with the COE responsibilities associated with Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act, and all other applicable laws and regulations, including but not limited to the Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, and Coastal Zone Management Consistency Act. ‘The following knowledge and information became known during the course of the study, and influenced the planning considerations via formulation of the alternatives that were considered: ~ A characterization of Marshfield’s beach material revealed it has a very bi-modal composition, consisting of very fine sand and cobbles. Marshfield beaches tend to be flatter with gentler slopes (between the high and low tide line). During periods of high tide, the exposed beach is reduced making access by visitors difficult. The beach front is the backshore’s first line of defense against rising sca levels, erosion and storm waves. MA-CZM policy is that any implemented shorefront protection project ensure that the public have continued access to the shore during periods of high tide. Due to the reconstruction of the new seawalls in Fieldston, that part of the community now has a much higher level of protection due to the new height of the seawall and the toe protection included in the design. With the new seawalls in place, the volume of water due to storm wave overtopping and wall failure risk along this reach are significantly reduced, thus impacting the planning considerations for this area. The focus of the study became how to further reduce damages due to residual storm splash over impacts and flooding along Fieldston and Brant Rock shorefronts and to protect the areas in Brant Rock where the seawall and beach levels remain vulnerable. 4: PLAN FORMULATION The objective is to assess viable alternatives that will develop the most technically and economically feasible and socially, environmentally and culturally acceptable project(s) to prevent backshore damages for the two coastal study areas of Marshfield. Together with the no-action altemative, five alternatives were initially evaluated to reduce coastal storm damage for the two study areas. The study's objective is to avoid or reduce storm damages while avoiding or minimizing potential impacts to other uses such as: land use, marine and terrestrial ecosystem disturbance, and impacts on endangered and threatened species. ‘The following storm damage reduction alternatives were considered: NoAction Alternative: The no action alternative serves as a benchmark against which proposed Federal actions are evaluated. The no-action or future without project condition alternative refers to the continuation of existing conditions of the affected environment, without implementation of some proposed action. Under the No Action Altemative (providing no additional protection in the project areas), wave splash over backshore flooding will continue to occur. Considerable damage to the concrete seawall, stairs, riprap, and sidewalks as well as backshore flood damages to commercial, residenti lic properties will continue without intervention.