Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SandyNeck_ENF_Submittal_to_MEPA_7-31-23 (1)
July 31, 2023 Job No. 21-0262-00 Secretary Rebecca Tepper Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Attn: MEPA Office 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Sent via email: MEPA@mass.gov Re: ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM: Proposed Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Town of Barnstable 425 Sandy Neck Road Barnstable, MA Parcel ID: 263001 Dear Secretary Tepper, On behalf of the Town of Barnstable, we are hereby submitting an electronic copy of an Environmental Notification Form (ENF) for the above referenced project. During remote operations, we are refraining from sending physical copies to MEPA and the distribution list, except for the Mass. Historical Commission. Please post this ENF Filing Notification in the next Environmental Monitor published on August 9, 2023. If you have any questions, or require any additional information, please call me at 508-495-6225 or send an email to lfields@woodsholegroup.com. Sincerely, Leslie Fields Coastal Geologist/Project Manager MLF/beg cc: Distribution List Amber Unruh, Town of Barnstable Nina Coleman, Town of Barnstable Dan Boulais, Tighe & Bond Steve Riberdy, Goddard Consulting Environmental Notification Form Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project for Town of Barnstable July 2023 PREPARED FOR: Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Attn: MEPA Office 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 PREPARED BY: Woods Hole Group, Inc. A CLS Company 107 Waterhouse Rd Bourne, MA 02532 USA __________________ 107 Waterhouse Road Bourne, MA 02532 Phone: 508-540-8080 Fax: 508-540-1001 e-mail: WHGroup@whgrp.com www.woodsholegroup.com Environmental Notification Form Contents: Section A – Environmental Notification Form (ENF) Application Section B - Project Description Section C – Existing Environment Section D – Alternatives Considered & Assessment of Impacts Section E – Construction Methodologies & Phasing Section F – List of Required Permits & Reviews Section G – Avoidance, Minimization & Mitigation Measures Section H – Review of Consistency with Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Policies Section I – Engineering & Rare Species Reports Technical Memorandum on Alternatives Assessment for Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project, by Woods Hole Group, dated 10/03/2022 Rare Species Survey Report and Habitat Assessment, by Goddard Consulting, updated 04/14/2023 Section J – Accompanying Documents NHESP Response Letter, NHESP Tracking No. 07-21418, dated 06/20/2022 Letter of Determination from NHESP, dated 06/21/2023 Letters of Support (The Nature Conservancy & Association to Preserve Cape Cod) Output Report from Resilient MA Action Team (RMAT) Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool Map of EJ Populations Within 5 Miles of the Project Site Map of Census Blocks Where 5% or more of the EJ Population Identify as Not Speaking English "Very Well" Within 5 Miles of the Project Site Grain Size Analysis, by GeoTesting Express, dated 08/01/2022 Section K– Public Notice and ENF Distribution List Section L – Project Map & Plans USGS Map, Identifying Locus Plan Set Entitled “Town of Barnstable, Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration, 65% Design Set”, by Tighe & Bond, Sheets 1-30, dated July 2023 Section A ENF Application Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Office Effective January 1, 2022 Environmental Notification Form For Office Use Only EEA#: MEPA Analyst: The information requested on this form must be completed in order to submit a document electronically for review under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, 301 CMR 11.00. Project Name: Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Street Address: 425 Sandy Neck Road Municipality: West Barnstable Watershed: Cape Cod Bay Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates: Latitude: 40˚ 44’ 19.76” N Longitude: 70˚ 22’ 51.91” W Estimated commencement date: Winter 2024 or Winter 2025 Estimated completion date: Winter 2025 to Winter 2026 Project Type: Coastal Resiliency Status of project design: 65 %complete Proponent: Town of Barnstable Street Address: 367 Main Street Municipality: Barnstable State: MA Zip Code: 02601 Name of Contact Person: Leslie Fields Firm/Agency: Woods Hole Group, Inc. Street Address: 107 Waterhouse Rd. Municipality: Bourne State: MA Zip Code: 02532 Phone:508-495-6225 E-mail: lfields@woodsholegroup.com Fax:508-540-1001 Does this project meet or exceed a mandatory EIR threshold (see 301 CMR 11.03)? Yes No If this is an Expanded Environmental Notification Form (ENF) (see 301 CMR 11.05(7)) or a Notice of Project Change (NPC), are you requesting: N/A a Single EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.06(8)) Yes No a Rollover EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.06(13)) Yes No a Special Review Procedure? (see 301CMR 11.09) Yes No a Waiver of mandatory EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.11) Yes No a Phase I Waiver? (see 301 CMR 11.11) Yes No (Note: Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis must be included in the Expanded ENF.) Which MEPA review threshold(s) does the project meet or exceed (see 301 CMR 11.03)? 301 CMR 11.03(2)(b)2 301 CMR 11.03(3)(b)1.a 301 CMR 11.03(3)(b)1.e 301 CMR 11.03(3)(b)1.f 301 CMR 11.03(3)(b)2 301 CMR 11.03(11)b - 2 - Which State Agency Permits will the project require? Conservation & Management Permit from MA Division of Fisheries & Wildlife/NHESP Identify any financial assistance or land transfer from an Agency of the Commonwealth, including the Agency name and the amount of funding or land area in acres: FY16 and FY23 CZM Coastal Resiliency Grants for $276,627 Summary of Project Size & Environmental Impacts Existing Change Total LAND Total site acreage 10.10 New acres of land altered 0 Acres of impervious area 3.22 0.52 3.75 Square feet of new bordering vegetated wetlands alteration 0 Square feet of new other wetland alteration 227,604 Acres of new non-water dependent use of tidelands or waterways N/A STRUCTURES Gross square footage 3,757 0 3,757 Number of housing units N/A N/A N/A Maximum height (feet) 18 0 18 TRANSPORTATION Vehicle trips per day N/A N/A N/A Parking spaces 200 0 200 WASTEWATER Water Use (Gallons per day) N/A N/A N/A Water withdrawal (GPD) N/A N/A N/A Wastewater generation/treatment (GPD) 3,201 0 3,201 Length of water mains (miles) N/A N/A N/A Length of sewer mains (miles) N/A N/A N/A Has this project been filed with MEPA before? Yes (EEA # ) No Has any project on this site been filed with MEPA before? Yes (EEA # 10887 Sandy Neck Access initiative; 12125 Sandy Neck Barrier Beach; 14053 Sandy Neck Beach Facility-Withdrawn) No - 3 - GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION – all proponents must fill out this section PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Describe the existing conditions and land uses on the project site: Sandy Neck Beach Park is located on a barrier beach that is approximately 6 miles long, and in some locations, up to ½ mile wide, allowing public access to pristine dunes, maritime forests, and beaches. Sandy Neck barrier beach is a designated Area of Critical Environmental Con cern (ACEC) and provides habitat for rare and endangered species. Infrastructure at the Park includes a parking lot with space for 200 vehicles, bathhouse with public restrooms, concessions, observation viewing decks, gatehouse, and equipment storage. The site supports recreational activities for beachgoers, off road vehicle (ORV) users, campers, hikers, horseback riders, mountain bikers, and fishermen. Storm-induced erosion of the primary frontal dune is threatening the parking lot infrastructure and elevated water levels in Barnstable Harbor cause flooding of the gatehouse during storms. Describe the proposed project and its programmatic and physical elements: The Town’s primary goals for this project are to implement a long-term coastal resiliency project that: • addresses coastal vulnerability to erosion, dune loss, and flooding, • is sustainable for at least 50 years, • supports current uses of the site that are safe for the public, • enhances and protects coastal resources, • is economically viable, and • is permittable under current environmental regulations. The proposed project includes relocation of the lower parking lot 60 to 75 ft landward of its current position, and removing 66 ft of the seaward portion of the upper parking lot. A +745 ft long primary dune with crest elevation between 26 and 27.5 will be restored along the seaward side of the new parking lots. A rear dune will be constructed along the back side of the parking lots to provide stability for the parking area and to shelter surrounding neighborhoods from vehicle lights. An emergency access path will be provided between the lower parking lot and the existing ORV trail and a stormwater management system will be added to the lower parking lot that will drain to a bioretention basin. The dunes will be vegetated with beach grass. The existing ORV trail will remain in place and the entrance will be enhanced to provide additional air-up/air-down spaces with a new compressor inside a flood-proof enclosure. The existing gatehouse will be moved up the access road approximately 350 ft to a location that is naturally higher in elevation to reduce flood vulnerability. A new travel lane for outgoing traffic will be added west of the relocated gatehouse. The area of the existing gatehouse will be reconfigured to add new air-up and parking spaces, a compressor with flood-proof enclosure, two (2) exit lanes, one (1) entrance lane, and restoration of a gravel parking area located east of the current gatehouse using native plantings. The project triggers the requirement for an Environmental Notification Form (ENF) pursuant to 301 CMR 11.03(2)(b)2, 11.03(3)(b)1.a, 11.03(3)(b)1.e, 11.03(3)(b)1.f, 11.03(3)(b)2, and 11.03(11)b for greater than 2 acres disturbance to designated priority habitat, alteration of a barrier beach, fill in a velocity zone, and work in greater than ½ acre of an ACEC. The project will result in 5.24 acres of permanent impact to wetland resources; 3.37 acres are currently altered and the remaining 1.87 acres will be impacts to previously undisturbed resources. These permanent impacts represent an increase of 1.02 acres over the existing site. The 1.87 acres of newly impacted resource area include coastal dune, barrier beach and estimated & priority habitat. Temporary disturbance to coastal dune, barrier beach and upland spadefoot toad habitat will total 1.14 acres. Restoration of coastal dune, barrier beach, and estimated & priority habitat will take place over 3.72 acres. NOTE: The project description should summarize both the project’s direct and indirect impacts (including construction period impacts) in terms of their magnitude, geographic extent, duration and frequency, and reversibility, as applicable. It should also discuss the infrastructure requirements - 4 - of the project and the capacity of the municipal and/or regional infrastructure to sustain these requirements into the future. Describe the on-site project alternatives (and alternative off-site locations, if applicable), considered by the proponent, including at least one feasible alternative that is allowed under current zoning, and the reasons(s) that they were not selected as the preferred alternative: A total of six (6) alternatives were developed and evaluated as follows: Do nothing Stone Revetment with Vegetated Sand Cover and ORV Trail Relocation Bio-Engineered Sand-Filled Coir Bags with Vegetated Sand Cover Partial Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and ORV Trail Relocation Full Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and ORV Trial Relocation Full Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and no ORV Trail Relocation For further details see Alternatives Considered & Assessment of Impacts in Section D. NOTE: The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to consider what effect changing the parameters and/or siting of a project, or components thereof, will have on the environment, keeping in mind that the objective of the MEPA review process is to avoid or minimize damage to the environment to the greatest extent feasible. Examples of alternative projects include alternative site locations, alternative site uses, and alternative site configurations. Summarize the mitigation measures proposed to offset the impacts of the preferred alternative: Mitigation measures for unavoidable impacts to upland Spadefoot Toad habitat will be developed in consultation with NHESP staff and the Town of Barnstable during preparation of a Conservation Management Plan. The Plan will demonstrate compliance with the performance standards for issuance of a Conservation Management Permit per 321 CMR 10.23. Mitigation measures may include one or more of the following: Acquisition and protection of suitable parcels offsite Protection of other critical parcels (potentially not located in the Town of Barnstable) Land conservation (e.g., Conservation Restriction) Conservation funding via escrow For further details see Avoidance, Minimization & Mitigation Measures in Section G. If the project is proposed to be constructed in phases, please describe each phase: Construction on the proposed project will take place in the following two (2) Phases during the winter months from October through March to minimize impacts to beach use during the peak summer season and avoid impacts to rare species. The work is expected to take place over a 2.5 year period, with construction limited to the winter months and uninterrupted summer beach use in between. Phase 1: During the period October through March, construction activities will include (a) excavation and fill along the back side of the proposed lower parking lot to create the rear dune and bioretention basin, (b) excavate and transport parking lot demolition materials to approved offsite location, (c) grading and installation of the base layer and asphalt for the new parking lot, (d) install drainage structures, parking lot curbing, binder, and temporary lane/parking space markings. The parking lot would then be allowed to settle over the summer season and construction during the second December through March period would include (e) stockpile sand in the parking lots for restoration of the primary dune, and (f) final grading and revegetation of the primary and rear dunes. - 5 - Phase 2: During the following October to March time period, construction activities will include (a) site grading at the entrance to the ORV trail for new air-up/air-down parking spots, (b) installation of the new air compressor with flood-proof enclosure, (c) site grading at the area of the new gatehouse and installation of the base layer and asphalt for the new exit lane, (d) relocate gatehouse building to the new site, (e) excavate asphalt in area of existing gatehouse and transport to approved offsite location, (f) grading and installation of base layer and asphalt for entry/exit lates at the existing gatehouse area, (g) restore existing gravel parking area at east side of existing gatehouse area using native plantings, and (h) application of final asphalt topcoat and painting of the road and parking lot. For further details see Construction Methodologies & Phasing in Section E. AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN: Is the project within or adjacent to an Area of Critical Environmental Concern? Yes (Specify: Sandy Neck Barrier Beach System_) No if yes, does the ACEC have an approved Resource Management Plan? ___ Yes _X__ No; If yes, describe how the project complies with this plan. _______________________________________________________ Will there be stormwater runoff or discharge to the designated ACEC? _X__ Yes ___ No; If yes, describe and assess the potential impacts of such stormwater runoff/discharge to the designated ACEC. Stormwater in the parking lot will be directed to a vegetated swale and then to a bioretention basin, both of which are located in the ACEC. These project elements will manage the stormwater using Low Impact Development (LID) Techniques and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize and mitigate impacts of stormwater runoff by collecting, treating and infiltrating stormwater runoff. The stormwater management system will fully comply with the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards and therefore the system is not expected to have adverse impacts on the ACEC. RARE SPECIES: Does the project site include Estimated and/or Priority Habitat of State-Listed Rare Species? (see http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/regulatory_review/priority_habitat/priority_habitat_home.htm) Yes (Specify: Estimated and Priority Habitats__ ) No HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Does the project site include any structure, site or district listed in the State Register of Historic Place or the inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth? Yes (Specify_See below__ ) No BRN.922: Bodfish Park – Edward T. R. Landers Memorial BRN.921: Bodfish, Benjamin Memorial Park If yes, does the project involve any demolition or destruction of any listed or inventoried historic or archaeological resources? Yes (Specify____) No The Edward T.R. Landers Memorial will be relocated from the existing gatehouse area to a prominent location near the new gatehouse. WATER RESOURCES: Is there an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) on or within a half-mile radius of the project site? _X_Yes ___No; if yes, identify the ORW and its location. Sandy Neck Barrier Beach System ACEC_____ (NOTE: Outstanding Resource Waters include Class A public water supplies, their tributaries, and bordering wetlands; active and inactive reservoirs approved by MassDEP; certain waters within Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, and certified vernal pools. Outstanding resource waters are listed in the - 6 - Surface Water Quality Standards, 314 CMR 4.00.) Are there any impaired water bodies on or within a half-mile radius of the project site? ___Yes _X_No; if yes, identify the water body and pollutant(s) causing the impairment:_____. Is the project within a medium or high stress basin, as established by the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission? ___Yes _X__No STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: Generally describe the project's stormwater impacts and measures that the project will take to comply with the standards found in MassDEP's Stormwater Management Regulations: Stormwater will be managed using Low Impact Development (LID) Techniques and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control runoff and minimize and mitigate impacts of stormwater runoff. The design will include proper construction-period erosion control measures, and post-construction stormwater management components. The stormwater management system at the site will employ Low-Impact Development (LID) Techniques such as bioretention basins to collect, treat, and infiltrate stormwater runoff. Despite this being a re-development project, the stormwater management system will fully comply with the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards. In addition, prior to land disturbing activities, a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) will be prepared to address requirements of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Construction General Permit (CGP). MASSACHUSETTS CONTINGENCY PLAN: Has the project site been, or is it currently being, regulated under M.G.L.c.21E or the Massachusetts Contingency Plan? Yes ___ No _X__ ; if yes, please describe the current status of the site (including Release Tracking Number (RTN), cleanup phase, and Response Action Outcome classification):__________________ Is there an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) on any portion of the project site? Yes ___ No _X_; if yes, describe which portion of the site and how the project will be consistent with the AUL: __________. Are you aware of any Reportable Conditions at the property that have not yet been assigned an RTN? Yes ___ No _X__ ; if yes, please describe:____________________________________ SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE: If the project will generate solid waste during demolition or construction, describe alternatives considered for re-use, recycling, and disposal of, e.g., asphalt, brick, concrete, gypsum, metal, wood: Proposed work to remove/replace the existing parking lot will require removal of the existing asphalt. This material will be transported to an approved off-site recycling facility. (NOTE: Asphalt pavement, brick, concrete and metal are banned from disposal at Massachusetts landfills and waste combustion facilities and wood is banned from disposal at Massachusetts landfills. See 310 CMR 19.017 for the complete list of banned materials.) Will your project disturb asbestos containing materials? Yes ___ No _X__ ; if yes, please consult state asbestos requirements at http://mass.gov/MassDEP/air/asbhom01.htm Describe anti-idling and other measures to limit emissions from construction equipment: The project will implement measures to limit emissions from construction equipment to the extent practicable, such as retrofitting diesel construction vehicles, or utilizing vehicles that use alternative fuels, such as ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel to reduce emissions during construction activities. In addition, the Massachusetts anti-idling law will be enforced during the construction phase of the Project with the - 7 - installation of on-site anti-idling signage. DESIGNATED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER: Is this project site located wholly or partially within a defined river corridor of a federally designated Wild and Scenic River or a state designated Scenic River? Yes ___ No X__ ; if yes, specify name of river and designation: If yes, does the project have the potential to impact any of the “outstandingly remarkable” resources of a federally Wild and Scenic River or the stated purpose of a state designated Scenic River? Yes ___ No ___ ; if yes, specify name of river and designation: _____________; if yes, will the project will result in any impacts to any of the designated “outstandingly remarkable” resources of the Wild and Scenic River or the stated purposes of a Scen ic River. Yes ___ No ___ ; if yes,describe the potential impacts to one or more of the “outstandingly remarkable” resources or stated purposes and mitigation measures proposed. ATTACHMENTS: 1. List of all attachments to this document. (Environmental Notification Form Contents page) 2. U.S.G.S. map (good quality color copy, 8-½ x 11 inches or larger, at a scale of 1:24,000) indicating the project location and boundaries. (Section L) 3.. Plan, at an appropriate scale, of existing conditions on the project site and its immediate environs, showing all known structures, roadways and parking lots, railroad rights-of-way, wetlands and water bodies, wooded areas, farmland, steep slopes, public open spaces, and major utilities. (Section L) 4 Plan, at an appropriate scale, depicting environmental constraints on or adjacent to the project site such as Priority and/or Estimated Habitat of state-listed rare species, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Chapter 91 jurisdictional areas, Article 97 lands, wetland resource area delineations, water supply protection areas, and historic resources and/or districts. (Section L) 5. Plan, at an appropriate scale, of proposed conditions upon completion of project (if construction of the project is proposed to be phased, there should be a site plan showing conditions upon the completion of each phase). (Section L) 6. List of all agencies and persons to whom the proponent circulated the ENF, in accordance with 301 CMR 11.16(2). (Section K) 7. List of municipal and federal permits and reviews required by the project, as applicable. (Section F) 8. Printout of output report from RMAT Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool, available here. (Section J) 9. Printout from the EEA EJ Maps Viewer showing the project location relative to Environmental Justice (EJ) Populations located in whole or in part within a 1-mile and 5-mile radius of the project site. (Section J) - 8 - LAND SECTION – all proponents must fill out this section I. Thresholds / Permits A. Does the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to land (see 301 CMR 11.03(1) ___ Yes _X__ No; if yes, specify each threshold: II. Impacts and Permits A. Describe, in acres, the current and proposed character of the project site, as follows: Existing Change Total Footprint of buildings _0.09 __ ___0____ _0.09__ Internal roadways _0.59___ __0.09__ _0.69___ Parking and other paved areas _2.48___ __1.33__ _3.81___ Other altered areas _1.05___ __0.51__ _1.56___ Undeveloped areas _0.0____ _ 3.95__ _3.95___ Total: Project Site Acreage _4.22___ __5.87__ _10.10__ Total site acreage of existing site calculated as footprint of existing development + ORV trail. Total site acreage of proposed project calculated as footprint of proposed work + ORV trail + footprint of existing developed site to remain + temporary construction areas to be restored upon completion of the project. B. Has any part of the project site been in active agricultural use in the last five years? ___ Yes _X__ No; if yes, how many acres of land in agricultural use (with prime state or locally important agricultural soils) will be converted to nonagricultural use? C. Is any part of the project site currently or proposed to be in active forestry use? ___ Yes _X__ No; if yes, please describe current and proposed forestry activities and indicate whether any part of the site is the subject of a forest management plan approved by the Department of Conservation and Recreation: D. Does any part of the project involve conversion of land held for natural resources purposes in accordance with Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth to any purpose not in accordance with Article 97? ___ Yes _X__ No; if yes, describe: E. Is any part of the project site currently subject to a conservation restriction, preservation restriction, agricultural preservation restriction or watershed preservation restriction? ___ Yes_X_ No; if yes, does the project involve the release or modification of such restriction? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, describe: F. Does the project require approval of a new urban redevelopment project or a fundamental change in an existing urban redevelopment project under M.G.L.c.121A? ___ Yes _X_ No; if yes, describe: G. Does the project require approval of a new urban renewal plan or a major modification of an existing urban renewal plan under M.G.L.c.121B? Yes ___ No _X__; if yes, describe: III. Consistency A. Identify the current municipal comprehensive land use plan Title: Town of Barnstable’s Local Comprehensive Plan, dated 2010, and reference to the Town’s draft Local Comprehensive Plan, dated March 28, 2023 B. Describe the project’s consistency with that plan with regard to: 1) economic development _______________________ 2) adequacy of infrastructure _____________________ 3) open space impacts ___________________________ 4) compatibility with adjacent land uses_______________ - 9 - See below for consistency. C. Identify the current Regional Policy Plan of the applicable Regional Planning Agency (RPA) RPA: Cape Cod Commission (CCC) Title:_CCC Regional Policy Plan_____ Date:_February 22, 2019____ D. Describe the project’s consistency with that plan with regard to: 1) economic development ________________________ 2) adequacy of infrastructure _______________________ 3) open space impacts ____________________________ The Town of Barnstable’s Local Comprehensive Plan (LCP) identifies economic goals that are intrinsically linked to the natural resources in the town. This includes continually developing and maintaining areas for recreational activities under the Town’s Open Space and Recreation Plan; section 2 of the LCP. The March 28, 2023 version of the LCP specifically identifies Sandy Neck Beach Park (Sandy Neck) as a vital cultural and natural resource area. This sentiment is mirrored by the Cape Cod Commission’s Regional Policy Plan (RPP). The proposed project directly c ontributes to these goals and objectives by enhancing the coastal resources and therefore the recreational and tourism related opportunities associated with the Town’s largest beach. Barnstable’s LCP outlines goals to improve infrastructure that provide accessible facilities that meet community needs. Likewise, the Cape Cod RPP outlines infrastructure goals that target community design and coastal resiliency. The proposed project will increase coastal resiliency through landward retreat of the main parking lot, allowing for increased dune nourishment to protect the Town’s resources and surrounding communities. The project does not propose an increase in parking onsite, rather it aims to make existing infrastructure more resilient. The Gatehouse will also be relocated to higher ground, further protecting Town infrastructure at the beach. Wastewater solutions are not explicitly addressed in this project; however, the design of the new parking lot will address rainwater drainage to prevent pooling on the impermeable surface and direct the rainwater to a bioretention swale. According to both the Barnstable LCP and the Cape Cod RPP, open spaces and natural resources, like that of Sandy Neck, contribute directly to the key industries on Cape Cod, attracting tourists and providing areas for fishing and recreation. The goals include preserving and enhancing the availability of open space to provide wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities, as well as for passive and active recreation to meet the needs of both residents and visitors. The Town’s LCP is consistent with the regional plan, highlighting Barnstable’s commitment to conserving natural resources, preserving open space, and providing sufficient recreation opportunities for its residents. The proposed project is directly in line with the goals of both planning documents. The project not only restores and enhances open space and natural habitat, but also improves the recreational resources present at Sandy Neck Beach Park. Finally, the proposed project is not only compatible with adjacent land uses, but these adjacent areas will directly benefit from the project. The restoration of the dune and beach in front of the Beach Facility will provide additional protection against storm surge and coastal flooding. Improved access points to the pedestrian and off-road vehicle (ORV) beaches will expedite emergency services to beach users as well as private homeowners on the barrier beach to the East. Dune stabilization around the Beach Facility also has the additional benefit of partially blocking light pollution produced from the headlights of egressing ORVs from the residential communities along Sandy Neck Rd, particularly those along Holway Drive whose backyards face north toward Sandy Neck. - 10 - RARE SPECIES SECTION I. Thresholds / Permits A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to rare species or habitat (see 301 CMR 11.03(2))? _X__ Yes ___ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: The Project will have 3.61 acres of disturbance of designated priority habitat that results in a take of a state-listed endangered or threatened species. (NOTE: If you are uncertain, it is recommended that you consult with the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) prior to submitting the ENF.) B. Does the project require any state permits related to rare species or habitat? _X_ Yes ___ No C. Does the project site fall within mapped rare species habitat (Priority or Estimated Habitat?) in the current Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas (attach relevant page)? _X__ Yes ___ No. D. If you answered "No" to all questions A, B and C, proceed to the Wetlands, Waterways, and Tidelands Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Rare Species section below. II. Impacts and Permits A. Does the project site fall within Priority or Estimated Habitat in the current Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas (attach relevant page)? _X__ Yes ___ No. If yes, 1. Have you consulted with the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP)? _X_Yes ___No; if yes, have you received a determination as to whether the project will result in the “take” of a rare species? _X__ Yes ___ No; if yes, attach the letter of determination to this submission. See attached Determination Letter from NHESP dated 06/21/2023 in Section J. 2. Will the project "take" an endangered, threatened, and/or species of special concern in accordance with M.G.L. c.131A (see also 321 CMR 10.04)? _X_ Yes ___ No; if yes, provide a summary of proposed measures to minimize and mitigate rare species impacts The preferred alternative has no impacts to Plymouth Gentian, piping plover, roseate tern or spadefoot toad breeding sites, and only limited impact to spadefoot toad upland habitat. Within the preferred alternative, further avoidance and minimization has occurred to limit the amount of impact to spadefoot toad upland habitats by: • Minimizing areas of impervious cover. • Limiting hardscape engineering of the rear dune slope south of the parking lot. • Utilizing a natural 6:1 slope on the rear dune, which will be planted with native species, to allow the slope to be usable spadefoot toad habitat post- construction. • Use of on-site planting material salvaged from the site where possible. • Implementation of a NHESP approved Spadefoot Toad Protection Plan that will address protection during the period of construction. • Erosion controls to prevent encroachment of sand during construction. • Restoration of disturbed Spadefoot toad habitat using native plant communities similar to what is currently present on site. If possible, this will include the trans-location of existing native plants on site as well as new plantings to replicate the interdunal and maritime forest woody stem habitats currently present. • - 11 - Despite these steps to minimize impacts to upland spadefoot toad habitat, the project will result in 3.61 acres of unavoidable impact to this protected habi tat. As such, NHESP has issued a determination that the project will result in a “take” of a state- listed species. The Town has received feedback from staff at NHESP on potential mitigation options that will provide a long-term net benefit to the conservation of upland spadefoot toad habitat. Since the Sandy Neck site is already protected habitat, options for onsite mitigation are limited; however, the following other mitigation options suggested by NHESP are being evaluated by the Town. • Protection of suitable parcels offsite • Protection of other critical parcels (potentially not located within Barnstable) • Land conservation (e.g., Conservation Restriction) • Conservation funding (via escrow) One or more of these mitigation actions will be proposed to NHESP as part of the Conservation Management Plan development process. The Town is committed to a plan for mitigation that provides a long-term net benefit to the conservation of upland spadefoot toad habitat. 3. Which rare species are known to occur within the Priority or Estimated Habitat? • Eastern Spadefoot Toad • Plymouth Gentian • Least Tern • Piping Plover • Northern Diamond-backed Terrapin See attached NHESP Response Letter and Determination Letter in Section J. 4. Has the site been surveyed for rare species in accordance with the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act? _X_ Yes ___ No 5. If your project is within Estimated Habitat, have you filed a Notice of Intent or received an Order of Conditions for this project? ___ Yes _X__ No (to be filed); if yes, did you send a copy of the Notice of Intent to the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act regulations? ___ Yes ___ No B. Will the project "take" an endangered, threatened, and/or species of special concern in accordance with M.G.L. c.131A (see also 321 CMR 10.04)? _X__ Yes ___ No; if yes, provide a summary of proposed measures to minimize and mitigate impacts to significant habitat: Per Emily Holt/NHESP, as of June 29, 2023, no areas have been designated as “significant habitat” in Massachusetts. WETLANDS, WATERWAYS, AND TIDELANDS SECTION I. Thresholds / Permits A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to wetlands, waterways, and tidelands (see 301 CMR 11.03(3))? _X__ Yes ___ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: 301 CMR 11.03(3)(b)1.a – New activities will take place across 8.96 acres of barrier beach and coastal dune resources. 301 CMR 11.03(3)(b)1.e – The proposed parking lot relocation, enhanced primary dune and - 12 - back dune restoration will involve fill across 5.58 acres in a velocity zone. 301 CMR 11.03(3)(b)1.f – The Project will impact 8.86 acres of Estimated & Priority Habitat of Rare Wildlife. This area includes all permanent impacts and sites for resource area restoration. 301 CMR 11.03(3)(b)2 – Construction of the additional exit lane at new gatehouse area will result in 187 liner feet of new roadway providing access to a barrier beach. 301 CMR 11.03(11)b – The Project will impact 7.18 acres of the Sandy Neck Barrier Beach System ACEC. Of this area 2.31 acres will be permanent and 4.87 acres will represent resource area restoration. B. Does the project require any state permits (or a local Order of Conditions) related to wetlands, waterways, or tidelands? _X__ Yes ___ No; if yes, specify which permit: Order of Conditions and Conservation & Management Permit C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Water Supply Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Wetlands, Waterways, and Tidelands Section below. II. Wetlands Impacts and Permits A. Does the project require a new or amended Order of Conditions under the Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c.131A)? _X_ Yes ___ No; if yes, has a Notice of Intent been filed? ___ Yes _X_ No; if yes, list the date and MassDEP file number: ______; if yes, has a local Order of Conditions been issued? ___ Yes ___ No; Was the Order of Conditions appealed? ___ Yes ___ No. Will the project require a Variance from the Wetlands regulations? ___ Yes _X__ No. B. Describe any proposed permanent or temporary impacts to wetland resource areas located on the project site: See Alternatives Considered & Assessment of Impacts in Section D. C. Estimate the extent and type of impact that the project will have on wetland resources, and indicate whether the impacts are temporary or permanent: Coastal Wetlands Area (square feet) or Temporary or Length (linear feet) Permanent Impact? Land Under the Ocean ___0_____________ __0________________ Designated Port Areas ___0_____________ __0________________ Coastal Beaches ___4,623________ __temp______________ Coastal Dunes ___390,297_______ __perm_(incl restoration) Coastal Dunes ___45,035_______ __temp______________ Barrier Beaches ___390,297_______ __perm_(incl restoration)_ Barrier Beaches ___49,658_______ __temp______________ Coastal Banks ___0_____________ __0________________ Rocky Intertidal Shores ___0_____________ __0________________ Salt Marshes ___0_____________ __0________________ Land Under Salt Ponds ___0_____________ __0________________ Land Containing Shellfish ___0_____________ __0________________ Fish Runs ___0_____________ __0________________ Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage ___390,297_______ __perm_(incl restoration) Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage ___49,658_______ __temp______________ Inland Wetlands Bank (lf) _________________ ____________________ Bordering Vegetated Wetlands _________________ ____________________ - 13 - Isolated Vegetated Wetlands ___0_____________ __0________________ Land under Water _________________ ____________________ Isolated Land Subject to Flooding _________________ ____________________ Bordering Land Subject to Flooding _________________ ____________________ Riverfront Area _________________ ____________________ D. Is any part of the project: 1. proposed as a limited project? ___ Yes _X__ No; if yes, what is the area (in sf)?____ 2. the construction or alteration of a dam? ___ Yes _X__ No; if yes, describe: 3. fill or structure in a velocity zone or regulatory floodway? _X__ Yes ___ No 4. dredging or disposal of dredged material? ___ Yes _X__ No; if yes, describe the volume of dredged material and the proposed disposal site: 5. a discharge to an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) or an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)? _X__ Yes __ No 6. subject to a wetlands restriction order? _X__ Yes ___ No; if yes, identify the area (in sf): 168,577 sq. ft. 7. located in buffer zones? _X__Yes ___No; if yes, how much (in sf) ______ Relocation of the parking lot and enhancement of the primary dune and rea r dune areas will take place in a FEMA VE (El 15 zone). The proposed vegetated swale in the parking lot and the bioretention basin will result in discharge/recharge of stormwater to the ACEC. Additionally, the Project will have permanent impacts to 0.62 acres within the 100 ft buffer to isolated wetlands. This includes portions of the reconfigured ORV entrance trail, the exit lane and gatehouse at the new gatehouse areas, and the native buffer restoration at the existing gatehouse area. E. Will the project: 1. be subject to a local wetlands ordinance or bylaw? _X__ Yes ___ No 2. alter any federally-protected wetlands not regulated under state law? ___ Yes _X__ No; if yes, what is the area (sf)? III. Waterways and Tidelands Impacts and Permits A. Does the project site contain waterways or tidelands (including filled former tidelands) that are subject to the Waterways Act, M.G.L.c.91? ___ Yes _X__ No; if yes, is there a current Chapter 91 License or Permit affecting the project site? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, list the date and license or permit number and provide a copy of the historic map used to determine extent of filled tidelands: C. Does the project require a new or modified license or permit under M.G.L.c.91? ___ Yes _X_ No; if yes, how many acres of the project site subject to M.G.L.c.91 will be for non-water-dependent use? Current ___ Change ___ Total ___ If yes, how many square feet of solid fill or pile-supported structures (in sf)? C. For non-water-dependent use projects, indicate the following: N/A Area of filled tidelands on the site:_____________________ Area of filled tidelands covered by buildings:____________ For portions of site on filled tidelands, list ground floor uses and area of each use: ______________ Does the project include new non-water-dependent uses located over flowed tidelands? Yes ___ No ___ Height of building on filled tidelands________________ Also show the following on a site plan: Mean High Water, Mean Low Water, Water- dependent Use Zone, location of uses within buildings on tidelands, and interior and exterior areas and facilities dedicated for public use, and historic high and historic low water marks. - 14 - D. Is the project located on landlocked tidelands? ___ Yes _X_ No; if yes, describe the project’s impact on the public’s right to access, use and enjoy jurisdictional tidelands and describe measures the project will implement to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse impact: D. Is the project located in an area where low groundwater levels have been identified by a municipality or by a state or federal agency as a threat to building foundations? ___Yes _X_ No; if yes, describe the project’s impact on groundwater levels and describe measures the project will implement to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse impact: F. Is the project non-water-dependent and located on landlocked tidelands or waterways or tidelands subject to the Waterways Act and subject to a mandatory EIR? ___ Yes _X_ No; (NOTE: If yes, then the project will be subject to Public Benefit Review and Determination.) G. Does the project include dredging? ___ Yes _X_ No; if yes, answer the following questions: What type of dredging? Improvement ___ Maintenance ___ Both ____ What is the proposed dredge volume, in cubic yards (cys) _________ What is the proposed dredge footprint ____length (ft) ___width (ft)____depth (ft); Will dredging impact the following resource areas? Intertidal Yes__ No__; if yes, ___ sq ft Outstanding Resource Waters Yes__ No__; if yes, ___ sq ft Other resource area (i.e. shellfish beds, eel grass beds) Yes__ No__; if yes __ sq ft If yes to any of the above, have you evaluated appropriate and practicable steps to: 1) avoidance; 2) if avoidance is not possible, minimization; 3) if either avoidance or minimize is not possible, mitigation? If no to any of the above, what information or documentation was used to support this determination? Provide a comprehensive analysis of practicable alternatives for improvement dredging in accordance with 314 CMR 9.07(1)(b). Physical and chemical data of the sediment shall be included in the comprehensive analysis. Sediment Characterization Existing gradation analysis results? __Yes ___No: if yes, provide results. Existing chemical results for parameters listed in 314 CMR 9.07(2)(b)6? ___Yes ____No; if yes, provide results. Do you have sufficient information to evaluate feasibility of the following management options for dredged sediment? If yes, check the appropriate option. Beach Nourishment ___ Unconfined Ocean Disposal ___ Confined Disposal: Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) ___ Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) ___ Landfill Reuse in accordance with COMM-97-001 ___ Shoreline Placement ___ Upland Material Reuse____ In-State landfill disposal____ Out-of-state landfill disposal ____ (NOTE: This information is required for a 401 Water Quality Certification.) IV. Consistency: A. Does the project have effects on the coastal resources or uses, and/or is the project located within the Coastal Zone? _X_ Yes ___ No; if yes, describe these effects and the projects consistency with the policies of the Office of Coastal Zone Management: See CZM Consistency Statement in Section H. B. Is the project located within an area subject to a Municipal Harbor Plan? ___ Yes _X_ No; if yes, identify the Municipal Harbor Plan and describe the project's consistency with that plan: - 15 - WATER SUPPLY SECTION I. Thresholds / Permits A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to water supply (see 301 CMR 11.03(4))? ___ Yes _X__ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: B. Does the project require any state permits related to water supply? ___ Yes _X__ No; if yes, specify which permit: C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Wastewater Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Water Supply Section below. II. Impacts and Permits A. Describe, in gallons per day (gpd), the volume and source of water use for existing and proposed activities at the project site: Existing Change Total Municipal or regional water supply ________ ________ ________ Withdrawal from groundwater ________ ________ ________ Withdrawal from surface water ________ ________ ________ Interbasin transfer ________ ________ ________ (NOTE: Interbasin Transfer approval will be required if the basin and community where the proposed water supply source is located is different from the basin and community where the wastewater from the source will be discharged.) B. If the source is a municipal or regional supply, has the municipality or region indicated that there is adequate capacity in the system to accommodate the project? ___ Yes ___ No C. If the project involves a new or expanded withdrawal from a groundwater or surface water source, has a pumping test been conducted? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, attach a map of the drilling sites and a summary of the alternatives considered and the results. ______________ D. What is the currently permitted withdrawal at the proposed water supply source (in gallons per day)? Will the project require an increase in that withdrawal? ___Yes ___No; if yes, then how much of an increase (gpd)? ____________________ E. Does the project site currently contain a water supply well, a drinking water treatment facility, water main, or other water supply facility, or will the project involve construction of a new facility? ___ Yes ___No. If yes, describe existing and proposed water supply facilities at the project site: Permitted Existing Avg Project Flow Total Flow Daily Flow Capacity of water supply well(s) (gpd) _______ ________ ________ ________ Capacity of water treatment plant (gpd) _______ ________ ________ ________ F. If the project involves a new interbasin transfer of water, which basins are involved, what is the direction of the transfer, and is the interbasin transfer existing or proposed? G. Does the project involve: 1. new water service by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority or other agency of the Commonwealth to a municipality or water district? ___ Yes ___ No 2. a Watershed Protection Act variance? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, how many acres of alteration? 3. a non-bridged stream crossing 1,000 or less feet upstream of a public surface drinking water supply for purpose of forest harvesting activities? ___ Yes ___ No III. Consistency - 16 - Describe the project's consistency with water conservation plans or other plans to enhance water resources, quality, facilities and services: WASTEWATER SECTION I. Thresholds / Permits A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to wastewater (see 301 CMR 11.03(5))? ___ Yes _X__ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: B. Does the project require any state permits related to wastewater? ___ Yes _X__ No; if yes, specify which permit: C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Transportation -- Traffic Generation Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Wastewater Section below. II. Impacts and Permits A. Describe the volume (in gallons per day) and type of disposal of wastewater generation for existing and proposed activities at the project site (calculate according to 310 CMR 15.00 for septic systems or 314 CMR 7.00 for sewer systems): Existing Change Total Discharge of sanitary wastewater ________ ________ ________ Discharge of industrial wastewater ________ ________ ________ TOTAL ________ ________ ________ Existing Change Total Discharge to groundwater ________ ________ ________ Discharge to outstanding resource water ________ ________ ________ Discharge to surface water ________ ________ ________ Discharge to municipal or regional wastewater facility ________ ________ ________ TOTAL ________ ________ ________ B. Is the existing collection system at or near its capacity? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, then describe the measures to be undertaken to accommodate the project’s wastewater flows: C. Is the existing wastewater disposal facility at or near its permitted capacity? ___ Yes___ No; if yes, then describe the measures to be undertaken to accommodate the project’s wastewater flows: D. Does the project site currently contain a wastewater treatment facility, sewer main, or other wastewater disposal facility, or will the project involve construction of a new facility? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, describe as follows: Permitted Existing Avg Project Flow Total Daily Flow Wastewater treatment plant capacity (in gallons per day) _______ ________ ________ ________ E. If the project requires an interbasin transfer of wastewater, which basins are involved, what is the direction of the transfer, and is the interbasin transfer existing or new? - 17 - (NOTE: Interbasin Transfer approval may be needed if the basin and community where wastewater will be discharged is different from the basin and community where the source of water supply is located.) F. Does the project involve new sewer service by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) or other Agency of the Commonwealth to a municipality or sewer district? ___ Yes ___ No G. Is there an existing facility, or is a new facility proposed at the project site for the storage, treatment, processing, combustion or disposal of sewage sludge, sludge ash, grit, screenings, wastewater reuse (gray water) or other sewage residual materials? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, what is the capacity (tons per day): Existing Change Total Storage ________ ________ ________ Treatment ________ ________ ________ Processing ________ ________ ________ Combustion ________ ________ ________ Disposal ________ ________ ________ H. Describe the water conservation measures to be undertaken by the project, and other wastewater mitigation, such as infiltration and inflow removal. III. Consistency A. Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with applicable state, regional, and local plans and policies related to wastewater management: B. If the project requires a sewer extension permit, is that extension included in a comprehensive wastewater management plan? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, indicate the EEA number for the plan and whether the project site is within a sewer service area recommended or approved in that plan: TRANSPORTATION SECTION (TRAFFIC GENERATION) I. Thresholds / Permit A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to traffic generation (see 301 CMR 11.03(6))? ___ Yes _X__ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: B. Does the project require any state permits related to state-controlled roadways? __ Yes _X_ No if yes, specify which permit: C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Roadways and Other Transportation Facilities Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Traffic Generation Section below. II. Traffic Impacts and Permits A. Describe existing and proposed vehicular traffic generated by activities at the project site: Existing Change Total Number of parking spaces _______ ________ _______ Number of vehicle trips per day ________ ________ ________ ITE Land Use Code(s): ________ ________ ________ B. What is the estimated average daily traffic on roadways serving the site? Roadway Existing Change Total 1. ___________________ ________ ________ ________ 2. ____________________ ________ ________ ________ 3. ____________________ ________ ________ ________ - 18 - C. If applicable, describe proposed mitigation measures on state-controlled roadways that the project proponent will implement: D. How will the project implement and/or promote the use of transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities and services to provide access to and from the project site? C. Is there a Transportation Management Association (TMA) that provides transportation demand management (TDM) services in the area of the project site? ____ Yes ____ No; if yes, describe if and how will the project will participate in the TMA: D. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation facilities? ____ Yes ____ No; if yes, generally describe: E. If the project will penetrate approach airspace of a nearby airport, has the proponent filed a Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission Airspace Review Form (780 CMR 111.7) and a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (CFR Title 14 Part 77.13, forms 7460-1 and 7460-2)? III. Consistency Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with municipal, regional, state, and federal plans and policies related to traffic, transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities and services: TRANSPORTATION SECTION (ROADWAYS AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES) I. Thresholds A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to roadways or other transportation facilities (see 301 CMR 11.03(6))? ___ Yes _X__ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: B. Does the project require any state permits related to roadways or other transportation facilities? ___ Yes _X__ No; if yes, specify which permit: C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Energy Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Roadways Section below. II. Transportation Facility Impacts A. Describe existing and proposed transportation facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project site: B. Will the project involve any 1. Alteration of bank or terrain (in linear feet)? ____________ 2. Cutting of living public shade trees (number)? ____________ 3. Elimination of stone wall (in linear feet)? ____________ III. Consistency -- Describe the project's consistency with other federal, state, regional, and local plans and policies related to traffic, transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities and services, including consistency with the applicable regional transportation plan and the Transportation Improvements Plan (TIP), the State Bicycle Plan, and the State Pedestrian Plan: - 19 - ENERGY SECTION I. Thresholds / Permits A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to energy (see 301 CMR 11.03(7))? ___ Yes _X__ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: B. Does the project require any state permits related to energy? ___ Yes _X__ No; if yes, specify which permit: C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Air Quality Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Energy Section below. II. Impacts and Permits A. Describe existing and proposed energy generation and transmission facilities at the project site: Existing Change Total Capacity of electric generating facility (megawatts) ________ ________ ________ Length of fuel line (in miles) ________ ________ ________ Length of transmission lines (in miles) ________ ________ ________ Capacity of transmission lines (in kilovolts) ________ ________ ________ B. If the project involves construction or expansion of an electric generating facility, what are: 1. the facility's current and proposed fuel source(s)? 2. the facility's current and proposed cooling source(s)? C. If the project involves construction of an electrical transmission line, will it be located on a new, unused, or abandoned right of way? ___Yes ___No; if yes, please describe: D. Describe the project's other impacts on energy facilities and services: III. Consistency Describe the project's consistency with state, municipal, regional, and federal plans and policies for enhancing energy facilities and services: AIR QUALITY SECTION I. Thresholds A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to air quality (see 301 CMR 11.03(8))? ___ Yes _X__ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: B. Does the project require any state permits related to air quality? ___ Yes _X_ No; if yes, specify which permit: C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Solid and Hazardous Waste Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Air Quality Section below. II. Impacts and Permits A. Does the project involve construction or modification of a major stationary source (see 310 CMR 7.00, Appendix A)? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, describe existing and proposed emissions (in tons per day) of: Existing Change Total Particulate matter ________ ________ ________ Carbon monoxide ________ ________ ________ Sulfur dioxide ________ ________ ________ 20 Volatile organic compounds ________ ________ ________ Oxides of nitrogen ________ ________ ________ Lead ________ ________ ________ Any hazardous air pollutant ________ ________ ________ Carbon dioxide ________ ________ ________ B. Describe the project's other impacts on air resources and air quality, including noise impacts: III. Consistency A. Describe the project's consistency with the State Implementation Plan: B. Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with other federal, state, regional, and local plans and policies related to air resources and air quality: SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION I. Thresholds / Permits A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to solid or hazardous waste (see 301 CMR 11.03(9))? ___ Yes _X__ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: B. Does the project require any state permits related to solid and hazardous waste? ___ Yes _X__ No; if yes, specify which permit: C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Historical and Archaeological Resources Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Solid and Hazardous Waste Section below. II. Impacts and Permits A. Is there any current or proposed facility at the project site for the storage, treatment, processing, combustion or disposal of solid waste? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, what is the volume (in tons per day) of the capacity: Existing Change Total Storage ________ ________ ________ Treatment, processing ________ ________ ________ Combustion ________ ________ ________ Disposal ________ ________ ________ B. Is there any current or proposed facility at the project site for the storage, recycling, treatment or disposal of hazardous waste? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, what is the volume (in tons or gallons per day) of the capacity: Existing Change Total Storage ________ ________ ________ Recycling ________ ________ ________ Treatment ________ ________ ________ Disposal ________ ________ ________ C. If the project will generate solid waste (for example, during demolition or construction), describe alternatives considered for re-use, recycling, and disposal: D. If the project involves demolition, do any buildings to be demolished contain asbestos? ___ Yes ___ No E. Describe the project's other solid and hazardous waste impacts (including indirect impacts): 21 III. Consistency Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with the State Solid Waste Master Plan: HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SECTION I. Thresholds / Impacts A. Have you consulted with the Massachusetts Historical Commission? ___ Yes _X__ No; if yes, attach correspondence. For project sites involving lands under water, have you consulted with the Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources? ____Yes ____ No; if yes, attach correspondence B. Is any part of the project site a historic structure, or a structure within a historic district, in either case listed in the State Register of Historic Places or the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth? _X__ Yes ___ No; if yes, does the project involve the demolition of all or any exterior part of such historic structure? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, please describe: The Edward T.R. Landers Memorial, which is a historic landmark, will be relocated from the existing gatehouse area to a prominent location near the new gatehouse. C. Is any part of the project site an archaeological site listed in the State Register of Historic Places or the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth? ___ Yes _X__ No; if yes, does the project involve the destruction of all or any part of such archaeological site? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, please describe: D. If you answered "No" to all parts of both questions A, B and C, proceed to the Attachments and Certifications Sections. If you answered "Yes" to any part of either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Historical and Archaeological Resources Section below. II. Impacts Describe and assess the project's impacts, direct and indirect, on listed or inventoried historical and archaeological resources: The project will have a temporary impact on the Edward T.R. Landers Memorial as the landmark will be moved from the existing gatehouse area to the new gatehouse area. III. Consistency Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with federal, state, regional, and local plans and policies related to preserving historical and archaeological resources: The project will comply with all federal, state, regional, and local plans and polices related to preserving historical resources. The historic resources will be maintained onsite upon completion of the project. CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION AND RESILIENCY SECTION This section of the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) solicits information and disclosures related to climate change adaptation and resiliency, in accordance with the MEPA Interim Protocol on Climate Change Adaptation and Resiliency (the “MEPA Interim Protocol”), effective October 1, 2021. The Interim Protocol builds on the analysis and recommendations of the 2018 Massachusetts Integrated State Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Plan (SHMCAP), and incorporates the efforts of the Resilient Massachusetts Action Team (RMAT), the inter-agency steering committee responsible for implementation, monitoring, and maintenance of the SHMCAP, including the “Climate Resilience Design 22 Standards and Guidelines” project. The RMAT team recently released the RMAT Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool, which is available here. The MEPA Interim Protocol is intended to gather project-level data in a standardized manner that will both inform the MEPA review process and assist the RMAT team in evaluating the accuracy and effectiveness of the RMAT Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool. Once this testing process is completed, the MEPA Office anticipates developing a formal Climate Change Adaptation and Resiliency Policy through a public stakeholder process. Questions about the RMAT Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool can be directed to rmat@mass.gov. All Proponents must complete the following section, referencing as appropriate the results of the output report generated by the RMAT Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool and attached to the ENF. In completing this section, Proponents are encouraged, but not required at this time, to utilize the recommended design standards and associated Tier 1/2/3 methodologies outlined in the RMAT Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool to analyze the project design. However, Proponents are requested to respond to a respond to a user feedback survey on the RMAT website or to provide feedback to rmat@mass.gov, which will be used by the RMAT team to further refine the tool. Proponents are also encouraged to consult general guidance and best practices as described in the RMAT Climate Resilience Design Guidelines. Climate Change Adaptation and Resiliency Strategies I. Has the project taken measures to adapt to climate change for all of the climate parameters analyzed in the RMAT Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool (sea level rise/storm surge, extreme precipitation (urban or riverine flooding), extreme heat)? _X__Yes __ No Note: Climate adaptation and resiliency strategies include actions that seek to reduce vulnerability to anticipated climate risks and improve resiliency for future climate conditions. Examples of climate adaptation and resiliency strategies include flood barriers, increased stormwater infiltration, living shorelines, elevated infrastructure, increased tree canopy, etc. Projects should address any planning priorities identified by the affected municipality through the Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) program or other planning efforts, and should consider a flexible adaptive pathways approach, an adaptation best practice that encourages design strategies that adapt over time to respond to changing climate conditions. General guidance and best practices for designing for climate risk are described in the RMAT Climate Resilience Design Guidelines. A. If no, explain why. B. If yes, describe the measures the project will take, including identifying the planning horizon and climate data used in designing project components. If applicable, specify the return period and design storm used (e.g., 100-year, 24-hour storm). The project has been designed to provide protection for the Sandy Neck Beach infrastructure for the next 50 years. Periodic dune nourishment of the primary dune will be needed to maintain a dune profile that can protect the parking lot infrastructure during a 100-yr storm through the year 2070. The gatehouse has been moved to higher ground and the first floor elevation will be raised 1 ft above the FEMA BFE. As designed the gatehouse will be safe from sunny day flooding through the year 2070. C. Is the project contributing to regional adaptation strategies? __ Yes _X_ No; If yes, describe. The proposed project is not regional, in the multi-jurisdictional sense. However, it will add resiliency to the Sandy Neck barrier beach which provides protection for Barnstable Harbor developed areas of Barnstable Village. II. Has the Proponent considered alternative locations for the project in light of climate change risks? 23 _X__ Yes ___ No A. If no, explain why. B. If yes, describe alternatives considered. Yes, the alternatives assessment evaluated the feasibility of offsite parking at existing large facilities near Sandy Neck Beach, such as Sandwich High School, the Barnstable County complex in downtown Barnstable, and Cape Cod Community College. While these facilities could handle the volume of parking currently needed for the beach, the alternative of abandoning all facilities at the Park (parking lots, bathhouse, gatehouse) was not deemed feasible. Since operation and maintenance of the Park is completely funded by user fees, elimination of parking fees would adversely impact the ability of the Park to continue operating. Additionally, without the gatehouse facility, staff would not be able to monitor ORV use or continue to run programs that currently manage sensitive natural resources. Off-site parking with bus transportation was identified as a way to open access to Sandy Neck visitors who do not have personal transportation. III. Is the project located in Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (LSCSF) or Bordering Land Subject to Flooding (BLSF) as defined in the Wetlands Protection Act? __X__Yes ____No If yes, describe how/whether proposed changes to the site’s topography (including the addition of fill) will result in changes to floodwater flow paths and/or velocities that could impact adjacent properties or the functioning of the floodplain. General guidance on providing this analysis can be found in the CZM/MassDEP Coastal Wetlands Manual, available here. Yes, the project is located within LSCSF. Compatible fill will be used to restore the primary coastal dune and to construct the dune along the back side of the new parking lot. The proposed changes in topography will not adversely impact the surrounding resources as a result of flow diversion or changes in current velocity. The face of the restored primary dune will not extend further seaward than the existing dune. As a result, there will be no change in the way flood waters interact with the dune. The back dune will serve to protect the parking lot from flood waters approaching from Barnstable Harbor. Flood velocities in this area will be relatively low as the surge will approach from the Harbor across a wide expanse of coastal dune and barrier beach. Because of the relatively quiescent nature of the flood waters, and because water flows will be directed back towards the Harbor after the storm passes, adverse impacts from flow diversion or increased velocities are not expected. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SECTION I. Identifying Characteristics of EJ Populations A. If an Environmental Justice (EJ) population has been identified as located in whole or in part within 5 miles of the project site, describe the characteristics of each EJ populations as identified in the EJ Maps Viewer (i.e., the census block group identification number and EJ characteristics of “Minority,” “Minority and Income,” etc.). Provide a breakdown of those EJ populations within 1 mile of the project site, and those within 5 miles of the site. EJ population within 5 Miles of the Project Site: • Block Group 1, Census Tract 153 in Barnstable, Barnstable County, MA o EJ Characteristics: Minority and Income (Minority population: 53.5%, Median household income: $54,000: this is 64% of the MA MHHI, Households with language isolation: 15%) There are no EJ populations within 1 mile of the project site. 24 See map of EJ Populations within 5 miles of the project site in Section J. B. Identify all languages identified in the “Languages Spoken in Massachusetts” tab of the EJ Maps Viewer as spoken by 5 percent or more of the EJ population who also identify as not speaking English “very well.” The languages should be identified for each census tract located in whole or in part within 1 mile and 5 miles of the project site, regardless of whether such census tract contains any designated EJ populations. • Block Group 1, Census Tract 153 in Barnstable, Barnstable County, MA o Language Spoken: Portuguese or Portuguese Creole 7.1% There are no languages identified within 1 mile of the project site. See map census blocks within 5 miles of the project site where 5% or more of the EJ population identify as not speaking English "very well" in Section J. C. If the list of languages identified under Section I.B. has been modified with approval of the EEA EJ Director, provide a list of approved languages that the project will use to provide public involvement opportunities during the course of MEPA review. If the list has been expanded by the Proponent (without input from the EEA EJ Director), provide a list of the additional languages that will be used to provide public involvement opportunities during the course of MEPA review as required by Part II of the MEPA Public Involvement Protocol for Environmental Justice Populations (“MEPA EJ Public Involvement Protocol”). If the project is exempt from Part II of the protocol, please specify. N/A – The Project is exempt from Part II of the protocol because the Project Site does not meet the definition of a Designated Geographic Area; there are no Environmental Justice populations within 1 mile and the Project does not propose to meet or exceed MEPA review thresholds at 301 CMR 11.03(8)(a) and (b) or generate 150 or more new average daily trips of diesel vehicle traffic over a duration of one year. The Project is not subject to 310 CMR 11.05(4)(a) and therefore is not required to undertake measures to provide public involvement opportunities for Environmental Justice Populations. II. Potential Effects on EJ Populations A. If an EJ population has been identified using the EJ Maps Viewer within 1 mile of the project site, describe the likely effects of the project (both adverse and beneficial) on the identified EJ population(s). N/A – There are no Environmental Justice populations within 1 mile of the project site. B. If an EJ population has been identified using the EJ Maps Viewer within 5 miles of the project site, will the project: (i) meet or exceed MEPA review thresholds under 301 CMR 11.03(8)(a)- (b) __ Yes _X_ No; or (ii) generate150 or more new average daily trips (adt) of diesel vehicle traffic, excluding public transit trips, over a duration of 1 year or more. ___ Yes _X__ No C. If you answered “Yes” to either question in Section II.B., describe the likely effects of the project (both adverse and beneficial) on the identified EJ population(s). III. Public Involvement Activities A. Provide a description of activities conducted prior to filing to promote public involvement by EJ populations, in accordance with Part II of the MEPA EJ Public Involvement Protocol. In particular: 25 1. If advance notification was provided under Part II.A., attach a copy of the Environmental Justice Screening Form and provide list of CBOs/tribes contacted (with dates). Copies of email correspondence can be attached in lieu of a separate list. 2. State how CBOs and tribes were informed of ways to request a community meeting, and if any meeting was requested. If public meetings were held, describe any issues of concern that were raised at such meetings, and any steps taken (including modifications to the project design) to address such concerns. 3. If the project is exempt from Part II of the protocol, please specify. N/A – The Project is exempt from Part II of the protocol because the Project Site does not meet the definition of a Designated Geographic Area; there are no Environmental Justice populations within 1 mile and the Project does not propose to meet or exceed MEPA review thresholds at 301 CMR 11.03(8)(a) and (b) or generate 150 or more New adt of diesel vehicle traffic over a duration of one year. The Project is not subject to 310 CMR 11.05(4)(a) and therefore is not required to undertake measures to provide public involvement opportunities for Environmental Justice Populations. B. Provide below (or attach) a distribution list (if different from the list in Section III.A. above) of CBOs and tribes, or other individuals or entities the Proponent intends to maintain for the notice of the MEPA Site Visit and circulation of other materials and notices during the course of MEPA review. N/A – See response above to question III.A. C. Describe (or submit as a separate document) the Proponent’s plan to maintain the same level of community engagement throughout the MEPA review process, as conducted prior to filing. N/A – See response above to question III.A. Section B Project Description Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page B1 of B10 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sandy Neck Beach Park (Sandy Neck) is located along the northern shoreline of the Town of Barnstable and serves as the Town’s only public beach on Cape Cod Bay (FigureB-1). The Park is located on a barrier beach that is approximately 6 miles long and, in some locations, up to half a mile wide, allowing public access to pristine dunes, maritime forests, and beaches. The Sandy Neck Barrier Beach System is a designated Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and provides habitat for rare and endangered species. Infrastructure at the Park includes a parking lot with space for 200 vehicles, bath house with public restrooms, concessions, observation viewing decks, gatehouse, and equipment garage. The site supports recreational activities for beachgoers, Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) users, campers, hikers, horseback riders, mountain bikers, and fishermen and is a valuable resource to the Towns of Barnstable and Sandwich. Figure B-1. Sandy Neck Beach Park site locus in the Town of Barnstable. Over the past 10 years the primary dune system that protects the public infrastructure from storm and flood damage has been subjected to severe erosion and sediment loss. Since 2013 the Town has restored the primary dune seven (7) times, bringing in a total of 32,620 cubic yards of sediment at a cost of over $522,620 (Figure B-2). These dune restoration projects were necessary to provide continued protection for the existing infrastructure. Loss of park Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page B2 of B10 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project infrastructure from future erosion will not only reduce public access and use opportunities, but it will also reduce annual revenues which are generated from beach parking stickers, parking fees, concessions and permit fees. Loss of annual revenues will greatly impact the Town’s future ability to continue providing the high quality of management of the natural resources, wildlife, endangered species, and recreational opportunities at Sandy Neck. Sediment transport and model studies have shown that erosional damage of the parking lot at Sandy Neck can be expected as early as 2030 with a 100-yr return period storm event, and by 2070 it will only take a 20-yr return period storm event to damage the parking lot. Unless proactive steps are taken to build resiliency, erosion over the next 50 years will cause the dune to retreat to a point approximately 60 to 75 ft landward of the existing dune crest, thereby damaging most of the parking lot. Figure B-2. Examples of storm-induced erosion of the primary dune (left) and dune restoration (right). Flooding during current and future storms is also a problem at Sandy Neck Beach Park (Figure B-3). The existing gatehouse and roadway at the entrance to the park is vulnerable to flooding with current sea level conditions. Winter storms Grayson and Riley in 2018 caused flooding of the gatehouse, and MC-FRM model results show that the existing gatehouse will be vulnerable to sunny day flooding during high tides by the year 2050. Loss of gatehouse operations impacts the ability of staff to manage public access and to protect Sandy Neck’s natural resources. The Town’s primary goals for this project are to develop a long-term coastal resiliency project that (1) addresses coastal vulnerability to erosion, dune loss, and flooding; (2) is sustainable for at least 50 years; (3) supports current uses of the site that are safe for the public; (4) enhances and protects coastal resources; (5) is economically viable, and (6) is permittable under current environmental regulations. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page B3 of B10 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Figure B-3. Flooding of the gatehouse area during the 2018 winter storm Riley. The proposed project is one of six (6) different alternatives evaluated for the project. The Full Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and no ORV Trail Relocation project includes work at four (4) different areas within Sandy Neck Beach Park. These include: Upper and lower parking lots Entrance to the existing ORV trail Existing gatehouse area New gatehouse area approximately 350 ft up the access road from the existing gatehouse Engineering plans for the Project showing details of the proposed work are provided in Section L. The Project includes full relocation of the upper and lower parking lots behind the predicted limit of dune erosion in 50 years (i.e., 50-yr dune erosion line). This involves abandoning the seaward sides of both parking lots and building a new parking lot to the south and east of the existing lower lot (Figure B-4). An enhanced dune approximately + 745 ft long with a crest elevation between 26 and 27.5 ft NAVD88 will be built along the seaward edge of the new parking lot. Seaward and landward slopes of the dune will be 4H:1V and the dune will be vegetated with beach grass. A rear dune with a 6H:1V slope will be constructed along the back (south) side of the new parking lot to provide stability for the parking area and shelter from car lights for the surrounding neighborhoods. This dune will be planted with beach grass and spaded shrubs. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page B4 of B10 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project A single emergency access path from the lower parking lot to the ORV trail will also be added. Stormwater management for this alternative includes a vegetated swale in the center of the lower parking lot that will be connected to a bioretention basin located southeast of the parking lot. The bioretention basin will be vegetated with native shrubs and beach grass. Figure B-4. Plan view of the selected alternative showing reconfigured parking lot, primary and back dune restoration area, emergency access path, vegetated swale and bioretention basin. The existing ORV trail will remain in place and the entrance to the ORV trail will be enhanced to provide improved public safety and additional air-up/air-down spaces (Figure B-5). The plan provides for 5 air-up spaces on the north side of the ORV trail and up to 10 air-down spaces on the south side of the trail. A portable compressor may be available in the afternoons so that spaces on the south side of the ORV trial can also be used for airing-up. A new compressor with flood-proof enclosure will be installed, and the existing dumpsters will remain in place. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page B5 of B10 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Figure B-5. Plan view of existing ORV trail entrance showing enhancements for additional air-up/air-down and public safety. The existing gatehouse will be moved approximately 350 ft further up the access road to a point that is naturally higher in elevation to reduce vulnerability to sunny day flooding with future increases in sea level (Figure B-6). The new gatehouse will be located near the area where the existing sidewalk crosses the road. A new travel lane for outgoing traffic will be added to the west of the relocated gatehouse. Parking for three (3) vehicles and queue space for four (4) park visitors during times when the parking lot is full will be added. Bollard lighting will be installed along the edges of the sidewalk and gatehouse to improve public safety. A flagpole and historic rock will be located on the southwest side of the gatehouse. The area of the existing gatehouse will be reconfigured to add nine (9) new air-up spaces, a compressor with flood-proof enclosure, two (2) exit lanes and one (1) entrance lane, and seven (7) new parking spaces (Figure B-7). Surfaces for the parking and air-up spaces will be gravel and all travel lanes will be paved with asphalt as currently exists. Speed control features will be added to the road to improve public safety. The existing gravel parking area south of the current gatehouse will be restored with native buffer plantings, leaving a natural path for access to the marsh trail. The existing maintenance garage and natural surface parking area at the entrance to the Park will remain unchanged. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page B6 of B10 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Figure B-6. Plan view of new gatehouse area. Figure B-7. Plan view of existing gatehouse area showing reconfiguration for additional air-up/air-down and parking. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page B7 of B10 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Construction is expected to take place in the following two (2) Phases during winter months from October through March to minimize impacts to beach use during peak summer season and avoid impacts to rare species. The work is expected to take place over a 2.5- year period, with construction limited to the winter months and uninterrupted summer beach use in between. Phase 1: During the period October through March, construction activities will include (a) excavation and fill along the back side of the proposed lower parking lot to create the rear dune and bioretention basin, (b) excavate and transport parking lot demolition materials to approved offsite location, (c) grading and installation of the base layer and asphalt for the new parking lot, (d) install drainage structures, parking lot curbing, binder, and lane/parking space markings. The parking lot would then be allowed to settle over the summer season and construction during the second December through March period would include (e) stockpile sand in the parking lots for restoration of the primary dune, (f) construction and final grading of the primary dune, and (g) revegetation of the primary and rear dunes. Phase 2: During the following October to March time period, construction activities will include (a) site grading at the entrance to the ORV trail for new air-up/air-down parking spots, (b) installation of the new air compressor with flood-proof enclosure, (c) site grading at the area of the new gatehouse and installation of the base layer and asphalt for the new exit lane, (d) relocate gatehouse building to the new site, (e) excavate asphalt in area of existing gatehouse and transport to approved offsite location, (f) grading and installation of base layer and asphalt for entry/exit lates at the existing gatehouse area, (g) restore existing gravel parking area at east side of existing gatehouse area using native plantings, and (h) apply final asphalt topcoat and paint road and parking lot lines. Additional details on the construction methods for each element of the proposed project are provided in Section E. The Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency project will require the following environmental permits: - Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs: Certificate from the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs on the Environmental Notification Form - Barnstable Conservation Commission: Order of Conditions - Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program: Conservation Management Permit This Environmental Notification Form (ENF) is the first application filed for the project which will initiate environmental review. All other applications will be submitted once the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) review process is complete. The project will not require a land transfer. The Project has received $276,627 in funding from Coastal Zone Management Coastal Resiliency Grants in FY16 and FY23. It is estimated that the Project will be ready for initial construction by the winter of 2024/2025. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page B8 of B10 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project A total of six (6) alternatives were evaluated for the project as summarized below. A detailed description of the alternatives considered is provided in Section D. Do nothing Stone Revetment with Vegetated Sand Cover and ORV Trail Relocation Bio-Engineered Sand-Filled Coir Bags with Vegetated Sand Cover Partial Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and ORV Trail Relocation Full Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and ORV Trial Relocation Full Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and no ORV Trail Relocation Environmental impacts associated with each alternative were evaluated and are discussed in Section D. Findings from the evaluation of environmental impacts were used to select the preferred alternative that minimizes impacts to wetland resources and meets the Town’s goals for the project. Table B-1 provides a summary of existing impacts at the site as well as permanent and temporary impacts resulting from the proposed project. Resource area impacts are classified as temporary or permanent, depending whether the work is within the limit of disturbance (temporary) or within the direct footprint of the Project (permanent). Table B-1 summarizes the proposed resource area restoration and extent of newly impacted resources, and Table B-2 provides permanent and temporary impacts to wetland resources. Table B-1. Summary of Impacts for the Existing Site and the Full Relocation of Parking Lot with Enhanced Dune and no ORV Trail Relocation Alternative Impacts Activity Area (acres) Existing Impacts Existing Parking Lot 1.71 Existing Gatehouse Area, Access Road, ORV Trail 2.51 TOTAL Area of Existing Impact 4.22 Permanent Impacts With Proposed Project* Parking Lot (maintains 0.86 acres of existing parking lot) 2.15 Stormwater Features in Parking Lot Area (bioretention basin, vegetated swale, parking lot islands) 0.44 Emergency Access Trail 0.03 ORV Trail Entrance (additional air-down spaces & compressor building) 0.03 New Gatehouse Area (relocated gatehouse, travel lane & sidewalks) 0.09 Gatehouse Area, Access Road & ORV Trail (no change over existing) 2.51 TOTAL Area of Proposed Permanent Impact 5.24 TOTAL Change in Permanent Impact 1.03 TOTAL Area of Existing Development to Remain 3.37 TOTAL Area of New Development 1.87 Temporary Impacts Construction Access (to be restored upon project completion) 1.14 TOTAL Area of Temporary Impact 1.14 Restoration Primary Dune 2.33 Rear Dune (on back side of parking lot) 1.33 Gravel Parking to Vegetated Buffer 0.06 TOTAL Area of Restoration 3.72 * Permanent impacts do not include areas of restoration. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page B9 of B10 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Table B-2. Permanent and Temporary Resource Area Impacts with the Full Relocation of Parking Lot with Enhanced Dune and no ORV Trail Relocation Alternative. Impact Type Resource Area Area (acres) Permanent Impacts* Coastal Dune, Barrier Beach, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 8.95 Estimated & Priority Habitat for Rare Species (includes upland spadefoot toad habitat) 3.61 Estimated & Priority Habitat for Rare Species (excluding upland spadefoot toad habitat) 5.34 Temporary Impacts* Coastal Dune, Barrier Beach, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 1.03 Coastal Beach, Barrier Beach, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 0.11 Estimated & Priority Habitat for Rare Species (includes upland spadefoot toad habitat) 0.72 Estimated & Priority Habitat for Rare Species (excluding upland spadefoot toad habitat) 0.42 * Permanent and temporary impacts to resources include areas of restoration. Existing impacted areas at the site cover 4.22 acres and the proposed project will impact 5.24 acres, resulting in an increase of 1.03 acres of permanent impact. Of the 5.24 acre proposed project, approximately 64% (3.37 acres) is already impacted (parking lots, access road, gatehouse, ORV trail) and 36% (1.87 acres) will be new impacts to previously undisturbed resources. The project maintains the same number of parking spaces as currently exist on site, but to be in compliance with local regulations for public parking lots (i.e., requirements for size of parking spaces and ADA spaces), the project results in an increase of 0.44 acres of impervious parking area. Temporary impacts to wetland resources within the limit of work total 1.14 acres and restoration of coastal dune, barrier beach, and estimated & priority habitat will take place over 3.72 acres. The proposed project meets all of the Town’s goals for the Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project and minimizes impacts to the extent possible. During construction the following steps will be taken to avoid and/or minimize environmental impacts. A mandatory pre-bid meeting will be held to discuss construction methodology. A pre-construction will be held on site with the selected contractor, project engineer, and Town of Barnstable to discuss measures to protect wetland resources. Install and maintain erosion and sedimentation controls in all construction and staging areas. Time of year restrictions as determined by the regulatory agencies will be followed for all work to protect endangered species. Implementation of a NHESP approved Spadefoot Toad Protection Plan. Use of on-site planting material salvaged from the site where possible. Use of a natural 6H:1V slope for the rear dune which will be planted with native species to restore suitable upland habitat for spadefoot toad. Storage of all fuels, hydraulic oil, etc. in a locked storage trailer or removed off site daily. Vehicles/equipment will be refueled away from the wetlands and stormwater systems. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page B10 of B10 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Install flood-proof enclosures around air compressors. Elevate the first floor of the gatehouse above the FEMA Base Flood Elevation. Since the entire site is located within sensitive environmental resources, it was not possible to completely avoid impacts and still meet the Town’s goals for the Project. The Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) has issued a determination letter indicating that the Project will result in a Take of Spadefoot Toad due to the permanent loss or alteration of suitable habitat. The Town and their endangered species consultant will be preparing a Conservation Management Plan that demonstrates compliance with the performance standards for issuance of a Conservation Management Permit per 321 CMR 10.23. This Plan will detail mitigation measures proposed by the Town that will include one or more of the following activities designed to provide a long-term net benefit to the conservation of upland spadefoot toad habitat: Acquisition and protection of suitable parcels offsite. Protection of other critical parcels (potentially not located in the Town of Barnstable). Land conservation (e.g., Conservation Restriction). Conservation funding via escrow. Section C Existing Environment Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page C1 of C22 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project C. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT Property Ownership Sandy Neck Beach Park is located and owned by the Town of Barnstable and serves as the Town’s only public beach on Cape Cod Bay. The Project is located at the Sandy Neck Public Beach Facility at 425 Sandy Neck Road. The Project site is located on a Town of Barnstable owned parcel (Map 263, Parcel 001). Sandy Neck Beach Park is roughly 1,438 acres of barrier beach, and the Sandy Neck Beach System includes an additional 3,300 acres of salt marsh. Neighboring parcels include property owned by the Town of Sandwich to the west and privately owned property to the south as shown in Figure C-1. Figure C-1. Property Ownership within the Project Area (Town of Barnstable). History of Development Sandy Neck Road can be found along Route 6A (Old King's Highway), which provides access to the Project area and extends approximately 1.2 miles to Sandy Neck Public Beach Facility. The Sandy Neck Public Beach Facility's developed footprint includes a public beach (Bodfish Public Beach) with a parking lot, bathhouse (structure includes a concession stand, bathrooms, and garage), Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) trails, pedestrian walkways, observation decks, air-up/air-down infrastructure, a gatehouse and maintenance shed (Figure C-2). Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page C2 of C22 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Figure C-2. Aerial photograph of the Sandy Neck Public Beach Facility. The existing gatehouse area serves as the entrance to the site and includes a gatehouse structure constructed in 1991. The Sandy Neck Access Road and parallel paved walkway continue north to a paved parking lot and other developed areas, including the bathhouse. A paved hard surface parking lot consisting of an upper and lower one is located just north of the gatehouse at the northern end of Sandy Neck Road. The parking lot contains roughly 200 parking spaces currently utilized by day-pass holders, residents and ORV beach sticker holders, campers, concessions staff, and lifeguards. The parking lot looks to have been constructed prior to 1971, and the Blizzards of 1978 caused a portion of the parking lot to be lost and another portion to become buried under the primary frontal dune. In 2011, roughly $1.3 million was spent by the Town to rebuild the existing bathhouse in the upper parking lot. Funds from the project also went to building the maintenance garage structure for storage, septic system improvements, and a sidewalk that now runs from the gatehouse to the main parking area. ORV beach access is gained through the Marsh Trail at the gatehouse area and a trail that bisects the Sandy Neck Access Road project area. The ORV area includes air-up/air-down infrastructure, such as air compressors and gravel parking spaces. The trail continues to the beach's eastern end via an open sand roadway. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page C3 of C22 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Historic and Archaeological Resources The Project area is located within the Sandy Neck Cultural Resources District (BRN.A), Barnstable Multiple Resource Area (BRN.N) and Old King's Highway Regional Historic District (BRN.O), inventoried in Massachusetts Historical Commission’s Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System (MACRIS). The Project area includes two historical resources (Table C-1), the Bodfish Beach Park area, and the Memorial. Table C-1. Massachusetts Historical Commission’s Inventoried Resources Record ID Historic Name Year Built Designation BRN.991 Bodfish, Benjamin Memorial Park C 1920 Local Historic District - 05/01/1973 National Register MRA -11/13/1987 National Register District -11/13/1987 BRN.922 Bodfish Park - Landers, Edward T. R. Memorial 1985 The address for BRN.922 is listed as Sandy Neck Rd Trail #1 off Sandy Neck Road; however, the Memorial is located at the existing gatehouse and will be relocated to the new gatehouse during the Project. The locations of both resources are shown in Figure C-3. Figure C-3. Inventoried resources included in MACRIS (MassEOEEA). Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page C4 of C22 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Topography Topographic data from Sandy Neck was collected to define existing conditions and to evaluate the optimal engineering design for the resiliency of the Proposed Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project area. A topographic survey was first conducted by a Woods Hole Group Professional Engineer & Land Surveyor in June and July 2022 to establish existing conditions and to locate the parking lot and other existing structures. Additional survey elevations were taken along the toe and crest of the primary frontal dune, proposed construction areas, and the isolated wetlands buffering the project area. Survey points were collected on multiple occasions by the Woods Hole Group and the Town of Barnstable (Table C-2). Figure C-4 shows the areas captured during the surveys. Table C-2. Topographic Survey Dates and Extents. Date Survey Area 6/29/2022 Existing Developed Footprint 7/18/2022 Existing Developed Footprint 7/28/2022 Isolated Wetlands 8/23/2022 Existing Developed Footprint 04/04/2023 Gatehouse Area Isolated Wetlands 04/14/2023 Coastal Dune 05/19/2023 Existing / Proposed Gatehouse Area Figure C-4. Survey elevations collected by Woods Hole Group and The Town of Barnstable between June 2022 – June 2023. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page C5 of C22 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Tides The nearest long-term tide gauge for the Project area is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tide gauge station #8447241 in Sesuit Harbor, MA. This tide station is located on the north side of Dennis, MA facing Cape Cod Bay. This station has been in operation since 1993. Water level datums for the Project were adopted from this station and are detailed in Table C-3. The mean tidal range is 9.6 ft. Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) and Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) are defined as the average height of the tide recorded each day during a 19-year recording period at its highest and lowest, respectively. The largest tides of the year, occurring in winter and summer, are sometimes referred to as “King” tides and result in high tides representing the extreme spring tide. Table C-3. Tidal Datums for the Bay Side of the Project area. Datum Abbreviation Elevation (ft NAVD88) Mean Higher High Water MHHW 4.69 Mean High Water MHW 4.23 North American Vertical Datum 1988 NAVD88 0.00 Mean Low Water MLW -5.36 Mean Lower Low Water MLLW -5.64 Highest Astronomical Tide HAT 7.12 Tidal Range MLW to MHW 9.59 Sea Level Rise The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services maintains a series of tide gages along the coast of Massachusetts. Records from NOAA’s Boston tide gage (station ID 8443970) indicate that relative sea level has risen at a rate of 2.89 mm (+/- 0.15 mm) annually based on the monthly mean sea level between 1921 and 2021, resulting in a change of 0.95 feet (11.4 inches) in 100 years (Figure C-5). Figure C-5 Sea-level rise trend from Boston, Massachusetts (NOAA, 2023). Global sea-level rise projections range from an additional 4.3 ft (under an intermediate sea level rise scenario) to 10.5 ft (under an extreme sea level rise scenario) by 2100. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page C6 of C22 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Storm Surge and Future Flooding The Commonwealth’s High Sea Level Rise (SLR) scenario, as integrated into the Massachusetts Coast Flood Risk Model (MC-FRM), was used to evaluate the Project area’s vulnerability to high tide flooding in 2030, 2050, and 2070. Figures C-6 through C-8 present probabilistic flood risk maps for 2030, 2050, and 2070. Figure C-6. Probability of inundation in 2030 assuming a high sea-level rise scenario (MassCZM, 2023). While every effort has been made to assure the accuracy and correctness of the MC-FRM data presented, it is acknowledged that inherent mapping inaccuracies are present due to interpolation between MC-FRM calculation nodes. Further, areas of the coast that experience rapid changes in geomorphology during storm events, such as dunes along barrier beaches, may not be fully characterized in the MC-FRM dataset. As a result, the maps presented for Sandy Neck Beach Park should be interpreted as representations of potential exposure to flooding in relation to existing topographic conditions. Review of Figures C-6 through C-8 show that the Park is vulnerable to storm surge flooding under present day conditions, with vulnerability increasing through 2070. The area of the gatehouse along the entrance road is most vulnerable, showing a 25% to 100% probability of annual flooding with present day conditions, increasing to 100% annual probability by 2050 and beyond. The current ORV trail through the dunes is also vulnerable, with a 2% to 5% chance of annual flooding in 2030 and a 100% Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page C7 of C22 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project chance of annual flooding in 2050 to 2070. The upper and lower parking lots are shown to be safe from flooding through 2070; however, with erosion of the frontal dune not accounted for in the MC-FRM model, it is a high probability that the lower parking lot will be vulnerable to flooding from Cape Cod Bay as soon as 2030. Lastly, while the concession building is shown to be vulnerable to flooding under present day conditions and all out years, survey data collected as part of this study indicate that the first-floor elevation is above the projected most severe flood elevations for the 0.1% chance storm through 2070. Figure C-9 shows the extents of mean higher high water (MHHW) for present day, 2030, 2050, and 2070 in the Sandy Neck Beach Park gatehouse area, based on data from the MC-FRM dataset. The risks of flooding from daily tides initiate from Barnstable Harbor on the back side of the barrier beach. As soon as 2030, daily tidal flooding could be expected along the low-lying marsh trail that begins near the gatehouse and runs along the back of the barrier beach. By 2050 daily tidal flooding could begin to impact access to the gatehouse area and entrance road will likely be inundated around the time of MHHW. Flooding impacts could also be expected along the existing ORV trail starting in 2050. By 2070 the extent of daily tidal flooding can be expected to expand across the entrance road near the gatehouse and at lower lying sections of the road leading to the main park area. Figure C-7. Probability of inundation in 2050 assuming a high sea-level rise scenario (MassCZM, 2023). Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page C8 of C22 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Figure C-8. Probability of inundation in 2070 assuming a high sea-level rise scenario (MassCZM, 2023). Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page C9 of C22 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Figure C-9. Present Day Mean Higher High Tide (MHHW) Flooding Projections Compared to MHHW in 2030, 2050, and 2070. Sediment Characterization Grab samples were also collected from the beach and dune at Sandy Neck Park to help characterize the sediments (Figure C-10). The samples were then sent to a laboratory for grain size analysis. The results showed that the beach is composed of medium-grained sand (D50 of 0.40 to 0.43 mm) and the dune is composed of fine-grained sand (D50 of 0.18). Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page C10 of C22 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Figure C-10. Locations of Sediment grab Samples Collected on July 12, 2022. Regulated Coastal Resource Areas Coastal wetland resource areas within the Project area as defined by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Wetland Regulations (310 CMR 10), that will be impacted by the construction of the proposed Project include: Coastal Beach, Coastal Dune, Barrier Beach, Salt Marsh and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage. Specific impacts on each resource area are summarized in the following sections. In July 2022 and April 2023, a Woods Hole Group Coastal Scientist, PWS, CERP surveyed isolated, freshwater wetlands found landward of the primary dune at Sandy Neck Beach Park, Barnstable, MA. The delineated resource areas were surveyed with an RTK-GPS and representative, typical distribution of resource areas found at the Project area is shown in Figure (C-11). Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page C11 of C22 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Figure C-11. Delineated Coastal Resource Areas Within the Project Area. Coastal Beach 310 CMR 10.27 The 310 CMR 10.27 regulations define Coastal Beach as extending “from the mean low water line landward to the dune line, coastal bank line or the seaward edge of existing human-made structures, when these structures replace one of the above lines, whichever is closest to the ocean.” The Project area consists of coastal beach on its seaward side, between the ocean and the toe of the dune. The coastal beach is a relatively flat recreational beach, as shown in Figure C-12, looking down on the coastal beach from the coastal dune. