HomeMy WebLinkAboutNOI 12.2.2025
Notice of Intent for an Ecological Restoration Project
Bayview Bogs Wetland Restoration
Yarmouth, Massachusetts
Prepared for:
Cape Cod Conservation District
West Yarmouth, Massachusetts
December 1, 2025
Preparer:
1550 Main Street, Suite 400
Springfield, MA 01103
413.452.0445
www.fando.com December 1, 2025
Town of Yarmouth Conservation Commission
1146 Route 28
South Yarmouth, MA 02664
RE: Notice of Intent (NOI) for an Ecological Restoration Project
Bayview Bogs Ecological Restoration
Yarmouth, MA
Dear Commission Members,
On behalf of the Cape Cod Conservation District, in partnership with the Massachusetts Division of Ecological
Restoration and Cape Cod Healthcare, Fuss & O’Neill, Inc. is submitting this Notice of Intent (NOI) for an
Ecological Restoration Project under the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act (“MAWPA”: M.G.L. c. 131 §40),
the Town of Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, and associated regulations. The Bayview Bogs Ecological
Restoration Project is located on approximately 90 acres of former cranberry bogs at 0 Rosetta Street in West
Yarmouth, Massachusetts. Adjacent to Cape Cod Hospital and located on property owned by the hospital, the
proposed project intends to advance ecological restoration goals by removing an existing tidal restriction and
undoing historic alterations to hydrologic connectivity to restore tidal flow and naturally resilient and self-sustaining
wetlands. The project will also incorporate a passive recreational element for the community to allow hospital
visitors, patients, and staff as well as neighborhood residents to explore and experience the unique environment
through walking trails, boardwalks, viewing areas, seating, and educational signage. This project is being
submitted for evaluation as an Ecological Restoration project under the Tidal Restoration project type per 310
CMR 10.13(5).
Proposed work will occur within Bank, Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW), Riverfront Area, Land Under Water
Bodies and Waterways (LUWW), Salt Marshes, Coastal Bank, and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage,
which are subject to protection under the MAWPA, its implementing regulations set forth at 310 CMR §10.00
(Wetland Regulations), and the Town of Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations. The project, as described
herein, meets the definition and requirements of an Ecological Restoration Project as described in 310 CMR
10.13(5) and will result in significant positive change to the natural capacity of resource areas.
Enclosed with this submittal is the WPA Form 3A, along with the supporting project narrative and additional
supporting materials. This project is being submitted to MassDEP via email, with Town staff in copy. Should you
have any questions or require additional information, please contact Julianne Busa at (413) 333-5469 or by email
at Julianne.Busa@fando.com.
Sincerely,
Julianne Busa, PhD, PWS, Certified Senior Ecologist
Associate | Senior Resilience Scientist
CC: MassDEP (SERO) Division of Wetlands and Waterways
Mark Forest, Chair, Cape Cod Conservation District, mforestcccd@gmail.com
i
Table of Contents
Notice of Intent for an Ecological Restoration Project
Bayview Bogs Wetland Restoration
WPA Form 3A – Notice of Intent for an Ecological Restoration Project
NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form
Yarmouth Notice of Intent Administrative Checklist
Site Access Authorization Form
Narrative
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Project Locus .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Site ........................................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 Existing Environment ....................................................................................................................... 2
1.3.1 Existing Wetland Resource Areas ............................................................................................... 3
1.3.2 Rare Species ................................................................................................................................ 3
2 Ecological Restoration Goals ................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................ 3
2.2 Ecological Restoration Goals ......................................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Protection of Ground Water Supply ............................................................................................. 4
2.2.2 Flood Control ................................................................................................................................ 5
2.2.3 Storm Damage Prevention ........................................................................................................... 5
2.2.4 Prevention of Pollution ................................................................................................................. 6
2.2.5 Protection of Fisheries and Land Containing Shellfish ................................................................ 6
2.2.6 Protection of Wildlife Habitat ........................................................................................................ 6
3 Alternatives Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 6
3.1 No Action Alternative ....................................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Restoration Focus: Freshwater Wetlands vs. Salt Marsh Migration ........................................... 7
3.3 Surface Treatment Alternatives: Microtopography vs. Positive Drainage ................................. 7
3.4 Degree of Berm and Agricultural Ditch Removal .......................................................................... 8
3.5 Restoration of Areas of Existing Mature Trees ............................................................................. 8
3.6 Management of Existing Ponds ...................................................................................................... 9
4 Proposed Project ....................................................................................................................................... 9
4.1 Ecological Restoration Elements ................................................................................................... 9
4.1.1 Restored Tidal Connection ........................................................................................................ 10
4.1.2 Removal of Irrigation Lines ........................................................................................................ 10
ii
4.1.3 Removal of Water Control Structures, Berms, and Agricultural Ditches ................................... 10
4.1.4 Earth Grade Controls ................................................................................................................. 10
4.1.5 Diffuse Flow Path Connections .................................................................................................. 11
4.1.6 Excavation Areas ....................................................................................................................... 11
4.1.7 Microtopography/ “Roughening” Surface Treatment to Create Hummock-Hollow Topography 11
4.1.8 Naturalization of Existing Ponds ................................................................................................ 12
4.1.9 Turtle Nesting Habitat ................................................................................................................ 12
4.2 Access Improvements and Site Amenities .................................................................................. 12
4.2.1 At-Grade Trail Network .............................................................................................................. 12
4.2.2 Therapeutic Landscape Area ..................................................................................................... 13
4.2.3 Neighborhood Connection Points and Trailheads ..................................................................... 13
4.2.4 Boardwalks ................................................................................................................................. 13
4.2.5 Overlooks and Benches ............................................................................................................. 13
4.2.6 Signage ...................................................................................................................................... 14
5 Wetland Restoration Monitoring Plan ................................................................................................... 14
6 Impacts ..................................................................................................................................................... 15
6.1 Inland Bank ..................................................................................................................................... 16
6.2 Bordering Vegetated Wetland ....................................................................................................... 17
6.3 Riverfront Area ............................................................................................................................... 17
6.4 Land Under Water Bodies and Waterways .................................................................................. 17
6.5 Salt Marsh ....................................................................................................................................... 18
6.6 Coastal Bank ................................................................................................................................... 18
6.7 Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage ...................................................................................... 18
6.8 Construction Sequence ................................................................................................................. 19
6.9 Construction Period Best Management Practices ...................................................................... 19
7 Operations and Maintenance Plan ......................................................................................................... 21
7.1 Restored Wetlands ......................................................................................................................... 21
7.2 Boardwalks ..................................................................................................................................... 21
7.3 Trails ................................................................................................................................................ 21
8 Regulatory Compliance .......................................................................................................................... 22
8.1 Abutter Notification ........................................................................................................................ 22
8.2 Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) ..................................................................... 22
8.3 MassDEP Stormwater Management Guidelines .......................................................................... 22
8.4 Water Supply Wells ........................................................................................................................ 23
iii
Table of Contents
Notice of Intent for an Ecological Restoration Project
Bayview Bogs Wetland Restoration
Tables Following Section
Table 1-1 Project Locus Parcels 1
Table 6-1 Summary of Wetland Resource Area Impacts 6
Figures End of Report
Figure 1 USGS Topographic Map
Figure 2 FEMA FIRM (Panel No. 25001C0569J, July 16, 2014)
Appendices End of Report
A Site Plans
B Site Photos
C Concept Renderings
D Time of Year (TOY) Restriction Correspondence
E Invasive Plant Management Plan
F Abutter Notification Information
G MEPA Correspondence
H Environmental Monitor Notice
WPA Form 3A
Notice of Intent for an Ecological Restoration Project
wpaform3a.doc • 12/6/2023 WPA Form 3A – NOI for Ecological Restoration Project • Page 1 of 20
5
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection – Wetlands Program WPA Form 3A - Notice of Intent
for an Ecological Restoration
Project
MassDEP File Number
City or Town
Project Type
Important: When
filling out forms
on the computer,
use only the tab
key to move your
cursor - do not
use the return
key.
Check the Ecological Restoration type that applies:
1. Dam Removal
2. Freshwater Stream Crossing Repair and Replacement*
3. Stream Daylighting
4. Tidal Restoration
5. Rare Species Habitat Restoration
6. Restoring Fish Passageways
Eligibility Criteria:
I am applying for a Restoration Order of Conditions and meet the General Eligibility Criteria [310
CMR 10.13(1)] as described in Section C1 and the Additional Eligibility Criteria for this Ecological
Restoration Project type [310 CMR 10.13(2) through (7)] as described in Section C2.
This Notice of Intent includes the required supporting documents as specified in [310 CMR 10.11,
10.12] and outlined in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 respectively. The NOI also includes a signed
Certification of Eligibility in Section G. Signatures and Submittal Requirements.
A. General Information
1. Project Location:
a. Street Address
b. City/Town
c. Zip Code
Latitude and Longitude*:
d. Latitude
e. Longitude
f. Assessors Map/Plat Number
g. Parcel/Lot Number
2. Applicant:
a. First Name
b. Last Name
c. Organization
* If the Ecological Restoration Project involves work on a stream crossing, baseline photo-points that capture longitudinal
views of the crossing inlet, the crossing outlet and the upstream and downstream channel beds during low flow conditions.
The latitude and longitude coordinates of the photo-points shall be included in the baseline data.
wpaform3a.doc • 12/6/2023 WPA Form 3A – NOI for Ecological Restoration Project • Page 2 of 20
5
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection – Wetlands Program WPA Form 3A - Notice of Intent
for an Ecological Restoration
Project
MassDEP File Number
City or Town
A.General Information (cont.)
d. Street Address
e. City/Town f.State g. Zip Code
h. Phone Number i. Fax Number j. Email Address
3.Property Owner (required if different from applicant):Check and attach list 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):
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
5.Total WPA Fee Paid (from NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form): Category 2 - $500
a. Total Fee Paid b.State Fee Paid c. City/Town Fee Paid
6.Property recorded at the Registry of Deeds for:
a. County b. Certificate # (if registered land)
c. Book d. Page Number
7.Project Narrative: Describe the project’s ecological restoration goals and how it furthers at least one
of the interests of the Wetland Protection Act (WPA) M.G.L. c. 131, § 40.
wpaform3a.doc • 12/6/2023 WPA Form 3A – NOI for Ecological Restoration Project • Page 3 of 20
5
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection – Wetlands Program WPA Form 3A - Notice of Intent
for an Ecological Restoration
Project
MassDEP File Number
City or Town
B. Resource Area Impacts (Temporary & Permanent)
For all projects affecting other Resource Areas, please attach a narrative explaining how the resource
area was delineated.
1. Inland Resource Areas: (See 310 CMR 10.54-10.58)
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
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 inland or coastal
2. Proposed alteration of the riverfront area:
a. total square feet
2. Coastal Resource Areas: (see 310 CMR 10.25-10.35)
Check all that apply below. For coastal riverfront area, see B.1.f. above.
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
** Note: No armoring of a Coastal Dune or Barrier Beach is permitted.
wpaform3a.doc • 12/6/2023 WPA Form 3A – NOI for Ecological Restoration Project • Page 4 of 20
5
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection – Wetlands Program WPA Form 3A - Notice of Intent
for an Ecological Restoration
Project
MassDEP File Number
City or Town
B. Resource Area Impacts (Temporary & Permanent) (cont.)
Resource Area 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
1. cubic yards dredged
l. Land Subject to
Coastal Storm Flowage
1. square feet
3. Restoration/Enhancement
In addition to the square footage that has been entered in Section B1.b for BVW and B 2.h for Salt
Marsh above, please enter the additional amount here for restoration/enhancement.
a. Identify the appropriate resource area(s) type/name
Square feet or linear feet
b. Identify the appropriate resource area(s) type/name
Square feet or linear feet
C. Ecological Restoration Project Description
1. Check each box below to confirm that the project complies with each Eligibility Criteria required to
obtain a Restoration Order of Conditions and provide the appropriate documentation.
This project will have no short term or long-term adverse effects on Estimated Habitat sites of
Rare Species located within resource areas that may be affected by the project or will be carried
out according to a habitat management plan approved by NHESP.
The project avoids and minimizes adverse impacts to Resource Areas and the interests identified
in the WPA, without impeding the achievement of the ecological restoration goals
The project will utilize best management practices to prevent and minimize adverse impacts to
Resource Areas and the WPA interests.
This Project will cause NO significant adverse effects on the interests of flood control and storm
damage prevention in relation to the built environment (i.e., the project will not result in a
significant increase in flooding or storm damage affecting buildings, wells, septic systems, roads
or other man-made structures or infrastructure) and documentation on how this is achieved.
wpaform3a.doc • 12/6/2023 WPA Form 3A – NOI for Ecological Restoration Project • Page 5 of 20
5
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection – Wetlands Program WPA Form 3A - Notice of Intent
for an Ecological Restoration
Project
MassDEP File Number
City or Town
C. Ecological Restoration Project Description (cont.)
If the Project involves the dredging of 100 cubic yards of sediment or more or dredging in an
ORW, a 401 Water Quality Certification is required and attached. Requires a 401 Water Quality
Certification.
The Project will not substantially reduce the capacity of a Resource Area to serve the wildlife
habitat functions identified in 310 CMR 10.60(2). A project will be presumed to meet this
eligibility criteria if the NOI will be carried out in accordance with any Time of Year (TOY)
restrictions or other conditions recommended by the DMF for coastal waters, and by the DFW for
inland waters in accordance with 310 CMR 10.11(3), (4) and (5). A NOI for an Ecological
Restoration Project that meets the requirements of 310 CMR 10.12(1) and (2) it is exempt from
performing a wildlife habitat evaluation.
If the project involves work on a stream crossing, the stream crossing has been designed in
accordance with 310 CMR 10.24(10) for work in coastal resource areas and 310 CMR 10.53(8)
for work in inland resource areas, as applicable. See additional requirements below for
Freshwater Stream Crossing Repair and Replacement Projects.
The project will not result in a discharge of dredged or fill material within 400 feet of the high
water mark of a Class A surface water (exclusive of its tributaries) unless the project is conducted
by a public water system under 310 CMR 22.00 or a public agency or authority for the
maintenance or repair of existing public roads or railways in accordance with 314 CMR
4.06(1)(d)1.
The project will not result in a discharge of dredged or fill material to a vernal pool certified by the
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (DFW).
The project will not result in a point source discharge to an Outstanding Resource Water.
The project will not involve the armoring of a Coastal Dune or Barrier Beach.
Describe in detail the project plan for invasive species prevention and control.
Provide any TOY restrictions and/or other conditions recommended by the Division of Marine
Fisheries or the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife in accordance with 310 CMR 10.11(3), (4) and
(5) with attached copies of their written determinations.
If the project involves the construction, repair, replacement or expansion of infrastructure, a
proposed operation and maintenance plan is provided to ensure that the infrastructure will
continue to function as designed;
2. Check each box as appropriate to confirm that the project complies with the Eligibility Criteria required
for this Ecological Restoration Project type.
Dam Removal
The Ecological Restoration Project is a dam removal project. The project meets the eligibility
criteria set forth in 310 CMR 10.13(1)(d).
wpaform3a.doc • 12/6/2023 WPA Form 3A – NOI for Ecological Restoration Project • Page 6 of 20
5
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection – Wetlands Program WPA Form 3A - Notice of Intent
for an Ecological Restoration
Project
MassDEP File Number
City or Town
C. Ecological Restoration Project Description (cont.)
The Project is consistent with the MassDEP guidance entitled Dam Removal and the
Wetlands Regulations, dated December 2007, and meets the eligibility criteria set forth in 310
CMR 10.13(1).
The Project is NOT consistent with MassDEP’s guidance entitled Dam Removal and the
Wetlands Regulations, dated December 2007 and meets the eligibility criteria set forth in 310
CMR 10.13(1).
The project will not involve the removal of a dam that was constructed or is managed for flood
control by a municipal, state or federal agency.
The project will not adversely impact public water supply wells or water withdrawals permitted
or registered under the Water Management Act, M.G.L. c. 21G, and 310 CMR 36.00 within
the reach of the stream impacted by the impoundment.
The project will not adversely impact private water supply wells including agricultural or
aquacultural wells or surface water withdrawal points.
The project provides for the removal of the full vertical extent of the dam such that no
remnant of the dam will remain at or below the streambed as determined prior to
commencement of the dam removal project, or if such determination cannot be made at that
time, as determined during construction of the project.
The project provides for the removal of enough of the horizontal extent of the dam such that
after removal no water will be impounded during the 500 year flood event.
The project will not involve a hydroelectric facility requiring a Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) license or an amendment to a FERC license.
The applicant has obtained from the Department of Conservation and Recreation Office of
Dam Safety a written determination in accordance to the General Applicability requirements
prior to submitting this NOI.
If the project is exempt from the requirement to obtain a license or permit under 310 CMR
9.05(3)(n), the project will not have an adverse effect on navigation or on any docks, piers or
boat ramps authorized under 310 CMR 9.00.
Freshwater Stream Crossing Repair and Replacement (310 CMR 10.13(3))
The Ecological Restoration Project is a freshwater stream crossing repair or replacement project.
In addition to the eligibility criteria set forth in 310 CMR 10.13(1), the project meets all of the
following eligibility criteria that will meet the MA Stream Crossing (SC) Standards that is
completely described below or in the attached:
The width of the structure will be at least 1.2 times bankfull width to facilitate the movement of
fish and other aquatic organisms and wildlife species that may utilize riparian corridors.
The structure will be an open-bottom span where practicable or if an open-bottom span is not
practicable, the structure bottom will be embedded in a substrate that matches the substrate
of the stream channel and that shall be designed to maintain continuity of aquatic and benthic
elements of the stream including appropriate substrates and hydraulic characteristics within
the culvert (water depths, slope, turbulence, velocities, and flow patterns).
wpaform3a.doc • 12/6/2023 WPA Form 3A – NOI for Ecological Restoration Project • Page 7 of 20
5
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection – Wetlands Program WPA Form 3A - Notice of Intent
for an Ecological Restoration
Project
MassDEP File Number
City or Town
C. Ecological Restoration Project Description (cont.)
The structure will have an Openness Ratio of at least 0.82 feet, or as close to 0.82 feet as is
practicable.
The project includes considerations for site constraints in meeting the SC standards,
undesirable effects or risk in meeting the standard, the environmental benefit of meeting the
standard compared to the cost in evaluating:
The potential for downstream flooding
Upstream and downstream habitat (in-stream habitat, wetlands);
Potential for erosion and head-cutting;
Stream stability;
Habitat fragmentation caused by the crossing;
The amount of stream mileage made accessible by the improvements;
Storm flow conveyance;
Engineering design constraints specific to the crossing;
Hydrologic constraints specific to the crossing;
Impacts to wetlands that would occur by improving the crossing;
Potential to affect property and infrastructure; and
Cost of replacement.
Stream Daylighting
The Ecological Restoration Project is a stream daylighting project. In addition to the eligibility
criteria set forth in 310 CMR 10.13(1), the project meets all of the following eligibility criteria and is
completely described narrative below/attached:
The project will meet the applicable performance standards for Bank, 310 CMR 10.54, and
Land Under Water Bodies and Waterways, 310 CMR 10.56. As set forth in 10.12(3), a
person submitting a Notice of Intent that meets the requirements of 310 CMR 10.12 (1) and
(2) for a stream daylighting project is exempt from the requirement to perform a wildlife
habitat evaluation in accordance with 310 CMR 10.60, notwithstanding the provisions of 310
CMR 10.54(4)(a)5., 310 CMR 10.56(4)(a)4., and 310 CMR 10.60.
To the maximum extent practicable, the project is designed to include the revegetation of all
disturbed areas with noninvasive indigenous species appropriate to the site.
wpaform3a.doc • 12/6/2023 WPA Form 3A – NOI for Ecological Restoration Project • Page 8 of 20
5
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection – Wetlands Program WPA Form 3A - Notice of Intent
for an Ecological Restoration
Project
MassDEP File Number
City or Town
C. Ecological Restoration Project Description (cont.)
Tidal Restoration Project (310 CMR 10.13(5))
The Ecological Restoration Project is a Tidal Restoration Project designed to restore tidal flow
that has been restricted or blocked by a man-made structure. In addition to the eligibility criteria
set forth in 310 CMR 10.13(1), the project meets all of the following eligibility criteria that is
completely described below or in the attached:
If the project will involve work in a Coastal Dune and/or a Coastal Beach, the project meets
the applicable performance standard(s) at 310 CMR 10.27 and/or 10.28.
The project will not include a new or relocated tidal inlet/breach through a Barrier Beach or
additional armoring of a Barrier Beach, but may include the modification, replacement or
enlargement of an existing culvert or inlet through a Barrier Beach.
The project will not involve installation of new water control devices (i.e., tide gates, flash
boards and adjustable weirs) or a change in the management of existing water control
devices, when the existing or proposed function of said devices is to prevent flooding or
storm damage impacts to the built environment, including without limitation, buildings, wells,
septic systems, roads or other man-made structures or infrastructure.
The project’s physical specifications are compatible with passage requirements for
diadromous fish runs identified at the project location by the Division of Marine Fisheries.
Did the project include considerations for site constraints in meeting the SC standards,
undesirable effects or risk in meeting the standard, the environmental benefit of meeting the
standard compared to the cost in evaluating:
The potential for downstream flooding
Upstream and downstream habitat (in-stream habitat, wetlands);
Potential for erosion and head-cutting;
Stream stability;
Habitat fragmentation caused by the crossing;
The amount of stream mileage made accessible by the improvements;
Storm flow conveyance;
Engineering design constraints specific to the crossing;
Hydrologic constraints specific to the crossing;
Impacts to wetlands that would occur by improving the crossing;
Potential to affect property and infrastructure; and
wpaform3a.doc • 12/6/2023 WPA Form 3A – NOI for Ecological Restoration Project • Page 9 of 20
5
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection – Wetlands Program WPA Form 3A - Notice of Intent
for an Ecological Restoration
Project
MassDEP File Number
City or Town
C. Ecological Restoration Project Description (cont.)
Cost of replacement.
