GRADEPROPOSED BEACH GRASS PLANTINGSEE SHEET S-006 (LIMITS VARIES)30' OFFSET FROM MHWFOR BEACH ACCESSELEVATION (FT)OFFSET (FT)-50510152025-505101520250204060801001200-20-40FEMA FLOODZONE VE (EL. 14)FEMA FLOODZONE AE (EL. 13)TOP OF BERMEL. 10 NAVD88PROPOSED VEGETATED SANDNOURISHMENT W/VARYINGSLOPE TO MLW (10:1 MAX)PROPOSED VEGETATED SANDNOURISHMENT W/4:1 SLOPE TOEX. GRADEPROPOSED BEACH GRASS PLANTINGSEE SHEET S-006 (LIMITS VARIES)30' OFFSET FROM MHWFOR BEACH ACCESSELEVATION (FT)OFFSET (FT)-50510152025-505101520250 20 40 60 80 100 1200-20-40-60FEMA FLOODZONE VE (EL. 14)TOP OF BERMEL. 10 NAVD88PROPOSED VEGETATED SANDNOURISHMENT W/VARYINGSLOPE TO MLW (10:1 MAX)PROPOSED VEGETATEDSAND NOURISHMENT W/4:1SLOPE TO EX. GRADEPROPOSED BEACH GRASS PLANTINGSEE SHEET S-006 (LIMITS VARIES)30' OFFSET FROM MHWFOR BEACH ACCESSBARE ROOT MATERIAL AMERICAN BEACHGRASS (AMMOPHILA BREVILIGULATA)PLUG MATERIAL AMERICAN BEACHGRASS (AMMOPHILA BREVILIGULATA)BARE ROOT MATERIAL(CULMS) SHALL BE ATLEAST 14" TO 16" HIGHACTIVELY GROWINGPLUGS SHALL BE ATLEAST 18" TO 24" HIGHMAX. 18"SPACING(TYP.)MAX. 18"SPACING(TYP.)CULMS SHALL BE BURIEDAPPROX. 8" TO 10"PLUGS SHALL BE ATLEAST TWO INCHES(2") OR LARGERINSTALL TWO (2)CULMS/STEMS PER HOLEMAX. 18"SPACING(TYP.)MAX. 18"SPACING(TYP.)S-006PROPOSEDNOURISHMENTSECTIONS 2 OF 2SCALE: 1 INCH = 10 FEET6GREAT ISLAND CAUSEWAY PROPOSEDNOURISHMENT SECTION STA 20+00S-004SCALE: 1 INCH = 10 FEET5GREAT ISLAND CAUSEWAY PROPOSEDREVETMENT IMPROVEMENTS SECTION STA 25+00S-004PROJECT NO: 17G312.10DRAWNBY DATEDATE OF PREPARATIONSHEET NUMBERFOR PERMIT PURPOSES ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONMC, JH SEE NOTESJH, BF 6/14/2021SS/BF 6/14/2021SS 6/14/2021SCALE: 1 INCH = 10 FEET7GREAT ISLAND CAUSEWAY PROPOSEDNOURISHMENT SECTION STA 32+00S-004AMERICAN BEACHGRASS (AMMOPHILABREVILIGULATA) PLANTING AND GRID DETAILSSCALE: 1 INCH = 1 FEET8BEACHGRASS PLANTING DETAILSCALE: 1 INCH = 1 FEET9BEACHGRASS PLANTING GRID DETAIL Great Island Road Resiliency Project Attachment E Coastal Processes Analysis Attachment D Photolog PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client Name:Great Island Homeowners’ Assoc. Site Location:Great Island, Yarmouth Project No: 15144.00 Photo No.: 1 Date:10/2019 Description: Impassable Great Island Road and Causeway Access. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client Name:Great Island Homeowners’ Assoc. Site Location:Great Island, Yarmouth Project No: 15144.00 Photo No. :2 Date:1/2021 Description: View of flooded Great Island Road bridge. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client Name:Great Island Homeowners’ Assoc. Site Location:Great Island, Yarmouth Project No: 15144.00 Photo No. :3 Date:12/4/20 Description: Completely eroded dunes and loss of mature vegetation along causeway. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client Name:Great Island Homeowners’ Assoc. Site Location:Great Island, Yarmouth Project No: 15144.00 Photo No. :4 Date:12/04/20 Description: Erosion of dunes at Fox Point has exposed cobble base. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client Name:Great Island Homeowners’ Assoc. Site Location:Great Island, Yarmouth Project No: 15144.00 Photo No. :5 Date:12/04/20 Description: Erosion of dunes. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client Name:Great Island Homeowners’ Assoc. Site Location:Great Island, Yarmouth Project No: 15144.00 Photo No. :6 Date:12/04/20 Description: Erosion of dunes. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client Name:Great Island Homeowners’ Assoc. Site Location:Great Island, Yarmouth Project No: 15144.00 Photo No. :7 Date:12/4/20 Description: Erosion of dunes at Fox Point has exposed tree roots and cobble base. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client Name:Great Island Homeowners’ Assoc. Site Location:Great Island, Yarmouth Project No: 15144.00 Photo No. :8 Date:12/4/20 Description: Erosion of dunes at Fox Point has exposed tree roots. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client Name:Great Island Homeowners’ Assoc. Site Location:Great Island, Yarmouth Project No: 15144.00 Photo No. :9 Date: Description: Salt Marsh landward of Fox Point eroded dune Great Island Road Resiliency Project Attachment E Coastal Processes Analysis Attachment E Coastal Processes Analysis Coastal Processes Analysis Great Island, Yarmouth, Massachusetts Prepared by: Prepared for: Draft Report - April 2022 Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. 107A County Road North Falmouth, Massachusetts 02556 Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC. 15 Creek Road Marion, MA 02738 Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts i Coastal Processes Analysis Great Island, Yarmouth, Massachusetts Sean Kelley, PE Michael Larner John Ramsey, PE Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... II LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... IV 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 5 2. HISTORICAL AND EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................................................... 6 2.1 OBSERVATIONS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................... 6 2.2 HISTORICAL SHORELINE CHANGE ................................................................ 10 2.3 RECENT MORPHOLOGICAL CHANGE ............................................................ 17 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS COASTAL PROCESSES ............................................ 21 3.1 WAVE MODEL ................................................................................................ 21 3.2 SHORELINE EVOLUTION MODEL .................................................................. 27 4. DEVELOPMENT OF MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ................................................ 33 6. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................... 37 7. REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 38 Recommended citation: Kelley, S., Larner, M., and Ramsey, J. (2022). Coastal Processes Analysis, Great Island, Yarmouth, Massachusetts, Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc., North Falmouth, MA. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts ii List of Figures Figure Page Figure 1. Great Island resiliency project shoreline, with 200-foot stationing from the 2021 Foth plan. Inset map shows the setting of the project shoreline within the reach between Fox Point and Parkers River inlet, with station 40+00 indicated. ................... 5 Figure 2. Groin and revetment section at station 26+00 (Foth site plan, as shown in Figure 1). ................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3. Scattered rip rap along roadway near Station 31+00. ................................. 7 Figure 4. Groin near station 20+00, looking to the northeast. ................................... 8 Figure 5. Dune crest near station 15+00. ................................................................. 8 Figure 6. Groin near Station 14+00, with landward end exposed. ............................. 8 Figure 7. Cast concrete groins lying on beach between Station 9+00 and 10+00. ...... 9 Figure 8. Eroding coastal bank at Fox Point, near Station 2+00, with cast concrete groin. ........................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 9. Fox Point jetty and glacial erratics in the nearshore area north of the structure. .................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 10. Detail of 1846 NGS shoreline survey T-sheet, showing surveyed high and low tide shorelines, as well as the past route of Great Point Road to the north of the dune field. .............................................................................................................. 10 Figure 11. December 1938 USGS aerial photograph of the Great Island project shoreline, with distance in feet indicated from Fox Point, and the January 2022 measured GPS shoreline. ......................................................................................... 11 Figure 12. March 1973 USGS aerial photograph of the Great Island project shoreline. ............................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 13. April 1991/1994 USGS/Massachusetts CZM aerial photograph of the Great Island project shoreline. ................................................................................. 12 Figure 14. April 2001 MassGIS aerial photograph of the Great Island project shoreline. ................................................................................................................ 12 Figure 15. March 2009 USGS aerial photograph of the Great Island project shoreline. ............................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 16. April 2014 USGS aerial photograph of the Great Island project shoreline. 13 Figure 17. April 2021 MassGIS aerial photograph of the Great Island project shoreline. ................................................................................................................ 13 Figure 18. Map of 1973, 2001 and 2022 shorelines within the Great Island project extents. ................................................................................................................... 15 Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts iii Figure Page Figure 19. Total shoreline change for the 28-year period between March 1973 and April 2001, and also the 22-year period between April 2001 and January 2022 ........ 15 Figure 20. Computed shoreline erosion rates in feet per year for the time period between 2001 and 2022, and more recently between 2014 and 2022. ....................... 16 Figure 21. Shoreline change transects for 7,500 feet of the Great Island shoreline from Fox Point, between March 2009 and June 2020, plotted on a April 2021 aerial photo. ...................