HomeMy WebLinkAboutNarrative 5.5.2026Notice of Intent Tony and lane Campagna, 14 Compass Drive, S. Yarmouth
Performance Standards Narrative, Alternatives Analysis. and Construction Protocol
property Description
The property is located on Parkers River, a tidal river that leads to Nantucket sound_ The project site is approximately
2,000 feet inland from Nantucket Sound. The property is located on the eastern shore of the river, in the main channel
of flow. The property has an existing single family dwelling. The assessors records indicate that the dwelling was
built in 1974, Refer to the permitting history below. There is a 140-foot long existing timber bulkhead that wraps
around the property, both oft the river side to the west Arid the lagoon side to the north. The area landward of the
existing bulkhead consists of lawny and shrub vegetation on the west side, and some lawn and gardens on the north
side. There is a permitted pool on the north side of the property that is within 12 feet of the existing wall. There is a
permitted landing, ramp, and floats on the north side in the lagoon. There are also approximately Id stones in the
lagoon against the existing timber bulkhead. The applicant stated that the Army Corps requested that the rocks be
placed there as an experiment, which has not been proven to be productive. The applicant isn't certain as to what the
goal of the experimental rocks was, There is also a rip -rap revetment retaining wall with some salt marsh at the
southern end of the west bulkhead work area. The new bulkhead will be located landward of the marsh and the
stones. The property is in Land Subject To Coastal Storm Flowage, belowthe flood elevation, where no coasts! bank
exists. In talkingwith the owner, there was a layer ofpeat material seaward ofthe hest portion ofthe bulkhead with
has since eroded away, leaving the bottom of the bulkhead exposed_ The water is almost 12 feet deep next to the
bulkhead in that area now, and the bulkhead shows signs ofsignif cant deflection and Ioss of alignment in that area.
The portion of the bulkhead on the west side is actively failing, tilting seaward, with timbers exposed and severe
sinkholes behind the wall. The wall was temporarily anchored with additional anchors, but they are not holding, This
portion of the bulkhead is in imminent danger of collapse and must be rebuilt as soon as possible. The bulkhead on
the north side is starting to exhibit signs of degradation and failure,
There is are existing permitted landing, ramp, and floats on the property- The landing is 4' wide and extends 16 feet
over the canal. There is a 3' wide x 14' long ramp leading to two 6' x 12' floats for a total of 144 square feet of floats,
which match the licensed configuration.
Permitting History
There is an order of conditions (SE93-76) issued in 1976 for the Pool_ This order does not have a certificate of
compliance. The permit is open and a Certificate of Compliance is being sought from Down Cape Engineering.
There is another permit (SE83-1336) for the bulkhead and the reconstruction of the pier, ramp, and floats. This order
received a certificate of compliance in 1997. All of the existing structures (seawall, dock, piles, ramp, and floats),
etc. have an existing Chapter 91 License (DEP License No. 5705), issued in 1996. The license will expire in 2032
with the benefit of several state automatic extensions.
Project Description
The purpose of this project is to replace the timber bulkhead with a new vinyl bulkhead and raise the new bulkhead
up by I foot to match the existing adjacent bulkhead to the east ofthe property and a]so a]ignthe hulkhead with that
adjacent bulkhcud. The bulkhead location will be changed to allow approximately 40 feet of the northern section to
be located approximately 1.5' landward to match the existing bulkhead to the east. The location of approximately
] 00 feet of the bulkhead on the west side will he relocated directly in front (seaward) ofthe existing bulkhead location
and +gill also be raised up by ] foot to match the adjacent eastern bulkhead. The land lost by the landward relocation
on the north end is currently lawn and some gardens. Therefore, approximately 40 square feet of Land Under Ocean
will be gained by the north bulkhead relocation, with a loss of approximately 100 square feet of Land Ender Ocean
on the west side relocation, for a net loss of 60 square feet of Land Under Ocean, There is proposed approximately
13 cubic yards of ti11 to raise the grade about 6 inches directly landward of the wall, but only on the river side to
wrnpensate for the less of sediment in that area. In addition, there are approximately 14 stones located adjacent to
the bulkhead on the north side which are proposed to be removed.
