The MEPA Regulations (301 CMR 11.00) require closer scrutiny or review of projects within ACECs that need certain state permits, use state funding, or involve state agency actions (see Erosion section).

A long list of Massachusetts General Laws (M.G.L.) and accompanying regulations have potential applicability to Beach Fill projects. These include the Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act, the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, the Public Waterfront Act, the Coastal Wetland Restriction Act, the Wetlands Protection Act, and the Ocean Sanctuaries Act. In addition, Executive Orders 149 (FEMA and Floodplain Use), 181 (Barrier Beaches) and 190 (Off-road Vehicles) may apply.

The state's overall philosophy is to encourage nonstructural means to deal with shoreline change. The state actively encourages beach fill as an alternative to hardened structures. The homeowners and local communities can use unpolluted dredge material for their beach fill projects. In addition, the state mines inland gravel pits for beach fill.

If a dredging project is publicly funded, it is state policy that any clean compatible dredge material be placed on the closest public beach.

The regulations of the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act state (310 CMR: 10.27 (1)) in part,

“When a proposed project involves the dredging, filling, removing, or altering of a coastal beach, the issuing authority shall presume that the coastal beach is significant to the interests specified above. This presumption may be overcome only upon a clear showing that a coastal beach does not play a role in storm damage prevention, flood control, or protection of wildlife habitat…”

These areas are presumed to be significant and the burden of proof is on the proponent to demonstrate otherwise.

The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act regulations include performance standards for evaluating the potential impacts of beach nourishment (beach fill) projects on beach ecology. For relatively large scale beach fill projects pre- and post-site monitoring is required in the intertidal and subtidal portion of the beach to document changes to beach ecology. The type of monitoring would vary according to the type of beach (e.g., sandy and cobble). Frequently associated with beach monitoring is ecological monitoring of the offshore area that contains potential source material for the fill project. Offshore sand / cobble mining for material to place on beaches may have substantial impacts to offshore resources, and monitoring is required in the potential mining areas to document the suitability of site use, pre-mining resources, and post-mining recovery. If there are sensitive resources (shellfish, eelgrass, etc.) within the footprint of the fill project or adjacent to the project, then ecological monitoring is typically required.

Monitoring is typically conducted by either the Department of Conservation and Recreation or the municipality.

In March 2007 MassDEP published its Beach Nourishment: Guide to Best Management Practices in Massachusetts, which was developed for those proposing beach nourishment projects to minimize erosion and potential adverse environmental impacts, to promote the beneficial reuse of clean, compatible, dredge material, and to expedite regulatory review.

Inventory

Massachusetts does not have an inventory of beach fill projects. The state has had very few large-scale fill projects designed to provide a specific level of shore protection. Most fill is relatively small scale, beneficial re-use of clean, compatible sediments from nearby dredging projects.

Most beach fill projects in Massachusetts involve beneficial re-use of clean, compatible sediments on adjacent beaches. For example, Sylvia State Beach in Oak Bluffs and Edgartown has been nourished many times with sediments from nearby dredging projects. Public funds were also used for a large fill project in Revere during the mid-1980s.

There have been three privately funded beach fill projects performed in Massachusetts specifically for shore protection. These occurred at Great Island in 1985, at Long Beach in 1990 and 1999, and at Dead Neck Island, Barnstable in 1985 and 1998.

At least five sites are currently considering large beach fill projects for shore protection in Massachusetts.¹⁴

Initially proposed in 2005, the Siasconset Shore Protection Project is designed to protect the southeastern corner of Nantucket Island from the effects of aggressive coastal erosion, specifically by widening Siasconset Beach by 200-250 feet and increasing its elevation by at least 10 feet. The project proposal includes a plan to dredge approximately 2.6 million cubic yards of sand from an offshore site, pump the sediment onto a two- to three-mile section of the beach, and install a large geotextile tube filled with sand (geotube) at the base of the existing coastal bank. The Final Impact Report for the Siasconset Beach Nourishment project has been reviewed by the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office (MEPA). On January 29, 2007 the Secretary of Environmental Affairs determined that no further MEPA review was required and that the project could go to the permitting phase.

The towns of Newburyport and Newbury, as well as homeowners on Plum Island, are attempting to secure funding for a project to replenish the eroding beach at Plum Island by using sand dredged from the Merrimack River. In May 2009 it was reported that the Merrimack River Beach Alliance had moved from the theoretical to the practical in plans to replenish the eroded beach at Plum Island Center. The dredging and onshore deposit of an estimated 160,000 cubic yards of sand will be done under the auspices of the Army Corps of Engineers. Plum Island is to receive 120,000 cubic yards and Salisbury Beach the other 40,000. Army Corps officials stated the agency could be in a position to solicit bids on the project by the end of the summer 2009, which would mean dredging could occur in late 2009 or early in 2010. The federal funds for the dredging operation, $2.2 million, are already committed. Federal funds will pay for 65 percent of the onshore deposit costs, estimated at about $2 million. The state Department of Conservation and Recreation will cover three-quarters of the remaining $700,000, or about $525,000, leaving $175,000 to be borne jointly by Newbury, Newburyport and Salisbury. In November 2009 it was reported that bids had been opened on November 20 (low bid was $3.25 million) and that the project was expected to begin in early 2010. Permits require the dredging to be completed by March 15, to avoid disturbing the seasonal migration of certain fish species, and the beach replenishment done by April 1 to avoid disturbing nesting piper plovers.