Rare Species Habitat Restoration (310 CMR 10.13(6))
The Ecological Restoration Project is a Rare Species habitat restoration project. In addition to the
eligibility criteria set forth in 310 CMR 10.13(1), the project meets all of the following eligibility
criteria that is completely described below or in the attached:
The project is exempt from review under 321 CMR 10.00 as a project that involves the active
management of Rare Species habitat for the purpose of maintaining or enhancing the habitat
for the benefit of Rare Species. A project that involves the active management of Rare
Species habitat and is exempt from review under 321 CMR 10.00 may include without
limitation the mowing, cutting, burning or pruning of vegetation or the removal of exotic or
invasive species.
The project is carried out in accordance with a Habitat Management Plan that has been
approved in writing by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program and submitted
with this Notice of Intent.
Restoring Fish Passageways (310 CMR 10.13(7))
The Ecological Restoration Project involves the restoration or repair of a fish passageway as
identified by the Division of Marine Fisheries in its Marine Fisheries Technical Reports, TR 15
through 18, dated 2004. In addition to the eligibility criteria set forth in 310 CMR 10.13(1), the
project meets all of the following eligibility criteria that is completely described below or in the
attached:
Proof of submission of a Fishway Permit Application to the Division of Marine Fisheries,
pursuant to M.G.L. c. 130, §§ 1 and 19, and 322 CMR 7.01(4)(f) and (14)(m); and
The fish passageway will be operated and maintained in accordance with an Operation and
Maintenance Plan approved by the Division of Marine Fisheries.
D. Other Applicable Standards and Requirements
A person submitting a Notice of Intent for an Ecological Restoration Project that meets the
requirements of 310 CMR 10.12(1) and (2) and that contains either a written determination from the
Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program (NHESP) that the project will have no short or long
term adverse effects on the habitat of the local population of state-listed species, or a Conservation
and Management Permit issued by NHESP pursuant to the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act
(MESA) Regulations at 321 CMR 10.00 for the project, or a habitat management plan for the project
approved in writing by NHESP, will be deemed to have satisfied the requirements in 310 CMR 10.37
and 310 CMR 10.59 of sending the Notice of Intent for the same project for a determination by
NHESP. For the purposes of this guidance, the “same project” means either there have been no
changes to the project reviewed by NHESP in making its determination or that any subsequent
changes to the project since the initial review by NHESP have been reviewed and approved in writing
by NHESP.
wpaform3a.doc • 12/6/2023 WPA Form 3A – NOI for Ecological Restoration Project • Page 10 of 20
5
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection – Wetlands Program WPA Form 3A - Notice of Intent
for an Ecological Restoration
Project
MassDEP File Number
City or Town
D. Other Applicable Standards and Requirements (cont.)
Compliance with the above NHESP-related requirements may be demonstrated by providing the
following applicable documentation. See Appendix 1 for a complete description of these
requirements. Check the applicable box below.
The project is not within Estimated Habitat of State-Listed Rare Wetlands Wildlife as shown on
the most recent Estimated Habitat Maps of State-Listed Rare Wetlands Wildlife published by the
Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program.
The NHESP has issued the attached written determination that the project will have no short or
long term adverse effects on the habitat of the local population of state-listed species.
The NHESP has issued the attached written approval of the attached habitat management plan
for this project, which makes it an eligible Rare Species habitat restoration project under 310
CMR 10.13(6).
The NHESP has issued pursuant to the MESA Regulations at 321 CMR 10.00 the attached
Conservation and Management Permit for this project.
There have been no changes to the project reviewed by NHESP in making its determination, or if
so, any subsequent changes to the project have been reviewed and approved in writing by
NHESP and attached hereto.
1. 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 written determination to either:
South Shore – Bourne to Rhode Island border,
and the Cape & Islands:
Division of Marine Fisheries –
South Coast Field Station
Attn: Environmental Reviewer
836 South Rodney French Blvd
New Bedford, MA 02744
Email: DMF.EnvReview-South@state.ma.us
North Shore – Plymouth to New Hampshire
border:
Division of Marine Fisheries –
North Shore Field Station
Attn: Environmental Reviewer
30 Emerson Avenue
Gloucester, MA 01930
Email: DMF.EnvReview-North@state.ma.us
2. 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).
b. ACEC
3. 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
wpaform3a.doc • 12/6/2023 WPA Form 3A – NOI for Ecological Restoration Project • Page 11 of 20
5
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection – Wetlands Program WPA Form 3A - Notice of Intent
for an Ecological Restoration
Project
MassDEP File Number
City or Town
D.Other Applicable Standards and Requirements (cont.)
4.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
5.Is this project subject to provisions of the MassDEP Stormwater Management Standards?
a. Yes No
If 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:
Proprietary BMPs are included in the Stormwater Management System.
6. If the Ecological Restoration Project involves the construction, repair, replacement or expansion
of infrastructure, an operation and maintenance plan has been submitted to ensure that the
infrastructure will continue to function as designed.
7. The project involves the dredging of 100 cubic yards or more of sediment, or dredging of any
amount in an Outstanding Resource Water, and a Water Quality Certification issued by the
Department pursuant to 314 CMR 9.00 is attached.
8. The Ecological Restoration Project involves work on a stream crossing. Sufficient information has
been provided to demonstrate that the design meets the requirements in 310 CMR 10.24(10) for work
in coastal resources, and 310 CMR 10.53 (8) for work in an inland resource area.
E.Additional Information
Check each box for required documents that are attached to this Notice of Intent (NOI). See
instructions for details.
1. Maps and Plans identifying the location of proposed activities relative to the boundaries of each
affected resource area [http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-
serv/office-of-geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/nwi.html]
2. 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
3. Attach proof of Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program written determination, if
needed.
4. Attach proof of mailing for Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Time of Year written
determination, if needed.
wpaform3a.doc • 12/6/2023 WPA Form 3A – NOI for Ecological Restoration Project • Page 12 of 20
5
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection – Wetlands Program WPA Form 3A - Notice of Intent
for an Ecological Restoration
Project
MassDEP File Number
City or Town
E. Additional Information (cont.)
5. Attach NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form.
6. Attach Stormwater Report, if needed.
F. 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
wpaform3a.doc • 12/6/2023 WPA Form 3A – NOI for Ecological Restoration Project • Page 14 of 20
5
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection – Wetlands Program WPA Form 3A - Notice of Intent
for an Ecological Restoration
Project
MassDEP File Number
City or Town
Appendix 1: Ecological Restoration Notice of Intent (WPA 3a) -
Required Actions (310 CMR 10.11)
Complete the Required Actions before submitting a Notice of Intent Application for an Ecological
Restoration Project and submit a completed copy of this Checklist with the Notice of Intent.
Environmental Monitor /Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)
http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/mepa/submitting-notices-to-the-environmental-monitor.html
Submit written notification at least 14 days prior to the filing of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the
Environmental Monitor for publication. A copy of the written notification is attached and provides at
minimum:
A brief description of the proposed project.
The anticipated NOI submission date to the conservation commission.
The name and address of the conservation commission that will review the NOI.
Specific details as to where copies of the NOI may be examined or acquired and where to obtain
the date, time, and location of the public hearing.
Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) /Wetlands Protection Act Review
Preliminary Massachusetts Endangered Species Act Review from the Natural Heritage and
Endangered Species Program (NHESP) has been met and the written determination is attached.
Supplemental Information for Endangered Species Review has been submitted.
1. Percentage/acreage of property to be altered:
a. Within Wetland Resource Area
Percentage/acreage
b. Outside Wetland Resource Area
Percentage/acreage
2. Assessor’s Map or right-of-way plan of site
3. 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.
4. Project description (including description of impacts outside of wetland resource area
& buffer zone)
5. Photographs representative of the site
6. MESA filing fee (fee information available at
http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/regulatory_review/mesa/mesa_fee_schedule.htm)
wpaform3a.doc • 12/6/2023 WPA Form 3A – NOI for Ecological Restoration Project • Page 15 of 20
5
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection – Wetlands Program WPA Form 3A - Notice of Intent
for an Ecological Restoration
Project
MassDEP File Number
City or Town
Appendix 1: Ecological Restoration Notice of Intent (WPA 3a) -
Required Actions (310 CMR 10.11)
Make check payable to “Commonwealth of Massachusetts - NHESP” and mail to NHESP:
Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program
MA Division of Fisheries & Wildlife
1 Rabbit Hill Road
Westborough, MA 01581
7. Projects altering 10 or more acres of land, also submit:
a. Vegetation cover type map of site
b. Project plans showing Priority & Estimated Habitat boundaries
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,
http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dfg/dfw/natural-heritage/regulatory-review/mass-
endangered-species-act-mesa/; the NOI must still be sent to NHESP if the project is within
estimated habitat pursuant to 310 CMR 10.37 and 10.59 – see C4 below)
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.
Estimated Habitat Map of State-Listed Rare Wetlands Wildlife
If a portion of the proposed project is 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), complete the portion below. To view habitat
maps, see the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas or view the maps electronically at:
http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dfg/dfw/natural-heritage/regulatory-review
A preliminary written determination from Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program
(NHESP) must be obtained indicating that:
Project will NOT impact an area located within estimated habitat indicated on the most recent
Estimated Habitat Map of State-Listed Rare Wetlands Wildlife published by NHESP.
Project will impact an area located within estimated habitat indicated on the most recent
Estimated Habitat Map of State-Listed Rare Wetlands Wildlife published by NHESP. A copy
of NHESP’s written preliminary determination in accordance with 310 CMR 10.11(2) is
attached. This specifies:
Date of the map:
wpaform3a.doc • 12/6/2023 WPA Form 3A – NOI for Ecological Restoration Project • Page 16 of 20
5
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection – Wetlands Program WPA Form 3A - Notice of Intent
for an Ecological Restoration
Project
MassDEP File Number
City or Town
Appendix 1: Ecological Restoration Notice of Intent (WPA 3a) -
Required Actions (310 CMR 10.11)
If the Rare Species identified is/are likely to continue to be located on or near the project,
and if so, whether the Resource Area to be altered is in fact part of the habitat of the Rare
Species.
That if the project alters Resource Area(s) within the habitat of a Rare Species:
The Rare Species is identified;
NHESP’s recommended changes or conditions necessary to ensure that the project
will have no short or long term adverse effect on the habitat of the local population of
the Rare Species is provided; or
An approved NHESP habitat management plan is attached with this Notice of Intent.
Send the request for a preliminary determination to:
Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program
MA Division of Fisheries & Wildlife
1 Rabbit Hill Road
Westborough, MA 01581
Division of Marine Fisheries
If the project will occur within a coastal waterbody with a restricted Time of Year, [see Appendix B
of the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) Technical Report TR 47 “Marine Fisheries Time of Year
Restrictions (TOYs) for Coastal Alteration Projects” dated April 2011
http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Portals/74/docs/regulatory/StateGeneralPermits/NEGP/MADMFT
R-47.pdf].
Obtain a DMF written determination stating:
The proposed work does NOT require a TOY restriction.
The proposed work requires a TOY restriction. Specific recommended TOY restriction and
recommended conditions on the proposed work is attached.
If the project may affect a diadromous fish run [re: Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) Technical
Reports TR 15 through 18, dated 2004:
http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dfg/dmf/publications/technical.html]
wpaform3a.doc • 12/6/2023 WPA Form 3A – NOI for Ecological Restoration Project • Page 17 of 20
5
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection – Wetlands Program WPA Form 3A - Notice of Intent
for an Ecological Restoration
Project
MassDEP File Number
City or Town
Appendix 1: Ecological Restoration Notice of Intent (WPA 3a) -
Required Actions (310 CMR 10.11)
Obtain a DMF written determination stating:
The design specifications and operational plan for the project are compatible with the
passage requirements of the fish run.
The design specifications and operational plan for the project are not compatible with the
passage requirements of the fish run.
Send the request for a written determination to:
South Shore – Bourne to Rhode Island
border, and the Cape & Islands:
Division of Marine Fisheries –
South Coast Field Station
Attn: Environmental Reviewer
836 South Rodney French Blvd
New Bedford, MA 02744
Email: DMF_EnvReview.South@state.ma.us
North Shore – Plymouth to New Hampshire
border:
Division of Marine Fisheries –
North Shore Field Station
Attn: Environmental Reviewer
30 Emerson Avenue
Gloucester, MA 01930
Email: DMF_EnvReview.North@state.ma.us
Division of Fisheries and Wildlife – http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dfg/dfw/
Projects that involve silt-generating, in-water work that will impact a non-tidal perennial river or
stream and the in-water work will not occur between May 1 and August 30.
Obtain a written determination from the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (DFW) as to
whether the proposed work requires a TOY restriction.
The proposed work does NOT require a TOY restriction.
The proposed work requires a TOY restriction. The DFW determination with TOY
restriction and other conditions is attached.
MassDEP Water Quality Certification
Project involves dredging of 100 cubic yards or more in a Resource Area or dredging of any
amount in an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW). A copy and proof of the MassDEP Water
Quality Certification pursuant to 314 CMR 9.00 is attached to the NOI.
This project is a Combined Permit Application for 401 Dredging and Restoration (BRP WW 26).
MassDEP Wetlands Restriction Order
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)?
Yes No
wpaform3a.doc • 12/6/2023 WPA Form 3A – NOI for Ecological Restoration Project • Page 18 of 20
5
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection – Wetlands Program WPA Form 3A - Notice of Intent
for an Ecological Restoration
Project
MassDEP File Number
City or Town
Appendix 1: Ecological Restoration Notice of Intent (WPA 3a) -
Required Actions (310 CMR 10.11)
Department of Conservation and Recreation
Office of Dam Safety
For Dam Removal Projects, obtain a written determination from the Department of Conservation
and Recreation Office of Dam Safety that the dam is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Office
under 302 CMR 10.00, a written determination that the dam removal does not require a permit
under 302 CMR 10.00 or a permit authorizing the dam removal in accordance with 302 CMR
10.00 has been issued.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)
Is any portion of the proposed project within an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)?
Yes No If yes, provide name of ACEC (see instructions to WPA Form 3 or
MassDEP Website for ACEC locations).
wpaform3a.doc • 12/6/2023 WPA Form 3A – NOI for Ecological Restoration Project • Page 19 of 20
5
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection – Wetlands Program WPA Form 3A - Notice of Intent
for an Ecological Restoration
Project
MassDEP File Number
City or Town
Appendix 2: Ecological Restoration Notice of Intent (WPA 3a) -
Minimum Required Documents (310 CMR 10.12)
Complete the Required Documents Checklist below and provide supporting materials before submitting a
Notice of Intent Application for an Ecological Restoration Project.
This Notice of Intent meets all applicable requirements outlined in for Ecological Restoration Projects
in 310 CMR 10.12. Use the checklist below to insure that all documentation is included with the NOI.
At a minimum, a Notice of Intent for an Ecological Restoration Project shall include the following:
Description of the project’s ecological restoration goals;
The location of the Ecological Restoration Project;
Description of the construction sequence for completing the project;
A map of the Areas Subject to Protection Under M.G.L. c. 131, § 40, that will be temporarily or
permanently altered by the project or include habitat for Rare Species, Habitat of Potential
Regional and Statewide Importance, eel grass beds, or Shellfish Suitability Areas.
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.) is attached with
documentation methodology.
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
If there is more than one property owner, attach a list of these property owners not listed on this
form.
Attach NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form.
An evaluation of any flood impacts that may affect the built environment, including without
limitation, buildings, wells, septic systems, roads or other man-made structures or infrastructure
as well as any proposed flood impact mitigation measures;
A plan for invasive species prevention and control;
wpaform3a.doc • 12/6/2023 WPA Form 3A – NOI for Ecological Restoration Project • Page 20 of 20
5
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection – Wetlands Program WPA Form 3A - Notice of Intent
for an Ecological Restoration
Project
MassDEP File Number
City or Town
Appendix 2: Ecological Restoration Notice of Intent (WPA 3a) -
Minimum Required Documents (310 CMR 10.12)
The Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program written determination in accordance with
310 CMR 10.11(2), if needed;
Any Time of Year restrictions and/or other conditions recommended by the Division of Marine
Fisheries or the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife in accordance with 310 CMR 10.11(3), (4), (5),
if needed;
Proof that notice was published in the Environmental Monitor as required by 310 CMR 10.11(1;
A certification by the applicant under the penalties of perjury that the project meets the eligibility
criteria set forth in 310 CMR 10.13;
If the Ecological Restoration Project involves the construction, repair, replacement or expansion
of infrastructure, an operation and maintenance plan to ensure that the infrastructure will continue
to function as designed;
If the project involves dredging of 100 cubic yards or more or dredging of any amount in an
Outstanding Resource Water, a Water Quality Certification issued by the Department pursuant to
314 CMR 9.00;
If the Ecological Restoration Project involves work on a stream crossing, information sufficient to
make the showing required by 310 CMR 10.24(10) for work in a coastal resource area and 310
CMR 10.53(8) for work in an inland resource area; and
If the Ecological Restoration Project involves work on a stream crossing, baseline photo-points
that capture longitudinal views of the crossing inlet, the crossing outlet and the upstream and
downstream channel beds during low flow conditions. The latitude and longitude coordinates of
the photo-points shall be included in the baseline data.
This project is subject to provisions of the MassDEP Stormwater Management Standards. A copy
of the Stormwater Report as required by the Stormwater Management Standards per 310 CMR
10.05(6)(k)-(q) is attached.
Provide information as the whether the project has the potential to impact private water supply
wells including agricultural or aquacultural wells or surface water withdrawal points.
NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form
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:
0 Rosetta Street
a. Street Address
Yarmouth
b. City/Town
N/A
c. Check number
Exempt
d. Fee amount
2. Applicant Mailing Address:
Mark
a. First Name
Forest
b. Last Name
Cape Cod Conservation District
c. Organization
303 Main Street/Route 28
d. Mailing Address
West Yarmouth
e. City/Town
MA
f. State
02673
g. Zip Code
508-439-9980
h. Phone Number
i. Fax Number
mforestcccd@gmail.com
j. Email Address
3. Property Owner (if different):
Michael
a. First Name
Jones
b. Last Name
Cape Cod Hospital
c. Organization
27 Park Street
d. Mailing Address
Hyannis
e. City/Town
MA
f. State
02601
g. Zip Code
508-862-5070 508-790-0030
h. Phone Number
i. Fax Number
MGJones@CapeCodHealth.org
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.
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
Exempt
Step 5/Total Project Fee:
Step 6/Fee Payments:
Total Project Fee: $0
a. Total Fee from Step 5
State share of filing Fee: $0
b. 1/2 Total Fee less $12.50
City/Town share of filling Fee: $0
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.)
Yarmouth Notice of Intent Administrative Checklist
Yarmouth Conservation Commission • 1146 Route 28 South Yarmouth, MA 02664-4492
Tel. (508)-398-2231 Ext. 1288
Rev 6/2025 Page 1 of 2
Administrative Checklist
Notice of Intent
General Information:
All filings must be made on Town of Yarmouth forms. The filing deadline is two weeks prior to the next
scheduled Conservation Commission meeting for new applications. Failure to follow this Checklist shall
result in an Administratively Incomplete Application and will not be advertised for a Public Hearing. Refer to
the meeting schedule. Contact the Conservation Office if you need assistance.
Submitting an Application:
Does the property have any outstanding/expired Orders of Conditions? If so, please file a Request
for Certificate of Compliance for each outstanding/expired Order, as the Commission may not issue a
new Order until any outstanding/expired Orders have been closed and recorded. (*see page 2)
Hardcopy filing dropped off or mailed to the Conservation Office including:
1 Administrative Checklist
1 complete NOI application WPA form 3 with original signatures. Typed signatures will not be accepted.
Detailed narrative of the project including existing & proposed conditions, construction sequence, type of
equipment, staging locations, drainage and stormwater, erosion controls, invasive species management
and alternative analysis. The narrative shall include how the project meets performance standards per
310 CMR 10.0 & TOY Wetland Regulations, delineation sheets (if BVW or vegetated wetlands are
present) or other resource area calculations, and supporting information.
1 100’ radius map, current abutters list identifying the property owners who are to be notified per 310
CMR 10.00 and abutter notification form. Abutters list must be certified by the Town Assessor’s office.
The Assessor’s office requires 7 days advance notice. All abutters must be notified via certified mail.
Certified Mail Receipts (PS Form 3800) for all abutters. Green cards to be submitted at the hearing.
1 original and 7 copies of the plan, folded separately, right side out with title and project address visible.
All plans shall reference NAVD1988 unless otherwise noted. See plan requirements
Yarmouth’s share of State filing fee: Separate check made payable to “Town of Yarmouth”
(refer to NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form)
By-law filing fee: Separate check made payable to “Town of Yarmouth”
Legal ad fee: Separate check made payable to “Town of Yarmouth”
Please list project property’s street address on checks. Refer to Fee Schedule
DEP share of the fee (refer to NOI form) shall be sent to: Dept. of Environmental Protection
Box 4062
Boston, MA 02211
CONSERVATION
OFFICE
See
note*
N/A
N/A
N/A
*An existing OoC is currently active for ongoing invasive vegetation management that is related to the larger restoration effort.
Yarmouth Conservation Commission • 1146 Route 28 South Yarmouth, MA 02664-4492
Tel. (508)-398-2231 Ext. 1288
Rev 6/2025 Page 2 of 2
DEP Submittal and Digital filing
If you are filing with MassDEP using eDEP, please include a copy of the submittal confirmation with your
application.
If not filing via eDEP, a PDF of your application, plan, and all other supporting information must be sent
VIA EMAIL the same day to DEP, Southeast Region at SERO_NOI@mass.gov with the subject line in
the email per DEP’s request listed as “YARMOUTH - NOI - Street Address - Applicant Name” and
copied bdirienzo@yarmouth.ma.us and jjerolimo@yarmouth.ma.us. We must receive a copy of
this email with the application as proof that it has been submitted to DEP.
Initial below
I CERTIFY that all on-site requirements will be completed by noon on the Friday prior to the hearing
date. All proposed structures must be staked, and all relevant resource areas and buffer zones must be
staked or flagged.
Please consult the Yarmouth Wetland Regulations, page 17. Without proper staking your project may be
deemed incomplete and be continued to the next hearing date.
