Dudley Pond Notice of Intent 2008

WPA Notice of Intent & Wayland Wetlands and Water Resources Bylaw Applications Aquatic Management Program Dudley Pond Wayland, MA

January 2008

Prepared for: Michael P. Lowery Town of Wayland Surface Water Quality Committee 120 Lakeshore Drive Wayland, MA 01778

Prepared by: Aquatic Control Technology, Inc. 11 John Road Sutton, MA 01590-2509

TABLE OF CONTENTS ♦ WPA NOI Application Form 3 - Fee Calculation Worksheet - Affidavit of Service - Notice to Abutters - Certified Abutters List ♦ Wayland Wetlands and Water Resources Bylaw, Chapter 194 Application - Chapter 194 - Application Form - Chapter 194 – Waiver Requests - Chapter 194 – Waiver Requests - Statements of Justification ♦ ATTACHMENT A - Project Summary PS1 INTRODUCTION - Pond Description............................................................................................................................1 - Vegetation Distribution..................................................................................................................1 - Management History......................................................................................................................1 Proposed Aquatic Vegetation Management Program ........................................................................3 - Recommended Milfoil Treatment Program....................................................................................3 - Fluridone Herbicide Treatment - 2008 ..........................................................................................4 - Follow-Up Milfoil Management - 2009 and Beyond ....................................................................7

PS2 Impacts on Wetland Resource Areas .................................................................................................9

PS3 Alternative Methods of Aquatic Vegetation Control .......................................................................10 Massachusetts Wetlands Act............................................................................................................11

PS4 Background Information Provided by the Wayland Surface Water Quality Committee..................13

• • •

Figure 1 – Dudley Pond Site Locus Figure 2 – NHESP Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife Figure 3 – 2007 Eurasian Watermilfoil Distribution Map

♦ ATTACHMENT B – Supplemental Information on CD – Table of Contents The entire printed Notice of Intent is also on the CD

Provided by DEP:

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands

DEP File Number

WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent

Document Transaction Number

Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40

Wayland City/Town

Important: When filling out forms on the computer, use only the tab key to move your cursor - do not use the return key.

A. General Information 1. Project Location (Note: electronic filers will click on button for GIS locator): Dudley Pond

Wayland

a. Street Address

b. City/Town

01778 c. Zip Code

Latitude and Longitude:

42d 19' 49.56" N

71d 22' 18.93" W

d. Latitude

e. Longitude

f. Assessors Map/Plat Number

g. Parcel /Lot Number

2. Applicant: Michael P. a. First Name Note: Before completing this form consult your local Conservation Commission regarding any municipal bylaw or ordinance.

Town of Wayland - Surface Water Qualtiy Committee

Lowery b. Last Name

120 Lakeshore Drive d. Mailing Address

Wayland

MA

01778

e. City/Town

f. State

g. Zip Code

508.397.8828

lowery.mike@gmial.com

h. Phone Number

j. Email address

i. Fax Number

3. Property owner (if different from applicant):

Check if more than one owner

Fredric E.

Turkington

Town of Wayland

a. First Name

b. Last Name

c. Company

Wayland Town Building, 41 Cochituate Road d. Mailing Address

Wayland

MA

01778

e. City/Town

f. State

g. Zip Code

508.358.7755

508.358.3627

fturkington@wayland.ma.us

h. Phone Number

i. Fax Number

j. Email address

4. Representative (if any): Aquatic Control Technology, Inc. a. Firm

Gerald

Smith

b. Contact Person First Name

c. Contact Person Last Name

11 John Road d. Mailing Address

Sutton

MA

01590

e. City/Town

f. State

g. Zip Code

508.865.1000

508.865.1220

info@aquaticcontroltech.com

h. Phone Number

i. Fax Number

j. Email address

5. Total WPA Fee Paid (from NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form): $0.00

$0.00

$0.00

a. Total Fee Paid

b. State Fee Paid

c. City/Town Fee Paid

6. General Project Description: Control infestation of nuisance aquatic plants (Eurasian watermilfoil) with the use of USEPA / MA DAR registered aquatic herbicides

wpaform3.doc • rev. 11/30/06

Page 1 of 9

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands

WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40

Provided by DEP: DEP File Number Document Transaction Number

Wayland City/Town

A. General Information (continued) 7. Project Type Checklist: a.

Single Family Home

b.

Residential Subdivision

c.

Limited Project Driveway Crossing

d.

Commercial/Industrial

e.

Dock/Pier

f.

Utilities

g.

Coastal Engineering Structure

h.

Agriculture – cranberries, forestry

i.

Transportation

j.

Other

8. Property recorded at the Registry of Deeds for: a. County

b. Page Number

c. Book

d. Certificate # (if registered land)

9. Has work been performed on the property under an Order of Resource Area Delineation involving Simplified Review within 3 years of the date of this application? a.

Yes

b.

No

If yes, no Notice of Intent or Request for Determination of Applicability may be filed for work within the 50-foot-wide area in the Buffer Zone along the resource area during the three-year term of an Order of Resource Area Delineation, or any Extended Order, or until the applicant receives a Certificate of Compliance, whichever is later.

10. Buffer Zone Only - Is the project located only in the Buffer Zone of a bordering vegetated wetland, inland bank, or coastal resource area? a. b.

Yes - answer 11 below, then skip to Section C. No - skip to Section B.

11. Buffer Zone Setback – For projects that involve work only in the buffer zone, select the applicable adjacent resource area (check one): a.

BVW

b.

inland bank

c.

coastal resource area

The distance between the closest project disturbance and the associated resource area is: d. linear feet

wpaform3.doc • rev. 11/30/06

Page 2 of 9

Provided by DEP:

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands

DEP File Number

WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent

Document Transaction Number

Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40

Wayland City/Town

B. Resource Area Effects 1. Inland Resource Areas Check all that apply below. Attach narrative and any supporting documentation describing how the project will meet all performance standards for each of the resource areas altered, including standards requiring consideration of alternative project design or location.

Online Users: Include your document transaction number (provided on your receipt page) with all supplementary information you submit to the Department.

Resource Area

Size of Proposed Alteration

Proposed Replacement (if any)

a.

Bank

1. linear feet

2. linear feet

b.

Bordering Vegetated Wetland

1. square feet

2. square feet

see Attachment A - Project Description

2. square feet

c.

Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways

d.

Bordering Land Subject to Flooding

Isolated Land Subject to Flooding

e.

3. cubic yards dredged 1. square feet

2. square feet

3. cubic feet of flood storage lost

4. cubic feet of flood storage replaced

1. square feet 2. cubic feet of flood storage lost

Riverfront area

f.

1.

For projects impacted by the riverfront area and a buffer zone of another resource area, add 50% to the total fee.

3. cubic feet of flood storage replaced

1. Name of Waterway (if available)

Width of Riverfront Area (check one): 25 ft. - Designated Densely Developed Areas only 100 ft. - New agricultural projects only 200 ft. - All other projects

2.

Total area of Riverfront Area on the site of the proposed project:

3.

Proposed alteration of the Riverfront Area:

a. Total Square Feet

b. Square Feet within 100 ft.

Square Feet

c. Square Feet between 100 ft. and 200 ft.

4.

Has an alternatives analysis been done and is it attached to this NOI?

Yes

No

5.

Was the lot where the activity is proposed created prior to August 1, 1996?

Yes

No

wpaform3.doc • rev. 11/30/06

Page 3 of 9

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands

WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40

Provided by DEP: DEP File Number Document Transaction Number

Wayland City/Town

B. Resource Area Effects 2. Coastal Resource Areas: Check all that apply below. Attach narrative and supporting documentation describing how the project will meet all performance standards for each of the resource areas altered, including standards requiring consideration of alternative project design or location.

Online Users: Include your document transaction number (provided on your receipt page) with all supplementary information you submit to the Department.

Size of Proposed Alteration

Resource Area

Proposed Replacement (if any)

a.

Designated Port Areas

Indicate size under Land Under the Ocean, below

b.

Land Under the Ocean

1. Square feet 2. Cubic yards dredged

Indicate size under Coastal Beaches and/or Coastal Dunes below

c.

Barrier Beach

d.

Coastal Beaches

1. Square feet

2. Cubic yards beach nourishment

e.

Coastal Dunes

1. Square feet

2. Cubic yards dune nourishment

f.

Coastal Banks

1. Linear feet

g.

Rocky Intertidal Shores

1. Square feet

h.

Salt Marshes

1. Square feet

i.

Land Under Salt Ponds

1. Square feet

2. Sq ft restoration, rehab., or creation

2. Cubic yards dredged j.

Land Containing Shellfish

k.

Fish Runs

l.

Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage

1. Square feet

2. Square feet restoration, rehab.

Indicate size under Coastal Banks, inland Bank, Land Under the Ocean, and/or inland Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways, above 1. Cubic yards dredged 1. Square feet

3. Limited Project: Is any portion of the proposed activity eligible to be treated as a limited project subject to 310 CMR 10.24 or 310 CMR 10.53? a.

Yes

No

If yes, describe which limited project applies to this project:

310 CMR 10.53 (4) Improving the natural capacity of a resource area to protect the interests of the Wetland Protection Act. wpaform3.doc • rev. 11/30/06

Page 4 of 9

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands

Provided by DEP:

WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40

DEP File Number Document Transaction Number

Wayland City/Town

C. Bordering Vegetated Wetland Delineation Methodology Check all methods used to delineate the Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW) boundary: Online Users: Include your document transaction number (provided on your receipt page) with all supplementary information you submit to the Department.

For all projects affecting other Resource Areas, please attach a narrative explaining how the resource area was delineated.

1.

Final Order of Resource Area Delineation issued by Conservation Commission or DEP (attached)

2.

DEP BVW Field Data Form (attached)

3.

Final Determination of Applicability issued by Conservation Commission or DEP (attached)

4.

