Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNarrative Revised 5.26.2026Notice of Intent Tony and Jane Campagna, 14 Compass Drive, S. Yarmouth Page 1 of 8 Performance Standards Narrative, Alternatives Analysis, and Construction Protocol – Revised 5-15-26 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 on the river side to the west and the lagoon side to the north. The area landward of the existing bulkhead consists of lawn 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 14 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, below the flood elevation, where no coastal bank exists. In talking with the owner, there was a layer of peat material seaward of the west portion of the 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 of significant deflection and loss 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 an 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’x12’ floats for a total of 144 square feet of floats, which match the licensed configuration. Permitting History There is an order of conditions (SE83-76) 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 1 foot to match the existing adjacent bulkhead to the east of the property and also align the bulkhead with that adjacent bulkhead. 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 100 feet of the bulkhead on the west side will be relocated directly in front (seaward) of the existing bulkhead location and will also be raised up by 1 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 Under 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 fill to raise the grade about 6 inches directly landward of the wall, but only on the river side to compensate for the loss 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 minor excavation anticipated to install the anchors as shown on the plan. The old anchors can be severed one at a time, and then 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. Notice of Intent Tony and Jane Campagna, 14 Compass Drive, S. Yarmouth Page 2 of 8 The rocks can be removed with an excavator with a “thumb” to grasp and remove them. The rocks will also be properly disposed of. For the west (riverside) portion of the wall, the new sheeting will be driven directly in front of the existing wall, with new anchors driven and connected to the wall. Some of the anchors will likely pass under the pool and the dwelling, which is allowable. The old wall can be cut off at grade (leaving any existing anchors), and then the new fill placed to fill the void between t he 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 combination 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 both from the upland on the east side of the dwelling (for the north side) and almost entirely from a working barge for the west side. Some of the pool decking will require temporary 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 stones. 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 small excavator with a vibratory head will be required for any excavation behind the bulkhead and to install the sheeting. The 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 NDZ. Description of “After-The-Fact” Work There is an existing patio on the west side of the house, between the house and the river that appears to be unpermitted. The patio covers approximately 150 square feet of area in this location. There is also additional decking that appears to have never been permitted. This area is approximately 90 square feet on the northeast corner of the patio decking. Refer to sketch below provided by conservation for the location of those areas. Mitigation may be necessary for the total of 240 square feet of after-the-fact work. The patio perhaps can be converted to a gravel area with 1’x1’ pavers to provide drainage. There is an area of a “garden” along the north side of the bulkhead. This area can be used for mitigation as well. Since the work is within 0-35’ buffer, mitigation cannot be proposed or determined by the applicant. We are happy to discuss an overall solution for this additional work at the hearing. Mitigation for Bulkhead Work The bulkhead is an existing permitted structure. While the height is increasing slightly, the footprint is being reduced along the north end by approximately 60 square feet, and the seaward expansion of the bulkhead on the west side increases the footprint in that area by approximately 100 square feet. Therefore, the net increase for the bulkhead is approximately 40 square feet. The bulkhead is being reconstructed seaward out of necessity and safety because the bulkhead is failing and cannot be removed safely. Therefore, it is not considered a seaward expansion and mitigation for this small increase is not considered at this time. Mean High Water Determination 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 approximately 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, MHW is at elevation 1.1' NAVD88, and MLW is at elevation -1.8' NAVD88. Riverfront 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 approximately 67 square feet, and an addition of riverfront area of approximately 53 square feet; the reverse of Land Under Ocean. Navigation The proposed seaward relocation of the western portion of the bulkhead is approximately 1 foot into the river. The existing salt marsh extends approximately 12 feet beyond the new bulkhead location and 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. Notice of Intent Tony and Jane Campagna, 14 Compass Drive, S. Yarmouth Page 3 of 8 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 