I understand that in person representation is required at the scheduled hearing to present to the
conservation commission
If Applicable
Certified Mail Receipt for Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program
Certified Mail Receipt for Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. If filing via email,
dmf.envreview-south@mass.gov, Amanda.Davis@mass.gov
CC bdirienzo@yarmouth.ma.us and jjerolimo@yarmouth.ma.us
Waterway’s jurisdiction – Any 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/her representative must
provide the Conservation office with proof that this has been done or the filing will not be accepted.
Other Requirements
o Does the proposed project meet the applicable regulations of the Town of Yarmouth Zoning bylaws? Do
you need to file with the Yarmouth Board of Appeals? If so, you must file with ZBA after conservation
permitting is completed.
o If a vacant lot, have you completed and received a determination for the Building Department for a lot
inquiry form?
*To view all Conservation files/permits for the property address online, go to www.yarmouth.ma.us/LF
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Site Access Authorization Form
Narrative
1
1 Introduction
On behalf of the Cape Cod Conservation District (Applicant), Fuss & O’Neill, Inc. has prepared this Notice of
Intent (NOI) for an Ecological Restoration Project (ERP) for the restoration of Bayview Bogs, a former
cranberry bog located at 0 Rosetta Street, West Yarmouth, Massachusetts. The proposed project is a
collaborative partnership between Cape Cod Hospital (as landowner), the Cape Cod Conservation District
(as Applicant), and the Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration (DER) to restore the former
cranberry bogs into a healthy wetland ecosystem through the removal of man-made barriers to tidal flow and
the reversal of hydrologic modifications put in place when the bogs were under active cranberry production.
Active cranberry farming on the Site has been retired for more than 25 years. Approximately 18.5 acres of
cranberry bogs were still being commercially harvested in the 1990s with the remainder of the bogs retired
earlier.
The location of the project is depicted on the USGS Topographic Map included as Figure 1, and the Site
Plans provided as Appendix A. Pending funding, the construction is anticipated to begin in late 2026 or early
2027. This timeline may be extended if more time is needed to obtain project funding.
The project qualifies as an Ecological Restoration Project as defined in the Massachusetts Wetlands
Protection Act, M.G.L. c. 131 § 40 Regulations at 310 CMR 10.04 and proposed activities qualify for the
project types listed in 310 CMR 10.13(5) – Tidal Restoration Projects. As such, the project requires the filing
of a “WPA Form 3A - Notice of Intent for an Ecological Restoration Project.” The project has proposed
alterations to Bank, Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW), Riverfront Area, Land Under Water Bodies and
Waterways (LUWW), Salt Marshes, Coastal Bank, and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage which are
protected resource areas under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, M.G.L. c. 131 § 40, 310 CMR
10.00.
In addition to an Order of Conditions from the Yarmouth Conservation Commission, the following permits and
approvals are required for the project:
• Executive Office of Environmental Affairs – Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Office
Notice of Ecological Restoration Project (Confirmation received November 10, 2025, see Appendix
F)
• Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) Project Notification Form (PNF)
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Pre-Construction Notification (PCN)
• Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Federal Consistency Concurrence
• EPA Sole Source Aquifer Project Review
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges from
Construction Activities
1.1 Project Locus
The Project Locus, as defined in 310 CMR 10.04, is an approximately 90-acre area located primarily on
Yarmouth Assessor Parcel No. 58.1.1. The project includes work on several additional Hospital-owned
parcels that contain portions of the former cranberry bog system, all of which are owned by Cape Cod
Hospital. See Table 1-1 for a full list of project parcels. Land cover consists primarily of former cranberry
bogs, woodland, and wetland environments that are located within the local floodplain. There are two
Conservation Restrictions recorded against the title to the main parcel which, collectively, permanently
protect approximately 66 acres of the approximately 90-acre site. Both Conservation Restrictions are held by
2
the Yarmouth Conservation Trust (YCT) and authorize ecological restoration within the restricted portions
with the written approval of the YCT. The project proponents have requested the necessary authorizations
under the CR for the proposed project.
Table 1-1
Project Locus Parcels
Map Number Lot Number Acreage Address
28 58.1.1 89.2 0 Rosetta Street
28 58.1.2 1.2 26 Oval Drive
28 58.1.4 1.1 22 Round Drive
36 93 9.0 4 Bayview Street
36 8 2.3 30 Bayview Street
36 10 0.3 40 Bayview Street
28 58.3 0.3 74 Bayview Street
28 58.4 0.4 86 Bayview Street
28 57 0.3 72 Bayview Street
28 73 0.5 28 Rosetta Street
See Figure 1 for a USGS Topographic Map and Figure 2 for the FEMA Flood Rate Insurance Map (FIRM).
1.2 Project Site
The Project Site (i.e., limit of work; further described in 310 CMR 10.04) consists of previous agricultural land
and adjacent uplands. Cranberry bog farming occurred at the Site beginning on or about the late 1800s and
continued intermittently until 1997 when commercial cranberry farming activities ceased and the bog was
retired. The Project Site is defined in the Site Plans in Appendix A, and photos of existing conditions are
included in Appendix B.
1.3 Existing Environment
At retired commercial cranberry farms, a diversity of infrastructure is typically left behind and permanent
alterations made to the landscape to support the previous farm operations are encountered. These
alterations often include but are not limited to culverts, berms/dikes, water control structures, irrigation ponds,
irrigation pipes, pump houses, perimeter ditches, interior ditches, canals, dams, sand fill atop native wetland
soil, etc. Additionally, features observed include the filling, grading, and ditching of floodplains, and overall
physical simplification of the landscape resulting in very little topographic change or complexity.
At the Bayview Bogs Site, these features are present. One aspect that makes Bayview Bogs rather unique is
the years of bog abandonment post-farming and prior to restoration that have resulted in the overgrowth of
tall vegetation, including trees, on top of the altered bog soils and sand fill and further exacerbated by the
altered hydrology. Presently, the fallow agricultural fields are bisected into units of cells with uniform earthen
dikes that create barriers to surface flow and ecological connectivity. Ditches run along the toe of dikes,
which create barriers to groundwater flow and drain the wetlands.
3
1.3.1 Existing Wetland Resource Areas
Existing wetland resource areas are depicted on the Site Plans (Appendix A) and are based on field
investigations that verified and refined DEP’s mapping, dated December 2017, of wetland resource areas at
the Site. Field investigations were performed in April and May 2024, and November 2025 by Michael Soares
(Senior Wetland Scientist) and Julianne Busa, PhD (Certified Senior Ecologist, Professional Wetland
Scientist) of Fuss & O’Neill. Field investigations were conducted using the methodology presented in the
Massachusetts Handbook for Delineation of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands (September 2022), the Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (January 1987), and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (January 2012). Results of the
field investigations were generally consistent with the DEP’s published mapping with minor refinements.
Wetland resource areas located on the Project Site include Bank, Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW),
Riverfront Area, Land Under Water Bodies and Waterways (LUWW), Salt Marsh, Coastal Bank, and Land
Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage which are protected resource areas under the Massachusetts Wetlands
Protection Act, M.G.L. c. 131 § 40 (the WPA), 310 CMR 10.00 (WPA Regulations). Wetland resource areas
within and adjacent to the Site are shown on the Site Plans in Appendix A.
1.3.2 Rare Species
According to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) 15th edition, effective
August 2021, the site is not within the limits of mapped Estimated or Priority Habitat for Rare Wildlife and
Priority Habitat for Rare Species. While there is no regulatory obligation to address rare species, the project
team has coordinated with NHESP for input on ways to enhance potential rare species habitat within the
project design as described further in Section 4.1.9 below.
2 Ecological Restoration Goals
2.1 Purpose and Need
The purpose of this project is to restore a naturally resilient wetland ecosystem through the removal of
manmade barriers to hydrologic connectivity and tidal flow. In addition to this core ecological restoration
mission, in collaboration with Cape Cod Hospital, Bayview Bogs offers a unique opportunity to enhance the
healing mission of the Hospital, offering Hospital staff, patients, and family members a tranquil place for
contemplation and reflection, and a place to take advantage of the therapeutic benefits of nature. Bayview
Bogs will also be open to the larger community as a resource for passive recreation, offering a loop walking
trail and boardwalks that allow residents from the local neighborhoods to experience the restored wetlands
up-close and watch them evolve and grow over time.
The need for the proposed project is due to the poor condition of the existing site, which is overgrown with
invasive species, and no longer functioning as a natural wetland. The degree of hydrologic modification,
including but not limited to the network of existing berms, ditches, dikes, and water control structures on the
site (put in place for agricultural purposes) is such that the site has not and will not revert to healthy wetlands
without intervention to restore tidal flow and natural hydrology despite being retired from cranberry farming
for more than 20 years. At the southern/downgradient end, the former bog system is currently separated
from Lewis Bay by an artificial agricultural berm and water control structure which restricts tidal influence
from making its way upgradient into the bog system.
4
2.2 Ecological Restoration Goals
The restoration design focuses on restoring tidal flow and healthy wetlands by undoing human alterations
and implementing process-based restoration techniques intended to put the site on a trajectory toward long-
term ecosystem recovery and continued dynamic change over time. Restoration practices at the site will
enhance ecological function and habitat, as well as increase the habitat diversity of upland areas.
Restoration activities have been designed to promote the recovery of a system that incorporates long-term
natural restoration processes as the system continues to re-naturalize following initial restoration measures,
and to allow for natural adaptation to a changing coastline as sea level rises and tidal influence reaches
deeper into the restored site enabling potential marsh migration.
The project team aims to achieve the following project goals and objectives with this restoration project:
• Restore natural and more complex wetland and upland areas using a comprehensive ecological
restoration approach at the retired cranberry farmland.
• Create and connect a diversity of quality wetland types and wetland-upland transition zones for the
benefit wildlife habitat.
• Advance climate change preparedness, including enhanced climate resiliency, and opportunities for
climate adaptation.
• Remove barriers, such as culverts and water control structures to ensure appropriate wetland
hydrologic conditions.
• Create safe, passive recreational opportunities, including long-term management and stewardship.
• Improve nuisance issues such as mosquitoes, ticks, and invasive plant species to the extent
practical through design and management.
• Create a design that will result in a self-sustaining ecosystem.
• Ensure the involvement of a diversity of community stakeholders, including local environmental
justice populations.
Furthermore, the project furthers seven of the eight interests of the Wetlands Protection Act (Act): protection
of ground water supply, flood control, storm damage prevention, prevention of pollution, protection of land
containing shellfish, protection of fisheries, and protection of wildlife habitat.
2.2.1 Protection of Ground Water Supply
As noted in the MA Wetlands Protection Act (Act), wetlands are significant in part because of their ability to
remove and/or detain sediments, nutrients, and other pollutants that may be present in stormwater runoff and
flood waters. Because of the dense development of land around Bayview Bogs, wetland restoration of the
retired cranberry bogs will play an important role in protecting the quality of freshwater resources. Protection
of groundwater supply will be enhanced through the proposed project in the following ways:
• Increased residence time of surface water flowing into and through the site from the surrounding
watershed, resulting in an increase in natural filtration processes, groundwater recharge, and
attenuation of peak flows following storm events.
• Increased native plants in restored wetlands, resulting in an increase in nutrient uptake, flow
dispersion, and attenuation of flow velocities.
5
2.2.2 Flood Control
The project proposes to dismantle a majority of the existing infrastructure that was designed to move water
efficiently and effectively through the site. Without the water control structures, ditches, and berms that
concentrate flow, the restored wetlands will provide increased residence time for stormwater, increased
holding/storage capacity within the wetland soils and deeper marsh habitats, reducing peak flow volumes. A
hydrologic modeling study was completed to look at 1) normal tidal inundation patterns under existing
conditions and proposed restoration conditions with agricultural infrastructure removed, 2) a variety of inland
precipitation conditions under existing and proposed conditions, and 3) future projected 2070 precipitation
and sea level rise for both existing and proposed site conditions. Results of the modeling confirmed that the
intended benefit of restoring tidal flow into the southern end of the site is achieved under proposed
conditions—the model demonstrates that regular tidal inundation will be able to expand into the low-slope
transition zone and extended tidal creek as designed.
The modeling also indicated that the proposed restoration will not expand the extents of flooding on any of
the surrounding properties during storm events, and the restored wetlands provide additional storage
capacity that result in a decrease in water surface elevations during large storm events. At the southeastern
end of the site, where an undersized and partially buried existing Town-owned culvert passes under Park
Avenue and the roadway is already a low point (elevation 3.25), the modeling demonstrates that in a 100-
year inland storm, the road is already overtopping under existing conditions. The proposed restoration will
reconnect former cranberry bog cells at the southeast side of the site that were isolated following
construction activities in the 1990’s to the larger restored wetland system. This will allow all outflows from the
bog system to ultimately flow to the primary tidal creek connection, rather than the severely undersized and
clogged secondary culvert on Park Avenue; the modeling indicates that this will result in a decrease in
stormwater-driven flooding at Park Avenue, an improvement over existing conditions.
Note that tidally-driven flooding of Park Avenue is not impacted by the restoration project. Similarly, under a
100-year storm surge, the entirety of the neighborhood and bog system are expected to experience
flooding—at this scale of inundation, the project has no impact (positive or negative) on flooding outcomes.
2.2.3 Storm Damage Prevention
Restoring wetlands will attenuate storm damage by increasing flood storage capacity, reducing peak flow
volumes, and desynchronizing the input of stormwater runoff from surrounding neighborhoods. As noted in
the WPA, vegetated banks and wetlands serve to maintain soil/sediment stability, which in turn contributes to
storm damage prevention by curbing erosion and siltation. The proposed project will enhance bank stability
in the following ways:
• Proposed wetland restoration is designed to dismantle the infrastructure responsible for erosive,
channelized flows.
• Proposed roughening of bog cells to create microtopography will prevent erosive flow and promote
slower, diffuse, braided flow paths through hummocky, vegetated wetlands.
• Native wetland plants will stabilize sediment/soil, reduce sediment transport, and slow/desynchronize
high flows downstream into the tidal creek.
6
2.2.4 Prevention of Pollution
The proposed project contributes to the prevention of two types of pollution: nutrient pollution, and
sedimentation. Nutrient pollution is a non-point source pollutant associated with stormwater runoff from the
surrounding watershed and other surface waters that do not experience natural filtration processes. Soluble
nutrients are picked up and transported into waterways, where they can contribute to eutrophication and
algal blooms, foster overgrowth of plant matter, and reduce biologically available oxygen. Sediment is
considered a pollutant because it can increase turbidity and alter habitat, degrading water quality for human
use and wildlife. The proposed project prevents pollution from all three sources:
• Proposed restoration is designed to reduce erosion by slowing flows and preventing additional
sediment from being exposed or transported downstream.
• The restored wetlands and decreased flow velocities provide more opportunity for sediment to settle
out of the water, and for wetlands to perform ecosystem services functions, including filtration of
nutrients and other pollutants.
2.2.5 Protection of Fisheries and Land Containing
Shellfish
By restoring the site, the proposed wetlands will protect downstream fisheries and shellfish habitat by filtering
nutrients and sediment from the water before it reaches Lewis Bay.
2.2.6 Protection of Wildlife Habitat
The proposed restoration will improve habitat conditions by increasing connectivity, diversity, quality, and
quantity of wetland resource areas. Restoration of tidal flow, hydrologic connectivity, and BVW proposed
through this project will significantly increase:
• The amount of land area that can indefinitely support high-quality wildlife habitat.
• The number and quality of connections for wildlife movement between existing upland/wetland
habitats within and around the Site, as well as new connections proposed through the project.
• The overall physical diversity and complexity of the Site. A primary goal of wetland restoration within
the bog cells is to undo the existing simplified landscape that resulted from decades of commercial
cranberry farming by re-introducing habitat complexity through the creation of microtopography,
large wood habitat features, and upland “islands.”
The project also proposes to proactively enhance turtle nesting habitat on site.
3 Alternatives Analysis
Multiple alternatives were considered for various elements of this project, including conceptual focus on
freshwater wetland restoration versus salt marsh restoration, alternative surface treatments, degree of berm
and agricultural ditch removal, restoration concept for areas of existing mature trees, and management of the
three existing manmade ponds. The preferred alternative provides a balance between environmental
benefits, climate resilience, public benefits (including to Environmental Justice communities), and project
costs.
7
3.1 No Action Alternative
This alternative proposes to leave the retired cranberry bog and its infrastructure in their existing degraded
conditions. This option would maintain trail connectivity as it currently exists, maintain the existing manmade
ponds in their current condition, and maintain existing vegetation (which has trended toward upland habitat
on much of the site). This alternative does not address the legacy impacts of agricultural activities and
infrastructure on historic wetlands at the site. As a result, existing conditions will continue to hinder wetland
development and allow the establishment of simplified habitats that are uncharacteristic of natural wetland
ecosystems. Further, leaving the downgradient berm and water control structure in place would continue to
restrict tidal flow into the system except in extreme high tide or storm surge events; during such events,
saltwater that overtopped the berm would be restricted from draining off the site. Although this alternative
avoids the costs associated with design, permitting, and implementation, it does not meet the goals of
ecological restoration for either freshwater wetlands or salt marsh migration.
3.2 Restoration Focus: Freshwater Wetlands vs.
Salt Marsh Migration
As noted above, the Bayview Bogs site is situated just upstream of existing salt marsh, with a tidal creek that
flows inland from Lewis Bay, up to the manmade berm and water control structure at the downgradient end
of the bog system. Removal of this berm will remove the restriction to tidal flow and allow tidal influence into
the site. Initially, under present-day conditions, tidal flow will extend only a short distance into the site.
However, tidal influence can be expected to expand over time, extending further into the site as sea level rise
results in an increase in the mean high tide level. As with many near-coastal cranberry bog restoration
projects, this project faces an interesting ecological dilemma—how best to plan for a wetland restoration that
will allow the site to function as a high-quality freshwater wetland in the near-term, while simultaneously
setting it up to transition to a high-quality salt marsh system with increasing tidal influence over time.
For this site, given site elevations and the projected path of change over time, the project team determined
that the restoration goals would be best served by preferencing restoration of healthy functioning freshwater
wetlands throughout the majority of the site, incorporating a smaller marsh migration transition zone at the
southern-most end of the site designed to accommodate short-term salt marsh migration in areas that will
receive near-term tidal influence. Upgradient of this area, in keeping with the process-based restoration
approach that forms the foundation of the project, the site will be allowed to naturally transition from
freshwater wetlands to tidal wetlands at its own pace as the coastline gradually adjusts with sea level rise.
3.3 Surface Treatment Alternatives:
Microtopography vs. Positive Drainage
A critical consideration in planning for this long-term transition is the treatment of the bog surface.
Restoration of cranberry bogs to freshwater wetlands typically involves substantial “roughening” of the former
bog platforms. This treatment, which can be performed in a variety of methods, generally involves turning
over the sanded bog surface using heavy equipment. Roughening is the physical action that breaks apart the
existing mat of cranberry plants and the underlying sanded surface. The objectives of this restoration activity
are to: break up the mat of cranberry plants; de-compact and mix the sanded surface with organics; expose
underlying native peat deposits, to promote groundwater expression and germination of the dormant seed
bank of native wetland plants; and relocate soils within the bog cells to fill existing ditches and create
physical diversity (aka, microtopography) to increase habitat. On the other hand, salt marsh restoration
8
typically preferences positive drainage to avoid having water trapped in pools on the marsh and potentially
drowning sensitive marsh grasses. At Bayview Bogs, given the decision to restore freshwater wetlands
across the majority of the site, we have incorporated typical 12” microtopography surface treatment into
much of the restoration area. At the southern end of the bog, where near-term tidal inundation is anticipated
based on elevations, the design includes a low-slope, smooth-surfaced marsh migration transition zone.
Immediately upgradient of this zone is a narrow zone of 6” microtopography to maintain freshwater wetland
conditions but create a surface that will be more easily smoothed out by future tidal flows and welcoming to
marsh migration.
3.4 Degree of Berm and Agricultural Ditch
Removal
The removal of all berms at the site is most efficient for restoring natural hydrologic conditions. At Bayview
Bogs, interior berms are not extensive, and there is sufficient space in deposition areas and perimeter
ditches to relocate berm material. The design therefore incorporates removal of all water control structures
within berms and removal of the full (or near-full) lateral extent of berms separating bog cells to maximize
hydrologic connectivity in the system. In most locations, the full depth of berms will also be removed. In
particular locations, berms will be removed down to a specified grade to form an earth grade control which
will allow for restored hydrologic connectivity in higher water conditions, while simultaneously preventing
higher elevation bog cells from being drained of water in lower water conditions.
As the berms currently provide the trail surface for existing trails through the bog system, maintenance of
access following restoration will require the installation of boardwalks wherever sections of berm are
removed. Boardwalks carried on helical piers will be constructed across these restored areas where needed
to maintain connectivity of the trail network and allow visitors to view and engage with the various restored
wetland habitats. Elimination of these berms will substantially restore the hydrologic connections between
the bogs, and critically, the connection between the tidal creek and the bogs, and provide the optimal
conditions to create self-sustaining wetlands.
The existing artificial agricultural ditches effectively drain the bog platform and concentrate that drainage
from the site in an unnatural way. Historic USGS topographic maps of the site indicate that there were no
historic streams through the site, with the only natural waterway the tidal creek that historically conveyed tidal
flows from Lewis Bay up into the site. The intent of these agricultural ditches was to control water movement
through the site, allowing individual bogs to be flooded and drained quickly, as required for cranberry
production. The existing ditches are incised below the bog platforms, causing water to drain and concentrate
in the ditches, moving the water quickly downgradient, rather than allowing it to spread across the bog
surfaces as is characteristic of natural wetland hydrology. Filling the ditches is proposed to restore a more
natural hydrologic regime characterized by low velocity flow through broad, vegetated rather than bypass the
restored bogs. This will in turn yield wetter conditions that facilitate wetland development in the restored bogs
and increase residence time and thereby provide increased opportunities for both flood storage and nutrient
attenuation.