Other Methods for Determining the BVW Boundary (attach documentation): a. b. c. d. e. f.

50% or more wetland indicator plants Saturated/inundated conditions exist Groundwater indicators Direct observation Hydric soil indicators Credible evidence of conditions prior to disturbance

Other resource areas delineated:

5.

D. Other Applicable Standards and Requirements Streamlined Massachusetts Endangered Species Act/Wetlands Protection Act Review 1. Is any portion of the proposed project located in Estimated Habitat of Rare Wildlife as indicated on the most recent Estimated Habitat Map of State-Listed Rare Wetland Wildlife published by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP)? To view habitat maps, see the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas or go to http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/nhregmap.htm.

Yes

a.

2007 GIS data b. Date of map

No

If yes, include proof of mailing or hand delivery of NOI to: Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Route 135, North Drive Westborough, MA 01581

If yes, the project is subject to Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) review (321 CMR 10.18). To qualify for a streamlined, 30-day, MESA/Wetlands Protection Act review, please complete Section D.1.A, and include requested materials with this Notice of Intent (NOI); OR complete Section D.1.B, if applicable. If MESA supplemental information is not included with the NOI, by completing Section 1 of this form, the NHESP will require a separate MESA filing which may take up to 90 days to review (unless noted exceptions in Section 2 apply, see below).

A. Submit Supplemental Information for Endangered Species Review * Percentage/acreage of property to be altered:

(1) within wetland Resource Area

percentage/acreage

(2) outside Resource Area

percentage/acreage

Assessor’s Map or right-of-way plan of site

wpaform3.doc • rev. 11/30/06

Page 5 of 9

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands

Provided by DEP:

WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40

DEP File Number Document Transaction Number

Wayland City/Town

D. Other Applicable Standards and Requirements (cont.)

Project plans for entire project site, including wetland Resource Areas and areas outside of wetlands jurisdiction, showing existing and proposed conditions, existing and proposed tree/vegetation clearing line, and clearly demarcated limits of work ** Project description (including description of impacts outside of wetland Resource Area & Buffer Zone) Photographs representative of the site MESA filing fee (fee information available at: http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/nhenvmesa.htm) Make check payable to “Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund” and mail to NHESP at above address Projects altering 10 or more acres of land, also submit:

Vegetation cover type map of site Project plans showing Priority & Estimated Habitat boundaries B. OR Check One of the Following Project is exempt from MESA review. Attach applicant letter indicating which MESA exemption applies. (See 321 CMR 10.14, http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/nhenvexemptions.htm) Separate MESA review ongoing.

NHESP Tracking Number

Date submitted to NHESP

Separate MESA review completed.

Include copy of NHESP “no Take” determination or valid Conservation & Management Permit with approved plan. *

Some projects not in Estimated Habitat may be located in Priority Habitat, and require NHESP review (see www.nhesp.org regulatory review tab). Priority Habitat includes habitat for statelisted plants and strictly upland species not protected by the Wetlands Protection Act.

**

MESA projects may not be segmented (321 CMR 10.16). The applicant must disclose full development plans even if such plans are not required as part of the Notice of Intent process.

2. For coastal projects only, is any portion of the proposed project located below the mean high water line or in a fish run? a.

Yes

No

If yes, include proof of mailing or hand delivery of NOI to either: South Shore - Cohasset to Rhode Island, and the Cape & Islands: Division of Marine Fisheries Southeast Marine Fisheries Station Attn: Environmental Reviewer 838 South Rodney French Blvd.

New Bedford, MA 02744

b. wpaform3.doc • rev. 11/30/06

North Shore - Hull to New Hampshire: Division of Marine Fisheries North Shore Office Attn: Environmental Reviewer 30 Emerson Avenue Gloucester, MA 01930

Not applicable – project is in inland resource area only Page 6 of 9

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands

WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40

Provided by DEP: DEP File Number Document Transaction Number

Wayland City/Town

D. Other Applicable Standards and Requirements (cont.)

3. Is any portion of the proposed project within an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)?

Yes

a.

No

If yes, provide name of ACEC (see instructions to WPA Form 3 or DEP Website for ACEC locations). Note: electronic filers click on Website.

b. ACEC Online Users: Include your document transaction number (provided on your receipt page) with all supplementary information you submit to the Department.

4. Is any portion of the site subject to a Wetlands Restriction Order under the Inland Wetlands Restriction Act (M.G.L. c. 131, § 40A) or the Coastal Wetlands Restriction Act (M.G.L. c. 130, § 105)?

Yes

a.

No

5. Is any activity within any Resource Area or Buffer Zone exempt from performance standards of the wetlands regulations, 310 CMR 10.00.

Yes

a.

No

If yes, describe which exemption applies to this project: b. Exemption

6. Is this project subject to the DEP Stormwater Policy?

a.

Yes

No

If yes, stormwater management measures are required. Applicants should complete the Stormwater Management Form and submit it with this form. b.

If no, explain why the project is exempt:

no increase/alteration to impervious surface

E. Additional Information Applicants must include the following with this Notice of Intent (NOI). See instructions for details.

Online Users: Attach the document transaction number (provided on your receipt page) for any of the following information you submit to the Department.

1.

USGS or other map of the area (along with a narrative description, if necessary) containing sufficient information for the Conservation Commission and the Department to locate the site.

(Electronic filers may omit this item.)

2.

Plans identifying the location of proposed activities (including activities proposed to serve as a Bordering Vegetated Wetland [BVW] replication area or other mitigating measure) relative to the boundaries of each affected resource area.

3.

Other material identifying and explaining the determination of resource area boundaries shown on plans (e.g., a DEP BVW Field Data Form).

4.

List the titles and dates for all plans and other materials submitted with this NOI.

5.

If there is more than one property owner, please attach a list of these property owners not listed on this form.

6.

Attach proof of mailing for Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, if needed.

7.

Attach proof of mailing for Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, if needed.

wpaform3.doc • rev. 11/30/06

Page 7 of 9

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands

WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40

Provided by DEP: DEP File Number Document Transaction Number

Wayland City/Town

G. Signatures and Submittal Requirements (cont.)

Other: If the applicant has checked the “yes” box in any part of Section D, Item 3, above, refer to that section and the Instructions for additional submittal requirements.

The original and copies must be sent simultaneously. Failure by the applicant to send copies in a timely manner may result in dismissal of the Notice of Intent.

wpaform3.doc • rev. 11/30/06

Page 9 of 9

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands

NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Important: When filling out forms on the computer, use only the tab key to move your cursor do not use the return key.

A. Applicant Information 1. Applicant: Michael P.

Lowery

a. First Name

b. Last Name

Town of Wayland - Surface Water Quality Committee

120 Lakeshore Drive d. Mailing Address

Wayland

MA

01778

e. City/Town

f. State

g. Zip Code

508.397.8828 h. Phone Number

2. Property Owner (if different): Fredric E.

Turkington

Town of Wayland

a. First Name

b. Last Name

c. Company

Wayland Town Building, 41 Cochituate Road d. Mailing Address

Wayland

MA

01778

e. City/Town

f. State

g. Zip Code

508.358.7755 h. Phone Number

3. Project Location: Dudley Pond

Wayland

a. Street Address

b. City/Town

To calculate B. Fees filing fees, refer to the category Notice of Intent (Form 3) or Abbreviated Notice of Intent (Form 4): fee list and examples in the instructions for The fee should be calculated using the following six-step process and worksheet. Please see filling out WPA Instructions before filling out worksheet.

Form 3 (Notice of Step 1/Type of Activity: Describe each type of activity that will occur in wetland resource area and Intent).

buffer zone.

Step 2/Number of Activities: Identify the number of each type of activity.

Step 3/Individual Activity Fee: Identify each activity fee from the six project categories listed in the instructions.

Step 4/Subtotal Activity Fee: Multiply the number of activities (identified in Step 2) times the fee per category (identified in Step 3) to reach a subtotal fee amount. Note: If any of these activities are in a Riverfront Area in addition to another Resource Area or the Buffer Zone, the fee per activity should be multiplied by 1.5 and then added to the subtotal amount.

Step 5/Total Project Fee: Determine the total project fee by adding the subtotal amounts from Step 4.

Step 6/Fee Payments: To calculate the state share of the fee, divide the total fee in half and subtract $12.50. To calculate the city/town share of the fee, divide the total fee in half and add $12.50.

Wpaform3.doc • NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form • rev. 3/1/05

Page 1 of 2

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands

NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40

B. Fees (continued) Step 1/Type of Activity

Step 2/Number of Activities

Step 3/Individual Activity Fee

Limited Project - Category 2

Step 4/Subtotal Activity Fee

No fee - Municipal Project

Step 5/Total Project Fee:

$0.00

Step 6/Fee Payments: Total Project Fee: State share of filing fee: City/Town share of filling fee:

$0.00 a. Total fee from Step 5

$0.00 b. 1/2 total fee less $12.50

$0.00 c. 1/2 total fee plus $12.50

C. Submittal Requirements a.) Complete pages 1 and 2 and send with a check or money order for the state share of the fee, payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Department of Environmental Protection Box 4062 Boston, MA 02211 b.) To the Conservation Commission: Send the Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent; a copy of this form; and the city/town fee payment. c.) To DEP Regional Office (see Instructions): Send a copy of the Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent; a copy of this form; and a copy of the state fee payment. (E-filers of Notices of Intent may submit these electronically.)

Wpaform3.doc • NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form • rev. 3/1/05

Page 2 of 2

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

Under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act I, Michael Lennon, hereby certify under the pains and penalty of perjury that on January 30, 2008 I mailed a Notification to Abutters in compliance with the second paragraph of the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 131, s.40, and the DEP Guide to Abutter Notification dated April 8, 1994, in connection with the following matter:

A Notice of Intent Filed under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act by the Wayland Surface Water Quality Committee with the Wayland Conservation Commission on January 31, 2008 for an aquatic management program at Dudley Pond.

