Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
NOI 1.21.2025
802-345-5616 t.p.mcd@comcast.net 802-345-5616 t.p.mcd@comcast.net 1 Notice of Intent Project Narrative 1033 Great Island Road, West Yarmouth SUMMARY The area subject to this Notice of Intent is a residential parcel of land on the south- facing shore of Great Island, West Yarmouth. Work activity is proposed in the following coastal wetland resource areas: Coastal Beach; Coastal Bank; Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flow, specifically a VE zone of elev. = 15 which terminates along the upper lip of the Coastal Bank; and Buffer Zone to Coastal Bank. There is a pre-existing, low elevation, concrete wall on the property that requires repair. This NOI seeks to repair portions of that low pre-existing, damaged wall and rehabilitate localized Coastal Bank instability utilizing soil and plant-based applications in conjunction with Wilkinson Ecological Design. The wall that requires repair is pre-existing and permitted in MA Waterways License No. 197 (1976). EXISTING RESOURCE AREA CONDITIONS Coastal Beach Condition – The Coastal Beach currently contains an array of stone breakwaters, groins and a webwork of low crested concrete wall features all of which are catalogued in a MA Waterways License No. 197, issued in 1976 and attached with the NOI. The beach deposit is a collection of glacial rubble, find grained quartz sand, and cobble in combination with native stone breakwater and groin formations and concrete erosion management features. The manmade features are well established. 1938 aerial images show the stone array of groins. The apparent age of the concrete wall pattern indicates an approx. date of origin of sometime in the 1960’s. The stone formations provide a wave break buffering erosive action on the beach. Higher up on the beach the existing web of low crested walls have succeeded to sequester the sediment creating a form of tiered landform at the base of the Coastal Bank. The erosion management function of the low-crested wall network has been effective in preserving wholesale bank collapse. Similar in shape, elevation, and function to a vegetated, tiered coastal landform, the wall network formation allows for a minor but meaningful elevation boost of near- shore ground elevation buttressing the base of the Coastal Bank. The sediment, being of low elevation can move within and without the wall network in response to wind and tidal action. The minor elevation increase allows for less frequent tidal inundation and beneficial vegetation development. The Coastal Bank Condition – The Coastal Bank is well vegetated with assorted common coastal plant community species, some invasive, some not. The cohesive, consolidated loamy soil of the Coastal Bank and the current 2 vegetation buttress the Coastal Bank that allows the Coastal Bank to withstand the occasional over wash caused by coastal storm tide flow. In areas where the existing concrete wall has not been breached, vegetable is present and sediment is collected. This provides the Coastal Bank with stability. Where the concrete wall system is compromised, wave over-wash backflows through the compromised segments toward Nantucket Sound. This has caused for concentrated flow with scouring of the sediments on the beach deposit and along the base of the Coastal Bank. Successive scouring, particularly from the severe storm action during the winter of 2023 and 2024, has caused for progressive and rapid Coastal Bank collapse. The efficacy of the existing wall feature is shown in Figure 1. The image shows the difference to the Coastal Bank behind the intact portion of the wall and behind a breached portion of the wall. The vegetated “cell” that was subjected to coastal storm over wash and the adjacent, damaged cell to the west where unrestrained back flow scoured down the sediment level, removed vegetation with a collateral collapse of the Coastal Bank. Plainly stated, the Coastal Bank landward of the vegetated “cell” remains stable. In contrast, the Coastal Bank affected by sediment scouring has collapsed. Figure 1 – View north of the west end of the intact low crested wall system at a location where it is damaged on the left in the image. Storm tide surcharging the low wall seeks to escape by streaming to the left (west) at high velocity with accompanying scouring of the sand and vegetation deposit. Landward of the low wall the slight increase in ground 3 elevation and elevated plateau offers more diffuse and slower hydraulic flow with less scour. The C. Bank remains stable in location landward of the undamaged wall segments. THE PROJECT The applicant proposes to remain in compliance with the terms of the original Waterways License by restoring the features that were previously licensed and constructed to good condition. Repairing the licensed structures that have demonstrated an effect to improve Coastal Bank and Coastal Beach stability is consistent with the common coastal management efforts. The applicant is only proposing to restore the project site to its condition prior to the breach of segments of the concrete wall. This approach to the management of erosion in the subject coastal segment considers the existing structures and the observed and measured conditions. The goal is to restore the serviceable, effective structural erosion management measures that have demonstrated effectiveness. Much of the general evaluation of impacts to the listed wetland interests of the MA DEP regulations and Yarmouth Wetland By-Law contained herein is based on the understanding that the site is not a natural, unperturbed Coastal Beach or Coastal Bank and especially regarding the C. Beach. The status and value of existing structures, and the proposed activity to restore them is based on long term pre-existing status and observed function. The function of the structures differs depending on whether the structure is damaged or intact. More adverse impact relating to scour from channelized tidal flow results from damaged structures. Structure Renovation and Replacement- • The wall system on locus measures approx. 300 lin. ft. as observed and measured along the line of the low concrete wall network including counterfort segments. • This NOI proposes minor maintenance such as grouting cracks, patching, etc. to the approx. 