Property owners just south of Minister’s Point and along Eastward Point want to bring in sand to rebuild eroded dunes and beaches. Both projects have been approved by the conservation commission, but because the locations are within the Pleasant Bay Area of Critical Environmental Concern, they are subject to review under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. Four property owners on Linnell Lane and Salt Pond Road are working together on a project to rebuild a barrier beach that protects a marsh almost directly across the harbor from the new inlet in North Beach. Regular washovers of a small barrier beach threaten to fill the marsh behind it with sand.

The state budgets for beach fill projects, as needed for state-owned beaches. The state funding for beach fill projects is the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), Office of Waterways. The DCR Division of Urban Parks and Recreation (metropolitan Boston area) also funds beach fill projects for state owned beaches. Budgets are project-specific and the fill portion of the project, in the case of DCR, is typically part of a larger, overall site improvement project. Beach fill is generally funded from the Capital Budget from a specific project or program authorization, e.g., Boston Harbor Beaches Bonds.

Additional information on dredging and beach fill projects in Massachusetts is available on the website of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District.
http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/. Here's their Massachusetts report.

The state monitors beach fill projects after sand placement, but has no set criteria to distinguish between a successful or unsuccessful project. The successfulness depends on the goals of the project. If the goal was to keep clean compatible dredge material in the littoral system, the longevity of the nourishment is not a factor. However, if the goal is shore protection, the success would be based on the projected lifespan of the proposed project and the frequency of storms during the lifetime of the fill.

CZM staff believes a long-term comprehensive plan for beach fill needs in the state could be a useful planning tool in identifying sites where fill is likely to be effective without having significant environmental impacts. they also believe a long-term maintenance plan is needed for all state beaches so that the administration can plan for the level of funding needed to maintain these facilities.¹⁵

Information on beach fill in Massachusetts is also available through Western Carolina University's Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines. A summary documents 84 projects dating from 1948 through 1999, with a total cost of approximately $18.15 million. Background information and a database with details on individual projects by state can be found at http://www.wcu.edu/1038.asp

Figures cited in an article in USA Today (November 10, 2003) on beach fill indicated that the federal government has spent $8 million over the last 75 years on beach fill projects in Massachusetts.

The Future of Massachusetts Beaches: Relocate, Nourish, or Lose Them (18.4 MB PDF) provides proceedings from a May 2007 workshop featuring presentations by specialists and resource agencies on the technical aspects of beach nourishment.

The Fiscal Year 2011 Civil Works Budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provides $4.939 billion in gross discretionary funding for the Civil Works program. The Budget proposes two high priority construction new starts: the Louisiana Coastal Area ecosystem restoration program; and Onion Creek, Texas, a non-structural flood damage reduction project. The Budget includes $10 million for a Global Change Sustainability program to assess the impacts of climate change on Civil Works projects and to identify operational and other modifications to anticipate and respond to climate change. This budget lists proposed projects by state.

A report National Assessment of Beach Nourishment Requirements Associated with Accelerated Sea Level Rise (Leatherman, 1989) on EPA's Climate Change - Health and Environmental Effects Web site notes that the cumulative cost of sand replenishment to protect the coast of Massachusetts from a 20-inch sea level rise by 2100 is estimated at $490 million to $2.6 billion.

NOAA's Coastal Services Center has developed a Web site that offers information on all aspects of beach fill. The new Web resource, Beach Nourishment: A Guide for Local Governments, was developed to guide state and local organizations to make informed decisions about fill. The website includes descriptions of coastal geological and ecological processes, discussions of legal and regulatory requirements, information on federal project cost sharing, and a professional dialogue about the pros and cons of fill.

State, Territory, and Commonwealth Beach Nourishment Programs: A National Overview (2000) is a report NOAA/OCRM that provides an overview of the problem of beach erosion, various means of addressing this problem, and discusses issues regarding the use of beach nourishment. Section 2 of the report provides an overview of state, territorial, and commonwealth coastal management policies regarding beach nourishment and attendant funding programs. Appendix B provides individual summaries of 33 beach nourishment programs and policies.

Contact

Rebecca Haney
CZM Coastal Geologist
Phone: (617) 626-1200