This form of the notification, and a list of the abutters to whom it was given and their addresses, are attached to this Affidavit of Service.

1/30/08 ______________________________________ Name

_________________ Date

Notification to Abutters Under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act In accordance with the second paragraph of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 131, Section 40, you are hereby notified of the following: The Wayland Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing at the Town Offices Building in accordance with the provisions of the Mass. Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. Ch. 131, s. 40, as amended), for a Notice of Intent Application filed by the Town of Wayland - Surface Water Quality Committee to control and manage non-native and invasive aquatic vegetation infesting Dudley Pond through use of Sonar (fluridone) herbicide, within the jurisdiction of said statute. A multiple-year management program is proposed. Plans are available for inspection at the Wayland Town Hall.

Questions on the proposed aquatic management program, including the date and time of the public hearing, should be directed to the applicant’s representative, Aquatic Control Technology at 508.865.1000, during normal business hours.

The file for this program may be viewed at the Conservation Office in the Wayland Town Building, 41 Cochituate Road, Wayland (508.358.3669)

JILL PELLARIN HARVEY YAZIJIAN 68 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

CYNTHIA SHAPIRO 5 PRISCILLA PATH WAYLAND, MA, 01778

MARY HANLON 22 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

DONALD & KATHRYN HART 74 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

DAVID POOLE SUSAN GREEN 3 PRISCILLA PATH WAYLAND, MA., 01778

TOWN OF WAYLAND PARKS AND RECREATION 41 COCHITUATE RD WAYLAND, MA 01778

ROBERT & ELIZABETH CAMPANA 76 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

DAVID & DOROTHY STOOPS 81 MAIDEN LANE WAYLAND, MA, 01778

ROBERT & ELEANOR HANLON 30 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

TOWN OF WAYLAND HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

HARRY OLIN LAKESHORE REALTY 4 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

PETER DIANNI ALISON MOUNTFORD 14 ADELAIDE AVENUE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

MARILYN DARACK 96 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

LISA JACOBS 8 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

KELLY NOMINEE TRUST WAYNE KELLEY& JUDITH - TRUSTEES 38 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

DAVID & LYNN PAOLELLA 93 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

CHRISTOPHER & TATIANA HOWARD 18 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

LEONID GOLOD ELENA KAPLAN 29 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

DUDLEY MOORE & BRISTOL LLC 96 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA.,01778

LAWRENCE & VINCENT SMITH 17 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

SALLY STIEGLER 58 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

GARY BERG 18 FIELDSSTONE FARM RD SUDBURY, MA 01776

SARAH WATKINS THOMAS DICESARE 19 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

SALLY STIEGLER 58 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

JOHN & ALLISON LACLAIRE 9 PRISCILLA PATH WAYLAND, MA., 01778

TODD MAGURA 21 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

FRANK & LESLIE CUTITTA 60 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

PHILIP & IDA BADDERS 235 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

DAVID OSTEEN CORINNE FRYHLE 20 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

DANIEL & ELLEN EGNET 54 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

EDWARD & BARBARA YOUNG 8 CREST ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

ROGER CASAVANT 88 DUDLEY ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

THEODORE & CHERYL FIUST 42 MATHEWS DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

DAVID MAHLOWITZ 6 CREST ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

DOROTHY BRANAGAN 90 DUDLEY ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

ARLENE & ELLIOT POLLAK 109 DUDLEY ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

PAULINE CARROLL 43 LAKEVIEW ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

ELLEN DUFF 92 DUDLEY ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

GEORGE & LAURIE HOWELL 107 DUDLEY ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

ARTHUR GERBER 144 FLORAL STREET SHREWSBURY, MA., 01545

WILLIAM PILICY 94 DUDLEY ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

NANCY NEWHALL 99 DUDLEY ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

FREDERIC PEARSON GLORIA BRODERICK 14 CREST ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

CHARLES PETERS 98 DUDLEY ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

CYNTHIA APPLEBY 97 DUDLEY ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

CHRIS SANTOSPAGO 18 CREST ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

KIM WYKE 135 DUDLEY ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

THOMAS AND BARBARA BELOTE 89 DUDLEY ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

DENIS SULIVAN, TRUSTEE SUL-CON REALTY TRUST 20 CREST ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

MICHELLE KATZ 121 DUDLEY ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

THEODORE VASSALLO 3 PINE ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

WEI LUO BIN YING YING CHEN 76 DUDLEY ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

CARMINE POMPEO 119 DUDLEY ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

PETER JOHNSON ELIZABETH JEFFERY 8 PINE ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

CLIFFORD & KIM ANTONELL 1 WILDFLOWER LANE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

JAMES OGLETREE ANN DROUILHET 115 DUDLEY ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

CARLA MORSS 33 BAYFIELD ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

JAMES PIERCE 84 DUDLEY ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

JANICE BROWN 113 DUDLEY ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

GEORGE & NIEN LEUNG 23 KNOLLWOOD LANE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

NANCY TETI 251 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

LYNN HEAVEY 227 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

MOCKINGBIRD NOMINEE RLTY TRST BRUCE MIGELL 13 GALE ST WALTHAM, MA 02453

ELIZABETH WEST 206 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

DAVID & DORIE LUSTIG 223 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA, 01778

DAVID MAHLOWITZ 6 CREST ROAD WAYLAND, MA, 01778

DANIEL BECK 208 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

JOHN KELLY 203 WEST PLAIN STREET WAYLAND, MA, 01778

RUTA SMILKALNS 4 PEARTREE LANE WAYLAND, MA, 01778

ROSCOE PIPER 1 PRINCETON ROAD WOBURN, MA., 01801

CHERYL KANE 16 ADELAIDE AVENUE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

TIMOTHY MCCANN PAMELA HUTCHINSON 15 CREST ROAD WAYLAND, MA, 01778

KIRILL GUSEVA 37 SUNSET ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

KATHERINE KARMAN 211 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA, 01778

ALAN MCEVOY 37 LAKEVIEW ROAD WAYLAND, MA, 01778

KENNETH ISAACSON 228 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

RICHARD & NANCY VOGEL 197 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

MICHAEL MILLER 6 CROSS STREET WAYLAND MA., 01778

DAVID WELCH MARGO MELNICOVE 245 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

KENNETH ISAACSON 228 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA, 01778

STANLEY & JACQUELINE DUCHARME 44 POND DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

JACK & ELEANORA CINCOTTI 5 COOPER STREET BOSTON, MA

TOWN OF WAYLAND PAUL KEATING JR, TREASURER41 COCHITUATE RD, WAYLAND, MA 01778

TIMOTHY & MARY MCCULLOGH 233 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

EILEEN STEELE 221 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA, 01778

RICHARD SPINELLI LESLIE THRUMOND 47 POND DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

FRANK & MARY HAMILTON 229 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

LAUREL STANLEY 17 CREST ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

BARBARA HEAVEY 42 LAKEVIEW ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

DAVID DEAN DEBORAH PORTYRATA 48 POND DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

JOHN MOSS AMY BORNER 96 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

CHARLES CHAPUT PATRICIA CHAPUT 11 SIMPSON ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

ADELINE AMONVILLE 108 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

JOHN & NANCY WELCH 48 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

KATHARINE BERLIN 169 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

ALICE BOELTER 106 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

TADEUS & GAIL JONIEC 173 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

ROBERT & ELEANOR LAGASSE 5 SYCAMORE ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

EDITH JOHNSTON 44 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

STEPHEN & LYNNE GARONE 179 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

CYNTHIA TURNER 7 SYCAMORE ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

DONALD & LINDA STOCKWOOD 40 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

BETTY MAH FAY MAH 183 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

CARL WHITTAKER JILL JACOBS 15 SYCAMORE ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

LUCY MIDLER 23C BAYFIELD ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

LINDA SMITH 12 MANSION ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

AMANDA MCCOLL NUGENT MICHAEL NUGENT 7 BEECH ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

RUSSELL & TANYA MITNIK 25 BAYFIELD ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

HARRISON TRUST C/O GRETTA GWINN 29 WESTLAKE STREET NATICK, MA.

JAMES LANZILLOTTA LILLY KINAS 86 HAWTHORNE ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

LAURENCE STYBEL MARYANN PEABODY 27 BAYFIELD ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

MCGREENERY THOMAS 381 KLONDIKE AVENUE HOMER, ARKANSAS 99603

FENGHUA & SHAN HUANG 12 SIMPSON ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

ROBERT SALITSKY STEPHANIE LYNNE 29 BAYFIELD ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

MICHAEL & KAREN LOWERY 120 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

LIHREN & SHOMEI CHEN 129 PAGE STREET BEDFORD, MA.

MARY UPTON 23B BAYFIELD ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

HENRY & LESLEY ORMONDE 106 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

RODERICK & DOROTHY YOUNG 76 HAWTHORNE ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

RUSSELL & CATHALEEN ASHTON 46 LAKESHORE DRIVE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

GEORGE & NIEN LEUNG 23 KNOLLWOOD LANE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

JAN DUNN 51 KNOLLWOOD LANE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

MICHAEL & LILLI GRIFFIN 1 KNOLLWOOD LANE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

DAVID M CZARNECKI ALICIA KROL 55 KNOLLWOOD LANE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

MICHAEL KRYSTYNIAK 87 DUDLEY ROAD WAYLAND, MA., 01778

JOHN PAUPLIS 225 MAIN STREET WAYLAND, MA., 01778

MARY MARSHALL 5 KNOLLWOOD LANE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

PEG BURGESS 17 KNOWLLWOOD LANE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

GRIGGS REALTY TRUST 10925 NW STE 201 MIAMI FLORIDA, 33172

MARIE THOMPSON 27 KNOLLWOOD LANE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

IVARS MELNGAILIS 35 KNOLLWOOD LANE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

STEVEN & CAROLE KAYE 41 KNOLLWOOD LANE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

MICHAEL FILIURIN MARCIA ROSENBLUM 45 KNOLLWOOD LANE WAYLAND, MA., 01778

Wayland Wetlands and Water Resources Bylaw, Chapter 194 Application

WAYLAND'S WETLANDS AND WATER RESOURCES BYLAW ("CHAPTER 194")

APPLICATION SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST

Page 4 of 4

In the event that Applicant considers certain required information to be, in their opinion, not relevant to the scope or scale of the proposed project Applicant may request a Waiver of the requirements with this application to the Conservation Commission. Indicate all provisions requested for Waiver below designating the specific paragraph number/letter designation.