Because the north wall is being moved landward. there is only minorexcavation anticipatedto install the anchors as
shown on the plan_ The old anchors can be severed one at a time, and than the new sheeting driven into the existing
soil, without major excavation. The new anchors are then installed, with the bulkhead anchored to the new anchors.
The old wall can then be removed in sections and disposed of The rocks can be removed with an excavator with a
Page I of 7
Notice of Intent Tony and Jane Campagna, 14 Compm Drive, S. Yarmouth
--thurnb" to grasp and remove them_ The rocks will a]so be properly disposed of. For the west (riverside) portion of
the wall, the new sheeting trill be driven directly in front of the existing wall, with new anchors driven and connected
to the wall. Some of the anchors wiII likely pass under the pool and the dwelling, which is a]Iowable_ The old war11
can be cut off at grade (leaving any existing anchors), and then the new fill placid to fill the void between the two
walls and raise the grade only 6 inches to level the area. There is a very, good vegetated buffer on the west side of
the wall, which will be replaced in kind. For the north wall, currently the area has a combinati on of lawn and gardens,
which are also }proposed to remain in kind. There is no work currently proposed for the landing, ramp, and floats.
Description of Proposed Work
Access for the project will be bath from the upland on the east side of the dwe11ing (fear the north side) and almost
entirely frorn a working barge for the west side. Some of the pool decking will require ternporary removal for
machine access. For the west side, the sheeting will be driven directly in front of the old sheeting, and landward of
the salt marsh and the existing rip -rap wall s#ones, The bulkhead on the north side could be installed entirely from
the land, but a working barge may be needed to install sheeting and remove the existing bulkhead. A smal l excavator
With a vibratory head will be required for any excavation behind the bulkhead and to install the sheeting_ 'Ne rocks
can be removed at the same time the old bulkhead is removed and disposed of with the old bulkhead. All work is
within Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, and within the 35-foot ND .
Mean High Water Determ in a tia n
The project site is located approximately 2,000 feet upstream from the mouth of Parker's River. The distance upstream
causes a change to the tidal elevation due to the frictional loss of the tidal flow over distance. In this area, the tidal range
did not change and remains approxi mately 2.9 feet. Since the site is located in the main Flow of the river, the Army Corps
Tidal Profiles are reasonably accurate. The tidal elevations were verified using data from available projects in the
neighborhood. Therefore, MEW is at elevation 1.1' NAYD88, and MLW is at elevation -1,8' NAVD88,
River -front Area
The property is located directly on Parker's river, and is within the main flow of the river, and is considered in Riverfront
area calculations. The 0-100 foot Riverfront buffer encompasses all of the property, and all work is within this area. There
is a reduction of Riverfront Area of appmx imattly 67 square feet, and an addition cfriverf wt area of approximately 53
square feet; the reverse of Land Under Ocean.
Navigstioa
The proposed seaward relocation of the western portion ofthe bulkhead is approximately ] foot into the river_ The existing
salt marsh extends approximately 12 feet beyond the new bulkhead location sad therefore doesn't change the navigable
width for boat traffic. The bulkhead tapers landward as it proceeds north with no negative effect for boat traffic. It is likely
that most boat traffic passes more than 30 feet seaward of this bulkhead. For the lagoon side, there are no changes to the
location of the existing landing, ramp and Floats. Therefore. there are no anticipated impacts to navigation of the waterway
with regards to this project.
Shellfish Sorvey
A shellfish survey was conducted by John Lowell of East Dennis Oysters on November 21, 2025, The area surveyed was
approximately 10 feet wide along the bulkhead. Out of approximately 100 square feet along two transects, there were 7
locations which chewed signs of shellfish on the west side_ For the north side, one trarnsect was sampled along the
bulkhead. The transect was approximately 40 feet long and showed signs of shellfish in two areas. please refer to the
report enclosed with this filing.