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page C12 of C22 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Figure C-12. June 2022 Photo Looking Northeast from the Coastal Dune onto the Coastal Beach. During coastal storms, the beach is increasingly inundated, and an erosion scarp has developed at the toe of the dune —the beach width regularly changes with respect to seasonal wave conditions (Figure C- 13). The extent of the coastal beach that the Project will impact is limited to the restoration of the primary frontal dune. Figure C-13. November 2021 Photo Depicting the Scarp Produced by Wave Erosion on the Coastal Beach. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page C13 of C22 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Coastal Dune 310 CMR 10.28 The 310 CMR 10.28 regulations define Coastal Dune as the “means any natural hill, mound, or ridge of sediment landward of a coastal beach deposited by wind action or storm overwash. Coastal dune also means sediment deposited by artificial means and serving the purpose of storm damage prevention or flood control.” Landward of the coastal beach coastal dune extends along the length of the Project. The existing developed footprint of Sandy Neck Beach Park is located within the coastal dune. The primary frontal dune resides between coastal beach and the existing parking lot. The primary frontal dune follows the edge of the pavement, including volume which has built up landward of the coastal beach on top of existing parking lot pavement (Figure C-14). Figure C-14. Coastal Dune Located Along the Seaward Edge of the Existing Parking Lot. The Town has regularly utilized nourishment to mitigate the impacts of winter storms and erosion to maintain the parking lot and to protect the bathhouse and septic system (Figure C-15). A total of 32,620 cubic yards of sand nourishment has been placed along the primary frontal dune since 2013 (Table C-4). Most of the project takes place in the secondary dune which varies in elevation and vegetation (Figures C-16 & C-17). Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page C14 of C22 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Figure C-15. Placement of Sediment in 2014 (Town of Barnstable). Table C-4. History of Nourishment Along the Primary frontal Dune. Date Cubic Yards December 2013 5,500 December 2014 4,300 February 2015 2,600 January 2016 8,500 March 2018 4,666 March 2021 2,854 March 2022 4,200 Total 32,620 Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page C15 of C22 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Figure C-16. Photo showing general makeup of Coastal Dune at Sandy Neck, July 2022. Figure C-17. Aerial Photography of the Coastal Dune from June 2023 (Steve Heaslip). Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page C16 of C22 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Barrier Beach 310 CMR 10.28 The entirety of the Project area is located within the Sandy Neck Barrier Beach System. The 310 CMR 10.28 regulations define Barrier Beach as a “narrow low-lying strip of land generally consisting of coastal beaches and coastal dunes extending roughly parallel to the trend of the coast. It is separated from the mainland by a narrow body of fresh, brackish or saline water or a marsh system. A barrier beach may be joined to the mainland at one or both ends.” Salt Marsh 310 CMR 10.32 As defined in the 301 CMR 10.32 regulations, salt marsh is a coastal wetland that extends landward up to the highest high tide line, that is, the highest spring tide of the year, and is characterized by plants that are well adapted to or prefer living in, saline soils”. Salt marsh is located near the existing gatehouse area near the southern end of the Project area. The salt marsh area that buffers the Proposed project area is roughly 3,300-acres in size and known as Great Marsh, which is located between the Sandy Neck barrier beach system and Barnstable Harbor. Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife 310 CMR 10.37 The site of the proposed Project is located within estimated (EH 697) habitats of rare species as published by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. As described in the 301 CMR 10.37 regulations Estimated Habitat Maps are “based on the estimated geographical extent of the habitats of all state-listed vertebrate and invertebrate animal species for which a reported occurrence within the last 25 years has been accepted by the Program and incorporated into its official data base”. The Project site is also located with Priority Habitat of Rare Species (PH 892) which is codified under Massachusetts Endangered Species Act regulations 321 CMR 10.00. Priority Habitat of Rare Species and Estimated Habitat of Rare Wildlife are shown in Figure C-18 (Effective August 1, 2021). Figure C-18. The Existing Developed Footprint within NHESP Estimated and Priority Habitat for Rare and Endangered Wildlife (MassGIS). Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page C17 of C22 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Goddard Consulting conducted a habitat assessment of the Project area in July 2022, supplemented with an additional site survey in March 2023, culminating in a Rare Species Survey Report and Habitat Assessment (See Section I). The site is designated Priority habitat for four state listed species, their use of the Project area is described in more detail below. Eastern Spadefoot Toad (Scaphiopus holbrookii) – State Threatened The Eastern Spadefoot toad inhabits sandy locations, often a mosaic of sandy open ground and shrub cover with temporary pools for breeding. These pools tend to be unique in that they often are very ephemeral, holding water for periods of time as short as two weeks before drying. The Eastern Spadefoot is a short-term, explosive breeder, which only emerges from its subterranean burrows during the appropriate weather conditions (typically large thunderstorms with pressure drops) to breed. This species only breeds when the weather and local environmental conditions are optimal; populations have been known to skip one or multiple breeding seasons until favorable conditions are present. Due to its fossorial (burrowing) nature, this species is very difficult to detect, often remaining underground for weeks, only emerging during breeding events and on some nights to forage. This species breeds in ephemeral pools and uses the adjacent sandy upland habitats for most of its life cycle. Numerous pools are interspersed across the site and larger Sandy Neck Beach property. The habitat between the pools is mostly all potential upland habitat for this species. A large known population of this species is present on site. All ephemeral waterbodies found proximal to the Project areas have, at least to some degree, breeding habitat potential. All natural sandy upland areas between the pools also offer suitable upland habitat for this species. The only areas that are not suitable habitat within the Project area are those that are paved, developed, gravel areas, or the center of the ORV access road due to compaction and repeated use during the active season for this species. Plymouth Gentian (Sabatia kennedyana) – State Special Concern Plymouth Gentian is a semi-aquatic plant that typically grows along the upper edges of coastal plain ponds. These ponds are rare in Massachusetts, typically shallow, and prone to significant water level fluctuations. The edges of these ponds are unique habitats containing many rare and unique plant species. This plant prefers the areas of fluctuating water along the upper margins of these ponds where competition by woody stem and invasive species is low. Several areas of potential habitat were identified on both the larger property and the Project area. A survey was approved and conducted for this plant in the Summer of 2022, within the appropriate habitat and proximal to the Project area. Figure C-19 shows the plant was located within one of the isolated wetland areas. In general, this species is associated with wetland habitats. Least Tern (Sternula antillarum) – State Special Concern Least Terns is a summer colonial nesting bird that typically nests on coastal beaches made up of a sandy or gravelly beach habitat. The species prefers to nest on a beach that is lacking vegetation, and forage in shallow-water habitats such as bays, estuaries, tidal marshes, and ponds. The species does not typically utilize the Project area, and all work will be conducted outside of nesting season. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) – State Threatened Piping plovers are also known to nest in least tern colonies. Piping plovers are small shorebirds that breed on sandy, coastal beaches and dunes lacking any vegetation. The species build nests on coastal beach between the high tide line and the toe of coastal dune. Piping plovers do not typically utilize the Project area, and all work will be conducted outside of nesting season. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page C18 of C22 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Figure C-19. Plymouth Gentian Located on Sandy Neck. Land Subject to Flooding 310 CMR 10.57 The proposed Project area includes Land Subject to Flooding in the form of isolated wetlands as defined in 310 CMR 10.57 1(b) and 2(b). The regulation defines these areas as “an isolated depression or a closed basin which serves as a ponding area for run-off or high ground water which has risen above the ground surface” the regulation notes that when these areas are “vernal pool habitat, they are significant to the protection of wildlife habitat”. It also defines Isolated Land Subject to Flooding as an “isolated depression or closed basin without an inlet or an outlet. It is an area which at least once a year confines standing water to a volume of at least ¼ acre-feet and to an average depth of at least six inches.” The isolated wetlands in the Project area as scattered throughout the barrier beach and dune system and consist of marshes and shrub swamps – consistent with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) detailed wetland maps. In addition to the marshes and shrub swamps, some isolated wetlands included dense cranberry cover under mature pitch pines – a wetland type more consistent with coniferous wooded swamps. The wetlands observed during the site visits were located in shallow to moderately deep swales in the barrier beach and dune system. During a July 2022 site visit, standing water was not present in any of the wetland areas. Edge of wetland determinations were made based on a combination of vegetation (>50% FAC or wetter) and indicators of hydrology (saturation, water-stained leaves, algal crusts, water marks, etc.) (Figures C-20 and C-21). Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page C19 of C22 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Figure C-20. Isolated shrub swamp wetland found within the barrier beach and dune system, Sandy Neck, Barnstable, MA, July 2022. Figure C-21. Isolated freshwater wetland within the barrier beach and dune system, Sandy Neck, Barnstable, MA, April 2023. Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) In 1978, Sandy Neck Barrier Beach System received the Commonwealth’s designation as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) due to its unique environmental significance. Both the towns of Barnstable (90% of the ACEC) and Sandwich (10% of the ACEC) nominated the site, in part for the Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page C20 of C22 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project essential habitat that it provides to species, including Significant Resource Areas (SRA) for multiple species. The Sandy Neck Barrier Beach System ACEC is 9,235 acres, one of New England's largest barrier beach systems. The northeaster exclusion boundary of the ACEC is Sandy Neck Road, and a portion of the Project site is located within the ACEC (Figure C-22). The 3.2 acres of the existing developed footprint (4.71 acres total) is located within the ACEC boundary. Figure C-22. The Sandy Neck Barrier Beach System Area of Critical Environmental Concern. Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 310 CMR 10.04 All previously described resource areas are included in Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage. Land subject to coastal storm flowage is defined at 310 CMR 10.04 as "land subject to any inundation caused by coastal storms up to and including that caused by the 100-year storm, surge of record or storm of record, whichever is greater." The land subject to coastal storm flowage in the Project area was delineated based on the Special Flood Hazard Area boundary shown on the current effective FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (Effective 2014). The Project is mapped within Zone VE and AE on FEMA flood zone map 25001C0532J. The existing parking lot is located in a VE Zone, which is a special flood hazard area subject to wave motion (velocity hazard) and inundation by the 1% annual chance flood. The mapped base flood elevation (BFE) is elevation 15 feet NAVD88. Upland areas are mapped within Zone AE with an elevation of 13 feet, and Zone X which is determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain (Figure C-23). Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page C21 of C22 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Figure C-23. Project area effective FEMA flood zones (FEMA). Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page C22 of C22 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project References Cited Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) and Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). “Applying the Massachusetts Coastal Wetlands Regulations:”, October 14, 2020. https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2020/10/14/czm-coastal-maunual-2020-update.pdf Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. “Sandy Neck Barrier Beach System ACEC Designation Document.” Department of Conservation & Recreation, December 1978. https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/qn/sn-des.pdf Section D Alternatives Considered & Assessment of Impacts Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D1 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project D. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED & ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS A range of alternatives were identified and evaluated for the Sandy Neck Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project (Project). The purpose of the alternatives assessment was to identify and evaluate a number of practicable and feasible alternatives that would achieve the goals and objectives of the overall Project, while avoiding and/or minimizing short and long-term adverse impacts. This section provides a description of alternatives that were considered as well as environmental impacts and other criteria used to select a preferred alternative. The Town’s goals for the project are to evaluate, design, permit, and implement a long-term coastal resiliency project at Sandy Neck Beach that: Addresses coastal vulnerability to erosion, dune loss, and flooding Is sustainable for at least 50 years Supports current uses of the site that are safe for the public Enhances and protects coastal resources Is economically viable Is permittable under current environmental regulations The following six (6) alternatives were developed and evaluated: Do Nothing with Offsite Parking Stone Revetment with Vegetated Sand Cover and Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) Trail Relocation Bio-Engineered Sand-Filled Coir Bags with Vegetated Sand Cover Partial Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and ORV Trail Relocation Full Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and ORV Trial Relocation Full Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and no ORV Trail Relocation A summary of the alternatives evaluated for the Project are described in the following sections. The alternatives involve work at different locations across the Sandy Neck project site. Some alternatives are focused only on the parking lot, while others would involve work at multiple locations as shown in Figure D-1. For orientation purposes the locations shown in Figure D-1 are referred to as: 1 - Existing Gatehouse Area 2 - Proposed Area for New Gatehouse 3 - Entrance to Existing ORV Trail 4 - ORV Trail 5 - Upper and lower parking lot area Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D2 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Figure D-1. Sandy Neck project area showing locations for work considered with the project alternatives. 1.0 Do Nothing with Offsite Parking The Do Nothing alternative would essentially leave the dune and beach infrastructure as is, with no changes to improve resiliency of the parking lot or gatehouse. This alternative would require the Town to continue frequent renourishment of the dune every 1-3 years and would leave the parking lot vulnerable to damage from erosion. For example, with rising sea level conditions in 2030, the parking lot is predicted to sustain damage by a 100-yr return period storm (Figure D- 2). By 2070 it would only take a 20-yr return period storm to cause damage to the parking lot. A shoreline change assessment conducted in 2016 (CLE, 2016) showed that unless proactive steps are taken to build resiliency, erosion over the next 50 years will cause the dune to retreat to a point approximately 75 ft landward of the existing dune crest (red dashed 50-yr dune line in Figure D-2). This would result in the loss of most of the existing parking lot infrastructure. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D3 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Figure D-2. Model simulations of erosion in the lower parking with the Do Nothing alternative during 2030 (top) and 2070 (bottom) time horizons. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D4 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project The Do Nothing alternative would also leave the gatehouse vulnerable to flooding during periods of high tide as soon as the year 2050 (Figure D-3). This sunny day flooding would limit access to the park during high tide on a daily basis and would interfere with staff operations at the gatehouse. Figure D-3. Projected flooding during MHHW during present day, 2030, 2050, and 2070 time horizons. Off-site parking was evaluated in conjunction with the Do Nothing alternative as a way to supplement the capacity of the parking lots damaged over time, or potentially eliminate the need for on-site parking in the future. This evaluation explored options for off-site parking with capacity for 100 or more cars and options for transportation/bussing between the off-site locations and the Park. Existing parking lots within 8 miles of the Park that have the capacity for 100 or more cars were identified at the Cape Cod Community College, Sandwich High School, and the Barnstable County Court House. Operation of a Town-managed shuttle program or contracting with a local bus service to transport patrons between Sandy Neck Beach Park and one or more off-site lots was also explored. While a variety of off-site parking options could be implemented that would increase the number of parking spaces for daily visitors, and potentially increase access to the Park for visitors not currently able to visit the beach, these options alone will not be enough to make up for parking lost due to expected erosion and storm damage if the Town does not move forward with a long- term resiliency plan. The potential for off-site parking should be pursued by the Town in parallel with implementing the long-term resiliency plan. This will give the Town time to pilot the off-site parking options to determine the most successful approach. The Do Nothing alternative would result in the loss of valuable recreational resources and current uses of the site would be significantly impacted. Valuable natural resources and habitat for Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D5 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project estimated and priority habitat of rare wildlife would be lost to erosion and frequent flooding. Revenue needed to support park operations would drop as visitors would no longer be able to utilize the parking lots and ORV access would be restricted. Costs for annual nourishment would escalate to over $3.5 million over the 50-yr project lifetime, with additional costs needed for parking lot repairs. 2.0 Stone Revetment with Vegetated Sand Cover and ORV Trail Relocation The Stone Revetment alternative includes construction of 656 linear feet of stone revetment along the seaward side of the existing upper and lower parking lots (Figure D-4). The revetment would be constructed in the footprint of the existing coastal dune. The crest elevation of the structure would match the existing grades of the upper and lower parking lots at 23 and 18 ft NAVD88, respectively. The crest of the dune would be approximately 10 ft wide. The revetment would have a seaward slope of 1.5H:1V and would include a base layer of bedding stones, a layer of 2-3 ton stones, and an armor layer of 5 ton stones. Toe stones sized at 5-tons would anchor the structure at elevation 3.4 ft NAVD88. Following construction of the revetment, the structure would be covered with sand to replicate the existing dune. Beachgrass would be planted on the face of the restored dune to aid in sand stabilization, and a minimum of four (4) feet of sand would be required to be maintained across the face of the revetment on an annual basis. Figure D-4. Plan view (top) and cross-section (bottom) of the Stone Revetment with Vegetated Sand Cover alternative (design modified from CLE Engineering, 2016). The existing parking lots would remain; however, the ORV trail would be rerouted to the coastal dune approximately 120 to 150 ft behind (south) the parking lots and would merge with the Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D6 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project existing ORV Trail near where it crosses the dune crest (Figure D-4). With this alternative, the existing gatehouse would be abandoned and a new 25 x 40-foot administration building with adjacent entrance booth would be built in the upper parking lot. A new stormwater management system would also be installed in the lower parking lot. Performance & Longevity: Performance modeling of the Stone Revetment alternative for present day water levels at a transect through the lower parking lot is shown in Figure D-5. The model indicates that the 50- and 100-year return period storms erode the sand dune/cover on top of the revetment, leaving the stones exposed during future storms, until such time as the revetment can be covered with additional sand. The 20-year return period storm erodes a significant portion of the dune, leaving a thin veneer of sand across the face of the revetment. Model runs for water levels in 2030, 2050, and 2070 show complete removal of the sand dune/cover on top of the revetment for all storms simulated. While the revetment “holds the line” in preventing erosion of the parking lot, waves striking the hard engineering structure cause scour at the base of the revetment, leading to loss of beach width and volume. If nourishment material is not maintained following storms, this scour could lead to undermining and eventual failure of the structure. An annual program of dune renourishment to cover the revetment would be important with this alternative to ensure adequate sand cover and sediment supply to the barrier beach system, and to minimize wave-induced scour of the beach. By moving the gatehouse from its current location to higher ground at the entrance to the upper parking lot, this alternative would reduce vulnerability to flooding, under current day and future water levels. Figure D-5. Cross-shore storm simulations for the Stone Revetment alternative with present day sea level showing the initial and eroded profiles for a transect running through the lower parking lot. If the sand cover is not maintained and the face of the revetment remains exposed, additional damage from wave runup and overtopping can be expected. The USACE Coastal Engineering Manual (CEM) relates overtopping rates to the potential for structure damage. Table D-1 shows the calculated overtopping rates for this alternative given the various return period storm Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D7 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project scenarios. Red highlighted cells indicate storm and water level scenarios likely to cause damage to the revetment, yellow cells indicate conditions unsafe to park or drive in the parking lot behind the revetment, and grey highlighted cells indicate conditions unsafe for pedestrians on the parking lot behind the revetment. The results indicate that the revetment is potentially damaged from wave overtopping during all storms in 2070, and there is potential for damage in 2050 during the 50 and 100-year storm events. These more damaging events would likely require significant repairs or replacement of the revetment before its 50-year design lifetime has been met. Continued Public Use of the Site: This alternative would maintain current uses of the upper and lower parking lots and would continue to provide 200 parking spaces. The design would allow for 4 air-down and 6 air-up spaces along the relocated ORV trail, which represents a decrease over the existing capacity. Public access to the bathhouse and concession facility would remain unchanged. Reduced vulnerability to flooding at the relocated gatehouse would allow park staff the ability to check beach stickers and continue providing services to park visitors. The relocated ORV trail would maintain the ability for sticker holders to access the beach. Table D-1. Overtopping Rates and Damage Potential for Various Return Period Storms and Climate Conditions. Overtopping Rate (liters/sec/meter) Year Storm Return Period Initial Eroded Upper Parking Lot Lower Parking Lot Upper Parking Lot Lower Parking Lot 2070 100 48.48 585.74 320.82 1307.58 50 21.77 388.09 179.12 956.50 20 4.76 180.84 62.05 543.81 2050 100 0.10 22.24 23.42 270.12 50 0.01 4.10 5.83 117.14 20 0.00 0.19 0.46 25.76 2030 100 0.00 0.01 0.55 24.13 50 0.00 0.00 0.02 2.96 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Present Day 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.71 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (red=damage to the revetment; yellow=damage to vehicles in the parking lot; grey=damage to pedestrians in the parking lot) Resource Area Impacts/Benefits: The Stone Revetment alternative would result in permanent impacts to approximately 1.41 acres of previously unaltered coastal dune, barrier beach, and estimated and priority habitat of rare wildlife from the revetment, administration building, and relocated ORV trail. Temporary construction impacts of 0.48 acres would occur in coastal beach, coastal dune, barrier beach and estimated and priority habitat of rare wildlife. Restoration of the ORV trail would benefit 0.70 acres of coastal dune, barrier beach and estimated and priority habitat of rare wildlife for spadefoot toad. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D8 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Costs: Cost estimates for construction and maintenance over 50-years for the Stone Revetement with Vegetated Sand Cover and ORV Trail Relocation alternative are summarized in Table D-2. The costs include initial construction, annual nourishment, beachgrass plantings, and revetement maintenance over a 50-year period. The cost estimates assume that mobe/demobe costs will be 10% of the revetment construction cost and annual sand nourishment volumes will be equal to the average of the nourishment volumes placed on the beach since 2013. A unit cost of $30/cubic yard was assumed for the purchase, trucking, and spreading of nourishment material and annual inflation of 3.8% was assumed over the 50-year time period. Table D-2. Cost Estimates for Construction and Maintenance Over 50-Years for the Stone Revetment with Vegetated Sand Cover and ORV Trail Relocation Alternative. Description Estimated Initial Construction Costs Estimated Maintenance Costs (50 Years) Total Estimated Cost Description Budgeted Cost/Event Total (50 Years incl 3.8% annual inflation) Initial Construction + Maintenance Over 50 Years Stone revetment with vegetated sand cover $4.2 mil Annual sand nourishment (49 events at 3,624 cy/yr) $108,720 $15.5 mil $22.8 mil Annual beachgrass plantings (49 events at 4,000 sq ft/yr) $6,000 $0.9 mil Revetment repair & maintenance (every 10 yrs) $196,800 $2.2 mil Permittability: The Stone Revetment alternative would site the structure in coastal dune and barrier beach resources, both of which are protected under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Regulations 310 CMR 10.28 and 10.29, respectively. The regulations recognize coastal dunes and barrier beaches as important resources that provide storm damage prevention and flood control functions for neighboring resources and upland areas. 310 CMR 10.28(3) indicates that projects on coastal dunes must not have an adverse effect on the coastal dune by: (a) Affecting the ability of waves to remove sand from the dune; (b) Disturbing the vegetative cover so as to destabilize the dune; (c) Causing any modification of the dune form that would increase the potential for storm or flood damage; (d) Interfering with the landward or lateral movement of the dune; (e) Causing removal of sand from the dune artificially; or (f) Interfering with mapped or otherwise identified bird nesting habitat. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D9 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Construction of this alternative in the coastal dune would not comply with performance standards c, d, or f listed above, and as such, the Stone Revetment with Vegetated Sand Cover and ORV Trail Relocation alternative is not considered a permittable project under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Regulations. 3.0 Bio-Engineered Sand-Filled Coir Bags with Vegetated Sand Cover The Bio-Engineered Sand-Filled Coir Bags with Vegetated Sand Cover alternative includes a 800 linear foot long bio-engineered coir bag array along the back edge (south) of the existing dune (Figure D-6). The array would include three (3) stacked coir bags, two (2) on the bottom and one (1) on the top, each measuring 5 x 4 ft. Bags at the bottom of the array would be anchored using 10 to 12-inch diameter posts spaced 6 feet apart. The stacked coir bag array would be covered with compatible sand to restore the profile of the current dune with a crest elevation of 25 ft NAVD88 and a seaward slope of 1.5H:1V. Sturdy drift fence would be installed along the toe of the restored dune to minimize wave-induced erosion. Jute erosion matting would be placed on top of the sand cover and planted with beachgrass. To provide additional resiliency and protect the coir bags from degradation, sand cover would be maintained across the face of the coir array on an annual basis. A new stormwater management system would be installed in the lower parking lot and the existing parking lots and gatehouse would remain in their current locations. Figure D-6. Plan view (top) and cross-section (bottom) of the Bio-Engineered Sand-Filled Coir Bags with Vegetated Sand Cover alternative. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D10 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Performance & Longevity: Performance modeling of the Bio-Engineered alternative for present day water levels at a transect in the lower parking lot is shown in Figure D-7. The simulations show that 50- and 100-yr storms erode all of the sand cover in front of the coir bags leaving them exposed to direct wave action. Once the bags are exposed, the potential for failure of the array increases significantly as direct wave activity could cause the bags to lose sediment and shift in position. If the bags become exposed, the parking lot behind the coir bags would be susceptible to undermining and damage from direct wave action. Areas susceptible to damage are indicated by the zone of erosion in Figure D-7. As would be expected, the potential for erosion of the sand dune cover and damage of the coir bag array increases as sea levels rise in 2030, 2050, and 2070. Damage to the upper parking lot with this alternative would not impact the existing septic system, although erosion from a 50- or 100-year storm in future years 2050 and 2070 could approach the northern edge of the septic system. Figure D-7. Cross shore storm simulations for the Bio-Engineered Sand-Filled Coir Bags with Vegetated Sand Cover alternative with present day sea level showing initial and eroded profiles in the lower parking lot. The design life of a coir bag system is typically 5 to 7 years provided sand cover is maintained to protect from direct wave action and ultraviolet degradation of the coir. By placing the coir bags along the back side of the dune, and maintaining the sand cover, the design life could likely be extended to 10 years, as the potential for exposure would be reduced. However, even in years when the sand cover is not completely eroded, it would be important to follow an annual program of dune nourishment to ensure adequate sand cover and sediment supply to the barrier beach system. Continued Public Use of the Site: This alternative would maintain current uses of the upper and lower parking lots and would continue to provide 200 parking spaces. Public access to the bathhouse and concession facility would remain unchanged, and ORV trail use with the current air-up and air-down capacity would not be improved. The gatehouse would not be moved with this alternative and therefore would remain vulnerable to flooding from Barnstable Harbor during storms and future sunny day flood events. Zone of Possible erosion Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D11 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Resource Area Impacts/Benefits: The Bio-Engineered alternative would result in permanent impacts to approximately 0.53 acres of previously unaltered coastal dune, barrier beach, and estimated and priority habitat of rare wildlife resources. Construction of the coir array would also result in 0.48 acres of temporary impacts to coastal beach, coastal dune, barrier beach, and estimated and priority habitat of rare wildlife. Costs: Cost estimates for construction and maintenance over 50-years for the Bio-Engineered Sand-Filled Coir Bags with Vegetated Sand Cover alternative are summarized in Table D-3. The costs include initial construction, annual nourishment, beachgrass plantings, and coir bag repair/replacement over a 50-year period. Reconstruction of one-half of the coir bag array was assumed every ten (10) years. The cost estimates include mobe/demobe costs at 10% of the coir- bag construction cost and annual sand nourishment volumes equal to the average of the nourishment volumes placed on the beach since 2013. A unit cost of $30/cubic yard was assumed for the purchase, trucking, and spreading of nourishment material and annual inflation of 3.8% was assumed over the 50-year time period. Table D-3. Cost Estimates for Construction and Maintenance Over 50-Years for the Bio- Engineered Sand-Filled Coir Bags with Vegetated Sand Cover Alternative. Description Estimated Initial Construction Costs Estimated Maintenance Costs (50 Years) Total Estimated Cost Description Budgeted Cost/Event Total (50 Years incl 3.8% annual inflation) Initial Construction + Maintenance Over 50 Years Bio-engineered sand-filled coir bags with vegetated sand cover $3.6 mil Annual sand nourishment (49 events at 3,624 cy/yr) $108,720 $15.5 mil $31.1 mil Annual beachgrass plantings (49 events at 4,000 sq ft/yr) $6,000 $0.9 mil Coir bag replacement (400 linear feet every 10 yrs) $1.0 mil $11.1 mil Permittability: Coir bag shore protection systems have been permitted in coastal dunes by local and state regulatory agencies in Massachusetts. When considering compliance with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Regulations, these systems differ from stone revetments like the one evaluated for the previous alternative. Coir bag arrays tend to absorb wave energy thereby reducing the potential for storm or flood damage caused by scour in front of the system. Once exposed to direct wave action, sand inside the bags can leach out and provide a source of sediment for the beach. The primary volume of the coir bags is composed of sand and as such they do not cause removal of sand from the dune artificially. And finally, the coir bag arrays are Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D12 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project generally considered to be temporary structures that need repair and/or replacement on a regular basis. For these reasons, local and state regulatory agencies have found bio-engineered coir bags to comply with the performance standards for work in coastal dunes and barrier beaches. 4.0 Partial Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and ORV Trail Relocation This alternative includes partial relocation of the lower parking lot, leaving approximately one- third of the existing upper and lower parking lots seaward of the 50-yr dune erosion line (Figure D-8). An enhanced dune approximately 600 ft long with a crest elevation between 26 to 27.5 ft NAVD88 would be built along the seaward edge of the parking lot. Seaward and landward slopes of the dune would be 4H:1V. The ORV trail would be relocated behind the new portion of parking lot and two (2) emergency access paths from the lower parking to the ORV trail would be added. A rear dune would be constructed along the back (south) side of the new ORV trail to provide stability for the trail. The existing gatehouse would be abandoned and a new 25 x 40-foot administration building with adjacent entrance booth would be built in the upper parking lot. A new stormwater management system would be installed in the lower parking lot. Figure D-8. Plan view of the Partial Relocation of the Parking Lot with Enhanced Dune and ORV Trail Relocation alternative. Performance & Longevity: Results from dune performance modeling for the Partial Parking Lot Relocation alternative during 20-, 50- and 100- year storm events and projected sea levels in 2030 and 2070 are shown in Figure D-9. The results indicate that the partially relocated parking lot would be safe from erosion, even with a 100-yr storm and higher sea levels in 2030. However, Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D13 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project by 2050 the parking lot would be damaged during the 100-yr storm, and erosion caused by the 50-yr storm would be at the seaward edge of the parking lot. To maintain a healthy and protective coastal dune over the 50-year time horizon, renourishment would be required approximately every 5 years. Figure D-9. Cross shore storm simulations for the Partial Parking Lot Relocation alternative with sea levels in 2030 and 2050 showing initial and eroded profiles in the lower parking lot. Continued Public Use of the Site: This alternative would maintain public access to the bathhouse and concession facility; however, there would be a loss of 6 parking spaces (200 to 194 spaces). Reduced vulnerability to flooding at the relocated gatehouse would allow park staff the ability to check beach stickers and continue providing services to park visitors with future increases in sea level. The relocated ORV trail would maintain the ability for sticker holders to access the beach and the number of air-up/air-down spots would be increased significantly (15 air-down and 30 air-up facilities). Resource Area Impacts/Benefits: Partial Relocation of the Parking Lot alternative would result in new permanent impacts to approximately 1.74 acres of previously undisturbed coastal dune, barrier beach, and upland Eastern Spadefoot Toad habitat from construction of the new parking Reconfigured parking lot & ORV access trail Reconfigured parking lot & ORV access trail Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D14 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project lot, bioretention basin, and ORV trail relocation. Restoration of the existing ORV trail and enhancement of the primary and rear dunes would restore 3.30 acres of coastal dune, barrier beach, and upland spadefoot toad habitat. Costs: Construction and maintenance costs over 50 years for the Partial Relocation of the Parking Lot alternative are summarized in Table D-4. The costs include initial construction, annual nourishment, and beachgrass plantings over a 50-year period. The cost estimates include mobe/demobe costs at 10% of the construction cost and annual sand nourishment volumes equal to the average of the nourishment volumes placed on the beach since 2013. A unit cost of $30/cubic yard was assumed for the purchase, trucking, and spreading of nourishment material and annual inflation of 3.8% was assumed over the 50-year time period. Table D-4. Cost Estimates for Construction and Maintenance Over 50 Years for the Partial Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and ORV Trail Relocation Alternative. Description Estimated Initial Construction Costs Estimated Maintenance Costs (50 Years) Total Estimated Cost Description Budgeted Cost/Event Total (50 Years incl 3.8% annual inflation) Initial Construction + Maintenance Over 50 Years Partial Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and ORV Trail Relocation $4.0 Mil Sand Nourishment (9 events at 7,249 cy/ event) $217,470 5.6 Mil 12.2 Mil Beach Grass Plantings (9 events at 46,840 sq ft/yr) $70,290 1.2 Mil Annual Maintenance of Lot $10,000 1.4 Mil Permittability: Discussions held during pre-application meetings with Mass DEP and the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) indicated that permits could likely be issued for this alternative, provided that the parking lot relocation minimizes increases in impervious surfaces, avoids direct impacts to isolated wetlands, and minimizes impacts to upland spadefoot toad habitat. This alternative results in a decrease of 0.26 acres of impervious parking area and also avoids impacts to isolated wetlands. Impacts to upland spadefoot toad habitat cannot be avoided while still retaining the ORV trail; however, by relocating the trail, this alternative helps to restore connectivity of spadefoot toad habitat which is bisected by the current layout of the ORV trail. Unavoidable impacts to upland spadefoot toad habitat would likely result in a determination from NHESP for a “take” of spadefoot toad. In this case, it would be necessary for the Town and their consulting team to work with NHESP to develop a Conservation Management Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D15 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Plan that meets the performance standards for issuance of a Conservation and Management Permit per 321 CMR 10.23. 5.0 Full Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and ORV Trial Relocation This alternative includes full relocation of the upper and lower parking lots behind the 50-yr dune erosion line (Figure D-10). The connection between the upper and lower parking lots would be moved behind the bathhouse and would result in the loss of garage space that currently exists on the back side of the bathhouse. An enhanced dune approximately + 745 ft long with a crest elevation between 26 and 27.5 ft NAVD88 would be built along the seaward edge of the parking lot. Seaward and landward slopes of the dune would be 4H:1V and would be planted with beach grass. A new natural (sand & gravel) surface ORV trail from the upper parking lot, along the back side of the lower parking lot, would allow staff to more efficiently monitor ORV traffic at the site. Two (2) emergency access paths from the lower parking lot to the ORV trail would be added. A rear dune with a slope of 6H:1V would be constructed along the edge of the new ORV trail to provide stability for the trail and screening for the surrounding neighborhoods from car headlights. The rear dune would be planted with native shrubs and beach grass. The existing gatehouse would be abandoned and a new 25 x 40-foot administration building with adjacent entrance booth would be built in the upper parking lot. Stormwater management for this alternative would include a vegetated swale in the center of the lower parking lot that would be connected to a vegetated bioretention basin located southeast of the parking lot. The existing entrance to the ORV trail would also be reconfigured for 15 air-down spaces and 12 air-up spaces would be provided along the new ORV trail. Performance & Longevity: Results from dune performance modeling for the Full Relocation of the Parking Lot alternative during 20-, 50-, and 100-yr storm events and a projected sea level in 2070 are shown in Figure D-11. The results indicate that the more landward reconfigured parking lot is safe from erosion, even with a 100-year storm and higher sea levels in 2070. For the 100- yr storm scenario, approximately 38 feet of dune remains to protect the parking lot. With the higher return period 50- and 20-year storms, approximately 53 and 68 feet of dune remains to protect the parking lot. To maintain a healthy and protective coastal dune over the 50-year time horizon, renourishment would be required approximately every 5 years. Continued Public Use of the Site: This alternative would maintain public access to the bathhouse and concession facility and would create a total of 203 parking spaces (3 more than the existing lot). Reduced vulnerability to flooding at the relocated gatehouse would allow park staff the ability to check beach stickers and continue providing services to park visitors with future increases in sea level. The relocated ORV trail would maintain the ability for sticker holders to access the beach and the number of air-up/air-down spots would be increased (15 air-down and 12 air-up facilities). Public review of this alternative voiced concerns that traffic flow along the new access lane between the upper and lower parking lots, where cars and ORVs would have shared use of the travel lane, could create a pinch point that would result in traffic congestion and public safety concerns. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D16 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Figure D-10. Plan view of the Full Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and ORV Trial Relocation. Resource Area Impacts/Benefits: Full Relocation of the Parking Lot alternative would result in new permanent impacts to approximately 1.17 acres of previously undisturbed coastal dune, barrier beach and upland Eastern Spadefoot Toad habitat from construction of the new parking lot, administration building, bioretention basin, vegetated swale, emergency access paths, and reconfigured ORV entrance area. Enhancement of the primary and rear dunes dune and restoration of the ORV trail would benefit 3.70 acres of coastal dune, barrier beach, and estimated and priority habitat for rare species. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D17 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Figure D-11. Cross shore storm simulations for the Full Parking Lot Relocation alternative with sea level in 2070 showing initial and eroded profiles in the lower parking lot. Costs: Construction and maintenance costs over 50 years for the Full Relocation of the Parking Lot alternative are summarized in Table D-5. The costs include initial construction, annual nourishment, and beachgrass plantings over a 50-year period. The cost estimates include mobe/demobe costs at 10% of the construction cost and annual sand nourishment volumes equal to the average of the nourishment volumes placed on the beach since 2013. A unit cost of $30/cubic yard was assumed for the purchase, trucking, and spreading of nourishment material and annual inflation of 3.8% was assumed over the 50-year time period. Permittability: Discussions held during pre-application meetings with Mass DEP and the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) indicated that permits could likely be issued for this alternative, provided that the parking lot relocation minimizes increases in impervious surfaces, avoids direct impacts to isolated wetlands, and minimizes impacts to upland spadefoot toad habitat. This alternative results in no net increase in impervious parking over existing conditions and avoids impacts to isolated wetlands. Impacts to upland spadefoot toad habitat cannot be avoided with this alternative; however, by relocating the ORV trail the connectivity of spadefoot toad habitat, which is bisected by the current layout of the ORV trail, would be restored. Unavoidable impacts to upland spadefoot toad habitat would likely result in a determination from NHESP for a “take” of spadefoot toad. In this case, it would be necessary for the Town and their consulting team to work with NHESP to develop a Conservation Management Plan that meets the performance standards for issuance of a Conservation and Management Permit per 321 CMR 10.23. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D18 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Table D-5. Cost Estimates for Construction and Maintenance Over 50 Years for the Full Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and ORV Trail Relocation Alternative. Description Estimated Initial Constructio n Costs Estimated Maintenance Costs (50 Years) Total Estimated Cost Description Budgeted Cost/ Event Total (50 Years incl 3.8% annual inflation) Initial Construction + Maintenance Over 50 Years Full Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and ORV Trail Relocation $5.3 Mil Sand Nourishment (9 events at 7,249 cy/ event) $217,470 5.6 Mil 13.5 Mil Beach Grass Plantings (9 events at 46,840 sq ft/yr) $70,290 1.2 Mil Annual Maintenance of Lot $10,000 1.4 Mil 6.0 Full Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and no ORV Trail Relocation This alternative includes full relocation of the upper and lower parking lots behind the 50-yr dune erosion line (Figure D-12). The connection between the upper and lower parking lots would be located on the seaward side of the bathhouse which would allow the existing garage to remain in place. A single emergency access path from the lower parking lot to the ORV trail would also be added. An enhanced dune approximately 600 ft long with a crest elevation between 26 and 27.5 ft NAVD88 would be built along the seaward edge of the parking lot using 9,500 cubic yards of compatible sediment. Seaward and landward slopes of the dune would be 4H:1V and the dune would be vegetated with beach grass. A rear dune would be constructed along the back (south) side of the new parking lot using 12,550 cubic yards of compatible sediment. The purpose of the rear dune is to provide stability for the parking area and shelter for surrounding neighborhoods from car lights. The rear dune would be planted with beach grass and spaded shrubs. Stormwater management for this alternative would include a vegetated swale in the center of the lower parking lot that would be connected to a bioretention basin located southeast of the parking lot. The existing ORV trail would remain in place and the entrance to the ORV trail would be enhanced to provide improved public safety and additional air-up/air-down spaces (Figure D-13). A new compressor with flood-proof enclosure would be installed and the existing dumpsters would remain in place. The existing gatehouse would be moved approximately 350 ft further up the access road to a point that is naturally higher in elevation to reduce vulnerability to sunny day flooding with future increases in sea level (Figure D-14). The new gatehouse would be located near the area where the existing sidewalk crosses the road. A new travel lane for outgoing traffic Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D19 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project would be added to the west of the relocated gatehouse. Parking for three (3) vehicles and queue space for four (4) park visitors during times when the parking lot is full would be added. Bollard lighting would be installed along the edges of the sidewalk and gatehouse to improve public safety. A flagpole and historic rock would be located on the southwest side of the gatehouse. The area of the existing gatehouse would be reconfigured to add nine (9) new air-up spaces, a compressor with flood-proof enclosure, two (2) exit lanes and one (1) entrance lane, and seven (7) new parking spaces (Figure D-15). Surfaces for the parking and air-up spaces would be gravel and all travel lanes would be paved with asphalt as currently exists. Speed control features would be added to the road to improve public safety. The existing gravel parking area south of the current gatehouse would be restored with native buffer plantings, leaving a natural path for access to the marsh trail. The existing maintenance garage and natural surface parking area at the entrance to the Park would remain unchanged with this alternative. Figure D-12. Plan view of the Full Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and no ORV Trial Relocation. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D20 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Figure D-13. Plan view of existing ORV trail entrance showing enhancements for additional air-up/air-down and public safety. Figure D-14. Plan view of new gatehouse area. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D21 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Figure D-15. Plan view of existing gatehouse area showing reconfiguration for additional air- up/air-down and parking. Performance & Longevity: Results of dune performance modeling for this alternative are the same as for the previous alternative. The enhanced dune provides protection for the parking lots during a 100-yr storm event through 2070 (Figure D-16). Maintenance of a healthy and protective coastal dune over the 50-year time horizon will require renourishment approximately every 5 years. Figure D-16. Cross shore storm simulations for the Full Parking Lot Relocation alternative with sea level in 2070 showing initial and eroded profiles in the lower parking lot. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D22 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Continued Public Use of the Site: This alternative would maintain public access to the bathhouse and concession facility and would maintain the same number of parking spaces as currently exist (200 spaces). Public safety and traffic congestion concerns with previous alternatives would be eliminated with this alternative by separating ORV traffic from regular vehicles. Reduced vulnerability to flooding at the relocated gatehouse would allow park staff the ability to check beach stickers and continue providing services to park visitors with future increases in sea level. The enhanced ORV trail entrance and gatehouse area would provide fourteen (14) air-up and twelve (12) air-down spaces with improved public safety as visitors are outside their cars checking tire pressure. Resource Area Impacts/Benefits: The Full Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and No ORV Trail Relocation alternative would result in new permanent impacts to approximately 1.03 acres of previously undisturbed coastal dune, barrier beach and upland Eastern Spadefoot Toad habitat from construction of the new parking lot, bioretention basin, vegetated swale, emergency access paths, reconfigured ORV entrance area and the new gatehouse area with additional travel lane. Enhancement of the primary and rear dunes dune would benefit 3.72 acres of coastal dune, barrier beach, and estimated and priority habitat for rare species. Costs: Construction and maintenance costs over 50-years for the Full Relocation of the Parking Lot with Enhanced Dune and no ORV Trail Relocation alternative are summarized in Table D-6. The costs include initial construction, annual nourishment, and beachgrass plantings over a 50- year period. The cost estimates include mobe/demobe costs at 10% of the construction cost and annual sand nourishment volumes equal to the average of the nourishment volumes placed on the beach since 2013. A unit cost of $30/cubic yard was assumed for the purchase, trucking, and spreading of nourishment material and annual inflation of 3.8% was assumed over the 50-year time period. Permittability: Discussions held during pre-application meetings with Mass DEP and the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) indicated that permits could likely be issued for this alternative, provided that the parking lot relocation minimizes increases in impervious surfaces, avoids direct impacts to isolated wetlands, and minimizes impacts to upland spadefoot toad habitat. This alternative results in an increase in parking area over the existing site of 0.07 acres and avoids impacts to isolated wetlands. Unavoidable impacts to upland spadefoot toad habitat have been determined by NHESP to result in a “take” of spadefoot toad (Section J). The Town and their consulting team are working with NHESP to develop a Conservation Management Plan that meets the performance standards for issuance of a Conservation and Management Permit per 321 CMR 10.23. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D23 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Table D-6. Cost Estimates for Construction and Maintenance Over 50-Years for the Full Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and no ORV Trail Relocation Alternative. Description Estimated Initial Construction Costs Estimated Maintenance Costs (50 Years) Total Estimated Cost Description Budgeted Cost/ Event Total (50 Years incl 3.8% annual inflation) Initial Construction + Maintenance Over 50 Years Full Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and no ORV Trail Relocation $5.6 Mil Sand Nourishment (9 events at 7,249 cy/ event) $217,470 5.6 Mil 13.8 Mi Beach Grass Plantings (9 events at 46,840 sq ft/yr) $70,290 1.2 Mil Annual Maintenance of Lot $10,000 1.4 Mil 7.0 Summary of Impacts and Selection of Preferred Alternative Environmental impacts and the ability of the six (6) alternatives described above to meet the Town’s goals for the Sandy Neck project are summarized in this section. Both the potential adverse impacts and benefits from the various alternatives are addressed. Although environmental impacts are unavoidable, the project design has focused on minimizing potential adverse impacts, while achieving project objectives. Environmental impacts are quantified in terms of acres of resource impacted from permanent, temporary, and restoration activities are provided in Tables D-7 through D-16. The ability of the project alternatives to meet the Town’s goals are summarized and rationale for selection of the preferred alternative are summarized in Table D-17. Based on this information the Full Relocation of Parking Lot with Enhanced Dune and no ORV Trail Relocation Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D24 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Table D-7. Physical Impacts - Stone Revetment with Vegetated Sand Cover and ORV Trail Relocation Alternative. Impacts Activity Area (acres) Existing Impacts Existing Parking Lots 1.71 Existing Gatehouse Area, Access Road, ORV Trail 2.51 TOTAL Area of Existing Development 4.22 Permanent Impacts with Proposed Project* Existing Parking Lot to Remain 1.71 Revetment & Sand Cover 0.68 New Administration Building 0.05 New ORV Trail 0.68 Existing Gatehouse Area & Access Road 2.04 TOTAL Area of Permanent Impact 5.16 TOTAL Change in Permanent Impact 0.94 TOTAL Area of Existing Development to Remain 3.75 TOTAL Area of New Development 1.41 Temporary Impacts Construction access (to be restored upon project completion) 0.48 TOTAL Area of Temporary Impact 0.48 Restoration Existing ORV Trail 0.70 TOTAL Area of Restoration 0.70 * Permanent impacts do not include areas of restoration. Table D-8. Permanent and Temporary Resource Area Impacts with Stone Revetment with Vegetated Sand Cover and ORV Trail Relocation Alternative. Impact Type Resource Area Area (acres) Permanent Impacts* Coastal Dune, Barrier Beach, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 5.86 Estimated & Priority Habitat for Rare Species (no impacts to upland spadefoot toad habitat) 5.86 Temporary Impacts* Coastal Dune, Barrier Beach, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 0.14 Coastal Beach, Barrier Beach, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 0.34 Estimated & Priority Habitat for Rare Species (excluding upland spadefoot toad habitat) 0.48 * Permanent and temporary impacts to resources include areas of restoration. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D25 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Table D-9. Physical Impacts - Bio-Engineered Sand-Filled Coir Bags with Vegetated Sand Cover Alternative. Impacts Activity Area (acres) Existing Impacts Existing Parking Lots 1.71 Existing Gatehouse Area, Access Road, ORV Trail 2.51 TOTAL Area of Existing Development 4.22 Permanent Impacts with Proposed Project* Existing Parking Lot to Remain 1.71 Bio-Engineered Coir Array & Sand Cover 0.53 Existing Gatehouse Area, Access Road, ORV Trail 2.74 TOTAL Area of Permanent Impact 4.98 TOTAL Change in Permanent Impact 0.76 TOTAL Area of Previously Disturbed Resource to Remain 4.45 TOTAL Area of Previously Undisturbed Resource to Remain 0.53 Temporary Impacts Construction access (to be restored upon project completion) 0.48 TOTAL Area of Temporary Impact 0.48 * Permanent impacts do not include areas of restoration. Table D-10. Permanent and Temporary Resource Area Impacts with the Bio-Engineered Sand-Filled Coir Bags with Vegetated Sand Cover Alternative. Impact Type Resource Area Area (acres) Permanent Impacts* Coastal Dune, Barrier Beach, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 5.46 Estimated & Priority Habitat for Rare Species (no impacts to upland spadefoot toad habitat) 5.46 Temporary Impacts* Coastal Dune, Barrier Beach, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 0.11 Coastal Beach, Barrier Beach, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 0.37 Estimated & Priority Habitat for Rare Species (excluding upland spadefoot toad habitat) 0.48 * Permanent and temporary impacts to resources include areas of restoration. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D26 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Table D-11. Physical Impacts – Partial Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and ORV Trail Relocation Alternative. Impacts Activity Area (acres) Existing Impacts Existing Parking Lots 1.71 Existing Gatehouse Area, Access Road, ORV Trail 2.51 TOTAL Area of Existing Development 4.22 Permanent Impacts with Proposed Project* Parking Lot (maintains 1.02 acres of existing parking lot) 1.71 New Administration Building (in area of existing parking lot) 0.03 New ORV Trail 0.41 Stormwater Features in Parking Lot Area (bioretention basin, vegetated swale, parking lot islands) 0.59 Sand Slope on Back of Parking Lot 0.37 Existing Gatehouse Area & Access Road (no change over existing) 1.92 TOTAL Area of Permanent Impact 5.03 TOTAL Change in Permanent Impact 0.81 TOTAL Area of Previously Disturbed Resource to Remain 3.29 TOTAL Area of Previously Undisturbed Resource to Remain 1.74 Temporary Impacts Construction Access (to be restored upon project completion) 0.75 TOTAL Area of Temporary Impact 0.75 Restoration ORV Trail 0.82 Primary Dune 1.73 Rear Dune (on back side of parking lot) 0.75 TOTAL Area of Restoration 3.30 Table D-12. Permanent and Temporary Resource Area Impacts with Partial Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and ORV Trail Relocation Alternative. Impact Type Resource Area Area (acres) Permanent Impacts* Coastal Dune, Barrier Beach, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 8.33 Estimated & Priority Habitat for Rare Species (includes upland spadefoot toad habitat) 8.33 Temporary Impacts* Coastal Dune, Barrier Beach, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 0.75 Estimated & Priority Habitat for Rare Species (includes upland spadefoot toad habitat) 0.75 * Permanent and temporary impacts to resources include areas of restoration. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D27 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Table D-13. Physical Impacts – Full Relocation of Parking Lot with Enhanced Dune and ORV Trail Relocation Alternative. Impacts Activity Area (acres) Existing Impacts Existing Parking Lots 1.71 Existing Gatehouse Area, Access Road, ORV Trail 2.51 TOTAL Area of Existing Development 4.22 Permanent Impacts with Proposed Project* Parking Lot (maintains 0.78 acres of existing parking lot) 1.97 New ORV Trail 0.32 Stormwater Features in Parking Lot Area (bioretention basin, vegetated swale, parking lot islands) 0.44 Emergency Access Paths 0.03 ORV Trail Entrance (additional air-down spaces & compressor building) 0.03 New Gatehouse Area (relocated gatehouse, travel lane & sidewalks) 0.09 Gatehouse Area, Access Road & ORV Trail (no change over existing) 2.51 TOTAL Area of Permanent Impact 5.39 TOTAL Change in Permanent Impact 1.17 TOTAL Area of Previously Disturbed Resource to Remain 3.34 TOTAL Area of Previously Undisturbed Resource to Remain 2.05 Temporary Impacts Construction Access (to be restored upon project completion) 1.20 TOTAL Area of Temporary Impact 1.22 Restoration Primary Dune 2.22 Rear Dune (on back side of parking lot) 0.73 ORV Trail 0.75 TOTAL Area of Restoration 3.70 Table D-14. Permanent and Temporary Resource Area Impacts with Full Relocation of Parking Lot with Enhanced Dune and ORV Trail Relocation Alternative. Impact Type Resource Area Area (acres) Permanent Impacts* Coastal Dune, Barrier Beach, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 9.09 Estimated & Priority Habitat for Rare Species (includes upland spadefoot toad habitat) 3.75 Estimated & Priority Habitat for Rare Species (excluding upland spadefoot toad habitat) 5.34 Temporary Impacts* Coastal Dune, Barrier Beach, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 1.10 Coastal Beach, Barrier Beach, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 0.12 Estimated & Priority Habitat for Rare Species (includes upland spadefoot toad habitat) 0.77 Estimated & Priority Habitat for Rare Species (excluding upland spadefoot toad habitat) 0.45 * Permanent and temporary impacts to resources include areas of restoration. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D28 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Table D-15. Summary of Impacts for the Existing Site and the Full Relocation of Parking Lot with Enhanced Dune and no ORV Trail Relocation Alternative. Impacts Activity Area (acres) Existing Impacts Existing Parking Lot 1.71 Existing Gatehouse Area, Access Road, ORV Trail 2.51 TOTAL Area of Existing Development 4.22 Permanent Impacts With Proposed Project* Parking Lot (maintains 0.86 acres of existing parking lot) 2.15 Stormwater Features in Parking Lot Area (bioretention basin, vegetated swale, parking lot islands) 0.44 Emergency Access Trail 0.03 ORV Trail Entrance (additional air-down spaces & compressor building) 0.03 New Gatehouse Area (relocated gatehouse, travel lane & sidewalks) 0.09 Gatehouse Area, Access Road & ORV Trail (no change over existing) 2.51 TOTAL Area of Proposed Permanent Impact 5.24 TOTAL Change in Permanent Impact 1.03 TOTAL Area of Existing Development to Remain 3.37 TOTAL Area of New Development 1.87 Temporary Impacts Construction Access (to be restored upon project completion) 1.14 TOTAL Area of Temporary Impact 1.14 Restoration Primary Dune 2.33 Rear Dune (on back side of parking lot) 1.33 Gravel Parking to Vegetated Buffer 0.06 TOTAL Area of Restoration 3.72 * Permanent impacts do not include areas of restoration Table D-16. Permanent and Temporary Resource Area Impacts with the Full Relocation of Parking Lot with Enhanced Dune and no ORV Trail Relocation Alternative. Impact Type Resource Area Area (acres) Permanent Impacts* Coastal Dune, Barrier Beach, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 8.95 Estimated & Priority Habitat for Rare Species (includes upland spadefoot toad habitat) 3.61 Estimated & Priority Habitat for Rare Species (excluding upland spadefoot toad habitat) 5.34 Temporary Impacts* Coastal Dune, Barrier Beach, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 1.03 Coastal Beach, Barrier Beach, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 0.11 Estimated & Priority Habitat for Rare Species (includes upland spadefoot toad habitat) 0.72 Estimated & Priority Habitat for Rare Species (excluding upland spadefoot toad habitat) 0.42 * Permanent and temporary impacts to resources include areas of restoration. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page D29 of D29 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Table D-17. Summary of Resource Area Impacts, Ability to Meet Project Goals, and Reason for Selection of Preferred Alternative. Alternative Resource Area Impacts Meets Project Goals Reason for Selection or Dismissal Coastal Resiliency Sustainable for 50- Years Continued Public Use of Site Economically Viable Permittable No Action Natural loss of resources from erosion No No No: Does not maintain current use over long-term No: Yes Dismissed: Does not meet project goals Stone Revetment with Vegetated Sand Cover and ORV Trail Relocation Increase of 0.94 acres of permanent impact to coastal dune, barrier beach, & rare species habitat; Restoration of 0.70 acres of coastal dune, barrier beach, & rare species habitat No: Revetment prevents further retreat of the shoreline but results in increased beach erosion and loss of sediment from the littoral system No: Requires annual sediment cover for the revetment Yes: Maintains current uses; no change in parking or number of air-up/air-down and improves gatehouse operations No: High cost over 50-yr lifetime of project No: Does not comply with performance standards for work in a coastal dune Dismissed: Smaller resource area impacts with some restoration, but does not meet project goals Bio-Engineered Sand- Filled Coir Bags with Vegetated Sand Cover Increase of 0.76 acres of permanent impact to coastal dune, barrier beach, & rare species habitat; No resource area restoration No: Bio-engineered alternative does not protect the parking lot from damage/erosion if the coir bags become damaged No: Requires annual sediment cover for the bio-engineered coir bags and reconstruction of the array ~ every 10 years No: Partially maintains current uses; no change in parking or number of air- up/air-down, but does not allow gatehouse to operate during future sunny day flooding No: Highest cost over 50-yr lifetime of project Yes: Likely permittable with time of year restrictions on work Dismissed: Smallest resource area impacts with no restoration and does not meet project goals Partial Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and ORV Trail Relocation Increase of 0.81 acres of permanent impact to coastal dune, barrier beach, & rare species habitat; Restoration of 3.30 acres of coastal dune, barrier beach, & rare species habitat Yes: Partial retreat of the parking lot and dune restoration provide protection for the parking lot from erosion; gatehouse relocation reduces vulnerability No: Does not provide protection past 2030 for the 100-yr storm event No: Does not maintain all current uses; reduces number of parking spaces, increases air-up/air-down capacity and creates traffic congestion and public safety issues in the parking lot; allows continued use of gatehouse during future sunny day flooding Yes: Lowest cost over 50-yr lifetime of project Yes: Likely permittable with time of year restrictions on work and an approved Conservation Management Dismissed: Moderate resource area impacts with moderate restoration, but does not meet project goals Full Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and ORV Trial Relocation Increase of 1.17 acres of permanent impact to coastal dune, barrier beach, & rare species habitat; Restoration of 3.70 acres of coastal dune, barrier beach, & rare species habitat Yes: Full retreat of the parking lot and dune restoration provide protection for the parking lot from erosion; gatehouse relocation reduces vulnerability Yes: Provides protection through 2070 for the 100-yr storm event No: Does not maintain all current uses; slightly increases number of parking spaces and air-up/air-down capacity, but creates traffic congestion and public safety issues in the parking lot; allows continued use of gatehouse during future sunny day flooding Yes: Lower cost over 50-yr lifetime of project Yes: Likely permittable with time of year restrictions on work and an approved Conservation Management Plan Dismissed: Highest resource area impacts with significant restoration, but does not meet project goals Full Relocation of the Parking Lot with an Enhanced Dune and no ORV Trail Relocation Increase of 1.03 acres of permanent impact to coastal dune, barrier beach, & rare species habitat; Restoration of 3.72 acres of coastal dune, barrier beach, & rare species habitat Yes: Full retreat of the parking lot and dune restoration provide protection for the parking lot from erosion; gatehouse relocation reduces vulnerability Yes: Provides protection through 2070 for the 100-yr storm event Yes: Maintains current uses with same number of parking spaces, increased air-up/air-down capacity, and allows continued use of the gatehouse during future sunny day flooding Yes: Lower cost over 50-yr lifetime of project Yes: Likely permittable with time of year restrictions on work and an approved Conservation Management Plan Selected: Moderate resource area impacts with significant restoration and meets all project goals Section E Construction Methodologies & Phasing Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page E1 of E3 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project E. CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGIES & PHASING Construction work is anticipated during the winter months from October through March to minimize impacts to beach use during the peak summer season and to avoid impacts to rare species. Two phases are expected. The first phase will include work on the rear dune, upper and lower parking lots, stormwater system, and the primary dune. Phase two will include improvements to the Off- Road Vehicle (ORV) trail entrance, relocating the gatehouse, and improving traffic patterns at the existing gatehouse location. Each phase will be completed in one construction season with an uninterrupted beach use season in between. The work is expected to take place over a 2.5 year period, with construction limited to the winter months and uninterrupted summer beach use in between. To minimize disruptions to the beach, each construction phase will be set up and decommissioned at the start and end. Phase 1 Phase 1 will include the construction of the rear dune and bioretention basin, demolition and reconstruction of the upper and lower parking lots, and construction/vegetation of primary dune. Construction will include mobilization of construction vehicles, equipment, and materials in support of subsequent construction activities, installation of erosion and sediment controls, clearing of vegetation where required, establishing survey control for layout of proposed structures, establishing traffic diversion/bypass measures, and establishing construction access and staging/storage areas. 1-1. Furnish and install warning signs, barricades, and temporary traffic control devices in accordance with the contractor’s accepted traffic control plan. Upper and lower parking areas will be closed for the dura on of the Phase 1 construc on while ORV use may be con nued and will be used for emergency beach access. 1-2. Furnish and install perimeter and storm drain inlet erosion and sediment controls following layout on Erosion and Demoli on Plan Sheets C-201 and C-202. 1-3. Demolish exis ng asphalt, pavement, curbing and subbase of exis ng parking lot and transport materials to an approved offsite loca on. Demolish exis ng storm drain structures in parking lot. Do not disturb exis ng storm drain structures in Sandy Neck Road. Do not disturb exis ng sep c system, equipment, and structures. (See Erosion and Demoli on Plan Sheets C-201 and C-202). 1-4. Excavate and fill along the back side of the proposed lower parking lot to create the rear dune and bioreten on basin. 1-5. Stabilize slopes of rear dune and bioreten on area with plan ngs following the Site Landscaping Plans C-501, C-502, C-503, and C-504). 1-6. Complete grading and installa on of base layer and asphalt for the new parking lots. 1-7. Install drainage structures, parking lot curbing, binder, and lane/parking space markings. 1-8. Demobilize all construc on equipment in prepara on for summer beach season. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page E2 of E3 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project 1-9. In October, establish stockpile loca ons in the parking lot for sand to restore the primary dune. 1-10. Import sand for restora on of the primary dune. 1-11. Construc on and final grading of the primary dune with work from the beach and parking lot sides of the dune. 1-12. Apply final asphalt topcoat and striping to the parking lots. 1-13. Install mobi-mats along beach access paths following Site Layout and Materials Plans C-301 and C-302. 1-14. Stabilize slopes of primary dune prior to April 1 following the Site Landscaping Plans C-501, C-502, C-503, and C-504. 1-15. If required, conduct a site walkthrough with Town of Barnstable Conserva on Commission to get site approval to remove erosion and sediment controls. 1-16. Remove perimeter erosion and sediment controls. 1-17. Remove warning signs, barricades, and temporary traffic control devices. Phase 2 Phase 2 will begin in the second construction period, approximately 6 months after completion of the Phase 1 work. Phase 2 will require reestablishing all sediment and erosion controls and maintaining controls throughout the construction process. Phase 2 will have work in three different locations – the ORV access trail, the existing gatehouse location, and the new gatehouse location. Phase 2 is the final construction phase in the project. 2-1. Furnish and install warning signs, barricades, and temporary traffic control devices in accordance with the contractor’s accepted traffic control plan. Access to the parking lot and the ORV trail may be restricted during stages of work. Maintain emergency beach access although moving the guardhouse and realigning the road may shut down beach access during this stage. 2-2. Furnish and install perimeter and storm drain inlet erosion and sediment controls following layout on sheet C-203 and C-204. 2-3. Conduct site grading for the new apron at the entrance to the ORV trail. Do not disturb exis ng drainage in Sandy Neck Road. 2-4. Complete paving new apron at ORV trail. 2-5. Complete striping of crosswalk at new apron. 2-6. Conduct grading for air-up/air-down spaces. 2-7. Install new air compressor with flood-proof enclosure at entrance to ORV trail. 2-8. Stabilize all disturbed areas around ORV trail entrance. 2-9. Install temporary trailer near exis ng gatehouse for con nued staff opera ons. 2-10. Demolish area of the new gatehouse. 2-11. Conduct site grading at the area of the new gatehouse. 2-12. Install road base and asphalt for the new exit lane. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page E3 of E3 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project 2-13. Relocate gatehouse to the new site prepared in 2-9 through 2-12 and as shown on Gatehouse Site Layout and Materials Plan Sheet C-305. 2-14. Provide ADA accessibility to relocated gatehouse. 2-15. Complete interior and exterior renova ons to gatehouse for improved use 2-16. Install walking paths and crosswalk striping around relocated gatehouse. 2-17. Demolish asphalt in area of exis ng gatehouse and transport to approved offsite loca on. 2-18. Grade area and install road subbase for entry/exit lanes at the exis ng gatehouse area. 2-19. Pave new entry/exit lanes. 2-20. Restore exis ng gravel parking area at east side of exis ng gatehouse area using na ve plan ngs. 2-21. Stabilize all disturbed areas. 2-22. If required, conduct a site walkthrough with Town of Barnstable Conserva on Commission to get site approval to remove erosion and sediment controls. 2-23. Remove perimeter and inlet erosion and sediment controls. 2-24. Remove warning signs, barricades, and temporary traffic control devices. Section F List of Required Permits & Reviews Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page F1 of F1 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project F. LIST OF REQUIRED PERMITS & REVIEWS Issuing Agency Application Application or File No. Permit Name Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) Environmental Notification Form (ENF) TBD Certificate of the Secretary of EEA for ENF Barnstable Conservation Commission Notice of Intent TBD Order of Conditions MA Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Mass. Conservation & Management Permit Application 07-21418 & 23-4196 Conservation & Management Permit Section G Avoidance, Minimization & Mitigation Measures Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page G1 of G1 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project G. AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES During planning and design for the Sandy Neck Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project (Project), steps were taken to avoid, minimize and mitigate environmental impacts where possible. A summary of these steps is provided below: The proposed project meets all the Town’s goals for the Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project and minimizes impacts to the extent possible. During construction the following steps will be taken to avoid and/or minimize environmental impacts. A mandatory pre-bid meeting will be held to discuss construction methodology. A pre-construction will be held on site with the selected contractor, project engineer, and Town of Barnstable to discuss measures to protect wetland resources. Install and maintain erosion and sedimentation controls in all construction and staging areas. Time of year restrictions as determined by the regulatory agencies will be followed for all work to protect endangered species. Implementation of a NHESP approved Spadefoot Toad Protection Plan. Use of on-site planting material salvaged from the site where possible. Use of a natural 6H:1V slope for the rear dune with will be planted with native species to restore suitable habitat for spadefoot toad. Storage of all fuels, hydraulic oil, etc. in a locked storage trailer or removed off site daily. Vehicles/equipment will be refueled away from the wetlands and stormwater systems. Install flood-proof enclosures around air compressors. Elevate the first floor of the gatehouse above the FEMA Base Flood Elevation. Since the entire site is located within sensitive environmental resources, it was not possible to completely avoid impacts and still meet the Town’s goals for the Project. The Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) has issued a determination letter indicating that the Project will result in a Take of Spadefoot Toad due to the permanent loss or alteration of suitable habitat. The Town and their endangered species consultant will be preparing a Conservation Management Plan, in consultation with NHESP, that demonstrates compliance with the performance standards for issuance of a Conservation Management Permit per 321 CMR 10.23. This Plan will detail mitigation measures proposed by the Town that will include one or more of the following actions intended to provide a long-term net benefit to the conservation of upland spadefoot toad habitat: Acquisition and protection of suitable parcels offsite. Protection of other critical parcels (potentially not located in the Town of Barnstable). Land conservation (e.g., Conservation Restriction). Conservation funding via escrow. Section H Review of Consistency with CZM Policies Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page H1 of H7 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project H. REVIEW OF CONSISTENCY WITH CZM POLICIES The Proponent’s proposed Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project complies with the enforceable program policies of the Massachusetts approved coastal management program and will be conducted in a manner consistent with such policies. The proposed project complies with the following Coastal Zone Management (CZM) policies: COASTAL HAZARDS COASTAL HAZARD POLICY #1 - Preserve, protect, restore, and enhance the beneficial functions of storm damage prevention and flood control provided by natural coastal landforms, such as dunes, beaches, barrier beaches, coastal banks, land subject to coastal storm flowage, salt marshes, and land under the ocean. As part of the Sandy Neck Barrier Beach System, Sandy Neck Beach Park has multiple natural coastal landforms within the project area, including dunes, beaches, barrier beaches, and land subject to coastal storm flowage. Since 2013, increased storm damage has required routine dune restoration near the Beach Facilities (public parking lot, bathhouse, and gatehouse) in an area that previously only required occasional nourishment. This project proposes a retreat of the Beach Facilities and restoration of the dune seaward of the facilities, which would allow for re-stabilization of the dynamic equilibrium and improvement of its protective capabilities. COASTAL HAZARD POLICY #2 - Ensure construction in water bodies and contiguous land areas will minimize interference with water circulation and sediment transport. Flood or erosion control projects must demonstrate no significant adverse effects on the project site or adjacent or downcoast areas. NA – This project will not take place within a water body or contiguous land area. COASTAL HAZARD POLICY #3 - Ensure that state and federally funded public works projects proposed for location within the coastal zone will: Not exacerbate existing hazards or damage natural buffers or other natural resources. Be reasonably safe from flood and erosion-related damage. Not promote growth and development in hazard-prone or buffer areas, especially in velocity zones and ACECs. Not be used on Coastal Barrier Resource Units for new or substantial reconstruction of structures in a manner inconsistent with the Coastal Barrier Resource/Improvement Acts. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page H2 of H7 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project This project has been designed to minimize the impacts of storm damage to the existing Beach Facilities, which provides beach access to the public. Dune restoration seaward of the Beach Facilities will build resiliency to storm damage. This project is intended to build resiliency to rising sea levels and will protect existing municipal infrastructure from flooding and erosion- related damage. COASTAL HAZARD POLICY #4 - Prioritize acquisition of hazardous coastal areas that have high conservation and/or recreation values and relocation of structures out of coastal high hazard areas, giving due consideration to the effects of coastal hazards at the location to the use and manageability of the area. The Beach Facilities at Sandy Neck Beach Park have high recreational value to the Town of Barnstable. This project intends to relocate the existing Beach Facilities out of a high hazard area. Dune restoration seaward of the Beach Facilities will provide protection from wave overtopping and stabilize the dynamic system, thereby decreasing the effects of coastal hazards in the project area. ENERGY ENERGY POLICY #1 - For coastally dependent energy facilities, access siting in alternative coastal locations. For non-coastally dependent energy facilities, assess siting in areas outside of the coastal zone. Weigh the environmental and safety impacts of locating proposed energy facilities at alternative sites. NA – This project does not involve energy facilities. ENERGY POLICY #2 - Encourage energy conservation and the use of alternative sources such as solar and wind power in order to assist in meeting the energy needs of the Commonwealth. NA – This project does not involve energy facilities. GROWTH MANAGEMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY #1 - Encourage sustainable development that is consistent with state, regional, and local plans and supports the quality and character of the community. The character of many towns on Cape Cod is built upon the natural resources that they provide. As a large barrier beach system, Sandy Neck Beach Park is a vital natural resource for the Town of Barnstable and is an integral part of the community’s character. This project will ensure that the town can continue to offer public access to this natural resource. GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY #2 - Ensure that state and federally funded infrastructure projects in the coastal zone primarily serve existing developed areas, assigning highest priority to projects that meet the needs of urban and community development centers. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page H3 of H7 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project The design of the proposed project, in part, includes improvements to existing developed areas of Sandy Neck Beach Park through the retreat and redesign of the existing Beach Facilities. Through state funding from CZM, these improvements would allow Sandy Neck Beach Park to continue to provide access to the coastal zone for tens of thousands of beach visitors every year. GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY #3 - Encourage the revitalization and enhancement of existing development centers in the coastal zone through technical assistance and financial support for residential, commercial and industrial development. NA – This project does not involve residential, commercial or industrial development. HABITAT HABITAT POLICY #1 - Protect coastal, estuaries, and marine habitats - including salt marshes, shellfish beds, submerged aquatic vegetation, dunes, beaches, barrier beaches, banks, salt ponds, eelgrass beds, tidal flats, rocky shores, bays, sounds, and other ocean habitats – and coastal freshwater streams, ponds, and wetlands to preserve critical wildlife habitat and other important functions and services including nutrient and sediment attenuation, wave and storm damage protection, and landform movement and processes. The proposed project area is located within MA Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) estimated and priority habitat. The project, which includes dune restoration on the seaward side of the parking lot, will provide additional protection to the coastal beach and dune by improving stability and therefore increasing the overall value of the habitat. Grading of the enhanced dune slope will be compatible with state requirements for beach nesting birds, Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) and Least Tern (Sternula antillarum). HABITAT POLICY #2 – Advance the restoration of degraded or former habitats in coastal and marine areas. The project area has experienced increased erosion, sediment loss, and flooding over the last decade that have adversely impacted the Beach Facilities at Sandy Neck Beach Park. Loss of recreational beach and wildlife habitat have been secondary effects of the erosion. Dune restoration on the seaward side of the parking lot will create a wider and taller dune, protecting the Beach Facilities from erosions and flooding. This dune restoration will also improve wildlife habitat at the project site. OCEAN RESOURCES OCEAN RESOURCES POLICY #1 - Support the development of sustainable aquaculture, both for commercial and enhancement (public shellfish stocking) purposes. Ensure that the review process regulating aquaculture facility sites (and access routes to those areas) protects significant ecological resources (salt marshes, dunes, beaches, barrier beaches, and salt ponds) and Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page H4 of H7 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project minimizes adverse effects on the coastal and marine environment and other water-dependent uses. NA – This project does not involve aquaculture. OCEAN RESOURCES POLICY #2 – Except where such activity is prohibited by the Ocean Sanctuaries Act, the Mass. Ocean Management Plan, or other applicable provision of law, the extraction of oil, natural gas, or marine minerals (other than sand and gravel) in or affecting the coastal zone must protect marine resources, marine water quality, fisheries and navigational, recreational and other uses. NA – This project does not involve oil, gas or mineral extraction. OCEAN RESOURCES POLICY #3 - Accommodate offshore sand and gravel extraction needs in areas and in ways that will not adversely affect marine resources, navigation, or shoreline areas due to alteration of wave direction and dynamics. Extraction of sand and gravel, when and where permitted, will be primarily for the purpose of beach nourishment or shoreline stabilization. NA – This project does not involve offshore sand or gravel extraction. PORTS AND HARBORS PORTS AND HARBORS POLICY #1 - Ensure that dredging and disposal of dredged material minimizes adverse effects on water quality, physical processes, marine productivity and public health and take full advantage of opportunities for beneficial re-use. NA – The project does not propose dredging or disposal of dredged material. PORTS AND HARBORS POLICY #2 - Obtain the widest possible public benefit from channel dredging and ensure that Designated Ports Areas and developed harbors are given highest priority in the allocation resources. NA – The project does not propose dredging. PORTS AND HARBORS POLICY #3 - Preserve and enhance the capacity of Designated Port Areas (DPAs) to accommodate water-dependent industrial uses and prevent the exclusion of such uses from tidelands and any other DPA lands over which an EEA agency exerts control by virtue of ownership or other legal authority. NA – This project is not located within or near a Designated Port Area. PORTS AND HARBORS POLICY #4 – For development on tidelands and other coastal waterways, preserve and enhance the immediate waterfront for vessel-related activities that require sufficient space and suitable facilities along the water’s edge for operational purposes. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page H5 of H7 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project NA – This project is not located on tidelands or other coastal waterways. PORTS AND HARBORS POLICY #5 - Encourage, through technical and financial assistance, expansion of water dependent uses in Designated Port Areas and developed harbors, re- development of urban waterfronts, and expansion of physical and visual access. NA – This project is not located within or near a Designated Port Area or urban waterfront. PROTECTED AREAS PROTECTED AREAS POLICY #1 - Preserve, restore, and enhance coastal Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, which are complexes of natural and cultural resources of regional or statewide significance. This project is located in the western portion of the Sandy Neck Barrier Beach System Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). The proposed project is consistent with the specific factors outlined in the 1978 ACEC designation for Sandy Neck. This project aims to preserve the quality and uniqueness of the area through nature-based solutions to stabilize the beach that will not alter the natural movement of sediment through the system. This project will also help to preserve and enhance the Sandy Neck Barrier Beach System ACEC by providing additional protection from open ocean waves and storm surge. Additionally, the economic and intrinsic values of Sandy Neck Beach Park were contributing factors to the ACEC designation. This project remains consistent with the economic and intrinsic values of the Town’s goals. PROTECTED AREAS POLICY #2 - Protect state designated scenic rivers in the coastal zone. NA – This project is not located in a designated scenic river. PROTECTED AREAS POLICY #3 - Ensure that proposed developments in or near designated or registered historic places respect the preservation intent of the designation and that potential adverse effects are minimized. This project will require work in a registered historic site, Bodfish Park. The project will not change the intent of the designation. Plaques and signage present at the site will be removed during construction, and replaced once construction is complete. PUBLIC ACCESS PUBLIC ACCESS POLICY #1 - Ensure that development (both water-dependent or nonwater- dependent) of coastal sites subject to state waterways regulation will promote general public use and enjoyment of the water’s edge, to an extent commensurate with the Commonwealth’s interests in flowed and filled tidelands under the Public Trust Doctrine. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page H6 of H7 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project The proposed project has been designed specifically to preserve and enhance opportunities for public use and enjoyment of the water’s edge. Retreatment of the Beach Facilities behind a predicted 50-year dune erosion line will reduce storm related impacts of flooding will provide increased flood control and storm damage protection as well as increase recreational opportunities at Sandy Neck Beach Park through increased coastal beach area and quality. PUBLIC ACCESS POLICY #2 - Improve public access to existing coastal recreation facilities and alleviate auto traffic and parking problems through improvements in public transportation and trail links (land or water-based) to other nearby facilities. Increase capacity of existing recreation area by facilitating multiple use and by improving management, maintenance, and public support facilities. Ensure that the adverse impacts of developments proposed near existing public access and recreation sites are minimized. The proposed project has been designed specifically to improve and maintain public access to the coastal beach at Sandy Neck Beach Park. By increasing resiliency to flooding and wave overtopping, storm related damages at the Beach Facilities will be minimized and there will be fewer interruptions to public access. Improvements to Off-road Vehicle (ORV) Beach will also benefit egressing vehicles and create improved emergency vehicle access. PUBLIC ACCESS POLICY #3 - Expand existing recreation facilities and acquire and develop new public areas for coastal recreational activities, giving highest priority to regions of high need or limited site availability. Provide technical assistance to developers of both public and private recreation facilities and sites that increase public access to the shoreline to ensure that both transportation access and the recreational facilities are compatible with social and environmental characteristics of surrounding communities. The project has been designed specifically to improve the existing Beach Facilities that are municipally owned and open to the public. Improvements to these facilities will help to support the recreational uses of the beach which are a vital part of the economy in Barnstable. Characteristics of the site that make it compatible with the social and environmental characteristics of the surrounding community will not be altered. WATER QUALITY WATER QUALITY POLICY #1 - Ensure that point-source discharges and withdrawals in or affecting the coastal zone do not compromise water quality standards and protect designated uses and other interests. NA – The project does not involve work on point-source discharges. WATER QUALITY POLICY #2 – Ensure the implementation of nonpoint source pollution controls to promote the attainment of water quality standards and protect designated uses and other interests. Woods Hole Group, Inc. • A CLS Company Town of Barnstable – Environmental Notification Form Page H7 of H7 Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project NA – The project does not involve work on nonpoint source discharges. WATER QUALITY POLICY #3 - Ensure that subsurface waste discharges conform to applicable standards, including the siting, construction, and maintenance requirements for on-site wastewater disposal systems, water quality standards, established Total Maximum Daily Load limits, and prohibitions on facilities in high-hazard areas. NA – The project site does not contain a subsurface waste discharge. Section I Engineering & Rare Species Reports TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM DATE October 3, 2022 JOB NO. 2021-0262 TO Amber Unruh Town of Barnstable Senior Project Manager – Special Projects Amber.Unruh@town.barnstable.ma.us FROM Leslie Fields Woods Hole Group Coastal Sciences & Planning Team Leader lfields@woodsholegroup.com CC Nina Coleman, Sandy Neck Park Manager Griffin Beaudoin, Town Engineer Derek Lawson, Director Marine & Environmental Affairs Tom ONeill, Chairman Sandy Neck Board Steve McKenna, CZM Regional Coordinator for Cape Cod and the Islands Mitch Buck, Engineer WHG Tim McGuire, Endangered Species Specialist Goddard Daniel Boulais, Engineer Tighe & Bond Tim Grace, Engineer Tight & Bond Sandy Neck Board Task 1.2 - Technical Memorandum 1.0 Executive Summary This technical memorandum describes work completed by Woods Hole Group, working under contract to the Town of Barnstable, to review and update conceptual alternatives from a previous 2016 study for long-term resiliency at Sandy Neck Beach Park. The goals of the project are to identify conceptual alternatives that will help restore/enhance long-term coastal and economic resiliency at the Park for a minimum of 50 years. Six (6) conceptual alternatives from the 2016 study were reviewed and updated (Alternatives #2, #3, and #5A through #5D) and two (2) new alternatives (Alternatives #6 and #7) were developed as part of the current study. Alternatives #2 and #3 involve the use of “hard” and “soft” engineering structures buried within the footprint of the existing dune to protect the parking lot, while Alternatives #5A through #5D, #6, and #7 involve relocation of Park assets through managed site reconfiguration to enhance resiliency of the site. The feasibility of off-site parking was also evaluated as a way to supplement the capacity of the beach parking lots. The technical review included the following components: • Model studies to determine level of protection provided by each alternative to 20-, 50-, and 100-year storms under present-day sea level conditions, as well as expected sea levels in 2030, 2050, and 2070, Page 2 of 46 • Calculations of wave overtopping and runup, where appropriate (Alternative #2), • Revised designs where warranted to improve performance, • Probabilities of flooding across the site under present-day sea level conditions, as well expected sea levels in 2030, 2050, and 2070, • Development of new alternatives to address issues related to gatehouse operations, vulnerability of flooding at the gatehouse, emergency vehicle access, and ORV air-up/air-down capacity, • Updates to the opinion of probable costs for each alternative which include initial construction costs and maintenance over the 50-year project lifetime, • Updates to the benefit to cost ratios and rankings for the conceptual alternatives. Key findings of the study are summarized in the following bullets and in the Summary of Findings graphic below. • Alternatives #2, #5A through #5D, and #6 provide protection for the parking lot for st orms up to the 100-year event through the period 2070. Alternative #3 leaves the parking lot vulnerable to damage during a 100-yr event with current day water levels, and Alternative #7 results in damage to the parking lot during a 100-year storm by 2050. Alternatives #3 and #7 do not meet the goal of providing protection for a minimum of 50 years, while the other alternatives do meet this goal. • Continued nourishment of the dune will be required for all alternatives. Annual nourishment will be needed for Alternatives #2 and #3; alternatives involving managed site reconfiguration will require dune nourishment approximately every 5 years. • Alternative #2 does not meet the performance standards for work in a coastal dune or barrier beach per the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Regulations 310 CMR 10.28 and 10.29 and is considered to be unpermittable. The remining alternatives are permittable but will likely require mitigation activities to offset unavoidable impacts to wetland resources. • Alternatives #2, #3, and #5A through #5D would make no changes to the current parking capacity of 200 vehicles. Alternative #6 would create 203 parking spaces, and Alternative #7 would reduce the number of spaces to 164. • Alternatives #2, #3, and #5A make no changes to the current number of air-up/air-down spaces. Increased numbers of air-up/air-down spaces are provided with the remaining alternatives. • The managed site reconfiguration alternatives that include dune restoration (Alternatives #5A through #5D, #6, and #7) will serve to enhance/protect the existing coastal resources. Alternatives that involve relocation of the ORV access trail (Alternatives #2, #5B through #5D, #6, and #7) will enhance wildlife habitat by restoring connectivity within existing spadefoot toad habitat. Page 3 of 46 • Alternatives #2, #6, and #7 address issues related to gatehouse operations, vulnerability of flooding at the gatehouse, and emergency vehicle access, while the other alternatives do not address these issues. • Initial construction costs are lowest for Alternative #2 and highest for Alternatives #6 and #7; however, when considering maintenance costs over the 50-year project lifetime, Alternatives #2 and #3 are 1.8 to 2.7 times greater than the other alternatives. • Benefit to cost ratios are lowest for Alternatives #2 and #3, and highest for the other alternatives. • State and federal opportunities for construction funding through grants would be available for any of the managed site reconfiguration alternatives (#5A through #5D, #6, and #7). • When the alternatives were ranked according to benefit/cost ratio, performance and longevity, permittabiilty, and impacts/benefits to resources area, Alternatives #2 and #3 ranked the lowest, and the managed site reconfiguration alternatives (#5A through #5D, #6, and #7) ranked the highest). • Off-site parking was evaluated as a way to supplement the capacity of the parking lots with any of the conceptual alternatives but was not considered as a stand alone alternative that would eliminate the need for improved coastal resiliency at the Park. This technical memorandum provides a detailed evaluation of eight (8) conceptual alternatives considered for long-term resiliency at Sandy Neck Beach Park. At this point, the Town is tasked with selecting up to three (3) alternatives from the eight (8) conceptual alternatives. The selected conceptual alternatives will be taken through a more detailed design process during which revisions will be made to address comments received from the Town, Sandy Neck Board, public, and local and state regulatory agencies. Construction and long-term maintenance costs will also be updated based on the revised designs. A final report will be generated with a recommendation for a preferred alternative. Once the Town has selected a preferred alternative, environmental permits will be obtained, and the Town can move forward with planning for construction. 