Site Plan Mini mum Req ui rement Waiver(s) Drainage Requirement Waiver(s) Soils Information Waiver(s)

o

0 0 0

None

Q9

List.--"'s""e'-"e"---'a""--".t-"t-"a"'c"-"h....,e"'-d""足

None

IKJ

List -'s""-'-'e-""e'-----'-a"-lt"'-'t""'a""'-'-'c.......,h...",e..."d"'---足

_

None

IZJ

List -=-s-=e-=e:.........:a:.::...tc::....::..t.::..:a-=c-=h::..ce=-d~

_

_

If applicable, attach a statement for justification of the requested waivers.

In the event that any requested Waiver is not granted by the Commission or the application is otherwise found to be deficient in providing required information the hearing may at the discretion of the Commission either be closed and denied for the lack of information or continued for a specific timeframe approved by the Commission for the Applicant to submit the required information.

The Commission has authorized its Staff personnel to review projects and to not accept project applications under the Bylaw that have apparent deficiencies to meeting the above requirements as a matter of avoiding lost time for the Commission, Applicants and other interested parties at the hearing. Notwithstanding that authority, acceptance of an application by the Staff does not represent a decision that the application is fully complete. In the event that Applicant considers the application fully complete over the objections of Staff the application will be accepted and Staff will report their findings to the Commission during the hearing.

The property owner, as well as the applicant and/or representative (if different from owner) must sign this checklist and all other applicable applications. The property owner, by signing this checklist and the applications, acknowledges that the Commission and Staff may enter the property to inspect the premises as part of the assessment of the application.

Town of Wayland Fredric E. Turkington,

Town Administrator

Property Owner's Name (Print)

I certify under penalty of law that this document and all its attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inqUiry of the persons directly resp " Ie for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and be~lief ue, ~ccurate, and complete.

Town of Wayland, Surface Water Quality Committee Michael P. Lowery, Project Manager ~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~.,~ _ _=~ Applicant's Name (Print) Applicant's Signat e Date

211JAN ZI-f'VIJ

Wayland’s Wetlands and Water Resources Bylaw - Chapter 194 Waiver Request – Statements of Justification Site Plan Minimum Requirements – The proposed project does not involve construction activities or the alteration of grades; therefore the bylaw site plan requirements are irrelevant to the scope of the project.

Drainage Requirements - All proposed work is to occur in Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways and will not alter current drainage characteristics or result in an increase of impervious area.

Soils Information – All proposed work is to occur in Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways and will not disturb underlying sediment.

ATTACHMENT A Project Summary

PS1 INTRODUCTION Pond Description Dudley Pond is an approximate 90 acre waterbody located in Wayland, MA. The pond has a reported average depth of about 9 feet and a maximum depth of just over 27 feet. The pond is an important recreational resource to the Town of Wayland and the surrounding communities and is used for a variety of endeavors including boating, swimming, fishing and wildlife watching.

Dudley Pond has a relatively small watershed in relation to its size (336 acres) and therefore relies on groundwater introduction as its primary water source. There are no regularly flowing inlets to Dudley Pond; however there is at least one intermittent stream in the southeastern end of the pond that drains from the wetland area between the pond and Cochituate Road. The pond’s outlet, located at the northeastern most part of the pond, is also intermittent with reportedly low outflow between the months of May and October.

Vegetation Distribution Although Dudley Pond does support some limited growth of native aquatic plants, most notably areas of floating waterlilies (Nymphaea & Nuphar), the pond’s vegetation has since the early 1990’s become dominated with non-native plants, specifically Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and curly-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus). Recent estimates by the Dudley Pond Association report that by the fall of 2007 Eurasian watermilfoil cover in Dudley Pond was in excess of 60%, and in most areas created “topped-out” surface mats by early/mid-summer, limiting access to the pond and degrading open water habitat. Eurasian watermilfoil is a notoriously invasive non-native plant that grows quickly, often forming a dense surface canopy and shading out native plants. It can quickly out-compete slower growing native plants, and form large areas of homogenous plant cover, reducing overall plant diversity and reducing open water habitat.

Other plants that have historically been found in Dudley Pond include naiad (Najas sp.), stonewort (Nitella), white/pink waterlily (Nymphaea) yellow waterlily (Nuphar variegatum) and bladderwort (Utricularia sp.)

Management History Dudley Pond has a long history of management dating back to 1968 when the first reported chemical treatment was performed by the Wayland Park and Recreation Department. Since that time, the Dudley Pond Association (DPA – established in 1968) has championed a number of efforts to maintain the pond as an important natural and recreational resource. In recent years much of the attention has been focused on the abatement of nutrient loading through groundwater runoff improvements (in the late 1980s) and the control of non-native Eurasian watermilfoil (discovered in 1991) and to a lesser extent curly-leaf pondweed. In this capacity the DPA in cooperation with the Wayland Surface Water Quality Committee (WSWQC) have initiated and funded a variety of lake management projects to control the increasing presence of nuisance nonnative plants in the pond.

Since the discovery of Eurasian watermilfoil in the pond the DPA and WSWQC have dedicated considerable effort and funds to the control of milfoil including: mechanical harvesting; hydroraking; diver and volunteer hand pulling; suction harvesting; the introduction of milfoil weevils

Dudley Pond – 2008 NOI

1

(Euhrychiopsis lecontei); and a variety of herbicide treatments, including Sonar herbicide treatments performed in 1992, 1996, 1999 & 2003.

In one of their most recent efforts the WSWQC purchased and installed three SunGo 001 Pond Circulators with hopes that the circulators would control excessive milfoil growth by limiting the availability of nutrients (ammonia) for plant uptake, thereby reducing the overall presence and dominance of the plant in the pond system. Throughout the summer of 2007, milfoil around the circulators, and within a two acre “control” plot, was monitored by WSWQC to assess the effectiveness of the circulators and evaluate their potential for milfoil control in Dudley Pond. As recommended by the manufacturer, three-acre circular plots were harvested around each of the circulators following their installation. It was felt that harvesting around the circulators would give the circulators a “jump-start” and allow them to more readily establish an initial circulation pattern. Though the circulators were operated and maintained as instructed, only “modest stress” on the milfoil plants was observed by the end of the summer, as reported by the WSWQC. Based on evidence provided by the experimental installation project, the WSWQC concluded “it is highly improbable that circulators alone can effectively control milfoil to a level that the usability of the pond would be acceptable”. (See PS4: Background Information Provided by Wayland Surface Water Quality Committee) Additionally, Aquatic Control was contracted during the summer of 2007 by the DPA to perform supplementary mechanical weed harvesting “to provide relief to pond residents” from the overwhelming presence of milfoil. Ultimately close to 50 acres of pond area were harvested (with varying amounts of milfoil cover), resulting in the removal of greater than 63,000 lbs of cut milfoil (WSWQC). The benefits of this cutting effort were estimated to have lasted about 6 weeks. (The WSWQC “Fall 2007 Quarterly Report to the Wayland Conservation Commission” can be found in Attachment B - Supplementary Information CD) In addition to the in-lake management efforts the DPA and WSWQC have devoted considerable effort and expenditure on watershed improvement projects and studies to reduce nutrient loading from the watershed. Efforts in this regard have ranged from local clean-up events and education/outreach activities to large-scale storm water control projects and multi-year studies such as the GeoSyntec – Watershed Nutrient Loading Assessment (2007).

A full timeline of management activities performed at Dudley Pond can be found in Attachment B - Supplementary Information CD.

Dudley Pond – 2008 NOI

2

PROPOSED AQUATIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM A multiple-year approval is requested for the implementation of an Aquatic Management Program at Dudley Pond. The program will concentrate on the long-term control of Eurasian watermilfoil and secondly curly-leaf pondweed through the prudent use of USEPA / MA DAR registered aquatic herbicides, diligent aquatic plant monitoring and extensive diver hand-pulling.

The multi-faceted management program detailed below has been developed specifically to meet the goals of the DPA and WSWQC. The interdisciplinary program aims to control and maintain the Eurasian watermilfoil in Dudley Pond, while reducing the need for herbicidal dependence in the future.

Nuisance aquatic vegetation and algae management projects are typically filed under the Limited Project status [310 CMR 10.53(4)]. The objective of this project is to control non-native and invasive species, treatment with USEPA / MA DAR registered aquatic herbicides. A basis for EPA registration is that these chemicals do not pose an unreasonable adverse risk to human health or the environment when applied by professionals in accordance with the label directions. Based on the chemistry of the particular herbicide used, along with the chemical dose, timing and method of application, these herbicides can be reasonably selective for the targeted plant species.

Controlling invasive species will typically not adversely affect wildlife habitat and will not negatively impact other interests of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. No significant alteration to wetland resources areas will occur as a result of the proposed management program; instead the resource areas will be enhanced by controlling the invasive species growth. The proposed management activities are consistent with the guidelines in the following documents: •

Final Generic Environmental Impact Report: Eutrophication and Aquatic Plant Management in Massachusetts (June 2004)

•

Guidance for Aquatic Plant Management in Lakes and Ponds: As it Relates to the Wetlands Protection Act (April 2004 – DEP Policy/SOP/Guideline # BRP/DWM/WW/G04-1).

