Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutCharlesRiver21_LB Newton additional info_063021MEMORANDUM S LITUD LAKE MANAGEMENT Date: June 30, 2021 To: Newton Conservation Commission From: SOLitude Lake Management RE: Newton Charles River Lower Basin Aquatic Plant Management NOI additional information Below are our responses and comments in blue to the staff notes for the NOI filing. oStaff Notes • DCR is requesting a 5 -year Order of Conditions for this project. • Four other communities (Cambridge, Boston, Watertown, Waltham) in the Lower Basin are reviewing the same NOI (and one may require and 3rd party review). o Note: Waltham is not included as this project only goes to the Watertown Dam and does not reach Waltham • The Commission must determine whether all relevant performance standards for each potentially impacted wetland resource type are being met, and assign appropriate conditions in the Order ensuring those standards. o See below for more information on the performance standards and how this project meets them • Staff have listed above the wetland resource types that may be impacted by this project. • The applicant should provide: oInformation on each of the herbicides affected species, longevity, persistence in sediments, etc. • Additional info on the longevity, persistence, etc. can be found in the MA GEIR (https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/sd/eutrophication- and-aquatic-plant-management-in-massachusetts-final-generic- environmental-impact-report-mattson.pdf) and Practical Guide to the GEIR (https://www.mass.aov/doc/the-practical-guide-to-lake-management-in- massachusetts/download), as well as the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for State of Washington Aquatic Plant and Algae Management (https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/publications/documents/1710020.pdf). o Sonar - curlyleaf pondweed, Eurasian watermilfoil, spiny naiad, fanwort, variable watermilfoil (somewhat) o ProcellaCOR - Eurasian watermilfoil, variable watermilfoil o Tribune - curlyleaf pondweed, Eurasian watermilfoil, spiny naiad, variable watermilfoil o Clearcast - water chestnut o Flumioxazin- specifically included primarily for fanwort and water chestnut; Competitively Sensitive & Proprietary Materials — The information contained herein is the intellectual property of SOLitude Lake Management. Recipient may not disclose to any outside party any proprietary information, processes, or pricing contained in this document or any of its attachments without the prior written consent of SOLitude Lake Management. This document is provided to the recipient in good faith and it shall be the responsibility of the recipient to keep the information contained herein confidential. Page 2 of 9 but is effective on curlyleaf pondweed, Eurasian watermilfoil, spiny naiad and variable watermilfoil as well, though it is not anticipated to be used on those species oInformation on each of the herbicides "inactive ingredients" possible ecological effects. o Under federal law, the information on inert ingredients is confidential business information, which is why only the total percentage of all inert ingredients is required to be on the pesticide product label and why manufacturers are able to have patented information on various products. o However, all non -active ingredients in an herbicide are referred to as inert ingredients by federal law. These ingredients are other substances within the product to ensure effectiveness and performance, such as acting as a solvent to help the active ingredient penetrate the plant's leaf surface, improve ease of application by preventing foaming or caking of the product, to extend the shelf life, to improve safety for the applicator and/or protect the product from degradation from various factors. All inert ingredients must be approved by the EPA before they can be included in a pesticide and a food tolerance is required for each, that may ultimately limit the amount of each inert ingredient in the product. oAn actual calendar(s) of the anticipated treatments for the next 5 years (Please clarify the best -case and the worst -case scenarios). o All treatments are anticipated to be taking place after July 1 each year due to time of year restrictions anticipated from DMF Year Plan Timing Task 2021 A July Assumes OOCs issued July/August Pre -management survey and monitoring (per DMF recommendations) of the entire Lower Basin July/August Meeting with Newton CC to give update on tentative management plan based on survey results August ProcellaCOR spot treatment application for milfoil control August/September Post -management survey and monitoring (per DMF recommendations) of the entire Lower Basin December Year-end reporting B August or after Assumes OOCs issued later in the season - no treatment anticipated 2022 A Spring Application and issuance of OOCs for management of the Lakes District portion of the River May/June Pre -management survey and monitoring (per DMF) May/June Meeting with Newton CC to give update on tentative management plan based on survey results July Initiate low -dose whole -river Sonar treatment program to comply with DMF time of ear restrictions August Sonar booster applications, as necessary based on results and monitoring September Post -management survey and monitoring (per DMF) December Year-end reporting ompeuvveiy ensitrve ropnetary materials — i ne intormation