Alternatives Analysis (Discussion of0ptlons)
Option 1-Do nothing
If nothing is done at this site, the existing bulkhead will continue to degrade. The bulkhead on the west side is in the
worst condition and is already experiencing failure in several places. The timber A -all shows evidence of sail lass
and very large holes at the base of the sheeting where it meets the river bottom, likely from the erosion of the soil in
front of the bulkhead, leaving the bottoms of the timbers exposed_ Thls condition will only get gorse over time. If
allowed to continue though, the sheeting will further collapse, leaving the dwelling exposed to storm energy and
erosion. The river would be exposed to excessive sedimentation Pram the resulting erosion of the soil behind the
Timber sheeting. While the northern portion of the bulkhead is less urgent, it is prudent to replace the entire bulkhead
at once. Therefore, no benefit (either privately or environmentally) is gained from this option, and it is not preferred.
Page 2 of 7
Rlptioe of Intent Ton} and Jane Campagna, 14 Compass Drive, S. Yarmouth
Option 2 — Repair the bulkhead.
This option would require instal IIng a short bulkhead d€rectly in front of the existing timber sheeting and fill€ng the
gap with sand. This Is a common repair and can extend the life of the bulkhead that is starting to fail, However. In
this case, the entire bulkhead on the west is already shifting from soil loss, and repairs of this type will not work in
this area. The area in front of the wall is so deep now that a short bulkhead will not provide enough support. For the
north wall, a repair of this type may work. but is unnecessary since the west bulkhead requires full reconstruction.
The cost benefit is not worth it since the work would be repeated soon after. Therefore, this Is not the desired option.
Option 3 — Construct the new north section ofbuMead directly in front of the existing bulkhead.
This option i5 the simplest Option, leaving the existing bulkhead intW This option was also the standard option
recommended by the Army Corps in years past because it protected the fronting resources from potential siltation.
This option is required for the western section of the bulkhead. For the north end, th is option isn't necessary. Further,
the Construction of the north section in front of the existing only exacerbates the incentinuity of the two bulkheads
where they meet, creating a 2,5400t "jog" where 1.5' now exists. The landward movement of 40 feet of bulkhead
aligns with ThC existing bulkhead to the east and reduces any impacts from wave action by reducing sharp edges and
transitions where the two bulkheads now meet. It also offsets the seaward movement of 100 feet of the west bulkhead,
where moving the entire bulkhead seaward would result in a loss of approximately 140 ware feet of Land Under
Ocean_ This is also the reason why the northern portion of the bulkhead is not constructed in its same footprint (to
offset impacts to Land [finder Ocean). Therefore, in order to balance the effects of the bulkhead reconstruction, this
option is not the desired option.
Option 4 — Construct the west portion of the bulkhead in the same footprint of the existing bulkhead. This option
was discussed with a contractor and requires the existing bulkhead to be excavated behind it to relieve the load_ Since
the house and the pool are so close to the western bulkhead, the amount of excavation behind the bulkhead would be
approximately 12 feet { 12-foot high wall from the outer base}, which places the end of the excavation at or beyond
the foundation and the pool_ The other option is to construct a temporary cofferdam wall seaward of the existing wall
and then replace it. This still requires excavation behind the wall and places the cofferdam in the same location as
the proposed reconstructed wall in front of the exist€ng wall. This is not practical since the new wall can just be
constructed once In the same location as thecofferdam and remain in place. Further, the risk of destabilization of the
house and/or the pool istoo risky and could jeopardi2e the dwellingandthe pool to be undermined and losesupport.
Therefore, this option was not chosen.
Option 5 — Construct the western portion of the bulkhead landward of the existing bulkhead. This option was
discussed with a contractor. I order to do this, the existing bulkhead anchors have to be severed to install the new
sheeting_ The distance to the house and the pool are so Close that the risk of the existing wall catastrophically failing,
removing large arnounts ofsediment, and potentially destabilizing the foundation and the pool were simply to risky.