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 22. Shoreline change rates calculated between April 2009 and June 2020, the same time period used in the plot of change transects shown in Figure 21. .............. 17 Figure 23. .... Transects, along Great Island causeway, surveyed by Foth Engineering in June, 2020. ............................................................................................................. 19 Figure 24. Morphological change of the surveyed region of Great Island Causeway from 2018 to 2020. Erosion is denoted by red coloring and accretion is denoted by blue coloring, magnitude of change is represented by color intensity. ............................... 19 Figure 25. ..... Location of cross-shore profiles relative to morphological change surface derived from the 2018 and 2020 survey datasets. .................................................... 20 Figure 26. Contour plot of the coarse 200-m wave grid of Nantucket Sound. The location of the Great Island study area fine grid is indicated. .................................... 21 Figure 27. Color shaded contour plot of Fine 5-meter nested wave grid of the modeled West Yarmouth shoreline between Fox Point and Parkers River inlet. ....................... 22 Figure 28. Wind rose of data from the WIS hindcast station 63082 (offshore Muskeget Channel), for the 41-year period between January 1980 and December 2020. Direction indicates from where wind was blowing. .................................................... 24 Figure 29. Wave height and period for hindcast data from WIS station 63082 (offshore of Muskeget Channel) for the 41-year period between January 1980 and December 2020. ...................................................................................................... 24 Figure 30. Color contour plot model output from the Nantucket Sound mesh showing significant wave heights for the top SSE wave case, with vectors that indicate the peak wave direction ......................................................................................................... 26 Figure 31. Color contour plot model output from the nested nearshore West Yarmouth/Great Island mesh showing significant wave heights for the top SSE wave case, with vectors that indicate the peak wave direction. .......................................... 26 Figure 33. Shoreline model grid, showing grid cell numbering from the Whale Road groin at the eastern end of the grid and the western end of the grid at Fox Point. ..... 31 Figure 34. Shoreline change rates determined for the model calibration period of April 2009 to April 2014. .................................................................................................. 31 Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts iv Figure Page Figure 35. Map of measured and modeled 2014 shoreline at the conclusion of the shoreline model calibration run. .............................................................................. 32 Figure 36. Annualized average sediment transport potential computed for the Great Island project shoreline............................................................................................ 32 Figure 37. “Do-nothing” model results after 10 years, compared to the 2022 starting position of the shoreline. .......................................................................................... 34 Figure 38. Modeled shorelines from the Option 1 simulation of the Foth fill template. The nourished starting shoreline, and the shoreline position after 10 years are shown along with the measured January 2022 GPS shoreline. ............................................ 35 Figure 39. Comparison of beach fill performance for Options 1, 2 and 3 over the course of the time period simulated with the shoreline model of Great Island. .......... 35 Figure 40. Modeled shorelines from the Option 2 simulation of the Foth fill template with four sand tightened groins east of the template. ............................................... 36 Figure 41. Modeled shorelines from the Option 2 simulation of the Foth fill template with four sand tightened groins east of the template. ............................................... 37 List of Tables Table Page Table 1. Wave model input parameters, listed by compass sector and wind velocity bin (i.e., bottom, middle and top thirds). Listed offshore wave parameters include compass direction ljo, wave period To and wave height Hs,o. Angles are given in the Meteorological convention (i.e., from where the wind blows in compass degrees). ...... 25 Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 5 1. Introduction A coastal processes analysis was performed for the shoreline along Great Island Road in order to evaluate present conditions of the beach within a historical context and also provide guidance for future management, specifically, the assessment of beach nourishment options to protect access to the island This analysis includes investigations of shoreline and nearshore morphology change, and the development of a shoreline change model. The model is calibrated to represent recent conditions and permits a range of engineering alternatives to be simulated. The relative performance and effectiveness of different options can be directly compared using the model, leading to a plan that is optimized for the Great Island shoreline. A 3,400-foot-long nourishment template has been developed by Foth (i.e., the “Foth template”) to address the eroded state of the Great Island shoreline east of Fox Point (up to station 36+00 of Figure 1). This template has a 10 ft NAVD crest elevation and typical foreshore slope of 1:10 (v:h). The toe of the filled slope is generally at -2,0 ft NAVD, the elevation of Mean Low Water (MLW). The width of the fill template at the approximate elevation of the natural beach berm (about 4 feet NAVD) is approximately 60 feet. The design life of the Foth template was evaluated as part of this analysis. Modifications to the original Foth plan were also investigated as part of this analysis to evaluate alternatives to optimize the design in light of a more complete understanding of coastal processes that shape the Great Island shoreline. Figure 1. Great Island resiliency project shoreline, with 200-foot stationing from the 2021 Foth plan. Inset map shows the setting of the project shoreline within the reach between Fox Point and Parkers River inlet, with station 40+00 indicated. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 6 2. Historical and Existing Conditions Several sources of data were utilized to characterize the existing condition of the beach, and to provide historical context for changes observed along the study shoreline. Sources include recent topography/bathymetry, a sieve analysis of beach sediment samples, aerial orthophotography and historical shorelines. 2.1 Observations of Existing Conditions On January 6, 2022 personnel from Coastal Solutions, assisted by Foth, conducted a site visit of the project shoreline. During this visit sediment samples were collected and the observed position beach berm crest along 5,600 feet of the beach from Fox Point was measured using an RTK GPS. Coastal engineering structures in place along the beach are in various states of repair, and it is apparent that there is a range of approaches used in the construction of these structures. Stones that make up many of the groins along the project shoreline are not well interlocked (Figure 2). As a result, many of the groins have a muted capability for impounding sand. The groins within the project shoreline range in length between 60 and 145 feet. Riprap has been placed along some sections of Great Point Road (Figures 2 and 3). Similar to the groins, the armor stones in these structure segments are not well interlocked. The riprap sections have a crest elevation that is comparable to the landward elevations of groins. In areas of the project shoreline where a dune exists (Figures 4 and 5), the crest elevation is typically around 9 feet NAVD. In areas where dune is not present, the crest of the beach profile is around five feet lower. The dune crest elevation east of the project area can be over 16 feet NAVD, as measured in the June 2020 survey of the beach. At some locations within the project area, the shoreline and dune have eroded to an extent that the groins are at risk of being flanked, where wave action ca transport sand landward of the structure, like the groin near station 14+00 (Figure 6). In addition to the stone structures, several low-profile, cast concrete groins are in place along the Great Island shoreline (Figures 7 and 8). These steel-reinforced structures are approximately 30 feet in length, and do not appear to be anchored. Some of these units (near Fox Point) are in a badly damaged state, where the steel rebar cage is completely exposed. At Fox Point, the southwestern-most extent of the project shoreline, the coastal bank is experiencing active erosion. The longest structure along the east-facing shoreline of Great Island is located at this end of the beach. The stone jetty at Fox Point (Figure 9) is approximately 185 feet in length, and is in an average state of repair. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 7 Figure 2. Groin and revetment section at station 26+00 (Foth site plan, as shown in Figure 1). Figure 3. Scattered rip rap along roadway near Station 31+00. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 8 Figure 4. Groin near station 20+00, looking to the northeast. Figure 5. Dune crest near station 15+00. Figure 6. Groin near Station 14+00, with landward end exposed. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 9 Figure 7. Cast concrete groins lying on beach between Station 9+00 and 10+00. Figure 8. Eroding coastal bank at Fox Point, near Station 2+00, with cast concrete groin. Figure 9. Fox Point jetty and glacial erratics in the nearshore area north of the structure. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 10 2.2 Historical Shoreline Change Past and recent shoreline positions gathered from multiple sources provide information that can be used to evaluate process that shape the beach, and help assess management alternatives that are designed to address erosion and improve resiliency. Sources of shoreline position information include NOAA National Geodetic Survey (NGS) topographic sheets (“T-sheet”), rectified aerial photography and ortho- imagery, and GPS surveys of the beach berm crest. National Geodetic Survey T-sheets. The earliest shoreline position survey at Great Island is from an 1846 NGS T-Sheet (Figure 10). This represents the period before the placement of structures on the beach. The routing of Great Island Road is to the north of the dunes. Near Fox Point, the 1846 shoreline is about 150 feet seaward of its present position at station 3+00, and about 100 feet seaward of its present position at station 10+00. Though the 1846 high water shoreline is remarkably close to the present position of the beach berm crest, the T-sheet shows that the intertidal beach as a broad flat with a single bar off of Fox Point. This is in contrast to the system of bars that exist today (as seen in Figure 1). Within the project area, the distance between the high and low tide lines range between 280 and 740 feet. Figure 10. Detail of 1846 NGS shoreline survey T-sheet, showing surveyed high and low tide shorelines, as well as the past route of Great Point Road to the north of the dune field. The measured 2022 shoreline (blue dashed line) and the present routing of the road (yellow dashed line) are also mapped. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 11 Aerial Photography. For this study, aerial photography from USGS and MassGIS were used to develop a record of historical shorelines for the project area. The aerial photographic record at Great Island extends back to December 1938 (Figure 11), when the USGS flew a post 1938 hurricane survey of the southern New England coast. Available imagery includes March 1973, April 1991, April 1994, April 2001, March 2009, April 2014 and most recently April 2021 (see Figures 12 through 17, respectively). Shoreline positions between Fox Point and Parkers River inlet were digitized from these photos. This series of photos show that with the present configuration of groins along the shoreline (seen in the 1973 aerial and after), that the shoreline between Fox Point and the first groin exhibits a classic “log spiral” shape (Sylvester and Hsu, 1993). This occurs at shorelines within the lee of a headland that reduces wave energy exposure. In this case, The eroding bluff and jetty at Fox Point act as the headland. The groin located around 700 feet north of Fox Point helps to fix the other end of the log spiral curve in the shoreline. The shape of the shoreline adjacent to the headland indicates a dominant west-to-east littoral transport. Figure 11. December 1938 USGS aerial photograph of the Great Island project shoreline, with distance in feet indicated from Fox Point, and the January 2022 measured GPS shoreline. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 12 Figure 12. March 1973 USGS aerial photograph of the Great Island project shoreline. Figure 13. April 1991/1994 USGS/Massachusetts CZM aerial photograph of the Great Island project shoreline. Figure 14. April 2001 MassGIS aerial photograph of the Great Island project shoreline. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 13 Figure 15. March 2009 USGS aerial photograph of the Great Island project shoreline. Figure 16. April 2014 USGS aerial photograph of the Great Island project shoreline. Figure 17. April 2021 MassGIS aerial photograph of the Great Island project shoreline. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 14 GPS shoreline. A RTK GPS shoreline was measure on January 6, 2022 along the project area. The measured line represents the approximate beach berm crest observed at the time of the survey and extends about 5,500 feet northeast from Fox Point. The measured line has an average elevation of 4.5 feet NAVD. 2020 Foth topography survey. A June 2020 shoreline was derived using the Foth beach topographic survey. A triangulated irregular network (TIN) mesh was used to create a digital elevation model (DEM) of the survey. Aa contour line that represents the approximate beach berm elevation (4.5 feet NAVD, from the GPS survey) was then developed using the DEM of the survey. Change rates derived from historical shorelines. The position of the 2022 shoreline is plotted on each of the historical aerials shown in Figures 10 through 17, for reference. In these figures, it is seen that in the past 50-years the beach was generally widest in the 1991-to-2001-time frame, and has been erosional since that time. The accretion experienced along the beach between the 1973 and 1991 aerial is due to the influx of sand from a 330,000 cubic yard nourishment placed on the south and west- facing shoreline of Great Island, circa 1990. This material was relatively fine, and was transported quickly from the original nourishment placement area. In the 1991 aerial photo (Figure 13) sand is already bypassing the Fox Point jetty. In 2001 (Figure 14), the beach within 2,500 feet of Fox Point is at its widest since 1973. A wide vegetated dune is seen in this photo. An overlay of the 1973, 2001, and 2022 shorelines is presented in Figure 18. The absolute shoreline position change for the two time periods 1973 to 2001, and 2001 to 2022 is plotted in Figure 19. From this plot it is seen that a large area of accretion occurred from 1973 and 2001 along the shoreline reach between 600 and 2,000 feet from Fox Point. From 2001 to January 2022 the shoreline in this area lost slightly more than it had gained in the earlier period. Computed shoreline change rates are plotted in Figure 20, for the period between 2001 and present and also a more recent period between 2014 and present. Maximum erosion rates of 4 ft per year or more occur between 600 and 1,700 feet from Fox Point between 2001 and present. Similar rates occur between 2014 and present, with a slight increase in erosion occurring for the shoreline east of the 1,700 foot station. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 15 Figure 18. Map of 1973, 2001 and 2022 shorelines within the Great Island project extents. For the time period between 1973 and present, the beach width along the first 2,500 feet from Fox Point is at its widest in the 2001 aerial photograph. Figure 19. Total shoreline change for the 28-year period between March 1973 and April 2001, and also the 22-year period between April 2001 and January 2022. These two periods contrast the large accretion of sand received from the circa 1990s Great Island nourishment, and the subsequent erosion of that material from the 2,000 feet of shoreline starting at Fox Point. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 16 Figure 20. Computed shoreline erosion rates in feet per year for the time period between 2001 and 2022, and more recently between 2014 and 2022. Shoreline change rates were also determined for the period between April 2009 and June 2020 (Foth topo survey). The 2020 shoreline extends about 3,000 feet farther east than the 2022 GPS shoreline. Colored transects that indicate change rates are mapped in Figure 21 for this time period. Change rates for this period are also plotted in Figure 22. From these figures, maximum erosion rates of around 6 feet per year occur between 1,200 and 2,000 feet from Fox Point. An area of accretion occurs around the 5,000 feet from Fox Point, about 1,400 feet from the eastern end of the proposed Foth nourishment template. Figure 21. Shoreline change transects for 7,500 feet of the Great Island shoreline from Fox Point, between March 2009 and June 2020, plotted on a April 2021 aerial photo. Transect lengths indicate the change magnitude between shorelines, while colors indicate the average annualized rate of change, as indicated by the legend. Negative rates indicate erosion, while positive rates indicate accretion. Stationing along the shoreline starting at Fox Point is also provided. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 17 Figure 22. Shoreline change rates calculated between April 2009 and June 2020, the same time period used in the plot of change transects shown in Figure 21. The record of historical Great Island shorelines shows that recent shoreline movement is much greater that what is indicated by short term rates available from the MCZM Shoreline Change Project (SCP). Maximum SCP erosion rates within the Great Island project area are -1.5 feet per year, calculated for the period between 1994 and 2009. This period includes the infiltration of sand from the circa 1990 Great Island beach nourishment, and straddles the point in time when the beach width was at it maximum for the entire time interval between 1973 and present. The mean short term erosion rate from the SCP database along the whole project shoreline is only -0.1 feet per year. Recent maximum erosion rates (between 2009 and 2022) are as much as five times greater than what is shown in the SCP database. Therefore, the change rates from the SCP database are not representative of more recent erosion conditions at the beach. 