containea nerein is the inteuectuai property of 5uutuae uaKe Management. Recipient may not disclose to any outside party any proprietary information, processes, or pricing contained in this document or any of its attachments without the prior written consent of SOLitude Lake Management. This document is provided to the recipient in good faith and it shall be the responsibility of the recipient to keep the information contained herein confidential. Page 3 of 9 w B Spring Assumes there has not yet been issuance of OOCs for the Lakes District May/June Pre -management survey and monitoring (per DMF) May/June Meeting with Newton CC to give update on tentative management plan based on survey results July/August Spot treatment applications likely with ProcellaCOR and/or Sonar for milfoil and/orfanwort/spiny naiad control, respectively, to comply with DMF time of year restrictions September Post -management survey and monitoring (per DMF) December Year-end reporting 2023 A Spring Assumes all OOCs are issued for the Lakes District May/June Pre -management survey and monitoring (per DMF) May/June Meeting with Newton CC to give update on tentative management plan based on survey results July Initiate low -dose whole -river Sonar treatment program to comply with DMF time of year restrictions August Sonar booster applications, as necessary based on results and monitoring September Post -management survey and monitoring (per DMF) December Year-end reporting 2024 / 2025 A May/June Pre -management survey and monitoring (per DMF) May/June Meeting with Newton CC to give update on tentative management plan based on survey results July/August Spot treatment applications likely with ProcellaCOR and/orSonarfor milfoil and/orfanwort control, respectively, to comply with DMF time of year restrictions September Post -management survey and monitoring (per DMF) December Year-end reporting B May/June Pre -management survey and monitoring (per DMF) May/June Meeting with Newton CC to give update on tentative management plan based on survey results July Initiate low -dose whole -river Sonar treatment program to comply with DMF time of year restrictions August Sonar booster applications, as necessary based on results and monitoring September Post -management survey and monitoring (per DMF) December Year-end reporting oThe most current reviews of ProcellaCOR since it is new to Massachusetts. o A folder of ProcellaCOR reference information from other states and agencies has been provided in the same email as this document • The applicant should clarify: oHow they are meeting the performance standards of each relevant wetland resource type. o See the performance standard information below Competitively Sensitive & Proprietary Materials — The information contained herein is the intellectual property of SOLitude Lake Management. Recipient may not disclose to any outside party any proprietary information, processes, or pricing contained in this document or any of its attachments without the prior written consent of SOLitude Lake Management. This document is provided to the recipient in good faith and it shall be the responsibility of the recipient to keep the information contained herein confidential. Page 4 of 9 o What became of the comprehensive plans that were to have included more land - based management efforts, educational efforts, etc.? o DCR staff can comment more on the progression of the riverbank vegetation management program and it's status, but that is being managed as a separate project o Whether new mapping/threshold identification will be provided to the ConCom before treatment this year/every year. o The prior fall's survey results will be provided in the year-end report. Those results will ultimately guide a majority of the following season's management, pending any small adjustments to be made based off of the pre - management survey results prior to implementation of management on an annual basis. oDMF's authority in Newton's jurisdiction. o It is understood to be as far as the herring are able to run; which in theory is at least the Watertown Dam as there is a fish ladder there. We are waiting to hear back on final confirmation from DMF staff. oThe thresholds for different treatments to be considered. o Sonar - for when the whole river treatment takes place, there is not specific threshold for that initial treatment. This treatment is designed to reduce, if not eliminate, a majority of the invasive species biomass within the river a whole. This has been done previously, in back to back years, at the Mystic River, as mentioned in the NOI narrative and was extremely successful in reducing the milfoil population throughout the river. As such, that is the general model we would anticipate to follow for the Charles. For any future spot -treatments with Sonar, those sites would have to have sufficient fanwort growth (i.e. enough to have cause for concern of easy spread), and be configured in a way that there would not be a high concern of easy dilution so the treatment could be effective. o ProcellaCOR - this can be utilized whenever there is any milfoil growth. As this NOI does not include physical removal methods of milfoil (due to various safety concerns for those involved), ProcellaCOR is the management strategy of choice when any (and preferably only) milfoil growth is present. That does not necessarily mean that all areas of milfoil growth will be or need to