HomeMy WebLinkAboutConsultants Response to MA DMF Comments
940 Route 28
P.O. Box 6
South Harwich, MA 02661
T 508.255.6511
27-5089-0223.01.030.2
March 25, 2026
Ms. Amanda Davis, Environmental Analyst
MA Division of Marine Fisheries
836 S. Rodney French Boulevard
New Bedford, MA 02744
Re: Response to Comments from MA Division of Marine Fisheries
NOI for 148 & 186 Windswept Way Shoreline Improvements Project , Osterville, MA
DEP File No. 003-6370
Dear Ms. Davis:
On behalf of Bayside Property Holdings, LLC and Osterville Property Holdings – One LLC (the “Applicant”),
Tighe & Bond is pleased to submit a response to the MA Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF) comments on
the Notice of Intent (NOI) for the 148 and 186 Windswept Way Shoreline Improvements Project (referred to as
“the Project”). The NOI application was submitted to the Barnstable Conservation Commission on February 17,
2026. Comments from MA DMF were provided via email on March 13, 2026. The comments from MA DMF are
copied below. Tighe & Bond’s responses, provided on behalf of the Applicant, follow in italics.
1. A time of year restriction should be observed to protect sensitive life stages of horseshoe crabs from
beach construction activity on potential nesting beaches. Beach construction activity - such as
excavation and fllling- could bury and/or crush spawning adult crabs and nests. Eggs in nests buried
too deep may not hatch. No beach construction activity should take place from May 1 – July 31 of any
year. Furthermore, the proposed turbidity curtain should not be present on site during this time of year
restriction as it would limit horseshoe crab access to potential nesting beaches.
Response: The Project will follow TOY restrictions for the horseshoe crab. No construction activities will
take place from May 1st to July 31st of any year, and proposed turbidity curtains will not be present on
site during this TOY restriction.
2. Repair of the structure should be within the same footprint as the existing structure or landward. Any
expansion of the footprint will result in loss of Commonwealth public trust tidelands.
Response: The Project does not include seaward expansion relative to the existing wall alignment,
aside from the installation of timber piles which will provide lateral support to the timber bulkhead.
Where feasible, timber piles are proposed to be installed slightly seaward of the existing wall
alignment to allow for installation into undisturbed soils. This is necessary to allow for installation of
piles into undisturbed soils and to avoid reliance on potentially compromised subgrade associated
with the existing structure which can lead to reduced pile capacity and increased movement. The face
of the proposed timber bulkhead will be constructed at or landward of the existing wall alignment,
maintaining the current shoreline position and function.
3. The proponent is proposing a vertical bulkhead; however, a sloped riprap design would provide
added ecological beneflts as well as shoreline stability beneflts. Sloped riprap revetments can create
interstitial spaces that support invertebrate habitat and can reduce wave refiectance toward the
adjacent salt marsh.
2
Response: A revetment was evaluated but determined to be less suitable given site-speciflc
constraints. An anchored timber bulkhead is proposed along the northern portion of the Site where
existing infrastructure and developed upland directly abut the water, and along the southern reach –
where the shoreline transitions into a natural undeveloped condition – the Project will implement
nature-based, “soft” shoreline stabilization techniques via a coir flber roll array, selected speciflcally to
maintain the ecological function of the area and to minimize impacts to the adjacent Coastal Bank and
the Salt Marsh. The proposed flber roll array will also be shifted landward of the existing stone wall
alignment and positioned above the MHW line – positioned further away from the Salt Marsh than the
existing wall.
In order to minimize seaward encroachment, construction of a revetment would require signiflcant
excavation of the Coastal Bank and adjacent upland areas to achieve the necessary slope. Given the
proximity of existing residence, accessory structures, and associated utilities (water, septic, etc.), this
level of disturbance would likely result in unacceptable impacts to the existing infrastructure.
Furthermore, the site is underlain by very loose, erodible sediments, which could reduce the long-term
stability of a revetment due to potential settlement or undermining.