3.5 Restoration of Areas of Existing Mature Trees
Because of the altered hydrology on the site designed to drain much of the wetland areas, and as is typical
of many retired cranberry bogs, several sections of the site are transitioning to uplands—in the case of
Bayview Bogs, the site has been retired from agriculture for several decades and extensive mature tree
9
cover has developed. Notably, much of this vegetation is invasive, with significant populations of gray willow
(Salix cinerea) in addition to other woody invasives (these and other invasives on site are currently being
managed through an ongoing pre-restoration treatment program under a separate NOI). Leaving these areas
as is would fail to restore wetland habitats and simultaneously maintain a very low-diversity system, however
leaving trees in place while restoring hydrology would ultimately result in large expanses of standing dead as
the trees die off due to rewetting of the site. Further, existing conditions limit visibility and provide cover for
extensive encampments of unhoused individuals throughout portions of the site. As these are not desirable
options in keeping with the wetland restoration goals, the preferred alternative is to remove a majority of the
trees internal to the former cranberry bog cells to allow for thorough filling of the ditches and surface
microtopography to best meet the project’s wetland restoration goals. As noted on the plans, select native
trees will be preserved to enhance habitat diversity, provide shelter and food for wildlife species, and form
scattered upland islands throughout the wetland system; this activity will be field-directed by the designer
during construction.
3.6 Management of Existing Ponds
At least two of the existing ponds on the site are manmade features from remnant agricultural operations.
However, they provide habitat diversity on the site. Rather than converting these areas to BVW, the
proposed design will preserve the ponds, with earthwork proposed to soften unnaturally steep edges and
create fringing wetland or emergent marsh habitats to more naturally blend the ponds with the surrounding
habitat. The most southern pond already exhibits this type of fringing marsh. This pond margin has been
identified as a light-touch-zone and will serve as the reference habitat for restoring pond edges at the other
two pond locations.
4 Proposed Project
4.1 Ecological Restoration Elements
The Project will restore nearly 47-acres of former cranberry bogs by removing the agricultural berms and
water control structures that currently block tidal exchange with Lewis Bay to restore tidal connectivity,
recreate healthy functioning freshwater wetlands, and allow for a gradual transition to salt marsh as sea level
rises.
Over a decade of assessment, design, and construction implementation of wetland and stream ecological
restoration projects on retired cranberry farms by DER and partners shapes the current technical approach
for this project. Massachusetts has restored nearly 500 acres of wetlands on retired cranberry farmland and
more than 10 miles of stream through eight completed cranberry bog projects. Sixteen more are in various
stages of planning, design, permitting and construction. Similar project teams partnered on the successfully
completed Eel River Headwaters (2010), Tidmarsh Farms Phase I (2016), Foothills Preserve (2020), Childs
River (2022), Mattapoisett Bog (2025), Coonamessett River Upper and Lower Bogs (2018, 2025), and
Windswept Bog (2025) restoration projects. The restoration results have been positive, dramatic, and
immediate. (Findings concerning DER’s technical restoration approach with partners, which has been refined
over the past 10 years, as well as benefits of restoration on former cranberry farmland can be found in a
2020 report “Learning from the Restoration of Wetlands on Cranberry Farmland: Preliminary Benefits
Assessment” published by Living Observatory: https://view.publitas.com/p222-2239/preliminary-benefits-
assessment/page/1.) Retired cranberry bogs across the Northeast region are heavily modified from decades
of intensive land and water manipulation. All this work emphasizes the central role of hydrology and
10
connectivity in reestablishing healthy and self-sustaining natural systems on degraded former agricultural
lands.
4.1.1 Restored Tidal Connection
The ultimate outlet from the former cranberry bogs currently consists of a drop-inlet water control structure
which prevents tidal influence from making its way into the site. The water control structure and berm will be
removed in their entirety to restore tidal flow. The downgradient marsh platform elevation and tidal creek
elevation will be restored through the removed berm area and carried into the site to create a low-slope
marsh migration transition zone with positive drainage toward the tidal creek.
4.1.2 Removal of Irrigation Lines
All irrigation lines encountered within the bog cells or other areas of active restoration will be removed and
disposed of.
4.1.3 Removal of Water Control Structures, Berms, and
Agricultural Ditches
All other remnant agricultural water control structures and berms interior to the site will be removed to restore
hydrologic connectivity across bog cells. All material that comprises the berms – sand, soil, and possibly
stone – will be repurposed at the site to plug drainage/irrigation ditches, restore upland areas, and achieve
the desired grades for successful wetland restoration. Specifically, material excavated from berms will
typically be used to fill perimeter ditches and/or exported to upland depositional areas.
The existing network of artificial drainage ditches efficiently moves surface water through the site and
significantly reduces the residence time of surface water in bog cells. The network of ditches concentrates
flow and prevents the broad, diffuse movement of surface water across the surface of the bog cell. To
reverse these modifications, all perimeter and internal agricultural ditches that were previously constructed to
direct and control water will be filled to reestablish natural hydrology, allowing water to spread across the bog
surface instead of being conveyed to ditches and bypassing the bog platforms. Material from the bog
platforms (higher in organic content) will be preferenced for filling of internal ditches.
4.1.4 Earth Grade Controls
At select berm removal locations, rather than removing the full depth of berm material, the berms will be
removed down to a specified grade and naturalized to form an earth grade control which will allow for
restored hydrologic connectivity in higher water conditions, while simultaneously preventing higher elevation
bog cells from being drained of water in lower water conditions. These earth grade controls are proposed at
the berms at three locations: 1) from Bog cell A into Bog cell C, 2) from Bog cell B into Bog cell C, and 3)
from Bog cell C into Bog cell E. At each of these locations, the upgradient bog cell platform and observed
ground water elevations are approximately 1-foot higher than the corresponding elevations in the
downgradient cell. The proposed grade controls will help to maintain sufficient ground water elevations in the
upgradient cells to maintain wetland hydrology and support wetland vegetation communities.
11
4.1.5 Diffuse Flow Path Connections
Additional excavation will occur in upland areas between existing bog cells E and F and between bog cells F
and G to create diffuse flow paths that foster connectivity between the former bog cells at the south end of
the site which are currently functioning in isolation from the larger system. Providing a connection from Bog
cells F and G to Bog cell E will also allow flow to move from F/G into E during periods of higher water,
lessening concern about limited drainage capacity at the restricted culvert under Park Avenue at the south
end of Bog G by redirecting this outflow toward the north and ultimately through the primary tidal creek
connection under Park Avenue further west.
Existing ditches north of the pond will be naturalized to create diffuse flow paths to spread water across the
former bog cell surface at this end of the site (shown on the Site Plans as Bog H in Appendix A). In each of
these cases, proposed modifications will consist of earthwork to create flow paths that are more natural and
promote broad, shallow, diffuse, and geomorphically complex surface flows across the site.
4.1.6 Excavation Areas
In order to facilitate development of a variety of wetland habitats and mimic natural wetland conditions seen
already in select locations on site, excavation is proposed in select areas to lower the ground surface
elevation and promote the formation of semi-permanently and seasonally flooded wetlands that support
wetland and/or aquatic vegetation. The selection of these areas has been based on in-situ monitoring well
data and soil probing investigations which confirmed that conditions are present (i.e., shallow groundwater
table, native peat deposits) to sustain semi-permanently and seasonally flooded wetlands at these locations.
All excavated material will be repurposed at the site to plug drainage/irrigation ditches and achieve the
desired grades for successful wetland restoration.
Additional areas of excavation have been identified along the northwest edge of Bog E where existing bog
cell elevations are higher than that of the surrounding bog platform. Excavation from these areas is intended
to achieve average surface elevations consistent with those of the adjacent bog cell platform and avoid
having these areas become too dry to support wetland development. Excavated material from these areas
will be used to fill perimeter ditches or exported to upland depositional areas.
4.1.7 Microtopography/ “Roughening” Surface
Treatment to Create Hummock-Hollow
Topography
Microtopography or “roughening” will be employed as a surface treatment across significant portions of the
former bog cell platforms. This method rearranges material in place to create high points and low points (a
heterogenous landscape), adding significant microtopography and landscape diversity through ‘messing up’
the surface in lieu of full excavation. For retired cranberry bogs, roughening is the physical action that breaks
apart the existing mat of cranberry plants and the underlying sanded surface. The objectives of this
restoration activity are to break up the mat of cranberry plants; de-compact and mix the sanded surface with
organics; expose underlying native peat deposits, promote groundwater expression and germination of the
dormant seed bank of native wetland plants; and relocate soils within the bog cells to fill existing ditches and
create physical diversity (aka, microtopography) to increase habitat. This approach can achieve a variety of
elevations that allow for engagement of groundwater throughout the site, rather than a wholesale lowering of
the surface elevation through export of material. The standard microtopography detail proposed for the site
12
will result in variations of approximately 12-inches between the highs and lows across each bog platform.
Microtopography also allows for incorporation of bog platform material into the irrigation ditches to fill ditches
and erase the linear network of ditching currently seen across the site.
A zone of 6-inch microtopography is proposed immediately upgradient of the low-slope marsh migration zone
to provide an interim surface treatment and further facilitate natural long-term marsh migration.
Note that site work involved in microtopography will also include the intentional clearing of decades of
overgrown upland and invasive vegetation. This proposed clearing is necessary to allow natural processes to
restore and revitalize the wetland over time in areas that have otherwise trended toward upland habitats and
require intervention to restore wetland hydrology. Many of the trees removed from these areas will be re-
incorporated into the wetland surface for habitat roughness and complexity; others will be buried in
depositional areas or possibly chipped and removed from the site.
4.1.8 Naturalization of Existing Ponds
Of the three existing ponds on site, only the southern-most pond has relatively natural banks that transition
into emergent wetlands. Earthwork is proposed along the banks of the remaining two ponds to soften the
steep, constructed banks and create fringing wetlands to enhance habitat diversity.
4.1.9 Turtle Nesting Habitat
While the site is not officially mapped as rare species habitat, the project design has incorporated input from
the NHESP staff to proactively enhance rare species habitat capacity in both wetland areas and upland
areas to provide refuge for turtles and other wildlife within an otherwise developed and urbanized area. In
particular, several areas previously identified as turtle nesting habitat are being preserved in the design and
will be protected during construction. Additional areas of nesting habitat are proposed in areas with similar
conditions.
See Appendix A for site plans, and Appendix C for the conceptual design, including ecological restoration
elements.
4.2 Access Improvements and Site Amenities
In addition to ecological restoration, Bayview Bogs will offer meaningful public health and recreational
benefits. New walking trails, a therapeutic landscape area, scenic overlooks, and seating areas will increase
access to open space and promote passive outdoor recreation, which is directly linked to physical and
mental health benefits. The site’s proximity to the Hospital means it will also serve as a place of respite and
healing for healthcare workers, patients, and their families, providing a natural, restorative environment for
contemplation, reflection, and healing. This directly aligns with the healing mission of the Hospital and will
provide long-term health and wellness benefits to the broader community.
4.2.1 At-Grade Trail Network
The existing farm road that surrounds the perimeter of the bog cells will remain as the basis for the primary
trail loop. Portions of this trail that are part of the Therapeutic Landscape Area (see next section) and
13
intended to provide full ADA-compliant accessibility will have a hardened surface; the remainder of the bog
road will remain a natural dirt surface as it is today.
4.2.2 Therapeutic Landscape Area
The Therapeutic Landscape Area is proposed immediately east of Bayview Ave and the Hospital and
contains more programmed elements to provide a space of respite and reflection that compliments the
Hospital’s healing mission by providing exposure to the therapeutic benefits of immersion in nature. This
area is located within existing uplands and will feature shorter ADA-compliant trail loop options to allow
visitors of all abilities to enjoy the site. The design incorporates seating and semi-private nooks for individuals
or small clusters of people to gather and look out over the restored wetlands.
4.2.3 Neighborhood Connection Points and Trailheads
In addition to the access point at the Therapeutic Landscape Area, the site will have several trailhead
connections into the surrounding neighborhoods, typically in locations where historic connector trails once
existed. These will allow neighbors to benefit from easy access to the site as well as provide an alternate
walking or biking route from areas near Virgina Street and Cleveland Way to make their way toward the
beach or other points of the neighborhood away from vehicular traffic. Trailheads will feature small upland
kiosks and wayfinding signage.
4.2.4 Boardwalks
Raised boardwalks are proposed to balance pedestrian access with ecological restoration. Boardwalks will
be constructed to maintain trail connectivity in areas along the existing farm road where agricultural berms
are being removed. A longer “marsh meander” boardwalk is also proposed across Bog Cell E to create
accessible trail access to the central portion of the site for education and engagement purposes. The
boardwalks are specifically designed to allow for full removal of constructed agricultural berms to restore
natural hydrologic connectivity and reduce human impact on sensitive marsh areas by keeping foot traffic
elevated and contained. The use of helical piles ensures that only minimal, pinpoint disturbance occurs at
each structural post and groundwater and surface flows can move freely under the boardwalks. The
boardwalks will also allow natural tidal flow and sediment movement to continue uninterrupted as tidal
influence moves deeper into the site in the future — a critical element for the long-term health and function of
the restored wetland system.
4.2.5 Overlooks and Benches
A series of small (100 square feet or less) overlooks are planned throughout the site with benches or
informal seating (e.g. boulders). Some overlooks will be at-grade natural surfaces, others will be constructed
as platforms similar to the boardwalks and supported on helical piers. Overlooks and seating areas along the
trail network will provide users of all ability and mobility levels with rest points and opportunities to experience
the restored site up-close and observe the dynamic nature of the wetland habitats as they evolve and grow
over time.
14
4.2.6 Signage
Educational signage and wayfinding signage is planned throughout the restored site to assist in navigating
the trail network and provide information on the restoration process, restored wetland habitats, and future
marsh migration potential of the site.
See Appendix A for site plans, and Appendix C for the conceptual design, including access improvements
and site amenities.
5 Wetland Restoration Monitoring Plan
Wetland restoration success is measured by attainment of the successful and stable long-term establishment of
wetland hydrology, hydric soil development, percent coverage of hydrophytic plants, and function and value
development. The following post-construction monitoring program is proposed to evaluate and document the
effectiveness of the project in achieving the restoration goals. The monitoring program will be implemented at
the conclusion of construction and will continue for a period of three full growing seasons.
In the first season following restoration, restored areas will be monitored for vegetative emergence from the
buried native seed bank, as well as groundwater elevations and surface water flows.
Based on 10+ years of prior experience from other successful cranberry bog restoration projects, the native
seedbank within the former cranberry bogs is expected to be uncovered by the restoration techniques and to
begin to emerge in the first growing season. Vegetation communities will be monitored for emergence and
percent cover. Should insufficient emergence be observed or if vegetation does not match the targeted
wetland community types, the project team will consider whether additional strategic planting of wetland
species should be incorporated into the restoration.
The extant native seed bank is also anticipated to provide sufficient seed source for vegetative cover in the
restored upland areas. Construction specifications have been written to provide for seeding of any areas,
which, upon post-restoration visual monitoring, are not vegetating with sufficient cover to stabilize the soil
surface.
Monitoring of invasive vegetation and treatment of remaining invasives will be ongoing, in keeping with the
Invasive Species Management Plan outlined prior to restoration.
Photo monitoring points will be established in the field and sampled pre-restoration. Post-restoration photos
will be taken at these locations to track change over time as the restoration progresses. Photos will be taken
immediately following restoration and at regular intervals throughout the growing season for comparison to
the baseline pre-restoration photos.
Direct visual observations will be used to monitor flow of water through the restored site, in particular:
• Noting conditions at the restored tidal connection and the extent of tidal inundation during typical
tidal cycles and extreme high tide events. (Note that tidal inundation extents are anticipated to be
limited to the southern end of the site in the near-term, with longer-term expansion of tidal influence
expected to accompany sea level rise.)
15
• Monitoring flows across the restored diffuse flow paths, particularly from Bog cell G into Bog cell E.
• Monitoring of water levels in the excavation areas and microtopography areas within each bog cell
and functioning of the earth grade controls to maintain sufficient water in upgradient bog cells to
promote healthy wetland hydrology.
Annual vegetation monitoring will be conducted to assess establishment, survival and coverage of native
plantings in restored wetland habitats. A brief report will be provided after the conclusion of each growing
season that documents overall percent-cover of native vegetation at the site, a list of dominant species
observed, and any observances of invasive vegetation within the restored areas.
Additionally, DER has a standardized Ecological Monitoring Plan that it employs at each one of its Cranberry
Bog Restoration Program (CBRP) project sites both pre- and post-restoration. The goal of CBRP monitoring
is to assess, evaluate, and learn from cranberry bog wetland restoration projects to advance the mission of
the CBRP. The Plan draws on the jurisdictional definition of wetlands provided in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (WDM), which states that to determine wetland
status, three conditions must be met: (1) flooded or saturating hydrology, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland-
adapted vegetation. The CBRP Monitoring Plan outlines key questions that monitoring may help answer,
specifies parameters to be tracked, details sampling schemes, and describes the analytical and reporting
methods that will be used. The Plan targets sampling pre-restoration, and in years 1 (as close to time zero as
appropriate), 3, 5, 7, and 10.
6 Impacts
The proposed project will result in temporary and permanent impacts to wetland resource areas. Impacts
are summarized in Table 6-1 below.
16
Table 6-1
Summary of Wetland Resource Area Impacts
Resource Area Total Impact
Area/Length
Net Change (Gain or
Loss of Resource)
Following Restoration
Notes
Bank
2,633 lf +~500 lf
Temporary impacts to
existing bank. Creation of
bank anticipated from
extension of tidal creek.
Bordering Vegetated Wetland
(BVW)
109,540 sf
(2.5 acres)
+2,040,130 sf
(46.8 acres)
Significant additional
BVW will be restored
from former cranberry
bog cells (45.8 acres) and
areas of berm removal
(~1 acre).
Retired Cranberry Bog 1,994,408 sf
(45.8 acres)
-1,994,408 sf
(-45.8 acres)
Loss due to former
cranberry bogs converted
to BVW.
Riverfront Area 213,444 sf
(4.9 acres)
+~120,000 sf
(~2.75 acres)
Increase anticipated from
northward expansion of
tidal creek into marsh
transition zone.
Land Under Water Bodies and
Waterways (LUWW)
88,262 sf
(2.0 acres) No change Temporary impacts.
Salt Marsh 52,708 sf
(1.2 acres) No change
No immediate change.
Restoration of tidal flow
will allow for marsh
expansion in the future
with sea level rise.
Coastal Bank 726 lf No change No immediate change
anticipated.
Land Subject to Coastal Storm
Flowage (LSCSF)
3,316,199 sf
(76.1 acres) No change No change.
6.1 Inland Bank
The project will result in approximately 2,633 linear feet (lf) of impacts to Inland Bank. Impacts to Bank will
result from restoration work to naturalize the banks of existing manmade ponds. These impacts will be
temporary in nature and will not impair:
1. The physical stability of the Bank;
2. The water carrying capacity of the existing channel within the Bank;
3. Groundwater and surface water quality;
4. The capacity of the Bank to provide breeding habitat, escape cover and food for fisheries; and
5. The capacity of the Bank to provide important wildlife habitat functions.
17
In addition, extension of the existing tidal creek into the site will create approximately 500 lf of new Bank.
Immediately post-restoration, this stretch of the creek is anticipated to be freshwater tidal, and has therefore
been counted as Inland Bank.
6.2 Bordering Vegetated Wetland
As indicated on Form 3A, the project will result in impacts to approximately 2,103,948 sf (48.3 acres) of
BVW; this number is broken down in Table 6-1 to areas consisting of retired cranberry bog versus areas of
healthy, natural BVW on site. Temporary impacts may occur to up to 109,540 sf (2.5 acres) of BVW outside
of the cranberry bog cells. The proposed restoration will permanently restore 1,994,408 sf (45.8 acres) of
existing retired cranberry bog to BVW. An additional 45,722 sf (~1 acre) of BVW will be restored via berm
removal and removal of fill to restore wetland connectivity between different bog cells. These areas were
previously degraded due to legacy impacts of agricultural activities, and will be restored to improve wetland
functions and processes and allow the site to re-naturalize. Collectively, this will result in a net increase in
BVW of approximately 46.8 acres. The created BVW will enhance the ecological, habitat, and hydrologic
values of the Site and support the interests of the Act. The wetland will be created as shown on the Site
Plans in Appendix A and will be monitored for invasive species and wetland performance post-restoration.
With regard to the performance standards:
1. Proposed work within BVW will restore wetlands and result in improvement over existing conditions.
2. Proposed work will not result in a loss of BVW.
3. The project will not have an adverse effect on habitats of rare vertebrate or invertebrate species.
4. The project will not destroy or impair portions of BVW within an Area of Critical Environmental
Concern.
6.3 Riverfront Area
The proposed project will impact approximately 213,444 sf (4.9 acres) of Riverfront Area. Riverfront is
associated with the tidal creek which currently terminates at the bog outlet; the associated 200-foot arc from
this terminus extends northward into the retired cranberry bog. The project proposes grading in this area to
extend the tidal creek and create a low-slope transition zone for future marsh migration. This extension of
the creek will result in an associated net increase of approximately 120,000 sf (2.75 acres) of riverfront area.
Relative to the Performance Standards in 310 CMR 10.58(4), proposed work in Riverfront:
1. Will not negatively impact other resource areas.
2. Will not impact rare species.
3. Is the most practicable and substantially equivalent economic alternative evaluated.
4. Will have no significant adverse impact on the riverfront area.
6.4 Land Under Water Bodies and Waterways
The project may conservatively result in approximately 88,262 sf (2.0 acres) of temporary impacts to
LUWW. LUWW exists within the three existing ponds, at least two of which are manmade agricultural
infrastructure. No work is explicitly planned within LUWW; however, temporary impacts may occur from
adjacent construction activities.
18
Temporary alteration of LUWW will not impair:
1. The water carrying capacity provided by said land in
conjunction with the banks;
2. Ground and surface water quality;
3. The capacity of said land to provide breeding habitat, escape cover and food for fisheries; and
4. The capacity of said land to provide important wildlife habitat functions.
6.5 Salt Marsh
The proposed project may conservatively result in temporary impacts to up to approximately 52,708 sf (1.2
acres) of Salt Marsh. No construction work is currently planned within existing salt marsh (located
immediately north of Park Avenue along the tidal creek), However, management of Phragmites in this area is
currently underway under a separate Order of Conditions, and once invasive vegetation is better controlled,
the project team may discover additional tidal restrictions (e.g., remnant agricultural berms or other
obstructions to tidal flow) that require removal. We have conservatively included this area in our limit of work
and impact calculations to allow for flexibility in restoration actions needed to improve the condition of the salt
marsh, in accordance with the performance standards for salt marsh, which allow that a project which will
restore or rehabilitate may be permitted.