2.0 Introduction Woods Hole Group is under contract with the Town of Barnstable for the project entitled Evaluation, Permitting & Design of the FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Relocation. Work covered under the current Woods Hole Group contract is a continuation of a study completed in 2016 which developed and evaluated long-term coastal resiliency alternatives for Sandy Neck Public Beach, Barnstable, MA (CLE Engineering, 2016). This technical memorandum presents the results of a review and update of the 2016 study called for in Task 1.2 of the contract. The purpose of Task 1.2 was to review the work completed in 2016 and conduct supplemental analyses needed to update and/or improve the conceptual designs based on an independent coastal engineering evaluation. Woods Hole Group was tasked with reviewing the following six (6) conceptual alternatives from the 2016 study: • Alternative #2 – Stone Revetment with Vegetated Sand Cover • Alternative #3 – Bio-Engineered Sand-Filled Coir Bags with Vegetated Sand Cover • Alternative #5A – Relocate/Reconfigure Parking Lot • Alternative #5B – Relocate/Reconfigure Parking Lot & ORV Access; Reconfigure Existing Air-Down Area • Alternative #5C – Relocate/Reconfigure Parking Lot & ORV Access with Screening Trees; Relocate Existing Air-Up/Air-Down Areas • Alternative #5D – Relocate/Reconfigure Parking Lot & ORV Access with Screening Dune; Relocate Existing Air-Up/Air-Down Areas Where warranted, results from the independent coastal engineering evaluation were used to update and/or modify the 2016 alternatives. Additional information gathered from the Department of Public Works (DPW) and Sandy Neck Park staff was used to guide the development of the following two (2) new alternatives: • Alternative #6 – Relocate/Reconfigure Parking Lot & ORV Access; Relocate and Expand Number of Air- Up/Air-Down Areas; Relocate Gatehouse and Add Emergency Vehicle Access to Beach • Alternative #7 – Partial Relocation/Reconfiguration of Parking Lot & ORV Access; Relocate and Expand Number of Air-Up/Air-Down Areas; Relocate Gatehouse and Add Emergency Vehicle Access to Beach The consulting team of Woods Hole Group, Tighe & Bond, and Goddard Consulting are on the Town’s Working Group for this project, with other representatives from the DPW, Barnstable Marine and Environmental Affairs (MEA), Sandy Neck Board, and Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management (CZM). This technical memorandum provides a general description of each alternative along with a graphic depicting its physical location within the Park. Information on the longevity and performance of each alternative towards providing resiliency for the parking lot is provided, environmental permitting requirements/difficulties are discussed, and impacts/benefits to wetland resources and protected species are addressed. Construction costs and long-term maintenance costs for each alternative over a 50-year time horizon are also provided. These evaluation criteria are used to rank the alternatives and provide the Town with data necessary to make an informed decision on three (3) alternatives they would like to advance to the next design stage. 3.0 Technical Updates to 2016 Study The 2016 study included a desktop study to understand sediment transport rates and patterns along the Sandy Neck Beach coastline. The purpose of the study was to calculate annualized rates and directions of sediment transport, identify erosional hotspots, and identify the location of the dune at a point 50-years into the future so that conceptual alternatives could be developed for protection of the parking lot. The 2016 approach utilized the numerical model SWAN 2D to evaluate normal/average annual waves along the beach. The wave model results Page 6 of 46 were then used to drive a second 1D model to calculate rates and directions of sediment transport along the shoreline. Important findings from the 2016 study included the following: • no distinct erosional patterns were identified as the shoreline shows periodic variations (i.e., erosion and accretion) on the order of +/- 30 feet; • the shore-attached nearshore bar plays an important role in wave transformation and sediment transport dynamics; • net annual rate of sediment transport is 30,000 cubic yards/yr directed towards the east; • 50-yr dune erosion line is located approximately 70 ft behind the northern (bay side) edge of the current parking lot (Figure 1). Figure 1. CLE Engineering map of Sandy Neck Park showing the limit of predicted 50-yr dune loss (red dashed line). The current 2022 study builds on the prior 2016 work by evaluating the effects of storm driven erosion and sea level rise so that the ability of the conceptual alternatives to provide protection for the parking lot can be more fully analyzed. The current study includes the following components: • Update Existing Conditions Data: Obtain existing recent and high-quality data sets for winds, waves, water levels, topography, and bathymetry that can be used for supplemental modeling and design. Where necessary, collect additional field data to fill data gaps. • Develop Present Day and Future Wave Conditions and Water Levels: Develop a suite of return period storm scenarios (i.e, 20-, 50-, and 100-year events) for both present and future day that incorporates sea level rise. Page 7 of 46 • Dune Performance Modeling: Conduct performance modeling for existing conditions and the 2016 conceptual alternatives by determining morphological response of the beach and dune system to present day and future storm waves and water levels. • Present Day and Future Flooding Conditions: Conduct a flooding pathway and inundation analysis to evaluate the impacts of storm flooding on the site during present day and future sea level conditions. 3.1 Update Existing Conditions Data Updated data describing the topography of the Park and the nearshore bathymetry were obtained to capture present day conditions. A topographic survey was conducted by a Woods Hole Group Professional Engineer & Land Surveyor in June and July 2022 to establish existing conditions and to locate the parking lot and other existing structures. Figure 2 shows the areas captured during the survey. The topographic data were supplemented with 2018 USACE NCMP Topobathy Lidar DEM: East Coast (CT, MA, ME, NC, NH, RI, SC)) between the land and nearshore region, as well as the Topobathymetric Model for the New England Region States of New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, 1887 to 2016, generated by OCM Partners (2022) in the offshore region. These Digital Elevation Models (DEM) integrate various disparate light detection and ranging (LiDAR) and bathymetric data sources into a common 3D database, which is made available to the public. These data sets were combined into a single topobathymetric data set referenced to the North American Vertical Datum o f 1988 (NAVD) in units of feet, for later use with the dune performance modeling. Figure 2. Woods Hole Group topographic survey data collected for Sandy Neck Park in June-July 2022. Grab samples were also collected from the beach and dune at Sandy Neck Park to help characterize the sediments. The samples were then sent to a laboratory for grain size analysis. The results showed that the beach is composed of medium-grained sand (D50 of 0.40 to 0.43 mm) and the dune is composed of fine-grained sand (D50 of 0.18). Page 8 of 46 3.2 Develop Present Day and Future Water Levels and Wave Conditions Water level and wave condition information needed for the dune performance modeling were obtained from the Massachusetts Coast - Flood Risk Model (MC-FRM). MC-FRM is a model developed by Woods Hole Group for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) that helps property owners, planners, and policy makers determine how to cost-effectively build resilience and plan for expected changes resulting from climate change and sea level rise. MC-FRM provides comprehensive, high-resolution, probabilistic information on present coastal flood risks and how they are expected to change with future sea level rise and storm intensification for the entire Massachusetts Coast. A summary of water levels extracted from MC-FRM for various return period (years) or annual percent chance occurrence (%) storm events in the Sandy Neck Beach area, both in present and future day, is provided in Table 1. For comparison, stillwater elevations for return period storms from the FEMA Flood Insurance Study are also provided in Table 1. As can be seen, the MC-FRM water levels are within several tenths of a foot of the FEMA water level for each storm event in present day but are much greater for future planning horizons. Table 1. Extreme Water Levels for Return Period Storms in Present and Future Day for the Sandy Neck Beach Area. Storm Event MC-FRM Water Levels (ft, NAVD88) FEMA Water Levels (ft, NAVD88) Return Period (years) Annual Chance Percent Occurrence (%) Present Day 2030 2050 2070 Present Day 20 5% 9.0 10.1 11.7 13.5 N/A 50 2% 9.6 10.7 12.3 14.1 9.6 100 1% 10.1 11.1 12.8 14.7 9.9 200 0.5% 10.5 11.5 13.4 15.2 N/A 500 0.2% 11.1 12.1 14.0 15.8 10.9 1,000 0.1% 11.5 12.5 14.5 16.3 N/A Wave height information for the return period storm events at Sandy Neck Beach was also extracted from the MC-FRM database. For wave period, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) North Atlantic Comprehensive Coastal Study (NACCS) was utilized, as wave period data are not available from MC-FRM. Wind speeds associated with the different return period storms were calculated using a 50-year long wind record from the Cape Cod Gateway Airport (HYA), formerly Barnstable Municipal Airport. This represents the closest long-term record of wind data to Sandy Neck, which is approximately 6 miles away. Table 2 provides a summary of wind and wave height parameters developed for the site and used for the subsequent dune performance modeling. Page 9 of 46 Table 2. Wind Speeds, Wave Heights, and Wave Periods for Present Day Return Period Storms for the Sandy Neck Beach Area. Storm Return Period (years) Annual Percent Chance Occurrence (%) Wind Speed (mph) MC-FRM Wave Height (feet) NACCS Wave Period (seconds) 5 20% 52.9 16.1 6.5 10 10% 59.7 17.8 7.1 20 5% 66.2 19.6 7.5 50 2% 74.7 21.9 7.9 100 1% 81 23.6 8.1 200 0.50% 87.3 25.4 8.3 500 0.20% 95.6 27.7 8.4 1,000 0.10% 101.9 29.4 8.5 3.3 Dune Performance Modeling The Woods Hole Group modeled storm-induced morphological change of the beach and dune system at Sandy Neck Park using the cross-shore one-dimensional (1-D) XBeach model. The model was used to evaluate changes to the beach and dune during the 20-, 50-, and 100-year storm events under present day water levels, as well as elevated water levels due to sea level rise in 2030, 2050, and 2070. The ability of the conceptual alternatives to protect the parking lot, both now and in the future, was also evaluated with the model. To provide a frame of reference for interpretation of the performance modeling of the 20 -, 50-, and 100-year storms, the return period associated with flooding caused by past storms impacting Sandy Neck Beach is provided in Figure 3. The graph shows that winter storm Grayson in January 2018 produced a storm surge that was near a 130-year return period, while winter storm Riley in March 2018 produced a surge with a ~ 38-year return period. Figure 3. Return periods for water levels produced by past storms impacting the Sandy Neck Beach Park area. Page 10 of 46 Water levels, wind speeds, wave heights and periods from Tables 1 and 2 were used as input to the model. The grain size of sediments on the beach and dune was assumed to be 0.3 mm based on the average grain size of the collected sediment samples. The model was run along two (2) shore normal transects that extended seaward from the back of the parking lot to an approximate water depth of 50 feet (Figure 4). Transect 1 was sited through the upper parking lot and transect 2 was sited through the lower parking lot. Elevations for each transect were extracted from the topobathymetry data described above in Section 3.1. Figure 4. Transect locations used with the XBeach model and topobathymetry at Sandy Neck Beach Park. Results from model simulations of the 20-, 50-, and 100-yr storms acting on the existing beach at Transect 2 are shown in Figure 5. The top panel shows results for present day water levels and the subsequent panels show results for 2030, 2050, and 2070 water levels. Each figure shows the existing (initial) cross-shore beach and dune profile at Transect 2, and then the resulting final eroded profiles for each of the storm scenarios. With present day water levels, the existing dune is eroded by each storm event, but the parking lot does not start to be eroded or undermined until the 100-year storm event. By 2030 the parking lot is eroded by the 50-year storm, and by 2050 the parking lot is damaged during the 20-year storm. By 2070, erosion caused by the 50- and 100-year storms erodes most of the lower parking lot. These results show that future sea level rise will result in increased damage to the parking lot for smaller scale storms. The results also demonstrate the vulnerability of the parking lot and highlight the need for proactive steps by the Town of Barnstable to enhance resiliency of the Park. Page 11 of 46 Figure 5. XBeach storm simulations at Transect 2 for present day conditions (top), 2030, 2050, and 2070 (bottom). Page 12 of 46 3.4 Evaluate Present Day and Future Flooding Conditions Data from MC-FRM were used to assess the probabilities of flooding across the site under present-day sea level conditions as well as during sea levels expected in 2030, 2050, and 2070. Figures 6 through 9 illustrate the chance of flooding within any given year at Sandy Neck Park for each time horizon. A 0.1% chance storm has a 1 in 1,000 chance of occurring each year (i.e, the 1,000-year storm) and a 1% chance storm has a 1 in 100 chance of occurring each year (i.e., the 100-year storm). While every effort has been made to assure the accuracy and correctness of the MC-FRM data presented, it is acknowledged that inherent mapping inaccuracies are present due to interpolation between MC-FRM calculation nodes. Further, areas of the coast that experience rapid changes in geomorphology during storm events, such as dunes along barrier beaches, may not be fully characterized in the MC-FRM dataset. As a result, the maps presented for Sandy Neck Beach Park should be interpreted as representations of potential exposure to flooding in relation to existing topographic conditions. Review of Figures 6-9 show that the Park is vulnerable to storm surge flooding under present day conditions, with vulnerability increasing through 2070. The area of the gatehouse along the entrance road is most vulnerable, showing a 25% to 100% probability of annual flooding with present day conditions, increasing to 100% annual probability by 2050 and beyond. The current ORV trail through the dunes is also vulnerable, with a 2% to 5% chance of annual flooding in 2030 and a 100% chance of annual flooding in 2050 to 2070. The upper and lower parking lots are shown to be safe from flooding through 2070; however, with erosion of the frontal dune not accounted for in the MC-FRM model, it is a high probability that the lower parking lot will be vulnerable to flooding from Cape Cod Bay. Lastly, while the concession building is shown to be vulnerable to flooding under present day conditions and all out years, survey data collected as part of this study indicate that the first-floor elevation is above the projected most severe flood elevations for the 0.1% chance storm through 2070. Figure 6. MC-FRM probabilities of inundation for present day sea level. Page 13 of 46 Figure 7. MC-FRM probabilities of inundation for projected sea levels in 2030. Figure 8. MC-FRM probabilities of inundation for projected sea levels in 2050. Page 14 of 46 Figure 9. MC-FRM probabilities of inundation for projected sea levels in 2070. Figure 10 shows the extents of mean higher high water (MHHW) for present day, 2030, 2050, and 2070 across the Sandy Neck Beach Park, based on data from the MC-FRM dataset. The risks of flooding from daily tides initiate from Barnstable Harbor on the back side of the barrier beach. As soon as 2030, daily tidal flooding could be expected along the low-lying marsh trail that begins near the gatehouse and runs along the back of the barrier beach. By 2050 daily tidal flooding could begin to impact access to the Park as the gatehouse area and entrance road will likely be inundated around the time of MHHW. Flooding impacts could also be expected along the existing ORV trail starting in 2050. By 2070 the extent of daily tidal flooding can be expected to expand across the entrance road near the gatehouse and at lower lying sections of the road leading to the main Park area. Figure 10. Projected flooding during MHHW during present day, 2030, 2050, and, 2070 time horizons. Page 15 of 46 4.0 Conceptual Alternative Updates and Performance Modeling Conceptual alternatives selected by the Town from the 2016 report (Alternatives #2, #3, #5A through #5D) were evaluated for performance in protecting the parking lot given the 20-, 50-, and 100-year storm events, using present day sea levels as well as protected sea levels in 2030, 2050, and 2070. Engineering reviews of the conceptual alternative designs were conducted, and in some cases the designs were modified to include a more robust solution. Two (2) new conceptual alternatives (Alt #7 and #8) were also developed to address needs expressed by the Town. The following sections of the technical memo provide a brief description of each alternative, as well as results from the performance modeling, a discussion of permittability, impacts to resource areas, and estimated costs for initial construction and maintenance over a 50-year period. 4.1 Alternative #2 – Stone Revetment with Vegetated Sand Cover Description: Conceptual Alternative #2 includes the construction of 656 linear feet of stone revetment along the seaward side of the existing upper and lower parking lots (Figure 11). Once constructed, the revetment would essentially be located in the area of the existing dune. The crest elevation of the revetment would match the existing grades of the upper and lower parking lots, with a crest width of 10 feet. The revetment would have a seaward slope of 1.5H:1V and would include three (3) layers of differently sized stones. Toe stones sized at 5-tons would anchor the structure at elevation 3.4 ft NAVD88. Following construction of the revetment, it would be covered with sand to replicate the existing dune. Beachgrass would be planted on the face of the restored dune to aid in sand stabilization, and a minimum of four (4) feet of sand would be required to be maintained across the face of the revetment on an annual basis. The 2016 plan was modified to reroute the ORV access trail behind the concession building and parking lot, move the gatehouse and a new entrance booth to the top of the hill near the entrance to the upper parking lot, and add a stormwater management system to the lower parking lot and repave. Figure 11. Plan view (top) and cross-section (bottom) of conceptual Alternative #2 from the 2016 study. Page 16 of 46 Performance & Longevity: Performance modeling of Alternative #2 for present day water levels at Transect 2 is shown in Figure 12. The model indicates that the 50- and 100-year storms erode the sand dune/cover in front of the revetment, leaving the stones exposed for future storms, until such time as the revetment can be covered with additional sand. The 20-year storm erodes a significant portion of the dune, leaving a thin veneer of sand across the face of the revetment. Model runs for water levels in 2030, 2050, and 2070 show complete removal of the sand dune/cover in front of the revetment for all storms simulated. While the revetment “holds the line” in preventing erosion of the parking lot, waves striking the hard engineering structure cause scour at the base of the revetment, leading to loss of beach width and volume. If nourishment material is not maintained following storms, this scour could lead to undermining and eventual failure of the structure. Even in years when the sand cover is not completely eroded, it would be important follow an annual program of dune nourishment to ensure adequate sand cover and sediment supply to the barrier beach system. Figure 12. XBeach storm simulations for Alternative #2 with present day sea level showing the initial and eroded profiles for Transect 2. Once the sand cover erodes and the face of the revetment is exposed, additional damages from wave runup and overtopping can be expected. The USACE Coastal Engineering Manual (CEM) relates overtopping rates to the potential for structure damage. Table 3 shows the calculated overtopping rates for Alternative #2 given the various return period storm scenarios. Red highlighted cells indicate storm and water level scenarios likely to cause damage to the revetment, yellow cells indicate conditions unsafe to park or drive in the parking lot behind the revetment, and grey highlighted cells indicate conditions unsafe for pedestrians on the parking lot behind the revetment. The results indicate that the revetment is potentially damaged during all storms in 2070, and there is potential for damage in 2050 during the 50 and 100-year storm events. These more damaging events will likely require significant repairs or replacement of the revetment before its 50-year design lifetime has been met. Page 17 of 46 Table 3. Overtopping Rates and Damage Potential for Various Return Period Storms and Climate Conditions. Year Overtopping Rate (liters/s per m) Storm Return Period Initital Eroded Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 1 Transect 2 2070 100 48.48 585.74 320.82 1307.58 50 21.77 388.09 179.12 956.50 20 4.76 180.84 62.05 534.81 2050 100 0.10 22.24 23.42 270.12 50 0.01 4.10 5.83 117.14 20 0.00 0.19 0.46 25.76 2030 100 0.00 0.01 0.55 24.13 50 0.00 0.00 0.02 2.96 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Present Day 100 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.71 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (red=damage to the revetment; yellow=damage to vehicles in the parking lot; grey=damage to pedestrians in the parking lot) Permittability: The conceptual design for the Alternative #2 revetment sites the structure in coastal dune and barrier beach resources, both of which are protected under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Regulations 310 CMR 10.28 and 10.29, respectively. The regulations recognize coastal dunes and barrier beaches as important resources that provide storm damage prevention and flood control functions for neighboring resources and upland areas. 310 CMR 10.28(3) indicates that projects on coastal dunes must not have an adverse effect on the coastal dune by: (a) Affecting the ability of waves to remove sand from the dune; (b) Disturbing the vegetative cover so as to destabilize the dune; (c) Causing any modification of the dune form that would increase the potential for storm or flood damage; (d) Interfering with the landward or lateral movement of the dune; (e) Causing removal of sand from the dune artificially; or (f) Interfering with mapped or otherwise identified bird nesting habitat. Construction of the Alternative #2 revetment in the coastal dune at Sandy Neck Beach would not comply with performance standards c, d, or f listed above, and as such, it is not a permittable project under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Regulations. In addition to not complying with the regulations, it is likely the structure would result in increased erosion of the natural dune at the ends of the structure (i.e., end effect erosion) and scour at the toe of the structure could also cause lowering of the beach elevation in front of the revetment. The conclusion that Alternative #2 is not permittable under 310 CMR 10.28 and 10.29 is consistent with findings in the 2016 study. Resource Area Impacts/Benefits: The conceptual design for Alternative #2 would impact approximately 18,368 square feet of coastal dune and barrier beach resource. The structure would also be located within estimated habitat of rare wildlife. In addition to the adverse impacts to coastal dune, coastal beach, and barrier beach discussed above, the project would also impact habitat for protected shorebirds. The 1.5H:1V slope of the structure and overlying sand cover is considered too steep for the passage of the shorebirds, and the project Page 18 of 46 would likely result in a prohibited Take of state-listed species, as determined by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP). Costs: Updated construction costs for installation of a new stone revetment with a vegetated sand cover are summarized in Table 4. Total costs including initial construction, annual nourishment, beachgrass plantings, and revetement maintenance over a 49-year period are summarized in Table 5. The cost estimates assume that mobe/demobe costs will be 10% of the revetment construction cost and annual sand nourishment volumes will be equal to the average of the nourishment volumes placed on the beach since 2013. A unit cost of $30/cubic yard was assumed for the purchase, trucking, and spreading of nourishment material. While this cost is higher than what the Town has paid in the past, it is similar to current market rates on the Cape. Table 4. Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative #2. Alternative #2: Stone Revetment with Vegetated Sand Cover Item Unit Description Quantity Unit Price Amount 1 Lump sum Mobe/Demobe 1 $131,200 $131,200 2 Cubic yards Excavate and replace dune sand 25,000 $15 $375,000 3 Linear feet Install stone revetment 656 $2,000 $1,312,000 4 Each Replace walkways 2 $2,000 $4,000 5 SY Removal/Disposal of Pavement in Ex. Lower Parking Area 4300 $25 $107,500 6 SY New Paved Parking Lot (Lower Lot) 4300 $100 $430,000 7 SF Bioretention Swale 3530 $100 $353,000 8 Square feet Beachgrass plantings 23,430 $1.50 $35,145 9 Lump sum New entrance booth 1 $20,000 $20,000 10 Lump sum New administration building 1 $270,000 $270,000 11 Linear feet Granite curbing 200 $90 $18,000 12 Square yards New pavement 50 $100 $5,000 13 Square yards Packed Stone – Relocated ORV Accessway 2,140 $45 $96,300 14 Linear feet Timber safety rail 1,010 $100 $101,000 15 Lump sum Wetland replication/restoration of existing ORV access trail 1 $100,000 $100,000 Subtotal $3,358,145 25% Contingency $839,536 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $4,197,681 Page 19 of 46 Table 5. Alternative #2 Cost Estimates for Construction and Maintenance Over 50-Years. Alternative No. Description Estimated Initial Construction Costs Estimated Maintenance Costs (49 Years) Total Estimated Cost Description Budgeted Cost/Event Total (49 Years incl 3.8% annual inflation) Initial Construction + Maintenance Over 50 Years 2 Stone revetment with vegetated sand cover $4.2 mil Annual sand nourishment (49 events at 3,624 cy/yr) $108,720 $15.5 mil $22.8 mil Annual beachgrass plantings (49 events at 4,000 sq ft/yr) $6,000 $0.9 mil Revetment repair & maintenance (every 10 yrs) $196,800 $2.2 mil 4.2 Alternative #3 – Bio-Engineered Sand-Filled Coir Bags with Vegetated Sand Cover Description: Conceptual Alternative #3 from the 2016 study includes an 800 linear foot long bio-engineered sand- filled coir bag array along the seaward side of the existing coastal dune (Figures 13a & b). The array would consist of sand filled coir bags with varying dimensions (4x3 ft and 5.4 ft) stacked 3 to 4 bags high. The base row of coir bags would be anchored in place with 4-inch square wooden posts. The stacked coir bag array would be covered with a minimum of 3 feet of compatible sand following a slope seaward at 1.5H:1 V. Jute erosion matting would be placed on top of the sand cover and planted with beachgrass. Sand fencing along the toe of the sand cover would be added to encourage sand accumulation. To provide additional resiliency and protect the coir bags from degradation, sand cover would be maintained across the face of the coir array on an annual basis. Page 20 of 46 Figure 13a. Plan view of conceptual Alternative #3 from the 2016 study. Figure 13b. Cross-section of conceptual Alternative #3 from the 2016 study. Based on review of the Alternative #3 design elements and experience with similar structures, Woods Hole Group engineers made modifications to the conceptual design to improve the performance of the coir bags (Figure 14). The modifications included moving the coir bags away from the seaward face of the dune to the edge of the current parking lot and building a pyramid shaped array with two (2) layers of bags instead of four (4). Bags at the bottom of the array would be anchored using 10-12-inch diameter posts spaced 6 feet apart. The entire system would be covered with approximately 30 ft of sand to restore the profile of the current dune, and sturdy drift fence would be installed along the toe of the restored dune. Moving the array closer to the parking lot allows for more extensive sand cover over the system that will provide enhanced protection during storms. The pyramid shaped design with larger posts also provides more stability and minimizes potential failure observed on other systems where damage to the bottom bag has caused the upper bags to collapse. Use of a sturdy drift fence in place of sand fencing will provide enhanced protection for the dune sediment covering the sand-bag array. Figure 14. Cross-section of modified Alternative #3. Performance & Longevity: Performance modeling of the modified Alternative #3 concept for present day water levels at Transect 2 is shown in Figure 15. The simulations show that 50 - and 100-yr storms erode all of the sand cover in front of the coir bags leaving them exposed to direct wave action. Once the bags are exposed, the potential for failure of the array increases significantly as direct wave activity can cause the bags to lose sediment and shift in position. Figure 16 shows an example of a coir bag array with five (5) tiers where storm damage has eroded the sand cover, causing deflation of the bottom and intermediate bags. With Alternative #3 once the bags are exposed, the parking lot behind the coir bags would be susceptible to undermining and damage from direct wave action. Areas susceptible to damage are indicated by the zone of erosion in Figure 15. As would be expected, the potential for erosion of the sand dune cover and damage of the coir bag array increases as sea levels rise in 2030, 2050, and 2070. Damage to the upper parking lot with modified Alternative #3 would not impact the existing septic system, although erosion from a 50- or 100-year storm in out years 2050 and 2070 could approach the northern edge of the septic system. Page 21 of 46 The design life of a coir bag system is typically 5 to 7 years provided sand cover is maintained to protect from direct wave action and ultraviolet degradation of the coir. By placing the coir bags along the back side of the dune, as opposed to the seaward side with the 2016 design, the design life could likely be extended to 10 years, as the potential for exposure would be reduced. However, even in years when the sand cover is not completely eroded, it would be important follow an annual program of dune nourishment to ensure adequate sand cover and sediment supply to the barrier beach system. Figure 15. XBeach storm simulations for modified Alternative 3 with present day sea level showing initial and eroded profiles at Transect 2. Figure 16. Example of failed sand-filled coir bag system. Permittability: Coir bag shore protection systems have been permitted in coastal dunes by local and state regulatory agencies in Massachusetts. When considering compliance with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Regulations, these systems differ from stone revetments like the one evaluated for Alternative #2. Coir bag arrays tend to absorb wave energy thereby reducing the potential for storm or flood damage caused by scour in front of the system. Once exposed to direct wave action, sand inside the bags can leach out and provide a source of sediment for the beach. The primary volume of the coir bags is composed of sand and as such they do not cause removal of sand from the dune artificially. And finally, the coir bag arrays are generally considered to Zone of possible erosion Page 22 of 46 be temporary structures that need repair and/or replacement on a regular basis. For these reasons, local and state regulatory agencies have found bio-engineered coir bags to comply with the performance standards for work in coastal dunes and barrier beaches. Given that Sandy Neck Beach Park is located in an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) with habitat for state and federally listed species, there will be increased scrutiny of any shore protection design; however, successful permitting for similar projects in the state suggest that a coir bag system could be approved at this site. Additional permits required for Alternative #3 would include a Certificate from the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs (MEPA) on an Environmental Notification Form (ENF), an Order of Conditions from the Barnstable Conservation Commission/MA DEP, and a determination from from NHESP that the project will not result in an adverse impact to the resource area habitats of state-listed wildlife species pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act and will not result in a prohibited Take pursuant to the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA). Resource Area Impacts/Benefits: The conceptual design for modified Alternative #3 would impact approximately 24,000 square feet of coastal dune and barrier beach resource. The structure would also be located within estimated habitat of rare wildlife. The 1.5H:1V slope of the structure and overlying sand cover is considered too steep for the passage of the shorebirds, and NHESP would likely require a 10H:1V slope on the face of the restored dune to avoid a prohibited Take of state-listed species. Costs: Updated construction costs for installation of the modified coir bag array with vegetated sand cover and drift fence are summarized in Table 6. Total costs including initial construction, annual nourishment, beachgrass plantings, and coir bag repair/replacement over a 50-year period are summarized in Table 7. The cost estimates assume that mobe/demobe costs will be 10% of the revetment construction cost and annual sand nourishment volumes will be equal to the average of the nourishment volumes placed o n the beach since 2013. As with Alternative #2, a unit cost of $30/cubic yard was assumed for the purchase, trucking, and spreading of nourishment material to reflect current market rates on the Cape. Reconstruction of one-half of the coir bag array was assumed every ten (10) years. Table 6. Construction Cost Estimate for Modified Alternative #3. 3.1 Alternative #3: Bio-Engineered Sand-Filled Coir Bags with Vegetated Sand Cover Item Unit Description Quantity Unit Price Amount 1 Lump sum Mobe/Demobe 1 $200,000 $200,000 2 Cubic yards Excavate and replace dune sand 25,000 $15 $375,000 3 Linear feet Install coir bags 800 $2,500 $2,000,000 4 Each Anchor pilings 267 $750 $200,000 6 Sq feet Erosion blankets 28,800 $0.24 $6,912 7 Each Replace walkways 2 $2,000 $4,000 8 Linear feet Drift fence 800 $20 $16,000 9 Square feet Beachgrass plantings 28,800 $1.50 $43,200 Subtotal $2,845,112 25% Contingency $710,278 Page 23 of 46 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $3,556,390 Table 7. Modified Alternative #3 Cost Estimates for Construction and Maintenance Over 50-Years. Alternative No. Description Estimated Initial Construction Costs Estimated Maintenance Costs (49 Years) Total Estimated Cost Description Budgeted Cost/Event Total (49 Years incl 3.8% annual inflation) Initial Construction + Maintenance Over 50 Years 2 Bio- engineered sand-filled coir bags with vegetated sand cover $3.6 mil Annual sand nourishment (49 events at 3,624 cy/yr) $108,720 $15.5 mil $31.1 mil Annual beachgrass plantings (49 events at 4,000 sq ft/yr) $6,000 $0.9 mil Coir bag replacement (400 linear feet every 10 yrs) $1.0 mil $11.1 mil 4.3 Alternatives #5A-5D: – Relocate/Reconfigure Parking Lot with Options for Relocating the ORV Access, Reconfiguring the Air-Up/Air-Down Areas and Providing Screening with Trees and/or Dunes Description: The 2016 conceptual Alternatives #5A, #5B, #5C, and #5D make efficient use of the areas around the existing parking lots and bath house building. All of the 5A thru 5D alternatives reuse the southern portion of the existing upper parking lot and relocate the lower lot outside of the predicted limit of 50-year dune loss. The four concepts include a new interpretive learning center, a 10 x 14-foot guard shed, and vegetated bioswales for stormwater management. Each concept provides approximately 228 parking spaces. Restoration of the primary dune is shown on the plans developed for each concept; however, proposed grading of the dune is not provided, and it is unclear as to the feasibility of ADA access to the beach. It is assumed that means of pedestrian access to the beach would be maintained using the existing paths. A plan-view and cross-section view of conceptual Alternative #5D is shown in Figure 17. The existing septic system, which is located beneath the upper parking lot, is shown as to-remain in its current location with the new primary dune shown to be constructed over portions of the existing septic system. It is unclear how this configuration would meet current Title 5 requirements for leach field depths. The conceptual plans for each of the four concepts were developed utilizing an aerial image as the base plan rather than utilizing an existing conditions survey. This limits the evaluation of possible impacts that any required topographic changes may have for each concept. Additionally, the conceptual alternates presented did not appear to consider the regulatory agency comments that the pavement area of the proposed lots must not exceed the pavement area of the existing parking lots. Page 24 of 46 Figure 17. Plan view (top) and cross-section (bottom) of conceptual Alternative #5D from the 2016 study. In addition to the primary design elements described above, conceptual Alternatives #5A, #5B, #5C, and #5D include the following additional components: • Conceptual Alternative #5A utilizes the existing off-road vehicle (ORV) trail which directs users to the air- up/air-down site off Sandy Neck Road. That site contains two compressors capable of providing air to four vehicles at one time and space to accommodate approximately six other vehicles within the gravel staging area. • Conceptual Alternative #5B is a copy of Alternative #5A, with the addition of a dedicated two-lane gravel ORV access trail from the upper parking lot to the beach, located on the back side of the relocated parking lot. It also includes 10 gravel parking spaces to be used for air-up prior to vehicles entering the paved access road. In this concept, the existing ORV trail is shown to be restored with additional dune sand and native vegetation. • Conceptual Alternative #5C is very similar to Alternative #5B, with the addition of 10 gravel air-down spaces and landscape screening with trees adjacent to the dedicated ORV access road behind the Page 25 of 46 relocated parking lot. The existing ORV trail is again shown as being restored with a sand dune and native vegetation. • Conceptual Alternative #5D is a copy of Alternative #5C, with the addition of enhanced screening around the air-down spaces using trees and a sand dune feature. It is noted that the additional landscaping and dune construction included with this alternative may not be necessary for a visual buffer/screening, since the area is lower in elevation that other areas of the site. Performance & Longevity: Performance modeling of the four (4) Alternative #5 concepts are identical since the primary dune remains the same with each alternative. Model results for sea level conditions in 2070 at Transect 2 are shown in Figure 18. Crest elevations for the restored primary dune were assumed to be 28 and 23.2 ft NAVD88 for Transects 1 and 2, respectively. The results indicate that the more landward reconfigured parking lot is safe from erosion, even with a 100-year storm and higher sea levels in 2070. For the 100-yr storm scenario, approximately 38 feet of dune remains to protect the parking lot. With the higher return period 50 - and 20-year storms, approximately 53 and 68 feet of dune remains to protect the parking lot. To maintain a healthy and protective coastal dune over the 50-year time horizon, renourishment would be required approximately every 5 years. Figure 18. XBeach storm simulations for Alternatives #5A through #5D with predicted 2070 sea level showing initial and eroded profiles for Transect #2. Permittability: Conceptual Alternatives #5A through #5D are likely permittable based on discussions with the regulatory agencies during the prior 2016 study. The agencies indicated that the footprint of paved areas on site should not be increased and impacts to critical resources such as vernal pools and habitat for state -listed species must be minimized. Currently conceptual Alternatives #5A through #5D result in a sm all increase in impervious area. As such, the designs will need to be modified to reduce the area of paved surface if the Town chooses to proceed with any one of these alternatives. Impacts to spadefoot toad and vernal pool habitat are lower with Alternatives #5B, #5C, and #5D as the ORV trail is rerouted behind the reconfigured parking lot and the existing ORV trail is restored. These alternatives also restore connectivity of the spadefoot toad habitat, which is currently bisected by the ORV trail. Because impacts to spadefoot toad habitat cannot be avoided with any of the Alternative #5 concepts, the NEHSP indicated during the 2016 study that the parking lot relocation alternatives would result in a “take” of Eastern Spadefoot Toad; however, a Conservation Permit could be issued provided that impacts are minimized and appropriate mitigation measures are agreed upon. Mitigation measures could include on-site mitigation at a 2:1 ratio or a fee payment to NHESP for use in habitat restoration. Reconfigured parking lot Page 26 of 46 Once the Town has selected a short-list of three (3) preferred alternatives, meetings will be scheduled with the regulatory agencies to discuss the permitting strategy and necessary mitigation actions. As with conceptual Alternative #3, permits for Alternative #5 would be required from MEPA, Barnstable Conservation Commission/MA DEP, and NHESP. Resource Area Impacts/Benefits: The conceptual designs for Alternatives #5A through #5D would impact coastal dune, barrier beach, and estimated habitat of rare wildlife resources. Reconfiguration of the parking lot would alter approximately 41,200 sq ft of resource area; however, an area roughly equal in size would be restored to coastal dune/barrier beach. Of the four (4) alternatives, impacts to resource areas would be the smallest with Alternative #5A, as the design does not include relocation of the existing ORV trail. Alternatives #5C and #5D would have the greatest resource area impacts as they include additional air-up/air-down spaces. Costs: Updated construction costs for the Alternative #5 options are included in Tables 8 -11. Updates to the previous Opinion of Probable Construction Costs (OPC) from the 2016 study were made to reflect current construction costs. Previous assumptions that the parking lot could be milled and overlayed are no longer feasible due to the poor condition of the pavement and the costing was updated to reflect installation of new pavement. Curbing in the parking lots was also added to effectively direct runoff into the stormwater management features. Total costs including initial construction, annual maintenance of the parking lot and stormwater systems, periodic dune nourishment and beachgrass plantings are provided in Table 12. Page 27 of 46 Table 8. Updated Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative #5A. Alternative #5A: Relocate/Reconfigure Parking Lot Item Unit Description Quantity Unit Price Amount 1 SY Removal/Disposal of Pavement in Ex. Parking Areas (Upper & Lower Lot) 5,900 $25 $147,500 2 CY Sand Fill - New Parking Lot (Lower Lot) 5,240 $30 $157,200 3 SY Relocated/New Paved Parking Lot (Lower Lot) 7,300 $100 $730,000 4 SY Mill/Resurface Existing Parking Lot (To Remain - Upper Lot) 2,575 $50 $128,750 5 SY New Pavement (Upper Lot) 130 $100 $13,000 6 CY Sand Fill - New Pavement (Upper Lot) 175 $30 $5,250 7 SF Bioretention Swale 3,450 $100 $345,000 8 CY Restoration of Primary Dune 5,900 $30 $177,000 9 SF Am. Beach Grass Planting (Old Parking Area & Side Slopes of New Parking) 75,700 $1.50 $113,550 10 LS Misc. Planting 1 $10,000 $10,000 11 LS Misc. Landscaping 1 $15,000 $15,000 12 LF Install Timber Safety Rail 725 $100 $72,500 13 LS Exist. Beach Access #1 & #2 Modifications 1 $25,000 $25,000 14 LF New ADA Mobi-Mat (Seasonal) 100 $150 $15,000 15 LS New Seasonal Guard Shed (Including Electrical) 1 $50,000 $50,000 16 LS NHESP Mitigation Fee 1 $50,000 $50,000 17 LF Granite Curbing 2,000 $90 $180,000 Signage & Pavement Marking (5% of New Pavement Costs) $43,590 Earthwork (10% of Sand Fill Costs) $29,800 Subtotal $2,294,640 Contingency (25% of Subtotal) $573,700 Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of Subtotal) $114,740 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $2,983,080 Page 28 of 46 Table 9. Updated Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative #5B. Alternative #5B: Relocate/Reconfigure Parking Lot & ORV Access; Reconfigure Existing Air-Down Area Item Unit Description Quantity Unit Price Amount 1 SY Removal/Disposal of Pavement in Ex. Parking Areas (Upper & Lower Lot) 5,900 $25 $147,500 2 CY Sand Fill - New Parking Lot (Lower Lot) 7,550 $30 $226,500 3 SY Relocated/New Paved Parking Lot (Lower Lot) 7,300 $100 $730,000 4 SY Mill/Resurface Existing Parking Lot (To Remain - Upper Lot) 2,575 $50 $128,750 5 SY New Pavement (Upper Lot) 130 $100 $13,000 6 CY Sand Fill - New Pavement (Upper Lot) 175 $30 $5,250 7 SY Packed Stone - Relocated ORV Accessway 2,140 $45 $96,300 8 SY Packed Stone Air-Down Area (5B Only) 830 $45 $37,350 9 SY Relocate Paved Bike Path (5B Only) 300 $60 $18,000 10 SF Bioretention Swale 3,450 $100 $345,000 11 CY Restoration of Primary Dune 5,900 $30 $177,000 12 SF Am. Beach Grass Planting (Old Parking Area & Side Slopes of New Parking) 76,235 $1.50 $114,353 13 LS Misc. Planting 1 $10,000 $10,000 14 LS Misc. Landscaping 1 $15,000 $15,000 15 LF Install Timber Safety Rail 1,010 $100 $101,000 16 LS Exist. Beach Access #1 & #2 Modifications 1 $25,000 $25,000 17 LF New ADA Mobi-Mat (Seasonal) 100 $150 $15,000 18 LS New Seasonal Guard Shed (Including Electrical) 1 $50,000 $50,000 19 LS Wetland Replication/Restoration at Exist. ORV Accessway 1 $100,000 $100,000 20 LS NHESP Mitigation Fee 1 $50,000 $50,000 21 LF Granite Curbing 2,000 $90 $180,000 Signage & Pavement Marking (5% of New Pavement Costs) $43,590 Earthwork (10% of Sand Fill Costs) $42,500 Subtotal $2,651,793 Contingency (25% of Subtotal) $663,000 Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of Subtotal) $132,590 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $3,447,383 Page 29 of 46 Table 10. Updated Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative #5C. Alternative #5C: Relocate/Reconfigure Parking Lot & ORV Access with Screening Trees; Relocate Existing Air-Up/Air-Down Areas Item Unit Description Quantity Unit Price Amount 1 SY Removal/Disposal of Pavement in Ex. Parking Areas (Upper & Lower Lot) 5,900 $25 $147,500 2 CY Sand Fill - New Parking Lot (Lower Lot) 8,510 $30 $255,300 3 SY Relocated/New Paved Parking Lot (Lower Lot) 7,300 $100 $730,000 4 SY Mill/Resurface Existing Parking Lot (To Remain - Upper Lot) 2,575 $50 $128,750 5 SY New Pavement (Upper Lot) 130 $100 $13,000 6 CY Sand Fill - New Pavement (Upper Lot) 175 $30 $5,250 7 SY Packed Stone - Relocated ORV Accessway 2,140 $45 $96,300 8 SF Bioretention Swale 3,450 $100 $345,000 9 EA Screening Trees (Eastern Red Cedar) 25 $850 $21,250 10 CY Restoration of Primary Dune 5,900 $30 $177,000 11 SF Am. Beach Grass Planting (Old Parking Area & Side Slopes of New Parking) 76,235 $1.50 $114,353 12 LS Misc. Planting 1 $10,000 $10,000 13 LS Misc. Landscaping 1 $15,000 $15,000 14 LF Install Timber Safety Rail 1,075 $100 $107,500 15 LS Exist. Beach Access #1 & #2 Modifications 1 $25,000 $25,000 16 LF New ADA Mobi-Mat (Seasonal) 100 $150 $15,000 17 LS New Seasonal Guard Shed (Including Electrical) 1 $50,000 $50,000 18 LS Wetland Replication/Restoration at Exist. ORV Accessway 1 $100,000 $100,000 19 LS NHESP Mitigation Fee 1 $50,000 $50,000 20 LF Granite Curbing 2,000 $90 $180,000 Signage & Pavement Marking (5% of New Pavement Costs) $43,590 Earthwork (10% of Sand Fill Costs) $47,800 Subtotal $2,655,893 Contingency (25% of Subtotal) $664,000 Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of Subtotal) $132,800 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $3,452,693 Page 30 of 46 Table 11. Updated Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative #5D. Alternative #5D: Relocate/Reconfigure Parking Lot & ORV Access with Screening Dune; Relocate Existing Air-Up/Air-Down Areas Item Unit Description Quantity Unit Price Amount 1 SY Removal/Disposal of Pavement in Ex. Parking Areas (Upper & Lower Lot) 5,900 $25 $147,500 2 CY Sand Fill - New Parking Lot (Lower Lot) 11,180 $30 $335,400 3 SY Relocated/New Paved Parking Lot (Lower Lot) 7,300 $100 $730,000 4 SY Mill/Resurface Existing Parking Lot (To Remain - Upper Lot) 2,575 $50 $128,750 5 SY New Pavement (Upper Lot) 130 $100 $13,000 6 CY Sand Fill - New Pavement (Upper Lot) 175 $30 $5,250 7 SY Packed Stone - Relocated ORV Accessway 2,140 $45 $96,300 8 SF Bioretention Swale 3,450 $100 $345,000 9 EA Screening Trees (Eastern Red Cedar) 26 $850 $22,100 10 CY Restoration of Primary Dune 5,900 $30 $177,000 11 SF Am. Beach Grass Planting (Old Parking Area & Side Slopes of New Parking) 89,865 $1.50 $134,798 12 LS Misc. Planting 1 $10,000 $10,000 13 LS Misc. Landscaping 1 $15,000 $15,000 14 LF Install Timber Safety Rail 1,075 $100 $107,500 15 LS Exist. Beach Access #1 & #2 Modifications 1 $25,000 $25,000 16 LF New ADA Mobi-Mat (Seasonal) 100 $150 $15,000 17 LS New Seasonal Guard Shed (Including Electrical) 1 $50,000 $50,000 18 LS Wetland Replication/Restoration at Exist. ORV Accessway 1 $100,000 $100,000 19 LS NHESP Mitigation Fee 1 $50,000 $50,000 20 LF Granite Curb 2,000 $90 $180,000 Signage & Pavement Marking (5% of New Pavement Costs) $43,590 Earthwork (10% of Sand Fill Costs) $62,500 Subtotal $2,765,288 Contingency (25% of Subtotal) $691,400 Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of Subtotal) $138,270 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $3,594,958 Page 31 of 46 Table 12. Updated Preliminary Cost Estimates for Construction and Maintenance Over 50-Years for Alternatives #5A through #5D. Alternative No. Description Estimated Initial Construction Costs Estimated Maintenance Costs (49 Years) Total Estimated Cost Description Budgeted Cost/ Event Total (49 Years incl 3.8% annual inflation) Initial Construction + Maintenance Over 50 Years 5A Relocate/ Reconfigure Parking Lot $3.0 Mil Sand Nourishment (9 events at 7,249 cy/ event) $217,470 5.6 Mil 11.2 Mil Beach Grass Plantings (9 events at 46,840 sq ft/yr) $70,290 1.2 Mil Annual Maintenance of Lot $10,000 1.4 Mil 5B Relocate/ Reconfigure Parking Lot & ORV Access; Reconfigure Existing Air- Down Area $3.4 Mil Sand Nourishment (9 events at 7,249 cy/ event) $217,470 5.6 Mil 11.6 Mil Beach Grass Plantings (9 events at 46,840 sq ft/yr) $70,290 1.2 Mil Annual Maintenance of Lot $10,000 1.4 Mil 5C Relocate/ Reconfigure Parking Lot & ORV Access with Screening Trees; Relocate Existing Air- Up/Air-Down Areas $3.5 Mil Sand Nourishment (9 events at 7,249 cy/ event) $217,470 5.6 Mil 11.7 Mil Beach Grass Plantings (9 events at 46,840 sq ft/yr) $70,290 1.2 Mil Annual Maintenance of Lot $10,000 1.4 Mil 5D Relocate/ Reconfigure Parking Lot & ORV Access with Screening Dune; Relocate Existing Air- Up/Air-Down Areas $3.6 Mil Sand Nourishment (9 events at 7,249 cy/ event) $217,470 5.6 Mil 11.8 Mil Beach Grass Plantings (9 events at 46,840 sq ft/yr) $70,290 1.2 Mil Annual Maintenance of Lot $10,000 1.4 Mil Page 32 of 46 4.4 Conceptual Alternative #6 – Relocate/Reconfigure Park Lot & ORV Access; Relocate and Expand Number of Air-Up/Air-Down Areas; Relocate Gatehouse and Add Emergency Vehicle Access to Beach Description: Conceptual Alternative #6 was developed by Tighe & Bond and Woods Hole Group using the topographic survey data collected during the summer of 2022 and updated wetland delineations. The ground survey and wetland delineation allowed for consideration of topographic constraints at the site and review of the existing parking lot in order to match the existing area of pavement in developing the conceptual alternative. This alternative also addresses modifications necessary to streamline gatehouse operations, reduce vulnerability of the gatehouse to flooding, and provide emergency access to the beach from the parking lot. Alternative #6 includes a new entrance booth, a new 25 x 40-ft administration building, two emergency access paths, 29 air-up/air-down spaces, and 203 parking spaces in the re-configured parking lots (Figure 19). Stormwater management for this alternative includes the previously proposed rain gardens that have been expanded to include a formal stormwater management/natural habitat area which will allow the parking lot to better mitigate extreme storm events. Similar to some of the previous concepts, Concept 6 makes use of a separate ORV access road from the upper parking lot which allows the staff to more efficiently monitor the traffic at the site and to ensure that users are parking in the appropriate designated areas. This concept also locates all the vulnerable infrastructure outside the limits of the predicted 50-year dune loss, which provides significant resiliency from wave-induced coastal erosion. Performance & Longevity: Performance of the dune in protecting conceptual Alternative #6 is identical to that of Alternative #5. Essentially, the dune will provide protection for the relocated parking lot through 2070 with a 100- year storm event. To maintain a healthy and protective coastal dune over the 50-year time horizon, renourishment would be required approximately every 5 years. Permittability: The permittability of conceptual Alternative #6 is essentially the same as Alternative #5. The same type and number of permits would be required for this alternative as for Alternative #5. Resource Area Impacts/Benefits: Conceptual Alternative #6 would impact coastal dune, barrier beach and estimated habitat of rare wildlife resources. Just as with the Alternative #5 scenarios, there would be over 40,000 sq ft of impact to the resource areas, with a nearly equal area restored as coastal dune/barrier beach. In comparison with the Alternative #5 scenarios, impacts to resource areas with this alternative would be greater due to the increased number of air-up/air-down stations and the new administration building. Costs: Estimated construction costs for Alternative #6 are provided in Table 13 and total costs including initial construction, annual maintenance of the parking lot and stormwater systems, periodic dune nourishment and beachgrass plantings are provided in Table 14. Page 33 of 46 Figure 19. Plan view of new conceptual Alternative #6. Page 34 of 46 Table 13. Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative #6. 