'therefore this option was not chosen.
Opt Ion 6 —Construct the bulkhead at the AE-zone flood he€ght of I 1 feet. This option leaves the bulkhead protrud€ng
up 5' more from the existing grade and may increase protection for the property from wave action at that elevation.
The majority of the site and the surrounding lawn area i5 at elevation 6', sv raising the bulkhead up to 11 feet is not
practical because any flooding will come from the street side and flood the lot anyway_ Since this area is fairly level
and entirely below the flood elevation, raising the wall S' will only make it more difficult to drain the lot after a
flood. There is no benefit to raising this portion of the lot for the same reasons. The cost/benefit for the materials,
fill, and alteration for access to the dock does not justify the additional expense. Therefore, this is not the preferred
option.
Option 7 - {preferred alternative, project as proposed}_ Conswact the new bulkhead seaward in the west end, and
landward in the north end. This balances the resource areas, and the westward seaward expansion will not affect the
salt marsh or navigation. This approach protects the waterway from the potential effect of excessive amounts of
sediment introduced into the waterway during construction, and the real risk of destabilization of the foundation and
pant, The }westem portion is protected from complete failure, and the northern portion Is replaced inhere there is less
risk of destabilization. The removal of the rocks will benefit the resource area and increase Land Under Ocean to
balance the effects of the westward expansion, as will the landward movement of the north portion of the bulkhead.
Therefore. this is the preferred option.
Page 3 of 7
Notice of Intent Tony and Jane Campagna, 14 Compass Drive, S. Yarmouth
Performance Standards
The project proposes the construction of a new vinyl bulkhead. Because the new wall is considered a repair to an
existing permitted and licensed seawall, it can be constructed with local permitting only. Chapter 91 allows the direct
sea,A rd reconstruction of a bulkhead without requiring the modification of the license with perhaps only a Minor
Project Modification. The resource areas for this proposed project include Land Subject to Coastal Storm F1owage
and Land Under Ocean,
LundSubjecl to Coastal Storm Ffowage (LSCSF) — LSCSF is considered a resource area under 310 CMR 10, section
10_02 (1) d. The area from the existing bulkhead back to the lawn is below the flood elevation and therefore no
coastal bank exists. There is an "artificial Top of Bank- at the top of the bulkhW_ The work on the waterfront is
still within LSCSF, so it will be treated as such. The area is therefore within Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage.
Although LSCSF is an area that is a]Iowed protection under the Wetlands Protection Act, there are no performance
standards for this area. The work proposed in LSCSF is the work for the bulkhead installation. That work will not
have any significant adverse irnpacts, and can be permitted under 310 CMR 10.05(6)k,
The Yarmouth Wetlands Protection Regulations, section 4.10 (3) a (i-viii), have the following performance standards
to consider'. projects within LSCSF shall not have an adverse effect on the interests protected by the bylaw by;
i. reducing the ability of the [and to absorb and contain flood waters; There is no change to this interest.
i. reducing the ability of the land to buffer more inland areas from flooding and wave damage; Does not reduce this
ability; remains unchanged.
ii. increasing the elevation or velocity of flood ;waters. or by redirecting or increasing flows or owing
ohannelization, in each case at the project site, adjacent or nearby properties, or any public or private way. No
change. The bulkhead or small amount of fill behind it does not increase the elevation of flood waters because the
area is wvithin a salt water flood zone. Inland flood zones can be prone to change the inland flood elevation unless
compensatory storage is provided in the same volume as she increase in vujume within the flood zone. However,
this does not apply to salt water flood zones because any pate ntia[ change cannot be measured as compared to the
volume of the ocean. The addition of coastal rivers came after the Rivurfront Act was implemented, The primary
approach for the Riverfront Area regulations if for fresh -water rivers,; and in this case not the ocean environment,
lii. displacing or diverting flood %%avers to other properties or resource areas. Fences and privacy walls, including
walls separating one property from another, may obstruct or divert flood flow and waves to"mrd buildings and
protected areas_ Solid fences (stockade and similar) must be constructed with 6 inches of clearance below to allow
the passage of floodwaters arrd wildlife; No change; same as above.