234 lin. ft. of intact wall segments. • The NOI proposes to more significantly repair / restore approximately 66 feet of wall with small counterfort braces. The replacement wall will be placed in the same footprint of the existing wall except for the proposed return. The 24 ft. length of return is an appropriate feature due to lot lines that were created at this location by the approved open space, cluster subdivision in 1987 (Yarmouth ZBA Decision 2440). The return effectively re-aligns a wall segment that would otherwise continue to the west. Illustrating the basis of the project, the return stems the tide water outflow flowing west that would otherwise cause for continuation of the scour action in its absence. The details of the renovated wall network are depicted on the site plan. Segments to be replaced are shown in bold. As described, the return segment is proposed to recognize and address lot lines that were added in 1987. The return separates the project from adjacent land. A work description, Work Protocol (WP), is contained within the NOI. The WP outlines the access, method of carrying out the work, soil quality care, cleanup, etc. Upon completion and curing of the concrete work the former cells shall be entrained to full entrapment with sediment and densely planted with Am. Beach grass. Coastal Bank Restoration – 4 Wilkinson Ecological Design (W.E.D.), the owners’ consultant for C. Bank vegetation management practices for this land area will be technically addressing the Coastal Bank vegetation management in the NOI. The applicant’s preference for restoring the eroding Coastal Bank segments comes in the form of a “soft” measure approach. Once the wall cells are entrained with sediment but prior to planting, the steep, unstable bank scarps shall be filled by the hand placement of stacked and packed heavy gage, burlap fabric sacks of a scale that can be form fitted into the scarp contours by hand work. These materials shall be placed to bring the slope surface back to a slope in common with the adjacent stable slope. The 100% biodegradable sacks (sand bags) shall be filled with a soil mixture having clay loamy texture like the soil of the existing slope. The surface course sacks soil will be mixed with a seed mix with potential for latent germination. The surface of the sand bag array shall be top-dressed with a suitable soil cover and overseeded and / or planted. The Cape Cod Engineering, Inc. plan notes and work activity protocol address the specifics of this activity. The project ecological consultant has other independent zones of proposed activity detailed on the Wilkinson E.D. plan included with the NOI. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Coastal resource areas directly affected include: • Coastal Bank • Coastal Beach • Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flow (LSTCSF) Nearby coastal resources include: • Land Under the Ocean • Land containing Shellfish The listed nearby resource areas are distant enough from the activity to remain unaffected by the work with adherence to appropriate work limits and work practices. No alteration of the nearby coastal resources is proposed. The directly impacted resources will be affected as follows: • The Coastal Beach sediment will be altered temporarily by small equipment activity of the scale of a small loader (bobcat) and removal of the scattered remains of the damaged wall segments with subsequent replacement of the serviceable features. The beach sediment will recover within several tide cycles from the collateral ground disturbance. Scouring action of sediment will be reduced by the reorganization of the damaged wall segments. • The Coastal Bank, already altered in discreet segments by severe erosion, will be treated with a low intensity measure involving hand placed, biodegradable sand bags, topdressing with soil cover, and overall planting / seeding. The upper most bank slope shall remain as it is, with the crest vegetation extending landward into the buffer zone. Slope segments along the C. Bank length determined to be eligible by the ecological consultant will be augmented with added vegetation allowing the coastal bank continued and improved vertical storm buffer function and wildlife habitat. • LSTCSF will experience no appreciable, significant change from the characteristics of the past 50 to 70 years. The complex of stone breakwater and groin formations will continue to function, affecting the beach as it has been, absorbing incident weave energy and inhibiting sediment transport. With repairs made to the low wall network the scouring action caused by isolated 5 disrupted wall segments will be reduced. There are no regulatory performance standards under the DEP regulations for Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flow however the proposal is an effort to take advantage of measures that have existed at the site for decades. Efforts to maintain older, existing, pre-regulatory beach stabilizing structures may be viewed as provisional with respect to the advent concept of coastal resiliency. It can be accepted as established and observable that such existing measures, currently in place are not new, demonstrate functional effectiveness but now require only a measure of renovation. Once repaired the area will continue as it has been for decades. The project can be found to meet the performance standards for the resource areas potentially affected as follows: 310 CMR 10.30 Coastal Banks “WHEN A COASTAL BANK IS DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFICANT TO STORM DAMAGE PREVENTION AND FLOOD CONTROL BECAUSE IT SUPPLIES SEDIMENT TO COASTAL BEACHES, COASTAL DUNES OR BARRIER BEACHES, 310 CMR 10.30(3) THROUGH (5) SHALL APPLY” 310 CMR 10.30(3) “No new bulkhead, revetment, seawall, groin or other coastal engineering structure shall be permitted on such a coastal bank except that such a coastal engineering structure shall be permitted when required to prevent storm damage to buildings constructed prior to the effective date…” • Not Applicable. • No new bulkhead, revetment, seawall, groin or other CES is proposed on a coastal bank. • The project proposes only to apply a temporary earth and plant-based management effort on the physical Coastal Bank. The existing structures slated for repair affect the C. bank by contributing to build a low crested soil and vegetation buttress along the base of the bank. None of these are considered a “coastal engineering structure.” • A CES at the site is not new. Such CES is novel because it occupies land well seaward of the C. Bank. Restoration and improvement employing best available measures is a logical, necessary choice, shown to improve the bank as a vertical storm buffer. The sediment source function and value of the C. bank will continue because the bank is not being armored. The project’s direct relationship to storm damage prevention and flood control has value and significance for the related standards for Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flow and for Coastal Beaches. The littoral sediment system distributes eroded Coastal Bank sediment to the on-site beach and outward over a broad area and does not appear to be building a significant beach deposit or downdrift dune system. Sediment donated from the bank is likely contributing to temporary sediment buildup at the base of the bank and broad distribution in Nantucket Sound. The predominant C. Bank soil material is a silt / clay loam, once eroded into the littoral sediment system remains in suspension for days if not weeks. 