2.3 Recent Morphological Change Quantifying morphological change in the nearshore region of the project shoreline provides additional insights that help to form a more complete understanding of the coastal process that are at work in the region. A determination of recent changes in the topography and bathymetry of the beach was performed to see how sand moves on the beach and in the nearshore, particularly within the multiple bars that exist offshore of the beach. In June 2020, a survey of the beach fronting Great Island consisting of approximately 70 cross-shore transects spanning from roughly 70 feet south of Fox Point to the northern terminus of the causeway (seaward of the 362 Great Island Rd residence) was conducted by Foth Engineering (Figure 23). The majority of transects begin at Great Island Rd and extend roughly 1000 feet offshore; however, the southern portion of the survey, where Great Island Rd begins to bend further westward towards the Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 18 Great Island bridge, the initial survey location for each transect is moved to the backshore just beyond the dune crest. The transects are spaced at 100-foot intervals allowing for more than 7,000 linear feet of shoreline to be surveyed and nearly 160 acres of total coverage. In addition to cross-shore transects, structures and physical features such as groins and boulder fields were surveyed to ensure adequate coverage of discontinuities along the natural topography of the beach. Comparison of these point-measured survey data with Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) survey data, collected in from May to August, 2018, by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) National Coastal Mapping Program (NCMP), provides insight into the recent short term morphological change of the beach fronting the Great Island causeway. Using advanced mapping software, a triangular grid with 2 meter (approximately 6.56 feet) spacing was fit to the spatial boundary of the 2020 survey data. The 2018 and 2020 datasets were interpolated to the grid to form uniform surface coverage for each of the surveyed years. The change in elevation at each grid node was calculated to evaluate erosional/accretional trends and provide a baseline for sediment transport analysis. Figure 24 depicts this trend using a red/blue color spectrum to denote whether the change represents erosion or accretion and the intensity of the color shows the magnitude of change. Consistent with most nearshore regions along the south facing shore of Cape Cod, a west-to-east longshore transport is observed as accretion on the western (updrift) side of the groins and erosion on the eastern (downdrift) side. Typically, when longshore transport is interrupted by a structure, sediment becomes impounded on the updrift side creating a ‘depositional shadow’ downdrift. An overall erosional trend was observed with a calculated net loss of approximately 26,800 cubic yards of sand per year from along the project shoreline. East of the project area (east of station 39+00) large areas of accretion on the beach face are observed. This would suggest that sand eroding from the beach face of the western side of the project shoreline is moved east where some of this material is deposited. In the surface change plot of Figure 24, there is evidence that the crests of the offshore sand bars moved shoreward in the two years period between surveys. Along the southern region of the survey area, between Fox Point and White Cedar Point Rd, cross-shore profiles were interpolated from the elevation datasets to show higher resolution sediment movement across the littoral zone within the project area. The profiles were spaced at 200-foot intervals at the even numbered project stations, shown in Figure 1, and extended 700 feet offshore from the dune crest. The majority of the transects show relative stability of the beach face over a two-year span; however, profiles at stations 10+00 through 16+00 represent the area with the highest rate of foreshore erosion and the profile at station 32+00 shows and accretional trend. Plots of profile transects for the 2018 and 2020 datasets are provided as an appendix to this report. It is worth noting that the profile at station 14+00 shows a large variation in elevation between the two surveys, likely caused by interpolation errors due to poorly resolved measurement coverage of the dune-groin intersection. A map depicting the location of the profile transects relative to elevation change surface derived from the triangular grid is shown in Figure 25. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 19 Figure 23. Transects, along Great Island causeway, surveyed by Foth Engineering in June, 2020. Figure 24. Morphological change of the surveyed region of Great Island Causeway from 2018 to 2020. Erosion is denoted by red coloring and accretion is denoted by blue coloring, magnitude of change is represented by color intensity. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 20 Figure 25. Location of cross-shore profiles relative to morphological change surface derived from the 2018 and 2020 survey datasets. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 21 3. Existing Conditions Coastal Processes In addition to the analysis of historical data, a coastal process modeling analysis of shoreline management alternatives for Great Island project shoreline was performed to investigate the merits and challenges associated with different shore protection designs. The analysis is used to quantify how beach nourishment in combination with structural elements could be used to enhance shoreline resiliency and stability within the study area. A long-term shoreline evolution model developed previously for the Great Island shoreline was used to determine the performance of the management scenarios developed for this study. The shoreline evolution model is driven by a record of waves that is developed using a regional 2-D wave model of Nantucket Sound. 3.1 Wave Model A 2-D numerical wave model was developed for the Nantucket sound shoreline of the project area was utilized for this study. This model uses a coarse 200-meter grid of Nantucket Sound (Figure 26) to generate and propagate wind waves to the study shoreline at West Yarmouth. Local grids with a 5-meter mesh size for the Great Island (Figure 27) shoreline is nested within the Nantucket Sound grid by applying spectral wave data output from the coarse grid to the offshore boundaries of the fine grid. Spatially-varying wave spectra are output from the coarse grid at points that correspond to the boundary elements of the fine grids. Figure 26. Contour plot of the coarse 200-m wave grid of Nantucket Sound. The location of the Great Island study area fine grid is indicated. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 22 Figure 27. Color shaded contour plot of Fine 5-meter nested wave grid of the modeled West Yarmouth shoreline between Fox Point and Parkers River inlet. Wind and wave data. For this study, wave conditions were generated using the wind and wave data available from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) WIS hindcast database, at station 63082 located 32 miles south of the mouth of West Yarmouth and about 11 miles south of the Muskeget Channel entrance to Nantucket Sound. This latest update to the WIS hindcast was used to develop offshore wave boundary conditions as well as the winds applied to the surface of Nantucket Sound. This hindcast record has a record that spans the 41-year period between January 1980 through December 2020. Though other sources of wind and wave data are available from the Nantucket Sound region, the WIS hindcast record has key advantages that make it an attractive source of data. The main advantages are that it is a continuous, 41-year-long record of hourly observations of both winds and waves. Other data records from the region include the winds observations from the BUZM3 CMAN station at the entrance to Buzzards Bay (1985 to present) and regional airports like Hyannis, and the NOAA wave/meteorological data buoy (station 44020) in the middle of Nantucket Sound (2009 to present). The wind records from these different sources were compared to see if there are significant difference between the measured sources of regional data and the USACE WIS hindcast. This comparison showed that these records all show the same general trends. Therefore, the WIS records was selected as the source of long- term wind and offshore wave data used in creating model inputs for the simulations of average wave conditions ion Nantucket Sound. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 23 The entire wave and wind records from the WIS hindcast are represented in Figures 28 and 29, respectively, as compass rose plots which show magnitude and percent occurrence by compass sector. From the hindcast, winds most frequently blow from the SW, with a percent occurrence of 10.3%. For sectors approaching the West Yarmouth study shoreline (west through east sectors) winds blow 55.8% of the time, with winds greater than 25 knots blowing 2.2% of the total 41-year span of the record. From all direction sectors, wind speeds are greater than 10 knots 66.2% of the record and greater than 25 knots for 7.1% of the record. The greatest wind speed of the entire record (57 knots) occurred during Hurricane Bob (August 1991). For the wave data of the WIS hindcast record, the predominant sector is from due south. Waves propagate from this direction 19.3% of the time. The second-most frequently occurring sector at this station is SSE, which occurs 16.1% of the time in the reecord. Most of the waves from the south sector (10% of the total record) have an amplitude between 2 and 4 feet. The 6 to 9 second wave period band from the south has the greatest occurrence (11.4% of the record) of all sectors. To develop input conditions for the wave model, wind data from the WIS record were binned by 22.5-degree compass sector and by magnitude, as presented in Table 1. For each separate compass sector, the hourly events from the wind record were divided into top, middle and bottom bins. Each bin holds a third of the total number of occurrences in a particular compass sector, sorted by wind speed. The bottom bin holds the bottom third wind speeds, while the top bin holds the top third winds speed hourly records for that compass sector. A total of 289,295 total hourly time steps of the WIS record were sorted in this fashion. The WIS hindcast record was also used to determine the offshore wave input conditions. Each hourly WIS record includes parameters that describe the wave conditions (i.e., wave period, Tp; wave height, Hs; and direction, T). Wave conditions for each wind case were determined by the wave data concurrent with the wind records. Average wave heights for each wind case were computed as the square root of the mean squared wave heights. Wave direction was determined as the vector average direction of all wave cases occurring with each particular wind case. This method of sorting the wave data determines the average wave conditions that correspond to each binned wind case. Thirty-three separate model cases (i.e., three wave cases from each of eleven compass sectors) were developed by this processing of the wind and wave data of the WIS record. The 11 compass sectors from ESE to NNW include all winds that generate waves to drive sediment transport along the study shoreline. Though winds from the W through SW sectors do not blow directly onshore at the study shoreline, waves from these sectors can refract as they propagate to the southern Cape coast, and may result in sediment movement along the West Yarmouth shoreline. The percent occurrence of each separate case is determined using the number of hourly records from the WIS hindcast that fall into each bin, divided by the total number of wave records in the entire 41-year record. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 24 Figure 28. Wind rose of data from the WIS hindcast station 63082 (offshore Muskeget Channel), for the 41-year period between January 1980 and December 2020. Direction indicates from where wind was blowing. Grey tone segments indicate magnitude of wind speeds. Radial length of each segment indicates percent occurrence over the total duration of the data record. The red diametric line indicates the orientation of the Great Island area study shoreline. Figure 29. Wave height and period for hindcast data from WIS station 63082 (offshore of Muskeget Channel) for the 41-year period between January 1980 and December 2020. Direction indicates from where waves were traveling, relative to true north. Radial length of gray tone segments indicates percent occurrence for each range of wave heights and periods. Combined length of segments in each sector indicates percent occurrence of all waves from that direction. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 25 Table 1. Wave model input parameters, listed by compass sector and wind velocity bin (i.e., bottom, middle and top thirds). Listed offshore wave parameters include compass direction ljo, wave period To and wave height Hs,o. Angles are given in the Meteorological convention (i.e., from where the wind blows in compass degrees). sector percent occ. wind angle (degrees) wind speed (kts) To (degrees) To (seconds) Hs,o (feet) E 1.3 % top 1/3 89.3 19.3 121.1 8.0 6.0 mid 1/3 89.9 10.8 140.1 8.5 3.4 bot 1/3 90.1 6.1 149.6 8.5 3.1 ESE 1.1 % top 1/3 112.6 18.4 131.7 7.8 5.8 mid 1/3 112.2 10.2 144.1 8.5 3.3 bot 1/3 112.6 5.9 150.8 8.2 2.9 SE 1.1 % top 1/3 135.3 17.7 143.1 7.6 5.4 mid 1/3 135.2 10.1 149.3 8.4 3.1 bot 1/3 135.0 5.6 149.9 8.4 2.9 SSE 1.3 % top 1/3 158.1 18.1 157.9 7.7 5.9 mid 1/3 158.1 10.2 153.3 8.5 3.2 bot 1/3 158.0 5.7 153.5 8.3 2.8 S 2.0 % top 1/3 181.0 17.8 173.4 7.1 5.6 mid 1/3 180.7 10.7 161.0 8.2 3.3 bot 1/3 180.5 6.1 155.6 8.2 2.8 SSW 2.9 % top 1/3 203.4 18.1 189.8 6.9 5.7 mid 1/3 203.1 11.5 172.3 7.6 3.4 bot 1/3 202.7 6.7 158.4 8.0 2.9 SW 3.4 % top 1/3 225.0 18.2 202.7 6.8 5.8 mid 1/3 224.9 11.8 182.2 7.5 3.6 bot 1/3 225.0 6.9 162.4 8.0 3.0 WSW 2.7 % top 1/3 247.3 19.8 214.6 7.4 7.0 mid 1/3 246.9 11.8 188.6 7.7 3.9 bot 1/3 247.3 6.7 165.4 7.9 3.0 W 2.8 % top 1/3 271.6 23.3 227.3 8.0 8.0 mid 1/3 270.3 13.6 202.8 7.8 4.5 bot 1/3 269.6 7.3 169.2 8.1 3.2 Wave model output. Examples of wave model output are shown in Figures 30 and 31, for the top SSE wave case of Table 1. For this wave case, waves propagate from the open ocean through Muskeget Channel, between Chappaquiddick and Muskeget Island. Though wave energy does enter Nantucket Sound through this channel, wave heights dissipate to some degree as the offshore waves propagate further into Nantucket Sound (Figure 30) and the wave energy diffracts. Offshore wave energy also enters via Handkerchief Shoals and the opening between Monomoy Island and Great Point on Nantucket, and similarly diffuses as it propagates further into the sound. As a result, energy from waves approaching the West Yarmouth shoreline is predominantly from locally generated wind-waves, developed internally within Nantucket Sound. At the West Yarmouth nearshore grid, waves from the Sound dissipate as they propagate across the nearshore bars and shallow flats. Waves refract as they shoal, and their directions become more shore-normal (perpendicular), which is indicated by the arrows of this plot. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 26 Figure 30. Color contour plot model output from the Nantucket Sound mesh showing significant wave heights for the top SSE wave case, with vectors that indicate the peak wave direction (N.B., the color scale for wave heights is different than what is used in Figure 31). Figure 31. Color contour plot model output from the nested nearshore West Yarmouth/Great Island mesh showing significant wave heights for the top SSE wave case, with vectors that indicate the peak wave direction. (N.B., the color scale for wave heights is different than what is used in Figure 31). Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 27 3.2 Shoreline Evolution Model An evaluation of sediment transport along the beach is integral to the understanding of coastal processes that are at work to shape the Great Island shoreline. Results from the spectral wave model formed the basis computed sediment transport rates along the modeled beach segment since wave-induced transport is a function of various parameters (e.g., wave breaking height, wave period, and wave direction). Longshore transport depends on long-term fluctuations in incident wave energy and the resulting longshore current; therefore, annual transport rates were calculated from the long-term average wave conditions developed and described in the previous section. Formulation of Transport Calculations. The sediment transport equation employed for the longshore analyses is based on the work of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1984). In general, the longshore sediment transport rate is proportional to the longshore wave energy flux at the breaker line, which is dependent on wave height and direction. Since the transport equation was calibrated in sediment-rich environments, it typically over-predicts sediment transport rates. However, it provides a useful technique for comparing erosion/accretion trends along the shoreline of interest. In the method described by the Army Corps, the volumetric longshore transport, Q, past a point on a shoreline is computed using the relationship: ܳൌ ூ ሺ௦ିଵሻఘĻ where I is the immersed weight longshore sediment transport rate, s is the specific gravity of the sediment, a’ is the void ratio of the sediment, and ǒ is the density of seawater. For this study, immersed weight longshore sediment transport, I, was computed using a method based on the so-called “CERC formula”, ܫൌܭܲŁ௦ where K is a dimensionless coefficient and Pls is the longshore energy flux factor computed using the following relationship: ܲŁ௦ ൌ ఘయ/మ ଵξఊ ܪ௦ ହ/ଶ ݏ݅݊ 2 ߙ where Hsb is the significant wave height at breaking, J is the coefficient for the inception of wave breaking (J=Hb/hb), and Db is the breaking wave angle. A value of K=0.39 is designated for use with significant wave heights (as output from SWAN). The actual method used to compute immersed weight longshore sediment transport for this study was described by Kamphuis (2010). This method is basically a modification to the original CERC formula, and adds a dependency on the median grain diameter of the beach sediment, and also the surf similarity parameter, Ǐb, which is expressed as Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 28 ߦ ൌ ሺு್ /బሻబ.ఱ where m is the bottom slope and Lo is the incident wave period. The complete expression of Kamphuis is written as: ܫൌܭכ ߩ݃ ቀ ଶగቁ.ହ ߦ ܶ .ହ ሺ݉݀ହ ሻି.ଶହ ܪଶ.ହ ݏ݅݊. ሺ2ߠ ሻ where the coefficient K* = 0.0013. The value of transport potential derived using this method represents the maximum possible at a particular location, given a rich sediment supply, and no structures (e.g., seawalls and groins) to modify the movement of sediment along the shoreline. Using these empirical expressions of sediment transport potential, a computer code was developed which computed sediment transport potential along the northern shoreline of Jupiter Island. Values of sediment transport are computed at evenly spaced grid cells, with positions that correspond to alongshore grid cells of the wave transformation model grid. For this application, transport potential calculations were performed using a 33-ft (10-meter) grid spacing, which is equivalent to twice the grid spacing of the nearshore nested wave grid. The 2009 shoreline developed from the March 2009 USGS orthophoto series was used as the input shoreline. The modeled shore segment is approximately 1.6 miles long, running from Fox Point to the groin located near Whale Road, at the eastern end of Great Island Road. Inputs into the sediment transport potential calculations include beach slope and sediment grain size. A 0.30 mm representative grain size was used, based on sediment sieve analysis of 12 samples taken from the beach in January 2022. The beach face slope is typically 1:10 (v:h), but average slopes within 1000 feet of the high water line are typically much flatter (of the order 1:1000). This nearshore area is characterized by a series of persistent but mobile bars. Present Sediment Transport Rates. The computed net average annual sediment transport potential for present conditions is mapped with the shoreline of Great Island in Figure 32, as vectors. Net potential rates are greatest within the first 1,000 feet from Fox Point, with a peak rate of 10,200 cu. yd. per year to the northeast (toward Parkers River inlet). It is important to note that these computations are based on sediment transport potential and do not reflect modifications to actual transport rates that occur from the presence of sand-trapping coastal engineering structures like groins. Net transport is to the northeast along the entire modeled shoreline segment. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 29 Figure 32. Computed average net sediment transport potential along the Great Island study shoreline. Arrows indicate the direction of net transport, while the color and size of the arrows corresponds to transport magnitude. One-Line Shoreline Modeling. Using Kamphuis’ expression of sediment transport potential, a computer model was developed which simulates the conditions along actual shorelines, where coastal engineering structures impact actual sediment transport rates. The goal of the shoreline change modeling is first to predict measured shoreline change and longshore sediment transport rates, and subsequently use the model to evaluate beach management alternatives for the Great Island project shoreline. The model code incorporates the ability to simulate the effects of seawalls (and coastal dikes) and groins on shoreline evolution, wave refraction and diffraction. The model is formulated using a simple explicit upwind differencing scheme (e.g., Dean and Dalrymple, 2001), which computes change in shoreline position based on the computed gradient of sediment transport. The relationship between shoreline change and the gradient of sediment transport potential can be most simply expressed as: ߲ݕ ߲ݐ ൬߲ܳ ߲ݔ ݍ൰ ሺܦ ܦ ሻൗ ൌ 0 where Q is sediment transport at a particular shoreline transect, x is alongshore width of a computational cell, y is the cross-shore position of the shoreline, t is time, q is a source term, DB is the berm elevation of the beach, and DC is the depth of closure (the depth at which wave-induced transport ceases). Values of sediment transport are computed at evenly spaced grid cells, with positions that correspond to alongshore grid cells of the wave transformation model grid. Groins and seawalls, which act to hinder sediment transport and prevent shoreline erosion, can be included in the model simulation. For the Great Island shoreline model, a total of 16 groins are specified between Fox Point and the eastern end of the Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 30 grid at the Whale Road groin. From the magnitude of the shoreline offsets at each groin, it is apparent that they have different abilities to impound sand transported along the beach. This is represented in the model by assigning a permeability factor between 0 and 1 to each structure, where a 0 value indicates a structure completely impedes sand transport and a value of 1 indicates the structure is completely permeable to sand transport. The segments of revetment that are in place between 2,250 and 3,000 feet from Fox Point are included as a non-erodible seawall feature. The one-dimensional model grid developed for Great Island extends along an 8,400- foot shoreline segment (Figure 33) within the total length of the West Yarmouth shoreline of the fine-scale wave model grid. The grid has a cell spacing of 33 feet (10 meters), which is twice the call size of the wave grid. Required input parameters for the shoreline model are the depth of closure and beach berm height, which together define the active beach profile, meaning the littoral area where wave induced sediment transport is the predominant transport mechanism. The depth of closure is an estimation of the seaward limit of the beach profile. By definition, areas where no depth changes occur are located beyond the depth of closure. For this study, the depth of closure was estimated using the method of Hallermeier (Dean and Dalrymple, 2007). Although sand motion can occur at bottom depths that are greater than the depth of closure (e.g., during storms), the net flux of sediment is not great enough to cause changes in the beach profile. The depth of closure is about half the depth for incipient sediment motion (Hallermeier, 1978). The depth of closure (݄ ) can be computed using the relationship developed by Birkemeier (1985), ݄ ൌ 1.75ܪ െ 57.9 ቆ ܪଶ ݃ܶଶ ቇ which uses the significant wave height and period that is expected to be exceed only for 12 hours each year, ܪ and ܶ . A useful approximation to this is given by ݄ ൌ 1.57ܪ , where ܪ is computed as ܪ ൌܪഥ 5.6ߪு , and ܪഥ and ߪு are the mean wave height and standard deviation of the wave record, respectively. Using wave record from the Nantucket Sound NOAA wave buoy (for years 2009 through 2020), the depth of closure is estimated to be 15.2 feet. Similar to the computation of sediment transport potential, output from the wave modeling analysis is used to drive the shoreline evolution model. A time series of wave conditions was created using the offshore WIS hindcast so that the 27 wave cases (Table 1) representing mean annual conditions occurring from different compass sectors could be used in a time-dependent simulation of shoreline movements. The time period between the March 2009 and April 2014 aerial orthophoto shorelines was used to calibrate the shoreline model, since this period is recent and is included in the WIS hindcast record. Erosion rates experienced during this period (Figure 34) are slightly higher than longer term rates between 2001 and present, and more recent rates between 2014 and present (cf., Figure 20 and Figure 34). At each model time step (one hour) during the course of the five-year model calibration period, a wave case from the 27 modeled cases was selected base on each separate wave record from the WIS hindcast. For periods in the WIS record where waves were not propagating Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 31 onshore from any of the nine compass sectors of Table 1, no waves were applied to the model shoreline for that time step. Figure 33. Shoreline model grid, showing grid cell numbering from the Whale Road groin at the eastern end of the grid and the western end of the grid at Fox Point. Figure 34. Shoreline change rates determined for the model calibration period of April 2009 to April 2014. Output from the shoreline evolution model simulation of the five-year period starting with the 2009 measured shoreline is presented in Figure 35, where it is compared to the measured 2014 shoreline. During this modeled period, there are areas of both accretion and erosion. The greatest erosion occurs between 750 and 2,000 feet from Fox Point. For the model calibration period, the R2 correlation is 0.84 between the measured and modeled 2014 shorelines, and the RMS error is 8.7 feet, which shows good model skill. The goal of the model calibration process is to reduce the RMS error between the measured and modeled shorelines to a point where it is less than the Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 32 error that is typical for shoreline position measurements that are derived from an analysis of aerial photographs (14.3 feet). The gross east and west components of average annual sediment transport output from the shoreline model are shown in Figure 36. This plot shows that the easterly component of the total sediment transport is dominant along the entire study shoreline. In fact, along the first 3,000 feet of shoreline from Fox Point, the west- directed component is nearly zero, which indicates that all offshore wave conditions cause east-directed transport. Figure 35. Map of measured and modeled 2014 shoreline at the conclusion of the shoreline model calibration run. Figure 36. Annualized average sediment transport potential computed for the Great Island project shoreline. The net transport (solid black line) is the resultant of the east-directed (blue dash-dot line) and the west-directed (blue dashed line) components of transport. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 33 This is not a surprising result, given the sheltering effect of Fox Point and the curvature and orientation of the shoreline relative to most waves that propagate to this area.at the eastern and of the study shoreline, the east-directed component of transport dominates, and is about 88% of the total gross transport. 4. Development of Management Options Once calibrated, the shoreline model can be used to simulate shoreline erosion management alternatives. The shoreline model was run for 15 years, starting with the 2022 shoreline to simulate the future evolution of the beach with each scenario, including the “do-nothing” alternative to determine how the scenarios would behave compared to each other. The model options that were developed for this analysis include 1) the nourishment template developed by Foth (2021), 2) the Foth template with additional sand- tightening of some of the existing groins, and 3) the Foth template extended 1,200 feet to the northeast. The Foth template of Option 1 is about 3,200 feet long, starting at Fox Point, and has a total fill volume of 76,146 cubic yards (Foth and VHB, 2021). It has a berm crest elevation of 10 ft NAVD. The template foreshore slope is 1:10, which approximates the slope of the existing intertidal beach face. The toe of the fill is positioned along the -2 ft NAVD contour of the existing beach profile. At the elevation of the natural beach berm crest (~4 feet NAVD), the fill template typically increases the width of the beach by about 60 feet. For model Option 2, The Foth template of Option 1 was run with addition of four sand-tightened groins. The improved groins are the east of the Foth Template, starting with the groin nearest the intersection of Great Point Road and White Cedar Point Road. The goal of sand tightening these structures is to hold sand moving east