iv, causing, or creating the likelihood of, damage to other structures on land ►within the flood plain as debris
(collateral damage); The project will reduce the Iikilihood [)I'dubris.
v, causing ground, surfaoe or sal#ate pot] udon triggered by coastal storm flowage; No change.
vi. reducing the ability of the resource to serve as a wildlife habitat and migration corridor through activities such
as, but not limited to the removal of substantial vegetative cover and/or installation of fencing and other structures
which prevent wildlife migration across property. No change.
•L prevention of the migration of resource areas such as salt marshes due to sea [eveI rise. lvo change.
viii. 1f flood contra[ and storm damage protection functions have already been impaired, redevelopment must
improve existing conditions by reducing impervious surfaces, restoring flood control and storm damage protection
functions, installing native plantings, or by restoring or creating other wetland resource areas. No redevelopment,
Impairment or change.
The project, as proposed, has no adverse effects, and therefore can be conducted and permitted to minimize adverse
effects to the listed interests in accordance with The Yarmouth Wetlands Protection Regulations, section 4.10 (3) aG
(i-viii).
Land Under the Ocean — The area directly fronting the bulkhead on all sides is land under the ocean. The bulkhead
construction do the west side decreesthe area by approximately 100 square feet, where the landward relocation on
the north side increases the areaof this resource by approximately 40 square feet_ The contrmtorean use a silt curtain,
in addition to the construction sequencing, to eliminate any impacts to the area directly fronting the bulkhead.
Therefore, the project can be accomplished to avoid negative impacts to this resource area. The construction protocol
requires proper methods to avoid siltation.
Page 4 of 7
Notice of Intent Tony and Jane C'ampagna, 14 Compass Drive, S. Yarmouth
Prc iects not included in 3 ] 0 MR i 0.25(3) which affect land under the uuuun shall if water -dependent, be designed
and constructed, using best available measures, so as to minimize adverse effects. and if non -water -dependent, have
no adverse effects, on marine iisheries habitat or wildlife habitat caused by alterations in water circulation.
destrucdon ofeelgmss (Zoslera marina) or widgeon grass (Rupia rnarifina) beds, distribution of grain size, changes
in Water duality, including, but not limited to, other than natural fluctuations in the level of dimlved oxygen,
temperature orturbidity, or the addition of pollutants; or alterations of shallow submerged lands with high densities
of polychaetes, mollusks or rnacrophytic algae. The project, as proposed, has no significant adverse effects, and
therefore can be conducted and permitted to minimize adverse effects to the listed intmsts in accordance with 310
MR 10.25 (6)}
The Yarmouth Wetlands Protection Regulations, section 4.01(3) a-g, have the following perforinance standards to
consider;
The project shall be designed to minimize adverse effects caused by changes in'.
(a) Bottom topography which wiII result in increased flooding or erosion caused by an inor-east in the height or
velocity of waves impacting the share; There is no net change to botr«rn topography-
(b) Sediment transport processes which will increase flood or erosion hazards 1�y affecting the natural
replenishment of beaches; There is no change to the sediment transport process; there is no coastal beach at this
(c) Water circulation which will result in an adverse change in flushing rate, temperature, or turbidity levels; or
There is no adverse change in water circulation. In fact. water circulation could be improved once the north
bulkhead is aligned with the adjacent bulkhead.