Proposed chemical applications will be performed by Aquatic Control’s Licensed Aquatic Applicators after the receipt of an approved DEP- Office of Watershed Management (OWM) License to Apply Chemicals. A copy of the approved DEP License will be provided to the Commission before the chemical application proceeds.

RECOMMENDED MILFOIL TREATMENT PROGRAM Due to the current expansive milfoil infestation in Dudley Pond, a management program utilizing a combination of chemical and non-chemical in-lake management techniques is needed to achieve extended control of invasive plants like milfoil. Although the management program will initially rely on the use of aquatic herbicides, namely Sonar (fluridone), the WSWQC and DPA are committed to the long-term management and control of Eurasian watermilfoil through the use of non-chemical diver hand-pulling, thereby limiting herbicide use over time. Renovate OTF is recommended for “spot-treatment” of areas where milfoil regrowth is in excess of what can “reasonably” be hand-pulled. We are confident that if follow-up milfoil maintenance is

Dudley Pond – 2008 NOI

3

conducted as diligently as outlined, that this program will prolong the benefits gained from the proposed whole-lake Sonar treatment and reduce the need / dependence on whole-pond chemical treatments in the future.

Although similar treatment programs have been performed at Dudley Pond in the past, important modifications to this program have been made to best suit the long-term objectives and commitment of the DPA and WSWQC. A number of these changes have been made based on the growing knowledge of milfoil control within the scientific and lake management community and the exhaustive research efforts by the WSWQC, which included reviews of existing milfoil control literature and personal interviews with a variety of experts in the field of pond and lake management. A detailed summary of the WSWQC findings can be found in the PS4 section of this application below.

Notable changes the proposed management program and Sonar projects performed in the past include: • • • •

The use of both liquid Sonar AS and pellet Sonar PR/Q formulations (previously only Sonar AS and an earlier version pellet formulation were utilized) An extended Sonar contact time of at least 100 days (previously 45-60 days) A firm commitment from the WSWQC for follow-up plant monitoring and diver hand-pulling Follow-up “spot-treatments” with Renovate OTF (Triclopyr) to control milfoil regrowth where densities exceed what is considered “reasonable” for hand-pulling

FLURIDONE HERBICIDE TREATMENT – 2008 Fluridone (trade name Sonar) is the most effective herbicide to use during the initial year of this program. Sonar is a systemic herbicide that is applied to numerous ponds and lakes throughout Massachusetts annually for control of nuisance aquatic vegetation; and has been applied to thousands of waterbodies nationwide since its EPA registration in 1986.

The USEPA has approved a maximum limit of 150 ppb (parts per billion) to be allowed in water used for drinking, which is also the maximum application rate for waterbodies 10 acres and larger. Further, the use of fluridone is specifically permitted for drinking water supplies, and application within a Zone II recharge area in Massachusetts. Fluridone has no temporary water use restrictions other than 1.) No application within one-quarter mile of a potable water intake and 2.) No use of treated water for irrigation purposes within 30 days of treatment or until the Sonar concentration falls below established reuse levels listed on the product label. Prudent pesticide practice, however, dictates that the pond be closed to swimming, boating, fishing and other uses on the day(s) of treatment.

Based on the results of prior treatments at Dudley Pond and the most up-to-date recommendations for control of Eurasian watermilfoil we are proposing the following treatment protocol be followed:

Dudley Pond – 2008 NOI

4

¾ Sonar Concentration and Exposure Time – An initial in-lake fluridone concentration of 12 ppb. will be targeted. Subsequent “booster” applications will be performed once FasTEST samples show in-lake concentrations near or approaching ~ 7 ppb. A contact time of at least 100 days will be targeted wherein concentrations above approximately 7 ppb will be maintained.

If plant conditions and timeframes allow, live plant samples will be gathered during the winter of 2008 and submited to SePRO for a "PlanTEST" evaluation. This test entails the laboratory propagation of the milfoil samples and treatment with different levels of fluridone. The PlanTEST provides a check that the planned concentrations of fluridone application will be effective. The purpose of the test is to set the minimum concentration of fluridone required to be effective, and to verify that the planned application level of 8 to 12 ppb is correct. An important factor is approval of the NOI for fluridone application in time to allow for this test to be undertaken. ¾ Herbicide Formulation – Sonar AS liquid will be used to establish and maintain the targeted whole-lake concentration. Sonar PR/Q pellet formulations will be applied to areas with large mature plants, soft bottom sediments and groundwater inflow that have been challenging to control in prior years, namely the outlet area and the cove within the vicinity of the “Chateau and Rocky Point” and possibly some additional areas. The objective of using pellets in these areas will be to extend herbicide contact time and to allow for any root uptake that may be occurring in the interstitial area at the sediment and water interface. ¾ Herbicide Dosing – Quantities of herbicide needed for the Sonar treatment program will be calculated using the morphometric data available for the pond along with Aquatic Control’s prior treatment records. Post-treatment Sonar (fluridone) residues in the pond have been consistent with targeted concentrations during Aquatic Control’s previous Sonar applications at Dudley Pond. ¾ Treatment Timing – The initial treatment will be scheduled once active milfoil plant growth is observed and outflow from the pond has subsided; this is expected to occur in early May. Booster treatments will be performed as required and determined by the results of FasTEST analyses. It is expected that three or possibly four applications in total will be required to maintain the targeted Sonar concentrations for 100+ days. ¾ Application Methodology - Gerald Smith, President of Aquatic Control, will be present to oversee the initial herbicide application. Follow-up booster applications will be performed by Gerry or Marc Bellaud, Aquatic Control's Senior Biologist. Gerry and Marc have performed all of Aquatic Control’s previous treatments at Dudley Pond and between them have nearly 50 years of professional pond/lake management experience.

They both hold the Supervisory-level Commercial Certification for Aquatic Applicators in Massachusetts. This will insure senior-level oversight of all treatments performed at Dudley Pond and continuity with past management efforts.

Using GIS mapping technology, Dudley Pond will be divided into distinct treatment basins. Water volume and herbicide quantities will be calculated for each basin. The basin map for Dudley Pond will be loaded into a Differential GPS unit (accuracy plus/minus one meter) that will be used on-board the spray craft to provide real-time,

Dudley Pond – 2008 NOI

5

sub-meter accuracy for navigation during the treatment to insure even application of the herbicide. Aquatic Control is unique in New England with this precise/accurate approach to pond/lake treatments. The chemical will be applied from one of our Classic (Panther) Airboats that can operate in just "inches" of water. The liquid Sonar herbicide is first diluted with pond water in a mixing tank on-board airboat. This diluted herbicide solution is then injected subsurface from weighted hoses to avoid any aerial drift of the herbicide. Pellet formulations will be evenly distributed using a calibrated cyclone spreader. The airboat will enter Dudley Pond from Mansion Beach. Each treatment should be completed easily in one workday. ¾ Posting/Notifications - According to the product label, there is no restriction on swimming, boating or fishing following a Sonar application. As a precaution, however, a one-day (day of treatment) closure following the initial application is proposed. Use of pond water for irrigation will be restricted. This restriction will extend throughout the required contact-time of the herbicide, which is estimated at 120 days or until Sonar concentrations fall below 5 ppb.

Pre-treatment notifications will be drafted and submitted to the WSWQC for distribution to the local media outlets. Aquatic Control will provide the WSWQC with pre-printed, brightly colored signs that warn of the pending treatment and the associated temporary water use restrictions. The WSWQC will be responsible for posting the signs around the entire perimeter of the pond, prior to each application. ¾ Treatment Program Monitoring – In addition to the PlanTEST we will utilize two complementary analytical procedures offered by SePRO (the manufacturer of Sonar) to monitor the effectiveness of the treatment and to guide the timing of booster applications. FasTEST immunoassays will be used to monitor in-lake fluridone concentrations during the course of the treatment. Four sample locations will be established throughout the pond and 5 sample rounds will be collected from each site (minimum of 20 samples total) during the Sonar treatment program. Sample rounds will be collected approximately 14-21 days apart, following the initial treatment. FasTEST results will be used to guide the timing and dose of booster applications and will be used to insure that the targeted concentrations are maintained for a period of 100+ days.

During each sampling round, the milfoil will be inspected visually to note the response and symptoms of injury to the Sonar herbicide.

Additionally an EffecTEST may be used to determine the response of milfoil plants during the treatment program. The EffecTEST is a patented test wherein collected plant samples are sent to and analyzed by SePRO to determine whether the plants have received enough herbicide to kill them or if a higher dose and/or longer exposure time is needed. ¾ Pre-Treatment and Post-Treatment Inspections and Project Completion Report Comprehensive pre and post-treatment inspections (tentatively late April and mid/late September, respectively) will also be performed to produce a distribution map of the milfoil and secondary species in the pond. This will be completed by inspecting the littoral zone of the pond and recording the plant type, coverage and biomass (height through the water column). Plants will be surveyed visually from a boat. A throw-rake will be used to collect submersed species and an Aqua-Vu Underwater camera system will be used to confirm the plant coverage. Digital photographs of the pre-treatment

Dudley Pond – 2008 NOI

6

conditions will be taken for presentation in the project completion report. The field survey data will be used to create a computer based map of the pre-treatment plant distribution in a Geographic Information System (GIS) format and both digital and hard copies of the maps will be provided in the Year-End Report. Temperature and dissolved oxygen profiles will also be recorded at the deep-hole location to determine where the thermocline is located.

A year-end report will be prepared that documents the entire treatment program in 2008.

Findings from the pre and post-treatment inspections will be presented, along with a detailed description of the treatment project. The report will include the pre and posttreatment GIS maps, FasTEST monitoring data and digital pictures taken over the course of the project. This year-end report will be submitted to the Commission by December 15, 2008.