from the nourishment to address an erosional area east of the Foth template (around 4,000 feet from Fox Point) that was observed in the results of the “do-nothing” model run. Great Point Road runs close to the beach at this location (as close as 22 feet), which makes it vulnerable to future near-term loss of beach width. For Option 3, the Foth template was extended about 1,200 feet further east, which increases the total volume of the fill by an estimated 25%. The sand tightened groins of Option 2 were also included in this model run. This option was developed as a way of including the improved groins of Option 2 to enhance the performance of the fill while at the same time proactively adding fill along Great Point Road east of White Cedar Point Road. This additional fill also would help mitigate downdrift impacts resulting from the sand tightened groins. One challenge for this alternative is the proximity of eel grass beds to the beach that were identified in 2020. The nearshore edge of the eelgrass bed offshore of the intersection of White Cedar Point Road and Great Point Road (about 4,250 feet from Fox Point) is as close as 155 feet from the January 2022 position of the shoreline. Therefore, the toe of the nourishment berm, as modeled, would be within 100 feet of the eel grass bed. Though not impossible to Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 34 permit, the distance between the fill and the ells grass resource area may lead to closer scrutiny of the project by permitting authorities. “Do-nothing” future results. Output from the “do-nothing” alternative run after 10- years is shown in Figure 37. This represents a likely worst expected condition of the beach, since the model calibration is based on a time period when beach erosion rates were higher than longer term periods such as for 2001 to 2022. At the end of 10 years, long sections of the beach have eroded well beyond the starting 2022 shoreline position. The shoreline between 2,500 and 3,000 feet from Fox Point is held in place by stone rip-rap that exists in this area. The beach has eroded back to Great Point Road in the segment between 3,500 and 4,500 feet from Fox Point. Figure 37. “Do-nothing” model results after 10 years, compared to the 2022 starting position of the shoreline. Option 1 results. The model run of the Foth template shows that after 10 years, the shoreline of the first 2,500 feet of the project area has returned to its January 2022 position (Figure 38). A plot of the percentage of the original nourishment volume remaining within the fill template area is shown in Figure 39 through the 15-year shoreline model run period. The engineering design life of a nourishment is typically defined as the length of time that the amount of fill remaining within the original template area is more than 30% of the original placed volume. In this case, the design life indicated by Figure 39 would be about 8 years, at which time the template would be refilled to ensure optimum performance of the nourishment. Considering that erosion rates experience during the shoreline model calibration period (Figure 34) appear to be more erosive than longer term rates for this area (Figure 20), an alternative run of Option 1 was made that included reduced cross- shore losses observed over the 2001 to 2022 time frame. The design life of the Option 1 template increases to 12 years. These results suggested that the design life of the nourishment with uncertainty is 10 ± 2 years. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 35 Figure 38. Modeled shorelines from the Option 1 simulation of the Foth fill template. The nourished starting shoreline, and the shoreline position after 10 years are shown along with the measured January 2022 GPS shoreline. Figure 39. Comparison of beach fill performance for Options 1, 2 and 3 over the course of the time period simulated with the shoreline model of Great Island. The engineering design like of a beach fill is typically defined as the point in time when the fill volume remaining within the original template area remains above 30% (indicated by the hairline) of the original volume. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 36 Option 2 results. With the addition of sand-tightened groins to the east end of the Foth Template of Option 1, the fill design life is negligibly increased (Figure 40). This small benefit for fill performance comes at the expense of the shoreline farther downdrift of the improved groins. The sand tightened groins hold sand from moving to the downdrift beach to a degree that exacerbates erosion in the area located around 4,500 feet from Fox Point, where Great Point Road is presently within 22 feet of the shoreline. Figure 40. Modeled shorelines from the Option 2 simulation of the Foth fill template with four sand tightened groins east of the template. The nourished starting shoreline, and the shoreline position after 10 years are shown along with the measured January 2022 GPS shoreline. Option 3 results. Adding 1,200 feet to the Option 1 template, and the sand tightened groins of Option 2 improves the performance of the beach east of White Cedar Point Road. Figure 41 maps the 10-year model shoreline of this option. Compared to the results for both Option 1 and 2, the shoreline for Option 3 is farther seaward of the 2022 starting shoreline in the shoreline segment between 3,500 and 4,250 feet from Fox Point, therefore it does a better job maintaining beach width in this erosion- sensitive area. The overall performance of this extended-template option is similar to the original Foth template (Figure 39), a 10 ± 2 year design life considering uncertainty in future cross-shore erosion losses. Generally, nourishment performance (design life) improves as the length of the template increases. The Option 1 template is already long enough that adding additional length to the fill results in only a minimal improvement to longevity of the fill. Therefore, the benefit of this Option is simply that it protects a longer length of shoreline. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 37 Figure 41. Modeled shorelines from the Option 2 simulation of the Foth fill template with four sand tightened groins east of the template. The nourished starting shoreline, and the shoreline position after 10 years are shown along with the measured January 2022 GPS shoreline. 6. Conclusions The results of the historical shoreline change analysis show that peak erosion rates along the Great Island project shoreline reach 8 feet per year, though long-term rates between 2001 and 2022 peak at around half that rate. The project area beach was at its widest circa 2001, about 10 years after the placement of the 330,00 cubic yard Great Island nourishment. At this point in time, the beach was at its widest of the last 50 years. It should be noted that only a portion of the 330,000 cubic yards of beach nourishment was placed east of Point Gammon, and available to the littoral zone fronting the project area along Great Point Road. Considering erosion rates that were experience during the 2009 to 2014 time frame, it is likely that the segment of Great Point Road east of the intersection of White Cedar Point Road (where it runs close to the beach) is a future area of concern due to expected continued loss of beach width in this area. Given the uncertainty of future erosion conditions along the West Yarmouth shoreline, the proposed Foth project would have an engineering design life of 10 ± 2 years, at which point the fill volume remaining would drop below 30% of the original placement volume within the template area, triggering the need for nourishment to insure long- term protection of upland infrastructure. Improving the condition of groins east of the Foth template (sand-tightening) makes a negligible improvement of the beach nourishment design life. Further, improvements to the sand trapping structures (i.e., sand tightening of groins) does not significantly improve nourishment performance, but has potential adverse impact to downdrift beaches east of the project by reducing sediment supply. Adding additional nourishment to the east of the Foth Template increases the length of protected shoreline, but does not appreciably increase the design life of the fill. Sustainable Coastal Solutions, Inc. North Falmouth, Massachusetts 38 7. References Booij, N., Ris, R.C., and Holthuijsen, L.H., 1999. A third-generation wave model for coastal regions, part 1: Model description and validation. Journal of Geophysical Research 104 (C4), 7649-66. Dean, R.G., and Dalrymple, R.A., 2001. Coastal processes with engineering applications. Cambridge University Press, 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011- 4211, U.S.A. 2002. ISBN 0-521-49535-0, 471 pages. Foth and VHB (2021). Great Island Road Resiliency Project West Yarmouth, MA, Environmental Notification Form. June 15, 2021. Kampuis, J.W., 2010. Introduction to Coastal Engineering and Management, 2nd Edition. World Scientific, Hackensack, NJ. Silvester, R. and Hsu, J. R. (1993). Coastal stabilization - innovative concepts. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1984. Shore Protection Manual. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg MS. Great Island Road Resiliency Project Attachment F Mesa Filing Attachment F MESA Filing Great Island Road Resiliency Project Attachment G Local Forms Attachment G Local Forms › Site Access Authorization Form › Waiver of 21 Day Requirement › Confirmation of Transmission to the Yarmouth Natural Resources Department (SFBU*TMBOE3PBE CAUTION: This email originated from a sender outside of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts mail system. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:ONeil, Terry (FWE ) To:Avery, Meredith Subject:[External] RE: Great Island Road Resiliency Project Date:Monday, March 8, 2021 11:50:31 AM Attachments:image001.gif Hi Meredith, Sorry for the delayed response, I was busy doing field work last week. I have spoken with the Shellfish Constable in Yarmouth and reviewed the historical shellfish habitat maps for the area in question. Historically there has been no mapped shellfish habitat along that shoreline and the Constable and I agreed that the area does not support viable shellfish resources currently. There are no records of anyone shellfishing in the area either commercially or recreationally. If you would like to discuss the area further you can call me at my office (# below). I plan to be at my desk from 0800 to 1400 on Wednesday 3/10 if that helps. Terry Terry O’Neil Marine Fisheries Biologist MA Division of Marine Fisheries 706 South Rodney French Blvd. New Bedford, MA 02744 (508)-742-9765 From: Avery, Meredith <MAvery@VHB.com> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 2:36 PM To: ONeil, Terry (FWE) <terry.oneil@mass.gov> Subject: Great Island Road Resiliency Project Hi Terry, VHB is working with a client in West Yarmouth to improve the resiliency of Great Island Road. I met with Eileen Feeney and John Logan this morning to discuss the project and would like to also discuss some of the beach nourishment components of the project with you. If you have time for a call I would really appreciate any input you can provide. Attached is the project locus and we would like to discuss the potential for shellfish habitat along the causeway. Let me know if there are any good times in your schedule for a 45 minute call Thank you, Meredith Avery, ENV SP (she/her) Principal Director of Natural Sciences 101 Walnut Street PO Box 9151 Watertown, MA 02472-4026 P 617.607.2604 | M 781.308.5317 | F 617.924.2286 mavery@vhb.com Engineers | Scientists | Planners | Designers www.vhb.com VHB Viewpoints Explore trends and critical issues with our thought leaders. This communication and any attachments to this are confidential and intended only for the recipient(s). Any other use, dissemination, copying, or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us and destroy it immediately. Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. is not responsible for any undetectable alteration, virus, transmission error, conversion, media degradation, software error, or interference with this transmission or attachments to this transmission. Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. | info@vhb.com From:TrackingUpdates@fedex.com To:Katie Young Subject:[External] FedEx Shipment 770173003058: This shipment is scheduled to be sent Date:Tuesday, October 11, 2022 2:13:13 PM FedEx Hi. This shipment is scheduled to be sent on Tue 10/11/2022. The delivery date may be updated when FedEx receives the package. Estimated delivery date Wed, 10/12/2022 before 12:00pm INITIATED TRACKING NUMBER 770173003058 FROM Vanasse Hangen Brustlin 101 Walnut Street 3URRIRI0DLOLQJ Watertown, MA, US, 02472 TO Waterways/Shellfish Advisory Commit 1146 Route 28 SOUTH YARMOUTH, MA, US, 02664 REFERENCE 1514400 SHIPPER REFERENCE 1514400 PACKAGING TYPE FedEx Box ORIGIN Watertown, MA, 02472 DESTINATION SOUTH YARMOUTH, MA, US, 02664 SPECIAL HANDLING Deliver Weekday STANDARD TRANSIT Wed, 10/12/2022 by 12:00pm NUMBER OF PIECES 1 TOTAL SHIPMENT WEIGHT 3.00 LB SERVICE TYPE FedEx Priority Overnight Get the FedEx® Mobile app Create shipments, receive tracking alerts, redirect packages to a FedEx retail location for pickup, and more from the palm of your hand - Download now. From:TrackingUpdates@fedex.com To:Katie Young Subject:[External] FedEx Shipment 770173003058: Your package has been delivered Date:Wednesday, October 12, 2022 10:55:14 AM FedEx Hi. Your package was delivered Wed, 10/12/2022 at 10:46am. OBTAIN PROOF OF DELIVERY TRACKING NUMBER 770173003058 FROM Watertown, MA, US TO SOUTH YARMOUTH, MA, US SHIP DATE Tue 10/11/2022 05:14 PM DELIVERED TO Receptionist/Front Desk PACKAGING TYPE FedEx Box ORIGIN Watertown, MA, US DESTINATION SOUTH YARMOUTH, MA, US 3URRIRI'HOLYHU\ FOLLOW FEDEX Please do not respond to this message. This email was sent from an unattended mailbox. This report was generated at approximately 9:55 AM CDT 10/12/2022. All weights are estimated. To track the latest status of your shipment, click on the tracking number above. Standard transit is the date and time the package is scheduled to be delivered by, based on the selected service, destination and ship date. Limitations and exceptions may apply. Please see the FedEx Service Guide for terms and conditions of service, including the FedEx Money-Back Guarantee, or contact your FedEx Customer Support representative. SPECIAL HANDLING Deliver Weekday NUMBER OF PIECES 1 TOTAL SHIPMENT WEIGHT 3.00 LB SERVICE TYPE FedEx Priority Overnight Get the FedEx® Mobile app Create shipments, receive tracking alerts, redirect packages to a FedEx retail location for pickup, and more from the palm of your hand - Download now. Great Island Road Resiliency Project Attachment G Eel Grass Monitoring Plan Attachment H Eel Grass Monitoring Plan Great Island Eel Grass Monitoring Plan Introduction: The Great Island Homeowners’ Association (the Applicant) is proposing to develop and permit a Management Plan that will provide long-term coastal resiliency to the community on Great Island, Yarmouth, and its associated environs. They plan to achieve resiliency for the Great Island Road Causeway and Fox Point (the Project Site) as well as to the neighboring pristine salt marsh by restoring coastal dune in the most critical areas and re-nourishing the existing coastal beach (the Project). The project will include beach nourishment, dune restoration, and revegetation with beach grasses. This program shall be reviewed by the EPA and MA CZM prior to the beginning of work associated with this Order of Conditions. This is considered a draft plan until the Division of Marine Fisheries concurs through the permit application process. Eelgrass Monitoring; Foth Infrastructure and Environment (Foth) conducted an eelgrass survey on June 8 and June 30, 2021, and identified the limit of the eelgrass beds parallel to the project limits. No measurements of density were collected however video of each transect was recorded and is available by request. The results of the survey are included as Attachment C of the Notice of Intent packet. Foth proposes the following two monitoring methodologies: Tier 1 Video Transects: The landward edge of the eelgrass meadows will be located and recorded using differential global positioning system (DGPS). Transects located at 100’ centers along the project length will be run from the near shore limit of eel grass to the offshore limit of eel grass (500’ minimum seaward from the MLW line). Transects will be run at 100-foot centers along the length of proposed beach nourishment, extending 300’ to the North and South along the shore beyond the limits of proposed project. The eelgrass video survey will be performed utilizing a mushroom anchor mounted underwater camera attached to a steel reinforced cable. The camera is mounted so that it that allows for the camera to be raised, lowered, and directed in a fashion that produces an image of the bottom that allows for the determination of the presence/absence of SAV. The images are georeferenced using a video overlay device that indicates the position of the image relative to the State Plane Coordinate System, NAD83. Video files are logged to a computer and reviewed in the office to determine the presence/absence, relative density, and extent of SAV. Logged files represent transects perpendicular to shore. The threshold will be one blade of eelgrass = eelgrass present. Transects will be stopped if no eelgrass is recorded after 15 seconds of the last observation. Tier 2 Dive Inspection: Seven locations will serve as the fixed monitoring areas (five parallel to the project and two as reference locations). Divers will be utilized to record the following eelgrass observations at each of the sample locations. 1. The diver shall set out a one-meter quadrat and take a photograph of the site with the numbered quadrat in place. The diver will assess the general density of the eelgrass in the quadrat based on the CMEC bins below: Coarse Percent Cover Values Fine Percent Cover Values Trace < 1% Sparce (1 to < 30%) 1 to < 10% 10 to < 20% 20 to < 30% Moderate (30 to < 70%) 30 to < 40% 40 to < 50 % 50 to < 60% 60 to < 70% Dense (70 to < 90%) 70 to < 80% 80 to < 90% Complete 90 to 100% 2. The diver shall then measure the length of 1-3 randomly chosen eelgrass blades and estimate the mean shoot length within each quadrat. 3. The diver shall estimate the percent coverage with descriptions (absent, light, or heavy) of shoots having Epiphyte coverage for each species. 4. The diver shall also count the total number of shoots (blades) within a subset of the quadrat (e.g., 0.25-meter square). 5. Biological observations shall be noted at each sample location (presence of shellfish, algal beds, crabs or lobsters, and fish fauna). In addition to pre and post construction surveys, a progress survey will be completed in June (at peak growth). The seven Tier 2 locations will be determined during the pre- construction survey and held throughout the duration of the project. For each construction event or phase the following will be completed: x Pre-construction: Tier 1 video survey and Tier 2 of defined locations. (within 10 days of construction beginning). x Peak Growth: Tier 2 of defined locations. x Post-construction: Tier 1 video survey and Tier 2 of defined locations (within 10 days of construction completion). A memorandum summarizing results of monitoring shall be provided to the Yarmouth Conservation Commission, the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management, and the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries after each monitoring event. The memorandum shall indicate any changes in eel grass density, location, and overall health, and any further mitigation, if required.