be treated, but milfoil growth that is within an area of potential spread or recreational use will be focused on. If the growth is within one of those areas, but at low enough abundance and/or density to not present a concern, it is anticipated that it would be an area that would not be chosen for management at that time. Although ProcellaCOR works on milfoil growth at any density, it is preferable to conduct an application when densities are not yet too high (especially knowing we'll be limited to a time of year restriction, which would not allow us to treat when biomass is low from a seasonal standpoint). So, the true threshold for ProcellaCOR use is likely to be more tied to presence/absence in recreational use/trafficked areas. o Tribune - this is anticipated to only be utilized for spiny naiad growth. It would also be applicable for curlyleaf pondweed growth, but the time of year restriction will negate the need to manage that as it naturally senesces Competitively Sensitive & Proprietary Materials — The information contained herein is the intellectual property of SOLitude Lake Management. Recipient may not disclose to any outside party any proprietary information, processes, or pricing contained in this document or any of its attachments without the prior written consent of SOLitude Lake Management. This document is provided to the recipient in good faith and it shall be the responsibility of the recipient to keep the information contained herein confidential. Page 5 of 9 around early July each year. Spiny naiad growth spreads very easily via fragmentation as it progresses in its growth during the season; it's also called brittle naiad because it becomes brittle and breaks incredibly easily. As such, similar to the threshold for ProcellaCOR, in an effort to reduce spread and minimize recreational hinderances due to spiny naiad growth, it is anticipated that a presence/absence threshold will be utilized for recreational and high use areas where it is present. However, as spiny naiad growth does not grow as high within the water column when the plants are younger, there may be more tolerance to leave the growth unmanaged when at low densities and/or abundances (i.e. trace). o Clearcast - this is included solely for foliar water chestnut treatments if necessary. At this time, there is little to no water chestnut in the Lower Basin so there is no immediate plan to utilize this. However, if growth expands rapidly and subsequently cannot be managed via hand -pulling or mechanical harvesting (for access, density, or efficiency reasons), then Clearcast would be utilized for spot -treatments of the water chestnuts. o Flumioxazin - this is currently the only contact herbicide that is effective on fanwort growth. It would be used in a spot -treatment capacity where Sonar spot -treatments are not appropriate for the growth due to dilution, etc. Fanwort is also typically more challenging to control than milfoil species, so again a presence/absence threshold is anticipated for high use areas. For water chestnut control, this option may be used in lieu of Clearcast, but would be dependent upon the size of the area as there is a significant price difference. o Why are three different herbicides needed for the same group of plants? o We assume this is in reference to Sonar, ProcellaCOR and Tribune? If so, each are suited for different types of applications based on the abundance and density of target plants (milfoils) present. o Sonar is a systemic option and more for large scale applications due to the need for extended concentration exposure time of the herbicide to appropriately impact the plants. o ProcellaCOR is also a systemic option but more suited for spot -treatment applications due to its use patterns and properties, though they can be larger scale if necessary. o Tribune is a contact herbicide and more suited for spot -treatment applications. This is not anticipated to be needed/used on milfoil growth, but potentially for spiny naiad or curlyleaf pondweed control. o What is known about chemical interactions of the proposed herbicides? o Chemical interactions between the herbicides? If so, there is little to no anticipation to use any of the proposed in -water herbicides simultaneously. o Where launching will take place? o Wherever the most applicable and logistically feasible boat ramp is in proximity to wherever the treatment will be taking place. Potential options are the various yacht clubs, the MDC Boat Ramp on Nonantum Rd, or any other boat ramp location. o Where chemicals will be stored? Competitively Sensitive & Proprietary Materials — The information contained herein is the intellectual property of SOLitude Lake Management. Recipient may not disclose to any outside party any proprietary information, processes, or pricing contained in this document or any of its attachments without the prior written consent of SOLitude Lake Management. This document is provided to the recipient in good faith and it shall be the responsibility of the recipient to keep the information contained herein confidential. Page 6 of 9 o No product is anticipated to be stored on site. o Where water chestnuts will be disposed of? o An applicable onshore and/or offsite location based on its collection location and quantity (i.e. if there is undeveloped shoreline near where the water chestnuts are harvested and the plant material can be brought onshore, into the wooded