FOLLOW-UP MILFOIL MANAGEMENT – 2009 and Beyond While we expect that more complete and longer-lasting milfoil control will be achieved following this recommended treatment program in comparison to previous Sonar treatments performed at Dudley Pond, permanent eradication of milfoil is rarely (if ever) achieved. Presently, none of the herbicides registered for use in aquatic applications can completely exhaust the starch reserves of milfoil (contained in the plant’s root crowns), so typically some regrowth is expected to occur within 1-2 years following treatment. Aggressively managing milfoil regrowth will be paramount to seeking long-term eradication of milfoil from Dudley Pond.

Although specific thresholds for triggering follow-up milfoil management strategies have not been finalized, we would suggest the following criteria as a general guideline. While the criteria below are helpful to use as guidance, these criteria are not a substitute for field inspections and professional judgment to make such final recommendations as to which strategy should be used for milfoil management in a given area.

•

Between 1 and 5% milfoil cover (<500 -1,000 stems per acre) – removal by SCUBA diver hand-pulling

•

Greater then 5% milfoil cover over a contiguous acre – spot-treatment with Renovate OTF herbicide

SCUBA Diver Hand-Pulling – In the years following the initial Sonar application a SCUBA diver hand-pulling team, to be utilized at the mutual discretion of Aquatic Control and the WSWQC, will be deployed to remove areas of scattered milfoil regrowth. The diver hand-pulling crew will likely consists of two SCUBA divers, a support boat and a Field Technician to drive the boat, collect plant fragments and handle the disposal of milfoil for the divers. All diver hand-pulling work would be performed in direct consultation with WSWQC. ACT has performed considerable diver hand-pulling of milfoil for a number of different clients, including work at Wachusett Reservoir for MWRA and other work for MA DCR. Renovate Spot-Treatments – Spot-treatments with Renovate (triclopyr) OTF (On Target Flake) will be used to control areas of milfoil regrowth where densities are in excess of what can be ”reasonably” removed through hand-pulling. Although Renovate 3 (liquid) formulation has been available for use in Massachusetts several years, the OTF formulation of Renovate just registered

Dudley Pond – 2008 NOI

7

for use during the summer of 2007. ACT used this product with good success to control Eurasian watermilfoil at three large public lakes in Vermont during the 2006 and 2007 season. Like Sonar, Renovate is a systemic-acting herbicide that controls the entire plant and usually provides multiple year control of milfoil. Renovate OTF is the first available aquatic herbicide with a favorable toxicology similar to that of Sonar that can be used effectively to “spot-treat” areas of milfoil regrowth. Renovate differs from Sonar in that it has a short contact time requirement (4872 hours). Unlike the liquid formulation of Renovate the OTF flake is designed to treat only the lower portion (bottom 4 feet) of the water column reducing herbicide dosing. This is achieved by the clay carrier which is designed to carry the carry the herbicide to the lake bottom before it is released. This clay carrier system helps reduce dilution and allow for more effective spottreatments.

Contingency follow-up “spot-treatments” with Renovate OTF will help the WSWQC to achieve long-term milfoil control in the years following the whole-lake Sonar treatment. Timely retreatment of milfoil growth (that exceeds hand-pulling) thresholds, should further stress the remaining root structures and further exhaust their starch reserves.

Renovate OTF will be applied in accordance with recommended label rates. Minimum treatment areas of 2-5 acres based on location and configuration should be anticipated to insure effectiveness.

Contingency Treatment – 2009 and Beyond – A potential consequence of milfoil control with fluridone is a resultant increase in other aquatic plants and in the case of Dudley Pond an increase in curlyleaf pondweed (P. crispus) may be seen. Curly-leaf pondweed is already present in Dudley Pond. It is not anticipated that supplemental spot treatment for curly-leaf pondweed would be necessary before 2009, at the earliest. However, SWQC requests ConCom's conditional authorization for spot treatment of pondweed for 2009, or later, under the order of conditions, and the SWQC would make a written request to the Commission for timely consideration and authorization and proceed through whatever review the Commission might require prior to the use of herbicide for pondweed control.

The following table shows the relative susceptibility of various target and non-target plants in Dudley Pond to both herbicides. In this table, S=susceptible, I=intermediately susceptible or partial control (often dependent on dose), T=tolerant. The plants marked with an asterisk are considered non-native.

Susceptibility of Common Plants in Dudley Pond to Proposed Herbicides Sonar (fluridone)

Renovate (triclopyr)

Eurasian watermilfoil*

S

S

Common Naiad

I

T

Bladderwort

I

T

White/pink waterlily

S

I

Nitella

T

T

Curly-leaf pondweed*

S

T

Plant

* Data based on SePRO literature and Aquatic Control’s records and experience

Dudley Pond – 2008 NOI

8

PS2 IMPACTS ON WETLAND RESOURCE AREAS ♦

All work proposed in this Notice of Intent is to occur in “Land Under Waterbodies”. No other wetland resource are will be impacted by proposed activities. Because all work is to occur in “Land Under Waterbodies”, a waiver has been requested in regards to the Wayland Wetlands and Water Resources Bylaw, Chapter 194. (See: Wayland Wetlands and Water Resources Bylaw, Chapter 194 Application)

Dudley Pond – 2008 NOI

9

PS3 ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF AQUATIC VEGETATION CONTROL The following section serves to briefly outline and evaluate other commonly used lake management techniques and their applicability for the situation at Dudley Pond. A more extensive analysis of potential milfoil management control techniques has been conduced by the WSWQC. A synopsis of their findings can be found in the PS4 section of this application.

Supportive information can also be found in the Supplemental Information CD – Attachment B. Mechanical: Not Recommended While mechanical harvesting and hydro-raking can be effective at temporary control of milfoil these methods are generally not considered preferred options because milfoil’s principal means of reproduction is vegetative fragmentation. A single reproductive milfoil fragment is capable of multiplying into many new plants in one year; therefore, the cutting and breaking of the plants, which is often a result of mechanical techniques, would likely increase the plants potential for spreading. Although harvesting has been used in the past at Dudley Pond and has proven to provide effective temporary control of milfoil, it is estimated that acceptable control of milfoil in Dudley Pond could only be achieved with multiple cuttings (3-4) per year. A management program this intensive is very labor intensive and costly (up to five times the cost of herbicide treatment). Further, although harvesting is perceived by the public as a more “environmentally friendly” control measure, repeated harvesting may result in the removal of aquatic invertebrates, small fish and potentially other pond inhabitants.

Physical: Not Recommended Physical controls, such as benthic (bottom) weed barriers, are effective for small dense patches of nuisance vegetation in swim and dock areas, but are not cost effective for larger areas. Costs for materials and installation are very costly at approximately $45,000/acre. Although bottom barriers may be considered and used at Dudley Pond for small areas of dense milfoil regrowth, over-reliance on bottom barriers may prove costly, as they often require annual or bi-annual maintenance to remain effective. Typically maintenance involves removing, cleaning, and reinstalling each individual barrier. Further, bottom barriers inhibit the growth of all aquatic plant species, including more desirable native plant growth which in the long-run can serve to blockout and compete with other undesirable species such as milfoil.

Biological: Not recommended As mentioned above, an experimental introduction of the milfoil weevil (Euhrychiopsis lecontei) was conducted at Dudley Pond in 2006. Surveys of the pond in 2007 showed no evidence that the weevils had been in any way effective. It is hypothesized that the presence of a large sunfish population decimated the weevil population. (See PS4 below) That said, results from weevils introductions elsewhere in Massachusetts and the Northeast have been mixed and supplemental stockings of weevils have generally yielded little or no control of milfoil.

Triploid grass carp are sometimes used to control submersed weeds, however the carp are indiscriminate feeders and will often decimate the entire plant community as well as exacerbate nuisance algae blooms. For these reasons, grass carp are currently not permitted for use in Massachusetts ponds and lakes.

Dudley Pond – 2008 NOI

10

No Management Program: Not Recommended If the milfoil growth is not managed, unabated and dense milfoil growth can adversely affect oxygen levels in the pond, accelerate nutrient release from the bottom sediments and lead to other changes in water quality, all of which are symptomatic of accelerated eutrophication due to the annual decomposition of plant material. As a result the present areas of dense milfoil infestation will expand and eventually eliminate additional areas of open water. Dense pond wide growth of nuisance aquatic vegetation would contribute to the dramatic decline in suitable fish and wildlife habitat and severely curtail swimming, boating and other recreational pond uses

MASSACHUSETTS WETLANDS ACT Below is a discussion of the proposed Aquatic Management Program (mechanical and hand harvesting) with regard to the specific interests of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. Public and Private Water Supply Dudley Pond is not used directly as a drinking water supply. Aquatic herbicide treatment at the pond will not have any adverse impacts on the public or private water supply. All homes around the shoreline are served by town water, one home reportedly has an inactive well not currently used for drinking water. To our knowledge, no water supply well anywhere in the country has been rendered un-potable due to an application of Sonar. The anticipated maximum concentration of Sonar in the pond at any one time is not expected to exceed 15 ppb, which is 10times below the 150 ppb maximum labeled application rate that is established as the tolerance limit for Sonar concentrations in drinking water.

Protection of Groundwater Supply According to available studies, there is no reason to believe that the groundwater supply will be adversely impacted by the application of the chemicals at the proposed rates to Dudley Pond.

MA DEP will only issue a License to Apply Chemicals for products that are approved for use in Zone 2 Wellhead Protection Areas. Contamination of groundwater by chemicals is limited by the low rate of application, its rapid rate of degradation and uptake by target plants. Aquatic Control's State licensed applicators take all necessary precautions when mixing and disposing of all chemical containers.

Flood Control and Storm Damage Prevention No construction, dredging or alterations of the existing floodplain and storm damage prevention characteristics of the lake 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 application of aquatic herbicides may increase the ability of the resource area over the long-term to provide flood protection.