6.6 Coastal Bank
The proposed project may conservatively result in temporary impacts to up to approximately 726 lf of Coastal
Bank. Limited temporary impacts are expected from grading and excavation needed to remove the berm and
water control structure at the bog outlet and extend the tidal creek and marsh platform into the restored
cranberry bog. No other immediate impacts to Coastal Bank are anticipated, however, as with Salt Marsh,
we have conservatively included the entirety of the Coastal Bank extending down to Park Avenue within our
limit of work and impact calculations to allow for flexibility in restoration actions needed to improve the
condition of the tidal creek and remove any additional obstructions to tidal flow discovered following the
management of Phragmites along and in the creek.
6.7 Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage
The majority of the proposed project is within LSCSF. The project will therefore temporarily impact
approximately 3,316,199 sf (76.1 acres) of LSCSF for the purposes of ecological restoration. The proposed
restoration will not result in any adverse impacts and is anticipated to positively enhance the ability of LSCSF
to provide such ecosystem services as:
1. Improving the ability of the land to absorb and contain flood waters.
2. Improving the ability of the land to buffer more inland areas from flooding and wave damage.
3. Decreasing the elevation or velocity of flood waters.
4. Improving the ability of the resource to serve as a wildlife habitat and migration corridor.
5. Enhancing capacity for the migration of salt marshes due to sea level rise.
19
6.8 Construction Sequence
The proposed project will be constructed in one or more phases, depending on the availability of funding to
implement the restoration design. Phasing and construction within each phase will be sequenced so as to
conduct all restoration activities in a manner that a) maintains the existing berms and farm roads needed for
equipment to access bog cells farthest from the designated construction access until they have been fully
restored and b) maintains downgradient water control structures to serve as the primary means of sediment
and water control while upgradient restoration work is performed.
In each phase, ecological restoration requires the following work to be performed, generally in the order
described:
• Installation of erosion and sedimentation controls and re-routing of surface water around the work
area, if needed. (Note that the existing water control structures and irrigation ditch infrastructure will
provide most of the water control needed to manage phased restoration.)
• Clearing and grubbing of bog cells is expected to take place either immediately prior to roughening
and excavation or as part of the same earthwork operations in each bog cell. Wood will either be
immediately incorporated into the restored wetland surface or stockpiled for use in filling ditches or
as woody debris elsewhere in the restoration work at the direction of the designer. Prior to beginning
earthwork in a given bog cell or area of the site, the contractor will review with the designer trees or
clusters of trees to be preserved as upland habitats.
• Roughening and/or excavation of bog surfaces to disrupt the compacted sanded surface, fill all
irrigation ditches, create microtopography, promote groundwater expression, and expose the native
seed bank in underlying peat deposits.
• In phases where applicable, modify existing, incised irrigation/drainage ditches between bogs and/or
excavate upland soils to create a diffuse flow path with pit-&-mound topography.
• Removal of the constructed berms proposed for removal, relocation of berm material to perimeter
irrigation/drainage ditches within adjacent bogs or, if needed, to designated depositional areas.
• Removal of WCS currently located in berms proposed for removal.
• Grading around the bog perimeters to establish a transition zone from restored wetlands to adjacent
upland habitats.
Removal of the downgradient outlet and berm at the upper end of the tidal creek to restore tidal flow into the
site is anticipated to be one of the last elements of restoration. This will facilitate continued use of the
structure for water and sediment control during work across other portions of the site and avoid introducing
tidal flow into the site while other work is occurring.
Boardwalk and overlook construction (as well as the construction of the Therapeutic Landscape Area) are
anticipated to occur as one of the last elements of the project, and will follow the implementation of all
ecological restoration elements within each area of the site.
6.9 Construction Period Best Management
Practices
Construction-period Best Management Practices (BMPs) have been incorporated into the design to minimize
potential impacts to the environment during construction and build upon the successful implementation of
past cranberry bog restoration projects in Massachusetts. These include:
20
• Construction sequencing planned to enable use of existing water control structures as the primary
water and sediment controls during construction
• Construction tracking pad
• Cofferdams to protect the work area from incoming tide when the downgradient tidal restriction is
being removed
• Additional erosion and sediment controls (e.g., silt fence, straw bales, erosion control blanket) to be
installed to protect down-gradient resource areas where no active work is planned (e.g. the down-
gradient tidal creek) and around upland areas where trail surfacing or construction of Therapeutic
Landscape elements are proposed
• If needed, a pumping settling basin and/or bypass piping to reduce ground saturation of work areas
• Minimization of construction equipment access and disturbance outside of existing access roads and
disturbed areas
• Adherence to best practices regarding construction time of year (TOY) with respect to wildlife
expected or encountered on site
o Note that no official TOY Restrictions are required for the work. There are no mapped rare
species habitats on site, and in an April 2025 correspondence with Massachusetts Division
of Fisheries and Wildlife, it was determined there are no TOY restrictions for fisheries. See
Appendix D.
o The project team has also consulted on construction best management practices with
NHESP staff for specific species, including turtles.
A construction tracking pad will be installed at construction access points to minimize sedimentation into the
roadways (Bayview Street). The construction tracking pad will consist of filter fabric overlaid with washed
stone. The roadway will be swept as needed to remove material that may be tracked onto the pavement.
Note, however, that construction traffic into and out of the site will be limited; equipment is generally
expected to arrive on site at project initiation and remain throughout the duration of the project. Other than
debris to be disposed of, no material is proposed to leave the site, and materials to be brought into the site
are quite limited with the exception of lumber and materials associated with the ADA trails and Therapeutic
Landscape Area.
All erosion and sedimentation controls will be regularly monitored and maintained as necessary to ensure
proper functioning for their intended purpose. As noted above and on the Site Plans (Appendix A), the
existing water control structures will be used as the primary means of sediment and water control during
construction, as these structures provide a built-in means of managing flows and containing sediment.
Where these structures are proposed to be removed as part of the restoration, phasing of removals will be
planned to account for this use.
A detailed dewatering plan will be developed by the selected contractor prior to construction which shall
provide additional detail and will be provided to the Yarmouth Conservation Commission for review and
approval prior to start of construction.
No equipment will be stored, maintained, or repaired in wetland resource areas.
A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit “General Permit” for Discharges
from Construction Activities will be obtained prior to construction since the construction Site is greater than 1-
21
acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be developed prior to submitting the registration
under the NPDES General Permit in accordance with the conditions of the General Permit.7
7 Operations and Maintenance Plan
7.1 Restored Wetlands
The project proposes a process-based restoration approach which focuses on repairing the natural
movement and storage of water as a driver for wetland recovery and ultimate re-establishment of a self-
sustaining wetland system. The restored wetlands have thus been designed to operate autonomously with
minimal maintenance. The majority of the existing infrastructure on site will be removed as part of the
restoration project, further minimizing maintenance needs.
Primary maintenance will be related to invasive species management. See Appendix E for the Invasive Plant
Management Plan. Additional maintenance efforts may include:
• Repair of eroded areas
• Repair of earth grade controls as needed to re-establish design elevations consistent with conditions
depicted on design drawings and/or to modify elevations to meet the design intent of achieving
dispersed flow through the former bog cells.
• Removal and disposal of any manmade/foreign debris or trash.
• Critically, the system is also intended to be dynamic over time. Change is expected and welcomed,
particularly as tidal inundation expands across new portions of the site with sea level rise in the
future.
7.2 Boardwalks
The boardwalks and viewing platforms are not expected to be treated and will be allowed to weather
naturally. Maintenance of the boardwalks will consist of repair/replacement of any damaged boards and/or
railings in places where height above the ground surface dictates a requirement for safety rails. Additions of
trail and educational signage may also be considered part of future maintenance.
Boardwalk crossings should be inspected annually and after significant storm events. This monitoring should
include the following:
• Check for active erosion; take appropriate corrective actions to stabilize any areas of erosion
• Inspect structural integrity of the boardwalk
• Remove accumulated litter, non-natural debris
7.3 Trails
To ensure that the accessible trail remains safe, functional, and enjoyable for all users while minimizing
environmental impact and sustaining long-term durability, the following routine operations and maintenance
should be conducted:
22
• Inspection Schedule: Conduct monthly inspections for surface condition, drainage functionality,
vegetation encroachment, and trail signs.
• Surface Maintenance: Regrade uneven surfaces, and repair surface after erosion.
• Vegetation Management: Trim overhanging branches and clear invasive vegetation at least twice per
year to maintain width and prevent tripping hazards.
• Signage Maintenance: Regularly clean, repair, or replace trail signs to provide clear guidance and
information to users.
Annual Maintenance Tasks
• Erosion Control Measures: Reinforce trail edges to prevent erosion caused by water runoff.
• Infrastructure Repair: Evaluate and repair bridges, boardwalks, or benches along the trail.
8 Regulatory Compliance
8.1 Abutter Notification
Abutters within 100-feet of the Project Locus will be notified via certified mail at least seven days prior to the
public hearing in accordance with 310 CMR 10.05(4) and the Town of Yarmouth Wetlands Protection
Regulations. A copy of the certified abutters list and abutter notification form are provided in Appendix F.
8.2 Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
(MEPA)
A Notice of Ecological Restoration Project was submitted to the MEPA office on September 29, 2025. In an
email dated November 10, 2025 (see Appendix G) the MEPA office confirmed that, under 301 CMR
11.01(2)(b)4., the Secretary did not decide within 10 days after the comment period that an Environmental
Notification Form (ENF) is required for the proposed project, and therefore any Agency Action required for
the Project may be taken at this time if required to obtain a Restoration Order of Conditions, provided that the
Agency Action is deemed to be conditioned on the ultimate issuance of the Restoration Order of Conditions.
A Notice of Intent Ecological Restoration Project was published in the November 26, 2025, edition of the
Environmental Monitor (see Appendix H).
8.3 MassDEP Stormwater Management Guidelines
The project will not include creation of any new point source discharges, or expansion of a drainage system
for increased collection. Per the recommended final decision issued on July 29, 2016 in the Matter of
Berkshire Community College Docket # WET-2015-023 from the MassDEP Office of Appeals and Dispute
Resolution, it was ruled that 310 CMR 10.05(6)(k) through (q) does not apply to a project that does not
propose a “point source” or “stormwater discharge” within resource areas or their Buffer Zones.
Construction-period BMPs will be implemented for erosion and sedimentation control including installation of
sediment control barriers, and installation of a temporary pump settling basin and other water control
measures as appropriate. A SWPPP pursuant to the requirements of EPA’s Construction General Permit will
be prepared prior to construction detailing appropriate stormwater management practices.
23
Ultimately the restoration project will result in stormwater benefits by increasing the ecosystem’s natural
capacity to attenuate stormwater, providing greater storage in the upper watershed, and limiting erosion and
sedimentation caused by high velocity flows through measures designed to slow and spread stormwater
inputs through the system.
8.4 Water Supply Wells
The Proposed Project does not have the potential to negatively impact private water supply wells, including
agricultural or aquacultural wells or surface water withdrawal points.
Figures
USGS Topographic Map
FEMA FIRM (Panel No. 25001C0569J, July 16, 2014)
Appendix B – Site Photos
Bayview Bogs Ecological Restoration/Yarmouth
Photo 1: Looking at the outlet of the most downstream water control structure and berm that separate the former
cranberry bogs from the tidal creek and connectivity with Lewis Bay.
Photo 2: Standing on the berm at the final water control structure that outlets from the bog system, looking
downstream (south) along the tidal creek that connects to Lewis Bay. The structure at foreground blocks tidal
influence from entering the site.
Bayview Bogs Ecological Restoration/Yarmouth
Photo 3: Typical view of one of the remnant agricultural ditches within the former cranberry bog.
Photo 4: View of one of the more naturalized areas at the interior of the site, where the edges of the agricultural
ditch have become less defined.
Bayview Bogs Ecological Restoration/Yarmouth
Photo 5: Trash left behind in an upland area associated with a homeless encampment.
Photo 6: Looking northwest along the old farm road that traverses the outer edge of the former cranberry bogs.
The retired cranberry bog platform and an agricultural ditch are visible at right of image.
Bayview Bogs Ecological Restoration/Yarmouth
Photo 7: Looking south toward Park Avenue, at the inlet of the more westerly Town-owned culvert that connects
the tidal creek to Lewis Bay. The road crossing is the most southerly limit of the proposed project site. (No work is
proposed at the culvert at this time.)
Photo 8: Looking South from Park Avenue at the more westerly Town-owned culvert, toward Lewis Bay. This
portion of the tidal creek and adjacent salt marsh are not within the proposed project; photo included for
downstream context.
Bayview Bogs Ecological Restoration/Yarmouth
Photo 9: Standing on Park Avenue at the more eastern Town-owned culvert, looking north into the project site. As
seen in the image, the area is dominated by the invasive plant Phragmites australis.
Appendix C – Concept Renderings
Bayview Bogs
Design Workshop Renderings
Yarmouth, MA
December 10-12, 2024
0 300’150’600’TRENTON STREETROSETTA STREETCARLETON STALBION STBAY VIEW STREETEAST MA
IN
STREET
VIRGINIA STREET
CLEVELAND WAY CLEVELAND WAYSHORT WAY
WENDWARD WAY
OVAL DRIVE
ROUND DRIVE
WENDWARD WA
Y
ROUTE 28HIGHLAND STREE
T
LEWIS
BAY
SOMERSET STREETPA
R
K
S
T
R
E
E
T PARK AVENUEGR
O
V
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
MA
L
F
A
R
D
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
T
R
E
E
T
ALGONQU
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
VE
R
N
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
HYANNI
S
YARMO
U
T
H
Cape Cod Hospital
Employee Parking
BOG A
BOG B
BOG C
BOG E
BOG F
BOG G
BOG D
EXISTING CONDITIONS
December 10-12, 2024
Bayview Bogs | Design Workshop Renderings
Ecological Restoration
1.Restored Hummock Hollow Wetlands
2.Restored Tidal Connection
3.Enhanced/Naturalized Pond Habitats
4.Restored Freshwater Connection
5.Restored Deep Marsh Area
6.Improved Park Avenue Culverts
Access Improvements & Site Amenities
7.Welcome Plaza with Accessible Parking
8.Terraced Therapeutic Landscape Area
9.Trailhead Parking
10.Neighborhood Trailhead
11.Accessible Outer Loop Trail
12.“Marsh Meander“ Boardwalk Trail
13.Boardwalk Crossing
14.Upland Lookout Trail
15.Overlook with Educational Signage & Seating
0 300’150’600’
1
1
2
6
6
3
3
4
5
8
11
11
11
11
11
12
13
13
13
13
13
15
15
15
15
15
15
7
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
14
TRENTON STREETROSETTA STREETCARLETON STALBION STBAY VIEW STREETEAST MA
IN
STREET
VIRGINIA STREET
CLEVELAND WAY CLEVELAND WAYSHORT WAY
WENDWARD WAY
OVAL DRIVE
ROUND DRIVE
WENDWARD WA
Y
ROUTE 28HIGHLAND STREE
T
LEWIS
BAY
SOMERSET STREETPA
R
K
S
T
R
E
E
T PARK AVENUEGR
O
V
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
ST
O
N
E
R
D
MA
L
F
A
R
D
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
T
R
E
E
T
ALGONQU
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
VE
R
N
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
TRUSSO ROAD
HYANNI
S
YARMO
U
T
H
Cape Cod Hospital
Employee Parking
15
December 10-12, 2024
Bayview Bogs | Design Workshop Renderings
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
BIRD’S EYE VIEW OF ‘MARSH MEANDER’ BOARDWALK TRAIL
Restored Hummock Hollow Wetlands
Accessible Outer Loop Trail
“Marsh Meander” Boardwalk Trail
Lewis Bay
December 10-12, 2024
Bayview Bogs | Design Workshop Renderings
‘MARSH MEANDER’ BOARDWALK VIEW NORTHWEST
Cape Cod Hospital
Therapeutic Landscape Area
December 10-12, 2024
Bayview Bogs | Design Workshop Renderings
TYPICAL BOARDWALK THROUGH WETLANDS
Restored Hummock Hollow Wetlands
Potential High Water Level
Elevated Accessible
Boardwalk on Helical Piers
December 10-12, 2024
Bayview Bogs | Design Workshop Renderings
TYPICAL OVERLOOK ALONG ACCESSIBLE OUTER LOOP TRAIL
December 10-12, 2024
Bayview Bogs | Design Workshop Renderings
Existing Vegetated Slopes to Remain Accessible Loop TrailAdjacent Neighborhood Homes Restored Hummock
Hollow Wetlands
TYPICAL OUTER LOOP TRAIL & ABUTTER BUFFER
December 10-12, 2024
Bayview Bogs | Design Workshop Renderings
WELCOME PLAZA & THERAPEUTIC LANDSCAPE AREA BAYVIEW STREETRestored Hummock Hollow Wetland
Boardwalk Crossing
Boardwalk Crossing
Accessible Lower
Wetland Loop Trail
Improved
Pedestrian
Crossing
Reconfigured
Hospital Parking
Accessible Upland Loop Trail
Welcome Plaza with Flexible Seating,
Open Lawn, Scenic Overlooks, and Accessible Loop Path
Terraced Scenic Overlook Areas with Educational Signage & Seating
Picnic Tables, Nature Play, &
Reflection Seating Nooks
December 10-12, 2024
Bayview Bogs | Design Workshop Renderings
SCENIC OVERLOOK AT THERAPEUTIC LANDSCAPE AREA
December 10-12, 2024
Bayview Bogs | Design Workshop Renderings
VIEW OF RESTORED BOG FROM UPLAND OVERLOOK
December 10-12, 2024
Bayview Bogs | Design Workshop Renderings
VIEW OF RESTORED BOG FROM UPLAND OVERLOOK
December 10-12, 2024
Bayview Bogs | Design Workshop Renderings
TERRACED ACCESSIBLE WALKING TRAILS
December 10-12, 2024
Bayview Bogs | Design Workshop Renderings
TYPICAL OVERLOOK ALONG LOWER WETLAND TRAIL
December 10-12, 2024
Bayview Bogs | Design Workshop Renderings
TYPICAL OVERLOOK ALONG LOWER WETLAND TRAIL
December 10-12, 2024
Bayview Bogs | Design Workshop Renderings
UPLAND TRAIL SEATING AREAS
December 10-12, 2024
Bayview Bogs | Design Workshop Renderings
BIRD’S EYE VIEW OF WELCOME PLAZA
December 10-12, 2024
Bayview Bogs | Design Workshop Renderings
VIEW FROM BAYVIEW STREET INTO WELCOME PLAZA
December 10-12, 2024
Bayview Bogs | Design Workshop Renderings
FLEXIBLE SEATING AT WELCOME PLAZA
December 10-12, 2024
Bayview Bogs | Design Workshop Renderings
OPEN LAWN AT WELCOME PLAZA
December 10-12, 2024
Bayview Bogs | Design Workshop Renderings
SCENIC OVERLOOK AT WELCOME PLAZA
December 10-12, 2024
Bayview Bogs | Design Workshop Renderings
BIRD’S EYE VIEW SOUTHEAST FROM WELCOME PLAZA
Welcome Plaza
Therapeutic
Landscape Area
Restored
Wetlands
December 10-12, 2024
Bayview Bogs | Design Workshop Renderings
SCULPTURAL BEACON WITH INTERACTIVE TIDE LIGHTING
December 10-12, 2024
Bayview Bogs | Design Workshop Renderings
Welcome
Plaza
Cape Cod Hospital
Therapeutic
Landscape Area
Restored
Wetlands
Lewis Bay
Bayvie
w Street
BIRD’S EYE VIEW TOWARD LEWIS BAY
December 10-12, 2024
Bayview Bogs | Design Workshop Renderings
BIRD’S EYE VIEW TOWARD LEWIS BAY
December 10-12, 2024
Bayview Bogs | Design Workshop Renderings
Appendix D – Time of Year (TOY) Restriction Correspondence
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:Kautza, Adam (FWE)
To:Samantha Dow
Cc:April Doroski
Subject:Re: TOY Restriction - Bayview Bogs (Yarmouth)
Date:Tuesday, February 4, 2025 10:27:50 AM
This Message is from an external sender.
Hi Samantha, no TOY restrictions for fisheries
Adam Kautza PhD | Coldwater Fisheries Project Leader
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
1 Rabbit Hill Road
Westborough, MA 01581
(857) 275-6961
adam.kautza@mass.gov
From: Samantha Dow <Samantha.Dow@fando.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 9:13 AM
To: Kautza, Adam (FWE) <adam.kautza@mass.gov>
Cc: April Doroski <April.Doroski@fando.com>
Subject: TOY Restriction - Bayview Bogs (Yarmouth)
Hi Adam,
I am seeking an TOY Determination for the Bayview Bogs Restoration project located at
Rosetta Street in Yarmouth, MA (41.65148 N, -70.26828 W; Bayview Bogs - Google Maps).
See the attached USGS Topo Map and project information below.
Project Background
The Cape Cod Conservation District (CCCD), Cape Cod Healthcare, and Massachusetts
Division of Ecological Restoration are partnering with Fuss & O’Neill to restore Bayview Bogs, a
retired cranberry bog that has been dormant for the past 25 years.
Project Description
The project includes the ecological restoration of Bayview Bogs, as well as improvements to
access and site amenities. Ecological restoration components include restoring hummock and
hollow wetlands, restoring tidal and freshwater connections, enhancing/naturalizing pond
habitats, and restoring deep marsh areas. Access improvement components include
implementing a welcome plaza and accessible trailhead parking, creating a terraced
therapeutic landscape area, creating several walking trails and boardwalks, and adding
educational signage and seating.
If you could provide a letter with the determination, that would be great. Please reach out if you
have any questions or require any additional information. Thank you,
Samantha Dow
Water Resources and Climate Resilience Specialist
FUSS &O'NEILLSolve better. Go further.