Survey 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 showed signs of shellfish on the west side. For the north side, one transect 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 of Options) 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 wall shows evidence of soil loss 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. This condition will only get worse 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 from 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. Option 2 – Repair the bulkhead. This option would require installing a short bulkhead directly in front of the existing timber sheeting and filling 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 of bulkhead directly in front of the existing bulkhead. This option is the simplest option, leaving the existing bulkhead intact. 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, this option isn’t necessary. Further, the construction of the north section in front of the existing only exacerbates the incontinuity of the two bulkheads where they meet, creating a 2.5-foot “jog” where 1.5’ now exists. The landward movement of 40 feet of bulkhead aligns with the 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 square feet of Land Under Ocean. This is also the reason why the northern portion of the bulkhead is not constructed in its sam e footprint (to offset impacts to Land Under 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 existing wall. This is not practical since the new wall can just be constructed once in the same location as the cofferdam and remain in place. Further, the risk of destabilization of the house and/or the pool is too risky and could jeopardize the dwelling and the pool to be undermined and lose support. Therefore, this option was not chosen. Notice of Intent Tony and Jane Campagna, 14 Compass Drive, S. Yarmouth Page 4 of 8 Option 5 – Construct the western portion of the bulkhead landward of the existing bulkhead. This option was discussed with a contractor. In 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 amounts of sediment, and potentially destabilizing the foundation and the pool were simply to risky. Therefore this option was not chosen. Option 6 –Construct the bulkhead at the AE-zone flood height of 11 feet. This option leaves the bulkhead protruding 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 is at elevation 6’, so 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 5’ 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 8 – Construct the bulkhead without the height increase or fill. This option would leave the bulkhead at the same height that it is now. This does not simplify the design, as the difference in height isn’t enough to trigger a new designed wall for just 1.3’ of height decrease. The small amount of fill is proposed to level the area on the west where soil has been lost. The area could be regraded without the use of the fill. Reconstructing the wall at its permitted height simply puts the wall back at that height, but does not reduce flooding impacts. The neighbor’s wall is 1.3 feet higher, with the potential to direct flood waters from their property onto the Campagna’s property. Because of this possibility, and with sea level rise and storm events, this option to leave the bulkhead at the same height was not chosen. Option 8 - (preferred alternative, project as proposed). Construct 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 pool. The western portion is protected from complete failure, and the northern portion is replaced where 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. 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 seaward 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 Flowage and Land Under Ocean. Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (LSCSF) – LSCSF is considered a resource area under 310 CMR 10, section 10.02 (1) d. The area from the existing bulkhead back to the lawn is below the flood elevation and therefore no coastal bank exists. There is an “artificial Top of Bank” at the top of the bulkhead. The work on the waterfront is still within LSCSF, so it will be treated as such. The area is therefore within Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage. Although LSCSF is an area that is allowed protection under the Wetlands Protection Act, there are no performance standards for this area. The work proposed in LSCSF is the work for the bulkhead installation. That work will not have any significant adverse impacts, and can be permitted under 310 CMR 10.05(6)k. The Yarmouth Wetlands Protection Regulations, section 4.10 (3) a (i-viii), have the following performance standards to consider: projects within LSCSF shall not have an adverse effect on the interests protected by the bylaw by: i. reducing the ability of the land to absorb and contain flood waters; 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. Notice of Intent Tony and Jane Campagna, 14 Compass Drive, S. Yarmouth Page 5 of 8 ii. increasing the elevation or velocity of flood waters, or by redirecting or increasing flows or causing channelization, in each case at the project site, adjacent or nearby properties, or any public or private way. No change. The bulkhead or small amount of fill behind it does not increase the elevation of flood waters because the area is within 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 the increase in volume within the flood zone. However, this does not apply to salt water flood zones because any potential change cannot be measured