Prevention of Pollution No degradation of water quality or increased pollution is expected by the application of the herbicides. The proposed herbicides are relatively slow acting in controlling the nuisance 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

Dudley Pond â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2008 NOI

11

for anoxic conditions. The post treatment decrease in plant biomass will help to decrease the rate of eutrophication currently caused by the decomposing of excessive plant material.

Protection of Fisheries and Shellfisheries The contiguous, dense beds of milfoil provide poor habitat for most species of fish and restrict access for fishermen. Under such conditions fish populations may become stunted, whereby â&#x20AC;&#x153;pan and trash fishâ&#x20AC;? species out-compete game species like largemouth bass. Dense plant cover frequently results in significant diurnal fluctuations in dissolved oxygen as well as oxygen depletion during certain times of the year. While temporary effects on some desirable submersed and floating-leafed species may occur, these plants typically rebound quickly. Shoreline emergent plants will not be killed following the use of these particular herbicides.

Protection of Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat In general, excessive and abundant plant growth 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, as native plants become established, once again. Maintaining a balance of open water and vegetated areas is intended.

Dudley Pond â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2008 NOI

12

PS4 BACKGROUND INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE WAYLAND SURFACE WATER QUALITY COMMITTEE (SWQC) Background on Eurasian Watermilfoil (EWM) Infestation at Dudley Pond Dudley Pond has been subject to EWM infestation for about twenty years. During that period whole pond application of fluridone (SONAR™) has been made four times. After each treatment EWM has returned invasively after about three years. This is typical of fluridone treatment, as discussed in some of the documents in the accompanying CD, when post-treatment monitoring and maintenance is inadequate.

At present, at the five-year post-treatment mark, the EWM infestation is the worst on record, probably exacerbated by a warm winter in 2006/2007 followed by a mild sunny spring. As the pond is shallow, the areal infestation is quite high, about 60%. The growth of milfoil may be especially troublesome because the nutrient content of the sediment is quite high, as determined by recent sampling and analysis.

EWM Infestation at Outlet Cove of Dudley Pond Summer, 2007

Over 100 residences are pond abutters, and given the shallow shoreline, many are pond users and access to a “usable” pond is a high priority for a significant number of Town residents. There is at the moment, as ConCom is aware, a strong Dudley Pond community sentiment that the pond is in a crisis state and the Town, with financial support from the Dudley Pond Association (DPA), must find a solution to this problem.

Dudley Pond – 2008 NOI

13

SWQC Process to Select Herbicide Treatment When fluridone was last applied in 2003, ConCom instructed SWQC to evaluate alternatives to chemical treatment. Since then, DPA and the SWQC have raised funding for the following trials, with the results indicated: • Milfoil weevil inoculation. The DPA, under a MA Section 319 grant, introduced milfoil weevils into the pond in 2006. A survey of the pond in 2007 showed no evidence that the weevils had survived. It is hypothesized that the presence of a large sunfish population decimated the weevil population.

•

Pond circulators. The SWQC, using Town CPA funds, installed three pond circulators in the spring of 2007. By the end of the summer there may have been some modest stress on milfoil observed in limited locations. While the test has not been concluded and will continue into 2008, resuming when pond ice is gone, the SWQC has concluded that the circulators may aid another control technique, but it is highly improbable that circulators alone can effectively control milfoil to a level that the usability of the pond would be acceptable. This is believed to be due to the very high sediment nutrient level and the hypothesized mechanism of circulator effectiveness, viz. oxidation of ammonia nitrogen (probable limiting nutrient) in the sediment. Basically, the oxidation of the high level of ammonia in the sediment, as well as incoming ammonia – mainly from runoff, is problematic with the circulation of water with a low dissolved oxygen content.

•

In the summer of 2007, the DPA under a MA grant mechanically harvested EWM around the circulators and over about 50-60% of the pond. The harvesting around the circulators was to allow them to readily establish an initial circulation pattern. The harvesting over the rest of the pond was to provide relief to pond residents. Following harvesting, the EWM infestation was reestablished in 4-6 weeks.

Of these three trials, only the harvesting might be considered a solution, but is considered inferior in effectiveness and of unacceptably higher cost than the proposed solution.

Amy Ferriter Invasive Species Coordinator Idaho State Dept. of Agriculture Kurt Getsinger US Army R&D Laboratory Vicksburg, MI Kathy Hamel Water Quality Program Washington State Dept. of Ecology Lee Lyman, President Lycott Environmental, Inc Ezra Meyer Education Specialist Wisconsin Association of Lakes Gerald Smith, President Aquatic Control Technology, Inc. Ken Wagner Senior Water Resources Manager ENSR Chip Welling Minnesota DNR EWM Program Coordinator/Director

During 2007, SWQC members have tried to broadly survey the experience of others in dealing with EWM. This was done by contacting “experts” in the field, mainly in Government entities and searching the technical literature, much provided through the contacts made. The individuals contacted who were the most informative are shown to the right.

Contacts Made by SWQC Substantial documentation was sent by these contacts, and some is included in the attachments. In addition, an on-line literature survey was conducted (Google, Scirus, NTIS Standard References) to evaluate alternative treatment options, the history of what others have done, and the toxicity, human health effects, and environmental impact of the use of fluridone for whole pond treatment, as proposed for Dudley Pond. The attached CD contains some relevant documents obtained by these means.

Dudley Pond – 2008 NOI

14

EWM Treatment Alternatives A summary list of alternatives that have been identified are shown in Table 1 (in attached CD), prepared by Toni Moores of the SWQC, drawing upon an exhaustive document from the WA State (included on CD). Based on SWQC’s analysis and discussion with others, the only marginally feasible alternative to herbicide application is mechanical harvesting. A brief comparison of the two is given in Table 2, in attached CD, (from Chip Welling of MN DNR).

SWQC’s review of the options led to the following disadvantages for harvesting: 1. A significant fraction of the pond, the shallow portions near the shore could not be harvested, and would have to be hand pulled.

2. Harvesting would result in the continuing densification of EWM in harvested areas and reduce native plant populations.

3. Harvesting has its own environmental impact on fauna by changing the underwater environment, i.e., increasingly dense weed cover on the bottom.

4. The beneficial effect of harvesting during the summer can be expected to be no more than four weeks. Hence three harvests per spring/summer/fall are the likely minimum.

5. The combined costs of harvesting and hand pulling will be noticeably more expensive than herbicide treatment, and would likely be unacceptable to the Town.

6. The quality of the pond with harvesting for typical use (swimming, boating, etc.) will be inferior with harvesting, especially at the time re-harvesting is required.

7. Weed disposal could become a limitation.

SWQC members approached this problem with an “anti-herbicide” inclination. However, as we proceeded in our evaluation, we progressively moved toward a preference for the program proposed. Some considerations: 1. We were troubled by the need to apply a whole pond herbicide (fluridone) every threefour years. As we talked with others, it became apparent that follow-up management was deficient after past herbicide treatments, and the Dudley Pond experience was representative of what has happened for perhaps most of the ponds and lakes in the U.S. When diligent follow-up monitoring and maintenance are employed, the need for frequent whole-pond treatment can be minimized, and the interval between whole-pond treatments can be greatly extended, and possibly a repeat whole pond treatment can be avoided.

2. Recent results in fluridone treatment indicate that it is critical to obtain as much “kill” of EWM root balls as possible, and this is achieved by maintaining fluridone concentration in the 8-12 ppb range for at least 100 days. The previous Dudley Pond treatments were at lower concentrations and for shorter durations, and can have been expected (in hindsight) not to have had efficacious long-term benefits. We will conduct “PlanTEST” analyses at SePRO to determine current EWM sensitivity to fluridone and the desired fluridone concentration.

3. In all the literature we reviewed, we could find no indication of adverse human health effects for the 20-30 years of extensive use of fluridone. This does not address the expressed concern that low levels of pesticides can take years to show an effect. The only counter-argument is that the herbicides chosen have been in use for a significant period and SWQC could find no evidence exists as to an adverse effect on human health, if applied properly and as required by law.

Dudley Pond – 2008 NOI

15

4. The environmental effects on fauna (fish, invertebrates, mollusks, etc.) appear negligible.

The effect on certain native plants is harmful, although the native plants do recover. For Dudley Pond, since fluridone has been applied several times already, any long-term effect on plant populations has likely already occurred.

5. The amount of nutrient in the pond sediment and added from runoff annually are much greater than that which would be contributed by vegetation left after herbicide treatment.

Hence the benefit that harvesting offers by plant removal would be of little benefit.

6. Dudley Pond is within a Zone II recharge area. We considered the possible vectors for herbicide transport and the likelihood of well contamination. We believe that there is negligible risk for contamination of the Happy Hollow wells given their distance from the pond and the possible ways that herbicide and decomposition products could be transported. In addition, the use of fluridone is specifically permitted for drinking water supplies, and application within a Zone II recharge area is specifically permitted in Massachusetts (DEP – “ORS Recommendations on the Use of Aquatic Herbicides within Zone II Water Supply Areas”, 6/28/93 - See Accompanying CD) 7. The use of fluridone can only be successful as a long-term solution with a serious commitment to ongoing monitoring and maintenance. This is documented in the accompanying articles, esp. the WA State discussion on use of fluridone. Our proposed on-going maintenance includes two steps: a. Extensive hand pulling. Hand pulling must begin in the fall of the year of application and continue starting in the spring of the following year and throughout the EWM growing season. This must continue year after year, or EWM will return, at an increasing rate. Without this diligence, exponential regrowth can be expected in 3-4 yrs. It is to be noted that hand pulling is somewhat difficult in Dudley Pond as the sediment is light and hand pulling creates turbidity with limited underwater visibility. This makes pulling in densely infected areas problematic. Thus, hand pulling is effective not only for small areas, but also to areas without thick infestations. b. If/when an area becomes too infested to be controlled by hand pulling, use of a second herbicide for “spot treatment” is to be employed. Over the past 10-20 yrs, Triclopyr has been used for this purpose with substantial success.