310 CMR 10.30(4) Any project on a coastal bank or within 100 feet landward of the top of a coastal bank, other than a structure permitted by 310 CMR 10.30(3), shall not have an adverse effect due to wave action on the movement of sediment from the coastal bank to coastal beaches or land subject to tidal action. The proposed activity involves access for material and equipment delivery within the buffer. The placement of sand bags and soil with vegetation is proposed in scarped areas of the C. Bank. The access activity is specified to remain separated from the top of bank location, preventing any forceful actions that 6 could cause for more collapse. The sand bag and soil / vegetation actions are intended to provide for a modest improvement to the C. bank stability without sacrificing any of the C. bank value as a sediment source. It is accepted that strong storms with storm tides will continue to erode this C. bank thus delivering sediment to the beach and to the flood zone 310 CMR 10.30(5) The Order of Conditions and the Certificate of Compliance for any new building within 100 feet landward of the top of a coastal bank permitted by the issuing authority under M.G.L. c. 131, § 40 shall contain the specific condition: 310 CMR 10.30(3), promulgated under M.G.L. c. 131, § 40, requires that no coastal engineering structure, such as a bulkhead, revetment, or seawall shall be permitted on an eroding bank at any time in the future to protect the project allowed by this Order of Conditions. • Not Applicable “WHEN A COASTAL BANK IS DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFICANT TO STORM DAMAGE PREVENTION OR FLOOD CONTROL BECAUSE IT IS A VERTICAL STORM BUFFER TO STORM WATERS, 310 CMR 10.30(6) THROUGH (8) SHALL APPLY” With the novel CES in place, the building located as it is, the bank has high value as a vertical storm buffer as well as a sediment source. With respect to the vertical storm-buffer significance of this bank, the proposed project involving restoration / repair of long existing erosion management features (wall network) meets the performance standard because it is demonstrated to improve the bank stability as a storm buffer. 310 CMR 10.30(6) Any project on such a coastal bank or within 100 feet landward of the top of such coastal bank shall have no adverse effects on the stability of the coastal bank. The access activity is specified to remain separated from the top of bank location, preventing any forceful actions that could cause for more collapse. The sand bag and soil / vegetation actions are intended to provide for a modest improvement to the C. bank stability without sacrificing any of the C. bank value as a sediment source. 310 CMR 10.30(7) Bulkheads, revetment, seawalls, groins or other coastal engineering structures may be permitted on such a coastal bank except when such bank is significant to storm damage prevention and flood control because it supplies sediment to coastal beaches, coastal dunes and barrier beaches. • The Project is not proposing a bulkhead, revetment, seawall, or groin on an Coastal Bank. • The Project proposes only to apply a temporary earth and plant-based management effort on the physical Coastal Bank. The existing structures slated for repair affect the C. bank by contributing to build a low crested soil and vegetation buttress along the base of the bank. None of these are considered a “coastal engineering structure.” • The Commission may permit this work on the Coastal Bank. 310 CMR 10.30(8) Notwithstanding the provisions of 310 CMR 10.30(3) through (7), 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 will not have any adverse effect on the habitat sites of rare species. 7 310 CMR 10.27 Coastal Beaches The work area shall be limited and temporarily affected with anticipated recovery over several tide cycles following completion. Consequential impact is activated to be a reduced scour resulting from the diminishment of channelized flow. Recitation of the applicable wording of the 10.27.(3) & ( 4) are not necessary because of existing conditions but are referenced here to provide a basis that the repair to maintain the current design parameters and the proposed return segment having a specific, practical function is consistent with the following portions of the regulations: WHEN A COASTAL BEACH IS DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFICANT TO STORM DAMAGE PREVENTION, FLOOD CONTROL, OR PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE HABITAT, 310 CMR 10.27(3) THROUGH (7) SHALL APPLY: 310 CMR 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 or downdrift coastal beach. The project is a restoration of functional, long – term existing structures that have been affecting the beach sediment behavior in a manner that has resulted in greater stability by the inhibition of rapid sediment movement away from locus. The project intends to recover and continue with the established pattern for sediment transport in the presence of the walled bays. 310 CMR 10.30(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: • This project on a Coastal Beach proposes minimal change from the formerly existing condition. (a) Shall be the minimum length and height demonstrated to be necessary to maintain beach form and volume. In evaluating necessity, coastal engineering, physical oceanographic and/or coastal geologic information shall be considered • Repairs and replacement are of the most minimal lengths, matching existing wall top elevation. The return segment installation on the west end is a necessary feature based on the observable storm tidal flow activity and the conclusion that closing that cell followed with sand fill allows for less concentrated scouring flow. Furthermore, the previously permitted wall segments included sections that ran