(d) Marine productivity which wiII result from the suspension or transport ofpoIlutanM the smothering of bottom
organisms, the accumulation of pollutants by organisms, or the destruction of habitat or nutrient source areas. The
potential reduction in potential shellfish productivity from the westem seaward re€ocadon is offset by the potential
increase in shellfish productivity by the north bulkhead rek)ration-
(e) Maintenance dredging for navigational purposes affecting land under the ocean shall be carried out using the
best available measures so as to minimize adverse effects caused by changes in marine productivity which will
result from the suspension or transport of pollutants, inn ases in turbidity, the smothering of bottom organisms,
the accumulation of pollutants by organisms, or the destruction of habitat or nutrient source areas. There is no
dredging proposed fcrr this project
(f) Projects not included in section 4,01, (a through e) which affect neamhore areas of land under the ocean shall
not cause adverse effects by altering the bottom topography so as to increase storm damage or erosion of coastal
beaches, coastal banks, coastal dunes, or sah marshes. There is no alteration of buttoFn vipc)graphy that would
affect this interest.
(g) Projects not included 1n section 4.01, (a through c) which affect land under the ocean shall be designed and
performed so as to cause no adverse effects on wildlife, ma,rive fisheries or she] Ifisheries caused by;
i. Alterations in water circulation; The project has no negative effect on water circulation; the re -alignment of ;he
bulkheads could improve WRIer circulation.
ii- Destruction ofeelgrass beds (Zostera marina); Not appiicable; no eelgrass at the site -
The project, as proposed, has no significant adverse effects, and therefore can be conducted and permitted to
minimize adverse effects to the listed Interests in accordance with The Yarmouth Wet]ands Protection Regulations,
section 4.01(3) a-g,
Filverfroat Area -
There is a 100-foot riverfrom area buffer zone on this property, and the limit is off the property. The 200' Riverfront
area is landward and off the property. The work in the 0-100 riverfront area is limited to the bulkhead reconstruction
and the replacement orthe vegetated buffer area. None of this work will negatively impact the riverfront area itself.
Full restoration of the lawn will keep the area stable and vegetated, at least to the point of having no exposed soil to
be introduced into the waterway. Please refer to the discussion of project altematives stated previously in this
nam ive,
Page 5 of 7
Notice of Intent Tony and Jane Campagna, 14 Compass Drive, S. Yarmouth
MverNnt Performance Standards
310 CMR 10.59 (3); -Where a proposed activity involves work within the riverfront area, the issuing authority
shall presume [hat the area is significant to protect the private or public water supply; to protect the groundwater;
to provide flood control, to prevent storm damage; to prevent pollution; to protect land containing shellfish; to
protect wildlife habitat: and to protect fisheries,"
The riverfront area on this property provides recharge and retainage of flood waters, which mitigates flooding and
damage from storms. The root systems of the vegetation keep the soil porous, increasing infiltration capacity.
Vegetation a]so removes excess water through evaporation and transpiration. Vegetated riverfronts a]so dissipate
the energy ofstorm flows, reducing damage to pubic and private property- The vegeralive cover that may affect
fr_xheries L ehe existing salt marsh. No change or negative imp xI.5 ov unikipaled for that resource for this
project The riverfront area, being directly adjacent to a salt water river, likely does not provide protection for
private or public water supplies or groundwater, In these areas, there is likely an amount of salt water intrusion into
the groundwater at some distance from the river's edge, and at 1 ower elevations_ Aere ore. this function may not
be applicablefor ibis property. The other functions of the riverfront area, such as food control, storm damage
prevention, and the prevention of pollution, the protection of land containing shellfish, and wildlife habitat do
apply for this property. Therefore, it appears that one of the interests may not be applicable for this property.