Documentation on this herbicide, its use, health effects and environmental impact are included in the attached CD. Thus, the program proposed consists of three parts: •

Initial treatment with fluridone at 8-12 ppb for 100-120 days. The treatment will involve both liquid (dissolved) fluridone, but also the application of “pellets” (fluridone on clay pellets) in parts of the pond where natural flows in the pond could unacceptably dilute the fluridone applied as liquid. The pellets would remain in the location where applied and release fluridone over time. (Note: In the past the faster areas of regrowth were where currents would be expected to dilute the fluridone concentration from liquid application.)

•

Extensive ongoing monitoring of the pond for reappearance of EWM. Continual hand pulling, which would be limited only by Town funding support. The more hand pulling possible, the reduced the need for later spot treatment.

•

Once areas are identified where milfoil has reappeared at an infestation level not readily controlled by hand pulling, spot treatment with Triclopyr will be employed.

Dudley Pond – 2008 NOI

16

It is hoped that with this protocol, the population of EWM will be controlled to an acceptably low level and native plants will become re-established.

Contractor Selection An identical request for proposal (RFP) was sent to Aquatic Control Technology, Inc. (ACT) and Lycott Environmental Inc. After proposals were submitted, meetings were held with the two bidders for clarification, and “best and final” offers were solicited. After receipt, the costs were substantially the same for equivalent scopes of work. ACT was selected on the basis of non-price issues. The RFP is in the attached CD and ACT’s proposal follows the proposed program.

Summary The course of treatment outlined above is the only practical and effective treatment that SWQC has been able to identify.

The alternative of no treatment obviously removes the potential risk of human health and environmental impacts from chemical exposure. However, no treatment has its own implications and risks: 1. The pond will undergo additional eutrophication and become unusable.

2. There will be a real hazard for swimmers.

3. Property values of pond abutters can be expected to decrease, leading to a vocal outcry from them as well as a decrease in taxable properties for a significant number of homes in Wayland. (political risk) While it would be preferred to not implement an herbicide treatment program, SWQC has decided that there is no more desirable path to follow. The key factors are that the risks of the proposed herbicide treatment program are minimal and that the alternatives of doing nothing or harvesting are less attractive from any rational “risk-benefit” evaluation.

Dudley Pond – 2008 NOI

17

071° 21' 0.00" W

071° 23' 0.00" W

071° 22' 0.00" W

071° 21' 0.00" W

042° 20' 0.00" N 042° 19' 0.00" N

042° 19' 0.00" N

042° 20' 0.00" N

042° 21' 0.00" N

071° 22' 0.00" W

042° 21' 0.00" N

071° 23' 0.00" W

16° W

Name: FRAMINGHAM Date: 1/11/2008 Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet

Location: 042° 19' 48.6" N 071° 22' 18.8" W Caption: FIGURE 1 Site Locus Copyright (C) 1997, Maptech, Inc.

Dudley Pond

Legend:

NHESP 2006 MA Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife

Dudley Pond

NHESP 2006 MA Priority Habitats of Rare Species

Wayland, MA

Priority Habitat Locus Map FIGURE:

SURVEY DATE:

MAP DATE:

2

--

5/7/07

2,500

1,250

0

2,500 Feet

¯

11 JOH N ROAD SU TTON, MASSACH USETTS 015 90 PH ON E: (508) 865-1000 FAX: (508) 86 5-1220 WEB: WWW.AQUATICC ON TROLT ECH.C OM

Note: Milfoil coverage estimates were based on surveys performed by the DPA (Fiust) on 7/16/07 and Aquatic Control on 7/3/07

ÂŻ

Legend:

Dudley Pond

Milfoil cover greater than 60%

2007 Eurasian Watermilfoil Cover

Milfoil cover of less than 30%

Wayland, MA

FIGURE:

SURVEY DATE:

MAP DATE:

3

7/3 & 7/16/07

12/10/08

Milfoil cover between 30% - 60%

0

250

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

Feet

11 JOHN ROAD SUTTON, MASSACHUSETTS 01590 PHONE: (508) 865-1000 FAX: (508) 865-1220 WEB: WWW.AQUATICCONTROLTECH.COM

ATTACHMENT B Supplemental Information on CD â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Table of Contents The entire printed Notice of Intent is also on the CD

Supplemental Information on CD Table of Contents Full Notice of Intent - PDF form 1.

Table 1 - Management Options Table (Toni Moores, WSWQC)

2.

Table 2 - Comparison of Mechanical Harvesting vs. Herbicides (Chip Welling, MN DNR)

3.

Request for Proposal issued to Herbicide Applicators Licensed in Massachusetts (WSWQC)

4.

Anti-Herbicide Documents: a. Aquatic Herbicide Alert (Dr. Sarah Little, Wellesley Pesticides Coordinator) b. Getting it Right (Jennifer Hauxwell, Kelly Wagner, Alison Mikulyuk, Wisconsin DNR)

5.

Fluridone Chemistry, Regulations, Approvals a. Fluridone Action Network Pesticide Project i.

Abstracts ii. Adverse Effects iii. Fluridone CAS 59756-60-4 iv. Local Battles v. NTIS Reports b. Fluridone - PAN Database c. Fluridone - 2004 EPA Health Risk Assessment (TRED) d. Lake George NY Fluridone Environmental Assessment e. MA Generic Environmental Impact Report - Appendix Fluridone f. MA Generic Environmental Impact Report - Section 4, "Methods to Control Aquatic Plants" g. Sonar A.S. MSDS, Product Label (SePRO) h. Sonar Q. MSDS, Product Label (SePRO) i. MA DEP / ORS study - re use of fluridone in Zone II area j. WA Department of Health - 2000 Fluridone Overview k. WA Final Environmental Impact - Aquatic Plan Management (fluridone on pp. 121-132) l. Sonar Questions and Answers (SePRO) m. Risk from Exposure to Sonar Treated Water (SePRO)

6. General Strategies for Control of Invasive Plants, especially Eurasian Watermilfoil a. Advantages and Disadvantages of APM Techniques (J. Madison) b. Infested Lake Control Strategies Appendix C. (King County, Washington) c. Aquatic Plant Management, Table of Contents, links (Washington) d. Aquatic Plan Management Techniques in Southeastern Wisconsin (SEWRPC, 2000) e. Milfoil Infested Lake Control Strategies - Fluridone (Washington, Dept of Ecology) f. Regional Eurasian Milfoil Control Plan (King County, Washington) g. Maine Invasive Plant Control Plan (Maine Dept of Environmental Protection, 2006) 7. Literature for Field Use of Fluridone, Effectiveness and Environmental Impact a. Ecological Effects of Whole-Lake Fluridone Treatments presentation, (Jen Hauxwell & Kelly Wagner, Wisconsin DNR, 2005 NALMS) b. Management of Eurasian Watermilfoil in Houghton Lake, Michigan.

(Heilman, Getsinger, Groves, 2003)

c.

Management of Eurasian Watermilfoil in Minnesota presentation, (Chip Welling, Minnesota DNR. 2004) d. Whole Lake Herbicide Treatments for Eurasian Watermilfoil in Four Wisconsin Lakes (Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, 2007) 8. Web Links - Aquatic Invasive Species 9. Triclopyr Chemistry, Regulations, Approvals a. Aquatic Dissipation of the Herbicide Triclopyr in Lake Minnetonka, Minnesota (US Army Corps of Engineers, 1988) b. Final EIS for Triclopyr - State of Washington c. A Review of the Toxicity and Environmental Fate of Triclopyr (Kenyon, Kennedy - Mass Dept of Agricultural Resources 2004) d. Triclopyr Health & Environmental Summary (National Pesticide Information Center, 2002) e. Triclopyr - PAN database f. SePRO Renovate OTF (Triclopyr) - MSDS, Label (SePRO) g. SePRO Renovate - Features, Advantages & Benefits (SePRO) h. Triclopyr Health & Environmental Effects (USDA, 1996) i. Triclopyr Fact Sheet forestry use (NIEHS, Oregon State University 2002) j. Triclopyr Questions & Answers (Washington State) k. Triclopyr Health Questions & Answers (Washington State) 10. Pesticide Use, Guidance & Regulation a. Eutrophication and Aquatic Plant Management in Massachusetts - Final Generic Environmental Impact Report b. The Practical Guide to Lake Management in Massachusetts c. MA CMR 333.13 - Pesticide Application regulations d. EPA interpretive statement regarding Pesticide use and FIFRA e. Dudley Pond - a Category 5 Water body (Commonwealth of Mass, EPA) f. A Guide to Pesticide Regulation (SePRO) 11. Weed Management History in Dudley Pond a. Summary of Eurasian Milfoil Control Technologies presentation (DPA 2002 Weed Committee, B. Smith president, L. Griffin chair) b. Timeline - Invasive Species Management in Dudley Pond (Lowery, 2007) 12. Dudley Pond 2007 Management - DPA Mechanical Harvesting a. DPA Mechanical Harvesting NOI b. Fall 2007 Quarterly Report to Wayland Conservation Committee c. DPA Mechanical Harvesting - Order of Conditions i. Cover Letter ii. Chapter 194 Permit iii. Order of Conditions d. Conditions 8 weeks after Mechanical Harvesting (photographs) 13. Dudley Pond Maps a. Town of Wayland, Dudley Pond area (B. Decker, 2007) b. USGS Dudley Pond area - topographic map 14. 1983 IEP Diagnostic/Feasibility Study of Dudley Pond 15. Excerpts, 1978 Larkin Report on Dudley Pond a. Hydro-raking History map b. Location of Algae Blooms