North/South for stability and strength. The return provides for recognition of lot lines created in 1987 and appropriately mitigates off-site impacts. (b) Immediately after construction any groin shall be filled to entrapment capacity in height and length with sediment of grain size compatible with that of the adjacent beach. • No groins are being constructed; however, the repaired cells shall be sand filled to entrapment with no significant sand fill volume proposed seaward of the repaired walls and no alterations to any groin or breakwater. • The closed cells are analogous to groin cells but in this case relating more to the landward side than the water side. 8 (c) Jetties trapping littoral drift material shall contain a sand by-pass system to transfer sediments to the downdrift side of the inlet or shall be periodically re-dredged to provide beach nourishment to ensure that downdrift or adjacent beaches are not starved of sediments. • No alteration of a stone groin or stone breakwater is proposed. Long term observation and professional judgment strongly dictates that repairing the damaged segments will stem the channelized backflow and reduce unnatural, preferential scour of the unconsolidated beach sediment. Best Available Measures (310 CMR 10.27 & 10.30) The goal here is to provide “best available measures" for managing the outbreak of bank erosion. The context of the practical measures available relate to the assessment of the existing structure currently in place (therefore available) and its observed effectiveness and impact as well as evaluation of nearby existing erosion management structures of an older age, and observed impacts in the vicinity of those structures. The intensity of the flood zone and storm exposure are factors as well. Factors for consideration include the durability of the coastal bank soil composition and capability for vegetive quality development. In addition to material choices and labels for a specific CES with certain classifications, e.g., stone revetment, seabag revetment, gabion revetment, vertical wall, anchored coir revetments, currently existing structures, etc., best available measures relate to variable parameters for design relating to the scale, size and height of the proposed measures applied. Any one of a collection of CESs can be of a graduated height, depth, mass extent and texture within each alternate. In the current case, the applicant selects the CES currently in place. ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY The applicant's collective research activities in response to the observed changes to the beach and bank leads to a choice to maintain existing features and apply very basic and common methods for C. Bank stabilization. Many alternatives could be offered that would intensify the extent and scope of work activity and alteration. The building is a post -1978 structure and the existing breakwaters, groins and retaining walls are long existing prior to 1978. An alternatives review is available upon request. The alternative review resulted in a summary of description of common shorefront protection methods which represented radical departure from the current conditions. Yarmouth Wetland Regulations The summary below is a review of the applicable portions of the Yarmouth Wetland Regulations. The Regulatory interests are: • Public or private water supply • Groundwater supply • Flood control • Erosion and sedimentation control • Storm damage prevention including coastal storm flowage • Water quality • Prevention and control of pollution • Fisheries • Shellfisheries • Wildlife habitat • Rare species habitat including rare plant and animal species • Agriculture and aquaculture 9 • Resilience to climate change • Recreation values deemed important to the community. Of these interests the project has a relationship to: • Flood control – The project furthers the interest of coastal flood control by intending to protect the Coastal Bank. • Erosion and sedimentation control – The project furthers this interest by inhibiting C. Bank erosion • Storm damage prevention including coastal storm flowage – The project furthers this interest by assisting to stabilize the C Beach and C. Bank. • Fisheries – The proposed activity on the coast relates to fisheries interests however the impacts from the actual work shall be controlled and are temporary. The consequential impacts are consistent with the long- term site conditions. • Shellfisheries - The proposed activity on the coast relates to shellfisheries interests however the impacts from the actual work shall be controlled and are temporary. The consequential impacts are consistent with the long-term site conditions. • Wildlife habitat – The proposed activity represents a “status quo” condition with respect to the wildlife interests in the immediate area. The area is not mapped as priority or estimated habitat by NHESP • Rare species habitat including rare plant and animal species – The project area is not applicable to mapped rare species. The project represents a reasonable and low intensity management approach utilizing existing, in-place measures to address coastal erosion from low-intensity storm action. The benefit of preventing more frequent undercutting of the C. bank by way of the low elevated tier allows the C. Bank a longer opportunity to develop natural vegetation. 4.02 Coastal Beaches Any activity which is allowed on a coastal beach or tidal flat or within 100 feet of a coastal beach or tidal flat shall not have an adverse effect on the coastal beach or tidal flat by: (a) Affecting the ability of the waves to remove sand from the beach or tidal flat • The existing condition of the C. Beach with the wall system in need of repair causes for preferential scour through damaged wall segments. This sediment removal action is not natural because it becomes discreetly concentrated between cracked wall segments. The repair project will return the beach area to the condition it has been in for half a century. • Modest wave forces with modest storm tides will exceed the wall elevation and continue to remove sediment from the beach as well as deposit sediment. (b) Disturbing the vegetative cover, if any, to destabilize the beach or tidal flat • There is no vegetative cover affected. (c) Causing any modification of the beach or downdrift beach that would increase the potential for storm or flood damage; • Restoring the beach erosion management features, as demonstrated by the current observed response of incident tidal energy will not interrupt the sediment process. The