(413) 366-5415 | cell: (860) 302-4626
1550 Main Street Suite 400 | Springfield, MA 01103
CT MA ME NH NY RI VT
www.FandO.com | Instagram | Vimeo | Facebook | Linkedin | YouTube
From:Chase, Brad (FWE)
To:Cohn, Jessica (FWE); zzzHurley, Steve (FWE)
Subject:RE: Fish habitat question for Bayview Bogs Restoration Project (W. Yarmouth)
Date:Thursday, October 10, 2024 3:22:35 PM
Hi Jessica,
I did look over this site recently at the request of CCCD staff. It is not included in the DMF
Diadromous Fish Restoration Priority List or last DMF Fish Passage Survey. There is limited
potential to enhance spawning or nursery habitats for diadromous fish beyond the likely
occupancy of American eel. We support your interests to restore wetland habitats there.
However, we don’t see direct restoration potential for resources under our jurisdiction. Also,
we have a busy October lined up with ongoing projects. Please reach out as the project
advances if you have any questions on marine or diadromous fish species in the region. Thank
you, Brad
Bradford C. Chase
Diadromous Fish Project Leader
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
836 South Rodney French Blvd.
New Bedford, MA 02744
508-742-9747
brad.chase@mass.gov
From: Cohn, Jessica (FWE) <Jessica.Cohn@mass.gov>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 12:05 PM
To: Hurley, Steve (FWE) <steve.hurley@mass.gov>; Chase, Brad (FWE) <brad.chase@mass.gov>
Subject: Fish habitat question for Bayview Bogs Restoration Project (W. Yarmouth)
Hello Steve and Brad,
It’s been a little while since we’ve crossed paths on a project, and I hope you both are doing
well.
I am a project manager in DER working on the Bayview Bogs cranberry bog restoration project
in West Yarmouth with the Cape Cod Conservation District and the Cape Cod Hospital (the
landowner). The project site is a long abandoned and overgrown cranberry bog located across
from the Cape Cod Hospital near 76 Rosetta St, West Yarmouth, MA 02673:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Adcvap4q6av5Qvib9. I also attached a site boundary map and
project flyer.
We have just entered the early conceptual design and planning phase of the project and have
some questions about potential fish habitat/use across this parcel and what a potential future
restored connection to Lewis Bay may or should look like in terms of fish and habitat. We are
trying to figure out if there are specific fisheries priorities that we should employ in our
restoration planning for this site or if, on the other hand, the site is not very conducive to fish
habitat.
Would you be willing to participate in a brief meeting with me and our consultant about this
site and potential fish habitat or do you recommend anyone else we should speak with on this
topic/site?
Thank you!
Jess
Jessica Cohn, PWS (she/her)
Cranberry Bog Restoration Program
Ecological Restoration Specialist
Division of Ecological Restoration - Invested in Nature & Community
Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game
Work: 857-278-4813 *New work number
Cell: 774-573-9121
Web | Twitter | Instagram
Appendix E – Invasive Plant Management Plan
Invasive Plant Management Plan for
Bayview Bogs Ecological Restoration
Design and Permitting Project
Yarmouth, Massachusetts
SWCA Project No. 90594-000-AMH
Fuss & O’Neill, Inc. Contract No. 20240208.A10
PREPARED FOR
Fuss & O’Neill, Inc.
PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants
INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR
BAYVIEW BOGS ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION DESIGN AND
PERMITTING PROJECT
YARMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS
Prepared for
The Cape Cod Conservation District
In partnership with
The Cape Cod Hospital
and
The Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration
On behalf of
Fuss & O’Neill, Inc.
550 Main Street, Suite 400
Springfield, MA 01103
Prepared by
SWCA Environmental Consultants
15 Research Drive
Amherst, Massachusetts 01002
(413)256-0202
www.swca.com
SWCA Project No. 0090594-000-AMH
Invasive Plant Management Plan
Bayview Bogs Ecological Restoration Design and Permitting Project, Yarmouth, Massachusetts
i
CONTENTS
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Permit Compliance ....................................................................................................................... 1
2 Documentation of Invasive Plants on Site .......................................................................................... 2
3 Methods of Invasive Plant Management ............................................................................................ 2
3.1 Preconstruction Invasive Plant Management ................................................................................ 5
3.2 Active Construction Invasive Plant Management ........................................................................ 6
3.2.1 Mechanical Management: Clearing .................................................................................... 6
3.2.2 Chemical Management: Herbicide Application .................................................................. 8
3.3 Postconstruction Invasive Plant Management .............................................................................. 8
4 Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 9
Appendices
Appendix A. Invasive Plant Locations Map
Appendix B. Photographs
Tables
Table 1. Invasive Plant Species Observed (May 2024) ................................................................................ 2
Table 2. Invasive Plant Species Management Matrix Details ....................................................................... 4
Table 3. Invasive Plant Management Timeline............................................................................................. 5
Invasive Plant Management Plan
Bayview Bogs Ecological Restoration Design and Permitting Project, Yarmouth, Massachusetts
1
1 INTRODUCTION
This Invasive Species Management Plan (IPMP) has been developed to provide guidance in the support
of the Bayview Bogs Ecological Restoration Design and Permitting Project (the project) in West
Yarmouth, Massachusetts. The goal of the project is to restore a retired 44-acre commercial cranberry bog
on an 89-acre parcel (the project area). Approximately 18.5 acres of the cranberry bog was commercially
harvested as recently as the 1990s, the remainder having been retired earlier; since then, the bog has sat
untouched. Over the intervening 25 to 30 years, much of the retired cranberry bog has been significantly
naturalized with a variety of both native and invasive vegetation.
One of the project goals is to “improve nuisance issues such as … invasive plant species to the extent
practical through design and management.” It is best practice to inventory, manage, and hopefully
eliminate as many invasive plant populations as practicable prior to the start of physical restoration of the
project area to better ensure the success of future native restoration plantings. Furthermore, the physical
restoration (construction) of the project area will likely involve activities that will disturb soil and existing
vegetation, which could spread the existing invasive plant populations and/or encourage new invasive
plants to establish in the project area.
This plan details the current presence of invasive plant species at the project area (to the extent possible
given surveying time of year restrictions) and includes best management techniques at three different time
periods: prior to, during, and following construction in the project area. All management strategies are
listed by invasive plant species and/or groupings of species, as different invasive plants may require
different management methods at different times of year. Furthermore, this plan includes suggestions
regarding specific plants based on differing conditions throughout the site.
Invasive plant management will improve the habitat value of the project area, protect the proposed
landscape and restoration plantings, and prevent the future spread of invasive species from documented
locations into uninfested sections of the project area. In addition to measurements of spread prevention,
this plan specifies an invasive plant management goal to reduce or eliminate the cover of invasive plants
found on the project area. While the target objective is to eliminate as many populations of invasive plants
as possible before the start of construction in 3 to 5 years, this may not be possible for some
species/populations. The precise plan of invasive plant management will need to be reevaluated annually
along with follow-up monitoring to ensure the best possible outcome. If restoration/project construction is
delayed by 1 or more years, SWCA recommends that this management plan be reassessed and adjusted
depending on changes at the project area.
1.1 Permit Compliance
Aside from the permitting required for the project restoration, there are two types of permits that will need
to be acquired in order to implement this IPMP. First, the Conservation Commission will need to grant
approval for the destruction of (invasive) vegetation via mechanical, manual, and chemical means within
jurisdictional resource areas. A Notice of Intent (WM03) will likely be required for this first phase of the
project (invasive plant management). Following the issuance of a resulting Order of Conditions, the party
who will be conducting herbicide application will need to submit an application for a License to Apply
Chemicals to Waters of the Commonwealth (WM04) on an annual basis within any years in which
herbicides will be used on-site.
Invasive Plant Management Plan
Bayview Bogs Ecological Restoration Design and Permitting Project, Yarmouth, Massachusetts
2
2 DOCUMENTATION OF INVASIVE PLANTS ON SITE
Fuss & O’Neill, Inc. (F&O), conducted the visual assessment and documentation of existing invasive
plants at the project area and subcontracted a survey to be conducted by drone. The data collected by the
drone assessment and by the visual assessments conducted on foot are presented herein. The drone
assessment was completed by Fluid State Consulting on May 6, 2024. It should be noted that early May is
too early to consistently and accurately identify many of the invasive plants noted on-site; therefore, the
initial mapping included in this plan will need to be refined and reassessed. Once confirmed, these pre-
restoration invasive plant locations will provide a baseline against which future invasive plant surveys
should be compared.
The locations of invasive plants observed during the May 2024 site visit are annotated in the Invasive
Plant Locations Plan (Appendix A). F&O also took photographs of key invasive plant populations during
the May 2024 visit, which are included in the attached photograph pages (Appendix B).
While the invasives documented in Appendix A represent preconstruction conditions on the day of the
site visit, these species-specific extents should be confirmed during the growing season. Furthermore, it is
possible that other invasive plants may be observed on-site after the start of construction. Areas and
densities of invasive plants documented during the preconstruction site visit may underrepresent the full
extent of invasive plants throughout the project area, as this visit was conducted via drone.
The species observed during the May 2024 surveys include all species detailed in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Invasive Plant Species Observed (May 2024)
Common Name Scientific Name
Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata
Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria
Porcelain berry* Ampelopsis brevipedunculata
Phragmites Phragmites australis
Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica
Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica
Asiatic bittersweet Celastrus orbiculatus
Autumn olive Elaeagnus umbellata
Buckthorn spp. Frangula & Rhamnus spp.
Burning bush Euonymus alatus
Shrub honeysuckle Lonicera spp.
Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora
Gray willow Salix atrocinerea
* Listed as “likely invasive” by the Massachusetts Invasive Plant Advisory Group. Not technically invasive.
3 METHODS OF INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT
While all invasive plants observed on-site will be carefully managed, there are three identified that are
more easily spread through construction activities than the others. These three are Japanese knotweed,
phragmites, and purple loosestrife. These plants are at a higher concern for spread due to their ability to
Invasive Plant Management Plan
Bayview Bogs Ecological Restoration Design and Permitting Project, Yarmouth, Massachusetts
3
spread through rhizome fragmentation and/or very high seed distribution. While the invasive plants in the
project area have been there for a number of years and have likely distributed a lot of seed over those
years, limiting future seed disbursement should take place whenever possible.
Herbicide application will be a critical means of invasive plant management prior to, during, and
following the proposed ecological restoration project. While manual and mechanical methods of
management are relatively effective on some species present (most woody invasives and garlic mustard),
as a former cranberry bog, the project area presents inherent difficulties with access that will limit the use
of these methods. Garlic mustard is likely the only invasive plant that will be able to be feasibly managed
through manual means prior to the start of restoration construction.
Once construction does start, particular care needs to be given when clearing vegetation and/or mobilizing
through areas where Japanese knotweed, phragmites, and purple loosestrife exist. See Section 3.2.1.1 for
more details on how to carefully work through areas containing these species.
Management has been split up into three phases: preconstruction, during construction, and
postconstruction. Preconstruction methods include predominantly herbicide applications; during
construction, a combination of chemical and mechanical management; and postconstruction methods
should be determined based on follow-up monitoring, but will likely predominantly include careful spot
foliar and hand-pulling efforts. The full range of management methods for each species or grouping of
invasive plant species is included in Table 2. There should be one herbicide application event per year for
each species; however, species’ management timings differ, which means at least two application
events/visits will be required each year. This frequency can be amended as needed based on follow-up
monitoring.
All herbicides will be applied using low-volume backpack sprayers, as access prevents any other
application equipment. Herbicide will be mixed with non-ionic surfactant and a marking dye. This will
allow applicators to conduct selective herbicide application and remain aware of all plants treated, which
eliminates unnecessary overspray.
Mechanical methods can effectively manage all of the woody invasive plants present, especially when
used in concert with herbicide application. Such methods include clearing, grubbing, and other excavation
activities, which will all occur during restoration construction. F&O should work closely with the
ecological restoration contractor to most effectively use both mechanical and chemical means of invasive
plant management to meet the goals of this project as well as the restoration schedule.
The act of excavation can certainly aid in the management of all species present on site, with the
exception of phragmites and Japanese knotweed. However, if soil is displaced from its original location,
any movement of invasive-infested soil to other areas of the site will risk spreading those invasive plants.
This is particularly a concern for species that spread not only through seed and fruit, but also
fragmentation. Instead, invasive plants that spread via fragmentation should be left in place, including
cuttings, to be treated again at a later date in order to control resprouting. Alternatively, species that
spread via fragmentation can be carefully disposed of off-site at facilities that accept invasive material or
at incineration facilities.
The use of environmental management tools such as flooding will likely have little to no effect on the
species present on site. While some may be stressed by this action, they are unlikely to be significantly
reduced or die back completely as a result.
Invasive Plant Management Plan | Bayview Bogs Ecological Restoration Design and Permitting Project | Yarmouth, Massachusetts
4
Table 2. Invasive Plant Species Management Matrix Details
Type/Reproduction Invasive Plant Mechanical/Manual Herbicide Soil Displacement Preconstruction Recom.
Non-woody and
non-woody vines
Fruit and seed
Garlic mustard
(Alliaria petiolata)
Second year (flowering) growth populations:
hand pull before seed development in May.
First year growth (rosettes): foliar
application with glyphosate in the late
summer/fall Soil excavation and
movement could result in the
spread of seed.
Seed may be widespread, and
this may not be avoidable.
Clean equipment before
leaving area and avoid soil
movement if feasible.
Can be easily managed prior to
construction if not widespread
and scattered sparsely through
project area.
Purple loosestrife
(Lythrum salicaria)
Remove plants to the roots, allow to solarize; or
Dispose of off-site or cut off flowering heads to
avoid seeding – both when flowering.
Foliar treatment: glyphosate or
triclopyr when flowering (June–July)
May be difficult to manage and
construction excavation could be
more cost-effective.
Porcelain berry
(Ampelopsis
brevipedunculata)
Small populations: hand-pulling prior to seed
development (in August/September).
Large populations: excavation possible, but likely
to disperse seed.
Large populations: foliar application
with glyphosate prior to seed
development (in August/September)
If not widespread and sparsely
scattered through project area,
pre-treatment is preferred.
Non-woody
Fruit, seed, and
plant/rhizome
fragmentation
Phragmites
(Phragmites australis)
Alternate cutting and herbicide application for
best result in 1st and 2nd years as needed. Goal of
cutting is to reduce full growth height of
phragmites. Cut in June/early July.
Dense stands: foliar
Sparse plants: clip and drip1
Herbicide: glyphosate or imazamox
Timing: late August to mid-October
Avoid disturbing rhizomes –
very high risk of spread due to
fragmentation.
Cutting above-ground material
in dormancy is fine if
necessary.
If burying on-site, bury 10 feet
(Japanese knotweed) or 15
feet (phragmites) deep.
Phragmites and Japanese
knotweed should be treated each
year before construction to avoid
spread during excavation. Japanese knotweed
(Fallopia japonica)
Cut by hand in the early summer in first year and
foliar treat after if feasible.
Foliar treatment: glyphosate
If cutting isn’t feasible, treat as much
of each population each year as
possible (August–September)
Vine (woody & non)
Fruit, seed, and plant
fragmentation
Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica)
Can be effectively reduced through mechanical
(with larger equipment) activities, but as much of
the root system should be removed as possible.
Follow-up herbicide application will almost always
be needed when taking this approach.
Small/young vines: foliar
Woody/mature vines: cut-stem as
close to base as possible
Herbicide: glyphosate or triclopyr
Like with the non-woody and
non-woody vines, these plants
may have a large seed bank
on site. Moving soil is not ideal
but may not be avoidable.
Clean equipment before
leaving area and avoid soil
movement if feasible.
While possible to reduce the vast
majority of biomass of these
invasive plants during
construction activities, there are
multiple years before those
activities will commence. These
plants will continue to spread and
grow, and it is recommended to
manage those
populations/individuals that are
feasible to manage (due to
access, budget, etc.) prior to
construction.
During and postconstruction
herbicide application should be
anticipated, especially if
preconstruction herbicide
application does not occur.
Asiatic bittersweet
(Celastrus orbiculatus)
Woody
Fruit and seed
Autumn olive
(Elaeagnus umbellata)
Young individuals: foliar
Mature individuals: cut-stem
Mature trees: hack and squirt3
Herbicide: glyphosate or triclopyr
Buckthorn spp.
(Frangula & Rhamnus spp.)
Burning bush
(Euonymus alatus)
Shrub honeysuckle
(Lonicera spp.)
Multiflora rose
(Rosa multiflora)
Woody
Fruit, seed, and
fragmentation
Gray willow
(Salix atrocinerea)
Note: These herbicides are recommended for use. Either equivalent herbicides or similar herbicides may be used upon approval. “Mature” is defined as stems 1 or more inches in diameter; “Young” is defined as stems less than 1
inch in diameter. “Solarization” is defined as leaving vegetation in a single stockpile in a sunny area for at least three months to decay and become non-viable. is used to indicate recommended as primary management method.
1. Clip and drip is a method of management of phragmites where the stem is cut as close to the ground as possible (approximately 1 foot) and concentrated herbicide is sprayed or dripped into the hollow stem with a specialized tool
that will accurately apply herbicide directly to the stem and not surrounding vegetation or substrate.
2. Any invasive plants (as defined by MIPAG and DEP’s Inland Wetland Replication Guidelines), regardless of their documentation in this IPMP, will be managed if observed within the management limits.
3. Hack and squirt involves cutting into the bark of a tree to expose the cambium to apply concentrated herbicide directly to this exposed part of tree/shrub.
Invasive Plant Management Plan
Bayview Bogs Ecological Restoration Design and Permitting Project, Yarmouth, Massachusetts
5
Invasive plant management should occur through all phases of this project. A detailed schedule of
management activities is presented in Table 3 below.
Table 3. Invasive Plant Management Timeline
Season Task
Fall 2024 Initial invasive plant management for all viable species – predominantly woody vegetation
and phragmites.
Late spring/early summer 2025,
2026, 2027
Hand-pulling and/or herbicide application to garlic mustard (depending on density/extent – if
extensive, herbicide might be better).
Summer 2025, 2026
Monitoring of invasive plants.
Herbicide application to fruiting woody invasive plants and all herbaceous invasive plants.
Cut phragmites and Japanese knotweed – leave stalks in place.
Late summer/early fall 2025,
2026, 2027
Herbicide application to Japanese knotweed and phragmites.
Retreatment of woody invasive plants as time and budget allow.
Late summer/early fall 2027 Potential start of restoration construction.
Late spring/early summer 2028,
2029, 2030 Hand-pulling and/or herbicide application to garlic mustard.
Summer 2028, 2029, 2030, 2031,
2032 Monitoring of invasive plants and as-needed management accordingly.
* Fall refers to September through October; spring refers to the start of the growing season through early June; and summer refers to June through
August. See Table 1 for species-specific management windows.
1. Recommendation for at least three rounds of herbicide application to occur before the start of construction. If the number detailed above can be
achieved, that would be preferred.
3.1 Preconstruction Invasive Plant Management
Preconstruction invasive plant management will be critical to the success of invasive plant management
throughout this restoration project. The goal for invasive plant management prior to the start of
construction is to reduce the continued addition of invasive propagules to the seed bank and to eliminate
as many highly aggressive species on the project area as possible. This is an important phase, because
once construction starts, activity and disturbances across the project area greatly increase, thereby
increasing the likelihood of invasive plant spread. Additionally, excavation will result in exposed soil
throughout the project area, which will increase the risk of new invasive plant colonization.
Some populations and species of invasive plants, such as those populations small enough to be fully
treated during each management event, may be fairly easy to eradicate prior to construction. However,
sparse populations or those scattered over large areas would be more difficult, as well as any significant
populations of Japanese knotweed, phragmites, or purple loosestrife. Any woody invasive plants that are
very tall and/or dense may also be difficult to effectively manage with herbicides or handheld equipment
prior to construction. However, these should be relatively easy to manage during construction activities.
Because access to large portions of the project area is limited, mechanical methods such as mowers or
other heavy equipment will not be feasible before construction begins. Therefore, all invasive
management methods recommended will be limited to those conducted on foot with handheld equipment.
As the goal is to eliminate as many populations of invasive plants as possible and reduce those that cannot
be eradicated prior to construction, herbicide application will be the primary management method
recommended during this phase of the restoration project except for garlic mustard if it can be hand-
pulled within a reasonable amount of effort.
Invasive Plant Management Plan
Bayview Bogs Ecological Restoration Design and Permitting Project, Yarmouth, Massachusetts
6
As stated in Table 2, herbicide application may be conducted via foliar or cut-stem application. Foliar
herbicide application is typically performed by low-volume backpack sprayer, or if feasible and access
allows, hydrosprayer. A hydrosprayer has a larger area of effect and is recommended when the size and
density of the invasive plant population warrants it and where non-target impacts are less of a concern.
The recommended tool for conducting cut-stem application is the Buckthorn Blaster®, a handheld
applicator with a sponge tip. Where cut-stem applications are performed, cut material should be left in
place to decompose naturally (as it ultimately would if it were not cut). Requiring cut material to be
removed from the site could be cost-prohibitive depending on the size and volume of material. Cut
material can be collected in small stockpiles and used as habitat features until construction starts, when
they may be redistributed or disposed of off-site.
The specific implementation method (herbicide application or mechanical management) will be
determined by F&O and/or an invasive plant management contractor based on site conditions in the field.
During the preconstruction phase, any mechanical management (i.e., cutting) to take place is
recommended to be conducted with hedge trimmers, chain saws, or small hand tools (pruners, loppers,
etc.) and should be performed in concert with herbicide application. Recommended herbicide application
guidelines are indicated in Table 2. These management methods and timings have been included based on
the ideal window for each invasive plant occurring on the project area. This timing is related to the
flowering period for most invasive plants. The ideal timing for management is at or just after peak
flowering. Any follow-up management to occur within the same growing season should occur a minimum
of 2 to 3 weeks following any previous treatment. A minimum of three rounds of herbicide applications
should occur prior to beginning construction; if possible, five rounds should occur. Monitoring should
continue in between each field season and the precise plan of management should be refined based on the
results of each invasive survey.
All herbicides recommended for treatments in this IPMP are approved for use in wetlands and can be
used in sensitive areas. The invasive plant management contractor should complete and submit Herbicide
Use Reports after each application.