as compared to the volume of the ocean. The addition of coastal rivers came after the Riverfront Act was implemented. The primary approach for the Riverfront Area regulations if for fresh water rivers; and in this case not the ocean environment. iii. displacing or diverting flood waters to other properties or resource areas. Fences and privacy walls, including walls separating one property from another, may obstruct or divert flood flow and waves toward buildings and protected areas. Solid fences (stockade and similar) must be constructed with 6 inches of clearance below to allow the passage of floodwaters and wildlife; No change; 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 likelihood of debris. v. causing ground, surface or saltate pollution triggered by coastal storm flowage; No change. vi. reducing the ability of the resource to serve as a wildlife habitat and migration corridor through activities such as, but not limited to the removal of substantial vegetative cover and/or installation of fencing and other structures which prevent wildlife migration across property. No change. vii. prevention of the migration of resource areas such as salt marshes due to sea level rise. No change. viii. If flood control and storm damage protection functions have already been impaired, redevelopment must improve existing conditions by reducing impervious surfaces, restoring flood control and storm damage protection functions, installing native plantings, or by restoring or creating other wetland resource areas. No 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) a (i-viii). Land Under the Ocean – The area directly fronting the bulkhead on all sides is land under the ocean. The bulkhead construction on the west side decreases the area by approximately 100 square feet, where the landward relocation on the north side increases the area of this resource by approximately 40 square feet. The contractor can 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. Projects not included in 310 CMR 10.25(3) which affect land under the ocean shall if water-dependent, be designed and constructed, using best available measures, so as to minimize adverse effects, and if non-water-dependent, have no adverse effects, on marine fisheries habitat or wildlife habitat caused by alterations in water circulation, destruction of eelgrass (Zostera marina) or widgeon grass (Rupia maritina) beds, distribution of grain size, changes in water quality, including, but not limited to, other than natural fluctuations in the level of dissolved oxygen, temperature or turbidity, or the addition of pollutants; or alterations of shallow submerged lands with high densities of polychaetes, mollusks or macrophytic algae. The project, as proposed, has no significant adverse effects, and therefore can be conducted and permitted to minimize adverse effects to the listed interests in accordance with 310 CMR 10.25 (6). The Yarmouth Wetlands Protection Regulations, section 4.01(3) a-g, have the following performance standards to consider: The project shall be designed to minimize adverse effects caused by changes in: (a) Bottom topography which will result in increased flooding or erosion caused by an increase in the height or velocity of waves impacting the shore; There is no net change to bottom topography. (b) Sediment transport processes which will increase flood or erosion hazards by affecting the natural replenishment of beaches; There is no change to the sediment transport process; there is no coastal beach at this site. Notice of Intent Tony and Jane Campagna, 14 Compass Drive, S. Yarmouth Page 6 of 8 (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 will result from the suspension or transport of pollutants, the smothering of bottom organisms, the accumulation of pollutants by organisms, or the destruction of habitat or nutrient source areas. The potential reduction in potential shellfish productivity from the western seaward relocation is offset by the potential increase in shellfish productivity by the north bulkhead relocation. (e) Maintenance dredging for navigational purposes affecting land under the ocean shall be carried out using the best available measures so as to minimize adverse effects caused by changes in marine productivity which will result from the suspension or transport of pollutants, increases in turbidity, the smothering of bottom organisms, the accumulation of pollutants by organisms, or the destruction of habitat or nutrient source areas. There is no dredging proposed for this project (f) Projects not included in section 4.01, (a through e) which affect nearshore areas of land under the ocean shall not cause adverse effects by altering the bottom topography so as to increase storm damage or erosion of coastal beaches, coastal banks, coastal dunes, or salt marshes. There is no alteration of bottom topography that would affect this interest. (g) Projects not included in section 4.01, (a through c) which affect land under the ocean shall be designed and performed so as to cause no adverse effects on wildlife, marine fisheries or shellfisheries caused by: i. Alterations in water circulation; The project has no negative effect on water circulation; the re-alignment of the bulkheads could improve water circulation. ii. Destruction of eelgrass beds (Zostera marina); Not applicable; no eelgrass at the site. The project, as proposed, has no significant adverse effects, and therefore can be conducted and permitted to minimize adverse effects to the listed interests in accordance with