wall feature will be sediment filled to 100% entrapment on the inshore side with a measure of landward retreat thus allowing seaward side sediment to remain transient, largely unaffected by the several short counterfort spurs. Coastal Bank sediment will continue move into the littoral sediment system with 10 episodic erosion events. The long existing stone breakwater and groin system does affect the beach sediment, generally retarding the sediment transport by both shoaling actions, localized scouring action. (d) Interfering with the natural movement of the beach or tidal flat; • The existing wall features, stone breakwater and groin features are currently affecting the beach sediment. No significant change is proposed. (e) Causing artificial removal of sand from the beach or downdrift beach; • With the wall feature at a managed level of 100% sediment entrapment on the inshore side, transiting sediment will have no new impediment against movement except for vegetation, typically a desirable condition. The collection of stone breakwaters and groins cause for actions that fully mask any minor affects caused by the seaward edges of the renovated wall segment (f) Removing seaweed or substrate from the coastal beach in the intertidal zone (between MLW and MHW) that provides valuable habitat and potential for sand accretion, unless deemed a public health emergency by the Director of Health. • Not applicable. 4.05 Coastal Bank The Yarmouth regulations appear to recite those of 310 CMR. 4.05(3)(a) No new bulkhead, revetment, seawall, groin or other coastal engineering structure shall be permitted on a coastal bank that provides significant sediment to an adjacent or downdrift coastal beach; except that such a coastal engineering structure shall be permitted when required to prevent storm damage to buildings constructed prior to August 10, 1978, including re-construction of such buildings subsequent to the effective date of these regulations, provided that the following requirements are met: • Not Applicable • The Project is not proposing a new bulkhead, revetment, seawall, or groin on an Coastal Bank. • The Project proposes only to apply a temporary earth and plant-based management effort on the physical Coastal Bank. The existing structures slated for repair affect the C. bank by contributing to build a low crested soil and vegetation buttress along the base of the bank. None of these are considered a “coastal engineering structure.” i. Coastal engineering structures or modifications thereto shall be designed and constructed to minimize, using best available measures, adverse effects on adjacent or nearby coastal beaches due to changes in wave action; • Not Applicable ii. The applicant demonstrates that no method of protecting the building other than the proposed coastal engineering structure is feasible; • Not Applicable. 11 iii. Protective planting designed to reduce erosion may be permitted; and • Not Applicable, but the Project proposes planting designed to reduce erosion. iv. The applicant provides sufficient evidence that the building was constructed pursuant to a Notice of Intent prior filed before August 10, 1978. • Not Applicable. (b) Any project on a coastal bank or within 100 feet of the top of a coastal bank, other than a structure permitted under section 4.05, (3), (a), shall not have an adverse effect due to wave action on the movement of sediment from the coastal bank to coastal beaches or land subject to tidal action or flooding, and shall not have an adverse effect on the stability of a coastal bank. • The Project will not have an adverse effect due to wave action on the movement of sediment from the coastal bank to coastal beaches or land subject to tidal action or flooding, and will not have an adverse effect on the stability of a coastal bank. The Project will improve the stability of the coastal bank. • The project proposes soil and plant-based management tactics for bank slope stability on the Coastal bank itself. The small sand bag array proposed for discreet erosion hotspots is 100% biodegradable intended to have temporary impact of imparting more strength to the bank soil mass. The activity of restoring the low crest walls seaward of the bank classify as activities within 100 ft. of the bank. As mentioned, the existing structures demonstrate positive effects relating to bank slope stability. The work activity can be viewed as very temporary. The consequential impact of restoring the damaged wall features is the anticipated of bank slope stability because of the described low tier buttressing function of the elevated sediment and vegetative tier created by the wall network. No new CES is proposed. 4.10 Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flow Any activity within land subject to coastal storm flowage which will result in the building upon, removing, filling, or altering of land shall not have an adverse effect on the interests protected by the bylaw by: i. reducing the ability of the land to absorb and contain flood waters; • The project recovers the ability of the land to absorb and contain flood waters with less preferential scour. ii. reducing the ability of the land to buffer more inland areas from flooding and wave damage • The project enhances this ability as stated because it contributes to beach and bank stability. iii. increasing the elevation or velocity of flood waters, or by redirecting or increasing flows or causing channelization, iv. The existing features are part of a collection of long existing stone breakwaters and groins, 10 ft. below the velocity flood elevation. The features have been responding to the flood forces delivered to the area for half a century. The repairs will not cause for a significant change to the localized storm action behavior. v. in each case at the project site, adjacent or nearby properties, or any public or private way. vi. The existing features are part of a collection of long existing stone breakwaters and groins, 10 ft. below the velocity flood elevation. The features have been responding to the flood forces delivered 12 to the area for half a century. The repairs will not cause for a significant change to the localized storm action behavior. vii. displacing or diverting flood waters to other properties or resource areas. Fences and privacy walls, including walls separating one property from another, may obstruct or divert flood flow and waves toward buildings and protected areas. Solid fences (stockade and similar) must be constructed with 6 inches of clearance below to allow