3.2 Active Construction Invasive Plant Management
Invasive plant management via herbicide application is recommended to continue as restoration
construction starts. However, the focus of management during this phase will shift to managing the spread
of invasive plants and working with the site contractor’s clearing and site activities to properly time
invasive plant management events. The site clearing and general construction activities will ultimately
help in the reduction of invasive plants if performed properly and in line with the guidance detailed
below. These types of construction activities can effectively eliminate many woody invasive plants; any
resprouting growth can typically be easily treated via targeted spot foliar application of herbicide.
3.2.1 Mechanical Management: Clearing
It is assumed that clearing will be performed with a combination of excavators and land clearing
equipment. Any equipment that is used to clear vegetation and or excavate soil for an area that contains
invasive plants must be cleaned prior to moving into uninfested areas of the project area or beyond.
Equipment cleaning must be performed outside of wetland resource areas and their buffers and must
always be conducted prior to moving into uninfested areas. See Section 3.2.1.1 for more details.
If Japanese knotweed or phragmites must be cleared during the growing season, then it must be handled
carefully and not mixed in with uninfested spoils or debris or spread to areas where it does not currently
exist. Although a minimum of three rounds of herbicide should be applied to all Japanese knotweed,
Invasive Plant Management Plan
Bayview Bogs Ecological Restoration Design and Permitting Project, Yarmouth, Massachusetts
7
phragmites, and other invasive plants on-site prior to the start of construction, if any actively growing
stands of either phragmites or Japanese knotweed remain, there may be viable rhizomes within the soil
that could spread throughout the site.
If areas with live Japanese knotweed and phragmites must be excavated, then all excavated material must
be stockpiled or buried in-place. Stockpiling should be located in a stable area where potentially viable
propagules cannot transport to other portions of the site or waterways. If burying invasive plants,
phragmites should be buried at least 15 feet deep, Japanese knotweed at least 10 feet deep, and any other
invasive at least 4 feet deep. Because of the risk of resprouting, it should be assumed that any locations
where invasive plants are buried will need to be surveyed and managed as needed. Any mowing decks or
mechanized equipment used for clearing or excavating these species must be cleaned thoroughly before
moving on to clear other areas.
Any stockpiled invasive plant material or soil within invasive-infested areas must be stockpiled separately
from uninfested material and will be clearly labeled as an invasive stockpile area. Section 3.2.1.1 includes
best practices for equipment cleaning and stockpiling.
3.2.1.1 EQUIPMENT CLEANING AND STOCKPILING – DURING
CONSTRUCTION
All equipment must be cleaned using brushes, water, or compressed air prior to leaving areas with
existing populations of invasive plant species. Using a combination of brushes and other hand tools to
loosen compacted soil is preferable to the other two options, as brushes and hand tools minimize the
dispersal of any propagules. Any equipment that is used for the movement or clearing of soil within
invasive populations must be cleaned prior to leaving the invasive-infested area. Cleaning should be
performed on the tracks and buckets of any machines that have potentially encountered invasive
root/propagule material.
If hand tools are used in clearing, they must also be cleaned prior to use in non-infested work areas.
Cleaning activities should occur outside of areas with disturbed soils and away from any surface waters to
avoid the spread of seed material downstream.
In order to reduce the potential spread of invasives from infested to uninfested areas, perimeter erosion
controls should be installed around the invasive-infested areas, particularly when there is bare soil in
either the uninfested or infested areas in question. A single line of straw bales around the area in which
invasive plant propagules are cleaned from equipment is typically a sufficient barrier. Final project close-
out operations will include disposal of these perimeter controls. As they may contain viable invasive
propagules, the receiving facility should be informed of that possibility and should be equipped to ensure
that the perimeter controls are not reused after disposal.
All equipment used for the transport of invasive plant and root material must be inspected and cleaned
prior to use with non-invasive materials. Any soil and plant material remaining on equipment should be
assumed to contain invasive material.
3.2.1.2 SOIL MOVEMENT AND STOCKPILING
If possible, soils within areas of invasive plant presence should remain in place. However, if soils need to
be removed from areas of invasive infestation, the following precautions must be taken to reduce spread.
This is more important for invasive plants that have multiple modes or particularly aggressive modes of
growth, such as invasive plants with rhizomes or sections of roots that can regenerate from fragments
(Japanese knotweed, phragmites, Asiatic bittersweet, etc.). See Table 2 for more species-specific
Invasive Plant Management Plan
Bayview Bogs Ecological Restoration Design and Permitting Project, Yarmouth, Massachusetts
8
recommendations on soil movement. Moving soil and potentially viable propagules from areas with these
plants identified is not recommended. It may be unavoidable to move soils with other invasive seeds
present; therefore, the entire project area should be surveyed and treated as necessary during each during
and postconstruction management visit.
Any stockpile locations for the project should be marked on the final restoration construction plans. The
stockpile area must be surrounded by perimeter sediment and erosion controls to eliminate the
displacement of any material during rain events. Should the stockpile area remain small, silt fence and
straw bales will suffice for perimeter controls. However, should the stockpile area exceed a height of 5
feet, lined jersey barriers wrapped in a semi-permeable fabric should be installed to contain the larger
volume of sediment that could mobilize during a large storm event. The invasive stockpile area must be
specifically inspected and treated during each herbicide application event. Secondary stockpile locations
should only be established if required and must follow all precautions outlined above.
All soils in areas that have been treated, and that are subsequently scheduled for excavation, may be
considered suitable for reuse contingent on F&O’s determination that no evidence of invasive plant
propagation has been documented for a 6-month period prior to excavation. Stockpile areas should be
exposed and/or overturned multiple times before this determination is made.
3.2.2 Chemical Management: Herbicide Application
Additional herbicide application efforts may be required to limit the spread of invasive plants across the
project area following clearing and grubbing activities. All invasive plants should be targeted during each
management visit, regardless of whether they were identified or treated during the preconstruction phase.
Any new invasive plant locations found should be documented and monitored during future management
events.
The recommended application methods and schedule are outlined in Tables 2 and 3. All herbicides
recommended for treatments in this IPMP are approved for use in wetlands and can be used in sensitive
areas. The invasive plant management contractor should complete and submit Herbicide Use Reports after
each application.
3.3 Postconstruction Invasive Plant Management
The first 5 years following the implementation of the ecological restoration design are critical to the
success of the invasive plant management strategy. Invasive plant management should continue for at
least 5 years following the initiation of construction activities. A License to Apply Pesticides to Waters of
the State Permit should be requested annually where management is proposed. Each year, the invasive
species presence at the site should be mapped and the relative abundance and density of the invasive plant
populations should be documented.
Following the mapping and documentation of the invasive plant species, management techniques should
be employed as directed within Table 2 of this IPMP. Applicators may alter the management timing and
frequency depending on the needs of the project area. Every site is different, and the dynamics of each
invasive plant population are very hard to predict based on their dispersal over the project area, age and
extensiveness of root systems, viable seed bank on site, along with other factors. Over time, as invasive
plant populations within the project area decline, the frequency of management efforts should diminish. It
is recommended to document management efforts and results regularly, such as a yearly report that
includes photographs of the invasive plants and management events, pesticide use reports, and
recommendations for future management.
Invasive Plant Management Plan
Bayview Bogs Ecological Restoration Design and Permitting Project, Yarmouth, Massachusetts
9
4 SUMMARY
F&O will work closely with the restoration contractor and invasive plant management contractor to
manage invasive plants as early as feasible prior to construction and through the end of the monitoring
period, which is projected to end in November 2032. The schedule presented in Table 3 is based on this
preliminary estimation of timing and should be adjusted as permits and design documents are finalized.
An invasive plant management contractor should be engaged to conduct herbicide application to all
invasive plants observed on-site during all management events, as detailed in Section 3 of this IPMP.
Regular documentation such as Pesticide Use Reports should be submitted after all management events.
It is recommended that full invasive plant surveys be conducted by F&O or their subcontractors in the late
spring/early summer of each year following the initial invasive plant management event. The results of
each survey will determine the precise invasive plant management plan for the upcoming management
season. However, the management methods outlined in this IPMP include the recommended methods and
guidelines from which annual plans will be determined. A brief report on the changes in invasive plant
coverage as well as all management activities performed should be recorded at the end of each year to
document the progress of invasive plant management within the project area. This report should include a
figure depicting the locations of invasive plant management and should detail the state of invasive plant
presence in each treatment area.
APPENDIX A
Invasive Plant Locations Map
0 500250
Feet
±
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane Massachusetts Mainland FIPS 2001
Bayview Bogs - Hyannis, MA
Multispectral Invasive Species Mapping
Preliminary Species Classification
Updated:
6/28/2024
3:29 PM
Invasive species areas shown here represent those areas which are delineated
according to ISODATA classification (method groups pixels into aggregated based on
spectral signature). Areas were further refined based on specific in-field knowledge by
field technicians for increased accuracy in model training Regions of Interest (ROIs).
Areas have been aggregated and smoothed from original sensor data. NOTE:
insufficient training sites found for purple loosestrife and buckthorn.
Data produced for Fuss & O'Neill.
Scale: 1:3,750
Species
Autumn Olive - 0.04
acres
Grey Willow - 2.53 acres
Honeysuckle - 0.57
acres
Knotweed - 0.49 acres
Multiflora Rose - 0.13
acres
Phragmites - 1.03 acres
Field Observations
(5/6/24 - Whiteout
Solutions & F&O)
Autumn Olive
Bittersweet
Buckthorn
Grey Willow
Honeysuckle
Knotweed
Multiflora Rose
Phragmites
Purple Loosestrife
APPENDIX B
Photograph Pages
A-1
Figure A-1. View of purple loosestrife on site (Photo by F&O).
Figure A-2. View of previous year’s purple loosestrife growth (dead seed head) (Photo
by F&O).
A-2
Figure A-3. Example phragmites population – intermixed with woody species (Photo by
F&O).
Figure A-4. Example of phragmites near edge of site – dense on perimeter (Photo by
F&O).
A-3
Figure A-5. Example early growth of Japanese knotweed (Photo by F&O).
Figure A-6. Example of moderate Japanese knotweed population – note previous
year’s growth around new growth for size reference (Photo by F&O).
A-4
Figure A-7. Small amounts of regrowth in early season within previous moderate-sized
Japanese knotweed patch (Photo by F&O).
Figure A-8. Honeysuckle patch in early leaf-on (Photo by F&O).
A-5
Figure A-9. View of smaller scattered populations of honeysuckle (Photo by F&O).
Figure A-10. Example of Asiatic bittersweet vines on site (photo by F&O).
A-6
Figure A-11. Example of climbing Asiatic bittersweet vines (Photo by F&O).
Figure A-12. View of autumn olive (Photo by F&O).
A-7
Figure A-13. Example of individual autumn olive (Photo by F&O).
Figure A-14. View of larger stand of autumn olive (Photo by F&O).
A-8
Figure A-15. Example buckthorn populations (Photo by F&O).
Figure A-16. View of larger buckthorn species.
A-9
Figure A-17. Example single multiflora rose bush (Photo by F&O).
Figure A-18. View of larger multiflora rose (Photo by F&O).
A-10
Figure A-19. View of large gray willow individuals (Photo by F&O).
Appendix F – Abutter Notification Information
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 Cape Cod Conservation District, Mark Forest.
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 0 Rosetta St, 28 Rosetta St, 4 Bayview St,
30 Bayview St, 40 Bayview St, 72 Bayview St, 74 Bayview St, 86 Bayview St, 26 Oval Dr, 22 Round
Dr, West Yarmouth, MA 02673.
D. Proposed work is Ecological restoration of the former cranberry bogs at Bayview Bogs to a
healthy wetland ecosystem and removal of barriers to tidal flow.
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 508-439-9980
Or Applicant’s representatives phone number 413-333-5469
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 Julianne Busa
Address 1550 Main Street, Suite 400
Town Springfield State MA Zip 01003
Telephone 413-333-5469
NOTES :
• 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.
• 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.
• You may also contact the Southeast Regional Office of the Department of Environmental
Protection at (508) 946-2800 for more information about this application.
28/ 122/ / /
TOWN OF YARMOUTH
1146 ROUTE 28
SOUTH YARMOUTH, MA 02664-4463
28/ 121/ / /
TESSMER J RICHARD TR
J RICHARD TESSMER 1996 TRUST
9 HALES HOLLOW
DOVER, MA 02030
20/ 57/ / /
TOWN OF YARMOUTH
1146 ROUTE 28
SOUTH YARMOUTH, MA 02664-4463
28/ 123/ / /
MCNEILL LAURIE ANN
25 WEST MALTBIE AVE
SUFFERN, NY 10901
28/ 124/ / /
DIMICHELE ANTONIO
DIMICHELE ANTONIETTA S
101 STONEHILL RD
EAST LONGMEADOW, MA 01028
28/ 125/ / /
BISHOP RICHARD A
C/O BISHOP RICHARD A TR
17 POINT OF ROCKS RD
YARMOUTH PORT, MA 02675-2077
28/ 149/ / /
PICCOLO CLAIRE M
C/O CLAIRE F LINNAN
16 RUSSO RD
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673-8251
28/ 150/ / /
FABER RICHARD M CO-TRS
C/O KREMIDAS DEAN H
30 VALLEY VIEW DR
SOUTH WNDSOR, CT 06074
20/ 40/ / /
HAMMETT DANA
HAMMETT DAWN
35 VISCOUNT RD
LONGMEADOW, MA 01106
20/ 31/ / /
SHRAGO ELLEN LINDA TRS
SHRAGO JEFFREY K TRS
9544 NEWBRIDGE DRIVE
POTOMAC, MD 20854
20/ 87/ / /
GREELEY CHRISTINE K TR
48 GLENWOOD ST
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
20/ 85/ / /
DORAN MARK
DORAN BETH
34 GLENWOOD ST
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02664
20/ 86/ / /
TASSINARI PAUL M
TASSINARI SANDRA B
6 WOODSVIEW LN, UNIT 1
LINCOLN, NH 03251
28/ 136/ / /
TOWN OF YARMOUTH
1146 ROUTE 28
SOUTH YARMOUTH, MA 02664-4463
20/ 37/ / /
LENZI MICHAEL J SR TR
LENZI SANDRA M TR
7 BRIANNA WAY
DRACUT, MA 01826
28/ 132/ / /
HUNT BRIAN D
HUNT TAMI J
5 REPTON CIR UNIT 5403
WATERTOWN, MA 02472
28/ 133/ / /
DIMICHELE ANTONIA R
DIMICHELE ANTONIETTA S
101 STONEHILL RD
EAST LONGMEADOW, MA 01028
28/ 134/ / /
MCNEILL LAURIE A
25 WEST MALTBIE AVE
SUFFERN , NY 10901
28/ 135/ / /
TOWN OF YARMOUTH
1146 ROUTE 28
SOUTH YARMOUTH, MA 02664-4463
28/ 146/ / /
TOWNER SUSAN M TR
SUSAN TOWNER REVOCABLE TRUST
PO BOX 25651
CHRISTIANSTED, VI 00824
28/ 145/ / /
BOROWY DAVID J
BOROWY NANCY E
14 BEECHWOOD DRIVE
NORTH ATTLEBORO, MA 02670-6515
28/ 144/ / /
MARROCCO GERALDINE F TR
DRAGONFLY RLTY TRUST
60 LOUIS ST
TRUMBULL, CT 06611
20/ 78/ / /
ALESSANDRO MICHAEL A TR
BARONE LINDA M TR
60 CRICKET LN
WEST ROXBURY, MA 02132
20/ 77/ / /
JVWP LLC
25 MID-TECH DR STE C
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
20/ 76/ / /
BARNES PAMELA TRS
HOGAN KIMBERLY A TRS
40 LONG POND DR
HARWICH, MA 02645
20/ 75/ / /
PERI DAVID A
PERI DONNA M
56 PARK AVE
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
20/ 74/ / /
LANCTOT JOSEPH E EST OF
C/O ZUIDEMA PETER & PAUL
208 SOUTH IRVING ST
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-1728
20/ 73/ / /
SCHUMACHER SCOTT
49 YORK RD
WAYLAND, MA 01778
20/ 72/ / /
PARAS KATHLEEN M TRS
KATHLEEN M PARAS 2020 REV TRUST
44 PARK AVE
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
20/ 71/ / /
SLOTH ENTERPRISES LLC
4080 WINDSOR DR
NISKAYUNA, NY 12309
20/ 70/ / /
BARNETT JOHN S TRS
BARNETT BONNIE M TRS
135-F COUNTRY CENTER DR
PAGOSA SPRINGS, CO 81147-8958
20/ 69/ / /
GRAVELINE MARC P
4 MORSE LN
HOLLAND, MA 01521
20/ 68/ / /
BROWN ROBERT E
BROWN JANICE M
1 RUSSO RD
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
20/ 67/ / /
MARKHAM JAMES L
MARKHAM CAROL A
10361 BRADIGAN RD
FORESTVILLE, NY 14062
20/ 66/ / /
9 RUSSO ROAD LLC
11 ALDERSGATE WAY
NORTH READING, MA 01864
20/ 65/ / /
MASSICOTT DAVID A
MASSICOTT LYNNE C
60 LEDGELAWN AVE
LEXINGTON, MA 02420
28/ 152/ / /
VIEGAS EMANUEL F JR
13 RUSSO RD
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
28/ 151/ / /
BREW BLAINE S
BREW KRISTIN
188 FRANKLIN ST
BRAINTREE, MA 02184
28/ 148/ / /
KENNEALLY MICHAEL J
KENNEALLY DIANE L
ONE THRUSH TERR
EAST GREENBUSH, NY 12061
28/ 147/ / /
LONG MARION E TRS
GRIM RUTH MARIE TRS
36 VERNON ST
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
29/ 7/ / /
SULLIVAN MICHAEL P TRS
SULLIVAN ANNE-MARIE H TRS
59 TERESA RD
HOPKINTON, MA 01748-2415
29/ 6/ / /
SODERBERG NILS
SCOTT PEGGY J
171 WENDWARD WAY
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
29/ 4/ / /
FOLEY BRIAN T TR
FOLEY BERNADETTE B TR
39 HARBOR RD
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
29/ 3/ / /
SANTOS ANITA T TR
ANITA T SANTOS LIVING TRUST
358 SALEM ST
ANDOVER, MA 01810
29/ 1/ / /
DOYLE MICHAEL J
DOYLE J M & DOYLE B M & J C
118 PELHAM DR
CORNWALL, NY 12518
29/ 2/ / /
KEELEY DENNIS L TR
KEELEY KATHY A TR
47 GARNET RD
WEST ROXBURY, MA 02132
29/ 5/ / /
MURPHY DARRAGH C
LANGRIND NICHOLAS A
35 HARBOR RD
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
20/ 28/ / /
SHRAGO JEFFREY K TRS
SHRAGO ELLEN L TRS
45 PARK AVE
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
20/ 32/ / /
WILLIAMS BURTON TRS
SOULIOTIS T PAUL
6 VERNON ST
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
20/ 79/ / /
AGOSTINELLI DAVID J
AGOSTINELLI RITA A
12 ELM ST
NATICK, MA 01760
20/ 80/ / /
KAPALIS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS LTD
C/O BOND ERICA K
32 EMERSON RD
NEEDHAM, MA 02492
20/ 82.1/ / /
MOORE ERIK H
MOORE REBECCA C
1121 VERNON ST
BRIDGEWATER, MA 02324
20/ 83/ / /
GERAGHTY GRETCHEN TR
BW REALTY TRUST
118 WATERHOUSE RD STE E
BOURNE, MA 02532
21/ 2/ / /
BUJA ELISSA M
171 N MAIN ST
LEOMINSTER, MA 01453
21/ 1/ / /
DUMAS MATTHEW E
DUMAS LEAH M
83 DAVIS HILL RD
PAXTON, MA 01612
20/ 89/ / /
MAGUIRE JAMES M
MAGUIRE NANCY A
54 GLENWOOD ST
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
20/ 88/ / /
WIEHER THOMAS
C/O WIEHER THOMAS E TR
29 MAINES LANE
BLAIRSTOWN, NJ 07825
20/ 41/ / /
COOPER ANNICK S
PEABODY A DOUGLAS
P O BOX 1268
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 120/ / /
MARTINEAU STEVEN A
MARTINEAU KATHLEEN K
36 MARY AVE
LEOMINSTER, MA 01453
28/ 119/ / /
BLEAU ALFRED A TRS
BAYVIEW REALTY TRUST
28 PEACH TREE LN
MARSTONS MILLS, MA 02648-1841
28/ 118/ / /
SILVA JULIE TR
REILLY MARTIN J TR
22 BATES RD UNIT 275
MASHPEE, MA 02649
28/ 117/ / /
MATTES RONALD J (LIFE EST)
MATTES PENNEY (LIFE EST)
34 HIGHLAND ST
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
28/ 116/ / /
ENGLISH JOHN F (PERS REP)
47 JACQUELINE CIR
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
28/ 115/ / /
BOEHK MADONNA A
345 CAMP ST APT 403
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
28/ 114/ / /
HOUSE GEORGE
HOUSE LINDA
23 CLARK RD
LYME, CT 06371
28/ 113/ / /
KRISTIANSEN MARK TR
KRISTIANSEN SARAH TR
105 TYRON ST
MIDDLETOWN, CT 06457
28/ 110/ / /
BARNOCKY MICHAEL I
49 HIGHLAND ST
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
28/ 109/ / /
DALEY DONNA L
C/O THE MYKONOS LTD
50 PILLON RD
MILTON, MA 02186
20/ 58/ / /
MURPHY TRACY L
165 HARDING ST
MEDFIELD, MA 02052
28/ 127.1/ / /
GAYLORD THOMAS A JR
GAYLORD STACY J
10 AUTUMN LN
NORWELL, MA 02061-2503
28/ 126/ / /
FLORES HELEN TR
HELEN FLORES TRUST
74 N E VILLAGE RD
CONCORD, NH 03301-5827
20/ 62/ / /
YY CAPE REALTY LLC
572 BOSTON RD STE 16
BILLERICA , MA 01821
28/ 138/ / /
MELIA BRIAN J
31 GROVE ST
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
28/ 137/ / /
TOWN OF YARMOUTH
MUNICIPAL
1146 ROUTE 28
SOUTH YARMOUTH, MA 02664-4463
21/ 6/ / /
AZARIAN STEPHEN T
AZARIAN ANNE
62 HARBOR RD
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
36/ 13/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 11/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 8/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
.
