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.