area and placed to decompose without potential reintroduction into the River; or if the quantities are too great, the material will be brought back to shore to be placed in a truck or dumpster for future removal offsite). A composting facility may be utilized if necessary. oStaff Recommendations: Address the above questions/concerns in conditions and when appropriate, vote to close the hearing and issue an Order of Conditions with special conditions regarding the following issues. oMonitoring schedule ... o Note: the monitoring schedule will follow that of DMF's recommendations, from a pre/post-treatment water quality standpoint oThresholds for different treatments to be considered .... oTreatment schedule .... oReporting provision .... Competitively Sensitive & Proprietary Materials — The information contained herein is the intellectual property of SOLitude Lake Management. Recipient may not disclose to any outside party any proprietary information, processes, or pricing contained in this document or any of its attachments without the prior written consent of SOLitude Lake Management. This document is provided to the recipient in good faith and it shall be the responsibility of the recipient to keep the information contained herein confidential. Page 7 of 9 Performance Standards Information There are three general performance standards associated with the Land Under Water Bodies and Waterways (LUW) resource area per 310 CMR 10.56(4). These performance standards have been taken into consideration and are addressed below: (a) Any proposed work within Land under Water Bodies and Waterways shall not impair the following: 1. The water carrying capacity within the defined channel, which is provided by said land in conjunction with the banks; No construction, dredging or alterations of the existing floodplain and storm damage prevention characteristics of the river are proposed. However, in some instances, abundant and excessive aquatic plant growth can contribute to high water and flooding. Most commonly this occurs in the vicinity of waterbody outlets or water conveyance channels and structures. The unmanaged annual growth and decomposition of abundant plant growth is also known to increase sediment deposition at an accelerated rate. Therefore, the proposed management approaches will increase the capacity of the resource area over the long-term to provide flood protection. Additionally, management of the aquatic plant growth will increase the available carrying capacity within the Charles River as densities of growth can reduce the available open water areas. 2. Ground and surface water quality; According to available studies, there is no reason to believe that the groundwater supply will be adversely impacted by the proposed management strategies, specifically the application of the herbicides at the proposed rates to the Lower Basin of the Charles River, when used in accordance with the product labels. Contamination of groundwater by aquatic herbicides is limited by their low rate(s) of application, rapid rate of degradation, and uptake by target plants. SOLitude's State licensed applicators take all necessary precautions when mixing and disposing/recycling of all chemical containers. Aquatic herbicide treatment at the river will not have any adverse impacts on the public or private water supply, when used in accordance with the project label and conditions of the MA DEP License to Apply Chemicals. Additionally, based on the geographic and topographic location of the Charles River, it would be anticipated that ground and surface water quality would impact the river water and not the opposite. 3. The capacity of said land to provide breeding habitat, escape cover and food for fisheries; and The Department of Environmental Protection presumes that nonindigenous aquatic plants within lakes ponds are not "significant to the protection of wildlife habitat", either in whole or as a component of a larger plant community. As such, the control or elimination of non -indigenous aquatic hydrophytes within lakes or ponds will not exceed any threshold established at 310 CMR 10.56(4) (a) 4 or 310 CMR 10.60, providing that work is designed and carried out using the best practical measures (BMPs). By controlling invasive species growth within the Lower Basin, it is anticipated that native aquatic plant species will re-establish into the available space left by the invasives once they are managed. Native aquatic plant species will provide high quality breeding habitat, escape cover and food for fisheries. 4. The capacity of said land to provide important wildlife habitat functions. A project or projects on a single lot, for which Notice(s) of intent is filed on or after November 1, 1987, that (cumulatively) alter(s) up to 10% or 5,000 square feet (whichever is less) of land in this resource area found to be significant to the protection of wildlife habitat, shall not be deemed to impair its capacity to Competitively Sensitive & Proprietary Materials — The information contained herein is the intellectual property of SOLitude Lake Management. Recipient may not disclose to any outside party any proprietary information, processes, or pricing contained in this document or any of its attachments without the prior written consent of SOLitude Lake Management. This document is provided to the recipient in good faith and it shall be the responsibility of the recipient to keep