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 9/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 10/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 14/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 15/ / /
VELLONE MCCANN CYNTHIA A TR
SHOOT FLYING HILL NOMINEE TR
329 MAIN ST
CENTERVILLE, MA 02632-2911
28/ 56/ / /
VELLONE MCCANN CYNTHIA A TR
SHOOT FLYING HILL NOMINEE TRUST
329 MAIN ST
CENTERVILLE, MA 02632-2911
36/ 48/ / /
EBERT ELIZABETH A
BURAKOVSKY GENNADY
73 CLEVELAND WAY
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
28/ 58.1.1/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 163/ / /
ADAMSON SCOTT T TRS
ADAMSON JOANNE M TRS
155 WENDWARD WAY
WEST YARMOUTH , MA 02673
28/ 162/ / /
KING SCOTT
KING KAREN
21 EATON DR
HUDSON, MA 01749
28/ 57/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 58/ / /
MOULTON JOHN A
C/O CHACON AMILCAR T
40 VIRGINIA ST
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
36/ 59/ / /
GIEC JACEK R
GIEC ANNA B
232 POPLAR ST
CHICOPEE, MA 01013
36/ 60/ / /
MERCK ERIK S
33 VIRGINIA ST
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
36/ 61/ / /
KELLY DONNA M TR
C/O SARGENT LISA
29 VIRGINIA ST
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
36/ 62/ / /
O'ROURKE BRIAN J CO TRS
O'ROURKE ANTONETTA M
33 BAY STATE AVE
TEWKSBURY, MA 01876
36/ 63/ / /
CHAPMAN JOHN
CHAPMAN LORI L
17 VIRGINIA ST
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
36/ 64/ / /
JOSEPH PATRICIA A
181 LEBANON MOUNTAIN RD
PITTSFIELD, MA 01201
36/ 47/ / /
BUDREAU STEVEN D
INGEMIE KAREN L
82 CLEVELAND WAY
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02675
36/ 32/ / /
VADALA BARBARA M
55 SHORT WAY
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
36/ 31/ / /
CARVALHO JASON
35 BOXWOOD LN
BRIDGEWATER, MA 02324
36/ 16/ / /
NOEL JOHN
MCARDLE STEPHANIE
87 WENDWARD WAY
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
28/ 174/ / /
WALLACE DONNA A
33 OVAL DRIVE
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
28/ 177/ / /
HORWITZ SCOTT M TRS
HORWITZ G M AND LERMAN R S TRS
6 WINNMERE AVE
BURLINGTON, MA 01803
28/ 178/ / /
SPRIK DAVID
SPRIK JOYCE
57 VERMONT ST
WEST ROXBURY, MA 02132
28/ 180/ / /
MITRE VANGEL
MITRE MARINA
7 TERRACE DR
WORCESTER, MA 01609
36/ 126/ / /
CAMDEN OWEN R SR TRS
CAMDEN ROSE M
143 HOWE ST
MARLBOROUGH, MA 01752-2864
28/ 74/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 73/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 165/ / /
CALLAHAN BERNARD W TRS
CALLAHAN ANNA MAY TRS
19 BRADFORD RD
NATICK, MA 01760
28/ 166/ / /
ECONOMIDES NICHOLAS L
ECONOMIDES ATHANASIA
6915 HEATHERHILL RD
BETHESDA, MD 20817
28/ 169/ / /
CORDEIRO TRACEY ANN
11 ROUND DR
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
28/ 86/ / /
VENABLES MARC J TRS
VENABLES GARNET L TRS
24 ROSETTA ST
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
28/ 87/ / /
YOKELL DANIEL
C/O YOKELL DANIEL L TR
35 SYCAMORE ST
PELHAM, NH 03076
28/ 71/ / /
LEBRAS PAUL
LEBRAS BARBARA F
11 ROSETTA ST
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
28/ 64/ / /
KASPAROV VIKTOR A
C/O KASPAROV LILLIAN R TR
716 NEPONSET ST
NORWOOD, MA 02062
28/ 72/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 63/ / /
TOWN OF YARMOUTH
1146 ROUTE 28
SOUTH YARMOUTH, MA 02664
28/ 62/ / /
MCNAMARA BRENDAN F
230 RANCHO SANTA FE RD
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
28/ 61/ / /
MCNAMARA BRENDAN F
230 RANCHO SANTE FE RD
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
28/ 60/ / /
FOSTER AUBREY
2 HEADWATERS DR
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
28/ 59/ / /
FACCHINI RICHARD A JR
166 BAYVIEW ST
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
28/ 88/ / /
TOWN OF YARMOUTH
1146 ROUTE 28
SOUTH YARMOUTH, MA 02664-4463
28/ 112/ / /
JOYCE THOMAS M
JOYCE KEVIN F
7 GLORIA RD
WEST ROXBURY, MA 02132
28/ 111/ / /
LEMAY JEFFREY MYCHAL
LEMAY ALISON MAY
39 SUMMIT LN
ASHLAND, MA 01721
36/ 101/ / /
DEWEY JACOB T
17 SCHOOL RD UNIT B
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 102/ / /
SCHLEGEL PAUL F TR
34 ROUTE 28
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
36/ 93/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
C/O ACCOUNTS PAYABLE DEPT
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 85/ / /
LUTZ SHIRLEY A TR
C/O RICCI STEPHEN
25 MURRAY RD
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
36/ 84/ / /
HAYES MICHAEL J
1 CHANNEL POINT DR
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
36/ 83/ / /
C&C MCGRATH LLC
400 MAIN ST
SOUTH DENNIS, MA 02660
36/ 87/ / /
LUTZ SHIRLEY A TR
C/O RICCI STEPHEN
25 MUJRRAY RD
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
36/ 89/ / /
PMG REALTY INC
26 GUY LN
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 86/ / /
LUTZ SHIRLEY A TR
C/O RICCI STEPHEN
25 MURRAY RD
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
36/ 3/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 58.3/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 58.4/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 58.5/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 82.2.2/ / /
VARDAN HUGH
67 BILLINGS ST
QUINCY, MA 02171
36/ 82.2.1/ / /
SILVA JOAO
PO BOX 599
NORTH CHATHAM, MA 02650
28/ 58.1.2/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 58.1.3/ / /
ODAMS CHARLES L
ODAMS MARGARET
18 ROUND DR
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
28/ 58.1.4/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
20/ 27.2/ / /
VAN DOREN R BERGEN
C/O WM K MACKEY TRS
P O BOX 901
FALMOUTH, MA 02541
36/ 66.6/ / /
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF CAPE COD
411 ROUTE 6A SUITE 6
YARMOUTH PORT, MA 02675
36/ 66.1/ / /
LAFLASH CINDY E
7F VIRGINIA ST
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
36/ 66.2/ / /
RODERICK DIANE L
7E VIRGINIA ST
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
36/ 66.3/ / /
SILVEIRA BETHANY
7D VIRGINIA ST
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
36/ 66.4/ / /
GREGOIRE TOREY R
7C VIRGINIA ST
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
36/ 66.5/ / /
HUTCHISON PALLAS
7B VIRGINIA ST
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
Please use this signature to certifythis list of propertiesabutting within 100' of the parcellocated at:0 Rosetta St..West Yarmouth, MA 02673Assessors Map 28, Lot 58.1.1_____________________________Andy Machado, Director of AssessingNovember 19, 2025
36/ 8/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
.
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 9/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 58.1.1/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 95/ / /
AKKAWI BROTHERS LLC
403 CAIRN RIDGE RD
EAST FALMOUTH, MA 02536
36/ 96/ / /
AKKAWI BROTHERS LLC
403 CAIRN RIDGE RD
EAST FALMOUTH, MA 02536
36/ 94/ / /
RHPK LLC
53 CRANBERRY TRAIL
EAST SANDWICH, MA 02537
36/ 7/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 6/ / /
HARJU CHERYL A
HARJU DEBORAH J
22 BAYVIEW ST
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
36/ 4/ / /
BAXTER ELIZABETH F TR
ELIZABETH F BAXTER TRUST
149 PLEASANT ST
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 5/ / /
BAXTER JONATHAN H TR
78 PHEASANT WAY
CENTERVILLE, MA 02632
36/ 93/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
C/O ACCOUNTS PAYABLE DEPT
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 92/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
ATTN: FINANCIAL SERVICES
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 85/ / /
LUTZ SHIRLEY A TR
C/O RICCI STEPHEN
25 MURRAY RD
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
36/ 84/ / /
HAYES MICHAEL J
1 CHANNEL POINT DR
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
36/ 90/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 91/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 83/ / /
C&C MCGRATH LLC
400 MAIN ST
SOUTH DENNIS, MA 02660
36/ 87/ / /
LUTZ SHIRLEY A TR
C/O RICCI STEPHEN
25 MUJRRAY RD
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
36/ 89/ / /
PMG REALTY INC
26 GUY LN
HYANNIS, MA 02601
Please use this signature to certify this list of propertiesabutting within 100' of the parcel located at:4 Bayview St., West Yarmouth, MA 02673Assessors Map 36, Lot 93___________________________________Andy Machado, Director of AssessingNovember 19, 2025
28/ 58.1.1/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 166/ / /
ECONOMIDES NICHOLAS L
ECONOMIDES ATHANASIA
6915 HEATHERHILL RD
BETHESDA, MD 20817
28/ 169/ / /
CORDEIRO TRACEY ANN
11 ROUND DR
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
28/ 170/ / /
ETHIER CHRISTOPHER
ETHIER CRISTINA
7 WILDWOOD RD
LONDONDERRY, NH 03053
28/ 173/ / /
RESTAINO STEPHEN M
RESTAINO CAROLINA
32 OVAL DR
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
28/ 58.1.2/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 58.1.3/ / /
ODAMS CHARLES L
ODAMS MARGARET
18 ROUND DR
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
28/ 58.1.4/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
Please use this signature to certify this list of propertiesabutting within 100' of the parcel located at:22 Round Dr., West Yarmouth, MA 02673Assessors Map 28, Lot 58.1.4___________________________________Andy Machado, Director of AssessingNovember 19, 2025
28/ 58.1.1/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 174/ / /
WALLACE DONNA A
33 OVAL DRIVE
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
28/ 177/ / /
HORWITZ SCOTT M TRS
HORWITZ G M AND LERMAN R S TRS
6 WINNMERE AVE
BURLINGTON, MA 01803
28/ 170/ / /
ETHIER CHRISTOPHER
ETHIER CRISTINA
7 WILDWOOD RD
LONDONDERRY, NH 03053
28/ 173/ / /
RESTAINO STEPHEN M
RESTAINO CAROLINA
32 OVAL DR
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
28/ 58.1.2/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 58.1.3/ / /
ODAMS CHARLES L
ODAMS MARGARET
18 ROUND DR
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
28/ 58.1.4/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
Please use this signature to certify this list of propertiesabutting within 100' of the parcel located at:26 Oval Dr., West Yarmouth, MA 02673Assessors Map 28, Lot 58.1.2___________________________________Andy Machado, Director of AssessingNovember 19, 2025
28/ 58.1.1/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 74/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 73/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 72/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 58.5/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
Please use this signature to certify this list of propertiesabutting within 100' of the parcel located at:28 Rosetta St., West Yarmouth, MA 02673Assessors Map 28, Lot 73___________________________________Andy Machado, Director of AssessingNovember 19, 2025
36/ 8/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
.
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 9/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 10/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 58.1.1/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 7/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 6/ / /
HARJU CHERYL A
HARJU DEBORAH J
22 BAYVIEW ST
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
36/ 93/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
C/O ACCOUNTS PAYABLE DEPT
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 3/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
Please use this signature to certify this list of propertiesabutting within 100' of the parcel located at:30 Bayview St., West Yarmouth, MA 02673Assessors Map 36, Lot 93___________________________________Andy Machado, Director of AssessingNovember 19, 2025
36/ 8/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
.
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 9/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 10/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 58.1.1/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 3/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
Please use this signature to certify this list of propertiesabutting within 100' of the parcel located at:40 Bayview St., West Yarmouth, MA 02673Assessors Map 36, Lot 10___________________________________Andy Machado, Director of AssessingNovember 19, 2025
28/ 52.1/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 56/ / /
VELLONE MCCANN CYNTHIA A TR
SHOOT FLYING HILL NOMINEE TRUST
329 MAIN ST
CENTERVILLE, MA 02632-2911
28/ 58.1.1/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 57/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 58.3/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 58.4/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
Please use this signature to certify this list of propertiesabutting within 100' of the parcel located at:72 Bayview St., West Yarmouth, MA 02673Assessors Map 28, Lot 57___________________________________Andy Machado, Director of AssessingNovember 19, 2025
36/ 13/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 52.1/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 14/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
36/ 15/ / /
VELLONE MCCANN CYNTHIA A TR
SHOOT FLYING HILL NOMINEE TR
329 MAIN ST
CENTERVILLE, MA 02632-2911
28/ 56/ / /
VELLONE MCCANN CYNTHIA A TR
SHOOT FLYING HILL NOMINEE TRUST
329 MAIN ST
CENTERVILLE, MA 02632-2911
28/ 58.1.1/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 57/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 58.3/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
Please use this signature to certify this list of propertiesabutting within 100' of the parcel located at:74 Bayview St., West Yarmouth, MA 02673Assessors Map 28, Lot 58.3___________________________________Andy Machado, Director of AssessingNovember 19, 2025
28/ 52.1/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 58.1.1/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 57/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
28/ 61/ / /
MCNAMARA BRENDAN F
230 RANCHO SANTE FE RD
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
28/ 60/ / /
FOSTER AUBREY
2 HEADWATERS DR
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
28/ 59/ / /
FACCHINI RICHARD A JR
166 BAYVIEW ST
WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
28/ 58.4/ / /
CAPE COD HOSPITAL
25 COMMUNICATION WAY
HYANNIS, MA 02601
Please use this signature to certify this list of propertiesabutting within 100' of the parcel located at:86 Bayview St., West Yarmouth, MA 02673Assessors Map 28, Lot 58.4___________________________________Andy Machado, Director of AssessingNovember 19, 2025
ROSETTA ST WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
Sources: Esri, Maxar, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson,
NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland,
FEMA, Intermap, and the GIS user community
Municipal Boundary
Parcel Boundaries
Buildings
Street Names
November 20, 2025 0 1,000 2,000500 ft
0 410 820205 m
1:19,587
Data and scale shown on this map are provided for planning and
Powered by Esri Technology
26 OVAL DR WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
Sources: Esri, Maxar, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson,
NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland,
FEMA, Intermap, and the GIS user community
Municipal Boundary
Parcel Boundaries
Buildings
Street Names
November 20, 2025 0 1,000 2,000500 ft
0 410 820205 m
1:19,587
Data and scale shown on this map are provided for planning and
Powered by Esri Technology
22 ROUND DR WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
Sources: Esri, Maxar, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson,
NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland,
FEMA, Intermap, and the GIS user community
Municipal Boundary
Parcel Boundaries
Buildings
Street Names
November 20, 2025 0 1,000 2,000500 ft
0 410 820205 m
1:19,587
Data and scale shown on this map are provided for planning and
Powered by Esri Technology
72 BAYVIEW ST WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
Sources: Esri, Maxar, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson,
NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland,
FEMA, Intermap, and the GIS user community
Municipal Boundary
Parcel Boundaries
Buildings
Street Names
November 20, 2025 0 1,000 2,000500 ft
0 410 820205 m
1:19,587
Data and scale shown on this map are provided for planning and
Powered by Esri Technology
74 BAYVIEW ST WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
Sources: Esri, Maxar, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson,
NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland,
FEMA, Intermap, and the GIS user community
Municipal Boundary
Parcel Boundaries
Buildings
Street Names
November 20, 2025 0 1,000 2,000500 ft
0 410 820205 m
1:19,587
Data and scale shown on this map are provided for planning and
Powered by Esri Technology
86 BAYVIEW ST WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
Sources: Esri, Maxar, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson,
NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland,
FEMA, Intermap, and the GIS user community
Municipal Boundary
Parcel Boundaries
Buildings
Street Names
November 20, 2025 0 1,000 2,000500 ft
0 410 820205 m
1:19,587
Data and scale shown on this map are provided for planning and
Powered by Esri Technology
28 ROSETTA ST WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
Sources: Esri, Maxar, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson,
NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland,
FEMA, Intermap, and the GIS user community
Municipal Boundary
Parcel Boundaries
Buildings
Street Names
November 20, 2025 0 1,000 2,000500 ft
0 410 820205 m
1:19,587
Data and scale shown on this map are provided for planning and
Powered by Esri Technology
30 BAYVIEW ST WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
Sources: Esri, Maxar, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson,
NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland,
FEMA, Intermap, and the GIS user community
Municipal Boundary
Parcel Boundaries
Buildings
Street Names
November 20, 2025 0 1,000 2,000500 ft
0 410 820205 m
1:19,587
Data and scale shown on this map are provided for planning and
Powered by Esri Technology
40 BAYVIEW ST WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
Sources: Esri, Maxar, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson,
NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland,
FEMA, Intermap, and the GIS user community
Municipal Boundary
Parcel Boundaries
Buildings
Street Names
November 20, 2025 0 1,000 2,000500 ft
0 410 820205 m
1:19,587
Data and scale shown on this map are provided for planning and
Powered by Esri Technology
4 BAYVIEW ST WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673
Sources: Esri, Maxar, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson,
NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland,
FEMA, Intermap, and the GIS user community
Municipal Boundary
Parcel Boundaries
Buildings
Street Names
November 20, 2025 0 1,000 2,000500 ft
0 410 820205 m
1:19,587
Data and scale shown on this map are provided for planning and
Powered by Esri Technology
Appendix G – MEPA Correspondence
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Mejia, Josbel (EEA)" <Josbel.Mejia@mass.gov>
Subject: Ecological Restoration: Bayview Bogs
Date: November 10, 2025 at 4:08:47 PM EST
To: mforestcccd <mforestcccd@gmail.com>
Cc: "Wu, Christina Y (DEP)" <Christina.Y.Wu@mass.gov>, "Wong, David
W (DEP)" <david.w.wong@mass.gov>
Hi there,
This correspondence confirms that, under 301 CMR 11.01(2)(b)4., the Secretary did not
decide within 10 days after the comment period that an Environmental Notification
Form (ENF) is required for this project.
Accordingly, any Agency Action required for the Project may be taken at this time if
required to obtain a Restoration Order of Conditions, provided that the Agency Action
is deemed to be conditioned on the ultimate issuance of the Restoration Order of
Conditions.
If the Restoration Order of Conditions is denied, or if the project is permitted as an
Ecological Restoration Limited Project under 310 CMR 10.24(8) and 10.53(4), then the
project must undergo MEPA review, and any conditional Agency Actions shall not
become effective until MEPA review is completed. Consistent with 301 CMR 11.12(6),
the Agency may reconsider the Agency Action and any conditions thereof following the
completion of MEPA review.
Sincerely,
Josbel Mejia (Joe)
Pronouns: He/Him
Mass. Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Office
100 Cambridge Street – Boston, MA 02114
NEW!! MEPA has proposed amendments to its regulations at 301 CMR 11.00 to streamline
housing and ecological restoration projects. More information is available here.
Effective July 1, 2025, use of the MEPA e-Filing Portal is mandatory for ENF, NPC and EIR
filings. More information is available on the MEPA website.
Appendix H – Environmental Monitor Notice
Notification for Submission of Notice of Intent, Ecological Restoration Project:
Bayview Bogs Ecological Restoration
Expected NOI Submission Date: November 2025
Municipality where Proposed Project is located: Yarmouth
Location of Proposed Project: 0 Rosetta Street, West Yarmouth, MA 02673 (41.650999, -70.267703)
Project Description:
Cape Cod Hospital (as landowner) has partnered with the Cape Cod Conservation District (CCCD) and the
Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration (DER) to restore the former cranberry bogs at Bayview Bogs in
West Yarmouth to a healthy wetland ecosystem and remove barriers to tidal flow. The proposed project will
complete ecological restoration of approximately 90 acres formerly used for cranberry production at Bayview
Bogs.
The bog system is currently separated from Lewis Bay by an agricultural berm and water control structure which
prevents tidal influence from making its way upgradient into the bog system. The restoration project will remove
the entirety of this barrier, as well as other upgradient berms and water control structures that were constructed to
separate the different bog cells during agricultural production. In addition to removing berms, agricultural ditches
that were previously constructed to direct and control water will be filled in; collectively, these actions will restore a
more natural wetland hydrology to the site, allowing water to spread out over the bog surface. Tidal waters will
once again be able to flow into the site via the tidal creek connecting the system to Lewis Bay. While this
influence will initially be limited by the site topography and elevations, removal of the barrier to tidal flow will allow
the system to slowly adapt to greater tidal influence as sea level rises, and will thereby provide an opportunity for
the site to transition to salt marsh over time. In the short term, the upgradient areas not yet receiving tidal flows
will be restored to healthy freshwater wetland ecosystems.
While the site is not officially mapped as rare species habitat, the project design is incorporating input from the
Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program staff to proactively enhance rare species habitat capacity in
both wetland areas and upland areas to provide a refuge for turtles and other wildlife within an otherwise
developed and urbanized area. Alongside the restorative mission for the landscape, Bayview Bogs offers a
unique opportunity to enhance the healing mission of the Hospital - offering Hospital staff, patients, and family
members a tranquil place for contemplation and reflection - a place to take advantage of the therapeutic benefits
of nature. Bayview Bogs will also be open to the larger community as a resource for passive recreation, offering a
loop walking trail and boardwalks that will allow residents from the adjoining neighborhoods to experience the
restored wetlands up-close and watch them evolve and grow over time.
The proposed project meets the definition of Ecological Restoration Project as defined in 310 CMR 10.00. Once
filed, copies of the NOI application will be available upon request from the Applicant’s representative, Julie Busa,
of Fuss & O’Neill, at julianne.busa@fando.com or 413-333-5469. Information regarding the date, time, and
location of the public hearing regarding the NOI may be obtained from the Yarmouth Conservation Commission,
1146 Route 28, South Yarmouth, MA 02664. Notice of the public hearing will be published at least five business
days in advance, in The Cape Cod Times.