Finally, replacing the existing vertical structure (which also abuts a neighboring vertical structure) with a
sloped revetment could alter tidal fiow and inundation patterns, which may result in secondary impacts
to properties and adjacent resource areas. Based on these considerations, maintaining a vertical
shoreline stabilization approach is considered the least impactful and most appropriate alternative.
4. Construction activity, including staging of construction material and equipment as well as equipment
transit to and from the construction site, should avoid intertidal habitat to the greatest extent
practicable. As much work as possible should be conducted from the upland portion of the project site
to minimize impacts and avoid compaction of sediment in mapped shellflsh habitat. Any work in the
intertidal zone should be limited to low tide such that work is conducted in the “dry.”
Response: All site access will be provided via the existing entrance at 186 Windswept Way.
Construction vehicles and equipment will utilize this access point throughout the duration of the
Project. A temporary construction access corridor approximately 12 to 15 feet in width will be
established from the driveway to the shoreline, within the approved limits of work, to facilitate the
transport of materials and equipment. Construction access will utilize previously disturbed or
maintained areas to the maximum extent practicable. No construction access is proposed along the
Coastal Beach or within the intertidal zone. Access seaward of the existing wall will be limited to
pedestrian use and hand-carried tools only. Proposed work on the timber bulkhead will be performed
by hand from the upland side of the wall.
A designated materials and equipment staging area will be located upland, landward of coastal
resource areas, within the landscaped portion of the property. Staging areas will be limited to the
minimum area necessary and will be located outside of Salt Mar sh, Coastal Beach, Land Under the
Ocean, and other jurisdictional resource areas to the maximum extent practicable.
5. The proponent proposes to remove four groins during construction and reset the stones upon
completion. Because the groins are no longer functioning as originally intended, we recommend that
they not be reinstalled following completion of the work.
Response: To facilitate the installation of the timber bulkhead, some stones may be temporarily
removed and restored to their original location following completion of construction activities. The
3
groins are not proposed to be removed as doing so could disturb the sediment transport patterns and
beach elevation, with the potential to adversely affect adjacent resource areas.
6. The proposed reconstruction is sited in intertidal habitat abutting salt marsh vegetation and mapped
shellflsh habitat. Construction should not be allowed in salt marsh habitat or in a location which could
adversely impact the salt marsh.
Response: A sediment barrier will be installed along the landward edge of the existing Salt Marsh
during installation of the flber roll array and during removal of the existing stone wall to protect the Salt
Marsh from temporary construction-related impacts. No construction will be allowed in Salt Marsh.
7. The project proposes removal of the stone wall landward of the salt marsh. Following removal, salt
marsh plantings are recommended to help facilitate recolonization and restoration of the marsh
vegetation in this area.
Response: The Project includes a comprehensive restoration approach along the southern portion of
the Site, where the shoreline transitions to a natural condition adjacent to the Salt Marsh. Following
removal of the existing stone wall, the area will be regraded and stabilized using a nature-based
solution (flber roll array) with sediment nourishment and native coastal plantings. Salt Marsh plantings
are not proposed, as work avoids disturbance within the Salt Marsh. However, proposed native
plantings immediately landward are expected to support natural recolonization and improved marsh-
edge conditions.
8. Any proposed sediment deposition over coir rolls should be consistent with the materials currently
present at the site in terms of grain size and material.
Response: Sediment from the re-contouring of the Coastal Bank will be used to cover the flnished
array, and the nourishment will be fully planted with native grass species .
9. Fuel spills from refueling of construction equipment will adversely impact sensitive resource areas.
Impacts to resource areas can be avoided by prohibiting all land-based equipment from being
refueled on-site. If equipment is refueled on-site, adequate containment and clean-up material should
be required to minimize impacts.
Response: No refueling of construction equipment will be allowed within resource areas or buffer
zones. Spill response kits shall be maintained on-site at all times, and any spills will be required to be
immediately contained and reported.
We trust this information will be satisfactory for your review of the Project. If you have any questions regarding
this application or if you require additional information, please contact me at 617-640-2055 or
BAngus@tighebond.com.
Very truly yours,
Briony Angus
VICE PRESIDENT
Copy: Town of Barnstable Conservation Commission