the information contained herein confidential. Page 8 of 9 w provide important wildlife habitat functions. Additional alterations beyond the above threshold may be permitted if they will have no adverse effects on wildlife habitat, as determined by procedures established under 310 CMR 10.60. This project proposes to impact 30,693,318 SF of area within Land Under Waterways (LUW). This project is being submitted as an Ecological Restoration Limited Project per 310 CMR 10.53(4) (e) (5) . As set forth in 310 CMR 10.12(3), a person submitting a Notice of Intent for an Ecological Restoration Limited Project in accordance with 310 CMR 10.12(1) and (2) is exempt from the requirement to perform a wildlife habitat evaluation in accordance with the requirements of 310 CMR 10.60. In general, excessive and abundant plant growth, especially non-native plants, provides poor wildlife habitat for fish and other wildlife. The proposed management plan is expected to help prevent further degradation of the waterbody through excessive weed growth and improve the wildlife habitat value of the pond in the long-term. 5. Work on a stream crossing shall be presumed to meet the performance standard set forth in 310 CMR 10.56(4)(a) provided the work is performed in compliance with the Massachusetts Stream Crossing Standards by consisting of a span or embedded culvert in which, at a minimum, the bottom of a span structure or the upper surface of an embedded culvert is above the elevation of the top of the bank, and the structure spans the channel width by a minimum of 1.2 times the bankfull width. This presumption is rebuttable and may be overcome by the submittal of credible evidence from a competent source. Notwithstanding the requirements of 310 CMR 10.56(4)(a)4., the impact on Land under Water Bodies and Waterways caused by the installation of a stream crossing is exempt from the requirement to perform a habitat evaluation in accordance with the procedures established under 310 CMR 10.60. Not applicable. No work on a stream crossing is proposed. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of 310 CMR 10.56(4)(a), the issuing authority may issue an Order in accordance with M.G.L. c. 131, § 40 to maintain or improve boat channels within Land under Water Bodies and Waterways when said work is designed and carried out using the best practical measures so as to minimize adverse effects such as the suspension or transport of pollutants, increases in turbidity, the smothering of bottom organisms, the accumulation of pollutants by organisms or the destruction of fisheries habitat or nutrient source areas. No degradation of water quality or increased pollution or turbidity is expected by the proposed management approaches. The proposed herbicides are relatively slow acting in controlling the nu isa n ce vegetation. This results in a slow release of nutrients from the decaying plants, reducing the potential for increases in nutrients that can cause algae blooms. Removal of the excessive growth of aquatic vegetation will contribute to improved water circulation and a reduction in the potential for anoxic conditions. The post -management decrease in plant biomass will help to decrease the rate of eutrophication currently caused by the decomposing of excessive plant material. Additionally, as previously mentioned, invasive or non-native aquatic plant growth does not provide suitable fisheries habitat, but the currently infested areas are anticipated to be re-established by native aquatic plant species which will provide the appropriate habitat needed. The elimination or reduction in population of non -indigenous aquatic plants within lakes or ponds may promote an increase in indigenous plant and animal diversity and/or edge effect habitat. This change is likely to improve wildlife habitat and serve as restoration per310 CMR 10.60. Competitively Sensitive & Proprietary Materials — The information contained herein is the intellectual property of SOLitude Lake Management. Recipient may not disclose to any outside party any proprietary information, processes, or pricing contained in this document or any of its attachments without the prior written consent of SOLitude Lake Management. This document is provided to the recipient in good faith and it shall be the responsibility of the recipient to keep the information contained herein confidential. Page 9 of 9 w (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of 310 CMR 10.56(4)(a) or (b), no project may be permitted which will have any adverse effect on specified habitat sites of rare vertebrate or invertebrate species, as identified by procedures established under 310 CMR 10.59. The proposed project will not result in impacts to any area indicated on the most recent Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) rare and estimated habitat maps (See Attached Figure 2). A formal review by NHESP is not required. Competitively Sensitive & Proprietary Materials — The information contained herein is the intellectual property of SOLitude Lake Management. Recipient may not disclose to any outside party any proprietary information, processes, or pricing contained in this document or any of its attachments without the prior written consent of SOLitude Lake Management. This document is provided to the recipient in good faith and it shall be the responsibility of the recipient to keep the information contained herein confidential.