the passage of floodwaters and wildlife; • The existing features are part of a collection of long existing stone breakwaters and groins, 10 ft. below the velocity flood elevation. The features have been responding to the flood forces delivered to the area for half a century. The repairs will not cause for a significant change to the localized storm action behavior. Flood waters will readily flow over the existing walls. viii. causing, or creating the likelihood of, damage to other structures on land within the flood plain as debris (collateral damage); • No portion of the existing terrain can become waterborne. The proposed sand bags will not cause for damage should they be displaced. ix. causing ground, surface or saltate pollution triggered by coastal storm flowage; • No component existing or proposed has hazardous material associated. x. reducing the ability of the resource to serve as a wildlife habitat and migration corridor through activities such as, but not limited to the removal of substantial vegetative cover and/or installation of fencing and other structures which prevent wildlife migration across property. • No significant change is being proposed to the land except in the limited areas where the damaged wall system requires restoration. xi. prevention of the migration of resource areas such as salt marshes due to sea level rise. • Salt marsh is not applicable. xii. If flood control and storm damage protection functions have already been impaired, redevelopment must improve existing conditions by reducing impervious surfaces, restoring flood control and storm damage protection functions, installing native plantings, or by restoring or creating other wetland resource areas. Where a previously developed coastal Resource Area has not been regulated under the applicable performance standards to protect the interests of flood control and storm damage prevention, the proposed work shall restore those interests. • The efficacy of the features slated for repair need expected maintenance and are not impaired to the extent this applies. The project is not intended to return the bank and beach area to a pre-history condition. The project endeavors to restore the listed storm damage and flood control functions of the existing wall. The C. Bank stabilizing work relies on soil treatment and native plantings. An important consideration set forth in the early portion of the project narrative is the existing wall features, the observable loss of function by the limited damaged segments as a small proportion of the whole. The concept of “substantial improvement” of the wall system is a topic addressed by Yarmouth Wetland Regulations with reference to the Mass Building Code. The wall system as a structure is similar enough to a foundation that the following applies. Whether based on a foundation analogy or as a structure based on value or length the project does not exceed a threshold of substantial improvement. According to the Mass State Building Code: “substantial improvement" of a foundation means any repair or replacement of a foundation that equals or exceeds 50% of the perimeter along the base of the foundation, or the replacement of more than 50% of the existing foundation piers; essentially, if the cost of foundation repairs reaches or surpasses half the market value of the structure before the repairs began, it is considered a substantial improvement.” 13 And shall meet the following requirements; xiii. Existing septic system and cesspool repairs will be allowed provided they meet all Title 5 and local Board of Health thresholds. • Not Applicable. xiv. All groundwater elevations shall incorporate seasonable adjustments if test holes and or leaching components are 100 feet or closer from major estuaries. • Not Applicable. xv. Any proposed deck, shed, or other similar structure must be securely anchored to a footing or foundation. • Not Applicable. xvi. Any activity shall preserve existing soils, vegetation, and other natural conditions that serve as buffers to coastal flooding and storm surges. The proposed activity intends to restore and preserve a set of existing conditions of the C. Bank and C. Beach. The observations show the long-term existing conditions provided a buffering function to flood waters. (b) Additional Performance Standards within the V Zone Within the V Zone, in addition to the general performance standards set forth in Section 4.10, (3)(a), the following additional performance standards shall apply: i. No new construction or footprint expansion of any building or other structure, road, impervious surface, or septic system shall be permitted. • Not Applicable ii. No new construction or expansion of any structure that redirects or channelizes floods including retaining walls, fences, and sea walls shall be permitted. The proposal intends to reduce the redirection of flow caused by damaged wall segments. The redirected flow results in a form of flow channelization that the repairs intend to reduce. iii. With respect to any building or other structure, in the event of any substantial repair of the foundation, any substantial improvement (as defined in the state building code), the entire building or structure shall be elevated at least two (2) feet above the BFE. • Not Applicable iv. The use of fill is prohibited except for bank, dune, or beach nourishment/restoration. • The only fill proposed is for bank and beach nourishment/restoration. Construction Guidelines and Work Protocol 1033 Great Island Rd. Repair Existing Concrete Walls and Coastal Bank Stabilization The following is a guideline to describe the method of construction, material handling, access, equipment type, equipment storage and schedule related to the proposed repairs to the existing low walls and other work activities to address Coastal Bank stability at the referenced site. This description is the result of an onsite review of the site conditions, research of historical permits, outreach to an ecological specialist and review of preferred construction practices with the owner who is experienced in construction matters. Term of Construction The proposed work should take approximately 2 to 3 weeks to complete, not in a continuous work effort. A term for concrete curing will be approx. 