3.1 Alternative #6: Relocate/Reconfigure Park Lot & ORV Access; Relocate and Expand Number of Air-Up/Air-Down Areas; Relocate Gatehouse and Add Emergency Vehicle Access to Beach Item Unit Description Quantity Unit Price Amount 1 SY Removal/Disposal of Pavement in Ex. Parking Areas (Upper & Lower Lot) 8,500 $25 $212,500 2 CY Sand Fill - New Parking Lot (Lower Lot) 11,180 $30 $335,400 3 SY Relocated/New Paved Parking Lot (Lower Lot) 6,000 $100 $600,000 4 SY New Pavement (Upper Lot) 2,400 $100 $240,000 5 CY Sand Fill - New Pavement (Upper Lot) 175 $30 $5,520 6 SY Packed Stone - Relocated ORV Accessway 2,400 $45 $108,000 7 SF Bioretention Swale 4,170 $100 $417,000 8 LS Proposed Admin Building 1 $270,000 $270,000 9 CY Restoration of Primary Dune 5,900 $30 $177,000 10 LS Stormwater Management Area 1 $10,000 $10,000 11 SF Am. Beach Grass Planting (Old Parking Area & Side Slopes of New Parking) 87,000 $1.50 $130,500 12 LS Misc. Planting 1 $10,000 $10,000 13 LS Misc. Landscaping 1 $15,000 $15,000 14 LF Install Timber Safety Rail 800 $100 $80,000 15 LS Exist. Beach Access #1 & #2 Modifications 1 $25,000 $25,000 16 LF New ADA Mobi-Mat (Seasonal) 100 $150 $15,000 17 SY Gravel Emergency Access Path with Bar Gate 300 $35 $10,500 18 LS New Entrance Booth 1 $20,000 $20,000 19 LS Wetland Replication/Restoration at Exist. ORV Accessway 1 $100,000 $100,000 20 LS NHESP Mitigation Fee 1 $50,000 $50,000 21 LF Granite Curbing 3,500 $90 $315,000 Signage & Pavement Marking (5% of New Pavement Costs) $43,590 Earthwork (10% of Sand Fill Costs) $62,500 Subtotal $3,222,250 Contingency (25% of Subtotal) $805,600 Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of Subtotal) $161,120 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $4,188,970 Page 35 of 46 Table 14. Preliminary Cost Estimates for Construction and Maintenance Over 50-Years for Alternative #6. Alternative No. Description Estimated Initial Construction Costs Estimated Maintenance Costs (49 Years) Total Estimated Cost Description Budgeted Cost/Event Total (49 Years incl 3.8% annual inflation) Initial Construction + Maintenance Over 50 Years 6 Relocate/ Reconfigure Park Lot & ORV Access; Relocate and Expand Number of Air-Up/Air- Down Areas; Relocate Gatehouse and Add Emergency Vehicle Access to Beach $4.2 Mil Sand Nourishment (9 events at 7,249 cy/ event) $217,470 5.6 Mil 12.4 Mil Beach Grass Plantings (9 events at 46,840 sq ft/yr) $70,290 1.2 Mil Annual Maintenance of Lot $10,000 1.4 Mil 4.5 Conceptual Alternative #7 – Partial Relocation/Reconfiguration of Parking Lot & ORV Access; Relocate and Expand Number of Air-Up/Air-Down Areas; Relocate Gatehouse and Add Emergency Vehicle Access to Beach Description: Similar to the previous alternative, conceptual Alternative #7 uses the new topographic survey and wetland data to inform the design. This alternative also addresses modifications necessary to streamline gatehouse operations, reduce vulnerability of the gatehouse to flooding, and provide emergency access to the beach from the parking lot. The conceptual design for Alternative #7 maintains much of the existing upper parking lot as well as the entrance driveway to the lower parking lot (Figure 20). To reduce the overall impact on wetland resources, Alternative #7 maintains approximately one-half of the existing lower parking lot, along the south side of the lot. The seaward one-half of the parking lot would be relocated behind (south) the existing parking area. The conceptual design also includes a new entrance booth, dedicated ORV driveway behind the new portion of parking lot, emergency access paths, and 25 x 40-foot administration building. A total of 194 parking spaces would be included with this layout along with an additional 15 air-down and 30 air-up spots for off-road vehicles. By reusing portions of the existing lower parking lot, some of the proposed infrastructure would be located within the limits of predicted 50- year dune loss. The design for Alternative #7 was guided by results of the dune performance modeling that showed a dune buffer in front of the Alternatives #5 and #6 relocated parking lot of approximately 38 feet after a 100-yr storm event in 2070. This suggested complete relocation of the parking lot as planned with Alternatives #5 and #6 may not be necessary to provide the desired level of resiliency. Page 36 of 46 Figure 20. Plan view of new conceptual Alternative #7. Page 37 of 46 Performance & Longevity: Results from dune performance modeling for conceptual Alternative #7 during 20-, 50- and 100- year storm events and projected sea levels in 2030 and 2070 are shown in Figures 21 and 22. The results indicate that the partially relocated parking lot would be safe from erosion, even with a 100-yr storm and higher sea levels in 2030. By 2050, the parking lot would be damaged during the 100-yr storm, and erosion caused by the 50-yr storm would be at the seaward edge of the parking lot. To maintain a healthy and protective coastal dune over the 50-year time horizon, renourishment would be required approximately every 5 years. Permittability: Since resource area impacts associated with Alternative #7 would be reduced over the previous Alternatives #5 and #6, it is safe to assume that this alternative would be permittable. The same type and number of permits would be required for this alternative as for Alternatives #5 and #6. It is also likely that the requirements for mitigation, either in the form of on-site mitigation or a fee payment to NHESP would be reduced over Alternatives #5 and #6. Resource Area Impacts/Benefits: Conceptual Alternative #7 would impact approximately 20,600 sq ft of coastal dune, barrier beach and estimated habitat of rare wildlife resources, and approximately 10,300 sq ft of coastal dune would be restored. This alternative reduces impacts to the resource areas and helps to mitigate existing impacts to spadefoot toad habitat by relocating the ORV trail. Costs: Estimated construction costs for Alternative #7 are provided in Table 15 and total costs including initial construction, annual maintenance of the parking lot and stormwater systems, periodic dune nourishment and beachgrass plantings are provided in Table 15. Figure 21. XBeach storm simulations for Alternative #7 with predicted 2030 sea level showing initial and eroded profiles for Transect #2. Alt #7 reconfigured parking lot& ORV access trail Page 38 of 46 Figure 22. XBeach storm simulations for Alternative #7 with predicted 2050 sea level showing initial and eroded profiles for Transect #2. Alt #7 reconfigured parking lot& ORV access trail Page 39 of 46 Table 15. Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate for Alternative #7. 3.1 Alternative #7: Partial Relocation/Reconfiguration of Parking Lot & ORV Access; Relocate and Expand Number of Air-Up/Air-Down Areas; Relocate Gatehouse and Add Emergency Vehicle Access to Beach Item Unit Description Quantity Unit Price Amount 1 SY Removal/Disposal of Pavement in Ex. Parking Areas (Upper & Lower Lot) 8500 $25 $212,500 2 CY Sand Fill - New Parking Lot (Lower Lot) 9950 $30 $298,500 3 SY Relocated/New Paved Parking Lot (Lower Lot) 4300 $100 $430,000 4 SY New Pavement (Upper Lot) 3350 $100 $335,000 5 CY Sand Fill - New Pavement (Upper Lot) 175 $30 $5,250 6 SY Packed Stone - Relocated ORV Accessway 2500 $45 $112,500 7 SF Bioretention Swale 3530 $100 $353,000 8 LS Proposed Admin Building 1 $270,000 $270,000 9 CY Restoration of Primary Dune 5900 $30 $177,000 10 LS Stormwater Management Area 1 $10,000 $10,000 11 SF Am. Beach Grass Planting (Old Parking Area & Sideslopes of New Parking) 71000 $1.50 $106,500 12 LS Misc. Planting 1 $10,000 $10,000 13 LS Misc. Landscaping 1 $15,000 $15,000 14 LF Install Timber Safety Rail 1300 $100 $130,000 15 LS Exist. Beach Access #1 & #2 Modifications 1 $25,000 $25,000 16 LF New ADA Mobi-Mat (Seasonal) 100 $150 $15,000 17 SY Gravel Emergency Access Path with Bar Gate 625 $35 $21,875 18 LS New Entrance Booth 1 $20,000 $20,000 19 LS Wetland Replication/Restoration at Exist. ORV Accessway 1 $100,000 $100,000 20 LS NHESP Mitigation Fee 1 $50,000 $50,000 21 LF Granite Curbing 3600 $90 $324,000 Signage & Pavement Marking (5% of New Pavement Costs) $38,250 Earthwork (10% of Sand Fill Costs) $55,700 Subtotal $3,089,775 Contingency (25% of Subtotal) $772,500 Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of Subtotal) $154,490 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $4,016,765 Page 40 of 46 Table 16. Preliminary Cost Estimates for Construction and Maintenance Over 50-Years for Alternative #7. Alternative No. Description Estimated Initial Construction Costs Estimated Maintenance Costs (49 Years) Total Estimated Cost Description Budgeted Cost/Event Total (49 Years incl 3.8% annual inflation) Initial Construction + Maintenance Over 50 Years 7 Partial Relocation/ Reconfiguration of Parking Lot & ORV Access; Relocate and Expand Number of Air-Up/Air- Down Areas; Relocate Gatehouse and Add Emergency Vehicle Access to Beach $4.0 Mil Sand Nourishment (9 events at 7,249 cy/ event) $217,470 5.6 Mil 12.2 Mil Beach Grass Plantings (9 events at 46,840 sq ft/yr) $70,290 1.2 Mil Annual Maintenance of Lot $10,000 1.4 Mil 4.6 Evaluation of Supplementary Parking The parking lot at Sandy Neck Beach is unique in that it serves a variety of stakeholders who use the parking lot for varying purposes and lengths of time. The 2003 Long Range Natural Resource Management Plan for Sandy Neck Barrier Beach noted the demand for increased parking at the Beach Facility. As a part of the evaluation of conceptual alternatives for protection of the parking lot, a preliminary assessment of supplementary off-site parking resources was performed to explore how to meet the demand for parking during the peak season. Criteria identified by the Town as being important to a successful off-site parking operation include the following: use of existing town property or private property that can be purchased or leased, capacity for a minimum of 100 parking spaces, location within an 8 mile radius of the Park, and availability for 18 peak days during the summer season. The evaluation of supplementary parking resources explored the following items: • Identification of potential options for off-site parking; • Transportation between one or more off-site parking lots and the Park; and • Parking substitutes Off-Site Parking Options Work to identify parcels that meet the town’s criteria is still ongoing and will be summarized in a follow-on report. As a first cut however, Figure 23 shows land in the vicinity of Sandy Neck Beach Park that is owned by the Town of Barnstable, Town of Sandwich, and other privately owned land. While Barnstable already owns several parcels near Sandy Neck, most contain wetlands or are too small to provide adequate parking. Existing large parking lots within 8 miles of the Park are limited. These include Cape Cod Community College (5.9 miles), Sandwich High School (5.2 miles), the Barnstable County Page 41 of 46 Court House (7.7 miles). An intertown agreement would need to be negotiated with the Town of Sandwich for the use of the High School parking lot, and similar arrangements would be needed for the use of the Cape Cod Community College and Court House parking lots. Further considerations need to be examined regarding the use of existing town land or private land that could be purchased or leased. Once identified, these sites need to be evaluated for acreage, zoning, wetlands, and existing conditions that would be suitable for supporting a parking lot. Figure 13. Parcels owned by the Towns of Barnstable and Sandwich in the vicinity of Sandy Neck Beach. Transportation Between Off-Site Parking and Sandy Neck Beach Park To meet the peak weekend demand during the summer, the Town could explore operation of a Town-managed shuttle program or attaining a contract with a local bus service to transport patrons between Sandy Neck Beach Park and one or more off-site lots. This approach could help provide further access to Sandy Neck Beach during peak days when on-site parking spaces are full, reduce traffic on Route 6A and Sandy Neck Road, and reduce visitors' parking frustrations. Further analysis must be conducted to explore how a shuttle program would function and what operational costs would be incurred. The feasibility of a shuttle program needs to be examined concerning ridership, routes, fee structure, and Page 42 of 46 accessibility. Operational costs must be explored, including bus transportation expenses, contracts, employee hiring and pay, insurance requirements, and marketing resources. Alternatively, the Town could investigate use of the Cape Cod Regional Transit Authority (CCRTA) to provide shuttle service between the off-site parking locations and the Park. CCRTA currently operates in all of Cape Cod’s Communities and is an established transportation infrastructure that provides a low-cost fair option for riders. A ride on the CCRTA is $4 round trip ($2 round trip for those Age 60+ and disabled), whereas a day beach pass to a location such as the Sandy Neck parking lot costs $25. A transit option provided by the CCRTA would allow visitors an alternative that guarantees access to Sandy Neck. For this option, the Town would need to collaborate with the CCRTA to explore how ridership could be expanded to support the Town’s needs for off-site parking. As the CCRTA works to develop its routes, the Town could coordinate with the CCRTA to include a shuttle that stops at Sandy Neck (and potentially other beaches in Town) and designated off-site parking sites. This action would help the Town expand access to the Beach Facility, not only for visitors who want to attend the beach when the lot is full but also for those who are currently unable due to ADA access or socioeconomic barriers. Costs associated with using the CCRTA to provide beach access were not available in time for the technical memorandum. Parking Substitutes This option evaluates ways to maximize the use of the available parking spaces for daily visitors. Possible options that could provide increased access for daily visitors could include: • Staff Parking— Seasonal staff such as lifeguards and concession staff utilize the parking lot during weekend hours. More parking at the gatehouse could be provided for staff to free up spots in the main parking lot for daily visitors. • Carpooling Incentives— Certain parking spots could be designated for cars with multiple riders. This action would encourage individuals to minimize the number of vehicles they bring to the beach. • Overnight Parking Management— Even though Bodfish beach hours end at 10 PM each day, cars are left overnight at the parking lot by people visiting the summer camps and ORV owners. Sandy Neck staff begin each morning with a partially full parking lot. Currently, tickets are issued to cars left overnight; however, these tickets are not always paid and do not offer much incentive to remove the vehicles. Changes to the management policies and practices regarding these spaces could improve access to Sandy Neck. This could include contracting with a local tow company to enforce a policy for no overnight parking. • Bike Infrastructure— During the 2011 site improvements, a pedestrian pathway was designed to connect the gatehouse to the Beach facility. With this access in mind, the site could incentivize travel to the beach by bike. Bike racks could be added to the site, as well as adding charging stations for electric bikes. • Gatehouse Rentals- The staff at Sandy Neck could explore alternatives that would incentivize individuals to leave their cars at home. This could include expanding services to provide rentals for commonly used items such as beach chairs, umbrellas, coolers, and beach wagons. While a variety of off-site parking options could be implemented that would increase the number of parking spaces for daily visitors, and potentially increase access to the Park for visitors not currently able to visit the beach, these options alone will not be enough to make up for parking lost due to expected erosion and storm damage if the Town does not move forward with a long-term resiliency plan. The potential for off-site parking should be pursued by the Town in parallel with implementing the long-term resiliency plan. This will give the Town time to pilot the off-site parking options to determine the most successful approach. Page 43 of 46 5.0 Alternatives Ranking To help the Town with decisions on selecting and moving forward with additional design on three (3) top alternatives, the benefit-cost analysis from the 2016 study was updated. The benefit of developing a more resilient Park through any of the alternatives evaluated above was assumed to be equal to the annual revenue generated by the Park. The average revenue for fiscal years 2018 through 2021 reported in the Sandy Neck Conservation Commission Report (2021) was $1,021,676. Over 50-years this amounts to a total monetary benefit of $51,083,800. Using this value, the benefit to cost ratio was calculated for each alternative (Table 17). Higher benefit to cost ratios indicate that the alternative is expected to have a positive net value to the Town. Table 17. Benefit to Cost Ratio for Sandy Neck Beach Resiliency Alternatives. Alt. No. Alternative Type Project Description Total Estimated Cost (Capital + Maintenance Cost Over 50 Years) Benefit/Cost (B/C Ratio) 2 Conventional “hard” Engineering Structure Stone Revetment with Vegetated Sand Cover $22.8 Million 2.24 3 “Soft” Engineering Structure Bio-Engineered Sand-Filled Coir Bags with Vegetated Sand Cover $31.1 Million 1.64 5A Managed Site Reconfiguration Parking Lot Relocation & Reconfiguration $11.2 Million 4.56 5B Parking Lot & ORV Access Relocation with Re-use of Existing Air-Down Area $11.6 Million 4.40 5C Parking Lot & ORV Access Relocation with Screening Trees; Relocate Existing Air-Up/Air-Down Areas $11.7 Million 4.37 5D Parking Lot & ORV Access Relocation with Screening Dune; Relocate Existing Air-Up/Air-Down Areas $11.8 Million 4.33 6 Relocate/Reconfigure Parking Lot & ORV Access; Relocate and Expand Number of Air-Up/Air-Down Areas; Relocate Gatehouse and Add Emergency Vehicle Access to Beach $12.4 Million 4.12 7 Partial Relocation/ Reconfiguration of Parking Lot & ORV Access; Relocate and Expand Number of Air-Up/Air-Down Areas; Relocate Gatehouse and Add Emergency Vehicle Access to Beach $12.2 Million 4.19 Rating values for each alternative calculated during the 2016 study were also updated (Table 18). Alternatives with the highest rating value represent the most viable long-term resiliency alternative with respect to the following factors: • Benefit-cost ratio • Performance & Longevity Page 44 of 46 • Permittability • Resource Area Impacts/Benefits Table 28. Rating Matrix for Sandy Neck Beach Resiliency Alternatives. Alt. No. Project Description RATING PARAMETERS AND VALUES Total Rating Value (TRV) B/C Ratio Permit Difficulty Protection Rating Enhance/ Protect Coastal Wetland Resources Enhance Wildlife Habitat Calc. Value 0 = High 1 = Mod 2 = Low 0 = Low 1 = Mod 2 = High 0 = Low 1 = Mod 2 = High 0 = Low 1 = Mod 2 = High 2 Stone Revetment with Vegetated Sand Cover 2.24 0 2 0 1 5.24 3 Bio-Engineered Sand-Filled Coir Bags with Vegetated Sand Cover 1.64 1 0 0 0 2.64 5A Parking Lot Relocation & Reconfiguration 4.56 1 2 1 0 8.56 5B Parking Lot & ORV Access Relocation with Re-use of Existing Air-Down Area 4.40 1 2 1 2 10.40 5C Parking Lot & ORV Access Relocation with Screening Trees; Relocate Existing Air- Up/Air-Down Areas 4.37 1 2 1 2 10.37 5D Parking Lot & ORV Access Relocation with Screening Dune; Relocate Existing Air- Up/Air-Down Areas 4.33 1 2 1 2 10.33 6 Relocate/Reconfigure Parking Lot & ORV Access; Relocate and Expand Number of Air-Up/Air-Down Areas; Relocate Gatehouse and Add Emergency Vehicle Access to Beach 4.12 1 2 1 2 10.12 7 Partial Relocation/ Reconfiguration of Parking Lot & ORV Access; Relocate and Expand Number of Air- Up/Air-Down Areas; Relocate Gatehouse and Add Emergency Vehicle Access to Beach 4.19 1 1 1 2 9.19 Page 45 of 46 6.0 Summary and Key Findings This technical memorandum reports on an evaluation of alternatives for building resiliency to coastal storms and sea level rise at Sandy Neck Beach Park. Of the eight (8) alternatives evaluated, six (6) were developed during the previous 2016 study and two (2) new alternatives were developed as part of the current study. Evaluation criteria included benefit/cost ratio, permittability, level of protection provided to Park infrastructure, and benefits/impacts to wetland resources and wildlife habitat. Rating scores were developed for each alternative based on these criteria, with higher rating scores indicative of alternatives that met the evaluation criteria (Table 18). Work presented in this technical memorandum is intended to help guide the Town in the selection of three (3) top alternatives, for which more detailed design and evaluation will take place so that a single preferred alternative can be selected for improving coastal resiliency at the Park. Key findings of the study for each alternative are summarized in the following Table 19. Page 46 of 46 Table 19. Key Findings of Sandy Neck Beach Resiliency Alternatives. Alternative Findings Rating Score #2 Provides protection for existing parking lot during storms and future sea levels; however, this alternative is not permittable and would cause adverse impacts to the beach. Requires annual dune nourishment. 5.35 #3 Provides protection for existing parking lot during present day water levels and high return period storms (i.e., 20-year events), but parking lot becomes vulnerable during lower return period storms (i.e., 50- to 100-year events). Does not address vulnerability of gatehouse to flooding. Costs associated with initial construction and long-term maintenance are high. Requires annual dune nourishment. 2.64 #5A Provides protection for relocated parking lot during storms and future sea levels. Does not address existing impacts to wildlife habitat at ORV trail and will likely require on-site mitigation for impacts to Spadefoot Toad habitat. Does not address vulnerability of gatehouse to flooding. Allows for dune renourishment every 5 years. 8.56 #5B Provides protection for relocated parking lot during storms and future sea levels. Addresses impacts to wildlife habitat at ORV trail but will still likely require on-site mitigation for impacts to Spadefoot Toad habitat. Does not provide adequate air-up/air-down space or vulnerability of gatehouse to flooding. Allows for dune renourishment every 5 years. 10.40 #5C Provides protection for relocated parking lot during storms and future sea levels. Addresses impacts to wildlife habitat at ORV trail but will still likely require on-site mitigation for impacts to Spadefoot Toad habitat. Does not address vulnerability of gatehouse to flooding but includes vegetative screen of ORV air-up/air-down areas. Allows for dune renourishment every 5 years. 10.37 #5D Provides protection for relocated parking lot during storms and future sea levels. Addresses impacts to wildlife habitat at ORV trail but will still likely require on-site mitigation for impacts to Spadefoot Toad habitat. Does not address vulnerability of gatehouse to flooding but includes vegetative and dune screening of ORV air-up/air-down areas. Allows for dune renourishment every 5 years. 10.33 #6 Provides protection for relocated parking lot during storms and future sea levels. Addresses impacts to wildlife habitat at ORV trail but will still likely require on-site mitigation for impacts to Spadefoot Toad habitat. Reduces vulnerability of gatehouse to flooding, improves gatehouse operations and provides access between beach and parking area for emergency vehicles. Allows for dune renourishment every 5 years. 10.12 #7 Provides protection for relocated parking lot during storms and future sea levels. Addresses impacts to wildlife habitat at ORV trail. Requires less on- site mitigation for impacts to Spadefoot Toad habitat than previous alternatives. Reduces vulnerability of gatehouse to flooding, improves gatehouse operations and provides access between beach and parking area for emergency vehicles. Allows for dune renourishment every 5 years. 9.19 December 16, 2022 (Updated 4/14/23) RARE SPECIES SURVEY REPORT AND HABITAT ASSESSMENT Plymouth Gentian (Sabatia kennedyana) and Eastern Spadefoot Toad (Scaphiopus holbrookii) Sandy Neck Beach, 424 Sandy Neck Road – Barnstable, MA NHESP File No. 07-21418 1.0 INTRODUCTION As part of the Town of Barnstable’s pending MESA Review filing for parking improvements at the above-referenced site, Goddard Consulting (Goddard) conducted a rare plant survey for Plymouth Gentian, (Sabatia kennedyana) a species of state Special Concern, and Eastern Spadefoot toad, (Scaphiopus holbrookii) a State Threatened species. Surveys were conducted per our approved survey protocols to document if this plant is present within, or proximal to, areas of proposed work. Spadefoot toad habitat was assessed for both upland and potential breeding locations. Figures 1 and 2 depict all areas surveyed. In March 2023, Area 2 was added to the original survey area and findings described herein. As per the approved protocols, the surveys were conducted on July 29, 2022 led by Senior Biologist Mr. Steven Riberdy assisted by Mr. Tim McGuire (formerly with Goddard) and Mr. Ryan Roseen. Surveys were conducted by walking parallel line transects (1-2 meters on center) across all appropriate habitat within the survey areas while cataloging plants found. All areas of potential habitat were surveyed. The results are summarized below with brief descriptions of each habitat provided. Also, as per the approved protocols, a botanical inventory was conducted and is presented in Tables 1 and 2. The following is a brief description of the findings pertaining to the protected species, followed by a description of the other findings in each of the survey areas. 2.0 FINDINGS Natural Communities on site include a mixture of dune and interdune areas (maritime dune) interspersed with interdunal swales and small patches of coastal oak forest and pitch pine-scrub oak woodland. Upland areas are xeric and are comprised of a mixture of exposed sand with small patches of shrubs or sparse areas of herbaceous or low woody cover. The interdunal areas are shallow and were all observed to be dry during our July site visit. Outlined below are our findings for both the survey conducted for Plymouth gentian and habitat assessment for the Eastern Spadefoot toad. Dominant upland species include beach grass, beach heater, little bluestem, poison ivy, pitch pine, sheep laurel, red maple and scrub oak. Dominant vegetation within the swales includes cranberry, poison ivy, red maple, flat-topped aster, royal fern, marsh fern and various sedges and rushes. Notable invasives on site include patches of Phragmites and rusty willow which are being actively managed by the Town. Area 2 contains similar habitats with maritime dune habitats interspersed with interdune swales and isolated wetlands. April 14, 2023 Rare Species Survey Report and Habitat Assessment Sandy Neck Beach, 424 Sandy Neck Road, Barnstable, MA NHESP File #07-21418 Page | 2 3.0 PLYMOUTH GENTIAN Plymouth Gentian is a semi-aquatic plant that typically grows along the upper edges of coastal plain ponds. These ponds are rare in Massachusetts and are typically shallow and prone to significant water level fluctuations. The edges of these ponds are unique habitats containing many rare and unique plant species. This plant prefers the areas of fluctuating water along the upper margins of these ponds where competition by woody stem and invasive species is low. Plymouth gentian reaches 12 to 24 inches in height. It has narrow, opposite, lanceolate, entire leaves. Flowers are single, terminal, pink with a yellow center and have between 8-12 petals. This plant flowers between July and early September, often in response to receding water levels. This species can be differentiated from others in its genus by the number of petals; most Sabatia species have fewer than 7 petals and do not have basal rosettes. A similar species, slender marsh-pink, (S. campanulate) is also state listed (endangered), and occurs in similar habitats. This plant has fewer petals (7 or fewer) and does not have a basal rosette of leaves. Rose coreopsis (Coreopsis rosea) also occurs in similar habitats and has a showy pink flower. Plymouth Gentian differs in that it is a true composite flower (disk and ray flowers) and has linear leaves. All wetland areas were surveyed, with the exception of three isolated wetlands on the west side of the access road due to time of year, in this case the wetlands were assessed for potential to provide suitable habitat. None of the wetland areas were observed holding water during our first site (July 2022) visit, all were shallow depressions dominated by cranberry, rushes, and beaked sedges. Evaluation in March 2023 found that all isolated wetland areas had some degree of ponding, ranging from 3” to 18” of standing water. Also, several low-lying areas that did not qualify as wetlands were also surveyed. The areas surrounding these depressions were xeric, sandy, and not suitable habitat for Plymouth Gentian. Organic matter varied from very thin (<0.5 inches), to 2-3 inches in depth in areas with more prolonged inundation. Of the 17 depression areas surveyed, Plymouth Gentian was only located within one of these areas. This area, depicted in Figure 3, is located in the southeastern corner of the survey area. This depression is large compared to others on site, and contains a gradient of plants indicating varying levels of inundation. No water was observed during flowering; however, the soil surface was moist. In March 2023, this area had 6-9” of standing water. Within this area, 567 individual stems/rosettes of Plymouth Gentian were counted. Of these 567 individual stems, 176 were stems in leaf, bud or flower and 391 were basal rosettes. Approximately 25% of the non-rosette plants were in flower while the remainder were vegetative or basal rosettes. Plymouth Gentians were observed in clusters or small colonies. Most of these plants were observed within the mid-slope margins of the depression. Plymouth Gentians were not observed in the lowest, most inundated areas or the upper edges where the depression transitions to the xeric dune communities. Common plants found growing in association with this species included: cranberry, poison ivy, spirea, narrow leaf goldenrod, spatulate leaved sundew, royal fern, red maple, dwarf St. John’s wort, marsh fern, wool grass, beaked sedges and rushes. Overall, the health of the plants at this location appears good, with minimal invasive species present. The other large depressions on site that may have adequate hydrology for this species both have been reported to have been inundated by coastal storm overwash and also contained Phragmites, whereas this location did not. Area 2 was surveyed in March 2023, as such actual surveys for the species could not occur; However, based on observed characteristics areas were rated as potential for having appropriate habitat for this species was present in three isolated wetlands on the western side of the access road (Figure 3). Wetlands on the eastern side of the road were surveyed in July 2022 and no Plymouth gentian were found. April 14, 2023 Rare Species Survey Report and Habitat Assessment Sandy Neck Beach, 424 Sandy Neck Road, Barnstable, MA NHESP File #07-21418 Page | 3 4.0 EASTERN SPADEFOOT TOAD The Eastern Spadefoot toad inhabits sandy locations, often a mosaic of sandy open ground and shrub cover with temporary pools for breeding. These pools tend to be unique, in that they often are very ephemeral, holding water for periods of time as short as two weeks before drying. The Eastern Spadefoot is a short-term, explosive breeder, which only emerges from its subterranean burrows during the appropriate weather conditions (typically large thunderstorms with pressure drops) to breed. This species only breeds when the weather and local environmental conditions are optimal; populations have been known to skip one or multiple breeding seasons until favorable conditions are present. Due to its fossorial (burrowing) nature, this species is very difficult to detect, often remaining underground for weeks, only emerging during breeding events and on some nights to forage. Both upland and breeding habitats were evaluated on site as part of this habitat assessment. In general, all natural portions of the site are habitat for this species. The upland areas consist of dune and interdune areas with appropriate sandy substrate for burrowing toads. The study area is a mosaic of open sandy areas interspersed with patches of shrubs or forb cover. Numerous potential breeding sites are present, ranging from small (10'x20') areas to large (100' circuit) areas. None of these areas contained standing water during our July 2022 survey; however, all areas identified as potential breeding locations have evidence of some pooling water based on leaf staining, plant species, organic matter and drift lines. This was confirmed in March 2023 when all areas previously identified have some degree of standing water ranging from 3” to 18”. The presence of water in March, outside of frozen ground conditions, was several days after a significant rain event, suggesting these pools have some degree of viability as breeding habitat. In total 20 potential breeding locations were found within both the study areas (Figure 4). The upland area between these pools is xeric and is a mosaic of open sand and vegetated areas. Upland areas can be classified as mostly maritime dune communities with patches of pitch pine or coastal oak woodland. Common plant species in these upland areas include pitch pine, dune grass, beach heather, seaside goldenrod, beach rose, beach pea, poison ivy, bearberry, scrub oak and little bluestem. Overall, except for the existing parking areas, beach areas, and roadways, all natural sandy areas appear to be viable spadefoot toad habitat. The ORV road, which is an unimproved sandy road that bi-sects the study area, is borrowable. However, the high traffic observed on this roadway makes this area not conducive for spade foot toad occupation. 5.0 CONCLUSION One large population of Plymouth Gentian was found within one of the wetland areas (interdunal swale) on the southeastern corner of the study site. All other wetland and potentially appropriate habitat for this species was surveyed, with no gentian found. Three isolated wetland aeras on the western side of the access road were only assessed for potential habitat, ad found to have some potential. The population that was located appeared healthy and robust. Invasive species were low density within this area, due to active management efforts of the Town. Other areas of potential habitat were surveys and no gentian plants were located. Almost the entirety of the study area, except for the beach and developed area appears to be suitable habitat for spadefoot toad with several of the interdunal swales potentially providing breeding habitat. Sincerely, Steven Riberdy, MS, PWS, CWB, CERP, CE, PSS Lead Biologist / Senior Manager Table 1: Maritime Dune Areas Common Name Scientific Name Dominance Beachgrass Ammophila sp.C Poison Ivy Toxicodendron radicans D Scrub Oak Quercus berberidifolia C Red Cedar Thuja plicata F Common Juniper Juniperus communis F Beach Plum Prunus maritima C Beach Rose Rosa rugosa C Red Maple Acer rubrum F Grey Birch Betula populifolia F Rusty Willow Salix cinerea F (I) Bayberry Myrica gale C Quaking Aspen Populus tremuloides F Virginia Creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia F Pitch Pine Pinus ridiga C Beach Heather Hudsonia tomentosa C-D Sheep Laurel Kalmia angustifolia C Dewberry Rubus spp.C Raspberry Rubus idaeus C Seaside Goldenrod Solidago sempervirens C Little Bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium C-D Table 2: Interdunal Swales Common Name Scientific Name Dominance Large Cranberry Vaccinium macrocarpon D Poison Ivy Toxicodendron radicans C Canada Rush Juncus canadensis C Flat Top Aster Doellingeria umbellata C Linear Leaf Goldenrod Solidago graminifolia C Narrow Leaf Cattail Typha angustifolia F Marsh Fern Thelypteris palustris C Royal Fern Osmunda regalis F Dwarf St. Johnswort Hypericum mutilum F Steeplebush Spiraea tomentosa C Common Reed Grass Phragmites australis C (I) Bugleweed Ajuga reptans C Swamp Rose Mallow Hibiscus moscheutos F Spatulate Leaf Sundew Drosera interedmia F Plymouth Gentian Sabatia Kennedyana C (SC) Multiflora Rose Rosa multiflora F Brown Fruited Rush Juncus pelocarpa C-D Brown Beaksedge Rhychospora capitellata C-D Woolgrass Scirpus cyperinus C Red Maple Acer rubrum F Study Area 1 Study Area 2 Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Date: 4/13/2023 GC Job Number:20-2 Rare Species AssessmentUSGS Locus 425 Sandy Neck RoadBarnstable, MA Map: 263, Lot: 001 Figure 11 in = 2,000 ft 0 2,0001,000 Feet µ Area 1 Area 2 Date: 4/13/2023 GC Job Number:20-2 Figure 21 in = 400 ft 0 400200Feet µLegend Study Areas 425 Sandy Neck RoadBarnstable, MA Rare Species AssessmentStudy Areas Map: 263, Lot: 001 GC Job Number:20-2 Figure 31 in = 400 ft 0 400200Feet µLegend Study Areas Wetland Areas/Potential Habitat Observed Plymouth Gentian Location 2022 Potential Plymouth Gentian Habitat - Not Surveyed 425 Sandy Neck RoadBarnstable, MA Rare Species AssessmentRare Plant Survey Results Map: 263, Lot: 001 Note: The three pools were not surveyed for Plymouth gentian but have a low likelihood of providing habitat Date: 4/13/2023 GC Job Number:20-2 Figure 41 in = 400 ft 0 400200Feet µLegend Study Areas Wetland Areas/Potential Habitat Potential Spadefoot Toad Breeding Habitat Spadefoot Toad Upland Habitat 425 Sandy Neck RoadBarnstable, MA Rare Species AssessmentSpadefoot Toad Habitat Results Map: 263, Lot: 001 Date: 4/13/2023 Site Photos Maritime Dune Haitat Dune Habitat Site Photos Typical vegetated areas Typical Vegetated Areas Site Photos Typical Vegetated Areas Interdunal swale (Wetland) Site Photos Upland transitioning to interdunal swale Interdunal swale Site Photos Overview of habitat of Plymouth Gentian in interdunal swwale Site Photos Plymouth Gentian basal rosettes Site Photos Plymouth Gentian flowering stem Site Photos X Plymouth Gentian flowering Site Photos March, flooded IVW west side of entrance road March – small flooded IVW west side of access road Site Photos March flooded IVW central-western side of access road March – flooded wetland with Plymouth Gentian locations Site Photos March, flooded inter-dune swale southeast of gentian pool Flooded paved parking lot area, March 2023 Section J Accompanying Documents June 20, 2022 Tim McGuire Goddard Consulting, LLC 291 Main Street, Suite 8 Northborough MA 01532 RE: Project Location: Sandy Neck Beach Facility, 425 Sandy Neck Road Town: BARNSTABLE NHESP Tracking No.: 07-21418 To Whom It May Concern: Thank you for contacting the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program of the MA Division of Fisheries & Wildlife (the “Division”) for information regarding state-listed rare species in the vicinity of the above referenced site. Based on the information provided, this project site, or a portion thereof, is located within Priority Habitat 892 (PH 892) and Estimated Habitat 697 (EH 697) as indicated in the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas (15th Edition) for the following state-listed rare species: Scientific name Common Name Taxonomic Group State Status Scaphiopus holbrookii Eastern Spadefoot Amphibian Threatened Sternula antillarum Least Tern Bird Special Concern Charadrius melodus Piping Plover Bird Threatened Sabatia kennedyana Plymouth Gentian Plant Special Concern The species listed above are protected under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) (M.G.L. c. 131A) and its implementing regulations (321 CMR 10.00). State-listed wildlife are also protected under the state’s Wetlands Protection Act (WPA) (M.G.L. c. 131, s. 40) and its implementing regulations (310 CMR 10.00). Fact sheets for most state-listed rare species can be found on our website (www.mass.gov/nhesp). Please note that projects and activities located within Priority and/or Estimated Habitat must be reviewed by the Division for compliance with the state-listed rare species protection provisions of MESA (321 CMR 10.00) and/or the WPA (310 CMR 10.00). Wetlands Protection Act (WPA) If the project site is within Estimated Habitat and a Notice of Intent (NOI) is required, then a copy of the NOI must be submitted to the Division so that it is received at the same time as the local conservation commission. If the Division determines that the proposed project will adversely affect the actual Resource Area habitat of state-protected wildlife, then the proposed project may not be permitted (310 CMR 10.37, 10.58(4)(b) & 10.59). In such a case, the project proponent may request a consultation with the Division to discuss potential project design modifications that would avoid adverse effects to rare wildlife habitat. NHESP File No. 07-21418,Page 2 of 2 A streamlined joint MESA/WPA review process is available. When filing a Notice of Intent (NOI), the applicant may file concurrently under the MESA on the same NOI form and qualify for a 30-day streamlined joint review. For a copy of the NOI form, please visit the MA Department of Environmental Protection’s website: https://www.mass.gov/how-to/wpa-form-3-wetlands-notice-of-intent. MA Endangered Species Act (MESA) If the proposed project is located within Priority Habitat and is not exempt from review (see 321 CMR 10.14), then project plans, a fee, and other required materials must be sent to Natural Heritage Regulatory Review to determine whether a probable Take under the MA Endangered Species Act would occur (321 CMR 10.18). Please note that all proposed and anticipated development must be disclosed, as MESA does not allow project segmentation (321 CMR 10.16). For a MESA filing checklist and additional information please see our website: https://www.mass.gov/regulatory-review. We recommend that rare species habitat concerns be addressed during the project design phase prior to submission of a formal MESA filing, as avoidance and minimization of impacts to rare species and their habitats is likely to expedite endangered species regulatory review. This evaluation is based on the most recent information available in the Natural Heritage database, which is constantly being expanded and updated through ongoing research and inventory. If the purpose of your inquiry is to generate a species list to fulfill the federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) information requirements for a permit, proposal, or authorization of any kind from a federal agency, we recommend that you contact the National Marine Fisheries Service at (978)281-9328 and use the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Information for Planning and Conservation website (https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac). If you have any questions regarding this letter please contact Emily Holt, Endangered Species Review Assistant, at (508) 389-6385. Sincerely, Everose Schlüter, Ph.D. Assistant Director June 21, 2023 Amber Unruh Town of Barnstable 382 Falmouth Road Hyannis, Massachusetts 02601 RE: Applicant: Amber Unruh Project Location: 425 Sandy Neck Road Project Description: Re-location of existing parking facility and gate house NHESP File No.: 23-4196 Heritage Hub Form ID: RC-60236 Plan Reviewed: Plan name: Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration, Town of Barnstable Plan date: 10/24/22 Revised Date: N/A Dear Applicant: The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife (the “Division”) received the MESA Project Review Checklist (dated May 19, 2023) and supporting documentation for review pursuant to the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MGL. c. 131A) and its implementing regulations (321 CMR 10.00) (MESA). As proposed, the Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration and Relocation Project will occur within Priority Habitat of state-listed species as delineated in the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas. Scientific Name Common Name Taxonomic Group State Status ThreatenedBirdPiping PloverCharadrius melodus ThreatenedAmphibianEastern SpadefootScaphiopus holbrookii Special ConcernBirdLeast TernSternula antillarum ThreatenedReptileNorthern Diamond-backed Terrapin Malaclemys terrapin Special ConcernPlantPlymouth GentianSabatia kennedyana State-listed species and their habitats are protected pursuant to the MESA . 23-4196NHESP No.Page 2 of 3June 21, 2023 Issued The purpose of the review under the MESA is for the Division to determine whether a Take of state -listed species will result from the proposed project . The MESA prohibits the Take of state-listed species, which includes actions that “in reference to animals, means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, hound, kill, trap, capture, collect, process, disrupt the nesting, breeding, feeding or migratory activity or attempt to engage in any such conduct, or to assist such conduct… Disruption of nesting, breeding, feeding or migratory activity may result from, but is not limited to , the modification, degradation or destruction of habitat of state-listed wildlife species” (321 CMR 10.02). As described in the MESA application, the Sandy Neck Beach Reconfiguration and Relocation Project will result in new impervious surface and permanent loss of habitat for state -listed species totaling ±2.18 acres with additional temporary alteration of habitat totaling ±0.5 acres. Based on a review of the information that was provided and the information that is currently contained in our database, the Division has determined that this project , as proposed, will result in a Take (321 CMR 10.18 (2)(b)) of Spadefoot due to the permanent loss or alteration of suitable habitat, potential direct mortality of individuals, and interference with the feeding , breeding, over-wintering, refuge and dispersal activities for these species. Projects resulting in a Take of state-listed species may only be permitted if they meet the performance standards for a Conservation and Management Permit (CMP; 321 CMR 10.23). In order for a project to qualify for a CMP, the Applicant must demonstrate that the project has avoided , minimized and mitigated impacts to state-listed species consistent with the following performance standards : (a) adequately assess alternatives to both temporary and permanent impacts to the state -listed species, (b) demonstrate that an insignificant portion of the local population will be impacted, and (c) develop and agree to carry out a conservation and management plan that provides a long-term net benefit to the conservation of the state-listed species. This Determination is a final decision of the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife pursuant to 321 CMR 10.18. Any person aggrieved by this decision shall have the right to an adjudicatory hearing at the Division pursuant to M.G.L. c. 30A, s.11 in accordance with the procedures for informal hearings set forth in 801 CMR 1.02 and 1.03. Any notice of claim for an adjudicatory hearing shall be made in writing, accompanied by a filing fee in the amount of $500.00 and the information specified in 321 CMR 10.25 (3). The notice of claim shall be sent to the Division’s Director, Mark S. Tisa, by certified mail, hand delivered or postmarked within twenty -one (21) days of the date of the Division’s Determination. Projects resulting in a Take of two (2) or more acres within Priority Habitat must file an Environmental Notification Form with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (“MEPA”) Office and complete all MEPA actions prior to completing the MESA permitting process, per 301 CMR 11.03 (2)(b). No soil or vegetation disturbance, work, clearing, grading or other activities related to the subject filing shall be conducted anywhere on the project site until the MESA permitting process is complete. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Amy Hoenig, Endangered Species Review Biologist, at amy.hoenig@mass.gov. 23-4196NHESP No.Page 3 of 3June 21, 2023 Issued Sincerely, Everose Schlüter, Ph.D. Assistant Director cc: July 24, 2023 Mark S. Ells, Town Manager Town of Barnstable 367 Main Street Hyannis, MA 02601 Cc: Leslie Fields (lfields@woodsholegroup.com) RE: Environmental Notification Form: Proposed Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Dear Mr. Ells, On behalf of The Nature Conservancy, I am writing to express our support for the Sandy Neck Beach Long- Term Coastal Resiliency Project as proposed in the Environmental Notification Form (ENF). As you know Sandy Neck is a 6-mile, 1400-acre barrier beach located on Cape Cod Bay in West Barnstable on Cape Cod. The barrier system protects the Great Marsh, the second largest marsh in MA, and is an excellent example of an intact barrier beach system with a dune-swale system second in size in MA to Cape Cod National Seashore. The Nature Conservancy has owned land at Sandy Neck since 1991 and has been active both in land protection and in restoration of the dune-swale system. Sandy Neck is currently one of the highest quality remaining dune systems in the North Atlantic Coast Ecosystem. In addition, in a recent coastal resilience analysis by The Nature Conservancy, Sandy Neck has been identified as a resilient site for both terrestrial resilience as well as an important coastal site for marsh migration with sea level rise. The current location of the main parking area and gatehouse are causing severe coastal erosion and primary dune loss and flooding and will impact the ability of the public to access Sandy Neck in the long term. The revenues from this access are critical to the current excellent natural resource management of the site including shorebird management and swale restoration. In addition, when the facilities are damaged the town has to divert revenues to repair and maintenance, further jeopardizing natural resource management at the site. Therefore, we support this project as described in the ENF as an action that will protect people and nature from the impacts of climate change by protecting an existing ecological asset. Sincerely, Karen Lombard Director of Stewardship & Restoration The Nature Conservancy in Massachusetts 20 Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 tel (617) 532-8300 fax (617) 232-8400 nature.org/massachusetts 100% Recycled Paper 482 Main Street | Dennis, MA 02638 Tel: 508-619-3185 | info@apcc.org | www.apcc.org Andrew Gottlieb Executive Director BOARD OF DIRECTORS Eliza McClennen President Steven Koppel Vice President Bob Ciolek Treasurer Jack Looney Clerk Tom Cohn John Cumbler Margo Fenn Joshua Goldberg DeeDee Holt Pat Hughes Molly Karlson Elysse Magnotto-Cleary Blue Magruder Wendy Northcross Rick O’Connor Kris Ramsay Robert Summersgill Charles Sumner Taryn Wilson July 27, 2023 Mark S. Ells, Town Manager Town of Barnstable 367 Main Street Hyannis, MA 02601 RE: Environmental Notification Form: Proposed Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project Dear Mr. Ells: The Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC), writes to express support for the Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project as proposed in the Environmental Notification Form. The project proposed by the town of Barnstable will help improve the resilience of the Sandy Neck facilities and public access while supporting improvement and recovery of natural resources. The town has undertaken a detailed planning process for this site, including exploration of several design alternatives. The site has continued to require maintenance and management due to the area’s vulnerability to storm surge and the impacts of climate change. Founded in 1968, APCC is Cape Cod’s leading nonprofit environmental advocacy and education organization with the mission to preserve, protect and restore the natural resources of the Cape. APCC has been involved in early discussion and review of proposed plans for Sandy Neck Beach to improve the coastal resilience of this site. The proposed managed retreat of the existing parking lot will reduce long-term maintenance at the site, integrating nature- based solutions to stabilize the coastline, thereby reducing erosion and restoring the dune. The proposed project seeks to minimize the negative impacts on the environment while providing or maintaining recreational and access to the area with an overall net benefit to habitat and increased resilience of infrastructure and the coastline. While APCC is supportive of the proposed approach and preferred alternative, we encourage the town to work closely with the state’s Natural Heritage and 100% Recycled Paper 482 Main Street | Dennis, MA 02638 Tel: 508-619-3185 | info@apcc.org | www.apcc.org Endangered Species Program to take all necessary actions to avoid, minimize and mitigate any impacts on rare species habitat of the spadefoot toad or other affected state-listed species. We encourage continued coordination with Natural Heritage on this matter to develop the best plan for addressing any potential impacts. We urge you to support this important project proposal. you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (508) 619-3185. Sincerely, Don Keeran Assistant Director cc: Leslie Fields, Woods Hole Group Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool Project Report Sandy Neck Beach Date Created: 6/9/2023 2:07:19 PM Created By: lfields Date Report Generated: 6/9/2023 3:03:26 PM Tool Version: Version 1.2 Project Contact Information: Amber Unruh (Amber.Unruh@town.barnstable.ma.us) Project Summary Link to Project Estimated Capital Cost: $5500000.00 End of Useful Life Year: 2076 Project within mapped Environmental Justice neighborhood: No Ecosystem Service Benefits Scores Project Score Moderate Exposure Scores Sea Level Rise/Storm Surge High Exposure Extreme Precipitation - Urban Flooding High Exposure Extreme Precipitation - Riverine Flooding Not Exposed Extreme Heat High Exposure Asset Preliminar y Climate Risk Rating Summar y Number of Assets: 3 Asset Risk Sea Level Rise/Storm Surge Extreme Precipitation - Urban Flooding Extreme Precipitation - Riverine Flooding Extreme Heat Gatehouse (relocated along existing access road) High Risk High Risk Low Risk High Risk Sandy Neck Beach Parking Lot High Risk High Risk Low Risk High Risk Restoration of Primar y Frontal Dune ⎯⎯⎯ Natural Resource project assets do not receive a preliminary climate risk rating. ⎯⎯⎯ Climate Resilience Design Standards Summar y Target Planning Horizon Intermediate Planning Horizon Percentile Return Period Tier Sea Level Rise/Storm Surge Gatehouse (relocated along existing access road) 2070 2050 100-yr (1%) Sandy Neck Beach Parking Lot 2070 2050 Restoration of Primary Frontal Dune 2030 Extreme Precipitation Gatehouse (relocated along existing access road) 2070 25-yr (4%)Tier 3 Sandy Neck Beach Parking Lot 2070 Tier 2 Restoration of Primary Frontal Dune 2030 Tier 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Page 1 of 17 Extreme Heat Gatehouse (relocated along existing access road) 2070 50th Tier 3 Sandy Neck Beach Parking Lot 2070 50th Tier 2 Restoration of Primary Frontal Dune 2030 50th Tier 1 Scoring Rationale - Project Exposure Score The purpose of the Exposure Score output is to provide a preliminar y assessment of whether the overall project site and subsequent assets are exposed to impacts of natural hazard events and/or future impacts of climate change. For each climate parameter, the Tool will calculate one of the following exposure ratings: Not Exposed, Low Exposure, Moderate Exposure, or High Exposure. The rationale behind the exposure rating is provided below. Sea Level Rise/Storm Surge This project received a "High Exposure" because of the following: Located within the predicted mean high water shoreline by 2030 Exposed to the 1% annual coastal flood event as early as 2030 Historic coastal flooding at project site Extreme Precipitation - Urban Flooding This project received a "High Exposure" because of the following: Historic flooding at the project site Increased imper vious area Maximum annual daily rainfall exceeds 10 inches within the overall project's useful life Existing imper vious area of the project site is between 10% and 50% Extreme Precipitation - Riverine Flooding This project received a "Not Exposed" because of the following: No historic riverine flooding at project site The project is not within a mapped FEMA floodplain [outside of the Massachusetts Coast Flood Risk Model (MC-FRM)] Project is more than 500ft from a waterbody Project is not likely susceptible to riverine erosion Extreme Heat This project received a "High Exposure" because of the following: Increased imper vious area Existing trees are being removed as part of the proposed project Less than 10% of the existing project site has canopy cover 10 to 30 day increase in days over 90 deg. F within project's useful life Located within 100 ft of existing water body Scoring Rationale - Asset Preliminar y Climate Risk Rating A Preliminar y Climate Risk Rating is determined for each infrastructure and building asset by considering the overall project Exposure Score and responses to Step 4 questions provided by the user in the Tool. Natural Resource assets do not receive a risk rating. The following factors are what influenced the risk ratings for each asset. Asset - Gatehouse (relocated along existing access road) Primar y asset criticality factors influencing risk ratings for this asset: Asset may inaccessible/inoperable for more than a day but less than a week after natural hazard event Greater than 10,000 people would be directly affected by the loss/inoperability of the asset The building/facility provides ser vices to populations that reside within Environmental Justice neighborhoods or climate vulnerable populations. Few alternative programs and/or services are available to support the community Page 2 of 17 Inoperability is likely to significantly impact other facilities, assets, or buildings and will likely affect their ability to operate There are no hazardous materials in the asset Asset - Sandy Neck Beach Parking Lot Primar y asset criticality factors influencing risk ratings for this asset: Asset can be inaccessible/inoperable more than a week after natural hazard event without consequences Less than 100,000 people would be directly affected by the loss/inoperability of the asset The infrastructure provides services to populations that reside within Environmental Justice neighborhoods or climate vulnerable populations. Inoperability of the asset would not be expected to result in injuries Inoperability is likely to significantly impact other facilities, assets, or buildings and will likely affect their ability to operate There are no hazardous materials in the asset Asset - Restoration of Primar y Frontal Dune Primar y asset criticality factors influencing risk ratings for this asset: No score available Page 3 of 17 Project Climate Resilience Design Standards Output Climate Resilience Design Standards and Guidance are recommended for each asset and climate parameter. The Design Standards for each climate parameter include the following: recommended planning horizon (target and/or intermediate), recommended return period (Sea Level Rise/Storm Surge and Precipitation) or percentile (Heat), and a list of applicable design criteria that are likely to be affected by climate change. Some design criteria have numerical values associated with the recommended return period and planning horizon, while others have tiered methodologies with step-by-step instructions on how to estimate design values given the other recommended design standards. Asset: Gatehouse (relocated along existing access road)Building/Facility Sea Level Rise/Storm Surge High Risk Target Planning Horizon: 2070 Intermediate Planning Horizon: 2050 Return Period: 100-yr (1%) LIMITATIONS: The recommended Climate Resilience Design Standards for the Sea Level Rise / Storm Surge Design Criteria are based on the user drawn polygon and relationships as defined in the Supporting Documents. The projected values provided through the Tool are based on the Massachusetts Coast Flood Risk Model (MC-FRM) outputs as of 9/13/2021, which included GIS-based data for three planning horizons (2030, 2050, 2070) and six return periods (0.1%, 0.2%, 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 5%). These values are projections based on assumptions as defined in the model and the LiDAR used at the time. For additional information on the MC-FRM, review the additional resources provided on the Start Here page. The projected values, Standards, and Guidance provided within this Tool may be used to inform plans and designs, but they do not provide guarantees for future conditions or resilience. The projected values are not to be considered final or appropriate for construction documents without supporting engineering analyses. The guidance provided within this Tool is intended to be general and users are encouraged to do their own due diligence. Applicable Design Criteria Projected Tidal Datums: APPLICABLE Planning Horizon MHHW MHW MTL MLW MLLW (ft-NAVD88) 2050 8.1 7.7 3.0 -1.8 -1.9 2070 10.0 9.6 4.4 -0.8 -1.1 This project is located in an area with uncertainty for future tidal datums. These uncertain zones are either dynamic in terms of geomorphology or are restricted by manmade features (i.e., culverts, tide gates, etc.) that should be evaluated in more detail at the site-scale. Projected Water Surface Elevation: APPLICABLE Asset Name Recommended Planning Horizon Recommended Return Period Max Min Area Weighted Average (ft - NAVD88) Gatehouse (relocated along existing access road) 2050 1% (100-Year)14.1 12.8 13.9 2070 15.6 14.6 15.4 Projected Wave Action Water Elevation: APPLICABLE Asset Name Recommended Planning Horizon Recommended Return Period Max Min Area Weighted Average (ft - NAVD88) Gatehouse (relocated along existing access road) 2050 1% (100-Year)17.1 12.8 15.6 2070 19.2 14.6 17.4 Projected Wave Heights: APPLICABLE Asset Name Recommended Planning Horizon Recommended Return Period Max Min Area Weighted Average (Feet) Gatehouse (relocated along existing access road) 2050 1% (100-Year)5.0 0.0 2.3 2070 6.0 0.0 2.6 Projected Duration of Flooding: APPLICABLE Page 4 of 17 Methodology to Estimate Projected Values Projected Design Flood Velocity: APPLICABLE Methodology to Estimate Projected Values Projected Scour & Erosion: NOT APPLICABLE Extreme Precipitation High Risk Target Planning Horizon: 2070 Return Period: 25-yr (4%) LIMITATIONS: The recommended Standards for Total Precipitation Depth & Peak Intensity are determined by the user drawn polygon and relationships as defined in the Supporting Documents. The projected Total Precipitation Depth values provided through the Tool are based on the climate projections developed by Cornell University as part of EEA's Massachusetts Climate and Hydrologic Risk Project, GIS-based data as of 10/15/21. For additional information on the methodology of these precipitation outputs, see Supporting Documents. While Total Precipitation Depth & Peak Intensity for 24-hour Design Storms are useful to inform planning and design, it is recommended to also consider additional longer- and shorter-duration precipitation events and intensities in accordance with best practices. Longer-duration, lower-intensity storms allow time for infiltration and reduce the load on infrastructure over the duration of the storm. Shorter-duration, higher-intensity storms often have higher runoff volumes because the water does not have enough time to infiltrate infrastructure systems (e.g., catch basins) and may overflow or back up during such storms, resulting in flooding. In the Northeast, short-duration high intensity rain events are becoming more frequent, and there is often little early warning for these events, making it difficult to plan operationally. While the Tool does not provide recommended design standards for these scenarios, users should still consider both short- and long-duration precipitation events and how they may impact the asset. The projected values, standards, and guidance provided within this Tool may be used to inform plans and designs, but they do not provide guarantees for future conditions or resilience. The projected values are not to be considered final or appropriate for construction documents without supporting engineering analyses. The guidance provided within this Tool is intended to be general and users are encouraged to do their own due diligence Applicable Design Criteria Tiered Methodology: Tier 3 Projected Total Precipitation Depth & Peak Intensity for 24-hr Design Storms: APPLICABLE Asset Name Recommended Planning Horizon Recommended Return Period (Design Storm) Projected 24-hr Total Precipitation Depth (inches) Step-by-Step Methodology for Peak Intensity Gatehouse (relocated along existing access road)2070 25-Year (4%)7.8 Downloadable Methodology PDF Projected Riverine Peak Discharge & Peak Flood Elevation: NOT APPLICABLE Extreme Heat High Risk Target Planning Horizon: 2070 Percentile: 50th Percentile Applicable Design Criteria Tiered Methodology: Tier 3 Projected Annual/Summer/Winter Average Temperatures: APPLICABLE Methodology to Estimate Projected Values : Tier 3 Projected Heat Index: APPLICABLE Methodology to Estimate Projected Values : Tier 3 Projected Growing Degree Days: NOT APPLICABLE Projected Days Per Year With Max Temp > 95°F, >90°F, <32°F: APPLICABLE Methodology to Estimate Projected Values : Tier 3 Projected Number of Heat Waves Per Year & Average Heat Wave Duration: APPLICABLE Methodology to Estimate Projected Values : Tier 3 Page 5 of 17 Projected Cooling Degree Days & Heating Degree Days (base = 65°F): APPLICABLE Methodology to Estimate Projected Values : Tier 3 Asset: Sandy Neck Beach Parking Lot Infrastructure Sea Level Rise/Storm Surge High Risk Target Planning Horizon: 2070 Intermediate Planning Horizon: 2050 Return Period: Not exposed to coastal flooding by 2070 LIMITATIONS: The recommended Climate Resilience Design Standards for the Sea Level Rise / Storm Surge Design Criteria are based on the user drawn polygon and relationships as defined in the Supporting Documents. The projected values provided through the Tool are based on the Massachusetts Coast Flood Risk Model (MC-FRM) outputs as of 9/13/2021, which included GIS-based data for three planning horizons (2030, 2050, 2070) and six return periods (0.1%, 0.2%, 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 5%). These values are projections based on assumptions as defined in the model and the LiDAR used at the time. For additional information on the MC-FRM, review the additional resources provided on the Start Here page. The projected values, Standards, and Guidance provided within this Tool may be used to inform plans and designs, but they do not provide guarantees for future conditions or resilience. The projected values are not to be considered final or appropriate for construction documents without supporting engineering analyses. The guidance provided within this Tool is intended to be general and users are encouraged to do their own due diligence. Applicable Design Criteria Projected Tidal Datums: NOT APPLICABLE Projected Water Surface Elevation: NOT APPLICABLE Projected Wave Action Water Elevation: NOT APPLICABLE Projected Wave Heights: NOT APPLICABLE Projected Duration of Flooding: APPLICABLE Methodology to Estimate Projected Values Projected Design Flood Velocity: APPLICABLE Methodology to Estimate Projected Values Projected Scour & Erosion: APPLICABLE Methodology to Estimate Projected Values Extreme Precipitation High Risk Target Planning Horizon: 2070 Return Period: No Return Period LIMITATIONS: The recommended Standards for Total Precipitation Depth & Peak Intensity are determined by the user drawn polygon and relationships as defined in the Supporting Documents. The projected Total Precipitation Depth values provided through the Tool are based on the climate projections developed by Cornell University as part of EEA's Massachusetts Climate and Hydrologic Risk Project, GIS-based data as of 10/15/21. For additional information on the methodology of these precipitation outputs, see Supporting Documents. While Total Precipitation Depth & Peak Intensity for 24-hour Design Storms are useful to inform planning and design, it is recommended to also consider additional longer- and shorter-duration precipitation events and intensities in accordance with best practices. Longer-duration, lower-intensity storms allow time for infiltration and reduce the load on infrastructure over the duration of the storm. Shorter-duration, higher-intensity storms often have higher runoff volumes because the water does not have enough time to infiltrate infrastructure systems (e.g., catch basins) and may overflow or back up during such storms, resulting in flooding. In the Northeast, short-duration high intensity rain events are becoming more frequent, and there is often little early warning for these events, making it difficult to plan operationally. While the Tool does not provide recommended design standards for these scenarios, users should still consider both short- and long-duration precipitation events and how they may impact the asset. The projected values, standards, and guidance provided within this Tool may be used to inform plans and designs, but they do not provide guarantees for future conditions or resilience. The projected values are not to be considered final or appropriate for construction documents without supporting engineering analyses. The guidance provided within this Tool is intended to be general and users are encouraged to do their own due diligence Page 6 of 17 Applicable Design Criteria Tiered Methodology: Tier 2 Projected Total Precipitation Depth & Peak Intensity for 24-hr Design Storms: APPLICABLE Asset Name Recommended Planning Horizon Recommended Return Period (Design Storm) Projected 24-hr Total Precipitation Depth (inches) Step-by-Step Methodology for Peak Intensity Sandy Neck Beach Parking Lot 2070 No Return Period N/A Downloadable Methodology PDF Projected Riverine Peak Discharge & Peak Flood Elevation: NOT APPLICABLE Extreme Heat High Risk Target Planning Horizon: 2070 Percentile: 50th Percentile Applicable Design Criteria Tiered Methodology: Tier 2 Projected Annual/Summer/Winter Average Temperatures: APPLICABLE Methodology to Estimate Projected Values : Tier 2 Projected Heat Index: APPLICABLE Methodology to Estimate Projected Values : Tier 2 Projected Growing Degree Days: NOT APPLICABLE Projected Days Per Year With Max Temp > 95°F, >90°F, <32°F: APPLICABLE Methodology to Estimate Projected Values : Tier 2 Projected Number of Heat Waves Per Year & Average Heat Wave Duration: APPLICABLE Methodology to Estimate Projected Values : Tier 2 Projected Cooling Degree Days & Heating Degree Days (base = 65°F): NOT APPLICABLE Asset: Restoration of Primar y Frontal Dune Natural Resources Sea Level Rise/Storm Surge Target Planning Horizon: 2030 Intermediate Planning Horizon: Not Applicable LIMITATIONS: The recommended Climate Resilience Design Standards for the Sea Level Rise / Storm Surge Design Criteria are based on the user drawn polygon and relationships as defined in the Supporting Documents. The projected values provided through the Tool are based on the Massachusetts Coast Flood Risk Model (MC-FRM) outputs as of 9/13/2021, which included GIS-based data for three planning horizons (2030, 2050, 2070) and six return periods (0.1%, 0.2%, 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 5%). These values are projections based on assumptions as defined in the model and the LiDAR used at the time. For additional information on the MC-FRM, review the additional resources provided on the Start Here page. The projected values, Standards, and Guidance provided within this Tool may be used to inform plans and designs, but they do not provide guarantees for future conditions or resilience. The projected values are not to be considered final or appropriate for construction documents without supporting engineering analyses. The guidance provided within this Tool is intended to be general and users are encouraged to do their own due diligence. Applicable Design Criteria Projected Tidal Datums: APPLICABLE Planning Horizon MHHW MHW MTL MLW MLLW (ft-NAVD88) 2030 6.8 6.4 1.7 -3.0 -3.2 This project is located in an area with uncertainty for future tidal datums. These uncertain zones are either dynamic in terms of geomorphology or are restricted by manmade features (i.e., culverts, tide gates, etc.) that should be evaluated in more detail at the site-scale. Page 7 of 17 Projected Water Surface Elevation: APPLICABLE Asset Name Recommended Planning Horizon Recommended Return Period Max Min Area Weighted Average (ft - NAVD88) Restoration of Primar y Frontal Dune 2030 5% (20-Year)11.1 10.1 10.5 Projected Wave Action Water Elevation: APPLICABLE Asset Name Recommended Planning Horizon Recommended Return Period Max Min Area Weighted Average (ft - NAVD88) Restoration of Primar y Frontal Dune 2030 5% (20-Year)12.5 10.1 11.2 Projected Wave Heights: APPLICABLE Asset Name Recommended Planning Horizon Recommended Return Period Max Min Area Weighted Average (Feet) Restoration of Primar y Frontal Dune 2030 5% (20-Year)3.0 0.0 1.0 Return Period Recommendations for natural resource assets and subsequent projected values are provided as a consideration for users, not a formal standard. Users should follow industry best practices for designing natural resource assets in coordination with the appropriate regulatory agencies. Projected Duration of Flooding: NOT APPLICABLE Projected Design Flood Velocity: NOT APPLICABLE Projected Scour & Erosion: APPLICABLE Methodology to Estimate Projected Values Extreme Precipitation Target Planning Horizon: 2030 LIMITATIONS: The recommended Standards for Total Precipitation Depth & Peak Intensity are determined by the user drawn polygon and relationships as defined in the Supporting Documents. The projected Total Precipitation Depth values provided through the Tool are based on the climate projections developed by Cornell University as part of EEA's Massachusetts Climate and Hydrologic Risk Project, GIS-based data as of 10/15/21. For additional information on the methodology of these precipitation outputs, see Supporting Documents. While Total Precipitation Depth & Peak Intensity for 24-hour Design Storms are useful to inform planning and design, it is recommended to also consider additional longer- and shorter-duration precipitation events and intensities in accordance with best practices. Longer-duration, lower-intensity storms allow time for infiltration and reduce the load on infrastructure over the duration of the storm. Shorter-duration, higher-intensity storms often have higher runoff volumes because the water does not have enough time to infiltrate infrastructure systems (e.g., catch basins) and may overflow or back up during such storms, resulting in flooding. In the Northeast, short-duration high intensity rain events are becoming more frequent, and there is often little early warning for these events, making it difficult to plan operationally. While the Tool does not provide recommended design standards for these scenarios, users should still consider both short- and long-duration precipitation events and how they may impact the asset. The projected values, standards, and guidance provided within this Tool may be used to inform plans and designs, but they do not provide guarantees for future conditions or resilience. The projected values are not to be considered final or appropriate for construction documents without supporting engineering analyses. The guidance provided within this Tool is intended to be general and users are encouraged to do their own due diligence Applicable Design Criteria Tiered Methodology: Tier 1 Projected Total Precipitation Depth & Peak Intensity for 24-hr Design Storms: APPLICABLE Asset Name Recommended Planning Horizon Recommended Return Period (Design Storm) Projected 24-hr Total Precipitation Depth (inches) Step-by-Step Methodology for Peak Intensity Restoration of Primary Frontal Dune 2030 25-Year (4%)6.8 Downloadable Methodology PDF Page 8 of 17 Return Period Recommendations for natural resource assets and subsequent projected values are provided as a consideration for users, not a formal standard. Users should follow industry best practices for designing natural resource assets in coordination with the appropriate regulatory agencies. ATTENTION: This is a Tier 1 project. It is advised to compare the extreme precipitation output values to the NOAA+ methodology to calculate total precipitation depth for 24-hr design storms. This methodology can be found in the following PDF. (Link). Projected Riverine Peak Discharge & Peak Flood Elevation: NOT APPLICABLE Extreme Heat Target Planning Horizon: 2030 Percentile: 50th Percentile Applicable Design Criteria Projected Annual/Summer/Winter Average Temperatures: NOT APPLICABLE Projected Heat Index: NOT APPLICABLE Projected Growing Degree Days: NOT APPLICABLE Projected Days Per Year With Max Temp > 95°F, >90°F, <32°F: NOT APPLICABLE Projected Number of Heat Waves Per Year & Average Heat Wave Duration: NOT APPLICABLE Projected Cooling Degree Days & Heating Degree Days (base = 65°F): NOT APPLICABLE Page 9 of 17 Sea Level Rise/Storm Surge Project Maps The following three maps illustrate the Projected Water Surface Elevation for the 2030, 2050, and 2070 planning horizons corresponding to the lowest return period (largest design storm) recommended across the assets identified for this project in the Tool. For projects that only have Natural Resource assets, the maps will show the Projected Water Surface Elevations corresponding to the 5% (20-year) return period. Refer to the Climate Resilience Design Standards Output - Sea Level Rise/Storm Surge Section for additional values associated with other assets. The maps include the project area as drawn by the user with a 0.1 mile minimum buffer, but do not reflect the location of specific assets on the site. LIMITATIONS: The recommended Climate Resilience Design Standards for the Sea Level Rise / Storm Surge Design Criteria are based on the user drawn polygon and relationships as defined in the Supporting Documents. The projected values and maps provided through the Tool are based on the Massachusetts Coast Flood Risk Model (MC-FRM) outputs as of 9/13/2021, which included GIS-based data for three planning horizons (2030, 2050, 2070) and six return periods (0.1%, 0.2%, 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 5%). These values are projections based on assumptions as defined in the model and the LiDAR used at the time. For additional information on the MC-FRM, review the additional resources provided on the Start Here page. The projected values, maps, Standards, and Guidance provided within this Tool may be used to inform plans and designs, but they do not provide guarantees for future conditions or resilience. The projected values are not to be considered final or appropriate for construction documents without supporting engineering analyses. The guidance provided within this Tool is intended to be general and users are encouraged to do their own due diligence. Page 10 of 17 Legend Project BoundaryProjected Water SurfaceElevation (ft-NAVD88) ≤ 11.1 11.1 - 11.2 11.2 - 11.4 11.4 - 11.6 11.6 - 11.8 11.8 - 12.0 12.0 - 12.2 12.2 - 12.4 12.4 - 12.6 12.6 - 12.8 12.8 - 13.0 13.0 - 13.2 13.2 - 13.4 13.4 - 13.6 13.6 - 13.8 13.8 - 14.0 14.0 - 14.2 14.2 - 14.4 14.4 - 14.6 14.6 - 14.8 14.8 - 15.0 15.0 - 15.2 15.2 - 15.4 15.4 - 15.6 ≥ 15.6203020502070Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool: Sea Level Rise/Storm Surge Design Criteria Projected Water Surface Elevation Map: 1% (100-yr)Project Name: Sandy Neck BeachLocation (Town): Barnstable MilesAsset NamePlanning HorizonReturn PeriodMaxMinArea Weighted Average(ft-NAVD88)Gatehouse (relocated along existing access road)20301% (100-yr)11.911.111.720501% (100-yr)14.112.813.920701% (100-yr)15.614.615.40.250.51.0Created by: lfieldsDate Created: 6/9/2023Tool Version: 1.3Page 11 of 17 Legend Project Boundary Projected Water Surface Elevation (ft-NAVD88) ≤ 11.1 11.1 - 11.2 11.2 - 11.4 11.4 - 11.6 11.6 - 11.8 11.8 - 12.0 12.0 - 12.2 12.2 - 12.4 12.4 - 12.6 12.6 - 12.8 12.8 - 13.0 13.0 - 13.2 13.2 - 13.4 13.4 - 13.6 13.6 - 13.8 13.8 - 14.0 14.0 - 14.2 14.2 - 14.4 14.4 - 14.6 14.6 - 14.8 14.8 - 15.0 15.0 - 15.2 15.2 - 15.4 15.4 - 15.6 ≥ 15.6 Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool: Sea Level Rise/Storm Surge Design Criteria Projected Water Surface Elevation Map: 2030, 1% (100-yr) Project Name: Sandy Neck Beach Location (Town): Barnstable Miles Asset Name Planning Horizon Return Period Max Min Area Weighted Average (ft-NAVD88) Gatehouse (relocated along existing access road)2030 1% (100-yr)11.9 11.1 11.7 0.05 0.1 0.25 Created by: lfields Date Created: 6/9/2023 Tool Version: 1.3 Page 12 of 17 Legend Project Boundary Projected Water Surface Elevation (ft-NAVD88) ≤ 11.1 11.1 - 11.2 11.2 - 11.4 11.4 - 11.6 11.6 - 11.8 11.8 - 12.0 12.0 - 12.2 12.2 - 12.4 12.4 - 12.6 12.6 - 12.8 12.8 - 13.0 13.0 - 13.2 13.2 - 13.4 13.4 - 13.6 13.6 - 13.8 13.8 - 14.0 14.0 - 14.2 14.2 - 14.4 14.4 - 14.6 14.6 - 14.8 14.8 - 15.0 15.0 - 15.2 15.2 - 15.4 15.4 - 15.6 ≥ 15.6 Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool: Sea Level Rise/Storm Surge Design Criteria Projected Water Surface Elevation Map: 2050, 1% (100-yr) Project Name: Sandy Neck Beach Location (Town): Barnstable Miles Asset Name Planning Horizon Return Period Max Min Area Weighted Average (ft-NAVD88) Gatehouse (relocated along existing access road)2050 1% (100-yr)14.1 12.8 13.9 0.05 0.1 0.25 Created by: lfields Date Created: 6/9/2023 Tool Version: 1.3 Page 13 of 17 Legend Project Boundary Projected Water Surface Elevation (ft-NAVD88) ≤ 11.1 11.1 - 11.2 11.2 - 11.4 11.4 - 11.6 11.6 - 11.8 11.8 - 12.0 12.0 - 12.2 12.2 - 12.4 12.4 - 12.6 12.6 - 12.8 12.8 - 13.0 13.0 - 13.2 13.2 - 13.4 13.4 - 13.6 13.6 - 13.8 13.8 - 14.0 14.0 - 14.2 14.2 - 14.4 14.4 - 14.6 14.6 - 14.8 14.8 - 15.0 15.0 - 15.2 15.2 - 15.4 15.4 - 15.6 ≥ 15.6 Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool: Sea Level Rise/Storm Surge Design Criteria Projected Water Surface Elevation Map: 2070, 1% (100-yr) Project Name: Sandy Neck Beach Location (Town): Barnstable Miles Asset Name Planning Horizon Return Period Max Min Area Weighted Average (ft-NAVD88) Gatehouse (relocated along existing access road)2070 1% (100-yr)15.6 14.6 15.4 0.05 0.1 0.25 Created by: lfields Date Created: 6/9/2023 Tool Version: 1.3 Page 14 of 17 Project Inputs Core Project Information Name:Sandy Neck Beach Given the expected useful life of the project, through what year do you estimate the project to last (i.e. before a major reconstruction/renovation)? 2076 Location of Project:Barnstable Estimated Capital Cost:$5,500,000 Who is the Submitting Entity?City/Town Barnstable Amber Unruh (Amber.Unruh@town.barnstable.ma.us) Is this project identified as a priority project in the Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) plan or the local or regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP)? Yes Is this project being submitted as part of a state grant application?Yes What stage are you in your project lifecycle?Permitting Is climate resiliency a core objective of this project?Yes Is this project being submitted as part of the state capital planning process?No Is this project being submitted as part of a regulator y review process or permitting?Yes Brief Project Description:MEPA Project Submission Comments: Project Ecosystem Service Benefits Factors Influencing Output ✓ Project provides flood protection through nature-based solutions ✓ Project reduces storm damage ✓ Project recharges groundwater ✓ Project filters stormwater using green infrastructure ✓ Project protects fisheries, wildlife, and plant habitat ✓ Project provides pollinator habitat ✓ Project remediates existing sources of pollution ✓ Project provides recreation ✓ Project provides cultural resources/education Factors to Improve Output ✓ Protect public water supply by reducing the risk of contamination, pollution, and/or runoff of surface and groundwater sources used for human consumption ✓ Incorporate strategies that reduce carbon emissions ✓ Incorporate nature-based solutions that improve water quality ✓ Incorporate nature-based solutions that sequester carbon carbon ✓ Preser ve, enhance, and/or restore coastal shellfish habitats ✓ Increase plants, trees, and/or other vegetation to provide oxygen production ✓ Mitigate atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and other toxic air pollutants through nature-based solutions ✓ Identify opportunities to prevent pollutants from impacting ecosystems Is the primar y purpose of this project ecological restoration? No Project Benefits Provides flood protection through nature-based solutions Yes Reduces storm damage Yes Recharges groundwater Yes Protects public water supply No Filters stormwater using green infrastructure Yes Improves water quality No Promotes decarbonization No Enables carbon sequestration No Provides oxygen production No Improves air quality No Prevents pollution No Remediates existing sources of pollution Yes Protects fisheries, wildlife, and plant habitat Yes Protects land containing shellfish No Provides pollinator habitat Yes Provides recreation Yes Provides cultural resources/education Yes Project Climate Exposure Is the primar y purpose of this project ecological restoration?No Does the project site have a history of coastal flooding?Yes Page 15 of 17 Does the project site have a history of flooding during extreme precipitation events (unrelated to water/sewer damages)? Yes Does the project site have a history of riverine flooding?No Does the project result in a net increase in impervious area of the site?Yes Are existing trees being removed as part of the proposed project?Yes Project Assets Asset: Gatehouse (relocated along existing access road) Asset Type: Typically Occupied Asset Sub-Type: Non-residential building (office, commercial, retail) Construction Type: Major Repair/Retrofit Construction Year: 2026 Useful Life: 50 Identify the length of time the asset can be inaccessible/inoperable without significant consequences. Building may be inaccessible/inoperable for more than a day, but less than a week after natural hazards events without consequences Identify the geographic area directly affected by permanent loss or significant inoperability of the building/facility. Impacts limited to site only Identify the population directly served that would be affected by the permanent loss of use or inoperability of the building/facility. Greater than 10,000 people Identify if the building/facility provides ser vices to populations that reside within Environmental Justice neighborhoods or climate vulnerable populations. The building/facility provides services to populations that reside within Environmental Justice neighborhoods or climate vulnerable populations. If the building/facility became inoperable for longer than acceptable in Question 1, how, if at all, would it be expected to impact people’s health and safety? Inoperability of the building/facility would not be expected to result in injuries If there are hazardous materials in your building/facility, what are the extent of impacts related to spills/releases of these materials? There are no hazardous materials in the building/facility If the building/facility became inoperable for longer than acceptable in Question 1, what are the impacts on other facilities, assets, and/or infrastructure? Significant – Inoperability is likely to impact other facilities, assets, or buildings and will likely affect their ability to operate If this building/facility was damaged beyond repair, how much would it approximately cost to replace? Less than $10 million Is this a recreational facility which can be vacated during a natural hazard event? Yes If the building/facility became inoperable for longer than acceptable in Question 1, what are the public and/or social services impacts? Few alternative programs and/or services are available to support the community If the building/facility became inoperable for longer than acceptable in Question 1, what are the environmental impacts related to natural resources? No impact on surrounding natural resources is expected If the building/facility became inoperable for longer than acceptable in Question 1, what are the impacts to government services (i.e. the building is not able to serve or operate its intended users or function)? Loss of building may reduce the ability to maintain some government services, while a majority of services will still exist. If the building/facility became inoperable for longer than acceptable in Question 1, what are the impacts to loss of confidence in government (i.e. the building is not able to serve or operate its intended users or function)? Reduced morale and public support Asset: Sandy Neck Beach Parking Lot Asset Type: Other Asset Sub-Type: Other Construction Type: Major Repair/Retrofit Construction Year: 2026 Useful Life: 50 Identify the length of time the asset can be inaccessible/inoperable without significant consequences. Infrastructure may be inaccessible/inoperable more than a week after natural hazard event without consequences. Identify the geographic area directly affected by permanent loss or significant inoperability of the infrastructure. Impacts limited to location of infrastructure only Identify the population directly served that would be affected by the permanent loss or significant inoperability of the infrastructure. Less than 100,000 people Identify if the infrastructure provides ser vices to populations that reside within Environmental Justice neighborhoods or climate vulnerable populations. The infrastructure provides services to populations that reside within Environmental Justice neighborhoods or climate vulnerable populations. Will the infrastructure reduce the risk of flooding? Yes If the infrastructure became inoperable for longer than acceptable in Question 1, how, if at all, would it be expected to impact people's health and safety? Inoperability of the infrastructure would not be expected to result in injuries If there are hazardous materials in your infrastructure, what are the extents of impacts related to spills/releases of these materials? There are no hazardous materials in the infrastructure Page 16 of 17 If the infrastructure became inoperable for longer than acceptable in Question 1, what are the impacts on other facilities, assets, and/or infrastructure? Significant – Inoperability is likely to impact other facilities, assets, or buildings and result in cascading impacts that will likely affect their ability to operate If the infrastructure was damaged beyond repair, how much would it approximately cost to replace? Less than $10 million Does the infrastructure function as an evacuation route during emergencies? This question only applies to roadway projects. No If the infrastructure became inoperable for longer than acceptable in Question 1, what are the environmental impacts related to natural resources? No impact on surrounding natural resources is expected If the infrastructure became inoperable for longer than acceptable in Question 1, what are the impacts to government services (i.e. the infrastructure is not able to serve or operate its intended users or function)? Loss of infrastructure may reduce the ability to maintain some government ser vices, while a majority of services will still exist What are the impacts to loss of confidence in government resulting from loss of infrastructure functionality (i.e. the infrastructure asset is not able to serve or operate its intended users or function)? Reduced morale and public support Asset: Restoration of Primary Frontal Dune Asset Type: Coastal Resource Area Asset Sub-Type: Coastal dune Construction Type: Restoration or enhancement Construction Year: 2026 Monitoring Frequency: 1 Repor t Comments N/A Page 17 of 17 Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, G armin ,(c) OpenStree tMap con tributors, and the GISuser community # 107 Waterhouse RoadBourne, MA 02532 ¯0 2.5 5Miles Environmental Justice Criteria Minority Income English Isolation Minority and Income Minority and English Isolation Income and English Isolation Minority, Income and English Isolation 5 Mile Buffer EJ Populations Within 5 Miles of the Project Site #Project Site Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, G armin ,(c) OpenStree tMap con tributors, and the GISuser community # 107 Waterhouse RoadBourne, MA 02532 ¯0 2.5 5Miles Census Blocks Where 5% or more of the EJ Population Identify as Not Speaking English "Very Well" #Project Site Census Track 5 Mile Buffer Client: Woods Hole Group Project: Sandy Neck Location: Barnstable, MA Project No: GTX-315805 Boring ID: 1 Sample ID: Beach - 1 Depth : 0 Sample Type: bag Test Date: 07/25/22 Test Id: 679148 Tested By: ckg Checked By: bfs Test Comment: --- Visual Description: Moist, pale brown sand Sample Comment: --- Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D6913 printed 8/1/2022 10:18:30 AM 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.11101001000Percent FinerGrain Size (mm)0.5 in 0.375 in #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200 % Cobble --- % Gravel 2.5 % Sand 96.6 % Silt & Clay Size 0.9 Sieve Name Sieve Size, mm Percent Finer Spec. Percent Complies 0.5 in 0.375 in #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200 12.50 9.50 4.75 2.00 0.85 0.42 0.25 0.15 0.11 0.075 100 98 98 97 95 55 6 3 1 0.9 Coefficients D =0.7112 mm85 D =0.4651 mm60 D =0.4039 mm50 D =0.3251 mm30 D =0.2763 mm15 D =0.2617 mm10 C =1.777u C =0.868c Classification ASTM Poorly graded SAND (SP) AASHTO Fine Sand (A-3 (1)) Sample/Test Description Sand/Gravel Particle Shape : --- Sand/Gravel Hardness : --- Client: Woods Hole Group Project: Sandy Neck Location: Barnstable, MA Project No: GTX-315805 Boring ID: 2 Sample ID: Beach - 2 Depth : 0 Sample Type: bag Test Date: 07/25/22 Test Id: 679149 Tested By: ckg Checked By: bfs Test Comment: --- Visual Description: Moist, light gray sand Sample Comment: --- Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D6913 printed 8/1/2022 10:18:32 AM 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.11101001000Percent FinerGrain Size (mm)0.375 in #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200 % Cobble --- % Gravel 3.1 % Sand 96.0 % Silt & Clay Size 0.9 Sieve Name Sieve Size, mm Percent Finer Spec. Percent Complies 0.375 in #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200 9.50 4.75 2.00 0.85 0.42 0.25 0.15 0.11 0.075 100 97 96 94 49 4 2 1 0.9 Coefficients D =0.7390 mm85 D =0.5008 mm60 D =0.4286 mm50 D =0.3386 mm30 D =0.2842 mm15 D =0.2681 mm10 C =1.868u C =0.854c Classification ASTM Poorly graded SAND (SP) AASHTO Stone Fragments, Gravel and Sand (A-1-b (1)) Sample/Test Description Sand/Gravel Particle Shape : --- Sand/Gravel Hardness : --- Client: Woods Hole Group Project: Sandy Neck Location: Barnstable, MA Project No: GTX-315805 Boring ID: 3 Sample ID: Dune - 1 Depth : 0 Sample Type: bag Test Date: 07/25/22 Test Id: 679150 Tested By: ckg Checked By: bfs Test Comment: --- Visual Description: Moist, pale brown sand with silt Sample Comment: --- Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D6913 printed 8/1/2022 10:18:33 AM 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.11101001000Percent FinerGrain Size (mm)0.375 in #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200 % Cobble --- % Gravel 0.4 % Sand 93.9 % Silt & Clay Size 5.7 Sieve Name Sieve Size, mm Percent Finer Spec. Percent Complies 0.375 in #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200 9.50 4.75 2.00 0.85 0.42 0.25 0.15 0.11 0.075 100 100 98 94 80 70 41 12 5.7 Coefficients D =0.5483 mm85 D =0.2100 mm60 D =0.1761 mm50 D =0.1315 mm30 D =0.1097 mm15 D =0.0946 mm10 C =2.220u C =0.870c Classification ASTM N/A AASHTO Fine Sand (A-3 (1)) Sample/Test Description Sand/Gravel Particle Shape : --- Sand/Gravel Hardness : --- Client: Woods Hole Group Project: Sandy Neck Location: Barnstable, MA Project No: GTX-315805 Boring ID: 4 Sample ID: Dune - 2 Depth : 0 Sample Type: bag Test Date: 07/25/22 Test Id: 679151 Tested By: ckg Checked By: bfs Test Comment: --- Visual Description: Moist, pale brown sand with silt Sample Comment: --- Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D6913 printed 8/1/2022 10:18:35 AM 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.11101001000Percent FinerGrain Size (mm)0.375 in #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200 % Cobble --- % Gravel 1.9 % Sand 92.8 % Silt & Clay Size 5.3 Sieve Name Sieve Size, mm Percent Finer Spec. Percent Complies 0.375 in #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200 9.50 4.75 2.00 0.85 0.42 0.25 0.15 0.11 0.075 100 98 95 86 72 62 43 14 5.3 Coefficients D =0.8045 mm85 D =0.2356 mm60 D =0.1803 mm50 D =0.1282 mm30 D =0.1070 mm15 D =0.0900 mm10 C =2.618u C =0.775c Classification ASTM N/A AASHTO Fine Sand (A-3 (1)) Sample/Test Description Sand/Gravel Particle Shape : --- Sand/Gravel Hardness : --- Section K Public Notice and ENF Distribution List PUBLIC NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT: Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project LOCATION: 425 Sandy Neck Road, Barnstable, MA PROPONENT: Town of Barnstable The undersigned is submitting an Environmental Notification Form ("ENF") to the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs on or before July 31, 2023. This will initiate review of the above project pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act ("MEPA", M.G.L. c. 30, s.s. 61-62I). Copies of the ENF may be obtained from: Town of Barnstable, Proponent c/o Woods Hole Group, Inc. Attn: Beth Gurney 107 Waterhouse Road, Bourne, MA 02532 (508) 495-6240 email: bgurney@woodsholegroup.com Electronic copies of the ENF are also being sent to the Conservation Commission and Planning Board of Barnstable. The Secretary of Energy & Environmental Affairs will publish notice of the ENF in the Environmental Monitor, receive public comments on the project, and then decide if an Environmental Impact Report is required. A site visit and/or remote consultation session on the project may also be scheduled. All persons wishing to comment on the project, or to be notified of a site visit and/or remote consultation session, should email MEPA@mass.gov or the MEPA analyst listed in the Environmental Monitor. Requests for language translation or other accommodations should be directed to the same email address. Mail correspondence should be directed to the Secretary of Energy & Environmental Affairs, 100 Cambridge St., Suite 900, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, Attention: MEPA Office, referencing the above project. By the Town of Barnstable Distribution List of Town of Barnstable, Sandy Neck Beach Long-Term Coastal Resiliency Project, Barnstable, MA Supplement to ENF - Page 1 Dept. Of Environmental Protection Commissioner’s Office One Winter Street Boston, MA 02108 helena.boccadoro@mass.gov Massachusetts Historic Commission The MA Archives Building 220 Morrissey Boulevard Boston, MA 02125 DEP/Southeast Regional Office Attn: MEPA Coordinator 20 Riverside Drive Lakeville, MA 02347 george.zoto@mass.gov jonathan.hobill@mass.gov Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Division of Fisheries & Wildlife Attn: Environmental Reviewer 1 Rabbit Hill Road Westborough, MA 01581 melany.cheeseman@mass.gov emily.holt@mass.gov MA DOT – District #5 Attn: MEPA Coordinator Box 111, 1000 County Street Taunton, MA 02780 Cindy.McConarty@dot.state.ma Cape Cod Commission ksenatori@capecodcommission.org regulatory@capecodcommission.org Town of Barnstable Board of Health 200 Main Street Barnstable, MA 02601 thomas.mckean@town.barnstable.ma.us Town of Barnstable Planning Board 367 Main Street Barnstable, MA 02601 elizabeth.jenkins@town.barnstable.ma.us karen.herrand@town.barnstable.ma.us Town of Barnstable Town Council 367 Main Street Barnstable, MA 02601 cynthia.lovell@town.barnstable.ma.us Town of Barnstable Conservation Commission 230 South Street Barnstable, MA 02601 darcy.karle@town.barnstable.ma.us edwin.hoopes@town.barnstable.ma.us Coastal Zone Management Attn: Project Review Coordinator 251 Causeway St., Suite 800 Boston, MA 02114 robert.boeri@mass.gov patrice.bordonaro@mass.gov Division of Marine Fisheries Attn: Environmental Reviewer 836 South Rodney French Blvd. New Bedford, MA 02744 Email: DMF.EnvReview-South@state.ma.us MEPA Office Attn: EEA EJ Director 100 Cambridge St, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02144 MEPA-EJ@mass.gov Mass. Department of Transportation Public/Private Development Unit 10 Park Plaza, Suite 4150 Boston, MA 02116 MassDOTPPDU@dot.state.ma.us Section L Project Map & Plans Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013National Geographic Society, i-cubed 107 Waterhouse RoadBourne, MA 02532 Town of Barnstable425 Sandy Neck RoadBarnstable, MAUSGS Sandwich QuadrangleMap Scale 1:24,000 L o c u sLocus ¯0 0.5 1Miles Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:02pm By: TJGraceLast Saved: 7/28/2023Tighe & Bond: J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwgPREPARED BY: PROJECT LOCATION COMPLETE SET 30 SHEETS LOCATION MAP SCALE: X" = X' PREPARED FOR: TOWN OF BARNSTABLE 367 MAIN STREET HYANNIS, MA 02601 PROJECT LOCATION: SANDY NECK BEACH PARK 425 SANDY NECK ROAD W. BARNSTABLE, MA 02668 NINA COLEMAN - DIRECTOR OF NATURAL RESOURCES 65% DESIGN SET JULY 2023 TOWN OF BARNSTABLE SANDY NECK BEACH FACILITY RECONFIGURATION N 53 Southampton Road Westfield, MA 01085 (413) 562-1600 LIST OF DRAWINGS SHEET NO.DRAWING NO.DRAWING TITLE GENERAL 1 G-001 COVER SHEET 2 G-002 GENERAL NOTES, LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS CIVIL 3 C-100 OVERALL SITE PLAN 4 C-101 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN - 1 5 C-102 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN - 2 6 C-103 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN - 3 7 C-104 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN - 4 8 C-105 GATEHOUSE EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN 9 C-201 EROSION CONTROL AND DEMOLITION PLAN - 1 (PHASE 1) 10 C-202 EROSION CONTROL AND DEMOLITION PLAN - 2 (PHASE 1) 11 C-203 EROSION CONTROL AND DEMOLITION PLAN - 3 (PHASE 2) 12 C-204 GATEHOUSE EROSION CONTROL AND DEMOLITION PLAN (PHASE 2) 13 C-301 SITE LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN - 1 (PHASE 1) 14 C-302 SITE LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN - 2 (PHASE 1) 15 C-303 SITE LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN - 3 (PHASE 1) 16 C-304 SITE LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN - 4 (PHASE 2) 17 C-305 GATEHOUSE SITE LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN (PHASE 2) 18 C-401 SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN - 1 (PHASE 1) 19 C-402 SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN - 2 (PHASE 1) 20 C-403 SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN - 3 (PHASE 1) 21 C-404 GATEHOUSE SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (PHASE 2) 22 C-501 SITE LANDSCAPING PLAN - 1 (PHASE 1) 23 C-502 SITE LANDSCAPING PLAN - 2 (PHASE 1) 24 C-503 SITE LANDSCAPING PLAN - 3 (PHASE 1) 25 C-504 SITE LANDSCAPING PLAN - 4 (PHASE 1) 26 C-601 SITE DETAILS - 1 27 C-602 SITE DETAILS - 2 28 C-603 SITE DETAILS - 3 (TYPICAL SECTIONS) 29 C-604 SITE DETAILS - 4 (SITE SECTIONS) 30 C-605 SITE DETAILS - 5 (SITE SECTIONS 2) THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. DESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:02pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/28/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION G-002 GENERAL NOTES, LEGEND, AND ABBREVIATIONS TJG TJG/DJB JPV NO SCALE 7/27/23 EXISTING PROPOSEDDESCRIPTION ABBREVIATIONS ABDN('D)ABANDON(ED) AC ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE BC BITUMINOUS CURB BFP BACK FLOW PREVENTOR BIT BITUMINOUS BL BASELINE BLDG BUILDING BND BOUND BOC BOTTOM OF CURB BOT BOTTOM BS BOTTOM OF STEP BW BOTTOM OF WALL CATV CABLE TELEVISION CB CATCH BASIN CEM CEMENT CI CAST IRON PIPE CL CENTERLINE CLF CHAIN LINK FENCE CO CLEAN OUT CONC CONCRETE CPP CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE PIPE CY CUBIC YARD DH DRILL HOLE DI DUCTILE IRON PIPE DIA DIAMETER DMH DRAIN MANHOLE E EAST EF EACH FACE EG EXISTING GRADE EL/ELEV ELEVATION ELEC ELECTRIC EMH ELECTRIC MANHOLE EOP EDGE OF PAVEMENT EW EACH WAY EXIST EXISTING FES FLARED END SECTION FF FINISH FLOOR FM FORCE MAIN G GAS GG GAS GATE GRAN GRANITE HC HANDICAP HDPE HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE HMA HOT MIX ASPHALT HYD HYDRANT IN INCHES INV INVERT IP IRON PIN L LENGTH OF CURB LP LIGHT POLE LT LEFT MAX MAXIMUM MH MANHOLE MIN MINIMUM MISC MISCELLANEOUS MON MONUMENT MJ MECHANICAL JOINT INTERMEDIATE CONTOURS INDEX CONTOURS SPOT GRADE MAGNITUDE & DIRECTION OF SLOPE STORM DRAIN SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN WATER SERVICE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC TELEPHONE SERVICE OVERHEAD UTILITY CURB EDGE OF PAVEMENT FENCE - WOOD POST GUARDRAIL STORM DRAIN STRUCTURES SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE WATER SERVICE STRUCTURES ELECTRIC SERVICE STRUCTURES EXISTING DUNE VEGETATION PROPOSED LIMITS OF WORK 0.0% MANHOLE CATCH BASIN D LEGEND RESOURCE AREAS WETLAND LIMIT 100-FOOT BUFFER ZONE 50-FOOT BUFFER ZONE AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACEC) BARRIER BEACH COASTAL BEACH & COASTAL DUNE LAND SUBJECT TO COASTAL STORM FLOWAGE ABBREVIATIONS CONT'D N NORTH NITC NOT IN THIS CONTRACT NTS NOT TO SCALE N/A NOT APPLICABLE N/F NOW OR FORMERLY OC ON CENTER OCS OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE OH OVERHEAD PB PLANT BED PC POINT OF CURVATURE PCC POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE PCPP PERFORATED CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE PIPE PERF PERFORATED PI POINT OF INTERSECTION PRC POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE PSF POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT PSI POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH P.T. PRESSURE TREATED PVC POLYVINYLCHLORIDE PVMT PAVEMENT R RADIUS RCP REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE RD ROOF DRAIN REV REVISION ROW RIGHT OF WAY RT RIGHT R&D REMOVE AND DISPOSE R&R REMOVE AND RESET R&S REMOVE AND STACK S SOUTH SAN SANITARY SCH SCHEDULE SF SQUARE FOOT SMH SEWER MANHOLE SS STAINLESS STEEL STA STATION STL STEEL STRM STORM T TANGENT LENGTH TC TOP OF CURB TEL TEL-DATA TP TEST PIT TS TOP OF STEP TW TOP OF WALL TYP TYPICAL UP UTILITY POLE W WATER WG WATER GATE WV WATER VALVE XFMR TRANSFORMER DEMOLITION / GEOTECHNICAL EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL UTILITY TO BE DEMOLISHED ITEM TO BE DEMOLISHED TEST PIT LEGEND LEGEND 25 EROSION CONTROL AND RESOURCE AREA PROTECTION NOTES 1.PROVIDE ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHOWN, SPECIFIED, REQUIRED BY PERMIT, AND/OR REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION OR IMMEDIATELY UPON REQUEST. MAINTAIN SUCH CONTROL MEASURES UNTIL FINAL SURFACE TREATMENTS ARE IN PLACE AND/OR UNTIL PERMANENT VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. INSPECT AFTER EACH RAINSTORM AND DURING MAJOR STORM EVENTS TO CONFIRM THAT ALL SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES REQUIRED ARE IN PLACE AND EFFECTIVE. 2.INSTALL SILT SACKS OR OTHER APPROVED SEDIMENTATION BARRIERS IN/AT ALL CATCH BASINS IN THE PROJECT AREA. 3.COMPACT, STABILIZE, AND LOAM AND SEED SIDE SLOPES, SHOULDER AREAS AND DISTURBED VEGETATED AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND AS REQUIRED BY PERMITS. GRADE SIDE SLOPES, SHOULDER AREAS AND DISTURBED VEGETATED AREAS TO A MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 3 HORIZONTAL TO 1 VERTICAL (3H:1V), WHERE POSSIBLE. PROVIDE BIODEGRADABLE EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS TO PREVENT EROSION WHERE SLOPES ARE STEEPER THAN 3H:1V. 4.SETTLE OR FILTER ALL SILT-LADEN WATER FROM DEWATERING ACTIVITIES IN A SEDIMENTATION OR FILTER BAG TO REMOVE SEDIMENTS PRIOR TO RELEASE USING A SEDIMENTATION OR FILTER BAG LOCATED DOWN-GRADIENT OF THE DEWATERED AREA. 5.REMOVE AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF SILT TRAPPED AT BARRIERS IN UPLAND AREAS OUTSIDE BUFFER ZONES. REMOVE MATERIALS DEPOSITED IN ANY TEMPORARY SETTLING BASINS AT THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. RESTORE ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO THEIR PRECONSTRUCTION CONDITION. 6.SWEEP, COLLECT, REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ANY SEDIMENT TRACKED ONTO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS AT THE END OF EACH DAY. 7.LOAM AND SEED ALL DISTURBED VEGETATED AREAS TO ESTABLISH COVER AND STABILIZATION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE FOLLOWING DISTURBANCE. 8.MAINTAIN AN ADDITIONAL SUPPLY OF EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ON-SITE FOR EMERGENCY REPAIRS. 9.STORE FUEL, OIL, PAINT, OR OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN A SECONDARY CONTAINER AND REMOVE TO A SECURE LOCKED AND COVERED AREA DURING NON-WORK HOURS. 10.PROVIDE A SUPPLY OF ABSORBENT SPILL RESPONSE MATERIALS SUCH AS BOOMS, BLANKETS, AND OIL ABSORBENT MATERIALS AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AT ALL TIMES TO CLEAN UP POTENTIAL SPILLS OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. IMMEDIATELY REPORT SPILLS OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY AND THE MUNICIPALITY WHERE THE WORK IS OCCURRING. GENERAL NOTES 1.NOTIFY DIGSAFE AT 1-888-344-7233 AND OTHER UTILITY OWNERS IN THE AREA NOT ON THE DIGSAFE LIST AT LEAST 72 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY DIGGING, TRENCHING, ROCK REMOVAL, DEMOLITION, BORING, BACKFILLING, GRADING, LANDSCAPING, OR ANY OTHER EARTH MOVING OPERATIONS. 