"By providing recharge and retaining natural flood storage. as well as by slowing surface water runoff+ riverfmnt
areas can mitigate flooding and damage from storms. The root systems ofriverfront vegetation keep soil porous,
increasing infiltration capacity. Vegetation also removes excess water through evaporation and transpiration. This
removal of water from the soil allows for more infiltration when flooding occurs. Increases in storage of
floodwaters can decrease peals discharges and reduce storm damage. Vegetated riverfronts also dissipate the
energy of storm flows, reducing damage to public and private property." This is the primary function of the
riverfront area for this property,
"Where the presumption set forth in 310 CMR 10,58(3) is not overcome, the applicant shall prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that there are no practicable and substantially equivalent economic alternatives to
the proposed project with less adverse effects on the interests identified in M,G. L. c.131 § 40 and that the work,
including proposed initigation, will have no significant adverse impact on the dverfront area to protect the interests
identified in M-0,L. c. 131 § 40." The bulkhead 1s required ro be maintained There are no reasonable alternatives
Mal allow the bulkhead to remain wilhow being repaired, and no afternaHves that have Tess impaci to the
ident ed interests.
According to the above, the riverfront area mkv not play a role in in the protection of groundwater or private or
public water supplies. This equates to the "one or more" of the interests in 310CMR 10.58(3). Therefore, it appears
that the presumption is rebuttable, and the presumption of significance is partially overcome.
'There are no practicable and substantially equivalent economic alternatives (see alternad Yes, above) to the
proposed project with less adverse effects. Even the "do nothing"' option has adverse effects to the riverfroat area
interests. The proposed work will have no significant adverse impact on the riverfront area to protect the interests
identified in M.G.L. c. 131 § 40.
Page 6 of 7
Notice of Intent 'Cony and Jane C ampagna, 14 Compass Drive, - Yannauth
CONSTRUCTION PROTOCOL
The staging area for materials will be on the applicant's property and drive way. The %vork area shall be kept to a
minimum. A working barge will likely be used for the west portion of the bulkhead. If a barge is used, proper
protocols shall be utilized to prevent grounding, The barge shall be positioned as to not affect navigation in the river_
The sheeting shall be driven in the locations in accordance with the plans. The existing sheeting shall be removed
only enough at a time to drive the same amount of sheeting in the same day. A silt curtain shall be used to prevent
siltation into the waterway while the new sheeting is being driven. Vibratory driving is preferred. All equipment
shall be stored on the applicant's property or the working barge when not in use. After that section of bulkhead is
constructed and anchored, any soil can be backfilled behind the wall. Additional gravel can be used forthe bufFerat
the owner's option. This will increase the drainage capacity behind the wall. The timber sheeting and remains of the
existing bulkhead shall be disposed of properly.
Pre-Constru-ction Meeting
Prior to construction, a pre -construction meeting shall be held on -site with the Contractor, Property Owner (or
owner's representative), and the Conservation Commission and}or agent_ The purpose of the meeting is to clearly
delineate the limits of work and access, as well as the staging area, The Contractor will describe the proposed means
and methods for performing the work within the requirements of the plans, order of conditions and construction
protocal. The Contractor ► 1lI comply with mitigation measures as established by the Conservation Commission.
To be discussed at this meeting:
• Existing property conditions, necessary precautions to be taken by the Contractor;
• Means and methods for construction;
• Means and methods for siltation controls;
Ne,,essary post -construction reparations and conditions;
9 Procedure for post -construction inspection;
6 Shorefront Comij It! ng's responsibilities for inspection and project coordination
During Construction, the site shall be accessible for inspection during reasonable hours by all parties, members of
the conservation commissiorl and their agents, $nd the Project Manager,
Post-C�►struCtion meeting
Upon completion of construction, a post-�-_onstruction meeting shall be held on -site with the Contractor, Property
Owner (or -owner's representative), and the Conservation Commission andlor agent. The purpose of this meeting is
to determine thatthe project has been satisfactorily completed in aocordancewith all permits, and that ray additional
work ormitigation is required by the Contractor.
Restoration of project area
Upon completion of construction, the staging areas, vegetated areas, and any other areas disturbed by the construction
effort shall be retumed as rnuch as practical to their pre -construction conditions to the satisfaction of the property
owner and conservation agent. All disturbed vegetated areas shall be re -vegetated with native vegetation to match
pre -construction Cpnditions forthe surrounding areas, or as determined during the pre -construction meeting.
Page 7 of 7