7 days. Anticipated work activity term is during November thru April, weather permitting, with completion allowing ample time within the early spring season to take advantage of the onset of the growing season. Stockpiles and Staging Limited material stockpile and equipment staging shall be in the upland well clear of the top of Coastal Bank. Any debris such as dead wood or concrete pieces shall be controlled and removed from the property as it is generated. Soil shall be hoisted and deposited to the work location as it is delivered. Concrete – related items, forms, etc. shall be stored in the upland. The hoisting machine shall be stationed a min. of 8 ft. from the bank top. Work Access Route The route for labor access is via the existing driveway route to the property and then around the house over the durable native grass open area. Septic components are not at risk with the specified route but shall be marked to insure appropriate care. Hand carrying materials can access the beach via the existing stair case. Heavier items shall be hoisted to the beach by a crane arm or excavator arm from a location set back from the bank top. These materials, soil, concrete, sand bags on pallets shall be hoisted cleanly over the C. bank top and set down on the beach in the work zone with the objective of causing no alteration to the bank or any vegetation. Equipment Equipment utilized is listed as follows: • A steel track excavator – Upland only • Small loader, Toro Dingo or Bobcat scale, mini-excavator – Hoisted for work area use • Delivery trucks – 10-wheel dump body – Upland • Concrete pumping truck - upland • In conformance with encouraged practice the trucks and machines shall not be allowed to idle unless they are engaged in a direct work effort. • A spill kit managed by the contractor shall be on site and readily accessible during the work term. Hand labor hand tools. Construction Procedure • The wall segments shall be formed where shown with dowelled connection to existing segments. Incidental debris from the wall and groins shall be taken away for disposal. This a hand work operation. • During each day the crew keeps track of all wall debris and those items are removed as they are generated and transported away. • Wall repair – related work will be completed with partial curing prior to sand fill and sand bag work. • Clean compatible sand shall be laded into the wall bays requiring it. • Sand bag placement follows with earth cover. • All small machines are hoisted out of the work zone each day and other tools, etc. are removed and the site cleaned of any items brought in. • Access route in the upland buffer is examined and overseeded with native grass seed, currently a fescue seed mix. • Vegetation planting activity (Am. Beachgrass) follows within any altered area as soon as weather permits. Upper slope planting will be as specified in the Wilkinson segment of the application. Some specific tree removal is also part of the Wilkenson scope. • Soil sieve reports are included to show the beach sand, the upper C. Bank, and the lower C. Bank soil textures. Soil used for the sand bags shall be consistent with the soil noted in the bank analysis which allows for a loamy soil more suitable for moisture retention and vegetation growth. The beach sand is quite fine. A supply of dredged sand from the Great Island area is available for the beach location work. Project Name:Tested By:R. Perry Date:12/1/2024 Location:Sampled by:R. Perry Date:11/20/2024 Boring No:Test Number:1 Sample Depth:Gnd Elev.:11 NAVD 88 USCS Soil Classification: Comment: Weight of Container (g):N/A Weight of Container & Soil (g):N/A Weight of Dry Sample (g):288.9 Sieve Number Diameter (mm) Mass of Sieve (g) Mass of Sieve & Soil (g) Soil Retained (g) Soil Retained (%) Soil Passing (%) #4 4.75 3.0 1.0 99.0 #10 2.00 15.6 5.4 93.6 #20 0.84 37.6 13.0 80.5 #40 0.43 56.6 19.6 61.0 #60 0.25 24.1 8.3 52.6 #100 0.15 42.7 14.8 37.8 #200 0.075 37.5 13.0 24.9 Pan 69.8 24.2 0.0 TOTAL:286.9 99.3 Sieve Diameter (mm)% Passing % Passing 4 4.75 100 10 2 100 40 0.425 100 200 0.075 100 4 4.75 0 10 2 0 40 0.425 0 200 0.075 0 % Gravel:1 D10:0.075 Cu:5.6 % Sand:74 D30:Cc: % Fines:25 D60:0.42 Cu = 5.6 - Well graded - sand / silt loam High fines % ; 2 g. seive screen loss ( fines) Grain Size Distribution Curve Results: Sieve Analysis Data Sheet - Cape Cod Engineering, Inc. PO BOX 1517, EAST DENNIS, MA 02641 - 508-385-1445 1033 Great Isle. Rd. W. Yarm. Coastal Bank - upper 8 ft. N/A 10 inch 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.010.101.0010.00% PassingParticle Diameter (mm) #4 #10 #40 #200GRAVELCoarse SAND Medium SAND Fine SAND SILT/CLAY 14.333 Sieve Analysis Worksheet Revised 02/13 __ of __ Project Name:Tested By:R. Perry Date:12/1/2024 Location:Sampled by:R. Perry Date:11/20/2024 Boring No:Test Number:2 Sample Depth:Gnd Elev.:3 NAVD 88 USCS Soil Classification: Comment: Weight of Container (g):N/A Weight of Container & Soil (g):N/A Weight of Dry Sample (g):183.7 Sieve Number Diameter (mm) Mass of Sieve (g) Mass of Sieve & Soil (g) Soil Retained (g) Soil Retained (%) Soil Passing (%) #4 4.75 0.0 0.0 100.0 #10 2.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 #20 0.84 0.5 0.3 99.7 #40 0.43 72.3 39.4 60.4 #60 0.25 77.5 42.2 18.2 #100 0.15 31.6 17.2 1.0 #200 0.075 1.0 0.5 0.4 Pan 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL:182.9 99.6 Sieve Diameter (mm)% Passing % Passing 4 4.75 100 10 2 100 40 0.425 100 200 0.075 100 4 4.75 0 10 2 0 40 0.425 0 200 0.075 0 % Gravel:0 D10:0.21 Cu:2 % Sand:100 D30:Cc: % Fines:0 D60:0.42 Cu = 2 - Poor graded med. / fine sand Clean, light color Grain Size Distribution Curve Results: Sieve Analysis Data Sheet - Cape Cod Engineering, Inc. PO BOX 1517, EAST DENNIS, MA 02641 - 508-385-1445 1033 Great Isle. Rd. W. Yarm. Coastal Beach N/A 12 inch Composite 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.010.101.0010.00% PassingParticle Diameter (mm) #4 #10 #40 #200GRAVELCoarse SAND Medium SAND Fine SAND SILT/CLAY 14.333 Sieve Analysis Worksheet Revised 02/13 __ of __ Project Name:Tested By:R. Perry Date:1/18/2025 Location:Sampled by:R. PERRY Date:1/15/2025 Boring No:Test Number:3 Sample Depth:Gnd Elev.:N/A USCS Soil Classification: Comment: Weight of Container (g):N/A Weight of Container & Soil (g):N/A Weight of Dry Sample (g):340.6 Sieve Number Diameter (mm) Mass of Sieve (g) Mass of Sieve & Soil (g) Soil Retained (g) Soil Retained (%) Soil Passing (%) #4 4.75 9.4 2.8 97.2 #10 2.00 11.9 3.5 93.7 #20 0.84 101.1 29.7 64.1 #40 0.43 116.3 34.1 29.9 #60 0.25 53.1 15.6 14.3 #100 0.15 22.9 6.7 7.6 #200 0.075 13.2 3.9 3.7 Pan 11.4 3.3 0.0 TOTAL:339.3 99.6 Sieve Diameter (mm)% Passing % Passing 4 4.75 100 10 2 100 40 0.425 100 200 0.075 100 4 4.75 0 10 2 0 40 0.425 0 200 0.075 0 % Gravel:2.8 D10:0.2 Cu:3.8 % Sand:93.5 D30:Cc: % Fines:3.7 D60:0.76 Cu = 3.8- Moderately well graded med. sand, < 5 MPI Sample from lower eroded bank, approx. 