2.LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE. IN ADDITION, SOME UTILITIES MAY NOT BE SHOWN. DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF UTILITIES BY TEST PIT OR OTHER METHODS, AS NECESSARY TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO UTILITIES AND/OR INTERRUPTIONS IN UTILITY SERVICE. PERFORM TEST PIT EXCAVATIONS AND OTHER INVESTIGATIONS TO LOCATE UTILITIES, AND PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION TO THE ENGINEER, PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTING THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. LOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES TO BE CROSSED BY HAND EXCAVATION. 3.NOT ALL OF THE UTILITY SERVICES TO BUILDINGS ARE SHOWN. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ANTICIPATE THAT EACH PROPERTY HAS SERVICE CONNECTIONS FOR THE VARIOUS UTILITIES. 4.BOLD TEXT AND LINES INDICATE PROPOSED WORK. LIGHT TEXT AND LINES INDICATE APPROXIMATE EXISTING CONDITIONS. 5.TIGHE & BOND ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY ISSUES, LEGAL OR OTHERWISE, RESULTING FROM CHANGES MADE TO THESE DRAWINGS WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM TIGHE & BOND. 6.EXCAVATE ADDITIONAL TEST PITS TO LOCATE EXISTING UTILITIES AS DIRECTED OR APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. 7.NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY UTILITIES IDENTIFIED DURING CONSTRUCTION THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS OR THAT DIFFER IN SIZE OR MATERIAL. 8.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE SAFETY; COORDINATION WITH THE OWNER, ALL SUBCONTRACTORS, AND WITH OTHER CONTRACTORS WORKING WITHIN THE LIMITS OF WORK, THE MEANS AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTING THE PROPOSED WORK. 9.OBTAIN, PAY FOR AND COMPLY WITH PERMITS, NOTICES AND FEES NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE WORK. ARRANGE AND PAY FOR NECESSARY INSPECTIONS AND APPROVALS FROM THE JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITIES. 10.SHORE UTILITY TRENCHES WHERE FIELD CONDITIONS DICTATE AND/OR WHERE REQUIRED BY LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL HEALTH AND SAFETY CODES. 11.FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IF FIELD CONDITIONS ARE OBSERVED THAT VARY SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS, IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IN WRITING FOR RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICTING INFORMATION. 12.PROTECT AND MAINTAIN ALL UTILITIES IN THE AREAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION DURING THE WORK. LEAVE ALL PIPES AND STRUCTURES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE CONTRACT IN A CLEAN AND OPERABLE CONDITION AT THE COMPLETION OF THE WORK. TAKE ALL NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS TO PREVENT SAND AND SILT FROM DISTURBED AREAS FROM ENTERING THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM. 13.NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IN WRITING OF ANY CONFLICT, ERROR, AMBIGUITY, OR DISCREPANCY WITH THE PLANS OR BETWEEN THE PLANS AND ANY APPLICABLE LAW, REGULATION, CODE, STANDARD SPECIFICATION, OR MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. 14.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPORT OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT COSTS OF UTILITIES DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION, WHETHER ABOVE OR BELOW GRADE. REPLACE DAMAGED UTILITIES IMMEDIATELY AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER AND AT NO COST TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. 15.TAKE NECESSARY MEASURES AND PROVIDE CONTINUOUS BARRIERS OF SUFFICIENT TYPE, SIZE, AND STRENGTH TO PREVENT ACCESS TO ALL WORK AND STAGING AREAS AT THE COMPLETION OF EACH DAYS WORK. 16.NO OPEN TRENCHES WILL BE ALLOWED OVER NIGHT. THE USE OF ROAD PLATES TO PROTECT THE EXCAVATION WILL BE CONSIDERED UPON REQUEST, BUT BACKFILLING IS PREFERRED. 17.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL NECESSARY TRAFFIC CONTROL/SAFETY DEVICES TO ENSURE SAFE VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS THROUGH THE WORK AREA, OR FOR SAFELY IMPLEMENTING DETOURS AROUND THE WORK AREA. PERFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACTOR'S APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN. 18.MAINTAIN EMERGENCY ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION. 19.WHEN WORKING IN THE ROAD, PROVIDE THE OWNER AND LOCAL FIRE/POLICE/SCHOOL AUTHORITIES A DETAILED PLAN OF APPROACH INDICATING METHODS OF PROPOSED TRAFFIC ROUTING ON A DAILY BASIS. PROVIDE COORDINATION TO ENSURE COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION BETWEEN THE OWNER, CONTRACTOR AND LOCAL FIRE/POLICE/SCHOOL AUTHORITIES THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. 20.REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ALL CONSTRUCTION-RELATED WASTE MATERIALS AND DEBRIS IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LAWS. 21.THE TERM "DEMOLISH" USED ON THE DRAWINGS MEANS TO REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS. 22.THE TERM "ABANDON" USED ON THE DRAWINGS MEANS TO LEAVE IN PLACE AND TAKE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO DECOMMISSION AS SPECIFIED OR NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS. 23.ALL PROPOSED WORK MAY BE ADJUSTED IN THE FIELD BY THE OWNER'S PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE TO MEET EXISTING CONDITIONS. BASE PLAN NOTES 1.THE EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: ·SURVEY DATA PROVIDED BY THE WOODS HOLE GROUP AND THE TOWN OF BARNSTABLE IN AUGUST 2022 AND APRIL 2023 ·THE RESOURCE AREA BOUNDARIES DEPICTED ON THE DRAWINGS WERE DELINEATED BY THE WOODS HOLE GROUP 2.UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN WERE PLOTTED FROM INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANIES AND DATA OBTAINED FROM FIELD SURVEYS AND AS BUILT DRAWINGS. THE ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF SUBSURFACE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS IS NOT GUARANTEED. DETERMINE THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF ALL UTILITIES WHICH MAY AFFECT CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. 3.THE DRAWINGS ARE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING DATUMS: HORIZONTAL NAD83 ; VERTICAL NAVD88 4.THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. FIELD VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS. SURFACE RESTORATION NOTES 1.ALL PAVEMENT DAMAGED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS SHALL BE REPLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 2.PROVIDE SITE GRADING AT ACCESSIBLE SIDEWALK RAMPS, SIDEWALKS, AND BUILDING ENTRANCES THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT ACCESS REQUIREMENTS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS ACT (ABA), THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA), AND MA ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD REQUIREMENTS (AAB). SMALL CHANGES IN GRADE OVER RELATIVELY SHORT DISTANCES (E.G. AT PARKING SPACES, ACCESSIBLE ROUTES, AND RAMPS) MIGHT NOT BE CLEARLY DEPICTED WITHIN THE CONTOUR INTERVAL SHOWN. COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA IN THESE STANDARDS. SELECT MAXIMUM SLOPE CRITERIA ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: - ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL AND PASSENGER LOADING ZONE (ANY DIRECTION) SLOPE < 2.0% - LONGITUDINAL SLOPE ALONG ACCESSIBLE ROUTES < 5.0% - CROSS SLOPE ALONG ACCESSIBLE ROUTES < 2.0% 3.PROTECT PROJECT FEATURES (E.G., WALLS, FENCES, MAIL BOXES, SIGNS, SIDEWALKS, CURBING, STAIRS, WALKWAYS, TREES, ETC.) FROM DAMAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING PROVIDING TEMPORARY SUPPORTS, WHEN APPROPRIATE. 4.IF REMOVAL OF PROJECT FEATURES IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO PERFORM THE PROPOSED WORK, REMOVE THOSE SITE FEATURES ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF ENGINEER. REPLACE ALL REMOVED PROJECT FEATURES; NEW ITEMS SHALL BE EQUAL OR BETTER IN QUALITY AND CONDITION TO THE ITEMS REMOVED. 5.EXISTING SURVEY MONUMENTS DISTURBED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REPLACED BY A LAND SURVEYOR LICENSED IN THE STATE IN WHICH THE WORK IS PERFORMED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. 6.COORDINATE THE ADJUSTMENT OF EXISTING UTILITY STRUCTURES WITH EACH RESPONSIBLE UTILITY OWNER PRIOR TO RECONSTRUCTION AND/OR PAVING OPERATIONS. RAISE ALL STRUCTURES TO FINISHED GRADES PRIOR TO THE END OF THE CONSTRUCTION SEASON AND PRIOR TO FINISHED PAVING. 7.REPAIR DISTURBED PAVED SURFACES AT THE END OF EACH WORK WEEK, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED/REQUIRED BY THE OWNER. 8.TRANSFER ALL TEMPORARY BENCHMARKS, AS NECESSARY. 9.ACCOMMODATE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC WHERE A SIDEWALK IS TO BE CLOSED FOR SAFETY. “SIDEWALK CLOSED HERE” SIGNS SHALL BE USED AT THE NEAREST SAFE INTERSECTION. SEE TRAFFIC CONTROL DETAILS FOR SIGN INFORMATION. 10.REGRADE ALL UNPAVED AREAS DISTURBED BY THE WORK AS REQUIRED. REPAIR/REPLACE PAVED SURFACES DISTURBED BY THE WORK IN-KIND, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. RESTORE SURFACES TO EXISTING OR PROPOSED CONDITIONS AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS. 11.PROVIDE A SMOOTH, FLUSH TRANSITION BETWEEN ALL NEW AND EXISTING PAVEMENTS AND WALKING SURFACES. 23.20 OE OE TABLE OF TIDAL DATUMS HAT / HTL = 6.5' MHW = 4.2' NAVD88 = 0.0 MLW = -5.4' xxxDESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:02pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/28/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-100 OVERALL SITE PLAN TJG TJG/DJB JPV 1" = 80' 00 80'160' SCALE: 1" = 80' N 100-FOOT BUFFER ZONE WETLAND 50-FOOT BUFFER ZONE WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND WETLA N D WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND EXISTING ORV TRAIL SANDY NECK BEACH ROAD SANDY NECK BEACH SEE SHEET C-101 FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN - 1 SEE SHEET C-201 FOR EROSION CONTROL AND DEMOLITION PLAN - 1 SEE SHEET C-301 FOR SITE LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN - 1 SEE SHEET C-401 FOR SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN - 1 SEE SHEET C-501 FOR SITE LANDSCAPING PLAN - 1 SEE SHEET C-105 FOR GATEHOUSE EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN SEE SHEET C-204 FOR GATEHOUSE EROSION CONTROL AND DEMOLITION PLAN SEE SHEET C-305 FOR GATEHOUSE SITE LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN SEE SHEET C-404 FOR GATEHOUSE SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN SEE SHEET C-102 FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN - 2 SEE SHEET C-202 FOR EROSION CONTROL AND DEMOLITION PLAN - 2 SEE SHEET C-302 FOR SITE LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN - 2 SEE SHEET C-402 FOR SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN - 2 SEE SHEET C-502 FOR SITE LANDSCAPING PLAN - 2 SEE SHEET C-103 FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN - 3 SEE SHEET C-303 FOR SITE LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN - 3 SEE SHEET C-403 FOR SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN - 3 SEE SHEET C-503 FOR SITE LANDSCAPING PLAN - 3 SEE SHEET C-104 FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN - 4 SEE SHEET C-203 FOR EROSION CONTROL AND DEMOLITION PLAN - 3 SEE SHEET C-304 FOR SITE LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN - 4 7/27/23 TOP CONC-CURB 19.34 1076 R=21.22 R=18.90 R=16.82 inv 6in ads INV.=20.80 inv 6in ads INV.=20.89 DESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:02pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/28/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-101 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN - 1 TJG TJG/DJB JPV 1" = 20' 00 20'40' SCALE: 1" = 20' N MATCH LINESEE SHEET C-102MATCH LINESEE SHEET C-102MATCH LINE SEE SHEET C-103 100-FOOT BUFFER ZONE WETLAND 50-FOOT BUFFER ZONE EXISTING BEACH ACCESS EXISTING PERGOLA AND SAND PLAY AREAS EXISTING OBSERVATION DECK EXIST CONCESSION / RESTROOMBLDGEXISTING OBSERVATION DECK APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEM LIMIT OF AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACEC) SHEET NOTES 1.THE ENTIRE AREA SHOWN ON THE PLAN IS WITH THE FOLLOWING JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES: - BARRIER BEACH LIMITS OF COASTAL BEACH LIMITS OF COASTAL DUNE LIMITS OF LAND SUBJECT TO COASTAL STORM FLOWAGE 7/27/23 DESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:02pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/28/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-102 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN - 2 TJG TJG/DJB JPV 1" = 20' 00 20'40' SCALE: 1" = 20' N SEE SHEET C-101MATCH LINESEE SHEET C-101MATCH LINEMATCH LINE SEE SHEET C-103 MATCH LINE SEE SHEET C-103 EXISTING ORV TRAILEXISTING ASPHALT PARKING LOT SHEET NOTES 1.THE ENTIRE AREA SHOWN ON THE PLAN IS WITH THE FOLLOWING JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES: - AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACEC) - BARRIER BEACH LIMITS OF COASTAL BEACH LIMITS OF COASTAL DUNE LIMITS OF LAND SUBJECT TO COASTAL STORM FLOWAGE 7/27/23 DESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:02pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/28/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-103 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN - 3 TJG TJG/DJB JPV 1" = 20' 00 20'40' SCALE: 1" = 20' NSEE SHEET C-102 MATCH LINE SEE SHEET C-102 MATCH LINE SEE SHEET C-101MATCH LINE100-FOOT BUFFER ZONE WETLAND WETLAND 50-FOOT BUFFER ZONE 50-FOOT BUFFER ZONE 100-FOOT BUFFER ZONE EXISTING ORV TRAILSHEET NOTES 1.THE ENTIRE AREA SHOWN ON THE PLAN IS WITH THE FOLLOWING JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES: - AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACEC) - BARRIER BEACH LIMITS OF LAND SUBJECT TO COASTAL STORM FLOWAGE 7/27/23 UPOLE R=7.93 R=8.09 R=8.20 UPOLE LGHTS UPOLE-NO ELEV UPOLE-NO ELEV xxxxxxxx x xxxxxxxxxxDESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:02pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/28/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-104 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN - 4 TJG TJG/DJB JPV 1" = 20'00 20'40' SCALE: 1" = 20' N 100-FOOT BUFFER ZONE 50-FOOT BUFFER ZONE WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND 100-FOOT BUFFER ZONE 50-FOOT BUFFER ZONE SANDY NECK BEACH ROADEXISTI N G O R V T R A I L EDGE OF EXISTING PAVEMENT DUMPSTERS COMPRESSOR SHACK LIMIT OF AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACEC) SHEET NOTES 1.THE ENTIRE AREA SHOWN ON THE PLAN IS WITH THE FOLLOWING JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES: - BARRIER BEACH - COASTAL DUNE 7/27/23 OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHWOHW OHW OHW OHW OHWOHW OHW OHW OHW OHWOHWOHWOHW OHWOHWOHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW EEEEEEEEE E EEEEEEEE EEEEETTTTTTTW W W W W DESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:01pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/27/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Gatehouse Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Gatehouse Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-105 GATEHOUSE EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN JPV 1" = 20' 00 20'40' SCALE: 1" = 20' N TJG TJG/DJB EXIST GA T E H O U S E BUILDING 50-FOOT WETLAND BUFFER 100-FOOT WETLAND BUFFER 50-FOOT WETLAND BUFFER 100-FOOT WETLAND BUFFER WETLAND WETLAND SAN DY NE C K BE A C H R O A D EXISTING MAINTENAN C E GARAGE GRAVEL PARKING AREA LIMIT OF AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACEC)LIMITS OF SALT MARSH SHEET NOTES 1.THE ENTIRE AREA SHOWN ON THE PLAN IS WITH THE FOLLOWING JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES: - COASTAL DUNE - LAND SUBJECT TO STORM FLOWAGE LIMITS OF BARRIER BEACH 7/27/23 TOP CONC-CURB 19.34 1076 R=21.22 R=18.90 R=16.82 inv 6in ads INV.=20.80 inv 6in ads INV.=20.89 DESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:02pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/28/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-201 EROSION CONTROL AND DEMOLITION PLAN - 1 TJG TJG/DJB JPV 1" = 20' 00 20'40' SCALE: 1" = 20' N MATCH LINESEE SHEET C-202MATCH LINESEE SHEET C-202MATCH LINE SEE SHEET C-203 100-FOOT BUFFER ZONE WETLAND 50-FOOT BUFFER ZONE PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN EXISTING BEACH ACCESS DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEM, EQUIPMENT, OR STRUCTURES DURING CONSTRUCTION. PROTECT AREA AS REQUIRED. SAW CUT EXISTING PAVEMENTS DEMOLISH EXISTING OBSERVATION DECK DEMOLISH EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DEMOLISH EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURES IN SANDY NECK ROAD (TYP) DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING PERGOLA DURING CONSTRUCTION DEMOLISH EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT, CURBING, AND SUBBASE DEMOLISH EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT, CURBING, AND SUBBASE SAW CUT EXISTING PAVEMENTS AROUND BUILDING TO ACCOMMODATE NEW SITE IMPROVEMENTS DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING OBSERVATION DECK EXIST CONCESSION / RESTROOMBLDGTEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EROSION CONTROL BARRIER (TYP) 7/27/23 SHEET NOTES 1.SEE SHEET C-401 FOR LIMITS OF WORK AND EROSION CONTROL BARRIER DESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:02pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/28/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-202 EROSION CONTROL AND DEMOLITION PLAN - 2 TJG TJG/DJB JPV 1" = 20' 00 20'40' SCALE: 1" = 20' N SEE SHEET C-201MATCH LINESEE SHEET C-201MATCH LINEEXISTING ORV TRAILDEMOLISH EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT, CURBING, AND SUBBASE 7/27/23 SHEET NOTES 1.SEE SHEET C-402 FOR LIMITS OF WORK AND EROSION CONTROL BARRIER UPOLE R=7.93 R=8.09 R=8.20 UPOLE LGHTS UPOLE-NO ELEV UPOLE-NO ELEV xxxxxxxx x xxxxxxxxxxDESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:02pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/28/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-203 EROSION CONTROL AND DEMOLITION PLAN - 3 TJG TJG/DJB JPV 1" = 20' 00 20'40' SCALE: 1" = 20' N MATCH LINESEE SHEET C-202DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURES IN SANDY NECK ROAD (TYP) DEMOLISH EXISTING COMPRESSOR HUT, UTILITY POLE, AND LANDSCAPING 100-FOOT BUFFER ZONE 50-FOOT BUFFER ZONE WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND 100-FOOT BUFFER ZONE 50-FOOT BUFFER ZONE SANDY NECK BEACH ROADEXISTI N G O R V T R A I L RELOCATE EXISTING LIGHT POLE. SEE SHEET C-304 DEMOLISH EXISTING FENCE SAW CUT EXISTING PAVEMENTS DEMOLISH EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT APRON EROSION CONTROL BARRIER (TYP) 7/27/23 INSTALL SILT SACK EROSION CONTROL IN CATCH BASINS (TYP) OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHWOHW OHW OHW OHW OHWOHW OHW OHW OHW OHWOHWOHWOHW OHWOHWOHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW EEEEEEEEE E EEEEEEEE EEEEETTTTTTTW W W W W DEMOLISH EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT, CURBING, AND SUBBASE INSTALL SILT SACK EROSION CONTROL IN CATCH BASINS (TYP) SAW CUT EXISTING PAVEMENTS DEMOLISH EXIST ELECTRICAL AND TELEPHONE SERVICES RELOCATE EXIST GATEHOUSE BUILDING EXISTING UTILITY POLE TO REMAIN DEMOLISH EXIST LANDSCAPING, CURB, AND SIGNAGE DEMOLISH EXIST LANDSCAPING, CURB, AND SIGNAGE DEMOLISH EXIST JERSEY BARRIERS (TYP) SAW CUT EXISTING PAVEMENTS DEMOLISH EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT, CURBING, AND SUBBASE 50-FOOT WETLAND BUFFER 100-FOOT WETLAND BUFFER 50-FOOT WETLAND BUFFER 100-FOOT WETLAND BUFFER WETLAND WETLAND SAN DY NE C K BE A C H R O A D EXISTING MAINTENAN C E GARAGE DESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:01pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/27/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Gatehouse Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Gatehouse Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-204 GATEHOUSE EROSION CONTROL AND DEMOLITION PLAN JPV 1" = 20' 00 20'40' SCALE: 1" = 20' N TJG TJG/DJB EROSION CONTROL BARRIER (TYP) SAW CUT EXISTING PAVEMENTS DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING UTILITY STRUCTURES IN SANDY NECK ROAD. RAISE COVERS AND RIMS TO FINISH GRADE AS REQ'D (TYP) EROSION CONTROL BARRIER (TYP) LIMIT OF AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACEC) 7/27/23 DDDESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:02pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/28/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-301 SITE LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN - 1 TJG TJG/DJB JPV 1" = 20' 00 20'40' SCALE: 1" = 20' N MATCH LINESEE SHEET C-202MATCH LINESEE SHEET C-202MATCH LINE SEE SHEET C-203100-FOOT BUFFER ZONE WETLAND 50-FOOT BUFFER ZONE 5' WIDE CURB OPENINGS WHITE PAINTED DIRECTIONAL ARROW (TYP) PAINTED STRIPING (TYP) CAPE COD BERM (TYP) GRANITE CURBING ALONG VEGETATED SWALE (TYP) APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF EXISTING SEPTIC DISPOSAL FIELD HMA PAVEMENT (TYP) HMA PAVEMENT (TYP) HMA PAVEMENT (TYP) 5' WIDE HMA SIDEWALK (TYP) MEET EXISTING PAVEMENTS FLUSH (TYP) ELEVATED WOOD RAMPS, LANDINGS, AND OBSERVATION PLATFORM TO TOP OF NEW DUNE INSTALL MOBI-MATS ON EXISTING BEACH ACCESS (TYP) MOBIMAT ACCESS TO BEACH EXIST CONCESSION / RESTROOMBLDGSEE SHEET C-401 FOR DUNE GRADING 25'R 5'R 5'R 2'R 5'R 130'R 5'R 5'R 25'R 47'R 33'R 20'R 3'R 3'R 15'R 3'R 33'R REFUSE ENCLOSURE 6' HT. CEDAR STOCKADE FENCE 19'24'24'19'24'SANDY N E C K B E A C H VEGETATED SWALE - SEE SHEET C-401 FOR GRADING 21'18'21'21'18'10'60° 18' CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE AROUND EXISTING BUILDING MAINTAIN EXISTING SAND PLAY AREA AND SITTING AREA UNDER PERGOLA CONDUIT FOR FUTURE ELECTRICAL OR IRRIGATION 9' 9' 9'9'9' 9'TYPT Y P T Y P AZEK CROSSING W/ P.T. SUPPORTS (TYP) WHITE PAINTED DIRECTIONAL ARROW (TYP) ACCESSIBLE SPACES AND SIGNAGE. LAYOUT AND STRIPING IN ACCORDANCE WITH 521CMR 9' WIDE PAINTED PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS (TYP) 4" WIDE WHITE PAINTED PARKING STRIPE (TYP) 4" WIDE WHITE PAINTED PARKING STRIPE (TYP) 10' WIDE WHITE PAINTED CROSSWALK WHITE PAINTED STRIPING IN FRONT OF EXISTING GARAGE ENTRANCE 10' WIDE WHITE PAINTED CROSSWALK SHEET NOTES 1.ALL PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS AND MATERIALS WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 521CMR, ADA REGULATIONS, AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE BARNSTABLE MINIMUM PARKING LOT DESIGN STANDARDS 2'R 3'R 5'R 5'R 5'R 3'R 5'R5'R 5'R 15'R 5'R 1'R 24' 19' 19' 24' 19' 19' 24' CAPE COD BERM (TYP) CONCRETE WALK TO WOOD RAMP 9'7/27/23 DDESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:02pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/28/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-302 SITE LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN - 2 TJG TJG/DJB JPV 1" = 20' 00 20'40' SCALE: 1" = 20' N SEE SHEET C-301MATCH LINESEE SHEET C-301MATCH LINEMATCH LINE SEE SHEET C-303 MATCH LINE SEE SHEET C-303EXISTING ORV TRAIL5' WIDE CURB OPENINGS 5' WIDE CURB OPENINGS 5' WIDE CURB OPENINGS 10' WIDE CURB OPENINGS GRANITE CURBING (TYP) HMA PAVEMENT (TYP) 5'R VEGETATED SWALE - SEE SHEET C-401 FOR GRADING 21'18'21'18'10'60°21'MOBIMAT ACCESS TO BEACH SEE SHEET C-401 FOR DUNE GRADING SANDY N E C K B E A C H 16' WIDE DOUBLE LEAF BAR GATE TIMBER GUARDRAIL CAST IN PLACE CONC PAD 25'R 15'R 5'R GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD 5'RSPILT RAIL FENCE (TYP) 9' 9' T Y P T Y P AZEK CROSSING W/ P.T. SUPPORTS (TYP) AZEK CROSSING W/ P.T. SUPPORTS (TYP) WHITE PAINTED DIRECTIONAL ARROW (TYP) ACCESSIBLE SPACES AND SIGNAGE. LAYOUT AND STRIPING IN ACCORDANCE WITH 521CMR 9' WIDE PAINTED PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS (TYP) 4" WIDE WHITE PAINTED PARKING STRIPE (TYP) 9' WIDE PAINTED PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS (TYP) SHEET NOTES 1.ALL PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS AND MATERIALS WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 521CMR, ADA REGULATIONS, AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE BARNSTABLE MINIMUM PARKING LOT DESIGN STANDARDS CAPE COD BERM (TYP) CAPE COD BERM (TYP)9'7/27/23 DDESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:03pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/28/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-303 SITE LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN - 3 TJG TJG/DJB JPV 1" = 20' 00 20'40' SCALE: 1" = 20' NSEE SHEET C-302 MATCH LINE SEE SHEET C-302 MATCH LINE SEE SHEET C-301MATCH LINE100-FOOT BUFFER ZONE WETLAND WETLAND 50-FOOT BUFFER ZONE 50-FOOT BUFFER ZONE 100-FOOT BUFFER ZONE DMH-2 SEE SHEET C-403 EXISTING ORV TRAILSTONE OUTLET PROTECTION BIORETENTION BASIN SEE SHEET C-403 FOR GRADING PLAN SEE SHEET C-403 FOR GRADING 7/27/23 xxxxxxxx x DESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:03pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/28/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-304 SITE LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN - 4 TJG TJG/DJB JPV 1" = 20' 00 20'40' SCALE: 1" = 20' N CAPE COD BERM (TYP) HMA PAVEMENT APRON EXTEND HMA SIDEWALK AD REQUIRED. 7' WIDE WHITE PAINTED CROSSWALK 45'R 15'R 14'14'EXTEND HMA SIDEWALK AD REQUIRED. FLOOD-PROOF COMPRESSOR ENCLOSURE RELOCATED LIGHT POLE W/ DARK SKY LUMINAIRE DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC FLOW EXTENT OF TRAVEL LANE 100-FOOT BUFFER ZONE 50-FOOT BUFFER ZONE WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND 100-FOOT BUFFER ZONE 50-FOOT BUFFER ZONE EXISTI N G O R V T R A I L 5 AIR-UP SPACES 12 AIR-DOWN SPACES (AUXILIARY AIR-UP SPACES) LIMITS OF GRAVEL AREA (TYP) GRAVEL SURFACE THROUGHOUT ORV AREA 7/27/23 OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHWOHW OHW OHW OHW OHWOHW OHW OHW OHW OHWOHWOHWOHW OHWOHWOHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OEOEOEOEOEDCL 11.03 1399 DESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:01pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/27/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Gatehouse Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Gatehouse Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-305 GATEHOUSE SITE LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN JPV 1" = 20' 00 20'40' SCALE: 1" = 20' N TJG TJG/DJB NEW OVERHEAD ELEC SERVICE TO EXISTING MAINTENANCE GARAGE DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING UTILITY STRUCTURES IN SANDY NECK ROAD. RAISE COVERS TO FINISH GRADE AS REQ'D (TYP) EXISTING MAINTENAN C E GARAGE NEW UTILITY POLE NEW 8'x10' FLOOD PROOF COMPRESSOR ENCLOSURE ON CONCRETE PAD CAPE COD BERB (TYP) HMA PAVEMENT (TYP) 5'R 5'R 5'R 95'R 75'R HMA AIR UP AREA EXISTING GRAVEL PARKING AREA TO BE REMOVED AND RESTORED WITH NATIVE VEGETATION 50-FOOT WETLAND BUFFER 100-FOOT WETLAND BUFFER WETLAND WETLAND EDGE OF PAVEMENT (TYP)20'17'SAN DY NE C K BE A C H R O A D WHITE PAINTED DIRECTIONAL ARROW (TYP) 4" WIDE DOUBLE YELLOW LINE 10' WIDE WHITE PAINTED CROSSWALK ON ELEVATED TRAFFIC TABLE 4" WIDE WHITE PAINTED STRIPING IN FRONT OF EXISTING GARAGE ENTRANCE MEET EXISTING LINE STRIPING APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF NEW PAVEMENT 5'R 2'R 17'20'63' 9 AIR-UP SPACES 7 EMPLOYEE SPACES RELOCATED GATEHOUSE BUILDING W/ NEW ADA-COMPLIANT AZEK ENTRANCE RAMP DEDICATED EXIT LANE SPEED BUMP EXISTING WALKING PATHS AIR-UP DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE QUEUE AREA FOR (4) VEHICLES 10' WIDE WHITE PAINTED CROSSWALK WHITE PAINTED DIRECTIONAL ARROW (TYP) CAPE COD BERB (TYP) 8'R 5'R 5'R 3'R ACCESSIBLE SPACES AND SIGNAGE. LAYOUT AND STRIPING IN ACCORDANCE WITH 521CMR LIGHT BOLLARD (TYP) 1 2 '24'5'1 4 ' 1 0 ' FLAG POLE AND HISTORIC ROCK HMA WALK DEDICATED EXIT LANE 50-FOOT WETLAND BUFFER 100-FOOT WETLAND BUFFER 7/27/23 R=21.22 R=18.90 R=16.82 27282925 DD23 23 2324 24 25 20 15 10 25 21 2322 21 2 1 2 0 20 15 22 2 3 22 DESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:03pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/28/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-401 SITE GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN - 1 TJG TJG/DJB JPV 1" = 20' 00 20'40' SCALE: 1" = 20' N MATCH LINESEE SHEET C-402MATCH LINESEE SHEET C-402MATCH LINE SEE SHEET C-403100-FOOT BUFFER ZONE WETLAND 50-FOOT BUFFER ZONE EROSION CONTROL BARRIER (TYP) EROSION CONTROL BARRIER (TYP) RAISE EXISTING SEPTIC COVERS TO NEW FINISH GRADE (TYP) CB-1 RIM = 22.75 12" INV OUT = 19.75 CB-2 RIM = 22.75 12" INV OUT = 19.75 CB-3 RIM = 22.75 12" INV OUT = 19.75 DMH-1 (60") RIM = 24.50 12" INV IN (1) = 18.75 12" INV IN (2) = 18.90 12" INV IN (3) = 18.75 12" INV IN (4) = 18.71 24" INV OUT = 18.50 SWTU-1 RIM = 23.50 24" INV IN = 18.24 24" INV OUT = 17.99 EXIST CB RIM = 21.22 NEW 24" INV IN=17.74 12" ADS PIPE, S=1% 12" ADS PIPE, S=1% 12" ADS PIPE, S=1% 24" ADS PIPE, S=1% 24" ADS PIPE, S=1% 12" ADS PIPE, S=0.5% CB-4 RIM = 22.00 12" INV OUT = 19.00 1.3% 1.3%1.7% 1.3% 1.3% 1% 1%2%2.5% 1. 4 % 1 . 1% 1.4%1.4%1.2%2%1.2%2%2% 1.1%1%1%0.5% 0.6 %5.5%5.5%7%1%1%TC=24.00 BC=23.50 TC=24.00 BC=23.50 TC=23.50 BC=23.00 TC=24.00 BC=23.50 23.20 1% 23.20 23.26 23.5 1 (EXI S T ) 23.5 7 (EXI S T ) 23.5 8 (EXI S T ) 23.5 6 (EXI S T ) 23.5 6 (EXI S T ) 23.5 4 (EXI S T ) TC= 2 3 . 5 4 ( E X I S T ) BC= 2 3 . 0 4 TC=22.68 BC=22.18 TC=21.50 BC=21.00 24.502.5% 5' WIDE CURB OPENING 3.5:1 SL O P E 6:1 SLOP E 2.2:1 SLOPE 4:1 SLOP E 6"PERF PVC UNDERDRAIN APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF WORK (TYP) APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF WORK (TYP)A-AC-604B-BC-6047/27/23 SHEET NOTES 1.THE HTL ELEVATION IS 6.5-FEET. THERE WILL BE NO WORK OR DISTURBANCE AT OR BELOW THAT ELEVATION. 25 20 2620 20 D18 17 16 15 19 1 9 1 8 1 7 1 6 25 20 15 10 1413 12 11 DESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:03pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/28/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-402 SITE GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN - 2 TJG TJG/DJB JPV 1" = 20' 00 20'40' SCALE: 1" = 20' N SEE SHEET C-401MATCH LINESEE SHEET C-401MATCH LINEMATCH LINE SEE SHEET C-403 MATCH LINE SEE SHEET C-403 1.3%1.7% TC=20.50 BC=20.00 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3%1.7%1.7%1.7%1.7% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3%2.5%2.5%2.5% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 2% 2% 2% 6.5% 3.1% 3.1% 5.3% TC=19.50 BC=19.00 TC=18.50 BC=18.00 TC=17.50 BC=17.00 TC=20.50 BC=20.00 TC=19.50 BC=19.00 TC=18.50 BC=18.00 TC=17.50 BC=17.00 TC=16.50 BC=16.00 TC=16.00 BC=15.50 23.50 22.50 21.50 20.50 EROSION CONTROL BARRIER (TYP)EXISTING ORV TRAIL5' WIDE CURB OPENING 5' WIDE CURB OPENING 5' WIDE CURB OPENING 5' WIDE CURB OPENING 6:1 SLOPE 4:1 SLOP E 4:1 SLOPE 4.2:1 SL O P E OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE RIM = 14.00 4" HORZ ORIFICE @ 14.00 6" INV IN = 12.00 24" INV OUT = 11.00 6"PERF PVC UNDERDRAIN APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF WORK (TYP) TC=15.50 BC=15.00 TC=15.50 BC=15.00C-CC-6057/27/23 HTL LINE (ELEV. 6.5') SHEET NOTES 1.THE HTL ELEVATION IS 6.5-FEET. THERE WILL BE NO WORK OR DISTURBANCE AT OR BELOW THAT ELEVATION. 20 15 10 D5 15 DESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:03pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/28/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-403 SITE GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN - 3 TJG TJG/DJB JPV 1" = 20' 00 20'40' SCALE: 1" = 20' NSEE SHEET C-402 MATCH LINE SEE SHEET C-402 MATCH LINE SEE SHEET C-401MATCH LINE100-FOOT BUFFER ZONE WETLAND WETLAND 50-FOOT BUFFER ZONE 50-FOOT BUFFER ZONE 100-FOOT BUFFER ZONE 24" ADS PIPE, S=3.3% DMH-2 RIM = 10.00 24" INV IN = 7.00 24" INV OUT = 6.90 BIORETENTION BASIN BOTTOM = 5.00 EROSION CONTROL BARRIER (TYP)EXISTING ORV TRAIL6:1 SLOPE 6:1 SLOPE 4:1 SLOPE APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF WORK (TYP) 24" INV = 6.25 24" ADS PIPE,S =2.8% 20' WIDE EMERGENCY SPILLWAY @ ELEV. 7.50 STONE OUTLET PROTECTIONC-CC-6057/27/23 DCL 11.03 1399 8 1112 11 109876129 DESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:01pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/27/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Gatehouse Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Gatehouse Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-404 GATEHOUSE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN JPV 1" = 20' 00 20'40' SCALE: 1" = 20' N TJG TJG/DJB EXISTING MAINTENAN C E GARAGE 50-FOOT WETLAND BUFFER 100-FOOT WETLAND BUFFER WETLAND WETLAND SAN DY NE C K BE A C H R O A D CB-1 RIM = 7.1 12" INV OUT = 4.1 APPROX LOCATION OF EXIST UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION SYSTEM 1% 8.00 (EXIST) REPLACE EXIST CB-1 (RIM =7.2) W/ DMH-1 EXIST CB-2 RIM =7.2 CB-2 RIM = 7.1 12" INV OUT = 4.1 DMH-1 RIM = 7.2 12" INV IN (CB-1)=3.625 12" INV IN (CB-2)=3.725 12" INV IN (ECB-2)=TBD 12" INV OUT = TBD 8.00 (EXIST) 8.00 (EXIST) 8.00 (EXIST) 1% 1% 12" ADS PIPE, S=0.5% 7.251%8.20 9.0 (EXIST)1%7.88 1%1% EROSION CONTROL BARRIER (TYP) 50-FOOT WETLAND BUFFER 100-FOOT WETLAND BUFFER EROSION CONTROL BARRIER (TYP) RELOCATED GATEHOUSE BUILDING FF ELEV = 14.00 FG ELEV = 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 5% 5% 4% 4% 11.50 (EXIST) 11.50 (EXIST) 11.00 (EXIST) 4.5 %5% 12.00 (EXIST)2.6%ADA RAMP W/ HANDRAIL, S=8.3% 7/27/23 27282925 20 DD23 23 2324 24 25 20 15 10 25 21 2322 21 2 1 2 0 20 15 22 2 3 22 DESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:03pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/28/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-501 SITE LANDSCAPING PLAN - 1 TJG TJG/DJB JPV 1" = 20' 00 20'40' SCALE: 1" = 20' N MATCH LINESEE SHEET C-502MATCH LINESEE SHEET C-502MATCH LINE SEE SHEET C-503 100-FOOT BUFFER ZONE WETLAND 50-FOOT BUFFER ZONE APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF WORK (TYP) SAND FENCING (TYP) SAND FENCING (TYP) PRIMARY DUNE RESTORATION AREA (TYP) REAR DUNE RESTORATION AREA (TYP) VEGETATED ISLANDS (TYP) VEGETATED ISLANDS (TYP) VEGETATED SWALE (TYP) NEW SHRUBS OR SPADED-IN EXISTING SHRUBS (TYP) SAND FENCING (TYP) SAND FENCING (TYP) 7/27/23 25 20 2620 20 D18 17 16 15 19 1 9 1 8 1 7 1 6 25 20 15 10 1413 12 11 DESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:03pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/28/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-502 SITE LANDSCAPING PLAN - 2 TJG TJG/DJB JPV 1" = 20' 00 20'40' SCALE: 1" = 20' N SEE SHEET C-501MATCH LINESEE SHEET C-501MATCH LINEMATCH LIN E SEE SHEET C - 5 0 3 MATCH LINE SEE SHEET C-503EXISTING ORV TRAILMOBIMAT ACCESS TO BEACH SANDY N E C K B E A C H APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF WORK (TYP) SAND FENCING (TYP) SAND FENCING (TYP) PRIMARY DUNE RESTORATION AREA (TYP) REAR DUNE RESTORATION AREA (TYP) VEGETATED SWALE (TYP) VEGETATED SWALE (TYP) 7/27/23 20 15 10 D5 20 15 1 7 1 6 11 DESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:03pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/28/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-503 SITE LANDSCAPING PLAN - 3 TJG TJG/DJB JPV 1" = 20' 00 20'40' SCALE: 1" = 20' NSEE SHEET C-502 MATCH LINE SEE SHEET C-502 MATCH LINE SEE SHEET C-501MATCH LINE100-FOOT BUFFER ZONE WETLAND WETLAND 50-FOOT BUFFER ZONE 50-FOOT BUFFER ZONE 100-FOOT BUFFER ZONEEXISTING ORV TRAILBIORETENTION BASIN SEE SHEET C-403 FOR GRADING PLAN APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF WORK (TYP) REAR DUNE RESTORATION AREA (TYP) RAIN GARDEN RESTORATION AREA (TYP) NEW SHRUBS OR SPADED-IN EXISTING SHRUBS (TYP) NEW SHRUBS OR SPADED-IN EXISTING SHRUBS (TYP) NEW SHRUBS OR SPADED-IN EXISTING SHRUBS (TYP) 7/27/23 DESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:03pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/28/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-504 SITE LANDSCAPING NOTES AND DETAILS TJG TJG/DJB JPV 1" = 20' DUNE RESTORATION AREA NOTES ·ONCE GRADING IS COMPLETE, INSTALL SAND FENCING IN A ZIG-ZAG PATTERN ALONG THE DUNE CREST AND IN A STRAIGHT LINE ALONG ALL BEACH ACCESS PATHWAYS. ·SAND FENCING ALONG DUNE CREST TO BE SECURED TO 4”X4”X8' PRESSURE TREATED TIMBERS INSTALLED IN ZIG-ZAG PATTERN AT APPROXIMATELY 10' ON-CENTER LEAVING A 4' REVEAL. ·SAND FENCING ALONG BEACH ACCESS PATHWAYS TO BE SECURED TO 4”X4”X8' PRESSURE TREATED TIMBERS INSTALLED IN A STRAIGHT LINE AT APPROXIMATELY 10' ON-CENTER LEAVING A 4' REVEAL. ·BARE ROOT AMERICAN BEACH GRASS (AMMOPHILA BREVILIGULATA) PLUGS TO BE INSTALLED FROM THE SEAWARD EDGE OF THE DUNE CREST TO THE LANDWARD EDGE OF THE DUNE RESTORATION AREA AT 18” ON-CENTER, 2-3 CULMS PER HOLE. BARE ROOT PLUGS MUST BE INSTALLED DORMANT (BY APRIL 1). CARE MUST BE TAKEN WHEN BACKFILLING PLANTINGS TO ENSURE RHIZOME IS IN FULL CONTACT WITH SAND AND NO AIR GAP REMAINS. VEGETATED ISLAND RESTORATION AREA NOTES ·18” OF ENGINEERED SOIL MEDIA TO BE INSTALLED BELOW GRADE IN EACH VEGETATED ISLAND. OVERLAY ENGINEERED SOIL MEDIA WITH 6” OF NATIVE SAND, MATCHING GRADE WITH ADJACENT PARKING AREA. ·ENGINEERED SOIL MEDIA TO HAVE A LOAMY SAND TEXTURE PER USDA TEXTURAL TRIANGLE. THE SOIL MIXTURE SHALL BE 60-70% SAND BY VOLUME WITH 15-25% TOPSOIL OR LOAM BY VOLUME AND 15-25% ORGANIC MATTER BY VOLUME WITH A MAXIMUM SILT AND CLAY CONTENT OF 8%. ·ONCE FINISHED GRADES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED, SOW NEW ENGLAND WETLAND PLANTS COASTAL SALT TOLERANT MIX INTO THE SURFACE OF EACH VEGETATED ISLAND AT A RATE OF 23LB. PER ACRE. ·OVERLAY VEGETATED ISLAND WITH 100% BIODEGRADABLE EROSION CONTROL FABRIC (ECS 2B OR SIMILAR) ANCHORED AT 3' ON-CENTER WITH 12” WOOD ECO-STAKES. ·ONCE THE VEGETATED ISLAND HAS BEEN SEEDED AND STABILIZED, INSTALL SWITCHGRASS (PANICUM VIRGATUM), INDIAN GRASS (SORGHASTRUM NUTANS), LITTLE BLUESTEM (SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM), SEASIDE GOLDENROD (SOLIDEGO SEMPERVIRENS) AND BUTTERFLY WEED (ASCLEPIAS TUBEROSA) PLUG PLANTINGS AT 36” ON-CENTER. ·TO IMPROVE SURVIVORSHIP OF NATIVE PLANTINGS AND SEED, TEMPORARY IRRIGATION WILL BE REQUIRED FOR A MINIMUM OF 2 GROWING SEASONS. VEGETATED SWALE RESTORATION AREAS ·18” OF ENGINEERED SOIL MEDIA TO BE INSTALLED BELOW GRADE IN EACH VEGETATED SWALE. OVERLAY ENGINEERED SOIL MEDIA WITH 6” OF NATIVE SAND, MEETING FINISHED GRADE. ·ENGINEERED SOIL MEDIA TO HAVE A LOAMY SAND TEXTURE PER USDA TEXTURAL TRIANGLE. THE SOIL MIXTURE SHALL BE 60-70% SAND BY VOLUME WITH 15-25% TOPSOIL OR LOAM BY VOLUME AND 15-25% ORGANIC MATTER BY VOLUME WITH A MAXIMUM SILT AND CLAY CONTENT OF 8%. ·VEGETATED SWALE SIDE SLOPES TO BE GRADED AT 3:1 TO A 18”-24” WIDE BASE (VARIABLE). ·AFTER FINISHED GRADES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED, SIDE SLOPES AND BASE OF VEGETATED SWALE TO BE SOWED WITH NEW ENGLAND WETLAND PLANTS COASTAL SALT TOLERANT MIX AT A RATE OF 23LB. PER ACRE., BLENDED INTO A 100% BIODEGRADABLE EROSION CONTROL FABRIC (ECS 2B OR SIMILAR) FOR ADDED SLOPE STABILITY. ·OVERLAY VEGETATED SWALE SIDE SLOPES AND BASE WITH 100% BIODEGRADABLE EROSION CONTROL FABRIC (ECS 2B OR SIMILAR) ANCHORED AT 3' ON-CENTER WITH 12” WOOD ECO-STAKES. ·ONCE THE VEGETATED SWALE HAS BEEN SEEDED AND STABILIZED, INSTALL SWITCHGRASS (PANICUM VIRGATUM), INDIAN GRASS (SORGHASTRUM NUTANS), LITTLE BLUESTEM (SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM), SEASIDE GOLDENROD (SOLIDEGO SEMPERVIRENS) AND BUTTERFLY WEED (ASCLEPIAS TUBEROSA) PLUG PLANTINGS AT 36” ON-CENTER. ·TO IMPROVE SURVIVORSHIP OF NATIVE PLANTINGS AND SEED, TEMPORARY IRRIGATION WILL BE REQUIRED FOR A MINIMUM OF 2 GROWING SEASONS. BACK DUNE RESTORATION AREA ALTERNATIVE 1: ·ONCE GRADING IS COMPLETE, INSTALL SAND FENCING IN A ZIG-ZAG PATTERN ALONG THE BACK DUNE CREST. ·SAND FENCING ALONG BACK DUNE CREST TO BE SECURED TO 4”X4”X8' PRESSURE TREATED TIMBERS INSTALLED IN ZIG-ZAG PATTERN AT APPROXIMATELY 10' ON-CENTER LEAVING A 4' REVEAL. ·EXISTING SHRUBS (MYRICA PENNSYLVANICA), BEACH PLUM (PRUNUS MARITIMA), BLACK CHERRY (PRUNUS SERROTINA) AND/OR EASTERN RED CEDAR (JUNIPERUS VIRGINIANA) TO BE SPADED FROM DISTURBED AREA SOUTH OF LOWER PARKING LOT AND REPLANTED IN CLUSTERS ALONG CREST OF DUNE AT 50' ON-CENTER THROUGHOUT BACK DUNE RESTORATION AREA. ·REPLANTED SHRUBS SHOULD BE REINSTALLED IN HOLE LINED WITH LOAM-COMPOST AND SOIL AMENDMENTS (TREESAVER, OR SIMILAR). ·SHRUB PLANTINGS TO BE SUPPLEMENTED WITH BARE ROOT AMERICAN BEACH GRASS (AMMOPHILA BREVILIGULATA) PLUGS INSTALLED AT 18” ON-CENTER, 2-3 CULMS PER HOLE AND CLUSTERS OF 5 BUTTERFLY WEED (ASCLEPIAS TUBEROSA) AND 5 SEASIDE GOLDENROD (SOLIDAGO SEMPERVIRENS) PLUGS TO BE INSTALLED AT 50-FEET ON-CENTER. BARE ROOT PLUGS MUST BE INSTALLED DORMANT (BY APRIL 1). CARE MUST BE TAKEN WHEN BACKFILLING PLANTINGS TO ENSURE RHIZOME IS IN FULL CONTACT WITH SAND AND NO AIR GAP REMAINS. ALTERNATIVE 2: ·ONCE GRADING IS COMPLETE, INSTALL SAND FENCING IN A ZIG-ZAG PATTERN ALONG THE DUNE CREST. ·SAND FENCING ALONG DUNE CREST TO BE SECURED TO 4”X4”X8' PRESSURE TREATED TIMBERS INSTALLED IN ZIG-ZAG PATTERN AT APPROXIMATELY 10' ON-CENTER LEAVING A 4' REVEAL. ·IF NOT POSSIBLE TO TRANSPLANT EXISTING SHRUBS, ONE-GALLON POTS OF BAYBERRY (MYRICA PENNSYLVANICA) AND BEACH PLUM (PRUNUS MARITIMA) SHRUBS TO BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED IN CLUSTERS OF 10 PLANTINGS AT 50 FEET ON CENTER THROUGHOUT BACK DUNE RESTORATION AREA. ·SHRUB PLANTINGS TO BE SUPPLEMENTED WITH BARE ROOT AMERICAN BEACH GRASS (AMMOPHILA BREVILIGULATA) PLUGS INSTALLED AT 18” ON-CENTER, 2-3 CULMS PER HOLE. AND CLUSTERS OF 5 BUTTERFLY WEED (ASCLEPIAS TUBEROSA) AND 5 SEASIDE GOLDENROD (SOLIDAGO SEMPERVIRENS) PLUGS TO BE INSTALLED AT 50-FEET ON-CENTER. BARE ROOT PLUGS MUST BE INSTALLED DORMANT (BY APRIL 1). CARE MUST BE TAKEN WHEN BACKFILLING PLANTINGS TO ENSURE RHIZOME IS IN FULL CONTACT WITH SAND AND NO AIR GAP REMAINS. BIORETENTION RESTORATION AREA ·BIORETENTION PIT SIDE SLOPES TO BE GRADED AT 3:1 TO BASE OF PIT. ·18” OF ENGINEERED SOIL MEDIA TO BE INSTALLED BELOW GRADE IN BIORETENTION PIT. OVERLAY ENGINEERED SOIL MEDIA WITH 6” OF NATIVE SAND TO ESTABLISH FINISHED GRADE. ·ENGINEERED SOIL MEDIA TO HAVE A LOAMY SAND TEXTURE PER USDA TEXTURAL TRIANGLE. THE SOIL MIXTURE SHALL BE 60-70% SAND BY VOLUME WITH 15-25% TOPSOIL OR LOAM BY VOLUME AND 15-25% ORGANIC MATTER BY VOLUME WITH A MAXIMUM SILT AND CLAY CONTENT OF 8%. ·AFTER FINISHED GRADES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED, SIDE SLOPES AND BASE OF PIT TO BE SOWED WITH NEW ENGLAND WETLAND PLANTS EROSION CONTROL/RESTORATION MIX FOR DETENTION BASINS AND MOIST SITES AT A RATE OF 23LB. PER ACRE. ·ONCE SEED HAS BEEN SOWED, BLANKET SIDE SLOPES AND BASE OF BIORETENTION PIT WITH 100% BIODEGRADABLE EROSION CONTROL FABRIC (ECS 2B OR SIMILAR) ANCHORED AT 3' ON-CENTER WITH 12” WOOD ECO-STAKES. ·ONCE SEEDED AND STABILIZED, INSTALL SWITCHGRASS (PANICUM VIRGATUM), INDIAN GRASS (SORGHASTRUM NUTANS), LITTLE BLUESTEM (SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM), SEASIDE GOLDENROD (SOLIDEGO SEMPERVIRENS) AND BUTTERFLYWEED (ASCLEPIAS TUBEROSA) PLUG PLANTINGS THROUGHOUT BIORETENTION PIT RESTORATION AREA AT 36” ON-CENTER. ·TO ENSURE SURVIVORSHIP OF NATIVE PLANTINGS AND SEED, TEMPORARY IRRIGATION WILL BE REQUIRED FOR A MINIMUM OF 2 GROWING SEASONS. 7/27/23 DESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:03pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/28/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-601 SITE DETAILS - 1 TJG TJG/DJB JPV AS SHOWN PLAN SECTION12"3"WORK ZONE FLOW AREA TO BE PROTECTED WOOD STAKES*-TYP. WORK ZONE 2"x2"x2'-0" WOOD STAKES FOR WATTLES* STRAW WATTLES OR MULCH LOGS SILT FENCE *-STAKES TO BE SPACED AT 4-5' O.C. STAGGER STAKES BETWEEN STRAW WATTLES AND SILT FENCE9"AREA TO BE PROTECTED 4'-6"18"EROSION CONTROL BARRIER NO SCALE 1 1/2" HMA TOP COURSE 12" PROCESSED GRAVEL BASE 2 1/2" HMA BINDER COURSE 1'-0" HMA DRIVEWAYS AND PARKING AREAS NO SCALE 16' MIN . 30' L O N G PUBLIC W A Y 6" MINIMUM DEPTH OF 2" CRUSHED ANGULAR STONE WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE NO SCALE NOTE: SILTSACKS FOR TRENCH GRATE WILL MATCH OPENING LENGTH AS REQUIRED. SILTSACK OR APPROVED EQUAL SILTSACK EROSION CONTROL NO SCALE R 1" REBAR FOR BAG REMOVAL FROM INLET DUMP STRAP (TYP OF 2) SILTSACK MANUFACTURED BY: ATLANTIC CONSTRUCTION FABRICS, INC. 1801-A WILLIS ROAD RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23237 NOTES: 1.ALL TIMBERS SHALL BE PRESSURE TREATED (0.40 PCF ACQ OR CCA-C) SOUTHERN YELLOW PINE. 2.ALL HARDWARE SHALL BE HOT DIP GALVANIZED. 3.ALL TIMBERS SHALL BE STAINED (COLOR AND TYPE TO BE SELECTED BY THE OWNER). 4.ALL CONNECTION HARDWARE SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY TIGHTENED TO ACCOMMODATE FOR SHRINKAGE OF THE WOOD ELEMENTS. ELEVATION END VIEW2'-3"UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE COMPACTED BACKFILL FINISHED GRADE 6"x12" TIMBER RAIL 10"x12" TIMBER POST POSTS SPACED 10'-0" O.C. POST CONNECTION WITH BUTT JOINT 7'-0"CARRIAGE BOLTS NUT AND WASHER EDGE OF ROADWAY PAVEMENT 6"83 4" 3" 3" POST CONNECTION 6" CONCRETE ENCASEMENT60" TO SIGN3'-0"6" GROUND POST SIGN TYPICAL HANDICAPPED SIGNPOST NO SCALE R7-8 RESERVED PARKING 12" 18" VAN ACCESSIBLE 18" 9" R7-8P 24" MIN.28" MIN.18'5' MIN. TYP 9' NOTES: 1.SIGN BACKGROUND - BLUE REFLECTIVE 2.LETTERS, GRAPHICS & BORDER - WHITE REFLECTIVE 4" WHITE LINE 3' ON CENTER 45° ANGLE TO STALL INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY 4" WHITE LINE (TYP.) BLUE PAVEMENT PAINT4" WHITE LINE ACCESSIBLE SPACEINTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY R7-8 AND R7-8P MOUNTED ON TYPICAL SIGN POST HANDICAPPED STRIPING AND SIGNAGE DETAIL NO SCALE 9' MIN. VAN CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK NO SCALE W.W.F. (6x6 W4xW4)8" PROCESSED GRAVEL SUB-BASE 4" CEM CONC SIDEWALK 6" CEM CONC SIDEWALK (THROUGH DRIVEWAYS) WIDTH AS SHOWN 6"6" TOOL EDGES (TYP) TIMBER GUARD RAIL NO SCALE TYPE 1 ACCESSIBLE CURB RAMP NO SCALE 6'4.0' MIN1:12 MAX6'-6"6'-6"4' MIN 7.5% 7.5%2% MAX2% MAX."LEVEL LANDING" AT TOP OF RAMP (TYP) YELLOW DETECTABLE WARNING PANEL STRAIGHT OR CURVED SLOPED GRANITE CURBING FLUSH CURB STRAIGHT OR CURVED SLOPED GRANITE CURBING 212" HMA BINDER COURSE 112" HMA TOP COURSE 8" PROCESSED GRAVEL BORROW 12"11 2"5"LOAM BORROW CAPE COD BERM BERM NO SCALE 7/27/23 DESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:03pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/28/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-602 SITE DETAILS - 2 TJG TJG/DJB JPV AS SHOWN Varies Suit Finished Grade Grade Adjusters to Insert 8" Weir 8" 55'' Min.Drop Tee Inlet Pipe Stormceptor 6" 5'' 7" Outlet 48''Ø Outlet Pipe 24"Ø Drop 30''Ø Plate Orifice 6"Ø Port 6"Ø Oil STC 450I Precast Concrete Stormceptor (450 U.S. Gallon Capacity) Catch Basin Frame and Grate 6"Ø Oil Port Access opening 6"Ø Orifice Plate STC 450i PRECAST CONCRETE WATER QUALITY UNIT (WQU) NO SCALE AA GUTTER LINE PLAN 2 1/4"± 33"8"23 7/8"± NOTES: SECTION A-A 1. 2. CATCH BASIN FRAME & GRATE NO SCALE 3/4"±3/4"± MINIMUM WEIGHT OF GRATE - 190 LBS. MATERIAL GRATE - CAST IRON, SEE SPECIFICATIONS. 3. MINIMUM FRAME WEIGHT: 4 FLANGE - 295± LBS. 3 FLANGE - 265± LBS. 4. MATERIAL FRAME - CAST IRON, SEE SPECIFICATIONS. 5. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SEE MDOT 201.0. 15" STANDARD MANHOLE RUNG 14" SECTION A-A 3"8"1" 70"/82"Ø MONOLITHIC BASE SEAL ALL JOINTS WITH APPROVED PRE-FORMED GASKET MATERIAL (SEE SPECIFICATIONS) FLAT SLAB TOP FOR SHALLOW MANHOLES 48"/60"Ø 6" 5w" SPIGOT & BELL REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE CONNECTED TO BARREL REINFORCEMENT 24"x48" ECCENTRIC PRECAST MANHOLE CONE 24"Ø STANDARD MANHOLE RUNG (SEE DETAIL BELOW) ADJUST TO GRADE WITH NOT MORE THAN 12" OF RED CLAY BRICK MASONRY OR CONCRETE GRADING RINGS FRAME & COVERTOP STEP TO BE 20" MAX. BELOW TOP OF FRAME 5"12"4"FRAME TO BE SET IN FULL BED OF MORTAR 1/4 PIPE DIAMETERSHAPE INVERT WITH CONCRETE FILL (3000 PSI) SS CLAMP GROUT SECTION B-B RUBBER BOOT PIPE LENGTH 48"/60" PRECAST DRAIN MANHOLE (DMH) NO SCALE B B COPOLYMER POLYPROPYLENE PLASTIC 1/2" GRADE 60 STEEL REINFORCEMENT6"PIPE DIA. + 24" MIN.MULTIPLES 12",24",36" OR 48"AS REQUIRED18"-24"TAPEREDSECTIONPRECAST BASE6"MONOLITHIC BASE SEAL ALL JOINTS WITH APPROVED PRE-FORMED GASKET MATERIAL (SEE SPECIFICATIONS)MULTIPLES 12",24",36" OR 48"AS REQUIRED24"48" SPIGOT & BELL REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE CONNECTED TO BARREL REINFORCEMENT 24"x48" CONCENTRIC PRECAST CATCH BASIN CONE ADJUST TO GRADE WITH NOT MORE THAN 12" OF BRICK MASONRY FRAME & GRATE 5" FRAME TO BE SET IN FULL BED OF MORTAR 8" MIN 24" SQUARE OPENING O.D. OF PIPE +2" CLEARANCE FINISHED GRADE CAST IRON CATCH BASIN HOOD PRECAST CONCRETE DEEP SUMP HOODED CATCH BASIN (CB) NO SCALE NOTES: 1.FOR USE WITH PVC PIPE, PROVIDE RUBBER BOOT SIMILAR TO MANHOLE DETAIL. 2.FOR USE WITH OTHER TYPES OF PIPE, SEAL JOINT BETWEEN PIPE AND CATCH BASIN WITH GROUT.4'-0"D W1 W2 L d 12" 6' 6' 5' 3" 6' 14' 8' 15" 6'-6" 8' 5' 6" 6'-6" 18' 12' 18" 7' 10' 5' 6" 7' 18' 12' 21" 7'-6" 12' 6'-6" 6" 7'-6" 22' 16' 24" 8' 14' 8'-4" 6" 8' 26' 20' 6"6"8"12"12"W12'2'PLAN L L 1 112"W2SECTION A-A NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE. OVERLAP SEAMS 12" MINDW1 W2 L D 12"15"18"21"24" SLOPE "S" DIMENSIONS FOR "S"=1.0%DIMENSIONS FOR "S"=5.0% SLO P E V A R I E S avg avgd ** - THICKNESS SHALL BE 1'-0" OR 1.5xd , WHICHEVER IS GREATER avg d DENOTES AVERAGE STONE DIAMETER avg A A d STONE BORROW-SEE TABLE FOR SIZE STONE OUTLET NO SCALE GRANITE CURB NO SCALE SECTION ELEVATION 5"6"17"-19"1/2" 4" MIN. SMOOTH QUARRY SPLIT MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BREAK BACK 9" - FOR CURB LENGTHS OF 6'-0" OR MORE 6" - FOR CURB LENGTHS OF LESS THAN 6'-0"6"SURFACE OF PAVEMENT PAVEMENT IN AREAS WHERE SIDEWALK IS CALLED FOR BEHIND THE CURB, THE CONC AT THE BACK OF CURB MAY BE OMITTED9"MINGRANITE CURBING REVEALGRANITE CURBING OVERALLHEIGHTPROCESSED GRAVEL BASE 6" CEM. CONC. FILL 7/27/23 DESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:03pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/28/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-603 SITE DETAILS - 3 (TYPICAL SECTIONS) TJG TJG/DJB JPV AS SHOWN 2 1 3 1 3 1 SHRUB PLANTING BIORETENTION BASIN - TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE NOTES 1.INSTALL RAIN GARDEN AFTER SITE IS STABILIZED TO PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM CLOGGING RAIN GARDEN. 2.MATERIAL SHOULD ALLOW AN INFILTRATION RATE OF 2 INCHES PER HOUR. PARKING AREA 24"2" MINIMUM DEPTH OF NATIVE SAND 8" 2 1 6"Ø PVC SCH 40 OVERFLOW DRAIN WITH 6"Ø PLASTIC GRATE 6"Ø HDPE UNDERDRAIN COORDINATE WITH GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 2" MIN 1-1/2" CRUSHED STONE WRAPPED IN A NONWOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 6"2' MIN.CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE TRENCH BOX, SHEETING OR OTHER MEANS ACCORDING TO OSHA STANDARDS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS ACCORDING TO OSHA. TRENCH WIDTH (SEE NOTE 3)"D" UTILITY WARNING TAPE MARKED "DRAIN" PREVIOUSLY EXCAVATED MATERIAL 8" MAX. STONE DIAMETER " CRUSHED STONE 6"STORM DRAIN PIPE NOTES: 1.COMPACT ALL BACKFILL MATERIAL WITH VIBRATORY PLATE EQUIPMENT (MINIMUM TWO PASSES) TO A MINIMUM DENSITY OF 95 PERCENT OF THE STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY ASTM D698. 2.PLACE BACKFILL MATERIAL IN MAXIMUM ONE FOOT LIFTS. 3.FOR PIPES LESS THAN 24" IN DIAMETER THE TRENCH WIDTH SHALL BE 5.0'. FOR PIPES 24" IN DIAMETER AND GREATER, TRENCH WIDTH SHALL BE THE PIPE DIAMETER + 3.0' TYPICAL DRAIN LINE AND TRENCH SECTION NO SCALE WIDTH OF PIT SHALL BE 3 TIMES WIDTH OF ROOT BALL (10' MIN IN LEDGE) (SCARIFY AND SLOPE SIDES OF PIT) 4" SAUCER UNTIE BURLAP & ROLL BACK FROM TOP 1/3 OF ROOT BALL (IF PLASTIC BURLAP IS USED, REMOVE COMPLETELY) TAMPED PLANTING MIX COMPACTED SUBGRADE 3" TAMPED PLANTING MIX OR ENGINEERED SOIL MIX (FOR BIORETENTION AREA) 12" MIN. IN EARTH 24" MIN. IN LEDGE3"SHRUB & GRASS PLANTING - TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE VEGETATED SWALE - TYPICAL SECTION 3/4" = 1'-0" PARKING AREA SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR PLANT SCHEDULE GRANITE CURB 12"RANDOMLY PLACED BOULDERS SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR PLANT SCHEDULE 2" MINIMUM DEPTH OF NATIVE SAND NATIVE BEACH SAND 24" DEPTH OF ENGINEERED SOIL MEDIUM 24" DEPTH OF ENGINEERED SOIL MEDIUM 7/27/23 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:04pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/28/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-604 SITE DETAILS - 4 (SITE SECTIONS) TJG TJG/DJB JPV AS SHOWN EXISTING GRADE SECTION A-A 2 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 4:1 SEAWARD SLOPE4:1 LANDWARD SLOPE 32' WIDE CREST EXISTING UPPER PARKING LOT NEW PARKING LOT SECTION B-B 2 1/4" = 1'-0" NEW LOWER PARKING LOT4:1 SLOPE6:1 SLOPE 24.50 5'-10' WIDE BERM SECTION A-A 2 1/4" = 1'-0"SEE A-A BELOWMATCH LINEMATCH LINESEE A-A ABOVESEE B-B BELOWMATCH LINEMATCH LINESEE B-B ABOVESECTION B-B 2 1/4" = 1'-0" NEW UPPER PARKING LOT EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 4:1 SEAWARD SLOPE4:1 LANDWARD SLOPE 40' WIDE CREST EXISTING LOWER PARKING LOT EXISTING LOWER PARKING LOT EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 7/27/23 SECTION C-C 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 6 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 7 6 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 7 6 5 DESIGNED/CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: FILE: APPROVED BY: Barnstable, MA Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration Town of Barnstable DATE: PROJECT NO:Plotted On:Jul 28, 2023-4:04pm By: TJGraceLast Saved:7/28/2023Tighe & Bond:J:\B\B0633 Barnstable\008 - FY22 Sandy Neck Beach Facility Reconfiguration\Drawings_Figures\AutoCAD\Sheet\B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwgMARK DATE DESCRIPTION B0633-008-C-65% Site Plans.dwg B0633-008 SCALE: THIS DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE AND IS RELEASED TEMPORARILY FOR PROGRESS REVIEW ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 65% DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-605 SITE DETAILS - 5 (SITE SECTIONS 2) TJG TJG/DJB JPV AS SHOWN EXISTING GRADE SEE C-C BELOWMATCH LINESECTION C-C 2 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 4:1 SEAWARD SLOPE4:1 LANDWARD SLOPE 10' WIDE CREST EXISTING LOWER PARKING LOT NEW LOWER PARKING LOT SECTION C-C 2 1/4" = 1'-0"MATCH LINESEE C-C ABOVESECTION C-C 2 1/4" = 1'-0"SEE C-C BELOWMATCH LINEMATCH LINESEE C-C ABOVE10' WIDE VEGETATED SWALE 4:1 SLOPE6:1 SLOPE 21.50 10' WIDE BERM NEW LOWER PARKING LOTNEW LOWER PARKING LOT EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 6:1 SLOPE EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 3:1 SLOPE TO BASIN3:1 SLOPE TO BASIN BIORETENTION BASIN 7/27/23