The Yarmouth Wetlands Protection Regulations, section 4.01(3) a-g, Riverfront Area - There is a 100-foot riverfront 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 of the 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 alternative s stated previously in this narrative. Riverfront Performance Standards 310 CMR 10.58 (3); “Where a proposed activity involves work within the riverfront area, the issuing authority shall presume that the area is significant to protect the private or public water supply; to protect the groundwater; to provide flood control; to prevent storm damage; to prevent pollution; to protect land containing shellfish; to protect wildlife habitat; and to protect fisheries.” The riverfront area on this property provides 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 also removes excess water through evaporation and transpiration. Vegetated riverfronts also dissipate the energy of storm flows, reducing damage to public and private property. The vegetative cover that may affect fisheries is the existing salt marsh. No change or negative impacts are anticipated 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 lower elevations. Therefore, this function may not be applicable for this property. The other functions of the riverfront area, such as flood control, storm damage prevention, and the prevention of pollution, the protection of land containing shellfish, 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, riverfront areas can mitigate flooding and damage from storms. The root systems of riverfront vegetation keep soil porous, increasing infiltration capacity. Vegetation also removes excess water through evaporation and transpiration. Notice of Intent Tony and Jane Campagna, 14 Compass Drive, S. Yarmouth Page 7 of 8 This removal of water from the soil allows for more infiltration when flooding occurs. Increases in storage of floodwaters can decrease peak discharges and reduce storm damage. Vegetated riverfronts also dissipate the energy of storm flows, reducing damage to public and private property.” This is the primary function of the riverfront area for this property. “Where the presumption set forth in 310 CMR 10.58(3) is not overcome, the applicant shall prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there are no practicable and substantially equivalent economic alternatives to the proposed project with less adverse effects on the interests identified in M.G.L. c.131 § 40 and that the work, including proposed mitigation, will have no significant adverse impact on the riverfront area to protect the interests identified in M.G.L. c. 131 § 40.” The bulkhead is required to be maintained. There are no reasonable alternatives that allow the bulkhead to remain without being repaired, and no alternatives that have less impact to the identified interests. According to the above, the riverfront area may 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 alternatives, above) to the proposed project with less adverse effects. Even the “do nothing” option has adverse effects to the riverfront 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. Notice of Intent Tony and Jane Campagna, 14 Compass Drive, S. Yarmouth Page 8 of 8 CONSTRUCTION PROTOCOL The staging area for materials will be on the applicant’s property and driveway. The work area shall be kept to a minimum. A 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 for the buffer at 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-Construction Meeting Prior to construction, a pre-construction meeting shall be held on-site with the Contractor, Property Owner (or owner’s representative), and the Conservation Commission and/or agent. The purpose of the meeting is to clearly delineate the limits of work and access, as well as the staging area. The Contractor will describe the proposed means and methods for performing the work within the requirements of the plans, order of conditions and construction protocol. The Contractor will comply with mitigation measures as established by the Conservation Commission. To be discussed at this meeting: • Existing property conditions, necessary precautions to be taken by the Contractor; • Means and methods for construction; • Means and methods for siltation controls; • Necessary post-construction reparations and conditions; • Procedure for post-construction inspection; • Shorefront Consulting’s responsibilities for inspection and project coordination During Construction, the site shall be accessible for inspection during reasonable hours by all parties, members of the conservation commission and their agents, and the Project Manager. Post-construction meeting Upon completion of construction, a post-construction meeting shall be held on-site with the Contractor, Property Owner (or owner’s representative), and the Conservation Commission and/or agent. The purpose of this meeting is to determine that the project has been satisfactorily completed in accordance with all permits, and that no additional work or mitigation is required by the Contractor. Restoration of project area Upon completion of construction, the staging areas, vegetated areas, and any other areas disturbed by the construction effort shall be returned as much as practical to their pre -construction conditions to the satisfaction of the property owner and conservation agent. All disturbed vegetated areas shall be re-vegetated with native vegetation to match pre-construction conditions for the surrounding areas, or as determined during the pre-construction meeting.