8 ft. below crest Grain Size Distribution Curve Results: Sieve Analysis Data Sheet - Cape Cod Engineering, Inc. PO BOX 1517, EAST DENNIS, MA 02641 - 508-385-1445 McDonnel 1033 Great Island Rd. N / A 8 ft. depth 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.010.101.0010.00% PassingParticle Diameter (mm) #4 #10 #40 #200GRAVELCoarse SAND Medium SAND Fine SAND SILT/CLAY 14.333 Sieve Analysis Worksheet Revised 02/13 __ of __ 28 Lots Hollow Road | Orleans, MA 02653 Tel:(508)255-1113 | Fax:(508)255-9477 January 14, 2025 Yarmouth Conservation Commission Edwin Hoopes, Chair C/O Brittany DiRienzo, Conservation Administrator Town of Yarmouth - 1146 Route 28 South Yarmouth, MA 02664 RE: NOI Filing - 1033 Great Island Road Applicant: Lighthouse Realty Trust Dear Mr. Chairman and Commission Members: As detailed in the attached Restoration Plan (12/30/2024), WED’s proposed scope of work is to plant American beach grass (Ammophila brevigulata) to a portion of the project area and to remove five non-native Japanese black pines (Pinus thunbergii). The proposed removal of five Japanese black pines is a necessary step for the stabilization of the bank and the establishment of native vegetation. Japanese black pine’s resiliency to coastal conditions and high levels of seed production allow it to displace more beneficial native vegetation. For this reason, the species was designated as Likely Invasive in the State of Massachusetts and added to the State’s Prohibited Plant List in 2022, and is prohibited from sale after December 31, 2025. Japanese black pine is a relatively short-lived tree and seldom survives over 20 years according to the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture. As the pines die and are wind thrown, the sediment on the Coastal Bank becomes further destabilized. The removal of the pines by flush cutting and leaving the stumps in place to decay will maintain the stability of the Coastal Bank and allow the surrounding native vegetation to establish. The beach grass will be planted over the eastern portion of the Coastal Bank to establish a robust cover of native vegetation over the bank, thanks to its quickly establishing dense root system. Areas of bare sediment below the bank will be densely planted with beach grass, which will help to stabilize the sediment and accumulate sand overtime. This approach will extend existing native vegetation across the project area and strengthen the stability of the Coastal Bank against further effects of wave energy and erosion that have been observed onsite. Sincerely, Stephen Lee / Project Manager Wilkinson Ecological Design, Inc. PROPOSED PLANTING OF AMERICAN BEACH GRASS AT 12" ON CENTER (2,700 SF) PROPOSED PLANTING OF AMERICAN BEACH GRASS AT 24" ON CENTER (2,600 SF) THIS DRAWING AND ALL IDEAS EMBODIED THEREIN IS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION OF WILKINSON ECOLOGICAL DESIGN, INC. (WED) AND SHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, OR DISCLOSED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE PROJECT FOR WHICH IT HAS BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR PART, WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM WED. © 2024 WILKINSON ECOLOGICAL DESIGN, INC. FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY THIS DRAWING IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION NOTES: REV DATE DESCRIPTION LEGEND: DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY: DATE:SCALE: SURVEY PROVIDED BY: 20-Dec-24 \\wed-fileserver\wedshare\clients\great island rd_1033_yar\consult\plans\restoplan\20241220_resto plan_great island rd_1033_yar.dwg 1 OF 1 IP, JSGL 1" = 30'-0"12/30/24 1033 GREAT ISLAND ROAD YARMOUTH, MA RESTORATION PLAN CAPE COD ENGINEERING, INC. P.O. BOX 1517 EAST DENNIS, MA 02641 (508) 385-1445 NATIVE GRASS TO BE PLANTED count common name scientific name size 2,700 American beach grass Ammophila breviligulata bare root Scale: 1"= 30' RESTORATION PLAN1 00 30'60' N LIGHTHOUSE REALTY TRUST BEACH GRASS TO BE PLANTED AT 12" ON CENTER - 2,700 SF 1. APPROXIMATELY THREE GROWING SEASONS WILL BE REQUIRED TO CONTROL AND/OR ERADICATE INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES. AFTER THREE GROWING SEASONS, MONITORING AND MINIMAL MAINTENANCE WILL BE ONGOING. 2. HERBICIDES ARE TO BE APPLIED BY LICENSED INDIVIDUALS ONLY. 3. ALL RESTORATION PLANTINGS WILL INCORPORATE EXISTING NATIVE SPECIES UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN THE APPROVED DOCUMENTS. 4. ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE PLANTING SPECIFICATION AND THE PLAN, THE PLAN SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE. 5. RESTORATION & MITIGATION AREAS WILL BE ALLOWED TO NATURALIZE. Beach grass planting will supplement existing vegetation, covering exposed soils and improving the stability of the Coastal Bank from wave energy and erosion. Beach grass planting atop sediment nourishment will extend the existing native vegetation across the site and create a denser wall of vegetation to protect the Coastal Bank from wave energy and erosion. Refer to plan from Cape Cod Engineering for details on the sediment nourishment. BEACH GRASS TO BE PLANTED AT 24" ON CENTER - 2,600 SF NATIVE GRASS TO BE PLANTED count common name scientific name size 650 American beach grass Ammophila breviligulata bare root Japanese black pine (Pinus thunbergii) is a small, non-native evergreen tree species from East Asia that is well adapted to the harsh conditions found on Great Island. It is seen as an ecological threat to native grasslands and dune systems, including the globally rare sandplain grasslands of coastal Massachusetts and the islands (Massachusetts Invasive Plants Advisory Group (MIPAG). Its resiliency to coastal conditions combined with high levels of seed production allow this pine to displace more beneficial native vegetation. Japanese black pine was designated as Likely Invasive in the State of Massachusetts and added to the State's Prohibited Plant List in 2022, and prohibited from sale after December 31, 2025. The trees will be managed using a flush cut and herbicide treatment method and hand removal of debris. The stump and root systems will be left in place to maintain the stability of the Coastal Bank. All seedlings and fallen pine cones will be removed by hand to decrease the number of seeds and re-sprouts that will require management. The project area will be monitored over time and any re-sprouts will be removed by hand. FIVE (5) JAPANESE BLACK PINE TO BE REMOVED